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

All right. Looks like we are live and I want to welcome everybody to standing for truth. I am your host, Donnie. And tonight we have the second debate of our epic two night event. Last night we had Mark Reed and Dr. Kent Hovind debate Noah's arc and Noah's flood. And tonight we have Dr. Kenny Rhodes and Matt Powell debating old earth creation versus young earth creation. So we've got two season debaters here tonight. This is going to be a ton of fun. Before I have the debaters introduce themselves though, I just want to go over a couple, a couple reminders as we've been working on our website, our standing for truth creation ministry website. It's coming along nicely, should be available within the next week. So we've, this is about maybe 50 to 70% done. And on the website, we're going to have all our content kind of all in one place. Any question you might have pertaining to the creation evolution, Christianity versus atheism, debate and controversy. Definitely an answer to your question will be found there. You'll be able to find all our debates, interviews, discussions, podcasts. So that's going to be a lot of fun. And I wanted to kind of give everybody an update there. So it looks like we've already got a great chat, steadfast and easy. Thank you so much for the super chat. He says, good evening, gentlemen, brothers. God bless you all. God bless you as well. So if you're not yet subscribed to standing for truth and you love debates, interviews, discussions, lectures, and critical thinking, please hit that subscribe button. Anyways, enough for me. Why don't we introduce the debaters kind of get to know each other a little bit. It's not a Kenny or Matt's first time on the channel. So gentlemen, thank you so much for giving us your time for this important debate and you guys are muted. Just make sure to unmute yourself before you talk. Thanks for being here guys. It's good to be here. Yep. Good to be here. Got a crazy hectic house, but we'll see how this goes. I appreciate it. Dr. Rhodes for making it work for us. So if anybody wants to see more of Matt Powell and Kenny Rhodes, check the description box of this video. I've got their channels listed and I've got their previous debates listed as well in terms of debates on this channel. So that being said, why don't we hand it to the debaters? Let's break the ice a little bit, a little bit about yourselves for the audience. And why don't we start with Matt. Matt, thanks for being here. How's everything been? Everything's been good. So thanks for having me back on. So my channel basically just covers creation versus evolution, the dinosaurs, the fossil record, the geologic column, and falsification of evolution theories, as well as older creationist theories and just demonstrating the facts that support young earth creationism. And so I've done a lot of different, well, several different debates with some atheists, raging atheist, YFN atheist, also with some other Christians like the preacher, Smokey Saint. And so I've got all those debates over on my channel if you'd like to come check those out. And so I definitely enjoy doing debates on occasion. I'm not really into it very often, but whenever I do have a chance, I definitely enjoy it. And I'm looking forward to having a good discussion tonight with Dr. Rhodes. And yeah, definitely looking forward to it. Awesome. Awesome. I appreciate that introduction. Matt, like I said, anybody wants to see more of what's coming out of Matt's channel, please check the description box. Dr. Rhodes, thank you so much for being here as well. You've been here several times. We've got you scheduled next month as well for an epic God debate with Michael, the Canadian atheist. So how have you been? What's going on? Well, doing pretty good. I would like to ask everybody who's watching, my father-in-law is in the hospital right now with COVID. He's having a really difficult time. So we'd appreciate your prayers with that. As far as what I'm doing, taking the summer off, it's been kind of a brutal couple years just with everything going on and my schedule. I just started my YouTube channel up. So I'm putting content on there on a regular basis. My channel is dedicated to Matt Powell solely, and I try to debunk his once saved, always saved heresy. Just kidding. True heresy. I deal with all kinds of different issues, mainly the existence of God, apologetics, things like that. So anyway, that's what's going on with me, and I look forward to having a good discussion. This is certainly between brothers in Christ. I usually debate atheists, and I prefer to debate atheists. So when I debate fellow believers, my desire is to simply show grace and demonstrate that we can disagree, even disagree passionately, but we're still brothers at the end of the day. Amen. Amen, brother. Well said. Well said. I appreciate that, and definitely your father-in-law is in our prayers. So I appreciate that introduction, Kenny. I appreciate that introduction as well, Matt. So to the audience, we are going to be having an audience Q&A as always. That's where we get you guys involved. So please make sure you're tagging me at Standing For Truth with your question. So I'm going to go over the format real quick before we get right into it. So we're going to be having 15 minute opening statements. We're going to be starting with Matt. Then we're going to have roughly six to eight minute rebuttals, whatever they don't use in the rebuttal portion, we're going to throw into the discussion. We're going to try and make this a two hour debate. So then we're going to be having a discussion portion, then five minute closing statements, and then an audience Q&A. So again, please make sure you're tagging me at Standing For Truth. That being said, why don't we hand it over to Matt. Matt, we're going to get your opening statement going. You have 15 minutes. What I can do is once you hit the 13 minute mark, brother, I will kind of let you know you got two minutes left and then you'll know to start winding it down. If you need to share a screen, let me know as well. So the floor is yours, Matt. All right. Sounds good. Yeah. If you could just go ahead and share my screen, we'll get started. I wanted to simplify this the best that I could. And so I also wanted to thank Dr. Rhodes for being willing to have the debate on such a short notice. I know that this was supposed to be between Gavin and myself, but Dr. Rhodes was gracious enough to step in and fill the plates. So anyways, this is an Old Earth versus Young Earth Creation debate, definitely looking forward to it. I'd like to just start with the flood. The flood is something that separates us young earth creationists from all old earthers and evolutionists and so forth. And I'd like to start with the Bible. The Bible says, and the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth and upon all the high hills. So all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. And so the Bible is really clear that all of the high hills were covered. The Bible even goes as far as to say that the mountains were all covered. And so I'm going to go ahead and go right to the jugular here in a sense. We find 10,000 adult myosaur in the Dinosaur Peninsula. Now, the Dinosaur Peninsula is in the center part of the United States. It states away from water on all sides. And so that's actually where we find in this Dinosaur Peninsula 10,000 adults. And the interesting thing about this was that there were zero young discovered with these adult myosaur, which means that the adults were fleeing for their lives. They were running from the flood waters as they were coming in on all sides. And so you have to ask what would cause a water or a wave so great that it would cover multiple states, obviously before it was the United States, but multiple states of land and of terrain. The only way to explain that is the flood of Noah. And they were all buried there together. They had left their young behind. And so that's just powerful evidence that the flood of Noah is something that I would argue to be a fact and that we have strong evidence for. We also find this, we also found this recently, this is a T-Rex dinosaur. Now this was actually discovered under 50 feet of sediment. Now if you look at the fossil, you can see that it was suffocated, that the dinosaur had died in a suffocation position. It was gasping for air. It had suffocated to death. And it was buried under 50 feet of sediment. Let me ask you a question. What would cause a T-Rex, a fully grown T-Rex dinosaur to be engulfed and encapsulated in 50 feet of mud? The only way to explain that is the flood of Noah. There is no other option. The Bible says that 15 cubits upward did the mountains, or did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered. So the Bible even goes as far as to say that the mountains themselves were covered by this catastrophic event. Now according to Hugh Ross and the people at Reasons to Believe, Dr. Kenny Rhodes, with all due respect, I disagree with them on this, and the Bible just clearly says that the mountains were completely covered. So if it was just a local flood, why would it say that the mountains were covered? That water would have rushed over those mountains. And so obviously mountains are great proof that the flood of Noah is a fact as well because of what we find on them. And for example, we find fossilized clams in the closed position. Now when a clam dies in nature, naturally it opens up, the muscle relaxes, and a scavenger will come and eat them. But the fact that we find closed clams on the top of Mount Everest means that they were buried and they were slammed shut by sediment and pushed up the mountain through catastrophic plate tectonic shifts. And so this is just powerful evidence that the flood of Noah is a fact. You have to ask, Mount Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, so what would cause clams to be found in the closed position on the top of Mount Everest? The only explanation, once again, is the flood of Noah. There is no other option. You know, a well-preserved whale has been discovered on a California mountain. That's the title of this article that I found. And it was nearly intact. Now whales, when they die, naturally they float to the surface and the scavengers will eat them. And typically they get beached and crabs will go ahead and eat the carcasses. And they're made of fat, they're 35% fat. And so their carcass degrades so quickly. The only way that you're going to find a well-preserved whale on the top of a mountain is from Noah's flood. And we find them on mountains all over the place. All sorts of sea life and crustaceans and so on and so forth are found on the very peak of mountains in some cases. Now this kind of is the end-all be-all argument for the flood of Noah. It kind of really solidifies what we're saying, if you will. If you notice these rock layers, these are actually bent rock, which means that when they were forming, because in evolution you have slow plate tectonic shifts happening over millions of years that slowly form the mountains. Well I'm sorry if that was the case, they would have just eroded flat. I mean gravity causes everything to erode flat over time. But what I'd like you to notice is these rock layers are bent. Now if you try to bend hard rock, what does it do? Well it breaks, it will shatter, it will become brittle and just completely shatter. Well we find bent rock layers, which means that this mountain, for example, was formed while those layers were moist and they had solidified as plate tectonics pushed them up and they sat in that position and had the chance to harden up and solidify. And so this is great proof that these mountains form quickly, not over millions of years. Take a look at this picture. These are pretty self-explanatory, basic pieces of evidence for the flood of Noah. These are catastrophic plate tectonics taking place. And if you look and see, you can see the ridge there where all of the layers are bent. And so it proves that they were bent and that they were all solidified in one event. Because remember, you can't bend hard rock, it will break. And so the idea that mountains could form over millions of years is completely unscientific. Anybody that actually does the research knows that it's impossible on absolutely every level. Now one of the other things that we find is dinosaur tracks that stomps through, this is a dinosaur track, millions of years of supposed geologic time. Now if these layers were separate ages and you have a layer come, solidify, another layer comes, solidify, another layer comes, solidify, and you have Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Archozoic ages and so on and so forth, why is it that you have a dinosaur track that stomps into those layers and bends the rocks? Once again, you can't bend hard rock. All of those layers that the dinosaur track stepped into had to have been soft simultaneously and then solidified into sedimentary rock. And so if you step on hard rock hard enough, you're going to break it. Well, this is bent rock, which means that all the layers that you see there were soft and moist at the same time before they had solidified into sedimentary rock. We also find very common talking points that I love to use, polystrata fossils. Very famous fossils that show that these layers, they connect all of the layers, which prove that these layers are not separate ages. And I want you to think about something, folks. The Bible clearly says that the waters, that the Lord would never flood the earth again. He made a promise that he would never wipe the earth clean again. And so if the flood was just a local flood, then the Lord broke his promise because he promised never to flood the earth again. I mean, really let that sink in. Now, this is the kind of stupidity that one has to stoop to in order to deny the flood of Noah or deny the facts of Scripture. This is from...this just came out recently. Prehistoric monkeys traveled 900 miles between continents on rafts. So to give a little background here, and again, this is a position that you have to defend if you're an evolutionist or an old earth creationist because how did these fossils get to these places that are out of place according to old earth and evolutionary theories? Well, they found monkey fossils in South America. Now monkeys were not in South America 34 million years ago, so how did they get there? If they're finding monkey fossils there, the only way that they could have got there according to this study, it says on the bottom here, it says, well, the researchers from the University of Southern California say they must have managed to hitch a list on floating rafts. So, I mean, you think about it, that is a long journey. That's hundreds of miles, even back when the continents were closer, geologically speaking, you know, that's a long journey, over 900 miles, it says on this article. So, you know, this is the kind of stuff that you have to defend. I believe, in a sense, that they did surf there. They did raft there, but it wasn't a very friendly rafting. The flood of Noah caused these fossils to be put out of place. And so evolutionists interpret it as, well, they rode across on a raft. We would simply interpret it as, sure, those monkeys may have originated in Africa, but they were buried all over the earth. And the reason we find monkey fossils in South America is because they were placed there by the flood. And even to get a fossil, which they based this study off of, you have to have rapid burial to begin with. So, when they make it out like it's this peaceful voyage, but they found a fossil, a fossil means it died, it didn't make it through its journey. They also teach that rodents crossed South Atlantic surfing rats. Folks, this is the kind of stuff that you have to stoop to when you compromise on what the Bible says and what clear scripture teaches when it says that the entire earth was covered. The Bible says, for this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God, the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water. The Bible even says that whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. So, the world, being overflowed with water, perished, not just the ancient Near East. This is the whole world. And think about it, you know, Lot was taken out of Sodom. And, you know, people will say, well, Noah was just there and God had him make an ark just to survive this local event. Well, number one, why wouldn't he just get out of Dodge? Why would he take the birds with him when the birds could have just flown away? Number two, and number three, whenever God was to judge a place, he would get his people out, just as he will rapture us. Look at Lot, for example, just Lot, Vex's righteous soul, the sins of Sodom. Lot was actually taken out of Sodom and Gomorrah with the angels, and then the place was judged. They weren't judged, he wasn't judged among all of that stuff that was going on. Once again, you know, this is another source that just came out recently, November 7th, 2020. Dinosaurs once crossed oceans, first duck-billed dinosaur fossil discovered in Africa. So, obviously, dinosaurs did not live in Africa, duck-bills in particular. So, how did they get there if they're finding fossils out of place? Well, they're concluding that they actually, it says, because Africa was isolated by the deep oceans at that time, duck-billed dinosaurs must have crossed hundreds of kilometers or miles of open water, rafting on debris, floating or swimming to colonize the continent. Again, they're finding a fossil. What is a fossil proof? Well, it died. So, even if it did ride across there trying to survive a catastrophic event, it was buried, hence why you're going to have a fossil. Fossilization isn't about time, it's about conditions. You know, the Bible says the rain was upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. And most older creationists and evolutionists, well, most evolutionists will say that that's a ridiculous idea that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. But the truth is, if you Google sometime rained for millions of years, this is the first thing that pops up. This is that time that it rained for 2 million years. So, evolution teaches, as well as old earth creationism, if you're going to hold to big bang cosmology and the cosmological model that evolutionists hold to, this is what you have to believe as well is that it rained for 2 million years. You know, and if you're an atheist, you think that rain created itself because if there is no God, rain would have magically created itself for 2 million years. I mean, that's really superstitious. And I know that Dr. Rhodes is a believer in the Lord and in the Lord Jesus Christ. And, you know, I commend him for that. And it's definitely more logical to be a Christian than an atheist. And that's something we definitely can agree on is that us Christians, we believe in things that are consistent with the laws of physics. An atheist has to deny the laws of physics and believe that the universe magically spawned. Think about it. What's magical? Somebody creating the universe or matter and energy creating itself for nothing? And what if I said a giant boulder popped into this room that we're having a debate in? Nobody would believe that. But people have no problem believing that the universe popped into existence from nothing, actually, hello, with no cause associated with it. It's a superstitious thing to say that nothing would cause an explosion, yet that's what they believe. And I understand that's not what I'm arguing against. But I thought I would add that point in there. Two minutes. The Bible says, and I will establish my covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off anymore by the waters of the flood. Neither shall there be any more of a flood to destroy the earth. So that's God's promise. If it's a local flood, then he broke the promise because the local floods have gone on forever and ever, ever since the flood. Very common. Many people die. The Bible says, behold now a behemoth which I made with thee. So Job is being told by God that the behemoth was made with him. He moveth his tail like a cedar. I'm going to move quickly here. Evolutionists and older creationists will say that's a hippopotamus. Well, which one moves its tail like a cedar? It's pretty obvious. I'll let you choose that. So in dinosaur bones, this is a great way to show that dinosaurs and man must have coexisted because we find C14 inside of dinosaur bones. Now C14, the half-life is 5,730 years. And so it only lasts up to 50,000 years in any organism that died with it in it. And so the fact that we're finding carbon-14 inside of dinosaur bones proves that these dinosaur bones are less than 50,000 years old. We find soft tissue inside of T-Rex bones, and we find dinosaur DNA in the bones, and it's the rule, not the exception. It's more often that you'll find it than not. Just go to a museum, for example. You can break open dinosaur bones and find DNA and soft tissue inside of them. It's very common, and this stuff could not last for millions of years. This proves beyond any shadow of doubt that these creatures died recently. What about helium and zircon crystals? Well, helium slips out of the rocks over time. If I went into a garage and I saw an air compressor and I concluded that that air had been in there for 4.5 billion years, nobody would believe that. But helium, just like an air compressor, is actually slipping out of the rocks over time. The fact that we find helium inside of zircon crystals proves that they are young and not old. But if you Google how old are crystals, 4.4 billion years old, the oldest crust of the Earth, the oldest scrap. We find C14 in diamonds. Diamonds are supposedly a billion to 3.5 billion years old. Folks, these are things that should not have any C14 left. If the half life is truly 5,700 years, and it can't last any longer than 50,000 years. And if the whole Earth was made of C14, just pretending and going into fantasy land, the whole Earth would dissipate in less than a million years. But we're supposed to believe that these things are 1 to 3.5 billion years old. It doesn't make any sense. And I will leave it at that. And I will go ahead and turn it over to Dr. Rhodes. I'm curious to see what evidence he has to bring to the table. Thank you so much. All right, I appreciate that opening statement. Just about 20 seconds over, but I don't like to interrupt when you gentlemen are giving your openings, we like a little leeway on the opening statements. We're a little more strict on the rebuttals. Therefore, Kenny, you have between 15 and 15 and 30 seconds. So let's hand it over to you. And if you need me to screen share, let me know. Yeah, screen share right away, yeah. Sure. Sure. Open here. Okay. Can you see that okay? Yes. Yeah, looks good. All right, so let me run through this. Let me first of all say that while I am a old Earther, I am not an evolutionist in the slightest. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that the mechanism of evolution is viable, which means even the mechanism required for a young Earther with a speciation after the fall and the flood, I think natural mechanisms are insufficient to produce the species. So my conservatism has actually led me down the road to take scripture literally and consistently. And that discounts any kind of young earth, radical Darwinian or neo-Darwinianism. So I want to address the issue of God's revelation within scripture and within creation. Of course, this is not to say that they are equal, but the Bible does support the fact that God has revealed himself both in scripture and in nature. And my argument is going to be this. If we reject God's revelation in nature, that is the earth and universe are old, and we insist that unbelievers have to first filter or even interpret natural phenomena, nature, creation. If they have to interpret it through the grid of the Bible, then that means there really is no knowledge content in the record of nature. So that is my argument. I think it's inconsistent to suggest that man is without excuse. Romans chapter 1, Psalm 19, the heavens declare the glory of God. I'm going to point out what the heavens do declare about God. And one of those is that he is righteous and he is true. So if unbelievers look at the creation and it looks old, the mountains even in scripture are called ancient. So the Bible has a purpose for pointing out a very old creation, which points to a very old God in a certain sense. We know that God is timeless, dwells in eternity. The scripture says he inhabits eternity. So he's not subject to time. But when we deal with the fact that God has revealed himself within creation and man is without excuse upon that basis, then we cannot assert that man must first filter that natural revelation through scripture. That becomes really a moot point. And ultimately, if the unbeliever cannot look at creation and discern things about the divine nature, discern things about the creation, that is it's old, then we have no true revelation of God. Remember, all of these verses were written after the fall. So this is even whatever happened to creation after the fall. It did not, for example, destroy man's reasoning faculties to the point where he can't discover truth, nor did it mar creation so much that it is beyond any kind of revelation, any kind of truth, any kind of speech that has content. And so that's what my argument is. And here we go with that argument. So the Bible first says about itself that it is a perfect revelation, it's flawless, it's trustworthy, it's right, it cannot be broken. Now the Bible also says about nature that God, his glory is revealed. The heavens declare the glory. I call this the doxa or the doxa knowledge that every human being has. We need to have the esoteric knowledge of God. Of course, I write on this in my book and if I have time, I'll bring that up and read a couple passages out of my own book and exegeting these passages, but may not have time. But look at what this says. The glory of God is revealed. The skies or the heavens proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day, they pour forth speech. Night after night, they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. So that simply means there may not be phonetic symbols put out by creation, which has a referent where we just are told in scripture that by looking at creation, knowledge is there and it's similar to the kind of knowledge that is through speech. It may not be propositional in the sense of scripture, but we can deduce from creation some truths about God. This is called the way of remotion when we prove the cause via the effect. So there must be some real content. So what is that? Well, it's God's glory. We are also told that the creation reflects the nature of God. We have in Psalm 33, the Lord loves righteousness and justice and the earth is full of his unfailing love. So we can deduce from the creation that God is righteous, God is just and God is loving. Now, it's been said that Job didn't have a Bible and yet Job knew some things about God based on creation. Now, Dr. Jason Lyle, he'll respond and he'll say, well, Job was a prophet. Therefore, he is the instrument of revelation. But here's the thing, not everything that Job said in the book is true. Matter of fact, Job said a lot of wrong things. So how can you determine what was true that Job said and what was revelation from God or what was false? You can't have your cake and eat it too. So therefore, Job was able to discern many things about God. The friends of Job there were able to discern many things about God. There's some fantastic statements about the nature of God in the book of Job. And this is all based on reflecting on natural revelation or general revelation. Psalm 50, we are told that the heavens proclaim his righteousness. Psalm 97 as well. We're told that the invisible qualities is divine nature, eternal power. Now, the divine nature, now that's something very interesting. I believe that I can start with divine simplicity and go all the way to the Trinity via love simply by looking at the creation. Now, is that a revelation of God that is thorough? Does it have all of the information about God? No, but it has true information about God. Therefore, what the creation says about the divine nature and the eternal power, also, we must be able to know some things about God. And scripture says, having been clearly seen being understood, so man is without excuse. Now, without excuse must come without the aid of special revelation. Therefore, there is true content. And I would suggest that the basic one is that we're looking at an old universe. Regardless, if the universe looks old but is not old, then God is not righteous. God is not true. We're told through scripture that his glory, his righteousness are seen from what has been made. So if it's giving us false information, then the implications of that are too, well, they just destroy a lot of theology, if that's true. Job tells us that you can look at the animals. They'll teach you, the birds of the air, they will tell you, they'll inform you. So again, there is real content in natural revelation. Psalm 50, our God comes and will not be silent. The heavens proclaim his righteousness. Looks like I already used that. Now, this is what young earthers will say. They'll say that fallen man cannot properly interpret via science the creation because it's cursed or it's fallen, that is creation. And they try to do this in order to pooh-pooh all science. And I don't know what objective means they have by picking what this journal says, but not picking what it says in the paragraph afterwards. So it's really piecemealing their own ideas about science. It's really not science either because it starts with a conclusion. So it's really not even creation science, it's simply religious dogma. I don't have a problem with religious dogma except for this one. I do believe it's not based on scripture nor the fact that God created reality and has informed us about a lot of things even before we come to scripture. I have a short video here I want to play that demonstrates the antiquity of the earth, the reliability of all of the chemical radiometric dating. And it's just a few minutes long. I'm going to put it on double speed or at least 1.5. Oh, Dr. Rhodes, we heard the sound for the first minute there. Okay. If you want to maybe pause it, Kenny, and maybe put it down to 1.25 times. Okay. All right. Give me definitely too fast. Okay. I'm going to pause your timer though so you don't lose any minutes. Do this and make this bigger. Let's put it down to 1.25. Is that good? Yeah. Yeah. And don't worry, we'll give you a little extra time. Sounds good. All right. So here we go. Tectonic plates. Which brings us to the test. If radiometric datings are correct, we should find that the current measured speed of the Pacific plate at Hawaii is within the range of 2.6 to 3.6 inches per year. On the other hand, if the radiometric datings are way off, the measured speed should be nowhere close to the calculated rates. So what do we find? The measured speed of the Pacific plate over the Hawaiian hotspot today is averaging 3.1 inches per year. Testing doesn't get much better than this. God has given us some amazing tools to test and verify our understanding of Earth's history. Okay. Can you all hear me okay? Yes, we can hear you, Dr. Rhodes. All right. I'm sharing my screen. So it's all new to me. No worries. No worries. After that video, and then I gave you a little bit more time, Kenny. I've got about 26 seconds on the clock for you. I'm not sure if you wanted to wrap up your thoughts. I'm just going to leave it at that. Sure. That works. That works. So gentlemen, that concludes the opening statements from the both of you. 15 minutes roughly. So now we're moving into the six to eight minute rebuttals. Feel free to use the full eight if you want. Whatever you don't use, we'll just throw into the discussion. I know you both brought up plenty of points to deal with. So six to eight minutes typically flies by. That being said, we're going to hand it to you, Matt. You have, like I said, up to eight minutes. If you need me to screen share anything like that, you let me know and I'll start the timer on your first word. Yeah, screen share would be great. So basically, that entire video was about radiometric dating and how radiometric dating proves that these rocks that they had dated yielded these ages that seemed to make sense. And so therefore, that seemed to make sense with an old earth model. And so therefore, radiometric dating has been proven. Well, here's the thing. You know, and I want to reiterate, that entire video is pretty much based on radiometric dating, but radiometric dating has never worked even once for rocks of known age. It has a 0% success rate. So for example, in 1980, Mount St. Helens erupted, and it created igneous rock that flowed down the side of the mountain. It was the greatest eruption in US history of a volcano. Well, some creation scientists took the fresh rock that was less than 10 years old about 10 years after it erupted, and they sent it to five different laboratories. Now, keep in mind, this is the same age rock, all the same age. And they sent it to geochron laboratories. Now, geochron laboratories were the best laboratories that we had, still are, I believe, for radiometric dating testing. Well, the first sample came back. And remember, these are all the same age rocks as 340,000 years old. The second sample came back as 350,000 years old, 900,000 years old. One sample came back as 7 million years old. So this is the dating method that they're saying is reliable, and we can date the crust of the earth with this method. Another sample came back as 2.8 million years. So those are vastly different ages. Now, keep in mind, these are rocks that are less than 10 years old, but dating at 350,000, 900,000, one dated at 7 million years old. I mean, these are all the same age rocks, but they all give vastly different ages, because radiometric dating doesn't work. This is just a clear falsification. So if no known age rock has ever been dated accurately, how can we trust this radiometric dating process for rocks of unknown age? It doesn't make any sense, because it's not true, because it's not a method that works. Now, the video also mentioned a lot of these things are very predictable. These are common arguments. That's why I have slides prepared, because you can pretty much predict what they're going to bring forth as evidence for a old earth. But since your video mentioned the crust of the earth, during the flood and through rapid plate tectonics, we would expect as the ocean floor and the crust was breaking and the waters of the deep were springing forth, that certain of the crust of the earth would actually get dragged down through a process known as subduction. And you can see in the photo here to make it simple. And it gets dragged down into the mantle. Well, we find huge slabs all across the world of cold rock that have been dragged into the mantle. Some go several hundred miles down into the mantle. Humongous slabs. Now, keep in mind, and here's a slab right here that you can see clearly, this blue line. This slab goes down 435 miles. I mean, that is incredible. And notice that this rock is still cold. NASA did scans, and they found that it was cold rock. Remember, the mantle is warm. As you get closer to the core of the earth, everything heats up. And so those rocks should have heated up by now. But the fact that they're still cold is great proof for an OS flood and for catastrophic plate tectonic shifts. And so let's cover a few more things here. One of the common points that I hear is that there would be too many plants, or not enough plants in the pre-flood world for us to have the coal deposits that we have today. Well, if you look sandwiched between all of the layers of strata, you'll find these coal deposits. And what's interesting is the amount of carbon-14 in the top matches the same as all of the other layers. It has identical amounts of carbon-14. Now remember, carbon-14 decays in less than 50,000 years. And so it means that all of these deposits were from the same time zone and that they were all laid down in the same event. We find fossilized raindrops. Again, surface areas get destroyed so quickly. What would cause raindrops to get fossilized with, you know, because they say in old earth creationism as well as evolution theory that it takes 10,000 years for something to fossilize. Well, I'm sorry, a raindrop isn't going to sit there on the ground waiting 10,000 years. It's going to get smoothed out. The only way that you get fossilized raindrops and water ripples and even tracks are from the flood of Noah. You find water ripples that are fossilized. Again, unstable surface areas that are easily destroyed being fossilized. So Dr. Rhodes made a few interesting points that I wanted to address really quickly. Obviously, we covered radiometric dating, which has never worked once for rocks of known age. So I don't even know, you know, I mean this with all due respect, Dr. Rhodes, but I don't even know why you would trust that process just because, well, 97% of scientists believe in it, so therefore it's true, or this video said so. I would like to see maybe some of your own research that confirms radiometric dating. Of course, at this time, there is none because it failed when Mount St. Helens erupted. The Bible says for this, they willingly are ignorant of that by the word of God, the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water perished. Again, you have mountains that are formed quickly and had solidified after they had formed in one event. And so, you know, you can play semantics all day. You can say, well, and you made an interesting claim here that young earth creationists believe that fallen man cannot properly interpret creation in an attempt to avoid problems with an old age universe. I've never heard anybody, I've never heard a young earth creationist say that we have an issue interpreting this data. There is no issue interpreting the data. The data is easily understandable because the Bible says that for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen being understood by the things which are made, even his eternal power and Godhead so that they're without excuse. So it's not hard for us to interpret the data. Look how simple this is from the New York Times. It turns out all of humanity is related to a single couple. A new study revealed that all humans are descendants of the same man and woman. This completely and utterly demolishes evolution. We find that humans and all sorts of different animals came into being, 9 out of 10 of us, at the same time, simultaneously. That is creation from the Lord God. There's no other way to explain it. Either it's by magic or by design. If I said that a human just magically appeared here, nobody would believe that. But if somebody designed it, that's more believable. And when it comes to the flood of Noah, you know, there are some things you can deny, but there are other things that are undeniable. You know, you look at the creation of man. The creation of man was at the beginning. The Bible says in Matthew 19 four, he answered instead of them, Jesus, have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? Well, when was the beginning? You can do genealogies to trace back to when that was. And you say, well, the earth must be old. Otherwise, God is not omnipotent, if I understood you correctly. Well, here's the thing. I do believe in an older, you know, six thousand years is a long time. Six thousand seven thousand years. That's a long time. And so, yeah, there's no such there's no I've never heard a younger creation to say that we are fallen man. So there's no way we can interpret the data. No, God has given us a brain and we can use it. And like the Bible says, God told Moses to write things down very plainly so that all could understand. All right. Just on time. I appreciate that, Matt. Eight minutes really does fly by. So that being said, before I hand it to you, Kenny, I want to thank everybody in the audience for the super chat, super stickers and the questions we're going to be moving into Dr. Rhodes eight minute rebuttal. So after that, we're going into a discussion portion. If you have any questions or anything, just make sure you are tagging me. So, Kenny, on your first word and or whenever you're ready, just let me know and I'll start your timer. Sounds good. Matt, good notes. So you kept me quite busy and I'm going to start from the bottom and work my way up. You give me a lot of stuff to address and I will try to address most of it. I do know that you and I, we debate atheists, evolutionists and things like that. So a lot of your points really don't have to do with my particular view in a lot of ways. So I just wanted to mention that. Also, Mount St. Helens, since that seems to be one that my younger creationist brothers and sisters have kind of stood upon for many years. The problem is, is that in dating those rocks, the clock actually is theoretically set to zero with a lava flow. Mount St. Helens did not have a lava flow. Therefore, you are assuming that those the radiometric dates were reset in those rocks, but they were not. So that is really just kind of devastating to the whole Mount St. Helens argument. Also, 6,000 years, it's not that old. So I know Dr. Hovind likes to say that a lot, but 6,000 years is a very, very young earth. But I don't, I just wanted to respond to that. The Big Bang. Now, I want to answer an issue that's been brought up a number of times. I've been wanting to answer it because I've heard you say it, Matt, and I've also heard Dr. Hovind say it. And that is, how do you get, say, the oceans down to a dot? Well, if you look throughout our universe and you look at the center of every galaxy, every galaxy, you have a black hole, which is theoretically a singular. And not only do you have something the size of the oceans of the earth, but you have literally tens of millions of our sun at the center of the Milky Way galaxy in that black hole, which is a singularity. So that is that dot that the Big Bang is mentioned to be done away with because you can't squeeze something down. Yes, you can in a black hole, and the singularity is just like a black hole. Also, when it comes to the Big Bang as well, God in no way used naturalistic processes in the sense of the origin of life and things like that. I do believe that God has, really, it seems to be an absurd point that He would create all of the natural laws and then immediately undo those. It's not taking away from God's glory saying that He worked within the laws that He created. Even in the Old Testament, the Jewish people, they would look at secondary causes or instrumental causes and refer them back to the primary cause or the uncaused cause, which is God. So regardless if God works through the natural law that He created or if He does something what we might say immediately, not through a medium, but immediately, whether it be up close as a proximate cause or as a distal cause, God is still involved in all of that. The Big Bang is actually scientific proof of an ex nihilo creation. The reason why a lot of scientists are trying to get out of the Big Bang is because it started as a result of a Christian who took Einstein's theories, general special relativity, but specifically general relativity. And because of the equations, the Big Bang falls out of that and a singularity, which necessitates a creation out of nothing being caused by a transcendent causal agent. That is Genesis 1, 1 to a T and unbelievers, Einstein being one of them, put forth that theory and it has been confirmed numerous, numerous times. General relativity is the most proven scientific theory in the history of mankind. So let me continue on just to address some of these things. I think my younger creationist brothers and sisters are not getting this important point and that is it is not the means of the judgment, but it's the judgment itself. For there to have been a local flood and yet kill all humanity, for there to be another local flood is not God breaking his word, it is about the judgment. Wherever human beings were, that's where the judgment would have taken place. So it's really not a good point and to focus so much on the means of judgment is to really miss the entire point altogether because it seems like it's about the water. And not only it's about the water, but it's about the extent of the water. Now scoffing in the end times is not saying we don't like the means by which God judged. No, it's actually the fact that God is a judge and he judged the world once and he's going to judge the world again. That's the issue. He judged it first through water, next time is going to be through fire. That's the issue. The means, irrelevant. He used the Assyrians. He used nations around the Jewish people. He used the Babylonians. He used all kinds of things to judge his people in the Old Testament. So it's never about the means, it's always about the fact of judgment. And I really wish there'd be more careful handling of the scripture because it leads to mishandling other scriptures. And that's about as much as I'll say about that. Polystrate fossils, they are not growing through layers that were millions of years. Actually, we have polystrate fossils being ready to be formed in Spirit Lake at Mount St. Helens, which is when a volcano blows the water. They sit there for years. They get bottom heavy, they sink as if they were being planted in the bottom of that lake. Someday that lake is going to be drained and that we're going to see the layers that were there and these trees that had sunk down through these layers in the mud. And that's all those polystrate fossils are. It is in no way an evidence for the fact that geologists got it all wrong and there's some sort of conspiracy within this world that there's no truth. Scientists are like cats. You can't hurt them. You can't get one to conform to another one. If there was evidence for a young earth, you would make a lot of money because you would bust up the entire scientific endeavor. And anybody who is a scientist, Christian or not, is going to want to shake up the scientific world because money comes with that. And that's why academia has gone off the deep end so many times. It even happens in biblical studies and seminaries. The fight to be unique and come up with something new is what has destroyed academia as we know it today. And I'll close with that. All right, I appreciate it. That concludes the eight minute rebuttals and the 15 minute opening statement. So great job to the both of you. This has been an epic debate so far. So now we're moving into the discussion portion. We've got about 30 minutes on the clock for the discussion. So that being said, Dr. Rhodes, you just finished with your eight minute rebuttal. So to be fair, let's hand it to Matt. Matt will let you kick off the discussion. Maybe there's a couple of points you wanted to make or a question you wanted to kind of lead the conversation with. Go ahead, gentlemen. Is it okay if I share my screen real quick? No, sure. Only if Kenny says it's okay. There you go, brother. Okay, so Dr. Rhodes, you were talking about the Big Bang Theory as if it's a proven fact. And you said it was a way to prove creation. Well, here's the thing. NASA said, and I quote, that although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it will probably never be proved. So this is from NASA. All of our best scientists, best cosmologists are saying it will probably never be proved consequentially, leaving a number of tough and unanswered questions. So I just wanted to point that out. And then also, short period comments. You talk about the cosmos as if it looks billions of years old. Pluto, the planet, is actually warm on the inside. Now, supposedly, our solar system is 4.5 billion years old. Well, the problem with that is that it's warm on the inside. It would have completely cooled over the course of 4.5 billion years. Look at the rings around Saturn. And I'd like to know your thoughts on these short period comments, which I'm sure you've heard about. They only last up to 10,000 years. Creationists know they exist. Secularists know they exist. And so obviously, they invented the Oort cloud. And there's no evidence that the Oort cloud exists. And the Oort cloud supposedly spirals new comets in. But we have no evidence for it. So the fact that there are short period comets in our universe, what do you do with that? The fact that they haven't deteriorated and they deteriorate in less than 10,000 years, doesn't that limit the cosmological age of things, at least in our solar system, to 10,000 years? I'm sorry. The dogs have been barking. I had to mute myself. So if they bark, I'm going to try to mute real fast. You know, I have to be very honest. And this is going to sound horrible. But I have come to realize that I can't trust anything that a young Earth creationist says. And let me explain. Everything that I have checked out and everything that I believed and used as a young Earther, especially if you're leaning on Dr. Hovind's information, like the shrinking sun, that's just so not true. Now, these short period comets, you know, just because we have those, there must be some sort of source that seems to be rational. But once again, I don't know that I can trust anything that is said by a creation scientist. And the reason is this. It's because the conclusion is already set. And journal articles, they pick and choose what they like out of it and don't like out of the next paragraph. And it's very, very troubling. Even Dr. Kurt Weisz pointed this out. He says that there is so much misinformation and knowing that it's wrong information. And Kurt Weisz pointed this out to Duane Gish. And there's just a real integrity problem with young Earth scientists. Now, if this is even a legitimate quote, because I don't know where you got it from. I don't know that it's from the NASA website. Because I found a website that had a NASA logo on it, but it clearly wasn't a NASA page. These quotes are easy to find. I mean, this is all easily verifiable data. Nothing that I'm saying is rejected by the scientific community, other than the interpretation that I apply to it. So the way that I view this quote, for example, is they're saying that the Big Bang will probably never be proven. That's from NASA. And this is completely clear through and through. Yeah, that's something that evolutionists and creationists all know exists. And you, yourself, had said that you've watched Kent Hovind's seminar over and over and over and over. And you said you probably have it memorized. Well, if that was the case, are you even able to name one young Earth prediction that a young Earth creationist would make? I would even stay away from that. Because almost everything I've looked at in Dr. Hovind's seminars is wrong. Okay, but can you name one young Earth prediction that we have made as young Earthers? Because if you were a former young Earth creationist, you should be able to name just one prediction. You know, he goes through and he says, I predict there was a worldwide flood and we find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth. Of course, that's Ken Ham's statement. But Dr. Hovind has said the same thing. So I know the model. The problem is, is the model is set in stone and then the evidence is tried to be poked into it. The model, yeah, we develop models so we can determine whether or not it has explanatory power, explanatory scope. But the problem is, is the age of the Earth is assumed all priori and then whatever evidence fits with that, you guys will take it and quote it. But then in the same paper, you have something that is against your particular view. So how do you pick and choose? How do you determine what has been proven? You have to point out. Well, the burden of proof is on you. You haven't answered really any of the arguments that I've made or any of the things I brought up in my opening or even in my rebuttal other than radiometric dating, which we create radiometric isotopes in a lab. And the following day, they date as extremely old, but they're extremely fresh. So radiometric dating is wrong and we know what's wrong. And yet people still choose to believe in it. So that's about the only thing that you address. Now, all of these other things like the Oort cloud and so on and so forth. Yeah, these are very common things. You should be able to point out where I'm wrong instead of just basically slapping and running and saying, you know, I don't trust any young Earth creationist. I mean, I actually have the sources right here for you to see. These are easily verifiable sources. Right. But I would almost guarantee if we looked at them, they would end up being wrong or misconstrued. Now, I've got all of your stuff here. I addressed your polystrate fossils. I addressed your local flood. I addressed the Big Bang issues. I can't read my writing there. Mount St. Helens addressed that. You know, all of these things, I've heard them a hundred times and they end up when you look at them on the surface, they look good, but then when you get into it, they're all wrong. Well, let's simplify this then. Let's simplify this then. In the human genome, and you would agree, do you believe in a young creation of man? I believe you do, correct? Yeah. Yeah. So what would it make sense for the Earth to be 4.5 billion years old and somewhere in the 4.4 billion year era, you have man being created fully whole and animal death and all sorts of death taking place before man even came onto the scene. To me, that just doesn't make any sense. That defies basic logic. And just the fact that you find dinosaur blood, I mean, how do you justify blood and hemoglobin in the cells, which is active, surviving in deep time for over 65 million years? How do you justify that? Once again, I'm not a scientist, but I'll refer to Fus Rana, which the configuration of, I don't know, some sort of polymers or something, also iron. This has all been answered even. Okay, but iron in the blood, I've heard that a million times, but iron, nature doesn't automatically encapsulate dead organisms in iron. Nature scatters the DNA molecules. How do you know? How do you justify? Well, I mean, give an example of something that died in nature and then was submerged in iron. When things die naturally, they get dispersed, they get destroyed by creatures, by differentiating temperatures in the ground. You can't tell me that this stuff lasted in deep time when you have moist changes in the ground, temperature changes in the ground. Even if you were to put dinosaur soft tissue instead of an airtight jar and that airtight jar and another airtight jar and seal it up real good, deep time will always cause things to deteriorate. This is just very basic scientific knowledge. I think that you have to say something more than iron. Yes, in a lab, if you submerge blood in iron, it will preserve the blood cells, but nature doesn't do that. Nature scatters DNA molecules and things deteriorate. You're bringing up an issue that both of us know nothing about because we're not scientists. Well, I have all the papers. I know a lot about it because I have the papers of the scientists that actually made the discovery. Okay, and which ones do you hold to her conclusions that it actually is deep time that's real? She hasn't become a young earth creation as a result of finding it. Apparently, she disagrees with you. Well, she was doing that just to keep her job and she even said herself that these things should not have lasted in deep time and that they needed to come up. The evolutionists and the atheists, they forced her to come up with a mechanism to figure out how these things could last in deep time. That's why she was even fired from her job for making the discovery. Right, sure. I don't believe that for a minute. Well, I mean, evolution is the only theory protected by law, so it means you're not allowed to free think outside of it. So if you find data and evidence that conflict with evolution such as blood surviving for 65 million years, I'm sorry, Dr. Roblovitz, a complete and utter joke to think that blood and hemoglobin in the cells would not have deteriorated in deep time. Again, I can't comment on that. I'm not a scientist. I'm sure. But you're not a scientist, but you trust what they say. Absolutely. They're my friends. Yeah, they're my friends. I know them. Yeah. Yeah. But what is the justification? I mean, do you have, just off the top of your own head, you have a justification. They're honest. I trust them. Fuz Rana, I expect that he is intellectually honest in his discipline the same way that I am in my discipline. And you're doing the same thing. You're trusting other people because you're not a scientist either. I'm not a scientist. I'm just trusting the facts. The fact is that this stuff cannot last in deep time. That's just a fact of science. How do you know you're not a scientist? So how can you make that assertion? Because organic material can only last a maximum of about 10,000 years. How do you know that? You're not the scientist. Well, for one, there's a scientific peer-reviewed paper that says that none of the preservation models will account for things that are dead and that have died in the past and account for things in deep time. That's the word from a scientific paper. I'm not a scientist and I can't answer the blood thing to your satisfaction. I can refer you to the book that Fuz Rana wrote on it. But I can't give you, I'm not going to make something up to have an answer. So I'm unable to answer that for you. But there are a lot of other issues that were brought up that we can discuss. Sure. Well, I know I probably should give it over to you now because I take a little bit of the time on that. So what you got? That's all right. Well, I guess I'll just go ahead and question you on my particular opening. And it is stated by Young Earth Creationists that man's in his fallen state, his mind has been darkened and he cannot accurately discern the creation without help from scripture first because they call it the Noahic effects of the fall. That is a Young Earth position. What do you think is revealed in creation that makes man without excuse? If man can look at it and discern truth from it about God, does he need to first look at Genesis 1 and interpret as 24-hour days and then put that upon natural revelation in order to interpret it properly? Well, for one, the Bible actually defines it for us. The Bible defines a day as the evening and the morning were the first day and the evening and the morning were the second day. So it gives a definition of what a day is. I'm talking about an unbeliever that doesn't have the Bible, that is without excuse, doesn't have special revelation. What knowledge content is in the creation that would make that unbeliever beyond excuse or without excuse? Because actually, no apologetic. Well, just the fact that there is something, just the fact that there is something rather than nothing shows that either things popped into existence uncaused or there was a cause associated with it, which we definitely would agree on. What about that? Because we're told in scripture as righteousness, his truth, that he's a God of justice, his glory, all of those things are met, his eternal power, divine nature. There's a number of things, his love, many things about God that are expressed in creation. So what from your position does the creation say about God and what does it not say about God? Well, everything bears witness to the Lord. I mean, the Bible says the heavens themselves declare the glory of God, the firmament showeth his handiwork. So just the fact that people can look around, if they see design, you can infer that there was a designer. I mean, if I was to go out to the woods and find a pen out in the woods, I'm not going to assume that it just popped into existence by chance. And the same goes with anything, any piece of matter anywhere. You can't just assume that it would pop into existence on its own. That's why most people believe in the Lord. Most people believe in the Lord, but I'm not sure exactly what this has to do with the debate. I mean, the Bible clearly says in regards to the age of the earth, that he created them, male and female at the beginning. And so we can trace those lineages back and it takes us back to about 6,000 years. So if that's the beginning of the universe, or the beginning of time, space and matter, have you not read? Read what? Well, Genesis 1, evening in the morning or the first day. And so all of this is very clear. It's simple, the simplicity of Christ. And it seems like you're trying to complicate it. No, there are some things that are clear in scripture, but not everything in scripture is equally clear. The point about what I'm bringing up is this. If unbelievers look at the creation and engage in science, and not a single one of them concludes that the earth is young, why do they do that, number one? And number two, why would you say that they would have to look to scripture and understand that the creation is only 6,000 years old, and then reinterpret what they find just by looking at creation, just as it is? What knowledge is there that would hold them without excuse if they have to, oh, well, it's young. The Bible says it's young, but it looks old. They do all of the methodology. They look at it. That doesn't matter. I mean, the age of the earth, when it comes to salvation, is irrelevant. It's about whether they're trusting Jesus Christ as their savior to get them to heaven, and they've had the blood applied. So I don't see how that even pertains to the conversation. I mean, I don't really want to talk about what do the unbelievers believe. What do you believe about the age of the earth? That's what we're debating about. Right. Do you not get the power of the point, though? If no scientist... Well, 40% of Americans believe that the earth is 6,000 years old just based on observation. Those aren't even Christians. That's 40% of Americans. So yes, there are many people. If no scientist purely on the evidence has concluded that the universe is young... There are many scientists who have concluded that the universe is young. There are many scientists. I can name 10 right now. Not without first assuming it biblically. There's not a single one. Danny Faulkner has admitted... That's a pretty... I don't care what Danny Faulkner says. I mean, I've literally met other creation scientists and other even just regular scientists that don't even believe in Jesus that believe that the earth is young. I could name 10 right now that are PhDs that believe that believe that our PhDs claim Dr. John Sanford, Dr. Robert Carter, Dr. John Hoeven. You do know that those guys first assume it because they read scripture. Well, I would suppose that everybody would have a starting place. Everybody would have a place that they begin. It's either God created the universe or the universe created itself. And if God created the universe and he's revealed scripture under us and scripture is absolute truth, then we need to interpret things through the lens of scripture. And it's very clear that there was a global flood. I literally proved that time and time again at the very beginning of this debate. And so that validates what scripture says. You know, if something in scripture doesn't line up with reality, then we definitely have a problem. But the Bible says that the earth was out of the water and in the water the world that then was being overflowed with water perished. And then we see all throughout the world that mountains were formed by catastrophic plate tectonics in the flood. I mean, how do you address the cold slabs of rock that are all over the place, all over the earth, hundreds of miles down in? I don't know why that would be relevant to anything. Well, it's absolutely relevant because it was a young earth prediction that was made that if the crust of the earth was broken up and the fountains of the deep were springing open, that certain of the crust would be subducted down into the mantle and that we would find cold slabs, giant cold slabs of rock inside the mantle that had not heated up yet. Because remember, it's warm there. And so scientists are wondering how did this get there? Well, the only explanation is catastrophic plate tectonics in a flood. I mean, mountains would have eroded flat. This is all basic scientific knowledge that should be taken into consideration. No, none of that is scientific knowledge. Nothing that young... What about... Okay, so wait a minute. So you think that mountains slowly formed through plate tectonic shifts. What about the rock layers that are bent? What do you do with that evidence? This is basic evidence. So what you're saying is that it's impossible that rock layers can bend when they're hard. Therefore, global flood and every bent rock we see was first mud. No, the point that I'm making is that there's no erosion between the layers. There's no animal holes between the layers, no bioturbation. We would expect all of these things in the old earth creation model as well as the evolutionary model. Well, you do... And so we don't find those things because they don't exist because it's not true. You do know the in between the Grand Canyon layers there's evidence for shallow seas at numerous levels. So it's not one flood that has done all of this. Yeah, well I have no doubt that there could have been multiple waves of sediment that would come in and lay down the layers. That's why we find no erosion between the layers. Some of it... Water is laying down the layers. Some of those layers are desert as well with no water. Well, the definition of sedimentary rock is rock that was laid down by water. And so if the Grand Canyon is made of sedimentary rock, which it is, that means by definition it was caused by a flood. I'm not opposed to the fact that the Grand Canyon was ripped out maybe even fast through a post ice age lake that a nice dam breached. I have no problem with that. But you're pointing at little tiny things that were formed by water and then saying, well this all happened at one time. These are not little tiny things. The Grand Canyon is humongous. Even evolutionists will admit that if the Grand Canyon was formed by a flood, that that would have been worldwide. It would have been a worldwide catastrophic event. Hence why we even find 10,000 adult myosaur in the center of the United States buried together. That water covered several states. Again, you can't explain these things in the old earth creation model because there's no place to put it. You actually can. It actually works out really good. How do you explain that then? The younger Gerais period, an asteroid or a comet slammed into North America when there was two mile ice sheet on it. That would explain Dinosaur Peninsula real easily. That explains the extinction of all the mega fauna. I'm not opposed to the fact that the earth could have been covered with some form of H2O. I'm opposed to the fact that the fossil record comes from Noah's flood. Wait a minute. So you're saying that those dinosaurs could have been buried by water in the center of the United States? The ice age, yeah. How catastrophic would that have been? That would have been pretty catastrophic to have been covering states. Yeah, a comet struck the earth. That's even the Hoban theory, so come on now. I understand. Yeah, well I understand that. You can't deny it because I'm agreeing with the evidence. I'm interpreting it a little differently. Yeah, we definitely interpret the evidence different, but all I'm saying is that that water, they left their young behind and they were buried in the center part of the United States. So the fact that you don't find of course it had to have been global. Why else would it cover states of water? Well, for one, it had to go 500, I think 5000 feet above sea level, which is tremendous. Well, there were some miles of ice there just years before that. I don't get why it's an issue for you. We live on what's called the water planet. 71% of the earth right now is covered by water. So the global flood, because old earth creationists say that it's impossible to have a global flood because they give all these reasons. Well, here's the thing. We live on what's known as the water planet. We find fossilized clams on the top of mountains, fossilized whales on the top of mountains. Everything that we would predict in the global flood model we find. And so what would violate the global flood model? What would make it so it's impossible or what would make it line up with your model? The fossil record. Impossible that one flood would be responsible for the fossil record. Okay, so your video that you played earlier said that it was the sequence of the fossils that determined that young earth creationism is false. Well, here's the thing. That's easily explained by buoyancy and by hydrologic sorting. Because remember, all the heavy stuff would have been placed in the bottom in a flood in the Grand Canyon, for example, like the clams, mollusks and so forth. And then lizards closer to the bottom because they're more buoyant than mammals closer to the top than birds up at the top, of course, because they're the last ones to die. So when they say, well, you see how animals transitioned over time in these layers or we evolved over time in some cases, completely unscientific, completely unscientific. Do you know that it's absolutely absurd to say that the sorting was all about motion and how fast they could run and who could get out of the way first? You know that that would be disrupted when you have something like... No, I didn't say that. I said it was based on buoyancy. I want to be clear. It doesn't sort things if you get a whole big collaboration after a flood. You don't get these nice layers. It wasn't a tranquil flood that happened. It destroyed all of humanity, destroyed the Nephilim. Not Nephilim free, though, because I still see him online every once in a while, but it destroyed the other Nephilim. Okay, so since you mentioned all this, why don't we actually look at the discrepancies in the fossil record? So you have salamander tracks that appear 15 million years before you find the salamander that made the track the amphibian. So that shows these are 15 million years before the same salamander, trilobite trails working their way up through the mud, and they're found in the upper layers. So this is proof of a catastrophic event, at least the flood. Well, there were lots of catastrophic events. I agree with that, absolutely. But this is found specifically in the Grand Canyon millions of years, quote unquote, before. I don't see how you get around this. When you have dinosaur tracks stomping through these layers, you can actually date the things that are in between it, the coal seams, and they all come back radiocarbon, or just carbon dating, the same ages on all of that, which means that's all the same vegetation being sandwiched together, all the same time at which they existed. Again, Matt, I cannot agree with any science that is put forth. Okay, well, look with your own eyes then, because you actually see a dinosaur man, a dinosaur footprint, and a man footprint in the same layer of strata. So examine the evidence for yourself. This is in the same layer of strata. They were found together at the ashley phosphate beds. The fossils were of man and dinosaur. So I don't see why there's an issue with understanding. This is very clear. And you see with your eyes, we coexisted with dinosaurs because our tracks are found in the same layers as theirs, and in even some cases, on top of their tracks. I mean, how do you justify this? Once again, I know that this has been around for a long time. It has been explained. You have a problem with the stride issues, but also you're assuming that some other animal didn't have a foot like man. So I mean, Do you think that there was an animal that existed that looked like a man, but wasn't a man? Just happened to have five toes. Any animal could have had a foot that looked like human feet. That doesn't mean that a human made something. There are various types of animals that have lived throughout the history of the world. The idea is really, well, I'm just going to point out again, if this is true, then why aren't there any scientists jumping on that, shaking up the apple cart, and becoming rich and famous because they've been able to prove that dinosaurs lived until human beings showed up? Well, because they would lose all their funding. Remember evolution and their theory is the only theory that's protected by law. So people cannot pre-think outside of it. They will lose their funding. I know a bunch of scientists. I can call them up at any time from any field, and that is not what's going on in academia. What is portrayed by... Let's get this straight though. You think that this looks like a human footprint, but it may not be a human that made this footprint, even though it's anatomically the same. Actually, I'm saying I don't know that somebody didn't even doctor that up if it comes from a young earth creationist source. This is not from a young earth creationist source. A lot of these aren't even young earth creationist sources. Evolutionists look at this as a huge problem, and they make up excuses, and older creationists make excuses for this. For example, they think that those monkeys, like I mentioned earlier, surfed from Africa to South America on rafts. I mean, that is tremendous. That sounds pretty silly. Sounds pretty silly. But that's what you're left with. Surfing rats, surfing dinosaurs, surfing monkeys, these are all things that are part of believing that the earth was not flooded, because if these things originated over in Africa, how did those fossils get to the United States? Again, you're bringing up these little points, and there may be, they particularly be ones that I don't even have the knowledge to respond to, but let's say that all of this is... I mean this with all due respect, but I find whenever I talk to old earth creationists or evolutionists, they're just not up to date on the sciences. And I mean it with all due respect. Well, I'm not a scientist. But they don't... Okay, if you're going to try and defend an old earth, you have to be up to date with all of these. These are common young earth creationist arguments, and you say, well, I studied my way out. These are common arguments that we've always used. They're always... I don't think that you ever understood them. They end up being wrong, though. They end up being wrong. Everyone that I've lived in is being wrong. I've been lied to so many times. You need to be able to point that out to the audience. And again, I mean that with all due respect. You should be able to point out what's wrong with short period comments and why that's false. I can actually point to the mechanism that old earth creationists and evolutionists use as a rescue device, and they themselves admit that there's no evidence worth it. The Oort cloud, no evidence. But we have boatloads of evidence for the flood of Noah, boatloads of evidence for young creation of man, mutations accumulating in the genetic pool, which we haven't even gotten into. I mean, if these things... You're awfully certain for someone who's not even a scientist. You're awfully certain about what you've been told. I would suggest be a little skeptical because it's not as if it's put out. Well, it's like, yea has God said. I mean, this is common arguments that we make and that we've made over the years. And if somebody's going to argue against them or outside of them, they need to be able to give the other side and why it's wrong. And this is why I think that you probably never actually fully understood our model. That's silly. I've been on TV. Dr. Whitcomb was actually my mentor for many years. I wouldn't go there because I can demonstrate just because I don't want to get into all of the minutia of these things, these finer points. Doesn't mean that I didn't know them at one time. You had no problem. Getting focused at this point on what the debate is because you had no problem getting into radiometric. It's not the flood is not. Determine it for the age of the Earth. You can have a global flood and still have an old Earth. Yeah, but it matches our model. That's the point. So are you conceding that there probably was a global flood? I've always I've been on record saying I have no problem that that after the younger dry as some form of H2O destroyed the globe. Well, if you want to talk about the age of the Earth itself, you know the creation of man was the beginning. He made him male and female. He made the male and female at the beginning and so. Let me stop you right there. That is the worst handling of the biblical text that I've ever seen. Well, it's just what it says. Have you not read that? He which made them at the beginning made the male and female. At the same phrase as Genesis 1 one. Well, yeah, at the beginning in the beginning all the same. No, no, it's not in the beginning and at the beginning are two different prepositions. It's actually a ablative, which is separation from the beginning and it begs the question from the beginning of the creation of what? Marriage, not the creation of all that is because. Adam and Eve were not the beginning of the creation. They were the sixth day. Regardless, if you got 24 hours or if you got millions of years, that is not the beginning. That is an absurd approach to the biblical text. It's apo, which is from. It's not an epsilon nu or knee. It is apo from the beginning. It's not the same phrase. It's not the same thing as Genesis 1 one. You can't tie it to that. You're listening to Doctor Hoven and he's wrong on this issue. Well, I didn't get this argument from from anything other than the scriptures. I mean, I just looked at certain scriptures and it simply says from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. It's plain and simple. You're saying that you have to go back to the Greek and we trust you to interpret it. Yeah, yeah, let's just not finish your point. Then we'll hand it right back to Kenny. Just so we can have some. Yeah, no, I'm going to talk. You guys are doing great. You guys are doing great. It's been a good discussion. Yeah, but you know, the Bible clearly says, you know, this is what Jesus said. Yeah, I mean, in my mind, Kenny, and I mean this with all due respect, you'd have to call the Lord Jesus Christ the liar because he says right here, he says, and he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? And so the days were in the evening in the morning were the first day. Evening in the morning were the second day. He describes the days as the evening in the morning. It's almost as if the Lord knew that there would be old earthers and evolutionists that would come along theistic evolutionists and say, well, a day doesn't really mean a day when it literally defines it as the evening in the morning. I'm not talking about that right now. We're talking about whether or not Jesus said the earth was young by this statement. And that Jesus never said the earth was young and I've never said that the earth was young. Say that it's it's it's not right. It's not the proper handling of scripture. Jesus is talking about the beginning of human beings and that one man and one woman were created for each other. This is not saying that human beings were created at the beginning of time. They were created on the sixth day, regardless of how long the days were. They were not made in the beginning. Yeah, I completely disagree with your interpretation. I think that it just comes down to interpretation versus interpretation. Oh, no, no, no. No, you have to follow certain rules and interpret it. Interpretation you guys are. I mean, really? Really? Fair enough. The human genome is decaying, though, and I think that maybe you and I would agree that the human genome is rusting out. And so if you have a young man, a young creation, it wouldn't make sense for all of this time of pain and death and suffering. When the Bible says that the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death and it refers to death as an enemy was going on for, you know, 4.5 billion years. I have a hard time with that. I don't think that's logical or rational. What makes you think that death means animal death, all kinds of death in Romans Chapter 5? What would say to you that that means all death and not specifically human death? Romans Chapter 5 does not mention animal death. It simply says that man brought death into the world and that for death passed upon all men. So I wouldn't use Romans 5 to prove that argument. But we do know that death itself entered in by the sin of Adam himself. Because of sin, death passed upon all men. And I'd like to leave that point with this. You had animals together in the garden, the lion laying with the lamb. If there were millions of years of chaos where lions were carnivores eating lambs, why would you have this perfect garden where the lion is laying back down with the lamb? And in the future, we're going to have that as well. So he's taking us back to the beginning in the future here when we're in the millennial kingdom where the lion will be tame again and the lamb will also be laying together with the lion. And so that makes perfect sense, you know, just letting scripture interpret scripture. It wouldn't make sense if they were diametrically opposed for millions of years. And then all of a sudden we come on the scene and they're just tamed. Let me respond to that. Okay, so do you agree that or do you believe that the Garden of Eden was local or was it global? Well, the Bible says that he planted a garden eastward in Eden. So eastward would mean that there's a specific location for sure. Okay, okay. So let's say that Adam and Eve lived for 100 years before sinning. Let's just throw it out there as a thought experiment. Would there be death outside the garden at that point? Would you say that again? You're coming in and out. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. Isaac, would there be death outside the garden if Adam and Eve lived for 100 years and didn't get it spelled from the garden as of yet? Would there be animal death if they had not sinned for 100 years? Well, I'm not even sure that there would have been animals outside of the garden itself. I mean, in your model, they probably would have been, but in my model, no. I don't think that there would have been animals outside of the garden. You're suggesting that animals couldn't die, so they had to have access to the tree of life as well in order to not die. When you push the young earth position you know, argumentum ad absurdum, when you push it to its logical ends, you have to have animals either created as immortal, you have to have Adam and Eve created immortal, and you have to have or you have to have them created mortal, but yet have access to the tree of life. How did the fish, how did the sharks, how did the kangaroos, how did all of that have access to a local garden to eat the fruit in order to not die? Well, it says that the fruit was specifically for them, not the animals. I'm sure the animals would have just eaten plants, seen dinosaurs themselves. Yeah, but plants don't, but yeah, but plants themselves don't have conscience. They could have died if they don't have access to the tree of life. Yeah, I think that's just man's wisdom reading in between the lines and just concluding that the animals must have had access to the tree of life when it never mentions whether they did or not. Yeah, it says if a man will eat of the tree of life, he will live forever. No, are animals immortal? Well, right now they're not, but back then they could have absolutely been. So they could have absolutely been because the Lord, the Lord. I'm sorry, that's funny. I don't mean to be rude, but you're going to go there. What I think is, yeah, what I think is. Actually, if I could jump in real quick and I don't want to interrupt you, Matt, because we have, it's been such an epic discussion. We've had a great, great chat over 100 people the whole time. You guys are keeping everyone's attention, but because we do have so many questions and I don't want us to go over the two hour mark too much since that's what we agreed upon. But you guys were in the middle of that. So why don't we, Matt, finish your point and then Dr. Rhodes will give you a minute to finish your point, wrap up your thoughts. Then we'll go right into the concluding statements, if that's OK with you, brothers. Sure, OK, sure. Yeah, OK. If you can share my screen. The reason that we know for a fact that the animals coexisted with man is for one, obviously, I'm going to point to the New York Times real quickly here. They have found and, you know, all scientists have discovered that there's low genetic diversity in all animals. And so if animals were evolving over time or living for great amounts of time before mankind even came on the scene, they would have high amounts of genetic diversity, which means the genome would have mutated a lot more than it did because when you get mutations by selection that adds diversity into the genome and into the genetic pool. And so the reason that we know that these animals were all, you know, created simultaneously is because, number one, with man, the Bible says behemoth was made with thee. So that's clear right there that dinosaurs were made with man. He moveth his tail like a cedar. He eateth grass as an ox. You know, they say grass evolved 55 million years ago, but dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. Well, they just did a study recently and found that dinosaurs actually ate grass. Brachiosaurus ate grass. So it's completely consistent with the biblical model. And so I'll end with this, that we have low genetic diversity. I mean, in the Y chromosome, we have 25 mutations separating any two people on this planet. I mean, you have a fast mutation rate with only a few mutations. That shows that there's a young creation of man. And if 9 out of 10 animals came into being at the same time as man did, and this is according to secularists, not even creationists, we believe, obviously, yes, then this is powerful evidence that they have low genetic diversity, that those genomes were front-loaded. Remember, evolution is mutation through selection. And, you know, creation is just a reshuffling and recombination of pre-existing information. Natural selection only selects previously existing information. And once again, I just want to reiterate, we would expect to find more diversity in creatures that would have become more homozygous, if you will, over this time, over these millions of years. I'll leave it at that. What did you call me? And to be fair, I know Matt brought up, you know, a lot of points there. Kenny, I want to hand it to you now. Before we go into the closing statements, Kenny, if there's anything you wanted to address there or anything you wanted to say, go ahead. Yeah, I'm gonna say something and then this will be a statement as well. I'm not going to go too long on that. I want to point out that the reason why, for example, there's really not too many things that you've said standing that I would disagree with when it comes to, you know, humanity, the genome, things like that. Because in the older creationist model, human beings were created only thousands of years ago. And that may be why the evidence that you and raw Matt work in is so powerful for creation. But cosmology has zero evidence for a young Earth. But biology does. You have zero evidence for a young Earth in geology. But biology does in the sense of human beings. So that is an important point that I wanted to bring up. And I think that's why those that look into genetics, why it's so powerful, because evolution can't happen. It doesn't happen. It doesn't even happen as much as my young Earth brothers and sisters say it happens. You can't get millions of species out of thousands of kinds, especially when the scripture tells us what a kind is. A particular kind of fountain and a kite. They're different kinds, but yet young Earth creationists would put them as the same kinds. But anyway, so I think that's an important thing to say. Once again, you know, Matt and I, we poked at each other. But again, this should be a debate that is seasoned with grace that we don't vilify the other because we disagree. And I would just like to leave it at that, that good people can disagree on some of these secondary issues. The fundamentals are the fundamentals. You know, salvation by faith alone, grace alone, Christ alone, for the glory of God alone, etc. You know, Trinity, the divine nature of Jesus Christ. This is where we have our agreements and this is where history has shown that the entire church, as diverse as we are, we've all believed the same things. God is triune. We've all believed the same things. Christ is the God-man who died for our sins and rose on the third day for our justification. These are the core issues. Frankly, I'm tired of being blasted by a lot of young Earth creationists because they disagree with me. It's a really poor Christian maturity and ethics and we can do better. We can do better by treating one another better. And I'll just leave it at that. I'm not a heretic, even though I do like the way Dr. Hovind put it, a kind, smart or kind, intelligent heretic. I wish you would have put handsome, handsome, kind, intelligent heretic. But I'll stick with what he said. I got to say that. And I got to say that was definitely an epic must watch debate. Dr. Rhodes versus Dr. Hovind. So I know we've got 113 people in the chat. Anybody who has not yet seen that debate, please check it out. That was definitely one to remember. So thank you, Kenny, for your final words and your closing statement. So what we'll do is we'll hand it to Matt. You now have your closing statement and then we'll get through some of these questions. Matt, whenever you're ready, you've got roughly five minutes. All right. Am I unmuted? OK, there we go. Yeah. Yeah. If I could share my screen real quick. You're good. All right. So there were a lot of things. And I think it was a good debate overall. I want to thank Dr. Rhodes for taking the time to do this. I just want to reiterate that this is easily verifiable information. It's not just something that young Earth creationists came up with. These are scans from NASA that show that there are massive slabs of cold rock in the mantle of the Earth that should have heated up by now. Because remember, the core of the Earth is very hot. And the only way that those could have got there is through the flood of Noah. And I just want to talk about speciation because he says that speciation and there's just not enough time to create all the different species from the kinds that you have. Well, about 4,500 years ago, you have all of the animals coming off of the ark. And the lizards in particular, I'll just give this example, they speciate one per year. So is it a surprise? It should come as no surprise that there's about 4,670 lizard species. They speciate once per year. Now, if these lived for millions and millions of years before, there's no real way to justify why this is the case. You know, Dr. Rhodes probably knows about this. I'm not exactly sure. So I wanted to make sure to cover it in my closing that one of the things that the scientists don't always mention is that they use circular dating when it comes to dating these rocks and the fossils. And I actually have a source here because everybody accuses me of just following Hovind. Well, this is from World Book Encyclopedia, secular source that says, the age of the rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them, but you determine the age of the fossils by finding out the age of the rocks in which they lie. So you date the fossils by the rocks, rocks by the fossils. They say, well, we radiometrically date them. Okay, radiometric dating has never worked once for rocks of known age. Again, very clear pieces of evidence showing that our side as young earth creationists is correct and that their side has no scientific basis whatsoever. I mean, the Grand Canyon is literally made of sedimentary rock. That's rock that was laid down by water. And the only way that you're gonna get a canyon of that size is from Noah's flood or from a global flood. A global flood by definition would have been Noah's flood, earth standing out of the water and in the water. And if you do the genealogies back to Adam, I wanna reiterate this, that Jesus said that the creation of Adam was the beginning. And have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? Well, you trace the lineages back, go about 6,000 years. So the Bible is not silent on the age of the earth. The Bible is very clear that death came by sin and that he made them at the beginning. And I kinda wanna end with this. I'm actually gonna stop sharing my screen here. So from generation to generation, as the human population reproduces, we gain 100 genetic mutations per person per generation that our parents did not have. So I have 100 more mutations that my father did not have, but were passed on to me. And my son, Pison, he has 100 new mutations. So he has 200 more mutations than my dad. And so we are gaining mutations in the genetic pool. Natural selection cannot weed them out. And this is truly causing us to go extinct as a population. And if Adam was supposed to name the animals, those animals must have been there and must have been tame. If they were killing each other for millions of years, it would make no sense that all of a sudden, they all of a sudden just magically come to the garden. They're all tame now. And Adam is able to... That's just such... You decide. You read the Bible and you decide. But it's very clear that we gain these genetic mutations and that our genome is rusting out from the inside like a car. And even Dr. Kondrashov, a famous evolutionist, asked the question, and I quote, he said, why have we not died 100 times over? We're gaining these genetic mutations. And as we gain copying errors in our genome, it causes us to become extinct. That's why we even die as humans. And so SFT, how much time do I have left? A good question. You've got 50 seconds. All right. So Charles Lyles said that his goal, and he's the one who invented the geologic column, which is being trusted by my opponent. He said that his goal was to rid the sciences of Moses. Charles Lyles wasn't a scientist. He was a lawyer. And he was trusting Charles Darwin. And what Darwin said in his book, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin himself said that he was afraid that he was living in a fantasy. I mean, these guys are the guys that came up with the idea of billions of years, millions of years, evolution over time. And they say, well, it has nothing to do with evolution. Well, stellar evolution, the Big Bang cosmological model is known as stellar evolution. It's all intertwined. All of this old age stuff is completely unscientific. And I've shown that with those carbon and diamonds, carbon in T14 and dinosaur bones, the fact that the sun's burning down, moon's getting farther away, Earth is slowing down. These are all geochronometers that prove that the Earth cannot be billions of years old. The universe is young. In the beginning, God made them male and female. And Adam himself named the animals. I know that was kind of the final words in a way, but any additional final words and then we'll shut her down for the night, gentlemen? Yeah, I have a quote about design. It goes like this. It's designed to do what it does do. And it does do, it does do well, doesn't it? Yes, it does. I just messed it up. But remember that song by Buddy Davis, Answers in Genesis. That's a tough one to say fast. It's designed to do what it does do. What it does do, it does do well, doesn't it? Yes, it does. I think it does do you, I do. Hope you do too, do you. There we go. Looks like you've mastered it, Kenny. I got all these songs, especially Larry Dunn as well. Love Veggie Tester. I love it. Just a big kid, you know? You guys had a great debate, discussed some great points. Matt, any last words from you, brother? Yeah, I just want to encourage the viewers to do your own research, use free thought, look at the data points that I brought up and look at the data points that Dr. Rugg brought up and decide for yourself. And I'll just leave it at that. All right, perfect. Well, gentlemen, thanks again for giving us your time for this very important debate. That being said, Logical Plausible Probables having another after show. It's going to kick off apparently right when this ends. So therefore, we are going to end it. Everybody, God bless and we'll see you at John Maddox, his after show. Before but then he said her name and the moment that she a flame was lit within her that flowed out in these words. Oh. How can I do less than share this now with you? The Lord I love is risen. And I know that it's true. Because there's an empty grave and this heart of mine believes the resurrection story has given life to me. I have seen the Lord, I can't keep it to myself. I'll testify that he is alive. What glorious news it's held, my savior lives. I have seen the Lord. I have seen the cross, the blood, the nails, the crown. I have seen them take his lifeless body down. I've seen the sun set on all the hopes and dreams. Oh, but let me tell you what these eyes of faith have seen. I have seen the Lord, I can't keep it to myself. I'll testify that he is alive. What glorious news it's held, my savior lives. I have seen the Lord, my savior lives. I have seen the Lord. I've seen the Lord, the Lord. you