Hey everybody tonight. We're going to be debating is the book of Mormons Scientific Kyle Adams is here to defend that claim and we're gonna put the floor over to Kyle Adams So four is all yours and thanks for being here Thank you. So I'm Kyle Adams I am both a Christian and a flat earther and I am defending the claim that the Book of Mormon is a scientific book that is the topic of this debate and as a Christian and a flat earther I go up against a whole lot of atheists and Globalists and they all love to put the word science and scientific on this lofty pedestal and they practically worship the word and I don't know if you're one of those people But if you are Please forgive me as I knock that definition off its pedestal here by dictionary definition the very basic Definition of the word science is Systematized knowledge in general. They've just systematized knowledge in general. It doesn't say that that knowledge has to be perfect accurate It just needs to be simply or systematized. That's it just Systematized, okay, you don't even have to follow the the the scientific method. That's not a requirement here Not saying that the Book of Mormon doesn't follow the scientific method. There's Some of the most powerful invitations in the Book of Mormon are to experiment upon the word But yeah, again, that's Kind of focusing on it a little bit of a different thing here because we're just aiming at Systematized knowledge in general. And so let's take a look at some mainstream academia references because they use the word science very very openly maybe you've heard of the words History and social science That's something that academia Definitely considers the science you can get a bachelor's degree in that bachelor's in science in history and social science Have a hear of computer science? How about political science? Where is the scientific method in political science? And Jerry met Jerry mandering perhaps. I don't know So they also consider the humanities to be a science the humanities okay by this Dictionary definition the dictionary itself is a scientific book it is a bunch of knowledge about the world that has been alphabetized and Systematized into that book. So that's Knowledge that is systematized in general So why do glow birthers and atheists use the term so narrowly? Okay? so according to my knowledge the Book of Mormon is True okay, and if we actually open up to first Nephi chapter one verse three Says and I know that the record which I make is true And I make it with my own hand and I make it according to my knowledge. That's Nephi speaking that So he's making that according to his knowledge And if you ever go to like a Latter-day Saint church service first of the month You might hear a lot of people stand up and share their testimonies that I know that the Book of Mormon is true And when they do this they are stating that the Book of Mormon is true according to their knowledge So it is knowledge to someone even though you might not Claim to have that knowledge for yourself. It's still knowledge according to someone. So I Know the heliocentric model isn't knowledge according to to me I find a lot of faults in that But I still consider it scientific even though it's not part of my paradigm And so I can hope That you'd want to or that you'd be willing to give the Book of Mormon the same respect Even though it might not be part of your paradigm or part of your knowledge It's still knowledge according to other people So before you go out and try and bash on the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith or Brigham Young or anything like that Please keep in mind.  It's all about whether it's not about whether or not the Book of Mormon is perfect Accurate or even true The topic of this debate is on the word science and scientific and whether or not the Book of Mormon can be described as such That is the goalpost and it is a mile wide It by that definition Or by those definitions because I scientific just means anything that is systematized I could also argue that the Quran is Scientific even though I'm not a Muslim. I can I could even go so far as to claim that Teletubbies is scientific Yeah, that's that's just how wide this this goalpost is and so I can Hope you could see just how easy it is to make a goal on a mile wide goalpost like that Now I know you might have feel like I've slaughtered the the significance of those words science and science scientific But it wasn't me who slaughtered it. Hey, that's just the definitions how the dictionary describes it That wasn't me. He did it Thank you and good luck All right, thank you Kyle for your opening there I just want to remind everybody that here at modern-day debate. We are a neutral debate platform We're hosting debates on science religion politics and a like and and we'd love You know to hear from you fellas, so we are gonna do a Q&A at the end of all of this Just make sure that you guys keep hitting that like button so we can get this out to as many people as possible And with that we're gonna hand it over to Mark. Thanks so much for being here and the floor is all yours Thank you so much and I'll just get this up first and foremost. There we go. I'll share that Just let me know when it's coming through it can be so kind Ryan Okay, so thank you so much for Kyle to be here and do this. Thanks to Ryan for hosting and the audience Thanks. Thank you for your time now. So The question is with any holy book can be a scientific text So let's say what's the definition of scientific is a few definitions and they relate directly to the process or methods of science These methods can vary but they have a common theme They're all related to science and how science is practiced It is simply not the case that we say if scientists write something down then it automatically is science The methods that anyone uses must follow the process of science So the better question is what is science? Science is a systematic series of processes used to ensure the information gathered is rigorous and reliable Here are a couple of definite definitions, but the process is very well outlined Even if by chance a book gets something's right It doesn't does not make the book nor the way the information was gathered scientific In fact, it could get everything right and everything correct But if the scientific method was not followed then it is simply not a scientific book These are examples of scientific books Note that we can go back and go into any of these books and scientifically test to see if they are right We can verify them. They'll have experiments described in them to do exactly that Also, note that fundamentals of physics here is the fourth edition and may have multiple editions Corrections and additions are common in scientific books because we'll update them as needed when we find anything incorrect Or about anything to add that is the very nature of science that it changes when we get new information and these book reflects that These books are not scientific There's no possible way we can go to the Book of Mormon and scientifically test to see if any of the information in them is correct This is a lack of falsifiability and it's directly Antithetical to the idea of science and its principles. There are things in the Book of Mormon that are 100% Uncategorically incorrect and I'll go into that later about the world around us The people that believe in the Book of Mormon Will not or cannot update the unscientific errors in the book Although I do notice they've corrected spelling and grammatical errors They can't change the story at any degree and that is why it is dogma and not a scientific book The Book of Mormon also relies on the authority of Joseph Smith and was he a scientist? In my mind, he does lack credibility and I will explain why he was not a scientist He was a treasure hunter. He used something called seer stones to try and find buried treasure to investors He never found any treasure, but he was arrested for glass looking Which was a sort of fraud of tricking people into thinking out magic powers He claimed a vision that led him to plates that led him to write the Book of Mormon or translate it from from the Origin that he gave it But he would not show the plates to anyone else or he did show them to son But they were his followers and others could feel the plates, but they weren't allowed to look at him When he was finished with this sort of highly unscientific translation He claimed that anyone the angle given the vision could take the plate so he couldn't show anybody So we cannot replicate what process he used and that process was getting the stones putting his head in the hat and sort of Getting the the translation through these stones He tried to separate religion was wanted in three states had riotous escapades all across the Midwest He had 30 to 40 wives that lied to the public about them into his main wife and Emma Hale At one point Smith in order to avoid criticism violated the First Amendment by destroying a printing press After a single issue with the Naboo appositor exposer Attactive beliefs and accused him of polygamy, which turned out to be true All Smith's life it speaks to a dishonest man who was ruthless and attacked anybody that threatened his doctrine So I want to go on to some of the things that are problematic in the book incredibly problematic This is the Said the language he says he translated from it is reformed Egyptian, which is not a real language John A. Wilson the professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago wrote from time to time There are allegations that pigs writing been found in America in no case has a professional Egyptologist being able to recognize these characters Egyptian hieroglyphs from our standpoint. There is no such thing as reformed Egyptian At one point Joseph Smith bought papyri from mummies that he translates from reformed Egyptian to the book of Abraham and the book of Jacob since then actual Egyptologists have to stipulate these scripts And they're simply funeral rights. They're just simple funeral rights for Egyptian mummies. They are not what Smith translated them as The crossing of the seas The claim is that people living just after the Tower of Babel made the ocean trip from near the Red Sea all the way to the Pacific Ocean on a small Let's face it submarine. It was an underwater ship that was unpowered had holes in the top and bottom No extra Mormon sources exist for these people. No evidence. They made this trip And it's highly unlikely that these people in the Middle East could make a trip The most experienced sailors would have trouble making the book says that they traveled for 344 days underwater in this kind of weird submarine that was unpowered DNA shoe the Book of Mormon claims that Lamanites were the ancestors of Native Americans this would have found DNA evidence But there's no connection has ever been made even Mormon Genesis admit. There is no connection the researchers Mormon researchers Thomas W. Murphy and Simon Southerton state the substantial collection of Native American genetic markers are not consistent with any detectable presence of ancestors from the Middle East That contradicts the account So the Book of Mormon describes a flourishing similar civilization 1.5 million at its peak Zara Heimler was the apparently the largest city and at its peak it had a hundred thousand people in that city There is literally zero archaeological evidence for it In 1955 Stuart Ferguson our stock Thomas Stuart Ferguson Received five years of funding. He claimed he would find these cities in 10 years He did not find these cities and then he basically Wrote a letter which stated the real implication of the paper is that you can't set the Book of Mormon geography down anywhere Because it's fictional and will never meet the requirements of dirt archaeology I should say what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book and that is from a Mormon themselves So there's a major flaw Things that are written about in the Book of Mormon did not exist. There were no elephants in North America. There were no goats. There were no sheep. There were no horses. They died out about 12 000 years earlier There's no submarines at that time. It's hard to say We found countless depictions of life in Mesoamerica art fresco pottery. None has ever depicted a chariot And none no evidence for this civilization or any of these things has ever been found To sum up it fails to be multiple fronts to be scientific It doesn't follow the scientific method a scientific method cannot be applied to it today No addition updates any correct information or impregnated knowledge that is shown to be verifiably incorrect Any science book should able to be validated by anyone working within the field Correctly using the scientific method. There is no way this can be done for the Book of Mormon And hence it is not and will never be a scientific book Thank you All right. Thank you for that there mark and we'll just end the screen share there All right, and we'll get everybody back up with their tags All right. Well, thank you to mark and kyle for being here and doing your intro Statements I just want to remind everybody that both of our guests are linked in the podcast or linked in the description And they will be linked in the podcast as well Uh, I gotta get on my a game here. I get uh, I was supposed to do my red leather yellow leather before this You see I didn't uh, I didn't do my warm-ups. Yeah. I failed. All right So we're gonna kick it into open discussion everybody. So we're discussing is the Book of Mormon scientific And we'll kick it over to you kyle to uh to start our open discussion All right, let's talk about the humanities and political science and the way academia uses those terms Would you claim any of those are scientific? Of course. Yeah. Um, so their science distinction Well, yeah, we've got to make the distinction between soft sciences and hard sciences So I think you might be thinking that oh, it's only hard science that we categorize as science and that's not true The methodology for the social sciences are slightly different But they use things like statistical data analysis and things like that to make testable predictions about the way That population growth happens the way that people demonstrate various things in society They do make these testable predictions and do experiments to find out if say a change in policy For political science, for instance, will actually result in the outcome that they're looking for. Um, so There's multiple scientific methods But all of them are sort of falsifiable and verifiable that you're making testable predictions that you're validating Um, and then there's the hard sciences like for instance, you know Mathematics and physics and things like that where you're using very very strict rigorous scientific methodology But what we're looking at is the the way that we get the information So what I want to talk to you about is the methods that that has been used to get the information here Whether those methods are scientific and hence is a science book Because it seems like you're sort of saying it doesn't matter how they got the information and doesn't matter if it's right It's still scientific You agree with the there's I've got a of Is it peer reviewed journal article? That says that science never proves anything Sure So you agree with that claim there's yeah. Yeah, so this is this is a problem with the way that you're using proof so proofs Always are a unequivocal hundred percent certainty kind of thing. That's what proof is so in something like mathematics You will get proofs for an equation. They will basically demonstrate without any kind of A hundred percent certainty that that mathematical equation does or does not work or does work rather because it's a proof And you use it to prove that the the mathematical equation works What science does is it models At a very very high rate of confidence in a very reliable way, but it never claims to have absolute certainty That's never what we're claiming That's not faith. Like you're black and white thinking sort of that if it's not a hundred percent certain its faith Is not not correct. It's called rationality and reasoning not not faith all right, so It's a belief in something that you don't know is true That is how it is definitely that is how faith is defined is not knowing for certain if it's true or not And so yeah, we know that it's a belief in something that lacks proof And that is yes, so by dictionary definition. So just because it is faith well No, it's not because just because you don't know something with absolute certainty is true It doesn't mean you don't know it That's the thing right now. It's again. That's contrary to the way the word is defined in the dictionary You're making up your own definition Moving the goalposts and saying no, this is actually how it is. So what's it? What's your definition of knowledge? My definition of knowledge my definition of knowledge is just things that Your level of understanding there's different kinds of uh, we've got a lot I just go by the dictionary so I can just open up the dictionary for you on knowledge Well, I I think that the dictionary is good a good sort of benchmark to use but the dictionary is not prescriptive it doesn't tell you what words are supposed to mean What it does that's what that's exactly what the dictionary is supposed to do. No, no It tells you what the word is supposed to mean No, no, no, it describes what word how words are used, right? So it describes usages of words So when we use words in society, it describes those you it's descriptive not prescriptive It it provides definitions to words. It tells you what the words mean And so it doesn't it the word knowledge doesn't correspond with facts trues or principles from study investigation general erudition Okay, it's a familiarity With a with a subject. Okay. Yes. Does that say absolute certainty anywhere in it? It doesn't it doesn't it does not. Yeah, so what I would define knowledge is justified Yeah, just one second. I'll just define it. It's justified true belief, right? So it's a belief that is justified and is also true A belief that is justified and also true is a definition to what word knowledge Knowledge I'm not seeing that dictionary definition up here Uh, John, maybe you should check the stanford acyclopedia of philosophy. Um, that's also it's a different It's a completely different. So yeah, I'm sure someone out there can define things that way I'm just talking about the general The general dictionary. Well, it's when you believe something and you have a justification like for instance I say hey, I know that my my wife's in the house, right? Like I say, I know that now It's justified because I saw her out there just a while ago But is it absolute knowledge? No because she could have you know stepped out back or or done something else But it is a justified belief and as long as it's true as long as she's in the house Then I have knowledge of that. Um, you seem to be gutting this black and white idea that either you're to have knowledge You have to be Sort of a hundred percent confident in everything you say and that's just not the case. What did I say that presents that? Well, you said that that um, science is just faith because we have a lot of justification under science For saying hey, we know these things. We know them to be true But I want to get back to the methodology that you're using so methodology is the Analysis about methods that you're using to justify What you believe to be true or your knowledge? That's moving the that's red herring entirely Why I I it has nothing to do with the definition This is a this entire debate is on the definition of science Scientific whether or not the Book of Mormon fits that definition. I'm not having a definitional debate. That's kind of weird and odd Okay, well, then you were wrong debate Well, I think it's whether the book itself is scientific Yes, so there's a lot of which is all about the definition of the word scientific, which means right anything that is Systematized No, no the Book of Mormon. That is not the Chronologically systematized. That is that is not the definition. No, it's not. No, no, it's not dictionary.com scientific I can give you a screenshot if you want It is right here Sure, go for it. Give me a screenshot Okay, share screen Yeah, we can certainly do a screen share here Just at the bottom of the zoom chat there Okay, there you go Scientific systematic methodical Yes, so What does it say is the Usage of that how many people buy food in an organized scientific way, right? That is a metaphor. It's using a metaphor now We can go back and look at the the main definition Right the main definition Which is based on or characterized by the methods and principles of science. That's the main Science is defined right here. So yeah knowledge Yeah Systematized knowledge in general branch of knowledge studying With body of facts truth systematically arranged and organized in the operation of general laws Yes, so that is just knowledge that has been Systematized Okay, yes, so but but it's just dealing with And systematized it goes right here. This is dealing with a body of facts, right? A body of facts, which there is no no any body of facts. There's no no no That's not true. That is not true at all. You said you don't believe the science proves and no That's not a fact. Okay. Okay. So let me talk. Let me talk Hold on. I'm not done. No. No. No. Let me talk because you've made a very very big I will listen to you in just a moment. All right. So let's give it 15 seconds. And if you can all right, so Dr. McLaughlin McLaughlin, however you want to pronounce that and her in her peer reviewed journal article That says science never proves anything. She says Um a hypothesis is never proven correct Nor is a theory ever proven to be true Words like prove correct and true Should be removed from our vocabulary completely and immediately. Okay, so That's gets rid of all that in science. Okay. So if you don't believe science proves anything Who are you to tell me that the Book of Mormon is not true? Okay, so look at the top where it says we can correct the misconceptions that Science has done deal and that a theory is a hunch. It's not a hunch Right. This is the thing if you actually read read the entire thing. He's trying to say that Um, the science is there to make models Models that describe reality That's what it's there to do Um, but you're just cherry picking and quote mining to sort of make it and I'd like to share my screen I would like to share my screen if you could be so kind and show where you've sort of skipped over Dictionary because it didn't conform with what you want it to do. So if you could stop sharing your screen and I'll share mine Yeah, let's kick it over to you mark and remind everybody that we are going to be doing a Q&A at the end of this conversation So do take note that kyle took at his definition from dictionary.com, right? That's where I do but he didn't take his second definition from the same place and the reason why Is because the definition is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of physical and natural world Through observation experimentation and testing of theories against the evidence obtained He went to some other place to get his other definition because this one syncs him That's why he didn't use the same source for both definitions, which is kind of a little bit dishonest Um, sort of keeping in line dishonest by what definition of design This is sort of science is always written down as the rigorous systematic endeavour at builds and organisers knowledge through the form of testable explanations Predictions if you're just going to your favourite dictionary source to get a scientific definition Instead of science websites and science communicators, then you're already starting out dishonest because you're simply having a dishonest by any definition Trying to change the definition of science to what's in the dictionary But not the dictionary that you used for one thing another Definition to what's in the dictionary that's yeah I know that you didn't you didn't acknowledge that it had multiple definitions and you didn't use the first one in your definition I definitely do acknowledge it has multiple definitions. Um, but I would like to I would like to see would you acknowledge Would you acknowledge that experimentation is important in science? Experimentation is important in science Mm-hmm. Yeah experimentation is great in science. That's how we learn more What experiments can you do scientific experiments? Can you do to validate that the book of Mormon is correct? He's still there kyle Hello, kyle Oh, I think kyle uh, kyle frozen.  No, I think uh, I think things froze up on his and we're still rolling We'll give him a second here everybody Mm-hmm. All right kyle if uh, if you want to try rejoining us We might need to get you to exit out and come back in There he goes. All right everybody. Well, while we're waiting for kyle to get back It seems like a lot of you have a lot of questions and And things you want to push this conversation towards Definitely get that into the q&a for the live chat For our sorry for our q&a at the end By posting your questions in the live chat there Me and mark are just going to hang out for a second here while we wait for kyle to come back I'm half i'm half tempted. I don't know what the latency speed is on Our upload right now. I have all of the tracks For the new song. Okay, you just you just made me go crazy because latency is the delay between signal And and I think you're talking about bandwidth, which is the actual amount you can upload or download in any one time So you just you just triggered me. I'm sorry. That's my field and I'm untreated I'd rather hang out with you than anybody else. Um, I think that um Well, let me fix up our screen here. So it looks so messed up right now Yeah There we are no worries at all Um, and you know, I'm gonna I'm gonna take this opportunity to give myself a plug. I'm mark reid I'm a counter-apologist from australia Um, which is yeah, it's all good and fun. Um, and if you do like to see Sort of logic. Sorry about that inside. Sorry about that It's the big flying elbow to mysticism superstition and and sort of religion Swing by my channel. It's always a fun time. It's a great community. We accept everybody and um, yeah Come on by welcome back kyle as well And uh, thank you my computer just crashed on me and I had a restart. Oh, it happens No, don't don't worry. That was that was an amazingly fast restart. So, you know, it does. I've got a good computer Yeah, that was really good. I wish I could say it was better because it has this crashing issue every once in a while Yeah, well the restart time was excellent crashed desktop. Does it does it um Anyway, I won't try and diagnose your computer issues. Yeah. So, uh, I think mark you were just asking kyle a question Yeah, I was asking what experiments could you perform that would demonstrate Like scientific experiments that would demonstrate that the book of mormon is in fact true Alma chapter 32 is probably the biggest, uh, I think one of the more powerful invitations, uh, that The book of mormon has that it really encourages people to experiment upon the word and it goes ahead and and it Gives an analogy of planting a seed. Okay, you use the same kind of experiment for the book of mormon in finding out if the book of mormon is true as you would And finding out if a seed is is a good seed And if the seed grows and develops you can tell and know that that is a good seed And so it's the same kind of process That you'd use in determining the the truthfulness of the book of mormon Okay, so are you talking about a literal seed or a metaphorical seed? Well, it's an analogy. So you're taking like a little metaphor in an analogy It's doing that and saying, okay, we're gonna follow the same process for For this as we are going to with this Okay, so The you're talking about a metaphorical seed because it's an analogy, right? That's a metaphor not all literal seed literal seed would be an actual literal seed, right? So you can't do that and see the outcome all you can do is talk to people and say I don't understand how that would be a scientific experiment where you have observation hypothesis Sort of the experiment and then then basically repeating that to make sure you get the same result Well, you haven't really read almond chapter 32. Yeah, I don't think Well, you're just making an appeal to incredulity at this point and again, it's kind of Deviating away from the topic of this debate, which is no, no, it's very It's very on topic. It's your you're not this is getting away from No, no, no, you're trying then you're here for the wrong debate You're trying to do a red herring to have a definitional debate when really we're debating the process and methodology That you can use. Look, okay. I'll show you something. Okay Okay, it's just a random book. Okay, computable. Okay Digital design and computer architecture. It's reversed. This is this is one of the books that I used in in university, right? Would you claim it scientific? Oh, yes, absolutely. Okay, so There are there are paths. There are stuff in here There are Circuit diagrams if I wanted to and I had enough time like a ton of time I could go through and scientifically validate every single one of these circuits I could set them up and indeed there is experiments in there to set up these circuits and validate that say the truth tables that the outcomes that this book says Are actually true. I can implement that. That's what makes it a scientific book And I'm asking you how you do that for the Book of Mormon that you go through and it says all of these things that are supposed to be True How do you do that scientific experiment to say if I do this then I know that book to be true That's another topic. I'm just gonna point out. That's not another topic an English book an English book Okay, that is considered a science in academia. No, it's not. No, it's not. You can get a degree in science and humanities It's an arts degree. It's an arts degree, but it's specifically a bachelor's in science Okay, we can go here right here. I've got a link to dixie.edu or actually that's uh I've got a link to An academic source and what you can get to your bachelor's degree and if you'd like to go to in English You can yeah These are social sciences and uh Yes, social sciences. Yes. I absolutely agree. They're sciences. Yes But if you're looking at a like a bachelor of arts in English, that isn't a science degree I don't know why you're saying that It is a science degree. Okay A bachelor of arts is a science degree in sciences department arts and sciences department Yes, and it's an art. You can get your bachelor's degree. I personally okay. I personally have a uh, I can show you my Degree I've got a bachelor's In science with an emphasis in art in drawing and painting. That is my degree right there I can show it to you. Okay. And so are you telling me that academia is wrong in saying the art Like in drawing and painting I got it from Dixie State University Yeah, I I I don't know whether you're you're studying some sort of science of art like some sort of like examining Exactly what makes art art But like to say that a bachelor of arts is a science degree is just a gross misrepresentation of science So you're telling me that what's now called, uh, utah tech university is wrong Oh, I never said that Well, I'm just telling you what my degree says and you're telling me that that's wrong Well, I think that it's not science Well, I don't know. I mean, I don't know what they're calling science over there But you still have an answer to my question and let's go back to it because you dodged it completely Of what experiments can you do? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no You don't get to just change the topic when you decide to do you don't want to answer a question kyle I'm asking you you said you said to me straight up that experimentation is important to science You acknowledge that then I asked you what experiments you can do in the book of Mormon to validate That the things in it are true and you dodge So let's go back to it and let's say, okay, for instance They crossed the sea in a submarine with a hole in the top and a hole in the bottom Right, you know this story. I told you in the no, no, no, no, this is from the book of Mormon Let's let me ask this question there kyle How do you do an experiment to show that that is actually true? Well, how do you do an experiment to show that your history book is science? Okay, to show that george washington had wood teeth or something like that Uh, you can you can get evidence for that You can find you can put together evidence. Well, I yeah, well, there's evidence is so but this is a broad term itself right there too This is a what aboutism. It's just oh, but this other thing you can't know I asked you a question and you dodged again What experiments can you do to tell you that these things that are claimed as factual in the book of Mormon Are in fact factual and you will not answer So stay on that topic my answer. Okay, the book of Mormon is all about building a relationship Okay, it's all about building a relationship with God and getting a direct answer and watching miracles happen in your life Yeah, that is directly related to God. Okay, then it's not a science book Then your english book is not a science book and you're telling me that all of mainstream academia and the way they define science They're utterly BS and wrong. I've told you how they define science No, you just kind of dismissed it. Yes, I have so I've got my whole my whole bachelor's degree in science Do you want me to read out the definition again? Like from dictionary.com if you're so great on dictionary.com Would you like to hear it again? Oh, you can go go for it, but you gotta think you want and explain exactly how Um, the history is the science and the way that yeah the long list of different ways that academia uses it is science Sure, and there's multiple scientific methods, but none of them apply to the book of Mormon That's the thing the systematic study of drawing and painting. Okay, so here we go The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical or natural world through observation experimentation and testes testing of theories against the evidence obtained would you agree with that definition? Yeah, I agree with that definition. That's one way that is defined. So what not the only way it's defined It's just one way it's defined. So what evidence have you gathered that all of these things happened? Evidence is a really really broad term. Okay, and so a testimony is evidence Right when someone says I saw this thing it is considered an evidence is evidence And so when you go into a court of law, right? You won't go and gather witnesses and testimonies and say I saw this thing happen Right and so the book of Mormon has many witnesses to it And the problem with that is Well, the problem that is evidence you asked for evidence. That's that's yeah. Yeah, if I could just say there's a problem Yeah, I could just talk Kyle Kyle. I let you say what you want to say. Just let me talk The problem with that is that all kinds of people testimony tied to all kinds of things people claim to see aliens people claim that You know leprechauns and have yet. I met one guy who believed in gnomes If you're going to be intellectually consistent, you would have to put your weight behind that evidence as much as your own Unless you're showing bias towards one form of evidence And I do note that that the purse some of the people that Joseph Smith had as his witnesses actually turned on him and said that he was a fraud later on So how do you explain that they never disclaimed the book of Mormon? They they held true the book of Mormon the whole time now they can claim that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet later on down the road. Yes, but they never denied that the book of Mormon was true Martin Harris is one of those people who on his deathbed said, you know, I I fell away from Joseph Smith We had a falling out, but the book of Mormon is still true And the age gap between these these men and their youngest wives was incredibly massive Which has nothing to do with our topic They had incentive to make it up But you you opened this door whether they are credible witnesses because what makes testimonial evidence credible is having Credible witnesses and you're talking about the main witness being a man who was convicted of defrauding people through glass seeing Um and and actually was convicted of many crimes in many states Including treason A threatening to kill a judge I'm a whole laundry list of of things. So if you're looking for credibility as I said in my presentation If you're looking for credibility The people that you're claiming are credible have a real problem Because Joseph Smith indeed had multiple wives and lied to the people about it. He lied All right, so you can take a convicted felon and because he's a convicted felon and he says dogs are mammals Does that make it wrong? No, it doesn't Okay, convicted felons can say things that are true. If he said he saw god I'd need more evidence than just his word. So it's not just his word for it If you tell me if you tell me like, oh, well, you know, I I went for a trip down to the store I would say, okay. Well people go to the store. That's that's a very mundane claim. That's fine You know, I'd probably believe you just upon your testimony But if you're telling me you went to pluto Then I would need more than just testimonial evidence. I would need you to back that up in some way And the problem here is you have a group of people with a good reason to motivate them to not tell the truth Saying a story that is not even credible I grew up all the problems with the evidence like how did they have submarines? How did they have horses when there were no horses in north america? How did they make a trip across the pacific in a submarine? Um, and You you don't seem to think that that requires more investigation than just will they said it's true That is not scientific. That is the antithesis of science I you just asked for an for evidence and I said, okay, well This qualifies as evidence by the dictionary. It's not scientific evidence is it? Oh, well, you are just moving the goalpost Well, when we're talking about whether it's a scientific book if I say does it have evidence I would expect it to have scientific evidence not just people said they did a thing Like there's no science book out there where people say hey I think that bacteria will do this and don't test it And they just like let bacteria go and then say hey bacteria did it just take my word for it That is not how science works and it's the will do you have proof of this claim for someone who does not believe in proof Uh, do I have evidence for this claim also? Okay, but not proof. So you who are you to be telling me any of this stuff? Yeah, so now you can't tell me I'm wrong proof Yeah, you can't tell me you're going back to the definitions if you don't even I can tell you you're unscientific I'm wrong I can tell you you're being unscientific because you're willing to take the word of people saying it's true over the process of experimentation Observation systematic testing in order to find out that it's true And that's why the book of norman will never be a science book or a scientific book It's because it doesn't have that process and you can go to other It's not special pleading. It's special. How's it special pleading? How's it special pleading? Oh, well that definition doesn't qualify or neither does this definition qualify It has to be my special definition of qualify or to in order to qualify that I'm not really seeing academia use that you're kind of off Kind of on the outside academia does use that academia does exactly use the definitions.  They don't just say so broadly It's no no no kyle if you think academia believes that the telly tubbies is scientific I don't know what to tell you. I'd love for you to go to your university or college and start telling professors that the telly Tubbies is scientific It's got a beginning. It's got a middle. It's got an end. It tells a story and it uses some Use it has the telly tubbies is not scientific mate. I'm really sorry to break it to you But there is no Observation testing like when we're talking about science. We're talking about the scientific method Don't you think it has to do with audience retention, right? Don't you think they ever do any kind of studies on audience retention and what's going to play better to their their target audience? And so they definitely do study like the things that the field is so and And when they show the telecommunications they're trying to teach children things and so they are very much trying to be Educational it's an educational kids show Yeah, so the the field is called communications kyle not telly tubbies. Okay, there's nothing scientific about the telly tubbies Yes, it is because it does do observation experimentation But you're trying to say that anything at all that uses anything systematic is science is wrong It's 100% wrong. No, it's not. I read out the definition and you agree for it The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation Experimentation and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained that does not apply to the telly tubbies because they're not doing Experimentation they're not doing testes of theories against evidence obtained you agreed to that definition and it doesn't match what you're saying Okay, well my my proof is in the pudding. Okay. It's right there in the dictionary anyone can look it up Yeah, so this is this is sort of the dishonesty of sort of going well I've gone to this particular definition in this dictionary that I've sort of cherry picked out Um that sort of because his first definition was from dictionary.com But he doesn't want his second one to be for that because he can't twist it to make it fit What exactly what he wants? It's it's the same thing. I don't have favorites. Yeah, if I could finish kyle Like if you could let me finish or are you just going to be rude? Is that what you're going to do? um, so if you go to Um a dictionary what it's doing is it's telling you how the words are used in society. So very broad definitions It's not telling you this is how it has to be used and and note the dishonesty of missing the first definition and going straight to the second He is excuse me. He is cherry picking what definitions he wants to try and twist them To how he wants them to be used and I want the evidence for these things happening because you agreed to my definition that says you're required evidence So what evidence? Scientific evidence do you have for the submarines the horses the the people? Building a massive civilization that we can't find anymore. What evidence, please okay, so Yeah submarines. I don't think they like were in joseph smith's day Okay, like submarines was that even like invented yet? So how would joseph smith know what a submarine? Did he just invent the submarine like the moment you wrote about that? I don't think so but Yeah, evidence comes from god. Okay, we watch miracles happen in our lives Okay, we say prayers. We get answers to our prayers many people have seen angels themselves I've got many ancestors who've seen many miracles throughout their life and documented it Okay, and so it's because we Follow the word we study the word and we apply the teachings into our lives We pray we get answers to our prayers and then god speaks to us and says hey guys this book is for real Okay, doesn't matter if they're given technology That is given to them, you know in advance before everyone else did. Okay, that's all irrelevant Okay, yes, I can't you're sorry go ahead So I'm just saying that That's it. Okay. This is all about a study and building a relationship Okay, putting the words under the giving experimenting upon the word that we go Yeah, no, that's not science So so it doesn't matter what of your ancestors saw what or claim to see what or what you say you seen or whatever That that is not what science is like. I don't just go into observation kyle kyle Can you please let me finish you are so rude man? What is wrong with you? Well, let's just continue. Um, yeah, let's try to mitigate those interruptions like because If you go into a lab and sort of say hey, I saw an angel and my ancestors saw an angel and things They will be going well, how can we test for this? How can we experiment and find out if it's actually true? You think that people saying stuff is scientific people just claiming stuff is not scientific and The submarines they called them barges They were built tight that they would hold water until like a dish in the bottom Thereof was tight like unto a dish and the sides there over tight unlike unto a dish And the ends thereof were peaked in the top there it was tight unto a dish and the length thereof is the length of a tree And the door thereof when it was shut was tight unlike to a dish and they actually moved underwater Because they were anxious over hold old lord in them. There is no light whether we shall steer also And also we shall perish for in them. We cannot breathe save it is the air in them Therefore we shall perish we're talking about an underwater barge Not powered with holes in the top and bottom and see your your physicist will know that if you put a Like airtight thing and a hole in the top and a hole in the bottom the water will just fill it up But apparently this didn't happen. So what evidence do you have that they actually sailed across the pacific? I might add in these devices That doesn't say that they only opened it up underwater It never mentions that they opened it up underwater except for like in the hole below They open it up when it when the it surfaces and it doesn't say that they're always underwater Okay, a lot of that time it describes them being at the surface of the water But they went underwater periodically Overduke waves and the one that powered it was god. Okay. God was the one who powered it He kind of pushed it along through the waves And so that was a huge part of that story that you're kind of not taking into consideration And so if I want to prove that these things happened I want to develop a relationship with this god that it speaks of and kind of watch him kind of make some movements in my life In what ways is he powering my life and kind of pushing my life into different directions? And so for me a huge Thing for me was when I joined the military and god Woke me up one morning and said hey, I want you to join the army. I'm like what why? I had no prior inclination to do so at any time in my life The only time I thought about joining the army was when a paratrooper walked into my school and he's like, okay You guys should join the army. I'm like Why what happens if you get stuck in a tree, you know, that was it That was my only question for my only thought to it but I woke up with this strong feeling within me saying I needed to join the army and so uh I knew it was from god So I did it I joined and I was in there for eight years and there were three deployments But I never went on a single deployment. It was kind of a Miraculous thing kind of I'm not doing anything to you know, intentionally try to dodge bullets I just said okay, well, I'm gonna join the army and uh, they gave me a $10,000 sign on bonus to do so Which I ended up using to serve my mission and I got it written into my contract. Hey, um, I want to go serve a mission Can you do that in the middle of that? And so they're like, oh, yeah, sure And so we got into my contract and they let me go on my mission take two years off in the middle of all that and so my first The first deployment that happened because I joined in a time of war. They said, okay. Well, we're going to go ahead and uh You're still in training here. So we're just going to go off and do this Deployment without you and so they went and did that deployment without me and They're like, yeah, they'll always be another war and so after that Uh, I get my papers in after they get back and I go out on my mission and they're like, okay Well, you go keep doing that. There's always going to be another war And so they went on that deployment without me and uh said yeah, just keep doing good stuff and Is that cause time this is going on forever? Oh, well, I'm just telling you about how I watched god move in my life And I was just going about doing good things and three deployments happened Well, you're talking about the barges, right? And we're talking about and so there are many different experiences Throughout my time in the middle of time. I'm trying to not interrupt you but this is going on forever. This is literally going on You wanted an answer on size is providing an answer So the whole idea that god powered it like how do we test that god powered it? We can't this is the thing kyle wants to say oh the evidence is that excuse me kyle Come on, dude. Like what is wrong? We're having a conversation or we're just getting turns monologuing. Well, I Don't know just to be fair. You can't seem to stop interrupting. Yeah. Yeah, just to be fair You did have a long stretch there kyle. So we'll let go he could have made an insertion say I want to I want to talk about what you're talking about there because it seems like we're just having That's true before we get derailed. We're gonna hand it back to mark for one open discussion Okay, well if open discussions the way we're going then you're fine if I interrupt you whenever I feel the need Is that right go for it go for that's okay fantastic Okay, no problem. Um, so he doesn't know that god actually powered these submarines He just believes that god powered these submarines There's no way we can scientifically experiment and find out if god didn't actually power these submarines Well, he just wants to believe that is the case. How does he know god woke him up his evidence for god powering the submarines? His scientific evidence for god powering the submarines Is that he woke up and wanted to join the military and says that it was god that let him do it That is one of the most unscientific Evidences I have ever heard in my entire life bar none. Um, if I wake up and I think that hey, um, my my You know Sex drive made me want to do this thing. It doesn't mean that that can power a submarine the level of illogic and Irrationality here. How do we actually test to see whether god can power a submarine or not? We can't we just can't because that is something we cannot replicate That is why the book of Mormon is not a scientific book because there is no science He can actually use to demonstrate that it's the case like I pointed out with my science book We could go through that entire book and with a with a circuit boards and probe Through everything in that book to a certain level um Okay, um, there's no way just like a cherry pie if my wife picked a cherry pie and wrote it down in her journal that I ate a cherry pie last week and Yeah, is there proof that she ate a cherry pie last week? I'm just kind of going off of what she said Well, this is the difference between mundane claims and claims that are extraordinary that require more evidence As I pointed out if you said you went down to the store or had a cherry pie I would probably believe you if you said you had a pie made out of Aliens, I would probably need more evidence than just your word on it Or if you said you had a elephant pie, I would probably like I'm not sure I believe you Kyle I would need that's why it's so essential to see miracles happen in our lives and so Yeah, my ancestors came to the Americas just dropped what they were doing left scotland and england and many other places and they just said I I read this book of Mormon and I have a lot I've had Miracles happen to me and say wow this book of Mormon is true. And so they left Generations behind them of living in in their homes Leaving entire lifestyles and communities and then they ended up coming to the Americas because of these experiences That they witnessed Okay, these revelations that they had we don't we don't think something is true and it's certainly not scientific Just because they believe it's true and happen to take actions on that belief That does not say whether the thing is true or not true. It means that they believed it was true So that doesn't mean that it is in fact true There are people who have a gloating themselves You should never use the word true and say themselves into towers Because they believe their religion is true people have killed themselves because they believe their religion is true It does not in any way change whether it is true or not that they believe it. It's irrelevant If if you are being an intellectually consistent Then you would have to say that that religion is true as well as well as anybody that's done any change of lifestyle You would have to say that's true and then you're into the weeds of well all of these beliefs are contradictory with one another Okay, and as dr. McLaughlin said truth It's not a scientific word according to her but I don't agree with her but apparently you do So why are you making using the word true so much when she banned that word? Because they're talking about making verifiable falsifiable models based upon experimental process So what we're doing is we're doing models that are based upon a process and those models try to as accurately as possible Represent reality the problem here kiles. You just don't understand what science is you've got no idea what it is So you're basically No, that's not an ad hominem. That's just the truth to try and to try and uplift yourself. No, I'm not you just don't understand What science is you're demeaning me. You don't understand what science is. I'm sorry Okay, you're all right. Well you've got it. It's not demeaning you It's demeaning your ideas of science because they're meaning me They're not what science is you don't understand is talking about my intellect and what I do and don't understand And that's demeaning me. Okay. Well, you're what you've described is not science Okay, trying to bully me is not going to do what you have described is not science and no scientist would agree with you That the tele-tubbies are scientific Dictionary is not a scientist find a scientist Dictionary is a scientific book as I as I described no, it's not And you're welcome to believe that All right, let's kick it into the old q&a everybody Thanks mark reading kyle for a lively discussion here And I'm sure that we're going to get a little bit more into it as we go through q&a, you know, I like to I like to milk these these q&a's for all they are and of course, you know, keep firing them in there I mean, you know, half the q&a it seems like there might be a debate on when submarines were first created. I mean You know, it seems like everybody's got a lot of different ideas about that so Maybe that'll be a future debate. I don't know. Well, it wasn't created by uh, somebody in the the the sort of, you know Something We'll get to closing statements here in a little bit. No, you can believe in your submarines kyle go for it I mean, it's it's delightful, but not scientific. I'm afraid Well, Noah's arc can also kind of be described that way because it was so airtight all the way around Yeah, Noah's arc didn't happen either Uh, you're welcome to you're welcome to think that okay for someone who doesn't believe anything can be proven or true Do you want to flood debate then is certain? Do you want to do a global flood debate then Flood debate later. Well, if you don't believe anything is proven to be true I don't think you have any grounds to say someone is wrong about yeah, say that is a red herring That is just sort of This is my foundation for why I want to have a further debate with you Well, it's kind of like okay. Well, if you want to go down this route Does not believe You should not be saying making any kind of debates whatsoever So it's just it's just the only your your black and white thinking is sort of the only time we can know anything Is when we have absolute proof, which is how they use I never said that in that in that category So that is what you're projecting But it is not actually What what we believe and science itself is there to make not Models that we can describe the world and therefore have knowledge about it But you're sort of saying unless it's a proof unless it's an unequivocal fact like you have in mathematics Then you you you don't you don't have the license to say anything which is absurd Yeah, you're strawmaning me. I never said that. What do you have absolute knowledge of kyle? What do you have absolute knowledge of? hats eat food Really my cat is correct. Let's go down. Is I correct? How do you know? I think we're kind of getting off on another guy's Yeah My cat eats food. I can feed it. I can touch it. I can smell it Yeah, I can you have absolute certainty of that. You have absolute absolute certainty Absolutely because your senses are true And you don't claim it can be proven that cats eat food and that's why I feel like there's a point in having any further debate with you On the matter. What if you're in the matrix? What if you're in the matrix kyle? If you can accept that what if you're in the matrix? Okay, what if you're in the matrix?  Okay. I like to play arc Okay on a computer screen on me too. Okay. These are actual things. Okay. This is food on the game, right? And so that game is truth within that sphere within that that realm. It's not absolutely true. Is it It is absolutely true. I am playing this game is absolutely. Yeah Because it's not absolutely true for that character. They're just zeros and ones. That's the absolute true That is true. But that doesn't mean that it's no that doesn't mean that that is true. Yes So it's not absolute truth. So you're not absolutely sure of anything either. I never said that Oh, dear You're not absolutely sure of anything either. So you're basically I never said that you're not listening to a thing I said No, you're sort of trying to say if you're not absolutely sure if you you don't have proofs these this this tangential proof Proofs only exist in mathematics is a very good reason for that It's because in order to have a proof it has to be a hundred percent absolute That is what a proof is in science in maths And that's why in science we say we don't deal in proofs But you want to ignore that you want to take a definition of the word proof Misapply it and then say oh, well, I gotcha. I can now ignore everything you've got to say such a dishonest tactic It is it is really really bad kyle. It's really bad. That's false accusation. Sorry. No, it's not It's absolutely. It's absolutely. It does not fit the definition of dishonesty by any means Yes, it does. It's because you like I've seen you take the second definition ignore the first I've seen you go to a different dictionary to get other definitions. You are being dishonest I can use both dictionary. Let's have it. Let's have a flood debate kyle Let's have a flood debate too. Let's let's have a flood debate. I think that's something we can do Uh, if that's something yeah, well, I'd like to hear kyle agree to it. Can we have a flood debate? You don't believe anything can be proven to be true. That's not an answer kyle Say that that's not an answer. It's not a debate with you. That's a dodge You're dodging right now. You're dodging right now. Just say yes or no It's a simple no it not unless you can meet that air minimum requirement. You can't back up the flood. That's fine You can't debate the flood. Yeah, I know you can't debate it, but you refuse to accept anything as proof You don't believe there is a proof. So if you can't say that there's that it is proven I'll accept evidence of saying it is not proven I will accept evidence and I'll accept like evidence that You can accept that it might be true, but you can't say anything. That convinces me that something is true Why do you keep just talking over the topic? I will accept that you're not having a conversation and open No, I am having a conversation I'm saying that I will accept a preponderance of evidence that convinces me that that is true And that is what we're dealing with the whole idea that you need some kind of 100 absolute proof If you're defining proof as just significant evidence that weighs the facts in your favor, then I will accept proof Right. So that's a colloquial definition of proof. That's one usage for it Then I will accept it. That's not what science says proof is proofs only exist in maths That's why I'm saying you're misapplying these definitions All right, we'll let you wrap it up there. Kyle for that discussion I think Mark's expressed his point there. So we'll give you 30 seconds and we'll go right into the q&a All right, my proof is in the pudding it's in right here in the dictionary definitions that I directly cited and If you disagree with the dictionary, if you claim the dictionary is dishonest Then I'm being dishonest But actually that's really the dictionary being dishonest and it's not really me. I'm just yeah the one who's Quoting the dictionary. Well, he said I could interrupt anytime I want. So yeah, go for it. I'm sorry I'm not really trying to monologue. And so when I start speaking I have the courtesy to try and allow you to say, okay You don't cite the dictionary your site like sources like papers and things nobody cites the dictionary. It's just Like just it's not a thing. Obviously. I'm obviously that's a demeaning me again because I'm now suddenly I'm no one Stop using it wrong. Then then we'll you know, we'll stop having to correct you All right. Well, we have lots of questions here and there's more pouring in keep them coming everybody because As you can see we've got lots of fire on our heels now as far as our subject is going tonight So we're going to get right to it big bad mama $5 Kyle explain how joseph smith as a supposed prophet Misinterpreted both the kinder hook place and the egyptian book of the dead papyrus That is a loaded question. I'm not going to bother with that Um, he did actually get these scrolls from the mummies that were papyrus and translated of them as the book of abraham Actually, did you say actually? Um, he did say actually. Yeah. Yeah. He mistranslated them into the book of abraham and the book of jacob Somehow you can say actually Looking at the um papyrus went. Yeah, they're the book of the bed funeral writes very common in egypt but he just Made up the book of abraham and the book of jacob from these funerary writes and somehow claimed it was divine revelation It's ludicrous and you don't claim it's proven So I don't think you get the one to make that definitive claim personally It just claims never proves anything. Shouldn't I ever ever make definitive claims? Really? Yeah, so that's not evidence for you. That's just like I don't that sort of straw man of my position Because I never said it doesn't have proofs then you can't actually claim that Your evidence weighs against anything I believe because you have no right to say actually ever that is the Strawiest man that is the biggest scarecrow. I have ever seen kyle. Well, sir crow, huh? I just yeah, that's is your term. Yeah, you said science never proves anything. So yeah, that negates all rights Do you yeah, that doesn't follow the word actually? That doesn't follow that doesn't follow because just because there's no proofs as I've explained doesn't mean you can't have overwhelming evidence for something that convinces you of actually does not mean overwhelming evidence That's two separate things. So all of the egyptologists are lying when they said it was a normal Papyrus with the book of the dead that we find you don't get to speak on behalf of all egyptologists, do you? I said all the egyptologists that that like review. Oh, now you're now you're moving on the post you said all the egyptologists now Yes, all the egyptologists that looked at the papyrus Yeah, no, okay. You don't get to speak on on behalf of all the egyptologists. You haven't even cited a single egyptologist I mean I could do that single egyptologists So I can't speak on behalf of any egyptologists that I haven't seen I can't I can't give account for anything like that. So, yeah All right, everybody. Well mark, let's add up keep those super chats coming in. We're going down the rabbit hole now Okay, so the Mormon scholar david bokevoi um This year the egyptologist Yes, Mormon scholar And you claim that is proven fact Um, tarot gibbons has suggested the characters are early examples of egyptian similes Used to translate that the modic is reformed egyptian so it's like Mainstream scholars just went no john a wilson professor of egyptology From time to time there are allegations. I cited one of them in my opening. I can't believe this From time to time there are allegations the picture writing has been found in america in no case Has a professional egyptology being able to recognize these characters as egyptian hieroglyphs from our standpoint There is no such language as reformed egyptian. I rest my case Uh, as if it's a proven fact. Yeah, right.  You rested your case. I get I get you so All right. Well, let's move on from there. Uh, satan himself is in the chat As a question what evidence do you have that jesus walked on water or even existed? What evidence do I have? Well, I've got evidence it is qualifies as a testimony And so I have many testimonies and that's what then that's the entire new testament kids That's what testament means is a test. Oh, yeah Who saw that happen? The authors of the book that they talk about who authored the books Matthew mark Luke james and john those are all Yeah, did it ever say that those people authored the book? It says it right there the book of this the book of john. Yeah, that's kind of what the book of john means Those are traditional Authors they attribute them to these people We don't know for sure that they actually wrote them talk to biblik. Well, you don't claim to know anything So I don't yeah, so that's your response for everything It's going to be because that's what you that's that's your philosophy.  That's a that's a scientific thing And that's why the book of Mormon is not scientific because what you do which isn't scientific is claim to know Believe that you know think you can't be wrong and that makes you right and that's not how that works It doesn't matter how much you think you're right You're not right because you think you can't be wrong So, you know, this is why I never said that Mormon is never ever going to represent me correctly, please When you start representing me correctly, but I have that's the thing You're basically saying because I acknowledge there's no proofs in science. I can't know anything That is your claim and it's complete non sequitur. I never said that I never said that you're misquoting Then I can know things right making things up then I can know things right then I can know things, right? That I can know things I and okay, what when did I ever say that these This quote, when did I ever give you this you're dismissing what whatever I've presented you're dismissing because there's no proofs in science I say I know this because of these reasons and you say no, but there's no proofs in science How do you like if you're acknowledging that I can know things? Why are you dismissing them? Because I say there's no proof. This is the world according to your knowledge. I'm not dismissing that I that was part of my opening statement Yeah, and one of us is giving evidence of how we know it like you're not I am I did and so I care those kind of part of my opening statement there is just because It's not the book the Book of Mormon isn't part of your paradigm the world according to your knowledge That doesn't mean it's not the world according to my knowledge. And so I I don't agree with the heliocentric model. I find a lot of different faults in it But I still consider it scientific even though it's not part of my knowledge It's a part of someone else's knowledge and because it's part of their knowledge Therefore I can call it scientific That's not what makes something scientific. You give the same respect to the book of Mormon That's not what makes something scientific. It's whether it has followed the methodology Systematized methodological naturalism is actually the correct term for methodological naturalism All right, well, you know what? I know I know that it's time to move on Thank you so much for your question satan. That wasn't actually a super chat That was when I pulled out of the chat earlier Because we didn't have a whole lot of super chats at the time and I was getting a little concerned there But it looks like we've got lots to keep us busy here So we're going to keep on going keep those super chats coming in Like I said earlier, you know, these guys have lots of thoughts regarding the subject here and Uh, lots of ways that they discussed it. So moving on. Um, sorry about your name Not in a literal sense. I'm just gonna probably butcher it. However you wanted it pronounced Udhaf Hachu or Heku? Heku? I don't know five dollars. Kyle Science is repeatable. Do you have examples of things only book of Mormon teaches that we can repeat and retest and demonstrate to make sure that it's true That we can repeat and retest. Yeah, we can that's the biggest invitation is prayer If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God and we can repeatedly pray Yeah, and get answers to our prayers and it doesn't mean we're not Okay, you Claimed that but again, you claim did not have any proof of that.  They actually Get work they do worse than than people that sort of don't know they're being prayed for but the the prayer didn't make any difference whatsoever To to the healthiness of the people they prayed for so we we know prayer doesn't work. We've experimented Yeah, uh, say, uh, Buffalo Bill's niece definitely said otherwise Buffalo Bill's niece, uh, how to like a Really life-threatening condition and it wasn't until john alexander dowey Went and said a prayer over her that she was healed and it was a huge thing and that was kind of what This whole thing Buffalo Bill was a huge famous guy back in like the 1920s and uh, very very public and when his niece Was miraculously healed That turned eyes to a lot of people a lot of heads turned what just happened there and because it was so such a big deal uh, that really gave john alexander dowey a lot of notoriety and Definitely was a huge help for him in founding the city of zion illinois Which was the flat of city where they taught publicly and openly that they're at this flat in their schools Yeah, so like, you know go to a doctor if you're ill don't rely on prayer for a start like see a medical professional The the whole idea is that prayer works prayer doesn't bring back, you know amputees arms or legs or anything actually significant It's always diseases that you know can sort of heal on their own or go into remission or something like that It's never you claim has no proof to nobody has had there like I Gouged out and suddenly replaced by prayer. It's nonsense. That's that's incredulity You can't you cannot account for everyone in the entire world You're just saying that because there's no one that you are aware of that's what you really mean Okay, there's no one that you are aware of that has happened, but that doesn't mean it's never happened Well, I mean like I said we've got evidence that prayer doesn't do anything the temperate foundation did a study There's other studies that have been done on the effect evidence, but not it doesn't actually do anything Yeah, so so, you know go to a medical professional if you are sick don't rely on prayer. That's all I can see All right, let's move on from there. Well, I mean that question was for you Kyle. Did you wrap up all your thoughts on that? Yeah, all right, cool. All right coffee mom. Uh, thanks for your membership for six months. It's awesome Uh, glad to see you in the the old live chat there again dollar 99 Scientifically native americans aren't jewish They are welcome to make that claim Uh, I wonder if this person is one of those people who claims that science never proves anything also because that would be kind of a big deal Because that would mean there's no proof that they are not jewish There we go. Uh, they didn't DNA has that literally no middle eastern Markers in it whatsoever like that that claim has been absolutely shot out of the water. Um Yeah, there's no there's no markers for for near middle eastern DNA in the native americans Just isn't there And you're welcome to say that For someone who doesn't claim that's a proof or true. That's another taboo for you Well, if you're if you're um, if you're uh, saying that it is true, then you should um I never come to come up with it Because a mormon researcher such as anthropologist Thomas w murphy an ex mormon plant geneticist sim simon salatin So even mormons state that that there's no detectable presence of ancestors from the ancient middle east in native american populations And that poses substantial evidence to contradict the book of mormon I actually said evidence, but you can't claim it's a proven fact or truth as On your terms. No So dna evidence, we don't rely on anything that for anything like I don't know crime scene analysis and stuff Is it proof of anything you can just say it's evidence But I can also point to a lot of different evidences, but that's just your evidence versus my evidence But unless you can actually prove anything unless you can actually prove anything It's just all mole and void You haven't you haven't you haven't presented any evidence. Well, you've done is just state anecdotes. I'm sorry You've just dismissed any claim I did so yeah, let's go on. All right. Uh, so, uh, yeah, ozayan had sent me a message there You know, he's been on here quite a bit and thanks for being in the live chat there ozayan and doing what you do And helping out with the discord. He'd asked if each of you could define knowledge I'll give you guys each just by tribulation. So I'll just uh, yeah marks. I think he's already got it there So I'll kick it over you Kyle 15 seconds. Uh, well, what is my acquaintance with facts truths principles from study investigation general erudition Knowledge of many things Okay, it's an acquaintance acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight experience or report. I like that one All right, excellent. Thank you so much familiarity. That's not a declaration that this is true. It's just uh Familiarity with the thing All right, excellent. We'll continue on from there and thank you so much to both of you for answering that question there All right, jolly roger $11 canadian hey hey another canadian Uh, kyle. I still don't understand how you consider the book of mormon to be scientific Can you rephrase or use an example or analogy? Please elaborate? So we'll give the book of mormon has been systematized. It's in chronological order It's also been organized by the author of who wrote the book and so this is the lord of the rings This is the words according to alma. And so it it's organized and it's also using the english language and the english language Yeah, it's been organized very systematically and in a way that it can be understood. Okay, and so that's all Systematic which is my definition which is the definition for the word scientific Yeah, so lord of the rings and game of thrones is systemized as well into chapters. It doesn't mean they're scientific books and thank you Yeah, they're not scientific books either. Like if you're saying you can you can move the goalpost or you want but that goalpost is a mile away That is hilarious. No, no you're shifting the goalpost from like if you're actually sitting here and claiming that lord of the rings Is a scientific book. You realize that. It is systematized. It is systematized. And so yes No, no, no. I if systematized means scientific and yes, it does it does by the dictionary. It does. Yes I said if kyle if that is the case then lord of the rings according to you Is a scientific not according to me not according to me according to the dictionary according to you because nobody All shares your dictionary.com Nobody else would say that lord of the rings is a scientific book because it is fiction And the characters have just as much chance of existing in the book of mormon as they do in lord of the rings We have the same evidence for both. I'm just telling you there is no evidence for bilbo baggins And there is no evidence for nephi and his family in submarines It's not a requirement to be systematized knowledge Evidence is not a requirement. No, you heard it here folks. Lord of the rings is a scientific book according to kyle According to the dictionary. Okay. It's a mile wide No, no, it's nobody thinks that kyle. You are the only one that thinks that Obviously, that's not the case because it's going by the dictionary and i'm not the one who wrote the dictionary. Thank you No, it's not going by the dictionary because the dictionary is not saying that it's not saying that No, it's your it's your warped interpretation of the definition that you have That has been To excuse that the book of mormon is about as scientific as lord of the rings They are scientific by the dictionary It's a mile wide goalpost and like I said, I'm knocking that word off its pedestal and that's exactly what I did You haven't knocked anything I pointed out what the dictionary says and you like you're just a hundred percent wrong. There's nothing right about what you're saying You haven't knocked anything kyle.  No, you know that scene where aragorn kicks the helmet No, i'm kidding. I'm kidding. I i'm not gonna do that Like i'm not gonna be that broke his toe in that scene. I know I know but Everybody everybody has to mention it when they bring up the movie. So i'm just being that person All I can say is full of a took. Yes. Yes, exactly I just uh, I enjoy how every time gandalf gets stuck on something. Uh, the very next scene. He's there with his pipe from It is organized. It's written in the english language. It's got paragraphs and grammar and it's all Or it's not just random letters. It's all been kind of process scientific I welcome to say that that's the only thing you can do in in this debate is just say No, that is not case and that's that's all I've outlined what science is No, no, no, I've outlined what science is the procedure of science I've taken the thing from dictionary.com because that's the source that you liked using and showed that Your your your whole thing has no experimentation. There's no way you can replicate what you're trying to be true That is a requirement of science that you can replicate According to your very very narrow goalposts that you've moved So no, no, there's none in the goalpost. You don't get to decide what science is you you've just basically gone Well, I'm gonna cherry pick twist a definition from some dictionary that I didn't even get the source of that You just said the internet is what you said or google is where you got it said you cited a dictionary Which is so wrong. I can't even you know, imagine who would use that And then you sort of said hey because I've never like sort of made anything literally anything science Then I can claim my book is scientific. Well, I'm sorry. You can't change reality like that. It's not scientific This is a religious book. It's nonsense. It's not scientific in the slightest All right. Well, let's continue on We've got lots of super chats and I'm sure there'll be languages There's a one to find it that way so you can say oxford is wrong All right. Well, uh, yeah, we'll continue on from there because I'm sure that will eventually come full circle, uh, regardless So, uh, let's see here. Yeah, I was just talking about gandalf trying to calm himself down during the stressful situations And we ended up getting uh, right back on the topic. So let's get back to our q&a everybody um So elusive viper nice to see you again five dollars Uh, fyi the first submarine was created 200 years before the book of mormon Now I got a question, uh Kyle just because I'm curious As far as uh, as far as that history goes when would the book of mormon been published? Uh, the book of mormon was published. I think in 1830 I don't remember perfectly Okay, so okay. Um, I just want to I just want to add that in in Kyle's definitions He missed definition one knowledge about structure and behavior of natural physical world based on facts You can prove by example by experiments. He skipped number two the study of science He skipped definition three a particular branch of science and went to four Um a system for organizing knowledge about a particular subject Especially one concerned with aspects of behavior and behavior or a society So, yeah, this this sort of quote mining of the dictionaries to get the one that he wants and then twisting it Exactly what he's doing. It's can it be described as scientific and my claim was that it can It doesn't mean the content. It's got a mile-wide goalpost Okay, it can be defined that way. No, no, no your your your dishonesty has just been unveiled It's not dishonest every single definition down to the very last one Kyle dishonesty Your your claim is just the meaning you're just trying to demean me Even though there's no How can I to be demeaning you I've just said that that is dishonest to go and And you have no proof of that claim to go off of so you have just you're all I've got a lot of evidence for that claim I just gave it to you and you have discredited all of your definitive statements No, no, no, I have a lot of evidence for that claim. I just gave it Yeah, it's just not proof, right? So let's let's go on. All right. So next question We as an I ask is uh, yeah, that would put it around like what? 1600s because the next question or the next answer was discovering engine history with pat lawinger $2. Thank you so much for your super chat said the submarine was conceived by w. Born in 15 78 I did not know that and now before you guys get to that right after that ozayan talks Uh, this says for two dollars the first submarine was used in 1863 naval history um So 63 1830 is predates 1863 Well, yeah, the reason that I was telling me more about how it was powered by god Like did he have a paddle? Did he did he did he have an engine? Is it a god engine? Did he did he shoot light rays down and power it that you could have just pushed it the whole way? I don't know. Oh very scientific. Yes. Yes very scientific. Yes Well, the reason I ask is because we got all different answers here on like the submarine was right So I was aware the cons The concept had been come up with before Joseph smith looked into his hat and wrote it or you know, whatever he was doing to you know, come up with this magic book um It it it wasn't really something that was implemented heavily at all But the way that they described it in there Was pretty bad It wouldn't have worked. They need miracles to make it work, which you know, I suppose Miracles are scientific then, you know, I suppose we should just all Miracles are scientific Yes, they are So, oh really? uh What what's an experiment you can do on a miracle to replicate it To replicate a miracle I don't think it has to necessarily be replicable in order to be scientific. We've already discussed this. Let's move on All right, let's continue on. Uh, we got lots of questions and uh, you know people keep them coming in Um, you know, we're talking about is the book of Mormon scientific. Uh, we've been talking about Uh, well, we've been talking about all kinds of different things. So, you know, definitely check out this debate We're going to put it into our podcast and uh, link all of our guests in that description But as for you guys right now, I see that we have 72 likes and 244 people watching Um, so once again, you know, if you guys have those arthritic wrists, I mean, you know, just just use your nose It hit that like button, whatever you have to do Uh to get this into the algorithm. So, uh, let's continue on discovering that was yeah, we went through the uh Our submarines. Oh my goodness, uh for two dollars from david garr says the submarine I don't know. He's being comedian. He said the submarine will be invented in 2041 by a Mormon Sorry Oh, davgar. Thank you for uh, thank you for some humor there. You know, uh Back to the lord of the rings references speak friend and enter. Well, thank you so much for that davgar Uh, that's uh, just kind of fun there. So jolly roger 11 dollars canadian Uh says kyle you mentioned people getting an answer from god that the book is true Do you think that experience is different from those who say god told them that the crown is true? And if their experience is different or if different so how or how so sorry I haven't met many. I haven't met anyone So far that told them that the crown is true. And so if they would like to Have a discussion with me and talk about kind of their experiences that led them to that conclusion I'd be more than happy to engage with that Yeah, you haven't met a muslim Like they all claim that the book is true and the thing is that they've got exactly that's not what he asked They ask us what what about a person who has Been told by god that the crown is true and I've spoken with many muslims But I've never met a muslim that told me that god told them that the crown was true I've seen a lot of people say oh, well I think the crown is true because of this this and this But that's not that's something different than god telling you that it's true. Has god told you the book of Mormon is true. Yes How do you know it was god How do I know it's got that's a really good question but I can only point to experience with that and so there's a lot of different voices out there and learning about you know, which The as the savior taught my sheep hear my voice and they know me And so the only way we can know the voice of the saviour is through experience and that takes years To distinguish which voice is his But you can't be sure can you because if you've only heard one voice Then you can't be sure that that there's not another voice out there. I don't claim. I've only heard one voice I just said there's many voices out there and I've definitely heard many different voices And so right so how do you know that the one that you think is god is god? There's a distinguishing factor with the one that is god and Yeah, when I think about just going to church and some of like the really powerful moments Such as for me it was in the military when I was seeing the night and day difference between the military culture and Suddenly being able to go back to church And while I was in the army and having that experience to just sing there The spirit of god like a fire is burning and I felt on fire It was like throughout my whole body and I could just feel god singing with me that Yeah, the the spirit of god like a fire is burning is a very powerful moment and so how do you know that wasn't a infinitely powerful demon that's out to trick you uh Yeah, if so then it was a pretty convincing, but I don't I don't think demons are out there uh Teaching people to love and yeah, it's just like I said experience might be building might be just luring into a false sense of security Really, uh, that's not a Definition but you don't know for sure. Do you you don't know for sure? Because there's no reason why an infinitely powerful demon couldn't sort of trick you in some way Oh for sure. There's there. Yeah tricks can happen out there and I don't deny that and so so you're not sure. Okay Um about that. I just said that there's an A level of experience and so that's all that's all make that's all I could be a demon It could be a you already said it could be a demon. That's fine. You know, you're not sure. Yeah, you're not sure Okay, let's move on Alrighty Let's scroll on up And that was jolly roger. Thank you so much for this super chat. I was eye and talks two dollars Why did god send other men to die but not you? Why did other men sin? What? I'm sorry. Can you ask that question again? I think he's asking Your military services there so you can choose not to answer that where it's kind of a personal question Not really related to the subject entirely But he is you know the whole idea of why did god send other men to die where you can even address just the broader question Why would god send people to die? If you don't want to talk directly about you know your experience. Oh, it wasn't my story. That was it And so it wasn't my story There was part of their story but not part of my story All right, we can move on from there. Uh, thank you so much joe zion jolly roger. Thanks again five fifty canadian Kyle does believing your coworker went to university require the same amount of faith belief Slash knowledge as believing jesus was resurrected. So believing your coworker went to university Versus believing jesus was resurrected. Um, so they're saying that Does that require the same amount of faith or knowledge? I'd say so Really? Yeah So if I said I went to university Do you think that would require the same level of faith or knowledge than if somebody if I said I rose from the dead Why not? um, it's it's because people often go to university and and enroll in university People don't often rise from the dead so If you said hey, I went to university. I go. Okay. Cool. No problem Um, if if you said you rose from the dead, I'd be like I would need more evidence for that because that's not something that happens Ever that I've ever heard of your knowledge Sure, sure. What else would I base it on? Oh, that's all you can go off of is your knowledge and so right right So if if I'm going to tell you hey, you've got to worship me because I rose from the dead and you just believe that That's a problem for you. Kyle. Well, Jesus never said worship me because I rose from the dead. So yeah But but if that was the case like if I said hey, I rose from the dead You would just believe that or if I said I'm a prince from Nigeria, you would just believe that Uh, I didn't see that either. So yeah Okay, well, it's just it's it's a really weird way to sort of evaluate claims as if Somebody doing something supernatural and going to university are sort of require the same amount of evidence Oh, I really kind of comes down to Uh, building a relationship or trust with that person, doesn't it? Well, I've got a bridge to sell you Kyle Okay Let's move on. All right. Let's continue on here Uh, so Up we go again. I keep those super chats coming in everybody. He's uh, we're having lots of uh fun having this discussion once again, we have a question kind of related to your military service there, so uh, I you can kind of choose to address the broader idea rather than talk about personal experiences Uh, Kyle, how do you know god wanted you to join the military and not fight because you were skipped And god wants you to join And you were skipped fighting because of your religion I'm not sure if that was worded very well Uh, uh, zarks are in sorry for 10 euros.  And so there was kind of a It was a really neat experience for me to See that I needed to be in a certain place and do a certain thing in order to Kind of fill fulfill a divine mandate and then kind of watch my life Yeah, immediately change afterwards And so that was an infinitely powerful demon that wanted somebody else to die So they stopped you from going so someone could die in your place Um If you believe in demons sure. Oh, I don't yeah, I don't okay So therefore that kind of out rules that claim doesn't it according on your terms Well, no, if you if you believe in demons then it could be possible, right? Well, it depends on your Uh, why would why would demons existing depends on depend on whether I believe in it or not? Well, you're you're the one claiming it could be this and if you don't believe that then that kind of invalidates Your claim that it could be this you're the one making the logic. It's not logically impossible in your worldview So this is an internal but you're the one you suggesting that it could be and so I don't think you should be saying it Could be if you don't believe that is the case at all. So let's move on. It's logically impossible about it What's wait, you're about your claim I'm not claiming that I'm saying that it's possible that it could be a demon. I'm not claiming that is the case But it's oh, so you believe demons are possible now Well, sure. Okay, great. Let's move on I don't believe that they exist, but I'm not saying they're logically impossible I'm just like yeah, I think that just moves that just that takes you out of the atheist category and puts you into agnostic so um That's my understanding of atheists is someone who does not believe that there is a god and uh And ag and agnostic is someone who believes there could be a god, but they don't really know It's a possibility. But just don't really know what part of did you miss when I said I believe there are no demons Like what part of that did you miss? You believe that there are no demons. I thought you just said it was a possibility I said that it's logically possible It's logically okay. There we go. There we go. I didn't you don't have to believe in them. You just have to say that it's Possible Not to be an atheist. All I have to do is not is believe there are no gods to be an atheist under the strictest definition And I believe there are no as my understanding is kind of like a much more definitive Maybe maybe my definition is wrong and I'm open to that if Atheists is someone who claims there is no god as a certain fact and that's a difference No, no because theism is about belief. That's what theism is is about belief Theism from belief in the greek Theism from the belief. Okay Yeah, I mean belief Alrighty, let's continue on there. Uh, yeah, keep those super chats coming in. Uh, we're having a great time here Have a conversation conversation there on uh, is the book of Mormon Scientific We have been going a little bit over time. So, uh, you know, it's my common courtesy. Oh, sorry. I'll take the No, you're good. You're good. I think everything's fine in that regard But I will check with both of you to make sure that you guys are okay for time So mark, are you good for time? Yeah, I'm good. I'm good. Kyle Yeah, all right. Cool. And uh, did either of you want to get a refreshment or uh, go relieve yourselves? Uh, I got water. I'm good All right. Okay. Well, I might I might skip out at some point because I gotta I could use the uh, you will We won't get into it. Uh, but uh, let me just get the next chat up here before we get to that all right, so Everybody's agreed to stay a little bit longer. So that's awesome. Thanks everybody in the uh, live chat for coming out You know, I'm glad that we don't have a whole bunch of uh spammers and awful awful, uh Copy paste stuff. Don't don't use that as an opportunity. I swear people I'll start blocking.  I like it. Um, so yeah, let's continue on um jolly roger 550 canadian again Kyle can you empathize As to empathize as to why mark may be frustrated as to why he came to this debate with the defesh definition he did And I empathize with that I understand that he Kind of came to a debate where you might have had an impression of that this debate was going to be something other than it was because he didn't read The title of the debate Was by the dictionary is is the is the Book of Mormon scientific book The title of the thing is not not what is the definition of scientific that was that is exactly what it is it's What is the definition of scientific and does the Book of Mormon qualify under that definition? That is exactly what the title is. What does the debate topic say? What is the debate Book of Mormon is a scientific book which states that that The word science or scientific Uh, it uses the word and says this qualifies by this definition Okay, so so look Kyle I basically said the topic of the debate was not what is the definition of scientific and you said it was You're not in reality at this point. No, it's not the title of the debate is is the Book of Mormon scientific That is literally the debate title Like you your facts seem to go Well, I'm going to see whatever I want to see and whatever I feel like I want to see like The debate topic is I am the one who wrote the debate topic. So I am the one who gets to say as the author exactly what it means And that is exactly what it means That is the power of the author. Thank you Did everybody Can I have some of whatever you're I seriously just because I say okay, we're going to debate the flood I'm going to take that to mean birds Like are you serious? What is wrong with that? Okay, well if you could Yeah, you can you can go ahead and make a huge case for that and say this is an open statement Craziest debate I have had in so long. This has been welcome to my world So Yeah, so uh when it comes to as an author if you wanted to take the word Flood and define it as birds you have the power to do so and so when you make your opening statement and you say, okay birds or say the flood The flood in this instance is specifically referring to birds like a flood of birds Okay, and you could specifically say that in your opening statement And then as me coming to your debate hearing your opening statement Then I can say okay. I disagree with that And that isn't how that isn't how debates work and it's not your debate kyle It is on the one who is the one who made the indication you don't get to challenge somebody on a topic and then say because I wrote it. I made the statement Write down what it means and it means this other thing that it doesn't say wow I I it's an adjective and I decide and this is the state This is a noun This is the adjective and this adjective describes this noun and according to the dictionary Which I defined in my opening statement And so I'm going by these definitions and so I'm the one making the opening statement You're the one who's stepping in and saying no That is wrong and that's all you can do that's that's your side of the debate and so if you come in here and try to Reform an entirely new debate that is called the red herring. It's and it's separate from You're you're not the problem is what you've got in your mind and what you've put down as the debate And what we're going to discuss are not the same thing Like if you wanted to discuss the definition of scientific No, if you wanted to discuss is what the definition of scientific is Put that as the debate topic and I probably would have said no, I'm not debating that because I don't do Definitional debates. That's exactly what you signed up for. So let's know Is it scientific that is a definition of the beat? Let's continue on. Let's continue on from here because uh, we definitely Understand that you guys kind of can I say one thing? I choose to reject your reality and substitute my own There you go. There's okay. Okay. Let's hear the mud so I was going to say Yeah, I think we've kind of established that you guys disagree on that kind of fundamental principle about the debate topics so You know, let's let's try to get down into the the gritty of what we can get out of our super chats here And see where we go with that but I think that point's been established. So We'll just try to carry on from there if you gentlemen don't mind Um, so, uh Zara Zara Zarin Zara Zaxin, I don't know five dollars cats eat food.  That's probably not good for them, but I'd say grass sometimes cats a little kinds of things I've seen cats like chew on furniture Yeah, no, I I definitely uh, understand that so, uh, yeah cats cats will eat anything, you know, um Yeah, let's make I've got a cat that will eat talkies Talkies, yeah I can't say food is wrong.  Anyways Yeah, and yeah, no anyways, I won't make everybody sick. But yeah, it was a bad time. All right. Layall for 20 dollars Thank you so much mark. I am the same religion as kyle and if I would agree If I would agree with the definition of scientific method and this method cannot be used to verify the story of either About how they came to this content By submarine This is okay. So so there's there's no problem if you think that if you believe in the book of mormon There's no problem if you think it's true. I don't have a problem with that It's no it's no great big deal. The problem is thinking that the book is scientific So I don't want to sort of say hey, you shouldn't believe that or or this this book is is, you know Somehow something that you shouldn't believe. No, it's just it's not a scientific book. That's all Just like the the Quran isn't a scientific book. The Bible isn't a scientific book Um, but there are scientific books out there and lord of the rings is not one of them. I'm sorry. It just isn't You have to you have to dismiss my definition of having a debate that the You know, well, I mean Yeah, you're kind of appealing to dictionary to appeal to appeal to definition value. That's my that's my opening statement Which is actually this definition it qualifies the question was for for me. I didn't know it was for you kyle Well, um, it says mark. I am the same religion as kyle. So yeah, it's a statement. It's not really a question, is it? kyle, what is wrong with you? It's a question to me and you're just jumping in. It's not a question There was no question There's no question. Yeah, but i'm talking about it. Like what is your monologue happening here or having a conversation Let's let's before answering questions. I wasn't interrupting you.  We're gonna we're gonna. Um, we'll kick it back to you mark Yeah, so you can believe in the book of Mormon and and it is an appeal to definition fallacy that that has to be the definition because you read it in their dictionary It's a it's a logical fallacy and therefore it's completely irrational go car. You can say whatever you want now I finished you're welcome to say that. Okay, but that doesn't make it truth or true All right lots, uh, yep lots more super chats coming in keep them coming The debaters that we have here. Uh, kyle and mark, uh, they both consented to stay a little bit longer So as long as we have questions and uh things to talk about we're gonna keep this conversation going so Um, do do do see I keep scrolling around. I gotta get rid of some of these now Um, hillhugger five dollars kyle Is it possible to design an experiment to falsify an extraordinary claim within the book of Mormon? Is it possible to false to design an experiment to falsify it? mm-hmm Uh, I don't know. Uh, is it possible to yeah, it sounds like whoever's asking this question is falling into the popper philosophy of science, which uh claims that it must be falsifiable But coon the philosopher and science claims that science does not have to be falsifiable Uh, and so he gets into this huge thing on that that, um paradigms are things that people are not questioning and so, uh They just mark it as an anomaly and they move on so yeah, it's something that's falsifiable Yeah, that's not really a requirement for science now is can you prove it wrong? Then I'd say yeah, and that's kind of what Alma kind of He encouraged us to do just like planting a seed if you can you can know for a fact That this seed is not a good seed if it doesn't grow if you can say Okay, that's a terrible seed and you can know that this is a bad plant if it doesn't bear any fruit And that was the huge invitation from Alma in Alma chapter 32 said you can judge a tree By its fruit and so what is the fruit of the book of Mormon? Okay, and that is what we look for and so if it doesn't bear any fruit then by all means discard it That's that's what he said All right, any thoughts on that mark before we continue on Yeah, so so kring doesn't really sort of Dismiss falsified he all together he certainly embraces verificationism which which still requires Some sort of systematic basis for evaluating whether a claim is true or false um you so um, he doesn't so um, the verifiability principle sort of says that it has to be supported by empirical evidence and um All logical requirements and so even under coon's sort of offbeat and and he was sort of from the the 40s like his he's sort of um A bit outdated but never mind But even according to his strict thing that the book of Mormon still wouldn't be scientific even according to coon Do you agree with coon's philosophy of incommensurability? No You don't agree with that No Which is the same thing as popper signed the claim in that science never proves anything And so I don't see how they're kind of like the same concept Science never proves anything and incommensurability incommensurability for the audience is just the claim that you can never Measurably prove that one paradigm is better than another and so we could say we've got uh, the book of mormon And uh, the whole paradigm of the church of jesus christ of latterday saints that whole religion Versus catholic catholicism and you can't systematically or measurably prove that one is better than the other or you can say the same thing No, no, but okay, but here's where you're you're wrong because coon's saying that you can't prove the old paradigm with the new one Right that the new paradigms got to prove itself by getting better results than the old one But you can't prove the new one with the old paradigm Because then you're relying on the old paradigm to provide Support for the new one you're still using that old paradigm, but you can still prove Or demonstrate that the new one's better by getting better results and more reliable results by using that paradigm It's incommensurability is immeasurable. That's kind of what the word Yes, you can't measure the new paradigm with the old one Against the old one and so you're trying to determine. Yes one is better And so that doesn't mean you professor from leiden university went and specifically said that you can't know which paradigm is better That i'm getting everything just from him Uh, who they said yeah, I I don't I don't agree with that I don't I think that you can use science to prove that there is a better method than science I think you can do that You believe science can prove things that now that there is a better method. Yes Okay, so that contradicts your former claim with against dr. McLaughlin who said that Science never proves anything Yeah, we're talking about logical systems here not not just sort of individual models, right? We're talking about sort of like maths. It's a logic system Right, so okay, so like in maths where you have proofs You can say this thing has a proof because its logical system can have a proof associated with it Much like when you give proofs for syllogisms and things like that You can you can structure it in such a way that you can provide proofs But like looking at those things you're not doing Experimentation and things like that. You're not creating a model All right. Well, I think I think cats eat food is a pretty observable logical statement and Oh, you disagree that you said your cat ate furniture as well. So that that is not a true statement By the dictionary definition of eat. Okay to chew on to digest That qualifies. Thank you Well, you probably chowed down on some cloth and digested it. So yeah Well, let's continue on from there. Um, yep cats will eat anything. We have established that I'll just let everybody know in the live chat too that I have a new song that I'm working on for modern day debate I've been contemplating whether I should try Playing a little bit of it at the end of this Because my friend just uploaded the track So you can let me know in the live chat if you want a little after show and maybe I'll play a little tune for you fellas But if not, then that's fine too because maybe like I was going to say to you earlier mark the latency May may cause some issues with my audio as far as like guitar to uh To the actual track. So yeah, we'll uh, we might give it a go. Uh, it can always get clipped Audio is pretty low bandwidth. It should be fine Yeah, it could be fun. I was gonna say But let's continue on for now forte five dollars. I want to hear it Oh, it's uh, you know, you'll hear it probably plenty once uh once I send it over to james once it's done But uh, we'll see. Uh, we'll see uh, how long it takes for us to wrap this up in what time it is here Uh, so let's see forte five dollars Why do people tend to lose their religiosity as they become more educated? Is that full? Well, I think yeah, whoever wants to jump on that we can Get into that So whether you think that's true or whether you have an explanation for why that could be true or why it is true Why do you think it's true? All right, it's a loaded question. Okay to start off. Okay, some people actually get more religious as they become more educated And uh, they really kind of gets into how they define educated. I'm not the author And so I'm not gonna claim that exactly how they're defining the word educated But for me You don't have to go to school in order to become educated. In fact, my professors at Dixie State University told me don't let School get in the way of your education and that right there tells me that education is not about the building or Or organization that you're learning from it's just a process of learning Yeah, I agree with that. I I agree that you don't have to go to university and stuff to be educated The problem is that there's a lot of misinformation out there And if you just go to certain sources like the internet, it's it's hard to distinguish what is correct and what is incorrect So that's where sort of having a Sort of academic background or sort of the academic process and the scientific process taught to you You can critically think about information and sort of find out what is true and what is most likely true Now, I know that they're speaking generally I won't I won't certainly won't disagree that certain people become educated that they become more religious But generally speaking people that do get educated become less religious and I can probably find some studies to back that up I think the reason is because um, a lot of the times Religion requires a gap of knowledge in order to insert a god So, um, if you don't understand how the universe was created a god might feel that role If you don't understand, you know, the formation of the earth or any of these principles A god might feel that role but when you start to learn and understand the reasons why we know Um, or humans have figured out these things occur and understand the scientific principles that have led us to believe What we do, um, it becomes a lot harder to believe that that a god is doing all of this Um, so I think it is the the teaching of critical thinking that is um, sort of You know the reason why religion rates are on the decline so much especially in new generations coming up All right, and uh, I think academia itself is trying to it's kind of an indoctrination program And so a lot of the teachers out there Are kind of trying to steer people away from from I think there's kind of a separation of church and state That kind of wasn't there and so, uh, uh, yeah, it's not really And so I think that kind of ends up pulling So if they're if they're defining education as academia Then I think that would be a major uh attribute or Factor a major factor is that whole separation of church and state Well, I think that um academics don't sort of teach you what to think They sort of set you up so you can think as Carl said these teachers were saying don't let your education get in the way into thinking And that's exactly what they mean. Don't just think something because we told you Use that critical thinking process to analyze it for yourself and they give you the tools to do so Like I said, I wish I would I showed you that they hello Just in the middle of talking here like seriously. I'm commenting on what you're talking about and yeah Well, could you wait till I finished would be a I'm sorry. I'm not used to this whole monologue thing I I didn't What This baffles me why don't let you talk and then when I talk you say I'm unlogging it's Unfinished. Wow. Um, okay. So so so the book that I showed for instance with all of the the you know, sort of I'll electronic circuits and things like that all of the truth tables all of the things we do in in um, sort of digital communications and Computer architecture they show you how to design that how to think about how to do they don't just tell you How this is the only way in fact they like you to think beyond that box kind of thing But in a critical way not just believe anything you're told that that's all Yeah, my my science textbook says the earth is the globe because we said so and yeah And I've got a whole series on that called modern earth science destroyed Just pointing out all of the times that this book just makes all these definitive statements And expects you to go off of it because they said so and they don't encourage you To ask questions for yourself just believe it because we said so that's it. What so that's a huge problem What did you go in university? What did I do in university? I and I I got a that was part of my generals, but I'm actually just picking a part like a the typical high school that's my my uh My series modern earth science destroyed It's just picking up a typical high school science textbook And just picking that apart because that's exactly the way they teach it And so well, they won't they won't do that in in sort of, you know, that's not true there. I can point to I can point to a college Geology textbook or you know astrology and they just tell you well the sun is this far away because we said so they don't tell you Uh, they don't encourage you to to doubt that they don't encourage you to think for yourself on that matter They just say yeah, but they tell you sun is this money 93 million miles away and that's it They expect you they tell you why like parallax movements the distance that light travels That there's a lot of reasons for why And they're saying that uh Yeah, just trust us on that. That's it. They don't They don't say this could be the case. They say it is the case All right. Well, let's continue on from there jolly roger Uh 550 again canadian kyle does consensus of scholarship mean anything to you? Or do they have the same knowledge authority as anyone else? a consensus and scholarship is just a book of the month club kind of a thing it's kind of uh consensus is a bunch of people uh adhering to the same kind of manner of belief and so I can say In my paradigm, I can just point to Uh, the lottery saints and I can point to the apostles and prophets and say hey, there's a consensus here Okay, and that's part of this paradigm And so you can point to all these people who believe in one thing and I just see that as a group of people who are following a systematized organization or A group of beliefs. So that's no different than religion to me Alrighty Oh, let's see here Simby skuggy Five dollars. Kyle is a former 19 d. Can you please elaborate on your military claims? Where you are a or reserve or ng? They'll let you leave 14 years as 13 bravo. What m. O. S. Were you 13 bravo? Okay, so say you didn't have to answer all that because it's okay personal stop so ng is national guard 13 bravo is uh, can our build artillery All right, very cool. Thank you for that and I'll just pull that there your field artillery and you didn't have to like You didn't use adjustments for The curvature of the earth amazing, right? Yeah, that's true. I never had to adjust for any kind of curvature of the earth and we could shoot a uh A garbage can from 20 miles away dead on over the horizon All right, well, let's continue on uh, so Zion talks two dollars smugly signing a dictionary is still smug and oof So, okay any comments there? No, no, okay uh Kyle uh, zaks Aaron 10 euros if you want something to happen pray It will happen if it does happen and god does not if it does not happen God does not want it to happen. Where is your evidence for that conclusion? Um, we don't say prayers to command god what to do We say prayers to allow our Uh, our will to become in harmony with god's will And to kind of develop that relationship and that's what that's the whole purpose of prayer Yeah, so to me it's basically just um, it's called the texas sharpshooter fallacy It's basically taking all of the hits as reasons why it works and ignoring all of the misses So if you pray for everything all your life and you know things happen for you You'll see that as yes, it it works without seeing all the times you pray for something and it hasn't worked Um, yeah, just anything I said, okay textbook texas sharpshooter. Yeah, I was just sort of If you command god to do things then that would be the case Yeah, I was just sort of um addressing why um Prayer doesn't sort of people think that prayer works. It's because that only your texas sharpshooter accusation only applies to someone who is Thinks prayers all about commanding god what to do Uh, I didn't didn't say that Uh, that's the application to it. I can't see any other application where it could Be guilty of that accusation No, because if you think it works You're counting all the hits and you're dismissing all the misses That is commanding god what to do and that's a hit right if I command god to to Go and open this door and that door opens then uh, then that would be a hit And if I command god to yeah to command the door to open and doesn't open then that is a mess, right? And so even if you ask god that you want the door to open and it opens That's a hit if you ask god could he please open the door and it doesn't that's a miss But you're counting all the hits and you're ignoring all the misses the same thing happens if you just ask Okay, all right. Well, let's continue on uh, so jolly roger 550 canadian again. Thanks jolly roger Kyle when you were asked to debate this topic. Did you truly think it was about? Uh, it's oh, sorry. Did you truly think it was about if I think that's what they meant if things were chronologically organized So did you think the debate was really about uh, whether things were chronologically organized? That is why I wrote that in my Opening statement. That's I wrote it down beforehand. So yes, that is exactly what I came to the just debate for That's why I made the opening statement and tell you what the opening statement is and exactly what we're debating against All right, uh, let's continue on zarks zaren five euros Kylie claim there is no evidence. This is not true Uh, though that they were responding to somebody else in the chat there. It seems there is no evidence This is not true. It does not prove your claim is true. But there is a difference in probability I can't claim any kind of probability unless I can take Everything into account and so if something is not numbered there is no probability Okay, any thoughts on that mark Uh, sorry, I do apologize. What was the question? Uh, there is no evidence. This is not true Does not prove your claim is true, but there is a difference in probability Yeah, so so a lack of evidence doesn't um, but so so a lack of evidence is an And sorry an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless we expect to find evidence like if you go to Your letterbox and there's no mail in there, um That doesn't mean you don't have mail like you can't prove that but the latter should be there. So it kind of does um, you the lack of evidence for all of these cities Means that it is highly probable they never existed because we are missing evidence that should be there So this whole idea that no evidence you can't, you know, it's not good evidence Well, yeah, sometimes it is when we absolutely expect it to be there Okay um Yeah, any thoughts on that Kyle or do you want to continue on? I think I shared what I had to say on that If there's no numbers if it's not if it's Yeah, if you can't number it you can't claim that there is a probability to it Okay. All right. Well, let's continue on uh, zark sarin Kyle your body was burning in quotations So god wants you to burn for your desire not take part of killing or to not take part of killing I What were they I don't think that's even a complete thought I'm not sure I think it's They've got a couple other questions here. So, uh, yeah, zark sarin if you want to kind of clarify what you meant in the chat there We're going to continue on Uh, because I'm not sure what you meant your body was burning So god wants you to burn for your desire Not to take part of killing Or to not take part of killing. Yeah, that's it's not really making sense to me here.  We'll wait for uh, see Uh, what's going on maybe maybe he desired you to do something but not take part of in killing Is that is that what they're trying to say? Like I joined the military fully expecting to get deployed at the time. That was a huge Expectation I had and so when I did not get deployed for three deployments and kind of looking back on that I just said wow, that's kind of uh, kind of walking through a battlefield not getting shot Okay, so maybe they mean why did god push you to join at? All just to stop you from being deployed like why didn't he just not push you to but join the military at all? Well, I told you when I joined the military, I got a ten thousand dollar sign-on bonus You know what I did with that sign-on bonus It paid for my mission my two-year mission to east l.a. to go and preach the gospel out there So yeah, that was really useful money coming out of somewhere and in the meantime I got paid to get a workout which is amazing So that was that I kept telling myself all throughout basic training getting paid to get a workout a lot of people pay Uh pay other people to go out and join the gym and here the gym has come to me and they're paying me to join this gym amazing God god wanted you to bulk up. It's okay. Sure All right. Well, let's continue on Let's see The real mad dog mac 999 How do you reconcile discovery that native americans do not share a single shred of dna with any jewish lineage? Doesn't this alone disprove the claim natives are descended from the 12 tribes of israel Does it Disprove it or that's kind of going off this whole basis of science proving things And so even though I do believe that science does prove things I haven't seen any any actual Papers or anything like that to actually go off of to confirm or disperm Disconfirm that that claim. All right. Well, let's continue on Some people just do sloppy work and say, oh, well, I've measured a few People and that that automatically goes out to every single native american out there And I don't think every single native american out there has really undergone this test So, yeah, that's kind of my view on it. And so if they'd like to substantiate their claim that this is the case Then we can talk about Wasn't the land uninhabited when they got there and that was the line never said that Wasn't it the lamanites that sort of like the native americans were supposed to descend from the lamanites? Many did but it never says that it was uninhabited and so yeah It says that the Nephites were uh They went extinct. They they all got demolished Uh, but it never says that the native that the land was uninhabited or that no other people Came to the americas after they got here All right. Well, let's continue on there Uh, jolly roger $11 canadian kyle when you set up the debate and chose the definition Did you have a hunch or idea that mark wasn't going to use the same as you say you set this debate up and got set Uh got to set the definition in your opening I set the the definition in my opening statement and uh that way there would be no question Of the terms of this debate in that opening statement right Yeah, and the other part of that was uh, did you have an expectation that mark would share that definition Well, his job as being an opponent is to discredit my my statement and say no, that's not the case Even if i'm saying cats are mammals Okay, if he comes to a debate against me and my opening statement is cats are mammals Then it's his job to say no, they're not Yeah, so I did do that. I pointed out where he was going wrong on his definitions I pointed out from science textbooks where the definition was different I pointed out that definition was distant different from different sources. So yeah, I said that the dictionary says this And it's his job to say no the dictionary does not say that appeal to definition fallacy I'm reading the statement from the Appeal you have no substantiation for that claim You're you're appealing to a definition, right? You haven't you haven't That's the opening statement of saying that this definition But just because i'm saying that this word is defined as that does not automatically make it Are you are you appealing to a definite? Are you appealing to a definition? Okay Just appealing to a definition does not make it a fallacious claim. So there's more to that definition of Appeal to definite definition fallacy. That's just a title. Okay, that doesn't mean that saying this word is defined This way is a fallacious reason. Okay Yeah, so it's an orinous definition. So kind of texas sharpshooter. Okay. Oh, well You're shooting a gun that doesn't Yeah, just because you can say the name of a fallacy doesn't mean the The it's guilty of that crime Well, I I think people can decide to themselves Yes, they can and they can look up the definition of appeal to definition and make their own Case on that Alrighty, so we're getting close to the end of our super chats here. So, uh, you know, everybody keep them coming on in If you want the conversation to keep going But if not, we're going to wrap it up here pretty soon dragon for six euros Mark, can you elaborate a bit on the black and white thinking we've witnessed today? It kind of seems to me that this is where it goes wrong in kyle's thinking Yeah, a lot of a lot of people in religion have this kind of black and white believe that you know definitively or don't know definitively And there's no sort of levels of confidence in knowledge Like if we have an overwhelming amount of evidence our confidence can be very high But since we're honest, we can always say hey, there's always a tiny possibility that we're wrong like 0.00000001% that we're wrong So we don't say it is proof because that assumes 100% confidence. So Um, it's because we're being honest. It is the dentist this honest person that will say hey I have to be right. I can't be wrong. I'd you know, it's it's I know this 100% certainty They're they're the ones that are usually Sort of making a more extraordinary claim About knowledge than people that say hey You know, we our confidence level is very high based on these scientific principles They they work f