 Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a lot of fun, folks. Want to let you know, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up. So for example, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen tomorrow night, we're actually having a debate on the problem of evil. That'll have Skyler fiction and Reformed, boy. So that should be a lot of fun. And also want to let you know we're a neutral platform, which means we don't make any particular videos that are taking one particular side after the debate or anything like that. That is ultimately up for the debaters to make their case, and then for you in the audience to be the judge. So we're very excited as today we're going to have a pretty flexible, easygoing format, a lot of conversation. It's going to start with a 10 minute opening from Nephilim Free, you see on your right with a green laser eyes. He will be arguing that the arc was a seaworthy vessel among other things. And then Erica will have her 10 minute statement where she will be more skeptical regarding that as well as the, you could say, after effects after the flood. Then we'll have open conversation for about 45 minutes to 60 minutes and then Q&A. So if you have a question fired into the old live chat, and if you tag me with an at modern day debate, it makes it easier for me to get every single question in the list as I try to do that. And super chat is also an option in which case you can not only ask a question, but if you want, you can actually make a comment during the question and answer to which the speakers would of course get a chance to respond to. It will also push your question or comment to the top of the list for the Q&A. And with that, we're going to turn it over. But I do want to say at first, I am so thankful to have our guests here. This is going to be a lot of fun tonight. And so Neph, thrilled to have you. The floor for your opening statement is all yours. Okay, so all right. So people say, oh, I know it's hard. It wouldn't be strong enough. You know, couldn't do what it had to do. These are gulans, which are boards that are glued together. They're 72 feet long by six inches. And these engineers are putting in through a test. They're going to see how strong they are. Remember, these are only six inches wide. 72 feet long and six inches wide. Just six inches. Let's see when they break. There it goes. How much pressure did it take to break these six inch wide boards? Four feet tall, six inches wide. How much pressure? Take a wild guess. Take a guess. 72,000 pounds. 72,000 pounds. The arc was huge. Made of much more timber than that. History records that arc was a real, that flood was a real thing. I'm not going to read these to you. Borosis, the famous Chaldean historian wrote of it. Christusdom wrote of it in 3 to 400 AD. Epiphanous of Salamis wrote of it. They said that the flood was a real event. Isadora of Seville wrote of it. Julius Flavius, Titus Flavius Josephus wrote of it. Manteo wrote of it 300 BC. Nicholas of Damascus in the first century. Theophorus in the second century. This is a replica of Noah's Ark. It wasn't built the same way as Noah's Ark. That's roughly the size of the smallest measure which Noah's Ark could be using a modern human qubit or an Egyptian qubit. Noah would have used his qubit. Noah was bigger than a modern man like every other creature in the fossil record proves. Before the flood, creatures were bigger. Noah's qubit would have been bigger. The arc would have been 600 meters long. Was it strong? Well, how much interior space did it have? This is a warehouse in Tupelo, Mississippi. 300,000 square feet. You need three of those at least to fill the smallest size of Noah's Ark could have been. Can you get? Nobody knows what the limits to variation are, but we see it all the time. Could Noah have brought enough creatures on the ark? Well, the answer is absolutely. The interior space of the smallest measurement of Noah's Ark would have had 646,800 square feet. It had three floors. Noah could have had one floor for his kids and his family to play football while the others has held the animals, food and fresh water. People say, you can't make a ship that big out of wood and it will not float. It won't work. It'll break apart. That's not so. Zheng Ha did it in 11 and 1,411 C. Zheng Ha, the right-hand man of the Chinese emperor, built a ship the size of Noah's Ark and sailed all the way to India and the coast of Africa. And it was made of wood and it would not have been made as strongly or stoutly as Noah's Ark. There's no way. But you can see the illustration there. Zheng Ha's flagship was roughly the size of Noah's Ark. Remember, I say Noah's Ark was even bigger. So it was roughly the size of Zheng Ha's flagship and that ship was quite sealer. They went all the way to India and Africa and back. It was a wooden box, the strongest kind of construction you could put in the water. So an 18-wheeler weighs 70 to 80,000 pounds when it's fully loaded. Those timbers you saw break would have supported an entire 18-wheeler completely loaded with merchandise before it gave way. That's strong, very strong. Canoe had trees to make timbers big enough to make a ship that was even stronger than what most people think. Absolutely. There are humongous trees on this earth. If you cut away all the extraneous parts in the bark, you could easily have timbers 10 feet by 10 feet square. How many pounds would that support? If four feet tall by six inch wide timbers will hold 72,000 pounds, what if you had a 10-foot by 10-foot by 50-foot timber? You do the math. A lot of weight, one timber. Noah would have made the arch out of numerous timbers. Noah's Ark was just... Disney Wonder Cruise Ship weighs 83,000 tons. Just 46 beams of Noah's Ark, if they were made from the biggest parts of the largest trees, would support that entire ship. Just 46 of them would hold up that entire ship. Now, a North Korean world-class shipbuilding corporation in North Korea, South Korea, I'm sorry, was approached by a creationist organization and asked to analyze Noah's Ark as a seaworthy vehicle. They did so, and they found that it would be more seaworthy than any modern ship. Because of its six to one dimensions, it would be more seaworthy and more stable on the ocean than any modern ship. Only in modern times did man start building ships to a six to one ratio. If you do the math with the Bible, how the Bible describes Noah's Ark, it was six to one ratio. That's the most stable dimensions you can make a ship out of to keep it from capsizing. So Noah's Ark would have been and absolutely would have been a strong ship ocean going faster. Now, people might say, well, Noah's Ark couldn't sustain that you're talking about a cataclysmic event. Well, yes, it was a cataclysmic event. And so how did Noah's Ark and the animal survive during such a cataclysmic event? Well, the truth is, I'm just going to be honest, I don't exactly know. But I know this, the ship that he was in was the most stable kind of ship that can possibly be made a box six to one ratio made out of immense timbers, which would have been extremely strong. The ocean wouldn't have broken it apart. And so how did he survive? Well, I assume that it was simply able to be washed over by tidal waves and survive or ride them out, ride over the top of them most likely. It probably wouldn't have been hit by a tidal wave. It would ride out tidal wave. But the truth is, it obviously happened. We have the profound evidence of the annoying plug in geology, the fossil record. The fossil record, as it's called, is a record of the plug. It's millions. It's actually trillions of creatures that are rapidly buried. You cannot get a fossil unless the organism is rapidly buried sealed away from oxygen, predators, scavengers, and aerobic bacteria and sunlight. You have to bury a creature fast in order to get a fossil. Even modern day geologists all agree and paleontologists, an organism must be buried rapidly together or it will not fossilize. The oceans of the earth today do not have the mineral content necessary to create the fossil record. Why do we have a fossil record? Because during the flood, the minerals in the oceans were swelled up and they were mixed in. And you have minerals pouring out of the earth into the oceans on the earth and materials on one part of the continent being sloshed over to the other side of the continent, bringing minerals with them. That's why we have a fossil record. If the oceans of the earth were as crystal clear as they are today, there would be no fossil record. The only thing that can possibly explain a fossil record is highly mineralized water. The oceans of the earth today are relatively clear. They do not possess anywhere near the mineral content necessary to make fossils. Now, if uniformitarianism is true, that's the way the oceans have always been incapable of making fossils. But the flood explains it because you have a cataclysmic event where minerals are immensely mixed up with the ocean waters and bring those minerals to the sediments to create the fossil record. Without that, no fossil record. Uniformitarianism can't explain a fossil record. Only the flood of Noah can because the oceans today are supposedly like the oceans were 50 or 150, 350 million years ago and relatively clear. If that were the case, no fossil record not going to happen. No fossilization. Only a cataclysmic flood can explain the fossil record. So I think I've shown plenty of reason to believe the ocean was a strong enough vessel. You know, it would have made it out of the massive timbers. The trees for that exist on the earth, always now. Testing shows that the wood necessary would have certainly been strong enough. It was made to the right dimensions out of the right stuff. And the extraneous evidence, historical evidence all shows that it happened could Noah have taken the right number of animals on there? Well, evolutionists constantly repeat this ridiculous jargon. Well, there's 1.1 billion species on earth. How did Noah fit all of them on there? How many times do creationists have to explain to evolutionists? Noah only had to bring beryllians. He only had to bring kinds. He didn't have to bring 100 varieties of deer, just two deer. That's all. And so when you whittle it down to kinds or beryllians, which nobody can do with absolute precision any more than evolutionists can accurately define what a species is, there was plenty of space on the earth for the 8,000 to 12,000 kinds of originally created creatures. So I think that's enough. I think that concludes my opening statement. Eric, I think so much for being here. It's always good to have you. And the floor is all yours for your opening statement. We're kind of casting a broad net with this whole topic. So I think we're going to have some very fun discussions on a variety of different things. And I'm covering some things that are a bit different from what Neff did. So the Nocchian deluge, we all know about it. In Genesis 6, God basically gets discontented with the evil of the world so he floods it. And he finds his favor with knowing his folks. So he's like, build an ark and take two of every animal and you guys are going to be good. So what is problematic and what is not? So for me personally, a localized flood that has been ingrained in the cultural memories of areas of Mesopotamia, I don't have an issue with that. It's not limited to a YEC timeframe. So it's not problematic. But a global flood that covers the entire earth and is of course limited to the YEC timeframe is highly problematic. And we're going to talk about a few reasons why now. So what is wrong with the global flood in a 6,000 year timeframe? Everything, a lot of stuff. So the creationist model, creationists suppose that the following occurred during Noah's flood which lasted around one year. Now there's some give and take here depending on your individual thoughts but this is a generalization. So they suppose all rock layers in the geologic column barring the basement granite which is pre-cangrian in nature were laid down and all tectonic plates moved from their supercontinent position to the current arrangement. They also say that all fossils in those layers were also deposited there during the flood and that all non-human animals today descend from the pairs that were taken on the ark. All humans today also descend from those that disembarked the ark which is about eight humans. So let's talk about the geology problems. This is one of my favorites. This is the white cliffs of Dover in the background because we are going to talk about limestone. So limestone among other minerals is made up from the skeletons and shells of trillions upon trillions of marine microorganisms. Now 10% of all sedimentary rock is made of limestone of which most dismarine in nature. So that would be deposited by the flood, of course. Limestone requires warm and calm waters to deposit not those of the biggest global catastrophe of all time. It actually deposits at a rate of approximately 1.5 times 10 raised 15 grams of calcium carbonate or limestone each year on the ocean floor. So a deposition rate 10 times as high as this for 5,000 years before the flood would still only account for less than 0.02% of the limestone deposits deposits that we have today. But the problems get worse. You might say but the layers can be deposited quickly and you know creations like to link several papers on mudflume experiments and things of that nature but these papers concern mudstone of course and shale. Mudstone and shale are drastically different from limestone which is made up of micro fossils and deposit much faster. So you might say well when they experiment limestone then it'll work but nope that's not true either because when layers are rapidly deposited they have identifiable features called floccules in them and we don't find any limestone limestone layers that are you know hundreds of feet thick with any floccules in them. Actually we don't find very many sedimentary layers at all with floccules which is very problematic for for bringing up these mudflume experiments done by Colorado and Indiana University. So the low down on layers so why do we find enormous limestone layers which require calm and warm waters to deposit incredibly slowly with no known exception in between coarser material that deposits much faster according to all modern observations. It's sand toy logic right layers deposited in order to if they're all being deposited at once in a mixed up jumbled scenario such as a global flood well you should have one big band of limestone at the top and of course that even that is impossible at least of course to what we know now because limestone can't deposit quickly by by its very nature. Now that was a specific example but we could also talk about talk about chalk layers which deposit incredibly slowly in and of themselves in the time of the flood you would maybe get half a meter of chalk. We could talk about angular and conformities where there's no quick mechanism for for them to form or granite batholiths which are essentially shoots of a fiery hot granite that are injected into higher strata thanks to heat pressure and time and much much more. There have been some cool simulation experiments by the way on that that that is supportive. So we could look about radiometric decay now why am I bringing up radiometric decay in a conversation about Noah's flood well because it creates an enormous heat problem along with very quick continental movement because obviously if you're working with 6,000 years or even less in in accordance with the flood you're basically having to cram 4.8 billion years of decay into the flood for whatever reason that's usually what is done but the radiometric decay while I radioactive decay laws affirm on physics it essentially covers how things decay and decay rates don't change in meaningful ways in nature on our planet according to all current thought creationists are at a loss on this themselves. I've mentioned the rate group time and time again who admitted that younger position cannot be reconciled with the scientific data without assuming exotic solutions will be found in the future but this is still the case because in 2018 the International Conference of Creation Research admitted that the heat from continental movement sedimentation and accelerated decay would be enough to melt the Earth's crust and boil off its oceans 28 times over we need to let this sink in this is a creationist organization that is admitting that there is currently no solution to this enormous heat problem from all the things that need to happen during that time frame Noah's boat would not be able to survive that no matter how robust it is but water would mitigate the heat it absolutely 100% would not mitigate the heat according to both secular and creationist sources so under the catastrophic plate tectonics model that AIG and ICR subscribe to the oceans would be vaporized as each and every kilometer was heated to 70,000 degrees celsius but under the hydroplate model which is by wall brown the problem is even greater because they have all of the same problems as catastrophic plate tectonics but they also believe that all meteor creators that we have today are the result of Earth's ejecta from the floods of the fountains of the deep opening up falling back down to the planet now just the energy in releasing chunks of Earth ejecta that would then have to fall back down not even them hitting the Earth on upon reentry is equivalent to over 20 trillion hydrogen bombs that was calculated by Sharpe in 2005 now we could also talk about how financially viable radiometric dating is which of course if very much is there was a group that tried to use flood geology that zion oil and they quickly switched over to conventional geology so the heat problem for accelerated decay and plate tectonics during a year period makes it impossible for even the most robust microorganisms to survive let alone a wooden boat full of life full stop but there are also some fossil problems with the flood so we could talk about the order there is no rabbit in the Cambrian right fossil specimens are sorted in order from basal to complex emergence and this evolutionary order you know this is evolutionary order and creationists of course don't have an explanation for this or rather they do but they're not very good so this first one is the density sort of hydrologic sorting hypothesis which suggests that we find animals that are sorted by their weight so heavy things are or more at the bottom and lighter things are of course at the top but this doesn't work because we find basalosaurs and mosasores in drastically different layers despite being around the same size and occupying the exact same niche same thing with spheros and small pterodactyls which of course occupy the Pleistocene and the Triassic respectively well what about ecologic sorting well that doesn't really work either because what we should find if ecologic sorting is a thing is geologic column spanning flood layers in locations of the world with only dinosaurs or only mammals or only theraxids but we don't we find some you know vastly different animals separated by geologic time not spatial area we could talk about ecology problems look at these adorable Japanese macaques how did they get there how did they get to Japan after the flood because here's some some uh a nice map that shows where our monkeys and apes are today so did Noah take a single progenitor primate on to yield all the old and new world monkeys and the hominoids did he take one of each you know one of each kind how did each pair get to the respective continents or countries and you might say well rafting evolutionists suggest rafting that is the conventional scientific explanation for for getting to the new world but that's when you have enormous populations of of old world monkeys to work with not a single pair then we finally have the anthropology problems so look at all of the flood myths you might say floods are far from the only shared methods in human culture we have demigods shape-shifters unique chimera monsters and animal human hybrids that are also also near universal but the point is the flood myth isn't even universal Egypt one very close country that according to YECs would have been relatively close uh after the Tyre of Babel lacks a global flood myth now Neff has proposed in a previous conversation that that no that's not true Menethode did propose that there was a global flood but it's actually a quote mine from Nelson and perhaps not intentional by Neff but certainly intentional by Nelson it's taken from a creationist source that is pulled from yet another older creationist source and when you go back to the actual original source which is of course the Book of the Dead you find out that it's not a global flood that's referred to but a vague catastrophe that has no indication that there is water involved at all so this is from a book that covered the Book of the Dead which says you know it actually is quite quite savage to the to the quote liners there's also a problem with the Egyptian chronology so the beginning of the old kingdom was in 2686 BCE in Giza you know they were built by three different pharaohs from 2550 to 2490 BCE and AIG has the flood at 2348 so we've got one of two options either the pyramids survived the global flood which is I find that very hard to believe considering in conventional science they're falling apart without without a cope of flood or they were built after an Egyptian chronology is entirely wrong but that's kind of difficult because even if we go with the David Roll chronology which is one AIG uses at the time Egypt was founded you would have 2048 people in the entire world it's just not doubling fast enough to have enough people to build the pyramids of Giza even by their own date and if you up the population growth so that there are enough people why did it eventually slow down if it was that fast at one point it should we should have trillions of people on the planet now that's a little bit of hyperbole but quite a few people so these are some of our issues so essentially what I think NF has to do to convince me in this conversation is provide an experimental or observational basis for quickly depositing limestone chalk and angular unconformities as well as granite bathalates I would also like to see a mechanism perhaps it doesn't have to be even peer review just just what are his thoughts on a mechanism to explain the lack of large scale mixing of mammals of the Paleozoic and or mammals and Paleozoic versus Mesozoic animals we also need to see a dispersal pattern and population growth rate that can account for the animals in their current location and human populations in their post flood locations so providing a feasible wooden boat that could float in the current seas is not at all equivalent to a seaworthy wooden boat in the world's worst catastrophe so that's that's all I've got for you guys thanks for listening Erica I'm surprised you brought up Manethel you cherry picked the one guy that didn't mention that the flood was global but though he did mention a catastrophic event when so many historians as I pointed out in my opening statement do mention the the flood is global even pre-beast even pre-christ historians I think that's an example of cherry picking you mentioned how do macaques get to migration you admitted that the creationist explanation of rafting works and the secular camp even proposes that very same thing for example monkeys live in South Africa India and Japan but how did they get to how did they get to South Africa if they evolved millions of years ago how did they get to South America if they existed in Africa so you gave the explanation to that a lot of issues when we have a chance we'll kick it over to Erica just to answer some of those yeah sure I just want to make sure that I can keep track of the questions I don't want to get lost in the in sort of the conversation because I do want to make sure that we get like a I don't want to overload you with questions and I don't want to be overloaded with questions either so the reason I picked Manifaux of all of those is because I think it's especially relevant even more so than the others most of the other sources were from groups that had very close ties to the Hebrew people and would have had that that sort of myth ingrained in them through cultural transfusion I just find it very interesting that Egypt which was it's meant it's right there I mean even according to to classic biblical scholars like the Hebrews and the Egyptians did interact even they don't have this myth which which I find to be very interesting I noted that you did have many others I noted that they were all in that Mesopotamian area and also that there was no one from China there was no one from South America or North America when there were people at that time as for the second one again I admit as I mentioned in my presentation I don't find drafting to be a problem when you got plenty of monkeys but if you've got one pair of monkeys that needs to get across tumultuous seas I mean I don't I haven't ever met a single primatologist who thinks that there was one rafting event that seeded all of South America with monkeys well that's just here well that's just based on your your your paradigm that there had to be a large you're presuming and evolutionist presumed this and that and the other about there's not enough time the problem is there is not enough time for evolution so you you admit the rafting as a plausible explanation for the for for well as I pointed out secular scientists acknowledged that rafting is the plausible explanation for why we have monkeys in South America because they evolved allegedly in in Africa millions of years before they got to South America so how'd they get there and the secular camp admits rafting is likely explanation so if they'll accept that rafting is likely explanation for that now you're cherry picking so you also said you said limestone is a problem for the creationist I say it's not a problem for the creationist it's produced comprised predominantly of calcium carbonate which is the stuff that a fossil is made of so I think there was plenty of sea life and part of the flood such as cocalithophores that could have been transformed by heat to and other sea creatures that could have provided the limestone so with the limestone you do know that limestone calcium carbonate requires cold water to actually fall out not hot water so if you have hot water that comes in and vaporizes all of these organisms turning them into calcium carbonate which by the way it wouldn't be nearly enough to create the walls that we have today even then now you have a new problem because you're invoking hot water for vaporization and now you need cold water for deposition well evolutionists have lots of presumptions about this event can't happen a beautiful example is a dolomite dolomite can be created in tiny amounts in the laboratory and yet the alps in Italy are covered with mega feet of this stuff and there's no plausible explanation in uniform cairnism for the production of all that dolomite without some kind of catastrophic process I don't know that that's the case I would like to see some work on that from the creationists or from the secular sources as to why uniform cairnism wouldn't be able to explain that but the bigger point is we're not talking about dolomite I'm talking about limestone which is a really important problem I'm just pointing out evolutionists uniform cairnism presumptions about this and that and the other have many problems I'd love to see empirical science that verifies limestone can't have been a massive amounts of limestone can't have been created during the flood I've never seen that I'm with you on that except I linked it in my presentation so you've got Oberhard in 1955 you've got several different creationist resources that have looked into this with flume experiments and the like and they're unable to find any singular means internet I mean creationists have conferences every year where they discuss some of the problems and limestone has been brought up frequently like they admit that there's an issue here so I don't know I don't know why I mean they're okay with just saying hey we don't have an answer to this yet maybe we'll find one in the future because that seems to be what the guys like Snelling who's like an actual geologist he's got a PhD and of course you and I don't I can't speak for you I don't have a PhD and I'm just pointing out when it comes to rock formation the secular camp has their own set of problems so not knowing the mechanism by which the limestone of the earth was created during the flood I would say that you have a problem for it for uniformitarianism too especially when you find limestone sedimentary strata of limestone wedged in between other sedimentary strata and the boundary between them is paper thin ooh I I was which let me finish a point let me finish a point and the and the boundary between them is paper thin which cannot have been produced by uniformitarianism because we know from laboratory observable testable real science that sedimentary strata are produced by rapidly moving water and that's why they have a fine distinct boundary if uniformitarianism hold on if uniformitarianism more true then the materials of one strata would graduate from predominantly one material to another it would graduate over time as the environment made one available and then stop providing it slowly and providing another we don't see the gradiation in the geologic column this verifies any any layer of limestone you find that's got a fine distinct boundary between it and the strata above or below it was created during the flood the uniformitarianism cannot explain that it's cool if I take the same amount of time to respond to that yes okay so in response to that I was hoping you would bring up betting because you brought that up in in your conversation with corp several times and or rather sorry paper thin layers which are betting this is observed today in very like specific examples anytime we see anything that is deposited there's paper thin layers because that's called betting that's just right rapidly depositing right not not not rapidly it happens in limestone too check out the in a we talk at all it happens there as well this is real life you can go out and snorkel and see it with your very own eyes are you saying we observe or not and so we did decide to hold on a second I do want I want to I want to give I want to give Erica the same amount of time to respond yes I should I want to make sure we get a good back and forth but but since you've mentioned quite a bit I want to respond to all of it to the best of my ability but yes all of those flume experiments that you just mentioned that that prove that things deposit rapidly absolutely have 100% zero bearing on how limestone or chalk for that matter deposits by the admission of the creationists themselves so if you you can sit you can say say that maybe they'll come up with a solution in the future but what you can't say is that all geologists including the ones that agree with you are wrong and that limestone deposits rapidly when there has been zero experimentation to even suggest that it could I don't have a problem with there being something that's difficult to explain uniformitarianists have a lot that's difficult to explain dolomite is one of them but you said something very strange to me you said you can go snorkeling and see the limestone for yourself what do you see because listen are you telling us that you can observe limestone form over vast periods of time because we can't do that what we can see is limestone in the geologic column with the paper thin boundary between this it and the materials above and below it which is something verified by observable testable repeatable science in the moratory can only happens only with rapidly moving water so Erica I hate to tell you anytime you find a strata if it's limestone or any other and it has a fine flat boundary between it and the strata below it and above it it can't have been produced by uniformitarianism it's not possible respond to that there's other things that you mentioned don't want to bring up I don't want to just I don't want to talk about limestone for 40 minutes evolutionists love to carry on and on and on and on and on and on about one thing but I'm not going to do that in this debate you mentioned flocculites hold on one second you mentioned flocculites which are a lightning okay hold on a second Neff so just because there are a lot of different points kind of going at once is if we could maybe do fewer points at a time like work ourselves down into like one or two at most just because it's sometimes hard for everybody to keep track of all the different ideas going on yeah I just don't want to debate limestone for you don't have to I'll say one last thing about how they measure how limestone deposits today it was done in 1955 and they straight up went out there to areas where limestone frequently deposits that is areas with a lot of microorganisms in the water and you can just stick a ruler down there like you can just put a ruler down and come back in a year and you're going to have you know X amount of limestone and you do that every year for about 10 years and then you come up with an average and that's how you get the average deposition the funny thing is is that over the course of many of those years the conditions the weather the tides they all change and yet you still get the same average right for the entire year that is to say limestone deposits slowly now please full queues let us let us continue yeah so you you think though the environment is constantly changing the rate of deposition for limestone is going to remain the same for millions of millions of years I don't see that but you mentioned flocculites these are lightning bolts that strike the earth and they create a rock inside the earth that shape like the lightning bolt the problem for those in uniformitarianism is where are they because we find virtually none of them in the geologic column now if any place in the geologic column in the uniformitarianist's mind was ever the surface of the earth for thousands and thousands of years there should be trillions of flocculites because lightning has been striking earth billions of times a year all over the earth it doesn't make sense the absence of flocculites in the geologic column is a problem for you it doesn't it fits if the strata were formed during a cataclysmic event we would expect there to be an absence a nearly complete absence of flocculites in the geologic column and that's what we see we see flocculites only in the upper strata we don't find them all the way down through the geologic column why because those strata weren't there for millions of years that's why they're not there if we're going to go to a new subject just want to keep everybody aware that one of you will probably have to defer on this limestone topic kind of defer to the other in terms of if we're able to move on to the next topic if we don't want to talk about limestone I can defer I can defer right now just the last thing I would say is that I wasn't talking about flocculites I was talking about floccules which are small sort of tradition they're like very novel characteristics of sediment that has been deposited by moving water nothing to do with lightning nothing to do with any of that floccules they're mentioned in both of the studies that I've seen you traditionally link with regard to okay okay because you said flocculites I said flocculites I believe you said okay well perhaps I was wrong now you mentioned angular and conformities you say there's no explanation for that uniformitarianism the truth is there's I mean in catastrophism that the truth is you can't get an angular conformity unconformity in uniformitarianism and I'll explain again why an angular conformity if I could screen share one I'll show you exactly why that's true you cannot explain an angular unconformity with uniformitarianism because the material it's irrational to believe that a series of sedimentary strata come in by moving water and literally sheer solid walk flat right and so that you have an angular unconformity that's just not plausible let me show you exactly what I'm talking about so you'll understand because I want for you to be able to see what I'm talking about let me screen share this image with you if I can and while you're while you're doing that I'll go ahead and say we see erosion of every single type we have erosion that creates beautiful arches out west we have erosion that creates new riverbeds this is all stuff that happens from you know very quickly to very very slowly depending on what's going on so I don't understand why shearing flat is problematic you have a textbook on that I'm going to explain firstly you don't get sedimentary strata very very slowly you get a layer of solid material but it's but it it's not it it doesn't have the properties of sedimentary strata what you're seeing on the screen now is an angular unconformity obviously the strata on the on the series on the bottom this formation on the bottom is at a different angle from the one on the top now under uniform formatarianism the strata formation on the bottom was solid rock when the when the materials at the top were deposited on top of it that can't be true because I'm sorry you see how fine and flat the boundary is between them that's only going to happen if the strata below the formation below was soft moist sediments that could easily be eroded by rapid moving the water and then comes another sedimentary strata which has a fine distinct boundary which observable testable science in the laboratory proves happens rapidly by moving water and then right on top of it I would love for you to explain explain this to me explain this to me please how in the world a solid formation of solid rock let me ask the question first how a solid formation of rock gets eroded to such a fine distinct boundary and since we know sedimentary strata deposit with fine distinct boundaries in rapidly moving water explain to me how a vast period of time can possibly explain angular and conformity so angular Unconformity is to my knowledge first of all these fine thin layers that you're talking about again that's just bedding that happens if you go outside and fill up a jar with water and put like different soils in it and shake it up you get paper thin boundaries you do I've done it myself and if I if I still that's not how strata for allow me to continue now let me to continue so erosion like I said before you pulled up this picture happens in a myriad of different ways and can create pretty much every kind of a formation that you can imagine from gorgeous arches in the west all the way to enormous caverns or sorry chasms like the grand canyon or the the uh they're called I think the hallelujah mountains out in in china but the fact of the matter is with with heat pressure and time which are the three classic elements of geology sorry conventional geology you can get just about any kind of erosional of erosional formation that you need now I get that it seems kind of strange it seems very beautiful actually that it's so precise and cut clean like that and you think to yourself well you know how do you get you know all of these all of these layers that look like they were made in like a sand art toy and part of that comes from the fact that not all of those materials that have deposited are made up of the same thing in fact if you go to that picture that you just showed hate to bring it back to this but I get I bet you you'll find some limestone layers in there so the question would be on my end is not with the angular unconformity which I explained with just simple erosion I don't know why like it's cool that that seems incredulous to some people but everything that I've seen and and learned and like basic geology is that erosion is pretty much one of the most powerful forces when it comes to shaping any kind of rock as long as there's enough time that's the key thing so when you're working within a small time frame like like say 6,000 years right it may seem quite strange that you can get these kinds of formations now go back go to the next picture the one with the fold there I will but let me address what you just said that's balmy the problem with that is this Erica the same process that produced the set that found the formation on the bottom is the process that produced the one on top and the ones that were produced on the bottom were produced by rapid deposition and the ones that produced on the top were formed were formed by rapid deposition but that's not what we know that is this because they have a fine distinct flat boundary between each of those strata see so the ones at the bottom pay attention now the ones at the bottom formation all formed rapidly and this is demonstrated in the laboratory that's a geologic fact the ones at the top formed the same way so the boundary between them also formed the same way rapidly okay now it can't let me finish you've been on you've been talking for two and a half minutes three minutes you've done some long stretches as well okay so here's the problem since we know from geology experimentation the sedimentary experimentation that the strata formed by rapid deposition which kills all evolution in uniformitarianism right there done right since the since the ones at the bottom formed that way and the ones at the top formed that way then the one that cuts across at the angle was also formed that way okay so there is no uniformitarianism here there are no millions of years you can insert where are you going to squeeze in your millions of years okay so now that it's now that yes sure so now that this is on me I want to I don't know why I keep repeating this but the thing is is that those experiments that you are appealing to once again have only been done with mud stone and shale there are dozens upon dozens of different colors in this very picture not all of them are our mudstone and shale the things that you require that are the only ones that we know can be deposited by rapidly moving water which is what you need for your model now for my model there are hundreds of maybe not hundreds dozens of different ways that things can be deposited in different areas be it by the wind be it by water be it by catastrophic local events however you want to put it you know but you know you're acting as if this is like a slam dunk when you haven't even proven that anything other than mud stone and shale can be deposited by rapidly moving water which is by definition the major part of your model so nothing you can say unless you have like a technical source that I'm perhaps not aware of that or a creationist source that has done the experimentation on one of the dozens of other minerals that are in that very picture then I'm not on board with rapidly depositing sediment I'm just not you can say it as much as you want but it hasn't been demonstrated so it's not science and that's all I have to say about it well I think you need to do some more investigation what I'm sharing on the screen are sedimentation experiments that have been performed all the way back since 1950s and the results are consistent and a variety of materials have been used the only observation we see is the strata conformed by rapid deposition that's yet and when a local flood occurs such as a famous geologist McGee noticed during a local flood 12 particularly in Colorado I believe it was when a river overflowed 12 feet of sedimentary strata were created in 48 hours 12 feet and that happened and that was various materials and very rapidly I have not heard you explain to us how you're going to squeeze millions of years in between the sedimentary strata with these fine distinct boundaries whereas one material becomes less available to the environment and another material becomes available see this is something you must be able to explain if you're going to claim that uniform material explains the geologic column no scientist on this earth can do it I challenge you to do it tell me tell me this Erica how is plausible to believe that there's millions of years time when we see one strata with a comprised of a predominantly one material abruptly ends and paper thin boundary then only another why is there no gradation why is it instantaneous if what we observe in the earth doesn't match exactly what's done in the laboratory okay so setting the timer for two minutes and we're going to go back and forth with two minute intervals perfect that that is fine by me so a couple of things on that one these paper thin layers that you're suggesting are not there in all kinds of strata I know in your conversation with Corpeseo Euston they call it interfingering which is essentially a means to look at how things are overlapping at angles but but all of that aside the basic concept of geology and of deposition is that things form on top of other things and that area in between is like it's like bedding right again I don't I don't know how many times I can kind of like say this I guess and and get across my point rather but that form those bedding those paper thin layers form whether something is depositing incredibly slowly like the limestone we see depositing right now every year in any sort of coral reef area or when things happen quickly like for example with your river flooding so so having layers isn't exclusive to to this this form of rapidly rapid burial or rapid sedimentation and the fact of the matter is you said mud overflowed the river so I'm imagining it's probably mudstone which can be deposited quite quickly into 12 layers or 12 feet or whatever it is that you said show me a single example where something other than the two classic creationist linked experiments of the two things that can be deposited rapidly or two things that can be deposited rapidly and have the marks that they have been deposited rapidly in the form of those little noticeable structures called floccules not the flocculites the lightning things but the structures that are found and rapidly deposited deposited sediment due to rapidly moving water it's absent hold on I didn't get my two minutes it's absent in all of the all of the viable strata that has to do with anything that deposits slowly first of all now completely separated from that it is completely demonstrably false that the only way things are deposited is by water wind deposits things as well we get particles from the Sahara Desert in Brazil that's blown all the way over across the entire Atlantic Ocean all the way over in Brazil so you know there are more than one means to deposit that's my point okay floccules can be explained by during the flood the flood didn't happen instantaneously across the earth it happened in pieces an area would become inundated and the area is rising because of geological movement in the continent it's rising and gets inundated a second time bearing a floccule so but you didn't answer the question you see this you said predominantly one material these strata that you're seeing right here are comprised of different materials that's why they're predominantly different colors you see so when you say they're comprised of predominantly one one material that's not true these strata are comprised of very different materials and the boundary between them is fine as paper now as i pointed out that can't happen under uniformitarianism it only happens in the laboratory rapidly and that's what we observe and it's exactly what we see throughout the geologic column this kills uniformitarianism there is no way for you to squeeze millions of years in them there isn't now you mentioned limestone again you keep bringing up limestone it takes millions of years so you think for limestone then can you explain to me why we find fossils of fish completely articulate fossils of fish in limestone because here's your idea the limestone is is burying at a rate of one to two centimeters per thousand years at just like with uh with chalk right so if that's true can you explain to us why a fish is going to lay on the ocean floor for two thousand two thousand not two thousand years let's say not four thousand it's got to be buried by enough of the material that's compacted under its own weight to seal off the creature and prevent earth ocean floor worms from eating it and scavengers from getting it are you telling us that it's plausible that a complete fish can die lay on the ocean floor and be buried at a rate of one to two centimeters per thousand years by limestone material and remain a fossil how does that work Erica okay how how does that work now i haven't had two minutes yet but you need to be able to explain to us why it's plausible for anybody to believe that the limestone can only form by uniformitarian time when we have fossils in limestone are you completely articulate ones in fact like sea creatures i'm sorry but i'm just going to tell you if a fish dies and lays on the ocean floor it won't be there in three months it won't be it's not likely to be there in a month a whale can die this has been verified by gps going back to the location where the whale was whale dies on the ocean floor six months later it's half gone one year later there's nothing not even a shred of bone nothing it's been completely devoured by scavengers but you want us to believe that we have to believe that limestone forms over millions of years at such a ridiculous low rate when we have fossils in it absolutely i do because it's never been demonstrated otherwise now one i just explained to you an example yeah so so i have i'm not a paleontologist that's for certain now if you can show me in in a pure limestone deposit a fish fossil i would be very interested i would be i would find it fascinating but not in so far as i find it impossible because the thing is is that limestone is limestone is deposited when it's still very very soft yeah fossil fish and limestone hmm that is a cool fossil yeah there are fossils in limestone yeah i was not aware because again i'm not a paleontologist but you have to remember that when things are deposited they're not deposited and then they become rock instantly they can slough off of things the sides of canyons whatever underwater canyons and the like so i have no idea how that specific fossil was formed but what i do know is that underwater landslides in both models do occur and limestone is not immediately hardened the second it ends up on the ground in fact it requires compaction and cementation before it's actually a hard rock so there's the there you might not find that to be you know the answer that you want um and i would also need to look into the particulars of that fossil and see if it truly is a pure limestone fossil as as it's being proposed here um but the fact remains that i no matter how many times you you want to say it there is no mechanism for limestone or chalk or any of these fine mineral i focus on limestone because it's the one that i know but there's dozens of minerals that simply can't deposit quickly they've never been demonstrated to not with the washington's gablin's flood not with local floods not nothing or like even more local floods nothing of that nature but if if it wasn't clear from my presentation the most the most damning thing that i find for flood geology or below the the flood in general is your immense problem with heat you know whether you look at walt brown or catastrophic plate tectonics it doesn't matter no one the flood you have the best boat in the world made of titanium out there it is going to be instantly vaporized along with the crust of the planet because of the sheer amount of heat released not just from the the fountains of the deep bursting forth and because it's under such great amounts of pressure it is going to be super heated as you said but also from the accelerated radiometric decay that you need also from the friction from the continents moving and believe it or not when things like like sandstone and limestone harden they release heat too so i'd like to know how you explain that well i i can't explain the heat problem uh but uh as i said i don't have a problem with there being issues that can't be explained what i do like to talk about are things that can be explained like these fish fossils in limestone now i'm just going to tell you erica it can't be that a fish dies falls on the ocean floor and limestone is deposited on top of it at a rate of one to two inches or centimeters per thousand years that's not possible there would be no fish there can be no fossil formed that way i don't know how you came to believe this i think because you need to believe that these happen these things happen the limestone and other rocks have to form over vast geologic time i've demonstrated with the fine distinct boundaries of the strata that they all formed rapidly the whole geologic column but this is it just kills your idea there's no way for that fish or any other fossil of the fish or any creation any other obrachial pods anything else found in limestone to exist because i'm i'm i'm gonna give you a little heads up here you can't have a fish or any other animal die fall on the ocean floor and then remain there for a vast age of time it will be consumed but so your rescue device for this is well an underwater landslide fixed up well this is what the rescue device used by uniform attorneys all the time to play to explain fossil dinosaurs in sandstone and other creatures in sandstone that it's it's always turning to well you know an underwater landslide buried that creature oh so what about that one over there well that was an underwater landslide too well what about that one way over there 2000 miles away well that was an underwater landslide I'm sorry Erica it's just not plausible to believe that the whole continent was covered by continuous underwater landslides that's just not plausible the rescue device doesn't work this is what we know 10 seconds the creatures are in limestone they can't be there unless they were buried rapidly that's all there is to that you haven't explained how millions of years can be between strata that have a fine distinct boundary and you never will okay so a couple of things on that one there I've explained both of these things to you you just don't like the explanation and that's fine but I don't think you're justified even though I feel as if you might continue to say it I don't personally feel as if you're justified in saying you haven't explained this the better way of putting it is I don't think that explanation is viable which is fine but but I certainly think that local catastrophes which have been a hallmark of of geology since actualism was invented you know I mean local catastrophes have to my knowledge since actualism never been precluded from the idea of uniformitarianism which is why it was renamed actualism in the first place so when you've got 4.8 billion with a B years you think there's not going to be a couple dozen landslides that catch a couple dozen critters I find that just statistically unbelievable now you can say to me that you don't have a problem with the heat or whatever but the fact remains that your entire model is physically impossible on every single level until you find a way to mitigate that heat now you can call it a rescuing device to say you know there are landslides or to refer to cross bedding both of which are actual just regular things that happen in geology that we see today as you mentioned with your example with the river we get landslides and we get volcanism and we get these kinds of of localized events and they catch critters in them so I you know I'm at a loss to me it feels like you you know felt like you had a grip on this thing about a fish and limestone and you think that that's somehow a gotcha I mean I'm not even a geologist and I know how something like that could have formed you just don't like the explanation and of course I can point to you and say you really and truly have not provided an explanation for the heat problem not even an attempt you just said no we don't know which by the way I respect I think that it's honest to say when you don't know the answer I try my best to do the same I mean like I said I'm not a paleontologist I don't know the details of how this fish and limestone formed but I can come up with a feasible idea but even that is lacking from even the best creations on the job for the heat problem okay so I'm trying to screen share a picture here so I think I think I've shown I've explained that only rapid inundation can explain the geologic column the strata their fine distinct boundaries and I've shown that having a fossil in limestone demonstrates the creature had to have been buried rapidly in a massive amount of the stuff it can't have sustained for a thousands of years waiting for you know several feet of it to be compacted now I'm off to this because I'm going to show you this evolutionists say well how do kangaroos if creation is true how'd they get off the arc and get to Australia well you should probably investigate land bridges because that's probably the explanation land bridges the creature has migrated and evolutionists say well kangaroos they evolved in Australia they couldn't have migrated because we only find fossils of them in Australia well this is University of Madras archaeologist Genu Koshy and he discovered that in India the people of India drew were creating rock art of kangaroos in India now we know that the kangaroos didn't migrate from Australia to India well they had to have been in India before they got to Australia so this chose migration and it kills the idea that the evolutionist has that the creature had to have evolved in Australia because we've got a man made rock art by ancient men of kangaroos in India this is a new discovery it just was made just this week so you know that I think provides an explanation that the uniform terrarist the evolutionist idea that creatures exist in one location only because they evolve there and they don't exist anywhere else because we don't find their fossil somewhere else in the geologic column it puts a throws a screw into that cog of gears you know so there is no problem with biodiversity and and biogeological diversity I don't see that as a problem what I do find a problem is having a fossil anistrada if it formed over millions of okay so and again as I said I've given an explanation for the fish and limestone I'm sure the people in chat are doing an excellent job putting that more concisely than I did but if you don't like it you don't like it I can't control what is convincing to people as an explanation I do know that as far as parsimony goes you guys have a lot of problems as far as ecologic or hydrologic sorting explaining the order of the fossils of the fossil record we don't find a single mammal below the below like for instance in like carboniferous or perhaps dibony and whatever there's no rabbit in the Cambridge and I guess is what I'm trying to say things have moved around 100% I will be the first one to tell you that science changes constantly and that's what makes it so cool but the problem is the earth keeps getting older not younger and as just like a complete side note as far as this kangaroo picture I think it's a cool picture I don't think it's a kangaroo I think that's about as viable as an explanation as I've seen some people try to propose things that look vaguely like dinosaurs proving that humans live with dinosaurs people draw pictures of minotaurs people draw pictures of lion-headed men people draw pictures of cyclops people draw pictures of a lot of things and they make a lot of them up I don't think that it's even possible to to parse out based off of cave art what is legitimate and what is not unless it's it's you know very very detailed which I don't find that picture to be funnily enough though we do find cave art that does depict mastodons and things of this nature but but I don't I just don't think if you're looking for for an explanation to get your kangaroos to Australia you I think might want to look into that land bridge a little bit too because I used to get coffee with the young earth creationist and and he brought up that same thing one time so I did look into it there is zip zilch nada support for a land bridge 4400 years ago standing between Australia and the the main continent of Asia Europe and Africa the subcontinent of India wherever you want it to be it's just not there but we can play the land bridge Oh was that time sergeants you got five to ten seconds okay but we do find a land bridge where the bearing strike was that's it well there's secular scientists just want to let everybody know we will go into Q&A pretty pretty quickly here I'm trying to remember I think we started with nef so what we'll do is we'll give nef a two minute interval right now and then we'll do one for Erica and then we'll go into the Q&A okay so there are secular geologists who believe there was a land bridge there like there was in the bearing strike I find it bizarre that you believe that it's possible that everywhere we look there has to have been an underwater landslide that covered the fossil every fossil not just this fossil or that one but whales and all kinds of things where evolutionists where they can't be if uniformitarianism is true the simple fact is we don't see evolution in the fossil record I mean this this is about the flood of Noah and the ark okay it's not about paleontology specifically but I'll just point out that there are literally virtually every prominent evolutionist scientist who has written books about paleontology acknowledges the geologic column is absent of the transitional forms expected by evolution theory nearly every single one of them and I'm providing on stream just such examples from Niles Eldridge Steve and Jay Gould once the died in the late 90s once the world's foremost paleontologist David B. Kitts professor of geology university of the list goes on and on and on if I was to read all of them to you and just at the normal pace that I'm speaking now it would take me about five minutes to get through them all so and these are in the books the evolutionist scientists write for their peers to read not for the general public so much so there just isn't any evidence of evolution in the rocks of the earth I think I've shown that I'm sorry is it time okay well I think I've shown a strong case for the for the arc of Noah being a viable vessel that would be able to withstand the oceans of the Noaic flood and historical evidence that man wrote of a historical global flood and those those legends are in virtually every culture of the whole world earlier I know that Sentinel apologetics I saw you did two I think Dave Gar I know you did one if you can tag me because I definitely that's kind of the the purpose of like the engagement with super chat so I do want to read those and so really sorry I've never had YouTube do this usually I can just pull up a list in my creator studio and I just read through the list in order but right now YouTube is just not putting them in there so it's been a rough night but thanks for your patience folks we're going to kick it over to Erika and wait are these closing statements not per se more just continued two-minute intervals so cool yeah all right so I'll go ahead no transitional fossils to me I know this is a bit rude I guess but I find that notion and laughable particularly because creationists all across the board recognize that transitional fossils are a thing including like Todd Wood right and that they look like transitional fossils they just say that they aren't transitional fossils and and even some of them like for instance Todd Wood are kind of at a loss for what to do with them right I mean he doesn't know where to draw the line on where which prehistoric horse kind to beget it all or whether it was Indohias or Pachycetus that started the citations he thinks there were no citations essentially in the water or that they re-evolved after the arc and that Noah took a Pachycetus or Ambulocetus on board um so you know you don't want to talk about transitional fossils certainly but if we do we should have a discussion about evolution I mean I definitely assisted in derailing this conversation to where it is now but yeah fossils form today they absolutely 100% form today now guys like Kent Hoven say that they don't they absolutely do the thing is is that we find them in a myriad of different ways from alkaline lakes we find them fossilizing there we find them fossilizing or rather preserving in bogs we find them you know doing all sorts of thing getting frozen and yes getting buried but the thing is if something's buried you're not going to see it are you because it's all trapped there underground so yes fossils do 100% still form today I can absolutely provide a source in the comments for that as well because that's just not true and and no they don't just form by rapid deposition either because again we have tarpets we have alkaline lakes we have all sorts of different means by which fossils can form my my whole thing here is that to me I can't even begin to entertain the the arc situation the global flood situation with the enormous heat problem and with the fact that it just completely lacks a viable model in general like there's the catastrophic plate tectonics and there's the hydro plate and they don't agree on pretty much anything even walt brown is aware of the enormous release of energy that he has to account for for ejecta leaving earth and then coming back and getting it again so no that I I remain entirely unconvinced on on any of that I think that there needs to be something empirical and you know for their best efforts we haven't seen anything and that's all I have to say gosh yeah and as mentioned we were going to do those final two minute intervals with that and we were going to jump into the q and a so what I would like to do is just quick remind everybody so sorry folks that by the way for the record somebody let me know I appreciate it somebody mentioned that fight the flat earth was streaming today and he had the same problem where he could not find the list of super chats and his creator studio so it's youtube I told you guys okay so anyway so sorry about that but let's see Dave Garth thanks for your super chat this is one that I I think he had said before I do have like one or two yeah that's right I had Stephen Steen sorry bro I know that you sent one or two as well so yeah there's a lot of people that I'm so sorry we lost them because I can't on the stream that we started on tonight as well I went over there to see if I could scroll through the chat and the chat is processing still so I can't so we're up a crick so sorry folks it's been a long night but thanks for your super chat from Stephen Steen who says oh that's right I do remember him saying this says Nef is the greatest scientist of all time thank you for that you got a fan out there Nef well uh you know I wouldn't go that far gosh yeah well thank you very much Dave Garth thanks for your super chat said um I just wanted you to do a Darth Dawkins impression and say were these interlocutors even screamed James that's funny I was listening to a video of Darth today I was going to give you a laugh but thanks for your super chat from club I know that you asked one I'm trying to remember I think it was James how can I be as cool as you very sad it's like hanging there buddy okay I made that one up but next up I do have a couple of real ones here let's see tioga thanks for your super chat who said Erica is an alpha well I try not to be a beta that's right very good Erica so let's see I know Sentinel apologetics I know you sent one I'm so sorry Robert let's come I remember you sent one as well thanks for your recent one Robert who said Nef a simple google search shows a flourishing civilization in Mesopotamia between 2500 bc and 2300 bc with no mention of their entire civilization being destroyed by a flood please explain oh it's that's easily explained the secular timeline for the Egyptians and the Babylonian photo crescent is always stretched out evolutionists have a habit of stretching out historical timelines that add a century here in three centuries there and the further you go back back in history the more time they add now it becomes 500 years then 1000 then 10,000 then 100,000 then millions so there's a lot of assumptions that go on in that camp with that and they leave out ignore a lot of other information that makes a case against it so their timelines is what's wrong got you and thanks for your super chat thanks for one of the ones where we respond to each others or should I just not are we running low on time I think we'd drag this thing out for another 45 minutes if we did a little short on time I would normally give you guys like a quick rebuttal on at least some but just to try to cruise through as many as we can sorry about that I know that you've got a round in the chamber ready to fire back I know I get passionate Neff but I really do just enjoy the conversation so much sometimes I get ahead of myself well I tell you I'll send you a list of those fossil quotes okay because there's so many I would actually like to read them that would be great send me an email we'd allow you guys to do a rebuttal but only if you call each other a beta so thanks for your super chat Dave Garre who said please add a limestone chunk for the thumbnail so true we really should I will do that for tomorrow we will be premiering this debate in its entirety so we will stitch the two pieces together and re-release it tomorrow for throwback Thursday so that'll be early in the morning so Daniel G or Daniel yes Daniel G603 thanks for your super chat said if I know Neff the way I think I do he will gracefully accept a feat and never debate again rest in peace legend I would just say projection I don't think it's possible for the truth to lose a debate so I don't think I'll lose any I don't see how the physical evidence can be refuted you got it thanks so much appreciate that and next up I think I saw another one hold on one sec very embarrassing folks you know just barely hanging together or kind of building the plane as it takes off tonight let's see we yep we got that and yes I do want to remind you though folks oh we do have so before I read this next super chat from Josiah Hansen want to remind you both the speakers linked in the description waiting for you and Josiah Hansen thanks for your super chat said in parentheses in the lego movie Erica is awesome thanks for singing it James that I hearing hearing you start that sentence I was like God I hope he sings it that's funny I wish I knew the actual song but that's good and let's see Tioga thinks I have my own songs somebody wrote a song about me it's on the internet it's on YouTube you're serious yeah years ago you know I'll definitely check it out Neff I promise we will premiere it tomorrow during the debate that place on this channel I'm kidding my is it a good song or is it a is it a critical song oh it's you know it's it's ridiculing you know oh sassy gotcha oh was it gman that it was he rapping no no no I don't remember who did it but it was like eight or nine years ago I think seven or seven gman does have rap songs you gotta check it out on his channel I'm totally serious oh my god yes it's awesome so yes thanks so much for let's see Tioga who said mine said Erica is an alpha that's really what my super chat said yeah we totally got the one Tioga but I think that was an older message thanks for your patience Tioga and want to say thanks so much everybody for being patient with us during the serious tech issues both with YouTube partly being to blame but also is true I have no idea what did it I've never had streamlabs just all of a sudden just boom shut down but that's what happened earlier tonight very embarrassing did you know Erica when we were off air laughed at me geez okay so I made that up thanks Adam Elbilya for your question says that's awesome how you're not embarrassed to show your face after your humiliating to humiliation debating against Tom jump after and then in parentheses after whatever he says if any all the love man well thank you very much those those debilitating losses to D jump I still haven't recovered from it's been over a year so I appreciate that actually if you want to know the truth though okay but thanks for your let's see we have a patreon question from Brian Stevens thanks for your question said Ken Neff give the names of these secular geologists who claim Australia had a land bridge specific names would help and James Downard and I are wondering no I don't recall them off my top of my head I read a couple of articles in the major news media several years back where mainstream scientists were speculating that there may have been a land bridge between Australia and Asia and a point in the past when the ocean levels were lower oh wait I can't I can't cite the name but this time one thing I thought that Adam Elbilio was giving me crap about my debates with Tom jump like a year ago in fact he said he was talking about you Neff oh okay so let me read it again just so everybody knows the context okay he said that's awesome how you are not embarrassed to show your face Nephilim free after your humiliation debating against Tom jump all the love man yeah well I honestly I think I've debated many stronger people than Tom jump I didn't mean to go there okay I'm just being honest now I'm being honest okay I'm just being honest oh snap wait until Tom here's that I'm going to tell him you said that now but thanks for your yes sentinel apologetics definitely type your question that was your original site with super chat because I appreciate you doing that totally appreciate the support they said Noah did not this is their super chat originally said Noah did not build Kenham's arc Nephilim free and then they said the dimensions are base 60 numbers not our base 10 Noah built a coracle boat out of reeds not gigantic lumber well that doesn't match the physical evidence of the geologic column the flood what would be necessary and it doesn't match the scriptures which are the primary source of information about the actual arc itself and how it was constructed and it doesn't match rationale either that Noah would build a since the flood legends of the world are global since the geologic evidence of the geologic column has to have been produced by rapid inundation and sedimentology and can't be produced by uniform materialism I think it's implausible to believe the secular crazy idea that Noah built some wingy dingy little thing out of reeds that just doesn't work next up thanks for your super chat Sentinel apologetics also said Genesis 6 14 reads quote make for yourself a vessel of stocks from a read hut with reads you will make the vessel and tar it inside and out with bitumen the Bible doesn't say to read it says go for wood whatever type of wood that was we don't know but it was made of wood and it was made of tremendous tremendous size it just doesn't make sense from the historical point of view from the geological point of view and it doesn't match scripture about how it was constructed it was constructed out of wood not reads gotcha and thanks so much let's see we Hunter Rotham thanks for your super chat said to nevrim free what are your credentials if you have less than Erica why do you debate or so confidently I'm so glad they asked because it just happens to be that I have a PhD in every field of science from every university on every continent on every planet in every galaxy in every solar system of and of every universe in all the multi universes I have them all I have in fact stadiums stacked with diplomas I'll take a picture for you sometime well no you all know I was nasty I liked that no I was a fan that's excellent and let's see thanks for let's see I wanted to try to figure out if I missed any more Michael Dresden just trolling let's see there's gotta be another one let's see I always wonder if Michael just copy and paste but I do want to say to respect the time of the debaters especially because Neflin free the reason we went early tonight is Neflin actually has to get up super duper early so we do want to rock and roll pretty quick here but want to say thanks so much for our speakers for being here they are what make the channel fun the channel is the lifeblood of it is the debaters so we really appreciate them spending their time with us tonight it was a lot of fun and then this video just so you know because I know otherwise I'll get emails or something this video will disappear I'll privatize it right after the stream ends and then reattach the two pieces and premiere it tomorrow morning just so you're wondering in case you're wondering like where did the video go I want to leave a comment making fun of Neflin free well don't worry you'll get your chance tomorrow and so I want to say thanks so much folks it's been a lot of fun and thanks again Erica and Nef hey always love to be here I had a good time I again I enjoyed it yeah thanks for debating this me Erica I hope we can do it again yeah and thanks for debating with me as well again I we just both get passionate you know it's a fun subject to talk about it was a fun one this is like people really there's like a ton of positive feedback and a ton of likes as well so thanks so much for that support of these speakers everybody and Michael the Canadian Atheist thanks for your last minute super chat said the flood never happened grow up Nef yeah okay well the flood never happened then then stop walking on the earth because you're standing on 1800 meters of sedimentary strata with fine distinct boundaries what are you gonna do make the earth disappear move to another planet if you don't like the flood there you go there you go really quick we had a couple last minute really quick ones and then we really do just because I do want to I want to let Nef get to sleep at a decent time so we'll read these last two sent an apology thanks for your super chat said Gopher is an Akkadian load word equals read not timber Nef that's not true Hebraists disagree with that got you thanks for your super chat Robert Luscombe who said Nef what would change your mind nothing how reality doesn't change therefore my mind won't change got you and by the way folks in case you had not heard I am not able to find the super chats in the creator studio so Dildo Baggins I saw you were asking if I read your super chat I am so sorry I like it YouTube isn't showing it to me over here I'm trying to refresh and it's still just not coming through man YouTube but yeah so let me yeah still not coming through very embarrassing for but what we'll do is want to say thanks so much everybody for being here it's always fun and I sincerely apologize I know there were some super chats that I missed like Jen asked sorry I knew you sent one but I don't remember what it said you've been monstrous with that I listen email the question I know I got none of the questions Nef Nef stole all the questions but if you do have any questions for me feel free to email me I love answering this kind of stuff so so true and she's got a channel so you can post your questions as comments there whatever you know yeah totally correct me come harass me on my channel that's right Erica email me don't forget to email me I don't I don't have your email Nef James do you have his email maybe could you yeah I mean I can send it if Nef allows me it's on my top secret double probation status so I can yeah I put my credentials and James be quiet you're not supposed to talk about that keep it secret yeah no my credentials you got it gosh thank you guys come on I'm trying to joke yeah send her my email address and yes that's right I absolutely will do and yes tomorrow should be a lot of fun problem of evil debate that'll be skylar fiction and reformed boy or I should say reformed christian apologist is his actual name that's just his twitter handle so thanks so much folks we will see you hopefully tomorrow night or Friday night I'm trying to remember Friday night oh marked rizdale is coming back you should like this you guys I hope you get a kick out of it it's going to be on whether or not Trump has handled the pandemic properly so marked rizdale is going to be arguing no and then the general you guys have probably seen him he sends a question in her super chat here and there general ballsack will be here with us and so that's his real name it's what it says on his birth certificate well not the general part but anyway thanks for your oh let's say dildo baggins thanks for your super chat as well as helping us stay professional here dildo baggins does ask neph why is dimetrodon found below masasaurus well i could throw that back and say why do we find dinosaur fossils on the surface of the earth the evolutionist uses a rescue device well that was a underwater landslide oh well that was because erosion took the land away over there they have lots of rescue devices and we don't find rabbits with dinosaurs and humans either and we don't find lots of creatures that evolutionists expect to find in the same strata with other creatures so it's cherry picking because we don't find this one with that that means uniform tearingism is true but they don't talk about the ones that we don't find that we should according to their ideas gotcha we will let you go folks it's been super fun and we'll let nephem free get to sleep thanks erica and neph