everybody tonight we're debating whether or not there is evidence for intelligent design and we are starting right now. John's opening statement on behalf of intelligent design thanks for being with us John and the floor is all yours. I appreciate it as always James always fun to come on modern day debate and have some interesting dialogue discourse and hopefully we'll have some intellectual debate on the concepts the logic the necessities for intelligent agency versus random random undirected process chance actualization of complex functions interdependent technologies and things that are ultimately material. So in the overall context of you know is there evidence for intelligent design I would have to say does the SETI project have a tangible quantifiable method by which they're searching for life in other parts of our universe well the answer is yes they do and ironically the things that they're searching for you know fixed patterns things that have code like properties things of that nature that's exactly what they're searching for and it's been freely recognized for 50 plus years that those sorts of types of information that are being sent out would be directly indicative of intelligent agency. So what I find extraordinary ironic in terms of so many people interact with here on YouTube especially and obviously in academia as well given the fact that there's millions if not billions of dollars being spent on those kinds of projects the fact that we've already determined quantified measured and are currently deciphering on a variety of levels the same type of information we're looking for in other parts of the universe find it inside of biological systems it seems that if we are going to operate from the perspective that intelligent agency would be necessary for us to be able to determine these kind of you know radio signals where it might be coming from outer space to be intelligent or to require intelligent agents it seems like the same type of logic would be applied here you also have to look at things you know like functional information versus raw Shannon information you're looking at the variety you know how many functional bits would be necessary for a functional process that's there's formulas for this it's been a well-established premise a Nobel prize winner came up with it I mean or he's he and his team came up with the the method it's been you know recognized and it's being applied in both biology as well as information communication telecommunication technologies so these you know there's very well delineated concepts that can be applied to you know what is required for a very existence and here I'm just talking about on the biological level the same logic extrapolates out into the universe itself all the requirements for life to exist you know whether it be from the laws the coherence of them the tuning the fine tuning of them the interdependencies and the irony I find you know when you get into things like multiverse arguments things of that nature you still run into so many instead of plethora of problems that because you ultimately have to have that on the macro level as well as the micro level in order to actually account for these things being you know plausible and so anyway from the from the macro macro view of all these kinds of conversations you know I just I find it so interesting that the folks on the other side of the equation I'm interested to see what AST has say about this but you know somebody who is you know a background in you know software development you don't know software development company had coders that work for me and one of the things we got hired to do was code audits and we would go through and we would look at another you know system that already existed and we would figure out how they did it what's you know if they use me pre-existing code bases and structures and models and all these different things we figured out what apis they worked with we figured out all these different things and we're able to kind of reverse engineer and figure out what was going on inside the systems not very often just to see if the code was good other times to you know add things to or make modifications and since that's exactly what we're doing with you know things like synthetic biology we're either reverse engineering or we're taking existing things modifying adapting adding to taking away different things from a code perspective I really wonder if anybody with a straight face would go into any kind of technology company and be like hey no all of that code you guys wrote all of those functions that it work the apis you connected to somehow that could actually happen by chance of course ironically the very first person ever debated on modern day debate rj downard actually made the exact argument when I asked him if he thought that facebook twitter and snapchat could create themselves he said yes ironically I've heard multiple folks against id and in favor of a undirected process being sfr existence they've also said that they thought that was plausible um no hopefully uh ast doesn't think that's possible plausible but if it does i'll be very interested to find out how but when we look at what's going on that's required for our very existence we have more more incredible like multiplex codes we have dual use syntax we have all these different things that are being able to be dynamically modified in real time to account for input output variables and uh this you know create functions or modifications to existing functions on the fly there's things that we dream about doing in technology right now and then that's where you've been starting to get things like is their actual you know bio photon communication transfer going going on uh that's enabling you know what a major factor for life I mean there's just all these different things we keep discovering that blow the mind and continue to indicate that there is a coherent well-structured and previously delineated operating system uh applications on a variety of levels and ultimately completed systems both from a coding perspective as well as a nanotechnology aspect and robotics and all these different things that we're now just now as humans beginning to even comprehend well it turns out that they have been around since the beginning of life so ultimately for me it comes down to is coding information and communication systems are they evidence for intelligent agency well in every other context yes um is existence of code bases evidence for intelligent agency well in every other instance yes uh nanotechnology yes in every other instance I don't think anybody would argue that nanorobots would not require intelligent agents so we can keep going down the list and all these type of things but um to me when you look at these from you know either individually or from a comprehensive level to reach the conclusion that there's at least not a argument to be made and that these can't serve as evidence for intelligent design to me necessitates stunning ignorance or willful suspension of all critical thinking skills and basic analysis and rationality I yield thank you very much John for that opening and want to let you know folks if it's your first time here at modern day debate we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics and we want to let you know we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from and we also want to let you know you guys you don't want to miss this coming up this Saturday June 5th Dr Kenny Rhodes Christian Apologist and scholar will be taking on Matt de la Hunte any friendly debate discussion you could say and you don't want to miss it so do hit that subscribe button so that you don't miss it and also want to give you a quick update on the crowdfund for this event thank you so much everybody as we have made it 100 of the way to our goal and now you'll see at the far right of your screen we have a stretch goal going for another roughly well less than 190 now and the reason is basically I forgot to include the merch costs as well as the shipping costs in the crowdfund rookie mistake so if you want to help out the channel you can and it's by throwing in for this crowdfund we sincerely appreciate that support thank you everybody who's already done it we're trying something different tonight folks let me know if you understand this I have pinned a chat at the top of the live chat right now and here's how this is going to work is if you feel at all like making a super chat question tonight or comment we have set up a reward in the crowdfund so that you can do your super chat where we've turned it off in youtube and we've allowed it so that basically instead of putting $5 into a super chat on youtube you can just throw into the crowdfund and let me show you because if you click at the link that is both in the description as well as pinned at the top of the chat right now just want to show you this you guys it will look like this when you click on the link and scroll about halfway down the page you will see this basically just like this it looks just like this and it says basically super chat for the maddox versus ast debate and so want to encourage you folks if you have a question jump into the crowdfund throw that $5 in for this particular perk rather than it going to youtube or i don't know if you know youtube takes 30% and so we're like hey let's just fire it right into the crowdfund directly and that way you can support the crowdfund as well as get to ask your super chat question and so just let me know what your question is in the chat after you add into this tier for the crowdfund thanks for your patience what we are going to do is kick it over to our dearest guest ast we are thrilled to have you with us thanks for being here and the floor is all yours hello everybody i am actual socialist trash so today we're debating uh intelligent design however i'm not sure why it's to jump intelligent design because i don't think myself or my very well-screened interlocutor are proponents of intelligent design you see we could run down the laundry list of everything that uh that my interlocutor has has uh gone out that uh thrown out there uh however i think he's just biting a piece off of the fruit from the poison tree so what i want to do today is i want to hold uh mr maddox to task on who is the designer behind his intelligent design because i see no proof for a designer and and if there were proof i think we would know i think a designer would give us that proof and where did all of the fossil record come from since i'm i'm fairly certain my interlocutor is a young earth creationist uh and to deny the entire scientific field of uh everything that goes into origins of life research and to make it seem like it's all just a elaborate plot to obfuscate a god is highly unlikely and i think if it is that they're doing a very bad job at it because there are a lot of creationists out there and i yield the rest of my time you got it and with that we're going to jump into open conversation folks and want to let you know if you haven't heard we are thrilled that modern day debate has a podcast you can find all of our epic debates available on that podcast check it out on your favorite podcast app and that includes all of the podcast you could say all of the podcast examples that i am showing on screen right now on the far right of your screen and also juicy debate coming up on june 9th between dr michael brown and apostate prophet on whether or not there's a god so you don't want to miss that as well thanks so much gentlemen the floor is all yours wow so that's the kind of stupidity you brought for me huh james this kind of uh all right we don't want people insulting each other so jump into it well he already started off uh he's opening statement was an insult i didn't insult you at all i'm sorry no i was pretty much an insult so was it yeah because you are you obviously can't comprehend the premise that uh you're trying to shift the discussion from id to a specific religion so in of itself oh no no either you have either you have very low iq or you are unable to comprehend the point that i was making in relation to what are what is necessary for things like i described in my opening statement to exist do they require intelligent agency yes or no which is the entire point of what's the evidence for intelligent design this is not about creation this is not a theist versus atheist does god exist discussion um this is about intelligent agency intelligent design in the evidence for or against in relation to our existence do you comprehend this or do you not comprehend this because i'm pretty sure that's the title yeah you know the title is is intelligent design okay so then why intelligent no why are you asking about so why are you asking me about uh young earth creationism which god who did it what's different things because intelligent intelligent design suggests that there is a designer yeah does that necessitate that designer and what is his mechanism no who is that designer and what is no intelligent design is whether or not there's evidence for or against one being necessary for something to exist we do this in forensics all the time we do this in historical sciences all the time looking for different looking for different quantifiable necessities for something to have occurred in a variety of ways i use i literally used coding as an example of let me ask you directly do you think that things that are coded with machine code could possibly come into existence without intelligent agency yes or no uh well actually that's very interesting uh there is this website uh let me share my screen real quick uh there is a website it's called there is a website called there is a website called like seven times now do you have an answer you have this on that point can you answer my question can you make talk i mean i've been i just kept quiet for like 45 seconds while you repeated yourself you'd answer my question all right he's trying to show you the website there's a website called the uh the library of battle right and this guy has coded this website to uh to lay out absolute jargon all over the place uh you could scroll through this website uh random page you could do this for about a million years and you would not reach the end of this website uh what's really cool about it is he has uh he has created a search engine for this now this search engine you can type anything in it as you can see i have john maddox is awesome right uh and it will find the exact page on which this random sequence of letters will show up this is essentially the is something being shared here because i'm not seeing a damn thing you're not seeing it right i mean i so to share your screen you'd have to you'd have to click the green button on the bottom of the zoom window it shows that i am i've got a little one in the top of my screen it shows that i'm sharing it oh no you're sharing it okay yeah so this guy has created this website it you can go through here random page over and over again it'll take about a million years for you to get there to the end of this website it's just complete jargon however uh like i was saying he has a search engine built into this let me go back to the main page he has a search engine you can type into the search engine anything i'll just maddox is awesome so it gives you an exact page that that random sequence of characters will come up not only does it do that but it will give you uh the page where it's random the page where it comes up alongside other english words this is essentially the monkeys on a typewriter uh uh analogy in practice oh really yes okay so um you do realize you're starting about like 10 layers above where you actually have to start right you do comprehend this right like you do realize in order to even perform the search you have to have the pre-existing uh syntax and alphabets you do realize that right okay okay so you you can't do like there is no you you can't find the the search if you don't have the pre-existing syntax and the semantic value assignments for this so this is the entire point when i was talking about do you think the machine code can create itself you are just multiple layers above the starting point and that's before you even account for i'd even that's even removing the the search algorithm that had to be in place for that and the generation of all of the sequences to potentially choose from and doing a blind search and then going into the probabilities of do you have enough potential trials to find the functional information that is necessary for maddox is awesome which i appreciate you actually recognizing that um the you still have to have enough possible trials and this is where things like functional information come into play so for something such as one of the simplest universal proteins you have to have like six hundred and eighty eight functional bits of information and you have a max based on a 5.4 billion year earth operating from that timeline and all of the known possible trials your blind search you have no more than 140 functional bits and that's like at the absolute extreme the real number is probably somewhere between 40 to 60 functional bits being able to be found through trials and then after that you're looking at blind search so it's recognized that there's literally not enough time to account for this this is not me this is this is peer-reviewed math that has been done so your whole aspect i mean you're a library of babble like uh i think i am a weasel like this logic was come up with uh and tested back in the 90s Dawkins and all these guys already went down this rabbit hole and the whole reason this doesn't actually apply is when you actually get into the necessities of the functional information you the plausibility of all this just completely runs out the window and like this is recognized because you're talking about having to have a function not random having to have having to have functional information for biological systems to actually exist so congratulations on trying to counterman this point but like this is still being addressed having to be addressed and has not been accomplished or even you know things like library of babble are not even being contemplated as plausible in the context of our existence you do realize that right it shows that random sequences can create patterns like it shows that random sequences create patterns dude how many functional bits was that i don't know man okay so you don't know if functional bits are and you're thinking that you know so max is awesome how many uh how many characters is that m a d x all right yes but like 12 okay so you're talking about needing uh by the way that whole the whole uh how do you hang on how many characters do you think i think i am a weasel is do you think that's more or less than max is awesome probably more okay so if that's been dismissed as plausible and it's more characters than what you just did in your little search your whole argument is irrelevant i am a weasel okay let's let's move on from this uh because this has been addressed it's there congratulations how many searches necessary one no no in terms of the generation of the character sets uh same before you before you get to that sequence what do you have to do do you have to have an algorithm already in place no just searches you have to generate there is no there is no algorithm it's random it's a he you're sitting out there you have no random do you have to have a search algorithm to go through the random characters do you have to have a search algorithm yes or no okay a search algorithm okay yes but no i'm this is idiotic okay let's let's move on do you think that so so yeah let's do you think that you think that syntax can create a for intelligent design there has to be a designer who is the designer and what is the mechanism irrelevant no it is not irrelevant for intelligent design there has to be a designer who is the designer and what mechanism doesn't matter where's the model it doesn't matter we're talking about whether or not there's evidence for it if i come up if you came across the code for an app would you say oh wait i guess i could use the library of babel and maybe they'd come up with a million lines of code that it would be in there you think it's already in there yes you think a million lines of coherence uh code it would be in there in the library about yes it is in there a million lines of code yes everything that can be a functional bit everything that can be written or has been written is in the library of babel or has been written interesting okay yes everything that has been written or can be written is in the library of babel okay with a uh without pre-existing sentence it is it is quite literally the infinite monkeys on typewriters in practice okay so nobody in science thinks that the monkeys on typewriters is actually plausible because you don't have enough time to account for this you don't have enough time for this you do reckon it do you realize it's it's in the library of babel you can you can scroll in there you can scroll through there for a minute okay okay i'm done arguing with the library of babel as something that's created by intelligent agent that's just retarded okay well where's your intelligence going down is moronic where's your intel you're arguing about something is created by an intelligent agent where is your intelligent agent and what is his mechanism for working that's irrelevant to the evidence no it's not for intelligent for it's literally in the name dude for intelligent design there has to be an intelligent creator where is your intelligent creator and what is his mechanism okay so if you come across a painting in the woods if you don't know who did it would you still be able to determine whether or not it was painted oh yeah but that's because i can contrast that painting with something that has been designed we cannot contrast the universe with a universe that has been designed is code something you can contrast yes or no yes you can contrast it to the to the world to the natural world no i'm talking no i'm talking about the the fundamental necessities of coding are you suggesting that you cannot determine whether or not something is or is not a code even if i grant you that the that the dna sequence is a code because i know that's where you're going down i'm not talking about the dna sequence i'm talking about the genetic code itself yes that's if you if even if i grant that the genetic code is a code where is the intelligent designer that built that code zero and what is his terms okay you do realize this we're talking about it from a uh inductive perspective right and then we're going to abduction overall and we're talking about historic science where you're looking at thing the uh most plausible explanation principle sufficient reason of is there any other code that you think could morse code ever assign itself it's codec uh could the source that's that's that's by a that's a by a designer but no we're talking about that's by a designer and we have proof that we can contrast that to the things that are not actually no okay do you think that the source and the target alphabets uh you have a code could ever assign them the values to each other i i just i just granted that that is by a designer okay so if the genetic code has sorts and target alphabets are you suggesting that's not evidence for a intelligent agent being necessary yes that that's that i'm granting you that okay so that's evidence so where is the intelligent agent so you have just what is his mechanism so you have just conceded that that is evidence which is what the whole point of this debate is is there evidence for intelligent design so you've just conceded that the genetic code is evidence for that's irrelevant that's irrelevant are you conceding are you conceding that's irrelevant to the universe we have we're talking about and we have proof of things that they can design uh the only we have proof of people existing and we have proof of what things they can design are you wearing a sidebar man are you wearing a onesie right now yes i am i'm wearing a snorlax onesie so um james you brought me a guy who's wearing a onesie okay so you have a problem with it uh well i'm you just i think it's comfortable you just conceded you just conceded that it's evidence for intelligent design while claiming that you're not actually conceding the point that's being looked for in the overall context of the debate the the context of the debate is on the universe no it's an intelligent design oh in any context then we're looking at a cumulative i i don't i don't have to prove every single possible aspect we're talking about is there evidence for or so so then you're then you're not then you're not a intelligent intelligent okay so if you're in a any other context right i don't have to prove everything in every possible scenario a hundred percent in order for there to be evidence in favor of or against that that's very very basic that's a very basic concept in debate i hope you recognize that that you just conceded and now we're claiming that even though you conceded one of the points that i'm making about there's something that is evidence in favor of an intelligent designer you're now saying oh well you haven't proved everything therefore what you just proved doesn't that intelligent designer that's not the that's not the question at hand that debate is not what is the name of the intelligent designer the debate the debate the name of the the name of the bait evidence for intelligent design so that's pretty basic logic bro try and use your brain why don't you take your little hoodie off of your onesie and get and grow up and act like an adult now in the context of nanotechnology do you think that nanorobots are evidence for or against intelligent agency being necessary intelligent agency is necessary in that so for nanorobots yes in any context because that's created by people we have proof that people exist okay so when we're and we have proof that people create things where is the creator for the the things that are necessary where is the creator for the universe the things that are necessary for a nanorobot we're not talking about the universe right now we're talking about robots so for nanobots all of the whether they're made from biological elements or from silicone is it very very highly probable that an intelligent agent was necessary for a nanorobot regardless of the medium of which it's made in order for it to exist does intelligent agency have to be in play yes because people exist and we have evidence of people creating things that has nothing to do with whether or not the robot this requires it based on the things that are necessary for so you're suggesting that the logic rules i'm suggesting i'm suggesting that a robot and the interdependencies are necessary for a robot is a person to build it i'm suggesting that a nanorobot requires a person to build it okay so is a uh and to and to whatever okay cool so it requires a person to build it we have evidence of bro let me okay got it i heard where is the intelligent designer for the universe and what is his mechanism so for a biological nanobot that requires coding and engineering is it necessary for an intelligent agent to execute that logic and uh coding and interdependent parts in order for that nanorobot to exist yes okay but even granting that where is the intelligent designer for that has nothing to do with whether or not that is evidence for or against you just conceded again so are you suggesting that the biological the the synthetic biology nanobots that are being uh recoded from from nanomachines in biological systems are you suggesting that that is not evidence in favor of an intelligent agent being necessary uh yes because people exist and we have evidence of people and we have evidence of people designing no no dude you missed the whole point when we're recoding previously existing nanorobots in biological so we're reprogramming them where we're already program biological systems dude what do you think proteins are proteins are not proteins are not created or they're they're not created they're not created by an intelligent design okay so do they have code then is required for them to exist that they have uh even even granting that there is code proteins we have evidence are you so are you are you saying we have are you saying protein are you saying that protein let's let him finish on i don't recognize as nanorobot let's be sure that he gets a chance to finish we have James the the dude wearing the ones he over talked me like for three minutes straight i kept interrupting all right so we're gonna let him have a chance to respond so all i'm asking is that we let each other and same thing for ast that we let each other finish your guys are each of you finish your own sentences go ahead ast uh so we've we've seen proteins uh be created spot are not be uh happen spontaneously uh with carbon sulfide it's it's it can well those can happen spontaneously we see we see in proteins form themselves yes in in in uh evidence uh right in in origins of life research really really an entire protein formed itself with no other enzymes no other actions being in place the uh the amino acids just magically came together and formed a functional protein don't don't say yes please don't say yes they they in the miller urie experiment no okay the miller urie experience oh okay that is about amino acids potentially forming not a protein not a polypeptide dude you're in a way you're not even in the same stratosphere bro like we're talking about a polypeptide chain which we can very often is combined with other polypeptides to create a functional nano nanomachine this is showed it was possible no it did not dude no dude you're not no an amino acid forming is not a polypeptide chain forming there's a dramatic dramatic difference on this like you need to go do some googling bro because they have not accomplished this this they haven't even solved the homo chirality problem and you think they have solved and observed a protein forming itself okay well where's the designer get out of town man get out of town where's the designer of the protein that that's hilarious where's the designer okay this is the entire okay the protein formation comes from a free existing sequence of a code of a code in dna that gets translated into mrna against decoded and or translated by the ribosome and codon equals amino acid and time it's x y and z axis plus element plus time control it's a freaking 3d printer you do do you know this okay well how do you explain please explain to me protein synthesis if you're gonna sit here and tell me that there is no evidence for intelligent agency how does protein synthesis work i don't need to explain it oh okay so you don't know how proteins are formed you don't know what how the code is translated the thing is the thing is you don't have the sequences are formed and you're the same you don't have to explain this but you're telling me that i don't know what i'm talking about this is a debate on intelligent design correct uh yeah you're trying to overturn the body of science don't know i'm talking about evidence in favor of intelligent agency so if something from a logistics perspective has so literal transport code and says hey go from here to here and there's a freaking truck that comes and picks it up takes it and drops it off at that location would you say that's evidence for intelligent agency when when it comes to if there's a zip code on something and it gets picked up and taken by a truck to a specific destination has an address is that address and the logistics that were necessary for to get from point a to point b is that evidence for intelligent agency yes or no yes because there's people involved in that no it could be a drone the there would still be people involved in that email there's still people involved in that there's can i write a script we have write a script that sends an automatic we have we have evidence of people existing and we have evidence of that is the thing with the technology requirements the necessity for something to exist so are you suggesting that is remotely plausible for a system that automatically labels destination addresses and then a robot comes and picks it up and physically takes it to that destination are you suggesting that if a robot if you watch the robot do that you would ever come to the conclusion that whether or not you knew who did it or who or how it was built would you ever come to the conclusion that intelligent agent was not necessary for it to exist i never said that i'm asking you a question i didn't say you said i asked you a question that was a question no no no statement right no the i i would i i wouldn't let me let me it's a yes or no question would there be or would there not be an intelligent agent necessary there would be an intelligent being necessary but that's because everything in that chain was designed by people we have evidence of people existing we have evidence that people design things where is the designer so the universe where is the designer for everything in the universe and what is his mechanism where is your model okay that has nothing to do with evidence for against it being necessary i don't know how all sorts of things are built i don't know the model that was done and whether or not i go and research and go talk to somebody who did or didn't does has zero to do with whether or not i can very rationally conclude that there was one necessary so in the context of things that are on the molecular level in a protein sequence there are literal destination codes in the sequence okay you have a 3d print script that controls x y and z axis element and time logic you have additional components that cause a 3d object to form three you have a 3d printer which is the ribosome which is creating nanorobots like this is not in you're talking about overturning science everything i'm saying is not in question in science this is exactly what's happening we're arguing about there's a there's a there's a we are arguing about whether or not it is evidence for or against and intelligent agent i am stating that if you have to have all of these different things there are no other context would it be remotely plausible for them to exist without an intelligent agent being necessary all the way from the information to the engineering to the schematics to the 3d print models that would end the engineering that's necessary for all those to exist there's no other context where you would argue per your own admission that there was an intelligent agent required whether you knew who they were or otherwise that's what we're getting down to as we're discovering more and more things about biological systems that we didn't even know about until this past decade with quantum biology for example and we freaking enzymes that are creating quantum tunneling as part of respiration process we're having for we're having real time quantum coherence being uh held for photosynthesis to exist so somehow one of the things that supposedly was the first thing to involve evolve without an intelligent agent being necessary photosynthesis uh requires controlled at room temperature quantum coherence state in order for energy loss not to to be almost or energy transferring almost 100 percent it's freaking nuts we even know about this stuff until last decade and for so for me to sit here and say that's evidence in favor of an intelligent agent being necessary whether or not i know who it was i mean you don't even know about most of this stuff and are claiming we can dismiss it all no the the the differences in a in a protein like you're talking about in a protein that is a a natural material the drone analogy that you used is a machine that we have evidence of people building does a drone we don't does a drone have input output sensors and uh sure but okay people designed them no that has zero relevance to whether and people voted them okay does the ability for a drone to be able to make real real-time modifications like it's flying it's hovering right it's got sensors for wind and elevational kind of things right and it affects and based on those addition there's modifiable variables it can increase the velocity of the torque all those different things in order to maintain a relative position right sure but he designed them okay so does all that okay yeah they design they were designed and coded okay so um you do realize every one of yourselves is literally coded with input output sensors that enables real-time data transfer logic rule execution and expression of pre-programmed variables to account for new data input okay so it's all pre-coded okay pre-code so you're suggesting the input output sensor would you ever argue that um so did a human code it that has no relevance to whether I tell yes it does yes it does because if you're going to if you're going to argue that a if you're going to use the analogy of a drone in the same thing if you're going to use that analogy there's evidence of people there's evidence of of people existing national level coding there yes and people using their intelligent agency to code for these things their machines so you their machines however so what do you think when you think I'm talking about on the molecular level however you're talking about biological stuff and we have no evidence so we have no evidence so are you one of the jokers who operates from the perspective that uh oh it's made of chemicals therefore it can't be a machine uh yeah okay so are you suggesting that the are you suggesting that the robots that we're building out of the exact same materials are you suggesting those aren't aren't actually robots because they're made out of chemicals they're not made out of chemicals in the same way yes yes they are okay so um okay okay so so no yes yes they are bro you don't hold on to this who is who is DARPA the DARPA literally where is the current flow we're going to do is I'm going to break it into two minute intervals and so I am going to let actual socialist trash finish what are you saying and then I promise we'll come back to you John for that two minutes or so or actual socialist trash if you had a question we'll let you ask it and then we'll give John two minutes to respond so when it comes to biology we if you're going to if you're going to go along the intelligent design route intelligent design it's it's literally the name I I'm going to hold you a task on who is the intelligent designer who is the designer and by what mechanism does he design or she or they so I don't know how many times I have to respond to this question which indicates your inability to comprehend what the point of the debate was which is not for me to prove who the designer is by name it's whether or not there's evidence in favor of I don't really don't understand how complicated that concept is to comprehend especially since I've been addressing it since your 30 second opening statement at the beginning of this conversation so I don't know how much more how many more times I have to repeat myself that that has zero to do with whether or not there's evidence for or against an intelligent agent being necessary for life and potentially the universe to exist now if you want to go down this whole rabbit hole what's the model okay we come up with all sorts of hypotheticals for all sorts of stuff but we don't know whether or not they're true or false they're hypotheticals and you look at the evidence from a historical science perspective which is what is going on in cosmology for example to historic science so is evolutionary biology it's a historic science these things are looking at just like with intelligent design you're looking at what is the evidence for or against based on known variables which is why I use things like code we know from real-time observation there has never been any other code that has ever been created without the requirement of intelligent agents period they all have every single so now I'm not done yet so when you look at what is evidence for against an intelligent agent okay we know beyond all doubt per your own concession that the genetic code is a literal code is not analogies not metaphors not similarly it is literal so if that is the case in the context of known observation in real time in modern society in modern science we know these things to be equal but how do I know this because we are it's a quaternary code base that we are there's being used and developed or investigated by every major tech company on this planet because it's a more efficient data storage mechanism than what we're currently using DARPA is currently I interviewed a gentleman who owns a company about this a couple weeks ago they're literally working with DARPA to and have already created microchips that can interact with DNA for data transfer and storage like we've already been developing translation mechanisms for DNA code into binary and back like this already exists this isn't in question this stuff already is around and I've got people like you running around being like oh you can't compare these things it's like uh well okay so are you suggesting that the translation mechanisms in the modern syntax is being created by humans to do things to try and copy the level of what's going on in the biological system we're trying to copy it we're trying to be as good and you're telling me that what we would create which would be inferior per the admission of the guy's working on it uh isn't evidence in favor of an intelligent agent being necessary is that actually the position you're taking all right we're gonna give two minutes to respond from actual socialist trash so are you suggesting that the amino acids that were formed by the middle or your experiment where they mimicked uh early earth conditions um that that didn't arise spontaneously dude the uh are you suggesting that that had a so you didn't answer my question so you didn't answer my question there were intelligent agents miller and urie and play and more importantly fast forward like 40 years at a conference where they were right where miller was present they literally decided like we abandoned the miller your experiment is not actually valid like the miller your experiment in terms of ool research has been like tossed out the window for a long ass time so the fact that you're even bringing it up right now just indicates that you don't know what the hell you're talking about you also completely ignored the question i asked you which was are you suggesting that the fact that we're being able to translate from dna syntax into a binary and back and forth for information transfer are you suggesting that our inferior copies are could be created without the actions of intelligent agents the the the things that they are creating require an intelligent agent the biological dna i i've not seen any proof of an intelligent agent for that okay so um is the is there chemical affinity for why the base pairs bind to the backbone in a specific manner can you repeat the question is there a chemical reason a chemical affinity for why the base pairs would bind to the ribose backbone or is it random uh i assume it's random if it's if it's uh has to do but with biology we're talking about the chem is there a pattern a chemical pattern that would result in a sequence or is it completely random and arbitrary how they end up uh binding or you're talking about like the the ag tc the base pairs they they combine a pattern yes but that that could have an out of random okay so there's no okay so you do realize that when you're talking about getting into like the minimal the recognized minimal functional genome you're looking at i think it's like 300 and the minimum right now is like 382 thousand base pairs and the you have to have like 200 and i think it's 267 thousand functional bits the okay well they are all working now the point the reason i was asking is your chemical affinity is you are dealing with 100 percent random chance so you have to do two to that power like whatever the number is so two to the 100,000 two to the 267 thousandth um is the probability so you're are you so you're stating that even though there's not enough freaking seconds that have passed in a 13.8 billion year old universe you're stating that it is remotely plausible that two to this 267 thousandth power one and two two to the 267 power you're suggesting that's remotely plausible um to have happened versus it being the action of an intelligent agent which can solve that and we do it all the time when we write code for example or when you write a one page uh paragraph or sorry one page uh report book report whatever in school the you have accomplished that level of improbability right there no problem as an intelligent agent but now we're talking about where there's literally not enough time there's not enough trials there's not enough chances in the history to work with for this to have happened so you're stating that even though that's the case and it's recognized as the case you're stating that that's not potential evidence in favor of an intelligent agent so uh let me let me make sure I'm I'm still manning you with an analogy all right you're using an analogy for a literal uh improbability or probability calculation yes I I want to make sure that I'm understanding your argument correctly and I'm going to use an analogy and see if you agree with it does that make sense I'm listening to you okay so um if you fill a room with uh 10 000 glasses of water and you you put in every one of those glasses of water a chemical that would make someone vomit for instance right uh what you're suggesting is that I would only be sending one person into that room and asking them to find the clean glass of water that you didn't put the uh the chemical in correct is that is that where your argument is basically they have a 10 000 one odds that they're going to they're going to vomit well in this context it's you've got um there's more uh more cups that are going to make you puke than the total number of particles in the universe okay that's that's fine but given that I'm reducing it to 10 000 is this essentially do you can't do you can't reduce it to 10 000 no for the plausible is this is this essentially it okay so on a okay so i'm from a probability no dude if you dumb this down it's literally what you're doing you're dumbing this down to something like oh well if it's only one in 10 000 well we have we have uh more improbable uh lotteries that are one like this is this that's not where I'm going with this I don't I don't care if you don't you're going down to 10 000 to one has zero relevance to the point that's being made because you have to look at the probability resources that are available and it is recognized in any other context other than our freaking existence that if the improbability is greater than the total amount of probability probabilistic resources then the chances are freaking zero so it's a realistic zero so all of this like oh could it be possible in some scenario where it's like cool I can put that on there but from a real from an actual plausibility perspective it gets tossed out the window as not even being why do you think that people like Eugene Coon and other folks who are atheists they're like well there must be a multiverse because there's no way if there isn't one then this improbability is so nuts that we can't really count for it so there must be a multiverse like this is literally stated so you're I don't know where you're going with this whole point because I'm talking about is it evidence for or evidence against okay the point is that the counter question is if you have all those cups and the person walks in and just immediately like walks directly to the only one that's fine do you think they knew which one was good you think you might have had foreknowledge of which one was the right one would that be the more likely conclusion versus they just magically went and found the right one randomly well if you if you if you let me explain I thinking about thinking about the the way all of this came about randomly I I would say is more like you have those same 10,000 glasses one of them it doesn't have the magic vomit liquid in it and you have 10,000 people in the room with those 10,000 glasses what are the chances that one person is not going to vomit and have very dirty shoes okay you're going for this whole simultaneous trial explanation yes because the dude that okay that is recognized to not actually be plausible this this is a standard youtube dumbass atheist talking point for people like that's a gibbon who'd use it in the side chat I think I saw her doing earlier she did in my debate with her they try to use this oh there's simultaneous example going all right we're not going to we're not going to take jabs at people when they're not here to defend themselves so no more of that well say the same thing to people on the side chat james if you ever want to have me back here again if you're gonna try and tell me when I can't make jabs the I've already been telling people in the side chat not doing insults john do you want to give me an example anyway the no examples huh that's what I thought do you want to continue the debate or you want to go like bring up the side chat and like scroll back if you want to give your examples go ahead but we're telling people in the side chat I'm even seeing I've seen an atheist moderator okay got it who has been calling out people who are theists great or I should say other atheists anyway the whole this is not just me saying this the simultaneous trials thing does not help your case because ultimately you have to have you're looking at just one ultimately for any this to be plausible you have to have all of these things at at the same time in the same physical location be next to each other like you have to account for all of these things in a with a finite time span like and then you have to account for the replication and those different things which is not chemically plausible like this is this isn't all right like you try to do it from these like oh all you do is find the cup it's like no actually you needed to have had a all of the parts for a puzzle and you need to find all the right parts and you had to put them all together and they had to be all in the in a line yes at the same time that is the that is the clean cup that that is the clean cup okay so you're saying to the clean okay one clean cup yes that is the clean cup and after that so does the clean cup have the entire puzzle inside of it but yes i'm saying that so the clean cup has so the clean cup has an entire code base in it i'm saying that that clean cup represents that entire code base being formed okay so how how does the code base form by random by everything trying to form at once. So source and one randomly, so you're stating that source and target alphabets can assign arbitrary data values to each other without intelligence being necessary. They could, yeah, they can try. I mean, sure, like, I'm saying, I'm saying, I'm saying, that makes, make sure that source and target alphabets can assign the data values, arbitrarily, to each other without intelligence agents being necessary. I'm saying that once these amino acids are formed, it's pretty much a guarantee that they're going to eventually find the correct, the correct formation. Okay, so we're talking about code right now. Okay, so do you know what a codon is? I don't think it matters. It doesn't matter. Okay, so I'm talking about source and target alphabets. So the codons are the source alphabet, the amino acids are the target. Okay, so you don't have a clue what code is, do you? So I'm saying that if given enough geological, given enough. Are you stating that the in Morse code, are you stating that somehow A could be assigned to whatever the dash dash dot or whatever it is, dot dash A, whatever it is. Well, you're stating that somehow without Morse, you're stating that those values could assign themselves. Is that what you're stating? Well, language is the social construct that we create. I'm talking about people. No, no, I'm talking about alphabets for code. Yes, it's all a social construct that we create as people. So you're suggesting that the genetic code and the source and target alphabets, you're stating that those are created by humans? The letter assignments, yes. You're stating that the codon to amino acid value assignments, you're stating that humans created that? The letter assignments, yes. No, no, I'm talking about- Without human beings, there would be no reason for them to have a letter assigned to them. Are you stating that a codon, a triplet of base pairs that equals a codon? Are you saying that that codon is not interpreted to be equal to an amino acid? Is that what you are stating? No, I'm stating that the letter values that we give to codons is a social construct that we gave to them. Without humans, there would be no need for them to have that letter value, but they would still form. You're stating that codons and tRNAs and anti-codons and the translation mechanism and the ribosome, you're stating that those arbitrary value assignments would just magically form themselves. Is that what you are stating? No, you asked about the letter values. The letter values are stuff that we assigned to them. Unless I am completely misunderstanding your question- Do you think that for encoding, do you think that a source and target alphabet must be a letter? Can it be electricity? Can it be light? Are you suggesting that the medium is relevant to the code itself, in terms of the value assignments of the syntax and the semantics? Is that what you're stating? The value assignments are socially constructed. We gave them the value assignments. Do we use- You're frozen, John. I can't hear you. I'm frozen. Okay, you're good now. You're frozen for me. I'm plugging into a terabyte- So am I. You're sorry, a gigabyte connection to the ethernet. Yeah, I'm freezing.  No, an electric impulse is an electric impulse. Right, now if you code map it and create the mechanisms for decoding, transmitting and decoding the impulses, and then having them be equal to something. Are you suggesting that what the electric impulse is equal to could ever assign itself? What the electric impulse is equal to could ever assign itself? Like is an intelligent agent necessary for that to occur? No, I don't see why an intelligent agent would need to be. So you don't think that if you want a sequence of on and offs that are now equal to figures of zeros and ones, which are then equal to and pre-programmed to be equal to the letter A, you're stating that you don't have to have that be assigned? But now you're talking about computers and we have proof of people existing and we have proof of people building computers. Okay, so are you suggesting that information processing is not what is happening in biological systems? It's not in the same way. Okay, so are you suggesting that we're not talking about the genetic code is not digital code? Is that what you're saying? No, the genetic code is not digital code. Holy crap, this is what I'm dealing with. Okay, good grief. Please reiterate that. The genetic code is not a digital code. The genetic code is not a digital code. Are you saying there is not a source and target alphabet in the genetic code? The source and target alphabet was assigned by us. You're saying it was not pre-existing? The amino acids were pre-existing. No, it's like talking about does electrical impulses exist and can they be translated by is there a translation mechanism in order to interpret them? Electric impulses exist. The medium has zero relevance to this. We're talking about a communication system. Okay, the medium has zero relevance to whether or not information can be transferred. You're stating that 64 codons, which is made up, it's a triplet code with a quaternary base alphabet, you're stating that a codon is not equal to an amino acid. In terms of the information process that happens inside of the ribosome during protein synthesis, is that what you are stating? Who coded it? That has no bearing on whether or not the code exists. Why not when you're talking about intelligent science? Oh my God. James, I'm going to have to share my screen. Let me know when things come through. Okay, so let's go back. This is 30 years ago. Well, this is actually from the 2005 book. There's been papers written on this for 30-plus years. So, Hubert Piaki, by the way, if you Google him, major player in this world. Information theory evolution and the origin of life. Cambridge University Press, 2005. By the way, the guy was an atheist. Information transcription translation code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory, Shannon, 1948, and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies. Then another paper from Gerald Batal. Should genetics get an information theoretic education? It goes on in this whole paper.  And let's read the end here. We believe that no real progress will result from the recognition of the prominent role of information in life phenomenon, unless information theory is integrated into biology as physics and chemistry have been. All right. So then we go on to what is the binary representation of the genetic code. There's a freaking table of the 64 codons being equal to binary because you can translate them. We're building programming languages that literally do direct translation into the DNA code base using Veralog. I mean, it's what we use to program computer chips. We modified it to be able to program biological. You've got the two genetic codes, repetitive syntax for active non-coding RNA. I mean, this stuff gets into so much detail. Then you get into the code without commas. And then let's get into some fun stuff. There's like semantics, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. That we can no longer ignore this, that it's reality. You get into code biology. Okay, let's read this for fun. We must face the problem of the reality of the organic codes. Are they real codes? Do they actually exist in living systems? It is a fact that the genetic code has been universally accepted in modern biology. But let us not be naive about this. What has been accepted is the name of the genetic code, not its ontological reality. More precisely, the genetic code has been accepted under the assumption that its rules were determined by chemistry and did not have the arbitrariness that is essential in any real code. The theoretical premise of this assumption is the belief that there cannot be arbitrary rules in nature. And this inevitably implies that the genetic code is a metaphorical entity, not a real code. This idea has a long history. And let's not forget that for many decades it has been a dominant view in molecular biology. Maybe here he's talking about how this has been disproven through experiment to try and get over this. Today, in other words, we have the experimental evidence that the genetic code is a real code, a code that is compatible with the laws of physics and chemistry, but is not dictated by them. Our problem, therefore, is to take stock of this reality and to account for it. And then we go on to the code mapping and all these different things. What is this kind of stuff? By the way, when I was talking about zip codes and things like in this paper, they literally go into how it is. And here's a discussion about the alphabet, source and target, how it has factors very similar to like a zip code plus four and ASCII. I mean, all these different things, you can just continue going on and on and on and all these things. And the only people who are sitting around claiming this isn't actually reality are folks who want to claim there's absolutely zero aspect or potential evidence in favor of intelligent design. And I just find it very ironic that these kinds of things are being questioned and looked for. And then ultimately, right now, and I've made this comment to many folks I've debated, if you say it's not actually one, fly over to London, go have a meeting with the Royal Society and tell them to not participate in the $10 million prize that they're judging and if you can create a genetic code as an emergent property. Like this is reality in where we are. So whether or not you want to come up with solutions and claims that somehow it can form itself, that doesn't mean that you can just dismiss its existence and claim that, oh wait, this thing is actually literal. And all evidence for every other aspect of this requires intelligent agency. Maybe this is evidence in favor of the fact that I don't know who the programmer was has zero relevance to whether or not something can be identified as code. You do admit that, right? So even if I grant that, the thing is, where I'm inevitably trying to lead to is the fact that we have seen no evidence for a coder. Whereas in all- Are you suggesting that code itself is not evidence for a coder? Seriously? Is that your position? I'm saying in genetics, there is no evidence for a coder. Your entire intelligent design needs to have a designer, correct? So in the context when humans have created Venter and his team, they programmed their names into a string of DNA. Is there any context in which you would state that was not the result of an intelligent? Yes, but those are, I'm sorry, no, but there were people that did that. We have evidence that people exist. I'm saying, if you look, okay, let's say, for example, we go to Mars, okay? We find a DNA sequence and after we crack the code and determine the syntax and the semantic values, right? We're able to translate the information that's stored therein and it says, hey, AST this is real information that's been encoded into the strand of DNA. And here is how you can create a 3D printed robot. Here's the schematic. Are you ever going to state that wasn't the result of an intelligent agent? Do we have evidence of an intelligent agent? Just answer the, I'm asking you, in that context, are you going to state that that's not evidence for an intelligent agent? Do we have evidence of an intelligent agent? I'm literally asking you if that would be evidence for an intelligent agent in your mind. In my mind, I don't know. There's always the null hypothesis. So it's literally programmed in, okay? You've translated it and it says, there's always the null hypothesis, which is, I don't know. Okay, so you're telling me that if something literally said AST, hello, here is the schematic for a 3D printed robot. And then there was a schematic. You're stating that you would not conclude that that's the actions of an intelligent agent. You would just say, I don't know when it says your freaking name on it. Yes, I would say I don't know because I do not know. If I've never seen a name. It literally says your name. It literally says your name. If it was the first time we'd been to... So your name and the schematics for a 3D printed robot just formed themselves. And you don't know if that's evidence for an intelligent agent being necessary.  If it was the first time we've ever been to Mars, nobody's ever been to Mars, and we found something on Mars like that, I would have to conclude, I don't know because I've not seen evidence for an intelligent designer for that. Wow. So, I mean, I don't even know how to respond to that one. You're stating that with something with your literal name on it would not... I've already shown with the library of Babel that things like that can occur. And the 3D print and the schematic for a 3D printed robot. I'm sure it's already in there. In linear order. Probably. So you do know that Gizmo you're playing with, you can't have more than 3200 characters, right? I'm pretty sure it says no more than 3200 characters on it. I'll see. Yeah, it says enter up to 3200 characters. Yeah. So are you suggesting that the schematics for a 3D printed robot would not dramatically surpass 3200 characters? I'm sure it would, but I'm sure up to 3200 characters. Okay, okay. So I'll tell you what... And it would happen by random? Seriously, $1,000.  Or sorry, yeah, information theorist who will back that claim up. And we'll do, let's say, a schematic that is 20 pages of instructions. And you can have no error. Do you actually think that's plausible? Oh, you think that's going to be in your little library of Babel? Since this only goes up to 3200 characters, I'm sure up to 3200 characters will be in there. Okay, so again, we're going back to evidence for or against. So you're stating that if you found a robot schematic that had your name on it, your initial lean wouldn't be towards an intelligent agent must have been in play here. If it was on Mars, like in your analogy, and it was the first time we'd been to Mars, I would have to say I don't know. I didn't say you could prove it. I said whether or not it would be evidence for or against. I would have to say I don't know. Wow, okay. So ladies and gentlemen of the audience, we are dealing with an individual who thinks that if you find something with his literal name on it, that's not evidence that there was an intelligent agent that was necessary that understood English could program said information into a DNA syntax. And then when it's translated would also contain the instructions for the creation of a 3D printed robot as well as the actual schematics for it. We are dealing ladies and gentlemen with an individual who claims that he doesn't know if that would even be a piece of evidence that would nudge him in the direction of an intelligent agent being necessary. Dude, if that's actually your position versus just trying to take a stance on YouTube, I really have to question your IQ at this point.  So are you just trying to play games at this point? Like in not actually using critical thinking skills, trying to dismiss things out of hand? Like what's your position here? Uh, my position is I don't know until I see evidence of an intelligent creator. And you don't think that robot schematics are evidence for intelligent agents? I'm not in this context, no. Is there any other context in which you found a schematic for a 3D printed robot that you would conclude that it was not indication of intelligent agency in any other context? In any other context? I mean, see, what you're doing, dude, yes or no? Yes or no? Let's give him a chance to respond, John. This is a yes or no question, dude. Oh, we want to give him, he doesn't have to say yes or no if he wants to say something else. Let's give him a chance. So in this context, you're talking about biology. And I'm talking about robots right now. I'm talking about robots right now. I'm asking you about robots. If somebody handed me a paper with the schematics for a robot, a paper with the schematics for a robot, that would, I would conclude that that's part of an intelligent agent being a person that we have proof. If they gave you a thumb drive. Again, would you say it's an intelligent agent, yes or no? Yes, because a person can do that. Cool, if they handed you a gel chip that had a DNA strand in it that had the exact same information on it, would you conclude that it was the actions of an intelligent agent? Did a, I don't know anything about gel chips. Did a person use this genetic code? Okay, I know this is the data. John, give him a chance to sentence please. The data is stored on the, I don't think he was done with the questions. I do want to give him a chance to spend it. I asked him a question because I don't know anything about gel chips, so I can't comment. Okay, so the exact same data, okay, it was on the piece of paper or on the thumb drive or on a hard drive, whatever, right? The exact same data is stored on a strand of DNA. You have a mechanism, because I was talking about with DARPA and Microsoft and everybody's doing building right now. You have a mechanism which you can plug into your computer and download the exact same schematic from the DNA strand. Okay. Are you going to argue that because it's on a DNA strand that it's not the exact same information that it doesn't create the exact same schematic as any other medium which contains it? Did a human being, That's not what I asked you. I'm asking about the information. I'm clarifying because I don't know much about gel chips. I'm clarifying, did a human being cause that DNA strand to have that? Dude, I didn't ask you about that. I asked you the information you're accessing. Are you claiming that there is any difference in the information that whether you access it from a piece of paper, a thumb drive, a CD or a hard drive or a DNA strand, does the information that it contains have any difference based on the medium which contains it? And I'm clarifying because I don't know. I don't know anything about gel chips, so I can't really jump in. Dude, the gel chip has zero bearing. We're talking about on your computer, you're looking at the exact same freaking schematic. Yes, but there's people built a computer. We have evidence of people building computers. Dude, I'm talking about the actual literal information itself. Do you think that the medium which contains something has any bearing on the actual information itself? No, but we have evidence of people evidence of people creating that code. So if you're going to transfer data that's stored in a DNA strand into a computer system and be able to access it, do you have to have a translation mechanism that can read the syntax in which the data is stored on the DNA strand and then express it on your computer screen or on your phone? Yes, but we have people that do those codes to make that happen. Right, but the code, does it have to be a in order to translate it? Does it have to be a digital code? Yes, in this case, yes. Okay, so are you retracting your earlier statement that the genetic code is not a digital code? No. So you're not retracting it even after I jump it can be used in this context. It can be used as a digital code. So you're stating that something is or is not digital? Like you're saying it can kind of sort of be digital? It's not really digital. Is that what you're stating? It can be used as a digital code, but that's not that's it in nature. That's not what it you're stating. We're going to we have to jump into Q&A in just a minute. Are you stating that the natural genetic code is not a digital code? Is that what you are stating? The natural genetic code is not a digital code, I guess. We're going to where is the evidence of the person that created the code? That has nothing to do with whether or not something is digital. We're going to jump into the Q&A. We do want to say, folks, thanks so much for being with us. We hope you feel welcome.  We're glad you were here and we're excited, folks. As I don't know if you heard, if you came in midway through the debate, first, we're absolutely pumped that this debate that you are seeing on your right side of your screen is happening this Saturday, June 5th. You don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button if you haven't already. And that way you don't miss out. It's going to be epic with Dr. Kenny Rhodes, Christian Apologist, and Matt Dilla-Hunty debating whether or not there is good evidence for God. And also, folks, you may have noticed that Super Chat is not an option tonight. I have linked where you can send your Super Chat at the top of the chat, namely, if you put in to the crowdfund. And if you just click on the link that I've pinned to the top of the chat, and then if you scroll about halfway down the page, you'll see a picture of a Super Chat. And if you put in there and then you can ask your question here in the actual live chat for either actual socialist trash or John, and then I can read that during our Q&A while we go here. So thanks so much for those of you who have already thrown into it. We really do appreciate your contributions to the crowdfund. And so we're going to jump into those questions. This one coming in from Lime4Jesus says, for Maddox, if a company designed a product or website that had to be offline every day for eight hours, in parentheses, sleep, would you say that was a good or intelligent type of design?  He's referring to our consciousness, not the overall system. So that overall system is going 24-7. It operates for usually no less than 70 years. It fixes itself and has very low degradation for a very extended period of time. There's a reason that we're attempting to mimic the information processing and the technology in biological systems in our own technology. Oh, wait, because it's vastly superior to ours. So if it's recognized as vastly superior to what we've built, I would say that your entire point is ludicrous and continues to showcase amazing level of ignorance. I look forward to your video that's supposedly coming out, that's going to be about annihilating all these positions. This next question coming in from Dooh appreciate it very much. This one is from The Legend Rives says, for AST, if no intelligent design, then evolution is based on genetic stress. Race isn't proven by genetics. How could evolution work if population genetics is flawed via race? I don't know enough about that to comment. Got you on. This one coming in from Factationalist Network. Kaz, our helpful moderator. Thanks for being with us, Kaz. It says, please ask Maddox for some specific information pointing to when the Miller Urie experiment was, quote, tossed out. I want to say it was a 2010. It had been tossed before that as being taken seriously because it hasn't actually been conceded for quite some time. It doesn't actually mimic the supposed prebiotic early environment. But I think it was 2010, I forget.  Gotcha. And just because I knew this is totally new for people, so I've gotten some questions. So the link to Super Chat is pinned at the top of the chat. And if you click on that and you scroll halfway down the page, you'll see a Super Chat picture. And that's the tier that you kind of want to sign up for for the crowdfund. And then just ask your question here in chat and tag me. So you don't have to submit your question at Indiegogo. You just do it right here. And next up, coming from, you guessed it, your twin sister, John, separated at birth, Erica says, ask John if you would accept a 1v1 intelligent design debate with me here, or better yet, on human evolution. And tell AST, good job. On human evolution, I'm not really interested. If you want to start a debate, evolution in general, I'm open to it. But I don't really care about human evolution. It's a very way down the road and has a ridiculous amount of assumptions. She apparently accepts your offer, John, as she wants that debate with you. So hopefully that will happen. That could be exciting. And Ruhosh, Syrium, thank you very much for your question, my friend, and says, tell AST that the evidence of the creator is the fact that the earth is flat. Space is fake. The reason why the sky is blue is because there's water above the firmament. Oh, of course. I'm converted. Gotcha. And Erica in the live chat, by the way, says, done, James. And so I want to let you know, folks, I know that there are more than the names that I've read so far that have submitted a question to the crowdfund. And so I do want to get your questions in before we do wrap up. So if you happen to submit to the crowdfund and have not had your question read, please let me know because I don't have it in my list and I don't want to miss it out as we, I don't want to miss it on your question as we really do appreciate you having sent it in. In the meantime, I do want to mention this because I forgot to mention it. So actual socialist trash and John, I'm so sorry that I hadn't mentioned this the entire time. Folks, our guests are linked in the description so that you can hear plenty more from them. We really do appreciate our guests. And that's also want to let you know, folks, why? We are very big on saying in the chat, we do not want people to attack the person. We want them to attack the argument. And so that's why the moderators have been cracking the whip on those who have attempted to rebel. And believe me, they enjoy bringing down the hammer. Nobody enjoys it more than them and me, but want to also let you know. So folks, in addition to our guests being linked in the description, that includes if you're listening via podcast. So if you're listening to this debate via podcast, both AST and John Maddox are linked in the description of this podcast episode as well. And then going to my last warning in terms of those of you who have maybe put it in the crowdfund and you have not had your question read yet, I have not seen it submitted. And so if you have put it in the crowdfund, let me know and then let me know what your question was. Otherwise, I am so smoked, folks. I am honestly so tired that I am actually kind of excited to go home and sleep. But Raj Netsiram, thanks so much, says thank you so much. My pleasure. Glad to read that. And then want to say, though, thank you. Oh, Amy, thanks for your resending it and thanks for your donation to the crowdfund. Amy, question coming in. I have a feeling this is going to be for you, John Maddox. And so other updates. Folks do want to let you know about upcoming debates. And thanks, Nico Blas, for letting us know that you have thrown into the crowdfund. Thank you so much for throwing into that crowdfund, which again, folks, that's linked at the top of the chat. Super chats are turned off as we were basically encouraging people to throw in to the crowdfund as they do their super chat. Cut out the middleman of Google. He's like, get rid of him. So Nico Blas says, Maddox is making a map slash territory mistake with DNA. I can map land with code, parentheses, map, and use that map slash code to make the land the same that doesn't mean the mountain slash parentheses DNA contains code. That is not even really coherent in relation to digital code. OK, bro, in that context, are you having a source and target alphabet? Do you have quaternary? How many bases do you have? Are you saying that you just mapped it out in an analog form versus a digital one?  Like, would you have to be more detailed on that one, bro? Gotcha. And I'm looking for Amy Newman's question, which I'm sure is coming in any moment. And then, yes, EndoXD, thanks for asking. If you tag me in the live chat with your question, I can read that. And we do appreciate your donation to the Indiegogo tonight. That means a lot. And so thank you for your support. Other upcoming sweet debates. And thanks, Michael Lyon, for your support as well. But I want to let you know, folks, we are working on this. This isn't guaranteed. We're kind of playing this one close to the chest. Namely, Dan Dr. Dan Cardinal. Is it pronounced Cardinal or Cardinal? Must be Cardinal. He has accepted, you could say, a debate offer on my behalf, on Kent Hoven's behalf, such that we might have a good old debate on whether or not the arc could have worked. And so, long story short, it's going to be juicy. And we are very excited that that might happen tomorrow night, folks. So keep your eyes, keep an eye on the modern day debate. I'm tired. Amy Newman says, after show. This is where Super Chat was. So thanks for your donation, Amy. To the crowdfund says after show at Amy Newman's channel. And that is linked in the description, folks, as we will link any after show, no matter what side you're on for the issue. And we oftentimes have two or three after shows linked. Amy, is this question for John? If we someday find a naturalistic explanation for abiogenesis, will this weaken your faith in God? All right, time to ask the exact same question over and over again. I mean, Gabe Grief, if we somehow find a way to do this, I guess, maybe. I mean, possibly. Hello, talking about hypothetical that the evidence is against and becomes more and more unlikely as every year goes by. So, gotcha. And so, folks, one last call. If you put into the crowdfund, I do want to make sure I didn't miss your question. So do let me know if you did put it in the crowdfund and in the same chat, tag me with atmodernatubate with your question while letting me know that you put into the crowdfund. And then, want to let you know, folks, moderators, we have something new. Maybe you haven't heard about this. We have asked that the moderators would basically not argue or take sides in the chat. We love our moderators. This is not punitive. But we are trying to strive for the maximal neutrality. And by that, I mean, even our moderators as representatives of the show, we really do appreciate you moderators. We don't say thank you enough. We are asking you all moderators to no longer debate people in the chat. Totally cool to say hi to people in the chat. Things like that. That's actually totally cool. But we just want to be sure that you're not taking any sides as we are striving to be as neutral as possible. And so with that, I have given the three calls. Folks, I am pretty shot. It's been a long week. So I'm going to get some sleep. But I want to say thank you so much to our guests, actual socialists, Trash and John. And thanks so much for tuning in and watching everybody. But one last thank you to AST and John. Very welcome, James. Appreciate you having us on. Hopefully people will use their minds, think, and analyze things, not just take things on face value and actually go and do some investigation for themselves rather than listen to and just buy into some of these ridiculous talking points that we hear out in those of you. I give you a chance to respond to AST. We'll give you the last word if you'd like. Oh, I just agreed. You got it. And so thanks everybody. Keep accepting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. And we'll for sure be back Saturday night. You don't want to miss that one as of the bottom right of your screen. That's going to be epic. So thanks everybody. Thanks so much for being here. Just wanted to call in and say for a quick departing note and thank you so much. Thanks everybody for all of your support and all the ways that you do support. I want to say hi to you in chat. Thanks N-O-X-D for your support and just hanging out here as well as Corey Clark and Luke and Bubblegum Gun and Hannah Anderson. Thanks for your support and Tyson Vids as well. And Cytonav, good to see you. Thanks for all the hard work you do. I do appreciate it. We all do and redefine living. Good to see you. We're glad you're here as well as Reservoir of Gore and Amy Newman and Otangelo's blog. Thanks for being here. Slam R.N., good to see you. Thanks for being with us. And J.L. Herson, thanks for coming by as well as Pigs Can Fly and Kay Nyland. Thanks for coming by. And then Randall Richardson, good to see you. Thanks for dropping in. Corey Clark, glad you're here. Henry Hansen, pumped you dropped in. Stripper Licker, I see you there. Thanks for all of your great work moderating and James W. Thank you as well for your great work moderating. Michael Lyon, thanks for your support and Nicholas Proclaimer of Messiah. We're glad you're here as well as Kevin C. Thanks for coming by. Jay Acido, good to see you. And Amanda, good to see you. And Sam Dawkins, thanks for coming by as well as J.G. and Mike Cook. Dessledrace, Invisible Ninja. Thanks everybody for coming by though. Gutsick Gibbon, good to see you. My twin sister. And Brooke Chavis, thanks for all your support. Twitch Chat, so sorry that I've been so behind. Oh man, Twitch Chat, I've been like a thousand messages behind. So sorry about that. Om nom nom nom nom. Navore, thanks for coming by as well as Scorch. PFG and CD rank A. Thanks for dropping in. And hey, if you're watching via Twitch, don't forget to hit that follow button as it's going to be a juicy debate this coming Saturday, June 5th. You don't want to miss it. I am really excited for it. It's going to be a lot of fun. And only one day left for the crowdfund. Folks, we are excited as we are shooting for our goal. Namely, I don't know if you know this, but we are actually thrilled that we have met our original goal and now we are shooting for this stretch goal. So we are thrilled. And I'll let you know that embarrassingly, this stretch goal, I forgot to build in the cost of, what is it? I forgot to build in the cost of the merchandise, like producing it on Teespring and then the shipping. And so I am embarrassed. It's a rookie mistake. That's what I've been told. But nonetheless, the idea here is that we are, I'm trying to basically cover those costs. And so much of the cost, the cool thing is we can switch over like our advertising, you know, promotional funds that we're going to use for promotion of the event. We're going to slide them over to cover the merchandise because I think it's just kind of a better use of it because frankly, I'm not even sure if those kind of YouTube advertising works. I don't know. I'm curious. Is anybody in the chat right now here because you're like, oh, I first heard about modern day debate through an app because we've run a lot of ads. Like, and it's only like a, it's only like a per, it's a penny per click. But at the same time, I'm like, yeah, but I don't, so which is like super cheap. But at the same time, I'm like, I don't know if that many people actually subscribe here because they ever heard of us through an ad. I don't know. Let me know. I'm kind of curious now that we're actually here together and I can ask you. And then standing for poop. Good to see you. My boy standing for truth, as well as LR and Mitchell. Thanks for being here. And then the legend rives. And then yeah. Oh yeah. So folks might cook good to see you as well as evolution needs a biogenesis. Glad you made it. And we are not demonetized. So don't worry. I saw some people were like, James, you're, you're going to get your demonetized or something. And like, no, I just turned the super chat off because we were hoping that people would jump into the crowd fun. So we're not demonetized or anything like that. I'm going to remember. In fact, I might as well do it now because I've got a bad memory. So I'm going to turn the super chats back on now. And yes, as if you didn't know, the reason that we had them on was just because, or I should say off, was we were basically testing to see if people would be amped to send in a super chat via the crowd fund. And so thanks for everybody's support of the crowd fund and modern day debate overall, as well as thanks for coming by Amaretto Kitten. And then thank you for being here, Amaretto, as well as Andrew coming and then Nicholas Proclaimer of Messiah, thanks for being here, as well as, well as triumph the insult dog and in hacks. And let me catch up with chat. It's been moving on me.  Endo X. Oh man. So sorry that I missed your question. How about this? Endo, tomorrow night, will you just tag me and let me know what your question is and we'll count it as a super chat tomorrow night. Is that okay with you? Sorry about that. Or even Saturday night because I seriously didn't mean to miss your question. So let's see. Let me know though. Endo, if you want, I could even send you the cash back. I totally try to get every single question. But yes, in hacks that it would have been a video title screen that first got me interested in modern day debate on a YouTube page. Huh. That's good to know. Sorry. I'm not yelling at you. It was just that I'm tired. But thanks for your support, Randall Richardson. Good to see you. Thanks for your kind words. I do appreciate that. And Jamie Russell, good to see you as well. Thanks for your kind words, Reservoir to Gore. And then Dessal Dresd. Thanks for coming by. And then, yes, folks. It's late. So I'm going to get some rest. I'm pooped. It's been a long day. But thank you all for your support. Love you guys. Take care.