What is up, everyone, and welcome to Modern Day Debate. We are a neutral platform welcoming everyone while looking for good dialogue. If you're looking for even more fantastic debates, please don't forget to like and subscribe, including tonight's debate on Earth, thousands or billions of years old with our interlocutors Erica, Jordan, Benjamin, and Howard here to help us find some answers and if you enjoy what any of them have to say tonight. All of our guest links are in the description below. With that, we are going to hand it over to Benjamin and then Howard for their opening statement. Thank you so much, Amy. It's a pleasure to be here and thank you for everyone who's taking part in this debate and all the audience. I like usually to go off the cuff, but that tends to leave me to rambling. So this may not be the most exciting intro, but I'm going to read all of my notes. So bear with me. I'm going to start off with four conundrums. The first one's going to be biblical in nature and the other three will be more scientific. First, Old Earth conundrum, based on Scripture. Does the Bible say that the earth is old? No. Does the Bible say that the earth is young? Not explicitly. Does the Genesis narrative point to a young earth? Yes, most reasonably and historically. Yes, Yom has many meetings, but in the full context of Genesis and Scripture, an old earth seems to take liberties with the text that are not necessary and will be problematic if applied elsewhere. Do genealogies point to a young earth? Yes, confidently. Hebertidge tradition allows for gaps in genealogies, only touching on prominent figures or households. Personally, I'm comfortable saying that the earth can be ranged anywhere from 6 to 60,000 years old, though 6 to 12,000 years old are more reasonable and more commonly held to in the young earth community. Conundrum number two. This goes to the moon. It's possible based on estimates of fluctuating lunar retreats that is early as 1.3 billion years ago, the moon would have been too close to coexist with the earth. Based on the opposite end of the estimates, it would have taken 278 billion years for the moon to get to where it is now. Current retreat has the moon taking 9 billion years to get where it is. None of this proves a young earth, but it does call into question our ability to hold to old earth estimates conclusively. With regard to the young earth creation position, it's fully reasonable God put the earth and the moon where they are as they are during creation. This logic extends to stars, starlight, and all other cosmological systems. Old earth conundrum three. Earth's magnetic field. Based on earth current decay rate, earth's magnetic field could totally dissipate leaving life impossible in less than 10,000 years. Based on magnetic materials in rocks and tectonic plates, we can see earth's magnetic field has had several reversals. Reversals by themselves don't help the situation. It's expected after the reversal that the magnetic field weakens and is jumbled, not strengthened. Based on long term evidence, nothing significant actually changes though. Thus we are still tracking for 10,000 year decay even if more reversals take place. We can only accurately make a timeline from the materials in the tectonic plates if we assume tectonic movement has been uniform. Which is possible, but certainly not conclusive. Consider the events like the six loop impact. Also, how could the biblical flood, if that is true, impact this and the separating of Pangea. Old earth conundrum number four. Radiometric dating. Specifically I'm using potassium argon dating and odds are these are two kind of more known about arguments, but I broke them down a little more so I'm hoping for some interesting conversation. In 1993, Mount St. Helens was tested roughly 12 years after its most recent eruption. Five samples were taken. The actual age of the 12 year old material's youngest date was estimated to 340,000 years old. It's oldest 2.8 million years old. This results in an air multiplier of roughly 28,000 on the low end and 233,000 on the high end. If we apply the high end of that air multiplier to the claimed 4.5 billion year age of the earth, we get an actual age of less than 20,000 years old reasonably within the he within what the two genealogies would allow. In 1996, Mount Narrahu, hopefully pronounce it right, was tested 50 years after its most recent eruption 11 samples. The actual age of the 50 year old material's youngest date was estimated to 270,000 years. It's oldest 3.5 million years. This results in an air multiplier of 5400 on the low end to 70,000 on the high end. If we apply the high end of this air multiplier to the claimed 4.5 million year age of the earth, we get an actual age of roughly 65,000 years. Keep in mind this is only based on 16 total samples. It's reasonable to think more samples would have allowed for increasingly favorable calculations. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Howard. Thank you. And thank you for your opening statement Benjamin and the floor is all yours Howard. Thank you. I'll just find my video. Thanks. Is that full screen? Can everyone hear me? Yep. Gotcha. It's full screen. Awesome. Biogeology, it supports the theory that earth is only thousands of years old instead of billions. And today I have the great pleasure to present the heart shaped stone phenomena. Let me just check that it's playing. No, it isn't. Okay, we're playing. Heart shaped stone phenomena. Which is that there's a difference between when we see rough rock, which when it's broken into smaller pieces, it tends to maintain its original color and detail. Whereas smooth stones, pebbles appear to be fully intact due to them having a pale skin, which make any fractures clearly visible. The inside tends to be darker, similar to how organs have a skin and a serous fluid around them to protect from abrasion. There doesn't seem to be any transitional stones between the two categories that I've named, which suggests that smooth stones have a different origin than the rough cut rock. Heart shaped stones can be found either along the coast, in valleys, riverbeds, or buried in mud. Many of these smooth stones have the shape of a heart, which in its most common form has a wide flat top and inward tapering sides, as does the heart throughout all kinds of different creatures. The exact same pattern can be found in stones of all sizes with multiple matching features. We can find many external and internal correlations to the anatomy of a heart in each heart shaped smooth stone. So openings, creases, or indentations are located on or near the top, which could be the remains of the air water and the vena carva openings. The bottom point is slightly twisted, which could be due to spiral contraction of the heart muscle, supposing that these are petrified hearts. The front is usually rounded or multifaceted, whereas the backside is most often flat or at best slightly concave. We find a wide range of faded meaty colours or black, maybe because there are some blue blood creatures. And the court we see running throughout could be petrified fat. Branching out red coloured lines or water eroded channels could be the remains of what was once the blood vessels. As you can see we do see normal random water erosion and the same stone we see a more biological looking water erosion. And there's deposits of iron ore inside and outside, as we know hemoglobin in the blood, and the ismus, which divides the larger valves can also be found on some stones, and remains of inner chambers, where we can see trabecular carnae, which is a bumpy internal surface of the chambers. Here is the full list of the correlations that we have found so far, which we share to help the open source investigation either get verified or refuted. Other smooth stones resemble organs like kidneys, livers and spleens, but they're hard to distinguish as they have less features than the harp shaped stones, whereas gallstones and kidney stones may have petrified into opal and agate stones and geodes might be petrified testicles. Mike Wilkerson from the YouTube channel Stallium7 theorises that fatty tissue may transmutate into crystalline material and he's collected a potential half lobe of a petrified brain as we can see iron ore exactly where the majority of blood is located. And people found a vitrified whale brain, which was also full of corpse, which would be expected due to the brain being mostly fatty tissue. As there are many examples online we can see that even wood is petrified so it's nothing new. And we've also got historical evidence that flesh can petrify in a short time with Hiramalamo Sagato who is best known for his work in the petrification of human cadavers and we know experiments that can change fats and oils into alcohol and soap with just heat just like we can change sand and ceramics into glass. We also have the chance that Robert Plot was correct in his initial conclusions about the fossils he's discovered being flesh and not bone. And there is very good evidence that the theory of dinosaurs was invented because it's profitable for museums and also a genius way to cover up evidence of giants and dragons which causes us to ignore the mountains of evidence that can be observed worldwide. We know that blood travels throughout our bones which supports the idea that large stones with fractal channels and iron ore deposits may be fragments of Titan's bones. Although some formations might just inspire pareidolia there are carvings, artefacts and photograph evidence to support the idea that there are so many detailed examples it becomes hard to deny the probability. We can also see the temples and pyramids that have been or are still being excavated. Thousands of star fortresses that have been covered with mud and left in ruins even when situated on the top of the mountain. And there's around 20 underwater cities and megalithic constructions that we know of and petrified trees standing upright throughout multiple layers of strata all which support the idea of a worldwide flood as mentioned in the Bible the epic of Gilgamesh over 500 myths and the Quran plus artefacts found in Egypt etc that all portray a firmament dividing the waters from above from the waters below as demonstrated in the experiment known as star in a jar in which a bubble in water can create light from having the right frequencies passing through it. Let there be light and this could also explain the dark rift that we see in the night sky. Thank you very much. Alrighty Amy do you want me to go ahead and get going? I can't hear her. Can anybody else hear Amy? I got you. Oh I don't have Amy. I've got you Jordan. Yeah we can hear each other. Give me one second to get everybody back on screen.   You guys see everything alright? Looks good. Alrighty. Alright so the earth is four and a half billion years old. How do we know? Well since the earth didn't come with a birth certificate we're going to need some natural clocks to date how old it is. In order to qualify as a clock a process has to meet some conditions. First it has to proceed at a predictable rate. Second the process has to be irreversible and finally need to be able to measure or infer the initial and final conditions. There are a variety of clocks we could use to date the earth but in my opinion the best one is radioactive decay. So in nature there are some unstable isotopes that will decay and they'll become new isotopes by emitting radiation. The original isotope is called the parent. The new one is called the daughter. When you use radioactive decay as a natural clock you call that radiometric dating. So let's look at our checklist and see if radioactive decay is a good candidate for a natural clock. First does it proceed at a predictable rate? The answer to this is the resounding yes. The rate of decay is called the half life or the amount of time for half the sample to disintegrate. These rates have been consistently measured for over like a hundred years by hundreds of different labs and it doesn't seem to change with a few specific minor exceptions we can get into if you want. The reason for this reliability is that the nucleus is actually extremely well insulated from the outside of the world by virtue of the fact that we have many layers of electrons between the nucleus where the decay is happening and everything else. For example if the nucleus of a hydrogen atom were a golf ball the average location of the nearest electron would be over a kilometer away. So there's just a lot of distance from the nucleus's perspective. Now you might be thinking well what if it was different one time ago. Things would look young but it was old if things sped up. Erica might be going into this. I won't go too far but the short answer is that speeding up the half life sufficient decay model would release enough radiation to vaporize the Earth's crust and that clearly didn't happen. So that's one down. Let's move on quickly. Decay is not reversible or it's irreversible because it releases energy and that isn't just going to spontaneously roll itself back for the same reasons that balls don't spontaneously roll back uphill and we know the final conditions because I think I got this out of order doesn't matter. We know the final conditions because we're looking at them. That's what you measure today so that's easy. So the last one is the initial conditions. What was in the rock when it was formed? Now that was billions of years ago so how could we possibly know that?  The ways vary depending on the method of radiometric dating you're talking about. I'm going to cover just one because I don't have a ton of time. It's my favorite one, the isochron dating method. So in this rock here on the screen you've got rubidium 87 that's the parent. It decays in the stable strontium 87 the daughter. There's another isotope of strontium, strontium 86 which is both stable and non-radiogenic and that means it doesn't decay and it won't be produced over time so the amount will be constant. There was some ratio of parent to daughter in the past and some different ratio today but we can't measure the one in the past but we can also of course measure the one today. So what do we do? Fortunately here's where the math comes in. Now this formula on the screen is telling you that the amount of daughter isotope we have today equals however much we started with plus whatever we got from the decaying parent but I understand this is a confusing formula so I've translated it into English and I've also highlighted the parts that we can measure in our sample right now the stuff from today and as you see that leaves us with just two things that we can't measure today the amount of decay which is really what we want and the amount of original daughter. This would be inter-surmountable except you might recognize the form of this equation from high school y equals mx plus b which is the equation for a line. The y component and the x component are just things we can measure today and so we can throw that on a graph. Graph looks like this solve for that slope and we get the age of the sample. Let me say that again. Isochron dating lets you get the age of the sample without needing to make any assumptions whatsoever about the initial amounts of parent or daughter. So we've done it. Radioactive decaying means all of our conditions for a good natural clock. If we use this clock to date things on earth we get a clear answer that things are old but in case you're not convinced let's go over some justifications or some confirmations of radio metric dating. So Mount Vesuvius famously destroyed Pompeii in 79 CE. Rocks from that eruption have been dated by both Argon Argon and the Uranium-Athorium-Helium decay method and both of those independent methods have corresponded with what we know from history. Likewise rocks from the Occatana, I'm probably mispronouncing that volcano were dated by the same method and also radiocarbon dating and those two independent methods agree with each other. Here's another cool one talking about plates moving and how we assume they're at a constant rate or whatever. So this graph on the screen shows measurements of the same thing, the spreading of the earth plates from two different directions. The x-axis is the radiometric dating used by dating successive parts of the plate to see how fast it was spreading. A prediction was made as to the rate based on the radiometric dates and then later GPS was used to precisely measure the rates today over a period of time and then the graph them on the screen there. Now if the prediction of radiometric dating was correct you would get a diagonal line and that is in fact what you get. These are two completely unrelated and no way connected methods of verification. The fact that they agree shows that radiometric dating is a good method. One last one, you know I can't have a debate on this without talking about Oklo. So the Oklo phenomena is very quickly a naturally occurring nuclear reactor, which is the coolest thing ever, but natural uranium does not sustain fission in the presence of water unless it is 3% enriched. In order to get 3% enriched uranium you have to go back in time 2 billion years. So clearly we have at least 2 billion years of the earth to go over amount of time, so I don't want to steal Erica's thing, but in conclusion what we can see is that the earth is very old. Over 4 billion years radiometric dating, which I've just shown is effective, shows that conclusively. And I'll stop there. Sweet. Alright. I think this is, I think it's me, I think it's my turn. So Amy I'm going to go ahead and share my screen screen. That's cool. Can you guys see what I got going on here? We got it. Okay. Let me click slide show here. So before I begin here, I want to, before I like start my timer, I want to note I've got a couple of things that are going to be a little redundant that Jorm's already covered, but I'm going to just kind of breeze past those and spend a little bit more time on some of the other stuff. So I'll go ahead and start now. So I have two minutes. This is not normally the amount of time I'm working with, so I'm going to be zooming even faster than normal. So as Jordan covered, radiometric dating meets all of the criteria for a good natural clock. If we can't trust basic laws of physics, like the one that radiometric dating is founded in, the law of radioactive decay, we are powerless to really understand the world around us. Fortunately, it's given us no indication that it is anything other than consistent. And part of the way that we know this is because our entire fossil fuel industry, that is to say one of the largest industries globally speaking that keeps everything running relies on the accuracy of radiometric dating. So I've included here one paper titled the novel Geochemical Toolbox for the petroleum and mineral industries, and it discusses a couple of different new types of chronometers that they're using to obtain depositional age or the time at which certain sediments will lay down. We also have this paper from Al Vajiri et al 2009, which discusses basin modeling and petroleum system modeling, or the importance of actually modeling using radiometric dating a location prior to actually drilling, because it is incredibly cost ineffective to drill just indiscriminately. You need to at least know where coal ought to be or oil ought to be. This is from that 2009 paper, a quotation I'm not going to read all the way to you, but it effectively notes the importance of knowing the age of something before you drill. Here's yet another paper that discusses the importance of basin modeling and radiometric dating in order to basically fuel every aspect of our economy today. Oftentimes people say, okay, well, what about radiometric dating being discordant? And to that I say the highlighted dates listed here on the page are considered discordant, 3.66 to 3.77 billion, 3.74 billion, 3.71 to 3.81 billion, et cetera, et cetera. When you see all of these dates, you don't get the indication that the earth is somewhere around 6,000 or even 60,000 years old. You get a very strong signal that it is in fact somewhere around 3.75 billion years of age. But we can actually corroborate radiometric dating with other methods. As Jordan already mentioned, it's important to take independent methods to validate a hypothesis. It's probably the most robust way to show that your hypothesis or that your methodology has any merit. Now, Jordan already talked about this, but the Mount the Suvious eruption was organ-organ dated to the calendar year, which is impeccably precise for any kind of dating method. And I want to take a moment to note here that, you know, Benjamin noted that volcanoes of known age have been misdated before. This is because you have to have a certain amount of parent that has already decayed in order to get any kind of reading. This is a known geologic phenomena. You can't date things younger than a thousand years. It would be like trying, because there's too much parent, it would be like trying to take a semi-truck and weigh it on a microgram scale. You just can't do it, which is why when we date volcanoes, volcanic eruptions of known age that have passed that 1,000, 1,500, 2,000-ought-year boundary, you get pristine dates. But you need other methods too. You could do tree ring dating. So trees deposit usually one ring per year. Sometimes they deposit two, but more often than not, they deposit none at all. They respond to drought just like any other organism does. And it turns out that if you count the number of trees from the oldest trees and oldest forests on the planet, you get a nice curve up to around 12,000 years. And based off of this, what we know about carbon dating, radio carbon dating, we can get a proposed, kind of supposed to be estimate for what the date should be if radio carbon dating is accurate. And lo and behold, the actual carbon dating of these specific tree rings in particular falls precisely within that range. You couldn't ask for a better graph. The same thing is true if you date something like the Dead Sea Schools. This is a screen grab from a conversation I had with Dr. Wolgama, who's a geologist, and he noted that the Dead Sea School, something that creationists often rely on in order to add support to the biblical chronology, is dated using carbon dating and data is shown to be accurate. Here's a piece from a sort of specific paper that he released. You can also corroborate it with varves. Varves are annual layers in lakes and kind of still like lakes and ponds and things like that. And it turns out they overlap with their tree rings and with carbon dating. So this is now three different methods that all convene on a very specific age and a very specific rate of decay or rate of growth. And I find it interesting to say, okay, if radiometric dating is set up, so did tree ring growth. So did varve deposition. It just doesn't make any sense. And of course, radiometric dating, as I know Benjamin said, he was okay with up to 60,000 years, okay, but the process is identical. The process to what we're using to get these dates is identical to the ones that max out in the billions. So you can corroborate all of these methods with one another. But oops, we can do with ice cores too. And like Jordan mentioned earlier, you can additionally do it with things like dating along the mid-Atlantic sea ridge. So you can take dates at the sea ridge where the sea floor is currently spreading. And as you spread out and move away from that sort of central seam, you get older dates. And this is just sort of the rate at which the continental plates are moving apart from one another. And it turns out that the rate at which the continents are moving coincides precisely with the rate of decay of the elements within the plates, within the rocks. This should not happen. These two things should not be in lockstep. Unless God just ordained all of these different independent methods to give the appearance that the Earth is simply very old. And if we speed it up, as I said, we get really, really big problems. So if you speed up the rate of decay, the lower limit that the catastrophic plate tectonic model that Young Earth creationists gives gets us at vaporizing the granite crust over a dozen times. And the upper limit is the hydroplate idea, which gets us to over one trillion one megaton H-bombs over the surface of the planet, which just turns the whole planet into plasma. It's not great. Radiation is of course just as lethal if you speed it all up. But something else we have to consider is biomass. If you look through the fossil record, especially if we're taking Howard's idea of with these rocks being previously living things, there's just not enough space on the planet if you don't have several billion years. There would be so much plankton. The biomass would turn the oceans into an amoebic sea, a sludge of microscopic life. And not only that, but geologic signals also had to assume to be created in place. So things like folded rocks take time and pressure to create things like the supposed movement of the tectonic plates as they move along the surface of the mantle. All of this has to be, you know, kind of the illusion of time. And so that's kind of where I'm going to end it. This is a part of a larger presentation. So I'm just going to kind of stop sharing my screen here. But the bottom line is, you are stole. Thank you all for your opening statements. And we are now going to move into about 50 minutes to an hour of open conversation. However, keep on sending me your questions by tagging me in chat at Amy Newman for our Q&A section at the end. With that, ladies and gentlemen, the floor is all yours. Where do we want to start here, guys? What do we want to touch on first? What do we think it? I'd love to address the radioactive dating that you and Jordan were talking about. That's my favorite thing. So great. Excited. Well, I've recently discovered that granite has radio halos from Polonium 218 isotopes, which decays within minutes into something else. So how come we can see it in printed in so much granite? Doesn't it suggest that the rock was formed instantly? No. And so the reason is that there's an entire decay chain. So what's leading to the Polonium? It comes out of the uranium 238 decay chain. And so as part of that decay chain, the various things that this decays and that decays and that so on. Polonium is one of them. Polonium 210, I think it is. But before that is radon, which of course is a gas. That's why you have to have like your basement tested, you know, stuff like that. And so what is likely causing these halos is that the gas is diffusing through the rock. These halos are usually found near imperfections or cracks in the rock. And so the radon, which lasts longer, I forget the half-life, but it's longer than the Polonium, is moving away from the uranium through diffusion. And then it is decaying into Polonium, which of course decays very quickly and so you get this Polonium halo. And that the halo is being caused by damage from, I think it's alpha decay. But have you heard of Dr. Robert Vance Halos, who showed that radio halos in coal support the theory that it was formed within several, and that all, yeah, that it was formed within several thousand years and that all of the logs were buried together at the same time. And they got crushed before they solidified because we know that coal shatters, pulverizes, if we try and crush it. He published this in a science journal, October 15 of 1976, and the GeoTimes also published his findings. And he claims that they've been, to this day, they've yet to be developed. So I am familiar with Gentry's work. And it may not be common knowledge, but coal actually has an appreciable amount of uranium in it. That's one of the reasons why coal plant gives off radiation when it burns. So the exact same thing can happen in coal, where you have the same decay chain with radon and all the rest. I don't remember the exact claims in that particular paper, but that would be my guess is because coal has uranium just like granite does. Gentry has an additional issue where he, if memory serves, he's also an individual who proposes the magnetic field doesn't reverse at all. It's just in a constant decay. And part of this isn't his fault. Again, this was originally published back in the 1970s. This was before we had a proper appreciation for the dynamo and how magnetic reversals even occur. Now, to my knowledge, I've not seen anything recent from Gentry with regard to his ideas on stuff like the magnetic field. But I've not looked for it. I would be very surprised to hear him say that stuff like that, this material both with the, with the polonium halos, but also with the magnetic field reversals that this is, that his ideas are still robust because I mean, they simply aren't. Well, isn't it true that radioactive dating needs a closed system and that each system must not contain its daughter products and the process rate must have always been the same assumption yet we know that these rates alter with radiation, pressure and chemicals, et cetera, which makes it unlikely to know. So a couple of things. I'll take those in series. A closed system is nice. It certainly is much better if you have a closed system. So let's take uranium lead dating, for example. It's in a zircon, which is a crystal. If that crystal, in an ideal world, that crystal would stay sealed the whole time until you cracked it open in the lab and you'd get a nice date. Now, in reality, the alpha decay from the uranium is actually damaging the crystal, so it doesn't always stay a closed system. Fortunately, that can be detected. So in the uranium, in uranium lead dating, you can detect it by virtue of the fact that you have two clocks. You have uranium 235 and uranium 238. So you have two independent clocks. They decay at different rates, but if water got into it or something, the uranium would be taken away at the same rate, and so it'll cause a discordance between those two dates. You can get around that discordance with some fancy math that I can go into if you want, but the important thing is if you don't have the discordance, which sometimes you don't, then it definitely was a sealed system. And the exact way you get around that problem varies by method to method, but that's just one of them. Now, for the constant rate of decay, in fact, half-life is extremely robust, and I mentioned this earlier. It doesn't really change because of pressure or heat or chemicals, because all of those things are mediated by the electrons. And for these super-heavy elements like uranium, it has 92 electrons between it and its environment. So all of those things are being mediated out there. Now, there are some isolated instances, some kinds of decay pathways, because not all radiation is the same, right? Not all decay pathways are the same. You can have experiments where certain decay pathways, particularly beta decay, so electron capture is the biggest one, that one is slightly vulnerable to pressure. So if you put, I think it was boron something, I forget which, or maybe it's Brillium, it's Brillium-7. They've taken Brillium-7 and put it under enormous pressure, like miles and miles down below the crust levels of pressure. So enormous pressure, and it changed the decay rate by a percent or two. And the reason for that is because the way electron capture works is it's capturing the closest electron to the nucleus. It's like sucking it in, you can think of it that way. And so if you have all that pressure, it's more likely to get sucked in. Now, electron capture could also be changed by another way. If you just stripped it of all its electrons, well, it can't really capture an electron anymore, right? So while electron capture can be vulnerable to some environmental conditions in specific ways that doesn't apply to alpha decay, it doesn't apply to spontaneous fission, it doesn't apply to any of these other kinds of nuclear decay. To that point, Jordan, just to kind of piggyback onto that, it would be absolutely groundbreaking if we could speed up any kind of radioactive decay for the sake of things like our energy industry. This would blow the whole thing wide open. If you could figure out a way to do this, and as you mentioned, we have tried. We've thrown everything in the kitchen sink at radioactive decay. And some things, like pressure, there's a radium-osmium experiment where they used electromagnetism or something along those lines, like physically strip electrons from certain structures and things like that, which is not something that can happen in nature unless you've got like a collider or whatever. But the point being, it would be massively influential for human society if we could find a way to speed it up, economically groundbreaking. And we haven't done it, even though we've tried. And yet every day when we go out and we use things like radiometric dating to fuel the fossil fuel industry, we come back with sackloads of coal and barrels of oil and natural gas. And it shouldn't work like that if radioactive decay is so sensitive. Also, if it did, I don't want to dominate the time. I just want to say if it were to speed up, that would have implications like the heat problem. But I don't want to dominate your time. Okay. Well, you've heard about the fast coal experiments reported in the Nature magazine article from the 28th of March, 85 and the chemical and engineering news from the 21st of November, 83, where they proved that would with water and heat, 160 degrees Celsius only. And as little as two weeks to as much as eight months, you can create artificial coal. So doesn't that kind of throw the whole narrative of coal taking a long time? It would accept that kind of coal is distinguishable from ancient coal from carboniferous forests. Like the chemical signal isn't the same. But when you talk about ancient coal, wouldn't you call the powder river basin ancient coal, where it has massive seams of 400 feet and it's undiluted by impurities like clay, which again suggests that it happened instant or fact. Why would clay happen instantly? No, it's undiluted by impurities like clay. Yeah. Why would it need to be instant? I mean, we have instances today where massive forests, like you get a large forest or even a small forest, natural flooding comes through, knocks a ton of trees over and they're covered by something like mud to stick them in an anoxic environment. And like you said, artificially, they added pressure, massive amounts of pressure that normally it has to be seducted pretty low to be exposed to and time. So, yeah, you can get like relatively pure coal through these processes. Most coal that we actually harvest is relatively pure in a sense that it's usable. If it was full of coal or full of clay and stuff like that, it would be of no use to us for most things.  You wanted to say something? Sure. So for potassium argon dating and for carbon-14 dating, wouldn't we also have to assume a constant rate of those things going into the material that we're going to test? For example, we'd have to assume a constant rate of the carbon-14 isotope production, which different variables could affect that. For potassium argon, since that's something that we're looking at in non-organic things but in mineral, such as with volcanic systems, how in the world can we trust that different variables such as air bubbles, such as different parts of that system moving actually isolated the potassium argon system that we're looking at? Okay. So with the carbon dating, in fact, carbon production in the atmosphere is not strictly constant and obviously researchers are aware of that. That's why there's a calibration curve. You'll get pretty close if you assume it's constant, but to get even closer, they have a calibration curve. But to the potassium argon thing, which I think is the more applicable to the age of the earth because radiocarbon has a much smaller half-life. Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. I was going to say, I don't actually have any particular issue with carbon dating because I think I'm a little more open to an older young earth, if that makes any sense, from the range that I gave. But with regard to it being somewhat constant and for that calibration curve, we've only been making that calibration curve for, what, 100 years, a little bit more for how long we've actually been monitoring the radioactive isotopes? Yeah. So it's not as simple as they look at the way it is now, like today, and write it down, and then we have a record of 100 years. They look back at things of known age through tree ring dating, through historical records, through whatever, whatever independent method. So independent of radiocarbon, they know how this particular thing is. And then they use that data point to construct the curve. And so that's how they're doing it. The trouble that I have with the two things you gave, or it's actually kind of like a lack of trouble, the tree rings and the history, I mean, we have written history maybe 7,000 years ago, something like that is the oldest documents we have. And then tree rings are not going to be that old. Unless you're... Oh, sorry, then. I want to touch just briefly, because I want to make sure that, because I think you guys were maybe talking past each other a little bit there, because I think what Jordan is saying is that you use things of known age to calibrate for that time period. So if you're trying to carbon date something that's around the time that the Malthusuvius eruption occurred, right? You could use the known, you'd use historical records for that time period to calibrate that you're maybe dating something else within that range. If you're going later in time, tree rings are good, bars are better, and barbs are even better than that. And something that I think was perhaps lost, that this particular exchange that I presented in my half of the opener is the fact that these things should not convene on one another. They shouldn't inter-confirm each other. You shouldn't be able to count barbs one at a time and count tree rings one at a time and count ice layers one at a time. Come to three numbers that match and then radio carbon date something and get a fourth match if carbon dating doesn't work. That would be saying that not only is carbon dating sped up or slowing down by some external processes, but those same external processes are also influencing the rate at which snowpack happens in Antarctic or Arctic areas, the rate at which tree rings, trees add rings, and the rate at which lakes deposit little sedimentary barbs. And I don't think that that's reasonable. From my perspective. Sure. So I think that the ice, ice cores would be more favorable as far as not, you know, not talking past each other, because I think that those could be obviously a lot older. They're not a living thing. They don't require to be written or whatnot by humans. They're not an organism. The only trouble, and I don't specifically know all the details of what you're talking about with how the ice cores are used, I know that back in like the 1960s and 70s, they were doing an incredible amount of research with ice cores. And the overall consensus was they're, they're making documentaries on it, was that we were very soon headed into an ice age. And right now we are very much in a state of global warming. So that was obviously wrong and unless things change again, but the overarching prediction from ice cores was ice age is coming. Definitely. You had the Chicago Blizzard. That was a big thing that they talked about. And now we're definitely not on currently headed towards an ice age. So that's just to draw a parallel with the ice cores being used for different scientific applications. And can we trust what's pulled out of that conclusively? Right. I can't speak to that. I'm not a climatologist, but what I do know is that the way that the ice core dating works in part, other than looking, doing stable isotopes on, or isotopic analysis on different layers to see, you know, how the temperature is fluctuating in the case of climate stuff. But you also add in the fact that there's ash layers interspersed in many of these ice cores, especially ones that come from places like Greenland, which is very volcanically active. So not only can you date the ice cores themselves, right, by counting the layers, you can also date the ash layers in between them at these given periods when the volcanoes erupted and dispersed ash all over the landscape because they contain like tephra, like little itty bitty teeny tiny igneous rocks that can actually date themselves be dated by argon, argon methods, or, you know, other such methodologies. So now you're adding in ice cores that give a date themselves that can be corroborated by dating the ash layers in between the cores, which corroborates as well. And then you take, as I showed in my presentation, you take the ice cores, you add them to the varves, you add them to the tree rings, the dentocrinology dates, and the historical ages. And what you get is you convene on this single, this single slope, right? This single way of showing that either radiometric dating is correct in the case of these older argon, argon dates, or in the case of the carbon dating, that these are decaying in a constant rate, which is the only, as you mentioned, the primary assumption that has to be made were for radiometric dating to work, that they are occurring at a constant rate, because we know that they have to have an all-parent initial formation, right? All-parent and initial formation rocks form today. We know that this is the case. We see them forming and they're all-parent. We've also seen in the lab the end product of decay, which is all daughter. And then, of course, the last question, or the primary question is, are they decaying constantly? And it's this collaboration of different methods, some of which are radioactive, some of which aren't, that allows us to understand that, yes, the rate is constant. And just to add a final thing to that, as Jordan and I both mentioned, the real problem comes if you try to speed it up, because radioactive decay releases heat. So every time you try to speed up, and again, we've tried to speed it up, but if you tried to speed it up and cram 3.8 billion years, or excuse me, 4.8, 4.5 to 4.8 billion years into, say, 6,000, or even 60,000, nothing could live here. In fact, the planet, it would be so much heat that the surface of the Earth would be, I think I saw at one point it was a tough university chemist who did the calculations. It's like 70,000 degrees Celsius at year zero. You may not know this. I'm a nuclear engineer. And so I have done these calculations myself for the crust specifically, because the crust is enriched in radioactive material. And so if you sped up the half-life of things sufficient to put it in Noah's flood, which is often where creationists put it, if you did that, then the temperature of the granite just in the crust, assuming that the specific heat was applicable the whole way, which it wouldn't be, but you'd get heat, the crust in the granite just at the surface would be over 27,000 degrees Celsius, which would vaporize several times over. So it's just not tenable. Well, you know, there's people who, you can watch videos of people walking on coals. That was just me making a joke. I would not recommend walking at 27,000 degrees Celsius. No, I agree. I would think you'd probably just vaporize. That sounds incredibly hot. Would not be a good day. I would love to interact with a couple of those points, and then I might pass it back to Howard. If you don't mind, Howard, I'll keep going for a minute. I might get back to some of Eric's points, but I think I'll just interact with a couple points you said. So coming at this from a creationist perspective, and I am not a hardcore, sorry, my dog just came down. I am not, and I have burritos. I am not a die-on-the-hill young earther, but I am a, it's fully reasonable young earther, and so I think it's the path of least resistance, and then I also have some much more firm skepticisms with things like evolution and geologic column, all that. So all of that aside, being a creationist, if we bring God into this picture as the creator, then we would not take necessarily liberties. We would take miracles or supernatural intervention into the natural world. So he's built this world in an order where it's operating normally under the normal conditions he's created it to. Well, he is allowed as the omnipotent creator who sustains it to intervene anytime he wants in any way that he wants. So that's to say the flood taking place, the amount of energy and whatnot that comes with that, as well as it drying up. Where did all of that water go to? It's not just sitting in the clouds, it's not just in glaciers. That's an incredible amount of water. It's gone somewhere. That is something where if God exists, that's a supernatural claim that would then be backed by is scripture-reliable, a whole separate conversation. But given that the angle that I'm coming from, it's not an unreasonable angle, that's similar to the idea of Pangea supportable in the Bible. Yeah, I think that the idea of Pangea is supportable because after the flood of Noah, there's a super short passage in scripture, and this is a total gray area, but it could be it, so I like to throw it out there. Where it says, in the age of Peleg, the earth was divided, super vague. However, a whole bunch of people were noted in a lineage, nothing is happening. For some reason it says that about this guy named Peleg, and then it keeps moving on. Well, we have evidence for Pangea, we have evidence for all of this stuff happening, and we should have a 27,000 degree Celsius world taking place. Unless we have the liberty of saying there is a supernatural creator who is intervening, just like he intervened at the Big Bang, just like he intervened at putting everything into place. So from the atheist perspective, that's impossible, that's unreasonable, I fully get that. But for me, coming as a specifically Christian Yahweh standpoint, that's reasonable within the worldview. You want to take that, Erica? Yeah, I have two brief thoughts. One is kind of along the lines of like, so I used to be sort of in the theistic evolution camp these days, I'm kind of a fence sitting agnostic. They're robust and fence sitting agnostic. But that being said, I always found that to not to not fit God's character. Now, granted, I'm not trying to turn this into a scripture discussion, but in Romans 120, God says that you can see him in creation. And if you can see God in creation, it shouldn't be inherently deceptive. I think that goes against God's character. Therefore, the tools that we have at our disposal to explore the natural world should tell us the truth about the natural world, whether you're coming from a religious perspective or not, which kind of leads me to my second point, which is as a fence sitting agnostic, the second that we're bringing miracles into it, I go hands off. Because from my perspective, if someone wants to take the stance that God did all of this and did so miraculously, that's fine. Because I can't investigate that with science at all. That is completely outside of the purview of the natural world. And how would you even distinguish it from a natural signal? It's kind of like the intelligent design thing, right? How do you distinguish design from what nature can actually do on its own? Which is why I tend to take the perspective that Young Earth creationism becomes my purview when they say it's scientific, which most of the big orcs tend to do today. They say, not only is it scientific, but it is like overwhelmingly the truth. So that's where I involve myself.  Like God would have to intervene. I can't say anything to that other than, sure. Sure, yeah. And I think that, and that's, that has to be kind of an agreed to disagree situation. Because the Young Earth creation standpoint, a foundational part of it is the creation part. You get rid of the creator, you don't have the creation. Well, it kind of all goes to poop. So I can completely understand where you're coming from in that and fully respect that. And that's why it's important to have these open discussions. Well, I, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, it's okay. Let me, I did want to touch on the Romans 120 passage in the context of that whole passage of Romans, the whole book of Romans really, but that pastor Romans is that God is revealing himself through nature and we can understand nature and we can understand that we have a creator through it. Is it making a specific scientific claim that everything is uniform all of the time? I think that's a bit of a stretch. And as far as God lying, him being deceptive in that, I hear that often. And I don't think that naturally fits because two things, if we take the event of creation, God spoke and everything was created. Well, he made Adam a grown man. So he made that old. It's fully reasonable. He made the earth and the universe old. So it has all of the characteristics including starlight, which looks like it's traveled. He just like starting up a video game. Obviously that's very simple, but he put it all there because he's the creator. He can do that. So he can create things in a mature state. And regarding if it's deceptive for things like Noah's flood, having that kind of effect. Well, if the Bible is reliable, he told us. So it's not deceptive because he told us how it happened. It's only in rejecting scripture that we would then have to scratch our heads and say, we have no idea. But if you accept scripture, it's open to discussion. Now, what were you going to say, Jordan? I have to disagree because it is possible. It's a logical possibility that God could have created the universe five minutes ago and just put all the appearance of everything before now. In mid discussion, if he wanted to. He's not nipped in being able to do whatever he wants. However, it would definitely be deceptive. And here's why. There is no requirement for an old appearing earth to have all of these agreeing things. It would be trivially easy to have the amount of uranium in Italy be different than the amount of uranium in Canada or the varves of this lake that were from a billion years ago or whatever don't quite match the ice cores. It would be you can still have the old appearing earth with signals that didn't match. And that would be a much clearer way to communicate to us. Hey, if you're doubting, this is only the appearance of age. But if he did do that, he clearly he made it so that any honest person or I would say a reasonable person, a scientist trying to just look at the evidence and see what the evidence says would come to the wrong conclusion. I don't see how that can be anything but deceptive. Well, Howard, I would. Is it possible that we could be honest and admit that we might be making the wrong conclusions based on our limited understanding of the elements that we're measuring and the radioactive dating and stuff? Is it possible that we might be wrong? So any conclusion in science is always tentative based on new information. So anything in science could possibly be overturned in some sense. However, in order for something new to come in and overturn it, it would have to explain all of the observations we already had and then this new observation. And so whatever model you're going to present would have to fit all of the data. The data is whatever it is. So your model is going to have to fit that data better than the natural model. And I struggled to think of a way, and I used to be a young Earth creationist. I struggled to think of a way in which we could be like, I could see that maybe it's not 4.5, maybe it's 4.6, maybe it's 4.4, maybe something like that. But I struggled to imagine how we could, what new data could come out that would change it so much. It's like if you take, well, you're not going to like this because it's the shape of the Earth, but we use, you know, people use to think the Earth is flat and then they thought it was a sphere and now it's an oblate spheroid. But if you think that the oblate spheroid is just as wrong as the flat one was, well, I mean, it just refines closer to the truth that that makes sense. But that wouldn't make sense to you because of your position. I understand that. Well, Howard is not a flat Earth or he's a globe Earth skeptic. Yeah. Okay. My mistake then I retract my statement. It's okay. I am a firm globe Earther. I hope that answered your question. Yeah. Super brief. Like it just seems weird to me that they all convene on this single date, right? Like it's not as, as the technology has gotten more precise. It's not been like we, we find out about radioactive decay and the Earth is where we did, we did it. And it's like the Earth's a billion years old and then 10 years down the line, we're like just kidding.  And then we tweak a little bit more. And it's like just kidding. It's actually 4.8 billion years old. It's only been getting older and it's only been getting more precise. So it goes from something like the Earth is approximately 4 billion years old to 4.5 to 4.575 or something along those lines. It doesn't get, it doesn't get younger. And it's, it's all of these different things coming in at once. So yeah, like as Howard asked, like, could we be misinterpreting some aspect of elemental decay? I can't imagine a world in which science would say no, science is great as strength is its mutability. The fact that it can adapt to new information. That's why we use it. That's why it's been so useful. But that being said, the idea that we're misinterpreting the elemental decay and the dendocrinology and the ice cores and the continental drift and the speed of light, you know, and, um, aspects of VARVs, like all in just such a way to make it seem like the Earth that these, these six things corroborate each other at the Earth is indeed very ancient. That is six times more, um, you know, unbelievable than just one. So may, may I, um, jump back quite a bit to a point that Jordan made. And then I'm happy. And it's actually, it's more theological actually. So we don't have to go down that route, but I wanted to, I didn't want to let it go too much. If you're good with that, I'll go, I'll backtrack. Howard, he had to hand it. Oh, I'm sorry, Howard. Yeah, please. If you'd rather go for it. Yeah, just a quick thing. We often see that science follows the money. So if there's a interest, whether it's money or pride, that the consensus wants the Earth to be older and older because they're against religion or whatever. We often have a confirmation bias where we will see what we want to see. And with time we can come up with better excuses, better explanations, and we can improve our arguments to reassure what we believe or what we want to believe to be true. So yeah, I see, I see reason behind what you guys are saying, but I also see lots of evidence in like what I said before about the, um, the hate, the radio halos, um, of being, um, decaying so fast that for them to appear in, um, what was it, Pulonium? It's Pulonium. That there is an alternative explanation that it kind of got frozen or petrified very quickly, which is an alternative explanation. So I imagine if there was enough money and people interested in following that theory, they would find more evidence to support that theory too. May I touch on this, Howard? Because I actually, I do partially agree with that. There is a massive incentive in a lot of scientific fields that are related to things in the industry, not so much in biology and things like that, although medicine is kind of the odd man out there, to find, um, to find things that are going to make you massive amounts of money. So why would it be that they're all using radiometric dating to find things like fossil fuels, natural gas, coal? Why do they all use it? If it's, if it were bogus, if it didn't work, if the earth isn't actually very ancient, they wouldn't use it because it wouldn't give them any money. So I tend to agree. I think that, you know, the, the fossil fuel industry is one of the greatest supports for radiometric dating, just because of how often they use it. They use it for, based on allowing any new area in order to actually prospect for some of these fossil fuels. Now in the realm, I will say, you know, as someone in academia, I will say, I'm a biological anthropologist slash primatologist. I do that kind of thing, right? So it's, it's human evolution. That's, that's what I study. And it is one of those situations where like my field is not lucrative money wise. And when people tell me that there's some big conspiracy for human evolution to prove it for the money, I don't know anybody who makes a lot of money in my field. So I kind of chuckle a little bit when it's like, ooh, the scientists are going to make a lot of money. It's like, I'd love to see some of it. I haven't gotten any of it yet, but maybe someday my check will come in the mail for, for pushing, you know, human evolution. So I agree with you, but I've kind of done a little switcheroo on you and said, I do agree. We follow the money. So why is all the money invested in assuming an old earth assumptions for anything that's, that it's relevant to. And this is a great opportunity to bring it up. I bring it up every time, right? Zion oil. It was an oil distillery or whatever they were a driller. What is it Jordan? What's it? What do you call them? Refinery. They're not a refinery. They were trying to find fossil fuels is what they were doing. And they said, we're going to do this and we're going to do this with no old earth assumptions. It's crazy that something like this actually exists. Yeah, they didn't use any basin modeling. They just did exploratory drills. They were bankrupt and under a year, you can still buy stock on like whatever in the stock store for the, for Zion oil. I know someone who has Zion oil stock as kind of a gag, but they went out of business because they didn't use basin modeling and radiometric dating to find their stuff. We use it because it works. Okay.  Sorry. Do you mind if I jump in quickly, Howard? It might be quickly. If I ramble, stop me. Jordan, I did want to address the kind of the theological outlook you had on it must be deceptive. I wrote down a few notes. So I'm going to read it. And if you, if we want to just let it go after that, so be it. But if you want to engage, then that's fine. I'd offer, if Adam cut down a tree, it would look hundreds of years old, even the day after creation. If the next day he looked at the same radiometric isotopes that we are looking at, radioactive isotopes that we are looking at, it would look millions of years old. The trouble is when we say it looks old. So we must, the trouble is when we say because it looks old, we must make it fit in narrative. Adam could have said about the tree, well, God made the earth hundreds of years ago. Well, if the creation story is true and he cut it down the day after he's created, well, no, that's not true. It's trees actually only a day old, but God made it that way. It's possible God made the earth as it is so that we can marvel at his creation, knowing we will always be limited in our understanding. And I do not like to proof text, but because this is such a vast topic, there is a reason that God says not to lean on our own understanding. And then I would kind of in quotes put, in all things, we certainly have reason, we certainly have logic, but we must be careful in saying, we are so firm, we are so conclusive in how this works, that it can't be the other thing. So he could have made the earth in such a way that, when he chopped down that tree, it had this age, right? But there's no reason for him to make all of the trees in the forest agree with each other. He could have made them anything he wanted. There's no reason he had to have made every sample of uranium, agree with every other sample of uranium. There's no reason for every sample of argon to agree with every other sample of argon. Those are completely arbitrary distinctions that he could have made anything. But yet he made them all say the same thing. Now it is true that I cannot definitively prove to you that an omnipotent deity didn't go out of his way to deceive me. I have no way of accessing that knowledge. But what you've said at that point is, evidence doesn't matter to me. I have decided that this is the truth, and no matter what I see, I will not accept new explanations. I, to quote, I think, I forget what founding father it was, but I refused to believe when I was still a Christian when I looked into this deeply. And I decided that I refused to believe that the God who gave me reason intended me to forgo its use. And so I'm going to follow the evidence. And if that leads me to a wrong conclusion, I would prefer to follow the evidence honestly than to shut my brain down and say that I am going to reject all evidence because I don't like it. I think to ask that very briefly, just real quick, because since we're going to talk about this, I think what Jordan says is true. I think that it's interesting. From my perspective, it kind of feels like you're picking and choosing what we can lean on our understanding for and what we cannot. Because you said, yeah, we have reason, we have logic. We can use these things to investigate the world around us. Like, obviously, it's great that we have modern medicine. It's great that we have surgery. It's great that we can do a heart transplant. But the Bible doesn't talk about any of that. The Bible doesn't make statements on most things that are scientific in nature. And as you said at the beginning, it also doesn't make a claim that the earth is young or old. It doesn't really say either way. So with that being said, I think the fair thing to do from your perspective, from the biblical perspective would be to say, if the Bible talks about it, we can talk about it using God's understanding and not ours. But if it doesn't talk about it, then it's up to human reason. And because human reason, because the Bible doesn't say anything about the age of the earth, it's up to human reason, which lands us at this ancient world. At least that's how I would do, that's how I'm the magic. I mean, again, I'm going to circle back to my statement earlier. Like, if miracles are on the table, like there's nothing Jordan and I can say to make our point. It's miracles. God could have always done it in a way to make it appear as X, Y, Z. All of the things that I believe support evolution could be just so to appear as such they support X, Y, Z. Or, you know, we could be being duped about, I don't know, the cosmos. Like you mentioned earlier, you're cool with God creating the speed of light in motion. How do I respond to that? How does Jordan? All we can really say is, the evidence doesn't support it. And that's kind of where we land, I guess. Well, so I would say, Howard wanted to jump in. Okay. I don't want to go on a theological, you know. Sure. If you would like to take over or move on, Howard, that's fine. You're muted. Thank you. Yeah. Just, I'm scared that we might run out of time. And as Eric is into paleontology, I'm really hoping to get her opinion. And also with Jordan, you're into engineering. So I also have a little question for you as well, about my heart shaped stones. And we're about halfway through. So still good time. Okay. It won't be long. We can get back to the other stuff after if you want. I'm just going to share my screen again. If that's okay. Just an image. Let's see. Maybe if I just do screen. Okay. Well, while I'm looking for that, Erica, I watched a debate you had with Kent Hovind. And I might be misquoting you here, but I'm pretty sure you said, I'm sure you enjoy that one. I'm pretty sure that you said something like the idea of a soul isn't empirical. It's not science, but morphology is. Is that correct? That sounds like something I would say. Yes. I will call. I don't remember it, but I used to do a lot more debates than I do these days. So I'm sure I said it. Okay. Great. Well, here's my picture. Right. So have you come across this theory before today? What? The mud possible stuff. Can you see? Am I sharing my screen? Yes, I can see, but it's not clicked. It's just, it's I'm just looking at your, at your pictures folder by the thumbnail. Yeah, the thumbnail. But you're, you're talking about the heart shaped. Right. Yeah. I've seen to have lost the screen. If I stop share. And try it this way. Well, yeah, my question is now that you, you have you come across this theory of the heart shaped stones before, or is this the first time you've heard about it? First time for the heart shaped stones in particular, although I've heard the, I've heard like the mud fossil idea before, like the shapes of stones being petrified ancient creatures. But first time with the heart shaped stones is my first heart shaped stone rodeo. Great. Cause as you said that morphology is, is science. And we, we can see a pattern in the soft, in the smooth stones that are in the heart shape. And we have them like fossils, the idea that we can line them up. And my question is now that you know about this theory, will you be making any primary observations of your own to help verify or a few, for example, the prediction of reoccurring correlations with the anatomy of a heart? I mean, when I, so when I look at these, I think it's important to note a few things right off the bat with regard to the heart shaped stones, one, there's more than one type of heart. I noticed very frequently, you know, you're showing mammalian hearts, you're showing human hearts. And with that, I would say I tend to be skeptical. Primarily because again, there's more than one type of part, but also this idea of petrification. You showed the, I forget the individual who worked on it with like the, the soap bodies and things along those lines of rapid change in structure or composition of something dead. And I think that it's important to note that what he observed, salpination, I think is what he called it. I can't remember. But what he is referring to is not the, the transformation of organic matter into stones, but rather the breakdown of organic matter into more basic parts, lipids, proteins, stuff like that collagen. Now, if you could show me a process today where we have an organism and under some, for whatever reason, it petrifies into a literal indiscinguishable from stone rocks, then we would be having a conversation about how do we interpret rocks that look like things of the past. But I used to be really into rocks as a little kid. That probably comes as a shock to a lot of people that I like rocks. They're cool. And I used to collect them, but I found rocks that look like all sorts of things. Some of them look like hearts. Some of them look like hammers. Some of them, you know, took weird, almost like bendable shapes. Like they were once quite pliable. Some of them look sharp. Some of them are smooth, all these sort of things. So to that, I would say, I think they're just her cheap rocks to be, I guess kind of blunt, but yeah, I mean, I'm trying to present this in a way so that moving forward from your end, you can experiment with this if you so desire. Well, just to touch on one of my points, we find the heart shaped stones in rivers, which is one way flow. So I could understand maybe the water hits the stone. So it has a point and then it gets wider. And I could understand the formation forming in a river because the water flows one way and the back being flat or slightly concave because it's standing upright. But we know that rocks roll, so it doesn't make much sense even in a river, which is one way. We know that the ocean pounds in and out on the shore. So there's two or three ways. It's like a tumble dryer. And then we know that the mud, at least at the moment, is solid. It's still. So if we've got still mud, we've got the coming in and out of the waves, and we've got the one direction of the river. How come we can find this heart shaped stone phenomena in all three different environments? I think, honestly, I think it's just because rock is made of different things. One, and two, we find other shapes commonly in all three scenarios, too, right? Like we find rocks that have other strange angles commonly or, you know, as you mentioned earlier, rounded pebbles and things of this nature. Not to mention rocks can be transported. Canon are quite frequently. I mean, I pick up rocks all the time and drop them in new locations.  So at that point, I would say, like, I just don't find it compelling that the rocks are petrified hearts. I don't find that to be a compelling argument. I think that you would need to present a methodology for defining the difference between things that are just, because I imagine you would agree out there somewhere, there is a rock that is shaped like a heart because of natural processes. So how do you distinguish between the two? You would need a methodology for this petrification of ancient creatures. And you would need to find some way to merge those two together to kind of fit your observation.  People see shapes and clouds and stuff, you know. So, like, what's more likely that this rock is just a rock and it kind of looks like a heart. And humans being pattern-seeking animals say, oh, wow, that looks like a heart. Or that there's this otherwise unevidence, massive collection of hearts sitting in the, like, I don't know, it just doesn't seem like you're playing the odds, you know. Well, I'd like to get into the odds in a second, but just to go back to Erica's point, the fact that smooth stones have a pale skin compared to the interior kind of debunks the idea that you could just drop it or it could get that shape because it wouldn't have a skin. So, rock that has naturally formed in a heart shape, which can happen, maybe not with all the features that I've listed, but the idea of an external, because there's internal features as well, like the chambers and the trabecula carne and stuff that we see in hearts. But the external formation, yeah, I could get that that could happen, but to see it in roughly 20% of all smooth stones along the coast and in riverbeds, that's a high percentage to find. And that's why I recommend you, Erica, and everyone watching, I recommend that everyone keeps their eye open for the heart-shaped stones next time they're on the beach or near a dry riverbed. And you see how easy it is to see them. They're roughly about 20% of all of the smooth stones. And then when you find one, see how many of the correlations that we've listed, you can find because there tends to be a good few. My friend Mike has found one rock with, I think about 15 of the listed correlations in one stone. So, yeah, the probability is something that I'd like to get into with you, Jordan, because you're a mathematician. Yeah, I'm tagging you in, Jordan. I'm tagging you in. Okay. Not a mathematician, but I am okay at math. Okay. Can you guys see that? I can see the thumbnail. Is it Howard? Yeah. You may have to double-click it for it, and it may not be sharing that. It may be just be sharing your one screen. Okay. I'll try something else. What did you want to say, Ben? Well, if time allows for it, I did have one more topic I wanted to discuss. But if we're running out of time, then you can finish us off. Have about 15 more minutes. Yeah. It's only a quick one. Okay.  Maybe if I do it this way. Can you see it now? Yep. Got it. Great. Oh, there it is. Brilliant. Okay. So what are the chances, the odds of water, wind, or even and or mechanical erosion, randomly carving such a wide variety of precise external and internal correlations that happen to be in the right location, the correct orientation. And as you can see on the screen there to scale, just like we get a baby creature and an adult creature. We can see that this is scale. So the odds, I would say are likely extremely high. And here's why. Because this is sort of like, this is pattern seeking behavior. It's sort of like saying I've, I'm a puddle, right? And isn't it marvelous that the ground I find myself in is perfectly shaped to, to me? What are the odds of that? Right. That there's different compositions of rock. They're going to be under different forces. You're just going to have a lot of rocks under a lot of different conditions, a lot of different forces. You're going to get a lot of shapes. And there's going to be there. They're similarities. So there's going to be kind of broad stroke similarities. Right. But what you've just told me is there are big rocks and small rocks and some of them look kind of like an Oregon, maybe. That I mean, I'm sorry. That's not very compelling. Can you see the list? Is it on the screen now? Yeah. So again, I see you've got a list, right? And it's got 15 things and 20 things. I honestly wouldn't care if it was 3000 things that you, you can fit a list like this. You could find a rock that fit any list you wanted. I would be willing to wager a hundred bucks. You could come up with almost any plausible list of some kind of Oregon in the body and I could find a rock somewhere like it.  Some of them are going to look like that. But like I say, 20 roughly in my experience, 20 to even 30% of the smooth stones that you find on the beach in the riverbeds or even under mud or in valleys, 20 to 30% will have the heart shape. All right. And just to finish, and any of those heart shaped stones will have at least a few of these listed features apart from that morphology. My question being Jordan is how many coincidences does it take for an alternative theory to become impossible? So you've gone from there's 20 different features to I might get a few of them. And if I... The rock. The rock, right. Yeah. So if I have a trillion rocks and I have a thing that is like a one in a million chance, I am going to have a lot of rocks that look like that. And what you're getting into, you mentioned it in your own talk, the paradelia. You're going to see things that you want to see. The fact that there are rocks with indentations where the bottom is kind of twisted, where the front is round or multifaceted. So kind of like anything you want. It's flat or maybe concave. It's flat or maybe not flat, you know. The same pattern can be found in all stones of sizes or maybe not. It has faded, meaty colors. What does that even mean? Lines of quartz running through it? Rocks have quartz in them. This is a list of 20 mundane things. I would expect rocks to have. But the odds are one. I respectfully disagree. Because you won't find the back of one of these heart shaped stones to be convex. You won't find any other colors apart from meaty colors like reds, oranges and black, which we know is blue. But there's only black or meaty colors. Tell you what. So the way you would test this. You've got a hypothesis. Let's do some experiments. The way you would test this is you would put a large variety of rocks in an experimental setup that mimics natural conditions or what we say natural conditions are. And you could falsify that rocks like that could ever be produced naturally. And if you did a well run experiment and found that in well defined conditions, you never ever got a rock like that. Then I would start taking this seriously and not before. I'm kind of curious to take this to its conclusion. So why are they all hearts? Where are the other organs? Where are the other types of hearts? Are they all from human style creatures? How did they petrify? How come no one's cut one of these things open? And why is it that they're not cut? And why is it that they're not cut? And why is it that they're not cut? Because the way that fossilization usually occurs is, yeah, there's pyramoralization on the outside, but much of the internal structure can be preserved in many cases as well. So why hasn't anybody cracked these bad boys open and look to see how the inferior Vinnie Calva continues to run all the way through? Why don't we look for the four or the two atrium, the two ventricles, the four chambers with the heart? Like how did all these creatures live that? And who did the heart shape rocks belong to? Well, as you're into evolution, if this is a true theory, then it squashes the idea of evolution. Because if all of the creatures in the whole world, hence why they're, you know, patterns of similarity, there's the same style of shape throughout the animal kingdom as there is in the heart shaped stones. So if all of the creatures of the world got flooded, as we can see in many of the myths as well as the religious books and other evidence around the world, then it makes sense that if there was a great reset and all of the creatures died instantly through a supernatural means, then evolution would have to start over again. So either you've got the dates wrong and it's 8 billion years, or maybe the theory of evolution and the old earth could be wrong as well. Because these two stones wouldn't have lasted millions or billions of years. They would have got eroded into nothing. But my main point is they all have a smooth, they have a pale skin. And when you crack them or break them in half, which we have done, you will see that the inside is darker and it will never fade with sun or water ocean to as pale a colour as the original skin. And we don't see any transitional stones. We see either rough rock that can roll around and get a shake. But every time you break it as the same colour, whereas the smooth stones, the moment you break one, you can see it and forever you will see it. So there's clearly a difference between the two stones and I aren't getting a better theory than that there was a worldwide flood. And just like we see transmutation in plants and chickens, which don't eat as much calcium as they produce, a boiled egg theory like an oven bag or a pressure cooker with high mineral water and high temperature that egg gets harder inside. And we know that the organs swim in a fluid and they're in a chest cavity. So they would have the boiled egg theory, for example. So, leaving aside the rocks, I'm going to try to take us in a different direction. I think we've beaten that horse. I wanted to go back to something that Ben mentioned in his opening, actually, when he was talking about the Mount St. Helensdating and potassium argon. Because this is an air I see all the time. So the Mount St. Helensdome being dated, it was like 50 years old or dated 2000s of years old, how could that possibly be? And then what you did is you said, okay, well, it's got this much air. It's however many thousands of times. And so if we extend that to the Earth, it would be trillions of years old or whatever it would be. So there's a couple of things going on here. First of all, the reason that there is this air, what is causing that, or one of the sources of this causes is an inherited argon. The potassium argon system, you've got the argon as a gas, and so it should be released, but not sometimes not all the gas is released. Sometimes you have a little bit that's there to begin with, okay? That will introduce a flat static amount of air. So if you had say 50,000 years worth of argon that was in there, then your date would be wrong by 50,000 years. It will be wrong by 50,000 years, whether the rock is 50 years old or 5 billion years old. And so you can see if you're dating a rock that's 3 billion years old, a 50,000 year air doesn't matter. You're not even going to notice it. But if you're dating a rock that's 50 years old, a 50,000 year air is going to be a big deal, right? And so that's what's causing the air. So you can't just like multiply it. That's not how the errors work. So you're using the wrong dating method. Also, another thing to keep in mind is that you're dating a crystal. That crystal may not have come from this lava flow because crystals aren't necessarily all melted in a lava flow. So all you can say is that this crystal is so old, but you could have a million-year-old crystal in a 50-year-old lava flow if it was from a previous time. So what do you think of that? Well, I think, Erica, if I may, respond. Yeah, no. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think that the point about the crystal being introduced, that's totally reasonable. And that's why I mentioned if we had more samples, it could go either way, I suppose. But I could support them more. There were 11 samples taken from one to five from the other, I think. So hopefully that would have gone bypass because it wasn't just one sample that was sent out. But also, we would have to assume that the air that is getting locked into where the process is taking place, that that happened at the same time, that there was never any breach in that, and that there was never any compromise of that system taking place. So I think that that is an assumption. I certainly wouldn't say it happens every single time, but how often does it happen? We would have to take that into account. Go ahead. So on that, if your system was actually not isolated. So the way you see that this thing is old is by how much argon builds up, right? Your potassium is turning into argon. So the more argon you have relative to your potassium, the older it is. So let's say hypothetically, the worst case happened. Oh my God, this crystal, at some point in history, lost all its argon. It's the worst kind of contamination you could have. Well, what that would do is make it look artificially young. It would look like it hadn't been around very long. And so even in that worst case, what it would do is it would make it closer to a young earth, but that's not what we see, right? And so that kind of error could only help your case, but it doesn't. We get measurements that are millions of years old and billions of years old, right? So that's inherited argon could potentially help you, but lost argon won't. Yeah, that's what I was going to ask. Well, the point that I was making with that was we have to trust that the systems that we're looking at aren't being compromised. And I think you made a good point. And I think that's, I think it's important to chew on that. So I think that's a good point. Well, on the, sorry, compromised on the other side, you can also detect if you had an inherited argon will be a different isotopic makeup than the argon from the potassium. And guys, I'll let you finish up this conversation, but then when you're done, we're going to move into the Q&A. So anyway, sorry. I think I interrupted you. I apologize. That's okay. I didn't have a lot more to say on that. Perfect. I had one. I had one. I had one thing I did want to ask is Erica had mentioned it. How much time do we have Amy, any leeway or no? Well, the leeway is I want to make sure you feel like you got your questions out there and answered, but then when that comes to a conclusion, we're moving into the Q&A. Okay. Well, if it seems like, if it seems like this will drag out, then feel free to cut us off. But I wanted to actually talk about basin modeling. So basin modeling, it didn't pick up in its importance until I think the 1960s, the 1970s, which means that both World Wars, the World War I obviously didn't affect so much, the World War II certainly, they had tons of petroleum. So the petroleum industry isn't dependent on it. And not that you necessarily said that here, but I've heard that point emphasized it is so important to the petroleum industry. It's important to financial gain for sure and optimization, but it's not essential because before it was optimized and it's still being optimized. We had it. So you can touch on that. I have one other point, but feel free to touch there. I would argue that we've reached a point in time where it is dependent because the population of the globe has exploded. I mean, it was significantly smaller, even 50, 60, 100 years ago than it is today, which is why we use basin modeling exclusively. And that's not to say too, like we do radiometric dating for basin modeling now, but they did basin model in the sense of like looking at areas and estimating how old they were based off the types of rocks or what do you call them? You call them the types of fossils that you use, they're indicator fossils, index fossils, the kind of index fossils that are present. For example, the carboniferous, it's really, really rich in coal because this is when so many different forests were in existence and they were falling over and there weren't very many organisms capable of getting rid of that detritus. So it just piled and then got buried and then the pressure of it turned into these massive coal seams. We probably won't ever see a time period as rich in coal as the carboniferous. But that being said, there are different kinds of trace fossils that are lost to tell if the carboniferous truly is, like if the layers of the carboniferous or not. And radiometric dating confirms that, right? So all of the different kinds, for instance, you're looking at trilobites, right? And you were to radiometrically date the kind of serata that contains trilobites. So it's really, really old, or not pre-Kamerian, excuse me, Camerian-style dates, like without exception, up until I believe they went extinct, Isotelus rexes and like the Devonian. So up until the Devonian. So what I would say to that is that radiometric dating, yeah, like, yes, 100% radiometric dating has to be present to do the kind of basal and base model that we do today. But the ancient age of the earth has been relevant for basin modeling since the beginning. And the second radiometric dating was implemented, so let's go through the roof. I mean, look at the amount of oil and gas that we harvest the efficiency at which we harvest it today, whether it a metric dating on table versus without. And I think you did kind of say that, like you kind of touched on it. Interesting. So I, Sorry. I was just going to ask if we're, I was going to ask if that was that we're going to questions, but. Okay. No, that's fine. I was going to make another point. However, I do think I'm content to end it there. So that's, that is fine. Amy, would it be okay for me just to make one quick point because we jumped topic before I got chance to. Sure. But then tell me when your topic is done, I will warn you if you ask a question that always implies someone else answers. But if you have the final comment, we'll go into Q&A. Thank you. The first time I came across the theory of organs being petrified, I was very skeptical and I brushed it off and I ignored it for a few months. But eventually I met up with my friend Mike and he, he took me out and I made my own observations. And after I found a few, I was like a bit more convinced that he might be onto something, which is exact. So I was expecting people to, to not take it very good because it's very, it's a, it's a different theory. It's an alternative idea, which is exactly why I quoted you, Erica, about saying that the soul isn't empirical, but morphology is. And I also heard Jordan on a different debate, explained that making predictions and seeing if they come true is science. So that's exactly why I've remembered those quotes because I, I want you both and everyone watching not to believe me or to watch my video and think, wow, he's picked some really, he's cherry picked some good stones there. I'm trying to influence and inspire people like yourselves because you're into fossils and stuff to go out and make your own observations skeptical so that you're not looking for the results that I've found. And maybe in private, we could email or on Twitter or possibly even come back to debate it again when you've made some primary observations because my prediction is that you will find 20 to 30% of the smooth stones that you pick up randomly will have the heart shape and each heart shaped stone will have multiple correlations for the anatomy of the heart. That's my prediction. I would like you to test it because that is the scientific method rather than just brushing it off because some book says a thing. Yeah, some geology book says a thing. So I'm going to ignore the primary observations that's reproducible. That's, that's my final conclusion. Please just make your own observations. Don't think that I'm just a loon finding what I want to find. Test what I'm proposing. Please everybody that's watching. Thank you. Thank you all. With that we are going to move into our Q&A section. This is your chance for you to send in your questions to either or all of our interlocutors. Super chats will get your questions sent to the front of the line. However, we will try and get in as many questions as possible by tagging me in chat at Amy Newman. So please don't forget to like, subscribe, and I do want to thank our panel, Erica, Jordan, Benjamin, and Howard. And to remind you that all of their channel links are in the description below. But with that, let the fun begin. A $2 super chat from Oflamo. Question for both or all. How long is a year? Is a year? How long is a year? The price is, is it a leap year? Yeah. Right now it's what, about 365.25 days, something like that? Yeah, it's not a leap year this year. Sometimes what, 366 days? I mean it changes over time because, you know. Yeah, leap years, yeah. How many leap seconds do we gain? I don't know. Thank you so very much. Unless there's an answer from the other side, we are going to go $2 super chat from Messin' Around. Erica is the best smart and empathetic. Have a fan out there. Thank you so much. I'm just a trump on the internet. Thank you so very much Messin' Around. And $5 super chat from OC. Howard, why do the heart shaped rocks not look like Egyptian mummified hearts? Because they've obviously gone through a different process. We can look along every coast, riverbed. We even see that there's been floor tiles and walls and houses constructed with these smooth stones. So it looks like there was a worldwide cataclysm like the Bible, the Quran, the Torah, the Gilgamesh and five over 500 myths have all stated that the Egyptians themselves depicted with a firmament above. Whatever the shape of earth is, there's many cultures from the ancient civilizations that all said there was a firmament and that the water was above and that there's been a world flood. There's evidence literally along every coastline. Please check for yourself. And then if you still disagree, I'm here. Thank you and thank you all for the super chat. Keep on sending them in to get your questions sent to the front of the line. But a question from Joe Schwartz for both what is your favorite video game and why? Did you get him? Yes. Edward, you go first, Jordan. I don't want to say the wrong answer. Sure. Final Fantasy VI. It was very important to my formative years and it's an excellent story, beautiful graphics for the time, outstanding game. Near Runners Up would be Kotor, the original one, and Witcher 3. For similar reasons, Legend of Zelda, Ocarina of Time. Just so many good choices. And all right, unless you have any more opinions. Going one, going two. I was a huge fan of Paper Mario on GameCube. One of my favorites. That was in your door. That was in your door as dope. Thank you so very much, Paddle and Joe. And question from Chippy Myers. Have you seen Heart Stopper? I've not. My daughter is watching it. It is a show. I'm trying to remember because she talked to me about it yesterday at dinner. It's a show about two like teenagers, one of which is homosexual and has feelings for the other, which I don't think returns them. I think it's like an unrequited love thing, but that's all I remember. I have not watched it. I apologize. I only chuckled because I thought it was a, something I wasn't aware of, like an inside joke or something. But it's actually a TV show. I think so. Oh, okay. I was not aware of that. And all right. Moving right along. Maester Willie wants to know, can you please ask the panel if they believe that giants were alive and roaming this place not too long ago? And if so, do they believe that most giants were petrified quote instantly? Erica, that sounds like a great question for you. I do not believe in giants. No. Part of the reason I don't believe in giants is because they violate the, the square cube law. So giants, it's really hard to get big animals. It's really hard on their hearts today. The limit of animals tends to like the limit of their size tends to be like almost preset by kind of what organism they, they descend from. For instance, it's pretty easy for Probesidians to take it pretty big.  And giraffes have to get around it in other ways by having, you know, specific cardiovascular structures that allow them to actually pump the blood that high. As for animals of the past, like, you know, titanosaurs and things like intracatherium, we can really only make guesses about how they did it based off of their skeletal morphology. And it does seem like they have a lot of the sort of sweets of characteristics that we see in big animals today. But as far as humans getting that big, we, in order to get that big, we cease to look as similar to humans as we do today. You can't just scale up a human.   Their hearts can't take it. So if we're going to make a big person, we're going to have to make a lot of alterations to them and they're probably not going to look like very much of a human afterwards. So giants are tough. They're cool. I wish I was wrong, but I think I'm right. There. See, I don't believe in evolution. So I don't think that the giants were the same human race as us. And that could be why we've got all the religious accounts of a flood because the creator wasn't happy with what was being, you know, mutated and hybrid creations.  That's in the religious texts. Then we've got all of the artifacts that we can see in Egypt and India and Cambodia, where I've been myself. And we can see carved in stone giants trampling on humans or having a good time with humans, depending on which country I was. But the fact is that we don't know how they built the pyramids, the star forts. We don't know how they did the temples in India. There's so many amazing constructions over there. So how can we think, oh, they were really good at building, but they were wrong about the giants, that they spent a lot of time carving and building their impressions. And finally, I've been to Myanmar, Burma and many other places where even in Spain, where you can see old buildings that have got very, very tall doors that are extreme, even in India, massive stone doors where you're like, how did humans move these? And why would they need them to be so big? So yeah, there's evidence everywhere of giants. But because some books as a thing, we're not supposed to believe in giants. Well, that sounds like a religion to me. I go more of primary observations. We need a body. We need a body power. To be pithy, strictly from a biblical standpoint, I think giants did exist as probably like seven, eight, nine foot. That's what I mean by giant. I think it's reasonable that was a people group of humans, I would say. And then a lot of people will go back to Nephilim and the Old Testament pre-flood. We don't have any specific morphological character traits really. We know there's some kind of mixture of breeding between humans and the sons of Cain. Or there's no specifics. Maybe they were giants or maybe they were just really corrupt. So Nephilim is very vague. Goliath is pretty specific, even with some conversation though, about what certain measurements meant. But that would be my answer. Can I just throw in quickly the book of Enoch and the book of giants. Things have been taken out of the Bible in the Treaty of Nicaria. And I'm pretty sure that that's because they don't want us to realize that giants were real. Why else would they have taken it out of the Bible? Question from Super Chat from Big Thang, Bruce Wang, for Howard and Ben. Does science use inductive or deductive reasoning? Which one are you using to support your claims? I don't know the specific definitions for those so I don't want to muddy any waters by taking shots. I'd take a shot. I'd say that we reduce the false variables to get closer to the truth. We might never fully understand or find the answers, but if we can deduct false narratives and if we can reduce false claims as lies and prove that they're wrong, then at least we're going in the right direction. So I would definitely say deduction. Production of false variables. Thank you, panel. And Big Thang for your Super Chat. $2 Super Chat from Michael Alien. It's a matrix reincarnation soul trap 100%. Not sure where it ends. All right, where does it... Putting that out there. Send in love. Thank you for your $2 Super Chat. And another $2 Super Chat from Anita Carrethra. Are the rest of the rock's brains, lungs, felli? Yes, sure. As I showed in the video, my friend Mike has found what looks like half of a lobe of a petrified brain. And there is a documented whale's brain that's vitrified in California. So there is petrified wood everywhere. There's petrified brain, which we don't find as often because brain is fatty tissue. Fatty tissue seems to petrify as crystal, and crystal shatters easy. Lungs are like compartmentalized. So it would break into pieces very easily because the lungs are in sections and some other organs are. And all the other organs tend to be not very distinguishable. So 70% to 80% of the smooth stones are just rounded, which goes with the whole mechanical erosion theory. But 20 to 30% are clearly harp shaped. And as we see throughout the stones, there's variety, but they have the same features that I've listed, just like the anatomy of a heart throughout all the kinds of creatures also have the similar features, even though they can be longer and wider and stuff. They still have the listed features that I've mentioned. Thank you so very much. Keep on sending those superchants in. We appreciate the support. But moving to the next normal question from Travis, and I'm going to reinterpret this in a nice way. He is asking Howard and Benjamin, how is what you're not presenting special pleading? Or how is what you're presenting not special pleading? Probably. Yes. I'm trying to reinterpret that in a nice way. He was saying that what you guys were presenting was special pleading. Okay. All I'm pleading is that people reproduce the observation for themselves. That's repetition. That's part of the scientific method. And it just came back to me. We don't find many bones, maybe because they took the initial impact of the cataclysm, or they might have liquefied like we see in bone broth. So yeah, there's lots of explanations and ideas, but the main thing is repetition. Make your own observations and see if you get the same results. That's what I predict. You will. So sorry, my dog just jumped. This is going to sound silly-ish. I'm so sorry. My train of thought got broke. I mentioned earlier that a foundation of young earth creationism is founded on the creation part, God's existence and whatnot. So some things, depending on your definition of special pleading, we would kind of have to take it face value because we are pleading or claiming a miracle, a creator, a supernatural intervention. So I can't necessarily say everything I said isn't special pleading. However, I think there are things that, at least I brought up, I'm not familiar with every part of Howard's argument, but from what I had studied, I think there were parts of mine that don't have to be special pleading. And I'd be open to engaging with any particular example. That's my overview. Thank you so very much. A big $10 super chat from Flat Earth or very silly heads. A thousand years from now, somebody finds a Harry Potter book that must be real also since the Bible apparently is. Spice is real. So I personally don't like this claim because it comes from my tribe, right? And while I think there are valid criticisms to be made, I think that the genre that we see in the Bible is a different genre than you see in Harry Potter. Some of them are genres that don't exist anymore. So it's very pithy. And I think in some ways it can be a valid criticism, but I'd rather not lean on stuff like that. Just take the Bible as a book from history that records the beliefs of ancient peoples. You don't need to go any further than that. I'd say that the Bible might stand for basic instruction before leaving Earth. If you actually, if you look at just the Bible book, if there's morals, etiquette, and good standards of ways to compose your behavior that can help you live a better life and help other people like you, I don't see how you could mix that with a Harry Potter book myself. It's nothing to do with each other. The Bible wasn't written in English, though. I'm going to leave that there, I think. ESV was. Okay, okay, a two-shot. Thank you. And a $5 Super Chat again from Maester Willie saying, can Jordan, first, and Amy, second, please explain their theory how to explain ballot-back? What, me? I'm not sure. I'm sending. Does time love to hear Howard and Ben's view, too? I think that meant Jordan and Erika, so I'm just going to reinterpret that. Can Jordan, first and Erika, second, explain their theory how to explain B-A-A-L-B-E-K, ballot-back? If there's time, love to hear Howard and Ben's view, too. Bail-back, B-A-A-L-B-E-K? It looks like an ancient city, an ancient megastructure. If you just look it up, it says that it's, I guess, to the Temple of Bacchus, which I believe he was a god of wine in celebration, and also at the Temple of Jupiter. I don't know. Look, guys, I talk about animals, okay? History is not my jam unless it's in the way past history. I don't know exactly what the questioner is asking.   Look how big and impressive I am. I can build a big thing. I don't see that it needs an elaborate explanation. Are you trying to say they may be inferring giants from that? Is that what you're putting in? That's the only thing I got. That's my punch, too. I'll come at it from a different angle. It sounds like it's definitely built by people. And I think there's a reason that God says we shouldn't have false gods, because then you build giant, awesome structures dedicated to the false gods. $10 Super Chat from Anna-Kartha again. Stands in love, Erika and Jordan. How does it feel to know that we're surrounded by petrified phele if a rock is shaped like any organ or a part of any organ than it was an organ, therefore evolution is dumb, Q-E-D. I'm not trying to add to that. It's airtight. It's airtight. I can't touch it. I'm good. Jordan, this one's on you, dude. No, that's a Jordan question. I want to hear Jordan's thoughts. So, okay. Trying to be, you know, have decorum. It's very common for humans to see patterns in things when they want to see patterns. There's a reason we do this. It's because we evolved as pattern-seeking mammals. We evolved from people on the savannah who, if you heard that rustling in the grass and you assumed, oh, you know, it's just the wind and it was a lion, you died. Whereas if you thought, oh, rustling the grass must be something real and you ran away, you're fine, right? And so those are ancestors. And so that's why this sort of thing happens. I think that part of the scientific method, part of the reason we do science is to avoid those biases, right? To systematically get rid of those. And by do science, I do not mean go down to a stream yourself and look what you see because that is not science. Science is a careful method where you systematically remove bias from your observations and use systems and the rigor of the, I'm rambling now. You use the scientific method to avoid bias is what I'm saying. Well, it seems bias to not go and make an observation when a new information has come to you, you should go and check for yourself without hoping to find the results. Then you aren't looking for the, yeah, you won't have pareidolia if you're not looking if you don't want to find them results. But if you do make the observation and you find those results, then you might change your opinion and your worldview just like all the globe skeptics didn't want to become globe skeptics, but when they make their own observations at water level or check moonlight, chilling water, they start to open their mind that, yeah, maybe we don't know everything about the world that we live in. Humble. I can't hear you, Amy. Goodbye, Amy. Can't hear you. There we go. Still can't hear you. Oh. I was doing a magic trick. Can you hear me now? I have to do the double tap because if you don't do that, how do you know if zombies are going to get you? Flat earth are silly heads once again. $10 really coming. Says no. A Harry Potter book is just as valid as the Bible written by men specifically to entertain. I strongly disagree with that. I don't think that any reasonable person, I don't think if you look at scholars in the field, right? We as atheists need to be better than this. We as atheists cannot reject scholarship whenever it appeals, doesn't appeal to us and accept it whenever we want. So if you listen to biblical scholars, they do not think that the Bible was written as entertainment. And so I don't think that we as atheists should be as flippant at rejecting the good scholarship just because it serves a good mean. That's my opinion. Go ahead, sorry. I was going to say that was a great logic and I think that extends to all of humanity, Christians, atheists, that's good logic. It should, right? We should do our best to understand the world around us. People like that mean, but I tend to disagree with it as well. I look at the Bible and it's very clearly it's a compilation of numerous super books written by people through time and they very clearly had something to say and they were unified under cultural ideas. I mean, the text is important. No one can deny that. I'd just quickly add that if the Bible is written by men, it was divinely inspired and if Harry Potter was written by men, that could have been demonically inspired because they're trying to normalize and promote black magic to her children. So yeah, up and down. I would perhaps draw my line there hard. Because I think a lot of texts, I'm not going to discriminate. I think numerous ancient texts are vitally important to understanding the human condition and what people thought at the time and how that influences us now. They're important. I don't know why that's controversial, I guess. I just don't think that our thoughts are our own. I think that every thought we have, we don't have any original ideas. I think that everything's inspired from another dimension. So yeah, I see that the Harry Potter is normalizing black magic and the Bible is going the opposite way. It's telling you how to be pure and test all things, which is why I'm asking people to make their own observations because that's what the Bible says to do. If so, if you believe that, Howard, wholeheartedly, then how do you feel about your own thoughts? Well, hold on. We're supposed to be doing audience questions now. Don't go to crosstalking. I'm so sorry. We've got free will. We've got free will, but we get inspired from other people's influences. And I will say the spice is coming because I see more double, two scoops of comments from Flat Earth are very silly heads. So $10, I'm going to take every Bible and replace it with my name. Then, in a thousand years, I'll be God, apparently. Just because it says so. My point, no evidence for God whatsoever. It's a book. Well, I suppose my path to response would be it's very uneducated. So I would leave that there. I'd agree that there's insufficient evidence for God. I think it's too much to say there's no evidence for God because you can have bad evidence, right? So someone's personal testimony of a divine encounter is evidence. It's not evidence I find persuasive. I think there's many flaws with it. So I think you could say there's insufficient evidence. There's bad evidence. I think no evidence is going too far. Yeah. We all know about the Fibonacci spirals that we see throughout nature. It's kind of a fingerprint book. Keeping the spice is real. And you will know he who controls the spice controls the universe. Another $10 from Flat Earth silly heads. I pretty much, if you don't believe in the right God, you're screwed. There are thousands of gods. Which one is the right one?  So that's a fantastic question. I actually made the kind of on a sidebar the response that God was serious and was being very honest with us when he said we shouldn't make false gods. Now, 10,000 false gods later, everyone says, well, look, there's a God around every corner. So I think the conversations deeper than the fifth response he just gave, but perhaps if we took God at his word, we wouldn't have this conundrum. I would propose this since, you know, I mean, coming from an anthropologic perspective, right? Like since the dawn of time humans have, you know, worshiped gods. They have found ways to, and this is my opinion, to rationalize the world around them, right?  Like, who knows? There's lights in the sky and loud sounds.  And people have taken different stances of anthropomorphization of the deities that they worship, but I would, you know, be, I guess remiss not to point out that there are gods that people worship that existed before the oldest, you know, evidence that we have of the Hebrews, we're speaking Yahweh or Elohim or El. So what I would, I think that isn't a question that you kind of have to ask, right? Like for those folks out there who are religious, like how do we know which one is correct? Because I would imagine that of the dominant religions today, and if you took a slice of time in the past in any civilization, the dominant religions then, everyone thinks they're right. And I guess that kind of makes it tough for me, right? Like that's a sticking point in my opinion. You know, people are doing what people tend to do. So. I'd just like to add that there's only one truth. So there's more likely only one creator. And all of these other gods spout with a little G are lies, whether they're man-made or whether they're something out of our perception that we can't really understand. We don't know anything. That's why we call it faith. And my idea is that we should be searching for truth and humble and not assume that we know everything, even in a religious perspective, which is the, if the Bible is right, which version of the Bible is right? So I think we're supposed to keep testing all things and keep an open mind and stay humble that there might be a lot more than we can understand or a lot more that we haven't yet seen. $2 super chat coming in from John Rapp. Age of the moon? Rocks are consistent with Earth aging. Let me read that one more time. Age of moon rocks are consistent with Earth aging? Question mark. And I quickly say that the moon rocks that were donated to the Dutch royal family turned out to be petrified would. So how do you know the moon is a rock? Only Michael Jackson can do the moon walk. I don't believe that they ever went on the moon. What I'm going to say is that we've radiometrically dated asteroids and meteors that have hit the planet, and they gave an older date than the age of the Earth. Not by much, but it is older. The idea is that they were the kind of the age of the solar system at formation, correct me if I'm wrong, Jordan, right? They formed prior to the Earth itself. So the Earth is a bit younger than these asteroids and meteors that we date, but it's what? Less than half a billion years? A couple of hundred million? They would have formed out of the protoplanetary disk same as Earth did some millions of years before. Is the leading theory for the moon is it ejection theory, something collided with the Earth and basically pulled off the crust there? What is the leading theory for the formation? I believe that's correct. I think that's right. I think that's correct. I think that's correct. I think that's correct. I think that's correct. The protoplanet that slams into Earth, they both lose a ton of matter, but because of the nature of gravity, a lot of it pulls back coalesces. And the material that didn't coalesce with the rest of the kind of stragglers, again, because of the nature of gravity and orbit, coalesces includes a much smaller little planetoid. I don't think, at its surface, that kind of raises skepticism to that. And then, obviously, a young Earth, not even counterargument, but point would just be that it could have been also put into place this way as it looks. Can I quickly add that the creator obviously made a yin and a yang, a positive and a negative in everything. We have male, we have female. Just like I said before, if you test this for yourself and leave two glasses of water in the garden during the full moon, one under the moonlight and one shaded from the moonlight, not sheltered, just shaded, like a sundial, the shade moves, yeah? So neither has to be sheltered. Moonlight can measurably be checked as lowering the temperature of water that's left under it. And with a magnifying glass, you can lower the temperature, magnify the effect, manipulate the effect so you know it's the independent variable. Moonlight chills. Check it for yourself. Don't believe me. So how is it a rock reflecting sunlight? And also, all of the craters that we see on the face of the moon and we only see one face of the moon ever from any part of the world, they're all exact round. None of them have got skid marks, yeah? And where did these craters, sorry, where did these, how did these craters form from asteroids and meteorites? Because if we're looking at the same face of the moon all the time, what did the asteroids come from Earth? Through Earth? Because if they came around or from a different angle, there'd be skid marks. So there's a lot of questions about the moon, especially how it chills water that tell me that we haven't got skid marks and then it's all believed. I'll let them answer if they want, but then I will say that if you have a burning desire question, I'll try and get all of the regular questions in, but that'll probably be the last one that we have to take. So if you want yours in, it's going to have to be through those superchats to go back to the front.  It wasn't a flat Earth or a cold moonlight debate, so I'm just going to choose not to answer that. Alright, so then I am actually going to keep on going down another $10 superchat from Flat Earth or Silly Heads. So since they don't think it's entertainment, then that means it's real. No, it means it's a dropping bombs. I mean, hey, he's dropping the money in the channel. Wow, that's awesome. So yeah, obviously not. So it's that they're different genres of literature. Like Erica said, the different writers had different messages. If you look at Job, he's struggling with the problem of evil. That's a very different message than the writer of Romans. You know, it's just, it's not all one thing. They were written by different people over the course of centuries for different purposes. Just for you. It's okay. We could be nuanced in here. And alright, going to move on. Oh, another superchat from Mark Reed, sending $5 in love. Howard ask is there anything you could not believe based on faith? If not, then how is faith useful for determining what is true? Could you repeat that please? Absolutely. For Howard, is there anything you could not believe based on faith? If not, then how is faith useful for determining what is true? I don't think that faith determines what's true. I think that testing all things is the only way to verify what's true or at least what's false to get closer or to get less options of what could be true. So yeah, test all things. Having faith that there's more than us and just the whole point that where does consciousness even come from. So yeah, you have faith it means that there's more to life or in afterlife than what we can understand but what we can understand and what we can test, we should. We shouldn't debate beliefs. We should compare evidence and see what supports beliefs more than debating what we believe or what we've read and thinks true. Faith is more for the supernatural in the afterlife and why you should be good and stuff. Question from Jason. Have any other remains usually been found in the vicinity of the heart shaped rocks or from Jason? Bones, organs as Erica mentioned etc. Have other remains usually been found in the vicinity of these heart shaped rocks, bones or other organs as Erica mentioned? Yes, about 70 to 80% of the smooth stones that you find on the coast, the river bed and under mud and in valleys are the other organs which are less distinguishable at best you can see a kidney being shaped stone and say that might be a kidney but the fact that the heart has so many anatomical features as listed in the video I've shown they are a lot more easy to distinguish and to recognize and to list and then when you get the same pattern over and over and over again then you start to realize it's not paradoxical because they're so easy to find but this is why I tell everybody please check for yourself and then talk to me I'm not asking you to believe me. Super chat, $10 thank you so very much Kango Howard you can't have cold light objects absorb energy, light is energy temperature is a measure of an object's kinetic energy so you're saying that moonlight slows down molecules as it absorbs as it's absorbed I'm saying that it makes water cooler and with a magnifying glass you can make it even cooler that's called the independent variable, check for yourself maybe we need to redefine the laws of thermodynamics or maybe it's not giving cold maybe it's taking heat like the female is a negative she takes in and the male is a positive he gives out we've got heat, we've got cold all throughout nature there's positive and negative even in the atom there's electrons and protons but we're not talking about what shape or what earth is so yeah it's better that we don't go too much into it Question from Ogre and I also see two super chats coming in send in love Jordan are there twice the number of rock lungs to rock hearts you know that's a great question that I'd have to I don't know man I have not done the empirical observation this is hard to answer that question why is Jordan getting all the good questions like I said before lungs are much likely to break down into smaller pieces and be unrecognizable because the lung comes in segments so yeah send in love to Ogre and the panel more spice is real from flat earth is silly and he says I'm just going to say it we have pictures of earth and not one person has a photo forensic specialist confirm otherwise we don't have any photos of a whole country from outer space which is why we watched the weather report in front of a cartoon sometimes the cartoons flat sometimes it's round but they're all cartoons kingdom, Australia daytime or night you'll see that they're all composite images at best or CGI but yeah it's not about that is it $5 super chat looks like this was in reverse order let me go $10 super chat again from flat earth silly heads so we agree the bible is not fact that's why we do this I'd agree that you can't uncritically take what the bible says is fact obviously it's an ancient work you have to examine it like any other ancient work sometimes it's going to record facts about history the best thing it would be used for more than anything else is saying what the ancient Israelites or the early Christians believed like it certainly is direct evidence of that may I say that the bible can understand the changes throughout history so that we can understand it interpret it and apply it to our life no matter what age we're born in because it was written in a way that makes sense to people at that time no matter what time it's just more of a guide of how you should live and as well like Jordan said it does have historical and it did make predictions that have come true as well I didn't say that part just to be clear $5 super chat again from Flat Earth Silly Head says I like how you edit their name a little bit I just like to keep in and sending out all the love out there so thank you so very much once again for supporting more fantastic debates we're going to do a few three or four more questions if that and let's head to our outros and the after show on discord send in love out there and alright church of entropy ask question for both is it a coincidence that all planets in our solar system are the same age to within 2.3% no nice and simple Travis I was just thinking very sustained it's right clear nice Travis ask Howard can you explain how rock hearts pump blood just like coal can't be squashed or twisted because it would polymerize a lot of the smooth stones dense folds how do you get a rock with a smooth pale skin that when you fracture you see it's been fractured so how did they get these rocks to morph into different shapes maybe they got petrified while they were being squashed or being twisted or folded which you will see for yourself if you go and make your own observations question coming in from my name was God's recurrent laryngeal nerve for the giraffe a mistake I'd agree mainly because I don't think God exists and alright I do think this is going to be the last comment question for the night big thang wants to know is it hotter in the day or the night what's missing at night well obviously the moon is cooling down the earth at night right try to keep up man yeah just compare moonlight to moon shade not sheltered just like a sundial can give shade try for yourself I don't have the answers I'm just telling yokey reduce the false variables check for yourself well the spice is real it came in at the very last second sending more love from can go sending us $5 said Howard for God's sake please read a book maybe on erosion like professor Dave says some books as a thing so I'm supposed to believe it and ignore the primary observations that are reproducible everywhere I go and everybody that has made these observations has ended up coming back to me or Mike and saying wow I'm finding them too and look it's got all these correlations so you can believe in a book a geology book or you can make your own primary observations same with the moonlight you can believe what NASA have shown you on the television Hollywood screen you can put some water out in your garden with a thermometer and even a magnifying glass and then try and explain it with your moon rocks I do want to add just as a point for my own sake because I'm not exactly sure what you're poking out there Howard I think books and reading especially understanding history is incredibly important so I'm a big fan of books I just want to put that out there me too but don't think that that books true without making your own observations because if you just believe what you're told or what you read the Bible says test all things so that's what you're supposed to do you read things and then you verify them like Jordan says you make a prediction and then you test it and see if you get the results that you thought but when you can manipulate something like with a magnifying glass or looking over longer distances at different times of the day from different angles and you get the same results that there's no curvature, don't know if the earth's flat but yeah test all things, make predictions, manipulate the course, that's science not just believing what you're told or read in a book forgive me I'll be super pithy I hear that scripture quoted a lot and if you read it in its context test all things specifically related to spiritual things to see what is good if you read it in context it's not there talking about making a whole bunch of scientific observations if you read Paul's letter and the context of the people so I'm only putting that there because I hear that a lot and I've been wanting to address that but what God created is true what is true is good anything that's not true is bad because it can mislead humanity into a worse place so yeah, test all things because everything is spiritual and any lie is mind control and mind control isn't going to get you to where you want to go in this life or in afterlife to interrupt one more time another $10 Super Chat from Flat Earth Silly Heads Photoshop is not fake still have not came up with the photo forensic analyst to prove your claims that all photos of Earth are CGI I didn't say Earth I said find a photo of a real country try try instead of just denying it and then go and look at a video of the globe spinning and tell me why the clouds aren't moving in a half rotation the clouds are still in the same place whether you look at the Discover satellite the Himawari satellite or the Gotha I forgot the other names they're all rubbish they forgot to make the clouds change they're supposed to grow shrink move over 6 hours sorry 12 hours half a rotation yet they don't they forgot to make the clouds morph and shrink it rains in 12 hours and the whole globe shows the clouds not moving not shrinking not growing so yeah you can't find a real video you won't of the globe you won't find a real photo of a whole country check for yourself I'm not bothered if you believe me or not just check for yourself it's conspiracy theory nonsense man I'm sorry but like the amount of people that would have to be in on that kind of conspiracy theory would have to encompass the entire globe but you it's completely implausible I'm not going to get into it because it's not the state just check for yourself I'm not asking you to believe me just check for yourself find a video with the clouds moving please try and find a video with the clouds moving I'm open to see it and I'm open to change my mind but unless you can provide evidence of the clouds moving with the globe rotating or a photo of a whole country which you'd know as a photo because you'd see more definition than just all green like the cartoons on the weather report try, try and prove me wrong like I went on television and offered 10,000 euros Spanish national television and in three years I held my offer nobody could take the money off me so I'm just open minded to earth being more than a three dimensional shape that's why I'm not a flat earther I think only the creator knows what the earth is and I think only the creator knows what age of the earth is and I think that our ego to be as gods the whole idea of atheism is that we are gods is to be arrogance and think that we figured everything out there's always more to learn none of that's true but if you want to pay my salary as an engineer for a year I will answer that question for you right now I'm telling you if you write me a check for my year's salary I will dedicate my life to answering that question which question any fucking question you want man why is there no reproducible photos or videos why is there no observation showing the landscape hidden below or behind the horizon at the distance I can give you a distance of 5 miles there should be 5 meters 10 miles should be 20 meters 20 miles should be 80 meters a vertical drop if you can find t