Today we are debating biblical speciation and limited ancestry and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for this epic debate as we are very excited because we have with us tonight two experienced debaters and they are debating one of the classic questions of the origins of humanity, even the origins of the animal kingdom. So it's going to be a fun one. Want to let you know, though, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up that we are very excited about. This Friday, we are stoked. I got to mention to you this Friday where we didn't have a Flat Earth Debate. I am not joking, though. I had a big announcement. I just let it out on Twitter earlier today. Wotan, who's, if you haven't met him, if you haven't seen him on the show before, Wotan is a Flat Earth Debater and he's a popular one. He's a big one. He's got a lot of attitude. He's one of those New Yorkers. He's from New York. He actually emailed me today, though. He's actually not debating anymore, at least for a long time. He said during the pandemic, he's like, nope, not for a while. So we hope he's doing well. We miss you, Wotan, but just so you know, folks, sorry that we won't actually get to have that debate this Friday. We will have an epic Flat Earth Debate, though. We have new Flat Earthers and Flat Earth Skeptics that are coming to the channel. So we're excited for that and want to let you know, though, both of our speakers who are here today, I have put their links in the description. So that way, if you are like, mmm, I like that. I want to hear more of him. Well, you can if you click those links that I put down there just for you and want to let you know it's going to be a kind of flexible five-minute opening statement from each side followed by open discussion and then Q&A. So if you have a question for the Q&A, fire it into the old live chat. If you tag me with an at-modern day debate, it makes it a little bit easier for me to not miss it. And Super Chat is also an option where you can ask a question. It'll go to the top of the list for the Q&A. And it'll also give you a chance to ask a question, to taunt or to give a rude comment toward one of the speakers to which they would, of course, get to respond to. We ask you to be your friendly selves for both the questions or rude comments. So with that, very excited folks. What I'm going to do is, I, forgive me guys, who's it going first? Can you remind me? Gotcha. Standing for truth. That'll give me a chance to look up what LA stands for. That's right. Limited ancestry, baby. So very excited. I'll give you a hint in the opening. Okay, let me know what we're debating tonight. Like I said, I've been very busy, but let's do this. I'm ready. Laura's all yours standing. Awesome. Well, thanks gentlemen for doing this. Mark, thanks for doing this debate with me. I think it's going to be a lot of fun. I'm going to set my timer here five minutes starting now. Okay. So we are here tonight to discuss the topic of ancestry. So LA stands for limited ancestry. We're going to discuss the origin of species. Do the species we see today descend from ancestors that were divinely created as the Bible would tell us? Do all humans today descend from just two people? Adam and Eve? Or do we share ancestry with apes, monkeys, dogs and banana plants? Well, right off the bat, I can easily prove that limited ancestry exists. The genetic structure in humans today speaks to us if the literal Adam and Eve. The evidence for a literal Adam and Eve and limited ancestry is you and me, Mark and even James, the awesome moderator of tonight's debate. What Mark should be asking himself is this, what would we honestly expect if Adam and Eve were true? I think it should be obvious to anybody that we should be expecting evidence for one female ancestor of all people on the planet, as well as evidence for one male ancestor of all people on the planet. Genetic data confirms these expectations. For example, in our DNA, we have a piece of DNA that we only get from our fathers if we are a male. This is called our Y chromosome. The Y chromosome is passed on, unbroken from father to son. From time to time, a mistake happens. And every time this happens, a new branch in the family tree is produced. If we simply look at all the branches in the world, they go back to a single person. And this single person is not a chimpanzee. Sorry, Mark, it's a man. This is a man who lived just a few thousand years ago. This is Y chromosome Adam. We can do the exact same thing with mitochondrial DNA, which takes us right back to one female ancestor, mitochondrial Eve. Now, in this discussion, we can look at many lines of evidence that suggest a limited ancestry. For example, we can look to orphan genes. I want Mark to explain empirically the existence of orphan genes in this discussion, functional, endogenous retroviruses. Mark seems to think that ERVs are the number one, or if one of the best evidence for universal common descent. So we can always start with that one if you'd like. Functional ALUs, the overturning of junk DNA, the overturning of the so-called chromosome 2 fusion and pseudo genes, the existence of incomplete lineage sorting, linkage blocks, mutation accumulation, Y chromosome DNA, including the incredible dissimilarity between chimp and human Y chromosome DNA. And of course, mitochondrial DNA. These lines of evidence and more not only demonstrate limited ancestry, but also destroy evolutionism. I say we should go where the evidence leads us. The question of the night should be, what directly records a species ancestry? The answer is DNA. Sperm and egg don't pass on a fossil or a bone. They don't pass on geography or a rock. They pass on genetics and traits. And so if we want to find out the history of humanity and the origin of species, this is where we must look. We have clocks in our DNA that go back just 6,000 years ago to Adam and Eve. There are lines of evidence that can differentiate between the two models, universal ancestry and limited ancestry. These lines of evidence can be found in genetics, as I just pointed out. The evidence that evolution is typically used are no help to universal ancestry because both models can account for the data. The origin of species and the topic of ancestry is a question as to the origin of traits and the origin of traits are encoded by genetics, of course. Classic textbook examples of universal ancestry include homology, the shared structures seen in the biological world, shared forelimb structure, for example, but we know human engineers design in homologous patterns. Vehicles from Asia and North America and Germany all build cars with headlights in the front, four tires, doors on the side, etc. I've got a minute here, so I'm just going to speed through this, but across the globe we see shared designs and even shared blueprints. What about the so-called existence of transitional forms, the symbolic, the archeoptrics perhaps? Well, you know, that is those animals that seem to blend the features of two very different species. You can call these mosaics if you'd like. Well, think of a military vehicle that blends the features of both a land vehicle and a vehicle built for the ocean. For example, an amphibious assault vehicle, or even think of a crossover vehicle that blends the features of both a van and an SUV. The point is homology, transitional forms, nested hierarchical patterns, and anatomy, physiology, and genetics all fail to reject the design hypothesis. Both models can explain the data. Now I look forward to discussing with Mark the differentiating evidence that proves limited ancestry, explains biblical speciation, and all at the same time refutes pawns gun to people, fish to fishermen, evolution. Thanks so much. Thank you very much. Standing for truth, we will now switch it over to Mark Drisdale for his opening statement. Mark, thanks so much for being here. Glad to have you, and the floor is all yours. Thanks a lot, James. So what I'm hearing again is I'm hearing that the tens of thousands of scientists out there are wrong. That they somehow have it wrong and a limited handful of young Earth creationists have it right. I really don't know where to layman like standing and myself can take this. I am not a person who specializes in biology. I'm not someone who specializes in genes, but we have tens of thousands of scientists out there who tell us that, yes, this is a fact. We are going back close to 50 million years. We have found the ancestors that look a lot like us, but aren't quite us. They're kind of halfway between how hunched over and standing upright. We have these people. Now, he talked about retroviruses and just basically made an assertion and then skimmed over it, that is not evidence for us evolving over literally millions of years because we do go back to pond scum. That is really what we go back to.  To just make a statement that this is not true is not the way science works. As we look at all of the evidence, we weigh it out and we look at what best suits or best describes what we see in the world. We had a pretty good idea of what was going on long before genetics came along. Genetics is new. As we all know, it's last 40, 50 years we started working on genetics. But before that, we would look in the fossil record. We would see this very neatly laid out layer where we would go from very primitive to we would start to see the reptiles and then we started to see the minimalist mammals and then we see them turn into, if we want to pretend that man is the ultimate in evolutionary design, if we want to be that arrogant to say that, then yes. We can see where we went from monkeys and then into humans. There is just so much evidence out there that I don't know why we're going to sit here and we're going to kind of, you know, as two laymen, we're going to kind of play around with and try to make science suit our point of view. I really don't have to really stand up here and make much of a point except to say it's not the majority of scientists. It's not the majority of biologists. It's not the majority of chemists. It's all of them except for the most extreme outliers. And yes, you can come up with four or 500 people who happen to also be religious that will find on your side and talk about these people like it's a lot. But there's, on the other side, there's hundreds of thousands of scientists for every one person that wants to find in this, and I'm going to call it absurd worldview. It's just, it's not accurate and I'm not sure how we can, yeah, I just don't know how we can go down this road as laymen and just make these assertions that science is wrong and standing, Nephi, Kent Holvin is right. And I just want to get into the discussion. I really do. I've never even really heard standing talk before. I tried to get the chance this week to listen to him in some of his debates. I was just unable to do it. I just didn't have a chance with this whole virus going on. I've been very busy, but something that I would like to point out to standing for truth, and I told him that I'm in a really bad mood right now. And how long do I got here, James? Do I still have a minute or two? About a minute. Okay, so right now we're dealing with the United States. I'm in Canada and we're dealing with a president of the United States and his wacky sidekick, Pence there. And this is my problem with religion. When religion is allowed to run free, you get these situations where you get people like Donald Trump and Pence in charge of a system because he was voted in as a... Well, he's a con man. He's not religious, but he pretends that he is. And this is the damage that it does. You've got to admit Trump was voted in and Pence was voted in in the hopes that young Earth creationism would be taught to kids in public schools. That's how he got voted in. Absolutely no doubt about it. So here's what we're living now. We've got this virus running rampant that's going to keep us in our houses for at least three to four months. Don't think we're going to be out by Easter, any stretching the imagination. Where did this virus come from standing? Where did this virus come from? Where was this virus on Noah's Ark? 10 seconds. Where did it come from? We're corona. Where did it come from? Was it on Noah's Ark? Who had it? Noah's wife, his kids? Noah? Who had it? Go ahead. Thank you very much, Mark, for that opening statement. And yes, it's true. We hope you're all healthy and well out there, friends, as it's a wild one. I'm in Denver right now. Usually I stream from my office, but our building's completely locked down. Completely. And so I had to find a new place to stream. And so this is a good view. So with that though, very excited for this open discussion section. So gentlemen, thanks so much. The floor is all yours. Okay. Well, thanks so much for that opening there, Mark. To be honest with you, I didn't see much more than arguments from majority. But if you do want to talk about viruses first and where this coronavirus may have come from and where viruses stand in the biblical creation model, well, I definitely enjoy showing people that what they think they know about viruses for the most part is wrong.  But little do most people know actually, most viruses are actually beneficial. Like, do you know how many viruses roughly mark that we have in our body and in our genetics? Well, I know of parasites that we have that are beneficial. Absolutely. Can you name some of the viruses that are beneficial? Real quick. I don't want to interrupt, but I just ask you a question if you know how many viruses we have in our genetics. It's just a simple question. What do you want to number? More. How would I know that number? Do we have viruses that are beneficial? No, I don't know of any. So maybe you could tell us what, what viruses are beneficial to us that we couldn't live without? Well, most viruses is what I'm saying are actually beneficial. Mark, the question you're asking and the question most people ask are don't most viruses cause disease? So I'm telling you, I'm telling anybody else who thinks that that the answer is no. No, we have even more viruses in our body than bacteria. And we know that bacteria is good. For example, bacteria is good in our, our gut. And I'm sure you've even heard Mark that we have more bacteria in and on our bodies than we do cells. And yet we have more viruses in our body than we do bacteria. But the question I think we should be asking is what are all these viruses doing? Well, what they are doing, Mark, and you might be aware of this is they are actually controlling the number of bacteria in our gut and the number of species of bacteria. Mark, this is all about regulation. The viruses are regulating the number of bacteria without bacteria. Let's say in the ocean or in our bodies, there would be an imbalance not only in our bodies, but also in the ecosystem. So the point is, and to answer your question, yes, the fact is most viruses are highly beneficial and incredibly important. Now, now don't get me wrong. Not all viruses are good. Of course, the coronavirus is not good, but most of them are good. Now, where do we get the bad viruses? Well, the fact is, let's say if you look at, we can just look at the coronavirus, okay? So viruses in general, they don't cause disease, but when they jump from a different species, like this coronavirus did, the new species does not have the ability to regulate the virus properly and the virus tends to burn hot and fast. Now, fortunately, you might be aware of Ebola. Sometimes these viruses burn out, which is good. But the point is, viruses are beneficial. So they were created beneficial and highly important to our body, just like the endogenous retroviruses, they're highly functional DNA element, important in our genetics. But over time, if they cross species or based on a mutation, they can go from good to bad. But the majority are good. Go ahead. Okay, we got to keep this shorter. I just looked up beneficial viruses on Google and I was actually in that speech able to read an entire thing and it says, no, there are no beneficial viruses that we couldn't live without. As a matter of fact, it says that some are not harmful to us and will go on knowing that we won't even know that we have them. But no, I know of no viruses. Are you telling me there's viruses that if we didn't have them, we wouldn't be alive today?  Well, I think what you're reading must be out of date because it is about regulation. That's where viruses are for. The viruses are regulating the number of bacteria. Like I said, without bacteria in the ocean, you might not even want to swim in the water, Mark, due to an imbalance taking place in the ecosystem. Your question and my answer regarding viruses in the biblical based model, and I know you're in a bad mood and I'm sorry. I mean, this is a horrible situation for everybody and it's not always a fun topic to talk about. But where did these come from?   But most viruses, like I said, they're created beneficial or at least neutral, Mark, in the species they were created for. But when they jump, species is the most important point to take from this. They can go from good to bad. But all I can say standing is says you. Like I said, I'm still looking here and I can't see anything that says that we would not be alive today and as healthy as we are without viruses.  I'm not making it. I just told you exactly what would happen if we didn't have all these viruses that are regulating the number of species of bacteria, not only in and on our bodies, but also in the ocean and in the ecosystem. There would be an imbalance in the ecosystem if it weren't for viruses, if it weren't for bacteria. Are you aware of the endogenous retroviruses? Absolutely. Okay, so can you explain to me and the audience why I know that ERVs are not a direct form of evidence for fish to fisherman ponds come to people evolution. But what about endogenous retroviruses, Mark? Do you believe supports the theory? I haven't made that claim, but all I know is that you can go back and you can see the DNA that's been inserted into our genes. You can see it in our DNA and you can see when it was there, you can see where we shared it with other animals, the exact same retrovirus or the exact same virus. You know, you're making these claims, but all I'm asking you to do is back it. I'm not being rude. I'm saying I can make claims too, but where is the evidence that we couldn't live if there was not viruses on this earth? Name me one virus that I wouldn't be alive or that proves God today. What virus couldn't we live? What do we need? Good question. So kind of how I iterated and then reiterated earlier, clear viruses are important for the balance of the bacteria in our body, in the ecosystem. So if we didn't have these viruses, which outnumber cells and bacteria, there would be an imbalance in regards to the endogenous retroviral functions. I've got papers here that talk about how the ERVs are far from being junk DNA, the papers say, and I can send those to you if you want the evidence. They're from secular papers. The pervasive retro transposons that populate the genome mark have a powerful capacity to influence genes and chromatin, and it's generally known too that ERVs frequently act to distribute regulatory information and what they do is they confer genes with new patterns of expression and function. So without these so-called ancient viral elements in our genetics, we're not going to function. We're not going to develop as well as we could. Actually, there's retroviral elements in mouse embryos that if they're removed, the mouse doesn't develop. It develops and all of a sudden it stops because that retrovirus or that retro transposon was removed. So they're highly functional and beneficial. I can send you all these papers. Are you aware of the functions that have been found in the ERVs? Take your time. I know I talked a lot there. Absolutely not. I cannot think of where a retrovirus, and they are not expressed. So I do not know what right now you were talking about. You're making claims without a basis. There is absolutely no way that you... Well, I just said I have the papers. Sorry to interrupt. I do have the papers if you'd like. That's fine. And they need to be peer reviewed papers that say that if that mouse hadn't gone through, so every cold we get, every flu we get, every sickness we get, do you agree that that injects into us, in a way it cuts into our DNA and it expresses itself as a retrovirus? Can we agree on that? Well, Mark, you said that we can see the insertions of these endogenous retroviruses. Well, the reasons why they are called ancient viral remnants or ancient viral infections because they would have inserted themselves, millions of years ago or hundreds of thousands of years ago. So we actually never seen them inserted. So that's why the question is, are these really the ancient remnants of viral infections? Because if what we now know is that these retro transposons, the ERVs, for example, they can jump around the genome and they can turn on and off various types of genes. I will send you the paper where it shows that there's the specific class of retro transposons that Mark in the mouse embryo, because you did touch on that. I'd love to show you the paper because it does show that if you deactivate it, the mouse embryo will develop and then stop. And as I said earlier, it's because it depends on the function of these retro transposons, which evolutionists have always assumed was junk DNA. They'll take these ERVs and they'll look at ones in humans, chimps, monkeys, and they'll say that the nested hierarchical pattern and distribution of these ERVs prove common descent. But what we now know is that these ERVs are functional DNA elements important to the genome. So what you said is true about cold viruses, flu viruses, but this is when they cross species, okay? That's why they are harmful, but the viruses in our body, they don't cause disease. Those are actually highly important for our genetics, for the ecosystem. I mean, if you're not aware of this information, that's completely fine, but ERVs are like junk DNA. It's all been overturned. It's just not good evidence for evolution. Viruses in general, to be honest with you, I think as I'm proving here, fits far, far better in a biblical base model, Mark. Go ahead. Well, nothing fits in a base model. In everyday science, nothing fits into the biblical model. That's the problem that we have. And science would embrace the Bible. I swear to you, I would embrace the Bible. If you could just show me one piece of evidence that would make me think to myself, that is really unexplainable. That's gotta be magic. That's gotta be a God. But every single thing that we see lines up with genetic. It lines up with biology. I do not know how you are sitting here saying to us right now that they're like, so you're telling me that this mouse would not develop past the embryonic stage. If it wasn't for these viruses, is that really what you're trying to tell us? See, here's the question though, Mark, is are these ancient viral infections, are these endogenous retroviruses, the retro transpose, are they actually the result of the ancient infections back in the day, hundreds of thousands of years ago to millions of years ago? Because remember what you said was that you can see the insertions on these retroviruses, that's not actually true. So we should be asking ourselves, are these actually leftover remnants or are they created units of DNA function? Because evolutionists for years have said that they are just junk. No function, they're remnants of ancient viral infections, but that's because, and I will agree that they do have similarities marked actual viruses. So the evolutionists, the scientists, they predicted that these sequences would be non-functional. That's why they look to the shared ones between chimps and humans to say that this is evidence for common descent. But as I've shown over and over again here, the evidence is actually looking like they're not remnants of viral infections, but they're actually functional DNA units. This is consistent with our created heterozygosity hypothesis that suggests the vast majority of our DNA, DNA units, for example, are created initially by God. And viruses demonstrate this. I mean, do you disagree with anything that I've said in regards to the science behind the viruses, the retro transposons? Is there anything that I can clear up for you regarding it? Yeah, I disagree with it all. There's not one evidence, like I've been looking, everyone can see me looking down here. I am looking for beneficial viruses on Google. I can't find one thing that says that if it wasn't for these viruses, and don't forget standing, there are millions of them in our genetics. Millions of them. Actually, Google, how many viruses do we have? I think it's actually trillions of viruses we have in our genes. Okay, let's go with trillions of them. They don't number ourselves in bacteria. Okay, but right now we're picking them up at a rate of, from what I can see here, we're picking them up at a rate of about three to four a year. How did we get trillions of them if there's not a common ancestry? They were created that way. I just explained it, Mark. You got to listen. We were created with viruses? With viruses, bacteria. If you understand that bacteria incredibly, for example, bacteria in your blood, that will be infectious. Bacteria in your gut, that's healthy. That's why people say after rounds of antibiotics, hey, take a round of probiotics so you can get those good bacteria back. I mean, Mark, just look at swans, geese and ducks, okay? You do realize that they have influenza viruses that they actually carry. They carry all the variations of influenza. This is a fact. Now, when these animals defecate in the water, okay, and then you go swimming in that water as gross as it sounds, Mark, you're actually covered in viruses. And the question is, what are these beneficial roles of these viruses in ducks and geese, because they're not going around with the flu all the time, because those influenza viruses in the ducks, in the geese, for example, they are beneficial, just like our viruses are beneficial to us. But when they jump from a different species, and I've said this over and over again, so we may just have to agree to disagree and go on to something else, but when they jump from a different species, Mark, the new species does not have the ability to regulate the virus properly. That's the issue here with the coronavirus. So now the virus, for example, with the coronavirus, VH1N1, Ebola, it's now burning hot and fast. Our body doesn't recognize it. That's why with the coronavirus, I think it's a week or something. You can go without symptoms, and unfortunately now you can pass it on to 100 different people. That's why this self-isolation is incredibly important. But these are the ones that cross species, Mark. That's when they go from good to bad. And I understand you disagree. You may just have to disagree to disagree, but these are actually facts, Mark. Well, what I'm hearing you saying is that we're very much like the animal kingdom. We pretty much share the same genetics with the animal kingdom, which pretty much backs up everything that I say. We are part of the animal kingdom. If we weren't, we would be different. We wouldn't get colds.   We wouldn't have blood. There would be something about us that would be different. That would be obvious. We would have a different way of reproducing.  And those animals were to be his mate, to keep him company. Why did Adam, why was he able to produce sperm? If Adam was to be the only man on earth, the whole thing just doesn't make sense. You can't wrap it into a present that makes sense. It's just really, it doesn't make sense to me. Why would God make animals? One species that carries viruses that could kill another species. Not just another species. Well, that's because of genetic degeneration. Let me just say this. The species of his choice, these are, we are the ones that are apparently made in God's image. Why would there be other species like swans out there that need to carry these viruses that can kill us? Right. So these viruses were created beneficial. That's why the most, most of your viruses, most of your bacteria, for example, are beneficial. It's when they cross species, it's when they mutate that they become ad, I guess you could say. So this is all based on the biblical based model of genetic entropy, the fall, the accumulation of near neutral, and deleterious mutations, Mark. I mean, we accumulate, are you aware that we accumulate about 100 new mutations per person, per generation?  Now, there's gotta be a type of selection that can remove these deleterious mutations from our genetics. I mean, do you have a type of natural selection that can stop this genetic degeneration that we do see occurring in not only humans, but also in all forms of life? I mean, you say that you would like to see evidence for a creation. Well, you can take this accumulation of mutations to a point of least mutation accumulation. That would be a point of creation. Adam and Eve, we can see that based on mutation accumulation, mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosome DNA.  Is that not convincing to you that we can directly trace through our genetics? We can directly trace ourselves back to two common ancestors, Adam and Eve, just as the Bible says. Isn't that what you would expect to find, Mark? Take your time, take your time. But we don't. We don't. We do, we do. If we use the empirical method, Mark, as I explained in the opening, we can look at, say, mitochondrial DNA. Okay, let's look at that small DNA compartment. We inherit, as you know, mitochondrial DNA from our mothers. Now, everybody on this planet got their mitochondrial DNA. This is a fact from a single woman. And this woman, Mark, is exactly what we would expect from the Biblical Eve. She's literally the mother of us all. And this is based on observed mutation rates. Not using divergence and evolutionary base assumptions. Just looking at pedigree-based studies, we can trace our mitochondrial DNA back to one single woman 6,000 years ago. I mean, isn't that exactly what you would expect if you wanted evidence for a literal Eve and a literal Adam? And if not, what's your evidence against the genetic data I'm talking about? My evidence is the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. I would really like to keep our comments and believe me, I'm not putting you down here. Let's just change the way we do this. Let's do a one question for one answer style of debate.  This is very different than talking to Kent. So I'm going to ask you one... I'm having fun too, Mark. I'm having fun. Yeah, I'm going to ask you one question. Are you saying that we would not be alive today if it wasn't for bacteria and viruses? Okay, so if you want to go back to the virus topic, that is exactly what I'm saying, okay? The ALUs that populate our genome, the endogenous retroviruses, all these classes of retro transposons as I've indicated earlier, the bacteria. Are you... I mean, why do you think people take probiotics? I mean, bacteria, our healthy gut flora, is dependent on our bacteria. Now, like I said, I mean, bacteria in the blood, E. coli, for example, that's going to lead to infection, of course. But the viruses that populate our genome, populate the ecosystem, they are there for regulation purposes. I mean, there would be an imbalance in the ecosystem. I mean, these are symbiotic relationships that we are looking at. So this is, yes, I will say, I'll keep it short, viruses and bacteria are created by God, okay? They were perfect. They are beneficial now, but some are bad due to genetic entropy, genetic degeneration. Oh, you're done. Okay. That was weird then. Okay. Oh, wow. What do I say? Yes, we can live without this yet. Bacteria in our gut is beneficial to a point. It continues to break down our waste product. If we were designed by God, and I know this is going to sound terrible and, you know, take it for what it is out there, believers. Does God poop? That's my question to you. So your question. So everything that I've discussed about mitochondrial DNA, why? Does God poop? Yeah. No, no. He's an eternal spiritual being who's outside time, matter and space. So God doesn't eat either? God doesn't eat. We eat though. Where is creation? I just want to say, I just Googled benefits of viruses.  It says, why viruses deserve a better reputation? Viruses. You've heard the bad. Here's the good. Now, right. Benefits of bacteria. I mean, Mark, I want you to have an open mind here and look at the data. But, you know, your arguments here so far aren't really all that good. Benefits of bacteria. Here we go. Creating products such as ethanol and enzymes, killing plant pests, cleaning up oil spills and toxic waste. Good for our gut. Good for our immune system.  So yeah, the evidence. Okay. Let me answer one question. What you just covered there is absolutely the truth. We know that bacteria can clean up oil spills. We've known that forever. That has nothing to do with us living on. That has to do with oil being cleaned up by a bacteria. Everything you just talked about is just that bacteria has found a way in our systems to eke out a living that's beneficial to us, but we don't need them. Well, that's, but that's an assumption because just like the ERVs, Mark, you can't actually show me, you know, empirically, a virus inserting itself into our germ lines because it would have to be in the germ lines, not our somatic cells to be passed on. You can't show me that. All we see are these DNA units. Okay. Evolutionists assume that they are junk from, you know, past evolutionary common ancestors. But what we now know is that they are incredibly functional in our genetics. Yeah. The bacteria is good for a multitude of things for the human being. They help break down food. They help keep us healthy. They help with healthy immune responses. And you're saying that, you know, they co-opted these functions or some type of rescue device, but you can't show me that, Mark. You can't present me with, I debated a biologist recently and we were talking about endogenous retroviruses. And that's what he said. He said, oh, these functions were co-opted, you know, to be incredibly important in the placenta, the embryo, the immune system. I said, show me a paper that actually demonstrates this co-option. And he said, well, I'd be lying to you if, if I could show you that. See, this is all based on an evolutionary assumption. I mean, can't you see that and at least admit that, Mark? No, no, not at all. If I was a God and I was to produce a human being, that human being wouldn't be reliant on air. He wouldn't need food. He wouldn't need to defecate. He wouldn't get viruses. He wouldn't have a body that continually breaks down. There are so many things that I would do differently. And I am merely a human being. And I could do a much better job. Now, I know what you're going to say. You're going to say, yes, we are the fallen. We're, we're paying for our sins. We're eating an apple, this, that, the other. But why do we look exactly like our animal kingdom? Brother, why do we look exactly like them? And that's a good question. That's a good question that you're asking. Okay. What you're referring to is the nested hierarchical patterns that we see. I mean, this is fundamental to biology. And you're right, Mark. You know, I get a lot of people asking me, you know, what about these nested hierarchies, right? The groups within groups, patterns that we see in life, you know, the nested hierarchical classification of life that you would say points to and fits nice and neatly in with, to set with modification. But you can even look at this on a genetic level. I mean, you can look at neutral variation. For example, but from a design perspective, okay. If we're made in God's image, we can get a sense for the, you know, how did God create us? We can get a sense for it by how we create things. So if you look at modes of transportation, modes and means of transportation, Mark, but standing, I just cut in. I'm almost done. I'm almost done. Because you're asking why are we all so similar to each other? Why is there nested hierarchies in biology? And I'm agreeing with you, but it's also consistent with our model because humans, we design and build within groups, within groups, nested hierarchical patterns. Just look at modes of transportation. We can see these patterns at the visible level and the blueprint level. But here's the difference, Mark. Okay. And then I'm going to let you talk as long as you want. We both predict these types of patterns. Okay. This is the way God created. This is the way we create and we're made it as image. So it makes sense. The differentiating factor is we should, if universal common ancestry is true, we should be filled with genomic fossils, junk DNA, evolutionary leftovers. But what we now see is quite the opposite. Okay. Because the trajectory suggests a genome of function. And we see that in the ERVs. We see that in the pseudo genes. So that right there function is key, Mark. So yeah, I agree with the nested hierarchical patterns we see in biology. We're not going to get into that. But the differentiating, differentiating evidence is on our side. Go ahead. Take your time. Yeah, but we don't see that. We see exactly the opposite. We're not made in the image of God. We wait to reproduce. We have to find a woman. We have to inject sperm into her. It has to meet the egg at the right point. We are not. We are not made in any image of a God. We are made exactly the same as an animal. You cut us. We bleed just like an animal.  Let me ask you this simple question. And let's keep this really short because we're running out of time here and I can't believe it because I feel like I just got started. I hope we get a little extra time. I enjoy talking to you. Okay. So let me ask you a question. Was Adam made to live forever? Simple question. Yes or no? Yes. He was made to live forever. Correct. Adam's teeth could live forever. Adam's joints could live forever. What happens if Adam fell off of a cliff? Would he just live as a ball of jelly at the bottom of a cliff? Could he die? Okay. Good question. So you've asked a few questions. I've said yes, yes. Your last one's more of a theological based question that I'm happy to answer. But I do like how you talked about sperm and egg reproduction. Okay. The reason why God created us this way is so we can see in genetics in biology, the evidence for him, as I indicated earlier, Mark, based upon the actual empirically observed mutation rate for the mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome studies indicate that we come from two, two ancestors. I mean, we can see that in our low genetic diversity, mitochondrial leave and Y chromosome Adam. Now evolutionists, of course, they have done similar analyses, but they're not using and you might be aware of this mark. They're not actually using observed mutation rates. Okay. They have been compelled. Unfortunately, because of the data we have regarding these DNA compartments, they've now chosen to use hypothetical mutation rates that are actually 10 or 24 lower than what is observed. And they only justify this mark based on certain evolutionary assumptions. You asked if Adam could live forever. And I indicated earlier that based on mutation accumulation, okay. I want to ask the question earlier, what type of selection can remove these deleterious mutations? 100 new mutations per person, per generation in our germ cell lines. I mean, this is a fact. So you take that back, Mark, to a point of least mutation accumulation, a point of least genetic entropy. That is a point of creation. Adam and Eve, who could have lived forever. Yeah, they fell, they ate the fruit and it brought death and decay and extinction into the universe. And this is exactly what we see with genetic entropy. So can you just maybe take some time to kind of explain the science behind genetic degeneration and mitochondrial Eve? Because I'm telling you that all of genetics proves and demonstrates that we come from just two ancestors. Eve, Adam, just thousands of years ago. Take your time, Mark. Well, of course we do, but it's not Adam and Eve. It's a slow generational change from monkeys, from primates. There's a reason that we exactly match primates. Everything and now I know what you said there at the beginning and I've heard this from a lot of creationists and I didn't realize that I was going to be talking to you tonight that actually believed in a 6,000 year old Earth. But yes, that is what science finds. There is no conspiracy. I'm an engineer. I don't get a paper every month in the mail saying, this is the latest conspiracy that we're going to push on the layman of the Earth.  There is no conspiracy. Actually, there's quite the opposite of a conspiracy because as I indicated, based on the empirical method, based on observed mutation rates and not only the mitochondrial DNA, but also the Y chromosome, it actually takes us back to two ancestors just 6,000 years ago. Genetics are what are inherited sperm and egg, not a rock, not a fossil, not geology. I know you want to keep going to these indirect lines of evidence, but the only direct line of evidence for this ancestry is our genetics, our traits. And these all confirm that we come from just two ancestors just 6,000 years ago. How do you explain the low genetic diversity mark? And I want you to answer this question. Every single human being on this plane is 99.9% similar. And our Y chromosome is all 99.9% similar. That's why they say we came from a Y chromosomal ancestor. Even the evolutionists admit that. That Y chromosomal ancestor was part of a population, even though that's just fairy tale. But the question is, why, why do we have as a species low genetic diversity and the chimp Y chromosome and our Y chromosome? Guess what? It's only 70% dissimilar when it should be the most similar chromosome to us. Cause you said supposedly we are related to chimp. So there's two or three questions there. Take your time and hopefully you can answer those Mark. Well, of course we do. I don't know what you're asking. You're making these assertion, these assertions that you know, these things, but it's against science. Science does not say that we're 6,000 years old. I do have the peer reviewed secular papers that, are you disagreeing with the data that suggests the chimp Y chromosome and the human Y chromosome 70% dissimilar? You realize that the Y chromosome doesn't have a counterpart to recombine with, right? I mean, you can get some variation there with gene conversion, for example, but that means it should be the most similar chromosome to humans. Well, why is it so dissimilar? I mean, do you have any, any answer to, I mean, it just sounds like you're kind of waving away the evidence. It's not dissimilar. It's not dissimilar at all. 70% dissimilar. No, it's not. You're making these claims. No, it's not. How similar is the chimp Y chromosome to the human Y chromosome then? Well, why are you going back to the chimp? How about the bonobo? Have you gone to the bonobo? That is what they think maybe. Same thing. Pardon? It'll probably be about that. You're saying that the chimp is our closest common ancestor. Therefore, we should look at the Y chromosome. I never said that. I never said that. I said, I said that we have evolved. We are an ape. I never said the word chimp tonight. I defy anybody to go back and find the word chimp. We're not chimps. We're not chimps. I'm saying we, our closest common ancestor is a chimpanzee. Are you disagreeing with that? According to the evolutionary literature? No, we're apes. We're, we're not chimps. Our closest common ancestor. Okay. Who split six million years ago from it was the human and chimps that split from a common ancestor. We're not chimpanzees. We're apes. Okay. Here's the question though. It's very simple. Why are, is every single human being on the planet 99.9% similar? Why is our Y chromosomes incredibly identical? Okay. Indicating we came from. Why? Oh yeah. But yeah. Why? And why is our so-called closest common ancestor in the animal kingdom? I understand you're saying that we're all apes. Okay. I get it. But why is the chimps Y chromosome only 70% similar to our Y chromosome. It should be a lot more similar if we're related according to you. Go ahead. Take your time. Why? We're, we're going back 50 million years. So let's, let's look at the other species. For the chimp human common ancestor, 50 million. Let's take our time. You said I could take my time. So man has been, has been evolving now for at least the last 100,000 years. We did not come from an ape. We, at one point, split off the tree and we became what we are today. We can see it. We see that we have Neanderthal DNA in us. We can see what happened, but let's go to a different species. So you're asking me. Yeah, but you still didn't, yeah, but you didn't. Nope. Let me answer. You're saying to me, why is one species so genetically the same? If we weren't the same species that was so genetically the same, we would be another species. Just like Neanderthals are another species of, of a erectus. Like I don't know what you're asking at a certain point. Well, Neanderthal, are you aware of- You're not. Let me talk. I've never talked to you. Okay, take your time. Take your time. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. When you diverge and just like Neanderthal did and which we bread with, we have three to 4% of Neanderthal DNA in our, our DNA makeup. When you diverge, you end up with a species. What you're talking about. If we weren't so genetically the same, we would no longer be a species. It would make a new species that we would no longer be able to have the same amount of genetic compatibility to remain a species. So I don't know why you're asking me. Why is it that humans carry this, this unique genetic makeup that allows themselves to be a complete species. We can still breathe together. Of course we can. And if we went off and diverge to a point, we would become another species, but you would have to break us off in onto an island. We would have to have no interbreeding. And yes, that human colony would become another species. And I guarantee you within a few thousand years, maybe 10,000, we would no longer be able to interbreed with them. So I don't know why you're surprised that a species has this common genetic makeup. Of course we do. We interbreed with each other continually. A African-American or an African-African man continually breathes with an Asian woman. We are constantly exchanging genes. Of course human beings. We breathe with each other across the pond, across the oceans. We are constantly doing this. Of course the species will stay the same. We are acting as one species and we're moving along. If you were to take a group of us, throw us on an island and cut off complete compatibility with other human beings, yes it would become a different species within a certain amount of time. We know this. We watch it in the animal kingdom. It's called a ring species. We see it all the time. Okay. Thanks for that. You made a lot of good points there, Mark. And to be honest with you, I'm really enjoying this and could probably do this all night. It's been a great job. With the Neanderthals our genome is the same size. We have the same genes. We have the same number of chromosomes. And even DNA bar coding prove that our species and Neanderthals are actually all humans, the same species. When they sequence the Neanderthal genome, Mothasys actually became more problematic because the Neanderthals, which we now know are fully human mark, they also interbred with with Europeans and other people groups. For example, the like if you look at Erectus, Neliti, Hyderbergensis, the Denisovans, I even believe the Hobbits you know, they were all one, they intermingled interbred for example, but this actually would contradict the evolutionary near extinction hypothesis. Can I stop you there for one second? My point there is just showing that Neanderthals are human just like us, but yeah, stop me. Go ahead. How do you fit this in 4,000 years since the flood?  Well, okay, let me answer that question. That's a good question. Neanderthals, where are you fitting these in? Right, and that's a good question. So there's a paper that came out recently that showed that there were certain groups of Neanderthals that were 40% less fit than modern humans today. They were highly inbred. They had an incredible fixation of deleterious mutation. That's what happens when you inbred and you can also see this with, believe it or not, with the with the Hobbits. You can see this with Homo Neliti. Okay, just one sack. One sack. Let me ask you a question. So you're saying who the hell's got the police coming? We haven't done anything to deserve the police. James, they're coming after you, buddy. They're coming after you. Let me ask you a question, okay? You're talking about inbreeding of the Neanderthals. Correct. Are you? Now, again, I have not. I know what you're going to get.  Okay, I won't even say it. Everybody in the audience that's in inbreeding is exactly what I'm going to ask. Here's the problem. So we have six, eight people, no, six people on the arc. Okay, so explain that. Here's a good question. Here's a good question. For one, what I wanted to ask you regarding the Neanderthals, so for example, these so-called primitive humans or, you know, variations in the human species is better understood as subpopulations of people groups that split apart after Babel. And unfortunately they became isolated, which led to inbreeding. It led to genetic degeneration. So that's how we would explain it. And that's why I went into the low genetic diversity in humans. We're all 99.9% similar because that actually proves that we came from a small population and not just a small population, a population of just two. That's why the evolutionists had to come out with the hypothetical out-of-Africa bottleneck, which says that- Back to the arc. Back to the arc. Yeah, and you're asking about the inbreeding. You're asking about the inbreeding. But the thing is, the inbreeding is- 4,000 years ago, we've got two adults and their children and their wives. How did we do this? And believe me, I raise animals.  I do lions and tigers. If you breed the sisters with the brothers, with the mothers, with the grandmothers, with the aunts, you really do end up with some really unhealthy animals. So, like, what you're saying here is completely counter-dicting what you're saying. We cannot have these neanderthals. We can't have the hobbits. We can't have all these people. And you seem to accept the fossil record, which I give you credit for. Thank you. Well, because you're going on too many rabbit trails, so I want to answer your question about the inbreeding that you say is a problem with the Biblical-based model. Now, allow me to answer it as to why it's not a problem, but then allow me to respond with a question that I believe makes the inbreeding problem actually more of a problem to you. For us, for example, why the bottlenecks at creation, why the bottlenecks at babble and post-flood are not a problem from the Biblical perspective is because, as you know, Mark, it sounds like you at least know your Bible a little bit, we start with just two people. And then 10 generations later, a second single generation bottleneck of just eight people occurred at the time of the flood. Here's why it's not a problem is because both bottlenecks were very brief, just one generation, and then they were followed by exponential growth. And in both cases, Mark, there would be almost no previously accumulated mutations, especially because we explained the vast number of DNA differences as created diversity that created heterozygosity hypothesis, for example. So, you know, there'd be no inbreeding effects in our model and very limited human genetic diversity, as I keep talking about here, in the white chromosome, mitochondrial DNA, and the human species does demonstrate that we came from a small population, Adam and Eve. Now, it's not a problem for us, but it's a huge problem for you. And then I'm going to turn around and ask you the question, and I want you to answer it. The reason why it's a problem for you is because now you got to look at the out of Africa population bottleneck theory to explain the low genetic diversity, they say that there was probably about 70,000 years ago, a near extinction event and they use this to reduce homogeneity. Now, here's the problem, Mark, in your story. This would actually cause permanent and severe genetic damage because it wasn't just one or two generations like ours, it was actually thousands and thousands of generations. You know, enormous numbers of deleterious mutations in this story would go to fixation. So, let me ask you this then. Here's the question, I'll make it plain and simple. How could such a tiny, nearly extinct, okay, in this out of Africa scenario, I think it was Homo erectus that evolved into Homo sapiens, this genetically compromised population apparently suddenly exploded in all parts of the world, seizing dominion over the planet. And yet, and yet, this population was in breathing for not one generation, not two generations, but many generations. So, how is this even feasible? Go ahead. What you're asking me is to explain how the out of Africa hypotheses work. How does the arc apothec... I just explained, Mark, I just answered and you promised you'd answer my question. Okay, because your bottleneck involved an extended near extinction event associated with severe inbreeding, but ours wasn't extended. We also don't explain the vast majority of DNA differences as mutations like you do, and all the bottlenecks were followed by exponential and rapid population growth. Inbreeding is not a problem for us, but from you, it remains a very serious theoretical problem. So, I'm just asking you, how is this bottleneck hypothesis even remotely feasible? Take your time. I mean, you gave me the respect to answer and now I just want you to answer. I don't know what you're asking me. There's only one bottleneck theory out there. Yes, during the ice age, we got down to very few human beings. I think they say around 40,000, which is considered a genetic bottleneck. I'm going to ask you one more time. How did we get off the arc in a field of mud and repopulate the earth with six people? Okay, so I'm just going to say that it's okay that you don't understand the question about the severe. I understand what you're saying. You're asking me to explain the genetic bottleneck that we had 10,000 years ago during the ice age. It was about 70,000. Some say that the bottleneck reduced the human population to about 2,000. Others say 10,000. The reason why they invoke this is to explain the low genetic diversity. They needed a way and inbreeding would be the perfect way for many generations to reduce this homogeneity. But the question is... But do you understand that 10,000 is considered a bottleneck, not six? Yes. We see it in the cheetah. Do you know that we can take a cheetah and we can take skin grafts? We can take any organ. We can take the blood. We can take anything out of a cheetah and we can pass it on to another cheetah. We don't even do testing. We don't care. We can save that cheetah without even checking on it. When you take a lynx, like I had a Canadian lynx that was sick and we needed a blood transfusion. Really bad to save this Canadian lynx. And we couldn't do it. I could not find another Canadian lynx with acceptable blood to transfuse into this Canadian lynx to save it. Because it never got to the point where it had a genetic bottleneck. But the cheetah did. It got down to 10,000 to 20,000 individuals. We can take any piece of skin.  Absolutely. Do you know in Google how many cheetahs are left on this planet? Because I just looked it up the other day. Because I've always said about 10,000. I did a debate recently with Gutsit Gibbon who had a hard time answering this question too. It's okay. Because the thing is the answer to it is nothing but post hoc ad hoc. Now, if you Google it, the cheetahs are down to about 7,000. And conservationists feel that, am I right? Yeah, that's right. Last time we were down to about 6,000 of them. Right. And that's not good. That's not good. So conservationists feel the cheetahs already showing serious signs of inbreeding and genetic decline. Because small bottleneck populations as you know have very significant problems. There's just not enough of these cheetahs. Now their sperm is degenerate. Mark, the genetic diversity has eroded due to the inbreeding. The species has been expressing many deleterious recessive mutations. But guess what? Guess what? We're not going to see this population of 6,000 cheetahs suddenly explode into all parts of the world seizing dominion over the planet. Yet that's what the evolutionist says happened 70,000 years ago with this small bottleneck population of 2,000 to 10,000 humans. They say they suddenly see dominion over the world. Why can't cheetahs do that? The only reason that cheetahs cannot take dominion over the earth is because there's man with guns. Man did not go up against man. Man was free to do whatever he wanted to.  We have taken control of this planet and no animal stands a chance against us. Are you saying to me that if the cheetah wanted to move to North America, it would just move here? With human intervention or without, it's not going to because of the destructive mutates. It's too highly inbred and genetically damaged just like this so-called hypothetical population of 10,000. I see people in the chat saying I didn't answer the question of what our bottleneck. I did very extensively. We start with just two people, Adam and Eve, and then 10 generations later we have a second single generation bottleneck of just eight people occurred. These were not extended and these were all followed by rapid exponential growth in population. There wouldn't be any inbreeding effects and you asked how could they despeciate? How could we get all the different people on the planet just from two people? And that's a really, really good question because you may have heard me in my response there, Mark, that we explained the vast, vast majority of nuclear DNA differences as the result of created DNA diversity. That is a good question you asked. I remember you asked it to Nath and you've asked it before and I think you deserve a good answer. I'll give you a chance to respond, but then we do have to go to the Q&A pretty quick here. You've got to go to bed, James? Yes, basically. James, we're all on quarantine. Let's just do this all night. 10 hours a day. Yeah, come on, James. Give us a little bit more time. We're just getting started. Give us another half an hour, James. Can you do that? I don't think I can do that. I can give you maybe like 10 minutes tops. Okay, let's do 10 minutes because it sounds like we have a good Q&A. We can always do a round two as well. Okay, let's do that. Let's set that up as soon as we can. What I'm going to say back to you standing for truth is you're dancing around this problem of when we get down to genetic diversity that we just cannot have a species that can come out of even 6,000 animals, let alone 6. Right. I want to explain that. You deserve an answer to that. Just let me talk. Not only do you have a big problem with 6 individuals, you've got a problem with, do you believe in the ARC? Do you actually believe in the ARC? Well, Mark, I do. I do.  Good Lord, you believe in the ARC. So not only did 6 individuals get all that ARC. Real quick, I don't appreciate the insults because I got to be honest with you with the endogenous retro- I didn't insult. Young DNA, mitochondrial leave, white chromosome atom. I've given more than enough evidence to support my position to be honest with you. You haven't really given any rebuttals to it. I do agree that you, I want to give you the respect of answering the question about how can we get all the people, groups and the species that we see today from just two people out of an eve and also from a handful of kinds. That's a good answer to that question. And that's why I iterated that genetics trait. That's what's inherited and genetically, Mark. It goes back to this idea. This is fundamental in genetics of big A, little A, right? Alleles. Allelic diversity and allelic potential.  Now, if Adam and Eve, and this is what we're proposing, we're created genetically homogenous. Okay? Let's say they had no, absolutely no variety, Mark, in their DNA. You say all capital letters or all lowercase letters. Then, Mark, I would agree with you. I would be in your position fighting the creationist. Because, yes, it would be extremely difficult to create variety in just a few thousand years. You're right. But the thing is, this goes to the kinds of animals that you're talking about too, that we say God created. Adam and Eve and these kinds, okay? With capital A, lowercase A, capital B, lowercase B, if we created, if God created Adam and Eve and the created kinds, heterozygous, not homogenous, okay? So let's say we do this for the millions of DNA positions that exists. That means they have the potential to produce all sorts of variety, even in a single generation. And now, as I pointed out earlier, we now have multiple lines of evidence, Mark, that indicates this actually was the case, that God created Adam and Eve and the kinds in the beginning, so that they have the potential within themselves to speciate and to produce all sorts of variety. And in the case of animal kinds, as a matter of fact, as you would know, we can actually see this in the echo of breeds, for example. But that's because we explain the vast majority of DNA differences as created DNA differences. As compared to you, you explain it as mutations. So you're assuming evolution, Mark. That's the problem. We see evolution. We watch it every day. We see it in animals. We see that when an animal gets broken off into a group, a subgroup, they become a new species. It doesn't even take long. You've got a group of finches, and they work their way around a mountain. Guess what? On the other end, they can no longer breed together. This happens so fast. We've got creationists continually asking us to show us this happening in front of their eyes, and we can show them it happening. But what I say to you again, and I haven't heard an answer, is how could we possibly get on an ark, sail around the earth for a year, get off in an absolute mud pit with six people, and produce the human generation that we have today within 4,000 years or 4,400 years or whatever it is. Okay, let me ask you a question, Mark, because I feel like you didn't listen to anything I said. I listened to it all. I want you to answer two questions, okay? They're going to be really quick, and then I'll respond. How do I explain the vast, vast majority of DNA differences that we see within ourselves and within species, and then how do you, as an evolutionist, explain and what do you attribute the vast, vast majority of DNA differences to? We don't see vast differences in DNA in humans because we are continually breeding with each other. We are continually driving from Canada down to the States and breeding with Americans. We have 6 billion letters in our genome. Pardon me? We have 6 billion letters in our genome, 3 billion from mom, 3 billion from dad. And would we not expect that over a long period of time, or would we expect that over 4,400 years? That's my question. Here's the thing. Evolutionists, like yourself, assume that mutations are the source of all variety and they reject this idea of front-loaded genetic variety. Okay, you're saying that this is all just a big, long process of genetic mistakes. So you're precluding the, you're not even considering the possibility that there was front-loaded genetic variety and created DNA functional differences from the start. Like I said, this makes predictions on DNA function, DNA variety, mutation rate, speciation rate.  Do you know how many bird species approximately there are on this planet right now? Tens of thousands. So I'm going to ask you a question right now. No, no, no, you're wrong. You're wrong. Just Google it. How many bird species? It says 10,000, but I'll give you about 12 to 15,000. Okay, so if science tells us that there's only 10,000 bird species on the planet, we can actually make a prediction. And Dr. Nathaniel Jensen has made predictions. We've seen new species of finch right before our eyes. So that means if no abroad, even let's say 80 different bird kinds on the Ark, okay, then there should be based on the empirical method, mathematical calculations. There should be somewhere between this exact amount of bird species that we see today. These numbers line up exactly with what is in line with young earth creation, speciation rates, and the created heterozygosia hypothesis. I've got rates on lizards.  We can do birds, snakes. They all line up perfectly with all coming from ancestors on the Ark. I can show you this. It works out perfectly actually. It works out perfectly.  Is that what you're going to tell me? How many kinds did I just say as a working hypothesis, Mark? It didn't even say the word kind. You did not say the word kind. I'll give you credit for that.  Well, the biblical view, Mark, would say that God created kinds, which is more, let's say the family level. What do we have? Kingdom, phylum, class order, family, genus, species. Let's make a working hypothesis. Let's put the kind at the family level. Not species or genus, but family. Noah takes kinds onto the Ark, not species. So this means that there exists some limited speciation that can happen. So let's say Noah brought 80 different kinds of birds on the Ark as a working hypothesis. Well, I just showed you the numbers. I've indicated that Dr. Nathaniel Jensen, a Harvard graduate, has made predictions on speciation rates. And if we take the calculations and take it right back to, based on speciation, let's say 3.3 or more new bird species every single year, based on the 10,000 we see today, we don't see that today. We don't see, come on, standing. We don't see three new species a year. Mark, we just seen the past year, there's a paper published that a breakaway population of finches, and you're talking about the finches earlier, they broke off. What they seen genetically was reductions in heterozygosity, shifts from heterozygosity to homozygosity, and a new species was formed in the present, in our very eyes. I agree. But how do we get from a penguin to a hummingbird? How do we do that? How do we get from a penguin to a hummingbird? I'm not talking about a finch that is no longer genetically able to breed with another finch. Is a hummingbird in a penguin related? How do we get to that point? How do we get to the point where we have these birds all the way from a, let's go from emu to penguin to hummingbird? How do we get to that point? Okay. Are you saying that according to my model, a hummingbird and emu and a penguin are all related through common ancestry? Absolutely. How can they not be? They're all the birds of kind. Okay. Remember, according to my model, God created kinds of creatures. They're not species. They're not even the level of genus. I'm saying as a working hypothesis, let's say the kind, we've seen actually DNA barcoding results recently that suggest that over 90% of the species today, I'm sure you've seen that article in that paper, arose at the exact same time. Of course they did. That's what we're saying. Of course they did. We all came out of the ocean at the same time, about 300 million years ago. This paper said 200,000 years ago they arose though. How many years ago? Well, the paper says 200,000 years ago, but they're using, you know, they're using divergence and evolutionary based assumptions. The diversity suggests that they all arose a recently 90% of species, but then they invoke as usual a population bottleneck for all the species at the same time. No, no, no, no. Evolutionary bias is at work here. That sounds exactly like the flood. And as I said, in regards to speciation events, speciation rates, we've seen new species of finches on the Galapagos Islands that people have been studying for years. So there's new species and observed time have been observed. Dr. Nathaniel Jensen has made predictions that according to the biblical flood model, we should be seeing about anywhere between 2.5 and 4 species a year. If we look at the bird species that we see today, let's say about 11,000, we factor that. There's about 4,500 years since the flood mark. And of course we see the species of bird came from the handful, I'm saying a handful of bird kinds on the ark. Could have been a penguin kind, could have been an emu kind. But the point is, all of it combined, 11,000 bird species divided by 4,500, it gives us 2 or 3 species per year. That's exactly what Dr. Nathaniel Jensen is predicting, and this is in print. These predictions are coming true. I know you scoff at the Bible and stuff, but genetically speaking, we have the evidence, Mark. We have the evidence. I don't scoff at the Bible. I look at the Bible as any other ancient text. There is nothing to back it, and I don't mean to get disrespectful here, but there's nothing to back it.  To be honest with you, it just doesn't make sense to me. If you just stop at the point that we are human beings and look at our bodies and ask yourself, and then we're going to cut it off, we're going to let James do his studying tonight. Sorry, Jenny, we're just having too much fun. Yeah, so I'm going to ask everybody to stop and look at their body right now. I'm going to ask you to look at your teeth. I'm going to ask you to look at your eyes. I'm going to ask you to look at your joints and ask yourself the way you are made. Could you live forever? The answer is no. Then I'm going to ask you to look at yourself. Could you last for 900 years or 1,000 years? The answer is no. Your teeth would be gone at 100 years. Your eyes would no longer be able to focus at 100 years. Then ask yourself, what is the whole story about man living forever? If you look at the original Bible and then I'm going to let you do a closing. Okay, so just let me say this and then I'll let you do a closing and then we'll go to question and answer it. I'm going to ask you to honestly, if there's any creationists out there, what is the Adam story all about? So God made Adam. Adam was showing a bunch of animals as a, I'm not going to say mate.  But I don't know what else to say. But let's just say that Adam needed a companion, something to spend his day with. Does this story make sense to you? He's going to live forever. So at this point, God made the earth for only Adam to live forever with all of these animals. Now let's say that standing comes back and says, nope, that's not it. He always had the intentions of making a woman. Okay, so then he brought Eve on. Well, first he brought Lilith, but then he brought Eve, let's say. So were they designed to live forever and their offspring designed to live forever? If that's the case, we would be dealing with trillions of people by now. This does not make sense. And I will wrap it up at that point. Awesome. Well, thank you for that, Mark. I'll make mine quick about probably the same timeframe as yours. With speciation, as I indicated there, and I think as I demonstrated that the recent observations documented, they've documented the formation of the new species at rates much faster than predicted by evolution. But yet it's exactly in line with predictions that have been published by creation scientists. So the amount of species we see today based on the created heterozygosity hypothesis is exactly in line with the biblical base model. All of genetics, we can look at the mitochondrial DNA. We can see that there's three major haplogroups that take us right back to NOLA's three daughters-in-law. The creationists are the ones making the testable predictions. And the evolutionists need to step up. I didn't see any answer from Mark regarding functional endogenous retroviruses. Orphan genes, these taxonomically restricted and essential genes in our genome that point us right back to limited ancestry. I didn't see any answers to what type of selection can remove so many deleterious mutations that are pouring into our genetics. His entire opening was based on an appeal to majority, probably more so an appeal to emotion. The one thing he did bring up was the rock record, for example. I've seen him say it before, he said it now. I think this is the only thing that wasn't addressed. Just give me 20 seconds, James, and I'm done. Mark says you got this type of fossil in this layer and these types of fossils. In these layers, he thinks that it goes from marine fossils to land fossils. In the order of pond scum to people, fish to fisherman evolution, but that's actually incorrect. We've got marine fossils all the way through. Even with dinosaur fossils, we've got marine fossils buried with them. So the fact is the order of the fossils that he points to is the burial order of the flood. If the flood began in the ocean, ripping up all those marine creatures and burying them on the continents, they would be the first creatures to be buried. As the flood waters rose higher, you get the burial of the land animals and this is exactly what we find. Even the rock record demonstrates biblical creation, burial by ecosystems, communities, and habitats. That's all I have to say, Mark. I had a lot of fun. That did fly by. And James, thanks for letting us go on and on. Hope the audience had fun. Thanks. It's our pleasure to host you guys. Thanks so much. Really fun and there are a lot of super chats. We'll try to read through as many questions as we can. Thanks so much. I think we can get through these flying through. Stupid horror energy strikes again. She says, my corona. Oh, you make my motor run. My motor run. Nasty lady. Very nasty. But I like her music. He's at it again. Stephen Steehan makes your super chat. You sick. Oh, he said, sorry, Mark. Let's see. You're bald and pretty, but standing for truths just smarter. Well, stop. Doesn't mark. I always look at your picture. Let's be nice. I always look at your picture in the thumbnail mark. I always think you look like an action hero. Folks, look at the, look at the thumbnail and tell me he doesn't look like like a, like a perfect fit for an action hero. So Steven, it does look like he could play in the next die hard. Definitely. And Steven, one year ago, one year, about a year and a half ago, I used to have hair down to my ass, believe it or not.  Well, the next time we have a debate, I'm going to post a picture. That's awesome. Epic. You really should. We could put it in the thumbnail. Okay. Next up, Steven Steehan strikes again. He says, congrats standing for truth on your objectively easy win. Good stop.  He's a very trollish man. Speed of sound of gravity. Thanks for your super chat. Very generous. And they said, just for James, thank you. This is the last of my toilet paper fund. Really appreciate that. Had to wipe with baby wipes this morning. Next up, Florida man, thanks for your super chat.  Well, I agree. Pax Americana, thanks for your super chat. They said, tell Mark to stick to biology and not politics. LOL. Mark, how do you like them apples? We got a Trump guy out there. Gotcha. We might. It could be. Alright, thanks so much for your super chat. Let's see. Steven Steehan again. Boy, nasty guy says, Trump was voted in because of racism, not young earth creationism. Duh in all caps. Ooh, sassy Steven. Next up, Pax Americana, thanks for your super chat. They said, ask standing for truth. Here he got his degree in biology from Harvard University. Thank you. Mark went to separate schools together. We were in the same class together. We both went to Harvard. Very nice. Legally blonde style. Very, very nice. That's I've never seen legally blonde. Was that our Harvard? I think that was Harvard. How'd she get in again was, yeah, my wife and I will watch it tonight. Oh, man, I wish I could watch it tonight. I have a huge. Tonight, honey. Next up, Steven Steehan. Thanks for your super chat. He said, COVID didn't evolve. It just chose humans over bats. Yeah, I mean, the virus, cross species, our immune systems can't, can't recognize it. It's, it's burning hot and fast. It's not good. It's not good at all. And there's no mark on that. It's, I hope everyone's doing well regarding it, but it's, it's some crazy times. Gotcha. And thanks so much for your super chat from Robert Somers who asks what exact viruses is standing for truth talking about. This is earlier on in the debate. My guess is it might have been around when you were talking about viruses that just regularly live in the human body. I'm not sure. Yeah, yeah, like the many viruses, I mean trillions of viruses that, that exists in the human body.  Mark and I talked about this for a while, but they help control the number of bacteria and actually may even kill bacteria that would in turn make a sick. So it's good for our bodies and it's good for, it's good for the ecosystem. ERVs are functional to our genetics as well. So yeah, good question. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your response from standing for truth.  It went from dusk to night. Yes. Isn't it special? This is our first sunset together, everybody. I don't know if you, if you click, if you go click earlier in the stream and you'll see it was like daylight. It's kind of neat to look at that. Sid Gafredo's Robbie, thanks for your super chat. Sid Gafredo in the house from Los Angeles says standing for truth. Did Eve, if not birthed, have a belly button? Yeah, no, I would say Adam and Eve being created directly from God would not have had obviously Eve from Madam's Rib would not have had a belly button. That would have been Adam and Eve's kids and all the way back to us, which like I said many times we can use genetics to trace us right back to Adam and Eve. That's what the genetics tells us. The genetic structure of us, of Mark, of James all screams out Adam and Eve. But yeah, probably no belly button would make sense. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Stagnew to Mortay. By the way, hold on just really quick. I have to say this because I'm pumped. I'm excited and I feel like I haven't given enough like shout outs. We had two new patrons in the last, I think it was like the last 24 hours, which is awesome. Darren DeVillier. Let me know if I mispronounce your name. Anybody. And Doran Koo. Very excited to have you as Patreon patrons. Thanks so much for joining with us and want to let you know folks we do have those patron settings. I'm actually, give me like, let me know. I have no idea how to run a patron. I'm like working on it. And so, you know, we had like the Patreon priority question and stuff like that. So anyway, check it out if you guys might dig it, but want to say thanks and welcome to those new patrons. Also, thanks so much from Stagnew to Mortay. Now I'm going to read that. So their question was why would viruses have to affect the germline if the viruses would have to be introduced in vitro? The mother could pass it on without that change. So germline mutations are what are passed on. And if there is an ancient viral infection in our germline, well, then it would be hypothetically passed on. She's saying that viruses will be passed on through the, in vitro through, in the somatic cell lines. I'd probably need more detail on that. That's super interesting and appreciate your super chat from stupid beta energy.  She says standing for truth. Why do dolphins have genes for legs? Why do humans still have yoke producing genes? Right. So those yoke produced genes are based on fragments. There's some papers and articles you can look at it. It all comes down to the junk DNA paradigm. Pseudo genes, which they say are genetic mistakes. These are our genetic mistakes. These are actually functional DNA elements and we've seen the overturning of the so-called egg pseudo gene. A lot of these, you know, so-called genetic mistakes are actually just functional DNA differences, respective to the different species and the different kinds. And that's a direct prediction based on our created genetic diversity hypothesis that I touched on. That the vast majority of our genetics will be functional. And that's exactly what we're seeing. So whoever asked that question, yeah, definitely they're behind on the science, unfortunately. But I can direct them, you know, to the right path. Gotcha. So can I just ask you a quick question? Standing, is science going towards that we evolved from six people 4,000 years ago? Yeah, good question. So for example, we're making testable predictions on mitochondrial DNA variants. So we can see that in the world, our mitochondrial DNA, we go back to three major haplogroups. So you can make predictions based on that. For example, the L node and you can see that those haplogroups are directly in line with NOAA's three daughters-in-law. So yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. And we can see that with the pseudo genes. We can see even the chromosomal two fusion. I mean, all these things have been overturned. And I think there's a lot of evolutionists that are just behind the times because genetics is evolving more and more every day. So our fusion of chromosome two and three is proving that we came from a common ancestor 4,400 years ago? Good question. No, yeah. The hypothetical chromosomal two fusion, it's been overturned because for one, it's really hard to find the so-called remnant telomeres. The area is highly, highly degenerate as well as the so-called remnant or cryptic centromere that should be found. They're having a difficult time finding that. And the fusion sites actually located, Mark, and you may be aware of this, the hypothetical fusion sites located smack dab in the middle of a complex and functional gene. But its sequence contains a functional transcription factor binding domain that's, believe it or not, uniquely positioned to control the transcriptional complexity of that DDX 11L2 gene. So there's many different factors at play that have overturned the chromosomal two fusion. It's not a fusion site. Well, it hasn't been overturned, but it hasn't been overturned, but it's definitely a unique site, the two and three genome. I think you will agree that there's definitely something there we need to look at. That genome does not look right to us, and there's a reason that two and three do not look right. Yeah, there looks to be some degeneration. A quick response. But then we got to jump right back into the Q&A, Stanley. Yeah, I'm just saying there's some degeneration going on on there. That's all I got to say. Thank you. Sorry to rush you. But Tioga in the live chat, by the way, said standing for truth is the smartest scientist in the world. You got a fan out there, and that is the nicest thing I've ever heard. I paid that person to say it. So let's see. But thank you very much for that. Next up, Tioga, you said it. You can't take it back. Next up, I appreciate your super chat from, let's see. This is Cigafredo Serrabia in the house says, Mark, would you describe a lion as, quote, designed to hunt or jump? What's the cause of, quote, design in animals using, quote, unintelligible or, quote, random events in nature? Yeah, that's a lot of quotes. So what it really comes down to is survival. A lion and a tiger is designed to survive in its environment. So if you look at a lion, a lion is designed to blend in to the environment that it lives in. So it lives in the savannah. You look at a lion absolutely looks like caulgrass. The colors match perfectly. You look at a tiger, which is part of the Panther family. It looks exactly like the environment that it lives in. As a matter of fact, you look at both of them in the environment that they live in, and you cannot see them from the background. They're very well hidden. So there's a good example of speciation. You look at a tiger, which lives in Asia. You look at a lion, lives in Africa. Yet they can breed together. So there's a really good example of speciation moving to new geographic areas and then producing new offspring and adapting to their environment. Gotcha. Mike, just a tiny, tiny response. Super short and pithy. I would say that the cat species, the cat family, goes perfectly well with the biblical base model. For example, the cat ancestor aboard the Ark, which we were talking about earlier. If the cat ancestor was front-loaded with a whole bunch of functional DNA differences, and with those has led to the origin of species, well, what other ways can we determine ancestry other than breeding? Well, other than breeding, as Mark talked about. So if you use the cats as a basic example, Noah brings aboard two cats and now we have everything from tigers to house cats to jaguars and in between. And then, like I said, we can look at function and other methods to determine kind boundaries and things like that. So that's a good example. Gotcha. Okay. Thanks very much. And just let me, 10 seconds. If standing is right, James, we have no worries about animals going extinct. We can take our two house cats and we can produce tigers. We can produce snow leopards and we will be able to produce lions. But we all know we cannot do that. But do the house cats have enough heteros like us to do so? We can do around two, standing for truth. Mike Billars, thanks for your super chat. They said, if God wanted us to see the evidence for him, as you mentioned, why not just come out and tell us instead of playing hide and seek with vague hints? I wouldn't say it's vague hints. I mean, the complexity of our genome, for example, just screams a designer. I mean, we have, our genome is multi-layered. It's multifunctional. The design in animals, in nature, for example, the evidence from even the first and second law of thermodynamics and genetic entropy that takes us back to a point of least increasing entropy in the universe and in our genetics. That's a point of creation. God doesn't need to give us all this scientific-based evidence. I mean, you know, we're saved by faith through greats, of course, but he's given us so much scientific evidence to show that he exists, to show that he's there. So just like the Bible says, I mean, a lot of people are willingly ignorant in that they're without excuse, but the evidence is there. It really is. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Philip. Will, standing for truth, how did you determine that we came from Adam and Eve 6,000 years ago using genetics? If you need, can you set a source for this? Oh, yeah. I mean, I've got a ton of sources. I've got sources for everything that I've talked about here. Sounds redundant to go over it again, but it's just in our mitochondrial DNA, in our Y chromosome DNA as well, based on the empirical method, based on pedigree studies, the mutation rates, we can make calculations that actually take us right back to 6,000 years ago to the common ancestor, mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam. Those aren't the only factors, but I'm not going to go on and on. Got you. Thanks up. Thanks so much for your super chat from S.J. Thomason. She is in the house. Mark, if you saw quote, I love you written on the beach, would you assume a mind wrote that our DNA consists of 3.5 billion ordered quote letters. How can you claim we aren't designed? Well, we're not designed because we we lined up so well with the animal kingdom. I know what they're saying, and I honestly do feel that people that don't understand science, but we we line up with the animal kingdom perfectly. We have babies that sometimes are born with tails, fully functioning tails and that is unexplainable. And I know that the younger creationists like to put aside Hankel's drawings as being fraudulent, but they're not. They're definitely on the let's say plus 10 scale of being looking for an answer towards evolution. But we do go through stages. We see chickens in their embryo stages born with with teeth. We see these things going on. There's a lot of things that tell us that are definitely interlinked with other animals very closely and all animals are linked to us. Real quick response, James. As I indicated earlier, the nested hierarchical patterns that we see in life. It's also predicted by the design model. The hierarchies we see is just reflection of God's hierarchical differentiating evidence to determine which model is true universal ancestry or limited ancestry. And yeah, the genome we've got layer upon layer of programming within the genome and programming requires a programmer. So I just wish that Mark would look at the evidence more objectively. And I think he would come to a far different conclusion. Next up. Thanks sorry to interrupt you, but I have many words sometimes standing here. Thank you very much.  She says letters don't have affinities like amino acids do but ironically language evolves. That was in response to SJ's who I just read right before SJ. Thomason strikes again.  Yes, absolutely they do. If you look at the more intelligent animals like take elephants for example every year on their migration they stop and they respect their dead. They do like we do where they return to the grave and they will stand there and they will have moments in movement. We've watched them. Yes, absolutely. Do not please do not underestimate the compassion of animals. I think even standing for truth will back beyond this. Our animal the animals we live with are very compassionate and they will respect their dead. There's a lot of examples of this. Animals are very compassionate and anyone with a dog would never ask that question whether or not an animal can become almost human in emotion. Gotcha. Thanks so much folks. We do have several questions that I got standard questions that were asked earlier in the debate. So call me Emo and thanks for your question said standing for truth keep this short standing for truth said how can we empirically assess the limits of create a heterozygosity and how can we identify the descendants of an original design e.g. are all crustaceans related. I'll use just a few words James easy we see limitations in all species we see limitations in genetics just like you can't get a dog the size of a blue whale or a dog the size of a flea there exists limitations and if Adam and Eve were created with this originally created heterozygosity or the animal kinds had these you know front loaded DNA differences if new species are formed from shifts from heterozygosity to homozygosity that means there will be limits and a lealic potential and a lealic variability so it's quite an easy answer to be honest with you gotcha thank you very much standing for truth and clone thanks for your question I saw you're still in the live chat stoked you've been here a good almost two hours they asked question for standing for truth isn't the Adam and Eve he's talking about let's see didn't oh sorry about that my fault they said didn't the Adam and Eve that standing for truth is talking about live hundreds of thousands of years ago are these the same people in the Bible right very good point so I actually address that directly in the discussion so when we use you know empirically observe mutation rates for mitochondrial DNA or studies in the white chromosome the empirical method tells us that these ancestors lived recently just thousands of years ago but when evolutionists do the same studies and analyses they don't use the empirical method they don't use observe mutation rates they use hypothetical mutation rates that are 10 to 20 fold lower than what's actually observed so they add in evolutionary based assumptions to come up with their date thank you so much I don't suppose you can hear that person arguing in the background there's like somebody outside yelling pretty loud but you can't hear okay good that's embarrassing are they arguing about the debate yes they are they're arguing about biblical ancestry so thanks for your question from praise I am that's been totally debunked okay thanks for he says my question love you my question to mark is can you name any scientists outside the national academy of science who subscribes to evolution and take your time mark I gotta run upstairs real quick he says national academy of science equals atheist stronghold no I really gotta tell you there's no conspiracy on this side we don't get a weekly newsletter on how we're gonna overthrow God I'm telling you from this side as a engineer as a person who follows science there is no conspiracy there is no weekly newsletter that goes out we will follow the evidence wherever it goes and I understand what standing for truth is saying I actually really enjoy debating him he's a great guy very honest he's very polite but yeah there is no conspiracy here we just follow the evidence wherever it leads us and that's really all there is to it gotcha thank you very much and why don't let you know folks really excited tomorrow it'll be I decided I was gonna release this earlier this month but I was like oh it'd be fun if I did it like the exact date six years after it happened so tomorrow I will be releasing one of my old debates that was in person in Mankato Minnesota so highly encourage you to check that out my hair is embarrassing but you'll see so that will be posted tomorrow around noon eastern standard time and also though very excited about another debate this one will not be from the past this one is from the future it is on April 6 and that's going to be G-Man and Erika it's April 4th or 6th we're figuring it out on intelligent design so that should be a lot of fun folks and last question that I've got here last one we can take sorry folks question for Mark it's a cheeky one for you Mark it's from Mitchell and um let's see Mitchell says for Mark when will COVID-19 evolve into a fish LOL that sounds like something I think we know who's joke that sounds like but I'll give you a chance to respond Mark yeah we'll take this slightly seriously so uh viruses are not considered living um organisms like we consider say a fish um they're they're not living they're missing a lot of the um filters that we put on what we consider a living organism so no it's not going to evolve but what it's going to do is we're all going to become immune to this we're all going to go through it we're all going to run this through our system we're going to build up an immunity to it and just like influenza influenza next year it's going to come back it's going to come back in two years and it's going to have mutated and we're not going to have an immunity to it and we're going to go through it again and that's our concern gotcha thanks so much Mark and yes isn't it it's just a strange time it's never been stranger I've never lived through anything like this Mark have you have you ever like seen anything like this I don't think you I would doubt you have no I've never seen I'm 52 years old this is really strange times what I can say to people is this is not going to be over real soon I do follow science I follow biology I follow medical the understandings of the medical society and we're not about to get over this we've got to get the top of the bell curve and until we do things are going to get really scary we need to take this very seriously and we need to stomp it out and we're not going to do it as President Trump says by going to church on Easter things are going to change you've got a serious next three four months of life ahead of years and it's going to change we got a lot of debates coming up as we're all going to be sitting on our couch so let's give it something to do it's fun it really is fun to be here with you guys we appreciate it we're hoping to do some touring in April but we have already called it off it might be who knows how long it'll be but you know the nice thing is like Mark said we can always do it from our living room so it is always fun you know I just really do enjoy this folks really glad you hang out with us I have to say a huge thank you to the speakers tonight the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel folks make it fun and so I am indebted to them I can't say thanks enough both for just getting to listen but also that it's just a it brings all these people together and so we do hope you know whether you are Christian, atheist as we always say Republican, Democrat, Jedi or even Sith we hope you feel welcome we're a nonpartisan channel and hopefully you know you can kind of feel like even though there's debating and all that good stuff hopefully you do feel welcome though and so yeah last anything in terms of goodbye standing for truth and Mark thanks so much both of you how about you give us one minute some free range to say goodbye who would go first based on who opened I guess I open so I can I'll make it really really quick actually James just you because I know I left for a minute there because I know Rahm Adam myself have a debate we're looking forward to on Sunday with zoologist Adam Heap you I know you advertise a couple debates there you're right about that standing for truth we'll be back with his twin brother Rahmat that's right the one that Mark has correctly before the debate asked who's the guy who dresses like an Egyptian God well good old Rahmat will be here and that's with steam driven that will be a trifecto debate so that's going to be a fun one and steam driven is I think it's zoologist if I remember right is it zoologist or animal specialist he's a zoologist and herpetologist gotcha so that's going to be a lot of fun and looking forward to that one this Sunday at 4pm eastern standard hopefully we'll get to hang out with you then folks and then I know that tomorrow other than the one like I said I'll release one at 12 that's not live I will see you on Friday probably because we likely will have flat earth this Friday that's still kind of re-peacing itself back together Saturday there are you yes that's right once you go flat you never go back and then Saturday we're going to we'll get we'll change your mind Mark let's see I'm not really a flat earth it's a joke but Saturday we'll have a tag team on God's existence we're going to be Amy if I remember right it's Amy Newman Amy I saw you in the live yeah Amy Newman is in the live chat right now she'll be here with Tom Jump they are doing a tag team match against Sterling and Canadian Catholic those Canadians they've got them all over the place so that'll be a lot of fun so thanks gentlemen we'll do that out one minute from each of you so standing for truth if you want to go first the floor is all yours thanks to Mark for doing this debate I had a lot of fun the back and forth was hopefully enjoyable by the live audience I'd love to do another one at some point in the future I enjoy talking to you Mark so I appreciate you doing this and James once again thanks so much for setting it up love your channel always gives us something to look forward to especially in these times so yeah well all I have to say is thanks so much guys and I had a good time thank you Mark the floor is all yours the floor eh thank you so much standing I actually really enjoyed this talk with you I'm going to continue on talking with you I am not a professional debater by any stretch of the imagination I know a lot of people look at me as a person that has debated Kent in the past I want to go on record tonight as saying that I will no longer be debating Kent Hogan I will not be talking to him in the future I will not have any um anything going on with Kent at all he had a child of seven years old die on his property and I thought the way that he um addressed it was absolutely disgusting so I will no longer be talking to Kent Hogan in any aspect whatsoever I'm not beating up on him because he's not here for himself I'm just stating unless he apologizes for the way that he addressed this seven-year-old boy that drowned on his property I will no longer speak to that man I really enjoyed tonight I hope you can book us in again within the next week or so we're all sitting on our couch and our jammies so we might as well do this all I did was put on a sweater but we're all sitting around doing nothing let's book another time for standing for us to get together but yes I will no longer be speaking to Kent in any aspect from now on whatsoever James got ya and Mark is totally serious he did only throw on a sweater when he stood up he had no pants on just to straight so please so yeah thanks for treating the floor as all yours no I already gave my goodbyes like I said thanks Mark James you're on the ball today you know what you could if I'm down I come to you because you can always make me laugh thank you Stanley it's always fun we appreciate you guys being here everybody out there in the live chat thanks so much for making this fun as well wanna encourage you I put both these guys links in the description so check them out folks and thanks so much for hanging out here love you guys hope you have a great and healthy enjoyable rest of your Wednesday or Thursday depending on where you are so talk to you soon and have a great night everybody