Hey everybody, tonight we're debating Evolution on Trial and we're starting right now. With Nephilim Frii's opening statement, thanks so much for being with us, Nephilim Frii, the floor is all yours. Great, appreciate it. So is my screen share working? It is now. Okay, great. So evolutionists deny the inference of design for, not for scientific reasons, but because of its religious implications. An evolutionist would say this pile of dirt left in a field, in a grassy field, they'll say they'll acknowledge that a human being put that there, it did just rationally happen. You know, the dirt didn't collect and sod, it didn't migrate there on its own. Human being. But then they'll look at this protein ring, which is outrageously complex, and I do mean outrageously complex. And its purpose is to punch a hole in the membrane of a bacteria to allow toxins to enter. This is produced by your immune system. They'll look at this protein complex, which has a specific function and is of outrageous complexity. And they'll say, that's not designed. The dirt pile, that's obviously designed. But this protein ring, nah, that's not designed. That's denial. They'll look at a space shuttle and say, oh, that thing's clearly designed. But then they'll look at a cell, which is vastly more complex than a space shuttle. Orders of magnitude, more complex than a space shuttle. And they'll say, it's not designed. They'll look at the helicase machinery that duplicates the DNA molecule. And they'll say, this complex machinery that operates with scissors and clamps and levers in a specific order to produce a DNA molecule at the spinning at the rate of turbine in a jet engine spins and assembling molecules on the fly. And they'll say, there's no evidence of design in that. Because evolutionism is denial. So look at the ribosome. And they'll see the complex functions of ribosome information driven system with the interior of the ribosome you see here is tiny molecular. Each one of these globules is an amino acid. And it's a set of levers and pushers, prods to change the shape of a molecule to create an ATP energy molecule for the cell. And they move the interior of this molecule is designed such that they operate like levers in order to force the change or conformational change in a molecule. In order to create ATP, it operates mechanically. It's machinery. And they'll say, that's not designed. The fossil record has failed evolution. I'm not going to take the time to read these. We're kind of in a hurry to get this debate going because James is pressed for time. We got a late start. But let me just put it like this. The world's most prominent evolutionist scientists themselves acknowledge the fossil record doesn't show evidence of evolution that one can look at and get the inference that evolution has occurred. You don't get the idea of evolution by looking at the fossils. There are no transitional fossils. Stephen J. Gould admitted this numerous times. There's a statement by him. David B. Kitz, despite the price promise of paleontology provides a means of seeing evolution. It has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is presence in the gaps in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. Does not. Now he's an evolutionist, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma. So here's another by Niles Eldridge. I could show you dozens and dozens like this. Niles Eldridge, famous evolutionist scientist, co-discoverer of the three-dimensional structure of the DNA molecule. He, a paleontologist as well, admits it. There's no evidence of evolution. You can't see evolution happen in the rock record. It's not there. What do mutations actually do that cause immunities, changes in color, size, shape, loss of features, loss of functions, disease, deformity, and death? They don't design anything. There have been a million papers or more published in genetics about the effects of mutation. None of them show the evolution, mutation is a mechanism for the design, structural designs in the body plans of creatures. That would be necessarily true if you've looked for true. Here's Lynn Margolis. She says, I've seen no evidence whatsoever that these evolutionary changes can occur through the combination of gradual mutations. And the list of these statements like this go on and on and on. I'm not going to bore you with them, but we haven't seen any evidence that mutations cause the kind of change the evolution requires. Even evolutionist scientists themselves admit it, but they believe it happens anyway. So you're welcome to believe that these incredibly precise, intricate, anatomical features of living things are developed by the accruing of genetic damage. But that's not science. That's a philosophy. It's a religion. Look at the tremendous differences in structural design between these six different types of insects. The complexity and specificity of their features is mind-bending complexity. Does mutations do that? We don't have any evidence in science. The mutations design the intricate, minute, even, and the small scale features of any living thing. That's a flea. Do you see how incredibly intricate the design of a flea is? We have zero evidence that mutation can build any of those features. It's never been produced in science. It's been known since OTTA in 1973 and Komura in 1960s and 50s that mutations building up or damage to the DNA, Condor Shoff in the 1990s, Lynch, Berger, and others all acknowledge our genome is crumbling.  I'm not going to read these to you for I'm trying to save time for this debate. Crumbling genome. On the average genome type, 100 genes are dysfunctional or missing. That's what's happening to us because of mutation. Mutations don't build anything. They destroy. Adam Ier Walker and P Knightley published in 1999, the same thing. But when creationists published this very same information, the evolutionists go rabid. They go crazy. Oh, that's creationist sort of science. But the evolutionist scientists have been publishing this very same thing since the 1950s. And nobody complains about them. The only complaint when a creationist publishes such a statement. It's been discovered that the vast majority of mutations to our protein codes arose in the last five to 10,000 years. That fits with the biblical model that man got off the ark 5,000 years, 4500 years ago. But it can't be true if human beings have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. It's not possible. This proves man is not only not evolved. He's young. Man hasn't been around for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Here's this is an amazing one here. They state our understanding of protein evolution is incomplete, if not fundamentally flawed. They state, however, what they I'm not going to take the time to read this. But if you capture this and read it for yourself at your leisure, you'll see that they're admitting that their ideas of evolution don't seem to match genetics. It's a puzzle. They can't figure out why they believe something because the science just doesn't show it's true. The waiting time for two mutations to build up on each other to cause a fundamental, a functional change has been discovered to be 100 million years. But in less than four and a half million years, evolutionists claim fish took legs and lungs and walked out on land. But science is demonstrated now. Modern science is published by secular scientists. This is not creationists. The waiting time for two mutations, one mutation to happen and another one to happen on top of that one to cause a change to the first one, the information to modify so that something functional or useful can arise is 100 million years. That's just for two mutations to be cooperative. You would need millions of mutations to cause a fish to get lungs and legs and walk out on land. So evolution obviously cannot be true. There isn't enough time and a billion times the age of the universe if it were 15 billion years old for evolution to produce any anatomical change. I think that concludes my opening statement. Thank you very much, Neville and Fri for that opening statement. Want to give a huge thank you to Marshall, folks, as Marshall was willing to jump in. We are thrilled to have you, Marshall. Thanks so much for being willing to jump in at the very last moment. By the way, you remind me of Hassanabi. So I think that's how it's pronounced. But anyway, nonetheless, what we were going to do is jump into Marshall's opening statement and want to let you know as well, folks. If this is your first time at Modern Aid Debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. And we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from, Christian, atheist, gay, straight, black, white, Democrat, Republican, you name it, we're glad you're here. And with that, Marshall, the floor is all yours. Thanks again for being with us. Thank you, James. So excited to be here. I'm also really nervous. This is my first formal debate. So probably gonna stumble over my words a lot and you just have to bear with me. So I guess right now we're talking about creationism versus evolution. Really, the science is pretty subtle. The only question that scientists have in the scientific community is how has evolution happened in what specific ways? The question of whether evolution is a thing, that is the foundation of biology. If you want to dismantle an entire field of science, so you're gonna need some pretty solid evidence. You know, a lot of different things have come together to get to where we are now. When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he didn't know about Mendel's work in genetics. He didn't know what DNA was. He didn't, he didn't have the vast fossil record that we have now. But just by looking at the species that were around at the time and the few fossils that he knew about, he could see a pattern and he could see how successive changes over generation build up and lead to bigger changes. Just as how, you know, he could breed different types of pigeon. You start out with a wild rock dove type and eventually you have all these fancier tumblers and all different types of pigeons. Now, an F1 will probably say, well, that's just variation within time. And maybe a wild rock dove population has all of those traits. But when you look at the totality of everything, you have clades within clades. There's really no where you can stop from one kind within a larger kind, within a larger kind. And even creationists just can't agree. Some will say there's, you know, all cats are in one kind. Others will say, no, it's only species, species is in the kind.  So, and the idea of biblical creation, the whole story of Genesis, we can show that that's a myth based on other myths compiled together. Even most reasonable Christians and Jews and whatnot that believe in the Bible, a lot of them, they don't take it literally. It's really just a few American fundamentalists that claim that it's, you know, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So I'm not sure if Nephilim wants to get more into the religious aspect of it, genetics or whatever. You know, I'm a little rusty on some of the science stuff, but we do know that, you know, the same genetic test that we used to determine ancestry among people, among any species, using those exact same methods, we can develop a tree, you know, a family tree starting with people back to apes and fish and whatnot.  And then as far as complexity and design, you can look at things and say, well, that's obviously designed because we have designed things to look like that. But you don't know, you don't have an example of an undesigned object if you automatically think that everything is designed, right? So, that's kind of arguing from what it looks like. I don't know. And sometimes complexity, to me that shows less evidence of a designer because a good designer, an engineer, will remove complexity where it's not needed. The shuttle is so much more complex than a cell because a shuttle wasn't built up over millions of years. It was like, okay, well, we don't need that part. We can replace these two parts with this one part and you get a simpler design for a machine. And the fossil record, that's another thing. We don't really need the fossil record to tell us that evolution happens. We have enough evidence for evolution and phylogeny and with DNA and everything. But it certainly helps. There hasn't been anything in the fossil record found to disprove evolution. We've never found a rabbit alongside a T-Rex skeleton. It just hasn't happened. And you would expect gaps in the fossil record. We all know fossilization takes certain conditions for it to happen. Not everything gets fossilized and not every fossil gets found. But what we do have, let's see, we have whales with legs. We have a clear transition. Now some people will say, well, the timelines don't add up because you have whales with legs at the same time as whales with half legs and then whales with no legs at the same time as whales with half legs. But they misunderstand that evolution is not stages, it is a tree. And so we evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but there's still chimpanzees about. People will say, well, how did we evolve from a non-bipedal ancestor if they're still non-bipedal at the same time? And those people just don't understand how it works. So I mean, there are clearly transitional species, really every species is a transitional species. But we have tetrapods with extra digits in our limbs, just like we would expect. We have all sorts of species that have traits from in between other groups. So I'm not sure why people continue to say that there are no transitional species. Yeah, because anytime you have a gap, you can just, anytime you have two species, then we find a species in between those. They'll just point to the gap between another gap and say, well, we need a species to fill in this gap here. But obviously we don't have every animal that ever lived to be able to look at. Another thing I wanna talk about is genetic entropy. It's been widely debunked. I can't find any, I haven't seen any non-creationist scientists talking about genetic entropy. And one thing to think about is, so the generation time of an E. coli is so much faster than the generation time of day at first. Well, if our genomes as people are under threat from genetic entropy, that is non-beneficial mutations building up in the genome over time, wouldn't the genomes of bacteria and all these other things reproduce much faster than us, you would think those, the mutations would build up so much faster. They should be already be extinct. There should be no bacteria. There shouldn't even be mice around if we're in danger of going extinct from harmful mutations. Clearly there has to be some mechanism that is keeping the genome functioning in species or you wouldn't have, you couldn't have bacteria even lasting 6,000 years. It just wouldn't have, you can't have two people coming off of the arc and repopulating the earth and having enough people to create these vast civilizations that they were around before the flood and they were around just fine after. Which is, it's a story that came from other places, Osterhasis and Epic of the Field of the Mesh and who'd have fished them and all that. And one thing you talked about was like the waiting time on mutations, those studies they took, so they look at how long it takes for individual mutations to fix and they're looking for specific mutations to be fixed. It's like if you get a whole bunch of people in a room and you write down everybody's birthday in order and then you say, what are the odds that everybody would have this exact birthday in this room? It's just impossible. Well, everybody has to have a birthday. So the idea that they would be those specific birthdays wasn't predicted. It's just like it doesn't have to always go to those mutations. It could be any mutations that end up being beneficial and mutations can be selected for simultaneously when you have a large enough population, you have several things going on at once. They don't have to, okay, well, first we're gonna get this mutation, then we're gonna get this next one, then this one. It doesn't happen that way. It's all together. But yeah, so I'm not sure what, what Nephilim really wants to focus on. I guess we can just kind of take it and see where it goes. I appreciate Nephilim and James, your time for having me on here and on a bit of an amateur at this stuff. So hopefully, you know, maybe somebody'll learn something from this. Thank you very much, Marshall, for that opening statement as well. And I wanna say again, thanks for stepping in. Last minute, we absolutely appreciate it. You saved the night and also very well-spoken, given, especially given that you just jumped in, but even if you had debated before, well-spoken. And so wanna let you know folks, our guests are linked in the description, given the last minute nature of the debate. If Marshall has one, I will add that to the description immediately after the debate and Nephilim Freeze, link is down in the description as well. And that includes if you're listening via podcast as modern day debate also has a podcast now folks, if you haven't checked us out, we're excited about it. And we put our guest links in the description box for each podcast episode as well. We encourage you to check them out. So thanks so much, gentlemen. We have 50 to 60 minutes for that open discussion. The floor is all yours. Okay. Well, I would say, you know, I've already provided, you said nobody's shown this, nobody's shown that, but I did show you, I showed you a statement, four statements by paleontologists, some of the most prominent scientists in the world, Steven J. Gould, the world's most famous paleontologist who admits the fossil record doesn't show any clear evidence of evolution. You can't look at the fossils and see evolution happen. You have to infer it in what you believe, but you can't see the fossils and see evolution. And you mentioned phylogenetics. By the same method by which evolutionists compare the genomes of chimpanzees and human beings, we're 50% similar to a banana. Does that mean we're a 50% banana? Look at our analytics. In a way, yes. Are you 50% banana? Come on. So if you look at a banana cell in our cells, they are actually very similar. They both have the nucleus, they have mitochondria. We're- No, the organism. Hold on one second. Nef, just to be sure. Nef, just to be sure that we do get to hear the rest. Go ahead, Marshall. Well, I mean, the cell is the basis of the organism. And so a lot of the genetics behind what makes a banana work is very similar to what makes a human work. Similar chemistry. But that says nothing about the structural design of the organism. See, that's what evolution claims that the organisms change in their structural design over time. If that doesn't happen, then evolution doesn't happen. So by your same analysis, we're 50% similar, according to Jonathan Wells, two PhDs in biology, we're similar, 50% similar to a banana. But structurally, we're not like a banana at all. We don't, they don't even have a mouth or an eyeball. They don't have organs. Okay, so it's a plant. And so what I'm pointing out is your idea that genetics, so phylogenetics, there are massive problems with phylogenetics that I'm sure you're not even aware of. They find more incongruencies. The more they study phylogenetics, the more problems they come up with for evolution theory. I know you don't believe that, but I can show you a quote from a permanent scientist that states that, and he's not a creationist. Would you agree that we are more similar to a banana than we are to a bacterium? Probably, genetically, yeah. And that doesn't fit evolution. Sure, surely as well. That doesn't fit evolution. It does? No, it's the opposite of what we would expect. No, no, we are, we are in the same. So bacteria are in, they are prokaryotes. We are eukaryotes. We actually share a closer common ancestor with bananas than we do with bacteria. So if our protein codes are 50% similar to that of a banana, 80% similar to that of a chimpanzee, you're saying that a banana, but you're not even really considering this. Closer 90, 90% close, 90 is something closer to this. It's actually closer to 87%. No, no, that was a flawed study, but go ahead. No, the study, they had a computer, so. The similarity keeps going. One sec, hold on one sec, I appreciate both of you guys have gusto, you guys, both of you have gusto and energy, which is great, but just to be sure that we don't have it be too rowdy, we will go into, if it keeps going this way, we'll go into two minute intervals, but just letting you guys know that if you guys want to keep going freestyle. I'm not having any issues. If Netflix feels like I'm interrupting too much, I'll kind of back it off a little bit. I'm fine with how it's going. Well, I was just trying to point out that 50% similar to a banana protein-wise, 50%, 80% said the number has gone down. You're not aware of this, I guess, but the number, the genetic studies keep showing from the secular camp that the number of similarity keeps going down, down, down. So 80% something similar to a chimpanzee, 50% similar to a banana, and the structural design similarity between us in a chimpanzee doesn't match that of a 50% similarity to a banana. See, that's the point. And so phylogenetics doesn't support evolution. I know you believe it does. I'd be happy to show you a quotation by an evolutionist scientist who admits that in congruencies, more and more we study in genetics. In fact, let me, if I may, share the screen just to show this to you. I don't want to keep hogging the screen, but I want you to say this. I can't share anyway. Okay, so this study from 2012 says, in congruencies between phylogenetics derived from morphological versus molecular analysis and between trees based on different subsets of molecular sequence has become pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species. So essentially what they're saying is the more we study the genomes of various living things, the more incongruencies with evolution theory we find. Whether you want to believe that or not, this is what they admit. So we would expect to see some incongruencies based on different trees because sometimes you can't tell whether certain traits are derived or whether they're shared traits. So you could have two species and they both independently evolved a similar trait. And so you do have to compare different sources. And there have been a lot of cases, especially where we thought that things were related because of morphological characteristics. And then later on DNA showed that it was otherwise, but that's not the entire tree. It's more often than not, the genetics confirms the trees that we already have. Well, you disagree with that scientist when they say that the more we study the genomes of living things, the more incongruencies with the idea of phylogenetics are discovered. Sorry to interrupt. One sec. Nef, your mic has gone down for some reason. You're not evenly matched anymore. Are you able to either speak closer to the mic or maybe just turn up your. How's my sound? That's better. That's definitely better. Okay. So Marshall, you disagree with the scientist who stated that the more we study the genomes of living things, the more incongruencies we find with the idea of phylogenetics. You don't know anything about that. I would probably, I'd have to some more time to look into like context behind what he's saying. But overall I wouldn't disagree with the idea that the more we look into it, the more incongruencies we're gonna find. Just because that's, if there are incongruencies there and the more we look into it, we're gonna find it. But that doesn't overturn the entire thing. That's not saying that it's all wrong. It's just, we're just finding out that we have gotten some things not quite right. And yeah, we need to look more into it. But I don't think that I would doubt that that scientist is saying that there is no, there's no correlation between genetics and more genetic phylogenies and morphological phylogenies or all molecular phylogenies disagree with each other. And if he is saying that, then yes, I would disagree with that. No, that's not what he's saying. He's just saying the more we study genomes, the more incongruencies, the more things we find that don't line up with evolution. And that's all he's saying. Did he say that don't line up with evolution? Well, that's the purpose of the statement. Let me put it back on screen and share again with you so you'll understand what's being said. It's not hard to understand what he's saying. Let's see if I can share that again. Okay. Incongruencies between phylogenies derived from morphological versus molecular analysis. In other words, they find differences in morphology.  And they find in between trees on different subsets of molecular sequences has become more pervasive as datasets have expanded rapidly in both characters and species. In other words, the more we study the genomes of living things, the more we find incongruencies between the physiological organism and our idea that the molecular, the biological similarities match the morphological. See, this is what he's saying. In other words, we find a species of animal, we study its DNA, its molecular similarity to other creatures, and we find great differences between the similar, we discover that the biological difference, the chemical difference between them doesn't match the morphological difference, and it should if evolution were true. That's what I'm pointing out. Right. So your idea that this creature, which is more similar visually, you know, morphologically, homologically to another creature should match the biological, the genetic similarity, but it doesn't. This is what they keep finding. More and more incongruencies with that idea, and that argues against evolution, whether you accept that or not. So it doesn't really argue against evolution. It argues against our understanding of certain things. So we're finding incongruencies, yes. You know, there are times when we get it wrong because the morphology is almost, a lot of it is based on guesswork. You know, you have to kind of look at things and do these things look like they share similar characteristics, and then you have to try to figure out which common ancestor those are derived from. And this is just saying that there are cases where it doesn't line up, the genetics versus the morphological phylogeny. But I highly doubt that that scientist is saying that the entire thing has to be thrown out. Of course. Right. So I would not expect us to have incongruencies between morphological phylogenies and genetic molecular-based phylogenies. There have been plenty that have been reworked.  That's like saying, it doesn't bother me that we find evolution theory doesn't match the data and the more we discover it, that doesn't make sense. You believe, of course, as an evolutionist that random genetic mutations selected by natural selection designed the pincers on a crab, the eyeball of an eagle, the nose olfactory nerve in a dog and every other anatomical feature of every living thing. Isn't that correct? So what is the science that gives us reason to believe such a story? So I wouldn't say any science, as a result of it. Yeah, there's plenty of science behind it. Such as, what scientific studies have shown that random mutations have the power to build structural designs. There are plenty of forms where, the thing is like your major structures, those are gonna take longer to show up, right? So we're not gonna have a thing where we can observe an eye being formed because that took a long time, right? But we can look at little smaller things, but then you're gonna say, well, it's still a bacteria, or that's just breaking something, like the bacteria developing the ability to metabolize nylon or things like that. But the thing is we know, we have the phylogenetic tree, and, sorry, I'm kind of losing my train of thought here. Well, Chris, you're expecting genetic similarity because of the environment. If God created creatures to live in a specific environment, then they would have naturally, we should expect genetic similarity. It's not a problem for creation. But what science demonstrates that mutations accrue on top of each other and build structural design. What gives us the reason to believe that? Because I don't know if any scientist who's ever published anything, no creationist does. Any scientist who's ever published any science paper that shows, not because of what they believe in their head, but what's been observable, testable, and repeatable, that mutations accrue in such a way as they build functionality and that relates to the physiology of an organism. What do we have to believe that in science except for a belief system? So let me ask you this. Do you believe in the bare monology and the creative kinds and how Noah had two of the elephant kind or two of the dog kind like that? Of course I do. Okay. So let's say two elephant kind. What would they look like? They look like an elephant. Modern day elephants? There's been varieties. There've been varieties of elephant that are now extinct. But guess what? They're still elephant. There's no structural, no anatomical differences. They are anatomically different. They have different lengths of tests. Fur, thicker fur versus less fur. There are variations. Okay, so here's the problem with that. That's not anatomy. That's physiology. Those are morphological differences, not anatomical you spoke. Having a tusk that's longer, that's two feet long and a tusk that's seven feet long. It's still a tusk. It's not a difference in anatomy. It's a difference in morphology. Morphology is formed in structure. Anatomy is what kind of feature of what design and in what location in a body plant. If there were extinct species of elephant that lived, varieties of elephant that lived in the past, they'd look physically quite different from modern elephants. Doesn't mean they're not fully an elephant because there's no anatomical difference. Evolution portends to design anatomical features. The anatomy changes, not just morphology. You can't point to difference in shape between a chihuahua and a great dain or a wolf and say that's evolution. It's still a dog, okay? So then what would count as an anatomical change to you then? Well, that's what evolution claims, is it not? Right, but I'm just trying to see what's your minimum qualification for it to be an anatomical change? Could it be an extra digit, lots of legs? Okay, so let me address those. An extra digit, that's not an anatomical change to the species that could be said to be evidence of evolution because it's still. An existing anatomical feature. You'll never get a fish to walk out on land and become a land-dwelling creature by adding thin. Not in one generation though. So you can't add the existing features. You have to get new features for that to happen, see? So adding a digit because a duplicate of a homeobox gene can occur and you get an extra digit doesn't support evolution. Evolution says the digits came into being. But see the thing is, so the thing is the way it works though is that these changes are so small that if I were able to show you a change, you could point to that and say, well, that's just minor variation. Let's just change morphology or whatever. Because you're only looking at a small subset of the entire change. If I say, well, something gained eyes, will you say, well, there's no evidence of that? Well, I say, well, they gained photoreceptive cells that then became bigger and like, well, no. Just gaining photoreceptive cells, that doesn't count. The photorecepting cells becoming bigger. No, that doesn't count. Each step along the way, you wouldn't even be able to see. You wouldn't even be able to tell if it happened right in front of you. You would never even notice. We don't have those fossils. We do have fossils. That's a story. That's a story evolutionist before. We have fossils of land of whales going from four-legged land-dwelling creatures to four-legged semi-aquatic creatures that could not support their own weight on their four limbs to fully aquatic species. We have fossils of that. No, we don't have any fossil of that. What we have is a fossil of a creature that has limbs and anterior limbs. And we have whales. They have none of those bones, none. There's no pelvic bones, there's nothing. They have two bones called ischium that anchors for the reproductive organ. They're not even part of the locomotion system. So there isn't any transition. We go from a creature with legs and then the evolutionist points to a creature that has four fins instead of legs and then they point to a whale and say, see the evolution? No, I don't see the evolution. I see a creature that has fins and then one has none of those bones. That's the whale. So there isn't actually any transitional form. Now, I've asked you, what's the scientific evidence of mutations built to design these anatomical features? Notice you haven't given any because nobody has ever done that. No scientist has ever published such a thing. And you admit that we have to look at the little morphological differences and then imagine that anatomy changes, but there isn't simply any reason to believe that either and you can't give me any evidence. You know, I wasn't prepared for this today. So I don't have scientific papers right here in front of me. Can you cite any scientist that's demonstrated that? Do you know of any science that demonstrates that? I'm on my phone. I can't close this out and it'll look anything up or I'm gonna lose the whole thing. So you believe it? You're not familiar with the science that allegedly verifies what you claim. Well, I mean, I don't know the specific scientist that has found, you know, I don't know that much about genetics. My background study has been more about ecology and duology and things like that. All I've heard you say is we're to believe that morphological differences like changes to shape and color and size and things somehow become anatomical if you did it enough time. But that's not anatomical. That's morphological. You see a dog, a chihuahua in a great day look very different and their skulls are shaped very different. But guess what? They're still a dog. They've got exactly the same anatomy. They would always be a dog even if they were. That's right. And we can say the same thing from everything and the evolutionist can't tell us why we're to believe. Morphological, let me finish my sentence, please. Evolutionist can't tell us why we're to believe that morphological change becomes anatomical. It's what you believe, I know, but you can't show the science of it. It is what other scientists have shown, but. Well, you can't tell me of any. So are we the same kind as apes? I would say no. How do you know? It's only morphological differences between us and apes. No, it's not. It's anatomical differences. We don't have the same number of bones. They have different number of bones on their skulls. Apes have a bacula. Human beings don't have a bacula. The protein differences between us is 80%. 80% difference means no evolution. It's impossible. How many horse kinds are there? Probably just one. Okay, are you aware that there are different breeds? Same species, different breeds of domestic horse that have different number of bones. Okay, so they lost bones? So the number of bones, yeah. So why couldn't we have different number of bones than in one of our relatives? The number of bones is irrelevant. So if we examine the entirety of the differences between human and chimpanzee, we see that the differences are remarkable. They're astonishing. They're mostly minor. No, they're actually quite remarkable. A chip can't walk upright. The form in magnum in the skull it's towards the back of the skull and not in the center. The pelvic, the iliac blades of the pelvis don't curve forward to allow for upright walking. That's why chimps can't walk upright. They don't have a locking knee. They don't have feet. They have forehand. Australopithecines walk upright. They have hands with a heel. Well, so you believe, but yeah. They have all the same characteristics as we do. I know that's for butt fetalism. Lucy didn't. They had to modify a model of its pelvis to make it look like it can walk upright and then put that in museums for people to see. It doesn't have a pelvis that will allow for upright walking. That's why they modified it with a drum tool. We've found other Australopithecines besides Lucy. No, none that are upright walking. We could disagree with about that forever, but you won't be able to show me any structural design transitional forms in the human evolution either like you can't for the horses either. So are you aware that DNA is the information that operates algorithmically and possesses semiotics, linguistics? That's what I mean. You could model it as information. Yeah, and it operates with algorithms and operates linguistically as well. Everything operates with algorithms. No, no, no, that's not true. No, you could simulate the entire universe with an algorithm. No, algorithms are functional. They're procedures for performing a job by comparing information and making a decision about what to do based on the comparison of that information, based on that comparison. That's what an algorithm does. That's what DNA does. But algorithms are produced only by intelligence. Information is produced only by intelligence. And semiotics, which is the application of meaning to a symbol and the interpretation of meaning from a symbol is only something that happens in a mind. It's a mental process, not a chemical one.  Because chemistry can't produce any of those things. So why would you believe it? When chemistry proves that, when science proves chemistry can't create information linguistics or algorithms, why believe in evolution? How do you know that? How do I know what it is? Chemists, what's your basis for starting that needs an intelligence? I don't understand that. Oh, okay, I'll be happy to tell you. Because forward thinking is necessary to create an algorithm or to create information or to apply meaning to a symbol or interpret meaning from one. You have to think about the future. Chemical interactions only happen in the present. They don't happen in the past. They don't happen in the future. They're only happening right now. So chemistry has no participation in the future. Chemical interactions can't set up a complex set of circumstances necessary to make a decision about something that it needs to do that's functional in the future. Chemistry has no potential to do that. Molecules only interact with each other when they bump into each other. They can't participate in anything that needs to be done in the future. It's not possible. Chemistry can't do it. But that's what chemistry does. No one's asserting that there's any meaning to it. When you have something that's self-replicating and then there's a selection process, the things that are better at reproducing themselves are gonna get selected for. And over time, there's gonna be more of the ones that collect themselves. If there's any time there's a process where things get selected for, you're gonna have the ones that are better at reproducing overtaking the ones that are not as good. And that's the point because chemistry can't see the future and it can't write an algorithm. It doesn't need to. It doesn't need to see the future. Nope. It would have to to create algorithms because DNA operates algorithmically over large distances on the molecule. In other words, information that's over here operates algorithmically to find information that's specific, that's way down there on the DNA molecule and interact with it in a functional and necessary way. See, that vast distance is... Because the ones that do that get selected for. So natural selection can't... No, here's the point. Natural selection can't participate in that because the difference... Does it termite? No. Because the information that is separate on the DNA molecule over vast distances. Natural selection can't work that way. Chemicals, I'll say it again. Chemicals only interact with each other when they're immediate proximity to each other. The interdependence between genetic information way over here on the left on the DNA and way over there on the right is governed by an algorithm. Go find this and when you do, then do that. That's what DNA does all the time. But chemistry only operates when molecules can touch each other. So mutations, natural selection, it doesn't work at the molecular level to select for anything. It can't create an algorithm. Does a termite know what a termite mound may...  What it's going to look like, I don't know. That'd be a different... Yeah, so they build a complex structure. They didn't design it. They just, they are following the instructions that they have built into them and they build a complex structure. That's evidence of design. Right, it is of it. Well, no, no. It's the appearance of a design, but we can tell that it's not design. Oh, is that how it works? That's evidence, yeah. What looks like it's design, definitely. Are you saying that God designs individual termite mounds? Did he go through? I think God designed termites to know how to build a mound. I think it'd be impossible for evolution to impart that knowledge to a termite or to all kinds of... That's personal incredulity. Or no, it's the very same argument you're making. It's counter to it. It's nothing about personal incredulity. Neither did I believe evolution make it possible for bees to dance out the directions to each other about how to find flowers that are 380 yards away. I don't think that that's possible, either. The bees are gonna learn this dance thing I believe is imparted by its designer. That's how bees are able to do it. Everything is evidence of design. There isn't any such thing as evidence of evolution. The designer also made a wasp that lays its eggs in a tarantula and they hatch inside of it and eat it while it's alive. No, he didn't design it to do that. The organism that's after that... Yeah, the organism was designed to lay its eggs in the fruit. But the insect being intelligent and the design figured out that it was capable of laying its egg on top of the egg of another organism to take advantage of it. That's still design. Okay, and then there's a fungus, I believe, that turns an ant into a zombie and it comes up to the top of a plant stalk and then releases the spores. And was that something that was learned or designed? Yeah, it's learned by this, an adaptation of an organism going downhill. That's what death and suffering is in this world. So as a result of the fall, organisms are able to adapt to survive in the same ways. That doesn't show any reason to believe the thing arose from rock soup or that mutations, which caused deformities, weakness and death, has designed the anisomical features of a mosquito. We don't have any science that supports that idea.  Well, I mean, it seems like people live in a lot of things, a lot of changes happen. Well, you believe the same thing, don't you? You believe the same thing? They evolved and they adapted to this, took up this opportunistic way of survival. So what are you arguing against the creationists on it for? You believe the same thing? Yeah, exactly. Okay. Yeah, seems like we agree on that. Right, but I don't say it's evolved. That's not evidence of evolution. That's just organisms adapting to survive. You don't think it would need some anatomical changes in order to digest blood versus blood. No, I think that the core organism is capable of adapting its digestive system in such a way to digest blood. That doesn't give any reason to believe that the anatomical features of the thing evolved. You believe that maybe, but we don't have any science that supports the reason to believe the ananatomies change over time because of random damage events called mutation. What's the evidence of that? I asked you for that before and you said, you don't know many. Right, like I said, I can't look up specific scientific papers right now. Have you ever studied any that say, have you ever actually seen a science paper that says, we have observed that mutations build structural design in creatures in the laboratory. We mutated their offspring. We mutated their offspring's offspring. We mutated their offspring's offspring's offspring. We kept doing this generation after generation and we found structural design arise because flies have been mutated on the laboratory this way for 75 years or more and no scientist has ever published a paper saying, we observe structural design changes to occur to the thing except deformities, which make it incapable of surviving outside the laboratory. Well, I mean, the structural changes still happen. I mean, you do agree that genetic that, right. And sometimes they can survive with the deformity. But sometimes they can survive with the deformities, right? No, outside the lab. No, outside the lab, no. No, if they were in a cave. If their wings get curled, they can't fly properly anymore, dead. If their eyes change color, big deal. That's not anatomical change. That doesn't bring eyes into being or create an incremental structural design change in the organism. It's not anatomical, it doesn't change the organism. But what we do observe is mutations that cause deformities. Legs where eyeballs ought to be, antenna where eyeballs ought to be, that's a hoax gene mutation. And we see wings get curled or diminutive so that the fly can't properly fly anymore.  Right, or they get outcompeted. So if you take a group of these deformed flies and a group of undiform flies and you put them together and let them breed over successive generations, those harmful mutations are not gonna stick around. They're going to eventually be bred out. So that right there is evidence against the sole genetic entropy idea that harmful mutations build up as a corrosive force on the organism. Well, all you're pointing out is that mutations destroy. You're still gonna provide us any scientific reason. Harmful mutations get us to design and build things because no scientist has ever published such a paper. It's never happened. You believe it maybe, you believe the story of evolution but you don't have the science that shows it. That's the thing that evolution is a fantasy, it's a myth. The fact that we can show that changes are the result of mutations and then we can show that certain genes are, you know, do code for certain things. We can remove certain genes and break something. That shows that gene was doing something. So, you know. What kind of changes do we observe occurred organisms in the laboratory when they're mutated by scientists? In other words, the one with the nylon or the, yeah, the bacteria that we're able to adjust nylon. Okay, let's stop right there if we can. Is that change the structural design of the bacteria in the slightest bit? The answer is no. It's a chemical adaptation that allows the thing to dive on. Can't say that's evidence that the bacteria is moving towards becoming a fundamentally different type of organism, no anatomical evolution there. What's your next example? All life is chemical. Any changes to the chemistry of an organism is a change to that thing. Any change in an organism is a chemical change. We are... So you're saying we should believe that the chemical adaptations that we see in organisms are sufficient reason to believe that anatomical changes occur and that's your way of supporting evolution? No, there are two different lines of evidence. We have enough evidence of the anatomical changes and the gross morphological changes occurring. Well, that's what I've been asking you for. You haven't provided any of you. Do you wanna make sure you get a chance to finish? I'm sorry. In case you add anything, if I... Yeah, I'm sorry. Forgive me. Yeah, I'm sorry. No, you're good, you're good. Well, so I'm asking you, you know, that's the thing you're telling me that we should believe that because creatures adapt chemically, we should believe that they change anatomically. But that's just a story. That's not evidence that we should believe the anatomy change. See, you're killing it to take a leap of faith. See, go ahead. No, like I said, so Charles Darwin, when he came up with this theory, he didn't know about genetics. He didn't even know about Mendel's work with heredity. Yeah, he was able to see that changes do happen. If you go out and collect 100 butterflies, none of them are gonna be exactly the same. So we do know that variation happens. We know selection happens. Even you'll agree, you know, that you just thought micro-evolution. But then if you look at the fossil record or if you look at the way animals can, you know, species can fit into a hierarchy of species, you know, so that we've selected of shared traits, grouping organisms into ever bigger clades.  It's never gonna happen, you know? So these traits that are shared within a clade, then, you know, other traits are shared within the bigger clade to the point where we're 50% similar to banana because we are both part of, you know, the first big division of life, eukaryotes versus prokaryotes. So it all stacks up, I guess, to what I'm trying to say. So basically what you're telling us is taking the leap of faith. Because animals can adapt chemically, it's reasonable to believe that anatomical change occurs. And I've asked you about the evidence for that. You're not familiar with any science that demonstrates that it's like no scientist is. And so that's not evidence of evolution, I'm sorry. Chemical adaptation is expected if organisms are intelligently designed. But anatomy has to change. Evolution is a theory about origins. It portends to explain the origin of a proboscis of an insect. It claims to provide an explanation for the origin of teeth. It explains allegedly the arrival of all anatomical features. But we don't have any scientific evidence from genetic mutation that mutations build structural design in anything. They damage. That's what they do. They cause damage. They're responsible for almost every single disease known to mankind is a mutation. I'll give you a chance to respond, Marshall. Pardon my interruption. Just wanted to mention really quick. Folks will be going into Q and A. We got kind of a short and sweet debate given our late start tonight. And so I'll give you a chance to respond, Marshall.  The entire makeup of DNA is made up of mutations built upon mutations. So the idea that no mutations could build structure, that doesn't make sense because the DNA itself is a result of mutations that have built up over time. And you can choose to believe that or you can look up science on it. That's up to you. Even if you could prove evolution true, it would not make your fairytale of dark any more likely. I like I said, I wasn't prepared for this debate. So I don't have specific studies I can cite you. But there are several lines of evidence that all line up to the same thing. That all I've started as simple dingle cell organisms and over time developed into what you see today. And everything can be traced back into a phylogenetic tree that goes back to a shared common ancestor. That's about it. We, if you guys are ready, let's jump into the Q and A, wanna give a couple of quick announcements. Folks, at the bottom right of your screen, we are absolutely thrilled, folks. We are doing this crowdfund at the moment. And it's only for another 13 days. I don't think I mentioned this during the actual debate. So I'm gonna mention it now. We are pumped, folks. We're at 60% for the crowdfund. This is super encouraging. Believe me, you don't wanna miss this upcoming debate between Dr. Kenny Rose and Matt Dilla-Hunty. It's going to be a juicy one. And that crowdfund link is in the description, folks. And I'll throw that in the live chat. We encourage you to join us as that helps us. You could say, take bigger risks in reaching out for bigger speakers for more epic events. And so, with that, we're gonna jump into this Q and A. And so, thank you very much for your question. Steven Steen says, Neff is the greatest scientific mind of our generation. Undefeated, debated two opponents in one debate. Sounds like you got a fan there, Neff. Next, Neff can't tell if they're serious. I don't know. BublumGubGud says, thank you for your question comments as, adaption or adaptation does not equal evolution. Atheism is a religion. They wanna attack that philosophical claim on at the end. But go ahead, Marshall, if you wanna address it. No, adaptation is not a problem. No, adaptation is not evolution. Adaptation is part of evolution. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies over time due to natural selection. That's something we can observe. Neff will probably agree that you can observe that, but he says there's limits to it. And atheism is not a religion. It's just a rejection of the idea that there is a God. It's the non-acceptance of the idea that there is a God, actually. Gotcha. And this one coming in from Mike Billars says, James is proof of a perfect creation. That's very funny. That's based in red pill. I'll agree with that. We have to thank you. Bless your heart, Marshall. We have to start using based in red pill. I know that I'm usually 12 months behind the cool words, but I just discovered based in red pill. So we're gonna see, you know, Ozzie and thanks for your questions. As evolution doesn't defeat God, God not revealing itself defeats God. Thanks for stepping up to defend truth and reason, Marshall, regardless of belief. Kudos to you, Marshall. Again, thank you indeed for stepping in last minute. And I think that first part is for you, Nephilim Fari. Well, the unseen nature of God, I think God makes his presence known to millions of people on a daily basis. He doesn't walk around wearing a tie-dye T-shirt and jeans because if he made his presence known in the world like that today, he'd have to do it in a very dictatorial way. And that would usurp our free will. He gave us free will because the world in which man has free will is the greatest kind of world through which God can reap the most children. Gotcha, Anne. This one coming in from actual socialist trash. My favorite YouTube name maybe ever says, Neph, how do you explain the stickleback regaining the plates that they lost while Lake Washington was extremely polluted once the lake was cleaned up? Well, that's quite easy. That's called phenotypic plasticity. That's simply shutting off the genes to produce a feature and turning them back on. Evolution has to explain the arrival of the genes and the feature. We don't have evidence for that or a mechanism for it. What we have instead is organism demonstrating incredible intelligent design that it can shut off the genes to make a feature because of an extreme change in the environment, turn them back on and gain the feature back when it needs to. The Italian logo is another beautiful example of that. Gotcha, and this one coming in from, do appreciate your question as well. ASEAN strikes again saying, Gould, namely Stephen Jay Gould, is repeatedly quoted as supporting evolution using him as a reference defeats your anti-evolution position, out of context is out of context. Well, the statements are not made out of context. It doesn't matter if Stephen Jay Gould believe evolution is true or not. He promoted punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory to an idea to explain away the absence of evidence by saying, look, evolution seemed to take place in spurts. And that's why we have this one then all of a sudden a very different one without any transitioning between. The fact remains that he, like most prominent scientists have admitted, the fossil record doesn't allow you to see evolution occur. The forums don't show you that evolution occurs. You have to assume it and take a leap of faith. You got it in this question coming in from, ASEAN as well says, the paper on PubMed that you showed the quote from Neff is about trying to remove bias in understanding evolution and to make our evolutionary theory more precise. Regardless of the beliefs of the author or the purpose of it, the statement that the more they study the genomes or creatures, the more incongruencies they find is still a true statement. And the scientist isn't telling something he doesn't believe there either. Juicy and this one coming in from do appreciate your question, logical, plausible, probable, John Maddox is in the chat. He says, question for Marshall, do you think a system which has machine learning capacity doesn't require preceding intelligent design in order to have said capacity? No, I don't see why it would have to. You would have to know what every system that has those characteristics, you'd have to know about every system and see what caused it to begin. And is it possible that there was a God that started it all? That's outside the scope of this debate, but that wouldn't disprove evolution. And I don't think you need an intelligence for this sort of thing. If you have chemicals that are and a way for them to be selected for, it just builds up. That's just how it works basically. I don't think there's a need for it if you wanna insert an intelligence in there at the beginning of it, fine. But that doesn't mean that everything formed as it was 6,000 years ago. Gotcha, and Chris Gammon, thanks for your question says, thanks Marshall for being here and Neff. They said, Neff said, everything is evidence of design. For both, how do you determine what is designed and what is not, thanks. We'll start with Neff. Well, design is things that are designed possess particular features. So I would say things that have function that are functional have design. Things at a high level of specificity which results in functionality is an evidence of design. Integration of interdependent entities which results in functionality is evidence of design. The presence of semiotics or the use of symbols to represent a process entity or concept, that's evidence of design. The presence of prescriptive information, which information which specifies functions, that's evidence of design. The presence of functional information or the arrangement which implies an imagination to produce aesthetic pleasure such as art, that also implies design. Got it in, oh, that's right. Go ahead, Marshall, we'll give you a chance to respond as well. Well, I think you have to start off with the null hypothesis of there being no designer. And then you can compare it to other things that we know have a designer and you can look at does this thing change on it or are there things that cause this thing to change over time on its own? But really, you have to show solid evidence of there being a designer first. We know houses and spaceships and things are designed because we know people design them, not because they're complex. Gotcha, and this one from Bubblegum Gun says, if evolution relies on time, it's not real since time only exists in concept in our head. Time isn't real, it's just a centrifugal divergence force vector. Is that for me? Is that for me? I think so.  You know, we're getting dangerously close to solipses in there. And I don't think we can, we really wanna go there. The thing, the fact is that this universe does have the appearance of age. You could say that it was all just created last Thursday to look old or whatever, but yeah, if you're gonna argue against the existence of time, then this whole today is pointless. Gotcha, and this one from Ra Nekadnes says, what does Nephilim-free think of the classic examples of natural selection like the new gene, jingui, or peppered moths, or finch beaks? Well, as for the finch beaks, that doesn't demonstrate evolution anyway, that's just an adaptation. The creature already had a beak, they got bigger, they actually reverted and got smaller again later. Research has shown that going back to the Galapagos Islands, they discovered the beaks of the finches got smaller again when the environment changed. So that's not evidence of evolution. Evolution portends to explain the arrival of a beak, not whether a beak can get bigger or smaller by adaptation that doesn't support evolution at all. So things like that don't support evolution, they support intelligent design because the organism is capable of adapting morphologically to its environment, but evolution claims to explain the arrival of the feature and we don't have a scientific reason to believe that. Anything but evidence against it. This one coming in from Mitchell, thanks for your question says, for Marshall, if a mosquito lives on blood, how did it acquire blood in the first place to survive? I think they're trying to suggest that did mosquitoes exist prior to different types of organisms that it could suck the blood from? Like what did it do at that time, I think is what Mitchell's asking. I'm actually not well versed in the how mosquitoes came about their blood sucking abilities. With that example, I was just trying to point out an inconsistency where Nephilim will agree to a certain adaptation happening and saying that but other ones not being possible. So the male mosquito actually does drink nectar and the females are the only ones that drink blood. So there was, I would hypothesize that maybe they started out sucking like the secretions from say, you know, an amphibian or something and then over time developed the ability to pierce the scan. I don't know. That's, I don't know that one. You got it. And this one coming in from Ozzie and says, even all of the popes since 1950 have come out supporting evolutionary theory is not being in conflict with creation, or I think they mean with Christianity, plus what they said, pious the 12th was the first pope to do so. Math? That's for me, I guess, right? Yep. Yeah. Well, there couldn't be more wrong. It doesn't matter that these men became deluded or not. It's quite true. By studying the Bible, that God has especially created everything. Six literal days, the Hebrew language doesn't allow for alternate interpretations even though people attempt to do so. In the statements of Jesus Christ, Jesus said, have you not read, referring to Moses, that he who made them in the beginning made them male and female?  And that means, according to the word of God, evolution cannot be true. If somebody refuses to accept that, they've decided not to believe what the scripture says because they wanna believe something else. Gashen, bubble gum gun in Patriot University. Go ahead. I just wanna point out that the vast majority of Christians, Jews, and most, you know, the vast majority of religious believers do also accept evolution. So I don't think there's any big contradiction there. Bubble gum gun says, peels banana, behold, I've brought you a man. These are both kind of teasing super chats. Patriot University PhD says, Neff, please pick your Nobel Prize ASAP. Well, I have about 3,000 of them already from various universities around the universe. So it's just one more. Juicy and Amy Newman, thanks for your super chat comment question says, after show at my channel and for Nephilim Free, do you agree that micro evolution exists? And if so, isn't that believing in a form of evolution? I just agree with the term micro evolution. I prefer adaptation because that's more scientifically correct. But the process of adaptation does occur, but it doesn't provide evidence for the arrival of features and anatomies. And that's what evolution claims. We don't have scientific, there's no scientific reason to believe that. Mutations have been proven for 90 years, not to do that. And we just don't have, the fossils don't support it. So you're welcome to believe this. It's religious belief. It's not a scientific one. It's a philosophy based on a 19th century myth formed in a day when man didn't know anything about biology. Gotcha. And this one from Ra, nakedness says punctuated equilibrium points to smaller groups. Evolution between larger groups, such as whales and hominems, is well documented in the fossil record. Nephilim 3. Fossil record clearly doesn't show evolution. You can't see it in the fossils. That's why I provided statements from Niles Eldred, Steven J. Gould and David Kitts. And I could provide you 100 more. This is what the purpose of punctuated equilibrium was, to explain away the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record and say, look, this one evolved into that dramatically different creature there. But you can't see that in the fossils. Evolutionists just make that leap of faith. That's not science. That's religion being applied to what they actually see. Juicy and raw nakedness strikes again, saying paper wasps interpret facial patterns in their hierarchical societies that semiotics produced by natural processes alone. Who's that for? I think that's for you, Neff. Well, I would respond with, you know, periwinkle bugaboos only bounce backwards on Saturday.  Gotcha. And this next one coming in from Sunflower says, when cave paintings are found and dated as too old for humans to have made them, why not just assume there are random markings from nature? It'd be more parsimonious than redoing all of anthropology. I think that's for you, Marshall. Well, no, we have, we know other species were around that could also do cave paintings.  Anyway, we don't have any natural process that we can look to that reproduces cave paintings. Cave paintings can't reproduce. They don't have a mechanism whereby they increase in complexity. And we also know that humans weren't the only species around. I mean, if we found one, you know, a cave painting, you know, 50 million years old, well, then we're gonna have to look at our dating methods. If we find a cave painting 5 million years old, or, you know, say a million years old, we'll, you know, maybe a homo erectus made that. Gotcha, thank you very much. And that is it for our questions. Wanna say thank you, everybody. We have a, like I said, short and sweet one given our late start. And this is one of the few nights that I've gotta make sure we wrap up in a pithy way. But wanna say we can't thank our guests enough. The debaters are the lifeboat of the channel. So we do wanna say thank you, Nephilim Free, as well as to Marshall. It's been a true pleasure to have you guys with us. And their links are in the description, whether you're listening to modern day debate via YouTube or via podcast. So thank you very much, Nephilim Free and Marshall. Thanks James, appreciate it so much. Maybe I'll start like my own videos. Juicy and wanna let you know folks, at the bottom right of your screen, you will see as shown, we on June 5th are hosting, is there good evidence for God between Matt Dillahunty and Christian apologist and scholar Dr. Kenny Rhodes? It's going to be epic, folks. You don't wanna miss it. I'm gonna be back with a post-credits scene in just a moment to let you know more about that debate as well as others. Folks, we are absolutely thrilled. Big things are coming up. And so stick around for more news on those. And as mentioned, thanks so much to Nephilim Free and Marshall one more time. Thanks again. Thanks for having us. Appreciate you. Ladies and gentlemen, that was a juicy one. So I am pumped. Oh, you know what? You can't see me, but don't worry, I'm still here. I just have to pull out my picture. Let me just pull this one in and then you will be able to see me. But in the meantime, wanna let you know as you are seeing on the far right side of your screen, folks, we are absolutely thrilled as this kick, this basically this crowdfund, it has been going, it's been awesome. It's just been exciting to see that this is an effective strategy that we can use in order to get higher profile debates. Like if you wanna see Richard Dawkins on this channel someday, I'm very serious when I say that is a goal of ours. And we think this crowdfund strategy is how we're going to do it. So let me show you some of the info about this. In particular, if you have been living in a cave on Mars with your fingers in your ears and you haven't heard that on June 5th. So this is just two weeks away from right now, folks. So we only have 13 more days for the crowdfund. It's going to be absolutely phenomenal, folks. And we are thrilled that this crowdfund link, which I said I put in the live chat and I forgot, I am going to grab that crowdfund link right now and I'm gonna put it in the live chat. But it's also in the description box for this video. And that way you can reach it there as well if you wanna come back after the debate. And we are absolutely pumped, you guys, because you might be like, well, James, I don't know, like, I don't know, like, tell me more about this. Like, how does this work exactly? Because it's kind of new to me. Well, let me tell you this.  I mean, a goal of 3,500, like, that's a pretty big goal. Well, let me show you this, folks. We've already done it. So if you look on screen, on the bottom right of your screen, folks, that's for the one that we did to host the debate between inspiring philosophy, Mike Jones and good ol' Dr. Michael Shermer back in January. So we are absolutely determined and we've already done it, folks. So we've already shown, like, we've learned we're learning more about the crowdfund process and there's, like, little things that you learn in terms of, like, what works, what doesn't. And so, for example, we're trying to get our, you could say, our name, ModeratorBate, more in the algorithms on Indiegogo, because now we're using Indiegogo for our crowdfund. And so that's something that, as we get more exposure on Indiegogo, that's going to help us. And as ModeratorBate grows, that's going to help us because since the last time we did this kind of crowdfund, we've got, I think, maybe like 6,000 more subscribers. So believe me, it absolutely, we are going to keep using this strategy because, hey, we've been encouraged that it's been a useful, successful strategy and we do want to get people like Richard Dawkins or other big name people on. And let me give you more of the deets because you're maybe like, I don't know. How do I do this? What is Indiegogo? Indiegogo is basically, it's a lot like you could think of it as, like, go fund me. Except it has different ways that you can get perks or rewards for donating a certain amount to the cause or to the project. And so for this project, if you're like, oh man, I'm pumped about this, I want to see this strategy succeed. We want to encourage you to join us by clicking on that crowdfund link, crowdfund link, which I finally just put in the chat. Thanks for your patience. Want to encourage you to join us in doing this because we are thrilled you guys and I am honestly so excited that we at, I think it was last night, we had a major contribution. So thank you so much to the, I think 39 people have contributed so far. Last time we had 143. So we expect a lot more people will be doing that, basically contributing in the next 13 days as that's usually when most of the people throw in and we appreciate that more than you know. So thank you so much for those of you who have thrown in as we are pumped. And you guys might be like, well, I was like, do I have to like give them my email and create a password? That sounds like a pain. No, it's actually really easy. So if you look on your screen, you can actually breeze through the sign-in by just signing in with Facebook. So super convenient that way. That's really cool. Once you're in, you might be like, well, but what do you mean? What are these perks or rewards that you mentioned, James? Well, let me show you. So for starters, maybe, okay, so top right or very top of your screen. If you just want to throw in three bucks because you're like, hey, I just want to make sure this event happens because like I said, we need to hit this fundraising goal for this event to happen. We are determined and believe me, folks, I don't care if me and T-Jump got to do a car wash in January. We're determined. We're going to make this happen just like we did in January. What I meant to say is I don't care if we have to do a car wash in May. It's still mildly chilly here in May for a car wash in Colorado, but I can't complain, better than January. The next step is if you go to the second tier, throwing in a few extra dollars, that just helps us promote the event and then you can see your name on screen is the third tier and that's what I mean by that is your name being in the ticker at the bottom of the screen as well as your name read out loud. That's at the end of the debate where we'll read those names. And the next one, which we're excited to have added it. It was your idea, folks. Someone else, someone in the chat said, yeah, you should really put a modern day debate coffee mug as one of the perks. And so you can see a picture of that if you click on the Indiegogo crowdfund link that's in the chat and that I am now gonna pin to the chat or top of the chat. So yeah, I forgot. Thanks for bearing with me, but believe me, folks. The cool thing is if you get a certain perk, what's really neat is you get not only that perk, but you get every single perk below that perk as well. So for example, let's say you're like, hey, you know, okay, modern day debate mug. Like sure, you know, I was like, I'll throw a 25 in. I'm excited for the project and the strategy is you not only get the mug, but you also have your name read out loud at the end of the debate in terms of giving you thanks. And well, also your name being on screen during the debate. And that just keeps working as you go up in tiers. So let me show you this. You can see the next rewards are very top of the screen at modern day debate coffee mug.  I'm gonna go to the two tiers up. I'm gonna get the modern day debate t-shirt, which I'm excited. A lot of people apparently found that. That's actually, there have been even more people who have jumped in at that perk level since this little screenshot that I'm showing you on screen. And so you'd in that case get not only the modern day debate t-shirt, but the embossed postcard that would be sent to you afterwards, which has basically the thumbnail of the debate and then the embossed modern day debate logo on it, plus the coffee mug, plus your name on screen, plus your name read out loud. And so you could say it's almost like they compound, like the perks compound, and that you get not only the perk that you sign up for, but everything from the perks below it. Really cool. So if you got the modern day debate hoodie, for example, it would be the hoodie, plus the t-shirt, plus the mug, plus your name on screen, plus your name read out loud, plus the embossed postcard. So pretty cool. And then Zoom chat with James. That one, I think somebody actually just signed up for that. So I think that's updated. There are only two left. And then meet and greet with the guests, which I've got to update that too, because I think someone definitely signed up for that one last night. So we are absolutely excited. So that meet and greet with the guests, we only have a few left. And I'm considering shrinking it down because I don't know if I want too many people at the meet and greet, because I know that the only reason is just that I'm like, well, I don't want it to feel too crowded. But so that one I'd sign up for soon, if you're considering it, as I might actually shrink it to where there's only like four available, for example. But yeah, we are absolutely pumped, you guys. And so believe me when I say that you guys have big things in store, we're really excited about it. And we just want to say thank you so much for joining us, partnering with us. And I got to tell you folks, if we reach our goal, in this case, what we would do again, just like what we did last time, is we would basically do similar idea in terms of, oh, there I am. Okay, two seconds, I'm almost, I'm almost set. Okay, so once we meet the goal folks, we would basically potentially create a stretch goal in which it would be funds used to, we're thinking about two big summer debates with Matt Dillahunty that we want to do, in addition to this one on June 5th. So it's just, I would say there were a couple of things. One is it's a fun trip and for a stretch goal, it's kind of like a good amount where if we do a stretch goal, like last time we did 500. So remember last time we still have that 500 that we plan on using for doing an in-person debate at the atheist experience studio with Matt Dillahunty and probably a Christian apologist, it might be a Muslim speaker. So that'll be exciting folks, it's gonna be epic. And want to say hello to you in the chat because I have been going on about this. And I want to say hi to you because it is fun to just get to hang out with you and say hello. And so thank you very much for coming by. Oliver Katwell says, luckily I was living in an earth on Mars, my fingers in my ears. So I still heard about the debate. That's good, you weren't in one of those Mars caves. Those are the worst. But Zach, good to see you as well. And Ken Ami, thanks for coming by. As well as Be Badass, thanks for coming by. And then pray for me. We're glad you're here, friend. Thanks for coming back. And YouTube Surgeon General, good to see you as well as a kryptonite Al Bay. Thank you for coming by. We're glad you're with us. Heat Shield, good to see you again. As well as Riley S. and Bob Sadler. Thank you all for being with us. As well as Black Polished Chrome. Thanks for coming by. And Marshall Farron, thanks again. And oh yeah, thanks so much for jumping in. Man, you totally saved the day in terms of jumping in for this debate. So we do appreciate that. As well as Pancake of Destiny, good to see you. And Let's Farm, thanks for coming by. Be Badass has 125 likes. Ayo, that is awesome. We're pumped about that. And then Actual Socialist Trash, thanks for coming by. I said if the crowd fund hits 80% by the time my debate comes around, I'll go full Burt Kreischer and do the whole debate with no shirt. You really, it's okay for you.  A lot of our audience would like that, but still, no. Okay, so pray for me, good to see you as well as General Balzac. Good to see you. We are pumped. And yeah, we're excited. That was a fun debate with Dr. Michael Shermer and Michael Jones. I saw that you said you've been watching a lot of Shermer stuff. So that was epic. And folks, I'm very serious. Like this summer, we were really wanting to do, I'm really wanting to shoot for the stars. And so what I think we'll do is for the next Kickstarter or the next crowd fund debate, we're gonna put out options for people to vote on. And that way you get to choose what debate we go with. We might try to get one with R and Ra. Don't, I wouldn't spread that around too much because I've still gotta talk to R and Ra about what happened last time. It was controversial. And so I like R and I've enjoyed R and but I know that R and yeah, so let me, that's just something that potentially, we'll see if we could work it out.  And so that's why I would say like folks, even if you're like, if you're like, eh, like, I don't know if I'm really big on this next topic or maybe these next debaters or whatever it is. And so you're like, I don't know. And I'm like, well, I would say this, if we're using this crowd fund strategy and we wanna keep growing it.  And it also shows kind of like, oh, people are willing to do this. Like that really does seriously. That helps, you could say, encourage us regarding the potential use of this strategy. As we do want this strategy, we really do want it to be useful for putting on some bigger, batter, more epic debates with more epic headline type names.  The price of a cup of coffee, like eh, you're not gonna miss it. It's like, that really does encourage us. And so thanks for that. And Brooke Chavez says, if you're able to donate to the crowd fund, please do, there's some great perks. That is for sure. I am pumped about the mug, for example. And Ken Eass says, does the coffee mug contain James's special quote-unquote juicy quote on it? No, it doesn't, but maybe we should get one that does say that. That's funny. I know it's fitting for a rock or a coffee cup. Raw nakedness, talking smack in the old chat. Glad you're here raw nakedness as well as Ms. Metal, good to see you there. And the Twitch chat, folks, if you didn't know where we are in Twitch. And thanks so much. It says, an anonymous grifter is gifting a sub. Thank you for gifting that sub to Chugga Chugga. Thank you so much. And Chugga Chugga, thanks for being with us as well in the Twitch chat. And then Tapatsul, good to see you, as well as Ozzie and Ann. Let's see, Brooke Sparrow, good to see you there in the old Twitch chat as well. And I am excited, though, that the Twitch people have found useful. So that's really encouraging. Ozzie and good to see you there in the old Twitch chat. And so that's encouraging. And then folks, if you're listening via Twitch or YouTube, please know that we are on both platforms. And we're also on podcast, which is I'm really excited about that, you guys. Is that I love the fact that for me, sometimes my attention is split. So it's nice that I can actually jump on here. And I've got my own podcast app. I always started, I always listened to podcast addict, but I see most of you, you use Apple Podcasts or Spotify. So very based and red pill of you. But, so what you do is you click on the old modern day debate little icon, which you can see right there. I am pumped. You guys, how neat is that? If you haven't seen it on your own phone, check it out and see if you can't find modern day debate available via podcast, because we're pumped about that. And then General Balzek says it's Colorado, only place I've been that was in the 70s one day, went to freezing for the next two days, and Gil Force wins for another day, then back to 70s in the 50s. Yeah, oh man, it is, it changes here quick. And let's see here. Hannah Anderson, good to see you. Thanks for your support of the channel. It does mean a lot. Appreciate your modding. And Riley S, good to see you. Bob Sadler, good to see you. As well as Amanda, thanks for your mod work. And Heat Shield and Brian Griffin, good to see you, as well as Let's Farm. And folks, we are on Discord. If you have not seen that, I'm gonna throw our Discord link in the chat. Folks, highly encourage you. Do check out our Discord. As I am, it's hard for me to thank our guests, or I should say Larry Letts, as well as Platium and Math Pig, for having built the Discord and making it awesome, the MDD Discord. I just threw that into the old live chat. We encourage you to check it out if you happen to have Discord. And Logic Kyle arguments, thanks for coming by. Glad you're here. As well as Farron Salas, thanks for coming by. Glad you made it, better late than never. And Platium says, join the official Discord to continue the debate, people. I agree, and I'm pinning that to the top of the chat. So Ironclad says, thanks for hosting. Thank you, Ironclad, for your positivity and your support. It means a lot. We are pumped. Let's see. Ron Neckadness says, I have the OG shirt with a printing mistake. I will sell it on eBay when James gets famous. That's really funny. I actually was looking at, I looked up my modern day debate sweatshirt, and mine had a printing error. It was one of our earliest ones that had a printing error as well. So that's really funny. But thanks for your support, Ron Neckadness, who says, James is all right. I got nothing against him. I'm like, man. But yeah, Rick Chavez says, Azean needs a shout out for being awesome. Thank you, Azean, for all you do. We really do appreciate it. And then, let's see. Thanks, Susie Smith, for your kind words. I love this non-biased channel. Thank you for that. Seriously, Susie Smith, that really does mean a lot. And Dave Langer, thanks so much, said, maybe put your juicy bathwater in the mugs. That's right. That's gonna be our next perk, folks, my bathwater. You're not gonna wanna miss it. Eleanor Goldschmidt says, James, thank you for your kind words. And be badass, says Unicorn Debate, LOL, maybe. But we are looking for an alien debate. So if anybody has got strong opinions and aliens wanna let you know some of the things for the channel upcoming, we do prefer if people are willing to use their camera. That's a strong preference. We let people, we've grandfathered in some people, like Nephilim Free, he never uses his cam, but he helped the channel when we were like, tiny. And so, we're like, hey, all right, we'll be flexible with you, Neph, but we are dank and red-pilled when it comes to giving you announcements about upcoming stuff. Let me tell you about other ones. One is, we're really excited, folks. This, for the moderators, in case you didn't know, we're gonna start doing this on Monday. The plan is that moderators, we love ya. And this is a way to make it easier for you, is we're gonna start asking moderators if they'd be okay with not debating people in the chat. You can still ask a question if you're a moderator.  Like, that's fair. You can do that during the show. In fact, that actually adds value to the Q and A, like great questions. But we are gonna ask, because just by coincidence, sometimes it would happen to be the case that some nights, you know, not all the moderators are here on every single night. And so at some nights, it would be that there were like, significantly more atheist moderators or significantly more Christian moderators or significantly more whatever, you know, whatever view it is. And sometimes people I think would misunderstand and they're like, is this channel really non-partisan because the moderators, almost all of them have the same position on X, Y, or Z. So that's something I do wanna give the mods a head up is a heads up that we are gonna start putting that into effect on Monday and want you to not be surprised by it is that we're gonna ask the moderators. Also, there's gonna be, I wanna say thanks to Bob who's been doing a great job in terms of he's been doing a lot of work, even like paperwork type of stuff, like Excel spreadsheets and word docs and stuff in terms of the moderator stuff, getting it organized. So I can't thank him enough. And so we do appreciate that. And then actual socialist trash is the better pill is the bread pill. That's funny, I like that. And Joshua Larson, good to see you. Thanks for coming by. And then I've got to run in a second. But thanks, Brian Griffin, for getting your 900 milligrams of daily vitamin A. I don't, I'd have to check. Pancake of Destiny says, do you have an only? No, I don't have it only. But YouTube's there as usual, it says is that red ink on the sheet behind you? Red ink, let me think about that. There is no ink on it. And Hacks says, what's the alien debate, James? That's something still being determined but we're probably gonna host one next month. We're excited about that. And BeBadass says, can we mods, small talk each other about other things? Yeah, of course, absolutely. The only thing we just don't want people to do, the mods to do is like take a firm or just an open stance or debating people. That's something that we don't want is. And then Danny3648 says, mod should moderate, not debate. Glad you're here, Danny and Sexy Calzone, good to see you, as well as Compliment Bot. Thanks for coming by, we hope you're well.  Oh, Dapper, I might have to do that. And Louis Bresciato, glad to see you made it. This is him late to the party, but hi. Well, we're glad you made it. And so thanks everybody for all of your support, thanks for your love. Seriously, I'm excited and I can't thank you enough. You guys make this channel rock and awesome. You guys make it dank and red-pilled, for real. So, wanna say thank you for all of your support. We'll be back Monday with a political debate. That's the plan, Monday political debate on whether or not critical race theory should be taught in schools. That'll be fun, I'm excited for that. I gotta get the thumbnail up for it. Then Wednesday we have Vosh versus T-Jump on the super straight debate. Oh boy, that is going to be something, folks. Then, oh yeah, we've got, oh, let me show you this. You guys, on screen right now, let me show you this.  We are going to release a new debate that is going to be in the 12-hour debate stream next Saturday. So, we're one week away from our 12-hour, our first 12-hour debate stream. You guys, it's gonna be epic. At any time of the day, you can tune in and you'll either see me hanging out like we are now or, more likely, you'll see a debate. So, we're gonna show you some of the debates ahead of the time. In particular, one of the debates for this 12-hour livestream will be between Sal Cordova and RJ Downard on whether or not there's evidence of intelligent design. That's going to be epic. Seriously, folks, there are three other epic debates. We're going to be announcing them gradually and so it is going to be really cool. You don't wanna miss it, folks. That 12-hour stream will be epic. It's going to be high energy and it is going to be intense and extreme. So, we're pumped about that and we have three other debates, though, that are going to happen and this one is just one of our, I think this is our middle debate or one of our two middle debates. We are going to have a finale debate at the end of the 12-hour stream.  It's gonna be, so keep an eye on that event and that event, I'll throw that into the live chat and wanna let you know, keep an eye on it on the thumbnail because we're gonna keep adding some of the mini debates to the thumbnail and that way, it'll give you just kind of a teaser or preview of what's to come and we're gonna be adding that, like I said, maybe like one or two, every day or two, we'll add in another sweet little debate that's gonna be on there. I've got all of them confirmed except one, which is half, well, yeah, you could say half confirmed and so I'm pumped about it, though, folks. It seriously, it's gonna be so fun and I will put in the link for that 12-hour live stream that's happening in one week. Let's see, I'll put it right here. The 12-hour stream. Hour stream happening in one week. Okay, I just threw that into the old live chat and so seriously, it's gonna be really cool. I am super pumped about it. It's our first time doing it and so believe me, it's gonna be really cool and thank you guys for your support. I love you guys. I hope you have a great rest of your night so thank you guys for all of your support. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable, everybody, and we will see you on Monday.