everybody. Today we are debating creation evolution. Where does the evidence lead? And we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. As today we will be debating creation evolution. Where does the evidence point? And it's going to be a huge one, folks. We are thrilled as we have two veteran speakers with us today. I want to let you know a few things upfront is we are really thankful for so many people helping us put this event on. First, if you want to say artistic encounter is a tattoo parlor here in Deep Ellum in Dallas and they have been so generous to let us use their facility without asking anything in return. So we really appreciate their help in allowing this event to happen and want to let you know. So if you're considering a tattoo, I can let you know they have a variety of artists who can do a lot of different things. So no matter what you're considering, this is the place to check out. It's artistic encounter in Deep Ellum. And again, we'll say special thanks to them. Also huge thanks to our speakers as we have our in raw with us and Dr. Mickler Roy. Thank you both very much for being here. And we have their links in the description of this video. So if you're listening and you're like, I love this, this is great. I want to hear more from him. Well, good news. You can click just in that description box below and find their links there to hear more. So with that, I want to let you know kind of what the loose format is for today. Basically it's a roughly five to 10, maybe 12 at the most opening kind of, you could say position statement, just saying where they stand on this issue. And then it's really just open dialogue. So that'll be for about 50 minutes kind of open conversation followed by a short Q and a and with that, I want to let you know if you do have a question, feel free to fire that question into the live chat. We'll be trying to pull out as many questions as we can and asking them during the Q and a at the end of the discussion section. So it's a true pleasure to have our speakers here today. So Dr. Mickler Roy is going to start out making his opening position statement. And from there we'll go to Aaron and then the open discussion. So thank you, Dr. Mickler Roy for being here. Well, thank you very much, James. It's a pleasure to be invited. I was thinking about what, opening statement would be.  I represent one direction or in represents a different direction. I'll let him present his, but my direction is what I believe is that I think about how we got here. I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And then he created man in his image and soon thereafter, Adams and Eve, they sinned and that explains kind of how we got here ultimately temporarily. How did I get to be here debating about creation and evolution? Well, I'd like to quickly explain this morning. I taught my little fourth grade Sunday school class, 32nd year that I've been teaching. I love to teach my Sunday's little fourth graders. Those fourth graders, I soon as class was over, I drove up from Brian College station and came up here to Dallas. The, I grew up here in Dallas, went to Dallas Hillcrest, graduated in 1964, then I went to Texas A&M, graduated in 68 after being in the army for a couple of years. I had the GI Bill and I went back to school and I went to dental school down in Houston. And while I was in dental school in Houston, that's where I put my trust in Jesus. I became a Christian. Also at that time, I became a, what you would commonly hear referred to as a young earth creationist at that same time. And then for the last 42 years, I have been an avid reader of creation and evolution literature and thinking about it. But that doesn't explain why I'm here today. The reason I was invited was because in 1999, I was elected to the Texas State Board of Education. And while I was on the board after 10 years in 2009, the board adopted new science standards here in Texas. They call them the TEACs, the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. And at that time we adopted science standards in March 2009. Those new science standards is why, ultimately, why I got here. Now what I was going to, we adopted them the next week in Science Magazine. They carried a story about the new standards and to quote, it says, new science standards for Texas schools strike a major blow to the teaching of evolution. That's the lead sentence from Science Magazine, April 3rd, 2009. In there, they have some quotes where they talk about, and they even interviewed me and I was able to say, I think the new standards are wonderful. I said, and then it says, an evaluation of the sudden appearance of fossils and explanation of stasis in the fossil record is one of the things we got included. And also I was excited about the fact that the students would learn about unguided natural processes trying to explain the complexity of the cell. Well, this lady, Eugenie Scott, who's real big in the evolution circles and she's retired from the National Center for Science Education, she said, moderates on the board may have failed to recognize the final amendments as intelligent design talking points. So I think it's very important to remember that Science Magazine, one of the most reputable magazines in science in the world, had a story about what happened. Well, two months later in June, they had another story about what we did. So you just don't get two stories in Science Magazine about something like this, and that's a big story. And there they interviewed this Kenneth Miller. Kenneth Miller is a very well known Christian Catholic evolutionist, and he is one of the authors of one of the most important. He and this Levine have one of the most popular biology books for high school students. He said, the new standards for Texas leave plenty of room for the authors to explain the robustness of evolutionary theory. So he got real excited about the fact that we're going to have a chance to show the robustness. He said the advocates of these standards underestimate the strength of the scientific evidence for the structure and phenomena that they mistakenly believe evolution cannot account for. Miller says, the new wording is an opportunity to make biology texts even stronger. For example, Miller intends to introduce more material in the evolution of organelles within the cell to show the cells complexity is in fact explained by evolution. And when I was asked about that in this article, I also said that I was satisfied that more scientific evolutionary discussions will serve the students well, because I made a prediction that the explanations offered in the text will be so weak that the students who are skeptical of evolution will see the weaknesses for themselves. So like I say, it's a pretty major story. Well, now I'd like to go along and just to be there. That was in 2009 2014, if you want to refer to that as I go through it in 2014. Well, actually, 2012, the Fordham Institute did an analysis of all the state science standards and they really criticized all the standards throughout the nation. But I'd like to read what they had to say about Texas high school standards. Remember, this is three years later. And this is from the Fordham Institute, and they criticize evolution standards throughout the nation. But here's what they said about Texas. They acknowledged that the controversial high school evolution standards were described as exemplary. Remember, Eugene Scott referred to these as intelligent design talking points. Steve Newton, also for the National Center for Science Education, said the board's actions, this is at the time they were adopted or the most specific assault I've seen against the teaching of evolution in modern science. Let's be clear. This is Eugene Scott again. This is a setback for science education in Texas, not a draw, not a victory. Even the American Association of Advancement of Science noted creation is not when in Texas showdown. However, when you get to the details of Fordham report, it says the standards handled the subject straightforwardly. And then it listed the standard. So which was it? Did we attack evolution? The most interesting thing is if creationists tried to insert creationism into any standard anywhere, guess what happens? They get struck down as, you know, unconstitutional because you can't teach creationism. Even though we had a majority to get some good strong science standards, they were not creationists, and our intelligence design talking points or the other side could have challenged them in court and said, oh, you're so then we're going to go back to Miller and Levine Kenneth Miller in 2014. And I gave a copy of this to Aaron. He can or in he can follow along with me. They had an assignment in their book that was adopted in 2014. And I was for all the textbooks to be adopted once these books came out. Because at the time I said, they'll have to explain the sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record, they'll have to explain how the cell got its complexity. I said, this is great. That's all I want. That's all we wanted. Well, in Kenneth Miller and Levine's book, in 2014 biology, it says they had an assignment the history of life and I have assignment for students to think critically and evaluate the evolutionary origin of ribosomes. And here's what they had in their book, evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell ribosomes, which are composed of RNA and proteins and are part of the complex structure of cells. One hypothesis proposes that the proposes that the earliest cells may have produced proteins using RNA alone and that ribosomal proteins were added gradually, evaluate the proposed explanation of the evolutionary ribosomes based on the evidence that has been presented to support it. Oh, this is exactly when I saw this in the Miller Levine book, I was ecstatic. This is exactly what I can't wait to see if my prediction was that the evidence would be weak. As you can see, here's the picture of the ribosomes in color that they had in their textbook. This is from their textbook. And in this, they said ribosomes consist of four ribosomal RNA molecules more than 80 different proteins. The origin of this complex structure has long been a mystery. New research, however, has led to some surprising findings. Okay, here is the evidence that they give in the textbook for our Texas students. One of these is that part of the ribosome where the part of the ribosome where the chemical bonds are formed between amino acids completely lacks proteins. This is true of other key places in the ribosome as well. So it's now clear that ribosomal RNA itself carries out the most important task in protein synthesis. How should we understand and evaluate the surprising fact? One interpretation supported by the evidence is that the earliest cells may have the hedge in their vets produce proteins using RNA alone that over time proteins were added to the RNA in ways that improve the efficiency of the process, leading to today's more complex ribosomes. So if you're a student, he said, let's tackle the assignment presented by Miller-Noveen to evaluate proposed explanation for the evolution of ribosomes based on the evidence presented to support it. Well, what was the evidence they presided? They said, well, most of the action takes place with RNA molecules alone, but no proteins are involved. So here are some of the questions that could be asked. Are there any cells anywhere today that do not have proteins? No. Can you have life as we know it without proteins? No. Are there any proteins anywhere in the living cell today that was not made by a ribosome? No. Therefore, if you have life today as we know it with, can you have life today as we have know it without ribosomes? No. Okay, that's, that's where you get to respond in a second. Is there any pure RNA only molecular machine that makes proteins today? No. Do they have evidence that it ever existed? No. Would actual evidence of RNA only ribosomes be better than speculating that the earliest cells may have produced or another one? So how robust is robust is the single surprising fact they provide that ribosome, well, RNA carries out the most important task in protein synthesis. Does it explain the origin of the ribosome? No. Does it explain how it became incorporated with more than 80 different proteins? No. Does it explain the origin of the original four RNAs? No. Does it explain how they were formed? Does it explain how they were joined together? Does it explain how the messenger RNA with the code and instructions found them once they were joined together? Does it explain how they were able to reproduce themselves? No, no, no. Were all the 80 proteins in the ribosome made by the ribosome? Yes, I guess that's what I would think. Do they know which of the 80 ribosomal proteins were added first, or second, or third, or so in? Can they add an extra protein today to further improve the efficiency of the process? No. Do they know the function of the ribosomal proteins? Is it a frame? Is it a sport structure? A chassis? Can you make a support structure out of pure RNA? Can RNA without protein support itself and make another protein? They don't know. If not, how can you have a ribosome without a protein? And how can you have a protein without a ribosome? Consider an automobile. Can you say that the engine carries out the most important task? How plausible is it then to conclude that the engine gradually added a chassis that improved the efficiency of the process, leading to today's more complex automobile? Anyway, the strange analogies that don't hold me too hard on those analogies, but bottom line is there is a lot of complexity and this picture that they have in their book is from what's called a prokaryote or ribosome, which means the earliest cells before eukaryotes like us. Therefore, this goes way back. I checked to see what I could find, but ribosomes have been around for almost since life started, but they didn't start with the first cell way too complex to have started on the very first cell. It's from my point of view. Therefore, it had evolution would then have to account for it because evolution doesn't it accounts for life changing after it got started. But anyway, so that's my challenge on the complexity of the cell. That's why I was excited to see how the textbooks would handle it. I predicted they wouldn't handle it very well and to me it looks very weak. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dr. Mick Leroy. So with that, we're going to kick it over to Aaron Raugh for his opening position statement and want to let you know whether you be take the position of creation or evolution. We hope you feel welcome here. Consider hitting that subscribe button as we have a lot more debates coming up in case you want reminders. Hit that little notification bell next to the subscribe button and with that we will go to Aaron for his uh roughly you know five to ten opening minutes uh opening statement and so Aaron thanks so much again for being here and the floor is all yours. Thank you. I uh I was told that this was going to be a discussion about evolution. I should have predicted that we weren't going to get anywhere near evolution. We were going to talk about abiogenesis the entire time instead. But that's just one of the frauds, falsehoods, and fallacies that you get with creationism. Now, I I can present an explanation for synthetic proteins and for abiogenesis and to show you distinction between ribosomes and prokaryotes because they are nowhere near the same thing but put all that aside for the moment. The reason that I became an activist, the reason that I got involved, this is much you know much because of you. Uh I I was working uh in an in an area where I was able to do an unprecedented amount of research.  I've got unlimited overtime and all I'm doing is studying all the time and I find myself in uh discussion groups with uh various theologians and scientists and so forth and they're both uh both sides encouraging me to read this read that read this. So for several years I was on a steep learning curve and I got active in it when I saw when when a number of Christians were bragging to me about how their churches had all illegally voted as a lobby exactly as their ministers had told them to do in order to place certain judges and senators and school board members and so forth in order to uh enact what they were calling a culture war that I was not even aware was going on. So what they wanted to do was to position all of these evangelical friendly judges and senators and so forth so that when a trial would eventually come where somebody's going to challenge evolution they would have the judge's friend you know religiously biased and that they would get what they want taught in school. They wanted to undermine not just evolution, creationism is a rejection of evolution specifically but more generally it's it's uh undermining or it's uh creationism is a rejection of method logic methodological naturalism. They don't want to have things that can only be tested to be verified. They want to use magic literally the supernatural supernatural equals magic magic equals miracle equals supernatural they're all the same thing. So they wanted to have magic apply as a scientific explanation science and they wanted to challenge people's understanding of science because and this was later revealed but after this time it was later revealed by the Discovery Institute and what they called the wedge document the wedge strategy was to cause people to question evolution put out enough misinformation to mislead people so that they don't understand what evolution is and then they can use the fallacy of the god of the gaps which is if you don't know that science has an explanation of it therefore magic so whatever we don't know and he expressed this in his description as all creationists do you can't explain this therefore magic therefore god so that is completely dishonest position and what really got to me was how they were misleading students in school now it's it's one thing to lie to your own children sadly you have a lot you have a right to do that but you should not ever be allowed to lie to other people's kids in a sequestered classroom where the teacher is supposed to be the authority and is supposed to be imparting the information at that time I was very naive and I thought that when I heard statements from McLeary Roy and a number of others like Terry Leo was a chairman of the board at one point and she said that you know that she didn't know what a theory was she thought that there was a law of gravity and that theories were like hypotheses she could she's on the board of education and she doesn't know what a theory is right which essentially essentially you can you can look at from a colloquial or common perspective you can look at a theory in modern terms as being a a hypothesis that has been essentially proven beyond reasonable doubt with overwhelming preponderance of evidence because it's been tested so many times and vindicated every time and never being contradicted once it elevates to the position theory which is the highest level of confidence that science can achieve and every theory is a body of knowledge or a field of study that explains a given phenomenon board of education didn't want to teach that because they want to teach that evolution is just a theory which makes no sense in science I mean atomic theory is just a theory so I guess we don't really know if atomic bombs work the cell theory of disease again just a theory right germ theory I'm sorry germ theory of disease and cell theory compare those we know that germs or germs or you know pathogens cause illness this is a fact every modern scientific theory is also a fact and the national academy of science also declares that evolution is a fact in the same sense and in another sense too because it is so well supported that there's no there's no body of evidence that's ever going to stand against it he comes in and says well well this explanation is weak but I believe in talking snakes and magic spells and golem spells where a man is made out of mud and then magically enchanted that's a golem spell so he's believing in myths and magic and fairy tales literally because a fairy tale is a is a fable with a moral that involves talking animals magic spells witches wizards dragons that sort of thing and that's that's what creationism is right that's what genesis is there's absolutely not one word of truth to it but there are a hell of a lot of lies and that's the problem they are lying to kids in school trying their best to mislead them you may remember I tried to get you involved in a debate when I first got found out who you were and there was another guy that was working with you mark ramsey and we tried to arrange an online debate so that I could bring you and terry leo into it and I get this guy mark ramsey who admits on a moderated debate in writing that he knows that transitional species exist in the fossil record but he wants to teach children that there are none because it's important that they believe there are none so what is the truth from my perspective the truth is what the facts are what we can show to be true not whatever we want to assert that we want to make believe so facts equal truth especially empirical facts that's the that's the facts that we can verify that we know this is the truth this has been proven to be the truth this guy mentioned that he teaches fourth graders he told his fourth grade class to keep chipping away at that empirical evidence keep chipping away at the truth that has been verified he does not want them to believe in truth he doesn't want them to understand what facts are he wants to tell them something else and he wants to rely on science can't explain this or he doesn't know what science is or he doesn't understand the explanation that science gave therefore god therefore his book fairy tales which we have conclusively disproved on every point we know that there was no adam and eve other christians are declaring this now frances collins was the director of the of the human genome project he announced there cannot be an adam and eve genetically it's impossible they did not exist we know the tower of babel didn't happen we know what really happened what it's based on likely we know that the global flood of Noah's ark did not happen i've got an eight i've got an eight part video series explaining the different ways the different types of science that proves that that never happened we know that the exodus never happened we know that none of that stuff really happened and we know that there's an awful lot of previous fables from polytheism that a lot of that stuff is based on moses for example is based on like four or five different characters that all except that some real characters that existed like a thousand years or five hundred years earlier than the time normally ascribed to moses so there's no truth at all and he says yes yes mark explanation is weak he has none i don't know therefore magic is not an explanation misleading children if you're the board of education you say that these great science standards how come you don't know what evolution is and i think i'll stop with that thank you very much we'll go into the open conversation now so the floor is yours gentlemen so i can say what i want yes well i kind of missed how you attacked what i had said i was looking at the evidence i'd asked for evidence i went to a science biology book that was written for our texas students i went right to the section i read from the section where they had this description of how a ribosome and how much evidence there is to support these organelles these very complex things the ribosome goes way back supposedly four billion i mean goes all the way back to like the first life there were ribosomes evidently you can trace it back to those last universal common ancestor which is it goes back further than that okay well it's got to at least go back to the last universal common ancestor ribosomes that is not part of avi aviogenesis you unless you can have something okay well then we disagree so we'll just you have to have ribosomes before you can have a prokaryote they're not the same thing up and well like you said of course it's not the same thing the prokaryotes the whole this is just an organ male inside no it's not anyway so a prokaryote is an independent life form yes yes a ribosome it's just a cell organelle it's just part of that was that ribosome is only a portion of the prokaryote components before you can build the whole so okay well i'd like to know how we got here it's it's interesting that he can well i'd like to show you evidence for anything you want to see but we're going to be i'm going to be talking about evolution more often well that's where i plan on going i was talking about evolution from my perspective this no ribosome it's not touched on it yet okay well technically evolution is descent with inherent modification it's a it's a genetic descent so you have to have an ancestor parent relationship and when we were talking about aviogenesis we're talking about way too much going on horizontally in order to identify an ancestor parent descent relationship you don't get that until we begin with eukaryotes and i'm there was no life until there was a ribosome as your position okay i know that's not what i said i said there were ribosomes before there were life there were ribosomes before there were life okay so okay okay well let's just grant that it's very complex i just want to grant the complexity of the cell and we will get to evolution and that's the only aviogenesis i never would have considered that as part of it but anyway so as far as theology so far i mentioned that i believe in the beginning god created heaven's earth is the most reasonable explanation that's what i would like for people to come away from this when we get finished with our discussion with our debate today i like you to consider which is the most reasonable explanation our ends are mine okay and i think i am convinced that i have more evidence more support the fact that god creating is the most i'm here and you don't have fact one that implies that you have no evidence whatsoever and you're ignoring all the evidence i could present you literally have nothing i've spent more than 20 years arguing with creationists about their evidence they haven't got it ever and you've never been able to present it either you have a book of fairy tales and that's what you believe and that's it and that's all reasonable would mean that we have a reason to imply that now we know that evolution happens we can observe it we can document not just my core evolution either macro evolution has been directly observed and documented both in the lab and in naturally controlled conditions of the field dozens of times we have phylogeny confirmed genetically and through fossils and through morphology we have every kind of evidence you'd ever want to name but we don't have the book of fables sorry that's the one thing we don't have don't have the book of what we don't have a book of fables another thing we don't have and this is important we cannot say that something is true unless we have evidence that it is true faith is all about asserting baseless speculation as though it were true which is dishonest we can't say that something is even possible unless we have a precedent or parallel or verified phenomenon indicating that possibility so when we've determined that something is possible we can then say that we might because there are many things that are not possible we can't just say that everything is but there's lots of things that are not possible before we can say it's possible we have to be able to show the possibility exists and so when we show we in science we don't want to say ever we don't want to close the door on anything but we've identified a possibility but this this is how that could have happened we have a path of development that did all of these things line up this is the way it likely is you have to be honest and say that it may be that if it may be that you don't ever want to assert as fact what you cannot show which is what creationism is all about asserting things that are not so that are not even possible and just stating the most over effect again it's dishonest evolution did we put did we put creationism in the standards what you did was to try to challenge it with your weaknesses of evolution all of which were misrepresented by the way they've done a series of videos about that and again like i said when when we had the the yes or no did we put creationism in our state the intelligent design stock talking points in there which more a number of people didn't recognize because if they're not used to dealing with if they're used to dealing with scientists exclusively then they're used to dealing with people to have like honest credentials and sincerity if you're dealing with creationism then you're dealing with flim flam men and salespersons okay i would like to read what was passed by the board in 2009 and you tell me if this is an intelligent design talking point these this is the crucial standards analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record no what was that any intel is there is that an intelligent design talking that one i did not notice an intelligent design talking point okay but the way things are worded are very carefully worded so it'll allow in creationist arguments in there okay here's the other possible like when you talk about thinking critically about evolution where we would not challenge kids to think critically about any other avenue of science or certainly not about history either blindly believe what we tell you about everything else but think critically about evolution exclusively just be critical about that can you get the reset i want camera over there that the button says start stop thank you okay the second standard that we put in the evolution section as you can see this is added to the evolutionary standard of our high school biology it's teak number seven the student knows evolutionary theories a scientific explanation for the unity and diversity of life the student is expected to and b was the one i just read about sudden appearance stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record g was added also it's the second big amendment that i proposed and was adopted the final wording says analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell yeah and that's it intelligent design as a fourth grader you're supposed to analyze and evaluate what is being taught to you by qualified professionals whereas you wouldn't have to challenge that for anything else interesting this is ninth grade biology and it was okay well you were teaching fourth grade before yeah i'm talking about the science in a televised interview on abc news you admitted by acknowledging the affirmative that your intention as an elected official was to impose your own religious and political views on other people's children do you remember that interview no i don't in one of your publications you said that no wait uh you said that the important aspect of darwinian evolution is its naturalistic claim that all life is a result of purposeless unintelligent material causes but in fact there is not a scientist ever said that is there i don't remember saying that well you don't remember but it's in right in another public statement well i can tell you what i in another public statement you said that most of the books we are considering adopting claim that nothing made a spider out of a rock not one science book ever declared anything similar to that or that any reasonable person could i could i remember making a comment about a spider and coming out of the rock i think that was back in 2003 so that's uh i will admit to that i was eight and you're on you're the chairman of the board of education well i've been making statements like that oh i wasn't at that time i was a member of the board that's fine they uh where did spiders come from spiders are are arachnids and i would contest that they originated in eurypterita but we still need the fossil identification for that we know phylogenetically where they were placed nothing ever came from a rock except in creationism where golem was where adam was created as a golem spell and even rabbinical scholars agree with that but nothing ever came from a rock evolution does not and never did teach that anything came from a rock because rock is a solid as a core rock is minerals made up of crystalline structures does not apply to anything in evolution most of the early life forms didn't even have minerals in them so that is a gross deliberate distortion based on kent hoven i would like a convicted fraud okay well i know i didn't get that from mr hoven now here's my question wouldn't matter where you got it from you didn't get it from the scientists how did how did we get here how do we arrive how did we get to this spot you said you could tell me how you got here then i could respond better well i don't think you can i did a 40 set it's up to 47 episodes right now for the uh systematic classification of life can't you summarize it please oh yeah yeah you you say give me give me everything we know about molecules to man right now in a tweet i'm sorry there's a little bit too much there where did the matter come from where did the matter come from where did the matter come from yes there's a matter here we were supposed to be talking about evolution and now you want to be talking about and what was the other part of it creation well creation implies a creator we were talked yeah yeah we don't want to assume things that aren't evident so you asked me where we came from where we came from now you want to know where the matter came from are we talking about evolution which is an aspect of biology or do you want to go into stellar nuclear synthesis well rock is the matter i'm just going to go back the complexity of life is not an argument for god that's important to state i agree because our god is the simplest and most childish excuse men ever made up for things they couldn't understand and that's why that answer has always been wrong we used to think that comments were in omen we used to think that that diseases were witchcraft we used to think that epilepsy was demonic possession all of that and every time we were not satisfied with the supernatural explanation we saw the real answer it turned out to be a revelation of whole new fields of study previously unimagined and vastly more complex than our original excuses about magic and visible men casting magic spells and so it always will be if we ever discover the origin of the universe it won't be god because it's never been god that's always been the wrongest answer okay so i don't know how to respond when you said this well go ahead i mean though the quote about the rock the spiders is pretty interesting oh i know i know that they're spiders today and if you go further back in time if there was an origin of life you would have just playing where spiders divide from us is when we split we went to deuterostomes and they went to protostomes well i can tell us from a spider i can tell the difference maybe the difference between us our last common ancestor would have been in the division between protostomes and deuterostomes the difference being that in a protostome the the blastopore opens a hole that eventually connects from the anus to the mouth now in a protostome it starts mouth first and goes to anus but in a deuterostome it starts anus first and goes to mouth and it's the first thing that forms which means that there's a station or development when we are literally nothing but an asshole i wrote a book called the foundational falses of creationism it sold really well and your name is mentioned in it a bunch and this is where i got a lot of these quotes from and i'm sparing you by not going in all of them okay if you look at the evidence that is for the you know we're talking about life life is present on the planet start off with an early simple life do you believe it was just originally just singular cellular life and then that's all become what we see in the world today the diversity we see in the world today the evidence indicates that it was simpler than that and it and it wasn't just one that it was the whole populations of them until they finally acquire all seven criteria to be qualified as life was and then from then and we have the earliest prokaryopossils date back to like 3.77 billion the b years ago and we know that like people will argue about the Cambrian explosion because they don't understand that there was a point where two different organisms developed hard shells at the same time arthropods and mosques both developed shells at the same time so suddenly you know your soft-bodied animals are very difficult to find we can find them we have found that we've got lots of pre-Cambrian life forms of the fossil record but there was a huge plethora of them when they started developing shells because shells preserved very well so back in Darwin's day when they didn't know about micro fossils and they hadn't explored very much and they just barely discovered the fossils were they had a mystery as to why life stops there but prior to that there were no mammals 100 million years ago there were maybe no no they weren't and there were no there were no birds 200 million years ago there were no there were no vertebrates at all 400 million years ago period so all we have or yeah they had chordates but not yet vertebrates so we know that all of these things develop sequentially and that there's a point when you get back like five billion years ago where almost everything is soft-bodied or single-celled and when you get back like a billion years ago they're all single-celled and so there's no correlation with the biblical story ever at all in anything how did all this complexity how did all this complexity and diversity of life happen it's an emergent process it's inevitable when you talk about anything inevitable yes when you talk about it anything it's a sub-cellular or the cellular level with a molecular level anything at the molecular level is going to be numbers that are that are incomprehensible to our experience because they're using a different metric and any pattern that you see like like like this if you get if you zoom in on any one of these things you're not going to see this larger pattern this is an emergent thing you can't see this pattern unless you back up far enough to see it that's what emergence is so if you look at what is what makes up a human you would you would admit that we're all made of cells but then if you look at the cells you know that we're made of DNA so if you look at the individual DNA is that a human no DNA is not a human but it isn't that's what makes human if you look portions of genes any gene it's a human gene but any one gene is not going to be it's not going to be an example of everything else that's what emergence is you don't recognize it when it's zoomed in we can only see it from back here so how does life change how do you see this emergence happening there are multiple natural selection I haven't gotten across this since it's been proven yes since we've demonstrated it and not just a few times in the lab we've been demonstrating natural selection and artificial selection since we began agriculture for thousands of years we've been doing this corn for example is a mutation of a grass called tiosente it's only got five genes difference that means essentially five mutations to turn grass in the corn and look at the dramatic difference you see in that and this was just people picking the grass they're eating grass because they don't have anything better so they're eating the bigger seeded grass that the taste of your grass and it doesn't take long well thousand years before they end up with something that is equivalent to corn that's how evolution works so you have populations and in every population there's little teeny differences you have on average humans have 128 mutations per zygote that's the ones we begin with you know we have significant mutations that actually have an effect most mutations don't you can have some detrimental ones if you have some positive ones those will have a selective benefit it won't matter to you you probably won't notice it but over time those benefits to you will be transferred down through your children and eventually flood the rest of the population very quickly you can have people move from one population to another area and then in just a few generations you'll recognize that the people in this other area are visibly distinct from the people in this area the same with dogs and cattle every other type of life form separate a colony of birds onto different islands and over the course of generations unique mutations appear in both sets so that these are different sets of birds never ever ever ever in evolution has any have one kind of thing ever given birth to another fundamentally different kind of thing that's another misrepresentation that creationism presents that's a violation of two laws the laws of biodiversity and the law of mono-filing that's not what evolution teaches when there's a new species of a fruit fire creationists will say but it's still a flyer it's still a flyer well of course it is it has to be that's the laws of evolution demand that you cite the fact that macro evolution they got examples you said a how many did you say you said there's dozen or so dozens dozens I uh I could understand micro of course I accept micro evolution adaptation how all that happens micro evolution and adaptation are not the same thing and I can see the changes that you have I can see how natural selection can make minor changes but to make these wholesale changes there's no such thing as a wholesale change over time yeah over every emergence profile yes every change if I may and I'm sorry I'm if I'm stepping in on your words I just want to clarify that that evolutionary changes is incremental it's superficial changes being slowly accumulating on top of fundamental similarities and those tiers of fundamental similarity identify their plays so never ever is there wholesale changes period I understand according to evolution it's just gradual changes like if you go to the the first man they would look just like their parents basically and they would look just like their parents and they would technically there's no first man so you would say then there absolutely is no first man okay yeah so just like there's not a first doxen if you had dog breeders and they produce blood hounds out of out of a feral like wolf hound and then you get out of blood hounds they get basset hounds and you can see these increments and you get from basset hound to get to blood hound but these are still dealing with populations of puppies until we get we begin to recognize these general trends and the different breeds so which one would you ever be able to point to and say that was the first doxen that would never happen I understand that would make total sense you can't find the first atom you could not go to a first man it would just blend all the way back to right the universal now we can say that there is a genetic there's a genetic distinction that when it first appeared you might be able to identify okay the first time we had this chromosomal fusion what Kenneth Miller mentioned and this is another point point two when the intelligent design theorists put out this wedge strategy where they wanted to misrepresent evolution until they fooled everybody until they got to this court case they got the court case that they were predicting they were going to get it was called Kitzmiller versus Dover and it was a conservative Christian Republican judge pointed judge that presided over that case however he was not biased he didn't he didn't rule on behalf of his religion they showed that absolutely every single one of the testable claims made by intelligent design without exception all of them had already been disproved before they had a court case in science and then they had to reveal and explain how those things were disproved in a court of law and Kenneth Miller was a large part of that he gave a brilliant explanation about the the chromosomal fusion where we apes have one more chromosome than we do or one more pair of chromosomes that we do because of the we have 23 do they have 24 and so it's chimpanzee number two and then another chromosome that we don't have and they have precisely identified all the all the indigative markers for how that chromosomal happened so we would have had a person who wouldn't have looked appreciably different than anybody else in his clan but technically that mutation would have existed in the first individual so if you want to really reach you'd have to do a genetic test to find out which one was the first person but it would have been just like looking at these people here you wouldn't be able to know by looking at them externally so you go to the evidence for the chromosomal chromosome two fusion that that's very interesting I'd like to tell you a testimony about reading Kenneth Miller's books his first book was Finding Darwin's God and he wrote that one then about the time we were on the board having our debate he wrote only a theory and in the only a theory this is kind of personal testimonies I started reading his book I remember sitting down and upstairs in my home reading through his book I said oh my gosh am I on the it was very compelling and at the point at one point I sat there and I put the book down and I said am I really on the correct side on these standards and so I said I'm gonna check this out so I checked it out and I said how can he make such a compelling argument and I just finished reading the chapter on fossils and the fossil record there's three major patterns in the fossil record first one is the sequential nature of groups in the fossil record and I think that's the from my perspective that is probably the strongest evidence that evolution has occurred is the fact that if you look at the oldest rocks they're simple life as the rocks get younger there's more complex life and more diversity however there's two other patterns in the fossil record which we've already alluded to today and that's sudden appearance when you find a certain organism it's fully formed in the fossil record and then the other is stasis stasis is the fact when you find it it stays the same until it either disappears or it's still alive today and I remember reading Steven J. Gould he was the paleontologist so he's the one that checked and he was one of the most influential evolution spokesman he always argued for the fact that stasis is data in fact in one of his books he said stasis is data stasis is data say it 10 times before breakfast every day for a week let it sink in for osmosis sink in like osmosis and his point was that's not what you expect to see in the fossil record it's done him and it's done him and his fellow researcher that they came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium to explain the fossil record because evidence we're talking about the evidence for evolution the evidence in the fossil record did not support evolution and it still doesn't it certainly does and comments that he had made back in 1974 have been well overturned by now okay so he made he made the comment about how transitional species were excessively rare but we've discovered more transitional species just in the last 30 or 40 years since then we had in the entire history of paleontology before that it's I mean almost everything we found has been in the last few decades so it's it's quite overwhelming and he said that like in the same year that they discovered lucy which is coincidental maybe he said that in 77 he wrote it in lighter books I know that well he may have but he's famous for that statement in 1977 but what he's talking about what this states is and what punctuated equilibrium is is when it takes that an organism that is going to be well suited to a stable environment is going to is going to proliferate for a long time at least in the skeleton we're getting right but we know that the changes happen as I said superficially they start at the surface so the differences between people aren't going to start at the bones they're going to start at the skin level so then and generally the differences between everything start at the surface and then to become more integral it's very rare that you get a fundamental change when you're talking about something like the transition of aquatic life onto land what you're going to have is something that's not very well suited for either now very quickly you're going to have from that you're going to have more advanced life forms stemming from that one and then their older form that's still waddling and still and can't run because of diversity now we have some that can run and can turn on their own progenitors now that transitional species doesn't doesn't appropriate so well it's added as advantage and now these other things can speed on so these occurrences he argued would not exist for a very long time and you're not going to see most of the differences like if you were to get fossil snakes you can get 10 different fossil snakes you can get they're not even fossils get skeletons of different colobrid snakes in this country get 12 of them and compare them you won't if they're all colobrids you're not going to tell whether it's rat snake a corn snake or whatever because all of the differences are at the surface so that's the way evolution works and so that's why it appears static in the term that he's talking about we've also found a lot of transitional since then that he never even predicted I'm sorry that he was dead before we started finding the really good ones okay this brings up the fact we talk about these transitionals that you said there's so many more today my challenge for the evolutionists and you can take this to heart and go back and come up with an article about this or a video I do it now probably you probably could but here's my argument I think there's a conceptual flaw giant conceptual flaw in the evolutionists and the way they can see how they conceptualize what's happened from the past and how it explained where we got here today and that conceptual flaw is the fact they think they have a lot of evidence when they do not have a lot of evidence I can prove that we have a lot of evidence I can prove that to your satisfaction regardless what you want to believe and despite your faith I can still prove it okay I want to hear that in a second let me finish my point you won't have it in a second because this is going to be an education and we're not going to be able to do it here because I'm going to have to show you things in order for you to get you to understand it but I can't do that because the reason they make these claims and for instance here here's one I'd like to consider bone bone's been around since the pre-Cambrian days I guess no okay well when did it first start originally everything that had a skeleton when skeletons finally developed they were cartilage yeah cartilage but then the cartilage ended up with some bone okay so you end up in I think it's the celery and you finally start getting osteophyte 300 400 I don't know yeah instead of 500 years million years ago and make it yeah 300 400 okay somewhere back 300 bone consists how how do we get bone what good when the first bone it consists of collagen fibers to make collagen it's like 1400 got three strands of fibers to make collagen makes it like a rope it's formed inside a cell because everything has to be made inside a cell so when these so when it's when it's made it's like 1400 amino acids long to get it coated you're gonna have to have three codons for every amino acid that's coated once you get these then it has to somehow have special tags on the end so it can get out of the cell without off you know anyway as the end when the as the end when the the fibers of the bone which is collagen let's say you have it out inside the the tissue and then you're gonna have to add the osteoblast osteoclast all these different art you know sales not collagen you need calcium and cartilaginous fish do develop calcium not just during their life but it but you can have a certain level of calcium and so one of the one of the facts in evidence for evolution is that we have lineages of fish that have proportionately much less calcium in their skeleton so that they're much more cartilaginous because this was a slow development too changing cartilage into bone was a slow development like polyptorids for example they're very primitive lobe fin fish we still have a few of them here now but what we have that's about this look used to be 10 feet long they have very low levels of calcium it was a it was an overtime progression that made them harder to eat for other animals or that made them stronger when they got larger so what kind do you have any idea the steps necessary to change to change it but let's get back to the as I said you just have proportions so even in a cartilaginous fish they'll have a small proportion of calcium and then in what we considered calcified or osteo osteo fish we I can't believe osteocties then you you still have you still have where it's not 100% calcium it's still going to be some percentage of cartilage so once you get a piece of bone okay or a piece of cartilage it doesn't do the organism any good unless why until it's got something to move it around if you're gonna bones have ligaments attached to it they have so you start with muscles and all of the all of the framework is already connected to the muscle so you have stable parts of the foundational part this becomes the cartilage and then later calcifies now if it calcifies with too much rigidity then you're gonna have to have hinges in there and that's where we get vertebrae so we are talking about very slow progressions from from just but how how can that happen I just told you so you have a population of fish right and they're they're gonna have they're all gonna be variable they're not not all of them are exactly the same and from these variations you have some that have more calcium than others and some they're they're calcium is segmented in a functional way some of them may be not so much because we've had how many steps would that take thousands but we have how many steps can you identify that I personally identified I think about 20 but what we have is like we have fossils that fossil fish that are would be they're heavily armored but they wouldn't be able to survive in the in the current environment because even though they're heavily armored they're not very mobile because they've cut down their own mobility so we have all through the fossil record we have we have animals that are basically defunct they were only able to work in the in the environment that they were in when they even when they invented jaws when when the the forward ribs connect through the gill bars and then they could move them with musculoskeletre to actually bite was a sooner it was a quick adaptation to teeth and some of them had teeth even before they could get to this point because I had like triconodonts had teeth before they could get to that point so that was when they just had lips with teeth on them and now they got bone to back it up and once they could bite the armored fish were doomed because we had things that could bite through even armor with huge shearing blasts like giant scissors to me that sounds like a great just so story how do you come up except we know it's not that we know it's not a story we know that we're not just professing this we know that we are following the evidence instead of dictating what we're going to find in advance we can predict what we're going to find in that but we're not dictating it we find the thing and then it either confirms what we said or it proves it and goes in it disproves us and goes in a different direction so we know for a fact these fish actually did exist and all of them date back to this prior time and we know what all the dates are and there's many different ways of dating this and what you got for the 6,000 year old earth is one guy who couldn't do his math but 400 years ago right who figured out everything wrong and I mean everything wrong if you go back to 6,000 years when did you think the flood was 2300 BC we know better than that right so we know none of that work so your your best ain't it ain't enough and you're sitting here saying that the evidence for evolution is weak that the foundation of modern biology is weak because you believe snakes can talk foundation of modern ball I'm glad you brought that one up how can evolution be the foundation of modern biology if you go and now challenge anyone that's listening right now whatever go to a biology department and ask about the biologists what would happen to what you're doing today if evolution wasn't true if evolution was not true would it change anything you're doing absolutely yes and I've already done that of course and the answer is yes it would change everything because the only reason we know how things work at all is because we know how they are evolutionarily related and how evolution works and that it really does work I have asked biologists that too and it won't make a bit of difference in what they say okay so chocolate no no thanks are you sure yes sir eating enough chocolate will will prevent or cure cavities thanks for the offer no I'm fine I'm fine I got he's a dentist so I had to ask him yeah I like that I like that because you know then I could stand up to experts so I've got another question it's an opportunity to be with Aaron it's kind of neat appreciate it James you're getting this here what how do you explain the human consciousness the fact you know that's one of the great mysteries it seems to me I don't see the mystery I never had okay well then you don't need to explain it well no I I don't see why it's a mystery because I know how it developed and it always confuses me how other people are confused at this when they say where did consciousness come from that's a stupid question if you create a device that has some kind of sensory apparatus in some way to react to it then that device is going to in a sense know when it runs into something it has to change direction right so we have we have prokaryas we have like protozoans for example not not prokaryas but eukaryas we have protozoans that can detect when they're being engulfed by an amoeba or whatever and they will they will react they don't have any kind of brain at all but they have some awareness of their environment and they have some way to react to it and this is entirely chemical and it's built into them same thing with slime molds slime molds no kind of brain no neurons whatsoever but a slime mold can calculate its way through a maze with no thinking apparatus at all just having some I guess just having some way to feel the environment and know what it is so and we don't even know how they know what it is because it has no brain at all but the more the more senses you have and we have a lot more than five or six we have we have several we have I think we're up to 18 different senses we have and when you have increased brain sizes more complex neural network the more awareness you have not only of your environment but also of your place in it whether you're in pain whether you should run whether you should you know fight or flight responses all of these indicate an amount of awareness your dog barks and runs in his sleep indicating that there's thinking going on there you know that the dog has consciousness the dog certainly has an awareness of you and of him and of your relationship to each other now when you get into social species like monkeys who have all of the advantages because not only do we have the social structure where we have to read body languages and cues and be able to communicate in some way we can also bang rocks together unlike octopuses and dolphins and elephants we can actually perform chemical experiments we can make tools that use them and all of these enhance our intelligence until we get to the point where we have the gray matter which is the 10 percent of our brain that we use that ascends us above all of the other animals just that that 10 percent we use the other 90 percent too but there's promoter functions and regulation and that sort of thing so we've had consciousness since early primates at least so it didn't just blink oh I just woke up and I'm here that didn't happen so you it's also just totally gradual process is the way you understand it of course well I guess it have to be if they can assumptions you make assumptions what did I assume what did you assume yeah that it's going to progress gradually how am I how am I assuming that I'm a how what do you mean what assumptions have you made you make giant assumption when did I make an assumption that that when you stated you have cells and these cells eventually are going to do they interact with their environment like I said did I lie about that was that an assumption or is that a fact I'm talking about earlier on about 15 20 minutes ago when you were talking about how the whole process of evolution is a graduation you know gradual this is all indicated by evidence this is not assumption well give me the evidence I just did I gave I'm one of the things that I gave you and I want you to just acknowledge that maybe I gave you some evidence that the the lineages of fish that we have that appear in the fossil record also have the morphology indicating that their local fish is very close to the time of divergence and yet there their bones that we can analyze in modern-day fish have very low degrees of calcium just like we would predict that is exactly what what falls in line with evolution which you can set that that's a fact that evidence by the way just for clarification is a body of objectively verifiable facts which is a tautology facts are objectively verifiable anyway at least if they're empirical that that's positively indicate or exclusively concord with one available position or hypothesis over any other you can't have the same evidence for two different mutually exclusive conclusions the fact doesn't become evidence until it points to one of the or eliminates the other so except okay well I have for you it's facts that are evidence for me it I just don't see the same facts what do you think evidence is if not facts okay for instance the fossil record why are there why is stasis the the fact that you see in the fossil record you get around the we'd have to get into specifics on that well that's what I would lie I don't because I don't see the specifics that you're talking about what I don't I'm looking at what what Gould was talking about based on what he knew at his time versus what we know now stasis thing we see in the fossil record today right it's not the stasis that he made it out to be is it we don't we don't have fossil record today we don't have a point of stasis of actual stasis because we have things that are continuously evolving anyway well that's your assumption no it's not an assumption we have no no it's not an assumption and it's not an assumption what are the longest longest lasting species was like hyenodon and it lasted for like five million years which a single species doesn't usually last that long we usually which hyenodon I don't remember but individual species will constantly diverge that's not an assumption that's a demonstrated fact these things will constantly diverge we know it's just like languages right Latin doesn't exist today anymore right but we know that Spanish French and Italian Spanish French and Romanian and later Portuguese evolved from Latin right so they evolved through cladogenesis so new groups separating from Latin and they develop French they develop Spanish in different places and then Italian arose directly from Latin replacing Latin so that's that's an evolutionary process called antigenesis we know that this happens nobody speaks Latin anymore and and another two thousand years from now nobody's going to be speaking French or or Spanish those languages are going to change too because they always do we're talking about evolution not this language to change it's a language to change well language is a beautiful analogy for how how evolutionary changes happen at a population level because nobody ever says that there was suddenly a first guy to speak French and that he had to go wander around looking for another person to speak French to we know that these things happen gradually over small increments and that evolution happens the same way okay you hadn't demonstrated stasis in the fossil record is why was it such a problem for the evolution an example of this demonstrated stasis that you're talking about what I'm talking about is I'm not as polished on the well that's why I said we needed to get it to specifics because I don't see it the way Gould did okay I disagree with the way I see constant fluidity so when you look at the fossil record you see if Gould had dug up a whole bunch of colibrid snakes he would say that they were all static right some of them have no idea what over snakes pine snakes we they would actually all be different species but he wouldn't be able to see that because he's only looking at the bones and it takes too long for those changes to get down to the bones so when you're looking at fossils okay dinosaurs the dinosaurs I'm curious about we don't see dinosaurs walking on the earth yes we do you've eaten several of them chicken yes okay okay well I I know people say that chickens are dinosaurs up well it's not just chickens all birds so you're gonna say a bird is a is it is yes they're the souls that's just where the dinosaurs are today that's what that's the the last remaining line of them yes it's the bird and there used to be more birds than we have now there used to be a lot back in the Cretaceous there were many different types of birds than currently exist major types I don't mean like individual species like major family level categories that all in extinct and only two or three survived the KT extinction out of all of the original ones we had okay well let's go to what's the most popular showers they could still grasp there were birds that could still grasp with their fingers the first transitional species we discovered was one that Darwin had predicted he said he realized that the modern birds had fingers that were fused together and he said if they were if they were descended of dinosaurs then they should have unfused wing fingers and then archaeopteryx was discovered within two years yeah within two years claws and everything so now we we still have we found the Hootson so the Hootson is one of those neotonous things where it's development it still keeps its fingers with the with the claws on them and then you know following an evolutionary process called evodivo it then absorbs those fingers back and then they become fused following an evolutionary pattern okay let me get to a real specific good one more kind of point that we made before we have to go to Q&A oh good well here's my question it's my can can you reset my camera okay thank you there were some pictures of it has reset every 30 minutes that I saw the other day of the osprey it's like hunting and it's coming in it showed the pictures of the talons and all that I got it where did I put it maybe I have it right oh here they are here's a series of pictures of the osprey I don't know what you can see but you see here's a bird big bird he's got his eyes focused he's ready to go fishing he's got the talons out he hits he's got his wings folded back see these series of pictures he's heading into the water he's got to have eyes that can spot that look at that it's just incredible series of pictures he's heading straight into the water just a series of those just incredible there's a lineage of dinosaurs you should be aware of called para-aves that are non-avian dinosaurs that are indistinguishable from birds or you can tell then he gets the fish he gets fish he must have had an appetite for fish coming up with the fish he takes the fish the fish is aerodynamically he's learned how to rotate the fish so he can flop with these giant wings to to bring his fish up so he's turned the bird and when I look at nature I see all these things that seem totally unexplainable on whatever the phrase you use at the beginning where you describe how these gradual gradual processes how a bird became an osprey with the eyesight the desire to get the fish to see the fish to dive in with those talents just like that sharp as can be and uh so earlier velociraptors had all of those features and they also and they also had feathers on top of that okay when you watch Jurassic Park you wouldn't know because when they made that movie they didn't know that that velociraptors were actually fully feathered full-on plumage they were virtually indistinguishable from birds they were in a class of dinosaurs called para-aves so you're of the physician that that osprey that I just showed this amazing ability just just happened that's a velociraptor that's just more refined just that okay interesting I found that that explanation if you look at incredibly weak if you haven't seen the explanation I can show you a sequence see that God created an osprey I can show you a sequence of para-aves I can show you a chronological sequence of para-aves where you will not aves para-aves what para-aves para-aves where you will not be able to say when it stopped being a dinosaur and became a bird it's always a dinosaur it's still a dinosaur that bird is still a dinosaur it's just at one point it wasn't yet a bird and we can't to tell you wouldn't be able to tell looking at the sequence of para-aves to to early primitive birds you wouldn't be able to tell which one I'm not sure what a para-aves is it's a dinosaur that is virtually indistinguishable from birds it's that with a slightly longer tail in most cases it's that exact thing well I found that pretty hard to accept well you didn't look at the fossils I can show them to you they don't all have beaks some non-avian dinosaurs did have beaks some in the para-aves had beaks that were clearly not birds but then there's others like caudipsteric zoe where the scientists can't identify is this still just a non-avian dinosaur because it still has a little bit more tail than modern birds do it still has fingers like primitive birds did it has all of the transitional features that early birds have and that the para-aves have and then there's no place where they can caudipteric zoe for example it's like I don't know is it a bird is it a dinosaur it's well it's clearly a dinosaur they're all dinosaurs but is it yet a bird we don't know all right okay I found that and I'd be delighted to show you the sequence it's very impressive well I'm gonna have to do that one day it should be soon it should be 10 years ago there's just think that that bird go catch those fish just think about that that early raptor could do the same thing even before it could fly and it had wings before it could fly and the creationists like to argue that there's no such thing as a half wing but we've got lots of para-aves that have half wings and the reason that they do is because these wings not only work for sexual displays but they also help incubate a larger clutch of eggs which is a profound selective pressure in natural selection so that allows wings to develop and these smaller ones could use these wings to run up trees I've shown that with with flightless birds they can use their wings to run straight up a tree as long as they got their claws on there they have enough lift and then it's just a literal hop to going into flight and then one of the best best transitional species ever discovered was one that was originally considered a fraud there was a guy who unwisely bought an illegal fossil in China and he named it Archaeoraptor he showed it to a number of scientists everybody told him this is a fraud this is two fossils put together every scientist that saw it said that but he managed to to get it into and there's like national geographic or something anyway despite all the scientists operate but one of those two fossils that were flew together was from a early raptor called micro raptor which was actually predicted in 1903 under the name of tetraptorix it's a precursor to archaeopteryx it had four wings it had wings on the front arms and wings on the back arms both reduced but able to use all of them for gliding we will go into the Q and A portion if you both are ready thank you very much for a really interesting and simple discussion this is excellent we've really appreciated how friendly these guys are and we'll be switching back and forth as we go from if anyone in the live audience anybody here in the building if you have questions you're more than welcome to ask and otherwise I'm going to jump into the questions that we have here from the online audience so thanks for your questions folks glad to have you here and with that first we do have Bothel guy thanks for your question they said can he provide any good evidence for God so I think that they're kind of getting at kind of the maybe the foundation of your case is that there is a God so more broadly is there evidence for God as they're asking well I think I can I it satisfies me the first one is and I know Aaron our end doesn't subscribe to the fact it's either God or nothing but I take oh one second well here yes here yes I have right here I'm always been amazed at the argument there's Lawrence Kraus as a cosmologist and he would talk about he had a book out in the last 15 20 years a universe from nothing and in the book he says you can get a universe out of nothing well I like the old argument that nothing if you define nothing correctly you're not going to get a universe out of it and here's a special little rock and I take the rock and I'll look at that and say let's let it go to sleep let's put it to sleep oh look at that now it's dreaming well whatever this rock is can't sleep and it's dreaming you're not going to get a universe out of true nothing and for me it's either God or nothing leaves only one real choice God if God has no competitor but nothing he's got nothing for a competitor except that no evolutionist believes that everything came from nothing not even Lawrence Krauss Krauss in his book a universe from nothing he really he admitted that he was being rather tongue in cheek in the title that he was talking about in in a quantum vacuum you would still have particle fluctuations of subatomic particles popping in and out of existence but he said he would have to redefine nothing for that to be true nobody he doesn't even believe that an absolute nothing is even possible to exist so we can't believe that everything came from nothing if we don't believe there was ever nothing that's exactly the point I'm making find out what nothing really is to find it correctly is what a sleeping rock dreams of and you're not going to get anything out of that so you're either have what a sleeping rock dreams of or God the question was that supports the best answer for what I consider is God and then the second one is the statement I'll start off with a word then I'll go to a statement the statement is there is no truth is is that an accurate statement no the truth is what the facts are the things I've been showing you all day so the statement there is no truth is an what I'm saying is it's an illogical self-defeating statement you can't say you can't make a truth claim and say there is no truth but the claim truth exists the opposite you can make that claim and if you make that claim then there has to be from my perspective a truth giver therefore if you want to know why I believe God exists that something was the question that's that's number one I'll go to a word nothing God or nothing nothing for a competitor or a statement there is no truth versus their truth exists so that's my answer for why I accept the fact that God exists it's not a fact the fact is a point of observable data can be verified it is not an observable fact that God exists it is an observable fact that there is no religion we can state that and that is a fact because that is verified neither your religion nor any other can produce an actual fact and the fact that you're representing it with the argument you just gave proves my point we will jump to the next question I'm sorry I've got one more thing if God existed evolution would still be an inescapable fact of population genetics and the bible would still be man made mythology it's still wrong the bible it would still be wrong and not even the existence of God could change that it's not a choice between God or nothing we don't have nothing nothing's not an option we have reality and you want it you want to add a God to it you have to do a justification to add the God just to keep going with q and a we've got to ask the next question thank you though next we do have a question from Jay shy who by the way I want to give credit to Jay as he helped us set up this debate so thanks Jay shy and thanks for your question they said to both what are your thoughts on christian organizations like biologos defending evolution and using scholars to show how genesis is not in conflict with science so we can start with doctor oh I have no problem with the people that are theist I disagree with their take on you know supporting evolution but they're theistic evolutions we see things different I appreciate the fact that they appreciate that that there is that God exists that the bible they support the bible that they support all the the fact that christianity they support christianity and they're very important about the main message of christianity and the main christian they share with us the fact that Jesus was God himself that came I know are in miss again that's not a fact that's an assumption that one that is not even born out by your scripture I'll pass it on I have no problem with biologos you've got thanks so much and are on the floor is yours answered the same question the pioneers of evolution and indeed it's champions in the modern day are christian scientists they're a scientists who happen to be christian I've spoken with many of them I've gotten some they're even quoted in my book as saying that they're they're not going to be dogmatic literalists they know that things like oh no as arc didn't really happen and if you're going to try to defend all that you're going to just going to get into the weeds and get away from the truth like for instance Collins was saying you can't believe in the mythology and have that confuse what the reality is we can demonstrate the reality we don't and everything else is just a matter of faith that's what you what that's what you believe when you don't have the evidence to indicate that we're going to jump into the next question I do want to make a quick note though and say I had thanked artistic encounter before for being our generous hosts want to let you know I did put their address in the description box so as I mentioned if you're considering a tattoo check out artistic encounter I can vouch for them I've got to meet the people here they're very friendly terrific people so we'd highly encourage you to swing on by and get to meet them yourselves and that's right here in deep elam in Dallas okay next I also want to mention tomorrow we will have good friend of Aaron Ross Kent Hovind on debating Professor Dave on a creation evolution again I appreciate you have a good sense of humor okay so that will be that's linked in the description for this video so that will be another fun debate coming up and next question thanks for your question question from God's servant they asked can Mr. Aaron Ross provide an example of gain of information mutation yes if you want to look at my video on the phylogeny challenge you'll get twofold there there's there's there's citations for genetic mutations that do produce a an ad or a gain in information and also in addition to that there's the death now of creationism creationism argues that all of these different species were created separately if that were actually true or if there was any fun at true at all and if there was any fundamental flaw in evolution either way then the creationist would have to be able to answer the phylogeny challenge there's a handful of yes or no questions there just let me know where the answers know and what your reason for that is nobody can do it somebody tried to come up with baromenology to come up with the origin of these created kinds they can't because every every set of organisms belongs to a parent organism that's the problem careless Linnaeus had when he when he started systematic classification like when he wrote Systema Naturae he was he was a creationist he was expecting to find examples of created kinds but all of that were in a pair of categories which are themselves in larger parent categories and then collectively larger and fewer parent categories until they're all included in life and that was a pattern that matches evolution which he didn't know anything about because he lived a hundred years before Darwin but he could not explain it and he challenged the scientific community his day he said he could not tell the difference between man and ape there is no cat and he demanded that they come up with an answer for that what they did was arbitrarily construct a separate category for con pongo where they put all the apes except us and if you if you realize that it's all of them except for well that's a Freudian slip already and now we have the genetics to come back to say that no we are one among them we are apes we didn't just come from monkeys we are monkeys right now got you thanks so much next up we have time for just a couple more questions we want to be kind of quick so we do have one as well from Michael the Canadian Atheist glad to hear from you Michael they asked for Dr. M if creationism is true why is the entire real scientific community against it that's a good question I'm not exactly sure why a lot of scientists would be against it but I don't there's a wonderful book wonderful life by Stephen J. Gould where he talks about the bandwagon effect in science and they can get on a bandwagon what bothers me is they and even Jerry Coyne who's with wrote quiet evolution is true he had a statement on an interview with PBS one day where he stated that not even evolutionists know exactly everything I think there's a bandwagon effect in scientists they're just gonna accept evolution so that's all I can say I don't know I think they need to take a step back and look at it again yeah there's a there's a bumper sticker that's been applied to me that said on a statement I made in a blog post back in the day that science doesn't know everything religion doesn't know anything because what science knows we know and we can prove it and what religion knows they just made up next question from Brian Stevens thanks for your question he asked this is for and a personal question he said when will Aaron make his beer available to the public I didn't brew that myself somebody else brewed that for me and then promised he would have another couple of cases soon and then never heard from him again and it's been a year so if you're a brew master and you and you know how to make a really stoked imperial stout come talk to me I'd like to work with you excellent thank you very much and looking forward to that and folks thank you very much for tuning in today has been a lot of fun and as we've said before we hope you know whether you have a creationist position evolution position no matter what walk of life you come from we hope you feel welcome here at modern day debate keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable and just want to say one last thank you to our guests for being with us today thank you very much gentleman thank you yeah I want to thank you as well for for your for your demeanor I know that I was not in kind but that's just me passion that's we appreciate the passion passion I do like it's uh so with that thanks everybody for tuning in take care and have a great rest of your day well that was fun I was not sure when I brought all these cameras how you were going to be set up I just wanted to make sure that we had everything covered