Young Earth creationism - Destiny debates Kent Hovind

hey everybody today we are debating is there evidence for young Earth Creationism and we're starting right now hey friends stoked to have you here for this really interesting war of worlds you know a gentleman crossing over into different worlds this is going to be a lot of fun or excited to have you here and we are not going to waste time we're going to get right to it so first one I may make a point to say we would love for you to be here whether you're Christian atheist Jedi SIF no matter who you are we are a neutral Channel and we want to welcome people from all walks of life so with that feel free consider hitting that subscribe button as we are excited for upcoming debates and now I wanna introduce our speakers so destiny on your left in the main view is not only you could say I think it'd be fair to say I think you told me atheists at the earlier on destiny right yeah I'll say agnostic atheist sure that's where okay I'm flexible that and Kent Hovind as you know as a Christian and they're debating is there evidence for young earth today destiny is a popular streamer and he is on Twitch as well as YouTube and both of his links are down in the description so if you're like hey I really enjoy listening to this oh you can reach out to him there or see more of this content also Kent Hovind glad to have you back again and as mentioned Kent is a Christian and he is a young earth creationist he will be arguing today for that position and his links are down in the description so if you enjoy his content you want to know more about I think it's dinosaur Adventureland right yes sir you bet that is down in the description box and so you can check out their content so thank you both for being here it's a it's a joy to have you and Shannon Q down in the bottom right glad to have you thanks so much for being here she is going to be I just I'm so scattered today forgive you everybody I'm linking her in the description right now Sam there's she is uh just one of the more congenial people and she's also one of the people that I trust very deeply she's an atheist but I promise that between her like to say like yeah she's we're gonna run a fair deal here between the two of us uh and so we are thrilled to have everybody here Shannon and I will hand it over to you to do the format in just a second I want to mention the last thing that I almost always forget anybody who has a question during the debate can put at modern a debate in the live chat that helps me see it and I'm going to collect all of your questions from the live chat and it will put them into the list that we will ask her in the Q&A and I would encourage you get them in early we had a short and sweet debate today so Shannon with that thanks so much for helping moderate today and the floor is yours hi everybody welcome to the debate just a quick point of order before we get started our format today is going to be 8 minutes of opening statements from each participant 5 minute rebuttals from each then a 20 minute open discussion there'll be four minute closing statements and then after that there will be a 15-minute Q&A and that will be the place during this dialogue where we are going to be taking audience questions so today because he is the affirmative Kent has agreed to go first so I have my stopwatch ready to go and Kent you now have eight minutes please proceed well thank you so much for having me my name is Kent Hovind I was high school science and math teacher in Christian schools for fifteen years moved to Pensacola January of 89 and started a ministry called creation science evangelism I defend the position that the Bible is true the evolution there is the dumbest and most dangerous religion in the history of the world you have to believe that there's no God you can't possibly know that such a thing so evolutions actually and atheism actually is actually a religion it's not nothing scientific about evolution either so with a topic today is the age of the earth is there evidence for a young earth I think this is critical first of all I would point out that 6,000 years which is what the Bible dates add up to is not young 6,000 is a long time it's hard to visualize Abe Lincoln 170 years ago or Columbus 500 years ago six thousands a really long time now a 4.5 billion don't won't fit in the human brain if if 6,000 years was a nickel the thickness of a nickel sit 4.5 billion is about 60 inches long 5 feet and on the chart so it's 5 feet compared to the thickness of a nickel I'm convinced everything can be explained with the rapid creation six-day creation like the Bible teaches which is essential for all the symbiotic relationships there are so many plants that require certain animals to pollinate them and the plants and animals reciprocate the gases they have to be made within a few days of each other like the Bible says and I want to thank Steve for coming because it's very hard to find opponents this is by my reckoning my hundred sixty ninth debate that I've done I've been turned down over 7,000 time for people who refuse to debate and defend the theory I'm not looking for a fight I'm just looking to defend the position I think the Bible is true and you better get ready for your death in your destiny destiny you're gonna be dead for a really long time you might want to pack a lunch for that trip so I'm here to help I'll get both of you a boat you and Shannon converted before this is over with that's the goal anyway we're going to try I think everything we see in earth and geology and on the physics of the earth and in biology can be explained with the creation and a flood in 2nd Peter chapter 3 the Bible says the scoffers in the last days would be ignorant of the creation and the flood and that's the whole problem so our doctor died knows our web-site how old is the earth well there's two ways to answer this question there's a biblical answer and a scientific answer if you went scuba diving and you found a treasure chest full of gold coins and I asked you the simple question when did it sink when did the boat sink well you'd have to look at the youngest dates on the coins not the oldest ones the the youngest date will be the limiting factor if there is one scientific proof or that the earth is not billions of years old the case is closed and I understand if the age of the earth is can be limited down to a few thousand years the whole argument for evolution and atheism is over there has to have been a god I understand how important this is to the atheist and evolutionist they fight tooth and nail over this issue of getting billions of year I point out getting billions of years won't help if I told you a frog could turn to a prince if you kiss it you'd say that's a fairy tale but somehow they say if all if the Frog turns into the prince if you wait billions of year now it becomes modern science no it's not it's still a fairy tale time won't help the evolution theory it actually hurts it because things degrade but the second law of thermodynamic but with all that aside even if there were billions of years there is no evidence for evolution of any animal turning into any other kind of animal so I'm gonna try the today to show you what the Bible says and what science says about the age of the earth so if you find a fossil like dinosaur toe bone you notice it does not have a date stamped on it it does not have it doesn't talk you have to assign your date to that and the evolutionists will say this is 70 million years old the Christian will say no this is one that drowned in the flood the Bible starts off the very first verse and says in the beginning that would be the beginning God created the heaven and Europe so God least in the Bible God is claiming that he did it and John 1 in the Bible says in the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and all things were made by him so in the book of John it claims the word whoever that is made everything and we see later in John 1:14 that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us obviously Jesus so the Bible is clearly claiming that Jesus is God and Jesus made everything in Colossians 1 by him that's Jesus were all things created this is the Bible clear teaching that Jesus is God Almighty in the flesh and jesus said in matthew 19:4 have you not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female Jesus is claiming that was the beginning when he made them male and female mark 10:6 from the beginning of the creation Romans the book of Romans tells us by one man death came into the world man brought death into the world in the evolution theory death brought man into the world billions of things had to die in order for man to get here all the inferior unfit species had to die off or the superior new modified genes to be accepted and spread around the world this of course obviously my video number 5 leads to that philosophy leads to Adolf Hitler well let's eliminate the inferiors and speed up the the the process of evolution but the Bible's clear that man brought death into the world death and suffering is man's fault not God's fault in evolution theory of death is that he wrote the Bible says in first Corinthians that man by man came death and the Bible says Adam was the first man it's clear and Eve is the mother of all living that's what it says and it says in Genesis 5 that Adam was 130 when his son was born and that boy was 105 when his son was born and the grass out the dates it's easy to do from Genesis 5 and you'll come to the conclusion that the Bible clearly teaches the earth was created about 4000 BC which would be 6,000 years ago I don't put an exact date on it and say 4004 BC I don't know but it certainly was not millions textbook says the earth is millions of years old somebody is clearly lying jesus said the creek creation of Adam was the beginning so I think you need to realize if you want to say the earth is billions of years old which people are welcome to do there they're calling Jesus a liar that's when they're calling saying the Bible is not true here we go all right here if you claim the earth is billions of years old like I'm sure both of you do just make sure it be honest and admit you say the Bible is wrong and Jesus is lying or somebody recorded Jesus incorrectly so I would rest my case on the biblical answer being the earth is about 6,000 years old now when you look at the scientific answer that becomes a different can of worms here that is a very interesting field of study and science kitra 15 years I love show you in this stuff there are many scientific ways to prove the earth cannot be billions of years old now I'm not aware of any scientific ways that shall I - Allison but I'm aware of quite a few scientific ways that limit it to less than 4.5 billion and that's the current date they're giving 4.54 billion next week it'll be something more probably it always goes up to add more time as if time will help but if I and I'm fully aware that this issue of time is the pacifier for the evolutionist because given enough time in their mind anything can happen and if you take away time they're gonna cry like a baby I completely understand and I'm sorry that's just the way it is you can't have billions of years and I cover on my video number one called the age of the earth about fifty different scientific ways to show the earth is not billions of years old it cannot be billions of years old the galaxies are spinning the stars in the middle are going faster than the stars at the outside spiral galaxies indicate they cannot be billions of years old and I'm out of time but anyway we'll go through quite a few if you'd like scientific ways to show the earth but the Bible's clearly says 6,000 and if you want to call God a lie or that's your business but I would recommend you to think about that twice before you do that thank you so much well done for being on time Kent you are at eight minutes then one point six three seconds so very good all right are you ready Steve it's gonna be way shorter than eight minutes all right give me a moment Theresa whenever you're ready as soon as you start speaking I'll start your clock yeah so I'm mainly interested in the back and forth but I guess I heard a whole bunch of citing the Bible for claims here but we don't really have any evidence presented yet for an earth only being six thousand years old other than citing I guess passages from the Bible I heard a lot of very strange claims I don't know how many of these were gonna end up going through the idea that atheism is a religion I mean atheism literally means without religion I guess we can debate the semantics of whether not being religious also makes you religious there's the coin analogy on the boat the idea that if you find new coins and a boat that that somehow shows you III guess the age of the earth all that tells you was when the boat sank it doesn't tell you when the coins were created I'm not entirely sure where we're going with that one if you find a fossil doesn't have a date stamped in it there's like a number of different ways that we could date yeah I don't know I'm more interest to the back-and-forth I guess we can move on to that part basically I'm gonna be arguing that none of these are really evidence for creationism whatsoever I don't think I heard a single argument in favor it's more just kind of like nitpicking the scientific arguments because they're not either well understood or because they're being misrepresented in order to maintain the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and I'm more than willing to admit that the Bible is wrong and Jesus is either lying or doesn't exist all right well you were at a minute in five seconds so at this point we're going to be moving on to five minute rebuttal so Kent do you have a five minute rebuttal prepared for Steven statements well off 30 different ways if you'd like a theism is certainly a religion you'd have to believe there's no God how could you possibly know such a thing unless you have all knowledge unless you can be all places at one time which I doubt that you can see that would mean you know God could exist in some place or some time or some manner that you don't understand or don't see or can't know as far as the coins in the boat that's the whole point if it only takes one evidence of a young earth to prove the point it's just like if someone has 50 bits of evidence that says he's guilty of a murder you know his shoes are found at the scene his footprints are found at the scene but he's got one bit of evidence that says look I wasn't even in that town I was in Chicago case closed he's not he's not guilty so it takes one proof of innocence to prove innocence even though there might be 40 more things that somebody planted or who knows what but you can look at the evidences for a young earth and only any one of them would show that the earth cannot be billions of years old for example I mentioned the galaxies we see stars blowing up occasionally called a nova or a supernova nobody's ever seen one for we don't see stars forming at all I think my last count I think they were I forget how many less than 300 supernovae rings have been found they've only seen two in our galaxy in the history of recorded history two supernovas I believe humans have only a couple thousand years of history recording these events astronomers reckon there have been only three or four completely reliable observations of supernovae in our galaxy this is from Chora a couple months ago how many supernovae have they identified we have approximately 50 years or so observations with looking for supernovas I point out this guy says uh and then more than ten thousand but only three or four completely reliable observations so stars getting brighter is not necessarily proof of a star exploding just a spot getting brighter I would point out that even if there are thousands of supernovas I doesn't matter that is the opposite of evolution where are the stars forming nobody's even got a good see how a star can form how do you get dust to collect into a solid with Moyles gas laws and it just goes against all the physical laws and there's certainly no observation for it you can believe that but the current estimate is there are 76 trillion stars visible from Earth with the big telescope that's 11 trillion stars per person on the planet and we never see one form the Bible claims that God made all the stars I can't prove that but that's what I believe a Jupiter I got two minutes left Jupiter is cooling off I don't think anybody argues about that why do I Google this an hour ago why do jupiter and saturn give off more heat than they receive the reason is still unknown they said on cool cosmos unlike other giant gas planets Uranus does not radiate Neptune does radiate about twice as much energy as it receives from the Sun indicating that it like Jupiter and Saturn has an internal heat source hold it if three of the gas planets out further way out in space are giving off more heat than they take in this is going to put a time limit this is like a coin in the box that says bingo stop wait a minute this might mean they are less than 4.5 billion years old you can't keep giving off heat forever pretty soon you've given off all your heat so Jupiter and Saturn Jupiter gives off twice as much heat as it receives from the Sun how can Jupiter still be cooling off Jupiter's moon Ganymede has a very strong magnetic field which would require some temperature the magnetic fields are generated by liquid motion of a molten metal inside a body get'em II should have cooled off solid billions of years ago from the Denver Post so these planets that are that are still giving up have a magnetic field or still giving off heat I think is an indication there's an article from about Ganymede you don't google it Ganymede the surprisingly magnetic moon so I can go through we can took a look at the Stars or the planets or the Sun burning its fuel or the earth there's all kinds of scientific indicators the earth cannot be billions of years old Saturn's rings are very neat and orderly and yet they're spreading away from the planet and moving why haven't they disappeared and why does Saturn still give off heat infrared energy it still has temperature Steve I think I know you're desperate have the earth be billions of years old to make your theory sound reasonable it doesn't sound reasonable even with billions of year but you can't have billions of years there are too many indicators it's not Saturn's rings are vanishing they're disappearing from what it can't be billions of years old then the moon is going around the earth but the moon is getting further from the earth the moon is gradually leaving us a couple inches a year will the moon ever leave its orbit space answers the moon is gradually spiraling away from the earth well then that means it used to be closer why is the moon leaving us I think if you look at that say what the moon is leaving us it used to be closer that puts a time limit now what is that limit we can argue about but the moon is getting about 3.8 centimeters further away from the earth every year I think you got you gotta answer all these to get the earth to get your argument for billions of years okay thank you Kent so Steven you now have a five-minute rebuttal and then we will go into the open discussion segment I'll start as soon as you start speaking okay sure so I'm gonna move through the points that I heard and the points I can respond to I'll state again I didn't hear any evidence in favor of young earth creation just a whole bunch of random science questions so the first thing has to do with being an atheist or an agnostic okay the idea that because you're an atheist or making a statement there is no God that is not sure what a theist means you don't necessarily believe in the existence of a god that's it Gnosticism is a statement on whether or not you believe you can have knowledge about a god and in that regard I am an agnostic I don't believe you can have information about this so my thing would be an agnostic atheist I don't currently have a belief in God but I also don't know if you can know about the existence of gods firstly the second point we brought up was this the coin and the boat thing so I think the purpose of this argument is to show that if there is a rock on the planet that we can date at 6,000 years old that must mean that the planet is only 6,000 years old I'm having a really hard time following this it just doesn't stand to reason that we're not gonna find newer things on earth just because the earth itself is old this would be like saying your skin on your face is only a week old therefore you're only a week old well that doesn't make sense because we know that your skin replenishes itself the same way that rocks replenish themselves on the planet we see tectonic movements we see volcanoes we see lava we see all of this stuff happening all the time it's obvious that the earth is constantly recycling the materials on its surface this is something that's observed it's not even up for debate the idea that we never see stars form I know that the Hubble is not capable of seeing stars outside of our galaxy but I know that we do observe the formation of stars inside the Orion Nebula that's something that we constantly observe you can Google down and you can read all about the different types of stars and even planets that we think we are seeing form there now it's really hard to see this stuff because we exist in the blink of an eye on like the entire like universal timescale right scientists say what is it like 13.8 billion years is the age of the universe and we've been observing the stars for with you know with reliable instrumentation for 100 maybe so the idea that we can just watch a star fully form you know in 25 seconds is that's not gonna happen I don't know what the exact timescale is but it wouldn't surprise me if we could never watch the entire formation of a star in thousands of years because these are probably processes that take you know millennium at least you know for the idea of why planets give off more heat than they take in again this doesn't prove young earth creation but if I had to guess it's probably because when planets are formed at the beginning of any type of galaxy or any type of star system I should say the inside of a planet tends to be hot right they have active cores this is where our magnetic fields come from so for instance the earth has a magnetic field Jupiter has a magnetic field Jupiter here's another one of those planets that was formed has a very hot interior and probably gives off more heat as a result of that there isn't me they're gonna do it forever it doesn't mean they've been doing it forever and it doesn't mean they have to only be 6,000 years old because they give off more heat than they take in at some point that process will probably stop for instance Mars his core is a dead core Mars has no core that is active anymore Mars also has no electromagnetic field as a result of that and on the final thing for the moon is gradually leaving us a couple inches a year a lot of these assumptions about how things are working now and then trying to date them back by billions of years saying oh well look you know if you go back you know what some billions of years theater the moon should have been on the planet the earth it just isn't true because you're assuming that the moon is leaving the earth in a linear fashion right scientists have measured the different ways of the tides have impacted the coasts and whatnot and they seen that the moon probably wasn't moving away from the earth as fast as it is now this is just something that's observed that you could read about you can very quickly read like how fast was the earth moving away from the or how fast was the moon moving away from the earth you know ten thousand a hundred thousand 1 million years ago and to assume that it's been a linear thing where it's always been moving away at the exact same speed just doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense with angular momentum consider the fact that when things get farther away gravity impacts them different and it doesn't make sense with what we've like recorded in terms of our scientific observation okay that's what I got for that all right so you're at three minutes and 30 seconds so now we're gonna move on to the open dialogue portion there's 20 minutes set for it destiny ceded a significant amount of his time so if the dialogue is going okay I'm going to love five minutes on the back end if that's agreeable to both of you so that will still be fulfilling the full amount of time that the audience is committed to to watching the debate is that agreeable to both of you yeah okay perfect I just want to make sure that everybody huh is getting exactly the amount of time that they they wanted to see so I will allow tents to open the dialogues and see what first and please just carry on and back and forth fashion if I feel that things are flying off the whales I will intercede if I do that I will stop the clock so that I can make sure that I am giving you a full time so please proceed okay Steve you mentioned you did not hear any evidence for a young earth and yet the Bible certainly clearly teaches the earth is 6,000 years old you did you're saying you discount that completely that's not evidence at all you're thinking um no so the Bible yeah no I wouldn't consider the Bible to be evidence of that at all okay so it doesn't present any evidence inside the Bible other than saying God said well yeah my own dates clearly add up to six thousand roughly plus or minus maybe 50 years um and you mentioned about the skin on your face being renewed and how finding a rock 6,000 years I didn't mention a rock these things I'm talking about are even on the earth we could talk about the earth if you'd like the moon is going around the earth I don't think anybody well the flat-earthers argue about that but they're wrong by the way okay but the moon is receding and the tides seem to be affecting it there's several different kinds of tides on the earth there's the water tide of course washing up on the beach slowing the earth down there's also the winds the Coriolis effect against the mountain slowing the earth down there's also the internal friction with the liquid inside the earth which would be our having friction against the crust of the earth differential speeds there but see there's the inverse square law is where you need to consider something here the inverse square law says if you brought a planet or it said two things that attract each other like the earth and amount if you bring it into 1/3 the distance you have to inverse that and square it it's 9 times the gravitational pull so the problem is actually much worse for those who need billions of years the fact that the moon today is moving away at 3 point 8 centimeters per year means in the past it was moving away faster and if you go back billions of year they've done all kinds of studies on this and said the moon's orbit would collapse into the earth about 1.2 billion years ago there's an article from astronomical journal hope get up on screen here back in 94 they said the evolution of the lunar semi-major axis presents a well-known timescale problem the lunar orbit collapses only a little over a billion years ago so if if the moon leaving us does limit the earth at the age of the earth to 1 billion years or 1.2 billion year if this could be demonstrated scientifically and mathematically would you still be able to fit your theory I almost called it a religion because evolution is a religion but would you be able to fit your theory into 1.2 billion years just based on the moon I think we can live it instead of 4.6 we can cut it down to 1.2 and that's just the moon so I think you know you can't have 4.5 billion years to make your frog turn into a prince I'm sorry it's not available go ahead I don't know how to respond to the inverse-square law in terms of I've never heard this brought up as a reason for why the the moon is receding at a different rate well no III understand I don't I don't do you have any like evidence like in favor of young earth creation that's outside of the Bible or is it only going to be like kind of like trying to poke at how the current account might not necessarily be 100 is it correct well the astronomical journal volume 108 is not part of the Bible these are astronomers that put out a journal to say hey we got a problem the moon is moving away if you had two magnets that are attracted to each other the further apart they get the less the attraction is it happens with gravity it happens with light the inverse square law for high school physics which I for 15 years so bringing the moon back in closer 3.8 centimeters per year as you go if you could wind the clock backwards the moon gets closer and closer and then the attraction gets stronger and stronger and pretty soon it snaps them together like two magnets so the problem is greater than you realize what wouldn't end depend on the velocity of the moon if the moon if the moon is traveling at a certain speed though the moon wouldn't fall to the earth no the moon is traveling away from us indicating it used to be closer well the mutia track is even stronger because of the inverse square law sure but the moon is traveling around the earth so just because it's close to the earth doesn't necessarily mean it would fall into the planet right if the moon is moving at a certain speed and its orbit around the Earth just bringing it closer wouldn't snap into the planet well bringing the moon in closer if you can somehow get two magnets that are attracted to each other and get one swinging around like a sling if you could swing a magnet around and hold it with the magnetic pull the invisible string to hold that magnet out there bringing the magnet in closer the attraction gets stronger by inverse-square you take half the distance you locate one half flip it over and square it it's four times the pole at half the distance at one-third the distance is nine times the pole and the astronomers are saying look about a billion years ago the orbit will collapse you cannot keep these two things apart the gravity becomes too strong okay so I know I don't think that astronomers are saying that the moon would have crashed into the earth but other things have changed in the earth as well like I don't think it's just as simple as saying the inverse square law so for instance because of the way angular momentum works the rotation of the Planet of the Earth is going to impact the moon's orbit around the Earth as well and we know that the Earth's orbit for instance for maybe for reasons you've listed earlier has also slowed over time so the fact that the earth could have been spinning faster a long time ago maybe would have increased the velocity of the moon such that it could have been a little bit closer but still traveling at such a speed that it wouldn't fall into the planet I think that planetary mechanics are a little bit more complicated than just looking at the inverse square law well yeah it's pretty complicated you are right and that's another factor that I think limits the earth it limits the universe at least the Earth's age down to less than billions is the earth is slowing down in its spin I think everybody agrees with that the earth is slowing down about a thousandth of a second every you know who knows how long a leap second I've got pickles on that here let's see the earth is slowing down in its spin I don't think anybody argues about that and they think they know the reasons why the Coriolis effect the tides up on the beach the internal friction the lunar drag here slows down well that indicates a it used to be going faster which is again I'm going to put some sort of time limit to limit that's like taking the pacifier away I know but it's going to take away the billions of years because if the earth were spinning faster the crust would experience all kinds of problems flattening out like a frisbee eventually if you get going fast enough just from the centrifugal force the tides will look at Jupiter you Baer spins around really fast and it has winds like 300 miles an hour hurricane tornado force winds because of the spin of it's rapidly spinning so you guys would like to imagine like spongebob imagine that life was here you know millions of years ago hundreds of billions of years ago and the earth is billions of years old just the spin of the earth which is also affects the moon those two things the spin of the earth and the distance to the moon are going to limit it to the less than billions of years I don't understand it's not a problem well I don't understand why it has to limit it to billions of years so if we say that the earth slows down at about it's like 0.005 seconds per year that means that at the advent of our planet when it was first forming it would have had about a 14-hour day I don't understand why that's an impossibility well you realize how many plants are for they require a certain amount of daylight hours and nighttime hours to work you're gonna have to have all the plants adjusting to the photoperiodism as the earth changes I wouldn't say the plants existed on the earth 4.6 billion years ago I didn't say that no I didn't say that I'm just pointing out how that the the spin of the earth is another one of those limiting factors like the coins in the Box that that I didn't say when the ship was built or when the coins were made I said when the ship sank if their coins in a box in a sunken ship and you find the youngest coin that limits that the ship sank after that coin was made and if we find one evidence that the earth is not billions of years old then it can't be billions of years old like the guy who says look you got all this evidence that I'm guilty of the crime but I was in Chicago he's off he's off the site I don't think I don't think that logically follows but even so we haven't presented any evidence that the earth is only a certain you know age and even if we did I don't understand how that would erase the idea that we have you know I'm Sur cone iam that's four point that's measured at about 4.5 billion years of age like I don't understand why if you find something young that necessarily eliminates the possibility of it being older well if you find a coin in the box that's older than the youngest one it doesn't matter how do you explain the moon is that the strata me magazine said less than a billion years you gotta answer that one how do you explain that the moon is a billion years or how do you spend them would win a crash into the earth well the astronomers who understand this say when you do all run all the numbers the moon the lunar Earth's the lunar orbit around the Earth cannot be more than about a billion years old you said you keep saying I haven't shown any evidence I just showed you on the moon says less than a billion why do you keep saying 4.5 billion for your theory bit well because that's I don't know how to like it into a debate about orbital mechanics but I know I know that scientists don't say that the moon is is a billion years old I'm pretty sure that the most recent thing that I saw a couple years ago was a four point five billion was about the term that they came up with the put the moon as well point five four billion years old the next week they'll add more time to it because they're finding more and more problems with turning your frog to a prince I understand but the the moon says it can't be more than 1 billion and so truly you can find lots of people who say it's four point five that's what they're taught in school for heaven's sake I bet you defined a lot of Muslims that think Allah was a prophet and you could find a lot of Catholics that think the Pope is important and you can find every religion supports their leaders and their people as standard you know but the if and if you find some scientists who say the earth is billions of years old that doesn't mean it is that means they believe that it is and if you can find some people who say they believe there's no God that doesn't mean there's no God that means they believe but they're very limited understanding that there's no God okay you believe what you want but the moon is indeed going around the earth the moon is indeed leaving this is observable science you run the mathematics on this and say hold it the moon is leaving three point centimetres per year okay let's run the math back Oh as he get closer the gravity is stronger because of the inverse square law they would indeed snap together or collapse like two magnets you get them too close they snap together that would happen between the Earth and the moon about 1 billion years ago according to the astronomers so you've got to come up with a theory of evolution and a reason to reject God you've got to come up with the one in less than a billion years and that's just one you can look at the Earth's magnetic field the magnetic field of the earth is getting weaker it puts a max time limit of about 25,000 years again you go back to the inverse square law with the magnetic field the magnetic field is getting weaker if you go back in time it was stronger about 25,000 years ago the scientists say we've observed it for the last 150 years it's declined 10% it's declined 40% in the last thousand years so the magnetic field if you go back in time in your imaginary rewind the clock back the magnetic field is so strong that no life can be here here's National Geographic just I want the date on this I don't see it here but Earth's magnetic field is fading here's one from last month well if you don't suggest just to clear up the moon thing or just I guess to put a wrap on this for a move on to another topic so there was a study that was published in science advances where they dated pieces that were brought back from the Apollo missions for the moon and their conclusion which was consistent with a lot of other conclusions was that the early formation of the moon was 4.5 1 billion years ago and they demonstrate this not using you know physics math or whatever but using uranium-lead dating so I mean this is I don't think that there are astronomers that believe that the moon is only 400 million years old I mean like we've brought back a lot of evidence to look at this I mean I we could bring on like a physicist I guess to run through like the precise like orbital mechanics needed to explain the position of the moon you know above the earth but I don't know if this goes against like the current scientific consensus in the field or if or if either of us are like well-read enough in physics to understand exactly how every single thing would play into what the what the path of the moon would have to be to explain how it could have been orbiting our planet for a billion years well would you agree the moon is leaving us that's yes it seems to be the case ok would you agree that means it used to be closer yeah if it's leaving us it used to be closer stay with me now okay it used to be closer this is going to put a time limit and I know you're frantic do not have a time limit but there is a time limit Steve I'm sorry and it's not 4.5 billion they might have brought back a rock from the moon and dated it with potassium-argon dating or iranian rhenium led uranium 208 208 LED 208 2 at 206 it doesn't matter the moon is leaving us that puts a time limit of less than billions of years all of the dating methods whether it's carbon dating potassium argon Romania uranium doesn't matter all the dating methods are based on some real obvious assumptions that a freshman law student could point out in court wait we ran assumptions rate has been constant through history you can't possibly know that you're assuming there's been no contamination you're assuming you know what the initial these aren't true firstly decay rate is something that we can measure constantly now you could argue that the decay rate might have changed sometime in the past but all of science kind of rests on this fundamental assumption that the universe is is pretty consistent in all points in time and in all points of the universe now I mean we could try to have that debate that maybe in some parts of the universe at some points in time physics has been different but that's never been observed and I would argue that no reasonable person believes that yourself included except for maybe it may be in the very beginning when God was creating physics or whatever so I will be okay resting on the assumption that physics has always functioned the way that it does today I think that's a fair assessment I agree let's change I think that if we watch fire if we have a stadium full of people and we see five people leave every minute can I determine when the crowd started maybe they were in the stadium have they always left at five per minute has there there's too many assumptions well sure but that's what scientists do when they try to figure out like has that for instance has the moon always been leaving the planet at the exact same rate and there are a lot of things that impact the speed at which the moon leaves the planet right the moon being closer to us might change the way that the tides move which might make the moon move at a different rate away from us and we can measure the way that the tides have worked on the coast in the past to see if the moon has always moved away at the same speed which it hasn't it's not to say that the moon hasn't been moving away at the constant speed you can't just take the current rate at which its leaving us subtracted billion years and go look well the moon would have been on the surface of the earth it's not that simple and the idea that like radiocarbon or potassium-argon are all of these other dating methods or uranium-lead are somehow circular or rust on some assumptions is just not true these are observations that are made made time and time and time again multiple laboratories will confirm using different dating methods that there is accuracy using these types of like real dating methods I don't understand how you can say that it all rests on these faulty assumptions that just don't bear out in reality unless there's some global conspiracy theory to d'lai it and forge scientific results everywhere so I'm going to interject for just a moment and I have stopped the time and the reason I'm going to interject is because we've been on this one specific topic for a great deal of time Kent was allowed to open the direction of this dialogue so I'm going to allow destiny the opportunities Stephen the opportunity to pose Kent a question as we are halfway through our time in order to allow equal time for opening question open questions in the dialogue yeah I would be really interested in a single piece of evidence that points towards the idea of the earth being six thousand years old even in your attacks against the moon you were still getting us to like hundreds of millions of years I'm really curious what dates the planet at six thousand years okay well I said at the beginning of my opening I said the Bible clearly puts a date of about 6,000 and I said I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that shows exactly 6,000 but I'm aware of many bits of scientific evidence that say it can't be 4.5 billion so okay so we've gotten rid of 4.5 billion there's a lot of other dates that we could choose but well no no I'm curious if there's a piece of evidence that can get us to 6,000 that isn't just you know it was written in a non peer-reviewed book like like the Bible right well let's look at the oldest historical records we have on the planet written history by man is less than 6,000 years old the oldest example of capital punishment is 3,800 years ago the oldest record now one argument is well man was stupid in the past and didn't know how to write and therefore they didn't have it or the other argument is maybe that's when it started so I've got a whole section in my powerpoint video one on dr. Dino the age of the earth talking about evidence from space like the moon receding that planets cooling off the Earth's magnetic field weakening evidence from Earth the geological evidence that it can't be billions of years old and evidence from human civilization I mean weeds we even just four cave paintings we know that's not true I'm pretty sure we found those that but you know past almost 40,000 years that they'd go back so I mean even on that end you wouldn't be correct what do you mean how would you know a cave painting is 40,000 years old they can probably date it either using I don't remember 40,000 for carbon dating but if not they could probably use the name for the geological spectrum there's a name for the for the rocks that they find it in that goes magic column right okay yeah well I think if you look at the oldest historical written records are less than about four or five thousand years old I'll call up my slides on that but I couldn't we could really belabor the point if you'd like on the Earth's magnetic field or the earth carbon dating you seem to trust carbon dating I'll tell you what challenge you get a scent of a piece of coal for instance which has certainly carbon in it huh and the pieces and send it to five different laboratories do not tell any of the laboratories he sent it to someplace else do five independent studies on that one piece of coal break the cola five pieces send it to five labs and ask them the simple question how old is it I'd be willing to bet you a state dinner you'll get five different answers and there'll be wildly different answers so it really depends on okay so a coal and diamonds right have different depending on where they're found there are different elements that can decay into the carbon-14 that we use for radiocarbon dating right which can lead to a form of contamination of the sample which could give you an incorrect date that's fine but this is something that is being currently investigated in the scientific community it's not like this is totally unheard of like people know that this is an issue and people look into it when it comes to dating but this has nothing to do with the type of radiocarbon dating that we use to date like life-forms unless life-forms I guess are eating coal then this wouldn't really be relevant when it comes to dating stuff well yeah my forms are making coal as plants that make coal but you're admitting that no card called great ok rate maybe there may have been some contamination or the rate may have changed they've discovered some of the elements that give huge numbers like potassium decays to argon and wood at one point five billion years half of it that can be changed down to a few seconds with and pressure heat and pressure can change the decay rate rapidly so you're assuming that they find a fossil and dated today and that somehow there's been no contamination we know the decay rates remain constant there's been no exposure to heat or pressure there's been and you know the initial content for heaven's sake take my challenge D get a piece of coke get a fossil of an animal dead digger hey well dig up the cat in the backyard you buried years ago if you have one send it to five different labs pieces of it and say how old is it no other explanation you will get five different answers I guarantee it steak dinner I mean so possibly for coal because of the way that coal works that's true but for biological life-forms that's not true like these have been dated using several different methods and most independent analyses will agree on like a pretty narrow range that something can be dated by and tons of different laboratories using different methodologies will all like converge on the same answers for when things are found the fact that you can show that in in some elements there might be some types of contamination which can even be accounted for by the way like in all of these it's not like it's impossible to account for the contamination so for instance because of the pollution that we put into the atmosphere today people say that radiocarbon dating might be more difficult to do but that's still something that can be accounted for I'm just because you can show like one or two exemptions to how we carbon date things doesn't mean you can throw out the entire idea of radiocarbon dating last I heard it's about five hundred dollars to get a sample carbon dated at most laboratories charts about five hundred dollars they watch the check with a Geiger counter how many clicks do they get for a minute on their Geiger counter as it as it became keep in mind all dating methods all of them are based on a decay in other words it's losing not gaining this is the opposite of evolution by the way it's going from a higher element to a lower element potassium to argon rubidium strontium etc so they're all based on indication they're all based on clear assumptions a freshman law student would say your honor you don't know how much was in that object when it started there they're comparing everything to today but privately why do you think it matters how much was in there when it started well today's atmosphere you get about 40 rough analogy you get about 14 clicks per minute on your Geiger counter from a living object put it next to your cat or dog and you get about 14 clicks minute that's today's decay rate well the Bible clearly teaches that before the earth when the earth was first created there was water above the firmament Genesis chapter 1 talks about that and so that would stop some of the radiation from the Sun and you would have let's say let's say the everything before the flood only had two clicks per minute that was normal in the atmosphere there wasn't much radioactive carbon in the atmosphere the animal dies in the flood gets buried we did get up today and we're comparing how old it is based on today's decayed carbon concentration compared to what it lived under they know there are all kinds of things that change watch my video on carbon dating I'll send you one for phrasing right there's a ton of it as you can watch on carbon dating but like all of these things are things that can be measured right so the atmospheric composition was different at one point in time we could measure this based on fossil samples that we take from the ground based on different dirts that we've taken from the ground like there are tons of different ways that we can measure what the planet was like at any particular point in time and those things are generally accounted for in their measurements this is why we have entire scientific disciplines that feel like they can accurately date things and it's why in a multidisciplinary way people tend to agree on the dating of things like with very rare exception yeah they might like go over you know exactly how old things were or they might have like new ways to refine their different types of dating techniques but this idea that because the planet was different at one point in time it's impossible to use any sort of dating method is just not true it's just not how any of the works okay what three minutes just let you both know maybe you're not aware but if you send a sample of anything to be dated by any method potassium argon rubidium strontium lead 208 send at any laboratory don't you'll have to fill out a questionnaire one of the questions is where did you find it now hold on why should that matter why should I know where you find a sample they're going to bracket with the date they're looking for based upon the geologic assumption that if you found it in this rock it should be Jurassic and should be 65 million years old so they want you to tell them where you found it so they because they may test it four or five times and get four or five different numbers and they select the one that's closest to the geologic date watch my video number four lies in the textbooks about the history of the geologic column which does not exist any place on the planet there is no geologic column the whole thing's a joke all of it all those layers happen during Noah's Flood okay firstly well okay so okay so this I lose Louise because if they didn't account for where it came from then your argument right here would be oh well how is it that they were able to account for any sort of error or any sort of contamination where they didn't even ask you where it came from it sounds to me if they're asking where the example originated from they're doing the due diligence as scientists to try to control for any sort of contamination that could have occurred when they were measuring the sample well thank carefully what you're saying they're not actually dating it then radiometric dating they're dating with geologic dating because they're gonna select the one they want anyway you're still you're still using radiometric dating but you need to be aware of any contaminations that could contaminate any of your samples while you're holidays how would you be aware of that how will you find out oh this has been contaminated by the geologic date because there are certain geographic locations on earth and there are certain periods in the Earth's history where they would understand that there is a higher presence of a certain type of radioactive isotope either in the atmosphere or in the dirt and those would be things that would be accounted for when they go to do their measurements you really believe what you just said more than the Bible yeah I'm gonna believe what's in peer-reviewed journals that have been corroborated by scientists all over the planet rather than believe that there's some global scientific conspiracy review-journal astronomy magazine said the Moon and Earth orbit problem limits it to 1 billion years fit your theory and 1 billion not 4.5 okay even if I do that that's still 999 million nine hundred and ninety four thousand years away from the 6,000 year old earth that you're positing right here like I'm just pointing out this one coin in the box that says this guy is innocent your honor let him off the hook this earth is not billions of years old well not really I could argue that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the moon was spun off at a billion years ago I mean I could just as easily argue that I don't think the evidence I think that's called the ejection theory has been proven wrong years ago the mechanics of that do not work there nobody there's a capture theory the ejection theory of the collision theory about the moon it's none of them work the moon is nearly perfectly round 2160 mile diameter and it's earth that bulges 20 miles at the equator but the earth moons not spinning fast enough to have much bulge at all the moon is near perfectly round the moon was not spun off the earth the moon day was not captured the physics of that is impossible the most recent scientific evidence that I've seen published was of that 4.5 1 billion years on the on the moon that's the current I don't know why you keep citing the astronomy I don't know what study you're citing or what what article you sent or if it's even from a peer-reviewed I show this is great I showed it on screen it's a well-known problems called the lunar recession problem google it lots of people say you know this really does create a problem they sweep it under the rug say look we really need billions of years so let's forget this one can't be true all right I'm going to stop because there is there's a natural law because we are at time so now you want each have an opportunity to have your four minute closing statements and Kent as you started you will be the person who is going first and I will start your time for you as soon as you start speaking all right well thank you so much for doing this Steve it's very honored you would come I think that clearly the Bible indicates the earth is about six thousand years old God claims he made the world I think that's intuitive there must be a designer a creator this place is just too complicated if you're walking through the woods and you find an arrowhead in a pile of gravel you immediately conclude somebody made this this isn't normal gravel this has been shaped and fashioned I don't know who did it I don't know when did it but when he did it but I know somebody did it now when you look at the creation whether you look through a microscope or a telescope or just your eyeballs you ought to be able to say wow somebody designed this when you look at a chlorophyll molecule in a plant one chlorophyll is more complicated than the space shuttle the most complex machine ever built by man every atom every DNA molecule is mind-bogglingly complex it's just common sense to say somebody had to design this now who was it was it Allah or Buddha or Jehovah that becomes a different set of arguments but you seem not unable to get over the first hurdle and to be a designer that we're arguing about when was it made that's the second argument did somebody make and did somebody make this Arrowhead obviously when I don't know no we can study the shapes and sizes and stuff like that and why well probably for you know some kind of weapon but is there a designer period I think the answer is a real clear obvious yes there's a designer how you can look through a telescope or a microscope and Darwin thought a cell was just a little glob of jelly now we have microscopes that understand that a single cell in your body you've got about a hundred trillion of them replacing a millions of millions of them every every minute but one cell in your body is more complex than New York City one cell and you really think that happened by chance with no designer from an explosion for 4.5 1 billion years ago I'm sorry Steve you've been duped you've been lied to you need to get your money back for education they lied to you this has been the history of the world though people have taught things that are crazy later they find out wow that was crazy why do we believe that and I'm telling you it's crazy to believe in evolution it's crazy to believe there's no designer now we could get into another argument of who is the designer is it the God of the Bible or you know a God sir but I think a God somebody way beyond our physics made this for God to make the world he has to be outside of time space and matter in Genesis 1 it says he created time space and matter in the beginning of time God created the heaven their space and the earth matter and they have to come into existence in that order if you had matter before space where would you put it if you had matter in space before time when would you put it 10 words in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth if you can / you can overcome your hurdle and believe that the rest is easy God made the world it's his obligation to tell us what do you want what do you want out of us where his some people don't want God's rules on their life and so that's why they didn't I got there's no reason to be an atheist because of science now you may have a moral reason to not be an atheist or sometimes something in your life you don't want God to change I don't know but there's no scientific reason to reject the God of the Bible and to reject the clear teaching that the earth is about 6,000 years old that fits I think all the scientific evidence that we see thank you go ahead alright so Kent you were just under time actually at 3 minutes and 14 seconds all right Steve it is your turn and as soon as you start speaking out we'll start your 4 minutes of time sure ok so I mean we talked about the movement for one hour here I I was able to find I guess it was a single page or paper published in 1994 there have been plenty of explanations given for the contrary for why the moon you know orbits that this B that it does on this view that the moon orbited back then I mean I guess I can read this passage real quick care that much about the moon according to Kepler's laws to lower the distance between earth and moon the less time it takes for the moon to orbit the earth this means that the moon orbited much faster in ancient times if it was closer to Earth therefore the frequency of the tides was lower because the difference of orbit time and the time of rotation of the earth was lower even if rotation was faster because the relative time change of earth rotation is less the BLA I I mean like there has been a ton of studies that have studied the age of the earth and the age of the moon none of them have agreed on this 1 billion figure I don't know where this came from I guess from this 1994 paper but over the past 25 years astronomers seem pretty confident to to assert that the age of the moon is about similar to the age of the earth I mean everything else was just kind of I mean I'm a little disappointed I guess it was just like non sequiturs the idea that a cell is more complicated than New York City doesn't necessarily imply design it doesn't even imply that it was designed I mean like complicated things can arise from other things from entirely natural processes nobody has ever seen God created human plenty of people have seen animals create other animals or people create other people it happens all the time right through childbirth we don't need a god for any of that process I don't know why we would think we would have ever needed one I do agree one thing with the statement you made that in the past we've taught things that are absolutely crazy and later on we change what we teach I would argue that the difference between scientific instruction and religious instruction is that religious instruction has not changed and all over the past however many years you are religious your particular religious ideology is old I mean Catholics and Christians and Jewish people and Muslims have been teaching the same things for more or less since the inception that religion scientific stuff has changed and how we taught it over the years as we gather more evidence and we change our beliefs and we update our beliefs to match the evidence that we've gathered so I would argue that continuing to move in that direction and following what the scientific literature tells us is probably going to lead us to a better understanding the universe than a very old book written a long time ago that hasn't changed any of it sentences in two thousand years okay so you were just at two minutes so now you are going to move on to the Q&A segment the audience Q&A segment so James has sent me some of the questions so I will start super chats will get precedents because you guys have been kind enough to support the channel and thank you all right so I will start with Rob plutonium at ten dollars what was Kent's PhD thesis about and where can I find it okay let's see Shannon you're one of your jobs as moderators I understand this to keep this on topic is that on topic does that have anything to do with the age of the earth I didn't drop out I don't see how that matters it's if you guys if the debaters would prefer that it be on the debate content we're okay with that that's what we've done in the past so we hadn't asked you yet so if you would prefer that we can limit it to those I can't do so but generally we've read Kent just to be clear since since you've critiqued my ability to moderate here no I've been done in the past I think I've been quite fair but I I really feel as though that the people these people have paid to ask questions because we didn't set that precedent for them from the get-go sure so yeah I was attempting to be fair to the people who have paid to ask questions and I did actually skip one that I felt was derisive for that very reason so I just I just want to make it clear between you and I that I wasn't attempting to derail the topic of the specific debate but this is the way that these QA days are general sure don't go to the next guy that's absolutely fine but I just momentum point of order to defend myself there briefly get one that was questionable I actually thought this one was less relevant than the first one it's a gray area we're sorry about that let's see but yeah we can and I think it's Rob Rob we can send you the chat ones back like this I know we didn't specify that so for the audience and weekend you can be in touch with us flamey-o asked he sent a super chat but see does to Hoban does the second law of thermodynamics apply to Yahweh if so how is it not degraded out of existence if not why are creations affected does the second law of thermodynamics which means everything is tending toward disorder does that apply to God I'm not sure who Yahweh is but does the God of the Bible know apparently it does not God in the Bible at least claims that he is eternal he's the everlasting one he never tires her sleeps he seems to be outside of and beyond all of our physical limitations I don't understand that I don't claim to I don't need to I choose to believe that that's why Christianity is a faith we admit we believe certain things I believe God is eternal he claims he's eternal he claims that he wrote the book and I've read the book for 50 years now I can't find any contradictions in it and it's changed me people's lives by the millions around the world without force there are some churches claiming they believe the Bible that use force to get people their way and apparently that's the school Steve went to but no I don't we don't use any force to change people's mind but I think the the change like might change life in 50 years ago when I was 16 I gave my heart to the Lord got saved I love science I've taught science 15 years and I love studying science and I want to know but I think there are certain things we just probably never gonna find out nobody to this day knows what gravity is we know what it does we can measure the speed of at 9.8 meters per second or 32 feet per second per second but we don't know what it is give me a jar gravity and paint it red nobody knows what it is all they do is define what it does you don't have to know what it is well we should keep study and I'd like to find out but meanwhile I'm gonna use it I'm gonna sit on the floor or chair rather than on the ceiling so the fact that I don't understand all about God doesn't bother me I've chosen to believe if he's beyond and outside of my capabilities if he is eternal and never gets tired and the second law the first law none of the laws apply to him whoa I may be when I get to heaven I'll find out and I'll try to relay the message wherever you are at that time all right thank you okay so the next one I've skipped down to ones that were relevant the next one is can you please name an astronomer astronomer this is from Brian Stevens who says that the wing is 1 billion years old is that for me again it would be for either if either of you have an astronomer that you can cite that says the moon is 1 billion years old I'm sure that would be acceptable to Brian who is the questioner ok jihad Touma and Jack wisdom wrote the article evolution of the earth-moon system in astronomical journal back November 1994 here's the reference to it and they said page 1954 they said we got a problem the lunar orbit collapses a billion years ago here are two astronomers that say look at a problem it's a billion not 4.5 so even I said I named two instead of one how's that okay certainly guys oh sorry I forgot to mention that if we I've you I'd love to like switch so we go back and forth all ask the question two real quick on that question about the astronomer so apparently in that 1994 paper that was published the two astronomers that did that paper didn't say that there was a problem they offered an alternate explanation for why it could still be 4.5 billion years I got that paper in the chat for anybody to go through if they want to actually go through and read I don't know time to dig through this is very heavy reading but they are they offer their explanation for really related to tides and whatnot for Y and then a ton of scientific equations as well for why the moon can be the age that it is it doesn't say that it's a huge problem yeah thanks book both of you and then the prince of dreams you see we'll be in touch we refund you for that you said dr. Hogan do you have to account for or a doctor do you you have to you have to account or where the moon originally form so I think that's for Kent okay I would say based on the observed scientific evidence that the moon is leaving us the moon must have been formed I don't pick a number 20 or 30 or 40 miles closer it has been receding for the last six thousand years and it's no big deal if someone wants to believe it's billions of years old they've got a problem not me we know the moon is receding that's observable we know some of the reasons why those are observable the lunar tide on the earth and the mentioned that the Coriolis effect the internal friction with the liquid magma core so we know if you go back and bring the moon closer the tides are higher which greatly exaggerated s-- the problem slowing the earth down even more with higher tides because back to the inverse square law see I don't have a problem with the fact that the moon is leaving it fits perfectly in the creation period that the whole thing only six thousand years old I can see a car get the tire slowly wearing out okay that means I could probably calculate approximately when they were bought brand-new if I knew has it always been driven the same number of miles per year over the same roads and same kind of drivers driving styles but I is leaving us that's even steven agreed with that so I don't understand how this is a problem it it is only a problem for those who would like to believe capital B believe that there at this 4.5 billion years old you cannot possibly know the earth is 4.5 billion years old the oldest recorded history we have is just a few thousand years so anything else is really taken on faith you believe that the earth is billions of years old that's not science it's a religion you'll never admit that but it is a religion ok gotcha thanks so much Shannon I think forgiving you is it you had the next question yeah I believe so so this one is actually a statement and it's from Brian Stevens but it is relevant he said destiny is correct the mathematician T J torna corrects the equations I'm sure we could contact him today to see if you thinks the moon is 1 billion years old follow-up to that where he said no we're in the diff different equations differential equations do they mention inverse square yeah yeah orbital mechanics of like how the moon and the earth relate so we're sure there are probably a lot more complicated than just the inverse square law I'm sure there's a lot of stuff in a nonlinear fashion that changes over time that impacts the weather these two pretty massive gravitational bodies interact with one another when I hold on the inverse square law is very simple it applies to anything to objects that are attracted it flies to light how many lumens are being put off by a light my dad's electrical engineering design building for caterpillar tractors yeah but the inverse square law would be like very powerful if we were trying to describe two objects two objects that were stationary maybe and how they impact one another but as soon as we start with things that are orbiting one another and then we change one of those bodies like pretty dramatically throughout history so for instance the tides on the planet change the arrangement of the continents on the planet Earth have changed once you start making these sorts of changes and then you start rotating one of these bodies as well things become a lot more complicated than just saying inverse square law I don't even know if the inverse square law has as much of an impact on this as any other of these forces and yes I struck a nerve here so if they're moving on the planet which they probably are I don't argue that that's gonna make the problem worse because any movement on the earth is going to take away energy if the continents are moving if the tides are going up and down being pulled up and down and then just is very simple light magnetism and gravity are directly proportional to the inverse square law you can google it it's simple freshmen high school physics stuff that the force of attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them now it's true the physics on the planet like the movement of the tides up and down and the movement of the confidence those would change the spin of the earth which may affect the rate of recession but it doesn't affect the inverse square law anymore that affects the gravity yeah but we don't know what's in attacking a dragon you're saying 32 feet per second per second but we're looking at the change of the moon moving away from the earth so according to a paper published in 1976 the magnitude of tidal friction depends on the arrangement of the continents in the past the continents were arranged such that tidal friction unless the rates of Earth's slowing and the moon's recessions would have been less the Earth's rotation has slowed at a rate of 2 seconds every 100,000 years so it's possible that the arrangement of the continents themselves might have impacted the way that the oceans were which would have been the way that the tidal force has impacted the moon right because tidal forces require an accumulation of large bodies of water and arranged in the continents in different manners might have changed the rate at which the moon moved away from the earth I mean this is really heavy physics it's not as easy as just saying inverse square law like this is so much more complicated than that what was the date on that paper this was a 1976 paper published sure I don't know Francis I'm AIChE R yeah Wow okay that's interesting I love to study if you've got some proof I would go back to my root initial statement hour ago and say even if the earth is billions of years old that doesn't help anything for the evolution theory that's this is just the first hurdle you guys have to overcome weight will happen this is only very reasonable yeah well this is only talking about um I mean this is only talking about young earth but for evolution I mean you've already made arguments in favor of evolution I was under the impression that you believed in evolution well depends what you mean by evolution I think dogs and wolves may have a common ancestor I don't think dogs and mosquitoes have a covenant well if you believe that dogs and wolves have a common ancestor then you believe in evolution we wouldn't disagree there no that's not evolution that's a variation of the same kind of animal yeah my variation and genetic traits passed from one animal to the next that causes measurable and observed every type of evolution so you believe in evolution well the genetic traits that are passed on are usually it's a loss of information you have any examples where any animal has gained information that's been productive I can't really sing like that you all are completely useless knowing somebody bred out of the dog gene pool so you so you think that every what you think you think that every single new dog that is bred has lost information from like a previous dog I asked you do you know of any examples where there's been a gain of information I mean mutations along genes can can produce new genes and new genetic combinations I don't understand what the question is they can produce new genetic combinations and can they produce new information what do you information law well could a dog eventually grow wings and be able to fly he could catch his prey faster that way um the over long periods of time here a cliche it could happen yeah that'd be something would that be a statement that you're saying that a scientific or that is religious or faith-based you believe it could happen as it been observed has anybody ever observed a dog produce a non dog no but that's not consistent with how we believe evolution works well that's my point what we observe which is what science is all about observation experimentation testing all the tests all the experiments all the observations says dogs produce dogs cows produce couch if you want to believe it was different if you go back in time which we can't go back in time that's your belief it's your religion it's that you have a religious belief that dogs and mosquitoes are related if you go back billions of year I don't who taught you that but you need to get your money back do you believe I do you thought this would be a quick chance to respond and then I forgive me I just take try to get through as many courses as possible yeah I'm sorry there's like a lot of weird like semantic games that are being played here when you talk about like gaining information I'm not entirely sure what definition of information talking about I mean there are mutations that occur along genes that allow them to duplicate strands of DNA that if that counts as adding information then of course that comes as information using using this word belief is kind of like is a pretty common tactic I think by a lot of religious people so like I believe in evolution the same way that you believe in God but that's not really true I believe for instance that if I go downstairs my car is still gonna be parked in the garage I don't 100% know that but I'm basing that on prior observations I've made and because I have a model of the universe that seems to work for me which is see something somewhere I believe that when I go back to it I'll find it again I don't think that all beliefs are equal and I think it's really disingenuous to try to claim that all beliefs are equal just because I believe in something that has been affirmed time and time again by a scientific model that has also been affirmed by hundreds of other or thousands of other peer-reviewed scientists doesn't mean that it's the same type of belief as I believe there is a unicorn flying around the asteroid belt somewhere next we appreciate and we appreciate your super chats I'm trying to catch all these for Dave Gallup or just because I'm trying to see if they're kind of coherent a bit like with each other I have a I have a quick question while you're compiling those to send over so this question is specifically on the topic and I think it was what I think that and the reason I'm asking is because I think it more succinctly gets to what does and he was attempting to ask earlier so my question would be for Kent and it's a kind of a paraphrase of one of destiny's earlier points the question that I'm not sure was addressed by destiny was without appealing specifically to the Bible or using a refutation to existing science what is the single best piece of evidence that you have that the earth is specifically six thousand years old which would not allow you to appeal to the moon because that at the least would put it at 1 billion so do you have one specific piece of independent evidence without using the Bible or without just refuting existing science that you would say proves the earth is 6,000 years old is this a point for the audience Qian no no that's what that was me paraphrasing what a phase while you were compiling them let's if you're ok with it just says moderators if we can just let the audience ask that would be if you don't want the question s and Shannon you can do the next debate call my secretary to schedule I'm sure please do 855 big Dino extension - ok let's see I want to just get through as many questions as possible since it's been asked Kent if you want to give her a response you can otherwise I'm okay with just trying to squeeze in assume the audience that we got well the largest desert in the world is the Sahara Desert there's an area south of the Sahara called the Sahil where creatures and people are dying like crazy because this arid desert is expanding this has been known for quite a while Sahara Desert is about 1300 miles north to south it is expanding the pot standing and Institute for climate impact in Germany back in 99 did an article and said the Sahara Desert is about four thousand years old well some people say oh it might be six thousand years old okay the point is it's not millions so the Sahara Desert used to be green and lush and then humans should they're blaming it on humans of course in popular science but I think everybody agrees the Sahara Desert is growing and the Sahara Desert has that puts a time limit for when it started now that they will argue doesn't argue for the age of the earth and I understand but it why isn't there a desert that's bigger than that why 4000 or 6000 why not millions we see this grow there they're gonna have to say well there might you don't know the rate has been the same which is exactly what I say about carbon dating do we have to if you look at the observation of what we see it's expanding it is out less than four thousand years old or less than six thousand years old that fits perfectly with what the Bible teaches the very best evidence for the earth being six thousand years old is the Bible that's what it claims it's never been refuted I don't think you can prove anything above six thousand years without some very obvious assumptions so I could get it in my video number one I cover about 40 or 50 different ways to show this earth is not billions of years old the oil pressure the human population growth rate for heaven's sake there's only seven point four billion people on the planet which could have come from eight people just four or five thousand years ago at normal population growth so I could give you many scientific evidences that indicate less than less than ten thousand and I've got another hour I can give them all here just watch video number one on seminar one the age of the earth on dr. Dino calm I I don't know what the age of the Sahara doesn't has to do with the age of the planet like there are plenty of things on the planet better less than like just because the the planet is 4.5 billion years old doesn't mean that like like that would be like going outside and I see like a tree or I see like a field of grass and like well this field of grass is only 200 years old therefore like that's a total non sequitur it's totally irrational well that's why I pointed out there are many indicators scientific and scriptural and Lit and literary the oldest writings the oldest books the population of the earth the oil pressure down in the ground you drill down and you get pressured that's way above the weight of overbearing rock why is there still oil pressure it should have cracked the rock it's up to 20,000 psi because technically it's constantly recycle themselves this is part of the movement of the earth if you live on the west coast in California you felt these tectonic plates move we have earthquakes all the time I lived out there yeah so I mean this isn't that mysterious well it is just an indicator that all the oil pressure could have been formed from oil that was formed because of Noah's Flood from people being buried 4,400 years ago people and animals being buried it fits perfectly what the Bible says that's not proof the Bible's true but it's certainly not any proof against the Bible I'm in fact we have oil pressure above the weight of overbearing rock and the fact that the moon is leaving us and the fact that Saharan desert less than 6,000 years old these are all coins in the box that indicate hey maybe it's less than 6000 years old it certainly could be there's no scientific reason to prove more than 6,000 years what is the best evidence you would have for more than 6,000 well so before we get into that I mean it feels like we're basically trying to collect like pieces of evidence that we feel like we that agree with us like I so I go to your body and I snip off a piece of hair and I say well this hair can't possibly be more than five years old or I imagine you probably get your hair cut more often than that this hair can't be older than a few months old I take some fingernail clippings and I say oh well these fingernails can't be more than you know maybe a week or two old if that you know I scrape off you know a whole bunch of cells and random spots your body I go well look how new these are well look look look look look look look I mean you can play that with the earth all day long I mean there's tons of things on this planet they're gonna be newer features but there are also things that we've pretty accurately dated back like billions of years I don't understand the obsession with only finding and focusing on the new things and so that disproves the older stuff we found it seems to hearken back to that really irrational analogy that we use for finding coins on a boat where we keep saying oh well if we found a coin you know that was from 1960 and there are other coins you know from 1700 we know that the boat sank in 1960 but you're ignoring the fact that even in the mountain ala G you're saying that the planet existed in the original year that the oldest coin was found like even that that even that very analogy taken to its logical end seems to disprove your entire argument oh this is what I said at the very beginning in the opening moments of this discussion or debate this issue of time is the pacifier for the evolutionist you have to have billions why do we keep saying evolutionist we're talking about the planet when I talk about evolution I know that's a totally different thing those those who want to believe that there is no God or they want to believe we got here by chance or they want to believe the earth is billions of years old to account for all the changes to turn a mosquito and to make a dog and a mosquito related that's what this is really what it really is about rejection of God they don't like the idea that God created everything and and he designed it and there's they might have some rules like thou shalt not they don't like those rules so I think there are many indicators that say the earth cannot mean billions of years old I'll just show you suggest for one that shows 6,000 I'll get my slides up here the population of the earth today is about seven point four billion and increasing as they're making more kids all the time but if you look at the population at the time of Jesus Christ the Earth's population was about one quarter of a billion there were surveys done you know Pilate Jesus was born in Bethlehem because of a census you know they had to count their people so they've always been counting their people to see how much tax to charge and all this kind of stuff but the population of the earth if I can get the right slides here indicates at the near 1800's just 200 years ago the entire world's population was 1 billion we've gone from 1 billion to force seven point four billion just in two hundred years when you look at the pan you graph it out look at the population growth I can't find the slide quickly here but I do this on video number one the population growth indicates man's been here for less than forty five hundred years you can easily account for the population of the earth today in forty five hundred years so if men had been here for millions of years why wouldn't there be more people so again we're making this other many indications yeah so we're making the same mistake of it with the moon thing where we keep assuming that population growth is linear it's not I mean if we you know if you know anything about derivatives and we study a little bit up about the rate of change so not not how much is changing but how quick is the rate of change itself changing right we can look at like for instance if you google right now we could Google birth rate United States and we could bring up and we could see that oh well these countries have actually given birth to different amounts of people over different time periods you know if you see the population at 1 million and next year it's 2 million that doesn't mean the next year is gonna be 4 8 16 32 64 right population growth could slow it could you know a band wane I think that's a phrase you know based on different things going on in the planet you know there are giant plagues that make people sick different countries reach industrialized periods where they have less children you know there's great migrations great Wars there's a million different things that could cause the population of a planet to change you would never look at a population growth and try to date the earth using that because population growth is more of an anthropological or sociological phenomenon than anything relating to geology or any of the scientific disciplines of study the age of the earth these are two totally disconnected things also this idea that like I don't lie this theological argument that we're making because there's no possible reason why you would have to subscribe to young Earth Creationism to believe that God demands a 6,000 year old earth that's just absolutely not true we could absolutely for instance believe that everything has been divinely created by God himself but God didn't create man God created the evolutionary process that spawned man there's no reason not to believe that God could have very much set in motion at the beginning of the universe the clock that would eventually lead to the creation of mankind maybe even lead to stories like Genesis we could also believe for instance that the earlier Bible was written in more of a metaphorical sense of 6 days doesn't necessarily equate to six days of mankind's time right six days in God's time could could be lifetime's or universe is worth of time you know for normal people I don't think that theology demands you turn your back on science in fact there are many scientists today that believe in evolution that believe in the age of the earth and they believe in all of these scientific concepts that are also very religious and yeah the idea that God demands that you believe it or subscribed to some 6,000 year old earth I think betrays maybe even the power that you would profess that God himself has well the topic of the debate was supposed to be what is the evidence for the young earth and I've pointed out a 6,000 is not young there's plenty of time to account for everything but there is lots of evidence it's not billions population growth chart the United Nations put the chart together I've got said I got is Google what population of the earth in the past it shows rapid increase in the last 200 years I agree many things affect this I agree there can be plagues but even taking that all into consideration the United Nations Population Chart and we call it up there here populate population prospects from 2004 United Nations Population prospects 2004 revised and again this is the population that this is they this is the observed population of the earth at different times to history it indicates man could have easily started from 8 people getting off a Noah's Ark 4,500 years ago and created seven point four billion people it's not a problem for me if you want to imagine a very tiny population of a few hundred thousand people going on for millions of years because nobody figured out how to make babies you can imagine that if you'd like but I think they would have figured it out pretty quickly I mean we I these I I'm not I don't really know what to say these things have nothing to do with one another it's this is just a total nutter on the population on the planet just has nothing to do with the age of the earth i'm so for instance right now we believe that the population of this planet the thirteenth billionth human will probably never be born right people are extrapolating based on birth rates in Africa and South America that the population is probably gonna taper off somewhere in the 12 billion range for people so let's say for instance we go a hundred years into the future and we've had 12 billion people forever you know for hundreds of years would somebody like you look back and go oh well look I would argue that there has always been 12 billion people or that the earth is only 200 years old because our population hasn't changed at all since then I'm not even trying to respond like it's just a total non sequitur nobody would ever try to date anything geological using the existence of a biological organism I mean like did the earth stop existing when the dinosaur stopped existing or did we try to date or measure geological formations based on the population of certain animals and the sea or sky it just doesn't make sense as a total non sequitur good I know that you had a response Kent I'm sorry to do this yeah but we have to just try to get some more questions as quick as we can oh really can you give him because you giving me the last word I think the last two you can given the last word on that one and then we can do the next one a few if you're okay with that okay you bet go hey Ken I know you got a got a round in the chamber ready to go so good response I didn't follow as he's saying he wants me to have the last word on that one yeah the last word in my last tuna so yeah well well I'm just pointing out that the Bible clearly teaches the eight people survived a global flood of which there are now 330 surviving flood legends that have been found for having that at our boot camp next month come on down to boot camp on dr. Dino calm but the population of eight people getting off the arc starting producing children could easily produce what we currently have now does that prove the earth is billions of years old oh of course not but it's an indication of one of many indicators like any detective at a crime scene would say this clue who needs to be put into the formula wow the moon is moving away the planets are cooling off they don't know no way to get heat other than the Sun how on earth can these and gravitational collapse how can these planets still be giving off heat for billions of year how can then galaxies be spinning in different directions at different speeds and the galaxies so you put together all the evidence and I think you come to the conclusion it's much simpler to say this is not billions of years old it just can't be and again even with billions that's not gonna help the evolution theory but you can't even have the billions it's taking the pacifier away from the baby I'm aware of that but okay thank you for the last word but all right Kent so the next question that we have from the live chat and we're running low on time is from it looks like a dying and I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question and it is does can't believe in dinosaurs oh that is my favorite topic our website is dr. Dino dot-com my phone number is 855 big Dino yes dinosaurs were just giant reptiles that lived with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden the Bible says before the flood came the people lived to be 900 while reptiles and kangaroos and a few other animals never stopped growing if an animal could live that never stops growing could live to be 900 they would get really really big so we're finding the skeletons of these dinosaurs all over the world including Antarctica and the near the North Pole in northern Alaska they're finding these dinosaur skeletons because of Noah's Flood dinosaurs always lived with man they probably had a different name for him since the name dinosaur wasn't made up till 1841 by Sir Richard Owen but all through history they call them dragons or some name similar to that they're mentioned in the Bible they've always lived with men there are thousands of examples of people killing dinosaurs or dragons by ancient artwork ancient stories and lots of stuff watch my video number three about dinosaurs and the Bible yes absolute there could even be some still alive I've never seen one but I've interviewed a hundred people to claim they have seemed like pterodactyls seem to still be alive in a few parts of the world Apatosaurus in the Congo swamp in Africa Loch Ness monster we have 11,000 people claiming they've seen a plesiosaur some may be hoaxes or frauds I'm sure but at eleven thousand people claim they've seen something maybe they've seen something so I think the evidence would be better look at this but see because that goes against the evolution teaching that they've been gone for 70 million year if they caught I make a prediction it's somebody caught the Loch Ness monster and it turned out to be a plesiosaur something that happened and they in the London Zoo they would put a sign at the bottom and say look at this boys and girls this one survived for 65 million years the thought will never cross their brain that maybe my whole theory is stupid and the whole theory is stupid dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago they lived with man could be if you're still alive I don't know we'll see okay alright so James did you want the next question if not I can move to the last one that you sent me I've got let's see was it the ones from Dave dalla for I haven't seen those ones yet this one was from Terry James in regard to the last question I would say that it's very peculiar that with the advent of cell phone technology it seems like reporting's of like the Loch Ness monster and whatnot have significantly decreased I think that's very interesting but or maybe it died all the dinosaurs died as soon as cell phone cameras were invented but all right so this one is from Terry James and it is Kent do you believe and this is relevant because evolution was brought up multiple times Kent do you believe that a bulldog came from a non bulldog I think a bulldog is still in the dog kind now we've decided to divide the dog family up into the 339 recognized breeds of dogs so yes the bulldog would have come from something other than bulldog the bulldog is too fine of a division it did not come from anything that was non dog but certainly people develop new breeds and give it new names all the time that's still the same kind see the Bible says ten times in the first chapter and ten times more in the flood story twenty times in seven chapters the Bible says they'll bring forth after their kind so no the Bulldog did not come from anything that was a different kind now ask your person to ask that question do they believe Bulldogs and mosquitoes are related if they believe in evolution they'll have to say yes now that would be a different kind if an amoeba turned into a bulldog over Billy it is trillions of year it has to gain new information wherein the gene code of the amoeba is the information to build a skeleton or a or hair or eyes or ears or the snip systems in a human body in order to go from an amoeba to a human you have to add trillions of bits of information there it has never been observed that's not science evolution is a fairy tale for grownups and it's sad that so many believe that but that's why our ministry is here we're here to help we can get them all straightened out don't call me I'll straighten them out okay okay I know how hard it's hard it is for me to not say things but James go holy non-partisan that's your response yeah so in case people don't actually know right so the way that evolutionary like the way that evolution works is for large changes to occur it's usually like incremental changes over long periods of time so for instance an animal with no backbone won't suddenly have a backbone you know they don't develop like an entire spine overnight what would happen most likely is there would be small incremental changes that might allow it to stand upright a little bit or that might allow it to perk up a little bit that would pass on some sort of evolutionary advantage that would allow it to breed or outbreed things that don't possess that genetic trait and then over a long long long periods of time we would expect to see these changes accrue in such a way that um that eventually you would have animals that are highly different different differentiated from one another I mean like we have observed increased genetic variation of populations we have observed increase in genetic material we've observed in a creation of new genetic material and we've seen newly genetically regulated abilities these have all been like published in the scientific literature it's not a mystery it's not like a it's not like something that has never been seen before it's a huge response in science that's been waited for these are all things that are pretty well understood and aren't really controversial to any scientists and actually spends time like researching or publishing stuff like this guys yeah thanks so much both speakers and click I'm gonna try to run through I tried to let everybody know in the live chat we can't take any more questions you got so many awesome questions and super chats it's ugly and so we can't even read any new super chats just for the sake of time because sometimes it's uh basically we're already over time the debaters have been super patient so one adjust if I can squeeze these last ones in they're related and these were asked pretty early Dave dalla for thanks for super chats we appreciate it let's see one is yes how do we carbon date a freshly killed seal I think that's for Kent I think that's on that the critique that you gave on carbon dating well anything that contains carbon should be able to be carbon dated anything that is alive or was alive that would include plants or animals carbon-14 enters because of the sunlight striking nitrogen creating carbon-14 in the atmosphere about twenty-one pounds of carbon-14 is created every year worldwide so the state of Alabama Riley probably gets you know fifty molecules over per day not much plants are constantly breathing in this carbon dioxide some of which is radioactive a very small amount point zero zero zero zero seven sixty five percent radioactive carbon is the current amount in the atmosphere now has it always been that who knows they know many things cause this to fluctuate up and down so what an animal dies I'm sorry when the plant dies it stops taking in c14 when the animal eats it the radioactive c14 gets into the animal so in theory living plants and animals should have the same amount of c14 in them that the atmosphere does right now okay so when it's dead you should be able to date a freshly killed seal or anything and find it would be zero years old I challenge against even you or anybody else get a sample let's go ahead and go to the vet and let's find some dog they euthanize and let's take cut it up into five pieces and send five different laboratories with no other information other than ask them the question how old is it and they're gonna try to get you to give a bunch of information so they can bracket it down based on what they want it to be based on the evolution theory but a completely blind test with five laboratories state dinner on the line here for both of you Shannon you two they will get five different numbers and they will not be the same and they will not be close to zero because it carbon dating doesn't work none of the dating methods work they're based on simple obvious freshman law student assumptions what was the amount in it when it died has it always decayed at the same rate has there been any contamination you admitted there be fluctuations in the moon you're frantically trying to answer the moon question not realizing you're also answering the carbon-dating question it doesn't work there are too many things that fluctuate back and forth you can't use it to be reliable I'm sorry it doesn't work so no one is no one is like trying really hard to answer the moon question I'm pretty sure that's just established I think it's taken for granted now um again I'd point you to the study two years ago where they pretty much narrowed in on that 4.5 1 billion year age for the moon based on the dating that they'd done from pieces that were brought back and one of the Apollo missions so related to the seal thing so I'm just gonna read a passage here this is a whelmed this is the well-known reservoir effect that occurs also with mollusks and other animals at live in the water it happens when old carbon is introduced into the water in the above case of the seal old carbon dioxide is present within deep ocean bottom water that has been circulating through the ocean for thousands of years were upwelling along the Antarctic coast the seals feed off of animals that live in nutrient-rich upwelling zones the water that has upwelling has been traveling along the bottom for a few thousand years pore servicing the carbon dioxide in it came from the atmosphere before the water sink thus the carbon in the sea water is a couple thousand years old from when it was in the atmosphere and it's radio carbon content reflects this time plants incorporate this old carbon in them as they grow animals leave the plants seals eat the animals on the old carbon from the bottom waters is passed through the food chain as a result of the radio carbon content reflects a mixture of old radio carbon which is thousands of years old and contemporary Asst radio carbon from the atmosphere the result is an apparent age that differs from the true age of the co the reservoir effect is well known by scientists who work hard to understand the limitation of their tools is explained for example in two different I can't pronounce this guy's name but in the 1986 everybody far faire and Hickman or in height - I don't know everyone's name contrary to creationist propaganda limitations of a tool do not invalidate the tool so again pointing out like an issue or an error or a possibility of contamination doesn't mean all of a sudden that we throw out the entire validity of using the tool just because in some edge cases that tool might not give us an accurate answer although in this case I would argue that it actually does give you an accurate answer you're just not radiocarbon dating the animal itself your radiocarbon dating the water that has or the oil that's been passed along the surface of the ocean that has been brought up via you know this chain of how things eat each other but again just because there are some issues with a tool doesn't mean you throw the entire tool out completely it just means that you refine your tool and you understand the limitations of said tool and you continue to use it in areas where it's appropriate to thank you Eric you're obviously very excited about all this calm down for a minute I think if you're saying that you're admitting of course that there can be reservoirs of a different amount of carbon deep in the ocean that could be brought up by currents and the seal happen to drink the wrong kind of water therefore it got contaminated I think you're admitting my point Stephen that you cannot trust carbon dating you cannot because there are too many things that can influence it and thank you I appreciate that so also if that's Steve excited why he's excited right at the heart of the issue if there's a god we might have some rules to follow you we keep trying to make these moral arguments of these theological arguments but I don't think they agree with you whatsoever I think it was fully possible you could believe in a God that both gives us moral rules and a God that has created a 14 billion year old universe why do you think that God isn't powerful enough or knowledgeable enough to create a universe that is 14 billion years old and still be able to give us something like the Ten Commandments I don't understand why this is impossible to you Oh God can certainly do it in fourteen billion years if he wants it doesn't matter but the God who can create the world can also write a book and tell us how he did it and the book says 6,000 but the book doesn't say 6,000 yeah you use a lot of life you've got to use a lot of different passages to get there nowhere in the book of Genesis does it say explicitly that one day there is the same day as it would be for men it also doesn't explicitly say that God created the universe in 6,000 years you have to rely on a modern interpretation of probably translated texts even in order to get to that 6,000 year figure I just don't understand why you think it's impossible that God could pass us down moral imperatives and also create a universe that's almost 14 billion years old I think you could absolutely do both just have to mention a quick two-minute warning I know that Kent your contact mentioned that you have to go pretty quick so I just want to let you know like two minutes and we should really wrap up and thank you guys for being so patient and longer than the promised hour 15 minutes well I pointed out at the beginning that the Bible dates do clearly add up to about 4000 BC I mean you can read Genesis 5 jesus said the creation of Adam was the beginning that's the Bible clearly teaches man brought death into the world nothing died before Adam sinned nothing died I'm curious great theological question of you know what happens when we die if is there a god if there's no God Savior there's nothing to worry about if if there's no God I have nothing to worry about I've lived a wonderful life I enjoy my life I enjoy living I enjoy my teaching I enjoy dinosaur venture land in Lenox Alabama I'm having a wonderful time and I'm going to heaven when I die if it turns out it's not true when I go to the grave and rot okay I still had a wonderful time I enjoyed it it's a win-win it's Pascal's wager of course but I think you're in a win-lose situation here I want to think about that question oh I'm sorry I keep on question we with that I think that if you want to give like a last like goodbye you could say well probably wrap up just because we want to say thanks for everybody being patient as it's been a wild one it's been exciting though it's been immensely interesting so yeah if you have anything destiny otherwise we can wrap her up no I think I'm good I mean I still feel like I didn't get any evidence I was kind of hoping that I could kind of tear through some evidence for the positive case it's always harder to defend a positive than it is to just kind of critique to critique another person's positive and I feel like somehow I got roped into defending pretty obscure you know physics equations and went on here I think will be really interesting sometime to hear the evidence for a 6,000 year old earth rather rather than correctly pointing out the limitations of some of the tools that we not only use but scientists acknowledge have limitations to measure some of the things we have on earth today but maybe for another day maybe who knows maybe around 2:00 or something we've been joining any time any time and thank you shannon stand-ins had a hard job today because basically i need to do a better job of letting people know like hey we're gonna let the audience know that we'll only read questions that are relevant to the topic stuff like that that i just want to say thanks to her help she anand and she is linked now in the description as well in addition to the two speakers so thank you guys for being here we also want to just mention today is a crazy day we are excited we have two scholars dr. Michael Brown is going to debate dr. Josh from the channel of digital Hammurabi that's today that's at 6:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time today and it's going to be epic so it's gonna get a lot of fun hopefully I will see you there and otherwise just want to mention again that we really appreciate our debaters coming on today we really appreciate both destiny or Steven and Kent being willing to stay longer as well so with that we hope everybody takes care and has a great day thanks for stopping by and keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable thank you for having us yeah thanks for having me thank you guys for coming here it's been a total pleasure and I didn't know that you guys went along so I appreciate that I there's anything I can do for you please let me know because it was a wild one today but hopefully you guys enjoyed it I had a blast please come down to visit dinosaur Adventureland Shannon Steve come down I'll give you a tour you can ask any questions that we want and now take your or two around the place I think you'll enjoy our creation based dinosaur Adventureland I mean Nova Scotia Canada though it's a bit of a haul for me keep in mind if I remember the opportunity I will take you up on that Kent I'll be there okay you're on alright thank you Sam thanks so much that was a wild one Shannon I'm seriously sorry I guess I what to ask James because there was a list of questions that weren't pertaining to the topic I was told not to ask questions that didn't pertain at the topic so I improvised and asked two questions I'm sorry I was just gonna be staring blankly into space I know you're right to be honest it was just that I could tell that can to a suspicious of you from the start I don't like hair I just I just wanted him to know that like that I was trying to keep it as fair as possible and that you didn't have even though he's a what alternative would you have proposed to me in that situation so you didn't do anything wrong you did everything you were irrational and kind and that's why I felt kind of bad for like asking you like in front of people if you'd be willing to not do that so I'm sorry I had an alternative I would have chosen the altar anything wrong I'm sorry I'm non ously kind of learning as they go but Stevens thanks so much we appreciate it and I hope you uh is definitely Kent Hovind is a character I think it reminded me of your discussion that I watched with Jesse Lee Peterson that Steven where it's like you don't know them you don't know if the person is trolling sometimes I think Kent I think is like trolling I don't I don't know it's hard to tell if he argues in good faith or bad faith I don't know it's I don't know I mean laying in that old and you've been religious for that long I mean it's really hard to let go of it I mean even at my age I guess if I was thirty and I'd been religious the whole time I it would probably be pretty hard to let go of your religion you'd basically have to admit that everything you've done in your entire life has been ideologically ungrounded so I mean that would be pretty tough for a lot of people to do anything he also runs a compound where people live and almost cult-like status no that's so yeah he's fully invested uh it was very nice to meet you Steven I haven't met you before so I appreciate it and I do have to run I actually have an event that I have to go to so it was a pleasure James we're good I'm sorry I didn't tell you and better and that it was just kind of it was a hard thing of like debates are never easy and never without a bump so that's what makes them fascinating and interesting and that's why I always enjoy them so it was nice to meet you Steven and as always it's a pleasure James I'm sorry I have to hop off and hopefully I will see you both again see you later all right hi guys hey Zack take care have a great time Steven yep spend some time man I'll see you later all right boy you started doing really well towards the middle how to debate the obscure like orbital mechanics physics of the moon like I don't know I mean I feel like we did really well towards like the middle towards the middle in the end I think was like really good getting like super hung up on the moon I think was maybe a mistake we make sure moved on a little quicker from that topic the I'm pretty sure the the only thing the inverse-square law is is that like if you have something that originates from a point as you move farther away it becomes like exponentially less impactful so like if you have a beam of light here and you move like twice as far away it's like 2 times 2 well that's a bad example because it's 2 but like if you move like 3 times away or whatever it becomes like exponentially less bright not just three times less bright but like to the power whatever oh [ __ ] sorry you're fine there you go yeah 2 times 2 is 2 you know you know I'm in but like yeah so like this is really relevant when you're talking about things like lighting or when you're talking about things like like gravitational fields right because like a gravitational field is more intense but then it radiates outwards and becomes less intense but when it comes to things like orbiting the planet there's a lot more that impacts that than just the inverse square law in fact I don't even know I don't even know if the inverse square law has much to do with spoil are not spoil as [ __ ] has much to do with orbits I'm not sure what I have to think about it I guess it probably does right if you're orbiting a really massive body at some given speed the more gravity of the body has probably the more Delta V you would need to change your orbit I guess is how it would impact it probably inverse square law doesn't work for closed orbital mechanics yeah I just I don't think it would um I don't think it would be relevant to to the change in how the moon leaves the planet because there's so much else going on related to tidal forces and their changing earth he kept doing the two-body problem perfect sphere [ __ ] that simply isn't valid in real cases yeah like if his thing if he was just talking about two bodies that were like stationary or one was warbling the other and there was no change between either of these bodies or impact from anywhere else than you know I'm also not sure if Jupiter impacts like moon and Earth stuff as well I think isn't Jupiter like so [ __ ] huge that like every calculation you do like on our star system you kind of have to for where Jupiter is and everything cuz it [ __ ] the thing to like yeah yeah I don't know there's like or like all of that [ __ ] in space is like those calculations are very very complicated and highly like interdependent on a whole bunch of other things so and I don't know I don't know why I was getting scared about talking about his dissertation did he drop out oh he's actually he actually won't release it wait where is it oh but I found it Kent Hovind is a well-known young earth biblical creationist and such the strength of his dissertation as a broad interest according to our own source contrary to accepted practices in academia where doctoral dissertations are available to the public Kent Hovind along with his alma mater Patriot Bible University has consistently refused to allow his dissertation to be offered for public reprint or scholarly and Corey that's cool as a diploma mill nice his universities I'm in a real university I don't like this though maybe you should have played Kerbal to prepare my play crumble quite a bit but Kerbal doesn't actually do multiple body problems I think it's too complicated and Kerbal only one planet can be affecting your gravitational or your orbit at any given point in time multiple planets don't affect your gravity in or your multiple planets do not impact your orbits in Kerbal space program unless they change [Music]

Channel: Destiny

Views: 673,266

Keywords: destiny debates, destiny discussion, destiny creationism, kent hovind, destiny streamer, destiny twitch, young earth debate, creationism, twitch debater, twitch streamer debater

Id: z74YezkVMIs

Length: 107min 17sec (6437 seconds)

Published: Thu May 23 2019