Good evening everybody and welcome to modern day debate. So glad you can make it for our juicy debate. We have an atheist versus creationist discussion happening this evening. And the floor is going to be passed over to Jamie to get us started. So hit the like button hit the share and Jamie the floor is all yours. I don't think we're live yet are we. Oh yeah. Okay. All right. Let me go ahead and transfer over to my presentation because we're just going to go straight into it. For those that don't know me. My name is Jamie with Studio 215 official. For the past couple months I've been on hiatus for making videos because my studio is in my garage and it gets very hot in Texas. But I will be making videos again soon. So if y'all are interested go check out my channel. It's literally studio 215 official. Today we're going to be doing evolution on trial for the topic of the debate. I have a presentation. I'm going to go ahead and put that in full screen and I'll just kind of run through that presentation. I probably won't use the full 10 minutes. I want to keep it simple because we're going to try and cover a lot of topics. And then once we're done with this presentation Daniel you can take over and we'll go from there. All right. So make sure I got my buttons all good to go. I'm going to go from big as well. Yeah. So evolution on trial. Now let's start with just a general summary of evolution. A long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Right. That's essentially what evolution is teaching but they're trying to make it science. Another way to say this is once upon a time because once again none of this is observable. But I will let Daniel be the one to try and argue that it is observable. So the summary of evolution is once upon a time in galaxy far far away. Nothing existed. That nothing exploded. And then that explosion created everything we see in the universe. Now when the earth was first created in this universe it was a hot ball of rock. That's a lot of evolution say we don't come from rocks but technically you do because that's what you say we started with the ball of rock. We rained on the rocks for millions of years. And we finally get the earth but not with life yet it was just the earth with primordial soup. From there, we got the first living organism and that organism created all the other organisms in the tree of life. So that's essentially the summary of evolution. And this is scientific. If you're going by the scientific method which is to study, observe, test, demonstrate all of that. I would say that that is a hard no. As crazy as that sounds this is the general idea of what evolution teaches. Now let's go ahead and take a deeper look because I know there was a lot in there, and I feel like if we kind of break it down into sections it'll be easier for Daniel to kind of approach each one of these parts of the theory. So a lot of the evolutionists they hate seeing this take off turn off my camera for a second. All right. They hate seeing this because they only want evolution to be macro and micro evolution, but you can't have micro without macro, you can't have macro without organic, so on and so forth so therefore you have to have all of these things exist in order for evolution to take place. So we are going to go through the six stages of evolution and then you can kind of break it down from there on your part of the opening. The first stage cosmic evolution, this is going to be time space matters origin, which is also known as the big bang. Chemical evolution is how did we get all the elements from the big bang stellar evolution is the stars in the planets form formation from there we have organic evolution which is also known as a biogenesis the origin of life. Macro evolution is where we see one kind turned to another, and then micro evolution is what I would actually call real science and that is just variations. So cosmic evolution the origin of time space and matter with this there's three big problems, I mean there's a lot more than just three but the three main problems are going to be where did time space and matter come from. Does this violate the laws of thermodynamics and does it violate physics right. First, where did time space and matter come from. The big bang does not explain where time space and matter came from the theory states that all of this material already existed prior to this in a dot smaller than a proton that evolution is called a singularity. Without time space and matter already existing the big bang event would not be able to take place because this explosion, or as they like to say rapid expansion is merely a product of these materials collapsing within themselves. Therefore it is impossible for the big bang to create everything in the universe as we know it and like the materials in this imaginary event the theory collapses on itself before it even begins. The next question that we would like to get a good answer to from you Daniel is, does the big bang violate the laws of thermodynamics. For that we're just going to look at the first and the second the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. I've heard people say that that's only within a closed system and I would argue that the universe is a closed system because it is finite in order for it to be an open system that has to be infinite and physics has proven otherwise.  That's the most simple way to narrow it down. And when you look at it this way evolution teaches the exact opposite of the scientific law with some textbooks even directly quoting that nothing created everything. The second law of thermodynamics shows it states that all things trend towards a state of chaos. This means that given enough time like evolution uses in its theory, millions of years, billions of years, given enough time, eventually everything will reach a state of death decay or deterioration. Evolution teaches the exact opposite of the scientific law, which is that given enough time things will only get bigger better stronger, and so on until we become super extra terrestrial beings that don't need bodies or however far they've taken it nowadays. So the final question for the Big Bang and cosmic evolution is does the Big Bang violate the laws of physics. For this, we're just going to look at conservation of angular momentum, but if you talk to actual physicists which I am not. They have plenty more problems that they can point out, although this is the most simple and probably the one that will only really have time to cover. So the conservation of angular momentum essentially to simplify it as simple as possible on a fourth grade level I guess you would say, imagine we have a grenade and that grenade explodes. Once that explosion takes place we expect a specific pattern of the shrapnel's rotation, and that is essentially what the conservation of angular momentum is is formulating. Another is that if there was a massive explosion or rapid expansion that created everything in the universe then we would expect to see a coordinated pattern of rotation all throughout the universe. The truth is that we see exactly the opposite and here's just a few examples. Oops, I thought I took that out my apologies that's just the definition if you all want to pause that and go back later and watch that. But we'll go ahead and skip that for now. Here's the examples for how this doesn't make sense in the Big Bang worldview. Venus and Uranus rotate backwards from each other from the other six planets in our solar system, we would expect them to not do that since they all came from the same explosion as us. We have some theories about how the spin of Venus may have been pulled into the sink with the earth. Unfortunately they don't really work and this is from David Harry Grinspoon, which is an assistant professor of astrophysics and planetary sciences. And this was published in Venus revealed so they know that these rotations are a problem for the Big Bang theory. Also, eight out of 91 moons rotate backwards. Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. If the Big Bang did take place and based on the conservation of angular momentum, we should not have two moons in the same orbit, rotating in different directions. So I'd like to see an answer for how that makes sense in the light of the Big Bang theory. Next we have chemical and stellar evolution and we're actually going to tackle two of the stages at once with this one because they kind of meet each other. One can't exist without the other it's like a chicken in the egg problem. Here's an article I'll just read a short little clip from it it says during the formation of the universe some 14 billion years ago. The Big Bang created hydrogen helium as one of the clouds of cosmic dust and gases from the Big Bang cooled stars formed and then these group together to form galaxies. My apologies, it's hydrogen helium lithium and beryllium, the other two weren't highlighted so I just kind of glanced over them, but four chemicals that were made during the Big Bang. Okay, well that's all great and dandy according to this article during the Big Bang four main elements were created hydrogen helium lithium beryllium. They're proven this is theoretical they have not observed this so it's technically not a scientific fact, but this is the best theory that they have. Next in the process we need to evolve the rest of the elements in the periodic table. The way that they would answer this chemical evolution problem would be with stellar evolution evolution tries to explain that by every solution tries to explain this by saying that the rest of the elements were formed by the stars. However, when we look at the evolution chemical and stellar evolution must have happened simultaneously. However, when we look at what is inside of a star, according to these charts, this is the process of the stars growth and what elements it would create. There's iron silicon sulfur oxygen magnesium neon carbon helium hydrogen. There's only nine elements and none of these elements are higher than iron on the periodic table. There's a reason that I point out that none of these are higher than iron on the periodic table. It's an important detail because observation shows us that we cannot fuse past iron very well it does not, it does not hold stable. I know that's not a correct grammar but just work with me here. How do we get all of the rest of these elements. This is what chemical and stellar evolution would need to be successful and take us to the next stage. Without this, you can't get to the next stage of evolution. Evolution brings no answers for these issues. Three stages so far and all of them have failed to stand true against scientific scrutiny so I think it's safe to say that the idea of evolution falls apart before it even really begins. The next stage will be organic evolution. This is a biogenesis and there's literally a million different routes you can take with a biogenesis, because the truth is that while organic evolution is the most important stage of evolution, as it's supposed to have the answers to the origin of life. The idea is that life form from non living material and this has never been observed tested or replicated 15 seconds. Okay, so in fact, to take this even one step further all of the experiments have failed miserably to prove this and no one in the scientific community could even agree on a theory to how this could happen. If you ask a biogenesis they have a million different answers and they don't have a confirmed theory that they can all agree on macro and micro evolution are pretty self explanatory so I'll go ahead and skip that part of the presentation. Alrighty, well thank you so much for that opening statement there Jamie we're going to have the floor right over to Daniel so thank you for being here and the floor is yours. Okay, thank you Ryan for hosting this debate. Thank you Jamie for providing the challenge to the facts of evolution. And thank you to all of you for watching and taking your time with me and my accent and taking your time with us to non evolutionary biologists talking about evolution and biology and according to Jamie we should be talking about physics and cosmology astronomy and a lot of other sciences. But tonight's topic is evolution on trial. This means that like in any trial, we will have the lawyer for the defendant and that's me and the prosecutor in this case Jamie. Just like in a trial the defendant evolution will benefit from the presumption of innocence in this case the presumption that it is not false. The burden of proof then will rest on the shoulders of the prosecution and the prosecution will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution is false. I know that it may seem that going for the highest standard of evidence might be a bit too much, but I disagree. And the reason I disagree is that this exact standard is being used every day by biologists around the world. When the theory of evolution is put to the test. So it seems only fair that if you want to disprove one of the most solid theories in the realm of science, the prosecution should have to abide by the same standards. Also, it needs to be pointed out that when talking about evolution, we are indeed referring to the theory of evolution, and not to a term that's also adding things like the big bang stellar formation element synthesis or a biogenesis. None of those things are part of the theory of evolution. And by removing them from the discussion, I'm also doing the prosecution a favor, since it doesn't force it to also disprove cosmology, astrophysics, nuclear physics and many other scientific fields. If we want to talk about the theory of evolution, we first need to define our terms. First, let's define what the theory means in the realm of science. The theory is a well substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world. That's it. Secondly, let's define now the theory of evolution. There are many definitions for this theory. And the most basic definition would be the change in heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generation. And it only addresses diversity of life, not as I mentioned earlier, it's beginning. Okay, so or a biogenesis. Evolution is being proven by many converging evidence. So, so many that we do not have the time to go through them all. But I do think it's worth mentioning at least a few things that prove it and that the prosecution will have to disprove beyond the reasonable doubt. First, we have transitional fossils. This is one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for evolution, right, the existence of transitional fossils. These are these fossils are fossils that exhibit characteristics of both ancestral and descendant groups. For example, the fossil record shows us in intermediates between fish and amphibians reptiles and birds and even early human ancestors that bridge the gap between apes and modern humans. These fossils demonstrate a clear progression of features, mirroring the evolutionary process predicted by the theory. Second, the stratigraphic succession. Fossils are not randomly distributed in the rock layers. They are found in predictable sequences known as stratigraphic succession. This ordered arrangement of fossils corresponds to the ages of the rock layers with simpler life forms being found in older layers and more complex forms in younger ones. Vistigial structures. Some fossils also reveal vestigial structures, which are anatomical features that have lost the original function due to evolutionary changes. For instances, the wings of flightless birds or the remnants of hind limbs in whales and snakes, right, those are vestigial structures. These structures may little sense from a creationist perspective, but are consistent with evolution, which predicts the retention of ancestral traits. Radiomatic dating. Fossil dating techniques such as radiometric dating provide precise estimates of the ages of fossils and the rock layers they are found in. These dating methods consistently confirm the vast time spans required for the gradual processes of evolution. Genetic similarities. One of the most striking pieces of evidence supporting evolution is the remarkable genetic similarity shared amongst all living organisms. When we examine DNA of diverse species, we find that the genetic code is nearly universal, with the same fundamental genetic code governing life processes. This consistency implies a common ancestry where all life forms share a common genetic heritage. Endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs for short. They are viral DNA sequences that have become integrated into an organism genome. They are shared among different species and they can literally serve as genetic markers of common ancestry. If you want to think about them as ancient cuts that we can still see today, right, in modern species. The presence of identical ERVs in the genomes of various species indicates a shared evolutionary history. Gene duplication. Gene duplication events can result in the creation of new genes with slightly altered functions. Over time, these duplicated genes can evolve into entirely new functions or provide the raw material for evolutionary innovation. The study of gene duplication and divergence supports the concept of genetic evolution. Like all these and more, provide a robust defense of the theory of evolution and the prosecution needs to disprove this. All these show a tapestry connecting all life forms on Earth and offer compelling support for the idea that all organisms share a common ancestry and have evolved over millions of years. And that's it for me. Thank you very much. Alright, well thank you so much for that, Daniel. And just a quick reminder to everybody, before we go into our open discussion, in case you haven't heard, as our Lord and Saviour, James of Modern Day Debate would say, Have you been living under a rock?  Not paying attention to the fact that we have a live debate coming up? And it's going to be Debate Confort. It's going to be amazing.  I could go on and on about some of the faces I'm looking at here as I go down the list. But I just want to let you know that we do have our tickets linked in the description. It's going to be in Dallas, Texas. So it's going to be November 4th and November 5th. So you can grab the tickets there now. And if you can't make it for the event, you can actually check out the crowdfunding event, which has amazing perks, such as a signed picture of your favorite speaker. Or you can also get a one-on-one with James and ask him why he lets me talk so much on the show, because you know you hate it. Awesome. Let's move into the open discussion, everybody. And we'll kick it back over to Jamie to respond to what he just heard there. Oh, you're on mute. Yeah. Is this a back and forth part? This is going to be the open discussion. Okay. All right. So I'm writing down the list on a notepad right now. But I already have it in my text, so I guess I'll just read from the phone. So here's a couple of things. I guess if you're okay with the Daniel, we'll just kind of go one through one by one. We have transitional fossils, geologic column, vestigial structures, radiometric dating, genetic similarities, and ERVs. Those seem to be the main points that you brought up. Does that sound about accurate? In duplication, too. In duplication. Okay. All right. So first of all, before we go into this, I want us to kind of agree to the fact that when we're talking about evolution, we're not talking about Big Bang. We're not talking about a biogenesis or like stellar formation or anything of that matter. Because that's literally not evolution. You just want to ignore the beginning of it all. I'm talking about the topic of the debate. I'm not ignoring evolution. But yeah, and that's evolution. Yeah. For the sake of the day, that's evolution. Evolution is the theory of evolution and just focus on the last two stages. Even Big Bang like literally doesn't say evolution in the name. It does. It's called cosmic evolution. There's a book written by a Harvard professor. So yes, it is cosmic evolution. There is a chart for it taught at Harvard University. So if you don't like Big Bang being a part of evolution, go talk to Harvard. But we can just focus on macro and microevolution since that already has a thousand problems of its own. So first, let's go with transitional fossils. What exactly makes you think that transitional fossils prove anything because all it is is people that have a presupposition to evolution, lining up fossils that they found in the dirt and saying that they turned into one another. You don't see these bones turning into another animal. All you see is the bones. So this is your interpretation being put on it. That's not a scientific fact just because someone with the degree said so. It's not just me saying it. It's not just me saying it. And by the way, when you have those bones, you're saying those bones don't change into anything. Of course they can't. They're just bones. They don't change into anything. But what we can see, we can see the bones of animals gradually transforming from one shape to another shape. And that thing we can see in the fossil record. And we are lucky enough to have that record because we could not have it. There's a chance that the conditions on earth were not in such a way that we can have those fossils. And we can literally see the evolution from one life form to another through the fossil record. Okay, so the thing is you don't see it though. You're saying that you see these fossils transition to different shapes, but you don't. You see one set of bones. You see another set of bones and you connect the line and say they magically did this. Okay, but that doesn't mean you saw it to take it even one step further. Why don't we observe it in the real world? You're saying that these animals in the past transitioned to completely new animals, but we do not see that in the real world today. So you see you're adding your interpretation that is not observable to something that you never saw actually happen. Well, we cannot time travel. I think we can all agree on that. We cannot time travel. We cannot go back in time. But we can we can observe things. We can observe the fossils. We can observe the bone structures just like in you. For example, at one point you were a newborn, right?  That's talking with me right now. It doesn't mean we didn't grow up, right? It doesn't mean we cannot. It doesn't mean we cannot infer from seeing a baby, right? That if that baby reaches adulthood is going to have certain characteristics. We know we can know that. Okay. And that's exactly what evolution is. No, no, but that's that's exactly the same thing. It's not because you're again, you're taking one set of bones that are buried in the ground. And then you're taking another set of bones that are buried in the ground. And saying these evolved from each other. That doesn't prove it because you wind them up. It does prove because that's the inference that we get that that's the scientific. We are looking at things and look, I'm going to give you another another analogy. Right. I'm Romanian and this is the this is the reason for my shitty accent. Okay. Romanian is a romance language, which means it derives from Latin. Okay. When when when the Romans came and conquered, you know my my country. Right. There was no Romanian. There was nobody speaking Romanian. Right. They were speaking Latin and they were speaking Dacian. Right. And at some point Romanian just appeared. Right. But it didn't appear out of nowhere. It appeared from small incremental changes in the language, just like small incremental changes in the DNA of living things, but those changes over time. And it's the same thing. Right. So as long as we can understand how language changes through time without having to time travel and go back and see exactly how people were were changed in the language, letter by letter and word by word, we can infer that evolution happening the same kind of process. Right. It just takes a lot longer than language formation. That's the only thing.  Oh, that's true. Yes. Evolution is micro evolution. Evolution is macro evolution. They're the same thing. Here's the thing. It's micro evolution. Observation proves that there are limitations. Okay. Observations prove there are limitations. So what you're saying is that because I can see someone take Latin and add onto it until it becomes Romanian, therefore cows and whales evolved from each other. Okay. That's not evidence for evolution. We didn't see anybody doing that to Latin. And you're saying there's limitations. What are the limitations? You can trace it through the human history. It's documented in human history. It's not observed by us, but it was observed by generations before us. However, generations before us never observed a whale coming from a cow or cow vice versa. That's what I'm saying. You don't have any observations of animals changing to something else. Nobody in this world, nobody in this world ever ever. Saw the transformation from Latin to Romanian. Nobody. Like nobody saw the Latin mother giving birth to like a Romanian child. I understand it. It didn't happen because it happened gradually. And I used Romanian because actually there's other languages. It was still observed. The variations of the language were observed and documented in history by people that were in that process. That's why I'm using Romanian because Romanian is extremely poorly documented. I could use French, for example, or Spanish, which is a lot better documented. But Romanian is not really documented, almost at all. But we know that happened because we know how the process goes. We know how the process goes. And not only that, but we literally did it ourselves. We took the wolf and we transformed it into a chihuahua. With human intervention. It doesn't matter if it's an intervention or not. It doesn't matter. It's the fact that we introduced a certain bind. The pressure to evolve in a certain way came from us. Just like in nature, the pressure to evolve a certain way came from nature. Okay. So that example right there, we took a dog and turned it into more dogs. That means that evolution would require intelligent design. The intelligent input of a human to take an animal and selectively breed it. That is using intelligence. Just like you would use theistic evolution with God being the intelligent person behind it. You don't want to say yes, but that's exactly what you just said. Okay. You're just making assertion. No, it's not at all. Okay. Oh, it's an assertion. You literally said it's only humans can do that. Can we get a moderator to allow timeframes or something here? I'll take myself off mute. Let's just try to keep the points that we're making focused and not too broad. So let's go into one minute back and forth. So I'll start the timer and we'll let you clarify their Daniel one minute. Okay. So it's been out. Okay. So you're saying that it needs an intelligent to, I don't know, jump in and do those things. It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't need to have, like, see, situations on earth that kind of do that thing for, for, for, for the animals, right? Like, for example, when, when the dinosaurs went to when extinct, right? Like the meteorite struck the earth, right. That's it. That's, that's a, that's a pressure that was applied on the animals that were on earth, right? A lot of them just died. Right. Most of them just died. And the others needed to adapt. Right. And the ones that were like more suitable for the grew and prospered, right? And they changed. They changed to adapt to the environment that you were living in. And that's it. It does not require any sort of intelligence to do that. And if you say it does, you need to prove that there was an intelligence, right? You can't just assert it because we know this happens. We know because we see it even today and we can make experiments that we can we can see that happens. Okay, so you used the example of the meteor striking the planet. First off, no evidence of that. It's not observable. The only quote unquote evidence for that is the fact that there's fossils. And the fossils I would respond are from the flood, which makes a lot more sense. But we're not arguing theology here. We're arguing evolution. Regardless, transitional fossils, the example you use for observable evidence is dogs. Okay, so if you look in the wild, there's spotted dogs, there's coyotes, there's wolves, there's there's these wild dogs. But if you notice, they have not varied on their own. Until humans came in and took intelligence to selectively breed them, we did not get hundreds of variations of dogs. We had a set of dogs and they still stay that way in nature. So you're trying to add intelligent input without saying intelligent designer. We're just making it faster. That's what we're good at. We're just taking that process, that natural process, and we're just molding it and we can just make it faster. That's the only thing we are doing, because we those genetic pressures, we can we can make them right, we can we can decide exactly what genetic pressure we want to apply. We want to apply genetic pressure that you know we just breed the smaller dogs so we can get to the Chihuahua. Perfect. That's what we're doing. We want to get it to dogs that love water, which is going to take the puppies that just love water, and we're just going to breed those. These are the things we're making. But as you said, if there was no evolution, there would be no other dogs in nature. It'd only be us us making those from the woods. But as you said yourself, there are dogs in nature, there are not as many. Okay, so what? You need to prove that it's it has to be an intelligent creator or like whatever your hypothesis is, right? Well, the thing is you're using an intelligent input to make these changes observably. But when you don't use intelligent input, those changes don't happen on their own. So we're going to go in circles here because you're not understanding what I'm explaining. And I'm not going to concede to the fairy tale of evolution until you use real evidence for it. So we can continue going in this circle, or we can move on to geologic column. It doesn't matter to me. We can keep talking this if you want. It's up to you. I mean, it's like, literally, you're the prosecution, you need to provide evidence, but you keep saying, Oh, no, no, you have to provide evidence. Well, you haven't provided any kind of evidence.  That's it. The evidence is that coyotes, coyotes, wolves, spotted dogs, they have been documented in history for thousands of years and have not varied at all in those thousands of years that they were documented. The only time they varied was when a human put intelligent input into that and selectively breeded them naturally in in the in the unit out in the world without any intelligent input, they stay the exact same. So therefore, you have no basis for evolution happening without intelligent input. You see that. That's the thing is like you keep saying we don't see we don't see we don't know you don't see because you don't want to see. That's a different show me. That's a different thing. Like you don't see because you're looking at all the fossils. And there's a lot of them, right? And you look at them and you say, Oh, but nobody saw that nobody nobody saw that nobody was there. It doesn't matter. You know, if I see somebody punch, it's if I see somebody with a black eye, I can assume something happened, right?  And it's the same thing with with science at the end of the day, right? We're just looking at the evidence. We're looking at what we see right now. We're looking at how the world works. We're looking at the laws of physics. And we can infer things from them. And we're doing the same thing. When it comes to evolution from Carolinus to Darwin to today, we are doing the same thing. We are just employing the scientific method in order to get to certain, let's say truths, right? But it's not really that. All right. So we're just going to be going around in circles on this one, because I don't think you're understanding the point that I'm making here. So let's just go ahead and move on to the transitional fossils. I'm sorry, we're on transitional fossil now. Let's move on to geologic column, I guess. The geologic column. Once again, I know you've probably heard this a million times, it does not exist in the real world. It's a theoretical column on a piece of paper in a textbook. They say that there's like one place in the entire planet where this geologic column does happen, okay? But there's many problems with that. The first problem is where are all these new layers coming from? The evolution would say these new layers are coming from the eruptions of volcanoes under the earth. Well, guess what? That material already existed under the earth. So it's not a new layer. It's the same layers being shuffled around, shuffled from the bottom to the top. Like Ken Hoven says, I'm sure everyone on this channel loves Ken Hoven, sarcasm. But if you have a deck of cards and you take the bottom card and put it on top, that's not a new card being added to the deck. That's just the same card being shuffled to the top. So go ahead and respond to that, I guess. I know it's funny you're making fun of Ken Hoven when you're using all his arguments. I'm not making fun of Ken Hoven. I respect that. The thing is, it's like I never once used the term geologic column. What I said was stratigraphic succession, because if we dig down, no, no, if we dig down, we can see layers, we can literally see them, because you keep saying we don't see that. No, we do. We literally see them, right? You can go to Dover, for example, and you can see exactly how the stratigraphic succession happens, right? You can dig down in the earth, which is exactly what we're doing, and we can literally see it, right? And by the way, when you have volcanoes, they don't just shuffle the cards, right? Because the volcanoes inside is magma, right? That's not a layer. That's not the layer that you're shuffling on top, okay? And that's not the only way to make new layers, okay? But the thing is, it's like, you need to believe in these fairy tales, right? Or like, oh, the geologic column doesn't exist. Yeah, it's a name. But we can see, if we dig, we can see the reality, right? And in reality, we don't see, I don't know, lions in Precambrian, right? As your theory posits. Okay, so here's the thing. We look at the same evidence, and we come to two completely different conclusions. Your conclusion is just as possible as mine, I guess you can say, okay? But the thing is, that doesn't mean yours is a fact, because it's just as possible as mine. Mine is also theoretical, but that doesn't mean either of us are 100% true here. The thing is, we see layers. We both agree on that. We see animals buried in the layers, aka fossils, we both agree on that. You say every one of these layers is millions of years old. That's your interpretation. That's not true. And when we get to radiometric dating, we can talk about that. But to just kind of solidify the whole geologic column argument, I would say those layers are not millions of years old. They all were laid down in a flood, and you will see this because fossilization happens fast, not slow. If an animal dies today, like for instance, I go hunting, and if I shoot a wild boar in the wild, it's not going to just fossilize. It's going to get eaten up by buzzers. So the only way fossils would exist is to be rapidly laid down with sediments, i.e., a flood. You have no explanation for these large, large graveyards of fossils other than it happened because we see it. I mean, your saying is like we both see the same things and getting to two different conclusions, which is true. But then you said it's like both our conclusions could be true. No. Your conclusion is bonkers and it's not supported by any kind of scientific endeavor in this world. Not true. And mine is. Mine is, right? Appeal to authority policy. I'm telling you, the entire field of biology, the entire field of paleontology and physics, and what have you, right? They all agree with me. They all agree with the conclusion that the theory of evolution is true, not with you, right? If you say there was a flood that created all these layers, we would see all the species just mingled, right? We would see, I said previously, we would see a lion in the pre-Cambrian layer. But guess what? We do not see that. What we do see, we see exactly what we would expect from evolution. We see forms of life that are like simpler as much as we go down and more evolved, let's say, as we go up. Again, that's your assumption being put onto it. That's not observation. You see layers and you say millions of years. That's not true. Okay. It's just, it's just not true. That's your assumption. You're free to believe that just as much as I'm free to believe that there was a catastrophic global flood. Okay. Both of us have our assumptions. The difference is you're trying to claim your assumptions are fact, even though they've never been observed. In the real world, you never observe anything transitioning like you see in these layers. In the real world, you never see these layers being put down over millions of years. Okay. What you see is animals die, they decay before they fossilize. If this whole geologic column is truly millions of years of layers with different animals in between the layers, why do we see some animals that are halfway in one layer and halfway out another? Why do we see fossilized fish that are eating something? Why do we see fish giving birth in the fossils? That doesn't happen slowly over millions of years. It happens rapidly, like it would in a flood when the sediments are being laid down because of hydrologic story. Yeah. I never once said that fossils cannot form during floods. Yeah. A lot of them form during floods. What I do disagree with is the fact that they all form during like one huge global flood as you seem to do. Right. I never said floods are not a vehicle for producing fossils. Right. And you're still having the same problem, the same problem you're saying, oh, we don't see it. No, we see it. We literally see the layers. And not only do we see the layers, do we see exactly what type of life is in those layers. Right. We see exactly. And as I said, it's much simpler life forms in the beginning. And the more you go up, the more they get more complex. Right. And how do we explain that with the global floods? I don't know how we do it. Right. But you're still going to keep saying, oh, we don't observe that. Nobody saw the layers getting one on top of the other and all that nonsense. Right. You're just not going to provide any kind of evidence.  I see the facts. I don't believe it. That's it. That's your that's your prosecution style. Okay. So again, evolution is the one on trial here. So you have to present the facts. I have not seen any evidence of any of this except for assumptions. You say we see this and this is my assumption. But my assumption is right because I don't believe your assumption. That's all you're doing here. Okay. Where's the evidence of these transitions? Where like, where do you see this transition in real life? How do you explain the transition of reproductive systems that are extremely complex? How do you explain the transition of ocean eyes to on earth eyes? Because they're completely backwards. You can't explain those because in the process of that happening, they would have destroyed the creature. Just like with respiratory systems. How do you explain gills turning into lungs without the animal dying in the process and wiping out the entire species? There's so many obstacles you have to get over. But instead, what you're saying is I need evidence that it didn't happen. No, you need to show the evidence that it did happen. Evolution's on trial. Evolution is on trial. And as I said in the beginning, you're the prosecutor, you need to provide evidence that evolution is false. So far, the only evidence you actually provided was, I don't believe that. Right? Or, oh, no, no, no. Actually, it's the defendant that needs to provide the evidence that is not good. Right? That's all you did.  I guess you never heard about amphibians, right?  Whereas the first dog, were there two dogs? No, that's not science. No, that's just religion. That's just nonsense at the end. No, that's valid questions. Valid questions that you can't answer. No, we can answer. That's the thing. And it's like, to creation, is we keep answering those questions over and over and over and over again. And you can't understand that, you know, variations over and over and over, but you didn't answer anything.  We keep telling you and demonstrating to you how things grow from one thing to another. Okay, I'm only going to use like 10 seconds here because here's a question. I want to see the step-by-step process of a water-breathing gill animal turning into a lung-breathing land animal. Give me the step-by-step process. I'm asking for the answer. Give me the answer. Okay, have you ever heard about frogs? I understand frogs very well. They are designed exactly the way they are. Their initial stage just breathes in the water, has gills, right? And those gills transform into lungs later on in life. And they can breathe through their skin, right? And everything. But they have lungs.  They're still lungs, right? So literally, you have species on this earth right now where you can go and you can see their development stages and you can see how they're transforming from gills to lungs, right? You can literally see it. So how do you explain that? This animal was designed this way. That's the design of a frog. You're just asking. You're just asking. No, no, no, no. Give me an example. I give you an example and you're saying, oh no, you're giving me an animal that was designed a specific way. I want to see an animal that did not already have this built into its DNA code. Do that. So for example, the Silicamp, right? They thought the Silicamp was extinct for millions of years. But guess what? The Silicamp is still in the ocean today and it doesn't have lungs. It doesn't have legs. Why does it not evolve? It's been there for millions of years. Yeah, so I mean, he was kind of interrupting me when I was speaking, right? So I kind of felt like I could do that with him. But yeah, it's like this other question was like, you know, if the Silicamp still exists, why doesn't it evolve? Because it doesn't need to, like the populations we are seeing right now, there's no evolutionary process. There's no force that is compelling them to change, right? The alligator is the same thing, right? The alligators didn't change for a long time. The horseshoe crab, right? It's been around for like in sort of the same way it is now for like what? 500 million years, right? Yeah, some species in certain areas, they don't need to change because there's no evolutionary pressure. That's how it happens, right? But you know, you're going to say this is what how it was designed and whatnot. So you're not going to you're not going to give in any evidence for your prosecution, basically. Moment there. Yeah, so you said the alligator, for example, has been the same for millions of years. That's not true because when you look at the fossil record, the alligators were massively larger. Okay, they got smaller. Okay, they deteriorated. They became less of a they became less strong, less adaptable or whatever you want to call it, the opposite of evolution. They showed de-evolution, just like you tried to use earlier vestigial structures. Okay, that's loss of information. That's something losing something, something getting weaker. Okay, that's not adding anything. You don't have any examples of something being added. You don't have an example of a horse growing wings. You don't have an example of a fish getting wings. You don't you don't have these examples. Okay.  The eighth is the nightmare, right? This is this is basically your argument. You know, I don't see a horse with wings. You know what? The evolution, the theory of evolution precisely says that cannot happen. Right? We cannot have a horse with wings. That's absolutely absurd. And the thing is, it is, right? No, because you literally say that, that's exactly that. Okay, can we get some adoration here? Yeah, let's go. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So we don't see that, right? Evolution precisely says that we do not see that. We do not see horses grow wings overnight. Okay. What we see, we see like the the ancestors of horses being smaller, multi-toed, right? And they slowly, slowly evolve into the horses we know today. That's what we see when it comes to horses. And we will never see horses just prong wings. Yeah, but we do see that in religious texts, right? We see that in your books, not in the theory of evolution. That's where we see them. Oh, you need to come off the mute there, Jamie. All right. So you said evolution says that horses will never grow wings, law of monophilie, whatever you want to use for the excuse. But you literally have trees of life that show, let's see here, for example, a turtle eventually turns into a duck. Okay. So yes, a horse by the theory of evolution should eventually grow wings because we see here a turtle turning into a duck. We see a rabbit turning into an eagle. We see a bat turning into a whale. So yes, you can, according to your theory, we should be able to see this evolve on a horse. So here's the question then. If there's no limitations to the genetic pool, because that's what evolution needs, evolution needs for there to be no limitations to genetic variations, right? If there's no limitations, then why can we not as humans go in and use intelligent input to add wings to a horse? I'll tell you why, but I'll look forward to your answer. The reason why is because it won't ever happen because it doesn't work inside of their genetic design. I love that you're using like the law of monophilie.  It doesn't exist in biology. There's no such thing as the law of monophilie. That's just the way we organize things, right? There's no law of monophilie. It's just the way in which we organize a taxa, right? Second, you saw we see what was it, a turtle turning into a duck. We have never seen a turtle turning into a duck. We see turtles evolving as species and turning. Yeah, that's your picture. You can do whatever you want with it. Right, turtle, follow the line. Oh, it turns into a duck. You follow the line. It's incredible. You follow the line, and actually, you don't see it coming from the turtle. You see it coming from a common ancestor, right? So they do share a common ancestor, right? But the genetic writing should be there. Can I get some moderation, please? Okay. He's talking over me, okay? And I can't get my point across, right? If you look at that thing, what you're going to see is the fact that turtles, right, and ducks do have a common ancestor, right? But you never see a turtle giving birth to a duck, okay? Because they're on the different path, right? When it comes to the species, and they will never become a duck. No matter how much you want it to become a duck or a banana or whatever, a horse with wings. The point that I'm making here is that your theory claims that this is possible, okay? If the variety is available to turn a turtle into a duck over millions of years, then that variety of the duck should, then that duck should somewhere inside of the DNA have a turtle shell, okay? So let's go and genetically manipulate a duck to put on a turtle shell, okay? So how do, can you do that? Can you prove that? Because it technically exists somewhere in the genome. No, I literally told you that's not possible. By the theory of evolution, that's not possible because the turtle is on a different branch of the evolutionary process. It's on the same branch. And then the duck. No, what you see in that, I don't know where you get that feature from. The tree. Because you asked me a question, that's why I'm answering. So it's like what you see in that, right, which is just like a representation somebody thought about, right? And it's not super accurate to no degree, right? What we do know, we do know that the ducks and dinosaurs and alligators, they share common ancestry, right? At some point in the evolutionary process, they share a common ancestor. And that common ancestor, groups from those common ancestors, they diverged into, you know, some of them, they went to towards the ducks, some of them, the alligators and dinosaurs and turtles and whatnot. Oh my. Okay. Somebody did that right into the mic. That's I didn't expect that. That was that was a response. I don't know if that was my apologies. I thought I was still muted. Oh, that's okay. So I love the fact that you just said, Daniel, you just said this chart, this tree of life chart is wildly inaccurate because this came directly from the whole biology textbook. So why don't you and me coordinate together to get this chart out of the whole biology textbook? So what I said is that it doesn't represent everything, right? So that's now that's a very simplistic way. Okay, that's a very simplistic way of seeing the tree of life. If you want to see the actual tree of life, there's a lot of things online where you can go and can see the actual tree of life as far as we know it, right? From the taxonomic classifications that we give species that we find, right? And you can see it's a lot bigger, right? There's a lot of species that we discovered through the fossil record, and I know you don't believe in the fossil record. But we know and we have the tree of life as far as we know with the species that we know. And those are not the whole species, right? Because 99% of them just went extinct. Just take that off one second. Okay. Okay, so I feel like once we start getting into this like circles, you saying the same thing, I'm saying the same thing. That's when we should probably switch over to the next topic because we're not getting anywhere.  But I'll go ahead and reiterate this one more time. The whole biology chart for the tree of life shows that the turtle over millions of years became a duck. Yeah, maybe it came from a turtle to a land amphibian that had no shell. And then that land amphibian turned into something else and so on and so forth until it got to a duck. But the point is, according to evolution, the genetic pool has the variety wide enough to do this. So therefore, we should be able to go in and reverse engineer that to prove that we can take a duck and reverse it back into a turtle over millions of alterations, okay? But you will never be able to do that because it's not possible because you know for a fact that there are limitations to the gene pool. There are limitations going forward and there are limitations going backwards. It doesn't change, okay? There are limitations to the gene pool and that's why a great dame and a chihuahua have excruciating health problems as opposed to the mutt that is directly in the middle of the genetic pool. Well, even according to your graph there, you could literally see that the turtle was at the end of a branch and the duck was at the end of another branch, right? They literally cannot come one from the other, okay? What it says there and if you're looking, you're going to see that, right? If they have a common ancestor, right? All of them from that branch you see, they have a common ancestor and that's what it shows. That tree of life you have there, that's what it shows, right? A common ancestry for those species of animals that we observe in the world today, okay? That's all it shows, nothing else. Right, but the whole point is that it... The fact that we cannot... The genetic variations exist, so reverse engineering... I'm talking now, can I get some adoration, please? Yeah, no, no. I was kind of catching my thoughts, right? Because I forgot what he was... He said something else after that, too. That's all right, another 50 seconds. Yeah, we are not magicians. We are not magicians to be able to do anything we want, okay? We do not do magic. The only people that do magic and believe in magic are you and your religious type, right? We do not believe in magic. We cannot get the duck and then turn it into the ancestor, you know, the common ancestor of ducks and dinosaurs. One minute for you there, Jamie. Right, so I mean, ultimately all you're saying is it happened in the past, but it'll never happen in the future and that's not science. So let's go ahead and move on. I did not say that. Well, that's basically what you're saying, to sum it up. Okay, so next we have radiometric dating, genetic similarities, and ERBs. Which one of those do you want to talk about now? Up to you. I mean, you're the one that has to provide evidence against them, right? You're the one that has the prosecution and needs to be sprued. Evolution is on trial. Evolution is on trial. You're calling the evolution false, right? You need to provide the burden of proof is on you. So far you have provided zero evidence for your side. Or you said, I don't believe it. Therefore, it's not true. So please provide whatever you want from those topics. It might be a good idea just to maybe pick your favorite example. I paused the clock here. So if you want to jump down like what your favorite one would be there to talk about, Jamie, and I'll just put it back to a minute here and you can give your thoughts. When we say evolution on trial, that means that you need to prove evolution. I don't need to debunk evolution. You need to prove it. Evolution's on trial here. You need to prove that it does in fact exist. And the way that you're proving it is by saying that I'm not disproving it, which I've given plenty of problems that you have not been able to answer. Okay, but regardless of radiometric dating, go ahead and give me your evidence for radiometric dating. One minute there. I mean, again, I'm going to go again to the beginning of my presentation. And when you're going to trial, you have a defendant. The defendant in this case is evolution. Every defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution provides evidence against them. In this case, you are the prosecution. It's not me that's the prosecution. What I have with me is the entirety field of the biology science, the science of biology, the science of physics. You name it. They all agree with me. Almost all the scientists, except those that are working for the Discovery Institute and whatnot, and they have to give statements of faith, they all agree with me. That's what I'm saying. They all agree with me. They do not agree with you. If you say that evolution is false, I'm not appealing to any authority. I'm not appealing to any authority. What I'm seeing is that you need to provide the evidence that evolution is false, and you have not provided one single bit of evidence that evolution is false. All you say is, I don't believe it. Therefore, it didn't happen. Okay. So the thing is you're trying to pretend that this is a criminal court case. This is not a criminal court case. This is a scientific court case, hypothetically. Okay? So therefore, I'm saying evolution doesn't have evidence. Your job is to now provide evidence for evolution. But what you're saying is, no, no, no. I don't have to provide evidence for evolution. You have to provide evidence that it doesn't exist. Okay? That's not how this works. You need to prove evolution. I've given you questions, and I'm asking you to prove it with facts, and you're not doing that. Instead, you're trying to shift the burden to me. But regardless, let's go ahead and move on to radiometric dating, because we're running in circles again, and I'm sure it gets pretty boring for people watching to hear us going in circles. So radiometric dating, explain to me how they can test a specimen at one facility, get, let's say, five million years, take that exact same specimen to another facility with no knowledge of the previous facilities testing, and they get 500 million years. That's a very large difference, and you're saying that this is an accurate method of dating. Okay, so since you said, you know, I'm going to remind everybody what I said in the beginning. We are, neither of us is a scientist, neither of us is an evolutionary biologist, right? But I am going to cite one, I'm going to cite one in a very famous case. It was called Kitzmiller versus Dover, okay, where they debated this exact topic in the court of law. And guess what? In the court of law, the creationists could not lie, right? So Michael Bihie, by his words, he said, there are no peer review articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations, which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, okay? So that's what happens when creationists are put under oath, and they cannot lie, right?  We're kind of just lying. As for the radiometry, do you think you're citing? I don't know, I don't know the case, but I know a lot of people try to do experiments, you know, they put samples. Yeah, we're going to talk about it later. I didn't have the time to answer. Okay. So there are, there are hundreds of examples of animals that they observed dying in the wild, they go and test it, and it comes out to millions of years difference, okay? It says, oh, this raccoon lived 5.2 million years ago, but it literally died a week ago. So yes, there are errors in radiometric dating. I asked you to explain how that is possible if this is an accurate dating method, and all you did was divert to a different point. I told you I didn't have the time. I told you I didn't have the time. For how this is accurate when this has been happening, this has been observed dozens of times. I will answer. I will answer. Do you want me to answer? Well, if you need a little bit more time to expound, if it's already by you, Jamie, we'll put two minutes on the clock there for Daniel to go through his thoughts. I didn't have the time because I was talking about Michael Behe, because he also made a point before asking me about the radiometric, you know, the question about, about that. I hear no ejection. So two minutes. Where is yours, Daniel? I don't think I'm going to need that. But the thing is, it's like radiometric dating is not just one thing, right? You have carbon dating, you have potassium-potassium argon, you have uranium lead, right? Also, when you're getting a sample, you need to make sure the sample is not contaminated, right, from like various stuff, right? And we know that. We know that and we can account for the contamination that can happen, right? So the thing with creationists, what they do, you know, they're trying to lie, they're trying to obfuscate, they're trying to, you know, to play these weird games where they can see, oh, the science is wrong. And what they're doing, they're getting these samples, which they know they're contaminated, they send them to multiple laboratories, they lie about what the sample is, where it comes from. And obviously, they're going to get different numbers, right, when that happens. And we know that, right? We know because it's been proven, right? And we know creationists, for example, that they go ahead and they write articles in, you know, in creationist journals, and they lie about radiometric dating.  When they go there, they use the science, right? But then they turn around, they say, oh, actually, the science is bad. But no, here I'm going to do the science, right? And I'm not going to say God did it. I'm going to use the science. I'm going to do the science. But then when I go to the creationist journal, where I get my money from like the Discovery Institute or whatnot, then I just lie about it, okay? So that's what's happening with radiometric dating, right? Yeah, it's just they're lying. 15 seconds there as it doesn't agree with my theory. That's not a valid answer. Okay, I mean, people are going to come to conclusions. So you're just basically saying, oh, it doesn't match my theory. So it's a lie. No, there are dozens of scenarios where they have tested something that recently died millions of years ago is what it came out to be. And again, you're completely dodging around how this is possible. You said contamination. Okay, well, if contamination is the case, everything is contaminated because everything we find is in the ground, okay? That's contaminated by the earth. It was exposed to the earth for millions of years, according to your theory. So that's contaminated. Okay, I'm actually getting better answers from people in the chat. So I feel like I should be debating the chat instead of you, because they're actually giving me answers while you're just dodging around the points. There's one example of I'll try and pull it up while you're talking in a minute here. But there's an example of a frozen elephant from quote unquote, the ice age millions of years ago, they dated the trunk and they got something like 50 million years ago. And then they dated the leg and got like 500 million years. I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head. So I'll try and pull it up while you're talking. But how do you explain the same animal having millions of years of difference in dating? I already did. I already did because we don't know where the sample comes. We don't know what happened to the sample, okay? But if you're saying that radiometric dating is not working, and if you can prove it, Jamie, congratulations, you can win yourself a Nobel Prize. You can literally just go now, write a paper. If you're right, you can write a paper and you can win yourself a Nobel Prize. How come you don't have a Nobel Prize? If all you're saying is true, how come neither you nor any other creationist scientist is having that Nobel Prize? Because they could literally go into the scientific papers like nature and whatnot, and they can write papers disproving radiometric dating and they would get a Nobel Prize for that. And not one of them is doing that.  But then they turn around and they do the real science in the normal papers. Okay. So you said how come creationist articles aren't getting published in peer reviewed and so on and so forth? And you know the exact answer to that, but I'll go ahead and give you the answer anyway. The entire board of these peer reviewed overseers are all evolutionary thinkers. So therefore, when you try to present something that is not evolution approved, they reject it. This is essentially scientific communism. They are suppressing any data that goes against their theory because it's an agenda, it's propaganda, it's not science. So I'm tired of hearing that excuse because you know exactly what it is. If I were to write a paper, in fact, Donny and the laboratory that he's working with right now, they've written dozens of papers on how ERVs don't prove evolution and in fact they prove creation. But they're not getting published because the people that are overseeing the peer reviewed process or what you would consider approved, they reject it because it doesn't agree with evolution. So this is a major problem in the scientific community. It was time, it was time, it was time. The reason they reject it is not because there's like some grand conspiracy, it's because everything this creationist scientists are doing when they're doing creationism is bonkers. Creationism was proven in a court of law that it's not a science, it was proven. And it was like the best advocates, the best scientists, they literally said to themselves and I read it to you that there's no proof for any such thing as creationism. There's no proof, zero evidence, okay? But you still say that, you keep saying that because it brings you whatever money, I don't know what it brings creationists doing that, right? But you're just ignoring reality, you're not looking at anything that's real and you're not getting to any conclusion that's real. You're just looking at those things through like religion glasses and you think that's reality. It's not. Unfortunately for you it's not and you're living in a dream world. I will just take a moment here just to let you fellas know, just hold your thought there Jamie, that we will be jumping into the Q&A in about five minutes so we're going to do a couple more back and forths for minutes back and forths here. So get your super chats in now and we'll keep the conversation rolling. And it's my understanding that we're having an after show over at Oseans. I'm not sure if these fellas will be there but that will be, I think that link will be available here shortly. So if you want to join us for more discussion, we'll be hanging out over there. But get your super chats in now so that you can ask your questions to these speakers. Let's see here, yeah five minutes on the clock and one minute back to you, Jamie. I hope you held your thought. All right so for the past hour plus now, all he has presented for evidence is creation is bonkers, you're lying, contamination, I don't have any real evidence okay because I've asked you questions you can't give me direct answers. You either just deviate from the topic completely or you attack creation and say it's bonkers but the thing is there are plenty of peer reviewed papers in creationist circles because we had to make our own circles because you suppress everything that we try to publish. Yes there is a grand conspiracy whether or not you want to agree with it and that's why a lot of us are actually calling for a restructure of the way that this whole peer review process is done. But it's probably not going to ever happen, sorry 10 seconds go ahead. Nobody has observed this conspiracy that you're talking about, there's no observation of this conspiracy and I'm going to repeat the words of Michael Bihie, creationist and scientist okay, biologist. There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred. Okay so when I'm seeing that creationism is bonkers it is and it's not my words saying that is the worst words of a creationist but the only difference is that the creationist in that way that I'm talking about was in a court of law and he swore to say only the truth okay so he was under oath he couldn't lie so he had to say the truth. That's the only place where creationists can tell them, otherwise you're just going to lie and you're just going to say it's conspiracy and whatnot. Again you're saying there's no peer reviewed papers and I explained why there's no peer reviewed papers because the people that peer review them will not approve them without it approving evolution. If it doesn't adhere to the evolution theory it will not get published because they are, it's a religious idea that has hijacked the scientific process and in fact is hindering the entire process. For the past 100 and whatever years since evolution took the main stage science has not been able to just freely do what it does it's been under the grip of evolution. If it doesn't adhere to evolution it doesn't get published and therefore we're never going to progress scientifically as far as these fields are concerned because evolution will stop it in its tracks anytime we try and make progress. Okay so again it's not me saying it it's Michael Bihie saying it there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design and what is not saying in that what is not saying in that in that statement is not saying anything about any conspiracy right and if we want to go even further about what he said right we can go even even further right and we can talk about his his stimulation right for evolution right and he said this under wall under oath he accepted that it showed like his simulation it showed that the biochemical system he described could evolve within 20 000 years even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible right so they tried to do experiments so to speak where they literally rigged the system and even under the rigged system that could still be evolution doing it. Okay last one minute on the clock for you Jamie. Okay I mean I'm guessing I'm just going to use this for a closing statement because he's never he's not going to provide any evidence he's just going to shift burden so essentially this whole debate I've asked for evidence I've asked questions valid questions that should be easily answered if evolution is true and all he says is evolution is bonkers there's no peer reviewed so therefore appeal to authority bandwagon all these different fallacies just loaded in but yet we have yet to see any real evidence of a fish turning into a bird so on and so forth. I guess you might have missed when I actually gave reasons for your questions but it's fine again we need to understand that you were the prosecution tonight as the as a prosecutor you failed your basic job which is to prove that evolution is false so sorry for you but if you were like in a real court of law like Michael B. He was you would have lost the trial just as Michael B. He did. That's time there so big round of virtual applause to our speakers who you kept me busy with those timers by but we got through it we got through it oh no my Canadian came through again big reminder to everybody once again we have our live in person event coming up so before we go into our super chats here and get those super chats in now so that we can ask them nice and early because I'm sure there'll be lots more as discussion gets unfolding just want to remind everybody that yeah we are doing our live in person event it's debate con four we have our tickets in the link in the description box below it's going to be in Dallas Texas Saturday November 4th and November 5th so yeah if you enjoyed these epic debates and you can be in the area we'd love to see you if you can't make it there's a crowdfund in the description as well and you can check out the perks there where you can get a signed picture from one of your speakers or a one-on-one with the almighty James himself so without further ado let's hit those super chats everybody and keep them pouring in we had a few from lj from the top and I also see pro debates has asked a few questions in the the live chat if you want to turn those into a super chat then we'll ask those questions if we have time lj $1.99 Tarzan would never think the earth is a spinning ball now lj is usually hanging out when we're doing the flatter debates any thoughts on the flat earth globe debates gents any thoughts i'll i'll go ahead and just say something um when they show the diagram for the flatter right it's a circle okay expose that into a 3d model and you have a globe whether the globe is the way that you know we represent it in science or whether the globe is the way they represent it in flat earth it's still a globe so there's no such thing as a flatter in the story all right uh yeah did you have 30 seconds on that just uh because lj asked two questions for flatter at the other one was spinning a space ball with curved sea water so sad i mean i don't know flatter is a bit uh it's just as bonkers as creationism uh in in my book there there's just as uh there's just as much a lack of lack of evidence for for it as there is for creationism so now we need to relieve in reality that's that would be the best for everybody well those next ones for you daniel so any thoughts there jamie before we move to the next one no no that's it all right next question from lj thanks for the superchats lj daniel how do you know asteroids hit dinosaurs well we they didn't hit dinosaurs they hit the earth and uh we we have uh the remnants right of those asteroids we we have uh impact creators and we see them we can study them it's well known we can see it on see them on other planets we can see them on our moon right it's like we see them everywhere right and we literally saw them with our own eyes when they hit like what jupiter like just a while back right we can literally see them and you know if it happens and everybody happens here we see the craters everything i don't know i think it's a very simple question to answer all right uh let's move on to the next question there uh bite me xd would you guys say we're basically parasites to our planet from a galactic standpoint someone's been watching too many movies i think that's from uh gray matter is that the name of that movie yeah um no that's that's completely very tell the whole idea that like that anything came to earth from outside of earth it only makes the problem even bigger for evolution okay they tried to do that with the octopus and the squid they said oh they hitched a ride on a comet all the way to earth okay well now you have to prove aliens in order to prove that theory so it just makes the problem bigger so i would say no that's just that's just fantasy at this point thoughts over there daniel i mean i think he was asking more like in a metaphorical way rather than like a literal one so yeah i mean at the rate we are kind of destroying the planet for us because we're not really destroying the planet we're just like making it an inhabitable for uninhabitable for human beings in that sense maybe we are a bit like parasites but otherwise no no because parasites involve other living beings right and here the planet itself is not living being all right well they went on to clarify and said aren't we just functionally complex that uses its resources for maximum self-sufficiency and personal gain i would say there's definitely a group of people that do that but as the majority of humanity that's not the case this kind of goes into the whole like climate change and you know that whole thing which i would also be willing to do a debate and you know on that because i don't believe that's true i believe that that's of course the elites using science as a way to imprison everyone in their homes so yeah climate change that's not true you don't have evidence of that so yeah all right well i guess we don't have evidence for reality yes we don't have evidence for reality guys i'm sorry nothing is true anymore right evolution is not true climate change is not true you know if you're dying from climate change if you're losing your home from climate change it's not climate change it's just elites doing something i guess it's all a conspiracy actually everything is a conspiracy the funny thing is conspiracy doesn't mean fantasy conspiracy means when one more two or more people group i know the definition yeah okay well let me go ahead and give it to you again so you can stop misusing it then how about that okay conspiracy means when two or more people join together to do harm against someone else in that sense hitler was a conspiracy the whole nazi holocaust was a conspiracy does that mean it didn't exist no it did exist okay it absolutely it is the internet right we need to we need to go down to hitler eventually well let's be careful with some of the things that we say just so we don't get ourselves uh yeah we won't draw any attention to it not us not us don't look at us all right so cool biko five dollars um it is a fact that humans are evolving to be taller than they were in the past and girls are entering puberty earlier in life thoughts on the statement there i think it's for jamie what was that when you repeat that one more time yeah it's it's more of a statement than a question but i mean you can respond to it how you'd like it is a fact that humans are evolving to be taller and they then they were in the past and girls are entering puberty earlier in life uh well it's actually not a fact that they're getting taller they're actually getting smarter they're actually getting shorter they're getting sicker they're getting weaker uh there is plenty of evidence out there of you know giant skeletons of course they end up going to the spesonian and never being seen again because it goes against evolution but there's hundreds of art newspaper articles that i can pull up from new york times and all of your liberal sources that you would approve that did in fact say that yes they found these nine foot tall skeletons eight foot tall skeletons 12 foot tall skeletons so no we're not getting bigger okay we're actually getting smaller weaker and sicker i guess we we're getting getting from like conspiracy theories to like nephilim and the 12 foot humans living in the past which didn't happen and we know there are a lot of like all of them are hoaxes right uh but yeah we're just gonna believe them anyway because you know it just fits our narrative you know we're just going to ignore reality we're not gonna we're just gonna put our fingers in the years and just the sing la la la la reality doesn't exist you know okay let me go back to that one one more time okay let me just do this right quick okay um here's a historical record of giants y'all can go back and uh pause and read all that for yourself oh we can't see anything i don't think right now oops sorry i forgot to swap over here we go all right so here's plenty of historical documents what i'll do is i'll pause for like two seconds so that that way when people go back to rewatch this they can look all this up themselves plenty of evidence of giants these are these books right here that i'm showing those were topographical um oh look here's the raft raft drum tribune 10 foot long skeleton and the Smithsonian took it away uh New York Times Missouri's buried city 10 to 15 feet tall skeletons giant skeletons found New York Times giant human skeleton 10 to 12 feet tall New York Times oh look here's another article uh this one was from the world um oh look the world journal again giant Indian skeletons giant race in Greenland New York Times hundreds of articles from American uh American discoveries of giants these are the locations that have been marked from uh giant sites of giants so yes there is plenty of evidence on giants oh wait here's some more the Washington Post that's a liberal uh post newspaper so if you're a liberal you should accept that one right here's another one from New York Times monster skull and bones 14 feet high uh yes there is plenty of evidence of giants it has been suppressed just like a lot of there's plenty there's plenty of articles articles are not evidence though you know it's like in order to have evidence you need to prove that's actually true just people seeing it that doesn't make it true okay so i'm glad you you just put me big on the screen for everybody just saw that right now i'm seeing double so you said just because it doesn't prove it no that's not evidence like an article from 1895 and and funny enough it's all like in in the united states somehow it's like apparently those giants only lived in no there was greenland there was there was plenty outside of the country that all those sources were just like uh yeah yeah but you could you could have expected you know like everybody on the earth is just in a big huge conspiracy to just keep the rest of giants like 12 feet tall giants from us right like everything exterminated them we exterminated them no but it's a conspiracy because we would still see the bones right we will still see the skeletons right and let's see even if it's sonion all of these no no you just showed me an article saying that you didn't show me that that's actually same thing with evolution even if sonion even if the sonion right you say this missonian did that also every other museum in the world should have done the same thing right because they would have gotten bones right to them right with huge humans right and what's the reason for us to suppress that there were huge humans in the past I don't know there is some it goes against evolution evolution one makes it doesn't it actually doesn't yeah because we have dinosaurs we had what was the question just now the question that open this conversation so the entire question that opened this conversation was yes we humans are getting bigger that proves evolution and I just showed you no it doesn't because humans were bigger in the past and you said oh it has nothing to do with evolution it doesn't prove anything so yeah okay that's fake I mean it's not that it doesn't have anything to do with evolution it's just fake what she was talking about in the in the question is the fact that we can see that we can measure in the modern era we can measure ourselves and we can we can keep track of how tall we are and you're saying we're getting seeker no we're not getting seeker we're living longer and longer and longer right because we have good medicine which by the way a lot of it derives from the evolutionary theory right that's how we can make it and we are we are we keep living longer and we're getting taller right and we're getting smarter too right because you said that we're getting smarter which is also true oh boy if you think we are getting smarter you have absolutely lost your mind um there was a lot of assumptions in there um we're getting smarter we're absolutely not getting smarter technology is getting smarter that doesn't mean religion is smaller we'll let them respond a little bit you know that uh a hundred years ago people could memorize and recite books in full today not a single person could do that a person can't even memorize one peer reviewed article and recite it from beginning to end but a hundred years ago they could have that's because they were smarter if you look at the king james translators which we're not talking theology but just to talk about intelligence all 52 of the king james translators spoke more than five languages each some of them spoke up to 16 languages there is not there's maybe 52 people in the entire world today that can speak that many languages alone by themselves okay we're not getting smarter we're getting a lot dumber just because technology and ai is getting smarter doesn't mean the humans are getting smarter in fact elon musk even admitted this and said that ai has surpassed our intelligence and it's only making us dumber well coming from elon musk that's not a relevant statement but regardless you yourself said we are getting smarter and then you just backtrack because you realized oh man he doesn't fit with my with my theory my agenda my whatever so you said it no you literally said it right you literally said it we're getting smarter and then it's like you just backtracked because you said it doesn't really fit with what i'm saying but you're wrong right because we can literally we can literally have the iq tests right of people from the 1900s and we can see how the iq tests overall they're just getting better and better and better and better and you're saying people cannot memorize oh people can people don't have to the problem is like in the 1900s we didn't have to memorize a lot of we didn't we had to memorize because we didn't have mediums like today right today you can have everything on your phone right what's the point of memorizing like a lot of shit if i have it on my phone i don't have to memorize it i can use my phone goes down now i'm talking i i let you answer your fingers let me answer please okay so now we don't have to do that but still there are people and you're obviously you're a christian you don't know about the muslims in the muslim world there's people memorizing the quran even to this day right they're just memorizing the entire quran word by word okay so when you're saying people don't do that you're wrong you're saying people don't speak a lot of languages maybe in the united states everywhere else people do speak other languages too i speak three languages ah maybe i could try for four right if i really if i really want it right and there's people in in in my country that speak a lot of languages okay there are people speaking speaking like 15 16 20 languages okay okay there's not that many of them there's not that many of them because again there's no need for us to do that anymore right because we have developed tools to make up for the fact that we we don't know other languages and i think it's fine we don't have to do that so what you're saying is we have phones so we don't need to be smart that doesn't that's not what i said that's exactly what you said okay no thing is i say we do not have to memo just one second no but you're lying about me now it's my this represents what i said i did not say that LA technology as far as phones computers all of that that is a crutch because if you ever lose your phone you now don't have the knowledge that you stored on your phone that knowledge is not stored in your brain anymore okay that's why IQ levels are dropping okay they're not going up they're getting lower okay we used to have geniuses 100 years ago those people were way smarter than we are today and yet because we have a phone that can recite what the smart people 100 years ago said that makes us smarter absolutely not electronics is a crutch it's not making us smarter we are devolving and getting dumber we are not getting healthier and stronger we're getting sicker and fatter okay that's because we have crutches that means we don't need to do that anymore we don't need to be strong okay that's correct we don't need to be strong and we're not becoming strong we're becoming weak and that's that's the whole point i'm saying we're not getting smarter we're not getting stronger we're not getting healthier into the story what do you mean what do you mean we're getting weak we're devolving as a human species how okay you know just seeing you're just seeing stuff but you're not you're not giving any any reason or any evidence towards what you're saying you're saying we're getting dumber no we're not we're literally seeing the IQ go up right every generation IQs go up we see that but then you go ahead and you're okay give me a clue that that's not happening okay uh so the the thing is that's you know you're just ignoring reality and you're saying we're getting we're getting dumber because we uh we we have phones where we can have the information no that's not what i said what i said is we have the we have the phones and other mediums right where we can store that information so we don't have to store it in our heads so we can we can let our heads do other things right we can reason more right maybe not you and creationists but no regular people and how many more yeah it is sort of yeah just keep us just just don't give any answers don't give any evidence or science i mean i did i mean if you just it's just an attack and you need that's not my problem you know dodge duck dip dive and dodge that's all you've been doing this whole time all right well what we'll do uh what we'll do is we will move on to the next uh super chat but that's certainly stirred the pot uh on the conversation there so thank thank you so much for your super chat there cool bico and hey everybody just want to remind you as well there's 240 odd people hanging out right now in the old live chat uh you know if you have a moment smash the like button we super appreciate that we're gonna keep the uh the questions going but as a side note as well if you like what you hear both of our speakers will be linked in the description if they're not linked now they will be and for sure on our podcasts when you check out our podcast forum for this debate and they will be linked there for sure so keep those super chats coming in and thanks again uh cool bico manga fan dan for five dollars says chimpanzees and us come from a common ancestor my brother and i come from a common ancestor too does that mean he is a chimpanzee i guess that's for me no he's a homo sapiens just like you are what it means it means that if you go uh back in time enough you're gonna see that you have a common ancestor that's it it's not really that hard to to understand it doesn't mean you're a chimpanzee or an ape you're a homo sapiens sapiens i hope right chimpanzees are different species right now but we do have a common ancestor in the past and we know that we have discovered a lot of fossils to make that link we have the dna evidence to make that link we have a lot a lot of evidence linking uh chimpanzees and humans any thoughts i'll just say there is no evidence he's assuming and then saying that those assumptions are evidence and facts when they're not um that's all i'll go into for that because that could be a whole debate of its own all right well if you're sure we uh we could probably take about two minutes if you wanted to kind of expound on it but if you want we can move on it's all right jimmy if you're uh kind of thinking that's a bit of a rabbit hole well it is a rabbit hole but okay i'll just kind of uh go over it quickly if apes evolved into humans why do we still have apes right these genetic pressures would have pushed all the apes into human hood okay um on top of that there's things inside of apes like dna similarities that doesn't mean that we became from them because we have dna similarities it could also mean just like you have your assumption i have my assumption it could also mean that it is the same designer using a similar code because my computer has ones and zeros and your phone has ones and zeros binary right that doesn't mean that the phone physically evolved from the computer okay like it's just it's just ridiculous that you believe this well as long as we as long as we know right studying the the dna of humans and chimps we know there are 205 common ervs between humans and chimps the chances of that happening like i don't know randomly or like them being two different species with no common ancestry and having those 205 uh common ervs in the genome is like an absurdly like one to an absurdly high number like 5.88 times 10 to the power of 12 64 or something like that which is a humongous number it's like it's not even you can't even understand how big that number is okay okay so that's how unlikely it is that humans in chimpanzees do not share a common ancestor and ervs prove that right and if you want to go to like even even uh you know religious people like yourself right you can go to dr francis collins which was the director of the human genome project and heritage the same thing okay it's not obviously he's a conspiracy right he's part of the conspiracy as a as a question right just like you he's just like you he believes in the same book right as you do but he doesn't believe in the same book i do he's part of the conspiracy and he's not actually doing science he's a herit right just like all the other scientists that are Christians and are doing science and coming to the same conclusion as every other scientist in this world right when they're doing actual science you really love appealing to all of these fallacies okay bandwagon doesn't it's not a fallacy just because everyone agrees on this fantasy doesn't mean it's a fact okay for the first hundred years of the united states country's existence they believe that if you blood leaded it would heal your disease and that's exactly how george washington died that was wrong but yet everyone believed it does that mean it's true if i go to if i go to uh north korea right you're not going to find any peer reviewed articles that say democracy is is awesome right does that mean that democracy is bad no it just means that that's the consensus because it's forced upon them just like evolution is forced upon us if you try and go against it you're rejected a perfect example of that is walt brown he had dozens of accolades in the world of physics and as soon as he proved as soon as he brought forth a valid a valid model for the global flood and all that they immediately excommunicated him from the scientific circles prior to that he was a highly acclaimed prephysicist as soon as he said something they didn't agree with they excommunicated him this is the peer review process and that's why i don't trust it yeah it's amazing how people can be scientists and do science and everybody says okay you're fine you're doing science we're trying to disprove your findings if we can because that's what science does right and it's funny how as soon as they turn to pseudoscience or as soon as they turn to lying right they get excommunicated it's funny how this happens it's unbelievable and as for the bloodletting i'm sorry like you know proved that blood bloodletting is not good science biology right the same and medicine right the same science sciences that you are trying to discredit that you are saying no no no they're wrong they're wrong because they don't let me believe my fairy tale right but the same sciences sciences proved it because they are doing bloodletting because it says that in your book not somewhere else right that's why they were doing that because they were not doing science and for thousands of years we did not we did not do science for thousands of years right and when we started doing it we started to see exactly how many things we got wrong from reading all the religious texts that we read in the past but you can you can you can just brush away the ervs and how many we have in common with chimpanzees you don't care about that and then you're gonna say oh Daniel didn't provide any any evidence for that well i did but you don't care about it right all you care is for your feelings to be preserved and for your whatever right for you to be right basically right you just want to be right because you want to be right and that's what damn be the evidence right against your beliefs as far as ervs okay ervs do not prove evolution they are jumping genes that existed in the dna and are activated for whatever reason per gene some of these some of these ervs are activated during the birthing process and it if these ervs are not activated during the birthing process the baby will not be born so therefore that shows that it's a part of the dna okay it's a part of the genes and the design it's not just some imagine imagine magic virus that happened to infect us and then we found this insertion no it has a function in most cases that we have found okay so no that does not prove evolution can you explain to everybody in in this chat exactly what an erv is and how they how they function how they how they come to be if you want to take a moment to go down that path it is fine by me yeah i can no i asked i asked him if he can oh i can do it no let me because let me hear what you have to say go ahead no no no you're saying that you're saying a lot of a lot of dumb things about ervs and you don't understand what ervs are because i heard you like six months ago when we had that that debate where you said you studied ervs for like four days and you're an expert right you could literally just get an open prize i did not say i was an expert you said they're wrong for four days of studying you said oh ervs oh that's bullshit that's not that's not science right four days of studying right and you just brush away all the work that the thousands of hours of people and you didn't even understand how ervs work right and that's why i'm asking you just like you brush away hundreds of just like you brushed away hundreds of hours of donnie's research and his entire book that he published you'll brush away because it's a creation i didn't i didn't because i i don't know what what he's writing in that book exactly he has a whole book explaining ervs it's literally conscious ervs and their lies i can look at other creationists and their lies and i can see it's a lie because it's a creation and that's your answer to everything we'll give him 15 seconds is what he's saying in that book wrong i don't know right if i read this book and i can assess the the arguments he's making i can sense the evidence he's presenting then yes i will be able to say that what he's saying is bullshit or not right i'm not making a statement that what he's doing is bad and i never did throughout this this meeting okay this debate so can you can you explain how ervs work you had six months to learn about ervs so there's there's two views of ervs there's the creation view and the evolution view again this is both of our assumptions we both have an assumption you have the assumption that oh it looks like it cut into the dna so therefore it was not there and it's not designed to be a part of it but if you actually research viruses you'll find out that you cannot live without viruses viruses are a fundamental part of a human or any other organism without them you have no immune system okay so therefore we need viruses in our body there are good viruses and bad viruses okay the fact that these ervs are dormant or they have lost function does not prove evolution because it's a loss of function not a gain of function and in fact we can actually reverse uh engineer or whatever the proper word is and find out that they do in fact have functions or had functions in the past so again the ervs do not prove evolution but i'm sorry jamie because maybe you did not understand my question i asked you to tell me how ervs work or what you did or just say a bunch of words that had nothing to do with my question right in order to answer my question you first need to say what an erv is and how they get formed right you did not say any of this you just said oh there's my side and your side you didn't say any of the sides and how it works right how how the virus becomes an erv right you didn't say that for one second so can you answer it or not um from what i understand the erv turns from a virus into an erv as soon as it loses function because that's when you call it an erv is oh it no longer does anything so therefore it wasn't designed to be inside of our body so therefore it's it's an endogenous retro virus okay so what i would like for you to do since you know you think you know absolutely everything about ervs explain to me what you would call what you say and i explain to me your position on erv and how it proves evolution again you did not answer my question you did not answer my question you understand that i did i gave you an answer you just you gave an answer you gave an answer that was an answer to some other question i did not ask but if you want to be educated i'm going to educate you about what ervs are ervs are some viruses that can attach to human dna right like for example the the AIDS virus is is a is that kind of retro virus okay that can attach to human dna right and sometimes they attach to human dna right most of the times it's going to be not beneficial right it's going to be bad right the the organism is going to die and sometimes it's going to be neutral right they're just going to insert themselves inside the human dna and they're just gonna sit there doing nothing okay and sometimes they will even be like beneficial right they will be inserting themselves in the human dna and it's like a huge mutation that's happening when that that retro virus is attaching itself to the human dna what and this is happening all the time right we we always get retro viruses that attach to ourselves what's happening when one of those retro viruses attaches to a to an ova or sperm cell right they and they don't have like negative effects they will pass themselves on to future offspring okay they will pass the so that's like a scar right that's like a scar that's being passed on through generations okay and the place the place in the genome where they insert themselves that place we can we can see exactly what it is okay we can see the genome is pretty pretty big okay for us in chimpanzees to have one retro virus in the same place in the genome the chances are like one in 10 million for one retro virus 15 seconds okay and as I said you as I told you for 205 how we have the the number is human so that's what retro viruses mean I guess six months and four days did not do the job for you to learn what retro virus okay so let me go ahead and let me go ahead and break this down for you okay the only difference between a virus and an endogenous retro virus is whether or not it inserts itself into the germline cells okay if a virus inserts itself into the somatic cells it does not go on to the next generation if the virus itself into a germline then it is an endogenous retro virus that does not mean that does not mean that the endogenous retro virus that's inserted in our germline came from the chimpanzee when we were at chimpanzee again I told you every animal in the in the every creature alive on the planet has viruses inside of them and they do think some of them activate birthing processes some of them may I haven't looked into too many of them that's the only really example I know off the top of my head is the ones that activated six months not enough yes I know I haven't spent six months studying it I have other things to do as well so and for these yes yeah I haven't spent six months studying ERVs okay I read I read I read the book and I wrote down some footnotes and that's really all I care about it because at the end of the day the only difference between a virus and an ERV is whether or not it inserts itself into the germline now the fact that the the the the um the fact that the ERV is inserting itself into a specific spot of the germline could be because of a function it is designed to do and the fact that our body is designed similar to monkeys and apes we should expect to see them in the same spot from a creationist view because we have similar functions both of us you know we have arms and legs and lungs and eyes and ears so we should also expect to see genetic similarities because we are similar in our design that doesn't mean that we evolve from each other just because we're similar in design no but yeah these are not that I mean sorry that you keep saying magic but it's not magic I'm sorry to tell you that the charities of a retro virus to be in the same position I let you talk please let me talk like dude you're just missing everything sorry Amy or a mute you keep you keep saying that they're doing that but you're not listening to what I'm saying you're not listening to what I'm saying we know that those are retro viruses and we know that you know why because we can literally resurrect them right we can make experiments in the lab where we can get those pieces of DNA we can alter the retro virus and we can make it active again we can literally resurrect ancient viruses okay and yes some of them some of them as I've told you before right sometimes they have a huge beneficial a huge beneficial to the organism right like the reproduction retro virus which is in all mammals all right close us out on that one for 30 seconds there Jamie you need to come off the mute there buddy sorry about that yeah so again viruses have a purpose viruses don't exist without a host to exist within so the fact that the virus inserted into the germ line does not mean that it changes from a virus to an endogenous retro virus that's just the way you classify it okay again these have purposes these viruses when reactivated the ervs that you're talking about when they're reactivated we find out that they have a purpose if they just inserted themselves for no reason at all they would not have a purpose that is almost essential to the human or the bat or the monkey's existence so you can put your assumptions on the ervs but at the end of the day it's still just a virus that happened to insert itself in the germ line and when resurrected it has a purpose as designed yeah when resurrected it has the purpose to replicate itself like every other virus does okay all right well let's move on that's the purpose of a virus let's try to move on to our next question there fellas I think we got a lot out of that one as well which is great we're having a lot of fun here and if you're having fun watching right now hit the like button why won't you uh it won't hurt you mark read good old mark read is here thanks for hanging out mark I see embers hanging out in the chat uh osian uh hannah if I missed anybody well uh i'm the worst I know and sufferable ryan forgetting you well mark read asks for five dollars why don't you cite any studies of these errors jamie you seem to be claiming a lot but have no evidence I challenge you to a debate on evolution well hold on what errors is he talking about we've talked about a lot of things here so mark I'm reading the chat so just tell me what errors are you referring to well uh he did have another question after that saying if there's a conspiracy then how did mary switzer overthrow our understanding of how fossil preservation by finding incredibly degraded collagen okay so you want to do the whole mary switzer thing when she first came up with when she first came out with this study she said in the interview on cnn this seems to suggest that they're not millions of years old and then with after much scrutiny and probably threats from her own departments she backtracked and said oh wait this could happen over millions of years if it was encased in iron even though these fossils were not encased in iron to begin with but regardless that in itself proved a whole conspiracy that I've been trying to say is that yes the peer reviewed process will shut you down if you don't agree with evolution and I would actually love to debate mark um so honestly mark you can reach out to modern day debate or standing for truth and let's go ahead and schedule a debate all right well what can I say can I can answer a thing too because you know if we if we didn't have conspiracies now we have conspiracies within conspiracies okay so this is like conspiracy inception okay we're just going further and further down the conspiracy line and everything everything that doesn't agree with us and our made up mind is just a conspiracy we're just gonna leave it there it's just a conspiracy everything are you calling them out a little too much with that so I'm gonna have to give Jamie up to 30 seconds to respond uh you know if you guys want to talk about this one a little bit you know feel free so Jamie you can respond to that if you like now I mean I can I can take the insult to me all he's been doing this whole time is ad hominems and fallacies but there was something I wanted to say before I forgot um you kind of you've been joking this whole night about how everyone thinks you're so annoying personally I kind of like you more than James I hope James doesn't get offended but I have enjoyed you as the host oh it's almost like um listening to a jazz radio announcer is the music the musician in himself yeah thank you I appreciate that uh yeah no I like that I was going to say uh the last thing I did that was jazz related was a women in jazz series and I was just recording for them and doing some stuff which was a lot of fun a lot of really great singers so I appreciate your your compliment there Jamie and I'm sure uh James James has uh James has his own uh lane that he rides in right so I'm glad that there's somebody for everybody because once again not everybody's gonna like me not everybody's gonna like James Amy I didn't say I didn't like James I do like James I like you a little bit more preferences yeah no I appreciate uh yeah it's all good so uh we'll carry on from there uh skeptics and scoundrels can you provide a single falsification uh criterion for creationism for example finding a rabbit fossil in pre-Cambrian Iraq would falsify evolution that's for you there Jamie uh yeah so I guess the kind of the first example that comes to mind is we say that the layers of the earth are not millions of years old they were all laid down in the flood so we should find some kind of evidence to explain that and that's exactly what we found from the University of Colorado when they did their studies on hydrologic sorting so yes there is ways to verify things in the bible as far as the creationist view but that's not to say that the entire bible is scientific okay the bible goes beyond science because it deals with the creator that is outside of science so when I'm arguing for creation I'm not saying that the bible is science and that is the 100 scientific fact I fully understand that it is a religion what I'm trying to get the evolutionist to understand is that evolution is also a religion because they are using faith to rely on it their god is time they're like they have the exact same structure as my religion but they want their assumptions to be a scientific fact whereas my assumptions are not even considered except for the fact that science actually produces results that we use in our lives right with that small difference well we have we have a lot of things we use evolutionary theory in right like for example vaccines but you know you're probably also against vaccines I'm assuming right we don't we don't like that even the even if they they saved like countless lives on dessert right but we don't care about that what we care about is saying that there's a big conspiracy evolution is a religion although it has nothing religious in itself the scientific process and you know the peer review system is bad because you know it doesn't let us lie and misinterpret data we see hydrologic sorting and we don't see it actually happening as you guys are saying but you know we're just gonna keep saying things without any providing any kind of evidence for anything we are saying that's what you're doing all you did tonight we just assert things with no backup evidence well as much as I'd like to move on to the next super chat actually um you've invoked him so according to the chat I may have misunderstood the question can you repeat the question again because it seems like I may have misunderstood what they were asking sure thing so we have uh can you provide a single falsification criterion for creationism okay um and then they continue for example finding a rabbit fossil in pre-cambrian rock would falsify evolution okay so basically something that could falsify the creation model so to say um I would actually need some time to think about that um I can't think of anything off the top of my head um so yeah I would have to need I would need some time to think about what would possibly falsify that's like me saying what do I need to tell you to make you stop believing in evolution like you're not gonna give me a solid answer because you're firmly on the side of evolution um so yeah I would need time to think about that to give an actual answer there's a lot of things you can provide in order to disprove evolution like for example finding the rabbit in the pre-cambrian layer okay of the earth if you could do that we could all of us here I feel like that we you know we we trust the the theory of evolution would say okay we were wrong let's see let's see why we were wrong maybe there's a god maybe god did it right that thing would literally falsify our position and we could say yeah we are wrong we wouldn't necessarily say you are right um but we would say we are wrong so here here's because you said the whole like the whole rabbit thing I understand that um although the layers were put down with hydrological sorting so I wouldn't expect a rabbit to be in the same layers anyway but here's a here's a good example um in Texas I don't remember exactly where um they found dinosaur footprints next to human footprints doesn't that falsify evolution oh no of course because it's fake and it's it's fake news right that's what you're gonna say right it's it's a lie it's not true the doctor if I remember if I remember that specific thing in Texas yes that wasn't made up stuff but by some of course it was I mean and now my problem they try they try to fake shit for their religion of course they're trying to do that whatever it's not fake the fossils are still there but if you say if you want to discount it as fake it must be true same thing yeah if you say so it must accept falsification that's the problem with evolution if you have a paper you can have a paper and if it's true if you present all the evidence all the proof to back up your point everybody would believe you because you have the proof right that's the peer review and that's the scientific process my friend again you're okay you just said you have to have the peer reviewed paper and I just explained to you why we don't have the peer review papers because you will not publish them you will immediately reject them and and sign them off as as lunacy bogus whatever it is just like this entire debate I give you an answer you're like yeah but that's just crazy because creationism like that's not that's not debunking it okay the reason no the reason the reason no credible scientific paper with with with publish your things is because evolution is there any kind of results any kind of results all right all it produces is just waste right let's move on to the next super chat coming in from Lucas a fellow Canadian speaking fellow Canadians the only other mod that I didn't get to is our new mod Justin who's yahool again hanging out in our chat there so also give our new mod lots of love there as they navigate through the system of the debate world that is modern day debate Jamie are you able to cite this is your question Jamie Jamie are you able to cite another dating technique not a radiometric oh um I mean not off the top of my head that's really the only one that they use but again I don't really need to radiometrically date something because according to my theory all of human history all of the history of the world has been documented by observations from people that existed at that time okay if you look at the book of Genesis 10 writers every single one of them were eyewitnesses to the account Moses compiled them at the end but there were 10 writers Adam being one of them his son was it Seth being one of them if I'm not mistaken I don't have all them off the top of my head but according to my worldview history is dated already from observation so I don't need to go find more methods of dating although I don't accept radiometric dating because of many flaws I'm not actively going out trying to find a supplement for it that's one of the biggest things about evolution um I remember Ken Hoven talking about when he would go to the school board meetings and he would debunk these charts that are inaccurate and they would say well in order for us to take it out of the textbooks you have to replace it with something no I don't have to replace anything I'm just you have to just remove it because it's been debunked so that's basically what you're asking me to do is to give you another way to answer dating okay I don't need to do that for my theory we just looked at the bible we look in Genesis and as he said all those people were like eyewitnesses right so for example Adam was a night witness to the creation of the universe I mean obviously it was before he was created but he was still a night witness to everything that God did before he was created okay and I still wonder if what Ken Hoven what Ken Hoven did in those high schools was it before or after he went to prison yeah but that's okay bro low bro low bro that was pathetic okay so let me go ahead and go back to going to prison is pathetic yes all right because you're a muslim so you should know Genesis but I'm not muslim I guess you don't but neither here nor there okay the first the first writer of Genesis is Adam repeating what God told him and then the second part that Adam wrote because it says these are the generations of the heaven and the earth that was God's signature but Adam was the one that wrote it for him just like plenty of other prophets that you would have no problem agreeing to as a muslim oh wait you said you're not muslim my apologies but still in the beginning it says that Adam and Eve walked with God so therefore God could say this is what happened before you came into existence six days ago or this is what happened six days prior to your existence five days whatever it may be but yes all of the writers of Genesis were eyewitnesses yeah except by your account he wasn't an eyewitness he was just being told that happened also we have no proof because I don't think you listened to what I just said just one second they're just trying to change what I said there's two parts he said they walked with God in the beginning of the heaven and the earth and then in the beginning at or these are the generations of the heaven and the earth and then these are the generations of Adam now the running theory is that these are the generations of the heaven and the earth that was God saying what happened on the six days but he was telling Adam and Adam wrote it so God is the eyewitness next the second part after these are the generations of the heaven and the earth you see that the sign off is these are the generations of Adam so the second part was Adam directly stating the Garden of Eden. The first part was God directly stating it to Adam and having him write it down. So yes, that was still an eyewitness account. Yeah, but that's not what you said. You said that the authors, the people that wrote the Bible were eyewitnesses, okay? So yeah, maybe next time be a bit more careful about the words you're choosing when you're talking about these things. Still, we have no proof that Adam ever existed. We have no proof of anybody that wrote the Bible. All the biblical scholars know that Moses did not exist, right? It's just an invention. Like we know all this, right? And it's not me saying it. You don't know it. You assume it because people are saying it. But of course, in your view, those biblical scholars are just heretics and whatnot, right? They call themselves a biblical scholar and then say, but the Bible is wrong. They're not a biblical scholar. Yes. And of course, there's a big conspiracy with them saying that. Obviously, we keep pretending that conspiracy is a fantasy. Conspiracies are very real. You need to wrap your liberal mind around that. Conspiracies do exist. Hitler and Moses were a conspiracy. Okay? Mao Zedong and the Great Leap, that was a conspiracy to exterminate millions of people in China. They still happened and they still were real historical events. Stop trying to say it's a conspiracy as if that means it's a fantasy. Conspiracies are real. Grow up and do some research. Okay. So there was no conspiracy in writing the Bible, but everything else outside the Bible, that's a conspiracy. But everything that's in the Bible, there's no conspiracy. Because that's why we have 500 fake Bibles because there's only one good Bible and all the others are just fake. Okay. No, no, absolutely. That's not what I'm saying at all. There's 500 different versions that say different things. If they are different, they are not the same. So therefore, you can't have 500 books saying different things and they all are the same thing. Okay? And how do you decide which one is true? Which one do you decide? How do you decide which one is true and which one is not? So we're deviating from evolution, but I will answer this briefly. Okay? I mean, you wrote up the Bible and added Genesis. If you look at the history in the Bible first, first you look at Acts. And Acts says where the church started. Okay? The church started in Antioch. So therefore, you can trace all of the Bibles that were written from then.  There were one book here, one book there, all buried out. But what happened was in the 1600s, we gathered all of the documentation. We got different camps of religions together. We had the Protestants, the Puritans, I've just lost my train of thought. Puritans, all these different branches that disagreed. And we said, hey, here's all of the different versions of the Bible translated into English and everyone has to agree on it. And that's how we came to the perfect translation of the Scriptures. Which is? The King James Version. The King James, of course, of course, obviously, is the King James. I mean, it's not exactly... Hold on, hold on. It doesn't happen. For English. For English. It didn't happen the way you said it though. That's exactly how it happened. You know nothing about the King James process, if you don't think it happened that way, because I can pull up every single scholar in that process. I can pull up the rules. Yeah, but that being said, Jamie, that being said, when you were talking earlier, we're not talking about the New Testament. You were talking about Genesis, because the question was, how do you know when you literally said Genesis 1, Genesis 2, whatever. Genesis. And then you said, oh, there's 10 authors. And I said, oh, there's no authors. We don't know anything. And you said, oh, no, we do. How do you know? Well, no. My thing was, the question was, do I have another form of dating? And I said, I don't need another form of dating, because I have a form of dating in my theory. Yes. The dating method that I have is what the Bible says. I take the Bible as authority. Now, I'm not saying that everything in the Bible is science. The Bible is not a science book. It goes beyond science. It goes beyond the knowledge of humans, because humans still are coming to understand biblical truths. Okay. The Bible has made plenty of scientific predictions that humans that humans did not discover until hundreds of years later. That's time there. Yeah, I do want to ask this next question so that we can get back on our topic. Clarence Tompkins says, hey, Jamie, one, I think evolution doesn't have an end goal and can make predictions like a tectonic and human chromosome. Two, question or statement? Two, ID doesn't give any evidence, just says evolution is false. ID meaning intelligent design, which is creationism just so we can clarify. It's the same thing. Okay. Say the first part again. First part, evolution doesn't have an end goal and can make predictions like tectonic and human chromosome, chromosome. So human chromosomes, again, all of this whole DNA argument can easily be boiled down to design. But as far as tectonic, that has a proven fraud. But of course, all of the evidence that's been brought up that tectonic is a fraud has been suppressed and rejected because it doesn't agree with evolution. So again, the end goal of evolution is to get God out of people's worldview. That's the whole end goal of evolution. And it has succeeded because for 12 years, people have been indoctrinated into a godless religion of evolution. Yeah. It's the light motive of the evening. Everything is a conspiracy against intelligent design, creationism, however you want to call it. No, not everything is a conspiracy. Just evolution. Sorry. I was talking. Please let me answer. I will repeat what Michael B. He said. Creationist, by the way, there are no peer-reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological systems occurred. Okay. Not me saying it. Not a, you know, evolutionist, a creationist. I've already answered this five times. The reason there's no peer-reviewed is because the people that peer-review will not accept anything that goes against evolution. End of story. That's not what he's saying. It's not what he's saying. I don't care what he's saying. He could go and have a peer-reviewed article and I'm telling you why there's no peer-reviewed papers. You can lean on that all you want, but it does not matter. I'm giving you the reason why there is no peer-reviewed papers and you don't want to accept it because a conspiracy. Like conspiracy. It is. The one word that did not appear anywhere in Michael B. His testimony in that trial is the word conspiracy. He never once said or brought proof of how a conspiracy is preventing him from publishing any paper in a peer-reviewed journal. He never said that once. Why? Because he was under oath. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. And he was forced by being under oath to tell the truth. Not to lie and misrepresent the data. All right. Well, we'll try to move on from there. I know there's all kinds of thoughts, but it seems like we might be getting into a slightly different debate, which is fine. I think our audience is enjoying it regardless. Mark Reid for $5. Thanks again, Mark Reid, for your support. After show on Mark Reid, atheism continue the debate. When Mark Reid sent that, he actually sent me the link and then I messaged him and said, are you going to cross stream over on Oseans? Because they hate it when I say that. He canceled his stream and he's going to be hanging over with us at Oseans. So I'm going to put the link in the description there. So I don't know, Daniel or Jamie, if you'll be available after the Q&A to join us over there, but you'll be welcome to for certain. So let me just put that in the chat and let's continue on. Kulbiko for $10 spends entire life memorizing a book, dies of dysentery. What? Say that again? They made another declaration, more of like a statement.  So something in that spurred this question, which is spends entire life memorizing a book, dies of dysentery. I'm not sure if you guys can get much out of that. I think I can, but he's right, because if we take all our scientific knowledge from books like the Bible or any other religious texts, we will just die of dysentery and we would do bloodletting and we would give pigeons to cure disease. That's it, and we will just die because that's not working. And the only thing that's working is actually science and the scientific method and dealing with actual facts, not with fantasy.  The Bible does not promote bloodletting. I literally said, or other texts, religious texts. I didn't just say the Bible. You're pointing at the Bible though, so I don't really care about how you try to deviate from it. The Bible does not promote bloodletting, so stop trying to attach it to that. The sacrifices in the old days of Leviticus, the Levitical Laws, the sacrifices, they were a picture of the Messiah to come, so that's why we don't do them anymore. And if you do the sacrifices, then you are essentially saying that the Messiah did not come and you're rejecting him. So yes, those laws are not a way of curing illness. If you were healed of leprosy, then you did the sacrifice to God as a thanksgiving. The sacrifice itself did not cure the leprosy. Now, if you want to get into arguing miracles, obviously I would say God is outside of science because he's outside of creation. So he can do any miracles he wants. So the whole miracle thing, you can argue that that's not scientific and I will agree that it's not scientific. It's beyond science because God is beyond science and he's better than science and science is still trying to catch up to him. All right, 15 seconds back over to you, Daniel, and we'll move on to the next question there. We're trying so hard to catch up to the Bible that we don't even see it in the rearview mirrors. That's how much we are trying to catch up to the Bible. What can I say? So this next one's coming in.