People of the internet tonight. We are debating does science suggest an intelligent designer by the way welcome to modern-day debate We have T jump crossing swords with Taylor They will each have 10 minutes of opening statements followed by 60 minutes of open discussion and then 30 minutes of Q&A T jump has graciously decided to go first So I will let him have his first word and then we will kick it over to Taylor. So T jump All right when comparing any two hypotheses in order to figure out which hypothesis is the more likely to be true You make testable predictions. You say if my hypothesis is true Here is something we will discover in the future and if it's discovered and that's evidence of the hypothesis The only one in this case the only hypothesis to actually do that is the non-intelligent design version The natural hypothesis is the only one that's ever made Novel testable predictions that have come true intelligence is made no predictions of any kind No progress in the field whatsoever. So when they in the case of the natural hypothesis There have been literally tens of thousands of these novel testable predictions that have been confirmed consistently without any kind of like error in them whatsoever and they are extremely precise. So for example When RNA was discovered and it was found that it could fold like protein It was hypothesized that some RNA molecules might be capable of making more Kinds of RNA molecules self self reproducing replicators. This is something that Creationist intelligence. I do not predict they do not predict that the building blocks and the pieces of life Could be found in parts anywhere in the world. They say it's too complicated. It's too complicated But then in the 1960s we discovered it. Oh are they can do this and in subsequent papers it was discovered that they could reproduce in 1982 after decades of searching that RNA enzyme was finally discovered by Thomas check of the University of Colorado in Boulder found it in some big technical Sciencey-sounding word tetra hymena Thermophilia a bizarre sickle-celled animal with seven sexes That was the first major discovery in the progress of the RNA world hypothesis one of very many after that was discovered the RNA world hypothesis was developed and started to make more predictions as a good hypothesis should you say if my Hypothesis true here's things we would expect to see in the future and look for those things and guess what we started to find more discoveries For many biologists the clincher came in 2000 when the structure of protein making factories in cells worked out this Work confirmed the nesting of the heart of those factories is an RNA enzymes and that those proteins are made by RNA Surely RNA must have come first By 2001 this process is yielded an RNA enzyme called r18 that could stick 14 nucleotides The building blocks of RNA and DNA into an existing RNA using another RNA template a Big advance came in earlier this year when Philip Hullager of the MRC laboratory of molecular biology in Cambridge in UK Unveiled an RNA enzyme called TC 197 19 Z Which reliably copies RNA sequences up to 95 letters long almost half as long as itself This pattern in progress that was predicted by naturalist that we would be able to find all these different Features of what we need in order to produce life from a non-live formula of chemical stuff is Predicted by the natural hypothesis would find all these individual building blocks would find each of the steps one at a time We don't need to find them all complete at the same time That's a ridiculous like no one no one ever thinks we need that in any field of science It's not like we need to see literally an earth being formed in the solar system in cosmology To discover the process by which earths are formed what we need to do is find Individual steps of the process happening in the world and then it's highly likely that it occurred So each of these steps was predicted by the next hypothesis They were discovered by the hypothesis and there are literally dozens of them in 2003 Hirokosuga now at the University of Tokyo, Japan created an RNA enzyme that could oxidize alcohol With the help from a cofactor called NAD plus which he used in many proteins enzymes protein enzymes Months later Ronald Breaker of Yeldos usually found the natural RNA enzyme called GLMS also used this cofactor Which can be which is a fundamental step in moving from an RNA world hypothesis to a life-based world hypothesis So the evidence that there was once RNA world is growing even more convincing only a few dissenters remain The nice airs about the RNA world have lost a lot of ground says Donna Blackman of the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California And we can continue going down this list for hours. This is a long paper. It's the First life that searched for the first replicator by Michael Marshall and new scientists and It goes through all the different predictions or many of them up until like 2011 Predictions made and confirmed by the natural hypothesis showing massive amounts of progress in the field So any intelligence design argument that oh, it's just so improbable is just a non sequitur It literally doesn't matter probabilities are assessed by taking the limited Information we know and see if we can combine that limited information in such a way that it would produce some outcome But since we haven't discovered everything about the world our current limited information is just irrelevant it literally doesn't matter the only thing that is Used to assess which is the better hypothesis is which one makes the novel prediction It's that before we discover them which one is making progress on the field And as I've just demonstrated we have dozens and dozens of examples of this from the national's hypothesis Whereas there is none in the intelligence design hypothesis. So no, there is no evidence of intelligence on whatsoever There's no intelligence No, no evidence that an intelligence designer outside of humans exists anywhere in the universe as far as we can tell And so the only rational hypothesis is that the natural processes we've discovered which are the processes that would be required to produce life Combined together in such a way to produce life Which is what all the evidence and the consensus in biology and chemistry and natural science of every single academic field concludes And so to say that there's some kind of evidence intelligence. I know you'd have to debunk all of the evidence in every academic field Pretty much entirely now conclude there All right, thank you so much T jump We'll kick it over to Taylor for her 10 minute opening statement Taylor the floor is all yours So hello to everybody and the primarily atheist audience I'm expected to be criticized by you probably the whole time But in general science is looking for a pursuit of knowledge This includes physics theology biology Some people tend to forget that theology and in other studies are not a part of science That's not true the biggest questions have yet to still be answered by science and materialism as To how the universe came about and how life came about and how we are conscious and Materialism has reached its limits of understanding our reality on these big the biggest questions. How did the universe arise? How did how are we conscious and how did a biogenesis happen have yet to be fully worked out and For example, the universe could not have came from nothing without anything pre-existing So that's a big question still yeah, and and if you do quantum tunneling something else has to already be present so anyway So if things cannot arise on their own without any type of divine intervention It with if things can cannot arise on their own then there must have been some type of divine intervention And we can go through each of these in terms of a biogenesis in terms of the start of the universe in the Big Bang where there are Significant problems and most scientists would agree on them, but it's interesting how The atheists seem like they know more than scientists is very interesting So that's how I came to my conclusion based on they're not being a sufficient answer for the biggest questions Using materialism that there must have been divine intervention Since my opponents will argue that God does not exist and naturalism is true I would like to see a working hypothesis of In a naturalist working hypothesis of how things like life came about But usually you will probably just spout that I'm wrong without giving any significant explanations now I heard you mentioned RNA world and I Wasn't sure if you read recently that they actually now have an RNA protein world because RNA world is insufficient in itself But we can do that in the open discussion All right Thank you so much Taylor for your opening statement and we will go ahead and kick it into the open discussion just a second But before we do that I just want to say that we'll let you know especially if it's your first time here on modern day debate that we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics and we want you to feel welcome no matter What walk of life you're from and if you have a question or comment for one of tonight's debaters fire into the old live chat And be sure to tag me at modern day debate Super chats will go to the top of the list and all we ask is that you please keep it civil Attack the argument and not the person as insults will not be read and that goes for the general discourse in the live chat as well Our invaluable moderators are working tirelessly to elevate the conversation So please show them the debaters and each other the respect that they deserve by not hurling attacks and insults at each other Our guests are linked in the description below whether you're listening on YouTube or via the podcast So if you like what you're hearing, please check them out click their links below Hit the subscribe button as we have plenty more debates coming your way You don't want to miss that and with that we will kick it to the open discussion 60 minutes. I Will start the clock at your first word Sure, so a few questions about what you said one you mentioned the RNA plus protein world's like no one thinks that All proteins were created by RNA like we know proteins can come about without RNA. So everyone already knew that that's not like a Contentious statement. I don't know why you brought that up But it seemed like your main argument was the biggest questions have yet to be answered And there's no sufficient answer for many of the problems. Therefore God is that essentially your argument? That there's no sufficient answers Um, so let's let's get back to your first question about the RNA Well, it wasn't a question. That was just a statement So we know as a fact that proteins come about in other ways other than RNA So nobody thinks that the RNA world RNA creates all proteins that was No, I'm just saying have you heard about the new hypothesis? It's like RNA protein world because the RNA world in itself is insufficient Again, that's like saying we also need particles. We need RNA plus other particles Everyone already knows that like no one thinks that the only RNA was the only thing that existed in the universe That created life obviously we need other things like energy sources RNA needs an energy source needs heat It needs oxygen and it's particles means lots of other things RNA on its own can't do it. So you're but you're are you saying that they had to Proteins and RNA had to be there at the same time or that RNA created a protein because now there's this RNA protein world Anyway, I just wanted to get heard about that So my answer to that was we already know proteins come about in other ways So proteins are already there just like particles were already there just like heat was already there There's lots of things that were already there. It's not it's not contentious to say there were proteins with RNA And you mentioned the RNA that's self replicating with this enzyme In that experiment did they use? Nucleotides to get the to form the RNA to self replicate itself What they didn't form the RNA they found it. It was already existing in other organisms Okay, so they have they have yet to take nucleotides and make the self replicating RNA No, I think we actually have done that but that's irrelevant. Yeah, I saw the self replicating RNA I saw that we used an enzyme for that like we have not formed an RNA and got it to self replicate Well, how would we form it without an enzyme? That doesn't make any sense No, we have not started from scratch of the nucleotides To make a ribozyme that self replicated itself. Well, how would we do that? Would you use micro tongs to stick them together? Assuming it happened naturally anyway, then we wouldn't have to do very much, huh? No, that doesn't make any sense, but My question my main question the one I asked was it seems like your argument is there are lots of big questions We don't have answers to Therefore God Yeah, I mean, we haven't even got to step one very biogenesis. So if you're saying step one was Forget a biogenesis forget a biogenesis. I'm just just it seems like I just want to focus on your argument here It seems like what you're saying is that there are lots of things. We don't know yet Therefore this the fact that there are lots of things. We don't know yet is evidence of God Is that I'm saying it's the most plausible evidence and what what do you believe you do you think the material is the answer? Why can't I ask you questions? I'm trying to understand So I said that science is giving very insufficient answers to the biggest questions and Therefore for things like a biogenesis I believe and many other scientists believe that there must been intelligent design now. What do you believe? Well, so I'm trying to focus in on your argument because to me it sounds a lot like an argument from ignorance like if I said You won't tell me what you know Could do cross examination sections. I'm trying No, I'm happy with this. This is fine So I'm trying to go into like what you're what you're saying here a little bit So if if Bob says that the the next lottery ticket is going to be some number and Bob gives a wrong answer Bob is just wrong. Does that mean that I'm automatically right? Does I mean any answer? I give is more likely to be true because Bob is wrong I'm sorry, can you repeat that? Sure, so Bob makes up a number. He says this number is the next lottery ticket number. He's predicting the future He doesn't know. He's just making up a number. He's wrong Now does the fact that we know he's wrong mean that I'm right automatically does it doesn't mean that's evidence that I am correct? I'm gonna make up a number two and his number is wrong. Does I mean the evidence of mine is right? No, I'm just gonna say Absolutely perfect. So even if science we imagine Bob is science science makes up a number and it's trying to answer these big questions Even if science is wrong and it doesn't give the correct answers That isn't evidence that the God hypothesis is right In the same reason, right? Right and there's no evidence that God doesn't exist either So we can go in circles all day. That's not a circle. That's what's literally argued for me So the fact that one hypothesis is wrong isn't positive evidence of a different hypothesis. It's not just one hypothesis It's like all of the main questions in life have yet to be answered by materialism. So are you a materialist? Yes, yes, your material is right. So do you believe in quantum, huh? Well, this this is a really good line of question. I want to go down because it seems like your fundamental argument is Fine, that's fine. But I want to already say yes, you can okay Well, then I'll say yes to your question about that. I thought of God for ignorant ignorance um If you like me to if you would like me to because this is just It's not it's not really getting anywhere. I've already Insufficient for answering questions and that's why I believe there's intelligent designer. How else do you want me to say it? Well, no, I want to if that's the way you say it. That's fine But that's cool. Can we T jump could we at like 45 minutes? Can we at 45 minutes just switch to let her do it? I want to want to keep continue on.  It's irrelevant what somebody else says your hypothesis only matters to your hypothesis so what you would need is you need to say here's evidence your hypothesis is true and No matter what any other hypothesis does that's all the relevance You can't say science doesn't give answers there for God You need some positive evidence for God. That's irrelevant to science. Does that make sense? Yeah, it makes sense But I think things like science doesn't give the answers either. So that's your God And it doesn't give the answers either.  So you don't believe in anything metaphysical Metaphysics is just what the fundamental nature of reality. So metaphysics can include physicalism okay, so Do you what what constitutes is something that you believe in? matter and energy matter and energy Yes, okay, so What about if it's only proven through mathematics, but we can't like see it or observe it Well, the only things that can be proved mathematically are Abstract concepts, but they don't exist. Okay, so you can't you can't prove something exists mathematically You can only give evidence that it exists a hypothesis Right. So then what do you feel about do you believe in dark matter dark energy? Yes. Yes Proven mathematically those were observed.  Those are proved with observations We can literally see them or see their effects Okay, well then I can argue that we see the effects of God It's great like what life and consciousness Well, that's begging the question. We want to know why would that be indicative of a God? So like if you said we I can see the effects of dark matter and dark energy Because dark matter is the thing that's holding universes together with more gravitational force than what should exist in the universe and so if we look at the universe that has a Specific amount of gravitational force and that's greater than the amount of observable matter We can say oh look it's being held together by something So I mean you I could say that's God just as well as you can say it's dark energy Well dark energy is a placeholder. It's saying we don't know what it is. It's something that we don't know yet That's that's what dark energy means. So it could be God. That's fine And that would still be dark energy But the question is is why think it's God why think God explains this more than anything I think that we cannot view our Sea it's not abstract. So dark dark energy is concrete. It's not abstract. Okay so If you're a materialist How do you feel about us only being able to observe and work with five percent of the universe? That means there's a lot of stuff we don't know yet. So is materialism sufficient for answering our questions Sure Like if we have a model that can explain five percent that's better than a model that explains zero percent So a model that does explain what we do see is going to be better than one that has no evidence Sure I don't even think that the five percent is explained because we still haven't Come to conclusions for things like consciousness, and I don't know if we ever will using just materialism Do you think that's nice, but that doesn't matter So like if we have two hypotheses, mine makes predictions in the future and it gets them right and Yours makes none and doesn't get them right then mine is better. It doesn't matter what percent So if mine makes a single prediction about the future and it gets it right that's still better than Yours that makes zero predictions about the future Yeah, I don't know about predicting the future. I mean somebody could say that, you know, the Bible's predictions came true You know, that would be great evidence if it was the case, but I know of none of them Okay, well, I'm not gonna going to argue the Bible here So yeah materialism so How then do you think? For example, like the universe got created Yeah, some there's a natural thing that's always existed called quantum fields and it wasn't created Quantum fields. What is that? It's a vector space of different kinds of things that are fundamental to reality Okay, so you mean like space time No, space time is emergent. It's something that came after quantum fields So quantum field did this exist in nothingness? It's just always been there It can't exist in nothingness. That's a contradiction, but yes, it has always been there Okay, because I've never actually heard of this theory. So is this like a type of universe or does it? Does it have like a boundaries I Don't know what you're asking here. So I'm pretty sure you have heard of it like literally Many worlds hypothesis multiverse hypothesis. Okay multiverse Multiverse. Well, those are all all of them contain one thing at its essence, which is a quantum field thing Okay, so Do you believe that we're in like a big bang cycle or just universes have always existed?  Do you know that quantum field is inconsistent with materialism? No, it's not. Yes, it is. This would be news to every physicist everywhere. So who are mostly materialists Okay, well, I'm gonna Pull it up Okay I'm just saying like, you know the materialistic How could you explain how our how our quantum fields inconsistent with materialism because they're material things You can't share screen. So the multiverse is actually type of metaphysics That's what they're that's what they're considered in like scientific literature. Yeah metaphysics. It's just the fundamental nature of reality physics If reality is physical then physics is metaphysics so then Yeah, I just like quantum physics in in all the literature I've read is very against materialism Maybe I can because because in materialism if you're just saying that, you know everything that we can see and touch and and look at but but quantum quantum physics Means that there's no real barriers and you know, it just kind of changed the entire game I have no idea what you just said. So quantum fields are things we can test and we can observe. They're physical things Right, you know this from the Casimir effect. The Casimir effect is literally a thing We do in the lab to measure quantum fields. They are the quantum fields are literal physical things that literally exist They're not I don't understand why you think that literal physical. I didn't think that that's just what I read Like that's what most scientists would say. No, most scientists are physicalists That's materialists and they believe in quantum fields. So that's the consensus in physics is majority atheist materialists majority quantum field like pretty much everybody in quantum physics accepts quantum fields is the entire field The vast majority of them are atheist physicalist materialists I don't understand why you think there's a contradiction here quantum fields are physical things So it wouldn't contradict physicalism Okay, but like, you know entanglement and stuff between particles materialism doesn't really explain that Neither does God so but materialism has a better explanation for it than God does so materialism is a better hypothesis But is materialism consistent with entanglement? Yes, how? There's it doesn't create a contradiction. So entanglement is just the fact that Two particles if they're entangled if one collapses in spin one the other will collapse in spin two across a quantum field Information is not transmitted faster than speed of light. And so there's no contradiction with materialism So what do you think is making the particles entangled quantum fields? Quantum fields Okay All right. Well, I can pull up the materialist and in quantum fields But I was just surprised that you believed in the multiverse because that definitely does it goes against the materialistic How does it go against the materialist ideology when the proponents are mostly materialist like Sean Carroll? Also, I don't believe in multiverse. It's just one of the hypotheses Okay, that's why I was just asking what your your thoughts on the origin of the universe were so I'm saying that I believe that there is a God because this materialistic world This materialistic view does not explain Close to anything including consciousness start of life and the big bang and I was asking you if you can give me an explanation materialistically to You know, yeah, okay. Well then go ahead. Yeah, the big bang is just a large chasm effect So it's the chasm effect that we observe in a lab and it happened on a larger scale. That's the big bang But so is that from a multiverse? It could be but it doesn't necessarily it's irrelevant So the chasm effect is there are fluctuations in the quantum field that creates particles and antiparticles There are small ones that we can observe in a lab and they happen at a bigger scale I've given a long enough time So a really big one could happen and that's the big bang Okay, so you just think they've always existed universes have always existed Quantum fields have always existed. Yes. Is that mean you know, was this was our universe the first universe I don't know but universes have not always existed. The quantum field has always existed. Those are two separate things Okay, so you're you believe quantum field has always existed. Yes, I believe God has always existed Sure Okay, one has evidence one does not Explained other things that are unknown such as the start of life Sure Yeah, the start of life is explained by a biogenesis which has the best hypothesis in RNA world Which is better than God. So RNA world has evidence quantum fields have evidence. Both of those things can be Make testable predictions which have been confirmed in a lab. God makes no testable predictions No, Ava's hypothesis has not been confirmed in a lab at all We haven't even got an RNA to self-replicating a lab without RNA and enzyme You're confusing the entire process with pieces of the process if it makes predictions that we will find A particular kind of RNA that will be able to form corpuscles on clay and we find that that's a successful prediction That is evidence. I did find that Hold up. Hold up. So because we've been able to find that one thing which we predicted That's evidence. We don't need to find everything all at once To be evidence evidence is the little things that all add up over time So we have little things like we can predict Individual stages that we will find and we did find them and there are thousands and thousands of these God predicts nothing and we found none of those nothing So that's zero evidence for God and thousands of evidence for RNA world And so again if we have a hypothesis that's built of things that we can confirm and make predictions that have been successful And a hypothesis that has no predictions and none of its parts have been confirmed The one that has made predictions is a better hypothesis. It's like saying what knocked the cup over. Was it the wind? Do we have evidence of the wind? Yes. Was it a leprechaun? Do you have evidence of leprechauns? No Wind is a better explanation. Did we actually see the wind actually knocked that one cup over? No, but we don't need to because we have other evidences of wind Right. So in terms of a biogenesis, there is no, um You're acting like we haven't have it figured out. Um, we haven't even Figured out how all of these activated nucleotides Were present to form an RNA strain much less replicating itself Yes, but we have one hypothesis One of our hypothesis gives evidence and the other one doesn't so ours gives evidence to give an explanation The naturalist one and the god gives no explanation There's no evidence for a biogenesis because we can't reproduce it at all Again, we don't have to explain all of a biogenesis to have evidence We can have pieces and that's evidence so okay, but if I give you any pieces of god or any pieces of Like paranormal stuff Then you will automatically refute them So you keep saying that we don't have any evidence But you if I were to bring any to you you would automatically refute them No, if you had like novel testable predictions that could confirm the paranormal activity That would be great evidence. There are literally parapsychology journals that are dedicated to doing that Exactly. And how do you feel about those? None of them have successfully made novel testable predictions Okay, so have you seen the papers about? um like I'm trying to find it, but it's like a sense of being stared at or something or you can tell Like whenever somebody's staring at you this was when I ran into last night And it was replicated by I think five different scientists with about 15 different experiments and significant results What do you think about that one? You can get the sense someone is staring at you by watching a scary movie in the dark. This is not paranormal So you're going to deny any evidence or any significant any statistical significance from these experiments Unless you can provide novel testable predictions. Can you provide novel testable predictions? Yeah, I mean they repeated them What is the novel testable prediction? That the hypothesis was that you can tell when somebody is staring at you What So you think that uh Your this sensation you get is more likely to be accurately defined when someone is staring at you or something Yeah, I mean this is this is what the scientists found I'm saying would you even accept that if I brought you sufficient evidence for For an experiment such as that one Sure, if you made the prediction that if the supernatural exists we have some supernatural Gaze detector and so when someone's looking at you from behind like a two-way mirror or something You're more likely to get the sensation than not and we could test that and find it sure that would be evidence Right. Okay. Well, there there are papers on that Yes, and they're all false. There's no evidence. Well, then you're going to call everything false anyway So, um, no, no if you if you can publish it and get it like academically peer reviewed in an actual scientific journal, that'd be great Do you have that? It is like published research Which academic journal is it published in do you have do you have a link? I think it might even been a journal I think it was like, I don't know if there was a parapsychology journal, but I don't know I hadn't looked at the journal But there is actually did you know there's phd's and parapsychology. That's crazy There's one I talked to him his name. Oh, you did that's awesome He was the only person who made the phd and he was the only person who's ever gotten it That's cool. Um, so Yeah, I just feel like if I did bring any evidence to you'd be refuted immediately Typically if it's bad evidence, yes, that's going to happen But if you bring me like an academic paper that's in I don't know some big scientific journal like nos or whatever I can't like just refute that by reading it So interestingly on the cia's website They have a bunch of released documents. Um, and in one of these they actually had okay So i'm just going to go ahead and read it where they basically acknowledge that paranormal stuff exists On the cia website and I can maybe I can post it in the chat or something Well, the cia had an entire program dedicated to it. That's where the yeah, I know I stare and see stare at goats, but they didn't find any use they found it fail No, I'm not talking about that program But they speak on paranormal Paranormal phenomena being real The phenomenon are the phenomenon are real we experience things which we think are paranormal That's that's a thing but there's no evidence that they are actually paranormal. That's the part that that's why they stopped all the programs because there's no evidence they worked Right so on on this particular one. It says These miraculous for now and this is cia these miraculous phenomena are either a magic neither a magic trick nor superstitious fiction They are scientifically verified Experimental facts after several years of research somatic scientists have already found some rules responsible for induction of paranormal abilities Right now. Mr. Zhang who is who they were researching is the only person in china with such abilities A philosopher said miracles are not against the nature. They are only against our understanding of nature Obviously these miraculous phenomena race challenges Race challenging problems to modern physics a series of questions has to be answered by modern physics um, so this was um Like on the cia website and there's many other ones There's actually have numerous of them like acknowledging paranormal stuff So what do you think about that? My last sentence says it's going to be explained by normal physics, but none of that's not an academically peer-reviewed paper Okay, so say website's not good enough The cia website doesn't say anything about it actually being real And that was probably said it's scientifically verified like it's this has been proven through scientific experimentation Remember we can say that the thing that we're seeing is a real thing The assertion that it's paranormal is not no one in the cia thinks that's real if you just contact the cia and ask them They're gonna say no, it's not real the fact that they used to publish papers on it and do research on it Isn't evidence. It's real So what you're saying isn't evidence what you're saying is is that the cia did research on this 40 years ago Okay, and they thought it was real and they thought they were doing experiments to try and figure out it was real And they canceled all the programs because it wasn't real This is not a program. This is stuff that they have documented Yes, but they did do a program and they spoke on some of them actually having good good results Yes, 40 years ago when they were researching it and then stopped because they all failed This was all debunked like this was all proven wrong Like every single one of their programs was proven to have zero effect and zero positive results Which is why they ended the programs So they James Randy specifically went through and copied all these things with a couple of his students to show that The instructors are idiots and how you can manipulate them None of this was evidence of the supernatural which is why all of these programs got garbage in the cia.  It talks about uh, parapsychology. Why is it controversial? Um, it remains controversial today even with substantial persuasive and scientifically palpable results for three main reasons first the media and much of the public confuses um Paris psychology with sensational unscientific beliefs and stories about the paranormal this widespread confusion has led to many scientists Instantly dismissing the field is unworthy of serious study and thus they're they are unaware of existing evidence They're unaware of existing evidence and then secondly um even if Okay, so even if someone wanted to do the evidence much of the persuasive work is published in recent The past 10 years professional journals thus finding good information is a challenge So they stopped studying it and in another one of no again. There's there's a parapsychology I remember the guy you mentioned who has the phc in parapsychology There are literally journals that he works there. They didn't stop studying it. They do it today But I found the paper you mentioned from mr. Zhang. This is from the china institute of atomic energy in beijing Received in 1989 and translated into english. This is not a cia document This is a document. They've intercepted from intelligence from beijing It's not actually a study done by the cia studies done by the china institute of atomic energy Abstract the experiment demonstrated that mr. Zhang bao shuang possesses paranormal abilities You can make small objects penetrate obstacles After such penetration the microscopic structure and properties of the objects do not show any observable changes So I don't know how well you trust china's Scientific discoveries in the 1980s, but this is not something by the cia. Yeah, right. Well, if you just look down their website There is numerous You know documents on paranormal activities that were documented And and they mentioned how the national research commission Told them to stop doing Metaphysical research And I'll quote that this is why apparently the prejudice started against Metaphysical research. There's no prejudice. It's just just no evidence of it. There there is it's very it's like controversial Even in the science community you cannot deny that. No, it's not again. There's an entire journal of parapsychology It's not it's not Controversial it's just there's no evidence like scientists don't care whether the paranormal exists or it'd be really cool If the paranormal did exist if anybody discovered it you could win millions of dollars overnight and a Nobel Prize There's no conspiracy against it. We want to know everything that works. There's just never worked. That's the problem No, they said to stop doing the research on it because it's a waste of money because it doesn't work Of course, they're gonna say that It doesn't work if we can't continue to research on it No, because we did dozens of years of research and spent millions of dollars research and it all failed And so the government is right to say, oh, we've wasted millions of dollars. Let's stop wasting money Like we don't need to continue it indefinitely Because people do continue it. There are again current modern day journals of parapsychology that exists And if any of them made a discovery they could win millions of dollars today But haven't so The government deciding to end its particular program Doesn't mean that literally everyone is banned from doing parapsychology research anybody can do parapsychology research You can do it yourself.  They didn't make any money They didn't make any profit or success. And so of course, they're gonna stop funding their unsuccessful programs The fact that they stopped funding their program doesn't mean that they've stopped all research for parapsychology from anyone anywhere So would any research be sufficient for you to understand that There is more than just a materialistic world If you can make novel testable predictions and get them correct. Yes Okay, name one Name one experiment that would make you believe Sure. I have a hypothesis that there is a non physical being named bob And bob when I prayed to him he will give me gold bricks I prayed to bob a gold brick appears in front of me. That would be great evidence of a paranormal bob How is that testable? So if you say if bob exists and I pray to him a gold brick will appear in front of me Pray to him do the experiment and if a gold brick appears That's a novel prediction of an event. We don't expect to occur and if it occurs that would be evidence of bob Yeah, I mean, I just don't think that anything would okay So if we if we kept researching a biogenesis and we found that there was no Materialistic explanations that were sufficient. What would you conclude from that? Well, that's impossible because of the problem of undetermination You literally can't research a topic and say it's impossible that this thing could ever do anything You'd have to have a different hypothesis with positive evidence So you could say that a biogenesis was a result of an intelligent designer and in order to see this we would see I don't know quotations from the bible in the genetic code and if we find quotations in the bible in the genetic code that would be evidence of the designer and that would be Evidence towards your position and if you have sufficient amounts of this that would overturn a biogenesis and be a better hypothesis You never have you never like you can't research a topic to a point and say oh We've researched everything about this topic and know literally everything about it. Therefore. It can't explain actually that's not possible to do Well, I don't think a biogenesis is a testable hypothesis We we cannot get it to work in the lab. We've got very minimal Production, uh, we've we haven't moved very far in the whole study. We're still trying on step one if you haven't realized I'm just getting RNA So if you don't know the cell For example requires much more Than just a self reproducing RNA if we ever to get that from scratch in a lab um And and so RNA for example is like it would need to be an acidic environment But then you would need to a lipid to come encapsulate it Um, then you would need something to fold the proteins and how did how do we ever get to dna from there? um, I don't even think that there is a hypothesis or anybody like has clues to solve The problem for how to get to the rest of the cell even if we do get step one Which is trying to make RNA So I literally just listed like 10 of them in my opening that literally do this again You're confusing having to explain an entire set of a thousand processes Uh, and you're saying only it's only evidence if it explains a thousand conjuncture processes So that's false. You don't need to explain a thousand different things all at once Each of those different processes can be explained individually and if you say individually The the way corpuscles around cells could form is if they formed on clay Would we discover that? Yes, we literally discovered RNA creating corpuscles on clay. That is the clay We were able to stabilize RNA on clay Stable not talking about stabilizing RNA RNA Producing corpuscles the outside of the cell can RNA produce the outside of a cellular structure On its own without us doing anything. Yes. Yes, it can because that all the time Giving you the benefit of doubt. Let's say that these RNAs. Um, let's say these nucleotides can come together to form an RNA molecule um How would that so to clarify I said RNA already exists RNA forms on the clay Okay So the evidence I gave one of the pieces of evidence is that we already have RNA The RNA will then bond to the clay and then form a corpuscle and this is what the hypothesis was Can RNA form corpuscles the the bubble thingy that goes around the cell can RNA form that And if the natural hypothesis is true, then we can say yes, they can form that on their own Do we find anywhere in nature where they do that? Yes, yes, we do find it. We find it on clay RNA on clay does this one process This one process is on its own. Just this is evidence It's evidence that this hypothesis was correct because they made a prediction. They've discovered it We don't need anything else. We don't need the full thousand steps to get to a cell We just need that one thing and if that one thing is true and it is we've discovered it That's evidence that we're right. So in your in your assumption You're assuming that an RNA is already put together Like are you talking about in the experiment or did the RNA assemble itself on the clay? No, the RNA was already there. I didn't say I didn't say creation of RNA I said creation of a corpuscle. Creation of RNA is a big problem No, it's not. It's literally irrelevant. So What I need is to have evidence of any of the steps any of the 1000 steps to get a cell If I can show they can occur naturally without The injection of an intelligent designer that's evidence of my hypothesis. I don't need to start at step one I can start at step 32 And if I can show step 32 can be done naturally with no injection of a designer in step 37 and step 542 each step that I can show can be done naturally on its own with no designer Is evidence of the naturalist hypothesis? So I don't need to explain step one I don't need to explain step a thousand. All I need to do is explain any of the steps along the way What I don't need to explain god You don't need to I'm not asking you to explain god. Okay. Well Yeah, yes, you yes, you have if you can't explain Your model then I need I don't need to explain mine or say oh, we need evidence for it Well, there's definitely the evidence for god You're gonna refute just like I'm refuting that there is a Working model of how to get a cell from scratch Well, no one said there was a working model of how to get a cell from scratch All we said was there are evidence of different steps that can be done naturally But step one is very crucial That's so how did they get activated nucleotides? Do you think those just exist in nature? I have no idea Well, that's very important because an army would never form to begin with so we haven't even got to step one No, again, so I don't I don't need to explain step one. I can explain any of the steps If you're telling me that naturalism has all the answers. No, it has more answers than god So if I want my explanation if you have no, I can explain the biggest questions in life And naturalism can't hardly explain any of them. We can explain our observations We got here and how does god explain the origin of life better than naturalism In every sense that it could Okay, because I can tell you that god created the cell and you can tell me. Oh, well, we don't need step one what Yeah, no, okay. So so how did god create the cell? Well, he must have had pre-existing dna and proteins because they would have needed to be simultaneously Um created and then the cell would have had to been compartmentalized and there's a membrane around that There's many things that had to be simultaneously created because in the presence of one another That components of the cell actually disintegrates So they could be simultaneously create those things. Huh? How did he simultaneously create those things the same way he created that the universe with the big bang, which is A better explanation than yours magic supernatural powers God God powers It's always existed He's No, the quantum field didn't create life the quantum field created Organisms created matter and then interactions and matter How did how did quantum? I was trying to go trying to go follow the line of question here. So so god used his magical god powers To create these things. Is that correct? Is that all right? Yeah? Okay, is there any evidence of this magical god power or is it the same as saying magical fairy dust um That's not the type of fallacy to try to Make mine sound dumb But um, yeah What was the what was the answer again the fairy dust? Yeah, that's not a son of valid argument But no the question is is is there any more evidence for magical god powers existing than there is evidence For magical fairy dust that just smacks Kaz in the face Because can magical fairy dust that smacked Kaz and face create the universe Yes, it's magical Okay, well then it can it constitutes god create universe create life Whatever you want to call it What god is Well, i'm not i'm not arguing what god is i'm asking You're claiming magical god powers is the thing that created life I am And i'm saying well, maybe it was magical pixie dust pixie dust is a Thing that falls off the back wings of pixie. So it's not your god. It's a different thing Um, but neither of those have any evidence. They're just hypotheses. We can make up hypotheses magical leprechauns So you're doing the a little ridicule No, no, this isn't this isn't about ridicule. So the ridicule thing is True but that's not an argument So my argument isn't your argument is ridiculous. Therefore it's false if my argument was is your argument is ridiculous Therefore it's false. That would be an argument from ridicule. It's not what i'm saying. I'm asking you a question I'm asking you. How is your assertion that magical god powers did it? A better explanation than magical pixie dust now My explanation is better because when I say that a natural process did it I can then point to the natural process I can say is you won't tell me the problems I can it's physics, but The reason mine is better is again because mine makes predictions It says if my natural process is true Then we will be able to explain each of these different steps one at a time Through natural processes and oh look, we've we've discovered about 500 of them that we can all explain through natural processes Now your god magic power thing has not been able to predict any of these My natural process has been able to predict thousands of them. That's why mine's better yours. It seems Has the same explanatory power as magical pixies It doesn't explain any of the steps none of the steps in the process is just saying some magical thing We have no evidence of no i'm saying materialism is not sufficient That's fine, but that's an argument from ignorance. It doesn't it's not evidence of your hypothesis Okay, well yours is your hypothesis and your materialistic views are not sufficient. That's how I came. That's how I Said that there must have been some type of intervention right That's why I wanted to go down this line of question at the beginning because that seems to be a Fundamental flaw in your thinking that I don't I don't think you will understand quite So it's like if I said there are 10 axels 10 car axels and we test the first nine of them And they're all broken. Does that prove that the tenth works? um No Right, correct. So it doesn't matter how bad or broken science is science could be one of the broken axels And they could all be broken axels But the fact that you have to make that science will fix it because No, no, no not not gonna That not part of the argument So we can just i'm just going to grant science is broken. We can just say science is 100 wrong about everything That does the fact that science is a broken axle Prove that your axle the god axle works Um, it just means that we needed a better explanation and I came up with the explanation I thought in the gaps of god now if you want magical fairy pixie dust and that's fine But your model isn't sufficient That's that's fine. So again One axle being broken is not evidence that your axle isn't Broken so so you would need some positive evidence for your claim You can't just say science is a broken axle saying science is a broken axle doesn't prove god is not also a broken axle God could also be broken So the difference here is that the science axle it works somewhat We know science works somewhat does lots of things around us It makes lots of testable predictions about the rna world hypothesis about different cells and rna for rna Forming corpuscles on clay it makes that prediction it makes the prediction that we will be able to find RNA that is self replicated and we found it So all of these things are little bits of the axle that work now There are no bits of the god axle that work we found zero bits of the god There's no bits of god axle that does not work Because there's zero things to refute god Nothing has reputed god at all never ever ever Ever logical problem of evil But the point here is that if one axle partially works it discreet It makes novel predictions to explain some things then that means the actual partially works So the god axle makes no novel predictions. It means it has zero percent that works Naturally, I just would agree that materialism is insufficient at this point and we're going to have to take in other You know other other ways of explaining what's going on so for example with consciousness. I agree We're gonna have to start opening our minds to something else Well, so again the fact that one axle is insufficient doesn't mean the other axles are automatically better So how do you think the problem of say consciousness will be solved? Uh By other natural processes. We haven't discovered yet Okay, so you're putting your faith in in the same Uh materialistic view right you think materialism is going to figure it out No, I'm using induction induction isn't faith Okay, so what do you think's gonna figure out for example consciousness materialism? Wow That's how induction works A lot of neuroscientists would disagree with you Not really No, I've actually had many neuroscientists on my show and we've literally asked this question How many neuroscientists think that consciousness is anything other than physicalist materialists and it's in the single digits percentages I literally have the studies on it I had what's his name julian musolino on who is a neuroscientist who works caltech I think or some really big college and I asked him how many neuroscientists think that The brain has anything or consciousness has anything to do with other than the brain He said literally no one I know it's a single digit percentages No one in my office thinks that no one in the office. I work with things that it's nobody in the field essentially That's not true at all You can you can go to my conversation with him where we literally have the studies posted No one in neurology thinks that a lot of people agree that we need a major conceptual Revolution to understand things like consciousness Sure, but they all are physicalists and materialists. They still think it's going to be material I don't think it's a new thing Okay, well materialism Many scientists would agree is not going to answer The biggest questions and by the way, you know We we still only apparently understand only five percent of the universe So there's still so much out there to understand and that just goes to show us that that materialism Doesn't I mean there it doesn't really answer the questions It just doesn't and and I don't think we're getting any closer Because see the way science is going is in a direction to where the more we're learning the more we're learning for example, how complex the cell is and What even the simplest life form would have needed and it makes it more impossible for it to just Come from nothing. So right now we're maybe at a you know one polymer When a cells like a hundred billion atoms working together as intricate machinery and even for those processes needs that So we're not going in the direction of your favor Well, we are that's why the Over time more and more people become atheists and materialism less and less become religious because That was something else on the cia website has about marxist. Um It says yeah, yeah, it's very interesting. I'm not a marxist. Yeah, I don't I disagree with marxism The metaphysics of marx was materialism. That's nice the metaphysics of The metaphysics of hitler was polytheism. So what? But it is more of an ideology like world view type of thing doesn't mean that it's um like the correct It's going to get us anywhere Yes, people who believe in ideology is completely irrelevant to the truth of the ideology can congratulations, but Again, the point here is that when you say god explains something You haven't actually given an explanation. You've just simply said he used god magic You have not yours is not even explanation So my explanation is here is a physical process that produces each of the steps and we discover parts of them I've asked you questions I've asked you questions about those and you you have not answered them such as how did we get activated nucleotides on earlier That's like the beginning. I can say physics magic if you like and that's a better explanation than yours. So so yeah, it is actually What because it's going to take some type intervention Anyway Okay, so so if there's some unknown process that we don't know about one of the steps We haven't discovered yet and you want to say god magic explains this process now. I can just say Quantum magic explains this process. Those are both Bad explanations. They don't explain anything. They're just saying some other thing. We don't know about some greater unknown Explains the smaller unknown. That's a worse problem that makes an explanation worse What makes an explanation better is when you say This one thing is a result of other things that we've already discovered exist So if you're saying there's this process that we know exists and it can produce that And then we discover it doing that that would be an explanation. So saying that How did corpuscles form for cells and it's it was done by rna forming them on clay and then we discover that process That's an explanation saying god magic is not an explanation Saying quantum mechanics magic is not an explanation An explanation is when you take known physical processes or known processes that have been demonstrated to exist And you combine those in such a way that can produce the effect and then see that effect See the processes make that effect. So god magic is not an explanation Just like physics magic is not an explanation. Neither of us can say it magically did it To have an explanation. You need a natural process that can be okay. Well, tell me the process. So you say Um in terms of a biogenesis that an RNA molecule came together, right that the nucleotides can just assemble Sure, if they can just keep assembling, how would that have any sufficient genetic code if if they're constantly assembling if Say that an RNA wants to create itself. Well in creating itself It's going to have nucleotides randomly attaching to its creations. There's essentially going to be no genetic code So so if the nucleotides bond randomly Most of them won't self replicate in order to self replicate They need a very particular pattern And so if they bond in lots of different ways and 90% of them don't self replicate the ones that do self replicate will Replicate and then take over so So you're assuming that an RNA is can form itself Um, well, no, I'm assuming that nature can form an RNA didn't create itself. Okay, so Then if nucleotides keep adding on to there, then how can it ever fold and and create itself if it's Constantly randomly assembling nucleotides of RNA and how does it have any significant genetic code? Okay, so one they don't all happen at once so it's not infinitely many Nucleotides get slapped on the end at all time they it happens at a time period So say a nucleotide gets put on the end of an RNA then there's going to be some amount of time until the next one happens and during that time it has the ability to fold because there's a break between the time is bonding Which can then change the shape and orientation of the RNA and while this process is happening Some will fold in such a way that it will have no benefit and that Organism that RNA molecule will cease to function and will die and break apart from other acids And one that does happen are always adding on and how do we ever even have a genetic code? Again, because there's no Just constantly polymerizing So if you have a bunch of monkeys smacking on typewriters, some of them will sell spell things out and most of them That's not that's not a sufficient analogy Okay, anyway, so okay. I'm just trying to get your model because if you know the answer of abogenesis and many people would like to know So you're saying an RNA molecule formed And then if self replicated itself or what are you saying? Yes, okay So an RNA molecule formed and if it was a self replicating combination it would then self replicate How would it self replicate if it's folded? To be a ribozyme Because then it would need to unfold So the first RNA molecules wouldn't have been ribozymes ribozymes came millions of years after that so that was like irrelevant They wouldn't be a ribozyme. Like what are you talking about? I'm just asking how the first slide got started. So the first slide didn't have ribozyme Then they self replicated informed corpuscles and then you have the self replicating material inside of the corpuscles within replicate and create the first life Okay, so did the first self replicating ribozyme replicate itself or did it use a template from another right ribozyme? I'm sorry. It replicated itself So it randomly came together Like in in the wild an RNA molecule bonded together and then RNA molecule Happens to be the kind of combination that would reproduce itself, which is completely random And then it started to grab other nucleotides and put them in the order that would then reproduce itself, which is completely random So the first one was formed on its own Randomly with a whole bunch of other ones that were just gibberish and didn't reproduce themselves. But one of the billions that did That were produced on their own Happens to be the correct order where it would self reproduce and then it reproduced itself But how does it self reproduce if it's folded into a ribozyme form? Because it wasn't it was not the original RNA was not folded into a ribozyme form That happened millions of years later You don't need ribosome ribosomes like initially to do the self-replicating like that does a different process There's multiple different ways to do it. I think that's the process that you were all good into earlier What no You said a self replicating RNA and I'm asking how did it reproduce itself? If it was folded Again, there are lots of different ways to fold it. It can be folded in many different ways The way it is currently folded in our current cells in our current ribosomes Is not the way it was folded in life currently originated. Yeah, the way it was folded. How is it going to be transcribing itself? Because you can do that while it's still folded. It doesn't need to unfold unless it's folded in a inconduces pattern Yes, it is like That's not true. I don't understand what you're not gonna say. So I can fold a piece of paper in such a way That's a circle shape. It's a circle shape and it's folded and then the circle shape can bond to other circle shapes just fine There are certain patterns that if you folded it like an origami Crane it would not be able to combine with other things because it's very folded in a very Inconducesive pattern. There are some patterns of folding that it's very easy to pair with other things That is very easy to pair with other things So the fact that it's folded just magically folding it doesn't mean once it's ever folded once Then it can no longer bond. That's not how it works. You can still fold it many times and it can still bond Any kind of folding does not mean now can no longer bond with anything ever. It's not how folding works So did it unfold itself to replicate itself? No, no, it can still fold and replicate. They can do both at the same time Hmm just one or an A Yes, I What yes, obviously just one that's crazy um, okay, so assuming that we have a bunch of RNA and it's just replicating itself and replicating other um Making more RNAs then what's the next step? Then what comes out could have been many different things there are like a thousand different options there There are many different ways that you could go to the next step. There's lots of different steps you could pick from Well, if you have a good begin, let's just so my explanation there Was better than god magic what I just know that was not that was a horrible explanation How is that not that was absolutely horrible? We haven't even got past step step one Okay, so so tell me how what I just said is worse than god magic because you didn't even sufficiently explain The the first step needed for life I Your question was is how can RNA form and then self reproduce? So I answered that question And it was better than god magic. How in answering the question? How was it not better than god magic that's because uh, uh Giving you granted a reproducing RNA molecule, which is already a stretch Does not even get close to life and That's just the question answer There wasn't there wasn't a question. So you asked one question. How does RNA reproduce? My answer was is it that can fold and reproduce at the same time? Yours is god magic. So how is God magic a better explanation of all because I explain how how all parts of cell would come about Okay, that doesn't matter again. We want to focus on one thing And you cannot explain uh, if RNA was randomly polymerizing how it sustained some type of code If it's random, then it's going to randomly produce a code It's not going to have like a Code for itself if the if nucleotides are randomly polymerizing on it So you're saying that an RNA molecule came together through polymerization But if that just happened randomly, then we would have no code to try to keep Um, we would have no code because there it it would just be nucleotides randomly adding on all If they're randomly adding on then many of them are going to randomly add on any pattern Which is a code No, every they're adding on to every once they're not sustaining any type of code Uh, if they're adding on to every one, then there's going to be a pattern in some of them, which is going to be a code There's no there's no code This is literally stochastic systems uh information theory Shannon claude shannon's 1958 paver information theory and how information is formed is caused from a stochastic system creating a pattern Randomness creates patterns. Yes, literally does that literally what means the information Okay, and also I want you to take into account that 10 trillion randomized RNA molecules are required as a starting point for the isolation of ribosomic Ribosomic or binding activity in vitro. So this completely divorced from the probable prebiotic situation This is what what does in vitro mean? Please what does in vitro mean? Okay, this is what it would not have had in vitro because we have no life yet What does in vitro mean? What does the word mean? It means um like outside In a in a lab whatever you want to say I can Okay, what does I have to do with the statement though? So so Outside is close enough. It means outside of an organism. So if there's in vitro fertilization or whatever that means that there is an organism and this I know what it means. Okay, but That means that means we already have a life form with trillions of cells. So your statement is literally Contradicting what you're saying. So obviously if you already have an organism that's made up of lots of cells Then yes, you're obviously going to have to have some kind of multicellular Combination of things to fertilize that already existing This was an experiment done in a lab And it would have said that this many needed would need Our name molecules will need to exist to have ribosomic activity And this is completely divorced from the probable prebiotic situation And already i've already addressed Everything you've said no, you haven't you haven't given any sufficient answers and and by the way I want to come back to one thing with the how did the quantum field create the universe? I didn't fluctuations in the exact same way that The casimir effect that I already answered the question, but again, let's just go back to the ribosomes You keep mentioning ribosomes because you didn't explain Casimir effect Yes, I did here is a natural process of a thing that can cause this exact effect we see that would create the universe But ribosomes did not come about At the origin of rna ribosomes evolved after rna was already there What ribosome is spelled r i b o s o m e ribosome ribosome I don't know how that's spelled Okay, so why did you say ribosome because ribosomes is like a like a type of lime drink ribosomes After rna thousands millions of years after rna existed then ribosome ribosomes came about no ribosomes Yeah, that's You guys ready to go to the q&a? Yeah, I guess yeah, we can go ahead All right. Thank you guys so much for that spirited conversation so The first question we have comes from Uh Lynn yen chin from for ten dollars canadian or uh, yeah, canadian Why not call it atheist versus a theist? Is it the same reason why most people believe a part is just another way to type a part instead of realize Instead of the realizing the two things mean the exact opposite What's the question? Yeah, that's it. Okay for five dollars from michael for um Q for question for t-jump Was your blonde hair tips intelligently designed or are they degrading hair follicles at random?  You just described a protein and went to a cell You know nothing about biology. That was hilarious proto cell That's hilarious. I can't believe people actually think that Okay From sentinel apologetics for two dollars says I'm sending this to say I love stupid horror energy So super horror energy you have a fan out there From berry berry for ten dollars says I admire this creationist debater A lot of theists aren't brave or honest enough to admit at the very beginning of a debate that all of their reasons for believing in Things are completely fallacious A fallacy just because there's a fallacy doesn't mean that your argument's wrong. That's called a fallacy fallacy It doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong your argument If there's a fallacy in your argument your argument is definitely wrong, but the conclusion might not be wrong Thank you From sentinel apologetics for two dollars says taylor needs a major crash course in the epistemology Chris g for 4.99 says taylor how does whatever t-jump thinks about the origins of the universe Help to prove your point in any way at all. You have the burden to prove your claim Well, he wouldn't even really I don't even understand what he was saying like how the quantum field So in in the in using quantum theory to create a universe Usually there I've heard scientists explain is there is a pre-existing universe and then at quantum tunnel something To create the big bang, but I've never heard of just quantum field Korean the big bang there would have had to be something there Whether it's spacetime or something it couldn't have just come from nothing So I think his his explanation was very insufficient and that's why I think mine was better Casimir effect is google casimir effect. It's a scientific thing. We've discovered it in lab. We can observe it casimir effect google casimir effect All right from berry berry for ten dollars says taylor Let's say that you're right in that a god made everything What explanatory value does that offer? How did he do it through what mechanisms using what materials or energy source be specific? Okay, so the first part of the question was how does that explain anything? You know magic thing that I brought up. Yeah, okay. So it obviously gives a better it explains everything. I mean Us trying to ponder God is like an ant trying to ponder our minds. She's not gonna happen But I've already given an explanation to how he created the cell. I literally Mentioned parts of the cell that had to be created And then the big bang Let there be lights Bang like that's but it's better than from nothing. That's the nothing coming from nothing is hysterical No one believes that in physics. Okay. So by the way, I don't see I know about the casimir effect Whenever particles randomly come about in um space That does that like what does this have to do with the big bang? So virtual particles popping into existence like oh, I don't know the big bang all the particles in the big bang. That's So through quantum tunneling you mean Because if it was if there was no universe there There was no space there was no there was no space for there to be fluctuations. There was nothingness Space is an emergent property from quantum fields quantum fields exist prior to space and have fluctuations which created space Okay, so what is quantum? What what what is quantum field? It's a vector space containing the fundamental blocks of reality Okay, so is that like a form of a universe? It's not just nothingness No, it's it's not nothingness. It's it's something Okay, so you believe that's that's existed forever over god. Yes. Yes Well, I don't think that's a better explanation And and it can't agree Okay from contrae in 420 for five dollars says what is the materialist explanation for consciousness? As it cannot be examined without itself cannot be removed or added as independent variable Yet so the explanation of consciousness is most likely a physical process that is synonymous with the material Things processes occurring in your brain that we will discover in the future. We haven't done it yet Better than god magic Actually, it's not From 499 from kief says for taylor since you avoided the question on twitter Uh, were the ancient greeks justified in believing zeus was the best explanation for lightning For light like lightning. Oh for lightning. Yes I guess so. I mean, I don't I don't I don't know. Um You heard her first They're justified in thinking that all of this couldn't have been here including lightning from nothing Gotcha From sudo nim for ten dollars says t jump if taylor gives a better explanation to match reality Against your version of reality where anything is possible to rule out any truth in what you say Does she win not because god, but you're wrong period That is not a coherent question like not literally everything is possible in my universe. It's more likely that everything is possible in the god universe I deserve a worser when reading that right because it's not possible to have like a round square in my universe So not anything is possible clearly That's sad Sad that you can't have a round square Plans everything that's crazy Can't have a round square explains everything Are we good?  There's no proteins Right. I mean They can be since synthesized by proteins, but where's the proteins that there's no life yet Gotcha from mango tea for two dollars You want to add something now just saying like uh For protein to be there. That's already a huge jump and I don't know if we can explain a Folded working protein being there from even amino acids at this point. So Gotcha, uh from mango tea for two ninety nine says t jump. Let's debate on does god exist pay me Stupid horror energy for five dollars says the first non-specific anti codon stem loop anti csl t RNA transfer RNA was formed during Uh, repeated random synthesis degradation cycles of oligo nucleotides Well, what about the annealing problem if they were if they were Together, how did they ever anneal to create more?   Are you saying that a bunch of neutrons firing caused you to love? Yes neutrons neutrons neurons No neutrons Pseudo nim for two dollars says at t jump. How do you start? We had RNA when it formed What? How do you start we had RNA when we're moving on? It's a beautiful thing to love jesus. Yeah, you never gave an explanation for how RNA formed. You just said started RNA kind of It formed naturally through natural processes of the molecules bonding together.  Natural processes and if they randomly bonded then they would have no food That's probably false. They literally all information has code from stochastic, which means random definition of random Shannon claude information theory paper 1958. You want to check it yourself? Not sure Okay, it's a beautiful thing to follow jesus for five dollars. Canadian says t jump Is slowly morphing into his chair Don't be mean I don't know if that was mean it was just Meme it's a meme. I think it's just a statement of fact Uh chris g for 199 says how is god did it more valid than I don't know? because we But the process is needed for example for a cell Have many paradoxes like the water paradox the oxygen paradox along with many others That would prohibit life from forming That's the I don't know he's asking why is saying I'm not saying we haven't figured out yet We know how the cell works and we know what would have been needed But if for example, they were all put together they would have turned into inorganic materials So so the question was is okay, so we know it's really complicated Your answer is god did it how is saying god did I in my opinion? I'm saying it's impossible It's impossible. Yes Yes, that's what I'm saying Okay from stupid horror energy for ten dollars says molecules like fatty acids can assemble into membranous vesicles and are present in Carver no Carbonaceous meteorites Membranous vesicles were abundant in prebiotic environment Okay, and if there was a membrane around the cell and it had no transport proteins How would anything have gotten in and out the cell? So essentially it just be a you know say that it is encapsulated even though fatty acids Don't do good in the acidic environment that RNA would have needed to be in Suppose it did survive right and it encapsulated it then how is it? How is it ever how is anything ever going to get transported and out without the transport proteins? What does that have to do with the question? That I'm just telling you what's wrong with it. Like you're telling me, you know, well this exists. I'm telling you the problems There was not even a question actually Gotcha from no notion slave for 4.99 says god is the most self-evident explanation Fall of these intricate beautiful systems Naturally unfolding is even more evidence of the genius of nature Got it magic god powers Well, he has materialism explains nothing science god That explains nothing. That's his god. I think fall was of all Yeah, uh 60 second skeptic for $20 canadian says for both for both guests If we don't have alternate universes to reference this one to How do we find hallmarks of design? Isn't our sample size one? At wait, can you repeat the question? Sure for both guests if we don't have alternative universes to reference this one to How do we find hallmarks of design? Isn't our sample size one? right How do we find hallmarks of design? Well, that's just that goes with the multiverse theory Because um, you know, everything's so fine tuned and worked out so perfectly that there must have been multiple universes And we just happened to be the one that works. So I mean, I think that anything pertains to multiverse theory is just trying to make up for the fine tuning problem Literally wasn't the question the question was asking We have a sample size of one. Yeah But there's many multiverses and I'm saying I don't agree with that No, no, they're not they're saying that in order to Try to have evidence of design You would need to have multiple different kinds of universes to compare the different probabilities of the way the universe would Come about naturally to know if one was specifically designed by a Designer to be some offset or separate from the way it just naturally occurs without a designer The probabilistic argument is that if you only have one universe, maybe this is the most likely way Everything would come about from deterministic forth is without a designer So unless you have a lot of universes where it didn't occur You couldn't say design because this is a way the most likely outcome that we know about through natural processes Well, physicists have calculated, um, the probability We don't need to look at other universes and the probability is astronomically low If the laws of physics can change which we don't know if they can that's the point No, not with your materialistic word world. They definitely can't Then the probability would be a hundred percent that we'd have life in our universe Okay, discontinue.  I've never heard of a protonoid monosphere It's literally Um, coffee breath for one nine nine says for both what is a ribosome versus a ribosome Can you answer to jump? Yeah, ribosome is a certain type of RNA and a ribosome is the processes in the cell that does stuff Gotcha From mitchell for two dollars says is origami random No origami Yeah, it is origami random Some of it is origami random Is origami is not random it needs a I would say it needs a designer somebody to design it What do you think you jump you found a piece of paper? Of course it can be random Like literally people who do do origami can randomly hold doing it But what if you found a paper folded in origami? So so random doesn't mean Humans can do random things too humans will so can god I'm just saying if you found origami on the floor wouldn't you think a person fold in it instead of just happen to fold Yes, because there's no natural processes that produces origami if there are natural Yes, there are all of the evidence you can't even get a cell a cell produce in the lab Again, because origami we have evidence of people We know people exist in reality And if we see a thing of origami and there are no natural processes that produce it then we can infer Can we think something like life without no natural processes either because there's no evidence of god existing at all Then you can't say god So You're refuting evidence Yes, because it's garbage evidence. So you refute it. That's literally how it works If you saw the difference the difference between origami and god is that origami has evidence of its designers humans We know they exist God has no evidence he exists. And so you can't use him as an explanation of things Do you believe in ghosts and what if you saw no, you know, what if you saw a ghost? Would you believe it and then No, I'd probably think it was an illusion like any rational person but what if it was on camera and it was recorded Probably still just a natural process. We haven't discovered yet Are you kidding me? You know, there's lots of this happening People have ghosts on camera all the time and then they discover to not be ghosts It's a pretty common process Like so if you saw a UFO the correct explanation is you're probably making stuff up. It's probably not a UFO even if it's on camera Yeah, but if you saw it and it was on camera and it touched you and there was witnesses Would you still would you believe it then? Probably not No, I need That would make you believe it Novel testable predictions not you saw it so anecdotal fallacies. No Science is how we differentiate imagination from reality You will not accept anything even if you see it. No, I don't worship science It's just a method to differentiate imagination. You got a lot of faith in it. Anyway No, I use induction not faith. So I have no faith in anything all right From two dollars from matzoro, uh taylor you did this on a dare, didn't you? On a dare? Yeah, yeah, they asked me to come back and debate. So I said whatever. I'll just come back One more time from kwny upstate for ten dollars says assuming that god being did all the things people claim to have witnessed It do and not things it claimed to have done Do that mean it created existence and is real god or just a powerful being I mean, I think if they created everything it'd be god I didn't really understand the question Yeah, I'm not sure either Assuming that the god If he did everything that people claimed it did when they saw god like helped them find their car keys or whatever But none of the stuff in the bible Does that mean it would be god or just evidence of like a really powerful alien messing with people? Hmm. Yeah, that makes sense Well, are you a know me to answer? If you understood the question If you don't want to we just move on I kind of didn't understand. I don't think that you're in temptation From samir far saint for five dollars says if we find an assumed new island and we find a log cabin in it Would you assume it's a wild house? If not, how do you assume everything else is? The only reasonable time you can infer designs if you already have evidence of the designer So we found a log cabin and we know humans make log cabins and you can infer it's a human made log cabin If there's no evidence of the designer then you can never infer design So like if we discovered a tesseract on a beach you could never infer design from that Because there's no evidence of anything that could design such a thing So the only times you can infer design is if you have evidence the designer actually exists beforehand okay, and uh From grade day san For five dollars says the minute we agree that something can come from nothing There's no need for a creator right because then something always existed No Like if if something could come from nothing then first there would have to be nothing So there would not have always been something But you're saying there would have always been something. Yes. Uh, no one in physics thinks there was absolutely nothing that something came from That's not a thing in physics. We always there's something that always existed. Yes But but uh the multiverse thing uh breaks the law second law of thermodynamics Literally no one in physics thinks that You you don't even do you even read like because it and same thing with the uh quantum mechanics like None of the consensus views in physics break the laws of physics. That's literally Opposite of what they do of materialism There's no laws of materialism the laws of physics like the second law of thermodynamics and entropy is not broken by the multiverse Yeah, it is How to publish a paper on that like revolutionized physics Because entropy increases every time Which has how does that violate uh the multiverse? I don't know why don't you go read the scientific scientific paper? I have the scientists agree It doesn't no no scientists thinks the multiverse by what's the second law of thermodynamics? That's your claim And there's no evidences that like new universes are being created in ours Or there would be some type of like background radiation or some fluctuations in uh Like the the um background radiation What new universes created in our universe? There's there's no evidence that Like if if universes were hypothetically being created in this universe, there would be some type it would leave some type of mark Yes, if new universes were created in our universe Which is not what the multiverse says but yes Multiverse is like a religion. I mean to think that A multiverse has been here all along is more radical than god. Yes, it is No, that's how did the first universe come about that still doesn't mess uh like answer the creation problem If there was a multiverse multiverse music wasn't there was none of them. There was never a first universe They're infinite in the past and that's still less ridiculous than infinitely existed, but not god Okay, that's a stretch Yeah, yes a thing that we have evidence for is more plausible than a non physical sky daddy That has some budget magical properties No, because okay. Well then at the big bang had in the big the big bang theoretically should have ended at the beginning No, for example the matter In the multiverse the big bang is one of many. It's not the origin of the multiverse Okay, well, there's problems of the big bang itself And if you think that then you don't know anything about physics. Okay. Well, tell me about matter and antimatter problem How is it solved? We haven't discovered where the antimatter is that's that's there's no like problem there It's just like oh, we just don't know where it is like, okay, then you don't know. I mean Then you're just not right. There is The antimatter problem is that we don't know where the antimatter is. That's all that's all that's just not true That's literally the problem. The problem is that we know more about where the standard matter is and we don't know Where the antimatter is that's the problem. We just don't know where it is And have you heard about the problem with at the big bang it should have theoretically came back in But then uh dark energy Yeah, okay. Well, then I've read more about the big bang than you have Gooths early universe inflation Explains that it had a rapid rate of expansion at the early universe. There's no The amount of matter we have would not have caused it to collapse like no What are you even talking about? Yeah, okay, well, then you know both works But there is there is problems with big bang that we haven't worked out You're acting like there isn't any are you gonna stick to that statement? Yes, there that is the consensus in physics that the big bang happened and that is There's no no problems there You don't need to have everything worked out. It's just anything worked out is better than it got Yeah, we don't have answers to everything obviously What is that? What are you even like literally? That's not an argument like we don't have every answer to every question ever.  Why did god drown all of the babies? That's that's a significant problem We're not debating you god All right, no Well, I think that we've probably already passed the 30 minutes I forgot to set a timer to be honest with you guys But um, we do have a few more questions. Do you guys want to get out of here? Yeah, we can answer To jump I don't care Okay From travis statham and if you guys any more at superchats, we're not gonna Guarantee any more reading the samir far sam. That'll be the last one that I can guarantee I won't ask any more of the guys here tonight. Thank you from Sentinel apologetics sent two dollars to laugh out loud a lot Samir far sam sent five dollars to say if we assumed No, whoever that one Travis statham said two dollars taylor. Can you read out loud the home zian fallacy wiki? I doubt that you'd want to do that Or do you? I mean y'all continue I don't know it off top of my head It's a statement that uh, what is it if every possible thing Go ahead I think that I think that my results actually It came up with ad hominem, but I tried to type in homesy and fallacy Anyway, what does it mean? It's like the famous statement from Sherlock Holmes that He's using the process of an elimination fallacy. It's the fallacy that occurs when someone Explanation is believed to be true on the basis that alternative explanations are impossible And that's your explanation like God's impossible. So science must be true All right. No. No. So it was when you said that Life coming about is impossible. Therefore God that was Because I never said God was impossible. They were in the fallacy give up ways Well, I never said God was impossible okay From stupid horror energy for ten dollars says all gad v polypeptide chains containing gad v amino acids roughly at one fourth each should be folded into similar water soluble globular structure uh, anneal d's nuts Okay, so the protein um if the proteins um you talk about protein folding I haven't heard of the gad dean but um Then they would essentially just be clumps and not really significant But you're assuming that there's a protein already and that's a big assumption that a protein's just there I know proteins can can fold themselves, but doesn't mean it'll be into anything useful They're all just folding it probably will turn into nothing useful. I think people And yeah, well, you didn't give me the annealing problem the answer so Gotcha and uh for 2.99 mango tea wants to be your boyfriend taylor And moving on stupid horror energy for five dollars says microspheres can incorporate passively chemical compounds with a low molecular weight try to keep up I'm sorry. Let me start you Mitchell for two dollars says tea jump glasses were randomly designed fools It's true. They actually were they were random bins of glass that we didn't know about and they looked through like Oh, I can see they were randomly designed initially All right notion slave for 4.99 says tea jump looks at his girlfriend and thinks not beautiful enough better explained by random chance Can't be a painter like god The evolution explains it And samir farms saying for five dollars says if only one in a billion attempts for rna works How come we didn't discover a single one of the other? 999 Million 999 thousand 999 that didn't or is it nature or is nature done trying? Because life is everywhere now and it consumes all kind of biotic material And so if another one was formed it would likely be eaten by all of the stuff we see around us that did survive So if there was a new rna molecule That came about today it would get consumed by all of the gigantic bacteria around that eats everything All right. Well, that's less I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was just saying all the rna's is on our hands Anyway, all right. Well, that's less of our questions. You guys want to say goodbye to the audience real quick Thank you for being here Probably a dumpster fire, but it's whatever I had fun I wouldn't classify this as a dumpster fire. It was a pleasant conversation and no j die. Yeah, it was interesting Yeah, definitely Check out the atheist church fundraiser give me money so I can buy an apartment building for the atheist church All right. Well, thank you both so much for being here. Thank you to the moderators in the chat Thank you james for making this platform. Thank you to the audience everybody who sent in super chats and elevated the conversation Uh, once again, thank you to the debaters who are the lifeblood of the show Like it if you loved it share it if you want to spread it and subscribe as we have many more debates coming your way Our speakers are linked in the description. Check them out. Do it now. Thank you everyone. Have a great night And remember keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Have a great night