 Welcome to Modern Day Debate where a neutral platform that hosts debates on science, politics, and religion. If you'd like reminders of our controversial debates coming up, make sure you hit that subscribe button. For instance, we have Trevor Vale coming up on Dino Hoaxes in this Dino Hoax month. So we have Rose777 and Alex Stein who are teamed up against Dapper Dino and Mark Drysdale. This should be an exciting one and looking forward to the discussion. But before we do that, I would like for our speakers to have a brief introduction about themselves or their channels. So the affirmative side can go first and the opposing team can follow through introductions and we'll get started. So go ahead, Alex and Rose, give your introductions about what you're doing which you're up to, that'd be awesome. Hi there, my name is Rose777 and my channel name is the Rose777 channel and I am here tonight to talk about the fact that dinosaurs are a hoax and so I'm really excited and I can't wait to hear about why our opponents believe that these things existed. Hey, Alex, the floor is, I mean- My turn, my turn! Well guys, my name is Primetime99 and Alex Stein and I'm on a grind all the time. I'm about to tell y'all, these dinos is a lie. They're gonna tell you they found a tooth and now they know how many nipples the dinosaur got but we're gonna debunk all of that. So we're gonna talk about it, we're gonna be about it. I'm Primetime99, if you wanna hear more of this, you can follow the Conspiracy Castle because I'm your Conspiracy Castle and I'm really excited to be here. So thank you Mark, thank you DapperDino, thank you Rose and thank you Praise. Even though I'm a little worried about your skills as a debater, as a moderator already, I'm gonna give you a pass, but I'm ready to get it on like Donkey Kong. Let's let this thing hang out with our wing out. Sorry Rose, that's too crude for this stream but we're about to get it and I'm about to get it on like Donkey Kong. All right, great, thank you for your intros and Dapper and Mark, go ahead and give us your intros when you're ready. Well, I'm DapperDino. Some of you may know me from my channel. I do mostly content surrounding things like paleontology, biology, comparative anatomy, evolutionary biology and general debunking of silly things that have to do with basically making nonsense claims about those things. I will be having an after show. So if you want to hear me as I go from this nice well-spoken person to someone with a hoarse voice who can barely croak out a sound, come check out the after show because it'll be after like five hours of me talking in a row. Awesome. Well, I can make an intro. I can make an intro even shorter than that. I'm Mark Drysdale. I work with big cats, no gods, a globe earth and lots of dinos. Awesome. You work with lots of dinos? So the format will be 10 minute openings, the rest will be open dialogue. So we'll have the affirmative go first and I believe Alex is gonna take the full opening for their team and the floor is yours, Alex and you're ready. Rose, didn't you want to go for the first minute and then me take it or do you want me to do the whole 10 minutes? Yeah, I just wanted to open it up by saying that a lot of times people will ask, what is the motive here? Why would they lie about this? And I think that one of the things that I like to focus on is that it was, there are members of the aristocracy that implemented this into the human mind and it all went towards a lot of things associated with social Darwinism and the whole theory of evolution and using these ideas was implemented in such a ways with imperialism, like justifying bullshit things like white man's burden and there's just a whole lot of social engineering associated with this aside from all of the things that we're going to talk about today. And so I just wanted to set up a framework for that that a lot of the people involved in this are just part of the same main players that are involved with lying to us. Your owners do not like you and that's the thing is that I feel like all of the people that are involved in implementing these lies, they're just laughing at people for believing the nonsense. Go ahead, Alex. Well, that was good. So guys, you know, I'm going to sit here and I need to pontificate a little bit. And guys, I understand in your mind, I'm going to come here and talk rationally about dinosaurs being a fraud. And you're going to say that's impossible. I've been to a museum and I've seen these dinosaurs. Well guys, it is a lot deeper than that. And with a lot of things, the dinosaur lie is meant to do a lot of things. It's meant to reinforce evolution. It's meant to make you feel insignificant and it's meant to hide the existence of God. Now, I'm not a religious channel, but what it's done is dinosaurs, however, lack of a better word, have aged the earth in a way that makes God impossible. And you say, what? That's really the plan. Why would somebody want to make God impossible? Well, it comes down to control. That's right. People use dinosaurs. That sounds not to follow me to control us. And you say, that's impossible. Well, let me give you the example. Let me start out with the person that actually first pinned the word dinosaur. There's a guy named Sir Richard Owen. This guy in 1842 wrote about these evil reptiles, these evil lizards called them dinosaurs. Well, 12 years later, they found a tooth. And they mailed that tooth to Joseph Lighty. And Joseph Lighty at the time was the number one paleontologist in the world. And from that tooth, he created the trachodon. And from that tooth, he created a full dinosaur. That's right. He recreated this whole dinosaur from one tooth. Not only did he tell you how many nipples it had or how big of a weiner, if he didn't even had a weiner from this tooth, he told you exactly what it looked like, what its skull looked like, whether it had feathers or not, whether it was hot-blooded or cold-blooded. These people made so many assumptions. And you look at the bone wars, what started out as a real, let's say a noble exercise, looking at old bones. I agree. There are old bones. But I want to finish with my bone things, the bone wars. The problem is they are misdiagnosing these bones as dinosaurs. When you see that we have wild hogs, even today, 800, 900 wild boars with tusks, these are the same bones that are supposedly fossilized. And let me tell you something. They have turned in bones with soft tissue. I can show that. So how is it possible for a fossilized bone to have soft tissue if it's 65 million years old? It's impossible. So back to the bone wars, the problem with the bone wars is Marsh and Cope had to compete. So they had to take a lot of leeway with their diagnosing of dinosaurs. And it was complete bull crap. And even people admitted today that they had to cut corners. And their mentor, the guy that got them in the paleontology game, Joseph Leidy, you can look this up, ended up quitting paleontology because Cope and Marsh had denigrated the science to where it was actually totally false. You could not trust anything that they said because what they were doing, guys, they were finding large bones. They were finding an elephant bone. They were finding a giraffe bone. And they're saying that's a dinosaur. And you said, no way. All you have to do is look at the Hydrosaurus fulcate in the Pennsylvania Museum of Natural History. That is the first dinosaur that's ever went on exhibit. And even they admit that they had to use a head that was a replica of an iguana. And then they used the head from iguanodon, which is another fictional freaking dinosaur. So I get it guys, there was a time on earth when there were huge lizards. There was a time on earth when we were covered in water. And you got to think that we don't even know every single species of fish in the sea. And you don't think these species can wash up on shore. So when it comes to dinosaurs, my big problem is that we don't have a transitional species. They're going to tell you and me that two rocks smashed together and that we evolved from pre-mortial soup. And that before that, these dinosaurs were here 65 million years farting around and it doesn't even make sense. Anatomically, these dinosaurs are absolutely incorrect. If you look at their bones, the bones they give us, their body would not even be able to hold up to it if they were as fast as they say they are. But we know that it's all false. It's all make-believe. These people that are studying rocks and aging them, you can't age the dinosaur bone. What you do is you age the rocks around it. So you're not even going to get an accurate aging of these things. And when you look at the bone wars and you see how they had to use all this fraud, they would misrepresent regular bones as dinosaur bones because there was nobody to debunk it. And we still use a lot of their research today. The actual foundation that dinosaurs were built on is a fraud. So the entire dino lie is a fraud because if you build a house on a bad foundation, on a foundation of lies, then I cannot believe you. So you have to look into it and realize that there is only 2100 sets, they say, of dinosaurs that we found. That's the ballpark number. And in that, we found supposedly 15 sets of Tyrannosaurus rex. Now, let me tell you something. There's only 15 of these transitional species. There should be millions and millions of dinosaurs everywhere. And that brings me to the fossil fuel lot. The reason they want you to think that when you go to your Toyota and you put in a pterodactyl juice, because they want to make you think that it's expensive. They want to make you think it's finite. Guys, the dino lie when you go and put gas in your Toyota Corolla, you're not putting T-rex juice in there. But that's what they're going to tell you. They're going to tell you that. And they're going to tell you with a straight face because they're lying to you. They're manipulating you. And that's the same thing with Jurassic Park. That's the same thing with the land before time. The thing is, people can make money off the illusions and the trickery of dinosaurs because nobody owns dinosaurs. It is what you call open property for people to exploit. And so they are going to exploit it. We're going to see people like Dapper Dino, who sounds very educated and knows a lot about dinosaurs. But I admit, there are old bones. But if you think that these anatomically incorrect dinosaurs were sitting around and farting here and sharding each other, and you can tell me what color eyes it had by looking at a tooth, your science is incorrect. Your radiocarbon dating methods are absolute bull crap. And it just kind of brings you back to one of my favorite movies. And that movie, there's a saying is, you can get a good look at a T-bone steak by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it. And now what that means is, that's a guy from the movie, Tommy Boyd, trying to misrepresent this guy's brake pad factory because it's not done yet. And so he uses this weird saying to trick somebody into not looking into it. Well, guess what, guys? I am gonna stick my head up that bull's ass and I am gonna find out the truth because that's what they want you to do. They don't want you to look into the truth. And these dinosaurs are bull crap because I stuck my head up the bull's ass. I've looked into it. So yes, you don't need to take my word for it. You need to look up the bone wars. You need to look up the way that they date these dinosaurs and how they have conflicting data of the names of this, of the classifications of dinosaurs and that people that are even in the paleontology field that have left the field have even said that it's a fraud. So you can look up paleontology whistleblowers. But at the end of the day, the end of the day when you see Jurassic Park, even Jurassic Park admits that those animals in those movies are much bigger than the ones that we found. That shows you that it's a lie and the common person won't look into it. So then they believe these 20 foot tyrannosaurus rex were farting around. That is not the case. And once again, it just goes back to, we don't even know every single species on earth today. You're gonna tell me, you know what these species were doing 65 million years ago because you dug up some rocks. It's absolutely absurd. And the way that they measure these rocks is absurd. They've taken hot lava that has just came out of a volcano and hardened and they've measured radiocarbon data and it was totally incorrect. And like I said, we need to look in I wanna pull this article up right here. Well, I don't need to show up. But in 2015, scientists find soft tissue in 75 million year old dinosaur bones. Well, we know that's impossible because what is a fossil? A fossil is bone that actually turns into rock. So if it was 65 million years old, no soft tissue would live that long. And we know that that's a fraud. So when these people have all the, they have all this leeway to fill in all these holes with bull crap, it's impossible to believe their lies. And you need to look at the animals that we have today and you really need to realize that every single dinosaur you see in a museum is a replica dinosaur that is made in China. That's right. China and the Sheshuangdong Hanglong Province. And the reason they do it is because it's a money-making scheme. They can charge millions of dollars for these dino bones. And they're all coming from China. So the same place where you get the counterfeit Louis V bag, you get your counterfeit dino bones. And that is that dinosaurs, as they tell us today, are bull crap. The archaeo raptor, the most famous raptor, the most recent raptor said it had bones from five different animals. Dinosaurs, they tell us as a hoax. That's my time. Did you say, did you say something? Didn't you cut me off? Yeah, one minute, so you got under, under. Well, then let me finish. Sorry, you're saying one minute. So just real quick, last 30 seconds, provably guys, you need to look into the bone wars. You need to look into Martian Cope and how unqualified they were. They, even the Brontosaurus and Brontosaurus today are misclassified and they still use their work. And these guys were frauds. These guys were sabotaging each other's misrepresenting bones because they were competing with one another. So when you have ulterior motives, you can cheat and cheaters get caught. And we caught them today on modern day debate. I digress. Awesome. Couple of seconds to spare. Thank you guys for your opening statements. And it's now the opposing side. If Dapper, Mark, you guys wanna go ahead and the floor is- You mind if I take five? Absolutely. Mark, is that okay? We have a few, I take a first five and you can, you can go ahead. Yeah, sure, sure, yeah. All right, so let me set my own timer so I don't run over on my own. So give me one second. All right, I'm ready. All right, so the question today is are dinosaurs a hoax? In order for dinosaurs to be a hoax as a whole, we would have to show that essentially every dinosaur simply didn't exist. We can say that maybe they have been put into some kind of classification scheme that doesn't make any sense, but the animals in question certainly do. We've known about dinosaurs as such only since, yes, the word was invented in 1844. However, the first dinosaur discovered was Megaloceros, which was discovered in 1676 followed by the discovery of Iguanodon in 1822, both before the word was invented. The word was in fact invented in order to give a name to these creatures in which the very skilled comparative anatomist, Sir Richard Owens, although he was himself an unsavory character, he noticed commonalities, especially in the legs of both these animals as well as ones in the skull. Dinosaurs are a widespread group. They do not all come from China. You can find dinosaurs literally in your backyard in much of the United States. In fact, in my state, we have a famous dinosaur fossil bed from the late Triassic in the chimney formation. You can just walk around and find a dinosaur. I mean, you have to get a little bit lucky, but amateurs do it all the time. And to this day, dinosaurs remain one of the most successful groups of vertebrates in the entire world, inhabiting every single island and continent with the small exceptions of brand new volcanic islands. Dinosaurs have been and remain a real group of animals that are extremely successful and fairly well known. So I didn't really hear anything that would make me think that any of the particular dinosaurs are themselves fossils with the possible exception of Archaeoraptor. And the fraud of Archaeoraptor wasn't covered by paleontologists, not by people claiming that dinosaurs were never real in the first place. And that's really all I have. So Mark, if you wanna go ahead. Yeah, so unfortunately from what I heard at the very beginning, this goes back to doubt and things because of religion, that we have to try to make everything that we see in the world fit into the Bible. You know, we don't wanna go down the religious rabbit hole here, but clearly there's a lot of issues with the Bible. If you're gonna believe the Bible, you're gonna believe that there was a Noah's Ark. And I really find it really mind-boggling that somebody could believe in an Ark but start arguing whether or not dinosaurs exist. Like my teammate here was saying, you can find them anywhere. I happen to live in Canada. My wife is from out west and we have the Alberta dinosaur field. You can go out there and you can find bones. So, you know, the first thing I would ask my opponents is where do these 15 foot femur bones come from if it's not from a dinosaur? You still gotta find somewhere and something to fit these things into. You know, putting aside that we find these things almost fully articulated, we have found dinosaurs fully articulated. They've dug them out of the ground. You know, where do these 15 foot long femurs fit into our world or are you saying that we just magically make these things appear? You know, and then you talk about, you know, the soft tissues with Mary Schweitzer. She's a Christian, so you're calling her a liar. Like she is a full-fledged Christian. She says that she's very upset the way that Christians are continuously misrepresenting her work, but she has explained that there's been lots of scientific study done on this, how we've ended up with this not soft tissue, but this gelatinous masses that they're finding inside these bones. So I would say to my opponent, Rhodes, she has obviously probably been to the tar pits. So I would say to her, how could an animal possibly that's 25, 30,000 years old still have fur on it, still be fully articulated with all of its skin? And yet there we see them. We yank them out of the tar pits. We yank out the saber tooth tigers continuously, fully furred, fully ready to go. You can clean them up. Yeah, the fat is broken down a little bit, but they're 100% complete. They are literally mummified. And they're beautiful examples of what can happen if you remove oxygen and you remove gases from the atmosphere and you put an animal into this situation where it cannot be broken down. So I would ask, how can that happen? Now I realize that's not going back 40 million years, 50 million years, 60 million years, we're only going back 25,000 years, but still it's pretty incredible to think that the fur is still there. The follicles are still there. They're very complete. So I would say that and as far as oil from dinos, nobody thinks that all of our oil came from dinosaurs. I hope that's not something that's been misrepresented to you or if you're just trying to make the audience think that that's where it came from. It's actually none of it came from dinosaurs. Exactly. So, well, I wouldn't go as far as none. I don't want to checkmate my... Well, that's why I said, approximately none. I'll let you finish. You're cutting into my opening. Yeah, this is our opening guys, let him finish. Settle down, girl, settle down. So yeah, you know, oil from dinosaurs. No, no, no, we don't really think that. More microbes, you know, plant life breaking down. We're not thinking that trillions of dinosaurs got together in these little piles and made these things. These were swamps over years and years and years, biomass breaking down. That's where oil came from, not all from dinos. And I just kept writing stuff down here, but I can't even, you know, get into it all except we find fully articulated skeletons. We've done it a few times. We admit we don't do it very often. And they're not skeletons again, but they're representations of what is left from the skeleton. We do not find bones. And let me say this to you. If we don't have a huge differential in time, why do we not find any, any fossilized human bones? Why don't we find them? Why don't we find primate fossilized bones? Why do we seem to have this time laid out? It just doesn't happen. Are you saying it's all a conspiracy? Somebody has gone around and covered this earth with all of these skeletons. And they're just waiting for people that are in on the hoax to dig them up. Like this is just, this is some really far out there thinking and wow, I, you know, I thought the flat earth would be the plateau, but yeah, apparently you can get a little higher here. So continue on with the back and forth. I digress too. We can get way higher, bro. Yeah. Awesome guys. Thanks for your opening statements. We'll go into open dialogue now and then we'll have the rest of the type open dialogue and then questions and answers. Okay. Well, I wanted to just like talk about the differences between these oil ideas because I think that's something that I forgot to mention in my opening is I think that oil is a big driving force of this hoax. And you're saying that most people don't think that oil is from dinosaurs, but the truth is, is that most people do think that and that's because of the social engineering. I mean, they're calling it fossil fuels. So just for the audience, fossil fuel is the notion that all petroleum, coal and natural gas deposits are formed by natural processes such as the anoramic decomposition of buried dead organisms containing energy originating from ancient photosynthesis. The age of the deceased organisms being used in this process would be in the millions of years. This theory works very well for the oil industry as a whole because it keeps the notion of limited availability of perpetual concept. When really I like the idea of abiotic oil where oil is like the blood of the earth formed under natural conditions in the earth's crust and would essentially act as a lubricant for tectonic plates that make up the under structure of the continents. And there are variations on this theory of course of how it's actually produced but the overall idea is that they are not produced from the decomposition of organisms. And this has been proven as the likely a source of petroleum. And there have been old wells that have been tapped dry and then years later they're filling up again. And so I think that they were using these ideas with the dinosaurs to make people think that oil is limited. And that's just simply not true. Of course oil is limited. The earth is only a certain size. So let's say that 99% of the earth is oil. We could still use it all up. It's still finite. So the thing that it's unlimited is completely wrong assumption. And you use the word photosynthesis. Where is photosynthesis in an animal? Where's that? Exactly, that's what I found is fossil fuel. Well, people's ignorance and understanding as simple as fast as they can fit it into a one paragraph thing in a dictionary does not mean that that's the end of it. That's the beginning of it. That's where you're supposed to start studying. So you meant- I derived that from a mainstream source. That's what they're studying. That's right, photosynthesis. Photosynthesis. So they're saying it's part of the breakdown of plant life too, of organisms. So take it away, Dapr. Someone help me there. No, we're not here to argue about fossil fuels. I don't believe it came from dinosaur juice. I don't want to talk about dinosaurs. So Dapr Dan, I want to talk about the archaeoraptor. That's the most recent dinosaur that was presented as real. And you even said paleontology. Well, first that is, it is far from the most recent dinosaur. Dinosaurs are being named at the rate of about one week. You know, it's the most recent famous debunk dinosaur. Excuse me, let me clarify this. So let me clarify what the archaeoraptor is. Archaeoraptor is a dinosaur that they claim was a dinosaur. And they looked into it as dinos from five different bones. So it wasn't even from a dinosaur. So explain to the people at home the lies and why they would lie and misrepresent the archaeoraptor. Well, first, archaeoraptor was presented first in National Geographic because the wider paleontological community rejected it outright immediately as a composite piece. However, it was in fact a composite of two other dinosaurs, not five. I've yet to see any source describing five. But one of the dinosaurs was in fact, micro raptor. And it turns out that the micro raptor half of the fossil was actually an important fossil. And so while the find actually does remain important paleontologically, the composite creature, which was made by taking two slabs from different dinosaurs, but lining them up so that the spines more or less aligned and then doing them together. Hey Denver, hey Denver, let me answer this question. Do you think they've ever done this before? Have they ever in the history of paleontology put two dinosaurs that didn't go together, fake dinosaurs, and put them together? Because we know at museums that those are amalgams because they have to use a replica of a hip from this dinosaur. So do you admit that they've ever misdiagnosed dinosaurs as being the same classification dinosaur when they weren't? Well, there is always a debate about the naming conventions. So for instance, some people might be aware of the fact that for- No, no, no, I'm not talking about the naming. I'm talking about have they ever put two different dinosaurs together and said that that's the same dinosaur and then taken that back and said they were wrong? Does that happen a lot or does that never happen? As far as I know, there's never been an instance in which someone has mixed up individuals unless there was a bone bed, in which case they generally don't assign individual bones to individuals. They'll simply give a minimum number of individuals present. And then there have been a few cases where there have been mistaken reconstructions involving basing a not extant part of the anatomy on other organisms. For instance, for a very long time, the Diplodocus heads were very mysterious. We didn't have any because sauropod heads are kind of fragile. And so they just took some other sauropod heads in museums and just said, we got to put a head on it. So we'll come up with this, but then most of those mounts have been- So you admit that they have to put these Frankenstein dinosaurs in display and they present them as real. So that means when you go to the museum, you're looking at a lie. Boom, you lost the debate. Dinosaurs at the museums are a lie. No, a lie is an intentional disease. Dinosaurs are misrepresented. He admitted it. It's a lie. No, he didn't. He admitted it. Yes, he did. He said he added some head to another dinosaur. Can you let other people talk to me? I would like my dinosaurs to match. I'm sorry, Mark. When I go to the museum, I'd like my dinosaurs to match, but is that too much to ask for? What would you like them to match with? I would like them to have it right ahead. No, but it's not too much to ask to be allowed to speak. Can we speak? Do we make mistakes? Absolutely, we make mistakes. Anyone can go down and watch a rocket get launched, and we've seen them blow up off of the launch pad. Humans make mistakes. That doesn't mean that the earth's not a globe. We make mistakes. The same thing. Have we made mistakes? We've been putting dinosaurs together now for over 100 years, and we made mistakes at the beginning. And you know who found them? We found them, not Dr. Dino. We found them. Hey, speaking of that, why aren't we the first people to find them? Why didn't these ancient species have a bunch of dinosaurs? Like, you know, why is there a dinosaur part? Ancient cultures, not ancient species. Why didn't ancient cultures, there are so many tribes and cultures all of the world, and they don't make any mention of anything related to dinosaurs. If they're so easy to find everywhere, then how come we don't have like old Native American myths and stories talking about finding dinosaur bones? Well, you know, interestingly enough, we do. Yeah, there are a number of legends that are pretty easily attributable to people discovering dinosaur bones before comparative anatomy became a science at all, really. In fact, there is a particular find of a dinosaur femur, which was misidentified as the petrified scrotum of a giant by Europeans in the Middle Ages. And we still have that find, and it turns out to have been the distal end of the femur, but the distal end of dinosaur femurs kind of have two bulbs at the bottom. So... It looks like human femurs. But another thing that you need to add to this conspiracy is that miners are in on this because it was, I believe, about 130 years ago that they dug down, they were putting in a mine, and they came across this lizard-like creature that they couldn't figure out what it was. And, you know, they're digging down, and Dapper here may know the exact story that I'm thinking of, but they ended up finding this 22 or 23-foot-long lizard-like, you know, animal. I believe lizards are real. Yeah, they could be reptiles, but I don't think they're attributed to what they're showing us as dinosaurs, like a T-rex or a bronosaur. Maybe that's a good question. What do you mean when you say dinosaur? What do you think a dinosaur is? Because maybe we're thinking of different terms, because I have a pretty specific and a ton of bold definitions. I'm talking about these big, massive things like the T-rex and the Bronosaurus, like things like if you look at the Bronosaurus with the, or actually I don't even know if that's the correct name, but the big one, like that's eating from the tree in Jurassic Park, if that actually existed, like I don't know if the right word is like a structural engineer, but I was hearing someone describe that if that was actually in trying to stand up in reality, the stomach wouldn't even be able to like bear all that weight, intestines would just fall out the bottom of it. It's not anatomically possible. They say that about giraffes too. They say that giraffes should not exist. So if people in five, 600 years look at giraffes, once they go extinct, there's gonna be people on, God only knows what we'll be talking across, but they'll be arguing whether or not the giraffe was real. But they're gonna have real, they're gonna have real giraffe bones in that museum. And here we can't get real bones in the museum. And how come they don't let people know? I'm sorry, there's a real sauropod femur. How come people study the actual bones? How come we are only allowed to interact with these replicas, but they keep all the bones under lock and key? There is a real sauropod femur in a museum that is a 10-minute drive away from me. You can touch it. It is open to be touched. It has a sign that says, please touch if you want to. Also- It's a replica, dude. No, it is in fact the original replica. That's what they tell you, but that's a replica. But we can agree to disagree. But guys, explain to me this, the traffic on- No, no, we can't agree to disagree because this is a bone that has- I don't believe that's a real femur of a dinosaur, but explain to me this- Why do you think it's not a real femur? If you want to say it's a fake, you have to demonstrate that. If it's a real dinosaur bone, it would be treated like the rest of the dinosaur bones under lock and key because they say it has radiation and they don't want to expose to oxygen. So the fact that they treat- No, not all dinosaurs are- But explain to me this, the trachodon. This is the dinosaur that Joseph Lady, it was one of the first dinosaurs they ever- explain to me how you can take it to scientifically and know how big a creature's penis is or if it has a vagina or not. Because like, my teeth are like this. How can you tell? Can you tell how big my penis is by looking at my teeth? How can you tell how big of a dinosaur's penis is? Oh, also guys, have you ever tried to imagine how certain dinosaurs can have sex with each other? If you take two like little action figures of dinosaurs, try and push them together and there's just no way to make their genitals fit together. Like a whale, you mean? How would a whale fit together? All right, hold up. I think before we- Well, it's good that you bring whales because whales, I do agree, there's huge whales. So you can be looking at all kinds of whale bones. These just because they take a fragment of a bone and they recreate an entire dinosaur is absolutely fraud. You can't look at a bone and tell me what color eyes it had or what color skin it had, whether it had feathers or not. It's absurd. And then when you tell me that they're soft tissue that they're finding, guys, you know these bones are fraud. Y'all don't want to admit it because you have to go with the official narrative, guys. But what they show us is fake and those are replicas. You guys have to admit that. They show us bullgrap. Okay, we're in too many directions. Yeah, exactly. I tried to explain an animal that answers Rose's question about how could two animals have sex and then you fly off on a tangent. I'm trying to answer a question with an answer. That's all I'm doing. And then don't fly off on a tangent, please. Yeah, Alex, hold on just for a second. About the whales, I think that it would be much easier for their genitals to find each other because they're swimming in the water and they can get into that position much easier because they're in the water. Go watch the mate. Go watch the mate and come back and tell me that. Okay, all right. I was also thinking that maybe we could talk about the bone wars, like I could read for my notes about the bone wars then Alex, you can comment on it because here's my thing is I really wanna just present the information that I have because look, as I always say, I'm open to being wrong and I really wanna hear what you have to say and just hear your response to it. And so I don't know. May I make one quick request to everyone? Anytime someone is going to say that something presented as a find in say, you know, the geological record is in fact fake, you need to be able to justify that by more than simply argument from incredulity. Yeah. Well, how can I prove that it's real? They don't let people that aren't into paleontology check it. So there's no fact checker. So I'm not gonna bleep and break it. There are in fact, but you are in fact allowed at least under supervision in most circumstances to at least look at dinosaur bones as well as to access the publicly available. Are you saying that the majority of dinosaur bones in museums aren't replica? Is that what you're saying, Debra Dyn? First it's Debra Dyn, which it's not a big deal. But yes, the vast majority of dinosaur bones in museums are not on display in public galleries. In fact, they are in storage but they are able to be looked at. And about. Say it though. Say the majority of dinosaurs in museums are replicas if people know. So when they're looking at, they realize they're not looking at the real bones. Do you agree? So on public display. Are the majority of dinosaurs in dinosaur museums replicas yes or no? No. The majority is, Debra Dyn. Yes, the majority of dinosaurs in the dinosaurs. That's a fact, dude. No, the majority of display mounts are replicates. So what you see in a museum is a freaking fake, bro. What do you mean? Only if you opt not to bother to check in on things like the actual storage. Only see fake dinosaurs, bro. When you go to the museum, you're looking at fake Chinese bullcrap. Yes, you're telling me you're not looking at a replica when you walk into the National Museum of History. You're telling me the majority of the bones in there on display are not replica. You are shifting the goalpost. There's a difference. All of them are fake. You can only look at fake ones or the majority are fake. Are the majority fake? Are the majority fake. The majority of display dinosaurs are made from mostly casts. Most of them do incorporate real fossils on the lighter bones. Are they, just answer this question. The majority of dinosaurs on display at museums, are they real dinosaur bones or are they replicas? Hell, yes or no? More of them are completely replicas than are completely real. They're replicas, they're fakes. So they have to put this together. But most of them include both actual fossil and replicas that are cast. They're fake. What you're looking at when you go to the museum, guys, you're looking at fake bullcrap. Look, here's the problem. Replica doesn't mean fake. For instance, if I have a replica. Yes, it does. That's counterfeit. What do you mean? A replica is not the same as the original, bro. What are you talking about? Yes, but it's also not the same thing as fake. Now you're going to argue that with the definition of a replica. So the replica now is the same as the original. That's what you're trying to argue, but I think the launch is actually trying to argue that a replica is the same as the original, dude. The replica is no way the same as the original. Alex, I need you to calm down. I need you to calm down. Putting up a replica of a human skeleton in my science classroom doesn't mean humans are fake. It doesn't mean human skeletons are fake. It just means that sometimes as a result of things like potential damage to actual specimens or difficulty in mounting because of how heavy some things are, that you need to make a replica of the real thing, which is in storage. If you want to see the actual bones of the replicas are based on, that's not difficult. We just take the butcher's word for it. Yeah, I'm done taking the butcher's word. No, you don't need to take the word for it. You know, one thing is, one thing is, though, that we do these talks so that people listening can enjoy this. You screaming over every single person trying to talk is making this excruciatingly painful, even for me. Can you just let them talk, man? And then you can call them bro in the middle. But let them talk, please. Right, I will, I will. Hi, bro. Hi, bro. Let them talk. So to summarize, because it was very difficult, I think for people to hear, the majority of dinosaurs in museums are in fact real because the majority of them are not on display and are in fact in various catalogs in drawers of various sizes. And while those are not on display, it's actually not terribly difficult to get access to them, at least supervised. Researchers do it all the time. Documentarians do it. And if you write the museum a nice letter and tell them that you were willing to be supervised and have security maybe with you and probably also a museum curator, you also will be allowed to take a look at all of the fossils in storage as well as other specimens. The vast majority of specimens in any museum are in storage and not on display. Now, of the display amounts of dinosaurs, the larger the dinosaur is, the more likely given bones are to be castes of the original rather than the originals simply because dinosaur bones are essentially rocks. And so a T-Rex skull is a hard sort of thing to hold up off the air. So you make a plaster cast of the original. But for instance, in the current Victoria Mount that's touring the United States, which is a relatively new Tyrannosaurus find, the actual skull is on display in a separate case. It's just not mounted on the main skeleton. Now, some dinosaur skeletons are in fact entirely composites. And that is usually the case in the smaller museums. So that, for instance, the Smithsonian, that's less the case. But if you go to a science museum that's say like, downtown in your local rural city, most of those are probably not going to be actual bones simply because of budgetary restrictions. A replica is cheap. Further, a replica requires there to be an original, otherwise it's not a replica. It's a statue. By saying something is a replica, that means that there is an original. And if the original isn't an original dinosaur, then what is it? I can shit in a box and tell you it's a replica of another turd, but I'm not an idiot. A replica is not an original, bro. And you can just say this is a replica of an original and never show the original, dude. So your argument is stupid. You have to admit that. That wasn't my argument. Could you please not straw man my argument? Okay, well, let's just admit that an original and a replica are not the same thing. Can we admit that, Dapper? That is true. A replica represents the original and is based on it. The majority of dinosaurs in museums are replicas. The majority of dinosaurs they present are fake. They presented as real and that's what I'm getting at. The way we are presented is fake. These are replicas. And you can say that they're replicas of real things, but I don't believe that there's too few of them. It's too easy to cheat this thing. And so when the game's rigged and you look at the museum industrial complex and the money they make from this fake bull crap, it's a business at this point. And guys like you, they get to lark, live action role play and fantasize about these dinosaurs. Bro, these are mythological creatures. And that there are creatures that are talked about, dragons and all these other things are more real than your dinos, than your Tyrannosaurus rex. And I know that's hard to take because you say you've seen these bones. But when you look at even recent bones, like the archaeoraptor, that these people are misrepresenting bones all the time, I cannot take anybody's word for it. The only two people misrepresent the archaeoraptor, the original, the person who sold it to National Geographic and the original fossil dealer. Those were literally the only people who misrepresented the archaeoraptor. Okay, well, okay, just two people, I'll take your word for it. But hey, how does the soft tissue last 65 million years on a Tyrannosaurus rex? Well, for one thing, if you're talking about things like the sort of collagen molecular fossils that we're finding in certain areas and say like the Hell Creek formation, one of the things there is that various parts of the Hell Creek formation had a higher iron content in the soil and later analysis of both decay in high iron and aqueous and sort of anaerobic conditions, as well as actual further analysis of the chemistry involved in the soft tissue indicates that what actually happened was that iron infiltrated into some of these molecules and actually replaced certain other atoms, creating stronger bonds than were originally there in the collagen. And of course, collagen is already one of the longest lasting proteins in animal life because I mean, it's the stuff that makes your skin not fall apart. It's tough. So that is actually fairly well understood. There are still some questions. However, also the majority of quote unquote soft tissue finds because you have to remember, soft tissue is anything that isn't bone or shell. Shell is for things like snails, right? It's a dinosaur, so it doesn't matter. So anytime you have something like a skin impression, that's a soft tissue find. The explanation for that is simple. There was a cask made on the whatever substrate the dinosaur fell on. Also things like feather impressions or things like that, same answer. We also have some impressions of internal organs. It's the same answer. In the case of most internal organs, it's because during the process of decay, those organs release chemicals that can stain rock and those chemicals are themselves already broken down. So they're not like they can go anywhere because they're already in a very stable form. And that is how you get the preservation of various forms of soft tissue. It's not terribly mysterious. It was surprising at one point, but also I'd point out that we're not cracking open dinosaur bones to find marrow fresh that you can put in the oven and spread on your toast. We're finding hard pieces of what is essentially rock that after a week in acid reveal minuscule bits of stretchy matter that is not chemically identical to the original collagen in the first place. Which is important. This stuff has been written up. This stuff has been written up really well for the layman to even understand. But that's not a matter. I would like to hear from Rose if you could at all. That has an opinion why you don't find a bunch of dinosaur bones laying around in a museum. It's the same reason that before you get on a jet line or they don't let you go out there and start screwing around with the jet engine before you get on to make sure it exists. They don't want kids. They don't want clowns picking up these bones and figure fucking them. These are very valuable finds. They take thousands of hours to get them out of the rock. This is an immense amount of work that these people that are trying to fool everyone puts into these things. We're not gonna let people come up to them and start screwing around with these things and twisting them in the air and doing what stupid people do. We gotta do in Canada and the States and the rest of the world. We gotta set everything up for the dumbest person in the world. And that's why fine art is kept locked away. They don't allow you to walk up to the Mona Lisa and start pecking at the paint to see if it's real. There's a lot of reasons that we do this with dinosaur bones. They're very valuable. Thousands of hours. Alex, is there any chance Rose could talk? I feel like she's been talked over. Let me just say this. If they're so valuable, why is there a dinosaur park everywhere all over the country in Canada and America and anybody can go look at these such valuable dinosaurs? Why is that so valuable? Why are there dinosaurs everywhere? They're not as valuable. But now they were so valuable, now they're not as valuable, okay. No, you didn't even let me talk. You just answered your question for me. You're a very bizarre speaker. What I said, and you should have been able to pick it up quite easily is releasing them from the rocks is the amount that makes them extremely valuable. The amount of work that is put into releasing one of these like maybe Dapper can tell us, how much work do you think, how many thousands of hours, man hours, do you think is put into pulling a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil completely out of stone? What would you even guess? Do you have any idea? Cause I don't. It would take the same amount of time to pull an old cow bone or an old elephant bone, the same amount. No, a full size. Because it might have been the type of bone if it's in rock guys. It takes the same amount of time if it's an old petrified cow or an old petrified alligator because if it's a dinosaur, it takes the same amount of time to get out of rock. No, we don't find old petrified cows. That's where you're wrong. Well, we do find petrified bison. We're pulling, we're pulling rock. Mark, you're wrong. Oh my God. Can you stop? Can anyone mute him? He's like Trump. So we're not pulling palm out of rock. We're pulling rock out of rock. Yeah, maybe you guys can both stop over talking each other and maybe get Rose to weigh in here as well. I'll use your restroom. Yeah, I'd like to hear from Rose. Well, I have a question. Debra Dino, you were talking about how they would, they would, cause yeah, cause seriously, I am here to learn. I mean, I know it's supposed to be a debater and stuff, but there's some people, you know. Okay, you said that you would be allowed to go in and examine the bones that I thought were under lock and key and not available to just the regular people. Have you done that? Have you personally gone in and examined the real dinosaur bones that they have in the back room? I have gone in to examine back room fossils in a museum. I was actually looking at turtles and canals from North America's paleo gene. So not paleo gene, but I'm sorry, I can't remember. You know, Cenozoic is not my thing. But anyway, so they were not specifically the dinosaur bones. But yes, I have been to the back room of museums into their storage areas to see some of the dinosaur, some of the fossils that are not on display. Also, if you want to see dinosaur bones that are not technically on display, the Fossil Preparation Lab in Denver, Colorado is they have viewing windows. So you can watch them preparing. When I was last there, the main thing that they were preparing was they were removing the matrix from a new triceratops find. And so upfront was in fact the occipital horns of a large triceratops that were currently being on display. And I had to stop my niece from grabbing at it because she liked to grab through the windows of this thing, which were actually just open. There's no physical barrier for most of the area. So I had to pull her back and like, nope, don't reach your hands into the area with the active power drills and dremels and people in lab coats, please do not do that. So that was adorable. But yeah, so I have in fact been to the back room of museums to take a look at some of the fossils that are not on display. And some of them may never be because most people are like, what's the point of looking at a fragmentary turtle carapace? Well, to scientists is a big point to it, but to the public, I get why that might not be exciting. I would be more interested in looking at a turtle because I feel like that's more based in reality. I see, here's the thing is I know that they might let you go back and touch them and look at them, but when are they gonna let an independent researcher who's not part of the university system take a sample and run our own independent tests? I doubt that they would let us do that, huh? Well, if you made a proposal to have particular tests done, even from an outside perspective, that has been allowed. For instance, in fact, even sometimes very valuable specimens. So for instance, Fred Hoyle and associates were allowed samples from the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx, which is a world famous fossil. Like this is one of the most expensive fossils ever. And their point was to attempt to demonstrate that the fossil had been partially hoaxed. I mean, they were granted access to actually have samples drilled out of one of the most famous fossils in the world as an independent group of researchers who were opposed to the general consensus. But what they did do is when they submitted their proposal for research, they had solid methodologies, they had recommended amounts of samples, they had what techniques they would like to use to test the samples and things like this. If you say, excuse me, sir, I would like to see the dinosaur bones and hack at them with my chisels, then the answer is no. But if you put together a actual proposal and you have managed to get together the funding to have tests run and microscopes supplies prepared and all these things, it's actually very likely that museums will give you access to even some fairly valuable finds because it has happened in the past with independent and I suppose you could say hostile researchers. That's cool. I couldn't find evidence of that. So if you have evidence of that, I would love to see it. I don't know if you have it, like it's ready. I don't have it to hand afterwards. I don't have it to hand. I can try to find an email to you. But also if you simply look up Fred Hoyle, Archaeopteryx and photography, because he published his findings in a photography journal. So if you look up those things, and this goes for the whole audience, you can find the story of Fred Hoyle's attempts to discredit Archaeopteryx as a feathered animal. So, yeah, but yeah. I believe Logic covered that fellow Canadian. He covered that whole story, and he did it pretty well. Yep, so it is definitely the case that opposition research is not blocked. In fact, young earth creationists routinely get tests done on fossils, and then sometimes they even publish in standard journals, although when they do so, they tend to be much less grandiose in their claims about their fossil finds. Okay, Dapper, am I allowed to talk? Can I talk, guys? No, I don't mind. As long as you don't then interrupt when you get responses. Wow, I'm just... But did you ever answer? I don't know if you ever answered the soft tissue thing, how they keep finding soft tissue. Like, how do you... Okay, but I'm saying, well, I know, but do you really believe that iron can make collagen last 65 million years? Is that your answer to that? Yes, because there's a known chemical mechanism, and we have no reason to doubt that that works, because all tests have come back as indicating that the heavy iron infiltration into the bone, as well as the rapid burial of that bone and the anoxic conditions under which it was buried all combined to create a sort of perfect storm, if you will, for preservation of molecular molecules, but not the actual molecules themselves. Oh, then how about this? How does it explain this? I know I asked this earlier. How can you take a tooth and tell how big, because you never answered this, how can they take a tooth and recreate a dinosaur from one fragment of a bone or one tooth? Well, so from a single tooth, it is a bit difficult. However, because dinosaur teeth are very characteristic, as teeth are in general, if you already have enough related dinosaurs, you can generally tell at least which group it belongs into. And at that point, you can make a very, very speculative reconstruction about what it should probably look like. But of course, reconstructions are modified as new evidence comes in. So for instance, when we find, say, fragmentary, what looks like Edmontosaurus remains in Alaska, we basically reconstruct them as being more or less Edmontosaurus. But now that new data has come in with better finds from the same fossil, we've reassigned them to a new, in fact, new genus, not just a new species, and now reconstructions of what's now called uchronoloc, which used to be Alaskan Edmontosaurus, are starting to diverge from what you would see as reconstructions for the better described Edmontosaurus, simply because we're finding new bones and we're seeing the ways that those two genera differ. So your first reconstruction based on your first fragmentary finds are always going to be speculative. That's why when you look at, say, paleontology papers, the soft tissue reconstructions are always included with what bones are actually there. So you know how much of this is speculation versus how much of this has good data. And the answer is sometimes a lot of it is speculative, but speculative isn't the same thing as a hoax, saying I predict, for instance, if you found an engine, just a car engine, a four cylinder car engine, you could predict which cars it likely came from. Now you'd probably be wrong in some aspects, but if you said it probably wasn't a monster truck doing monster truck rallies, you'd probably be right about that. And similarly, when we find fragmentary dinosaur finds, we know which things are impossible, which things are reasonable, and which things are almost certain. But do you notice, Dapper, that all he keeps doing is going back to this one find that was, you know, it was debunked by people. You know, we figured out that that tooth actually ended up coming from a pig, and we reported on it. It was a big thing. I'm actually a little bit confused about the pig tooth thing. Are you referring to Nebraska man? Number one, there's teeth that we've misrepresented as husks as dinosaurs and rhinoceroses. They've misrepresented as dinosaurs, but the trachodon one of the first dinosaurs was just a tooth. And that was by Joseph Lady, who actually made one of the first dinosaurs. But what about the Hygiene? Are you familiar with the Hygiosaurus Volkai and how it doesn't have a matching head at the Pennsylvania Natural History Museum? Natural Museum of History? Yes, there are some dinosaur mounts, especially ones from the early 20th century and late 19th century, that as a result of a combination of simply not having enough data, as well as well in some cases, lappiness from people who are creating dinosaur mounts, who are usually not, by the way, the actual paleontologists describing the finds. Yeah, there have been some dinosaur mounts that were and are bad. But the problem is saying there is a bad dinosaur display doesn't mean that the femur that someone just uncovered in the ground that's seven feet tall isn't a dinosaur femur. There is literally no amount of bad museum displays that would make dinosaurs as a whole a hoax. At most, you could say those individual displays are dishonest, which maybe most of them aren't, most of them are just honest mistakes, but even if they were all dishonest, that doesn't make dinosaurs a hoax. It makes those mounts dishonest because the information from dinosaurs doesn't come from museum mounts. It comes from the literature. When was the last time you read a paper describing a new paleontological find on dinosaurs? Because for me, it was last week. I've read a bunch in my research and it's all bullcrabbed. Could you name an author that you've read who's published a peer-reviewed paper on dinosaurs? I can't tell you the author of any articles I've read. I've read probably 100 news articles I've read. I couldn't tell you one of the authors. Could you name a taxon you've read a paper about in the last year? I don't even know if I want to know that it's fake. All I need to know is that when you go to the museum, that you're looking at a replica of a dinosaur that's hidden somewhere, that we know it's misrepresented. Even you admit that in some museums, because of their sloppiness, they make mistakes and they put out a misrepresentation of a dinosaur. Now, I'm very concerned that you're being dishonest right here. I'm being 100% honest. So I need to explain why it feels like you're being dishonest. If you read technical papers, a technical paper is not an easy thing to get through. It's the kind of thing that it will usually take you at least several hours to get through. And that's assuming that you're familiar with all the terms you're not constantly looking things up. To go through a scientific paper on the paleontological find and description of a dinosaur, any specimen, and then to not be able to, and say that you do it all the time, and to not be able to remember a single taxon that you've looked at. What happened with the RKO Raptor taxon? What happened with that? It was never a valid taxon. Okay. Oh, but they did a taxon, right? No, they didn't. That's the entire thing. Did they present it as accurate or did they present it as a misrepresentation and somebody had to go find out? It was never presented as legitimate in the technical literature. Ever. Ever, not once. In a technical literature, dude, give me a break. You can say technical literature, it's all over time. It's not about the technical literature. It's about the lies that they're doing to the common person. Dude, yeah, when you're telling me that, yeah, I have to look into some scientific paper to prove dinosaurs are real, yet they lie and tell you, this is a dinosaur. No, you don't. But if you want to prove they're fake. It's a lie, bro. They're lying, Mike. You don't have to look into textual literature to prove that dinosaurs are real. You have to to prove that they're fake because the evidence that they're real comes in two forms. The physical remains, which, by the way, if you want to find physical dinosaur remains, you can go to the grocery store. It's not hard to find physical dinosaur remains. What does that mean? What do you mean at the grocery store? I just had dinosaur breasts for dinner last night. So did I. Dinosaurs are still around. Oh, give me a break. You think a chicken is a Tyrannosaurus rex? There's no chicken. No, I think it's a chicken. No, I think it's a chicken. If we have all these bones, why don't we have one transitional species? Why don't we have one complete set of a transitional species we don't because we don't have transitional species because they would die. They would come out of the hole. We don't have transitional dinosaurs? Yeah, we don't have transitional species of dinosaurs. No, dude, we don't have transitional species of humans. We do not, dude. So we do, though. We have organisms like Horerosaurus, which is about as basalosauruskeen as you can possibly get. We have Platiosaurus, which is about as basalosaurus, automorphous as you can get. Look, if you say- Is that like the archaeoraptor? Is that like the archaeoraptor? Is more fake news? No, there's never been any controversy. Is that like the Brontosaurus and the Brontosaurus? Not having the correct name. Is that the same thing? Or is that like the Sloppy dinosaurs that you admit? I'm curious, what do you think happened in the Brontosaurus, Apatosaurus story? What do you think actually happened there? It had the same name. There was two different names for the same dinosaur. So it made it look like there was multiple dinosaurs when there was only one. So we have this misconception if we found all these dinosaurs- But Alex, are you aware that Brontosaurus is once again a valetaxon after a, I believe 2016 study? Oh my, dude. Valetaxon is bullcrap. It's like radiocarbon dating. It's not accurate, dude, because some scientists said so. Does it necessarily make it true? And you think it does, but these people have agendas, dude. There's a reason to lie. I'm not sure you know what a taxon is. Could you define a taxon for me? I don't even need to know what a taxon is. There's no dinosaurs in the museum. Oh, there you go. But the problem is that dinosaurs- Okay, what, the taxonomy of an animal? That the body of the animal? Yeah, I know what a taxonomy of an animal is, but it doesn't make it correct. Could you define a taxon for me then? The shape of a body of a dinosaur? What does it do? I don't have to do a dinosaur- Okay, explain to me what a taxon is. And that proves your dinosaurs are real. As a classification, what does the tax, what is he talking about? Just tell him. What's a dinosaur, yo? What is that taxon? That's a dinosaur. Okay. And so your claim is that it's fake, but pointing out that two particular genera of dinosaur have gone back and forth as to whether it's one genus or two doesn't tell me whether or not dinosauria is a taxon that actually describes real animals. Well, it's a lizard. It's like a big lizard or some sort of sea creature. It doesn't make it real. I'm saying these dinosaurs are misdiagnosed. People can look at the same bone and it has two different names. These people are sloppy. You admit that they're sloppy. So they're misrepresenting- No, I admit it's some fossil- You said it. I just don't believe it's a sloppy sign. They admitted that some museum mount preparators who are not scientists by and large who are essentially artists working for a museum in the past have been more or less sloppy. However, our knowledge of dinosaurs as a scientific study does not come from museum mounts. You're putting the cart before the horse. Museum mounts are based on the science. The science comes first. No matter how badly a museum mount preparation team mounts a dinosaur that has no bearing on the science because the scientists aren't here to look at museum mounts. No scientist is taking his study- Do you admit that when they date these, they date these bones by the rocks nearby and not by actually looking at the bones? So dating is usually done by a study of igneous intrusions into fossil bearing strata, yes. So in layman's terms, they don't look at the fossil. They look at the bones around the fossil. Well, first they have to look at the bones to see where the bones are. But then yes, they will check to see exactly where they are in the stratum and check to see what the nearest igneous intrusions are. And then if those have already been tested, then they will usually simply take those dates. But if they have not, they will usually then go and test and see if they can get an age bracket. Have there ever been issues with radiocarbon dating? Has there ever been a lot of inaccuracies in the scientific part of the debate? Only the very most. So dinosaur bones from the Mesozoic are not radiocarbon dated because radiocarbon dating only works to about 50,000 years ago. And there are no, the Mesozoic ended 66 million years ago. So you will return, if you radiocarbon date a dinosaur fossil, what it will return is essentially as old as you can possibly get on that test. It's essentially like if you've ever used an analog meter and you see that the meter is just pegged all the way to the high point. You don't know how much past the high points it's going. You just know that it's over your maximum range on your meter. So the meter can't even really judge how old that is actually the technology. We have other technologies using other isotopes with a longer half-life, which are in fact sensitive to time. We actually have radiometric dating techniques that cover the span all the way from having half-lives in the few thousand years, in the case of radiocarbon dating, all the way out to several tens of billions of years. So there is no time gap that is not covered by more than one radiometric technique. And so one of the things that's done is as many as can reasonably fit this timeline will all be used. And because they almost always give concordance and when they don't, we actually can generally check as to why and then fix that problem. Cause for instance, maybe a sample included a Xenolith that it shouldn't have. When there's this extreme conciliance between all of these things, we're left with two options. Either physics was radically different in the past or these igneous rocks that are bounding a fossil are about as old as we can tell based on radiometric dating. And therefore the fossil found between them must be younger than the older and older than the younger of those two igneous intrusions. And that gives us a date range. And because we've done so much cross-checking across large parts of the world checking as many igneous intrusions as possible, many fossil beds can be dated to within a fairly small number of millions of years. Granted, that doesn't give us a date. Yes, when you're operating on a time scale where tens of millions of years are your second, getting to within three million years is pretty good. That's fake news. Can I ask you a question? Are you just here to point out mistakes that have been made over the last 150 years? Because obviously you're extremely ignorant when it comes to science. You don't understand anything. You're bringing up radiocarbon dating and we're talking about dinosaurs that we're claiming are 65 million years old. So do you just wanna keep rehashing these four or five mistakes that we've been made? Because if that's the case, please let Rose talk because it's really getting annoying. And everyone on this chat has to be, I'm not watching it, but they gotta be getting annoyed with hearing this saying. I can care less of your opinion of it because I'm telling you every mistake y'all have made and you're admitting that the dyno conspiracy is full of mistakes, bro. You're admitting it. No, we're not. You've brought up your mistake. When I point out all these mistakes, I can't believe what they tell us because it's a misrepresentation. So you admit that there's mistakes. That's what I'm doing. I'm poking all the holes in your fake story, bro. I'm sorry that it's- No, people making the mistakes on rockets and them blowing up doesn't mean rockets don't exist. I tried to get that into your head at the beginning of the talk. I mean, let's hear from Rose because I think at this point, it's become clear that Alex's version of an argument is- To get this conversation over to Rose a little bit more. Yeah, please. Please go, Rose. And I really appreciate you sharing all of this information, just learning from you so much right now about the mainstream explanation of how these things work for me personally. I just don't really have much respect for authority in any way in the educational system, the university system. But I should have at least read papers before this. But what I'm going off of here, like here's one thing that bothers me is that I am a flat earther and I think that space is fake. And they say that dinosaurs were taken out by this massive asteroid. And so I'm coming into this knowing that an asteroid didn't come into Earth. So there's gonna be different stalemates in this conversation because you believe in space and you believe that an asteroid could come into this, what I call an enclosed system. So it's like hard to, I wanna know from your perspective, let's just say that you are going to agree. And I know that you absolutely do not. But let's just say that if it's impossible for an asteroid to have hit the Earth, then how would you explain how dinosaurs got wiped out? I wanna just see what you can do. Well, my first point would simply to say that dinosaurs haven't been wiped out. They remain one of the most successful groups of vertebrates in the entire world. You mean like an alligator, right? No, no, no, the alligators are not dinosaurs. Birds are in fact a group of dinosaurs. Most dinosaurs in the past were not birds. They are a subgroup. Just like say today most mammals aren't cats, but some of them are. So the birds survived the extinction of the other dinosaurs. And today remain one of the most successful groups of animals to have ever lived. They are everywhere. They are extremely diverse. They are in no danger. Oh, there's a cat. You're looking to kitty. So how do you think, why do you think the birds won? And why did they survive and not the other one? Well, so it's a curious thing when you look at an extinction event to see who survives. And at the end of the Cretaceous, this is the Cretaceous paleogene extinction event, the animals that survived have a few commonalities. One is that they were, they tend to be associated with freshwater environments, at least on land. So we're talking things that live in, live near swamps, ponds, lakes, rivers, which helps explain why we still have alligators and crocodiles. Another thing was that smaller body size tended to favor survival, which is one of the reasons why mammals did well, because up until that time, the largest mammal was only about the size of that lion cub that we just saw. That was a big, that was the biggest mammal around was something about that big. Most of them were still small and borrowing or small and arboreal. There were probably some bats, so we had a few bats hanging out. But again, small and things like that. Also, predators tended to fare poorly because their prey were very quick to die after basically the loss of most non-perennial plants, because there would have been a period where plants essentially couldn't grow for several months. But so yeah, we get small water adapted is one of those things. And some of the oldest bird, sorry, some of the birds that we have from the end-cretaceous that are most closely related to modern birds are in fact birds associated with areas around water. And so in fact, we actually have the group galliforms, which is the ducks, geese, swans, these are all galliform birds. We have cretaceous galliform birds. We know that there were things that would have looked to you like a duck or a goose or a swan. And these are some of the things that ended up surviving. It just was a really bad time to be a big animal at all. It's including in the ocean. Many non-dinosaurs in the ocean also went extinct. The largest sea turtles that we've ever had were live right before this and they all went extinct. And now we have their modern relatives like the leatherback sea turtle or the green sea turtle and they're much, much smaller. And also some of the largest marine reptiles such as mosasaurus went extinct, but sea snakes did just fine, which are much, much smaller than mosasaurus in general. And so basically it was a collapse of the food chain, which always hits the largest organisms hardest and it also ends up hitting terrestrial organisms more forcefully than ones who live near water because water itself provides a lot of resources that you don't get when you're farther away from it. Does that answer the question from the sort of mainstream perspective? Yeah, that's very interesting. Thank you so much for explaining that. We have another cat. Another thing, Rose. Yes. Rose, I want you to think about this too. You can actually go up north and go on a meteorite hunt where they actually go up and on the ice, you can find meteorites. So don't ever think that the meteorite that came in and wiped out the dinosaurs was anything special other than it was big. And we know that these extinction level meteorites hit the earth on what we would consider regular intervals that yes, they're very far apart. They're hundreds of millions of years apart, but we know that it happens. We can see how it happened. We can see the indentations in the earth. We can see where the earth was pushed down. And in some cases it's still rebounding. You can go really close to where you lived and there's that meteorite impact site. I believe it's in Nevada, I could be wrong, but it's so obvious that this is where it came from. And in some cases, the original pieces of the meteorite are still in the center and pushed out to the outer edges of the impact site. And you can go outside tonight and you can see meteorites that just didn't make it. They just don't have the size to actually make it through earth's atmosphere. And hit the ground. So a meteorite event is common. Millions of them are happening as we speak. By the time we finish this talk, there will be millions of meteorites that have made their way into our atmosphere. In fact, actually in my neck of the woods, a bit outside Flagstaff, I live in Arizona, as I think most will know, there is a museum that is actually privately run. It's actually not a government museum. So it's not getting those big government bucks, but it is at a asteroid impact crater. It's called Berenger crater or sometimes it's called meteorite crater. But where'd the meteorite go? The meteorite went into a few places. Meteorites, when they impact, generally have a lot of energy. So they tend to not stay as a single piece. In fact, in this case, it looks like it only very small fragments managed to hold together, but you can still in fact find fragments and the isotropic characteristic of the iron in the area is in fact, characteristic of asteroids. I don't mean that. Alex, Alex, Alex. Alex, isn't there like a Pennsylvania airplane on 9-11 joke in there somewhere? Jump in guys. We're gonna have to wrap this up for the next 10 minutes because we got super chats and everything you guys can conclude. Ah, yes. Go ahead. I didn't get to go through a lot of my stuff. Well, can we get one more from us? Yeah, let's get at least one more from Rose. Yeah, because you clearly... You guys have about 10 minutes. Go ahead and wrap it up around 10 minutes. Yeah, go ahead. Okay, yeah. You clearly are asking questions and you wanna know something. You're not, you know, you really are. But just if I can just say one thing that Dapper was saying, to read a scientific paper is next to impossible for the layman to understand. And then somebody like me that is 1% above layman, I don't consider myself scientific at all because I know how much there is to learn. When I start reading these things, I am continually stopping and saying, oh, God, what does that word even mean? What does that phrase even mean? You go down so many side streets of stuff that you have to learn. All I can say to you is everything we talked about tonight isn't as simple as it's represented. Every single aspect of everything has been written up to the nth degree, including what we are calling soft tissue inside a dinosaur bone. There is no bone. There is no bone. There's minerals that have replaced the bone. And then they are finding this gelatinous, and it's not a huge amount. It's like that, like they pull this stuff out and it drips out onto the table and they scoop it up and try to figure out what it is. These are minute, small, read even, like I said, Mary Schweitzer is a Christian and she's really pissed the way that this has been misrepresented. But go ahead, Rose, you've been very gracious tonight and in allowing everybody to talk over you, so go ahead, please. Well, I guess the most important point that would come to mind that we didn't get to cover were just the companies in China that were making these replicas. I have the name here, the Zegong Dino Ocean Art Company in Sichuan, China. It sells to museums all over the world and the company says that 62% of its export goes to American and European markets. So my question is, how do they know it's just an art company? What to make it look like? They're not scientists. Off of a cast of an original Rose, that we send them casts of an original. Yeah, so I can actually go into some depth on this because I'm familiar with the process of making a fossil replica for mounting. So the first thing that you do is, especially if you're trying to present a mount as a particular individual find. So let's say you found this, whatever dinosaur, you want to make a mount of that individual. The first thing you do is you take casts in plaster of, well you can take plaster casts of every single extant bone and then now you have replicas of all of them and you have a master copy that you can continue to make more replicas from. The next thing you do is if you want to make a more complete than the original find, you find plaster casts of those bones that are missing from another individual that is of the same species. And then in the circumstances where a particular bone isn't known, you do have to do some educated speculation about the exact same. For instance, up until a few years ago, we didn't have a single Tyrannosaurus serangular bone. And so all the serangular bones you found were reconstructions based on what seemed likely. But then we did find the first Tyrannosaurus serangular bone and it turns out that it was exactly as predicted. Sure. What are the chances? And that is actually one of the real fossils that is on display. You can actually go and see the original fossil there of this Tyrannosaurus Victoria, which I don't know which city it's going to next. So you'd have to check on that, but it was most recently in Phoenix where I went to see it. And so once you have all of this done, then you can ship a replica. And so generally speaking, replicas are almost entirely replicas of the bones of a particular individual filled in with if you don't have that bone of another. So for instance, like, let's say we wanted to take, like we took some 3D scans of your skeleton from like a CT scan or something, right? We wanted to make a replica row skeleton. But for some reason we forgot to scan your left hand. Well, it's not too hard to figure out what your left hand is going to look like. We have your right hand, we have the left hand of other humans. We can probably get it about right if we come up with some other means of getting those right hand bones in your replica skeleton. And so is that dishonest? I would argue no. If you're putting it up for display in a museum, usually that information about which bones are based on which specimen will be included. I can't speak to that particular company, but I can say that it's also the case that this company is not the source of information about dinosaurs. They are going to sources about dinosaurs to create their art. The art is never the first thing. It's always something that comes after the science is done. Which is not to say that artists can't help scientists because sometimes artists are actually keen observers of the natural world if they're like nature artists and things. And sometimes they can say to a scientist like, hey, have you looked into this because this doesn't make sense to me? Maybe you should check on it. And then sometimes that does lead to new research. But yeah, the art is always after the science. Never confuse which one is prior. Okay. And also about the whole, with the comparing the dinosaurs or birds being a kind of dinosaur as you were talking about, what evidence do you have or what evidence has been found to show that any dinosaurs in the past would have feathers? Well, one of the things is simply well-preserved feathers on dinosaurs that are definitely not birds. So to be a bird, you have to have certain anatomical features. Now I'm a little bit restrictive with what I'm willing to call a bird because bird is in a technical term. But in order to get into AVs as a group, there are certain anatomical features that you have to have especially around things like the ankle, the forelimbs, the sternum and the tail. All of these are fairly particular things that you have to have. But all of those things that birds have, they also have a larger set of traits that dinosaurs have. So one of them that's very particular dinosaurs is a particular ankle joint. And birds have this particular ankle joint. Another one is there is a particular arrangement of the bones where the hip bone, where the femur, the leg bone sockets into the hip bone. In dinosaurs and uniquely dinosaurs, that's just a ring of bone. You have a little cup of bone there, right? So that you have a ball and socket joint. But dinosaurs just have a ring of bone and then it's open. If you were to go, like you can see through from one end to the other. Birds also have an opening here. It's called acetabulum. It's Latin for vinegar cup because it's shaped like a cup that Romans used to use for vinegar. It doesn't matter. So dinosaurs just have a ring there instead of a cup. There's also this particular muscle attachment point on the back of the femur that in dinosaurs has a particular shape and doesn't exist outside of archosaurs. Birds have that same shape for this muscle attachment. It's the muscle attachment for the caudofemoralis longus. It's the fourth trochanter of the femur. It's always asymmetrical on the particular bone in dinosaurs, just like in birds. There are a number of other things. There's a particular dip around the, I think it's the parietal bone, but I'll have to double check that birds share with other dinosaurs, as well as a few dinosaur amorphs that are very close to being dinosaurs, but aren't quite there. So it's basically this whole suite of things where what does it take to be a dinosaur? This, this and this. Do birds have this, this and this? And in every case, we come up with a yes. So, birds are- Birds are- Hey, Rose. Before we go into the questions, I'd like to make my last point. Or you guys- Hey, Rose. Can I just continue on with that, Rose? We found some very good impressions too of what an early representation of what a feather would be. Now, we do admit they do differ, but it's a very early representation of what a feather would be. Of course, there's little differences. There has been 65 million years of evolution put into the feather. The feather has become less of something that they used for warmth and it turned into obviously for flight. So, it has changed a bit in that sense, but we've found really good indentations of feathers. I don't know if Dapper wants to expand on that, but I think we're starting to find more and more of them because we're looking for them now before we weren't looking for them. Yeah, we're gonna hand this off to Alex, let him finish here. We're gonna go into super chats. So, go ahead, Alex. Well, basically, we've heard this from Dapper Dan. You're looking at replicas. He says that they had to make an estimated guess of a dinosaur's head and then they found the dinosaur. It happened to match exactly. Ooh, what are the chances? And basically, this goes back to, you guys can't explain the metaphysical process of evolution. You say that literally everything came from nothing. The computer we're talking on right now evolved 65 million years ago or however many you wanna say. That is impossible without some sort of creator. Now, I'm not some sort of religious show, but see, that's what we're gonna differ. We're not gonna believe. You believe that we're some cosmic accident and so we're never gonna come together, but what we can come together is that the dinosaur community has presented so many frauds that they are not to be trusted. Anything that you get from a dinosaur community is a fraud because it's a foundational fraud. You cannot build a house or a whole series of 65 million year old creations on a fraud. And I'm sorry, you've spent your whole life with Dapper Dino talking about dinosaurs, but they're fake and it's boring. And I get it, but dude, you're larping. And I know that you see these bones and you think they're real, but they're not what they say they are. And even you admit when you go to the museum, they're replicas. So in my last statement, the way that they present dinosaurs to us is a fraud period in the story. All right. So what I would like to add to that very, very quickly is the universe didn't need life and the universe didn't need to become self-aware for the universe to exist. Just think about that for a while and that should shut down your religious beliefs. Man being here has nothing to do with the fact that the universe exists like it or not. Sure. I just, there's just one more question I wanted to ask to Dapper Dino, if that's- Yes, please do. I'm okay with it. It's crazy. Are you okay? Because we gotta get to these- Okay. Yeah, I'll keep it. I'll try to keep it short as possible. Go ahead and do- Well, you know what Dapper Dino, what I would love is for you and I to have like a little research party together and we'll continue this maybe when your channel or my channel in the future. Absolutely. Well, I do have my after show coming up after. Pardon? I'll be sending a link to a Google Hangouts for my after show to the same email thread that we were all on. So anyone who's here can come onto that if you want to. Okay, cool. Well, I guess my closing statement is that I'm actually not, I just wanted you to know Mark that I'm not coming at this from a religious biblical perspective at all. As always, I'm coming at this with my anger for the ruling elite and I just don't trust authority figures that tell me I wanna do my own research, my own personal observations and that's why I'm so grateful to both of you being here today. You guys have researched the mainstream narrative and you are able to articulate things that you understand and I wanna be able to understand your perspective as well. And then my last thing I wanted to mention because you're so well-versed in anatomy and those kinds of things, I just wanna recommend my friend's channel which is so interesting and I would love in the future to know your take on his theories and their just theories of course and the channel is stellium seven and he actually will compare these massive huge mountains and rocks to like elephant anatomy and it's just mind blowing and it will definitely like, it's just, I find it really fascinating. So I just wanted to suggest that you look into that stuff too that like maybe there are some big mountains that are actually really, really old massive elephants. Awesome guys. So we're gonna get into the super chats now that was an exciting discussion there and we're gonna shift our focus towards this now and we have a lot of generous super chats from several different people. There's a common theme you guys are gonna see and some of them are trollish. You don't have to answer them. You can just say you don't wanna answer and that's fine. So this is from Witsit, Gitsit for $1.99. He says, Alex and Rose equal legends. Dinosaurs equals pseudoscience. So if you guys would respond to that from Mark or Dapper. I have no particular comment like, okay, sure. Thanks for super chatting with Gitsit. James, I appreciate it. All right, so this is from. So Siji Fredo Sarabia gave a super sticker for $3.00. Thank you, Siji. You gave a lot of super chats and he's gonna be coming up here. Witsit, Gitsit for $1.99. Mark and Dapper, pseudo did, we come from rocks. Okay, I disagree, but sure. Witsit, Gitsit, if you want to have a conversation about abiogenesis, you should set that up because I know that there are people who are willing to have that discussion and you could probably get a platform. So just go do that. Go into or go have a conversation about abiogenesis. Just do it. This wasn't one of those, but I'm glad you're interested in the topic. Awesome, thank you for your answer. This is from, Witsit, Gitsit for another $1.99. This is directed towards you, Mark. You can answer it if you want to. Mark, you can hate God. He still loves you, homie. Okay, bro. I just learned that word tonight. I learned that. It's my new skateboarding slogan. I'm gonna call everyone bro from now on. You sound cool. You sound cool. Yeah, Mark. It makes you sound hip. Yeah, it does. Real educated when you say it. All right, so this is from Mike. Billers for $5. Thank you for your super chat. No, Dapper. Mr. Batman already proved dinosaurs aren't birds. Remember, birds were on day five. I do remember. Yep, I remember. And you know what? Argument from day of the week is not something I really have a strong compulsion to argue against. I'll just say this, even if we assume the literal Genesis account, we still have things like presumably whales being mammals would have been made with the birds and the fish and not with the rest of the land mammals. So just saying that you think that this broad category was mostly made on a particular day doesn't actually change anything. Sorry. Same thing with bats. Bats probably would have been made with the birds too. Does that make them not mammals? Oh yeah, go ahead. Would you agree, I remember hearing that whales are actually related to cows. Is that true based on your research and knowledge? Well, they're even hoofed ungulates. They're in that group. So they're closer to cows than they are to horses, but they're also much closer to hippos than they are to cows. Interesting. So hippos are the extant sister groups to cetaceans. So they're most closely related outside of other whales to hippos. And that group groups together, I believe, I believe it groups together with pigs and peccaries. And then that group is sort of a sister group to most of the rest of the even toad ungulates like cows and deer and antelope and whatnot. And don't forget, Rhodes, everything is related that's alive that is living to everything. So to say something is related to something is a very, very loose term. All right. Thank you guys for your answers. So this is from Siji Fredio Sarabia for $5. If there's a dino in my backyard, how did miners, coal diggers, Native Americans, architectures, cultivists miss a dino bone before the 1800s? They generally didn't. They found them and not having a great grasp on comparative anatomy or systematics simply identified them as various rather imaginative reconstructions. It wasn't until people started to closely examine the anatomy of very large numbers of organisms that the ability to recognize the affinities of these fossils was even possible. Like I said, we do know from. What do you mean they thought they were reconstructions? The people that found that they were reconstructions of what? What does that mean? No, people in ancient times found bones and then came up with ideas as to what they thought they were the bones of. And they were somewhat fanciful, this being a period in time where comparative anatomy was essentially not a science at all. No one was doing it. We just, you find a big skull or a big scary tooth or a big femur, and you come up with something that seems plausible based on your very pre-modern worldview. And as a result, very few of those things resemble what we know dinosaurs to be, but that doesn't mean that they didn't find these things. It was just like back in the day when people thought that flogiston was the explanation for fire. It isn't. We've got to make these nice and pithy. Yeah, sorry. Sorry about that. Do you think we were able to figure out everything about dinosaurs in 150 years? Doesn't that sound pretty fast? No, we haven't figured out everything. Who says we figured out everything? See that I'm saying when you talk to people, when you talk to people that are knowledgeable, they will tell you how much we don't know. When you talk to ignorant people, they'll tell you how much they do know. They misrepresent dinosaurs, even he admitted in museums that they're misrepresentations. All right, we should probably get to the next question. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, so this is from FE News for $5. Despite glitches with Dominion voting machines, Alex won this debate. Dinos are a result of an overactive imagination. How you like that? I agree. Okay. All right, so we'll go to the next. If it's not an argument or a question, I'm probably just gonna be like, okay. Aprodino, you can suck it. Alex. All right, yeah, let's try to keep the insults you know, away right now. So, Siji- I apologize. Metaphorically. That does not help that kind of behavior, Alex, at all. All right, so- This is having fun. It's very nice. All right, Siji- Actually, it does. It tells us who we're dealing with. All right, so it's gonna pass, it's gonna pass. So, Siji Fredo, Serabi for $2. You get a Super Sticker game over. So, yeah, we'll go to the next one. Mike Billers for $4.99. I missed the opening. Did Alex and Rose mention what brand of lead paint they were drinking before air? So, that's a troll-less question. You guys don't have to answer that. No, I was. It was Sherwin Williams. Oh, Sherwin Williams. You guys shouldn't be selling lead paint anymore. Come on. Yeah, what's the old- So, phase that out. Oh, okay, it's old. That makes sense, then. Hey, lead tastes sweet. That's why people used to eat it. That's a thing. This is from SOL for $4.99. What the, WTF just came out of her mouth. So, that's another troll-ish one. You guys, you can answer that, Rose, if you want. You're gonna even have to. So, we'll go to the next one. Just love and compassion for my heart and the willingness to learn, the willingness to be wrong and this, I still am not convinced that dinosaurs existed and I wish I was able to read from more of my notes, but I know that just like I made a new friend with Mark, I've made a new friend with Dapper Dino and that's all that really matters to me is that I believe in unity and all of us moving forward and sharing ideas and it's okay if we disagree. That's what's coming out of my mouth. Absolutely. And seriously, bring your questions for the after show because we can just go through them. I'm getting kind of tired. I'm not gonna be able to come through. We can arrange something other time. Yes, yes. I'll be doing an after show with a call-in if you wanna call in. Yeah, actually, the after show, if you're in my chat and you want in, let me know and how to get a hold of you and assuming you're not someone who I've had problems with behaving before, I will probably let you in if I still have room, so yeah. Not quite open call-in, but it's pretty close, especially if you disagree with me. That's one of my rules is people who disagree with me get priority over people who agree. So, okay, we'll get to the next one now. So, FE news for $5, say random bones and the ground dinosaur bones. Imagine animals that never existed, say they were real, sell to gullible people for a dollar amount. Not sure what that means. Oh wait, that brings up actually a question. If there are, you were talking about how you can find dinosaur bones in your backyard and they're so common, so why exactly would they be so, so, so, so expensive if there's so many of them? They're difficult to extract intact and many of them are also unique in that this particular dinosaur hasn't been found before, so it has that uniqueness. Now that's not always true. There's some places where like, you know, like their place where a trod on tooth is the diamond doesn't, they're all over the place. So it will vary. There are in fact inexpensive dinosaur fossils, but. And then, Rose, please remember too, if we find something that's almost fully articulated, then we have something that is absolutely verified. We're not guessing. We're not putting a femur together with a, you know, another bone with another bone and doing the best. Like your teammate there likes to point out that sometimes we have to extrapolate things. We have to make educated guesses. Our educated guesses have gotten a lot better over the last 100 years. That's why we call it educated. As we learn, we do better. But don't ever forget when we find something that's almost fully articulated, that is a major fine. And we've found lots of them. Well, what are the major arguments for the dinosaur hillside? I think we have to go to the next one. Yeah, we got to get to the next one, guys. Sorry about that. Sorry. But they never found a skull. We found a lot of skulls. So this is from Michael Cressia for $5.00. I think if you're a super chat, I was waiting for dino experts to convince me that dino's existed. Instead, all they did was convince me all the dinosaurs in museums are fake. So you guys can respond to that if you want to. I mean, there's a difference between fake and a replica requires there to be an original. If you want to say that they're all sculptures, well, I mean, then you can go look into how they're produced and it turns out that no, they're casts taken from originals. So it's like me hanging a print of the Mona Lisa in my house and then you saying that that means there's no such thing as the real Mona Lisa. It doesn't follow. Well, how do they make educated guesses cast? How do they make the one, the cast that were educated guesses? How did they make those? It's called phylogenetic bracketing. An original bone. Well, there is that. Now, when they don't have one, it's called. An original bone. How did they make the skull then? Phylogenetic bracketing. Get the next one guys. That's fake. It sounds like phylogenetic fake bull crap. All right. So this is animated effigy for $5.00. Can we please just get over this hatred of expertise? Your religion didn't get us to the moon or create literally everything. You use in modern life, Alex and Rose. Oh, we didn't go to the moon. I'm so sorry. Yeah, the moon, that's bullshit. That was not a good example to try and convince me of. Sorry. I don't feel any need for a follow-up. I'm just kidding. I feel like that's what it was waiting for. It's like, yeah, I don't really have anything to add. Sorry. I agree with it. Yeah, so I'm sorry. Yes, I know that we went to the moon. So do I. I know that we didn't. Okay, well that is another thing that perhaps on another day we can talk about. So FV news, we'll get to the next one. So they find bones and build imaginary animals. So you guys can respond to that if you want. I mean, if you find the bones, then whatever you built might be mistaken, but it's not imaginary because you have the bones. So then I don't see. Like I said, when you find something. Not to educate guests. No, we find things that are almost fully articulated. It's just like when we find a mummy from back in Egyptian days, we don't assume that that mummy was put together by random bones. We assume that that fully articulated mummy is legitimate. And why wouldn't we? They're like dinosaurs. They're totally, they're preserved totally differently, then. I was- How's it different if it's all together? But you're saying they were- How's it different if it's all together? They're preserved, dude, in tombs. It's totally different than a freaking dinosaur that's randomly in a petrified rock, bro. I mean, it's totally different, bro. You're actually less smart than I thought you were after the comments. Hey, you were. I didn't know I thought you were. I can't believe how you can be so bold, Mark. So kingdom in context for $10. Think of your super chat, Alex and Rose77 are awesome critical thinkers. Question, isn't George Lyle's geological scale of circular logic refuted by the discovery of the live T-Rex tissue? Live T-Rex? I've never heard of live T-Rex tissue. T-Rex tissue. No, we have none. You're talking about the soft tissues. What do you mean? Why was there a soft tissue on Schweischer's fine? I mean, I think- I think we covered it. Why was there a collagen, bro? Your favorite word. Collagen isn't a tissue. It's a protein. Oh, they're okay. Why was there a live collagen or what? There was. Collagen isn't a live. I don't know. I don't know. Let's just agree that. There was stuff that wasn't supposed to be there. That was there. Proving the date of the fossils are incorrect. Incorrect. Deborah, do I know if a Tyrannosaurus rex skull been found? Yes. Give me a break. I want to see how it gets to that. All right. 15 of them in fact all time rise. 15 of them, sure. Got it. I'm going to go to the next super chat. Shaw, Thomas for $5. Think of your super chat. Dinosaurs are real, but millions of years old. Acts the expert if you want to know. So, yeah, if you guys want to respond to that, you don't have to. I mean, I would say, yeah, there are people who have spent their whole professional careers digging up and describing and carefully photographing and measuring all these fossils. Check out the literature. You might need to do some background reading in anatomy, especially osteology, but yeah, you can check all these things on your own. You can go to the museum. You can take a look at original specimens in many cases. Of course, in some cases that might be cost prohibitive because you might have to go too far, but if you live near a museum, check out the papers on the specimens housed in the museum. Take a look at the actual specimens. Well, JK Rowling spent her whole life writing Harry Potter. That doesn't make Harry Potter real just because somebody spends their life doing something doesn't make their dog. But when I can go to a museum and look good at Goblin skeleton, I might reassess. Until then, I can look at dinosaur skeleton. Witsit gets it for five dollars. Thank you for your super chat. Witsit, he's given like five or six and like, wow. Goodness. So Dapir, you're a subject matter expert, but you just admitted you've never actually seen authentic dinosaur bones in your entirety yourself. Wow. No, I did not say that. I have in fact seen real dinosaur bones, but the ones that I have seen generally were on display because in fact real dinosaur bones go on display in museums around the world. It's just that the majority of display bones are not actual. I've also touched real dinosaur bones and I have been to many places where dinosaur bones are available. Now I'm actually planning on next year going to the Chinley formation. And there is every chance that while I'm there, I may in fact stumble across, if not a dinosaur, at least other late Triassic archosaurs such as Adosaurus or Phytosaurus, which, or even Ralsukians, which I would doubt most people in the chat, especially the sort of anti-evolution crowd, could differentiate from a dinosaur or a fasque. All right, so we're gonna get to the next super chat, twad wasle for $2. Rock from rock, archeologists are great sculptors. I don't know what this has to do with archeology, but okay. There are several places across, so you can go depending on where you're living, you can go to Alberta, you can go see still in the ground dinosaur bones. There's a place in upstate, I'm guessing, let me think here for a minute, I'm trying to think where it is. Bonelick Park, Dapper may know where that is. I'm trying to think right now, if that would be in, you know where that is, you can go there, you can actually see them still in the ground. They haven't been taken out yet. They've been excavated back to the point where you can see them in the ground. There are places in the southern states on the west coast that you can go see them. I'm trying to think if there's anywhere, if you live on the east coast of the state, and I don't think I can think of anywhere where there's these dinosaur parks. So on the east coast, no, but you can find dinosaur, you can find dinosaurs in situ in the ablations. Okay, so we gotta get to the next one. Kingdom in context, I'm sorry, we're gonna go to Mike Billers or he just did that one. So thank you for your super chat, Mike Billers, Dapper and Alex both make my head hurt, but for completely different reasons. Oh, thanks? Sorry, I'm not exactly sure how to take that. So, Sigiforadio Sarabia for $5, thanks again, he's given quite a few super chats tonight as well. Taking both sides, anyone have an opinion on young earth creation is correlating, walking with dinos. Were their view prove both sides here wrong? Wait, walking with dinosaurs prove both of us wrong? I'm not sure I understood that. I don't understand the question, I'm sorry. I don't understand the question here, but next. Yeah, so I think he's saying because humans walk with dinos, doesn't that disprove your arguments tonight? That's what he's trying to say, I guess. Oh, I thought he was talking about the BBC produced documentary series, Walking with Dinosaurs. I mean, unless you mean relatively recent birds, no, there's no evidence that humans walked with dinosaurs up until after humans came about, and then the birds that were around are rather unremarkable in terms of modern fauna, with a few exceptions, but still, they were well within crown 80s for today. So, sorry, until you come up with some better evidence, then no, humans didn't walk with Mesozoic dinosaurs. Thank you for your answer, and here we go. Thanks, Strong, for $5. Thank you for your super chat, Alex and Rose for the win. It's prime time, baby. I love it, woo, prime time, oh, that's number two for the win. Guys, y'all got strong. So, Whitsitt gets it for another $1.99. Whitsitt's like his seventh or eighth, it looks like. Is it possible that you guys are completely wrong? Oh. Dapper and Mark. No, because these are in the ground and we're finding them. Anybody can go find them. And I don't care what you call them. You don't, you know, putting an English name to something like dinosaur doesn't make finding something in the ground that's there and then is dug out. It doesn't make it not exist. I would like to object and just say that I think that these bones that are being found are not full formations of dinosaurs the way that it's presented to us by the mainstream. Just because you find a little bone here and a little bone there, doesn't mean that it's going to be like what we see in Dapper Dino's profile picture. They don't. They don't. They are almost complete dinosaurs. There's very few sets of dinosaurs. I object to that and I would like to see proof of those fully. Rapida, good rapida. Then that's what you need to do. You need to go to school and learn how to do this and go out and do it. Sure, okay, next question. So this is from Movie Theory for $2. Pretty obvious, Alex and Rose dominated these two, wow. Wow, dude, we all got smoked like some cheap weed, dude. Y'all got really smoked. So get Mike Billers for $5 at Mark. Is that a replica lion or a fake one? Fake. It's actually a replica. Every single lion that will be born from this day forward will be as close of a replica to its mother and father as you can get with genetic changes as it moves on. Gotcha. So think strong for $5, Dapper is begging the question. Okay, I would like to know which assumptions that I've assumed without justifying them. Again, just name them and I would be happy to address them, but simply stating I made a particular policy doesn't really help. So maybe I didn't, but you haven't told me which one I begged. Gotcha. So this is from Shaw Thomas for $5. Think if you're a super chat, follow up. Dinosaurs are real, but no more than 10,000 years old. We now have proof for the global flood. So I'm guessing it's not that you guys. My response is no. Look, it's not a debate about the flood. There are plenty of those. I'm willing to have one. If you want to have a debate about the flood, I mean, ask for it. Yeah, it's about as wrong to say we have proof of the flood as it is to say the sky is habitually green. It's just not true. If you believe in the ice age, didn't there have to be a flood? No. When the ice melted, there wasn't a flood? There would have been some local flooding events, but there would not have been a global flood. So just a little flooding. Well, it would have been very large flooding in local areas, but large local floods aren't global. And there is a question. Chris Wilson for $10 Mark, are fossil fuels made from fossils or was the name made up by elites? And I challenge you to show evidence for your answer. No, fossil fuels were not made of fossils. Fossils are something that is replaced by minerals. That's what a fossil is. That's not fossil fuel. The reason that they call it what they do is so that laymen can kind of understand it. It's a misinterpreted way of describing something. It is made out of trees. It is made out of every single thing that was in a estuary at one point or a swamp and has became what we call fossil fuel. Just because we call something something wrong doesn't mean that it doesn't exist again. Well, doesn't it make you mad, Mark, that they would always associate dinosaurs with the oil companies, like even that one Dino Sinclair company. Not at all. And also when back in the day, they used to show movies to kids where they literally showed dinosaurs and then oil coming out. So they were lying about it before. Why wouldn't they be lying about this? They love keeping kids. No more than it bothers me that the Flintstones came out because I used to watch it every day at 12.30 up here in Ontario. No more than the Flintstones bothers me. All right. Gotta get to the next super chef from Siji Fradio Sarabia for $5 at Rose 777. Does that mean you don't believe in meteors or comments or that they are not what they are, they're told they are? What's your conspiracy of meteor impacts as a flat earthist? I don't know what meteors are, but I mean, I see that there are lights in the sky, comets, there are luminaries, but I don't think that they are coming from outer space because I believe that we are in an enclosed system. And just come and check out my channel because I talk about the enclosed system and the flattened stationary plane a lot. Thank you for your answer. This is from Sphinxter of Doom for $5. They were been playing. I hope it's for me. Go ahead. I hope it's for me, Sphinxter of Doom. It sounds like it's not a good name. I think it is. There have been plenty of exposed creationist frauds. So by Alex's logic, God doesn't exist. Clearly his logic is flawed, Alex. No, God exists. And whether you want to believe in evolution, there had to be a creator that created the rocks to smash them together because I don't believe in abiogenesis. I don't believe that we evolved from pre-mortials too. I don't believe lightning hit pond scum and somehow everything came from nothing. That sounds absurd. So I believe there had to be a creator that got the metaphysical origin started. So whether you want to believe it's Christ, Christianity, whatever you want to believe, there has to be a creator because we can't have everything can't come from nothing. I agree when you say it that wrong. I agree it could never happen. You're absolutely right. So this super chat is from Andrew Handelsman for $2. Mark, I live near Windsor. Have you been in that area? Yeah, all the time. I just came from Grand Bend, actually. Awesome. So Mike Billers for $5, obviously the universe didn't produce life because if you take two toy universes, you can't get there. Who has to join? What? Good point. Yeah, so we'll get the nice one. Twad wasle for $2. Dapper, we're mammoths. We're mammoths, just furry elephants. I mean, I'm not sure what it's meant by just, but mammoths are in fact elephants. Not all of them were very particularly furry. There's a particular genus of mammoths that was the woolly mammoth, but there were other mammoths that were not any more hairy than other elephants. The reason that I say that they are elephants is because both genetic and morphological studies placed them, that can't talk, placed them closer to elephants, which is the genus of the Asian elephant, then to loxodonta, which is the genus of the African elephants, which means that if the word elephant is going to mean anything monophiletic, then mammoths have to be included as a subgroup of elephants. And we have their DNA too. So we're not talking about dinosaurs here. This is an animal that we have its DNA. Right, we can sequence the genome. It's tricky, but we can do it. And our last super chair of the night for the man himself, logical probable plausible, or logical plausible probable for $5. And he says, open challenge after debate. Genetic entropy over on standing for truth needs some atheists to come get destroyed. Don't be cowards, link coming. So check. I'm always confused about the statement about calling all of the people who aren't on board with Young Earth Creationism atheists. That does not characterize the vast majority of them. The vast majority of people who are not on board with Young Earth Creationism are not atheists, right? Although the vast majority of atheists are not on board. Sounds like you fit in that description of people who aren't Young Earth Creationists, but also aren't atheists. Yeah. Okay. Awesome. So it's going to be on standing for truth channel, huh? Okay. So I recommend people check that out. I think there's going to be one on Dapper's channel, I believe too. Yes. And don't worry. You can probably check out both because I'm sure that logical probable plausible have his going much longer than mine. Yeah. So I think that'll conclude tonight's debate. It was a good one, but it was exciting and maybe a little bit heated here and there, but that's okay as we expect. But I appreciate our interlocutors tonight, everyone in the chat for participating in all the super chats. So is there any- Purple pickles, purple pickles. I got to say that for somebody in the chat. Yeah, go ahead. If you have any- Oh, and I'll be going live. I'll be going live, I said those words, and I'll be going live tonight with the call-in show. So if you guys think I'm full of crap, call in and we can chew the fat. All right. And yeah, I'm going to be going live here pretty soon. My live show is currently scheduled for 10.30. It was probably actually going to be at 10. I just put it significantly after to be safe. But yeah, I'm going to be sending out a link to the group email that was for this channel. So anyone is welcome to come in, as well as, especially if you disagree with me, get in my live chat and ask for a link. I'll probably keep it to six people or fewer at a time just because otherwise I start to get a little bit, it's a little hard to control the conversation. So yeah, stop by my channel if you want to or stop by, you know, logical probable plausible or Alex or yeah, stop by something. Keep watching us. Thank you, Dave, for dying. Thank you now. You're welcome. All right guys, keep sifting the reasonable from unreasonable and we are out.