 All right. Hello everybody and welcome to modern day debate. Filling in for James today is me. It was pointless. So anyway, here we go. We're getting ready to take it on. I know that James isn't here right now because he's off busy getting his pictures taken for the next GQ magazine cover. So everyone wish him luck. Anyway, we're going to be talking about the debate today. It's going to be on the best evidence and the reasons for the fossil record. If this is your first time here, considering hitting that subscribe button as we're trying to build a community with people from all walks of life. Also before we get started, I just wanted to let everybody know that if you enjoy the speakers, you can find the links to their descriptions below for their channels. And you can find them on their channels there. Also, as for the debate today, the format's going to be a five minute opening for each person. And then it's going to move to a 40 minute rebuttal session where it's two minutes for each person, back and forth, followed by at the end of this, a 10 minute discussion portion for each. And then it's going to be three minutes closing. So also there's super chats options. So if anybody sends any of these and you want to make a comment to any of these people, post it and before they speak, I'll read it out loud. Also the debaters today are going to be standing for truth and Nephilim free versus the snake was right. And the emotionally stunted emoji con was actually looking to extend that name. So if you can help, I'm just kidding. All right. So everybody, let's get started. I'm going to start the timer and standing for truth. Are you ready? You're going to start. I am ready there, Matt. Thanks for hosting. Thanks, guys, for doing this snake. Emotionally stunted a modicon. That's tough to say 10 times fast, even even tougher than toy boat. Guys say toy boat 10 times fast. You'll have fun. Anyway, thanks for thanks, Neff, for being my being my partner here. And yeah, I guess I'm starting with with my five minutes. You're saying correct. Yep, I'll start it whenever you start. Okay. You see, I'm trying to share screen here, but it's not. I go to share screen but the share part's not saying there's an audio issue. We better solve the audio before we can hear anything. All right. Well, standing for truth, you don't have to go first. Somebody else like go first while you work out the tech. Wait, Matt, somebody Taylor said that people are saying there's an audio issue in the room. So there's nobody nobody can hear us. Uh, it just says audio issue. You probably have OBS taking some of the computer audio. So they say we have a doubling of the audio. Uh, okay, Matt, you may have the audio for the watch page running. Click the audio stop mute the video on the watch page. That might be it. And for emotionally stunted a modicon is your how's your connection? I know that your, your service is not used to chat says that your connection. Okay. Yeah. So I think my connection is okay. Can you hear me clearly? Yes. Oh yeah. I don't have anything open. I don't know why there's a stump. Maybe that we're having lag issues. I don't know. But I know you can get a double feed. If you've, if you've got the audio playing for the watch page while you're in the hangout, you'll have, you'll have double audio going. Yeah, I don't have that open on my side. I don't know. Do you think we should, I can stop the broadcast. Yeah. Maybe stop the broadcast, remake it and then re-invite everybody and we'll try that as somebody saying, we had a couple of people say they can hear us in the chat. Okay. I don't know why. So I'm going to, I'm going to click share screen, but then the share part is not highlighted. I can't click it. Oh, really? Okay, I think I got it. I think I got it. Do you see? Yes. Okay. We're, we're all a bunch of Gomer piles right now. Whenever you want to start the timer, Matt, I'm good to go. Okay. I'll start it on you. Okay. Good to go. Yeah. Okay. Awesome. Well, what best explains the fossil record? The global flood of Noah, of course, when we start with God's word as our final authority, that authoritative eyewitness account of say Earth's history, the history of the universe, the fossil record is absolutely consistent with the global cataclysmic Genesis flood. It explains numerous things that we see. For example, we see rock layers with marine fossils covering the continents, which is obviously a result of a global flood. Unimaginable numbers of plant and animal fossils are found in extensive graveyards where they had to be buried rapidly on a massive scale, billions and billions of these fossils. Often the fossil remains are found in the famous death pose. But first of all, what do we find in the fossil record? Let's take a look at the fossil record itself, guys. Over 95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish. 95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants. 95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects. Now the remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. 95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the flood. That's why when the evolutionists look to lining up specific fossils to prove their evolutionary theory, a lot of times they're cherry picking on such limited data. The fact is, each basic plant and animal type appeared abruptly and fully functional, and they experienced stasis throughout its existence. Each type was complex and distinct right from the start. Now, at the end of the day, many of the Earth's fossil-bearing layers they stretch over entire continents. Some of the sandstone layers, for example in North America, reach from California to New England. Numerous peculiar fossils have been found that defy a tranquil fossilization event. For example, we see an ichthyosaur mother in the process of giving birth. It was preserved in the rock layers. It doesn't take millions and millions of years to give birth, my friends. It's difficult, very difficult to imagine that these creatures froze in position, slowly sank to the ocean bottom, and then were slowly covered with sediment in a manner that avoided scavenging or any other type of disturbance. Instead, a rapid catastrophic burial seems much more likely. In addition to individual fossils, we now have data, plenty of data suggesting that entire fossil beds were the result of catastrophic burial. What the fossil record supports is massive death and burial on a global scale. This is exactly what the Bible describes. 2 Peter 3 tells us in the last days there's going to be scoffers denying three things, the creation, the flood, and the coming judgment. This debate right here is fulfilled prophecy. These evolutionists here, they reject and scoff and deny all three of those things, specifically here in this debate, the global flood. The world that then was being overflowed with water perished. The existence of a fossil is proof positive that it happened quickly. Environmental factors prevent that organism from forming, but it's covered by sediment and protected. The fossilization process can start. How much more time do I have, Matt? One minute. Okay. Well, at the end of the day, I think it's pretty obvious that the fossil record in geology proved biblical creation in the Genesis Flood. We see rapid or no erosion between sediment layers. We see flat, featureless boundaries. We find whole rock layer sequences deposited rapidly in quick succession. Look at the walls of the Grand Canyon, for example, from the tepid at the bottom to the Kaibab limestone at the top. It's supposed to be representing 300 million years of slow and gradual sedimentary deposition. When the plateau was pushed up, those rock layers were bent and folded, but they were folded without fracturing. They had to be soft, of course. If they were bent without fracturing, that means they could have only just been deposited. This means the 300 million years never happened that these evolutionists believe in. Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience. All those rock layers had to be rapidly deposited in quick succession in the flood year. 15 seconds. Awesome. You know what? I know Nef here is going to have a lot of good things to say, so I'm going to give up those 15 seconds and let my teammate here, Nef, take over. Thanks, guys. All right, Nef. When you're ready, I'll start time. Okay, you can begin. It is fulfilled prophecy, brother. Are you seeing what I'm sharing on the screen? Yes. Okay, excellent. This is a fossil of what's called an ostracod. It's a tiny little bitty creature, a fraction of an inch long. Look at the state of preservation of this tiny little bitty creature that will easily you could fit numerous ones on your finger, on your pinky fingernail. It's astonishing to get a fossil of a creature this small, this incredibly well preserved. That can only happen rapidly, as my astute partner has stated. Fossilization requires heavily mineralized water to rapidly create a fossil. A fossilization cannot take weeks, months, or years. It takes place in days and that's it, or you'll never get a fossil. Here's a fish. Individual cells of this fish have been preserved. It's allegedly 100 million years old. Individual cells were fossilized. Here is preserved cellular structure of the fish's gills, allegedly 100 million years old. This kind of detailed fossilization can only happen rapidly. These tissues will degrade very rapidly by the action of bacteria and scavenging, unless it happens rapidly. The conditions to create a fossil record only existed on this planet once, and that was during the flood of Noah. Only the flood of Noah can explain the geologic column. Only the flood of Noah can explain the fossil record that exists in the geologic column. Because you simply cannot find intricate tissues like this to become fossils over a period of months. It will not happen. It will degrade rapidly. These are individual cells that are embryos that are fossilized. The first one is one single cell. The next one is where it splits into two and four, eight, 16, 32, etc. It goes from one cell to two cells, four cells, eight cells and 16 cells. This can only happen rapidly. A single cell will degrade very rapidly in water. It will, osmosis alone should cause it to burst. How do you get this? Only highly mineralized water and rapid fossilization under heat could possibly explain it. So the fossil record can only be explained by the flood. My friend touched upon the death pose. That's a beautiful thing to talk about. We find that whenever we find dinosaur fossils and large animal fossils in the fossil record, they often seem to be, very prominently often, seem to be in this called death pose. Look how this animal's neck is bent backwards all the way back. And this one, its neck is contorted backwards. These are real fossils. Here's a fossil in sandstone, I believe. The neck is all the way back. And here's another. The heads are turned back. Here's an animal. This is a large creature. I believe a T-Rex. Look how its head is up. It's lying on its back. It didn't fall dead and lay on the ground and die. This creature was buried immediately in thick sediments and it stuck its head up while it was choking and flailing and choking on sediments and died in sediments. It died rapidly. When a creature this large falls dead, it doesn't stick its head up. This dinosaur stuck its head straight up in the air as it's choking to death on sediments because it was rapidly buried by the flood of Noah. Here's another. The neck is bent almost all the way backward. This not only indicates the creature was struggling to breathe but it also indicates the waters that brought the sediments that were thick and moving rapidly because it washed the animal's head and forced it backward towards the rest of its body. The rest of its body, it was facing the oncoming flood. Here's that T-Rex. I believe it's a T-Rex. Its head stuck straight up in the air. How do you explain this with uniformitarianism? It's impossible. This gigantic creature that weighed multiple tons was choking to death on sediments and stuck its head up in the air gasping for air which you could not get. Its throat was filled with sediment and it choked to death. Thirty seconds. This is because the flood of Noah is a geologic fact. There's more physical evidence for the flood of Noah than there is for anything else in all of science. Denying the flood of Noah is to deny geology and with that I conclude my presentation. All right. All right then. Stunted Emojicon or Snake Was Right? You can debate who wants to go next. I decided to go next. So I think I would start now. All right. All right. So before I go on, I would just like to introduce myself again. I go by the Emotionally Stunted Emojicon or you can just call me Stunted for short. I hope you guys can understand me. I have an accent. Actually this is a mild version of the accent so that I can speak with a North American audience. So the debate is what best explains a fossil record. I don't think a single flood of a single deluge explains the arrangement of life in the fossil record. For example, creationists would talk about hydrologic sorting. That's Kent Hogan's argument that the more dense creatures would settle at the bottom and so on. But every time they make that argument, they would start from the Cambrian. But life and the fossil record doesn't start at the Cambrian. It starts way before that. They are layers that represent the first three, maybe 3.5 billion years of its history. And it only consists of microbes. So I'm not too sure if the microbes are more dense than the creatures in the Cambrian or I don't know how hydrologic sorting works. Something else that is very peculiar is that even though they argue hydrologic sorting for the animals, the rocks the animals are encased in is not arranged by density. So that is something else again. There is an argument I was making with Standing for Truth. A question I asked in one of the debates is why we don't find like bony fish or modern crabs or true crabs or sharks and so on in the Cambrian or any marine tetrapods in the Cambrian. If the flood buried things by ecosystems or whatever, why aren't they no fish there? Obviously on the evolutionary model, the reason why you don't find any bony fish or sharks or whatever is because they hadn't evolved this yet. Something else to note is that in regard to the marine tetrapods is you never find a marine tetrapod before the basal ancestor of that form. For example, you never find mosasaurus and plesiosaurus before the origin of reptiles or before the origin of tetrapods themselves. You never find whales before the origins of mammals or manatees before the origins of mammals all because they hadn't evolved yet. Because evolution is a sequential process, you have to get mammals first before you get marine mammals or you have to get reptiles first before you get marine reptiles. And you have to get tetrapods first before you get marine tetrapods. So that's actually what you see in the fossil record. Something else that I was always confused by as well is the things that the flood seems to preserve and how it preserves it is you would find things like fossilized raindrops, you would find fossilized footprints, trackways, and you would find fossilized eggs or even egg nests. And these things would be sandwiched between layers that would lay down by the flood, the same flood. So it's curious to know what kind of flood dynamics would be able to explain a flood laying down layers and then sandwiching an egg nest fully formed between there. Yeah. Let me see. I guess that's it for my opening. We will discuss the rest in the discussion here. All right. Snake, when you are ready, we will begin. All right. I'm going to share my screen real quick here. Okay. So my main arguments are going to be showing how ridiculous most of the claims of the NOAA's flood are. First of all is to see how small this boat actually is supposed to be. It's much smaller than the Titanic even. And yet it was supposed to have carried all the species on the planet. And we currently have 10 billion species today. There's no way that would ever fit on the boat. So the only response to that is that there were 16,000 approximately kines or they call them barramans were on this boat. Plus food and clean water for them and all the other necessities. Plus somehow all of humanity's sexually transmitted diseases, all of the diseases on the entire planet, all of the disparate species, all of them crammed into this one tiny boat. And those 16,000 somehow evolved into the 10 billion species that we see today in just 4,000 years. And so that pretty much already admits the theory of evolution. And the fossil record provides plenty of transitions between all of them. To deny this is like finding someone with a knife sticking out of them and then wondering how they died. It's pretty obvious. Hydrologic sorting doesn't make any sense if there was any kind of sorting method. I'd love to know how the waters are able to separate by species. In a normal flood, we'd actually see everything mixed up pretty homogenously. All of the types of creatures all mixed up together in a pretty even fashion. But yet what we see is organized layers that trend from oldest to youngest towards modern forms. And it shows a gradual series of changes towards modern forms. This can easily be falsified with just one verifiable instance of a Precambrian mammal, for instance. Instead, they can only produce things like supposed human footprints in the same layers of dinosaurs. And yet if you actually investigate this for yourself, you'll see that in the same row of footprints that is supposedly human prints, they have three-toed dinosaur prints, some of which just appear to be filled in with mud. Let's see. So the other argument about hydrologic sorting is that it sorts by environment and ecosystem. But this makes no sense because this would create a map that essentially would look like a bull's eye with humans in the middle because they live inland. So how would these layers organize by species and by environment? Yet we have them organized exactly how I've described. How would a flood, a single flood, do this? And I heard a lot about these animals that were buried quickly. And yes, most fossils are formed in floods. And so the argument here essentially was Neff's entire argument was a flood happened somewhere, therefore Noah's flood was the only flood. Most fossils are buried rapidly, but you can't just assume this was all a single flooding event because floods happen all over the world, as well as dinosaur soft tissues. This is an off-repeated lie about soft tissues that they can't be preserved. The discoverer of these dinosaur soft tissues, Mary Schweitzer, she's a devout Christian. She discovered this and studied these tissues and published multiple papers explaining exactly what kind of chemistry creates this kind of preservation and in that specific soft tissue. And it wasn't the whole soft tissue, it was only very specific ones that are preserved by these iron. And as far as people who scoff at the flood and everything, well, geology is firmly against Noah's flood, especially Christians who made the original discoveries that refuted the flood model, known as I think is catastrophism. And so pointing out the scoffers doesn't really do much for your case, because predicting that people will laugh at your religion is not a prophecy of anything, but the fact that your faith is, it's a prophecy that your faith is unbelievable. I mean, the Muslims have plenty of warnings about this. Should I just go and convert to Islam just because they told me to? I don't think so. How much time do I have left? Sorry, I was muted. You're good. That was your time, actually. Okay. All right. So now we're going to move on to the, not discussion, but the two minute back and forth for the rebuttal period. So I guess then standing for who started, we're going back to him. So you guys are both going to get two minutes each on whoever wants to go first on answering Emotionally Stunted and Snake. I can start. I think since I opened, I can start in the rebuttal round. Sure. Okay. Again, when you're done. Okay, thank you. Well, it looks like Emotionally Stunted and Mata Khan, you know, he assumed evolution a few times there. And at the end of the day, you know, what do we observe? We observe bacteria producing bacteria, but he believes, you know, bacteria today came from something that was that was non-bacteria. We can see in the Lensky experiment that, you know, bacteria produce more bacteria, of course. That doesn't mean that bacteria, pine trees, and whales are related through common ancestry because we see devolution and not evolution. So evolutionists like Emotion here, you know, imagine that all these small scale variations are going to eventually add up to make something we don't actually observe. So, you know, he's imagining that mutations make something new and better, but it's not what we see. We actually see the opposite. So he assumes that, and therefore he interprets the fossil record according to that. He also talked a lot about ecosystems, hydrologic sorting, you know, why don't we find certain fossils in certain layers? He'll say you've got this type of fossil in this layer and these types of fossils in these layers. And he thinks that it goes from marine fossils to land fossils in the order of evolution. He's assumed evolution, but we know evolution, large scale ponds come to people of evolution. It's not true based on the observed evidence. So this is incorrect. We've got marine fossils all the way through. Okay, even with dinosaur fossils, we've got marine fossils buried with them. In fact, the order that we actually see the order of the fossils is the burial order of the flood. And so if the flood began, say in the ocean, according to our model of flood geology, ripping up all those marine creatures and burying them onto the continents, they would be the first creatures to be buried. And so the flood waters rose higher. You get the burial of the land animals. And this is exactly what we find and expect, you know, he ignores all the evidence of fossils. Everywhere we look at the end of the day, there's an abundant evidence from geology that the flood really did occur. Nothing in the fossils support evolution. He assumes evolution. What the fossil actually the fossil record actually supports is massive death and burial on a global scale. Did you say that was time that? No, that was 15 seconds earlier, but it's time now. Yeah, so that's exactly the Bible describes. Got more points written down that flew by. So I'll address them after go ahead. Okay, so my partner correctly ruined the argument about the sorting of the geologic column. Creatures are buried in the geologic column according to mobility and environment, not according to the uniform materialist belief about the fossils. The evolution is time scale. Virtually every eminent science, scientist in the world who has ever written a book about evolution in the geologic column has acknowledged the fossil record is void of transitional fossils. They'll tell university students, there's plenty of them, but then they write books for their peers to review, which they cannot tell the lie about because all their peers would raise their eyebrow and say, is this guy nuts? And they would ruin their career. So they have to tell the truth in their books about the fossil record. And they all acknowledge the fossil record does not show. It does not document the evolution of creatures, which would have to be true, if you lose from a true David B. Kitts, Professor of Geology University of Oklahoma. Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of seeing evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is presence of gaps in the fossil record. Now pay attention to this statement. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. Is this man, did he jeopardize his career by saying the truth in this book? Of course not, because all geologists and paleontologists agree. Even those who believe evolution, Stephen J. Gould, the most famous paleontologist in the world has seen so far, said stasis are non-changed. Of most fossil species, during their lengthy geological life spans, it was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting non-evidence for non-evolution. The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record best left ignored and manifest as nothing that is non-evolution. And I could show you more of these. It's an evolution is not documented by the fossil record. Had evolution been true, there would be billions of transitional forms in the fossil record. There would be more transitional forms in the fossil record than there are fully formed creatures and therefore we can say by the physical historical evidence of life on this planet, evolution did not happen. I conclude. All right. So I think I would go next and then Snake would go after. Okay. All right. So let's start with standing for truth. He said, we're not talking about evolution, but he said that the landscape experiment bacteria produce bacteria. Bacteria is not a species. It's actually a domain. So saying that is the same as saying it's still a eukaryote. It's the same thing we say. You're saying the same thing just with bacteria. You've made a claim. You say multiple times about things coming from non-things. Yes, dogs can come from non-dogs. They came from wolves in the same way cabbages and kale and broccoli came from something that was not a kale, cabbage and broccoli. It came from a mustard, but since they're all brassica, the law of monophilies still applies. Same with camels. Camels and llamas descend from something that was neither camel nor llama, but they're all camelids. So then the law of monophilies still applies. If you want to go with pine trees and whales, pine trees and whales descend from something that was not a pine tree, not a whale. It descended from a eukaryotic common ancestor. Since the eukaryotes, the law of monophilies still applies. What else? Oh my gosh, I had to just one more thing. Okay, so I'll just leave that there. Let me just go on to the fossil record now. As I stated, for example, marine mammals like whales and so on, they're never found below the origin of mammals. You don't find whales and manatees and so on, for example, back in the time of the dinosaurs, because marine mammals didn't devolve at that time. So I'm curious as to how you would have all that fossil history without whales, and then all of a sudden you have whales. How is the hydrological sorting these animals? And then again, the rocks itself is not sorted in any kind of way that would suggest that it was sorted by a single infant. I don't know if you touched on the eggs and so on yet, because that is something I really want to know. What kind of flood dynamic could preserve an egg nest? That's the time? No, 15 seconds. Go ahead. Yeah, so I really want to know what kind of flood dynamics can preserve things like raindrops and footprints between layers that were laid down by the same flood. I don't know if organisms were walking while the flood was happening, while sediments were being deposited. So that's what I really want to know, what kind of dynamics would cause that. Oh, right. Thank you, and Snake, you were up. You're muted. I won't start time. My bad. Okay. So I wanted to address the typical arguments made by Nephilim about the supposed quotes by all these evolutionists that debunk evolution. He knowingly takes these quotes out of context, cuts them up, pastes them together, drops parts off completely. He's trying to make it seem like the mainstream science doesn't support evolution when he knows full well and admitted to me in our last discussion about this, that these quotes are referring to punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism. What you're hearing is they're rejecting the idea of gradualism and they're promoting the idea of punctuated equilibrium. For example, Nephilim will say things like Stephen Jay Gould said, the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. And then he'll cut it off right there and neglect to finish his sentence, which goes, and the principle of natural selection does not require it. Selection can operate rapidly. And that was in 1980. And in a subsequent book in 1997, he also said, the sequential discovery of pictoric intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. So he's just trying to lie and make it seem like the mainstream science does not support transitional fossils. Meanwhile, I'm going to read off several papers that actually support this terminology and these ideas such from NCBI, transition of Eocene whales from land to sea evidence of bone and micro strutter anatomy feeding ecology and ontogeny of a transitional baleen whale. The Royal Society talks about transitional anthropoid fossils. So this is just a lie spun to take things out of context and make it sound like the actual sciences don't support these things. Let's see, I'll end with how much time do I have? 15 seconds. Okay. From Dr. Colin Patterson talking about these kind of taking quotes out of context, he says that our interpretation, the evolutionist is correct and the creationist is false. So there you have it. All right. Thanks. Standing for truth. We're up. No, wait a minute. It was me that's up. Oh, not bad. All right. Whoever wants to go first. I think it goes me, the naff, the emotion, then snake, me, the naff. You got this, right, Matt? Yeah, it is a matter of your team. Wait a minute. Everybody's gone but me. So it comes back around to me right now, right? No, I think you had your, I think you had your, you did your opening and then you did a rebuttal. Right. And then you guys, and then emoticon did and now Taylor did. And then it would go back to I'm sorry on discussion period. Sorry. No, it's you. You again, then me. Okay. So it's, yeah, exactly. So this would be second round, right, Matt? Second of how many rounds? We had a 40 minutes, so I don't know, probably five rounds. Okay. I'm sorry. I was letting you know when to go. You're, you're good. I'll start the time whenever you're ready. Okay. So emotion there talks a lot about the law of monophily. Of course, the law of monophily is consistent with biblical creation and not pond scum to people evolution. Let's get right into the fact that, you know, he likes to look at the fossil record in general and the animals and, and fossils that are living with what and fossils that are not living with another. Let's use dinosaurs, for example, just because human bones and aren't found with dinosaur bones does not mean that they didn't live together at the same time. Okay. Animals can live together on the same planet and yet still never cross paths. So it's, it's an argument from, from ignorance. Let's look at the Silicanth, for example, or the Willemi pine, for example, it was once thought by evolutionists like snake and emotion here that the Silicanth and the Willemi pine became extinct. The Silicanth, for example, they believe came, became extinct about 70 million years ago. And this was because their fossils were not found in any deposits higher than this. And yet we have found these creatures living today. This proves that animals that are not buried together doesn't mean that they didn't live together. They lived in different environments. So Willemi pine, for example, which was fossilized in Jurassic deposits, supposedly 150 million years ago. And we found them today. The list of living fossils is literally endless. And it's becoming more and more difficult for the evolutionary model fish to fisherman evolution to stand in the face of this great number of living fossils. There's problem after problem after problem. He did touch on evolution a bit. But what we know about observable science, not the fossil record looking at some bone found in the dirt. It's just not true. The human mutation rate is approximately 100 new mutations per person, per generation. And so that indicates that mutations are entering the human population at a rate much faster than natural selection could ever possibly select away such mutations. These low impact delateurs mutations are degenerating our information system on every continent, we find fossils of sea creatures and rock layers that today are high above sea level. Often the fine details of the creatures are amazingly preserved. They ignore all the data. They cherry pick, they hope, they dream and imagine that pine trees and whales are related through common ancestry in spite of what we know about observable evidence. I'll touch on everything else later. All right. Emotionally, you're ready. You're muted. Emotionally stunted. You are up. You're muted. No, it's Nath. It goes me than Nath. Sorry. Yeah, it's Nath. It's Nath's turn. My bad. My bad. Nath, you ready? Yeah, I'm ready. Okay, so to respond to the rain marks. On the left, you see a photograph of what the evolutionists claim are rain marks preserved in the fossil record. And on the right are what you see are actual preserved rain marks. They're not rain marks. What the evolutionists claim are rain marks that are preserved in the fossil in the geologic column that prove the flood of Noah didn't happen because there was rain slapping on the earth, supposedly while the flood was occurring, are not rain marks. The ones on the right are modeled and random patterned because the rain marks, these, whatever they are, and scientists have studied them and can't even know what they are. They're not sure, but they are not rain marks. These are rain marks. Those are not rain marks. So there are no rain marks on the geologic column that show evolution, the uniformitarian time frame. Now, here you can see New Orleans before Katrina and after Katrina. Now, if you want to believe that hundreds of millions of years took place and quadrillions of tons of material don't erode from the coasts of the continents during that time that you're living in a delusion because this was one single hurricane that washed away trillions and trillions of tons of land mass into the oceans. If uniformitarianism were true and hundreds of millions of years of time existed in the past and the flood of Noah wasn't true, we wouldn't even have a continent. The continents would erode in 20 million years if you do the math. This is an erosion remnant. That's the throat of a volcano. Look at the pediment right there that is built up at the bottom of it. There's not hundreds of millions of years worth of that stuff there. There's thousands of years worth. The flood of Noah took place only thousands of years ago. This is called a shiprock in northwestern Arizona. That's the material that's built up that's fallen away. It eroded from this giant rock mass sticking up out of the earth about a quarter of a mile high. That's it. That's all there is. If millions of years existed, the whole thing would be gone. It wouldn't just be this pile of stuff 40, 50 feet high. I'm sorry. Sorry. Time. Okay. Two minutes goes quick. I know. It really does. Yeah. All right. Emotion it. You're up. So I guess I would touch on the stasis. I'm standing for truth mentioned stasis. Stasis is an argument. It's not a serious argument. It's not an argument to be taken seriously. Mostly anytime you see that argument it's a meme or a blog post. It's never a scientific publication that argues against the stasis, you know, refuse evolution. Anytime that argument is brought up with stasis, they always ignore the actual diversity within the type of organism they're talking about. The walnut pine, for example, it's not in isolation. It's a species of pine that is related to other species of pines and conifers and cycads. So I would like to know if they're all related then if they're all related it would mean that they evolved. Just because a lineage remain morphologically stable doesn't mean evolution is not occurring. I've seen this argument used before on wolves. Someone would show a wolf from 40,000 years or whatever a thousand years ago and they would say look the modern day wolf looks exactly like this wolf ignoring the fact that dogs came from wolves. So anytime you see that argument it always ignores the actual diversity within the type of organism they're talking about. And again stasis only applies to gross morphology. The genome always evolves based on the mechanism of reproduction recombination. So the genome must evolve. It's only based on gross morphology. Paleontologists actually can distinguish species within the fossil record and distinguish them from their extant counterparts. Sometimes they write entire papers on just a joint or something. So it's exquisite details to show the differences and they even have mathematical equations to quantify these differences. So it's not like these animals are not evolving. It's just that some lineages remain morphologically stable because of how evolution works. It's usually a lineage splitting process so when the population splits some of it can change and then the ones that remain in the environment would remain morphologically stable. That ties into the puncturated equilibrium. What happens is the fine gradations you would expect between pairs of species you wouldn't really find them because what happens is when a species is stable it remains you know kind of the same and then when it shifts into a new environment the transition is usually a short period until they reach in a new environment and then they adapt again. So what happens is you'd have like species remaining for millions of years in one form and then they would shift and the change happens in a few thousand years and then they stay a million years or so in the next one. That's it. That's my time? Time yeah. Time oh well okay. All right Snape. All right um all right well they like to invoke geology until the geologists disagree with them uh and to one of Nef's points about the those three standing rock in the middle of the desert the millions in the past it would all be gone well most of it is gone just look around the whole thing the whole desert most of it's gone there's only tiny tiny scraps left and again I trust the expert geologists over Nephilim 3 and again small sail variation can add up to create different forms and we see this in the fossil record in this sequence by date and so this is exactly akin to finding a dead body with a knife and saying we can't prove that this guy was stabbed because we never actually saw it um but small sail variation can add up to create different forms uh and this is admitted based on bare monology in the fact that all the 16 000 forms that came off the ark would have had to diversify into all the 10 billion species we see today um but the creationists can't understand how small changes add up to things like whales even though we have every step that has been predicted in the fossil record in a sequential in a dated sequence uh in that sequential order that we're looking for uh such as a mammal losing hair getting a higher side of nostrils getting stiff webbed hands and arms getting stunted back legs and a flatter bigger tail these are all small scale within kind variation but somehow they can't figure out why these wouldn't be able to add up in the same population they just dogmatically assert that it can't be because their idea is based on a storybook rather than real predictive science and the difference there is also that their idea is completely inflexible to new information is that it no 15 seconds go ahead uh yeah that's about what i was gonna stand anyway all right standing for truth you were up okay awesome it looks like uh emotionally uh stunted a modic on there kind of wasted his entire time because a lot of imagination a lot of stories i know that's what they believe i know that's their ideas but there's no actual evidence for the things that they say in regards to small scale evolution leading to large scale evolution over time fish to fishermen say biological evolution yes it means a change in allele frequencies and in populations over time or in your generations but that type of micro evolutionary variation you know where we're going to get the frequency of a change in the frequency of the expression of different traits over time is not really disputed they need to show us not the small scale variation but the major innovations the major origin events major origin events of major new forms of life new structures novel information we don't see that type of change because all new innovation structures body plans novel information based on what we know about natural selection and mutation mutations are the destroyer not the creator they cannot be the result of natural selection acting upon a random variation and random mutations it's science fiction religion they ignore all the geology all the obvious catastrophic processes that would explain the fossil record and we actually have the testable and falsifiable predictions for one poly straight fossils that extend through many layers of rock completely destroy all their assumptions of the geological column uniformitarian processes mac revolution now at the end of the day when we look at the continents today they're moving very little but when we look to know as flood we aren't looking at continent continental drift anymore we're actually looking at continental sprint meters per second movement of of the plates of the continents this model cpt it predicts that the pre flood ocean crust would be dragged down into the mantle in a process that we actually call subduction process now because that happened recently only a few thousand years ago according to our model the cold ocean crust should still be cold even though it has descended into the deep hot mantle we've made the predictions i want i want to hear what predictions they've made and confirm predictions because modern seismologists have actually discovered that there are indeed huge cold slabs of rock down near the core itself in areas that should actually have warmed warmed up if millions of years worth of time or what would have brought those slabs down instead of know as flood so i know you just said time just wanted to finish that sentence we got more predictions i'll go into them later i want to hear predictions from you guys because the evidence is in our court go ahead all right neph you were up all right i just to quickly refute the statement that we heard from taylor the the art couldn't have held all the the creatures that we see in the world so the flood can't be true am i screen sharing can somebody tell me please yes it's fine thank you that's a false argument and evolutionists know it's a false argument because the the art didn't have to house all the varieties of living things just the original kinds from them you can get many many varieties from one spider you could get thousands of varieties there are dozens of different roaches roaches in the world all of them come from a roach so the art didn't have to hold all the varieties just the kinds now we heard this idea this argument that stasis is not true and that scientists don't agree with stasis but they do this is steven jay gould he says stasis or non change of most fossil species during their lengthy geological spans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting non-evidence of non-evolution so i could provide lots more about that but the simple fact is stasis is a fact for the geologic column the vast majority of eminent scientists acknowledge it this is steven austin a creationist geologist and he discovered something profound and that a uniformitarianist scientists are now having to acknowledge is a science fact along the bottom of the grand canyon there is a single strata that spans the entire 250 plus miles length of the entire geologic column at the bottom of the grand canyon it's filled with a billion nautiloids many hundreds of thousands of them are in the upright position and and and this verifies that that entire geologic column in which we find the no way for the the grand canyon was created by rapidly moving water else this could not be true it's impossible that takes the entire geologic column argument of the uniformitarianist and throws it in the garbage because of this one layer alone time all right emoji all right um so uh in regards to stasis um what i was trying to say is that no scientists or paleontologists actually argues that stasis refutes evolution stasis is real yes linear lineages remain stable morphological stable that's why we have bacteria today and other you know fish today even though we evolved from fish um yeah because stasis is real but it doesn't refute evolution all it means that some lineages remain stable others change um as uh standing for truth said that we don't see the major innovations and so on um remember evolution is a process and processes takes time um for example if a cake for example takes an hour to bake don't expect me to bake it in five minutes then you're no longer asking bake a cake you're asking for something else so um if you're asking for evidence of evolution that you know evolution would not permit then you're not asking for evidence of evolution you're asking for evidence of something else all right um but again uh let me see uh you said that you see marine fossils in top high places um the earth actually churns and moves uh it does that plate tectonics it so sea floor can rise up and so on uh know that on any mountain where you find marine fossils you never find marine fossils that appeared after the mountain formed and with respect to evolution so you would uh if a mountain is a hundred million years old then there would be no fossils um later than that on the mountain uh so they would you know they would again it would find no whales or so on on the mountain uh whales or a modern species um what else the cool crust uh you brought up the cool crust um remember i was asking you how long does it take for the crust to change in temperature by a certain degree um uh actually actually takes millions of years for it to change um like for anywhere between a hundred degrees and 400 degrees Celsius according to how deep it is and what you know the the makeup of it so um what i would ask is what's the difference in temperature between the mantle and the the cool crust you're talking about and let's calculate how long it would take to reach the temperature it's currently at uh that time yes that was tough okay good snake you were ready all right um so we still don't have any explanation of how a flood sorts things by area or species or by density i mean how do the how do layers the rock layers repeat by type we have repeating limestone layers water cannot do this water can only sort by density in a single event uh and so and we've actually done experiments like this like kent hoven has done this experiment itself and the layers do not repeat by type they all sell once by density um and as well why did all the whales survive but not marine reptiles why did whales survive but in the exact sequential order predicted by evolutionary change um the they responded well actually didn't respond to my argument about small small scale changes adding up to micro evolutions instead of actually responding to the argument uh why can't uh loss of hair shrinking of limbs growing of appendages why can't that add up in the whale lineage exactly as we see it in the fossil record they just demot dogmatically assert that it can't happen no addressing of the argument there um and as for polystrate fossils they're never actually found spanning any strata they just span layers within the strata um basically just mud layers quickly uh rapidly deposited over each other um so that's actually several flooding rounds not one um and uh nath mentioned something uh about the the barrens spreading rapidly from the arc all of that evolution would have had to occur in just four thousand years so your priority hitting rapid changes in micro evolution so i'd really like to know how hydrologic sorting works and how why those changes that i specifically listed why they can't add up in a mammal they are all small scale micro evolutionary within kind changes that we see in the fossil record in a dated sequence why can't that happen uh how much time do i have 10 seconds all right i'll leave it there okay all right we are two more rounds now we have to go and then we're going to move on to the discussion portion so standing for truth we're ready to go so these evolutions must not be listening me and nath both answered their questions by burial by habitats ecosystem intelligence mobility body density it's a combination of all of these they want to attack just one but then they want to ignore all the other um mountain of evidence did the ocean waters at at some time in the past flood over the continents in in regards to what emotionally stunted amadecon looks to here as a rescue device the continents are made up of rocks that are that are less dense than both the ocean four the ocean four rocks and the mantle rocks beneath the continents and at the end of the day the amount of times that the the waters would have to rise and fall rise and fall it's just not realistic the evidence falls in line with a biblical base model i still haven't seen any actual predictions i've given a prediction based on the flood geology model the fact that we have cold slabs of rock it is confirmation of flood geology and and not old age geology emotionally here asks questions regarding any questions but he's not making actual predictions this is a prediction by creationist geologists another amazing prediction too let's go on to more and more that's what this is all about they're ignoring loads and loads of evidence another amazing prediction that has actually been confirmed again in this model of of say catastrophic plate tectonics is rapid magnetic reversals the earth's magnetic field draws our compass needle towards the north but sometimes in earth's history it draws it towards the south old age geologists believe that this has been happening for hundreds of millions of years and would have taken thousands of years to occur it it was old earth geologists that that found confirming evidence of rapid magnetic reversals and these are actually required for Noah's flood of course they were taking a look at lava flows that would only take a couple of weeks in order to form they took measurements of the skin of the lava is what they did to see the magnetic orientation now they were expecting to see almost no change as they went deeper into the hot lava where the interior should shift only slightly instead what they actually found was the outside skin pointed north and the inside pointed south so we have confirmation evidence from lava flows that the switch of magnetic field has to happen rapidly which is exactly what flood geologists expected prediction after prediction where are their predictions and they're not addressing any the any of the arguments it's just imagination ideas and beliefs go ahead enough okay i'd like to point out that taylor said earlier the sediments don't sort by density and we just heard him on the mic a moment ago saying it does this is what happens with uniform tearing this when you provide evidence they can't refute it they have to agree with it and then they of course realize what they've done and deny it again if you play back this hangout you'll hear that taylor earlier said sedimentary materials do not sort by density and on his in his last speak uh speak he said they do now what we find in the geologic column is unarguable evidence that sedimentary strata were created by rapidly moving water which you're looking now at now is an unconformity that can only be explained by rapidly moving water the sedimentary strata at the bottom at the lower the lower ones were laid down by rapidly moving water and the boundary between them and the angular and conformity that you see right there was sheared them off by rapidly moving water and laid down new ones at a different angle the only way this is possible is if those what are called rock layers there the strata were soft sedimentary materials not even yet concreted in the stone when the materials above them sheared them flat by a rapidly moving sheet of water and laid down new ones solid rock will not erode wrap wrap uh over any amount of time to such an incredibly fine boundary like that it erodes roughly this is proof of the no way it flood right before your eyes this is a folded mountain proof of the no way it flood rock doesn't bend it breaks unless it's 10 to 20 miles deep in the earth where the temperature is 500 centigrade or higher it will not bend it will shatter this mountain and the miles and miles of sedimentary strata that the mountain itself is made of goes on outside it left and right were pushed up out of the earth during the flood of Noah and that's why the mountain is deformed like that these two explain the flood of Noah is a geologic fact rock does not bend rock does not bend rock does not bend that concludes my time all right you must understand it you are up oh okay um uh sounding for truth one of some predictions um okay then um i predict that you would not find uh bony fish sharks in the cambrian you would not find any marine tetrapod appearing before uh tetrapods in the Devonian so no marine tetrapods would be there um you would not find any marine mammal before the origin of mammals i won't find any marine reptiles before the origin of reptiles that's some predictions there for you um what else um uh flowing plants and so on you won't find them um in the cambrian that didn't exist at that time um yeah so that's that's some predictions there for you um what else did we have to go over here um well yeah again the the coal crust um we need to know just saying that something is cold relatively cold is that's a non-argument we have to know how long it takes and so on and so on so that's what i was asking you in the comment section how long it takes um i don't expect you to answer it now we can discuss that later when we could you know cite sources um so we know how long it takes to change in temperature and then we can calculate how long it must have taken to reach the current temperature it is so we need to know the current temperature and you know how long it takes to reach that temperature um what else do we have to talk about um in regards to the flood i um i see nev talk about the the the raindrops they are fossilized raindrops um i don't know but i can get them for you nev uh they are fossilized egg nests that's that's that's the thing that really got me since uh that's the first thing i i don't understand how does it egg nest like a fully formed nest with eggs in it preserve in a flood i mean and it's sandwiched between layers i would lay down by the same flood 15 seconds that is yeah that is something that always bothered me since uh inception uh well whatever of learning about flood geology it's not something we deal with in the caribbean it's an american thing actually yeah that's it all right perfect time all right snake whatever you're ready all right so uh whatever nephew was on about um i was saying that the they don't sort by dent the waters don't sort by density the way you describe um they do sort by density but once they don't repeat the layers do you i hope you understand this i know you'll deliberately try to misunderstand it if you can um and you think rock layers shear off uh other rocks but you think that they also explode when they contact each other and that's how mountains are made so i'm still seeing no actual consistent theory of how this works um for his rocks don't bend spiel they do bend we've witnessed this in real time under high heat and high stress there are equations for this the geologists have studied this they've predicted this they can calculate it uh they jet neth loves to quote the geologists and say geology this geology that and they disagree with him and they do and the entirety of his theory um um let's see microbes are found at the bottom of the geologic column supposedly the denser items got put at the bottom but we see the lightest of all organisms at the bottom and we see repeating rock layers is not possible by flood like by water sorting um we see extremely dense animals at the top even though the entire flood would have mixed everything homogenously but we actually see a pattern of things um going towards modern forms so i'm mostly arguing that they were evolving as they were swimming out of the flood that would be in line with your extremely fast evolution model of getting 10 billion species in just 4 000 years off of the arc um and i'd like to touch also on uh the ridiculousness of 15 i'll just point out that genetic entropy ruins all of this for you especially the garden of eden so i'll touch on that next time all right we are in the last round round about standing for truth you are ready to go and this is your last part before you go on to the discussion okay uh created heterozygosity model makes predictions testable predictions uh that explains uh young earth creation speciation i'll uh talk to snake about that in our discussion portion um at the end of the day those predictions made by emotion there they're not actual predictions because it's based on misunderstandings of our model quality all these arguments that he's using is a straight misunderstanding we we looked at burial by ecosystems and habitats we can see based on genesis this is what they don't see they look to today and expect that's what it was in the past the land of eden we are told a river flows out of eden and we know rivers flow downhill and so eden was obviously at a higher elevation we know certain animals such as let's say certain dinosaurs would have lived in different lowland areas and so various animals of various ecosystems and habitats were obviously separated from man and other forms of life after the flood after the the disruption of the continents in the catastrophic processes the habitats and ecosystems of today would have been different than in the pre-flood world because just like today different creatures and and different animals live in different habitats in the pre-flood world we see certain fossils that are usually buried together and say dinosaur fossils they're usually buried with gymnosperms whereas mammal fossils are usually buried with things such as what flowering plants that indicates clearly two different ecosystems we can speculate based on what we know about genesis and the fact that the land of eden a river flows out of out of eden this suggests higher elevations different elevations so dinosaurs for example although lived at the same time of man did not necessarily live in the same areas or habitats this is obvious therefore his predictions his arguments are based on a straw man understanding anytime these both these evolutionists talk about evolution it's it's wishful thinking it's storytelling its imagination its ideas and beliefs there's no actual empirical evidence now at the end of the day these animals in different ecosystems and habitats they were overcome by the flood at different times during the advancing of the waters that explains why we don't find them buried together so burial by ecosystems different communities habitats explains the data perfectly there is so much evidence that the earth was once underwater they're ignoring all the the marine fossils on mountains and in landlocked areas that are actually far from the sea fossils of animals giving birth fish being eaten everything we see suggests sudden and rapid burial was that time matt yes yes okay thanks left you were up okay so um what we heard from uh taylor just a moment ago is rock will bend but uniformitarian as scientists acknowledged that rock will not bend unless it's subjected to at least 500 degrees centigrade and to get there you have to be 10 to 20 miles down inside the earth so the only way for a mountain to be folded is if it's 10 to 20 miles the material 10 to 20 miles down inside the earth or it will not bend a rock will not bend at normal temperatures at anywhere near the temperature of the surface of the earth it will simply break uh if taylor is ignorant of this then he should investigate because there is no geologist in the world that doesn't agree with that now there's a whole argument behind that how do you get materials that make a mountain and fold its strata 10 to 20 miles down to become a mountain i could debate that with you it take an hour you won't see that it's not geologically possible so what we've provided is uh standing for truth in myself and provided empirical scientific evidence of the no way it flood the fossil the existence of a fossil record the billions of rapidly buried creatures buried in situ in their environments where they lived or by mobility in sedimentary strata that are only produced by rapidly moving water which have clear distinct boundaries between each other without gradation which cannot occur over uniformitarian time impossible impossible and uh which have particle size distribution these features rapidly uh of particle size distribution clear distinct boundaries causing unconformities parabolic and and uh recombinant folds can only be produced by moving water they are a prominent feature of the entire geologic column in which we are sitting upon an average of 1,800 meters in some places it's miles deep so the entire geologic column of the earth was produced obviously rapidly the geologic evidence for this is beyond overwhelming it is impossible for uniformitarianism to explain the geologic column it happened rapidly thus we have empirical evidence of the no way flood all right perfect emoji stunted oh um that's one of the how many rounds how many rounds left let's have a time it this is the final one and then we move it okay so um you can start it now um right standing i you talk about different ecosystems and um the garden of eden being um you know at an elevation and so on i agree with you i i'm not disagree with you here um what i'm saying is that's why i'm using marine mammals uh marine tetrapods marine things because i know according to you they were buried first so um it should follow that you know we should expect at least some whales either with or buried before some dinosaurs we don't find that we don't find manatees either nor seals and for good reason they didn't they weren't they didn't exist as yet all right um so i predict that you won't find that so it's a prediction that should follow from creationism that i don't know if they make it but it should logically follow you don't find any whales around there that they you know um secondly it's not necessarily with these organisms live remember these organisms would have died as well and their carcasses would have sunk to the sea floor so you should expect at least some fish bony fish in the Cambrian you know some fish died and the carcasses um went down to the sea floor unless you want to argue all of them or divide or whatever i don't know um what else do we discuss um again those eggs i i don't know about the eggs but um i didn't know if you discussed the eggs i kind of went out for like 30 seconds of this speech um um yeah so those those eggs are something that haunts me when it comes to um flood geology um what else when it comes to uh yes i don't i don't really have much to say oh yeah humans um what what did what did pre-flood humans do uh but i remember matt was speaking about um neon falls and so on um pre-flood man may have looked something like that i don't know or why we don't find any pre-flood man or any pre-flood man structures did they build structures and so on they seem to be technologically advanced enough to build a um a boat about the ark so what structures did they build and why when they preserved i mean the preserved footprints why we don't get any preserved structures uh man-made structures uh pre-flood man any of them yeah that's it all right all right nate when you were ready okay um still no response on the accumulation of those small skills changes predicted by evolution and found in perfect order in the fossil record in places predicted by the dating science um burial by ecosystem and habitat would predict that the pre-cambrian animals would be found in the same layers as all shallow water life including amphibians um and all everything that lives on the shores today uh this is not seen and said they're organized in a sequence of gradual changes toward modern forms um there is a permeant reef in texas uh this supposed shallow water layer we've reefs occur in shallow water layer shallow waters um and so this would supposedly be in the shallow water layers with all the other pre-cambrian stuff um but instead this occurs in much higher layers characterized by terrestrial fossils like the dimetrodon according to their model this reef um would have had to have been moved uh this hundred fifty mile reef would have had to been removed undisturbed uncracked um all the way into the middle of texas somehow by a bunch of water um this is pretty ridiculous um geologists clearly state that's no egg flood is impossible uh you're misrepresenting the science as usual um it was obviously proven to happen over a long geologic time scale and this is uh confirmed by radiometric dating um there we know the exact rate of radiometric decay and it never changes and we know the initial amounts based on several different methods which i could explain again for netform if he doesn't still doesn't understand that um as for marine fossils in mountains um you don't understand this this reveals a basic misunderstanding of geology how mountains are formed by the uh crushing of tectonic plates against each other 15 seconds excuse you um let's see yeah they just push against each other and so that is how low or let's get brought up um and if without death in the garden this this is just tacked on at the end a little bit but without death in the garden you couldn't even have life you couldn't grow anything uh everything would be teeming with slime and bacteria um you couldn't have new babies without death you couldn't digest plants without death um their whole model is a fairy tale and that's why nothing makes sense time all right we're jumping into the discussion portion right now so stunting emoji con and nefs i'm going to set the timer for 10 minutes and uh we are going to jump right into this so when you guys are ready i will start the timer and whoever wants to begin go right ahead okay so it's just me and him for 10 minutes yes okay well firstly i just point out that taylor just acknowledged that the whole geologic column the flood of noa thing is religious for him he's tying it to the to the garden of eden and says uh uh you know that uh pre-cambrian fossils should be found throughout the geologic column uh that's absurd if you have sediments thick sediments moving across the earth uh in the onset of the no egg flood there's no reason for us to believe that those creatures wouldn't be buried in situ but be churned up and then found throughout the rest of the sediments as they built up going upward throughout the geologic column taylor's ideas are absolutely bizarre we'd like to just do it all together well do we all want to discuss together or do you want to do that might become chaotic it might be good if we stuck to what we got going so extending a motor con i would ask you if if if our uniformitarianism is true in the geologic uh flood of noa it's not true can you explain to me a scientific geologic process that's capable of building up the continents vertically that creates strata with clear distinct boundaries between them whereas the boundary can be seen so fine that it's often paper thin between one strata and another and another and another going upward upward upward upward for in some places six miles and on an average 1800 meters deep how can uniformitarianism explain the geologic column the strata with clear distinct boundaries instead of graduating from one material into another can you explain that to me uh right um so the the the the gradiation you're talking about would actually be expected under flood if you witness our flood the positive things it would actually have a gradient i would expect under the flood um under a uniformitarian model uh what happens is the layers would be laid down they would either solidify or whatever and then they may be rolled in somewhat and then new layers are put on top of it so you have this distinction between the layers um i i don't see how that can happen that that kind of distinction can happen in a flood where things are churning and moving you know how does how can rapidly moving water create gradiation if it's depositing materials on top of other materials how does gradiation requires time for for let me explain why one material becomes less available to the environment in that location over time and another one becomes more available over time but that's not what we see in the geologic column these millions of strata going vertically we see that one material comes to an abrupt end just stops and then another material directly above it and the difference sometimes in space between them is less than a millimeter sometimes it's just a few millimeters that's not gradiation that's not the one material blending into another that the the blending the the gradiation that you speak of it's not present throughout the geologic column it's one material ends bam abruptly another material begins that would require time otherwise you're believing that for some reason or um it happened quadrillions of times that one material stopped being available for deposition in a given location and another one instantly became available for deposition in that location why would that be geologically plausible if millions upon millions upon millions of rain events for example over millions of years is what built that strata did you understand the question do i need to make it simpler if those materials were laid down by millions and millions of rain events that slowly moved materials why would some for some reason that fast one material stopped being available for deposition and another type of material become available for deposition in a flash if you if those strata were formed over millions of years it's a tough question i know there really is no suitable answer from your camp it can't be answered by your camp but i would be interested in hearing you try okay um so well that a chance um i was saying um i would i would need to get some citations and so on as to how the the process actually works um off my head i'm not going to give you anything substantial on it um obviously but um as i said you would have the deposition and then um you may have solidification and so on remember that the earth the earth actually churns and moves um you'd have um we're seized and so on would cover the land and then they would would go back and then it would do the same thing again and so on that's how um it happens um but again i don't see all that happens during a flood uh like a single flood event it's actually harder to believe that happens during a single depositional event usually when you see that happens um the particles are sought by density and size and so on and it does mel together um because again the flood is churning remember the single flood event is churning all these materials i'm not sure as to how they sort it in that way i would love to see an experiment at least on a large scale not a little thing kent uses an experiment where we see at least you know some sort of a sorting like that well it's been done many many times i can show you dozens upon dozens of fluke experiments maybe you're not informed maybe you're not aware of it but there have been many many hydrologists in uh geology performance experiments in in uh in uh sedimentology that demonstrate exactly that very thing what you're looking at is just one of dozens and dozens of experiments that have been performed over the last 40 or 50 years and this is exactly what they perform for produce rapidly moving water which is littered with various materials mixed up in them sorts them by grain size and density to create strata right before the scientists eyes in fluke experiments numerous experiments like this numerous experiments are performed these these experiments are all published in the science journals and this is exactly what it's observed to take place when rapidly moving water is given a mix a homogeneous mix of different materials it automatically sorts them by particle size and grain grain size that is and by by density to produce what you see on the screen strata right before the scientists eyes in real time on the fly it takes minutes sometimes seconds you can actually see you can actually see the the angular conformity produced right there let me show you an angular conformity being produced on the fly right there you see these horizontal these angular lines this is an angular conformity on small scale produced with horizontal strata produced right above it in real time in a laboratory on top of other materials so i don't know where you're getting your ideas but i'm not sure that science because science shows that uh rapidly moving water creates particle size distribution lamina and uh and conformities on the fly in seconds it doesn't get millions of years where do you get the idea that the millions of years are necessary for this stuff to form because this is a feature of the entire geologic column going all the way down to cambridge okay all right so i got a chance to speak here um the the the fossil the layers in the in the geologic column especially in the grand canyon where you can see a lot of them they are not arranged by any kind of grain size or anything that you'd expect from a single deposition event um again i'm not sure don't interrupt me enough don't do that strata or form or organize by grain size why don't moderate that guys maybe go ahead so um i was saying in in the in the um uh now you lost the grand canyon the the rocks are not assorted by grain size or anything it would see uh sand layers at the bottom and then with the other types of rocks and then you'd see like sand again that's just not sure the entire geologic column is made that way in the at the bottom uh for example at the the um is it the super group or something there you would see um at the bottom that at the bottom you would see the layers that were lifted at the angle and then cut off right 30 second horizontally um again okay again i like you know what kind of flood they actually i think you're uninformed about the geologic column because geologists acknowledge universally that the entire throughout the entire geologic column of the earth the strata than the earth in general in general not every strata but in general display particle size distribution throughout the entire geologic column i don't know where you're getting your science from but it's not the journals go ahead start and finish 10 seconds oh well uh uh then we'd have to um i'll get my citations um we would do the just just the on grand canyon alone and um i think we can do a discussion on that maybe the next two weeks i'll have to do some heavy reading yeah i'm no geologist so i wouldn't uh yeah i think you need some reading a lot of it all right well right you guys can wrap it up in your closing coming up but uh we're going to jump right into standing up truth and snake and uh i will start the time when the first words are spoken 10 minutes go ahead guys i i definitely want to talk about speciation in the creed and heterozygosm hypothesis one thing did jump out at me that that snake said at the end where he accused nef and i have not understanding simple uh geology so as he knows yes there are several different ways that you know mountains can form uh one of them as as he as you stated snake was you know many mountains are actually formed a result of earth's tectonic plates smashing together right and as we know the earth's crust is made up of many multiple tectonic plates that still move today no one's disagreeing with that and all that's as a result of geologic activity which is below the surface so why do you think just stating that fact i think i went a little more you know detailed in regards to it proves your uniform attarian pseudoscientific belief and um understanding of of the mountain ranges we see and everything we see in geology snake uh i don't think that that proves it just because we know how mountains are formed but the order of fossils in the layers is pretty good evidence um well i mean we're talking about created heterozygosm what do we do we'll get to that i just want to i want to press you on this because if we take a specific case for example because you're the one that brought it up and accused us of not understanding geology because i was looking to the catastrophic plate tectonics model continental sprint you would look to continental drift but we're going to need meters per second continental sprint to explain what we see for example a specific case the appellation mountains on the northeastern seaboard of north america the uniform attarian the uniform attarians believe that it took about 100 million years to completely form before plates then shifted into a different direction but let me ask you at the current rate of movement which i believe is about four inches or 10 centimeters per year the force and energy of the collision let's say if we look at the indian australian or the eurasian plates um so let's say the collision between those two plates could they have been sufficient to push up the himalayas the pressure between them yeah how can how can only four and if it's four inches per year okay at the current rate of movement say if we're looking at the force and energy required between the indian australian and how heavy a continent of rock is right and if it's moving at four inches per year that's a metric f ton of energy if you no no it's it's very questionable for you to say that with that force and energy that they could actually push up the himalayas it's like two cars colliding if they're colliding or traveling at at such a low speed because if we look at the the plate movements if they're measured you know as feet per second like two cars each traveling at 62 miles per hour that would be 100 kilometers an hour the resulting catastrophic collision would have rapidly buckled rock strata to push up those those high mountains but your uniformitarian processes at only four inches per year can't push up the himalayas it's impossible again and they do and the equation support it and all the evidence that they do your evidence that they do does geology support older or younger no just don't diverge for the one who brought up you guys did my predictions that that i've provided tell me four inches per year that type of force and energy could push up the himalayas are you just gonna are you just gonna say while the geologist can explain it how how is it possible how is it possible because you have an entire continent full of rock moving at that speed at only four inches per year that type of force that you understand will bring up the him alone you're the one who doesn't understand it because you've already been pressed by Jeremy on this and your answers weren't a condom moving at that speed is still a lot of energy you need meters per second enough to move now the continent is moving that's enough energy to move a continent next it's a pseudoscientific belief to see that with no actual evidence when we've actually made a prediction based on continental sprint and it's come true so at the end of the day you can look to that snake but it's not actually because when we look at the geology of the earth present processes as you're proving here can't actually explain what we see because rather what we see points to catastrophic processes in the past that's confirmation of Noah's flood that's the title of the deal geologists debunked catastrophes of a long time ago so how is uh how are all these living things supposed to proliferate that quickly if evolution is false um if if we can proliferate things how come you can't answer my question about the small scale uh microevolutions hanging up well will we act wait you're complaining well first we're we're just why is it possible first we're going to acknowledge that your question since it's actually meters per second movement of the plates that can actually explain the geology the mountains that we actually see catastrophic plate tectonics not continental drift that's pseudoscience now created heterozygosia hypothesis if we actually have these heterozygous ancestors right as you know as i've explained before if god created the original created kinds adam and eve with pre-existing functional dna differences and almost limitless variety of combinations of chromosomes genes and traits are possible we've made predictions okay these predictions are coming true the vast vast majority of our genome is functional we don't need mutations to actually explain the changes the micro changes as you talk about yet they do recombination and gene conversion and that's going to provide many new varieties of combination of traits quickly since as i've said well what do you have against that model because that's what we see we see a pre-existing functional dna differences you guys look to really except that it's not observed um and even assuming that transitions that we see in the fossil record are okay so okay so first look at knowledge you failed on on the catastrophic plate tectonics now you failed to give an objection to created heterozygosia hypothesis out of traditional forms you want to be old for three or you want to be one for two so instead of just talking over me maybe you can let me get out a few sounds because i don't want you jumping around from topic to topic we've talked about kind of plate tectonics moderation so i can speak so um the problem was within that model of created heterozygosia what's your oh my gosh um go ahead tell me your objection to everything i just said go take as much time as you need i where were we um within the model of created heterozygosity the same fossil transitions that we see in the fossil record are so possible such as the exact instance with whales that i gave i'm sorry to interrupt i'm sorry to interrupt your objection was how can we get so many varieties of species after the flood i've given you an answer based on created heterozygosia hypothesis now you're going to suppose a whale transitionals what is your objection to what i just said and my answer to your objection in regards to speciation post flood adam and eve were created with pre-existing functional DNA differences we can see this because the majority of our genome is functional okay so with amazing design and functional heterozygosity even at a tiny fraction of their nucleotide snake through the processes of gene conversion and recombination and essentially unlimited range of useful diversity would be produced what is your objection to that i i've already stated that i don't really have an objection to that other than it's absurd okay so i can't even get a sentence out man well because that was your argumentation so you just admitted no answer to it i'm gonna talk to you if you don't want me to talk so within that model of having uh pre-created heterozygosity you can still get all of the fossil transitions such as the one that you won't answer what is your objection to the addition of these small-scale transitions in the same population because we don't actually see that so for example you seem to be confusing two things okay adaptation to environments and evolution of high just a second i'm answering your question created heterozygosity predicts change adaptation but at the end of the day it doesn't take a genius to see that these are different issues because the adaptation we look to the change we look to that can be accomplished by loss of information that's exactly what we see why are those forms always requires a large increase in net information we don't see that we see the degradation can you point to me appoint me to a beneficial mutation that actually adds new novel information as we're as compared to degrades information because that's what you're going to need to take your fish to fishermen go ahead yep any mutation that creates a new protein that's new information and we've been over this over and over and over no yeah we've been over this changing you know large-scale what's your benefit what's your best beneficial mutation that you can point to that actually you're changing the subjects you don't have to answer what is your objection to those small-scale adaptations adding up in the same population i've already given you the objection so you haven't given an objection to those specific ones why can't that happen theoretically theoretically it can't happen because what do we see we see change that is down we see loss of information degradation of information the breakdown of functional systems that's not going to take your we observe all the changes away where's your genetic entropy i don't want your beliefs i want your actual genetic entropy debunks your entire flood model because of the population bottleneck seen after the arc those populations would go extinct within 100 generations we've run the numbers at those population limits and especially since inbreeding because you only start with a single pair okay because that very little heterozygosm would have been lost your model your model your your bottleneck that you look to is prolonged that would actually lead to the inbreeding and the that population would have been genetically compromised what do we see low genetic diversity any two human beings on earth are no more than 0.5 percent different that proves we came from two people Adam and Eve you my friend you look to a bottleneck and your bottleneck is what disproves your theory how do you explain the fact that what we would observe is low genetic diversity go ahead sorry that was well after 10 minutes uh we'll have to use that in the uh in the closing um actually yeah we'll jump into the uh what is it three minutes i believe closing for each person and who's starting uh we'll go in reverse it doesn't really matter though who feels like closing it up matter of fact uh let's tell the audience now does anybody here feel like doing an after show and if so tell the audience about it i'd be up for that so neph on your channel then sounds like there'll be an after show i could do it i guess yeah okay all right great and um whoever would like to start with the closing feel free or um take it away or i'll just pick one if nobody says i might as well start since the since i started the debate i might as well um then we'll go mean neph and i guess the evolutionist so um at the end of the day i think anybody can see here that their arguments uh for one when they brought up evolution it was nothing but beliefs ideas imagination they hope they dream they imagine that pine trees whales and and apples were related through common ancestry in spite of the evidence that contradicts their their belief as you can see their snake and we could destroy every single one of his arguments as we have um he had no answer to how continental drift can lead to the geology we see he just makes big basic g geology statements that we all know but we've made the predictions they ignored the predictions cold slabs rapid magnetic reversals all confirmation what do we see when we look at when we look to the geology of the earth as i've pointed out and demonstrated in my discussion with uh snake there present processes they can't in no way shape or form explain what we see everything points to catastrophic processes in the past that's confirmation of of no less flood much geologic evidence it suggests rapid plate tectonics as you can see their snakes big of argument that actually saved for the discussion because i knew it would destroy him was how do we see the speciation from from the different kinds of animals off of the ark post flood i showed him over and over again created heterozygosis hypothesis makes predictions confirm predictions on mutation rates dna function and he agreed he has no objection to it but yet he'll still keep going on and on about how this somehow somehow debunks our model no no no the evolutions they have straw man understandings of our model that's why kandor a man who i debated a couple weeks ago go watch that debate the guy thinks bacteria actually disproves genetic entropy at the end of the day genetic entropy destroys ponds come to people evolution and proves biblical creation it is a double whammy oval flood honestly with a vast and unique consequences involved in it it easily explains everything we see coal oil um it's not due to millions of years the grand canyon did not form in millions of years it formed in weeks major mountain ranges as i've shown in my discussion with snake did not form over hundreds of millions years each formed in hours and it makes predictions so at the end of the day all evidence points to a biblical creation model and no is global flood how much time do i have matt one minute how much time have we been oh we got five minutes um so at at the end of the day we can even see this with in a real time example for example uh we can look to mount st helens rapidly formed sedimentary layers and canyons at at mount st helens and these evolutionists they they don't understand they can't see the scope and scale of the energy produced by the flood it's absolutely amazing the fountains of the great deep as red and genesis they break open earth is fractured like an egg shell the continents are moving vertically and horizontally tsunamis they're driving floodwaters onto the continents geologic catastrophes rain is unending like i said we've made predictions um evolution we've destroyed every every argument there they've ignored everything we see in regards to um you know the fossils of animals giving birth the eruption at mount st helens as i've stated has demonstrated you know sedimentary layers hundreds of feet thick they're laid down in hours to canyons are formed rapidly multiple fossilized forests they're formed as a result of a single volcanic eruption and it even suggests how coal seams could be produced quickly so uh we've also seen recent discoveries of dinosaur soft tissue we didn't even get to touch on that in association with intact biomolecules they suggest that dinosaurs they haven't been extinct for millions and millions of years but only thousands of years if you want to see uh what the evolutionist's best rubato would be go check my debate with rj downard i destroyed him on dinosaur soft tissues they don't have any arguments other than rescue devices imagination ideas and beliefs i conclude my statement thanks matt yeah neph you are up neph okay my turn okay yeah so uh right okay so uh we heard crazy ideas about geology about lamination and stratification this is a picture of one of numerous studies in lamination stratification in the journals many of them exist this is what it makes right there now this is what we see in the earth right there the same thing it's exactly the same thing look at each of these strata the remarkable example you're seeing on the screen right now is numerous different types of materials deposited rapidly by moving water right upon each other that's exactly what we see in the journals published by uh sedimentologists that's what we see that's what we see in the earth it's the same thing so when they do this in the lab and it forms in minutes or seconds right before their eyes and then we see this in the earth we know that this is what caused this it's the same process this is the scientific evidence that uniform materialists have to refuse to accept look at the uh the astonishing clarity of the boundary between these strata it is mind-bendingly fine look at that it's astonishing how fine the boundary between these strata are that's because they were created by rapidly moving water and that is a general feature of the entire geologic column what this means unfortunately for the uniformitarianist look at this one right here this was the mind-bending one right there look at this wow talking about a fine boundary between strata look at that right there one material deposited the ends wrap abruptly and above it immediately is an entirely different material that cannot happen over vast ages of time it is scientifically impossible if the geologic column the strata of the geologic column were produced over vast ages of time 30 seconds there is no geologic time to be found in the geologic column it was produced by a one-year watery event cataclysmic event produced caused by the noic flood rapidly moving water produces this feature how do we know there it is in the science journals and that's what we see in the earth right there right there because that's a science fact time all right stunted you are up yeah i'm here um i think it's time now can you hear me good by the way what what can you hear me clearly yeah clear oh wonderful um so uh the but as the standing and the uh the cold crust argument or prediction um just saying cold crust uh we predict the cold crust um and we found cold crust isn't an argument that's a non-argument we need to know how long it takes for the crust to change in temperature and so on and so on and so on and then we have an argument um again it actually takes millions of years to change um a certain amount of degrees so we can check the relative um difference between the uh between the um the the crust and the mantle so you can know okay if it's this this amount of you know degrees we know it took this amount of time to get that temperature uh yeah so we need we need to do that we need some citations for that um built in heterocyclic um that has to do a lot with kinds and um although i know what a kind is a kind is a group of organisms related to each other but unrelated to everything else uh that's not i don't have a problem with the definition of a kind is how they discern what a kind is um the closest that i was seeing was todd wood uh what he uses morphological continuity not genetics to um to establish what a kind is um some creation with good good good i know i wait you are we lost we lost you so get ready to repeat what you just said i'll stop the time family no one accepts that no creations except that uh family you cut out for probably 15 seconds there you might have to back that up um okay so um i was talking about building heterocyclic is based on kinds um um i don't know how much organisms can fit within a kind or how they determine that how is it distinguished within itself and differentiated from unrelated things uh usually creationists use the family level as a demarcation but again taxonomy doesn't have anything to do with relatedness just taxonomy um so the again family but for example corn and bamboo is in the same family no creations except the corn and bamboo is related or a cucumber and a bitter melon or watermelon so they're in the same family they don't accept that apes are in the same family with humans they don't accept it as well so i don't know what exactly it's a kind and how they determine that that headers like also you think um i guess they would have to show where phylogeny breaks down um which i was trying to ask standard of truth for example with crustaceans you know if all crustaceans belong to the same kind or barman uh we don't know uh i don't know how to determine that um i guess it's kinds of very arbitrary so again the built-in heterosycosities is as arbitrary as kinds that's why it's not a valid argument i i literally don't think it's seriously um what else do we talk about oh those eggs uh can you hear me now yeah 30 seconds okay uh those eggs uh really want to know about what kind of flood dynamics could preserve an egg nest it's informed with eggs in it you know um and the sandwich between layers laid down by the flood uh that's something i would like to know uh we find footprints sandwiched between layers were animals walking between the layers when they were being laid down i don't know what kind of flood dynamic can cause that to happen um what else uh yeah i guess that's it for now i can't reinstall anything else uh yeah that's it all right that's your time anyway that's good all right steak you're closing it up okay um so i didn't get a satisfactory explanation of any of the parts of hydrologic sorting um again the fossil record appears to be organized in a series of transitions that are going towards modern forms and branching out in several different forms as well um radiometric dating proves right off the bat uh that excuse me that young earth is uh impossible um we didn't hear much from the other side about radiometric dating this time um and they also show again that they don't seem to understand basic geology at least as i understand it um since uh they seem to think every sedimentary layer is analogous to a geologic stratum uh nef shows pictures of mud layers at a small scale and ignores the fact that the density of these layers don't repeat um and yet in the actual geologic column uh the same density same rock layers do repeat over and over uh even though the experiments he showed show that a water sedimentation and all experiments of this sort show water sedimentation uh separates by density but does not repeat the layers um all sediments of the same density deposit in the same layer um and that's why we get these gradual transition layers uh that stunted was talking about in the short term formations but rather abrupt layer transitions in the geologic column um and again we know that they are misrepresenting geology simply by the fact that geologists explicitly reject young earth creationism um genetic entropy again debunks the arc lineage uh that they're trying to espouse uh the explanation the arc proves that small scale transitions seen in order in the fossil record um uh sorry i lost lost my train of thought for a second um it debunks the arc lineage specifically because um when we ran the numbers uh we found that small scale populations will go up by uh genomic decay uh within 100 generations and this occurs in small populations and from the arc we have genetic bottlenecks of a single pair and this process is made even worse by inbreeding and this is going to occur via single pair um uh the small scale transitions we see in the fossil record are already covered by all the transitions that they have already admitted uh have occurred in the 4 000 years since the arc um soft tissues they say that this suggests that uh dinosaurs have been around recently but they ignore the paper by mary schweitzer uh the multiple papers about the preservation methods um i'm not i still i'm not sure what their actual objection to this is they just dogmatically say that it's not an explanation even though the chemistry perfectly explains everything um oh let's see i suppose i'll i'll just say that uh nothing in their story makes sense uh the fact that death came into the world um after the flood that doesn't make any or after the fall doesn't make any sense the the life forms changing after the flood doesn't make any sense it doesn't line up with the pattern that we actually see they can't explain any of the actual transitions that we see even though that's made possible by their model of created heterozygosity and quick evolution after the arc so um i remain firmly on the side of the mainstream sciences all right time all right guys well that was the end of debate it seemed to go really quick that two minute back and forth almost seemed like it wasn't long enough it was a workout though i'm tired i'll give you that much yeah that was pretty intense so i need to be walking maybe three minutes so anyway uh thank you everyone for watching hope you enjoyed the debate be sure to check out their channels and again the after show is going to be on nephralum's free channel right now um i will have them try to post into the comment section as soon as this video gets posted and don't forget to hit that subscribe button if you personally want to debate message james or leave it in the comment section and he will decide on a topic that you might like anyway i hope that everyone listening has a great rest of the week and we are out thanks favor on that