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

Hello Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Fred keen from God TV radio. I hope you're all having a blessed day out there. We've got mr. Jones 1972 and Matt Powell with us. Mr. Jones if you would like to you can start if you want to you have Ten minutes to do your opening. All right, am I audible to everyone? Yes, we can hear you. Good. Good. Good, right. Um, I'll have to read me what means to him some awfully Sorry video for one. So my opening stem now, I Am the first to admit that my knowledge of evolution is extremely limited I have never claimed to be an expert on the subject not if I claimed to have studied the subject to any academic standard In light of this startling revelation I must put my trust in the hands of the experts and list evidence that has convinced me that evolution is true and scientifically accurate I Say this with absolute confidence as I have found no evidence to explain how life evolved other than the theory of evolution My first piece of evidence is transitional fossils and probably the best and most famous as these of these is Archaeopteryx. I did have some slides, but I'm not going to risk putting slides up A genus of bird-like dinosaurs that live between 150 and 125 million years ago in the early typhonium stage in the late Jurassic period Paleontologists view Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and modern birds. I did have a slide but again, I'm not gonna risk it How do we know that Archaeopteryx and modern birds are related? Well feathers for instance wings The faecula which is a wishbone and reduced and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds Again, I did have an image and In conclusion there are enough similarities between Archaeopteryx and modern birds to convince paleontologists that they are indeed related Another example of a transitional species is Pakicetus We do know through fossil records that Pakicetus once walked on land, but how was it related to modern-day Wales? Now Pakicetus was discovered in Pakistan, lived during the Eocene period approximately 50 million years ago And although it primarily primarily lives its life on land It is linked as a whale relative through its unique inner ear shape. Only whales have such an enhanced region of the ear called an auditory bulla and Pakicetus have this too this image, etc. I I Did have an image and it shows the evolution of Pakicetus to whale and a bit more detail and I've obviously credited the source as well also as before that is enough evidence to convince Paleontologists that Pakicetus is indeed the ancestor of modern-day Wales. Now on to why I wanted to Have this discussion with Matt and thank you Matt for accepting Now on to why I really wanted this debate discussion. Matt Powell's claims that evolution teaches that dinosaurs farted themselves into extinction is my opinion that this is simply not the case and I will show evidence. Well, I can't show evidence at the minute and one of his citations and one of his citations is a woman in a dressing gown and That we don't know the name of and simply saying that dinosaur flatulence caused an ice age and that's why they died out Now and does this woman have a name? Does she have any qualifications? I honestly don't know But going on camera and simply saying dinosaurs gas themselves to death is not good enough for me I could make a video right now I couldn't address you guys right now and say a unicorn has just flown past my window. It doesn't make it true another citation that my good friend here Matt Powell uses is a clip from a news program that Reads an article from Fox News. Now the three British scientists in question you and Jean Nisbet, Dr Graham Ruxton from St. Andrews University and co-researcher David Wilkinson from Liverpool John Moores University did write a paper on dinosaur emissions in Quotation marks but nowhere in that paper. Does it claim that dinosaurs or this caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? I was going to read a summary of that paper, but I won't do it. But in the summary it Doesn't mention dinosaur extinction Another citation that Matt uses is a kid's cartoon No I can't find the original clip but I did manage to find a video several seconds longer than the clip that Matt uses in those missing seconds, it implies that that cartoon is part of a longer video and The first segment is just part of one part of that video It lists many different reasons of why the dinosaurs died out and 13 dinosaurs, it's apparently number 63 and I've screen-shotted again. I can't use it and Doo doo doo On on the image that I was going to show I've credited Nick the t-rex Nick the t-rex's YouTube channel On his channel it shows lots of reasons why the dinosaurs died out one example or one video shows a dinosaur on a trapeze Crazy, and so it's clear that none of these so-called theories should be taken seriously Now on to the final reason why I wanted this discussion to happen and surfing monkeys. I think one of our favorite topics fossilized teeth of the UK Epithecus monkey were found in Peru the teeth from a newly discovered species belonging to an extinct family of African primates known as parapetid Fossils discovered earlier at the same site in Peru offered the first proof that South American monkeys evolved from African primates. So How did they get from Africa to South America? The theory is is that they got there on floating masses of land Not rats logs or lumps of seaweed and because and I do agree with Matt The idea sounds implausible and a bit daft So they got to South America in my opinion on enormous land masses I Was going to show a video of the Panama Canal where an enormous land mass is floating down with trees and Vegetation and the trees are still upright now with millions of years ago The seas are a lot lower continents are a bit close together and with favorable currents and winds There's no doubt in my mind that they couldn't have made that journey across the Atlantic. Um As you can see did you do 40 mass, right? No Because in light of what I've just said I think that it seems plausible that ancient monkeys made the journey from Africa to South America This concludes my opening statement And I can't Alright man, are you able to did you hear what he was saying? Yep loud and clear Are you ready for your opening sounds good to me All right, mr. Jones if you could be so kind would you be able to mute your mic? That way we don't hear the papers moving around the mic Well, I just want to say thanks to mr. Jones for entertaining sending an invitation for a discussion on this matter Definitely looking forward to seeing how it's gonna pan out so The Bible says prove all things hold fast to that which is good So the Bible commands us to hold fast to the things that are good and true and right and to prove all things And so in order for something to be science, it has to be demonstrable testable and provable Let's just talk a minute about this whole dinosaurs farting themselves to death theory, right? I don't believe this theory I don't really know of anybody who does other than some people online that are obviously a little out there But people are actually promoting this today that dinosaurs actually to did warm the planet and then they died from global warming So because people have decided to believe this because people have decided to teach stuff like this Therefore I'm gonna point it out and it point out why it's absurd I don't believe that dinosaur is part of themselves to death But some evolutionists are out there proclaiming that dinosaurs and of course this one guy says well Matt you've misrepresented us We believe they tooted he said and it warmed the planet. That sounds even more crazy Okay, so let's check out some of these people that actually claim this British researchers say the prehistoric beasts had a flatulence and belching problem dinosaurs did part themselves into extinction All their greenhouse gases What caused climate change? They farted their way to extinction I think what's important here is actually that this once and for all proves that the Creation Museum in Kentucky is wrong Because if dinosaurs were actually farting that much I don't believe would not have been that close to them hanging out So I just want to so these people are claiming that the creationists are wrong Matt because dinosaurs Passed so much gas that that warm the environment and they died from the global warming and mr Jones in his video series Called me a bunch of names Made a bunch of ad hominins and I appreciate none of the ad hominins come into this debate and we'll try to keep it that Way, but it just amazes me that This guy points this out and he takes such issue with me over this claim that dinosaurs farted themselves to death Why are people taking issue with me over it? I'm actually combating that theory telling people that it is ridiculous and Saying that certain people are teaching this and of course people are saying well you're lying Matt Nobody says that dinosaurs farted themselves to death. There's people all over the place saying that I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the supposed theory. And of course There's a scientific paper about how climate change How the dinosaurs sauropods in particular warmed the environment and then died from the global warming? It doesn't say that in the paper The paper itself says that certain extinction of certain megafauna was contributed to methane levels being too low So in the paper the paper itself does mention extinction now Let's talk a little bit about what actually made the dinosaurs go extinct according to evolution and that was the asteroid strike in the Yucatan Peninsula south of the Gulf Gulf of Mexico the Chicxulub asteroid. Here's the problem with that This asteroid that you spoke of in your videos. Mr. Jones struck 2,000 miles away from the heart of the kill zone The heart of where all these dinosaurs are found Catastrophically buried in sediment by the way is 2,000 miles from the Yucatan Peninsula So the Chicxulub asteroid I believe that there was an asteroid that struck the peninsula, but it was a miss 2,000 miles away You're gonna tell me that an asteroid that struck 2,000 miles away from a bunch of dinosaurs is what caused their death Give me a break But this is stuff that you're saying in your videos now I want to go ahead and just answer a couple of these Misrepresentations that you brought up in the beginning you said well, I don't know much about evolution But what I do know is that there are transitional fossils. Hold on a second Stephen Gould himself said that there are no missing links. The whole chain is missing So Stephen Jay Gould who is a professional in the theory you say I trust the professionals That's what the professionals say. There are no missing links. The whole chain is missing. There are no missing links That's why they're defined as the missing links because they are missing and If we are supposedly able to find transitional fossils We should find more transitional fossils than the actual kinds of fossils that we find with the species We should see a clear project a clear Speciation from you know, Australia, bifidica, saffron zus Lucy all the way up to the Cro-Magnon man and Peking man And then all of a sudden you've got humans at the end of this line You know, and here's the thing, even if we grant it even if I grant that there are homologous Structures that there are transitional fossils Homologous structures are no problem for creationism I have no problem saying that there are certain things that could appear as a transition Because we build in homologous patterns and God himself if we're made in the image of God He probably would have done the same thing built creation in homologous patterns. That's why we share DNA with certain animals It doesn't mean we descended from those animals. It means that we are all made up of the same material DNA Stuff that is vital for life. So in the center of the United States, I'm going to kind of go for the Jugular here. We find the dinosaur Peninsula now in the dinosaur Peninsula contains thousands and thousands of dinosaur graveyards now within these dinosaur graveyards are thousands of dinosaurs and In particular we find a million square miles of Dinosaurs that were catastrophically buried. Let me ask you a question folks. What would cause a million square miles of Land to get buried catastrophically and for dinosaurs to be buried in an asphyxiated position The only way to explain that is Noah's flood these dinosaurs died in asphyxiated positions They were choking on mud as the water was coming in and burying them in sediments They neck they arch their necks back This is a t-rex fossil of a t-rex that died under 50 feet of sediment and it had suffocated to death There is no other way to explain these fossils than the flood of Noah Now people can try to argue against the flood of Noah. They can try to say that it's not a fact There's nothing more than a fairy tale. I heard one guy say oh, it's just so crazy Do you think that the earth could be flooded? Look we live in what's known as the water planet. Hello 71% of the earth is currently covered by water So to say oh, it's so superstitious to think that there could have been a global flood. That's just absolutely false So I just want to point that out And one of the reasons that we know that these dinosaurs were buried in the recent past is because they contain soft materials inside the bones in fact There are 16 types of bio organic materials that should have degraded if deep time evolution were true 16 types histones blood cells blood vessels Hemoglobin in the blood cells you're gonna try to say the iron cross linking could preserve this for 65 million years. That's absolutely false Absolutely false on absolutely every level. We know that dinosaurs lived recently because of Bio-organic material that would have biodegraded over the deep time of millions of years I'm not saying all this to come off as some arrogant person or something I know that I speak in a way that is just very straightforward and to the point But I would rather offend people with the truth than comfort them with some butter to over message Okay, this is the truth. We find over 16 types of bio organic materials skin pigments blood cells blood vessels We even find histones inside of dinosaur bones You can't tell me this lasted for 65 million years evidence doesn't lie and bio organic material will always degrade over time We Find plant life inside of dinosaurs contained Perfectly preserved inside of dinosaur stomachs even again. Is this stuff gonna last for 65 million years? You have to ask yourself that now the column that he was appealing to in his open statement is known as the geologic column and they say that we all evolve from A sponge and that over time over generations and variations of change in allele frequencies that we all of a sudden became human So you go from the goo to you the zoo to you and so forth Well, the problem with that is is that this geologic column if you actually look closely at the rock layers You can tell they were all laid down in one event. It's not that there was slow Long periods of time as these layers were getting laid down And the reason that we know that is because these bent rock layers Brett. How much time do I have left? You have a few more minutes Cool. So if you look at the pictures here that I have up on my screen, these are bent rock now What happens if you try to bend hard rock? It will break according to evolution these mountains slowly formed via slope and gradual plate tectonics shifts Well, if that were the case, these rocks would be better would not be bent. They would be crumbled rock You cannot bend hard rock yet. We find perfectly bent hard rock all across the world in these mountain in these mountain ranges This is just great evidence that These were all laid down and then plate tectonics push them up and then they had lithified together all those layers in one event And another reason that we know that you can see beautiful photos here of these bent rocks layers We have trees connecting all the layers You can't tell me that these layers were slowly laid down over millions of years and they have paleozoic messy as oh it can arc Is oh it ages. Mr. Powell. This is all absolutely falsified absolutely false and This would wipe out the whole idea that we evolved from a sponge as well Via transitional fossils that they can't even name one you you refer to Archaeopteryx Archaeopteryx and What's the other one there's Archaeopteryx there's also There's also one that they refer to for land to land to sea animals Look, you should be finding hundreds of thousands. You should be finding millions of transitional fossils Lucy I believe was a fossil that was found scattered of a bunch of different fragments scattered over a two-mile area And yet they put it together they couldn't even tell What it was but they just concluded this must be the ancestor of all humans absolutely false Back on track here You know, we find these polystrata fossils. We find whales on mountains. Look this wipes away the geologic column The whale is perfectly preserved on top of this, California mountain here For example, we find clams in the closed position on top of Mount Everest 29,000 feet above sea elevation look This is absolute proof that these things were buried catastrophically because the clams were closed and pushed up the mountain through Catastrophic plate tectonic movements. It had to be catastrophism identical amounts of c14 and all these coal seams C14 only last 50,000 years the half-life is five thousand seven hundred thirty years and if it was truly This decay rate that they say and truly the ages that they say there would be no c14 in these bottom layers But yet they all registered statistically the same amount of c14 We find c14 in dinosaur bones as well as you know Just collagen hemoglobin in the blood blood cells anybody who believes that those things would last for 65 million years You'd have to be gullible folks and I'll end with this point When the across to the earth was broken up like an eggshell and subduction of rapid plate tectonics was going on We would predict that certain of the crust of the earth would be subducted into the mantle and of course would cause Catastrophic plate tectonics and create the mountains that we see today But one of the things that I'd like mr. Jones here to notice is that we find cold slabs of rock that sink 500 miles down into Earth's hot molten mantle that have not heated up yet if slow and gradual plate tectonics Was what caused those rocks to get there? They would have been uniform with the temperature on the ground This is 5,000 degree molten rock yet. There's 10 mile thick pieces of cold rock down in the mantle of the earth You can't tell me that Slow and gradual geologic change and uniformitarianism is the answer naturalism never did any good for science Catastrophism is what best explains geology Catastrophism is what best explains the past and so the present is not the key to the past my friends the key to the past The key to the present is actually the past and so With that being said, I think I should close out but of course they'll say well, let's give our side Matt What about our side? Okay, here's your side. Here's how you date rocks you Determine the age of the fossils the rocks by look at this World Book Encyclopedia 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 which the rocks in which they lie So you'd eat the fossils by the rocks rocks by the fossils circular arguments absolutely indefensible surfing monkeys What's your evidence that these monkeys surfed across there? You found a fossilized tooth fossils mean catastrophic burial and How are monkeys gonna survive a 900 mile journey back when the continents were closer? Even that's still 900 miles with no fresh water Sharks in the water currents that somehow took them across when currents take you up or down It's An indefensible position and I think that that should be pointed out and made very abundantly clear. God bless All right, ladies and gentlemen, the next section that we're gonna be working on here is 30 minute open discussion Well, we're we gonna do cross or not cross-examination but rebuttals on rebuttals. So eight-minute rebuttals Okay um, I Evolution teaches and teaching dino fats No, I didn't learn that at school. My children didn't learn that at school. I don't know any school that teaches dino fats as parts of Why the dinosaurs died out I can only find stuff like that on YouTube It's not in any schools that I've ever seen before or any colleges or any universities I never said that you believe that dinosaurs fight themselves to death I said that's what you said evolution teaches. Um, I did mention the paper and it doesn't mention dinosaur extinction at all I mentioned Meteorites yeah a massive meteorite Um, if you remember the Chernobyl disaster back in the 80s that covered thousands and thousands of miles So in my mind An asteroid hitting the planet will affect something thousands of miles away It will kick a lot of dust pick up a lot of iridium and it will block out the stone and that's that's the asteroid theory, which was on the same page as a book that you quoted Dinosaur Peninsula as I understand it, that's a creationistic invention Asphyxiated dinosaurs, yes, that could be one of the one of the theories why the dinosaurs died out is a few or several massive volcanic eruptions or Obviously a meteorite hitting the earth The and that would asphyxiate Dinosaurs if it blocks out the Sun kicks up a load of dust the dust comes down chalks all the dinosaurs That's how they could have died out, but the honest answer is we just don't know science doesn't We got about three to four minutes in and I'm hearing a lot of evolution bashing I'm not hearing a lot of God did this and here's the proof and here's the evidence that God did it. I'm just hearing a lot of evolution bashing You mentioned Lucy Australopithecus afarensis know about a million years before that was Adi Adi considered the earliest human of the earliest human ancestors human ancestors wells or mountains before When the Tectonic plates collided mountains obviously the earth was flat Whales or mountains clams or mountains before the mountains formed they could have died Thanks to the bottom when they when they got buried on the statement and rock And when they plates collided and made mountains that would have pushed the fossils up to the top of the mountains Fossils dating. Yes Radiometric dates in it. I don't know much about it. Sometimes fossils are dated within the rocks that they found it But sometimes they also date fossils completely on their own using the adiometric dating You seem to have a problem with circular reasoning and God said he did everything in six days. Where does it say this? It says it the Bible is the Bible the Word of God Yes, it is again, that seems like circular reasoning to me and That's I think that's the end of my ripple. Thank you All right, man Matt I'm thanks for thanks for accepting or thanks for agreeing to do this Sure thing Yeah, so actually I'm gonna just answer your stuff real quick and then I'm actually just gonna continue this so Let's see Schools don't say this Yeah I never said in this debate that school or this discussion that schools are out there teaching that to people never said that About the dinosaurs farting themselves to death Let's see that this asteroid you said that this asteroid would kick up a lot of dust and that's how they got buried was dust And maybe some volcanism included. Well, I'm sorry. They're buried with sea life. They're buried with crustaceans. They're buried with fish They're buried in mud sedimentary rock. So They were buried in the mud that killed them the mud that was washed up and let me ask you a question folks What would cause a wave to? Encompass the entire United States or at least half of the United States What kind of catastrophic events would be able to do that and bury those dinosaurs with sea life with crustaceans So that's what you're leaving out Yes, you're you're taking certain things that are accurate into account is was it volcanism? Absolutely. There was widespread volcanism during the flood So, of course we would expect some of that to play into there as well but the fact that you find sea life in there is kind of the the dead giveaway that it wasn't just some asteroids striking up a little bit of dust and That that's how they went extinct though. They were buried with sea creatures They were buried in the center of the United States and they were buried in the heart of a kill zone via choking on mud choking on the mud that buried that buried them and So like I said the asphyxiated positions along with the sea life and crustaceans that are buried with them and fish It's dead giveaway. And then also You mentioned radiometric dating I mean that was one of the last things that you mentioned radiometric isotopes can be created in a lab in the next day They date as millions of years old. So it's radiometric dating true Absolutely not radiometric dating is 100% false in fact in 1980 Mount st. Helens erupted and it created igneous lava that flowed down the side of the mountain and When it had lithified some scientists took in ten years after it had lithified They sent the rock samples five different rock samples to five different laboratories known as the geochron laboratories all of our best And the ages that they came back with were astounding. The first rock came back as 340,000 years old Now keep in mind. This is rock that's less than 10 years old, but it was radiometrically dated The second sample came back as three hundred fifty thousand years old one sample came back as nine hundred thousand years old One sample actually came back as seven million years old Now remember this is the the method that mr Jones here just referenced as being reliable method to date the crust of the earth Absolutely false. The last sample came back in that study as 2.8 million years old No rock of known age has ever been dated accurately So if we can't rely on radiometric dating to tell us the actual dates of rocks of known age Rocks that have lithified in the recent past that we've seen how can we trust them for rocks of unknown age? Okay, and then number two you're assuming that when the rocks solidified that there was no daughter elements present in the rock You're assuming that there was no contamination You're consuming that the rate of decay has always been the same as it was in the past as it was in the present So you're assuming all of these things. I'm sorry science is not based on assumptions science is based on facts Statistics that which we've demonstrated to be true So I could not honestly even consider radiometric dating because there are so many false assumptions that go into it that completely falsify it, like I said, you can create new radiometric isotopes in the lab and the next day they date as millions of years old brand new isotopes So if we could reshare my screen one more time guys I'm just just going to continue this so that answer is pretty much all of the falsehoods that you just spoke there And this is misinformation I feel like I have to deal with this because this is misinformation that constantly gets brought up You didn't address that monkeys are freshwater animals They could not drink saltwater. It would have killed them even PZ Myers when he responded to me on this matter He said look he said these monkeys must have been so thirsty getting off The raft at South at South America. They must have been thirsty and hungry even PZ Myers knew that they are not saltwater animals They are freshwater animals. It was saltwater back 34 million years ago. So you have to justify them surviving Over I believe 50 days Without any water with sharks in the water and you got on video and said surfing monkeys surfing dinosaurs Matt It's perfectly plausible my friend Sometimes III don't know quite how to deal with stuff like this these theories that are out there But I do my best to bring my opposition You know, there's one guy who said that they rafted on seaweed That sounds even more crazy and I know that's not your position, but let's get back on track here Let's talk about some actual legitimate science now according to your model It takes 10,000 years to get a fossil to form yet. We find fossilized ripples of water now keep in mind Surface area smooth out very quickly is a surface area of water ripples gonna sit there in the ground for 10,000 years waiting to be fossilized Really let that sink in we find wasp of fossilized raindrops we find fossilized tracks again these surface areas had to be buried so quickly and Protected so quickly in order to be preserved and if I'm incorrect on this I am compelled by reason to change my position See, that's the difference between me and evolution if I'm wrong I can change if something with evolution is wrong It's protected by law and cannot be thought outside of within the classroom If you do think outside of it you will get mocked you will get ridiculed you'll lose your funding People say you're in this for the money Matt false if I wanted to be popular I could come out as an atheist tomorrow You know one of these non-believers and declare there. I don't think there's a God I lack belief in God and make a bunch of money a bunch of people to support me Now here's how your model, and I'm not sure if you're aware of this like explains these tracks that are fossilized They actually expect us to believe in the evolution timeline That these dinosaurs dove down into the water and that their footprints didn't get smoothed out by the water Sometimes I just feel like I Don't even know what to say look. It's like me going back to my childhood Lake Lake Superior and Looking for tracks that I had made when I was five. They're not gonna be there They would have smoothed out But they expect you to believe in this textbook here that those tracks did not get smoothed out by the water But they did it just slowly sat there and fossilized false Your model also says that rodents cross South Atlantic the reason I'm pointing these things out is because We we are comparing two models here. We're create. We're comparing the creation model to the evolution model You have to prove why creation is false. That's what science does is we falsify Certain theories were in this to falsify things. I'm not here to prove creation to you Although I could very easily whether you accept it or not. You said you're not presenting any proof for creation, okay? Here's some proof right now the fact that time space and matter is here right now is proof that God exists the fact that you and I are able to Have this conversation is proof that God exists the fact that matter and energy is around us is proof that God exists or it's proof That nothing cost and nothing caused nothing to explode or expand as you guys like to say Which is just a hermeneutical game to make it sound a little better and then expand it into everything that we have today Either Nothing caused the explosion in the beginning or somebody created everything in the beginning If there is no God, that means nothing would have had to cause nothing to explode look Evolution Is defined as changing allele frequencies over time? Descent with inherent modification look these modifications that we're seeing even today are deleterious a mutation is even deleterious by the very definition of what it even is so this is Information that we need to make sure to give Clear examples of we didn't make sure to leave no rock or stone unturned. How much time do I have left? Are we pretty much at the end here? Mr. Jones, do you feel that you have anything to say about what he has said? And if you want to also come back with whatever he says, it's okay And I just like to ask it's not so Evolution doesn't disprove creation evolution is Like you said it's descent with inherent genetic modification It really couldn't give a monkeys what creation does or if creation exists And I'm still hearing a lot of evolution bashing, but I'm not hearing any. Well, I heard your version of what's Of God's of your God's existence and that's time space of matter But Couldn't any God have created that or is it just your God? So are you conceding that there's there's a possibility for God right there? No, I did once in a discussion with Brett Keane, but then I've read up on it read up on everything and I still maintain that the Big Bang Theory is the best explanation of how the universe Yeah, but are you saying that it's possible that God created the universe? No I'm asking you Now I'm asking I'm asking you I'm saying that just because right say you debunk evolution. Does that prove creation? Well, it proves that we didn't get here via mutations. No, it doesn't prove creation. That's what I Appear to buy a mat. Absolutely because either we appeared via magic just out of nowhere poof or we were created If we did not evolve we were created. I mean, that's what why isn't knowledge right there Well, why isn't there why isn't there another option Why is it always clear? Either nothing created the universe or something created the universe give another option There is no other Yeah, that's what I'm saying, I'm saying There is no other option either Gentlemen if you speak at the same time the audio becomes all gargly and people can't hear you out there Sorry, but you guys have been doing great. So please just wait until the other person the volume up on the account Alright, mr. Jones. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that an explosion out of chaos produced order? No Okay, well an explosion out of chaos would be defined as this and Stephen Hawking said and I quote that if the expansion rate would Have changed by one part out of 100 thousand million million after the Big Bang just one second after nothing would exist So one out of 100 thousand million million chances is pretty chaotic, right? Yeah, it is. Well scientists can be wrong science science is a self-correcting process So are you admitting now that is that it is an explosion out of chaos that produced order no I'm saying it's a rapid expansion out of The Big Bang Theory is rapid expansion from an intensely hot dense singularity So What caused the explosion we don't know That's a simple answer. We don't know. Okay, but what do you think is more likely then intelligent design or nothing causing it to explode? Well, we don't know so we can't we can't say it's nothing Caused something to explode because we simply don't know what happened just before the big just before the Big Bang We simply don't know So, do you believe that everything existed all the planet stars galaxies and oceans as energy inside the Big Bang and an infinitely infinite testfully small dot No, because the Big Bang Theory doesn't teach that I've heard you say I've heard you say on video that you know all the water And the board and I've heard Kent Ovin say that You know all this water and all the animals and all the things and all the rest of it were condensed into this tiny Little dots it's simply not true the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't teach that it was a hot dense Singularity that rapidly expanded we didn't even have white for the first 300,000 years We didn't even have any stairs for millions of years after that and we obviously know that stairs that planets come from stuff So stellar evolution hadn't hadn't taken place yet Not for a few million years. No Not after the not for a few million years after they buy if you if you give it enough time You'll go from an explosion from an infinitely dense hot point to all of time space and matter Not in its present form but over millions of years these rocks would evolve and create themselves, right? Just say that again. Sorry So you're saying that everything in the universe existed via a dot of energy before it was matter exploded and created matter Yeah, we didn't see without you matter For I think millions of years. I can't remember the exact timeline but It created electrons Right at the start of Big Bang They started whizzing around and whizzing around and start to create an atom Atoms and stuff and that created matter and then it went well created Forming matter and then that's that's generally how it did it Okay, so then millions and millions of years later after the two million years of rainfall and we have the primordial soup come into play I heard you say in a video that it was likely that lightning struck earth and that was where the first single-celled organism Emerged that's one of the things What would happen if lightning was to strike one of us right now, isn't that deleterious by definition? Wouldn't that destroy anything that's living in the premises or anything that could possibly live in the future. Yeah, it was Yes, it would bolt. So how is that? How is that evidence of of a biogenesis? How is lightning striking mud? Something that is deleterious by the very definition going to somehow assemble a cell. Well, do you not? Do you not think that? I'm sorry, Brett, but saying science is a self-correcting process. Yes, it is. Um Have you ever noticed that after after a lightning storm That suddenly your plants grow and an exponential rate I've noticed this in my garden lightning strikes the ground and then you know, the plants start sprouting out of nowhere That's what I do. We have any okay, but do we have any examples of life coming from non-life and specifically lightning? It's the other day No, no, no, that's that's the that's another theory altogether that the the theory that I am to trust is the irony first Which somehow I don't know how it works I also don't know where it works But the RNA first and it went into DNA and it started forming My very very primitive life single-celled organisms if you like That's the thing that I am to I am to trust and that is actually the theory that most people adhere to But here's the problem check this article out it says the first healthy organic molecules may have formed within tiny droplets and All scientists agree pretty much for the most part that the creation of life involved water according to this article But check this out. How does DNA get destroyed? Just google it sometime says DNA is vulnerable That's taken from a scientific paper says DNA is vulnerable. It breaks down in sunlight and in water What was the RNA world like sunlight and water the very thing that destroys DNA you think could assemble DNA via RNA processes? No, no That is the claim. No, that's Because that's this is a biogenesis and not you're saying that you believe in this RNA process But you don't even know what the RNA process is. This is this RNA DNA process Well, I've just said that I don't understand the full Yeah, you're here yeah, you're here defending it and saying that it's logical and rational and I'm pointing out Yeah, it's still not evolution though. Let's say biogenesis. It's not evolution. Okay, but it's defined as chemical evolution So it is evolution. It's part of the evolutionary process It's not part of the theory of evolution A biogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. It is defined as chemical evolution. Anybody can look it up It's not the theory of evolution. Well, let's okay, then let's talk about the theory of evolution descent with modification When do you see an animal changing from a different from one kind of animal into another? defined kind IE able to reproduce When Do you see a certain family or kind of animal merging life on this planet is able to reproduce or better yet How about since you brought up the whole surfing monkeys thing and how it's so plausible. Why don't you? Address the fact that these are salt. This is salt water that they're floating across How do they survive for weeks and weeks without any water? Well, I explained in the video and I explained on the opening statement that there was lots of vegetation on this Enormous landmass that were floating down the panel Food vegetation is food. We're talking about water. What did yes, you can get water from food So, okay So now you're just contains water lettuce consider lettuce is 90% water bananas contain water fruit contains water Okay, correct. But where is your every contain water? We're gonna take them north or south Is it gonna take them 900 miles across the ocean? Well, I'm not saying the very first monkeys jumps on a jumped on a raft and then surfed across I'm not saying that it was a raft you're arguing that it was a vegetation a floating mass the floating mass I'm not saying but one group of monkeys jumped on a raft and the very first journey Care to them all the way across the Atlantic Ocean. I'm not saying that I'm saying there could have been many many Landmasses that snapped off and one of them one out of ten could have made it across I'm not saying they all survived So What okay, but what did they what did they drink what there was no fresh water you're saying that somehow there was they they stored fruit with them No, I didn't say that again, we simply don't know but this is the The best theory as it were that seems to fit the facts. We found fossilized teeth in Peru We know that they originated from parapetid in Africa so how did they make the journey from Africa to South America? No, the best theory is that they got there from a landmass that snapped off from Africa and got all the way to South America I'm not saying the first one did it not saying the second one did it? But what I'm saying is that masses of vegetation can snap off and sustain One or two monkeys if you will I'm not gonna argue that Vegetation mats cannot be snapped off of certain places and carry certain pieces of vegetation and so forth biological organisms across certain areas Of course, we've observed that but 900 miles 900 miles really let that sink in ladies and gentlemen, you know, you're actually advocating that for 900 miles. They rafted across On a vegetation mat and let me ask you this you never you never actually addressed really any of my arguments about fossilization About I addressed every single one of yours, but you never have watched an evolution a dinosaur the dinosaur Preserved tissues. How do you think that these tissues were preserved? Do you think that they really died out 65 million years ago every Schweitzer a Devote Christian I understand What's that? Say that again? Many sweats a devout Christian discovered remains of blood cells in dino fossils later discovered soft tissue remains in t-rex the specimen was pregnant when she went apparently the T-rex died poor bugger and can I just ask about King before you before you start Brett? Yes I thought he was going to remain neutral. I am Well, I can see in the side chat here. I Can see in the side chat here. Matt is correct chemical evolution refers to changes and things that need not be capable of reproduction Remain neutral. Well, I thought I wasn't supposed to speak up in voice, but I'm just typing over here It I am correct it is defined as chemical evolution. I mean you can say Evolution is not part of the theory of evolution Yes, but it is a theory within evolutionary theory if you will No it is because it is defined as because it is defined as well then you're just not educated on this topic because anybody can go To Google and look up chemical evolution And the first thing that pops up is the synthesis of original life the synthesis of the first single-celled organisms the synthesis I Apologize if I've offended you I will remain out of text as well as voice for now aren't okay No, yeah, I'm not saying you remain I'm not saying you stay at a site I'm just saying you remain neutral as you said you would be All right. Well, I apologize if that ups. Thank you. I will not do it again. Thank you. So mr Jones, you mentioned Mary Switzer, right? And I I don't know if you know this But when they were actually excavating these bones the stench of death was still there in the Hell Creek formation they said they reported that they could still smell the stench of death and within these dinosaur bones contain blood hemoglobin in the cells as well as Man's all the vessels and stretching material. So how could this stuff last for 65 million years if your model is correct? Well, I don't know I'm not Like I said, I'm not training. I said that right at the top of the thing that may have knowledge of evolution isn't isn't Isn't up to scratch at all Read up on Mary Switzer and she said she discovered Remains of blood cells in dino fossils later discovered soft soft tissue remains in t-rex now. I don't know how long I don't know how Soft tissue survived in t-rex items. I don't know but you think it's plausible to believe that it survived for 65 million years with differentiating temperatures in the ground and sitting there within the Hell Creek formation You'd have to defend that blood cells lasted in the ground and you're defending this right now For 65 million years with proteins and also dinosaurs that have grass inside of their stomachs We've even found dinosaur feces, mr. Jones with Fecal matter that somehow lasted 65 million years and we found out that these dinosaurs ate grass Which again was a prediction that we made on our model But that was failed on the evolutionist side. Let me ask you this. I don't want to ask all the questions here. How did it fail? What's that? How did it fail? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know I don't know. I don't know I don't know I don't know How did it fail Well, because evolution taught that grass actually evolved by a 55 million years ago But dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago So dinosaurs never saw grass because they didn't find grass in the fossil record But we actually analyze copper lights dinosaur dung and found that they actually ate grass Well, they all found us. Yeah, but they all found a species of grass that existed when dinosaurs existed I'm sorry They found a species of grass or one particular kind of grass that Existed where dinosaurs existed? Yeah But the point that I was making and anybody can google this is that no grass existed During the time of the dinosaurs that grass had not evolved yet I I think what we should do uh, brett. How many more minutes do we have? Hello brett you there right So let's let's talk about evolution then because you said that evolution, uh, You know basically means change over time. Well, I believe in change over time But i'm not an evolutionist and so you could define me as an evolutionist just because I believe in change over time But these changes over generations over these populations Are deleterious by definition What part of the mutation through selection mechanism that is required to drive evolution Is is verifiably scientific and that we can observe today Um, you mean beneficial mutations I'm talking about a mutation a group of mutations that would drive a fish to a fisherman like evolution teaches No, it doesn't teach that Generations and via variations that we descended from over millions of years. There's still eukaryotes So just because they're eukaryotes means that we're related, correct? That's right So you know yeast is a eukaryote as well, right? Sorry Yeast is a eukaryote as well Yes, so that means we're related to yeast according to you That means we're related to pine trees and elephants because they're eukaryotic organisms. Well, you could argue that squids and uh pens are related Because they squirt ink You could argue that the clouds because they have water inside of them and watermelon has water inside of it is Somehow watermelon and clouds are related ladies and gentlemen because they have what is a pen In your opening statement, you literally said dinosaurs and birds both have a very very similar wishbone Therefore they're related. I'm sorry That is not a pen eukaryote Say that again is a pen a eukaryote Is a what a eukaryote a pen you mentioned squids and pen A pen is not a eukaryote just because certain things have similar characteristics doesn't mean that they come from common descent That's not it's just common ancestor from common ancestry common descent That they share a common ancestor because they have why not? Yeah, why not? Because well for one we only see animals producing within their families and then number two If we look at the genetic makeup Of certain animals for example the y chromosome of a human versus the y chromosome of a chimp We have a somewhat similar y chromosome. Well Evolutionists have concluded that based on the y chromosome analysis That somehow We are we we descended from chimps because we have a similar y chromosome Well, look we have more in common with a gorilla's y chromosome than a chimp's y chromosome So does that mean we descended from gorillas no It means that we share certain dna barcodes with certain of the creation That's around us because we're all coated with the same code for life via dna So of course we would expect there to be similarities we'd expect for certain organisms like ourselves to be eukaryotes So what big deal it doesn't prove that we're related to pine trees or elephants or yeast? It's so let me have proof is on you to show how that how we are related just because we're eukaryotes No Let me ask you this is a red squirrel and a gray squirrel the same kind I would say so Why can't the interbreed? because when populations Reproduce what happens is when these certain kinds reproduce reductive Traits come into play. For example, you might have a set of parents that will actually produce offspring that are interferral It's it's not an example of evolution my friend. This is this is Reductive process where they can no longer reproduce something that we were to predict in the creation model, but they're the same kind And in the bible it says the animals of the same kind will bring forth after their kind But you just you just said that red squirrels and great and gray squirrels are the same kind of animal Yes, but everything but certain kinds will actually your bible's wrong I'm explaining there are certain kinds that get to a point where they can no longer interbreed Because they have diversified and because entropy has occurred to those organisms it is it is reductive So what you're claiming is proof of evolution or even possible. This is how we drive evolution as speciation Well number one, they're still part of the same family or genus And then number two these organisms These organisms are reductive when they can no longer And be inter-fertile that's reductive by definition that's part of the fall that's part of sin That's part of mutations entering in and making it so certain creatures can no longer interbreed It goes perfectly with our model the burden of proof would be on you to explain how you go from The goo to you or even from ape to man via mutations Well, i've still not had an answer because Does the bible say that animals will dream forth can I ask you a question, excuse me, excuse me, just one sec I don't know personally, I don't know how we got from It just the theory of evolution teaches that it was all eukaryotes and eukaryotes Produced eukaryotes. I explained to you why that's wrong Just because we are eukaryotes and pine trees are eukaryotes doesn't mean that we share a common ancestor with pine trees It means that we're all made up of the same genetic Of similar genetic material that is code for life because we all live on one planet The way that these genes are expressed are very different in the way that the certain barcodes of dna and us Are expressed are very different than that of a pine tree just because we have uh, you can that we are eukaryotes doesn't mean that we Descended from a common ancestor with a pine tree It means I mean you look at the differences Versus the similarities and the differences well outweigh the similarities Why? No, why? Why are we not this? See start from eukaryote. I've made some notes I mean, I understand what you're trying to say. Mr. Jones, and i'm not trying to be down on you, but look You could literally argue that me and another animal Let's say a cat have a common ancestor just because we both have eyes That is literally the argument that you're presenting in this discussion. No, it isn't you're saying that because okay because we're eukaryotes Because we have a certain type of cell Therefore and then we share this certain type of cell with another creature. Therefore we came from Uh common answer we're related. Yes Yeah, so would you make the same argument about having eyes or five toes or uh, let's say Um Family size. I mean, where do you draw the line on this? Well, it depends on paper. This is nothing more than propaganda Well, it depends which taxonomic category you want to come from Because the domain which is which is the top of the tree is eukarya Which is eukaryotes and then it goes to animalia and then the phylum the class the order the family the genus of species But right at the top of the tree there is domain And you and I'd still like to get an answer to this question um, because you said some something about mutations Um, but you said that the same kind of animal Why can't red squirrels and gray squirrels reproduce? I already explained that to you twice, but i'll explain it to you again They are inter-fertile because of the fall because of reductive evolution See we are devolving you believe we are evolving we're becoming better We are evolving we're becoming better but this proves that these kinds of animals they're actually becoming reductive in a sense They can't reproduce anymore. That means that that is not evolution that is de-evolution by definition evolution doesn't mean Evolution means descent with inherent genetic modification, but those modifications Need to be able to make it so they can survive in a new environment Now keep this in mind I believe that Microevolution is true. Yes, we adapt to our environments. We will make changes but that is because of heterozygosity that's been built into us And when these red and gray squirrels they can no longer be inter-fertile That's just an example of heterozygosity going from heterozygosity to homozygosity Where they can no longer reproduce it doesn't mean that we all descended from a common ancestor It means that things are becoming worse over time and we are becoming less and less fertile as a population I mean we've even looked at uh sperm cells in male humans and from generation to generation We're losing sperm cells. We're losing the ability to reproduce from generation to generation Entropy is occurring. We have 100 to 200 more mutations than our parents had. Mr Jones, what that means is that we are more mutant than them we die from mutations These mutations are are defined as neutral but they cannot be weeded out by natural selection So if mutations building up in populations over time continues over these generations We will go extinct and that's why evolution is false. It is not true. It is falsified at the fundamental of what a mutation even is That's the very thing that's supposed to drive evolution the very thing the very model that you're proposing proposes that mutations Are what caused us to evolve from literal fish To land dwelling animals all the way up from lucy all the way up to mankind. Well, is this it are we done evolving? I don't want to take up all the time. I'm going to turn it back over to you um, you you once said um that's uh Rocks conceived do you still believe that? Or evolution teaches the rocks conceived well, actually we we know that evolution teaches that because it is like I said earlier It's defined as chemical evolution and then number two, I can actually show you a paper That actually explains this So i'm going to go to the paper right now actually The title of the paper is that you owe your life to a rock, mr Jones And of course this is one of the things that you brought up in your videos is a supposed lie that matt powell can't hold But it is common knowledge I'm going to look it up here The title of the paper is you owe your life to a rock Here it is You owe your life to a rock Erosion of metal-rich granite long ago set the stage for multicellular organisms Check this out. This is this is literally what your theory is saying says. Thank goodness for granite This is how the article starts out Thank goodness for granite, you know what I would say I would thank god for life not rock Thank god that we're alive Thank goodness for granite if not for the formation and some Subsequent erosion of large quantities of metal-rich granite these heavy metal elements. Mr Jones had to erode from the granite that somehow came here by chance a rock that we can't create on purpose Somehow created itself by chance and then when it was raining for a while Somehow created itself by chance and then when it was raining for two million years It eroded the rocks to a point where multicellular life would now be able to use those chemical compounds To survive that is what evolution teaches that is chemical evolution. That is the fundamental of the theory I'd have to read that again. I I did read it once but i'd have to read that again to make sure Well, it is what we're saying so i'm not i'm not lying you excuse me already on this planet though What's that some of the ingredients were already on this planet Yes, but the ingredients for life would not have assembled themselves if it weren't for the heavy metal elements that came out of the granite Rock when it was being rained on for two million years according to the model So the single Yeah, sorry, go on I was going to say so single-celled organisms could exist without it But multicellular organisms according to evolution could not have existed according to this paper could not have existed Unless these heavy metal elements were eroded from the rocks So when you come on here and say nobody believes or when you get on your channel, nobody believes that we came from rocks That's just a lie. You're just hearing that from other atheist youtubers Because this is what evolution teaches if evolution teaches that the earth was a hot molten Ball of rock and then it rained on the rocks for millions of years and out of that soup came me and you over generations and variations That is what evolution teaches That is that we evolved from rocks that we descended from the chemical elements contained in these rocks So that is the model i'll have to i'll have to read up on that because I didn't I didn't anticipate Um that uh that question I'm, not trying to be down on you. Mr. Jones, but isn't it kind of Isn't it kind of not a good thing? to get on video And to bash me and say matt powell's a liar. He's just making all this stuff up. He's disgusting When I have sources for everything that I brought forth today Sources for every claim that you said i've lied about uh i've brought sources for uh forward for So I would just encourage you to make sure to do research before you jump onto discussions like this And don't call me a liar for making a certain claim that has been verified in this discussion Because it is a true claim. This is the model The the rock thing no, I don't believe uh for one second no because I think you're oversimplifying Um because you said on video You said on video You said on video that a rock conceived What I said, can you tell me how a rock conceives Can you say that again I I can barely hear you are you asking me about you said You said on video a rock they believe your exact words. They believe a rock conceived Correct. Tell me how you yeah, you tell me how a rock can conceive I don't believe it can conceive I never said it did but here okay, but no your model is claiming that it did because it rained You said it did in the rock Within that rock heavy elements came out and then we evolved from those heavy elements. That means that we were conceived from rocks It's not hard to figure out conceived at all It's a total misrepresentation you're trying to oversimplify things and it's ridiculous it is not a misrepresentation It is complete misrepresentation You said a rock conceived. How does a rock conceive? Then let the viewers decide the viewers can pull up the article for themselves that says in the title i'll pull it up myself You owe your life to a rock That's the i'll read the i'll read the paper, but i'm asking you right now. How does a rock conceive? You tell me I don't believe it. What does it say in the paper that rock conceived? What does it say the theory of evolution that a rock conceived at this point we're just arguing hermeneutics you're you're moving the goalpost I'm not moving the goalpost at all I'm not moving the goalpost at all. I've explained you mentioned rocks many times Gentlemen let's let's relax. Let's try to do it one at a time here That's fair enough You mentioned rocks you said a rock conceived on one of your videos you said that this is the theory of evolution This is what it teaches a rock conceived. You tell me where in the theory of evolution. Does it say a rock conceived? the reason that we know that according to evolution a rock would have conceived is because And i've explained this many times i'm going to explain it one more time and then i'm done Because these heavy chemical elements that were contained in the rocks Were rained on and were eroded out of the rocks And then those heavy chemical elements were what made our life possible So yes, the title of the article is you owe your life to a rock and that is what they are saying They say thank goodness for granite or we wouldn't be here They're saying we descended from rocks. They're saying that life came about via spontaneous generation via soup And you said that the rna world was a good mechanism to rely That's the one that I personally buy into is the rna world hypothesis, which I debunked just a few about 30 minutes ago Sunlight and water destroys dna. So how is life going to assemble itself in sunlight and water on rocks explain that to me Well, I still haven't I still haven't had an answer about how a rock conceived a word I've answered you three times. No, no, no, no, no, you didn't three times on this. No, you didn't How does a rock concede? How does a rock produce an egg? Mr. Jones I'm, not going to answer you again. I will say just a rock produce an egg. How does a rock produce sperm? How does a rock reproduce? A rock, how does it reproduce a rock conceived rna? via erosion of the granite Erosion of the chemicals the heavy elements in this article That were eroded that somehow conceived That somehow assembled themselves in sunlight and water the very thing that destroys dna. I can't even believe somehow we have to have discussions like this because You should be able to just say okay. You know what sunlight and water destroys dna i'm throwing it out But you'll still sit here and argue. Well, why are you saying a rock conceived? I'm not saying a rock conceived There are people out there What's that? You said it on one of your videos I said that these people think a rock conceived. In fact, I have college students Me that they believe rocks conceived over god created the universe I could show you the interviews of them saying Yeah, we believe we came from rocks. Oh, please do please do a video about it I will release a video about it pretty much pretty pretty quick here because I feel like it should be put out there in the public. I was actually going to wait till a film That I was going to release on this matter But look the mutation through selection process and the abi the abiogenesis soup has been thoroughly debunked I debunked it Just by using some basic scientific papers the bible says in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth not in the beginning Nothing exploded and somehow or nothing rapidly expanded faster than any explosion in history Which is an explosion by definition and created everything that we see around us in the world today. It is absolutely false It has been falsified And people that would speak of this in an honest manner should just throw it away throw the hypothesis of evolution away. Mr Jones Accept that which is demonstrated to be true that which is demonstrated to be fact and that is creation Creationism creation science the world was created. God loves you. He died for you. He came here 2,000 years ago died on a cross Was buried and rose again for your sins and my sins and he wants you to go to heaven with me I want you to go to heaven with me. I don't want you to go to hell Now look, I understand we're just trying to keep this as a general discussion, but I think we should probably just wrap it up On I want some evidence for god I gave you evidence for god time space. No, you didn't time space No, I want evidence for your god Well, i've done videos on this explaining that there are only two concepts of religion There's people who work their way to heaven and there's people who trust christ as savior every other religion teaches a work salvation My faith is in christ and in the dun religion the one who said that he paid it all when he died for my sins past present and future But faith is there are only two religions. There's only two concepts. So it's not hard to figure out but faith is belief, isn't it? Faith is belief without evidence False faith is defined as a confidence or trust in someone or something. Look it up in a dictionary Okay, that's not that's no problem Faith is defined as a confidence or trust in someone or something It is not believing things without evidence. You've been listening to too much r and r my friend You've been listening to too much. Mr. Larry nelson That comes right out of his mouth. That was just repeated If you would have looked at a dictionary you would have known that But instead you're you're watching you're you're trusting youtubers to tell you the truth instead of trusting fact I don't I don't really have any more to say so where's your proof of god? I think maybe where's your proof. Oh, hang on. You don't get to run this debate So where is your proof for your god? I've already said it several times, but you know, i'll say it again. I'll say it again Times but you know, i'll say it one more time The fact that time space and matter exists Is proof that it either a came into existence via magic Uncaused or that b somebody caused it and what does it say? Space and matter had to be outside of time space and matter timeless space listen and material and if it is timeless space listen material And could bring something as big as the ocean itself on this earth into existence that requires power and intelligence to be able to design life Requires power and intelligence intelligent i.e intelligent design it in your opinion Okay, explain to me how One out of 100 000 million million chances happen by chance simply saying that time space and matter exist Is not good enough for me simply saying it says it in the Bible isn't good enough for me That's that's on you. That's not on me. I already explained the model if you want to reject the model. That's fine I'm not rejecting the model. I'm asking for evidence of the model Gentlemen gentlemen, we were doing a 30 minute open discussion and then went way over 30 minutes and I appreciate you both having patience and adherence for that, but It's just going to go on and on and on so do we want to get to uh Closing statements. Do we want to do a q a how you guys feel okay with you and emmy? Q&a sounds good. Do we have any questions in the chat? Now, mr. Jones, would you have any issue if I ask any questions not at all Okay, mr Jones if it is not your belief that you come from rocks Then what did you come from if there was no god to guide it? I explained it earlier on. Um, I don't know much about it and I said this earlier on um, I I think that the lna first That the lna first is probably the best theory of where we came from Okay, well that's a biogenesis that's not evolution Okay Is anyone out there have a question that they want to ask I mean I myself I have questions, but I want to give other people an opportunity Let's see i'm looking through here we've got someone called d57 that says that they want to ask a question All right while we're waiting for this person to do it So you guys ain't held up you guys were talking about the surfing monkey incident earlier, right? You said that you guys were saying over 900 miles There was this floating debris that basically according to you had lettuce and plants on it And the monkeys were eating the very thing that they were floating on now No, no, no my memory serves me right doesn't salt water destroy lettuce in any of this material that you speak of I didn't say that Okay, what I said, how would you like to respond to this I said I said a floating land mass um, and I And I wish me Open statement of the video was was uh working properly, but it wasn't but I showed um A massive land mass floating down the panamaic canal that actually blocked the panamaic canal back in 2010 And it still had upright trees on it And this land mass it it could have just snapped away i'm not saying It could it could be what several meters thick this land mass that snaps away, but But we just simply don't know Do you mind if I comment on it real quick brett? Of course, this is you guys's debate you do things where you want Sure. So, you know this this whole theory that monkeys You know surfed on vegetation mats from africa to south america 34 million years ago again The study is actually based on a fossil and mr. Jones. You obviously referenced this At the beginning of our debate or discussion That you know, it's based on these fossils of these teeth that we found these molars The problem is that fossilization again is about conditions number one And then number two, it would have been catastrophically buried somehow So even if they did ride across there on a raft Somehow they were catastrophically buried to the point where their teeth were able to be preserved and so You know just saying well we found some fossils of a certain animal Over in south america that didn't exist in Uh, or that didn't exist in south america. They existed in africa that means that they must have floated across You know, I am willing to submit maybe they floated across but in a catastrophic event and they were buried catastrophically Which is why we find the fossils People always say well, they're trying to survive we find them trying to get on vegetation mats to survive Yeah, they were running from the flood of noah. They were trying to survive and they were catastrophically buried so it perfectly fits my model So no matter how this game Will not go the evolutionist way So how did kangaroos get to australia from turkey? well for one the uh Am I allowed to answer that question brett? You guys are more than welcome to do whatever you like with it Yeah, for one the sea level would have been much lower if you lower the sea level, uh after the flood Obviously it would have been Land bridges everywhere so it would be no problem For kangaroos to be able to simply hop there it would have been no problem for them So that would be my answer to that So why is it implausible for for monkeys to get from africa to south america? and not uh And plausible for kangaroos to get from turkey to australia Because they they hopped they didn't ride on a raft. Mr. Jones. They they they walked they hopped they hopped across uh while the uh water was Subducted it wasn't as high as it is today. The sea level hadn't risen as much remember this is uh Post flood immediate post flood they would have been able to get there So the seal so the sea levels were lower from turkey to australia, but they weren't lower from africa. They were only lower in one part of the world You're conflating two different models. So the creation model the creation model says that there was a flood The evolution model says that the unit the kit the present is the key to the past So remember you have uniformitarianism Which means that these monkeys would have surfed across on water because it remember is peaceful voyage, right? Because it wasn't catastrophic according to evolution but according to my model the way that those kangaroos would have gotten to australia would they would have simply went via land bridges that would connect from australia to turkey if you will And so that would be the best answer on that So ready for another question the marsupials as well the koala bears and they they hop there as well didn't they I i'm not what did you say? I'm, sorry. Are you guys ready? The other marsupials the koala bears they hop there as well Well, if there's land connecting it wouldn't be implausible at all They travel animals. So why couldn't So why couldn't there have been land connecting africa to south america Because in the in the model and I could pull up. Um what the continents looked like back then the continents Would have looked like this 65 million years ago. Let me pull it up here Let me just pull it over here, yeah, this is what the continents would have looked like So there were no land bridges that you can see here so was yeah, but where the land bridges from turkey to australia Mr. Jones i've explained this No, you just said right The viewers ask us questions, right so maybe we should this yeah, but oh no, no, no, no No, you don't get away with it that easily I could You have got that slide up now and you just said that land masses don't exist between africa and south america You can't see any five million years ago. This is what I can't see any land masses during that time But I can't see any land masses from turkey to australia Yes, because this is an evolutionary assumption page. This is an evolutionary assumption picture This is how they think it looks back then before. All right, then what should we picture with some land? Show me a picture with some landmass between turkey and australia I'm showing you what your model is is proposing here via 65 million years ago I don't know if you can i'm asking you for evidence of your model I've given you evidence of my model. No, you haven't Where are the land masses from turkey to australia and we have to mr Jones in this discussion then we have to agree to disagree And we have to move on i'm sure Asking you you've just you've just tried debunking the africa to south america i'm going to debunk now this turkey to australia business What are the land masses from turkey to australia? This is your model show evidence of your model Gentlemen, this is the q a section of it for people to be able to ask the the folks in the show questions Um, and I I will say this This is not matt powell's page he's showing you what the evolutionists are saying that is what he said three times I don't know if you guys are hearing each other clearly or what's happening here, but this uh, this was said three times Well, let me ask let me ask yet again. This is his model Kangaroos got from turkey to australia hopping on landmasses. Where is the evidence for this? Yes I've already explained it the after the flood post-flood the Sea level would have been much lower and if you bring the sea level lower even just a few hundred feet You're going to start to see land everywhere Well, you just made claims sort of facts of evidence flood. That's what we would predict. That's what we would predict post flood Because of the water still running off of the right. So uh the land masses They're under the water now I'm not going to keep answering this question. I've answered this question now four times We need to move on we need to be professional And we need to move on i'm asking for evidence guys guys The thing that i'm not understanding here is you're saying you're wanting these land masses from a site that's about evolution But the issue is as we were originally talking about surfing monkeys not land masses and all this close together It's the scientists that are claiming that it was 900 miles. They traveled So what is this exactly from either one of you if you don't mind me asking? What does this have to do with the surfing monkeys? Well, it has nothing it has nothing to do with it it really has nothing to do with it It just it comes down to repeating arguments that he's heard from other youtubers about the problem of kangaroos getting this Don't make assumptions about me Okay I yeah, I don't really have anything else to say on this. I think we've tried to we've tried to talk about it We need to just agree to move on. Mr. Jones Right, you know you said this is this is your slide here This is your slide I saw Was 65 million years ago, right? Well go further go further forward in time then so sure Mr. Mr. Jones, we have to move on we have people in the q a that are asking questions Fair enough, right? You don't want to answer the question. That's absolutely fine. No problem. I've answered it four times Right. All right Is this ladies and gentlemen, uh in the debate in the discussion live discussion, however, you want to refer to it There was a comment made about lightning hitting some area of the earth and somehow sparking life into existence What did the lightning hit that caused life to come into existence water Water apparently that's that's one of the theories So what kind of water was this that the lightning hit i'll probably take a guess at h2o So My answer to this would be that it's completely opposite what they're what the evolution model is saying is completely opposite to that of Reality into what the bible says the bible says that life began on the land and that god breathed into man's nostrils The breath of life may became a living soul and so Our model teaches that it began on land their model teaches that began on water But the reason we know it couldn't have happened notice the wording here could not have happened In the water and it is falsified is because dna breaks down in sunlight and water RNA is pre-dna And if the pre if the prebiotic process contained water By definition, it's going to scatter the DNA molecules and not assemble them Okay, do we want to do closing statements All right, we should do closings You can go first. Mr. Jones No, you go first. I went first with the opening Okay. Well, um So overall, I think a good discussion. Um, I want to thank mr. Jones for challenging me to Defend my position on these matters I do want to encourage people that that look into this stuff and look I hope I haven't come off as condescending or something It's just that when I hear so many falsehoods in one discussion or so many Lies, I feel like I have to and i'm compelled by what the bible tells me to do which is to seek and promote truth to Simply point out the errors And I think that i've done that today I think that the evolution model really does not have the answers. That's really I know it doesn't have the answers mutation via selection Creating these populations over generations Is false it is falsified It proves that in the beginning we started with a perfect genetic code and then it got corrupted And then mutations have accumulated over time decreasing the lifespan. We die from mutations and so I think that It's important to point out the big bang model is is false To claim that all matter existed in an energy form in a infinitesimally small dot Is beyond absurd and does not have any scientific backing in order for it to be science. It has to be demonstrable testable and repeatable And like I said if I'm wrong on any of these matters I am compelled by reason to change and that's the difference between my model and Mr. Jones's model is that evolution? They're always going to come up with rescue devices for it when you point out. Okay water could not have Been what life started in because water scatters rna it scatters dna In fact when the fbi does research on people that have died when they do forensics They look at somebody that died in water versus somebody that died in fire the fire The person that died in fire is actually they can trace the dna better Because fire doesn't scatter the dna molecules as much as water does Water scatters dna when somebody dies in water. It's hard a lot of times for forensic people to identify What's going on in there? Why because it scatters the dna that means that life is more likely to start a biogenesis The theory he was proposing in this discussion is more likely to happen in a grill A hot fiery grill than in the water But people that don't think about this don't think through what they're saying They'll say well bubbly bubbling within the broths of the ocean with some chemical soup I'm, sorry chemicals destroy life soup destroys life I'm, sorry, our ancestor was not campbell soup that got eroded off of some granite rock Our ancestors were adam and eve why chromosome adam mitochondrial eve and we can verify that they lived in the distant past via mutation rates And that there was a flood about 4 500 years ago and i've shown the geological evidence of that and so in closing I just want to encourage people that are listening to do the research don't believe what i'm saying. Simply do the research yourself And I think mr. Jones would probably say the same thing, so mr. Jones just want to say thanks for Thanks for the invitation And um, I thought overall it got heated But I did think it was a good discussion and I want to wish you the best. Take care Mr. Jones Uh you too matt and thank you for coming on and accepting the invitation to this discussion um I want to wish you and your family and everybody at uh, dinosaur adventureland all the very best and I really do mean that um Let me see i've heard an awful lot of evolution bashing i've heard a lot of um, uh Big bang theory bashing a bit of genesis bashing but i've not heard any evidence so far for god only time space and matter and but I just don't know. Um, yes i've done research. Uh, yes. I went to sunday school when I was a kid read the bible Um, and I questioned the bible when when I was a kid, you know, I you know, I asked I can snakes talk and you know And and all the rest of it the usual the usual stuff when you're when you're a child. Um but i've heard no evidence for and no evidence for creation only god did it and It says it in the bible that god did it but god the bible is the word of god But it's circular reasoning and and matt said he has a problem with circular. Oh, certainly there is a problem with circular reasoning. So Uh I honestly don't know. I'm Like I say, I want to uh, thank obviously brett keene for hosting this as well and Yes, I do encourage people to look into it because There is no scientific evidence for the supernatural and god is Apparently supernatural and there's no scientific evidence for this None whatsoever. There is no There is no scientific evidence in the bible, uh, the bible is factually incorrect The bible describes the earth as flat and obviously we know that the earth isn't flat Bible describes whales as fish and we know that they are not fish Why would god put whales in the sea and make them breathe the atmosphere? It seems crazy to me. Um but You know, I'd just like to um Obviously just finish on this point. Yes, do your own research and come to your own conclusions um But don't uh, it's difficult. It's difficult. Yeah, just do your own research come to your own conclusions and Uh, I just wish everybody the best everybody in the side chat I wish matt and his family all the best I wish brett keene and his family all the very best and uh, I hope you live long and prosperous lives and You know and just do well in whatever you choose to do And once again, thanks. Thank you to everybody. Thanks to matt and thanks to brett and thanks to everyone in the side chat as well All right, goodbye ladies and gentlemen and god bless Didn't recognize the lord she loved was standing right before But then he said her name and the moment that she heard A flame was lit within her that flowed out in these words Oh I can't keep it to myself I'll testify My savior lives Oh How can I do less then share this now with you The lord I love is Risen I know that it's true Oh Because there's an empty grave and this heart of mine believes The resurrection story has given life to me Keep it to myself I have seen the cross the blood the nails the crown I have seen them take His lifeless body down What these eyes Oh Oh Oh