Hey everybody, tonight we're debating whether or not humans were specially created less than 10,000 years ago and we're starting right now. With the creation side, Dr. Mark and Mr. Colby, thanks for being with us. The floor is all yours for your opening statements. My name is Hewan, I'm the director of the Colby Center for the Study of Creation, which provides a forum for Catholic theologians, philosophers and natural scientists all over the world who defend the traditional teaching of the church on creation. So how do we know that God created man less than 10,000 years ago? We know because he told us so. Dr. Kevin Mark and I are directing all that we say in love to those of you in the audience who are seeking the truth. So let me begin by giving you a logical proof that God, the all-powerful creator of all things exist and must exist. If you don't understand this argument, don't worry, I'll introduce you to God in another way that will be much more direct and personal after this introduction. Number one, there must be something that exists by necessity, otherwise nothing would exist given enough time if the universe is infinite in time and at the beginning of time if the universe was created, because if nothing is the agent, then nothing is the result. Number two, if something exists by necessity, it must be more powerful than everything else combined since those things cannot destroy it. It must also be powerful enough to be the first cause of all the other things. That is the first cause of all other things has demonstrated the maximum power possible to demonstrate. And since it exists by necessity, it also has power greater than anything possible in the future. Therefore, its power is infinite. Number three, a thing which knows all is more powerful than one which does not. Therefore, this being is all-knowing. Number four, goodness is what is desired, but what is desired by anything is its perfection. And so goodness in anything is its perfection. In any contingent thing, a thing that is not the cause of its own existence has some range of possible goodness it is capable of, but the necessarily existing being of internet power has the greatest possible goodness. So God is infinitely good, which means infinitely desirable. Now, all living things testify to the existence of the Supreme Being, to His all-knowing intellect, and to His all-powerful divine will. All living things contain coded information that tells little molecular machines in their cells how to assemble the building blocks of their bodies. Simplest code requires an intellect and a free will. Coded information, living things is far more complex than anything that human beings have invented. 2 dB hard drive can hold almost 2 trillion bytes of information. One peanut head of the DNA in the nucleus of the simplest one-celled organism can hold as much information as 2 million 2 dB hard drives. Convert the simplest living organism into a human being would require the addition of huge amounts of functional genetic information to the genomes of the original ancestor and to the intermediate organisms in the lineage. The spontaneous addition of new functional biological information would endow an organism with an organ or function that was not coded for in the parent's genome has never been observed. Thus evolution is a hypothesis without a viable mechanism, whereas manifestations of God's supernatural creative power have been witnessed by innumerable witnesses since the beginning of time. 750 years before the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Hebrew scriptures predicted the coming of a God-man. He was to be of the lineage of Abraham, the house of David, and was to be born in Bethlehem of a virgin. He was to visit the temple in Jerusalem, he was to give sight to the blind, raise the dead, and heal every kind of illness and infirmity. He was to be scourged and crucified in Jerusalem for the sins of mankind. And finally rise from the dead. True God, Jesus, the true God-man was able to bring life from non-life. He had showed that he had complete dominion over all of nature. Jesus taught that the Jewish Old Testament scripture cannot be broken and the genealogies in that scripture reveal that man was created less than 10,000 years ago. Our Lord then gave Saint Peter and the apostles and their successors divine teaching authority. And from the time of the apostles, the Catholic Church has taught that man was created less than 10,000 years ago. Moreover, to confirm his perfect reliability, our Lord Jesus Christ left incontrovertible proof that he himself died and rose from the dead and that he has the power to give eternal life to those who believe in him and obey his teaching. Sacred body of our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped in a linen shroud after his crucifixion and death. At the moment of his resurrection, he left a miraculous impression of his body on the shroud, which has been treasured by his disciples down to the present. History records only one person who was scourged, crucified, had a lance wound in his side and a crown of thorns. The blood on the shroud is post-mortem blood. It was developed in instrument which is called the VP8 image analyzer to map the surface of the moon. It can distinguish many differences between light intensities. Pictures have shapes and colors and do not contain this light intensity information. But a photographic negative of the shroud shows a consistent 3D relief of the human body. No other photo on earth will produce this effect. On a sample of the torrent shroud, scientists applied a new method for dating ancient linen threads. By inspecting their structural degradation by means of wide angle x-ray scattering, the experimental results support the hypothesis that the torrent shroud is a 2,000 year old relic as held by Christian tradition. In the 1980s, a study was determined the limestone stratium dust found in the church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem believed to be the burial tomb of Christ. This same limestone stratium dust was found on the Holy Shroud. This is compelling evidence that the shroud was once in the Holy Sepulcher. The study was conducted by a team of researchers from the National Agency for New Technology, Geosanergy and Sustainable Economic Development in Italy. It was led by Dr. DiLazaro. The study of the shroud concluded that it would take 34,000 billion watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. The only logical explanation for this image is that it was produced by the God-man when he re-entered his body and rose from the dead. Our Lord Jesus Christ said, I am the blood of life.  For our 153 Church of Eucharistic Miracles in which our Lord Jesus Christ has proven that he brings life from non-life by his divine power in the Holy Eucharist. August 15, 1996, in a parish in Buenos Aires, a parishioner received a concentrated host in his hands and dropped it on the floor. The parish priest, following the instructions of the church, put the host in the container filled with water and left it in the tabernacle so that the host would dissolve. On August 26th, the tabernacle was reopened to remove the fallen host from the container. And it was found that the host had not dissolved and had some reddish stain. Famous forensicist or pathologist, Dr. Robert Lawrence examined the host. He concluded that the portion of the host that he examined corresponded to the tissue of an inflamed heart, which meant that the person to whom it belonged must have been in great pain. Later, to remove any doubt, the sample was given to the leading expert in cardiothology and forensic medicine, Professor Frederic Zugebe. The professor didn't know that the sample was from a consecrated host. After studying it, he said, the sample you brought me is a heart muscle. More precisely, the left ventricle. Dr. Zugebe then asked Dr. Lawrence who sample it was. When he told him that it was from a consecrated host, he said, doctor, when you brought me that sample, that heart was alive. You see, God has done everything he could to show you not only the reality of his existence and his reliability, but the infinite depth of his love for you. You can be sure that our first parents Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation less than 10,000 years ago. Dr. Kevin will now show you that sound natural science supports that statement. But by far the best reason to believe it is because God said so, as recorded in his inspired word, the Holy Bible, as it has been understood in his Holy Catholic Church from the beginning. May Jesus Christ be praised now and forever. Amen. Okay. I'm Dr. Kevin Mark, a board member with the Cold Bay Center for the Study of Creation. And I'm convinced man was created less than 10,000 years ago by a special act of God. The predictions of evolutionary theory have been spectacularly wrong. I'm gonna start by talking about junk DNA and specifically this because genetics is proving creation and denying evolution. In 1972, the term junk DNA was coined by an evolutionist. Evolutionists argued that the genome must be almost entirely non-functional junk because if most of the genome were actually functional, the rate of harmful mutations would be much too high, which would lead to genetic degeneration or de-evolution. It was said that our genome was littered with junk and that this was consistent with the evolution of the human genome apart from any type of intelligent design. A junk-filled genome was used to argue against God as the author of the genome. There is no author of life needed to create a junky genome. In 2012, a multi-million dollar international study determined how much of the genome was active. The 400 plus encode scientists whose depraved research on aborted babies we utterly condemn discovered that most of the human genome, even the so-called junk DNA that is not translated into protein is actually used, is actively transcribed into RNA. It turns out that the different parts of a gene can be used for building many different proteins. So any gene is composed of multi-purpose building blocks. The encode results have completely changed the way we view the genome. Instead of it being just a protein-generating engine, the genome can now be seen as an RNA computer doing multiple calculations primarily within the so-called junk regions of the genome. Within any given stretch of human DNA, there are multiple overlapping codes, meaning that a change to any specific letter might affect multiple different genetic messages. Their winning evolution simply cannot account for the origin or preservation of these overlapping codes. Mainstream science has falsified the myth that almost all of the genome is junk. In 2012, the Science Magazine article headlined and code project writes eulogy for junk DNA. A senior scientist within code affirms this noting, almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another. The parts of our genome that were thought to be junk DNA are actually essential for life. Darwinists have still not come to grips with this yet. The refusal to accept what the data plainly shows is not because they have a sound scientific basis to do so. It is because of their unyielding ideological commitment to Darwin. They are well aware that the collapse of the junk DNA story is a death blow to Darwinian theory. One evolutionist scientist, Dan Grower, has gone on record saying, if the human genome is indeed devoid of junk DNA is implied by the encode project, then a long undirected evolutionary process cannot explain the human genome. If encode is right, then evolution is wrong. In addition to modern genetics, proving evolutionists were wrong in their view of junk DNA, genetic researchers have now determined that there are, on average, about 60 new mutations per generation in humans. Virtually all are harmful. Dr. John Sanford, geneticist, said, Condra Shab, an evolutionist who is an expert on the subject, has advised me that virtually all the human geneticists he knows agree that man is degenerating genetically. That paper indicates human fitness is declining at 3% to 5% per generation. We at least agree that fitness is going down and not up. There is really no debate on current human genetic degeneration. These 60 mutations per generation are passed on to the next generation, as the next generation continuously accumulates more mutations, thus the entire population is affected with each generation becoming more mutant than the last. This is degeneration at the population level. This is evolution going the wrong way, devolution. Natural selection can slow down, but cannot stop genetic entropy on the population level because most of these mutations are nearly neutral. That is, they are not severe enough to be selected for. Yet, like errors building up in a computer code, their presence will eventually result in an error catastrophe or an extinction event due to a population's inability to thrive. At that point, now they can be done. There is no way to reset the genome. This is James Crow an evolutionist and population geneticist. I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it is a much longer fuse. There's less reason for optimism, but the ability to deal with much more numerous mutations with very mild effects. But this is a problem with a long time scale. The characteristic time is some 50 to 100 generations. Well, mutation accumulation is not only a problem going forward 50 to 100 generations from now. It is a major conceptual problem for evolution's supposed past. Since evolutionists claim the first humans came onto the scene some 200,000 years ago, which is about 10,000 generations ago. The mutation accumulation we empirically observe simply does not fit with evolution theory, which predicts our genome should be improving with time not deteriorating. But mutation accumulation fits perfectly well with the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation, which tells us that Adam and Eve were created perfectly by the hand of God that only about 160 to 200 generations have passed since then. mitochondrial Eve is genetic evidence of a literal Eve, the mother of us all. All geneticists agree that there is but one mother of us all. Mitochondrial DNA sequences have been analyzed in a very close approximation of Eve's mitochondrial DNA sequence has been reconstructed. The average human being has diverged from the original Eve sequence by only about 38 to 40 mutations. The mutation rate within human mitochondrial DNA has been measured to be between 0.119 and 0.197 mutations per generation. This fits within the biblical time scale through some simple math. Evolution would need at least 2,500 generations while the above fits perfectly well with the creation model, only about 193 to 336 generations needed for that mutation rate in the mitochondrial DNA. The fact that there is a singular mother of us all, mitochondrial Eve that is common to all humans correlates perfectly well with holy scripture and tradition which tells us that all people can trace their ancestry to a single woman Eve. Evolutionary theory did not predict this. If modern man's ancestors first came out of Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago and diverged into homo erectus populations in Africa, Europe, Asia and Australia and over this much time accumulated mutations would cause each continent to have its own distinctive mitochondrial sequence. So a real woman who lived less than 10,000 years ago as the mother of all humanity, we know her MTDNA sequence within each one of us is a slightly mutated version of her original sequence. Y chromosome atom is genetic evidence of a literal atom, the father of us all. All geneticists now agree that there is only one paternal ancestor for all people on earth. An evolutionist originally coined this term Y chromosome atom. The original Y chromosome atom sequence has now been constructed. The Y chromosomes of most modern men are less than 400 mutations removed from Y chromosome atom. The observed mutation rate of the Y chromosome however, it turns out is about three mutations per generation. If evolution was true based on the observed numbers we would expect to see some 30,000 mutational differences between modern man and Y chromosome atom 75 times more than what is actually seen. Well, the biblical timeframe fits perfectly with known mutation rates and observed divergence from the atom sequence. That's a real man who lived less than 10,000 years ago is the father of all humanity. We know his Y chromosome sequence within each male alive today there's a slightly mutated version of this original DNA sequence. This final slide is a comparison of a fitness decline simulation using a realistic human mutation rate following this concept of genetic entropy and it's compared with the patriarchal life spans of those of Noah's descendants right after the flight and you can see that the life spans decreased in correlation with the relative fitness decline according to genetic entropy. Therefore, this gives credence to the long life spans in Genesis. And that's my close. You got it. Thank you very much for that opening statement and we are going to kick it over to the Atheist team. So I wanna say thank you so much for being with us tonight and wanna also welcome you if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics and I hope you feel welcome whether you be Christian, Atheist, Muslim, you name it we are glad that you were here and don't forget to hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up. For example, at the bottom right of your screen David Wood and Nadir debate on whether or not there's scientific evidence for Muhammad being the one true prophet this Saturday. If you don't wanna miss it, hit that subscribe button. With that, thanks so much, Tom and Mark the floor is all yours. Who wants to go first Tom? Do you wanna go first? Oh, you can take it. All right, I just got to share my screen briefly just give you one second. Okay. Greetings, my name is Mark Reid and I'm joining Tom Jump here thanks to Modern Day Debate for giving us this opportunity and thanks to my opponents for joining us and presenting an opposite side and something to debate against. Today we're debating were humans specially created 10,000 years ago and I'll be with Tom of course taking the negative. In truth, we have an easier time. We basically do not have to believe in special all we have to do is show there's no good evidence for special creation over any other hypothesis out there for the origin of humankind. It's up to our opponents to demonstrate this claim some positive evidence towards this claim instead of just attacking an alternative hypothesis. So I'm just gonna run through I've got a very quick presentation I just wanna run through a couple of my biggest problems with special creation just what I have problems and why I cannot possibly believe that special creation is true. And these are just sort of a few points that I'm gonna outline. The first one is that the design arguments that it was a special creation that was designed they've got problems with the design and I'm just gonna point out a couple of examples of that. There's fossils that we have dated more than 10,000 years this just throws the 10,000 year thing completely out the window and we have artwork and artifacts older than 10,000 years and these have all been dated by experts. They're not in contention that the only people that contends with them are people with a bias towards their own beliefs. And as you probably do know or you might know science is supposed to eliminate bias not lead towards it. So the first one is the problems with design and this is one of my favorites the recurrent laryngeal nerve and basically, and I'll just get a point to here so you can see that the nerves of everything like they're basically the same although in different configurations you've got this nerve which has basically been brought further and further down and I wish I could find a better picture I do apologize had to throw this together quite quickly but basically as the heart travels down here the order comes further and further lower but this nerve is still wrapped under it basically and so the design or the design I should say the anatomy eventually ends up with a nerve connecting from here to here going all the way down throughout the body wrapping around the aorta and or the second order and then coming all the way back up to the top now this is the worst design you will ever see in your life there is no reason for this it causes massive problems that there's absolutely no reason why it should be the case yet it is so this is the way the anatomy is structured to sort of connect a sort of couple of inches it goes for this massive detail and now it gets even worse and I do realize we're not doing evolution today so I'll just breeze past this but this is it in a giraffe it's essentially the same the black is the nerve it goes all the way down the giraffe's neck wraps under the aorta and back up the top it is one of the stupidest designs you will ever see anywhere on the face of the planet the second one that I've got so the problem here is that the creationist they would have to claim that it was designed to be badly designed and that's my problem with it if it was designed from a top down method it would it would it was basically designed to look like it occurred naturally like from a bottom up sort of a process rather than top down this is a really weird thing but it does suggest it was developed over time and not through some act of special creation wisdom teeth is another one of my favorites from an evolutionary standpoint and I realized we're not doing evolution we're doing special creation basically as we we got went into soft foods and we had less roughage stuff our third molar or the wisdom teeth basically became useless but they're still there and a large amount of cases these impact and actually threaten our lives they're actually something that breaks and kills us in a large majority of cases if you do not have them extracted and they impact it definitely would result in death if they become infected now this is the worst design you could ever put something that has no function that you put into your design that breaks and destroys the thing you've designed it is the stupidest design you'll ever see on the face of the planet now the fossil record this is Lucy, meet Lucy now Lucy is Australopithecus afferencies she was found I believe 3.2 million years old and you know you might say hey that's not a complete skeleton well there is one there's a little foot dated at 3.6 billion years and that's we consider to be a complete skeleton and that's Australopithecus prometheus I believe slightly older, older one but the thing is that there's been hundreds of fossils found and all of them seem to reach the same conclusion and the dating methods used I mean they are, they do have you know error margins to them 1%, 5% error margins but when you're looking at millions of years the error margins do not approach anywhere near 10,000 years I mean you're looking at 3.2 million years with an error margin of 1% in some way you have to go through and debunk every single one of these fossils and there are literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of them so in order to demonstrate special creation you would have to debunk all of these now artwork this is from Blombos Cave South Africa I realize this isn't a very good picture we do know the okra used here is at least 73,000 years old it has been tested by experts it is that age again there is Borneo 40,000 years old you have in Germany 35,000 years old this is called the lion man statue it's anthropomorphic figure with the animal head we're not even sure if this is some kind of religious figure it may be it may not be but it certainly is not younger than 10,000 years not in the slightest and lastly from my own home country Australia this is 17,000 years old minimum and they think it may be anywhere up to 40,000 depending on the artwork that is around there this is absolutely ridiculous that people do think that the world is less than 10,000 years old with every single thing that we've got there so I'm going to see if there's any reliable robust evidence for their special creation rather than against any other hypothesis that has come up and I'll certainly enjoy talking to Dr Mark and Mr Owen about their evidence here that's about all I've got so I do thank you for your time sorry I'll stop sharing the screen but I'll give my apologies thank you very much we'll kick it over to T-Jump that's okay I can do it on my site all right yeah please I got it thank you thank you all right so the topic today is were humans specially created less than 10,000 years ago the answer is no and all of the evidence indicates this in order to test if one theory is better than another theory all you have to do is look at what the theory can predict that we will discover in the future which one of the models is a creationist model or the scientific evolutionist model has been able to predict future things before we have discovered them as far as I know creationism has never ever predicted anything successfully ever in the history of ever as far as I know science is the only thing that does that science actually predicted the evolution of ants and where we would find the fossils transitioning from different kinds of ants and bees and hornets creationism didn't predict that evolution critically predicted that certain kinds of double jointed jaws that were found in mammals at this particular layer and location they would find them before we actually discovered them it's a pretty good prediction evolution predicted that tectolic a transitional fossil between a fish and a lizard would be found at exactly the particular strata it was found in before it was found evolution predicted that DNA patterns and endogenous retroviruses patterns would exist in particular species that we already predicted were related and that was correct all of the predictions of evolution have been confirmed all of the predictions of creationism well they just there's aren't any so any model is able to accurately predict the future and tell us what we're going to discover before we discover it is rational to believe that it tells us or corresponds to reality if a model cannot do that if it cannot ever tell us something about the future we haven't discovered yet and it's not reasonable to believe it's true it's just most likely made up that's the fundamental difference between creationism and evolution evolution can predict things in the future creationism just complains that science is predicting things and finds things that are hard to believe and that's it but no predictions no progress nothing that we can use nothing that makes any kind of difference to any academic field whatsoever it's just explaining the way past data that science is done with but the ones making the progress those are the scientists the ones that evolution are indicating in every possible realm of every academic field a few other lines of evidence obviously all of the evidence is that the world was created 13.8 billion years ago if the world was created 10,000 years ago in some respect that would mean that God must have created photons already in transit from stars that never existed so like we have light in the sky that came to us from billions of years ago from billions of light years away but if we were only creating 10,000 years ago then God must have created those light photons at about the stage of like Jupiter or something and didn't even bother creating the stars that they came from it just looks like they came from stars completely implausible there's many other implausibilities of the stories of creationism why it completely fails but really the main reason is no predictions if you have no predictive power if you can tell us nothing about the future your theory is debunked and I will conclude there with that we're gonna jump into rebuttals and this is 10 minutes from each team also wanna let you know folks if you haven't yet click that share button below as you probably have a friend who enjoys debates like these and you can click that share button below this video to share this link with them so they can enjoy it as well with that we're gonna jump into the first rebuttal section and thanks so much Dr. Mark and Mr. Colby the floor is all yours and Hugh do you wanna go first or should I? I am happy to go first on my top of my screen is blocking me from going to PowerPoint I mean to the PowerPoint slide show just one second okay I moved it over we're all set so how do we know that God didn't man less than 10,000 years ago? He told us so if the naturalism assumes that the effect can be greater than the cause that natural processes could produce nature something from nothing life from non-life and naturalism also assumes that geophysical clocks all tell the same tale of long ages but that is false naturalists assume if I have a piece of granite that contains a certain amount of potassium and a certain amount of argon and I know that potassium consistently decays into argon at a constant rate I can calculate that it would take 1.2 billion years for the amount of argon in my rock to be produced by potassium to argon decay therefore my rock must be 1.2 billion years old now imagine that I examine the same piece of rock using a second hourglass this one has radium in the top section decaying into radon gas to the lower sec with a half-life of only 1600 years now granite contains several pairs of parent daughter elements so geology textbooks tell us that if we apply this dating process using multiple pairs of decaying isotopes we should get the same age from both yet each year people in the Sierra Nevada die of this deadly radon gas which owing to its very short half-life shouldn't even be detectable if the granite continental bedrock was even close to the evolutionary age we are taught today and that our opponents believe in the naturalist atheists have no reliable way to determine the age of mankind or of the earth because they have no way of determining which of the many geophysical clocks are telling the right time they have no independent reliable judge to whom they can appeal but Christians do God is outside of time and he created mankind so he knows the exact age of mankind and has revealed it through his word those who embrace a naturalistic worldview like our opponents also blind themselves to the greatest part of reality which is the spiritual world both the good spiritual world of God angels and saints and the world of evil spirits who try to turn us away from God in his revelation especially in regard to creation 1908, 1908, Madame Marie Bray diagnosed the suffering from blindness from bilateral optic atrophy due to severe injury to her brain on the 5th of August in 1908 after attending Holy Mass at the grotto at Lord France, suddenly her sight returned examined by an oculus the same day it had to be admitted that although she still showed signs of retinal tower of cerebral origin she could read the smallest print in a newspaper in other words, she could see even though she did not have the physical hardware necessary for sight which proves that he was seeing with her soul and not with her brain now our Lord showed that he had to work two miracles with every cure of blindness first, he had to fix the hardware the physical basis for sight secondly, he had to infuse into the person's nervous system the knowledge of how to use that hardware to see who wouldn't trust the word of such a divine wonder work is also extremely naive to close one's eyes to the reality of evil anyone who undertakes a serious study of exorcism will find overwhelming evidence of the reality of demons and their ability to turn human beings away from God in his word about how he created the world the 17th century Rene Descartes rejected God's genesis revelation in favor of our opponent's naturalistic uniformitarianism the idea that everything came into existence through the same material processes that are going on now but Descartes only embraced this false philosophy after he had stopped practicing his Catholic faith led a very immoral life and dabbled in the occult after which he recorded that he had three mystical dreams in which his spirit of truth possessed him and put him on task to develop a new way of thinking that would change the way people thought Descartes was not actually possessed but his account of this experience contains many telltale signs of demonic influence one of the most famous exorcisms in history took place shortly before Descartes' birth in France before at least 10,000 witnesses a woman named Nicola Aubrey became possessed by a large number of evil spirits after visiting a fortune teller the local bishop took over the exorcism which lasted several months he offered the holy sacrifice of the mass and then prayed the prayers of exorcism over Nicola who lay on a platform in the church during the exorcisms witnesses watched as 15 strong men who were needed to restrain Nicola when the demons attempted to do violence through her were lifted six feet in the air by the demons as they held onto the platform bearing Nicola's body eventually the prayers of the bishop and the real presence of Jesus and the blessed sacrament drove the demons out of Nicola once and for all it would be extremely naive to deny the reality of evil spirit or that they use their brilliant intellects to deceive people and to rejecting God and his word in Genesis my beloved friends in the audience in the name of Jesus don't let them do that to you One more Okay, let's see here Okay, so I want to start by talking about wisdom teeth that Mark brought up I'm a dentist and I often get the question why do we have wisdom teeth? Well, the answer is very simple wisdom teeth are just as good as any other teeth and we are designed to have them most people in the world have their wisdom teeth and they've come in just fine the people that don't have their wisdom teeth come in properly are people with soft western diets like most Caucasians and the answer as to why that happens is because it's nothing to do with evolution it's because when we are eating these soft diets and not chewing coarse food we tend to develop smaller jaws because our musculature isn't growing as much and therefore we're causing problems for ourselves I mean, this is the same reason we get crooked crowded teeth and cavities for that matter are poor diets Native Africans and Australian Aborigines who have coarse diets their wisdom teeth come in perfectly and they don't have problems of this type Breastfeeding is also something that unfortunately doesn't happen very much in our society and this is one reason why people's jaws don't develop well enough and also cause wisdom teeth problems Do people have problems with wisdom teeth? Yes, definitely I take out wisdom teeth all the time I also take out other type of teeth all the time but again, this is a problem that we have caused for ourselves based on our diets not anything to do with evolution but even if it was something that you wouldn't want to call evolution it wouldn't prove evolution it would just prove devolution it would be a decrease in useful information in terms of people getting worse over time not better and this goes for the any type of vestigial organ argument this idea that we have vestigial organs that are useless that's the reason why tonsils used to be taken out all the time even prophylactically and only later was it found out why that was so wrong that people are having more diseases and in the respiratory systems as a result of taking tonsils out that was driven by evolutionary ideas that tonsils were vestigial organs and let's just talk a little bit about paleoanthropology so this idea that we have somehow proven that we've evolved from ape-like creatures is false I mean look at these quotes from evolutionists the once popular fresco showing a single file of marching hominids becoming ever more vertical tall and hairless now appears to be a fiction from the international chair in paleoanthropology in Paris, France and you can just read quote after quote from evolutionist paleoanthropologists showing that this idea of us transitioning from this ape-like creature into humans isn't something that is even considered a fact anymore and then I want to just talk a little bit about that the idea that starlight somehow proves the age of anything well in the big bang theory the laws of physics are broken all the time and it seems to be fine for scientists who hold to this paradigm to basically invent whatever they want to fix up the theory and including some scientists who say that the speed of light at one time may have been trillions of times faster than it is now and if the speed of light was during creation instantaneously fast all of a sudden we don't have any distance starlight problem and for that matter the one way speed of light has never been measured so it cannot even be shown what the one way speed of light is as if this somehow proves the age of the universe the final thing I want to say is that this idea that all we're doing is attacking evolution and not providing our own model is false because my entire presentation was based towards showing that the genome is almost fully functional that the mutation rate in mitochondria and y-chromosomes support creation and that genetic entropy if you go back in time supports this idea of a perfect original human pair in the beginning as well so all of these are positive arguments towards creation and not merely just taking shots at evolution all right I'll rest my case here you got it thank you very much we're going to kick it over to the atheists side for their rebuttal as well and tjump and mark thanks so much the floor is all yours oh do you want me to go first tjump yeah we can go in the same order every time yeah absolutely okay so first uh mr oh and god told us so basically he's basically assumed the uh the the conclusion up front like so many creationists do they basically have a book that they like they assume the conclusion then find the evidence to try and make it fit this is not unusual in the slightest for creationists something exists by necessity why can't the universe be not contingent he didn't explain why that is he just assumes that it couldn't be the case do not know why goodness is desired is it by who for what why he's already assuming that god is the conclusion and that god wants goodness in some way and therefore makes it into his uh premises of the conclusion all all things are a testament to the spring being well this is the look at the trees argument basically that hey if we assume that everything was created by god then everything is evidence of god it's it's a really terrible argument because you've already assumed that everything is the creation of god up front code requires intellect and free will um you're conflating sort of biological you know dna code with computer code it's done a lot in fact i believe you mentioned computers at one point it might have been it might have been dr mark that did so most of this was god of the gaps arguments from incredulity they basically have a book to support this in fact in fact uh uh huon said that the best evidence is the bible and i think that things true the best evidence is a you know thousands year old book written by primitive peoples with no understanding of science i would actually agree with him on that one point that is his best evidence the the shroud of turin now the shroud of turin is an interesting one to bring up because it's sort of just ridiculous in the idea that it's an actual artifact the shroud of turin is a two-dimensional image which is weird because it's supposedly laying on a three-dimensional body you'll notice there's no top of the head for the shroud of turin no top where if the shroud passed over the head you would see it laid out and have a three-dimensional representation in two dimensions but the shroud of turin doesn't have this it's so quite obviously a forgery and you know locked away in catholic vaults so they can't you can't have a look at it or or um you know evaluated anyway um so most of this is anecdotal evidence claims you know miracles if jesus did exist and he was buried in some tomb that you found it makes no difference to the supernatural claims jesus could have been a real person he could have been buried somewhere it is not evidence for any of the supernatural claims you're attributing to him so that's just poor evidence right there um now on to um dr mark junk dna devolution no evolutionary paper makes mention of devolution it just does not come up harmful mutations much too high and this this whole idea of junk dna being impossible there are a number of hypothesis as to why that would not happen which you've obviously clearly admitted omitted i i do i beg your pardon um but we don't know the answer to that one it's a god of the gaps just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean you get to insert god as the answer or for the purposes of this debate special creation as the answer that they're like punctuated equilibrium like a a downturn and the amount of males in the populate there's a number of suggested things that could result in this but you've ignored all of them and inserted god you've got no reason to it's just an unlikely explanation where's the paper for god where's the paper concluding that god is the reason for this i notice you didn't point to any of those you have no paper for it no paper says that god is the reason why um junk dna hasn't built up to a to a certain level again uh yeah i was to beg your pardon it was dr mark that conflated computers with with bioorganics it just it's it's a bad conflation computers computers use a fetch execute store cycle there's the number of vast differences computers don't replicate that there are massive differences in order for us to understand it we sort of say hey the human body's like a computer we don't mean that literally the computer is way different it's just a conflation that it's just ridiculous change to any specific letter of dna may affect some part but it may do nothing you know i love that this is sprinkled with words like may and might and perhaps yeah but it might do nothing at all um sort of you know which computer code that certainly doesn't happen let me tell you um your your sort of coloring of of evolutionary scientists is refusing to accept things this this whole thing of a conspiracy for some reason they would sort of invalidate their own work by by not chasing down the truth i think is ridiculous i think that but uh evolutionary biologists like most scientists follow where the evidence leads unfortunately you've got a presupposition that your book is true and you're following to your conclusion that you want unlike what scientists do um um you know and and i love how it says virtually all mutations are harmful and some are not i i notice that you sort of swung by that virtually all but some aren't and some are very beneficial um a human fitness over the years so so evolution provides an excellent reason why the humans are more affected by disease nowadays it's because if you interrupt natural selection processes with say i don't know medicine like for instance if asthmatic people would usually die out and due to modern medicine they don't they they continue to procreate you have an excellent reason as to why there's more asthmatic people around the fact that disease is accumulating does not go against evolutionary theory at all um you know it really doesn't the the other reasons yeah i've already been through that um now it's interesting that you said the catholic perspective was the one that you pay attention to dr muck i find that odd because the pope himself said um that evolution is true big bang theory is true and that god is no wizard and i quote um pope francis verbatim for that one um so it's very strange that a catholic would basically say well the pope is wrong um you know you have to explain that one to me i don't know how you got there um uh the the simple maths is not correct um this this very simple equation you've got for the accumulation of mutation nobody has ever calculated it like that um and uh yeah and a lot of this is just cherry picking now i do notice you one of your graphs it did not come from a paper and it was was very very strange um it was genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome although it kind of looked like you were quoting from a scientific paper you were not that is a paper back it is just a book and anyone can write a book and it's by dr john stanford and put up on you know as sort of a um the feeder to the genome so i think that is a little bit deceptive how that is just somebody's book that you've placed to make it look like you've got a scientific paper evidence there um but i'll leave it there and that's my uh review of the uh incoming arguments thank you all right uh so to review they didn't actually provide any evidence they provided a hypothesis uh the difference here is that a hypothesis is when you look at data and you try to explain the data it's post hoc ergo proctor hawk if you try to then take that data and say ah because it can explain the data therefore it's evidence it's true um the whole point here of science is that you start with the hypothesis that's great and do that just fine under creation is perfectly fine to come up with a hypothesis says i think this hypothesis is true and it explains the data but then to confirm that hypothesis you need to go into the future you need to say if this hypothesis is true here's something in the future we can predict we will find if we discover it that would be an evidence but they didn't provide any of that second step they only can run the first step here's some evidence or some here's some data point that we see and we can explain it well it's nice literally every hypothesis can explain it it's called the problem undetermination and philosophy you can say a magical leprechaun farted out the universe five seconds ago and that would explain all the data we see also it's not evidence that it actually occurred for it to be evidence you need to then take your hypothesis and say if it explains this data and it's true here something we expect to see the future none of that was presented so no evidence for creationism was presented whatsoever all it was finished post hoc ergo proctor hawk we can explain the data therefore our hypothesis using the bible to prove god is like using north rings prove hobbits so saying that the best evidence is the bible well then the best evidence for hobbits is lord of the rings it's it's not really great evidence it's in fact not evidence they brought up that nothing is an agent and if there's no agent things can't exist well that's just pat me false quantum mechanics is the best field the best evidence supported field of things essentially being created from fields or nothingness no no one in physics thinks there's actually a literal philosophical nothingness is not a thing in physics and there's no evidence of non physical minds all of the minds that we have evidence for came from brains which require physical space time and millions of years of evolution there's no evidence of any kind of mind being able to do anything outside of space time whatsoever there is evidence that quantum fields can do things outside of space time that's something that is a real evidential basis so for comparing the two 30 quantum fields is the superior model there to explain the data all the data they presented was essentially wrong this route of turn is debunked as mentioned by mark wide x-ray scattering is not a legitimate source to date things all it does is it measures the sprain of different particles and how it reflects x-rays it doesn't actually measure dates at all that's why no one uses it junk DNA means non-coding not non-functional he's just conflating the incode definition of non-functional which is redefined to a broader definition not used in biology so it's all just a basic misrepresentation of the data with that we'll jump into second rebuttals this is another 10 minutes thanks so much dr mark and mr colby the floor is all yours would you like to go first dr mark or or i'm happy to do it you can go first friendly reminder folks our guests are linked in the description if you want to check them out you certainly can to learn more about their views so um as a matter of fact the argument used at the beginning for the existence of god was not refuted by either of our opponents something that's contingent is does not explain it's not the cause of its own existence and if we simply use common sense we can tell that the universe is not self-existing because it's obvious that it could be different than it is so people there are people who've tried to deny the principle of cause and effect but nobody ever actually doesn't apply that principle in everyday life or they would be locked away in an insane asylum and so it's it's simply common sense logic that a contingent universe has to have a first cause that is non-contingent and that means that that first cause has all the perfections that we associate with god the supreme being now there's so many things to respond to in what you said but I'm going to respond to the claim that both of you made that the Catholic framework or the Catholic understanding of creation doesn't provide any predictions and is basically useless for the natural sciences well in reality nothing could be farther from the truth as a matter of fact the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation gave the most perfect framework for doing scientific and medical research and the replacement of that framework with the naturalistic uniform material and evolutionary framework I'm going to show you is the greatest disaster that's ever happened to science and medicine but first please let me clear up one big misunderstanding on your part the teachings of the church are not what the pope says at a press conference the teachings of the church are those that have been defined authoritatively and that have been handed down from the apostles and you will not find any authoritative statement in the entire history of the Catholic church that finds the evolutionary account of the origins of man in the universe in the deposit of faith faith that was handed down from the apostles and Catholics not only have the right they have the duty to dissent from the opinions of folks or bishops in matters of natural science because they don't have any mantle or protection of infallibility when they venture into that realm so all the authoritative teaching of the church upholds God's revelation that he created everything supernaturally by willing it into existence in the beginning less than 10,000 years ago you also don't seem to understand that the Catholic church was established by our Lord Jesus Christ before there was a bible the Catholic church gave us the bible that's why the bible calls the Catholic church the pillar and foundation of the truth so again you've grossly misrepresented what Catholics actually believe and teach now let me go on and show you how the Catholic church has given you and all scientists and truth seekers the best framework for doing fruitful scientific and medical research because according to our framework revealed by God we live in a lawful universe of well-designed creatures marred but not ruined by the effects of original sin whose function but not their origins can be discovered through rational investigation the William Harvey who was in England after the Protestant revolution worked within this framework and when he was asked how he discovered the working of the circulatory system in the human body he says clearly that he did it because he presumed that it was a designed system he formed a hypothesis on that basis why would the designer design the system with the vows and the arteries and all the chambers the heart the way that they are that's how he developed the hypothesis which he verified and that's how he learned how the circulatory system works in the human body the Darwinists came along they overthrew this fruitful framework and replaced it with a framework within which scientists and medical research is no longer presumed stable form and function throughout the biosphere instead they perversely presumed flux and dysfunction so Darwin argued that some of the best evidence for revolution was that the human body is full of useless organs that are holdovers from an earlier stage of evolution like the vermaform appendix at the scopes trial the scientists from the University of Chicago who were deposed by Clarence Darrow one of them cited a German anatomist who said that there were no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body now you asked about prediction every traditional Catholic in the world who was involved in science and medicine predicted that the evolutionist would be proven wrong about the appendix about the tonsils about junk DNA and about all the rest of their vestigial organs including the wisdom teeth as Dr Mark showed that you are completely wrong in characterizing the wisdom teeth as not an example of good design because of the acceptance of evolutionary pseudoscience the appendix was believed to be a useless holdover from evolution for more than 100 years after Darwin and because of that the medical community did not investigate to find out what was the real cause of all the problems with appendix that doctors and emergency rooms were seeing had scientists and medical researchers remained faithful to the traditional Catholic framework they would have presumed stable form and function and they would have looked for the cause of problems with the appendix in lifestyle and dietary issues and not blamed it on the poor design or the evolutionary production of a perfectly fully functional organ over to you Dr. Mark so it was said that is our can you see my screen right now let me know if you can see it we can now I'm just going to shrink it down okay okay all right so it was said that I was misrepresenting what evolutionists said about junk DNA before it was discovered let's just look go through some quotes here much DNA in higher organisms is little better than useless junk Francis Crick Richard Dawkins in 1976 biologists are racking their brains trying to think of what useful tasks is apparently surplus DNA in the genome was doing but for the point of view of the selfish genes themselves there was no paradox the true purpose of DNAs to survive no more or less the simplest way to explain a surplus surplus DNA is as opposed that it is a parasite or best a harmless but use less passenger hitching a ride a ride in the survival machines created by other DNA why are these evolutionists saying this because their paradigm leads them to faulty ideas about reality they predicted that as science went along it would show more and more that the genome was full of useless junk it is a remarkable fact that the greater part of the genome might as well not be there for all the difference it makes biologists Richard Dawkins and this was in 2009 Kenneth Miller the human genome was littered with pseudo genes gene fragments orphan genes junk DNA so many pointless DNA sequences it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design again these men were absolutely wrong in code project it makes them look like fools I mean this is the most advanced code in the history of the world the human genome and this is if there's anything that evolution should have been able to show and predict it is this but they were spectacularly wrong on this point look at NIH biologist Francis Collins roughly 45% of the human genome was made up of genetic flotsam and jetsam in other words useless things thrown off of ships that are sinking non-coding repetitive sequences junk DNA comprised of the vast bulk of the human genome this is from 2010 in evolutionary biologists and even the man who coined the term the earth is strewn with fossil remains of extinct species it is a wonder that our genome to is it a wonder that our genome to was filled with remains of extinct genes this is again the prime example of where the predictions of evolution lead they lead to faulty ideas the ideas that were full of junk not only in DNA vestigial organs and now we're finding uses for all of these so-called vestigial organs predictions of the predictions of evolution haven't been right they've been spectacularly wrong in this in the mutation rates as I showed of Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA and the predictions there and overall of course they predict that our genome should be improving that it should actually be somehow getting better or advance it should be shown not only in humans but in other animal species and this is simply not the case we do not observe this at all in fact now that we know that from generation to generation our genomes are deteriorating 60 mutations at a time how exactly do you explain this away when again most of these mutations are not selectable they're nearly neutral that is they are building up in the genome taking away precious resources because the RNA is having to copy these these bad mutations as well and it's just carrying them down over time it's building up building up and we simply do not see any of these beneficial mutations somehow canceling out the bad mutations this has to be explained you can't just wave it away with your hand again this was can be seen as a prediction of the creationist we all thought there would be uses found for vestigial organs we all thought that it would science would prove that the genome actually was not mostly useless junk so on the biggest prediction possible creationists were right and evolutionists were wrong 30 seconds left in addition it was said that there was no other predictions made by creationists well Russell Humphries predicted the magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune based on a young universe and you know when we look at some of the other predictions that there's no limit to breeding animals that's basically what Darwin thought dog breeding fruit fly breeding has proved that false there is only a limited amount of variation that can happen and anyone with common sense can see that we can't just keep breeding things forever they get strung out and the genetics fall apart if you try that more and therefore artificial selection is just natural selection going at rapid speed and it fails you got it thank you very much we'll kick it over to the rebuttal from Tom Jump and Mark Reed as well this is the final rebuttal before we go into open conversation sorry about that thank you very much James now okay so I'm gonna address this because yeah we've got some problems here a whole thing about naturalists assume from Mr. Hugh sort of I think you're straw manning a bit there sort of saying naturalists assume this and assume that I'm personally not technically a naturalist but I think naturalism is the only explanation that can be positive I just think that natural explanations happen to be the best because they have the best evidence for them so when you're sort of throwing out these naturalists assume this and assume that I don't think that's the case you seem to product like sort of radiometric dating not being accurate but we rely on radiometric dating for finding oil finding certain deposits of minerals there's a sort of industry worldwide that relies on an old earth model for finding all kinds of deposits and all kinds of minerals and stuff and sort of you pointed out one there's multiple types of radiometric dating that they actually work together to validate an age so there's uranium, thorium, argon, argon there's radiocarbon of course there's multiple different techniques that they use that overlap their time frame so they can be sure that they do have a correct dating method this is a bit weird it's kind of a special pleading almost for God it's kind of well radiometric dating is not accurate but a book written thousands of years ago by a bunch of goat herders is I failed to see how the sort of a book that unknown people have written can be more I have to explain that one to me and how we can test this book to see its accuracy because as T-Jump pointed out it doesn't seem to make any predictions that we can rely on whatsoever and a whole bunch of anecdotal evidence I don't know why we're not sort of debating miracles here it seems to have gone off topic with the debate being about Jesus and miracles and all this kind of stuff I only see it tangentially associated with the current debate that we're having for special creation 10,000 years ago I don't see it as very good evidence whatsoever it just seems to be more claims thrown out I don't know where we got into demons and spirits and ghouls and ghosts and goblins I don't think that's very strong evidence for your claim we used to think that mental illness was possession we used to think epilepsy was possession we've sort of come a long way since shaking branches that supposed demons for invading our bodies and causing us to be sick I think this is if you want to go for a scientific view I think you've fallen down pretty hard there so a lot of this appears to be quote mining and I'll point something out but I'm really disappointed in you Dr Mark because you're basically a quote mining and you've done it a lot tonight a great deal genetic entropy I do apologize an evolutionary odyssey by Hublin you pointed out and let me show you what you quoted the human career describes one of the most spectacular changes I'll read on the once popular fresco showing a single file marching of hominids becoming ever more vertical tall and hairless now appears to be a fiction that's what you quoted if you read on um appears to be a fiction human kind did not simply pass through successive stages eventually leading to the emergence of anatomically and behaviorably modern humans for the most of the past four million years several species of hominoids coexist and sometimes in limited geographical areas it goes on to describe exactly why evolution is true you are quote mining and you have done it a lot you've basically brought up part of a quote to make it look like these evolutionists don't support evolution which is absolutely wrong yeah I think I'll leave it there because really all Dr. Mark presented was a whole bunch of quote mines and I'll leave it over to teacher yeah so none of my points were actually addressed except if you gave one example of prediction I guess of predicting the magnetic spheres of Neptune or something I guess that's an okay prediction we can chalk that one up one prediction for creationism 10 million for evolutionists so you still lose but let's just go through some of the things they said he brought up all these quotes saying I missed I told I said he misrepresented what the evolutionist I like no I said encode misrepresents the definition of functional in biology the reason the encode project says that a large portion of the DNA is functional is because they've literally changed the definition of functional if I say the definition of functional is anything with DNA well then 100% of the DNA is functional because it all contains DNA making up my own definition of functional is not evidence that the evolutionists are wrong all of the quotes he listed are correct the amount of DNA that is functional is about 8.2% the rest is junk most of the DNA in humans is junk encode did not ever even espoused to doubt that all of the encode authors agree with that they change the definition of function to mean something it doesn't mean anywhere else in biology and so nothing in encode in any way criticizes or critiques or disagrees with any of those biologists equated a bit none of it they all agree that yes given the definition of function they're using those guys are completely 100% correct and the authors have agreed that yes they've changed the definition of function so not encode doesn't in any way indicate anything in terms of creationism still waiting for more novel predictions I like the one with the the I don't know the magnetic spheres of Jupiter whatever that's great can you give us some more relevant ones like evolution gives us predictions of all kinds that are like directly related to the theory not just I think it's designed therefore I'm going to look for stuff that doesn't really help us at all and saying that evolutionists are wrong isn't a prediction like I can predict at some point Einstein will be proven to be wrong about something therefore the flying spaghetti monster is this is this evidence of the flying spaghetti monster no just saying that evolutionists are wrong about something when literally all science is overturned every couple decades isn't really evidence of anything you need to give us some kind of prediction of something we will see or discovery we'll make about a thing a new particle something in the universe that we don't know yet that your model can tell us about before we discover it like what all of the other sciences do if you want your hypothesis to be taken seriously they argued that we haven't seen any kind of evolution that's beneficial that's false we know that mosquitoes are now resistant to different kinds of pesticides malaria is resistant to different kinds of drugs all viruses evolve new kinds of things require new vaccines we literally see new functions all the time everywhere in bacteria the largest largest resource of evolutionary study is done on a specific kind of bacteria that's been going on for over 50 years with tens of thousands of variations we've seen hundreds and hundreds of positive mutations which just literally were not there anywhere in the DNA whatsoever and they came about and had a positive function we've literally observed macro evolution in a lab so we can just observe it and prove it false quantum fields are not contingent they're necessary things so if you want to say that there must be a necessary non-contingent thing well very quantum field there you go saying that God can't be different yes he can it's obvious God could be different maybe God did not drown millions of babies in the global flood there you go it's obvious God could be different so if you want to just assert God can't be different I can just assert quantum fields can't be different and around evil equal footing difference being quantum fields actually have evidence they exist God does not so if you want to make all these philosophical arguments which indicate nothing we can cherry pick different aspects we want and say my pretend model is the better one because it meets these pretend criteria and philosophy that have no basis in physics and you can claim anything is necessary or anything is contingent and the only evidence to have is you can imagine it differently and guess what I can imagine God differently so he's not necessary he said that the greatest disaster for science was naturalism because of the appendix like no no this model we've been using has given us tons and tons of discoveries that have increased life expectancy by triple increased the quality of life by significant portions like no this is not not the greatest the worst mistake for all the science that we got the appendix wrong on one thing definitely not witch hunts mass murders of religious people by religious people those those are those are significantly worse than the appendix so I don't I don't know what is standard here for assessing the greatest disaster in science and medicine like I don't know Norman Borlaug inventing genetically modified wheat seems to be a pretty good invention have nothing to do with God so seems like most of the things they mentioned again just didn't address my point like in order to be a successful theory you need to make predictions about the future about new things you haven't discovered yet new fossils new species if we die we go to heaven that's a good prediction new particles give us some discovery about the universe just looking at past data and saying you can explain it with your pet theory is an evidence you need something new genetic infamy is complete bunk it's been debunked multiple times by multiple sources it's there's no basis in the type of scientific paper it's just completely made up by john sanford and just nothing that supports it at all life from non-life is a composition division fallacy obviously life came from non-life that's what all the evidence indicates saying that it could it just because the word life is required in the word non-life is just a composition division fallacy like well we can't make a wall from a non-wall like yes you can use bricks bricks on a wall non-wall can come from wall no problem just a little play on words nothing more nothing like a serious argument all the examples of demons people lifting off the six six feet in the air and the and all the different Eucharist things like all that was made up like no scientific evidence have ever confirmed any of that if you have real miracles publish them in a scientific paper that would be great evidence making up a bunch of stories that have all been tried to be confirmed in completely false don't do so well just pray for a gold brick to appear in front of you if it happens that'll be some great evidence saying that the little the walking man image was wrong like obviously it's a picture made it's not like a scientific paper that says this literal images of black representations of species is literally how it happened it's a representation to convey an idea saying that that's wrong is obviously obviously there's going to be groups of different individual species living together at the same time and it was literally one blackout limitation of one individual species that then morphed into another one obviously that's wrong it's not even controversial no one thinks that that that little black thing is a literal representation of how actual evolution work it's just a something to convey the idea to people in an easier way he mentioned the speed of light there isn't the speed of light issue if it moves faster if the speed of light was faster that doesn't make star formation faster it makes it impossible so speeding up light doesn't solve the problem the problem here is that if God created the world 10,000 years ago 30 seconds and light is 8 billion light years away the star would have to exist first to emit the lights otherwise God must have created a particle to look like a star but never created the star which means God is lying to us conclude there you got it we'll jump into open conversation which is about 20 minutes thank you very much gentlemen the floor is all yours reminder folks our guests are linked in the description so if you'd like to hear more about their views you certainly can by clicking those links below and that includes at the podcast as we actually have a podcast for modern day debate as well and we put our guest links in the description box for each podcast episode which is on the podcast within 24 hours of the debate being live thanks gentlemen the floor is all yours thank you James actually teach I'm talking about the composition fallacy division fallacy there's another fallacy I did forget to mention and that was sort of the genetic fallacy you sort of set a framework religion games a framework for science and medicine kind of thing now that this is sort of a genetic fallacy where the origin is a certain thing so you say it has to contain that thing or it has to be a part of that thing that's a genetic fallacy it doesn't matter where the origin of science came from it's still valid by itself it doesn't isn't beholden to religion or you know religious institutions in some way and it doesn't just because science is effective it doesn't make its origin religion in fact I would argue that the Enlightenment had a lot to do with it as well but that's the genetic fallacy basically that the origin sort of is the colors the thing itself I'd love to hear thoughts on it how does this work James well we just discuss I was thinking just anything you guys would like to discuss and there's no time section so this is an open dialogue okay so then let me respond to that um one of the I guess it was Tom said that we only mentioned the appendix as an example of an organ of the human body that those who believed in the traditional doctrine of creation predicted would be shown to be fully functional but that that of course isn't true everyone in the audience knows that we mentioned many other features and other organs of the body but let me give you an example of how a big a disaster this evolution-based uniformitarian naturalist approach to natural science and medicine is this is Dr. Jerry Coyne I believe he got his PhD at Harvard but he's at the University of Chicago and he's definitely one of the leading champions of atheistic evolution in the world and in a fairly recent book as you can see why evolution is true 2009 he argues that embryology is still strong evidence that one celled organism turned into a human body through a natural process of evolution now let's look at his evidence he points out that every human in the mother's womb has a transitory coat of hair the technical name for it is lanugo watch his logic he says there's no need for a human embryo to have a transitory coat of hair after all it's 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit in the womb lanugo can only be explained as a remnant of our primate ancestry now gentlemen you asked us to give you examples we could be here all night and I could give you examples just as good as this one this is anti-science I don't care if Jerry Coyne has a genius IQ with his evolutionary blinders on he looks at a feature of the human body and because of his bias in favor of flux and dysfunction if he doesn't immediately see what the function of this feature is he's got an evolutionary explanation it can only be explained as a remnant of our primate ancestry when we recovered with hair and swinging from the trees I don't know if you know this this is 100% wrong okay let's just don't want to clarify so open conversation the way it works is we ask the question and respond to the question like nobody brought up Jerry Coyne Mark asked you a question specifically regarding your genetic fallacy of saying that you have a worldview that is better because certain scientists think that because the world is orderly and designed they can look for stuff and that doesn't matter because pretty much every worldview says that they all they don't think things are just inherently random any worldview flying spaghetti monster quantum fields they all think there's an orderly universe so why do you think simply because people thought God did it therefore it must be orderly it's a good argument seems like a genetic fallacy no it's it's not a genetic fallacy what I'm showing you is that all Christians all Christians have believed the truth what the God revealed that he created human beings body and soul with all their organs and therefore all the organs of the human body are functional and all the features like the lanugo are functional and so when we see something like the lanugo we presume that it has a function and if we can't figure out what the function is we don't do what Dr. Jerry Coyne did and what evolutionists have done with a whole host of organs and features and say oh it must be a useless holdover from an earlier stage of evolution we say we're not smart enough yet to understand what's the function of this particular feature organ and that's our job as natural scientists and medical researchers to investigate and if you had allowed me to show the next slide I would have shown you that in fact Dr. Jerry Coyne of course was completely wrong the lanugo keeps the burnix cassiosa the cheesy varnish that looks like yogurt on the skin of the little baby in the mother's womb so that the baby is protected from the amniotic fluid and any well this is the back and forth not a presentation so you kind of made your point multiple times over and we want to discuss it now so what I did notice is that you brought forth a quotation from a book now I just want to you seem to be conflating these things a lot what's been somebody publish a book versus when they publish a scientific paper that when the anybody can publish a book with anything in it and in fact you sort of show graphs from a book that sort of you know weren't from a scientific paper this isn't a paper in science this is what one person has written in a book so we've got to differentiate those pretty strongly papers up here reviewed books are not so if he was publishing a paper and he was wrong well great one scientist is wrong about something I can show you all the scientists that are right about things in evolution but you seem to want to focus on one scientist being wrong but I'm not just focusing on one scientist it's it's easy for anybody to verify for himself or herself that the whole mainstream evolution believing scientific community was wrong about the appendix about tonsils about junk DNA about lanooga about embryonic recapitulation which denigrated the total humanity of the unborn child from conception and led to the greatest holocaust of innocent human life that the world has ever seen heckle was the main salesman for Darwin he was the most effective salesman and his evidence was totally bogus but as late as 1959 Sir Julian Huxley the leading evolutionist scientist in the whole world said that that was the best evidence that he had that a one-celled organism turned into a human being through a natural process of evolution characterizing our argument correctly at all so I can grant there are lots of evolutionists who have been wrong but they've been more right than any of the creationists so evolutionists were right about the age of the earth the age of the universe the age of all of the planets evolution was right about how oil forms about where we can find oil about different rock stratum where we'd find things as far as they would predict things in the future so yes you can find hundreds and thousands of examples of scientists who have been wrong but as far as I know pretty much all of the creationists are wrong and have never been right on a few maybe a few cases appendix okay I'll grant that but if you're just comparing like the number of wrongness the number of wrongness in creationism far outweighs the number of wrongness in science as the fact that a few sciences get things wrong isn't evidence against science it's just guess what people don't ever don't get everything right 100% of the time so that's not an argument for your position to say that oh look some science has got things wrong this isn't a positive argument for your position what would you not understanding can I just add something really quickly I just want to piggyback and add something really quickly that you could say the same for any field of science like for instance medicine they got tons of things wrong look they used leeches look they used all of these terrible techniques you can say that for any field of science that in the past we have got things wrong so you know but what I'm hoping that the what I'm sure that our friends in the audience are seeing is that our framework that is based on God's revelation is what leads to fruitful scientific and medical research because we didn't adopt this false assumption of constant flux and dysfunction and that's what leads to the discovery of the proper function of all of these different kinds of organs and features you're not understanding our position correctly why is it your framework can you explain that to me why is it your framework all of a sudden it's it's the framework that follows from what God revealed about how he created the world how do you demonstrate that God revealed that he we can demonstrate it very easily because it's first of all it's it's in the bible which was which is made up of the books which the catholic church in the first centuries of christianity identified as being the inerrant word of God sorry to interrupt mark I wanted to I really like that index thing so I really like your example of the appendix I think it's a great example of why you're wrong because one of the first scientists to predict the function of the appendix was Charles Darwin himself he was like the first person to predict it had a function the guy who invented evolution so if the guy who invented evolution was the first person to theorize a function of the appendix and he didn't believe in a god that seems to completely review your entire argument because he's an atheist he doesn't refute our argument at all Darwin didn't understand the actual function of the appendix and look it's it's easy for anybody to research the history and see that the evolution believing mainstream scientific community for more than a hundred years retarded scientific and medical research by holding that the appendix was non-functional whereas during that entire time those who held fast to the the traditional Catholic doctrine of creation knew that it was functional and that the problems that people were having with the appendix just as that they were having problems with wisdom teeth or with with tonsils were because of lifestyle diet and other concerns like that whereas the evolutionists were not looking to identify the actual root causes of these problems well the thing is that Darwin didn't understand a lot I mean, Darwin didn't know what DNA was Darwin didn't understand the process a lot but he did, as Tijam said, predict that it did have a use and I think I've got a sort of we seem to be having some problems with the word vestigial and I did notice it earlier that that when somebody says something's vestigial it doesn't mean they're saying it has no purpose they're saying it doesn't have the purpose for what it had in the past its purpose has changed and you seem to be using that word to sort of go well they said it was vestigial the vestigial doesn't mean no purpose well the vestigial may not mean no purpose technically speaking but that's the way it is certainly used I mean if you read lookup argument not scientifically if you look up arguments from scientists even who are making trying to make this understandable to the general population they are very much making the argument that these vestigial organs are useless so we can wrangle all we want over technicalities but I mean it for practical purposes that in fact is what the evolutionists are arguing well sometimes it is one sec Mark sorry I wanted to pick up on that so you're conflating how scientists communicate to the public versus technical scientific language of what is actually used in academia taking like what Bill Nye the science guy says on a science show as being scientific fact and saying oh look Bill Nye made a mistake and he said something that's not scientifically accurate that isn't a condemnation or a criticism of the scientific community that's a criticism of how scientists communicate to the larger public so what you said is literally just not a criticism of science it's a criticism of how scientists communicate to the public which is a separate topic well maybe so but when you look at even in the scientific literature you do not see what Mark is saying that as if they're arguing that vestigial organs are useful I mean that's absurd to even make that point in my opinion well I think they do I think they literally say that they literally none of them say they do literally nothing like obviously blood and different kinds of fluids flow through the appendix it's it's alive and so it's going to have some binding effect with the DNA in the cells there to like burn calories to use up ATP to use up fat like obviously it's doing things in the body no one in science thinks it literally does literally nothing and these things even burning calories is going to have a positive effect on the health of the human so clearly no scientists thought this did nothing that was just not a thing I mean you look at tonsils they were taking them out prophylactically and even appendices that is in fact what many doctors did think that this is we can chop this out no problem and expect no consequences because they did think it was essentially parasitic on a human and I've given you an example with Dr. Jerry Cohen where everybody in the audience could see that yes he says that he believes that the lanugo had a function when we were covered with hair and a swing from the trees but he definitely thinks it no longer is functional now and he's 100 wrong and his evolutionary bias prevented him from being able to do what a good scientist does which is to determine what the function of that feature is so I want to cover this because it was actually in as a point of law in America at one point I believe it was in Kidsville and Merces Dover for irreducible complexity if you remember that one famously Bayhee advocated for the creationist side now in that vestigiality was discussed and it was demonstrated that vestigial organs are not ones with no purpose but ones whose purpose was changed and I believe the main example was the flagellum in bacteria which purpose had changed from a feeding to a movement organ so you are completely wrong you are 100% wrong it's even being litigated successfully so also Jerry Cohen isn't an embryologist he's a fruit fly expert so I don't know why you're bringing him up as an expert to really know whether or not that would have a function like he's not an expert in that field we're bringing it up because for all practical purposes scientists and medical doctors are using this vestigial argument in order to retard science basically could you give an example of an embryologist who actually works in the field of embryology who said this rather than someone who works in a completely different unrelated field who doesn't know anything about the topic certainly I mean there's absolutely no doubt that in the field of embryology the overwhelming majority of scientists went along with Hackles fraud that the human embryo recapitulates all the stages of evolution in the mother's womb and in 1959 Sir Julian Huxley, a biologist said that that was the most striking proof that a one-celled organism turned into a human body through a natural process of evolution and yet Michael Richardson an embryologist published the actual photographs of the human embryo and the embryos of the fish, pig, turtle, chicken and salamander at the same stage of development in 1994 and showed that for more than a hundred years the consensus view was totally wrong in a matter of life and death because Hackles fraud and Huxley's acceptance of it and the mainstream acceptance of it denigrated the humanity of the unborn child from the moment of conception Okay, I've got to address this time frame because you're talking about something from 1959 Okay, more than half a century ago I could point out a lot of medical things from 1959 like they did lobotomies on mental patients and they did shock therapy and they did horrible things because they were medically wrong I could point that out right now from 1959 and that does not mean that the field of medicine is now debunked and over with and we should ignore everything that it's got to say because they made mistakes or that were wrong about things in the past your reasoning is absolutely terrible just because people got things wrong does not mean that the theory of germ theory should be tossed out the window Well, that's the thing it should have been discarded in 1959 but it hasn't been these lies are still being propagated in the textbooks to this day we still see the same fraudulent images that Heckel invented in textbooks now So that's what we're talking about this evolutionary idea is so embedded in people that they cannot even give up that which has already been proven wrong Well, I'm not seeing the relevance So, well, I'm not seeing the relevance of here how Heckel made pictures which aren't used to make academic decisions at all and are put in some high school textbooks to represent something and if you switched it out for the actual images you no student would be able to tell a difference like this is just a representation to give people the idea of what's going on you don't need a literal actual pictures this is not like people are actually using this diagram in academic sources to actually make decisions this is a thing you put in some textbooks for some younger people to convey a simple idea it's not like this is the foundation of everything like this is not a relevant it's like a picture it is relevant because they're using it to propagandize young students all of the people that end up scientists and doctors are going through this evolutionary propaganda why do you think they become evolutionists how because again no one is looking at these pictures and saying oh my god these pictures are just everything in my entire academic career if you literally switched out these pictures for the other pictures there would be literally no difference to anyone who's reading the books that's simply not true that is totally untrue it makes a world of difference like what if you if you look at the Michael Richardson photographs published in the journal Scientific American in 1994 it's obvious to anyone I encourage the audience to look them up that the human embryo is very distinct from the embryos of all the other kinds of creatures at the same stage of development and what's also obvious is that each kind of organism is also distinct from all the others at the same stage of development look this is completely contradictory to all the predictions of the leading evolutionist from Darwin to Th Huxley to Heckel to Julian Huxley to Carl Sagan down to Richard Dawkins and the rest of them today don't try to make this out as some something that's not consequential or that the mainstream scientific community didn't go along with something that was totally bogus and had life and death consequences and we can show you 21st century textbooks that are perpetuating the fraud and not giving students the truth as T. Jump said it was pictures in a high school textbook let me give you an analogy of what this is like so you can understand why we don't see it to be a big deal it would be like opening a astronomy textbook and saying hey your picture of the solar system is a complete fraud the sun's only like this far away from the earth and the moon's way further than that and all the other planets are grouped up together when in reality you wouldn't have room to put them in there that is an analogous to what you are saying look they put it in a textbook and drew it to try to make it clear what they were describing not scientifically but in an education way for people to understand just like they would the solar system nobody thinks the sun's you know that distance away from Mercury or what have you nobody thinks that it's just that's what we put in textbooks to explain what we know and I think that's a good analogy no it's not a good analogy I can show you a textbook 21st century textbook biology textbook by a very prominent scientist here in the US was a co-author and his illustrations are very hard to tell apart from the 19th century Hecoforgeries and in his caption he says that all vertebrates start out with gill slit an enlarged head region gill slits in a tail now don't tell me that that's just like the solar system making things a little bit different than they are in reality so that students can get kind of a rough idea of the relative position of things in the solar system that is totally different what gill slits have nothing to do with respiration it's coming he is arguing that I'm not following the error there so all embryos, vertebrates do have gills and tails which what was the error no they do not absolutely not humans are vertebrates we never have gill slits no anatomist or embryologist worth his salt yeah I'm saying that notion human embryos have have gill slit I don't know what you're talking about no they do not all gill slits develop into the pharyngeal arches in different parts of our facial anatomy they have nothing to do with respiration gill slit and lie was propagated by textbooks that's why you two believe that because you've been duped by propaganda they're not literal gills the two of you believe in something that is totally false no we have actual pictures we believe in something that is totally false we have actual pictures of actual embryos that literally have the slits exactly where gills are whether or not they're specifically used in the embryo as gills clearly they're not no one is saying that embryos literally have gills they have a slit exactly where gills are in all of the different vertebrate species we see and why are you calling them gill slits in humans because they're the same exact spot and locations as the animals that do have gills who do develop them so that's no justification that's totally unscientific I can provide a paper for you if you want that's completely unscientific that's anti-science right there so it's the same as when in male and female embryos the same organ develops into like the penis or the clitoris or whatever and we see one part of the embryo that develops into multiple different things we can say oh look it's this thing which develops into this other thing the same thing applies here we can look at the slits and see how it develops in some species and how it develops in other species and say oh look what is the similarity here what was the cause or the original function of this thing it was from the gills and these other things that makes perfectly scientific no that's a pure assumption on your part you have no proof that the reason we have those features is because we evolved that's your assumption it makes much more sense to believe that it's a design feature because they develop into the pharyngeal arches in different parts of our facial anatomy they never have anything to do with respiration so why do they just like change into gills and fish then listen why not design something different why not design something different why make it look like it develops from you know the gill slits or the slits where the gills would be into one thing in humans and into fish in another for the same reason that a good engineer uses the same components in a refrigerator in an automobile and all kinds of things and god's the supreme genius he has certain kinds of designs that work and he uses them again and again well yeah I do think two things there one good for the reasons the reason good engineers use the similar parts is because they're available if the factories are producing one kind of a part and you can buy that part for it's cheaper than to produce a completely new part god doesn't have this issue he can magically prove things into existence so saying that human engineers use parts from other different machines that do the same function even when that's true is not because that's what good engineers do inherently it's because it's cheaper god doesn't have a money problem here so it's not really a part of god but I wanted to go back to your claim that there's no evidence of this there's tons of evidence of this the reason we think humans and fish have a common ancestor is the for example endogenous retrovirus DNA that we can show when exactly endogenous retrovirus has injected their DNA into the DNA stream and see the connecting features in the tree of life to see how they're related and because they oh yeah hey look the endogenous retrovirus that's shared between fish and humans at this point and it seems to make sense based on all of the evidence we have that they have a common ancestor unless it was just random coincidence that endogenous retrovirus is injected their DNA into fish and humans at the exact same location in all the different species well the whole assumption of endogenous retroviruses is a hypothesis it's not there's no actual evidence that these viruses have injected anything it's a it's an idea that has been come up to explain this finding but the jury's still out on figuring out the details so that's one idea that come from the evolutionary community but you know we we simply cannot be drawing final conclusions on these things well there's a lot more evidence for it than the idea that god made it look like these viruses inserted themselves into the genome at certain points to make it look like it developed over time that's just as I said like you would have to posit that a god basically planted evidence basically put the evidence there in order to trick us into thinking all of this was somehow evolutionary development rather than design no that that's again this is an argument that evolutions have used for decade after decade and it's completely bogus five digit extremities are a very good example of a design feature that is genius it's it's fully functional for many different kinds of creatures so your explanation that god wouldn't use the same design of five digit extremities in different kinds of organisms because he doesn't have the problem that engineers have of having to use available materials it's it's absurd the it's it's a design feature that works well for many different kinds of creatures and insects are very successful they don't have five digits of course part of but you see I hope it's so successful why not I hope that people in the audience can see that again and again you're taking the position that you are in a position to pass judgment upon what you see in the biosphere and determine whether it was well designed or not just like Richard Dawkins foolishly asserts maybe he's given up that the eye is badly designed when experts in the eye have pointed out again and again that he's completely wrong and that if the eye were designed the way that he thinks it should be we would have all this blood supply getting in the way of our our vision and it would be a terrible design so what what what we need is the humility to recognize that generation after generation of evolution-believing scientists have asserted that the appendix that the tonsils that the lanugo that the wisdom teeth that the junk DNA didn't have a function here and now in the organism that possessed this particular feature and they were wrong over and over and over again while those who believed in God as the supreme being and the designer believed rightly that given enough research and careful investigation the function and the purpose of these various features and organs would be discovered those I think you're more yeah I think you're mischaracterizing I think you're mischaracterizing the argument here because we're not saying it is bad design we're saying if it were designed there would be lots of ways you could design it better and to some degree if it were designed it would be bad design what we're saying it is more probable that it developed by a natural process in a in a sort of bottom up systems connecting systems working with one another than it is for someone to take a top down I'm going to design these things because if that were the case there is a lot better ways to design it and in some cases vastly better ways to design it so your mischaracterization of saying it is bad design that is not our argument our argument is it's it's it's easier and much much more likely that these systems developed over time than through design but look at the example of the tonsils and it refutes what you're saying because by saying that the tonsils were not fully a fully functional part of the immune system there were already millions of tonsillectomies being performed here in the united states every year and these were in most cases totally unnecessary and stripped away the front line of defense of the immune system of millions of people now there have been 30 year long longitudinal studies proving that if you take two people with the same medical history one has the tonsillectomy the other one doesn't after 30 years the ones that didn't have the tonsillectomy are much healthier than the ones that did and we're talking about something that was a matter of life and death because during the polio epidemics doctors observed that people who had had the tonsillectomy were much more likely to end up paralyzed from the polio virus than people who had retained their tonsils because the tonsils were producing specific antibodies against the polio virus so we're talking about mistakes with life and death consequences on a vast scale where those who held to the traditional Catholic creation framework would never have allowed these terrible abominations to take place however you're forgetting that they still do perform to tonsillectomies if the tonsils become infected to a great degree a large amount of infections it may actually be advantageous to remove the tonsils rather than to risk continued infection over time so you've just completely destroyed your own point because that operation is still performed where there is a large amount of infection going on in an individual yes however that's because there's a big difference between prophylaxic operations versus operations that are necessary that's the same well sorry go ahead but that's the same reason why I as a dentist don't go in and look at someone's mouth and say oh yeah let's just haul out everybody's wisdom teeth just because it might cause a problem no we wait and we see okay is it gonna is it causing a problem is it an issue if so okay let's deal with it that's not what was happening in the past you had a large amount of doctors prophylactically removing tonsils in healthy children because they had been taught that these were vestigial organs don't want to do so another sorry take jump you go for it yeah I wanted to jump in on a few things like one is the most vestigial limbs are haven't proven to be have no function essentially like the little three fingers on an ostrich it doesn't have a function the like extra thing on the back of the dog's leg that's like halfway up his leg no function yes there are many two limbs that have literally another due clause is closer to the foot that one has to have a function but there is an extra there's lots of different vestigial limbs that don't have a function so saying that one thing is a vestigial limb and being wrong 10% of the time and being right 90% of the time isn't evidence evolutionists are wrong they're they're right 90% of the time so cherry picking those very few instances they are wrong and ignoring all the cases they're right isn't evidence for your case what do you think the function of the three arms on the ostrich is well this is our very this is our point we don't know the function of every single little thing you can pull out like that but our position would be that time will tell that these will be proven some function will be assigned to these things in most cases now we're also not saying that what you're saying is impossible because it certainly is true that there can be genetic deteriorations in people the evolution happens it is quite possible that something was more useful in the future and it has devolved now so that certainly could happen but in general if you're far better off saying this might have a function than just coming to the conclusion no this is just useless we might want to jump in through I do want to I'm sorry you have limited time for the Q&A and we've already got tries about two hours we've wanted to jump into the Q&A folks sorry I want to let you know we're going to get through as many questions as we possibly can and then we're going to wrap up just because we want to get our guests out of here by a decent time especially if anybody's on the east coast so these questions coming in every speaker has one minute at most to respond to them there's no additional context to these questions so sometimes it's easy to understand sometimes you might be wanting more and this is all I have sunflower first says concluding we were created by an intelligent source is as much of an assumption as assuming we weren't created by the intelligent source we've never witnessed life form spontaneously from non-life some of these are in the form of a comment so we'll give you a chance to respond each of you for one minute as I mentioned and given that I think it's for you Dr. Mark and Mr. Colby we'll let you start you can go first to you yeah so but we have given you evidence that our Lord Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church brings life from non-life every day in every altar where the holy sacrifice of the mass the unbloody representation of the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross is made present I I gave you one example there have been 153 rigorously examined Eucharistic miracles and many of them provide that same kind of proof that the bread and the wine that are consecrated by a lawfully ordained priest do turn into the body and blood soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ now I don't know I just invite you to to go back and re-examine that Eucharistic miracle in detail because it does prove that God brought life from non-life in the holy sacrifice of the mass and the Catholic Church our Lord Jesus Christ are the only ones that can do that Mr. Colby anything okay so the law of a biogenesis or the law of biogenesis whoever you want to state it is a law of biology that life comes from life or you can state it in the reverse way that life doesn't come from non-life and so this idea that you could have um things some inorganic chemicals that could somehow spontaneously assemble themselves into something as complex as what we see in the so-called simplest organisms is insane I mean I don't care if you give this a trillion years you are never going to get spontaneous self-assembly of something into as something as simple as a bacteria so yeah that idea non-life from life or sorry life from non-life only could ever make sense in terms of someone who is all powerful doing it you got it Anne over to T-Jump or Mark yeah I just want to sort of the law of biogenesis you've got a bit of a problem there because if life comes only comes from life then that would make God is alive but then the law of biogenesis would apply again and life only comes from life so what life did God come from you've backed yourself into a total corner with saying hey God must be life and if life produces life then there must be some other life than God to produce him got a bit of a problem there don't you Tom oh um yeah so all of you because miracles have been debunked like many times there's nothing there there's no such thing as a law of biogenesis that's creation's propaganda so neither of those things have any basis in any like academic research you got it we're gonna jump into the next question thank you very much for your question sunflower says mark you're forgetting that quote it was aliens theory if aliens especially created humans that's still special creation my feathered friend yeah I'm very feathery um yeah no thanks sunflower no I do have a sort of false dichotomy that I refer to that people say hey if if evolution is false then it must have been God that created humans or if a biogenesis is false then it must have been God that created humans I use it as that's a false dichotomy because if I can provide just one other example of something else then it's not a true dichotomy at all so the usual one that I say hey it could have been aliens it could have been a magic space unicorn it could have been the flying spaghetti monster there they're all disproved this dichotomy of a biogenesis wrong must be God because you're relying on that dichotomy to make your case so yeah I use that as an example but I would argue against aliens for the same reason that I would argue against God there is no evidence for it but if you're saying hey the possibility that God is there will the possibility that aliens is there as well you got it and thank you very much for this question coming in oh sorry I didn't get everybody's answer if you could respond to me Dr. Mark and Mr. Colby everybody gets a chance to respond to each question so you have a minute each if you'd like yes well first of all it's very important to understand that and I'm directing myself to the audience that our friends are not understanding what we're saying about a first cause because the first cause is that which is its own has existence possesses its own existence it doesn't owe its existence to anything else and so that first cause God can communicate life but doesn't need to receive life from any other being that's just the common sense answer to what he said but what we also need to understand is that our friends have said repeatedly this is debunked and that's debunked my friends in the audience these are just assertions on their part make your own investigation of the holy shroud of Turin and if you're making an objective examination of all the evidence you will conclude that it is proof that Jesus rose from the dead Mr. Colby Francis Crick actually did come to the conclusion that aliens must have ceded life because when he discovered how complex DNA was and he didn't want to believe in God he did come to the conclusion that some intelligent being had to do it now I think the idea of aliens is ridiculous but obviously Francis Crick realized how complex DNA was and he had to come to some sort of intelligent design conclusion so it that would be one more step in the right direction at least compared to believing in a spontaneous self-assembly gotcha and it meant to say Dr. Mark not Mr. Mr. Colby earlier I got your names flipped as I was but Tom did you want to have one last did you already get to speak on this one no sure so I just say that the quantum field is a better necessary self-existing being than a God is because there's actually evidence that exists and all of them made up Aquinas and Thomistic properties of self essence and existence just have no basis in reality whereas quantum fields do you got it and thank you very much for your question this one coming in from do you appreciate it oh flameo says what was Lilith's effect on the genome they had said that Lilith was created before Eve straight out of ash or dirt if I remember if you would like to respond Dr. Mark or Mr. Colby well that doesn't come from an authentic Christian source so I'm sorry but it's not credible you have to understand that our Lord Jesus Christ gave very powerful motives of credibility so that we can recognize that he is the unique God man the only one that even claimed to forgive sins that he would be able to die for our sins and rise from the dead and so based on the miracles that he worked in his resurrection he established the Catholic Church and gave her divine teaching authority so that only those books which the Holy Catholic Church identified as the inspired word of God are credible as divine revelation then you won't find anything about Lilith in any of those canonical books of the Bible you got it and oh that's right anybody else would you like to respond I'll respond so I'm not sure about any well I agree with with Hugh about this whatever Lilith is having no bearing on anything but we certainly do believe that amnib were created perfect genetically and that explains how we got here because genetic deterioration has happened over time and so after the sin of Adam and Eve that is when evil and corruption came into the world and that is the beginning of when human mutations and the deterioration happened and here we are you've got it and thank you very much for well I suppose Tom and Mark I don't know if you want to say anything that's more of a yeah I'll say something quickly just you know in fairness their their religion doesn't have Lilith I believe that's a Jewish mythology I think it was in the Dead Sea Scrolls but yeah I mean it's an interesting question but you know it doesn't they're not it's sort of misrepresenting their position because they don't actually believe that Lilith and Adam were the first couple I presume you know I don't want to misrepresent you but appreciate your charity Tom anything I'll pass you got it made by Jim Bob says did evolution predict that humans would be predominantly religious? yes it's a type one type two errors yes anybody else? well I don't know if you know we we certainly seem and I believe somebody once said we had a sort of a religious hole in in our our sort of minds where we tend to put gods I think that sort of talking about evolutionary structures you can sort of trace the evolution of religion from sort of primitive animism to shamanism to you know you know pantheons and then to monotheism it's quite interesting to see the development of it you know it's interesting but yeah it's actually the exact opposite because in as a result of the general belief in micro to man evolution this went hand in hand with the idea that religion began with polytheism and animism and evolved into monotheism but the greatest scholars who looked into this subject like the great scholar Father Schmidt totally debunked this and even evolutionist scholars who've delved into this subject admit now that the original religion of virtually every people group on earth was monotheism and we've spent much time in Africa and if you actually spend time and listen to the various people from the various tribes they will tell you that the original religion was monotheism and monotheism degenerated into polytheism and animism which is exactly what you would expect from the bible but it's also what missionaries anthropologists and explorers found as they interacted with indigenous people all over the earth got it any last thoughts from anyone I think evolution actually does have a hard time explaining any type of spiritual longing in man as it has a hard time explaining any of these qualities in life like beauty music love all of these aspects of life that how why would we have this if we were basically machines that have just sort of have risen with self-preservation in mind now of course the evolutionists give this spin that yeah it's because of trying to keep others alive or whatever but if you think deeply about this you will see that the evolutionary idea especially the atheistic evolutionary idea doesn't seem to hold water when it comes to these deep questions this one coming in from Oflamio says what is the difference between a scientific paper and a non-scientific paper one's published in a peer-reviewed academic journal that's vetted by people who are experts in the field and know what they're talking about to know that it's actually valid source of data and one isn't anybody else I'll give the same response then okay but I'd like to respond to that because here's something for people in the audience to consider here's some scientific research that is published not in a peer-reviewed journal and now the same research is published in a peer-reviewed journal but it's the same now is it more true because it's in a peer-reviewed journal than when it's published independently this is relevant because one of our main research projects within the Colbe Center has been to collect dinosaur bones and to send them to world-class labs that have an accelerated mass spectrometer that can count the number of carbon-14 and carbon-12 atoms in the sample and we have shown we've proven beyond any doubt that all the dinosaur bones contain substantial amounts of carbon-14 which cannot be reasonably attributed to contamination which proves that the dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago did not become extinct 65 million years ago now here's the interesting thing we have papers on our website that contain the data that were not published in peer-reviewed journals but we have presented the data in world-class scientific conferences where they were subjected to peer-reviewed before they were allowed to be presented and you know what we found we had to fight intense censorship not because there was anything wrong with the data but because the fact that virtually everything in the geological column that still retains organic material contains carbon-14 totally refutes the evolutionary paradigm yeah I'll just say I mean I agree with Hugh and that yes it's true oftentimes something being peer-reviewed can be beneficial at least in theory however it also leaves open the concept of the tyranny of the majority of the majority of people peer-reviewing have a bone to pick with some aspect of this whether it be a metaphysical implication or any other thing maybe they just don't like the guy it won't get published and so again you can have perfectly valid scientific papers that have been thrown in the garbage because of this so we can't conflate being scientific with being peer-reviewed even though it does certainly have its place peer-reviewed is blind your name isn't pointed they don't they don't know who published it these scientific circles are smaller than you think though this one and peer-reviewed doesn't state to trade it just because everybody's already spoken for their minute I hate to do it but just because otherwise I'm going to get grilled by people for not getting to their questions bubble gum gun says or in this case a statement he's coming after you Tom and Mark he says vestigial organs is the atheist retrofitting of the data though it's not it's using other evidence of other vestigial limbs which have been accurately adduced identified as vestigial limbs and oh this is kind of similar to these things can we be wrong sure is the fact that some people in evolution are wrong about some things evidence against evolution no because creationists are wrong more than evolutionists about most things anybody else yeah and vestigial organs as I pointed out earlier they have gone too about you know what can constrict vestigial organ irreducible complexity kids metal look vest over look it up yeah and I mean you can make that statement it's got no basis in science whatsoever just because some people use vestigial wrong in colloquial terms doesn't invalidate science that are all anymore than you know a person using something wrong in biology and validates medicine yeah it's a just a nonsense statement well I would just like to again direct my comment to the audience I mean just think about it can it really be true in light of everything that you've heard that the creation framework was not more conducive to fruitful scientific and medical research when we've given many powerful examples of how this belief in micro-demand evolution led to the an inability to properly investigate the appendix the tonsils the junk DNA the lanugo and embryonic development you look into it and decide for yourself I think you're going to come down agreeing with us and not with our friends and I'll just say yeah I think people should look more into this topic of vestigial organs because this was really hammered home by the evolutionist that there were all these vestigial things and it's just coming to light more and more and more that these are debunked so yeah I think people should research this topic more themselves I think that's it for our Q&A want to remind you folks our guests are linked in the description you can learn more about their views by clicking on those links below and that includes if you're listening via the modern day debate podcast as each of these debates such as this one is uploaded within 24 hours to the modern day debate podcast available on fine podcast apps everywhere so I want to say thank you very much Tom Mark Dr. Mark and Mr. Colby it's been a true pleasure to have you guys on tonight thank you guys thank you thank you very much thank you absolutely so folks stick around we'll be back with a post-credits scene in just a moment letting you know about upcoming debates and one last thank you to our guests friends want to say thanks so much for your support thrilled to have you here and want to say I get to chance to say hello you in the old chat nano glad to have you here know your realm I see you there in the old live chat glad you were with us and absolute death glad you were here as well as Zaldrizo glad you're here as well as dimples happy to have you with us master optics glad you're here radio flyer pumped to have you here Colorado biker thanks for being with us and then Tyler Sirianni thanks for being here and Zandu glad you're here not Sid pumped to have you with us as well as heat shield pumped you are with us as well as Woody Woodpecker good to see you there and Spirit Toby pumped to have you straight serum good to see you back gross patat good to have you back radio flyer glad you're here manic pandas happy to have you with us trigger warning pumped you're with us glad to have you there and then made by Jim Bob good to see you again jungle jargon good to see you want to say my dear friends coffee troll says hey James hey coffee troll hope you're doing well and we have got to tell you a couple of things one in particular we are thankful for our guests so we always do want to encourage people to attack the arguments instead of the guests and you guys do a great job of that so we are thankful for that as well as we want to say hey great job and your guys support of this channel seriously we're excited about the future of modern day debate and you guys really do I've like I've got to thank you because seriously you have no idea how much you help make this channel possible here's some ways one hey it's a small thing but it does help us in the youtube algorithm in other words youtube recommends our videos more if you hit that like button we're only three likes away from 150 so highly encourage you if you hit that like that helps thank you for always doing that that really does help the channel and we know that you're with us in terms of pursuing the vision of providing a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field no matter what walk of life they are from and so made by jim bob thanks for your super chat so sorry I we just wrapped up so quick that I don't know if you saw your you might be behind us in the stream that the speakers have been gone for about maybe 45 seconds and so I'm sorry that last super chat we're not able to read during the Q&A but we do do appreciate your support and want to say my dear friends there are other ways you help so that's another example when you guys submit questions for the Q&A that helps a ton seriously it really does if we didn't have questions from you guys it wouldn't be a Q&A you need an audience with questions to have a Q&A for crying out loud so that's another way you help the channel Trinity Matrix glad to see you here as well as Oflameo and Dimple says thanks for the chat it's nice to hear from other perspectives thanks Dimples and I love that this chat is an eclectic mix of different people from different walks of life we have Christian people here Muslim people here Black Hebrew Israelite atheists, agnostic you name it whatever you want to call yourself we know that you're here and we appreciate you guys being here as this is it's no doubt about it and I appreciate somebody just said that in a different chat they said hey I like that modern day debate is not an echo chamber it's got like a mix of different ideas and so hey it's absolutely I think it really does and we appreciate you guys being here being a part of that eclectic mix as you bring different views and ideas we appreciate that and SpiritToby says I'm so glad James does an excellent job of taking care of all of his guests more discussion thank you for that SpiritToby and we're looking for ways that we can take care of our guests what we do is first we always link our guests debate channels that don't link their guests I think honestly I just I don't really respect that and here's the reason they the guests are coming on and it helps produce the content obviously because if you don't have debaters you don't have a debate and and so when I see some channels that are like warm we're not going to link them though I'm like okay well whatever YouTube deserves a better class of debate channel and we're going to give it to them here's another way in which we try to help our guests we always try to give them a mp4 copy of the debate sometimes they have to remind me because sometimes I forget but it's something that we are happy to send if they send me a reminder I'm always happy to send them an mp4 copy of the debate so they can upload it on their own channel it's their content right it is they're the debaters and the one good reason glad to see you there in the old chat as well as master Oftix and Rene Hamilton glad to have you with us ManicPenis says hey James glad to see you as well as me and go T thanks for your super chat says am I debating a positive profit on Thursday what well that's something I've got to confirm with him yet so let me I can't remember if you responded to my email so let me first ask him it might be further out mango T bear with me and I'll I'll get back to you on that but yes it looks like he's plausibly interested in a debate with you on whether or not Islam is the one true religion so that should be a juicy controversial debate radio flyer glad to have you here says legit good channel thanks for that radio flyer seriously we really appreciate it I always want you guys to know too we are open to feedback so for real feel free in the chat or email me you guys you know I'm at moderndatabateatgmail.com so it's our name the name of the channel at gmail that's a pretty easy email remember if you want to give me feedback you can and I'm open minded for real I will admit there are ways that we can improve this channel and so that's something I want you to feel comfortable being able to do that as if you're kind of like yeah sometimes I think the chat is a little bit too restrictive you know sometimes we can't insult the speakers and you know you know and I get that there's a difference between harassing a speaker like you're trying to make them feel bad versus like friendly teasing like if you say like James is a beta or a soy boy like I'm not bothered by that and I know that you're not ill-intentioned and likewise if you guys call the like speakers like a soy boy Brenton just kidding but seriously I love Brenton I'm teasing but we really don't he's a friend of the channel Brenton has helped us a ton so and he said he always tells me says James I don't eat soy protein I he appreciates pea like the vegetable peas he has pea protein but want to say let me tell you this this channel we are thankful for your support you guys have made it awesome a number of ways that help us and that you guys because I can see in the creator studio like in the YouTube a lot of you guys some of you know because some of you guys do your own channel and I can tell you as YouTubers like YouTube does a pretty good job of showing us stats in the background I'm always looking at our stats like crazy because I think that