1 ATEU X 32 CRISTÃOS | FT. SÉRGIO SACANI

Don't give the stage to crazy people

Me?

Look at the time I finished this

And that we shouldn't...

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait

There's a statement...

If it's true that God doesn't exist, or... I'm defending your side here now If it's true that there's no first cause That is universal and everything All of this came by chance What's the difference, or people actually die or not? What is the difference between a person who is dying

and a cockroach who just died?

I'm finishing, I'm finishing.

You.

No, man, I'm not going back. I'm not going to let it go. I'm not going to let it go. He's going to say there's no Acre, no?

He's going to get in trouble with the Acreans. This is easy.

You said you're absolutely sure. But you said you're saying it's not true.

I heard you say that when you get on the plane, you pray.

I pray a lot, my friend.

But for whom?

It's not just one slap. We have to slap him 15 times.

I'm 800 meters, man.

The questions you asked here are... I'm 800 meters, man.

The questions you asked here, you know, it shows fear. I don't fight you, Sergão, I fight your arguments.

When you arrive as the biggest scientific debater in Brazil,

they say you are.

This world created without a volcano, without death, is before the fall.

Because how do you, in 6,000 years, deposit 800 basalt spills?

Wrong cut.

Because you understand that after death, there may be something, and I don't know. I don't think what's in Tinky a pose a more specificity?

And composing a book about

You'll listen to him

my book

sir

It's not a secret. It's not a denture. I I say that dentists don't exist? No, but it's different, right? Dentists are not God, right? No, but it's in a way, if you have a toothache and you find a dentist, you'll call him God. At the time you call him God, it's true.

Reputed, you see?

Exactly.

Let's talk about the title.

She speaks and she speaks. You said you were afraid! You said you were afraid! You can be wrong about this.

Everyone is fine.

Killing is too much.

Wait, this is not Vilela.

The Likey Redcast

Hello, hello guys! I'm here at the Redcast I'm participating in another 30 vs 1 I did one back there, you saw it, right? Debating against deniers of all species

Was it cool? Did you like it? Leave it in the comment if you liked it or not And today I came back here to debate an atheist, which is me in this case An atheist, kind of an atheist from the Chopi, but it's okay, people tell me I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist An atheist, sorry I hate atheists. Atheists hate me. But I'm an atheist against 31 Christians. Let's change this idea, let's debate.

People like this stuff, right? Let's talk a lot about my area. For those who don't know, I'm a geologist, a geophysicist. I have a master's degree in oil engineering and a doctorate in geoscience. The only thing I understand to talk about geology, the rest I don't understand, is absolutely nothing,

and I'm very sincere about that. So let's change this idea a little bit, see a little geology and talk to the guys. That's it. And my first statement is this. There is no geological evidence that a universal flood occurred. At least the Earth is round here. Yes. I'm going to be a photographer since I'm Augusto's grandson for two years.

Oh yeah? Augusto?

Augusto.

Okay.

My daughter, my son-in-law, everyone likes you, watching you with Kariane, with Rodrigo Silva, with Felca. They're your fans. I also, because I really like rockets. I built rockets when I was a kid. And now I launch rockets with my grandchildren. So you know, I'm always on the channels, on the broadcasts and launches.

Very good.

I'm very happy to be here, to meet him in person. My daughter told Sacane that he's a gentleman in the treatment of the people who go to his podcasts. We try, right? Education is the basic principle, right? Yes. And I'm also a scholar and researcher. This is my book.

About the flood. About the flood. The bibliography is on a pen drive, which is very large, it's 160 pages. It has a dedication. Very good. So I hope it's useful.

You are a geologist, as you dealt a lot with geology with Rodrigo Silva. I thought of bringing... First, I'll send you the book first, but I'll give you the opportunity to read it. That's great. Thank you. I hope it's useful for your knowledge.

It's great.

As it was stated that there is no occurrence of a global flood, there is no evidence of it, I worked for 9 years to do this work, and there is geological evidence.

I forgot. to do this work, and there is geological evidence.

I forgot. Go ahead. No problem. It was just a minute.

No, the ball is his.

No, I'm holding it for him.

Oh, okay. So, when I started studying this many years ago, it took me almost nine years of research, if we read the biblical text, it gives us information that you can take hypotheses from and test it in geology, because the flood is a geological event,

by nature. I did that and I found some very interesting things about it. For example, it says that the sources of the great abyss were broken. I studied geophysics, I studied geologists, how do you break the sources of the great abyss were broken. I studied geophysics, I studied geologists. How do you break the sources of the abyss? In the biblical context, they are oceanic sources.

So you have to break the earth's crust. How do you break the earth's crust, which is extremely thick, 40, 50 kilometers thick? You have to have external agents with violent energy. I went to stop, but were they asteroids? I found out, yes.

Many biblical creationists defend that the impact of asteroids started the flood. With them who created the tectonic plates, then? Yes, actually the whole set. But it wasn't just one impact, there were dozens of asteroid impacts.

Dozens only? Dozens, hundreds I would say.

Hundreds only to break the plate?

Yes.

To create the tectonic plates, hundreds of asteroids? Yes.

Hundreds of asteroids fall on Earth today. But you have to hit the ground, right? You hit it every day. Every day tons of rocks fall on Earth. It comes like dust. Anyway, the reasoning is... You broke the crust, you spilled basalt.

Basalt is rich in molecular water. It was even proven with that gem of Juina, and then there was another one that was also discovered, that you bring molecular water from the upper mantle, about 400, 600 km deep, and this water leaked through the basalt magma.

The impacts of the asteroid, known in geology, and the references are there, it generates volcanism on a large scale. It broke what is now the Meso-Atlantic, which is what it is today, and also around Antarctica, to the Pacific, to the Indus, in the Pacific's fire circle.

And all of this leaked basalt with hot molecular water, vapors. Then you have 28 other big igneous provinces that also spilled vapors. And geologists did an excellent job of mapping the volcanoes that are now called submarines. 24,635, for how incredible it may seem, above 800 meters.

And we have even more, the 12 supervolcanoes that erupted. So this is part of the biblical creationist worldview of the beginning of the flood. This water vapor went to the atmosphere, saturated the atmosphere and gave those 40 days of rain, which people think the flood only lasted 40 days, a cataclysmic rain, not even torrential. I would say something like Niagara Falls and the Shears era, falling from the sky.

Then it came to cover everything, it covered even the Everest. Yes, the Everest did not have that height because the antiluvian world...

How high was the Everest?

There was no Everest. There was no Everest. There wasn't? There was no Everest. There were no mountain ranges that we have today.

So how many millions of years ago was this?

So there was no Everest.

That's when the deep geological time comes in, which we also deal with in this work. But Everest is a very interesting point in the diluvian world. If it had covered Everest, The pressure would be around 850 km. But Everest wasn't covered. Why? Because it has sedimentary layers with fossils. Even up there, there's limestone.

Limestone with marine microorganisms, microscopically. There are documentaries for that. But it was raised by the plate movement. And the base of Everest is granite. So that region was always a continental crust. The theory of the elevation of Everest is from India.

The supposed India that was close to Antarctica moved for 200 million years and hit, 6 cm per year, on the Asia coast. But this ignores geological evidence that India and the Asian plate are the same plate, there are no cracks, no separations. Then the Everest rose.

The traditional theory says that it rose because of the compression of India squeezing the Asian crust. But those who observe the Tibetan Plateau, for example, on top of the Himalayas... There are geological strata that prove this, the fractures too,

which are still perpendicular to the movement of the plates, which is the greatest evidence we have. Yes, but when you look at the Tibetan highlands and the Himalayas, there are no significant inclinations. That is, they have risen from the bottom up, not by compression, but by elevation of the crust,

or the upper mantle, in this case, below the surface of the Himalayas. This is a... a bagpipe. The flood also gives information that it works with water, a lot of water, right? So, the water, he says, that the water was to cause an event of mass extinction

on a planetary scale, and this is the basic objective of the flood. So, the question is, are there event of mass extinction on a planetary scale. That's the basic objective of the flood. So the question is, are there evidence of mass extinction on a planetary scale? Yes. I counted at least 12 fossil cemeteries around the world. The coal layers extend around the world, with billions and billions of tons of coal that came from the forests that were destroyed.

So you have... water generated a cataclysmic erosion. Okay, great. If water generated a cataclysmic erosion, how do we explain it in Brazil? I'll just take an example from Brazil, okay? I even wrote it down so I don't say anything stupid. We have, for example, the Irati Formation.

The Irati Formation is from the Permian. It was made, this formation, it arose This formation was created when we had salt water. Then we have the Botucatu Formation. I've been to all of them. Botucatu Formation is from the Jurassic Period. It was in a desert moment, when everything was dry.

Above it, we have the Serra Geral Formation, which is from Cretaceous. It was another moment, a moment of lava, of lava spill. Serra Geral is granite, it's granite, right? And then we have the Bauru group, which is cretaceous, which formed in a lacustrine environment.

So, since we have a cataclysmic event, we couldn't have this cute formation sequence that we see in geology. Well, continuing the question of cataclysmic erosion, you had an erosion calculated based on 3,000 geological perforations of the 6 megasequences, of the Salc, of the Tipicano, of the Caccia, of the Absaroka, of the Tejas and Zuni.

They found that all these layers generated 245 million cubic kilometers of erosion, of eroded lands, all over the world, in the five continents. And you have all these megasequences in the same way. You have limestone, sandstone, mud, and limestone. All six. And if you take the geological column, you'll see that all geological columns have fossil indexes.

And these fossil indexes are all marine. That is, in the formation of the geological column around the world, oceanic water was involved. So, inside the sedimentary layers, you have the fossils. And you have fossil cemeteries around the world. That is, that assumption, an extinction on a planetary scale, is demonstrated in fossil cemeteries.

The cataclysmic erosion generated the sedimentary layers and it was demonstrated that there is no erosion between layers. It is a parallel plane, reaching millions of square kilometers, with 30, 40 meters thick, depending on the layer. And there is also no food for the animals that were fossilized. You have the animals, and you have the carboniferous period

with the huge forests that were buried. You can't see bioturbation between the layers. Tree roots, mammals' toga, reptiles, or wormholes. In other words, there was no time during the formation of the layers for these things to happen. So, you have this all over the world.

For example, the Alinito São Pedro, which takes the United States, Canada, the Canadian islands, and goes all the way to Greenland. No regional event would cause this. So we have sedimentary layers precipitated quickly. In fact, hydrodynamic laboratory experiments were done with mud, running, there are universities that have these things.

And they...

In turbulent movement.

Yes, in turbulent movement. They observed that all the sedimentary layers, it naturally breaks down according to the mechanics of the fluids and sedimentation, all of them formed simultaneously. So it's not possible to say that the first one below is older than the one above. It would be younger.

It's like that. We go and measure. But in laboratory experiments this was not demonstrated.

All the formations I told you about, we go to Med, and do their radiometric measurements. And you can see the exact age.

There's also, in the matter of deep time in geology, there's a work I really liked, the guy is going to the Grand Canyon, I met him there. It's a geologist. He's a geologist at Disney. Exactly. The Grand Canyon is the one I miss the most.

Utah is much more beautiful. If you go to the United States, Utah is much nicer. So, there are some folds in the canyon, inside the canyon, That's it. that take 250 million years for classical time. Dr. Andrew Sneeling, an Australian geologist,

went to do research. He wanted to take microscopic samples, 53 samples of rocks from the folds, and he took samples from control in the plains, to verify if those folds happened while the layers were soft, or if it happened when they were folded, or by heating,

or if it broke and was recrystallized. He found that there were only 4 slides, from 1940, in black and white, of microscopy of the folds of the Carbon Canyoncane's layers. What did he discover? First, that the layers were soft. Why? Because there are no microscopic samples,

I even downloaded the files on my website, which are monstrous, his articles, including the slides of the microscopes, that there was no break or recrystallization. He also observed that there was no heating, so you could fold it by heating, because it would become a metamorphic rock,

it would change its sedimentary nature. He also discovered, among the quartz grains, of the samples, he discovered muscovite, which is a very sensitive mineral. It could be crushed if the movement of that sand took a long time.

So, this couldn't happen. He also discovered illitha and smectita, which melts to 150 degrees and disappears. The geology that brought this. He discovered it together with microscopic samples. It also discovered fission traces inside the crystals.

That crystal was never exposed to temperatures greater than 130 degrees Celsius, otherwise it would have broken the fission traces. And also pleochroic alloys in the crystals. I'll explain to you guys first thing, we have a very serious problem with the reefs, I wrote it all down so I don't say bullshit

so, preserved coral reefs we have the Devonian, the Jurassic, the Cretaceous we have corals that grow from 2 to 10 mm per year reaching hundreds of meters in thickness if it had been a flood, it wouldn't have built this reef, it would have destroyed these reefs, actually.

And the reefs are there. Not only are they there, but the gasoline that you certainly used today, it came from this reef, which is the Brazilian Pre-Salt. The Pre-Salt is these reefs. So the fossil reefs are standing, preserved, and still with oil inside, which we take out today and put it there.

So, this is a point that dismantles all of this. Another thing, right? The evaporites of the Paraná Basin. The Paraná Basin, the Mediterranean Sea, the Sergipe-Alagoas Basin, it's full of evaporites, which are deposits, for those who don't know, of salt and plaster,

which only form by slow and repeated evaporation of isolated water bodies. So I'll just conclude here, right? So the evaporites too, right? If there had been a universal flood, the evaporites, we wouldn't find them, they wouldn't be there, right?

It would prevent the formation of any new evaporite because of the amount of water, right? And the evaporites are there. We go there, we measure, we have samples of them all, ok? And what else can I say? And I talked about the formations here in Brazil, in sequence, everything is cute too. Did you sit?

There.

Problem, Sérgio.

Pleasure, how are you? What's your name?

Márcio. How are you? Hi, Mérgio. Pleasure, how are you? What's your name? Márcio. Hey, Márcio. How are you? Problem, Sérgio, is that you don't have time for this. Do you know why? Because in those megasequences that were mentioned here, Salk, Tipicanui, Absaroka, Cascassias, Tejas, all of them were deposited together,

during the flood. Dinosaurs bones. And then the dinosaurs bones were broken in half. I'm finishing.

I'm going to make a disclaimer here. I don't speak, man. I don't speak the area I don't understand. I'm not a geologist. I'm not a geologist. I'm not a geologist. I'm talking about geology.

This is a serious problem.

This is a YouTube problem.

I'm trying to talk. If you get the debate time, because when you found soft tissues in dinosaur bones, you ran out of time. There's DNA there, Sergio. DNA, the only preservation of... I don't even have to talk about it. The only preservation of DNA... Do you have proof of that?

I do! Do you? There's a Meri Schwartz article, she found it there. There's an email, do you know we wrote an email to Meri?

There are other scientists who found it. Do you want to talk about Mary?

No, I want to talk about the soft tissue. No, let's talk about the soft tissue. Don't change the subject, Sérgio. No, you're changing it. I'm here discussing geology. I'm here discussing geology.

Mary Schwartz, she found out. But other scientists, Mark M. Teixe, did an interview on the channel of the Defense of Faith. You're talking about geology, man. I'm not going to discuss that, man. What is the subject?

Atheist and 30 Christians.

We're here to discuss everything, Sergio.

We're here to discuss everything, Sergio. I'm talking about geology. Of course, Sergio! I don't even know what a dinosaur's thymus is! You're in your comfort zone, of course! I'm not, I'm not a geologist, guys!

I don't talk bullshit!

You see, Sergio, I just want to talk about his area!

I'm not a geologist, I'm here!

I'm on YouTube, man!

I'm here! This goes all over the world!

Let's talk, Sergio! Can I show a picture? You have a computer, can I show a picture? Can I show a picture?

Can I show a picture?

It's the theme! It's the theme! Fossilization is the proof of the flood! So I'm in the theme! I'm not out of the theme! So, Sergio, please, stay in the theme!

Let's talk about the flood! You have an email from the guyerala, you can say whatever you want. I don't have an email. But the Moly's TC is there. I don't have an email.

You said you had an email, Sérgio.

I didn't say that.

You said you had an email.

I said that Jesus Soto sent an email to her.

Don't hide... So, DNA doesn't preserve itself for more than 10,000 years. So, every time Sérgio asks to have the processes he puts, there's no time. At most 10,000 years, Sérgio. Everything you say here, Sérgio, you don't have time. You don't have time. At most 10,000 years. This evidence destroys all the geology. Parallel plane layers were talked about.

Without an illusion mark. And my salary, too, from everything I earned in the oil industry.

There's no professional geologist here. No diploma. We're talking, Sergio. If you want to run away from the evidence, you can. I'm not running away from the evidence. I presented several evidence here.

The radiometric adaptation you put here, that you screwed up, was done in Monte Santa Helena. They took rocks from 10 years old. They went to Monte Santa Helena, they took 10-year-old rocks, they put them in the radiometric dating, they did the blind test, it gave 2.5 million.

This radiometric dating that you are studying, Sergio, is a lie. How many meters did they use in Monte Santa Helena?

Are you talking about evidence? I'm talking about evidence. So, how many meters did they use? I'm talking about evidence. They took rocks from Monte Santa Helena, you know. Sergio, how many it. Which method? The method?

Wait a minute.

Potassium argonium.

Potassium argonium.

Potassium argonium.

What they used in the Mount of St. Helena?

The details. I have this detail. I'm not a geologist. I'm not a geologist. I don't have all the details. I know that. You don't have all the details. Write it down. You want to avoid the subject. No, I don't.

You want to avoid the subject. Look, over there, in the coal mine in Australia, they did the prospecting.

Sit here first.

When I say, we do it. Hello, How are you? No, sit here first. Sit here. When I release it, we'll do it.

Hello, how are you? I'm Carlos Cunha, you already know me. It's a pleasure to be here talking to you. Well, I wanted to bring an argument to you that made me believe that the flood actually happened. I wanted you to pre-ponder with me, analyze it based on your knowledge.

Well, I study a lot of anthropology. I usually study a lot of these things. But it's ok, it's an internet conversation. We're not in the academy. No, but it's very dangerous, especially today on YouTube. There's a very big directorship that if you talk about things you don't understand,

it harms Junior's channel. But if you take advantage of the fact that you're on the computer, you can check what I'm saying. No, mine isn't even on the internet. No problem. Let's go then. I want to bring you this. You know the Pompeii story, right? Yes, I've heard it. Cool. Before you...

are, let's say, done the geological analyses there, you have peoples, Sérgio, that, let's say, for example, the Roman people, the Pliny's letter, there were already groups and people talking about this event. It's very interesting because many times before, let's say, a great discovery in geology,

you have peoples and civilizations telling about an event. And that's very cool, anthropology shows that a lot. For example, when we're going to talk about the flood, and for me, what fascinates me about it, we have more than 200 different peoples that tell a very similar story,

it's not exactly the same story, obviously. We're talking about local floods, right? Wait a minute, I'll just read the argument. So we can get into this global and local flood issue. So you have 200 peoples, you have people in Oceania, you have people in Asia, you have the Incas, the Mayans, the epic of Gilgamesh itself

that talks about it, you have religions like Islamism, Christianity, Judaism, among several groups that tell the story of a global flood and this within anthropology, what brings me and makes me think about it, is that in fact this shows what, Sérgio? That there is a memory, look how interesting, it seems a global memory of an event that all peoples somehow found out about it. So this is an argument that I consider, and I would like you to be honest,

I believe you are an honest person, to evaluate, because, analyze with me, 200 peoples tell an extremely similar story, they say there is a boat, some say it's a bow, others evaluate, because, like, analyze it with me, 200 peoples tell an extremely similar story. They say there's a boat, some say it's a bow, others say it's a boat, that there was a chosen one. It's very... I'll put it to you, it's fascinating to see

that so many peoples talked about it. Did all these peoples lie, Mr. João?

Let's go. There, man, we get into the same case that I study a lot, that I hear a lot and debate a lot, which is the same thing with ufology. Cool. This is the same case with ufology. What we have... No, we'll finish here.

What we have are reports. So, today, for example, ufology is totally based on reports. And then people say... One of the arguments that ufologists use is exactly this. It says, this can't be a lie, because if we see ships that appear all over the world and are reported by people of different beliefs and such, it means that there is something

that is wrong.

No, but let's analyze. So, the question of the report for me, I take it out of the thing.

You know why? But we can't hide the report, you know why? I think you can, you know why? But we can't hide the story. I think we can. Because the story is very loaded, first, with biases. Ok, but 200 peoples have biases?

Yes, because each one has their own biases. But they all combined among themselves? They have their own biases. But I can't believe it. Each one has their own culture, each one has their own reference. Ok, but they all have a memory of a catastrophic event of a flood.

But at the same time? The question is, not all reports, if you analyze the texts by texts, and I've done that, they don't always talk about the date. They say it happened... But it's like not all people talk about it, right?

So, like... Is it over?

My second statement is this. If God is kind, merciful and made the earth, made the human being and everything right Why did he make a volcano, enter the eruption in Pompeii and kill tens of thousands of people? And why did he make a tsunami, kill hundreds of thousands of people now in 2004 there in the region of Indonesia why do this? Is it the creator destroying the creature itself?

and then it's a question I wanted to talk about one thing, ok guys, for everyone here I don't know if you've talked to any atheist out there I'm very different from everyone you've talked to, because I have a point I never opened the Bible in my life so I don't even know what is written on the first page, so it's different, I know you've talked to several people out there, on the internet and everything

so much that I said here, I didn't say it as a joke, the atheists hate me because of that so I never opened the Bible, to an extent, to understand your position regarding this. People say that God is a kind, merciful being. How can God kill a human being? He kills the creature itself. Is the Creator killing the creature? That's the thing.

You can come in.

Hi, Sérgio.

Wait a minute, Sambuguinho. Sit down.

Hello.

Nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you. How are you?

Your name?

Luiz Eduardo. Sit down. Hello. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. How are you?

What's your name?

Luiz Eduardo. Good, Luiz. What's up? I'm a presbyterian theologian, I'm also from the area of information technology, and I'm a postgraduate in intelligent design theory. But for now, just an observation, I'll open a parenthesis here about Mary Schweitzer

and her letter, I'll talk to consider. First, the discussion here, dear listeners, the discussion here has to do with something that has already been answered. It has already been answered by Dr. Norman Geisler, Dr. Frank Turik, Dr. William N. Craig, even by C.S. Lewis and many others. Second, we need to understand, Sergio,

that this discussion here is not scientific. We are talking about the field of philosophy, more specifically, teleology. Do you agree?

No, in this statement here? In this statement here I'm not even trying to argue,

I'm trying to understand.

But you agree that it's not science, right?

It's philosophy and teleology.

I agree with science. I'm trying to understand your view, how you... Because all of you, I think, believe that God is a perfect being. Or, in a way, if I say something wrong, you can correct me.

He's a perfect being.

Unimpotent, unbenevolent, omniscient.

Then he creates the human being. Then he goes and kills the human being?

A volcano, how can he be omniscient, unbenevolent, omnipotent

and allow evil?

I don't think it's evil. Evil, catastrophe and all the problems. I think it's bad. I think it's bad. I think it's bad. I think it's bad. A volcano entering the ocean and killing... That's bad. 20,000 people.

That's bad.

Now, let's go. The answer is very simple, Dr. Julian McGrath put it. But it's simple from an intellectual point of view. There are two problems, Sergio, that we really need to divide. The intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem. I won't hug and cry together. Now, intellectually, the answer is, from my Armenian Molinist point of view, God created the best of the worlds

so that the greatest number of people, or any number of people, is saved, respected, free of sin. And that's good. It means that he is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipotent,

and his goodness is also expressed in the sense that he doesn't so he allows us to save. But I'm not talking about any evil, of any person. The guy was living his life, and the volcano came and...

Before that, there is evil. The presence of evil in humanity already existed.

So God created the best of the worlds for all of us.

But he already created the human being with evil inside him?

Permission. One thing is evil in power, another thing is evil in act. God allowed the human being to be free. This is evil in power, not evil in essence, therefore it is fully plausible. And second, if you are an atheist, you cannot justify the evil ontologically. That is, for you it is a mere social convention, which is a very expensive intellectual price. Why? You can epistemologically know the good, you can sociologically live it, but you can't justify it. Because for you to justify that objectively, not subjectively,

if there is good or bad, you need something external to justify it. No, no, man, I put this point here to understand a little because, as I said, I'm not a guy... I don't go to any religion, I've never been in my life, although my guide who's going to watch this, poor thing, he's a Buddhist monk, he must be very sad with me

because I didn't follow his career to this point. But it's more to understand. Go ahead, sit down. Pleasure, how are you? Pleasure, pleasure.

Your name?

Lucas.

Lucas, band. Well, you first put something that I believe... First you put something that I think... First you said something that in my opinion is imprecise, that you said, why God made the volcano go there, why God made the high earth, etc. When in fact it was a permission, it's not that he said, I'm going to send the volcano here to finish these people.

He allowed, he allowed that occasion that this tragedy would occur, not that he actively went there and did it. But then he couldn't prevent the tragedy? the Because we would be immortal and corruptible. We wouldn't feel pain, we wouldn't die, so we wouldn't do anything. It's like Superman suffering... But if we were to create something, we wouldn't like to create it that way. Exactly. That was the original idea.

Now what happens? From the moment sin enters the world,

if that state remains...

What is sin?

Sin is disobedience against the Creator. For example? For example, you're going to do evil against someone or even... What evil? Well, anything. For example, murder someone. What if the person comes at me? I'm defending myself.

I'm talking about evil in fact. Let's imagine a case where you really committed a crime against someone and you deserve to suffer. A crime, any type of crime is evil. You qualified your question, you said, why God allows you to summon a evil person?

So this is bad for you, right?

No, it's not. I don't know.

No, he created it, right?

So how do you define evil, then?

My question, I don't know, man.

I don't define evil, man.

I have no idea. What I say is this, right? You're going to create, right? What do you work with? Just so you know. I'm a teacher, theologian, writer. Teacher. You're going to create a class. You're going to try to make the class as perfect as possible.

Or not.

Or you're going to leave a... No, I'm going to leave it here so the students fall in this... I had a teacher who did that. But look, you think that God shouldn't let the human being's choice to choose to be obedient or not, to choose to be good or bad, to reject the obedience... But if he created the human being, then there's that story, I don't know how to say it,

that he created his image and likeness.

Let's...

That exists, how is it? Imagine someone who forces another person to love you.

That wouldn't be something...

Oh, you don't want to fight? You guys are a conservation team.

You guys can present yourselves.

You can get closer to the chair.

My throat is a little bad.

You can get closer.

I'm going to ask him the question. I'm going to ask him. I'm going to ask him his name.

Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you, professor.

My name is Rodolfo Paiva.

Good, Rodolfo. Remembering my question, if God created a perfect world, a human being and such, why did he create something that will kill the human being itself? For example, he put a volcano in Pompeii, left those people there, then the volcano entered the European Union and killed 20,000 people. Why does he do that? Is he killing his own creature? How is this story?

Cool, thanks for your question. Professor, it's a pleasure to meet you and to be here chatting. I think there will be a lot of good things coming out of here. Thank you. Well, first of all, professor, I would like to put some important premises here in your question. Because every question, professor, has premises by which it was made. I need to talk about these premises because it seems to me that you are part of a assumption that if an omniscient, omnibenevolent God,

if He exists, why does He do something that is apparently bad? Or that people will suffer and everything else. My question, just for people to understand, is not a question of being bad or being good. My question is this,

if I create something, for example, let's say I create this computer, I will make it in the most perfect way in the world so it won't have any defects. No doubt. Right? No doubt. Because if he created the Earth and he created the about being bad or good. Yeah, but it's in the sense of suffering. Is that what we're talking about? Is suffering good, professor? It depends, people say. I'm from Corinth and I like to suffer. So, you see? You're a great example, by the way. You're a great example.

I suffer every day. Because this suffering, for example, persistent, suffering in this sense, right? And many times we can't understand that certain pains and sufferings that we will sometimes judge or call bad, I'm not talking about a moral evil here, but about a pain and suffering, can very well be a tool for building something good.

Many times people can't understand this and obviously someone who is selfbenevolent wants their child to grow up learning limits and be a good person. Do you have a child? Let me just... I have two. Let me make a parallel for you to understand. Many times you, educating your child, did something that was something... suffering for him. Something that was painful

for him. He didn't want you...

There's a point. And then what happens is that... was something suffering, something that was painful for him, he didn't want you to...

And then what happens is that...

But killing, man...

No, it's ok, but...

What?

Killing is too much.

Wow, no, but it's not...

It could have been an earthquake, then the guys...

It's not that question.

Let's go back a little bit here. So, within classical Christianity or theism, we need to understand that there is a God, that is the premise, ok? There is a God who is like a father to us and who educates us and everything else. So, all the transgressions need to be well answered. But in the atheistic view, which is the one you are defending now, there is absolutely no previous cause

to say that it is true pain and suffering. I will give an example to you. If it is true that God does not exist, or I am defending your side here, if it is true that there is no first cause, that it is univenevolent and everything else, all this came by chance, what is the difference or how much does it matter to you if these people actually die or not?

What is the difference between a person who is dying and a cockroach that just died? There is a big difference. Ah, but then, there is only one difference... I don't need God for that. You need Him, you know why?

Because our intrinsic value is because we are the image and likeness of God. How are you going to say that matter... But then I could kill people.

Yes, yes, but just a minute.

If he killed all those people, I can't kill people using this argument in my defense? You can't kill people precisely because within creationism there is a God who determines that killing people is bad. And within atheist evolutionism... But why did he kill? Calm down, I'll get there. You're defending atheism, aren't you? I'm not defending atheism.

You're in this position. When you talk about... I can kill people, for example, in evolutionism, in this atheistic view, you have absolutely no cause that gives objectivity to morality. And say that killing is wrong, or murder is wrong. In the case of for example, of creationism,

yes, you have a unbenevolent person who is the standard of goodness that determines, in fact, what is the right way to behave, so that you cannot murder someone because the intrinsic value that person has is the same as you have. And why does he holding so many people? Differently... I'll get there. Differently, for example, from the atheistic view. The atheistic view...

We came from a common ancestor.

And then, in the end...

It's ok, but I'm not saying that. But what I'm trying to say is that there's no difference between a rat and a human being. I kill a no, no. But come here, I'm doing the same thing God has done. Because God has already killed a lot of people. He created a population, put a volcano here, the volcano exploded and killed 20,000 people. The example itself is just an example.

It could be N situations, do you agree?

Yes, N situations.

Well, let's go back a little bit here.

I think there's a very interesting premise here. I'm trying to get something out of the free will. People who were there didn't even know what a volcano was. Because, for example, you can say, but the guy went to live near a volcano because he wanted to. Ok, ok.

There's a free will of the person. I think there's a free will involved in this. We need to consider that there are laws that make the universe work. It works. And eventualities, and you're talking about an eventuality. In this specific case, an eventuality. An eventuality from the point of view of creationism. Because this God who created the Earth and created the human being, he created both, right?

That's it, right? If I say bullshit, you get angry. No, no, calm down. We're trying. He created the Earth and created the human being. Why did he put one here and said, man, I'm going to put this thing here to kill these people here. Oh, but it wasn't like that. He didn't put the people there to kill them. That's not it. No fighting in the chair again. But it's okay. Sit down. Sit down. Pleasure.

Pleasure. Sakani, my name is Denise Benat. I'm a theologian and a student at TDI. Sakani, this question you asked, is exactly that. As you said you didn't read the Bible, I'll do it really quick. This world created without a volcano, without death, is before the fall. You asked what is sin. The fall was when Eve felt self-sufficient,

without needing God, the Creator. This is the basis of all evils. This world, Sacani, that God made before the fall, was so perfect that the Bible says that there was no dandelion, there was no death, the lion did not eat the lamb,

there was no death. Sacani, I... But there is a period that God speaks between this creation and a future that He already for this future on the cross of Christ, which is my dream, all my hope in this period between one thing and another, God does something called miracle. I've seen a lot, I hope one day I'll see them all and I think many have already seen it.

I've seen, look at the hot oil falling on my mother, burn the floor and her leg. No. I've seen it in my house when there was no maintenance. My father went to open the closet and the rice that was not there was full. So, what do I tell you?

I've seen a lot of God's kindness. But it's still little, you know? It's very little. The same mantiment that filled the other month was missing. The hot oil that didn't burn my mother's leg, after a month her arm was burned.

Sacan, don't be satisfied with little, Sacan. Evil is little. All the miracles that God did in the Bible, everyone died after. God is more than that. God is beyond all anguish and suffering.

So in your vision, all this that happens, happens after this moment. Yes.

Then after this moment, everything is screwed.

Let's say that between Vulcan and Daninha's grass, look at the greatness of God. We look from both sides. Look at the greatness of God in the universe,

that says the universe is made to talk about his glory. But that's when he created the Earth, before the fall, so there was no Vulcan on Earth.

No, to kill him, there was no death.

No, but the Vulcan doesn't bring only death, no. And on the contrary, the Vulcan brings life too. A lot of life. Ok, but if... Because the volcanic earth is the best earth for us to plant.

What I know about the earth before, about the volcano, I don't know.

But what I know is that it didn't even have to rain.

I got it.

The rain came after, the flood didn't even come after the fall. Come closer. Hey, Sacani. Wait, wait. Go. Pleasure.

How are you? I'm fine.

My name is Paulo de Tarso.

Hi, Paulo.

I'm a Dentist Surgeon. Good.

And I brought the Bible to give you the opportunity to open it, at least open it. Wow, I'm going to open it for the first time in my life. Yes.

Bring it to me.

There you go. So, I've been a dentist for many years and I've seen a lot of people with toothache. Good. Worst pain ever.

Have you ever had a toothache? Oh my God. So, if you've had a toothache, can I say that dentists don't exist?

No, but it's different. Dentists are not God.

No, but in a way, if you've had a toothache and you've found a dentist, you'll call him God. No, you'll call him God. It's true.

It's refuted. Exactly.

I don't like this debate.

The other guy said to me, you say there's no life on Earth, the astronauts are in the space station.

It's true.

It's refuted again.

Exactly.

No, but go ahead.

So, if I take a plane, for example, the plane falls and I die, will I say that God is to blame? I won't say that. Why won't you say that?

Because there can be other reasons.

Exactly. So the plane is to blame? The pilot? My point is that... But for me, there's no problem in my vision. I want to understand your vision. How do you understand this? Because if you think that God created the human being,

God created the planet Earth, God created the universe, created everything, right? Why did he create a business? I understood her point of view, that she says that after the fall, I didn't even know that existed,

it's cool that I didn't know it, that after this fall, the Earth was contaminated with a sin, I don't know what you call it, and anything could happen. But I don't know if everyone's view is this, you know? But I see that if God created the Earth, if God created the human being,

why did he put a deal to kill the human being himself? But you're starting from the principle that death exists for God. Death doesn't exist for God. It exists for us. So, what happens to these human beings when they die? He says there will be a rescue of all this. And people will come back?

Yes, they will come back.

We will come back? You will come back before God, we will come back before God.

So, what am I going to tell him?

I don't know.

That's why I brought the Bible to read the Bible, so I'm saved. No, it's about understanding the Bible. But I want to ask you something before I leave.

My time is running out.

I heard you say that when you get on the plane, you pray. I pray a lot, my friend.

But for whom? For whom do you pray?

I pray for anything. There's only one person who can save you, and that's God. The Lord of Life. That's right. Is it over?

Yes.

Thanks, man.

Oh, you again?

Sacani.

Sit down.

Pleasure to see you.

Pleasure.

How long?

Two minutes.

I'm Alberto Contradi.

What's up?

So, Sacani, I'm going to ask you a question. Good. In this world, what is the most necessary thing for human life that we could have?

Today?

Yeah.

Energy.

Energy.

And the world is abundant in energy. Not so much, but it's okay. Yes, so the land we have is prone to human life. And if there is a creator of this land, he made it precisely thinking about the good of man.

Now I ask you.

Why did he kill the guys there then? Is the volcano a bad thing? It depends on the point of view. Yeah, the volcano is not a bad thing in itself, because without the volcano, you wouldn't be able to have the energy of the volcano, the energy that is taken from the volcano, right? So, even the snake that bites the man, all these things, you take a serum from the snake that you can use as a medicine.

But it's the vision of the other one who was here talking about that thing where you have to put the guy to suffer a little, to learn and such, is that it? No, what I'm saying is that creation as a whole, it works in a harmonic way. And man can use creation for his own good. So the whole world is created for the good of man.

But do you agree that for those 20,000 people who died there... No, just to finish here. But do you agree that those 20,000 people who died there... You can pause, you can pause. the That's the question. The fact is, God is what we have and what we give. If you leave now and die, you're fine because you were God's choice. I'm fine because I have a clear conscience.

If I die here, it's God's will, it's okay.

It's okay.

Thanks, Zagares.

Thanks. 1 minute and 45 seconds.

A little bit forward.

There.

Hello, sir.

Nice to meet you.

Pedro, speakérgio. How are you? Pedro, speak up. I would like you to send your regards to Gabriel, from Corinth. Greetings, Gabriel. Go Corinthians.

Well, I came to bring a solution to you.

Let's go.

You said before that you never read the Bible. So today I brought you a copy of the Bible. Maybe you can change your vision and cosmovision. Of course, I read it. And in this one I learned. Sérgio, you asked me about suffering, which I think is a big issue that you are bringing to us. Man, it's not a question, it's not goodness, evil, suffering or not.

My question is, if I'm going to create something, right?

Let's say I'm going to create, I created here, I created this microphone.

Well, let me just finish here.

No, just say it here.

Because I'm reading here.

Okay, read it.

You ask me about suffering. I can answer you with many arguments, as my previous ones did. But the truth, Sérgio, is that God did not give us concrete proofs and answers, but He gave us Himself. He gave us Himself as a solution to this suffering. The suffering here in our worldview was from the fall, the fall of man. But God Himself dressed and participated in this suffering in the form of Christ Jesus to rescue us. So you are part of it. And if you want to accept this rescue, our God...

Accept the Bible, of course, who is this? So here is not just a historical account, here is a report of this God himself who manifested himself to rescue. So we are talking about a naturalistic vision that simply sees man as a product. And it is not. In our Christian worldview, man is as a product. And it's not. In our Christian worldview, man is not a product. Man has a purpose.

But the Creator can kill him? No, no, because if God brought the rescue to death, it's exactly the opposite.

He rescues us from death for eternity.

So death is a rescue?

Yes, because we choose death when we choose sin. Sin brings death.

So, let's kill everyone here now? When we participate in sin, yes.

You can leave it.

When we participate in sin, yes.

We choose death.

When we leave life, which was God. What He established for us as life. He gave us freedom. Wait, I don't understand. You're saying that if we die, it's a good thing to die. No, negative. No, but I'm not going to meet God. I'm saying that we were made for eternity.

Death, until then, did not exist in this context. The original purpose is that there was no death. God made us for life, to live with Him and relate to Him. We are creatures in this. However, our choice to oppose the Lord, the Creator, choose sin, made us know death.

And the Creator Himself intervened in our choice, in our bad condition, to rescue us for life. So that's why those who are suffering, I believe that suffering is not only the death of the blind. There are children now suffering suffering.

There is war now. And innocent people are dying. Where is God in this? Isn't it incoherent to say where God is in this. It's not incoherent. You're being honest. Where is God in this?

There are people now dying because of so many evils. It's not incoherent. But it's incoherent to say that there's hope, and that God brought us this hope to show. That's exactly the point. You chose not to understand. I can kill you now, so you'll be fine. Like him. He said that if I die now, he'll be fine. When you take part and accept Christ's rescue,

you understand that it's a hope after death.

He didn't call us to eternity.

So I can kill you now? No, it's not part of your premise of being able to. It's not it. Christ himself established that there are limits. He determined the limits for us. That's why he said we can't kill. Are you afraid of death? I'm very afraid of killing someone.

That's part of a premise that you understand that after death

there's something terrible.

You're not a product. I think we're on the same line. You understand that you're not a product. And that premise comes from the Creator. It's exactly a feeling inside you that started from a moral sense of the Creator's root. In truth, yes. Fear of death. I'm afraid of suffering that will cause death.

Exactly.

It's not worth it.

Exactly.

Because you understand that after death there may be something.

No. I think there is nothing.

Intrinsically, involuntarily, when you assume that death is fear, you agree and go for it. So that's why Jesus came. After death. That's why Jesus came. After death... Time's up. After death, he'll rescue us. And bring us back to eternity.

This is a gift for you, Sérgio. Cool, man. Thanks.

I didn't bring a gift for anyone. They won't demonize me. Don't be ignorant. You didn't say you didn't know. Now you'll know. Keep it for me, Julio. Great, thanks.

A big hug, it was a pleasure. And let me make it clear that you are very admired by me. A big hug. So let's go. I don't know if everyone is like that, I really don't know, but a good part believe that the Earth would be 6,000 years old.

Right? Some, at least. Some believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old. For those who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, how to explain the formation of great Igneous provinces? For example, for those who don't know what an Igneous province is, it's a province that has a lot of volcanoes. In the world, we have two, very big.

One is called Deccan Traps, which is in India, and the other, for those who don't know, is the Basília do Paraná. The Basília do Paraná is considered one of the largest volcanoes that has ever existed on planet Earth. It is here in Brazil. Very few people know about it. So, how can you explain, for example, that the Basília do Paraná is 3,500 meters of basaltic slope, with layers overlapping and separated by moments when there was soil and life. And only in the Paraná Basin we have cataloged today, and a gigantic study done by Petrobras itself, 800 individual basaltic spills separated by this interval.

How to explain all this basalt deposit, this intercalation of layers, moments when there was life, there the soil pedogenesis all this in just six thousand years can sit there pleasure all good pleasure your name gustavo your programmer good so it's about this issue of the volcanic eruptions, the Deccan Traps, for example.

There are two researchers, one is called Paul Garner and the other is called John Mahoney. And they questioned this point in their researches. For example, the Deccan Traps have 500 thousand kilometers of extension.

And all this extension is basaltic.

Basalt, which is volcanic eruption.

So there is no sediment, that you said, where it would be sheltered.

No, no, it's not sediment. It's something else.

Basaltic eruption is not sediment.

No, I understand.

Basaltic eruptions happen because the volcanoes enter in eruption. One enters today, the other

enters 10,000 years from now, then 20,000 years from now, and so on.

This in your cosmovision, this in your cosmovision.

No, this is measured, we go. I've been... No, no, no.

How many volcanoes have you been to?

How many volcanoes have you been to?

I went to Chile, there, I didn't see the earthquakes. I saw it from far away. I've been inside a volcano.

The only volcano on planet Earth that you can enter and stay in the slunge. Ok, that's fine, Sakani. And we see the earthquakes. But let's go, all your idea is part of assumptions. No, it's a measure. No, but you't need to date it. You don't need to date it here, man.

So why is it old?

Here I'm saying it's old because how do you, in 6,000 years, deposit 800 basalt spills? It's the first theme, the flood. The flood explains it. The flood... No, what did the flood do? Did it take and... ...explode all the volcanoes? In the flood, you have the break of the Earth's crust,

the tectonic plates form...

The flood broke the crust or the asteroids?

Now I've confused everything.

The asteroids broke the crust,

which is when the sources of the... Dude, the asteroids broke the crust of the Earth.

You have one of the biggest theories in your hands.

And Chicxulub.

Chicxulub is a very small impact, it doesn't break anything.

So we have proof that meteors hit the Earth, right?

Oh no, there is. Meteor, no.

Meteor, none hits the Earth, my friend.

That's not a meteor? No, it's a meteor. A meteorite?

Meteorite, no.

Is it an asteroid? Asteroid. Meteor is just a beam of light from the sky. Ok, but whatever you want to call it, it's a celestial being, a celestial object that hit the Earth at some point. Ok?

I defend it according to the work of Professor Célio, who has already come here and talked

to you. Yes. The meteors hit, broke the crust, the earth's crust, brought the water from under the blanket up, and that caused the flood. People told you to leave. But look for it, guys. Paul Garner's work and John Mahoney's work, they questioned all these issues of decanccan and Vulcanism traps.

Hey, again, man! Again.

Hey, you can't, you have to come to the crowd, man!

It's just a subject.

Yeah, it's just a subject.

No, it's not just a subject, man. It's just a subject. Do you know why it's a subject? Because in the debate they did there in Vilela, they didn't let me talk about geology at any time. So I told Junior, I said, today I'm going to take revenge. I'm a vengeful person. I can go to hell, no problem.

No, no, no.

I'm going to let you finish, because I wanted to ask you something. Are you the one who wants to kill everyone?

No, no, man. I don't want to kill anyone.

Is this evil or not? It's not evil.

It's not evil. Nothing I'm asking here is evil. No, for sure. Let's go again. Pleasure again. Pleasure. Go ahead.

I had to understand.

You know who you are, man.

Sorry. Go ahead. About the Trapzinecans.

You have basalt spills. No, stop here. Let's not talk about Trapzinecans. Let's talk about the Paraná Basin. and among them you have life, you have a lot of things, then you spill it again, and so on. How do you explain all of this in 6,000 years?

How does this fit in 6,000 years?

In the south, in Santa Catarina, we have the Canyons of Itaim Bezinho, which is the same Basalt spill. Yes, it's the Paraná Pass. The Paraná Pass goes all the way there. we observe that the basaltic layers are parallel planes. One was happening and another one came. Actually, it would be a river, an ocean, something monstrous.

It would be a river, but it's okay. A sea of lava came, which covered that region. And it hadn't er eroded to make soil, to make the normal erosion of millions of years, if that were the case, which could also happen.

The Paraná Basin is very interesting because they link it to Paraná and Tendeca, in Níbia. But between the Paraná Basin and the Atlantic, there's the Serra Geral, which are the granites. That's why we have deposits. That's why we have a geological thing called sequence stratigraphy.

To explain this. You go through the Atlantic, you have the Mesoceanic Dorsal, which also spilled basalt 13,000 km in length, practically in the Atlantic bottom, on both sides. Dr. Maurício Ewing, who was an oceanographer hired by National Geographic, at the time, 1948-1959,

because the oceanic dorsal was discovered in the Second World War, with submarines, radars, these things. And they went there to study how the Atlantic formed, which was a question he was going to answer, and if the mountain range would be all snowy, that is, the marine sediments that slowly descend from the dying organisms,

there should be tens and tens of meters of sediments on top. He walked more than 29,000 kilometers around the mountain range, he invented the seismograph, he invented a way to remove sediments from the bottom. The guy was a genius. What he discovered was that the top of the mountain range He invented a way to remove sediments from the bottom. The guy was a genius. What did he discover?

The top of the mountain range didn't have this oceanic snow of the organisms that fall. The base of the mountain range had sediments up to 30 meters. It was a shock for them, because they imagined that the Atlantic is much younger than the Pacific.

However, the volume of Atlantic sediments is similar to the Pacific. It was a discovery. Another interesting discovery he made was that, at the base of the mountain range, he found beach sand. A beach line 5 km deep, currently.

And, above, 3,500 meters, he found another beach line. His conclusion, at the time, was that the Atlantic didn't exist, this mountain range was above, and after two movements of coastal subsidence, the beaches were formed over some time in this process. And another fantastic discovery, there in the islands

of São Pedro and São Paulo, they discovered ectomaceae of freshwater, deep down there, soil, all of these things. In other words, at some point in the past, the Atlantic didn't exist. There was a gigantic basaltic spill there,

but this spill does the same thing around Antarctica. We have 28... I told you once about the map I have. 28 Igneous provinces around the world, besides Decam and there are others. These 28 Igna provinces were spread over millions of square kilometers.

You asked what causes the Igna provinces. In our creationist-biblical conception, the impacts of the asteroid are the rupture of the crust. You can have shock waves spreading...

It's a joke.

It's a joke.

That laugh... I met him today. Nice to meet you. How are you?

Sérgio.

Sérgio.

I call him Eduardo because my father is Sérgio, my brother is Sérgio. So, I'm Eduardo. I just wanted to understand a question you asked. I don't know if I understood it right. It's true. So, it's like Eduardo. I just wanted to understand one thing you said there. I don't know if I understood it right, but you said there are volcanic deposits.

Earthquakes. And there's life there, etc.

Between some layers, not all of them, but you have, for example, in the Paraná Basin, you have 800 different earthquakes. And among some of them, you have soil, you have life, and everything else. So, it spilled, there was another spill, another spill,

then it stopped for a while, this time was enough for life to exist, and then another spill, another spill, and so on. And you think that the life that came out of there was a consequence of the volcanoes? No, no, no, nothing to do with it, what I'm talking about is time. the is the best solo in the world. The best solo in the world for life to be born. Now I'm asking about the origin of life. No, no, there's nothing to do with...

The volcano will generate life.

No, this has nothing to do with the origin of life. What I'm saying has nothing to do with the origin of life. What I'm saying is this. How do I fit 800 basalt spills, right? 3,500 meters thick, that in the middle I still had intervals in which there was enough time for life to exist, there is nothing that is the origin of life.

And then another spill came up, let's suppose there was a spill, there was time for me to have a forest, after that forest you have another spill on top, how do I fit 800 basalt spills from the Paraná Basin with 3,500 meters thick in 6,000 years? That's my question.

Because my question here is what I had understood that you said that there would be life there, that it would be possible to emerge.

No, there were layers that appeared alive for a while.

So, what I wanted to know is precisely if the volcano has this capacity, it has this, it brings this ... No, no, because the spill, it stops, man. The volcano, the volcano today, then it stops. It stays maybe 300, 1,000, 10,000 years without entering into eruption. Then it enters into eruption again. In this time, in 6,000 years, we can't fit 800 basaltic eruptions

with the interval where there was life, where there wasn't, and so on. That's my question. That's why I started talking, taking into consideration that the Earth is 6,000 years old. that the Earth is 6,000 years old. With the Earth's 6,000 years of age, it's practically impossible to fit 3,500 meters of basaltic spillage. I understand what he said, I understand what the other said, because this came from a catastrophic

cataclysm event, I don't know the name you give, because there's no other way, there's no way to fit it in this period, you know? I have 800 gigantic spills, Bacido Paraná is a giant thing, one of the biggest volcanoes in the world, it was Bacido Paraná. I have 800 spills, which are layers, and among them I still had a time interval where life appeared. Forest, forest, everything else. And then another earthquake. How to fit this in 6,000 years? This is my point.

Got it? This is my point. I'm not from the geology area. No, but how do you explain... I'm a prebiotic chemist, that's why I... So, but that's fine, let's go. But you're a creationist.

Yes. So, how do I fit this into your story? Because it's there, Petrobras went there and measured everything. How do I fit this into the story you say is 6,000 years old? That's what I want to know. I had put the question in the wrong way.

Hello, how are you?

My name is Jadson Barbosa.

Nice to meet you. Did you bring the Bible with you?

Today I'm either I leave here converted This is the word of God, true, unmistakable, infallible I am a biblical creationist and these propositions, these affirmations that you bring are based on creationism

Why? What you are saying, Sacan, are you right about that?

What? About what you are claiming What I am claiming? There are measures, right? Good

What? Because I'm claiming, there are measures, right? Me? No, not me Of these measures? Absolute certainty

Knowledge, we go there and measure, man What does knowledge mean?

We go there and measure

Define knowledge for me

Ah, I don't know how to define it, man, I don't know

So, and you...

This philosophical part, and such So, and you say know, you say know

So that you...

So that you can know We get the equipment, you know? We go to the Paraná's embassy, I've done this before. I know, I'm saying this because I'm basically talking about places I've been and worked. But do you know about this? About what?

Yes, you have knowledge about this.

I went there, man. I went there. I was there. So you went there, you have this proposition, you accept it as true, you accept it as part of the scientific methodology. So what you're saying is not true.

It's a hypothesis.

It's not true. Dude, it's not that it's not true or not, it's inside the hypothesis, inside the scientific methodology.

It's true because I went there and measured it.

If it's not true, then you can't be sure. Is this table made of wood? If it's not true, then you can... This table here, this wooden table? If it's not true, you can't be sure what you're talking about.

This wooden table?

So, but do you know what truth and correspondence are? I don't know, Caio. You're using philosophy. You're using it. The table to be true, you're bringing a proposition. If this proposition corresponds to reality, and that's the truth. The truth is when a proposition corresponds to reality. But is it made of wood or not? So, the biblical creationism, the root, that we defend based on the word of God,

is what fundamentals the logic, the truth and the knowledge. And you say you don't know what knowledge is. So how do I fit 800... And, you know, you said talking about something you don't understand. In the past block, do you know what the Odyssey is? Do you know what the Odyssey is?

What is what?

The Odyssey.

No, what is that?

It was what was treated in the past block, which is how the existence of a good God can justify the reality of evil. This is treated in the realm of philosophy. And you say that a person can't talk about what he doesn't understand. And you're talking about... What are you talking about? Philosophy. That's why I don't talk about philosophy. And geology has a presupposition that is uniformitarianism, which is a philosophical presupposition.

What do you mean?

Which is different from catastrophism, which is based on the flood. So the point I want to bring is your incoherence, that you say you are absolutely sure, but You're not even saying it's not true. You're saying that I'm talking about things I don't understand. You don't know how to define knowledge. You're saying that I'm talking about things I don't understand. I'm not talking about theology. But is it true what you're saying?

Is it true? I've been there. Is this a wooden table? Yes, it's true. But the flood also justifies the same data. The creationists don't deny the fossils. They explain to us that there is no... No, I'm explaining that we don't deny genetics,

we don't deny geology, all the areas that evolutionists want to attempt to confront creationism,

the creationists, they don't deny it.

What's up, Sacani?

That's right, Sacani, you're a geologist. It's in the sedimentary deposits.

It's a little bit soft, man. You have to call the pirula, but he can't get in. Yeah, if you don't have time. Dilúvio was an event of extreme volcanism, tectonism.

It's a little bit soft, man.

I'm giving you the justification. It's time to bring M you here, Júnior. There's Mark Amitej, just ask him for a meeting and he'll come. What can I say to him? I don't understand anything. First, I said I don't have time. Second, the flood was an event of extreme tectonism, extreme volcanism. Tectonism?

Tectonism, yes. There's the CPT theory, Catastrophic Plate Tectonism, yes. There's the CPT theory, catastrophic plate tectonics. That is, catastrophism is an evidence, you know? The megasequences are proof of the flood. The same sedimentary deposits with fossils there indicate that the megasequences were global, you know?

How can you say it's local flood?

It's not that it's local flood, man.

That's what you're putting to...

You put the word in my mouth.

The mega-sequences...

I'm protesting here.

I said it's not local flood, man.

The mega-sequences...

I want to know how you explain 3 about, right? Of course I do. But this is not my opinion. So it's not your opinion? I like it when it's not my opinion. I'm replicating the argument of geologists like you, Sacani. So put it there.

I'm not here with a geologist position, I'm replicating the geologist position. The mega-sequences, Sacani, are the proof of' position. So let's go. The mega-sequences, Sacanin, are the proof of the flood. It's the same kind of sediment, the same kind of dispersion in each mega-sequence.

Wait a minute.

People have to understand. You're trying to say that these 3,500 meters of basalt, interspersed, because it's interspersed, it's not just one time, okay?

Interspersed. You don't understand what I'm saying, do you? I have to trust you, because what happens, Sacani? The questions you asked here, Sacani, the questions you asked here, Sacani, they show fear. You know why? You got something that you only have to discuss in the university. Unique things from the whole globe. You could ask about the whole globe, Sacani.

You could ask about sedimentary deposits from the entire globe, Sacani! You're scaring me! You're scaring me! You know why? Because you want to get your hair in the egg! This kind of thing!

But they told me that being scared is good, huh?

Six thousand years, Sacani! Do you discuss on the university board, the theory of plate tectonics? Fast, accelerated, accelerated! Do you discuss six thousand years? Plate tectonics? Fast, accelerated, accelerated. They've been discussing it for 6,000 years.

And we show that it can't have been. But there are other theologians, other geologists, other geologists who indicate what can be done.

The catastrophic plate tectonics theory indicates that it can be done.

What's his name?

Jim Clary, Jim Clary, John Bongarten, Tim Clary, Andre Sniles.

What does John Bongarten say about the heat problem? The heat problem.

Great.

What does he say? Heat is our friend. No, no, what did he say? Heat is our friend. What did he write? I'm talking.

What did he write?

I'm not a creationist, but I know him! I'm saying that the heat is our friend.

It's our friend.

I need heat to move accelerated subduction. It's running out of time, you didn't explain it to me. Interlaced. In the flood, everything happened. Interlaced? In the flood.

Interlaced? Yes, it happened. It didn't happen in the flood. Interlaced? It happened. Yes. It happened.

It happened.

Wait.

The flood was not a single event. It was a single event, but it was... How did it interlace the layers?

It was progressive floods. The sea level was...

Over a year, the sea level was accelerating...

No, but there's no sea here, man. There's a high sea here. But the subduction causes volcanism, man. But subduction takes time. No, but it's fast.

Subduction is fast?

It's fast. In the flood it was fast. And we have proof of that.

In the flood?

In the flood. When did it stop? No, it slowed down.

How did it slow down? Do you know why? We have evidence, man. You didn't let me talk about evidence.

Talk about it. I want to know, because if you say something like that, you win like 3 Nobel Prizes just for that.

No, no, Tim Clarey will win. Will he? He will, not me. There are cold slabs of 700km, very cold on the mantle. If it's slow, 2 inches per year, it should be at the same temperature as the mantle. Wow, but it's ok, go ahead.

Cold slabs of 700km layers, 700 kilometers thick. 700 kilometers deep. Let me talk. Let me talk, Cunning. Cold layers. You don't justify cold layers inside the blanket. And it's very cold.

It's not a little bit, it's very cold. Ok. So, let's go. Now let's talk a little bit about tectonic plates. The tectonic plates, the South American and the African, they are separated at 2.5 cm per year. Between Brazil and Africa, we have about 6,000 km, if we do the math, it's 240 million years, ok?

To separate them. And this is not... I'm not guessing, this is measured with a very high precision GPS. And if you don't believe in GPS, just take it out of your cell phone and erase it in front of me. We have more than 8,000 high precision GPS stations spread around the world that measure the speed at which the plates are moving away today.

If the separation of the South American and African plate had happened in 6,000 years, the heat generated by it would be so intense, so intense that it would fry the crust of the whole Earth. Ok? So, how do I do it?

If I'm stepping on the Earth today, is everything ok with me?

It's just that you don't fight for the chair, you fight.

We're all cool.

I can see that.

Go ahead.

Hello, Sacani. Thank you again. It's a very interesting question. The basic budget is continental drift of the continents. Measured with GPS. That's not debatable.

Ah, ok.

I thought you were going to say that GPS doesn't exist now. No, GPS exists.

It works very well. The assumption is that tectonic plates move. On the continents, on the continental cratons, there are continental quills, which reach 200, 300, 500 kilometers, depending on the location. Continental quays, in the view of the displacement of continental drift, they go in a parallel latitude, they go to the side.

There's no way you can have a craton root, with all this size, embedded inside basalt, which is a hot basalt, not a melted lava, it's magma, basaltic rock, to walk sideways. That's one point.

The second point, I don't defend the idea of... In creationists, there are chains of thought.

I know.

Right? We have 16 models of origins, for example. It's a crazy thing, but there are. So, the tectonic plates. It's not debatable. The plates are there.

At least 12 big plates. Earthquakes happen on their edges.

We just need to talk about it.

There are earthquakes, but there are no earthquakes.

Volcanism and everything. In our cosmovision, all of this originated in the flood. The planet was good until then, but it got ruined. Forget about the flood now. Forget about the flood now. Forget about the flood. The plates are moving. But in our cosmovision, that was part of the flood. Another aspect...

You're not talking about the movement of the plates. How can I put 6,000 km... There's no movement of the plates. There's no movement? So there's no problem. The plates aren't moving?

No, they're not moving in this size. So the GPS measurements are all wrong. So, going back to the question I raised earlier, the Meso-Oceanic Dorsal has suffered subsidence. This simply formed the Atlantic Ocean. So you have a geology thesis that will blow up the world.

You're going to say that the tectonic plates are not moving. So how do we explain, for example, an earthquake in the Acre? Inside a tectonic plate? How do we explain an earthquake in the Acre? Does anyone know? Someone must have holes, must have drainage of water... No. None of that.

How do we explain an earthquake in the Acre? You don't know? No, I don't know. I'll explain to you how it is. An earthquake in the Acre is caused by the subduction of the Nazca plate, the South American plate, until it reaches a point where the plate melts. This melting point of the plate, if you project it, it goes exactly to the acre. That's why the acre has earthquakes of 5 to 6 degrees in magnitude. How does the creationism explain this?

If there's no plate movement? How do you explain the acre earthquake? It's the same thing, it's plate movement. Then you have to say that the tectonic plates dive. Subduction. There is no subduction zone, then? Subduction can be interpreted as evidence.

But I'm going there, so wait. Then the next vision interprets the evidence. Guys, I'm talking here about something I've already studied and did, ok? I worked for 12 years at the USP seismological observatory. And my job was precisely to measure earthquakes so that, through the earthquakes, without any more data,

we could try to draw the subduction zones. And do you know what's amazing? As amazing as it may seem, it could even be God, but as amazing as it may seem, when you plot the earthquakes in depth, they show a plate going under the other.

So, this exists. This exists. This is not debatable. The interpretation of these data is debatable. What is the interpretation? For example, if the Pacific Oceanic crust is going under the plate... No, it's the Nazca that is going under the South American.

Exactly. So, you would have to have, in these fossils, you would have to have a gigantic volume of oceanic sediments. We go there and measure. But it's small. It's not? It's small.

It's all already cut. All the data I read is tiny. So, it's a ball pit. So, explain to me how there are 6 magnitude earthquakes in Acre. I'll explain. You'll say there's no Acre?

You'll say there's no Acre? No. They'll say there's no Acre, and they'll make a mess of the Acre. No, no, no. That's a fact. I don't argue with facts. I just don't know why I'm not a geologist to study this specific detail. I'm telling you. It's because of the plate movement. I accept that, but the subduction of the Atlantic floor... Subduction of one plate going under the other.

I know what the theory is. We study this. If you observe by seismography, the plate should be crumbling. Because the deeper you go, the denser the upper mantle. So it would have to fold, crumble and accumulate. If it were homogeneous, that's what you're talking about.

That's true. That's the simplistic view. We draw this in the book of the seventh series for children because we won't explain to the kids heterogeneity of rock the type of rock that is mixed in the middle he didn't let me talk, unfortunately but do you know what we find in the mantle of the earth today?

do you know what we found in the mantle? a piece of cloth. Cloth, for those who don't know, is the object that hit the Earth and formed the Moon, in our most current theory. One of the things that confirmed the formation of the Moon by this impact was that through a thing called seismic tomography, which I've studied a lot,

we found pieces of cloth on the Earth's mantle. So, why isn't it melted? You see? It was supposed to be. If we consider what you said, a plate is going under the other,

if it were homogeneous, pretty, and all... Why does the plate go under the other? You have to have either a force pushing from above or a force from below, pulling. You have a force pushing here, which is the mesoatlantic Coral Reef, which is the Mesoatlantic Coral Reef, and it keeps forming.

Doesn't it? No. It's because for you, I think it's sinking. It's sinking. So much so that we have GPS measurements here. When I saw that there were beach lines on the oceanic coral reef,

I went to see if the oceanic coral reef sank in a short time, You have to have beach lines all over the world, high beaches. And there are. And there are. Even Darvish already knew. There was the beach line of 400 meters high. But just so we don't say that the GPS doesn't work. Is it time?

It's time.

So sit down.

Sit down.

Another Bible.

Wait, no.

Sit down first.

Hey, what's up, Berlin? Hey, Sakani. How are you? Another Bible. Today I'm leaving here, man. Soon the devil will leave my body here, with so many Bibles in my head.

Go ahead.

Sérgio, I brought the Bible because you said we should only open the Bible. And that we should not... I didn't, man.

You said?

I didn't say that.

When did I say that? And that we should not...

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm not going to start. When did I say you only open the Bible? Yeah, you made a statement that doesn't give a stage to crazy people.

Me?

Yes.

Dude, you made a statement that I'm a liar fat guy, man. I never said that.

You're not?

A liar fat guy?

What happens if I think you're calling me a liar fat guy? What do we do?

Look...

No, if I think out what you do.

Hey, Sergio.

No, what do you do, man?

Go there, find out.

If I say fat liar, ok. I'll find out what you said one day in a live.

Dude, I already called this guy to the stick now because I've lost my patience with this fat liar.

He's a big fat liar.

No, no, don't call big liar, for God's sake

Dude, he's a big liar I'm... I lost my patience with this guy Dude, I thought he was a decent person, at least He's indecent Guys, everyone who's watching in Brazil Sacan is an indecent

Because he has no decency, he has no composure He lies shamelessly And he... He lies about facts that we know he knows.

What? Are you saying that I said you only open the Bible? No, man, I didn't say you only open the Bible.

If you study the Bible, it's right. So, Sergio, can I talk? You can. It depends on what you're going to say.

I brought... I didn't hear her here. When you sat down, you said, I washed the other one with the Bible, didn't you? Can I comment on your comment? You can comment, man. I brought the Bible because you said it's not to give the stage to crazy people.

You said you were going to beat me up too.

On your Instagram. You said you were going to slap 15 times on Jaime's face. It's not just one slap, we have to slap him 15 times. And so far, everything is fine. Sergião, when Jaime puts a stick in someone's mouth and calls him a beaver, I said, if Jaime... Who did he put a stick in?

Sergio, I said... Can I say something, Sergio? You're an educated guy, aren't you?

I am. No, man, I'm not talking about anyone, man. Can I talk, Sérgio? Talk. You're a polite guy, aren't you? I am. I am.

I'm not going back.

No, man, I'm not going back.

Calm down, no, no.

I'm not going to let it, man.

Calm down, no, no.

I'm not going to let it.

You said...

I'm sorry, Júlio.

Yeah. Paulo, if I slap him, he would have the right because he was offended. He would have the right because he was offended.

So, this is the law of God.

Oh, Sérgio, it's the law of men, right?

But is the law of men or the law of God worth it to you?

Oh, Sérgio... Sérgio, answer me. Which law is worth it to you? The law of God. So, in the law of God, if I slap you, I have to get 15.

Is that the proportion?

Look, when you were offended, I said he would have the right. John did. Right of what?

John did.

John hit him.

Why?

Because he is a man who fears God. Maybe he's afraid. That's all I wanted to say, Sheldon. That's all I wanted to say. Go ahead. I mean, we don't use the Bible. Another thing, you proposed a debate with creationists. Right?

And we're not discussing geology. You didn't send the themes. You sent the theme at the last minute.

I don't send the theme, man.

You sent it at the last minute. And now you want to close only in geology. You know why? Because you say that Burululu formed, right? I don't say anything about Burululu. You say that by putting chomps... I don't say anything about life.

You said that by putting chomps... I don't say anything about this, man. Chomps in volcano. I don't say anything about this. You said the other day that the child is born in a fumarole. Or you said that Crio was born in Fumarola? I don't pay attention to that.

Guys, he's a guy who talks about everything, he just calls us to discuss. Only geology. Geology, but creationism is not geology, Sérgio. Of course not. We defend you that a God did all things by the only power,

exclusive of his power. Stop, stop now, stop now, I didn't hear it, man. You're saying creationism isn't geology. God created the Earth? Of course! And what is the Earth? Geology is part of creationism. But we have...

Our theses are about the origin of life.

I don't say I'm a biologist.

Of course you do! You said Bruno Lululu formed the region. You said Chops and Vulcan. You said that Criou is formed in fumarola.

I say that on my channel, I don't debate with anyone.

You said, for example, that uranium doesn't decay to helium, and you laughed along with the guy on your podcast. Uranium doesn't decay to helium, Sérgio? I have no idea, man. Why did you laugh at me then? You laughed along with the guy.

You didn't laugh at me! You didn't laugh at me! You didn't laugh at me! You didn't laugh at me! Guys, go to Marcos Eben's channel now, even subscribe to his channel, go there, subscribe, and see how many times he laughed at me,

in fact, how many times he and João Paulo used me on the cover of his videos.

Today, of course!

Wait, wait, wait, this is not Vilela, my friend. Before this debate, the guys were doing a live. What did you put on the cover?

What did we put on the cover?

You, sitting here!

There, you see?

Of course.

And what did we do at the end of the live? Do you know, Sergio? We pray for you, Sérgio. We ask God to give you wisdom. We came here not to debate with you.

When I debate and criticize, it's not you, Sérgio.

It's not me.

I pray for you daily, Sérgio.

My mother prays too, man. A lot of people pray.

We pray for God to give you wisdom. I don't fight you, Sérgio. I fight your arguments. When you arrive as the largest scientific advocate in Brazil, who they say you are, and you tell people that you're training a crew and smoking weed, that you're putting chomps in volcanoes, life comes to life. If you say that the web is proven in our geology,

we have no, absurdly, no theory that explains the theory of the formation of the moon on Earth. When you pass these untruths... I'm not going to interrupt my submission. the formation of the moon on Earth. When you pass these untruths... You need to knock the table down! No, I'm not here to debate. When you pass these untruths to Brazil...

Then you throw wood for them to eat and they stay alone. When you pass these untruths... Then you say you can punch 15 people in the face

and they stay alone.

Scientific untruths to Brazil...

Someone has to say, Sérgio. Unfortunately, it's me, man. You're a liar. I know that...

You're a liar.

When you say that I suck, you think that it creates the form of a smoker? You're not a smoker. You're not a liar. You're misinformed. I'm stupid, then.

Now, when you're invited to a lecture on everything that's a topic, you go, don't you? Everything about the subject matter. You can look at it, guys. You can look at everything about the subject matter. I'm giving a lecture on three subjects, man.

Of course.

Three subjects.

Of course, look at that. You even discuss about Elon Musk. You discuss a lot of things, don't you?

Elon Musk? I discuss about a person? Just because you sat at a table with creationists,

you want to run away from. You are running away. You want to pull to your common place. Geology.

Now, you are separating, you are moving 2 cm per year.

2.5.

Or present the key of the past.

What do you mean?

You said that if you are separating 2 cm per year, you have to regress those 2 cm per year. The most absurd thing in the world, guys! It's the most absurd thing in the world to measure 2 centimeters now and to regress this for millions of years, Sérgio. Sérgio, who can guarantee you that 2 centimeters now were always 2 centimeters?

You were there measuring. You were there measuring, Sérgio.

So, how much was it?

Look, we said it was fast at the beginning and you slowed down. But you were measuring it. You were measuring the two centimeters. So are you sure about something, Sérgio?

Not you.

Are you sure about something?

Not you, man.

Of course you're not, Sérgio.

Not you either.

Of course.

So not you either.

Sérgio.

Not you either. Sérgio, so let's talk about the whole thing. You looked at me, you looked at the teacher, you looked at the teacher Adalto Lourenço, you looked at Jose, João Paulo Reis Braga. I'm not pointing fingers at your face, I swear to you, Sérgio, I like you, man, I like you. You came and said, if there were elliptical galaxies, if there were elliptical galaxies, it was game over. Guys, go on the internet and see if Sérgio didn't say that if there were galaxies, it would be Game Over.

You don't understand anything about galaxies.

I'm ignorant, I'm ignorant, Sérgio.

I'm ignorant.

In galaxies?

Of course I am.

Like me, like me. Sérgio, I understand, I study this. I've been studying cosmology for 20 years, Sérgio. I don't know how you don't have a PhD in cosmology yet. Do you have a PhD in chemistry? Prebiotics? Did Murulunu form Chomps and Vulcão?

Did he create Infumarola?

I have nothing, I'm an ignorant.

I don't even know what I'm doing here.

The Moon. You say that the Theia... The Theia is inside the mantle. I think that's what they're looking for. More. I'm going to say. Yeah. I think I'm going to go. I'm going to go.

I don't know.

I'm going to go.

I'm going to go. I'm going to go.

I'm going to go. Come on, guys, come on, Marco Zebeli. Take any live there, he'll be laughing at my face.

No, I'm laughing at Sergio's face.

He calls me a big-bang artist.

Of course you're a big-bang artist, aren't you?

I'm not a big-bang artist, no. Never in my life, man.

And you can't be anymore, because there were elliptical galaxies.

Game over, man. You didn't say what way...

I don't say...

I say...

I say... I say...

I say... that the boy had the right to slap you, if he did, he didn't, Sergio.

Right before God. You're listening to us, like Mark Zebedee.

Do you know what the Bible says, Sergio? If someone slaps you, you can slap them 15 times. You can slap them 15 times.

You can slap them 15 times.

The second Bible.

When someone comes at you, you grab the Bible and throw it at someone's house. According to God, I took a slap and can give 15.

Guys, this man who is sitting here doesn't know about chemistry, doesn't know about biology. He only knows about biology. And he sits at a table to talk about creationism. A lot of people who know a lot of areas.

Here the boy knows about chemical evolution and everything. Do you know what he said? Talk to Junior, man. I'm The volcano is the source of life. You say the teapot formed the moon. When you sit in front of people who know how to fight their heresies... They haven't fought any so far, not even geology. Geology, right. Do you believe that because it's 2 centimeters now... The evidence... Didn't you say you'd get there?

Sergio, James Webb's photo showed the universe ready.

What does James Webb have picture showed the universe ready.

What does James Webb have to do with the tectonic plate? You're running away from the subject.

You're running away from the subject? You didn't run away the whole time? I didn't. You said I sent it off the hook. Is that it?

You sent it off the hook on the Rai, man. There was nothing to do with it. The Rai did nothing. It threw a stick at the jacket. The jacket was... I'm about various areas, you just want to talk about the Earth's heating tectonic plate, people.

I've been to many debates in my life.

Go to the lecture, keep talking, call the boy there and laugh with me. The guy said that... Decaipapósito? The boy laughed there and you... I let him talk, man. You let him talk, you're the one who brought up the subject, Serzão.

I brought up the theme because he said... Did you see the weekly news? Did you see the weekly news? That Eberli said that Uranium is going to Helium.

Just like you, in your live, laughing at my face,

cursing me,

I laugh at your arguments. Yes, I laugh at my face. Your arguments are to laugh, right, Sérgio?

Sorry, your argument is to... You've offended me so much on the internet, my friend.

Just look for it, guys.

Do this. You who are watching us... You can do it.

You, look in both channels. Search.

On Marcos Ebony, where there's more offense.

Go there and look.

Let's look. Offense?

If it's on his channel, go there and have a look. I offend arguments.

I offend the arguments, I offend the arguments. I pray for you, Sérgio.

You can pray, man. Thank you.

I pray to God. All my lives I pray for you.

Now I can't admit that you lie.

I'm lying, man. I'm a liar now.

Or you're misinformed. Which one?

Misinformed? Whatever, man.

So you're misinformed. Ok. Don't accept the misinformation.

Go to Eben, he's a guy who sends...

He talks about the Bible, he says that the Bible is not a reference.

Pay attention, guys.

He doesn't say that the Bible is not a reference.

The Bible is the following, one punch, you can punch 15 times. That's it.

Of course, if you're an offender, you have the right. Of course, yes. You won't do it because you are a Christian who follows God's laws, Sérgio.

Time's up.

Thanks, Grange. Give me a hug, Sérgio. Give me a hug.

You're in?

I'm not in.

I'm in.

Reconciliation! Let's take a picture outside. Now it's reconciliation!

Where?

There's a demon there.

I told you to take about volcanoes here, then. There is a thing called deep magmatic chamber, which is what gives rise to volcanoes and such that stay in the lithospheric mantle of the Earth and today it is monitored by seismology, which is earthquake, seismic tomography, which is a super cool thing we do with planet Earth and we know that the cooling of a granite batoll, you don't know what that is, right? but for example, it's the Serra da Canastra, the Serra do Mar, it it's something like that, and still medium-sized.

It takes between 10 and 100 million years to completely crystallize from magma. If the Earth is 6,000 years old, it means that today we're stepping on magma. But we're not, we're stepping on something that has cooled down. How can we explain this within a 6,000 year model of Earth?

Let's go! Pleasure again. Denise, right?

Yes.

See? I'm good at names. I'm really enjoying the debate, but I have a sincere and heartfelt question, if you allow me to ask. What is it that any of these issues raised by you? Because for the sake of the program, which is so famous, the headcasting, and we keep the title of the program, what are any of these questions,

which is the atheist against the believer, who is the creationist, that prevents you from believing? Any of these questions raised by you?

Of all the questions I've raised so far, the only one I raised related to faith was the one about people's death. Ok, you gave me an explanation.

It's not our time, I only have a minute. But you gave me an explanation. The only one that is based on faith was was what I said. Because, for example, I can't believe in a God who puts people to live near a volcano,

and the volcano pours on them and kills everyone.

I can't believe it.

Yes, yes. That He is kind, generous, whatever name you want to give, it has nothing to do with the semantics of the word kindness, evil, it's not that. Or with a deeper meaning that you give. But that's the thing. So, that was the belief. The others are issues related to what we can measure on planet Earth.

Yes, yes. So, I can measure things. If creationism... Okay, I don't know what your division is, I don't understand, you know? Not everyone believes in the 6,000-year-old land. Some creationists believe in the ancient land.

Some creationists believe in the young land. Maybe the creationist who believes in the ancient land agrees that there are all these things in geology and everything, but he believes in a creator who created things. It's a belief of the person. Now, there's the creationist of the young Earth,

of the 6,000-year-old Earth. The Earth can't be 6,000 years old. I'm trying to bring to everyone some arguments as to why the Earth can't be 6,000 years old. The biggest argument of all, which I didn't even mention, which is an economic argument.

The oil industry drills thousands of oil wells a day, thousands, using the model of the Earth of millions of years, billions of years. A well was never drilled using the model of the Earth of 6,000 years. And the oil industry is the industry that has the most money in the world.

So, it's a series of arguments that we bring, in this case, of the issue of the young earth that I'm talking about. The question of being an atheist, I explained here at the beginning. I'm an atheist, I don't have knowledge of the Bible, so I can't sit here with you and debate with the other atheists, that they say, the verse says this, God said that, that slavery was... don't have a basis to say that, you know? I never read the Bible.

So how can I sit here with you, who knows the Bible? I'll say what? I'll say, what you say about the Bible to me, it's cool, I'll believe it, you know?

Sakani, can we talk about the Bible without understanding the Bible? Because of love and feeling God... Oh, yes, yes. I don't care if you are an atheist or not, I am absolutely sure that you are his image and likeness. So you have intrinsic values inside you and I'm sure you understand all of them. So it's inside you.

But I believe that the debate itself is useless within the theme. Why? Because it's not atheism against belief. in He created the volcano, he created Paca Tectonic, he created everything. You said that none of the answers we gave you would make you believe. No. Because the question is theological.

No, it's not that. It's something else. You, for example, you came here and explained to me about the fall.

I was going to change.

Okay, no, it's okay. You came here and explained to me about the fall. I had never heard you say that in my life. You explained it to me. Just a minute. You explained it to me. I believe in it. For me, it's great.

It's how your vision of this moment happened. It's great. Now, you can't say that geology has nothing to do with creationism.

I didn't mean to say that.

It's all about life.

It's all about life. It's all. It's purely. It's purely, like you said. What I really wanted to say is that for the faith,

or for the Christian, it doesn't matter if the Earth is 6,000 years old.

So, that's a discussion you have to have among yourselves. Okay? Okay. But just to finish,

and to explain to the people who are here watching us.

If you want, you can come.

No, you can sit down. You can sit down now.

We'll let you go at the right time, just to finish.

Yes.

I understand your point very well. Because it can be, within the... If I say something stupid, you'll correct me. Within a religion, right? Or a way, a cosmovision, right? Of creationism. I understand, obviously, or a cosmovision of creationism,

I understand, obviously, that it can have several aspects. This is the case in everything. You take the evangelicals, there is not one aspect, there are several, and they diverge among themselves. So, the thing is, you, for example, just to know, are you from the creationist young earth or not?

Young earth.

Young earth. So, fit in what I was saying.

I'm indigenous to this land.

Got it?

Within science too, you have several aspects.

I'm not from the field of geology, I believe just like it's in the Bible, you know? By faith, but I believe...

So, but then my argument is precisely this, that the world was created in 6,000 years, I'm bringing here several points that we can't have 6,000 years.

It's not only geological.

Let's go.

Nice to meet you. Name?

I'm Marcos. Good.

Professor Marcão.

I'm a biology teacher.

Deolab my son.

Right. I'm a biology teacher, a theology teacher, and I'll try to answer this question. Under my perspective, of course. I'm a theologian, a theology professor, and I'm going to try to answer this question. From my point of view, obviously. When God created the universe... Let's go back a little bit. When God created the human being, as we understand in the Bible,

the human being was created an adult, because he was given the order to work, to dig, to work, etc. The human being was given the order to reproduce, so he couldn't be a child, he couldn't be a baby, he had to be an adult.

If we could find Adam 5 minutes after he was raised, we would see a man, maybe with a beard, without a beard, but we would see a man.

Got it.

30 years old, 40 years old, adult. If we were to study the age of Adam's cell, we wouldn't find a cell with 5 minutes of life. This is a creationist position that I'm telling you, that is between the young land and the old land. It is what technically in the books of creation and evolution is called land with old appearance. That is, if Adam was created an adult, Eve too, it is reasonable to think within this creationist proposal that the whole universe was also created by the adult, so that if Adam had to plow the soil, the soil had to

have conditions for the seed to grow, for the tree to grow, to bear fruit, and it would bear fruit for him to be, to bear fruit, and it would bear fruit so it could feed. Therefore, within this creationist proposal, the whole universe was created, ready, finished, functional, and everything else. If five minutes later we were to measure the age of the rocks, we wouldn't find a baby rock.

Sorry to say, in your area I'm calling it baby rock, you understand what I'm trying to say. We would find an adult rock, already formed. And what is the age for an adult rock? For a human being, 20, 30 years is considered an adult? What is an adult age for a rock?

Millions of years, billions of an adult age for a rock?

Millions of years, billions of years, depending on the rock? So, within this creationist proposal, we explain it this way. It's not exactly the young land, it's not exactly the old land, or an evolutionary creationism,

as there are also Christians who believe in this way, that God would have used evolution, natural laws, for the world to be the way it is, and to be formed the way it was formed. So the idea I want to give you is, if we measure the age of the universe today, we have an old age universe, because it was created as an adult.

Did you understand? Did you understand? Yes, but that's why I brought it here.

All the points, if you notice, are connected with dynamics.

Yes.

It's called geodynamics.

Yes.

Got it? So, here's the thing. Okay, he created that thing. But we observe things. Ok. We observe that thing changing. And we don't have enough time to fit the changes we observe in that scenario.

Even this one I mentioned? No, but the scenario is like this. He created the Earth already ready. Yes. Already ready. But what happens next? So, from there, I can't say, and probably no creationist will know what to say.

That's the thing, because from there, everything I'm telling you comes in, that we can measure the dynamics of things. Ok, but... And then it doesn't fit. But does it make sense? Dude, for me, it doesn't matter if it was 6,000 years ago or 6 billion years ago.

He created the adult.

Yes.

And the processes may have happened. But this process must have had an origin. Ok. Where did the origin of this process come from? Got it?

I don't know if any creationist will be able to answer that for you.

Because we understand very well several processes that happen on Earth. The Earth was gradually a magma, it gradually cooled down, gradually the things that I think are the biggest debate there is, is between the case of geology, which has defended a gradual change of things, while a good part of the creationists defend something catastrophic, cataclysmic and such.

But that's not what we see, like the basalt dumps. There are 800 of them, so they were dumping and going. It wasn't something that happened at once. If it was at once, we would see kilometers of basalt, but with nothing in the middle. Since we're theorizing here,

are these 800 spills not created by God? It's a hypothesis, right?

It's a theory.

Thank you, Sergio.

Thanks, join us.

Hello, Sacani, once again.

Let's leave it rolling. Two seconds.

In peace. So, Sacani, I'd like to know, understand your vision, as you're an atheist, you don't believe in God, you brought up a word that's interesting, you said it doesn't make sense.

Do you know how to define this word? I don't know, man. Don't ask me philosophical questions. I'm not the best person for that. If that makes sense, you should understand that this presupposes logic. And creationism has a basis... As Dr. Max Weber said, creationism involves many areas. Yes, many areas.

It involves geology, it involves philosophy, it involves theology, it involves chemistry... Biology.

Biology, so...

That's why until that day we had the debate. But your atheism is a philosophical question. When we did that debate in Vilela, that's why the idea was to call people from different areas. So much so that when Pirula was talking about dinosaurs, I was getting angry, because I don't understand anything about dinosaurs. Do you understand when you say you don't believe in God, that you're entering an area of knowledge? Man, I don't think so. So you don't understand that this is atheism. Atheism refers to the proposition that God and God don't exist, which is a philosophical discussion.

Good.

Just to say, this thing about being an atheist and whether God existed or not, I brought to my show Guilherme Freire. You know him, right? My people went to curse me. You know? Those guys were saying to me, how can you bring a guy to tell you that God exists? I said, man, I didn't say that God exists. He made an explanation of the logic of philosophy,

which is not mine, I don't understand any of that, guys. What's up? Nice to meet you.

What's your name? Nice to meet you. My name is Daniel Trindade. I'm from the chemistry field. First of all, I'd like to say that I really appreciate the content, I follow your channel. Join us.

Yeah...

Well, I want to be transparent too. I'm from the chemistry field, right? I don't... The geology part is not my field. But I was reflecting a little bit about some things that were said here in the debate until now.

And one of them is this, which I'd like to understand a little bit about you. I see that you're hitting on all the themes, they're directed towards the creationism of the young Terra. Because the other part of creationism, for me,

just to say, I don't have a problem with anything, if you want to believe it, if you don't, it's fine. I joke with people that I believe Corinthians is the best team in the world. Nobody will believe that. But what I say is this. You believe that God created the Earth is a matter of belief.

I believe that God created the Earth and that's it. The other one goes, I believe that the Earth was born like this, and then you go after color. When you say that God created the Earth, and it's only 6,000 years old, you have to take all the geological history of the Earth and fit it in 6,000 years.

Got it?

And this, for those who are from the area, is a very serious problem. Because, as I said, we have the biggest argument of all, which is the economic argument. Which are the oil companies. So if we find out here that we're going to hit the Shell's pot tomorrow, I'll say, man, everything you did, all the trillion dollars you earned,

it's all wrong.

Got it?

That's what I'm saying. So for you, for example, a creationism, because the term creationism, when we talk, we come to a debate and we hear that creationism is 30 against 1. 30 creationists against a certain satanic, against an atheist. Creationism itself goes to an area, which is the area of what? Things were created. In this you will have the different sides.

Then you believe in what you want. In your case, for example, if someone sits here with you and starts saying that he believes in creationism, that things were created, but this was a very long time, millions and millions of years. Would that be ok for you? Would that be ok? Again, I have no problem with anything. But what I say is this. When they touch on the subject, I've spent 50, 20, 30 years of my life,

until today, I work with geology.

Got it?

Everything I do today, everything I see today, people come to me and say, all this fits in 6,000 years, it doesn't fit, you know?

There's no way. Now, let's go.

Ah, but God created the Earth so many billions of years ago. The other person can sit here and say, man, who created it was Mahomet, my doctorate teacher was a Buddhist monk. The Buddhist monk believes

you can't kill the ant, man, Because that could be a human being who came back. And I lived with him in a good way. I don't have a problem with the belief. I have no problem. I got it. Your problem is more with the young land. That's it.

There you go, Sergão.

There's Eberlin again.

Of course. No doubt.

It's to cut you off. You should be happy.

Go ahead, Eberlin.

Let's go, Sergio. I just wanted to comment on oil. I graduated in petrochemicals, Technical and Industrial College, with the advisor Antônio Prada. I teach oil at the University of Presbyteriano, in Mackenzie.

The origin of oil, we study the organic and inorganic origin. I've been following oil for a long time, I've worked for 20 years with Petrobras, I brought the omega oil to Brazil, a oil characterization technique, and I know, obviously,

that the exploration and commercialization of oil has absolutely nothing to do with billions of years. Nothing. We know very well, in the creationist model, that we have, Sérgio, cosmologists, geologists, physicists,

we have the Institute for Creation Research in the United States.

I was there, in Dallas.

Dallas, Texas. Wonderful, right? Did you like it? Did you see the dinosaurs and everything? I went there. I went to Dallas. Dallas, Texas. Wonderful, right? Did you like it? Did you see the dinosaurs and everything? I went to the museum. We have Answers in Genesis.

There's a wonderful article. Answers in Genesis, I was in Annapolis, Goiás with the Answers in Genesis crew. You were with the astronauts. With the astronauts and the Answers in Genesis crew.

It was sensational. You know that the are the creators of the young earth.

There's no problem with that.

I already said that I don't have a problem with that.

There are many geologists and cosmologists in the world who understand that the young earth, they don't believe that the young earth is not something we take from the bible, although the bible makes it very clear that the earth is young is not something we take from the Bible, although the Bible makes it very clear that the Earth is young. And they understand, for example, that oil can be formed quickly. We have companies around the world that take organic matter,

pressure and form oil. But they don't do it at the volume of oil. But you know very well... When you take an equatorial margin that has billions of barrels of oil, of reserve, that oil was not made synthetically, in a laboratory. Yes, but you know that...

Because you're going to say that we made it in a laboratory and injected it into the Earth?

No, no, no way. But the whole model of creationist catastrophism, as Professor Célio can come here and explain it very well for you, takes the same amount of organic matter, the same pressure and the same temperature. So, guys, the economic model, the economic argument,

is everything you don't have. It's absolutely not.

We take certain reservoirs, here in Brazil there are few, but we have, in Norway Norway there are many of these.

We find, for example, paleocanals. And then you take the oil, Sergio, you take the oil, there is 14 carbon in the oil. You know very well that 14 carbon has a half-life time of 5,730 years. It's not all the oil that has 14 carbon. But there is 14 carbon. And a few samples in the world found.

A few. It wasn't to be found in any, right, Sergio?

This is all very discussed because...

Diamonds, do you think there is a problem with diamonds?

Carbon 14 in diamond, man, there are several studies. And from the laboratory there, of the articles, you didn't let us talk there, in the village, you didn't let us talk.

Yes, talk cut the diamond into pieces, it's the same amount. We tested the contamination.

Carbon 14 has contamination there.

There's carbon 14 in coal, there's carbon 14 in oil. Everything that has carbon on Earth, Sergio, has carbon 14. So, Sergio, we don't just open the Bible. We open science, we open geology, we open biology, we open cosmology and everything else. And we open up the photos of James Webb, because you don't want to run away from this photo,

because you loved the photo, right, Sergão? But now you don't want to talk about it anymore? And we open up all the elements. Do you know what happens to the elements of James Webb?

Since hydrogen...

James Webb died 50 years ago. James Webb's elements? Since the hydrogen... Poor James Webb, he's been dead for 50 years.

James Webb killed the standard cosmological model, guys. That's what killed it, the cosmological model.

All the elements are already there, from hydrogen to iron.

You just don't keep studying James Webb.

Of course, of course. Cosmologists are totally silent. You don't talk anymore in your show, you know why? You can't sustain the standard cosmological model anymore.

Did you see the explanation for the Little Red Dots?

There isn't, Sérgio.

What's the explanation?

Do you know what's the explanation you gave in a recent podcast? Our universe was formed in a black hole of another universe. Sérgio, if that's the price I have to pay to be an atheist, I don't want to be an atheist, Sérgio. I didn't say that, my friend. You opened a live in your room and I watched it, Sérgio.

Now you can't watch it.

Can I say it?

Did you say it or not?

I said it because it came up, and that's one of the hypotheses.

How did the universe form? The universe, you know how it formed?

By the power of the word. I'm the article that the guy wrote, and he defending that hypothesis and saying how today you didn't see the whole video. Of course I saw it.

What I say in the video is this...

I saw it all.

Wait a minute.

I saw it all.

How are you saying I didn't see it? Wait a minute.

What I say in the video is this. if the universe was born in a black hole. That's it. Do you know what happened then, Sérgio? That's it. It's a myth. Sérgio, in the absolute lack of models, because the universe is not isotropic, it is not homogeneous, it doesn't expand, all the elements are already there, all the different types of galaxies, what are you doing now, Sérgio?

Appealing to naturalists, not you. I'm not, not you. I'm not even appealing, man. I'm not even talking about you. Appealing to the universe being born in a black hole inside the other universe. This is a very old hypothesis.

This is what was left for the naturalist atheists, guys.

Now a great God, Sergio, a great God, called existence, universe.

But did God create a black hole too?

Of course, to stabilize the galaxies, because the black holes were all there. Does the galaxy stabilize? the This argument is not with you. Absolutely. Sergão, great God, the heavens declare the glory of God, Sergão.

Amen, man.

Announce the work of your hands, without words, until the end of the world, Sergão. Until the end of the world, until the deepest universe, we hear your voice. He did, he did, ready, at once, to our God, then, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, glory to Him, because He did it. Amen.

He killed Pompeii and no one explained it to me.

It's all right.

Just to make it clear, this whole black hole thing, it was an article that came out, because there's this hypothesis, and a guy wrote an article saying, now, in this moment we're in, there's a mission called Euclid,

and this mission would have the ability to prove or not that this hypothesis is real. Dude, if they prove it, it's over.

Sit here in front of me, pray.

No, no, let's stay on your side.

No, you can stay there, stay around. Let's go, let's stay.

Let's all stand by the side of the servant here.

Let's go, pray there.

Pray more there.

Look at him.

Lord, my God, here is this man, my father. You know the paths he has traveled. You know how to lay down and get up. God, I ask that the Lord restore him. And may the evidences of God be no longer ignored. But may the Lord show himself clearly.

And may his heart accept the Lord. And may the Lord manifest himself as the Lord is. A God who loves, a God who loves, and a God who rescues for the Lord, God. Do, Lord, your work on his life In the name of Jesus we ask

Amen

Hello friends, we just finished the wonderful debate 30 against 1 They didn't convince me of the question I asked there Why did you kill the guys in Pompeii? They suffered, died And they didn't answer me

Guys, but that's it It's always good to talk. I don't like the word debate. I've been to many debates in my life. I won't go. I've been to one with Eberlin Vilela.

And then with the other debate I've been to, I think I've been to none.

I came here now, in 30 vs 1, with the guys. I want to thank everyone. I have nothing against anyone. As I said, my mother is a spiritual mother. My mentor, he was a Buddhist monk. My PhD mentor was a Buddhist monk. Not that he was a Buddhist, he was a monk. He even changed his name.

And I always got along with him wonderfully. Being that Buddhism believes in some things that, for me, don't make any sense. For you, it probably doesn't. But he believes and we get along well. I have no problem with anyone's belief, you know? No problem. Everyone believes in what they want, what they think is good.

If this is doing you good, you there who are watching, Oh, because I believe in such a thing. Is it doing you good, man? So keep going, because that's what you have to hold on to. It doesn't matter what religion you have. My problem here is not with religion, not with any of that. In fact, it's not with anything, I have no problem with anything. My idea here was to bring points from the area that I understand. Because I'm not going to talk about chemistry, I can't talk about biology, man.

There's no way to talk about these things. I talk about geology because it created the Earth. The Earth is the coolest geological element we have to study. I hope you enjoyed it. If one day, the guy who brought it here, there are things I say on the internet, Eben says a lot of things about me on the internet, João says a lot of things about me on the internet,

I never prosecuted anyone, unlike the people who say anything and the people go out prosecuting, I never prosecuted anyone. It's okay, we understand that it is how it ends. We're all friends here, everyone in peace. So, thank you all for coming here, spending this afternoon with us, exchanging ideas. A big hug, leave a like, don't forget to leave a like, don't forget to subscribe to the channel, ok? Because it's very important for us.

A big hug and see you in the next 30v1. Will I go in one more? I don't know. Did I get converted? Leave it in the comments.

Did they manage to convert me or not? Big hug.

But let's... I don't think anyone here, even the young one, who is talking at this moment.

So we can pass this on.

I am.

I think it's Henrique, Abraham, Roberto and Marcio are...

Ok, I didn't know, sorry. But I don't think it's the point I'm particularly interested in discussing, because it doesn't even fall into biology, right? It's usually more about geology. It's usually more about geology. But anyway, if you want to talk about it, feel free.