Welcome to Modern Data Bait. My name is Carissa and I am the host for this evening. So really happy to be here and to be hosting both of these great speakers tonight. We are a neutral platform and we host debates on science, religion, and politics. So if you enjoy controversial debates, consider hitting the subscribe button as we have many more coming up. In fact, as you'll see on the bottom right hand of your screen, right now we have a Kickstarter going to cover the honorarium for a big debate with Michael Schermer and Mike Jones on whether Christianity is dangerous. If you'd like to watch it live, it's only three bucks and will help make it happen. The link to pledge to that Kickstarter campaign is in the description box below and you can sign in with your Facebook account so you don't have to make a Kickstarter account. It's a lot, but it's a new idea so we're trying to explain the Kickstarter stuff to people in detail. So definitely be sure to check that out. Also, if you are really liking what you're hearing tonight, definitely be sure to check out the links of both of our speakers also in the description. I'm going to give them a chance to introduce themselves and kind of give you a little bit of a backstory about what they do. We'll start off with Sal Cordova. Please tell us a little bit about yourself. Tell us what we can find in your link. Oh, I thought Tom was going to go first. You know what? With the openings or just with the introductions you can go first. Sure. I'm Sal Cordova. I'm a former scientist and engineer in the aerospace industry, aerospace and defense industry. I'm now a molecular biophysics research assistant and I'm a Christian and I used to believe in evolution and I now believe in creation. Amazingly, my Christian testimony was featured in the April 28th edition of the prestigious scientific journal Nature as a news article, not a scientific article. Links to my YouTube channel and website can be found in the description and I'd like to thank everyone who's coming to this debate and viewing it since it's the Christmas season. This is an appropriate time to be talking about Christianity and since this is the time we celebrate the birth of Christ. And I'd like to thank you and James and Tom for letting me be a part of this debate tonight. Thank you. Thank you so much Sal and T-Jump. If you wanted to give the audience a little bit of a background on yourself and explain what they might find in your link. Hi, I'm T-Jump. I'm a professional gardener. I grow potatoes on my channel. You can find me washing potatoes. It's very fun. I keep my Patreon so I can grow very special potatoes. Be sure to check out those potatoes. They are bud-free potatoes. So, top quality. Can't miss it. So, the format of the debate tonight is going to be a little bit different. We are going to have staggered openings. So, we're going to start with T-Jump for five minutes. We're going to switch over to Sal for another five minutes. Come back to T-Jump for five minutes and switch back over to Sal for another five minutes. After that, we're going to have an hour of open discussion followed up by 30 minutes of question and answer. So, if you do have a question, be sure to put it into the super chat and we will be sure to get to it. So, without further ado, T-Jump, if you want to start, the floor is yours. All right, sure. So, yeah, the question is, which is more reasonable atheism or atheism? And like any different hypotheses, in order to find out which hypothesis is more reasonable, you need some way to differentiate which is real and which is imaginary. There's infinitely many ways to explain anything. For example, if a cup falls over, maybe it was the wind or someone bumped the table or maybe it was aliens or invisible unicorns or a god, anything could have knocked the cup over. But if you want to say, my hypothesis about what knocked the cup over is correct, then you need some way to show that that hypothesis is something that exists in reality outside of your imagination and not just in your imagination. And to do that, we use novel testable predictions. So, for example, if my hypothesis is a squirrel knocked over the cup, I can say, well, if we look around the cup, we'll find squirrel droppings and then we can look and if we find them, that's really good evidence that my hypothesis is correct and the other hypotheses are incorrect because mine made the prediction there to not because theism does not offer any such method to differentiate itself from just being imaginary. It's no different from any of the other imaginary hypotheses like imaginary unicorns dropped over invisible unicorns knocked over the cup. We need that additional metric to be able to show that this thing that's hypothesis actually corresponds to something in reality. Atheism does this really, really well in every single academic field and every single problem we've ever had in humanity. The naturalistic solutions have solved these, have said, you know what, we think this is solved by just an unguided force of nature. If it's caused by an unguided force of nature, here are the things we're going to see if we do these experiments, we do the experiments and we get the results. Theism has never been able to do that. It's never been able to successfully provide if my hypothesis is true, here is something we will see as a result. It always gets it wrong. And the naturalistic atheistic hypothesis always gets it right. So it's much more reasonable. In fact, it's the only reasonable position is to accept the naturalistic conclusion because it's the only one that's been able to make successful testable predictions or provide any method to differentiate itself from imaginary hypotheses. And I'll conclude there. All right. Thank you, Tijan Bin. We'll kick it over to Sal. If I could share my screen, do you see it? Yes. Okay. The difficulty that someone defending the Christian faith that they face is the problem of the hidden God.  Oh, God of Israel, Savior. And also, it is the glory of God to conceal things. It is the glory of kings to search things out. And then in Acts in the New Testament, they put him, that is Christ, to death by hanging him on a tree. But God raised him on the third day and made him to appear not to all the people, but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to judge the living and the dead. So the problem is we wouldn't even have this debate today if God just decided to have Jesus appear to all of us instead of those chosen witnesses. And yet Jesus said, even though you do not believe in me, believe the works that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father. So paradoxically, God hides, and then he also says, consider the works. In the present day, this gentleman was influential in equating me with the works of God. This is the youngest man to walk on the moon, Charles Duke. When he flew to the moon, he was not a Christian. When he came back, his life fell apart. His marriage is falling apart. He was having alcohol abuse problems. And then so he started going back to church and he became a Christian. And in his book, Moonwalker, he gives the account on page 271 to 273 where after he'd become a Christian, he started praying in the name of Jesus and this blind girl was healed. So yes, maybe we can't confirm this experimentally. But as far as that blind girl and this astronaut who's highly credible and I've talked to people that work with him, he's a credible witness. To me, that's close enough to a work of God to help me believe in Jesus. So why would God hide? It says here, Jesus said, I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and reveal them to little children like that little girl. Yes, it's troubling that Jesus doesn't heal everyone. And I totally get that. But God has his plans. Why would he hide? It says for consider your calling, brothers, not many of you were wise according to worldly standards. Not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise. God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world. Even things that are not to bring to nothing things that are so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And then also, therefore, God sends them a strong delusion that is people that don't want God, so that they may believe what is false in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. So they're very fine gentlemen. Here's pictures of them. And God would call them unrighteous. Now, Andrew Carnegie gave away all of his wealth for society. That seems so noble. But he said, I declined to accept salvation from such a fiend. The fiend he's referring to is the person whom we call the Christian God.  And one of my favorite philosophers Bertrand Russell said, you know, why am I not a Christian? God will actually make it and facilitate the process of them being deceived. But for those who are starting to experience miracles, it says today while there is still opportunity, if you hear his voice, do not harden your heart. This is what Carnegie going back to Carnegie. He said, not only had I got rid of the theology and the supernatural, but I found the truth of evolution. The whole scheme of Christian salvation is diabolical as revealed by the creeds. An angry God imagined such a creator of the universe. I declined to accept salvation from such a fiend. That is a theme that I've heard from many atheists on the internet. He reflects the sentence of many. Now, he mentioned the truth of evolution. On my website in the after show, I'll be talking about the reasons I now reject evolution. I used to accept it. I study molecular biophysics. This is a picture of a eukaryotic nucleus. It's the reason I don't accept the nested hierarchies as being the process of evolution, but requiring a miracle. I'll cover that more as I talk about intelligent design and creationism in my next five minute segment. Thank you. All right. Thank you if you want to. Oh, perfect. And then with that tea jump, we will kick it over to you. Okay. So listening to Sal's opening, he brought up a few things. The first was a miracle of a blind person healing that isn't evidence of a God. That's a high pot. That's a phenomenon like the cup falling over. If we see a cup fall over, what caused it? One of the answers is, well, maybe Jesus healed the person. That's a possibility. But then we also have to take into account the other possibilities. Like maybe it was a natural healing that we just can't explain, which usually happens a lot. There's lots of different people who get healed from all kinds of things that we can't explain. And we can't attribute those to just anything we want. That would be for post-talk reasoning. You just apply your own explanation to the event. What you need to say is, if my hypothesis is true that this was Jesus, then here is a test we can do to show that that was the case, that my hypothesis or my explanation is the reasonable one. And he didn't provide any of that. He just said, he has a hypothetical explanation of the event, which anybody can make it up. I can make that up right now and say, it was probably just some biological phenomenon we just haven't explained yet. Like we can both come up with hypotheses of what can explain that. Neither of those are supported yet because there's no actual way to differentiate which one of those is real and which one is imaginary. So just coming up with a hypothetical explanation of an event isn't evidence. It's just a hypothetical explanation. The next big thing he brought up was the eukaryotic cells. I don't know why that, why he considers that to require a miracle. He hasn't presented anything yet. The consensus in biology is it doesn't require a miracle. It's perfectly natural. The fact that we can't explain certain things in biology is just an argument from incredulity. Like if you can't imagine how it could be done by natural laws isn't evidence that they can't. It's just an argument from incredulity. So I don't know how he comes to the conclusion that that requires a God or a miracle in any sense. And he just goes against the consensus in every field of biology. So I'd love to wait for more on that.  So I'll just conclude there for now. All right. Thank you, DT Jump. And Sal, the floor is yours. Thank you. Science actually does require miracles. We take it for granted that things happen naturally, but science needs miracles. This is Eugene Pitcher, Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize winner in physics. He endorsed a creationist book by Robert Gange. He points out that mathematics is extremely affected much more so than we would naturally expect. He calls that miraculous. These are the basic laws of physics or this represents them. Mechanics, electrodynamics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and general relativity. The nice property of these equations is their second order. It makes science tractable. We would not have science if it were not nicely designed. This was articulated by Paul Davies, a physicist, New York Times, notable book of the year, The Mind of God, also won the Templeton Prize of Religion. Echoing these sentiments, Charles Towns invented the laser Nobel Prize winner. He's evangelical Christian. He said, intelligent design. As one sees it from a scientific point of view seems to be quite real. And that was about intelligent design and fine tuning. And then we have Richard Smalley, evangelical Christian, atheist turned Christian. He said, evolution has just been dealt its death blow after reading Origins of Life with my background in chemistry and physics. It is clear evolution could not have occurred. He's talking primarily of the origin of life, which is called also chemical evolution. I highly recommend this book by change Laura Tan and Rob Stadler, PhD trained scientist from Harvard. And in the after show on my channel, I can talk about this. I don't have time here. I'll point out evolutionary theory. It says in sciences, this is quoting Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist. He said in sciences pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom far closer to the pseudoscience of phrenology than to physics. All this to point out just because it's the mainstream consensus doesn't mean it's a great science. Most of the top research teams studying biology, they had little use for an evolutionary paleontologist. No disrespect intended, but that's just the way it is. So the question of Christ, if we have an intelligent designer, and there's miracles needed to make life and also to create creatures. How do we know? How do we know that this is the Christian God? I'm just going to suggest something. This is something to consider if the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. So we have some reason for some people to look for a savior. We had the promised Jewish Messiah that was listed. We know now in the Hebrew scriptures that were dated by another Nobel Prize winner, that they are ancient and before the time of Christ. They had a prophecy about a Messiah who would be Jewish. He would be the ones in whom the Gentiles would hope. And he would teach more about, he would teach the world about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and the law of Moses. And I would just postulate this. Name one Jew who has done more to make people aware of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then we have this kind of backhanded prophecy in Acts 5, 38 through 39. This is Gamaliel, a Pharisee, enemy of the Christian faith. He said, So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men, that is Christ's apostles, and let them alone. For if this plan or this undertaking is a man, it will fail. But if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God. So what are the odds that this Jesus would be the person we celebrate for Christmas? I'm taking this from Dr. James Allen. He said, He was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another obscure village where he worked in a carpenter shop until he was 30. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never went to college. He never visited a big city. He never traveled more than 200 miles from the place where he was born. He did none of the things usually associated with greatness. He had no credentials but himself. He was only 33. His friends ran away. One of them denied him. He was turned over to his enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to the cross between two thieves while dying. His executioners gambled for his clothing. The only property he had on earth when he was dead. He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend. 19th centuries have come and gone. And today Jesus is the central figure of the human race and the leader of mankind's progress.  Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. And now we'll start the open discussion. Okay. So nothing that I saw in you that you presented actually shows any evidence of intelligent design or Jesus at all as far as I can tell. Like you listed a cherry picked a few theist scientists, but if you can just Google intelligent design, you come up with about 10 academic papers that specifically say intelligent design is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God presented by proponents that as an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins. And you can just read off the academic papers that all list this, the Young and Ed's 2004, Pigalucci 2010, Boundary, Martin, Blake, Stefan, Bakum, Johan, you just dozens of academic papers that show intelligent design as a pseudoscience. And specifically the reason is doesn't make any testful predictions. It doesn't show any method to show it's correct. It's just an argument from incredulity. We can't understand how this could be done naturally, therefore God essentially. And so the academic consensus is that that doesn't work at all. So listing a few academics who are theist doesn't really help your case. It's just cherry picking examples. And science doesn't require miracles at all. The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is explained just because mathematics is a language that describes reality like any language. Math has sentences that correspond to reality like one plus one equals two. It has sentences that does not correspond to reality like f equals ma times 45. And it has sentences that are self-contradictory like one plus one equals seven, just like English. English has sentences that correspond to reality. There is a tree. It has sentences that do not correspond to reality. I am a Klingon and it has sentences that are self-contradictory. I am a married bachelor. There's nothing special about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. It's just that some sentences correspond to reality and we use those sentences to build other sentences that correspond to reality and we keep building on that. And just as long as we only keep the ones that correspond to reality and get rid of the rest, it makes perfect sense why it does that. So I don't know why anything you presented would actually be evident. So prophecy, prophecy, the prophecies of Jesus are not in any way spectacular. They're pretty, they're vague, ambiguous, tell us nothing. I mean the prophecies in Hinduism would be are better evidence because they actually predict like the age of the earth within 0.03% accuracy. That's a good prediction. I mean if anything's going to be evidence, that's evidence. The probability of them getting that right 5,000 years ago is significantly less likely than a random guy being influential in a random city that caused a movement which happens in every city all across the world all the time like Buddha, Falun Gong, Muhammad. There's random like John Jonathan Smith. There's all kinds of random people who make influential movements causing people to follow you is not special. Guessing the origin of the earth is that's pretty impressive. That's some good evidence. So I don't see any of those in any way provided any evidence that the design is real is the real hypothesis. Again, science makes testable predictions. The ism doesn't. Science does make testable predictions. As I said, I studied science. If I could just ask what would count as evidence for intelligent design? I mean, does it have to be with the designer have to show up on your demand in your experiments to believe in him? Well, you would get to decide that. You would say if my hypothesis is true, here's what I would expect to see and then we would test to see if we see that thing. So it's completely up to you.  What would it would be for you specifically? What would persuade you of an intelligent designer? I mean, could you postulate what sort of or you don't know, you don't know what would persuade you? There's infinitely many things. So it's any novel testable prediction. So you just say if my hypothesis is true, here is something we don't know yet that we can discover and then we test it and we discover it and that would be good evidence. Well, thank you for answering if you could be more specific. I mean, that seems kind of vague. I'm not where I was headed with this. Why don't I try to explain what I think? Usually in science, we'll say okay, a testable prediction is we're going to say if we put these chemicals in a beaker, this is this is what's going to happen in the beaker. So the problem with intelligent design is for one, and I totally respect this, I could turn the light switch on and off, control it, therefore I believe in the light switch. On the other hand, let's say the intelligent designer is God. The most ultimate test would be to say, okay, God appear and work a miracle for me. But the problem is with an experiment like that, and this is understandable, it would be very believable if you could just kind of conjure up God when you want and run an experiment and demand He do everything you want when you want, and then you'll believe in Him. But at that point, if you can do that to God, then you're effectively God yourself. So that's, it's one of those things where for someone maybe to consider intelligent design, it might be a being who's not going to be subject to our whims and controls. So if the only thing that you're going to believe are things that are predictable and testable according to your criteria, I totally respect that it is more believable. But if the answer ultimately is a God who has his own will and is not beholden to your whims and desires, then you might not be able to ever believe in Him. And therefore maybe the truth is inaccessible to you. And so therefore I'm only offering maybe suggestions that maybe the ultimate truths are not within the reach of humans in ways that they could describe with simple experiments. You also mentioned that math is not at all miraculous. It's not just the math. We have various kinds of math. I was mentioning this about the order of the differential equations. If the laws of physics were higher order differential equations, we'd have a much harder time doing physics. If, for example, the universe were not fine-tuned, there'd be no interesting chemistry. There'd be just hydrogen atoms if only that, therefore no life, therefore no science. So without eyes to hear, I mean eyes to see, ears to hear, minds to think, there's no science. So if life is a miracle, then science needs a miracle to be effective. And it is known that the fine-tuning is very important to make the scientific method work. So I gave an essay by Wigner that points this out because when they hypothesize other universes, the scientific method does not work. It has a property of what they call algorithmic compression. Furthermore, we live in a very special time. The physicist Lawrence Krauss said, in five billion years, the expansion of the universe will have progressed to the point where all other galaxies will have receded beyond detection. Indeed, they will be receding faster than the speed of light. So detection will be impossible. Future civilizations discover science and all its laws and never know about other galaxies or the cosmic background radiation. They will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion about their universe. We live in a special time, the only time where we can observationally verify that we live in a special time. So even the physicists are saying we live in a special time. Some people feel we live in a privileged place. Science works because it is a gift. We take it too much for granted that we're able to do science. I still haven't seen any of that as evidence of God.  Yeah, the five billion year time frame, yes, this is a special time which takes up pretty much a quarter of the existence of all of the universe. So I mean, it's not really that special in that sense. The fact that the universe is consistent in the laws is, again, not special. There are going to be some patterns I've talked about with several cosmologists on my channel specifically about this, Luke Barnes, Hugh Ross, Jeff Zwirink, several others. We've literally gone through this, like, no, this isn't special. This is just physics. Everything, all the fine tuning could be explained and determined by a is explained and determined by a natural law that we just haven't discovered yet. You don't need a God for any of that. The fact that we can discover things about reality is, again, explained by natural law, not a God. God would actually not be consistent with that because God doesn't need laws.  So it makes much more sense to just say it's natural. Like, there's nothing about that special. All of that explained is better explained by naturalism, which is the consensus in physics and cosmology and biology and every field literally says the opposite of what you're saying. And you didn't really present any reason for what you're saying. You just said some people believe this. I mean, it's nice that some people believe that, but it's not evidence. Again, you need evidence. Science doesn't require miracles. No one accepts that. Again, you haven't provided a way to differentiate imagination from reality. You said that if a God is not of the kind that you can test, then you may not have access to believe it. Yes, that's true because you need some way to show that your hypothesis isn't just imaginary. Like, there's infinitely many imaginary hypotheses we can come up with. And if you don't have a way to demonstrate yours isn't imaginary, then we shouldn't accept it. That's a problem with your theory, not a problem with me not accepting it. And if there's no way to show that the ultimate nature of reality isn't one way rather than just one of the infinitely imaginary ways, then you're right. We don't have access to it because it would be no different from just making up magical green pixies running the universe and believing that. So if you're admitting that your hypothesis has no way to differentiate itself from just being imaginary made up human construction of the mind, then you're admitting we shouldn't believe it. This is not a good reason to lower our standard of evidence just to accept whatever stuff we can come up with in our imagination just because your hypothesis doesn't offer a way to differentiate imagination from reality. So why do you think that's good evidence? The reason that I think it is good evidence is better than relative to what a lot of the mainstream accepts. A lot of the mainstream accepts naturalistic origins of life. It's not been proven. If you believe it, you're accepting the testimony of other people on their word and you have no experiments. So relative to imaginary stories, yours is just as good as anyone else's at this point except accepted laws of physics and chemistry do not say that life should naturally arise. The natural, the equilibrium condition of the chemicals that make up life is the dead condition. There's something called the asphalt paradox that an origin of life researcher pointed out. His name is Steve Benner and he's an astrobiologist. He said it's the natural direction of undirected organic chemicals is to become useless asphalt. They're not going to spontaneously evolve to life. And that's why we have things like the law of biogenesis that life comes from life or Birchah's law of cells coming only from pre-existing cells. It is not spontaneous. So you're relying on what other people say and you're not articulating the reasons why that it should be natural. That's just a faith statement on your part. It's not proven. You don't have experiments that life naturally arises. That's a faith statement. And then with regard, I'm glad you talked to Luke Barnes. He's a fine cosmologist, fine physicist and I'm surprised you're coming to the conclusions that you have because I just pointed out, he pointed out to you, I'm sure, and he pointed it out to me because I saw him talk about it. He said most hypothetical universes, if they were not fine tuned, would not have the chemistry, the rich chemistry that enables life. With no life, there's no science. I think that's rather obvious. If there's no life, there's no science. That's at least one of the premises. That's one of the inferences we get from fine tuning. And I don't mean to, I'm not trying to misrepresent you. If I heard you wrong, my apologies. Did you say that you believe that there's a natural law we've not yet discovered that would explain this property of fine tuning? If I miscoded you, I apologize. That's correct. That is the consensus in physics that there is. Okay. So that's not something we experimented in. You accept it. That's a faith statement. You don't know that that's actually true. It's okay. That's what they believe, but we don't really know that there really is a law. That's a pure faith statement. Same for the original life. Same for the, that's a faith statement. They believe that there's a natural law that we've not discovered yet. So let me address. They're appealing to something that's not discovered yet. Is that correct? Let me address that real quick. So all of the models in physics are combinations of principles, particles and laws in physics that have been confirmed to exist. So for example, the multiverse hypothesis, which is one of these, is a combination of vacuum states and early universe inflation. Early universe inflation was discovered by Gooths, Gooths early inflation, confirmed by predictions in the cosmic microwave background. So that we know exists. That is real. Vacuum states were confirmed by the starts of the sea. Corial is something, something effect. Forget it right now, but that's been demonstrated in the lab. We know both of those things are real. So the multiverse theory takes those two things, which we know are real, combines them and says, what is this going to produce? Now that combination hasn't been discovered yet. That's true. But all of the pieces have. So here's the difference. The theist hypothesis says there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, personal, conscious agent. None of those things have been discovered. They're just taking hypothetical things that have no evidence, compiling them together like saying there is a magical non-physical spaghetti monster that created the universe, completely incoherent gibberish. Whereas the scientific hypothesis takes only things that have been demonstrated to exist and puts them together. So the scientific hypothesis is infinitely better in physics to better explain the fine-tuning magical non-physical anthropomorphic immortal. That doesn't work. None of those properties are supported by anything in reality. Whereas all of the properties of physics are supported in reality. And since we're combining just things that have been demonstrated to exist in our hypothesis, that hypothesis is better. So we do have better evidence to conclude the fine-tuning is naturalistic and undiscovered natural law than a god. Same with a biogenesis. A biogenesis, we have made discoveries of single-celled organisms. And we've found out, oh, if these are going to produce multi-cellular organisms, we will see this occur in this kind of experiment, which we discovered in algae. We've discovered that if RNA is naturally produced by unguided natural processes, we'll see it occur in this environment on clay. And oh, we discovered that. If cellular corpuscles will be produced naturally by undiscovered laws, we'll see it in this natural process, which we also see on clay. So we do have experiments that show that all of the naturalistic steps are being seen in labs under conditions that we would expect to be seen if it's purely natural. So we do have experiments. So again, the natural hypothesis for a biogenesis is we make predictions about how life is going to form in these natural conditions. We do experiments. We see that we get them right. Theism is we can't imagine how this can be done, therefore, god. So the theistic argument is an argument from incredulity. We can't imagine how it's done. The naturalistic explanation is we can do experiments to confirm our hypotheses, and we do over and over again. I'm just reading this article that has dozens of them, the first, the new scientist, first life, the search for the first replicator, where it just goes through the testable predictions made in the origin of life research that the naturalistic hypothesis is made. And there are dozens and dozens of these of where a naturalist hypothesis is this is going to come about naturally. Here's a prediction we can do to confirm this. We do the prediction. We can confirm it. So we have evidence. We have experiments to show our hypothesis is correct. Obviously, we haven't completely shown the origin of life yet, but we've actually made progress. I can explain this with a hypothesis, and that's it. So again, both in the cases of the origin of life and in the cases of physics, the naturalistic hypothesis is building off of things we know for a fact exist, and we can confirm in a lab. Whereas the theistic hypothesis is building off of things that have no basis in reality, and it's just an argument from incredulity. So again, the naturalistic hypothesis wins here, hands down. And that's the reasons, because you said I didn't provide the reasons. Well, now I have. I'm going to dispute. I'm going to try to dispute your account of things. Is that okay? I'll try to. No, you must agree with me. Yes. Yes, sir. The multiverse, well first, Gooths inflation, not every cosmologist agrees. And it's crazy when I was sitting in cosmology class. The professor said, yeah, you know, the inflation was need to patch this up. Galactic amounts of matter being pushed around at 1000, maybe millions, maybe infinite times a speed of light.  It's not been proven. It's not been proven. It's maybe accepted, but we don't have experiments that prove inflation. People have been critical of it. I would point the viewers to a article by Michael Disney, who is a respected astronomer. He calls it cosmology, science or folktale. It's mythology at this point. It's not experiments. Same with multiverses. We may hypothesize it, but if we use, if we're going to take liberties to invoke things that are not testable, observable or verifiable, we could say also physics predicts God. I've had physics. I've seen it April and not April. There was a 2005 article by a professor at my school at my alma mater who talked. He said the universe is mental and spiritual. That's deduced from quantum mechanics. So if we're going to take liberties with physics that are untestable, yeah, you know, anything is game. The readers invited to look up Richard Conn Henry, the mental universe, nature. He published an opinion essay. Secondly, the RNA world has been misinterpreted. It's been critiqued by Eugene Cunin and others is infeasible. This thing you mentioned about corpus cells, which I presume you're referring to lipid bilayers. That's a very clever way of entombing biotic materials. It doesn't lead to life. It's a good way to kill something. So these researchers are misrepresenting what the implications of their experiments are. They're actually good experiments, but then they're extrapolating making unwarranted extrapolations from these experiments. And I just have to point that out that maybe I wouldn't say that they're liars, but I think they're self delusional because these things don't become life. It's a good way to entomb things. They have no transmembrane proteins that allow things to go in and out. That's pretty essential. So Jack Shostak, who did some of those experiences, called out by senior chemist, James Tuer. And I was right there because, I mean, right there with Tuer, so to speak.  I know that's kind of a mean thing to say, but he felt that the whole industry is just a mess. So yes, I do respect that you believe these guys, but for me who actually studies this too, I just don't find it believable. So as far as I'm concerned, you have one myth versus my myth. Well, I know you don't find it believable. That's what an argument for making fragility is, is you can't believe it. Therefore it's false. But again, that's not evidence. So again, I presented the evidence. Like no matter what you think, how you think the the corpuscles on the thing doesn't support the life hypothesis that wasn't the point. The point is that here is a thing we need for life. Here is how it can be formed naturally. Let's do a test to see if this can be formed naturally. Yes, it can. So our side has made testable predictions, which has been confirmed, your side has not. So we have evidence you do not. So like I said, when you asked before, what would it take for me to believe in a God, I would say you need to predict something we don't know yet, do an experiment to confirm that prediction. I just gave an example of that. We did that in naturalistic hypotheses dozens and dozens of times. We don't need to explain the full origin of life. We just need to say that if it happened, what? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be rude teacher. Please go on. Okay. Yeah. So we don't need to explain everything about the origin of life, just like we don't need to observe every single transitional fossil in evolution. We just need to say if there were transitional fossils, we can find one here of this kind, like tiktolic and one here of this kind of like archaeopteryx. So we find those like that's great evidence of evolution. We don't need to find every single example to confirm evolution. The same thing applies to a biogenesis. We don't need to find every single example of every single stage that led to the life we have now. We just need to say, well, if it did happen here, the naturalistic steps and we can make predictions of what we'll see in the layers like tiktolic. At this layer, we'll see the corpuscles being formed on clay. At this layer, we see RNA being formed on clay. If we add this, we can make an RNA replicator that self-reproducing to like reproduce things about 80 different molecules. Like, yes, we've seen these occur. So we have the same stages in evidence for the origin of life as we do for other hypotheticals. The same with goose early, early universe inflation. That is the consensus in physics. You don't need universal acceptance or something to be a consensus. And the reason it's the consensus is because it made predictions about the cosmic microwave background, which were confirmed in a lab. So again, it did the same thing. It said, if my hypothesis is true, here's something we can predict that we don't know yet, do an experiment and confirm it. So that same standard I asked for that I said I would be satisfied with for God has been met for both a biogenesis and the cosmic microwave background. And I still can't remember the vacuum energy effect, but all of those things have been demonstrated in a lab. We have evidence for those things, whereas we have no evidence of designer that doesn't exist. It's just, as you said, you can't imagine it to be the case because it's too complex. That's not, that's literally an argument from incredulity. It's not that I can't imagine it. The problem is they haven't proven anything. They've only proven that they can make something that will kill life. And then they've advertised it as step in the right direction. I find that self delusional. It's not a matter of me being incredulity, you know, having incredulity. I'm just pointing out a fact, a lipid bilayer without transmemory proteins is a way to ensure life does not evolve. It's so hard for some of the, well, you know, I think I understand the mindset. Yes, it's easier to believe the natural, you know, it's just, it's nice to believe the natural and that it will explain things. You know, you're not going to, most people are not going to apply for a grant and say, oh, we're going to figure out how this is explained supernaturally. I totally respect that. And people want, you know, that's their ambition to be able to use the principles of physics and chemistry to explain things, or maybe they discover certain new laws or principles that they didn't see before. But that experiment that you cited with the lipid bilayer, that violates textbook cell biology. It just doesn't work. I mean, that's why we have transmembrane proteins. I've studied some of those. And so I'm not doing this because of our argument in credulity. I'm complaining that the origin of life community pumps out this sort of garbage where they actually have legitimate experiments. And then they claim something, it represents something it absolutely does not. And it's so obvious. And that's why they're getting called on it. And, you know, you were saying that it doesn't have to go all the way to evolve to something living. Well, okay, so then you're extrapolating. That's a faith belief that it's going to, that that's a step to the origin of life. That's not proof. That's not experimental proof. That's not science. That's speculation. So I'm again confused here. So because they never said that this was how life formed. That wasn't, that wasn't the prediction. So how prediction works, as we say, if this thing can happen naturally, then we'll do an experiment to see the result. That doesn't say that, well, well, this thing will encapsulate life and keep things alive. That wasn't part of the prediction. So the prediction about the lipid bilayers is that this will form in this process. We did the process and it formed. That's all you need. What you're complaining about a secondary abstraction that has nothing to do with the evidence. Like the evidence is, is if we make a prediction that this is a natural naturally current event, we will see this result, the lipid bilayers being formed. We do see them being formed in this process. That's evidence. That's how it works. Then you're complaining that, well, we can't use that about life because, because those are different things. They made the prediction. They got it right. You didn't. That's what counts as evidence. They knew this was going to happen without, before we ever tested it, they knew this was going to happen naturally and they got it right. That's what's evidence. It doesn't matter whether or not that, that relates in some way to some other fact that they didn't bring up. The fact that they could predict it before we knew it and got it right. That's great evidence that their hypothesis is leading us in the right direction. In the right direction being toward life, I would have to disagree. Whatever their, whatever their hypothesis is. So it doesn't matter. Their hypothesis that there are magic pink leper corns in the middle of the universe, and that gives them some insight about the universe to make predictions and they get them right. That's evidence of magic pink unicorns. So it doesn't matter what the hypothesis is, if it can make testable predictions to give us knowledge that we don't know yet and get it right. That means that hypothesis is more supported than any of the others that can't do that. So if there's a hypothesis that life will not naturally arise, we can have, we have many more experiments that shows that that's true. We call that, we find, that's Virchow's principle. Cells come from pre-existing cells. There's nothing that says cells except by statement of faith that cells come from biotic materials that aren't cells. We don't see examples of that. That's a very strong prediction. That was sort of the beginnings of that was with pastures, pastures swan-necked experiments where he demonstrated against spontaneous generation. And now that has, that's the older theory, then they came up with a biogenesis theory where they thought maybe, you know, life can spontaneously arrive just maybe just once or a few times in the deep past. But we have many of experiments that show that this is not feasible. And there's a list of paradoxes that Steve Benner put out, one of them being the asphalt paradox. He also has the water paradox, the single biopolymer paradox, all these paradoxes that indicate life should not spontaneously arise. These are based on structure chemistry and just basic principles of how chemicals work. And that's a very good prediction. That's why we don't see life spontaneously arise in the lab. Sell your life or anything of comparable complexity. That's a strong prediction. What that is saying then, if we say life is a miracle, we don't expect life to arise miraculous, I mean, naturally. And everything we've seen in the lab shows that life is not going to arise naturally. It's only been misrepresented to the public as such. And this this lipid bilayer one was is a case in point. If they're representing it as a step in the right direction, I'm just my jaw drops because that's a dead end.  Anyway, I don't want to belabor this point. I mean, I'm fine moving on because we're not going to agree. And I've kind of, I don't even understand your position here. So a test, a novel test prediction, as you say, here is something we don't know. We can predict that it will occur if we do an experiment that we do the experiment and see it happens. You haven't done that. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Go on, Tom. So all you did was you get a bunch of paradoxes, which are just that guy's imagination about what he thinks can occur, which isn't evidence. It's just his hypothesis. And if you think that's true, you would then need to say, if that's true, here is something we don't know yet and do an experiment and confirm the results, then that would be good evidence of his hypothesis. You haven't given that. You've just said, well, the stuff we don't know won't happen if we do stuff we do know. Like, obviously, that's literally the case. If we do stuff we do know, we will, we will get stuff we know, like it's just, that's just how induction works. So if we take the methods we already know about and do them in a lab, we'll get the results we already know about. So that isn't evidence that life can't occur, that's evidence life can't occur by the means we already know about. That's okay, but we don't know all the different means. So that isn't an argument against life forming. Naturally, that's an argument against life forming in the ways we already know about. By grants, we don't know how life forms. So all the ways we already know about don't work, granted. Therefore, we make new hypotheses about things we don't know yet and predict those in the lab. And we see if those can be confirmed and they are over and over and over again. For example, the RNA enzyme called RNA team that could stick 14 nucleotides in the building blocks of RNA and DNA into a kissing RNA using an RNA template science volume 292 13 page 1331 or the science volume 332 page 209 where RNA sequences up to 95 letters long were reliably copied like we see these stages happening in this process where the naturalistic hypothesis makes a prediction that we can do this naturally. Then they do an experiment to confirm. Yep, we did it naturally. Whereas all you've done is said there are all these paradoxes of this guy who imagines it can't be done. And therefore all the texts we currently do don't lead to that. But that that's not a novel prediction. You're just saying the stuff we've already done hasn't worked. Like, yeah, we agree with that. But for your hypothesis to be confirmed, you need to make a new prediction, predict something we haven't discovered yet and then get that right, which you haven't done. So you don't have evidence. You just have incredulity. Whereas I have evidence. Our side is making new predictions, novel information and getting it right. Your side is saying all the old stuff hasn't worked yet and it's going to continue to not work. Like that's not a prediction. Yes, it is. It's going to continue not to work. That is the hard prediction of the paradoxes, the origin of life. One can look this up and I point the listeners to the article. They can Google it. The title is paradoxes in the origin of life. It's by Stephen A. Benner. He's an origin of life researcher. We can point out the prediction of these paradoxes is that all origin of life scenarios will fail. Will fail. You'll never succeed. You'll never succeed building a perpetual motion machine. It doesn't matter how many attempts one makes. There are certain physical laws that you can't build things. This is a prediction based on physics and chemistry. There are certain things that just don't build themselves. Any more than a tornado passing through a junkyard is not going to build a 747. That's the state of the origin of life question. All these things, these experiments you pointed out are dead ends. They're irrelevant and they're not progress. That's just you presupposing your own hypothesis with no evidence. There's plenty of evidence for the asphalt. I'm sorry. Go on. Every time I say this, I say you need novel testable predictions. Novel means new. You don't need novel testable predictions. Basic physics and chemistry is adequate to say some of these things just don't work. The fact that there's no perpetual motion machines, that's been a long time prediction that you're not going to find it. People who have been seeing this for a long time, it doesn't have to be a novel testable prediction. We can make the prediction and it's been around for a long time that life does not arise from non-life. That's been around for a long time. That's a composition division fallacy. We know that's wrong. That's why no one in biology accepts that. Everyone says this is a pseudo science because this doesn't work. It's just basic fallacies in fragility. Composition division fallacy, those don't work. But you do need novel testable predictions. Remember, my criterion every time you ask me is what would convince me is novel testable predictions, which means that's being new. Saying that you're going to see the sun rise tomorrow isn't evidence of the spaghetti monster. We already know the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Predicting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow isn't special. So predicting that the same experiments we've done in the past aren't going to work is like predicting the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Yes, we already know that, but that doesn't tell us anything. That's not novel. You've got to tell us something new in order to show that your hypothesis is real, not imaginary. You have to predict something new that your hypothesis can tell us that we don't know yet. The perpetual motion machines have already done that. The laws of thermodynamics have made testable predictions, the consensus in physics is yes, we cannot make a perpetual motion machine because it may novel testable predictions in the laws of physics that how energy is governed and why it would be impossible to do that. This hasn't been the case for intelligent design. It's just incredulity. We can't understand how it could happen, therefore it can't happen. Nothing, there is no logical contradiction in life coming from non-life. Literally every part of life we've ever discovered is non-life. Every particle in my body has no life in it, but if you put the pieces together you get life and look, oh, there's lots of particles over there in that computer. If you put them together in the right way, yeah, we can get life. So there's literally, there's no logical contradiction that. And so if we can find natural processes that do the steps along that way, then yeah, we have good evidence that's going to occur and you complain that, well, we don't see a complete forming cell coming from a naturalistic biosphere. I'm sorry. Why is that unreasonable? You're asking evidence of me and I'm asking the same of you. And what I'm just trying to point out is when you're appealing to something that you're extrapolating, you don't have direct proof either. I mean, that's what would be required is to see something of comparable complexity evolve. That doesn't make any sense at all. It does. If you're applying that standard to me, I'll apply the same standard to you. You're using faith, you're making faith appeals to things that have not been proven in their entirety. Well, I met my standard. Remember, my standard was novel testable predictions. I didn't say create the entire origin of life from nothing. I said novel testable predictions, like a novel testable prediction of R&A on clay, a novel test of prediction on corpuscles on clay, a novel test of predictions on multicellular organisms. All of those were novel testable predictions that were confirmed. So that meets my standard. Like I didn't say you need an entire life from nothing. Like obviously that's not going to.  Your naturalism is faith-based. And I respect that. I'm not trying to point, I'm not trying to disrespect that that's your you, but you haven't proven it. You haven't proven that naturalism is the cause of everything. I agree. Especially in the case of the origin of life. I agree. It may have met your standards for belief, but it's still a belief. It is not a scientific proof. It's not a scientific proof life arises naturally. I agree with you. It doesn't. Okay, go on. So we haven't proven the origin of life yet. I totally agree. Like no one's claiming we've proven the origin of life yet. What we're saying is that our hypothesis is better than yours because ours actually has evidence. Like it's not sufficient to claim that it's been proven in a lab. We obviously, we grant that, but we actually have evidence. We have evidence that ours is indicated to be true because we can make novel testable predictions. Yours can't. So asking that we create an entire evolved cell that is a product of millions of years of added layers of complexity, obviously we're not going to see that. The origin of life is going to be extremely simple. It's going to look nothing like modern cells.  And so obviously the origin of life is going to look nothing like modern cells. They're going to be incredibly simplistic by comparison. So we're not even trying to make a modern kind of cell in the lab. It's not even something that we aspire to do because that would take millions of years of evolution. We're just making something far simpler. And so your standard of evidence seems to not correspond to reality because we're not making those claims. We're not making the claims that you seem to think that we need to substantiate. We're making far simpler claims that if our hypothesis is true, we can predict something in a lab and get it right. You can't. No, I'm afraid not. You see, you're representing these trivial irrelevant experiments as sufficient. I'm saying your standards are not high enough for proof. If you're going to claim it arises naturally, it has to go against all the known chemistry and physics articulated in the paradoxes in the origin of life by Steve Benner. But no, these aren't novel predictions. These are standard things that we understand. If you've known it ever since pastures experiments, that life does not spontaneously arise. It doesn't happen naturally. And there are reasons it doesn't happen naturally. And they're articulated. I referenced a book written by a cellular molecular biologist who had her background in physical organic chemistry. And she just ripped to death, just like James Ture did this whole origin of life fiasco. That's just a farce. That's just pretending that they've solved anything. They have not. It's just all this pretending. Because why am I confident to say it? Well, you're lowering the standards and just saying that these are good enough. I'm saying they're not good enough because these things devolve according to, like say, the asphalt paradox. You just leave these organic chemicals alone. They're going to become useless. They're not going to evolve to life. That's a testable prediction. And it doesn't have to be novel. Okay. So it doesn't mean you have to necessarily, it leads to intelligent design. But on the other hand, neither that any of the experiments that you've cited show that naturalism is feasible, that it's adequate to create life by itself. Physics and chemistry. It's just that simple because all the physical and chemical experience we've shown have shown that it's not going to become a cell. You're appealing to millions of years. So yes, it's practically not testable either. So if it's not testable directly, it's you're equivocating what the definition of testable is. You have one standard of what is a good test. I have a different one and I'm pointing out the one that I proposed is much more substantial and much more important.  We had this, you know, we had this RNA. Life is not implemented with the kind of RNA catalysis that's there. It may, it's a totally irrelevant experiment. You need to have translation systems. You need the proteins, just all sorts of things. You need metabolism. I mean, goodness, all these things are just being misrepresented as steps in the right direction and they're not. So again, I don't think you understand my argument here. So I agree, we haven't proven it. I'm not arguing it's proven. I'm saying ours is more reasonable. So what makes one more reasonable is if I can like take, not emotionally charged example, if I think that there are magical pixies that are causing the wind and you think there is a God that's causing the wind, if I can predict something like anything that, well, if we go to the other side of the planet, the wind will also be blowing and you predict something differently, then that's evidence of magical pixies. It doesn't matter what the hypothesis is. If I can make predictions and get them right, mine is better than yours, regardless of what the hypothesis is. If I, if I predict there are square circles and I can make predictions about reality that you can't make, my hypothesis is better than yours. Your imagined contradictions or paradoxes don't do anything. If I make predictions and get them right, my hypothesis is better than yours. No matter what complaints you have about the hypothesis, it doesn't make a difference. Mine tells us something about reality, yours doesn't. So complaining that, well, it doesn't give us all the predictions. I don't need all the predictions. If I get one right, that you can't get, my hypothesis is more supported than yours. And it doesn't matter how mundane it is. If I predict that Bob will fart on a Thursday and I get that right, then my hypothesis has more evidence than yours because you've made no predictions. I've made several. It's stated in the paradoxes of life. What are the predictions? That organic chemicals left to themselves will become useless, quote, unquote, asphalt's. There's also the problem and it lists people can, I invite the viewers to read it. Okay, so it's going to make all these predictions that all those chemical, all those things, you're saying which one's more reasonable, which one makes better predictions. If, for example, these origin of life researchers say, well, this isn't necessarily where life is going to evolve, then it's an irrelevant, it's an irrelevant, it's an irrelevant data point. And then you're, which means you're offering irrelevant data points to the problem of the origin of life. So I've already pointed out it's bad. It's bad science then to take something that's an irrelevant experiment and then represent it as to the public as if it's a relevant experiment. And so I find that really problematic. These paradoxes, which are, again, we've seen expressed in various ways, such as virtuals, principle cells come from other cells or the law of biogenesis, et cetera, et cetera. Those are very strong predictions. And they say that life does not spontaneously arrive, arise. That has never been violated. None of the experiments you put on the table have any hint that those principles are going to be violated. That means life does not naturally arise. None of the experiments you've cited will show that life naturally arises from the accepted laws of chemistry and physics. None. And then when you start saying, well, they're not saying it's going to be a whole life. And then the experiments irrelevant, irrelevant to the question then of the origin of life. So you don't get to determine which relevant here. Like they're the ones making the predictions. They get to determine which relevant, not you. So again, what the predictions are, don't matter what the hypothesis doesn't matter. Any hypothesis, any predictions, if my hypothesis can tell us something about reality we don't know yet and get it right, mine is better than yours. Doesn't matter what it is. Doesn't matter how relevant it is. It can be as arbitrarily nonsensical as Bob's going to fart on a Thursday. It has nothing to do with the origin of life. I can pick any prediction I want. But if my hypothesis can tell us about reality that we don't know yet and get it right, that means it's better than yours. Regardless of how arbitrary whatever the prediction is, or regardless of how nonsensical the hypothesis is, if I'm predicting round squares, like literal logical contradictions, and I get something right about reality that you can't get, mine is better than yours. Like which part of just that simple description of predictions do you disagree with? What are you saying is my... What are you saying is my paradigm here? I'm just simply saying that life doesn't arise naturally, naturally as defined from the accepted laws of physics and chemistry. My question here is I want to try to take it away from the topic just to try and make it less charged here. So my argument here is that a hypothesis is better if it can tell us something about reality we don't know yet. It doesn't matter what it is. Like if it tells us something super mundane that's irrelevant, it doesn't matter how silly the hypothesis is, none of those things matter. If my hypothesis can tell us something about reality that we don't know yet and get it right, it's better than your hypothesis, regardless of what the context, which part of just that do you disagree with? Let me think on that. I think that no if we can take accepted laws of physics and chemistry and verify it again, it's stronger especially in the case of the origin of life. What we're trying to establish is I'm trying to show that there is a phenomenon that is not explainable, that is not consistent with the ordinary operation of physics and chemistry and that is life. That's one example. So this whole thing about doing experiments that don't lead to life that makes them irrelevant to the question. I don't want to talk about life here. Again, I want to try and keep it. Yes, I know why it's evident now, why you don't want to talk about life. No, no, no, I want to try. I'm sorry. There's a reason I wanted to talk about life. I want to try and show you why something counts as evidence in the first place. So because you have a bias in the case of life, I want to move it away for something just insanely general. Like any hypothesis, it doesn't make any difference what it is. You have a hypothesis, I have a hypothesis. If mine can tell us something about reality we don't know yet, doesn't matter what it is, that hypothesis is always going to be better. Like if yours says the sun is going to rise tomorrow, we already know the sun is going to rise tomorrow, that's every theory predicts that. Everyone already knows that. That's not evidence, but if my theory predicts something new that we don't know yet, that's good evidence of my hypothesis. Mine is good, mine is stronger than yours. Forget life. This applies to every hypothesis of everything everywhere in the universe. Do you understand how predicting something new in this case is always going to be better than just predicting the same thing we've already seen a million times? I'm afraid I'm not going to, I mean I respect your interest in these general discussions of what's better or worse and that you don't want to talk about life and I understand that and so you want to talk about one thing and I want to talk about life because life to me is an example of something that I think doesn't agree with the normal operation of physics and chemistry. Whatever you make of it is up to you. So obviously you want to talk about one subject and I want to talk about another. That's the situation we're in right now and I know we're going to end up talking past each other. You ask me a legitimate question and I don't have the answer about these general things about specific hypotheses and then about this flatulence on a Thursday. That's just not something I'm going to get into. I'm not trying to disrespect your question but I'm just like well that may be important to you but life, the question of life's origin is pretty important to me and so we're just, I'm sorry, I think I'm afraid we're just going to say that okay well you want to talk about one thing, I'm going to talk about another and I don't know what we're going to get very far with a discussion like that. Well I already explained why life is better explained under naturalism and you didn't understand my argument. No I don't think you did, I'm sorry. No I understand, you don't understand it, that's the problem. You didn't understand the argument so I'm trying to go to a more general example to help you understand the argument. Like if you just take any hypothesis, one that tells us something about reality we don't know yet, is better by definition. That's kind of, that's the point of every hypothesis, every theory, every scientific, anything about reality. The whole point is to say this can tell us something about reality we don't know yet because we can imagine stuff like I can imagine a unicorn but I can't like touch it so there's some difference between my imagination and reality and we need some way to differentiate which things are imaginary things and which things are things in reality and so that's the reason we come up with hypotheses and theories is to tell us the difference between these two things and a good way to do that is if my hypothesis can tell us something about the world then it tells us about reality not my imagination. So the whole point here is that what makes something evidence the only way it even counts is evidence of what a theory is is if it can do that and all you're saying is well we can't, there's, the stuff we've already seen well we'll see it again like okay but that doesn't count as evidence like that's not telling us anything about reality we don't already know yet that's post-hoc rationalization. So the whole point here is that if you don't understand what counts as evidence obviously you're not going to see if I show you evidence you're not going to recognize it so you need to understand what evidence actually is first. No science thrives on repeatability just because just because an experiment is repeated on a on a long accepted theory doesn't that actually strengthens this that actually makes it better the more experience we have so I would I would not be too quick to say oh a novel quick prediction because we can take like say this asphalt paradox and then show that that that lipid bilayer is going to be a dead end which it is I mean we call that lipid bilayer experiment by Jack Strostak that's a cell that's had its guts taken out and just filled with garbage I mean that that's what's going to happen it's not going to become life that's that's a nice way to kill a cell and make sure it never becomes anything but something dead it's not going to be anything anywhere near the complexity of cellular life so it's not I I don't think that there's we should demean a pre-existing accepted law just because it's old some of the best laws in science are the ones that are repeatable and have been has been vindicated by the test of time and so the ones that I've articulated it's not imagination this is this is based on experiment and chemical theory the thing that is novel is to that violates that is to claim life can spontaneously arise over millions of years that is one not really practically testable so that's a faith statement and any of the experiments done so far I don't see that they're even an adequate quality to overturn the paradoxes I put out so yeah I had to really think about what you said is this better than is this new novel prediction better than the old one I'm just like I don't think so because the old one will supersede it in the big question of whether life can originate so I think the paradoxes and I gave the paper that'll trump any of these other new prediction experiments that if they're advertised to solve the to be on the way to solving the origin of life problem it's just I don't think they're very good okay I don't think I don't think they're as good as being as they're being advertised in the popular press now I know you you have high regard for them I have very low regard for them and I said the standard is that they create life and I don't think that's unreasonable okay so you said I don't I hate to jump in here um but if you both are okay with it teach up if you want to go ahead and respond and we can move on to questions is I good with both of you okay um Tom I'm fine with that okay so so yeah just to respond like he said that the consistency of past predictions outweighs the novel predictions and I would say that's just obviously false like the one novel prediction of Einstein that the bending of light around the sun overturns Newtonian gravity which had literally billions of predictions confirming it so the fact that we have consistent predictions of the past is in no way uh better evidence than one novel prediction just overturns all of that which is how we get like pretty much every scientific revolution is based on those one novel prediction that we didn't know yet like Einsteinian gravity or early universe inflation or the expansion of the universe or uh the origin of uh the diversity of life like all of those are just one new prediction was made it was confirmed and then we got it right and literally the argument Saul is making is the same one made against Einstein well space time can't bend we've always seen it work this way in the past for Newtonian gravity therefore your argument is wrong and with one new prediction it overturned everything and changed the entire spectrum of what physics was because he he could predict something new and got it right and that's exactly what we're seeing with abiogenesis which is exactly why the consensus is on my position we accept this as evidence because this is real evidence if you want to do a quick response if that's okay yes all the experiments you cited did not overturn uh did not overturn the paradoxes I've outlined or we're really more properly Steve Benner so it's incorrect to represent it as overturning the paradoxes I've outlined these are these paradoxes were not written by a creationist by the way all right and with that um we can go ahead and move on to the questions um the first one is from Decepticon forever they say Sal's a smart guy he's defending a two thousand year old testimony that's an incomplete compilation which is based on even older fiction and he should stop oh my in response to that one Sal yes Skepticon uh thank you very much for your super chat and your kind words about me being smart so merry Christmas sounds good next one is actually from the same person Decepticon forever they say Galacticus eats plants on the other side of the galaxy and he's coming to earth one day per the cause comics I believe it but I can't prove it to anyone so can you read that again I I want to uh yeah thank you for being so generous I want to try to give a response that's adequate I understand if I don't quite get it I I'm I'm gonna try okay I understand I read it a little weird because I don't have a context all right Galacticus eats planets on the other side of the galaxy and he's coming to the earth one day per the comics I believe it but I can't prove it to anyone I think that's a parable of what to do when you believe something and you can't prove it and what I've tried to say is that some of the things that my colleague here T jump was pointing out um and some of the things he's articulated I was just trying to point out that some of his claims can't be fundamentally proven either uh it is being represented as actually being scientific and empirical and it's not so uh right now I just I just tried to level the playing field all I could say is that a personal level you consider that case of Charles Duke and a little girl and each person has this decision and I'm not going to tell them what to decide but if and I've gotten interesting answers to this if you're that little girl or you're the blind beggar in the account of John 9 and you're healed in the name of Jesus and you could see would you follow the Christian God the rest of your life or are you going to look for naturalistic explanations I've gotten straight answers from people like Tracy Harris who said that they're going to look for naturalistic explanations on the other hand I personally I feel is totally reasonable for an individual that has experienced the miracle um prayer in the name of Jesus if they had no options that seems perfectly reasonable to me to pursue the Christian faith I mean because there's no guarantee either that you're going to find a naturalistic explanation that's a faith belief so it's up to each individual what he's going to wager that's no different from any decision we make in life where we have less information than we'd like and so so we basically take a little bit of a wager with incomplete and sometimes information that's difficult to process I kind of know that because I those principles because principles because I like playing in the casino and to beat the casino you have to be able to deal in an in an environment where their uncertainty is the norm so thank you again Skept if I mispronounce your name my apologies and I hope you're not offended if I say Merry Christmas so actually I'd like to answer your question so if I was the girl in that case I would treat it like a lucky rabbit's foot if I if I went at the library a bunch of times with my lucky rabbit's foot I'm not going to follow the lucky rabbit's foot for the rest of my life and praise the lucky rabbit's foot I'm going to look for naturalistic explanations and this isn't the faith-based claim this is a claim on induction we all have the evidence in the past is it's natural therefore I'm probably going to lean towards whatever is causing this is probably natural gotcha all right the next one is from branding Connell he says to both if life is inevitable and the universe was tuned differently wouldn't we just be different and saying that it was fine-tuned for us there yes essentially what his argument is saying is that if all the fine-tuning was different then life could have come about in those different universes in a different way which is correct the only reason that life it seems to be fine-tuned for us is because our kind of life is only possible given these particular sets of laws but that doesn't mean there are different kind of fractal sets of laws that if the current sets of physics were changed then those would be replaced by other sets of laws created in a similarly primed universe for a different kind of life absolutely that's one of the possibilities and so yeah no matter what universe we see they could all produce life and we just don't realize it and so no matter what life could be inevitable and we just haven't thought about it yet do you have a response to that yeah yes uh and i'm glad t jump just talked to luke barnes and i got a total take different take on what luke had to say and so i mean luke said very few universes would even have any chemistry there's no chemistry there's no life meaning by that if you just have hydrogen atoms and not the periodic table of the elements that enable our chemistry there's no life you can't just mix hydrogen and expect any of the kinds of things uh that we see um on earth where you have all these molecular machines because you only have one element and uh so it's just going to be very uninteresting and and there's not going to be anything that resembles uh machines or or or life so i that that is my best understanding and i hear the word fine-tuning all the time in in the world of physics and they have to appeal to multiverses and all these other things to to try to solve it so um i don't think it's i i think it's really presumptuous to think uh there could be life in these other ones um and it's falsified as a matter of principle uh based on what we know it's just a faith belief life could arise in these others gotcha all right the next one is from sciafredo sorabia they say at tom i don't understand your position you appeal to one authority against al's authority of diplomas and work what authority do you have that viewers should agree sciafredo sorabia yes uh i listed a bunch of papers and academic sources and the consensus multiple times so i'm not just listing one academic source against his one academic source i'm listing 90 consensus in everyone in the field everywhere in the world against his cherry picked hand few so i would i would go with like i listed the uh a few references when talking about how id is pseudoscience i listed a few references in the new scientist article where you could check out the actual work being done in the field so i listed a number of those but yeah it's not just my source against his source it's the entire field of of academia against his cherry picked few sources so i would say there's a lot more reason to accept the consensus rather than a few cherry picked sources gotcha i don't have to cherry i don't have to cherry pick sources i have experimental evidence life does not arise from non-life doesn't matter how many people i have except the opposite because i you're not going to see life arise from non-life that's a testable prediction it's not been falsified and and all these people that say can they're appealing to non-testable things and they've gone off the scientific deep end when they appeal to their speculations as equivalent to something experimental that's not being that's being very misleading i don't want to use the this the word dishonest i think they're just delusional the facts are on my side the experiments are on my side site one experiment where life comes from non-life of cellular complexity site one experiment where something as complex or similarly complex as a cell the experiments lie on my side of the aisle not on the consensus i just need to predict something new i don't need to predict life will come from non-life i just need to predict if it does here is the process that we'll see that we haven't seen yet i'm afraid not i'm afraid not that's not a good enough standard i don't think you understand philosophy of science all right with that we'll go to the next one um the next one's from sphincter of doom they say basic physics and chemistry life consists of non-living material which interacts in predictable and simply random ways i think that might be directed to you sal it's a competition division fallacy life can obviously come from non-life because all of our parts are non-life and so if you combine enough non-life you will get life the problem is again we may have all the parts but this is like a tornado going through a junk yard pile of parts that happen that not even a junkyard we have all the all the parts that are needed if they don't spontaneously assemble in the right orientation and position there's a problem basic physics has things like inertia tensors there's a famous theorem in physics that they try to describe instability that's called the tennis racket theorem now the we see this play out in sorts all sorts of physical chemistry there's certain things when you have random solutions that are just not going to arise because of the random molecular motions and the way physics just tends to work so there are things that are far from the expected outcome life has many structures that are far from equilibrium and so what we expect in say prebiotic environments is to attend a tendency toward equilibrium the equilibrium is death that is part of the asphalt paradox and so i i refer the the reader who is kind enough to send a super chat to look steve benner's paradoxes of life all right maybe you'll have a different view after you read it gotcha thank you and i hope you're not offended mary christmas and thank you for the super chat wonderful next one is from gurminia they say question for sal how do you explain god demanding the death of gay people in the old testament i don't have a good answer for that and i'm i think that's a legitimate question and there are lots of things that god is allowed in the world not just demanded but allowed that i don't have good explanations for and my apologies so i know that some people that one person told me that that's the barrier to her becoming a believer it's just like how god's laws about the way they conduct their personal lives and she said she just didn't like god's policies about about gay people and that's why she wouldn't accept it so i know that's a concern of a lot of on a lot of people's minds and all i could say is christianity is based not on whether we like it or not it's based on whether we believe that jesus is who he said he was and if if the miracles in the bible are real and and uh the reason i cited charles duke sometimes the only data point we might have is the experience of our personal lives so um if i don't give a satisfying answer i tried that's about the best that i could give that being said i do understand how people could be um feeling that god has abandoned them i've had uh some relatives that were victims of just horrible crimes and god let it happen so that's not directly answered the question but i kind of get it there's some bad things that go down that the designer has allowed oh before i forget one thing i wanted to say the difference between intelligent design and creationism intelligent design says the world is intelligently designed creationism says it's intelligently designed but also intelligently cursed and uh just take that for what it is as far as explaining the problem of evil thank you god thank you um the next question is from logical plausible probable he says don't miss after show on sal's channel question for sal please explain how clay experiments have no relevance slash chemical limits without activated bases can can uh mary christmas uh john mattox logical plausible probable um uh can you repeat the question yeah of course thank you please explain how clay experiments that have no relevance slash chemical limits without activated bases or bases i'm not that familiar with it but the uh kind of the uh the basic way to approach this thing about relevancy is if we take a cell and put it in a test tube with the appropriate ph and then just poke it and let all the guts spill out that's better than all of the chemicals in all of our origin of life experiments combined in terms of quality and uh it's just not going to become a living organism that renders moot all of these origin of life experiments suggesting they're making progress because they can only make that premise that they're making progress with the assumption that we can build things stepwise that's been refuted by every experiment that we've run otherwise we would start seeing um we could put frogs in a blender and expect them to spontaneously reassemble into something else and it just doesn't happen again it's analogous to tornadoes passing through a junkyard physics and chemistry tend to disorganize the sort of chemicals that are involved they're they're very fragile and unstable or i did i forgot what i wanted to ask one thing like would you be willing to put money on it would you really like make a bet like if we do actually come up with the origin of life in the next like 50 years or so would you be willing to like put money down to send me money if i get it right there is someone who's uh me personally uh no uh i'll tell you why there's a 10 million dollar origin of life prize that superseded the prior one which is only one million and that's being offered it was advertised by the royal society i don't know who put the money but there is a prize waiting for you um well i just like let me tell you why i think i'm too ported to be able to play in your game um not that's not to say i wouldn't want you to to have some nice money i mean if i were rich i'd send you a present yeah i just like to bet every intelligent design proponent like okay so if it does happen then please send me ten dollars and then at the end of the day when it does happen in like 10 20 years can i buy you a can i can i buy you a beer or a drink of your choice that'll work yeah all right all right um next question is from quality control they say sal you speak negatively about t-jumps position as faith-based and don't take it seriously why should anyone take a christian's faith in god seriously i don't think you i don't think you have to if you don't want to take me seriously i i take no offense that's between you and god um i'm here primarily for those christians who are on the fence who've been thinking about these things and i wanted to articulate and try to show that the other side that claims to have scientific evidence uh it's really more faith assertions and maybe that might help some people in the faith i mean i'm not you know i i'm not here to take uh to get atheists to uh to take me seriously so um so uh that's about as best as i could say all right but but that being said thank you for being a viewer and thank you for the super chat and thank you for hearing me out sounds good next one is again from syafrito i mean apologies if i'm saying that wrong um sarabia they say at sal i don't understand your position if it's a hypothesis adding a god hypothesis aren't you placing too much of a burden on you if your answers are a hypothesis from the uh there are actually two hypotheses one is empirically testable the other is um metaphysical regarding the origin of life or like things like yeah let's take the origin of life or evolution of eukaryotes regarding the origin of life there is a testable prediction that um it will continue to fail to arise naturally that's just uh that's purely testable the god hypothesis probably formally can only be accepted on faith uh the reasons for this philosophically it's like well how could you prove god exists unless you're god and yourself um it's one of those so when jesus said that you need to be like a little child to accept this i got it because when i was in math class they were talking about the axioms of mathematics and i almost fell out of my chair and they said yeah these things can't be proven i'm just like whoa whoa you mean math the the foundation of all physics the the axioms are unprovable it's like yeah that's the way it is and then there are things like you cannot actually prove that the scientific method can arrive at the the definition of truth or that it can prove itself as being valid i gave one example with laurence krauss where he even said that sometime in the future it will fail to actually describe the universe accurately and i i found that very compelling so there's some things that we take on faith we are taking it on faith that we live in a special time and that that our science works because how do we know that we're not in that special in another time where maybe all of our measurements of the cosmos are wrong we're taking it on faith that this is correct but we actually formally don't know that it's as accurate as we think i mean if we just extrapolate what was in that example by krauss all right sounds good next one is from lawson harrison they say when it comes to arguments for god science giveth and the science take it away persie shelly um um who's who's this it's a reference to a persie shelly quote persie shelly said that uh if god was created in order to solve problems that we didn't know the answer to science is going to destroy those so it's the god of the gaps everything is well we can't explain it because therefore god then science explains it and then therefore not god gotcha is there anything you have to say just to that style or should we go on to the next one science giveth and take it i'll just say my study of science has persuaded me that the origin of life and the origin of the universe is is a miracle all right i'm i i i i believe that more strongly now uh the more research that i've done and so i think science has giveth has given and science is a gift from god sounds good next one is from double a they say sal what do you think a scientific law is scientific laws are i actually showed the five differential equations that are the major pillars those are examples a law is according to ralph londar their algorithmically compressible descriptions of nature and what that means is that we can boil something down into maybe a simple form and repeat describe many phenomenon and also predict the outcome of many of many processes so that that is what i consider a scientific law and one of them by the way is i mentioned it it's not on the level of say physics was virtuos principle cells come from pre-existing cells gotcha um the next one is from donnie h they say the risetta spacecraft found the building blocks of life on a comet in 2009 my response is that maybe evidence that um that those biotic particles came from earth there probably was some sort of explosion we see some things like this like geysers on insulatus i can if i don't pronounce that right and these things have very earth like compositions we've also found bacteria that are earth like in meteorites so this suggests um an earth an earthborn origin all right t-jump do you have anything to add to that yeah sal you don't think life is going or could come about on other planets like the building blocks for life are pretty mundane they're pretty much everywhere i don't know like you don't think those are going to happen on other places well it depends on what you mean by building blocks i mean uh most of life is composed of six major elements sell your life and i should know the names hydrogen oxygen nitrogen carbon sulfur and phosphorus i mean i've gotten that wrong so i mean in in like a really base sense the building blocks are just all over the place but if we go to like more complex levels of these of these uh these you know taking those elements and making molecules um it's it's debatable how how ubiquitous they are and um i haven't looked so much about what's what we've seen in in in mars but i i have looked with curiosity on things what we found in meteorites and there was a professor at my undergrad alma mater who if i'm misquoting him deep apologies to ro doctor robert hazen regarding the meteorites that have bacteria in them i thought that was really amazing so if it wasn't dr hazen who pointed that out other people have been saying yeah we found bacteria in in meteorites so we can either say that life is you uh you know abundant across the solar system or it's just in things like meteorites um and comets and that would i would be inclined to think to to to look into whether there is a mechanism that threw these out into space it's it's certainly plausible compared to anything uh if you looked at some of the solar system theories out there it's not that outrageous relatively speaking and i say relatively speaking to other theories just specifically like the RNA enclave is we have shown that these can come up by natural processes do you think that we could find RNA on other planets that have this kind of a system my understanding is that those RNAs on clays um that is for the polymerization process not the origin origination of the RNAs themselves i've i've not heard that they can um uh that we could take um let's see uh nucleobase and and and join it to um a phosphorus group and then the the ribose group i i've not heard that that can be done naturally i have heard that they can they can be once you have them if you if you have purified ones that are also the right chirality they can be polymerized on clay so um i've heard that RNA chemistry is like a nightmare the other thing is just because it's polymerized doesn't mean it's gonna stick stick around long there's a reason that they say just you know if you if you think something's been exposed to a virus like say COVID just leave it alone for a while and it's just gonna die so a lot of these uh viruses which uh if they're RNA viruses will just spontaneously degrade they're not gonna lay around very long to become anything significant that again parallels the asphalt paradox uh organic molecules left in cells just become useless all right um sounds good next question is from mineben256 um he says he just said that people argued against Einstein for some flawed reasons creationists argue against i um a biogenesis and then use the same flawed logic on jesus i think that might be directed to you teacher uh yes so people use flawed arguments against Einstein like claiming that spacetime can't bend therefore doesn't matter what predictions he makes it's just completely impossible which is the same flawed logic that creationists use for a biogenesis ah it's it's so impossible that life could come from non-life because we can't imagine it reality doesn't care about our imagination reality does things that we can't imagine all the time so the limits of our imagination our paradoxes our arguments our philosophical uh presentations all of that is just stuff about our how we imagine things to be that does nothing to do with reality so reality doesn't really care about our arguments or our paradoxes reality works just fine regardless of what we can imagine all right sounds good we have um another one here just had to refresh it let me just one second next one is from stripper liquor they say at sal it's tough debating tom and the chair respect oh thank you stripper liquor and uh i i told tom backstage i said you're the man of steel he took he had he had a debate with godless girl who was just screaming at him the whole time and he just sat there just so quietly i said man you got my respect tom but thank you very much stripper liquor and i hope you're not offended if i say merry christmas to you sounds good next one is from sphincter of doom you say would sal i'm sorry curd i think this is your name and i'm not kurdova kurdova um be interested in a debate with me over a biogenesis um yes i'd be very interested in that um i would like by the way one way one thing about debating it's also a good way to learn and and understand your own arguments and be corrected so i don't know how we can be in touch is is there a way that we can be in touch um yeah i can um i can see if i can make that happen um but i can yeah i'll talk with sphincter sphincter of doom um i can if you give me a moment i think i can type an email i have another computer here and what was his uh it was at sphincter of doom so i will and it is um i'll give you a sphincter of doom i'm going to give you an email that i use for public communication just so my regular email doesn't get spanned i will look thank you for the kind offer of this discussion so um i'm gonna type that in sounds good in the meantime i'll read the next one from jason revera lebron um he says tea jump describe emotions or energy in motion why are random beings afraid of death look up and to love a when he died look up his experience uh we're afraid of death because evolution uh if things are afraid of death and they tend to live longer and produce more and so you have evolution prioritizes beliefs and values that promotes lit life and so we are afraid of death that is that is why gotcha all right next one is from david from microsoft what are your thoughts on alden's number do you jump are you familiar with that one um it's yes it it's it it's a fake number so it's like i think it's in vauche vauche make it up uh so yeah he was in a debate and somebody was pretending to know anything and he asked do you know what vauche's number or or alden's number is and the guy was like yeah i know what that is no you don't i literally just made that up so i think you and i were talking about before the debate vauche and yeah so this is the guy who made it up everything comes back to the origin right yes next one is from animated fg they say default position for unproving claims is disbelief i'm fine with that all right next one is again from logical plausible probable he says t jump vet accepted $1,000 each plus 10 percent per year times 20 years must have solution for undirected emergence of encode transmit decode of genetic information yeah just so you know like the vet is that other people are going to solve enough that i'm going to solve it when they solve it then all id proponents are proven false and they should all send me money that's that's the goal here so i want to make a bet with every id proponent so that when it's solved they send me money and i become rich that is the goal i like it just as long as you're not betting that nothing will be solved so you don't end up paying out money i think you're good yep exactly next one is from jimmy russell you say love one another brotherly affection out to one another in showing honor today this scripture is fulfilled south south cordova is a man of god's heart well merry christmas to you and thank you for the kind words and god made it easy today because i think tom's just a great guy there's one guy that i utterly despise and i think you know who it is i think i'd probably turn red in a debate with him but tom's just a small guy so thank you who's that god for that who's the guy you hate i hate steve mcray steve mcray is my is my guy i hate rj downard i think just saying is i just start to turn red i mean you know there's not many but he would probably send me over the top i did challenge and do it to a debate on your periodic evolution so but that's not his field so maybe he's not going to accept gotcha next one is from again i'm sorry afredo sarabia you say at sal do you believe life can come from non-life spontaneously if not how do you fit god um if yes why not agree with t-jump that his hypothesis is correct or are you both wrong i think his point is that god would have to come from somewhere there for um can you read the question again and i'm i had to really chew on it because i i want to um i want to try to give a um a good response gotcha do you believe life can come from non-life spontaneously if not how do you fit god if yes why not agree with t-jump that his hypotheses are correct or are you both incorrect okay uh let me define what i mean by spontaneously spontaneously means the way that i use it in this context is that accepted uh by accepted ordinary laws of physics and chemistry i don't believe life will spontaneously arise so when i say accepted laws you know there's hypothetically uh maybe some law we haven't discovered and that's what actually steve benner is proposing that there's just some law out there where you get to discover physics so i don't believe that lives form spontaneously in the sense it won't happen naturally and i think that is a sign from god life has the structure that shows that it has it had a miraculous origin a miraculous origin so that's how god um that's how god fits into into my view of things could t-jump and i'd be both wrong um that's a formal possibility and obviously each of us believe that we're right and we'll find out one way the christians actually do make a testable prediction that will will all stand before the the judgment thrown in jesus christ one day so all of us here today um that is a testable prediction if you find yourself in front of jesus one day you'll know that sal was right right gotcha sounds good and mary christmas next one after saying you know about jesus next one is actually just on that subject um sal literally nobody is offended by mary christmas why do christians like to keep pretending that that's the thing persecution complex much and that is from berry berry i just you know that i mean they're especially i live in the washington dc area and i try to be sensitive to other cultures and religions so um it just became a habit and if that's the case and i'm glad to to find out people aren't offended so thank you for that and mary christmas sounds good i think there's one last question here from syfreto sarabia again um a t-jump is there anything you don't know yet good job um when will i be present i don't know that it's it's a mystery i don't know what this is gonna happen t-jump 2024 no but then if you run in 2024 you're gonna be going against trumps are you ready for that he's gonna he's gonna come back for a second election that'll be great t-jump against t-rump you know what that is all for questions but we have something special today specifically which is a post credit scene where james the wonderful host that we all know and love is actually gonna come on for just a little bit um we are gonna just take a couple seconds break and he is going to jump on and he has some things to say so i really appreciate um you guys coming on i'm gonna just switch us over to a little scene before he comes on it should just be a couple more minutes um but before that if there's any closing things um if you guys just want to say uh good night to the audience i really appreciate you guys coming on and i want to make sure that you definitely check out the description with both sal and t-jumps um links in the description so definitely be sure to um check out their content um and thank you both for coming on thanks for having us thanks sal for coming on it was a pleasant conversation and i enjoy talking with you and i'll talk with you later yes and uh i'm gonna have a i'm gonna have an after show uh and they're welcome to come to my channel as soon as this is concluded and to all the viewers who've been here and t-jump and carissa and james merry christmas sounds great so stay tuned for the post-credits scene coming you're good you're good as in uh oh no can you hear me yes you're cutting in and out for a second but you're good now oh wait you know what it is i just realized so sorry well actually this is actually kind of working okay let's is it cutting in and out bad um not now you're good and you are everyone can hear you now i already transitioned maybe that's a bad thing no problem well thank you so much carissa i want to say folks i am super excited to be with you just for this oh so sorry i've got the video watch page up i think yes i do okay very embarrassing so basically really excited folks just wanted to quick jump in and say a couple things first thank you so much to carissa for doing a rockin awesome job seriously i really do appreciate your help carissa and she's on phenomenal thank you so much for everybody else helping as well as i'm traveling so praise would be another person really appreciate your help praise thank you very much and want to let you know though guys i'm so pumped for our future Kickstarter so the debate that we've been talking about namely michael schermer against ip inspiring philosophy scheduled for exactly three weeks away basically right now i mean real to mention we have crossed the thousand basically we're over a thousand in terms of our fundraising goal ultimately which is 2,500 so we're almost halfway there we are pumped as we've got three more weeks to make it we're very confident we're determined as you had seen in the lucrative photo i don't know what lucrative means but basically the uh the uh the scandalous photo of myself t jump and steven steen we will do a car wash in january if that's what it takes in order to get this fundraiser to work so i want to encourage you if you could if you haven't already check out the description basically if you go to the description there's a link to that Kickstarter campaign it's just three bucks to watch it live this helps us kind of bear the risk of the speaker fees basically where if we theoretically uh go big on speaker fees and then sometimes the debate doesn't always make up for it this kind of helps you say make is it the old phrase many hands make light work and so in other words it just helps us to take bigger risks in terms of the speakers that we go after and so i want to tell you folks i'm dead serious when i say that this is just the first step for modern day debate as we want to in the future do huge debates with bigger speakers and i'm talking like monstrous speakers in terms of like chris's favorite jordan peterson others like sam harris those are the people that we are hoping to eventually host this summer not those say against each other though it could be but that's kind of like the level that we're shooting for and the Kickstarter is a great way for us to potentially do that because with those guests for example last i heard sam harris charges twenty five thousand dollars for an in-person debate that's at least from a buddy of mine who reached out to him and so the trick is like i obviously that's something that we couldn't take as a risk i don't even have the kind of money sitting around so the idea is with a Kickstarter with enough people we can eventually get to the point where we actually could go for the big fish speakers and so this Kickstarter is both for this debate but also in a very big way a way for us of knowing whether or not this is a strategy that can actually work for us in terms of getting those huge name people on the channel in the future so i do want to encourage you if you think you'd enjoy it if you think that watching this debate live and also making it possible such that it actually happens is worth it for three dollars the cup of parissa's starbucks coffee that she gets every day do you get it every day chrissa oh i wish basically the cup of a coffee folks you can watch the debate live and help make it actually happen is like i said this is something that is we have to meet that threshold they can guarantee 100 all of the funding that comes in is either going to speak your fees or if we reach our threshold and we go above it it's going to be reinvested back into the channel so things like a lot of you guys don't know that like i actually pay for example like matt uh because uh we love having matt on to debate and so it we realize that a person's time is valuable and so we oftentimes we don't tell people because it's uh there's just no reason to but a lot of times people don't realize like that there are speaker fees and a lot of the debates that we have uh and what we're doing is uh we it's a reasonable thing that we're like hey you know we understand people's time is valuable and so we don't mention it to people because usually there's not as much risk where we can think with let's say uh super chats and things like that the speaker fees are usually covered sometimes we take to be honest like a loss and that's like i said where we can kind of take more risks by doing things like kick starters because we don't have to worry about the potential lost so we can actually go after these bigger name people and so that's kind of the explanation for it but just want to say thanks so much everybody we really do appreciate you thanks so much to carissa and praise and everybody else who's helped as i've been traveling one of my parents house right now i don't know is that my frozen am i buffering no you're good okay it's great but thanks so much everybody for hanging out thanks so much for helping us already break that thousand dollar threshold and the kick starter that's huge you guys this is like has it been a week or so um so this debate is going to happen we're determined please join us that Kickstarter link is in the description i'll throw it in the live chat one more time right now and so thanks so much and thank you to carissa for letting me quick jump in to make this plug oh for sure thank you so much teams my pleasure with that thanks so much everybody we hope you have a great rest of your night keeps setting out the reasonable from the unreasonable thanks everybody have a great night