good evening everybody tonight we're going to be debating creationism versus evolution and to kick us off we have mark reid so thanks for being here everybody and the floor is all yours mark thank you so much ryan and thank you for ryan for hosting thank you for watching and thank you to ross for being here to provide the challenge for for evolution on the side of creationism now the evidence for evolution i'm going to go through this pretty fast i've got a lot here first off what's evolution so it's basically the change of heritable characteristics over time and it only addresses diversity of life evolution is both a fact and a theory so the reason why we say it's a fact is because everybody notices like dogs breeding and and cows breeding that the heritable characteristics will change over time it's the theory of evolution that describes the processes that creationists usually have the problems with and so we're about as certain about evolution as we are about the theory of gravity or the germ theory of disease and there's no competing scientific theory creation science is a pseudo science and it doesn't meet the qualifications for a proper science so here's a few of the evidence that leads us to exactly the same place on evolution now actually there's way more and i couldn't fit them but there's more converging lines of evidence that all point to the same answer and all back each other up all of this has been unsuccessfully attempted to be explained and dismissed by religious people without success i don't have time to cover them all so let's focus on a couple that is the strongest evidence keep in mind though there's much much more evidence that i could present today um here's here's uh we're going to focus on genetics and paleontology i want to focus on novel testable predictions um they're testable predictions that turn out to be true when we sort of predict them in in in the future um there's uh many of those associated with evolution but i'll give at least one for each line of evidence i present um so fossils are really solid evidence um that organisms from the past are not the same as those found today they are more basal or more primitive in structure or or anatomy um so we do this by comparing the morphological or anatomical record by comparing the the anatomies of both modern extinct species we can infer lineages of to those species um that as you'll notice from the graph the the ones down the bottom are sort of very very basal they're very simple with a hard body part moving up to for instance you'll never find birds below the first amphibians you'll never find that in in fact you could disprove evolution by simply finding something out of order but that has never been done um so archaeopteryx is a prediction that came true Darwin predicted it as a proto bird with unfused wing fingers and you can see the unfused wing fingers um in in the the picture it also had socketed teeth which is distinct to uh reptiles and not birds and it also has a bony tail which birds don't have either but it is clearly a bird with feathers and it's a true mosaic um and this was predicted to be found and then found um this is tectolic um this is basically um where people predicted that there would be a fish that could walk on land and in fact this is the first example of a fish that has uh wrist uh uh sockets wrist bones um and it's it's a true mosaic between a fish and a tetrapod um they actually in order to find this they predicted where it would be found and what strata it found went to um i believe it was nose of scotia and searched at that layer and they found exactly what they were looking for so it's a fantastic prediction now this is this is the complex part this is uh probably the strongest evidence for evolution it's retroviruses or endogenous retroviruses so basically a retrovirus is where a virus inserts its own dna into a a dna of its host um aids for instance is the example of a retrovirus it uses an enzyme called reverse transcriptase to make itself a part of that dna um uh sorry make itself into dna and then uh integrates to make itself a part of that dna um so what happens is when when it gets inserted has a very specific structure it's got this ltr or long terminal repeats and that's where the integrates make cuts on either side in order to insert itself it's got gag poll and end these sections and they're very very distinct now um how do we know that these uh sequences are um retroviruses well um the the main thing about them is about eight percent of your dna is these ancient remnants of viruses with this structure the ltr gag env poll structure um the only way that that can end up in every single cell of your body at exactly the same place because don't forget that when a retrovirus infects an organism it will infect a random part of that cell the only way it can be in every single molecule of dna is when a germ line is infected either an egg or a sperm when that happens um the splitting just say an egg gets infected um by by a retrovirus um it then splits into two four eight sixteen doubling all the time when it grows that infection is then copied to every cell in the organism's body because that's how cell duplication works when something is growing so we know these have been um infected in the very very uh start of the organism or the germ line so it becomes endogenized when it does infect one of these germline cells and it becomes fixed when the um for instance if there's a mutation and the virus turns out to be beneficial um it can then be passed and be a normal part of that organism's dna like it is in humans and as I said about eight percent of of our dna is this retroviral sequences in every single cell of our body so what does that mean what why is that important it's because some of these viruses are are critical to how we function for instance the s i r h um family which is responsible for um providing um um eutherians with the ability to make a placenta now keep in mind there's some animals that don't have this retrovirus in them most notably marsupials and monotremes they do have part of the family but not incitin that the part that that humans and other eutherians my um sort of every other horses cows every other eutherian has um so what it tells us is that this infected before um the marsupials split off and then there was an earlier version the monotremes like platypus and um echidna um that that are extant species that never got this this kind of um s i r h family at all um so that that's where we can co-opt these viruses allowing them to do beneficial things for us and um so what's the problem here it's that this is this is complicated but it's it's sort of how many um ervs we share with the other primates now don't forget because the erv um infects a random part um that we share about 205 of them with our closest um um animal um tuis which is the chimpanzee or the nobo so 205 of these things the chances of that happening is incredibly incredibly rare it cannot happen it's almost impossible the most likely scenario and then the the one that is sort of scientifically backed is that they infected us before the humans and chimpanzees split apart and so we have these retro viruses in the same position because when we were infected we weren't two different species we were the same species um and that's incredibly complicated and we're we're sort of tracking them this is a much more simplified so you can sort of see here that the the virus is inserted itself before the branching this is the only way to explain these retro viral sequences in there so how do we sorry sorry i was just letting you know that you have three minutes left on your extended intro okay just going to let everybody know that we did agree to let mark have i'm just going to pause my timer we did agree to let mark have a 12 minute intro so uh we'll like no problem yeah okay so so and keep in mind there's 8 000 separate ervs in in mammals i'm sorry i i just yeah um yeah so um how do we know their their viruses and not just some some part of our DNA well we reactivated one of them um this is phoenix rising it is a reactivated member of the the h erv or human endogenous retro virus k family it's the most recent sort of retro virus element we could find so the one in the most pristine condition but they reactivated this part of our DNA or some people's DNA to to bring it back to being a virus now the virus wasn't very virulent it wasn't very strong but it was a virus capable of budding and sending out other viral elements to try and infect other things so we know this is a virus um and that's phoenix rising and i'll quickly go through chromosome 2 fusion i'm running out of time and this is very complicated i do apologize now chromosome 2 fusion is what we predicted when um the ancestral chromosomes of homo sapiens and um pantroglytides or chimpanzees and other apes were fused together now what we predicted to find was a telomere site now telomeres at the are at the end of um um the the chromosomes as you can see on the left here um what we had predicted to find was a head to head fusion of very dense chromosomal repeats in the center where they shouldn't be and that was what was predicted to be found if there was in fact a a fusion between the two um and that's exactly what we saw um there's a large amount of duplications in a chromosome 2 the fish analysis shows two head to head of the degenerate telomere repeats which is important because in order to fuse they've got a big degenerate and they go one way and then the other way exactly what was predicted so um for context usual repeats in these sites are two or three sort of making them absolutely uh sort of indicative that that two of these telomeric sites were fused together um so thank you so much i know that was complicated especially the genetic part and i'm really looking forward to discussing with ross and and thank you for giving me an extended version because that was a lot um but that that is the evidence for science um i will be looking forward to seeing the evidence for the creationist side thank you all right i just need my time if there is yeah just put it into the screen share there and i just want to say a big thank you to uh mark for his opening there and uh oh it looks like our screens are a little bit different than what they were before so i have to fix that up but in the meantime i want to remind everybody that modern day debate is a neutral platform we're hosting debates on science politics and religion uh we hope you feel welcome here in this space and also want to remind everybody that we are doing a live event event september 16th in houston texas uh so if you want to check our description you'll find our speakers there and tickets to that live event now without further ado ado uh let's let on ross uh i think this is your first time in modern day debate where we're happy to have you ross and up to uh we'll give you up to 12 minutes as well to expound on your intro there right can you hear me okay excellent all right i appreciate you guys having me i appreciate mark uh like i said mark you know this is our first time meeting but i feel like i know you already man i've heard this argument at least a hundred times i probably i mean i don't know how many times you debated on here but however many times that's how many times i've heard it and bravo i mean that i think that was the best i think that was the best time that you displayed that you know i mean i understood everything that you said clearly um i don't really want to rebuttal to anything directly until we get into the conversation point i guess but you kind of proved pretty much everything that i was going to assert in this debate from the beginning um i'm not sure uh if you think uh i'm a religious person but i'm gonna tell you right now this this is a religious debate you feel me and there there's a very very deeply religious person in this debate it's not me mark from trust me i'm i am i'm the first thing away from being religious as you can possibly find i don't believe anything mark i don't believe in anything you know i grew up in church my whole life uh my dad was a pastor his dad was a pastor so all i got told my whole life is listen i read this in a book god told me that it's true and so you have to believe it because i said it's true and um unfortunately that's exactly what people who masquerade around now in the name of science they think that because they read something in the book right and their priest or their science priest told them that it was true that that makes it true and then you get on here and you say that oh well it well you haven't said it to me so i'm not but i've heard you get on here and tell other people that their position is dumb or you condemn them to say that religious people condemn people religious people they have a viewpoint or a philosophy about something and it may be right it may be wrong but the minute that they start thinking that their philosophy is true without evidence right without evidence if you think your philosophy is true without evidence and then you start condemning other people you're now a very religious man and that's why i said mark you are as religious as they come you're more religious than the christians you're a scientologist or an evolutionologist or a thousand yearologist or a million year whatever it is that you believe in that fills in the gaps for what we don't know scientifically you believe in that and you just don't want to call it god or whatever well guess what mark i don't believe in god i don't believe in god i don't believe in ala i don't believe in buda i don't believe in none of that i don't believe in what people call science i do mark believe in the scientific method mark i believe in the scientific method all right i hope you're understanding me just because somebody says something to science that doesn't make it science i took a shit earlier that science no it's not mark you know what science is mark science is you make an observation right and then you make a hypothesis you make an observation and then you make a hypothesis the first thing you make mark is an observation and then a hypothesis and then you have to test it if you haven't done that you're you're not science i don't care how much you use the word science i don't care how much you read in your bible i mean your scientific papers i don't care if your priest told you that what he said was true it's not true unless you can show me experiments and and i hope we don't have to get into this but i'm telling you i have at least 20 minutes of video of you yourself i had i can literally just i can have this debate with you debating yourself because you've contradicted what you've done in this own presentation in other debates you accuse other people of not bringing evidence and you you didn't really bring any evidence not and let me clarify you did bring evidence right but and if you don't if you say you didn't say this mark i'm going to play the video if you sang it i had it right here evidence right means that whatever you're looking at has to point to only one conclusion only one conclusion it can't be this is the most likely the minute you start saying this is the most likely or it looks like or i imagine that's why ken hoven and all them you know that's sponge bob analogy is it's hilarious and it's probably annoying to you it's the perfect analogy right because you guys think you have a little bit of an observation right you observe this and then you make these grand assumptions off some one observation as if you can fill in 10 assumptions you imagined like sponge bob that we came from sponges right isn't that crazy like you never observed us coming from sponge you've never observed think about it the scientific method is number one observation where has where where is any scientific experiment or observation right that a sea sponge will evolve into something other than a sea sponge right i don't want to get into it right now and honestly i might even yield some of this 12 minutes because it's almost beating a dead horse but we can get into all the the scientific details i have i have all i have everything that you're saying right now i have our scientific rebuttal to it but it's it's it's almost beating a dead horse because no matter what can like excuse me mark no matter what mark and and if you say you didn't say this i have the video right here no matter what scientific evidence we look at it is not conclusive and you're lying if you say it is you're lying because you're just saying it's most likely this you don't pretend to know what happened at the beginning of the universe mark you don't know what happened at the beginning of the universe right this is not about the bible this is not a debate about the bible or god or religion or nothing i'm not religious i don't believe in nothing that anybody says unless they can show me experience everything that you're saying right now you can show me experiments right that prove that what you're saying might be an accurate piece of information but there's nothing further than that it doesn't now postulate that all that was created by nothing you understand what this debate is about mark it's not a scientific debate all right and if you try to pretend like it is i'm gonna jam that down your throat it is not a scientific debate there's no science that proves that we evolved from apes because you have many you have not observed an ape turning into a human guess what philosophically maybe it makes sense if you want to have a philosophical argument right about whether or not evolution is more likely than creation then i'll do that and you actually have some weight there you have some leg stand on in a philosophical argument because maybe that makes sense and guess what in philosophy we still examine evidence just because you look at data that doesn't mean you know how to interpret the data just because you look at data that doesn't mean you know how to interpret it all right so you have to look at things philosophically to interpret what the data means you understand so there is no scientific evidence that concludes that what is this debate creation versus evolution it's not about god i didn't say god created it i didn't say who created it i said something something created it it was created because your position is that nothing created it and you know and i have the video on this too so don't say you didn't say this you know for a fact that there this is a real dichotomy it's not a false dichotomy so don't if you say it's a false dichotomy i'm gonna play a video of you of you contradicting yourself that something was either created or it wasn't this is what the debate is about mark it was either created or it was not i'm not like what look you can get you can pretend like it's a science debate you don't have scientific evidence that concludes that we came from apes you don't have that scientific evidence according to you evidence means that a piece of information points to only one conclusion you're talking about retro viruses and all that like i said we can get into the the weeds and all that i really don't want to do it because what that does is it's really just obfuscating you're trying to talk in a way that maybe the average person is not trying to follow what you're saying mark if you can't say something simply you don't really understand it all right i believe this wholeheartedly you can't say if i say something it's just too complicated for you to understand that's crazy the average person is not dumb mark i'm the average person you're the average person mark trust me you're i've i've watched a lot of your debates mark you're the average person i'm the average person don't pretend like you're smarter than us all right if you can't take a complicated concept and break it down simply so where everybody understands it you don't really understand it you're just reading something as i said you did a very good job this time reading reading that you know what i mean like you're a very very intelligent man i think this conversation can go somewhere but you have to get out of the realm of thinking that you have scientific evidence for things you do not have scientific evidence for and once we once you do if you would concede to that we'll have a great debate about philosophically what makes more sense what makes more sense did something come from nothing right did something come from nothing or did something come from something right because that's what you're that's what debate is about creation evolution not god i'm not religious i don't believe in the bible so don't straw man me all right did something come from nothing or did not or did something come from something what do we observe mark what do we observe do we ever observe something coming from nothing scientifically we do not observe that all right so evolution dies right there as a science evolution dies right there what what where have you observed anything that you're writing on those pieces of paper you're showing me papers right just like my pastor does my pastor's like hey look look look what it says right here you know why you should believe me god told me and you're saying i should believe you because the scientists told you so the science you're the science god the god of a billion years which you can track the god of whatever all right and i'm i don't believe in god you believe in god whatever your god is you believe in god the god of science the god of Scientology i don't believe in that bullshit i believe in the scientific method right what can we observe and what is testable and you know that that is science and if if you say it's not you're going to be debating yourself i'm a pull-up video of you saying that it's not science if you don't observe it and have repeatable experimentation we all have to be able to repeatable repeatable experimentation i did an experiment one time and i got this outcome well where has anybody else done it no no it was just that one time okay that's not science if you're being honest in this debate you know it's not science you know evolution has no scientific basis right it has philosophical basis and it uses scientific evidence to postulate its philosophical basis all right i'm gonna use the i'm gonna just focus on the data i'm gonna do what you accuse other people of not doing what you think you do you don't do it you don't look at the data you read it and you hear what your pastor tells you and then you regurgitate it you know what the data says the data says we don't know all the scientists that you're that you're regurgitating say we don't know why if you pretend like they say we don't know please please i want you to die on that hill please pretend like you can find a scientist that will say oh i know for sure how the universe was created i know no no no we don't know so we don't know for sure then how is it science if we haven't observed it for sure how is it science i mean like i said i know you want to get lost in all the weeds so that way people forget what i just said and you can move off that point but you can't move off that point mark mark it's this is a philosophical conversation it's not a scientific conversation you'd like to pretend it is because you're you're a believer mark you believe in science you're a deeply religious man you're not just religious mark you're deeply religious you're religious you're more religious than my dad my dad was raised by a pastor and he's a pastor to this day i've i've you're 10 times more religious than he could ever be because somebody says something on a piece of paper you don't do the experiment yourself you don't even die deep into what they're saying is true you don't even die deep into what that person concludes at the end because you'll show experiments from people and then i go look at what those people think and they'll say well the conclusion of this experiment is we don't know you know that's true every scientific experiment we've ever done that tries to prove any of this that we're talking about creation we're you want you want to start with evolution in the middle of the house and pretend like a biogenesis doesn't make it you have to deal with a biogenesis before you start talking about whether or not a monkey turned into a human one minute one minute okay how did the monkey get there you feel me like you can't deal with that no scientists can deal with that i'm not saying that you can't you know maybe one day prove that monkeys evolved in the humans but guess what you still won't have proven that there wasn't a creator to spark that monkey where did the monkey come from you can't prove that something came from nothing you can't prove that you cannot show that this is a philosophical debate not a science debate do not lie to the people mark you're a religious man you're lying in the name of science and i i don't like it okay i do not like religious people and that's and i grew up religious that's why i know a religious zealot when i see one you're as religious as they come i'm done all right everybody thank you ross for your introductory statement there we let everybody have a slightly longer introduction so don't mind us over here at modern day debate it promises to be a juicy one i think tonight everybody so you know keep yourself in your seats you know sit down before you fall down and give this stream a like while you're at it we're going to kick it into open floor format and we usually kick it to the other side so mark you can kick us into our open discussion yeah so i'm kind of confused on whether the creationism evidence was in all of that it seems to be so angry at my position so just angry i'm not angry so i don't know i didn't hear anything so maybe we can go on to that but also i want to know if if if sort of god didn't create it if you're not sort of giving the god creationist position and then who are you saying the creator is exactly this is a debate about evolution versus creation period yes the idea is that something evolved from nothing or that something had to have a creator there i'm not religious so i don't pretend to know things i don't know but you want to ask me to do like what you do and postulate about things that i don't know but i don't know that so i'm going to say i don't know because i'm not religious i look at the scientific evidence the scientific evidence says that we don't know who created it but guess what most likely something created it if we walk in through the through the through the desert and we find a bicycle a bicycle something far less complicated than the human mind of the human brain are we going to assume that just because we don't know who created it that it happened spontaneously maybe right maybe you could have a philosophical argument there right maybe did it happen spontaneously or did somebody probably create it or something so i don't know i don't say it's god you don't have to believe in god you don't have to believe in religion you can like i don't know aliens or i have what position you're actually taking no no well you're not taking a position on this but you don't believe that something you believe something came okay so so this this debate is about evolution which explains the biodiversity of life it doesn't explain it certainly doesn't explain it certainly doesn't explain it doesn't say all that to say that up you're making that up you're making that up it says evolution versus creation what i'll read out my it's creation how did it start did it start from being created that's what creation is it started from a creator so don't don't strong at me i don't believe in god did it get created or did it evolve by itself that's what we're debating you can't run from that and if you want to debate philosophically whether it involved by itself there's a good discussion to have there besides so i'll write out my yeah sure sorry ron go ahead how does it say we can let him wrap up there if you want okay you're good all right um we'll just try to mitigate the interruptions there because uh i don't know what the mute there if you want to do if you want to do segments i don't mind doing that oh my yeah yeah i apologize all right if you guys want we can do a little bit of cross examination if you want to ask questions uh to mark as you just i want to cross examination i got i got i have a question like you're claiming to be science you're saying that evolution is science for sure we don't i'm not claiming to be science well who's claiming that well i never said i was science i'm saying so you're not claiming to be a scientist in hold on a second we agree on that we agree on that three evolution is not no i'm i'm simply communicating the results of science to you like i never claimed i was science i don't know what even that means i'm talking specifically about evolution being a science they're claiming that they know for sure when they have no scientific evidence you have scientific evidence but it doesn't only point to that one conclusion because there's a number of others rise oh really all right so here's how we're going to do our cross examination here fellas you want to lock that in what i'm going to do a lot that in all right ross what i'm going to do uh because i don't want to put you on mute there because you are cutting off quite a little bit it's all right you know sometimes we have delays sometimes there's skips in the internet so we try to give the benefit of the doubt but we do want to mitigate the interruptions so what we'll do is i'm going to start a 15 minute timer and i'm going to let you ask questions to mark and then you got to give them time to answer otherwise i'll put you on mute uh so i'm going to start a 15 minute timer and you go ahead and ask your questions and then we'll vice versa okay and also mark i don't mind if you want to follow up and stuff like that you feel me and if i interrupt you like i said just just let me know and i'll cut it back okay so like i said right i know you want to pretend like it's just about the middle of a house right oh well how did man evolve from monkeys but you have to explain a biogenesis if you can postulate right that all this got here without a creator to me right i don't claim that i know anything that doesn't have a scientific experiment that points directly only to that so whatever it is do you have that points directly to the fact that something aroused or was created from nothing or that it's even possible not even that it happened whatever it is do you have that it's even possible for something to come from nothing oh that's it that's my question yeah okay so um the the a biogenesis isn't a theory um that that evolution is evolution is theory which is the strongest sort of set of knowledge that we have like germ theory or theory of gravity it's basically um it's very very strong um so a biogenesis is is sort of more a hypothesis and there's multiple hypothesis i personally went towards amyloid world um which does explain how some of the po protein chains got together in theory right in theory it explains it in theory can we have sure but but when we're talking about evolution we're talking about the biodiversity of what comes about that the bio diversity yeah ross please um that that how the the diversity of life biodiversity got there and i mean i can read out what i gave as my definition for evolution as well so if you're talking about sort of some straw man of evolution i i can't help you with that so evolution is um the change of properties of groups of organism over the course of generations it braces everything from slight changes to proportions of different genes to population of the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs bees oaks and humans and that was the first definition i gave so that that doesn't cover a biogenesis it's just from the first organism onwards so i mean you can sort of talk about creationism but what i'm not hearing is anything for your version of creationism to say hey these organisms were placed there by some creator you're basically saying you've got no evidence for that and don't even believe in a god creating them all right we'll kick it back over to ross to ask another question there of mark reid sorry i put you on mute so um let's listen i i pretty much agree with everything you said like we're we're already on the same page but you're just so religious that you don't understand it right we both agree that by the scientific method evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on creation doesn't have a leg to stand on nobody has a leg to stand on we don't know nobody knows everybody agrees with that you agree with it you just said because you said in theory this time the third in theory this time the third i asked directly what evidence that you do you have directly something can come from nothing it was a trick question because we don't have any evidence of that the answer is we don't know now if you want to know why because this is a debate about creation versus evolution and like i said it's a philosophical debate it's a philosophical debate so to answer your question why do why is my philosophy that it had to be created somehow because of what the scientific evidence shows us right the scientific evidence shows us that we have all these complex systems that exist and we can trace everything back to an origin at some point except for obviously like let's say the laws of physics right the laws of physics are consistent so maybe the laws of physics is what gave us the life that we have okay but what put the laws of physics there so if you don't agree that something created the laws of physics then you agree that the laws of physics were already there and like i said i'm like this is a philosophical debate and there's a good conversation to have there right where the laws of physics are already there or did the law of physics get created by something somebody something before it i don't believe that it's even like it doesn't even make philosophical sense to me to think that you could walk by a bicycle in the desert and think that it got there by itself or what about a supercomputer if you walk by a supercomputer in the desert what you think oh yeah no the the supercomputer probably got there by itself okay you're every cell in your body is more complicated than every supercomputer we have millions of cells we have all these complex organisms with all these millions of cells right you're explaining retro viruses how that helps us adapt to our environment it doesn't prove evolution all that proves is adaptation so you approve that we can adapt but that doesn't mean that somebody or something or however we were created that doesn't even prove that we cannot have adapted okay and i'm glad just to not to inject here and no no cut me off cut me off you're on a good you're on a good stand good spill there but uh yeah this is where you're supposed to ask a question to mark there's oh my back we're doing a cross-examination so i yeah i was responding directly to we say okay so my bad mark so my next question is right since we both agree that it's the like maybe you do have the best theory based upon the scientific evidence that we have maybe that scientific evidence points more in your direction right maybe it does right that evolution because you want to talk specifically about that but how do you reconcile that if you don't deal with a biogenesis you need a creator to even start what you're talking about so how do you reconcile that because at some point you have to give in to a creator you have to say even if we prove all this evolution there's a creator so i like what is before like i like i mean like you understand what i'm saying i know you said you have a different theory on that but like how do you reconcile with that philosophically how the philosophically makes sense something can come from nothing okay so first scientific methodology is a philosophy it's methodological naturalism if you didn't know the philosophy of science is actually a pretty well established field you can probably look into that so when you sort of say observed you're sort of saying we've got to see it in front of our eyes there's a lot in science that we don't observe directly so no we don't have to observe things directly that's how inference works we basically i've never observed a volcano forming that science will tell us a lot about volcanology and how these things form geologists work with rocks i never see any of the rocks form but they still work with rocks and they can tell me how they fall we don't have to observe it directly in order to know and that's basically i don't have to observe it now life isn't a supercomputer that's the thing like they're completely different things and it's interesting that you brought up sort of the bicycle because the bicycles are more efficient form of any but traveling than any form of life we've actually invented a way more efficient form so i don't think sort of calling organisms a supercomputer is necessarily very productive or very accurate at all because we're certainly not supercomputers and when you say it might be the best theory it is the only scientific theory i don't hear a lot of other hypotheses being presented tonight that we can sort of dig into and find you've just sort of said well i'm not religious i don't say god i just say creator somewhere but you're sort of refusing to define what that actually is and the whole idea that we have to give into a creator we don't have to give that there's naturalistic explanations for everything give me one if you are asserting a creator then you've got to present evidence for said everything we see is created that's the evidence everything is created we're talking on computers it was created what happened name one thing that happened from nothing well rocks are created just one second there was and you did ask another question i think which was to provide you said one example uh yeah i want i want the one example of that was my initial question you haven't okay that answer you're one example of what and it's working on me you feel me because i'm your smart guy and i like listening to you i are but but what is one example something that's come from nothing name one thing uh okay okay so when you say something that's come from nothing nobody in science is asserting that something came from no thing a philosophical nothing that you agree with me we're on the same team the problem that you're under is that you've read the title and this has been paraded around by creationists of laurence krauss's book which was a universe from nothing and what he's referring to when he's referring to nothing is actually a quantum field state a temporal um quantum field state so when he says that's not nothing you can't confuse me by saying something it's nothing just gonna call it something else nothing can you give me an example of field state is something can you give me an example of nothing uh no that's my point is that we don't it cannot exist nothing that like but that's that's why i don't even know why you're even having this debate because it's a loss for you everything has to be created even if you right even if you have evolution even if you prove it but you haven't even if you do though you still have to reconcile a biogenesis you still have to reconcile peptide coupling right what peptides do not couple in water right there's no expert i know i know all the evidence and i know what the conclusion is yeah amelie doesn't involve water at that stage so yeah that's okay okay okay so um so yeah how do you know how do you know that how do you know that all right that's well the you still got i mean i've read about amelaid world because you oh you oh you read about it in the bible right the bible yeah that's not the bible i ask you how you know you said i read that's what my dad well no i read and he tells me what he read was correct no matter what you just did that see that's the thing we're not saying that amelaid well we know that to be correct we're saying that's one of the hypotheses that that have been presented as a naturalistic explanation for well where the first life came from as opposed to evolution which explains the biodiversity of life after it has formed so but the whole idea that it must be the whole idea that the whole idea that you must give him to this idea of a creator is is it it's flawed because any evidence for a creator naturalistic processes i've already said that so the whole idea that you have to give him to this idea of a creator when there's no evidence being presented for any such creator just a hey i'm incredulous that it could have happened by natural i didn't say it was science though i didn't say it was science so don't straw me you're straw money because i didn't say it was science so i'm not saying that i need evidence to prove it because i'm saying it can't be proven but what we both agree on is that if you look at the scientific evidence what your position is i'm saying that yeah maybe it's most likely right i'm saying you don't believe in your position then no no no i don't believe in anything except scientific evidence sir i'm not i don't believe in i'm not like you i'm not religious i'm not like you i only believe in what i see in the scientific evidence it doesn't it's not it's not four minutes before we flip the scales and we're gonna let mark grill you for a little bit on your thoughts there but uh so four minutes ask mark some more questions i just want to i just want to establish a question again though mark i'm saying that even if you look at the evidence and it does prove your brand of evolution right your brand i'm debating creation right the idea that something had to either be created or it evolved without a creator a creator or not a creator these are your two options all right so i agree with with what you're saying about the scientific evidence it looks like blah blah blah blah blah right okay philosophically we can debate on what it looks like but we both know the scientific evidence isn't conclusive so please give me one evidence of something that came from nothing and and i know and i can say i know it's a trick question that's why i'm like it's almost an unfair debate because we all have to agree that something came from nothing you know i don't have to believe in a religious doctrine to believe that something created the earth i don't believe in what these people say about god or a lot of the creator i don't believe him right i believe in what i can see with the scientific evidence and i'm i'm asking for that i want the evidence if you have it that proves to me that something can happen without a cause because you're going against the laws of physics right now you're saying that the laws of cause and effect don't apply now i'm i'm like looking at the laws of physics and saying there has to be a creator if you have evidence for that i'll take it now other than that i'll turn it over to you you can ask me whatever you want but i'm like that's really my position though i'm like i i know what the scientific evidence is like we can look at the cosmic microwave background deeply and both agree that lorenz krauss says that after three readings of the cosmic microwave background it looks like the earth is the center of the universe don't say he didn't say that don't say he didn't don't say he didn't say that don't laugh like lorenz krauss i have the video of him saying it he literally said well yeah it looks like the earth is in the center but we're really not sure that's the answer from your gods or your priests they don't know so if you know better than them show me what they're not telling me because they're not willing to sit here and debate this because they know they don't know so you tell me what you know better than the scientists you're the one disagreeing with scientific consensus i'm with scientific consensus we don't know apparently mark knows right he's better than scientific consensus mark give us the evidence okay so i'm glad you brought up scientific consensus because evolution is sort of scientific consensus all over um so lorenz krauss the lack of creator was excuse me lorenz krauss didn't say that the earth is the center of the universe he's basically saying that at any point in the universe it looks like you are at the center right so that's everywhere is the center of the universe so it's it's the way we view and the way light travels is why he referred to this and he said in a sense yes earth is the center of the universe but everywhere is the center of the universe because of the light moving away from it so i don't i'm not a subscriber to lorenz krauss particularly i think that some of this stuff is flawed um but it's not it's not a trick question that you're asking about a universe from nothing it's a straw man because i don't think the universe came from nothing in fact i i'm a subscriber to lorenz shawn carroll sorry shawn carroll's hypothesis which is um the many world's hypothesis which sort of says that at the beginning of the universe it was was atemporal um after sort of the presumed origin it's sort of that's when spacetime developed so before that there was no time and therefore atemporal um i don't have a brand um the evolution's brand is uh integrated synthesis synthesis is what we're after up to um that's that's scientific consensus from over sort of 99 percent of scientists and almost every single biologist out there so it's weird that you appeal to scientific consensus when it's so firmly in favor of evolution and it is probably the most tested hypothesis and has overcome every single challenge what i don't notice even though i'm presenting all this evidence is you presenting every any evidence against it you're just basically saying hey you've got a religion too but it's not a religion because basically um everything is up for challenge um in in science there's no religion here it's basically that if you can present evidence to overturn it then please do so and and people will listen to you marish whiter famously sort of overturned um the length at which we know that that sort of blood can be preserved soft tissue rather not blood soft tissue can be preserved because she found collagen in it rex so we know that these things can be overturned we're not believing this on faith it it you challenge me please do i'm i'm look look the last question there ross and then we'll kick it over to mark well i mean my question is about the answer what he's doing right because think about it i was asking him questions this whole time at the end of his statement what is he what does he say you haven't presented me any evidence okay but i asked you for evidence so why are you saying i haven't presented evidence buddy i'm not claiming to be science so why are you asking me for evidence right and you can't straw man me by saying that i believe in god or i'm denying no no no you're right scientific consensus is on the specific things that you said those specific things are not conclusive they have not solved the abial genesis problem if you say that they have then you are lying young man lee cronin right these are the leading these are the leading researchers in uh synthetic chemical um and and synthetic chemical research these are the people doing experiments today on chemical research lee cronin said he would probably create two life in two years this was 10 years ago jack jack saws net from harvard right now at the university of chicago he's been he said he would create life in his lab uh in three to five years that was like in 2012 none of these experiments have successfully created life and and and we're just talking about peptide formation because they they're not even dealing with the fact that you can't factor in how to get amino acids from nothing so what they're doing is they're taking amino acids they're trying to get them to form naturally in labs right now they can't do it if you say they are then you're lying like why why why are you doing that why are you doing that and then you went out you literally said laurence prowl did not say we're in the center of the universe i didn't say he said we were in the center actually i said he said it looks like we're in the center and you said laurence prowl said it's going to look like you're in the center of the universe wherever you are so basically he said it looks like we're in the center that's the same thing stop trying to confuse the people you think that you're smarter than everybody but you're really not you just read something and you think oh i read this and i can recite it so that makes me smart that does not make you smart what makes you intelligent is you can take complicated things you could break it down so simple a child can understand it i can explain the things that we're talking about right now to my five year old i'm i'm dead serious we got to the end of our 15 minute timer there so i will kick it and i respond to that oh of course i think the final question there from ross at the end of all of that was uh the center of the universe point there am i correct uh yes yes so i i i didn't lie what what what i'm saying is that the way that you said it you suggested that earth is sort of looks like it's the center of the universe and my point is as you sort of conceded was that laurence kraus said that everywhere looks like the center of the universe so there's nothing particularly remarkable about that um so um i mean and and sort of what you're sort of saying is i i never said there was consensus on abia genesis i said there was consensus on evolution which is actually the topic of the debate as well as creation is actually yeah which creation which we haven't heard a lot of but you know sort of so this whole idea that i'm saying there's consensus on abia genesis i never said that i said there's multiple competing hypotheses which says that alone says there's not a consensus um um but the but on evolution the theory of evolution there is a consensus that that is absolutely a consensus and if you you say otherwise i have the quote i mean so so what origin of life research is a scam and there's lots of it to the scan professor lee probably that's the right quote these are the researchers in your field trying to prove that yes so and then evolution isn't just just a hundred second to ross well let him wrap up and then we'll kick it over to him for his cross-examination evolution is an origin of life it's biodiversity so i i don't this is the straw man that you're doing evolution doesn't explain where life comes from it only explains how it got to the diverse array of organisms it is at the moment so um i i don't know why you're sort of straw manning and and getting the wrong topic for the debate um it it might be a lack of understanding on your part on what what evolution actually is um so you know when you're talking about evolution you're talking about biological evolution not abia genesis so i'm not sure why you're going into that all right well before we kick it over to mark to do the cross-examination i just wouldn't remind everybody that we are going to do a q and a at the end of this conversation so no matter what spiciness and goodness you're hearing on the screen make sure that your q and a is on point and that it's not a tax against our speakers because we love our speakers and we're going to kick it back over to mark to ask questions to ross so mark can i just give a little can i just give a little 30 second response what you just said i just want to like i said i agree with you on what we have evidence on but we don't have evidence on how life started okay we don't so i'm saying that it has to be a creator that's what it's it's creation versus evolution it's not create it's not creation of man or evolution of man or evolution of species it's creation period all right and there's no evidence that something could it could evolve without nothing that's the real debate stop confusing the people all right all right 15 seconds uh over to mark to ask questions to ross so mark the floor is yours to ask questions and we'll let ross respond without interruption excellent have you ever observed something being created yes i created i created my son i watched him come out the womb it was nasty as hell so you created that did you you you created a shot see me nothing uh not out of nothing no it's not out of nothing no it's impossible to do that isn't that a natural process sure whatever word you want to say let's not get into semantics what are you trying to say it's not like you tell me what you want to say it's not like you took a hammer and created your son by building him you you just a process to you know you have a natural process yes process to place yes so where in all of this natural process you would agree that sort of you know when we go back humans have been creating each other for ages where does the creator come into the picture well if you what do you mean where does the creator you just said humans have been creating each other right i didn't specify creator the creator could be humans you just agree with me right humans is a creator isn't it you just said i'm sorry creating you just said humans have been creating each other you insert a creator into the question so you're i think philosophically you're not thinking critically enough you like to pretend like you're smarter than everybody else but i don't think you're as smart as you think you are it's a very simple concept creator something needs something to do it right it can't be nothing you give me a definition of your right block could you give me a definition of creationism um i think your definition yes it's a philosophical belief right that something cannot arise from nothing that there has to be a beginning right that the laws of cause and effect because everything that i see has a cause and effect so i don't i don't believe in calls without effect that's really like my right i believe in the scientific method calls an effect because ultimately that's what scientific method is trying to protect protect people against religious zealots who come in the name of science and say that they have scientific information when they don't if you do then give me an experiment i can replicate on my own it's observable repeatable observable okay so the normative definition for creationism is sort of a belief that the origin of life that's a straw man because you're telling me what somebody else's definition of it isn't that literally a straw man like this debate when i'm saying i'm saying that look the evidence i'm like i'm not gonna throw it out but how can it how can it get how did it get there how did the evidence get there how did it start and like i said if you agree with me that we can have a philosophical debate on that then i'll concede a lot of ground you feel me because yeah you're right i'm just basically saying i don't know at the end of the day but i don't i don't respect people that say that they know when they don't you know i don't like that so how can you address the 205 retro viral elements in both us and chimpanzees that sort of correlate to exactly the same place and exactly the same virus how would you explain how that got there great question and i heard you ask this question to kent and he gave the most logical and i don't understand why you guys don't see this when you're debating i mean especially people who are god right because i'm not even taking a god stand but if you're debating a god person all they have to say is god that's their answer that's why that's i don't think you get that philosophically right we're saying that anything that is out of the realm of what we can see on the laws of physics because something has to come before the laws of physics so anything operating out of that they're just using the word god and you're using the word billions of years or you're using the word universe or magnetic field whatever words you use that's your god okay that's your god you are religious that's your god magnetic field i don't i don't i don't know that's the answer i believe in what the scientific evidence shows what is that uh we're really really far away from knowing it looks like things might have evolved like this but that's on a small scale that's that's micro evolution macro evolution that's i don't believe in macro evolution at all i believe in every piece of evidence that that we can we can testable repeatable right but micro evolution macro evolution we can't see that we don't know and it logically doesn't make sense that you asked me have i ever seen something created everything that i see has been created by something you feel me even you you know what i mean i might look and and and you know i made this joke earlier you for me but you know i don't know if you're an atheist or not because you know there are some people who are you know not atheists but they're also evolutionists right look i get it when you look maybe sometimes people look at what their life is like or they look at themselves in the mirror and they hate it and so they're mad at god so they think there can be no god i'm gonna be honest with you me my life is great i look great everything i said i'm like how can there not be a god how can somebody not be making my life this fucking good like look at how amazing the world is look at how amazing everything just fits together you just gave me an example of retroviruses that fit perfectly on every animal well one answer could be they all came from the same to same species that's one answer we never deserved it the other answer could be that somebody intentionally did it somebody intentionally did it excuse me just like this complicated ass computer i'm talking on how did this complicated ass computer which is a lot less complicated than those retroviruses how did it get here through intention i believe in intention rather than lack of intention because if there is no intention at the beginning of the universe then why was it not always there so you're either saying that it either at some point started which which has to be intention not whatever creator universe whatever word right or you're saying it was always there so that's my position i hope i made that clear okay so you have a contradictory position to what you said earlier you first said that you don't believe in a god you're not religious but now you're sort of saying there's got to be something because of how good your life is how well it all fits together kind of thing so those are two contradictory that's not my job yeah so i don't i don't think you're being truthful on your positions because you're contradicting yourself um so the whole idea the whole question was how do you explain how they got there and it seems like your answer is god magic or did it why didn't god do some sort of miracle without having to create viruses to insert to people to make it look like look like or whatever creator you believe in because creationism is the um somebody that believes that a supernatural phenomenon is the cause of life's diversity and the origin of life so i don't know if you understand what i understand bro hey don't don't insult my intelligence brother i understand just why i'm trusting do you want to look it up maybe i don't know i don't need to look it up see you know why because you fucking read it all right this is what you need to understand perfect you said you said a lot ask me your ask me the question directly like what is your okay well the whole point is that i want to say a lot i want to say a lot i've asked i've asked sort of where how these viruses got in them and your answer has been very vague it's been sort of my answer is always i don't know just one second there i don't know well let him ask his question in its entirety i know that there might be a buildup to the question but we still have eight minutes of cross exam and so if anybody's wondering in the live chat while we're letting a little bit more monologuing going on it is because we are doing a cross examination as best as we can uh you know under these circumstances because uh you know these guys got a lot to say so i'm gonna restart yeah timer here we got eight minutes left and i'll let mark ask his question i'm enjoying it too i'm enjoying it yeah so you've sort of said that the naturalistic sort of explanation that i proposed is probably the best explanation you conceded that i won't say you don't know how how a creator would have put them there so why are you saying that it couldn't be the natural explanation if you don't know what the explanation is well well we're not debating the natural explanation you feel me because in nature everything has a beginning everything has a creator in nature it does we can point to where everything came from you understand what i'm saying and it looks to be circular right the answers we don't know so don't don't make me pretend like i'm debating science when i'm not we're having a philosophical discussion so i appreciate your question because you asked me how well how does that make sense if you see everything and you don't see god intervene right now but what would what would make you think that god intervene before if we don't actually see it i'm saying it's just a philosophical inquiry it literally is i'm saying look based upon what we see if there's nothing there it's hard for me to even conceive how nothing can give birth to all of this it's really hard for me to even conceive of it so that's why i'm not religiously believing it i'm just saying it it's most likely that something that as beautiful as what you're looking at right now right the world yourself you feel me like you're a smart guy you feel me you're like think about how much you reign supreme over these other animals you're so much smarter than the next animal you understand what i'm very very much so it's almost like endow we have not seen anything develop this level of intelligence without endowment we have altered right certain brain activity of chips and other animals to be more effective but guess what even if you prove in a lab right that this is theoretically possible right it's theoretically possible for this to happen right you still did it in a lab you still did it you did it somebody created it so you have to not only prove right if you're claiming to be science but to me philosophically what you're saying probably makes sense like i don't believe in everybody's interpretation of god probably not some fucking guy up there waving a wand i don't necessarily believe that i'm sure it's way beyond our comprehension that we can only comprehend the laws of physics really it's all for us to comprehend something outside the laws of physics you know so yeah i only comprehend what's in my bubble anything outside of that i don't postulate on you guys postulate on it a whole lot though you postulate on a whole lot and then you try to pretend like well if i say i don't know but i say well it just looks like this even though i'm saying i don't know people won't really know that i don't know i'm letting you know that even though you think you're smarter than us you're not we hear everything you say and we're like oh so basically you said all that but basically what you said is you don't know still you're saying it's most likely and we can all agree that it's most likely but don't say you know when you don't you're not science all right so when we get out of the realm of science before the universe which has to be before science because how we cannot even explain how the universe was invented without current laws of science the big bang basically defies all laws of physics it really does the big bang um okay okay so i i i think that's that's a bit of a for a good statement i don't think i said a lot don't stop me at the last point though respond quickly and then agree with the other stuff i said address the other i will concede i will concede i am not science i'll concede that much yes um so i don't think i'm smarter people you've sort of leveraged a lot of things against me so sort of ad homing me here um that that i've said that i'm smarter than everybody and stuff i have not um so um you didn't actually answer any of the question or provide any evidence for this this creator it seems like you're saying that hey that the parents of something are the creator therefore creationism which is a really weird stance to take um so maybe we should go to the other other sort of line of evidence that i have because you don't seem to have anything to challenge sort of the the v thing and that's okay um so how would you explain why the fossils are ordered from basal fossils to more complex forms in the order they are in in the geological stratum how would how would birds be right right up the top whereas that goes to dinosaurs to more simpler forms of um sort of um eukaryotes and then further down why is it ordered like that right well i just want to i just want to congratulate you on conceding that this is a philosophical debate you've asked me a philosophical question we will do that i'm up one zero just so you know right it's you know scientists okay i'm just i'm just digging at you i'm just i'm just making a joke i'm just making a joke but i want you to understand that what you're asking right now is a philosophical conversation and it's the right question how could you possibly explain this use your imagination right to explain how this might have happened that's what you're asking me right and i have no problem doing that but we are having a philosophical debate this is not a scientific really i'm asking you what evidence you have to present for your side well no there's no there's no right to creation it's not i'm not claiming to be sorry if you just let me finish don't let me if you just let me finish we'll let you respond for sure yeah so so i'm i'm holding up my end of the debate by coming in with a lot of evidence and a lot of arguments for um evolution being true um what i expected from this debate was to someone to come in and have arguments and evidence for creationism which is the idea that things were created so i'm that's what i've been doing and you try to pretend like i'm changing it though you just concede it you said the idea if i could just if i could just finish ross ross if i could just finish so what i'm expecting is you to support the the idea of creationism so when you sort of say hey i created my progeny kind of thing that's what i did i created that that isn't going against evolution that's that's completely expected from evolution but you're so i created the same species how is that evolution well it's you you do know that the the progeny inherited your traits of how is it evolution if it's the same species yep so i'm explaining i'm explaining um so it the the progeny inherited the characteristics from both you and the mother with variation and that is evolution with you even you even conceded ross if you just let me finish seriously you even conceded that micro evolution happens so if it's micro evolution why wouldn't it be evolution ross well let me just respond and i just want to uh just where this is the last minute of mark asking questions is what we're supposed to be doing here um i will let everybody know that our live chat is back up and running there it had a little moment uh but we're back up and running so uh yeah i'm glad to see you guys are back and lively in there we are going to start our q and a uh let's see how long we've been running now we got what another 15 odd minutes of uh open discussion after this cross examination so let's keep the ball rolling and uh yeah we'll let mark ask uh his final question before we kick it into an open discussion thanks everybody for being here yes so i'm not sure okay go to us um so so my question is a sort of what evidence or arguments are you going to present for your side of the debate tonight to support creationism the idea that that organisms were created fully formed by something yes good question okay so these are my arguments oh my back do you hear me okay we can hear you great okay great these are my arguments i'm glad you finally conceded at the end that we're not talking about scientifically whether whether you know i mean things can you call it evolution right you're saying things evolve over time but really that's just adaptation right so i don't give a fuck what you call it right you you want to argue that but you're not going to get pushback on me because we observe that right so we do observe adaptation micro evolution whatever word you want to say but what the position i'm defending right the position i'm defending like you said is that life everything we see it got here by a creator it got here something created whatever Allah Buddha i don't care the universe billions of years created it whatever something created something had to spawn it because if it didn't get created at some point that it would have it would have to have already existed that's a philosophical argument that might be over your head mark and i promise an average level thinker can understand what i'm saying right now if you're in the audience and you think that that doesn't make sense philosophically i dare you to try to come up with a philosophical argument that makes sense for something coming from nothing i literally in the beginning of the debate said that i'm not conceding that in science now when i do look at science but we can look at all the scientific evidence i have the same evidence you have mark we can all use google well i don't use google but most people they use google scholar right sure anybody can go on google scholar and read what their priest wrote in the bible all right just because you read what a priest wrote in the bible that doesn't mean that it's true it has to be observed number one it then has to be it has to be you have to come up with a hypothesis then it has to be experimenting on you have to be able to replicate that experiment too you can't just do it one time and say look i did this experiment in my lab nobody else can do it though i did this one experiment and that means this no no you have to come up with simple easy observable experiment that we can all do and you guys haven't done that yet the things that we do have experiment on i concede on all that so i'm not arguing against adaptation or micro evolution i'm arguing that my argument you said i don't have any arguments this is my argument that even whatever we find scientifically at some point it has to be created by something i mean like because everything that we find as of right now 100 percent of everything is created 100 percent of everything is created i don't know of anything that like we have plenty of vacuum chambers right that are sitting there and they're they're monitoring the electricity and the electrostatics as in it nothing has emerged from those vacuum chambers yet nothing nothing has emerged the longest running experiment is going on right now on ecoli right ecoli has not ever turned into anything but ecoli so even your species evolution i haven't conceded on that you haven't shown any species going anywhere i concede on your definitions of micro evolution which could be adaptation or at the end of the day philosophically you could either say it just happened or somebody did it i mean that's what we're dealing with that's the dichotomy didn't happen by itself or did somebody do it that's my argument mark don't say i don't have an argument because you want to run away and pretend like i don't have an argument because there is no refuge to that what is there other than somebody did it or nobody did it right that's what i'm defending some something did it i'm not defending that nothing did it so if you're trying to attack my argument you have to prove that nothing can do something prove nothing can do something so we've never seen nothing do anything because that's what you're saying that all of this came from nothing i'm saying it came from something whatever you call that something that's your creator that's your guy whatever i don't care i don't believe in it i'm just saying it's most likely 15 seconds we'll kick it and open that's my argument don't say that so what's wrong man yeah all right we're gonna kick it into open discussion everybody for about 15 to 20 minutes uh we're gonna just remind everybody absolutely i'm just gonna do a little housekeeping and let everybody know we are gonna do our q and a after this uh and if you haven't heard saturday september 16th we're having a live in-person event in houston texas uh grab your tickets in the link below as well as our speakers will be linked in the description below and including on our podcast so if you like what you're hearing from either of our speakers you'll find them at the links below and um mark we're gonna let you respond to what ross just said to kick it into our open discussion for the next 15 to 20 minutes please respond to my i don't mind i don't mind having sort of a philosophical discussion on on where it came from but i'm not hearing any explanation nothing has any explanatory power coming out from the creationist side so it's very weird and get into them so the the kind of things like lenski labs we wouldn't expect them to evolve it take a lot more time to speciate as it were um so um it's interesting that he does bring up any coli because the lenski labs they did show a um evolution to a citrate be able to feed on citrate when introduced to it and it sort of said life got here by creation and then said the universe could have been the creator but that's just naturalistic processes there's that that could be evolution there's no there's no teeth to that statement that you're basically acknowledging that evolution could be true and you're going to have any alternative i am cheating that too i mean that too though yeah but you haven't offered any explanation in favor of creation explanation is we don't know um if i don't know what i pretend like i do yeah but that's not an explanation that's not an explanation saying i don't know is a concession that you you are okay okay not to be pejorative that just means that you don't know the answer that's not an like if you say why is the car stop i don't know the answer like hang on why are we talking deeply about that all right why are we talking if mark if you can wrap up your point there i'm sorry ross i'll just yeah yeah so you can wrap that up in 10 seconds there we'll hand it back to ross the car doesn't start why is that and you say well i don't know that's not an explanation of why the car isn't starting it's just saying i acknowledge that i have no explanation so i mean thanks i guess for conceding that but mark mark mark excuse you can see it you know why the car doesn't start mark because nobody started it god damn it because there wasn't anybody to do it that's why i didn't start that's my point anytime something happens there was a cause you why didn't the car start you're trying to pretend like i'm just so uh uh in that intellectually i don't understand the deep words cut it out cut it out no you're not saying anything that deep all right why didn't the car start because nobody started it but that's that's my answer oh how come what happened to how did god do i don't know i don't believe in god i just told i told you the beginning i'm not a scientist i don't believe anything that i can't see through observable experiment so there's no observable experiment that shows any of this we both we both don't know don't pretend like i'm the only one who's saying i don't know you're saying you don't know but you're just saying it a longer way so that way people don't understand you you think that we're not smart enough to understand because you talk in the british accent hello sorry no it's australian not british i know that's why i said british because it's just okay oh hilarious um so this is just because you talk at length that doesn't mean you're talking over our heads you're not talking over our heads you're talking at length i don't know then you're trying to pretend like i'm wrong for saying i don't know we both don't know so now let's move on to the philosophical discussion because we can talk at length about what makes the most sense but don't pretend like i'm the only one not bringing science science does not know so i'm not trying to talk have not proven it i'm not trying to talk over anybody's head i'm trying to get my position explained as well as i can um i i think that you're sort of leveraging all these accusations about me that i'm somehow trying to sort of make myself superior use my accent in some way which is such a weird way instead of instead instead of actually using people of trying to do this and trying to do that why don't you actually present some evidence or some arguments or something from your side besides the straw men i will but you won't respond to it that's why we keep doing it every time i present evidence you run away why would i respond to it let's try again let's try again let me present evidence and you respond to it okay fine why why would i entertain why would i entertain a straw man what's straw man i'm making my argument i'm not arguing against you yeah myself from nothing i'm my straw manning myself what are you talking about are you confused yes i'm no no i'm not confused i'm giving you my argument nothing is a straw man of the position that the that cosmologists take about cosmologists who's cosmologists i'm not cosmologists you're arguing against me right now attack my arguments i lay my argument out so you can attack it because you keep accusing me and not having it right so i'm not saying the universe came to nothing that's the straw man i i don't know why you don't understand what a storm is when you're sort of misrepresent once i go hello ross let me explain you have some control issues mate you've really got to like settle down and and focus on what you're trying to say rather than just ranting okay yeah sure so my position isn't that the universe came from nothing so when you keep saying how did the universe come from nothing you are misrepresenting my position on that subject that is by definition a straw man of my position so it a hundred percent is how's it not probably better if you respond directly to you this is why it's not misrepresenting your position because you're lying right now what you're doing is you're lying you're saying let me let me explain you're saying oh you're gonna tell me what i believe now hold on hold on hold on hold somebody's gonna hold all right i said my position i'm not even talking about your position you're trying to pretend like my position is your position right now why are you doing that my position is that so you're not done brother brother brother to be fair you did ask a question there ross but i'll let you continue okay i apologize if i did but i'm saying that something could not have come from nothing and you just agreed you said i'm not saying something cannot come from nothing mark that's my position stop saying i'm accusing you of doing that you're misrepresenting this conversation you're doing that i said my position that's my argument my argument is that something cannot have come from nothing and then you turn around and say you're trying to say that that that i'm saying that bubble i didn't say none of that mark i didn't say nothing about you i said my position and then you want to accuse me of doing something you don't have to attack my argument it's not working mark you're trying to run from my argument stop doing it attack my argument how can something come from nothing stop lying to the people thinking you're too smart for everybody you're not what i i never i never said that for a start so you're just throwing out these accusations but i never said that i'm smarter than anybody i don't believe that's the case so this kind of oh well you think you're smart no i don't so don't tell me what i think number two hey hey ryan could you mute him please thank you and then attack the argument yeah mute him so when take one when you have a debate and somebody takes a position i take my position and you're supposed to attack that position so if my position is not the universe comes from nothing you attacking your own position basically saying hey it's my position that the universe can't come from nothing i never said it could i never said that the universe began with nothing so you're basically using a straw man of my position to say hey you think the universe came from nothing you can't demonstrate how it did but i don't think the universe came from nothing so it makes a nonsensical question and and quite frankly accusing me of lying when i say hey i don't think the universe came from nothing again is point i'm like but if you want me i will never say nothing that i can't substantiate directly okay so when did i say the universe came from nothing so when did i say the universe came from nothing when did i say that mark mark no no no no you don't you don't get to run away from this you said that you're attacking my position when did i say when did i say the universe came from nothing all right and we're gonna let him respond and i'm gonna put you on mute mark i didn't say you said that that's why i called you a liar now because you're telling me i said that i didn't say that that's why i called you a liar now i said i believe the universe could not have come from nothing and then you tried to say that i said i said no no you have to take my argument mark what you still haven't done why won't you attack my argument because that's my only argument the universe cannot have come from nothing there had to be a creator there's a creation versus evolution mark all right back on mute you go and back over to back okay so there's another possibility and the one that i take the position of is that it has a many world's hypothesis i already went through this so obviously you weren't listening that the universe at its early stages were a temporal so it didn't have to come from anything it's eternal so how do you deal with that you're not going to what hello can you hear me yep we can okay okay um okay so you're saying i don't believe that so it was created by something i believe in something else and and this is a good conversation mark because it's philosophical now you understand so i i agree now i i think that philosophically maybe you can make a good case right that the laws of physics maybe just have always existed right or maybe you can make a good case remember we're imagining now we're not talking about science mark right we're imagining what could it possibly be you know what it's just hard for me to imagine that something doesn't have a beginning because no matter how you slice it that argument you're making right now has to lead to the circular notion of time life everything everything has to just always have begun and that's just hard to wrap my mind around and i'd be happy to wrap my mind around it if there's evidence for that but there's none so right now we're just philosophically postulating and and i i think that it you're a smart guy i think that's a smart postulation i don't think that it's dumb that people think and you're just you're just using the cop out of god or creator you're right it is a cop out i don't i don't think that's dumb either though to say that i don't understand something i don't think that's dumb you know i mean so like i said i'm like you know i don't want to misrepresent you but don't misrepresent don't misrepresent where did the creator come from that that's a great question man we don't know we can we can postulate on it philosophically but now we're in the realm of creator come from this is philosophy but now you're into infinite regress yeah that's why that's why they use the word god because they can't explain that because because and i don't i don't agree with the word god that's why i just say creator because you don't know what the attributes are like we use god because we want to make everything like us we want to think that that god is human and he thinks like we don't have no idea right god or the concept of what created us it could be so far beyond our understanding that i'm like now we're just talking about because your answer is well the metaphysical right the multiple universe is a thousand right and i'm not saying that it's it's unlikely right because it's very possible that if you look at mathematics right the chance of earth and where we and our universe being this perfect is so slim to none that they have to come up with something like multiverse theory to explain why our universe is perfect right the cosmic microwave background it explains why there there's the exact density that our universe needs to be for the laws of gravity to work exactly like they're supposed to so we can have life exactly are right how did that happen it seems mathematically impossible you know how they deal with it theoretically mathematically they say you know what it probably happened an infinite number of times and we're living in the one where it went right and that's a great actually philosophy actually got to a creationist argument fine-tuning congratulations you've lucked out and landed on a creationist argument for once okay so fine-tuning so we don't know what the probability of this universe forming is because we've got a sample size of exactly one there's only one universe so we can't tell probabilities we have to make Bayesian analysis to say hey it's unlikely if these set of conditions are true it is unlikely but we don't even know whether the constraints that we have in this universe was very probable and maybe it worked on a scale of hey this other universe is improbable this one's probable we don't know how it got here so um totally agree so but but then then you cannot say that it's highly improbable to form this universe you can't make those I can say oh I can if we're saying we don't know how are you telling me when I can and can't say now see that's a little great that's why I call you religious because you just admit it you don't know and then you're trying to tell me like you know don't tell me when I can plus you late because this is a philosophical conversation now we don't know so I'll say you can't say no I can say okay well I mean you can do all that you you can say that you don't know the conditions for the the universe forming and you can say hey it's highly improbable that the conditions would cause the universe to form like this yeah that is intellectually inconsistent you're basically saying that hey on one side it's probable and I know that it's probable I didn't say that no never use those words conditions um so you know I I you you made the fine-tuning argument I don't know if your memory is gone or something I mean I made the argument I didn't say that I know I'm telling you what the data says and then from the data what data the cosmic microwave background what what data do you have on these other universes to give you a statistical probability of it forming exactly as this universe hold on hold on I didn't I don't I'm saying that that's what the people who believe that there is no god or creator they're trying to postulate why something as perfect as our universe happened when mathematically it's improbable this is I'm not saying it's not perfect oh oh yes it is oh down down to the no no really no as you're disagreeing with your own religion now you're just right no multiple cosmologists have pointed out that the variables could be changed so that there's a there's a much lot more stable version of the universe in a better way so that's what you just said there's no proof of that uh yeah there is you want to watch it well that's that's what cosmologists what experiment did they do oh what experiment did they do that prove that because that was a how do you know under different constraints a universe couldn't another universe couldn't form how do you know that it's it's a philosophical postulation you claimed you knew for sure okay well mine's a philosophical postulation we agree thank that was my first sentence in the whole debate but you say to be honest with you nothing about this is to do with evolution uh it has to do with evolution versus creation to me create no it's not creationism is what you're supposed to be whatever it is whatever word you want to put on it don't change the fucking subject what i'm saying is that something had to arouse from something else it's hard for me to philosophically wrap my mind around that so if you have a good argument i could say okay think about it like this yeah so i'm just gonna i'm just gonna i'm not here to debate cosmology i'm here to debate evolution versus creationism so you're cosmology to deflect to something else no it isn't it's biological a big bang wrong with you so you're you're you're denouncing the big bang no the big bang is not evolution what are you talking about okay okay okay so all right so then we agree then all right so you don't agree with the big bit because to me i'm like it's either the big bang or something did it right i like you're you're strong at me and guess what you don't even know the subject of the debate this is absolutely terrible ross why are you insulting my intelligence i don't know what creation versus evolution means did i say anything about you hang on did i say i don't know nothing about your intelligence you said i don't know what's the subject of the debate is here i don't know what the correct word you don't okay so you're you don't challenge us now and you're an idiot that is not i did never i never i never said that all right we'll hand it over to you ross we're gonna let you have the last word before we kick it into the q and a it's been a really fiery one here tonight everybody uh so i hope you're having fun i see lots of you bounce on the live chat there lots of fans lots of money in the comments let me know if i'm returning i'm sorry i'm sorry all right let's try to avoid anything i can get as deep like i know especially in my country look i just i just want to say something i never called you stupid i never said that you're unintelligent i just said you don't with the british accent you did it with a british accent so it sounds better hello okay ross all right all i said is you don't know the topic of the debate which is creationism maybe you should look up creationism and find out what it is that you're supposed to be taking the position of um just because somebody wrote a religion that doesn't mean it's not a religion even that that doesn't mean yes it is doesn't mean i have to believe in it all right so i believe in what i believe in i take the creation position i'm explaining my position to you if you want to attack those arguments go get those people drag them in here you can attack the dumbass argument you can't do nothing with my argument you know the only argument i've heard is fine i'm not talking about anything i don't know for sure i'm pointing to scientific evidence agreeing with all the scientists we don't know for sure how the cosmology was made so because we don't know it's a philosophical debate that's my position and you don't want to attack that you know why because you can't it's iron clad all right we're gonna let maric respond and we'll kick it back to you ross and then we'll get to q and a yeah so this is creationism versus evolution which is sort of on the origin of life whether it was created as is by some sort of creator or whether it evolved over time but sort of unable to debate the scientific consensus ross is sort of fleeing back to well you've got to explain every facet of reality before you can get to evolution which is a common sort of um it's a weighted sort of mott and bailey opposition to sort of say hey i'm not going to actually debate what your position is i'm going to debate this fake position that i'm going to make up and sort of attribute to you so yeah really really bad ross um really bad uh i just got to say that this is creationism versus evolution i can't respond directly to that creationism entails certain things i can't respond directly to that all right we'll let you respond then we're gonna kick it into the q and a and thank you everybody for being here lastly on that um you know what i will conceive on one thing right so you got one point really i'm up like 50 to 1 right because you like you literally said a bunch of times all right this is my philosophy all right you like you agree this is my philosophy all right okay so this is lee cronin right uh origin of life expert quotes origin of life research is a scam unquote quote i do not care whether the atmosphere is oxidizing or reducing we have no way of knowing we can look at the fossil records and geological records and ask those questions unquote quote in the past chemistry looks to have been simpler we have seen no evidence of complex chemistry emerging for life unquote last one quote no i would agree with you there is no evidence about what sequence of small molecules was there at the beginning of the earth oh and then guess what the interviewer because this is a video i watched with him a researcher he asked oh so we don't know how it happened but the evidence on earth says that life on earth happened very quickly after the late heavy bombardment that that is evidence in the fossil records leak though i just want to know those are not susceptible those i want to stand up i can't debate the scientific consensus i'm quoting the researchers can we agree with the researchers just one second there please you're a religious man so i want to stand up for lee cronin because sort of this kind of quote mining is sort of what we see a lot from from these kind of creationist that actually that was a twitter where he said that it was a scam and in the video he said excuse me could we mute ross yeah ross um so in the interview he actually said yes i was talking tongue in cheek and the reason why he said he was doing it was trying to motivate the origin of life researchers because really cronin isn't an origin of life researcher he's an artificial life researcher what he's doing is trying to replicate life in a lab not to find out where it comes from so he he he isn't calling his entire field a scam he said he was speaking tongue in cheek he's quote mind a lot as saying this and luckily a biogenesis or the origin of life is not evolution and this is where ross is doing the bait and switch he's saying hey we're gonna debate evolution but i'm gonna leverage all of these other things that we don't know about to say hey i'm correct it would have been really nice to get some sort of arguments against evolution instead of whatever whatever ross decides to straw man this time around so yeah all right we're we're gonna keep this going as long as you guys want to have the open discussion i do want to let you guys know that uh we were i think it's about time but yeah that time yeah let's i mean you can say that i'm quote mining but there's no way to misinterpret we don't know we don't like why do you think you're so smart that that we could was he talking about evolution we didn't misinterpret that we don't know what happened was he was he talking about evolution i will concede was he talking about evolution it's a very simple question universe how it was created then he's not talking about evolution he's talking about creationism you're right again my point i don't i'm not attacking your argument mark i'm not attacking i'm no lee krain wasn't saying that evidence i'm strengthening mine with evidence scientific evidence you should be ashamed of yourself for misquoting these people no no no you should be ashamed of yourself these people are very bad you're a religious man they don't even believe what you're i'm not these are people who do experiments not you let's move they do experiments why are you yeah that's terrible lee krain is a very very astamed scientist like you just sort of quote mining him and misrepresent no way to misrepresent absolutely disgusting you should be ashamed of yourself oh yeah you should be ashamed remember this man peddling Scientology you're a Scientologist all right well let's go i don't believe in Scientology you're Tom Cruise you guys i don't think you know what it says right here in my bible oh it says in my bible if you don't believe me then you're dumb you guys you guys can't help but egg each other on just one more time let's get to that q and a everybody all right i'm gonna i'm gonna behave as the overlord with the god of this conversation i was gonna say i don't want to put you both on like the mask just talk to our show here let everybody know we're going to go into our q and a make sure that you hit the like button hit the subscribe share this out in those contentious spaces where you have discussions like this and we're gonna kick it on over to our first super chat coming in from manga fan dan for five dollars what if you're both wrong and the universe is really a 3d holographic projection from a black hole on the bottom of the cosmic coconut very possible super possible i'm actually i love uh simulation theory because it it like it it strength is this whole thing like uh we don't know but it looks like i mean maybe even a video game right wow how are people with all the evidence you're saying exists postulating that we might be living in the video game it's because we don't know so that that that's super then whoever wrote that very wise man stick with that with that line of thinking if you don't know keep questioning it until you know for sure don't be like mark don't be religious all right i hate religion we would have been able to pass that on to the next question but he called you out there a little bit mark at the last yeah so go ahead yeah there's nothing nothing religious about methodological naturalism it is a process in which we checked is it hello hello are you it's mouse on autopilot um so methodological naturalism is a process that we use and and it's supposed to be challenged there's nothing religious about it it's all empirically based it's all evidence based um there's nothing religious about there's no popes there's no priests there's no god there's no worship there's nothing like that so the the whole idea that's religious is just ludicrous um and and plus you know his this this religion as he calls it seems to have given his his computer and being able to provide him with all of these devices which he'll happily use but still call it a religion so obviously it's working um and i just love that you know in religion as a pejorative nowadays but um yeah the whole idea that simulation theory is true it's not blind on the engineers and electricians right they invent stuff not you guys scientists don't invent shit electricians can we mute your ears please these are the people that do that all right one time we're gonna let we're gonna let uh mark wrap up his point we'll definitely let you respond don't worry for sure yeah yeah you will have the last word like so so heart solipsism is one of those questions we don't know the answer to like but there's no even way to know if there is an answer to the question so the whole idea of simulation theory if simulation theory is true when we are in a simulation then evolution is the simulated process but it's no less true in virtue of that simulation and and in the constraints of that simulation that it is for if it was the real world um i'd love to hear ross's how he overcomes hard solipsism because if you want to philosophical conversation hard solipsism is a really account of cutting edge that's really what i want i really want the philosophical conversation and we could do that another time because we're already at the end but i just want to say all right that listen we don't know right i'm never going to pretend like i know something when i don't and we could all just agree on that then at some point we can actually start making process a progress the minute that we start pretending like we know shit and we don't even know it then it's halted because we think we know the answer and we don't that's what you religious zealots do you know and and you know last thing like i said i will concede you do have one point so it's the score is like 51 to one i think you're right i haven't been attacking your argument smart you're right i have not you know why because every time you say something i pretty much agree with it right because you could i get it you're like you know what i have this piece of evidence so i'm gonna bring this evidence up because you can't refute that but then what i'm gonna do is i'm gonna leave that evidence all the way to my conclusion i'm not even dealing with that every time you say something i'm like you're right mark you're right you're right you're right all i'm doing is strengthening my argument and you keep straw manning me allegedly right ironically saying that oh you're trying to say that i'm saying this i'm not saying nothing about what you're saying mark i'm not saying anything about you and your point i'm just giving argument after argument after argument for my point and you are so distraught by it that you have to like oh wait what you're doing this you're doing you want to talk about the conversation you didn't want you don't even want to give no information you're like well you're talking like this you're talking like that this is what my girl does to me she doesn't have anything to say so she talks about how i'm saying it so that way it's like a filibuster technique confuse everybody in that hopefully they forget what his point was all i did was offer argument after argument point after point on why i believe what i believe i did not attack it i think it's a you problem i think it's a you problem then if i my me and your girlfriend agree then it's probably a you problem ross that means that you're a woman mark you agree with a woman okay right you have a period every month she's chemically imbalanced once a month and you agree with her okay that's why she let me relax you're gonna get me to a whole another conversation all right i agree with her you you say a lot without actually making but i mean look look most feminine people do agree with her all right let's continue on we got another question coming in here dr dino five dollars to mark well a lot of evidence and ross is opening for you to refute mark good luck to ross if you want to change people's minds this ain't it mate great great response great response i'm not trying to change anybody's mind you know why because i am not religious i'm not a religious zealot i'm not a pastor i'm not a preacher i do not preach i am not mark i am asking questions that's it i'm i'm actually just a historian right and we all know that most of history is a lie just like what mark is trying to postulate from his little strand of evidence is a lie if you bring up one piece of evidence like oh you know what there's a bloody knife on the ground that means that he killed him just because there's a bloody knife there you're right the bloody knife is the evidence that mark is presenting but the bloody knife does not conclude that there's only one answer and if it doesn't conclude there's only one answer is not evidence and mark agrees with that and i didn't get any of the videos that i have but i have you right here on video mark saying that something cannot be considered evidence unless it only concludes one position and while your position might be most likely it's not conclusive it is not conclusive if you say that you're lying you disagree with scientific consensus the original scientific consensus about conclusivity when it comes to my position which is creation i'm talking about the origin of the universe not micro evolution or adaptation whatever you want to call it you feeling so i'm not trying to convince anybody i'm not religious if you think i should be then maybe you're religious you want to convince people with stuff that's not what scientists do scientists don't convince people with stuff you know what they do they run experiments they observe what did you observe a monkey turning into a human you didn't evolution dies right there because guess what if you don't have an observation you don't have experiment you didn't observe it you theoretically imagined it like spongebob you came from a sponge yeah so following ross's chain of thought that if you have to directly observe things for anything then the only way you could catch a murderer is by directly observing him killing people luckily you don't have that excuse me ross one second there ross that's forensics we're talking about yeah so yeah and forensics is is scientific so one second there ross well i thought you needed me i thought you needed me i thought you needed me all right we'll put you on mute there and no control um so um the whole idea is that okay well we've got a bloody knife but luckily i've brought up like if we have dna evidence for it if we have the forensics come back that hey their fingerprints are on it and and that hey they were at the scene because we found a hair follicle we've got dna evidence putting them where they shouldn't be that is strong evidence that they actually did a very strong evidence and luckily i brought it out unless i find reasonable doubt though with uh do you stop unmuting yourself like seriously um so um we have and luckily i brought i i brought literal dna evidence to show that evolution is true so none of the objections sort of saying oh well i don't know i don't know this that is not any why you're conflicting with the evidence that i've presented right now i sure right it's nice that you're saying that you sound just like my pastor you're like look look look i read it and look look at this book that i'm reading from this what you're telling me look i i i brought all these pages i brought all these books and and explain the experiment and connect the dots between what you're saying and for sure for sure for sure we came from monkeys or like i said because i know you don't have anything with a biogenesis you lost that already right so we're speaking philosophically looking at the evidence scientific evidence i maybe it could point to that but it's not conclusive yet since you show the evidence it's so easy to understand right explain it to me how did that conclude just for sure we came from monkeys because there's tons of reasonable doubt there the other scientists agreed with me next question all right no thoughts over there we'll uh continue on the live chat there all right keep those those questions coming in everybody and we'll keep the conversation rolling all right this one coming in from mic maker for 499 mark what year did the monkey stop evolving into a human whoo great question um millions and millions of years ago um so what we've got to distinguish between for this is the difference between sort of old world monkeys or the more basal simian forms and modern monkeys so when you're talking about modern monkeys we never evolved from modern monkeys we split up and went our own ways so um when you're talking about primates you're really talking about apes as well so we didn't evolve from monkeys we evolved from apes and we still are apes um that's what we still are um there is no defining characteristic of an ape that we do not possess um if you and and you know and also i just want to point out that the failure to explain how we have sort of 200 but we're sort of 99 to 98 depending how you read the dna similarity with with chimpanzees and how we have the same endogenous retroviruses in the same positions and the same virus in 205 instances one would be so unlikely to be impossible 205 is overwhelming evidence that to me that's more evidence of a creator because you're saying it just happened mathematically randomly that's even crazier than saying that somebody did it because it's so specialized it's so perfect i hope everybody's listening every time every time like right imagine that this happened in a million years million years god right whatever evolution god we you haven't observed it if you don't observe it it's not science yet sir and i'm not saying you're wrong because you might be right but i don't like you masquerading in the name of science when you haven't observed it you haven't experimented on it how could anybody disagree with that yeah so i we don't have to directly observe stuff to to see that it happens for instance i've never directly observed the besides you do i've never never directly observed a a mountain being raised that we know from geological movements of plate tectonics that mountains are getting higher and higher um there's this whole idea that we we can observe the effects of it we've never observed um sort of the behavior of electrons but what we can do is make tests on them and see what that leads us to to to believe um the the the whole idea is that we we see these effects and we see these outcomes and we make inferences based upon them and this is the the theory of evolution and i do notice that he's addressed none of what i've presented today none of the evidence that's been brought up has actually been addressed in any way just this bait and switch with elbow let's go to cosmology let's go to a biogenesis let's run away to this other position so um the the um yeah and and so yeah i think i don't and i do concede to that so 51 to two now you're right because most of the stuff that you're saying it's like the bloody night you're like but there's this and i'm i'm sure you are the most accurate score for your own side yeah not i'm sure that score one more time one more i'm sure that score is accurate i i i'm sure that if it's perfectly accurate i'm the most let's continue on dr and modest too dr dino no that's me i am the most modest you know what let's have a moment i am i promise you i'm more unbiased than you i promise i said modest i still can see your position a little bit and you're pretty unfair you're probably the third most unfair moderator you know me oh you're pretty yeah i don't mean to be unfair it's just that when you talk the marx audio cuts off and i'm not even talking about that no i i talk way too much oh i i know that i was gonna say am i getting called out here i was gonna say what's happening no i'm just i'm there yeah i'm just making it no no it's okay it's all good i'm the most neutral person you're ever gonna meet but i'm not religious i don't believe in anything i believe in pure science yes you do have to observe something to be science we've never observed the mountains grow that's why it's geology and not fucking science we can't make a scientific inference about what to play okay some of my just friends are gonna be really mad right now that's because you use the word science hold on just because you use the word they don't make it true yeah i'm gonna give you a perfect example of this i'm a black dude right in america and motherfuckers will have you walking around here thinking that racism is a problem for black people they're not even black you got white people right i'm saying like oh racism is holding black people down okay let me finish now i'm trying to make a point listen me i'm just because you can say racism that don't mean that racism actually exists a person who's really going through it me a black person in america i can give you the direct evidence to whether or not the concept you're talking about exists so if you're talking science this is experimentation just because i say geological science atmospheric science whatever word just gotta say science has to follow the scientific method scientific method geology created that to keep science peer from religious people like you geology does follow the scientific method oh does it yes so how do we know that so how do we know for sure what's causing the mountains to move it if we can't experiment on it if we can't experiment on it how do we know yeah because we can so the correct question how do we know because yeah because we can actually measure the um outcomes that the plate tectonic shifting actually makes and we can line up like for instance um the way that um uh the the uh western coast of africa measures with the eastern coast of south america and so okay well i mean you as i said i've got some friends that are geologists that are gonna be pretty mad right now but your pastor your pastor's gonna be hot right all my pastor's gonna be so mad about this because he read last week on his geological bible and then he preached to me and told me what his geological bible told him so now i'm here peddling it to you as science so people spend their lives studying the topic they spend my dad spends his life studying the bible my dad spends his life studying the bible yeah no i i get that but but they're talking about people that that sort of have to present things as no disrespect to them but if they don't have experiments to go with what they're saying i don't i don't know how that could be anything but disrespectful it is disrespect where are the experiments it is disrespect where are the experiments i don't take authority i'm not appealing to authority ever and under no circumstances that's all you're doing today one big appeal to authority that you want to straw man me but really your argument is appeal to authority no the scientific process is the scientific process is what we're aligned on it's not an authority i'm not saying all right this person said it so let's just hold on a second ross uh we're gonna move on to the next question just because we got lots of questions coming in and uh i know it's going to spark similar if not you know like i said you're going to hold on to those points i'm sure uh based on what we've heard and i dr dino two dollars uh debaters and i'm going to give you each uh one minute to expound on this please define science and evidence so mark i'll start with you 30 seconds science uh definition yeah so science is the um um methodological naturalism is the process of how we um based upon empiricism and naturalism that we um investigate the natural world around us based upon um observation questions uh hypothesis with falsification to theory and then publishing a peer review and replication of that that um study um so that's in essence there are a few different scientific methods but they all generally follow that same process all right and oh you also wanted um definition for evidence a 30 seconds definition of evidence yeah evidence is um a body of facts presented in a way that reaches one conclusion above all others um to support that that case and i would say is evidence hey i will respect you mark you're a consistent man and i'm about to play a video of you saying exactly that right i literally have it up right here but you already said it for me all right evidence has to conclude has to point to one conclusion one conclusion how many conclusions mark one it can't be oh you know what 99% want this one but there's still one percent reasonable doubt for this one if there's one percent then it's not conclusive to one all right it's your turn now ross we're going to kick it over to you i thought i thought i was going um um oh no no you you don't get to escape this one this is for both of you all right dr dino asks debaters please define so i'm going to give you 30 seconds to define we didn't get definitions from i he's asking no no that's what i'm asking you asking me right now oh okay yeah i'm asking him right now okay so all right i signed out for a second that's all right so uh please define science uh for us there ross great question science is a word right a word right words are symbols that point to things that we're supposed to be able to experience in real life okay so i don't adhere to words and their definitions because other people say it is why i respect the scientific method all right because it was created just for this to weed out all the rhetoric all right that's what that's what all this is it's rhetoric all right we look at something and then we talk about it a certain way the scientific method is the only thing that we can fall back on observation experimentation that's time there and secondly what would be your definition for evidence 30 seconds i'm deferring to mark and he's contradicting himself right now i'm gonna play that evidence has to as a conclude one thing nothing that he's giving concludes only one thing he doesn't think that and neither do the scientists that actually collected the evidence i like i've been i've been listening to look i could pull up videos of them saying he's saying i've taken a matter of context that makes me more mad than anything because i'm like do i could pull up the whole video of them describing how they don't know five seconds they don't know oh okay all right that was right at the end there maybe i should do a warning at 10 seconds just in case you haven't expounded everything and make sure you get to the end of your time there uh the crowd daddy for oh tune uh sorry the crowd daddy 029 for five dollars modern day debate congrats for holding a debate where one side isn't complete will for willful ignorance like flat earth or the pro our word anti-choice slash consent uh well thank you the crowd daddy we appreciate it ever quick dude i just want to say i just want to say real quick dude i almost became a flat earther watching you watching your debates mark you are the straw man king i don't know if you are actually a flat earther and you're trying to sigh up right and act like you're not and just debate in a way that just straw man's whole position and ignores all the evidence so that way you it's like they look so good against you and i'm not even a flat earther but i'm like man god damn it like 10 seconds that should be the easiest thing that should be the easiest thing to debate and and and look man i'm just gonna say look no flat earthers be reckoning dog all right he's calling you out um how do you feel about the flat earth debates you've had and then i'll give you 30 seconds i'm not a flat earther but i almost became one yeah so i actually feel pretty good about my flat earth debates i think that a lot of the questions i asked are unresolved and you know i i think that somebody that's sort of done so poorly shouldn't really be taking shots at other people yeah this has been an absolute shock i mean it's funny that the question sort of said oh one side isn't complete ignorance but one side of this debate and that's ross's side has been advocating complete ignorance like i don't believe anything outside excuse me ross i'm honest to you um somebody saying that they don't and i'll quote ross to debate him that he doesn't pay any consideration to anything outside of his bubble if that isn't pure ignorance i don't know what is that you're lying again i said that i don't believe anything that i can't see through observation and scientific evidence observation hypothesis right experimentation theory well let's all have let's all have a moment of amicability on the things that we can see uh what is everybody having for beverages tonight uh well i started with coffee because it's morning and then water um but you know i wonder if ross actually believes that australia exists because he hasn't seen it a moment of a moment of amicability as i raise a glass i think i saw some miller light there earlier ross cheers to you buddy uh we'll have a moment there and uh i want to promote me you're promoting yeah you're you're on brand let's continue on there fellas as i'm trying to create a little bit of light heart at this all right so uh this one coming in from the uh sorry thanks to the craw daddy for your nice compliment there uh coffee mom thanks to see you again dollar 99 who created the desert why is it different than a bike that's a good question right i'm i that's the question that we're asking you know me i'm not advocating ignorance i'm acknowledging it because we don't know that's my point i don't like people that say they know when they don't know i grew up in the church i hate those people you know why because they think they know shit that they don't know and they force it on you just like this Scientologist right here he wants to force his doctor on you because he read it or his pastor read it or somebody else read it they read it they told you now you have to believe it or you're stupid isn't that isn't that like disrespectful to tell me that we both read something we both got different conclusions from it why am i stupid because i have a different conclusion for reading the same thing that you read you're a religious zealot that's what religious people do they call you stupid because you don't think the same thing they think that's fucking ridiculous that's fucking oh yeah i'm sorry that's ridiculous you're absolutely nobody's dumb don't see the way you see it you're absolutely terrible nobody nobody terrible oh yeah what you're saying is is terrible like nobody said you were stupid um so the whole idea but it's because you say it in a british accent and it sounds nice doesn't mean you're not calling me stupid it's australian not i know what i'm gonna keep saying british because it's so you know that something is incorrect yet you'll say it anyway yes i'm trying that sort of sums you up in a name of my channel you see the name of my channel real offended real offended you know why because it's impossible for you to offend me but i know you're gonna get offended you're gonna get offended call you religious or i do this or i when i say you're not or i say you're from england you're gonna get mad about that because you're emotional about the stuff that you read i'm not emotional about anything i look at it i see what the conclusion tells me i go with it there's no emotions behind i'm sorry so the guy doing what i can only describe for the last hour and a bit as an unhinged rant is accusing me of being the emotional one yes and i'll tell you why because this is how i really am i'm really this aggressive and mean all like if we were in the wild like imagine look if we're in the wild right and there's no emotional no i'm not emotional you can say it you can say it you're emotional aggressive aggressive you feel me no emotional what i mean if we were in the wild right 15 seconds there were no walls there were no walls or nothing right and we all just had to kill for our food i wouldn't be doing no arguing with all these people i'm a civilized man because we're the civilized society but if we were just animals i'd just be killing shit and taking what i want i'm that kind of guy i'm a top dog i'm an apex predator you feel me yeah i'd be communicating when i'm ignorant though but i would be communicating with my fellow man and organizing tactics they hate so point out how ignorant they are and that's yeah you're just how i'd be ignorant if i don't know some let's let's get this off here lady you can be emotional all right all right no relax all right let's let's keep it uh let's keep it rolling here and try to try to keep it you know chill um to a certain degree everybody and i hope you're out chill and trust me i got a few more levels you've got a few more levels well i i would love to see that the level up from this unhinged sort of oh this crazy yelling honestly uh just just cascade of just white white white let's see if we can get the uh let's see if we can do a level up here how like that i want to give him a compliment i will say honestly i see you as a pretty respectful person mark and and that's why i do like this conversation because you're great to bounce ideas off i think you're a very intelligent guy i wish i could return that compliment i wish i could return that compliment i really wish i could and i was literally just gonna say you're respectful for the most part until you start thinking that you're smarter than everybody and then you're exactly what you look like an egghead you're exactly what the fuck you look like and i understand why you don't believe in god look at me how can you not believe in god i'm looking at all right we're gonna move to the next chat or i'll tell you what's going on with me i'm gonna start singing some why is god if you guys don't let me why is god curse me like this save me save me all right silo side for true sadness 499 the laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive so it makes no sense to save say the laws of physics already existed before things it can act on i agree with that i think that adds to the problem of now how did it get there now how did it get there i i agree 100 with that with that comment and i don't i want to know we don't have an answer i looked at all the scientific data everything that mark is presented today right everything that i've read leading up to this none of it is conclusive so i just feel a big question mark there i don't think anybody can just agree with that all right let's continue on to the next super chat there and keep them coming in and we'll keep the conversation rolling uh let's see here i got to scroll back up as i was checking in on our live chat making sure you're all behaving yourself analyzing avatars for ten dollars ross i grew up highly religious too i don't think mark is religious how can we tell who's correct great question i mean this is not a scientific question right it's a philosophical question right how could we tell we won't really know because it's opinions so we can we can deliberate on it we can talk about it what do you think what do i think my definition of religion is this first of all the bible and every book that we read that is not directly giving data on an experiment is a philosophical book the bible is just a philosophical book it's a historical record but it's also a philosophical book and and we didn't get to talk about the flood today i did prepare some stuff for that maybe we could do that at another time because i did want to go into the bible a little bit but it's a philosophical book if you believe in it that's your philosophy that's fine the minute that you start saying or you have to believe me or you're stupid if you don't believe me or your this is you don't believe me now we're in the realm of religion you're believing stuff that doesn't have conclusive evidence for it and then you're trying to force it on me that's crazy thoughts on that course have been started and i i detest that you feel me i detest religion yeah so looking at the way we can tell what is real and what isn't is methodology or the study of what actually works to basically examine reality and find out what is true and what aligns with reality and what doesn't for the track record the scientific methods are the best way we have of telling what is real from what is not real and its track record is unsurpassed it's responsible for just about every single piece of technology we have today whether that be sound systems cars airplanes all that kind of thing so there is no other way that even approaches the scientific methods and in order to gauge what is real and what is not maybe there is a better way maybe we should just leave it to what we believe but unfortunately science is esteemed because it