(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

and Donnie from Standing for Truth. I had the opportunity since the debate that he had scheduled on his channel tonight was canceled due to a technical issue that the evolutionist was having with his wifi and whatnot, decided to have him come on to my channel tonight since he made himself available to discuss evolution and creation and some scientific laws. And so Donnie, I'm so thankful that you decided to come on tonight. I would consider you one of the best debaters that we have in the creation science world, and it's an honor to be able to have a conversation with you. How you doing, Donnie? Good, brother, I appreciate that because I'd consider you a fantastic debater. The last debate you had, I think about a week or two ago was extremely entertaining and demonstrated just how bankrupt evolution and atheism is, brother. So you keep up the good work as well. Sounds good, that guy was a fun one. Mr. Jones, check out the debate. Yeah, he was interesting. Well, Donnie, let's talk about some basic lines of evidence that demonstrates creation. What are some of your favorite go-to talking points that are just basic lines of evidence that show that creation science is indeed true and is indeed supported by facts and testable predictions? Yeah, I think that's a good question. And I think from our starting point, Matt, brother, as you know, we start from Genesis, so we start from the Bible. And the Bible claims to be, specifically Genesis claims to be the history book of the universe. And so we can start from that position and we can make accurate predictions or retrodictions. We can see if what we know about science today fits the story of origins in Genesis. And that's exactly what we find. I mean, people who follow me know that I focus heavily on the genetic data because genetics is the best way to determine ancestry. You know, is all life related through common ancestry? As the evolutionists would say, they're related to a banana plant. As Professor Dave said, you know, he's related to a strawberry and they're proud of it. They're proud of it and that's good. While others are a little more embarrassed over it, so it takes some time to get them to admit that they're related to strawberries, unfortunately. So the question is, are we related to plants, all animals and plants related, or is there separate ancestry as the Bible says, right? Genesis makes it clear. God created man from the dust of the earth. He created Adam and Eve, essentially the first couple, separate from any other form of life, not related to chimpanzees. And so genetics has actually confirmed. We've actually discovered Adam and Eve, the first couple directly in our genetics, the Y chromosome, which is uniparentally inherited DNA. We get that from our fathers and then mitochondrial DNA, we get that from our mothers. That's also uniparentally inherited DNA. And we have literally discovered the mother of us all, Eve in our genetics. And we've also discovered, more specifically, we've discovered Noah, our last Y chromosomal ancestor. So I'd probably start there and then also go into what I think we both love, the reality of genetic entropy. Mutations accumulate over time. Most mutations are deleterious. And so mutation accumulation puts what? Puts shelf lives on genomes. And you and I could show papers from the secular literature confirming that for probably two hours, which destroys evolution and confirms creation, so. That's true. Yeah, it's amazing because in natural selection, and we've seen this, it cannot act upon these neutral mutations. And the crowd that says that these neutral mutations are somehow just, they have no effect on fitness whatsoever. The effect that it does have is there actually, and it's vanishingly small, but it still has some effect. And the fact that people think that these changes in populations over generations is not going to cause the deleterious mutations to build up, it just shows that they are rejecting reality, that they're really not, because I mean, we die from mutations, right? So it just, to me, it makes sense that the entire human population, our race is going extinct because of these low impact deleterious mutations. And there's some videos on your channel that I've learned a lot from with regards to this topic. And I love how you guys reference a lot of these peer reviewed journals, because these are evolutionists submitting, like Hunter Shoff and other guys admitting that this is a well-established premise of genetics, that we have a genetic load that's increasing. And over time, I mean, the conclusion is, it's any rational person or geneticist would be that over time, we're going to accumulate so many that we go extinct. Amen. Amen. Well said. Brother, if organisms cannot persist for millions of years into the future because of low impact deleterious mutation accumulation, that means organisms could not have persisted from millions of years into the past. Why do we have what's called living fossils, where we have organisms like the horseshoe crab, like coelacanth, where according to the evolutionary timescale, we find these creatures in 300 million years worth of rock. Now we obviously don't accept that, but that's what they believe in, capital B. But yet we find them, these creatures today, pretty well looking the same, right? But what we know about mutation accumulation is they could not have persisted for hundreds of millions of years. So how do we have these organisms that essentially go unchanged for hundreds of millions of years based on the reality of mutation accumulation? As you pointed out, Matt, no serious population geneticist would ever say that man is presently getting better. No, they understand that mutations are accumulating. They're leading to more and more diseases. And we have thousands and thousands of mutation related diseases. And the reason why these population geneticists have spent so much time on artificially contrived rescue mechanisms to solve genetic degeneration is because they acknowledge there is a genetic degeneration problem. And all of their rescue mechanisms that I have put forth, Matt, I've analyzed and they've all been absolutely crushed. None of them work. And one last thing I'll say is evolutionists, they look to, as you know, mutations as the source for all novel variation that selection can act upon, right? And take your single solid like ancestor into a whale over time. But wait a minute, mutations which are supposedly supposed to add novel genetic variation are damaging to organisms. So they don't make organisms better. What we see is a downhill process rather than an uphill process. So their claim mechanisms, natural selection, which selects from what's already there, it's a fine tuning mechanism that keeps a species as strong as it can be and mutations degrade genetic functionality. Their two mechanisms fail miserably. It's incredible, it's incredible. What about geology, Donnie? I mean, when we look around us and we see these bent rock layers, cause they will adhere to the column and they'll say that, well, this is the proof, these fossils, these transitions and these homologous structures are proof that we descended from, you know, SpongeBob SquarePants and whatever, which, you know, really is what they believe. We're arguing against a group of people that believe in literal tune network, literal SpongeBob, goo to you, zoo to you, fairy tale, fairy story, fish to fishermen evolution. But of course, this is the first crowd to tell us proudly that the Bible is incorrect and that we are superstitious for believing in a book that's been around for a long time. Look, I'm glad it's been around for a long time because it shows that it's historical and that it is reliable. But let's talk about the rock layers cause obviously we know as creationists just based on bent rock, that these things had to be laid down rapidly and you have rapid plate tectonics going on. That's really the only explanation for all of these tight bends in these rocks. Now, whenever I hear them say, well, over heat and pressure in millions of years, these mountains slowly form, what a joke. Only a really gullible person would actually believe, I think, something like that. I don't know. I mean, I just, what are your thoughts on that? These bent rock layers and their rescue devices that they put forth. I mean, to me, it seems that, putting forth that rescue device, number one, there's no way we can observe that. And then number two, how are you gonna have just the right amount of heat to bend all of these layers simultaneously without breaking any of the rocks? And just to me, testifies to catastrophism. Amen. Amen. Well said, brother. And you've given a number of fantastic presentations on evidence for the flood. And it's funny because when you debate these evolutionists and I think you'll know, they will be forced to admit that the entire earth was once underwater. Now they wouldn't say that the earth was once underwater in one single worldwide flood, but they have to admit based on the geological evidence that the earth was once underwater, but at different times throughout history, right? And, but they have no justification for that. And they, because as you pointed out, what we see in terms of the geological features of the earth, present processes, present uniformitarian processes, cannot explain what we see. Not to mention, we have examples of marine fossils that are found in landlocked areas that are far from the sea, right? And the sedimentary rock layers, Matt, they extend over entire continents, which means if we have sedimentary layers that are extending over entire continents, the cause of those layers had to be global in extent. Okay? Local causes is not going to explain the fact that we have these massive layers of sedimentary rock. Only catastrophism that we find in the Bible can explain that. I mean, we've got examples of fish giving birth, okay? Fish being eaten. Matt, does it take millions of years for, you know, birth? Of course not, thank God. Okay, which means- It cracks me up, man. Yeah, this is evidence- It cracks me up. Sorry, go ahead. No, I didn't mean to cut you off. No worries, yeah. I mean, this is evidence for sudden and rapid burial, as Ken Hovind always puts it. How many animals died today? Millions? How many fossilized? Probably none. Fossilization requires rapid burial. This is all explained through the global flood, so. Well, it just cracks me up because, you know, like you were mentioning, we find these things that, you know, and supposedly the fossilization, if you were to Google, how long does it take to get a fossil? You're going to find an answer of, you know, at least 10,000 years. Yet we find, like you mentioned, these fish giving birth. And that'd be one painful birth if it took 10,000 years for that thing. But it's just, to me, I mean, their position is indefensible. And you think about geology, the fundamental, like you mentioned, of geology being these continents that were completely covered by a global catastrophe shows that, you know, that catastrophism is what best explains the geology of the earth. Let's talk about cosmology. When you're dealing, I know you don't deal a lot with cosmology, but what about the big bang theory? What are some of your best arguments against big bang cosmology and in favor, even of creation science or like a creationist argument? I think that's a good question. And I think it goes back to one thing I want to point out, you know, based on our conversation so far, isn't it so fascinating, brother, that we can talk about genetics, we can talk about biology, we can talk about geology, and now we can talk about astronomy or cosmology and it all supports what? It all supports biblical creation. All fields of science correlate on one truth, the truth of biblical creation. Because you know, these evolutionists, they'll say, well, you know, the evidence for evolution, it's so overwhelming, you know, I mean, geology and astronomy and biology, genetics. But then when you actually examine every single field, every single topic, no, it doesn't support deep time evolution, it supports biblical creation. So the one thing I would point to is this important question of why is there something rather than nothing, right? And the empirical data is, you know, brother, you point this out, it tells us that time, space and matter literally had a beginning out of nothing. And when we say nothing, we're not talking about a quantum vacuum, okay? We're actually talking about nothing, literally nothing. And I like to point out that nothing is what rocks dream up, okay? Because Lawrence Krauss and these, you know, evolutionists that still wanna hold on to a natural origin of the universe through Big Bang, through their Big Bang model, they'll say, well, nothing, you know, still means something. Well, no, that doesn't make any sense. The first law of thermodynamics says what? Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But the second law of thermodynamics says that everything is winding down, the law of increasing entropy, right? So that means if we wind things back up, we wind things back up to a starting point. And since matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, but the second law puts a shelf life on matter and energy, that means it had to have been created or brought forth from an outside agent, which would be God, according to the Bible. And that would be the beginning. What are your thoughts on that, brother? Well, I agree with you 100%, amen. I think that you have to be either dishonest or delusional or brainwashed to think anything else because the cause of the universe, the law of cause and effect states that for everything that comes into existence, there is a cause. Whatever caused time to come into existence must have been outside of time, outside of space, if it brought space into being. And matter, think about this. If the cause could bring something as big as just the ocean into existence on this earth, that requires power. To be able to design life from the ground, does that requires intelligence? I mean, these are requirements. It's not just an opinion. They say, oh, you just have a bunch of opinions on this panel here tonight, Matt. No, false. This is just basic scientific law that is denied by a group of people that really could care less. Some of them really care about truth. And I think that the problem with some of them, I'm not gonna drop any names, but I do have some atheist friends that I think they are sincere, but I think they're sincerely wrong. And I think that they're following people that tell them that radiometric dating is somehow true. And they're trusting their words. You know how the Bible says that with certain words, they deceive the simple-minded? That to me is what it really comes down to. I mean, the law of cause and effect states that for everything that comes into existence, there is a cause. They say, well, what caused God? Nothing caused God. He's the uncaused cause. They say, where did God come from? What do you mean come from? He didn't come from anywhere. If he came from somewhere, that means he was created. You cannot create something that's eternal. When they say who created God, that's like asking who created the thing that created everything and that by definition cannot be created. Who created the thing that cannot be created? Who baked the baker? Who painted the painter? Who designed the architect? To me, that's the kind of question that they're asking. And so, yeah, I think you made an excellent argument there that really is, it's philosophically sound and it's irrefutable. I mean, people can have an opinion outside of what the facts are, but that is a fact of science. And this, I don't know if you noticed this guy, Mr. Jones, he's like, I'm still waiting for evidence for God, you know? And I said, dude, I gave you evidence for God. Time, space and matter being here right now is proof that God is evidence. So anyways, Don, oh yeah, go ahead. Well, I was going to say, and it comes down to this question, why can we do science in the first place, right? Well, the fact that we can do science is because the universe is so orderly, right? We have laws, which implies a lawgiver and the universe appears to be the result of a rational mind. I mean, we could look to the fine tuning argument where we have all of these numerous factors in the universe that if they were changed, even just a little bit, take gravity for example, if gravity were just changed a bit, we wouldn't be here. The sun itself is in the perfect place. The moon is in a perfect place. Our DNA is arranged in a way that allows us to exist and reproduce. And one last thing I'll say too is how this can point back to the biblical God, right? Because the evolutionists will oftentimes say, why is there something rather than nothing? We'll concede to a designer, but why is it your God? Why isn't it just some deist God? Well, the thing is if space, matter, and time had a beginning mat out of nothing, that means whatever created space, time, and matter cannot be made out of space, time, and matter, right? As Dr. Dino points out in one of his videos that has like 30 million views or something, the guy who created the computer is not inside the computer, pressing little buttons, opening files. No, he's outside of the computer. Just like God is outside of time, which means this cause being God has to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, all powerful, moral, personal, and intelligent. And the reason why he has to be personal is because he made the choice to bring forth time, space, and matter. So he made that personal choice, which makes sense of the biblical God because he wants a personal relationship with us. These are all qualities of the God that we know of in the Bible. So it's not just any God. No, it points us to the God of the Bible. And I think that's important. That's incredible. You know, when you look at the initial creation story, there's a lot of power behind it. And I think that, you know, the fact that God could create us out of the dust is pretty amazing. And, you know, when I point, I was in this debate, obviously, we've talked about it a couple of times, this guy, Mr. Jones, you know, he goes, nobody believes that we came from rocks, almost word for word, R and Ra talk. And so I could tell, like, he's, you know, he's obviously listening to R and Ra. And he had the goal to say, well, faith is believing things without evidence. And right there was another dead giveaway. He's listening to Mr. Larry Nelson because no dictionary actually says that. You know, faith is actually defined as a confidence or trust in someone or something. And I corrected him twice on that because, and he's like, all right, I stand corrected. But it just amazed me that these people, they don't actually, they'll claim to do research. Oh, I did a lot of research and help me leave Christianity. Well, let me ask you this. What did you leave to go believe? Surfing monkeys? Now, obviously we know certain land masses can break off, biological organisms get taken place place. We understand that. That's basic science. But I'm talking 900 miles, really, with no fresh water. She's like, well, they would have had bananas, bananas to have water. So they're gonna drink bananas. They're gonna drink lettuce. They're gonna drink, they're eating the very thing that they're floating on. But I don't wanna get off track here. I feel like some of this stuff, you know, it's just a little crazy, but I don't know where I was going with that. Well, if I could, Matt, I'm not sure if you have the capabilities right now to share a screen because... Can you share the screen? Let's do it. I could, yeah. I'm not sure if Steve can see it. I've got it shared right now. But these evolutionists, okay, like you're pointing out, right? The surfing monkeys, how they, you know, try and explain biogeography, how they try and explain human evolution, you know, from an ape-like ancestor to modern man. It involves, as you pointed out, brother, a lot of imagination, a lot of guesswork, a lot of inference and a lot of storytelling. Okay, so I've got, you know, dozens of quotes here and relatively new quotes from paleoanthropologists themselves that are admitting just how confusing and messy specifically human evolution is. For example, here, this is Bernard Wood. He's a famous paleoanthropologist in one of his technical articles here in nature, 50 years after Homo habilis. He says, notice this, this is in 2014. They've been pushing this theory of ape-to-man evolution for how long, right, brother? So he says, even with all the fossil evidence and analytical techniques from the past 50 years, a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains what? Elusive, because the evidence is so fragmented. These bones come in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of little isolated fragments, okay? A bone, a fossil found in the dirt has not inherited sperm and egg, okay? A fossil can sing any song that you want it to sing. That's why there's so much imagination in storytelling when it comes with human evolution and the fossil record. That's why when we look to genetics, which is the direct way to answer this question of ancestry, what do we find? Confirmation of separate ancestry and biblical creation. Here's a kind of famous paper, a recent paper, brother, where it's called the Pliocene-Hominin Diversity Conundrum. Do more fossils mean less clarity? And the answer to that question, if you read the paper, the answer to that question is no. It's not any more clear. It's actually less clear. It's more confusing. For example, this is what they're looking at now when it comes to human evolution. It's a bushy mess. They don't really know where things belong. What you'll find is what one paleoanthropologist is saying, Matt, another paleoanthropologist is disagreeing with that person. As in it's a very competitive field. And the reason why, the reason why, here's the last one that I'll show here, is these are a couple of famous paleoanthropologists. And what they're saying based on all the incoming data is we have to scrap the iconic list of names and we have to start from the beginning with new hypotheses and new stories. And it's because they're starting from a false starting point, as we know, Matt. They believe, they're starting from this assumption that an ape-like creature evolved into man. So the reason why it's so confusing and messy is because it's not true. So as the years go on, guess what? It's just gonna become even more messy, more confusing because what they're trying to put forth here, it's not true. It's a lie. They've been sold a lie and they're trying to demonstrate or prove a lie. You can't do such a thing. Yeah, this is pretty incredible information. Yeah, the whole ape-to-man thing, of course, mutations would have had to have been what drove it. And we know that mutations will cause the deletions and deleterious information to get added into all systems over generations in these populations. So, I mean, what you're saying makes perfect sense. And I think that people that try to defend this really have to do so dishonestly. Amen. It's really what it comes down to. I mean, the whole radiometric dating thing too, cause you showed that footprint. So can we put that back up on the screen there, Steve? Yeah, put that back up on the screen real quick. Yeah, just real quick. Yeah, right here. I remember you were in a debate not too long ago and it seems like almost every debate that you bring this footprint up to people, what do they say? Radiometric, oh, well that layer must have been radiometrically dated. It's not really a footprint of a human, even though it's anatomically the same. Let's radiometrically date it. Well, obviously radiometric dating is 100% based off of assumptions and inference, not fact. I mean, think about this. I was just thinking about this the other day when I went into that debate with Jones. We don't know when these rocks lithified or solidified that there was any daughter element present in the rock, because we have this parent daughter element ratio of this decay rate. We don't even know that the decay rate was the same. We don't even know if it is the same as it was in the past today. We don't even know so many things about this. Could it have been contaminated? I mean, lightning itself causes radioactivity. I mean, but there are so many problems with it. And to actually reference radiometric dating when these people do that, to me it just shows the inability to actually critically think, because I don't wanna put it that way. The inability to think outside of what they're being told, because there are so many assumptions that are at play here with this radiometric dating process. Well, if I could, brother, you make so many good points there. And if Steve can make sure this is on screen, this is a graph that you show as well, or at least something similar where we have, and this is right from mainstream scientific journals, right, Matt? So we're not making this stuff up. And if you look at this table, table one here, young rocks from recent eruptions, recent eruptions yield greatly exaggerated apparent ages. So if you have a look when the rock was formed, and then the age that they got, 42 million years, 30 million years, 12 million years. So the question is, why are we going to trust dates derived from rocks of unknown age, when we can't even get accurate dates of rocks of known age? We literally know when these rocks were formed. These are young rocks from recent eruptions, and we're getting dates in the millions of years. And it's circular with what you were saying, Matt, when it comes to these footprints. So I've brought up the Laetoli footprints for a couple of years now, even in my debate with Guts of Gibbon a couple of years ago. And anybody who doesn't have the preconceived notion of evolution, if you can critically think, okay, because these footprints were found, you know, millions of years ago, around the time of Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis. So the evolutionist says, well, we know that modern homo sapiens with anatomically modern looking human feet did not exist back then. So these can't be human footprints because radiometric dating dates these back to, you know, three to 7 million years ago. So it's circular reasoning. Well, these can't be human footprints because we know humans were not around back then. Notice if you compare these all different primate feet, chimpanzee, gorilla, baboon, here's a human footprint. You have the inline toe, okay? If it were somebody's footprint today, let's say mine or yours, the person's shoe size here would be like a size 10 or 11. Lucy was like three to four feet tall, okay? Lucy did not have size 10 feet. So the point is Matt, you completely nailed it. It's all circular reasoning. We as a young earth creationist, we can say, sure, this makes sense. Humans co-existed with the Australopithecines. So of course we would expect to find what? Human bones, human footprints, human artifacts, human-made tools, and this is actually what we do find. All coexisting with the Australopithecines that we supposedly, Matt, evolved from. And really, if you think about it, I mean, radiometric dating is really the only, the only thing that they have to date the crust of the earth, as they say it. But here's the thing about that, you know, you think about the fact that if we go back to, say, the Cretaceous or even the Jurassic, these, in these particular layers, we find these dinosaur bones, and I actually just did a video on this last night. Just the fact, I did it right here in this church, the fact that we find 16, did you hear that evolutionists? 16 types of bio-organic material that are biodegradable. That means that iron cross-linking for the, that's the one rescue device they use is the, it was cross-linked. Look, it doesn't make a difference if it's cross-linked in deep time, it's going to deteriorate. But even if we granted that, that these iron cells, or that these blood cells were preserved in iron, even granting that, we still find collagen in dinosaur bones, we find blood vessels, blood cells, hemoglobin still inside of the blood, chiaetin, keratin, we find FEX proteins, histones, which rules out contamination, collagen, what else do we find? We find C-14 inside of dinosaur bones. Well, wait a minute, the half-life is 5,730 years. That means that it would not last any more than 50,000 years. Yet we find C-14 in a bunch of different dinosaur bones. Look, they run, they cry out, contamination, Matt, contamination. Well, if you have contamination coming into play, then it's going to cause these other elements to deteriorate, so no matter how they want to play their deck of cards, it will not go their way. And I'm learning as I watch these debates that you and Rahm Matt do and other people do, I'm learning that these evolutionists, they always come with a specific deck of cards and they are very limited as to what they can say and what they will do. Like I said earlier, when you point to that fossil and you point out that this is found well before humans evolved, automatically they are forced to run to radiometric dating. So, I mean, they have a script, yet they'll say, well, it's the scripted versus the unscripted. You know, I don't know about you, but a lot of my debates, it's just off the cuff. And a lot of it's just based on the book. And most of the time they go running away, oh, I'll prepare better next time. It's just a charisma machine. Actually, anybody that knows me knows that I'm not that charismatic. I just am a normal dude that lives a life that's trying to follow Christ. That's really what I am. It just comes down to knowing basic laws of science and knowing the Bible. You don't have to be a genius. You just have to know basic laws to be able to defeat evolutionists. So that would be my encouragement to people, you know, listening to this video is don't be afraid of these bullies because a lot of them will try and bully you. And so there's no evidence for the Bible. I can't believe your book because your God made an animal talk. Well, number one, if God could create the universe from nothing, he can make an animal speak. That's no problem for him. If he can create the universe from nothing, he can do anything with the creation. I mean, just basic common sense. And then number two, according to evolution, are we not all animals? I mean, we all talk 7.8 billion people on this earth. So they believe in 7.8 billion talking animals. And think about this too, because I have heard some really wacky stuff. Actually, Raw Matt was sharing some of his info with me. There is a crowd of people out there that think that the reason that we evolved language is because, and I kid you not, I don't know if you've heard about this, but that we ate psychedelic shrooms. Yeah, oh yeah. That's how our language evolved. I don't know what kind of shrooms they were eating when they came up with that or what they were drinking. But this is the stuff that really proves the Bible right. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Amen. Yeah, that's called the stoned ape hypothesis or the stoned ape theory. So it's just so many wacky ideas. It really is a science fiction religion, Matt, as you put it, that's exactly what it is. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. They're willingly ignorant. I mean, they're best lines of evidence that they point to as you've shown. Like dating methods, it's shooting themselves in their foot. Like you pointed out, we have C14, we have a massive number of cases of highly preserved, amazingly preserved biomaterials. We just had Dr. Mark Armitage on, and he's done a lot of this work himself. And he's got some amazing photos and he just laughs at the critics. I mean, they have no answer as to how these soft tissues can be preserved over millions of years. And it's not just fragments. They'll try and downplay it and say, well, yeah, they're just fragments. No, no, we have some amazingly preserved examples of soft tissue, protein, and the number of other things that you pointed to, Matt. But also when it comes to C14, okay, this is another thing that PhD scientists have looked into. Contamination doesn't work. All their best rescue devices doesn't work. And the fact is carbon, Matt, decays so quickly that if every single atom in the universe was made of carbon, it would all decay within a million years easy. And yet everything in the fossil record has detectable levels of carbon 14 and not just trace amounts, oftentimes amounts that are 10 times above the detectable limit. I mean, we find it in dinosaurs, as you've pointed out, fossilized wood, diamonds. Diamonds should be the most resistant to contamination. They're the hardest substance on earth, right? They're created deep within the earth. And so they're going to be shielded by C14 in the atmosphere, for example. C14 is created by cosmic ray bombardment in the atmosphere. So no, contamination doesn't work on diamonds. And guess what? These results, they're repeatable. Dinosaur, bones, fossils, coal, fossilized wood, diamonds, everything has C14. And the rescue devices don't work, Matt. So when they bring up dating methods, we just throw it back right in their face and say, you know what? Dating methods don't work for you either because dating methods, again, demonstrate biblical creation, so. Even if we go based on the assumption that what they're saying about these dating methods is true, it still goes in our favor, even if we're going based on the assumption that is made. And so, yeah, I think great point there, brother, amen. What about, you know, this whole thing about ERVs, kind of recently came to my attention as of the past couple of years. And people will say that, well, since we, and I'm going to present the argument, and if you wouldn't mind just debunking it, the argument is that we have these insertions that are evolutionary leftovers that have been passed on through populations and generations of viral infections and viruses that have been passed on. And they're housed in our DNA, they've been inserted in the DNA, and they're in the same regions as us that we share with other creatures. And so, therefore, since they are inherited, they come from a common ancestor. Now, I have a lot of reasons why I personally think that's false. I think that it is true that we share these retroviruses with the creation just as we share DNA. But what would be your best answer against this supposed best evidence of evolution? Yeah, that's a very good question, Matt. Yeah, just over the last few years, this is like their number one line of evidence they like to point to now. And you know why? Because the lines of evidence that they pointed to, like 20, 30 years ago, vestigial organs and structures, those don't work. Pseudo genes, don't work. Junk DNA completely overturned. Homology, homology doesn't work. So-called existence of transitional forms, nope, nested hierarchical patterns, that doesn't work. So all of their best so-called lines of evidence have been demolished. So now they're like, you know what, this ERV argument, this looks like a decent argument, right? We've got these shared viral insertions between humans and chimpanzees. That means we must have inherited them from a past common ancestor. And so they bring it up every single debate. Actually, one of the first guys to really start utilizing it was conspiracy cats. So I challenged him and I said, okay, let's debate genetics, specifically ERVs. And we debated it for about two and a half hours. And I showed him the number of papers that, I'm not sure if, is Steve there where he can screen share for, I guess, visuals for- This will help people visual. I'm a visual learner, so, okay, perfect. So for one, I like to point out, and Dr. Hovind did this perfectly today, when people hear a virus, when they hear the word virus, Matt, what do they think? Oh, something bad, something harmful. Well, the fact is 99.99% of viruses are actually good. Notice this article from bbc.com. That's not a young earth creationist website. Why the world needs viruses to function. You wouldn't want to live in a world that had no viruses, had no bacteria, right? And this article says the vast majority of viruses are not pathogenic to humans, and many play integral. Notice this, integral roles in propping up ecosystems. Others maintain the health of individual organisms, everything from fungi and plants, insects, and humans. I've had these evolutionists in response videos. They can't take me on in a live debate, so we'll do damage control afterwards, Matt, because they get just absolutely decimated. True, I've seen it every time, every time. And they think this is the best line of evidence. And these guys in their damage control session, they'll say, I mean, doesn't staining for truth know that we have, you know, viruses upon viruses in plants and fungi and insects? And it's like, yeah, look what this article, even on BBC, this is a virologist pointing that out, that these viruses are there, they're necessary in fungi, in plants, in insects, and in humans. They point out, we live in a balance, in a perfect equilibrium. And notice the last quote, I think we'd be done without viruses. Okay, if anyone in the audience doesn't know, we actually have, and this is weird to think of, you know, a lot of people don't think of this. And I was kind of fascinated when I first heard this, we have more viruses in and on our bodies than we do cells. And we have over 10 trillion cells, each cell on its own more complicated than the space shuttle. But apparently, you know, it came about for no reason at all, you know, over millions to billions of years of evolutionary processes. But we have more viruses than we do cells. Well, what are they all doing there? We're not dead. That's because the viruses are there for a reason, for a purpose. They, one of the reasons why they're there is because they are regulating the number of bacterial species in our bodies. It's a symbiotic relationship. You need the viruses, you need the bacteria, and they both work together. Symbiotic relationships, only a special creation over six days can explain symbiotic relationships. So here, what is an endogenous retrovirus? Human endogenous retroviruses represent footprints of previous retroviral infection and have been termed fossil viruses. So Matt, you could probably see the built-in assumption there in their definition. They believe what they're looking at is fossil remnants of past viral infections that were passed on through common ancestry, right? But the question is, and I typically point this out, because we understand that viruses in general and viral-like elements, like these ERBs, are necessary to sustain healthy life processes in the cell. So here's the question to make it easy for the audience. Are these really the ancient remnants of past viral infections over millions of years, or are these created units of DNA function? One model, the evolutionary model, would predict non-function and junk. They're just evolutionary leftovers, genomic fossils. Okay, they would predict junk. We, from the creation standpoint, would predict what? We'd predict function. Evolutionists did not predict function. We predicted function, and notice what we found. How endogenous retroviruses protect us from viral infection. One focus will be on recent advances in the role of ERVs as regulators of antiviral gene expression. No, junk no longer. ERVs are integral and important components of immune responses. They act as protectors against viral infection. So of course, they're gonna have some characteristics with some of these, you know, viruses. And I can go over a number of papers. Dr. Hovind did it tonight, that demonstrates these ERVs are functional in immune response. They're functional in gene expression, regulating genes, functional in embryological development. And so they're there for a reason. And here is the showstopper for the evolutionists. And I asked this to conspiracy cats. I asked this to everybody. They'll say, well, these functions could be co-opted. They can come about through evolutionary processes. Oh, really? Show me a technical paper, one technical paper, where a non-functional endogenous retrovirus went from non-function to something critically function, critically important in the genome, such as embryological development. They can't show you this because this is storytelling. This is imagination. It never happened. Okay, here's the last thing I'll say, Matt, because it's such a heavy topic. A viral insertion is more likely to disrupt genetic functionality and destroy information rather than make things better. But yet we see these important functional roles associated with retrovirus, retroviral-like elements. The reason then why we share retroviral-like elements with the chimpanzee and other primates is because they are created units of DNA function. They are there for a reason, for a purpose, for a function and therefore the evidence better supports common design and not common ancestry. It's a line of evidence. The evolutionists, they just need to throw away because every time they bring it up, again, they're shooting themselves in the foot because it's actually evidence against common ancestry and evidence for common design, brother. Yeah, I think these are some great points you're making. And retroviruses, praise the Lord for them, because probably wouldn't be here if they didn't exist. And yet they claim, oh, it's just viral remnants of insertions in DNA. And I mean, if these insertions happened over millions and millions of years, I mean, would that not cause problems, major genetic problems? So even if I grant their model, even granting it, the only way to defend it is by either A, delusion or B, just outright lying. Because the mutation through selection process, the four fundamental traits, characteristics of evolution, genetic drift and so forth, look, these mechanisms of evolution are mechanisms that by default will cause deleterious information to get added to populations. I mean, I don't understand what they're missing here to claim that mutations, which are defined as errors, have made information better able to survive. You know, and they like to play these word games. I don't know if you've noticed this. I say, okay, you're saying mutation makes it better. No, no, it makes it so it's able to survive. Okay, so it's better able to survive. So it's better, you know, because they don't want to admit what they believe. The errors are making things better. They want to make it sound plausible. And you know, this R and Ra, for example, my wife actually predicted, I posted a video. I don't know if you've seen it. Oh yeah. My wife actually predicted in an interview a year ago that R and Ra would be a Satanist. She said, you know what? I believe he's a Satanist. I don't even believe he's an actual atheist. And all these commenters are coming into the chat. Oh, your wife's just crazy. She's out of her mind. She's not a Satanist. Then he comes out as a Satanist. And these same people, they won't correct themselves. Because if somebody says delusional enough to believe that the universe popped into existence uncaused with no God, they're going to be delusional enough to believe their own delusion. Okay, that's just basic, basic truth. They may consider me condescending for saying that, but it is true. And they need to stop spreading this to children. They can live in their fairy story land, their fish to, you know, Mr. Limpet 2.0 land without sharing it with children. You know, they say, you know, Aaron Roth said about me that this movie he created, something within it promotes, you know, an idea of child abuse saying that all have sinned. Well, look, they're saying all people are animals. That is abusive and wrong. To teach a child that they are just an animal. I guess we are mammals, we are warm blooded creatures, but we are human. And there's a difference between human and chimp. We are not apes. We did not descend from a common ancestor. I mean, it's just, I don't know. It's just, it's so flawed, even at the fundamental and the belief that they came from literal rocks to me just is a dead giveaway. But back on the whole Aaron Roth thing, and I'll turn it back over to you. You know, my wife predicted that he would be a Satanist. I didn't know if he was or not. I didn't really care. But when he came out, Raw Matt actually sent me that video of him coming out at the Satanist convention in Scottsdale, Arizona. And I saw that video. I'm like, you know what? I showed it to my wife. And the funniest part of this whole thing is these same atheists are now commenting. They're moving the goalposts. Well, he is a Satanist. Yes, your wife was right. I'll give her that. But he doesn't really believe in the devil. That's like being a Buddhist and not believing in Buddha. What if I said, I'm a Christian, and I don't believe in Christ, I'm lying. You know what? By them saying, I'm a Satanist, but I don't really believe in Satan, they're lying. Just like their father, the devil, the father of lies, who they follow after. Anyways, I don't wanna get off track there, but I'm gonna turn it back over to you, brother. I don't know. What are your thoughts on this whole Satanist movement now and Aaron Roth coming out as a Satanist? Well, it's a war against God. It's an attack on God. We're in the end times, we're in the end days, we see the signs. And as the Bible says, 2 Peter 3, right? They're willingly ignorant of the creation, the flood, the coming judgment. They are given a strong delusion. And so they'd rather be a Satanist and worship the devil that apparently they don't believe exists, rather than worship God. Rather than put their faith and trust in the power of God, they wanna put their faith and trust in the wisdom of man. And the wisdom of man, God laughs at, okay? These are people that believe, strawberries and whales are related through common ancestry. These are people that believe that non-living chemicals apparently came together as the first self-replicating molecule and the first self-replicating cell, which became multi-celled, which became a fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal, and then man. And then man, we're sitting here over a laptop through an internet connection. You're all the way in Lenox, Alabama. I'm here in Canada. We're having a great conversation. Technology that we've invented, engineered, we've built the space shuttle. Do we see these chimpanzees doing any of this, these monkeys, anything in the wild? No, we're capable of abstract thinking. We're capable of spiritual things. We pray before our meals. Do we see any of this from the rest of the biological world? No, of course not. And one thing I'll mention, you touched on it earlier, is again, there are mechanisms to take their fish to fishermen, their bacteria-like organism to a biologist, is essentially spelling mistakes, Matt. Think about mistakes. Typographical errors in the text are going to take a single solid-like ancestor into a whale over billions of years. And what we see, and this goes right back to the beginning is that these mutations are, most of the genome's functional. They've done analyses, Matt, that even if the genome were only 10% functional, deleterious mutation accumulation would destroy species. And yet now we know that the genome's at least 80% functional. That's 80 deleterious mutations accumulating from generation to generation. And here's the thing. Selection has to do with reproduction, has to do with the death of individuals, which means you can't select away the entire population. Every single human being on this planet, Matt, is multiply mutant. We've all accumulated roughly 100 new mutations per person per generation from our parents, which means generation after generation, we're more and more mutant. You can't select away the entire population, or what does that result in? Immediate extinction. That means selection can only ever get rid of the worst deleterious mutations and maybe amplify the best rare beneficial mutation, even though those beneficial mutations are usually damaging and reductive, which means the point is you can never stop the genetic degeneration problem, and therefore our hope is in Christ. Our hope is not in this world. Our hope is in Christ. Our hope is in heaven. And my message to anybody listening, especially if you're on the fence, you're agnostic, you know what? Put your faith and trust on Jesus today. Okay, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Don't put your faith and trust in the fallible wisdom of man. Put your faith and trust in the power of God, who is infallible, who is perfect, who created this world out of nothing, okay? The complexity of the DNA code, the complexity of everything around us tells us that there's a creator. So it's time to quit rejecting him, denying him, and just put your faith in himself. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. You know, I think about what you were saying about the selection. You know, selection, in order for evolution to be able to happen, selection has to select that which really is non-selectable. Think about that. Selection would have to be able to act upon something that's non-selectable in order to prevent it from causing the extinction of these populations. So it really nails our point home. You know, I was at work back like seven years ago. I was 18 years old working at this place called General Dynamics Land Systems. And there were three atheists that I worked with there. And the one guy, his name was John. He goes, well, Matt, you know, we need to, you know, DNA shows us and genetics has shown us that we are all related to grasp or common ancestry. And I'm just thinking, man, you know, I didn't know how to refute it at the time. I'm just thinking, man, this sounds so stupid. You know, and the thing that I like about Jackson Rowe, you know, he's actually a friend of mine. He's an evolutionist and he's becoming well-known here on this, you know, these debate platforms. You know, at least he's honest from what I've seen with what he knows. And he, you know, he did say, he did come right out and say, yeah, it sounds stupid, right? So again, you know, I appreciate it when somebody just, you know, with common sense says, you know, I believe it, it sounds stupid. I believe it, you know, it sounds irrational. And you know what, you know what? I have to give kudos to people like that that are honest about it. Cause you know, when people say it sounds so beautiful that we evolved from a fish, well, it sounds kind of ugly. It sounds kind of gross. Slime, it was my ancestor. It sounds kind of kooky. You know, that an explosion, rapid expansion, free of everything that we see around us. I mean, we're dealing with a crowd of people that believe in literal magic, but of course the fallacy of false equivalence. What do they accuse us of? Real Christians believe in magic, repeating things that they've heard, just like a bunch of parrots. Right. And, you know, unfortunately free thought really, really isn't a thing anymore. But yeah, selection needs to act upon these things. Otherwise, you know, we'll die for one. And then number two, the population is going to go extinct. And there's really no way to stop this deleterious information getting poured in. All these viruses, Rob Matt actually pointed out in his debate not too long ago, all these viruses and all these deleterious mutations are getting poured into the human pool of genetics and selection is not weeding them out. So if the present is the key to the past, what does that tell us about the past? That we live in a much better scenario with less mutations and longer lifespans. I mean, it's just the logical conclusion. I mean, it's common sense. It's common sense. I mean, if you, and you nailed it right there. You nailed it, brother. That's evidence for creation right there, special creation. If we take this point of accumulating genetic load, right? We are at a point where we have accumulated the highest genetic load. Take that back to a point of least accumulating mutations. That would be a point of what? A point of perfection, a point of longer lives, a point where, and we typically as creationists, we would hold to design diversity. Where God would have front-loaded beneficial diversity in the original created kinds that were free from what? From mutations. Delatir's mutations were entered into the genetics of living organisms after the fall. And ever since then, we've degenerated more and more, which is a perfect explanation for the decrease in lifespan. So you nailed it right there, brother. Take it back to a point of least increasing genetic entropy. That's a point of creation. That's a point of perfection. And it can't be denied unless you wanna be willingly ignorant. And one thing you said, according to evolutionists like PZ Myers, according to the law of monophyly that we never grow our ancestry, we're still fish today. I'm sitting here apparently according to evolution, I'm still a fish. And yeah, I give respect to Jackson Rowe because he's not ashamed. He will say, yes, that sounds stupid. Banana plants and whales related through common ancestry, that sounds stupid. And you know what? Let's be real, it's cause it is kind of stupid. But some of these evolutions, they wanna beat around the bush for an hour. Well, we're not really related through common ancestry. And then you'll pull up their phylogenetic charts and you'll say, why at the very bottom do we have last universal common ancestry? And we have branches coming out where you got banana plants, whales, dinosaurs, sponges, humans, apes. That's because yes, you do believe that banana plants and whales are related through common ancestry. I'm sorry, as Ken Hovind always says, that's not science. You can believe in it, capital B, but it's not science. So go start your own private school, the School of Ponds Come to People Evolution, and you can teach it to whoever's willing to pay. But it's not science. SpongeBob University, here we come. Well, think about, in my debate with Mr. Jones, and I hope I'm not beating a dead horse here with this guy. This guy just made so many of the common arguments that I hear over and over and over. And when he said that, well, we are eukaryotes and pine trees are eukaryotes, therefore we, and I cut him off. I said, look, I said, just because we share a certain characteristic or a certain type of cell with another creature doesn't mean that we came from common descent. I mean, to extrapolate that as, oh, well, everything is related through ancestry. Well, what about non-eukaryotes? Right. I mean, what do you do with them? Are they not related to us? If you're basing this specific lineage on whether the organism is eukaryotic or not, they have to, I don't know, man. I just, sometimes I can't believe this stuff that I hear. And then you hear these crowds of people saying, and of course, most of this is not based on peer review, but you could argue that some of it might be that dinosaurs actually barted themselves to death. People are out there saying that. I mean, there are some really, really whacked folks out there that just haven't really researched anything. And when I pointed out in some of my videos that, yeah, some people are teaching this to kids. Some people are saying they're creating these educational videos to play in the class of a bunch of dinosaurs passing gas and killing themselves so they're flatulence. You know, there are some people that actually teach that. And it just blows my mind that we have to deal with this level of craziness, but it is the world we live in. I love them and I care for them. And I know that you do too. And I know we would give anything to see them get saved and to simply join our side. It's a really, I love how you put it. It is a wonderful time to be a Young Earth creationist. Amen.