Everybody, today we're debating human origins, evolution, or intelligent design, and we're starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a fun one, folks. Really fun in that we have a lot of experienced debaters on board tonight, and very well read as well. So I want to let you know though, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we are very excited for future debates. So for example, this Thursday, Kent Hovind will be here to debate the fossil record. Should be a lot of fun, and hopefully we'll see you back for that. And I want to let you know we're a neutral channel, so we don't have any actual positions as the channel itself. We don't have any videos that are, let's say pro-evolution or pro-intelligent design. Instead, we just let the debaters who are guests come on and make their cases. So we're very excited for this one. It's going to be a tag team match, if you haven't figured that out, and it's going to be 12 minutes split by each side. Then what we're going to do is, after that 12 minutes split by each side, which we'll start with our friends on the evolutionist side for the opening statements, we will then go into the open conversation. If you have a question for the Q and A, feel free to fire it into the old live chat. And if you tag me with at modern day debate, that makes it easier for me to see every question and be sure that it gets in the list for the Q and A. Also, Super Chat is an option. So if you'd like, if you do a Super Chat, you can ask not only a question, but you can make a comment during the Q and A to which the speakers, of course, would get a chance to respond to. And it'll also push your question or comment to the top of the list. So we are excited to jump into this, folks. Thanks for being here to the audience. And most of all, we just really appreciate our speakers. They're bringing their passion here to modern day debate as we know that there are a lot of channels that would love to have them. And so we really do appreciate them spending their time with us today. So thanks so much to all four of you for being here. Yeah, thank you for having us. Indeed. Should be fun, looking forward to it. Absolutely. Looking forward as well. Absolutely. So thanks so much, everybody. We will jump into it right now. So our friends from the evolution side will be going first, as mentioned. And so RJ and Jeff, the floor is all yours. All right, I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen. Let's see, here we go. Are you able to see that? Now let me make sure I actually can use this. All right, cool. So I timed this out and it's pretty close to my allotted six minutes on my side. So I'll probably be speaking pretty quickly. So I apologize for that. All right, with that being said, hi, everyone. My name is Jeff and I will be arguing that we as humans are a product of evolution by natural selection. Now I'm not a scientist. I don't have a higher learning education in evolution. I'm just a regular dude who's interested in advocating for scientific literacy and who's done some reading into the subject. But even I can say unequivocally that evolution is true and all life on earth, including our own, is a result of evolution by natural selection. If you do a deep dive into the subject matter, evolution can become an unbelievably complicated topic, but the basics can be easily understood by anyone and I will be covering mainly the basics here. So let's define the terms here before we move on. Evolution is simply the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations and natural selection is just the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. To clarify, the observed fact that we see is a change in heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolution is our explanation for how these changes occur. So much like the theories of gravity, heliocentrism and the germ theory of disease to understand evolution is to accept evolution. You cannot understand these concepts and simultaneously deny them. The only way to deny any of these concepts is to misunderstand them. It's not a religion, it's not a belief system, it's testable and verifiable knowledge. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. So evolution, how does it work? Well, for a quick example, let's look at the giraffe. The giraffe has a long neck that's specialized for helping them to reach their food source high up in the trees. Specialized, you might say, doesn't that insinuate there's an intelligence behind it? On the contrary, this change can easily be explained by these concepts of evolution and natural selection in the African savannas where food is scarce for giraffes. These giraffes, which were better adapted for their environment, in this case with longer necks, were able to out-compete their shorter neck counterparts and were more likely to pass their genes on. In this way, the trait of long neck was selected for due to external pressures. Over thousands and thousands and thousands of years, the long neck giraffes did a better job of passing their genes down, resulting in giraffes we see today with longer necks, longer legs and the physiology which can support them. Now, how does this apply to humans? We see something very similar in humans. Thanks to the fossil record and genetic sequencing, we know that our ancestors originated in Africa. As our ape-like ancestors moved out of Africa north into Eurasia, we see changing traits such as lightning of skin to accommodate for their new colder environments and reduction in mandible size with the advent of fire and normalization of cooking foods, same principles, different species. More recently, we've developed even more human-like traits bipedalism, large and complex brains, the ability to develop and use tools, capacity for language, et cetera and very, very slowly over thousands and thousands and thousands of generations, we've ended up where we are today. We're still under the pressures of evolution and in another million years or two, we might not even recognize our descendants as the same species as ourselves. So how have we arrived at this conclusion? Well, first of all, for proper application of the scientific method, scientists have gathered all the evidence they can find, the fossil record, genetics, anatomical comparison, molecular biology, biogeography, direct observation, et cetera, and then once pieced together, they've come to the conclusion that evolution via natural selection is the only reasonable explanation for our origins. This has been independently tested in verified countless times. Evolution can make predictions such as what kind of fossil remains we might find in particular geological columns. Plenty of people have attempted to debunk evolution, yet as far as I can tell, no one has written their findings in a scientific journal, had it peer reviewed and subsequently been awarded the Nobel Prize in Science for debunking one of the most widely understood and accepted theories in the world. Intelligent design, in contrast, is unable to properly utilize the scientific method. In order to conclude that we are designed intelligently, one must enter with the preconceived assumption that there is a higher power or they must appeal to ignorance and saying, it seems impossible to me that this all happened by chance. Let's look at some common arguments made in favor of intelligent design. One popular talking point is the idea that all animals were made in their kind and cannot change from one kind to another. Or the I am not a monkey argument. Speciation of the process by which populations evolved to become distinct species is an observable fact. Evolution does not claim that a monkey gave birth to a human, it was a slow gradual change. To put it in a way that might be more easily understandable, if we look at a color gradient like the one here, sorry, if we look at a color gradient, it's impossible to pinpoint exactly where blue turns to green or where red turns to yellow. However, we can look at any two points in the color gradient and easily tell whether we're looking at red, green, blue, purple, et cetera. So there is no evidence of intelligence in our origins and in fact, plenty of evidence for a lack of intelligence behind our biology. I'm reminded of the giraffe again in its laryngeal nerve. The larynx in the brain are mere inches away from one another, however, the nerve that connects the two stems from the brain goes all the way down the neck and then loops back to connect to the larynx, adding about 20 feet of unnecessary nerve. This would make no sense if there was an intelligent designer behind the giraffe. However, it makes perfect sense if we understand that the giraffe's neck was molded by natural selection over thousands of generations. We actually have the same issue, just not to the same extent as you can see here in this diagram. So we have other examples of an intelligent design. We have ectopic pregnancies, which killed the mother without surgery. We eat and breathe using the same tube. We can be killed by our own teeth rotting in our mouths. Our appendix can pop and kill us and as far as we can tell it's vestigial. We're not designed very intelligently. The rest of the main arguments for intelligent design can usually be identified and discarded as an argument from design fallacy, sell some machines, DNAs like computer code, et cetera. An argument from ignorance fallacy, which would be like, I can't imagine how it could be entered away or our otherwise updated versions of the God of the gaps argument. These have all been debunked so many times and so thoroughly that I wouldn't be adding much to the conversation by debunking them here. However, I'll happily do so if they happen to come up over the course of our discussion. In general, any appeal to the supernatural without proof of the existence of the supernatural is inherently inferior to a theory that does not need to appeal to the supernatural. So in closing, our origins are very well understood by the greater scientific community and other than a few outliers who are almost ubiquitous and motivated by external factors, almost no one disagrees with this. Intelligent design proponents might appeal to the science by referencing scientific literature. However, 99% of the time, the writers of the papers being appealed to will agree that evolution is true and that we share a common ancestor with ACE. If there are any points made by our friends from across the aisle here that we're unable to address to your satisfaction, I implore you to do some research on your own and I can guarantee you that there are experts who either have answered these questions or who can give an explanation of our best understanding of the science. And with that, I am finished. Thanks so much. We are going to kick it over to RJ for the second half of their opening. The floor is all yours RJ. Yeah, Jeff brought out the basics of the thing. Natural selection and inheritance with modifications based on natural mutations. That's the basics of it. Natural selection is an interesting argument because there's a big divide between a young earth creationist and intelligent design about whether or not natural selection is real. Intelligent designers more or less kind of dig their heels in and say no. Answers in genesis is okay with natural selection because they need to have hyper spaciation after the flood. Others over at ICR don't like natural selection at all. They're just doctrinally committed to it not being true. So there's a whole big bug barrier but over in the regular scientific community natural selection and let's not forget sexual selection which is another dynamic is just part of the natural science field and you could find a vast science literature on it. I'm glad Jeff brought up the giraffe example which is a really useful one not only with the laryngeal nerve issue but also how there's complete confusion in the anti-evolution position on it. The traditional creationist position was that it was impossible for a long neck giraffe to have evolved from a short neck form. Unless you go to the Ark Encounter today whereas you'll find their created version of the giraffe is a short necked okapi like animal. Exactly the thing that they have been saying was impossible after all of this time. Meanwhile, the intelligent designers basically dig in their heels. They don't want any change at all. They've never done any systematics on what they think is related to anything else. So the giraffe is a perfectly fine example of where there is an evolutionary literature and the biogeography issue and a paleontology matter and just crickets going on over in the anti-evolution side. Also the fact that evolution can predict things that I could think of right off the bat fossils. My favorite, the reptile mammal transition probatic naphids were predicted 30 years in advance down to their muscle attachments in the transitional stuff, which is us mammals. Speaker Miramids, E. O. Wilson predicted those in the 1960s along with his colleagues. That's the transitional wasp ant matter and they had further research on that. And of course, Tiktalak more recently, the early tetrapod that was anticipated based on evolutionary grounds as to where you would go to dig for it and so forth and so on. So if there is a designer out there that designer really loves evolutionists. They wanna make sure that evolutionary paleontologists have the best chance available to find their transitional forms and keeps on supplying them to make them happy. The bad design argument that if anyone brings that up we can get into that. But the main thing that I wanna be fascinated with is to get the model of intelligent design in terms of human origins which is supposedly our topic here. That the problem is that you have basically an anti Darwinist argument going on among anti evolutionists in this area is not a positive argument. Are Neanderthals part of the same kind as we are if you're proceeding from a creationist point of view? If they're from an intelligent design point of view is anything related to anything? Are any of the various hominids related to any other? Literally there is no discussion of this anywhere in the intelligent design literature. It's a non topic. It's entirely a negative argument. So we have a ballpark to deal with here. Humans apparently are now on the field by around 300,000 years ago. They have very specific anatomical characteristics. We've got Homo erectus and the various allied species going on prior to them including Homo heidelbergensis. And we now have the genetics literally directly available from Neanderthals and the Denisovans which track down and match what we can see from the more recent period of about the last 30,000 years or so in terms of human demographics and changing. Intelligent design and young earth creationism combined have never been able to account for this data field. So I hope that we'll get a really good discussion from Jesse and John offering their model of what they think. If we got into a time machine and went back to the very first human species what would it look like? What would design events look like? How many design events are there? How would we be able to delineate this from natural selection and natural processes that are unguided? That's the argument I would be presenting and anytime leftover can go over to discussion in Q&A. You got it. Thanks so much RJ. And with that, we will kick it over to our friends from the intelligent design side.  I want more. You can hear plenty more because I put the links of each and every speaker in the description box. So that way you can click on their links and hear more where that came from. Also wanna let you know with our lighting I'm trying to figure this out. Well, I got a Philips Hue basically a setup so that it's supposed to be interactive like if we get a new subscriber it'll turn green in the background in my room. And I'm trying to get it to where the chat will be able to actually click like exclamation point orange and it would turn the room orange. We're working on it. We're working out the bugs, new stuff. So anyway, thanks so much to John and to Jesse for being here. We appreciate it. We are going to let them have their roughly 12 minutes. And so John or Shadow Dancer, the floor is all yours. James, I'm gonna go first when I'm gonna share my screen. Can you give me a thumbs up when the audio starts? We'll do. So anyway, thanks so much to John and to Jesse for being here. As we discussed the origins of the energy. We appreciate it. We are going to let them have their roughly 12 minutes. And so John or Shadow Dancer, the floor is all yours. It is also the most logical explanation. James, I'm gonna go first when I'm gonna share my screen. Can you give me a thumbs up when the audio starts? We'll do. I stopped. I stopped. So anyway, thanks so much to John and to Jesse for being here. We appreciate it. We are going to let them have their roughly 12 minutes. Tonight, as we discuss the origins of humanity, is my intention to showcase that intelligent design is not only the most plausible conclusion, is also the most logical explanation for the existence of all life as we know it. I called Arrhenium Evolution through natural selection the greatest scam on earth for a very important reason. As we progress to the evidence against us being a logical, plausible, and probable explanation for our existence, the level to which philosophers and academic elites use it to dismiss a higher intelligence. As we discuss the origins of humanity, is my intention to showcase that intelligent design is not only into the most plausible conclusion, is also the most logical explanation for the existence of all life as we know it. I called Arrhenium Evolution through natural selection the greatest scam on earth for a very important reason. As we progress to the working. There appears to be, we've encountered this sort of thing before and it's always been due to human error. I don't know how a share screen can work. I guess it was recently. You see why don't you screen share postings at times you can get into these terrible messes. I literally tested it with James before we started to make sure it was gonna work. All right. Okay. Tonight, as we discuss the origins of humanity, it is my intention to showcase that intelligent design is not only the most plausible conclusion, is also the most logical explanation for the existence of all life as we know it. I called Arrhenium Evolution through natural selection the greatest scam on earth for a very important reason. As we progress to the evidence against us being a logical, plausible and probable explanation for our existence, the level to which philosophers and academic elites use it to dismiss a higher intelligence will become clear. It is likely at least one of my opponents will attempt to use sarcasm and requests for papers and literature when confronted with the profound weaknesses of their arguments. Therefore, in an attempt to prevent these never ending interruptions for requests for technical literature, I've created a publicly accessible folder with a plethora of secular papers from which my arguments have been derived. Obviously, this debate will go in many directions, but there are five positions which challenge the premise of undirected evolution through natural selection being a logical, plausible reason for our existence. First, adaptations of existing functions to account for environmental condition variants is primarily executed through epigenetic factors which do not result in new core functions. This is a known fact and the epigenome is a fundamental element which has shaken the entire premise of evolution to its core. Not only are these adaptations the result of variable gene expression caused by epigenetics, they are not the result of mutations, rather are controlled modifications executed through read, write, and erase nanomachines. Second, is my position that macroevolution is not proven by speciation nor by variants within species. While Darwinists attempt to explain this with very slow changes over time, it is now known that literally thousands of genes and gene regulatory network components working in synchronicity are required for new body plans to exist. Not only must they work in unison, it has been shown extremely minor modifications are fatal in embryo development. While I did not discount that variations can occur on a contained level, it is my strong contingency that these are the result of reorganization and adaptation of existing data and functional capacity, not the creation of new information or functions solely through random mutation and natural selection. Third, the variation of transcription factors in gene regulatory networks result in a significant difference in gene expression. To date, the most studied of these are in relation to cognitive function and show 9 to 23% of variation between chimps and humans. It has also been shown these differences must work in unison, and any degradation of this, even to the level of point mutation results in dramatic impairment or death. Not only does this showcase the extreme importance of gene regulation, it also decimates the relevance of similar coding genes in relation to final outcome. Moreover, the significant differences in non-coding regions of the genome become apparent for things ranging from introns, rancher transposons, enhancers and promoters, to name a few, all of which have been dismissed by those against intelligent design. However, the discoveries made in the last decade, decade have now made their relevance unavoidable. Fourth, it has now become apparent through structural biology that not only is the prescriptive sequence information housed in the genetic code required, it must also be geographically coordinated through dynamic real-time folding to enable full gene expression. This applies to interchromosonal data transfer, which not only forces acceptance of physical gene locations being vital, it also decimates the relevance of a similar sequence existing in another organism that housed in a completely different physical location. Not only does this make sequence similarities irrelevant in relation to undirected natural selection, it actually lends credence to intelligent design. Fifth, the prescriptive information of our genetic code uses arbitrary values, the meaning of which is unknown without translational mechanism. This semantic meaning is immaterial and no other context could be interpreted without the prior actions of an intelligent agent.  When all of this is viewed through the now known reality that not only must the information exist, it must also be in a specific physical location in the genome to conclude that foreknowledge of the desired outcome is not required for life to exist, requires those who dismiss intelligent design to suspend rational thought. Therefore, it's initial creation by undirected physical process without the action of an intelligent agent is not only neither logical, plausible or probable, but impossible. In closing, as you consider these arguments and expansion of them throughout the debate, ask yourself this, whose position is more rational? Is it those concluded as more logical, plausible and probable that these things could not occur by chance? Or those who argue no matter how counterintuitive it is, you must believe this could all happen without its designer being required? Gotcha, thanks so much. We will kick it over to Shadow Dancer. So thanks, we appreciate it and the floor is all yours. Okay, give me just a moment so I can share my screen. Did that work? All right, so I'll go ahead and kick it off. Can we know from history that we have an intelligent designer? If evolution is true, we should see this reflected in the archeological and historical records of man. Aluminum was not created by man until 200 years ago in the Industrial Revolution. This was found with animal fossils that are 10,000 years or more extinct. The majority of the historical and scientific community find as a reasonable story is that it is part of this plane's landing gear from World War II. For your convenience, I have linked the picture of that plane and its landing gear. No such item on there. This was found in London, Texas with the unique metal composition you see on the slide. It is not rusted in the technology to create it was not available to ancient man so they claim. They invoke a meteor instead from an alien civilization and the hammer hitched a ride. This is not well known but still taught in university as one of the oldest examples of Minoan culture, a proto-culture of ancient Greece. Tiles were not invented by the Greeks until the seventh century BC. Also many interesting artifacts were found such as these geometrically sound seals. Geometry we'll discuss later. This bell you might know, found in a coal seam that was dated 300 million years and yet it was inside a coal chunk. It has an ally composition that historians say ancient man couldn't have been able to create. By the way, do not list a lot of resources and I've shown Google results because this is not some obscure information only scholarly circles are aware of. This is a newer find for the Babylonians. It was thought that Europeans were the first to use modern or contemporary geometry. We find that the Babylonians were using it in the fifth century BC. Cuneiform language is much older and we can make an inference that they were using geometry at that time based on this language. We could have a reasonable conclusion that this language is not some proto-language but well-defined and used intricately as on the left side of the screen. We still use this zodiac they came up with today and King Hammurabi had them codify astronomy in 1800 BC 1400 years before the previous slide's tablet was found. I hope you are seeing a pattern here what they think they know based off of evolutionary assumptions and deep time is being proven wrong again. This is a well-known site in Egypt yet people and historians today still invoke aliens because of the preciseness of its construction. Interesting fact that it remained the tallest structure in the world for almost 3000 years. I love Mesoamerican cultures. The ancient Olmec built these gigantic stone heads weighing up to 40 tons quarried from 40 miles away from lava. That is basalt and has no easy task when these heads date to more than 1000 BC. In San Lorenzo in that middle picture this amazing monument and it sure looks like the pyramids of Giza. The narration of evolution natural selection that we accomplished all of this came about by slow innovation is not a viable narrative when we see that man was doing things far greater in the past than we are now. It is actually showing that we're losing technology. I have to go over this quickly. This is the ancient world term in historical circles for these primary four cradles of civilization. Please take a look at the dates. I like adding pictures because I can speak about Ur, Uruk and these temples all day long but a vigil in the magnitude of these cities, the planning and technology I think speaks for itself. Top left is an artist's rendition of Ur, next is an artist's rendition of the Enki temple and bottom is the real time site of Iridu, the city of Iridu. Same here, real time photo top left, the Narmur pallet bottom and bottom right an artist's rendition of the site. These are caddy corner to each other but revealing the same thing, the artist's rendition and then the actual site of these two ancient cities. Bottom two photos are the same, an aerial view of the city of Urlital and a recreation and museum of Urlital of a temple within that city. There's also silk on here which we can talk about the silkworms and ancient silk weaving later. This is considered the new world of ancient civilizations. Notice a pattern with the dates? The top left of the newest satellite imagery find of Chavin de Huantar and it was commonly believed that Olmec was the mother culture in the new world. This recent archeological site is believed to be 2700 BC and the oldest disputed date of the Olmec is 3000 to 2000 BC. Look how similar these structures are to the ancient world. The top right picture was the oldest Indian site until recently, 1700 BC. But what is most fascinating is the staff God I showed on one of the previous slides. The same drawing of the staff God which is the bottom picture found 2300 BC and the top picture is 600 AD. I see no slow change over time. They are easily identifiable and the same image. Historians claim the Tower of Babel is a myth but a recent find called the Tower of Babel tablet dates to around 2900 to 2500 BC placed it firmly about the time of Nimrod who built the Tower of Babel. Look at the highlighted ziggurat on the left, ziggurat on the left. Looks very similar to all the other monuments and temples I showed earlier. What does this mean? We share a common human ancestor. That means we share a common memory as well.  The majority of historians do not want to see this connection not because it isn't valid but because it connects history firmly to the Bible meaning we have an intelligent designer and a creator. Instead, those with doctrines in history invoke aliens or some other narrative to hide the truth of history. Our ancestors, the pre-flood in it or antediluvian peoples are far more intelligent than us. We have a lost technology and are trying to regain what they had. My question to RJ and Jeff is this, with all our modern technologies today, how can we not understand the technologies of man 5,000 years ago? Thank you. And so always fun. And with that, the floor is all yours for our speakers. Gosh, I have a lot of questions. Yeah, I was gonna say, I don't know where to start. That was a, honestly, I was not expecting that angle. So I really liked that. That was an interesting angle I wasn't expecting. We can go into Mesoamerican pyramids why they're not at all like the ones in Giza and are in a completely different timeframe. We can go into the fact that her own source has silk at 8,500 years old, which is 2,500 years before the universe was created, according to younger creationism. We can have the flood myths. Egypt does not have a catastrophic flood myth. That's a notorious example that material comes in, which goes back to our sources. The two things that are missing here. One is an explanation of the human event, of human origins and a consensus. So Jesse and John, please tell us when did humans first appear on the earth? Give us a date. Why don't you answer that question? Because I don't think anybody actually has a specific date on that. I believe the evolutionary timeline ranges somewhere between three and six. I've seen some up to 55 million years ago. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. It broadly ranges on that. Whoa, whoa, tell me somebody who claims that Homo sapiens existed on earth 55 million years ago. Any evolutionist who's ever claimed that in the entire history of the field. I've never heard that. The general understanding that I understand. I was making a point that it ranges. And if you go Google it, you'll find the 55 million. Not for Homo sapiens. Is there something wrong with the range? Why is the range not acceptable? Not for Homo sapiens. I was making a point, which clearly you guys didn't comprehend, which is RJ just asked me when the specific date was from my perspective. And I was making a point, a counterpoint. And it's wrong? That we don't know when the, even from the evolutionary perspective, don't know when it happened specifically either. No evolutionist has ever said that. I'm not sure how that has relevance to the... I want to know what you think, Jesse. When do you think humans appeared on earth? I say 300,000-ish. What do you say? I say 6,500 years ago. And I would actually like to continue to talk about the Mesoamerican pyramids. Oh, good, let's. Okay, all right, let's do it. Did you know that each of them are actually within eight degrees and actually last in the pyramids of Giza to the cardinal lines of North and South? Oh gosh, so people can't figure out where North and South is? Tell us. It was just technology over time. What are the Giza pyramids built out of versus what the Mesoamerican pyramids are built out of? I think it's Basalt over in Mesoamerica and then Sandstone over in Egypt. And the interiors of them? Actually, I don't know that. And so an Egyptian pyramid, which is constructed as a complete unit built up as a modified mastaba out of a limestone, which was obtained locally, that was designed as a tomb for the God kings is constructurally not even the slightest similarity other than the fact that it's shaped kind of like this than the small stone constructions that in the case of Mesoamerican, the Almecs and the Maya construction, they built them up as a series of layers. And the Aztecs did the same thing. They would build a pyramid and then they would build a layer over that later on and then another layer over that layer on and another. And so it got higher and higher and larger and larger over time. They were typically built as single units as the archeology goes. Not at all like what was going on in Egypt plus the chronology is completely wrong. When do you think pyramids were built by the way, Jesse? The Egyptian ones. The 2,800 BC? And okay, that is 500 years before the flood. Okay, so listen, when I was giving these timelines, these are secular timelines, all right? According, where do you get your sources from on what these secular timelines are by the way? From my history classes at my college actually and just by basically Googling them. And do you also, I've watched your channel video that you put a link up to, you have a whole bunch of stuff there, crib from answers and Genesis and ICR, do you fact check them? Absolutely, I fact check all of them because what I do is I check the top 10 websites to make sure to see how off are they on this and how off are they on this. But when it comes to AIG. But hold on, when it comes to secular timelines, they don't actually add up. That's why I showed the silkworms one dating from 3,500 BC, 3,500 BC, right? That's when they think that they started domesticating silkworms. And yet we've got this new archeological find of 8,500 years. That's a huge spread of time. So usually when this stuff happens, first of all, I would dispute some of these things that you showed like a 300 million year old brass bell unless I like wrote that wrong. Usually we can either look at it as is everything that we know about human civilization and about metallurgy, is that all wrong? Or is it just possible that we made a mistake in the dating that maybe there was some sort of thing that encased this bell? I would have to look into this. I know a lot of times I've seen arguments for like human footsteps encased or fossilized next to dinosaur footsteps. And usually these are fakes. These are somehow just misinterpreted or misunderstood. So without knowing exactly what these are, I would just say it's probably like to appeal to a 300 million year old brass bell as opposed to like maybe we were wrong. It just, again, it's like Occam's razor. Like what's more simple? The London hammer stuff, that's all stuff that's been debunked over and over again. Even the younger creationists are very leery of some of these examples. A lot of them are very, very suspicious. Andrew Snelling and others are kind of leery about this stuff. Jackson Weed and I included a section on it in the rocks where they are because it's a long tradition of things. So I'm gonna give back- Let me answer Jeff back really fast. So it's not a 300 million year old bell. It was found in a coal scene that has dated 300 million years. According to whom? What do you mean according to whom? Well, how do they know that the, in the case, how do they know exactly the provenance of that? What's, where was that account plus? Was it written up in a technical science journal in a detailed archeological work? So RJ, let me get this straight here. So a secular source and dating of the example that Jesse is giving using the methodologies which you love to pontificate about in the context of fossils as ultimate proof. Are you now suggesting that the dating mechanism is incorrect? No, I'm suggesting that Jesse has gotten her stuff from creation to sources. She doesn't fact check. That's what I'm saying. By the way, John, will you agree? No, I love how you always go down the rabbit hole and accuse people of going to creationist websites which is why the public folder I made available is only things from secular sources because I actually don't ever, hardly ever go to the creationist websites. I'm not accusing you of doing it. I'm accusing Jesse of doing it. My point is that if we're not, there's no point in having a debate.  It's counter the arguments with your own substance rather than constantly questioning and arguing about fact checking. That leads to no substance of the base. So unfortunately, when you make very bold claims that tend to go against all of the science that we know today, all we can really do is go fact check the sources. And again, kind of like I mentioned in my thing, you say you have a lot of secular sources. I would contend without even seeing the sources that if they are truly secular sources, all of the people who wrote these, if they are scientific peer reviewed journals, all the people that wrote these probably disagree with your conclusion. I've seen this happen all the time where creationists or people that have- The point you're trying to make there is whether or not somebody has a different conclusion of the evidence that happens all the time. Like for example, in one of the points you made in your opening statement was that cells are not machines and there is no programming, et cetera, et cetera, which that is rather outdated. No, that's not what I was saying. I wasn't talking about you, RJ. I'm talking to Jeff. So what I was saying is these are bad analogies. Like we can't just look at a cell. That's the point I'm making is they are not analogies and they're now directly recognized by the premier institutions and researchers around the world that they are, they literally give TED talks about this where the opening statements are, hey folks, proteins are literal machines. They are not metaphors. They literally start their discussions with this and when you get into biological computation. And they literally evolve too. That's not the point I'm making. I'm saying that Jeff- I know. Well, we can go down that rabbit hole too, RJ. So the point I was really trying to make- Well, I'm saying you were discounting something and dismissing it because it's an argument made by people on the ID side and saying it doesn't exist. And now you're trying to say it's an analogy when it's been clearly delineated that it is no longer considered an analogy by actually wouldn't really consider an analogy in the beginning either. It was actually there was a short window where people were trying to go down that rabbit hole because as they, I mean, I know you're a, correct me if I'm wrong, but you now work as a social media analyst professionally, right?  The reason I'm asking that question is I'm assuming that that gives you a little bit of knowledge into software development and AB testing and all those kinds of components, right? Yeah, which is nothing like biology. So you don't think that something that is Turing complete is equivalent to computer technology. Is that what you're saying? I don't think, no, okay. So when I say like, all right. So when I say that like a cell isn't a machine or that it's not code or programming that we know it, it might be a machine in that it has a task and it has parts that does the task. But the problem that I have with a lot of creationist rhetoric is they like to sneak in the idea of creation. If it is a quote unquote machine, if we want to reference it that way, that doesn't mean that there was a creator in the way that we look at machines now. If there is quote unquote code, that is because we interpret what we see and the way that we interpret it and it filters through us, we interpret it as code. It's not like code exists without a mind, without a mind, without somebody to interpret the code. It's just ones and zeros, a's and whatever. I don't know. Yeah, but see that is a completely false assumption you're making there because there is no mind that is processing the binary code which is enabling us to have this conversation right now. There was a mind that built the translation protocols and components that enable the translation of the variety of programming language that are being used for us to have this conversation. Ooh, how do you know that? Oh my God, RJ, are we going back to this whole thing where you think that Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat and YouTube could come into existence? No, no, no, I'm trying to get back to the topic at hand, human origins. What design events were involved in human origins and can we all agree, except for Jesse, that there were definitely humans on earth 100,000 years ago as a benchmark to start with? Can you agree to that, John? No. So, I'm sorry, can I interrupt for a second? I'm sorry, are you younger or are you, I just wanna know what your actual like position is. I don't know if you're younger. Honestly, I live more towards young earth. I think there's different variations of that in the quantum world that can be altering the timeline aspect, but that's a whole different debate. Boy, you've just flushed most of intelligent design down the drain. Other than Paul Nelson, there's virtually nobody in the intelligent design field who is a young earth creationist. Would you mind kind of expanding on the, what did you say, you mentioned, you said young earth, oh, I totally forgot. You said something that I was hoping you could expand on, but I forgot what it was already. But the point I'm making in all this is, and I mentioned this and actually and I wish my intro would have worked because I actually had a whole bunch of diagrams such that showcases- You've seen them already. I doubt it, RJ. When you look at the things such as epigenetic gene expression and variations and the things that are being, the adaptations, which up until relatively recently were heavily used by the evolutionist side as supposed evidence for it, are actually now being shown. And still do. And okay, yeah, that's why there's a whole rift in the Neo-Darwin, the evolutionary biology world about how we can't go back to modern synthesis or extend- Oh, let's talk about that, shall we? Yeah, okay, there's peer-reviewed papers on this. So, yeah. Yeah, and I read them, too. And they talk about how the current format of Darwinian theory is not working and one of the primary reasons for that is epigenetics, because it is modifying existing function and existing code base and existing information, prescriptive information, which results in the different outcomes. And it is not mutations that are resulting in these dramatic modifications. Epigenetic, it's epigenetic. Oh, I wanna see your reference bibliography on that one, but are any of the people involved in that field? Go for it, bro. Go for it. I have a whole folder for you, man. Go search all the way through it because guess what? With structural biology, this is being discovered to be- I'll have to look through that and compare to find out my data field to find out how much of it is already discussed in the anti-evolution literature. But I wanna ask you to explain of any of those people writing those papers, how many of them doubt natural common descent? Again, completely irrelevant. No, it's not. No, it's not. If they have data field that's this big, let me get this in, please. If there is this data field that's like this that causes them to understand that natural evolution is true.  I'm not looking at one little slice. That's what you make the exact same point every time. I know, and I'll keep going it because I'm right. Somehow I'm the one that's not looking at the big picture. You have such a myopic worldview, which is nothing other than the evolutionary model could possibly be true. That's not true at all. I measure how much of the data field in challenging design movement looks in two ways. I've debated RJ before. I'm addressing this to you. Okay, okay. RJ, you still refuse to even accept the premise of prescriptive information in the genetic code being required and it being arbitrary values and that there is no chemical interaction between the tRNA or the amino acid being held by a tRNA and the codon. Well, I don't claim that at all. Why do you think I do? I'm sure you denied the arbitrary value assignments. Oh, I'll say this. Yes, that the association between an amino acid and a codon triplet is not an arbitrary one. It is not like the coding that we have with logical plausibility written on the screen, dot, dot, dot. None of those symbols are other than arbitrary code and images that are chosen to represent the thing meaning logical plausibility. That's not what happens with the DNA. It honestly cracks me up listening to you and so many evolutionists make. I hope so. When it's literally the polar opposite is what is presented endlessly and taught at MIT, at Stanford, at Yale. Go watch. They literally make the clear statement. There is zero chemical interaction and they are arbitrary values. It's one of the things. Describe what you mean by that. Describe what you mean by that because I don't know what it is you think you mean by it. Okay, if it's for clarification, we'll allow a clarification but then we'll let the point out. Clarify what you mean by that. No interaction chemically. How else do they do things but by chemical interaction? Okay, this expresses your ignorance of protein synthesis apparently. So the codon in the mRNA interacts with an anti-codon in the tRNA, correct? Chemically, is there any interaction between the amino acid held by the tRNA and the codon? No, because it's the molecule that reads the one that connects up to the other. That's what's going on. So why are there any associations of error? The ribosome, and this is a well-established premise, the ribosome is reading and confirming that the appropriate amino acid that matches the codon is the correct one. If not, it ejects it and halts the process. We do have to- And who decided what the codon is saying? We do in one second, I just want to be sure that we also get to hear plenty from Jeff and Shadow Dancer. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your guys' passion and just to kind of mix it up, I promise it'll come back to you. And we're a long way from human evolution. Then this is a great opportunity for them to tie it all together. So go ahead Shadow Dancer. I hope so. Okay, so I have one favor to ask of you RJ to give me your respect as a fellow historian. I do not have a single creationist website in that entire presentation that I showed you. They're all secular websites. And actually most of them are just encyclopedia Britannica, but I do have a question about this. The London Hammer didn't come from a secular website. Actually, yes it did. Oh, but it must have been discussing why it isn't what the creationist thinks it is. Yeah, they think it was aliens. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You must not have researched a bunch about it. I have never had to rely upon an ancient astronaut believer to debunk the London Hammer. There's stuff on it at talk origins among other places. Well, this should be, okay, so Jeff, I got a question for you. So if all organisms really had a common ancestor, then we should see only continuity and not clear cut gaps in between stuff. Like basically there's, we should not be able to tell where cats stop and dogs begin, right? Why? Because if it comes from uniformity, then we would all be able to, one we'd all be able to reproduce with each other and we wouldn't even be able to see gaps in between all these species. No, okay. Yeah, so we're all eukaryotes, which means that we all came from basically a single celled organism in over millions and millions, possibly billions of years. When you have that long of a timeline and you have enough creatures that are being specialized for certain traits, like generally creatures have niches, or niches, sorry, that they fill and you don't normally have a lot of crossover between niches.  You'll see the giraffes do their job, which is, you know, take the whatever from there. And this competition and these natural selective pressures over time form, they're basically change the traits of the animal, if you will, so that they can go in completely different ways. That's how you can have a nautilus at the bottom of the ocean and you can have us. And if you go back far enough, you have a single ancestor.  Yeah, yeah. And I could honestly kind of say something similar to about creationism, like if we all came from one man and one woman, how do we have so much variation in ourselves as human beings, assuming that humans existed as Adam and Eve, and we have all this variation, especially because Adam and Eve would have been genetically identical. There's, it's pretty easy to explain. And the second one actually, but hold on, hold on, RJ. But Jeff, that's actually making an assumption that God made two carbon copies. Why would he do that? I mean, the Bible claims that he took the rib out of Adam and then formed Eve out of Adam. Yes, but you're putting in like an overarching assumption on that he made us be carbon copies, right? So you're making an assumption though, all right? I'm going by the story and I feel like the assumption is being met on the other hand where I'm going by the story and the story says he took the rib and he made a person which would have meant a genetic identical duplicate. I don't think any of this happened. So good God as a all-knowing, all-seeing sky wizard, whatever you want to call it, could he have made a genetic difference? Yes, but to me, that's a post-talk rationalization. That's looking at a story and seeing that there's something that doesn't fit and saying, well, it could have been done this way. So because it could have been done this way, I'll just have this fit into my story to make my story work. But then how come the, but then how come, hold on, hold on, but then how come Genesis, God talks about men and women being different and they're different traits? If you did not make them genetically different, they would have been carbon copies of each other. Why can't men be asexual? They can't, they have to have a woman. Therefore, we are not carbon copies of each other and you are picking and choosing what you want from the Bible. I mean, if you believe the story- Actually, the funniest part about Jeff's statement is he literally described what evolutionists do to try and justify all of the random variations that aren't accounted for in their model, dismiss them and or come up with creative reverse-engineerings of, oh, well, if this happened and this happened and this happened and this happened and they all happened in this exact order, then we could have come from X. So that's not, sorry, that's not how science works. Generally, if you don't know the answer, if you don't know the answer, we just say we don't know the answer and we give what our best, I'd say we, like I'm a scientist, I'm not a scientist, but I'll just use the royal weave right now and they would basically give their best idea of how they think it happens. If they're making claims that are unsupported, then they're bad scientists. I don't know what to say. If there's people- Okay, if you're gonna defend science right now, I think it's something like 60% of published peer-reviewed papers have had to be retracted because they're unreproducible. I mean, this has been- Yeah, and then- There's been a certain fee- There's been a scandal of a yin-yang on this. Wait, in the one we're discussing right now. Yeah, so it's usually related to- No, no, no, no. I'm just making a point. I'm just making a point. Where people make money at it. Yeah, okay. It's not just- It's all- Not in paleontology. How many paleontology papers- Should we talk about it? Should we talk about the CAD-drafted spider fossil that it was supposed to come out? This is getting dangerously close to the science as a liar sometimes argument. Like, yes, there is- That's not where I'm going with this at all. I'm gonna get to a concrete example of you and the geneome and Adam and Eve. Yeah, so what you were saying, like papers are published. Yes, this happens all the time. People, they do an experiment, they test it. They might even test it a couple of times and get the same results and then they'll publish a paper and then other people will try and replicate the results and if they can't replicate the results, these papers will then be retracted. A lot of times- I literally just said- Yeah, I know, but I'm saying that that's a thing that happens. Like, that just exists. Like, I don't know what to say. Like, all science as a doctrine isn't debunked because some people buy their own- I never said all science was debunked. I'm speaking directly in the relation to a lot of things in evolutionary biology that continue to be debunked. And then- But these aren't history. And then history is rewritten as in, oh, we never thought this. No, it's- It's what we think now. That is so a fact. But Jeff, hold on, Jeff. But you also actually said this in the beginning of your presentation. You showed other scientific theories. Those are factual, right? And basically you implied that evolution is so factual that we can't even, it can't ever be retracted, right? And they've retracted paper after paper on evolution. Evolution 20 years ago is not the same thing as it is now. Right, and they have to retract some major- You were around 20 years ago to be sure of that? I'm much older than you think, RJ. Oh, okay. I wanna ask a specific example to focus the attention on human evolution. We have ALUs in our genome. In fact, we got a lot of them. Adam and Eve, if you're assuming that there was just an Adam and Eve and not a population of the Homo erectuses or something turning into them by intelligent design tinkering of an existing population. In what occur, when did we get our ALUs? If there was an Adam and Eve, how many did they have and were there more in one than the other? And what was the mix of that in Noah and the kids if you follow a flood model, which I guess, Jesse, you do. So educate us on what you think about the origin of ALUs in our genome. Well, I'd like John to answer that. Well, first of all, the supposition that ALUs are after effects and there were none that were originally there is a total supposition, the- I'm letting you do the supposition. Tell me how they got there. I know what your argument is though. You go on your diatrags and I'll debate about ALUs. And I am suggesting that one, and it was in my presentation, which I get to show, there have been ongoing discoveries of the functionality of ALUs, retro-transposons, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera in from a positive sense. That's talking function. I wanna know their origin. Okay, so in conjunction with the argument, which I have made many times to you, is that this source code base that enables all of these functions to occur existed. It was created. That is the entire point of this. Can you name anybody in the intelligent design or young earth creationist field that has given an accounting of why we have the ALUs that we have in our genome? Don't care all you ever do. Of course you don't care. You have no model. You have an anti-model. No, RJ, unlike you, and it's why I put it in the very beginning of my opening statement was I didn't wanna waste time this entire debate and with you asking- Lost that race already. What does somebody else think? What does somebody else think? I'm telling you what I think and I'm telling you why I think it. And you dismiss all arguments as being out to lunch when you won't even, let me ask you a direct question. Mm-hmm. How many positive mutations would have had to have occurred from the split from your model, the split from monkey's demand? How many positive mutations per generation had to have occurred to account for the 35 million or so base pair differences in the human and chimp genome?  That's a rather fascinating question. You're starting about, given the fact that we generate thousands per cell anyway over the course of 10 million years since the split between the two and X number of generations, we're probably talking about just about the same rate that we're seeing in extant organisms. You don't know anybody writing in genetics who claims that there's some radical change. I'm asking you a direct question because they would all, I've done the math before, all of the mutations would have to have been 100% positive at the, you know, to account for 35 million. You know, most of the genome are neutral mutations. That's my entire point, which is when you account for the 35 million differences in base pairs if they're all neutral, what we're seeing- No 90, probably 90% of them are. When we're seeing functional dramatic discoveries in the functional differences between chimps and humans, for example, then you would have to account for those functional differences. You would have to have been having not neutral mutations. You would have been having per your model, you would have to have been having positive specific new functions happening on a generational basis. What would you account for the functions that we now see when you're talking about, when you're looking at the brain. Which functions did you have in mind on that, by the way? Name a function of specific one. A primary, there's a plethora in the brain. Yeah, well, name one.  Well, let's take an example. Let's take the SRGAP2 genes that are related to synaptic development, brain mass and cortical neurons. Is that one of the things that we're doing? Now what has been discovered recently is that gene regulation results in dramatic up and down regulation of different genes that were once taken completely as, oh, it's just humans and chimps had this exact same gene similarity, therefore it's proof. But now what they're finding is the gene regulatory networks, which are different, are directly the cause of dramatic differences in cognitive function, which I would argue is fundamental to the differences between monkeys and humans would be cognitive function. So when they're now finding these massive differences and then they're also discovering the huge differences in the MIRNAs and their effect in modifying the outcome of a gene sequence in thousands of different ways, you now have to begin to look at, okay, cool, we have source code fundamentals, but they are, they're- As I discussed with you on our first debate, it's like using a plug-in on WordPress and then trying to- Oh, that's your mantra. Do you have your bibliography of sources? Do you have your bibliography of sources up the one that you're gonna be posting so we can all look at it? It's literally- I'd like to see that too. It's been in the live chat since before the debate started.  So tying in with genes and cognitive and stuff like that, we know just from human history that we are very inventive and we have ingenuity, all right? Do you really believe that two million years ago when they started using stone tools that they used it for 50,000 generations or whatever and then suddenly in the Neolithic Revolution, oh my gosh, we're having all these megalithic structures and stuff like that? Like- How sudden are we talking about it? Yeah, and sorry to interrupt, but just look at our current level of technological advancement since like the early 1900s. Within a hundred, from the, I think the first plane flew in like the early 1900s, 1915, from the time of the first plane plane going to outer, 1903, we'll go with, yeah. 1903 to 1969, when we went to the moon, that's 66 years and we made that giant of a leap. Going, people working with stone tools to building big structures, which is basically like, I'm gonna reduce this, but like advanced Legos, like, and I obviously know that's an absurd reduction, but that to me is not nearly as huge of a leap as what we've seen in our life times, like the advent of the internet. Okay, Jeff, I gotta ask you a quick question. You just recorded that to advanced Legos. I knew it wasn't, I- No, no, no, the reason I'm asking that is because you're, that is a, let me ask you this, have you ever been to Europe? I have, yes. Okay, have you ever been to any of the majestic cathedrals? I grew up over there, I've been to a bunch of them. Have you been to Europe? I went to a bombed one in Munich that didn't really like, so no, not really. Okay, so I graduated high school in Ely Cathedral, which was started, I believe in 937, it took them 150 years to build. That thing is phenomenal on the inside, the architecture, the, I mean, it's phenomenal. Yes, they're incredible. They built it with no cranes, no power tools, and they managed to build something that is the size of a mini skyscraper. Yeah, humans can do wild stuff whenever we have an ingenuity and an endless supply of slave labor. I don't know, that wasn't the case although you had surflavor, but. The point I'm making is that you're downplaying the intellectual requirements to be able to pull off. If you're equating it with Legos, that means that you don't have to be very smart. Just don't go too much on analogy. So yeah, it might have been a bad analogy and I apologize if it was. What I was trying to say is that I think the leap between just from what we've seen in our lifetimes within the past 100 or so years is probably a larger leap than saying going from stone tools to building big buildings made of stone. So I'm sorry if that analogy- Well, hold on, Jeff, let me ask you a question. Do you even know when the Neolithic Revolution happened and what it is? Because I have a feeling that me and RJ know this, but you may not. No, go for it. Okay, so the Neolithic Revolution is when we stop being hunters and gatherers and suddenly urbanization, civilization, art, language. And when was that, by the way? Currently, what they're teaching me at my college, 55,000. No, what you believe. Tell us what you believe. That's what we're here to hear. Well, I don't believe that there was, no, I said 5,500 to 10,500 is what secularists- Yeah, but what do you believe? I don't believe there was a Neolithic Revolution. I believe there was a flood. Okay. And then suddenly man came back out- What would prove to you that the flood didn't happen? That the flood didn't happen? Yeah, the global flood didn't happen. What would it take to establish that in your mind? Well, based on the fact that we see it in every single culture around the world, some type of flood myth- Not Egypt. Not Egypt. Flood myths. So- Hold on, hold on, hold on. No, no, no, no, let me finish, right? We've got flood myths all across the world, all right? Which one is true? All right, the Afro-Basque Indians in Alaska have got a flood myth, all right? Native Americans in North America have got a flood myth. South America, okay? We might be missing Egypt, but I'm talking about just tons of cultures. They have a flood myth, including the Epic Gilgamesh and one of the Bibles. Which one's true? So a lot of cultures also have gods that are similar. Like if you look at Zoroastrianism, they have, I believe it's Zoroaster himself, who's very similar to Jesus. The Chinese who were living around the same time as the flood were supposed to happen, they don't have any writings of the global flood. Well, they have a very different flood legend than the Noah story. Yeah, very- Sure, sure. And all of these flood legends that you're talking about are very different. Where's the flood layer where you live, Jesse? There ain't one in Spokane. The flood layer. No, okay, so let me ask you a question. You've got all of this, all right? These are legends and myths. Yes, they are different. Cause like the Epic Gilgamesh is different than the Noah. From which the Bible borrowed its story, by the way. Actually, you don't know that. Yes, we do. Let me finish though, all right? So in one of my history classes, my teacher, he said something really great. Every legend and every myth does have a kernel of truth, all right? Yeah. So okay, so if we have 50 flood myths all across the world, all across the world, which one is true? So do you agree that floods happen? Oh, absolutely. But I'm talking about the whole thing. So if you live in like- Tsunami.  Is that too much of a stretch to say that they would have written the myth that says the whole world was flooded? It just seems to me, Occam's razor, what's more realistic that people who lived in a pre-scientific time thought that the whole world was flooding because their whole area was flooded or that the entire world was flooded even though there are civilizations that we have writings from that don't record a flood and that we don't see in the geologic layers. It just, it's a huge stretch to me to say that- It really isn't though, because I don't, I don't think you've actually read these flood myths, all right? These- Oh, I have. Shall we discuss them? Yeah, but okay, they talk about a global flood and that these gods were mad at them and they talk about the entire world being destroyed. If you pair the pieces off and look at the thing that the Egyptian cases is a fine example, but so too is the Chinese case, I know directly that the creationists that try to invoke the Chinese flood misrepresent the original material. Am I supposed to, as a historian, and then I have a BA in history, by the way, am I supposed to pretend that doesn't happen and go, well, it's okay for them to kind of trump it up with a weirdness? No, I can't do that. I'm also curious if you take like, why are you accepting flood myths as like evidence for there being a flood and taking that as good enough evidence for there being a worldwide flood, despite the lack of physical evidence and why don't you believe the other parts of their myths? Like, I don't know, maybe like an elephant was on a tortoise and a tortoise, you know, whatever their other myth might be. It just seems to me that you're picking things that seem to us intuitively to kind of mix and match and just saying that that is evidence for something that you already believe, assuming that you're Christian or whatever religion. Again, just Occam's razor, it seems like it's much more simple to say that I live in a flood plain. Yeah, but you already made an assumption that there's no data out there showing that we did have a global flood. Oh, I'll say that flat out. Yeah, there is no. You want to discuss the flood. We're still way away from human evolution here by the way. Yeah, we are. Yeah, yeah, okay. We ought to have a discussion on the flood and get back to sometime else, get back to human evolution. But this is human evolution though, all right, because we, okay, so in my anthropology class, right, this is where I'm being the majority of my stuff, RJ, by the way, is anthropologist, which is the only- I'd love to see your source base on it. Yeah, I would assume that all these anthropologists in your college classes would disagree. I do want to hear the rest. I think there's a lot of, there's a degree of interrupting, so I do want to make sure that we get to hear the rest of the ideas. Yeah, so okay, I'm not saying that they agree. Trust me, they do not agree, but this is what I'm learning in my classes, all right? About a Y chromosome bottleneck that was about 5,500 years ago to 9,500 years ago, that there are no diverse languages more than 4500 years ago and this is from an anthropologist who highly criticized Christian creationism, all right? And then we've got the Neolithic Revolution that's 5,500 to 10,000 years ago. All these numbers seem to line up in about a time about the global flood, the Tower of Babel, and so we can actually see even a drop in the genetics of the Y chromosome. Document that, please. Do make a point of putting up your sources as well as John putting up his, we're really anxious. I'll have to ask him how, I have them, I just didn't know how to put it in the shared folder. Everybody can see my data field in the TIP project. I love how RJ is with his little sarcasm and derision.  I know, that's why I called you out on it from the very beginning and maybe you have a normal dialogue with you, but you guys want to go back to evolution, so let's do it. Yeah, human evolution, the topic that we were here to discuss. No, actually we were here to discuss the origins of humanity. Yeah, that's, yeah, human origin. So I want to know from you guys in the context of structural biology where the geographic position of genes even in between chromosomes must be in specific places in order for their expression. I want to know how you guys explain that and these modifications supposedly happening when and resulting in the evolution that you support when it is now well documented that all the way down in many instances, point mutations results in either embryo death or dramatic loss of functionality. Glad you asked because I put a link up directly to that paper that I mentioned, Dennis at AL 2012, Evolution of Human Specific Neural S-R-G-A-P-2 Genes by Incomplete Segmental Duplication. Now anytime you want to write- You didn't listen to a word I just said. I listened to it, you just- Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm talking about a segment, are you claiming a segmental duplication is not that- RJ, I'm going to give you a chance to finish. Hold on a second. So I just want to be sure that RJ was finished at that point too, John. Let's hear RJ, where are you from? He's not answering my question. Okay, well let's just give him, let's just be sure he gets to- You're not even addressing what I'm asking you. Hold on, don't make me mute please. So I will give you a chance, RJ, to finish that point. So I promise, John, I'll give you a chance to respond, but just want to be sure that we heard what RJ was saying there. All the genetic issues about the origins of systems have a technical literature on them, which most of which is not discussed in the anti-evolution literature. I'm sure John has lots of examples that he presents in his argument, which I was the reason why I want to see his reference bibliography, which I will look into. That will be very entertaining for me to do so. I'll put a link up to a 2012 paper, which explicitly discusses how a neural specific gene is developed by segmental duplication from an earlier primate gene, and why the specific distributions of which ones we have versus the ones we find over in chimpanzees has occurred at the point mutation level. Now, if you want to do a monograph on that, I look forward to reading it. Okay, so again, you clearly were not understanding what I said because I was not talking about gene duplication. I was just worried. That's what that gene came from. I literally wasn't addressing that. I know because you don't like that either, I guess. No, actually, I asked you the question. You just responded on something that was completely different topic than what I was asking you a question about. So do you know what I mean by in the discoveries in structural biology, the DNA looping that is required for gene expression many times in cross-chromosonal manners with transcription factors? Is any of that unique to humans? Do you know what it is? And do you know why it is relevant? If there's a complex, there are layers on layers on layers of systems at how proteins are built and how they're developed. Are the systems that you're clearly not understanding what I'm talking about? Are the systems that you're talking about unique to human beings? If they are not, they would already have been existing in prior systems all the way through the mammals at the least and therefore it isn't relevant to how humans use them because everything uses them. No, the dramatic geographic differences. What do you mean by geographic? It's like Paris versus London, what do you mean by that? Okay, so the physical location of genes in relation to enhancers, promoters, et cetera, et cetera. They are now discovering that they literally have to fold both, so that the genes can often just be expressed. Moreover, they're also now discovering that these folds oftentimes have to happen cross-chromozonally and that the gene that is in position A is expressed differently when it is combined with others in different geographic locations of the genome. That's how you get the variety in life. That's the grace. This results in a dramatic problem in relation to using, oh, the XYZ gene sequence is in chimp and human. However- Dramatic problem according to who? The- One second, I'll give you a chance, John. To which I am referring to. John, I wanna give you a chance. This is the whole point. Who says it's a problem? Give it to me. Okay, hold on, one sec. I just wanna let people know that in maybe about five minutes we'll probably switch into the question and answer session. So do you wanna give you a chance to respond there, John? Pardon my interruption. Everybody. RJ Cleary doesn't have a clue of what I'm actually talking about here. Oh, I'm just doing this, okay. Yeah, you are, because you're literally describing and trying to counter me. Who says it's a problem? Go read all the papers, go read all the papers. Again, you're asking, who said it? It's literally in the folder of all the papers that I did.  And I'm calling you out on it. Because when you don't know, because we don't have a clue about what's being discussed and why it destroys your model, you always try to dodge and switch it and make me do the name or name. We're gonna have to do a show where we're going through a new space. You promise to do that with me? One second, I like your passion, but I do wanna be sure before we wrap up, we hear any final thoughts from shadow dancers as well as Jeff, and then we will jump into the Q&A. I promise we're always happy to have you on again, RJ and Jeff. And get all the questions in. I know that there's a lot of ground to cover, so we'll go to shadow dancer and Jeff, and then we'll wrap up with Q&A. Go ahead, Jeff. Yeah, again, I'm glad RJ's here because like I mentioned, I'm a layman. I don't understand all of the really intricate scientific differences between whatever you're talking about, John, but what I do know is that there are sources out there that probably explain all of this very well and can probably not, maybe not simply, but can do a pretty good job of explaining how this works and how it fits into evolution. You mentioned that you have a lot of secular sources in a folder or whatnot. I would like to see that, but I would also say all of the, I would imagine that 99.9% of these papers, the people who wrote them and who did the study and who understand it at a deeper level than any of us could ever hope to, they probably, I would imagine all agree that evolution is real and that we are the product of evolution. I still, I hear intelligent design a lot, but I never hear any like mechanisms behind how an intelligent being would have made us. I don't really understand the mechanisms behind that. That would be interesting. Yeah, I don't know if we really like, we're focused on the subject too much, but regardless of what we were talking about, this was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed talking about all this stuff. Stoked to hear that. All right, so in my closing statements, I'll just say that I've run into this a lot that we as Christians and Bible reading Christians and Genesis are very close-minded. And yet all I heard from our opponents was close-mindedness. They don't want to read the papers and they already make assumptions even at the presentation of stuff that, oh, these are all not secular. They're all from your Christian indoctrination. And yet that's actually what we are seeing because you got to remember something. We were born creationists. We were born knowing this stuff. We actually got whatever was, it was an argument, a question, a situation that made us question evolution, realized that we've been indoctrinated for a very long time since 1925, since the monkey trials. And I will say this, that evolution has been trying to harmonize the concept of evolution, which means increasing complement complexity with the entropy principle we see in nature, which is decreasing complexity. But thanks so much, guys. I had a great discussion tonight. Thank you very much. And I know that everybody from both sides has another round in the chamber ready to go to fire back, but we do have to go to Q&A. So want to jump into it and say thanks so much, folks, for your questions. And thanks, most of all, though, for our speakers for being here. We really appreciate them. Their links are in the description waiting for you, folks. So if you want to hear more- Just wait for a minute to get more iced tea. That's right. RJ is getting more iced tea, but the show will continue. So thanks for your super chat. Steven Steen, our dearest benevolent troll, nasty guy, but we love him. He says, viva la revolution from Satan's evolution. Thank you, Steven, for that. Hello, brother. Robert Luskum, appreciate your super chat. Says, James, did you thoroughly screen these interlocutors? That's very good. For those of you who don't recognize, that's Darth Dawkins, who usually says that, and Robert is impersonating Darth as Darth, we always get into it, but Butt Wipe, thanks for your super chat, says how much could a Butt Wipe Wipe if a Butt Wipe could Wipe Spot? They just want you to be embarrassed yourself, James. You can tell, folks, we read every super chat. Actually, the answer is five, just to let you know. Oh, okay. I thought it was 42. We've been pulling it over for a while. Janus, thanks for your super chat, says repent and believe Jesus is true love and joy. Appreciate that. Movie theory, thanks for your super chat, said the evolutionists already lost debate done. I guess we were thoroughly destroyed by facts and logic. Gotcha. Movie theory is another one of our trolls. We haven't seen Michael Dresden for a while, but JPP3030, thanks for your super chat, said insert Spider-Man New York reference from Eric Murphy. Well, I don't get it. I should know, I feel like I should. But thanks for your super chat. Dave Gar, who said, James, the orange flash looks like a red alert from Star Trek.  Stay safe, please. I thought they were calling me the orange flash because I was ginger. Yeah, so long as we don't have red uniforms on, we're safe. We basically, I am working on, I had mentioned earlier folks, so basically red, when you see a red flash, it means it's a super chat. If you see a green flash, it means we have a new subscriber, which I had seen one or two come in. So thanks so much for subscribing. And also, I'm working on it, folks. It's like, I think we're working the bugs out. It's supposed to be the case that anybody in the live chat, subscribed or not, anybody should be able to push exclamation point and then whatever color they want. And it's supposed to change the color of the room that I'm in. It's not working fully yet. It's worked a couple of times, but only like 5%. So we're working on that. So hopefully it'll be more interactive for you. And hopefully you can always make the room pink for me. I'd really appreciate that. Terry James. You wear what you asked for, James. That's true. Terry James, thanks for your super chat. But the 55 million date is for primate origins, not humans. Deep in the bit there, my God, that continental drift was starting to shift up by then. That's the eosene. Okay, thanks for your super chat from Tioga, who says James has chaotic neutral lighting right now. Yes, it is a wild one. And Jason Burris, thanks for your super chat, said, context is everything. The London Hammer is one prime example of lost provenience. Provenance. Provenance, yeah. Gotcha. And this is coming from an archeologist in parentheses myself.  I don't know if it's a new word I've never seen before. It refers to the trail. You get it in art history all the time. If somebody comes in with a picture, you'll hear it pop up on Antiques Roadshow. Is how do you know how you got it? Grandpa has the picture he says was by Marie Antoinette. Well, how do you know? And that paper trail is the provenance. Gotcha. All right. And thanks for your super chat. Terry, we did not read that. Terry James, they said 10, one second. 10 intelligent design people answer the phylogeny challenge. Nope. That's an Aaron Roth thing, yes. Yeah. And no anti-evolutionist has. In fact, ID is in an even worse position. Worse than a question for you, RJ. That's a question for the other guys. The phylogeny challenge is addressed over on the Standing for Truth channel. So if you guys want to go search Standing for Truth, there's videos on debunking the Aaron Roth's Phylogeny challenge. Gotcha. Thanks for that.  She strikes again. She says, is the intelligent design side aware that wasps have evolved codes? They can do facial recognition. Different groups have evolved different codes. I'd like to know how they know that, that it evolved. It's absolutely plausible and possible that they were designed that way, that they've always been that way. Same with trilobite eyes. They're very complex. Want to talk about trilobite eyes? Eyes are actually really easy to evolve, it seems like. They're very complex actually. Yeah, but I mean in the, anyways, we can talk about that another time. Lots of things have eyes. Phacopid versus non-phacopid eyes and the role of magnesium in their biochemistry. Nice, thanks for your super chat from dearest Brandon Ardeline. Good to see you again, Brandon. It says, DNA is code? Which compiler does God use? Next up. That's actually funny because the ribostome is kind of considered that in the translational expression of that information. It's a well-accepted premise in biology. So I don't know, go Google it. Good God. Please do Google it, research it. Yeah. Thanks for that. And thanks as well to SlamRN, who says, I'm questioning whether this is really SlamRN. Who says, James is looking hot tonight, I appreciate that. Let's see. It's the backdrop. Enjoy it, James. Thanks, thanks RJ. James is trying to, James is actually auditioning for a, to be a talk show host. That's why he's busting out the new colors. So true. Nobody's called me hot yet, I'm disappointed. And no one will ever call me hot, so I passed that. It's coming, don't worry. Oh, that takes more faith in the second coming. Thanks for your super chat from stupid horror energy as she strikes again saying there are stereochemical affinities between amino acids and RNA. Put a source in on that in the live chat so we can see what's going on on that. I'd like to see that. Gotcha. Kaleb or Caleb as he sometimes likes to be called. Thanks for your super chat says, RJ, let your opponents slash partner talk, dude. They're coming at ya. But one thing I love about- You have to tell me to shut up any time he wants if he needs to get a word in. I'm too polite. I'll just let it simmer in my gut for days and days until we're archenemies. Yeah, yeah, there we go. I love that they've got gusto. You know, it's kind of like, I know it sometimes it can be like, ah, RJ. But you know what? We love that they have passion and we appreciate your super chat.  Well, I just take my arguments from secular journal sources and my interpretation of what it means from an origin perspective is my own. It doesn't mean that the functions I'm referring to are not well established discoveries. Thanks so much. And thanks for your super chat. Jason Burris who says shadow dancer, what is the, there's that word again, provenience of- Providence. Are you sure? Yes, it's providence. Yes, it's providence. Not like a province. Just think province and stretch it out a little. That's embarrassing. Okay. James, think divine providence. That's the term. Jason. Oh, you know what it probably is? It's probably autocorrect. So that's why it says provenience on my side. So they said, what is the, did you say providence? Providence. Providence. Thank you very much of the London Hammer. What peer reviewed articles have been written on it? Site sources, please. I will definitely do that. And there have actually been tons of articles written on it. Also- No peer reviewed. Thank you. They're trying to figure out where it comes from. How did it get there? How did it get encrusted in the rock? The rock is dated very old. They tested the metal composition on it and considering the age of the rock, they say, secularists say, that humans didn't have that type of technology. And yes, I will, I will cite that source. Gotcha.  Was that like ARE? Is it the beginning of the- It's lowercase R and then uppercase RNA. I know what they're referring to. The core of the ribosome is an RNA molecule. It's not a protein. Gotcha. There's a variety of things and it has been well established that the premise of it just being a catalyst is not substantial enough for the RNA world hypothesis to be substantiated. With sources on that being included in your reference bibliography that you are intending to offer to us so that we may observe it. Yes, RJ, he said that earlier. Good. Oh, good. I'll be looking forward to that.  I am snarky! Really are being- And you're pompous. Live with it. I'm the pompous one. When I'm right.   All right, all right. Hold on a second. Haik, thanks for your super chat. Haik from the buddies with Jesse Lee Peterson says, fun sassy stream, even if mind numbing. Ah, geez, Haik. Why you gotta cut us down like that? Jeremy T, thanks for your super chat says, let me read this, I've got it here. I'm a programmer and I have never and I never have huge blocks of random text in programs the way we see in DNA. Coders don't have a pattern of including blocks of random text. That's bad coding. Actually what they're discovering, the lot of things they thought were just random blocks. They're actually starting to discover functions for. And beyond that, the many of the duplications are they're discovering are making the genetic code more robust and stable. So actually you're incorrect from a programming perspective and there's actually quite a few papers on that. You might wanna go check out my folder because there's several on that exact subject of how those things that you're referring to actually support the robustness of the genetic code. They're just a separate issue. There are 1.4 million ALUs in our genome. How many of those do you claim are functional? Gotta keep moving. I'm gonna give John a quick chance. I'm gonna give John a quick chance to answer that. But then we do have people because we got a lot of questions. How about you and I have a debate on this exact subject? Set it up. Oh yeah. I just can't help but love live debate challenges. But hang on James, one second.  And the feeling's mutual. Gotcha. Okay. Well, we're all on the same page then. Perhaps that debate will be here. No matter where it is, we'll tweet it out folks so that you can see it. So speed of sound of gravity. Thanks for your super chat. Said ask John Maddox why he always promises to post his sources and yet never posts any sources. No matter how hard we try to embarrass him into doing it. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself and state that my sources are in a publicly available folder. So perhaps you don't have the cognitive ability to comprehend the semantic meaning of the words that are coming out of my mouth. James, will the link to that public folder be in the video description of this finished video when it's posted finally? I'm happy to post it in the description if John sends it to me and next up. It's in the live chat. Next up. The live chat's gonna disappear. No one's gonna be able to access that. It needs to be in the video description. Yeah, I can't put it in the description at the moment but if he wants to put it in the live chat now he can and then I can put it in there right after. Rooster farts, L-O-L says Tioga. Thanks weirdo. Okay, thanks for your super chat movie theory as well. That's Mr. Weirdo. Let's keep it polite. We've got, this is our regular troll. It says, James end this and put RJ and Jeffy out of their misery. I appreciate you guys have a sense of humor. We've got a lot of these characters. Brandon Ardowine, thanks for your super chats. That the only great flood is when James appears. I don't know if I understand some sort of. Heck, one of the people putting up the super chats is Dildo Baggins. I mean, poor James has to read these things.  Yeah. I know you guys. There better be.  All right, enough of that. Steven, Steven, thanks for your super chat. It says brown chicken, brown cow. Thanks for that. Another one of those trolls.  John in shadow dancer. She says, why can't you creationists agree about what is human among the pre-human fossils? That in and of itself proves they are transitional. Well, now she's just making an assumption that's not even there. We actually do agree. Don't get out. Excuse me. Neanderthals and Denisovans. We've already shown that they're human. They are human. They look human. And we are actually more in agreeance on our side in creationism than evolution is. That's not true. All over the place. Next time. I'm sorry, that's just not true. I can find my chart here. We can have a debate on that too. Brandon, let's see. We got Brandon's out. We can actually contradict himself even between one source and another. We've got to keep moving. J.P.P.3030 says shadow dancer is making flat earth arguments. Sure, whatever you say, buddy. Thanks for your. Glad you guys let it water off the duck's back. Jasmine Jacob, thanks for your super chat. Says shadow dancer, interesting points. I disagree with you, but I'd share a foxhole with you. U.S. United States Marine Corps vet here, Semper Fi, shout out to atheists in foxholes. Thanks for that, Jasmine Jacob. And. Semper Fi, brother. Dildo Baggins, thanks for your super chat. We're always very professional here, folks. Did you interview these interlocutors, James? Geeze, it's almost like Darth is behind all these accounts. He's just coming back to harass me.  That's right. I just, Darth, I just love Darth. I can't get enough of him. And I just, for some reason, when Darth gets all worked up, I don't know what it is. I seriously just can't help but laugh. James, you turn into a little schoolgirl when you go to school. I laugh at the schoolgirl. I was listening to that debate while I was driving, and when you started laughing or you're chuckling like that, I was cracking up driving down the street.  That's his biggest thing. I just can't help it. I just, he's got passion. I gotta give him that. Stockholm, thanks for your super chat. It says, for the ID team, says, how does intelligent design explain antibiotic resistance to bacteria or diseases jumping to new species? Punishment from God? Well, the antibiotic resistance is actually a interesting element of standing with our immune system and our ability to adapt to different variables. It goes back around to the premise of the dynamic system and the relative equivalent of AI that enables a dynamic response to be created on the fly, which is unlike how Jeff tries to say this isn't computer technology, machines, et cetera, et cetera. It's exactly what we're trying to accomplish with our technologies. And we're actually trying to copy what we see in biology to reach the same result, failing miserably at it, but trying to. But being able to do that kind of stuff on the fly requires incredible computation ability, which kind of is the whole reason there's a entire steady field of biological computation to explain how these things are able to be accomplished. Must move on to the next one. Stupid Hoard Energy, thanks for your super chat. Perhaps throwing a softball for you, RJ. She says, what do you think of the fact that the flagellum evolved from a secretion system? Oh, yeah, that's a fascinating one. In fact, we're now getting more and more material. They finally found a homology for the motor proteins too, which had always been a little bit of a puzzle. And by the way, other than intelligent design, non-young earth creationist, Scott Minnick down in the University of Idaho, none of the people doing the work in this field are anti-evolutionists. Gotcha. And thanks for your super chat from JPJ, or JPP3030 says, if we are, quote, intelligently designed, why is there cancer? Well, go ahead, go ahead, Chatter. Okay, so we take the Bible as literal. And so when Adam and Eve sinned, it cursed the world. That's where it comes from. It's a very simple explanation. And there's really no other explanation for it. We see cancer in dinosaurs. We see all kinds of degenerative stuff, not evolutionary stuff. God, is it okay if I respond to that real quick? I would just say there are species that either don't have cancer or have very, very, very high resistance to cancer like naked mole rats. So it is possible. And also the idea of like original sin is basically, because the whole idea is that they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which means they didn't know what good or evil was before. And so God is punishing us for something that somebody did, even if it is true, it just seems like God's a completely immoral monster and I don't want to have any part of that. And the systems that generate a lot of cancers and other diseases are often derived from the systems to make man-to-man design. I do want to give, given that the Super Chat was originally for our intelligent design guests, I want to give them the last word on this one. So if you want to respond to Jeff's comment, either John or Shadow Dancer, you may, otherwise we can move to the next one. I will, I'll make a quick comment. Don't cherry pick information just because I use cancer doesn't mean that's the only thing that we ever use. I'm just pointing it out as an example because that was their example. I'm saying it did. No, I was trying to just. I was trying to just appreciate, hold on, just to keep moving, otherwise we're gonna kind of spiral down another rabbit hole and I wish we could, but just to try to get through as many questions as possible. Puffalufagus, thanks for your Super Chat said, the Sentinelese are 15,000 to 30,000 years removed from the rest of the human population and haven't mastered fire yet. How can intelligent designers explain that problem away? We explain away by just looking at history. We can see the technology that they had back in. They found an ancient Egyptian tomb that had no soot inside of it. And this tomb is 2000 BC, 900 years after they built some of the largest pyramids. And what were they using? And this tomb is buried deep underneath ground. They've got other things that they were using. Babylonian battery was rejected like 50 years ago because they couldn't have had that kind of technology because they assumed based on deep time and evolution the man couldn't have been that smart back then. So they just reject and remove a lot of stuff. Gotcha. That doesn't really have anything to do with evolution, but yeah. We must keep moving. We have, next up, club, thanks for your Super Chat said, enjoyed hearing SD's angle and approach. Shadow Dancer, in other words, that they said, would like to see another debate with a topic specific to her specialty. Well, we'd be honored to have you back on Shadow Dancer. It's been a true pleasure tonight. And if you ever needed somebody to debate that with you, I would love to. It was fun talking to you. That would be so dank. Speaking of Jeff, Corporal Annen, thanks for your Super Chat who says, Jeff is hot though, wink face. I got one. I love for the ginger. Yeah, very nice. I like it.  Thanks for your Super Chat said, are you aware that many Archea, I think it's pronounced, is it pronounced Archea Bacteria? Archea Bacteria, yeah. Are entrapped in chert. And many of those are known to be from the Precambrian and chert is spelled C-H-E-R-T. C-H-E-R-T, yeah. Thank you. I think that's for our intelligent design guess. Still relies on the supposition of old earth and it being relevant in relation to when life came into existence. Gotcha. And thanks for your Super Chat from, this one's from Dildo Baggins who says, to all the raptor baits, ramen must be a fan of Skyler fiction. Thanks for your Super Chat from, two seconds, I'm almost there. We got the one on Boatchef being hot, okay. And then Ryuzenski, thanks for your Super Chat said, I decide, prove you no evolution, name the three types of evolution. And then they said, I'm not making this up. They said, by the way, also Archea and Jeff are hot. What religion, if any, are you defending? I joined late. I think they must be asking the ID side, what religion they're defending. So we'll, but the question they asked is, prove you no evolution, name the three types of evolution first. Okay, so there's the Big Bang Theory, the Nebula Theory and then the Origin of Life Theory. And that's not including all the side theories. I'm defending Christianity. Gotcha. And beyond that you've got, or in conjunction with that you got the cosmology or cosmological evolution, abogenesis slash chemical evolution and then evolution in the context of what we've been discussing tonight. Wouldn't the three types be more like divergent, convergent and parallel? We must keep moving. Well, they were paying attention to the action. We need to give you a chance to respond, John, or Shadow Dancer and then we must keep moving. I didn't mean to interrupt you, John, sorry. That's right, let's go on the next one. Next up, stupid or energy, thanks for your Super Chat said, programmers strive to keep things simple, not redundant or complex. Pretty sure I answered that one earlier and the discoveries that they're making, go watch some of the videos and read the papers coming out of Cambridge University and the Microsoft funded genetic research departments where they're actually becoming more and more blown away with how efficient it's actually being executed when as they're learning the sheer number of multiple functions that are operating simultaneously in the same data set, which is something that we wish we could pull off. So go research some of that stuff and get back to me. Next up, thanks. I make a comment really fast. So I just wanna ask her, has she ever even seen programming because that stuff is very complex? And if you mess up one thing, it does not work. I watched a friend learn it, that's very complex. Gotcha. And things- Unlike life, which is much- Thanks for your Super Chat from... Sphere itself says, what ofs your still sexy, James? Appreciate that sphere itself. As I mentioned, that is Earl the Postman from Alabama. I always appreciate that from the internet. Justin Geyer, appreciate your Super Chat said, ID, can you explain ERVs or endogenous retroviruses? Sorry if asked earlier, I came in late. Tune in to my one-on-one debate with RJ, never shuts up, Downard, about the discussion of ALUs, retro transposons, ERVs, et cetera, et cetera. Gotcha. And then read the technical literature beyond these little box. Next up, appreciate- I know what my argument is, man. You're always saying that I'm behind my little box. Yeah, you don't even know half the stuff that I'm talking about, and you're gonna say that I'm small information. Okay, let's go, bro. Next up, appreciate your Super Chat from, Josiah Hansen says, so cancer because magic curses. Well, we never invoked magic, so okay. Gotcha. And thanks for your Super Chat from, speed of sound of gravity says the only flood that has occurred here is a flood of Maddox's ignorance in all caps and lack of comprehension regarding genetics and biosomiotics from immutable destiny, but he made me pay. Yeah, so let's go back to our debate, speed of sound and your strict materialist mindsets and, well, everybody just go watch that debate. It's on my channel, it's on SFT, and you can listen to some of the stunningly closed-minded and borderline, man, I even have a good word for that. Just go listen to the, go watch the debate. Next up, thanks for your Super Chat from, Dearest Ryuzensky. Also the person who said Jeff is hot, by the way, said nothing else to say, just wanted to give you money. Well, appreciate that support, really do, Ryuzensky. Nice work, again, get it? And we are excited, by the way, as this, it reminds me, this Thursday we'll have Kent Hovindan, and that will be a special one where we usually try to use Super Chats for things like, whether it be like upgrading our tech, like I have gotten a DSLR, so when we have in-person debates after the pandemic at some point, we actually will have good video quality for that, so I'm excited about that. But we are also, we try to do a monthly charity stream. This month, it's going to be Kent Hovind's debate this coming Thursday. All of the Super Chats that come in during the Kent Hovind debate will be going to COVID-19 relief efforts, so exciting. Should be a great event. I'm sure RJ will be in the chat, very disgruntled, and mocking Kent Hovind. Oh, yeah, I wanna see, can't discuss fossils. Should be a dream debate. I would love to talk to Kent. So RJ was actually like, I think no joke, like our first debate that we have on this channel that you can find, I'm pretty sure if you go back to like our oldest material. 2018, September. Yes, it was September of, did you say it was 2018? 18, yes, it's been two years, almost two years. Wow, that was the first debate. How time flies when you're having fun. Yes, RJ and Kent Hovind, their debate is in the video library for modern day debate. That was a fun one. Oh, I'll stick the link in, because I think I've got it up in my library. Yes, it's got a lot of views, people really enjoy it. I still see comments coming on that too, by the way. People are still watching it.  Thanks for your super chat says, ha ha ha, if you mess up one thing and it breaks, you are a horrible programmer. Gotcha, thanks for that. Yeah, that's why you have redundancies, which is the same thing as we have in the genetic code. So if that's a good thing that you would do and have fallback positions in computer code, why then do evolutionists argue that the same thing in the genetic code is somehow crappy programming? Nah, how right? Next up. No, it's the parts other than that, that's the weird programming, if it were programmed. Give you a chance to respond, John, if you want. Although we've done, we've got to go to the next one. RJ doesn't even understand why it is a programming language, so I don't really think that you are- No, I don't agree with your characterization. We must move to the next one. I think, again, my point of, that's why the people around the world agree. Next up. Next up. JPP3030, thanks for your super chat, who says Maddox is funny triggered. Are you triggered, John? No, I'm not triggered. Okay, that's good. Thanks for that. Josiah Hansen, appreciate your super chat, said, by the way, the three types answer was divergent, convergent, and parallel evolution. I think evolutionists don't actually even understand their own theories. Incorrect. I talk about that on my channel. RJ, be respectful. Next up. I am respectful, but I'm not gonna pretend you know what you're doing. Thanks for your super chat from, let's see. Kolob, appreciate it, said keep up the good work, Maddox, and shadow dancer, I enjoyed it. You got a fan out there. And with that, I do have one more question. Brian Stevens, thanks for your patience. So sorry, I'm behind here. Said, Patreon comment, appreciate your support on Patreon, Brian. And said, the 400 million year old hammer was dated from the present to 700 years ago. Parentheses Cuban, Glenn J., 14th of July, 2006. So it sounds like a citation. Yes, I actually did read that one, and there were other citations that said it was actually much older than that. So there's definitely some controversy on it. There's controversy about any of these old objects, including the aluminum, which nobody even mentioned whatsoever, but you know. Gotcha. And thanks for your super chat. Ryuzinski, same person who said, Jeff is hot. Said, when do you plan to have a trial? I'll never let that go. When, I saw the kiss, that was nice. When do you plan to have a trial by combat between evolutionists and creationists? Please restrict the creationists from using magic in the arena, Trollish. I only fight in the arena of Fortnite. Thank you very much. And thanks to your super chat, Dildo Baggins. Says, really says, according to ID, quote, God set us up to fail. Why wouldn't all loving God set his most prized possession or prized creation, sorry, to be tempted by evil and Maddox, you need to chill. So I'll tell you this, God actually set us up to succeed, but he put in fail saves because he's only put in all knowing. He already knew that we were gonna sin. And I always ask people this question, if you know you're going to have children, would you wanna be a part of their lives?  So he put in redundancies in us, kind of like a computer program to make sure that one, we stayed safe with stuff and that, you know, we wouldn't die immediately. Gotcha. Did he know that our teeth could kill us for hundreds of thousands of years? And beyond that, in the context from a philosophical, philosophical and religious perspective, if our souls are immortal, then the things that the evolutionist view as these most horrific things of all time, how would anybody possibly do this? Well, if I know that you have an immortal soul and I'm gonna have eternal existence, then, and this is a time as a learning experience of that existence, then what is viewed as a negative takes an entirely different context. And however, the, from the evolutionary worldview, they are dramatically magnified and they can't comprehend how any of this would be possible to occur. Gotcha. Thanks for that. And thanks for your Patreon comment from Adam Abilia, appreciate it. Said, I'm, they said, I have a statement for the ID team. Cherry pick science much? I wasn't cherry picking science. I was putting out a variety of points on that work, look at it from a big picture perspective rather than just hyper focusing on one. And unfortunately my opponents didn't actually respond to my questions, they shifted gears and tried to go down different paths rather than actually address the questions that were being presented. disagree. I think, let's see, we have Ed Frieze reading this comment cause I just, I'm like super flattered. Said, James equals Captain Jonathan Archer. Change my mind. I am so flattered. Thank you so much. Not bad comparison for looks, yeah. Maybe a little bit. I've heard it once before. Okay. So thanks. Sorry for that. I hope for a quantum leap if you prefer that option. My sad strivings for attention. Maynard saves. Thanks for your super chat. Said, RJ can reach down you. I'm a little confused about this. RJ can reach down you smack that smirk off of Kent. Yeah. If it's an illusion to the debate, I will say that he didn't take kindly to my calling him a bottom feeder. They're talking about the actual video. He's above Kent. So he's saying reach it out and smack Kent's face on the video stream. It was definitely, it was an aggressive one. I remember that. That is I think where maybe, I mean, maybe Kent had the Spongebob stick before that. But I think that was where he really hammered the Spongebob stuff, maybe for the first time. And yes, truth begets heresy. I can't, please don't stop saying this. They said, James equals Scott Nicula. Thank you so much. Dildo Baggins, thanks for your super chat said. ID is like the one ring. It will destroy the user.  No, no, no.  And it also gives me the ability to see much more to what my purpose is and meaning of life. So, hmm, given the fact that people who believe in God tend to live longer and have much lower rates of suicide and a variety of other issues, I'm not really sure which mindset which worldview is causing more destruction of the user. Gotcha, thanks for your super chat. We had one that just flew in. Ryuzinski is asking, Jeff, real quick, what amp or pedals do you use? I have, so I have the Gibson Les Paul Epiphone SG and then the amp is a line six, spider three, 120 watt. And then I have a modulator for that that comes with like a watt pedal and stuff. And I use a Boss RC3 looping pedal and a Boss DD8 delay pedal. Gotcha. And we can all agree the pedals were intelligently designed. Yes, we can, that is true. Gotcha. And want to say thanks so much, folks. It's been a huge pleasure. We've got to let these guests get to sleep. Is anybody on the eastern coast? I don't, it must be, so it must be 1115 over there. Is anyone? I'm on central. I'm mountain time. Wow, you too, okay, cool. Actually, you might be in the same city as me, James. No way, which city are you in? Denver. Oh, wow, I'm actually in Denver right now. I'm living in West, well, technically Westminster, so. I live in Lockfuy, do you know where that's at? Hey, James, Super Energy just dropped on their super chat. I don't know where that is, but I surely will find out, I just moved down here.  Uh-oh, says, by the way, Eagles wouldn't have succeeded in dropping the one ring. They would have been stopped by the ring demons.  I will debate you on that. We need to bring, Stephen Colbarian, he's a super expert on Lord of the Rings. Next up, so thank you very much, folks. It has been a fun one. I do want to say a huge thanks to our guests. They're linked in the description, folks. So if you want to hear more, or hey, maybe you just want to give them a hard time. Well, now it's your chance. Their links are right below. And I want to say thanks so much for our audience being here. You guys always make it fun. Henry Hanson's over in Colorado Springs. That's what I'm talking about. In Australia or wherever you're from, we want to let you know. We hope you feel welcome here, folks. Christian, atheist, evolution, ID, you name it. We really do appreciate you hanging out with us. And so once again, one final thank you to our guests before we shut her down for the night. Thank you guys so much. Thank you. This was an absolute blast. I appreciate it. And remember that when we get up tomorrow, none of anything that we've said here will have changed any of the scientists' minds. Thank you, James, for hosting us tonight. My pleasure. Absolutely. So thanks so much. Keeps everything out the reasonable, from the unreasonable. Take care.