Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not dinosaurs lived with man and we are starting right now. With Nephilim Frees opening statement, thanks so much for being with us, Neph the Floor is all yours. Okay, thank you. I'm trying to share a screen. So it's... All set. They can see it. Okay. Okay. Yeah, there it is. Okay. So to refuse the evidence of dinosaurs and man coexistent, my opponent must provide empirical evidence that there is a gap in time between man and dinosaurs. This evidence must be testable. Otherwise you'd be appealing to an idea, not testable evidence or show that mankind's historical depictions and legends of dinosaurs are of other creatures and not of dinosaurs and show that the fossil footprints of humans and dinosaurs in the same geological strata were not of dinosaurs or not of humans or both. My opponent won't be able to do these. In the 1800s, scientists had a poor understanding what dinosaurs looked like even by examining the fossils. What you see on the left is an iguanodon according to 19th century scientists. On the 20th century depiction is on the right. It's the accurate one because we used modern science to figure out what body mass it had and where it would have hung on the bones. Here's another one. This is a megurosaurus 19th century concept, 20th century technology on the right. Another one, an iguanodon, a megurosaurus, I'm sorry. It's a very dramatic difference, right? And here's an ancient depiction of a dinosaur with a waddle under its neck. And from, I believe it's Indonesia. Oh, Sumatra. Right. And they couldn't have known it had a waddle under its neck. But they depicted it as one. There's, you see men and you see the dinosaur and there's the modern depiction of what the creature should look like. This is a montosaurus drawn by Native Americans standing in the upright position. That's because he's been threatened. He's protecting it. It's protecting its young or it feels threatened in some way. Why would man depicted creature that looks like that standing on two feet with a big curled tail. Here's a, from the Han Shun culture in China, a protoceratops with its head down in conflict. Here's from the Shang dynasty. This is a dinosaur. This is a dinosaur wafos. Numerous features of this creature accurately depicted. Even patterns on its skin. Modern sciences discovered dinosaurs. Some of them had patterns on their skin. Here's an ancient depiction in a Native American one in Ontario, Canada. Notice they depict real creatures that we know of, you know, known creatures like snakes, right? Next to a dinosaur with spikes on its back. It depicts a giant lizard type dinosaur biting a horse at the back of the neck so hard that the horse goes down to its knees. And there's another dinosaur standing by saying, I want some of that too. Save some for me. What kind of creature is big enough and has the mouth that can bite a horse at the base of the neck and paralyze it like that. This is an ancient depiction from, actually it's not so ancient, 1100 AD, a temple in Cambodia. They carved the stegosaurus on the side. This is from the palette called the King of Narmur. It's from Egyptian. It's 3,029 or 20 BC or so. It depicts two sauropod dinosaurs with their necks intertwined. Now let's imagine a non-believer says, no, those aren't really dinosaurs they depict. Really? Well, let's look at Freddie the dinosaur. This is a little cartoon. This is my Freddie the dinosaur. Let's leave Freddie and take the back door out of the way. Now let's paste Freddie on some rock. And then somebody's going to say, well, it's not really a dinosaur. Really? But there it is. There's Freddie the dinosaur depicted by Native Americans on rock. And if everybody can look at that and see it's clearly a sauropod dinosaur. Here's another ancient Babylonian, a crested skull dinosaur called Lusotitan. Two of them with their necks intertwined. Here's Lusotitan again on a Babylonian cylinder seal. And here is an ancient Mosaic depiction made by the Greeks in Palestine. The words literally say crocodile leopard in Greek. Here's a medieval art. You can see the dragons. Dragons are legends of dinosaurs. This is from the Middle Ages as well. This is a human footprint.  Yes. That's what the scientists would say it is. The one on the left is a human footprint. What you see on the right is a picture I pasted on top of that. That's a human footprint at the Plexi River in Texas. If you're going to say the one on the left is a footprint, human footprint. Where do you say that the ones on the right are not? That's not a human footprint. But though some will say so. So in Plexi, Texas, they dug up some layers of rock. And they found under the layers, this is them in the early 1970s in Glen Rose, Texas, using heavy equipment, early 1970s to remove layers of rock. And what they found under it was a three-toed dinosaur walking through a sedimentary strata and a human being doing the same thing in the same strata. Now that's impossible on this mancoach is to be dinosaurs. Here they are again. On the left you have a three-toed dinosaur walking. On the right you have human footprints. Here they are again. Is this not a human footprint? Of course it is. And it's right there next to sauropod dinosaur footprints. You can see that the dinosaur across the path of the human. Here's the man walking. Here's the dinosaur walking. So man obviously lived with dinosaurs. The evidence is over women. All around the world and all the various cultures of the world, man has the legends of giant lizard-like creatures, terrible beasts, and about legends of how he combated with these creatures, because man lived with dinosaurs. And it's still an explanation for why all the cultures of the world have legends of dragons. It would be irrational for all of the tribes of mankind to invent the same kind of story. It just doesn't make sense unless there's something truly to it in the various tribes of mankind all encounter dinosaurs. So I'd say the evidence is incredibly powerful that man did coexist with dinosaurs. And the idea that the earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs lived many millions of years ago is a 19th century myth that millions of people have swallowed that modern science doesn't support it. That concludes my opening statement. You got it. Thank you very much, Nephilim Free. And what we're going to do from there is kick it over to our new guest for his opening statement as well. But also want to let you know, my dear friends, we are very excited about several things. One in particular on screen at the bottom right of your screen. We are pumped that next weekend, Matt Dillahunty will be back to debate the topic of whether or not the Bible promotes slavery. You don't want to miss it, folks. It's going to be a good one. So hit that subscribe button right now so you don't miss that epic debate. And with that, as mentioned, Ralph Von Ralf will give his opening statement. Thanks so much for being with us, Ralph. The floor is all yours. So thank you, James. Thank you, Neph. I really appreciate the opportunity here. My opening is going to be much, much quicker than that. So I do not think it's reasonable to say that humans lived alongside the answers. There's no evidence to support this claim. Younger with creationists are the only people that believe this myth, except for maybe Flattered Thurs. False claims of evidence would be ancient cartoons and stories. That was the majority of what Neph actually provided. He actually provided like the supposed human footprints. Those ones specifically and the other ones that have been found have all been debunked as misidentified or just as folks. These are just examples of younger with creationists using anything they can to try to justify the ability of the Bible. And I think that's going to become very apparent because I don't think Nephs will be able to hide from that. If humans live with or alongside dinosaurs, we should be able to find human fossils and bone either physically or dated close to dinosaurs, which we have not. Because of this, it's unreasonable to assume that humans were alive when dinosaurs were. And that's what this claim is. It's just an assumption. It's an assumption based on stories, myths, and folks. Show me the bones and an open seat. Had myself on mute. Thanks for that opening statement, Rolf on Rolf. And want to let you know, folks, no matter what walk of life you are from, Christian, atheists, agnostic, you name it. We are glad you are here. We're a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And we're glad to have you with us no matter what walk of life you're from. So with that, we're going to jump into open conversation. Neph and Rolf on Rolf. Thanks so much. The floor is all yours. You say that the footprints have been debunked, but I would beg to differ. Nobody has ever shown with science. Those footprints are not human. And as I pointed out, scientists will believe that they found a human footprint that looks far less human than the ones that are found in the rocks at Plexi, Texas. And they'll deny that those are human. I think that's pretty telling. There was actually an example of a footprint found in Plexi, Texas that was just a hoax. So you believe that somebody got out there and carved those, right? Well, I mean, from the research I did, it's actually not that hard to fake. Like a footprint. It's not that challenging to do. What's challenging is to actually make sure that it can be dated. So that's how you can actually find that it's a hoax, which they did. If these were hoaxed, maybe you're not very aware of what's going on here. Because if these were hoaxed, a whole lot of people would have had to have been on hoax, like university students and scientists that were present and the guys operating, they had the equipment that lifted the sedimentary strata. I mean, look at these footprints. All of those people were in on this conspiracy, really? No, not everyone needs to be in on it. Just people that did it. I mean, they're- Well, at first they did it. There were witnesses, so we're guys operating heavy equipment, but there'd be equipment licenses. There were career students there. There were creationists there. There were people in the general public as well. All I can tell you is the conclusions of the findings for the footprints found in Plexi, Texas were confirmed to be fake.  Yeah. Well, I just believe that. I think believing that they conspired while they're digging these things up with- I don't say anything about that. Two dozen people standing by. Sorry. No one's talking about conspiracy here. I'm just- Well, you say they're faked. How do they fake them when they dug them up? That's the conclusion that these footprints came to. Okay, so- But I'm asking you, what's rational about believing that?  You know, maybe two dozen people. And some of them have no interest. They're just, you know, a bulldozer operator. You know, that guy doesn't have any stake in this. He just operates a bulldozer. Why not? You could definitely have a stake in it. If I'm going to entertain- How do they fake it? I mean, all it would take to fake something like that. First of all, I'm not assuming the fact that this was, like, a large scale conspiracy, but to think that it's impossible, I think, is irrational. Well, how could they- When did they fake them? Since they were revealed under the ground, since the bulldozer moved the materials away. You know, the rock layer just literally broke free, and they lifted chunks of the weight times. They removed the rock right there in front of, you know, a dozen, two dozen people. And when did they dig it? You know, because they were already there. How could they have faked them inside the earth? There's definitely methods, especially, like, in that area specifically, you could easily fake them. Right. But see, they were revealed when they lifted, you know, tons of stone off of them. So somebody, and they had to break the stone slabs to get them to come off. I'm just telling you that the scientists that actually studied these footprints came to. Well, I'm asking you to consider that and challenge that with your own mind. They had to break slabs of stone that weigh tons to remove them with a bulldozer. How did they fake them if they're under tons of stone? Are you saying that the scientists that came to the conclusion that these stones were, but these are fake or hoaxed? Are you saying that they're actually in on some type of conspiracy? Like they might have some motivations to... No, I'm just asking, how would it be rational to believe that when they were under tons of stone? Because that's the conclusion that scientists in these footprints came to. That's why... I don't think you're really understanding or considering what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the footprints were underneath tons of stone, right? Okay, so they dig them up with a bulldozer, right? And there they are. Are you telling me they, and they're under sedimentary strata that is solidified into a plank of stone is big as a river. It's wide. They had to literally break the stone up into chunks to remove it. It's a flat sedimentary strata that's concreted in the solid stone. They had to break that up into pieces to remove it. When did they have time to fake it? And how could they affect it when there's a sedimentary strata that has become concreted in solid stone on top of them? I understand that it's like hard for you to understand how something like this could have been host. I understand the difficulty in that. And you're unwilling to accept the conclusions of the findings because the conclusion that you thought of kind of validates your worldview already. So I kind of understand how it's difficult. But this is just the conclusion that every scientist that studied these footprints came to. But if you're choosing to disagree and say that these scientists might have some motivations or they themselves are conspiring the truth that the earth or that humans walk with dinosaurs, that's a different issue. But I'm just telling you the conclusions that these scientists came up with. Well, I've been studying these kinds of things for a long time. I've never heard any scientists say that the footprints in Pilexie, Texas were hoaxed. I don't think any scientist says that. I think you have your wires crossed. They don't believe they're human, but they don't say that they're hoaxed. Okay. Is that okay? Okay, we'll say. So you can see that they're not human then, right? No, I don't think so. So when that answers your question, they might not have been hoaxed. They might not have been hoaxed. They might just appear like human. That's another reasonable explanation. Why is that not reasonable for you? Well, so, you know, in all the depictions of dinosaurs from around the world, how did man draw accurate depictions of dinosaurs? These are cartoons. They're not accurate? No. I think I showed them that they obviously are accurate. No, just because they resemble some creatures that like that. No, they're not accurate. They're not accurate. No. Really? No. Yeah, they're not. Okay, so let's take another look at one of them and see if they're accurate or not accurate. How do we do that? No, I'm sure you can find resemblances in some of these examples, but. This, this creature depicted with these men right here, that could be a chicken. That's not, doesn't a chicken that is a turkey that's taller than a man might not even exist. Drawings are not good evidence for anything. Like a turkey with that's taller than a man has a crest on its top of its head. And that's enough. It's a drawing though. Like this is a cartoon. Yeah, that's a drawing. This is not evidence. This is not evidence. It's not evidence. No, that doesn't look like a prototype. Even if it does look like it, this isn't evidence of anything. This is nice. No, these are drawings. That doesn't look like sirloin first. Oh my God. They look exactly the same. This is that this doesn't look like a stegosaurus. Do you understand that drawings aren't evidence? This doesn't look like giant creatures with an extra body. These look like cartoons to me. That doesn't look like a sauropod dinosaur. It looks like a cartoon. Okay. Does it look like a cartoon of the sauropod dinosaur? It looks like a lizard. It looks like a giant dinosaur. Yeah. To you. Okay.  And that doesn't look anything like a sauropod dinosaur. Okay. But it's a cartoon, no doubt, but it looks like a sauropod dinosaur. It looks like something in their imagination. Doesn't look like they're trying to depict anything. That doesn't look like a cartoon of a dinosaur. It could be like, if your brain's telling you that's a dinosaur, then yeah, but again, you're missing the point that cartoons aren't evidence of anything. No, it's not a cartoon that's evidence. I just wanted you to be reasonable about this. And be able to admit that this is obviously a cartoon of a sauropod dinosaur.  But the thing is it's been drawn right there on rock by Native Americans. Okay, but that's kind of creature to look like. This looks like a sauropod dinosaur. You're missing my point. That's not evidence of anything. It's not. No, it's a drawing. No.  Again, art is not like evidence. Like this is not evidence. Not scientific evidence.  Man depicts creatures that don't exist too. Like that's not evidence that they exist. So there's the stone slabs, a solid sedimentary strata that they're exhuming. And in Pilexie, Texas, you do understand this could be part of the hoax, right? Like the idea that they had to like uncover a bunch of these. So they had to break the stone. As you can see, you already informed me that the plexi, like the scientists concluded that these weren't even footprints. Or they say they're not human footprints, but that doesn't look human, huh? No, that actually doesn't mean no. It doesn't really. And that done either. And that's not a big toe right there. Why would you assume that like something like this? Does this look like a three-toed dinosaur footprint right there? I don't know. I would wait for the experts to. The experts say it is. Yeah. Right. So they'll look at this and say, oh, that's obviously a three-toed dinosaur footprint, but that's not a human footprint. You will accept the fact that they, that that's a three-toed dinosaur, but won't accept the fact that that's not humans, but they're the same scientists. Yeah. So I think what I'm hearing is denial. I am in denial of your claim. I find it ridiculous. Yeah. Right. I don't think it's reasonable. There's no evidence though. You haven't shown me any evidence. I just showed you a lot of it. No, it's not it. You showed me cartoons. Cartoons are in evidence. Drawings are in evidence. No, there's nothing in evidence. Right. Cartoons can't be. I have to show me bones. Like show me like some fossils. Well, we have plenty of fossils of dinosaurs. Oh, and humans. If you're, okay. So that's like asking. We have dead people too. Like we should this, it should be very simple for you. Like this isn't. If the Bible is correct, then there was only somewhere probably less than two million people on the earth at the time of the flood of Noah. Okay. And so expecting to find a dinosaur and human fossil in the same strata is like expecting somebody can find a needle in a field. I hate that. Yeah. Yeah. That's not reasonable. Yeah. If you believe in the Bible. So do you consider the Bible to be your strongest piece of evidence for this time? No. But I believe it is powerful evidence. Yeah. But you don't think it's the strongest piece of evidence. I think the strongest piece of evidence that man coexist with dinosaurs. Yeah. Is the fact that dinosaurs are found in sedimentary strata, which have fine distinct boundaries and particle size distribution, which means they were deposited rapidly by the no egg flood. That's the strongest evidence that man coexisted with dinosaurs. You couldn't have a fossil. This is assuming. Isn't this like assuming the Bible is fair. No, it's the science of sedimentology. Okay. So can you explain to me why there's no human fossils? Like I said, If there was a less than two million people on the earth, but the time of the flood. To find any one of them is like expecting to find a needle in a haystack. The only reason we can find fossils of other creatures on this earth is because literally billions of them. Existed at the time. But humans in very few numbers. Right. So given the fact that we actually haven't found any, like as you admit, you still think it's reasonable to say that we live alongside them. Absolutely. Any evidence. Yes. Because of the evidence you see this, the dinosaurs are encased in sediments that buried them rapidly. And that means that they. You know, there is no man. If the geologic column, as it's called, was created by the new way it flood, then uniformitarianism is a myth and sore the hundreds of millions of years. They don't ever, they never existed. And that's what the geology is showing us. So.  Yeah, this argument does relies on the evidence that the earth is young and that there are vast amounts of geologic time between the fossil and, and the present. See, that's that's the thing you can't. in Europe. So if human beings lived alongside dinosaurs, what do you think their relationship was? Conflicting, I think, in most cases.  Do you have any evidence for that? Like, okay. And maybe even some others. Maybe smalls, sort of. So can you understand from, like, my perspective of this, this, it sounds to me like you're believing in a myth. Like, it sounds like to me, you're telling me this is very fantastic. It's very young. I know. It's difficult for somebody to believe in. It's not only difficult, like it lacks supporting evidence. Like, that's the problem. Well, I would disagree with you there. But I understand it's difficult to believe because people, two reasons. One, people are brought up in schools in a secular education system. And it brainwashes millions of people to believe the earth is billions of years old and cooled down from a ball of magma and got hit by countless comets that brought the oceans to it.  That's what people believe. You're taught in school. And I'd say that's preposterous to believe that a ball of glowing hot magma floating in space over millions of years produced space probes, computers and novelists and scientists and people that believe in God. I just find that preposterous, that a rock is going to turn into Beethoven and space probes. That makes, that sounds completely absurd to me. The complexity and the beauty and interdependence of organic life screams of a creator and the special properties of this planet do as well. Yeah. So I mean, at this point it sounds like, it sounds like I was kind of right where I feel like you're going to, you would do this with anything really. You're going to, any, any, you're going to look at anything and use it to justify the validity of the Bible. Because again, there's no, you haven't shown me this whole debate. You haven't shown me any evidence. I'm going to reiterate it again, just because I do want to make it clear. Drawings and even depictions is not scientific evidence. I didn't say scientific, it's historical evidence. Yeah. And historical evidence is, should not be taken seriously, like in this context. Well, I know that's because you have any priority of belief. No, no, it's because you have, no, no, no, it's because you do, it's because you're working with the assumption that the earth is already, you're working with the first of all contrary, like assumption that the earth is young and then you're using literally anything to justify that. So what I'm saying is you're able to take ancient cartoons and stories and myths and you like, think that these are valid forms of evidence if they support your, you're already helpful. Yeah, I did believe that they're valid forms of evidence and I believe science demonstrates the earth is young. There are millions of imaginary years between man and dinosaurs don't exist. No, but can we stick on the topic of dinosaurs? Because again, there are no, there's no evidence to suggest that humans live alongside dinosaurs. Then why did man depict them so many times? Because we depicted, we depict monsters and creatures and- But just so happens these monsters look an awful lot like known species of dinosaur. They look like known species of animals that are just on the planet with like variations. No, they look like dinosaurs. They don't, they, you're telling, they are not accurate depictions of dinosaurs. The depictions that we have with dinosaurs now are much more accurate than these, these were cartoons. I showed you pictures, I showed you pictures of how man depicted dinosaurs in the 19th century before modern science could figure out, you know, how much muscle mass and organ mass was present in them.  That was really bad, terrible. And yet the ancient art of man depicting dinosaurs was better. No, it wasn't. No, it wasn't. Yes, it most certainly was. No, first of all, this is like, this doesn't really matter because it's just our opinion, but like, in my opinion, they were not, they were not accurate. The 19th century ones weren't even that like different than there was like minor variations. Minor variations? Yeah, yeah, yeah. You can pull them up again if you want. Like they, they looked relatively like, of course, their adjustments made, but they looked much more accurate than, than- Really, that's, that's an accurate? Yeah, the second one. That's like not terrible. Really? That's not terrible? The 19th century one, like- That one's not terrible?  Yeah, I mean, obviously, but these are, this is still a better depiction than- That's not a terribly depiction of, of this- This just looks like they were drawing the wrong creature. Well, that's what they thought it was, Megalosaurus. That's what they thought it looked like. Modern science shows us what it looks like on there. But you understand, this proves nothing. Also, like, we're showing drawings here- This Edmontosaurus. I mean, that last one, that last one was funny that you assumed that that's a dinosaur, to be honest. That's Triceratops. Okay, these, again, these are drawings, but this is not evidence of- Right, but you say they look, they look better. I was just showing that the 19th century depictions of dinosaurs were gross in the air world. You showed me two pictures. And man depicted them much more accurately. Okay, this is kind of ridiculous. That is far better than what they did in the 19th century. That, no, are you saying that like ancient men had better artwork? Obviously, you can see for yourself. Look at there. This is insane. I mean, that's not Megalosaurus. This is the evidence that you have for- Excellent evidence. This is not good evidence. I'm sorry, I'm being honest. It's just not good evidence. I know, but that's what we're going to hear every time. It's not evidence. No matter how profound the evidence- Just because drawings again, I just want to reiterate like it's, drawings are not evidence. Just so we don't go in circles of the same things, we might want to jump into any additional evidence for or against the proposition at hand that maybe hasn't even been covered. Okay, so I think that the only evidence that can, that actually has, I wouldn't be at, well personally, I don't think he really has any evidence, but again, we're just working with, he's working with the inclusion of the Bible nature. So as long as he holds that belief, and this one works with it, I'm not going to get convinced otherwise, because you go, I'm sorry, go ahead. No, I don't want to interrupt.  Well, I noticed I didn't bring up the Bible.  Yeah, because- So I just would point that out. I didn't use the Bible as evidence. I used human made, human artwork, and the difference between the end 19th century depictions, which were horrific looking. I brought up the Bible because in my research, the only people that believed this were young earth creations. That was literally the only people. So like, the motivation became very apparent. Now, that's true. I guess the young earth creation is sort of the only ones that hold to this, that make this true. And the only reason why they do is because they're convinced the Bible is true. It's not because of any evidence. It's just because of the Bible. Well, let me share with you a science fact that demonstrates the earth can't be millions of years old and the time you believe- I mean, that's not the debate. But no, but the time it's related. The imaginary millions of years between dinosaurs and man doesn't exist. You've seen if that doesn't exist, then you have strong reason to believe man coexisted with dinosaurs. Your ideas rely upon believing there's millions of years of time between dinosaurs and man. No, no, no. 65. Oh, well, my- If that time doesn't exist, man coexisted with them. See, that's the point. Okay, so my position that we don't have evidence for this claim actually doesn't necessitate like the Earth's age at all, or like doesn't- I don't need to believe that there's millions years old. I just know that we have not found fossils, human fossils, close or dated to that of dinosaurs. I'm just pointing out that if the millions of years of time between dinosaurs going extinct and the modern era didn't exist, then we have strong reason to believe dinosaurs coexisted with man, you see. And the millions of years are imaginary. I can give you profound reasons to know that there isn't such thing as 60 million years. That's fine, so I'll play along. Even if I was to grant you and say that, yeah, the Earth is much younger, there's still no evidence that humans walk with dinosaurs. Well, can you acknowledge though that if there was no 60 million years in the past, then dinosaurs and man likely coexisted, right? Wouldn't that be true? If you pluck the 60 million years out of human history and pull the dinosaurs up where the 60 million years are gone, guess where they are? They're with man. You would have to adjust the history of man, too, because there's no evidence that men walk with dinosaurs. If you remove the 60 million years, do you bring the dinosaurs right up to man? No, you would also have to adjust. Yeah, because there's no evidence of man walking with dinosaurs. No, you wouldn't have to adjust man in any way. You just have to take away the 60 million years and it's over with. I'm not hearing what I'm saying. Like, if we adjust the dinosaurs, we know that man did not walk with dinosaurs. How do we know that? Because we know with reasonable certainty that they didn't, because there's no evidence of it happening. Oh, but we have no evidence, literally none. And you failed to show me any in this debate. Well, I think I did. Well, accurate depictions of dinosaurs. Depictions aren't evidence either. Well, of course they are. No, they're not. Well, you can deny that all you like. We have depictions right now. We have depictions of humans in space, like fighting aliens, shooting laser beams out of their hands. Like, that's not proof that people do that. Humans depict all sorts of things. This isn't evidence. Well, you're talking about 20th century stuff now. Yeah, I'm talking about humans. We depict many things that aren't necessarily accurate. But those ideas are relatively close at hand. Man already does have spacecraft. And we know that we can travel into space. No, I'm talking about Superman. And ancient times, man depicted things that were present with him as well. And that would be dinosaurs, you see. So there's no problem that your argument doesn't work. We also depict things that aren't accurate to reality, like we depict Superman. We do this in stories all the time. Did all the tribes of mankind invent Superman together? We all of us have superheroes to some form. Is Superman an idea that's found in all the cultures of the world? A version of Superman, yes. Well, it is. A version of Superman, yes. It's found in most. Yeah, kind of like an iconic. Yeah, I mean, you might not be aware of how troubling kind of like superhero mythos is. No, I've never heard of that. You know, I've heard of men who ran various cultures around the world believing in different gods, but not men with supernatural powers. The point I'm trying to make here is like if a future civilization was defined like, I don't know, it's defined like anime, like a manga or something. They wouldn't look at this and be like, oh, because humans depicted, you know, this person with superpowers, this must be true. This isn't the way that evidence works. Just because it's a drawing or a depiction of something does not hold that that thing is accurate to reality. You know, Marco Polo, the famous explorer, Marco Polo, wrote about dinosaurs that existed in China when he traveled there. He said the men would lay stakes in the sand to as a booby trap for these creatures. And the creatures were so large that they dragged their belly across the beach. It looked as though a giant bean, like a tree, take a giant tree and cut all the branches off and hook it up to a team of horses, right? And the track that the creature laid in the sand by dragging its huge belly was like the beam of a tree being dragged through the sand. And these men laid traps for them and they killed them, these creatures. And he also said these creatures were so fearsome that they could kill any creature that was on land, a tiger, it doesn't matter what. This creature was so fearsome that no animal was a challenge for it, not even a tiger. He could easily just crunch a tiger, grab it with its mouth and crunch and kill the tiger. So what kind of creature was Marco Polo discussing? So it sounds like to me, it sounds like that story, kind of like a couple things are happening. Sounds like they're depicting what could be like an alligator or a crocodile or something. A crocodile? Yes. Okay, so how big would a crocodile have to be to lay a track in the sand as big as a tree trunk? Obviously, they're being very hyperbolic in the way that they're telling the story. Like it seems like they kind of want to, you know, score points. Again, this is a story. He didn't write it that way. He wrote that he was reporting what he observed. That's the manner in which he was writing this. He wasn't telling a tale. He wasn't saying this is what these people believe there is a legend. He's saying this is what these people are doing now. That's what he was saying. So what kind of creature was Marco Polo describing that? These people were laying traps? A large crocodile. Does a crocodile have a stomach belly as big as the girth? They're using hyperbolic language. Is that something that you... Yeah, yeah, obviously. But he didn't write it that way. It doesn't come across as hyperbolic. It comes across as facts. It comes across to me as hyperbolic. It does. I don't think you've ever read it. So I don't think we could get hyperbolic. Even if what he's saying is like a statement of fact, it's still not evidence. So this story, like unless we have these creatures, we can identify them. And we have other like sporting evidence. This is an evidence. This is just a story. And it is very, it's subject to hyperbolic. Well, it's just not, you should read it. This is what Marco Polo said, now quoting. You say, leaving the city of Iachi and traveling 10 days in a westerly direction, you reach the province of Karazhan, which is also the name of the chief city. Here are seen huge serpents, 10 paces in length, about 30 feet, and 10 spans, that's about eight feet, girth at the body. As the four part near the head, they have two short legs, three claws like those of a tiger with eyes larger than a four penny loaf in very glaring. He just described a creature that's giant. This is 30 feet long, eight feet wide, and has two tiny limbs with three claws on it. Guess what an allosaurus or a T-Rex has exactly those features. 30 or something feet long, right? Not including the tail probably. Two tiny four limbs with three claws on them. That's exactly what an allosaurus or T-Rex looks like. And he says also, he says, the jaws are wide enough to swallow a man. The teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable that neither man nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are met with a smaller size, being eight, six, or five paces long in the following method is used for taking them. In the daytime by reason of great heat, they lurk in the caverns from once at night. They issued to seek food and whatever beast they meet, they can lay hold of whether tiger, wolf, or any other they devour. He says, after which they dragged themselves towards some lake, spring of water or river in order to drink. By their motion and this way along the shore and their vast weight make a deep impression as if the heavy beam had been drawn along the sands. Those who implement, whose employment is to hunt them observe the track in which most frequently accustomed to go and fix into the ground several pieces of wood armed with sharp iron spikes, which they cover with sand in such manner as to not be perceptible. When they're therefore the animal makes their way towards them, the places where they usually hunt, they are wounded by these instruments and speedily killed. I could read more. So he's not talking hyperbole.  Okay, I'm sorry. But again, this sounds, this just, it sounds like a story. I mean, like, there's no, like this could easily not be like a true story. I find it very like surprising how comfortable you are, just like taking these stories, like actual like that. Why should we doubt Marco Polo? He wrote of many things that he observed in China that nobody doubts. But when it comes to his record of man dealing with these dragons or dinosaurs, then we have suddenly got to doubt him. Right? Because when he says when the Chinese were making noodles out of rice, we're not going to doubt that, right? But when he says the Chinese are killing giant serpents 30 feet long with tiny little arms, they have three claws on them. They drag their bodies around in the sand and their tail creates an impression the size of a tree, hunks. We're not going to believe that though, right? Yeah, the serious answer to that question is that like people eat noodles every day. They don't go 500 dragons. So, yeah, it's much more reasonable to say that maybe he wasn't lying when he said that, you know, they're eating noodles. I mean, that's, that would be the answer to that. Yeah, right. Believe that he's writing correct history when he's observed in making noodles out of rice. But that part about the dinosaurs, that can't be real. I find that really, I find it amazing that you think that that's like that. Ridiculous. Like, yeah, yeah. So Marco Polo would tell the truth about the things he observed in one case.  Yeah, people lie with us. Really? Yeah, yeah. It's like a human thing. Okay, that's fine. I don't guess so. No, no, I'm good. You got it. We'll jump into that Q&A. Want to let you know, folks, several things in particular are guests are linked in the description as well as in the description box for the podcast. As all of our debates are put on podcast, I want to highly encourage you, folks. If you haven't already, pull out your phone, check out Modern Day Debate on your favorite podcast app. We've worked hard to get on every single podcast. No joke. We're on virtually every app out there. And so you can find our guest links in the description box there as well. And several other quick little things. One, mods. If you haven't heard, thank you very much. Mods, I want to say first, thank you very much for all that you do in terms of keeping any sort of hate speech out of the chat. And also being sure that you're doing a great job, by the way. I want to say thank you so much for keeping an eye on people in terms of, let's say, asking them to attack the argument rather than the person. Great job with that as well. And then mods. I'll be having a meeting tomorrow, excited to catch up with you and also get to say thank you more directly for all the work you do. So YouTube mods, Twitch mods, Discord mods. I want to say thanks. And I will hopefully get to see you tomorrow. That's at 12 noon. And thanks very much for your question or comment. Dave Gar, says seriously, James, keep up the good work. Here's a tip. Thanks so much for your kind words, Dave Gar. And let's talk soon. I hope you're doing well. Rumrunner, thanks so much, says, if old dinosaur drawings are real, isn't it more likely that ancients found fossils and figured out how they looked than that they actually lived with those animals? Well, the answer to that is no. And the reason is because of the 19th century art I provided. And there's lots more where that came from. I just showed you a couple of examples of man in the 19th century depicting dinosaurs based on what he thought about looking at the fossils. And they got it grotesquely wrong. You got it. And thank you very much for this question coming in from John Raps. Says, Nef, did Egyptians have jackal, ibis, and cat heads? I think they're saying like there are some depictions of Egyptian people. Right, yeah. Well, no, but I think to try to equate that to the depictions of man of dinosaurs is preposterous. It'd be like somebody drawing a go-kart and say, look, somebody didn't actually draw a thing with wheels that rolls. It's just that's the way you're seeing it. That's how preposterous I think that is. Next up, this one coming in from Zagros Oskansis has Mr. Neflin-Free learned these arguments from Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. I discovered these evidences and many others from a whole lot of personal research. I've got to hand it to you. Your visualizations, Nefar, yeah, I've never seen anybody use anything like that. They're well, it's clear. You put time into them. They're well developed. So for example, but anyway, bash the fash, spank the tank. Thank you for your question says, Nefl, explain to me why radiometric dating has found no dinosaur fossil ever young enough to have existed around the time humans evolved. They said, if you deny half time of isotopes, you deny multiple laws of physics. Well, radio, there's problems with radiometric dating. It's the processes. The conclusions are based upon assumptions and the researchers pick which date they want to publish and throw the rest out. They even admit this. So it's called a metric for a reason because it produces a metric of dates. And they pick the date closest. They could be off, that metric might be millions of years in width. And they pick the one closest to what they presume the age of something is. If radiometric dating were empirical, then you'd have to explain why you'd have to explain why the unicarit lava formation at the base of the Grand Canyon has been dated with various radiometric dating processes, including argon, potassium and stuff, and come up with dates that vary from 10,000 years to 2.1 billion years. Why such a wide difference in dating from different methods for one single lava flow as a problem for the dating method? This one coming in from rumrunner says the giant insects that lived beside dinosaurs would have needed oxygen levels above that suitable for human life to survive same with dinosaurs. Well, that's correct. And the no egg flood explains a change in the atmosphere. The atmosphere once had 30% more oxygen than it does today. This has been verified by extracting the bubbles in amber fossils. And they run that through gas chromatograph and they discovered the Earth's atmosphere once had 30% more oxygen than it does today. And that would have allowed a dinosaur, a large dinosaur to exist. But the biggest dinosaurs could not. Large sauropod dinosaurs would not survive under the present atmosphere. Creatures that are much smaller than like a T-rex or triceratops or something probably would be able to exist just fine, but not a gigantic sauropod dinosaur. You got it. And I want to let you know, folks, I just turned on the old subscribers only mode in case you missed the prompt to subscribe at the start for more juicy debates coming up. And so hopefully you'll see that at least if you happen to be involved in the chat. We are very excited for a lot of them in particular. My dear friends, at the bottom right of your screen, we are very excited. Matt Dillahunty will be returning to debate whether or not the Bible promotes slavery. You don't want to miss that one. And so do hit that subscribe button. And next question coming in from, do you appreciate it? Rum runner strikes again saying, the ta-prome Cambodian temple dinosaur has been proven to be an image of a pangolin in front of leaves. There's a monkey image with the same types of leaves in it. Yeah, I've seen the art. And it doesn't look like leaves at all. It looks like the stakes on the spikes on the back of a certified dinosaur. They're not shaped like leaves. And that same rock art depicts known species of creatures. And then it depicts this dinosaur that's pretty profound. So it's obviously, they were reporting, they were drawing, they were carving into the side of the temple creatures that they knew existed and had seen themselves, including a dinosaur. You guys, I'm curious. I'm curious, there's depictions of aliens like all around the earth. Do you think that, is that evidence that aliens were on the earth? What I wouldn't call, yeah, I've seen a couple of them. I don't, I've seen some of those. I mean, I don't think they necessarily aliens. They don't show people with space suits and helmets and air tanks or anything like that. Yeah, I've seen the ones you're talking about. I don't, I don't believe those are genuine. I don't, I think that possibly, yeah. Or they're just pertains. Perfect. No, I don't, I don't believe that. No, I don't believe that there is biological life anywhere in the universe outside the earth anyway. All right, there's pertains. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Joe Gacho says, for Nef, how many dinosaurs do you believe were saved from the global flood to be able to enter the ark to survive and repopulate afterwards? Well, it would have been two of each kind of dinosaur, you know, various kinds, two sauropied, large sauropied dinosaur, two medium sauropied dinosaurs, maybe two small sauropied dinosaurs, two allosaurus or t-rex, two, you know, two stegosaurus triceratopian dinosaurs? Two of them. However many kinds of dinosaur there were, there were two of them. Gotcha. And thanks for your question. The internal or the eternal inquirer says, question for Nef, what are your thoughts on old earth creationism and the local flood theory? Well, the old earth creationism is a deny scripture and it doesn't match the scientific evidence, which is plenteous. And the local flood idea is cannot be true because the earth is covered with an extremely deep sedimentary strata with fine distinct boundaries, laid down horizontally by rapidly moving water, which have particle size distribution and rapidly buried billions of creatures and seal them to their death. So that can't have happened over long periods of time. You can't get strata z-shaped coal seams going up through the geologic column, can't have happened over millions of years. And you can't get the deformed strata, the folded parabolic recumbent folds in the sedimentary strata that are in mountains, for example, over millions of years. It has to be formed very rapidly. You got it. And that is all the questions we have. We do want to say thank you to our guests as well as, as I had mentioned, thank you so much. Mods, I really don't say thank you enough as we have been through a lot together, many debates. I think I've looked, and whenever I look at the page, well, I will be back in just a moment with a post-credits scene to talk about some of our history together. And so I do want to say thank you to our guests who are linked in the description as well as at the podcast episode. All of our podcasts, or I should say, all of our debates are uploaded to the podcast within usually about 24 hours. We are working hard as people said, hey, can you get them on there faster? And so that's something that we are striving to do. And so this one will probably be a little bit later, probably like Monday morning or so, just because we also have this mornings to upload, which by the way, if you didn't see this mornings, it was an epic one. Really fun, you guys. I want to encourage you on whether or not Islam is true with apostate, prophet, and Dr. Abdul Mahid. That was an epic one. So if you haven't checked it out yet, you may want to, but want to say one last time, thanks, Nef, and thank you, Rolf von Rolf. It's been a true pleasure to have you. Thank you so much, James. My pleasure. Absolutely. So with that, stick around, folks. I'll be back in just a moment with updates about upcoming debates and to say thank you to many of you in terms of, well, frankly, all of you, but especially again, the mods, we really do want to say thanks. So stick around and be right back. I want to say thanks so much for hanging out with us. Let me tell you a couple of things. One, I want to say thank you to everybody, not just the mods. I want to say thank you for hanging out here at Modern Day Debates, supporting it. Just, oh, thanks so much. Oh, Sohan, so sorry. I missed your question. It just came in at the last moment. Sohan, Basuza says that the Narmer palette clearly depicts lions with elongated necks, serpods, sauropods, don't have feline tails and ears. So sorry that we got that just a moment too late because we just wrapped up, but I do want to say we probably will have this topic again as this is a topic that people have enjoyed and we usually have it maybe like once a month or so. And I want to say though, thanks both for your questions, folks. Thanks also just for hanging out here. It is fun to have an eclectic melting pot, namely that we have people from all walks of life, Christian, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, you name it. This morning, you guys, that Muslim debate, that was exciting as let's see, we had about 17% of the people who are watching were Muslim times 1000 because at the time I took that poll. So that means there are about 170 Muslims in attendance this morning for that debate. And any Muslims out there now, let me know, we are looking for more Muslim debaters as we really do want to have a good, you could say a good mix of people from all walks of life debating. We are very serious about this idea of diversity, folks. Whether you be Christian, whether you be politically right, whether you be politically left, or atheist or Mormon, you name it. We're glad you were here. We really do want to welcome you. And that goes for everybody, absolutely. Now, let me tell you something. I've got to tell you something. We literally just confirmed this debate. It was about 15 minutes before this debate started. We confirmed a debate that will be another, you could say, controversial one to say the least. We have booked Sean Last and Brenton Langel for a debate on race and crime. It is going to be, like I said, very controversial. We want to give you what you might call a heads up. Namely, it's true. We host controversial debates. We have people on who are frankly, about a year and a half ago, we had guys on who are quite frankly. And this is not because we endorse their beliefs, not at all. Like you can ask me if you want to know my beliefs. I am, I think I'm somewhat politically moderate. Like I'm not super politically charged one way or the other. I try to kind of mull things over. So I'm not anything of the type in terms of like, you could say quote unquote ALTRIGHT. However, it's true. We've hosted people that are of that position. And the reason being folks is that this is a melting pot. And a lot of you are saying, but yeah, James, but it's a melting pot. But those beliefs might be dangerous or bad for people to hear. But a lot of times people focus on that, but they seem to not recognize the door swings both ways. And what I mean by that is, this is almost like a rescue mission, folks.  But ALTRIGHT views, for example, or more, more frankly, NEONAZIS in the even more extreme case, if they are going to be brought out of the rabbit hole, it's important for them to hear views that are different from their own. And so this debate will be controversial. This one is between, as I mentioned, Brenton and Sean last. And I'm not saying that Sean last is any of these things. Like I haven't read his stuff. But I know that some people are fired up by Sean last. And so I will say that whether it be true or not of our guests that they have these controversial beliefs, we are indeed hosting people that will have controversial views. And so you might be like, well, James, but I'm bothered. I think that they are NAZI. But the idea here is we would say, again, the door swings both ways such that we want to have people granting that these people are this. And that's the challenge. Sometimes people just assert it. I haven't seen anything like that from Sean last, but some people will assert that. Although that's the trick is sometimes people assert that about our politically left speakers. No joke, but we had a politically left person. Somebody said that person is an NAZI. And I said, I was like, I haven't seen anything. And they're like, well, you should just take my word on it. And that's the thing is I always get people who just say, oh, you should just take my word on it. That that politically right person is NAZI. And I'm like, whether they be politically right or politically left, your word on it just doesn't mean anything to me. I need you to send me, show me evidence. That's where I would say, OK, now we actually know it's true. But the other thing is, even granting that somebody is an NAZI, frankly, we have hosted people that would, I think, almost frankly, identify as that. They, I would say, in those cases in which even I would say, in some cases, they'd be like, yeah, they do seem to be that. If we are going to have their viewers or followers exposed to new ideas, then it's absolutely essential that we have these people on for debates. And so I know that that, for a lot of people, that's some people that can be like, why? I just don't know how I feel about this. It's the way we've done it. And we do have, there's good, you could say, empirical data for where I come from in terms of where my position is. And I'm also, I've got to tell you, I'm really sad that 90, actually 100% of the people that I've heard who say, oh, you can't platform this person or whatever. They never have any sort of empirical argument. It's just their assertions. It's really sad. And they're always the people, almost always the people that pride themselves. They're like, oh, I'm very much about the science and the evidence. And then I'm like, well, where is this just seems like an assertion in terms of what you think will be the result, whether it bring about a net bad rather than a net good. And so I do want to mention that I, like I said, I haven't seen anything of Sean Lass content that would make me think that he is ALTRIGHT. But like I said, I have heard people assert it. But again, I'm like, it's not enough to assert it. And even if you prove it, again, it's something where we said we've given our reasons for why we still host those controversial debates. So that's something that it's, if it's something that you wrestle with, I got to be honest, it's something that you, it's something that if it bothers you so much, it's like that is something integral to a modern day debate. And it always has been such that you might want to wonder, you know, like, is this something you can get over or not? And so total kaka, good to see you. Captain Crunch, good to see you. Manic Panda is good to see you. And Bal Diablo, glad you were here as well as slings and arrows says looking forward to debates with Muslim participation. Me too, Mario Carvalho. Thanks for coming by as well as high inquisitor. And bash the fash. Thanks for coming by. And then to do Munda skeptical. Good to see you there. Run rum runner. Okay. Thanks for being with us. My eyes are getting old and pony girl. Good to see you as well as stripper looker. Good to see you. Says the door is by total kaka. Good to see you. Thanks so much. I'm glad you're here as well as it. Yeah, total kaka says knowing James's opinions would sort of spoil the debates. That's funny. And then Munda skeptical to see you as well as Joe Gato. Thanks for coming by and then high inquisitor. Always glad you were with us. And Joe, yeah, Joe, welcome to the membership for the modern day debate channel. We appreciate your support. Thanks for joining the membership and bash. Let's see. We got slings and arrows. Good to see you and then rum runner. So good to see you. Let's see. Do. Manic pandas. That's right. TC the unbeliever. Glad you were here and Aaron. Is it pronounced Aaron or Iran? I see there are two R's in a row. So I want to roll the R. But they said, where is Stefan and Vegan Gaines?  I couldn't agree more. I completely agree with you. One, I'm starting to get nervous. Vegan Gaines, mate. Vegan Gaines sounded like he was interested. And then we, oh, Vegan Gaines committed to it. And then his channel got a strike. So he couldn't stream for a week. And then, well, I reached out to him a few days ago and I haven't heard back. I was like, hey, I know you're back on streaming. And so, but I couldn't agree more. I'm going to have to take that down until I actually get word from him. And I'm a little bit nervous about the Stefan one. I don't even know if Stefan's actually coming on because I had to tell Stefan the day of the debate. I said, hey, I'm sorry. Both of our debaters to go against you have backed out. And Stefan still hasn't responded. We might not even host that. I'm nervous about that one. Lacey Ann, good to see you. Captain Crunch, good to see you as well as Azra Cool. Good to see you. Let's see. Amazing. The chat's moving fast. Let me catch up here. This can't be moving this fast. Where are you? Where did I just highlighted? Oh, there it is. Okay. So let's see here. Vitor Emmanuel Oliveira. Thanks for coming by. And let's see. We're glad to see you. And then Batch the Fast says, as long as it says, just has to be a strong opponent when they take on the ALTRIGHT types. Yeah, I agree with you that. That is something we do try to actually match in terms of skill level. Colorado Biker. And we do in other cases, but in other cases, like frankly, I'm not as worried because compared to those more social, like socially consequential type debates, you might say. I don't know. But Colorado Biker, good to see you. And let's see here. Dave Garr says, Hey James, did you get my super early super chat? I hope there is no beef between us. Just want to thank you for introducing me to a bunch of new ideas. Sometimes I troll chat. Thanks Dave Garr for your super chat. I did get it. I did read it out loud. And I even did wish you well. I've got no grudges. Like I have no grudges. So if people are like, Hey James, can we make amends? Like can we be friends? Like I'm like, I'm not going to hold a grudge against you. I never will. The reason I only, the only reason I brought it up is I think I could have sworn Dave Garr that one time in the chat, I might be wrong. If I am wrong, I am so sorry. But my memory is usually like, I'm not, my memory is decent. I could have sworn some time in the chat. You're, you're trashing me saying I was a grifter. I think that's the word grifter, groiper. I don't know what all these slang terms are, but I think it was grifter. And I was like, wait, what did I do to Dave Garr? Like, where is this coming from? My, my memory might be wrong. In which case, if I'm, if I'm that senile, let me know because I am sorry if that's the case. But that's why I was like, you know, I, I never hold a grudge, but at the same time I do sometimes feel like confronting people and saying, why did you say that? But no hard feelings for real. I've never, I'm not the type that's, I always try to let go of bitterness or any sort of like resentment or, you know, kind of feeling of like, Oh, that, that bastard. Like I really do try to, because I, I firmly believe this folks, if I can push something on you, because I know I want to challenge you in a good way. Holding on to a grudge, it only hurts one person and it's not your, your supposed enemy. It's you. I really believe that. And so I want to do a friendly challenge.  That'd be good.   For real, I really do. Not toward you, Dave Carr. I was never thinking about doing anything bad to you.  I can't believe they would do that to me.  And I was like, you know, I was like, that is so, I'm just like, I fight myself and I'm like, I've got to not do that. And I, and I'm glad that I haven't tried to do some sort of like vengeful move because it's, I'm like, you know, it's not, it's not going to make you happier holding on to that bitterness or that grudge. It puts you in a bad state. And so anyway, I will, anyway, Ja, doogie do says, modern day debate. Hey James, longtime lurker, first time commenter. Thanks doogie do for being with us and for saying hello. I'm so glad you did. And silver Harlow says, so you need evidence before calling someone a bad name, but don't require debaters. Bring evidence. Ooh, juicy, sassy silver tonight. And Dr. Curious Tube, thanks for coming by says, Bravo, James, a true First Amendment supporter. Thanks Dr. Curious Tube for being with us. And yeah, I mean, that's the trick. It's, I'll be honest and some people, sometimes they get, you know, trouble for this.  I'll admit that. I mean, it's true. We, we don't, YouTube has been good to us. You guys, we are thrilled. We just crossed over 55,000 subs today. That's exciting. I want to say thanks so much folks for subscribing and for your support. And we, we are thankful. The number of impressions, the number of times that YouTube recommends our videos is insane. Did you notice that while Nephilim Free was sharing his screen and he showed the window for tonight's debate, so you could see like the live chat and it was mirrored so you saw it like looping and visually speaking. But did you notice that at the bottom right of the screen, the first recommendation for videos from YouTube recommended to Nephilim Free. It was this morning's debate. So in other words, like YouTube recommends our videos like crazy, like like millions and millions and millions of, of what's the word? Impressions in terms of them recommending our videos. So we're thankful and we like that we're growing fast. It's encouraging that it's like our goal, we're determined to reach 60,000 subscribers as we're excited to just have a bigger impact on YouTube. We want it, we want it to be what's the word I'm looking for? A value to people. We want it to be a neutral platform where everybody says, hey, that's a platform we trust, we're willing to go there, we think that they're going to give us a fair shake. That's what we want. We want it to be YouTube's neutral platform. That is our vision and we're determined to get there and I'm crazy, folks. I'm telling you, I'm crazy. When I'm determined, I've got the energy and the motivation. I'm going to stick with this and we're going to make it, folks. Believe me, it is going to be big and people someday when Mr. Beast and PewDiePie are having a debate on Twitter, a spat and they say, you know, I disagree. I think this is the case. And they say, well, maybe we should debate this and somebody will be like, well, we need a neutral moderator. Who should we have? We think that at some some point in the future, someday, many people will say, hey, like modern day debate, why don't you go on there? They're well known for being a neutral channel. The only one, in fact, in terms of live debates because intelligence squared, they are, I think they're a neutral channel as far as I can tell. No live debates. The other thing is we are thankful for channels like unbelievable or, you know, non sequitur show helped us get started. You know, whether they be atheist or Christian channels, we're thankful for those channels that host debates that are moderated fairly. That's great. Well, at the same time, we go the full distance. Our values are to be as fully neutral as possible and pursuing those values, we don't have any videos that say, oh man, wasn't that, you know, atheist or Christian's argument so bad? We're okay with channels that do that. We're not trying to badmouth them, but it's not our style. We have a distinct brand and frankly, it's the only brand that you could say that I know that's like that. But anyway, want to say thank you very much. The eternal inquirer says, nice dream, I subscribe today. Thanks for subscribing. Seriously, that's encouraging. And I would say, as asked and good to see you as well as Sergeant Furrytoz.  We're excited. I got to tell you this, guys. We're excited. Join us while we're small, because this really is the kind of the infancy stage of modern day debate. We still have so much growth ahead of us. I'm very serious, folks. Like we are determined. I really do believe, like I don't want to get cocky. So I say Lord willing, but we're determined that by the end of 2022, 100,000 subscribers, we are determined.  Was it? It took us three years to get to 50,000. You're like, now you're going to get the other 50,000 in a year. Come on. Oh, yeah, we are. We're determined. My dear friends, we are excited about the future. And we really do believe there are going to be big things coming. Captain Crunch says, I really dislike many people that have been on here. I would never ask you to not host them. The point of the show is for me to have my ideas questioned or strengthened. I appreciate that, Captain Crunch. Thanks for understanding. And like I said, I'd be open to if somebody, and I appreciate that you're on board with this. If there was somebody who wasn't on board, I'd be open to debating them. That's something I'd be willing to debate. It's somebody that, frankly, like for me to take the time away from my PhD, because I'm working on the PhD right now and that's exhausting. For me to take the time away from the PhD, it would have to be, frankly, I'd want, I want, you could say, kind of a big fish.  And the reason being, it's like, it would propel the channel big time, because one, I'm very confident in my case, but two, in terms of having an epic type of debate. And I'm talking like, yeah, like, so that's something that just want to let you know. We do appreciate you being on board with that. And compliment, but good to see you. Thank you very, very much for being with us as well as, as we're cool. So it's great debate. It's always James. Thanks for that encouragement and Lenio Barcellos. Thanks for coming by, as well as DT2PZ0. Says good night, everybody. Good night, my friend. Thanks and take care. Consequence, consequence. Thanks for coming by. We're glad you're with us as well as High Inquisitor says, only fans paid yet. You're thinking about Bob. That's Sight Show Nav, actually. But I'm kidding. I got to stop making those jokes about Bob because then he brings it up. He will text her, so that he brings it up. I'm like, no, no, Bob. No, only fans. But let's see. Silver Harlow. It was the Speedo joke. Bob is, he's clever. He knows he's, I always, I was like, maybe Bob doesn't like the Speedo joke. So he purposely brings it up because he knows it'll gross me out. And so I won't make fun of him anymore for wearing a Speedo at the beach. I don't know. He's clever like that. Reverse psychology from Bob. But Silver Harlow, good to see you. It says, just kidding. It's good to have high standards for yourself even though they're higher than the people who debate. That's kind of you to say, but I got to tell you, some of the people we've debated are super high integrity people. And so maybe some, well, I'll admit, some of them aren't. But I, but many of them are way, I think have way more integrity than me. And we appreciate them. And Dave Gar says, that was not me. I would never say that to you. I hate to question your memory, but with peace and platonic love, totally not me. Okay. I believe you, Dave Gar. For real, I'm dead serious that I believe you. So I'm so sorry that my memory is that bad. I'm so sorry. I did not mean to drag your name through the mud. So for the record people, Dave Gar did not say that. It must have been somebody else with the name Dave and their name. I don't know who it was. Maybe I'm just, maybe my memory is just totally off. Maybe it was a dream or something. I don't know. But I'm, I am sincerely sorry Dave Gar for saying that when I didn't know for sure. So I didn't, I did not mean to like defame you at all. And so, thanks for understanding and for your forgiveness as well. And we're glad you're here, Dave Gar, as well as Ben Nowak. Thanks for coming by. He says, James is a mensch. I don't know what that means. I don't know if I like the sound of that, but let's see. Joe Gatto says, I need to stop holding a grudge against my neighbor's invasive cat. Hey, I get that.   I mean, they've got a lot of self respect. They're not like dogs who will, you know, just worship anybody who gives them a handout.  Or is that too far? That episode of draw a crowd for sure. It would draw a crowd. I think it would violate terms of service. I could be wrong. I mean, you could ask raw nakedness. She knows about like all that stuff. I mean, about the terms of service, not about the PEDO stuff, but yeah, I'd have to figure out what's within the rules or not because I would be open to it if it's within terms of service. And you're like, James, how dare you? How could you let something so, you know, wicked be debated?  And I'm like at the same time, people who are getting into that icky stuff or arguments for it, minimal, would be getting, you could say, having their ideas challenged as well. There's value in that. And you might say, but how do you know which one outweighs the other? And I say, well, two things. One is that you basically, people, I always start with the assumption that the bad that would come from people being exposed to these negative views would outweigh the good of trying to pull people out of those bad views. So in other words, first, that burden of proof is on you, if you're going to make it sound as if it's, you know, doing some sort of net negative. I would say the most reasonable thing, if you didn't know what I know in terms of my arguments that I could use and that I haven't explained yet, is that, you know, you just be like neutral in terms of net good versus net bad, you don't know. And so you'd say, well, you know, but so that's why it's like, you know, you can't just assert it that it's a net bad when you don't know. And that's one reason why, but I would even argue that I've got evidence. I've got stuff up my sleeve that would suggest that it's actually more of a net good, even while considering that the door swings both ways. So, rum runner, good to see you.   Okay.  Let's see. This one coming in from high tech low life says, just discovered your channel. The neutrality is a big reason I'm enjoying your content. Thanks for doing that. Thanks so much. That seriously means a lot. I really am encouraged by that. And we're glad to have you here. High tech low life for real. It's a lot of fun. I love being here. It is such a fun channel. I miss this. The lastly, I haven't moderated for over a week, I think. Was it last Friday? I can't remember, but I'm, oh, no, no, no. It was, yeah, it was supposed to be last Saturday, but it got canceled. Something happened. So I have, it's been over a week since I've been on. So that's why I want to do two today is I was like, man, I love this. I enjoy it. It's been too much time away. Now let's farm. I want to point out this comment that I pinned at the top of the chat. Let's farm has a talk in the, or I should say has discord open mic aftershow at the only official modern debate discord, which is linked and pinned at the top of the chat. Highly encourage you to check that out. We do appreciate Larry Letts and the rest of the moderators who have worked so hard there. And then doggie doodoo says it's upsetting neutrality is so rare nowadays. Thanks for that. I seriously appreciate that. That is encouraging. And bash the flash says, have you tried to find actual academics who would be willing to debate whatever topic? That's a good question. That is something that we have opened up.  I'm open to academics and we do seek out academics sometimes, but at the same time, we do kind of like having some of the average Joe type debates as well. And then rumrunner says, would you ever have a pro? Let's see, is that too far? They'll draw. Oh, okay. We got that one. And then catching up here. Two seconds. And then let's see. Sunny sing glad you are with us. And then the Marlin Brando look alike. Is that an episode of South Park? Do I remember that? Compliment bot. Thanks for coming by. Says, do you have a have you considered a TikTok account? We have. We actually have a TikTok account. We have to work on it because it's like we are waiting to launch it more officially. We're testing the waters with it now to figure out like what works and what doesn't work. We are probably going to launch it more officially maybe in December or maybe even late November. Once I get done with this comprehensive exam, I'm going to start working on that. And so maybe sooner, but it's just been we've got a lot. We're working on a lot right now. We've got a lot of big stuff. No joke. You guys wait until you see the big stuff that we have planned. And then total kaka, good to see you. And then let's see. Hannah Anderson says intelligence squared has forty four hundred and seventy one thousand subs, but their view count isn't very high. I think it's lower than ours. I think to be fair though, it's because most of their viewers listen via the podcast. So and I think that that's why they have a billion ads on their videos is they're trying to force people onto the podcast because they've got an ad on some of their videos like every two minutes. It's like, come on. But reticulated. It's bling. It says Vosh and destiny always bring people. I'm sure that's for sure. That is true. And then let's see. Sideshow Nav says his only fans got shut down, looked too good and his speedo nasty guy. You and Sarah are both going to enjoy prison. Total kaka, good to see you. It says think presidential debates will be on this channel. You know what? A guy can dream. You never know. Maybe someday and we are. I'm very serious though. We really are planning on getting to the point where we are basically, like I said, very recognizably YouTube's what's the word I'm looking for? YouTube's known debate channel where people say, hey, that, you know, like we're rolling to go there. Like, you know, two people like two people could just they'll be on Twitter and they'll be like, oh, I disagree with you. I'm so pissed.  And one of them's like, yeah, sure. Yeah, modern day. Okay. And then the other one's like, yeah, yeah, sure. I can do that too. So like they, even though they disagree so fervently and they're pissed that they would be like, yeah, yeah, sure. Modern day debate. So that's the goal.  I am very optimistic about this channel being monstrous, a monstrosity, just gigantic someday in terms of, like I said, by the end of the year, next year, we were shooting for 100,000. And then, within who knows how long after that, maybe a couple of years, getting into 300,000. I don't know exactly, but we really are. We're looking for big goals, big things like that. And eventually down the road, 500,000. And that's the thing too. Our podcast is very active. We have a, where our average podcast downloads is growing pretty quick. It's really encouraging that people really are using the podcast. And so our audience is a lot, there as well. And so YouTube's just a slice of the pie in terms of all the views across the different platforms, Twitch being another one. That one not as big. Yeah, that's true. But the other thing is, believe me, our influence is encouraging because I see channels that no joke have 100,000 or more subscribers. And we have more average views. Believe me, we are very excited about that influence. And I'm not trying to brag about views like James, you're actually talking about these views and views, you're bragging so much. Is that for me, I'm not doing that to brag, but more so to say, hey, we are having an impact. People are seeing the neutrally moderated debates and people are refreshed to see like, hey, there's a channel or they're going to give everybody a fair shot. They like that. People, it's resonated with people where people wanted to see discussions that are important to our time on a level playing field where it's fair and people can really get a good grip of each side. That's something that's encouraging. So when I do talk about the view is forgive me, I'm not trying to brag, especially because it is a team effort, you guys, I've got to say, maybe I'm bragging about you because you guys have made it so successful and I just appreciate your support. But the reason I say that though is our impact is already big compared to even channels with double our subscribers. We really are. It's encouraging that people really are positively influenced by this channel. And I'm just so encouraged when people say that. And I'm just like, thank you. That is so encouraging to me to hear. And again, it's because of you folks.  And then Texas Troy 78 says, James will God bless girl return to the show for a debate. Love the channel. Love the format. Thanks for your kind words, Texas Troy. And maybe, I don't know. I think I reached out to her. I haven't heard back. VMX says, thanks for everything you do, James. I've been really into the debates while traveling and at work. I appreciate hearing your voice and intro when I get the chance. Thanks, VMX. Seriously, that's encouraging. It's a lot of fun for me. I love doing this.  Amazing. And then, let's see. Barnaby cat. Good to see you. My dear friend, raw nakedness says, get Steve McCray or church of entropy. Those two can talk for hours. We may. It's been a while since we've had Steve especially. So that could be fun. And rum runner says, would you ever have a less serious just for fun type of debate? You know, we tried it, but I don't know. I frankly, here's the real reason. The audience just, they just in general, don't get super engaged by it. We're always looking for debates. What are the debates that will engage our audience the most? And sometimes you might ask, why is it you do flatter so much? It's true. We've had like a billion flatter debates so far this month or so. But I want to tell you a couple things in terms of why. One, whenever we have quality debaters who reach out and they say, hey, can we come on and debate? We try to say, hey, let's host them. Like let's let's do that. Because we really do appreciate when people take the initiative of finding an opponent before they reach out to us. Because it is it takes time and energy to find an opponent. I have like pulled my hair out over the last week trying to find opponents for gas, for real. I've had a couple of debates scheduling that I've been working on scheduling over the last week that have just been grueling in terms of the time that it takes. You wouldn't believe it. And it's exhausting because so many emails I get back and I'm not interested. Nah, not interested. And I'm like, I need the fourth person for this tag team debate. And so believe me, that's one reason. But the other thing is the main the bigger thing is people are really apt to vote flatter debates. Whether or not you think it's kooky or weird or not, they really are. And so that's something it's like, well, if it's engaging the audience, if the if the audience is engaging at one or willing to do it. And so let me see here. We got that. Texas Troy 78 says one million subs by 2022.  You know, the sky is the limit. Bash the flash says, are you going to be in applied psychology or research James? Probably in I'll be in academia. That's my goal. And I want to teach. I more so than research. I really enjoy teaching a lot. And I don't mind that it's not quite as much pay. I just love people. I love teaching. And so that's why I'm kind of like, yeah, that's what I want to do. And so compliment bot. Thanks for your funny ideas. Is it you and Dylan Burns on which one of you is the better good faith neutral moderator? I love Dylan. We should we should do a collab with him soon. I got to reach out to him. I do enjoy Dylan. And I and I'm willing to give him the street cred. Dylan has an authenticity that is it. Wow is people because it really is that real. It's the most authentic of authenticities. It really is. We do appreciate Dylan. And so let's see. TC the unbeliever says I'm worn out on flurfers. But want to say thank you guys. I love you guys. I hope you guys have a great night. It is always fun. Seriously. I am happy to hear from you. I'm at modern a debate at Gmail. If there's something I can do to make your day better for real. Let me know. Reach out. Especially if it's something like hey, James, you know, I've got a hard thing that I've been going through. Like I'm very serious when I say like, feel free. You know, if you got somebody you just want to vent to and you feel like you've got nobody like, let me know. And then let's see it be in. Organis says, let's see. Is the H cost debate taboo? It's probably against TOS. Probably get us in big trouble with YouTube. So that's why we probably won't do it. And but yeah, I want to say thanks everybody. Love you guys. Keeps everything out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Thanks for your encouragement. Thanks. Get real for your kind words and seriously. Love you guys. It's always fun. Seriously. I enjoy our time together. I like you guys. It's a lot of fun. And so thanks for making my life better. It's a fun time. And Manic Panda says, Happy Canadian Thanksgiving all. I didn't know it was indeed. Happy Canadian Thanksgiving. So thanks everybody. Take care and we will see you next time.  We've got some juicy ones coming up. As you know, on the bottom right of your screen, Matt Delhonte next Saturday, we are also working on whatever gets Friday. We might have the Stefan debate on Friday. That depends of Stefan says yes. In other words, if he doesn't, we'll probably find somebody else, frankly, because you can't please everybody. We might have one on Thursday. That depends on Vosh's availability. So we're hoping to get that set up. And then let's see here. We got Dawson. Oh, we might have Ryan Dawson next Saturday a week from today. On 9-11, that's again, still being set up. We might have a debate on populism this month. And then as I mentioned, we've got that Sean last debate that we just connected with today. And then we might have Destiny on this month. It's a busy month, so we're not sure. But lots coming up. So for real, we are excited want to say we love you guys. Thanks so much. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Seriously, you guys make my night better. And then rum runner says James, you are like the Keanu Reeves of YouTube, totally scandal free and awesome.  Thanks for your kind words. That really does mean a lot. I am super flattered to be compared to Keanu. But for real, I actually am because Keanu seems like a really solid guy. Like he just seems like a really impressive person. So in more than one way, I do love his movie. So I want to say thanks to everybody. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. We will see you next time. Amazing. Bait up. Isn't that amazing?


We're looking at how organisms use their energy now. We know we can classify organisms by how they get their energy. There's autotrophs, heterotrophs. There's also radio tropes, some fungi that seem to get their energy from radiation, and photo heterotrophs. If after this you go look up photosynthesizing animals, you'll find a really cute looking sea slug. Okay, so autotrophs. They make their own energy from the sun using photosynthesis. The equation for photosynthesis is carbon dioxide plus water. With sunlight, we'll go to glucose and oxygen. We should balance that out like chemists. We start with carbons. There's six in the glucose molecule, so we'll make six carbon dioxide. There's 12 hydrogens, so we'll need to put a six there. Six times two is 12. And there's six oxygens in glucose, but there's another two in oxygen, which would make eight. Having a look at the other side, there's six times two is 12 plus six would make 18. So we need to balance the other side of the equation, and if we put a six in front of oxygen, we'll have 12 plus six is 18. There we go. It's important to remember that for photosynthesis, we need the energy going in, and that comes from the sunlight. In chemistry, we call this an endothermic reaction. This is a type of reaction where the newly made molecule has more energy in its bonds than the molecules from which it was created. So that's how energy from the sun is turned into a chemical energy. When an organism needs some energy, it takes that same reaction and does it backwards. So some glucose plus some oxygen can go to carbon dioxide and water, and we'll balance that out again. And in doing this, they can access some of that energy that was stored in the bonds of the glucose molecule. So cells use this chemistry whenever they need energy to grow, to create new molecules or break down molecules, if they need to transport things, and if they need to replicate. Some of the energy is also lost as heat, but that also keeps the organism warm. This process, this back to front photosynthesis, is called respiration, or cellular respiration to be clear, so it's not confused with the respiratory system. To help you remember, you might like to think of it as respiration, because it's also oxygen in and carbon dioxide out. All living things need energy to do those things we listed and more, and most organisms use cellular respiration as their way of getting that energy. That includes plants, because doing photosynthesis just stores their energy for them. They then need to break down the sugars to be able to do anything with it. And because respiration is the reverse of photosynthesis, it is an exothermic reaction, which means that energy is released when the bonds in one of the reactant molecules, here the glucose, are broken down. Cellular respiration looks quite simple here, but it's a very involved process with many steps, and organisms can actually use molecules other than glucose for their energy. And there's a similar process which cells can use when they don't have access to oxygen, and we're going to look at all of this next.


All right, we're live. All right, good afternoon. This is the Senate Health and Welfare Committee meeting. It is May 18th. And we are going to look at two proposals before us. One is JRH 6. I think we'll take that one up first for a vote. And Katie, you are here. Thank you for being here. So we have made no changes to JRH, we have not recommended changes to JRH 6, based on our testimony and information yesterday. So I'll open it up for discussion at this point. We did take a little vote, not a formal vote, an informal show of hands where we supported the draft that came to us. So is there any discussion further committee? Go ahead Ruth. Senator Hardy. Thank you. I just had a question based on our conversation in the Senate Democratic Caucus today. And I can ask that now or if you wanna vote first and then I can ask it, whichever you prefer Madam Chair. It depends on what the question is. Okay, so I guess I'll ask it and then you can say we wanna discuss it. So especially for Josh and Senator Taranzini and Senator Cummings who weren't there, we had a discussion about JRH 6. There were a number of questions. And one of the questions was regarding the fact that we had gotten some testimony on adding language or findings related to Abenaki Vermonters or indigenous people who live in Vermont. And I explained that given the time and the lack of runway to make changes in bills and get them back and forth that we did not make changes. And there was a question as to whether I would say in my floor report on the bill on behalf of the committee if we committed to making changes next session, was that what your understanding was based of that question or just working on the issue or I'm looking to you Madam Chair. I want the committee to tell me what I should say. So here's my suggestion. Let's see if there is a motion to vote on JRH 6 and then we'll take this up either as discussion or after we've completed our vote. Okay. Yeah, that's the next step I think. Okay. But I'm glad you raised it. Katie, it's all set to go. It is. I don't have to prepare anything since you're just approving it, so. Right, okay. All right. I would move to move JRH 6 to out of committee onto the Senate floor as introduced from the House. Okay. All right, any discussion? So I will say just in a bit in response to the questioning today about or the concern about a lack of indigenous folks in the resolution, at least the supporting documentation does talk about ethnic diversity and which is important in our state. So I don't feel that we're short changing anything at this point and I think that we can move ahead with the vote. Then we can talk about what it is we want to say on the floor about any promises. Okay. Any discussion? Senator Taranzini, please call the roll. Yes, I will. Senator Taranzini votes yes. Senator Hooker, please. Yes. Senator Cummings. Yes. Senator Hardy. Yes. Senator Lyons. Yes. Terrific. 500. All right. So Senator Hardy will get that up to the floor and it should be on the calendar for tomorrow. So we'll see how it goes. Katie, I do have one question for you and it relates to the information that is or is not in the resolution relating to our Abnaki population or our Native American population and ethnic groups from our state. As you look at that resolution, do you identify at least some reference to those group, to the group or do you think it's totally lacking? I'd have to look at each clause. Yeah. We talk about inequities based on race, generally. And then the next, the second whereas clause, we talk about systemic racism and social determinants of public health, all of which further adversely impact the health of people of color. The third whereas clause just is specific to inequities among black and Latino people in the United States. The fourth whereas clause talks about black residents. Fifth whereas clause is, let's see, specific or it's more general. It's race and ethnicity. And then we have a whereas clause about the incidence of COVID and it's broken down into categories by black Vermonters, Asian Vermonters, Hispanic Vermonters and the rate for other races. So I'm assuming that's where indigenous persons would be in that kind of broad category, other races. So I could keep going, but there are some places where the language is very specific to a particular group. There are other places where the language is a little bit more general. But of course, as was pointed out yesterday, there's no place where indigenous populations are specifically called out in this resolution. Okay, and then, so Senator Hardy, as you're going through for the floor presentation and looking at the information, the underlying supporting documentation might be helpful to see what is there. I'm gonna do the same thing, but in terms of making a promise about what we may or may not do, I think we are certainly concerned about having our abnaki population well represented as we correct inequities in the past and move forward. So either you or I can say something like that. I think it's not a matter of promising to do something, but we're certainly aware and understand the need for change, for doing something. Go ahead. Okay, that sounds good. And I also will point out that we did make changes to H 210 that included specific findings and language both relating specifically to indigenous and Native American and abnaki populations, but also to broadly finding better terminology than using non-white. And Katie in particular worked hard to get that language right. And so I think that this committee has already shown a commitment to that. And so I guess I will underscore that as well. And then of course, the eugenics policy and practices apology that we passed last week is also part of that. So we have done some things already this session and there's certainly more work to do. And I think this committee committed to that. And we're aware of that. Of course. No, I think those are two good things to point out. I think in particular S 210. Yeah. Okay. Good. Okay, great. Thank you. So I don't say things that we don't all feel comfortable with. We don't want to make promises because sometimes you can't keep them, but we are certainly aware of the things that we would like to do. Great. Thank you. No, thank you. Okay. And whether I get up and say, and get up, whether I raise my hand to say anything, we'll see what transpires. I think just knowing that there may be another alternative proposal coming forward. We'll see. Katie, thank you so much for your work on this and taking the time from your family to be with us this afternoon. So I think we're good. We're, I think we're, I think we're all set. You can launch off to commence to go forth. All right.


to my channel today's video is hey welcome back to my channel today's video is skin care routine as you can see by the title I started out with makeup because I kind of want to show how I remove it and then jump right into the skincare routine so I do use a lot of products not all of course at the same time or the same day I kind of like switch them out throughout the week so I'm just going to talk about the items and show them first and then we're going to jump into me actually using them and show you my whole routine so so these are my facial cleansers that I am using and trying out those top two are from my ipsy subscription and these are my scrubs and toners the first aid beauty I have not tried those yet so if you have tried those comment down below of how you like those this is my mice in the water I do prefer this over makeup wipes because you know makeup wipes do cause wrinkles and we ain't trying to be wrinkly honey these are the two oils that I like to use tea tree oil and then the argon plus vitamin e oil moving on to my monsterizers I will be using the murrat one in this video and then those two and other two that I really really love these are my face creams that I really love I really haven't been using the elf one but whatever these are some masks that I really love I've used every single one of these and the olive oil one I will be using for the first time in this video so those are my products that I do use of course not every day but I do like to switch different kind of products so let's just get right into the skincare routine okay so I like to clip my hair back if I have my river out if I have on a wig or something then I'll just you know swoop the hair by my ear because I mean I don't really care if I get it wet or anything so to take off my makeup I do like to use the coconut oil and I put mine in the microwave to kind of get a little bit liquidy because it does um go solid of course leave it out so I like to use the coconut oil first to take off my makeup I take little q tips and I always start I dip one end in I like to start by taking off my lashes first so after I get the coconut oil on here I'll just easily wipe it along my lash line and this also helps remove that outlining as you can see all that outlining is gone and then after I remove the outlining I kind of just do this like a spoolie type of movement there's two different types well this is the my southern water that I usually use it's from Sally beauty it's the three in one cleansing water and this one I see just everyone using this one and I only picked it up because it was on clearance for three dollars and I'm pretty sure everyone know what this does because everyone always uses this one so I just got the big bottle in this because like I said it was on clearance so I'm just going to go ahead and use the rest of this one be sure to get the crevices of my nose because it's always so much dirt and build up right there so after I take off the rest of my makeup with my micellar water I like to go ahead and cleanse my face with my ambi facial cleansing bar forgot to mention that in my facial cleansing but after I use the bar I go ahead and use the naxema so I'm about to go rinse my face with the ambi face bar and we're going to come back and apply this to my face we're using my new skincare spinning brush system from Devo they did send it over for me to review um I'm really I haven't used to yet this is going to be my first impression of it so the one I used to use was a five dollar one five ninety nine well six dollar one from city trillions so I'm excited to see how this one works the spinning massaging motion of the brush offers a next level cleaning which removes the dirt oil and makeup much more effectively than just cleaning with soap and water alone and even your hands and I really really love that it comes with five different brush heads specifically the large body brush because you can use it for exfoliating you can use it for your arms elbows back acne all that different kinds of stuff and I also like the nail file disc because I was actually going to go buy an electric one and this kit came with it so I think this is a really good investment also you can use my coupon code it's just my name akira aka or a I put it on the screen for 70% off your purchase I do highly recommend this because it is fantastic what I'm using now is just the ambi facial cleansing bar it's the cocoa butter one I think it's three different kinds but I choose the cocoa butter and as you can see this spin brush made it form up so much that it got into my eyes honey like the struggle was real I'm not the type of person that puts my whole face and head in the sink to rinse this off every time I do it I always get water all in my eyes all in my mouth all in my nose so I'm not even about to attempt to try it this time because just no any questions on any product that I've showed or used in this video don't hesitate to leave me a comment also if you wanted to comment on something that you use that really works and you know you just want to tell everybody about it don't hesitate to do that either and I'll see y'all in my next video bye guys