 Everybody, today we are debating creation evolution and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate as this is going to be a great one, folks. It's the end game debate. It is the final of the three debates or discussions with Kent Hovind and our friend Mark Drisdale. And I want to say, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we are hosting many debates. You'll see, for example, tonight, right after this debate at 9pm, we'll have a flat earth debate. That should be a lot of fun. And then we are also very excited. If you haven't heard somehow, David Wood and Matt Dillehunti will be debating live and in person in Austin, Texas, and we will be hosting it. It's going to be a great time next week. So with that, I want to let you know just a couple of quick housekeeping type things before we get the ball rolling with this debate. I do want to, in the sincerest way possible, issue a public apology because the last time that I had Kent on, that we all got to have Kent come on and speak, I went past the time at which Kent left the debate and the other speaker said things that, let's just say, Kent wasn't there to defend himself. And had I known that would happen, I would not have done it. That's why we will not tonight. So I've got to give you a heads up, folks, that if you fire super chats in at the last minute, I will not be able to really necessarily read them because we do have to respect the time of the debaters and we will end when Kent has to leave. And I do want to say, regardless of what you think of them, I know there are some critics out there, but Kent Hovind has helped this channel, I think, more than anybody. We, back when we were at our smallest, when we had Kent on for the first time he was willing to come on, he's never asked anything of us. He's never asked for any sort of honorarium, no fee. And he came on the first time we had 30 people watching live and we were pumped. And so I just want to say, Kent has done nothing but be a good sport with us. And so I have to be fair and do the same for him. And I failed that time, but this, from now on, we will be professional. And if we're going to say that we're unbiased, then we've got to look out for everybody. And so just want to let you know, we do appreciate you, Kent. Thanks so much for coming back. Thanks for having me. Absolutely. And with that, we will jump right into it. So because this was a like crazy, quick setup in terms of confirming the debate, I am putting the gentleman's links in the description box right now. So I want to let you know, if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I want to hear more of that, I will be putting both their YouTube links and their other link as well, whether it be Twitter or drdino.com. And so with that, thank you gentlemen for being here. I want to let everybody know the format. It'll be a roughly eight to 10 opening statement, flexible opening statement. The debaters don't have to use all of that if they don't want to. And then we will go into open conversation. I should think it'll be easy going laid back and then a quick Q&A. So with that, if you have any questions, folks, fire them into the old live chat, I will pull those questions out. It makes it easier for me to see them if you put at modern day debate in that chat that you put in the live chat. And with that, thanks so much for being here, gentlemen. We hadn't discussed who will go first. Do either of you have a preference in who goes first? Yeah, Mark, you can go first. Okay, so I'll have a really short opening. Basically tonight, what I'd like to go over with is Kent really pushes the fact that he doesn't want kids lied to. So I honestly believe that if Kent doesn't want us to be lying to kids, let's have an honest discussion tonight. Let's see if we can put to bed some of these conflicts between what's written in the Bible and what is known as far as physics. That's what I'm going to try to disprove tonight. I know Kent has talked a lot about the flood. He's talked about this ice layer out in the atmosphere somewhere. I don't know where this ice layer was, but apparently it was three fingers thick. Just things like that, I would really like to go over and I would like Kent to defend them and really decide is this possible? And if it's not possible, let's just say it's magic. We're going to have to go to that point. We're going to have to say, look, OK, this will not happen in the physical world. We are going to just accept that it's either magic or it didn't happen. And there's a lot of stuff with the flood and narrative out of the Bible that we just know could not have happened. It just really flies in the face of everything we know as far as physics go. And then I'm hoping at the end we can tidy up a little bit of the evolution talk that Kent and I had where dogs come from dogs. But I would just like to add a little bit to that about where we're going to go with that, why we have animals that are shaped the way they are. Why do we have a dog with a heel six to eight inches up its leg? That really doesn't make a lot of sense. You know, if we're going to look at that heel and not call it vestigial, I don't know what we're going to call it because it really doesn't make a lot of sense that we've got a claw six to eight inches up a dog's leg. Now, obviously, some of the smaller dogs have it three inches up. But let's look at something like a German shepherd with this claw sticking out of its leg, you know, six inches up its foot, basically where its toe would have been. So there's just some talking like that. Let's let's try to talk about that and let's really be honest. If we don't want to be lying to kids, let's not lie to kids. Let's really say, you know, something I thought about it and either I will give tonight and say, OK, Kent, you're right, I'm wrong. I have misunderstood the science behind it. Or I would like Kent to look at it and say, you know something, you're right, Mark. This really couldn't have happened. And I know we're calling tonight's debate the end game, but you know something I really like talking to Kent. I've actually got plans to go down and see him within the next couple of weeks. I'm going to check out Dinosaur Adventureland, see what it's all about, see if I can find any dinosaurs. And I hope you got some chickens down there for me, Kent, or I'm going to have to report there's no dinosaurs. But I'm going to leave it at that. And again, I would also like to thank Kent for showing up tonight. And taking part in this debate, I know there have been a lot of issues with a cut line at at their park. And he's had to go into a city to talk to us to go over that. I would also like to clear up a mistake that I had made in the last debate, and that was claiming that they are fifties. Our subsonic Kent was absolutely right on that. That is a supersonic bullet. That's, you know, almost one point. I think it's almost two times the speed of sound, to be honest with you. So I really got my facts wrong on that. And that's acceptable. We do make mistakes as human beings. We can only store so much information in our heads. And on that note, I would like to pass it over to Kent. And I'm really hoping we can keep the introduction short so we can have a really nice conversation on some of the concerns I have on what we are teaching children. Take it away, Kent. Thank you, sir. And that doesn't have to be the end game from my side. I'd like to go another round or 10 rounds or 200. I'm going to get you converted, Mark. We're going to make a great Christian creationist when we get you converted. I went to church last Sunday, Kent. That's a start. It depends on what kind of church. There are some pretty bad duds out there, but OK. No, this is my this was my wife's church. And to be honest with you, I was able to sit and listen to everything that was said and I could add an O to God and say the word good. And everything that was being said to me on that day made a lot of sense if you just put the word good in there. We need to be good to each other. I don't, you know, well, let's let's leave it at that. It was a good experience. We're going every Sunday, like I said, my wife's a Christian and this is something I'm going to do for her. Well, OK, I'm curious how an atheist defines what good is. That would be another story. We'll do that later. OK, I take the position that the Bible is true. God made everything in six days, the stars, the universe, the animals, the plants, everything in six days and and wrote a book and told us how he did it. There are too many millions of what are called symbiotic relationships that to to have evolution to have the process come here by evolution. Plants require animals. They reciprocate the gases as well as the food supply. There are just millions of symbiotic relationships that I think defy an evolutionary explanation. It'd be like saying what you've all first, the bolt or the nut? Well, the bolt and the nut go together and one's no good without the other. And so that's on a crude scale compared to the living things, which are million billion times more complex. So I do take the position that the Bible is true. Now, I do not I am not. We're not asking everybody to pay for our theories and religions to be talked. So the burden of proof is really not on me to prove the creation story. The burden of proof is on you guys who want all of us to pay for your religion to be taught, which is evolution. Nobody's ever seen any animal produce offspring that are different. You mentioned you have a zebras and lions. And I said, do you think they have a common ancestor? And you said, well, if you go back a long time, well, Mark, that's a religious belief. You can't observe that. We don't see this happening. All you're ever going to see is your lions produced lions and your zebras produced zebras. That's all anybody has ever seen. And so science deals with what we can observe study and test. I hold the position that God made the animals and plants and said they will bring forth after their kind. And that's all that's ever happened. And whether we can, whether we know what kind it is or not and where to classify it in our brain doesn't matter. They know we have all kinds of animals here and our donkeys show no interest whatsoever in the turtle. They don't want to mate with the turtle. They just ignore it completely. African spurred toward his hundred pounds. So the animals certainly know what kind they are. I do teach that the Bible says there was water or says there was water above the firmament in Genesis chapter one. God made water above the firmament. And it is my theory and many other people believe this, that it was probably a layer of ice, two or three inches thick, maybe 10 miles up that contained the whole atmosphere. I think anybody that studies anything about earth science or the atmosphere would agree the atmosphere we're in today has layers to it. Troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere, exosphere, ionosphere. There's no question. The atmosphere that we're in is stratified, layered. So that's certainly not a problem to have another layer containing all of it, a layer of ice. If the layer of ice was in contact with outer space, where it's minus, you know, 452 degrees Fahrenheit or minus 171 Celsius or whatever the temperature is, almost absolute zero, then it would stay frozen like an Eskimozic glue stays frozen with he can build a fire inside. It can be 60 degrees inside an igloo and he can't melt the roof because it keeps conducting the heat away. So, but the ice canopy theory is not something that all creationists believe and it's not something at all. We're demanding everybody pay for that to be taught. I do believe if you took all the air that's currently around the earth and squeezed it into 10 miles, it would increase air pressure at the surface. Today is 14.7 pounds per square inch. I forget what that is in metric, but I used to know, I forgot, it doesn't matter. If you increased air pressure, that would explain lots of things that we see. We find fossils of animals that are huge, that couldn't survive in today's atmosphere. They find bird fossils with 50 foot wingspan, like the one in, I think it's a Smithsonian or someplace got a giant eagle with probably a 30 foot wingspan. They simply couldn't fly today. And the air's too thin. They find dragonfly fossils with 50 inch wingspan. There's no way that thing could fly, let alone breathe, because insects breathe through their skin, through the spiracles. So there's a very serious surface area to volume ratio problem. As any creature gets larger, it has less skin compared to its body volume. Example, you take a one inch cube, it has one cubic inch of volume and six square inches of skin. But if you double it to two, it now has sort of the one inches, six to one. If you double it to two by two by two, it's eight cubic inches, but only has 24 square inches of skin. So it just dropped to three to one. So it went from six to one to three to one. As it gets larger, the problem becomes more exaggerated. As you get smaller, a little tiny bit of body mass can be supported with a huge, it's mostly skin. That's why insects can fall out of a tree and doesn't bother, they just hit the ground and land and walk off. There's so much surface area that they can't fall very fast. So I think the position, the fossil evidence is absolutely conclusive. Something was very different on this planet in the past at some time. Now, I believe that's explained by increased air pressure and that canopy, a couple inches of ice, which is what the Jews have always taught. The canopy had, there was three inches, two to three fingers of ice above the atmosphere. It's now gone. That fell down at the time of the flood. You asked me to defend that. So is it possible? And if not, you want me to just say it's magic. I don't think there's anything magic necessary. I super, if you get ice cold enough, it becomes magnetic. You can hold a statically charged comb, comb your hair, sorry, comb your beard and get static in your comb and hold it next to a stream of water coming out of your kitchen faucet. You'll see water can be attracted or deflected by static charges. And it certainly has been proven at super cold temperatures. Ice can be levitated by a magnet. So the idea of a couple inches of ice levitated either by the magnetic field or held up simply by the air pressure like a big inflatable building. I don't think that's a problem, but again, I'm not asking for that to be taught. That's just my theory. I think it explains the giant animals partially. Plus the couple inches of ice would block out nearly all of the UV light and the dangerous things coming from the sun. The sun produces a lot of stuff besides just light. Things that are dangerous. Give you skin cancer and give you wrinkles and cause your problems in all life forms. So a canopy of water or ice above the atmosphere 10 miles would block most of that out. So I'm not relying on magic. I think there's a scientific logical explanation. Super cold ice is magnetic. The Earth's magnetic field is declining. That's measurable. They've measured the decline of the Earth's magnetic field. That's why they think the magnetic field may flip. Which I don't buy at all. I don't think it could, let alone ever did. It never did flip. But the declining magnetic field indicates it used to be stronger, which would easily hold the canopy up even better if it was stronger. So I don't like kids to be lied to. That is correct. I think we're lying to the kids when we tell them we have scientific evidence that zebras and lions have a common ancestor. If you go back far enough, that might be a religious belief, but it's not scientific observable. The zebra's been having babies for a long time. They're always zebras without exception. And you mentioned about the dew claw. I'm kind of surprised. I've never heard an evolutionist or an atheist try to use that one as evidence. The dew claw on the dogs is not a knee halfway up the back. The dew claw is something they use all the time. They can barely move it, but it is attached. It's not a useless appendage. Just Google dew claw. And I think you'll find it's been known for a long time that it does have a use and it's not vestigial, it's not losing anything. It's just part of the dog's anatomy. We have four fingers and a thumb that are all opposable. I suppose you could live with only three fingers or two. Why do we have four? That's the way it's designed. We use the little finger. It's not near as powerful as the index finger, but it can be used. So I think that'd be a poor argument for evolution, even if it were true, because that would be an example of losing something, not gaining something. I have yet to see any atheist or evolutionist give an example of any nation organ, something we are gaining. It's always vestigial organs. We're losing the appendix, they think. We're losing this and losing that. There used to be 180 vestigial organs on the list of things the body didn't need. That was back in 1902 or something. Now they found a use for all of them. There are no vestigial organs, but even if there were, that is the exact opposite of what you guys need. You need something coming on, not something leaving. Okay, so my introduction is, I believe the Bible is true. God made everything. It was completely destroyed by a worldwide flood. There's certainly enough water in the ocean now to completely cover the world. There's enough water in this cup of right here to completely cover the world if you spread it real thin microscopic level. So there's plenty of water to cover the earth about a mile and a half deep if the earth were smoother and not, I don't mean flat. It is round and it spins. I can't believe these flat earthers and I appreciate you taking them on. Now there you're right, but Mark you're wrong about evolution. Go ahead. Thank you very much. We'll go into the open discussion portion. Boy Kent, for somebody who talks about having one conversation at a time, you do bring up a lot of stuff. That's okay. I guess so did I. So what I'm getting at Kent is there's just things we know cannot work. How can we possibly take a piece of ice and let's just look up at the sky. Let's pretend that we're in Texas and we're looking up in the sky. What would ever hold a piece of ice an inch and a half thick? Like I'm holding three fingers up. Yeah, about an inch and a half. How could that possibly be held up in the atmosphere? And just to say, look, I'm not asking for my theory to be taught to children, but you are telling children this. So are you telling them the truth or are you lying? Is what's really tonight's discussion is going to be about. Just to say that tax dollars aren't going in paying for this, could you really imagine a piece of ice an inch and a half thick surviving at whatever that height is that you're talking about and holding this extra atmospheric pressure? Like an inch and a half of ice is nothing Kent. And what happens when we get a piece of space, whatever rocks and it hits this. Is that not going to be a hole where we're going to start releasing this pressure? I just do not see how a piece of ice an inch and a half thick could hold any pressure. And when you talk about it being magnetic, I actually looked it up. Yes, it does become semi-magnetic, but we're not talking like iron here. We are talking on the smallest of scales that this stuff becomes magnetic the way that it lays itself out on a molecular level. Yes, you are right. It kind of becomes magnetic, but not in a way that if you were to take a magnet and stick it to the piece of ice, it would stick to it. That's just really misrepresenting. Everything has a gradient and this ice is really not magnetic in the sense that you could take the strongest of magnets, try to stick it to it and you would not even feel a attraction. So again, I say to you, what would stop you're using this ice to say that it built up all this pressure and that's what made all these insects so big. And I understand what you're saying, but really, do you think we could take a piece of ice? Let's just say a hundred feet by a hundred feet by an inch and a half and really suspend it anywhere without it just falling apart. Like this is ice, Ken. This isn't steel. Could we really do that? Let's tell the kids, you wanna be honest with kids. Could we really expect to take a piece of ice even 50 feet by 50 feet, inch and a half and what's gonna hold this up there? Well, let's take this little bit at a time. First of all, I've never said there was a piece of ice held up. I said there was a complete sphere. I just looked up the world's largest inflatable building. The Goodyear hangar stands tall in America, tested in a farmer's field in the Midlands. It's now the world's largest inflatable building in California. It can hold airplanes and they got all kinds of stuff on the internet about, do you really believe a piece of canvas could be held up in the air? Yeah, if it's complete and intact, certainly. Absolutely. You are misrepresenting my argument to say a piece of ice 50 by 50. I would say a piece of canvas 50 by 50 can't be held up in the air either. No, no, Ken, I would, a piece of canvas 50 by 50, we see it every day. What we don't see is people being able to pick up a piece of ice. Let's even take it smaller, an inch and a half by 10 by 10. Ice is very brittle. Canvas is very flexible. Ice is very brittle. Are you aware of that? How are we keeping it off? Well, as ice drops in temperature, the water molecules align themselves a certain way for the crystalline structure of ice, but if you get even colder or under more pressure, like under bottom of glaciers, it's called glacial fern, F-I-R-N, and it behaves like a plastic. It doesn't break and it doesn't shatter. It flows like plastic. If you get even colder yet, the hydrogen and oxygen molecules begin to align and it becomes laminated. So no, you are not correct that super cold ice is the same as regular ice that we see in its fragile and brittle, but it's simply not true. No. Okay, sorry, Kent, go ahead. Or do you want me to just answer that quick? So are you saying to me that if we were to take a piece of ice an inch and a half by 10 by 10, we could bend it? Is that what you're saying? We could bend it? If it were down at that temperature, absolutely. It would flex, it would bend. Now, I find this very bizarre to hear a man who believes everything in the universe was squeezed in a dot, who can't believe a piece of earth could have a crystal and canopy around it. And yet you believe, I bet you couldn't squeeze this glass of water into a dot. The evolution theory teaches everything. I mean, the stars, the planets, Mount Everest, everything was in a dot, smaller than a period. Do you believe that, Mark? No, not at all. And I've never read that. We're talking about a dot of infinite energy. We're not talking about matter. It was about 350,000 years. Someone can correct me on this, on the live chat. This isn't my strength, but I believe it took about 350,000 years after the Big Bang where the singularity started to expand the energy out that we actually started to get matter. I don't think anyone says that the Big Bang produced matter. We've never said that. It was time and space expanded out. Yes, it was energy. So when do you think? All the energy that's currently in the universe, how much energy are these stars producing, the 76 trillion of them, all that was in a dot. You want me to pay to teach that to kids? Oh, for sure. I would rather than be taught, well, no Kent, don't just throw your hands in the air. I would rather them be taught that, that there is any possibility that we could even take a piece of ice that's an inch and a half thick by 10 feet by 10 feet and move it anywhere without it cracking. And then to the point where you're actually saying that this ice is holding pressure, like it's responsible for the higher amount of oxygen. And we know where the higher amounts of oxygen came from. You talked at the beginning about how, well, how can you have plants and then we have animals? The entire theory starts out that we had tons and tons of bacterial type of LGs and that kind of things, continually producing oxygen. When we look back in the geological layer, we don't see oxygen at the beginning. We see tons of CO2 just like we see on all the other planets in even our solar system. We see lots of CO2. It takes the plants to make the oxygen. And then we got to the point where we had tons and tons of algae in the seas making the oxygen. And then we got animals. We never had this back and forth reciprocal relationship where you can't have an animal because you need a tree. Yes, trees absorb CO2. Yes, animals give off CO2. Yes, plants give off oxygen. Yes, animals need oxygen. But why do they need to become, why at the same time, Kent, can you explain that? Why would it have to happen at the same time? The earth would have been rich in CO2 at the beginning, at the genesis of the beginning of where is the problem? I don't understand where this reciprocal problem you talk about all the time comes from. And then we'll go back to the ice. I really don't, I love to solve this ice problem, how we're gonna have a piece of ice holding pressure. But let's talk about one thing at a time. You always say that. Okay, the symbiotic relationship, I simply pointed out, the Bible says everything was created in six days. So we don't have a symbiotic relationship problem. The plants are made on day three, the animals made on day five and day six, no problem at all. You're the one that has to make up the stories about them slowly getting, putting bacteria by the bazillions, putting off oxygen and building the atmosphere. That's a made up story. And you said something so bizarre, I don't think I've never met an evolution is to understand what they're saying. You say when we look back in the geologic column, Mark, all of the layers on the earth are the same age. Are you saying the top one is younger? What did it come from outer space? Where do these new layers come from? All the layers are the same age. They were shuffled up in a big flood and stratified. You can get a jar of dirt and do that in five seconds in your hand. But why do you guys, you're really good at debunking the flat earthers and they don't realize how dumb some of the things they say are. I don't think the evolution is realized how dumb it is to say the layers are different ages. They're not, they're all on the planet at the same time. They're all the same age. They were just shuffle. So did this younger layer on top come from outer space? Where did it come from? Why is it younger? Have you never seen wind? Have you never watched the erosions of mountains? Have you never seen earthquakes? Have you never been to a spot? I've been for 15 years. I'm very familiar with all that. Taking wind for water. Then Ken, why are you asking me how we get layers? We get layers through. I said, Mark, I didn't say how we got layers. I'm very well aware of erosion. We live in a gravel pit in Lenox, Alabama. We have it all around us, okay? And we do demonstrations with it. I'm saying, why do you think these layers are different ages? The wind can blow them around and shuffle them. So can the water. But they're still the same age. They're not different. We have petrified trees all over the world standing up, connecting all these layers. The layers, your whole idea about the geologic column is your Bible. I'm fully aware of that. And it's absolutely insane. There is no geologic column. The layers all were here at the same time. They're not different ages. So you don't look back in the geologic column. I was in the bottom of Grand Canyon. When I looked at my watch, it was the same date down there as it was when I was at the top. Wow, I didn't go back in time at all when I went to the bottom of Grand Canyon. Wow, that's a very interesting question. I don't even know what to say about taking- Okay, I can just answer one question. Just answer one question. If these layers on top are younger, where did they come from? How can they be younger? Constant erosion, wind. The fact that we know that throughout, where we both live in the continent of America, we know that the central areas all the way up to the Great Lakes at one time was a huge ocean. Why do we not understand that we are continually pushing mountains up? We are continually eroding them down with water and wind. So that is- I understand all of that. That's not making- So then you understand where the new layer comes from? Why is it younger? It just got reshuffled as all it did. How did it get shuffled? How did it get shuffled? The top layer, the top card on a stack of cards is not the youngest. I can shuffle them a thousand times. They're all still the same age. Shuffling the layers around by wind or water is not making one younger than the other. They're all the same age. There is no geology in Harlem. Who shuffled them? The flood or, like you said, water or wind can shuffle them. It does today, during it now. But it's not making them different ages. How can you not get that? They're all the same. There is no geologic column. Okay, Ken. I will agree with you that if we dig down in the geologic column and we measure where that rock came from, how old is that rock? All of these rocks were formed at the same time as the earth was being formed. 4.54 billion years old. I will agree with you. But just like if you dust your end table, the dust on the top, if you leave it a year, is definitely younger than the dust on the bottom. I'm not saying that there are rocks that are older and younger. But yes, if you look at these rock layers, we can definitely see that as things happened on the earth, as things eroded, as the mountains continued to erode, as wind continued, as water continues to erode the earth, it is an older time as you go back. And I don't know how you can't say that because even here, I live in sand. On the top, we have a layer right now of organic matter. All the pine trees fall, all the leaves fall every year and it's continually building up on top of the sand. If I dig down, I get very white sand. That's what I'm trying to get you to answer the question. My dust, the dust on my table is an easy one. The dust is coming from the room and being added to the table. But if the table was a sealed environment all to itself and I've got this dust, it can only be a rearrangement. See, I have an outside source to add dust to the table. Where is the outside source to add these layers on top of the earth? That's what I said, is this top layer coming from outer space? Some of it does, we do, we are constantly absorbing. Not much though, that is not where it comes from. It comes from erosion and it comes from geological areas. Like for example, if you're at the base of a mountain, you are gonna continually have mountains eroding away, you're gonna have it turning to sand, you're gonna, and you are going to get another layer based on what the geological area looks like. If it's a water area, you're gonna get a water area. Like for example though, you've got the cliffs of Doberkent. How can you explain those? How can you explain the Seaharid Desert if this is from a flood? That's pure white sand. Where does pure white sand come from? Okay, the talus at the bottom of a mountain is obviously from erosion of the sides of the mountain down. I'm pointing out, if it came from the top of the mountain to the bottom of the mountain, it became a talus or became new layers, it's still the same age, it didn't change in age, it changed in- Yes Ken, the rocks, yes, you're right. I will give you that. Our rocks were all formed 5.54 billion years ago. I disagree. Okay, whatever. But as time went by, erosion, wind, water has formed these different layers. And we see it today, we see it everywhere today. We see it in swamps, we see it everywhere. And there's an entire discipline of science out there with thousands of people in it that understand this. And I'm not sure why we're arguing that this happens. Are we taking over? Yes, let's play Jenga. If I sit here and I start piling blocks up of Jenga, those blocks were all formed at the same time when the game was made. But as I pile them on, time is going by minute by minute. I am building a castle of blocks. And yes, I did lay down the top one later then I laid down the first one. You understand what I'm saying in this analogy? Mark, I taught earth science for 15 years. I completely understand what you are saying. You are not getting it. Is the top Jenga block younger than the bottom Jenga block? Just cause it was laid down on top, is it younger? I agree the layers, the top layer is probably laid down before after the bottom layer, though if they're deposited sideways, that doesn't happen. You can get 10 or 20 layers deposited simultaneously with currents moving sideways. We'll go to experiments in stratification on a video done 20 years ago in Colorado at the Navy Research Laboratory where they discussed, they showed pouring sediments into moving water with glass to divide it. You could see 10 or 15 or 20 layers forming sideways simultaneously, which means you could get a fossil on top that is actually older than a fossil on the bottom because of this horde. During the flood in the days of NOAA, about 4,400 years ago, the tide lifting the water up and down every six hours, 12 and a half minutes would cause enormous sideways displacement of water. If the tide comes up, where's the water coming from to fill that bump? Sideways, at the same speed the earth is turning for a short time, maybe an hour or two. Here in Lenox, Alabama, 31.335 degrees north latitude, we're turning 886 miles an hour toward the east. So during the flood in the days of NOAA when the tide's coming up, the water's rushing in to fill that bump at up to 886 miles an hour for a couple of hours, which is gonna make sideways displacement and form all kinds of layers. I live in a gravel pit. I can show you seven layers of gravel sand clay. Gravel sand clay, it keeps repeating. During high tide or low tide, when the water is still, the small particles are gonna settle out. We have demonstrations as part of my tour. I'll give you the tour when you come. We have jars with sand, gravel, rocks, mud and water. We let the people shake it up and set it down. It always settles in the same order. Rocks on the bottom, then the sand, then the silt, then the clays. Always, and they're all the same age. They're all in the jar at the same time. There is no such thing as a Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, Archeozoic. No such thing as Jurassic, Triassic, Mississippian, Devonian, Solerian. I taught this for 15 years. There is no geologic column. It doesn't exist. It's imagination. It's fairy tale land. You can believe that if you want, and apparently somebody taught you that and you believed it, but the layers, the fossils on the bottom are not older than the fossils on the top. They might have been shuffled around during the flood, but the top layer did not come from outer space. We left several things hanging here. You said, would this canopy of ice get pierced by rocks and stuff from space? If there were rocks and stuff in space before that, while the canopy was there, sure. What if the Bible is true and the fountains of the deep broke open, like it says, and the water under the crust of the earth came shooting to the top and blew rocks off the side like it would do and shot them into space and we're going around hitting them still like bugs on a windshield. What if that's what shattered the canopy from inside? There were no stuff flying around in space before that time. The earth was destroyed by this flood. And again, I'm not asking for that to be taught, but that's a very reasonable theory that what we see in space floating around came off the earth when the fountains of the deep broke open. But no, I'm sorry, there is no geologic column and I'm sorry somebody taught you that, but the letters are not for ages. If you take a jar with a bunch of junk in it, let's throw a whole pile of stuff in a jar and shake it up. Please do. Now this is a very condensed example, but yes, the stuff that settles on the bottom settled before the stuff on the top. There is no way for something to settle on the top before it settles on the bottom. This is so obvious that I don't even know how to answer it. Yes, we are dealing with rocks, we are dealing with when it comes to rocks and sand and things that come from rocks breaking down, yes. But look at the fossils that are in these layers. They're in a very particular order. They go from very simple life all the way up to us today. Why do we not find fossils of man? Why don't we find that? Should we not find fossils just like we find fossils of dinosaurs? Why are our bones still preserved as bones? But when we look at dinosaurs, when we look even woolly mammoths, they're just bones, they're not fossils, they're just bones. We find them with fur on them still. We find them with skin. But when we go back and we start looking at the dinosaurs and do not bring up the fact that we found swichers, that has been disproven. She has even said, please creationist, stop saying that I claim there was blood and tissues in these specific bones, that is not. But even if we allow that, that is a very unusual case. Why do we not find these animals from the past why are they only fossilized? Why is man only still bones? We still find early, early man frozen solid and we can take a look at what he looked like and he doesn't look like us. How do you explain that? Well, okay, one topic at a time. You can just Google sand art. They have little toys. I'm trying to get a picture to come up on my phone. I got bad signal out here in Lenox, Alabama. But the little two pieces of glass have different densities of sand in between. When you flip it over, it forms dozens of layers. We have one we do for our demonstration. I'll show you when you come to visit. Four different densities of sand, black, dark blue, light blue and white in between two layers of glass with water in there. When you flip it over, the sand dribbles down and it makes 20 to 50 layers. Why would four different densities come up in 50 layers? That's the way water sorts things. So it's hydrologic sorting. If you get horizontal movement of the water, not just vertical, it gets exaggerated even more. That's what I'm saying. During Noah's flood, you would get all sorts of strata form. And the reasons clams are usually found at the bottom layers is because they're already at the bottom when the flood started. That's where they live. They're in the bottom of the ocean. Birds are generally found on top because birds are the last ones to drown in a flood and they've got hollow feathers and hollow bones. Of course they're found on top. This has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with the way water sorts things by density, by mobility, by intelligence. There's all kinds of common sense factors. I don't know how you guys can believe, A, the layers are different ages and B, that we can see an order of progression. Who is searching and publishing papers on this? What if somebody found a human bone at the bottom layer in the first layer right next to a dinosaur bone? Would that be published? And would that change your mind if one was found? First, would they allow it to be published? And would you believe it? And would you change your religion to creation instead of evolution? Outliers don't usually make people, it changed their opinion. So we would really have to look into why it is that all of a sudden we found a human bone that was fossilized in the same sense as a dinosaur. Now the thing that I got to say to you Kent, when it comes to all these conspiracy theories, that you talk about. I'm gonna look up where you want to go. I already said this, I just got, okay. Let me get sand art here, so you can, there we go, okay. Okay, can I continue? We got it here and we demonstrate it and here's just a sample of one. They're 10 or 15 bucks, here we go. Why on earth would this, will that focus in Steve? Help me out here, it's not focusing. Okay, hold it back, hold it back. Okay. Oh, sand art, I lost it. Oh, there it was. I lost it again, there we go. Okay, sand art. Here are four different densities of sand. When you flip, there's black, dark, blue, light blue and white, it's just like art. Why does it make so many layers? There are dozens and dozens of layers there. I'm pointing out the flood is the best explanation. Why do we have fossils at all, Mark? How many animals died today in the world? Millions, how many are gonna fossilize? Probably none. All of them. All of them are gonna fossilize? Yeah, sure, if we bury something in a oxygen depleted environment, we are gonna end up with a fossil. So let's go dig a hole in somewhere like, now where we get most of our fossils are in swamps, in areas where we know there's not a lot of oxygen and these things can lay. You talk about this a lot, Ken. Yes, we do, we are going to end up with fossils. We are burying our kin continuously and once those cogs collapse. Mark, Mark, I defy you to dig up any grave from the 1600s and find a fossilized bone in there. But it takes longer than that, Ken. That's the problem. You won't allow us the time. You always tell us that the time is the religion. So what you do is you take everything that we say and you say to us, okay, show me in an hour, that's happening. I wanna see a dog produce an axe. I didn't say an hour, I said 1600s, that's 400 years. That's nothing, that's nothing. Okay, he did too. It's nothing, it's not enough time, Ken. We need more time. Yeah, you need lots of time, I know. We do, and we have it. That's the thing, and I don't wanna talk over you, so I'm gonna let you talk. I want this to stay very polite and easy for people to understand. Make your point. Do you think the Egyptian mummies are ever going to fossilize? We dug them up. They need to go underground. So what we need to have happen for something to fossilize is we need the minerals in the bones to be replaced by minerals that are brought in by water. So that's what we need to find to begin. I agree, that's why I said, none of the animals that died today are going to fossilize. Why? They get dragged around by the coyotes in the buzzards, then they get in. No, we bury them, we bury them. Every day we bury our dogs that die, we bury our cats that die, and if we bury them in a place where they cannot be dug up, yes, over time, we are gonna continue to build lairs and those animals that we bury today are gonna become fossils, Ken. I promise you, I would bet my life on it. Yes, if I take right now a deer and throw it out in the bush, you are right, a coyote is gonna grab it, it's gonna drag it around, there's gonna be a leg there, there's gonna be a head there. Just because we don't end up with skeletons that are fully articulated where we have every single bone does not mean that things have changed. Yes, things do happen and things do get buried. We don't find every animal from the past and we've never said that we have, but when you take hundreds of thousands of years of animals being buried, we are finding fossils and there's certain areas that we find. We don't just find them in random places, we find them in the corner, for example, of a riverbed where the riverbed will have a turn and there will be this dead area of almost any currents in the corner. And yes, we do, we will find tons and tons and tons of skeletons there. Okay, so what I think you're hearing, what I think I'm hearing you not want to quite admit is it requires rapid burial. You said we bury them, we bury our dogs and cats. In the wild, it doesn't happen. Nobody, the coyote that kills the deer doesn't bury it later. They don't get buried unless we bury them. I think it was something. No, they fall into things, Ken. They fall into swamps. Hold on, just because there were a lot of points that you had mentioned, Mark, I just wanted to be sure that Ken gets plenty of time to. Okay, I would take, you said you bet your life on it. That'd be a sorry bet for you to make. Every day I'll bet my life on it, that we're producing fossils today, Ken, I'll bet my life on it. Okay, fossilization is not observed happening anywhere today in great number, if at all. You may find a freak accident here and there, but it is extremely rare for things to fossilize, number one, number two, there are millions of fossils in the ground. We find them all the time. There's no question. That is just as easily interpreted as evidence for a global disaster like Noah's flood. Why would there be petrified clams on top of Mount Everest in the closed position? I've got a bucket, we've had thousands of petrified clams here at our museum, buckets and buckets of them, people send them to me. They're closed and petrified. You walk along the beach, you find seashells by the millions, but you don't find them closed. And to petrify, you're right. It has to be buried in mud and the minerals in the mud have to replace, it's called replacement fossil, replace the bone structure or the shell structure in this case in a clam. I agree, fossilization occurs if under very special conditions like Noah's flood would exactly provide those conditions. Entire skeletons of animals, dinosaurs, 80 feet long, all the bones are articulated. Fossil graveyards where they're all tangled together. The Google, the Karoo formation and see how many fossils are found all packed in one huge graveyard. Did they all just decide to go die in the same bend of the river or could this be a flood that was hundreds of square miles of dead animals? I'm telling you, Mark, you're not wanting to admit there could have been a global flood that formed nearly all the fossils that we see. I think that's a very reasonable explanation. Again, I'm not demanding the taxpayers pay for that to be taught, but it is not reasonable to say the billions of fossils we find happen in the way we observe it today because we're not observing it today. Show me where a fossil formed in the last 10 years. Fossils don't form that fast, they'll can't, that's the problem. But you know what's really funny is I actually seen from you and from many creationists where they will take something and they will put it in a waterfall that is mineral rich and they will watch concretions form around it of lime and they will claim that here you go, now we are showing you how fast fossils can be produced. So this is completely opposite to some of the videos that I have seen you post where you are showing concretions as fossilization, which isn't the case, it's not what we're seeing. We're seeing lime form on the outside or a mineral form on the outside and encase something. But I know the difference between encasing it in some kind of stone. Right, but why would you expect something that is going to take tens of thousands of years for the bone to be replaced by minerals? Why would you ask me to see something doing that today? I can't show you it doing it today but I can show you the process of how it happens and it is happening. There's lots of places on this earth where animals can fall into and be buried quick. We already know that there's areas of, I don't want to get into Indiana Jones here but you've got your quicksand, you've got your estuaries, you've got your swamps, which is basically the same thing. You have rock slides, there's many reasons that a lot of animals can be buried quick, but does a global flood really explain that? If that's the case, why are we not finding man with dinosaurs? Why are the layers laid out from very primitive life forms all the way up to today where we find the same animals that exist today on the top but we don't see any of the animals that exist today down in the layers? Why do we see that? Why is there nothing? Got about five minutes to Q and A. Well, I just Googled rapid fossilization. Why are fossils found that still have all the cells intact? They still have the DNA recognizable. They fish still have their eyeballs. If the fish is gonna get buried under the right conditions and it takes tens of thousands of years, don't you think there's gonna be things like the eyeballs that fall apart in the sensitive tissue? Why are octopus and squid found fossilized? Soft tissue. We got octopus arm in our museum, fossilized octopus arm. It does not take millions of years for this to happen. The tissue is going to break down. It's going to fall apart. You asked me about six questions. I didn't get to write them all down. But I completely disagree that the layers are different ages and that fossilization takes tens of thousands or millions of years. It doesn't. First place, it doesn't happen without special conditions like Noah's flood would provide. But it is not found in the fossil record where it goes from primitive to modern. If there's any sorting at all, it is best explained by hydrologic sorting where clams or heavier denser animals are found at the bottom or animals that can't run away as fast to escape a flood. Birds are found at the top, not because they evolved last or more modern. Birds float even when they're dead. Of course, they're found on top. The reason not many human fossils are found, I think. A, when God made the world, there were two people, but it was full of animals. 1600 years later when the flood came, the world was still full of animals and plants, but still not full of people. So there probably weren't as many people too drowned as there were cows and birds and dinosaurs and they all lived at the same time. So, and birds did not come from dinosaurs. You can believe that if you want, but that's not science. That's a religious belief. So any fossilization, I think, is best explained by rapid burial in Noah's flood. They're extreme. Well, that would go off a different tangent. So I don't think we find them. Secondly, who is publishing this? Who is allowed to publish in the sacred magazines? Only those who believe the sacred theory. So if somebody did find a fossil in the wrong spot, they wouldn't publish on it. They would call it an outlier like you did and say, well, this must have fallen into a crack. They would come up with an excuse because the evolution religion is sacred. You don't dare question that. You certainly won't get stuff published. Ask Mary Schweitzer. If you said, hey, if I publish this about living, you know, soft tissue in my dinosaur bones is gonna get me in trouble. Look at the trouble she's gone through over that. I talked to her on the phone. She does believe in evolution. She does believe in millions of years. At least he says she does. I'll be hasty to keep her job. But if somebody did find it, would you accept it? And I first of all, I think they have been found, but I don't think it gets published on. That's why I don't bother trying to write a science journal and not gonna publish it. I can spread my gospel and my belief without them. I don't need them. We've got about a two minute warning. Once you guys, if either of you are willing to defer to the other on giving them the last word, we will then go to Q and A, just to let you know we got about a two minute warning. Well, Ken, you gotta let me answer this. To say that there wasn't many humans on earth, we don't find any, we don't find any saber-toothed lions on the top. We don't find, we see it continually going backwards as we dig up this layer. I don't know how you can deny it and it's not a conspiracy. I promise you Ken, if tomorrow, somebody was to come up with something that was really out there. Like we just could not explain it. I see it every day on Facebook. Yes, we do talk about it, but then scientists, they go look at it, they look it over and they try to explain what's going on. Honestly, Ken, if something was really unexplainable, we would allow it in the journals until somebody disproves it. I don't know why you don't think that you can write up your theory and have it looked at, but if you do expect it to be very well picked over, looked at and critique and it's going to be put up against what we see. We can't just say that things happen because it's in a book and it explains things. We got to be able to look at it and say to ourselves, okay, why do we see this? Why do we see this progressive layer from very primitive animals or organisms all the way up until on the top, we see the same animals that live today? And I don't understand that. We've got to wrap up soon. So for sure if we keep the statements shorter, that way we can hopefully get closer to wrapping it up and going to Q&A. By the way, folks out there, if you have a question folks, a couple of things. One is that please, just because we have to wrap, we're going to have a short Q&A like 20 minutes. So please, we can't take any more questions or super chats. We won't be able to get to read them. People will be able to read it still in the live chat, but we won't have enough time to read it. I don't know if we'll even get through the list we have. Also, each of our guests has their link in the description. So please feel free to check those out. Those are updated. So, okay, go ahead, Kenton, thanks so much. Well, first place, we're not saying that. If any evidence you bring to a flat earth there, any evidence you bring, they'll have an answer for it. We have a lake on our property. We have stakes at each end. You can eyeball with your telescope from one end to the other end through the tape measure that's exactly the same distance off the water. And you go to the middle and you measure it and it's less. I say, guys, the earth is curved. Our lake is curved. Your coffee cup, the water is curved a little bit. It doesn't matter what evidence you bring them, they've got an answer for it. You know that, you deal with them. The evolutionists are the same way. They're in the flat earth category in my opinion. It doesn't matter what you show them. They'll have an answer. They'll call it an outlier or call it a misplaced fossil or say they didn't interpret it right. They've got an answer for all of it. Doesn't mean it's true, but they've got an answer for it. So I just completely disagree, Mark. I think you're like the flat earthers in this case. You're on the wrong side of this argument. But the thing is, Kent, we don't see one or two of these things. We find millions of them. It's not like we find, pardon? We have to go to Q and A pretty quick here. Okay, yeah, Q and A, I'm ready. Okay, but just let me answer that, Kent. We don't see a few of these things. We see so many of them that it actually builds what we call evidence. We look at it and we continue to look at it. And you're talking about outliers. And yes, that's what I was saying, the odd time we do find an outlier, but for the most part, for every outlier that we find, thousands and thousands of things that aren't, and they line up perfectly. So sorry to cut in, but just to make sure we get into Q and A. So thanks so much, folks, for all of your questions. We're gonna try to get through as many as possible. And as I mentioned, please, I'm so sorry. We won't be able to get through anymore. So if you got here and got one in, we can probably do it, but please it's okay to not send anymore in. Okay, second best, Bob, thanks so much for your super chat and support. You said they love, they said they love you, James. It's very sweet. I love you too, thanks for saying it first. Steven, Steven, thanks for your super chat. Said Kent already won, we're just here for Mark's concession. Well, gotcha, thanks for that. Michael McCaffrey, thanks for your super chat as well. They said Kent, ever change your mind based on science? Or I think they're asking like, were there any cases in the past in which a new scientific finding changed your mind? Well, I'd be thrilled to change my mind. If you saw me some evidence, nobody's ever seen a dog produce a non-dog, never been seen. You know, when I taught math for 15 years, two plus two was four. It's always been four. I don't need to change my mind on that. Once you know truth, you don't need to change. Would Mark change his mind? You know, nobody's ever found human and chicken bones in the same rock strata, never been found together, fossilized. Does that prove humans and chickens did not live at the same time? So, you know, you show me some science, I'll be glad to change my mind. Where is the scientifically observable evidence of any animal or plant producing something other than it's obviously the same kind? Gotcha. Now, you might, if you can't point to fossils, because you don't know that that one had any children, let alone different children. And what doesn't happen today? Why can it only happen in the SpongeBob imagination world of long ago and far away? I wanna see it today. Show me the science, I will accept it. I will show you the science. So, that makes sense. So, just let me answer it really quick. Like 10 seconds, Mark, because we have so many questions. And we've had a lot of discussion already, so really quick. Right, we are not going to see the animals that we're eating today fossilizing as we die. This is something that we're gonna see and they are going to see it 10,000 years from now. They're gonna look at the layers and they're gonna say, here's where we buried man, here's where the chickens work. Yes, they are gonna see it. All right, we've gotta go. Okay, Area 85 Restorations, thanks for your super chat. They said, Kent says he loves science, yet I can't think of one field of science he doesn't violate with creationist beliefs. So there, you've got a critic out there. Okay, well, hang on here James, you're the moderator. How on earth could anybody answer a question like that? There's no meat on those bones at all. What exactly do you think I'm violating? I taught physical science, earth science, biology. I'll be glad, what of those fields of science? I said animals will always produce the same kind, dogs produce dogs. What does that violate from science? There's, that's a stupid question. Whoever asked that, tell them I said so. There's nothing to answer there. That's like saying you're ugly. What, what's ugly, be specific. There's nothing specific in that question at all. Thank you very much. Movie theory, thanks for your super chat. They say Kent Hovind Rocks, go Kent. So you got a panel there. What's it like, thanks for your super chat. They say, Mark, if creation from God were true, would you believe it? Well, sure. It's like anything. We just look for evidence. We're driven as humans as looking for evidence, looking to see how it makes sense to us. And we accept everything that we believe today. We accept on evidence. And it's just, there's a real lack of evidence on that side. And that's why you'll find people, I don't wanna say that are rational, but I can't think of a better word right now. We just look for where is the highest stack of evidence. Gotcha. Next up, thanks so much. Robert Summers, thanks so much for your super chat. They said, Kent, could you and Mark have a chat about ERVS? If either of you know what that means. Yeah. Electronic Rotator Ventilator Soil. I don't, it's... Go ahead, Mark. I have nothing to say, but I don't even know what he's talking about, to be honest, yeah. They're talking about things that happen in the virus with the DNA code being rearranged and stuff like that. Which is one that, the guy calls himself Conspiracy Cats. He won't tell him people his real name, but he says that's evidence for evolution. Moving gene code around, moving information around, sometimes your computer will boot up and something will go wrong. A program becomes corrupted because some of the information is in the wrong spot. The computer panics, I can't read it, shuts it down. Computer programs crash all the time because of the analogy like ERVs. That's not evidence that nobody made it. The fact that the computer can crash doesn't mean nobody wrote the code. So the whole idea that ERVs, and we'll cover that in a whole separate video here soon, that whole idea that that is evidence for evolution is absolutely stupid beyond comprehension. It's like saying, oh, wow, look, we got a misspelled word. This letter's in the wrong place. Ah, that's proof. Nobody wrote the book. No, no, Ken, what retrovirus is proof to us is that we can actually see when it was inserted into our DNA. There's actually pieces of the DNA of that retrovirus. And the second we see it come in, we can follow its genealogy all the way up to today. So anything that yeah, it's gonna be short. No, I understand what you're talking about there, but retroviruses do prove a lot of things. And I think Katz has a debate planned with you and I think I'll let him take that. But yeah, retroviruses really do start to show some interesting things when it comes to evolution. Just because the original question was for Kent, I can give you a chance to respond, Kent, if it's short and pithy and then we for sure have to move to the next question. Sure, retrovirus changing, moving around, is just like a misspelled word. This is not evidence that nobody wrote the book. This is really dumb. And I'll take on Katz on that, but I've got 14 building projects going, I'm busy, okay? Plus our internet's been out for a week and a half, but I'm not a little bit afraid of conspiracy Katz or Mark. Mark, when you come to Lenox, Alabama, come visit, we'll do a live program together. We can answer all these things. We can do it on ERVs if you'd like. But no, it's a best example is like a misspelled word in a book. They got the letters transposed. That's not evidence that nobody wrote the book. That's what the, and you cannot tell when this was inserted in the gene code, come on. You don't know when that person misspelled that word. Anyway, go ahead. Thanks so much. Humble guy, thanks for your super chat. Who said, thanks James. Well, thanks, I pass on that, I appreciate it, but thanks to the debaters. And also thanks to Steve the tech guy, as Steve basically went the extra mile for us, probably literally, they're actually shooting from a different location because the internet was not working at the moment. And so thanks for Steve being super flexible and doing that for us. We really owe you. Next up, Area 85 Restorations. Thanks so much for your super chat. They said, rock records, rock records when the earth's magnetic field flips. If the earth is only 6,000 years old, why don't we have any mention of it in recorded history? Given the hundreds of times it has flipped, namely the magnetic field. Well, we do see the flip. So if you look at any of the salt, you can see the way that the iron is aligned. We can see that there has been flips over the years. I know Kent's gonna deny it, but we see it. You can put a super sensitive magnetic detector on it and we can see that it has flipped. And a lot of scientists right now think that we are in the midst of a flip. Now, when we say the midst of it, a thousand, 10,000 years from now, we don't know, a hundred years from now, this is things we don't know. These things take a lot of time. Short and sweet. Thanks so much, Mark, I'm so sorry. I think the question, do I get to answer that too? Yes. There are no magnetic reversals anywhere. They see stronger and weaker magnetism detected in the magma layers and in the rock layers. Stronger and weaker does not mean reversed. Get a bicycle wheel, hold it by the axles, get it spinning and try to flip it over. We do that demonstration here in our physics section of our science center. You can't flip it over. The Earth's magnetic field has never reversed. It has gone stronger, weaker, stronger, weaker, which is actually explained by Hatter or Holder rock. As it cools, the magnetic field is locked in stronger. Walt Brown has an excellent section on this on his book in the beginning. You can go to his website creationscience.com. There are no magnetic reversals anywhere. It can't happen. And we're not in the middle of another one. It's not gonna happen. To take the spinning core of the Earth in a spinning Earth and flip the core over, come on. Try that with a bicycle wheel. A simple physics, freshman physics, we'll tell you that you can't, it doesn't happen. Can't happen. I disagree. Next up, second best Bob, second best Bob, thanks so much. We've already addressed this question, no Mark, Mark. It's moving hundreds of miles. And we've seen it. Please don't make me mute. Okay, second best Bob, thanks for your super chat. They said, I've got to sleep now. Thanks for your support. And I hope you slept well. Larry Lutz, thanks for your super chat. He said, I live near a lake that was created in 1978. It floods yearly. There are standing dead trees in it, buried in 42 layers. What if the lake dries up? I think they're saying this might explain why, I think he's saying this explains polystratic fossils as they're sometimes called. For me, yeah, the lake could dry up and the tree may fossilize. I mean, wood is fossilized pretty relatively easy compared to bone, but the mineralization soaks into the structures of the wood. So if the tree did, if the lake's only been there since 1978 and has already got 42 layers in it, I think that would demonstrate layers can form very rapidly, wouldn't it? Gotcha. Go ahead, Mark. I don't know, Kent. Is the bottom one older than the top? That's all I'm gonna ask it. Is the bottom layer older than the top? So this top layer came from outer space someplace? Or was it already on the earth? No, he just explained it's being laid down on a yearly basis of how they flood in a non-flood situation where water is coming in, it's laying down layers. It's moving out, it's laying down layers the next year. There is a source for the new mud to come in. We know the source for the new mud to come in. What is the source for the new layers to come on the earth that makes this top layer younger than this bottom layer? Is it coming from outer space? I just wanna know, where's it coming from? Erosion. You're reshuffling stuff already here. Erosion. We've gotta move. Okay. You're not gonna get it. Next up, Tim Krakowski. Thanks for your super chat, especially being a good sport, given how hard I was on you earlier. They said, Kent Hovind, the layers are indicative of many events over time that occurred within the closed system. No one who cares about children will teach that one event caused all of the column events with a single shuffle. I care very much about children. I'm worried they're being lied to, but I did a whole series on lies and the textbooks on Kent Hovind official. Go back about a year and watch those. There are 75 lies they're teaching the children, like the gill slits on the embryo. It's a lie, the human tailbone being vestigial, the appendix being vestigial. All those are lies I covered very thoroughly on my YouTube channel and in my books and stuff I've written. So the layers are, there's no question, layers are forming, but it's from reshuffling material that's already existing on the planet. Therefore, they're all the same age. Think about it for five minutes. Can I ask a question? Sure. So let's say we take one of those layers, let's go down 10 layers, I don't know the names of them, we go back to supposed at that time. Isn't all the dirt still the same age? That's my point. It's reshuffled from stuff that was here all along. Reshuffling it is not giving it a new age. We can give you a quick response. You're absolutely right, Kent. You're absolutely right. You're absolutely right. I have never said that the layers were not formed of materials that have been there since the earth has been formed. And I'll leave it at that. The viewers will understand what I am saying. I think they do very well understand. Go ahead. We've got to be as quick as possible. Ryutwin Turbo, and we do have another debate scheduled in 17 minutes, folks. So we've got to wrap up really fast, but they said, Kent Hovind, how can you not understand the difference between the age of the rock and the time that a layer was deposited? And have you ever heard of a volcano? How can they assume I don't understand? Why would they say that question like that? I completely understand the theory in what they're saying. When a volcano erupts, it is taking material that's already existing, melting it and shooting it out in the form of lava or ash or some kind of pyroclastic flow and reshuffling a new layer, but it's still on the earth. It didn't come from outer space. There is no geologic column. By the way, that would not form a sedimentary rock. Well, I guess you could call it the ash layer sedimentary. It'd be igneous or metamorphic rock, but it's still the same age. You guys are, I know I'm attacking your Bible, which is your geologic column. And I know how much, how desperately they guard their sacred text, the geologic column. It's a joke you've been lied to. The Flat Earthers have been lied to. It's not flat. It's a ball. And I'm sorry. And it doesn't matter what evidence you show up in, I've talked to many of them. I said, I give up, I can't. I tell them, you show me an accurate map of your Flat Earth and we'll talk. You can't make one because it's not true. And you can't make an accurate map showing me this geologic column. Where does this geologic column exist on the planet besides in the textbooks? Show me a place where we can see the whole thing. It doesn't exist. Thanks so much. Do I get a minute or no? Do I get a second? If we get through all the questions, folks, if you don't get your super chat, Rad, I want you to know it's Mark's fault. OK. All I can say in two seconds is Kent, you're absolutely right again. I will say to you, you are right. The rock on the bottom is the same age as the rock in the top. But that does not mean it was laid down at the same time, just like when you build a brick wall. All those bricks were made at the same time, but the ones on the bottom were laid down by a man first. I hope everyone understands what I'm saying. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. And next up, super chat from Justinian. Appreciate it. They asked, have Kent explain Hawaii and its lack of any fossils other than avian or birds? I think that means how embarrassing. The land wasn't always there and came from a volcano just like many other places. That's what they say. I've been to Hawaii several times. I love it. There's no question. Hawaii is mostly volcanic origin, and the islands are still adding, still moving. The whole hotspot underneath is moving. Lava is coming up, so there would be no fossils forming. There are probably no fossils forming in any volcano because it's not the right conditions to form fossils. That's not how fossilization occurs. It doesn't happen in that type of material because it burns the rock, burns the bones up. I don't understand that question at all. Good question. Why are there no fossils in Hawaii? Simple answer. It's all magma or cooled lava. It's not sedimentary rock. It is igneous and then metamorphic, changed by heat and pressure. So not a problem at all. Thank you for the question. Thanks so much. And 85 restorations, thanks for your super chat. They said, Kent, if the layers are sorted by density, then why is the rock not sorted by density? Well, as I showed with a little sand art toy, there are four different densities of sand in there, black, dark blue, light blue, and white, but it forms 20 different layers. I guess I will turn their question around and say, why does it form 20 layers? Why not just four layers? Shake up a jar of dirt, sand, gravel, rocks, mud. It'll sort into multiple layers. Plus, if you get Noah's flood with the tide going up and down, you would get many layers as the tide rushes in, then a layer as it sits still for an hour, and then more layers as it rushes back the other way. We have it right here in our gravel pit in Lenox, Alabama. Seven layers, sand, gravel, clay, sand, gravel, clay. Keep repeating. These layers go all the way to North Carolina from Pensacola to North Carolina. There are thousands of gravel pits digging out with the same seven layers of gravel. How do you get gravel layers, sand, gravel, clay, repeating from Pensacola, Florida to North Carolina without a global flood? Gotcha, and thanks so much. Let's see if we've got, Philip, last super chat. So sorry, folks, if you didn't get your super chat or question read just to respect the time of the debaters. And we also, like I said, there's another debate coming up. Phillips, thanks so much, Philip. They said, Kent, don't you find it funny that the only people that support YEC, younger creationism, are overwhelmingly those who, they say, quote, were indoctrinated in Christianity? I find it funny that only those who believe they came from Iraq, which came from a small dot of nothing, are those who've been indoctrinated into believing that. Our education system has become a giant indoctrination center to make sure kids believe that. They teach them from before they can read. They get a book on dinosaurs. The kid can't even read. Mama reads it to him and it says, dinosaurs live millions of years ago. This is an indoctrination center. Get my books on dinosaurs for kids. Boys and girls, God made the dinosaurs with Adam and Eve on day six. My books don't indoctrinate. They teach the truth. Dinosaurs live with man. So it's an indoctrination center from kindergarten on. I have only been saved five years. I'm an electronic engineer. Master's, Anna Baxler's. And I believe in the young earth because of the science that I studied the year after I got saved. Just to be... I never even learned about Christianity until after. Well, that's not true. So I don't find it funny. I do find it sad that so many people have been indoctrinated to believing in evolution. I think it's sad that people aren't indoctrinated to believing in the flat earth. I think it's sad. But if people believe what they want, you can believe. Look at how many people in North Korea believe in communism. Mark, I can give you a quick chance to respond as you like. It's just, it's James and I hate to use numbers. There's tens and tens of thousands of people out there that spend every day of their life examining this stuff, looking over it. And no disrespect can, but it's reality. And if it goes against your Bible, I'm really sorry for that, but it really is reality. Mark, during World War II, there were 55 million Germans that thought Hitler was the greatest ever. There were 110 million Russians that thought Stalin was right. He's the greatest ever. There are how many billion, a billion Chinese now that think communism is the best source of government. Don't argue for majority opinion. Come on, that's dumb. No, you're absolutely right, Ken. And a lot of that was religion and a lot of that was mind control. And that's the problem when you get into mind control. Mind control with evolution. Evolution is religion and it's mind control. That's all it is. I'm gonna respect James' time here. We can talk about stuff like that later. We... Sorry, come to Lenox. That's, we will tweet it out. We will promote it. If you guys have a debate live in Lenox, we will let people know so they can watch it. That would be exciting. And so thanks so much for being with us, folks. So sorry if we didn't get your question, but just to wrap it up quick, wanna say thanks so much to Kent for coming back and also thanks so much to Mark for coming back. It's been a pleasure. Their links are both in the description, folks. So if you're listening and you're like, I wanna hear more. Well, you're in luck. I've put those links down there just for you. So with that, keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. And once again, gentlemen, thanks so much for being with us. Glad to do it. Thanks for having us. We really appreciate it, James. Thank you, Pat. Take care.