Ah ha ha! You have to hit that button. It helps when you click it. Welcome one and all to Modern Day Debate! We are a neutral, non-partisan platform welcoming everyone from all walks of life. If you're looking for even more fantastic debates like evolution on trial, well, we are all over the interwebs, including your favorite podcasting platform. Like our new TikTok, the link of which is in the description below. So if you enjoy debates, please don't forget to like, follow and subscribe, which brings us to evolution on trial with our debaters. CP and Snake and Nathan and Wixit gets it here to help us find out. And if you enjoy what either of them have to say tonight, all of our guest links are in the description below. We will also be moving into a Q&A after the conversation so you can send in your burning desire question. And of course, Superchats will get yours set to the top of the list. But with that, we are going to hands it over to the opening statement. The floor is all yours. Hello, everybody. So we are going to be here. We are going to be going against what is traditionally taught in our educational system, that being evolution. And so I actually did want to start this out with something that is not evolutionarily based up front. You don't need to believe in evolution or not to for this information. But this here is actually a picture of the leading cause of death in our country. This is late stage heart disease on the A side. And then the B side is a five year follow up. They widen their arteries, not just in their heart, but their whole body, no medication, no surgery. This has been done with nutrition alone. This is the only way in our medical clinical data that has been shown to reverse heart disease. This is done with plant based eating. So people with chest pain, joint pain, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, they have dropped their cholesterol 100 points, blood pressure 20 points in just a matter of weeks. And why I bring that up is actually because so I'm going to school for nutritional cardiology and I have to write a paper through the evolutionary worldview lens, because that is what is taught in science. And so I want to write a paper on the metabolic development of humanity and go through the key developmental points of our metabolism, starting from the beginning to now to show why plants are the only way so far that have been shown to reverse heart disease. And why I start with that is because what that is right there, what this picture is, this angiogram, this is data. This is something that we have observed, we have recorded. And that is something that is required when you claim to be science. Once you claim to be a science, you fall under the scrutiny of the scientific method, you are allowed to be criticized, you are allowed to be examined for strengths and weaknesses, and you have to be able to validate that with evidence. The other thing that evolution does is it makes worldview exclusive claims. So evolution makes claims, a typical counter to evolution would be creation, not any particular brand of creation, but just creation in general. What evolution does claim that a lot of creation does not are worldview exclusive claims. That would be something like nonlife being able to become alive, which is very important because if no life can form naturally, then nothing starts evolving. And so that is a worldview exclusive claim. You also have the exclusive claims like prokaryotes becoming eukaryotes. You have to be able to demonstrate that a parent's population can over time have a bifurcation of the populations. And suddenly you have offspring that are plants on one side plant cells and animal cells on the other side. This is a worldview exclusive claim of evolution when you take it to the macro sense of common ancestry. So these are claims that will need to be shown because they do defy our everyday beliefs. The only thing that we have ever observed, and I've gone to quite a few sources for this to confirm it, but the only thing that we have ever observed is nonlife staying not alive. We're not able to naturally swallow chemicals and then have them produce life.  You also have like bacteria have only ever remained bacteria. Richard Lensky right now has the longest running experiment and those are still E. Coli. They are not becoming a new type of say algae or anything like that. Dogs have always produced dogs and people have always produced people. That's all we've observed. That's all we recorded. So that is our scientific data. So your worldview exclusive claim that is counter to these 100% of scientific observations we've made in the natural world, you have to be able to show something that is to the contrary of everything that we have ever observed and ever recorded. Because as far as creation goes in time, you could show a dog produce a non dog that would falsify creation. But until then that at least jives with creation, but evolution claims that a tree shrew millions of years ago became the mammals that we have now, including dogs, including us. So you have to be able to show that a that is actually possible rather than gene pools containing certain limits. That is about all that I have just to open. So Austin, if you want to add anything to it, feel free. Do you know, hey, how much time do we have left? You know, about seven, seven minutes ish. Okay. Yeah. So like, like Nathan said, when you claim to be a science, you have to adhere to the scientific method. Of course, this is claiming a natural science is claimed to the natural world. So we have very specific parameters that natural science is given naturally occurring observable phenomena, evolution dies right there. Literally, you don't even have the first step of the scientific method, you don't have a naturally occurring observable phenomenon, much less are you actually presupposing a cause manipulating it, controlling the alternative variables, and then doing a scientific experiment to prove the cause of this alleged effects, actually call evolution religion for atheists, because that's what it is. And what I know for sure, the rebuttal to Nathan will be as well, you're conflating subjects, you're talking about a biogenesis, we're talking about evolution. Evolutionists use this tactic a lot. They try to compartmentalize the conversation to get a free pass and all the assumptions integrated into it. One of the examples of this is like he said, a biogenesis now say someone's a creationist and they want to invoke evolution, it makes it slightly more tenable, but it's still absurd. But another one that's so we know that truthfully, evolution was proposed as a way to explain life, the complexity within, without invoking intelligent design. And any good faith assessment of the conversation would acknowledge this, but it is a typical tactic to compartmentalize and say, Oh, well, that's different subjects. Well, that's convenient because that is impossible, of course, to have organic life stem from an organic matter. But to get out ahead of that, that will be the rebuttal. So we'll set that aside for a second. One of the assumptions that evolutionists like to ignore is the amenity of the timeline you need billions of years at least. In fact, to even get it to statistically be possible, you have to actually assume infinite time, infinite time and infinite possibilities. Of course, this does not exist time being merely conceptual, but even in that conceptual linear program that is time, you don't have an infinite amount. And you then come up with fairy tales within that assumption built upon things like radiometric dating, radiometric dating, you don't get to pretend that's not part of your claim. It objectively is. It's a requirement. It's a prerequisite. In fact, the debate should start there every single time until you can establish the validity and veracity of your timeline claims. You can't even pretend evolution is viable in theory. And evolutionists don't want to talk about this, but we're going to have to because that's the first step. You need billions of years at least, which means you need to substantiate your claims that that exists. And you cannot do that. Of course, there's many reasons we get into it, but of course the daughter, parent isotope relationship, the lack of contamination, a constant decay rate and many other things. So we can gladly get into that. That's the first part of it. And this is a religion. So I think that it would be best that people will just accept evolution as a religion disguising itself as science, masquerading as science. It doesn't adhere to the natural scientific method. So that's the fundamental part. Of course, the scientific or the statistical impossibility of nucleotides and proteins magically co-aligning themselves perfectly and mutations being beneficial consistently. And then addressing irreducible complexity, where the organisms would actually have to have like, you know, coexisting parts and mechanisms that all work together in order to sustain life. And basically, when it comes to evolution and summary, we're supposed to give them this magic wand where they can just say, what ifs and make up science fiction stories on the go on the run as they make stuff up and somehow that science. But it is not. So we're going to have to hold your feet to the fire as it pertains to that. And we're going to be calling out the base assumptions in evolution. And once that happens, evolution dies. Thank you so much for your opening statements. That was the skeptics. We're going to hand it over to the evolution side for their opening statement. The floor is yours. Snake, you're on me. Are you able to make my picture bigger or should I just share screen? If you would like to share screen, that may be easier. Okay. All right. Hopefully, that's big enough. And I'm just start my own timer. Okay. So let's talk about the scientific method for a moment. The basic aim and method of science is to seek rules and principles that predict the operation of observable things. Evolution does this. Creationism cannot. The proof is in the pudding. Evolution has the fruits. And creation does not. Additionally, evolution is cross confirmed by nuclear physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, mathematics, archeology, geology, paleontology, comparative gemomics and comparative anatomy, among others, as well as its numerous predictions of biological functions, fossil record predictions and uses in technology and medicine that the theory produces real results. So this debate is titled evolution on trial. Well, evolution has been on trial many times. These are just a few of the famous cases where evolution is one every time and creationism has lost every time. Intelligent design and creationism were conclusively shown over and over to be completely unscientific in a court of law. This trend will continue tonight. The theory that all life is connected by way of evolution gives us predictions about the fossil record, predictions that the inconsistent vague creationist hypothesis cannot. Thus, making evolution scientific by definition. That's how it works. There are zero reasonable objections to the fact that it's possible and to propose that it predicts the record of animal populations by pure coincidences, pure dishonesty. Every single change necessary for macro evolutionary changes has been observed in real time and observed in the fossil record. We literally have a video of life's history. A video is a series of still images and fossils are still images. There we have this video literally recorded in stone. So maybe a low frame rate may have some gaps, ever shrinking gaps, but we do know the order and time scale of each frame of this video. If our estimates about radiometric dating are wrong by anything significant, then the oceans would boil off in the Earth's crust, would be molten from radiometric decay, the friction of meteors and plate tectonics. Obviously, this is not the case because we're not all on fire right now. This is known as the heat problem of creationism and the best creationists have admitted there is no scientific solution to this problem. As for the mechanics of evolution itself, every single difference in the populations of life's history are already accounted for by observable microevolution that's both accepted by creationists because it's observable in living organisms today. We know that the size, shape, orientation, location, number, and chemical composition of bones, organs, and tissues can change within accepted biblical kinds and creationists accept this so they can fit everything on the ark, even though they still don't fit. The amount of accepted variation within kinds is larger than the gaps between kinds. If the Bengal cat is related to the saber tooth tiger, then why are they so much more similar to the genet cat who's supposedly not related? Creationists don't give reasons for their ad hoc separations, especially when we add in more transitional forms that bridge those gaps. If the creationists insist transitional forms of their own kind, they shoot themselves in the foot since that contains the same potential diversity, less overlapping. If the transitional forms are stuck in an existing kind, this increases the accepted diversity range within one and shrinks the gap between them even more, still resulting in a unified kind. This has been done in baromenology and studied. Baromenology is the study of created kinds and it demonstrates the self-defeating problem of creationism. The baromenologists have been studied by the scientists, the real scientists, so baromenologists tried to find a hard criteria for kind. A baromen was declared when morphological distance of clusters had larger gaps between them than the size of the cluster itself, but as more fossils were discovered the clusters got connected consistently and grew larger and the definition of baromen collapsed and they abandoned this method. So since the once creationist standards ended up proving evolution and connecting dinosaurs to birds particularly, they didn't like that, so they stopped using that method. They followed emotion and presupposition rather than the science. The amount of creationists accepted variation within kind, such as in celicamp, is just as large as the difference between fishes that creationists considered not related. So these bones can coordinate and grow so large and prominent and change skull structure and still be functional and so can fins and hands. What's the stop fins from evolving into fingers? Absolutely nothing. We know the slight change to existing parts can give functions new functions to those parts. Another great example all creationist orgs recognize mesohypuses is an early horse ancestor to the modern horse. How do they determine this? Through comparative anatomy, even though the difference between the first horses and modern horses is actually larger than the difference between mesohypus and the taper. Only substantial difference is neck length. Fossil tapers are also more similar to fossil horses than they are to the modern tapers. Since their derivatives, this makes sense. Again the gaps between the kinds are smaller than the amount of change seen within the kind. So the root of the tree is more similar to other roots of trees than they are to their own branches. This is only true if evolution is true. The early and modern horses look similar but they're actually further apart from each other than the tapers are from the early horses. Not in least part because modern horses have one toe and early horses have three like the tapers. That's a lot of functional morphological evolution within horses but a smaller amount of change between early horses and early tapers isn't possible somehow. That gap is not bridgeable by evolution. So we have a double standard. If we're to avoid it, then the smaller anatomical differences should be considered evolved as well. Comparative anatomy is used inconsistently by creationists when the results show all kinds are connected by similar overlapping populations. For example, creation ministries claim to be able to identify fossil snakes from just jaw bones or just vertebra alone. How would they know unless they're using comparative anatomy? Creationists accept that comparative anatomy and genetics prove relation with some kinds of animals but arbitrarily decide that the same methods don't work on others. They have to contradict themselves and make arbitrary separations because they know they have to cram a ton of variation into some kinds just to have enough room on Noah's Ark but they don't want us to be apes. Creationists admit to creationists attempt to create genetic barriers and that always fails like DNA bar coding. They'll just pick arbitrary thresholds and split up humans and apes but what happens is now all the cats aren't in the same kind anymore and each canine is in a different kind and the same thing happens to others. So whoops that overloads Noah's Ark. If we increase the threshold to include all cats of the same kind that gets humans and apes in the same kind. So there's no standard that evolution skeptics can ever propose that doesn't debunk their own necessary entailments. They can't tell us how they know things are related or not. Could this be the same kind of animal? They're almost identical. Could these be the same kind? All that separates them is slight proportion differences of the same bones in the same locations. Something we know happens all the time. Same method we used to know elephants are all related. So could the upper animal have elongated its tail and shrunk its legs? Yes this is creationist accepted diversity. This is possible. Every difference here is covered by observed creationists accepted diversity within kind and yet creationists will dishonestly attempt to compare only those far away from each other in taxonomy rather than include the transitions between. We have tons of examples of half evolved traits like half evolved fangs, fully evolved fangs follow the same developmental pattern found in fossils which is that they indent and fold instead of being created with just a hollow tube through it. They actually fold from a non-fang. We've observed in real time the macro evolution of a new kind of organism. Single cellular algae and yeast of different species and different methods have been observed to independently evolve multi-cellular bodies not random clumpings of individuals coming together. This is the beginning of tissue differentiation proving that definitively that the new functional information can evolve without any intelligent designs simply by modifying existing genes. Organisms don't suddenly sprout wings they modify them from existing structures. It's a major misconception about evolution. Number two being that it's undirected it's not the environment directs evolution. Plants are amazing examples of evolution too. All these plants are can cross breed with each other and graft onto each other meaning they're related. We have plants with drastically different body plans and internal chemistry like these yet we know they're related. Same with mustard flowers that evolved into broccolis and other plants which can also be grafted together across bread. They're modifications of existing structures yet they have different structures by emphasizing different traits and that's what we're talking about today is evolution which is not origin of life but origin of species and change of life. Everyone knows that that's that we're not here to talk about a biogenesis Nathan. Also the fractal progenicity of Romanesco broccoli is yet another beautiful and incontroversial incontroverable example of functional information evolving without any intelligent design. So ERVs prove that it's a mathematical genetic certainty that evolution happened. These are viral elements that insert randomly into host DNA they get inherited they infect the right cells there are thousands of these infections and given random nature all similarities for these highly variable regions are only possible through evolution. They connect all of mammalia we share hundreds of these with chimps and that's just one virus group that's on screen up over 200 of them some of them which belong to non-human species that in their wild farm do not infect humans they were acquired by non-human ancestors. This number here is how likely it is that this happened by chance that's more than 83 googles each of which is followed by 100 zeros there isn't even a word for a number that large 20 times larger than the particles in the universe or than the number of particles in the universe. There are lab experiments showing that ERVs can be restored to active viruses proving that viruses not divine if anything the creator could and should easily use these to disprove common ancestry yet we see precisely what expect with evolution. Endosymbiosis is evidence of evolution because they are invasive cells that have a different form of DNA mitochondria are. This has been observed to happen in nature and in the lab so that's been tested so and there's no reason for a creator to do it like this because there are animals that don't have mitochondria with their own bacterial DNA. The fact is that evolution makes novel predictions such as archaeopteryx and tectolic and many more and explains them mechanistically thus to the science by definition. The only move that remains for the evolution skeptic is to assert that reading an ancient religious tome is a better scientific method. If you use this method of assuming absolute certainty of some book you'll categorically never be able to know if it is wrong just a blind exemption. We know creationists and creationists accept that the size proportions shape orientation location number function and chemical composition of bones as well as muscles organs and tissues can change within accepted biblical kinds and creationists accept this but they can't put them together. This somehow magically stops at some point that they don't like. So basically what we went over is these four points all necessary changes are proven to be possible only small anatomical gaps exist explainable by what's observed and predicted by evolution there's a presence of genetic and anatomical features only possible through evolution and evolution can predict the natural world. All of this evidence backs evolution what backs the alternative absolutely nothing no ability to define the terms no evidence the alternative isn't scientifically possible due to the heat problem and is raw rests on God of the gaps fallacy. So compare the two weights of evidence all they can do is just assert a ridiculously high bar of evidence so that unless we have a video evidence of cherry picks every cherry picked step of evolution we can't be confident in it at all. So that is my presentation. Thank you so very much snake was right I do have to say it was 12 minutes split and so what I'm just going to do is that however long CP that you talk for I am just going to have a counter and we're just going to give that to the other side and then we're just going to go into the opposition or to the conversation but see CP right over to you. Okay yeah I'll just try to keep this extremely brief just sort of touching on like very very layman's terms everything wrong with the very first argument. So basically you claimed that the only thing we can ever observe is that non-life stays not a life what the fuck if you simply just look at dogs you can see evolution within years you can see crossbreeding to very specifically make a type of dog that wasn't there before like a dog that you would see on the street is nothing to do with a wolf and that is immediate evolution we do not need carbon dating we do not need millions and millions of years to see this the food that you are eating in the fridge is literally evolution it's been genetically modified to be a certain way you can possibly argue that this is humans doing it but if they're doing it via natural means in a much quicker rate showing that it can happen within the natural world you also claim that evolution is religion for atheists no because evolution is constantly changing and adapting via scientific evidence that we receive and you claim that believing in evolution therefore excludes you from believing anything else honey you can believe whatever the fuck you want no one's telling you not to believe in god if you want to believe in evolution that's freedom of choice the only difference between evolution and religion is we're not damning you to hell if you don't believe in us that's something else so um you don't need billions of years to see evolution you can literally see evolution in your refrigerator and i just want to keep it brief so that's all i gotta say that works out so basically guys i'll give you a minute and then right back into the open back and forth thank you both of you all of you let me take the minute and then i'll just let you talk at first uh i just gotta say like you guys are saying contradictory things that in snake's entire presentation was about creation is like literally the entire thing everything he said god god god god i hate god creationism creationism creationism but that's not what the debate's about it's this evolution on trial a positive claim of evolution it has nothing to do with creationism and then your own partner then says it has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in creationism but snakes entire presentation was about creationism which goes to prove what i said in my opener which was that is the actual motivation for evolutionary assumptions is to avoid intelligent design and you do need billions of years and the most important thing they won't get addressed is adaptation i'm not even going to concede that because that's not real because in order for something to quote unquote adapt to its environment already has the information and ability to do that within it ingrained which means there is no external information introduced to give you adaptation or can you jump over to change this piece and all right with that well uh it's all to the entire floor the open conversation begins so what's it why did you think that my whole presentation was just about god did you just did everything with the scientific evidence and the papers did you think that was all about god too well everything you were saying was about how creationist can't explain it so you literally every slide literally i didn't understand what snake was talking about snake didn't understand it i had up scientific papers for every single claim that i made why were you talking about god i talked about how how we can observe in real time genetic and morphological changes did that go over your head no no i'm just saying like why were you talking about creationism so much because you are created next okay but that's not what and that's the chat that's the challenge to evolution so only creationist only creationist challenge evolution yeah and doesn't the fact that i have a different perspective actually disprove your point that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive you said this proves your partner's point but me and my partner are not the same person which also shows evolution because genetically what point should debate then i guess is well let's address some of what snake was saying here so i do think that um a lot of what uh snake was saying like showing these examples of animals being able to do different things with their limbs animals are able to figure things out they're smart they're trying to work with their environment so if a fish has fins it can still try to do some things with those fins but to show them to to turn into something like an arm which has a completely different function is i don't think something that we have ever observed but we can observe these uh micro uh us and you dismissed it but like these variations these adaptations these things are able to uh become more accustomed to their environment to give them a better chance of survival especially animals where survival is pretty much one of the only things on their minds uh snake you did mention that uh there are predictions that are able to be made um with evolution i would like to ask you about that because uh say for example one of the things that um you're able to predict if you are going to take uh for example this is about evolution but a lot of i think just about everybody knows creation is kind of the main um opponent of evolution uh in our world modern world and so uh a prediction of uh of creation would be something like uh say you uh grow peaches and so you're going to be able to say okay i'm going to i'm going to plant these peaches and they're going to produce peach trees every single time so we create a creationist could predict that and that they're going to be able to get those peaches and this is something that an industry would rely on like if you were a peach farmer you're going to want to have peaches you're not going to want to have pine cones pop off of those trees uh whereas evolution is self admitted to be blind random and misguided it is not able to make a prediction about what a future uh what future species would arise um and before i'll let you answer that but i do want to quickly address to this thing with with species so there is something with like speciation this is the third point now that you're on okay i'll go for it then i'll okay so fish fins as legs there are fish that use their limbs as legs i showed one that had literally an elbow joint uses i think walking on the bottom of the ocean um and we know that the shape and orientation of their bones can change i also put up a paper studying catfish where members of the same species would have wildly different leg uh fin bones and so this isn't even comparing different species it's they have they all have different shapes of their fin bones and they're all functional and we know that they're their muscles and their bone structure can change so why and we know that they can walk on land so clarify your argument is that anatomical differences prove evolution that's in that's part of the evidence well so that makes it possible yes with the fish that you show so like uh we have you you and i have different jaw structures and so our bones look different but we are still the same species and you can have uh especially because uh of mutations add up throughout time so as these mutations add up you might get legs that start to grow in a little bit different position they might dangle a little more straight down or a little a little further back and whatever if one of those uh one of those fish can swim faster than the other they're going to be at a little bit more of a competitive advantage to get food right so where's the limit of that can a can a like a wolf like animal that swims a lot lose its hair and its hind limbs and become more like a whale or a seal uh i mean why why do you have evidence of like something like that actually happening or is it just a fairy tale because this is the point that always okay one thing will you concede that for example cancer is genetic like if your parents have cancer you are more likely to have cancer no no no i actually learned some things in uh in my nutritional studies that you can actually affect your genes with the nutrition that you eat so people who may get cancer because it's in their family lineage they tend to be eating the same things as their parents as their grandparents and so they can get these cancers but people who they've they've done studies with people who eat plants and within 500 or within three months 500 genes switch good genes turn on bad genes turn off and these are able to have cancer preventative effects so it might have something to do with the environment that's a nutritional component not to mention like carcinogens that might be yeah all right but that's also genetic show the evidence wait this is funny it's we don't even understand cancer and car carcinogenic infection is not understood at all and actually there's very many studies that show that it's actually parasitic in nature so like to click claims founded upon carcinogenic infection is insane dude it's it doesn't make any sense i i just want to know can someone address what i want to know i'm literally calling for your evidence show me evidence that i think eat a bunch of kale i'm not going to get breast cancer despite the fact that i've got her to genetics and an 80 likelihood of getting it can you have say this is a complete this is a you're asking how to cure cancer okay you know what but there's many there's many examples of such a thing but it's a diversion you tried to claim that cancer was genetically passed down that's a that's a cool story but that isn't reality and and this is the main thing that evolutionists people always concede this evolutionist but i'm not okay we what they do is they say micro evolution and adaption that's what adaptation that's what creationists concede but this is a misnomer because in reality if there is an like say the birds with the beaks right they already had the information within them to change or adapt wait for evolution to be true you need an external introduction of additional information no we don't you don't get adaptation that's not how evolution works you don't know what you're talking about yeah we don't get infected by genetic engineering that's not how evolution affected you said the word yeah you said an external addition of new information that's right you don't understand that literally means that it was all it already contained the information necessary to change right so where did they get that information evolution is change from their parents evolution is change of existing traits so your parents had an arm you have an arm too where did they get the information to address uh from their parents as i just said you need oh these would be okay so as a court so addressing your cancer uh claims there are genes called oncogenes which are known to cause cancer or to suppress cancer and if you have it you have a higher rate of cancer and those ervs that i mentioned will sometimes interrupt genes that will cause cancer so we there are certain genes that if they're turned off we know this is the mechanism cancer if your cell doesn't have a certain gene or has genetic damage to that gene then it will get cancer it can't die off you don't understand cancer so that's you don't understand anything about any evidence that if we eat you don't we're not going to get cancer if you know exactly what cancer is don't you cure it in the chat i haven't seen a single card i just want to say that make intentionally you think that cancer just happens no absolutely not yeah you intentionally i have no idea of your you said they get it how does cancer work how does real fast one at a time why are you where i sought to address many points that you guys brought okay fair enough but can i just address you said that they get the additional information from their parents okay so you don't seem to understand your own position which was very abundantly clear when you read your skirt your screens off but my point is that you you're saying the information is already present so where did it come from if the idea is that there's billions of years of an evolutionary process where information is additional to the original state your mommy and your daddy had sex and their genes mutated and you got those genes where they get the information recombine where where are the information come from you pick up mutations and the more mutations you have the more likely you are to develop certain cancers as well like cancer is a mutation you have things in your genes right yeah i know it sounds like you're conceiving exactly what we're saying so no no you don't understand the point is that you claim that they have additional information to be able to adapt what it shows whenever something adapts to its environment is it was intrinsically ingrained with that informative ability to change relative to the environment so when you show me something that's the same species changing that doesn't prove anything other than intelligent design that's right for example i did a dog you can breed dogs that are all right um let me let me ask you something witson can you explain in your own words for the audience how you understand the concept of natural selection because i'm curious how you define it in your own understanding so to you what does natural selection mean i don't know that you it's not my claim you tell me there's 15 different versions well you're putting it on trial and you have no idea what you're talking about there's 15 different versions so what do you think it means well it's in a very rudimentary sense it's what we all think it means which is that the survival of the fittest you it's that's it survival of the fittest a five-year-old can understand your claim it's not that it's complex it's overly complicated because there's no evidence and i think that's something that that's what it is with what osna is saying here is you have these these limits so you're you're in uh different kinds will have a gene pool and you're allowed to go within this gene pool and experience these different variations maybe if you're a dog if you have thicker hair and you go for thicker fur and you go to a warmer place you're going to develop thinner fur you select for dogs if you're breeding that have thinner fur and dogs can get longer legs or shorter legs but these there are limits within within this gene yeah what are the limits it's god's limits what are the last thing i thought you were gracious that's weird is it limited why should i go to create that that's what he said each gene pool has a limitation you are yeah what is that limit um is the limit can can a land mammal not evolve into a whale and why not wait wait we're making the positive claim that it can it doesn't have the ability to develop uh aquatic required um why not it's like like well well can i don't need to break down we don't have gills let me let me break down basic logic we're in the middle of a conversation you're reversing the burden of proof reversal burden of proof housing i will say one of the times send in love to all it's x book shift in the burden of proof no it's not we don't we were so you said that there's a limit party so okay go ahead i mean just reverse the burden of proof when you're on you said there's a limit so that's your burden of proof that's what evidence shows us that's what we have available no it's not you're making additional there is no evidence that shows that a land mammal cannot lose its hair and uh have its legs in new proof santa does not exist and evolution has predicted the fossils that would be there if that happened so we have land mammals that look like aquatic land mammals that look like aquatic land mammals with bigger feet that look like aquatic land mammals that have bigger front feet and smaller hind legs and a bigger tail so that that's whale evolution and it's in the right time period and it's a transitional form and it was predicted by the theory of evolution that's why it's science and that's why you will fail all tonight great one you can go nathan i i was you know you have no you have no response yes i do you're shifting the burden of proof this is i just i just gave you can't listen okay we're done with you you don't listen i just told you so i have no response but you had to run i just told you that you made the claim about the you're emotional and then i gave and then i gave you the evidence for my claim then you just went back and did your your stupid first claim even though i was three words in and you said i have no response and then i was three words in you in a rupment you stopped talking once it's calling in hysterical i know gonna be handled like a little there are a lot of a lot of different there there's variation within species and there were a lot of created kinds there are a lot of variation within these species variation within these kinds so we are able to find fossils that because of uh how glorious are our create our makers creative ability as we can find fossils that pretty much can line up how we we would like to that is is something that i i do not disagree with i don't disagree that they were a mudfish that has the ability to breathe it in multiple uh domains it's it's uh a creative uh like here's a marvel of creation when you get an amazing feat within a creature now i'm just curious like according to your world view um i'm i'm says your world view on choice no no no i'm talking i'm trying to see where you're coming from so i can understand it so when you hear all of this evidence of all of these fossils that we have uncovered i'm just kind of curious according to your world view how do you explain it do you think that they are conspiracy theories or fakes or do you think that they are basically put there by god like i'm just kind of curious how you account for this evidence and still maintain your world view yeah there are a lot of various species and maybe you are a fish that has your legs more straight down or maybe they're a little more angled back and uh in so one thing with creation is there's a post fall and then there's a post flood where you get an environmental difference and some of these fossils might not have been able to handle a shift going on during a flood or before the fall and so they are not able to make it into this world where we are now and so we don't have these species living among us they were living with us in the past but right now they they are not and maybe having your legs tilted back a little bit you are a little too um too slow to be able to escape uh the flood or anything like that there's all cut yeah but but it's it's it's in religious and unfounded if you make that claim Nathan but they can make up stories of the past and i do want to break this down okay this is evolution on trial it's a positive claim so you're showing anatomical structural differences in bones and saying that you know therefore things go from one species to another if you make up stories and then you're granted the assumption of billions of years you have the positive claim snake repeatedly said show me that isn't true show me that can't happen that is incredibly illogical you can't prove that santa doesn't exist you don't prove negatives you're making the positive claim and you're wanting us to grant billions of years and replace your assumptions that's not how logic you claim coming from what i want to say in terms of where can i respond to that real quick and then yeah just real quick so i just want to respond with where i'm coming from with this so we have presented a plethora of evidence because our job is to prove our claim so i understand where you're coming from with this now your job in order to counteract this evidence is to either present counter evidence that is more credible and more believable or to show that our evidence is incredible and i'm giving you the opportunity right now to challenge our evidence and what i'm hearing from pitch is interesting and that basically they believe that there's post flood flood and pre-flood and i'd like to challenge that by asking if that was true then how come we don't have only two clear distinct fossil records of post flood and free flood but rather post flood and pre-flood but rather more of a continuous spectrum so that is where i'm going with this so i'm inviting you to win this debate by challenging our evidence improving it's not legitimate or providing stronger evidence this is where i'm coming from does that make sense absolutely um so i will get i'll try to run through this pretty quick here to just go with what austin had said real quick about the the trial which snake you had brought up trials in the past that is one thing that creation is a is a belief a faith admitted upfront and not being asked to be taught in science so kind like what i had mentioned in the in the beginning is when you are claiming to be a science rather than a belief on origin real quick those trials were asking for creation to be taught as science and that's why i disagree with those a creationist should not be advocating for creation to be taught in science because origin is is would be so hard to pin down because none of us are there there's a lot of inference that goes into a lot of this and so when you bring up something like bone structures or the layouts of certain species of of animals a these are both explainable by either common designer or common ancestor the result is kind of the same in that it is it is common and so one of the the things that you would have to do for evolution is if you wanted to oust creation as a competing belief in origin you would have to show an exclusive worldview claim that would be something like uh okay if a dog uh or if if um animal cells had a common ancestor with plant show cells you need to be able to show that there is a split with the layering why we get the layers the way that we do is because when water is moving it is able to sort certain uh it's called i think hydrological sorting so there's there's a sorting that goes on with with particles and then they layer out in a certain way and with the flood you not only have waters coming from above but also from beneath uh would be a flood interpretation uh so this would give you these layers that sort over time and uh this would be kind of catastrophism but there is something called poly strata vertical petrified trees which are trees that run vertically through multiple millions of layers of coal seams according to evolution and these trees actually even end up going through multiple coal seams and you're getting all of these layers now uh evolution uh in people that i have talked to will actually attribute this phenomenon to a flood so evolution has to is is laying claim to a flood being able to create these layers uh and then uh so and so that is i think when uh a lot of what could be talked about like the the layers of a rock bed um or homologous structures these things are we make a lot of inference and we have to try to line things up to our narrative so um comparing humans to um to bonobos or chimpanzees you can say okay we have 98% but maybe that's only if you're looking at cytochrome c and not really like cytochrome b and i think the base pairs for chimpanzee and human are like because the traditional school of thought is 96 similar humans to chimps uh or bonobos but i think if you look at the base pairs the total number of base pairs is like three billion to 3.4 billion so right there off the bat if those the if every base pair of the three billion was a match you're already at a 12 difference just in length of the gene code so but then again human monkeys share a lot uh primates share a lot of similar physiology to us our anatomy is very similar to them so it wouldn't make sense for a creation model account to to make a um to explain something as humans would be entirely different from from chimpanzees or anything like that because we do share a lot more with them than to say a fish so both models have to make these claims of explanation so right so so to address some of the stuff you just said but i want to address some other things you said earlier i'll try and get through it but so similar physiology does not mean similar genes at all so rats and mice far more different from each other than humans are to chimps so if having a similar morphology rats and mice look more similar to each other than we do to chimps but their genetics are further apart so there's this argument that similar genetics are only there just because we occupy similar spaces in the the ecological niches or something like that that's that's just not borne out by the evidence um the poly straight trees never go through anything that's like that's millions of years apart it's only fast forming layers and yes floods do occur in the in the standard model because floods occur it's just not a global flood so going back now to the prediction thing um you said that creation would predict that peaches produce peaches well everyone would predict that evolution would predict that as well and evolution slash standard model would predict that there are floods too so that it has to be a novel prediction that the competitors and everything else isn't going to make so evolution has exclusive predictions i would say evolution does not predict peaches would become peaches if we were having this discussion 65 million years ago when we were all rats there the the contention would be that we don't say that rats would become non-rats but eventually you get rats that become dogs and you get rats that become monkeys and if you always get these same things producing the same things um but you do have what's that well we have uh chihuahuas from non-chihuahuas don't we but then you just debunk your own peaches claim though you said you said that rats and mice although they're similar in appearance they're genetically much different and your entire presentation was about anatomical similarity of appearance no because we can track that they're different genetics and we can track that they are from different basal fossils how do you track genetics from fossils rats no that's not what i said you can't you you need to do something about your hearing so appearance doesn't support rats and mice are both descended from very from mammals that split very early in the evolutionary line that's why they're genetically different well you just said my point is you said that even though things look the same they can be genetically significantly different and your entire presentation was showing bones that you think look pretty much the same yeah that's not the only criteria so you just dismissed 90 of your own presentation no because that's not the criteria if you actually paid attention violation of the law of non-contradiction i think this didn't really understand your presentation there you go ad-hom that'll work um okay so let's just let's just make this very very simple um that's a banana right that's what a natural banana looks like is that the banana that you could get from a grocery store no that is totally irrelevant to what i just said how is that irrelevant when we can literally genetically engineer bananas not have seeds that were cars intelligent design and it's a non sequitur snake just by the way rats and right wait just to clarify the values snake rebutted Nathan by saying that rats and mice look the same but they're genetically much different okay and he brought up chimps and humans right saying that we're much more similar genetically his entire fossil record argument is about the aesthetic similarities of fossils no it's not it is no it's not you're a liar so we can we can so you agree that we can throw out all evidence about maybe that starts with p and ends in diction that you agree that we can throw out all all fossil records just because they look the same are you maybe leaving that word out because the word you're talking about prediction yeah okay yeah good job hey hey can can we agree to throw out all the fossil hey going back to beaches uh beaches are also not originally peaches they come from a plant that wasn't a peach and they're related to cherries almonds plums they're related do you know how complex dna is mad like four percent difference is a huge complex therefore plants are are able to diversify into a lot like kale is able to become brussel sprouts and cauliflower there's depending on what parts of the of the gene code you uh choose to uh to grow to express to allow more expression you're going to be able to get variation in the appearance of what that that gene code so you both you both we we've presented evidence or or you guys accept natural variation so and then absolutely variations very very yes right so but then both of you said made the positive claim that there is a limit i haven't heard what that limit is um so there's there's evidence of variation i'll say domain but we've also seen that there's more variation within the kinds than there are between the kinds that you don't want to be related so how it's important so much how come there's so much variation but it supports our arbitrary point two things that are so similar the amount of variation already covers it could be stronger than others and able to um have a wider bandwidth of expression versus other gene pools that might have suffered more mutation as time has gone on so they might not be able to um to diversify as much uh but that is i think well what what i mean is like the the taper and the the fossil horse skeletons were virtually identical we mean is there anything is there anything that would prevent them from having a common ancestor what you mean when you say diverge from you mean they they look the same uh huh i thought that didn't matter uh i didn't say that try to keep up so they can be drastically different in the same um so if you have like a a you can have a person that is born with like an extra extra finger or something like you can get mute mutations where or not extra finger you can you can be born with the loss of a finger you can lose information so you could but sticking with the horse example yeah there's the horse kind that creationist organization organizations accept so we have the early horses that have three toes kind but just i don't know if i'm just saying i don't know if you accept that the horse kind or not but most creationist organizations all of them that i'm aware of do that went that evolved from three toad horses to one toad horses but they say that the taper can't have been related to the early horse and they don't give a reason even though there's much less there's being different much more there's much less evolution that needs to happen for those early fossil taper and fossil horses then there is between the early fossil horse and the modern horse horses being horses and being little bit of different types of horses okay so you don't get the question so it doesn't support your point from the opponents is you say that there can be moderate genetic mutations and moderate changes but there is a limit please define this limit and prove why this is the limit so one one hard limit i'll put because there there can be some things with trying to pin down a kind like a rat and a mouse they look similar but they have a more different gene code so i'll just give a wider more kind of a softball pitch is that i would say domain change is would be a limit that creation claims that evolution says there's a merger so this would be a limit to the gene pool say say and i don't believe this but say creation said all mammals came from one mammal okay evolution is claiming that all mammals and all plants came from one simpler species beforehand so now if the limit is set to domain you need to show where a plant cell and an animal cell can be traced back to one population or show one population artificially select and breed and show that as as the population is spreading show where suddenly you cross a boundary where you have a plant population over here and an animal population over here i'll put the limit at domain so it's very wide but it is claimed by macro evolution and the common ancestor hypothesis or philosophy we respond specifically please and before you do respond we'll say we are at the halfway mark for the open conversation i'm enjoying the debate and the back and forth please keep it on sending in those questions and super chats to me at amy newman and of course if you like the show please don't forget to like follow subscribe and share with that person that you are in a debate with once again ladies and gents the floor is right back over to you all right so you mentioned domain change so like i was trying to say um the base of the of each domain or our act of each different domain are actually more similar to each other than they are to the branches that come off of that domain that exist today i i would agree a common designer would have similarities a plant should have a similar genetic code to us because if we're going to extract nutrition from a plant it should be recognizable to our body i would just like to see the the split in the population where one becomes plant and one becomes animal yeah well you guys address that specifically please so basically you're putting the burden of proof that we need to prove a plant becomes an animal and if animal quantifies as evolution so if we can potentially show that a fish becomes a human that's not considered evolution by your standards no your claim is that plants can turn into animal so basically you've set the you've set the limit you've said in your definitions and i'm holding you accountable to this that basically genetics can modify and it's totally fine it's still not evolution unless a plant becomes an animal so basically you're trying you're trying to put an umbrella over all other modifications that might happen over time saying it's not technically evolution and i think first of all that we can show that plants can evolve into animals but that your definitions are extremely off base and do not promote a fair and equitable debate because you're in you show it we can show it's possible evolution is the one claiming to be sought taught in science and that is a is an empirical science so you should be able to show these claims through demonstration in which we can then observe and then interpret the observation and make our conclusions but like the basic the basic competitiveness of debate is set on fair and reasonable definitions and so you're trying to absorb the idea of for example a single celled organism evolving into a fish and evolving into a human being as not evolution is evolution of science i just i feel like you're not hearing me at all yes because i'm talking about the terms of a debate and you're not interacting with me on a debaters level it is a science however just because there are holes in the science and then we'll go we'll get to the science i just wanted to make sure that we have an understanding that evolution is considered science so well i'm sorry cp go can you repeat that one more time so i think that what i'm trying to do is set the terms and burden of proof for the debate now a debate needs to be reconciled with mutual burdens of proof that are fair and reasonable for both sides you have set the definition that evolution must be a plant transitioning to an animal and therefore all other mutations and all other sort of changes that happen if this not plant to an animal are not evolution but therefore intelligent design and i'm saying that that is an unreasonable burden of proof in definition that is not really what the core heart of this debate is discussing however i still think we can meet this burden of proof despite that that is my main point see why haven't you done it yet are you asking for evolution to be taught as a as a theory or as a as a philosophy or as a science i think you're not really hearing why just i just i because i'm just because i if i was going to advocate for creation i would say teach it in philosophy i wouldn't ask that creation be taught in science so i don't need to say demonstrate that a an invisible creator can make something out of out of the water i don't need to demonstrate that because i'm not making a scientific claim if you're going to claim scientifically which is no longer an even fair foot um back and forth in a philosophical debate if you are going to talk about how it is a science and your claim is that scientifically plants animals mushrooms uh protests i'll go back to one uh common ancestor the the luka the last universal common ancestor you need to show that there can be a division in in offspring say that luka had had two three kids and then or well several kids of and then each uh you know 20 go one way towards mushrooms 20 go the other way towards plant 20 go the other way towards animal uh you need to show that these changes can happen on a domain level and if you say that you can show this i would love to see this this scientifically shown because it would really go a long way for what i'm trying to do for school so if we can demonstrate this will you agree to see the debate as a win to us in this case no that's no just show it so you need you need to establish a burden of what we need to do to prove to win or lose and i'm talking from the perspective of a debate coach so you want me to cover all of it i'll cover all of it i'll cover all of it what you need so you need to set fair and reasonable burdens okay i got to tell them that we'll do it we'll win we'll go home okay what you need to do is since you're making natural science claims scientific claims about the natural world you need to adhere to the scientific method and scientific experimentation within natural science which is a naturally occurring observable phenomena which you claim a change of species you can't even do that part then you need to experimentally validate the claim secondly you need to show that the timeline that you require for your entire belief system to even be proposed in the first place can be scientifically verified without a plethora of assumptions so radiometric data needs to be verified scientifically you need to show for example one of the many things you need to show is what Nathan just explained to you that you can have all these domain differences break off from a central common ancestry you need to show that that's scientifically possible not i can come up with a story in my head why i think it's possible you need to verify every single part of evolutionary traits that can cause speciation to change based on science that's what you have to do to win the debate or you need to admit that it's a really like domain i showed that in the opener i showed every single change necessary has been observed so uh to address there there's a lot of stuff we need to address now so uh radiometric dating uh cross confirms each other and it cross it's cross confirmed by ice core dating by tectonic plate dating by uh all kinds of different dating um correct rely on assumption it's not incorrect they they all come out with this oh how do you verify constant decay rate uh because you can't change it yeah so we've scientifically but guess what here's what i'll do scientifically proven that you can change it was different you can't but i'm going to do i'm gonna do you a favor i'm gonna assume variable decay rate are you ready so that you admit that what you just said's patently well i'm gonna say experiments that prove you're wrong though so there's muon induced you want rate variations in a lab setting i also have variations in the k-rate simply by manipulation manipulation of temperature these are experimentally done in lab settings muon induced decay rate and and so that requires plasma state so here's here's what i'll do i'll assume that k-rate is variable in natural conditions um and you're gonna need not only are you going to need the earth to be in a plasma state but the earth would be in a plasma state if that was a variable because right accelerated nuclear decay produces well all nuclear decay produces heat so if you accelerate it you produce more heat if all creationist organizations are trying to work on this because this is an absolute knockdown defeater of your position because accelerated nuclear decay will melt the earth 20 times over will boil the oceans the earth will be hotter than the surface of the sun oh just because you say so but in reality no it's because we can calculate how much heat comes out you have to emulsively and emotionally interrupt we can we can calculate how much heat comes off of a decay chain yeah that's cool story man so uh we have all kinds of volcanic we have all kinds of volcanic so you're just a science denier all right on to my next point before you bring up 10 more like everything i'm emotional and deciding incessantly interrupting me emotionally and i like you i let you guys talk for a long time and you brought up a lot of points i have to get to well the whole audience can see that you're interrupting me because you're afraid to hear the robotic because you talk for five minutes i talk for one minute and then you try and talk for another 10 i wasn't even three seconds in i would like both right because i would like to finish i i do need one of you at least to so it's sounded like i don't even want to pick sides you know you know he interrupted me everyone knows it of course i did because i wanted to finish because well then let's it please finish and then we're going to hand it over to you snake yeah the point was simple that you have to assume constant decay rate and we've actually shown a fluctuation of variables not that the entire earth has to be hotter than the sun which you made up and you can't verify how hot the sun is anyway but there's all kinds of extreme situations in fact electromagnetic manipulation and there are quantum fluctuations that can cause a fluctuation and decay rate just because you say no on you make up a story about what would happen doesn't mean anything you're claiming a constant decay rate which means you're making claims of billions of years of what the earth could or could not have done and that is a basic assumption required for radiometric dating we can continue to go to all of them but that's like you can even propose evolution without substantiating radiometric dating unfortunately for you your entire reply is literally just no because i told you why assuming i literally assumed that decay rate was not constant and i showed you how that destroys your entire position these i didn't just make it up the rate team which is a creationist funded professional quote unquote um it it's called the rate team and they were formed to study this heat problem of creationism and what they reported was that it cannot be solved with any scientific means because they calculate you can calculate and observe with science the heat that comes out of a decay chain and your response is just no and to repeat decay the same thing i just want to this is called like heat decay i just want to know because i want to look into that it sounds it's it's just any radiometric decay will produce heat heat decay yeah and it's a complete variable spectrum of the heat produced and there's a ton of different ways to do it and you've somehow determined how hot it would have to be it's hilarious and you're just right up claims it's called claims making up claims because this also ties into the claim of the parent daughter isotope relationship and the geological assumptions in which the samples are interpreted with to then make the claim about the decay rate and what it would have to be like in the conditions and you have to of course assume that there's no contamination like fluid alone contaminates the samples you have to assume a perfect fairy tale evolution world of billions of years with a constant decay rate and no contamination and a perfect original daughter isotope relationship you have to make all three of those assumptions there's no way around no we don't because it's impossible for all of the different measurements to all come out with the same number they don't so if we're wrong if we're wrong the earth would be more measure on the consistency and they don't even all come out with the same they they objectively in fact if you just sent them random samples they couldn't know at all you have to tell them all kinds of different things to try to get them to narrow it down and then they select no they're gonna look at no that's a lie oh really so what about the people that took samples from like volcanic rocks and sent it to three different prestigious some of the most prominent testing radiometric dating labs in the world and they all came back with different dates they didn't creationists creationists do that and they try to carbon date rocks and stuff like that no they send it to a lab wanted to know what the evidence you just said carbon dating and they came back with 300 million years nice carbon dating goes to prove it can you show us evidence just put a link in the chat to show us yeah sure you should have already researched this if you're such an expert these are all literally we're asking you to back up what you're claiming with evidence we're giving you okay i'm still waiting which is evidence about cancer never received go ahead just send us the evidence okay can you give me evolution of change of species yeah thanks for playing scientifically if i can predict the contents if you all get you on that breast cancer link do you want me to do that during the debate i guess i'll yeah that's just a diversion tactic while they don't just differentiate their burn approved listen if i can predict the contents and the phenomena of the natural world with a hypothesis is that science a real fat uh no you need to have a naturally occurring observable phenomena but snake real fast i'm curious i just said how do you know phenomena you know how far i'm not gonna i'm not you know how far carbon dating goes you just claimed that the rocks were from carbon dating i'm about to drop a source from prestigious universities but real fast can you tell me there's a lot of there's a lot of creationists idiots out there trying to carbon date rocks how how high up can carbon dating even allegedly go um can you answer the question that i don't know can you answer the question instead of dodging well you're dodging my question which is the subject you changed from no because i asked you a question and you changed the subject no i had already brought up radio metric dating you're trying to run away so can you can you answer the question you said that it was carbon dating and that creation is i will not because creationists are trying to divert for my question no quote-unquote you said creationists lie and try to i'm gonna ask the question again so this is are you gonna ask the question again what is up with that i'm gonna ask it again if i'm going to i'm going to repeat myself no matter what you say because okay that's good for me it shows you can't answer the question projection if i can predict the contents and phenomena don't forget that word you did last time of the natural world that's science right you didn't predict a naturally occurring observable phenomena you saw yeah i did bones and made up stories about how they got there which would be the naturally observable phenomena that you're claiming happens back to the point of what you diverted from you claim creationists lie and date rocks with carbon dating for the fifth time do you know how far allegedly back carbon dating can go yeah Austin i've given you the chance to basically prove that what you're saying is okay cool no problem snake can you answer instead of your teammate saving you again can you answer i'm literally just calling for evidence which none of you guys have produced whatsoever okay we're in the middle of a debate i'll look it up in a second snake can you answer the question this is what a debate requires is evidence yeah can you show me a change of species it would lose in like one second can you show me a change of species oh you lost in one time wow okay so you also wanted evidence of plant to animal just avoid it i said that it's possible we're getting to evidence of evolution you're just trying to waste our time i refuted exposed you you made a claim that was untrue they made the just so the room knows and i'll drop the source their creationists who attempt to carbon they source oh i just want them to understand what i'm talking about okay okay so just give me a second then i'm going to fall back and let you guys talk with nathan whatever the point is that we send it to people sent rock samples to many different labs and they came up with uh predictions like 300 million years 95 million years the people side of site and please stop interrupting me where's the moderator that's the 15th straight time i know you're also an evolutionist but this is unacceptable i feel like pitch and i should just grab a beer and let you two go at it all you care about is like a healthy sound bites so that everyone gets their side heard i am enjoying the lively back and forth and we still have more 15 minutes more of open discussion the floor is stories yours ladies and gentlemen yeah we're running out of time and you've repeated yourself about five i'm going to stop coming on the channel i'm not going to be here while you're modding anymore you have a bias with snake he's interrupted 20 times the whole audience has seen it everyone knows it i can't finish a clearance statement i just want to i want to hand it back over to nathan but i can't even make one statement so i'm going to make the statement or we'll just keep doing it thank you for your interaction but we're going to keep doing it have just so the audience knows what i'm saying just so the audience knows what i'm talking about they took rock samples they sent it to different prestigious uh radiometric dating labs they got hundreds of millions of years off okay has nothing to do with carbon dating which tops off at allegedly 50 000 years nothing to do with creation is being so stupid that they carbon date rocks okay it was about radiometric dating of volcanic samples thank you and so i just want to have a short reply in that i don't i my own political religious beliefs do not come in here i only care about clean sound bites i would still love you to keep on coming on witson i love the four people on this panel we still are having a lively discussion i hope everyone out there is enjoying the show and again right back over to you guys and gals so you haven't given a source you've you've repeated yourself for about the tenth time and we're running out of time so if you want the evidence of plant and animal evolution being possible then we should get on to that i gave you evidence i gave you actually an actual source with the name of the experiments in my opener where single-celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms combining that with other evidence that i provided is experiments and natural populations getting a mitochondria like organelle so those are the two main parts of a plant becoming an animal or at least diversifying from a common ancestor i must not would you could say plants are multicellular they're plants are already multicellular so the the single becoming modular a multicellular is not plant in animal cells being able to be shown spawning from a single population it was a unicellular algae so it had no multicellular ancestors you think you're god you talk about god of the gabs man algae i mean there are there's a lot of of genetic information i think in in i might be thinking of an algea but the gene the gene code of algae some algae i think are pretty large as well so i think there is a possibility for there to be a mingling of dna a mingling of working together because there are any in simpler creatures like in is there's horizontal gene transfer um and so maybe that like in simple creatures this is something that it that not in this that's bacteria but a simple creatures are are able to to do this as well and like viruses too but i mean there's a debate on not algae it's all right let's check out this evidence yeah aren't you excited i'm very excited institute of creation research wow this sounds super unbiased wow well poison the well audience just so you know where this where this source came from you know what poisoning the well is it's called figuring out if your sources are neutral or not clearly don't know what poisoning the well is so there's a scientific study in there you can just check checking your your reference there there are assumptions like there can be uh there are papers written about like endogenous retroviruses that do go with an assumption already of evolution being how they got where they are so there are covered that bias in in in a lot of articles i'm talking in her reference to the icr.org article and of course there's like their biases that can yeah here i'll just i'll just give you i'll give you 12 different uh i can't even find the full pdf all i find is an abstract okay well you want me to drop a pdc yes he didn't actually read the paper i have read the papers you claimed to the whole audience that it was carbon dating snake and in the lab predicted 300 million years you have no idea what you're talking about i claimed that that's often what happens author is i wonder how credible he is okay anyway let's get back let's get back to the burden of proof with you guys like can you admit that you can't actually he's a young earth creationist geologist who works for the answers and genesis phd from harvard a lot of people can go to harvard but he's clearly made an agenda oh so well evolutionists don't have an agenda they're they're actually completely immune to philosophical bias he believes the grand canyon was formed after the bible flood let's find out else people's beliefs are all right well yeah terrible you guys are showing your cars you just hate to create you hate creationism that's it yeah there is a difference between i hate bad science why don't you rebut the actual claim no is flood okay we don't need you to read off poisoning the well fallacies i'm sorry you don't understand what that means it's not valid it just means it's not real science we can just move on man we can just move on you guys can either actually research what you claim to know about or don't you don't real metric dating requires many pseudoscientific cards you haven't called for any of our cards let's see let's see how our evidence stacks verify constant decay rate verify the fact that you actually can substantiate billions of years with radiometric dating and that you can actually substantiate original daughter and parent isotope relationships and ratios and and substantiate that there's no contamination which fluid alone would contaminate the actual sample don't need to we know how contamination happens we know how to avoid it we don't need to know the initial conditions isochron dating they cross the methods cross confirm each other that's called the scientific method they can't you don't need to know wait wait hang on you said you don't need to know you know how fluid contaminates and you know how to avoid it what does that mean we know the mechanisms of how things get contaminated yeah like water so how do you know how to avoid it because since it's been studied by scientists they know what it looks like and they know when it happens so wait wait you can discover it not how do you know that no water has that state because they know what it looks like when that happens how does it look like snake i'm not a geologist you're objectively wrong you wouldn't know if there was but yes you would they know exactly how to avoid contamination there's entire papers written right well what they go back in that was embarrassing the sciences consistently debunking you even though you don't know what it is you said yeah i'm not a geologist i don't know what to look for but i know geologists can tell and they've written papers on it have you read any of the papers yeah okay then how do you know when something's been in contact with fluid and contaminated i don't know i'm not a geologist there's like a there's a decay curve i think is what it is where it's supposed to be like a linear graph that shows consistency if the points are linear if you can plot points and they stay on this line that's supposed to show that there is a constant decay rate and there's a geologist who was saying that he is an advocate of constant decay rates but he was saying that like like admitting that if they get a date that doesn't fit on this line they will throw it out there is instances of dates being thrown out that are for whatever reason you know be a contamination or be it something that that disagrees because you are relying on your your tools measuring consistently uh that there are consistent decay rates you have to rely on conditions being stable uh there there's a lot of assumptions that all have to line up and these and there are scientists who will throw things out if it does not match the line that they are are needing it to be and like with if you give them limestone you have to tell them what layer it is or what fossils are found in that limestone to be able for them to accurately date it when the limestone itself should be enough you can actually you can actually test whether there is a bias in these reporting um king croc duck who is here presented that um one time he showed mathematically that there is no bias in reporting dates and the ones that are thrown out are usually thrown out because they detect things like contamination because it doesn't go with their assumption oh you like to interrupt too i guess uh so that's hilarious you can say that it is hilarious because now i'm pointing it out every time you do it um i also said constant decay rates are not necessary because one if they're not then the earth melts maybe and that's a cool story man yeah math is basically god bro you you can look back in time you look at the sky you can do multiplication yeah i wouldn't keep calling you god i i don't really understand where this is because one of his main arguments in his opener was that we use god of the gaps but he constantly just gets to make up assumptions and claims about uh looking into rocks and knowing what happened billions of years ago no these are the calculations of creationists including creationists so yeah i wouldn't call myself god just that's not true i can also do uh like multiplication it is true the rate the rate project okay uke we don't claim that the earth is billions of years old and if they do they have nothing to do with our position so you don't listen they did the math on how much heat would be generated by plate tectonics meteors i heard that part nuclear decay yeah well it didn't sink in and why'd you just bring them up as a rebuttal to my claim which is that you're just assuming billions of years your your whole argument is that you said oh my god i got a question like plate tectonics and meteors and stuff that that kind of gets a little bit into cosmology well i will say this is the last few minutes before we go into the q and a please everyone out in chat having fun keep on sent in your chats and super chats but for the panel now is the last time to get questions out for each other and when you're already we're going into the q and a you guys show me a change of species uh yeah i don't mean that because that is that is something that if you can show we've already covered this and you still won't concede that we've won the debate and we've clearly covered this already really what was his answer acting what was his answer can you really be coming out he is not is not a a non plant non animal becoming plant an animal over time that is a different claim and that that would like creation doesn't claim that so that i think that would falsify the the philosophical position of creation if you could show uh this this domain split because it's clear like plants and and animals are different kinds absolutely they're made on different days according to to the bible so well i show you claim multi cellular the necessary changes are possible and using this assumption we can make novel predictions that no other theory can make really so when did you make in that assumption which is the opposite of science when you made the assumption when did hey when you don't understand hey please stop interrupting me man when you made that assumption when did you go and observe this prediction of a plant turning into an animal we didn't observe that okay okay great that's why i haven't conceded yet because you can assume and then please make science is about making assumption but then you have to put the metal in the fire and actually test it right science is about testing assumptions or hypotheses so we can independent assumption that is what science is in fact right so you admit that you didn't fulfill the burden of science we absolutely did it follows every step of the scientific method okay except for the observation i honestly keep shifting the goalpost in unrealistic and unreasonably they're saying that animal that plants turn into animals and that we just have to believe you got to have said that assumption wasn't observed yeah evidence so this is why your position has got to the gaps because you why we're not talking about god i feel like you science you're saying it's not possible without a creator so so what you're doing is trying to cherry pick little gaps in the knowledge and say there's gaps in the knowledge in the science therefore it's not a science no no what we're doing is this is evolution on trial it's possible right this is evolution on trial you want to shift it over to us replacing your evolution claim with creationism which you did your whole opener you claim evolution this is evolution on trial you're making a positive claim science and the theory make scientifically science you can wait can you please if you can substantiate scientifically that you can show in an experiment setting that plants can turn into animals because you're claiming it's science while we're acknowledging creationism is a philosophical position that would be great if not just admit you can't substantiate no burden of proof whatsoever not scientifically no because no it's different claims yeah basically you're making a natural phenomenon that you can set the burden of proof and reject that we've met it unconditionally you're making the scientific claim again you're making a scientific claim and evolution includes the claim that plants will turn into animals you have no scientific evidence of that as a modernist that's a creationist we can see that the jump we can't scientifically manipulate okay i'm gonna go ahead and straight up accuse you guys of shifting the goalpost can you articulate how you've set the burden of this debate in a fair and equitable way that allows for reasonable clash absolutely so all right so how have how have you achieved this debate so that it requires reasonable burdens of proof for both sides and not simply allowing you to contest absolutely every single thing that we say and finding any crack in information and claiming that you want how is the burden of proof equally distributed between both sides can you explain that history yeah absolutely so if you are going to claim that evolution is a philosophy a philosophical belief an idea about about origin then you are not going to have to prove every single step can naturally happen because that is your claim once you go to science which we are not going in creation is not going into the domain of claiming to be science creation is staying in philosophy so the the scientific burdens of the scientific method which is what i talked about in my opener was you have a burden if you if you're going to go from philosophy into science you have a new burden a new standard that you have to uphold to you have to be able to say if you're going to make a claim that plants and animals can come from one lineage you have to be able to show that a lineage it is possible for a lineage to actually split that far off and go outside of and have that type of of genetic range and and you have to be able to show that these things are naturally possible natural processes you can't have man involvement you can't do any this is more for abiod genesis but like filtering and trapping and everything because this you you have to make a claim if you're if you're science you're no longer in philosophy so we could we can keep it fair in philosophy all you want and and okay you're going to explain it like this and we'll explain it like this completely fine and then we'll shake your hand and we'll be like okay we have different philosophies but you guys are actually we have to believe what we have the most significant evidence for and it's clear that we would outweigh you on evidence the only evidence that you've really had whatsoever to contradict us came from a young earth creationist who believes that the grand canyon came from a biblical flood so i'm going to ask the judges who are watching the audience members do you find this evidence substantial enough to outweigh all of the evidence that we have that shows that evolution is real yeah sliding straw man poisoning the well i'm not even talking to you i'm talking to the audience if you don't think that that is the case then vote for evolution and if you do think that is the case then fine vote for young earth creationism well so i'd i'd like one more thing well uh you both be able to and then i'm gonna hand it over to the skeptics because we are going to this is a chance to tell people what you guys got going on on the internet on the real worlds as well as what are your final thoughts on anything on the topic as we move into the q and a but the evolution side for both of you whenever you'd like oh should i go first or take it away okay um so yeah so no one predicts that modern plants will become animals um but we have shown that it is possible that the necessary changes are in fact scientifically possible um but um basically this follows the scientific method absolutely and you haven't addressed that this whole date this whole debate um so we start with the hypothesis you can call it an assumption um uh so we hypothesize for more for example Darwin predicted that there would be a bird with unfused wing fingers and he predicted exactly where it would be in the fossil record using this theory therefore and since it was successful that's pretty good evidence then it kept happening over and over and over and over and over and over and so therefore it's reasonable to infer that this hypothesis that's been confirmed hundreds of times also extends to other lineages that have not been necessarily confirmed because just because science has gaps in it doesn't mean it's still not a science of course we'd like those gaps to be filled in but of course you have to hide all of your criticism in the gaps and not the uh the actual successes um we showed that it was possible and there was barely a whiff of a pushback on that um and i also would like to state that new information has been observed to come about um either from uh well it's all basically changes to existing information your mommy and your daddy hand you down jeans and your jeans are different each generation and this is where which it's ignoring it but we've actually observed um the breakage of jeans and mutations that can fix those breakages so that's actually new information uh with the multicellular example that's new information as well and it's not from outside it's from changes to existing structures take it away yeah so i just want to say just from observing the entire structure of debate there has been absolutely no interaction no clash no consistent request for burdens no acknowledgments that we've actually met those burdens of proof and quite ridiculous evidence so at the end of the day the difference between science and religion is that science is in fact always evolving and that is why it adapts and changes to new information our opponents have basically asserted that we would need to have conclusive and absolute information for them to take us seriously but then we would no longer transition into science but therefore religion they have also had absolutely no clear reasoning for their case and they haven't interacted with our arguments whatsoever they've honestly completely diverted to everything that we have said and not really comprehended nor understood our points so i really want to ask our audience can we really take this seriously and if so why that's that's all i really have to say thank you so very much naked cp the evolution side and we are now going to hand it to witsit and nathan the floor is both of yours first of you one bro or i will okay you can you can take the first okay um yeah it was really simple right it's like natural science is science that pertains to the natural world right and so you have a naturally occurring phenomena and then you propose a hypothesis a cause and effect relationship test and you have a presumed cause and dependent variable you manipulate that to verify it's the cause of the effect very simple stuff the basic stuff right you're claiming that this is a science and that's why i said it's actually a religion for atheists so they they pretend it's science but it's not and if you guys will concede it's not then we would have no problem you could go around and believe in the evolution religion but uh one thing that was for sure is that like i said the radiometric dating thing it's breeze pass and they just pretend that they have billions of years to work with and we're supposed to grant them that assumption we're supposed to grant them the assumption of a biogenesis supposed to ignore the statistical impossibility of the actual like you know dna formulating in the first place um and as to like all the gaslighting at the end we didn't divert in fact if anyone watched in the audience honestly without a bias you guys diverted everything every single time that we made a specific point you diverted and what we're saying is for example with the animals and plants you're claiming that that has to happen with an evolution so we're asking okay well can you give us scientific evidence of it can you show us scientifically that that actually occurs and no but we can show you that we think it could occur and that's somehow science that's not science science is actual experiment that's validation to the scientific method and scientific means so in summary it is nothing more than a bunch of base assumptions begging the questions reification fallacies and then effectively gaslighting poisoning the well of the alternative position and uh it's a philosophy so if people could just be honest and acknowledge that basically evolution is a philosophy it requires it's normally opposed to creationism so it requires a biogenesis requires billions of years of uh radiometric dating assumptions constant decay rates all kinds of perfect conditions that are unrealistic and initial conditions and all the stuff and ratios if you could admit it's a philosophy and you have to speculate and come up with ideas of what you think could or couldn't happen that'd be cool and again to reiterate my point whenever uh an animal begins to change some or there's like some anatomical structure differences within the same kind that isn't proof of evolution really that's proof of design that there's actually diversity within a a base foundation and storage house of information in which that system can actually adapt to its surroundings and it's a misnomer whenever we grant the word adaptation to you guys uh because you miss to find it so it's just it's pseudoscience it's religion for atheists and it's wrapped up as if it's not lost and just to to piggyback on what austin said there like if you take a bore because like a pig but if you take like a bore and you you breed it and you get into these pigs there's actually something called regression of the regression to the mean where if you let a pig go back into the wild it will actually uh regress or go back to its um kind of most survivable set of gene expressions uh as far as the darwin um claiming about a fossil and then finding it there that is a prediction sure so if you want to take the creation that's the evolution philosophy you want to take the creation philosophy okay if i'm a dog breeder and i'm breeding dogs okay i got a dog and i'm breeding golden retrievers and now i got another golden retriever so it's a success for creation uh if you want to talk about uh hiding in the gaps when we are talking about things like um fossil structure homologous structures we're talking about genetic similarities these things like that uh act common ancestry common designer can go a long way in explaining these but these have explanation where you have to really get into the nitty gritty is where there is a difference in worldview claim so creation does not claim that uh one type of of gene one type of population can become plants and animals which was not shown um and so this is not hiding in the gaps this is trying to press evolution if you want to be a science okay but you are now going to have to show all of these worldview claims that define 100 percent of everything that we have ever observed um and then uh i did want to get to the genet and the bengal um and then but we did cover like the tapers and everything cp i did talk i did address your claim about the layers uh directly so like we have had a back and forth um and then uh i just uh i want to say that all of this talk has has been about life but i'm skeptical that non-life can become alive uh say scientifically we remove all bias all um all uh what is it authority and everything like that i pose scientifically a hypothesis that non-life that non-life can become alive therefore anything that requires non-life to become alive requires belief now what something like abo genesis which some evolution evolutionists will try to separate from abo genesis but many know that it is a very serious issue for evolution and if say hypothetically in a lab they did discover abo genesis tomorrow the next day it would be in every single biology textbook this is how we believe evolution or how life started because this is what we did in a lab naturally so if i pose the hypothesis about non-life not being able to become alive and that's my hypothesis i cite every observation ever of every breeding of anything any life uh now okay you have all these ideas of abo genesis uh go ahead and test okay we're going to try rocks we're going to try wet dry cycles with pools and shallow tides and everything like that and we're going to use natural uh conditions temperature switches and everything you can freeze it you can do all that i don't know if you can use a vacuum because nature reports a vacuum but uh if you want to go through all of these things try it every one of them is one of them has failed so far you can't use relay synthesis or any man-made interference so you're going to run into these issues they're all going to fail and then this hypothesis that non-life cannot become alive stands true scientifically uh if you are going to claim otherwise i'm going to have to ask you to to show it i want to see the evidence that that that can happen because that is what evolution that is the start of evolution you cannot run a race without crossing the starting line you cannot get a tree to grow without a seed there has to be a seed there so we're talking about branches of evolution where's the seed so uh that was was i think glossed over but i think there's a reason for that to be glossed over by uh evolution so oh and also thank you everybody for for for being here and for this participation everyone um uh both sides at Amy as well and so uh thank you all very much um and uh can i just throw one thing it's kind of if y'all are like that the thing that i shared i'm just gonna you know get the thing that i shared about heart disease earlier um and the reversal of it that that's a very real thing real thing number one cause of death that has been shown to be reversible hopefully you don't know anyone but that's something that that has been done if y'all want to look up brook goldner dr brook goldner um she is wonderful autoimmune conditions can be reversed she herself healed lovely woman um michael greger nutrition facts lots of good information if you're ever curious about getting into um plant stuff or anything like that vegan society of Hawaii has a lot of good stuff as well but this is stuff that our our body is designed for plants that's what all these recoveries are showing so i just wanted to share that um only way shown to reverse heart disease the number one cause of death so um that is really a personally why this is so big to me this evolution topic is because of this angiogram and trying to make sure that our public health care system really cares about the health of the public so thank y'all very much and uh yeah okay i'm i'm good with my feel so thank you so very much i in fact want to thank snake cp witson and Nathan for giving the lively back and forth but wait there is more we are about to be switching into the q and a i do want to send an extra special thanks for everyone making the stream work behind the scenes like sideshow the mods and the entire modern day debate community but you can tag me with your questions and super chats at Amy Newman including those like kango for five dollars ask question for wits it please explain pesticide resistance in insects did god use weed killer they already have the information intrinsically built into them to react to things in their environment that is actually a creationist evidence thank you for that super chat response two dollars super chat from dancing ostrich why is Nathan dressed as wears Waldo sending love the super chatters we always so keep reminding to attack arguments instead of people but we do love the support so thank you i mean that's a compliment yeah that's not a compliment well well then there you go uh david de renieros five dollar super chat how do you resolve the heat problem caused by radioactive decay being sped up in the young earth model it's absolutely fatal to young earth uh plate tectonics might not be what we think they are um and i think there is a a lot of water is that accounting for like everything i i i've not heard about this problem until now but like there's a lot of water on the earth and so water has a lot of heat uh heat specificity so it can hold on to a lot of heat so that might absorb it but also if the earth is not that old um and uh if things don't decay quite the same or you know what rates are using are you assuming that it's constantly shifting what if it shifts to a much slower rate or a much faster rate if it's a slower rate then you're not giving off as heat as quickly so maybe there is no heat problem after all you're just choosing an assumption where there's a faster heat um we also bake in this geological assumption spanned out across the whole earth as if it's all the same it works perfect all the way down and we know exactly what it is and that's not even reality and you have volcanic activity and of course you can change plasma state very quickly and there's all kinds of electromagnetic phenomena and quantum fluctuations that have now been shown in the last few years that would actually affect the k-ray including me on the k so uh it's a cool story i mean it sounds good to say it would burn the whole earth it's impossible i mean it's a cool story are we are we doing responses on these so you are allowed to respond but if it's for the person they at least get the final comment right okay so it's not just a story it's actual calculations it's called math um and the rate team of creationists did this math and they found that the oceans would boil off so that's not a um saver um and the math you could have hurricanes and all kinds of like ice comets it's it wouldn't really move the dial at all um so yeah also there's a different um amount of decay happenings for some reason as you get closer and closer to continental ridges and deeper and deeper into the rock so i don't know why that would happen but um again if the total amount of decay can be calculated because we can observe how much heat is released by decay and then we can do a little bit of math over how many years that happens and it melts the earth so it's not a story what's it and then we sit before Nathan you do get the final last comment so you do have the there is a difference between math and science uh they're not there they they overlap with each other well math overlaps with science a lot um there can be a lot of use in there but uh you're measuring um something kind of on on a small scale and then how do you know that where all of those that particular element is that's decaying how do you know the exact quantity of that in the surface how do you know what's in the out in the middle of the ocean on the ocean floors uh it sounds like there's a lot of assumption to that awesome you got anything to yeah yeah one of the things we didn't get to one of the most acknowledged and well known fundamental assumptions and problems with it is you can't get entirely uh you can't get entire elemental isolation can't get entire elemental isolation in the first place to even determine decay rate so let's just pretend that doesn't exist and then we can do some calculations and make up stories and a two dollar super chat i'll check into the eyes the spice is real two dollars from majelin witsit is the poster child for dunning kruger you love me too thank you for the support and the response and another five dollar super chat from majelin there is very little going on behind witsit's bovine grin uh i still love you and so does the creator thank you for the continued support at both of those responses witsit and then a ten dollar super chat from david d reneres we're both elephants we're both extent elephants on the ark if no you have so few animal pairs need to create need new species per generation to see current phylogeny if yes the ark needs to be orders of magnitude larger so the there were one of the misconceptions about the ark was that there was only two of every kind brought in the animal on the ark uh there are actually seven uh of each clean animal and then two of the rest that were brought on and you also do not have to bring you know full grown animals on you can bring babies and if these animals are already walking to the ark uh under the um kind of the influence of of the the creator if god is guiding them then god can guide them to wherever they have to go and and help get their populations restarted so i think that that would have uh admittedly it's a supernatural influence but we're talking about philosophy yeah exactly we acknowledge that and it's kind of weird that like in the opener or proving evolution it's always like this wouldn't work on the ark let's say hypothetically you did verify that like that doesn't prove evolution but uh yeah anyway he answered it pretty thoroughly so there you thank you for those responses and the super chat david a two dollar super chat from my caleon spinning ball flying through an infinite vacuum that's gotta be for you guys yep animal thank you for that super chat and the response and a ten dollar super chat from virginia botanist witsit why do families of plants show different geographic distribution today according to the position of ancient guanoan supercontinent plate tectonics is shown by the seafloor spread why are plants geographically distributed based on the what the position of the ancient i'm no i'm saying this wrong gadawana supercontinent gadawana okay okay uh that's a cool story that it seems like it's so weird there's this double standard where people that are anti-creationist can literally just make up stories about billions of years and i'm supposed to answer for them but yeah there's geographical distribution based on climate and affluxuation of variables i don't know why that would be confusing and the seafloor what what how does the seafloor help any of your claims of some species turning into another one or that you have a change in domain i don't it doesn't help you at all um but geological geological fields are built heavily on assumption and this is well known and it's a thing that gets misrepresented by people that aren't actually in the field thank you people who aren't in the field like you who don't understand that that um is very well evidenced you admitted a second earlier that like oh i you didn't know you just know that a geologist must know oh don't i don't project well i know the chemistry i don't know all of geology correct and there's a lot of geological assumptions as you can i'm not going to be like you and just pretend that i know every single scientific subject i don't know everything but i know that you can't uh get elemental isolation for radiometric dating and he has to be the final word because it was for him oh no you could say something it's still your side but keeping with uh so like with with the plants i mean uh if um if pre-flood someone like a particular plant if the technology was different back then when they were building cermans and stuff someone could have brought a plant uh from one place to another they brought cherry blossoms to dc so you can people could move plants around back in the past and then they they put them where they put them so you want if you like a plant but you have to move to another country for some reason if it grows there you're probably going to take a seed or two with you how would that how would that support evolution i'm just i don't understand maybe i'm missing something i don't know how that would support evolution because tectonic drift would take millions of years yeah how does the plant i just don't even what's i don't okay whatever the connection is there full story bro and all right thank you for the super chat virginia and the answers panel and a five dollar super chat from david velair witsit you are doing the same lame routine that you do i love you and so does the creator go thank you so very much david for the support and super chat and your response and another two dollar super chat from david extreme situations do not negate the rule i need to substantiate this alleged role it's not science if you don't do that that's extreme yeah yeah i was specific what qualifies as extreme thank you and both times david as well as your responses and then ten dollars from the science of science why does why does snake sound like brenda no idea thank you so much for the super chat the sciences sciences and your response and then david d renares five dollar super chat for austin when did you stop bringing evidence to debate and start going through a rolodex of fallacies to sound intellectual without having an argument yeah so uh if you understood what the definition of a logical fallacy is you would know that it's an invalid argument so when your opponent makes an argument that's invalid and logically fallacious like the way that you debate is you point that out right and uh that doesn't mean your conclusion is wrong but it means that what you're proposing to support it is wrong so if i the fact i have to constantly call a fallacy shows the problem and of course i do bring evidence when i have a positive claim um i we we acknowledge this is a philosophical claim of intelligent design but of course i can definitely bring tons of positive evidence for intelligent design it's everywhere but the main problem is that this was supposed to be evolution on trial and they're supposed to substantiate their positive claims and really it's just this long drawn out vocalization of the hatred of the idea of an intelligent designer it's much less about the illusory disguise of science so we were just trying to hold them accountable on their claims because we acknowledge philosophy while they claim science falsely when it's actually a religion well my partner quickly respond to that is that okay snake um so let's just play his game and say that this is all about evolution on trial um if this is hatred of god yeah but this is truly a trial uh innocent until proven guilty so your burden of proof would have been significantly less the point is in a debate you have equal burdens and you clearly did not establish that what are you talking about okay and i also i get to address this i get to address it snake go ahead uh yeah also she doesn't hate god so i didn't i didn't say okay whatever vitriolic dislike of the idea of a creationist immoral accountability that's my opinion and it's a generalization it's not it's a generalization and she specifically said who said i believed in god right i mean when you said that she believed in god but who cares i don't i don't care i said that you can't say fairly that if you're an evolutionist you are exclusionist to other religions because i'm a religious person and i i never said that i said the you did in your literal first speech that if you or maybe it was pitch i can't remember i said the opposite one person said that evolution excludes all other forms of thought and religions and that's not true yeah i specifically said in my opener right to make sure i went ahead and got ahead of it that actually they're they're different but i just i just want to acknowledge that you guys saying that over the course of billions of years evolution took place and this is how it happened and this is what it is is a positive claim okay you have the burden of proofs substantiate that positive claim it has a ton of ton of things you just want to grant you and then pretend that science if you want to philosophically think that it's more logical to think there's no greater whatever that's cool admit that it's philosophical that's the fundamental difference here you have the burden of proof the name is literally evolution on trial debate i didn't make it up okay i'd be happy to go evolution versus creationism it's a layup you know i just allude to Nathan over and over it's not difficult i'm just saying that you guys have uh you know a scientific substantial burden of proof that you cannot in any way validate and you inflate religion with science you show us multiple times that you don't understand the evidence um and we we showed how how evolution follows the scientific method and i would like to hear one fallacy we committed oh yeah bet you beg the question over and over yeah because whenever we ask you how to just instantiate that plant life will turn the animal life you said we showed that it's possible that it could happen therefore it must have happened no yes you're still missing the prediction part and then predict you didn't show wait wait if you made a prediction that plants turned animals you'd have to then go see that happen to verify the prediction my dig something turned into plants and animals and that's the last Nathan says that's the last we're moving forward because it has to be there so can i just so like yeah we can keep it the same you can keep like if you want to have fair um non non-moved goalposts we have to stay in the domain of philosophy but that's why during the debate i did ask if you are going to consider evolutionist science and that is once you say yes you are removing yourself from the philosophically uh philosophical bubble and you're putting yourself into a pool of scientific scrutiny and the burden of proof is much greater for a scientific claim than a philosophical claim and thank you so much for that David for the super chat and then the panel for the responses sending in love from sunflower a member for 18 months sending in a heart emojis and we are sending that love right back to sunflower in fact if you enjoy modern day debate did you know that you can hit that join button and get extra juicy perks like all sorts of emojis and fun things and so come on board and thank you so much sunflower for that comment and then ten dollar super chat from jack hardgrave witsit claimed at time stamp one hour eight minutes that the heat problem could be solved by quantum fluctuations and electromagnetic manipulations explain exactly how this works or you're full of crap okay yeah like i said for example me on decay for example which i don't believe all these subatomic particle claims actually everything's a little vortex and we make up all kinds of claims we have all kinds of evidence that has been consistently denied like you have the electro week theory that eventually was accepted and integrated into standard particle physics of stanford but the point is that there's a unified theory everything is intrinsically electromagnetic we see all kinds of fluctuations and significant structural changes that are not actually limited to material composition on the quantum scale and that's all that you would need to actually fluctuate uh decay rates some type of like major electromagnetic phenomena would change the actual decay rate due to manipulating the structure on this smaller scale and that's just one of many uh examples and i would like to just point this out right but like dude i've been trying to debate there are people in the chat saying like i'm scared to debate uh whatever creationism like i've been trying to get an atheist to debate me about creationism just the philosophy of it and the logic of it like are in raw example people are afraid to debate creationism versus atheism because it's logically bankrupt so there's my shout out into the ether if anyone thinks that they can debate me about that i would happily do so because uh once we get this out of the scientific realm where it where it belongs in the philosophy well then logically of course evolution would get decimated so yeah you don't even understand the question the question was how would um what you proposed your word salad um get rid of the heat from the heat problem and all you said was yeah we can speed up the decay rate that's the problem that is you don't understand because that is the heat problem what you're proposing is the cause of the heat problem which and you never proposed a way to get rid of the heat can you show me that when you change decay rate with electromagnetic fluctuation that you've predicted and measured the actual heat that's given off by the electromagnetic quantum fluctuation coming from the background medium known that to be a zero zero energy and vacuum point energy can you show me that you you don't know you have no idea what the heat given off of some type of zero or vacuum energy fluctuation within a molecular structure is so you're just you're making up pseudo scientific claims with calculations so now you're claiming that the state of earth rock is that during the flood during the flood why is that to be during the flood there could be because you're proposing conditions that are like plasma heat core of the sun type conditions why does it have no electromagnetic fluctuation from a background medium like and actually like more so i think what tesla says which is to be though the background infinitesimal for digitalism velocity would manifest as material i don't know what just happened there so yeah i think that that would fluctuate the actual structure itself that would change the decay rate and it doesn't have to give off a minute's heat to do that it would be a material composition change instantly and quantum is actually supporting this very idea so just saying that it would be a certain temperature doesn't make it reality we can observe what temperature happens when that happens really can you cite the paper that showed that the fluctuation can you do that to a specific atom like down to an atom you can you can tell how much heat is being released by by what going down in valence or energy or that going down in valence energy has to do with electrons that are or that are within the molecule but decay is happens to the nucleus of the molecule there are things like electron capture and stuff like that but so so yes the different elements decaying will will give off different heat okay and an atom to atom heat signature like each out at one particular atom as its kids will give off so much heat reliably yes and i am going to actually answer this next super chat but our panelists are always welcome to as well from 10 dollars from the McCrete naturalist could we get an evolutionary debate by any chance i don't know if creationists could deal with it though trying to put the god of the gap theory in so i'll let any one of you respond but i just want to put in there that like with it just put into the ether as said i want to just remind everyone that modern day debate is always looking for either current or new debaters and so if you have a roster of debates a little bit of experience or just some tough grit and you know that you want to step into the ring feel free to contact us the email with the description below right below us but yes it looks like i will say they're looking for creationist debate so at least have someone out there looking for one themselves they want a creation versus evolution or an evolution versus evolution because like i know there's evolution there's a gradualism school of evolution there's a punctuated equilibrium specifically they would like an evolutionary psychology debate all right well just to specify specifically what i'm laying the gauntlet down for and i wouldn't remind someone like r and r is atheism versus creationism because atheists are afraid to debate the logical parameters and implications of their worldview and uh it gets messy so i everyone's scared to take it atheism creationism that's the debate and uh if it's so creationism so stupid it should be an easy debate right just debate the philosophical logical parameters of the two worldviews but seems a little bit uh difficult to get someone to take it i'll take it it happens like every five seconds yeah yeah if youtube is flooded with that debate it's gonna it's gonna be bull snake could you not interrupt me while we debated about it you think we both interrupt each other that's kind of how discussions work all right man well i'm not interested in a debate where every time i try to make a point but we'll talk about it i try not to interrupt really i'm sorry if i step on your dog is okay at some point i do have to kind of step in and assert some of my time but yeah and i thought it has been a great debate and i've been enjoying the lively discussion and all right we're moving forward another super chat from mike calion observable measurable testable and repeatable about you guys i'm sorry clearly they're saying that your claim is not doing that and it's not scientific it's not repeatable that we can predict uh genetics of viruses um pandemics um now looking through the comment they are specifically their last one was addressing the spinning ball flying through infinite vacuum it looks like more lights experiment and michaelson morally experiment i want to clarify this to coherent electromagnetic fluctuations within a zero point charge cascade have no heat effect it actually has a cold effect the centripetal coherent field of charge distribution uh which was said in the chat and that's exactly my point you actually would avoid the whole heat problem i don't have some creationist want to like not understand how energy works sorry i have to just correct that go back whatever you're saying and then Nicholson morally what are we talking about i'm all about it they just said yeah something about the spinning ball but i do want to sit to like as far as what like certain creationists and this is i'm not meeting any offense to any creation um institutes or anything out there this is more like an open rebuke to sharpen iron but uh we have to really look at like what the the bible says and trying to cling to uh like globe models or evolution you're appealing to the world by trying to sound like sticking with the globe but you already deny evolution so you're already a science denier in that regard so it's like you got to be all or nothing with with the bible it's difficult to do but it's something that we we should do scientifically we're gonna try to um have the bible have be a little bit more valid or validated as it is already by uh empirical experiments but because i create that creation institute i'm gonna i'm not looking to that that rate team uh heat decay chain because it does kind of like math i i can write you know two apples plus four oranges on a on a piece of paper it's it's math is not always science so and i appreciate both of those i want to let the it's not technically the evolution side but it is any uh observable measurable testable repeatable in respect to the ball in a vacuum spinning ball flying through infinite vacuum i just want to make sure snake and cp in case you wanted to have the final word i i would love to litigate flat earth in the next 10 seconds but unfortunately it's not enough time sending love to all of our superchatters sending love to all of our uh panel and ten dollar super chat from i was funny hearing not enough time from evolution the uh perspective because they're like long time i'll need to evolve a little bit first i don't know time man you're already at the top we're very specially made in infinite time five dollar super chat from the science of science Snape is definitely Brenda same logic and voice okay it's not you guys but i just got to say that the creationist got to show uh more morality than that that's my friend what is this reference Brenda's just another person uh but yeah i just think that's distaste useful i'll take a pretty snake you're much uh less unbearable i'll take a shot like yeah it it's like you know we get that a lot so we should just try to take the high road i feel like snake can you send me your that that power point your opener sure thank you thank you so very much i got a lot of fun there's a lot of panel and i would also agree this has been a lot of fun five dollar super chat from the science of science again if you claim science and can't provide it you lose Brenda hey uh i will be right back i'm sorry send in love i'll keep on saying we always want our questions to be more directed towards the positions and the people themselves but we always appreciate the supports i want to thank you science of science hey if this person wants to debate Brenda email me and we'll set it up there we go we're getting debates and we always run on this panel is there yeah there's no Brenda that's i just saw it so that's no that's true here Brenda but and so sending love earth is life five dollar super chat wow oh you know what this is for witsett give me one second we'll come back to that well here's a spicy one for the other side if a three dollar super chat from keegan how do i become smart as cp though maybe that's not spicy because i don't know is he being sarcastic that i'm trying to figure out too so i'm just i'm just reading it like it says send in love keegan thank you so very much i'm pretty sure it's the wine it's the wine yeah make sure you have three glasses of wine before every debate it also makes listening to weird arguments a lot more bearable i'm just gonna throw that out there i like to think logically sound premises but okay from you pitch from you we love you right back at you all love the right kind of love good good love truthful love unconditional sometimes tough but you know that's like it's like someone's doing heroin you want to be like hey you should stop with the heroin next batch might not do it for you even if they love it you got to be like hey and no it's all it's all it's all i got more super chats coming in send in love from earth is life five dollars says wow it's almost exactly when witsit tries to debate flat earth and brings absolutely no evidence i know uh you know