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

The rain was upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights, and they think that's so stupid that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. But I want you to type in rained for millions of years. The first thing that pops up is that time that it rained for 2 million years. But it's crazy to think that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Millions and millions of years later, after the 2 million years of rainfall and we have the primordial soup come into play, I heard you say in a video that it was likely that lightning struck earth, and that was where the first single-celled organism emerged. That's one of the theories. What would happen if lightning was to strike one of us right now? Isn't that deleterious by definition? Wouldn't that destroy anything that's living in the premises, or anything that could possibly live in the future? Yeah, it would. Yes, it would, but... So how is that evidence of a biogenesis? How is lightning striking mud? Something that is deleterious by the very definition going to somehow assemble a cell? Well, do you not think that... I'll have to read up on that because I didn't anticipate that question. They literally believe in Frankenstein that that's how life originated. But they'll laugh at you when you say, in the beginning, God. Let's talk about the origin of life for a minute. According to evolution, the way that life began was raining down into the oceans. It rained for 2 million years, and it rained down into the oceans. And it says here in this article, it says the first hefty organic molecules may have formed within tiny droplets. And all scientists agree, they say, that the creation of life involved water. Now, here's the problem with that. Type in on Google sometime, how does DNA get destroyed? It says, DNA is vulnerable. It breaks down in sunlight and in water. What was the RNA world like? Sunlight and water. The very thing that destroys DNA, you think could assemble DNA via RNA processes? Well, I've just said that I don't understand the RNA to DNA. Yet you're here defending it. The thing that supposedly brought life into existence, water, is the very thing that will destroy life. In fact, when the FBI does research, they can identify the DNA structures of somebody that burnt up in a fire better than somebody that died in water. You know what that means? That a biogenesis is more likely to happen in a grill at a thousand degrees Celsius than in the water. You're more likely to go over to your grill, fire that thing up, let it sit there for a few billion years and expect life to crawl out of that than in the water because water destroys DNA at a faster rate than fire does. So who was right, God or man? God was right when he said that life began on the land and the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. That is powerful. Darwinism is weak. But if you type into Google, because kids get curious today, the very first thing is if they type in, where did life come from? The very first thing that pops up is that it rained down into the oceans. So they literally believe that life started from a shower. That's what our youth are being bombarded with. To my experience, many Christians will admit that faith is a belief that is not based on evidence. Faith is belief without evidence. False. Faith is defined as a confidence or trust in someone or something. Look it up in a dictionary. Don't mistake faith. Okay, that's no problem. Faith is defined as a confidence or trust in someone or something. It is not believing things without evidence. You've been listening to too much R and Ra, my friend. You've been listening to too much of Mr. Larry Nelson. Faith is a belief that is not based on evidence. If you would have looked at a dictionary, you would have known that. But instead, you're watching, you're trusting YouTubers to tell you the truth. Instead of trusting fact. And it's okay if you want to live in a fantasy, go ahead. If you want to pretend that there's no God or pretend that it's just a laughing stock, yet fighting it and spending your whole life against it, go ahead. But don't spew your confusion with yourself onto little children. Because this is confusing to children. Children might not even know whether Santa Claus is real or not. And you're over there telling them it's a fact that they evolved from slime. Over millions of years, they're still eukaryotes. So just because they're eukaryotes means that we're related, correct? That's right, yeah. I explained to you why that's wrong. Just because we are eukaryotes and pine trees are eukaryotes doesn't mean that we share a common ancestor with pine trees. It means that we're all made up of the similar genetic material that is code for life. Because we all live on one planet. Well, I've just said that I don't understand the full, the RNA to DNA. Yet you're here defending it and saying that it's logical and rational. And I'm pointing out- Yeah, but it's still not evolution, though. It's abiogenesis, it's not evolution. Okay, but it's defined as chemical evolution. So it is evolution. It's part of the evolutionary process. It's not part of the theory of evolution, no. Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. It is defined as chemical evolution. Brett? Yeah, something like that. I thought you was gonna remain neutral. I am. Well, I can see in the side chat here. I can see in the side chat here, Matt is correct. Chemical evolution refers to changes in things that need not be capable of reproduction. I thought he was gonna remain neutral. Well, I thought I wasn't supposed to speak up in voice, but I'm just typing over here. I am correct. It is defined as chemical evolution. I mean, you can say- Yeah, well, chemical evolution is not part of the theory of evolution. Well, then you're just not educated on this topic because anybody can go to Google and look up chemical evolution. And the first thing that pops up is the synthesis of original life, the synthesis of the first single-celled organisms. They are defeated at the fundamental. It is magic that they believe. They do not believe in science. It is magic. Guy responded to me recently on the internet. He says, well, how could you? But it just doesn't make sense that one day God just poofed us into existence. Folks, that's what the big bang teaches. It was literally a poof. What if I said a giant boulder popped into existence right in the middle of this auditorium? But you have the Bible story which says that in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. There's so much more power to that than- 13.7 billion years ago, this tiny singularity violently exploded. And it is from this explosion, this bang, that all matter, energy, space, and time were created. What if I said nothing caused something over here to explode? Nothing caused it. People would say that's crazy, that's delusional, that's wacko. Yet that's the very thing that atheists believe. If there is no God, that means that nothing would have had to cause the explosion of time, space, and nature. So they are defeated at the fundamental. It is magic that they believe. They do not believe in science. It is magic.