(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

What's up YouTube? This is Matt Powell. I wanted to take some time to introduce some Young Earth creationists and some gentlemen that I really recommend and support and some of their content and just let them introduce their content in the stream. And we also just wanted to talk about the fundamental fallacies of the atheistic religion, the new documentary that we got coming out soon this year, and just some of the things that we're going to have going on. And so with that, I'm going to go ahead and turn it over to Tony. And we're just going to go around the clock and introduce ourselves here. So everybody probably knows me. I usually put content out on this channel. And so if you're not familiar with this channel, if this is your first time, the first thing I'd recommend that you do is go and watch the Bible Way to Heaven on the channel. But other than that, Tony, go ahead and introduce yourself. Okay, yeah. Basically, I was an atheist most of my life. It was the origin of life field that pretty much changed my mind. So being a non-believer and being on the other side for so many years, I just had to deny where the evidence was leading. So there's very good evidence for design. There's very good powerful evidence that there's a creator behind the origin of life. The abiogenesis hypothesis has never been proven in any way whatsoever. I'm not claiming to be a PhD chemist. I'm not an origin of life scientist, but I could guarantee you that Aaron Ra and all the others that the atheist experience aren't either. But yet they're experts on it, you know, which I find hilarious. So, you know, that's pretty much my opening and, you know, this is definitely a subject that they don't like to really discuss in detail. So, yeah. Right on, right on. Ra Matt, how about yourself? Oh, I'm with the Standing for Truth YouTube channel. I'm kind of a video editor and kind of like as a team partner with him, we attack pretty much every facet of the evolutionary theory because it's we find that it's more of an assault on the general public than people actually think. And it's kind of spreading kind of like a like a disease would be. And it it makes more atheists than anything else because it kind of robs divinity from people. It tells them that life is pointless and meaningless. And I believe that myself, my entire life, I was raised secular and believing in evolution. And in the 80s, when I went to school, the only separation between us and animals, they told us was our opposable thumb. So we just believed it. You know, of course, it's real. Every every adult believes it and all the teachers believe it. So it must be true. And then when you actually get educated and you actually start to study it, you find all these discrepancies and problems. And we spend most of our time on the channel exposing these. So my education is in gerontology and the study of aging and genetics and diachronic linguistics. So that's what actually got me interested in this is when I started studying human language and realized that there is no natural path to human language formation. And I started to be like, well, if there's no natural path, what did this? And so there it is. I became a creationist. Amen. Standing for truth. Turn it over to you. Hey, brother, thanks so much. Brother Matt, thanks for having me on. Of course, I appreciate all the hard work you do in this battle for truth. So of course, God bless you for that. And I mean, your film science falsely so called was amazing. And you can know that just by the backlash and the feedback you've gotten from the atheist. So you've really taken it to him. And I appreciate that. So, yeah, like I said, like Matt was saying, raw Matt over there, he works with me on my channel standing for truth. I've done quite a lot of debates against the evolutionists. Even raw Matt and myself, we've had a couple two on two debates. We like to just show them that they don't have a monopoly on the evidence. The evidence actually belongs to us. And a lot of what raw Matt stated resonated with me as well, because through school, in college, they teach us that we're all related through universal common ancestry. Banana plants, humans, apes, whales, they're all related and that's what the evidence points to. But like raw Matt said, you look at the evidence and you can, none of the evidence actually points to evolutionism. It's more of a religion. It's more of a philosophy. So my channel is, its main goal is to debunk that evidence. And of course, you know, proclaim the gospel, bring people to Jesus Christ because salvation of course is the most important thing. Hey Matt, Guzman turning it over to you. Hey Matt, thanks for having me. So I may be a familiar face. I host the channel Guzman 1611. I post a lot of content on creationism, but I also do a lot of theological things. But I really enjoy doing, I really enjoy science and I really enjoy reading the Bible and reading about these sort of things. And this is sort of a thing that I, that I became interested in at about 10 years old, nine or 10 years old, you know, very basic things. But then I found standing for truth and you know, it basically presented a lot more solid evidence. And I, and of course Matt Powell as well. And I, I sort of got hooked. So thanks for having me. Of course. And the main discussion that we're going to have tonight is just the fallacies behind evolutionary theory, behind the atheistic theory. And the reason that I do, I want to make this very clear. The reason that I do a lot of these live streams is because, not necessarily live streams, but videos and stuff like this is because there's not a lot of solid content out there debunking evolution. And if there is a lot of, if there is any content out there, usually it's by people that are often heretics or those who believe in like a lordship salvation. And so obviously we want to introduce people to the true gospel, which is just salvation by faith. And sometimes when you start a fight or when you're part of a fight, everybody comes to watch. And the raging atheist would be a perfect example of that. And I think a lot of us here have had interactions with him, but I think the first thing we want to go ahead and debunk is this idea that life started from non-living material. Now, the atheists always come at us with, we believe in science, we believe in science, and you Christians believe in religion. But I think it's important to just throw the burden of proof back on them and ask them why they think life came from non-living material when their own scientific law and any scientific law states, and this is a very important law of science, it's one of the foundational laws that life cannot come from non-living material. It's known as the law of biogenesis. The law of biogenesis states that life cannot come from non-life and that life only comes from life. And so if life only comes from life, we know that there wasn't an infinite amount of creatures before us. The Bible says there was a beginning, and so the Bible just simply says, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And so we believe in science as Christians. They're the ones who have a faith-based religion that's based on science fiction rather than reality. So Tony, I'll go ahead and turn it over to you. Yeah, absolutely. I totally agree. And that's what changed my mind being an atheist, most of my adult life. Basically the most famous experiment, if you go back to 1953, was the famous Miller experiment. I don't know if you guys are familiar with that. This is what the atheist will bring up just about every time. What did Miller actually produce? First of all, he used the wrong atmosphere. He removed oxygen. He used a trap filtration system to remove amino acids. But the amino acids that he produced were actually in a backward configuration of a racemic mixture of right and left-handed amino acids. Those are useless for life. They will never, ever produce proteins. Every chemist knows this. So you have to either be in total, just deny it, or just say it can happen somehow somewhere in the universe on the backs of space crystals or meteorites, or maybe aliens brought all the correct molecules here somehow. So these are the far-fetched assumptions that atheists have to go through. 70 years later, the Miller experiment still doesn't work. Chemists have moved away from these spark experiments because they never produce anything. I call it stalemate chemistry because it never leads to life ever. All the chemists know this. The internet atheist thinks that this experiment was such a huge success. This is how delusional and ignorant they are. It's 2020. We're still not able to produce life from non-life. There hasn't been any advancements. There's more problems than progress. They don't want to get into the details. There's been many more experiments that have failed after that point. And it's just a total disaster. Rob out. Amen. Yeah, that's good. That's well said. Here's another thing as well. The experiment actually required there to be a zero oxygen environment. And so they believe that the world started as a pretty much a lava pit that was volcanic and that was formed for meteors. But what we know today about the world is that's actually the exact opposite because we know that the scripture says that the earth was water. Well, guess what happened? Elizabeth Bell at the University of California, Los Angeles actually went into the took the oldest rocks that they could find on earth of what they believe to be the oldest and actually found that they were concentrated forms of highly saturated forms of oxygen embedded within the very rocks themselves. So they actually recanted that and they said now in Wired magazine, she actually stated word for word that earth was a Garden of Eden from the very beginning. So if earth was oxygen rich, that erases the ability for a biogenicity is to ever occur because it has to have an environment that allows chemicals to react in a way that can actually mix and make as he said, raise some eyes and actually make left-handed amino acids turned into right-handed amino acids and that just cannot happen. And the problem is they get destroyed under prebiotic conditions. See the atheist will never tell you that. Prebiotic chemistry destroys amino acids and there's no way to separate them. There's no mechanism to separate right and left-handed amino acids. That's right. They only want to form together. Exactly. Right. So nature right there in nature, we have a major problem right there. Nature always produces chaos. It does not produce specified sequenced information. It's never going to go on to produce proteins ever. Exactly. Amen. Awesome. I got many more experiments too. I mean, that's just one. That's just the, you know, that's the one they bring up the most. Stanley Miller produced the building blocks of life. No, he never came close. Not even close. A matter of fact, the dictionary's definition for abiogenesis today is the obsolete concept that life can arise from non-life. Right. But they're still sticking to this Miller experiment like it was such a success, you know. They have to. Because they don't have nothing else. There's nothing else. Yeah. They have to take a step into fantasy land. Even assign fantasy names for themselves. Yeah. Just the names that these people come up with are pathetic, you know. It is so pathetic, you know. Right. Amen. So with that being said, we're going to turn it over to Standing for Truth. Now they may say that Standing for Truth has a fantasy name. It's not true. He's simply standing for truth, folks. And that's the most important thing, brother. Well, great points from the both of you guys on the Miller-Urey experiment. There's absolutely no evidence for it. It's completely flawed. I think at the end of the day, it's a vicious, unsettling circle on all levels for these evolutionists that believe life, for one, came from non-life. And then that life evolved into pine trees, whales, and tomatoes. You know, the genetic code, it's highly complex and has vital editing machinery, which itself is encoded in the DNA. But what does that show? This shows that the system was fully functional from the beginning. So this idea of life from non-life, abiogenesis, it's a fairy tale, just like Matt said. And it doesn't belong anywhere near a science textbook. It actually belongs in the trash. And I find it funny, one last point, Dr. Ken Hovind had a debate, I think it was a couple of weeks ago, with somebody on this exact question. Is there evidence for life from non-life? And in the middle of the debate, Ken Hovind asked the simple question, do you have evidence for life coming from non-life? How did this happen? And three simple words from the evolutionist. He said, I don't know. So what's the point of getting into a debate such as that? Well, they're all experts on it, yet the top chemists in the world can't produce life from non-life. It's amazing. That's right. In a debate on that exact topic, where I'm sure you're given weeks to prepare, and the simple question is asked, you know, where did life come from? And then their response is, I don't know. And they think that there's going to be an answer in the future, the more experiments they do. No, every single experiment, as you guys touched on, has failed. Well, they have the RNA world, which is another failure. It doesn't work. Fuzz Rana, Fuzz Rana, I don't know if you guys saw this debate a few months ago with Aaron Roth. He debated Fuzz, yeah, Fuzz Rana, a PhD biochemist, debated him. And he brought up the RNA world. And he said that, basically, to produce RNA, you need an intelligent chemist, you need strict protocols, manipulated controlled conditions, you need UV radiation at certain steps of the experiment. Now, that would never occur under prebiotic chemistry. In order to pull off a procedure like that, you have to actually stop the experiment. That requires design, that requires a mind, an intelligent chemist actually doing it. So that would never happen under prebiotic chemistry. And what was Aaron Roth's answer to that? What he said was, oh, well, I read a few papers on RNA, but I mostly just stick with evolution. Right. He gets cornered on the question of abiogenesis. He knows it. His answer is suddenly, well, I just stick to evolution. Then if I cornered him on genetics, now his answer is, well, genetics isn't my specialty, phylogeny is. But see, why didn't he want to talk about the RNA world problems? Why didn't he want to talk about the manipulated controlled conditions, how RNA doesn't just form naturally, RNA is a very unstable molecule. He didn't want to get into details with Fauzrana. Right. The verse that comes to my mind is in Peter, where it says for this, they willingly are ignorant of. So Aaron is just willingly ignorant. It's not that he just misunderstands the facts. And listen, folks, if anybody is an atheist, don't let them trick you into thinking that they're just ignorant. They know better. The Bible says that the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and God had said that they're without excuse. So these people are without excuse. They don't have an excuse for it. Anybody that believes that an explosion produced order, anybody that believes matter and energy created itself, anybody that believes that life came about from non-life or any other sci-fi stupid ideology that comes out of Star Trek or Star Wars can go take a hike. But I don't think that they should be pushing it on other people. And with all that being said, let's go ahead and turn it over to brother Jonathan Guzman. And Guzman, I think you had a great video on a biogenesis recently, and I watched it, and I thought it was awesome. But any thoughts you have on a biogenesis? Yeah, thank you for the compliment. Yes, I did create a video on a biogenesis. Now I'm going to say, because you guys mentioned the Miller experiment, let's just assume, let's just say, well, yeah, the amino acids can create themselves spontaneously, right? But they have another problem, which is to create functioning proteins. Murray Eden, a professor at MIT said that for amino acids to create functioning proteins, it would be expected to happen once in every billion years. They have 4.6 billion years, except it's bounded by two events, which is the creating of the Earth's oceans and the first fossils, the first complex fossils. So that's around 600 million years. That's from 3.8 billion years ago to 3.2 billion years ago. They have 600 million years. And out of the 4.6 billion years that they have created themselves, they only have 600 million years for something that they believe to have occurred to occur. And what did Murray Eden say? He said that it should happen once in every billion years. That's way too little time for the evolutionists. So they have no time. Out of the 4.6 billion years, I mean, you say, well, it would be expected to happen once every billion years. Out of the 4.6 billion years that they have, they've only created themselves. They've only painted themselves in this little wall of 600 million years. And it's even smaller because that's the creating of the Earth's oceans. That's not the creation of the probiotic soup. It would take some terrible time for the chemicals to create itself. And evolutionists, go ahead. You're never going to get proteins. You don't get nucleotides, nucleic acids, and all this stuff, Guzman, all this stuff gets destroyed. They don't tell you that. Exactly, exactly. I mean, and the evolutionists, they want to like avoid a biogenesis because they know they can't win the argument. They know they can't win the debate against the creationists on this topic because they have no evidence. They are limited by 600 million years. They've got to use mental gymnastics to get around all these problems. If you try to talk about a biogenesis with somebody and they won't debate it with you, they'll say, oh, that's not part of evolution. We're debating evolution. We're not debating a biogenesis. Richard Milton, I believe is an evolutionist. He believes in an old Earth. He's not a Christian. And he studied this topic for over 10 years, wrote a book called Shattering the Meds of Darwinism. He said in that book, I'm not going to quote him word by word, but he said that a Darwinist will claim that a biogenesis is not part of biological evolution. It's just the exact same thing. It's essentially the same thing he said in his book. Yeah. A lot of wishful thinking. Right. Right. And not even, not, I mean, not only that mathematics is on our side and, you know, I just think of the fact that the simplest protein in the world simply, I mean, just the simplest protein coming about by chance, the odds of that is 10 to the 164th power. That's essentially zero. Right. That's essentially nothing. And they always say, they always come at me with, oh, well, there's still a chance. Okay. What about this? The fact that that odd has to take place simultaneously trillions of times. So if somebody thinks that 10 to the 164th power can happen simultaneously, trillions of times over by chance, they can think that if they want. But the Bible says that's foolish. Logic says that's foolish. And even if they still say there's a chance, Stephen Hawking said, and I quote, that we are a mathematical impossibility. Impossible is a miracle by definition. So no matter how these guys roll the dice, the game isn't going their way. So, Ron Matt, I'm going to turn it over to you in a second. Go ahead. Go ahead, Tony. Yeah. We've actually got some good scientists on our side. We've got James Tor, Edward Peltzer, Fuz Rana. We've got a lot of good chemists that do not agree with abiogenesis. These atheists don't want to debate them or oh, they're not real scientists. Yeah. Yeah. It's a lot of excuses. There's plenty of PhDs that do not agree with abiogenesis. Well, it's like Brother Matt just said it. The response is always, well, you know, there's a chance, but it really just shows how much blind faith they really have. Just like in Second Peter three. I mean, they're willingly ignorant. It's it's almost laughable. And I love that, Matt, how you use quotes on their own, you know, apostles of their science fiction religion. Right. Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, you're using their own words against that and they hate it. Are you guys familiar with Robert Shapiro? He was a famous origin of life chemist. He passed away a few years ago. He was totally agnostic, by the way. And he said that RNA forming on a prebiotic earth is just laughable. It's an unstable molecule that could never form. Leslie or Leslie Orgel was an atheist. He said RNA forming on a prebiotic earth would take a miracle. Right. But of course, they'll discredit him and say, right, you know, that we all should go and live in a fantasy land and have a little reason rally where we get together and define ourselves by what we don't believe in. Like what kind of person? Yeah, I'd like I'd like to know how many origin of life experiments Aaron raw has conducted. Yeah, none. Right, raw, Matt, we're turning it over to you. All right, here's another thing you guys also have to consider the Darwin, the single Darwinian tree of life that you see that goes down to a single common ancestor that's been basically uprooted. So that means that there is now a three tier domain, which is the bacteria, the eukaryote and the eukaryote. Right. So that means now that a biogenesis wasn't just the start in one place. Now it had to occur in three different ways. So this makes it that much more impossible because we can't have just a single life form forming. No, no, no, there has to be three new domains. So now they have to multiply that times three these impossibilities. But why can't it just happen all on its own? Let's think about it. You should be able to take all the nucleotides, all the amino acids, all the I'll give them proteins, put it in a test tube, put it in the perfect solution, mix it up, do whatever you got to do to it and produce this primitive cell. Why can't they do it? Well, we should be able to at least see it once. You know what I mean? Life should be able to be spontaneously generating itself. You know, at least one time we should be able to see these events occurring, but we don't. So therefore, it took place long ago, far away in some mythical place that can never be right. In some environment they could they could never show today. And they always want to hide it in long ago and far away. That goes to biogenesis and Ponska and to people evolution. You know, time is their God, of course. But why can't they set up the prebiotic conditions in the laboratory today and produce this primitive cell? It's funny because they always say we know the conditions. Then they'll say, oh, we don't know the exact conditions. So which one is it and why can't you show it? And they can get all all the smartest scientists in the entire world and they can spend billions and billions of dollars. And I'm sure they have. And they can't create life because only God can. Yeah, Professor Dave's another one. He debated Ken Hovind and they were talking about Craig Venter. You guys know about Venter. This is another site. Yeah. Venter copied a pre-existing genome and he inserted it into another pre-existing cell. And they they use this. Yeah, he didn't show a biogenesis. He didn't show even an artificial cell. He manipulated pre-existing genetic information and he spent millions of dollars doing it. It was all intelligently designed. Right. And then Kent called him out on that and he had nothing to say after. He just threw a fit and got mad. Even Dave's followers know that he got destroyed. Oh, yeah. So, yeah, Venter is not producing life from non-life. I mean, no. Well, they want to start with the dominoes already standing. They don't care how they got standing or why or why there's even dominoes. They want to talk about why dominoes are falling over. That's that's the evolutionary theory, right? It's like who cares about how it started? It's already here. So let's just look at the process so that way they can discount having to worry about the harder questions. Dawkins, there's a video on YouTube, Dawkins and Craig Venter. And Dawkins asked Venter about the tree of life because he's trying to say we're all connected by DNA. And Venter doesn't answer the question. And he says, well, there really is no tree of life. Maybe it's the bush of life because he knows that DNA can't form naturally. He knows that DNA is different in every animal. He knows that a biogenesis doesn't work. He just kind of stayed silent. And Dawkins, I don't know the video, but it kind of exposes this whole abiogenesis life from non-life. We're all connected because we all have DNA. It's total nonsense. And then now you've got the ENCODE project, which the evolutionists hate, which is funny because this project has been done by evolutionary scientists and, you know, those from the secular fields. But even that project now is showing that most of the human genome is not only functional, but functional on many levels. So we have layer upon layer upon layer of programming within the genome. And yet they want us to believe that this all arose by chance. I mean, this is clear programming and programming always requires a programmer. And I find one more point. Evolutionists, scoffers, like Galvis engineer, they try and get around this by saying that biological information, right? It's just nearly organic chemistry, and it's not really information. But Galvis engineer is so foolish because that's like saying, that would be like saying an encyclopedia has no real information. It's just paper and ink, or that a computer has no real information. It's just electricity flowing through circuits. Information is information, regardless of the medium. And of course, programming, like I said earlier, requires a programmer. So once again, like Brother Matt said, it's just willingly ignorant. Yeah, I call them design deniers. Exactly. Yeah, you're never going to get a cell, you're never like you said, there's there, you know, and all the DNA is different. It's all vast information that is different. And it doesn't form by unguided natural chemical processes ever. And you're like, you know, you're never going to get a protein, you're never going to get RNA to just form naturally. Think about this, think about this too. Science has to be observable. And so if they're going to claim to believe in science, don't you think we'd at least be able to observe life coming from non-life just one time? They can't even do it in the lab. Now they claim they've done it. I don't believe they've done it. You know what, the Bible says that out of the dust of the ground, God formed man, that he breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And a lot of times they'll say, oh, well, why are you quoting the Bible so much? That's a circular argument, because you're saying the Bible is the Word of God, because the Bible says it's the Word of God. You know, I don't care what shape the argument is. I don't care if it's a circular argument. The Bible has power. And if the Bible's authority was determined by my intellect to determine whether or not it's true or not, then my intellect would be the final authority. So that tells me that God's Word has to be its own authority. And issues like this, I love to hear you guys talk about this, because this is stuff that needs to be talked about. And it's like the new trend today. People pretend that this is where logic and science is. They even call their little atheist get-togethers the reason rally. There's no reason to defining yourself by what you don't believe in. I mean, I even think of these stupid names that they come up with, like Mr. Atheist. Just think about that name. And they say, well, atheist means that I lack a belief in God. Well, why would you define yourself by what you don't believe in? That's like saying, well, I'm Mr. Non-Believer in Santa Claus, if they view Jesus as Santa Claus. And they'll say, well, Jesus is like Santa Claus. Well, it's interesting, because I only see books against Christ, and those coming out against Christians, and all of my brethren here on this panel. But I never see anybody coming out against Santa Claus. I never see anybody protesting the Disneyland, or, you know, the Christmas carols in the Christmas play. I only see those protesting Christians. And I've seen that, for example, Raw Matt's Channel, that guy has went through a lot of persecution. And if you get on and watch his content, you'll see exactly why they hate his guts. And nobody wants to give him publicity. Let me tell you something, folks, we're going to give these people publicity that do the research. You know what? Like, and I told these guys before we even went on the stream, if it comes down to watching my content on science, or somebody like Raw Matt, or Standing for Truth, or Guzman, I'm going to say go with these guys, because they spend a lot more time on these subjects than I do. Now, if you're looking for more biblical things, obviously, I focus on a lot of biblical things. But with all that being said, you know, this isn't a one man show. We're all coming here together to prove that these atheists don't have a clue of what they're talking about. None. They would laugh at man from dust, yet they believe life came from chemicals. They can't show that either. Exactly. They believe life came from dust all on its own, because they'll often stop at you, right? Well, you believe, you know, life came from dust. Yeah, of course, God, an intelligent designer, can create life out of the dirt, out of the ground. But we believe that this life came by itself for no reason at all, by chance, from the rock, from dust, from dirt, you know? Yeah. I would challenge any atheist right now, they could get their top experts, and they can have all the chemicals they want, all the molecules they want. Bring it to life. Let's see it. Right. And since we're on this topic of a biogenesis, I want Rahmat to start talking about this a little bit. But what's the coincidence that, you know, I like to play the what are the odds game, but what are the odds that there's a great unconformity in the Grand Canyon? Below the great unconformity, there are no fossils, none, just bedrock layers, right? And then above it, we have all these complex organisms. I'm interested a lot in paleontology, but the trilobite has the most complex eye of any animal, I believe, living in that in that time. How are you going to get from no life at all, in one millionaire, and then we're going to have like all these complex organisms just springing up into life? It reminds me of this quote by Richard Milton. He said, it looks like that life did not wait for a roll of a dice, but that it began abruptly. And remember, this guy isn't religious. He isn't, he isn't. He is an atheist, or an agnostic, at least, and he has appeared on television shows like BBC. But I want, I would like to see Rahmat, what he wants to say about that for a few minutes. Sure. No, no, no, no problem at all. That's, um, it's kind of like what we go by a lot as, we go by statistical values, and it's called p value in science, and it's a statistical probability hypothesis. So if I say that I believe that everybody on the earth can squat 1000 pounds, then I'm going to need some people to test for that. And if I go through 100 people, and not one can do it, I have to assume, okay, well, my hypothesis is is void, because I don't, not many people can do this. So I have to test a bigger group of people. So if you do that, and you can't find anybody that does, you have to throw that away. Well, with a biogenesis, that's exactly what that falls under. It falls under a theory. That's unfalsifiable. You can't, you can't prove it at all. So they said, well, it does happen, but there's no proof that it did. So it doesn't line up to statistics at all. So that's what I invented this game called What are the odds? Because we use the Bible, and if the Bible is accurate and true, then p value should apply to it, meaning you can line up the things and statistically see if what it says is true and lined it up to science. So I've done just that I've gone through and I said, Oh, look at these coincidences. And let's see, the first sentence of the Bible says that there was a beginning and God created the universe. Well, that was written in a time 5000 years ago or so when they're the only belief was that the universe was eternal, and that Atlas, or the sun or a giant turtle held the earth up. But yet there is a right in the Bible, clearly there was a beginning and the earth hangs upon nothing. So what a science they sell us, it tells us exactly that there was a beginning. And it also tells us that it hangs on nothing, it's not being held up by a giant or a tortoise. And then we go down and it says God stretched out the heavens. So we look up a map of cosmic radiation background. And what does it look like? It's not round like an explosion. It looks like something got stretched out exactly like it says. Then it says that down early earth was water and full of oxygen, exactly what they found recently. So we just go down the odds. And like you said, Guzman, we look at the geologic column, and what do we find, we see no life at all. And then we see immediate life. Now what happens when we look at some of these primitive life forms, like let's say we look at a water flea. Well, a water flea has 38,000 genes in it, how many genes are in human 19,000. So all of a sudden, life sprang up and created this advanced life forms that have more genes than us today. And then all of a sudden, now we have, you know, all this diversity in life, it just doesn't, you don't start with more, more information. Out of nowhere. This is the opposite of what their theory says. Their theory goes from a something that has no material in it, and it evolved all the new information, but the opposite is what we see. Right. I would, I would agree, I would just say that abiogenesis is nowhere near a theory. Not even good. It has it has no supporting evidence. It's not even. Yeah, it's a total mess. And I like how Guzman points to the fossil record, the geological record that the evolutionists like to point to. But it's funny, like he said, you know, when we go to the first layers with an abundance of fossils in them, we see no fossils and then layers with every one of the body plans of the major division of creatures and animals, right? We call those the phylum. So even evolutionists will admit that the Cambrian explosion, which this is referred to as, is a major problem. I debated Dr. Stephen Frelow on modern day debate a while ago, and I brought up the problem of the Cambrian explosion. And he's well versed in this material. You know, he's been fighting this for a while, and he admitted it's a major problem. So we go from layers with no fossils to layers with layers with fossils as complex as a trilobite. I mean that the lens system of a trilobite is incredibly complex. So we see no real hint of ancestors below this prior to this. But what we see is this explosion of creatures that are fully formed and fully functioning, all consistent with the Bible, the Bible's account of a global flood and special creation. Right. And people want to say like, like we didn't evolve the brain immediately, like we just evolved it very slowly, like portions of the brain. Is my audio coming out too? All right, so basically the brain didn't evolve, just spring up, it just slowly evolved, like the chemicals just created like little, like whatever, I don't even know what they say about the evolution of the brain. I know what you're saying. But Rahmat, when you wanted to play the odds game, what are the odds game with Aaron Rah? He's like, no, no, no, I'm not going to play that game, because he knows. He knows. They all know that. That's why the rescuing devices are so bad. You know, you start out and the Bible directly says he made Adam, you know, and then he took out his and he made Eve. And you point these things out and they go, Adam wasn't the first person. It's like calm down a minute. I'm trying to explain it so you can grasp something rather than your Google education and explain it to you. He doesn't want to explain. That's why he is like he is. He doesn't want his audience to hear that. No, because they have to defend their naturalistic narrative. They don't want anything to go against them. It's a cool tactic known as information control, where they control the information. I always tell people both sides. I always give them both sides. I always tell them, hey, this is what the big bang teaches. And I'm sure you guys have heard this, where they'll redefine the big bang, because I'll ask them, do you believe an explosion out of chaos produced order? And then they'll say, well, the big bang wasn't really an explosion. It was just an expansion. And so they tried to use a word game to make it sound like it's not as kooky as it really is. But if you look at the definition of the big bang, they say that the universe was crammed into a space smaller than the size of an atom. And then in one trillion trillionth of a second, it became the size of our known universe. So if that's not an explosion, I don't know what is. And also the definition of an explosion is just rapid expansion. And so it's an explosion, whether they want to admit it or not. And I understand it sounds silly. It sounds kooky. And it's just exactly what it is, though. But Matt, you don't understand. You don't understand, Matt. It wasn't an explosion. And it wasn't the size of an atom. It was probably the size of a grapefruit. You guys are going to anger all their brainwashed followers. They don't want to be exposed. What I like asking them is, wait, what was the size of an atom? You said there's nothing there. So what is the size of an atom? What's energy? Well, maybe magnetism. Well, what's magnetism? They go, well, nothing. Oh, so nothing is the size of an atom. Oh, I got you. Makes total sense. Just keep asking the question and they get to the root of the problem. Well, they know how stupid it is. And that's why they have to hide it, right? Well, it wasn't an explosion. It was an expansion. Or if you tell them that they believe, you know, all life today came from a bacteria-like organism. They'll deny, no, no, no. You don't understand evolution. It's incremental changes. It's slowly over time, the accumulation of mutations. No, no, no. We're just getting rid of all the fluff. Yeah. It's always you. Yeah. It's always you guys don't understand abiogenesis. I'm like, okay, well explain it to me. Prove it. Show it. Why can't you know? Yeah, they don't know. How does the protein form? Oh, we don't know. Maybe out in space and another planet, in another environment, far away, you know, Star Wars, you know? Well, you know what? You know what? They're like, well, you don't understand abiogenesis. You don't understand it. It's like, yeah, well explain to me what it is. It's like, we don't know yet. It's like, oh, yeah, because there's no science that supports it. They recently found this iron polymer on the back of meteorites. But the problem is it's not found in life. So it's, you know, they find all these molecules that life can't use. And then they want to say, well, it just formed out in space somehow on the backs of crystals. Just imagine. Yeah. A very special ingredient for their science fiction religion. Yeah. Yeah. They completely ignore the Fermi paradox, which says that no life exists in the universe. And one of my favorite one is, is that you guys believe in magic, but I've never met one of them that doesn't believe in M theory. You know what M stands for? Magic. Yeah. Yeah. This, this, this unseen untestable multiverse generator, you know, it's, it's infinite. It's outside of time, space and matter, but it's not God. Yeah. And they always never want to discuss is the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Exactly. Talk about biological evolution and a change in allele frequency and populations over time. But guess what? To have a coherent theory, we want to know where the first one came from. They just want to skip that. Of course, go straight to evolution and just avoid a biogenesis because you know, that's, they don't want to, they don't want to get into that stuff. Too many problems with it. No progress is being made. It's totally moot. There's nothing happening with a biogenesis. It's, it's the biggest embarrassment. It's not talked about enough in my opinion. And then it's funny because then you can bring them to biological evolution and then they're quickly going to realize that, Oh no, there's an overwhelming amount of problems with that as well. So a biogenesis has no evidence for it. And fish to fishermen evolution has no evidence for it. They're left with nothing. We got to check the comments after this video because we got to, I'm sure we have a lot of internet atheist experts on a biogenesis. Well, interestingly enough, there's not too many trolls in the comment section. So that's pretty cool. Just some people trying to defend Mr. McCray there, who I called out a couple of weeks ago for endorsing a sex offender. But anyways, which is pretty ridiculous. I don't think people should be defending people like that. And you know, Jesus said that if you offend one of these little ones that had been better than a millstone were hung about your neck and you were drowned at EBC. So those who take advantage of little children, Jesus said very clear things about them. And, you know, I find it amazing that 99% of school shootings are by atheists, 99%. And they always tell me, they're like, Oh, you're so biased with the evidence. Well, let the evidence speak for itself then, you know, but it doesn't surprise me since they think that 10 to the 164th power could happen simultaneously, trillions of times by chance, or that one out of 100,000 million, million chances could happen by chance along with those odds. I mean, their worldview is just ridiculous and nobody should ever take them seriously. And I think the only reason people do take them seriously is because a lot of them know how to use technology and they know how to speak into the mic, just right. Sound like they're smart and have their little emojis and their little fantasy stuff up on the screen where all the people can watch and see their little memes that they create and their little cartoons that they make. You know, of course, since their life's a fantasy and they need to make cartoon characters out of themselves and do all that stuff. But anyways, I don't want to get off track. So let's turn it back over to Standing for Truth. Or it's just an open discussion at this point. I have something I want to say real quick. I noticed the pretty consistent format when Standing for Truth debates, because I'm watching most of them. And every time he brings up a biogenesis, you know what they usually say? I'll give you that. Let's move to evolution. Don't give us a miracle. They don't even want to talk on it. You notice that Standing? How many times have you heard that? I've heard at least 10. Absolutely. In a way, I kind of love it because it's like, okay, score one point for, you know, biblical creation. And they've pretty much just admitted that there's no evidence for a biogenesis lie for everybody to see. But yeah, I mean, they just don't want to discuss it. Because they know there's so many problems with it. It's not science, you know, it's in the realm of science fiction. And you can just tell by that response, like you said, Rahmat, they know deep down inside that it really is a fairy tale. Right. You know what? Back to Matt's point, like you're cherry picking the evidence. Recently, I made a video on the Howie Quarry. I'm not pretty sure I'm pronouncing that right. The How or Howie Quarry. And somebody commented on it. He's basically just like, well, this is cherry picking at best. Try again. And I'm like, so you want me to cover 50 different evidences in a three minute video? Or what do you want me to do? I mean, like, tell me what I'm doing wrong. How's it cherry picking to show the evidence in a three minute long video? That's not cherry picking. The Howie Quarry clearly shows that there was no way to flood. It has over 20 species of the dinosaurs found in that one quarry. 4,000 different bones, 4,000 pieces and fragments of bones. And Steven Broussate said, who by the way, I've emailed on several occasions, he said that it was a mass graveyard left behind by a flood when the waters receded. And he's an ag, I believe he's an agnostic. He's not a young earth creationist. He's a professor at the University of Edinburgh, which is a secular college. And it's very clear, even in the science community, that this happened because of flood. And that's not only that, there's also several other massive graveyards, like in the Mars information, that show that there was a flood that receded, and it buried all these dinosaurs in mass graveyards. Well, it's just like in 2 Peter 3 says, you know, they're gonna deny three things, you know, the creation, the flood, and the coming judgment. And the entire world just screams out a global flood, like you just gave us some amazing evidence there, Guzman, and they just rejected in favor of uniformitarian beliefs. And not only that, isn't it hilarious how that most of the, most of the rocks that fossils are found in are in sedimentary rocks? Right. What are sedimentary rocks? They're made of sediments and mud. Looks like we got some feedback. Some people in the chat are saying there's some feedback sound. So just make sure you guys are putting yourselves on mute when you're not speaking. But yeah. I'd like to point out some of the ideas that are in there. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Sandy. No, no, you go ahead. I'll make my point after. I just like to point out a lot of times what their theory actually teaches the people, because most of the time they're, the average person just remembers what they did from grade school, and that's about it. But the theory is evolving as much as the word is, right? Evolution is evolving word is so it's changing all the time. So the newest theory about how man evolved is that pigs had sex with a chimpanzee. That's the newest model. And this isn't by some crackpot guy that, you know, lives outside and homeless. Oh, no, this is a geneticist that came up with this theory. But it gets better. Don't worry. Do you know why octopus and squid exist in our oceans? Most people don't know this. They arrived on the back of comments. That's right, their genes don't match the others. So say this. Yeah, they say the same thing for RNA. They're now looking for a pre RNA world because the RNA world is filled with so many problems. Yeah, yeah. And for Guzman here, did you know the basement level rock that they found where there shouldn't really be life at all? They didn't find any bones there. But what they did find were tracks. They found animal tracks all throughout it. And a matter of fact, one of them were bird tracks. Well, birds are supposed to be there because birds remember they evolved from dinosaurs, right? Well, another problem. So you know what the rescuing device was for this because Lyle discovered this. He went over and he's actually the ones that looked down and saw all these bird tracks even in pre Cambrian rock because well, they shouldn't be there. He blamed the Native Americans for carving them. He said they must have been out there carving tracks they've never seen before in bedrock. What to say about these things. So based on no evidence, great rescue and device based upon no evidence they the Native Americans claim that never claimed the Native Americans never claimed that they've done those carvings. And even if they are lying, why would they lie? They make sense to do they're worried about living life. They're worried about the next buffalo. Yeah, their theories are absurd. I don't think they even realize sometimes what their theory teaches. Because if they did, they would be like, wow, I better look into that. And it just gets more ridiculous all the time. And the rescuing devices are so bad. Anyway, standing check it away. Well, I guess to add with on to what you're saying, it's amazing how many rescue devices they really do have for everything. And they'll ask you questions that they think are unanswerable, right? But they're asking for something that they're not going to accept anyways. For example, you'll hear them ask, you know, where's the evidence that humans lived alongside the Australopithecines, right Lucy, for example, and then you'll show them, you know, anatomically modern looking human footprints in the same layers with the Australopithecines, or you'll show them human bones, you know, in those exact same layers, and then they'll just have a rescue device or they'll explain it away, or they'll say, yeah, those footprints, you know, they look like human footprints. But, you know, there's a couple inconsistencies here, maybe they belong to a different type of Australopithecine. So no matter what, the question that they may have for you, once you give them an answer to meet that, I guess, requirement that they're looking for, they will just have to explain it away, which kind of shows just how close minded they really are. Yeah, it's insane. You know that they, they literally believe that we split from a chimp about 6.5 to 7 million years ago. That's, that's in every textbook. That's what they claim. But yet, they found how many Australopithecus africanus? How many of those Lucy skeletons have they actually found? Not Lucy herself, obviously, the Australopithecus. They found multiple all over the place. They've, they have tons of them now. But guess what, you know how many chimpanzee fossils they found? Two. The first one they ever found was recently, and it was just a tooth. So you mean to tell me that they have all these ancient ancestors of human beings that they claim that go back into this perfect lineage, and no chimps whatsoever. And there's supposed to be chimps going back millions of years. But they're, they're able to find more missing links for human beings. And there are chimpanzees that have been around for them for who knows how many millions of years. It just doesn't line up. So what they tell you, if it doesn't line up with the evidence, it's not true. They can wield any story they want, like they do with us about mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam not being the first people. They go, no, they were just one of thousands of people. Well, where's the evidence? Oh, we don't have any. Well, then it's probably not true, is it? Pretty simple. Well, and don't forget the fact that with Lucy, you know, a bamboo bone was incorrectly assigned to her for over 40 years. So how much confidence should we really have in the evolutionary fairy tale of ape demand evolution? If, you know, the, the reconstructions, their interpretations are based on fragmentary bones, they're based on such limited evidence, but yet we're supposed to believe that we evolved from some ape-like ancestor contrary to the observations and the evidence and data itself. Exactly. You guys know about the proto cells just to get back on a biogenesis for a minute. Proto cells aren't alive. This is another argument they use. Proto cells. Jack Shostak, John Sutherland. He does more work with RNA, but yeah, proto cells are basically just empty membranes. And these are again, manipulated experiments where the chemist has to put the information in the molecule and they're still not alive. They do the same thing with viruses. Viruses can exist, but they can be empty as well. So they do the same thing. Just another, just another stalemate. It's just, it doesn't lead to anything. It's not solving the abiogenesis disaster. And that's exactly what it is. It is a disaster. It's an unsolvable disaster. And unfortunately, the ones that are willingly ignorant, the ones that are, you know, dumb on purpose, they're just going to keep looking forever for an answer to this problem instead of just submitting themselves to the creator and the gospel ultimately. I find it funny that they say it's not really a problem. It's just chemistry. Well, if it's so easy, why can't you do anything about it? Well, that's what they say. They say it's so easy. Then they say, oh, it's so hard. Oh, we don't know the right conditions. We don't, we don't have the environment. Maybe aliens did it. I mean, they're going on this path that, you know, it's just desperation at this point. And then what's funny is they want to scoff and attack the Bible. Right. And they want to scoff at us who believe in a literal Adam and Eve. And they want to say that this eight to man evolution or a biogenesis is a fact, but it's funny because I was debating a guy's name speed of sound probably about a month ago. And I just asked him, honestly, I said, you know, look at this question from a non evolutionary perspective. You know, what would you expect if the Bible's true and Adam and Eve were true? Because I find most of the time that the evolutionists out there, they approach that question from an evolutionary perspective. Right. They can't get rid of their, their bias. And unfortunately that hinders them and prevents them from actually looking at the data and the evidence and coming to an accurate conclusion. Cause if they actually answered that question, honestly you know, if Adam and Eve were true, what should we expect? Well, what we should expect as Rahmat kind of touched on earlier is we would expect one female ancestor of all people on the planet. Well, it turns out that's true. And there should also be one male ancestor of all people on the planet. We now know that that's true based on, you know, Y chromosome data and mitochondrial DNA data for Eve. So genetic data confirms these expectations. And yet the Bible predicted this one female, one male, and yet this doesn't have to be true if evolution is true, but yet it is true. So the evolutionists have a hard time answering a question like that because they know that their answer is going to be exactly what we see genetically. Well, you have to just keep building assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions. And if you tell that story long enough, people will just believe it. Right. And what I think was hilarious is that the Y chromosome, I believe it's, what is it standing? 70 some percent similar to. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's right. It's amazing because as a human species, we have low genetic diversity. We are all 99.9% similar and that includes our Y chromosome, but yet the evolutionists want to say that our closest common ancestor is the chimp and the chimp Y chromosome when we actually sequence it and compare it with our own Y chromosome. So it's just been 70% similar to our own Y chromosome. And yet we're supposed to share a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. I mean, even in their 6 million years, their proposed 6 million years, that many DNA differences could not arise. It's impossible. And they were even shocked when they originally discovered this. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. That's going back to their whole tree of life nonsense. They got to trace it all the way back to this single cell. And then this single cell came from a mixture of molecules in the prebiotic soup. It's just not there. Even Craig Venter disagrees with it. He just went silent when Dawkins asked him, you know, is there really a tree of life? I don't know. I got to find this video because it's great. And Venter did not answer. And he just said, well, maybe it's a bush of life. Right. And that's what they're saying now based on the data is it's a bush. You know, it's not just one single cell organism that they've looked to for years and years now that now it's a bush. It's looking more like the creation orchard because it's getting worse and worse and worse for the abiogenesis hypothesis. But also don't forget about the fact that the Y chromosome is one of the very little changing structures in the in the human genome, I believe. And yet it's 70 percent similar, only 70 percent. That's like millions and millions and millions of letters difference million, million letters differences in the Y. And those are supposed to arise, you know, during that, after the humans and chip ancestors are supposed to split, you know, that amount of difference is supposed to arise within within the six million years. And the reason why the Y chromosome would be the most stable is because it doesn't have a counterpart to recombine with versus all the other chromosomes. Right. So this is the one chromosome we should look to if if chimps and humans actually shared common ancestry, that's the one chromosome we should look to to see, OK, maybe let's see just how similar it is. And yet it was just a shock to the evolutionary community that, wow, it's less than 70 percent dissimilar. And Matt, what was the quote they said that this is what they expected for humans and pigs or humans and mice or something? Yeah, well, yeah, exactly. They they we matched up closer to pigs and mice and dogs and house cats than we did to primates. Crazy. Oh, it's great. And I was debating Erica, who goes by gutsy Gibbon. And, you know, she was debating Dr. Hovind and she was looking strictly to genetics and asking, you know, can where do we draw the line on ancestry? And, you know, this is what she was making herself out to look like she was kind of an expert in. And then when I debated her, she asked me, where do we draw the line? I said, well, you know, we both predict similarities. We both predict some type of nested hierarchy in the biological world. But we can look at something that can differentiate the two hypotheses. Right. Common design, common ancestor. I pointed to the Y chromosome. I said, explain to me why the Y chromosome in a chimp is so dissimilar to our Y chromosome. Our Y chromosome, we can track it back just six thousand years to one male ancestor who would be Adam, of course. And, you know, she didn't have an answer. And she said she'd have to look into it, for example. But that's just one of many lines of evidence that we can point to in genetics that separates chimps from humans. Well, just give them another 10,000 years and they'll figure it out. Come on, you guys know that. Give them another 10 trillion years. Yeah. And I love how they look to time as their god. Right. You know, why don't we see evolution today? Show us examples of one kind turning into a different kind. Oh, you know, it happened long ago and far away. But what's funny is what we know about mutation accumulation. We're actually devolving. We're losing information. We're degenerating. So time, the more time you give them, give them 10 trillion years. It actually makes the problem worse for them. So they think time is the hero. It's actually the villain of the plot for them. That's what James Torr says about abiogenesis. The more time you give it, your amino acids break down. Everything racemizes. Your RNA is unstable. None of this stuff goes in a life friendly direction. That's right. Great point. Right. I think that's kind of how they trick the public as well. See what happens is they take something and they put it in their laboratory and they irradiate it. They change the pH of the environment. They lower the oxygen. They give it different food. They can do anything that they want with it, basically. And what happens every single time is that the organism itself throws out genes. Its hormones are affected and changed. Everything gets messed up, but the fitness goes up. And I tell people that's how they trick you. They throw that word fitness in there. It would be like locking me inside the gym and forcing me to work out 10 hours a day. What's going to happen to me? Well, my hormones are going to be all messed up. My testosterone is going to be too high. So there's going to be too much DHT in the blood. My mTOR activity is going to be turned off. So my longevity genes are going to be mitigated. What's going to happen? But guess what? My fitness is going to go up, isn't it? I'm sure going to have some good cardio, but guess what? I'll have them messed up my body in the process. And that's exactly what happens in these experiments. So they trick the public by going, look at the fitness, look at the fitness. It's kind of like a magician. They're messing with everything on this hand and then they're pointing over there. And all their experiments are intelligently designed. It's all manipulated, controlled conditions. You have these chemists following these very strict recipes and strict protocols and following all these controlled procedures. How is that going to happen in a prebiotic soup? Never. It doesn't work. Right. And also, what was I going to bring up? See, they have all these imaginary mechanisms, all these mechanisms that's going to somehow produce RNA. It's going to somehow produce a protein. Come on, give it more time. Proteins were more primitive in the past. You know they're going to form. Okay. It reminds me of Kent Hovind's debate recently where he went up against Mark Drysdale. And Mark Drysdale goes, we need more time, Kent. We need more time. We need more time, yet they can't even produce. Yeah, they need more time, yet they can't even produce all left-handed amino acids. How much time do they need to produce all left-handed amino acids? Trillions of years? It's just absurd. It doesn't work. How about that? They'll never say that. Right. And then I love Homer's reaction too. He kind of leaned up in his chair and he's like, yeah, I know Mark. He made lots of time. It was hilarious. I almost thought of making like a meme out of that or something just for fun. But you know what? I'm starting to develop a lot of respect for the keyboard warriors of the atheist community. For the first time in my life, I am a keyboard, I'm being a true keyboard warrior here and talking to a few heretics in the chat. So it seems like it may seem like I'm not, oh, just salvation's not by faith. There's one guy in here that responded to my film, my last film, The Sacred Name. But go ahead and continue the conversation. But just wanted to give a shout out to all those keyboard warriors who take all the time out of their schedules to go ahead and comment on all of our videos and leave all those nice nasty comments for us. These guys are, yeah, go ahead. Okay. You know, they're going to be cherry picking every single little thing that we say. Like Rahmat a few minutes ago misspoke and said, show pithicus africanus instead of afarensis for Lucy. They're going to be like, oh, Rahmat doesn't know what he's talking about because he said africanus. Hey, have you ever heard of misspeaking? Yeah. Rahmat, you made a mistake. You're fired from this team. Yeah. I love, I love throwing them in there too on purpose just to trigger them. Just to trigger them. And I love how many triggered atheists we all get on our channels on a daily basis. But remember 99.99999% of them, like, like brother Matt there said, they're keyboard warriors. That's it. They're in their mama's basement. They're too scared to actually get up and discuss these issues. Five. These guys are all PhD origin of life chemists. Come on. You guys know that they should be able to defend their position in person. And you know, it's kind of funny. Like there was a guy who was commenting on my videos recently and he's like, Hey, I want to do a debate with you. And I'm like, sure, why not set it up? Let's do it in person. I got another film coming out. Maybe you'll be lucky. Like the raging atheist was and end up looking like an idiot before the whole world. And so the guy, uh, he responded back in the comments, of course, and said, well, I just want to comment back and forth. I mean, they love written debates. And you know, a written debate, which is going to take hours and hours, days and days when, you know, we've got jobs and families and things, you know, um, other more important obligations. And I find it funny because, uh, you know, Ken Hovind, for example, gives his number out at one eight five five big dino extension three, you know, call me, we'll set up a debate. And you get so many keyboard warriors saying, you know, Hovind refused to debate with me. You know, he wouldn't do a text debate with me. Yeah. As if, you know, Ken Hovind is going to have enough time to sit there. Like I said, for days and days, having a text debate, you know, these guys don't do it in person. They don't want to do it live over YouTube. They just want to sit there and be a keyboard warrior. We've been texting each other back and forth for over a week and I stopped texting for a day. And it's like, oh, they make a huge video. It's like, oh, this guy just refused to debate me because I, I had some sort of thing to do for a day. And it's like, I'm tired of typing for an entire week. Right. And then you can ask where I'm at, where I'm at knows, you know, we've debated a lot of these guys that actually did agree to do debates. And I mean, we can name five or six guys right now and you debate them two, three, you know, times and you kind of expose them for, you know, believing in a science fiction based religion. And then they just want to keep debating four or five times. You're like, no, no, you've had three chances. You know, they want to keep, instead of admitting defeat and looking to the gospel and then looking to Jesus Christ and admitting that they were wrong about fish to fishermen evolution, abiogenesis, they want to go back to the drawing board every time and just keep coming back with new arguments, hoping to trip you up. I mean, you know that. Yeah. It's the same tired old, you know, regurgitated arguments. They have to repackage abiogenesis every 10 years. And it still doesn't work. I actually call the atheist experience about 10 years ago. And I talked about abiogenesis. I talked about how the Miller experiment was a colossal failure. They hung up on me. That's awesome. Of course, of course. And you know what, they always let the, if you Google Christian versus atheist, all you're going to see from the mainstream atheists are Christians that don't know science or the Bible getting smoked because they don't know what they're doing. But guys like us that are on the internet that actually make these guys cry. I mean, literally this one dude, the raging atheist cried. And of course he tries to deny it and say that he wasn't really crying, but anybody can watch that debate and see he's just in tears, just looking up to heaven. And at one point I'm thinking, well, are you praying to God and asking for forgiveness now that you've realized how crazy you are? But, oh no. He's convinced that maybe we came from the stars and that we gave away our technology and that we didn't want our technology anymore, according to him, which why would you not want your technology anymore? If we truly came from the stars and we gave away our technology, like this guy is saying, I like my Mac book. I like my iPhone. I wouldn't want to give away my technology. Why don't these space aliens come back and just completely take over? If they did, you know, and, and Aaron raw, I don't, I don't know if he would cry, but he definitely gets drunk and starts screaming and cursing. That's for sure. In some of his debates, that man's in trouble with God. Let me just take a moment to talk about that man. That man is doing a lot of damage to Christianity and he's confusing the minds of the young people, because obviously the young people enjoyed movies like Lord of the rings, Lord of the rings and stuff. And, you know, I think Aaron could do better if he didn't look like a villain, but he still does pretty well on YouTube. So I'll give him credit where credit's due, but at the same time, every scientific claim he's ever made is completely off the rails. And raw, Matt pointed that out in one of his videos, raw, Matt has a doctorate's degree. And so Aaron raw doesn't have anything. In fact, he's probably going to go back to the university of Phoenix, Arizona state university. I mean, and he's got to finish his degree with all the 20 year olds as a 60 year old guy, you know? So he's the old man in the class trying to finish his science degree, but that man is a wicked, a false prophet. And he has made it his goal in life to tell people it's his, it's his purpose in life to tell people that there is no purpose in life or to imagine up a purpose. It's funny. Somebody asked him, well, what's the purpose of life? He's like, well, whatever you assign to it. Okay. So I'm just supposed to imagine a purpose for myself and go into fantasy land and just kind of fantasize about what my purpose is. No, the Bible says that God gives us purpose. The Bible said, Jesus said, go ye into the world, go ye therefore into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Yeah. He's a wicked man. He's in fantasy land. That guy, iron rod, total fantasy land. He dresses like Dracula. You know, the guy's just totally bizarre. He started out as a Mormon, went to this family and they took it, they forced him to go to church every day. So by the time he was like 12 and 13, he had already been so triggered by being forced into the church that he broke down. And ever since then, he's like never recovered from it mentally. He's just, he hates it. So that's why his aggression towards it. That's why he spends every single day he can promoting atheism. Yeah. They spend their, they spend their whole life arguing against something they know doesn't exist. Yeah. Yeah. He's a, he challenges creationist all the time. He goes out of his way to go to the arc encounter. He's specifically made challenges called the phylogeny challenge. And he says, there's no way anybody can answer it. Well, we've answered it on our channel. We've answered it multiple times. Matter of fact, there's a great way to answer it now. And he doesn't want to hear it. I try talking to him. He doesn't want to hear it. If you guys want to contact them. I mean, I would, I'd like to have the abiogenesis channel challenge and I can get fuzz Rana back on. I have his email. He debated him and he dodged all the RNA world problems. You know, it's interesting. I I've debated about bringing this up, but I think it's, I think it's, you know, he's earned it. Raging atheist is in the chat and you know, he thinks it's funny that we're talking about him, but you know what I think is kind of funny raging is how I took you to school a few times and how you still think that you have a chance to make a comeback when you've already been blown off the internet. And when atheists comment on your videos, thinking that you're a Christian on my side, pretending to be an atheist because you look so stupid. You know, I think it's kind of funny that you come here thinking that you're going to recruit people over to believe in your religion and, you know, standing for truth and other people here have taken you to school multiple times. And just the fact that you're as delusional as to think that you still have an argument and that you can tell us about how you think we came from our galaxy far, far away on some other planet somewhere. Just the fact that you think that you can form an argument, I think is kind of funny. And before Christians get upset with me for calling this guy out like this, Jesus told the Pharisees a lot worse things. And I'm just doing what Jesus would do. And they always say, well, what would Jesus, this is what Jesus would do is the Bible says, smite the scorner and the simple will be where. So you're nothing but a scorner. And if you ever want to get taken to school again, feel free to go ahead and set up another debate if that's what you want to call it. And we'll all watch you get schooled again by anybody on this panel. It doesn't even have to be me because the truth shines brighter than darkness. And once you see the truth of the word of God, there's no going back. And that's all I wanted to say about that. But nice try, buddy. Really quickly, you talked about standing for truth, taking him to school after standing like after standing for truth debated like R.J. Downer, Jackson Wheat, who's I believe those two are pretty bright minds in some cases, but and others. I mean, Jackson Wheat has a very hard time saying that you were wrong. But after those debates, standing is like, OK, I'm going to take a little a little bit slower. I'm going to debate this raging atheist guy. And so he debates them. And I'm watching the debate live and the raging atheist like rage use and he gets so angry. He's like, I don't know what you're talking about. He's like, I think you put a video. Horse noises. We took about it. You know, it's you know, what's so funny about that guy? Just his fantasy name that he's given himself, because, of course, he doesn't want us to call him by his real name. And I understand that, you know, when you live in a fantasy land, you need to have a fantasy name. And so, you know, I know that that the raging atheist is what he wants to be called. And I think we should, by all means, respect that. And I find it interesting that the definition of rage is out of control emotions. So what he's basically admitting is that his emotions are out of control. So he might as well just call himself the out of control atheist, because that's what his name even means. If that's the fantasy title that he wants to assign to himself. And he lives up, you know, to his part perfectly, because you could be having a nice, decent conversation all of a sudden, f-bomb this, f-bomb that. I mean, if some of these atheist evolutionists think that's a good way to win a debate, then, you know, keep it up. But it's not looking too good for him. Right. How much feedback is it? Well, Sygarde ends up joining in to do some damage control, but then- Oh, right. On, on, on non sequitur show? The, R&R the sung god comes down from internet heaven, and ends up doing damage control by just cursing a storm. And then the end of the stream ends with a, like, a cursing competition or something. Well, and the thing about R&R too, like, just like you said, he just, he comes in there, and he, and he himself rages, and he swears, and he, and he cuts you off. For example, Raw Matt here had a discussion with him on, on non sequitur show. And Raw Matt was about to go into all the evidence in genetics that points us to, you know, mitochondria, why chromosome Adam, the low genetic diversity that we see. I mean, what are the chances that all these, um, all the data in genetics points us right back to a literal interpretation of Genesis. And after about six or seven words that Raw Matt got out, R&Raw right away just started interrupting him saying, no, no, no, I'm not going to play this game. I mean, can you touch on that a little bit, Matt? Yeah, because like I said, science deals with statistical values and probabilities. It's the best way to determine if something is true because math is accurate, and he couldn't even listen to me, like put out maybe like two. I said, let's play a game real quick. It's called what are the odds? And he was sitting there listening. And then I said, now, what are the odds that all the things, so I started to go down the list. I didn't even get down the list. I actually got stopped like midway through my first one. He goes, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We're not going to play any of these games because I could just say, what are the odds I woke up this morning and put my socks on? I was like, what does that have to do with anything? Just absolutely insane. And he wanted to, he wanted to talk on phylogeny, right? That's, that's like what he does. And so they asked him, they said, R&Raw apparently debunked your video. So R&Raw, you've watched this and debunked it, right? And he goes, yes, I have. They go, what can you tell us about the PAC 6 gene? He goes, I've never heard of it. It's the first three seconds of the video. I didn't even watch it. And then I said, okay, well, let's talk about phylogeny, right? I brought up turtles. And I said, turtles have two different lines of phylogeny. He goes, no, they don't. He doesn't even know his own phylogeny. So it was unbelievable. Because he doesn't want to hear it, anything. He just, you know, just dismiss it. Oh, whatever. You don't know what you're talking about. That's the kind of guy he is. Ask him about protein folding. Ask him, ask him about, you know, how RNA could never form. Ask him, you know, all this stuff about abiogenesis. No, he's not going to talk about it. Right. He doesn't want to answer the, the, he doesn't want to play the odds, the what are the odds game because what are the odds that the Bible is true and that science proves it. I mean, it's like, obviously, I mean, what are the odds that we come from two ancestors, mitochondrial, Eve and Y comes from Adam. What are the, what are the odds that we came from a bottleneck of eight people and the Bible says that eight people survived the flood, right? What, what are the odds of that? What are the odds of like life being created by, by intelligence spontaneously out of non-life by God, by an intelligence. And that's exactly what we see in the great unconformity and several other geologic examples. Why, what are the odds that we see massive graveyards, like I brought up earlier, like the ones in the Mars information and that the Bible talks about a global flood. What are the odds that fern fossils and leaf fossils are found straight and flat. You can't do that if you just pour mud on top of it, like in a uniformitarian model, it would happen only if a huge flood will knock down a bunch of trees and get all these leaves that are still alive in the water and still receiving water since they're still alive and they will expand. They won't expand immediately, but after several hours they will expand and they will harden flat like we see in several fossils. What are the odds of that? What are the odds of that? Exactly. I mean, all of those are just fatal blows to evolution and absolute proof for biblical creation or after the flood, we all descend from Noah's three sons and his daughters-in-law. And yet what do we see? Three major mitochondrial DNA lines on every single continent. I mean, what more evidence do you want? And then his phylogeny challenge, which he says no creationist can answer while brother Matt, you gave some really good evidence in science, falsely so-called part one regarding that massive genetic study where the scientists involved in it analyzed a certain part of the DNA. And it showed that over 90% of all animal life is roughly the same age. They arose at exactly the same time based on their DNA diversity. So that gives us a clear boundary of kinds that points us to a special creation. So I love the fact that you utilize that study, Matt, in the movie. Amen. And you know, I think the mistake, I think with every film, there's always going to be mistakes. And I think the only mistake that we really made with the last one and the reason I'm making this new one is because the two atheists that we had interviewed for that one, people thought they were just posing as Christians. They thought they weren't really atheists. And the raging atheist was shunned from the community for a while. And nobody was taking those guys seriously. And what we're doing in the new film is we're going face to face with a bunch of them. So it's not just going to be one or two. We're probably going to have in the end probably about 50 atheists that will appear and maybe even some college students just giving themselves away for the frauds that they are and for the stupidity that they believe in. So I'm looking forward to it. But anyways, I think we're going to start wrapping this thing up. But before we all go, let's have some closing thoughts from each individual. So we'll go ahead and start with Tony and then we'll work. Tony, Rob, Matt standing for truth and then Guzman and then I'll close out. Yeah, thanks for having me. And you know, hey, I'm up for, you know, challenging these atheists more. But just to recap about, you know, the abiogenesis problems, the Miller experiment was a colossal failure. Craig Venter never produced life from non-life or an artificial cell. He basically copied all pre-existing genetic information. Darwin thought a cell was a glob of jelly that could just form from chemicals. I mean, it's just, you know, so none of this stuff works. The origin of life is a mess. They've never come close to showing any of it anywhere. And yeah, I'd be happy to do it again, get some atheists on, send this video to Aaron Ra. You know, I'd like to see another debate with Aaron Ra and Fuz Rana. And I want to see Aaron Ra not run from the RNA world problems and the problems with abiogenesis like he did in that video. And he knows, he knows well that he dodged all that. Absolutely. Yeah. They don't want to touch on that subject. It's just too much for them. That's why they deal with the other aspects because they can, they can appeal to a fossil record and tell a story about the past that they can not know that they can never know. You know what I mean? We have forensic investigators that train their entire life to identify what happens to a body that's found dead in a river for three days. But, and they can't even determine what really happened, but they're going to find a thumb bone of some ancient ancestor in a cave, you know, a hundred feet underground. And they're going to tell you it's life story. Get out of here. It's a myth. You know, all these things, evolution isn't even science because they are falsified all the time continuously. Remember if it's making predictions and then it comes out with a theory and it's going along just fine, like Darwinian gradualism. And then all of a sudden they find that evolution occurs quickly. They call, oh, it's okay. It's punctuated equilibrium. Well, guess what? That's falsified gradualism. But instead they combine the two and said, no, no, no, they can both happen at the same time. So it's an unfalsifiable theory. You guys see that every time they find evidence for something and it fails them. And it's a falsification of their prediction. They just rename it. They rehash it. They just come out with another one. Larx, Lamarxism fell to Darwinism, but then reemerged as epigenetics. They constantly are messing things up. And as they die, they just rename it and sell it to the public as something new again. It's astonishing when junk DNA was found to not be junk. They had all these predictions. Of course it's junk. It's been junked the whole time. That's just leftovers from evolution. And then all of a sudden, oh, well now it's non-coding DNA. We predicted that. Sure you did. Sure you did. That's why you named it junk, right? So they're constantly being falsified. It's just an unfalsifiable theory because remember it's protected by law. So just because the majority believe it does not mean that it's true. Amen. Amen, brother. Yeah. So many good points tonight. Everybody listening, whether it's Christian or atheist, the evidence is on our side. Genetics itself proves design. I touched on it earlier that our genetic code, it's multilayered. And to have programs that are multilayered and incredibly superior to anything computer science could do today is actually irrefutable evidence that the genome is designed. So abiogenesis is a fraud. There's no real evidence for that. I think that was made clear today. And then even if you want to get to biological evolution and look at their claimed mechanisms for fish to fishermen evolution, like mutations, for example, now we know that mutations are the destroyer. They are not the creator. And then there are other claim mechanism, natural selection. Natural selection is not going to stop the accumulation of evolving harmful mutations, especially the fact that most of them are only slightly deleterious and they're invisible essentially to natural selection. And just like Matt iterated earlier, based on the known functionality of the genome, it's not a genome of junk. It's a genome that is vastly functional. The majority of our DNA differences show evidence for function. That means most random changes, such as these mutations they look to, they will be deleterious, which means that these deleterious mutations cannot be selected away and they will accumulate from generation to generation. We are degenerating, just as is expected with the biblical fall. If we take this point of accumulating genetic mutations back to a point of least genetic accumulation, that's a point of creation. That's a point of Adam and Eve. So these atheists, they need to turn to Jesus because genetic entropy is a fact, and it points us to our need for a savior. So if there's any atheist in the chat, salvation is the most important thing. So I urge you to seek out the gospel because you're going to be dead for a long, eternity is a long time. So thanks again, brother Matt, for having me on. I'm sure we could do this all day. Everybody touched on a great number of things. So I had a lot of fun. Thanks so much. Hey, my pleasure, brother. Well done. My turn? It's your turn, buddy. All right. Well, thank you for having me, Matt. It was a real pleasure. Yeah, so the scientific evidence proves towards the Bible. It's not cherry picking and it's not special pleading. And what we wanted to do with this sort of discussion is to draw people nigh on Christ and to bring them to the truth of God's word and that they may be converted and that God should heal them, as the Bible says. And so, yeah, so we could do this all night, as what Standing for Truth said, but I don't think my phone's battery could last all night. But thank you so much for having me, brother Matt, and thank you so much for accompanying us, everyone that is here standing, raw Matt and Tony. My pleasure, brother. Thank you guys all so much for coming on. Folks, their links to their channels are in the description below. So please make sure to subscribe to them and help them out and give them some support because the atheist community, it's very interesting. They have these keyboard warriors. They're very good at finding those who create creationist content and blast them in the comment section. So we need to fill their comment sections up with amens and hallelujahs and help get the profanity and the fools out of there. So go ahead and support these guys. I 100% back all of them. I've looked pretty deeply at their material, so it has my approval on it. And so with all that being said, if there's any atheists out there that are listening to this that are just thinking about their worldview, a lot of times they say, well, I don't have a worldview. And I always say, well, is that your worldview that you don't have a worldview? Because that's a pretty interesting way to view the world. One of them told me, well, there is no truth. Well, is that true? Because if it's true that there's no truth, how can we be sure that that's true? How can we be sure that anything's true? So if you're an agnostic or you're just not sure about anything, I like to ask you if you're sure that you're sure that you're not sure of anything because you seem sure of that. And so people that hold to these worldviews need to just be willing to let them go. And at the end of the day, the Bible says that in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the Bible also says about the atheists, it says, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And it was really amazing talking about all the foolish ideas that they come up with. And the Bible even says the thought of foolishness is sin. So these people are sinners just like we are, and they need a Savior. And so if you're listening to this video, the only words I have for you is just believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. So God bless, folks, and y'all have a great day.