 Hey everybody tonight we're debating the age of the earth and we are starting right now with Maddie's opening statement. Maddie thanks so much for being here the floor is all yours. So hi everybody I'm Maddie you can find me here on YouTube at Science Side Up it's a science communication channel we talk about all kinds of stuff and it's lots of fun. And I also want to thank Kent thank you so much for coming out tonight I appreciate your time. And I am certainly looking forward to a conversation. I think that you know it's a very important thing to do to have open and honest conversations about differing viewpoints and things like that. So a little bit about me. I am currently a PhD student in meteorology at the University of Oklahoma. I have my master's degree from there. And my bachelor's degree is from MIT in math and earth atmospheric and planetary sciences. And I have a bit of a deep tour between undergrad and grad school I was in the Navy I taught nuclear physics for a few years so I have a pretty broad background in the physical sciences. And so that's what I really like to focus on this evening is physical sciences and things specifically that point to the age of the earth or sort of how we know these different things. And for the rest of my opening statement I want to focus on some of that stuff that I did back in undergrad which has to do with more planetary science. So I'd like to really just focus on one one thing that I cannot see a way to reconcile like things that we can observe with a young age of the earth. So if if you are I were to go outside on a nice clear night and look up at the moon with the naked eye or with the telescope. We would see that Earth's moon is its surface is very rough it is heavily cratered and we know how these types of craters form that's a process we've observed happen, even though they're not super common nowadays. So an asteroid or some other impactor comes in it strikes the surface of the moon that impact event is so energetic that it vaporizes the asteroid and partially melts the surface and then when that dust settles you have this telltale impact crater. And something you might also note, if you went out in your backyard today that there's not a whole lot of craters here on planet Earth, I can think of five to 10. That still exists, but if you look at the moon, it has over a million that are at least a half kilometer in diameter. And if you will look to even smaller sizes you get to like half a billion so let's stick with that like a million range number. There's about a million craters on the moon and on Mercury and on Mars and on asteroids and on most rocky bodies here in the solar system. But for one reason or another, not Earth. So why might that be. Well Earth has an amazing ability to make new rock we recycle our crust. So if you were very patient and had a submarine you can see this process happen yourself. You could go down to the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and see where you have two ocean plates that are moving away from each other at a rate of about an inch a year. And then so molten lava comes up solidifies and makes new rock. You were to go to the other edges of those two plates, one at Japan and one at California you could see those subducting under the continental plates destroying older rock as it goes so plate tectonics is one of the mechanisms that Earth recycles its crust makes new rock. So presumably if in the past the earth was heavily cratered like the surface of Mercury or the moon things that don't have plate tectonics. Then the earth could have erased that history right now based off of current rates. So the expansion floor spreading that rate if you kind of look globally you can extrapolate that out and the earth recycles its whole crust, once every 200 million years, based on the current expansion rate. So that's sort of the understood process by which you would sort of reset the earth crust. So, what's what's the problem and why can I not see a young earth, possible, because of these facts. So if you're going to destroy crust that means you're going to actually melt it it takes about a million kilojoules of power to melt one kilogram of rock, and earth has about. Oh, what is the mass of the earth so mass of the earth's crust is about 10 to the 23rd kilograms. So that would take. Oh, 10 to the 29th jewels which is 10 to the 13 megatons of TNT so 10 trillion megatons of TNT. It's not a problem. If this is happening slowly right just a little bit a year, but otherwise you have to come up with a way to one generate that much heat, and a very short period of time, something like maybe a year, right, and then to what you would be left with is the whole crust of the earth being molten right and and natural processes to remove the heat and allow that crust to solidify that would take about 100 million years. So the other option could be will maybe the earth wasn't heavily cratered. I can't think of a way that would happen so if you think of the earth and the moon next to each other, and random space rocks are just pelting through space. Why would it hit the moon why would a million hit the moon and 10 hit the earth. There's no good reason for that. And every rocky body in our solar system is heavily cratered. So the earth really should be to. So one you also if you have to have all of those cratering events happen in a short period of time. One impact creator is the equivalent of about 100 nuclear weapons. So that's a that's a great way to destroy all life on earth, a lot. And if you have to get all of those impact events and then the melting and the crystallization happening, there's there's no natural process that can allow those things to happen, and have life on earth and frankly even the earth, not be molten. So that was sort of the kind of just one thing I wanted to draw attention to hopefully that made sense. I think that's all I really had for my opening statement. Thank you. Thank you very much, Maddie and want to let you know folks, we are thrilled for many more epic juicy debates coming up in the future at modern day debate and so if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button is we have many more to come that we are very excited about, including folks want to let you know about this one. The book of Daniel prophecy or forgery is coming up next week. You don't want to miss that one live. It's going to be a fun one. So again, hit that subscribe button and that notification button as well. With that we're going to kick it over to Kent for his opening statement. Thanks for being with us tonight. Kent, the floor is all yours. Well, thank you for having me. It's good to be with you again. And Maddie, good to meet you. I'd like you to come down visit. Take a tour of the place here. We're in Lenox, Alabama. I taught high school science 15 years and love to defend the fact that I believe the Bible is literally true and scientifically accurate in every detail. If you add up the dates in the Bible, it clearly comes to about 6000 for the age of the earth and the universe and everything else, all everything. The Bible says in the 10 commandments that God made everything in six days. So if a person takes the position that the earth is billions of years old, which Maddie does and many others do, they have to understand that you're clearly calling Jesus a liar. He said the creation of Adam was the beginning. You're welcome to do that, but be aware that that is what you're doing. I have done many debates on this topic. I think the Bible is clear and can stand up without any help against all criticism. You're welcome to come down. Let's say, science side up. I love science, Maddie. I'm glad you do too. You keep studying it pretty soon. You'll be a young earth creationist like me. First place, young earth, 6000 is not young. That's a long time. It's hard to think about 150 years ago when Abe Lincoln was president. That's a long time, 150 years. And 6000, that's a really long time. So I think they give it a misnomer calling it young earth creation. By the way, Maddie, I appreciate that you read what I wrote. I'll help Jack Chick write the Chick track on your website. You did that a couple of weeks ago. Were you and somebody else, Dr. Josh, what do my track on Big Daddy? Six basic types of evolution. I think you probably did more harm to the evolution caused by reading that out loud to your audience. Then you realize people are going to contact us and say, wow, that was great. Anyway, let's see. No, 194. Hang on. The textbooks in school teach that the earth is 13.8 billion years old. Now, this has been changed many times. I'm sitting beside my textbook collection. I taught our science for 15 years. They used to teach 20 billion. They've had all kinds of different numbers. They've gone all over the scale and how old is the earth. For a matter of science deals with things we can observe, study, test and demonstrate. I think we can observe there's human history back thousands, few thousand years. And that's all man's been observing. Anything else is going to involve a lot of guesswork. 13.8 billion years ago. And they're welcome to believe all that if they'd like. They say the earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old, plus or minus about 50 million years. How old is the earth? Scientists determine its age at 4.54 billion with an error range of 50 million. Now, let me explain. If you found a sunken ship with a treasure chest full of gold coins and I asked you the simple question. When did the boat sink? Well, we can look at the dates on the coins and we can find the coins have different dates on them. But actually the youngest coin would be the limiting factor. If there's one coin in there from 1750 and another coin from 1695. I can't say the boat sank in 1695 because I've got one in there that says 1750. So I would look at all the dates on the coins. The oldest coins won't matter. It only takes one young coin in there to change to the time when the ship sank. So if you look at a dinosaur bone, you should notice right away it doesn't talk and it doesn't have a date stamped on it. So how do we tell the age of the earth? How do we tell the age of the bones? There's all kinds of different ways to measure this and scientific evidence to look at. If I told you these big ballpoint pens were 5,000 years old. How could you refute my claim? You could say now, Mr. Hoven, how do you hold it? Just a minute. You're claiming these pens are 5,000 years old. Ballpoint pen history. Who invented the ballpoint pen? Well, the ballpoint pen was invented 132 years ago in 1888. Oh, well, just that one fact refuted my claim that the pens are 5,000 years old. Now they have to be less than 132 years old. Fair enough. That's the way science works. Okay. Patented in 1888. So we just said, oh, sorry, that's wrong. Had to be 1888 or after when the pens are made. Then you find out a key breakthrough came in 1709 when a Belgian-American chemist invented Bakelite, the first real synthetic mass produced plastic. Oh, now we're up to 1907. And my pens are made of plastics. You could say, Hoven, hold it. Your date of 5,000 is wrong. Actually, we know that they had to be made after 1907. Fair enough. That's the way science works. You prove my claim of 5,000 is wrong. Okay. Then you look at BIC Corporation that has BIC stamped all over the pen. You said, oh, wait a minute. BIC Company was founded in 1945. Wow. Now you've proven my pen claim is really wrong. They weren't made in 5,000 years ago. They're made after 1945. So that's the way science works. If I could find one evidence that the earth is not billions of years old, nothing else would matter. I think the audience needs to clearly understand finding some way to make the earth billions of years old is absolutely essential to the evolution theory. If I could demonstrate the earth is not billions of years old, then nothing else matters in the evolution theory because there isn't time for anything to change. They think that a rock will slowly change into something alive, which is what evolution teaches. It rained on the earth, hard rocky crust on the earth. The earth was a hot molten mass. It cooled down, developed a rocky crust, then it rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned them into soup and the soup came alive. This is a basic summary, accurate summary of what they teach. Of course, it took billions of years. And then that first life form found somebody to marry. Now there's a good trick and something to eat and slowly evolved and changed into everything we see today. And everything about the evolution theory is hidden with the billions of years. Time is their pacifier. 4.543 billion years old. Wow. Okay. So the biblical answer is one way to look at this and the scientific answer is another way and I'm willing to look at it either way. The Bible clearly says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And in John 1, it says the word was with God, all things were made by him. And we see in John 14 that the word was made flesh. That's Jesus Christ. So Jesus said he made everything by him were all things created. See, Jesus is God Almighty in the flesh, come down to visit his planet here. And Jesus said in Matthew 19.4, have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, talking about Adam and Eve. So this is clearly taught by Jesus Christ that the creation of Adam was the beginning. Bible says, he's the one who did it, so he should know. And the Bible says death came into the world because of man's sin. In the Christian worldview, God made a perfect world, man wrecked it. In the evolution worldview, Matthew that you hold to, death created man. Got about 30 seconds. Billions and billions and billions of creatures had to die because they weren't quite well formed enough to reach up to the high standard. So did man bring death into the world or did death bring man into the world? Somebody is clearly wrong. Jesus said the creation was when God made Adam and Eve and nothing died till Adam sinned and the Bible says it was in six days. So that's the position I hold to and I'll take that against all comers. So Matty, go ahead. All right. Thank you very much. Kent for that opening statement. Want to let you know folks, our guests are linked in the description. So if you'd like to hear more of our guests, we have linked them in that description below. Next up, we have roughly 50 minutes of open dialogue and then we'll have Q&A at the end. And so thanks very much to our guests. Also, want to let you know folks, if you're listening via podcast, because we are on podcast, our guests are linked in the description there as well. And so if you want to hear more from them, you certainly can. The floor is all yours, Matty and Kent. If you don't mind, I'd like to talk a little bit about that analogy used with the ship and the chest of coins. Sure. Okay, so the problem, I have a little issue with that analogy because to me it feels like we're the question that's analogous to like how old is the earth isn't like when did the ship sink but rather maybe a better question would be like when was the first coin minted. Right. So if the coins are on the ship, and I think it'd be obvious nobody goes down and puts coins in a sunken ship, they go down and make them out of sunken ship so I think the analogy is fair that if the ship, the ship had to sink after the last coin was minted. And so if it's last coins minted in 1750 while the ship sank after 1750 so I don't understand nobody's ever had a problem with that analogy before explain why you think that's not not a reasonable analogy. Um, because if we're thinking about, um, let's see if we're thinking about on, let's say, I, okay I'm out here in Oklahoma and I go out to an old farmhouse, right and I don't know when that farmhouse was built, and I want to know. Oh shoot no that's going to break down. Sorry. Okay, so it's, if I, if I, if I go outside and I find, I don't know, a Tamagotchi from the 90s and a Life Magazine from 1972, and like, you know, I don't know something else. Let's just say, let's say a ballpoint pen, right. Then we, you know, we can do like contacts to figure out like how old each of those things are, especially like the Life Magazine, the date on it, right. So, with the, with the ship analogy, I'm trying to say that the age of the earth is analogous to when the ship sunk kind of breaks for me because if we're thinking of that as like when time started then how do these older things exist right. If my house was built in 1990 how could I find on. Why would there be newspaper from 200 years before like, like how did the older thing get there. If, if we're thinking about on if we're thinking about sort of like even like age of the earth if something says it's 20 million years old and we find something else that says it's 100 million years old if the answer is 20 million how does the 100 million thing exist. And your analogy with the farmhouse is pretty obvious people can bring things into a farmhouse and drop stuff off all the time they don't do that with sunken ships. Nobody puts the gold coins in the ships they take them out, which is why I chose the ship analogy rather than a farmhouse, because this is good and it's all in a treasure chest and it was in a sunken ship. I think it's a fair analogy. There are all kinds of ways you pick up a rock and you say okay how old is this rock, which he was it doesn't talk and there's all kinds. How can I tell I can look at the chemical analysis of the rock. I can look at the where pattern it's obviously rounded I live in the middle of a gravel pit how many rounded rocks do we have around here, trillions of them okay. There's two options here they call this river rock which I think is a misnomer rivers we know tumble stones around and roll them and round them off against each other. Okay, like a rock tumbler would do, but Noah's Ark flood would know the flood of Noah's day would do the same thing. See if the tide came up and down on the earth like it does now but it was not interrupted. Right now the tide gets interrupted because there's things sticking up through the water called continents. Okay, during Noah's flood the tide would not have that interruption it could become harmonic harmonic tide on the earth to be about a 200 foot title change, as opposed to the average six or seven feet that it is now. So if the water came up 200 feet every six hours 12 and a half minutes. All that water has to come rushing in from the side being pulled by moon's gravity. So it obviously going to roll the rocks around. So I can choose to look at this rock and say wow this was tumbled around and Noah's flood. Because didn't know it was in the arc long enough for 880 title changes water going up down in out 880 times I think it's going to tumble stuff around. I think the flood is the best explanation for the the coal seems that we have why is coal always found in seems. Well, if the water came up 200 feet and came at this latitude where I'm at 31.35 degrees north latitude in Lenox, Alabama. The water would come rushing in at about 886 miles an hour that's the speed we're turning toward the east right now. There's several hours while the tide's coming up the water's rushing into that bump at 886 miles an hour. Well that's going to tumble the rocks around and round them. It's going to knock down the forest and drop a layer of mud on top and make coal found in seems. It's going to bury clam beds which is why we find millions maybe even billions of petrified clams in the closed position we've got thousands of them here in our museum somebody will grab me some out of the bookstore out of right next door this wall here. They find petrified clams closed on top of Mount Everest in Peru South America they found 500 giant fossilized oysters. I mean some of them 11 feet oysters don't get that big today. So I think the Bible says the scoffers in the last days would be ignorant of the creation and the flood and the coming judgment of God that's all in 2 Peter 3. So I think your farmhouse or some analogy would fail because of the fact that it's you don't know who I'll walk through that area and came in and out where the sunken ship is a more accurate one. So, Maddie if you have some evidence that the earth is billions of years old, it needs to be weighed against any evidence that it's young I think the ballpoint pen analogy most of our listeners are understanding. That's reasonable. This pen was not made in 5000 years ago. And if you think the earth is billions of years old, and yet we look at the facts and say wow, the earth is spinning but it's slowing down. The population is increasing the moon's getting farther from the earth. The erosion of the rate of the continents I mean there's all kinds of scientific indicators, it's not billions. So go ahead. I took too much time there. So but all of the things that you said like the rotation rate of the earth and how it slows I mean it's not. And the movement been further away none of those are incongruent with a billion 4.5 billion year old. It has to do with, I mean the earth moon system that has to do with the relative energy and the moon is slowly. So, it's more stable to have a tidally locked orbit like Mercury is. Certainly not. So that's not incongruent with with a 4.5 billion year old earth. I mean additionally, another way that you can get clams things like that up on the top of the mountain is plate tectonics. That's a possibility. If you have time, if you have lots of time, the plates could have moved that far but if it could be here some petrified closed clams if you come visit us I'll give you a bunch of them we got thousands of them place in Tennessee where they're 10 feet thick petrified closed clams has to be rapid burial, something we don't see today happening like that. Well I mean a mud slide. Okay, well, this is found worldwide. I have on my video number one I don't know if you've seen it or not, but we'll send you some if you'd like seminar part one I go through about 50 or 60 different scientific indicators, like the big 10 that the earth is not billions, or the universe cannot be billy for instance Jupiter's cooling off. Why do Jupiter and Saturn give off more heat than they receive. Well hold it. If the planet is cooling off, you'd have to say okay it used to be warmer, and at some point it's going to cool off. So if you want to ascribe billions of years to these planets you have to explain why they haven't gotten down to room temperature, you know freezing. Why, why are they still losing heat, you can't just keep losing heat forever. I think it's a gravitational collapse we can talk about Jupiter and Saturn if you'd like but I cover this with all the documentation on my space place dot NASA dot gov. It's really hot inside Jupiter no one knows how hot but they think it's 43,000 degrees Fahrenheit 24,000 centigrade. But yet Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off. So this type of thing if I mean if you came into a room and found a cup of coffee and I said don't touch the coffee it's hot. And you said how long has it been there I said oh for 2000 years. And you said come on cup of coffee is not going to stay hot for 2000 years. I mean we certainly don't know all of the internal processes of Jupiter right just same thing there's internal processes and Earth mantle that adds heat to our system if we were just cooling from like the energy it would take to bring all of the mass of the air under gravity. If we weren't heating adding heat to the system through mostly radioactive decay in the Earth's mantle, then the earth would not be livable right now so there are certainly no geologic geophysical processes that can continue to add heat to a system after it's formed. So Jupiter and Saturn not currently being being in radiative equilibrium with the sun doesn't point doesn't auto point to they, you know, doesn't auto point to an age. So, I do have a question what did you, did you have thoughts about my, my issue with impact craters and why the earth geologically looks very different than, than the moon because that's again that's something that I tried to put forward my reasoning there, and I can't see a way to reconcile that observed fact with a younger. See the moon has lots of craters on it. I didn't know somebody counted them that had to be a government project. It was me, actually. Okay, well good. Well, I think if the earth, I think my theory would be and I couldn't prove this to anybody but I just believe during the flood in the days of Noah, the Bible clearly teaches that before the flood came that says there was water in the crust of the earth. Today, well, our atmosphere several layers to it obviously we got the troposphere stratosphere missiles for ionosphere, there used to be a layer of, I think a couple inch thick layer of ice above that called the canopy theory. And again, that's, I think it's gone it fell down at the flood, but the Bible says God founded the earth upon the waters. And it says during the time of Noah, that the fountains of the deep broke open. I think everybody would agree there are still enormous amounts of water in the crust of the earth, you go down to the bottom of the ocean you see hot water vent shooting up into the bottom. One off there's hot water shooting up into the bottom of the ocean. Where does it have to be coming from down deeper than that. There are still huge pockets of really hot water in under the crust of the earth or within the crust of the earth. So my theory would be during the flood in the days of Noah. We still have the cracks of the earth cracked open and we still have the cracks today called fault lines the earth's all busted up like an egg shell. The water came shooting out along those cracks and probably launch things into orbit. You could be reasonably without much pressure, say five or 10 miles of rock on top of the water would reach escape velocity with some of the projectiles coming out. And so they probably made the craters on the moon from stuff flying off the earth. Maybe some of the asteroids and stuff flying around space today are still from stuff blasted off the earth. The earth doesn't have as many craters it was flooded. The flood would erase them all and reset the clock to zero. So if you would give me that idea that maybe the craters on the moon came from earth, being blasting the moon as it as the during Noah's flood. And some of the craters, some of the meteors came back and hit the earth. So we're still hitting up, you know, Beringer crater stuff like that we're still running into stuff, but it could have come from the earth itself. The explosion of the fountains of the deep breaking open. I agree the continents are moving a little bit by the fastest your fingernails grow. But that's if you want to say there's not no not enough craters on the earth because of the slow growth where you're ignoring the fact that the least the biblical teaching and thousands of ancient cultures maybe not thousands but hundreds of ancient cultures talk about a flood. Almost all ancient cultures have a legend of a worldwide flood and a legend of what they call the golden age when man used to live to be a thousand. So if you want to read the dates in the Bible, or into the Bible the people lived to be 900 years old before the flood, what it says. Before we get on that I kind of want to say so. I just before we got too far off I wanted to address a few things you said. So I certainly agree that a like catastrophic flooding something like that is is going to definitely cause a lot of erosion, right. I would need to run some numbers to see if it would be enough to do what you're talking about. Let's just let me just give you the benefit of the doubt and say that a flood like the one that you're describing would be able to erode away the craters. There's still kind of an issue because impact creators actually leave a distinct pattern in a planet's gravitational field. We know that they mess with the gravitational field. We know that from the Grail mission that was launched in 2012 it mapped craters on the moon. It shows some very wonky gravitational field. And that's also a way that we find craters that we can't see. So we know that there are craters on earth, where the visual impact of the crater has been completely eroded, but the gravitational signature is still there. So, I mean, I don't think that explanation quite works that water would completely erode and we wouldn't be able to see craters today. According to the Bible the flood knows in the arc for a year the flood actually lasted probably 230 some days, then he hit bottom and waited till stuff started growing again. So in 230 days of the water going up down up down in out 900 miles an hour at this latitude 1037 at the equator and zero at the polls. Yeah, it would erase everything including the magnetic signature would rearrange all the material. We have a few few magnetic signatures we see on the earth but I think to say that we don't we don't see enough craters on the earth therefore it must be billions of years old I think is. I don't follow the logic there at all and sorry Maddie I'm getting old and deaf and my left ear and going from working in the factory left to talk a little more clearly and slowly I didn't understand everything you said in the last one. Sorry, I can I can slow down I tend to talk quickly when I get excited. I did have a question when you're saying the rate at which the flood water is moving is that relative to is that relative motion relative to the speed of the earth or are you including Earth rotation and that. It's caused by the spin of the earth. I mean, the moon pulls up a bump of water on because of its gravity, and it holds that bump called the high tide while we spin around. So in order for the bump to stay stationary under the moon actually there's a little gravitational lag there are not gravitational lag where they called it anyway. It is okay. Rotational lag anyway, but the basically the high tide bump stays under the moon all the time. So the water has to be moving at the same speed the earth is turning at that latitude, which I'm in Lenox in Alabama so we're turning about 886 miles an hour. So, yeah, that's all the moon is causing the water to move on the earth. Yeah, but that's that's however many hundreds of miles an hour. And that's not the same as like, you know, 200 mile an hour straight wind coming from a tornado, right because that is. Sorry, I studied tornadoes a lot of time so I'm going to reference meteorology quite a bit. A 200 mile an hour wind that's the rotation rate of the earth, plus 200 more miles an hour. Because if it wasn't. So when you're talking about the tide moving it's not moving with the force of the rotation rate of the earth because that's it that's the it's that's not relative motion. And that's what matters when we're talking about impacts. So that's why a 200 mile an hour wind is crazy and will shoot a piece of straw through your window but if you're out on a still day we can absolutely say that that air is moving at that. However many thought I don't carry that number around to my. The air is gravitationally locked to the surface of the earth so that's you know that's not a problem. The tide so are affected by them actually the air is affected by the moon a little bit also there's a there's a tide. The air is a little thicker under the moon than it is I mean maybe take 1220 miles instead of 18 mile who care, but the, the air is not going to move back and forth do much at all due to the moon due to the tide though anybody studies oceanography will tell you the oceans because of their up and down movement and in and out. They're constantly eroding things on the bottom filling in trenches. The Navy has a special place in the Fort Collins Colorado where they have the sedimentation tanks because they want to know. Can we still park our submarine in that in that channel they're undersea channels that they look to hide their stuff in. And so they're always filling in and eroding new ones, there's there's erosion at the bottom of the ocean, as well as erosion on the continents, due to the oceans movement. And that is caused by almost exclusively by the tide of the earth moving up down in out. Right, but the rate of that motion that we would see in measure would be fairly slow. Oh, I don't think a 900 mile an hour water movement, of course, now the oceans if you're going to go ahead, sorry, or if the earth were smooth. Okay, if there were no just there's enough water out there right now to cover the earth about 8000 feet deep I don't think anybody argues with that. So there is enough water to flood the world. If you push all the continents down and just smooth out the crust everything's about a mile and a half deep 8000 feet roughly. So that allows the tide to become harmonic, whereas now it gets interrupted all the time, harmonic tide would be about a 200 foot title change so if there's already 8000 feet of water, and you're adding 200 feet. You can't say that all of that water is rushing along the bottom causing erosion and stuff like that but some of it certainly is. I mean, if you have a good analogy here if you could somehow get a swimming pool and then suck the water up five feet and Russia pulling it in from the sides it's going to it's going to do some damage to the surface. The whole point was, I don't think you could demonstrate that the craters are a problem for the young earth, you call it young earth for the biblical model view, because the flood would explain why there are so few craters. If you look at the Berengea crater I didn't go to the Quebec one is 47 miles across or whatever it is just really such a rain ring left and you can see the magnetic signature of that one up in Quebec Canada. That's the biggest one I'm aware of or you know what I want to study this but there are lots of craters on the earth but not near as many as the moon. And I think the flood would have erased them all. Plus if they're being, if the moon craters are from the earth, of course there's going to be less on the earth they came from here. Okay, so I disagree that the flood could erase crater signatures but I'm okay to move on to I wanted to talk about craters on the moon being from the earth if that's okay because I have an issue with that. And that's the far side of the moon is has a higher crater count density than the near side. So there's more craters on the far side, which never faces the earth. So if we're talking about impacts flinging up to the moon. Then how would you get more on the far side if these are coming from, if these are coming from the earth if they're coming from asteroids and leftover pieces that weren't incorporated into planets that are moving sort of equally in all directions that's no problem. But if you're saying it's directionally from the earth, I don't see how you get the far side covered. A good question and fair question. If if the flood model of the given in the Bible is correct and the fountains of the deep broke open and you had 10 miles of rock which equals about 30 tons per square inch on anything under that 30 tons per square 60,000 psi with as the water is escaping up along these cracks, certainly it's going to launch things out. And the moon would be hit direct on the near side would be hit face on you know like a shotgun, the stuff that went past it, or that was drawn in gravitationally later would generally be smaller stuff the craters on the far side of the moon are smaller, as well as Are there craters on the far side as big as the ones on the near side. Yes. I'm sorry I personally did an undergraduate research project where I measure. The reason the reason there's different, different crater patterns different number of craters on both sides is easily explained by my theory that it got blasted from the earth. And stuff the random stuff flying through space is going to be sucked in by gravitational fields of earth or moon or any of the planets. And you would have to explain why is there a difference at all why why isn't it equally distributed over the moon, you know the crater pattern ought to be the same all the way around if if it is indeed caused by random, you know strikes from space from all directions. Why is, why is the near side different than the far side, the near side is different do you see those. Oh, sorry, the dark spots the mare on the moon. And those are the leftovers of really large impact events that were slightly later. So one form of relative dating. So can't can't give you an age but can say that this is older than that has for planetary bodies is crater counts. And so the mare the dark parts are, you had a very, very large impactor come in, it partially melted the surface which is why it's that black basaltic material instead of the light or north of sites that's the rest of the moon. And then, then those were later cratered more. Right so there's that are on top of the dark parts have to have happened after the dark parts formed. So the far side of the moon is there are no more on the far side of the moon it's just the north of sites. Why are there no more on the far side of the moon I mean, again, if it's getting hit randomly from space for milk billions of years. There wasn't a big one hit out there and enough to melt it to I agree that the dark spots in front of being melted and stuff but. I mean, quite possibly and I don't know why that the the near side is preferentially head on. So that's that's to my knowledge I don't think I think that's an open question. So, okay, I don't have enough. Fair enough. Would you agree then that my theory that the earth is only 6000 years old and the moon was created with the earth and it got moon got its craters basically from Noah's flood the damage from that. And that certainly hasn't been disproven in any way by the cratering on the moon I think there's a reasonable explanation that you'll see both of our both both theories creation and evolution, and both theories, you know 6000 and billions. Neither one can be technically proven in a laboratory, but all of us are paying for the one theory the billions of years part to be taught all the kids in school, and it's actually a it's a belief you have to believe that it's a religious belief that you know the moon is billions of years old. We see the moon is leaving us at Google physics.org has a section on that the moon is moving away from the earth. Right now the moon is moving away from the earth at the rate of four centimeters a year. Okay, well that means it used to be closer. You can't go back more than about one and a half billion years before the gravitational collapse. There's a quick assumption you're making there that I want to point out and that is that the moon has always moved away at that rate. And it's it's there's there's that energy of that coupled system of the earth moon gravitational system. That system is net losing energy. But before the moon started moving away that loss of energy went into tidally locking the moon into its current orbit. Well now title locking is unrelated to the moon distance that's just the spin of the moon. The moon spends once every 27 and a half days and it goes around once every 27 or whatever 28 days or whatever. The tidal locking is unrelated to the distance increasing. All the all the websites are saying here's Astro dot Cornell University, the moon is moving away four centimeters a year 3.8. I'm not debating that what I'm saying is that the moon is moving away because of that's do you agree that that's fundamentally related to the earth moon and the graph system and the gravitational pull between the two. You taught physics you know about the inverse square law if you bring if you bring the moon into one half the distance you quadruple the attraction. Right, take the one half and flip it in and square it. So all the all the all the research on this is said look, the moon and cannot read from, let's see, from the journal. I mean, 25 years ago they knew this, the evolution of the lunar semi major axis presents a well known timescale problem. The lunar orbit collapses a little over a billion years ago. So if you have a coin in the box again or the big pen, just the moon, the moon, the moon Earth distance tells you, I'm sorry, you got to fit your theory into 1 billion years, you can't have 4.6 billion. No, it doesn't. No, it doesn't. And the reason that it doesn't is because so do you know how the moon. Do you know the site the current accepted scientific understanding of informed. That's part of these cut out of the current scientific understanding of what of how Earth's moon formed. I would say the current scientific belief of how earth moon form. Okay. Yeah, I understand what they teach I don't believe it at all I think it's a silly theory but go ahead. Then I'm asking if I need to explain, let me let me just say so the current understanding is that a Mars sized body collided with the earth and ripped off part of it that then coalesced into the moon. And the moon's gravity is not strong enough to make it the moon is nearly a perfect sphere. And there's not a gravitational pull to draw it into a ball like that. When you drop a hot liquid it's going to pull itself into a ball because of surface tension. You think the moon I think that's what you're saying been disproven dozens of years ago. This is very new. This is this is like within the last decade the models have worked this out. This is new coalescing theory I'm familiar with that. Yeah, but I think I think it's been proven wrong years ago, but are they still teaching that somewhere. Gravity pulling things together into a sphere. That's that's what I mean by coalescing into a sphere. I understand the center of the moon is the center of its gravity and it would pull things right. I understand all that, but to pull it into a perfect sphere. After an impact with the earth, something impacted the earth and broke off a piece is called the ejection theories what you're talking about. I'm not aware anybody's still teaching that but they're wrong. It was liquid. And then not anyone. That's the current understanding. So when that formed, right that doesn't mean that the moon was right next to the earth it was already some distance away. Right, and makes the problem worse. If the moon was already if it was ejected out. What's what's going to keep what's going to stop it from going and getting into into an orbit. So how do you get a piece ejected off the earth into an orbit. So it's not a piece. It's, it's the impact is so much that it liquefies the earth primordial earth on impact, right, and then rips that liquid rock out into space. Small pieces of liquid silica, right, are gravitationally attracted to each other, more so than the earth, because they're closer together. Right. And so now we have the moon at some distance. Now we have an earth moon gravitational system, and there's a certain energy in that system. There's two main ways to lose energy from that gravitational system. The first is by slowing down the rotation rate of the moon. Right. So we slow down the rotational rate of the moon until it's tightly locked and in the most energetically stable orbit it can be on. Right. The system is still losing energy. Now what does that look like once the orbit is in its most stable state. Now that looks like the moon moving away. So the moon earth moon distance issue is fundamentally an issue of energy loss and you can lose energy in more than one way, and you're going to lose it in the you're going to make the most gravitationally stable orbit you can first. I agree the moon is gravitationally locked to the earth we only see one side all the time. And I agree that it's a near perfect circular orbit I mean it's slightly elliptical you know the apogee and perigee, but the the to go from an ejection from the earth into a circular orbit. I don't think anybody's ever solved the physics on that I think you're taken if you think they may be teaching it, but it's not true it's not possible. Well the moon not only creates the tide on the earth it creates a drag and it slows the earth down about 1000th of a second every day, because of this title drag. So the earth is slowing in its spin and the moon is receding in its distance. I would say this is like my analogy of the coins in the box. These are some things that are hard to get around for those who want to teach you know 4.5 billion years. The orbit collapses bringing the moon back in closer to four centimeters a year. It constantly increases the gravitational pull. And at some point with inverse square law you're going to collapse the orbit that's what they're all saying. The evolution of the lunar semi major axis presents a well known time scale problem. It collapses a little over a billion years ago. There are all kinds of scientific articles about this the Darwin-Mignard tides collapse faster. So I think. Right and I see that but that paper is also from 94 which for planetary science is kind of ancient. I'm pointing out 25 years ago they knew this was a problem I don't think they've solved it. They have. They have in the way that I just described. I think they're ignoring a problem rather than solving it. Okay, if the moon is getting further away that means it used to be closer. Yeah, bringing it closer creates numerous problems. Gravitational pull increases and it creates higher tides on the earth which is even more erosion features on the beaches. The closer you get the higher the tides become. So if somebody I'd like to see a paper if somebody's actually solved it did they just give an answer or did they give a scientific answer. So I've read the paper I can't remember the title off the top of my head but I can look that up off stream and send that to you if you'd like. Yes, I would. But see, this is an example though of just one coin in the box that you guys are going to have to explain if you want and keep in mind for your audience here. The whole argument for evolution hinges on lots of time. Even with lots of time. It doesn't help I think because we never seen a dog produce a non dog or a cow produce a non cow. We certainly never seen a rock come alive. It really like to stick to geophysics and not biology. My point is, time is not going to help. So, but geophysics the earth is spinning. If the earth was and it's slowing down for title friction on the earth liquid friction inside the underside the crust under the crust of the earth. The slowing spin of the earth is another problem. If you go back in time and add a thousandth of a second every day now whether it's linear or logarithmic or I don't know it doesn't matter either way it's a problem. So this increasing the speed of the earth makes it flatten out like a frisbee instead of like a ball. It is slightly equatorial balls now so am I by the way I'm working on it. The spin of the earth and the receding moon and the cratering on the moon all fit perfectly fine into the biblical model of 6000 years ago created and which is another big problem where does matter come from and this energy you keep talking about losing energy. I agree. The systems are all losing energy. So you have to start with energy somewhere who provided all this who's buying the gas to run this machine anyway it's a lot of energy in the universe. A lot of energy. And that all came from a dot exploding or nothing. I'm happy to talk about Big Bang if you'd like to move there but before we go there was one thing you made earlier on that I wanted to address before we move away. Okay, and that was the dome of ice over the earth. Do you mind if you talk about that for a bit. So I have heard in other debates that you that that dome would be super cool because it's in contact with the like with open space which is in our solar system like 40 Kelvin so very close to absolute zero. Is that a position that you hold. Well, the, certainly the Bible teaches that people before the flood live to be 900 years old I mean that's what it says, and many ancient cultures have legends of that and we find fossils of animals that are absolutely enormous by today standards. They find fossils of insects like dragonflies with 50 inch wingspan. They can't possibly get that big today because of the surface area to volume ratio problem they breathe through spiracles in their skin. So that on my video number two so I say, yes, the, the, there was what the Bible says there was water above the atmosphere where the birds fly the firmament it's called in Genesis chapter one. So the Jews have always taught that there was a crystalline canopy two or three fingers thick. I think we both agree that the earth does the atmosphere does have distinct layers. You can look at the clouds and they're flat on the bottom and puffy on top why are they flat on the bottom. There are layers to our atmosphere crystal canopy say 10 miles up just to pick a number, a couple inch thick layer of ice would make the whole earth like a big greenhouse it would protect it. If that ice was super cold, they would if that's the edge of our of our atmosphere and the rest is outer space. When it shattered from the fountains of the deep breaking open ice super cold ice is magnetic, it would be sucked in and dumped on the poles, which is probably where most of the ice age ice came from. But I cover all that on my video number two. This and I call it the hope and theory. I'm not demanding everybody teach this to everybody at taxpayer expense. I'm allowed to teach and believe whatever I want. So, I don't think there's a problem there. I do believe there was a canopy of ice above the atmosphere. I couldn't prove it anybody that's just that I believe I think a lot of evidence solves a lot of. It answers a lot of questions for what we see on earth with the giant insects and the great age and the huge huge lizards called dinosaurs that lived with man. They did not live millions of years ago but go ahead. I'm sorry. Okay, so the and if if there were an ice dome at sort of capping Earth's atmosphere right if that were there. Um, it wouldn't be super cold right it would be the top of the atmosphere is in radiative equilibrium with the sun. So it's and that you can do that it's a simple calculation for black body radiation temperature. It's about 255 Kelvin, which is about zero degrees Fahrenheit would be as cold as that can get because it would need to be in black body radiation black body equilibrium with incoming solar radiation. Well, I'm looking at a picture from an earth science textbook here talking about at the at the lower edge of the thermosphere. It is minus 80 degrees minus 80. Okay, so I think everybody would agree that the our atmosphere as you go up it goes to different temperature higher temperature lower temperature various there's a lot of factors involved in this but so the thermal incline what's the term for that anyway that I forget now it's been 20 we call it lapse rate in meteorology. Okay, so the earth's atmosphere does have I mean ask anybody's gone up in a jet plane it's cold up there if you don't open the window you know it's real cold like 80 below zero. So what it would take to keep ice up there would only take anything below 32. So I don't know. I know that super cold ice is magnetic when you I don't know what temperature it actually becomes magnetic because the, the hydrogen oxygen molecules rearrange and it becomes a laminated hydrogen oxygen hydrogen oxygen. Instead of the normal matrix that you get from ice locking together because of 105 degree angle in the water molecule. Right. I think that the crystalline canopy theory, this guy calls it a vapor canopy I disagree I think it was ice. It could have been held up like an inflatable building just air pressure could have held it it could have been held up by the magnetic field it could have been held up by centrifugal force are all three combined. Okay, so it wouldn't work. What no air pressure wouldn't work. If you had a solid air pressure works fine on my tires. It's equally distributed in there and holds the whole car up off the road. But that's certainly not what we observe the earth's atmosphere right density decreases, exponentially with height. So I'm just proposing that the earth atmosphere was fun to mentally different before. If the earth were completely encapsulated right now, if you could squeeze all the air down to 10 miles and seal it off in a like a big tire. Of course it would be fine. I don't they do inflatable buildings that way. I mean here's picture one right here. This is quite common. All the tires and I'm aware of do this kind of thing. So, I don't understand the problem. Well, because that's not what the atmosphere looks like. Right. That's not what the atmosphere looks like now so I'm just inclined to say that the atmosphere in the past would have been have fundamentally different properties right then it would have today without any type of evidence for that. Well, I'm saying if you did today's atmosphere varies let's just pick a number and say it's 50 miles thick for the sake of the argument here. Let's put all the air down into 10 miles or 15 miles and covered it with a couple inch layer of ice and a crystal ball. Okay, a globe, a globe sphere, then at the surface air pressure is much greater, and everything can breathe better. And that's what hyperbaric chambers are all about they use them in hospitals all the time high pressure air makes everything heal faster. It certainly is not harmful. And we see evidence in the fossils of giant creatures that are found eight foot beavers have been found. We got beavers in our lake down here we'd like to shoot because they keep plugging up our culvert but they don't get eight foot beavers today beavers never stopped growing, but they don't get to eight feet. So, something was different on this planet the fossil record is very clear. Lots of animals were huge in the past. And in the creation view. This was pre flood. When the Bible says the people live to be 900. In the evolution view this was pre historic. Well, this either way. So, we agree things were bigger insects have a surface area to volume ratio problem. If I took a cube that was one inch by one inch by one inch. The square of how surface area relates to volume. Okay, well, my point is, if a cube is one by one by one it has six square inches of surface and one cubic inch of volume. Yeah, if I double it so it's six to one surface area to volume. If I double it to two by two by two. It now has 24 square inches of surface volume increases. Insects insects that have to breathe through their skin through spiracles. They don't have a lung system. They don't actively suck it in their breath. Well, the spiracles, they're limited because one thing I want to mention is we have a few more minutes before we go into the q amp a insects are limited in size today because of the air pressure. If the air pressure were greater insects could get bigger. We find fossils of them that are huge 18 inch cockroaches have been found fossilized. I understand the problem that you're presenting can my quick rebuttal to that would be, I mean, we might not have eight foot beavers but we certainly have elephants. Right, we certainly have very large land mammals and land creatures today. I think we probably kind of hit an impasse on that. Okay, I want to address one other thing about the ice but there's sort of one point I want to come to you. Do you at least agree that there is no natural process that would cause that ice dome to form. Right. What to form I know I think it was all created. I think it was integrated integrated because of the Noah's flood but no the formation. There's no natural process to make the earth out of nothing either. I'm going to leave that but at least so I the my issue one of my issues with the dome is that there's not a natural process that would cause it. If you're not claiming a natural process then that's that's okay. One quick thing about the ice though the ice is ice is not very good at protecting you from UV. It's good at reflection overall we probably increased planetary albedo from its current point three to more like point six or point seven five. So it would reflect lots of things but ice is good at absorbing in the infrared not in the UV so it's I think I've heard you say that it would ice would help protect from incoming UV radiation. I may be wrong on that. Thank you for pointing that out. I'll fix that. Yeah, increasing air pressure and ice doll would act as a filter for some of the things coming from the sun, maybe not the UV right but go ahead. Yeah. And I think we're going to hit an impasse on that Kent because I I'm not going to accept something without a natural cause and and you're not claiming that so that's that's that's fine. Okay, I know we probably don't have much time James was there anything else with the ice we wanted to talk about I think I hit my main points. I don't know if you wanted to address big bang or possibly solar system formation. I would point out when the space shuttle takes off the exhaust from the space shuttle forms ice crystals. Alright, here's the article from astronomy.com back in 03 June 13th of 03 ice clouds forming from space shuttles exhaust, then the clouds drift over the poles. The clouds from the exhaust from the clouds of ice are sucked into the poles because super cold ice is magnetic. Why would it go over the north and south pole. If you read the book of Josephus which was written about the time of Jesus Christ there the Jewish teaching at the time was on the second day he set the heaven above the universe surrounding it with ice. That's what they've always taught okay translation of Josephus he put a crystalline firmament around it. This Jewish book taught that the thickness was between three being three fingers. This guy said the thickness is two fingers and some people sure they've split the church started the church of the two fingers and the church of the three fingers but the point is there's a couple inches of ice layer. This is what they've always taught. I happen to believe that theory. The legend of the Jews by Lewis Ginsburg. Second day he made the he stretched a crystalline firmament over the heads of the Hyatt. He made it to crystallize similar to an igloo I guess you can go inside an igloo and build a fire and you can't melt the roof, because it conducts the heat away so I don't think there's any problem with my ice canopy theory but I do specify it as a theory, and it certainly does answer why we get giant insect fossils. Okay. So we want to talk about big bang or solar system formation made a couple points on that. Go ahead. What's your theory on the big bang. What exploded where did it come from where did the energy come from, where did space come from towards or to explode into. Okay, great. So, this isn't my theory this is sort of current consensus scholarship would be that. Explosion is a bit of a misnomer. So what we're talking about is a rapid expansion. Right, right. Right. And so that's just kind of an important thing because explosion sort of puts a certain thing in our minds about, you know, like a bomb going off or something like that which is which is certainly not what the big bang theory says. So the basic idea is that so one on the question of so what it would have been all energy, right, we have started with this all energy in a super dense point. Which then became unstable and rapidly expanded. The, where did the energy come from that's on that is an unknown in the scientific field. The current understanding is that sort of energy is maybe eternal, it might be the best way to say that. And that energy sort of is, we have never observed a process that can either create or destroy energy. So why would that be different if we go very far back in time, right. And in terms of where did the space come from that that expanded into a best we think about that is going to be think of it as a as a balloon, right where everything that's formed is then you stick it to the surface of the balloon and they start to blow that balloon up right so it's creating a space as it goes right. And I think then the question is how is that a thing that we know right what evidence do we have that suggests that this is true. One of the best points is universal background microwave radiation. So if you take a nice microwave telescope you point it anywhere in the sky, you will always get the same constant background signal, right. So it's not coming from one single source it seems to be coming from everywhere, all the time pretty quick here, just because we, I'll give you a chance to wrap up and then pretty soon going to q amp a great. Okay, sorry. Um, I'll just stick with there's other things that's point to the big bang but I'll stick to background background microwave radiation, because I certainly want to give can to chance to respond to that argument. Okay, well, so, according to this big bang theory that I understand they're currently teaching is that all the matter in the universe was in a dot smaller than a proton. A bowling ball into a dot smaller than a BB. This is pure imagination. All the energy and man matter was in a dot. Just stop and stand back and look at this idea how dumb this is. You can't squeeze a gallon of milk into a dot smaller than a bowling but the smaller than a BB. And the whole Pacific Ocean was squeezed in there and all the earth and all the planets and all the stars it is so far out there it's absolutely insane that person would believe that. It didn't explode it expanded rapidly. Well, it went from this dot to what 26 how many billion light years across in in a nanosecond. So the matter is moving faster than the speed of light. You'd have a hard time getting a light to move faster than the speed of light but they want to actually accelerate the matter. And you said that is like a balloon it's creating the space as it expands. And you said the energy might be eternal. It's really an admission and thank you that we don't know and something has to be eternal time space and where did time come from if the big bank took place 13.8 billion years ago. What was there 14 billion years ago or 15 or 16 or 200 or 10 billion billion 10 trillion years ago. So is time eternal is matter eternal is space eternal time energy matter space these things. The Bible answers that in 10 words in the beginning their time God created the heaven their space and the earth matter. I believe by faith God did it you believe by faith matter did it or energy did it. It's a religion Matty you have you hold to a religion you don't have a science science. A super short and pithy response Matty like literally 30 seconds or so and then we do have to jump into these questions folks got to let you know with our limited time with our guests. We probably I would say at this point any new questions that come in after this moment we I don't think we're going to get to them. So I want to give you that warning but Matty go ahead with your last rejoinder. Okay, so first thing I very specifically said energy not matter so matter can be created from energy so we don't need to push the matter all together just the energy. And to I would not characterize my view of how the universe came into existence as a belief system, but rather as an acceptance of the preponderance of evidence. Gotcha, we are going to jump into the Q&A folks want to remind you that our guests are linked in the description. So if you want to hear more whether you were listening here on YouTube or via the modern day debate podcast because we are on podcast. Look us up if you haven't already, you can find our guest links in the description box for the podcast episode as well. And so thanks so much for your question this one coming in from top hot to thank you. This is we had some support super chats yesterday because we as you all know we persevered and this debate happened which we're really thankful for our guests. Thank you for your kind words and support after yesterday's miss but we're glad it happened today and Steven Steen says dad. I don't know. Not my son junk shop library says please ask Dr. Hovind to quote Coleridge quote water water everywhere, nor any drop to drink. What on earth does that have to do with anything. I don't know. Next up Chris. He's talking about a sailor lost in a boat out at sea and he's water water wherever he can't drink it because it's salt water. I mean it's unrelated to what we're talking about. You got an increased gammon says Maddie Rock. Look, let's see you got a fan out there Maddie as well and then they say thanks James for everything you do and Kent for being here to present your arguments. So thanks for your kind words Chris that's encouraging and Sebastian says it's my desire to see Kent Hovind do science in his defense. I want to see him. Let's see the debate the best flat earther there is using science as his weapon. I think they mean against Nathan Thompson. I don't know if that'll happen. Maybe someday. But next up Sigma and he says let's see we're looking for a more serious questions. P barn says skin regenerates every 27 days using Ken's quote unquote coins in a box analogy. Does that make me under a month old. This is nothing to do with the coin analogy. You're adding new skin cells to your body on the surface. What on earth is that have to do with the coin analogy. So again it's like the farmhouse you're being itself being added coins aren't being added to the sunken ship. Got you and this one coming in from Steven Steen says Kent is my hero. I want to take my kids down to dinosaur adventure land for a science fuel trip. Got a fan out there as well. Ken and then Amy new make bring them down. Everything's free. We've had people visit from 60 countries and all 50 states. We've had some skeptics and scoffers and atheists and evolution has come come on down. Our science center is really incredible. I think you'll love it. Come on down. You got it and thank you Amy Sue says after show on Amy Newman's channel. That's linked in the description folks and says for Kent if I have a question. If you were no longer a Christian would you stop believing the age of the earth was 6000 years old. Oh absolutely not. My belief in the age of the earth has only to do with science. Maybe only to do but as I said at the beginning there's a biblical answer and a scientific answer. I think the scientific answer shows clearly this earth cannot be billions of years old. We see the earth slowing down in its spin. We see the oceans filling in with sediments. We see the mountains eroding down not up. We see some you know uplifting of the fuselage because of continental flexing. But we see the moon getting further away. We see the sun is obviously burning up 5 million tons a second. All the indicators we see are everything going down down down this it puts a time limit. All of these factors put some kind of time limit when you add them all up. I'd say it would be completely illogical to believe the earth is billions of years old scientifically. Without the bible. Gotcha and thank you very much. Brandon Ardeline says Kent have you ever considered using your resources to perform experiments that substantiate the young earth model? In other words I think they mean like your own experiments out there as the flat earthers do. The earth is not flat. Kansas is flat but the rest of it's round. So I'd be glad to debate them if I don't want to waste time on that. Okay I can prove from our lake out here on our property that the earth is round. And we almost got it done to set up laser at each end. Go to the middle. There'll be a rise in the lake just in a couple in a thousand feet. You'll see the earth is round on our lake. So I'm sorry that some people fell for that when they started teaching that. We do experiments here all the time. I mean that's our science center. It's all hands-on stuff. Blow things up, burn things down. Come on down. Gotcha. And thank you very much Vincent Doan who says, Kent were the continents and Mount Everest not there before the flood? How did these continents form without superheating the earth? Extinct clams die in the closed position. They aren't the same as modern ones. Well the crust of the earth is broken up like an egg shell. I don't think anybody argues with that. If the earth were completely covered in water on a broken crust, you get a section of the crust, the size of Texas let's say, and it's got a mile of water on it. It's one place slowly sinks in, other place lifts up. Now the water is going to run off to the low spot just with gravity toward the center of the earth. So it's interesting if you look at any globe, nearly all the mountain ranges follow the coastlines. Why do the Rocky Mountains follow the Pacific coastline? And these mountains follow the Mediterranean and the South American mountains follow the South Pacific. The Appalachian mountains follow the North Atlantic. I think the Bible says in Psalm 104, at the end of the flood, the mountains arose, the valley sank down and the water rushed off. I think Grand Canyon probably formed in less than a week. I covered that in one of our demonstrations here, Rapid Formation of Canyon. Google Damn Break at Dinosaur Adventureland on YouTube. And watch, we did damn washed out in seven minutes. So I think all the erosion features can be explained by the flood waters running off of the earth. And the crust of the earth flexing up and down like it's still doing today, probably started because of the flood, the crust of the earth being disrupted and flexing up and down. So they're moving up and down slowly, but most of the rapid movement was during Noah's flood. And second Peter said the scoffers are ignorant of the flood. I don't think you'd study earth science and being a good student of earth science without understanding. There was a flood, a global flood. Next one, Stephen Steen says Kent is the greatest scientist of our time. Next up, thank you very much, Sigma N. He says, Hi Kent, why did Noah make a detour to drop kangaroos off at Australia and what, quote unquote, kind do kangaroos belong to? As far as I'm aware, kangaroos only produce baby kangaroos. I don't think anybody's ever seen any exceptions to that. There are several different varieties of kangaroos. But after the flood, I cover this on my video number six called the Hoven theory. I think we'd all agree that the earth has oceans on it and the oceans have different depths. There's a thing called a continental shelf around all the continents. Some places not very wide, some places is really wide. Between Vietnam and Australia, the water in here is incredibly shallow. I mean, like 30 to 50 feet, the width of this room. So if you lowered the ocean, the ocean's average 12,000 feet deep right now. If you look, if you took 100 feet of water out of the ocean, 100 feet, freeze it, stick it on the north and south pole. If the ice caps are bigger, the oceans are lower, common sense 101. If you lowered the oceans, all the continents are connected. How did the kangaroos get from Noah's Ark landing in Turkey to Australia? They hop. That's how they get everywhere. So if just by lowering the oceans 100 feet is plenty to connect everything, Australia would be a peninsula rather than an island. I cover this video number six and with all the maps and charts and depths of the water and everything. So Google it. Just Google earth, Indonesia. And look, the water is real shallow. It's a giant continental shelf. You got it. And Vlad says, Kent reminds me, let's see. Looking for more serious questions, folks. Vincent Don says almost every civilization is near water, especially ancient ones. Of course, places that only know what is around them will think that their world is flooded. So I think they're claiming that's the explanation from their perspective on the global flood idea that is. What he's trying to say is he's smart. Everybody before him was dumb. That's how it would translate what he said. Go ahead. So I think that they were saying that the reason that there's a global flood idea all around the world in the ancient world, ancient history, is they're saying because every civilization was near water. And so at some point they experienced a massive flood at one point or another. And so therefore they started a legend that the whole world was flooded. Again, I'm going back to, he's thinking, I'm smart. Everybody else is dumb. They're too dumb to realize. I mean, most people when a flood comes along, they're smart enough to move. Why would God tell no one to build a boat? Tell him to move. It had to be a worldwide flood. He had 100 years warning. I think you could move anywhere in 100 years. Got you. And Howard Moore says 900 years divide 900 by 12. Could it be that the years were actually moon cycles rather than earth orbits? In other words, 900 moons would equal 75 years. I understand that argument. If you look at the dates in Genesis chapter 5, two of the people before the flood were 65 when they became a father. Divide that by 12. The kid's five and a half and he becomes a daddy. I don't think so. Got you. And Vincent Doan says what would the velocity have to be to have earth chunks leave the atmosphere? The moon has not always been moving at the same rate. There are other factors. Well, the escape velocity from the earth varies with your altitude, but about 17,000 miles an hour I think is escape velocity if I recall 17,500. And there's a lot of factors involved in this. But if you had 60,000 psi, which is right now what you have at 10 miles down, a cubic foot of rock weighs, I forget, I'm going to do all the math on video number six if you're watching to show the picture. A cubic foot of rock stacked up, you know, a cubic feet stacked up, you know, 10 miles is going to put 60,000 pounds per square inch. If you get a crack in the rock, stuff can go shooting up at incredible velocities enough to break edges off the pieces off the side and launch them into space. I don't think it's a problem with that much pressure reaching escape velocity. For heaven's sake, Mattie's theory has something coming in hitting the earth and the whole moon leaves with escape velocity. Next up, this one coming in from crepitus s says Kent, are you familiar with the time cube? Is that how dinosaurs met Jesus? Not sure what they mean. I don't know about the time cube. I don't know if dinosaurs met Jesus or not, but reptiles never stopped growing today. And the Bible says they lived to be 900. So reptiles living to be 900 would get 40, 55 feet long. I think dinosaurs were just big lizards or reptiles. They didn't make up the word dinosaur till 1841. So they probably called them dragons before that or some other name for their culture, maybe behemoth. Like in Job chapter 40 or Leviathan mentioned about eight or 10 times in the Bible. So yeah, they had different names for it. They just changed the name to dinosaur in 1841. I think they've always lived with, there might be some still around. There've been a lot of strange sightings, kind of like Loch Ness monster stuff. And that's on video number three all about dinosaurs. Gotcha. This one from Captain Crunch says, but you're explaining title deceleration far too complex way. I think that was from Maddie. They said, let's see, use words like budge and tugs forward. Sigma and he says Kent out of curiosity. How many folks back there? Let's see. It sounds like you have a crowd. We hope you're all doing well at dinosaur adventure land. And they, okay, they asked, do you have help? Do you have someone that is giving you answers? No one's helping me answer the questions tonight. I've done these many times. We have, I think we probably have 40 or 50 people that live here. People come and go all the time. Some stay longer than we'd like. But they just come to volunteer and help us build the place. It's an amazing place. It just is. I like it here. Dinosaur adventure land. Okay. Come on down. See the place. It's free. What else do you want? I pay for the food. I pay for the electricity, the utility, the house. We got 20 cabin spaces, 20 motor home hookups. So we just, we just want to win souls to Christ. Maddie, we want to win you to the Lord. You're going to make a great Christian when we get you converted. I know that Erica gut sick given is looking for a spot for her marriage ceremony and reception. Do you guys do that at dinosaur adventure land? We have had about 30 weddings here and they've discovered that who can live with people is one, but only for half as long. Interesting. And miss tree. Thanks for your question said Kent, if you need, let's see. Okay. So this is going back to Maddie's point that a paper was dated. They said Kent, if you needed brain surgery and your surgeon insisted on using methods from 1994, would you be okay with that? Well, the assumption is that the, because some things old, therefore it's no longer true. This too was for a long time ago. I don't think they've changed that at all. I think many real, real scientific facts don't have, they don't change. They're just true. The inverse square law, that's true 1000 years ago and it's true today. It'll be true tomorrow. So that's a silly argument to say because the lunar orbit collapsing was the article was from 1994. I didn't have time to try to find a more recent one. But I mean, it's busy down here. Am I busy or what around here? Okay. Okay. Four o'clock comes early. I don't do anything at four, but it comes early anyway. So I think they have lots more to do than this. And so I didn't, I try. I didn't get time, but I'll check if there's some scientific proof that the lunar orbit could exist for longer than 1.4 billion years. I'd like to see the math on that. I've got a note. I'm going to send you that paper. Yeah, send that to me, Maddie. Gotcha. And given that we, I'm surprised. I'm looking through the list. We have zero questions for Maddie. If you want to jingle in, you're welcome to Maddie. And Crabbit is S, let's see. Vincent Don says Kent animals were bigger because more plants and more oxygen. It's been studied and understood. Also, ERVs, right Kent? There's a great article about the ERVs. If you'd like to go to ICR, Institute for Creation Research.org. ER, we'll get an ERVs another night. That's not on this topic tonight. And I've got a hot date with my wife here. I got to go to soon. How much longer we got here, James? Just a few minutes. Okay. A question from here. You got one from Maddie from here, James. Can you take one from my audience? Take one. Yeah. Okay, go ahead. Talk louder. Talk fast. What does superheated rock cool down into? Good point. Superheated rock. What does it cool into? What type of rock does it make? So are you referring to the formation of the saltic rock? Like with the, the moon and what you see on ocean floors? No. Get up here. We're talking to Mike Bretherkin. Volcanic rock, right? Well, Volcanic rock, sorry. The igneous rock. That's fine. Yeah. I'll just go back to Volcanic rock. Okay, go ahead. So, so if it was a superheated earth and everything was molting, molten, how would it cool down and there'd be sand and water? Anything. It would, why isn't everything igneous rock? Yeah. Okay. Can I take a minute or two? Yeah, go ahead. Good. Okay. So, um, the earth is bimodal, right? We have a bimodal, bimodal rock. And it's called the continental crust. So ocean, ocean crust is that igneous. And by and large, continental crust is not. Um, I didn't talk about the processes by which continental crust is formed, but they're formed, um, much slower processes and their form. Specifically where you see subducting oceanic plates under continental plates. So it's bringing in that raw material. It's also bringing water down with it. So you get some melting of the mantle. idea of processes you can make different types of continental crust. So continental crust is formed by a different process than what I described with the ocean floor crust and it would also be different from if you had like a molten earth and it solidified you're absolutely right you would start with all of that like igneous type rock and then so to get continental crust you would need those other processes that occur right at the boundary of the mantle and the crust. Gotcha and thank you very much for your question this one from Silver Harlow let's see said dear Kent at 552 pacific time you said quote the fossil record is clear unquote just wanted to get that on the record would you still agree with that Kent the fossil record is clear what they call the fossil the fact is there are a lot of fossils in the ground a lot of fossils like way more than we have a life today or lots of fossil fossils don't form today in any significant I'm not aware of any fossils forming today dear get hit on the highway all the time around here in Alabama none of them fossilize so the fact that we have fossils at all is indication of rapid burial like Noah's flood so all the fossils indicate that creatures were bigger so the record that we can interpret by reading what we see in the fossils is wow something was different on the planet I don't believe there's a fossil record where you can put them in some kind of order and say that they're dated they're telling the kids in school the top layers younger than the bottom layer you know the geologic column I say stop stop where's this top layer coming from outer space no all the layers are the same age if you shuffle a deck of cards is the top card younger no they got shuffled all the layers we see in the earth formed during Noah's flood they're all the same age there's no such thing as a drastic period no such thing it's all baloney it's logical nonsense to say the top layers younger gotcha they're all the same age this one coming in sorry Vincent don't I miss your question we do have one or two for Maddie they said Maddie can you talk about the big bang for a lay person because I still don't understand it quite yet yeah sure um so the big bang okay most people are familiar with the uh with Einstein's equation like an e equals mc squared right energy is mass times the speed of light squared so what that tells us is that you can convert mass and turn it into pure energy like a like a photon electromagnetic waves right but you can also do the reverse you can take a photon and turn it into mass and matter um great way that you see this is a pair production that's that's a nuclear reaction that's constantly observed where a photon splits in an electron and a positron um so big bang where it comes from is we measure this constant background microwave radiation right and we also measure that everything is moving further apart right not only so if you point your telescope up at the sky everything you see is moving away from earth but it's also moving away from each other right so if things are further apart now then they were yesterday they probably used to be closer together right um so if you take all of that and kind of bring it together then what you get is you can contract everything back to basically a single point and the understanding is that was um extremely high just obscenely crazy high intense energy point of energy and then when that became unstable it expanded rapidly and then that energy is able to spontaneously turn into um mass and matter um again a great example is pair production um so that's my that's my like 30 second explanation they also had another question they said i want to hear what matty was going to say about the size of a dot point the size of a dot point i'm sorry i don't the size of what exploded for the big bang what size that was um fair that's that's not that's not something that i carry around in my head so i don't know that off top of my head gotcha we want to say thank you to our guests folks we will be back with a post credit scene letting you know about upcoming debates in the future as we are very excited for example this debate coming up next week should be a juicy one folks namely the book of daniel prophecy or forgery you don't want to miss that one live so hit that subscribe button and i will be back in just a moment we want to say thank you so much to our guests it's been a true pleasure to have you guys and our guests are linked in the description folks so you can hear more where that came from thanks so much both kent and matty for being with us tonight well thank you for having me and matty please come visit we'll give you a tour around here that sounds nice and i looked at no i think you guys are clear for 20 i've been keeping an eye on y'all for tornado outbreaks i've been worried about you that was north here we're fine that was north here okay good all right glad to hear that thanks folks we'll be back in a moment and thanks again to our guests as an epic one believe me nobody enjoys these debates more than me i always tell the guest right before we go live i'm like i am in a great mood thanks so much and so juicy to say the least you guys we are very excited for a lot of upcoming debates want to let you know give you the secret scoop on some of the debates that we're setting up right now and so we always we promote a lot so i can even show you guys some of the debates as you know probably by now this friday we also have a debate which is going to be fun and that is between tom jump and our harry christina guest arjuna that should be a fun one that's on god and morality namely what provides a better foundation for ethics secular humanism or theism so that should be a lot of fun and also want to let you know though folks we have many more we are really excited destiny will be on next week debating marxism versus capitalism with pogan that's going to be fun but before i tell you about other debates want to just quick say hi i do love just getting to say hello to you in chat thank you guys so much for your support thank you guys for showing up it's always fun and that's what makes it fun is just having a you know a good crowd here the more the merrier and so loy christmas thanks for being with us fox sushi good to see you again sigma any glad you're here as always mark read glad you're here exa music thanks for coming by dave langer thanks dave langer by the way i always i'll never let it go dave thank you dave for helping our twitch channel grow immensely and so huge thanks to dave langer for real our twitch which i am linking in the live chat right now folks it's been really exciting to see it grow uh we are just thrilled that people have found it useful so if you happen to like twitch well hey you guys click on that link in the live chat and you can watch us on twitch and so we are excited that every time we're live on youtube we are also live on twitch and so blonde mom 93 glad you were here thanks for coming by and then big thank you so ain't good to see you again and then let's see catching up with the old chat as it moves joey e good to see you and general balls act good to see it says fun debate quick question i'm in communication with sphincter what program are you using currently for the debates we use zoom and then we use obs and it's amazing and so yes uh but zoom is the only thing you'll have to worry about but if you want to know like what our setup is for the show i'll just tell it because when i started i always want to know like how do other channels do this and i was like it'd be cool to know and it was kind of like they would keep it hush hush so i'm like hey we'll just tell you guys like i'll tell you the the secrets for how we produce modern day debate it's just obs and zoom really that's pretty much it and so we don't like keeping secrets we're like hey happy to share that with you guys if you want to know that and so pro-social pessimist good to see you says any chance of getting an anti-natalist debate on the show yeah we are trying to set it up uh we are trying to get the king of anti-natalism on the show in the next couple months hopefully that's the goal but yeah it's kind of like we're working on it and so davos holos glad you're here thanks for coming by second horizon thanks for being with us darth revin good to see you again set semantrial thanks for being with us and red shot sure would glad you made it but yes not evolution glad you made it and then brad chervil thanks for coming by you guys we are pumped about the future and so i'm pumped that just that you're here carmel krunk thanks for coming by always good to see you you hope you're doing well longtime viewer i remember seeing you back and i think it was like i remember seeing you in the uh debate with tom jump and mike jones from inspiring philosophy you've been around at least that long so thanks for always hanging out with us and be badass said would still love to have a vegan debate you did you not know vegan gains is coming on sunday yeah you guys that's one of the epic debates so it's like tomorrow we have this one that you were seeing right here bottom right of your screen saturday we have what the heck is it i don't let me pull this up we have another one on saturday let me look this up i know it's i think it's on oh this is embarrassing it's showing my age i'm getting old you guys uh one i'll also let you know folks sorry if we did not get to read your question we tried to give everybody a heads up when we thought we would maybe be running out of time for more questions so thanks for your patience on that oh this saturday is going to be a juicy one oh you guys political debate on the topic of welfare oh my goodness so that whether or not there should be any that is going to be a controversial one so if you want to get triggered well hey you know where to come we'll be hosting that debate and i'm sure a lot of people will be triggered but we have to trigger them they're going to say james no more triggering we had enough triggering and we'll say i'm sorry we have to keep triggering you we have a lot of juicy controversial debates coming up in addition to that vegan gains will be on sunday to debate whether or not veganism is morally obligatory skyler and dr josh will be on debating the old testament ethics on trial with cliff and steward on monday i haven't even made the thumbnail for that one so that's top secret then rose and alex will be debating james w and carissa next wednesday on whether or not there are two sons so that will be really exciting we haven't had let's see i see we had james w on not too long ago i think it was maybe even this year but carissa and rose i don't think we've had on since uh before the new year so that will be really exciting and so yeah we've got a lot of epic ones coming up let's see but yeah thank you guys for hanging out with us thanks for your support g cash said this channel is a lot of fun thanks for your support g cash seriously thanks so much for all of your guys is i last night i was so bummed and flustered because i was like oh man i really wanted this debate i it was going to be so fun and so long story short want to let you know nobody's more bothered than me when we have a debate start late or not happen i was like triggered beyond belief and so i'm just so glad we got to do it tonight and so dapper dino has an aftershow i am pinning that to the top of the chat as well and so want to let you know that is available to you and yeah but we're glad to see you james downard ah we will expect a little dm soon it'll be in touch we want to see uh you and nephilim free cross swords perhaps and it might not necessarily be nephry nephilim free it might be someone new instead for you to cross swords with so really excited for that rj we hope you're doing well and then rob ski thanks for saying hello says ola james we're glad you're here rob ski richard luwango glad you came by and fish frog dolphin glad to see you again none oh zero zero one zero zero thanks for coming by maynard saves good to see you again i think the last time i saw you you were quite triggered which you have no idea how much pleasure that gives me you know i'm kept kidding i was just like hey i hope you're doing well i got no hard feelings i do think you're triggered though i can't remember it was but said dany thanks for being with us and then benoy says it's amazing you're right about that benoy and slight aside so now i'm good to see you as a great debate tonight i agree that was a lot of fun and it was civil raw nakedness says amazing we are excited you guys as we are we are setting up a lot of epic debates you guys i'm telling you if you enjoy this channel which i am thankful that you do i'm glad you it's like i said the more the merrier we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from if you are a christian if you are an atheist if you are agnostic if you are a muslim no matter who you are folks we really do hope you feel welcome for real we are just getting warmed up this channel believe me believe me it's going to be a tremendous summer it's going to be gigantic you guys i'm excited for it and you you don't want to miss it you guys i'm telling you we got some stuff coming down the pipe we've got some new kind of strategies in terms of like formats with like you'd seen a taste of it where we had kind of the three on three we want to do mixing it up like that more but also more importantly and frankly more fun this summer in person debates we're going for it folks i had my first shot the other day i'll have my second shot in early may and then i will be so immune it won't even be funny the idea is we are ready to go maybe even by late may in person debates and whether or not there's going to be a crowd that i'm not sure yet but i do plan on even if it's just me and you know like kind of like david wood you remember at the very start of the uh pandemic david wood and matt dill hunty and i were in this like big there's a pretty good size room we were in this big room that i rented out at a hotel because the atheists experience studio uh they out of caution they weren't able to host us and by the way huge thank you to matt because matt was like hey we can't host you like we planned but i will still show up if you have another place you want to do it and i'm thankful that matt showed up and you can see yeah so long story short no audience there it was just us three in this big room and so we might be doing debates like that for a while but fish frog dolphin says modern day debate up and yes big thank Bruce Wayne says amazing let's see joey he says obs gets me confused yeah obs is a little bit more complex than a lot of uh the softwares from what i've heard i've only ever done obs and i like it i've done stream labs because it's virtually the same as the twin software but let's see spacey road says i'd pay to pay to for james to go full jesse amazing uh interest in uh yeah i'm very excited though and it's really hard to impersonate other than like beta and uh jesse or uh i should say but yeah long story short stand for truth good to see you spartan theology glad you're here dr jonathan mclatchey we hope you were well and second let's see sunflower good to see you again and then atheist junior thanks for coming by and yeah i don't know i'm curious i always like to ask this is there anybody new in the chat who's like oh hey james like i'm i'm like totally new like what what is this channel like who are you why are you talking here let me know because i'm always kind of curious like is is there any first timers that tune into the live stream and they're like what what is this thing this modern day debate like what's going on here so youtube surgeon general good to see you lenny cash glad you made it dmc going on about joe rogan d mac glad you made it and sam chaos glad you're here flum 666 so we are glad that you were here we are pumped to see you here louis presciato thanks for coming by there are a lot of juicy super chats that's right sometimes i'm like i'm saying uh let's see because i'm i'm actually really reading through the super because i didn't get to read it yet so i'm like reading through it just try to scan and see if it's acceptable to say blade of zero says great debate james nice to see a debate without a dumpster fire maddie so cool i'm so glad you enjoyed it thanks for that i appreciate that and then atheist junior thanks for your kind words that means a lot and but i'm excited believe it's oral you're absolutely right so there are a lot of people who are like oh i'm so triggered modern day debate is just nothing but dumpster fires i'd say it's actually probably the minority i i'd admit maybe as many as 25 percent i mean like sometimes it gets rowdy but i'd say a lot of them the last flat earth debate we had which is a three on three was actually very civil especially for three on three because that's a lot of energy and you know everybody's trying to fight to get their word in and so this one too not a dumpster fire we have so many haters and i wouldn't have it any other way so if you were a hater uh we are so thrilled to for your gusto and your your anger i think a lot of people i my my greatest love in terms of the different types of haters we have because we have many and nobody gets me more motivated than the haters so thank you guys but um actually i i do love the people who are kind actually do motivate me and encourage me the most and so i do appreciate you there are so many and the haters are only like one percent but we give them so much attention because we you know we love them we can't just like not appreciate them but carmel krunk thanks for your super chat support seriously it doesn't mean a lot my favorite type of hater is the one who says oh you can't you can't platform this person you can't platform that person it's immoral and it's wrong and it's like okay great if you have better arguments then come on and debate the person expose their arguments i so for me those are my favorites we really do those are the type where i just say we're just going to keep on going thank you and so Amy Newman good to see you pro socialist pessimist thanks for coming by you guys we had an email i've got to tell you this this is like i can't say the word because you guys a lot of you may be triggered if you heard who someone a producer from a show you call it reached out to me and said hey we might like maybe there's a way we could get our person from our show to come on to modern day debate and i was like well maybe i doubt it because i don't because they're pretty big pretty popular person and they're very controversial though it's it would be by far the most you could say quote unquote famous person we've had on and it would definitely trigger many people but demat glad you're here third finger from the right glad you were here and yeah thanks for your kind words rob ski and frosty says you got to keep using that analogy of crossing swords i mean i guess yeah it just means i don't know what you sickos think it means crossing swords like you guys have crossed swords before it means you've debated before you sickos spartan theology says modern day debate boy summer i don't know what boy summer is but i'm glad you're here and steve coach says you certainly convey your excitement i appreciate that we are excited about the future you guys and like i said we're just warming up things are going to be more epic by the day and so Amy Newman says come by philadelphia and i'll do a debate live we probably will be in texas uh maybe i'm kind of like back and forth texas maybe california but extra bidden one gaming says i'm totally new that's funny sam kiaz says first time catching a live show oh well that's cool sam thanks for being with us spicy road thanks for your super chat appreciate your support and whoa am i this behind on the chat two seconds i'm almost there steve coach says have you asked uh thought have you ever thought about asking jesse lee peterson for a religion theme debate maybe there's one person i just thought of the other day of like potentially setting up a debate with jesse lee peterson but i don't know if he would go for it namely i don't know if his opponent would go for it dave langer says you're too innocent for some of those codeworded super chat questions um you guys are sick you know that so let's see you really are you guys think that crossing swords means something nasty you know that's a reflection on you and so we are really excited though want to let you know go about a couple of almost caught up with live chat david rubin no it's not david rubin this person dwarfs david rubin in terms of their controversialness yeah but we are let me tell you about a couple of other ones coming up oops let me put it in a month mode oh okay so next friday we talked about the book of daniel prophecy or forgery with dr boyce and jonathan against dr josh and jim majors that'll be a fun one the day after this is currently being set up no guarantees no promises so don't bother demon mama about it demon mama is considering a debate with tom on whether or not deplatforming is demon mama would say like in some cases it's good and t-jump would say like i i don't really think there are those cases i'm so there's not a ton of disagreement but there is some disagreement worth it such that it might become a debate that would be an exciting one and so we might have a big foot tag team debate on mate what is it april 27th that's in the works as well as a capitalism versus socialism debate potentially on the 28th which is a wednesday then wotan may be returning for a flatter debate you guys won't want to miss that you guys seriously it is going to be epic so wotan may be back i don't know he's sometimes he goes back and forth but so you guys and your nasty nasty interpretations of figures of speech such as crossing swords but thank you air church for your kind words and yeah i do want to ask you anybody in the chat we want to ask you folks please work with us 99% of you do a great job at this and there's no worries about it and then there's like 1% though that are just they want to attack the debaters personally and i would say we want to ask you to attack the arguments not the person really important folks believe me so thank you for working with us on that and so we don't want you to attack the person in the reason because you might be like well james you're going to block me yeah eventually i mean we'll give you a warning but because we know that we know that feelings run high and people get emotional and they get angry and all that good stuff and so want to let you know though we want to ask you to be polite to the guests or at least not be nasty toward them and the reason we'll block you is because it's like if we have a bunch of people treating guests like garbage well why would they want to come back how is that sustainable as a debate channel it's not they won't come back because they will say wow people are insulting me and treating me like garbage and then no debate channel exists and so that's why we've made that policy is it's like well we're not going to cut off the branch that we are sitting on i mean example is like you guys i know that you many of you not many i know some of you don't like kent hovind have to let you know kent hovind is taking a lot of crap we used to be so lenient to where like people in the chat would just be saying the nastiest things and you know we didn't have that rule back then and it was the same thing like with matt you know matt got called an n a z i and it's like okay well no matter what you think about matt he's not that so we're not going to let people slander our guests that's not fair so that's why and so i know that you're thinking james we don't know if we'll see matt again i have talked to matt there's no guarantee but i do know this i had you know in our personal conversation i said hey you know we're not entitled to host anybody and that's true we're not i said but you know the door's always open to you we'd love to have you back and he said well you know like let me know about who you find and so i am confident i suspect we will get matt back on next month i've got to run an idea by him so i'm not confirming that it's the case but i am saying that i'm going to run an idea by him soon that i think he'll probably be up for so we are excited you guys we are just getting started we have a lot of epic stuff coming up and absolutely bigger badder things are going to be absolutely epic you guys i'm just pumped so thank you guys for your support thanks for all your love thank you guys for everything uh it's a possibility that it might be a j that might be a controversial guest that at least someone reached out to me on behalf of and said hey uh is there a way that like it maybe there's a topic that this person would want to come on and debate whether or not it happens i don't know because it is true these are controversial things so we want to say thank you guys so much for all your love and support i've got to run but thanks so much keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable take care everybody and have a great rest of your night we'll be back tomorrow night and we hope to see you there again if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button and you'll get a reminder when we do go live tomorrow night you don't want to miss it so thanks everybody and have a good rest of your night or day