All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 18, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
01:37:58
The Great Debate: Dustin Nemos (Religion) vs. Jim Fetzer (Science)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Don't forget screen share when you get a chance, John.
Thank you.
Right.
Of course.
I'll make sure to make sure that that happens.
OK.
Victor Hugo, you're on.
Hi, this is the Maverick artist Victor Hugo, and we are here with Jim Fetzer, Dr. Jim Fetzer and Dustin Nemos.
Welcome.
you to the Great Debate on Evolution, Flat Earth, and the Worldwide Flood.
So, let's start with a brief introduction from Jim Fetzer, and then Dustin Nemos, and Dustin Nemos will begin with five minutes to give his statement, and I will be recording this on my end and keeping everybody aware fifteen seconds before the five minutes are up.
Alright, so Dr. Jim Fetzer, if you could just give a brief background of your education please.
This is not a mini yarmulke, everyone.
I had a biopsy and, you know, I asked my wife, would a cap work better?
I graduated, I was commissioned as the second lieutenant in the Marine Corps upon graduation from Princeton Magna Cum Laude in philosophy.
Resigned my commission as a captain to intergraduate school at Indiana in the history and the philosophy of science with a year at Columbia as my outside minor in philosophy.
and began an academic career in 1970, which extended 35 years, many different institutions of higher learning, Kentucky, Virginia, twice, North Carolina, Chapel Hill, New College, University of South Florida, eventually landing on the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota as a full professor with tenure, where I retired after 35 years in 2006.
And I'm delighted to be here with Dustin today.
Dustin, if you could give a brief introduction of your scholarship or how you're going to debate this.
I am no one.
A nearly 40 father and veteran in the trenches of the information war.
I wear many hats.
I'm a Christian father, reporter, patriot, pastor, truther, historian, debater.
But basically I'm no one.
And it's not about me.
It's about the truth.
So with that, all glory to Yahweh.
And basically I just want to correct the record scientifically for those who doubt the Bible.
You stated earlier that you were a sage.
and is supported by the science rather than the opposite, which seems to be the prevailing opinion. - You stated earlier that you were a sage.
Did you explain it then, what you stated earlier, your introduction?
Yeah.
See, Brother Nathaniel asked me what I do one time, and it was like four paragraphs long, so I just summarize now sometimes, and I say I'm an end times Edgelord Sage.
I am well-studied on many topics, and we're in the end times, and I'm more centered than Alex Jones by far.
Okay.
All right.
So here we go.
We are going to put five minutes on the clock.
We agreed that Dustin Nemos would begin, so if you can go ahead and start now, Dustin.
Sure.
Yeah, I'm sharing this screen.
Can you see it?
Yes.
Great.
So I'm pulling from my history archive, the Serapaeum.com, which this article is titled, The Great Flood of Noah.
Just to briefly summarize here, all evidences prove a worldwide flood.
The great unconformity, the strata soil layers laid down by floodwaters worldwide, historical documents, tidal flats filled with proof fossils, The ability of Noah's Ark to hold breeding pairs of every land creature due to its massive size, despite popular opinion.
The Grand Canyon.
The many great Grand Canyon.
The genetic bottleneck from Noah and his three sons being the only survivors to continue the human race post-flood.
Tropical animals beneath Tundra.
The rapid freezing of even large animals.
Rock layers with marine fossils covering continents.
95% of fossils being marine, such as whale bones on mountaintops.
The existence of... I'm getting some feedback there.
The existence... Can you guys hear that?
Yeah, where's the feedback coming from?
It must be... Gene needs to mute, I think.
Dean, Jane, please.
Go ahead.
Okay, got it.
So, such as well bones on mountaintops, which kind of shocks people.
There's even a famous tourist site in the Sahara Desert called the Valley of the Wells, where you can go and tour massive well bones sticking up out of what was before the Great Flood ocean floor.
That's why it's so salty.
Atlantis is hidden there as well.
It's called the Rishat Structure.
Anyway, the existence of many of those mountain ranges themselves actually parallel undersea equivalent mountain ranges from the bursting forth of the waters below, known as the hydroplate theory.
Essentially, it buckled our tectonic plates, forming mountain chains above and below the water that pretty much mirror each other.
Flood legends in nearly every culture worldwide.
Seashells on mountaintops, again, rapidly buried dinosaurs across numerous continents and the states where they're often found choking on mud, and they're usually buried in mud, sand, ash, and other things consistent with the flood.
Dinosaur mummies, with 16 types of soft tissue found so far, meaning that these things are much younger than we're being told, not billions of years old, but in fact dinosaurs are about 6,000 years old or less.
Underwater cities around the pre-flood coastlines of the ancient world, about 400 feet below water, forming a line of the old coastline before the flood, when the waters were lower.
How am I doing on time?
I just added 15 seconds to make up for that.
So don't worry, you've got two minutes.
Okay, so briefly then I'll move into, well, let's stick to this topic for now.
I have a few topics I want to cover, but this is the first one, which is the flood.
So from a paleontologist named Kurt Wise, a PhD out of Dayton, Tennessee, he says, the creation of the universe in six days was the first epoch.
During that period, God rapidly created everything in a miraculous, unrepeatable fashion.
The Edenian Epoch followed with Adam and Eve living in the Garden of Eden.
It is impossible to understand the setup of the laws of the universe since death had not yet entered the world.
With the Fall, God cursed the creation and changed those universal laws.
The children of Adam lived in the Antediluvian or Pre-Flood Epoch.
A world with a very different arrangement and a variety of organisms compared to our world today.
The flood destroyed everything.
The post-flood epoch was therefore marked by a series of unique environments as the Earth settled down from the global catastrophe.
Before and during the Ice Age, the world recovered to the modern epoch.
We can now look, only look, into the Bible and the rocks to see evidence of those prior worlds.
So, um, again, there are numerous PhDs and scientists who will attest to this and I'll keep going until I run out of time.
Um, he says that Bible lays out what I would call epochs of earth history.
And this is shown in the rocks, the flood, et cetera, the origin of fossils and other paleontologists, Marcus Russ.
There are billions of fossils in the earth.
Most are from animals that lived in the antediluvian epoch before the flood.
But some were from the post-flood epoch, when the world was recovering from the global catastrophe.
During the flood, as huge tidal waves pulsed back and forth over the existing continents, different types of sediment and ecosystems were picked up, carried, and then deposited in massive layers on top of each other.
The presence of marine fossils on the continents, the sudden appearance of complex fossils in the lowest Cambrian layers, the widespread extent of fossilization and the pattern of trackways, footprints below body fossils, all point to the record in Genesis where God said he was going to wipe out a violent Earth with a global flood or worldwide flood.
Okay, thank you, Dustin.
Now, Jim, if you can give a counter argument, please.
Starting the clock now.
My approach is going to be somewhat different.
The totality will respond to us in position, but not in the same sequence.
I begin with a fixation of belief.
Different ways we can fashion our beliefs to determine what it is we take to be true.
One is the method of tenacity.
Just make up your mind and never change it.
Method of authority.
Believe what you are told by authorities.
In Dustin's case, he takes the Bible to be authoritative.
Coin tossing method.
Just fashion every question as one that can be answered yes or no about what you ought to do, what you ought to believe, and decide it by tossing a coin.
Crystal ball gazing.
Tarot card reading.
Ouija boards.
All different methods.
None, however, is proven as reliable for the purpose of explanation and prediction than the method of science, which entails testing hypotheses by means of observation, experiment, and measurement, where all scientific conclusions are tentative and fallible.
Tentative in the sense that, with the acquisition of additional evidence or alternative hypotheses, we may Find ourselves obligated to reject hypotheses we previously accepted, accept hypotheses we previously rejected, and leave others in suspense.
Fallible in the sense that even the best tested and widely accepted hypothesis in science, such as Newtonian, classical Newtonian physics, which was regarded as an impeccable example of scientific certainty for over 200 years turned out to be a special limiting case when Einstein introduced his theory of relativity.
So no matter how strong the evidence may be, and Newton's Physics was certainly supported by massive observations incorporating findings of Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus into a theory about the location of Earth in relation to the Sun and the movement of the planets to which I shall return, but nevertheless turned out to be a special limiting case.
There are questions, such as the existence of God, that turn out to be untestable.
There are no observations, experiments, or measurements we could take to establish the existence of God.
But by the same token, there are no observations, experiments, or measurements we could take to establish the non-existence of God.
Thus, I adhere to what is known as the ethics of belief.
Sometimes, when you argue with someone, we say you have the right to your opinion.
But the question becomes, may we believe whatever we want to believe?
In his essay, The Ethics of Belief, the British mathematician and philosopher W.K.
Clifford argues the answer is no.
He claims it's wrong always and everywhere for anyone to believe anything without sufficient evidence.
By evidence, he means experiences and reasoning that bear on the truth of a belief.
Evidence is information relevant to determining whether a belief is likely true or false.
Indeed, you can define relevance by whether or not a claim, a statement, or a fact is relevant by assessing whether it increases or decreases the probability or the likelihood of the truth of the hypothesis.
If Clifford is correct, we don't have a right to believe whatever we want.
It can't be morally wrong to hold certain beliefs if we lack good evidence for them, and this may be the most fundamental difference between Dustin and myself because I'm not willing to accept articles of faith as a basis for my beliefs, bearing in mind that the method of science
has led to the discovery of laws that cannot be violated and cannot be changed, such as that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, boils at 212, and that, to give an example very appropriate boils at 212, and that, to give an example very appropriate to 9-11, the claim that a plane just barely skimming the Earth hit the Pentagon at over 400 miles an hour turns out to be a physical and aerodynamical
Because as pilots and aeronautical engineers have explained to me, because of a phenomenon known as downdraft or ground effect, that plane at that speed could not have got closer than 60 or even 80 feet to the ground, which is taller than the Pentagon and 71 feet is tall.
So that we have a method of science that can enable us to sort out the difference between truth and fiction.
Returning to... Okay, Dustin, you heard that.
I'd like to begin with your five minutes.
Gotta switch back to Dustin to be... I'm just waiting on screen share.
As soon as you've got that, I'll start the clock.
Right?
There you go.
Here we go.
Okay, so I'm going to pull up an extra article here since the credibility of science itself is important.
And I want to clarify, I didn't mention this at the intro, I probably should have.
I was a lifelong anti-God, hardcore, devout atheist, not an agnostic, but proud atheist, who loved to invite those pastors who knocked on my door in and ask them, why would you worship a God that kills babies?
Well, the answer now I understand is because those things were six-finger giant cannibals, but I digress.
The point is that science brought me to God.
God did not bring me against or to the science, etc.
So the Bible is accurate with science, but some of those names that you mentioned, such as Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, all of those guys were occultists.
Kepler bragged about infiltrating Christianity with his pagan orbs.
Newton stole the idea of gravity from the emerald tablets of Hermes which he He basically spent hundreds of thousands of pages of writing on alchemy and hermetic texts and other occult principles and such.
So basically what you're seeing is the rise of what I call fake science or the learning against learning strategy of Rome.
So this is the exciting and controversial history of the flat biblical earth being covered up by papal edict.
You can actually prove God with science and they have to work very hard to fake space with fake moon landings and such.
They faked globe earth to debunk God's word.
Be sure to see each of the supporting articles and such if you check this article later.
In short, the Roman Antichristic Catholic Church weaponized fake news and science after the Reformation in order to maintain power by, ironically, destroying faith in God, since the Reformation and printing of English Bibles via printing press and available to the masses for the first time was destroying the Roman government's deadly monopoly on God and exposing its Antichristic rituals and doctrines as well as its hypocrisies for we the people to see.
The Reformation was destroying the deep state's power over world religion, a power enforced by murdering 50 million plus Christians who kept the Bible or dared translate it without a papal-approved middleman, murdering everyone who dared read the Bible for themselves.
They would often burn the actual Christians at the stake with their Bible around their necks for not having gone through Rome first or daring to read it without a Latin, you know, vulgar edit.
So, people no longer needed a middleman to connect to God.
This was a massive power crisis.
The Reformation had wars involved, etc.
They tried to invade Britain to stop it.
When they failed, learning against learning under a guy named Cardinal Woolsey, which was papal approved.
I forget which pope.
It's here.
The church had to act using its Jesuit pre-scientists like Newton and Galileo to deceive the world into thinking the Bible was inaccurate.
Actual heretics, not Galileo who was given a comfy retirement in a castle, actual heretics were burnt at the stake with their Bibles tied around their neck for daring to keep the Bible.
This is the actual sad history of fake Christian Catholicism in Rome.
Today, this fake news in science is known by many as scientism, the cult of false sciences.
They've given us such amazing lies as evolution.
Now that's kind of giving way to panspermia, the idea that aliens made us.
Billions of years of time, deep time, with carbon dating and other lies.
Globe Earth, zero evidence, literally zero evidence.
There's not even a single photo of actual Globe Earth from so-called space.
It's all fake.
Heliocentrism.
The idea that we navigate around the sun rather than the sun around us.
Space.
Star Trek.
Vaccines.
Get your boosters if you believe in the science.
Which the UN says we own the science, in quote.
Fauci says I am the science, in quote.
Global warming.
And I will add to that things like men breastfeeding babies that magically transition to the opposite gender at birth, pregnant women smoking cigarettes, all these other things that they tell you were good science at the time until you test it for yourself or learn the hard way.
So how long do I have on that picture?
36 seconds.
Yeah, that's a good summary.
Test the things that I've said.
Don't just trust me for it.
But all of these so-called scientists were first and foremost basically Jesuits or pre-Jesuits.
They were fake scientists from Rome.
They were pushing a lie.
Okay, so you have a couple more seconds if you have anything else you want to say.
Well, that's it.
I mean, those names that he mentioned, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, the foundations of this heliocentric lie, in fact, as he mentioned, they are in fact the foundations.
There's about five or six of them and they're all liars.
And if you look in your old writings, you'll see it.
All right.
So now, Jim, we're going to start the clock with you and we are going to share your screen.
Begin.
Well, it's a bit much to claim that the greatest intellectual accomplishments of man are supposed to be lies.
We can go back to planet Earth.
We have maps.
Here's one from Samuel Burley Rotham's book, Zetetic Astronomy of 1865.
Here's another.
You have a disk That's somehow floating or suspended in space.
There's the old joke about turtles all the way down.
The exact origin of the phrase is uncertain, but one story attributed to British philosopher Bertrand Russell.
The story goes that during an astronomy lecture, a woman in the audience claimed that the Earth was resting on the back of an elephant.
And when Russell asked, then, what supported the elephant, she replied that it was standing on the back of a turtle.
And when Russell asked, then, what the turtle was standing on, she said, from there, it's turtles all the way down.
The fact is there have been innumerable proofs from times ancient, including even Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth to be approximately 250,000 stadia, translate around 24,662 miles, converted to modern units using a method involving measuring the angle of the sun's rays at different locations on earth at the same time,
Considering one of the first great scientific calculations in history, let me emphasize it's terribly important to recognize that scientific findings can be replicated.
They're capable of being redone under the appropriate circumstances, and that they are objective.
Any group of scientists using the same reasoning and the same evidence and the same alternative hypotheses are going to arrive at all and only the same conclusions.
It seems nothing is perfect.
That goes for the Earth shape as well.
As explorers and scientists have passed investigators more closely that it's not a perfect sphere, but an epsoid, an imperfect one, actually an oblate spheroid, Meaning it's slightly more thick at the middle than it is from top to bottom.
Now we are sometimes confronted with fake science, just as Dustin implied.
For example, this is alleged to be an Apollo photograph of Earth from the Moon.
But anyone who's aware that the Earth's mass is 55 times greater than that of the Moon would realize it ought to have looked more like this.
In other words, in faking the Moon landing, they resorted to images that were actually of the Moon from Earth and simply distorted them.
With a Photoshop, you know, it was quite elementary.
When you ought to have seen something that was so massive it would overwhelm the visual field, but that we did not get.
Talking about Newton, Kepler, Galileo, two books I highly recommend, I. B. Cohen, The Birth of a New Physics, and The Copernican Revolution by Thomas S. Kuhn.
These are masterpieces about the journey of discovery of the location of Earth in relation to the Sun and the solar system.
Galileo was important for not only discovering the law of free fall, but for applying a telescope to look at heavenly bodies.
He discovered, for example, the surface of the moon was all pockmarked and irregular, contradicting an Aristotelian thesis that all celestial bodies were perfectly smooth and round.
He also turned to Jupiter and three of its four Galilean satellites through an amateur telescope.
This is similar to what Galileo might have seen.
Here on the right, there's a Hubble image of Jupiter and three of its four Galilean satellites, which gives us an idea of what we have here.
with a moon circling Earth and eventually to understand the Earth circling the Sun.
And of course, it's an elliptical orbit.
It's not perfectly circular.
At some point, Earth is closer to the Sun and others more distant.
And these tend to correspond with the seasons where even the most elementary observations about keeping time We know there are 24 hours to a day.
That's because the Earth at the equator is rotating at a thousand miles an hour with its circumference of 24,000.
And we have then the months defined by the rotation of the Moon around the Earth and a year of Earth around the Sun.
Let me give Dustin back to be host again.
You were right on there with five minutes, Jim.
So Dustin, now you're going to go into evolution and then afterwards I think we should have a back and forth question.
Discussion between the two of you, okay?
Victor, let us proceed.
Sure.
Okay, whenever you're ready, here we go.
Okay, so I want to address Eratosthenes.
Modern science believes he may have accurately calculated the distance from the earth to the sun and invented the leap day.
He created the first map of the world incorporating parallels and meridians based on the available geographical knowledge of the era.
Quite a guy, huh?
But how did he do all of that?
Well, apparently he noticed a shadow on an obelisk in Egypt at one location was different from how it appeared at another location at the same time of the day.
One had almost no shadow while the other had a long shadow.
His conclusion was that the earth must be a sphere.
And so with that preconceived notion, he did some math calculations to prove that notion and determine how big the alleged sphere was.
That all seems reasonable enough.
However, the same thing can be observed in the flat earth model, not that floating pancake in space that you showed, but the actual flat earth model of pretty much every faith and people on earth up until 500 years ago with Roman fake science, including the biblical Hebrew model, which has the world set on pillars, et cetera.
But in the flat earth model, the sun is not millions of miles away.
Rather, it is much closer and much smaller than the standard model we've all been taught.
Notice the sun and the moon seem to be the same size.
It's because they are.
They just say it's 400 times smaller and 400 times further away.
But that's nonsense.
And your own eyes tell you this world is flat.
And there are some pretty simple tests that you can use to repeat it.
But we'll get to that later.
I will touch on evolution.
Briefly, I'm going to pull from Forbidden Genetics.
Evolution is a lie.
At the same website, theserapaym.com.
Absolute lack of any missing link transitional fossils, which even Darwin admittedly, uh, admitted would destroy evolutionary theory.
I see some typos in there.
Spontaneous generation without a creator is impossible.
Young dinosaur bones, as I mentioned before, young earth, not enough time for evolution to happen.
The flood era chromosomal bottleneck repopulating mankind from just three men, the sons of Noah.
The evidence is on every cell of all of mankind.
Something called the MTDNA mutation rates being far more advanced than they claim.
And they don't want to talk about the advanced mutation rates, but that actually proves so-called mitochondrial Eve was actual Eve, not monkey woman that they make out of clay.
And she lived 6,000 years ago and it's on every cell of every human's body again.
IQ itself debunks evolution.
The law of biogenesis.
I like scientific laws.
Irreducible complexity.
You can't make complex, high-precision biology from fragmented scraps over time.
Fish dogs did not come up from the sea and develop wings, hooves, and fingers.
Divine origin is the only possible explanation left, and the scriptures are, once again, the most accurate historical collection in the world.
Surprise me, as a lifelong atheist, And we live on a biblical young earth, a flat world, which overwhelms evolutionary theory with its own mass of evidences, which destroy the entire concept of deep time that evolution would require if it were even possible.
A more long lived, healthy and advanced civilization actually existed before us with advanced technologies.
We've gone downhill, not up.
How am I doing on time?
One minute, 40 seconds.
Okay.
So there's a lot on this.
You can see they debunked themselves with their admissions.
For example, Darwin admitted that if you do not have these missing links, it destroys his entire theory.
Here's basically where's the real missing links.
You see a lot of these things on the right here, which is the men.
Singularity, here I come, right?
And you see a lot of these primates on the left, but you don't see any of these man monkey things ever.
There should be billions of them by now.
We don't find any of those bones.
They've only faked it like three or four times, like Lucy and the Piltdown Man and stuff where it was busted and exposed later as a fraud.
So they don't have any of those.
They have to fake them in the museums out of clay and give you that Mitochondrial Eve kind of chimp woman, you know, that famous look.
And again, Darwin right here.
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
We call it the missing link.
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain.
And this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection, which can be urged against the theory.
So basically evolution falls apart upon just a little testing since I'm going on a limited time remaining here.
24 seconds.
Well, I love Richard Dawkins.
He says, we don't need evidence for evolution.
We know it to be true.
He likes to debate too.
God says to prove all things or test all things and hold fast that which is good or true.
So in this case, I think God gives good advice even to atheists.
I don't necessarily agree with Richard Dawkins approach scientifically.
Spontaneous generation again.
All right, time is up.
Your turn, Jim.
Well, it's difficult to take the Bible as authoritative in any scientific sense because we have ample proof.
For example, you cannot turn water into wine.
You cannot walk on water.
And if a body is actually dead, it cannot be resurrected.
Those are well-known as articles of faith.
Meaning they don't require scientific evidence.
They're actually impossible to replicate, which is an indication that they are not true, at least not supported by science.
But, just as I've been emphasizing, Every aspect of science is subject to replication.
We call the shape of Earth's orbit elliptical, meaning it's shaped like an ellipse, a circle that's been squashed or flattened a bit.
All eight planets of our solar system travel around the Sun in elliptical orbits.
There's a tendency to fixate only on Earth, but when you look at the other planets, They're not flat disks unsupported in space by any known mechanism.
They're round, circular, traveling around the Earth.
We have many forms of evidence of curvature.
The International Space Station, for example, sometimes seen as believing.
In one's own research, it can be the best evidence whether that's taking the time to do your own investigating or simply searching for the results of others who have run their own experiments.
Now look at this.
This is an amateur rocket maker.
It begins with some discussion about the rockets they developed and then what was discovered when they sent their rocket into space.
One.
One.
so so 14.04
14.05 I'll take it to get it to get it that's a bit loud I'll take it Now here you have a rocket about 56 miles into space where you can easily see Earth's curvature.
And the beauty of it is this is an experiment that can be done again and again and again.
Pilots actually ordinarily are able to observe the curvature of Earth so that any suggestion Earth is flat and therefore in, you know, totally separate from all the other bodies in the heavens, including the other planets.
is more than a stretch.
It's really an indefensible position to adopt.
So, I emphasize, while you can believe anything you want as an article of faith, you cannot claim it to be a scientific belief unless it's capable of replication and possesses objectivity.
Any group of scientists confronted with the same alternative hypotheses, the same evidence, and the same rules of reasoning would arrive at all and only the same conclusions.
This is a wonderful experiment, not government-related, independent project, but of course it's also confirmed by multiple other sources.
Meanwhile, an additional form of proof is traveling by plane.
If Earth were a flat surface, then the trip between Jakarta and Bogota would have similar duration, but because the Earth is curved, Just think of a flat surface and draw a line on it, and then think of it on a bubble, on a balloon, and how much longer it would take.
This is something also that can be replicated by flight times anywhere around the world.
That substantiate Earth is a sphere, an oblate spheroid, as I have explained.
We also have the Foucault pendulum, which simply swings back and forth, and it records Earth changing beneath the pendulum as it rotates.
You can observe the motion of Earth beneath the Foucault pendulum.
Fascinating, among the most powerful proofs of what's taking place over and beyond our understanding, of course, of time and The seasons, all of which are interrelated and functions of Earth's motion around the sun.
Okay.
Dustin, when you're ready, I will start up the clock.
Yeah, there's a lot to unpack there.
We're taking a lot on faith if we're going to believe everything NASA is putting out and NASA is your only real evidence in terms of space.
You know, Eratosthenes, for example, it works better with a flat world with a small, close moon and sun.
I'm not claiming that the other Planets are the same as us.
They appear around to us.
But I'm not saying that we're a globe either.
But that's a false cosmology.
Basically the pancake in space model that you showed.
Pretty much every ancient cosmology believed in something a bit more like this.
With a flat world within a domed firmament keeping back the heavens or waters above.
No way to get through that.
They tried to blow it up actually.
No space.
In terms of, I mean, people come back from the dead every day, certainly not in the miraculous way referred to in scripture, but that happened with many witnesses.
People died for that story somehow, many of them, because they believed it and they had seen it.
There is, again, there's no such thing as space and all those Pictures and videos that he showed are 100% fake.
It's easy to confirm this.
I'll even give you an example.
There's no stars in them.
And also the Mythbusters episode famously went to debunk those silly flat earthers.
I call myself a biblical earther because it's more specific, but even in their own so-called debunk, they used a fisheye lens at ground level and at so-called space level or, you know, high altitude level.
And that essentially showed that the ground was the same curve as the so-called Globe Earth because they were faking it.
That's what they do.
They always use a fisheye lens.
If you go look at some of those so-called NASA photos, a lot of times they fake it underwater and they still use a fisheye lens.
The cords or the metal pipes will start to curve with them.
A lot of times they'll have near-drowning accidents where the so-called astronauts are getting water into the helmets, or they have harnesses where they get caught with it and stuff.
So, you know, everything that you're seeing from space is just a big waste of money to make you think God is not real.
And in terms of Focalt's Pendulum, that requires input.
It's been debunked.
They even admit it in many of the museums that run these things, like the biggest in the country, I think in DC.
Focalt's Pendulum has to be pushed every so often or it won't spin because there is no movement.
So again, um, in terms of evidence is for, I'm going to go kind of quick because of time.
Uh, let's see, even modern scientists like Michio Kaku, uh, in the, uh, you know, principle documentary put out, usually in science, if we're off by a factor of two or a factor of 10, we call that horrible.
We say something's wrong with the theory.
We're off by a factor of 10.
However, in cosmology, we're off by a factor of 10 to the 120th.
That is one with 120 zeros after it.
That is the largest mismatch between theory and equipment or experiment in the history of science.
My eyes aren't as good as they used to be.
I could get into how the secret societies knew all these things and go into how these occultists were, you know, so-called scientists were part of those, but that's a whole different rabbit hole.
I guess we'll stay out of it for now.
Their logo, by the way, NASA's logo, is a serpent's forked tongue speaking through a flat disk, ironically.
You can also see something with local sunlight, local moonlight, called a crepuscular ray.
Again, proving Eratosthenes was wrong in assuming they were far away.
The clouds are a good example.
When the sun shines through like here, you can actually see that they diverge kind of like a fan or the spreading of your fingers.
If they came from far away, they would be parallel, not divergent or crepuscular.
And what we see often is not the sun disappearing over the horizon.
The boats don't disappear over the horizon either.
That's just the optical illusion that you see is looking down a hallway.
Same thing.
And the boats can be brought back in over the so-called curve through zooming in.
So the laws of perspective do apply.
There is a way to make the boat go far enough away where you can't see it anymore.
Sure, we have a limited azimuthal range of vision.
However, it is not proof of a globe.
We should be able to see it much quicker, much sooner.
Um, the celestial bodies move around above us.
The sun and the moon actually create our jet streams.
Moonlight is a cold light.
It actually is, uh, warmer in the shadows at night than it is in the moonlight.
This is something anyone can do at home to test that the moon is its own light source, not reflecting the heated or hot light of the sun.
Um, I put the, anyway, uh, you can see through the moon sometimes.
It's actually translucent.
Okay.
So also all of their official globe models, including the ones that say sex in the clouds over and over, don't agree with one another.
So you're essentially looking at a carefully created lie, but it has zero actual evidence if you poke it.
Well, I dare say that's all from Dustin.
The Genesis flood narrative is even debunked, to use his word, by standard sources.
The Genesis flood narrative, chapter 6-9, is a Hebrew flood myth.
It tells of God's decision to return the universe to its pre-creation state of watery chaos and remake it through the microcosm of Noah's Ark.
The book of Genesis was probably composed around the 5th century B.C., though some scholars believe that primeval history, including the flood narrative, may have been composed and added as late as the 3rd century B.C.
It draws on two sources—Cosette Priestly's source and the non-Priestly or Yahwist—and through many of the details are contradictory.
The story forms a unified whole.
The global flood, as described in this myth, is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology, archaeology, paleontology, and the global distribution of species.
A branch of creationism, known as flood geology, is a pseudoscientific attempt to argue that such a global flood actually occurred.
Some Christians have referred to interpret the narrative as describing a local flood instead of a global event.
Others prefer to interpret the narrative as allegorical rather than historical, which I would find unexceptionable.
There are many stories about Noah's Ark and how sophisticated the idea of the animals coming in two by two, frankly.
I think evolutionary biologists will tell you simply having two is not going to be enough to create a species.
And if you had Noah and his wife or Adam and Eve and their kids, you've got to ask, where did all the other children come from?
It's not that it would be biologically impossible to have incestuous relationships, but it's certainly not part of ordinary conventional theology.
The consensus of modern scholars is Genesis was composed around the 5th century B.C.
as the first 11 chapters show slight relationship to the rest of the book.
Some believe this section, the so-called primeval history, may have been composed as late as the 3rd century.
It's generally agreed that history draws on two sources.
One calls a priestly source, the other non-priestly, and their interweaving is evidenced in the doublets, repetitions, contained within the final story.
Many of these are contradictory, such as how long the flood lasted—40 days according to Genesis, 7.17, 150 according to 7.24, How many animals were taken aboard the Ark?
One pair of each in 619.
One pair of the unclean animals and seven pairs of the clean in 702.
And whether Noah released a raven, which went to and fro until the waters were dry above, or a dove, which on the third occasion did not return to him again or possibly both.
But despite the disagreement on details, the story forms a unified whole.
Some scholars see it as a chasm, a literary structure in which the first item matches the last, the second, and so on.
Many efforts have been made to explain the unity including attempts to identify which of the two sources was earlier and therefore influence the other.
Some scholars have even questioned whether the story is actually based on two different sources, noting some of the doublets, such as the dove and the raven,
are not actually contradictory but appear linked motifs in other biblical and non-biblical sources, that the method of doublets is inconsistently applied, and that the alleged sources themselves contain doublets, and that the theory assumes a redactor who combined the sources inconsistently, in some cases extensively editing together the text, in some cases Faithfully predicting contradictory versions for unclear reasons.
Similarly, the complete Genesis flood story matches the parallel Gilmash flood story in a way neither of the proposed biblical sources does.
The very idea, of course, of these animals coming in two by two when many of them are predators and would feed on the other animals, of course, creates a I know of no way that that is capable of explanation.
Have we lost Dustin?
it would be impossible to preserve the species under those conditions, and I know of no way that that is capable of explanation.
Have we lost Dustin?
No, but you have 14 seconds left.
Oh, good, good, good.
So, I dare say, we're asked to take an awful lot on faith.
There is no archaeological, geological evidence of a worldwide flood, though there is evidence of local floods in various regions, but I think it's too much of a stretch to take this story literally rather than symbolically, with which I have no problem or rejection.
Okay.
Dustin, would you like to Yeah.
Start your five minutes.
Do you need your screen?
Yeah.
So popping up.
Okay, so again, Wikipedia and official science will tell you God is not real and they'll make up a bunch of stuff like men breastfeeding babies.
That's all fake.
The origin of fossils, for example, another PhD, Marcus Ross, because they put forward, agree with us or we're going to ridicule you positions.
And I'm saying like the, you know, those who control science, 95% government funded.
They want you to believe certain things and otherwise you're going to be ridiculed or unfunded in science.
However, it's a lot like the climate change science.
There's a false...
consensus here.
It's not actually all there, and I'm going to quote another PhD paleontologist here, Marcus Ross again.
So, there are billions of fossils in the earth.
Most are from animals that lived in the pre-flood, antediluvian epoch, before the flood.
But some are from the post-flood epoch, when the world was recovering from the global catastrophe, or I would say worldwide catastrophe.
During the flood, as huge tidal waves pulsed back and forth over the existing continents, different types of sediment and ecosystems were picked up, carried, and then deposited in massive layers on top of each other.
The presence of marine fossils on the continents, the sudden appearance of complex fossils in the lowest Cambrian layers, the widespread extent of fossilization, And the pattern of trackways footprints below body fossils all point to the record in Genesis where God said he was going to wipe out a violent earth with a global flood.
So before I go back into that, those evidences, again, this is there's massive evidence for God if you actually look into the science and test it.
There's scientific evidence for God, which brought me as an anti-God atheist to God in my mid-30s.
So it's not impossible for anyone who just simply has the humility to test these concepts that they're giving us.
For example, here, you can see in the way that the luminaries move about above us.
Here's the moon in a figure eight circle or shape.
That would not happen with a globe model, heliocentric model with the ellipses that we're supposedly spinning.
And they tell, they tell us that we're on a water covered cannonball, basically shotgun blasting through space followed by rocks.
And it's not feasible, especially with the 666 numbers.
They're constantly giving us in terms of speed and diameter, et cetera.
Uh, the synchronized, uh, never expanding stars, by the way, we have thousands of years of history of the same constellations being used for navigation, et cetera.
They don't change.
They don't, they don't drift apart in this so-called ever expanding universe.
Again, the Eratosthenes shadows, closer, works the same with moonlight.
Smaller, closer, makes the same sense, or better.
In terms of why some people can't see stars in the same places, you know, southern versus northern, or center versus outside in our model, would be because of something called the azimuthal equidistant visual range.
You can only see so far.
And you're going to start to get some different types of refraction and other distortions of various types.
There's like four different types, I think, that apply.
Also, stars have spikes in telescopes, but when you zoom in with the modern cameras like that cell phone, I forget, the Nikon, whatever, Those things are more like a rainbow in a blender.
It's almost like the angels in heaven were described as concentric rings.
And they're just dancing around.
And that seems to be, again, a consistent proof with the scripture.
They're not telling us the truth about stars.
They're not burning gas giants far away.
They're tracking us perfectly like the hands of a clock.
Close.
Um, you can again see all sorts of examples like the ISS where they dropped the ball which was ironic because there's supposed to be no gravity there but the ball fell and they quickly decided to just keep moving.
You could even see that lady sort of hush that guy up.
Um, and again all of this is on my articles if you want to check out for the videos and such since I don't have a ton of time.
Satelloons are more likely than satellites.
We don't see any satellites in any of those so-called space pictures.
There should be thousands of them.
Hundreds of thousands, maybe.
Just like we don't see any stars.
There should be a lot of stars in those pictures and videos they show us.
However, what we do see is a bunch of so-called Chinese spy satellites dropping on us from balloons.
15 seconds.
And NASA is the biggest purchaser of helium in the world.
So they're basically floating invisible plastic balloons with satellites on them.
There are double the time zones in the southern or outside than there are in the middle or northern hemisphere.
So that's because there's twice as much land.
There's no curvature that we can find anywhere ever.
You can see mountains hundreds of miles away with the sun behind them like this.
Yeah, out of time.
Jim?
Just to compare the subjectivity of religion.
I mean, there are hundreds of religions, each with their different conception of God.
How one would even know which one is supposed to be the right one, if any.
And it's easy to demonstrate that the existence of a transcendent God exceeds the capacity of scientific investigation and has to be an article of faith.
Why?
Because science is restricted to what is accessible within space and time, and God transcends space and time.
Therefore, it's impossible to have any direct proof of the existence of God, and what we would have are things like Dustin suggests, interpretations.
interpretations that if one adopts a God hypothesis could construe as being consequences of God's effort or design.
Meanwhile, when we talk about evolution, we have to realize Darwin emphasized genetic mutation and natural selection.
Genetic mutation is a process for producing different genetic variations that potentially represent alternative species.
Natural selection he focused on was competition between species for resources in order to survive.
But the mechanisms of evolution are vastly greater.
Beyond genetic mutation, sexual reproduction introduces variations on gene pools.
Genetic drift is extremely important.
That's when a subpopulation of a population is isolated geographically It has to contend with different forces in the environment in order to adapt and survive.
And most recently, genetic engineering, where there's actual intervention to alter genes, of which the mRNA vaccine, I'm sorry to say, is a recent example.
Of selection.
Over and beyond natural selection, we have sexual selection.
What are the traits of the different species that are attractive to the members of the opposite sex?
Group selection.
How are the ways in which a society is organized going to benefit its survival and reproduction or not?
For example, groups that are organized to be able to defend themselves against other groups are going to have a higher prospect of survival than those who do not.
Artificial selection occurs when there's intervention to bring about, for example, stud farms.
They put a horse to stud to artificially mate with mares, often at high prices, as a way of intervening in the natural course of events.
Here you have a contrast between a creation model and an evolution model.
On a creation model, you have the highest degree of complexity, where roughly things run down from there.
On an evolutionary model, you have increasing complexity across time, and it's fascinating to recognize the differences.
What we need is a theory of explanation that can explain an evolutionary theory—here I call them evolutionary theory 1, 2, 3, or evolutionary hypothesis—embracing more and more of those eight causal mechanisms of evolution, where the one that appears to be capable of explaining the data is EH8, embracing all eight,
We have to explain the fossil data, their distribution, geological strata, morphological similarities, such as skeletal similarities, so that birds and dinosaurs and human beings all have basically similar morphology, similar skeletons.
And with the geological strata, we find the remains of fossil data of more primitive forms of life than later, DNA all, of course, contributing.
So, what is being ignored here is that man didn't evolve directly from the apes.
We have various branches of the evolutionary tree, as well as represented here, and where the earliest history of Earth goes back millions of years, not anything approximating the time frame that Dustin is promoting, but something completely different.
Here's more about the history of Earth and its life.
I would mention the complexity of an earthworm.
Here you have the female genitalia of an earthworm located at the 14th segment of its body.
Earthworms are hermaphrodites, meaning they have both male and female reproductive organs.
Now just imagine How is God going to get around to producing earthworms with this kind of complexity?
It's really only explicable in terms of an evolutionary theory in where Dustin would have us believe that man was a direct descendant of the apes.
I'm reminded of the story of the wife of Bishop Wilberforce, who was informed that according to Darwin, Human beings were descendants of apes, to which he replied, well, let us hope it not be true, but if it is true, let it not become widely known.
I'll give an extra 10 seconds, Dustin.
Thank you.
Yeah, I gotta get him.
Okay.
First of all, he's doing that.
Go ahead.
Well, once you prove that God, you ask the question, like, which God, which is an excellent question, because once you actually test the science and you prove that there is a God, that that leads to testing the different gods.
And only one of them has accurate foreknowledge of the future known as prophecy.
That is the God of the Hebrew Christian scriptures.
Every single time, hundreds of times across thousands of years in sync.
God is required, in fact, for biology, the so-called Big Bang, biogenesis, a flat world also would be proof of a creator God.
And we live on a flat, enclosed, biblical, young, geocentric, the center of the universe, stationary, not moving world with a firmament, which is that bubble on top, like a snow globe.
We don't get through that.
There's no such thing as space.
At no time in Earth's 6,000 years of history, which is all of it, has any kind ever changed to another kind without GMO science.
So, for example, you quoted the gradation of fossils from simple to complex.
This is false.
Again, Marcus Ross, PhD in paleontology.
The sudden appearance of complex fossils in the lowest Cambrian layers.
Earthworms never turned into cats.
And it is your position, not mine, Jim, that the people are descendants from apes.
I think we came from Adam and Eve, made perfect already, until we fell.
So in terms of, let's see, share the screen.
Yeah, okay.
So, according to their curvature math, official curvature math, you should basically lose a six-foot person at the third mile, but you don't.
You can zoom them back in, and much further than that, in fact.
You can test this over flat bodies of water.
There's a number of examples you can do.
For example, Or experiments that you can do not just the cold moonlight, but you can take like any flat body of water and you can look at the clouds or the mountains or the skyscrapers behind it.
And if it's not flat water, then it will distort the image.
It will not be a perfect mirror image.
If it is flat water, then that skyscraper won't be fat or skinny, kind of like those funhouse mirrors, concave and convex.
They make you look different.
So if the water is indeed curved, it would distort the reflection.
This is something many people can test if you have a large body of still water nearby, not the ocean, obviously.
Again, if you let me zoom in a little bit here because it's hard to see that little picture there below the big word gyroscopes.
Again, gyroscopes approve us, but mid-oceanic ridge, the rupture from the waters below which parallel are above ground above water mountain chains.
And that comes again with the hydroplate theory, which buckled the plates when the fountains of the great deep erupted.
Modern maps, even the flat earth maps, get it wrong.
Even the Gleason's map, which is pretty well known and popular, puts this huge space between Alaska and Russia.
And you can windsurf that on a good day, basically.
There are tropical fossils under tundra.
There are flash-frozen large animals where their bodies were held fast as if they were swimming or fighting or mating in some cases.
Many dinosaurs are found in what's known as the death pose or whatever, where they're basically curving and suffocating.
The strata is not soil laid down over billions of years like they tell you the rings of a tree work.
But in fact, it was sedimentary layers laid down in days or moments, and that is why it's a perfect layer of different types of soil with absolutely flat.
In most cases, there's examples where the plates have buckled and stuff, but absolutely flat.
concentric rings, not from the expansion of time, but from different layers of sediment that were heavier than others, with advanced species at the bottom all the way to the top in terms of fossils.
So an example of this would be the Great Unconformity in the Grand Canyon.
You can see the layers sticking up out of the Grand Canyon really well.
And people don't want to believe the Grand Canyon was made in 30 minutes, but the mini Grand Canyon was and it looks almost identical.
So just for context.
The, the evidence is, is, is quite replete.
If you'll, if you'll test these things, you'll notice most of the rockets before Elon, before they got better at this, went sideways and then down.
They tell you it's because they're curving into the atmosphere with the spin, but in fact, they're shipping these things into the Indian ocean or they were before Elon basically privatized it away from public scrutiny with FOIA requests.
NASA was getting too suspicious and wasteful.
But rockets don't go to space.
They either go up and come down or they go into the graveyard of rockets or spaceships over in the Indian Ocean, the furthest point from land, a place called Point Nemo.
Anyway, tons of evidence.
I've got a lot more, but we'll go through it.
Alas, I gotta reset my slides.
And I would say that, like, the Noah flood thing, you know, those guys are wrong.
Especially the ones on Wikipedia.
But Christians would disagree with me, too.
You're up, Jim.
Whenever you're ready, let me know.
I'm regaining the location in my slideshow.
Mind you, remember, I was not asserting, nor does any evolutionary biologist, that man descended from the apes.
It's simply we have a common genetic lineage.
In fact, I was offering that example just to debunk the very idea, but it is widely believed and, of course, false.
Here you have, for example, how we have simpler bacteria, you know, small-celled and multi-celled.
They all develop over a lengthy period of time, and there can be catastrophes such as whatever wiped out the dinosaurs The theory of the evolution of man and the different races is based on out of Africa.
The first human beings were in Africa, and then they spread around the world as a function of genetic drift because they were coping with different environments.
In Africa, for example, with the savannas, you could be a hunter, gather, and survive.
But when he got into Europe and colder climates, you had to anticipate a winter.
It's like the squirrels gathering nuts for the winter.
And if you didn't, you didn't survive.
And those that were able to figure it out and did survive, then they were those who reproduced.
And you have the crossing of the Bering Strait and into North America and down to South.
Turns out there are multiple genetically diverse different subpopulations, usually referred to as races, as illustrated here.
I have a book on the evolution of intelligence.
Are humans the only animals with minds?
where I explore the nature of consciousness and cognition in human brains and other animals, addressing inadequacies of the computational conception, that is, that the mind functions the same way as a computer, and expounds an alternative theory based on the study of signs and symbols as elements of communicative and cognitive behavior.
A new theory of intelligence by which machines can be intelligent without possessing minds.
Now, there are major differences among the races.
Orientals, whites, and blacks are here.
This is work by Philip Rushton.
It's a very objective study based on vast samples.
There are those who look at cognitive evolution, which I focus upon in my book.
We have the great apes, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens early, Homo sapiens late, with different intellectual capabilities.
I offer a more analysis rooted in the theory of signs, where there are three basic kinds of signs, icons that look like what they stand for, photographs, paintings, maps, and so forth.
Indices, which are causes or effects of that for which they stand.
Thus, smoke is a sign of fire.
Ashes, heat, signs of fire as causes and effects.
And then symbolic, reintroduced Arbitrary signs to stand for things by habitual association.
They don't have to look like what they stand for.
They don't have to be causally related at what they stand for.
You can create a whole imaginative world then, a world of symbols, I ultimately contend there are five different types of mentality.
Iconic, which is typified as a criterion-type token recognition.
Definitional, indexical, type 2, a criterion, classical conditioning such as Pavlov.
Type 3, symbolic, Operant conditions such as Skinner, Type 4, transformational, involving logical reasoning, the capacity to use deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning, and Type 5, metamentality, the ability to use signs to talk about and criticize other signs,
Where the nature of mentality then is defined as semiotic ability, the ability to use signs, and a criterion is a capacity to make a mistake.
If something cannot make a mistake, like tables, chairs, sticks, stones, it does not have a mind.
But when a spider sees the image of a spider on a television set and jumps on it because it takes it to be a real spider, it's made a mistake and indicates that it has a mind.
I would emphasize species are predisposed toward different types of mentality, and the lower types, the more primitive types, correspond to the lower species.
Machines have mentality if they are semiotic systems, and that's the key.
The series of zeros and ones, high and low voltage, that are the basis for computers operating do not mean anything for the computer.
The computers don't have minds, but they're programmed to operate in ways that are meaningful for those who use them.
thus a thing has a mind if it's capable of making a mistake Yep, yeah.
Okay, I will mention biology itself requires a code, and a code requires an intelligent designer.
So therefore, biology life is a sign of creator, scientifically speaking, and biogenesis, the creation of life from nothing or from parts, is not possible and has never been repeated without God.
Um, a couple of the evidences for young earth before I move back to evolution, very little sediment on the seafloor, bent rock layers at certain examples, soft tissue and fossils, faint sun paradox, rapidly decaying magnetic field, helium and radioactive rocks, carbon 14 and fossil coal and diamonds, short lived comets, very little salt in the sea and DNA and so-called ancient bacteria.
Uh, so let me screen share again.
I forgot.
Anyway, again, most forms of dating would show about 6,000 years, give or take a couple of hundred years, but they specifically use carbon dating because it is, uh, it just spits out random numbers basically.
And I can show evolutions, admit that old numbers usually.
So it's useful for them, but random numbers that usually don't agree with one another and et cetera.
There's a lot of stuff there, but it's easily debunked carbon dating.
I'll get to it if we have time.
Young Earth shows sudden changes.
We have all sorts of... Let me get back to evolution.
I don't want to kill my time on this.
Okay.
Spontaneous generation.
Again, not possible.
I'll quote George Wald from The Origin of Life in The Scientific American, 1954.
When it comes to the origin of life, he says, We have only two possibilities as to how life arose.
One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution.
The other is a supernatural creative act of God.
There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 100 years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy, and others.
That leads us, scientifically, to only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God.
Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible.
Spontaneous generation arising to evolution.
Here's some of that gooey DNA on the dino bones proving young earth.
Again, we found quite a few of those.
This guy was fired from his supervisor of the electron and confocal microscope laboratory lab at Cal State University, Northridge, which he installed and ran for three years.
He was terminated for no reason on March 5th, 2013, directly following the public release of dino soft tissue and data on the age of the dinosaur.
So proving young dinosaur will get you fired.
That's why so few people will speak out on anything, because if you can't even prove young dinosaur, you definitely can't speak out on globe earth, vaccines, evolution, or any of this stuff.
You will be destroyed as a scientist.
Young Earth debunks evolution again.
There's not enough time, deep time for so-called evolution to happen.
It needs a lot of time.
They admit this.
So without it, they would admit it falls apart.
Flood-era chromosomal bottleneck.
I mentioned that earlier.
Here it is from the Genome Research 2015, Carmen and M. This shows where everybody died except for those three men.
And then everybody was repopulated from those three men.
Here it is again in a different way, the human mitochondrial DNA tree showing three nodes marked by those three blue arrows, and they fit the number of expected mtDNA sequence differences between the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Noah's three sons.
The mitochondrial Eve, in fact, that I mentioned earlier, here's the full quote.
When discovered, evolutionists' articles had titles such as MTDNA mutation rates, no need to panic.
However, when these rates were checked out against the real world results indicate that the mitochondrial molecular clock is ticking at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe possible.
According to the actual mutation rate, she lived about 6,000 years ago.
IQ itself debunks evolution.
The accuracy of IQ is well accepted in the scientific field and is still used in military recruitment despite being labeled hateful and outlawed for private corporation use in the US.
IQ itself includes concepts such as the bell curve and reversion to the mean.
What are these concepts?
The bell curve is humanity is not equally gifted in any area, especially IQ.
It exists on a spectrum with most of the people being focused in the center.
some being poor and some being quite high in IQ on the edges, the extremes.
And it may be visualized as shaped like a bell reversion to the mean.
If evolutionary natural selective theories held true, mankind practicing eugenics would be able to continually expand the IQ gap of any family that chose to breed.
Well, in this case, the subjective well term means to select high IQ partners for increased I did that.
I thought that would work for me too, but evolution is debunked.
Okay.
A law of biogenesis.
Again, you cannot create life.
Scientists cannot create life even today in a lab from nothing.
Only God can do that.
I got to reconstitute my slides.
I'm sorry to say.
Let's see if I can do it.
I would mention in passing that, uh...
The idea of a flat Earth is really indefensible on multiple grounds.
I mean, what are the dimensions of a flat Earth?
You know, how wide, how broad, how thick?
I believe, given the requirements of gravitation, that everything with mass attracts everything else with mass, you know, with a force proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them means You could not have a flat earth.
That is a gravitational impossibility.
I worry that those who buy into a theological point of view, as Dustin does, are going to be led astray in terms of ordinary morality and treating other human beings with respect.
Christian churches that advocate for Israel's mass killing of Palestinian civilians are serving Satan, not Christ.
From a spiritual and biblical perspective, there are few things more disgusting than seeing a leader of a church openly advocate for genocide in the name of Christ.
Colossians 3.15 says, Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you are called to peace, and be thankful.
Today we see numerous churches with all variety of pastors, some wildly animated and fast-talking.
Since a Zionist claimed their Old Testament God gave them a monopoly right to murder human beings and take their land, therefore Christ must have also endorsed such a practice in New Testament times.
This bizarre reasoning is enough, they say, to justify Christians applauding the mass genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
For quite a few Christians, Catholics, Mormons, and Jews still struggle to survive, by the way.
They're not all Muslim.
Were Christ alive today, he would loudly contend the blasphemous invocation of his name to justify mass murder and genocide.
How do we know it's genocide?
Because Israel's Zionist leaders tell us so in their own words, repeatedly calling for mass extermination and displacement of the Palestinian people.
This evidence was entered into the International Court of Justice proceedings initiated by South Africa and endorsed by many other nations, including Colombia.
There are a multitude of videos circulating online that show Israel's current leaders openly advocating genocide and the mass extermination of Palestinians.
This is not debated except by those who are ignorant.
The genocide of Palestinians is so self-evident and grotesque, many Jews themselves are speaking out against it, including Norman Finkelstein.
To carry out its genocide against Palestine, Israel has systematically bombed hospitals, mosques, universities, refugee camps, residential buildings, marketplaces, escape routes, and infrastructure facilities.
It has executed Gazan doctors using military snipers, bulldozed Palestinian civilians alive, launched precision missile strikes at food aid workers, deliberately bombed ambulances that blocked escape routes, and even bombed routes it designated to be safe.
for Palestinians.
Israel's clear goal is to either exterminate or displace the two million Palestinians in Gaza so Israel can steal their land and take their resources as part of its greater Israel mission that Israel leaders claim God gave them the monopoly right to pursue.
You don't have to be a Bible scholar to realize the mass extermination of Palestinian women, children, hospital patients, elderly doctors, university professors, and ambulance drivers as a heinous crime against humanity.
You do, however, have to have a brain and a heart.
Both of these organs seem to be lacking across many Christian pastors, ministers, and church leaders today, some of whom are too busy diddling 12-year-old children or sodomizing choir boys to bother teaching the Word of Christ, because denial of Christ's teaching is, of course, a gateway to sin and self-destruction.
Matthew 5, 9, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
The use of words to disease, the mass slaughter of women and children, and attempted extermination of an indigenous people, the mass theft of land and property—these are not actions of Christ, but of demons.
Those who condone such actions are agents of Satan, and those church leaders who use their churches to espouse such mad violence and despicable antichrist behavior are themselves antichrist agents who have rejected the teaching of Christ in the New Testament.
Taught forgiveness, existence, love, compassion, generosity, humility, morality, and kindness.
Christ himself warned us about false prophets, and now those false prophets have announced themselves to the whole world to see.
They're the ones advocating Zionist genocide in Gaza.
If you follow them, you follow them to hell.
And I would like to believe on that point, Dustin and I would agree.
Oh yes.
Well, while you shift over to let me share, I'll respond to a few points actually.
Modern Christianity is absolutely deceived.
They do not know what they're talking about.
Jews wrote Jew into the Bibles 1400 years after Jesus died and was resurrected.
Jesus was a Judean, not a Jew.
A pre-Irish man, in fact.
Jesus was a white guy.
I denounce all Jews.
Jews are the literal offspring of the fallen angels, the Genesis 6 watchers, the giants, like Goliath, with six fingers and six toes, which eat people for fun.
They practice demonic child sacrifice and they've been kicked out of, even after being giants, a thousand and a thousand thirty plus times in 109 plus countries for eating babies, like St.
Simon of Trent, like the lead up to the Bolshevik revolution with Andrei Yushinsky.
I don't want to spend too much time on this, but you can't denounce them enough, and they are, in fact, the genetic descendants of all of those cone-headed mummies like King Akhenaten, etc., that we find that were, in fact, not fully human.
And there are other experts out there that cover this, but if you go to the Serapaeum and look up the Nephilim or Homo capensis or giants, you'll find the right stuff on that.
So getting over to, uh, like gravity.
Gravitation is false.
If we were allowed to go to Antarctica also, we would, uh, we would know the measurements, but we're not allowed to go to Antarctica.
So we can't really explore our world fully.
And it's interesting.
They won't let us go to that big chunk of uninhabited ice that shouldn't matter to anybody.
But Admiral Byrd, who was like the General Flynn of his time, went on TV nationally and famous Arctic Explorer, most decorated Admiral, youngest Admiral ever, I think.
Uh, at his time, but he went on TV and talked about unlimited resources, mountains of coal and natural resources in Antarctica.
If we could just go down there and seize it.
Uh, nobody even claims it.
They just say you can't go there.
So, uh, here's how it went down.
Newton made up gravity.
He stole it from those occult texts I talked about.
Later, they realized the emerald tablets of Hermes, etc.
He wrote hundreds of thousands of pages on this stuff.
He was into the occult.
He died drinking mercury, if I recall correctly, trying to basically transmute stuff like a witch.
Later, they realized the calculations all lead to a giant singularity where all of the universe gets squished into oblivion.
To counter that, they had to make up dark energy, which is basically anti-gravity.
But then, calculations now showed everything will move away from each other until dark energy rips the very fabric of outer space.
So, to balance both, they made up dark matter to hold gravitons and dark energy together.
It's all fake.
Now, mass attracting mass is disproven.
I am not the expert on that, which it is, but mass does not attract mass.
I do believe in weight.
I believe in up and down, first of all.
Weight is a body's relative mass or the quantity of matter contained by it giving rise to a downward force.
The heaviness of a person or a thing.
I don't believe that we're clinging to a, with water and everything, clinging to a cannonball, shotgun blasting through space at incredible speeds and doing all of these other fake things.
Like this is what happens to a water covered ball when it spins.
This is what would happen to everything on earth at the speeds that they're telling us, including our skyscrapers, including ourselves, our trees, everything would be ripped off into space, including our atmosphere without a container.
You can't get a vacuum.
Without a vacuum container or a seal.
Again, here is the Emerald Tablets of Hermes that Newton was obsessed with.
In the sun, talking about the sun, its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing.
These books also talk about these orbs that they worship.
That's why all of these planets have false god names.
And that's why all of the NASA missions are obsessed with the occult and to have all of these choice names, et cetera, because they're occult worshipers.
They're just trying to inject science, fake science, scientism into science and monopolize it.
Newton wrote more than 1 million, I'm sorry, 1 million words about alchemy throughout his life.
I misquoted hundreds of thousands.
I apologize.
In the hope of using ancient knowledge to better explain the nature of matter, possibly strike it rich.
Again, here is Hermes Trismegistus in the Hermetica.
And again, Newton himself obsessed with these writings.
For the sun is situated at the center of the cosmos, wearing it like a crown.
Around the sun are the six spheres that depend from it.
The sphere of the fixed stars, the six of the planets and the one that surrounds the earth.
They're basically trying to bring back pre-flood fallen angel fake science and worship.
And it's absurd.
Newton didn't even want gravity ascribed to him.
He said, "'Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be if gravitation, in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it.
And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me.
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance to a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, skip, skip, skip, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.
Newton didn't even believe in gravity.
Well, Newton...
He claimed he just couldn't explain what gravity was.
I think that's correct, and he did have an interest in alchemy, but I don't know why someone who might think perhaps you could transmit Lead into gold would be any more off base than those that think it can turn water into wine.
And by the way, the rocket demonstration I gave from 56 miles up showing clearly that the Earth is a globe was not financed by the government.
That had nothing to do with NASA.
I do agree there's a lot of fake science out there, but that's not what I'm advocating.
I'm advocating science as our most reliable method to determine the truth about the world around us, which has a great advantage of being self-correcting because it's both tentative and fallible.
So that, you know, as we get advances in science, we discover answers to questions we couldn't answer before.
We begin with profound ignorance, and then step by step we build upon our knowledge and understanding of how the world is constructed, where the realization that Earth was not a flat body at the center of the universe, but rather a sphere,
That Earth rotated on its axis, which defined the hours of the day, that the Moon rotates around Earth to define a month, that the Earth rotates around the Sun, defining a year, and that the seasons are thereby explicable, is by far the most elegant explanation we have Where appeals to God simply don't cut it because we can't even establish that God exists on the basis of observation, experiment, or measurement.
So to that extent, of course, I find your entire approach to be theologically based And I do not believe, given the inconsistencies one would find in biblical texts, that you can rely upon the Bible and treat it as though it were a scientific text.
I have no problem with those who regard it as having complex historical origin, partly truth and partly fiction, but to be understood symbolically.
One would like to believe there's inspiration for living a moral life, but in fact, Some of the chapters of the Bible just espouse one genocide after another.
The God of the Old Testament, of course, has a very different character than the God of the New.
The God of the Old Testament, vengeance be mine, even encourages one to sacrifice their own child to satisfy God.
What kind of a God would that be?
Christ's message of loving one's neighbor, forgiveness, and mercy to me is so superior that morally, intellectually, and otherwise, I have a very hard time understanding why we even have a book that combines an Old Testament with a New, because it seems to me the way of Christ is overwhelmingly pressable to that of his predecessors.
And I like the Muslim attitude between Muhammad and Jesus and Abraham and Moses as prophets, which seem to me perfectly respectable historically and intellectually.
But, I dare say, had I whirled enough in time, Dustin, I would critique so many of your claims for what has or hasn't been debunked.
Frankly, nothing in biology makes any sense absent evolution.
So that's one weakness.
But the very idea of a flat Earth, frankly, Their son who've gone so far as to suggest the whole Flat Earth idea was introduced by the CIA as a psy-op to produce divisions within society so we'd lose our way in focusing on what's really going on, like what happened with the assassination of JFK, or the faking of the moon landings, or the events of 9-11, or
State shootings like Sandy Hook, those are matters that are worthy of the public's attention.
But of course, with administrations and censorship such as we're experiencing today, those who speak the truth about JFK or the moon landing or 9-11 or Sandy Hook are subject to massive censorship, lawfare of a kind we've never seen before, Where even former heads of the DOJ have said it's a travesty the way in which Trump has been abused by the judicial system.
And I'm glad to grant you time here to make a few closing remarks of your own, Dustin.
I've appreciated the opportunity for us to exchange views and that you have done a very artful job of presenting your position, which I respect even as I reject it.
Yours.
Okay, if I can screen share while I do my last bit, I guess.
This is on the last one, right?
Yes.
Yeah, this is your closing argument.
Okay, I will set the mood basically with this image while I do my short rebuttal or short commentary.
There we go.
This is the infamous learning against learning strategy that was people approved to create fake science.
So going into that, I want to address a couple things that you said.
In fact, it's a bigger conspiracy than just the CIA psyop.
The conspiracy was Rome creating a psyop to hide God.
Because they were losing control.
Before I dove into this topic, I covered the most horrific topics myself, such as children being trafficked.
And I have known censorship, as few have.
I have lost everything to speak this truth, and I have nothing to gain but you.
That video that you showed alternated between globe and flat.
If you slow it down, it oscillates.
The camera is being distorted somehow.
I'm familiar with that video.
And I've been accused tonight often of being theologically based, but I've only made, as far as I remember, one biblical quote, and that is to test all things and hold fast that which is true.
Now, fake science is in fact infallible.
As I quoted with George Wald earlier, they refuse in many cases to accept truth when it disagrees with their preconceived bias in so-called science.
And that's not how the scientific method works.
I've given dozens of reasons, examples, real science that you can test for yourself of young earth evolution being debunked, uh, and a biblical flat earth.
But mostly I've made a lot of claims because we're short on time.
So test those claims, go to my website or test this out, check it out.
Don't go to the flat earth society that shows you the fake stuff.
That's a psyop.
They do the pancake floating in space among all the balls thing.
There's zero evidence of a globe.
There's zero evidence of flat.
There's zero evidence of movement.
There's zero evidence of space.
There's zero evidence of evolution.
And there's also zero evidence for the Bible being scientifically wrong, historically wrong, or prophetically wrong.
As I said, George Wald and others refuse this and they cling to lies that even in some cases they know are lies.
And in terms of the morals of the God of the Old Testament versus the God of the New Testament, same guy, they both hated monsters.
But since you wanted to address the morals of the scripture, and I agree, you know, Jews are monsters and what they're doing is monstrous, but Christians today, Judeo-Christians or Judeo-Con, there's no such thing.
Judeo-Christian means the same thing as Satano-Christian.
It doesn't make any sense.
The God of the Old Testament is the same as Yeshua, Jesus.
They both hated monsters.
A quick couple, and also Muhammad was a child raping Jew, fake prophet who worships Baal Allah with a Catholic nun, fake science wife or just wife.
And I'm going to screen share one more thing and address why I say Jesus and Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament.
The one who gave his only begotten son for us so that we will not perish but have life, who loves mankind despite all of our flaws, and whom Jesus says, I and my father are one, et cetera.
They both hated the Jews.
Jesus, for example, said that they are not really the Israelites, but they're infiltrators in John 8, 3, 3 to 4, 4.
He has them admit that they were never enslaved in Egypt.
Jews are children of Satan, John 8, 4, 4.
Jews are the synagogue of Satan, multiple places.
John 8, 21-24, he says to the Jews, where I go, you cannot come.
Clearly marked that none of them can get into heaven.
He calls them a race of vipers in Matthew 23-33.
Now, a generation is genetics in the Bible talk.
Noah was saved because he was pure in a time of all flesh being corrupted and he was pure in his generations.
So, this genetically serpent race that he's calling out, and he's basically calling them demons constantly until they put him to death with made-up hate speech laws.
Jesus named the Jew unlike anyone else in all of human history, and they had to put him to death for calling them demons constantly.
He says, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men.
For you neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
You make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
So why do we accuse the God of the old Testament as being mean when he says, leave nothing alive of the monsters?
I think that is a faulty understanding of scripture because people do not understand the seed war because modern Judeo con Jew pastors, oftentimes Jews, or just deceived are not teaching giants are even real.
They're teaching big egos.
When we have giant bones, almost as common as dinosaur bones.
So, in fact, uh, we're, you're being deceived.
Um, the God of the old Testament, the God of the new Testament, the same guy, Jesus was on the same page with him and called them demons constantly while he was here.
He even gave a famous parable of the wheat in the tares.
A tare is something that looks like the local host population, but isn't, and you'll know them by their fruit.
I would say that we're seeing the, not the children of Abraham's actions in Gaza right now, for example.
And in Obadiah 18, this is one of my favorite parts, the end of all Jews worldwide in prophecy.
Was that the end?
Okay.
Yes, that was the end.
I want to thank both of you for being so civil and respectful and allowing us to have a very cordial debate filled with as much information as we could fit in this short amount of time.
I want to guide everybody to thecerapium.com and also jameshfetzer.org for any more information.
Also check out the channels on Bitshoot and Rumble.
Jim Fetzer is on Rumble and also on Bitshoot as is Dustin Nemos at thecerapium.com.
You can find my stuff at thevictorhugocollection.com both on Bitshoot and Rumble.
And I invite everybody to Take what you just heard with an open mind and do your further research.
You realize these topics are just so extensive that really the amount of time that we spent on this is minuscule.
But it's important to see how the example was set between Jim Fetzer and Dustin Nemos.
We can agree to disagree and be civil, and that's what we need in these times, these dark times where they're trying to divide us.
So the takeaway that I took from this was how We can communicate cordially, respectfully, and get the information out to the public.
I thank everybody for their time.
Thank you, Jim.
Thank you, Dustin.
And remember, everybody, united we stand, divided we fall.
Never give up.
Never surrender.
Keep shining.
Live.
Love.
▲
Export Selection