People of the internet welcome to modern-day debate tonight. We are debating evolution versus creation and we are starting right now I am Kaz host of the atheist edge tonight. We have team creation, which is Nathan and Jamie versus Dr. Chris Thompson and snake Snake was right and tonight.  So Nathan at your first word. I will start your timer The floor is all yours Thank you very much Kaz. Thank you very much everyone for being here This is gonna be about creation and evolution and so in my opener here I want to kind of state a Premise to why I believe this is an important discussion I know some people that are on the evolution side will say that in the fields of science that it's already settled And it's not a debate It's not unreasonable to think that people who go to school and are taught evolution also apply that to the worldview But I do think that this is important For a few reasons, I'll get into my personal one after this, but I did actually want to Share my screen here and get into let's see Share screen Is there a way to Yeah, so if you go to the bottom and you see where it says Present the PV symbol click on that Click on share screen and then if you're doing it, yeah, there you go. You got it, okay? So if up here I have a few tabs and these are actually some things by The military I think part of why this is such an important discussion is because it is determining who we are It is determining what we are what our responsibilities are towards one another if we are Animal humans or if we are soul containing humans You it may or may not be easier to do certain actions so what I actually have here is This is a proposal by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States military wanting to propose an attack on our own people and this is called Operation Northwoods They wanted to attack Miami DC to try to start a false flag war And so this in the military there military there is something called Desensitizing so you have to get people to see others as enemies as animals as lesser than human And not as human beings with a life with family with loved ones with Goals and dreams and things that they want to do in this life You get here This is something called Operation Top Hat where our own military did use a nerve agent on the military Personnel of our own country without asking them And so this is kind of something that is is unethical But if you're testing and it's for research then you can do it and if you can do it to your own military You should also be able to do it to your own people according to The people that are in power and able to give orders in the military and this is This is Operation Seaspray where they released a bacterial weapon on San Francisco without asking the people and People were injured and somebody to die and this this could be anybody this is Kind of a this is part of why we need to have in society today with all what is going on This is we have to look at why people do not value one another's lives And then this even does get into the Gulf of Tonkin, which was a false flag Events that got us into Vietnam, which caused a lot of suffering a lot of death a lot of trauma a lot of I mean death is the ultimatum And so I wanted to share that to kind of lay a Premise for why this is is such an important topic if we are animal whatever the truth is if we really are animals If we really are souls we have to know and we have to be able to communicate No animal has made the internet and has communication technologies that we have what we can literally talk to one another to prevent Any sort of violence from every happening if you have a disagreement with someone you talk it out and you work through it We're not animals. We don't need to have self-defense or a need to get territorial or want to attack people We are supposed to be reasonable even though unfortunately some people May not actually carry this out in their behavior and if they are in positions of power they can actually do some pretty dark things and so Why I actually say that too is so if you're going to school to To learn a science you're gonna have to learn evolution. I'm actually in the beginning processes of that I'm going for a degree for nutritional cardiology. And so I actually Have here this is an angiogram a reversal of the leading cause of death in our country the only way on our medical data this is shown is with vegan eating and I want to write a paper about the metabolic about the metabolism metabolism of human beings and why it is that we are designed to eat plants and And why it is able to get these effects of reversal of the leading cause of death not just prevention But someone who already has it can reverse it and I have to write it through an evolutionary narrative so I wanted to write I want to write a paper about going to Starting from the very first life form that forms because evolution has to start or there's nothing to even talk about and so Going from that very first life form all the way till now Addressing key metabolic developmental points to where we are now able to eat plants and get these reversals and heart disease diabetes autoimmune conditions, etc This is done with plants and I've gone to several professors and they they don't There's no start for life. We don't ever observe anywhere in nature where there's an increase in energy And in increase in order. It's one or the other and this is the start of evolution You can't talk about a tree if there's no seed you can't have a building that's held up if there's no foundation in first floor and and Then well that at the very start and then essentially if you can't show that you can even start your idea You then the rest of it is taken on belief that it can happen naturally And if you have to involve a creator for theistic evolution then that would just essentially make it supernatural anyway So you're no longer in the realm of science I do believe that Many evolutionary scientists are good people. I mean all the science is legit for a lot of what they do It's a it's a very thin veneer of worldview that gets put on to things interpretations that can be made I think it's There are predictions that can be made with either model But even if you want to say evolution can't make predictions because nothing has any guidance Towards where it's going in the future. So there wouldn't be able to be a prediction of when what would turn into what? If you would you know, this kind of is unethical But like if you picked up a worm and dropped it on the table over and over and over Over time would it develop armor like a sort of stale developed new novel Material to be able to protect it from falling while they were able to do that with wings for birds and get into the air Novel things can't be predicted and they don't actually show up It's just a re-accessing of what is already in our gene code So that actually I got pretty close to the time there. But uh, all right, jamey. I'll throw it over to you All right, jamey your first word. I'll start your timer All right, so, um, my name is jamey. I run the studio 215 youtube channel Right now the main project that i'm doing is a bible study, but I also have other projects focused on evolution That will be posted as well The main one is the evolution exposed video series So I didn't really prepare anything for tonight just because the fact that creation versus evolution as a topic name is a very broad topic As chris thompson said, there's so many things that we can talk about when it comes to this subject So I guess just overall I kind of want to point to the fact that Creation and evolution is not as different as people want to make it out to be They are opposite sides of essentially the same spectrum I was watching one of chris thompson's debates to get to get an idea of who he was And at the beginning he said this is not a debate of science. This is a debate of philosophy And that is 100 true the philosophy of evolution versus the philosophy of creation And so that's essentially what we're looking at tonight. We're not looking at science We're looking at philosophies that add their interpretation onto science So I am 100 okay with saying that creation is the religious interpretation from a christianity view Whereas evolution is going to be the religious interpretation from a atheistic view And I see shaking his head, but we'll get into that when he gets to the open discussion Because the thing is that no matter what data is presented to you We can we can literally bring you if it was possible and I were to be able to bring you the blood of jesus christ And you tested it you would find an evolutionary way to explain it So it doesn't matter what the data is what matters is the interpretation Um, that's the really the biggest point that I want people to notice here because when we go through this Um, I don't know if I'll even pull up any of my past presentations during this debate But I never quote I never quote creationist when I'm making my argument whenever I'm trying to make a point I will quote an evolutionist because I know that people that believe in evolution will reject anything that comes from a creationist Because they just don't find that that's a viable source no matter how accredited they are So what I do is I will quote evolutionist and I actually had a debate two days ago where that's what I did and then the uh In the in the chat of that of that debate The whole thing they were saying was you can't quote an evolutionist because they don't believe creation So whether I quote a creationist or whether I quote an atheist. It's not good enough for the evolutionary side of the argument But I just wanted to kind of set that precedent so that people can see that this is a pattern that we're going to be going through during this debate Now as far as evidence for creation versus evidence for evolution Um, I think the strongest evidence for creation in itself is the fact that there is life on earth There is no explanation for life Plenty of scientists have tried to figure it out. Abial genesis is a very hardy field of science And as much money as they spend as many doctors as many scientists as many people that are working on abial genesis They have absolutely zero solid answers for how life began They all have theories They all disagree with each other and they all are basically, you know at each other's necks trying to figure out How this could have possibly happened the fact that we have life is a miracle of god Just like the bible says he formed us from the dust and he breathed life into our nostrils So until the until scientists in a lab can bring forth life from absolutely nothing That means don't grab a box of molecules in a bottle that's been purified and preserved on a shelf That means don't grab some dirt from outside like god did That means making it from 100 scratch until they can do that I'm going to go ahead and say that life in itself is the best evidence for creation Now as far as evolution goes There's a lot of things that if I was an evolutionist because I used to be on the team evolution Before I you know started make going public with my ministry Before I got saved I was into evolution and I did believe it And there's a lot of fields that could be used for very good evidence to people that don't really study But it could be presented in such a way that it seems like convincing evidence And yet evolutionists don't study these topics They try and be away from these topics because they're afraid that there's going to be a creationist perspective brought up from it So I think it's interesting that all of the things that I would have done as an evolutionist They don't do and all of the things that they do as an evolutionist I find are very easy to dismantle when you actually Take the time and I understand that not everyone has the time to do it But when you actually take the time to read the papers See what both sides of the argument has to say When you do that you will actually see that most of the time creation has the better answer I'm not going to use my full Seven minutes just because I just kind of wanted to set a precedence I really like to when it's a broad topic like creation versus evolution I really like to just kind of hear what their what their points are trying to make are and I just kind of respond to those So I'll go ahead and end my time now All right, thank you so much team creation And now we will kick it over to team evolution and I believe snake is going first. So snake get your first word I will start your timer And if if you could just make me larger does that work or I can share my screen Sure. I can now make you larger no problem. Okay Okay So, um, we didn't really hear much evidence at all So creationists have a major methodological problem Science is great, but seems creationism doesn't understand quite what it is The basic aim and method of science is to seek rules and principles that explain And more importantly predict the operation of observable things evolution does this creationism cannot We can explain lightning with Zeus But we can we can't predict anything about lightning or electricity with that hypothesis So the theory that gives us predictions is always the stronger and by definition scientific If you can predict how something works reliably, then you know how it works Especially if you are the first and only to do so i.e. novel predictions The fossil record is exclusively predictable by evolution same for the mere existence of transitional forms as well as predicting where in the rocks They'll be and their features Evolution and earth's age are cross confirmed by nuclear physics thermodynamics chemistry mathematics archaeology geology paleontology astronomy comparative genomics comparative anatomy And others as well as the numerous predictions of biological functions fossil record predictions uses in technology and medicine real results Even old earth creationists consistently dunk on young earthers because in science hypotheses can be tested cross confirmation and predictions are the gold standard of scientific evidence But we do have some common ground creationists accept evolution happens and did happen after the ark But they do not accept common ancestry So but how do we know all elephants are the same kind? How do we know all canids are the same kind? We never saw dogs come from wolves. We never saw the speciation of elephants We never saw triceratops Come from triceratops. So what's going on here? The creationist method involves just thinking about personal experience with animals and declaring groups to be obvious How scientific? They literally just say they feel like things belong in certain groups and this creates problems Like the fact that they group things in different groups So they fall back on comparative anatomy But the question is where is what's the limitation of this limb method? How can we know where and when to stop concluding ancestry from anatomical similarity? And it is unnecessary for the creationist worldview Creationist ministries declare fossil horses like mesohippus is in the horse kind based on comparative anatomy. It seems obvious, right? But that's evolution from three toes to one toe Which is a functional design change equivalent to something as drastic as a human walking on one finger Creationist emit this huge functional change can happen as well as that snakes could easily have evolved from lizards They even declare what the oldest snakes were based only on vertebra and lower jaw fragments How do they know these are snakes? Why do they use comparative anatomy and where does this method stop working? Since the fossil record shows gradual change predictable by evolution, there doesn't appear to be anywhere We should stop using this method Why because we observe this that changes in the size proportion shape orientation location number function And chemical composition of bones as well as muscles organs and tissues They can all change within creationist declared biblical kinds Creationists cut off the evolutionary trees like this at separate creations But there's a curious trend they all ignore which is that the bases of these trees tend to be more similar to each other Than they are to their own branches The base of the wolf kind based the cat kind the base of the weasel kind and base of the carnival kind all look like the exact same animals coincidence Even bears and seals terminate with the same body plane of small flat-footed carnivores at the root of their families Which means by creationist methods the tree of similarity should look more like this if that is if they were consistent Creationists have to shove thousands of species into kinds because they can't fit them all in Noah's Ark So saber-tooth cats and all other cats are considered related by this process of comparative anatomy Same with fossil horses and modern horses, but this establishes a high degree of variation within their kinds The gap within horses is larger than the gap between the roots of horses and other kinds like tapers So that's only consistent with this pattern The amount of accepted diverse accepted variation or diversity within kinds is larger than the gaps between the kinds Especially when we add in transitional forms that bridge the gaps If it's in if it's in its own kind the diversity overlaps if it's in one of the two kinds It just increases the accepted diversity range within it and shrinks the gap to non-existence Resulting in a unified kind. So there is a major methodological problem here Meanwhile, this relationship with the much larger morphological gap is accepted Based on nothing but morphology. So what's going on here? It's inconsistent Smaller gaps are not accepted for some reason To demonstrate this is a paper showing creationists tried to come up with methods categorizing biblical kinds or barraments, but this back fired It's about a morphological distance of clusters having larger sized gaps between them than the total size of the cluster itself But as more fossils were discovered the gap shrank in the bannermans collapsed in each other creationist methods proved birds or dinosaurs If evolution was true, how would we know predictions and cross confirmation? Dating methods predict where oil reserves will be thus it is used to find oil Evolution predicts where fossils are and what they are thus it is used to find them and predict other things about biology Creationism cannot do either and is thus scientifically useless. It serves only to protect religious myths We can use sciences to be so sure of events that have no witnesses or no records that can't be reviewed that we can predict Convict people beyond a reasonable doubt On the flip side, how do we know certain hypotheses are incorrect? Incorrect preclusionary evidence in order to preclude evolution creationists need to show some kind of limitation That would prevent these animals from being related, but they can't every single change necessary here has been observed Same with these fossils Same with these fossils same with these fossils Same with these fossils meaning that these two Which are the beginning and the end of that series are connected by a series of animals that are all the same kind by creationist methods Can creationists preclude these changes? Absolutely not. Can science preclude creationism? Yes And here are just a couple ways the heat problem the plankton problem and the limestone deposition problem If our dating methods are wrong that means the amount of radioactive decay in the creationist young earth would have melted the earth several times over The equivalent of several hundred thousand thermonuclear bombs per square mile The amount of plankton found in the fossil record would have made the oceans a jelly sludge during Noah's flood And the known limestone deposition rate would need to be sped up miraculously The creationist rate project tried to find a solution to the heat problem But concluded only a miracle or exotic new physics could solve it This is about science not miracles or wishful thinking. Thank you All right, thank you so much snake and now we will kick it over to dr. Thompson for your opening statement Dr. Thompson at your first word i'll start your timer the floor is all yours And you're muted i think You're muted Yeah, still muted I should be open now. All right Great. So very nice job taylor a little bit about me. I'm uh, uh, christ thompson. I'm a professor of neuroscience at virginia tech I'm not an expert in uh evolutionary biology. I did study evolution at the university of linoa at shampia nirvana It doesn't make me an expert. Um, I do find this topic to be very interesting It's something that i'm pretty passionate about which is why like, you know talking about this Um, I do study how hormone shape My lab studies this how hormone shape the development and plasticity of neural circuits And we study this in a wide range of species We can do this because all animals ship were are descended from a single common ancestor And we can use the same comparative morphology arguments that the taylor made very explicitly and you know compare these things to the human condition The views I expressed tonight are my own So, you know, lots of lines of evidence to support evolution Taylor just walked through most of it fossil evidence, you know, really nice description of comparative morphology Biogeography is another one that I would like to get into if we have time tonight But one thing I'm going to highlight is genetics. So genetics is really a slam dunk case for evolution Chromosomes are very similar in closely related species and then they start to vary more as you get farther apart from You know evolutionary relationships So amongst the great apes we can look at chromosome patterns and see that they're very very similar For instance, this is an image taken from a paper from 1982 published in science What we're looking at is the chromosome patterns in the great apes So let's take a little closer look at one of these. So this is chromosome one And what we have here is the chromosome one of humans Chimps gorillas and orangutans and as you can see the overall pattern is incredibly similar This is true across all chromosomes. Now, of course, it's not just about patterning We can look at the genetic or protein level And we can see very similar patterns in closely related species For instance, this is one of salcordova's favorite proteins the dna toperi summaries one And you can see that the protein sequence from humans versus chimps Is identical 100 percent every single amino acid is exactly the same This is generally going to be true when you compare proteins or genes between hymns and humans You're going to find some differences but a lot of similarities Now if we add a third species to look at for instance a mouse We can start to see some differences So if you compare the human sequence to the mouse sequence We start to see substitutions and insertions. This is the phylogenetic challenge So we can take the phylogenetic challenge The phylogenetic challenge is you have two animals and then a third animal You can compare all three animals You're inevitably going to find two of them to be more similar than the third And this is going to be true within kinds But it's also going to be true outside of kinds and you're going to go further and further down the line So for instance, we can go further down the line here and compare say humans to Chickens and or mice and then you're going to find that the human and mouse is going to be similar More similar than they either of them are to the chicken And then from there you can go humans and chickens versus say fish or the roundworm And you're going to find more and more differences yet a lot of similarities We can go on and on with every single gene in the genome just like this So let's go back to the chromosomes and one thing someone might have noticed is that oh, you know what? Dr. Chris, what you talking about? You know, we got 23 pairs of chromosomes in humans but 24 pairs of chromosomes in the other great apes You know why are humans different from the other great apes as far as numbers of chromosomes go? Well, one thing that we do know is that if we look at chromosome 2, so right up here, this is chromosome 2 We see that humans have a single pair for chromosome 2 yet for chimps Gribyllas and orangutans. They actually have two pairs of chromosomes that share similarity with one half of the human version and another half of the human version What this means is that there must have been a fusion event a chromosome fomaged in event between 2a and 2b On the lineage to come to humans We know this because we can see that there's a telomer telomer fusion site Where these ends would have fused and we also know that there's a cryptid centromere Which is like the origin point within a chromosome these little notches or centromeres There's a cryptid centromere. So it's all broken down in this exact place where that would have been What this means is that in the phylogenetic tree for the great apes the chromosomes 2a and 2b must have fused in After the last common ancestor between humans and chimps We can also talk about endogenous The sites of endogenous retroviruses throughout the genome. I'm not going to go through that data right now Perhaps we can talk about it in a little bit But this is fully consistent with the idea of descent with modification and it completely contradicts any version of the creationist model So what do creationists believe? You know, uh, they believe that the earth is 6,000 years old 6,500 years old You know that extra 500 years actually makes a difference Versus what evolutionists believe which is on the order of 4.6 billion years old We're talking many orders of magnitude difference The first man was created from a pile of dust as jamie referred to And that the first woman was created from a man's rid and i'm more kind of curious how the genetics worked on that That there was a worldwide flood 2,000 years after creation They killed almost all life on earth and that was around 4,400 years ago That there was a man and his three sons built a wooden boat and put pairs sometimes seven pairs of 1,384 different quote-unquote kinds of animals on that boat I get that number from answers in genesis. I know creationist debates How many kinds there are they can't even really give a good definition for what a kind is Hopefully that's something we can get into They believe that all the diversity that we see currently on life on earth Within kinds emerged within the just last 4,400 years And despite the fact that virtually every single kind would have faced near extinction Due to inbreeding depression And then the last thing i'm going to mention is that humanity so according to creationists They believe that humanity tried to build a tower up to heaven But god put a stop to it and he confused their languages And so therefore all of humanity had to disperse and they believe that this is then the model for the evolution of language This completely contradicts everything in the field of linguistics Anthropology And neuroscience and so hopefully this is some things that we can get into and i'm going to leave it there All right. Thank you so much team create. I'm sorry team evolution We will go ahead and kick it into the open discussion in just a moment But before we do that I just want to let everybody know especially if it's your first time joining us on modern day debate That we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics And we want you to feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from And if you have a question or comment for what it's tonight's debaters fire into the old live chat and be sure to tag me at modern day debate Super chats will go to the top of the list all we ask is that you keep it civil Attack the argument and not the person as insults will not be read and our guests are linked to the description below Whether you're listening on youtube or one of the many podcast platforms that we are on so If you like what you've heard tonight, please don't hesitate to hit those links and hit the subscribe button Because we have plenty more debates coming your way that you don't want to miss including I believe tomorrow at 1 p.m We have the perfect awa versus matt dilla huntie and they're going to be debating islam So that's going to be something you don't want to miss so be sure to hit the subscribe button And with that we're going to go ahead and kick it into the open discussion So gentlemen, I will leave it to you the floor is all yours Right so Why do you guys call this an atheist religion when the majority of christians believe in it? Great question. Do you ever seen life form naturally without interference from men? That doesn't really answer the question I mean Wouldn't you by that I see Sure, like I put you know in my lab I study frogs I study tadpoles I put two frogs together And then I see them make babies and then we have tadpoles Um, I mean I guess I did that but I know that they do that in the wild too Yeah, and that's so like why I say like if you've ever seen Non-life naturally become alive without really synthesis or man interfering or trapping and backing chambers and everything If this has nothing life form Well, this has nothing to do with the debate Well, it's because I mean, no, hold on. Hold on. Let me just respond to this question right quick So one yes life coming into existence does have to do with the debate because you want to pretend that evolution stops At the macro stage, but you're only you're only showing one piece of the puzzle as much as you shake your head No, you have to have life in order for life to evolve Right, and it could have been created Right, okay, so it could have been created. So I'm glad that you admit that evolution is your creator Now your question was why do we call evolution an atheist religion when a lot of christians believe it, right? That's the that's the question you want to answer to Yeah, the reason for that is because the church society today has been conditioned into submission So instead of standing up boldly for their faith They have cowered and tucked their tail between their legs Figuratively because we don't actually have tails because we were never animals But that's why because they would rather be accepted by man than to speak the truth of the bible Um, I wrote down so many notes from what y'all said because there's so many talking points that I want to go over y'all's presentation So go ahead and uh, someone say something We so a biogenesis is not relevant to this at all God could have created or any or aliens could have created the first life We are looking at the question is there a common ancestry between all life That is what the question of evolution is that is what the debate of evolution is Has nothing to do with origins of life. Those are separate fields of study for a reason for a reason And this is just obfuscation and I will not talk further about it We were we are only here to debate evolution Common Evolution so sure right. Yeah, so common descent with RNA evolving into dna Um, so but that's part of like why why I had brought that up is because there are beliefs involved that defy What we have ever observed in nature We've never seen non-life to life and I think if that did happen if someone made that happen It would be put in a biology textbook at the start because it's the start Now you have this first life that has to split into different domains So this first common ancestor, which once it became the luke of the last universe was a common ancestor It diversified into say fungi, amoeba Plants and animals all of this has to you have to show that one Population can diversify into several different cell structures of different populations of domains Kind is one thing showing a domain split even more difficult Okay, so we perhaps we should talk about Standards of evidence So do you do you need to actually witness something to demonstrate that it's happened or have it be a scientific claim? Well, you don't need to 100 witness it happening But you have to have solid evidence for it now If you're referring to comparing bones in the ground that you mix and match together like 15 puzzle pieces To make one picture Then that's not reliable data to base your assumptions off of What exactly are you referring to when you say we don't have to see it in order to Consider its science just take a look at the field of forensics. I mean Taylor referred to that right? So forensics is the idea of evaluating a crime scene Obviously something happened and drawing evidence on what happened there and trying to find out who did what right? We can take genetic evidence. You can take You know an assessment of the crime scene There's a lot of things that you can take into account physical evidence that you can draw from a crime scene And and draw conclusions About what happened right like that's forensics the field of forensics and evolution is very very similar to that You know, we we call we draw inferences based on The expected outcomes of dissent with modification It doesn't make sense that the the inferences that you draw like if you say looking at the the basic body plans of some four-legged animals This this is a more similar than the the distance of like horses, for example within their own gene pool Those inferences that you are making that would be forensically valid Those are the same creationist the the creationist point on that is this is to the same affair like you can have A similar designer caused these similar genetics caused these similar bone structures if four-legged walking animals it's a good Apparently, it's a good design because it's an expression of four-legged animals that they have Like arms up front legs in the back. They're bent over in a digit grade stance They're they have their spine going along the top the rib cage. It's all good design But it's bones.  You can be pretty different actually On the skeletal fossil layout um and and having like bigger creatures uh or different sized legs or uh limbs There I mean people are like that as well like I bet all of us have a different wingspan for our arms. That doesn't mean that we are our Different species are going into different species. Um, so I think that's it's uh both sides Cover that basis of our observations of the natural world by saying common ancestor or common designer right, so your explanation for Why certain animals look similar And also have similar genomes Is that there's a common design right like the designer sat at his or her designer desk And you know was was like, okay, I got to make the the mouse kind So I'm going to pick the mouse genes to make the mouse kind right And then the dog kind we're going to pick the the dog genes for the dog kind and then the bear kind We're going to pick bear genes for the bear kind And of course those bear genes are going to be pretty similar to the dog genes because both bears and dogs kind of have similar lifestyles And that's why yeah, there's a lot of commonality. Is that the idea? So to an extent they are similar. Yes. Yeah So there's a problem with that Uh convergent evolution completely discounts the idea of common design allowing uh explaining why common morphology and common genetics would be Consistent. Yes. In general, we we see that but convergent evolution completely under Guards that that uh that that issue. So if I could share my screen real quick Um, I got a few slides. I want to share Okay Hopefully that's up great, so um We can compare the genomes and the the the genetic sequence of various genes right now I kind of walk through this how say the human Certain genes and within humans are similar to the way they are in chimpanzees and of course with the phylogenetic Challenge is that you can compare to outgroups, right? We can compare like rodents to each other So this is a mouse and then this is a rat and we're talking about the potassium channel the uh version 2.6.2 Okay, so the thing about this is that um the creationists believe that there was like a single Kind of mouse that was on the ark. Um, now myomorphs is the superfamily of that the myrimoid is the Are actually the myomorphs is the order myroids are the superfamily Um, I know that the answers in genesis says that the myroids were a single kind that was on the ark Um within myomorphs we have 1,524 different species within the myroids that's on the order of around 1,300 different species Anyway, these are all mouse like rodents and We have this many different species within 4,400 years And creationists believe that all these species came about from a single pair that was on the ark This includes animals like just sure just to add so I don't I just want to establish I don't claim to know how many mice or rodent like Kinds there were on the ark. It could have been one pair. It could have been three or four or five or six Um, especially if you're bringing on baby mice, they're probably not taking up too much space now that would be Very different than what answers in genesis says that's okay I don't know if it's just three or four or five or six that it really changes things too much though So here's a bunch of different rodents, right? There's a bunch of rodents on the screen We've got the mouse. We've got the rat. You've got this guy the jackalus jackalus Although this isn't a myroid. This is in the myomorphs Gerbils and voles you believe that all rodents came from a single kind or I guess maybe a couple of different kinds But mice the rodents look like rodents, right? And of course we can also talk about moles that moles look like moles, right? Everything on here is a mole and carnivores look like carnivores, right? We've got dogs and bears and Foxes and here's a dog bear and a wolf, right? So, you know carnivores look similar and so they have similar form And so if we go back to the rodents here and if we just start doing genetic comparisons within this If we're going to compare the the potassium ion channel 1.1 to others if we compare the mouse to itself Obviously, that's a hundred percent But if you compare the mouse to the other rodents, you know, it's also very very similar around 99.6 Similar if you're comparing it at the protein level now when you compare the mouse Protein of kv 1.1 to humans. It's 98 percent, right? It's an outgroup So it's going to be different But the thing is we have these guys over here and their similarity is much less It's 95 similar. So there's it's so very similar But it's even less than humans despite the fact that these things look like rodents And we can do this for other potassium ion channels, right kv 2.1 We compare the mouse to the other rodents. It's around 96 percent or so 95 percent, but if you compare it to to humans now it's around 93 percent, right? That's the outgroup But if you compare it to these guys Now it's 85 percent and 84 percent and you can do this for every single gene in the genome Now we're looking at kv 6.2 Right mouse to these other guys is around 94 percent to humans. It's around 90 percent But to these guys it is around 70 percent now. Nathan I know you know the answer to this But i'm curious if jamie happens to know why these two guys over here Despite the fact that they look so much like rodents Have this genetic similarity and protein similarity that's so much different worse than humans All right, so there's a couple of points I'd like to make to that argument The first point is answers and genesis is not the end all be all for creation science research Okay, just like how there's millions of or there's thousands of different a biogenesis professors that it can't agree on anything I could use that all day to say hey, your guys don't know what they're talking about But it's the same thing with creation. We have different people that have different perspectives Now as far as as far as what we're looking at with the comparison between the dna First off the dna in itself is incredibly complex and we're still barely scratching the surface But as far as the argument you made in regards to why are some mice more similar than other mice? Well, there's a couple of variables that go into this that are not just about germline We have their food source their habitat There's different things that can affect the dna other than just germline So the fact that you're trying to narrow it down to just the germline is It's a little Disingenuous to be honest because I mean, you know that no, it's not just ingenuous And I'm not talking about germline here, right? I mean we're talking about heritability I suppose germline is involved right can't reproduce without the germline But we're seeing a pattern across these three genes and you can do it for every single gene in the genome Where the mouse is going to be very similar to the other rodents It's going to be less similar to humans But then it's even less similar to these other two animals That even though that these other two animals look basically just like the rodents and they live like rodents and they behave like rodents And I will give you a hint as to what it is. I'll reveal it So these other rodents are um, not rodents. In fact, they are marsupials They're marsupials that live and look an awful lot like rodents. They have a rodent morphology But they are marsupials and so of course most marsupials don't look a lot like rodents, right? We have the Tasmanian devil here. You've got the the bush tail possum. You've got the koala You've got the wombat And the thing is if you take one of the rodent the the the marsupials that I was showing you before And if you compare its kv 1.1 the potassium voltage gated ion channel to these other marsupials a wombat a koala The Tasmanian devil it's around like 99 some percent similar but if you compare it to Things that look I virtually identical to it. They are less similar They are around 95 percent verse similar versus 99 per similar and you can do the same thing for all the other genes We can look at kv 2.1 again comparing this guy to these You know marsupials that look nothing like this are much much more similar on the protein and gene level Then they are two animals that look a lot like it, right 85 percent similar versus 99 percent similar And you can do this for other things now, of course, you might say well, that's an opossum, right? So of course opossums aren't rodents Of course, I would say that this is an opossum that looks and acts exactly like a rodent So you would expect it to have rodent genes, but there is a marsupial mouse So there's a marsupial mouse that looks basically exactly like a mouse Its genome is not fully sequenced. So we can't really compare it to other ones But we can we have some of the genes and its genome is very similar to wombats And Tasmanian devils and koalas and kangaroos much more so than it is to things that look identical to it like the mouse You know the rat the the deer mouse the gerbil right 65 versus 80 percent similar And you can do this for other animals. So I also pointed out the moles moles look very similar But one of these moles is actually a marsupial mole It you would think it would have a mole genes But when we compare the the marsupial mole gene for this particular gene and you compare it to these other moles Um, you can see it's around 70 to 75 similar But when you compare the marsupial mole to Other marsupials that look nothing like a mole like a wombat and a koala and a tasmanian devil It's around 95 similar Could keep doing this for all the other marsupials and the reason why is because of convergent evolution the uh, uh the continent of australia was uh was um Before you go to that point, uh, dr. Thompson I'd like to try to give them a chance to get back in on this a little bit Yeah, because I wanted to do like so much about um Yeah, so uh, crit that uh picture that wombat was so looks so cool. It's huge. It looks like cuddly I'll be nice, please wombat. Um, but uh, so um, I do think that Uh, I just wanted to point out that here you do talk about how genetic Uh, there's genetic similarity with some that look same Maybe on the outside they look like a mouse or they have a similar skeletal structure Uh, but then you get into how there is how these similar looks can also have Differences in genes yet also when talking about like a champ you're doing similar genes as well so it seems like you they're they're It's it is possible depending on what you're looking at you can lay out similarities and show how similarities can be grouped together to Um to look closer related but you can also group things together so that similarities can appear to uh branch off into into different animal groups and I I do think maybe a reason why certain um marsupials uh have similar rodent features or functions uh or moles might have something to do with um like the uh potato famine in ireland, uh, there was just one like type of potato that got the all the potatoes got wiped out because Uh, they they just they they were there was a plague basically the potatoes got destroyed And so if you had something that came through and wiped out An entire population like say all of the rats got wiped out Or all the moles got wiped out of uh the existence of a region If you have these marsupials that can still perform the same function You're going to be able to have the the roles that a mole carries out like tailing the ground or doing these things They're going to still be able to contribute to the ecosystem So it would almost be like covering Okay, if If we do lose this this creature, we're going to have another creature that is genetically different enough to not be affected by something But can still contribute to the ecosystem so that role is not being Yeah, it's it'd be like a backup So you say that Jesus made Backup animals and that's why marsupials have Genetics that's more similar to each other But different from their counterparts that are placentals Despite the fact that they look so similar. So it's so now it's not about the the way you're going to explain away The fact that they have common design similar design right similar shape and morphology But very different genomes is so that we have a backup just in case I believe god I'd like to let jamie try to get in there and respond to that Then after jamie responds if snake could respond to whatever jamie says that'd be great. That's fine so The the whole argument you made with comparative with comparative genetics Is I mean really you're just showing design features. You're showing that You know, yeah, there are some animals that look different, but they have similar features Well, if we go and compare these similar genetics We're like for instance, whatever gene Causes the fur. Well, yeah, that's going to be similar because they both have fur that is similar to each other So you're you're comparing things and saying oh, there's similarities. So therefore they evolve Whereas there's it could be used for the same argument for variations Another point I like to make is you like to say these marsupials and these rodents look similar So therefore that proves evolution, but that's based on a human made classification system That's constantly changing. Okay. You still don't even know where to put the platypus So like you don't have a solid you don't have a solid classification system And you're basing all of this on the way that your classification system is structured So again, that's an assumption based on evolution the entire lineas the carol the entire lineas careless lineas classification system is based on an evolutionary assumption whereas Creationist we are working on our own on our own classification system with the kinds But to this day, it's not nearly funded as much as it should be. So we haven't progressed as much as we would like Um, yeah, so carolis lineas was a creationist not So it's not based on evolution. It is based on comparative anatomy and More modern ones have brought in comparative genomics and these trees are not necessarily saying They are the lines don't mean related. They mean that it just means similarity Of course, we do draw the conclusion that they are related, but these are different things But you didn't seem to understand the point at all that uh, dr. Thompson laid out the point there was that There is no pattern of common genes for common parts or common designs. So we have the mole body plan From the creationist prediction should predict that they would have similar genes for the similar parts for the similar bodies for the similar lifestyle But that's not what we see at all That was that that was the point, right? You could do it right, but what you're doing though But here's what you're doing though. You're saying that based on The come based on the similarities we should expect this But what you're doing is you're trying to limit Whatever our creator decided to use to make these things. However Just dna in itself is Spectacularly complicated and you guys barely understand the the ins and outs of dna as it is I mean like for example, you brought up chromosome 2 fusion, right? The chromosome 2 fusion is missing majority of the of the chromosomes that it or not chromosomes I can't remember the actual terminology of it, but it's supposed to be like 40,000 40,000 dna pair sequences or something like that And it's only 800 and then on top of that How do you answer two chromosomes clashing together morphing and somehow becoming functional? These are very complex dna. This is very complex dna And you're saying that's if you just morph together and all of a sudden it still works No, most of the times we see something more if it's going to fail So we know that this happened in foxes because great I mean there's a requirement that you guys need to have some common ancestry for certain kinds I've never seen anyone dispute that foxes are related to other foxes And yet we have different chromosome fusions and chromosome breakages within them because almost every single fox species has a different number of chromosomes So we know based on creationist assumptions That that happened And then you're just kind of saying That the creator did it and just assuming it had a good reason So so there is a definite Difference in the methodologies that are going on here One is in fact science and one is just assumptions with no evidence I wouldn't say that necessarily though because yours is all based on assumptions as well See you're trying to say we don't make any assumptions But every single one of your conclusions is based off of an assumption You see the same data we look at we make an assumption you make an assumption and then you say our assumption is correct So let's call it a hypothesis one hypothesis is able to make predictions That come true successfully the other I just showed one of the predictions fails Your hypothesis always fails and has no scientific use. That's not that's not 100 true either I can give you probably three examples off the top of my head where the bible was correct And it took us thousands of years to figure that out germline theory came from the bible Oceans under the crust of the earth y'all rejected that for thousands of years Y'all rejected that for thousands of years and then guess what we found oceans under the crust of the earth There's plenty of yes germ theory washing your hands came from the bible disease that came from the bible Yes, the book that's an accurate the book that says to cure leprosy You dip a living bird in a dead bird's blood and spray it on your wall Okay, so see this is disingenuous of you because you know that that's a god intervention miracle All of the sacrifices that were done in the bible Okay, well then don't talk about the bible if you don't know the bible The example you just used is an example of god intervening on behalf of a sacrifice. Okay, that's not science Okay, now there here's the thing that's we don't we don't say We don't say that all of the bible is scientific because not all of it is scientific Some of it is miracles based on the creator that does not have to be limited by his creation Based on what however, however, whatever you can't show that it's a miracle Oh Your standard of evidence is completely skewed right you want us to have such an unreasonably high standard of evidence But you want me to accept that it's a miracle based on Well, the miracles are things we don't observe Yeah, I'd like to get mason to go ahead and respond and then go ahead and back to dr. Thompson. Sure If you have a miracle that happens like jesus walking on water defies what we know about physics That would be a miracle or when he turned water into wine These are miracles. These are things that are outside of the realm of science because science does not work on miracles Evolution is reliant on one being a genesis. It applies 100 of all observations ever made But miracles are outside of the realm of science And so the bible does have things that are our miracles. There are our kind of moral and ethnic things in there there are are Philosophical things but then there are claims in the bible that are scientifically testable And then those are still valid to this day that which is why science can't falsify the bible the bible isn't uh in entirely a science book and Should it it shouldn't be taught in science as a premise in science classes because I I think it's not Uh There are not everyone subscribes to it. You can't force people to believe anything But claims that are in the bible that are scientific are one thing no philosophy or belief in origin Should be taught in science, but we do have that at all of us are supporting evolution being taught in science with our taxes um despite that being a belief in origin and belief in cosmology and life so I think that the the scientific claims of the bible are are still true to this day Like washing your hands before chris thompson hops on I want to kind of add to what he just said and i'll be short Because you said that we hold you to a higher standard than the bible And that's not true. We hold the bible to a very high standard But the reason we hold evolution to such a high standard is because you claim it's a scientific fact We don't claim the bible is a scientific fact You claim evolution is a scientific fact So if you want to make that claim now you're held to the standard of a scientific fact Okay, so we're using it as science right where we can make testable predictions Based on observations that we can see in nature and that sometimes those hypotheses fail For instance one time when it failed was when there was this uh, you know When we were initially trying to figure out the number of chromosomes that we're going to be in the great apes We assume that the other great apes are going to have 23 chromosomes because we you know We already had very good reason to believe that they are you know recent You know there was a recent common ancestor for all all the great apes Turns out that they had an extra pair of chromosomes And so then from there that so that's a failure of a hypothesis So then you have to go back to the drawing board. This is what science is about You're like, all right. So why did that fail? Well, let's make another prediction And there was a specific prediction before we knew had any evidence to support it That there was going to be a chromosome fusion to explain it that within humans there would be one chromosome That would be compared, you know, that would be similar to two chromosomes within chimps and orangutans and gorillas So, you know, it's just it's a it's a corrective mechanism that allows us to understand the world And I think it's great science changes and adapts as it learns new evidence Religion doesn't you have the conclusion at the end you have a conclusion that you are drawing and you will deny everything that That that contradicts it and you will cherry pick little tiny bits and pieces to try to support it or just say it was a miracle This is why it's true. Can I ask a hypothetical question? um So if you had like an incubator full of worms and you Increase the temperature a couple degrees Maybe add some humidity um When are those worms based on because creation would predict those worms are going to stay worms When would these worms become? Something else like when would they when might one become a type of insect or like a beetle or a type of fish? well, because that that would be a prediction that um Is it's not able to be made because it's not a random It's not a novel prediction evolution. That's consistent with evolution too Right. You're not going to predict that Raise the the humidity and temperature on an on a box of worms that they're going to give birth to fish um Shouldn't they slowly maybe evolve limbs that start kind of popping out of the side and then the limbs turn into fins There's an issue of in within um, you know within life of Canalization and that you're trapped within your phylogeny. So it's not possible for a You know a worm to give birth to a fish like that is not going to happen Gradualism and uniformitarianism is the process and there has to be selection pressure on variation that can exist within a population That allows for that change to occur now We see this we can see this even within kinds to an extraordinary level within the canids Right the dogs the foxes and the wolves. There's a Extraordinary variability that we see even just amongst the south american canids, right? We've got the main wolf which eats fruit You've got a very similar canid or on the genetic level, but it looks incredibly different called the bush dog Which is one of the very few exclusively meat eating um mammals outside of the felines And and they're very very similar to each other you have a crab eating fox that that lives in south america Um, and you've got another fox that has webbed feet because it actually goes out and swims and hunts for fish And these are all animals that you know genetically if we could use molecular clocking dating to figure out When was the last common ancestor for them is around three million years ago? Which is only around 30 percent of when the um the entire canid uh lineage would have to uh evolved Right, so I just want to make what is the what is the standard of scientific evidence? Sorry, what what is the standard of scientific evidence that that? We can agree upon Is anything that I presented something we can agree on? So hold on i'll i'll respond to that because basically what you're asking is what will I accept as evidence for evolution, right? That's what you want to know Partially, but what is what is the standard we can apply to anything? Okay, so first before we switch over to that topic Uh chris thompson brought up phylogeny and I think this is probably the one thing that all evolutionists should avoid Because what you're saying is based on the laws of monophiley and phylogeny moving forward a worm will never create a fish But when we go backwards in time We have all these animals that came from a single celled organism. So see you're you're contradicting yourself You're saying that it happened in the past, but it'll never happen in the future. That's contradiction now What you said uh snake like what can we agree upon so that we can work together, right? I would say You need to be able to observe or at least observe enough to make an assumption So by that standard, I would not accept reconstructions as evidence But if you can observe enough to make a reasonable assumption, then I'll accept the observation Then you need to be able to test that observation Study the changes of that to see if it's beneficial or harmful because most of the time Mutations are harmful and actually lead to the opposite of benefitting It ends up devolving or deteriorating instead of progressing and then from there then you can make a final conclusion But what you guys normally do and I know this because I read the papers I've gone very extensively over that nature paper that me and you are going to be debating next week Um, but what they do is they first start with an evolutionary assumption And then they base their observations their study their testing and their final conclusion on the observation That was made before they even started any of this Now I think too that we we do have oh go ahead say it Well, if you were you going to respond about phylogeny? Um Well, I was gonna I wanted to address something that chris had said about uh foxes and then also to with uh Like what we can agree on for science like I do think there has to be An observation that you make um or an idea that you have you set up a hypothesis You set up an apparatus or uh conditions to test this and then you Run the experiments you get your results you make a conclusion And then from there whatever that conclusion is you then can make an interpretation on it and infer Based on what your world view is And like I do believe that someone who has been taught evolution Through uh higher levels of school even through public school through high school You're going to be going with an evolution world view because that's the lens that you have But I think the conclusions are made off of the experiment and the data And then our interpretation gets put on it The world view itself can be tested so Um by the nature of the claim it's stuff to happen in the past and stuff that takes a long time to happen So we can't witness it directly ignoring the fact that technically we you could say that we have a video of life history Because rocks are images and we can sequence these images and that's what a video is but um so It seems like you guys have kind of a vague Standard of evidence observe enough to make an assumption. Well, the question is what is what is enough? so Can you accept that prediction is a standard of Uh scientific evidence Uh, yeah, you should be able to make make predictions at points predictions can be wrong But being able to make predictions isn't that uh helps strengthen the um If you if you make a prediction on on something it's it becomes more It becomes stronger evidence because it has predictionary ability Yeah, so as far as predictions go I would also add to that you can make predictions all you want I actually encourage you to make predictions But if you're altering the data to fit the predictions, that's when it's disingenuous And that's what we see a lot of the time. I mean, how many how many uh fraudulent fossil formations Can we bring up that show that hey? They they fraudulently made a creature that did not exist to prove their prediction. We see that all the time Are you talking about tectonic? Oh, no, I'm not talking about like I'm talking about um, Nebraska man We can go through all of there's tons of them. But yes, I recently accused the Scientists that described and found the tectonic fossil of fraud Yeah, I wasn't gonna say that I do believe that was a fraudulent piece because there was a skull And then a couple a couple of distance a distance away on different layers. They found a body They combined them together. So yeah, that's just Didn't happen That's absolutely what happened. No, it's not what happened. Did you have you read the paper? Yeah, well the paper is based on their evolutionary assumption and of course if they fraudulently put together a fossil They're not going to admit that in their paper I even showed a picture of one of the tectonic fossils that is partially embedded in rock Right. So they didn't it wasn't a combination It's half of it's still in the rock fully articulated that which means that it's together No, because if you look at the pictures of the fossils You can look up the pictures from the museum the guy that discovered him is holding a box with the fossils There's three separate pieces and when you look up the reason when you look up the paper of his discovery He actually says the skull was found here and then the body was found here. It doesn't say that It absolutely does it says it does not. No, it doesn't it says that there are three specimens Yeah, that photo is fully articulated. Yes, that's fully That's a reconstruction. That's a cast of reconstruction. That's not a fully articulated. It's a cast but it's it's a cast Of a reconstruction, not of a reconstruction. They put together the pieces and then formed a cast out of that That's not the original animal. No, they found it articulated They found three specimens that were fully articulated and then they found a total of around 30 specimens Of bits and pieces. Okay. And so the video that you may have seen of bits and pieces of like a skull here A public girdle there other things that might have been what you've seen, but they had around 30 specimens They describe That there are 30 specimens and they have three of them which are fully articulated So not only was the formation of the the morphology of this creature predicted But the the sequence of between which fossils was predicted and precisely which actual rock date range Was also predicted. That's not let's you can't just do that by chance And this has been done for fossil after fossil after fossil Well, you can take something like tectolic. You can say that That the creator would use a spectrum in creating the creator is going to make Things that have long limbs things that have short limbs things that have longer tails or spur tails things that like A whale or a dolphin that breathes through the top of its head a creator is going to say hey I'll make these these sea creatures that can go up to the surface and and put on a show for the people that are on boats It's it's in The the creator is capable And all all loving all capable creator is is able to make a wide variety of of different kinds of creatures with different skeletal systems And maybe why we don't have some of them today is because of the flood changes in the environment Things like that and and maybe even like big creatures. Maybe we're hunted. So You could you could say that you can accommodate the data like that, but that hypothesis doesn't Get us anywhere. It doesn't it didn't find the fossils. It doesn't predict anything specific And evolution does so using a hypothesis You can if we know how it works or if we can predict how it works then we know how it works Right and you made a specific prediction of common Morphology means common design which must mean that the genes must be similar too, which is why That's your explanation for why like bear genomes and wolf genomes are similar more similar than they are to primates Because they have a similar morphology Of course, that's consistent with the With the basic phylogenetic tree But it doesn't take into account the example that I showed of convergent evolution where you have common morphology But very different genetics underlying well for Part of the genome that is 80 percent 80 percent is still Um, you know pretty it's not like it's only five percent of a genome. It's still a pretty big number like 80 percent is a good amount Um, I'm sure what you're talking about during that For for like the gene cones with the with the rodents versus the marsupials Oh, well, it depends on what gene you're talking about right some genes You know can tolerate only a certain level of mutation that can be inherited And so they're going to have much higher similarity across disparate groups than um, than other genes Which can tolerate a certain rate of mutation and so we see variation But when you compare a marsupial genome to a Uh placental genome, uh, it's always going to be different no matter what it'll be much more different than if you compare amongst Within uh placentals like if you compare within rodents, it's gonna, you know, the rodents are gonna be much Placental birth and creatures are going to have genes to be able to to do that. That's just one thing Yeah, and speaking of uh, so okay, actually I want to ask a question Um regarding creationist predictions So you guys believe that noa had a pairs of animals on the ark And this was 4,400 years ago. I believe according to your time frame So they're you know according to the answers in genesis. It was around 1,300 some different kinds Um, I know that there were the clean animals you had seven pairs But there's a single pair one male one female for these other kinds So I've already pointed out that that means within a single kind you you're gonna have to have speciation on a on a rapid rate So much faster than you could possibly imagine that you're gonna have what I think there's like 38 different species of canids Within so that means from one dog kind we have the 38 different species of foxes and wolves And and and the dogs right so um, but you can go even further to other um, you know huge range of different species amongst birds and Reptiles within a single kind and it's and becomes Impossible to explain it, but one problem is inbreeding. So a single pair Means you have one male and one female within a kind How did they avoid inbreeding depression with a single pair? All right, uh, so let me just go ahead and touch on that right quick Yeah, let me touch on that. Um, so as far as inbreeding goes today Inbreeding is a major problem because of the deterioration of our genetics However in the original creation and roughly a thousand years after when the flood happened The dna was not as deteriorated So inbreeding was not a problem if you read the bible and actually study the science behind it You'll see that it was okay to marry close relatives up to a certain point The really the deterioration of genetics would have started after the flood because before the flood The earth was created in a way that prevented dna Deterioration, uh, the other thing you know, that doesn't make any sense. How do you know that doesn't make sense? No, it doesn't because I'm not claiming this to be a hundred percent science But based on the creation models, this is what we would predict and it actually makes sense because when we get over to Mutations like you were saying Um, as you see the or speciation. I'm sorry as you see speciation Uh, we have you ever heard of Amsterdam island? Amsterdam island. No, no, okay. So Amsterdam island is the least of the least affected island on the planet by human beings There are a couple of scientific observatories there But like the population is like 10 people for this giant island, right? And what they do there is they have animals on this island that they just naturally observe and they're testing speciation rates They're not for trying to promote creation. They're not trying to promote evolution They're just seeing how animals interact without human intervention And when they calculate the speciation rates the speciation rates are a lot faster than evolution would predict So based on the speciation rates we see on Amsterdam island And according to your millions of years timeline, we should see Way more animals than we see today Well, why why is the island unique compared to the rest of the world? Well, the reason that i'm using that as an example is because it's somewhere where humans are not manipulating the dna So what we can see for example is we have I don't even know how many dogs we have now. There's like 400 types of dogs, right? But every single dog variation has human intervention in it It has the ecosystems affecting it because of all the pollution and buildings that we're making and you know There's ecological effects that we put on these animals. So those are the Yeah, those would be our artificial pressures that we're putting on it But then we're also taking these animals and artificially selecting what what parts of the genes we want However on amsterdam island. This is a beautiful example of untouched variations and untouched speciation as you would use I would use the word speciation. You would use the word barrier. Sorry other way around you guys would use speciation I would use variation But they're not they're not manipulating the animals the ecosystem is basically untouched by humans So they can see it naturally occurring right, but the speciation rates don't line up with evolutionary timelines So there's there's not one speciation rate. There's within the Model of evolution. There's punctuated equilibrium. So there are periods of very rapid speciation And very slow speciation and this to can depend on the environment And the environmental pressures. So this is expected I'm going to go to the flood to to like the animals coming off the flood They're also going to be guided by god those animals were led by god to the ark They're going to be led by god off the ark cared for by god until they're able to get to where they're going Spread the pilot. How do you know that I can protect the protect the gene code It how do you know that well because that's what the bible says so The bible doesn't say that god protected the gene code Well, no, that's actually I'm doing a bible study on every single verse of genesis and that's exactly what it says God selected which animals he wanted on there because he wanted to preserve the seed of the planet. It doesn't say that Where does it say that? Uh, it's in genesis. Let's see. I'm on chapter seven. So I believe it was on chapter six I don't chapter six is where it says it. It doesn't say that god picked The particular animals to go on that's exactly what it says So clearly you have not taken the time to observe the bible read it today Yeah, go look at chapter six. It's either chapter six or chapter seven And it says that god selected the animals that were going to go off the ark. No, it didn't have to go get the No, it didn't have to go get them god brought. So wait, how did that happen? How did that happen? God led the animals to the ark and we don't know what we don't know how many different kinds of dogs or types of Dog like creatures were brought to the ark. So we don't know Exactly how many there of each kind there was what gene pools are where to work with right? So how would it god do that? Yeah, so the question I really want to answer that question because I think you'll find this very interesting because Sorry, can I answer this question right quick before we move on?  Okay So I I have recently picked up the hobby of deer hunting, right? And what I've learned with deer hunting is that the deer follow a magnetic pattern of the earth based on the moon So the deer's migration patterns are based on the magnetism on the magnetism that comes from the moon I forgot the actual term of it, but if you ask any deer hunter, they will tell you that They watch the charts of the moon because that will tell them where the deer are going to migrate So if animals can be influenced by the magnetism of the earth Then why wouldn't god be able to control the magnetism to to divert them on the path? They need to go to get to Noah's ark but So you're saying that god would have used the the magnetic lines across the earth and manipulated those lines Using built-in magnum perception, which we know not all animals have only some of them do And we know some of the neuroscience underlying it too Um that that was the mechanism by which god drew the animals to the ark Well, I'm not saying that's the only one right and it would only be two of them right because wouldn't all the animals respond Yeah, so here's the thing. I'm not saying every single animal. I'm not saying every single animal was based on that I mean, honestly, we could leave it at god has the power to do whatever he wants within his creation But that's one of the that's one of the scientific responses to that question Is that we know the animals can be no herded based on the magnetism of the earth But how does that apply to a male and a female?  It's all capable Okay, but it's it's a it's a miraculous intervention. Supernatural intervention is not neuroscience Okay magic. Yeah, should we move on to the q&a now? Um, do we get uh Sorry Do we get any closing statements or anything? Uh, that wasn't part of the uh format that I saw but if you guys wanted to do one I could give you guys each a like what do you say, uh two three minutes I'd be okay with that. Yeah, if everyone's okay with that. Yeah, sure All good everybody. Okay. All right. Sounds good. We'll do closing statements. Um Uh, I believe that the uh evolution side went first uh at the beginning so the evolution should go first at the uh, We we opened Right, are you open? sorry If you guys open then I want you guys to go first so they can get the last word. I just like two minutes. It's just Two minutes good per person or total Each person. Okay. Yeah, that's fine Okay, great Um, so, uh, if a creation went first at the beginning then let's let creation go first now so the evolution could get the last word so Nathan if you want to go have the first one by all means um, yeah, so, um Chris did bring up foxes and and the diversity of eating that they have and I do I did want to address that that Depending on what you eat can change. Um, certain things within your anatomy I believe there was a lizard that was brought from one island of strictly vegetation to an island where there was Insects and they actually developed like a flap in their intestinal tract to be able to Handle the where they're getting they were getting their nutrients from so you can get changes based on what you're eating humans Can change their gut microbiome with the foods that they eat whether they're eating uh Animals or plants depends on how well they can handle tmao Uh, and so there are things that you can do that change your morphology or your anatomy your your gut microbiome And things like that. Uh, so those changes are are there. Um, but I I did want to say that uh, these are um there there are Essentially what we are doing here is these are our two uh philosophies that are trying to explain and interpret what we see as science and the really the the big thing that I really want to make here is is Working together collaborating with people to really get the best interpretations to help propel humanity forward Is what we need we need to know who we are that we're all equal or to know that we are um Here together we should take care of one another and animal mindsets can leak into certain people's thoughts and everything and they can um The military uses and everything that's why I opened with it is is the the main thing that like why i'm here is to Like I want to know the truth and everything but I think we all need to treat one another better in society We have all these things going on that uh, I think if if people Understood that we were specially created that um people's mindsets would change You wouldn't be so likely to want to attack somebody because you want their stuff or you have some vendetta against them And so I really just want to thank everyone for uh the respectful discussion and um the politeness and everything So and everyone for the time and for hopefully listening with an open mind and hopefully we all learn Awesome things tonight um for both sides so All right, and jimmy your two minutes starts at your first word All right, so those are a lot of things that we didn't really get to talk about so I'm just going to kind of try and cover as many of them as I can before the timer runs out Um first scientific method defined by philosophy. That's the exact quote that you took uh, taylor You defined it from a source of philosophy not a source of science Uh age of the earth there's a lot of built-in assumptions to that as far as radiometric dating goes The age of the earth cannot be relied on based on radiometric dating alone Because that's based on the assumption that the earth has already hit its equilibrium of 50 000 years So of course according to your timeline, you would say that it already has but that's an assumption you use to make that argument Uh, the next thing was you said that creation is based on a feeling and I would say that's just like evolution You have a feeling that these things evolve and then you start making all your predictions based on that Uh, the next thing was a comparative anatomy. Obviously comparative anatomy. We can make the exact same argument common design Fossil record, um, to me that's proof of a flood. How else do you explain rapid burial in large amounts of sediments? Where are the erosion layers between all of these layers? We should see erosion marks throughout all of these layers Um, another thing that I put for a notes on there So I didn't forget is why didn't all these animals rot before they fossilized because today We don't see any animals fossilized. They rot they get eaten They get picked up by vultures was it just because vultures didn't exist lots of flaws there Again now as far as the variation goes and speciation goes there's limits to the gene pool Just like you said a worm will never become a fish Just like I always say that a fish will never become a bird So therefore all of your trees of life should be thrown in the trash because we both agree that there are variations to the gene pool You'll never see a lion jump out of its gene pool and start taking up the characteristics of a pterodactyl or of a Giant bird that I can't think of off the top of my head Another thing was baromenology y'all like to hark on baromenology and say that oh, it's so it's so terrible It has so many flaws But the thing is baromenology is still in the process of learning just like a lot of your fields of science are So therefore I don't think it's fair that you should expect it to be a professionally Put together a piece of work when we have very low funding for it And there's still a lot of work that needs to be done just like a lot of your fields And I only got through about half so yeah All right, uh evolution team, uh, whichever one of you wants to go first at your first word Uh What do you prefer Taylor? You want to go first? Sure. I'll just go yeah So yeah, there is a philosophy to science. Um, because there is we had to think up a method To figure out how things work. So that is and you guys agreed to that that to these criteria for science Um, so which is better? Um Which whichever one produces results is better and more scientific I don't think evolutionary conclusions make us treat people badly. In fact, life being Um, temporary makes it more valuable. Um So we there are predictions that can't be confirmed that you gave reading in the past wouldn't be a problem Um, did I just get muted? Sorry, um Uh, so there so there's preclusionary evidence for um creation, um The heat problem in fact Is makes creation impossible Um, and it also confirms radiometric dating because if radiometric dating is wrong Then we have a heat problem and the earth doesn't exist anymore. It's just a molten ball of lava And life definitely doesn't exist. So you guys agreed that we don't have to witness something directly in order to confirm it scientifically I agree. Um, you say we have to observe enough to make um, a good inference Um successful predictions reliably is is scientific Enough to make these inferences um And so let's just compare for a second the difference in the evidence so We had from both interlocutors here explained things based on we said feelings and and mostly miracles so on the other hand evolution has Tons of data tons of predictions Testable predictions and while some of that data might have some minor holes That's still mountains of evidence and no miracles. No magic. No Nothing like that and is meets the scientific definition. So thank you All right. Thank you so much. Nick and dr. Toxin Great. So I would thank modern day debates for having me here guys doing a great job And also our you know our opponents. It's been a good discussion pretty You know hot and heated in a couple of places, but very respectful For for the most part, which is really great. So, you know, the thing that I will say though is something that Taylor laid out really great in your introduction as well as um, you know I've mentioned as well that this the creationist mindset is one that is Uh, where the it's begging the question that you have a conclusion that you want to draw And you will go out and find the evidence to support that and that is it and you're going to ignore all Proclusionary evidence. You're going to try to explain it away and anything that interrupts or makes it Basically impossible for that model to work is then explained with completely non-natural mechanisms and as we highlighted there are so many So many problems in the creationist model. It just does not make sense With the evidence that is out there The evidence is completely consistent with the idea that the earth is old That there was descent with modification That natural selection is a process that can work on random mutation in a non-random way to generate novelty within kinds Right, we all agree within kinds. There's some incredible novelty that has occurred But where does the kind end and you know, taylor laid it out really great on you get to the roots They are similar and now you're within a another kind as you go back and past And that is the point of gradualism that you are trapped within your phylogeny But it will change over time depending upon selection pressures that you know an organism a group of organisms faces in the environment I mean at any good answers from creationists on the the problems with their theory And mostly it's a reversion to magic. So I'm going to leave it there. Thanks again for everyone listening Uh, you know, I've got a youtube channel as well. You can see the link in the description Um, I talk about neuroscience and this kind of thing too. So All right, awesome. So we will go ahead and kick it over to the q&a section I want to remind everybody that if you have a question or a comment for one of tonight's debaters Fire into the live chat and tag me at modern day debate. Of course, the superchats will be read first they will get priority and When I tell everybody that we will have an after show on my channel That link is also in the description below and if you like what you heard from any of the tonight's guests Please don't hesitate to click their links. So with that, we will go ahead and move into the q&a And let me go ahead and pull up the first question I have for our debaters This one comes in from bubblegum gun. That's for uh, two dollars. Thank you so much bubblegum They say to chris 1v1 me on mdd already. Why are you running? I You know, I don't I don't think underneath he wants that and I think I'd rather pull my pull my eyes out, but uh You could argue with anyone here, right bubblegum on the origin of dogs. Uh, because I think we all agree that They have awful wolves So hey chris, I'll I would like to say that this is one thing me and you can solidly agree All right All right, got another one from bubblegum gun for two dollars. They say christians are evolutionists light not creationists Coming at you creatioists our evolutionists are creationists. What? Yeah, he thinks that christians are evolutionists Yeah Yeah, what about the people that say that creationists believe in like a hyper evolution because of the 4400 year Like right. Yeah, so I don't you've never met bubblegum But bubblegum literally believes that like every single animal on the earth never evolved Uh, there's no variations in the gene pool even though we can test that Uh, so yeah, he's like very Um, polytheistic or something like that. I don't know but when he boils down to it. He's a satanist He thinks every dog species was separately created Yeah, his god is chaos. He admits it. So yeah, he's a satanist that pretends that he believes in the creator all kinds Oh, right So another one from mcgribius for 499, uh, I think pounds to jayme You said we've never seen life come from non life quote unquote We've never seen a god create life from nothing either. Why the double standard? Well, it's not a double standard because again I'm not saying that it's our religion is 100 fact There are scientific aspects to our religion that cannot be disproven And we can make predictions based on the bible that do come true A perfect example that I mentioned earlier was the fact that we predicted there'd be oceans under the earth And guess what there's oceans under the earth for a long time Creationists and atheists thought that that was absurd and they called us nuts until they found the oceans under the earth So there are things that can be proven in the bible by science But overall the book is still a religious book. There are aspects to it that are Things that were affected by god's intervention. And that's what we call a miracle Um, so again, it's not a double standard because I'm not claiming the bible is 100 scientific fact However evolution is so therefore they have a higher standard to stand up to Got it. Can I add something to that real quick? Sure My only So we we claim that ours is a faith Not that ours is a science So there's a difference between a standard for science claims versus faith claims And I just wanted to add this because I think it's very important We claim to take the bible on faith Because how can you claim to love god who you cannot see if you cannot show that fellow that love to your fellow man Who you can see so it's very important that we do have faith in the creator and it's not A knowledge or something that we can prove it, but we also don't claim to want to teach god in science classes Yeah, and so so evolution meets the standard of sciences But what it seems like is you guys dial up the standard past that which is Accepted in science just to to try and make evolution not Be able to meet that. Do you guys want to have the last word real quick? Well if you're gonna I was just so like if you're gonna claim to be a science the people don't disagree with evolution as in Changes in a gene pool over time that happened But people do disagree with darwinian evolution and common ancestor And if evolution is going to be a science all the way through Going back into the origin of life is one thing that that has to happen having an increase in both order and energy At the same time have spontaneous or has to happen And and so those are things that are If you're gonna claim evolution is a natural science all the way through those all have to be naturally demonstrated and they have never been demonstrated Yeah, and to add to that just like you guys will reject cosmic evolution stellar evolution a biogenesis You want to object all of those but then still say that evolution is possible We accept variations. We would prefer not to call it microevolution Solution we accept five stages are all fairy tales based on your fate Got it. All right next super chat comes in from colladin for ten dollars They say for creationists do you realize there are billions of planets in the observable universe? Think of how many of those life-sustaining planets can be different kinds of species societies and culture I don't even have to say anything to this. I'll just pull this up right here. Hold on wait for There we go Yeah, oh yeah imagine all the different out there, right? All we know is there's rocks out in space. No one has gone to these planets and seen an alien Okay, so until one of those aliens comes crashing down Which the demons will come crashing down and pretend they're aliens So you can expect that to happen based on the predictions of the bible But until those alien races come down and actually show pictures of their planet um, that's just imagination And nasa doesn't even have pictures of the earth they admit that but there is uh, there is what what's up in the sky irrelevant We have to worry about how we treat one another here Uh, I think what's what's on the ground is where we should should focus and and treating one another As as you know with dignity All right got it from pivot uh Uh cryroy. I'm sorry For 11 euros. They say the hallmark of design is simplicity not complexity If something looks smells sounds and functions like a mole Why would a designer use a completely different blueprint dna? well, I think that's kind of narrowing down What we expect from creation because if we would have actually got into the topic of ervs I could have showed how ervs are a Beautiful example of complex design Um, but we didn't have time to get into that and I don't have 10 minutes to make that response So I won't get into it right now, but I see you shaking your head chris So maybe we should have a 1v1 on ervs. I would love to Yeah, sounds fun. Yeah, we can we can actually resurrect some of the ervs into viruses And a lot of them are methylated so that they're deactivated So this claim that they're there because they're part of a design is demonstrably false I Do think like with with the the dna There there are similarities that are there maybe for an ecosystem backup plan if something goes wrong If god knows when species are going to go extinct or anything like that He has things set in place so that it's kind of what creation claims that there's a fall that we're going through So maybe there are controlled aspects to the fall so that it's not As bad as it could be right away or anything like that But then there also does have to be similarities in in creatures because we all have to I mean Pretty much a lot of creatures eat plants or eat animals that eat plants I think those are the only two options So you have to have certain similarities to be able to handle similar nutrients But but they're already in different environments and you know, we might expect them to have different immunities That's that's perfectly fine But the the fact that marsupials, you know, they're they're all in australia compared to the other rodents that are spread across all the world In different environments that that would seem to be able to have enough redundancy on its own Well, do you think that a marsupial going to leaving australia and going to another climate like if they went to Gradually made their way up to norway they could adapt Uh, sure. It's just that there's a there's no land bridge Yeah, it's a lot of ocean in between and it's been like that for 125 million years You believe I mean, but if you raise or lower the water if you lower the water level You could get yeah, I think that's reasonable. Yeah It's actually one thing about panthea. It's like they just fit South uh, South America and Africa and it's like if you just lower the the sea level 20 feet it'd be look completely different. It's Anyway, anyway, sorry, that's off topics. My apologies All right, and just let everybody know that we don't have too many super chats on the list at the moment So if you want to make sure that your question gets read now, it would be a great time to sit in a super chat Uh, next one comes in from big bad mama for two dollars to jamie. Do you believe in speciation after the flood? Ah big bad mama one of my best frenemies um So, yeah, I believe in variation after the flood I wouldn't say speciation because I think that there might be different characteristics of variation When you use the term speciation, you're automatically assuming or building in the assumption That it's going to follow all the characteristics of what evolutionist with design would define speciation So I do believe in variation But I don't see that variation going past a certain point and we can test that by artificially selecting things And when we do that we see that there are limits to how far we can push the genetic pool I wish we talked more about this because I wanted to explore of what the limits are I don't think that just because dogs You know, we can't breed wings on dogs or something like that. I don't understand where the limitation is still Because we can change the shapes of dogs.  Can those legs become or fins become massive and become 20 feet long? and yeah A good a good counter argument to that for the evolutionist is if all of these animals Eventually evolved from the same line Why can't we get a cow as tall as a giraffe, you know, because giraffes obviously exist Cows exist they came from the same line. So why can't we get a cow a giraffe cow, right? It has everything to do with selection pressure right And they're the environment isn't selecting for a giraffe cow the cows are able to reproduce and make fine and and make babies on their own until Environment changes again, and then it no longer happens I could I thought this was photoshopped at first, but this is in fact a super massive cow that is like Six feet tall at the shoulders or something. Um, let me see if I can play it. It's too big for the slaughterhouse. Yeah So yeah, so I agree you can't get a 90 foot cow But I think there are reasonable things like can you get a dog to have? Like more webbed feet for example so that it's more better adapted to living a more aquatic lifestyle Things like that are more reasonable Well, that was just an example of how there are limitations to a gene pool and there's also limitations to Gene like gene pools that can that can breed with one another and everything and I'm just curious like if there was if you had a cow Could you artificially select for it to become more draft like and develop a reflex where it can snap its neck up in Fraction of a second and start running like would a cow as you're artificially selecting for it to become a draft be able to To gain that function as well because that's a necessity if a draft is being chased or about to be chased It has to be able to hightail it. Sure. Yeah. I mean, could you breed a cow with a longer neck than usual? Right that you could do that, but it's you're not going to turn it into a giraffe because yeah It's it's still got cow. It's got it's canalized, right? There's a concept of canalization. I encourage you to look this up limitations restricted to your Your your lineage and well, yeah, you admit a limitation extraordinary variation within the lineage To the point where you can have an entire new branch come about especially in say post Extinction events that's where you have this that you know as taylor pointed out punctuated equilibrium and massive expansion of All kinds of different animals coming about when all the dinosaurs were gone You had mammals that were still around. They're mostly small but they survived and they they made it way they made the way through the kt extinction and All these niches are now open. They were previously occupied by these giant dinosaurs And that's when you had your massive expansion and variation come about Yeah, the point where you have new kinds you you would never be able to get an exact giraffe and definitely hunt breedable with giraffes unless cows already had that capability, but Would you be able to get a population of cows that had you know Two inches longer necks. Okay. Well, you take that population. Could you add two inches to that? Could you add two inches to that later on so? Is there any reasonable limit that would preclude if you could show that okay the neck just somehow knows not to get this long That would be a great preclusionary evidence for evolution, but Well, and that would Growing growing the neck if you could get a cow population to get the longer neck You already have the information in your gene code to be able to to make a neck So adding length is just like there are taller and shorter people Um, but then if you could get a cow population to be able to produce offspring or draft that would be something Um There are examples of where the creationers have the last word quicker than we can move on ahead That's fine. Um, well, and I did just want to say that right now like With uh, uh, all of our our scientific data There are there are claims that are maybe gray areas here there for for creation to pin down What a kind is especially because we don't really are our kind in our way of Classifying things might be different than what god decided was a kind to bring on the arc Um, so I think it's it's two different mindsets approaching it But right now all of our observations Do show that the claim that evolution has with one population being able to become Mushroom plants and animal cells different distinct bifurcations in each of those lineages That has never been observed. We have never observed these macro changes Which is why like creationists can agree with the evolution on the micro scale changes in population That's everyone agrees to that except for apparently this bubble gum guy But uh, but the evolution claim where it all of where you can get a mushroom And a rat to come from the same lineage is something that we have never observed And I get that there's an appeal to time there But that is just something that we've never observed to to confirm because if you can confirm that you can't deny an observation So we really must move on from skeptics and scoundrels for ten dollars They ask what is the falsification criterion for creationism in other words if you were wrong How would you know for example finding a rabbit fossil in pre-cambrian era rock would falsify evolution Um So, um What would falsify creation? Uh, the bible says that god has to breathe life into life and so um If you can show non-life becoming alive naturally that would falsify creation Um, and I I also emphasize that point though. He said you would have to do it naturally That means can't have intelligent input to create the life That's yeah, you can't buy amino acid profiles. You can't buy a buy buy lipid fossil Bilepid membrane You can't buy any of these things with integrated proteins. You have to assemble all of these things from scratch Put them all together, uh naturally let them form you can't you can't so excuse me You cannot put them together They have to come together naturally on their own and then form a functioning life that would falsify creation And I actually would like to say I went to my biology professor And I did ask her we got into a little bit of a discussion about this And I actually asked her what would falsify evolution and she did not know she said I have no idea what would falsify it So, uh, like what I I guess I I mean I could ask what would falsify evolution Uh, because we can show that Um that mushrooms will not have any lineage affiliation with people But evolution says they come from one so Mm-hmm. Yeah, I actually asked my professor that same question I was like what would falsify evolution and they literally told me nothing because evolution is a fact So that just shows that there is a serious bias that they are relying on and no matter what you say If it goes against their bias, they discredit it I I think it just shows that the teachers aren't debate bros like us. Yeah They're trying not to be controversial. Yeah. Yeah Well, and falsification is is is an important part of if you propose a scientific idea There have to be an element of falsification to it And yeah, it is pretty striking that Professors who teach the subjects do not know what would falsify their own ideas. The commenter came up with a great, uh, you know option a rabbit fossil in the game like precambrian rock Or what I said, I'll give you all a good falsification if you You can demonstrate without intelligent input like you can add pressures to it But you cannot manipulate it But you if you can take a fish and somehow turn that into a bird Without adding anything or removing anything As far as artificially selecting Then maybe I'll start considering evolution again And there was something there was an article about uh, they got feathers to grow from a crocodile or something like that But they had to take feather DNA coding and put it into A a an embryo So that would be like artificial selection and the bible even like covers that with like that there will be Breeding of humans with animals and all like all the pig cloning ears and stuff human ears all that funky stuff is all Artificial but using stuff that was already already made by by god. It's not a natural forming I'm not familiar with that one But I do know about um an experiment what they had took retinoic acid and added it to developing crocodiles and they got feather like buds That had You know basic feather structure um, but another thing that could falsify evolution is I brought up is Show us a limiter that would say like for example Either you know the whale series of evolution or take it take an otter type body and say, okay It's hind legs can't um Become more rigid and more flap like to be more like a seal something like that Because we know these these types of things happen. We know fish for example Can develop different shaped fins even within the same species and we know fish can walk on land so we know that there is this dual function to certain body parts and and And change to certain body parts and and the dependencies and Environment that they adapt to can change as well Yeah, there is a Sorry the multiple lineages that we've seen And just amongst mammals going back into the to the water right the separate lineages that um, you know It's completely consistent with the idea that you can have massive morphological change To adapt to certain pressures certain environmental pressures and take advantage of certain niches Um and that that morphological change clearly will span across kinds now to say have a fish turn into a bird Uh, you know most scientists need to accomplish their research within a year or a couple years You're talking about replicating 200 million years of evolution, you know when uh, you know, you've got a graduate student who wants to graduate in five years And i'm sorry you're not going to be able to have a graduate student wait 200 million years to observe Yeah, so Yeah, I just want to mention when you invoke millions of years you're creating a paradox So the whole idea of oh, we can't do it because millions of years Well, now you're making a claim that you'll never be able to prove and you will admit that But you still want to claim it's a scientific fact that's a paradox But we can predict how life changed with evolution throughout the fossil record So so that does confirm it indirectly And then the genetic evidence is completely consistent. We can yeah, we can also use Things that we agree on which is that there is an amount of diversity that we agree on So the but the amount of diversity that it would take to take an otter Or some other larger mammal into a seal is smaller amount of change Then is what you already accept within the biblical kinds that came off the ark Yeah, but see that that never goes past the limitations of very variations though But it's smaller than the limitations that we agree on Well, I do think that the creation let's have the last word and then we can go on to the next question Um, there is with like uh, that the cow is not being able to become 90 feet But evolution does say in their own model that a cow type of creature went into the water and became whales Which can get pretty large so suddenly now because it changed its environment It loses this ability to to gain in size And I do want to say too to like the ability for like some fish that can breathe air Or that can you walk on on dirt But that's a testament to our our creative our create create towards creative ability to be able to make a vast variety of Amazing and magnificent beautiful creatures that do all sorts of stunning things I want to I want to hug that while that I'm just saying like that thing Cool Anyway, that's I just a testament to the to the glory of our creator is the beautiful creatures that we have All right, I appreciate it guys And I'm sorry that I don't have any more questions for the evolutionists But um seems that they're coming after the creationist tonight, but I am trying to let you guys have us I'm trying to screw screw we embrace screw Yeah, we actually enjoy the criticism because it gives us more things to research So when you make an argument and I say hey, that's a good argument Now that gives me something to fill my time with and go study Whereas it usually seems like when I give an argument to a creation or evolutionist They usually try and dismiss it and then never actually look into the claim Other than to say that creation is crazy There was one guy I wanted to give a shout out to in the chat though Because I said for falsification Give me a fish and turn it into a bird and he said just flying fish count So I thought that was pretty hilarious. I just wanted to point that out So uh super chat comes in from hates stairs for five dollars They say to the creationists if we were so intelligently designed. Why do humans have an appendix? The appendix is not vestigial. It actually does have function for your immune system We do overwhelm it because we're not like people who consume animal products are putting a lot of extra toxins in their body That the body the digestive system is not really meant to handle primarily. It's a secondarily it can But uh, you you overwhelm your appendix But your appendix is actually responsible for immune functions like you do repopulate your colon with bacteria Using the appendix people who have their appendix removed are more susceptible to certain ailments and things that can happen to them and complications Uh, I can't give medical advice or anything But like if your appendix is about to explode you got to do something but it's it's not a vestigial thing that's the vestigial something that uh, it would also be a loss to um, which would Income uh encompass the fall and and thermodynamics and winding down and everything moving towards chaos. Um, but uh That that is uh, the appendix does does have function. Um, there there is a function to that Okay, uh from what I would say If real quick, I would just say that vestigial doesn't mean it has no function. It just means that it had a different ancestral function Yep Well, then you could get like convergent, uh, or what is it like a reactivation of? um body parts, uh I'm blanking on on what the the term is for it out of ism. Maybe but it would be it's I don't know if it's convergent. It's not convergent evolution, but it's like um, it's when you Re-access something from the past um to to start using it again, and that's like when you uh, you can switch your um How your body metabolizes things depending on what you put in your body? And so like you can go back and access these things or like That lizard that I mentioned that can grow the flap in its intestinal tract is has to do with Yeah, the the adaptive ability, but there there are changes that that can happen, but these That's the the whole point of like vestigial or non useless things. There are no useless things in our body Things might be shrinking or I might lose function, but that also isn't an adding of novel function Yeah, I think that's added a novel structure and junk actually is not useless. I can say in your junk drawer till you need it Yeah, all right. So we have about uh one question per minute for the rest of the time being so, uh Any more super chats might get uh We might we might not have time for them But let's try to just let the person who's being asked um answer the question And then we'll move on and try to get through them as much as possible From mr. Archaeopteryx for 999 for the creationist I want to know if two different animals are related Like the same kind is there a method to determine this example our hyenas related to dogs our architas related to tigers explain Yeah, so as far as kinds go Um, I think that it's just about a solid as a definition for creationists as Species is for evolutionists. They change their definition of species all the time But essentially the most agreed upon definition of kinds is they could bring forth at some point in time And whether or not they can now that's not exactly a factor because we do know that ring species exist So there are cases where animals that could bring forth at one time can no longer bring forth But that doesn't make them the same kind that just shows that they have changed to the point where they're no longer compatible with each other So when you're trying to show the fine lines of one animal to another Again, that's not exactly like a upfront just one minute answer Like you would have to really get into the specifics of it Just like how chris thompson can bring up his charts and talk about genetics for four hours You know, it's kind of hard to give you that answer in one minute All right next question comes in from sunflower for ten dollars. They say if you reject god altogether This is for the evolutionists if you reject god altogether, that's one thing But to grant god's existence for the sake of debate and then ask how did he lead animals to the ark? Indicates either bad faith or confusion beyond belief Is that for us? That's for us. Yes. Okay Yeah, no because it's I think minimizing the miraculous Explanations is the more honest way to go it's It's the more likely way to go Um, you could explain anything with magic. So it's it's not a useful Hypothesis Right. Yes. Yeah, if you open the door to miraculous Intervention and magic Anything can is possible that you can just allow anything to happen And so and if you're going to use that to explain away inconvenient observations that contradict your model Then your model is is completely insufficient to be rigorous and stand up to actual observations And and it's not it's just not going to be a useful way of looking at the world because it just leads you down Line paths and we've seen it over and over and over again And accepting that the question also becomes if if god is going to like manipulate the the magnetic currents and Psychically block it from certain animals then why wouldn't he just teleport them right to the ark or just skip the whole flood thing In the first place. Well, it would be a sign to those that have rejected god that they still have a chance to go to the ark And Humans to the humans that reject That uh, if you I just want to say real fast, I can stay longer a little bit if you want to get through some of the questions if you want You know, I don't necessarily have to leave in five minutes. Yeah, I'd be I'd be fine with that as well. Yeah However long the moderator is willing to stick around I'm willing to stay here. Yeah, just uh guys with the super chat slow down, you know, so we don't want to be here for 15 That's true. Yeah All night though. Yeah Okay, from a pivot, uh, kairoi. I believe that's how you say it for six euros They say follow up if god is omnipotent. Why create backups rather than make a creature more adaptable to changes I actually responded to that in the live chat in the live chat. I gave him an answer to that Um, essentially the original creation was very different than the world that we live in today And this idea of creating backups is god's way of having a response to the way that the earth is going to deteriorate Based on our corruption of the environment due to sin and blatant disregard of god God did not want man to fall but god knew okay, adam is going to eventually fall and the world's gonna have to go through this Set things up in place to make sure things Can you know fall, you know accordingly to give the most people the most chance Uh to to find god to find find find the creator the to find yaw Okay, uh, they also ask for six euros again pivot Kyra, thank you so again so much in response to fish evolving into bird proving evolution argument from the creationist This is happening. This happening would disprove evolution not prove it Uh, not exactly because you look at your charts and that's what they show on the charts So yeah, there was a population of fish and then some of the population branched off to be to remain fish and fish like And then the other kept going and became uh, what is it amphibians and then reptiles and then mammals and birds And then so there was a fish population that eventually split and some did become birds Which would if you could show that I know appeal to time, but if you could show that that would Validate evolution as as a worldview explanation And a falsify creation All right, uh next question is coming from uh, mcgrivious for for 99 in pounds To jamie if you like studying so much, then why do you still think that a bird turning into a fish is something we would expect to see in evolution Well, we kind of already answered that but that's because it's what y'all teach in the science class They show these charts and they say here's a fish and oh later on down the line a couple million years later Here's a bird So that's what we're saying prove that and then we can start talking about whether or not evolution has any scientific basis Got it and then from zack morgan for 999 If god can stop the murder of children and chooses not to due to all of the children's who Due to all the children who have been murdered. Why does he want children to be murdered? All right, let me go ahead and respond to that one. Um, so God brought his judgment on the earth with the global flood Okay, he judged us once and then he promised he would not judge us again until the end of time So what we are seeing right now is we god is allowing man to run his course Until the day of judgment comes at the day of judgment every single person that is sin Will have to answer for their punishment and that's why we spend so much time people like me and uh, Nathan and uh, kent hoven and donnie we spend all of this time Trying to get you people to realize this because the last thing we want to do is stand before god and have to witness against you Because that is what's going to happen if you reject god And god loves all life.  There is justice in this creation Uh evolution there there wouldn't be and i i shouldn't even have brought evolution up there because this is completely This is more than more than evolution But this there will be accountability for for these um these poor babies that have to to go through this um and uh God god really does care for us But if you love someone unconditionally you have to give them free will and let them choose God didn't make us robots He could have but he lets everybody choose because then it's more genuine and it's more real And as much hatred as there is for someone who murders the baby There is genuine love for people who choose to love their children or one and one another It's more genuine with the free will And there's just one last question I want to add to that question though, um Because I get this question a lot from atheist and you know people that are skeptic of the bible And the truth is they say why does god allow bad things to happen? Well, the short answer is he's allowing free will to run its course So what these people are telling us is that they want to have free will But they don't want to have the consequence of their free will they want god to intervene and stop their free will But then when he does that aka the global flood, he's a bad guy, right? So it's a catch 22 no matter which answer we give them they're going to find a way to make it make it their own All right And then from skeptics and scoundrels is the last question on the list for five dollars If it was demonstrated today that non-life could become life naturally with no intelligent input What would that make creation impossible? Uh, no, it would not make creation impossible But it would give strength to the evolution side And that's why I said I like to look at things from the way that evolutionists think because it's like, okay Well, if I was an evolutionist, what would I want to study to prove my point? And when I think of the things that I would study as an evolutionist to prove my point Most of the times they're not addressing these topics like abiogenesis as many people that are working on it They're not nearly focused on it as much as they should be if they're trying to prove their side of the argument And I'll let you guys all just respond to whatever for a few minutes just to wrap it all up and then I'll close it up And I do think too that um, if you could show non-life Becoming alive naturally in a beaker that you swirl around change the pressure Change the temperature and do those types of things introduce different elements to it molecules of elements to it And then you created life and then there was a visible like a cell there That would You could still have a creator that created life But now we have a natural explanation for life arising from non-life So I actually do think that that would falsify the bible particularly or or any religion that that claims that god has to breathe life in If if god didn't have to breathe into the beaker Then that would mean that the bible is false because the bible says that god has to breathe life So one thing that nathan said is he was talking about like adding molecules and all this But I mean, I think that goes I think that's a part of our intelligent input Because remember all of these molecules that they have in the lab. These are synthesized. They're purified They're put in you know sealed cases. This is all part of intelligence in order to create life without intelligent input Especially from nothing for the most part You have to see it happen in the in in conditions where things are not preserved and purified Yeah, I was talking about like if you took like rock and broke it up over a beaker and let it fall into a solution And and you know start to let off some of its elements now Now like adding specific compounds that are man-made with the right chirality and the right shape and structure and everything like that So I mean the field of a I mean this is a debate about evolution when so a biogenesis is a separate question But you know the field of a biogenesis they've made enormous strides in In coming up with ideas and and theories around how The original life could have happened they're There's still a lot that we don't know about a biogenesis and that's fine And we're talking about events that would you know according to our model was around four billion years ago It's these are early early molecular events And there's no fossil record for that because you're not going to see that in the fossil record especially going back that far so the The but you know, it's enormous work one one model that I have found pretty intriguing is the amyloid world hypothesis I know there's a lot of emphasis on the RNA world hypothesis, but You know, there's a lot of different ideas out there that have some really intriguing um underlying evidence that you know We don't know exactly what happened and it's a very difficult issue, but like it's it's being worked on. So can I Chris and also that why why wouldn't we find like if you went down deep enough below like those The first life form. Why wouldn't you find traces of organic molecules that had attention to form like strings of you find strings of RNA No, you won't find RNA. So RNA DNA has a half-life We can get RNA where we can get DNA in any way RNA has a half-life That's very very short But DNA is a relatively stable structure and you can extract DNA from fossils This is where ancient genomes have become incredibly important in revealing an awful lot about human origins But the origins of other recent evolution the problem is the half-life is relatively short on the order of thousands of years And so we can't really extract DNA from fossils that are older than around a hundred thousand years or so I'm saying like if you if you went way down in the earth and got to that very bottom line of like This is where the first life form appeared above this point down here, would you find a temps of of DNA or RNA formation or like Fossil lipid membranes that are are there because wouldn't those could be failed lines failed attempts at trying to Burst up into the life realm There's two problems with it The all those things have like I said a half-life and then to be fully degraded and just completely decomposed Into its basic raw elements The other problem is that old rock tends to not be as numerous on the earth as more recent rock that's because of the the you know Subduction of rock into the earth crust into the mantle So you have a loss of like exposed older rock But we do have some older rock and in that old old rock, you know around three billion years old We start to see stromatolites, which are collections of what we think are probably like some sort of bacterial element and they're they're actually quite enormous structures around You know starting around three billion years ago, and you don't see any evidence of multicellular life until you get into the um Into the precane green fossils at the ediacaran level and I've got a great interview With a an ediacaran paleontologist in my youtube channel where he shows like, you know the complex environment of and and the uh, the the ecosystem that existed precane green, which is pretty cool And if if I could add to to um, a couple of things said, um, so a biogenesis experiments used purified Um molecules because we're not just going to sit around and wait for them to form naturally or form from scratch or You come some of them came from asteroids. You can find um, even stereo pure chemicals in asteroids or at least a bias first, um For that, um, but yeah, it's a time saver. We've already shown that you can get a stereo pure Amino acids things like that from From natural processes. So once we've already proven that it's like, okay, so we're just going to save some time Eliminate some variables since we're testing something else now eventually once if we figure it all out eventually they'll probably make it as Natural and try and do it all in one experiment. Um the other things were more related to The bible so I even if a biogenesis is proven beyond a doubt if we find out we can just put this in a hole in the dirt and A cell will crawl out That won't disprove god or religion. Well, I'm not here to disprove god or religion with evolution or with a biogenesis In fact, I think the greater god would use Um, that's a greater design is a self assembling design And and you can look at the the bible some of the parts poetically and I think that in fact is more valuable Um poetically because if you look at it literally then there becomes some contradictions and character and motivation and event um, and and the other thing finally would be to touch on free will Which is that it seems it's not that we're just complaining about bad stuff happens. I lost my keys or you know or trying to not be um Accountable for I don't know what free will even means but that's a different concept, but it seems like The problem is it seems like god favors the free will of the murderer more than the murder victim is is kind of The angle we're coming at it from Well, yeah, see I understand the angle you're coming from with the whole free will god favors the murderer more than the victim But see the thing is that you want god to intervene on someone's free will But then when he does that which the perfect example is the flood you call him a bad guy and an unjust god So god Judge the world once and now he has made the promise that he is not going to judge the world until the end of time So that's why now we don't see him judging the world, but he will judge the world So this murderer is going to eventually have to face god and when he faces god He's going to go into eternal torment, which is absence from god That is much worse than anyth