 Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not ancient giants existed, and we're starting right now. With Nephilim Frees opening statement, thanks so much for being with us, Neph, the floor is all yours. Great, thank you so much. I'm going to try to screen share now and see if it's working. It is. It is. Okay. Excellent. Okay, so the best evidence, I think, one of the best evidence is for the existence of giants. I didn't take the time to put together for you. I could probably, I should have shown you probably, which is the ancient art of giants, actual giants from human giants, from Babylonia, Egypt, and other places around the world, Akkadia. They all depicted the men that ruled over them as being way larger than normal men, or larger than normal men in their artwork. There are numerous examples, but I don't have any of that because I didn't put it together. There is tons of that though from the ancient world, but I want to express one thing for you all to understand this. Prior to the flood of Noah, creatures were able to express their very best genetically and grew to enormous size. Some of the images you're seeing on the screen are examples of how large creatures were prior to the flood of Noah, and now the size that they are today. So a pre-flood wombat weighed hundreds of pounds, bigger as a grizzly bear, but today you can hold one of your arms. This is a dog. That's an actual dog. It's a fossil of a dog. This is from Discovery Magazine. These people believe evolution, by the way. That's an actual dog. That's a dog as big as a grizzly bear, not as tall, but long as one. That's a dog that weighed, you know, what, eight, 900 pounds, bigger as a Siberian tiger or bigger. It's a huge dog. So here's another creature recently in the news. Almost as tall as an oak tree. That's an amazing creature. That is as big as a sore, weighs probably as much as a giant sauropod dinosaur. That is a massive animal. A World War II tank would probably weigh only as much as its head and half of its neck. That is a massive animal. This is a dragonfly with a one and a half to two and a half foot wingspan. This article, recent news, says a man found remains of a 400 pound salmon. You know how big salmon are today, right? A camel the size of a giraffe. This man is a famous Arab author. He's one of the world's greatest literary authors. He wrote a book called the Shamina, which is a history of the world, according to the Arab remembrance of it, all the way back to the first man. And he explains that the world is young and describes mankind all the way back to Adam. There's not millions of years old genetics confirms that the genome of mankind has been in tremendous decay and the lifespan of man has rapidly decayed because of it. What you see on the left is a graph from Dr. John Sanford, one of the world's foremost genesis Cornell University genesis inventor of the gene gun, a famous genesis, even amongst evolutionists and famous worldwide. The curve you see there has a particular name. I can't remember the name of this kind of curve. There's an algorithm that can describe it. If you look at the right, you see the names of the men, the patriarchs of the Bible and their lifespans decline after the flood. According to the very same curve, the genetic entropy, the genetic mutation studies have shown, according to Dr. John Sanford, so we have a match here. We have mankind's lifespan declining at the same rate that genetic mutation explains that our genome is decaying. This is powerful evidence that the world is only thousands of years old and mankind's lifespan has declined tremendously and extremely fast exponentially because of random genetic mutation. It's the very same type of curve. This is an ancient artifact from Ain Ghazal. It's a foot with six toes. Ancient Native American art depicting men's feet with six toes. Notice also they depict known creatures, a large cat, possibly a mountain lion at the top and then a mountain goat at the bottom. So known animals and human feet in the same image, six toes for the humans. Ancient Egyptian coffin cover six feet, six fingers. Native American art, six fingers. Native American art, six fingers. Babylon, no ancient Greek, eighth century BC Greek figurine, six fingers. Native American art, six fingers. This is a man tossing a javelin. This is a competition. The javelins that they throw are 28 ounces or 1.75 pounds. They're probably made of aluminum. They're thin, but they weigh 1.75 pounds. It takes a very athletic man to throw this thing a number of yards. But the book of Samuel tells us. And Ishab bin Ab, which was the sons of the giants and the weight of whose spear weighed 300 shekels in brass weight, 300 shekels is 7.125 pounds. Now, I'm going to tell you for a man to be able to athletically throw a spear in combat that weighs seven pounds would be one massive dude. There is no human being on the earth that could carry into combat a spear that weighs seven pounds and expect to throw it more than 10 or 15 feet. Meet 20. Seven pounds is a lot of weight. A 1944 M1 Garand raffle weighed nine pounds. Imagine trying to throw one of those 20 feet. That's a lot of weight, right? The average man would struggle to throw an M1 Garand 20 feet. But these weights seven pounds, this man's spear. And he was also carrying a other armament. But he he carried into battle a spear that weighed 7.3125 pounds because it weighs 300 shekels. Now, that's not your normal man. What man carries a spear that weighs seven pounds, not a normal man, an abnormally large man. A spear is a thing designed to be tossed thrown not five feet, not 15 feet or 20. A spear is a weapon designed to be thrown 30, 40, 50 feet. Long distance, you throw it from quite a ways. It's not a jabbing weapon. You don't run up to a guy and you throw a spear and it plunges through a man, maybe through two, right? That's what a spear was. An ancient weapon is a spear is a weapon to be thrown considerable distance. Nobody in this earth today could throw a seven pound spear a considerable distance. So do giants exist? Deuteronomy three tells us only King of Bashan. This is a really interesting text. Says, was remained of the giants. Behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron. Is it not in Rabath, the children of Ramon? Nine cubits was the length thereof and four cubits the breadth of after the cubit of land. This was 13 feet by six feet wide. Nine by the cubits, nine cubits by four cubits is a 13 foot by six foot bed. That's a bed for a man that's 10 to 11 feet tall. Okay, now the interesting thing about this passage is the author asks, is it not in Rabath of the children of Ramon? This is like asking, do you guys not know that on Staten Island they have this antique car? Doesn't everybody know about it? Because aren't there lots of people who've gone and seen it? You see, what the author is expressing is this is common knowledge. Not because some guy said so and everybody came to believe it, but because lots of people have seen it and everybody knows. And that's why he says, isn't it there? What are you talking about? So he wouldn't have said, I'm telling you it's over there. No, no, no. He's saying, is it not there? He's asking this question because he's expressing to the reader, this is common knowledge. So many people have made pilgrimage to see it. The culture, the entire culture knows that it exists, it's common knowledge. That's why he's asking this question. That's the most important part of this whole passage. So in conclusion, I do believe that the science existed on the earth. I believe the evidence for that is profound. I've only showed a very small portion of the evidence. The best evidence, I think some of the best evidence I didn't provide, which is evidence that the ancients depicted men of abnormal size. The Hebrews did it, the Greeks did it. The Babylonians did it. The Akkadians did it. Civilization northeast of Babylonia and politically more influential than Babylonia in some ways. So it was well known throughout the history of the world that men had six fingers and six toes who were abnormally large in size. There's a statue of Gilgamesh in Babylonia holding two lions, one in each hand. A lion is an animal that weighs, ancient lions weighed 150, 100 pounds more than modern lions. We know that for a fact. In fact, in the 20th century, lions have decreased in size. They used to be on average 600 to 650 pounds around the turn of the 20th century. Today an average male, large male lion weighs 400 to 500 pounds. So they decreased in size. But Gilgamesh has depicted holding a lion in each hand. There may be some artistic license in that. Could there be? Maybe. Another depiction of Gilgamesh shows him holding a lion like a house cat. An unruly one, by the way, and he's still holding it firm to his body. So I think the evidence, the preponderance of the evidence from the fact that prior to the flood of Noah, creatures grew to enormous size and man being an organism, a mammal organism would also in that same pristine environment grow to enormous size, because after all, man is a mammal, just like a bear or a cat. He would also grow to enormous size in that pristine environment. And from the evidence that in man depicted kings as abnormally large men who ruled over others as having five, six fingers, six toes, oftentimes, and of abnormally large structure that they towered over men, not just stood over them head height, I mean, towered over them by several feet in height, over a typical man. I think these things are profound and the evidence from the Bible, which is your God's inspired word, and we can verify that with numerous signs of evidence. States that giants existed throughout the Old Testament, and describes them even by their size. I think the evidence that giants did exist is overwhelming to argue otherwise, I think is not to be in concordance with the evidence. And that concludes my opening statement. Thank you. You gotta thank you very much, Neville and Marie for that opening statement, and folks, wanna let you know it's your first time here at Modern Aid Debate. We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics, and we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from. Also wanna let you know, don't forget to hit that subscribe button, folks. Right over there. As we have many juicy debates coming up, for example, tomorrow, you don't wanna miss it, folks, we are going to have Tom Jump and Flat Earth Ozzie debating whether or not space is a hoax. So with that, we will kick it over to Jim for his opening statement. Thanks so much, Jim. The floor is all yours. I should say Dr. Majors, congrats, by the way, on completing the doctorate, and the floor is all yours. Thank you, sir. All right. Are you getting my screen? Yep. Okay, good deal. Okay, biblical giants, did they exist? The verses, one of the verses that's usually used to support this is Genesis six, one through four. It says, when human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said, my spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal. Their days will be 120 years. The Nephilim were on earth in those days and also afterward, when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them, they were the heroes of old, men of renown. I don't know why that picture is there. That's embarrassing. Okay, so the Nephilim is the word that's used there. And it's because the translators of the Septuagint saw that in numbers 1333, these scouts are calling these Canaanites the Nephilim saying that they're huge, that they feel like grasshoppers next to them. Oh, let's see, there we go. Okay, so we're talking tiny, like they felt tiny next to them. So who were these? Were these the men of renown? What does that mean? Does Nephilim mean giant? No, it doesn't. But the translators of the Septuagint translated it that way. They translated it to the Greek word for giant or the word that they would use for titans, people who were half God and half man and some of them were huge, but it doesn't necessitate size. It doesn't necessitate it being a giant. So it can mean somebody who's really good in battle or somebody who's a, it just makes somebody a legend, essentially. We have quotes from early church fathers. Cyril of Alexandria says, it is the custom of holy writ to call wild, fierce and robust men giants. John Chrysostom says, I think that those in scripture called giants are not any unusual kind of men for shape or feature, but such as were herocal and strong and warlike. And remember in Numbers 1333, it was a false report that was being given. It was a lie. These heroes of old men of renown, it doesn't mean that you're 20 feet tall anymore than it means that you're six feet tall. So archeological hoaxes, this is something that we see a lot. This right here is a Photoshop submission for size matters for contests. And the caption reads, Whitmeth 57 an American designer created this Photoshop on 14th of August, 2011 for design crowd community contest, a business in Australia. The Photoshop was designed for the project, size matters for, it was awarded three out of five stars. And we can see how people make this. They'll take something from an actual archeological dig and they'll crop something else out of there. And then next thing you know, you've got evidence for angels. This is what angels look like, by the way. I don't know if you guys knew that. Giant footprints, this claims often made, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. This type of material that it is, this footprint is in, is granite, solid granite. So you cannot imprint upon it. It's not that kind of rock. Other evidence are things like this. These are Minoan labyrinths that are used for ceremonial purposes. They come from the temple complexes at the Minoan city of Canasas. You can see how thin they are. They're bending at the edge. So these are not weapons. And evidence by that, these also come from the temple complexes at Canasas. And this is just a regular little dagger and the bodies of a regular size person. It's not a giant. We have stories in Homer's book, The Odyssey, where he lands on the island of the Cyclopes. And we have later people who talk about this island of Sicily that was home of the Cyclopes. They found these giant bones and one eye skeleton that were there, but these bones are of mastodons. This is, these are not humans, but it looks exactly like it has an eye, just one eye right in the center. So large fossil bones, people used to think they were from these ancient monsters, these ancient humans or a fallen angel. For instance, Pliny believes that the skeleton of Orion was found on the island of Crete and said that it was 35 feet long. So animals, why don't they grow that big now? Were they killed in the flood? It seems like the most sense to me is that before when the can of people was higher that you needed longer legs to reach the leaves for animals that were browsing. Then if the taller you get, the larger your legs have to be. So I mean, look at the body of the elephant compared to the body of a, you know, like this giant rhinoceros looking creature. It's virtually the same size, just longer neck, longer legs, same reason giraffes have it. Oh, that was supposed to come up before. Okay. We have ancient engravings from these ancient civilizations where people are depicted as larger than their enemies and larger than certain animals. And it's to show their stature, not necessarily their physical body, like a physical representation. I don't think this is saying that Gilgamesh had a pet cat, which was actually a lion. That's definitely not what this is saying. And he has his five fingers, I was just saying. That would be like saying that the statue of liberty because it's a, I believe it's 111 feet from the bottom of her feet to the top of her head that in the future, people are going to excavate this and say, oh my gosh, there must have been this giant lady wearing a spiky golf visor and carrying this huge, like 20, 30 foot long tablet. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make. Yeah, there's that. Okay, 111 feet one inch. Okay, the tallest living man is this man right here, Sultan Kosen from Turkey, who measures eight feet and three inches. He has extreme trouble walking because of his height and all the pressure that it puts on his bones. He eventually went underwent non-invasive gamma surgery in 2010 and he has stopped growing because it was a pituitary tumor that needed to be operated on. What's that? Well, I'm sorry. Oh, no worries. The tallest person in history to ever have lived for which there's no irrefutable evidence is this man, Robert Wadlow, who was eight feet and 11 inches tall, weighed 439 pounds at the time of his death at the age of 22. So his poor kid did not live long. He had a hypertrophy of the pituitary gland, which made him produce a very high level of human growth hormones. This is his father, who's five foot 11 and he died, died a young man. But biblical giants, do they exist? I mean, no. You got it. Thank you very much. Jim, for that opening statement, we will kick it into open conversation mode. And so, wanna let you know though, folks, our guests are linked in the description. If you haven't already checked their links out, what are you waiting for? You can hear plenty more and that includes if you're listening via the modern day debate podcast. As all of our debates end up on the podcast within 24 hours after the live debate and we also put our guest links in the description there as well. So you can hear more from Jim or Neff clicking on those. And so with that, thanks gentlemen. The floor is all yours for open conversation. Jim, I think it sounds as though, I think your argument that if people dug up thousands of years from now and found the Statue of Liberty, would they believe that giants depicted is woefully wanting and that it's not based on historical content or archeology or it's completely out of context for historicity. Let's see. I agree. There's a very big difference between the reference of giants throughout the historical world, not just in the Bible, which is the best explanation in my opinion, but the ancient depictions that man made in various cultures, the Greeks, the Titans of the Greeks, the art of the Babylonians, the Akkadians, the Egyptians as depicting humans, real humans, actually ancient kings known to history as giant men. And comparing it to the Statue of Liberty, come on. Okay, you told me too that it wouldn't fly. And I agree because you have to take it into context. You're absolutely right. So if you look at these ancient civilizations who would depict their enemies that have submitted unto them, depict them as being smaller than them for a pictorial reference, something that gives it perspective and just another dimension because you can't write everything. The images often spoke for themselves. So you have to take that into context. So whenever you're talking about these ancient depictions of people who are being portrayed as being larger than a normal human, as being giants, I feel like you need to take the same advice. Well, what you're talking, what you're describing is, depicting these men based on their, what's called the kingship, their kingship. And their kingship is enormous and their power and authority is enormous so they were depicted as large. But the problem with that is that that doesn't match the historical record that's described. And let me give you an example of why. For example, Gil Gemmish in the ancient Babylonian epic is what's actually pronounced Gil Gemmish. But Gil Gemmish was not a king of any kind. He was just a great warrior. And so the problem is that Gil Gemmish goes to the... Gil Gemmish was a king. Okay, so he became a king after he accomplished with his feet. He goes to the forest to kill the bull of Bashan with his friend in Qidu. And he carries with him 500 pounds. Who am I, sorry. He carries 500 pounds worth of war gear. It has strides that are eight feet long to get there. This is a description of a real man in real time and doing a real event. It's not describing kingship. It's describing real human beings in a real context wearing war gear and doing what not. You also pointed to these ancient Sumerian warheads. There's this photograph from the museum in Baghdad. And those weapons actually existed in the museum of the National Museum of Baghdad of Iraq in Baghdad just prior to the Iraq war. When that war broke out, thieves broke into that place and trashed it and they stole those, they're gone now. But those are actual warheads. The argument from your camp is that these were ceremonial. They were ceremonial. They were actually, what, the problem? Are you gonna talk about it the entire time? No, I just wanna say this one thing and that'll be done. There are no such thing as ceremonial weapons that are of normal size. Yes. Yes, there are. And by the way, if by the way, spears were not, by the way, spears were not thrown in battle unless they were used as a last resort because often that was your only weapon there. Spears are two-handed weapons. You throw your spear and you have no weapon. It was used to stop horses. It was used to reach distances. I mean, you can watch a Hollywood movie and get that from it. I mean, it doesn't take a genius to know that a javelin does not equal a spear. Those are two completely different things. And yes, there are such things as ceremonial weapons. I don't know what you know about the Temple of Canasas, but they would often slay a bull and pour its blood through this libation bowl. And archeologists and people who studied the Temple complex at Canasasas say that it was done with one of these double-headed, I believe they're called labris. Yeah, labris. Well, you straw manned me. You said there's, I said, you say there's no, I said that there's no such thing as ceremonial weapons. I didn't say that. I said there's no such thing as ceremonial weapons at normal size. Also ceremonial weapons known in history that have been passed down to kings or dukes or anything else have always been just normal sized weapons, just more elaborately made with more artists. That's not true. They're always larger. You won't be able to show me an example. You won't be able to show me an example. King's story. Hold on, Jen, please. You won't be able to show me an example of a ceremonial weapon that's of abnormal size. There's no such thing. They're all normal sized weapons that are outrageously ornate or made of precious materials, but they're not of abnormal size. Secondly, you said, oh, now I lost my place, but you said, what else was it? You said, what was that second point you made? You said something about, oh, I forgot. But no, that's not true about it. The spears, thank you. Yes, spears. The spears are not the mainstay weapon of any soldier never have been. Spears are a primary attack weapon and this is how spears were used in ancient warfare. The soldier throws his spear or uses it in immediate contact when the battle gets too heated, he gets rid of the spear or throws it and then he pulls out his sword, usually a short sword. The spear is a primary attack weapon and then it's discarded and they resort to a sword or a knife or a bullet. But it's not just thrown and as a matter of fact, it's rarely thrown. If it's used to stop a horse, you're not gonna pull it out, okay? Spears are thrown everywhere throughout history. It's a throwing weapon. They're still doing it in Africa. Those are not spears, okay? Those are often darts and they're thrown using a device called an atladdle. They're throwing with a device called an atladdles and they're much smaller. No, that's not the same thing. They're much smaller and they're springy, like they're made out of lightweight wood. I know what you're talking about. Yeah, it accelerates, but you don't. It accelerates the spear, it's a very short little spear that goes on a tool that accelerates the crap out of its speed when you throw it. Correct, so if it was a huge heavy spear, then you wouldn't be able to throw it with another device. Right, you have to throw it by hand. You have to weigh up both things. Right, but even today, ancient men of ancient technology and culture throw spears by hand. They don't run around jabbing people. The only people who know these spears- You're talking about jabbing people. The only people- The only people who would not hold up and battle. The only people known to hold spears in battle for any length of time was the Romans when they formed their formations with their shields in front and the spears sticking out between the shields, right? It was more than the Romans, but yeah. Right, but when the battle got too heavy, the spears were discarded. They pull out their sword. They carry a spear and a sword. Just like the Bible describes in 2 Samuel, the Goliath carried not only a spear, but a sword also. Not Goliath. Did he throw it? Did he throw it at Daniel? And a sword, okay? Did he throw it at Daniel? No, it doesn't say that. But why did he carry a spear and a sword? Well, because the spear is a primary attack weapon. You throw it, you take out one, maybe two guys right off the bat. No, you don't throw it right off the bat. It's not used right. Okay, when the Romans had a spear and a spear, they just threw their sword. There's one side. We need just one of you, because trust me, Jim and Neff, people want to get to hear what you guys have to say. So we do want to make sure that, Neff, Neff. So we do want to make sure that there's no overlap. That way they get to hear both of you. So we'll give Jim a chance to respond, maybe a minute or two, and then we'll come right back to you, Neff, for the same thing, a minute or two. Okay, I'm not saying that that spears weren't thrown. I'm saying that they were rarely thrown due to what their purpose, I mean, if they're being attacked and they had to form a shield wall and they have their spear and a guy comes up and they run them through, then they're dropping the spear. Why would they throw a spear that just makes zero sense? I'm not saying that it wasn't a primary weapon. I'm not saying that it wasn't thrown. I'm saying that it wasn't designed as a throwing weapon. It was designed as a stab and jab from a far weapon that can be thrown. I mean, yeah, but anyways, so there's no archeological evidence for giants, period. Just the claim that there are people who were tall or men of renown or heroes of old. None of that necessitates that they're 15, 20, 30 feet tall as you claim. Well, I don't believe they were 30 feet tall, but you're wrong about spears. Oh, sorry, it's just 20. Spears are in fact designed to be a throwing weapon. That's why they're so long because it makes them aerodynamic. It makes the weapon fly straighter when it's thrown. That's why they have a long, imagine trying to throw a spear this two feet long. It's not gonna go very straight, right? But when you have the weight behind the head, then it goes straight. That's why it's designed to be thrown, okay? A spear is designed to be strong. No ancient culture run around with spears and jabbing forward and back and jabbing, jabbing, jabbing. That's not how warfare was conducted. Spear was used to be thrown and then you pull out the sword. We've got, there's a lot of points there. We'll give Jim a chance to respond. And then we'll probably move from this topic just because we've gone deep on this particular topic already. And so pretty shortly here, we'd probably wanna switch it back to the kind of broader picture or other types of arguments. Six fingers, all that stuff. So go ahead, Jim. Well, first of all, polydactylism doesn't necessitate gigantism. That's just ridiculous to say that because people, there are depictions of people with six fingers and six toes, something that's known as a genetic trait. I mean, that's not evidence of giants. I showed the footprint, even the footprint that's in stone that they claim is giants that was found in China, I believe. It's five toes. So the depiction of Gilgamesh, five fingers, five toes. Yeah. Well, there is a depiction of Gilgamesh from ancient times, the depiction of this having six fingers and toes. Show it to me. Okay. Well, I could find it on the internet, but you can find it. I'm not gonna make it a claim. I'm not your secretary. I'm not your secretary. You didn't wanna make it a claim. Okay. I'm just telling you it's there. You don't have to believe me. So it's an ancient statue of Gilgamesh and he has six fingers. So it's just a claim? Right. So until you get on the internet and look to find it yourself. But the idea, well, you don't have to. Of course. But this idea that giants didn't exist is based on the atheistic, materialistic philosophy that creatures evolve over millions of years and the Bible can't be right about anything. But here's the thing. The Bible proves itself to be the inspired word of God. And it segues the remand at great size. Then the King Og had a bed that was 13 feet long and made of iron. That's a no, what was it, 16 feet. And that's a bed for a man that's 11 to 12, 13 feet tall. I mean, everybody lays down in a bed. And the bed extends six inches to a foot above your head or beyond your toes. Why would the Bible say that this bed was so many feet long if it wasn't made for a man of a normal size and made out of iron? Because maybe it was made for a man that weighed seven to 911 hundred pounds. Or it was made for a man who slept with all of his concubines. Okay, but a man that big? A man that tall? Why would he have to be that big? If he has that many concubines, he'd need to do it in this situation as well. Why would the ancients all across the world have legends of every culture? Here's the crazy thing, Jim. This legends of giants exist not just in Europe and not just in the mid-east, but in Africa, in Asia, China, Japan. All across the Native Americans all over the world. Now, if it wasn't true, hold on, if it wasn't true that giants did exist, then you'd have to believe that there is some crazy quirk about civilization itself that causes people to magically believe that giant man lived in the past. Now, what would that be and how would that be logical? So it'd be the same crazy quirk that exists everywhere, something called fossil evidence. So they'd pick up a giant bone and they'd think, holy crap, like this had to have been human. So they come up with these stories about these giants and these monsters or they'll find a fossil of a dinosaur and then they'll have to come up with a legend about, well, how did this dinosaur die? Well, it was because one of our ancient ancestors was also this large and he killed it. I mean, these stories, they develop, like if you go up to Devil's Tower National Park and you go to Devil's Tower, it looks like a tree was cut off. And a lot of people like to say, well, this is just a fossilized tree trunk. But the Native Americans at the time said that it was because four young boys were running from a bear and they prayed to the Great Spirit to save them. And he made a large rock come up out of the ground to lift them up away from the bear. And the bear trying to get to them just created these huge gouges in the side of this rock that the Great Spirit had raised. And the bear couldn't get to these boys and eventually he gave up and he left. That's really reaching. I know it's reaching. I'm not the one who made up the story. I'm just telling you the tales that were told. Like, you know, how you tell the story about this ancient giant that the Native Americans talk about who could rip the leg off of a buffalo or lift him up with one hand. Like, you don't think that's reaching? Native Americans had those legends. Yeah. Well, there's always poetic license and everything. Legends, thank you. But legends, thank you. There's poetic license and everything. The thing is that the problem, one of the problems for this is that you have to believe that ancient people were so, you know, willy-nilly and wacking nutty that they believed that falsely that there were once men on the earth that were of the normal size and that nobody ever saw them or did anything and they didn't record it. When they recorded it so much. You know that the ancient, the ancients, you know, they may have had limited technology but they had intelligence. Equal, if not better, to ours. You know, about the ancient scientific and technological advancements that existed in the past. Men able to carve stone blocks like the temple had bailed back that weighed hundreds of tons and were mathematically perfectly square. You can't fit a piece of paper in between them. And you're telling us- Oh my gosh. The ancient people were so stupid. You're telling us that these people- They were so stupid they couldn't figure out how to make something square, they're so dumb. You're telling us these people were so nutty that they imagined that there were giants when nobody knew any such thing. When archeology shows us that these people had extremely high intelligence and that they're gonna go off on this. There was ancient men that lived on earth and nobody knew anything about it and they're all just passing around. Every culture of the world invents this fake idea that there were giants for some wacky reason. You know what, you're absolutely right. We have no problem admitting that there were these giant ancient rhinos that were 25 feet tall and these brachios sources and all these other huge ass animals that used to exist. But for some reason, we don't wanna admit that humans were taller. Like that's just, that's- Oh, let's turn that around on you. So science shows us that all these types of animals did exist in massive size. Man being a mammal existed in massive size but you don't wanna believe that. Why? Because your religion says man came from dirt soup and that can't have happened, right? You're right, it was blown dirt, right? It was dirt that was- Right, so you don't wanna believe the fossil evidence of the existence of mammals shows that mammals and marsupials and insects and various arthropods grew to enormous size, all the life types that we have. It's just, here's the problem. We don't happen to have the fossils of any giant man. Which I don't think we should expect to. No, we shouldn't because humans didn't live then. According to the Bible, there were probably no more than two million human beings on the whole freaking earth. I don't care what the Bible says, but the Bible says it's irrelevant to history. Absolutely not. The Bible is verified by thousands upon thousands of archeological, in fact, there was no ancient text even begins to compare to the archeological evidence that supported the old testament. So why don't you explain to me why we don't have ancient human fossils set at this large? Why don't you explain why we don't have it then? What is your explanation for why we don't have it? I showed you the slide for that. Man's genome is in decline like everything else after the fossil. No giants. And it fits the curve, this is part of the answer. It fits the curve. Why don't we dig up any ancient giant bones? I already answered that because there were probably no more than two million human beings on the whole earth prior to the new egg flood. And finding a human fossil prior to the new egg flood is like asking to find a needle in a field of hay stocks. So why do we find ancient animals? You expect us to find lots of human fossils prior to the flood, really? Why do we have tens of thousands of dinosaurs? Because there were billions of them and relatively few humans, that's why. Why? Why were there less humans? Why are there 10,000 mastodon fossils at the bottom of the English Channel? Because there were millions upon millions of those things. But if the earth is only 6,000 years old, there couldn't have been billions of human beings. Animals reproduce much faster than human beings. We do want to redirect it because there's so many interesting... I'll give you a chance to respond, Jim, because I know you want a chance to respond. And I promise I'll give you a chance. But I also do want to ask if you can, at the end of your response, redirect us toward some of the arguments in terms of the giant for and against arguments so we don't go too far down the road of fossils of... I can't remember what it was Nef said, but it wasn't giant, so go ahead, Jim. Right, I just want archeological evidence of giant humans, that's it. It's all I'm asking for, because it's not a whole lot to ask for. Well, fossil footprints of human giants have been found in the earth, and the evolutionists, atheists... In granite. No, that's not a human fossil. That's not an actual footprint. Do you have a photo of one? Some guy, you showed one. Some guy got him some tools, and one Saturday afternoon he spent some labor as time sweating his brow off, digging that to fake people out. And, oh, by the way, it was huge river and all. You're not supposed to be arguing these four giants. You're supposed to be arguing four giants. You know, it's a fake, right? Those are fakes. Right, well, why are you arguing for the non-existence of giants? No, I don't know where you get that. That's ridiculous. Okay, do you have evidence of the giant footprint? Well, yes, right. That is an actual footprint? You showed one on screen. No, that is in granite. It doesn't have to be granite or any other kind of stone, it's a fossil footprint of a human being. A human footprint is abnormal size. Granite, no, granite does not, does not make imprinted fossils. The imprints cannot be made in granite whenever it's forming. No, that's based on your evolutionist paradigm that granite is a metamorphic rock that occurs over millions of years. I mean, you guys have all your geology wrong. You know, I mean, come on. The sedimentary strata of the earth kind of allow filled with fossils rapidly buried to flood and Noah. You guys say those are millions of years old. It's an igneous. Find this thing in between them, you know. First of all, it's igneous, okay? Igneous. Yes, igneous. Okay. Yeah, so you say that all the granite on the earth is igneous, I know, instead of chemically made. It's not so I say. I mean, you can see it being made, you know, from lava. Are you familiar with the fossil footprints at Pilexie, Texas? Do you know that there were a size over 16 foot size, which would be a man tamed off the top? Do you have evidence of that? Do you have the evidence? You can go photograph them. Do you, if this is your evidence, I mean, the evidence is literally cartoons. How many people have been there photographed it, made video of them while they're excavating it? I don't know, because you didn't show me. Okay, good. I don't know if you showed me one. Well, I'll just tell you. So all your evidence is cartoons. I have to show you a picture of me to believe, for you to believe what I say. But you're not showing me any pictures of what you say, and so I can just turn around and you say BS, because you're not showing me. Right here, look. I can do the same thing, yeah. So let me put some slides of the photographs of the foot branch in Pilexie, Texas, while you're doing that, see? Okay, here. So your argument is fake, you know? This is a photo. This, okay, here. We can all show each other. All right, I'm showing you. This is a photo of no giants, okay? Is this the kind of evidence that you were expecting? Okay, so that doesn't work. See, your argument that show me. No giants. That doesn't work. You're not showing me anything, see? So that's a moot point, okay? So the point is- What do you want me to show you? What evidence do you want to see? I'm just telling you, you can just believe or not, you can go to Pilexie, Texas, put your foot in one of these footprints, and the length of that footprint will be numerous shoe sizes greater than your foot. Whether you want to believe that or not, it's, you know, I don't care if you believe me or not. I'm not here to make you believe anything. I don't have any interest in converting you. I'm here to refute you. And I'm just telling you, those are physical. People have documented it. There's maybe hundreds of minutes of videotape that's been made of those footprints. You can look at it for yourself on the internet. You can not believe it or you can believe it. Why didn't you show it? Because why don't I have mine? Why is it that all you showed is cartoons and animals? All you showed is cartoons and animals. You showed no proof of giant humans. You didn't show your cartoons. You didn't have cartoons. No, I showed you an art. I showed you ancient art made by a human man. Human man, human art made anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 years ago. That's not cartoons. Any evidence of the archeological evidence or photos of archeological evidence, did you bring any of that today? I just gave you some. You can see it was discovered in the 20th century. Did you bring it? You provided one of them on the screen yourself. That is not evidence. I've already told you because it is ingrained. What makes it impossible for human beings to become big giants, except your religion of materialism? For one, the tallest person who's ever lived and the tallest person that is currently alive, both were bedridden because of all of the pressure on their legs. They have heart problems. Humans are not meant to grow that large. I see. So you're saying that the only possible evidence of giants that we could have is if we can actually see one that exists today, a real giant. How do you think we know about dinosaurs? We can't know that dinosaurs existed in the past based on any of the archeological or historical evidence. We have to discount all that. Show me a giant. If I can see him with my eyes, then I'll believe. Is that right? Okay, you showed me archeological evidence for large dogs, for large dragonflies. What archeological evidence do you have for large humans? You showed a photograph of one on the screen. Again, you cannot imprint ingrain it. You will not see any other fossil. Find any other animal ingrain it. Then find another fossil of any animal ingrain it. You cannot find it. Excuse me, I've given you evidence of human footprints that are at normally large size. Would have been at a man that was nine to 12 feet tall. You don't want to look at it. Have you heard of the Plexi-Tex? You didn't show it to me. Show it to me. Have you heard of them? So you have to see it. Show it to me. You won't believe. So all of history. I asked you, okay, hang on, hang on. Human history. Hang on. Hang on, hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Nothing for you. All right, gentlemen, hold on. We do have to eventually move to a separate topic. If Nef, if you don't have a picture of it, then we'll probably just move to a separate topic because I'm pretty sure that's what Jim was gonna ask. Unless you had something else you were gonna ask Jim. Otherwise, we should move on to a different topic. A picture of it or any other archeological evidence? I mean, I asked a pic of archeological evidence and he tells me to go and find this archeological evidence. But he wasn't prepared today, even though we extended it a week, he's still not prepared. Well, I haven't seen you provide any evidence that giants could not have existed, except your paradigm. That's all you've provided, is they didn't exist. I actually... I dismiss all the historical accounts throughout all the various cultures of the world who magically somehow just invented... All right, we... I showed you a picture of the largest man and the one who's ever existed and both of them were... I can't talk to you guys right now. I'm sorry, Jim. What was that? Could you repeat for yourself? I showed you a picture of the largest man currently existing and the largest man who had ever lived. Both of them were using crutches. Both of them were bedridden. Both of them had pituitary problems. You're acting like tall people can't happen, but then when I ask you for evidence of these giants, you have none. Well, I did provide, but I understand about gigantism. It's a disease, it's a hormone disease, and it does make human beings that are unfit. That's true. The ones that exist today, 89... He wasn't unfit. He played basketball every day. The ones that exist today, he played basketball every day, but he had to stop because he was breaking his legs because of all the pressure on his body. Jim, he's unfit. So humans cannot grow that large. Well, today. But dinosaurs couldn't have grown that large because they didn't have bigger bones either, right? They had hollow bones, actually. So all you're telling me is you can't believe it based in your dismissing all the historical and archeological evidence that the giants existed. You haven't shown any archeological evidence to dismiss. Well, I did. I showed you archeological... No, you didn't. Jim, I showed you statues of human beings which had six toes. I showed you statues of human art, of men who had six fingers, and I showed you the Bible statements, which has proven to be the historical word of God, which states that the giants that existed on the earth had six fingers and six toes. And even the Babylonians agreed to do it. These Mesopotamians did so. What we might do is maybe we get into one or two minute intervals. So, Neff, if you got that, and then what we can do is we can give Jim a chance to respond, although in the future, I do want to be... I'm waiting for him to respond now. Did you have more, Neff, that you were gonna mention? No, I'm waiting for Jim to respond. Okay. Jim, we'll give you about a minute or two. Pictorial depictions of ancient kings and ancient warriors is not evidence for giants. It's not archaeological evidence for giants. We have dinosaurs, for example. It's not because people drew pictures of them that we believe they existed. It's because we have their preserved bones that we believe they existed. We have imprints of their bodies that we believe they existed, but you don't have that for giants. So, are archaeological depictions of other things that man created in the past, don't you believe that those are evidence, those things in advance took place? Because the world's historians and archeologists pretty much rely on that evidence. It's just when it comes to giants. Let me please finish. It's just when it comes to giants. Oh, we have to dismiss that part, right? So, if you take ancient Egypt, for example, you look at hieroglyphs, when you see the pharaoh depicted, the pharaoh is always larger than his subjects, always. It's not because the pharaoh was a giant. It's because that's how they would show reverence and show subservience of everybody else and show this is the big guy. In your work, the big guy or the top dog doesn't mean that he is the largest man or that he is the one on the top floor. It's a figure of speech, right? Like surely you can't believe that all ancient depictions of animals and humans were meant to be true to form. Okay, so if that's true, then the ancient depictions of kings and rulers and brutes who ruled the world, by the way, the biblical definition of the men who were giants is brutes or giants. If it was just depictions, well, it's in the Greek concordance. If we were just depictions of their kingship, their authority and reverence towards that, then can you tell me why that process, when did that process end and why did man stop doing that? Instead of, and somehow, and when did this process begin? The man began stopping this depiction of men of kings and rulers having of Norse. Why wasn't Louis the 15th depicted as a man who was 11 feet tall? Why wasn't Bruce of Scotland? Why wasn't he depicted or stated as being a man 11 feet, 12, 13 feet tall? You know what I'm saying? When did this stop? If these depictions were just to respect the reverence of the kingship and not actually because the man was so big, why do you believe that only that very ancient man did it and nobody moving into the modern era even past 1,000 ADs did it? What was the cultural change that stopped that? There wasn't one. Have you ever seen Jesus statue at Rio de Janeiro? So you have one example of a giant statue of the maiden Rio de Janeiro. The statue of Liberty? Of Jesus, which is like 350 feet tall and you expect us to believe that people believe. Abraham Lincoln at the Abraham Lincoln Memorial? Does anyone believe? I don't like the interrupting. So if we can do one or two minute intervals or we give each of you a chance to respond, but the overlap, the only reason I don't like it is because people want to hear you guys, they want to hear what you guys have to say. And so they're excited to hear it and without the overlap, they're able to better hear it. And so what we'll do is who was? No, I'm sorry, I did interrupt him. Jim, please continue. Both of you were doing it, to be honest. But whoever was about to speak. So Jesus and Rio de Janeiro, the Statue of Liberty, Abraham Lincoln at the Abraham Lincoln Memorial, there are so many depictions of people that are larger than life. Michelangelo's David, it's not something that just stopped, it's just that people don't carve bass release very often anymore. My kids, whenever they draw the family, they draw the house, you know, the house usually comes up about waist high or I'm definitely always too tall to walk through the door. It's not a truce of life depiction and it's silly to expect that out of the people who often in these pictorial depictions were the only ways of portraying a story. Okay, Jim, I get that. I really do, I get that what you're saying. I understand that, but your mind is drifted off into a particular way of thinking and here's the problem with it. Nobody in history writes that any of those men were actually that size. In ancient times, they did. They didn't just say, they didn't just depict them in art that they were that size. They said they are this big and that's what they wrote in the Bible. That's what they wrote in the Greek mythologies. That's what they wrote in the Egyptians. They all described them as being of this abnormal stature that was truly towering, okay? Men in the modern era don't do that so your analogy is completely failure. Where is there evidence of these 20 feet people in the Bible? I could provide dozens of examples of the Bible's rife. I just need one. Well, I gave you one in my slide presentation. The man that threw a spear that weighed seven pounds, that's not, you know, modern. How do you know he threw it? How do you know he threw it? 28 ounces is the javelins of today in competition. You don't fight with a javelin. 28 ounces. You don't fight with that. Well, you don't fight with a spear that weighs seven pounds either. The spear is a throwing weapon. We've been over this. No, it's not. Yes, it's always has been through history. No, it is not. Jim, everybody knows you're wrong on this. Spears are throwing that weapon. No, it's absolutely, it could be thrown. It was not made for a throwing weapon. It was meant to hold up in battle. That's completely wrong. Spears were used to stop horses, okay? If you had an aluminum javelin, it would not stop a horse. It would fold over on itself. It had to be sturdy. It had to have a solid shaft. It had to have a large head that wouldn't snap. It had to be heavy. It had to be heavy. Right. Jesus. I mean, come on. You're telling me that a spear is not a throwing weapon. All right, gentlemen, you've got to give each other a chance to respond. What ancient culture? What culture? They use the spears that they don't throw them. Okay, we can come back to this dumb argument whenever I'm still waiting for archaeological evidence for giants. If you don't have that, just say you don't have that and we can move on. Well, I've provided that. Now, probably out of historical evidence, even the word of God, but... You have not provided it. The giant... You provide me with a keyword, you provide me with a keyword and a suggestion to Google it. That is not evidence. I actually have. And the Bible, in fact, is the inspired word of God. And it describes men of abnormal stature. And just as the ancient Babylonians and Egyptians and Greeks did, men who's towered over other normal human beings, and they were the kings of the world, the ancient world. And this is well-established through all the various cultures, so you don't have archaeological evidence. Virtually every culture of the world has legends of men of abnormal stature. For you to believe, and those people had normal to higher intelligence that we do today. And you're expecting us to believe that only because they lived in ancient times, this is the ridiculousness of your way of thinking, that because they lived in ancient times, despite their perfectly normal human intelligence, IQs of anywhere from 85 or 90 to 180, right? They still somehow believed, though they couldn't see them, that there were men of a outrageous stature and wrote that these men really did exist, right? But in today, we don't do that anymore because, I don't know, because we have rock soupism, right? Okay, so what happened to the giant man? Did they die with dinosaurs? What happened to, I'm sorry, what? What happened to the giants? Why aren't there giants anymore? Because there was a relatively few number of them and looking, finding one would be like finding a needle in a field of haystacks, as I've already explained. What's the luck that you'd have better luck going to a casino with a roll of quarters and hitting the million dollar jackpot than finding a fossil. Father, there were relatively few. Well, because the Bible, the world depiction describes certain men as not normal men. So this is obviously a rarity. I think virtually every ancient king, virtually every ancient king is depicted as being large. And very ancient times. Yes, that's correct. So generations after generations after generations. So when did that process stop and why? The depictions, like I said, it hasn't stopped people still depict important figures as larger than life. Kings, what precedent or emperor of a universe of a nation and 1000 from the time of Christ forward has been depicted as being a giant man and the culture recorded that there were as well. That's your problem. Where does the culture do it? What culture reported Abraham Lincoln was 11 feet tall. If you go to the White House and you look at these oil paintings of the presidents, they're not too scale. They are larger than they are. That doesn't mean that they were that size, actually. Minerly, you know, very minor, different increase in size. It's still put them at like eight, nine feet. That's a terrible argument. They didn't depict them as that big. It's a depiction. They didn't depict Abraham Lincoln or George Washington or something like that. Have you been to the Lincoln Memorial? Okay, so I'm gonna ask you. Have you been to the Lincoln Memorial? Yeah, I understand the Lincoln Memorial. I'm asking you why the depictions culturally stop as describing them in their literature as being this size when instead of just depicting them in art as that size, because in the ancient world, they did not only depicted them as that size, but they also wrote that they were that size, such as in the Epic of Gilgamesh, these two men in Kudu and Gilgamesh walked eight-foot strides carrying 500 English pounds worth of deer to war. I mean, this is a description of an abnormally large man. We don't describe humans that way today, although we may depict them in a statue in Washington DC that way. That's the correlation that doesn't exist in the truth. In Washington DC, there is a statue of Abraham Lincoln where he just depicts it as being very, very tall. I don't know the exact... Whoever wrote Abraham Lincoln was 15 feet tall. No, not 15, it's probably 100 feet. Well, no, whoever wrote that, that he was. Why does it matter that he wrote it? He was depicted as being this tall. Well, because you're trying to separate yourself from the obvious, which is... No, you're the one who's using art. You're the one who's using art as evidence. Well, I would just say this, and I would say the ancient peoples of the world, all invented according to Jim, they all invented the idea that there were rulers over men which were outrageous proportions for some creation just to revere them when they were described as brutes and evil men, not as great men that men would revere. So that can't be a worship thing. Secondly, the descriptions of ancient peoples, describing them as men of outrageous proportions, depicts, it matches their ancient depictions in art of those men. In modern times, that is not true. Hang on, it's muted. Oh, it was just me. Folks, sorry about that, I had myself on mute, but basically, folks, I'll let you know that, I just let the speakers know that we'll give them a chance to draw together the key themes from tonight's debate before we go to the Q and A. In modern times, there are depictions of certain famous men in statues for us to go revere that are abnormally large, but there are no historical references. Nobody writes that these men were actually that size. So there's a difference, okay? So your argument on that point is absolutely moot. It's not, we have folk tales about people like John Henry and Paul Bunyan and Pegas Bill, all these larger than life characters, Babe the Big Blue Ox, I mean that- Kid stories. Okay, I would tend to agree with you. I think that there's probably some value to it as just the morals in some of the stories. I think there's some cultural value, but yeah, I think for the most part, they are kid stories. There's no reason to believe that just because somebody claims that they're this tall necessarily means that there was really somebody that was this tall. All right, thank you very much. We are going to go into the Q and A. Want to remind you folks, our guests are linked in the description. We encourage you, if you haven't already, you can check out their links down below. We really do appreciate these guys and also wanna encourage you, as always, to attack the arguments instead of the person, taking that intellectual harder path, namely of taking on the arguments rather than trying to tear down the person. And with that, thanks very much. For your first question, this one coming in from Steven Steen, nasty guy says, no matter what positions you take, it's clear enough is the most intelligent one on screen, dot, dot, dot, by far. But man, does Jim have flirty eyes. They are. I agree with you half way. Next up, Andrew Handelsman, thanks for your super chat. Says, I love you, James. Thank you, Andrew. Love you too. Appreciate your support. Chris Gammond says, please define what a giant is, Neff. Be specific. Extra large humans exist and have existed. Cave paintings of six fingers equal vague giant claims. Come on. Well, if you consider the ponderance of the evidence, it's not vague at all. It's overwhelming. And what is a giant? There's a fit normally athletic human being. I mean, this was kind of obvious, right? It's not a feeble human being has a thyroid disease, right? Gotcha. And this one coming in from do appreciate it. Allison McClone. Let me know if I'm pronouncing it right. It says Dr. Majors as a trained hema fighter, a seven pound spear is only slightly heavier than an average heavy spear and nothing compared to a pole arm. None of the cultures of the world have record of anybody throwing a spear that's at such great weight. Spears are typically designed so that they can be thrown fast. Maybe because they didn't throw light. And that's the way the cultures of the world that still use spears and there's some that still do and they're just throwing weapon and they're lightweight with a piercing sharp hand on it so it will pierce them. It's a primary attack weapon always has been throughout history. And then Jim, I'm gonna give you the last word on this because they're addressing you. So go ahead, Jim. I mean, kung fu spear fighting, for example, you don't see them throwing their spear, their opponent, that's just- That's Asian. Excuse me, don't interrupt me, but that's just dumb. Next up, thanks for your question. Bubblegumgun says, Nef, it's me. Bubble, debate me, brah. Why are you running juicy? He's welcome to contact James at any time, set up one. That's pretend running thing is pretty lame. Next up, thank you NXD says, Nef, you've been watching too much buddy tales. No comment, it's too stupid. Oh, Nef, you better admit, you have to give Nef credit, he's got thick skin. He's got a lot of teasing and this, I think that one's not bad. But he's taken a lot of teasing over the years. I mean, Nef, I told you guys, Nef invented, Nef and G-Man got together back in 2005. They said, how can we get to debate more people? They said, let's come up with this idea, we'll call it YouTube. They started YouTube so that they could debate more people. Oliver Catwell, thanks for your question, says for both, do you have thoughts on the idea that Goliath may have had a severely enlarged pituitary, thus making a rock to the forehead more lethal? Was that for me? They said for both. Well, for me, I think it's much more likely that he was just a giant offspring of an angel and a human woman, that makes much more sense. Well, I think the proponents of the evidence is that he was actually a physically, morphologically giant man, as the historical, cultural legends of the world, including the inspired word of God, the state. You got it, Anne. Thank you very much for your question coming in from Paul. Kamish, good to see you, Paul. Past guest on the show says, Nef, you don't throw a spear, that's not its primary use. That's a complete denial of human history. Next up, Alison Mick-Glone says, my previous chat was for Nephilim Faree who needs to actually learn something. Let's see. Okay, so theirs was the original one that we gave, well, we did let Neph respond. He responded first, and then we gave Jim a response. This is, and it was actually about this very same topic, namely the spear, and so we'll go from there since Neph had the last word in this most recent question. King, add thee, thanks for your question says, does Neph know that spear is a generalized term? And speaking of Roman spears were not ever thrown. They were used as a thrusting weapon in the flanks by soldiers behind the first row. I described that already in this debate. The Romans were the only culture in the world known that used them in that way. All other cultures of the world, and in fact, cultures of the world that still use them as weapons, such as in Africa, used them as a throwing weapon, which has been the purpose of it. The very, the ancient Greeks used them as a throwing weapon as well. They were never used as a running jab and pull it back and jab and pull it back and jab. That was a ridiculous way to fight a war for more. You don't do that. So even the ancient Greeks, the ancient Romans Greeks rather, they were used them as a throwing weapon because that's what it's designed for. The reason it's long is to make it fly straight when you throw it. Next up, Jeff Cordell says, Nef, the Cyclops giant's myth came about because people didn't know what elephant skulls were. Couldn't other giant myths come about in a similar way? I don't believe the Odyssey or the Iliad as literal. I believe there are truths in them, but I think there are also distortions just like some ancient historical records of things. There is certain historical fact in them, but they're also mixed with embellishment. You got it. For the reminder folks, go ahead, Jim. I was gonna say, every other ancient writing, but the one that you happen to think is true. No, not at all. We wanna remind you folks, hit that like button if you haven't already. My dear friends, we have 299 people watching and 111 likes. We can totally get to 150. Don't forget to crush the like button. We have six, what look like dislikes. Those are actually our six Australian viewers who hit like. So no panic. Don't worry about those. And thanks very much for your question, this one coming in from Kingadv strikes again, says, hey, Nef, Shaq's shoe size is 23, which is 16 inches long and he is only seven foot one. His proportions are not completely concordant with the ideal of the human physique. Gotcha. And somebody tweet that to Shaq that Nephilim Free doesn't like the proportions. You add a proportion, Shaq. Next up, hey, don't really tweet poor Shaq. Leave him alone. Okay. Sparrow Falls says, we have historical records, written instructions and depictions of spear fighting in handheld combat. 1,000 or more years old unchanged martial arts that use spears handheld. All pull arms keep your enemy out of hand to hand range. Throughout history, the spear has been used primarily in this way. It was used to kill the first guy that came at you and then you throw at it. That's the purpose of the spear. In some cultures, spears were used to be thrown first, then pull out the sword. This is human history. People who, I find it appalling actually, that atheists disregard so much of what is known in human history for the purpose of trying to defend their maternist worldview. Jim, are you gonna take that? I'm surprised that he makes up so much shit to defend his view. Naf, are you gonna take that? Our stated fact, throughout history, the spear is a throwing weapon. That's what it's designed to be. That's what a structural design is meant to be, a throwing weapon. That's the way the cultures of the world, if you always used to it. We're jumping into the next one. I wanna remind you folks, we are open to new faces coming onto modern day debate. We wanna let you know that. So if you're like, man, I would love to debate on these topics that modern day debate oftentimes hosts. We're sometimes open to new topics, but I gotta be honest, folks. We're kind of selective. Usually, if there's a topic you've seen on here already, good chance that we'd be willing to host it. But do email me at moderndaydebate.com. We do have some prerequisites. So one, we usually ask people if they're willing to use their camera so we can see their beautiful eyes, such as Jim's. Occasionally, we grandfather people in. So Naf has been with us since the very start. He's been coming on back when we had like eight subscribers. And so we've grandfathered him in. He doesn't have to use a camera, but he's one of the very few exceptions. And because, I mean, look at that still photo we caught of him. I mean, on screen that you see there, that was like his most intense moment we've ever seen Naf in, the old laser eyes. But do wanna let you know, I'm gonna put the email in the live chat. And so I wanna encourage you folks, if you do wanna come on to modern day debate, we are open to new people coming on. And so it's a great way, especially some people just do it because they love to debate and they don't even have a channel. Some people are like, I love to debate. Plus I have a channel I wanna get exposure for. So this one coming in from bubblegum gun says, if giants don't exist, well then explain Paul Bunyan. He's just a troll, don't worry about that. Pocalypse here says, hey, has Jim listened to the new E.T.I.D. single? If so, what are your thoughts? Also would have loved to have seen and heard Naflum Free bring actual evidence. I'll last. I haven't, no. I'll check it out. Naflum, are you gonna let him, did you hear a letter just punch you like that? You know, when people say, I'm actually pleased when I hear people say that spears are not designed as a throwing weapon because the whole world gets to hear an atheist say this kind of ridiculous stoop and they'll shake their heads and dismay, do a face palm and say, oh my word. It pleases me, I'm actually tickled pink. Thank you so much, Jim. You're very welcome. And the evidence that you provide for the existence of throwing spears and large men, this tickles me pink. You got it, juicy. And this one coming in from, Kingad V says, hey Naf, one quick search shows that ancient spears weighed between three and nine pounds on average, some weighed even more. That's not actually correct, I don't think, from the research I've conducted, but I'll just say this, that the historical records show that some of these spears weighed seven pounds. And you know, if you're an athletic competition, maybe you could throw it for a distance, but the modern javelin competition is 28 ounces, that's 1.75 pounds. I think for a man to athletically and accurately throw a spear that weighed seven pounds, reasonable distance with any sense of accuracy would require a man of outrageous athletic ability. And he would have to be larger than a typical human being today. Gotcha, I just wanna point out. Most people don't realize how much seven pounds actually weighs. Pick up seven pounds and see for yourself. I just wanna point out that javelin throwing, it's not a competition for accuracy or for depth of penetration, it's a competition for the link that you can throw this weapon. It's not meant to be thrown accurately. Spears, when they're thrown, they're thrown at a distance that they can be accurately reliable and the depth of penetration can be reliable enough that that enemy's not gonna be a threat to you any longer because you just got rid of your weapon and you get to enjoy your secondary. And Jim, can I ask you a question when you're done? Sure, go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you, sir. Oh, okay, why don't you just ask you, how many meters do you think you could throw a seven pound spear? Seven pounds, probably, hmm, probably 30 feet. 30, you think? Yeah. Really? Yeah. You? I don't know. Maybe not that far. I don't know, but I don't think I would be able to throw it very far because I think seven pounds. We're also not trained warriors. I mean, we're not trained warriors so that'd be silly to expect that, right? Well, Spartans used to miss throwing weapons. That's what they recorded in the history. That's what they were. It's a primary attack weapon. Throw it and then pull your sword out. They're also warriors. I don't, yeah, but that's true. Neither one of us are great athletes, probably, right? I know I'm not. Think for yourself. But, well, I was when I was a kid, but seven pounds, that's actually pretty hefty, if you think give it some thought. That means not really. You don't think so? No, I throw 50 pound hay bales all the time. Yeah, but 18 inches, that's how you throw. You don't throw them 30, 40 feet. And you don't throw them over your arm, right? Yes, I do, I throw them above my head. Okay, so Jim, I tell you what, I'm gonna challenge you to make a video where you got a seven pound spear and see how far you can throw it. And then you tell us that modern man, a six foot man is easily able to throw a seven foot spear, you know, 20, 30, 40 feet, right? I don't know where to get a seven foot spear, if you wanna send me a seven foot spear, I'm happy to throw it. Well, I'm just gonna say it's be asked to believe that a typical man can throw a seven pound spear accurately for any reasonable distance. That's fine, but your disbelief does not negate the actuality. Well, I just ask the audience to consider whether or not they think they could throw a seven pound spear with accuracy for any reasonable distance. I mean, you're saying with accuracy, I'm not a trained warrior, you asked it how far I could throw it. I can throw it 30 feet, probably more, but I'm gonna say conservatively 30 feet max. But what accuracy has nothing to do with that. I'm not a trained warrior. I'm not claiming that I can do this. I'm claiming that the spears were used in ancient times, but your argument that it can't be thrown is actually supportive of my argument that it's not meant to be thrown. And it's say can't be thrown. A weapon that weighs seven pounds is not designed for throwing unless you're a giant. I mean, modern men don't make spears that weigh seven pounds. Exactly, they're not meant for throwing. You're right. Modern men who throw spears don't make them seven pounds. They make them as wide as possible. Africans throw spears. They make them as wide. No, they throw darts. They throw darts and small spears. They throw spears and they make them five, six, seven feet long and they throw them as fast as they can. And then they can make it as wide as they possibly can. Yes, exactly. So those are meant for throwing because they're light. That's right. That's right. Right, heavy means not designed for throwing light, meant for think, okay, well, more time. Light, throwing, heavy, no throw. This one coming in front. Sandy for truth says, I have to read this. James quote unquote, the bulldog, I don't know where he, okay, says Coons has a giant, has giant buys and tries to bait over. Thanks enough for steady for truth. The checks in the mail, buddy. Aspero Falls says, Nef, so that means modern soldiers put bayonets on their rifles to throw them as evidenced by their sidearms. Just following your logic leads to this. That's an illogical statement. Jim, any thoughts? I think that's the point. Nobody throws a rifle with a bayonet. Nobody throws a syringe here. Exactly. Next up, this one coming in from. Modern times. King at V says, Hey Nef, Google, mid evil spearmen. Do those look like throwing weapons? Stop mixing spear with javelin. The vast majority of cultures on the earth that made spears throw them. And that's been difficult. The reason that certain medieval men used them as primary attack weapons and then dropped them was because they followed the Roman method of warfare. Throughout history though, this is not the common place. Throughout history, a spear has been always designed as a throwing weapon. It's designed to kill the first guy and then pull out your weapon, your normal weapon, which is sword. So to deny that about history is to be completely ridiculous. If you asked any world historian with a PhD whether or not spears throughout the history of the world have been primarily a weapon designed to be thrown, they would say yes. I challenge you to call one and ask them. I challenge you to name one. Every PhD historian of every major university in this world, if you don't believe that, you call them yourself. No, name one that... No, I say you're wrong because you didn't show me any. You're the one making the claim. You're making the claim. We got it like no speaking over each other. Oh my God. That's so dishonest. Gentlemen, I'm not messing around. All right, you know what? That's it. You didn't show me. Not for them free. Okay. Next question. Thank you very much. I'm coming in from, do appreciate it. A sparrow falls as medieval longbow draw weights, draw weights exceeded 200 pounds. Do you know how much 200 pounds is? That's like about me almost. They say, do you know how much 200 pounds is? Medieval archers must have been giants if you follow Neff's quote unquote logic. Oh, that's a preposterous thing to say. The English longbow was designed so that there is a curve of power that's necessary to draw a bow. It's easier, gets harder, harder, harder until you get it back. And these men were highly trained. I don't see how the argument holds any weight. Gotcha. And thank you very much for this question. This one coming in from two seconds. I just got to load this up. But in the meantime, as I'm loading this page, do want to let you know a couple of things. One, folks, if you haven't yet checked out the Modern Day Debate podcast, I highly encourage you to check it out as all of our debates are uploaded there as well within 24 hours of the live debate. And then I think there was a question. I had just one last question I was gonna ask here. But yes, it's true, folks. I really, I'm about 210, no joke. Isn't that amazing? And I actually, I've lost weight. So that's where I am now. So let's see. It's not about where I am. Juicy and bubblegum gun. Okay, not reading that. Let me see. Let me find out. Where is it? Let's see. Kingadv says, question. Spears were not primarily a throwing weapon and modern spears actually weigh up to nine pounds also. And if you look at them, they are not for throwing. So someone else also suggested, let me see where I saw their name. They said, we wanna see Nephilim Free debate a weapon specialist. Bernie Sharpe says, can we get a weapon historian on the show to debate Nephilim Free? I'd pay money for that one. That sounds juicy. Neph, do you guys know of any weapon historians or experts? Well, all the people saying these things are just people who hold to this ridiculous materialist worldview. I mean, it's denial of history. It's denial of history. So I can't make it any more clear. Throughout human history, the spear has been designed primarily as a throwing weapon. That's what they are. I can probably find somebody who is well read enough and well educated enough in the area of ancient warfare that I could probably find somebody to debate you. But the thing is that anybody who debates you and refutes you, you're just gonna claim that because of their materialist worldview. No, that's what you're doing. Hold on. I mean, it's not, but okay. Next up, King Edvy says, hey Neph, Greek hoplite spears were up to six pounds and up to seven feet in length and they were not primarily for throwing either. I'm a weapon historian. I don't believe that testimony. Throughout human history, spears are in fact a throwing weapon. That's what a spear is. You throw it. You're gonna dismiss a weapon's expert. I don't believe he is. I think he's full of crap. Well, you're certainly not. Well, of course I'm not. You got it, Anne. That looks like it's it for our questions from the chat. Very juicy debate tonight. I wanna, yes, we are going to transition where first I'm gonna remind you folks that our guests are linked in the description. You can find their links down below. We really do appreciate them. Thank you, Jim and Nephilim Free. I'm gonna be back in a moment with upcoming debates, folks. We've got some juicy ones, especially juicy coming up. So don't leave, stick around. I'm gonna be back in just a moment but wanna say thanks so much, Jim. Dr. Jim Majors as well as Nephilim Free. It's been a true pleasure to have you guys. Thank you. Thank you so much, James. You know who Jim looks like before, folks. Let me ask who Jim looks like. I'll ask and I'll see if I'm the only person who thinks that Jim looks like this fellow. What is the name of the guy in the movie, the hangover? Not Alan, not the character. That's good. What's the name of like Bradley Cooper? Does Jim look a little bit like Bradley Cooper? Do his eyes look a little bit like Bradley Cooper? I mean, Jim, I never, you know the funny thing is I looked at Bradley Cooper in the past and I never thought he was a bad looking guy but I never knew that like, actually people think he's a beautiful man and I'm like, I just didn't know it. I can't tell, it's like I don't have an eye for any sort of aesthetic at all. You can tell with our graphics. But I can tell you, let's see what the chat says, Jim. Don't argue with the chat, Jim. Let's see what they say. Another question just came in. Rudy Questing, thanks for your question, says, everything you think you know about warfare is wrong. You can Google this so easily. I don't understand why you're doubling down on your points that are so easily disproven. Now, do you have any, I mean, you don't have any quotes in those slides. I remember you had those slides. Do you have any quotes from any sort of like speakers that happened to talk about the use of the spear? Which is basically, we're gonna have to change the whole title tonight. No, neither did James, I mean Jim. And I just think anybody with a high school education understands that a spear is a throwing weapon. You know, with the exception of the ancient Romans and some of the medievals who mimicked the warfare tactics of the ancient Romans because they were so good at war. The, you know, you use it to kill the first layer of fellas that come at you and then you drop it and pull out the sword if necessary. But throughout history, human history, spears are throwing weapons. That's what a spear is. That's just human history. I mean, to deny that just, you know, atheists are denialists. You know, they'll deny everything. They'll deny a car. A beetle is made by that. All right, we're gonna, we gotta return to the topic. King Ed V says, does Nef know the time period of hoplites even? If he can tell me that, then he can call BS on me being a historical weapons expert. Who are these hoplites? Who are your friends, the hoplites, Nef? I don't know what a hoplite is. Never heard of it. Gotcha. And Oliver Katwell says, agreed. So somebody does. So all of her thought, Jim looks like Bradley Cooper. It's not just a conspiracy theory by me. Come on, okay. And then Vlad Teeps says, Jim has a classically handsome look and it's true. And. Thank you. Iron Charity of Tears says Bradley Cooper is a garden gnome. Is that good or bad? Yes it is. I don't know what the slang things mean. Is that, is that, is this good? It's only good for a garden gnome. It's not good for anybody else. Oh. Umar Siddiqui says, LOL, Bradley Cooper, yeah, a little. Oh! And then Lacey Ann says, he looks more like the singer of Silverchair. I don't know. I don't know. I haven't seen Silverchair. I don't know who that is. I'll take, don't take that. Garden, Brian's Pepper Garden Channel says, he's a heartthrob for plenty. Bradley Cooper or Jim or both? I mean, probably both. And this one coming in, thanks for your question. Chris Gammon says, hey, Neff, define what a giant is. Oh brother, I'm so sorry. Chris, I think I missed yours earlier. Man, I owe you. So Chris, seriously, let me know I can Venmo you five bucks because I remember seeing this question before and I just, I don't think I read it though. So I must have missed it and I'm sorry you had to put it twice. Said, hey Neff, define what a giant is and be specific. How can there be an argument without a definition of the term? I thought I read this one, didn't I? But anyway, Neff, go ahead and... Asking somebody to define what a giant is is an absolutely absurd question. That's like asking somebody to define the automobile. Gotcha. And high inquisitor is Jim Single. Jim? This is important, Jim. No, it's a doctor of patient confidentiality. I can't talk about that. I know XT says, man, I see similarities, but not a lot. I mean, there's many forms of handsome. You don't have... No, I don't have slutting shoulders. I have square shoulders, strong. Jim has these slutting shoulders. I have huskier looking, more masculine looking shoulders. I'm definitely a hunk. Definitely a what? A hunk. We know you are, Neff. Nobody, that was like an, it was axiomatic. That's why it didn't even come up. But it was just kind of like, oh, is the sun hot? I don't know. Is Neff hot? I don't know. But this one coming in from... Hotter than the sun. I just called Nephilim free hot. I never thought I'd do that. But this one coming in from Will Stewart says, your green screen is chopping off half your face. I know, Will! I know! Okay, next up. This is coming in from King Edvy. He says, a hop light is a Greek soldier from roughly 500 BC to about 100 BC, which is before the Romans. Good to know. That was that question earlier. Citizen soldier. This one coming in from Brian's Pepper Garden Channel says both are heartthrobs, but I meant Cooper specifically. But you know, don't worry, Jim. You're still up there. Lacey Ann says, I think Jim is uncomfortable. LOL, sorry, dude. I think you're right. Next one. I'm fine. This one coming in. It's not the shed that's making me uncomfortable. I'll put it that way. Oh yeah. Next up, this one coming in from Nanology says, Neff is hunking amazing. So thank you guys, seriously. Actually, we can't stop yet. Patience Stark says, I low-key think he looks like a mix of Rhett, R-H-E-T-T, and Link from G-M-M. What's G-M-M? I love Good Mythical Morning. I think that's one of my favorite shows that I love both Rhett and Link. I think they're two of the coolest, most awesome people ever. What's G-M-M? Good Mythical Morning. You serious? Yeah, it's great. Oh. Next up, Forward Tribes says, Yeah, that green screen is very distracting. It's a tremendous green screen. They have a show called Ear Biscuits, a daily podcast, I think. I might have to check it out. Yeah, it's good. Believe me, folks, this green screen is only going to get better. I have tremendous plans. It is going to be the very best green screen you've ever seen in your lives, believe me. People are going to say it's the best. And Chris Damon says, can you ask Nef again to please define giant this shouldn't be hard? What's the defining feature or features of a giant, Nef? Wow, that's like asking, what is the features of a car? I don't know. It's kind of hard to figure out. Gee. You can answer both. Does it require an answer? Is that the question stupid? Nef, how dare you? Yeah, I would say it does. Yes, it is stupid. Nef? No, I would say it requires an answer. Well, a giant is a human being of stature that is greatly greater than what is considered normal. Duh? I would agree with that. Does that not, does that really require an explanation? I mean, come on. Does a common sense tell you what that is? I mean, really, please. People in chat are saying that you look like donut operator. You guys know who donut operator is? I have no idea. That is, it sounds like a mall cop though. He's a YouTuber. Amazing. Really? Yeah, three million, three million subs. Big time. He looks like a handsome chap. This one coming in from, thanks so much for your question. N-O-X-D says, Nef, you said, consider Enoch historical. What evidence have you got for the 4,500 feet giants? 4,500 foot giants described alive after the flood. Thoughts on this, Jim? Now, or Nef, did they say that there were giants that were 4,500 feet? Oh, I think this came up last time, I remember. Yes, it does. Yeah, it did. I don't believe that the book of Enoch is scientifically accurate. I think it has certain historical information that is probably interesting. And it's interesting as a text to study the ancient writing style of the copyist. But it's not considered scripture and it does have some seriously logical and coherent, some incoherent statements. It doesn't say the giants were 450 feet tall. It says they were about 250 feet tall. If you can take the Hebrew L, it says they were about 3,000 L's tall. If you multiply the Hebrew L by 3,000, you get about 250 feet. So the asker of the question is wrong. The book of Enoch doesn't say they were 450 feet tall. Nonetheless, the book of Enoch is not scripture, it's not inspired, and it's scientifically inaccurate. Next up, this one's coming up. First of all, an L, wait, wait, one second, I gotta correct this, an L is a qubit. An L is about 18 inches. No, don't, don't, don't, don't. The Hebrew L is the one that will come right back to you. The Hebrew L is the one that will come right back to you. That's it, I've muted both of you. Neff, I promise we'll come back to you, but we do have to give Jim a chance to respond. And then I promise we can come back to you if you have a response. Go ahead, Jim. An L is a qubit, that's the period in the story. I, it's, that's it, there's no argument. No, a Hebrew L is about one centimeter, about 9.96 or eight centimeters is not a qubit, correct? Why would it be equal to a qubit when we have a qubit? You don't know what you're talking about. You need to look at it. No, a Hebrew L is less than a centimeter in length. You don't know what you're talking about. You're right, I have a PhD in something. I don't know what I'm talking about. Okay, so you need to look it up. Chris Gammon, he was not equal to an L. I don't need to look it up. Says, how tall, what's the minimum height a person must be to be a giant enough? Well, there's, there's no standard or any set dimensions or anything. My personal belief is that Noah and, and some of the men of the earth after him as natural genetic properties would produce them were 10 to 12 feet tall. I think that was the normal state of human beings prior to the flood. However, the giants produced after the flood seem to have been some of them taller than that. But I would say the minimum height of a giant, according to at least the word of God and what I've seen in historical records and throughout the world is that a typical giant, according to the ancients, was a man of probably 10 to 14 feet tall. All right, and I think that is it for the questions. But want to say folks, we do appreciate you actual Samuel, thanks for your question. I think I missed yours the other night, sorry about that. Said question for Neff, are you aware that there are three different versions of the book of Enoch, one known to be over 200 years older than the other two, perhaps even much older? Yes, one of them is Slavic and it's completely fallacious. The book of Enoch is not scripture. It's historically interesting and scripturally interesting because I mean archetype archetypically, but it is not historically accurate information. You got it, and who to foot? Thanks for your question says, let me know if I pronounced that right, says question, Jim, what is your doctorate in? The Hebrew Bible. Gotcha, thanks for that, Dr. Jim. And then Samuel Lulahom says second question, I'm basically asking if he does know of those translations, what his thoughts are on such? Well, sounds like we could, do we get that pretty much Neff? Jim, you say your PhD is in the Hebrew Bible, is that correct? Yeah. And how is it that you don't know that the word giant in the scripture is actually in Hebrew literally means brute or giant? It doesn't, it doesn't, I mean. That's bizarre. You have some strange and non-academic beliefs there because that's what the academics are. Where did you learn Hebrew? That's what all the academics say. Where did you learn Hebrew? I studied it, Jim, that's what they say. Where did you learn it? I studied it extensively. The concordance in fact was produced by a group of academics in Hebrew and the strong concordance, and the word is translated from brute or giant, it can either lead to mean either. Okay, so I'm sorry. No, that's false. I don't know where you get your education, maybe you need to go back to the bubblegum machine. Okay. Next up. That can't. King Ed V says a javelin is a type of spear that is meant to be thrown, it's smaller in size and has a counterweight at the backside to stabilize it during flight. Now firstly, I'll just say, I don't believe that Jim actually has a PhD in the Bible. All right, we're gonna, we gotta go to the topic. No, I don't believe that. No, I don't believe that. Somebody just said. What's the university is from Jim? I'm sorry? What university was it? University of Oklahoma? Yeah, University of Oklahoma. No, no, Columbia International. Gotcha. So now he's telling you the school even, I don't think there's any reason to say that he doesn't actually have one. Well, I'm saying this because the strong concordance defines the word, the word in Hebrew, according to them, What's the word? What's the word? What's the word? It is translated as either brute or giant, it's Nephilim, not in the Bible, that's in the Apocrypha, but in the Bible, I've forgotten the word, but it's translated as giant or brute. That's what the word means according to you. Ruddy questing says, L is 18 inches, Neph, just Googled it. I don't know where they got that information. Hebrew L is less than one centimeter length. No, it's not. That is idiotic. That's ridiculous. Why would they possibly need a measurement for less than a centimeter? What would be the purpose? A cubic and a large one. Yes, 18 inches. They're not the same. They're not even close. Yes. They're not close. Nobody says we're a foot and we got a three-quarter foot. Next up. So an L is not related to a qubit. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. All we have four questions. I will be back in just a moment. I want to give a final thank you. We appreciate both Jim and Neph. It has been a true pleasure to have you guys on tonight. Thank you. Jim, can you hear me? Bradley Cooper, are you there? Yeah, thank you. You're welcome. Okay, we'll be back in just a moment, folks. I'll be back with updates on upcoming debates, including a very, very juicy one tomorrow. Be right back.