Saturday, September 30, 2023
Mitochondrial Health

DEBATE | Is There Scientific Evidence For Evolution? – Mark Reid vs. Matt Nailor

The Great Evolution Debate!

Mark Reid (Raw Matt) and Matt Nailor debate the question “Is there scientific evidence for evolution?”

Affirmative – Mark Reid
Negative – Matt Nailor

Moderator – Donny Budinsky
Hosted by Standing For Truth Ministries

Mark Reid –

Matt Nailor –

Standing For Truth Ministries OFFICIAL Website:

Support Standing For Truth:

Interviews Hosted by Standing For Truth:

Debates hosted/moderated by Standing For Truth:

DISCLAIMER – The views shared by guests on Standing For Truth are not necessarily representative of the views of Donny and Standing For Truth Ministries.

The Evolution CHALLENGE:

End Times Theology Dawn of the Antichrist (Book by Donny Budinsky):
Black and White –
Full Colour –

The Endogenous Retrovirus Handbook (Dismantling the Best Evidence for Common Descent):
Black and White version –
Full Color Version plus Variant Cover –

Special Creation UPDATED and EXPANDED:
Black and White –

My (Donny/SFT) 2022 Debates:
My (Donny/SFT) 2021 Debates:
My (Donny/SFT) 2020 Debates:

Ancestry –
Refuting Arguments for Evolution and an Old Earth –
The Genesis Flood –
Biblical Creation Basics –

The Independent Origins Handbook –


Similar Posts

27 thoughts on “DEBATE | Is There Scientific Evidence For Evolution? – Mark Reid vs. Matt Nailor
  1. Ok, after watching the entire debate and reading all the comments I have a different view.
    1:) Matt apologizes for not getting to two of Marks 2 arguments. But why? Matt answered everything else and Mark never answered any of Matts main points in his opening, he danced around mutation saturation point which I really wanted to hear an answer to. 2:) Mark was condescending regarding population numbers but overall just ranted on and on about it before just eventually hand-waving it away. 3:) His answer to genetic boundaries was that the study was talking about a 200,000 year old timeframe. So what? Answer the question, that is what we in the audience want to hear, prove why the study is wrong or tell us how these boundaries work or do not work, ANYTHING! 4:) I also wanted to hear why mutation rates are so fast and why the evolutionary camp (my side) supposedly invented a mutation rate to match a primate split. Again, no answer from Mark. At least throw out something in our defense. 5:) I also had no idea it was the YEC camp who predicted similarity, yet Mark acted like it doesn't matter when he was the one who set the stage in his opening about making the more accurate testable predictions.

    6:) Matt fails because everything he says he is expecting Mark to know. Mark had no idea about half the things he brought up. Matt needs to pretend he is talking to someone who knows nothing about this Biblical creation model like myself. He must have thought that because Mark debates this subject that he should know all about it. This is a bad assumption and it cost him. 7:) Also, Matt shows a HUGE list of positive testable predictions for YEC vs Evolution, but Mark never holds his feet over the fire to go over them. Why not? Mark literally said, that it is testable predictions that matter the most. 8:) Then when it was time to finally go over one of these Mark moves to the fossil record and missing links!?! This was a pathetic move I unusually see from the creationist side, when asking to prove that evolution is not true they move the goal post to abiogenesis or cosmology. Now we got the our side moving the goal post away from genetics and biology which all evolution is, and into fantasy land. 9:) Matt was way to Nice to someone being condescending as well. Mark was saying things like, "Its like I am talking to an uneducated student regarding basic biology here", yet mark didn't even know how haplogroups formed, didn't know what the 3 nodes for L, M, & N were, and had no idea how to answer any of Matts genetic questions or opening. I am honestly disappointed in a lot of things. 10:) I wanted to hear answers I never got to hear from Mark because I want to know how to refute them. Instead I got to hear Matt give a basic open challenge for Mark to literally pick where anything will be in 10,000 years from now using evolution theory to predict what it will evolve into. What did I hear? Things will probably evolve a better capacity to adapt to more Co2. Man, if that is the best you can do in your mind just keep your mouth shut. The Creationists are going to have a field day with this debate.

    11:) I was keeping score about half way through, but I quit because it became lopsided, Mark failed. He presented tons of questions to Matt which were all answered and citations were given. Mark gave us none of that, even in his opening besides some ERV's slides which later were debated between the two and explained that function is the key and Matt even challenged him to back up his claim and to show even a single paper of a non-functional ERV becoming functional. Mark shifted around his notes like he had one but eventually gave us nothing.
    12:) People should be forced to prove their points during the debate, I love the visuals even with the side I am against is using them. I can fact check them and it gives them more credibility. Again I was unaware that it was YEC who predicted ERVs would have function, Mark really messed up when he chose a subject "Accurate Predictions" with this guy. He came read and Mark did not do his homework. This guy Matt would run circles around the creationists I have seen, like Kent "Dogs produce Dogs", I am so sick of hearing that for the 1,000th time.

    (Added) I almost forgot; Mark, some really really bad comments: "More chromosomes means not being human". What? You realize there are humans alive today with more chromosomes and less chromosomes right? They are fully human. Mark, this was a very bad statement to make. How are people going to take the rest of what you say as correct when you are getting simple things wrong?

    Mark also said that Y chromosome Adam lived millions of years ago? What? He should have done some basic research before making that insane statement.

    Mark shows a Y chromosome haplogroups chart when he is talking about MtDNA haplogroups, he doesn't even know the difference. This is not looking good for an evolution debate. He is lucky Matt just smiles and doesn't call him out on all this. I am sure he will make a video later though making a clown out of him.

    Mark had no idea that evolution never predicted a different chromosome count in humans and chimps? This is known throughout the community, Matt doesn't need to supply citations that are well known facts. How do you not know this stuff Mark? You are debating evolution theory and defending it and don't know these basic things. You cannot pronounce any of the australopithecines even remotely close.

    Mark you cant say John Sanford is wrong when you cant even say his name right. It's not STANDFORD, it's Sanford. No T anywhere. You said it wrong every single time.

  2. Thanks, Mark, for stating that someone, a person, an intelligent being can intelligently (re) design things using stem cells. Which team are you on again?

  3. Mutation rates and evolutionary rates are off the charts with creationism!? 99% of all the creatures that have ever existed on this planet is extinct!? What a creator? Circus of incompetence? Or, unguided evolution?

  4. I can't believe how this guy mark lies through his teeth the way he does.
    I can't believe he's still using tiktaalik as an example of transition.

    Tiktaalik: Where is the "considerable developmental repatterning" to fill the "large morphological gap" between fins and feet? Oops.

    “There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning..” (Clack & Ahlberg, Nature 440:748

  5. Mark has missed the mark, pun intended. He’s a fool as ALL those who believe in evolution. I can never get through and listen to the evolution point of view in it's entirety! I have to watch it after the fact and not live because I can't sit through the BS! I Must fast forward A lot & often when they speak! These people are ignorant, idiotically foolish, mind bended lied to folks, who need to be set free!!!

  6. "We found exactly what we predicted" Mark thanks for all the work you and others do. BUT did you ever stop to think that what you are finding is exactly what God did on creation week to make things work the way it does? As far as chromosome 2 goes, there is much newer and in depth science that can explain the characteristics of the region that points away from common ancestor. Because you can recite many talking points of ToE doesn't make the theory correct. Seek The Lord and He will open the door.

  7. The Creation and Tower of Babel events have the same mechanism — God!
    Now why does Mark discount the use of science to collaborate the Tower of Babel event when he's sitting there hearing science backing up the Creation event? 🤔 Go figure

  8. 101:35

    Millions of years never happened.

    "It’s a pattern in the fossil record that footprints are found in strata millions of years before foot bones, and evolutionists never explain how the critter survived millions of years after leaving its footprints until it finally got buried."

    "It was first presented in detail in a paper by Adventist Leonard Brand and a co-author J. Florence in 1982. The evolutionists have never answered this challenge in the 38 years since. The pattern is the same for reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals."

    "How many years are we talking about? 10 million between trilobite tracks and trilobite fossils; 35 million between amphibian tracks and amphibian fossils; and 10 million between dinosaur tracks and dinosaur fossils. That is a curious pattern indeed."

  9. So it sounds like Mark is saying, "the restrictions of science" are restricting us to only look at data that naturalists accept. Wonder, just wonder and bet on Pascal's Wager If it is God; look what is happening (in the name of science). I always thought science was the study of all of the evidence in our universe.

  10. So ERVs are shared among life forms and viruses' sequences (that need to fool life forms' cells) look like ERVs may quite simply be one more example of same blueprint used over and over again in genetic material. And if the truth be known; common ancestor is in no way a proven tenet of evo..

  11. I don’t understand why you guys don’t bring up that we’re actually 98% DNA match with pigs and 97.5% DNA match with mice. We are only 95% match DNA with chimpanzees. This doesn’t show ancestry but common design.

  12. For some reason, Mark seems to think secular scientists never lie about their claims or alleged "discoveries" or ever fakes anything. We actually know that to be false. Even evolutionary scientists recognizes these forgeries such as Hackle's Embryos, and the Piltdown Man. The earlier has been recognized for over a hundred years by evolutionary scientists. However, when you point this out to Mark he's ready to accuse you of being conspiratorial when we are not engaging in a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory involves some sort of elaborate coverup, and we are not claiming that, but all human beings have in them the potential to lie, although it would violate both moral principles and is not very scientific for one to give into such things. You can accuse someone of lying or faking their discovery without accusing them of committing a conspiracy of some sort. Sometimes people lie about what they are claiming. It's interesting that atheists have no problem of accusing Christians of this without being accused of engaging in a conspiracy theory, but they have no problem of accusing us of it the first moment we accuse their evolutionary scientists of lying. When I interviewed Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson he actually said that he had caught one of their scientists deleting data that didn't agree with his position. There have been evolutionary hoaxes rather or not they are willing to admit it.

  13. Matt, you did awesome.

    You showed how their model contradicts all the time and Mark literally doesn’t care. He cares only if evolucionists give any answer ironically if they can’t even test that explanation.

    Is the definition of dogma over science.

  14. Mark says science is a search for natural explanations? Not knowledge! What is nature? That's what science is trying to figure out! So far, we have found stuff and discovered there's more stuff inside the stuff. Some stuff acts strange while most stuff is predictable.

    So the study of the material is limited to studying material. Did t know that! Lol😂😮 will you be using your mind in the process or just sticks and stones to explain nature.

  15. 1:37:17 The book "Origin and development of languages: Linguistics Contra Evolution" by Roger Liebi on that topic is great. Language complexity actually decreased over time. And Mark, if you look into languages, you'll realize you can group languages and backtack… but at some point grouping isn't possible anymore.

  16. Mark is just repeating atheist propaganda. Evolution has never predicted anything. It's all post hoc Tiktaalik was never predicted. To prove my point ask any atheist to give a future novel testable prediction and they won't have one.

  17. Nailor came to the wrong debate. why in a debate on "is there scientific evidence for evolution" was there no refutation of the scientific nature of the evidence? Nailor just brought up a competing model. science can and does lead to incorrect conclusions, and those errors are always recognized and rectified with more and better, evidence and interpretations. just showing a preferred model does not in any way show the lack of scientific merit of the evidence of the model being debated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *