 People of the Internet welcome to modern-day debate tonight. We are debating the scientific evidence of a young earth And we are starting right now. I am Kaz host of the atheist edge tonight We have conspiracy cats versus David McQueen and special guest moderator standing for truth and at this moment I'm gonna kick it over to standing for truth to take over the moderation duties the rest of the time being starting for true awesome, thank you Kaz for the introduction again tonight Is there scientific evidence for a young earth? And we are blessed with two true professionals in the debate world conspiracy cats And David McQueen Both very knowledgeable and always make for a great exchange, which means this will be a debate to remember So i'm excited. I know the audience is excited as well But before we get into the opening statements and the debate itself Let's break the ice a little bit get to know our guests a bit Cats, why don't we start with you great to have you here on modern-day debate? I appreciate you being willing to engage in these important debates So let's start with you a little bit about yourself how you've been and a little bit about your channel Well, first of all, good to catch up with you again I know we sit on different sides of the fence But we have we've we've debated a couple of times in the past don't we Donnie and I've always enjoyed those you're super respectful super nice debates went really well So i'm you know nothing against James. I like James, but you know, i'm chuffed you're here It's nice to nice to chat with you again. I appreciate that But my channel is not really worth shouting about the minute I I did have a couple of quite large channels But I gave them away because I got too busy really to To make content for him So I've got a little smaller channel which i'm kind of taking a break from at the minute again Just because of real-world stuff. So there's nothing to shill out or shout out, but um, I can't be found at culture cats But there'll probably won't be much content coming out there for a while At the minute And that's it really in my real life. I'm a teacher science teacher for 20 years And I tell this to everybody just because I you know, I like to uh got some textbooks being published in the very near future So very cool Very cool cats Congratulations on that. Yes, we've both had a couple. We've had a couple debates in the past. I've enjoyed those You've always been professional cordial and we have that mutual Love for superheroes. So cats always appreciate always appreciate your time David McQueen good to have you as well brother How have you been a little bit about yourself and a little bit about the work that you've been doing? Well, thank you very much, uh, donnie and also My thanks to modern day debate Al as you were doing your introduction Where do you teach what grade level do you teach? Uh secondary it's over here. It's um up to 18 year olds Update it. Is it called second form or something? No, so six six form will be the Always six four here, but um, but it was I did from 11 year olds to 18 year olds. Okay. I the reason I wanted to Hear that is that uh over the years I've been what on our side of the pond is called a high school teacher and have taught high school science I've taught at the university From my experience with exchange students from europe oftentimes they operate as If they're in college Whenever I teach them uh at the what we call the high school level but my background is as a professional geologist My undergraduate from the university of tennessee my master's from the university of michigan and uh a long time interest in this whole issue of scientific evidence for a young earth and so i'm very Anxious to get started uh Sometimes we have a moment of humor. Can we have a moment of humor? Uh donnie before we get into it A moment of humor is allowed david. Okay When my grandchildren come over sometimes they complain about pterodactyls coming into our bathroom and the not and They they won't why can't you hear it grand paul? Well the p is silent pterodactyl the It's not the That's that's good professor mcqueen appreciate the humor now that the humor is out of the way the showdown begins Okay, very well store our timer david cats appreciate the introductions from the both of you and for the audience's sake though Let me just go over the format real quick So we are going to be having 12 minute opening statements Again, the title for tonight is is there scientific evidence Of a young earth david would say yes, and so he's in the affirmative Which is why he will be kicking us off with his opening statement Then we're going to have eight minute uninterrupted rebuttals Followed by a five minute break Where cas and i will go over some announcements and reminders And then we are going to get into a 40 minute back and forth discussion So rather than a real strict cross exam, it's going to be more of a free flowing Discussion where the debaters can ask each other questions Uh pertaining to the topic of tonight's debate Then we'll have a five minute closing statement And then this is where we get you guys in the audience involved We're going to have roughly 25 minute audience q&a and so please if you have questions Make sure you're tagging cas and so cas is going to be saving the questions for tonight So david we're going to hand it over to you and whenever you're ready You've got 12 minutes the floor is okay Go ahead and give me a full screen and I will uh begin my uh line of arguments Even though I've come to believe uh in my study and work as a geologist over the years that there are actually hundreds of evidences for a young earth And be sure that you understand the audience my viewpoint I'm talking about thousands versus billions thousands versus millions um The idea that uh The earth is young Has been a historical foundation For many centuries up until the time of Darwin up until the time of thug and others And so i'm arguing a position that's been around for a while But we have both uh 20th century and also 21st century data Which indicate that there are actually scientific reasons to believe that uh the earth is young 50 years ago this year Not 2023 but back in 1973 When I was an undergraduate student I worked for rv gentry Uh at the famous oak ridge national labs I was a lab assistant for him and the paper that i'm going to uh debate With cas as the night goes on um Al rather Is based on work I did with him measurements I made and uh also actually Editing as best I could the paper that he did And the argument that I uh want to put forth Is that gentry worked on what are called radioactive halos Now to get a sense of what a radioactive halo looks like Here is a book that gentry wrote And this is a polonium halo there In mica and then here is a group of polonium halos Uh in a layer of mica Now how can you if you're unfamiliar with this argument conceptualize this Uh polonium halo or uranium halo Let me help with some models If you imagine this and I'll turn my Red dot there so you could see it If we could go in that red dot all the way to the nucleus of a polonium atom We would see radioactive decay radioactive decay from uranium but as a geologist and as a mineralogist What is that red dot When you get to the center? Well, perhaps this would help to Illustrated here is a uh a hemisphere Imagine that along this section here You have a mineral called zircon Which is zirconium silicate Having room for uranium and thorium and so forth What gentry did Is he hired me to sit in a microscope within sections and polish down those, um Minerals until you got a true diameter The importance of having a true diameter will come out more in the next hour and a half But the summary for my beginning is this The polonium halo illustrated here As you can see behind me here Is A polonium halo with a half life of less than five minutes If this is found in Granite Such as this model which we'll talk more about In the earth's crust And that has tremendous cosmological implications Of a rapidly cooling Uh magma The second point of gentry's work Is the point that If you look at the diameters of these halos And you measure them very carefully from Precambrian all the way up through paleozoic mesoic senozoic the standard geologic vocabulary The diameter of these halos Do not remain constant and we'll work through the calculus later on About how that shows that because the diameters are not constant the decay rate is not constant Okay, the second argument that I want to to build Is an argument based on population statistics So We have a population of around eight billion people And so let's uh look at the algebra And this is not as they say rocket science here But this is uh algebra And perhaps I can hold it a bit closer and Make it more clear from my viewpoint the man and the woman or adam and eve Or uh one of the descendants of Shim ham and japheth talked about after the time of the flood From the evolutionary viewpoint these are individuals that have found themselves in sub Saharan sub equatorial Africa probably and they began to reproduce now the basic Population statistics Involves two people c to the n So if we set that equation equal to the modern population of eight billion We can uh easily see that if we break it into Four thousand year units You can have about a hundred generations In four thousand years The actual equation Is to see equal and then you can see the rest of there One over a hundred When you factor in the Painful Wicked world that we live in and add in famine war and sickness The young earth estimate this estimate of 100 generations in four thousand years Gives an adequate Number of generations To explain the eight billion people My challenge to al is even if you factor in famine and pestilence and death and earthquakes and volcanoes The world population should be much much bigger orders of magnitude bigger Okay, my third argument that you'll see here Deals with the decay of the earth's magnetic field Even though this argument has been around Uh post world war two In my research preparing for tonight, I found some data that extends it from 1835 All the way out into the 21st century 2005 The Intensity of the earth's magnetic field is measured if you remember your uh Physics from school as a magnetic moment That's an amp per meter squared times 10 up 10 to the 22nd And so historically this number has ranged From 8.6 to 7.8 Now that gives a half life of the Magnetic field of about a thousand 400 years Now if you multiply that number that half life by 32 You get a very strong field about 7 000 years ago Now I am arguing that the modern dynamo theory Of the generation Of the magnetic field is incorrect But rather that fluid currents flowing in the outer core And this is the right hand rule that you may have learned in uh in physics And I can illustrate it uh this way If this is uh our model of the of the earth I'm arguing that there is evidence that there is a electric current In uh the mantle That is moving equatorially And by the right hand rule So you wrap your fingers Around the direction of the current And the direction of your thumb Is the magnetic uh direction And so this is why uh we can have a north soul North pole And south pole How many minutes are remaining for me please? It looks like you have just two minutes exactly Okay good The fourth point that I want to challenge all on Uh deals with the volume of uh metallic Uh ores in our world I want to focus not on My training of copper led zinc gold silver because I've worked as an economic geologist I want to focus on nickel Uh for a number of reasons that you'll see uh why This is uh true as the argument goes on but the uh Basic argument runs this way If we look at the amount of Nickel that is in uh rocks such as that granted I showed you earlier You can get what's called a crustal abundance of uh of nickel If you look at the erosion and I'm using evolutionary timescale here If you look at the erosion of nickel from the continents even understanding That there are subducting plates So I am a Proponent of catastrophic plate tectonics. So no question. There's been some subduction But it's also the case that the evolutionary community views the atlantic ocean Since that's what separates al and me tonight as about Jurassic age If it's if it's the case um There would be a tremendous amount of of nickel that could have eroded And depending on how you want to pick it from 70 million years ago all the way back to 170 million years ago Far more nickel than we actually found Uh in the oceanic sediments And so with those four argue arguments I would like to kick it off And I'll now get my sheet of paper and record Al's arguments David McQueen, thank you very much for that 12 minute opening statement We are now going to hand it over to cats Cats you also have 12 minutes for an opening statement If you need to share screen or anything like that just let Kaz and myself know and we can get that up for you Yeah, I will share screen. Uh, thanks for that. David. By the way, I appreciate uh Appreciate that. So let me just get As you're doing that I'll remind the audience if you do have questions Again the topic scientific evidence of a young earth Just make sure you're taking uh tagging Kaz but specifically at modern day debate And that way he won't miss your questions Al I've got my pen and paper ready here Just wondering why I can't uh get my screen to show. I think I know why okay, let's do that um Sorry guys, no worries technical thing on my part Um, has it changed the screen sharing? A little bit a little bit on the on the stream yard. So it might say it might say present now It's at the top, isn't it? well For me specifically it's it's kind of right in the bottom in the middle right next to where it says, okay We got it. Yeah, sure. You should go again. Sorry. It was a little bit different some last time I used it. Um, okay, so Um, is it up? Am I it is? Yeah, it's up on the screen Is it up? That's what she said now um, so I'm really looking forward to this debate because normally I'll debate uh flat earthers or You know people who don't believe viruses exist who would just come into a debate to say Show me evidence the earth isn't flat or show me evidence viruses exist And they will sit there and not understand a word that's been said to them And at the end just claimed that no evidence has been shown No matter how hard I try to show them that the earth isn't flat or viruses exist, etc But when this debate was organized, um, I was really really happy you can see on screen there the email I got from james And the title we agreed on is is the good scientific evidence of a young earth? And I thought that's fantastic because that puts me In in the opposite position to what I usually am where I I can be presented with evidence for flat earth and get Evidence sorry for a young earth and get to decide for myself Do I feel that is valid evidence or do I feel that actually there's no substance to that evidence whatsoever? Um, so for me to actually bring something in my opening statement Well, I don't think there is good scientific evidence for a younger So I'm not going to bring evidence for that. Um, so my my opening statement Perhaps will be a little bit uh different today I want to point out just in my opening statement until I get to my rebuttal stage How I've found the younger creation argument in the past and some of the ways that they've misused science and some of the ways they've That they've they've tried to find the way out of problems. So for example I think we all know the story in 1992 when dr. Austin took that rock from mounts and helens. It was 10 years old And he tried to trick a radiometric date in lab by taking it to the lab And lo and behold it came back as being three million years old Uh, and he said well, look at that, you know, look how flawed radiometric Dating must be because we know this rock is only 10 years old But of course what he didn't say is that there's about three million Year kind of like window of error when you're doing this type of radiometric radiometric dating Um, and he didn't inform the lab at all that this was this was 10 years old It was a very very almost dishonest use Of his time and and the time for the people at the lab And this is the kind of thing that young earth creationism kind of gets known for this kind of bad kind of dishonest sort of science But I do like the little catchphrases that they this is obviously from the the creation ministry So catchphrases they come up with to To kind of weasel out of that to weasel around it and say well, we don't really care about the science Anyway, we can see here on the screen Science can't be the final determinant of what we consider a plausible account Um, now to me if we are talking about and our debate here is is the good scientific evidence of a young earth And I would agree with what the creation Uh ministries say i'm i'm interested to see what david's got to say about that later on but to me science is everything Um, so i'm going to be looking for scientific Evidence from david in the debate not theories or ideas about what might or might not have happened But actual evidence because that Was the title that we agreed on is the good scientific evidence So every single drop of the hat i'm going to be asking for that i'll show you what good scientific evidence Uh looks like actually Just scroll down here a little bit To me, this is fantastic scientific evidence of the earth being old I'll leave the title on screen. So any creationist watching who want to Google this paper and look at it feel free. You'll be able to find this. It's freely available online um So this paper is essentially a meta analysis And it's a meta analysis of 57 globally distributed sites. We can see those sites here And these 57 sites were studied over Decades these are the The the citations the references you'll find in that paper that link to each of these sites 57 different investigations for different uh over You know many many many many years and these investigations used A few different not the same technique, but a few different techniques to work out dates and temperatures for locations Uh these 57 locations over the earth spanning about hundreds of thousands of years So some of the things that they used was uh levels of different isotopes of oxygen in Cores that they drilled to look at life in the past as indicators of temperature other things they used um was Uranium 238 in dust example And I know we'll quite often hear from young earth creationists that we can't trust Dating techniques and what you would find I think if you say you can't trust the dating technique You would find that if 57 people all did tests over Different decades who never spoke to each other didn't know each other Somebody even died before the other person had become a scientist, right? There was no communication between them you would imagine that these Errors right would throw the results left right and center and everybody would have a completely different Uh idea about what had happened in those previous hundreds of thousands of years But actually what happens is quite interesting and to me this is evidence Because when you look at the results and here we have uh oxygen saturation Uh records going back hundreds and hundreds of thousand years hundreds of thousand years and they've dated that using the uranium 238 and other other techniques all independent studies can read all about it And when we zoom into them We can see that every single one of them. This is uh the the patient set on measuring historic temperature We can see that every single one of them is coming up with exactly the same conclusions Exactly the same one and let me just remind you that that is 57 independent studies worldwide by people decades apart using a variety of different techniques oxygen saturation looking at um Uranium decay as the two main ones that I remember from the study in all honesty, but there were others and they've all come up with exactly eggs not even just a little bit but exactly the same pattern of temperatures going back For what they dated as hundreds of thousands of years now for me For me that is what I will call actual proper evidence Somebody has done a large-scale Metronalysis of many many many studies what they haven't done is gone out there to find one study or one idea That fits their narrative They found 57 and put them together and saw that even though they were done at different times that they agree with each other Absolutely completely Now one of the things that may come up in this debate as well Is isochron dating now rather than waste anybody's time in the debate What I'll do is I'll explain what isochron dating is now because um because I just think it'll be useful for later on one of the big um things people Or young earth creationists like to throw against radioactive dating or radiometric dating is the fact that we can have Contamination is the fact that there is a margin of error for for example in the in the lab In fact we get groundwater washing carbon 14 in and out of things blah blah blah blah Okay What we need to know if we're if we're doing some kind of radiometric dating on a on a sample is Has that sample been closed? Since the very beginning has there been any influx of parent or daughter Or has there been any outflux of parent or daughter? All right, or has it been closed because if we can guarantee it's been closed Then we have to accept its results And if we can't guarantee it's been closed then we can't accept its results So how do we figure out whether something has been closed? No, well How long have I got about three minutes? Yeah, good question. You've got uh yep just about three minutes cat So I've got this little graph on the screen here and what we can say is at any point any one time in the world If we were to take two isotopes, uh, let's say rubidium And strontium 86 Okay um So rubidium um will decay into strontium 86 strontium 86 is um Oh, it was 8 7. I've got my two isotopes mixed up. I think 86 is a stable one. You'll have to correct me. David You've got that wrong. I think strontium 86 is is stable and uh, the the rubidium Decays into strontium 87 All right, but the the ratio of strontium 86 and strontium 87 in the world any one point is going to be Uh a constant So I can take a rock and I can look at all the different minerals in that rock and I can plot The ratio of the daughter isotope that we're looking for and the stable version of that isotope and they're going to form a line Now why are they going to form a line? What if I got this x-axis? Well the x-axis is going to represent the ratio of the parent isotope the rubidium that's going to decay into the uh the the unstable strontium isotope Um and each mineral is going to have a different amount of this Parent isotope in it. So we get a graph here where everything's on a nice straight line It's on a straight line remember because the daughter isotope to stable isotope ratio is just constant in the world Now all the time what's going to happen is the parent isotope is going to decay it's going to reduce But the daughter isotope is going to increase and that's going to shift all of these Markers we've got it's going to shift it up top left now Over time if there is absolutely no influx of parent isotope or or no daughter isotope being washed out They are going to remain in a perfectly straight line and When we find and we do our ice conduct and we test all the different minerals and we find that these ratio Ratios when we plot them on a graph are in a perfectly straight line that shows us over time that the this has been a closed system If it hasn't been a closed system, what we're going to find is something like this We're going to find that as daughter isotope has been washed in or out and as a parent isotope has been washed in or out They no longer hold a straight line so when we talk about Isochron dating we can't poo poo it and dismiss it unless we can give an absolute certain explanation How that all the minerals in a certain rock can be plotted in this way and give a perfectly straight line And still not be a closed system because if we can't do that then it's it's not science. It's just denial That's what it is um, so again You know, I know I haven't provided evidence for an old earth other than the 57 study thing that I did a couple of minutes ago Which I thought was awesome, but um other than that I really am waiting to be presented with What the agreed title was which is this? um Is the good scientific evidence to be younger so I'll hopefully I'll get some of that and um, I'm looking forward to it and I will stop there Okay cats. Thank you very much for that 12 minute opening statement David and cats that concludes the opening statements For the debate. I appreciate all the points and I appreciate the work put into those opening statements So with that we are now moving into the eight minute uninterrupted rebuttal And David we are going to hand it over to you before we do that. You want me to do this field? Sure. Yeah Okay, great. Um, I just want to let everybody know especially if it's your first time here at modern day debate that we are a neutral platform Hosting debates on science religion and politics and we want you to feel welcome welcome no matter what walk of life You're from and if you have a question or a comment from when it's nice debaters fire into the live chat and tag me at Modern day debate super chats will go to the top of the list all we ask that you please keep it civil Attack the argument and not the person as insults will not be read And our guests are linked in the description below whether you're listening on youtube or via the podcast So click those links if you like what you're hearing and hit the subscribe button because we have plenty more Debates coming your way that you don't want to miss including tomorrow, I believe we have snake and cp Versus Nathan and what's it gets it debating evolution as an 8 p.m. Eastern and then we have the next day At 5 p.m. Eastern we have Daniel ha kikachu versus naria and they're going to be debating feminism and islam So with that we will go ahead and kick it over to the oh and one more thing I just want to let everybody know that there's going to be an after show on my channel That he is linked in the description below as well So if you want to continue the conversation there and uh, I'll see you there other than that I will go ahead and kick it back to donnie for the rest of the debate Great cas. Thanks so much David we're going to hand it over to you now and you have eight minutes for the rebuttal the floor is yours Okay I appreciate the arguments that al put forward I worked with uh, steve austin in the 1980s and i'm aware of his Taking uh that modern Volcanic eruption of mount st. Hill of mount st. Helens and sending that off To get that three million year day One thing that uh, I need to point out As soon as I get my marker here. There it is As a geologist as a mineralogist you need to be aware that A volcanic rock Is composed of minerals and those minerals Are what are separated out from the volcanic rock? and uh dated Some of the criticism that al is given about this Uh particular mineral here that was pulled out And got a three million year old date On a volcanic eruption that occurred in 1980 His thinking is incorrect in this way um When you're looking at uh the minerals that are in here and I noticed that he Made a point that The three million year Date that dr. Austin published Uh was within the airbars of the uh Of the method i'm not i'm actually Sure that that's true And I'll return to that uh later on Now this very elaborate argument that al made about the um Different isotopes of oxygen Found in bent that benthic sediments for those of you that are not Um up on all the vocabulary That is used when it comes to uh Things like uh benthic and littoral and so forth um Let's make sure that you're clear on this um So here's the ocean surface You got a continental mass over here I'll put a tree here to indicate that this is a Cross section i'm drawing and Near the shore there is a zone where most most life lives The littoral zone where the wave action is and then As you go offshore There are sediments that are very deep And I'll simply use the word benthic there Al was very proud of the fact that there were uh 57 different Cores taken over many years separated by people that were not Working together in any way and as they took these cores They captured a uh oxygen ratio and use that oxygen ratio to Determine among many things the temperature um of The different layers going down as a creationist and as a flood geologist we view the rock record as objective scientific data But the vocabulary the plicing Plasticine break All of these 57 samples Were fairly modern Even me as a young earth flood geologist would consider these uh bent these benthic sediments here to have formed after the time of the flood uh They would have been Not on top of Well, they might very deep be on top top of a Triassic rock But here it's essentially plasticine It's almost like looking at this I have two purposes for this map of Louisiana here But it's almost looking at the part that you can see here This is the Gulf of Mexico New Orleans Down here. This is plicing plasticine sediments and so from a flood geology standpoint This is not a strong argument Al I want you to go back to explain to me how polonium 218 It has a half life of three minutes Can end up being found In granitic rocks from the base of the column All the way up to the top of the column Which I saw with Bob Jitri when I was his lab assistant Why is that not The critical thing Now I'm looking for my timer here. How much of my eight minutes? Do I have left you've got just over two minutes two minutes? Okay, good now The Isochron Explanation That Al Outlined Is certainly The kind of diagram that you would see in Freshman geology The idea of daughter Versus parent Starting out this way If it's a closed system As time goes on It will rotate this way But still the the data points will be in a line My critique of that comes from what is now 50 years of field work as a geologist Where I have had the opportunity the privilege actually to to travel to canada and to the germany africa turkey I've been Hired as a geologist to go worldwide What I routinely see In igneous rocks like this This has been cut and polished. So it looks very pristine But when you actually go out and look at the rocks and look at the Surface you can say well, let's get a sledgehammer and break down to a fresh Part Well, that's a nice 30 seconds That's a nice attempt to have a closed system My experience is that the kinds of rocks That are looked at for rubidium strontium for example actually quite weather It's a bad argument al David mcqueen Thank you very much that wraps up the eight minute rebuttal We are now going to hand it back to cats Cats you also have eight minutes for for your rebuttal And whenever you're ready the floor is yours. Brilliant. Well, thanks. Thanks that David a couple of things I just want to mention that so we can get into in the back and forth just so don't forget um The the isochron argument. I just think you missed the point a little bit there Um, the the point is if we are getting a straight line. It has been a closed system So we can call it a bad argument But ultimately if that line is straight when we plot them it has been a closed system So I'd love you in the back and forth to tell me why that is a bad argument um The 57 different studies all around the world spread by decades that give identical results again I'd love to go deeper into that into the back and forth So you can explain to me exactly why the fact that they get identical results can just be Complete the hand wave dismissed Those to me are two two really big points. So I'm sure you love things of your own as well. Anyway, get into your points So, uh, the halos talk about these uh, plurium halos now. It's well known Um, the you know gentries. Was it gentry? Was that what he was called? I can't remember his uh, the thin name now But it's well known Um, the he's never wants and I hope you can provide some evidence for this He's never once provided any evidence whatsoever that those halos are the result of alpha decay Due to polonium never once is never once provided evidence. That's what I'd love for you to say Because remember this debate is about is the good scientific evidence for the for a young earth So let's stick to the evidence. I would love you to tell me specifically What is the evidence that those rings are actually caused by alpha decay from uh, so by alpha from polonium decay? Okay um That will be that will be really really important You did ask to ask ask me as well About why would you find uh, that polonium isotope? 218 wasn't it all the way through uh, the granite? Well, we can't we can't forget that obviously it's it's uh Part of the uranium decay chain So it's not that it's there for three minutes and then disappears It's popping up all over the place all the time because it's part of that decay chain So it's it's i'm surprised That you think it's a difficult question to answer in all honesty with that So the the halos would I say they are scientific evidence of a young earth? No I wouldn't say the scientific evidence of a young earth because there's no scientific evidence whatsoever At all that they're caused by alpha particles from polonium decay or or why? That indicates that the earth can only be six thousand years old If you can make that link and tell me why it means the earth can only be six thousand years old and you know We'll chat about that, but I don't think there's anything there. So we'll cross that one off Uh, the second argument you made in your opening debate was about population size You came up with a really nice equation that obviously ignored a lot of things like population density and how population density is going to reduce um The the reproduction rate and obviously in the early days when population was spread very very very very thin and The the char mortality rates were obviously extremely extremely high people weren't living to the reproductive age All that was just completely ignored in the calculation you did and we can all do that Like we can all come up with calculations and I could do one and say right by my calculation I think that that the human population now fits the uh fits the old earth model But is that evidence remember what the debate was remember the title of the debate we agreed on the title of debate We agreed on is is the good scientific evidence for a young earth and I don't think you simply saying I've got this equation that I think means that the population of humans could be 6 000 years old That's not evidence. What I brought was evidence of 57 um Different studies that all agree with each other spanning decades that that's evidence The third thing you you said you talked about the dynamo effect and and obviously When we look at paleomagnetism and I'm certainly not an expert on paleomagnetism at all But there are huge huge records. In fact, I think I've got a study on one of these tabs opening back and share my screen, but when we are talking about Evidence, um, here we go. Oh Was my screen showing all that time Right No, he can't I'll stop your time. We know it just shared now. Oh, okay. So So, uh, I've just found a a scientific paper Um earlier on tonight just google it just just this is just one paper and it's it's a fantastic It's it's the kind of evidence I would be hoping a young earth creationist will bring to a debate Where the title is is the good scientific evidence for a young earth And if we're going to bring evidence that we don't believe in the dynamo effect that causes the earth's magnetic core Then bring some kind of scientific paper to back that up. Here's some evidence In the form of a scientific paper that will absolutely disagree with what you're saying it has You know, obviously All the hormones have not ready. I've added earlier on tonight But that took me about two minutes to find And in preparation for this debate, it seems that you haven't been able to find one One scientific paper to back up your your claim that the dynamo effect isn't real And again, if the title of the debate is Is the scientific evidence for a young earth, then No, you've not brought it. You've suggested you don't think there's dynamo effect is real, which is a suggestion It's not evidence Now with the the nickel claim, I'll be absolutely honest I was making notes of that title at the beginning of that bit and I kind of missed The implication of that so you might have to run that one by me again with the the metals Um, or I can say is again I got the feeling by the end of that bit that it was just an idea a suggestion There was no measurement scientific paper You know when when the title of the debate is is the good scientific evidence Please bring some scientific evidence not just ideas Um, after all in the in the opening I did bring scientific evidence The 57 independent studies taken over many many decades or get exactly the same result um You know, so I I would say in terms of my rebuttal. No, I haven't seen anything that will constitute scientific evidence As per this moment in the debate. I think I'm done there At thank you very much for that eight minute rebuttal gentleman. That concludes the opening statements beyond the rebuttals And great job so far very professional cordial debate. I'm looking forward to Uh cats and david digging into these points During the discussion portion, but before we get into the 40 minute discussion We are going to have a five minute break and so cats david if you'd like to Rest for five minutes get a drink refill your coffee david feel free to do so david I can unmute you To honor my friend across the pond. I'm going to make myself some earl grey tea And so I'll be back in five minutes. Go ahead and drop my video, please Okay, david thank Over to you if you add some announcements or reminders or anything that you wanted to point out to the audience Sorry, are we talking to me? No, no, I guess cats and cats I just want to remind everyone. Sorry. I'll remind everybody to uh like share and subscribe Uh the guests will link in the description below and I'll go ahead and start the intermission video so that we can uh step away for a moment Okay, I am back back I Couldn't find a proper saucer for my tea, but uh Since my great-grandfather came from scotland. I hope you'll forgive me if I Don't do high tea quite correctly We'll forgive you because the discussion portion will be a discussion to remember so Cats and david appreciate your openings and rebuttals Again, I appreciate the work you both put into this debate on evidence of a younger And so we're now moving into everybody's favorite part of a debate the discussion portion And so we've got 40 minutes on the clock for the discussion Cats just ended with his eight minute rebuttal and so david Why don't we allow you to ask the first question or pick the first topic to discuss? Go ahead gentlemen floor is yours And the way we work at uh donny is I will pose a question and then Al will respond And then will I have the last word of each cycle or how does that work? Well, it'll be more free flowing and so if you can ask a question pick a topic I'll make sure as moderator that we're not spending too much time on any one point Okay, and that we're moving along smoothly Actually cas if you wanted to restart the timer and we will officially start the 40 minutes now David feel free to pick the first topic floor is yours. Okay uh first topic I want to pick is the radioactive halo topic and I want to challenge Al's contention that you can't go to um literature that has been in referee journals to find evidence for uh young earth and so the article i'm going to refer to is one that I was at Gentry's side when He sent this off This is published in science magazine 5 april 74 Pages 62 to 66 You want to google it while i'm talking here So this is science magazine referee journal 5 april 74 Volume 184 and the title of gentry's uh Uh paper was radio halos in a radioconrological and cosmological perspective And in this uh paper He uh argues That you really can tell the difference between uh a uranium halo having many rings And a polonium halo having only one two or three But the key That I want to go to is some calculus That ally have talked about on other occasions And i'm not going to write the calculus up on the board But i'll let you read it yourself When you find the paper you'll notice that um Footnote 16 addresses your critique That these halos are not from alpha decay But notice what it says here From alpha decay theory The delta lambda over lambda. That's the change in the radioactive decay rate Is proposed is proportional to the energy that is expended when these uh radioactive elements uh undergo alpha decay And I'll skip down to the bottom because this is what I want you to react to Al um Gentry realized in in this paper that You could only do so much and this is the way he said it um If the minimum uncertainty in making the range measurement Is about a tenth of a micron It's actually impossible to establish the constancy of lambda for u238 Any better than 0.35 percent And so here's an example Al of A published paper that argues for The age of the earth being incorrectly calculated at least to the level of 35 percent So my uh, sorry, am I I don't want to intro it. Um You're good cats go ahead. Yeah So so my couple of points with that first one. Yeah, it's it's the paper that uh that gentry wrote himself um, of course And the model that he used was obviously based on an ideal perfect atom Um rather than you know a more sophisticated model of an atom So it was it was certainly an assumption, but I would I would just love Um, if you could give me a really honest yes or no answer to this question We've got go on. Okay The answer the the question is did he ever prove not not assume or suggest But did he ever prove and provide evidence? That proves that those halos are formed by alpha decay by polonium Did he ever prove that? Let me let me give you a reference or no, if possible if possible just so I guess yes, he did He did prove it. Yeah. Yeah, go on. Let me give you the page number It's that same paper and You'll find it, um on his um table one And the reason that table one's important Is that he and I would go to the electron micro probe There at oakridge national labs and he would actually move the probe over I can use this as a teaching tool. He would move the probe beam over to uh a Uranium thorium atom And look at the amount of lead there And then he had moved it over to Uh one of the polonium atom Well, if all the polonium halos were the result of alpha decay from uranium That lead lead ratio Would have been clear. I mean it would clearly show it was a daughter of the uh uranium but This paper shows That it was not so so there's actual data Sorry go there. There's actual data in the lead lead ratios to show that the polonium halo 218 for example um Is not just part of um The uranium decay chain Okay, so I I know polonium 218 will exist other than in the uranium uh decay chain, but the question was specifically How did he prove That they must have been the result of alpha emission from polonium 218 How is that proof that it absolutely had to be emission of Due to the emission of alpha decay from polonium 218 okay, um Take me a minute to find it But one of the papers the nice thing about this book is that all these papers are bound in this book and The scientific technique he used for that was fish and track analysis And so by using fish and track analysis he was able to show that um The lead lead ratios were not part of The uranium decay chain Okay, so how does that prove That the halos are from polonium 218 How is that proof because remember the time the debate is this a good scientific evidence? And I know that this is this is his assertion But the the reason I'm asking this is because Everybody else disagrees with him and there are many many other ideas of how these are formed and why they are so You know why but and I'm sure that you've read all of these I'm sure that you're familiar with the count rock. So I thought so though exactly, but guys How is it actually proof? The they're formed from polonium 218 Uh because of alpha uh emission and why why does that therefore mean that the earth must be a younger? Because well, let me make a you know, let me make comment It's not true that everyone disagrees with me My retired kindergarten teacher wife. She's convinced she's convinced that it's true Um, I've got a four-year-old granddaughter named hannah She's convinced that it's true. Uh, but all joking to one side Uh, this issue has been brought up uh by Dr. Larry varterman and others that worked on ICR's rate project around the year 2000 uh tremendous amount of effort went into it and um One of the things that i'll point out is that if i'm claiming that this is evidence for an old earth sign I'm sorry evidence for a young earth scientifically It's important to also note that some of my creation science colleagues like Dr. Steve austin like Dr. Andrew Snelling These men disagree with with my viewpoint But I think that my colleagues even on the creation aside Are overlooking the fact of a very old Challenge that bob gentry made to the scientific community He said And he he argued this with professor doll rimple who was one of his biggest critics. He said I don't question That you can put Some courts and felspar and mica in a very small capsule Heated to high temperature and pressure and come out with a glass That has the chemistry of a granite His challenge and and my challenge. I agree with it is this is about a fist size piece of granite produce that With uranium halos in it and so forth Now doll rimple and the others said oh mcqueen It would cost too much money to build a machine to produce that size What's the point the point is that? And this is an area that I even pointed out 50 years ago Was a weakness with gentry and that's the geologic term provenance How did he know that this particular pecan potite? Was found in a precambrian and this in the paleozoic and this and so forth. Well, he traveled worldwide and And gathered these from different labs I think that given time I mean if we had more time I could show you papers would show that the different zones that he got these from Really are Paleozoic mesoic and cynozoic in the old earth vocabulary so I think that Your critique of me is incorrect because science runs on what's called multiple working hypotheses and so This data would fit a multiple working hypothesis so So by your own admission and I just uh, and obviously, you know, it is Please don't take anything. I'm saying here personally. I've got a lot of respect for you and I think we've you know Got on one whatnot, but by your own admission and the The halos that you've brought up for polonium are actually not good evidence that the earth is young because a huge portion Um of the scientific community or almost the majority of the scientific community completely disagree But also a significant portion of the creationist science community also disagree with you And although there may be papers that you might be able to find to show that it's evidence of a young earth You haven't brought them to the debate which is titled. Is there good scientific evidence for a young earth? So You know, are you being up? Are you being a bit harsh? I mean Science magazine is a peer reviewed magazine And this would constitute data Absolutely his his paper was was absolutely peer reviewed and published and put in a put in a Journal and then of course as you know about scientific dialogue and and even post publishing peer review and critique um The scientific world Didn't agree and there's so many other problems that it brings up But like you said, we know those problems because even in your own words even a huge portion of the creationist science community disagree So, uh, you know, what I guess what I'm saying is yes, you might say that you've got these papers But you haven't brought them so in terms of the debate itself Like you you cannot prove in this debate that they are Good scientific evidence for a young earth within the context of this debate. Let's say that I understand what you're saying now Let's go on to another point. Why don't you pick one this time? Yeah, okay. Um, so the I was really interested in your response to the isochron dating I know you say because you said, well, that's a really bad example What you said it was a bad example without Explaining how you can now I don't know if I can share my screen here Only just for the image really Um, we can definitely share your screen cat if you're oh, I mean, I don't know if I'm competent enough He's I don't know who I can because it's late here. Right. So I've got it up ready now. Um So I for those who are new to the debate I Brought this up in the opening about how when we take these different minerals and we measure Ratios of parent and daughter isotopes and also the stable version of a dorsal dorsal isotope That we can show that a system is closed Uh to contamination Or leakage If these uh, when we plot them on a graph as you can see in front of you if they form a straight line You'll have to go back and look at the beginning if you didn't see why that was evidence Now I know in the rebuttal david said he wasn't impressed by that But what I didn't hear in the rebuttal and what I'd really like to hear in the rebuttal is How you can get them plotted on a straight line and it not Be a system that hasn't had any contamination Okay, let me uh respond to that. Yeah, you can pull it down if you want now done that thing Yeah, go ahead and give me my screen back there and I'll Show the audience what my argument is um Here's the daughter products. You're the parent products The isochron is drawn As a as a line between the other uh data points and Fitting a line to these data points is a standard statistical technique Okay my problem with this as a field geologist with 50 years experience now Is when I've gone out to look Oh, for example in my years In the 1980s I hiked the grand canyon five times in four years So some of the very lava flows that Steve austinon And larry barman and others looked at in the grand canyon I've actually seen them with my own eyes and looked at them in outprop And when you look at these places where the rocks are actually um collected You have to ask yourself the the three basic questions Has the radioactive decay rate remained constant? I think the answer is no At least within 35 percent Has there been anything added or subtracted? During the time of of A billion year old earth And when you focus on that one that second one about Uh leaching or addition As I've gone out looking at copper lead zinc gold silver deposits some of which are even in the grand canyon the Weathering and the fracturing Of these rocks over Now keep in mind. I was trained as a traditionally. I was trained traditionally believing that the earth was billions of years old and The rocks are millions of years old When you look at this there is ample opportunity al to see this and the way that you see it in practice is uh You can see A stain does that help you understand my critique? No, I think I think with all due respect. I don't and I and I do know that you've worked professionally in in the field You know, and I do have a lot of respect for that. Um, but with all due respect I think it doesn't answer the question at all The question is that when we take one of these rocks and we analyze the minerals and we we we plot the ratio Just like we if I can just if you can just put the screen up again Dolly just so people who are new can see the back book when you plot Uh these data points from the different minerals in the rock When they form a straight line that shows like I explained at the beginning if anyone's new They want to wind back and watch um That shows that there hasn't been contamination now what you seem to be saying is when you look at a rock Rocks can be contaminated. Well, what I'm saying too is if the rock was contaminated. This is what we get This is the test now. I'm not sure. I don't I don't maybe haven't heard isochron data before I don't know but if contamination has occurred This is what we get. We don't get this We get this and this is what I'm asking you seem to be saying. Yes, rock. Okay, let me Okay, I think I can better explain. Let me uh, Let me redraw my diagram here um You know you you have commented that if there is um contamination When you draw the graph You should get a data point here a data point there a data point there a data point there. No, that's not what I'm saying Well, let me just let me just finish my point uh If these were the data points The statisticians Would fit a line to that No, but that line And let me use a different color here That line would not be the same And you know the statistic as well as I do you can calculate the The how good a fit it is You seem to indicate that the the fit will be More like this And because the isochron goes that way Uh that proves that there's no um Contamination Can I clarify can I clarify because I think I think yeah, please slightly about two different things slightly about two new things Um, don't you you're okay? Sorry, son. If you're okay to perhaps put the thing back a bit What do you just give a very brief explanation? What actually of what I what I mean? Maybe we are that slightly across wires Maybe we're not maybe it's me Okay, but what I'm saying is at any one point in time If we were to take the ratio now of strontium 87 and strontium 86 in the world right now That's in the process of forming whatever minerals it's in the process of forming that's going to be a constant isn't it So whatever mineral if I've got a rock here and there are minerals forming inside this You know newly forming up right in front of me The ratio of the uh of strontium 86 strontium 87 is going to be the same So if I was to plot that ratio on a graph it would form this straight line That I'm just going to draw myself another thing here this straight line. I've got across here Right that they are the line that they would form and what I'm saying is on the bottom Right, we have the parent isotope. Which is which is the rubidium Uh that decays into the the the strontium Okay, uh a ratio against a stable daughter isotope as well This is but basically consider this to be the amount of parent isotope All right, so what we will get at the beginning of the formation of the rock We know at the beginning of the formation of the rock that these would have formed a straight line Because we know that the the ratio of those isotopes at any one time Will will be the same, okay What I'm saying is over time As the parent isotope decays We are going to get less parent isotope More daughter isotope. So all of these minerals are going to start to move upwards to the left Now if there's no contamination They will all move upwards to the left by the same proportion Dictated by these ratios if there's no contamination. So if they fall on a line here We know that there's been no contamination But if there has been contamination over time they will be here now What you seem to have drawn on the graph there is something like this And said oh, well, we've just drawn a line the best way. Well, no if if this is what we see Then we know there's been contamination and we chuck it out We don't consider using this for dating purposes because we can see there's been contamination But if we see it falls perfectly like this then in that instance, we use it for radioactive dating purposes So I know what we were going with this but if it looks like that and it's not a perfect line We throw it out. Don't we we don't use it. We discard it. That's where I'm going with this Now now I could see how to further clarify the thinking See an example As a young geologist, I worked in the southern Appalachian Mountains. This would have been Northeast of Atlanta, Georgia East of Chattanooga, Tennessee And there is a group of marbles In that area that's called the Murphy marble belt And it is surrounded by a very complicated group of metamorphic rocks Well, radiometric dating of that Murphy marble belt That was done I guess it must have been done in the 60s The radio the radiometric dating that was done in that Was it isochron dating? Because if it was isochron dating then it's not wrong. I think it was but Just give me a minute of leeway here. The date that was obtained was I think a billion years Further geologic work discovered a trilobite Very rare to find any kind of fossil in a metamorphic rock, but a trilobite was discovered And so the the senior geologist was my mentor at that time I asked him what are you going to do about these? Oh, well The the index fossil always is a trump card over any kind of radiometric date So that automatically became Cambrian or 500 million years over the billion year Radiometric date. I do not know the answer to your question as to whether It was done As an isochron But what I'm trying to say is Traditionally trained geologists realize That very few of their colleagues In very few labs were wide even Actually do radiometric dating And so in a sense, they're at their mercy in one way And if they're shown an index fossil which they remember from their training They're always going to go with the index fossil Now I've been misunderstood in previous debates. I'm not saying That there is some worldwide conspiracy Of people that run labs All I'm saying Is that Would you point out that if you get a bad graph you throw it out? Sometimes they throw it out Because it's it's given them a date That is not compatible with the standard geologic column Okay, go ahead. I think we've gone way off. I think and you know, we can move on topics, but I think what I've shown there Is that there is no uh Young earth creationist rebuttal to the isochron dating, you know, I think I think I've tried two or three times To to explain why when they fall on a on a straight line that shows that there's no Contamination or leaching and I don't think I've had a straight answer either I think each time we've sort of swerved and and dodged and And I I really don't think Uh, you know Let's go to another topic. I think you're right on that. I'll just go back 20 seconds But at the end of that it was interesting that you talked about Um labs and not being many labs that do radioactive dating into in the uh in the world. Can you possibly? Stand if you please just share my screen In a debate you had just at the tail end of last year with uh king crocadook Uh, you you I know you did mention that you felt that at a ground level People would feel uh the need for a bit of bias if they were in the lab because they didn't want to lose the job If if they found that something was in fact one of the quotes I've got it written down here is that some bloke in his 50s will be doing this and he wants to pay for his Mercedes and Mercedes and send his young girl to uh a good university was was your exact words I've got that written down And so that what they would do is that they would inflict their own bias on the results and king crocadook brought up This is a screenshot this fantastic Thing here. Um, were he showed you how you can use? Um, this this funnel Um, forget the term of it now I was going to pinch his argument, but I've got to give him credit It was a brilliant argument But this kind of a funnel analysis to show that actually You can test scientific papers to see if there is bias or there isn't bias in an area And he did it on the debate and he showed you that there was no bias And and I remember because I did note it down It was about four to 50 odd minutes into the debate You said that you were going to look into it and you'd be ready to discuss this bias in about January or February when you debate. So have you looked into this? Yeah, I have looked into it and with the help of george brunt bond in australia What we've discovered is that this statistical technique Is primarily used In a marketing setting This statistical technique is very rarely used to determine something like isotope ratios But that's not what it was it wasn't isotope ratios So if I can clarify it wasn't isotope ratios It was the bias in the reporting from labs On radioelectric dating. So it wasn't it wasn't taking a scientific analysis He was just taking an analysis of the science that was done. So it was taking an analysis of the results that were reported And king krokaduk did a very very good job of explaining it go and check out the debates on the modern day debate channel um and yeah, I uh I am still studying this My my critique is that he's taking taking a statistical technique Basically used for marketing To try to find out who's going to buy mammography devices and applied that to A Okay, if I could jump in real quick david. I appreciate that cats because the isochron point and topic is very important in light of tonight's debate question can you Both so cats take two minutes all time to reiterate your your points on isochron conclude that topic point out why It's good evidence against a young earth and foreign old earth and then david. I want you to take two minutes to respond as clearly and In a concise manner as you can to that and then in the final 10 minutes of the discussion will move on to a third and final topic if that works for you gentlemen Yeah, no problem. Perfect. Yeah. Yeah. No good move. Good move so Essentially the reason it's important to me is the young earth creationism seems to hand wave dismiss radiometric dating techniques because they can say Contamination or there's there's leaching of parent or daughter into the sample or leaching of daughter or parent isotopes out of the sample So it's unreliable and I remember in david's last debate against again king Cocked up here He said his entire problem with radiometric dating was he wasn't sure of the the amount of Parent sample or to be more specific even that the ratio of parent sample to daughter sample And I think I've outlined people can always wind back and watch I think I've outlined that isochron dating is a brilliant perfect technique to establish that there has been no leaching in or out Absolutely. No leaching in or out. So therefore when you find A sample like that that you've proven has been a closed sample. You can rely on the radiometric Uh Dates that you get from it and I think I've proven in the conversation with david actually Dude doesn't seem to be any kind of argument against it at all Um, and that's that's my point in nut show Cat I appreciate that that's just over a minute David if you'd like to respond between one or two minutes on isochron specifically And then we're going to pick one final topic as we wind down the discussion. Go ahead Dr. John Morris who sadly passed away last month Wrote a book called the young earth and on page 57 of the book He actually Created a chart Al Giving the whole rock isochron ages of a number of different Rocks one two three four five six seven eight nine 10 of them, but I'll just pick one that we That I that I have seen with my own eyes this Basalt from the Grand Canyon. It's from the eastern Grand Canyon Conventional age about a billion years old and then he Has the model ages but more importantly Let me read you the whole rock isochron ages of that particular basalt Method by method And I'm I'm rounding for purposes of our discussion potassium argon Whole rock isochron date Was 516 Rebidium strontium Two different specimens 292 million to a billion 100 Sumerium neodymium numbers A billion 1.3 billion Very consistent among the samples Lead lead isochron date 1.2 billion 1.3 billion 1.5 billion And I hope you notice that Almost all of these whole rock isochron ranges are higher than The 1.1 billion conventional age What do you make of that? So when you say range is a range of of course obviously over in the UK here when we talk about a range we're talking about a difference between the highest figure and the lowest figure So when you say yeah, so so the range of of what like If you're not showing me what the lowest and highest figures are Then just giving me the rate like I could say to you I've got a range of 10 pound in my bank account It could mean I've got two pound or 12 pound or it could mean I've got a million Intense so Let me help on that because we've talked a lot about rebidium strontium. So let me just focus on that one Again the conventional age is 1.1 billion And the rebidium strontium age they got from two different samples range from 892 million to 1.1 billion And so there's no agreement there On the whole rock isochron age So you're looking at that significant 20 20 percent maybe out 20 25 to 30 percent maybe Which I think when you and if we were saying that the earth was 6 000 years old that will be a huge percentage to be out But if if something is saying well, it's between 800 million and we said we started the debate By saying that these labs have a through and you agreed because you said you were there when Austin handed that that rock to the lab and you and you agreed that there was a 3 million Year thing either way So you know that there were big margins of error either way and if we're going back 800 million years Then yeah, okay. Let's let's give you 300 million years and say it's 500 million years old It's still way more than 6 000 It doesn't go in your favor and in fact in anything it destroys the idea of a young a younger So i'm not really sure. I think reading those figures out has actually destroyed your argument rather than saved it. I think Okay, let me jump in gentlemen Just because i'm looking at the time to be fair David why don't you take a quick response? And then we I think we have to move on to the the final point as there were many points brought up in the openings And then to be as fair as possible for that next point We'll give cats the last word on that one as we move into closing statements if that works for you Yeah, that's fine. And the last thing i'll say to al is if you don't have this book on your shelf um This would be a good one to Actually give the data from those uh whole rock isochron things Hey, i've got i've got this one on my shelf and and i wrote it Just you know, uh beautiful my website sitting on. So what's the name of your book? At the minute, it's uh, it's got a working title of high school physics Um, we'll have to come up with a better one. Oh, okay. Well, that'd be a good one to Bye Back to you donny Okay, so what we'll do uh david picked the first topic cats Pick the second topic david in your opening statement correct me if i'm wrong you uh look to three or four major points And so for the final five minutes here um Cats if you wanted to put on the or not cats not cats if you wanted to put five minutes And we'll discuss one final point David will allow you to now pick That point and we'll go back and forth for five minutes Go ahead Al had commented earlier that my explanation of the Volume of metallic ore of something like nickel Was a kind of a confusing argument for why that would indicate that the earth is young So let me let me go back to that argument with some uh discussion of Of what in geology we call sedimentology um It's been well known by sedimentologists That billions of tons of sediment are washed from continental masses into the sea each year Calculations by oceanographers have actually been done That there are 820 million billion tons of sediment worldwide in the modern ocean now uh The problem for that and how it indicates a young earth is In the old earth evolutionary plate tectonics model The maximum age of most ocean basins are about 300 million years old now uh the Massive of rock that's going in Then Contains different elements potassium Copper lead zinc gold silver called crystal abundance Well if we focus on this mineral nickel Which is no without question found in large cratonic areas like the upper peninsula of michigan And in africa and so forth huge nickel deposits um if we look at at those And say well If the atlantic ocean is The Jurassic age And we have continental separation beginning anywhere between 150 and 70 million years old There's not enough nickels in those sediments in the atlantic for example um to account For an old old earth In contrast The amount of nickel in those areas um Can be explained by a few thousand years of erosion Does that help? Yeah, i'm not really sure um In in what way how that's because remember the title of the debate is is the good scientific evidence You know, and I think well, I think what you presented presented there With no calculations, you know, it's okay to say young earth creationist calculations say this is going to fit and and young earth Creationist calculations say it doesn't fit in old earth, but really You know in a debate where would we're supposed to be looking at actual scientific evidence That's more of an anecdote, you know, and and obviously Quick google there while you were talking that most of the the naturally found nickel on earth Um is is sort of in the southern hemisphere, you know, australia south africa Um, although there is there is some in anguish and canadone um So I don't know it seems odd to me that you're saying oh there seems to be a lack of it in the middle of the atlantic Um When it's taken me two minutes even just to look and see what should the majority of it isn't found Uh anywhere near there anyway There's no calculations with what you've said so I don't see any way I can take what you've just said as good scientific evidence, which was the title of the debate Good scientific evidence for a young earth and I just don't see how that's good scientific evidence With no calculation or paper. I just see it as an anecdote Am I allowed to make a comment donny? Go ahead david. Yeah, we still got a couple minutes left. Yeah. Yeah my my critique of what you say Al is um I have visited the huge nickel mine in Sudbury Uh, Ontario, canada I've been close. I haven't actually gone to the One I've done some field work in zimbabwe But I didn't get down all the way to see the the huge Nickel deposits down in the bush felt area there So I know that in, um rocks without fossils pre-cambrian rocks Uh, there are found these huge nickel deposits And I'm aware that they are on continental masses But that doesn't negate the point That we can make modern calculations And they are published in the oceanographic literature about how much erosion From the land masses go in And the erosion of those land masses Would certainly include Um For example the Sudbury deposits eventually filling in to the Um, uh, Mississippi really river valley River river basin and out to the Gulf of Mexico. So I think there's better Science behind this Then you might think Al Okay, I'm going to jump in real quick to be completely fair cats Now you get the final word on this point. And so feel free. Go ahead. Go ahead. Take your time. Thank you So, I mean the very well may be better science on it And my my kind of point on this would be that if we're having a debate on is the good scientific evidence of an old earth Sorry of a young earth And you bring to the debate of is the good scientific evidence for young earth if one of your talking points is nickel deposits If then when I question that we have to say well, there's probably but you know, if your response that is well, there's probably some good evidence somewhere Then I would say that you haven't seen that evidence and you haven't brought that evidence to the debate And I can only take your word for it that there's good scientific evidence somewhere But nobody here has seen it. Nobody watching has seen it Gentlemen, I appreciate the discussion. I could probably listen to this for another 40 minutes, but we do have to move on and so David if there is anything you'd like to respond There to what cat said save it for your closing statement because gentlemen We do still have five minutes each To wrap up our thoughts wrap up our points and address anything that We feel may not have been addressed adequately So David, you do get the first five minutes and then cat you get five minutes And then we are going to get into some audience questions that cas Thank you very much cas for being diligent. He has saved a bunch of audience questions So david whenever you're ready the floor is yours five minutes once again, I'll begin my five minute close by complimenting al a very Good job in presenting your arguments I do not believe that your conclusion is correct and we'll talk about that more with some audience questions but Because I approach this standing for truth opportunity that Donnie has given me My focus generally is To find evidence for a biblical truth about things and so When I have my bible in my hand I think an interesting topic for you and I in the summer to talk about Al is not the religious aspects of Moses and jesus and all that sort of thing but rather the archaeological and historical evidences that The different parts of the Bible can be trusted and so When I when I think about the Uh, the evidences that you've presented It reminds me of something that jesus said Building up to the time of his crucifixion Easter is not that far away in matthew 24 he says For in the days that were before the flood They were eating and drinking and marrying giving him marriage things were going on just like normal And they knew not I left out something there until the day that Noah entered the ark And knew not until the flood came and took them all away So shall it be in the coming of the son of man Now what interests me from a historical standpoint? At least I think we can agree that jesus was a historical figure and here he is referring back to events in genesis And so I think the argument that I've given to Others over the last year that the bibles are trustworthy historical document is well taken Now how much of my five minutes do I have left? You got about two minutes and two and a half minutes two and a half minutes. Okay Let me quickly go back over these these points Um Science is not Uh done by majority opinion Majority opinion comes into play in a lot of parts of life, but not in science And so just because There are a lot of people That disagree With Gentry's work about the halos Doesn't make his work wrong dull ripples critique that There might have been Some problem with our measurements. It's simply wrong. I was there. I made some of the measurements I know that they're within the accuracy of the microscope This issue of population statistics Is fascinating to me and important We're often challenged Well, McQueen there's eight billion people on earth Then we're going to run out of room If you go to national geographic And pull up a map of Louisiana. This is the black areas where I live We have parishes here instead of counties It turns out that national geographic points out that if everyone on earth stood shoulder to shoulder With no room at all between us we could all fit within that black area there so The idea of population statistics is I think widely misunderstood by people and If evolution were true would have a lot more people the decay of the earth's magnetic field modern 21st century creations Recognize that there are magnetic reversals and we may we may address that with some of the questions later on So the issue is not that there's never been a magnetic reversal the issue is That this right hand rule Is an argument against The dynamo theory And I think we've talked enough about the volume of nickel Very much have appreciated the opportunity to summarize The scientific side of a young earth David, thank you very much for that five minute closing statement. We're now moving on to cats Cats you also get your five minute closing statement whenever you're ready. The floor is yours I don't think only five minutes. I do want to thank David Um, he's been ultra civil in the email exchanges building up to this debate As a standing for truth, obviously, you know got a lot of respect for both of them David in terms of your offering to debate me on the archaeological Comments in the bible. I think you'd rip me apart if we did that. So I'm going to decline. I don't think I'd be able to live But but you know, maybe we could find someone else to talk about as far as it goes with the the science I opened up this debate for those that were there at the beginning And I said that normally I debate people who are just blatantly wrong, you know flat earthers people that deny viruses exist You know, they're just absolutely numb nuts Um, and often they will sit there and they'll say prove to me the earth is isn't flat prove to me It's a globe prove to me viruses exist and it doesn't matter how many scientific papers you throw at them How you know how many satellite images how many how many whatever how many scientific laws that you explain to them They'll sit there and not understand any of it and just just say oh, that's not good enough for me So to be on the we do we see even end of that tonight? I thought that would be good You know the the title of the debate was is the scientific evidence For a young earth always a good scientific evidence for a young earth and I thought That I would be I would have scientific papers thrown at me And that didn't happen In fact, it was me in the the opening statement that brought the scientific papers I thought I would have scientific You know established scientific arguments thrown at me, but that didn't happen. It was me Using, you know, for example the icicron dating that brought the scientific arguments and You know as much as I respect david as much as I respect standing for truth Um, you know and I'm I'm I'm not coming here to bash religion or anything like that I never tell anybody if I'm an atheist or a christian or whatnot because to me it doesn't matter It's about the science you can believe that I you can believe I'm a satanist you can believe I'm a christian It doesn't matter as long as you think that I've argued the science. That's only important to me and I just don't think That there's been any science offered tonight whatsoever. There's been opinions. There's been a there's been Kind of assumptions. Well, what if the dynamo effect is wrong or what if the population kind of expanded in this way? But for the debate to have the title is the good scientific evidence for young earth Well, clearly not And that's that Okay, cat. Thank you very much for your concluding statement gentlemen That concludes the concluding statements and the debate itself I do want to thank you both For the work time and effort you put into prepping for this debate cats and david Always cordial always professional and I enjoy the technical back and forth As this exchange was so time has flown by and we do have About 25 minutes worth of audience questions, which cas has Saved for us cas. I wanted to ask you real quick. I saw a couple more super chats just come in Have those been added to the google doc or did you want me to add them? Right. I'm adding them. I'm adding them right now. Okay Okay, perfect Okay, well, we're gonna just move into some audience questions then Uh cas did you want to start with I've noticed that there's some super chats more so just with some statements Yeah, not not necessarily questions. Do we start with those or how does? Um, I think we usually try to do them in order if they're a super chat. Um, okay Yeah Okay, and if you I know you had somewhere to be uh, once the q&a starts So I'll just start at the top then and cas. I appreciate Your uh co-hosting and co-modding here And so we're just we're gonna start right from the top and get into these questions and statements. So Okay, so first one that comes in Unless cas was there any final words you wanted to say before you got out of here? Um, that's okay. I I'm gonna have to um, I'll try to jump back in at the end of it if I can. Oh, perfect. Okay. I appreciate it Okay, here we go guys. We are um Gonna get right into it. So thoroughs racks $2 super chat Says we'll also happily debate evolution come at me. So okay. Thank you for that And I know modern day debate does host debates on evolution. I host debates on evolution over on my channel And so anyone interested in that topic? We'll be happy to do that. Okay next one comes in Thoros racks again $10 super chat He says geologist here The earth is over 4 billion years old And the methods we use to determine that are accurate beyond reasonable doubt Happy to debate this. I have an open challenge on the discord. Well, uh Since I guess it's more so directed at you David more so just some comments But we'll give you the opportunity to respond if you'd like to Okay, good. Uh, this individual doesn't understand Some basic geology No terrestrial rocks even given the Radiometric dating that al and I have talked about no terrestrial rocks actually date To 4.5 billion years old That date comes from uh In the old days it came from meteorites That had entered the earth atmosphere Up in the apollo age I had the thrill of seeing apollo 12 blast off When I was a teenager And once I got those rocks back They dated them dating essentially the age of the moon Uh as 4.5 billion years and so My newfound friend on this debate channel Get your facts straight before you make statements As broad as oh, we know That the earth is 4.5 billion years old Point to me a terrestrial rock of that date Thank you, david cat. Was there anything you wanted to add or um contribute to that comment? Just that we know for a fact it's it's far older than 6,000 years old You know, um, I think even as as david showed when he was reading out the isochron and he was saying that there was a margin of error And it was between 800 million and this rock and and and just over a billion years old You know, I think that kind of information Uh, you know, I think it's very obviously not a young earth Okay Cat and david let's let's move on now typically with the questions What we'll do these are just comments so you both got a response when we actually get to the questions themselves Let's say it's for you cats will allow you to respond quick David you get a response and then cats would get the last word but since these so far just comments We'll just keep moving on so next one comes in from Psycho octopus the thing two dollars super chat. Thank you so much Um, this individual says appreciate the mods and debate participants. Thank you Well, thank you to the audience you guys of the life and blood of of these debate channels Lorraine drosophilia Two dollar super chat. Good to see you Lorraine. She frequently participates in my live chats as well and she says David mcqueen What does 6,000 year? What does 6,000 years worth of decay look like? Okay, uh, it's a very interesting way to Uh to to ask that question And the way I would answer it is uh in in this regard When I go with my grandchildren to the beaches of the southern united states Near florida and so forth we often walk on the beach and see Uh, polysepods gastropods clams and snails that have been washed up the previous night The clams the polysepods are generally open shells But if you look at the science of clams or polysepods they are uh They have two parts not really equal in size, but two parts that are held together by a ligament So 6,000 years worth of decay would indicate that most of the polysepods that we find Whether we find them Out in the in the water off the white cliffs of dover Or we find them in turkey or we find them worldwide. Most of those polysepods are going to have uh that Two parts broken as a flood geologist. What's interesting to me Is I have seen with my own eyes worldwide beds of polysepods Gastropods well gas pods not good beds of polysepods that have been buried very rapidly And they're both shells are there Evidence of catastrophic deposition That's how I would answer how you can find evidence for the great flood in these fossils And then if you go into our modern world Whether it's charles darlin walking in 1859 or you and I walking now you're going to find a lot of creatures That are busted apart David thanks for the response cats the floor is yours if there's anything you'd like to add What was the question just very quick. Sorry. What was it? No worries. No worries. Let me pull it up again I was reading the comments on the screen No worries. Uh, so the question was uh specifically to mcqueen But it was from lorraine and she was asking what does 6 000 years worth of decay look like Oh, okay. Yeah, no comment on that one. Okay appreciate it. So we will move on So the next one comes in from Infini ryu $5 super chat. Thank you so much for supporting modern day debate Question is appellation mountains question mark. That's where me and my sister went on our first date So thank you for that. Okay. Moving on to the next one. Theros rex $5 super chat And theros rex is coming at you david. So we'll give you the opportunity to respond however you feel fit And theros says david you're wrong saying an index fossil trumps dating Entirely wrong this individual says i've had multiple professors Older than you say the complete opposite. So what are your thoughts to to that david? Well, first my regards to your professors. I turned 70 years old this summer if they're older than I am I hope they can still get up and down to make their comments, but joking joking joking to one side If you go to the geologic literature and you can easily Google this very famous a group of marbles in The appellation mountains And if you google the m u r p h one murphy marvel Built If you look through that literature from about 1965 Through about 1980 for example You'll find an actual fascinating debate over the contrast between This trial about that was found there and the radiometric date the Old earth community went nuts over this because a lot of traditionally trained geologists like My mentor With the United States Geological Survey would always accept the Cambrian trial about To be 500 to 600 million years old and immediately dismiss the old earth viewpoint so the way that traditionally trained geologists Have viewed index fossils Look this up. I think you'll find it an interesting read Thank you, David Moving on unless cats there's something you wanted to add. No, no, that's fine. Okay appreciate it We're moving along smoothly. So next question comes in from extra juicy Thank you for your question question for David Which came first your degree? Or your young earth belief Oh, now that's uh, that's a very important part of Of my biography When When I was in my first two years of college I took the viewpoint that god simply used evolution to produce Uh a pre-adamic man and all the different creatures and so Those first two years. I had no no real conflict in my in my thinking during that time I was part of The geology program at the University of Tennessee Knoxville While attending a junior college in Kentucky and Then when my wife and I married 50 years ago in 1972 We moved to Knoxville and I got my undergraduate degree from The University of Tennessee um During the first few uh months of that experience. I retained my idea of a a theistic evolution explanation and an old earth in that time I began to be alerted to the um works of creation scientists like Dr. Henry Morris and others that argued for a young earth and that argued for an anti-evolutionary view As the years went on I had a chance to Teach it Virginia State University near Richmond, Virginia as a geologist taught petroleum geology there and the more that I saw of the data of The origin of crude oil and so forth the more convinced I became that this had to Be forming rapidly that uh stratigraphic units had to form rapidly and so By the time I had gone as a nsf graduate fellow to the University of Michigan in 1975 I was uh completely convinced of a young earth uh Viewpoint I was in the phd program at michigan Looking back on it. I was a little bit too vocal And they uh would not allow me to have a phd As a young earth creations Okay, David. Thank you very much for that response next one comes in again five dollar super chat from psycho octopus the thing question for David mcqueen do you reason that the bible is true first? Then go about looking for evidence that confirms confirms it or vice versa well, um With 12 minutes left. I almost don't know how to answer that question. Um Um It is true That the bible is not a physics textbook like al is writing For his students there in the uk. So that is that is true. It's not it's not a science textbook But in those areas where the bible comments about things in my study What the comment is is true for example in leviticus chapter 17 and verse 11 it says for the life of the flesh is in the blood well This was written a long time before European scientists fully understood What the blood did and carrying oxygen and so forth and certainly a long time Before uh greek and roman scholars. So in those areas of science Which touch? When i've read the bible i have seen that um There's a correlation That's That's the quickest answer i can give I appreciate you The response there, uh david. So the next one comes in from hate stairs 10 super chat And uh, it's a hot one here literally david. Please explain how you resolve the heat problem so definitely a hot topic and Questions for you david go ahead figuring that, uh Figuring that al would bring that up I just happen to have my My equations here uh For those of you that may not be aware, uh standing for truth George bond and me have worked on this this issue of The heat that's generated by catastrophic plate tectonics And if you'll give me full screen so they can see this Here's the first counter argument If you look at the calculus that's involved in the carno cycle and I would imagine in this physics book that you're writing Al you've got a section on this here is the differential of pressure versus temperature dq over dt um The old earth idea that all this is perpetually being drawn into the mantle and coming back up Is actually a perpetual motion machine And violates the second law of thermodynamics My argument is that in every closed system entropy always increases But this is actually my favorite argument. I better hold it up here If you work on differential equations and this is comes from stacy's book page 203 The mantle creep gets really very interesting I won't go through all this But you can go to stacy's book which is out there and Note that this epsilon dot is the rate of deformation by creep alone Well, if you know how differential equations work, they work backwards of everything else and so at a very small difference this mathematical evaluation of creep allows you to say wait This old earth model is really insufficient and implies a catastrophic plate tectonic model Yes, that's it Thank you, david cats if there's anything you'd like to add or contribute to the Heat question go or we can move on whatever works for you just very quickly. I'll just share my screen And as much as david just said then he thought I was going to bring that up I thought he was going to bring something else up. I thought he was going to bring Helium diffusion rates up. I'm sure you're familiar with that argument And so I thought I'd look at helium diffusion rates and and and I did and I looked at the work from humphries and I just happened to stumble across Humph I can't remember. I don't know. He's what's his first name humphries the the scientist Russell Humphries That's him I happened to come across a nice little quote of his in one of the papers He wrote that was dealing with the removal of heat from the earth and he wasn't the scientific as you was about david He didn't have a he didn't have like the math You know the the maths around it. He just simply said of course God was directly involved So it's possible that he employs some supernatural process which does not occur today and cannot be detected Um, so that was That was the answer that I thought you were going to give so I was really impressed that you pulled some maths out there Although that was somewhere I wasn't expecting Well, one of my goals alas to impress you so I'll save you to describe the carno cycle Uh in class tomorrow. Yeah, yeah, we'll do that off stream. Yeah Debate mission accomplished you've both impressed each other so that's the goal and and we've met it Okay, so next question comes in from Well a comment from heat shield appreciate the support for modern day debate and keeping these debates going So heat shield says thank you cats and dav Hope to see you both talk again soon So, well, thank you and yes been a lot of good feedback to this Professional and very technical discussion. I've very much enjoyed it. Okay. So next one comes in from good question And 10 dollar super chat good question is asking a good question question for david david Do you believe there is a crystal dome that holds the stars? Just like the bible mentions Well, uh It turns out in a debate that I had 10 days ago with an individual who criticized my knowledge of hebru and Uh Wanted me to look at the cosmology that rabbis in 2000 I'm sorry a 1000 ad or uh, even uh 1000 bc uh He challenged me to look at that that that's actually what genesis is saying I have looked at the hebru words now. I don't speak hebru, but I can read books and find out what it means And he's simply wrong Uh But wrong in this way. I'm not saying that there are not some rabbis that viewed that idea of a crystal sphere Just like I'm not even the fact that there are some people Some of whom I have told in my college teaching careers. They've tried to argue with me about a flat earth And I will turn to them and say How come the hull of a ship goes down first at the beach? You know that so I I'm not I'm aware that there are all kinds of people That have incorrect ideas This idea is incorrect All right. Thank you very much. David. Uh, okay moving on to non super chat questions and so Question comes in from apologetics 101 Question is for david Can you elaborate on the problems with the dynamo theory? But and that looks like that's it. So, uh, okay pertaining to the net field to kevin Yeah, let me get some of my uh my toys here um When I was at the university of mishkin I was fortunate enough to take a geophysics class With a european scientist named rob vendorvue and rob vendorvue was uh an expert on um Magnetic reversals and he got me thinking all the way back in the This would have been 77 76 about the idea of the reversal of the earth's magnetic field um a creationist Before let's say Um 1980 Thought that there was something screwy about the magnetic striping And so what their viewpoint was if you take the earth and You look at the decay of the earth's magnetic field The dynamo theory is a theory in geophysics where This uh, I can put it back up here I think I can there we go Their theory is that sure you can measure the decay And sure it's got a half-life of 1,400 years But there is a process between the intercore outer core mantle that regenerates The electric current I think that that is a argument very similar to what Al has accused me of in the last two hours of an argument Wanting to prove your point Without any really good seismic evidence I think the the evidence that we have Is that there is an electric current flowing um Equatorially that by the right hand rule of physics produces a magnetic field The way I've got my thumb pointing Modern creationists see that there were opportunities during the time of the great flood Especially within the catastrophic plate plate tectonic model that that polarity would reverse And so as lavas flowed out On the mid-atlantic ridge like this during the time of the separation Of the Atlantic Ocean It would get a different magnetic signature I hope that helps in your thinking Well, David, thank you very much for that response Cat of course you do have the opportunity to respond anything unless you want to move on to the next question totally up to you I think you might be on mute cat Sorry, no, uh, I missed the question because I went for a wee so, um, you know, we'll move on All right, no worries appreciate it. You guys have good endurance. So, you know, we're over two hours at this point so next question comes in from Givardo and it's a question for you cat. So we can't let david have all the fun here tonight Finally, finally, you get a question. You've been on the hot seat david. I appreciate you being a good sport So this one's for cats Givardo, thanks for the question. Can you please provide some evidences that can be easily understood? That points to the earth being older than what Professor McQueen is claiming Yeah, sure. Not a problem. Um, I will just get something sorted here for you. So that can be easily understood So obviously we're talking about dating mechanisms. Aren't we if we want something to be easily understood? Um, so let's let's get uh, let's get this up for you um And when we say easily understood I guess we'll see Don't share the screen just yet. Sorry Um, in fact, you can if I show my screen now, we'll we'll do it without going into something I didn't get onto tonight, which might be something to talk about another time david is uh thermal luminescent uh dating Yes So you're familiar with that one. I'm sure you've you've heard of that. So so here's a uh pizza pottery and the thing about pottery is Things like ceramics can be dated by something used called thermo luminescent dating and the idea is that when we get certain I'm not going to go too much because it's a quick question But if we get we get certain crystalline structures that are underneath the ground They're exposed to background radiation from underneath the ground that background radiation can cause the excitation of electrons inside them These electrons as they get excited are prevented from de-excitation because they get trapped in Kind of like micro fractures inside materials correct me if david if I get wrong getting anywhere in this, okay Well, they get kind of like trapped in in certain uh imperfections in the material Now the thing about this is when we take some of this stuff from underneath the ground And we put it above the ground when sunlight shines on it it liberates It gives these uh electrons energy it liberates them and then they remove themselves from these imperfections and they can fall back down to Back down to a normal energy level within the atom, right? Now if I was to take something that had been under the ground and not exposed for light for a long time Um, I could liberate these electrons and measure the the the intensity of light that comes from them I know you said in simple terms But essentially the more light we get from thermo luminescence the longer something's been trapped underground Now that doesn't tell us that something is old It tells us how long it's been in the absence of light All right, so if anything it underages things and what we find when we go into egypt, you know, we find pottery that's 20 000 years old um, we find If we go to the pyramids that the pottery we find in the pyramids is is Six seven eight thousand years old for for for some of them that and that is so this one was 4300 but that is supported by other dating techniques have got nothing to do with thermo luminescence. So for example The the kafu ships. I don't even familiar with those. There was two of those found in the the pyramids in geyser and When the wood was tested with carbon dating so not thermo luminescent dating it backed up the date of the pottery and when when other structures in the pyramids were used such as um Wooden tables and desks and dendro conology was used to to date those where we could see Uh enough features we found that they backed them as well. So essentially you go to egypt You go to the pyramids and you find several different dating techniques completely unrelated all supporting each other showing that each other is accurate um and just defies defies A young earth completely Cat I appreciate that thorough response david the floor is yours if you'd like to respond to any of it. Yeah now the egyptology and the dating by thermo luminescence I Had to do some of this in my undergraduate days. So at least I know the technique but the problem that we have is uh Two different world views if you will As a young earth creationist and as a catastrophic flood geologist I've come to realize That no human structure Could have survived the worldwide flood So when I look at machu pichu or I look at uh the pyramids of egypt I immediately say oh, they were uh They were constructed after the time of noa Contemporary maybe with the time of abraham and so For dates to be returned of of those items Of 4 000 years It doesn't exactly fit Bible archaeology, but there's a lot of things about carbon 14 That 21st century creationist have learned that allows us to maybe calibrate that Thank you, sir. Thank you david cat's question was for you. You get the last word. Yeah. Okay. Just very quickly Okay, I understand that you know, if you say you see dates like that that are um Contradicting your religious views then then you can't accept them and I did open up in my debate I did open up. Sorry my opening statement in this debate with the quote from creation ministries Which said science can't be the determinant of what we consider a plausible account um, and I think you've highlighted that the the science clearly shows it's older um, then then the biblical um take would have and You are showing that you don't put science over over What the bible says and I suppose that's That's what it all comes down to cats thanks for that final word and uh Gentlemen one final super chat came in and then we're going to wrap it up as we are now slightly over time I do want to thank david and cat's for the time that they've given to us for this Epic exchange. I would say I've really really enjoyed this And so the final question comes in. It's a super chat two dollars. Thank you so much God guy has a question for david david Are a dimensional aliens? real Slash demons or are they fake? When I was at the university of tennessee Uh, one of the members of our science in the bible discussion group was a professor named roger rusk Now those of you that know american history may recall that there was a Very senior member of the administration named Dean rusk during that time and So we were talking about the strange things you see at a tennessee alabama football game and ufo is that kind of thing So I asked him if he'd ever asked his brother who had access to secrets um what He thought about ufo's And his only comment is he said well brother You wouldn't you would be amazed at the ultra secret military aircraft that we have The point of view that I have come to over the years Is uh most of what people see are just that Ultra secret military aircraft lights in the sky But some of the other uh occurrences Probably are related to demonic activity so it's uh A complicated issue David, I appreciate the response cats. Is there anything you'd like to add? Well, just quickly. I mean hand on heart I don't believe that you know aliens have visited or I don't believe in interdimensional beings or whatnot, but Um, I will admit that that is a belief You know, I don't rule out To absolute zero the possibility that aliens could have visited from other planets And I don't rule out beyond possibility that there are You know being somehow everybody should come from the Because I know the laws of physics don't rule that out. So although I don't believe it in any way shape or form I'd be a liar to say that it was impossible And donny I want to make a final compliment to al Very much enjoyed this my friend and I hope in the summer we can find a another topic Uh that we can debate Uh with this kind of vigor um I'll go I'll go back now to um My friends I want to take a five minute break, but I would like to come back And be part of that after show that you told me about So, um, I'm so sorry david. Um, I'm afraid I'll have to cancel that show. Um, just let everybody know in the chat as well I can't do it tonight. Um, there's some family issues that came up. So Oh, okay. Well, I understand family issues Uh in that case, I will move my cursor down and say good night to the three of you We will talk more. Thank you al Thank you. David. David. Thanks for the final word and I'll wrap things up that uh, concludes the q&a And great questions excellent questions from the audience. This really was a fantastic debate. I've enjoyed it Uh, cat Well, actually cat, I'll hand it down to uh, over to you if you wanted to kind of line things down and wrap it up That man that man's got to go back to the back cave. Bye. Bye See you later, David. Thank you Yeah, no Sorry. Yeah, I really enjoyed that really really enjoyed that. Thank you so much. And um, yeah, I'd love to Go back on well Uh, that's it. Yeah, you know happy to touch base with you again, donnie and um More than happy to do any debate that you're you're more or james I don't want anyone taking away that I've got to get you But it's just it's nice to space for you again. So anytime you're moderating for james as well I'm happy to step in Well, it's great to touch base with you as well cats always a pleasure I'll definitely stay in touch and we will hopefully set up some fun shows some debates in in the future So cats, thanks for doing this. You are in the future. It's late for you So we'll let you get out of here and get some sleep. Thanks for a great debate cats. Thank you. I'll pop off there Thank you. Bye. Bye. All right Well, uh, donnie you want to say anything to say good about everybody real quick? Sure. Yeah, I want to thank everybody for tuning in I appreciate all the support that has come in for james coons and all the work that he is doing here on modern day debate putting on some really Excellent and important debates. So as always time has flown by I am kind of a debate addict And so these debates do fly by two and a half hours I think it was a thorough debate on scientific evidence of a young earth Critical thinking is important guys. That's why james. That's why myself over at my channel This is why we host so many debates on these kinds of topics So please share around this content share it around to your friends and family If you're not yet subscribed hit that subscribe button. So cas over to you All right. Thank you so much donnie. I really appreciate it and you've done a great job tonight really, uh That's a very admirable job you did tonight. Thank you so much. I just want to say once again Thank you to you. Thank you to the debaters who have a life load of the show Thank you both david mcqueen and cats for showing up today Thank you to the moderators in the chat for elevating the conversation Thank you to james for creating this platform and everybody in the audience who's sending super chats and everybody Who commented and elevated the conversation as well. Thank you, uh to everybody else and like it if you loved it Share it if you want to spread it and subscribe We have many more debates coming your way that you don't want to miss our speakers are linked to the description below So let's check them out do it right now. Everybody. Have a great night and remember keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable Have a great night