Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / Brett Keane | @criticalbasedtheory2983 Evolution Vs Design

Transcript

Brett Keane | @criticalbasedtheory2983 Evolution Vs Design · Brett Keane and Eve Show

• 0:24
  But again, you didn't come from nothing and no scientist
• 0:27
  believes that we ever came from absolutely nothing.
• 0:29
  The Big Bang is not something from nothing.
• 0:32
  Do you want to see a magic trick?
• 0:35
  Before the Big Bang? There was nothing you are
• 0:39
  telling us that matter arose spontaneously out of nothing,
• 0:47
  literally nothing, nothing literally nothing, nothing
• 0:51
  literally nothing. Literally nothing, literally
• 0:55
  nothing and then something happened.
• 0:59
  The Big Bang wasn't really an explosion in the triggering.
• 1:01
  The most colossal explosion in history.
• 1:06
  In a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second, the
• 1:10
  universe Grew From the size of that.
• 1:12
  Tiny point to something. Billions of miles across this
• 1:16
  colossal blast created, The Big Bang is not something from
• 1:21
  nothing literally nothing. About 13.7 billion years ago.
• 1:28
  This tiny Singularity violently exploded, and it is from this
• 1:34
  explosion. This bang that all matter.
• 1:37
  Energy, space, and time were created another explosion.
• 1:42
  No, bang, just expansion. This tiny Singularity violently
• 1:47
  exploded. No explosion.
• 1:50
  Oh no. Bang, just expansion before the
• 1:53
  Big Bang. Bang, there was nothing,
• 1:56
  literally nothing. And then something happened
• 2:01
  triggering the most colossal explosion in history.
• 2:07
  We don't necessarily think it was nothing before that you are
• 2:10
  telling us that matter arose spontaneously out of nothing.
• 2:18
  Literally nothing, nothing literally nothing, nothing
• 2:22
  literally nothing. I think common ancestry is true.
• 2:27
  I think animals have common ancestry.
• 2:29
  I think Evolution happened. I think that I'm related to a
• 2:33
  dog. I think I'm related to X root X
• 2:36
  animal there. So you don't have to ask.
• 2:55
  I am the Alpha and the Omega the first.
• 3:36
  Well how are you mr. Proverbs I'm doing fantastic
• 3:40
  there. Good buddy.
• 3:41
  I gotta say I really love the updated intro.
• 3:45
  Yeah yeah I hear you. It looks like we've got somebody
• 3:48
  down below. Let's see what they're up to.
• 3:52
  There we go. Don't know.
• 3:54
  You very well want to make sure I don't get porn bombed or
• 3:57
  something evil happened. How you doing, mr.
• 3:59
  Grayson, hey there, you actually commented on my channel earlier
• 4:04
  today. Saying that you'd be having this
• 4:07
  live and you asked to see what I'm made of.
• 4:10
  So I figure that you wanted to have this discussion.
• 4:14
  Oh yeah. You done a video with Kent
• 4:17
  hovind I guess on the standing for truth Channel.
• 4:20
  Yep. Totally beat him in a debate
• 4:21
  twice. Well how do you feel you beat
• 4:24
  him in the debate? I showed that all of his
• 4:26
  positions were untenable, he had no response to my criticisms and
• 4:31
  I explained all of his problems that he tries to point out.
• 4:35
  So, you were able to prove without a doubt that evolution
• 4:38
  is real. Yes.
• 4:41
  Okay. Well then, can you define what
• 4:44
  abiogenesis, says life from non-life, on from life, from
• 4:49
  non-life you believe, that's possible.
• 4:52
  Yeah, you've observed this. Nope.
• 4:57
  How is that evidence? And if you haven't actually
• 4:59
  observed that you don't have to observe something directly to
• 5:02
  prove that it happened. Okay, hold on one second.
• 5:07
  Let me put this on the screen right here.
• 5:10
  You don't have to observe it in order to know something
• 5:12
  happened. Okay.
• 5:13
  So what is the evidence that life came from non-life?
• 5:17
  Well, we know that at one point in the past, there was no life
• 5:21
  and we know now, there is life. So therefore at some point life
• 5:25
  had to have come from non-life Since wife wasn't back in the
• 5:30
  past that must mean that it came from nothing that's Arrow.
• 5:35
  That's what I said, is it Well, explained made elaborate,
• 5:39
  please, we're less. Okay, so we know for a fact that
• 5:43
  in the past, there was no life, right?
• 5:44
  We can look at the cosmic microwave background.
• 5:46
  We can see that the Universe was way too high energy for even
• 5:50
  atoms to be formed. So we know there's no life we
• 5:53
  look around now. We see that there is life
• 5:55
  therefore at some point whether directed by a God or not, we
• 5:59
  know that life had to have come from non-life not from nothing
• 6:03
  like you just said, oh, so you are open to the possibility of
• 6:07
  God. God fits into this view.
• 6:09
  Sure it can. I mean personally, I'm an
• 6:12
  atheist but I don't think that, you know, Evolution or
• 6:15
  abiogenesis disproves. Oh God.
• 6:18
  So why do you believe that God is an option in this for?
• 6:22
  That's interesting. Why do I believe it's an option?
• 6:26
  Yeah, I mean, usually some atheists.
• 6:28
  Just like now, I'm not going to go with that.
• 6:30
  I'm going to go with all natural processes, but you sound like
• 6:33
  you actually leap at leave open the possibility.
• 6:37
  Well yeah, of course. I mean I wouldn't deny the
• 6:39
  possibility. I mean we can only make, you
• 6:42
  know, positive claims. I can't prove a negative like
• 6:45
  God doesn't exist or something. I just lack a belief in a God.
• 6:50
  So that's what I would consider making me an atheist, but I
• 6:53
  don't rule out the possibility. Will you agree that?
• 6:57
  There's got to be some reasons. Why you would say that?
• 7:00
  If I were to say right now that a leprechaun opened up a box of
• 7:04
  Lucky Charms and made the universe.
• 7:06
  You'd say Hell no, that's ridiculous.
• 7:08
  But you're open to a concept of God.
• 7:10
  Why is that? Well, I'm open to the
• 7:12
  possibility of both. I mean I would consider them
• 7:15
  both kind of on equal footing. They're both Supernatural.
• 7:19
  Hitchcock concept is basically, I mean, I'm a leprechaun could
• 7:22
  have farted out the universe and that's good.
• 7:24
  That could have been how it happened.
• 7:26
  I don't know, but I don't necessarily believe that that's
• 7:30
  how it happened. That's why I lack a belief in a
• 7:32
  farting leprechaun. Just like I lack a belief in a
• 7:34
  God and creationist So, you believe that the concept of God
• 7:38
  is comparable to leprechauns, they're both Supernatural.
• 7:43
  Do you believe that the Big Bang is Supernatural?
• 7:46
  No. What do you do if you wouldn't
• 7:49
  mind, how would you define or explain the Big Bang being
• 7:53
  expansion of space and time? What about nature itself?
• 8:00
  What about nature itself? Will you believe, if you've seen
• 8:03
  the two clips, at the very beginning, I seen you at the
• 8:06
  bottom of the panel, it said that matter, the physical
• 8:09
  reality of nature itself, came into existence from a
• 8:12
  singularity. Do you believe that?
• 8:14
  Hmm. No, I don't think that many
• 8:16
  physicists would believe that. I think that the singularity is
• 8:20
  a mathematical concept. That is not that it's not
• 8:23
  something that we have the math or physics to actually describe
• 8:26
  in real life. Life.
• 8:28
  So the singularity isn't a thing that people are positing
• 8:31
  actually existed. It's just showing that our math
• 8:35
  breaks down at that point. And we don't have the physics to
• 8:37
  explain what was really going on.
• 8:39
  But you believe that everything came from like something, the
• 8:42
  size of a pen needle, right? Yeah, significantly smaller and
• 8:47
  higher in energy density. I think that that's what the
• 8:50
  evidence shows us just to make sure we're on the same page.
• 8:54
  You believe that all the material that exists on Earth.
• 8:57
  And the universe came from that Singularity, right?
• 9:01
  Well no, I don't know about a singularity, like we just went
• 9:04
  over. The singularity is just a
• 9:06
  mathematical artifact but I do believe that the Universe was
• 9:09
  once in a higher energy density state.
• 9:13
  So it with the space and time would have been much smaller
• 9:15
  than it is today, but I'm not willing to go back to a
• 9:18
  singularity because our mathematics is only good for
• 9:22
  like, you know, tent the first ten to the minus 33 seconds or
• 9:25
  something like that. So we don't have anything.
• 9:27
  NG to describe what happened before then how did we come up
• 9:31
  with the laws of nature according to you through
• 9:35
  empirical observation, we tested to see if these you know
• 9:39
  mathematical axioms actually like were true and they hold up
• 9:43
  whenever we test them there seem to be invariant across space and
• 9:46
  time you believe that space and time and nature itself had a
• 9:50
  beginning Um, I guess it would just depend on what you mean.
• 9:57
  I mean do you if you're talking about the local space and time
• 10:00
  of the universe than yes. But you know, I have no idea
• 10:05
  about multiverses. I mean, there's no evidence one
• 10:07
  way or another. So that's another possibility
• 10:09
  that I cannot rule out and then nature is a little bit too
• 10:13
  ambiguous for me to know what you're talking about.
• 10:15
  If you just talking about like, the sum of all the energy in the
• 10:18
  universe and you're calling that nature.
• 10:21
  I do. Just don't know what you mean.
• 10:24
  Well, I'm talking about the all the physical material and
• 10:28
  content that we have in the universe.
• 10:29
  They say that we have over 10 trillion planets that exist as
• 10:35
  well as holy like energy. Well, if you want to call it
• 10:38
  energy, that's fine. But you do believe always have
• 10:41
  to be give us everything down, right to, a very small amount of
• 10:44
  space. You would have so much energy
• 10:46
  density that you wouldn't physically be able to have atoms
• 10:49
  or matter, so it would all be energy by equals mc squared.
• 10:54
  Okay, well the thing that you're bringing up Albert Einstein here
• 10:59
  with that and Albert Einstein stated that the universe
• 11:02
  everything from matter to time and space had a beginning.
• 11:07
  It was actually a Catholic priest who came up with the
• 11:10
  concept of the Big Bang? So if this is true, then this
• 11:13
  would mean that at some point in all this and we can't really
• 11:17
  designate a time because time didn't exist yet.
• 11:20
  Wouldn't that mean that also nature had a beginning along
• 11:23
  with time and Wait. So what you're referring to is i
• 11:26
  t equals zero like the very beginning of time which again we
• 11:30
  don't have physics or mathematics to describe, so we
• 11:33
  can only describe like after the first few fractions of a
• 11:37
  microsecond, like after that point.
• 11:40
  So if there really are no claims about anything that happened
• 11:43
  before, that point in the realm of science, everything talking
• 11:47
  about that point, like before like the T equals zero or very
• 11:51
  close to it. All of that is going to be
• 11:54
  Elation we don't have any evidence or mathematics to say
• 11:57
  one way or another at the moment and then like I said earlier,
• 12:00
  the the Multiverse kind of is a whole other possibility that
• 12:04
  would change the answer to those questions as well, but you don't
• 12:07
  believe that we actually have any evidence for a Multiverse.
• 12:10
  It's just something we find fascinating.
• 12:13
  Yeah, so I mean we can talk about my own personal like
• 12:17
  things, I like the way I like to think about it but I'm not
• 12:19
  claiming that. I have a positive belief, that
• 12:21
  that's the way it truly is because like Just said that
• 12:25
  there's not evidence at the moment, I have no hatred or
• 12:29
  discrepancy against a Multiverse.
• 12:31
  I believe if obviously, if God is real, he can create as many
• 12:35
  universes he wants. It's also going to maybe just be
• 12:38
  disagreeable with other Christians, but I'm open to it.
• 12:41
  The reason why I asked you all these weird questions.
• 12:44
  Is this, how would you define Supernatural?
• 12:47
  Let's make sure we're on the same.
• 12:48
  Wavelength, on that. I a supernatural process would
• 12:51
  just be any process. That is not a natural.
• 12:54
  So process. So, like, yeah, a natural
• 12:56
  process involves. I mean II assume that these were
• 13:00
  kind of terms that we both would know that what we're talking
• 13:03
  about when we, when we say these words.
• 13:06
  Well, Grayson unfortunately, the many, many live shows of had a
• 13:09
  lot of atheists. Come on.
• 13:11
  And I don't want to believe that, every single one of them
• 13:14
  think exactly the same which they proved.
• 13:17
  They don't some of them. Have a weird definition of
• 13:20
  Supernatural. Some of them will say things
• 13:22
  like Santa Claus or not. Cloud type of thing.
• 13:25
  I figured you'd probably have your own opinion of you on it.
• 13:28
  I actually agree with your definition of Supernatural,
• 13:31
  though. You're stating something that
• 13:33
  exists beyond the laws of nature.
• 13:35
  Well, if the universe did have a beginning, a nature came into
• 13:39
  existence along with time and space, that would mean
• 13:42
  necessarily that the laws of nature didn't exist before
• 13:45
  nature obviously. Yeah, I don't know if I would
• 13:51
  necessarily agree with the logic of that because just for
• 13:55
  instance, like in the, in the Multiverse will conception that.
• 13:59
  I like to think about him course, will no more evidence
• 14:02
  about this. Once we can observe black holes
• 14:05
  directly but if a black hole is basically a universe creating
• 14:10
  phenomenon, right? If there's a universe within
• 14:12
  every black hole, then there wouldn't necessarily be Like,
• 14:17
  you would still have these. These causes that are outside of
• 14:21
  that individual universe, but they'd be in our universe, in
• 14:24
  the, the black hole would be the result and it would have its own
• 14:27
  local space and time and energy just like our universe.
• 14:31
  I hear you on that, you are familiar with Lawrence Krauss
• 14:35
  Richard Dawkins some of these atheist scientists.
• 14:38
  They're saying for I'll give you an example of something here
• 14:42
  that way. You know that I'm not the one
• 14:44
  coming up with the, I know that Lawrence Krauss likes to say
• 14:47
  that. Universe came from nothing.
• 14:48
  We get something from nothing, I'm familiar with his lines on
• 14:52
  that. All right, let me see.
• 14:56
  Okay, all right, well I mean I know what he points to as the
• 15:01
  evidence as you know saying that like you have these virtual
• 15:05
  particles that are popping into and out of existence all the
• 15:08
  time out of nothing in like quantum mechanics.
• 15:12
  So I know like what he's pointing on to try to justify
• 15:15
  that but again, ultimately what he's Saying their about the
• 15:18
  universe coming from nothing is something that he does not have
• 15:21
  a mathematical model to describe, right?
• 15:23
  There's no, you know, we don't have anything to describe the
• 15:26
  very, very first moments of the universe Lawrence Krauss doesn't
• 15:29
  have that either. I mean, he's just, you know,
• 15:31
  he's selling books. I mean it's he has a motive to
• 15:34
  sell books saying that the Universe came from.
• 15:36
  Nothing is a great way to move books, off the shelves, same
• 15:40
  thing with these, like National Geographic shows that you're
• 15:43
  showing in the beginning. I mean, they're trying to
• 15:45
  engage, with their audience, they're trying to and Those are
• 15:47
  also science journalist. I don't know how much they're
• 15:50
  Consulting with actual physicists for that, but I mean
• 15:53
  they're just trying to, you know, it's to delay population.
• 15:56
  It's meant to sound provocative and and get viewership.
• 16:01
  So, you believe that these guys are not being a non-believer
• 16:05
  yourself, you sound like you're kind of throwing these guys
• 16:07
  under the bus and I respect that if that's where you're going
• 16:10
  with it. But you're saying they just say
• 16:12
  these things out in front of the public just to be provocative in
• 16:16
  the seller book. Yeah.
• 16:17
  I mean Lawrence Krauss has not published any scientific papers
• 16:21
  describing How the Universe could come out of nothing or
• 16:25
  he's not you know he hasn't published any scientific
• 16:28
  literature on this heat. Just been publishing, you know,
• 16:31
  for the lay audience, his books that can go to Barnes and Noble
• 16:36
  and just anybody can pick up and read.
• 16:38
  So if he actually had any sort of, you know, model that was
• 16:42
  outside, the lambda-cdm model, which is our current
• 16:45
  cosmological model for the universe which doesn't start at
• 16:49
  a singularity, right? I mean, it starts after that
• 16:52
  point. So if he's claiming to have any
• 16:55
  kind of, you know, model or math, or anything that can go
• 16:58
  before that point, he has It to demonstrate that in any kind of
• 17:01
  scientifically valid way. Well I agree with you on that
• 17:06
  goodness gracious. Grayson you seem like a very
• 17:10
  seem like an eye on the ball atheist.
• 17:13
  We got a lot in here that don't even know what the universe is
• 17:16
  and you seem like you've actually done some research.
• 17:19
  So you you find this stuff, you're interested, but you find
• 17:24
  that it's more about a Public Image or just selling books and
• 17:28
  actual information. Oh yeah, I mean, if I was trying
• 17:32
  to actually learn about the subject, I might pick up like a
• 17:35
  like, a scientific review article or something that's
• 17:38
  published an actual Journal. I wouldn't probably pick up
• 17:41
  like, just a random book that's written by some of these guys
• 17:45
  for the public because they're going to say stuff that is like,
• 17:48
  you know, Stu sound poetic or to make this kind of dense
• 17:52
  mathematics. Interesting and digestible to
• 17:55
  the average person. So they're going to kind of
• 17:57
  simplify things or they're going to sensationalize.
• 18:01
  So I just wouldn't be treating that as like if I wanted to
• 18:03
  actually learn about these subjects.
• 18:05
  I would actually like read the scientific literature.
• 18:07
  I wouldn't read like you know, I wouldn't watch a National
• 18:10
  Geographic documentary. I'll tell you that Proverbs guy.
• 18:13
  How do you feel about this? We've had so many atheist come
• 18:16
  in and say, there's an overabundance of evidence that
• 18:20
  we'd have to be absolutely stupid, not to believe what
• 18:23
  Lawrence Krauss is talking about.
• 18:25
  And Grayson within three minutes is absolutely mode.
• 18:28
  These guys over Were like grass. How do you feel about that?
• 18:33
  I'll be honest with you, I am actually very shocked but I'm
• 18:37
  also very impressed and Grayson, thank you very much for your
• 18:41
  honesty. It's not a lot of atheists that
• 18:43
  come on here and are willing to bite that bullet and admit that
• 18:47
  we don't have all the answers for evolution.
• 18:50
  So I really do appreciate that. Correct me if I'm wrong server,
• 18:53
  but it sounded to me like you are pretty much on the fence,
• 18:57
  but leaning towards evolution of Our Origins would be
• 19:01
  Supernatural through God or Supernatural through a big bang.
• 19:05
  Is that correct? T'.
• 19:08
  Well, obviously I would not be using the word Evolution to
• 19:10
  describe any of these things. I mean, you know, I mean, I
• 19:13
  think, you know what I mean to say evolution is like the origin
• 19:16
  of biodiversity and species. It has nothing to do with the
• 19:19
  origin of the universe, but if you're saying, if you're asking
• 19:23
  how I feel about the actual start of the universe, like the,
• 19:27
  you know, cosmology and origins in that regard, no, I would
• 19:31
  still pretty much lean pretty strongly toward the lambda-cdm
• 19:34
  model, but I just acknowledge the fact that it doesn't have
• 19:36
  All the answers and it doesn't describe anything for the first
• 19:40
  couple of microseconds of the universe.
• 19:41
  There's really, there's no claim that's made.
• 19:44
  So you know, you just kind of have to say, you don't know when
• 19:47
  it's not known at the moment. So I have no problem with
• 19:50
  admitting unknowns. So you don't know what caused
• 19:53
  the Big Bang. I'm not even sure if that
• 19:56
  question makes sense to ask, but I'll just say, no, I don't know
• 20:00
  what, why wouldn't that question, make sense to ask,
• 20:03
  like with the origins of creation from a Christians?
• 20:06
  Spective I know our Origins it all started with God saying let
• 20:11
  there be light but when Evolution I'm sorry with with
• 20:14
  the big bang, we have no explanation for the why.
• 20:17
  There's no why answered now? What in nowhere and those are
• 20:21
  three fundamental questions. So let me just explain why it's
• 20:25
  two of those questions. At least, don't make sense is
• 20:29
  that if the Big Bang right? If the start of the all this was
• 20:33
  the origin of space and time, then it.
• 20:36
  Makes no sense to ask what was before the origin of time,
• 20:39
  right? Because there would be no.
• 20:41
  My question, what wasn't, what was before it?
• 20:43
  My question is, what caused it right?
• 20:46
  But for something to cause, it has to come in a chronological
• 20:49
  sequence before it. There's no.
• 20:51
  So buy that theory though. Nothing could have caused it.
• 20:54
  So it's an impossibility from the get-go.
• 20:57
  Do you realize what you just did?
• 20:58
  No, because the thing is, is the universe has a tone local space
• 21:04
  and time right there are non low.
• 21:06
  Go space and times that are possible, right?
• 21:08
  We don't have evidence for them. This would be part of a
• 21:10
  Multiverse, but that doesn't mean that we've have excluded
• 21:13
  their possibility. So there are possibly other,
• 21:16
  like causes outside of our universe.
• 21:19
  That would be in a different space and time other than our
• 21:21
  own universes. So there are like, completely
• 21:25
  logical and consistent ways of thinking about these kinds of
• 21:29
  things. But like I said, I mean, we
• 21:31
  don't even know if the origin of the universe was the origin of
• 21:36
  our locals. Space and time again.
• 21:37
  The theory doesn't say anything about those first few instants.
• 21:41
  So, and you do believe that the Big Bang is the absolute start
• 21:46
  of all life on Earth as well as in the universe.
• 21:50
  Correct. No.
• 21:51
  So life did it started way after the big bang?
• 21:54
  So there was no life for like, you know, what was, what was the
• 21:59
  first life, huh? Well, with the theory of
• 22:03
  evolution with the origins of our species, with the origins of
• 22:06
  all living things. What was the first life?
• 22:11
  I mean, I think that you kind of have like a bit of like a
• 22:13
  gradient there. Like if you're asking about
• 22:15
  abiogenesis, how do we get from chemicals to chemical systems to
• 22:18
  eventually the first cell? You're not directly answering
• 22:21
  any of these questions though? I find that a little long trying
• 22:24
  to me I was in the middle of a sentence.
• 22:27
  But what I was saying is that there's a definite, I did a
• 22:29
  gradation. So I'm not saying that there's a
• 22:31
  point where you can say, oh, here's the definitive point of
• 22:33
  the first life, because what became before, that would be a
• 22:36
  gray area and like, there's a ton of gray areas.
• 22:40
  It's not like you all of a sudden have an absolute point
• 22:43
  where you have no life and then all of a sudden at the same
• 22:45
  time, you have life, it would be like a large gray area in
• 22:48
  between and during a process. And see that's the thing that I
• 22:52
  don't understand. Because with the Christian
• 22:54
  Perspective, we have the Bible. So we have the calls of what
• 22:57
  started all life. We have the, how of what started
• 23:00
  all life. But with your belief, you don't
• 23:02
  have any of those answers, and I think that's why you.
• 23:06
  And I believe that it is a belief and it's not science.
• 23:10
  So like I said, I think it's totally okay.
• 23:11
  Not to have all the answers. I mean I think like oftentimes
• 23:16
  it's the most intellectual intellectually honest thing to
• 23:18
  admit when you don't have all the answers.
• 23:20
  So I'm not claiming that to know the answers to all these things,
• 23:22
  but if I can just make it a metaphor for our you're talking
• 23:25
  about with like evolution of new languages, right?
• 23:29
  So with the evolution of like the Spanish language, there was
• 23:33
  no first person to speak Spanish.
• 23:36
  It's not like all of a sudden, two non-spanish speakers gave
• 23:39
  birth to a Spanish-speaking like children.
• 23:42
  That's not how this works. It's like every generation was a
• 23:45
  little bit closer to Spanish than the generation before like
• 23:48
  every iteration was a little bit closer to what we might consider
• 23:51
  life than the iteration before. So it's these things are not all
• 23:56
  of a sudden like 0 to 100. Well, mr.
• 23:58
  Proverbs guide, the face of real quick.
• 24:01
  And I don't know if Grayson's aware of this, I don't know how
• 24:03
  many discussions you've had the opportunity to have with theist
• 24:07
  but usually it appears as well. Talking to non-believers, they
• 24:11
  usually start The evolutionary process shortly, right into the
• 24:16
  transition of abiogenesis from that point on.
• 24:20
  But Christians, especially guys like Ken told them myself.
• 24:23
  Proverbs we look at Evolution, we usually go all the way
• 24:27
  towards the big bang and I know that the surprises non-believers
• 24:31
  and they don't understand it, but we feel like that that's
• 24:34
  where everything started and if it wasn't for all that then
• 24:38
  abiogenesis. Us Evolution that theory or
• 24:41
  ideas wouldn't even mean anything in the first place.
• 24:44
  So we're counting cosmological, Evolution abiogenesis,
• 24:48
  Evolution, genetic Evolution, all that together.
• 24:52
  Is that make sense? I know the general framework
• 24:55
  that you guys are working on. I just have to, you know,
• 24:57
  obviously like my position is that these are totally like
• 25:00
  different theories. Like I would liken it to you
• 25:03
  know, Carl Sagan's famous quote about if you wish to make an
• 25:06
  apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe that's
• 25:09
  like saying I have this apple pie recipe and you're saying
• 25:12
  wait but it doesn't start at the Big Bang.
• 25:13
  So this apple pie recipe is useless.
• 25:16
  It's meaningless, you don't explain where any of these
• 25:18
  ingredients originally originated from with their
• 25:21
  atoms. So that's what I would kind of
• 25:23
  liken it to in this case is like you can talk about the apple pie
• 25:27
  recipe, without talking about the big bang.
• 25:30
  But I'm again, I'm open to talking about Evolution,
• 25:32
  abiogenesis, Big Bang, I love all these fields, but I just
• 25:35
  recognize that they are fundamentally different fields
• 25:38
  of science, they're different Theories.
• 25:41
  I'm gonna let Proverbs do some more questions for you, but I
• 25:43
  want to throw one more thing out there we were talking earlier.
• 25:48
  Would you agree even though you think Lawrence Krauss?
• 25:51
  And a lot of these guys, you talk about the Big Bang or
• 25:54
  selling books, would you agree that if there was any truth to
• 25:57
  what they were saying that all space time and matter came from
• 26:00
  nothing that would by definition as you put forth.
• 26:04
  Be Supernatural. Hmm.
• 26:07
  No, I don't think so necessarily.
• 26:09
  I mean, because I mean what we do, see with like virtual
• 26:13
  particles is, we do see particles that are forming out
• 26:17
  of what seems to be nothing, just from the vacuum density,
• 26:21
  and that's not a supernatural event.
• 26:24
  So you believe you're saying that we have the ability to
• 26:29
  observe something that supposedly happened between 13
• 26:33
  and 16 billion years ago. Yes, we observe the cosmic
• 26:37
  microwave background and you say that we're seeing originally
• 26:41
  what was going on back then? Right now shortly afterward.
• 26:45
  It's kind of like a Smoking Gun, you know, we're not observing
• 26:47
  the actual bullet shot but we're observing The Smoking Gun, right
• 26:50
  afterwards. Yeah, sometimes And I think
• 26:53
  smoke from a gun sometimes, the smoke from a chimney, but go
• 26:56
  ahead proverbs. Okay.
• 26:59
  And thank you for being so honest and forthcoming with our
• 27:02
  questions. I really do appreciate it.
• 27:04
  My next question for you would be, you did seem like you were
• 27:07
  somewhat open to the possibility of a God.
• 27:10
  So I'm just wondering if you are open to that possibility, why
• 27:14
  you lean towards scientific journals, that have no
• 27:17
  explanation for our exact beginning or even things like
• 27:20
  where the Spanish language came from but you have the Bible that
• 27:25
  tells you exactly the origins of our beginning.
• 27:28
  The exact origins of the first people on Earth, exact location
• 27:32
  of those people, as well as the foundation of all languages at
• 27:36
  the Tower of Babel. I will because science and
• 27:39
  scientific theories have like they're supported by evidence
• 27:44
  and whenever I you know I have read the Bible.
• 27:47
  I mean it I see the claims that you're talking about but I just
• 27:50
  don't see enough evidence that would personally make me want to
• 27:53
  believe and then I can also see other religions that also make
• 27:57
  claims of a similar variety. So I don't really see any
• 28:00
  evidence for them either. Well there's the countless
• 28:03
  locations that are depicted only in the Holy scriptures.
• 28:07
  Where we've now Unearthed multiple locations in the past
• 28:10
  10 years. Sodom and Gomorrah is a location
• 28:13
  that we found that was only mentioned in scriptures.
• 28:15
  The hittite people are people that were only mentioned in
• 28:18
  scriptures but now we've actually found hittite Empires.
• 28:21
  Yeah so the hit side, people are not only mentioned by the
• 28:24
  scriptures there, the hittite. I mean you can find Direct
• 28:27
  correspondences between the Egyptian pharaoh and the hittite
• 28:29
  Kings and the amarna level, right?
• 28:31
  But those are relatively recent discoveries.
• 28:35
  Okay? But they're still from old
• 28:36
  documents and We have lots of our right but those all
• 28:39
  documents were just located not very long ago since of your
• 28:44
  point here. Where like I'm not, I'm not
• 28:48
  saying that like the Old Testament was just completely
• 28:52
  made up. It's obviously coming from a
• 28:54
  backdrop in a very long history of like, religions and mythology
• 28:59
  and all kinds of contexts from Mesopotamia Egypt and Canaan.
• 29:02
  So, it would make sense to me, if it was kind of describing
• 29:05
  actual, cultural memories, kind of like, How The Iliad right
• 29:09
  with Achilles? And this is a grand mythological
• 29:12
  tale. I don't think anyone actually
• 29:13
  believes in the things that happen in The Iliad and the
• 29:16
  Odyssey. And yet we found centuries.
• 29:18
  Later, we found the actual city of Troy and we found that a lot
• 29:21
  of historical details in The Iliad were based on real
• 29:24
  history. Like it was written in the Iron
• 29:25
  Age, but it describes the kind of iron like the kind of armor
• 29:29
  that was worn in the Bronze Age among the Greeks, so it gets
• 29:32
  historical things, right as well.
• 29:34
  And it describes locations that turned out to be real locations
• 29:37
  as well. That I mean, I have to believe
• 29:39
  in, you know, Achilles and he was Immortal except for his
• 29:42
  heel. Do you believe and are you aware
• 29:45
  of Le guin's like, DNA, look, when Zeke DNA, I have not heard
• 29:50
  that term. Okay.
• 29:51
  So, that is the DNA that everybody speaks.
• 29:54
  It's a specific DNA trade, a specific trait to a certain
• 29:59
  person speech that is unattainable.
• 30:03
  It cannot be switched between people, the way you speak is
• 30:06
  completely different from the way I speak, and we have proven
• 30:10
  that that look, when Zach DNA also applies to the scriptures,
• 30:13
  All the way from Genesis to Revelation.
• 30:15
  How does DNA possibly? Look when Zach DNA?
• 30:20
  Okay, so I just explained it, it's speech pattern, its
• 30:24
  specific speech. Way of speaking.
• 30:26
  That is individual from you and me, right?
• 30:29
  If the scripture was not written, are you actually
• 30:32
  talking about DNA or is this just like, like, DNA or is it
• 30:36
  was like, being on the term, is called Le guin's, like DNA.
• 30:40
  So is it just the quintic DNA is just talking about, Patterns of
• 30:44
  speaking like correct. Okay, so it's just saying that
• 30:49
  what like one person, right? The wrote the Bible or
• 30:51
  something, what do you it's saying that it proves the entire
• 30:55
  scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
• 30:57
  Otherwise being written over thousands of years apart.
• 31:01
  It could not have shared this Le guin's like DNA.
• 31:04
  I'll look more into this concept, but from my own
• 31:08
  readings, I've come across the documentarian hypothesis about,
• 31:12
  you know, the P source to A source and the the why Source,
• 31:16
  like different authors of the Old Testament and the Bible that
• 31:21
  have sort of like each have their own unique authorial style
• 31:25
  and like the biblical Scholars have been able to separate the
• 31:27
  Bible out into multiple authors. So I've actually seen you know
• 31:31
  I'm not familiar with what you're talk about.
• 31:33
  I'll look into it but I've seen like analyses that run directly
• 31:36
  contrary. Okay yeah.
• 31:39
  Maybe after you check that out you could come back on and we
• 31:42
  could have a good back and forth about it.
• 31:45
  Brett you most knowledgeable about the Bible all just say
• 31:48
  usually I like discussing the kind of like the science and I
• 31:52
  don't really have that much knowledge of and the scriptures.
• 31:56
  Well yeah, if you don't mind me asking like out of total
• 32:00
  respect, if you aren't positive that our Origins would come
• 32:06
  from. The Big Bang in your open to
• 32:09
  somewhat of a possibility of God.
• 32:11
  Why wouldn't you investigate more into the scriptures to
• 32:14
  check out its validity? Honest question.
• 32:17
  Yeah, I don't know. I guess I just don't feel any
• 32:19
  need or interest. I mean, you know, I mean
• 32:22
  sometimes I'll look at, you know, how ancient Egyptian
• 32:26
  religion, thought about the origin of the universe.
• 32:27
  So how Hindus perceive it? And just I all be interested.
• 32:31
  I mean, I've I have a somewhat familiar understanding of the
• 32:35
  Old Testament, but It's nothing any I really?
• 32:38
  I don't think that the possibility is really that big.
• 32:41
  So we're, yeah, I really feel that much.
• 32:45
  I kind of I just leaned much more towards the science.
• 32:48
  I guess. I don't really see any evidence
• 32:52
  that would support me researching more about, but, but
• 32:56
  if you haven't researched that side of the argument, is it
• 33:00
  really fair to say that you just don't see the evidence?
• 33:03
  Yeah, yeah, I mean, I think so I mean like if Like, if we were
• 33:08
  using like, the leprechaun farting thing that I brought up
• 33:11
  earlier, if somebody said, you know, we'll have you ever really
• 33:13
  thought about? Like if the leprechaun farted
• 33:15
  the universe into being like you know, the possibility of that
• 33:19
  and what that would look like. And you know why?
• 33:22
  You haven't read any books about it or anything?
• 33:24
  I'd be like. Well no, I mean I kind of I
• 33:27
  don't have to have a deep understanding of it in order to
• 33:31
  think that it probably didn't happen.
• 33:33
  Wouldn't that give you more validity though?
• 33:35
  If you did study out the in Possibilities of leprechauns
• 33:39
  farting. Anything into existence?
• 33:41
  Well, I don't think that you can prove a negative, so I can't
• 33:44
  really prove that that didn't happen, you know.
• 33:47
  So where you going? I am in middle school.
• 33:52
  I got into a debate about a guy who said, you know, can you
• 33:56
  disprove that the Universe was created?
• 33:57
  Last Tuesday, and we were all created with all of our memories
• 34:00
  and the world was created exactly as it is today.
• 34:02
  But like last Tuesday and I tried, you know, I spent
• 34:06
  multiple days going back and forth and then I just realized,
• 34:08
  you know, you can't prove you can't disprove anything like
• 34:11
  that. So there's always something that
• 34:13
  they can say and there's always some way that they can, Dude,
• 34:16
  mental gymnastics to make it make sense.
• 34:19
  World is created last Tuesday and it's just a losing battle
• 34:21
  ultimately to try to disprove any claims like that.
• 34:25
  I got a question for you. A lot of non-believers that we
• 34:28
  have coming in the usually state that they formally went to
• 34:32
  church, they formerly were religious and all that.
• 34:35
  What is your background? Whenever it comes to this where
• 34:37
  you born in a secular home or or did you go to church for a
• 34:41
  while? No, yes I was basically there
• 34:44
  was never really a while as I was growing up there was really
• 34:46
  never any I didn't really learn about religions in that, kind of
• 34:51
  way. I mean, I kind of after I
• 34:54
  figured out about Santa Claus, not being real.
• 34:56
  I kind of just assumed that that's how it was for the
• 34:59
  religions to, and then that I just kind of in my child brain.
• 35:02
  You know, I kind of thought that, that was just another
• 35:04
  thing that the adults were telling the children.
• 35:06
  So I didn't realize that adults actually believed in religions
• 35:10
  until kind of like late, like, maybe sixth grade like something
• 35:15
  like that. I'd it was a it was a while
• 35:17
  before I realized that adults. It's were serious about that
• 35:19
  stuff, of course people who are serious about there being more
• 35:23
  to the universe and that there's life and existence and meaning
• 35:27
  and purpose. I mean why I really thought it
• 35:30
  was just something that they were telling the kids like Santa
• 35:32
  Claus. I really didn't think that
• 35:34
  adults genuinely believe that I was actually shocked like in
• 35:37
  sixth grade when I realized that, you know, that the teeth
• 35:40
  the teacher actually did believe in.
• 35:43
  In her religion I was I was pretty shocked to discover that
• 35:47
  while I know this might be Fun fact for you.
• 35:49
  But you do know that Santa Claus is at least created or
• 35:54
  elaborated upon based upon an actual person existing on,
• 35:58
  right? So, I mean, there's still truth
• 36:00
  to it, except for the whole flying, the reindeers and going
• 36:03
  down chimneys as obese, man, there.
• 36:07
  I mean, God is also based on like like historical events
• 36:12
  from, you know, the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age.
• 36:16
  Right. I think one of the things that
• 36:18
  Proverbs brought up those interesting about the
• 36:20
  scriptures, how do you think it is?
• 36:24
  Yes, there are religions where they got their one book or a
• 36:27
  couple books and everything but you've got almost 80 books.
• 36:31
  If you also count, the Catholics aren't men who throughout the
• 36:36
  ages were writing about this interaction and engagement with
• 36:39
  it. Now, if it was like one or
• 36:41
  twice, you can go. And I don't know, Santa Claus
• 36:44
  stuff but 80 books. Looks all the way up to our been
• 36:48
  believed in since the modern times.
• 36:51
  How can you contrast that with the concept of Santa Claus?
• 36:54
  I would just look at the Quran which has just about the same
• 36:58
  word count, the same amount of, you know, historical discourse
• 37:02
  around. It of roughly the same amount of
• 37:05
  Believers know what? Whoa, hold on.
• 37:08
  He he actually kind of has a point Jerry.
• 37:11
  I hang out with Muslims all the time and you do realize I don't
• 37:14
  know if you've ever had the chance.
• 37:16
  The read the Quran, but they actually believed Jesus Christ
• 37:19
  existed. They believed he was the
• 37:21
  Messiah, they mentioned it 35 times.
• 37:23
  They also believe he's the one that will return in the end of
• 37:26
  the world. A lot of their, a lot of their
• 37:28
  stories are if it's safe to say or directly from what the Bible
• 37:34
  says, except for a few discrepancies.
• 37:38
  Hey can I say something? Sure you can you're Mike's a
• 37:41
  little muffled but give it a shot.
• 37:42
  Terry, nice to meet you. All right, first of all it
• 37:46
  Gracie will call dr. Jennings toward professor at
• 37:52
  Rice University. It will talk to you personally,
• 37:56
  Zoom meeting. He's a professor of abiogenesis.
• 38:01
  You really need to call him and talk to him.
• 38:03
  Why? Today, I have emailed with dr.
• 38:05
  Tour before No, no, he email. I emailed him because he
• 38:14
  recently, he's been doing his video series on abiogenesis and
• 38:17
  he's been asking for a paper that can show proteins forming
• 38:21
  in water without protecting agents.
• 38:23
  So then I sent him that paper he was claiming that.
• 38:26
  There was no such paper that existed.
• 38:27
  So I emailed him a couple like a week or two ago and said here's
• 38:31
  the exact paper that you're looking for proteins forming and
• 38:34
  water without protecting agents. And He responded back saying
• 38:39
  that he's too busy and he doesn't have time to make a
• 38:43
  video about every paper that he gets sent to him.
• 38:47
  We don't believe in government and he'll talk to you soon,
• 38:51
  okay? Okay.
• 38:53
  And having a conversation with him, for sure.
• 38:56
  I was gonna carry your microphone.
• 38:59
  Jerry, your microphone sounds like you're speaking to a toilet
• 39:02
  paper roll? Is there any way you can switch
• 39:04
  that out? It's kind of rough.
• 39:05
  We want to hear what you have to say, but it's like well, I won't
• 39:08
  lie. Charlie Brown's teacher.
• 39:10
  Okay, I can try headphones but I can't get them to work either.
• 39:15
  Well if you can do something about that microphone, that
• 39:18
  would be great because we want to make you out.
• 39:20
  I've got bad ears. I blame it on 80s metal music
• 39:23
  myself. Well goodness Grayson, do you
• 39:27
  believe that there are other? Is there a probability that
• 39:30
  there's other life that exists in the universe?
• 39:34
  I mean I'm not ruling out any possibilities.
• 39:36
  Yeah, you wouldn't say that it's irrational or stupid in any kind
• 39:41
  of way to think that if there's 10 trillion planets a scientist
• 39:45
  claim exists, then there has to be some amount of value to the
• 39:49
  idea that there's life out there.
• 39:52
  Yeah. I mean, it sounds sounds
• 39:54
  reasonable to me. Personally and, you know,
• 39:57
  actually, when I was growing up, my dad, put it in a really cool
• 39:59
  way. That really spurned my childhood
• 40:02
  imagination where he saw me drawing a bunch of alien
• 40:04
  monsters. And he came up to my over my
• 40:07
  shoulder and say, you know, the universe is so huge.
• 40:10
  And there are so many different stars and planets that the odds
• 40:13
  are that the creatures that you're drawing, probably exists
• 40:16
  out there somewhere and so that just made me feel like you know
• 40:19
  I had the power, you know, these were real Oh somewhere.
• 40:22
  So, you know, I know that that's not really the case necessarily
• 40:26
  but I think it's like, you know, it was such a cool thing to
• 40:29
  think about it, maybe really feel cool about my drawing.
• 40:32
  So I definitely think that there is a strong possibility of life
• 40:35
  outside of our solar system for sure.
• 40:38
  So you're an artist, I mean yeah I like to draw and paint sculpt
• 40:42
  and that kind of stuff. Well if you don't mind after we
• 40:45
  get them like talking for a little bit I'd appreciate it if
• 40:48
  you'd show me some of your work, i-i've had musicians.
• 40:52
  He's up here. I've had people who show off
• 40:54
  their work and we really mean Proverbs.
• 40:57
  Enjoy seeing people's creativity.
• 40:59
  Okay. Where do you think creativity
• 41:01
  and Imagination came from? If you were to try to explain it
• 41:05
  through Evolution, natural processes through abstract
• 41:09
  thinking and problem solving. Well, what I'm asking you is how
• 41:14
  do you think the mechanisms even got in there to make you be the
• 41:19
  imaginative creative person that you are, but through neural
• 41:23
  connections, will what? Okay, so what, how do I put
• 41:29
  this? What are the variables in the
• 41:31
  environment that causes us to happen?
• 41:33
  To anatomical structure, this ability to have its memory
• 41:37
  capacity, its creativity, its imaginations.
• 41:40
  What I'm getting, That not the horse in front of the carriage,
• 41:43
  but how did the mechanisms come into place, right?
• 41:47
  So once you would have like a you're going to have a certain
• 41:51
  amount of variety, right in the number of neural connections
• 41:54
  that you have. Like, everybody has a round the
• 41:57
  same, average amount of neural connection, but some people have
• 42:00
  more, some people have a little bit less, right?
• 42:02
  Mean there's a natural kind of variety.
• 42:03
  But in that, right, so the people that have kind of like
• 42:07
  more neural connections right, they're able to kind of, you
• 42:10
  know, if Have the right kinds of connections which again, we
• 42:14
  would expect to see when we have a variety like a, like a
• 42:18
  neurological landscape among the individuals of a population.
• 42:22
  Some of them are going to have a higher capacity for abstract
• 42:25
  thinking and problem solving like this is that kind of
• 42:27
  creative mode that you're talking about and that's going
• 42:32
  to be beneficial for you know I mean hunting-gathering like
• 42:36
  finding the right resources planning ahead and thinking what
• 42:40
  in kind of Abstract ways, there's going to be definite
• 42:44
  Fitness benefits that come with that for the kind of echo
• 42:47
  logical niche. That kind of like, very early,
• 42:50
  human ancestors were occupying. Got a weird question for you
• 42:54
  Grace and you probably never heard this before.
• 42:57
  But if I were to ask you right now, I were to challenge you to
• 43:00
  get out a notepad or a sketch board and create something
• 43:04
  completely original, no matter how sloppy messy or beautiful.
• 43:08
  It is, would you be able to create something?
• 43:11
  Those absolutely unique that you haven't actually experienced in
• 43:15
  real life. Yeah, probably.
• 43:18
  Now, why do you think that you would have the ability to do
• 43:21
  that? If you never actually
• 43:22
  experienced this, I mean, my strategy would just be to job
• 43:26
  randomly like a like, a sketch like that.
• 43:29
  And, you know, after a couple minutes of that, I would think
• 43:32
  that the probability of anybody else doing a completely random
• 43:35
  sketch like that in history would be as effectively.
• 43:38
  Zero. Do you believe that Evolution
• 43:40
  gives A good enough explanation and why it is that you're able
• 43:44
  to do this, how you're even able to think of your way of
• 43:47
  tactically winning or getting the sart done?
• 43:52
  Yes. Well, go ahead and explain it.
• 43:57
  Right. I mean I have Consciousness, I
• 44:00
  have a brain, I have it created a capacity for Creative problem
• 44:03
  solving, and why? Because it was advantageous to
• 44:08
  my ancestors, why do you think that, we don't see that happen
• 44:12
  with any other creatures out there?
• 44:13
  What if I are other creatures that are capable of abstract
• 44:16
  thinking and problem solving and creativity you believe that
• 44:20
  they're on the same level as, you know, they don't have as
• 44:23
  many neural connections as me but they're on the scale.
• 44:27
  But why is it that you and only humans that are involved in our
• 44:31
  species are able to do that? But nothing else because of the
• 44:34
  ecologically niche that our ancestors occupied We'll go
• 44:38
  ahead and elaborate on that. All right, so like our
• 44:41
  ancestors, right, when we when we came down from the trees,
• 44:44
  right? We were scavengers, we were
• 44:46
  looking for any kind of resources.
• 44:47
  We could we even transition to hunting and we occupied a kind
• 44:52
  of ecological niche in multiple environments not just in like
• 44:55
  the grasslands but we spread out too and we were occupying.
• 45:01
  This kind of Not so much like an apex predator because there were
• 45:05
  still other Predators out there but because we were working as
• 45:08
  groups, right? And we were developing like
• 45:11
  social bonds, there's a large impetus like, kind of on the
• 45:15
  group as a whole to like a an evolutionary pressure to
• 45:20
  increase social cohesion. So you can work together as a
• 45:24
  team and better survive together as a group.
• 45:26
  And so like the social bonds, spur things like language, they
• 45:32
  spur Like like being able to kind of put yourself in
• 45:35
  somebody's shoes and to try to interact with with other people
• 45:39
  and all of these things, contribute positively to brain
• 45:43
  capacity and then also our ability to cook our food which
• 45:48
  other animals. Don't do unlocks a lot more
• 45:50
  calories in our diet which you know, having big brains takes up
• 45:54
  a lot of excess energy. So if we didn't cook our food,
• 45:57
  we would not be able to support our brains on the kind of
• 46:02
  Calorie that consumption that we would have been able to find
• 46:04
  naturally. I'm not sure if I heard that
• 46:07
  would kind of food. What kind of food can we eat and
• 46:10
  what kind of things have to be happening in the environment to
• 46:14
  how? So I say, come up with a nervous
• 46:17
  system or brain signals. Okay, so you're going way way
• 46:21
  back now. So I guess we would have to
• 46:26
  start with like precursors to neurons for that question.
• 46:30
  And so that's going to be maybe like sponges or things that are
• 46:35
  even more basil than sponges. I mean vertebrates and
• 46:37
  invertebrates, most kinds of animals, have some kind of
• 46:41
  neurons neurons. And neurological systems, even
• 46:44
  before multicellularity in some more basal single-celled
• 46:48
  creatures, they even have They utilize Action, potentials, just
• 46:53
  like our neurons. I mean, that's how neurons
• 46:55
  function is sending electrical signals via Action.
• 46:58
  Potentials, and these organisms you utilize Action, potentials
• 47:03
  for movement and sensing their environment.
• 47:06
  And that's the exact kind of molecular structure in the kind
• 47:10
  of enzymes and the process involved that are neurons use.
• 47:14
  So a lot of these processes would have started in
• 47:16
  single-celled, organisms for movement and perceiving the
• 47:20
  Don't like chemicals, light signals that kind of thing in
• 47:24
  their swimming and those systems would have developed in single
• 47:28
  cells and then once we got multicellular organisms, each
• 47:32
  cell needs to be able to communicate with the other cells
• 47:34
  in the organism and a much faster way of communicating
• 47:38
  Beyond sending hormones is like you know, 10 times faster than
• 47:43
  that is an action potential. And we do sea sponges actually
• 47:47
  utilizing Action. Potentials to kind of like
• 47:50
  Clenched together or to kind of move really quickly as a unit.
• 47:54
  So there are, you know, beneficial aspects to utilizing
• 47:59
  these Action. Potentials before neurons are
• 48:01
  neurological systems, could develop.
• 48:03
  And even, I think, in sponges recently, there was a paper.
• 48:06
  I think I saw where the molecular machinery for the
• 48:12
  receiving end of a synapse, like how our brain has synapses
• 48:15
  between the nerves the neurons. So a lot of the molecular
• 48:19
  machinery for the Receiving end of the synapse was found in a
• 48:22
  sponge but sponges don't have synapses.
• 48:25
  They don't have like synapses synapse neurons or nervous
• 48:28
  systems. So a lot of this, the system
• 48:31
  like the machinery for all out of this stuff had already been
• 48:35
  like previously evolved for other kinds of solutions Beyond
• 48:39
  like forming a nervous system, mr.
• 48:41
  Grayson, I'm enjoying the conversation with you had the
• 48:44
  unfortunate experience of drinking too many Yoo-hoos and
• 48:47
  coffee. Have used the restroom Proverbs,
• 48:51
  would you like to talk to Grayson and Grace?
• 48:52
  And I want to thank you for coming in and I hope that you
• 48:55
  continue to revisit. Whenever I do live shows, you're
• 48:58
  very articulate, intelligent, I'm enjoying a discussion.
• 49:01
  What the hell? Would I send you right back.
• 49:03
  Be right back. Yeah, I'd also like to add
• 49:06
  Grayson, we get a lot of atheists in here that
• 49:09
  truthfully. It's hard to admit as a
• 49:11
  Christian but they're just very hard to like but you are the
• 49:15
  opposite. You're very likable.
• 49:16
  So you know we enjoy having you here.
• 49:20
  This It might sound like a silly question in the beginning, so
• 49:23
  I'll grant that. But have you ever observed a
• 49:25
  chicken like in its natural habitat?
• 49:29
  And its natural habitat. You mean like in Southeast Asia?
• 49:33
  Well, I mean just plucking around at the ground.
• 49:36
  Yeah. Yeah.
• 49:37
  I've seen chickens but they're not natural, they domesticated.
• 49:39
  But yes. Okay, but you would agree that
• 49:42
  they are pretty stupid, right? Yeah, I mean, it's a, it's a
• 49:46
  relative statement, Right company.
• 49:48
  Compared to the human race. Chickens are pretty stupid
• 49:51
  though, correct? Okay, I'm just wondering, can
• 49:55
  you explain what variables in the environment?
• 49:59
  Moment, would cause the chicken to want to further the process
• 50:03
  of evolving into eventually becoming a human.
• 50:07
  Why would they want that? They don't have any knowledge of
• 50:09
  evolution. Well, with the theory of
• 50:12
  evolution, though the chain of evolution, everything is
• 50:15
  connected in one way or another correct.
• 50:20
  Are you talking about like Universal common ancestry,
• 50:23
  correct? Okay, then, yes.
• 50:25
  Okay my question would be why did some of these chickens
• 50:29
  stupid as they are actually start evolving into other
• 50:33
  species until eventually we come to the human race and why did
• 50:36
  some chicken stay chickens? Well, the chickens never evolved
• 50:41
  into anything other than chickens.
• 50:45
  Like distractions are relatively new species?
• 50:50
  Okay. So what did the chicken evolve
• 50:52
  from? I mean we didn't just create
• 50:55
  chickens in the lab one day? Yeah.
• 50:57
  So like a chicken would have a verb evolved from more basil
• 51:00
  Birds which evolved from like therapsid dinosaurs.
• 51:06
  So, you don't believe we have common ancestry with chickens.
• 51:10
  Well, our common ancestor with chickens would go back to like,
• 51:15
  so the chicken is over here, right?
• 51:17
  And they're going back through therapsid dinosaurs, they're
• 51:19
  going back to like basil amniotes, which are kind of like
• 51:23
  lizard looking things. They're not truly lizards, but
• 51:26
  they kind of superficially resemble them.
• 51:29
  And then humans would go back here, we would go back through,
• 51:32
  you know, apes and monkeys and like basil, rodent looking
• 51:36
  mammals until we get to synapsids and then we get to the
• 51:39
  basil. Amniotes to.
• 51:40
  So that would be the two paths between human and a chicken and
• 51:44
  our common ancestry. Ancestor would be like this more
• 51:47
  basil amniote, okay? So if the base sorry base no
• 51:52
  amniote. Yes, like the basil just
• 51:55
  describes it it's like at the base of the tree kind of or like
• 51:58
  the base of this Branch. So it's called an amnio you know
• 52:01
  like amniotic fluid or something like that.
• 52:04
  Yeah we're that's what that's what makes us amniotes but an
• 52:08
  amnio is just sort of something that As you know that this
• 52:11
  property like like we have amniotic layers and amniotes
• 52:18
  typically will develop into an egg like a hard-shelled egg like
• 52:21
  a lizard would lay. So it's kind of like you have
• 52:24
  like amphibians and then you have the amniotes split off from
• 52:28
  the amphibians and then the amniotes became modern like
• 52:32
  reptiles and mammals and birds. Okay?
• 52:37
  So if it all began with the amniotes what variables would
• 52:40
  cause them to develop differently, So, it would be a
• 52:45
  factor of like what ecologically Niche that they're that they're
• 52:49
  fitting in, right? Every species has its own Niche
• 52:51
  within the environment so that's what's going to determine how
• 52:54
  successful it's able to be. Like, if something is a plant
• 52:58
  eater, it's going to have a lot of different pressures than if
• 53:00
  something is like an apex predator and what determines if
• 53:03
  for your successful plant, eater of versus successful Predator
• 53:07
  are going to be two totally different things.
• 53:08
  So it depends on what Niche that they're fulfilling in the
• 53:10
  environment. First of all, and then second of
• 53:14
  all, It would depend on like if they're reproductively isolated.
• 53:17
  Like if they, you know, one of them goes to Africa and one of
• 53:20
  them goes to Asia, then there's probably not going to be a lot
• 53:23
  of gene flow between the two and eventually, they'll
• 53:25
  differentiate to where they can no longer cross breed.
• 53:28
  And then from that point, it's sort of like, you know, two
• 53:31
  separate Paths of evolution and then I'm sorry.
• 53:37
  Your question was asking about what caused the amnio to
• 53:40
  differentiate into both humans and chickens?
• 53:42
  Right? Well, so, I'm actually trying to
• 53:45
  get at is if you believe like that's one of the earliest
• 53:48
  chains of the evolution that caused the entire tree that
• 53:52
  branched off and all the different directions.
• 53:54
  I would assume that you'd also believe that it started in the
• 53:57
  same environment, right? Because it had to evolve itself
• 54:01
  in that same location. Why would it evolve in need
• 54:05
  different? As you put it niches?
• 54:07
  I mean, shouldn't be shouldn't the variables in the environment
• 54:10
  calls all of those to evolve. Similarly, Yes, so the original
• 54:15
  population of amniotes which talking about they had a certain
• 54:18
  geographical range, right? And they were best suited for a
• 54:21
  certain kind of environment. Say it's like you know like a
• 54:26
  like it's grassland or I don't know something that's like not
• 54:30
  exactly where amphibians would live right on the water but it's
• 54:34
  not like a desert or whatever. You know, they have an
• 54:37
  environment where they're the best at.
• 54:39
  So they either spread out geographically right there,
• 54:42
  either a successful species like us.
• 54:44
  Be spread to all the other continents and then once you
• 54:47
  know your isolated geographically then you start to
• 54:51
  differentiate and I'll ask you about Ring species.
• 54:54
  But I also just want to say the other thing would be like
• 54:56
  climate change. Say that these population of
• 54:59
  Basil, amniotes is is thriving in its range and suddenly the
• 55:04
  environment starts to get much drier and drier.
• 55:06
  And suddenly like a river. That was in between them dries
• 55:10
  up. You start having isolated
• 55:12
  populations now? Or like they have to change
• 55:16
  something about how they're they're living because their
• 55:19
  previous Niche is no longer tenable in the new climate.
• 55:21
  So like when the environment changes, that can spurn these
• 55:26
  evolutionary changes that diverged species or you can have
• 55:29
  genetic drift, just do to like different geographical areas.
• 55:33
  So I was going to ask you about. Have you ever heard the term
• 55:36
  ring species? I have not please, please inform
• 55:40
  us. So this has been observed with
• 55:43
  like I think it The type of salamander in California, but
• 55:47
  there's other examples of ring species, that was just one of
• 55:50
  the more well-known ones, but when you have like a
• 55:52
  geographical barrier, like a mountain range or something,
• 55:55
  it's so we've observed like, like I think it was salamanders
• 55:59
  in this instance where they live on one certain side of the
• 56:02
  mountain range, but then they start to migrate around the
• 56:06
  mountain range and you start getting different varieties.
• 56:09
  Depending on, where in the mountain range, this is to
• 56:11
  where, you know, you might get a red salamander.
• 56:14
  Her here. And then they migrate over here
• 56:15
  and become more like a yellow variety of salamander.
• 56:18
  And then when they go further south than now, they're yellow
• 56:21
  and black spotted salamander they go down here.
• 56:23
  They get you know, red rings or whatever.
• 56:25
  And now suddenly they've gone in total ring a circle around this
• 56:29
  geographical obstacle like a mountain.
• 56:31
  And when they meet back on the other side, they've actually
• 56:34
  Diversified so much that they can no longer interbreed like
• 56:37
  that original population, of salamanders, and the version of
• 56:40
  this and the populations, that went all the way around the
• 56:43
  mountain are now. Now so different that they're
• 56:45
  like they're not the same species anymore, they can no
• 56:48
  longer interbreed and so we've observed that kind of thing
• 56:50
  actually happening. Yeah, that's not really
• 56:53
  Evolution though is it? That's more of extreme
• 56:56
  adaptability which creationists believe in adaptability.
• 56:59
  I would say that that's like the definition of evolution.
• 57:02
  I mean evolution is descent with modification.
• 57:05
  So that is the definition of model of evolution would be the
• 57:09
  ring species. Okay, very interesting.
• 57:13
  So what did you call it? There with adaptability
• 57:17
  adaptability, that would be an extreme case of adaptability is
• 57:20
  for instance, like skin pigment Okay, so it for something to be
• 57:26
  adaptability versus Evolution. How do you draw that
• 57:30
  distinction? Where is it this concept of,
• 57:32
  like, new information being added or how do you square that
• 57:35
  Circle? Well, as a Christian, I throw
• 57:38
  Evolution out of the box completely.
• 57:40
  So the only form of a type of evolution, if you would call it
• 57:44
  that, that I would, I would agree with would be
• 57:46
  adaptability, for instance, animals in colder climates, have
• 57:51
  longer hair but the same species of Animal can have shorter hair
• 57:53
  in a warmer climate same with skin pigment.
• 57:56
  You know, this is adaptability. These are traits that God put in
• 57:59
  us when he created us so that we can adapt to our environments.
• 58:02
  But that's much different from evolving from single cell
• 58:07
  organisms eventually into creation.
• 58:10
  Like we know it today. Can I ask you like, why it's
• 58:14
  different for you? Because it when I hear it, like
• 58:16
  it basically sounds like like you could basically say, you
• 58:20
  know, God created life with the ability to To evolve and that
• 58:24
  would be the same thing in my head.
• 58:25
  Like I mean, when I see that you know, God created these things
• 58:30
  with the ability to adapt to their environment that just
• 58:32
  sounds like theistic Evolution to me.
• 58:36
  Yeah, theistic Evolution. That would be more along the
• 58:39
  lines of with Catholicism which is totally different from my
• 58:42
  perspective. I'm a young Earth creationist.
• 58:45
  I believe the Bible is literally true and accurate so I believe
• 58:48
  the world is under 7000 years old and being Thousand years
• 58:53
  old, there's not enough time to evolve but also we have a lot of
• 58:57
  that 7000 years as recorded history.
• 59:00
  So I would go with the recorded history that we have in the
• 59:03
  scriptures which goes back over 5,000 years.
• 59:07
  If you don't take the earlier parts of the scripture, which go
• 59:09
  all the way back to the beginning, Yeah, I don't know.
• 59:14
  I think that there's a little bit of some problems with that
• 59:17
  model but I don't know how much you want to get into all of now.
• 59:21
  Go for it. I mean yeah.
• 59:24
  So I don't really see obviously like I don't see evidence for a
• 59:29
  global flood but I also think that the like Egyptian written
• 59:35
  history goes back before the the point of the flood.
• 59:43
  I disagree that it goes back before the flood and what's
• 59:46
  interesting is that the Hebrew word for Egypt is mitzrayim and
• 59:51
  mitzrayim was the grandson of Noah.
• 59:53
  So, Noah's grandson was actually the founder and forefather of
• 59:58
  Egypt. But again these are things that
• 1:00:00
  are all explained in the Bible but like we have a very detailed
• 1:00:03
  history. Correct me if I'm wrong here but
• 1:00:05
  in the Bible, Moses was raised in Egypt like in the Pharaohs
• 1:00:10
  family. So it sounds like Egypt already
• 1:00:11
  existed. Before Moses why didn't say
• 1:00:15
  Moses I said Noah oh no no I'm sorry two different characters
• 1:00:20
  mitzrayim which is Egypt would have been the grandson of Noah
• 1:00:24
  but you are correct. Yes.
• 1:00:25
  Why is it that in the archaeological record?
• 1:00:28
  The first pharaoh of a United Egypt is Narmer which is not
• 1:00:33
  this guy that you're talking about.
• 1:00:35
  Like, we have the actual, you know, the writing a this guy
• 1:00:38
  Narmer because Narmer Narmer is the Egyptian name.
• 1:00:42
  Mmmmm mitzrayim is the name in Hebrew.
• 1:00:46
  So you're talking about the, well, it would have been though
• 1:00:50
  because it's an offshoot of Phoenician.
• 1:00:53
  As a matter of fact, they claim that Phoenician is the first
• 1:00:55
  offshoot from the first Hebrew dialect.
• 1:00:59
  Well no. I mean like we have
• 1:01:04
  proto-sinaitic script in Egypt like kind of more towards the
• 1:01:09
  Sinai area that is like predates any Phoenician writing and it is
• 1:01:15
  a Semitic script but it's like it's before Hebrew as well.
• 1:01:22
  Well, right, that's because what we know as modern Hebrew today
• 1:01:25
  isn't even actually Hebrew. It's Aramaic.
• 1:01:28
  But then you go back a little further, you get to Hebrew, you
• 1:01:31
  get back before that you have other Semitic languages and
• 1:01:35
  eventually do cross over the Phoenicians.
• 1:01:37
  So are you disagreeing? Then that like, because we have
• 1:01:41
  a conception of language families, right?
• 1:01:43
  Like Hebrew is within the afro-asiatic language group.
• 1:01:47
  And Indo-European languages are different, language group and
• 1:01:51
  sino-tibetan But in are different.
• 1:01:52
  So like if you're just saying that Hebrew was always existing
• 1:01:57
  or like was existing from the flood on or whatever you're
• 1:02:00
  saying like it just doesn't make sense to me.
• 1:02:03
  Given our what we know from Linguistics about where the
• 1:02:06
  Hebrew language derived from while the Hebrew language would
• 1:02:11
  have came from Abraham after he had left Canaan.
• 1:02:17
  Oh, by the way, folks, I'm back, I see the somebody's trying to
• 1:02:21
  share their screen who is that? That's doing that.
• 1:02:25
  Not I yes, he looks like somebody beating away at their
• 1:02:31
  computer over there. I guess it's nothing.
• 1:02:35
  All right, so where are we at right now in the discussion, I
• 1:02:37
  apologize for needing to take my break, natural processes, right?
• 1:02:44
  Some like that? I'm sure we can start anywhere,
• 1:02:47
  really, I'm game. I'm sorry Jerry, but you're
• 1:02:53
  extremely quiet. I can totally hear you.
• 1:02:56
  That's great. It's so sad.
• 1:03:00
  We get folks in here and we just can't get that microphone.
• 1:03:03
  Working, this horrible boy so Grace and I guess I got a
• 1:03:09
  question for you. Are you have you ever been
• 1:03:12
  fascinated? At least whenever it comes to
• 1:03:16
  the discussions? We've been having about like
• 1:03:19
  healing the way our bodies are able to go through a healing
• 1:03:23
  process. When do you think an evolution
• 1:03:27
  this actually happened? The bodies were able to do this
• 1:03:30
  and how I would probably think. And again I haven't done much
• 1:03:36
  reading on the origin of this. So this is just my initial
• 1:03:39
  thoughts on your question. But I would think that the
• 1:03:42
  process is probably would have begun in a rudimentary way when
• 1:03:47
  we were still single celled organisms.
• 1:03:49
  So before multicellularity Can you explain why that would have
• 1:03:53
  happened? Yeah, so there would be like it
• 1:03:58
  would be advantageous, right? I mean like if you were able to
• 1:04:03
  have either error-correcting processes or some kind of like
• 1:04:07
  repair of damaged as a single cell, then obviously, that's
• 1:04:12
  going to impart a fitness advantage for your species,
• 1:04:15
  right? I mean, I think that that would
• 1:04:16
  be pretty obvious. Well yeah, I mean you're
• 1:04:20
  basically saying that if something like this is
• 1:04:22
  happening, it's going to be good for us.
• 1:04:25
  I agree. I agree that there's a lot of
• 1:04:27
  things that are happen to us that are good.
• 1:04:29
  But the question is, is how does this good thing happen and how
• 1:04:33
  did it even come into existence? The reason why I asked this
• 1:04:36
  question Grace and Miz you obviously being that you don't
• 1:04:39
  believe in the Supernatural, you don't believe that there's some
• 1:04:41
  kind of Consciousness out there, then you'd have to agree that if
• 1:04:45
  evolution is nothing more than a natural process, it Don't feel
• 1:04:49
  pain, it doesn't even have an understanding.
• 1:04:51
  It doesn't care when you were born when your birthday is when
• 1:04:54
  you're going to die. It's definitely not going to
• 1:04:56
  send you a Christmas present. So why would it, why would it
• 1:05:00
  involve itself live or not or conscious to give you this
• 1:05:05
  ability? I think that you're maybe
• 1:05:08
  personifying the the process of natural selection a bit but
• 1:05:14
  Like, I mean, it's not like it's an entity that's doing all these
• 1:05:18
  things. But like I mean I said, like, if
• 1:05:21
  something isn't is a benefit to Fitness, it's going to be
• 1:05:25
  positively selected for. I think that that's kind of like
• 1:05:28
  the whole tenets of the theory, right?
• 1:05:31
  But you do believe that evolution is a blind process or
• 1:05:34
  is it guided? Why?
• 1:05:36
  It's Guided by natural selection, okay, would you be
• 1:05:40
  able to explain how natural selection?
• 1:05:44
  I don't want to use the word decision because that would be
• 1:05:46
  exactly what you're talking about.
• 1:05:48
  That Persona thing, but I know is natural kind of help
• 1:05:52
  illustrate. It may be so like in the very
• 1:05:56
  very simplest conception of this, right?
• 1:05:59
  Like if we have to like chemical replicators, right?
• 1:06:02
  Not even life at this point just to chemical replicators and all
• 1:06:06
  they do is replicate themselves. If you have one replicator
• 1:06:09
  that's capable of using its resources, more efficiently and
• 1:06:13
  is capable of Game three replications per hour versus the
• 1:06:16
  other kind. That's only capable of using to
• 1:06:18
  replications per hour. Then eventually the kind that
• 1:06:21
  can make more replications is going to take over the
• 1:06:24
  population, right? You would agree with that Ryan
• 1:06:28
  obviously the more tools it's got to its trade, it's going to
• 1:06:32
  be able to do better. That would be illustrating.
• 1:06:34
  It's not like natural selection made a decision and shows the
• 1:06:37
  faster replicator. It's just a result of both of
• 1:06:41
  them trying to use their resources and replicate it.
• 1:06:44
  As fast as possible. One is just better.
• 1:06:46
  So it takes over the population and it dominates but it's not
• 1:06:49
  like there was ever an entity that shows for that one to
• 1:06:52
  dominate. It's just a result of it having
• 1:06:55
  better Fitness. Yeah, but that's, that's where
• 1:06:58
  the question lies. Where did it come up with the
• 1:07:01
  concept that it even needed this or required.
• 1:07:05
  This in order to be able to go through the survival process?
• 1:07:08
  You speak of. So You Keep On You, Keep On
• 1:07:11
  speaking of the horse but not the carrots.
• 1:07:13
  I'm asking how did this happen? Looks like we've got mr.
• 1:07:16
  Adam Lauren. Welcome to the room, Grayson go
• 1:07:19
  ahead. So the fitness is just decided
• 1:07:22
  by like the environment around it.
• 1:07:24
  Like, in this example, the fitness is Went by the resources
• 1:07:28
  that are available, right? So if there's only a finite
• 1:07:31
  amount of space and a finite amount of resources, then the
• 1:07:34
  most fit is going to be the species that is replicating.
• 1:07:37
  The fastest with the least amount of resources that I mean
• 1:07:40
  that's that's what is determining these things.
• 1:07:42
  So are you asking about like how you talk about the mutation
• 1:07:46
  process or I'm a little bit uncertain, very similar, what
• 1:07:50
  the problem is you're telling me you're saying, look at need this
• 1:07:55
  in order to be able to Survive. If it didn't have this benefits,
• 1:07:58
  it wasn't going to make it. I'm all with you on that.
• 1:08:01
  I agree with you but then again we okay because that's not what
• 1:08:04
  I'm saying, right? Because okay, in both cases they
• 1:08:07
  were both replicators that were capable of surviving, right?
• 1:08:10
  Just because the one only made two copies per hour and the
• 1:08:12
  other one made three. That doesn't mean that they that
• 1:08:15
  the other one is going to die, right?
• 1:08:17
  It was with great weather. Every one of you, each other
• 1:08:20
  Grace and let me under grace and let me try this on you.
• 1:08:24
  I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to give you five
• 1:08:26
  replicates. M.
• 1:08:27
  And before the four came from the one, all right, at what
• 1:08:31
  point in time during this replication that it give it the
• 1:08:34
  ability to be able to heal itself if it's damaged or
• 1:08:38
  something, happens in the environment.
• 1:08:41
  So that would be a very, very far down the line from just
• 1:08:45
  replicators, right? Because I mean you would have to
• 1:08:49
  have a lot more of a complicated system for it to even be able to
• 1:08:55
  support any kind. End of self-repair system.
• 1:08:58
  So we would have to be talking about like cells or protocells
• 1:09:01
  at that point. That's a good way.
• 1:09:04
  You worded that I like that. How did it get itself repair
• 1:09:08
  system? Yeah I'm asking you how did it
• 1:09:13
  get this? The self repair system?
• 1:09:17
  Well, I mean the most intellectually honest answer I
• 1:09:19
  can give you is, I don't know, but we could talk about some
• 1:09:23
  like maybe plausible mechanisms that it could do this in a
• 1:09:26
  naturalistic way and right there, ladies and gentlemen.
• 1:09:29
  That's why I like Grace and he's intellectually honest.
• 1:09:32
  If he doesn't know the answer, he doesn't make things up.
• 1:09:34
  He just says, look, I don't know.
• 1:09:36
  That's cool, man, that's cool. Hey, Adam, how you doing?
• 1:09:39
  How's your day been? And then we'll get back into
• 1:09:41
  some more conversation. We've been putting this man on
• 1:09:43
  the hot seat for an hour and nine minutes, unbelievable, and
• 1:09:46
  he's I'm pretty good. I must say and he's conducted
• 1:09:49
  himself as a gentleman. And I'm where you live you get
• 1:09:57
  your microphone hooked up. Apparently that's the guy.
• 1:10:00
  I don't know. Someone else is trying to speak.
• 1:10:04
  Yeah, Gary. I tell you what, you come back
• 1:10:06
  whenever you learn how technology works.
• 1:10:08
  All right brother. All right, see you later to see
• 1:10:10
  your 23, no excuses. Go ahead.
• 1:10:13
  They're so cool. Yeah.
• 1:10:14
  It's Grayson, seems awesome. It's pretty rare that someone
• 1:10:17
  comes in here who was an atheist thick even knows what the
• 1:10:20
  lambda-cdm model is a lot along. Like I'm very impressed.
• 1:10:23
  I'm very impressed. Thanks and Grayson seems
• 1:10:25
  awesome. He doesn't seem like cocky or
• 1:10:27
  anything but um cool. Yeah doing all right how's
• 1:10:31
  everybody doing? We're doing pretty good, just
• 1:10:35
  having a good discussion. I do I we're not talking down to
• 1:10:38
  you all Grace and we like you, we get a lot of people who are
• 1:10:42
  not able capable to getting this far into a conversation.
• 1:10:45
  But it's obvious, you've done research and done some study and
• 1:10:48
  that's what we're looking for. That's one of the reasons I
• 1:10:50
  called you out on your channel. I can tell you had something
• 1:10:53
  going on there. Yeah, well, I just started my
• 1:10:56
  new channel and so it's only like, maybe two or three weeks
• 1:10:59
  old. So, I just started this.
• 1:11:01
  I the first thing I put out was that debate with Kent hovind.
• 1:11:04
  So I've been doing just a couple of like, creationist mainly
• 1:11:07
  debates but yeah, I find all these topics.
• 1:11:11
  Very interesting. So I like it when ever, I
• 1:11:14
  creationist will act, ask me a question that.
• 1:11:16
  I don't know the answer to you because oftentimes I will like
• 1:11:20
  learn new things and when I'm like go back and research it
• 1:11:23
  Very good. Very good, mr.
• 1:11:25
  Kent told them will be with us on Fridays and three PM isn't it
• 1:11:30
  Proverbs guy? We got it.
• 1:11:32
  That is correct. Yep.
• 1:11:33
  Well I have a debate coming up with Kent, our third debate now.
• 1:11:38
  So part three is going to be on the age of the Earth so I don't
• 1:11:43
  think that it's been set in stone for what date that's going
• 1:11:46
  to be on. But we'll be talking about, you
• 1:11:49
  know, the moon's recession and the Magnetic field strength, and
• 1:11:55
  all of his little go twos that he likes to point to to try to
• 1:11:59
  disprove the Earth being billions of years old.
• 1:12:02
  I'm now the in any way, dumping on my pal Downey standing for
• 1:12:06
  truth but some non-believers tend to like this way.
• 1:12:10
  This format of doing things because you're able to have an
• 1:12:12
  open discussion about things as opposed to be pressured and
• 1:12:15
  timed. So if you want to come in
• 1:12:17
  whenever he's in here and have a discussion with them, that's,
• 1:12:21
  you're more than welcome. Adam, do you have any You'd like
• 1:12:24
  to get into I do as long as Grayson doesn't feel like he's
• 1:12:28
  being put on the spot and no, man, it's all good.
• 1:12:31
  Okay. Look like he enjoys himself and
• 1:12:33
  Mmm. Yeah, Yeah.
• 1:12:35
  So I have just a couple questions.
• 1:12:38
  I would just, I don't want to make any assumptions but I
• 1:12:40
  assume that you value critical thinking and skepticism, right?
• 1:12:45
  Yeah. My favorite childhood story was
• 1:12:47
  the emperor's new clothes. Okay, so what in mainstream
• 1:12:52
  science have you applied? I'd critical thinking to and
• 1:12:55
  skepticism and found issues with.
• 1:12:59
  Hmm. It's an interesting question
• 1:13:02
  like kind of something where I've been reading it and I'm
• 1:13:04
  like that kind of smells like BS.
• 1:13:09
  Hmm. I guess I have somewhat of yeah
• 1:13:15
  I think that we're still very much in our infancy and
• 1:13:18
  understanding of Consciousness and the brain.
• 1:13:20
  So a lot of like like Trick studies and research.
• 1:13:25
  I just kind of seems to me as not sophisticated enough to
• 1:13:29
  really be able to draw some strong conclusions for.
• 1:13:32
  So I kind of I stay away from the things that mess with my
• 1:13:37
  brain. And I hid in these in these
• 1:13:39
  chemical ways that are, you know, all we have the evidence
• 1:13:42
  that this can help some people and I kind of am.
• 1:13:47
  I'm a little bit, maybe overly cautious.
• 1:13:49
  Some people might say about about some of that stuff just
• 1:13:51
  because I think that You know, I have certain conceptions of
• 1:13:56
  things where I think going on. I've got a hunch that maybe this
• 1:13:59
  is how things are working in the brain.
• 1:14:01
  And so maybe, you know, the science isn't there yet.
• 1:14:05
  We don't have methods to really delve in those ways, so I just
• 1:14:09
  kind of have hypotheses. And then the same with, with
• 1:14:12
  quantum physics, where I actually really disagree with
• 1:14:18
  the Copenhagen interpretation, which is kind of, like the main
• 1:14:21
  interpretation of quantum mechanics from, like the 1920s,
• 1:14:24
  and I really dislike how that the Copan interpretation, like
• 1:14:30
  has the math be probabilities, rather than like densities.
• 1:14:35
  So I kind of, it's kind of a nice thing, but my conception of
• 1:14:39
  quantum, mechanics is definitely different than the standard
• 1:14:43
  interpretation. Right?
• 1:14:45
  So, but you do agree that you should be applying critical
• 1:14:48
  thinking and skepticism to anything regardless of what your
• 1:14:52
  hunches about it, right? Like to Evolution to Big Bang.
• 1:14:56
  So, what you have have you applied.
• 1:15:00
  It's got this as into any of those things.
• 1:15:01
  Like they even talking Evolution like the lambda-cdm model, for
• 1:15:06
  example. Sure.
• 1:15:07
  Yeah, why do we need a lambda-cdm model?
• 1:15:09
  Because other models had problems, right?
• 1:15:11
  So I mean yeah there's I mean the land of CDM model is kind of
• 1:15:15
  just like an amalgamation of all of our current like
• 1:15:20
  understandings of cosmology. So yeah.
• 1:15:25
  But yeah, I mean they don't have all the answers either.
• 1:15:27
  I mean, who knows what dark energy is, or dark matter or the
• 1:15:31
  things that are in the model that we are just kind of
• 1:15:33
  scratching our head out at this point.
• 1:15:35
  We just don't know, I don't know about you had him but he just
• 1:15:38
  150 internet points for that statement.
• 1:15:45
  Yeah. I mean I try to be as
• 1:15:47
  intellectually honest, when talking about these subjects as
• 1:15:49
  I can be. I mean I don't want to like I
• 1:15:52
  try to only, I kind of I want to be able to let the evidence lead
• 1:15:57
  to the conclusions whenever I'm looking at these things.
• 1:15:59
  So I try to be skeptical about just about everything.
• 1:16:04
  Is there a different interpretation of quantum
• 1:16:06
  mechanics that you said you make?
• 1:16:09
  Well, just the standard is the Copenhagen interpretation.
• 1:16:11
  So there are some other More Niche ones.
• 1:16:15
  Like like, I tend to think that the collapse of a superposition
• 1:16:20
  is something actually, physically going on and like
• 1:16:23
  eight and actual physical property and that is not the
• 1:16:28
  mainstream interpretation and then like the wave function, you
• 1:16:33
  know, is often depicted as a probability like, oh, do you
• 1:16:36
  have a 90% chance of finding the electron In This Cloud area?
• 1:16:41
  But I tend to interpret that as being a density, E of the
• 1:16:44
  electron rather than a probability of finding it
• 1:16:46
  because I kind of I don't conceptualize these particles as
• 1:16:50
  these tiny little little points. You know, I think that of them
• 1:16:53
  as those points are the only the points of interaction.
• 1:16:56
  That's not the point that the electron exists at it's more
• 1:16:58
  spread across the whole wave function.
• 1:17:02
  Yeah. So I that's not really the
• 1:17:05
  standard interpretation. Like the Copenhagen
• 1:17:07
  interpretation is the probabilistic one.
• 1:17:11
  Okay. Oh hey, this actually real
• 1:17:13
  quick. One more question.
• 1:17:14
  Because you mentioned this earlier, have you ever heard of
• 1:17:16
  the The birds first hypothesis of dinosaurs.
• 1:17:24
  The what first Birds first heard her talking about chickens come
• 1:17:28
  from dinosaurs. Have you ever heard their
• 1:17:30
  hypothesis that birds came before the camera?
• 1:17:34
  What they're called? I haven't heard that but I would
• 1:17:36
  have to see evidence for that. From the last thing I saw was
• 1:17:39
  that the first Birds came along as seen around like 100 or 110
• 1:17:44
  million years 150, maybe years million years ago?
• 1:17:47
  Yeah, and so they did Exist with Dinosaurs for a little bit there
• 1:17:51
  because right the dinosaurs go up to 65.
• 1:17:53
  So there was like a span of time where there was like some
• 1:17:55
  coexistence. But ultimately, I think all of
• 1:17:58
  the evidence I'm aware of shows that birds are derived from
• 1:18:03
  theropod dinosaurs, like what the thing that I find compelling
• 1:18:06
  is that, if you look at the fossil record, And I can't
• 1:18:10
  remember what the name of the birds.
• 1:18:12
  There's a tour the there's a specific type of dinosaur mana
• 1:18:16
  mana Raptors Mana Raptor ins that the mainstream claims that
• 1:18:22
  birds came from but birds arrive in the fossil record before
• 1:18:29
  them. Yeah so Birds show up before the
• 1:18:32
  animal that they claim Birds came from that is very
• 1:18:36
  fascinating to me. I mean, they could have come
• 1:18:39
  from another kind of theropod dinosaur that was not the one
• 1:18:42
  that you're pointing out to but could I mean there are theropod
• 1:18:45
  dinosaurs pretty early on in the fossil record I mean I think I
• 1:18:51
  think the first one is that you find or maybe in that in the
• 1:18:54
  Triassic maybe or the Jurassic. I'm not I don't have it off the
• 1:18:59
  hand but they're like very small theropod.
• 1:19:02
  You don't get these like big T-Rex has until right here on
• 1:19:05
  but like just The order of things in the fossil record, we
• 1:19:09
  find theropod dinosaurs below the layers where we find birds.
• 1:19:15
  So I don't think we ever find dinosaur.
• 1:19:17
  We don't ever find Birds below dinosaurs.
• 1:19:20
  Well, not dinosaurs in general, but the time like if the type of
• 1:19:24
  dinosaurs that they claim that birds are coming from birds are
• 1:19:28
  in the fossil record like something like 10 million years
• 1:19:31
  before. Maybe like for that specific
• 1:19:34
  species. Boom.
• 1:19:36
  Like the theropod dinosaurs I think it's a pretty convincing
• 1:19:39
  argument just based on like the anatomy of the hips the
• 1:19:44
  different like traits that directly you kind of get what
• 1:19:47
  I'm saying if they yeah they have traits in common and they
• 1:19:50
  May have shared a common ancestor, but the question is,
• 1:19:53
  how do we know which one came first?
• 1:19:55
  The mainstream, the really popular idea.
• 1:19:58
  Is that the one we found later in, the fossil record came first
• 1:20:01
  that doesn't make any sense to me.
• 1:20:04
  Well, I don't know if anybody I've never, I've certainly never
• 1:20:07
  heard of anyone saying Birds came from this specific species
• 1:20:11
  of dinosaurs. So I've always heard it more
• 1:20:13
  General as than just being some species of theropod dinosaurs
• 1:20:18
  room. So, but how would you go into
• 1:20:21
  into looking into that? The own investigating them, the
• 1:20:24
  order of the fossil record, Like whichever is appearing in the
• 1:20:31
  deepest layers in the fossil record would be the one that was
• 1:20:33
  coming around first, right? So I mean that's that's one one
• 1:20:39
  thing I've seen it in the mainstream that I find issue
• 1:20:41
  with this is that there's this claim that that birds are coming
• 1:20:47
  from this specific type of dinosaur.
• 1:20:48
  But then it's like, that's a that to me is a pretty severe
• 1:20:51
  discrepancy. Like I don't know, I'd have to
• 1:20:54
  look more at it in specific for like the specific kind of
• 1:20:58
  dinosaur you Talking about, yeah.
• 1:21:02
  Anyways, I don't know just because you that had come up
• 1:21:04
  earlier when you guys are talking about chickens.
• 1:21:05
  I found it interesting. Yeah.
• 1:21:07
  Hey Brett. I appreciate you linking my
• 1:21:08
  channel. That means a lot because I'm,
• 1:21:10
  you know, just trying to grow my my YouTube channel just started,
• 1:21:13
  so appreciate that. Well, it's, you've decided to
• 1:21:18
  come on here and I feel like you're a good guest.
• 1:21:20
  I mean, why not? Yeah, thanks.
• 1:21:23
  So for everyone, listening, only.
• 1:21:24
  It's called based Theory, like, like based like the opposite of
• 1:21:28
  cringe. It was originally critical based
• 1:21:31
  Theory, but it was kind of a mouthful and kind of use a pun
• 1:21:35
  on critical race Theory, but I thought maybe people might take
• 1:21:38
  that the wrong way. So I just shortened it to based
• 1:21:40
  Theory. Can I give you a suggestion,
• 1:21:42
  though? Your your handle is extremely
• 1:21:45
  low. Long.
• 1:21:46
  If you go into your settings on YouTube, you should make a more
• 1:21:49
  simple handle for people to be able to find you real quick
• 1:21:54
  right now, it's got a bunch of numbers behind it and that's
• 1:21:57
  going to be confusing for some who if you were to just say
• 1:22:00
  critical based or whatever like that people obviously would get
• 1:22:03
  it quicker. Yeah, that's a good point.
• 1:22:06
  So thanks I appreciate the feedback.
• 1:22:08
  Yeah. You should do that little moves
• 1:22:09
  as quickly as possible because your channel will and Uprising.
• 1:22:13
  And growing, I'm sure with your The and Charisma I think that
• 1:22:17
  you definitely going to launch. So make sure that that's sex
• 1:22:21
  before you get up there, too high.
• 1:22:23
  Yeah, great Point. Great point.
• 1:22:25
  So I appreciate your expertise on the area.
• 1:22:28
  It's all good. It's all good.
• 1:22:30
  So let's see there, were there any other questions that you
• 1:22:33
  wanted to ask me about? I guess, Evolution, Big Bang
• 1:22:36
  atheism, whatever. Yeah, yeah.
• 1:22:38
  One of the things that me and Adam we like to get into and if
• 1:22:41
  Proverbs wants to participate in this, what is your thoughts
• 1:22:45
  about? The the Cambrian Period and the,
• 1:22:48
  the explosion that seemed to erupt from it as one of my
• 1:22:51
  favorite periods of geological history.
• 1:22:53
  Got also my all my favorite you know prehistoric creatures a lot
• 1:22:57
  more Karis like opabinia like hallucinogen Iya.
• 1:23:01
  It's got some of my favorite creators so what do you how do
• 1:23:05
  you feel about it? Do you feel like there was two
• 1:23:08
  sped up or just too much happening and a very short time
• 1:23:11
  period. What is your explanation or view
• 1:23:13
  of it? No, I mean I wished you know
• 1:23:17
  that we had maybe some more of the soft bodied intermediates
• 1:23:21
  from previous eras but it makes sense to me.
• 1:23:24
  Right? If you know these things were
• 1:23:28
  only developing hard shells like in the Cambrian Period and if in
• 1:23:32
  previous period there were more soft-bodied animals like it
• 1:23:35
  makes sense to me why they wouldn't fossilized but we do
• 1:23:38
  have in the period before the Cambrian is the ediacaran and we
• 1:23:43
  do have fossils from the ediacaran period of
• 1:23:47
  multicellular creatures. So we have been lucky enough to
• 1:23:51
  have at least some Precambrian fossils to go off of but it's
• 1:23:56
  like one of my favorite fields in like in the study of
• 1:24:02
  geological periods that in the Carboniferous.
• 1:24:05
  Really? But so yeah I mean I obviously I
• 1:24:09
  wish you know, I love all the new discoveries.
• 1:24:11
  Like I think what like in 2015 or something I found a new
• 1:24:17
  Creature from the Cambrian, like in China, and it's like, it's
• 1:24:21
  this. It's this massive creature.
• 1:24:23
  Like it's even bigger than anomalous, carats is huge.
• 1:24:26
  And I'm just like, I love new discoveries like that.
• 1:24:28
  So hopefully, there will be a few more of those within my
• 1:24:31
  lifetime. What is your thoughts on the
• 1:24:35
  Fermi paradox? Like why we don't see like
• 1:24:39
  evidence for alien species outside of our own?
• 1:24:42
  Yeah, you would think that if the universe is as old as it is,
• 1:24:46
  and I have no discrepancy or hate towards this other people
• 1:24:50
  might, but I just wonder why it is that Earth seems to be having
• 1:24:54
  the only life forms. I know some people might argue
• 1:24:57
  well, we just haven't become technological enough to do this,
• 1:25:01
  but you would suspect there'd be other Advanced beings perhaps
• 1:25:04
  even Superior than ourselves that I'd have reached out by now
• 1:25:08
  or done something. So, I would think about this in
• 1:25:11
  terms of how early Advanced life could have evolved in the
• 1:25:17
  history of the universe and then where we are now in that time
• 1:25:21
  frame. So, like, I would think that the
• 1:25:25
  only type of atom that's really. You know, the only type of atom
• 1:25:31
  that would really work in a kind of complicated system, like
• 1:25:35
  living beings would be carbon, so you would need carbon.
• 1:25:38
  So already in the very first generation of stars, formed
• 1:25:42
  after the big bang, you're not going to have enough carbon for
• 1:25:45
  there to be, you know, life evolving on planets or anything.
• 1:25:48
  So it's not like you can get life right away after the first
• 1:25:51
  stars and planets formed, so you would need a second or third
• 1:25:55
  generation solar system. So ours I think is estimated to
• 1:25:59
  be a third. Generation.
• 1:26:00
  So there were, you know, there were elements.
• 1:26:04
  It already present in the accretion disk that formed the,
• 1:26:07
  our solar system that had to be created in previous generations
• 1:26:14
  of stars. So I think that that kind of
• 1:26:16
  sets a limit to where we're kind of on the earlier end for win.
• 1:26:20
  Life could possibly arise and then the second question in that
• 1:26:24
  kind of timeline is how do you get multicellular life?
• 1:26:30
  Because I think single saw your little single cellular life is
• 1:26:33
  probably the most common in our universe.
• 1:26:36
  If I had to take a guess at it, like, I can very easily see us
• 1:26:41
  finding a and Animal Planet like a planet that had life, but it's
• 1:26:44
  all single cells. I think that the development of
• 1:26:49
  multicellularity is one thing that baby doesn't necessarily
• 1:26:55
  happen in every time that life would evolve.
• 1:26:58
  And then the Element of like intelligent beings like us.
• 1:27:03
  Is another thing that I would question because like we only
• 1:27:05
  came about after all the dinosaurs went extinct, right?
• 1:27:08
  I mean, the mammals were not capable of outcompeting
• 1:27:11
  dinosaurs like if there were still dinosaurs around today
• 1:27:14
  like mammals would not be able to compete.
• 1:27:17
  Like they're their bones are lighter and yet their muscles
• 1:27:21
  are stronger. They require less like energy
• 1:27:24
  like their metabolism is much more efficient but they can also
• 1:27:27
  outspeed us an out and duras like just Just physically.
• 1:27:31
  There's they out-compete Us in every way.
• 1:27:33
  Like if dinosaurs never went extinct in a mass extinction,
• 1:27:36
  then you know, who knows? If intelligent life would have
• 1:27:39
  come about because you've got these killing machines that are
• 1:27:43
  just like, you know, physically so much better than any of their
• 1:27:46
  competition that it's like, you know, they would have no need of
• 1:27:51
  developing intelligence or technology.
• 1:27:53
  They're already very successful in their ecologically.
• 1:27:56
  Niches and environments just as physical killing machines.
• 1:28:00
  So you only really get but the evolution of humans based on
• 1:28:05
  like it was never like a predetermined thing that humans
• 1:28:08
  were definitely going to come about like without the kind of
• 1:28:12
  ecologically catastrophes that led to the extinction of
• 1:28:14
  dinosaurs. We could very well still be in a
• 1:28:16
  dinosaur world and the mammals would have never even gotten a
• 1:28:19
  chance. It's an interesting point.
• 1:28:23
  Now, it's obvious that you believe that you evolved from a
• 1:28:26
  primate of some sort, do you believe do you assume that all
• 1:28:30
  creatures are capable of going through this process of
• 1:28:33
  evolution? Like all creatures on Earth
• 1:28:38
  today. Do you believe that there's any
• 1:28:41
  creatures that simply did not evolve or they evolve some
• 1:28:46
  extremely beneficial things that there's no way that humans would
• 1:28:49
  be able to do There's an interesting question.
• 1:28:55
  I mean, certainly, I mean, I would say that there's evidence
• 1:28:59
  for Universal common ancestry. So we would all go back to like
• 1:29:02
  the same ancestor, like, all the species that are currently on
• 1:29:05
  Earth, but for evolution to work, right?
• 1:29:09
  You can't really have like a super massive step.
• 1:29:12
  When all of a sudden you've created this whole new thing in
• 1:29:15
  one generation, like it has to mutate from pre-existing
• 1:29:19
  systems. So if you It's not like like we
• 1:29:26
  all have 20 amino acids, right? Because if you were going to
• 1:29:28
  change the coding for the amino acids that would have such wide
• 1:29:34
  ranging impacts, that it would like mess up the entire
• 1:29:37
  biochemistry of the body, and you would just never be able to
• 1:29:40
  form it correctly. So there are some things that
• 1:29:43
  are like you know that you're like a mutation in a
• 1:29:46
  pre-existing system is not going to get you to this kind of a
• 1:29:50
  destination like of A thing like so there are things that I don't
• 1:29:55
  think Could Happen based on like mutation and natural selection,
• 1:30:00
  because every step along the way has to be beneficial or neutral.
• 1:30:07
  You're saying that it has to be that way.
• 1:30:09
  It needs to be in order for it to survive.
• 1:30:11
  Yep. You've probably heard this
• 1:30:14
  question before, but it's obvious that we all agree that
• 1:30:17
  there's definitely some smart creatures out there but they
• 1:30:21
  none of them. Except for us as had an
• 1:30:23
  industrial age and Enlightenment, they age and all
• 1:30:26
  this. You do believe that these other
• 1:30:28
  creatures in these other groups, they form social bonds.
• 1:30:32
  They have been in some of the same environment has us.
• 1:30:35
  Why didn't they get the magic Mojo for?
• 1:30:38
  Like what? Well, for the vast majority of
• 1:30:42
  human history, right, we did not have the kind of Technology we
• 1:30:45
  have now are the Industrial Age so just having the like the
• 1:30:49
  brains like our modern brains and our modern physical
• 1:30:52
  capabilities, did not mean that we just automatically developed
• 1:30:55
  all these Technologies. We had to build off of like, you
• 1:30:58
  know, cultural achievements cultural memories and we had to
• 1:31:03
  pass along these developments as culture.
• 1:31:06
  So there, Are animals that do have like the ability to pass on
• 1:31:11
  culture, like I think there are some populations of chimps that
• 1:31:14
  are in the Stone Age and they use Stone Age tools and they
• 1:31:16
  pass along knowledge of these tools to their offspring and
• 1:31:19
  they have cultures but I think yeah ultimately one if they if
• 1:31:27
  they were highly intelligent enough like they might not
• 1:31:30
  necessarily have like the kinds of like fingers and hands that
• 1:31:34
  we do, that can manipulate technology like a whale or
• 1:31:37
  something. And yeah, they ultimately they I
• 1:31:41
  can't think of another organism. That has large brains like us
• 1:31:46
  that occupies the same kind of Niche that we do as like a group
• 1:31:51
  of hunter-gatherers. Well, let's just a hypothetical,
• 1:31:56
  but if you were to pick your favorite creature in the world
• 1:32:00
  that you think is extremely smart and it suddenly were to
• 1:32:04
  get opposable thumbs and all that.
• 1:32:06
  Do you think it would be in any kind of competition with you in
• 1:32:09
  a debate or a discussion and we won't take it as arrogant if you
• 1:32:12
  say nope well no clearly not. But over like if there were like
• 1:32:19
  you know, if we were breeding this if we had like a selective
• 1:32:22
  pressure Sure, for this like organism, my favorite animal is
• 1:32:25
  a snow leopard. So if we if we had snow leopards
• 1:32:28
  with opposable thumbs and there was a selection pressure for
• 1:32:31
  them to like you know the more intelligent snow leopard
• 1:32:35
  survived and has the most kids than over, you know lots and
• 1:32:39
  lots and lots of generations of this than I would see no reason
• 1:32:43
  why they couldn't evolved to be more intelligent than me.
• 1:32:47
  All right, I'm gonna I'm gonna move it into some different
• 1:32:51
  topics. Will still jump back and forth
• 1:32:53
  between evolution but I want to get a baseline of where you are
• 1:32:57
  at in your skepticism. Okay.
• 1:32:59
  Do you believe that there's more to you than just animated meat?
• 1:33:06
  I kind of need to get some clarification on that topic
• 1:33:09
  because I believe that I have like a subjective experience and
• 1:33:13
  I think that that's more than just like the meat but I believe
• 1:33:17
  that that's an emergent phenomenon of you know
• 1:33:21
  ultimately it's all naturalistic material things that are causing
• 1:33:27
  this phenomenon that is me. Okay, would you be able to
• 1:33:32
  elaborate on why you see it as a Phenom?
• 1:33:36
  Why is he does it phenomenon? Yeah, I like saying Phenom
• 1:33:39
  because of the Undertaker WWE. Go ahead.
• 1:33:42
  Okay. Well, because the the the
• 1:33:45
  clearest thing that I could say of like what is the actual
• 1:33:48
  physical material substance, that is me like, my thoughts
• 1:33:52
  would be a phenomenon, it would be a process, it would not be an
• 1:33:57
  actual thing, like the actual material that my thoughts are
• 1:34:00
  made of is kind of like like very complicated.
• 1:34:05
  Old patterns of salt ion flow in my brain, like that electricity
• 1:34:10
  is just sold ions that are moving in certain patterns, so
• 1:34:13
  that's the actual physical material that is making up my
• 1:34:16
  thoughts. So, all those things that are
• 1:34:19
  going on in my brain is just a process of these very controlled
• 1:34:22
  flows. So it's not like an actual
• 1:34:24
  substance, it's like a, an event in a process that is ongoing.
• 1:34:28
  That's why I refer to it as a phenomenon and of course, the
• 1:34:31
  emergent phenomenon would be my subjective experience.
• 1:34:35
  What is your view or position? And I don't know if I put Adam
• 1:34:39
  in Proverbs asleep over there. I hope they dumped in the
• 1:34:41
  conversations. Well, some point in time.
• 1:34:44
  But what is your thoughts about death?
• 1:34:47
  And what happens? You obviously believe there's
• 1:34:49
  some energy here involved. Do you believe that you will
• 1:34:52
  continue to exist after your physical body goes, bye-bye?
• 1:34:56
  No, I mean I would think it's the same thing that happened
• 1:34:59
  before. I was born, you know, just sort
• 1:35:00
  of a nothing. So, do you believe that you have
• 1:35:04
  a soul? No.
• 1:35:07
  You don't believe that you have a soul that makes you unique
• 1:35:10
  from, say myself. Brett and Adam No, I don't
• 1:35:14
  believe that. What Makes Us unique is a soul.
• 1:35:18
  All right. What's fair enough?
• 1:35:20
  What he has said that? He's an atheist so he doesn't
• 1:35:23
  believe in God. So he's obviously not going to
• 1:35:26
  believe in a generator for that. But wouldn't that necessarily
• 1:35:29
  come down to you're describing yourself as nothing but
• 1:35:32
  chemicals or animated almost like that of an animated
• 1:35:36
  hamburger. I'm not trying to insult you but
• 1:35:39
  it's pretty much down to the meat and chemistry, right?
• 1:35:43
  Yes and no. Like I while I agree that like,
• 1:35:47
  it's kind of like a Differentiation between software
• 1:35:49
  and Hardware, right? Like like, ultimately, all the
• 1:35:53
  software is corresponding to actual processes going on in the
• 1:35:56
  hardware, but we still can have an experience at the software
• 1:36:00
  level. So, like the emergent phenomenon
• 1:36:03
  that is consciousness, that is my subjective experience.
• 1:36:07
  I experienced that as something that's, you know, more than just
• 1:36:12
  the sum of the parts that are actually going on, but that's
• 1:36:14
  just my experience of it. That doesn't mean that
• 1:36:17
  physically. Anything more is happening than
• 1:36:19
  just the processes that are leading to this emergent
• 1:36:22
  phenomenon. He's got a weird.
• 1:36:25
  I got one more, weird question and I'm let Adam and Proverbs go
• 1:36:28
  for a little bit because I'm starting to feel like I do know.
• 1:36:31
  I don't want to put these guys to sleep with my mom at own
• 1:36:33
  voice. But okay, last question for you
• 1:36:36
  and then let these gentlemen talk with you about it if you
• 1:36:40
  and I were to go into a computer store that has the most advanced
• 1:36:44
  Superior computers in the world and for whatever.
• 1:36:47
  A reason you and I had a bad day.
• 1:36:49
  I hand you a baseball. Bat I'd take a baseball bat.
• 1:36:52
  We crushed these Advanced, awesome computers, thousands of
• 1:36:56
  dollars worth of equipment, then we dump all the powdery computer
• 1:37:00
  stuff into a bag. How long would it take before?
• 1:37:04
  We can both reach in and pull out at least an 8-bit game?
• 1:37:08
  Boy. Stephen, I don't think that
• 1:37:10
  would happen, why not? It's all these parts are there.
• 1:37:16
  Yeah. But I mean just because all the
• 1:37:18
  parts are there doesn't mean they're kind of going to come
• 1:37:20
  together in the right order. Aha.
• 1:37:24
  Okay, yeah, good. Go ahead.
• 1:37:25
  Thank you for being intellectually, honest.
• 1:37:27
  I'm going to take a break for a moment.
• 1:37:29
  Let you guys know very well. I would also just like to add
• 1:37:32
  cuz I obviously I know the direction that you were implying
• 1:37:36
  with that. So I would just add that.
• 1:37:38
  I don't think that. That's an analogous process to
• 1:37:41
  abiogenesis. Fair enough.
• 1:37:45
  Fair enough. Go ahead.
• 1:37:46
  Proverbs and Adam. I'm going to take a break for a
• 1:37:48
  few minutes. Adam, it sounded like you had a
• 1:37:52
  question a moment ago. Yeah, yeah.
• 1:37:55
  So sort of a lot, similar lines to what Brett was saying, but
• 1:37:58
  earlier you were talking about ions and electricity and salt in
• 1:38:02
  that sort of thing and you described your subjective
• 1:38:06
  experiences simply an emergent phenomenon.
• 1:38:09
  Hmm, do you believe that if you if you if we just set up
• 1:38:14
  Spirits, where you put electricity and salt and ions in
• 1:38:18
  the right configuration, that it would result in a subjective
• 1:38:21
  inner experience or do. Yeah.
• 1:38:23
  What are your thoughts on like the hard problem of
• 1:38:25
  Consciousness and things like that?
• 1:38:27
  I mean I definitely think like if you could somehow control
• 1:38:30
  like the flow of these salt ions like you're controlling the
• 1:38:35
  pattern of electricity in like a glass of water or something,
• 1:38:38
  somehow. If you could control it on like
• 1:38:40
  the very, very small level. Like that would be Like you
• 1:38:44
  could recreate all of my brain connections and like the flow of
• 1:38:50
  ions between them, like you are basically reconnecting all the
• 1:38:53
  electricity in my brain, but you were like remaking that in a, in
• 1:38:57
  a glass of water then that glass of water would be having its own
• 1:39:01
  subjective experience. That would be like my own, if
• 1:39:04
  we're in the, if there are brain, chemistry is the same in
• 1:39:07
  the pattern of electricity flow is the same than our subjective
• 1:39:12
  States. Would be the same as well.
• 1:39:15
  Well, okay, but I don't think that obviously, that technology
• 1:39:19
  is not possible at the moment. I don't know how that would be
• 1:39:21
  physically possible. But just for the sake of
• 1:39:24
  argument, I don't see like any laws of physics going against
• 1:39:28
  that. And yeah, I just mean like on a
• 1:39:30
  fundamental level. Like I personally don't think
• 1:39:31
  that like machines, for example, will ever have sentience.
• 1:39:35
  I just really wanna don't think that that's how it works.
• 1:39:38
  But I mean, if, if you could replicate because I don't all of
• 1:39:42
  our neurons and all of our neural connections and the kinds
• 1:39:44
  of patterns, earns of right glow between them, then why would it
• 1:39:48
  be any different? Because my Consciousness is more
• 1:39:51
  than Salt and electricity like, that's what I don't believe.
• 1:39:55
  It's just salt and electricity, but likely more.
• 1:40:00
  Obviously I'm being a little bit.
• 1:40:01
  Reductive when I say it's a salt and electricity.
• 1:40:02
  There are like There are ways of modulating the flow of this,
• 1:40:07
  that involve neurotransmitters and gated channels and all these
• 1:40:10
  complicated things. But ultimately, all that is, is
• 1:40:12
  shepherding the right kind of patterns that of ion flow that
• 1:40:17
  you need. So if you were able to replicate
• 1:40:20
  those patterns using technology then, I don't see how it could
• 1:40:25
  be any different than you or I are subjective experiences.
• 1:40:29
  Right? Well, two things one, I don't
• 1:40:32
  see to me sounds like Like not the greatest argument in favor
• 1:40:37
  of something. It's just sort of a argument
• 1:40:39
  from ignorance. But the other thing is we have
• 1:40:41
  two things. We have the subjective
• 1:40:43
  experiences so and we have like, computers to compared to that at
• 1:40:47
  least currently don't seem to be anywhere near having subjective
• 1:40:51
  experiences. Well, you know, there is an
• 1:40:55
  argument to be made because obviously we don't have any
• 1:40:58
  computers that have simulated a human brain, like, none of them
• 1:41:01
  have that kind of sophistication.
• 1:41:02
  We're still very, very primitive.
• 1:41:04
  In our technology in that regard.
• 1:41:06
  So I don't think that we could necessarily draw any conclusions
• 1:41:09
  from our current state like Rouge state of technology in
• 1:41:12
  that regard. But we have replicated the most
• 1:41:15
  simple brain observed in the animal kingdom, which is a
• 1:41:18
  nematode, so they only have like 300 and like 70-something
• 1:41:22
  neurons. So we've been able to replicate
• 1:41:25
  their brain in a computer and then we see how it behaves and
• 1:41:29
  we give the same stimulus and it behaves exactly like a nematode
• 1:41:33
  like we've created like a It'll nematode like if you give
• 1:41:36
  nematode stimulus a it behaves this way outward in our in our
• 1:41:40
  simulation it behaves, the exact same way outwardly it, behaves
• 1:41:43
  similar, yes. So but that doesn't get anywhere
• 1:41:46
  near to addressing the fundamental, problem of the hard
• 1:41:49
  problem of Consciousness is, how could you even have subjective
• 1:41:52
  experience to begin with? I don't understand why it's a
• 1:41:56
  hard problem. I mean, I guess you're kind of
• 1:41:57
  pointing to like if you know what I mean by that, when I say
• 1:41:59
  the hard problem of Consciousness by who's the guy
• 1:42:03
  Chalmers, Yeah, I mean I've definitely heard the term before
• 1:42:07
  but I don't understand why it's such a hard problem.
• 1:42:11
  Well, whether you think it's hard or not, that's the name.
• 1:42:14
  That's like the name is. I understand it?
• 1:42:16
  That's the top. Yeah, I just want my wife,
• 1:42:18
  wouldn't be a problem. Why is consciousness as an
• 1:42:22
  emergent phenomenon of you? No brain activity.
• 1:42:28
  I mean, if if it's not then why are we able to change your
• 1:42:32
  Consciousness when by changing your brain State?
• 1:42:34
  Like if we put you into a very strong magnetic field, we could
• 1:42:39
  change your entire moral system because that's the week you're
• 1:42:44
  getting. So you're responding to the hard
• 1:42:45
  problem with things about the week from.
• 1:42:48
  So I don't know. Like if you do understand the
• 1:42:50
  distinction maybe I don't then I mean I'd be happy if you like a
• 1:42:54
  week the week problems like in I think that currently it's
• 1:42:59
  probably outside of the realm of science.
• 1:43:01
  Like, it's just a matter of philosophy currently because we
• 1:43:03
  don't seem to have the science to be able to address the
• 1:43:06
  problem, but things like that. Like how can certain processes
• 1:43:11
  and you change certain processes?
• 1:43:12
  And you get certain affects that's week problem stuff.
• 1:43:14
  That's not hard, that's not horrible.
• 1:43:16
  But you some people don't see it as a problem.
• 1:43:19
  Like some people don't even believe that Consciousness is
• 1:43:21
  happening so. Well, I don't necessarily see it
• 1:43:25
  as a problem. I don't, I so far.
• 1:43:27
  I haven't heard any justification for why
• 1:43:30
  Consciousness is a problem, but I do believe it's happening.
• 1:43:32
  So Yeah, I have a go ahead, go ahead.
• 1:43:39
  I have a question for you. Okay, so going back in time a
• 1:43:45
  little bit. You've used mutation quite
• 1:43:49
  often, and this conversation and bear in mind, I'm trying to be
• 1:43:53
  totally respectful of your beliefs and not just mutations,
• 1:43:57
  but also exact variables in the environment, to help us adapt
• 1:44:02
  and evolve in a very specific order.
• 1:44:05
  Even going back further than that, to the rapid expansion.
• 1:44:08
  Which refers the Big Bang? It seems to me.
• 1:44:12
  Like, you do believe in miracles, all of those things to
• 1:44:15
  come together in such a precise order, would be a miracle.
• 1:44:20
  And even when you take the most extreme depicted miracles in the
• 1:44:24
  Bible, it seems like the Miracles that you guys believe
• 1:44:27
  in are much larger. So, I'm just wondering if you
• 1:44:30
  can believe in those Supernatural Miracles, coming
• 1:44:34
  together in just the I order just the right sequence, adjust
• 1:44:36
  the right time, why you find it? So hard to believe in miracles
• 1:44:40
  of the Bible or the creation narrative.
• 1:44:44
  I'm gonna need a little bit more clarification because
• 1:44:47
  personally, I don't see that I have appealed to any
• 1:44:50
  Supernatural or any miracles in my world view.
• 1:44:52
  So if I'm not exactly seeing where you're coming from with
• 1:44:57
  that, then I would need a little bit more clarification, but it
• 1:45:01
  sounds like most of what I would.
• 1:45:05
  What I would say to kind of my intuition of what you're asking,
• 1:45:08
  what for? We're just be statistics, but
• 1:45:11
  yeah, I need a little bit more clarification on.
• 1:45:13
  Like, what exactly are you thinking are the Miracles that I
• 1:45:15
  have? In my well just the just the Big
• 1:45:19
  Bang. It was a rapid expansion
• 1:45:21
  suddenly but what held that rapid expansion together before,
• 1:45:26
  the Big Bang happened? Even, even that alone would be a
• 1:45:30
  miracle, but then put that aside, take the rapid expansion
• 1:45:33
  in itself. After being held down and unable
• 1:45:37
  to expand after such a long period of time.
• 1:45:40
  Even though time apparently didn't exist yet, I mean, you
• 1:45:44
  don't see those as as massive Miracles?
• 1:45:47
  No, not really. I don't understand what why the
• 1:45:51
  criteria that would make the big bang a miracle?
• 1:45:55
  What do you how do you define a miracle?
• 1:45:57
  If you don't mind me asking, I guess something would be a
• 1:46:00
  miracle. If there was like, if it
• 1:46:03
  couldn't be explained to like natural like in a naturalistic
• 1:46:06
  way, like it had to be like a supernatural intervention.
• 1:46:10
  That would be what I would think of Miracle would be.
• 1:46:13
  Would you consider something that rarely ever happened?
• 1:46:18
  Like if I flipped a coin and it landed on its side instead of
• 1:46:21
  Landing heads or tails, maybe in a colloquial sense, but I might
• 1:46:25
  refer to that as a miracle, but I would just think, you know,
• 1:46:28
  what are the odds of that happening?
• 1:46:30
  I probably would not use the phrase miracle for that.
• 1:46:33
  Are you familiar with Stephen Hawking?
• 1:46:36
  Yeah, he said that he actually said that.
• 1:46:39
  Life is a mathematical impossibility.
• 1:46:43
  What do you think he would say such a thing?
• 1:46:46
  Probably because he doesn't understand it.
• 1:46:48
  I don't know, Steven Hawkings didn't understand.
• 1:46:52
  No my I like it the way Grace and just tears into that as
• 1:46:58
  well. I mean look, I don't think any
• 1:46:59
  of us understand it. I'm not claiming that.
• 1:47:01
  I understand all of the details either but for Stephen Hawking
• 1:47:04
  to making this statement like that.
• 1:47:06
  I don't think that he's really understanding what he's talking
• 1:47:09
  about. I mean, he's a physicist, first
• 1:47:11
  of all, he's not a biologist, he's not a biochemist.
• 1:47:14
  And second of all, I mean, I don't want to dig that much into
• 1:47:18
  Hawking. He's a smart guy, but Leonard,
• 1:47:21
  Susskind was consistently. The correct.
• 1:47:24
  One in their arguments that they had like, they had a whole black
• 1:47:27
  hole war in the 80s and 90s. And Stephen, Hawking gets all
• 1:47:30
  the credit for that and Leonard Susskind was the one who was
• 1:47:33
  right all the time. So, This is amazing, isn't it?
• 1:47:38
  Adam, the reason why we say that, as we see a lot of people
• 1:47:41
  run directly to the experts, almost, as if everything they
• 1:47:44
  say is the gospel. But you're like, nope, let's,
• 1:47:48
  let's get into that. I like that.
• 1:47:50
  Well, like I said, I'll be like The Emperor's New Clothes is my
• 1:47:53
  favorite childhood story. I like II try to apply my
• 1:47:57
  skeptical lens, equally to everyone.
• 1:48:01
  That's a he just won a thousand internet, cool points for that
• 1:48:04
  Adam, I don't know what you guys say.
• 1:48:06
  About that. Well, I read I pointed that out
• 1:48:09
  multiple times on your show that that everyone Praises Stephen
• 1:48:14
  Hawking so much, but he lost every bet that he ever made
• 1:48:16
  like, he's not that good like he just was constantly wrong about
• 1:48:23
  almost everything. Every, every like special claim
• 1:48:25
  that he made that he had a bet on he lost I think, I, I don't
• 1:48:32
  know, like I was just ragging on him, so but I think that he did,
• 1:48:36
  he was correct about something like, Hawking radiation seems to
• 1:48:40
  have been correct. So he did get some things.
• 1:48:44
  I mean, you know, he's a publisher.
• 1:48:47
  That's the, he would make it maybe, maybe there was one bad
• 1:48:50
  that he was. Yeah, I don't know if that was a
• 1:48:52
  bad he made, but yeah, like the best you're talking about, like,
• 1:48:54
  Leonard, Susskind one, all those bets and he doesn't get any
• 1:48:58
  credit for it. I mean, he's one of my favorite
• 1:48:59
  living. Assists.
• 1:49:00
  But he doesn't get the kind of pop-culture credit that he
• 1:49:05
  deserves for his contributions. I mean I think that he's done a
• 1:49:09
  lot more than Stephen Hawking. Yeah.
• 1:49:15
  Oh, I'm Grayson. So Earlier for the Cambrian
• 1:49:20
  explosion. You you kind of you kind of
• 1:49:23
  reduced it to like a hard shell body, soft Shield, body thing.
• 1:49:27
  I see the I see the Cambrian problem as a pretty like, major
• 1:49:33
  like mystery. It's very fascinating to me.
• 1:49:36
  How you might, you might know more about this than me.
• 1:49:39
  I don't know. I'm not a biology guys much, but
• 1:49:41
  my understanding is every fucking phylum of animals.
• 1:49:47
  Came into existence in the Cambrian explosion or
• 1:49:51
  immediately after, or before every single phylum.
• 1:49:55
  Not another phylum has ever come after that, or before that, it's
• 1:49:59
  not just soft, shell, hard shell.
• 1:50:02
  It's like all fucking animal phyla.
• 1:50:04
  Came on the scene just boom in one period.
• 1:50:10
  I think that that might be a little bit of a hyperbolic
• 1:50:13
  statement but because like we have I think that we have some
• 1:50:21
  evidence of like mollusks in like the ediacaran period.
• 1:50:26
  Isn't that immediately before Cambrian though?
• 1:50:28
  Yeah. It's before the Cambrian as I'm
• 1:50:30
  saying. So what?
• 1:50:31
  Let me make sure my claim is clear almost every almost every
• 1:50:36
  animal animal. I'm talking about animals
• 1:50:39
  specific. You know, the difference between
• 1:50:40
  the animal and a plant and a, yes, fucking amoeba or
• 1:50:43
  something. Most people don't like, we've
• 1:50:45
  had this conversation a thousand times.
• 1:50:47
  Most people don't understand the difference.
• 1:50:49
  So you're obviously a, yeah, you talk about metazoans.
• 1:50:52
  We're talking about actual animals, literally literally
• 1:50:54
  animals, almost every single animal phylum.
• 1:50:58
  You know, that it wasn't a phylum to, you're smart.
• 1:51:01
  So not every single one, but almost every single animal
• 1:51:05
  phylum is from the Cambrian and the ones that aren't are
• 1:51:09
  immediately. We before Cambrian and
• 1:51:11
  immediately after very shortly after very, very very shortly
• 1:51:14
  after and that's a long-ass motherfuck time ago and there
• 1:51:17
  hasn't been any new phylum sense that is fascinating to me that
• 1:51:23
  needs an explanation. That's not just hard-shelled
• 1:51:25
  bodies, and soft-shelled bodies there weren't even fucking
• 1:51:27
  animal bodies. Yeah, I mean there were animal
• 1:51:32
  bodies, right? I mean like the idea of with the
• 1:51:35
  hard shell and soft shell bodies, right?
• 1:51:37
  Is that these things would not fossilized until they had
• 1:51:40
  hardbodies. What was the animal body that
• 1:51:42
  existed before the idiot? Coroner whatever you said?
• 1:51:46
  Well, Kim barela is one specimen that is.
• 1:51:50
  There's a lot there's a bit of a debate about what kind of animal
• 1:51:52
  it is but it is an animal of some kind.
• 1:51:55
  I think it even has bilateral symmetry so the same kind of
• 1:51:58
  symmetry that you and I and all the other chordates have but it
• 1:52:04
  kind of looks like a very primitive mollusk but they
• 1:52:06
  aren't 100% sure what it is. But there are some animals
• 1:52:11
  before the Cambrian that do have like, you know, we also have A
• 1:52:15
  lateral Cemetery, right? Have similar good for body
• 1:52:17
  plans. But what basically thing, I'm
• 1:52:20
  not saying just, I'm not saying just the Cambrian.
• 1:52:24
  Yeah, there's a period of time, the Cambrian and immediately
• 1:52:27
  before it, that everything comes immediately before and
• 1:52:30
  immediately after there's this little Zone, almost everything
• 1:52:32
  is the Cambrian itself. Yeah.
• 1:52:34
  There's a little bit of a precursor and a little bit of
• 1:52:36
  after after effect. Yeah.
• 1:52:39
  But outside of that, there's no new phylum.
• 1:52:41
  No new Fila, come on the scene. Okay, so let me just ask you
• 1:52:46
  this. Why hasn't there been a new file
• 1:52:47
  and since that time period Because of the law of monophyly.
• 1:52:52
  So like every mammal is always going to produce more mammals
• 1:52:59
  every you know, like you can get new like you can get new clades
• 1:53:05
  like created within a mother clade but you all you have all
• 1:53:09
  the same properties that apply to your ancestors so you never
• 1:53:12
  outgrow your ancestry so like not true.
• 1:53:17
  Well, then it's the law of monophyly.
• 1:53:20
  So it's a bike and we can't go live and under the ocean, right?
• 1:53:24
  Yeah. But you still have all the
• 1:53:26
  traits that they didn't have organic, sadistic sense of the
• 1:53:29
  word. Humans are still fish.
• 1:53:32
  I don't have scales. I can't live in the ocean.
• 1:53:35
  Yeah. But those are not criteria of
• 1:53:37
  what. Like, that's not all I really
• 1:53:39
  make something of fish. There's not a phylum.
• 1:53:42
  Right. So what I'm saying though is
• 1:53:44
  that like like in a cladistic sense like you never outgrow
• 1:53:48
  your ancestry? So like work we do we have a
• 1:53:58
  right and it's sort of silly because we obviously do because
• 1:54:02
  I don't think so because we aren't still just scaly fish
• 1:54:06
  living in an ocean. We are very different.
• 1:54:08
  Now in a cladistic sense of the word you and I I are still fish
• 1:54:13
  like not any cloak wheel sense that like we was only with the
• 1:54:17
  distinction of how you're classifying the like you're
• 1:54:20
  where you're going to draw the look, I'll give you an example
• 1:54:24
  from even before the Cambrian, right?
• 1:54:26
  So the very first eukaryotic cells, these are single cells,
• 1:54:30
  okay? But all of the criteria that
• 1:54:33
  distinguished them as eukaryotic cells.
• 1:54:36
  Still apply to us today, we are still eukaryotes just like they
• 1:54:39
  are. So we haven't outgrown our Story
• 1:54:42
  at all, from the point when we were single cells, were you
• 1:54:45
  still the same kind of cell that they were?
• 1:54:49
  That's just sounds really dumb to me because you've been
• 1:54:51
  sitting here for over an hour talking about how humans have
• 1:54:54
  outgrown their ancestry to have all these special traits.
• 1:54:58
  No. See we haven't outgrown our
• 1:54:59
  ancestry to have any of those traits.
• 1:55:01
  Like we like the single clade has differentiated into like two
• 1:55:08
  varieties within that clade. But those varieties like they
• 1:55:12
  can have novel traits. You can have new clades
• 1:55:15
  developed like by branching from previous clay.
• 1:55:19
  It's but that doesn't mean that there are no longer.
• 1:55:21
  It's are you previous quiet? Do you share?
• 1:55:24
  You share a common ancestor with a amoeba?
• 1:55:27
  Sure. Yeah.
• 1:55:28
  Are you an amoeba? No.
• 1:55:30
  But we're both eukaryotes. Okay.
• 1:55:32
  Here's our single are our ancestor.
• 1:55:34
  Was a eukaryote But you're not mine.
• 1:55:40
  Yes, yours. But you've you get my point, you
• 1:55:45
  are not in a meba, you're a eukaryote, but you're not in the
• 1:55:49
  business because I'm not that same variety of eukaryotes as an
• 1:55:53
  amoeba. We are both still, like
• 1:55:56
  eukaryotes like our ancestor. We outgrow our ancestry in the
• 1:55:59
  sense that we are no longer single celled, retard organisms,
• 1:56:03
  but we're the same kinds of cells like well, that's why we
• 1:56:06
  have an outgrowth ancestry. Yeah, so like the
• 1:56:09
  differentiating, the criteria that makes something a eukaryote
• 1:56:12
  are not single. Or multi-cell, you can have
• 1:56:15
  single cell or multi, so you carry it.
• 1:56:17
  So the all the criteria that Define something as a eukaryote
• 1:56:21
  or Define, something as a fish more Define, something as a
• 1:56:24
  primate, we still fit all those criteria to classify as a fish,
• 1:56:29
  a primate and a eukaryote, I have a question.
• 1:56:32
  Yeah. And your opinion, why is it that
• 1:56:36
  that would have to absolutely beneath any Shadow of Doubt
• 1:56:39
  point to a common ancestor, over a common creator.
• 1:56:45
  Because I think that this approach allows us to make
• 1:56:48
  predictions that common Creator argument doesn't allow us to
• 1:56:54
  make, so we can make accurate predictions based on this model
• 1:56:58
  that you can't make accurate predictions with a common
• 1:57:02
  designer model, I would disagree.
• 1:57:05
  Sorry, now go ahead. Adam, we're just sorry real
• 1:57:08
  quick before we get too far from what was that you said there was
• 1:57:12
  a phylum. That was before the idiot car.
• 1:57:15
  Ian, you remember what it was Racin, guys.
• 1:57:19
  Really quickly got robbed key. UK in the room.
• 1:57:22
  I wanted to say. Welcome to the room.
• 1:57:25
  Well, what up? Rob.
• 1:57:30
  He said anyone conversation. Hey, my friends.
• 1:57:35
  Hi. How's it going?
• 1:57:37
  Going pretty good. But you need to do something
• 1:57:39
  with your. Can you go into your settings
• 1:57:41
  and get the echo cancellation on?
• 1:57:43
  I'm here in Duck noises back there.
• 1:57:46
  I thought I was starting to evolve or something.
• 1:57:50
  I'm kidding, it's a joke. I'm funny guy, Grayson, maybe
• 1:57:54
  you, maybe I misheard. You were you saying that?
• 1:57:56
  There's a new animal phylum, that shows up outside of the
• 1:58:02
  camera, like tote like a totally different time periods.
• 1:58:04
  Those brain to the to the, to the species, the specimen Kimber
• 1:58:07
  Ella, which is like an area basil mollusk, or by the market.
• 1:58:15
  That's the entire life. That's what's so fascinating to
• 1:58:21
  me, is the mainstream sort of standard darwinian explanation
• 1:58:26
  is we have these slow gradual changes and they get something
• 1:58:29
  that goes from like a five. Parted like starfish plan to
• 1:58:34
  something more like a fish or something.
• 1:58:35
  Those are wildly different changes.
• 1:58:38
  Well, gradualism has not been the mainstream conception since
• 1:58:42
  the 70s, but we see every animal, Plan show up all the
• 1:58:46
  same sort of that same Cambrian era right before enrolling,
• 1:58:51
  which filings, are you talking about our animals arthropods and
• 1:58:55
  chordates all animal phyla every single one.
• 1:58:59
  Could you give my understanding? Is every single animal phyla
• 1:59:02
  could give examples all. All right, hold on one second,
• 1:59:08
  mr. Austin Jones.
• 1:59:09
  I don't know if you're standing near a jet engine or something
• 1:59:12
  but can you fix your microphone over there, sir?
• 1:59:15
  Yeah, I actually shouldn't have joined.
• 1:59:17
  That was a mistake. I'm actively in the car and I
• 1:59:20
  entered it in for that. I could hear in real time.
• 1:59:22
  Instead of the delay. I'm just going to leave and go
• 1:59:24
  back to YouTube. Well, the reason why you got two
• 1:59:26
  ways you got to close out of the browser whenever you come in
• 1:59:29
  that way, it doesn't echo on you see you, whenever you get that
• 1:59:33
  fixed, all right? Sorry about that, folks, I
• 1:59:36
  didn't mean to interrupt the conversation.
• 1:59:38
  I'm just trying to make sure that people know that we're,
• 1:59:41
  they're not Patrick Swayze ghost.
• 1:59:43
  We do see them. Grace.
• 1:59:47
  Um, I might, I might be wrong on this, but let me just ask you as
• 1:59:50
  if what I'm, what if even, if I'm mistaken, if that is true,
• 1:59:53
  isn't that fascinating like shouldn't there.
• 1:59:55
  Be, I guess that's something to look into.
• 1:59:57
  I find that interesting at the very least, if that's true.
• 2:00:02
  I mean, I guess sure. But I mean, I think that like,
• 2:00:06
  this sort of nested hierarchical pattern of differentiation that
• 2:00:09
  we see. I think that the Cambrian fits
• 2:00:13
  pretty nicely into I mean like well once you have an education
• 2:00:19
  between phylum, you're not going to get across over again.
• 2:00:21
  Like those things are going to differentiate within each of
• 2:00:24
  their phylum. So yeah, I don't really
• 2:00:28
  understand what the big, you know.
• 2:00:33
  Are you familiar with Darwin's Dilemma they call it?
• 2:00:37
  No, I haven't heard that. So this is that's what this is.
• 2:00:39
  This was in when Darwin first wrote about all of this.
• 2:00:44
  This was one of the major problems he says that is a
• 2:00:48
  problem with his. His theory.
• 2:00:50
  Is that my flavors? Yeah, we even discovered the
• 2:00:53
  ediacaran period before the Cambrian.
• 2:00:55
  Like, wow. That was only really we didn't
• 2:00:57
  start getting a lot of ediacaran models until like the 20th
• 2:01:00
  century But that stuff is still immediately before the Cambrian.
• 2:01:06
  Yeah, but there was like a southern stuff immediately
• 2:01:09
  before and immediately but there's very good reasons why we
• 2:01:12
  would not expect to see multicellular animal life much
• 2:01:15
  before then I know, but why wouldn't we see a new phylum
• 2:01:19
  later on? Because like we do see
• 2:01:23
  differentiations later on like we see birds arise later on.
• 2:01:27
  We're just not classifying those as of filing.
• 2:01:31
  Why do we see? So out of all of the animal body
• 2:01:34
  plans, we see them all at once in this one period And then
• 2:01:38
  after that we never see a new body plan ever again.
• 2:01:41
  Because like I said, the way that Evolution works is descent
• 2:01:44
  with modification. So you have to modify the
• 2:01:46
  pre-existing distinct body plans.
• 2:01:50
  Yeah. Well, I would, if you already
• 2:01:51
  have a body plan, right? Like then there.
• 2:01:55
  Why would you get a like a fundamentally different kind of
• 2:01:58
  body plan after that? Like the in the ediacaran
• 2:02:01
  period? We actually see body plans that
• 2:02:04
  don't correspond to any body plans.
• 2:02:06
  We have currently, like, we have, like, radial symmetry.
• 2:02:09
  We have biology. Orion Cemetery like we do, like,
• 2:02:12
  where we are. Cemetery is like onto twofold.
• 2:02:15
  But in the ediacaran, we see threefold symmetry patterns.
• 2:02:19
  And no living organism today has threefold symmetry.
• 2:02:22
  So there are body plans that were kind of like, the ediacaran
• 2:02:25
  was like this big experimental kind of area where we see body
• 2:02:29
  plans that don't exist at all today.
• 2:02:31
  So there was like a big experiment in body plans and
• 2:02:34
  then by the Cambrian, you kind of have the ones that work
• 2:02:38
  coming to the fore. And then, since then, I mean, I
• 2:02:42
  mean we've had most of life is derived from like those body
• 2:02:47
  plans from the Cambrian. So evolution is that part of
• 2:02:51
  evolution just stopped at that point.
• 2:02:53
  It just never there's no more. No new file.
• 2:02:56
  Ohh it's just I had I think Adam accidentally clicked out of his
• 2:03:02
  browser. He's done that before.
• 2:03:04
  Okay, well, I don't know if there's like, you know, that's
• 2:03:11
  You know, we have animals, we have plants.
• 2:03:13
  How come we're not making new domains of life.
• 2:03:16
  I mean, that's just because, like the way that like this
• 2:03:21
  works, where you're going to have continual branches, you're
• 2:03:23
  never going to go back and have another fundamental Branch at
• 2:03:26
  the very beginning. You continue to have branches
• 2:03:28
  and branches off of those branches, but we don't call
• 2:03:31
  those phylum. That's just not the word that we
• 2:03:33
  use. I mean, we would use the word
• 2:03:35
  Clays, and we do continuously, see new clades being formed bike
• 2:03:40
  today. We See Clay's of formed
• 2:03:42
  recently. Like just because you're using
• 2:03:45
  like the word phylum, you could say the same of domains or
• 2:03:48
  kingdoms or families. But really what you're asking
• 2:03:51
  about is the creation of new clades, wish we do actual
• 2:03:54
  absolutely still continue to see and I'm as well as Proverbs.
• 2:04:00
  Did. You guys make it back?
• 2:04:01
  You got me nervous for a minute there.
• 2:04:02
  I thought you guys got raptured up.
• 2:04:04
  I was like, why not me, too? I don't know what happened
• 2:04:07
  bread. It just booted me right after a
• 2:04:09
  booted, Adam. I'm sorry.
• 2:04:12
  Adam, is your technology working over there and you have some
• 2:04:15
  kind of problem. I just got a message that says
• 2:04:19
  check your internet but it went right back I have no idea what
• 2:04:23
  that is. I'm sorry gentlemen are having
• 2:04:25
  that issue. So Grayson I we can move on to
• 2:04:29
  another topic but I just I feel like I've asked a lot of people
• 2:04:32
  this question and I feel like I thought that you got what I was
• 2:04:36
  getting at. I think you do kind of get what
• 2:04:37
  I'm getting at and most people don't even like most people just
• 2:04:40
  don't know enough about it to understand the distinction.
• 2:04:44
  I'm just saying, like there while you're watching have
• 2:04:48
  whilom today, if like, how we Define phylum are in the first
• 2:04:57
  place, like when PC ation to all of them in a very brief period
• 2:05:04
  of time, From none to, although I mean are you still had like
• 2:05:09
  maybe it's because of the designation of what a phylum is
• 2:05:12
  that you're getting caught up on.
• 2:05:14
  But if you're just thinking about these things as clades,
• 2:05:17
  then like if you're familiar with Clays include Aesthetics.
• 2:05:21
  I don't think that there's any Grand mystery going on here.
• 2:05:26
  Okay, so I have a question over the course of the past two hours
• 2:05:33
  and I mean this, with all due respect, you have admitted
• 2:05:37
  multiple times that you just don't have the answers, and I
• 2:05:42
  would say you seem very intelligent, I would probably
• 2:05:45
  put you up on the same type of pedestal as these great minds
• 2:05:49
  that lead the scientific field. So I would take you as an
• 2:05:53
  authority on it that science really doesn't have have all the
• 2:05:56
  answers. Do you find that at all
• 2:05:59
  concerning? Because I know as me as a
• 2:06:02
  Christian I can answer all these questions from the origins of
• 2:06:07
  our species, all the way to modern day.
• 2:06:10
  There's no part in our human history where I have to say, we
• 2:06:14
  don't have the answers. I I find comfort in that.
• 2:06:19
  Do you find a lack of comfort and not having the answers to
• 2:06:22
  accompany these extravagant claims?
• 2:06:24
  I'm not really. I mean, at this point, I'm
• 2:06:27
  pretty existentially comfortable with not having answers.
• 2:06:31
  And, you know, sometimes questions can be almost more
• 2:06:35
  exciting obviously. Like if I had an option of like
• 2:06:40
  finding out all the answers, I would obviously take that but no
• 2:06:45
  I don't need answers. So badly to the point where I
• 2:06:48
  would accept answers without what I would consider to be
• 2:06:52
  sufficient evidence. So I I haven't got to that
• 2:06:55
  point. I don't like I'm okay with dying
• 2:06:58
  without all the answers. So, Okay.
• 2:07:02
  I mean I find that you know sad but at the same time I can
• 2:07:06
  understand at least you're honest about it.
• 2:07:09
  The other thing is is you seem very intellectual in the way
• 2:07:13
  that you're willing to challenge.
• 2:07:16
  What's known as evidence. You're willing to look at
• 2:07:19
  multiple sides. Why is it different for you when
• 2:07:23
  it comes to creation versus Evolution?
• 2:07:25
  I guess? Why is it different when it
• 2:07:27
  pertains to our Origins? How come you have been unwell?
• 2:07:31
  Going to investigate the claims of the scriptures to counter
• 2:07:35
  that to what you've learned in science to come to an actual
• 2:07:39
  knowledge. Well, I don't know if I would
• 2:07:42
  necessarily accept the premise of that.
• 2:07:44
  I mean I do think that I've exposed myself a lot though.
• 2:07:48
  That sounds wrong, but I expose myself to a lot of creationist
• 2:07:51
  content. I listen to their arguments and
• 2:07:55
  I try to see if they make sense. I researched them.
• 2:07:58
  I look at the rebuttals to them and like I do I do consider that
• 2:08:02
  I generally way the arguments for these things and I just I
• 2:08:06
  mean, I respect. I was wanting I respect that but
• 2:08:09
  even with these great minds that defend creationism even Kent
• 2:08:14
  hovind, I consider one of the greatest minds of creationism.
• 2:08:17
  They're still flawed human beings whereas the scriptures
• 2:08:20
  and valuables. So why haven't you gone directly
• 2:08:23
  to the text Source? You know these these great minds
• 2:08:27
  of creationism. They're like a Stephen
• 2:08:29
  Hawking's. They have these Answers, but
• 2:08:32
  that doesn't necessarily mean they're accurate.
• 2:08:35
  Why would you not go to the information at self?
• 2:08:38
  I mean, I'm I'm familiar with, with the Bible.
• 2:08:43
  I mean, it's not like I've read the whole thing cover to cover,
• 2:08:46
  but it's not like I've like willfully avoided ever learning
• 2:08:50
  or reading anything about them. I mean, through my debates or
• 2:08:54
  conversations with creationist, I think I've been exposed to a
• 2:08:57
  lot of what the Bible says. And I just, I just haven't seen
• 2:09:01
  The evidence that what it's saying is actually true, you
• 2:09:05
  don't mind me asking. Why do you believe that it's
• 2:09:07
  over for you whenever you die? Um, it just was what makes the
• 2:09:12
  most sense for me? I mean, I don't really believe
• 2:09:15
  that there was anything before I was born and since I do believe
• 2:09:19
  that ultimately it's the like what?
• 2:09:21
  I am my Consciousness, my awareness, whatever you want to
• 2:09:25
  call it, my soul, if that's a term that you prefer, I believe
• 2:09:28
  that that is an emergent property that's being actively
• 2:09:31
  created by the processes in my brain.
• 2:09:34
  So logically whenever those processes stop upon my death
• 2:09:37
  then I would also cease to exist.
• 2:09:39
  Yeah. But Don't actually believe that.
• 2:09:41
  I recognize the quote of what you're talking about Mark Twain.
• 2:09:45
  I believe it is I my death will be like before I was even born
• 2:09:50
  I'll know of nothing and all this but if what you're saying
• 2:09:53
  is true that your ancestors were, you know, snakes wolves
• 2:09:58
  and sheep, and Vipers, and all this, that you came from that,
• 2:10:02
  then your existence came to many, many different forms.
• 2:10:05
  What you agree? No, I wouldn't necessarily think
• 2:10:09
  of any of my ancestors as a part of my existence.
• 2:10:13
  So I mean, my existence subjectively began when I was
• 2:10:17
  born, but it's completely dependent upon your ancestors.
• 2:10:21
  Sure. Yeah.
• 2:10:22
  But I mean, just like I'm dependent on the doctors and
• 2:10:25
  nurses that gave that delivered me at the hospital, but that
• 2:10:29
  doesn't mean that I came from them.
• 2:10:32
  So, what happens? Just a personal question.
• 2:10:36
  You believe that in some, at some point in time the universe
• 2:10:40
  Going to go through some period where we will be wiped out,
• 2:10:43
  Humanity, will non-existent you do believe it sometime the Earth
• 2:10:48
  has a time limit to it, right? Yeah.
• 2:10:50
  I mean I don't know if there will be a point where it's
• 2:10:53
  physically or technologically possible for us to travel to
• 2:10:57
  other universes to escape our universe.
• 2:10:59
  But yes, eventually all of the protons in this universe will
• 2:11:02
  Decay. So our time is numbered wouldn't
• 2:11:07
  from your point of view though. Mean, that every The effort,
• 2:11:11
  every work, every search for truth.
• 2:11:13
  All this in the end for you, from your position.
• 2:11:16
  There's there's no point to any of it, then why?
• 2:11:20
  I mean, let me give you an example of something.
• 2:11:22
  Let's say I put a thousand books in front of you and I say, you
• 2:11:26
  have this many days to complete all the homework but at the end
• 2:11:31
  of it all, I'm going to set it on fire.
• 2:11:34
  Wouldn't you? Would you not give me the middle
• 2:11:35
  finger and say well I'm not doing all this work.
• 2:11:38
  I'm not going to do all this. If I'm going to You're just
• 2:11:40
  going to burn it all. Anyway, what what gives you the
• 2:11:43
  motivation to continue their? So I would say that yes, I am a
• 2:11:48
  nihilist when it comes to like the question of like ultimate
• 2:11:51
  meaning everything. But I would say, I'm an
• 2:11:52
  optimistic nihilist. So, like I said, I do kind of
• 2:11:56
  leave the possibility open that, maybe it would be possible to
• 2:12:00
  escape this universe and go to a different Universe before it
• 2:12:02
  decays. But, you know, even if that's
• 2:12:05
  not possible and even if all this is ultimately doomed, I do
• 2:12:09
  think that That it's ultimately still worth living.
• 2:12:12
  I mean to take your example, I'm going to do a different example
• 2:12:15
  within the homework, but I hope that you'll agree that it's
• 2:12:17
  still analogous and you'll see why I'm changing it from the
• 2:12:19
  homework. But if we do the same example,
• 2:12:21
  right? You have like a dance floor and
• 2:12:24
  you say, you know, you can dance however, much you want will play
• 2:12:27
  music but after, you know, 5 minutes we're going to burn the
• 2:12:30
  Dance Floor, no more dancing possible.
• 2:12:32
  Like why would I dance? Well, I would say that, you
• 2:12:35
  know, the point of dancing is to Dance.
• 2:12:37
  I mean, it fundamentally in the act of Is the justification for
• 2:12:42
  it because I enjoy dancing. So that's why I chose you know
• 2:12:47
  to change it from homework because nobody enjoys homework.
• 2:12:50
  So I had to change it to something.
• 2:12:51
  That was an enjoyable process and activity to do.
• 2:12:53
  But so I find the process of living to be worth living
• 2:12:57
  because it's fundamentally an enjoyable experience or like
• 2:13:01
  there are things to enjoy about it or like, you know, I like my
• 2:13:05
  life quite a lot and like even though it's limited in its
• 2:13:08
  amount of time, I'm still You know, capable in this moment to
• 2:13:12
  enjoy this moment and I kind of feel like, yeah, life is the
• 2:13:17
  purpose of life is to live in the purpose.
• 2:13:19
  Of dancing is to dance. I like that analogy.
• 2:13:23
  I work with that. So for the the temporal
• 2:13:26
  stimulation you might as well, you're here.
• 2:13:29
  You're just going to go ahead and do it.
• 2:13:32
  Yeah, yeah. I mean, like, yeah, I still
• 2:13:36
  definitely enjoy living. What, a, what stops you from
• 2:13:39
  doing negative things in order to benefit or take advantage
• 2:13:43
  over other humans, I'll give you an example.
• 2:13:46
  You're told that you're going to be evicted from your home, your
• 2:13:49
  family is going to be dropped out.
• 2:13:51
  But, you know, for a fact that there's a little old lady that
• 2:13:54
  lives up on a hill way off in the woods at nobody even hardly
• 2:13:57
  knows about, you know, because you explore nature every once in
• 2:14:00
  awhile and see. Just so happens.
• 2:14:02
  I have a treasure chest filled with like collectible gold and
• 2:14:06
  money and all this inheritance that she threw, some reason
• 2:14:10
  didn't give to her grandkids, what's stopping you from going
• 2:14:13
  up there and going into the dance?
• 2:14:15
  Take her out, nobody would know and take the money.
• 2:14:20
  I mean fundamentally. I don't think I'd be able to
• 2:14:23
  really look myself in the mirror.
• 2:14:26
  If I did that. I don't think that like, I still
• 2:14:31
  have a sense of morality and things that are right and wrong.
• 2:14:33
  I can still have a sense of empathy, right?
• 2:14:35
  I can understand what it is like for that woman and I would not
• 2:14:39
  want to cause her harm or suffering so you know I know and
• 2:14:44
  I just, I don't think I could, you know, have a certain
• 2:14:47
  perception of myself and the kind of standards that I hold.
• 2:14:50
  And myself and my behaviors to. And I would just not really like
• 2:14:54
  myself if I did things like that.
• 2:14:57
  But why the? She's nothing more than
• 2:15:00
  chemicals. She's nothing more than
• 2:15:02
  Stardust. He's going to die anyway, but
• 2:15:05
  she still having her own subjective experience like I I
• 2:15:08
  acknowledge the fact that things can be subjectively real.
• 2:15:12
  So like, you know, things that make might necessarily not have
• 2:15:18
  a physical basis or be physically.
• 2:15:20
  It can still be real in a subjective sense, and I do think
• 2:15:23
  that subjective experience and subjective realities are
• 2:15:26
  something that's worth like respecting, but your family's
• 2:15:32
  going to be evicted, you're going to be at a disadvantage.
• 2:15:34
  You're going to be cold and hungry on the street.
• 2:15:37
  But I'm sure in every way is not every, you've done.
• 2:15:39
  Every positive thing, you could possibly think of in order to
• 2:15:43
  survive that there are different options open to me than I.
• 2:15:46
  It's not like I just have to either be homeless or Rob this
• 2:15:49
  old lady. I I think that there are
• 2:15:51
  probably other options available.
• 2:15:55
  Sure sure. But it's kind of a hypothetical
• 2:15:58
  and you know what those are meant to do, kind of narrow it
• 2:16:00
  down with the options are now it's down to like a me versus
• 2:16:03
  this old lady, it's one of us or none of us cannot about
• 2:16:08
  basically putting something that is an obstacle out of your way
• 2:16:13
  and seeking out the benefit of the advantage.
• 2:16:16
  Yeah, well, I'm okay with that is, if, if nobody gets hurt or
• 2:16:20
  suffers. But, you know, if this old woman
• 2:16:23
  is going to say, Tougher than I think that's wrong.
• 2:16:27
  But there's ways to be able to take care of a little old woman
• 2:16:30
  without causing her much suffering.
• 2:16:32
  What is the suffering even matter?
• 2:16:35
  Well, because I think suffering is bad.
• 2:16:36
  I don't like to suffer. It's kind of like the Golden
• 2:16:38
  Rule, you know, I hear you. It sounds like, even though you
• 2:16:43
  refer to yourself as a nihilist, you're a very altruistic person.
• 2:16:48
  How did this happen? I try to, you know, condone with
• 2:16:51
  my moral principles. That that is interesting.
• 2:16:55
  Where do you think that this comes from that you're willing
• 2:16:57
  to sacrifice yourself and your own well-being for some old lady
• 2:17:02
  you don't even know where does that come from a mix of culture
• 2:17:06
  and biology? So there's actually some really
• 2:17:09
  interesting. Interesting experiments.
• 2:17:10
  I think they did this with naked mole rats and they, they had an
• 2:17:16
  ingenious test. I don't remember the whole
• 2:17:18
  experimental setup, but they test it.
• 2:17:20
  If the mole rat was willing to sacrifice itself for another and
• 2:17:24
  they found that in the case of siblings.
• 2:17:27
  One mole rat would not sacrifice itself for one sibling, which,
• 2:17:31
  as 50% of the same DNA as it, but for two or more siblings,
• 2:17:36
  the more Atwood. And then when you take cousins,
• 2:17:39
  where you, Have 1/8 genetic similarity with all of your
• 2:17:42
  cousins. Four, five, cousins, one, naked
• 2:17:46
  mole rat would not sacrifice itself but for eight or more
• 2:17:50
  cousins than it would. So there's a biological kind of
• 2:17:54
  decision making that's going on here on some kind of deep like
• 2:17:58
  instinctual level. That causes you to, you know,
• 2:18:02
  put others above yourself under certain circumstances.
• 2:18:06
  So that mixed with my culture that I grew up in what kind of
• 2:18:11
  dictate my sense of right and wrong and my mom, Well Compass.
• 2:18:15
  How would that work though? In survival of the fittest or
• 2:18:17
  selfish Gene? Yeah, so that's why there was
• 2:18:20
  actually a correspondence between genetic similarity and
• 2:18:23
  that because when there's when there's only one sibling right,
• 2:18:29
  if I sacrifice myself for one sibling, then they only had 50
• 2:18:32
  percent of my DNA. So only 50% of my DNA lives on
• 2:18:36
  because I have died, but in a when there's two siblings, each
• 2:18:40
  of them has 50% of my DNA. So the equivalent is about, you
• 2:18:43
  know, 100% of my DNA, move lives on through my two siblings.
• 2:18:48
  So if there's more than two siblings, then it's actually
• 2:18:51
  more advantageous to pass on my genetic material to save my
• 2:18:55
  three siblings, then to save myself.
• 2:18:57
  So it's like a very interesting kind of like calculation of
• 2:19:01
  fractions of like what wit like what's decision on my behalf,
• 2:19:08
  like who do I have to save in order to pass on more genetic
• 2:19:11
  material than just my individual All genes just might individual
• 2:19:16
  like, progeny. Let me through another
• 2:19:19
  hypothetical for you and we're going to take the bond and the
• 2:19:22
  relationship of siblings out of the equation.
• 2:19:25
  And unfortunately this hypothetical I'm going to ask
• 2:19:28
  you is happen millions of times unfortunately on this Earth.
• 2:19:32
  So it is a realistic, hypothetical, you're walking
• 2:19:35
  down the street, you're minding your own business.
• 2:19:38
  You notice that there's a woman across the street where she's
• 2:19:41
  not paying attention. She's trying to get groceries
• 2:19:43
  out of the car. A little five-year-old whom you
• 2:19:46
  don't know anything about or this woman besides that the kid
• 2:19:50
  sees you and decides to run across the street.
• 2:19:53
  Maybe you've got something on it wants to point out or go goo goo
• 2:19:56
  gaga at you. You see a car coming now, would
• 2:20:00
  you jump out in front of the road and save that child?
• 2:20:03
  Even though there's a good probability, you're going to get
• 2:20:06
  hit by the vehicle and killed or disabled?
• 2:20:09
  Would you do it? Yeah, I would why I Want to see
• 2:20:14
  a kid get killed just because of the experience of seeing a kid
• 2:20:18
  get killed, you would destroy your own life and your ability
• 2:20:22
  to reproduce. My goodness.
• 2:20:25
  Yeah, I mean I haven't been that exact same area before, but I've
• 2:20:28
  been in scenarios where like, people have been in trouble.
• 2:20:31
  Like I've been on a boat and somebody's falling off the boat,
• 2:20:34
  and I didn't really think about it.
• 2:20:35
  I just jumped in to try to get to, you know, help them.
• 2:20:38
  So I don't think that I would necessarily be doing any kind of
• 2:20:41
  advanced moralistic philosophy, kind of thinking, in a while, I
• 2:20:45
  have a logic tree to it, I would just kind of see him pay the in
• 2:20:48
  trouble, and I would just sort of, you know, kind of just react
• 2:20:51
  on Instinct. I don't think I would really
• 2:20:53
  think about it much. Have to have some kind of old do
• 2:20:56
  this, do that. Like way my decision, you know,
• 2:21:00
  that's not real quick. Real quick.
• 2:21:05
  Let me welcome Earnest to the room, Earnest as your mic
• 2:21:08
  working and then I'm going to let Robb, go into this Rob.
• 2:21:12
  Can you give me a favor? Your mom sounds really loud.
• 2:21:15
  I don't know what the deal is with that.
• 2:21:17
  Can you step away from it about 10 feet long?
• 2:21:20
  When also gentlemen, I it's going on Almost two and a half
• 2:21:25
  hours and I've got a very beautiful Southern girl who's
• 2:21:27
  waiting on me. So I'm going to make my exit,
• 2:21:30
  but I would like the record to show that Grayson both refused
• 2:21:33
  to murder the old woman and saved a child.
• 2:21:36
  So extra Kudo points for Grayson and I hope we see you back bud.
• 2:21:40
  Hey thanks, man. So far.
• 2:21:42
  I'm really enjoying the conversation.
• 2:21:43
  So, hello, Dave and hello Grayson.
• 2:21:48
  Yeah, I'm glad to be part of this for some time.
• 2:21:54
  I have a question for a Grayson, with the illustration that you
• 2:22:00
  pointed out of the Dance Floor. Supposedly you feel like it's
• 2:22:09
  it's it would be great, you would have a great time on set
• 2:22:12
  floor, but what if there was someone else who wouldn't enjoy
• 2:22:16
  being on that second floor and would rather enjoy killing
• 2:22:21
  people? Wouldn't he wouldn't he feel
• 2:22:24
  like it hits in his right to do what he likes and rather than
• 2:22:32
  follow the crowd. I mean, you can do whatever you
• 2:22:36
  want to do as long as it doesn't, impinge on anybody
• 2:22:39
  else's rights are doesn't create suffering for others.
• 2:22:43
  So you know of killing people is his hobby, then that's pretty
• 2:22:47
  wrong and I would be advocate for stopping that.
• 2:22:53
  So, where does where do you think this idea of not impending
• 2:22:58
  on others, Freedom, or like on others responsibility comes
• 2:23:03
  from, if, if according like, if you believe in evolution, if the
• 2:23:08
  survival of the fittest. Yeah.
• 2:23:10
  So how did we go from survival of the fittest towards
• 2:23:16
  basically, this principle of we live, as a group and we help
• 2:23:20
  each other out? Yeah.
• 2:23:21
  So groups as a whole are subject to Natural Selection and fitness
• 2:23:26
  as well. So if you have somebody in your
• 2:23:28
  group that says killing other people of your group, that's not
• 2:23:31
  going to benefit the group, and we actually see in nature in
• 2:23:34
  Social organisms, they will Outcast such, you know, errant
• 2:23:39
  Behavior. They also help your out of here,
• 2:23:42
  they kick them out to the curb. They're not allowed to be in the
• 2:23:45
  group if they're going to act like that.
• 2:23:47
  So we see group dynamics like that and sort of these kind of
• 2:23:51
  groups. Group social moralities come up
• 2:23:54
  in in the animal kingdom. So Mister if you don't mind, let
• 2:23:59
  me show you something real quick and I'd like to get your
• 2:24:01
  opinion. All right, let me see if I still
• 2:24:05
  got it, here jeans are information, they're coded
• 2:24:09
  information, it's even looks like computer information.
• 2:24:12
  I mean, a chromosome is a great long computer tape.
• 2:24:17
  It's linear runs 11 dimensional digital code.
• 2:24:22
  It's not binary, it's quaternary.
• 2:24:24
  But apart from that it's just the same as as computer tape.
• 2:24:27
  It's read in sequence. It's copied and pasted from one
• 2:24:34
  part of the organism to another in just the same way as as a
• 2:24:38
  computer programmer would copy and paste.
• 2:24:42
  So biology has turned into into computer science copied and
• 2:24:47
  pasted from one part of the organism to another in just the
• 2:24:51
  same way. Way, as as a computer
• 2:24:54
  programmer, would copy and paste as a computer programmer would
• 2:24:59
  copy and paste. So how do you feel about that is
• 2:25:06
  Richard Dawkins strong people under the bus or what?
• 2:25:10
  I think he's oversimplifying a little bit but I would still
• 2:25:12
  largely agree with what he said. You believe it's like a computer
• 2:25:16
  program, designed it and programmed it to do this.
• 2:25:21
  I don't necessarily think that that's what he was saying, but
• 2:25:23
  he was saying that it's like a code, like analogous to a
• 2:25:26
  computer program. All right.
• 2:25:29
  Why do you think he uses terms like computer program or isn't
• 2:25:33
  that a kind of its kind of sounds almost.
• 2:25:36
  Like there's some simulation going on some kind of design.
• 2:25:42
  Maybe I mean, I don't know what question he was responding to,
• 2:25:45
  maybe he was asked a question about.
• 2:25:47
  Could you compare DNA to a computer code, or I don't really
• 2:25:51
  know the context for that clip. But, you know, I think that, you
• 2:25:56
  know, kind of the central tenets of genetics and biochemistry is
• 2:26:01
  like the genetic code. So I think it's fairly
• 2:26:04
  uncontroversial to say that. It's a code.
• 2:26:08
  Well, ask a question. Yeah.
• 2:26:12
  So it's a personal or other question.
• 2:26:15
  Grayson. Do you do you ever consider the
• 2:26:18
  possibility of a Creator like actually existing or do you
• 2:26:23
  think it's man-made stories? Like do you ever consider a
• 2:26:28
  Creator? Be it Christian Creator or well
• 2:26:32
  Christian God or something different.
• 2:26:36
  Um, now I don't really spend my time thinking about that to be
• 2:26:40
  be honest. Because I think fundamentally
• 2:26:44
  this is where the views of those people who believe in creation
• 2:26:49
  versus those who believe in evolution come into the, the
• 2:26:53
  alike. The.
• 2:26:58
  Well basically, they can't agree on that single point because if
• 2:27:03
  you don't believe or like don't allow the possibility for such
• 2:27:07
  an entity or being to exist, you're only logical option left
• 2:27:12
  is evolution. While on the other hand, if you
• 2:27:15
  allow such possibility to exist, then anything basically could be
• 2:27:19
  explained by buying this being starting from a lightning or
• 2:27:25
  like some simple things. So I think, Think that
• 2:27:28
  evolutionist hate those who believe in creation because they
• 2:27:33
  tend to oversimplify kind of thing but creationists don't
• 2:27:40
  quite like the idea of everything needing to be
• 2:27:45
  materialistic. What do you think about that?
• 2:27:49
  Yeah I don't think I've ever like precluded the possibility
• 2:27:52
  of God or gods or like you know like a supernatural explanation.
• 2:27:56
  I think I've precluded that Like as being a possibility I just
• 2:28:01
  don't really spend my time like considering it or thinking about
• 2:28:05
  it or like I just don't spend my time thinking about that kind of
• 2:28:08
  stuff. I like I, yeah I don't deny the
• 2:28:13
  possibility but I do stick with a sort of naturalistic
• 2:28:18
  materialistic framework for most of these questions.
• 2:28:22
  So I just because just because that's that's what scientific.
• 2:28:28
  Typically testable, that's what's empirically,
• 2:28:31
  demonstratable, but I'm not making a claim that like one day
• 2:28:35
  science will have the answer to every single thing.
• 2:28:37
  Like, I'm sure that there probably are things that are not
• 2:28:40
  knowable like given the fact that we're just humans, we're
• 2:28:44
  kind of, you know, there's a limit to the kinds of
• 2:28:48
  experiments that we can set up the kinds of knowledge that we
• 2:28:50
  can have. Like I do think that there are
• 2:28:52
  limits, I don't know what they are but I don't really think.
• 2:28:56
  I don't really know if it's Possible to have all the
• 2:28:59
  answers. We gotta be somebody out here
• 2:29:01
  who says, something really odd. He says, computer code is
• 2:29:05
  incredibly simple. So literally brackets of
• 2:29:08
  binaries. And pixel art is the same
• 2:29:10
  concept. You will, your view is narrow.
• 2:29:12
  Obviously, you would need a computer designed in order to be
• 2:29:15
  able to transcribe the information.
• 2:29:18
  And then you would have to design the computer in such a
• 2:29:20
  way where the information actually coordinates with what
• 2:29:24
  is happening with the project. So, I wouldn't say that some
• 2:29:27
  people Cuz I myself I like to do coding and computer and it's not
• 2:29:31
  that easy. It takes a long time to be able
• 2:29:33
  to understand and comprehend that Adam.
• 2:29:35
  Did you have a question? Sorry, good point.
• 2:29:39
  Brett What was my question? Oh, Grayson.
• 2:29:43
  So did you say that? You are not strictly a
• 2:29:47
  materialist? No, no, no.
• 2:29:51
  Because I thought you were just a little earlier.
• 2:29:54
  You were saying something along the lines of you believe that
• 2:29:56
  some things that you know, there's things that exist are
• 2:29:58
  not necessary physical. We're talking about subjective
• 2:30:02
  experience of things like that. Yeah.
• 2:30:04
  I mean like things can subjects can exist like subjectively but
• 2:30:09
  I think there's still like and that's non-material right or
• 2:30:12
  non-physical? Or would you do?
• 2:30:15
  Hey, sir. It's similar to the metaphor.
• 2:30:17
  I drew earlier about like the computer software and Hardware,
• 2:30:20
  like the software kind of, it requires the hardware to create
• 2:30:26
  the software. Write the software is an
• 2:30:27
  emergent phenomenon of the hardware.
• 2:30:30
  So Like yeah, the software exists in the sense of like, in
• 2:30:36
  a limited sense like like a subjective experiences do exist
• 2:30:40
  in a subjective way but they're ultimately based on
• 2:30:43
  materialistic natural phenomenon.
• 2:30:46
  Hmm. But just so the most recent
• 2:30:49
  thing you're saying is you rely on materialism and the
• 2:30:52
  scientific method to test it. But before that, you were saying
• 2:30:55
  that you believe in things that are not strictly material, not
• 2:30:58
  strictly physical. So why risk?
• 2:31:00
  Get to the physical and material if you believe in things that
• 2:31:03
  exist that are beyond that. Because like so the things that
• 2:31:08
  I would believe exist that are beyond that are things that I
• 2:31:10
  can subjectively experience, right?
• 2:31:12
  Like the those things exist in an emergent way from the more
• 2:31:18
  fundamental reality of like the naturalistic materialistic
• 2:31:22
  processes. So those things are empirically
• 2:31:26
  demonstrable. And ultimately I do think it's
• 2:31:30
  possible. Possible but we're obviously not
• 2:31:32
  their technological yet. So it's just a sort of point of
• 2:31:35
  speculation, but I do think it would be possible to
• 2:31:38
  substantiate and kind of prove subjective experiences to if you
• 2:31:43
  had the right measuring devices. But like, for example, you don't
• 2:31:47
  have access to my subjective inner experience, but I'm I
• 2:31:50
  guess that it would be physically possible to, but
• 2:31:53
  obviously not not. But you believe that I'm having
• 2:31:56
  inner experience, right? What's that?
• 2:31:59
  You believe that I have energy? Marion's.
• 2:32:01
  Yes. And I believe that we would be
• 2:32:05
  able to eventually like feet, I believe it would be
• 2:32:07
  theoretically possible to. Why do you believe that?
• 2:32:11
  Because it's not that there's no scientific materialistic basis
• 2:32:15
  for you. Believing that if you only went
• 2:32:17
  by strict materialism, you should be a solipsistic right?
• 2:32:20
  Or let me make that as an open-ended question, should if
• 2:32:23
  you if you followed strict materialism, strict physicalism,
• 2:32:27
  what it followed that you would be assault sister if not Why
• 2:32:31
  would it not follow them? Can you maybe clarify a little
• 2:32:37
  bit more about what you? You can't access what my
• 2:32:40
  subjective experiences. You have no scientific reason
• 2:32:43
  for believing that it's happening.
• 2:32:46
  So, if you're only using materialism, and you're only
• 2:32:48
  using physicalism, how can you justify believing in my
• 2:32:54
  subjective experience rather than only believing in your own,
• 2:32:58
  which would be solid. So, I think that there is
• 2:33:01
  evidence to show that your subjective experience is.
• 2:33:04
  Coming from your brain activity. So if I just look in your brain
• 2:33:06
  so you have brain activity. Then.
• 2:33:09
  Yeah, I mean if you're having brain activity that mirrors the
• 2:33:12
  patterns of a conscious person I think that's evidence that
• 2:33:15
  you're having a conscious experience.
• 2:33:18
  Yeah but that's just the physical part that's that
• 2:33:20
  doesn't show. That's not showing the Yeah, but
• 2:33:23
  I don't think you can have one without the other.
• 2:33:26
  Like I don't think that you could have the physical part
• 2:33:28
  without having the subjective experience part.
• 2:33:31
  Hmm. Like if you were to recreate
• 2:33:34
  your the physical processes in your brain on a machine, then I
• 2:33:39
  would believe that that machine it was having it.
• 2:33:41
  The same subjective experience that you are.
• 2:33:43
  If you work recreating your exact brain patterns Something.
• 2:33:52
  Do you, do you think that all the like that all their
• 2:33:58
  religion, or like all the spiritual things, they fall
• 2:34:03
  under the category of subjective things, or do you allow for the
• 2:34:08
  possibility for something real or some some entity, which we
• 2:34:14
  would deem like, like a god or like with - or like in.
• 2:34:22
  Like the same kind of properties.
• 2:34:25
  Do you think, like, do you allow for such possibility to exist
• 2:34:32
  for something like this to exist and interact with us?
• 2:34:35
  And therefore, we would see the pattern being similar with the
• 2:34:41
  people or like with the individuals and it being
• 2:34:46
  actually the, the indicator that such thing.
• 2:34:51
  Exists. I'm not precluding the
• 2:34:55
  possibility that like I think kind of what you're asking about
• 2:34:58
  is like Supernatural Miracles, right?
• 2:35:00
  I mean that would be a non-subjective like evidence for
• 2:35:06
  God or gods or whatever, right? So I'm not saying that those
• 2:35:10
  things cannot happen but I just don't really see him that much
• 2:35:15
  evidence to think that they have or are happening.
• 2:35:20
  Okay? I would probably like formulates
• 2:35:25
  something different. Okay so you have can you like
• 2:35:31
  allow for the possibility for an entity?
• 2:35:34
  That would be capable of doing Miracles?
• 2:35:39
  Sure at all. Okay.
• 2:35:42
  And if such entity existed like if you allow for this
• 2:35:46
  possibility and then build on it then, Basically, any creationist
• 2:35:52
  model would work. Since this being wouldn't be
• 2:35:56
  limited by the law of the laws of physics that govern the
• 2:36:01
  universe. If such being is outside of the
• 2:36:04
  universe, right? Okay.
• 2:36:08
  I mean for sake of argument, sure.
• 2:36:11
  Okay, so if such thing exists, And we are able to like and some
• 2:36:21
  people claim to be able to have some sort of interaction with
• 2:36:28
  this being who didn't, wouldn't it be like logical to kind of
• 2:36:38
  like here about what they have to say?
• 2:36:45
  I guess, I mean there have been Been like the immune that
• 2:36:48
  applies to every religion though, right?
• 2:36:52
  Okay, if send person was, for example, sentenced to death and
• 2:37:02
  like they have a choice. You either you renounce what you
• 2:37:06
  have seen had experienced or we put you to death, wouldn't it be
• 2:37:11
  a really powerful statement if the person chose death rather
• 2:37:16
  than Renouncing to such possibility.
• 2:37:21
  There are innumerable religious Martyrs in history for just
• 2:37:26
  about every religion. Like people believe these things
• 2:37:30
  so strongly that they have been willing to die for their
• 2:37:34
  beliefs. And I think that that occurs in
• 2:37:36
  just about every religion, I would like to ask you question,
• 2:37:40
  Grace, and you pointed out the there's a great deal of
• 2:37:43
  similarities with all the religions and these ideas of
• 2:37:47
  God. God, I know for you and some
• 2:37:50
  ways that just makes you think. There's just a lot of people who
• 2:37:53
  got lots of different stories. But has it ever crossed your
• 2:37:56
  mind that the reason why billions of people all over the
• 2:37:59
  world believe in this is because they've actually had that
• 2:38:03
  experience that you said was so important that engagement the
• 2:38:07
  similarity shouldn't discredit it it should tell you.
• 2:38:10
  Wow I mean that's exactly why you even hold onto the view of
• 2:38:14
  evolution, right? Because you believed their
• 2:38:16
  similarities, So why wouldn't you give the idea of a higher
• 2:38:19
  power, the same house, fly, say leniency.
• 2:38:24
  I think like it'd be sort of totally different like apples
• 2:38:29
  and tomatoes, like differences. Like, genetic similarities are
• 2:38:34
  very different from similarities of experience, but yeah, I
• 2:38:38
  don't, I'm not saying that like the, you know, 4.3 billion
• 2:38:43
  people that believe in abrahamic God are not Having subjective
• 2:38:48
  experiences where they are, experiencing the god that they
• 2:38:52
  believe in, I'm sure that they are and I'm sure that those
• 2:38:54
  experiences are very real to them.
• 2:38:57
  And I do think that subjective experience is like, are you
• 2:39:00
  know, real in some sense. But I don't think that they're
• 2:39:05
  real in like, an objective sense.
• 2:39:07
  And I don't think that like, I mean, like people are having
• 2:39:12
  experiences with like, I said, all kinds of religions.
• 2:39:15
  The abrahamic God is is the Biggest one today, but in the
• 2:39:19
  past, hardly anybody believed in a monotheistic, God.
• 2:39:22
  I mean monotheism was not any existing in world history until
• 2:39:27
  like the late Bronze Age. So at every time before then
• 2:39:31
  people were having real subjective experiences where
• 2:39:34
  they're communing with their gods and it was very real to
• 2:39:38
  them and they believed it they were willing to die for their
• 2:39:40
  beliefs but nobody in the world was believing in one
• 2:39:43
  monotheistic, God, like I mean, I don't even think that the god
• 2:39:48
  of like Abraham was necessarily like a monotheistic.
• 2:39:52
  God like Abraham didn't really seem to say that the other guys
• 2:39:57
  didn't exist. He just said that they were not
• 2:40:00
  worthy of worship, like his like main God was.
• 2:40:05
  So, I don't know. I think I like the perceptions
• 2:40:08
  of this God / like entity have changed over like the course of
• 2:40:14
  human history. Will you talk?
• 2:40:16
  About cultures and societies basically going through their
• 2:40:20
  own evolving process. As that ever cross your mind
• 2:40:23
  that as these people went all over the world and all this, the
• 2:40:27
  fact that they had similar engagement because of their
• 2:40:31
  languages and the way their culture was set up, this is
• 2:40:34
  simply the name they gave to the higher power, you know, whether
• 2:40:38
  it's, you know, Ganesha or some kind of Hindu form name or
• 2:40:42
  something or the abrahamic religions, call it Yahweh.
• 2:40:45
  Why Why would you think that there's not some kind of
• 2:40:48
  connection there as opposed to a disconnect?
• 2:40:51
  So I could point to like certain religions like the ancient Greek
• 2:40:57
  ancient Canaanite and ancient Indo-European.
• 2:41:01
  And I could say, hey, there's a sky father God in all of these.
• 2:41:05
  There's a god of the underworld and there's a God of a sea, and
• 2:41:07
  those are the three main Gods in these Pantheon's.
• 2:41:10
  So I could say, you know, in that similarity a bit too much
• 2:41:14
  of a coincidence, shouldn't we then conclude that there?
• 2:41:16
  There's three main Gods, a see God and underworld God and a sky
• 2:41:20
  God. But I would think that those
• 2:41:23
  similarities are just the result of them deriving from like like
• 2:41:30
  a shared cultural heritage. Okay, so you believe that the
• 2:41:35
  entire human race there, just sharing and they're connected in
• 2:41:39
  some way into believing that there's something higher and
• 2:41:42
  grander out there. Do you think it's irrational or
• 2:41:45
  you logical for someone to believe there's more to the
• 2:41:47
  universe that there's more to us that transcends?
• 2:41:50
  The the meat that we were speaking about earlier?
• 2:41:55
  I don't know. Actually I don't know how to
• 2:41:56
  answer that question, but yes, I do think that humans have
• 2:42:00
  basically always believed in the Supernatural day.
• 2:42:03
  Is I think that even, we can see kind of the very seed of this
• 2:42:09
  behavior in chimpanzees, where a lot of the times when like a
• 2:42:13
  thunderstorm will come chimpanzees are known to treat
• 2:42:17
  the thunderstorm. As if it were another chimp,
• 2:42:20
  like it was a rival male. Like it was like the
• 2:42:22
  thunderstorm was a chimpanzee and they like interact with it,
• 2:42:25
  treating it like one. So it's not like
• 2:42:27
  anthropomorphizing, it's like chimp up more for sizing I
• 2:42:31
  guess. But I think that that's kind of
• 2:42:33
  the Three fundamental place where a lot of these, like the
• 2:42:37
  religion and the spiritual understanding comes from is
• 2:42:39
  like, you know, you see like if we didn't know anything about
• 2:42:43
  what stars or the sun where I mean it would be very easy to
• 2:42:47
  anthropomorphize them and think of the Sun as an actual entity
• 2:42:50
  in the sky that is making decisions and that's doing all
• 2:42:53
  these things or you know you think of the god of the forest
• 2:42:55
  or the god of that mountain. And it's it's very easy to apply
• 2:42:59
  human characteristics and kind of attribute personalities, too.
• 2:43:03
  To these forces of nature that are like.
• 2:43:06
  So awe-inspiring around us especially when we didn't have
• 2:43:10
  any scientific explanation to like understand these things at
• 2:43:13
  all I'm going to ask you one more hypothetical mem let Adam
• 2:43:17
  and Rob and Ernest get back in the conversation.
• 2:43:21
  I don't want to leave them completely out.
• 2:43:23
  I'm enjoying my conversation with you but I want to make sure
• 2:43:26
  everybody gets to participate. My last question for you is this
• 2:43:30
  if you have the ability let's say tomorrow you won't Woke up
• 2:43:34
  and you found that there was a box in your room with a button
• 2:43:38
  on it and if you push this button, every religion in the
• 2:43:42
  world and every belief in the concept of a higher power, God
• 2:43:45
  is wiped from existence as though it was never there would
• 2:43:50
  you do so, would you push the button and end it all so you can
• 2:43:54
  have your naturalistic views and world everybody agrees?
• 2:43:58
  Yeah, definitely. You push the button and wipe it
• 2:44:02
  all out. Yeah.
• 2:44:04
  Okay. Well you sure intellectually
• 2:44:06
  honest. Go ahead guys.
• 2:44:10
  Yep. I used to make ricin has more
• 2:44:12
  volume in there anyway. Yeah.
• 2:44:14
  Okay. Yeah.
• 2:44:17
  Based on that then how did what was the point in time and how
• 2:44:21
  did the evolution of belief come about?
• 2:44:26
  And also, when in The evolutionary timeline, did the
• 2:44:33
  concept of guilt and Heim hindsight evolved?
• 2:44:39
  And why don't I didn't have those feelings of guilt in
• 2:44:42
  hindsight. Yeah, I would think that they're
• 2:44:46
  probably animals that have like similar feelings of guilt in
• 2:44:49
  hindsight that humans would have.
• 2:44:53
  So I think that those would probably predate the evolution
• 2:44:55
  of humans yet, but there's no scientific evidence for that.
• 2:44:59
  That's just speculation. Yeah, that's why I said, I would
• 2:45:02
  think, I mean, I would probably point to other intelligence
• 2:45:05
  sociable animals like Elephants or something.
• 2:45:07
  I mean, death. Italy.
• 2:45:10
  Seems like it would make sense to me that they would display
• 2:45:13
  things like guilt in hindsight but I get I haven't seen any
• 2:45:18
  specific studies that were trying to look or measure this.
• 2:45:20
  I don't know exactly how you would measure things like guilt
• 2:45:22
  or hindsight but I don't really think it's like a big stretch of
• 2:45:26
  an imagination to imagine like an elephant having guilt in
• 2:45:30
  hindsight. Like if like if an elephant was
• 2:45:35
  responsible for the death of its child or another elephant, Or
• 2:45:39
  something. I would very easily think that
• 2:45:42
  it would have some kind of, you know, like some kind of
• 2:45:45
  conception of that. It's the one that is the one at
• 2:45:49
  fault and it would kind of feel that sensation of guilt.
• 2:45:53
  But again, that's just my own speculation.
• 2:45:55
  So but I don't think that it would be, I think it would be
• 2:45:59
  something that would predate human evolution and then your
• 2:46:01
  other question was about sorry what was it?
• 2:46:06
  The guilt in hindsight and then Oh yeah, the belief the
• 2:46:10
  evolution of belief. So like I said, when we see kind
• 2:46:13
  of chimpanzees, exhibiting sort of like seed like very basil
• 2:46:18
  behavior of attributing, kind of natural phenomenon to have
• 2:46:23
  personalities like a champ, or like a human or whatever.
• 2:46:27
  I think that that's kind of the seed for where there's mostly
• 2:46:29
  came from. So it would probably predate
• 2:46:32
  Homo sapiens or like I would think that neanderthals and
• 2:46:36
  denisovans would have some kind of belief.
• 2:46:38
  If system comes in your spiritual animal like animalism
• 2:46:43
  kind of system where you know there would be like for is
• 2:46:48
  deity's or mountain or sky or sun Gods, like, you know, they
• 2:46:51
  would kind of impart human characteristics to natural
• 2:46:55
  phenomenon. And I think that that's probably
• 2:46:57
  been existing for, you know, probably longer than humans
• 2:47:00
  have, but that seems to be more of a physical response to a
• 2:47:06
  natural threat rather than Looking at this as a real living
• 2:47:10
  entity, we have a we have a conscience that it can be cut.
• 2:47:14
  They can debate with or communicate with.
• 2:47:18
  Well, I mean, every group on Earth pretty much believes in
• 2:47:23
  some kind of personification of natural phenomenon.
• 2:47:27
  Like you don't find a hunter-gatherer tribe that's
• 2:47:29
  just all atheists. Like, you'll usually find a
• 2:47:32
  hunter-gatherer and like they'll say, you know, oh, this sun goes
• 2:47:36
  here at night and he does this and the Sun is the has this
• 2:47:40
  personality or, you know, these animals have these personalities
• 2:47:44
  or the this certain Forest is like, doesn't like X y&z like,
• 2:47:48
  they'll be attributing, those kinds of things to just their
• 2:47:50
  natural environment around them. And that's kind of the basil
• 2:47:54
  state of like religious belief. And the idea of God's, I went to
• 2:47:59
  go grab me some more cold water and I got to thinking about
• 2:48:02
  something. I was wanting to ask you
• 2:48:06
  earlier, just a moment ago before I took my break.
• 2:48:08
  Wood said that if he could push a button and wipe out all
• 2:48:11
  religion, why do you think that add off Hitler and Joseph Stalin
• 2:48:15
  also felt the same way and that's not an insult towards
• 2:48:18
  you, but you know, that they thought taking out the church's,
• 2:48:21
  ending the Judaism and the Jews, and all that was a good idea.
• 2:48:26
  Do you think that that was a positive thing?
• 2:48:28
  They didn't have a button to push.
• 2:48:29
  They had to do it manually. Yeah.
• 2:48:31
  So I think, in the cases of figures like a Stalin or Hitler,
• 2:48:35
  they were in opposition of like the Religions of their era
• 2:48:40
  because they saw that as an obstacle to their power, right?
• 2:48:43
  Like they wanted to be the sole source of like you know, that
• 2:48:48
  they wanted their institution to State their Administration, to
• 2:48:52
  be the sole organizer of society.
• 2:48:54
  And they didn't want any challenges to that power and
• 2:48:57
  religion and religious institutions offer like a
• 2:49:01
  potential challenge to their political Authority, because the
• 2:49:05
  authority of God and the church is oftentimes proceed.
• 2:49:08
  By the populace is a higher authority than they are.
• 2:49:11
  So I think that for them, where their main goal is to acquire
• 2:49:16
  and hold on to power, they were mostly seeing religions as an
• 2:49:20
  obstacle for their rise and maintain of control over power.
• 2:49:24
  So, Grayson based on that, then religion is actually an
• 2:49:29
  Eeveelution we benefit because he's yeah, it definitely it
• 2:49:33
  stops the. So your you want to negate an
• 2:49:37
  Eeveelution re benefit? It.
• 2:49:39
  That's what man now has yes, man.
• 2:49:51
  But you were willing to wipe it out five minutes ago.
• 2:49:55
  So I want to just clarify when I was saying it was a benefit is
• 2:49:58
  because it is a like social coherent.
• 2:50:02
  So it like people that can share religion together, obviously can
• 2:50:07
  socially cohesive. Into larger groups than like you
• 2:50:13
  know if you're only going to get into group with people that you
• 2:50:15
  know, you're limited, you can only know like a couple hundred
• 2:50:20
  people and so you're going to have strangers and if you're not
• 2:50:23
  willing to be in a group with strangers, then us as humans are
• 2:50:28
  not going to be able to accomplish very many big Grand
• 2:50:31
  things because you can only act in a small group of a couple
• 2:50:34
  hundred. The thing that allows us humans
• 2:50:37
  to act in groups of thousands. And millions is by having shared
• 2:50:41
  identities and religion is a big source of this shared identity
• 2:50:45
  that has allowed. You know, these large groups of
• 2:50:47
  humans to do large-scale things. So I think that there are other
• 2:50:52
  sources for identity. Like you know, I guess
• 2:50:55
  nationalism is another one, but I'm not a big fan of nationalism
• 2:50:58
  either, but I think that that's another example of getting a
• 2:51:02
  benefit from a social cohesive. So I think that there are other
• 2:51:07
  ways that We can have a socially cohesive society that don't
• 2:51:13
  involve like like really. I mean, my biggest problem with
• 2:51:18
  religion, I don't really care if people like believe in God or
• 2:51:21
  gods or whatever. It's mostly the like like
• 2:51:27
  pushing. Like what I would label as
• 2:51:29
  pseudoscience or pseudo-scientific claims or
• 2:51:31
  being you know against like science because of religious
• 2:51:37
  values that That's what I don't really like, hey, Grayson
• 2:51:42
  connect, can I ask you real quick?
• 2:51:43
  Just like a rabbit. Rapidfire question again.
• 2:51:47
  Okay, just tell me out of these things, whether you believe in
• 2:51:51
  it or not nebular. Hypothesis.
• 2:51:56
  Sure. I think it sounds plausible.
• 2:51:58
  Black holes, absolutely dark matter.
• 2:52:10
  There's evidence to support it like gravitational lensing but I
• 2:52:13
  don't know if I don't even know what I would be believing in
• 2:52:16
  like dark matter. Doesn't even have a good
• 2:52:19
  definition for what it is. So it's not like it's like dark
• 2:52:22
  matter as I can exotic form of matter.
• 2:52:26
  I don't know, I mean I like thinking about it, but I don't
• 2:52:30
  even know what it would be. You know, if there's not even a
• 2:52:32
  model for what it is, like how can I believe it?
• 2:52:35
  But you believe in the lambda-cdm model which has dark
• 2:52:38
  matter in the title. Yeah, yeah.
• 2:52:41
  Like, I mean, what a dark, you have evidence to suggest that
• 2:52:44
  there is something out there, that's not interacting with
• 2:52:48
  light, but it is interacting via gravity.
• 2:52:51
  So there's something that's causing that effect, and it's
• 2:52:54
  described as As dark matter. But the theater, the lambda-cdm
• 2:52:57
  model does not actually describe.
• 2:52:59
  What dark matter is. Well, what about her Dark
• 2:53:05
  Energy? Well, dark energy is just the
• 2:53:09
  again, we don't know what it is. It's just like the cosmological
• 2:53:12
  constant variable that's causing the expansion of the universe
• 2:53:16
  but we don't know what it physically is like.
• 2:53:18
  We don't have any description for it so you do believe in it
• 2:53:22
  or you don't. Well, something is causing the
• 2:53:26
  expansion of the universe. We call that dark matter.
• 2:53:29
  So yes, I believe that there is something causing the expansion
• 2:53:33
  of the universe. If and that's all I would call
• 2:53:35
  Dark Matters inflation and inflationary cosmology and
• 2:53:38
  inflationary period of expansion.
• 2:53:41
  Well, no, because dark matter is still currently causing the
• 2:53:44
  universe to expand faster like it's accelerating in its
• 2:53:47
  expansion. So some things that are causing
• 2:53:50
  that because, well, Grayson what I'm asking is.
• 2:53:52
  Do you believe that? In the history of in the history
• 2:53:55
  in the past history, there was an inflationary period.
• 2:54:01
  Yeah, I mean I believe that there's some evidence to support
• 2:54:03
  it but I don't necessarily like believe it but you're skeptical
• 2:54:08
  of the land. You were you were when you when
• 2:54:12
  you start our earlier it sounded like you believed pretty solidly
• 2:54:14
  in the lambda-cdm model that just the stand.
• 2:54:17
  I think it's our best model but obviously it's not the full
• 2:54:20
  picture because we don't have a system for quantum.
• 2:54:23
  Gravity yet. So as long as we don't have
• 2:54:25
  quantum gravity, our systems are only going to be like our models
• 2:54:29
  are only going to be approximations.
• 2:54:31
  So what about virtual particles? I take some umbrage with the
• 2:54:37
  kind of the conception of virtual particles.
• 2:54:40
  You're awesome amazing. Yeah.
• 2:54:43
  So like I understand why virtual particles were proposed and I
• 2:54:48
  understand their utility as a mathematical model, but do I
• 2:54:52
  actually believe that the background energy is forming
• 2:54:55
  these particles that are then like colliding back into
• 2:54:59
  non-existence out of nothing? Mmm.
• 2:55:02
  No not necessarily. I have my own kind of Exceptions
• 2:55:05
  of like what this background Quantum vacuum energy is and
• 2:55:10
  what it's composed of and what is explaining these virtual
• 2:55:13
  particles? I kind of think of them as like
• 2:55:16
  television static almost like ripples of energy that are not
• 2:55:19
  fully formed into particles yet but can be modeled based on
• 2:55:23
  Virtual particles. So I kind of find virtual
• 2:55:26
  particles as like a mathematical model that is like an
• 2:55:29
  approximate and like accurate description but probably not the
• 2:55:33
  full picture. Of what's really going on.
• 2:55:36
  If that makes any sense. I want to play something else so
• 2:55:46
  when you said that that you wanted you would press the
• 2:55:50
  button to wipe out all the religions.
• 2:55:54
  I think that that you would have liked living be solely based on
• 2:56:01
  the assumption that all these religions are not correct.
• 2:56:07
  Right. Yep.
• 2:56:08
  Okay, so the thing is, I think that that where the conflict
• 2:56:17
  lies between like those that believe in some sort of deity,
• 2:56:22
  and those who don't is, you could put everyone who believes
• 2:56:26
  in some sort of deity, in some particular category and the one
• 2:56:32
  that people who don't believe in anything at all.
• 2:56:34
  Did they believe that? It's all men made basically.
• 2:56:38
  So, man made God, if you actually go down the trail and
• 2:56:44
  the trail of God making men. So if you that's what I was
• 2:56:50
  saying about like allowing the real possibility, then you
• 2:56:57
  wouldn't be able to kind of like press this button to wipe out
• 2:57:01
  all religions. Really.
• 2:57:03
  So you could but but that's hypothetical.
• 2:57:06
  Tentacle, would you be willing to go down the trail?
• 2:57:11
  Like would you be okay if I lead you to down something like a
• 2:57:16
  series of questions on, unlike presenting a worldview?
• 2:57:21
  That would be not based on a materialistic view, but rather
• 2:57:26
  on an idea that there is a creation, there is a creator of
• 2:57:33
  some sort. Are you just asking if I'm open
• 2:57:38
  to that? Or will you be open?
• 2:57:40
  If I cannot try to guide you down this aisle?
• 2:57:45
  Sure. You might want to.
• 2:57:47
  Like I did get closer to the mic or up your volume.
• 2:57:51
  Otherwise you're a little bit soft on the mic but sure.
• 2:57:54
  Yeah. I mean I'm open to it.
• 2:57:55
  Yeah. Earnest.
• 2:57:56
  It is difficult to hear you. I was actually going to point
• 2:57:59
  that out. I think Grayson for getting into
• 2:58:01
  that first. Also you seem to be moving
• 2:58:04
  around A lot hitting your desk like a, like a rabid ape over
• 2:58:08
  there. Is there any way that can be
• 2:58:09
  stopped? So we can understand you better?
• 2:58:13
  Nicholas, how you doing? I always get on the people at
• 2:58:16
  the microphones. Bad Grayson's.
• 2:58:18
  Got a great microphone. You're going to have to later
• 2:58:20
  on, give a link to where ever you bought that and give it to
• 2:58:23
  these people that have been coming the room.
• 2:58:24
  I have a confession. It's literally just my laptop.
• 2:58:28
  Mike. What the one with my laptop?
• 2:58:31
  What is that? Some alien software?
• 2:58:33
  Some here goes The MacBook. Yes, some of those might be
• 2:58:37
  pretty good. Yeah, he's got a good Mike, do I
• 2:58:42
  sound okay. You sound good.
• 2:58:44
  You got some have you been listening out there to the
• 2:58:47
  conversation? Is there anything?
• 2:58:48
  You'd like to throw out there and before you do I feel kind of
• 2:58:53
  bad here because we got one non-believer and I'd like to
• 2:58:57
  have other non-believers actually come in and participate
• 2:59:00
  in the conversation. I feel like it's kind of a
• 2:59:03
  triple threat match. And I like WWE, but it makes me
• 2:59:07
  feel like there's like, unfairness going on.
• 2:59:09
  So if we can balance that, let's get some more Skeptics in here.
• 2:59:13
  Come on, go ahead. I'll bring it on, I can handle
• 2:59:16
  all the creationist in all seriousness, I do appreciate
• 2:59:22
  your courage and your respectfulness.
• 2:59:24
  We don't get that very honestly, I don't think that it's been
• 2:59:28
  like, unfair or anything. I mean, I don't think anybody's
• 2:59:31
  been interrupting or talking over anybody else, so I think
• 2:59:34
  Been a good discussion. Well actually, I was listening
• 2:59:37
  to someone who's talking about with dark matter and and all
• 2:59:40
  that other stuff and yeah, I mean there is some science
• 2:59:43
  behind that. I mean, when you look at the
• 2:59:45
  mathematics and explaining the gravitational pool and, you
• 2:59:48
  know, I mean honestly I don't think it really disagrees with
• 2:59:50
  creation because God created a fully mature Universe, a fully
• 2:59:54
  mature everything. So that's why I'm not really
• 2:59:57
  arguing that much if you look at some of my comments, you know,
• 3:00:00
  and I actually respect some of his honesty and actually saying
• 3:00:03
  yeah I mean It's a theory and yeah it's it's the best one we
• 3:00:07
  have, you know, I mean so it mean I don't think all the
• 3:00:10
  theories necessarily you'd agree disagree with creation and God
• 3:00:14
  you know because I mean Adam was fully formed, he was fully
• 3:00:17
  mature. I mean the Earth is fully
• 3:00:19
  mature. I mean so it's not necessarily
• 3:00:22
  against creation to a point. I do feel there is a lot of
• 3:00:27
  science behind a lot of it. You know, I actually went to
• 3:00:29
  Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and and studied in
• 3:00:33
  aeronautical science and One into the evolution classes and
• 3:00:36
  all that stuff, you know, personally, I still think that
• 3:00:39
  God is behind it all. When you look at the numbers and
• 3:00:41
  the mathematics and how everything lines up and how
• 3:00:44
  perfectly things are in the solar system and where we are in
• 3:00:47
  the universe and all that other stuff.
• 3:00:49
  I mean, it's just like they say, this is why this whole
• 3:00:52
  Multiverse thing is so important.
• 3:00:54
  These days is everything in the numbers are so perfect.
• 3:00:58
  There has to be multiple other universes because the random
• 3:01:01
  chance of it all lining up the way that it is.
• 3:01:04
  Well, the only way it really makes sense is that there's
• 3:01:06
  multiverses, and that we just happen to be in one that all the
• 3:01:09
  numbers line up in. And that's why I think they're
• 3:01:11
  pushing all this, you know, stuff with the heroes and the
• 3:01:14
  multiverses, you know, trying to.
• 3:01:17
  I mean, I'm not saying that all the scientists believe that and,
• 3:01:20
  you know, but and like I said, there is a lot of math behind in
• 3:01:23
  science behind and that's why I'm not really arguing with him
• 3:01:25
  and just make it Nikki mind, if I ask you a couple questions
• 3:01:29
  and, you know, I believe in God, and I realize that you're very
• 3:01:32
  passionate, theist yourself. Would you?
• 3:01:34
  A would you say that multiverses would act under the same laws as
• 3:01:39
  our universe or would they have different laws based upon their
• 3:01:44
  rate and what's going on with that number two with what you
• 3:01:48
  said is? Well you said that your you
• 3:01:50
  don't have a problem with dark matter.
• 3:01:51
  Can you explain why God would create this exotic matter in the
• 3:01:55
  first place? And what is the point of it?
• 3:01:58
  Well, here's the thing, dark matter is actually just a way to
• 3:02:03
  they don't even know what it is. That's just to explain how the
• 3:02:06
  gravitational forces and how things are being pulled and
• 3:02:08
  moved. And when they look at the matter
• 3:02:11
  that they can see that they're able to calculate, it doesn't
• 3:02:14
  matter. You misheard.
• 3:02:16
  My question, I'm asking you, I'm asking you from God's point of
• 3:02:20
  view. Why would have he created this
• 3:02:23
  dark matter and made it a part of the elements?
• 3:02:25
  What do you think the point of it is?
• 3:02:28
  Yes, the yes to get on the other fears.
• 3:02:30
  Grayson is a powerful God because you know, the more we
• 3:02:34
  Look, and study into the universe.
• 3:02:36
  The more amazing. He is.
• 3:02:37
  I mean, if I understood everything about God, he
• 3:02:40
  wouldn't be a very powerful guy. And I'm, yeah, that's not what
• 3:02:43
  I'm asking, Nick. I know God's powerful enough to
• 3:02:46
  create anything that is logically possible.
• 3:02:49
  But what I'm asking you is what was the point of what do you
• 3:02:52
  think the point of creating it in the first place?
• 3:02:55
  Dark matter? Well, I don't necessarily, I
• 3:02:58
  don't even know if dark matter is created.
• 3:03:00
  I know. That's, that's a term that we
• 3:03:02
  use to explain what we can't. Not necessarily explain in the
• 3:03:06
  universe, right? So what I'm saying is when we
• 3:03:08
  look out there and we try to calculate the planets, the stars
• 3:03:11
  and the things that we can see, it doesn't match up to the
• 3:03:14
  mathematics to show the gravitational pull in the
• 3:03:18
  effects of the universe and they call that dark matter.
• 3:03:20
  There has to be some kind of matter out there that we can't
• 3:03:22
  see to explain why we see these gravitational pools and stuff.
• 3:03:26
  And like I said to me, it's just to show how powerful it a
• 3:03:30
  magnificent of a God that he is. And so it's not even a man.
• 3:03:34
  Our of, why did God do this? I mean, I think it just shows
• 3:03:38
  how special we are in the universe house.
• 3:03:40
  But really, the reason why I asked that necklaces, I was
• 3:03:43
  curious or how you would Define, or what your view is on, what
• 3:03:47
  Dark Matter actually is I agree with you.
• 3:03:49
  Yeah, we're still infantile in our understanding of this this
• 3:03:54
  concept. It's kind of like a Band-Aid in
• 3:03:57
  order to fill in a lot of gaps of the universe.
• 3:04:00
  Would you agree with that? Grayson I guess more or less.
• 3:04:06
  Sure. I mean it we're trying to
• 3:04:07
  explain observations that. We wouldn't be able to explain
• 3:04:11
  otherwise. All right, you guys go ahead.
• 3:04:14
  I'm gonna hit my be right back and let you guys have a
• 3:04:16
  discussion for a little bit. Hopefully everybody gets their
• 3:04:19
  mic working so they don't sound like they're two Thousand
• 3:04:22
  Leagues Under the Sea. Well I said well I'm Mike better
• 3:04:27
  at all. Oh yeah much better now.
• 3:04:30
  All right. What I'm saying is to me it just
• 3:04:33
  shows to me it just shows how powerful and how amazing our God
• 3:04:37
  is. You know, like I said we can't
• 3:04:39
  if I could explain everything that he's done, he's not a very
• 3:04:42
  powerful God if I can you know, see it all, explain it, all
• 3:04:45
  understand at all, then then I should be God.
• 3:04:48
  You know what I mean? And so the more that we study
• 3:04:51
  and learn and that's why I'm not I'm so far from anti science.
• 3:04:55
  Science is awesome to me and and I don't you know I to me as I
• 3:05:01
  look at things. I see how designed things are
• 3:05:04
  and how created there and how the numbers work out and how far
• 3:05:07
  our planet is from the Sun. And I mean, there's just so many
• 3:05:11
  things that's why they do the Multiverse because they can't
• 3:05:14
  explain. Wow, there's just too many
• 3:05:16
  things lined up that make this universe.
• 3:05:18
  So perfect that make our got like make everything so perfect
• 3:05:22
  that you know they use inflation to explain how it looks like
• 3:05:24
  it's all spreading out from one Center.
• 3:05:27
  Well I mean when you take those things away and you look at just
• 3:05:29
  the basics, it does look like a were at this.
• 3:05:31
  Center. I don't necessarily believe
• 3:05:33
  that. I mean I'm sorry I haven't seen
• 3:05:34
  it all. I don't know.
• 3:05:35
  I mean but inflation could be true you know and all that
• 3:05:39
  stuff. So I'm not necessarily arguing
• 3:05:41
  with that but it is to me it's just amazing and it just shows I
• 3:05:46
  don't want to worship a God that I understand everything about to
• 3:05:49
  me that's just he's a sad God then no offense.
• 3:05:51
  I mean it's just so basically what I've been hearing is kind
• 3:05:56
  of the whole fine-tuning argument.
• 3:05:58
  Yes, my tuning. Yes, yes.
• 3:06:00
  Yeah. With fine-tuning.
• 3:06:03
  I often like yeah you can't get around it by like posing them,
• 3:06:08
  all type of shirt but without posing a Multiverse.
• 3:06:12
  I also like, I don't, I've never really understood the
• 3:06:16
  fine-tuning argument like basically the idea as I
• 3:06:20
  understand it is like, you have all these like physical like
• 3:06:23
  laws and constants and things that if they were even just a
• 3:06:27
  little bit different than the universe that we have would not
• 3:06:30
  exist. But Like no one has ever shown
• 3:06:34
  any evidence that I'm aware of that.
• 3:06:36
  Any of those things can be different.
• 3:06:38
  It's not like we have a dial and they're adjusted to just the
• 3:06:41
  right number. Like, we've never seen any
• 3:06:44
  evidence that they are ever anything different.
• 3:06:48
  Well, that's the whole point. That's why I think they pushed
• 3:06:50
  the Multiverse as they're saying it has.
• 3:06:52
  It's so fine tune that it has to be different elsewhere and
• 3:06:55
  that's why there's all these multiple different universes
• 3:06:57
  with multiple different liked the fact that it's also fine,
• 3:07:01
  too. And all lined up over, but for
• 3:07:04
  it to be fine-tuned, it has to be possible for it to be
• 3:07:09
  different. Oh yeah, I agree.
• 3:07:11
  I don't think it is possible. I think that's what's so amazing
• 3:07:13
  about our God if there's no use with the Multiverse so there's
• 3:07:18
  no evidence that any of these laws could be any different.
• 3:07:24
  Like we've never seen any evidence that shows that they
• 3:07:26
  could be any different. That's what.
• 3:07:27
  So how is that fine tuning then? Well that's why I mean to me.
• 3:07:31
  That's what's so Amazing about it, right?
• 3:07:33
  Is that the laws are already defined the constant.
• 3:07:36
  You can't change them. I absolutely agree.
• 3:07:39
  But see in order for them to explain that all those laws line
• 3:07:41
  up perfectly and everything worked, just right for us to be
• 3:07:44
  here and all these other things that's why they come out with
• 3:07:47
  the Multiverse and talk about that not like that.
• 3:07:49
  Usually get out invoking a Multiverse just how could it
• 3:07:52
  possibly be different. That's what I don't get.
• 3:07:55
  I don't think see, I don't do this.
• 3:08:00
  Okay. I think I understand where where
• 3:08:04
  you're coming from when you're say that.
• 3:08:07
  We are all. It's all fine.
• 3:08:09
  Fine. Tuned like to do unimaginable
• 3:08:14
  degree and and it's actually one of the things that I find to be
• 3:08:19
  one of the greatest testimonies to the existence of some
• 3:08:24
  intelligence me too, in my personal believe it's a
• 3:08:28
  Christian God, but I think that really other All religions are
• 3:08:32
  not far off. Yeah.
• 3:08:34
  Anyway, believe believe in some sort of Creator when you, when
• 3:08:38
  you come, yeah. When you come to examine the
• 3:08:42
  nature around you without pre Justice like that, it only
• 3:08:48
  immaterial view random you can allow for such for such
• 3:08:55
  possibility. And I believe that if even if I
• 3:09:00
  believe that that uh He justifies why the people like,
• 3:09:07
  even like it would justify the people in evolutionary view that
• 3:09:11
  they saw like the things around them.
• 3:09:14
  And actually, so, how complex they were, they couldn't explain
• 3:09:18
  some things. And therefore thought to
• 3:09:20
  themselves that, okay, there must be some sort of higher
• 3:09:25
  intelligence, that design this. And I think that this is not
• 3:09:30
  this first impulse I would say, Say is it?
• 3:09:34
  If it's even if it's wrong it's not a logical.
• 3:09:39
  Like when you look for example on on the complexity of a single
• 3:09:46
  cell organism, more complex, even if even if or like any
• 3:09:51
  life-form to have been possibly created, you have so many
• 3:09:57
  requirements, I myself am a programmer and and I have been
• 3:10:01
  through Who like designing some systems.
• 3:10:06
  Like when you try to create a website, there is a lot that
• 3:10:08
  goes into it. There's like, for example
• 3:10:10
  databases, there's front-end back-end and within them.
• 3:10:15
  There are a lot of complex systems that if one doesn't
• 3:10:18
  work. The whole thing doesn't work at
• 3:10:21
  all. Well, let's go ahead finish and
• 3:10:24
  then I'm like yeah and this is what I see when I examine also
• 3:10:27
  the cell. And I recently had fun just just
• 3:10:32
  trying to discuss to like come up with this like list of
• 3:10:37
  requirements. If I was like this kind of being
• 3:10:41
  or like if I was to create the most primitive form of life
• 3:10:47
  possible, what requirements would they would have to have in
• 3:10:53
  order for it to be considered life basically.
• 3:10:57
  Okay, so this is like sort of like the argument of irreducible
• 3:11:01
  complexity We're like you kind of defined an irreducibly
• 3:11:05
  complex system where you have a system of more than like two or
• 3:11:08
  more inner working parts and if you remove only one of those
• 3:11:11
  parts the system ceases to function.
• 3:11:15
  So I would just say that those irreducibly complex systems can
• 3:11:19
  evolve we have direct evidence of this.
• 3:11:22
  We've watched irreducibly complex systems evolve Like A
• 3:11:25
  system that meets all the requirements of irreducibly
• 3:11:28
  complex irreducible complexity, right?
• 3:11:31
  It's like a specific example. I'm thinking of is in HIV.
• 3:11:37
  There's a type of protein that involved like for this kind of
• 3:11:41
  HIV to infect humans. It had to develop this
• 3:11:46
  irreducibly complex system. Well, it had to have a system of
• 3:11:50
  four parts where if any one of those four parts doesn't work,
• 3:11:54
  then the system doesn't work well.
• 3:11:56
  But if you have all those guys guys guys listen You're asking
• 3:12:02
  extremely complex questions that give the man.
• 3:12:06
  There's one non-believer in here who's basically defending
• 3:12:09
  himself, give him the opportunity to respond.
• 3:12:12
  Whether you agree with it or not, let him finish the
• 3:12:14
  statement and then you tear into him.
• 3:12:16
  All right? Come on people, what are you?
• 3:12:20
  It's all let him finish to. Yeah, I just wanted to make the
• 3:12:22
  point that irreducible complex, things can evolve and we've seen
• 3:12:26
  irreducibly complex things evolve, so I don't think by it
• 3:12:30
  of itself by itself. Elf.
• 3:12:32
  I don't think that irreducible complexity is like some kind of
• 3:12:35
  hurdle that Evolution just cannot explain.
• 3:12:38
  That was my first point my second point, which is going to
• 3:12:40
  be like if you're trying to think about, what is the very
• 3:12:44
  minimal requirements that, like life could have and you're like,
• 3:12:49
  listing all these things of like modern-day cells.
• 3:12:54
  I think that you're kind of missing the possibilities of
• 3:12:57
  like, protocells or even before that just self-replicating
• 3:13:00
  chemical systems. Which would have different
• 3:13:04
  necessary things than like an entirely like living cell.
• 3:13:08
  I don't think that like the calculation that you're talking
• 3:13:11
  about listing out all the things that are necessary for the most
• 3:13:14
  basic form of life, like a cell that would imply like you're
• 3:13:18
  doing the calculations of like what are the odds of all these
• 3:13:21
  parts just coming together randomly and forming a cell?
• 3:13:23
  Which is I don't think any like that's not the model of
• 3:13:27
  abiogenesis. Uh may I respond to that.
• 3:13:30
  Okay, so I'm not talking about like modern sales since even
• 3:13:35
  based on evolutionary theory, like you wouldn't have this the
• 3:13:40
  same cell that would be in the beginning.
• 3:13:43
  Like today, it would have transformed over time and died
• 3:13:48
  off since it was the weakest basically thing.
• 3:13:51
  Modern cells based on a modern single cellular organisms would
• 3:13:56
  be, would be to advance. Just to be like the first life
• 3:14:02
  form, right? But if you if you like try and
• 3:14:06
  list the specific things like the very minimalistic
• 3:14:09
  requirements as if you were to like okay you have this chemical
• 3:14:15
  soup or I call it a soup, but chemical mixture basically where
• 3:14:23
  you you supposedly you have all the necessary ingredients for
• 3:14:27
  such life. So like by the ideal,
• 3:14:30
  Conditions, what would such thing?
• 3:14:32
  Require and like, if it was just like, one system I could are
• 3:14:38
  like I could agree that. Okay.
• 3:14:41
  This is, there's a relatively High chance for it to be right?
• 3:14:45
  So if you only, if you only give it like the minimalistic thing,
• 3:14:50
  okay? So, in order for this life-form
• 3:14:52
  to, to exist, it has to have like, some sort of a shell, a
• 3:14:56
  containment, or it could probably be a pool as well.
• 3:15:00
  Well, but it has to be isolated environment.
• 3:15:05
  So that when everyone with what I would think, would be the very
• 3:15:07
  first necessary thing. Yes.
• 3:15:09
  Oh hell. So, the first thing that you
• 3:15:12
  need is like a in order for you to have any like natural
• 3:15:16
  selection or any kind of evolution, even possible to
• 3:15:20
  increase complexity over Generations.
• 3:15:22
  You need a self-replicating system.
• 3:15:25
  So that's where we would have to start is like what is the
• 3:15:27
  simplest form of self-replicating system?
• 3:15:30
  That is possible like to happen naturally from like a mixture of
• 3:15:35
  chemicals. And there's two main models that
• 3:15:39
  I think like my favorite is the amyloid World hypothesis.
• 3:15:44
  And then the one that I think is probably one of the more common
• 3:15:47
  ones these days is metabolism first.
• 3:15:50
  So in the the metabolism first like a sort of metabolic system
• 3:15:56
  of chemical Pathways would have been the first self-replicating.
• 3:16:00
  Thing right in the amyloid world that I really like just because
• 3:16:05
  I think that answers a lot of these questions in a way that
• 3:16:08
  logically makes sense to me and I think has some experimental
• 3:16:11
  validation for is like amyloids are kind of a niche term but
• 3:16:16
  what they are basically are like proteins but they're like the
• 3:16:20
  sequence doesn't really matter as much.
• 3:16:22
  Like you can have a bunch of different sequences and they
• 3:16:24
  form amyloids. They're basically like like like
• 3:16:27
  amyloids form naturally like in your brain is like plaque like
• 3:16:30
  In like, Alzheimer's patients, A lot of the times in their brain
• 3:16:33
  to have a lot of amyloid, plaque buildup.
• 3:16:34
  But this amyloids are basically just like proteins will come
• 3:16:37
  together and naturally form amyloids, which are a protein,
• 3:16:42
  but they have a distinct structure where like they kind
• 3:16:45
  of form these little sheets and like the shape the sheets will
• 3:16:48
  be crinkled in a way that it's not really depended on the exact
• 3:16:53
  sequence. Like it kind of depends on the
• 3:16:55
  overall composition of like if they have the overall
• 3:16:59
  composition. Tonight, they'll form into these
• 3:17:01
  sheets. So a lot of different amino acid
• 3:17:05
  combinations can produce this, like, just one type of amino
• 3:17:08
  acid, you could form an amyloid sheet with it or you could take,
• 3:17:12
  you know, four or five or ten different kinds of amino acids
• 3:17:14
  and mix them together randomly and you could form amyloid
• 3:17:17
  sheets. So these things kind of form
• 3:17:19
  without you needing to have the exact the exact combination
• 3:17:24
  exactly right in the same sequence.
• 3:17:26
  And the cool thing about these amyloids is that they kind of
• 3:17:29
  prefer But become like templates.
• 3:17:32
  So, once you have like an amyloid sheet, more amyloid,
• 3:17:36
  like like it will naturally like extend, right?
• 3:17:39
  It, like, when amino acids, come in contact with it, they will
• 3:17:42
  add on and start growing this sheet.
• 3:17:44
  And then once it reaches a certain length, like the
• 3:17:47
  physical characteristics are going to cause it to break and
• 3:17:49
  then you have to amyloids and those employees will continue to
• 3:17:52
  extend extend and you can have the actual amyloid kind of
• 3:17:55
  catalyzing its own reaction in a way that actually selects It's
• 3:18:00
  only left-handed or right-handed.
• 3:18:02
  Like if you have a left-handed sheet right-handed, amino acids
• 3:18:06
  are going to hit it and bounce right off and they're not going
• 3:18:08
  to extend the amyloid but left-handed Ones Will.
• 3:18:11
  So suddenly you start to show like this is why life is only
• 3:18:15
  left-handed like this is why like the actual like information
• 3:18:21
  from the environment can actually be sort of like that
• 3:18:25
  information from the environment can be shown as impacting the,
• 3:18:29
  the amyloid. Like the actual like sequence of
• 3:18:32
  the amino acids, which can have a difference, like you can have
• 3:18:37
  robust amyloid. Sorry.
• 3:18:38
  This is taking really long but I just wanted to point off.
• 3:18:40
  Yeah. So you have this sort of like
• 3:18:44
  like amyloids can encode for information and we see this in
• 3:18:48
  living cells now with like prions, but like amyloids and
• 3:18:53
  proteins can encode information. That doesn't rely on DNA or
• 3:18:56
  genetics? That is like you can pass from
• 3:18:59
  one generation. Eration to the next just with
• 3:19:02
  this amyloid based protein system.
• 3:19:04
  So the only thing that's required beforehand for this
• 3:19:07
  would be like, amino acids. Well, I'm glad that you actually
• 3:19:11
  mentioned left and right-handed, because that was one thing I was
• 3:19:15
  thinking about, is that left and right-handed actually kill eat?
• 3:19:17
  They cancel each other out. Like, so if they don't, I mean,
• 3:19:20
  what makes them, you said, after they're formed, then they bounce
• 3:19:25
  off. And I mean, what makes them get
• 3:19:26
  to that point in the first place.
• 3:19:28
  And now, I'm not that I'm disagreeing with that.
• 3:19:30
  I mean, there is, I mean, even though the chance to
• 3:19:33
  participate, Ali is even, you have to agree, it's very minimal
• 3:19:36
  and then that reproducing reproducing, then finding then
• 3:19:40
  it gets to the point of complexity, which then finds a
• 3:19:42
  partner of a point of complete in that partner finds up where
• 3:19:44
  then I mean and this has to happen, billions trillions.
• 3:19:48
  I mean quadrillions times you know to get to and this is kind
• 3:19:51
  of where for me, it's like this is where I believe in
• 3:19:56
  intelligent design. I mean, when you look at a world
• 3:19:58
  and you see how complex things are and It is lined up.
• 3:20:01
  This is where I mean, I don't, I don't do the Kent hovind thing
• 3:20:04
  where I bash people at all. I can't believe you believe in
• 3:20:06
  evolution and you're stupid. And I mean, I do obviously, all
• 3:20:10
  these Sciences, all these people, they wouldn't study this
• 3:20:12
  stuff and find ways to believe if it was stupid.
• 3:20:15
  Right? I mean, I just feel personally
• 3:20:17
  myself. I mean, like, he's, if he was
• 3:20:20
  talking about earlier was coding and complexity and all of that
• 3:20:23
  stuff, right? I mean, man, when you look at
• 3:20:26
  the DNA of even basic life forms and even even, you know, the Her
• 3:20:30
  life. So I mean, the chance that they
• 3:20:32
  copy each other and break off, and then reproduce and then I
• 3:20:35
  have to chance and again, and again and again.
• 3:20:37
  And and that everything has to be so perfect.
• 3:20:39
  And so, right? I mean sunlight, I mean X-rays,
• 3:20:42
  I mean, so me when things can kill it, the pH level in the
• 3:20:46
  water. I mean, look, it's astronomical
• 3:20:49
  cannot take you there. I don't really think that like,
• 3:21:18
  your you, I will. First of all, I don't think that
• 3:21:20
  you've calculated those things but like I think you have an
• 3:21:22
  intuitive sense that they would be a low probability.
• 3:21:25
  But I question that I don't know what actual like.
• 3:21:30
  Numbers. You're crunching to get the
• 3:21:32
  money, the probabilities of this, but I have seen
• 3:21:34
  experiments where they form a mean like amyloids with basic
• 3:21:38
  amino acid, building blocks like in water.
• 3:21:42
  And you know, they form a amyloids every single time and
• 3:21:47
  amyloids just have the property of like once the like once you
• 3:21:52
  have an amyloid like amino acids will naturally add to it and it
• 3:21:54
  will like naturally extend as long as the amino acids are
• 3:21:57
  available to, like come in contact.
• 3:22:00
  Tact with it, but it's very left and right.
• 3:22:02
  Yes. For the left and right.
• 3:22:03
  The amyloid, the, the sheet formation.
• 3:22:06
  Like, in order for it to form the sheet, you can't get that
• 3:22:09
  with a mixture of left and right.
• 3:22:11
  So like that that formation is only possible like left hand or
• 3:22:16
  right hand. Yeah, I'm not going to fit into
• 3:22:19
  that sequence and it's not going to extend along with left and
• 3:22:22
  right handed, so it's not going to form in the first place like
• 3:22:28
  like the actual form itself. Only forms with like only
• 3:22:32
  left-handed or only right-handed.
• 3:22:34
  So once you have like if you're starting with just a mixture of
• 3:22:37
  right and left-handed if a left and right-handed one come
• 3:22:40
  together then that's not going to create an amyloid sheet and
• 3:22:46
  So eventually like you know, I mean that's the probably not
• 3:22:48
  going to polymerize very easily anyway, but like you're going to
• 3:22:52
  form amyloid sheets whenever the left-handed on left-handed ones
• 3:22:56
  come together, so that but - bility is not very well.
• 3:23:00
  Of that happening. Quite a couple questions for
• 3:23:02
  nature. But yeah.
• 3:23:03
  Gentlemen, Gentlemen, please before they hit your Q is not in
• 3:23:08
  the middle of this sentence as let him finish his statement and
• 3:23:12
  then ask him, whatever you like or discuss please.
• 3:23:15
  I want guests to feel comfortable like they can
• 3:23:18
  actually participate in the conversation.
• 3:23:20
  You understand guys. Yeah, okay, sorry.
• 3:23:26
  If I interrupt, and I hope I don't drop too much, but I'm
• 3:23:31
  kind of curious how you mentioned amyloids.
• 3:23:36
  I'm not very familiar with this term, but how exactly are they
• 3:23:41
  different from a crystal that basically, also forms in these
• 3:23:46
  patterns, how would a crystal not be considered a life form?
• 3:23:53
  Okay, so it's a really interesting question.
• 3:23:56
  I know, I've actually heard people discussing the fact that
• 3:24:01
  DNA would classify as a crystal in like, one dimension.
• 3:24:06
  So, I'm not sure whether or not amyloids would classify and meet
• 3:24:10
  the criteria of a crystal but I mean, on the one hand, it's not
• 3:24:15
  like they are like formed of minerals.
• 3:24:17
  Like they're formed of organic molecules they're formed out of
• 3:24:20
  amino acids. So So I, I'm not comfortable
• 3:24:26
  enough with saying that they're definitely not crystals, but the
• 3:24:29
  fact that they're organic molecules kind of shows to me
• 3:24:34
  that they're not really crystals.
• 3:24:36
  But also like they do have a repetitive pattern in three to
• 3:24:41
  three dimensional space. Like, they are forming these,
• 3:24:44
  the sheets that have like these crinkles in them and that there
• 3:24:48
  is an actual like repetitive repeating form in the Acid, like
• 3:24:53
  the protein backbones. So I don't know if you want to
• 3:24:57
  call him a crystal or not, I don't know if it really matters
• 3:25:00
  that much. Okay, and the second one is how
• 3:25:06
  do you go from this structure? If presumably, that is the
• 3:25:11
  structure, that would would be the first one to an organism's
• 3:25:16
  that has DNA since why I asked this question is because every
• 3:25:21
  living thing that we know of today, is it contains DNA, it's
• 3:25:27
  based on DNA and this DNA molecule Basically keeps the
• 3:25:33
  instructions for building this the cell and I also don't know
• 3:25:38
  any other forms that don't have a cell structure.
• 3:25:43
  So every single living organism has cell structures, probably
• 3:25:48
  viruses, would be. Yeah, they still, they still
• 3:25:51
  could be considered a sell. I guess they really don't
• 3:25:54
  consider this L know. Yeah.
• 3:25:57
  Well they don't have any new place.
• 3:25:59
  Yeah virus is just like a protein encapsulating, the
• 3:26:04
  genetic material. All right.
• 3:26:06
  Yeah, but viruses they can function without cell either so
• 3:26:11
  basically everything that lives today require so I agree with
• 3:26:15
  you that we have to get from these basic chemical replicators
• 3:26:20
  and we have to get to like a basic protocell.
• 3:26:24
  So we would need an explanation for Or like the development of a
• 3:26:27
  cellular membrane, which I think, you know, lipids
• 3:26:31
  naturally form into lipid bilayers and, and different
• 3:26:35
  spheres like that naturally. So I think that that is fine.
• 3:26:38
  But in terms of your question with the DNA, this is one of the
• 3:26:42
  biggest questions in all of origin of Life.
• 3:26:45
  Research is the origin of the genetic code.
• 3:26:47
  There are some hypotheses that I've seen but I haven't seen a
• 3:26:54
  lot that relate specifically to Amyloids.
• 3:26:58
  But one of the pieces of information that I think is
• 3:27:02
  going to be critical in understanding of this, because I
• 3:27:05
  don't think that we do have like there's no consensus hypothesis
• 3:27:08
  even for how this happened. But one of the threads of
• 3:27:12
  information that I think is really important is, do you know
• 3:27:15
  what a teepee? Let's please explain.
• 3:27:20
  So it's basically like all of your food that you eat is
• 3:27:24
  converted to ATP ATP. P or you know, a similar
• 3:27:28
  molecule ATP is like the currency of the body.
• 3:27:33
  So all of the energy that your body uses is in the form of ATP
• 3:27:38
  or analogous molecule to ATP ATP is the main one.
• 3:27:43
  So it's a molecule right? Yes it's like a molecule and all
• 3:27:48
  the energy and all of the food that you eat is converted to
• 3:27:51
  ATP. That's the the form of currency
• 3:27:54
  that the cell ultimately uses to do work.
• 3:27:56
  To expend energy. It all has to come from ATP and
• 3:28:00
  there's something very interesting about ATP is that.
• 3:28:03
  It's basically, you know how DNA is composed of four letters act
• 3:28:09
  and G right now. ATP is basically that a so it's
• 3:28:14
  like the first letter of the DNA code and it's used for almost
• 3:28:18
  every process in the cell. It's used as a form of energy
• 3:28:22
  storage. So you can store energy in ATP
• 3:28:25
  that you can then use later. It's like a currency.
• 3:28:28
  So I think that this is very key because with ATP, you have like,
• 3:28:36
  like almost you have the first building block for DNA like
• 3:28:39
  you're very, very close. So this chemical that is
• 3:28:43
  primarily used for almost every single biological process is so
• 3:28:47
  close to being the first letter of DNA.
• 3:28:50
  Like you can just add atp's together and you almost get like
• 3:28:54
  a piece of single stranded DNA. So it's I think that that is
• 3:28:58
  going to be the key to figuring out how we transitioned from,
• 3:29:02
  like genetic information that was like before DNA.
• 3:29:07
  And it was maybe coded within proteins to transitioning that
• 3:29:13
  that information storage to DNA. I think that the interactions
• 3:29:19
  with ATP are probably going to be like the key for that but
• 3:29:23
  again we don't have like a Really good like model at the
• 3:29:28
  moment. So, question like this, if you
• 3:29:32
  don't have this model that is universally explain.
• 3:29:37
  And although you do have theories, do you still consider
• 3:29:43
  them enough for you to believe that as a fact or you still have
• 3:29:49
  to have some sort of belief that like, like you, it has, it has
• 3:29:54
  to require some faith. Really don't you think?
• 3:29:59
  Yes um no I wouldn't necessarily say that because like and I
• 3:30:05
  would say that we don't have the theories like you said, we have
• 3:30:07
  some theories. I mean we don't we have
• 3:30:09
  hypotheses. We don't even have theories of
• 3:30:12
  abiogenesis at this point but it like saying that I don't know
• 3:30:17
  what the mechanism is, does not mean that I have to have faith.
• 3:30:21
  That one of the mechanisms is the mechanism.
• 3:30:23
  Like I can say, I don't know the mechanism but I still Still, no,
• 3:30:27
  that abiogenesis happened and that's because we know that at
• 3:30:32
  the at one point in the universe, there was no life in
• 3:30:36
  the universe. Like it was too hot.
• 3:30:37
  The energy density was too high life like not even atoms, could
• 3:30:41
  exist. So I know looking at the cosmic
• 3:30:44
  microwave background that there was a point in the universe
• 3:30:46
  where there was no life and I know now, there is life so that
• 3:30:50
  means that at one point life had to come from non-life now the
• 3:30:55
  creationist model As that being done by God but they still have
• 3:31:00
  a point where life comes from non-life, it's just a God, does
• 3:31:02
  it. So I know that at one point
• 3:31:06
  abiogenesis had to happen somehow some way by some
• 3:31:10
  mechanism but I don't know what that mechanism is but I don't
• 3:31:13
  have faith in anyone mechanism or the other.
• 3:31:18
  I am I like the way you word that you kind of put God, and
• 3:31:23
  then the concept of life into the same same.
• 3:31:26
  I'm bracket but you know by definition God would be a living
• 3:31:30
  being an entity that is conscious of his design, as
• 3:31:34
  where you're saying natural processes and the beginning.
• 3:31:36
  The conversation you actually sounded as though, you agree
• 3:31:39
  with a form of spontaneous generation, that living things
• 3:31:44
  can come out of banana but objects.
• 3:31:50
  Equation, can I add to that? Actually will?
• 3:31:53
  Hold on. Let it, let him respond to the
• 3:31:56
  question. We, I don't want to do a shotgun
• 3:31:59
  effect for. He's got to answer, like three
• 3:32:00
  different things at once. I know he enjoys himself the
• 3:32:03
  Cameron. Yeah.
• 3:32:05
  So just to really quickly respond to that.
• 3:32:07
  I don't know if I would necessarily agree with
• 3:32:10
  spontaneous generation because I'm not really saying that.
• 3:32:12
  Like, like, there's such a gradation of a gray area in
• 3:32:17
  between life. And non life that I don't know
• 3:32:20
  where you would like I think it's kind of an arbitrary
• 3:32:23
  assignment to say okay this step is definitely not life but this
• 3:32:26
  very next step is definitely life, so I think that there's
• 3:32:30
  just so much gray area between life and non-life that.
• 3:32:34
  I don't think spontaneous generation of like all of a
• 3:32:37
  sudden just boom you got a living thing out of a nonliving
• 3:32:41
  thing. I don't think it's like that
• 3:32:43
  simple of a like a zero to 100 process.
• 3:32:47
  When I get a chance, can I say something?
• 3:32:48
  Whoever what you're after after, Rob Rob said that, he wanted to
• 3:32:52
  ask a question. I want to keep it in turns and
• 3:32:54
  then you guys go. I do want to let everybody know.
• 3:32:57
  We're going on three hours and 32 minutes.
• 3:32:59
  I usually keep it at two, but you guys are just awesome sauce.
• 3:33:03
  So, what I'm going to do is, we'll go for another 30 minutes
• 3:33:05
  because unfortunately I share the room with my wife and she
• 3:33:09
  does got to get up in the morning.
• 3:33:11
  So it's 30 minutes will do this. Now please make sure you check
• 3:33:16
  out the schedule. Jeweled shows Grace and we like
• 3:33:18
  having you as well as Nicholas Ernest.
• 3:33:21
  Adam Rob, go ahead ask you a question.
• 3:33:25
  Yeah I'd like to carry on Bryce. You know, question to you life
• 3:33:30
  from non-life another scientific.
• 3:33:34
  Possible theory is directed panspermia.
• 3:33:38
  We're obviously, there is alien life that seeded that life from
• 3:33:43
  non-life. Would you consider that in?
• 3:33:46
  Allegiance as giving rise to life.
• 3:33:53
  I don't know if panspermia is necessarily like intelligence.
• 3:33:57
  I mean, you could have like, there are so many different
• 3:34:01
  forms of Acca panspermia model, like one form would just be like
• 3:34:05
  a single-celled, microbes hitched a ride on an asteroid
• 3:34:08
  and, and travel to earth that way.
• 3:34:10
  And I don't think that that would be intelligent.
• 3:34:12
  Yeah, it's alright to spam and spam yellow directed panspermia,
• 3:34:16
  which is specific. It's not, it's not just paying
• 3:34:19
  sperm reach called directed panspermia.
• 3:34:21
  As though it was done as a deliberate act, the fact that
• 3:34:25
  Islands cannot reach this planet.
• 3:34:27
  And therefore see did it by another mechanism or whatever?
• 3:34:31
  Well if by definition guided panspermia would involve like
• 3:34:37
  like an intelligent like guide for it then sure like I would
• 3:34:40
  acknowledge acknowledge that. Okay, yeah, the other thing,
• 3:34:45
  just one last point, I'd what you were saying about the
• 3:34:50
  complexity argument earlier the, I would actually call it more
• 3:34:55
  interdependence and regarding all of the organs of the body.
• 3:35:00
  So, not only are the organs of the body interdependent with
• 3:35:03
  each other. In other words, they have their
• 3:35:05
  own dedicated function. So they have an independent
• 3:35:10
  function, but also dependent on other organs in the body.
• 3:35:14
  But there's another third mechanism to be.
• 3:35:17
  So either the body has backup mechanisms.
• 3:35:20
  Like, for example, the gallbladder, the pancreas and
• 3:35:23
  the liver. So if you have your gallbladder
• 3:35:25
  removed, the liver has a backup capability to produce.
• 3:35:31
  The extra bone needed to allow the life-form to survive.
• 3:35:38
  So there's backup mechanisms as well as the interdependence of
• 3:35:42
  of organs and cells. As well, of course.
• 3:35:44
  Yeah, yeah. So we've observed like these
• 3:35:47
  kind of interdependent systems evolved.
• 3:35:50
  I mean, we've seen them, be the result of mutation.
• 3:35:56
  Yes. Yeah so the one example that is
• 3:36:00
  like very simple to illustrate This and like The evolutionary
• 3:36:04
  change happened just within a few days was with this
• 3:36:08
  chlamydomonas it says type of single-celled algae that they
• 3:36:13
  introduced Predators into the system and a mutation happened
• 3:36:16
  in some of the lineages of the algae that caused them to become
• 3:36:20
  multicellular and they actually differentiated into Body cells
• 3:36:26
  that would exude like they would can like send this connective
• 3:36:31
  tissue out almost like this extracellular, Matrix material
• 3:36:35
  out, that would bind them together into one body, and all
• 3:36:40
  of them would be infertile except for the replicator cells.
• 3:36:43
  So they're like the sexual organ of the new multicellular
• 3:36:47
  organism. And so, their existence is
• 3:36:51
  dependent on the body cells because they're just dead meat.
• 3:36:54
  If they're Just, you know, they're not even like they don't
• 3:36:59
  have any defenses except for these body cells that are
• 3:37:01
  clumping together to protect them from predators but the body
• 3:37:04
  cells can't reproduce without the reproducing cells.
• 3:37:07
  So they're interdependent on each other and we saw that
• 3:37:10
  evolved like totally on its own and in a lab.
• 3:37:14
  All I did was introduced predators and a single cell,
• 3:37:17
  like evolved into have these. Having these differentiated
• 3:37:20
  roles within a multicellular organism, So this isn't as a
• 3:37:25
  colony or Collective, this deliberately mutated and that's
• 3:37:31
  where I draw in a colony. You don't have the kind of
• 3:37:36
  differentiation, like every single cell within a colony is
• 3:37:40
  reproducing. And then within the colony,
• 3:37:44
  every cell is competing with the other cells in the colony for
• 3:37:46
  resources. But in the chlamydomonas
• 3:37:49
  experiment they were not competing with The other cells
• 3:37:54
  in the body, for resources, like the resources were shared among
• 3:37:57
  the group. And like I said, not every cell
• 3:38:00
  was reproducing. Only the reproducing cells were
• 3:38:04
  capable of reproduction and the other, the body cells were no
• 3:38:08
  longer capable of surviving on their own, they didn't have the
• 3:38:11
  mobility of a single cell. So they would just die if they
• 3:38:15
  were disconnected from the colony because they wouldn't be
• 3:38:17
  able to move around and get energy.
• 3:38:20
  Get food. Could you to reference this
• 3:38:24
  experiment? Yeah, if you search
• 3:38:28
  chlamydomonas de novo multicellularity maybe if you
• 3:38:34
  just let me, let me try to see if this comes up.
• 3:38:36
  De novo multi. Okay yeah here we go though the
• 3:38:40
  title of the paper is de novo origins of multicellularity in
• 3:38:44
  response to predation. Let me just maybe link it in the
• 3:38:47
  side chat but it's from 2018 I think it's It's a pretty neat
• 3:38:53
  paper because like I said, the only change that they introduced
• 3:38:56
  was they introduced Predators into this like laboratory setup
• 3:39:00
  and like just not every single line of chlamydomonas.
• 3:39:04
  Evolved. This mutation to be able to
• 3:39:07
  behave this way, but some of the lines did.
• 3:39:10
  We're down to 339 right now just to let you all know.
• 3:39:16
  I, my question for you is, do you believe that logic and
• 3:39:20
  rationality can only happen? As a result of the Mind.
• 3:39:30
  I have no idea how to answer that because, like, logic and
• 3:39:35
  rationality are things that ultimately only happen within
• 3:39:40
  --mines, right? Like the universe itself is not
• 3:39:45
  inherently logical. Like the, the only logic happens
• 3:39:50
  within like like minds or within.
• 3:39:55
  Yeah. I don't know, I guess I don't
• 3:39:57
  know how to answer that question.
• 3:39:59
  Do you believe that your existence in the universe is
• 3:40:02
  mathematically logical and rational Now, it's written.
• 3:40:07
  So well, I thought whoever just said that I thought you were
• 3:40:11
  stating that the Universe had order and systems on top of
• 3:40:15
  systems. Have you changed your mind
• 3:40:16
  already? Nope.
• 3:40:19
  Okay. Well, wouldn't that take some
• 3:40:21
  form of logic and rationality to it Ernest?
• 3:40:27
  Sorry, can you repeat the question?
• 3:40:29
  Well, I'm asking mr. Grayson, if he believes the
• 3:40:32
  Bible, as any logic or rationality to it, some form of,
• 3:40:36
  or would more, so think that logic and rationality are things
• 3:40:40
  that we use to describe the universe around us like similar
• 3:40:44
  to how math, we created math in order to describe things that
• 3:40:50
  were happening in reality. So they're like their
• 3:40:53
  descriptive. Constructs rather than being
• 3:40:56
  like inherent or prescriptive in the universe.
• 3:41:02
  So, it is believed that you could actually perceive the
• 3:41:05
  universe and a mathematical equation.
• 3:41:10
  Could I perceive the universe? And I don't think I could
• 3:41:13
  perceive that, but I think, like, you could summarize the
• 3:41:17
  universe and like, a mathematical equation, but you
• 3:41:20
  do agree that logic and rationality simply can't exist.
• 3:41:24
  Store work, unless a mind is involved with it.
• 3:41:29
  See, this is interesting because of like, I don't know enough
• 3:41:34
  about computers or code or AI to really know whether or not they
• 3:41:41
  could. Like have logic and reasoning
• 3:41:45
  without having a mind so I don't know.
• 3:41:50
  Will you do know that if you were to you do believe that if
• 3:41:53
  you went to a graveyard and try to have a conversation with
• 3:41:56
  someone or something that is dead, you're not going to get
• 3:41:59
  any logic and rationality out of it, right?
• 3:42:01
  Yeah. But you would expect that you
• 3:42:04
  would get some form of logic and rationality out of something
• 3:42:07
  living with a mind, right? I would assume so but you know
• 3:42:14
  where I'm going with that, right?
• 3:42:16
  Yeah, okay. I think so.
• 3:42:18
  But I mean also like I could also assume that I would get
• 3:42:21
  some kind of logic and rationality out of like a
• 3:42:25
  computer or an AI but all these things that you would expect to
• 3:42:29
  get logic and rationality, I would be designed by mind,
• 3:42:32
  right? Not necessarily, I mean II think
• 3:42:36
  that an AI or computer could Like be designed without a
• 3:42:42
  human, will remember you and I were talking earlier about
• 3:42:45
  destroying a bunch of personal property of super Advanced
• 3:42:48
  Computers and you told me at the end of it, we wouldn't be able
• 3:42:52
  to get a Game Boy and 8 that machine out of all that part and
• 3:42:57
  material and all that. Yeah.
• 3:42:59
  Unless we were to systematically, put it all
• 3:43:03
  together. But that would require mind,
• 3:43:05
  right? Yeah.
• 3:43:06
  So if you had a computer or Go robot.
• 3:43:10
  That was putting it all back together and it or it put it
• 3:43:14
  back together in a new order. Like right.
• 3:43:17
  Like so you smash the computer and then a robot over here, puts
• 3:43:21
  it back together in a way that it was not pre-programmed to,
• 3:43:25
  but it could like put it back together in a novel way.
• 3:43:30
  So then you would have logic and rationality existing, in a way
• 3:43:33
  that no human mind designed, the you exist due to logic and
• 3:43:37
  rationality I don't think so. I don't know.
• 3:43:42
  There was no rational logical construction whatsoever.
• 3:43:48
  I don't think that it's, like, the reason why I exist, I don't
• 3:43:54
  know. That's a pretty hardcore
• 3:43:55
  existential, question. I don't really.
• 3:43:58
  I mean, I have to think about it, I guess more to say, with
• 3:44:02
  anything with confidence. What do you believe that?
• 3:44:04
  There's some form of system overlapping whenever it comes to
• 3:44:07
  reproduction, right? We were talking about self.
• 3:44:09
  Replicating. I said system, overlapping, what
• 3:44:13
  do you mean? Well, there's a system in place
• 3:44:16
  in order for life to come into existence.
• 3:44:19
  The agree. Yeah, like the system would be
• 3:44:24
  like, chemistry would you suspect that you would come into
• 3:44:27
  existence? If you didn't have a life form
• 3:44:29
  with the Mind grading you? Yeah, you believe that you could
• 3:44:37
  come into existence without a life form or a parent.
• 3:44:42
  Well, I believe that I did come to existence without ever any
• 3:44:46
  like conscious designer, designing me.
• 3:44:50
  All right, but you do believe that you have a mom and dad and
• 3:44:53
  they do know that there's a system in place that they would
• 3:44:55
  have had to interact with in order to create you, right?
• 3:45:01
  Yeah, I suppose. So like a rubber of reproduction
• 3:45:04
  genetics, all that kind of stuff.
• 3:45:06
  Alright, fair enough. So with anything, logical
• 3:45:10
  anything with rationality and anything with performing the
• 3:45:13
  existence of Life, there has to be some life involved in it.
• 3:45:17
  In order for the logic rationality to work.
• 3:45:20
  Say we're on the same page. It looks like Yeah, there has
• 3:45:26
  to, I don't know, I kind of lost me on that page that sorry,
• 3:45:30
  sorry it is, it is rough. It is rough.
• 3:45:33
  But just think later on when you get a chance and you just
• 3:45:36
  chilling out doing, whatever, you do as a hobby, just think
• 3:45:39
  about what I threw at you and then see if that makes sense for
• 3:45:42
  your just go back and listen to it.
• 3:45:44
  Yeah, already. Listen to this, I guess, but I
• 3:45:47
  guess I don't really I kind of would understand like logic and
• 3:45:52
  rationality as being like constructs.
• 3:45:54
  Within a mind. So I wouldn't think that they
• 3:45:57
  would exist in the universe without a mind.
• 3:46:00
  We, you do believe, obviously, that things can't even be
• 3:46:03
  defined in the first place. If you don't have a rational
• 3:46:06
  mind to argue it in the mind. Yep.
• 3:46:10
  Yeah. I mean, to some degree.
• 3:46:12
  Sure. I mean, if there's it's like, if
• 3:46:15
  a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around to observe, it
• 3:46:18
  doesn't make a sound kind of an argument.
• 3:46:20
  Have you one last question for you and then we got like Minutes
• 3:46:25
  has have you ever observed any life form or sentience come out
• 3:46:29
  of an inanimate object or something?
• 3:46:31
  That would be defined as dead or nonliving.
• 3:46:35
  Know, I've never observed spontaneous generation, although
• 3:46:40
  they did. I think just last August they
• 3:46:43
  did bring back Pig cells from Death.
• 3:46:47
  So they have reanimated live dead cells to come back to life
• 3:46:52
  so at least they've done that before.
• 3:46:54
  But I was not in that lab to directly observe it.
• 3:46:57
  Well, I wouldn't have a problem with believing that that's
• 3:47:00
  possible. But what I find interesting
• 3:47:03
  about it is you would have to agree that it required.
• 3:47:06
  A logical. Rational mind, even make an
• 3:47:08
  experiment like that work. Correct intelligence.
• 3:47:11
  Okay. Yeah, it could move just, you
• 3:47:14
  couldn't just open up a lab. Sit some crap in there and all
• 3:47:17
  of a sudden it it starts turning into something that can make
• 3:47:20
  love ballads, right? Sure.
• 3:47:25
  So, that's the reason why, a lot of theist have this, you
• 3:47:27
  Evolution, because it's basically what's being said, are
• 3:47:31
  you following where we're coming from?
• 3:47:33
  Now why it is? We believe that the concept of a
• 3:47:36
  higher power and intelligence or a superior mind, may have been
• 3:47:40
  involved, I can kind of see like there were the rhetorical
• 3:47:46
  aspects for where you're coming from.
• 3:47:47
  But I think that we can observe complex things being created
• 3:47:52
  without any kind of Of mind or designer behind them, like, you
• 3:47:57
  know, snowflakes crystals, lipid, bubbles.
• 3:48:01
  Like, all these things are forming complex structures.
• 3:48:04
  And the only thing that's acting on them is the surrounding
• 3:48:08
  molecules and we're just questioning.
• 3:48:11
  The system were wondering how it's going about doing this
• 3:48:14
  pretty much. We're in the same boat with you.
• 3:48:16
  Just trying to figure out things as we go along.
• 3:48:18
  If anybody else has some more questions or topics, remember
• 3:48:22
  we're at 8, I just want to warn you guys so it just doesn't
• 3:48:26
  shock you in the end intro or outro happens and all that
• 3:48:30
  Grayson again. It's been fantastic.
• 3:48:33
  Having you and I hope that you continue to join the show's.
• 3:48:36
  I try to open up a couple of week and all that love to have
• 3:48:39
  you. And also one other thing anybody
• 3:48:41
  that's actually involved in the live show, you have my full
• 3:48:45
  permission. You're hearing this publicly and
• 3:48:47
  recording. You my full permission to copy
• 3:48:49
  the show and do with it as you want, as long as you don't cut
• 3:48:53
  it. Up and take us out of context,
• 3:48:55
  don't do that to the atheist nor the religious folks.
• 3:48:58
  Thank you. I've been waiting patiently, so
• 3:49:01
  I guess we're my question comes in is I was taught in school,
• 3:49:08
  that that abiogenesis, all that stuff.
• 3:49:12
  It was true that we knew it would happen.
• 3:49:13
  I mean, I went and so I moved from a blue ribbon school and
• 3:49:17
  Niceville, Florida to California and I had to retake physics
• 3:49:22
  class. And the first thing that you
• 3:49:23
  said to me, as all of you are Stardust every last one of you,
• 3:49:27
  you know, and I will say, one thing I respect about you guys
• 3:49:30
  soon as you have been saying, well, it's a theory is what we
• 3:49:34
  think, you know, but that's Generally, that's not what's
• 3:49:36
  taught, especially in the high schools, the middle schools, you
• 3:49:39
  know, it's taught as the fact it's taught as we know this.
• 3:49:42
  It's not, you know, they say it's a theory, but it's a theory
• 3:49:44
  that we've proven that we know, and I guess that's where my
• 3:49:47
  struggle, I guess comes in with it because man, if people were
• 3:49:50
  coming forward, like, you are and saying, yeah.
• 3:49:52
  I mean, you know, there's Chancellor's this or that and if
• 3:49:55
  they taught that way I could see that, you know, I guess my
• 3:49:58
  problem is always been when they teach it as a fact.
• 3:50:01
  I mean, would you disagree with that or think?
• 3:50:04
  Yeah. That shouldn't be taught that
• 3:50:05
  way. I mean I guess that's my
• 3:50:06
  question for you. Um yeah I mean I'm trying to
• 3:50:09
  remember when I was taught abiogenesis in high school.
• 3:50:13
  I don't really remember Fresno long as you know much but I
• 3:50:17
  remember learning about abiogenesis and college at least
• 3:50:21
  and I definitely don't remember them teaching.
• 3:50:23
  It like it was a fact. I mean, I remember learning of
• 3:50:26
  the RNA World hypothesis and I remember like them being pretty
• 3:50:31
  upfront in my textbook about project.
• 3:50:34
  It didn't know. And the fact that these are just
• 3:50:37
  hypotheses and obviously there is a difference between like a
• 3:50:41
  colloquial, use of the word theory and a scientific use of
• 3:50:44
  the word theory, like it has to have evidence to support it to
• 3:50:49
  be a theory. It's got a, you know, it's a
• 3:50:51
  little bit more sophisticated than just a hypothesis.
• 3:50:54
  But yeah, if you were taught that way, you know, I probably
• 3:50:59
  say that that's probably not the best approach.
• 3:51:03
  I think that we should be. Actually honest in the way that
• 3:51:06
  we communicate the science and like not claim, things are
• 3:51:10
  absolutely known. If they're not, well, I don't
• 3:51:15
  mind. Can you do me a favor?
• 3:51:16
  Because we are running short on time.
• 3:51:18
  Can you wall plug your YouTube channels?
• 3:51:20
  And while plugging it give us a summary of what we should find
• 3:51:24
  if we come to your Channel. Okay well I guess I'll start.
• 3:51:28
  Yes a Grayson is my name. My channel is based Theory.
• 3:51:33
  So based like that's so based or base is the opposite of cringe
• 3:51:38
  and then I have a lot of debates with creationists.
• 3:51:43
  I've got some after shows kind of like this where everyone is
• 3:51:46
  just kind of welcome to join discuss these kinds of topics.
• 3:51:51
  I want to start getting more into maybe like somewhere much
• 3:51:54
  more short form video. Go Styles where I just kind of
• 3:51:57
  talk about a subject that I think is really cool and
• 3:52:00
  interesting. So trying to do some more of
• 3:52:02
  those channels videos but I don't have any on a channel just
• 3:52:05
  yet. Mr. Rob.
• 3:52:11
  Yeah, I'm going to start doing some short videos myself but I'm
• 3:52:14
  obviously trying to get my mic and stuff sorted out.
• 3:52:17
  But yeah. Can you quickly you said, you do
• 3:52:20
  our laptop was a Mac and he's your mic from that, isn't it?
• 3:52:23
  You were saying. So it's not a specific Mike.
• 3:52:26
  You've got. Yeah.
• 3:52:27
  Yeah. Which is my MacBook Air that
• 3:52:28
  both the webcam and a microphone.
• 3:52:31
  Yeah, KOA Kai. Yeah, but that's what I want to
• 3:52:33
  do. Some short videos and things
• 3:52:35
  like that. So I'll be starting that very
• 3:52:36
  soon. And I'm do you have a you want
• 3:52:40
  to give people you the link or are you concerned that there
• 3:52:44
  might be some some brain-dead monsters coming over there?
• 3:52:48
  It's up to you. Yeah, I'll go with the
• 3:52:51
  brain-dead monsters on that. Yeah, yeah I understand.
• 3:52:56
  I understand Ernest. You got a YouTube channel as
• 3:52:58
  well as Nick I don't really have a YouTube channel, but I would
• 3:53:04
  like to join you for, for maybe another time.
• 3:53:09
  I really enjoyed that sounds good.
• 3:53:12
  Ernest. I think that you've got some
• 3:53:14
  interesting questions and topics.
• 3:53:16
  You might want to actually consider doing some videos and
• 3:53:19
  subject matters necklace, what you got for us.
• 3:53:22
  What do we got? I've been thinking about it for
• 3:53:25
  a while. Actually, I'd like to do a chat
• 3:53:27
  with you sometime Grayson, I mean, I respect How kind you've
• 3:53:30
  been and and forward. And I really would like to dive
• 3:53:35
  into it with you and I've done a lot of years in college and
• 3:53:37
  studying Evolution and all that stuff.
• 3:53:39
  And like I said, I'm not anti it, I do feel it in the end,
• 3:53:44
  it's something that we believe, you know, I mean, where it's
• 3:53:47
  taught as a science as a truth and I love to discuss that with
• 3:53:50
  you sometime. So I'll try to get ahold of you.
• 3:53:52
  I mean, if you can send me your email or Channel or something,
• 3:53:55
  or that would, my email is actually on, on my channel page
• 3:53:59
  and the about Section. You should be able to find my
• 3:54:01
  email. You just kind of have to verify.
• 3:54:03
  You're not a robot. Yeah.
• 3:54:04
  What's your what's your channel based Theory?
• 3:54:09
  I think it's linked it a few times but if you just search
• 3:54:12
  like based Theory after show, I should come up to show the
• 3:54:15
  challenges based Theory and then, yeah, the email I think is
• 3:54:19
  just critical based inquiries at gmail.com.
• 3:54:22
  Unfortunately, whenever we live broadcast, I'm not capable of
• 3:54:26
  being able. YouTube doesn't allow me to
• 3:54:29
  leave something. Thing in the comments right
• 3:54:31
  under the video, all I can do is description and what's going on
• 3:54:34
  in the feed. As soon as the video processes,
• 3:54:37
  I will put this man's Link in the comments and pain it.
• 3:54:41
  Some people can go over and harass him on a daily basis like
• 3:54:44
  what's done for us? Right.
• 3:54:46
  More thing. Brett, thanks for doing this and
• 3:54:49
  it was really good and being so respectful to Grayson and I look
• 3:54:52
  forward to doing it again. Thanks Brett.
• 3:54:54
  Well necklace. If you go to the front of my
• 3:54:56
  channel you'll see that I got scheduled shows set up.
• 3:55:00
  Gives you the time. You can click notification and
• 3:55:02
  it'll tell you hey the shows about to start 30 minutes in
• 3:55:06
  advance and you can prepare yourself necklace.
• 3:55:08
  I've always enjoyed having you on the show you and your wife
• 3:55:11
  are good people. You all of you are.
• 3:55:13
  Welcome to come in. All right well I enjoyed it and
• 3:55:16
  I'll be back again. Trust me.
• 3:55:17
  God bless