Debate Night: Origin of Life

Added: 2026-05-13

[00:01:59]Mhm.

[00:02:48]>> [music] >> Welcome everybody to Swords of Reason right here on the Speakeasy show Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. This is where logic meets passion. If you're new here, the format is very simple. Each debater gets 10 minutes for their opening statement followed by 5 minutes of uninterrupted rebuttals. After that, we're going to enter the arena for a full hour of back and forth debate. This is where the arguments can clash and the iron can sharpen the iron. And finally, each side delivers a 5-minute closing statement to lock in their case. Uh when that's done, we move into the 30-minute Q&A. I'll drop the Q&A in the chat for you all, but keep in mind these super chats, PayPal's, and Cash App questions will get priority. So, if they fill up the entire 30 minutes, we may not get to the free chat ones. So, if there's something you want guaranteed to be asked, uh make sure you send it through one of the priority options. And once the formal debate wraps, uh we open the doors for a chaos and chill panel. That's where the community can hop in challenge the debaters if they choose to stick around cuz that part is optional for them.

[00:04:02]But it's always where things are fun regardless. Today's debate prompt evolution versus creationism and the prompt evolution provides a better explanation for the origin and diversity of life than creationism. And representing the evolution side, we have First Amendment are known for his hot news discussions, political debates, and his First Amendment show calling show right here on YouTube. He's built a name by diving into today's biggest headlines, talk taking on challenges live, and not shying away from the smoke. So you can find his channel linked in the description below. All right, and representing the creationist side tonight is Dr. Kent Hovind, a man who has spent decades in the trenches of this very debate. Whether you agree with him or strongly oppose him, there's no denying his impact on this conversation.

[00:04:57]A long time Christian evangelist and one of the most recognizable defenders of young Earth creationism in the modern era. Known for his rapid-fire style, relentless energy, and willingness to debate virtually anyone. He has challenged mainstream evolutionary theory on stages across the world from documentaries to lecture halls, from viral debates to packed conferences, he's built a reputation as someone who doesn't back down from intellectual conflict. And you can also find his links in the description below.

[00:05:30]Uh with that being said, we're going to get into opening statements. We agreed First Amendment, you're going to go first. So whenever you are ready, First Amendment, I will start the timer up with your voice. Appreciate it. Let me I need to share a PowerPoint, so just give me one quick second to get that going.

[00:05:48]Go ahead.

[00:05:50]Uh share screen.

[00:05:53]Uh share screen. Is there a Hold on.

[00:05:56]Give me a moment.

[00:05:58]Appreciate your patience with me while I do this.

[00:06:03]Okay, do you see it? There you go. Yeah, I see it now. I'll bring it up for you.

[00:06:08]Okay, so this is uh evolution provides a better explanation for the origin and diversity of life than creationism. So I had to consider like what exactly that I was going to talk about in order to address this particular topic and I was able to come down to the best way to explain this was if I provide a biogeography crash course.

[00:06:30]So I apologize it's going to be a little wordy, but hopefully it will make more sense as we go through it and you understand the evidence that is mounted against Kent Hovind.

[00:06:41]So uh this you can see right here as appears to be Pangaea, which uh allowed for an even disbursement of creatures freely being able to travel across continents. Uh the biology was vastly different compared to today, but we would observe vast common ancestry across creatures that we see now.

[00:07:02]Eventually the Tethys Sea, and that is the section that you see on the right there, not the left, uh began widening each split apart of Pangaea into two distinct landmasses, Laurasia and Gondwana. Each ended in their own unique evolutionary trajectories. Laurasia was the Arctic, Gondwana was the tropic.

[00:07:22]Laurasia pine genus, or scientifically called the Pinus genus, uh I they named it that, saying pine trees exhibit a clear Laurasian distribution that only grow in areas that once belonged to the {quote} Arctic realm. And we can see on the bottom right a modern uh map of the, uh, penis range map.

[00:07:47]The Laurasian pressures, otherwise known as cold, this enabled there to be more pressures for cold-blooded creatures than preferred warm-blooded capable of regulating their temperature. This explains why there is a huge increase in mammalian creatures across the Laurasian supercontinent. This is also exhibited in fossil records as well as modern mammals across Laurasia. The cladogram that you see on the left has been reconstructed from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA protein characters verifying an independent source outside of fossil records.

[00:08:21]As Laurasia age also began to break apart, there was a cut line between Greenland and Laurasia and Eurasia splitting the Arctic region in two, the Paleoarctic and the Neoarctic. This split indicates why we exhibit Laurasia shared ancestry resulted in all flora and fauna having a direct analog across the Atlantic. This was also reinforced with the periodic reconnection through ice ages between Russia and Alaska in the Bering Strait.

[00:08:49]And in the Gondwana or the warm, this is where you see the first true primates including great apes in the center of Africa. By then, Gondwana was already splitting apart. Primates weren't even able to fully distribute themselves but were able to go to South America and India.

[00:09:07]And this is why you actually see specifically a dispersal of primates in a Gondwanan distribution.

[00:09:15]Here you can actually see the split between Africa and South America establishing their own ecosystems. South America was the Neotropic and Africa is the Afrotropic regions.

[00:09:26]This ended up with South America having sloths, anteaters, and armadillos and Afrotheria received aardvarks, hyraxes, and tenrecs.

[00:09:36]Sorry, tenrecs.

[00:09:37]With the Arctic megafauna, this left much larger herbivores to emerge from these groups. Sloths speciated into ground and aquatic sloths, anteaters into modern giant anteaters, armadillos into glyptodonts. For those who are not aware what a glyptodont is, I posted a picture of what of the skeletal remains of a glyptodont.

[00:09:56]They were very big.

[00:09:58]And then, of course, you have uh Proboscidea or what you would have imagined as elephants, specifically having a proboscis for their nose. Uh that it stems from having a common ancestor of the hyrax.

[00:10:14]When the north met the south, uh Africa met alongside Eurasia, which resulted in the creatures navigating and interchanging from the north to the south alongside their evolutionary pathways. This is also why elephants, having traveled north, resulted in mammoths growing bigger and regrowing thicker fur. Lions, giraffes, hyenas, zebras all got their start in the Eurasian realm.

[00:10:36]The subtropic region separated by the Sahara enabled an ecosystem that maintained its own separate of the north of Africa and the Eurasian subcontinent.

[00:10:44]This is where primates are and, with the exception of humans, remain here.

[00:10:49]The same happened for the Americas along with the connection of the Panama Canal, which caused an interchange species between the North and South America. It was not equal, however, and many Nearctic and Palearctic species made it to North America through the Bering Strait.

[00:11:04]Those in the north that made it through highly dangerous and Arctic were the most competitive species resulting in camelids to make it over to South America resulting in llamas and alpacas.

[00:11:14]Felids that migrated to uh to the south became panthers and cougars, and Rodentia turned into capybaras. Native animals in South America, such as ground sloths, became extinct due to this migration.

[00:11:26]This also reached a southern continent to reach a transitionary zone between the Arctic and the north tropic South to a temperate zone enabling migration that some of the most that created some of the most diverse regions in the world.

[00:11:40]Similar recombination also happened in India likely with a single species of monkey which were then isolated which brought on many species of monkeys throughout India. Eventually India collided with the Laurasian continent enabling a mixing of creatures. We can look at Gibbons, Macaques and Langurs as native to India.

[00:11:57]Because India is smashing into the Eurasian continent, this created a strong barrier between the species except for Southeast Asia. This led to a fusion of the Indian Southeast Asian species. This resulted into the region referred to as Indomalaya.

[00:12:12]This leaves Australia. Having been part of Gondwana, Australia remained connected to Antarctica for roughly 40 million years after the split between India.

[00:12:22]Uh marsupials had transferred from the north to and moved southward reaching Antarctica and Australia. Most marsupials were were outcompeted with the exception of Australia. There is a tiny amount of marsupials still in the North and South America such as opossums, but most were driven to extinction due to mammals. Australia without any mammalian competition enabled them to be the most competitive.

[00:12:44]It started from one marsupial species.

[00:12:46]From the top left to the bottom right, we can have kangaroos, koalas, wombats, quolls, Tasmanian devils and the extinct thylacine.

[00:12:53]This is what made the Australasian realm. The landmasses pushed pushed further and further north allowing for a recombination of the Indomalayan realm.

[00:13:02]This is why there is a clear distinction of flora and fauna across Indonesia otherwise known as the Wallace Line. A new interchange has in fact kickstarted within our day.

[00:13:12]Antarctica had its own diverse biome, but roughly 50 million years ago was sent to the shadow realm killing almost everything off.

[00:13:20]This leaves the Earth with seven distinct terrestrial biomes with exception to the Pacific Islands which completely independent of their own distinct flora and fauna being an eighth island destination on their own unique biomes in the Pacific volcanic distinct biota. It's different in every island.

[00:13:38]The reason why I told you all this just now is because should the biblical hypothesis hold true, we ought observe speciation occur roughly around the surrounding beginning post flood spread around Mount Ararat. However, we do not see this by geologic record, by DNA, by special similarity, or by ecological realm. Ergo, evolution, not young Earth creationism, is the best explanation for the diversity of species we observe today.

[00:14:03]Thank you very much, and you can follow me on YouTube for youtube.com/atfirstamender.

[00:14:08]Appreciate it.

[00:14:10]>> [snorts] >> All right. Thank you for that opening statement.

[00:14:14]>> [cough] >> And with that, we're going to hand the mic over to Dr. Kent Hovind. Whenever you are ready for your opening statement, I'll start the timer up with your voice, and I know you got something as well.

[00:14:26]So, here I'll I'll make it big screen for you, and you can go through it whenever you're ready. I'll start the timer with your voice.

[00:14:34]Well, thank you so much. That's a great PowerPoint presentation you did.

[00:14:37]However, science deals with what we can observe, study, test, and and and replicate. We cannot observe any animal producing offspring other than their same kind.

[00:14:46]Nobody's ever seen a koala produce a non-koala. You can draw a line on a chart between a koala and an elephant if you'd like, but that is artwork, that is not science. Science is what we can observe, study, and demonstrate. Do the experiment. Nobody's ever seen an elephant produce a non-elephant. You guys draw all these family trees like it's part of science, it's nothing but a religious belief in my humble opinion.

[00:15:07]If you believe those things are true, that's fine. I don't care what you believe, but don't call it science.

[00:15:12]Okay, as far as the origin of life, the purpose of this debate, I think it's important when you talk about the topic of evolution to get into the fact that there are six different meanings to that word, or levels or stages, maybe. First would be cosmic evolution, the origin of time, space, matter. That is purely religious. Nobody's ever seen a big bang produce a universe. You can imagine that if you'd like, but it's not science.

[00:15:33]Then you'd have to have this initial big bang producing hydrogen and helium turn to all the other elements. How do you get gold, silver, and platinum from from hydrogen? I'd like to learn how to do that. That's never been observed. It can't be done. They say it can happen in stars. Well, you can't fuse past iron.

[00:15:49]So, again, chemical evolution is purely religious, and you're welcome to believe that, but at this at this stage in world history, it is not part of science. Then we have stars evolving and planets evolving. That's never been seen. Then what we're talking about tonight, organic evolution, the origin of life.

[00:16:03]Nobody has a clue how to make life in the laboratory. All the scientists in the world combined cannot make an acorn.

[00:16:12]Yet that acorn knows how to make an oak tree.

[00:16:15]Uh nobody All the scientists in the world And if all the scientists in the world someday produce life, all that would prove is it takes intelligence to make life. It would not prove it could happen by chance. So, uh you have a first amendment, you have a very good imagination, a very good skill with PowerPoint, but that's not science. I'm sorry. There's nobody's ever observed life coming from non-life. Nobody's ever observed any life form from bacteria to whales producing babies other than their same kind.

[00:16:41]God said 20 times in the first seven chapters of the Bible the animals and plants would bring forth after their kind. That's what every farmer on the planet has observed for thousands of years.

[00:16:51]So, if you were to believe something else, that would be a religion, not a science. Then you have to have macroevolution, where an animal changes to a different kind of animal. That's never been observed. Nobody's ever seen.

[00:17:01]You draw lines on paper, and you make claims, you know, that this one turned to this one, and this is all these diversified from a common ancestor.

[00:17:08]Those are simply claims. They are not observable science. We don't And fossils aren't going to help at all. You talked about the fossil record a couple times.

[00:17:15]No fossil counts as evidence for evolution. When you find any fossil in the dirt, all you could prove is it died.

[00:17:23]You cannot prove it had any children.

[00:17:26]You cannot prove it had different children. No animal today is capable of producing babies that are other than the same kind.

[00:17:32]But yet you think somehow bone in the dirt could do that. That's why it's a religious belief and you're welcome to it. But I wish you guys would just admit it's a religion, quit using tax funded expenses to support your religion in our public schools. Evolution has nothing to do with science and should not be in our school system. Microevolution is a lousy term. I don't think they should use it, but they do. Microevolution just simply means there's variations within the kind.

[00:17:55]The original created dog kind was able to produce some dogs with longer fur, thicker fur, some with thinner fur. And those with thicker fur like the wolf or the uh husky, they survive better in cold climates. They seem to like it better.

[00:18:08]The ones with thin fur like a greyhound, they they don't like the cold weather.

[00:18:13]They like hotter climate. So I think I think we can probably agree that all the dogs in the world and wolves and coyotes and dingos and maybe a couple other types of animals that look like a dog probably had a common ancestor called a dog. You know, wolf, I agree. So and the four [clears throat] different kinds of elephants, you know, African elephant, Asian elephant, mammoth, mastodon, probably had a common ancestor.

[00:18:32]But it doesn't prove it's related to a banana.

[00:18:35]You guys make these family trees like it's some kind of science. And I'll show you. Here's the family tree they use in our textbook. Boys and girls, humans, birds, [clears throat] dinosaurs, ladybugs and pine trees and worms and frogs are all related because we drew lines on paper connecting them.

[00:18:49]They're all the different I I would think probably all all the different hummingbirds could have come from a common ancestor. That would be science.

[00:18:55]But to say that hummingbirds are related to people and and potatoes is not science.

[00:19:00]All it is that these family trees are drawing lines on paper. It's artwork.

[00:19:05]And even if later someday it's proven true, as of this point in history, 2026, it's not science. It's it's not observable. Okay? Now, you're talking about Pangea. Maybe you're Maybe you're unaware of the fact people say where Africa and South America connected. Uh they're still connected right now underwater. If you lowered the water level or raised the water level, the shape of the continents change. The shape of Africa and uh and South America is a pure coincidence based on the water level.

[00:19:31]By the way, I'm in Indiana uh in a car sitting out on the street. So, if I get lousy signal or something, I apologize for that. I I I come up because my wife's mother is very very sick. Very very sick. So, probably not going to make it. Anyway, so we come up to visit her. Anyway, family trees. You say you you guys believe by faith, it's a religion, that a protista or bacteria or an amoeba, a single-cell creature of some kind, turned into everything. Fish, humans, apes.

[00:19:56]All forms of life on Earth today are descended from a common ancestor. This is what the kids are taught. And of course, if you teach a kid this 12 years in a row, he's going to believe it.

[00:20:04]It doesn't make it science. It doesn't make it true. It just It's a propaganda propaganda technique. You can teach kids communism's good, communism's good, and the Chinese kids and the North Korean kids learn that. In Germany, the not Hitler taught them what Nazism is good, Nazism is good. The fact that you can get a mass of people to believe something does not make it true.

[00:20:22]All forms of life came from a common ancestor found in a population of primitive you and I cellular organisms. We all came from bacteria. This is what the kids are taught.

[00:20:31]I taught science 15 years, science and mathematics in high school. And this is the I collect public school textbooks. I have probably 4 or 500 of them. This is what they're teaching. That is There's no traces of those events remain.

[00:20:42]No No fossil. The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches.

[00:20:55]The rest is inference, however reasonable. It is not the evidence of fossils. Even Gould admitted that, and he was a great believer in evolution.

[00:21:03]So, I feel bad for these guys making these family trees, drawing lines on paper, and claiming these evolved in Australia and these evolved someplace else.

[00:21:11]That's not a scientific statement.

[00:21:13]That's a religious statement. You say the butterfly and the humans are related? Probably all the butterflies could have been related. I wouldn't argue that.

[00:21:21]But that doesn't prove humans are related to butterflies. So, family tree of dogs. And we could go on all night.

[00:21:26]Watch my video series. It's all available on drdino.com.

[00:21:29]You get all my videos. We broadcast live every night Monday through Friday on many channels. Every They keep taking us off of YouTube, but run everything else on Facebook. Let's see. Facebook, Rumble, X, we have our own app, kenthoeven.tv, Instagram, TikTok. Uh it gets Go to drdino.com. All the channels are listed there. So, what I want to do is I I defend the position.

[00:21:49]The Bible says God created the heaven and the earth in 6 days. I cannot prove that scientifically. I think that's the only logical option. If I found an ink pen laying on the sidewalk, and I said, "Nobody made this."

[00:22:01]Everybody think I'm crazy. This is simple ink pen, a marker.

[00:22:05]What do you know? I don't see it. Is that 10 minutes, is that 10 minutes?

[00:22:09]Oh, no. No, that's not 10 minutes yet.

[00:22:11]You still got 3 minutes. Okay. Well, I I I admire the faith of these guys like First Amendment. I you know, they have great faith in their in their belief, but it goes back to several unfounded ideas. One is that all the layers of the earth are different ages. The geologic column started in 1820 really, 1830, when it really became popular. This is It doesn't have It doesn't exist. All the layers are the same age all over the world. Thousands of petrified trees have been found standing up running through all the layers.

[00:22:41]The There's no such thing as a geologic column. If the top layer is younger, I keep asking people, "Where's this dirt coming from?"

[00:22:48]Is it coming from outer space?

[00:22:50]All the layers were formed during Noah's flood with the moon pulling the water up and down called tidal pumping. If the moon's pulling the water up and letting it back down, it means it's rushing in and out sideways, and that's what made all the layers. Go to experiments in stratification video on on YouTube. So, I think the whole problem comes because you guys have been taught for years and you probably believed it that the layers are different ages and the fossils found in those layers mean something as far as changing to something else. All the layers are the same age and the fossils in those layers mean they all drowned in the flood. If there's any sorting, it's better to explain by other factors like habitat. Clams are at the bottom cuz they live at the bottom. They're the first ones buried. Birds are at the top cuz they're the last ones to die.

[00:23:31]They're sorted based upon their body density. Clams are heavier per cubic inch than birds are. They're sorted based upon intelligence and mobility.

[00:23:38]That's the other factors. It has nothing to do with evolution. So, I'm sorry. I'm sorry they taught you that and that you believed it, but there's no such thing as a geologic column. All animals always produce after their kind. There are simply no exceptions. Dogs always make baby dogs. And you can selectively breed for smaller or larger or more ferocious or tamer or floppy ears or ears standing up, but it's always going to be a dog.

[00:23:59]You're never going to get anything other than a dog. And there are limits.

[00:24:03]There are limits to the size that you They want to get bigger dogs. They're okay, you got the Great Dane. You're never going to get a dog as big as an elephant, but there are animals as big as an elephant, like an elephant. I I would say God made them to bring forth after their kind. That's all we Anybody's ever observed and we've always observed there are limits. Variations within the limit.

[00:24:22]And so you guys wish to imagine that, you know, carrots and and bananas and and humans are related, that's not science. That's all. Go ahead.

[00:24:32]All right. Awesome. Thank you for that opening statement. And uh with that, we are going to get into the rebuttal round. So, this will be uh 5 minutes for each of you to rebuttal right directly to your opponent's opening. So, it's no interjections yet. And then after you each get 5 minutes, we'll get into the open hour. So, we'll hand the uh mic back to First Amendment.

[00:24:55]Um when you're ready for your uninterrupted rebuttal, I'll uh start the timer up with your voice.

[00:25:00]Okay. And so, I wanted to start off by saying uh I wish I I I don't know if you if I heard you correctly, but was it your mother that's sick?

[00:25:09]My wife's mother, yes, yeah.

[00:25:10]Your wife's mother. Okay. Well, I wish her well. Uh I wish the wife's mother well that that they uh uh do all right.

[00:25:18]Um, I'm an atheist, so I dare not pray.

[00:25:20]Uh where I hope the wishes is probably going to be best. Uh uh So, as for uh the idea of microevolution, so to adhere to microevolution is to adhere with macroevolution. However, with more steps. Uh it's it's as if that if I made like little baby steps uh that if I if I did had enough time would it result in in large uh tracts of land? I would imagine if I inched along wanting to walk a mile, eventually I'd reach a mile. It would take more time, but it is possible. If you can adhere to microevolution, then you would adhere adhere to macroevolution, but with more steps. Um, also, there is no like micro or macroevolution. There's just evolution.

[00:26:08]Um, to state that evolution is a religion, not a science, we've observed these fossils having a clear movement based on the fossil record, transitionary species that follow exactly what we expect based on biogeology, based on genetics, based on the fossil record. Um, stating it is just lines on paper, it is not lines on paper. The lines on paper represent connections based on a genetic basis or an endogenous retroviruses, similarity of creatures, flora and fauna, all of which lead to common ancestors. To state that I admire your faith, I do not have faith. I only have conviction. I only hold my conviction and do not possess faith. Animals only produce after their kind. That is correct. I know your phrasing on that. You've been saying that for several years. It is correct.

[00:27:05]Animals only produce after their kind.

[00:27:07]Vertebrates will always make vertebrates. Eukaryotes will always make eukaryotes. Mammals will always make mammals.

[00:27:15]You always have your ancestry forever.

[00:27:18]You simply share a common ancestor which shows an adherence to evolution, not against it. And with that, I see the rest of my time.

[00:27:30]Okay.

[00:27:31]>> All right. So, we'll hand the mic back over to Dr. Kent Hovind. Whenever you're ready, I will start the timer up with your voice.

[00:27:39]Well, thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

[00:27:40]Mammals always make mammals. You always stick with your ancestry. What he tried to do just there is to sneak in the idea that we can go Dogs always produce dogs and vertebrates always produce vertebrates. Now, hold it.

[00:27:52]That is sneaking in something that's never been observed. You You said several times in your rebuttal that the fossils are evidence.

[00:27:58]You can't prove any fossil had any children.

[00:28:02]You simply cannot prove that. You certainly cannot prove any fossil found anywhere had children that were different than itself.

[00:28:09]Nobody sees animals today doing that.

[00:28:11]And your answer was classic. I like I'm going to use that one. You said, you know, given enough time.

[00:28:16]That proves it's a faith. It's not observable. Science what we can observe.

[00:28:20]You don't observe dogs come from non-dogs or produce non-dogs. Nobody's ever seen that. You believe it could happen if you had enough time.

[00:28:28]That's my point. It is pure faith. By the way, I forgot at the very beginning I should have objected to You called it evolution versus creationism. It should be evolutionism versus creation.

[00:28:39]The ism goes on the evolution like communism, Nazism, socialism, okay? It's It's a belief system. It really is. And I think if you go back and listen to you just said, uh you'd have to agree that you slipped [clears throat] in several admissions of of you you you take that you believe it. You have a conviction.

[00:28:54]You don't have knowledge. I I think in science class we should teach science, not somebody's religion. If you wish to believe it, fine. Now, all over the world, all the continents have what's called a continental shelf. If you lower the water a few hundred feet, the uh uh Australia or Africa, I mean, uh uh Alaska and Russia are connected. They'd be the beach way out there.

[00:29:15]If you raise the water a few hundred a few hundred feet, that's what America would look like.

[00:29:20]The oce- There's what the beach would look like if you just This is just lowering the oceans 300 ft. The oceans average 12,000 ft deep.

[00:29:27]If you lower the oceans a few hundred feet, everything is connected. Australia is a peninsula off of Vietnam.

[00:29:34]How did the kangaroos get to Australia?

[00:29:35]They hopped. That's how they get everywhere. So, I think the ice caps would be huge. I believe the ice age took place at the very beginning of the flood. The ice caps were formed very quickly. I covered that on my video number six. You can get those on drdino.com. If the ice caps are bigger, that means the oceans are smaller. Like, duh. You you lower the ocean level and everything's connected. So, uh less aggressive animals could go from where Noah's Ark landed if over several hundred years while the ice caps are slowly melting back, um that would give them time to get wherever they wanted to go. We have a continental shelf around almost all the continents.

[00:30:10]If you lower the oceans two or 300 ft out of 12,000, that's near nothing. So, lowering the oceans 400 ft, everything's connected. So, the whole idea of Pangaea that the continents are sliding around and moving is unnecessary. Just lower the ocean level and you connect everything. Anyway, so that's uh my take on that. I think uh uh where did I go? Mammoths.

[00:30:31]I go to the theory that the mammoths had long hair and they they find they find them frozen standing up.

[00:30:38]Frozen standing up with food still in their mouth, still in their stomach.

[00:30:41]And they didn't they And they suffocate they suffocated.

[00:30:44]They didn't drown.

[00:30:45]I believe they were buried in rapidly falling snow from the beginning of the ice age at the beginning of the flood.

[00:30:51]Now again, I I can't prove this scientifically. I think that's a logical explanation. So, if if I was going to demand that everybody pay for my belief to be taught, then I think the burden of proof would be on me. But the burden of proof is on you evolutionists who who demand that everybody pay for your belief to be taught as part of science.

[00:31:07]We should have a special school for those who want to pay and come learn it and go learn all the evolution you want.

[00:31:13]It should not be included in our public school system. Let's see. Uh The debate tonight is the origin and diversity of life. I think the origin of life cannot possibly be explained without a creator.

[00:31:25]So far, all of all efforts to produce life have failed. The complexity of life is unbelievable. One cell in your body is more complex than the space shuttle.

[00:31:35]And the average person has a hundred trillion cells. They say if you extract all the DNA from all your cells and unwind it and tie it together, it'll go across the solar system twice.

[00:31:44]That's the code to make one human being.

[00:31:47]Now if you wish to believe it happened by chance, okay, you believe what you want. But that's not science. It is way too complex. It had to have a creator.

[00:31:55]Now if if some people don't like that, okay, I'm sorry.

[00:31:58]That's the way it is. There's a designer of this universe. And I think the guy who designed it not only created life, he created each life with the ability to produce diversity of children.

[00:32:08]One couple can have ten children and they can have all different. You can get a redhead, you know, blond hair, blue eye. Um red hair from one couple. The diversity in the genetic code is amazing, but it's limited. This is where you guys either don't get it or can't admit it.

[00:32:23]The diversity of an amoeba or a protozoa, they can produce some that are resistant to heat, some that are resistant to cold, some resistant maybe to a pesticide. Okay? But they're still a bacteria. They're still a single-celled creature. You But you in your wild imagination believe that that ability to produce a variety can turn it into a whale over billions of years.

[00:32:44]Not science. Thank you.

[00:32:47]I'm sorry about the timer. I forgot I didn't have it muted.

[00:32:50]And thank you for that uh opening or sorry uh rebuttal. What we're going to do now is move into the open floor.

[00:33:00]Um real quick, let me talk to the audience.

[00:33:02]If you're watching right now, make sure you hit the like button, subscribe to the channel, and subscribe to tonight's debaters. Their links are in the description. Uh we host all kinds of debates here on Swords of Reason, politics, culture, ethics, internet topics, uh religion, anywhere where reasoning and passion can collide. So, if you enjoy this format, make sure you stay locked in cuz we have a lot more coming for you all. A reminder to the live chat after closing statements, we're going to be doing a 30-minute Q&A.

[00:33:32]The Q&A is up there for you, but the super chats, PayPal's, and cash app questions will get priority. So, if they fill the whole 30 minutes, they may not get to those ones. So, if you have something really want answered, uh make sure you send it through one of those options, and we'll make sure it gets asked. And uh finally, thank you to both of our debaters for being here tonight and bringing your perspectives into the arena. Uh whenever one of you is ready to start the open floor exchange, just go ahead and jump in, and I'll start the timer up with your voice.

[00:34:01]So, I I didn't want to go off and like wanting to question or discuss your faith specifically uh because I I don't think it's actually relevant to the discussion. The specific prompt is evolution provides a better explanation for the origin and diversity of life than creationism. So, I don't I don't need to like get you to concede uh saying that God does not exist or anything. You can still believe in God.

[00:34:25]Um specifically, the question that I'm uh going to ask is I gave a very a very uh detailed explanation to the existence of uh many many different species on planet Earth uh showing the uh uh bio bio geological pathways and giving you specific uh criteria of that. So, um if what you're saying is true, why do we not see migration from Mount Ararat between all species if what you're saying is true?

[00:35:00]Well, suppose all the fossils in the world were formed in 1 year in Noah's flood.

[00:35:06]You know anywhere where fossils are being formed today?

[00:35:09]Billions of animals are dying every year. Colonel Sanders killed a bunch himself, and none of them fossilize. The In order for something to fossilize, it has to be buried quickly under proper conditions, and under enough pressure that the minerals can be absorbed into the the fossil as it slowly decays. Now, so nobody sees fossils forming anywhere.

[00:35:26]But, the world has trillions of quadrillions, if you want to count diatoms, of fossils. I think nearly all of I'll give it a 99.9% of all the fossils in the world formed in 1 year in Noah's flood.

[00:35:38]And, they're sorted based upon various reasons, body density. You can put a bunch If you put a dead uh squirrel, a dead uh clam, a dead bird in a large jar and shake it up, it'll settle into different layers cuz they have different body densities. Has nothing to do with evolution. Finding one below another one does not prove that's the grandpa of the one above it. If I get buried on top of a hamster, that doesn't prove he's my grandpa.

[00:36:02]This whole idea of You guys really trust this fossil record, and it's you take it by faith. You take these family trees completely by faith. Here we have a an elephant on the far left connected with a line over to where a bat comes in.

[00:36:16]Do you believe an elephant and a bat had a common ancestor? This chart says there is. Nobody's ever seen a bat produce a non-bat or an elephant produce a non-elephant. This is your faith. You don't want to admit that, I know, cuz then it makes you sound religious.

[00:36:29]But it take you We we observe elephants produce elephants. That's been seen all over the world. We don't observe elephants and bats coming from a common ancestor. This is imagination. This is a belief system. You're welcome to it, but stop calling it science.

[00:36:42]All right. You didn't address at all what I was trying to ask you. I'm going to ask you again. Okay. Um why do we not see migration from Mount Ararat, but instead see migration based on the bio geological locations that I've presented? Why is it spread out in that way? Like Like You don't see >> why do we see the the Pinus genus like that? Why does it exist that way as opposed to separating from Mount Ararat and going out >> Okay. I'll I'll answer it real simply.

[00:37:09]You don't see migration from fossils at all. All fossils tell you is they died.

[00:37:15]They don't tell you that they're migrating any place. The fact that we find certain fossils in certain area The fact is nearly all types of animals have been found in most of the layers, but if you found a If you found a a dinosaur bone in a in a layer of dirt, it would automatically be They would classify the layer as Jurassic because it has a dinosaur bone.

[00:37:34]How do you know What's the difference between Jurassic limestone and Cambrian limestone?

[00:37:38]It's both limestone. The only way they classify these is by the fossils they find in them. So, the fossils determine the name of the layer and the layer determines the age of the fossils. It is pure circular reasoning. There is no geologic column. You can't see migration from fossils.

[00:37:54]It's not possible.

[00:37:55]Finding a squirrel fossil in some place doesn't mean it came from some place else.

[00:38:00]Fossils are not forming today.

[00:38:02]Let's say for example that um the we find that there is a a wolf a wolf carcass and through carbon dating we're able to determine that the wolf is 5,000 years old.

[00:38:17]Um and then uh but we don't find anything really you know, newer than that. We just it's just 5,000 years in carcasses of wolves in that location.

[00:38:29]And then let's say that we look to the east, we look to the north, we look to the west and we see to the east specifically there's uh wolf carcasses 4,000 years old.

[00:38:41]You're saying that you cannot infer that migration occurred within a thousand years?

[00:38:48]Okay, you have way more faith in carbon dating than you should. Carbon dating was invented after World War II with the atomic bomb. They realized, "Man, this is producing some strange things, you know."

[00:38:58]Carbon dating is based on obvious assumptions that you know how much was in it when it died. How much C14 was in it when it died? All of the carbon dating is done by comparing the fossils to today's carbon 14 content. I cover this in great detail on my video seven.

[00:39:14]Tell what, if you want to call into my show any night, we have question answer every night, but I spend lots of time debunking carbon dating. People who understand it don't use it. They said, "Ah, this is not going to work. It's based on obvious assumptions."

[00:39:24]If I ask you uh if if you're walking into a room and found a candle burning on a table, let me get up.

[00:39:30]I got I got tons of stuff on this.

[00:39:32]Carbon dating is based on the geologic column.

[00:39:35]The geologic column doesn't exist.

[00:39:37]There's no such thing as a geologic column. All the layers formed in one year. Polystrata trees prove that.

[00:39:44]So, here we go. Uh right.

[00:39:46]Too many slides. 100,000 slides.

[00:39:48]>> So, so um So, carbon dating is not based on an assumption.

[00:39:55]Carbon dating we what we look at is we look at carbon 14 and carbon 12 and we add those two together. That would be the original amount of carbon 14 based off of logarithmic half-lives.

[00:40:09]So, are you saying that half-lives aren't real?

[00:40:13]Well, I I I I understand this very thoroughly, okay? Yes, carbon-14 decays at a certain rate today. Half of it decays every 5,730 years.

[00:40:23]Has it always decayed at that rate? We know solar sunspot flares and solar the solar cycle can affect the rate of carbon decay.

[00:40:30]And plus if the earth if the animals in the original world That's empirically false.

[00:40:36]Well, you're you're you're incorrect, okay? Check it out. The rate of decay from carbon-14 and all the radioactive elements, you don't know that they've always been the same. You don't know the initial content. I use the illustration to help people understand. If I told you to fill a barrel with water, but I drilled holes in the other side. As you put water in, eventually it starts leaking out the bottom hole, then the second hole. Eventually you reach a place called equilibrium. You can't fill the barrel past that point. They knew about this problem with carbon dating when they invented it back in 1950, Willard Libby, University of Chicago.

[00:41:06]They knew that the sun is producing the carbon-14 on the earth by striking the nitrogen atoms, turning them into carbon-14 instead of instead of nitrogen-14.

[00:41:15]So, they said, "Wait a minute.

[00:41:17]This the sun is producing the C14 and it's decaying at a 5,730 year half-life." I agree.

[00:41:24]So, earth's atmosphere C14 equilibrium. They say it would reach it >> you agree Would you agree for like for example the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

[00:41:34]Or would you just reject the Dead Sea Scrolls just out of curiosity? Let's not Let's not change topics yet here, okay?

[00:41:39]No, it's the same topic. It's regarding carbon-14. Okay, well, let me finish what I'm I point, okay?

[00:41:44]>> Okay. They They They decided when they first invented carbon dating that it would take about 30,000 years for the earth to reach this equilibrium point where the sun is producing it at the same rate it's decaying.

[00:41:56]30,000 years to reach equilibrium.

[00:41:59]Then they said, "Wait [clears throat] a minute. The earth the atmosphere is still not reached equilibrium."

[00:42:04]But they said back in 1950s, "We know the earth is millions of years old, wrong. So, we can ignore the equilibrium problem, wrong. It has still not reached equilibrium. Radiocarbon is forming 3828 to 37% faster than it's decaying.

[00:42:18]They've known this since 1985.

[00:42:20]Well, if the rate if carbon 14 is if we still haven't reached equilibrium, there was more in the atmosphere today than there was yesterday.

[00:42:27]Cuz more C14 is forming. Well, that means you can't carbon date anything.

[00:42:31]A freshman law student could destroy this in an honest court of law.

[00:42:35]Fluctuations in the rate of C14 production. At times the production rate will exceed the decay rate.

[00:42:41]This has been known for a long time.

[00:42:43]It was invented after World War II. It's an attempt to tell the age of something that contains carbon, meaning once alive, I understand. The formation rate can be affected by the sun and stars and Earth's magnetic field changes. Google it.

[00:42:55]It's only used for objects less than 60,000 years old. Doesn't even work for that. Samples are easily contaminated.

[00:43:01]No C14 should be left in samples over 250,000 years old. Yet all of them all fossils have some carbon 14 in them.

[00:43:09]They assume the Earth's atmosphere has reached equilibrium and it hasn't.

[00:43:12]So, I'm sorry. You're mistaken. Here's the illustration and you can have the floor. If you walk into a room and the lights are >> of of of radiometric dating as well as carbon dating.

[00:43:22]Carbon dating is specifically uh is referring to half-lives. There will always be an amount of carbon 14 because you're basically splitting it in half. You have to ask yourself like if it takes 50,000 years for carbon 14 to convert into carbon 12 by half, then what about the half of that? Well, then there would be 25% and then after 25% it'd be 12.5% but it would just kind of keep there would be an amount of carbon 14 that would exist basically forever for for as as as long as ever. It but it [snorts] stops being accurate after roughly 50 to 60,000 years in which case we use radiocarbon dating. I guess like my my question is I kind of figured that you would like assume that um uh that that like U-235 to lead concentration ratios are incorrect. So, I figured that I'd go with carbon dating because we have done carbon dating on several biblical uh accounts and we've also done carbon dating on known kings and uh you know, their artifacts and had have gotten very accurate uh results from that to to a very high degree. Um so, I mean I guess if you have to just deny the existence of carbon-14 and its validity, you would basically have to throw out like all of like actual biblical icons and and and artifacts that have been recovered and used carbon dating to determine exact times and dates.

[00:44:54]And so, therefore like the my whole uh position on on that we could observe migration based on carbon or radiometric dating to you would just you basically just have to deny all of reality.

[00:45:09]I don't know how to get this to work.

[00:45:10]>> I deny your position. I don't deny reality. The reality is, look at me, the Earth's atmosphere has still not reached equilibrium.

[00:45:18]So, you'd have to know when it lived to figure out when it lived.

[00:45:22]Okay. Um so, how how old do you think like Roman times like were? I think we have written historical records going back thousands of years, you know, four maybe 4,000. I don't know about Why is it that car we can look at artifacts and get accurate carbon dating?

[00:45:40]If you took a If you took an artifact to broke it up in six pieces, took it to six different laboratories, you would most likely get six different answers.

[00:45:48]>> No, you get accurate results. You Well, then you're mistaken. You need to study that. So, in order to get any amount of sampling, you need to have a sample set and then you would grab an average out of that in order to get an accurate reading. Uh okay, so you like a different So, you admitted you did get different numbers.

[00:46:05]>> different from here and there, but it's it's on the basis of a uh it is it is on the basis of a collection of of of multiple things and ensuring that it is not doesn't have uh uh direct access to oxygen. Like, for example, with you uranium 235 um we can't have it uh like exposed in the air because we actually had lead in the air from our gasoline. So, it throws off the numbers.

[00:46:29]So, it has to be not exposed in the air and underground. But, I mean, I guess like again we can confirm carbon dating works and we also know that radiometric dating works on the basis of of how the experiments You just admitted it can be contaminated.

[00:46:46]Yes.

[00:46:47]Well, then how do you know it wasn't contaminated from something else for 5,000, 10,000, 10 million years ago?

[00:46:51]>> Because the location that it was dug in was buried in the ground.

[00:46:55]Okay. Could you ask Mary Schweitzer who found soft dinosaur tissue? That has been found now thousands of times. Soft dino blood vessels, blood cells, dinosaur. Why won't they carbon date that?

[00:47:10]What?

[00:47:10]>> They offered they offered her enormous amount of money. Would you please carbon date this dinosaur sample? I'm I'll tell you your answer. They know it's too old.

[00:47:18]Yeah.

[00:47:19]Well, because so so They found the remains of of of uh soft tissue by providing a very heavy amount of chemical uh makeup, but that's that's beside the point. Um the problem is is that we can observe migration patterns through the death of animals. And so, I I ask again we can observe these migration patterns based off of the biogeological boundaries, but we do not see migration from Mount Ararat. We see migration in the sense of the biogeologic uh regions that I've exhibited to you today.

[00:47:55]So, why do I see migration from Mount Ararat?

[00:47:59]Okay, you find a dead squirrel in Oklahoma. How do you know it's migrating from anywhere?

[00:48:05]You carbon date the squirrels that are found in the ground.

[00:48:09]And carbon dating has lots of problems as I said before.

[00:48:13]>> say you have 5,000 year old dead squirrel and then and then that's like the the latest that we found assuming obviously squirrels exist now, but you get my point.

[00:48:24]And then we observe later on we found 4,000 year old dead squirrel then it is safe to assume that the squirrels migrated over the course of a thousand years to those locations.

[00:48:36]Well, that is that's a wild assumption.

[00:48:38]First of all >> So, why is that not pretty obvious?

[00:48:40]First of all, if the carbon 14 is still increasing in the atmosphere, all you know is it lived at a different time.

[00:48:45]You don't know it moved anywhere.

[00:48:47]Your migration pattern desperate desperate attempt to rescue a dumb theory. That would show that it existed over there and then in the future it exists here.

[00:48:59]So, we know it moved.

[00:49:00]So, how So, then it would have moved.

[00:49:03]No. What if all squirrels lived all over the world and that one died at a different time? Okay, but then when we dig in the geologic column and we can find older and older squirrels and transitionary models to squirrels.

[00:49:15]Squirrel is a mammal. We can observe that that would have existed among the among the Nearctic and the Palearctic where it was physically connected.

[00:49:27]Why do we observe that? Why is it not there in the Afrotropic or the Neotropic? Well, hang on. Moderator, my battery is about to die on my laptop.

[00:49:36]I'm sitting in a car. I've no way to plug it in and charge it. Can we continue the debate in a next week when I can get back home and can plug in?

[00:49:43]Or I can do it on my phone, I think. Are you able to Do you have a cable to plug into your car?

[00:49:48]I think I think it's just that there's nothing to plug it into. It's an adapter. It's 110 V.

[00:49:55]117, 120, depending what you want. Okay.

[00:49:57]So, I apologize. Uh it's going to it's flashing at me. It's going to die any second. So, yes, carbon dating is not reliable. You're You just admitted, without even realizing it, you trust all this migration pattern stuff you're teaching based on carbon dating, which is not reliable, and based on the geologic column, which doesn't exist. If the top layer is really younger than the bottom layer, please tell me where this top layer came from. How can Holocene be dirt? Where was Holocene dirt hanging out for billions of years waiting to land? The the the the layer comes from dirt elsewhere.

[00:50:28]Well, then it's the same age.

[00:50:30]No, no, no, because it gets deeper and deeper.

[00:50:35]So, where's it Where's the new dirt on top?

[00:50:37]How can the top layer be younger? I showed you polystrate fossils.

[00:50:40]>> Volcanism.

[00:50:42]Oh, that's that's for igneous rock. So, tell you what, let's please let's please do this debate another time. I'd be honored to do this. I I think we should You talked several times I actually got to go. We've only been going for like 18 minutes. My computer's about to die.

[00:50:54]>> Well, we've been going for almost an hour. You We've been going >> [sighs] >> We've been going almost an hour, but Are you able to plug it in somewhere?

[00:51:02]Probably. Not in the car though, where I'm at. I'm in the middle of nowhere here.

[00:51:05]Uh battery is very low.

[00:51:06]>> [clears throat] >> Okay. So, uh no, I'm not afraid of this at all. There is no geologic column. There is no evidence animals migrated.

[00:51:14]And even then, coming from Noah's Ark, the flood would have destroyed the world, and that layers all formed in one year during Noah's flood. There is no geologic column.

[00:51:23]If I shuffle a deck of cards, is the top card younger?

[00:51:26]No.

[00:51:28]By shuffling dirt around doesn't change the age of it.

[00:51:30]Every speck of dirt in the world is the same age. There is no geologic I know that's your Bible, but there is no geologic column. I'm sorry. It's It's not my Bible. It's If Why Why is it that we observe uh uh uranium-235 greater degradation the deeper that we dig that we dig as opposed to higher up on the column if it's all the same age and there is no geological >> First of all, I don't know that that's true that we do. ICR.org in Dallas, Texas. ICR.org has lots of articles on uranium potassium argon dating and uranium lead uranium to lead a 2208 206.

[00:52:07]So, I think you're you're simply mistaken.

[00:52:09]>> 235 and 237 Right. And just so isotopes and it follows. Uh just so that it doesn't like die off on us and then we can't uh uh establish anything before uh Kent goes. All right. Obviously, debating while mobile is rough. I understand that and I want both sides to be able to operate at full capacity. So, like I mean everyone already enjoys uh tonight's as its own event, but if both debaters can agree that we can schedule a continuation next week where you both have a stable setup when we pick up where things left off. You know, I I think that would be great so that you know, technical or travel limitations doesn't become the story of the debate, right?

[00:52:55]>> I mean if at all possible, Kent, um would it be possible like if you hung up and then went to go charge us give it give it like I don't know maybe it would take 10-15 minutes and we just wait here for you?

[00:53:06]Or then we might just run >> [laughter] >> Then we're just going to run into it again, right?

[00:53:13]Well, I don't know. You could just plug it like plug it Dude, this is planned two weeks out. Like why is he in his car? Well, he he he said he Remember he he got called out of town. He had uh Yeah. He had uh things, you know, things happen, right?

[00:53:27]Things happen.

[00:53:28]Tis his life. Tis his life. All right.

[00:53:31]I'm going to say By the way, for those who who did submit a super chat, I have the questions saved. I have it on my desktop. So, uh one way or another these questions will get answered.

[00:53:43]Um Yeah, I was going to say even with your questions, keep those too because like I don't want next debate to just be a restart. We'll we'll do a continuation from here. You know what I'm saying?

[00:53:56]Yeah. Man, what a shame. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:54:00]It happens though. It happens. Yeah, and he let me know that he's going to be mobile cuz he got called out of town, family emergency.

[00:54:08]So it it does happen, but be able to contact him in any way and ask, "Hey, we can maybe wait 10-15 minutes?" Or is he just he's done for the night?

[00:54:18]Uh I I mean I could try, but I think, you know, I would ask. to be fair to him, right? You know, he's he's he's said he doesn't think his his wife's mom may make it and he's mobile. Yeah, fair enough. Like I said, I want you both to have I want the this to be a good debate, not a story of technical issues and uh you know.

[00:54:43]And I know he I know he he's not he's not backing down. That's >> you guys I mean if you guys want, if you got I mean if you want like I can turn on the phones and just have whatever people call and I don't know, we'll still make a show out of it if you like.

[00:54:58]Cuz I was planning to to spend the whole night doing this. Yeah, I mean I have my call-in number. I can just turn it on.

[00:55:05]Or if you want, I can just put a link out for people to just come up and talk to you. That too. We can do that if you like.

[00:55:13]Okay.

[00:55:14]Uh do you guys want to do you guys in the chat want to come ask Amanda questions?

[00:55:21]Do you want it to be based off this topic?