Yes, Matt, actually, iron in the blood is the key here.
We know that it can cause the cross-linking preservation process.
In fact, if he were to check out Mary Schweitzer,
you know, the person whose images he's got on screen,
you know, his source of this, I suppose.
And arrogantly dismissing.
Yeah, so the person that he's referencing,
if he checked out her work,
he'd realize that she discovered this iron preservation process
in the dinosaur bones.
You can't run to preservation
and say that somehow it was magically preserved
over the course of millions of years.
That's just completely irrational and illogical
in every sense of the word.
And number two, when Mary Schweitzer had to deal with this,
because remember, when she made the discoveries in 1990
and in 2005, evolutionists were criticizing her
and saying that she needed to come up with a mechanism
for how these things lasted for 65 plus million years.
So Dr. Schweitzer's conclusion was
that if you put dinosaur blood or blood of any creature
and encapsulate it in iron,
that the iron will preserve the blood cells
and that's how it lasted in deep time.
This is their claim.
But the truth is, when we look in nature,
we don't see things magically getting encapsulated
by iron when they die.
Nature doesn't do that.
I mean, if you slay an animal and you put it out in nature,
you even cover it with sediment,
nature doesn't automatically just encapsulate
dead organisms inside of iron.
It does the exact opposite.
It scatters the DNA molecules.
Since when does anything in nature die
and get encapsulated by iron by nature?
It just doesn't happen.
So their claim that, well, iron could preserve it,
okay, maybe to claim that nature somehow does this
is completely pathetic
because we don't ever see that in nature.
We don't see organisms getting encapsulated by iron.
It just doesn't happen.
So their rescue device,
that iron could be what's preserving the blood cells,
just falls apart at the fundamental
of what we observe nature do to organisms that die.
Scientists have been discovering soft tissue
in dinosaur bones.
Just in the last 20 years,
over 50 articles have been published in scientific journals
that have documented 14 bio-organic materials
in dinosaur bones
that simply cannot be millions of years old.
These include blood vessels, red blood cells,
hemoglobin, bone cells, ovalbumin, chitin.
Many dinosaur bones are even found unfossilized
in places like Madagascar, Alaska, and Montana,
collagen, which has a maximum shelf life
of about 900,000 years at 40 degrees
With a maximum shelf life of less than 1 million years,
what's collagen doing in dinosaur bones
that are supposedly 65 million years old?
Limited DNA, skin pigments,
fex proteins, histones, keratin, and elastin.
You've won the battle, but we're all losing the war
because people like Matt exist and say these kinds of things.
He's had like bad influences in his life
and he's got a bad roll of the dice.
He just has no critical thinking capacity.
But at the same time,
I really do think Matt knows what he's doing.
He knows what he's doing.
He's a walking charisma machine
and that's the problem when you're...
And he's a manipulation machine.
Well, he's quick, he's witty.
That's the reason why I don't debate Matt Powell.
So Mr. Jones, you mentioned Mary Switzer, right?
And I don't know if you know this,
but when they were actually excavating these bones,
the stench of death was still there
in the Hell Creek formation.
And within these dinosaur bones
contained blood, hemoglobin in the cells,
as well as vessels and stretchy materials.
So how could this stuff last for 65 million years
if your model's correct?
Well, I don't know.
I'm not, like I said, I'm not training.
I don't know how soft tissue survived in T-Rex items.
I don't know.
But you think it's plausible to believe
that it survived for 65 million years
with differentiating temperatures in the ground
and was sitting there within the Hell Creek formation.
That's why you're left with...
Well, in the light of any other evidence then, yeah.
You'd have to defend that blood cells lasted in the ground
and you're defending this right now
for 65 million years with proteins
and also dinosaurs that have grass
inside of their stomachs.
We've even found dinosaur feces, Mr. Jones,
that somehow lasted 65 million years.
And we found out that these dinosaurs ate grass,
which again was a prediction that we made on our model,
that it was failed on the evolutionist side.
Let me ask you this.
I don't wanna ask all the questions here today.
How did it fail?
What's that?
How did it fail?
Well, because evolution taught
that grass actually evolved via 55 million years ago,
but dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
So dinosaurs never saw grass
because they didn't find grass in the fossil record,
but we actually analyzed coprolites, dinosaur dung,
and found that they actually ate grass.
Now, according to evolution,
dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.
I'm sorry, there was no 65 million years ago
because these dinosaurs left behind remains
that are biodegradable.
And these biodegradable remains could not have lasted
over the deep time of millions of years.
Otherwise, they would have biodegraded by definition
of what biodegradable material even is.
So if you're gonna go around and say,
well, I think the dinosaur soft tissue
could last in the ground for 65 million years.
I'm sorry, you have entered into fantasy land.
You've entered into the same crowd.
You're believing the same things
that all of the crazies on the internet out there think.
Look, and it's not like we just find blood vessels.
We also find blood cells, hemoglobin in the blood.
We find FEX proteins.
We find collagen.
We even find grass inside of dinosaur stomachs.
But I'm supposed to believe
that this stuff lasted for 65 million years.
If you're in a debate with Matt Powell and you up,
you give him a gift.
Think it's important to call out people
like Matt Powell because we are prepared
to attack him from all angles because he is.
He's a very, very smart idiot.