Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / TJump vs. Dr. Kent Hovind | Is Evolution a Reasonable Scientific Theory? | Standing For Truth Debate

Transcript

TJump vs. Dr. Kent Hovind | Is Evolution a Reasonable Scientific Theory? | Standing For Truth Debate · Brett Keane and Eve Show

2:56
All right, looks like we are alive.
2:58
Welcome, everybody to standing for truth.
3:00
I am your host, Don e and tonight is the night.
3:04
You have all been waiting for. I have two very experienced
3:08
Debaters with me tonight. I've got Tom jump and dr.
3:11
Kent hovind here with me to debate the important topic is
3:15
there reasonable evidence for evolution between both of these
3:19
season Debaters, can't and Tom jump.
3:23
I believe we are looking at something close to it. 600
3:26
debates. These gentlemen, have
3:28
participated in and therefore I am sure this is going to be a
3:32
debate. To remember Gentlemen, let's
3:34
let's kind of break the ice. Get to know each other a little
3:37
bit before we start this much-anticipated battle Tom.
3:42
It's been a little while since you have been here.
3:44
I think the last time you were here was maybe six to eight
3:47
months ago, debating Bill Morgan, which was a ton of fun.
3:50
So, how you been, what's going on a little bit about yourself
3:53
and a little bit about your Channel.
3:55
I'm doing good. I recently cured my major
3:58
depression so I'm feeling significantly better, very
4:01
melancholy all the time now it's very interesting feeling I run a
4:06
YouTube channel, youtube.com slash T jump, where I Crush
4:09
creationism and God debates all the time, very fun, occasional
4:13
flat earther, those are fun. I sell bathtubs.
4:16
I have I have an engraved bathtub from standing from
4:18
truth. He's got one of mine in his in
4:21
his in his Abode and it's great. He's got the gold Laden were so
4:25
perfect. I've debated Kent three or four
4:27
times. We've known each other for quite
4:29
a while. Now I do this full time.
4:32
It's my job. Please give me money.
4:33
Thank you. Starting an atheist Church
4:35
working on trying to create a church that actually helps
4:39
people. Our goal is to decrease the cost
4:41
of living for as many people as much as possible as opposed to
4:43
what most churches do and by doing this, we're going to get
4:47
an apartment building. And since it's tax-free we will
4:49
offer rent at a lower price and hopefully replace the very
4:52
corrupt businesses of America, which take money from Kill for
4:56
no reason with good companies that actually help people, that
4:59
is the goal of the atheist church so I will leave it there.
5:03
Well, I appreciate that introduction there t jump.
5:06
How about that one of these days?
5:09
I'll say that word, right. So I appreciate it and yeah that
5:12
bathtub you sent me. It's doing fantastic.
5:14
So I appreciate that introduction.
5:16
Thank you for being here and dr. Dino in the house.
5:20
How you been brother? What's going on a little bit
5:21
about yourself and how is everything at Dow?
5:25
Well my name is Kent hovind, I love the Lord.
5:27
When a Christian 53 years and wanted to get everybody else.
5:30
Converted into his family. God's been very good, some of
5:33
the Gods kids drive me crazy. But God is good and we're
5:35
building a creation Ministry and Lenox Alabama, dinosaur
5:39
adventure. Man, we get visitors from all
5:41
over the world, it's all free. Come on down, we have a science
5:44
center, 12,000 square feet of cool science experiments, you
5:46
can do have 20 cabins people stay for free and after a couple
5:50
days we get them hammers, put them to work, the whole place
5:52
been built that way. It's been amazing.
5:54
We have 40 acres and 16 lake for fishing and we love it here on
5:58
Lennox, Alabama population. 35 will come on down and see our
6:02
place and I do a YouTube channel.
6:03
I'll Kent hovind official and on dinosaur Adventure Land,
6:06
roundabout on a bunch of other platforms to.
6:08
I believe the Bible is true and evolution is stupid and
6:11
dangerous. All right.
6:13
I appreciate that introduction, dr.
6:15
Hovind again, gentlemen. Thank you so much for giving us
6:18
your time for this heroic debate.
6:21
So I'm going to go over the format real quick.
6:23
For the audience say we are going to be having a formal
6:27
professional debate tonight. We're going to be starting with
6:29
a 10 minute opening statements and then a 6-minute
6:33
uninterrupted rebuttal. Then we're going to have roughly
6:37
a 30 minute open discussion where Kent and Tom jump are
6:41
discussing the topic. Focusing on one Topic at a time
6:45
and keeping it as equally timed as possible.
6:47
Then we are going to have five minutes, closing statements, and
6:50
then this is where we get you guys in the audience involved.
6:53
We're going to have an audience Q&A.
6:54
So please, make sure you are tagging me at standing for truth
6:57
with your questions and that way, I won't miss them.
7:01
Okay. That being said, let's get right
7:03
into the fun T, jump. We're going to hand it over to
7:06
you. My good man for your 10 minute
7:09
opening statement. Awesome.
7:12
So to get started we're asking is evolution a good scientific
7:17
hypothesis and to know that we need to know what it a good high
7:19
scientific hypothesis is and in science.
7:23
What the goal of science is to provide a method to
7:26
differentiate imagination from reality.
7:28
We when you see something, it may just be a figment of our
7:31
imagination or it may be something that's actually there.
7:33
When we come up with any idea, like a god, or whatever it may
7:36
be, it's really exist or maybe it's a figment of our
7:38
imagination. We need some way to
7:39
differentiate between the two. The way science does this is
7:42
novel testable predictions that means predicting the future
7:46
stuff. We don't know yet and if there's
7:48
a theory that can predict the future that about things we
7:51
don't know that's a very good reason to believe that theory is
7:54
correct and the other one is that can't are probably just
7:57
imaginary Evolution has been able to do this better than
8:01
pretty much everything else. Combined, no other theories have
8:04
ever been able to successfully do this, especially not
8:07
religious theories. So evolution is significantly
8:10
better than 0. All the others, for example, the
8:12
one of the best examples of evolution is endogenous,
8:15
retroviruses and Dodgers retroviruses are viruses, that
8:18
inject themselves into the placental or early reproductive
8:23
cells and injected DNA that will then be passed on to all of the
8:26
offspring that are had by whatever this organism is.
8:29
And we can find patterns in all of the different species, their
8:32
tens and tens of thousands of these.
8:34
And we can find that they're the exact same location in multiple
8:38
species. So, if you have a three billion,
8:41
Long base pair of DNA. And in that three billion long
8:45
base pair, there is a segment of 50 or so, that is in the exact
8:49
same position across species. The only ways, this could happen
8:52
would be one random chance. So, if the retrovirus decided to
8:56
inject itself at the exact same point in all the different
8:58
species randomly, or they come from a common ancestor, where
9:03
the retrovirus injected itself into the common ancestor, and
9:07
then as it reproduced an evolved into different species, the
9:10
pattern. In the DNA was copied as all DNA
9:13
is and it shared the same position in all these different
9:16
species. Now if it was just random
9:18
chance, the probability of a retrovirus injected itself into
9:21
the exact, same position in multiple species, all in
9:25
different reproductive, organs is ridiculously low.
9:29
It's crazy. It's significantly more than a
9:32
tornado building, an airplane. It's a tornado building, a
9:35
Multiverse. It's not going to happen.
9:37
So the more plausible explanation here is that
9:40
Evolution actually took A retrovirus injected the placenta
9:44
of a early organism and that early organism continued to
9:48
reproduce and evolve evolve into multiple different species and
9:52
each of those species share. The retrovirus now gets more
9:55
complicated this because there's a lot more than one.
9:57
Retrovirus, there are tens of thousands of these and so, the
10:00
probabilities explode exponentially.
10:03
So this is not plausible to have happened by chance.
10:06
And if a designer did it, the designer is a moron because many
10:09
of these retro viruses have no. Oh, Or a degrading function to
10:13
them. So if you deliberately put them
10:14
in all these species, he's an idiot.
10:16
So, that theory is a bad explanation.
10:20
More importantly, this was predicted by Evolution.
10:22
We expected to see these in evolution.
10:24
We would not expect these to see to see these in the design
10:27
hypothesis. Therefore, the design hypothesis
10:29
does not make this prediction. Evolution does make this
10:32
prediction. That is only one of many, others
10:34
would be biogeography predicted by Evolution correctly Sig, mini
10:39
mini. This is just a class of
10:41
Thousands of predictions that have been found fossil
10:44
distribution. Take colic being a great one.
10:45
They predicted to find a transitional fossil between
10:49
water species and land species in a specific location within a
10:53
one kilometer range. And they found it exactly in
10:55
that specific location in that specific geographical, whatever
11:01
strata, which is a fantastic prediction made by Evolution.
11:04
Again, there's been zero predictions that I know of ever
11:06
made by creation at all. So it's kind of winning By a
11:11
significant margin here. Direct observation.
11:14
We can directly observe both micro and macro-evolution in
11:17
lab. So we can we can literally see
11:19
it. It's a pretty big thing that was
11:21
predicted by Evolution and rejected by every other
11:24
hypothesis, specifically creationism.
11:25
And so, the fact that we've literally seen as kind of
11:27
debunked, the creationism hypothesis completely, not a
11:31
good start for creationism autonomy, we can see homology
11:35
structures and different creatures that was also
11:37
predicted by Evolution, which was confirmed with the
11:40
microbiome Gold dealer on DNA. So all of these are testable
11:44
predictions have been confirmed by Evolution Evolution happens
11:49
on both large and small scales that we can directly observe.
11:53
And there's many different embryological anatomical,
11:57
different lines of evidence that we can look at the different
12:01
growth trees of the embryology. And compare them between
12:04
species. Do you see the similarities of
12:05
how they evolved? The evidence is quite Right
12:11
numerous so I would conclude that yes evolution is a very
12:15
good scientific hypothesis. That makes tons of Novel
12:18
testable predictions that have been confirmed and observed in a
12:21
lab and in the environment and no such Tesla predictions have
12:25
been made for any other hypotheses and so Evolution
12:28
wins, I'll conclude there. All right, I appreciate that
12:35
opening statement there t jump with a few minutes to spare and
12:40
as always we can toss that into either the discussion or the
12:44
audience Q&A. So what we're going to do now is
12:46
hand it over to Kent, can't you have your 10 minute opening
12:51
statement whenever you're ready? The floor is yours.
12:55
Okay. Well, excuse me.
12:57
Just a moment here. Let me get up to where I wanted.
13:01
Okay. I would have to agree with Tom
13:06
at least one thing science is things.
13:08
We can observe study test demonstrate excetera, the word
13:13
comes from the Latin word Seer which means to know what do we
13:15
know. We know cows produce cows, we do
13:19
not know, cows came from an amoeba over millions of years
13:22
which is what he believes we know dogs produce dogs that
13:26
science. What he just shared with us, is
13:29
a religion, hypothesis that maybe if we give it millions of
13:32
Years that were changed to something else.
13:34
No Farmer in the history of the world has ever seen any plant or
13:38
animal produce anything that anybody would consider a
13:40
different kind. Now, the definition of species.
13:43
We went over that several debates here on this program.
13:46
Nobody's ever got a firm definition of species either,
13:48
but I don't know what exactly a kind is.
13:50
The Bible says they can bring forth after their kind.
13:52
So I think most four year olds would tell you, but from all we
13:55
observe with science is cows, produce couch?
13:59
No exceptions. Some people try to limit
14:01
definition of science to the Troll world, the operation of
14:04
the world. May be understood by scientific
14:06
discoveries. We understand how gravity works.
14:08
You know, the speed to Things fall excetera.
14:11
We understand air pressure, and we understand a lot about the
14:13
operation of the world. However, the origin of the world
14:16
may not be understood by scientific discoveries.
14:19
What we see is gravity, working, word, who made gravity.
14:23
We can't tell that. Okay.
14:24
We don't know where it came from, we don't even know what it
14:26
is to call it. An attraction of masses is one
14:28
thing but that does give me a jar gravity and paint it red.
14:31
What on Earth is that? That stuff anyway.
14:33
So I think we know the operation of the world but that would not
14:37
answer the origin. We know the operation of e RVs.
14:40
As he mentioned, we don't know the origin of prvs or the origin
14:44
of life or the origin of matter or the origin of time or space.
14:48
Those things are outside the realm of science.
14:50
But Tom wants to include his religion of evolution, believing
14:53
it all just happened by chance with no designer.
14:55
He wants to include that in the category of science.
14:57
I'm sorry. Science is what we know.
15:00
We do not know that dogs came from an amoeba.
15:04
We know dogs produce dogs. That's been observed, plenty of
15:06
times. You can even take a creature
15:08
with a very short generation time, like an amoeba.
15:11
I think they grow up, get married have kids and, you know,
15:13
20, 30 minutes. It's not, maybe not a me, but
15:15
somehow they provided half. But there's those to do by our
15:19
conjugal replication. They have very short generation
15:24
time and we so we in one human lifetime.
15:27
You can see thousands or hundreds of thousands of
15:29
generations. And we never see a bacteria
15:32
produce an honor bacteria virus produce a known virus.
15:35
We just don't see that it's not science and the purpose of this
15:39
debate tonight is for him to present evidence that science,
15:43
evolution is a reasonable scientific theory.
15:45
I would love to see that the operation of a computer can be
15:49
understood by science. We know how it operates.
15:51
We don't understand the origin of the computer.
15:54
That may not be understood without appealing to a designer.
15:58
No computer in the world ever made itself.
16:00
None, no, wristwatch ever made itself.
16:02
No ink pen ever made itself. We understand the operation.
16:06
We don't know the origin. You don't know the origin of
16:09
life, you don't know the origin of the earth.
16:11
You don't know the Origin of Species Darwin's book.
16:13
Never did talk about the Origin of Species and his book.
16:16
The Origin of Species religion is a set of beliefs concerning
16:20
the cause nature and purpose of the universe.
16:24
That's what Tom has. He has a religion but he will
16:26
never admit that. I promise you, he thinks it's
16:29
part of science. The creationist worldview, says
16:32
God created everything about 6,000 years ago.
16:36
That's what that's what we believe.
16:37
We're not asking that to be taught in the school system now.
16:39
So the burden of proof not on us, they believe, 18 or 20 or 16
16:43
or 17, .22, whatever it is. Number billion years ago, The
16:47
earth and the whole universe came into existence from a DOT
16:51
of nothing. Exploding or dot of near
16:52
nothing. That is not only not science,
16:55
that is stupid. The whole Big Bang, Theory's the
16:57
dumbest idea in the history of humanity.
16:59
I'm amazed that a grown man would believe such a thing then,
17:02
they believe the Earth cooled down 4.6 billion years ago or
17:04
4.54. I guess they're down to now and
17:07
developed a hard Rocky crust and rained on the rocks for millions
17:10
of years and turned them into soup and the soup came alive.
17:13
That's all part of the evolution Theory.
17:15
It is nonsense. Is not science.
17:18
The Bible says, in six days, God made the Heaven and the Earth
17:21
and everything in them. Well, based on that I can make
17:24
some prediction scientific predictions.
17:26
I predict universe will show evidence of intelligent design.
17:30
I think we see it everywhere. This ink pen shows evidence of
17:33
design for a purpose. It can't make itself every cell
17:38
in your body, Tom is more complex than the space shuttle
17:41
and you got a hundred trillion cells each one with 100 trillion
17:44
atoms, it's designed get over it just common sense.
17:49
Would tell you that I predict there will be thousands of
17:51
symbiotic relationships in nature where the plants breathe
17:55
in the CO2 and give off oxygen. The animals breathe in the
17:58
oxygen. Give off CO2, they reciprocate
18:00
the gases. That's a cool symbiotic
18:02
relationship. If you wish to believe that
18:03
happened by chance. You're welcome.
18:05
I It was theirs, I and I think it was designed very well.
18:08
You have all the systems in your body that symbiotic
18:11
relationship. Your digestive system, your
18:13
muscular system, your skeletal system, your nervous system, all
18:16
that working in symbiosis with each other, I think is pretty
18:19
cool. All the animals seem to have
18:21
that evidence of design, I predict there will be limits to
18:25
the variations that things can produce.
18:27
Certainly dogs can produce different kinds of dogs.
18:30
Chihuahuas. Great Danes, you know Dobermans,
18:32
no question there. Now 339 recognized Breeds of
18:36
dogs by the American Kennel Association.
18:38
I would say they probably had a common ancestor called a dog,
18:42
but you guys want to take this evidence of variation within the
18:44
dog kind and imagine SpongeBob style that it goes forever.
18:48
Clear back to an amoeba your family trees do show.
18:53
Let's see the family trees, do show an amoeba turning into
18:57
everything. That's not science based on the
19:01
prediction that God made the world.
19:03
There are some scientific predictions I Going to be a
19:06
purpose to life because somebody designed it for a reason.
19:09
I predict there will be non material things in this world,
19:13
not just material matter. Things like love Justice, Mercy,
19:17
innate knowledge of right and wrong conscience.
19:19
Absolute truth, where do those things come from?
19:22
Where does love come from in an evolutionary materialistic
19:25
world? If we're if you're nothing but
19:27
animated meet pure matter? Well then how do you get these
19:30
imaginary thing? And if your brain is nothing but
19:33
chemicals that got together by chance.
19:35
How could you Trust your own thinking, how can you trust your
19:37
thoughts and your reasoning process and how on Earth could
19:40
tell right from wrong? If evolution is true?
19:43
I predict there will be a way to find the will of the Creator
19:45
like maybe messenger speaking for him or maybe even a book
19:48
telling us how he created it. And why to me, it's common
19:51
sense. If somebody designed this world,
19:53
he would tell us what he wants. He owns it, and he makes the
19:56
rules. And if your city passes a law
19:58
that says, the speed limit is 40 and they're going to give you a
20:01
ticket for breaking that. Well, then it's up to the city
20:03
to pass to publish publish the law.
20:06
And to post it, put up a sign, speed limit 40.
20:08
And if somebody knocks it down they preserve our they put up
20:10
another one right away. I think if God is going to be
20:13
the judge one day, it's his responsibility to publish.
20:16
What is his law? What's he want?
20:18
And to post it. And to preserve it, I think I'm
20:21
holding a copy of it right here. I think I know God told us
20:24
pretty clearly what he wants and we've all fallen short of the
20:26
glory of God. And therefore, God himself came
20:29
down, became a man and said, I'll do it for you.
20:31
Now, if you'll accept my payment, my death on the cross,
20:34
I'll forgive you. And I did that. 53 years ago, I
20:36
gave my heart to the Lord. He's now my savior.
20:39
I'm going to heaven, not at all, because I'm good.
20:41
I'm forgiving. I predict they'll be a life
20:43
after this life. Where we Face the Creator and
20:47
give an accounting. I predict Tom, you're going to
20:49
your knee is going to Bow before that Creator.
20:51
One day you can be proud and haughty and cocky now.
20:53
But we'll see how it holds up for you on Judgment Day.
20:56
Now if I'm wrong, I haven't lost a thing.
20:58
Pascal's wager, if you're wrong, you've lost it all.
21:02
So, I predict the there will be an order to this world
21:05
everywhere. We look through the microscope
21:07
for the telescope. We see incredible order not
21:10
chaos coming from a big bang explosion.
21:12
We see the Galaxy is moving around the dancing around of the
21:14
stars and the planets. And perfect orbits around the
21:16
earth. The earth at just the right
21:18
distance in the Goldilocks saw spinning at just the right
21:20
speed, just the right amount of gravity.
21:23
What if we around it heavier Planet too much gravity.
21:25
We couldn't even stand up. Everything is designed.
21:28
I don't know how you guys can't see it.
21:30
Other than what the Bible says. Second Peter willingly,
21:33
willingly ignorant, you mentioned CRVs, I've got quite a
21:37
bit of stuff prepared on that will bring it up more.
21:38
If you like, well regarded as junk DNA or genomic dark matter
21:44
and doggedness retroviruses Erv have turned out to represent
21:47
important components of the antiviral immune response.
21:51
These remnants of once infectious, retroviruses not
21:54
only regulate cellular immune activity, they may even directly
21:58
Target invading viral pathogens. So if the Erv is are in the same
22:02
position on all the genes that could very well be an
22:05
intelligent design. I think you find a whole lot of
22:08
cars for many years. Had the engines in the front
22:12
Yeah, it's a good design and they had round Wheels.
22:15
That's a good design, better than the square ones.
22:17
So I think you're taking the, the things that we see that.
22:21
Wow. Look at this similarities and
22:23
saying, well, the chances are a billion to one or quadrillion to
22:26
one that it happened by chance. Not if there's a designer I
22:30
predict if we go to the Ford Motor Company and look at the
22:32
pickup trucks, they're building, you'll find all the engines in
22:35
the front. That's a good design, that's
22:38
all. So you're completely, you're
22:40
seeing the same thing I'm seeing and completely misinterpreting
22:43
what it means. Erv is there evidence of design
22:46
their part of the development before the embryos even
22:48
implanted in the uterus. In this Jam, we summarize
22:54
mechanisms by which retroviral fossils.
22:57
Protect us from viral infections, one focus on.
23:00
On recent advances, in the role of er visas Regulators of
23:03
antiviral gene expression Saturday, s identify new
23:08
beneficial function of endogenous retroviruses.
23:12
They have a beneficial function in the body's immune defense
23:14
against common bacterial, and pathos viral pathogens.
23:17
You can read all about it. You guys are so desperate for
23:19
any evidence for your theory. Your now, jumping on Erv is, you
23:22
gave up on the rest of them homology, and gill slits and all
23:25
that stuff. Bring those up.
23:26
I'd love to talk about that. Anyway, I think there's no
23:28
evidence for evolution. It's the dumbest idea.
23:30
The world. Go ahead.
23:34
Okay, thank you. Dr. Dino for your opening
23:37
statement. I appreciate the opening
23:38
statements from the both of you. Great chat already.
23:41
We are close to 300 people and I see questions flying in.
23:45
So I appreciate it. As always, we're going to have a
23:46
solid audience Q&A, just make sure you're tagging me again at
23:49
standing for truth. Okay, so we are now in the
23:52
rebuttal portion of the debate. We're going to hand it back to
23:55
Tom, jump, Tom. You have six minutes on the
23:59
clock whenever you're ready for you.
24:02
Sure. So sorry.
24:03
Kids said, science can't know things.
24:05
I don't think it knows what knowledge is knowledge is a
24:07
Justified, true belief. So, if you can have a belief
24:11
that Evolution happened, we have a justification, which is the
24:15
evidence Evolution happened in the novel testable predictions,
24:17
which have been confirmed that tens of thousands of them.
24:20
That is a Justified, true belief, that's that's, that's
24:23
knowledge. So, yes, we can't have
24:24
knowledge. That's dogs came from amoebas
24:27
because we have a justification, which is all the evidence.
24:30
We have a belief and the belief is true, that's what knowledge
24:32
is. So yes, Yes, we do have
24:34
knowledge. I don't know, I don't know.
24:35
Maybe can't has some different definition of knowledge than all
24:37
of the philosophy textbooks. He said the origin of space time
24:41
and matter. That's the big bang we can do
24:44
that. That also makes novel testable
24:45
predictions, which have been confirmed through the Large,
24:47
Hadron Collider through the ligo.
24:49
Experiment, two observations in the cosmic microwave background.
24:52
Yeah, those are all predicted by science and not religion.
24:55
So science has all the evidence to explain those things.
24:57
It's only reasonable to believe the thing that has the evidence.
25:00
It's unreasonable to be the thing that doesn't have evidence
25:02
is just making stuff. So yes, that one we can know
25:05
that one too. He said religion, is a
25:08
hypothesis of the causes nature and origin of the universe.
25:13
That's not the definition. I'm aware of, that's, that's
25:16
cosmology. I don't know what he's talking
25:18
about. He religion religion as defined
25:21
by the dictionary, is a belief in worship of a supernatural,
25:24
controlling power, especially a personal God or Gods I do.
25:29
I must have missed this part in the evolution.
25:32
I don't see any Supernatural. Natural.
25:34
No controlling power. No God, God's.
25:36
I do. I just, I'd have missed it.
25:38
I don't see this. I don't, I don't see it.
25:40
I want to make an atheist church.
25:41
I want to make an atheist religion.
25:42
I plan to do this. Evolution isn't one, no, I don't
25:46
get it. I think maybe there's some
25:47
different special creationist dictionary.
25:49
I must must gotta buy from some some place to find out all these
25:52
new words that Kansas teaching me next big bang is the dumbest
25:57
idea. Well, I mean that's that's
25:59
that's interesting I don't know I don't think it really compares
26:02
to a talking snake a talking dog.
26:03
And a God who sent Bears to mole, 40 children for making fun
26:06
of a bald guy, I don't know. But that seems a little a little
26:09
more little more ridiculous, but that's maybe that's just my
26:13
opinion, I don't know. Maybe who knows?
26:14
Kids predictions are quite interesting because they're not
26:16
really predictions. He said that there's no
26:21
evidence. No, there's evidence of design
26:23
but he didn't present any evidence of Designing better
26:25
than arguing from ignorance. He can't understand how complex
26:28
things form. Therefore complexity equals
26:30
design, that's called an argument from ignorance fallacy,
26:32
it's literally the opposite. It of evidence that's fallacious
26:34
argument. He said he predicts symbiotic
26:37
relationships. Well Camp, that's not a
26:39
prediction if you literally see it to predict that you have to
26:41
not know something and then you have to make a prediction and
26:44
then you have to see the thing if you already see the thing and
26:47
then you just say I predict, I see that thing.
26:49
That's called a post-hoc, not a prediction, a post diction.
26:55
So that's not a prediction. You just explaining things we
26:57
already see anybody can do that as called post.
27:00
Diction this fights. Not actually evidence.
27:02
That's why it's Doesn't support your vision.
27:06
He said there's limits to variation.
27:08
That's great, that's good. What are these limits?
27:10
Which which part of the DNA thing can't be changed?
27:12
Because as far as I know, every part of the 3 billion, long base
27:15
pair can be changed, just fine and it happens all the time.
27:19
Doesn't seem like there's any limits to mutation here.
27:20
Like I don't, I'm missing the limits here which, which parts
27:23
of the DNA? Can't be changed.
27:26
He said that there are non material things that would be
27:27
great, like evidence of non-material.
27:29
Things, phenomenal evidence. I don't see any purpose of life.
27:33
Do you have any evidence can be? Can we give any novel
27:35
predictions of purpose of life? No consciousness.
27:37
Yes that exists. Its material.
27:38
That's the consensus and neurology psychology cognitive
27:41
science philosophy of mind. All physical, so not
27:44
non-physical love all Evolution. All Evolution explains love
27:49
absolute truth. That just means sentences
27:50
correspond to reality. There's no non-physical thing in
27:52
absolute truth, just means a equals a does that describe
27:55
reality? Yes.
27:56
Okay. We have absolute truth, no
27:58
non-physical things, required innate knowledge, like the
28:01
cuckoo bird, has any knowledge that it doesn't like eggs.
28:03
When it hatches it immediately pushes out all the eggs, that's
28:06
from biology because biology gives your brain, certain
28:09
Tendencies of things that likes and doesn't like no non-physical
28:12
things required there. How do you trust your reasoning
28:15
process? Well, because our reasoning
28:16
process is a product of reality. So our reasoning process can't
28:19
do things that aren't in reality.
28:21
So like, I can't imagine around Square.
28:23
I can't believe I exist and be wrong.
28:25
So there are things if since our brains and reasoning process is
28:28
a product of reality, it can't do things that don't correspond
28:31
to reality completely they can Do logical contradictions.
28:34
You can't imagine around Square. So we can trust our reasoning
28:36
process because there are many facets of our reasoning process.
28:38
That can't be wrong. God's morality.
28:41
That's funny because God round millions of babies in the global
28:44
flood. And again I love Second Kings,
28:45
224 favorite quote, some kids made fun of a bald guy and God
28:49
sent two bears to go Mall. The 40 kids, perfect morality,
28:52
love it. Just the greatest model of
28:54
morality ever. I've heard in my entire life,
28:56
he's he predicted that there's life after this life again.
28:59
Fantastic prediction. I would love it.
29:01
Do we have any evidence of this? No.
29:03
I mean it's just you got to confirm your the prediction has
29:06
to be confirmed to be evidence. Can just make a prediction like
29:08
I can predict I'm going to win the lottery in a million years
29:10
but until it happens it's not actually evidence you haven't
29:13
got to protect gonna confirm the prediction that would be that
29:16
would be a good one. He'd be mentioned.
29:17
Pascal's wager Pascal's wager does not work because even if
29:21
there is no God, just nature picker still being afterlife.
29:24
And in the afterlife, the laws of physics determined that the
29:27
only people who get their reward are the atheists, the rational
29:30
ones who don't believe nonsense for all of the religious people
29:32
who do believe in. God will go to the hell and all
29:35
of the atheist rational people will go to the heaven.
29:37
Therefore, the probability for Pascal's.
29:38
Wager are exactly the same. Whether your belief is were a
29:40
God or for, no God. So those Pascal's wager doesn't
29:44
actually indicate anything. Doesn't support anything for
29:48
either of these, he mentioned the RV's for your Visa evidence
29:50
of design. It needs to be a prediction.
29:52
You need to predict it before we know about it, which you didn't
29:55
do, Evolution did that. You didn't, you didn't do that.
29:58
You just, you just looked at it and said, oh, here, look, here's
30:00
some information. We're going to post hoc explain
30:02
that information. They post diction.
30:04
So it's not evidence of creationism.
30:07
You're just making stuff up to explain the data and fit it into
30:10
your hypothesis which literally anyone can do any hypothesis.
30:12
Can do this scientist known this for a million years.
30:15
It was called post hoc rationalization, which is why
30:18
it's not evidence, anybody can just make up how how their
30:21
explanation explains the data. Why is the world round?
30:24
Because a magic leprechaun native round like okay.
30:28
Is that evidence? No.
30:29
But can you post doc? Explain it.
30:30
Sure anybody can do that. So that's not evidence.
30:32
So Nothing can be presented with evidence.
30:35
You just post hoc rationalization and evolution
30:39
crushes that and every put conceivable a I will conclude
30:41
there. Okay, Tom.
30:45
Thank you for that rebuttal. That was about six and a half
30:50
minutes. So to be fair we will give Kent
30:53
equal time Kent whenever you're ready.
30:56
The floor is yours. You have roughly six and a half
30:58
minutes. All right, I don't think they
31:00
else. Feels like Toms Talking 10
31:02
times, too fast. Understand a single word, you
31:04
saying it was feel that way. I got a couple words out of
31:06
that. Tom is what this debate tonight
31:09
is supposed to be. Where is the evidence for
31:10
evolution? I still like to see you off at.
31:12
What is it? Just so we're not here to
31:13
retract the Bible and some bald guy.
31:15
You know, saying he wants the Lions to return bear to attack
31:17
the kids. That's got nothing to do with
31:18
it. Where's the evidence for
31:20
evolution? Your religion is on trial
31:21
tonight. You believe these charts like
31:24
this, that an amoeba of protozoa or a single-celled creature
31:27
turned to a human? This is the textbook example of
31:31
what they're teaching, that a single-celled creature became
31:33
everything here on this chart, they've got the humans, the
31:36
Bears, the elephant's, the Dinosaurs, the grass, the
31:39
tomatoes, everything came from a Single-celled creature.
31:43
This is what is being taught. This is my objection, this isn't
31:47
science. This is a bunch of lines on
31:50
paper. Connecting very different
31:51
creatures, they have a shark and a octopus, and a squid, and a
31:56
snail, all and grass, and roses, and flowers, and wheat, and
32:01
everything. Going back to a common ancestor.
32:03
My question would be simple. Tom, do you believe these charts
32:08
represent reality and science. Is this something we can?
32:11
No, no. Nobody's ever seen a shark
32:13
produce. A non shark.
32:14
Baby never have seen that if you wish to believe they came from
32:19
an amoeba congratulations, you can believe whatever you want
32:22
but that's not science. Science is where we can observe
32:26
and study and test. Show me which animal or plant
32:30
you think has produced offspring that are different than its
32:33
kind. That would lead to the
32:34
conclusion that everything has a common ancestor.
32:38
They draw these lines on paper, the phylogenetic tree and say,
32:40
look at this animals fungi, Ants.
32:42
All have a common ancestor. That is religious belief.
32:47
Nobody's ever seen a cow produce a non cow or a dog producing on
32:51
dog. It's not observable science.
32:54
We can see a variety of bats. I think there are now 11 hundred
32:58
varieties of bats that have been classified.
33:00
We can see a varieties of elephants for different to of to
33:03
appear to be extinct. But the African the Asian, the
33:06
mammoth of the messed it up. They might have had a common
33:09
ancestor, but everything inside this circle, they drew with all
33:11
the lines. Is religion.
33:13
Nobody's ever seen an elephant produce an on elephant, but they
33:16
got the elephant connected back to.
33:18
Wow. The dolphin.
33:21
New top. Do you believe an elephant and a
33:24
mosquito? Have a common ancestor, I'll
33:26
answer for you. Yes you do.
33:28
And where is the evidence for that?
33:30
That's not science. They say all the many forms of
33:33
life on Earth today are descended from a common ancestor
33:37
which was a primitive unicellular organism.
33:40
My objection is this is what the kids are taught every day.
33:44
And this is a religious belief, you have successfully invaded
33:48
the school system and forced your Engine down the throats of
33:51
every kid who has to go and all everybody else has got to pay
33:54
for this to be taught. You guys who believe that all
33:57
life forms. Including the elephant, elephant
34:00
mosquito Had A Primitive, you and I cellular organism as
34:03
common ancestor. This is what you believe.
34:06
This is what you teach, this is your privilege but it's not
34:09
science. The debate tonight is where is
34:12
the scientific evidence for evolution?
34:15
What is it? A reasonable Theory?
34:17
You can draw lines and say the mammals which include the And
34:20
the birds have a common ancestor, and they do draw these
34:23
lines all over the place Heath biology textbook, sitting right
34:25
there. And the crocodiles also, wow, we
34:29
have a came from a common ancestor.
34:31
This is religious belief, my point is, it's not science.
34:35
All these charts you guys make claiming common ancestor.
34:39
Wow, they've all got comany, RVs.
34:41
So we don't observe the animal producing anything other than
34:45
its kind Bobcats. Produce Bobcats, Birds produce
34:48
Birds, but they got Birds and Turtles, going back to a common
34:52
ancestor. Do you believe birds and turtles
34:55
are related to a common ancestor?
34:59
I would agree that probably a variety of birds are related to
35:02
a common ancestor, called a bird, but that's as far as it
35:05
goes. My whole point is evolution is a
35:08
religious belief. The evidence indicates fossil
35:12
evidence top, no fossils. Going to count as evidence for
35:15
evolution, when you find a fossil in the dirt.
35:18
All you could prove is it died. Here's a fossilized clam, I
35:23
could not prove this had any children at all.
35:26
I certainly could not prove, it had children that lived and
35:28
neither could you. And nobody in the world, could
35:31
prove it had children. That lived that were different.
35:33
All we see today is clams produced, baby clams, that's all
35:37
anybody seen. So, if you wish to believe in,
35:39
Imagine SpongeBob style, something else, go ahead but
35:43
stop calling it science. It's, I think it's nonsense.
35:46
I think it's stupid. I think it's criminal to call
35:49
that science and teaching. Teach it to kids.
35:51
They draw the lines on paper and say look at this everything's
35:54
connected. Oh there we got the dolphin
35:56
going and the whale on the elephant.
35:58
Wow look at that. The manatee and the elephant and
36:00
the dolphin have a common ancestor, that's not science.
36:05
It's a bunch of lines on paper and the kids are taught this
36:08
stuff. So the Bible says, clearly
36:10
they're going to bring forth after their kind, that's all
36:13
we've ever observed, I've chosen to believe that I can't prove
36:16
that but I know this you won't find a farmer in the world.
36:19
That'll tell you. That mosquitoes ever produced a
36:22
non mosquito on their property or the cows produced a non cow.
36:26
We just had a lamb. Had a sheep had a baby that
36:28
couple days ago. Had it turned out to be a sheep.
36:30
Wow, who'da thunk it. Our mule had a baby turned.
36:33
Our donkey turned out to be a baby donkey, as for chickens
36:36
have babies all the time. They always always our chickens.
36:39
My point is, it's the burden of proof is on you to prove to
36:43
offer evidence, for why on Earth.
36:45
You would think a family tree. Like this is is science.
36:50
We don't observe it. We don't test it test, it put an
36:54
amoeba in the laboratory, get as many of you want.
36:58
Billions of them and try to make them produce a non amoeba.
37:02
Where is the evidence of an amoeba ever producing a non
37:05
amoeba? I would like to see that over to
37:07
you, Tom. Okay.
37:11
Perfect timing. Can I appreciate that?
37:14
Let me Shut the timer off and gentlemen, that concludes the
37:19
opening statements and the rebuttals great debate so far.
37:23
Lots of great points to discuss here in the dialogue.
37:26
Portion of the debate, let's discuss one Topic at a time as
37:30
we do our bag to remain on topic.
37:34
The second little bit of an echo.
37:36
Okay, we're good. Now, topic being is, they're
37:38
reasonably Dance for evolution. Okay, let's jump right into it.
37:43
Dr. Dino just ended with his rebuttal.
37:45
So Tom, let's allow you to start with the first point or first
37:49
question. Go ahead jumper sure.
37:51
So Kent said that, I've never seen a non cow come from a cow.
37:56
Now, I've never seen a non Kent come from a Kent like his son
38:00
specifically, but I can still show that his son is his son
38:03
because I can look for patterns in the DNA.
38:05
So even though I've never seen, I was I didn't see.
38:07
Eric being born, I didn't see. Can't impregnate his wife.
38:10
I have no idea these things happened.
38:11
I've never directly observed them, but I can still prove his
38:15
son is related to him by looking at patterns in his DNA because
38:18
there are specific mutations that only exists in kids DNA and
38:22
we can find those patterns in his offspring because the way
38:25
off stringers formed is by the mutation of those cells
38:28
reproducing and creating the same patterns in his offspring
38:31
as in him. Now, luckily the same process
38:35
has happened throughout all life and so we can see the same
38:38
mutation pattern. It's in different species and
38:40
know, they're related in the exact same way.
38:42
We can know, Kent has a son even though we've never seen a non
38:45
can't come from a Kent, we can still conclude that they're
38:48
related because of evidence novel testable predictions.
38:53
It's the CRVs, the mutations in the DNA.
38:55
So those things are the evidence can't.
38:57
I don't need to directly. See, a non cow come from a cow?
39:00
I just need to look at this DNA. Just like if I want to know if
39:03
Erick is your son. I just I don't need to see a non
39:06
can't come from a Kent. I just need to see his DNA.
39:11
Okay, let's hand it over to Ken equal time.
39:14
Go ahead, okay. Tom, are there any limits to how
39:17
far this DNA can change? It is a man producing a boy
39:22
child. That grows up to be a man.
39:24
Is that evidence that an amoeba can turn to a whale?
39:28
Is we I think all we've ever seen is humans produce humans
39:31
and Wales produce Wales. You wish to believe because we
39:34
see changes in the DNA and the sun is not exactly like the
39:37
father of sure. All the cows are not exactly
39:40
like the mother but there's Joe How's all the birds are not
39:43
exactly like the mother but they're still Birds.
39:45
You are imagining and muddying the water here to make it where
39:48
people to. Oh, wow, maybe that's true.
39:50
We sure humans produce humans, some have red hair, some have
39:54
white had blond hair, some have brown hair, some have black
39:56
hair. They're still human, where is
39:58
the evidence of anything beyond? What any?
40:01
I mean a man producing a boy that turns up to be a man is not
40:05
a change. That's going to support your
40:06
theory. So where's the evidence?
40:09
That is my son. Do you think the difference is
40:12
between me and my son and then his son?
40:14
And if I get a grandson or great-grandson out of them, you
40:17
think they'll ever be a time when they're non-human.
40:20
Yes. Do you think there will be?
40:23
Yes, is that if scientifically observable?
40:26
Or is that just a belief system? You have the evidence for that
40:29
is scientifically observable. Yes.
40:32
Explain what you mean? What evidence?
40:33
What evidence would take a break?
40:34
Let's just take a simpler organism.
40:36
Like an amoeba, isn't it? Because it got a short
40:38
generation time. What evidence would you have
40:40
that? An amoeba will ever eventually
40:42
produce synonymy but do it in the lab.
40:44
Where's the evidence? Well, so I can answer that the
40:46
same way. What evidence do we have that a
40:49
non Kent or that a kids will produce an on Kent?
40:52
Well, we look at The Offspring of Kent and see.
40:55
Oh, look. There's a difference in the D.
40:57
There's a difference in the pattern in the DNA.
40:58
It's a non Kent was produced by A kids.
41:01
So there's not an exact copy. Like, you haven't produced kids
41:04
DNA. Exactly 100.
41:06
There are differences. So a non Kent can come from a
41:09
kids, even though I haven't observed this directly because I
41:11
can see differences in the DNA. So I want to conclude that one
41:15
species will produce a different species.
41:16
I would say, well, if this was the case, we could look back at
41:19
different species and we see that there are the same patterns
41:22
in this species and in this species DNA that make them
41:25
related, just like that, we can determine that a non-kin tarek
41:28
is related to kids because it has similar patterns in the So
41:31
if we see the same patterns in DNA, change across species in
41:34
the same way as they do between Father and Son, then we can
41:38
determine hey, this, they share a common ancestor, just like
41:42
your children, sharing common ancestor, the DNA patterns work,
41:46
the same in both top, you are muddying.
41:49
The Water by saying a parent, produces a kid.
41:52
Let's say an adult human produces a miniature human true.
41:57
That's the still a human and that sure there's changes.
42:00
He's different than me and I would know I'm different than my
42:02
dad and my granddad. But there are by deliberately
42:05
trying man has produced a whole variety of dogs.
42:10
They select for the smallest one, until they get the useless
42:12
ones, like the Pug and that you, wha what?
42:14
Okay, they're still dog. Barely okay.
42:18
Is there any chance it is? There any chance?
42:21
All this? Selective breeding.
42:23
Okay, they've gotten dogs now as small as a toy chihuahua.
42:27
Is there any possibility in billion years they will ever get
42:31
a dog as small as a flea. Sure possible.
42:39
Or are there limits to the dog sighs?
42:43
Yes, like it couldn't be smaller than an atom obviously because
42:45
they're made of atoms. So, there's definitely a size
42:47
limit. Okay.
42:49
If there's a size limit, we've now got the Great Dane which is
42:52
a pretty big, dog. You think he'll ever cross breed
42:54
dogs and get a dog as big as an elephant.
42:57
There are animals as big as an elephant, you know?
42:59
Like an elephant. Yes, there are animals as big as
43:02
an elephant, like an elephant's. Yes, I agree.
43:04
And yes, and they get dog. Can they get a dog as big as an
43:07
elephant through selective? Breeding Probably.
43:09
Yes, you think so, okay. Yes, this is Imagination.
43:15
All experiments and observations says, hey there's a limit.
43:18
You might get a big dog but not the more the further you get
43:20
away from just a normal average, normal, dog.
43:23
And the more you got to babysit them, most of these would not
43:26
survive in the wild. What's the limit that you always
43:29
loose out there? The squirrels would eat them.
43:31
Okay. Well, what's the limit?
43:32
He said there's a limit like we're where is the limit?
43:34
Like I would say. The limit of the size would be
43:36
determined by how thick the bone mass can.
43:38
Before it collapses on itself. So I'd say that's an elephant's
43:42
can do it then. Yes, we could probably produce
43:44
bone structures that are similarly strong in dogs, right?
43:47
What man has observed, all of human history is everything.
43:51
We try to selectively breed for whether it's sweeter apples or
43:54
bigger apples or, you know, apples that grow in cold climate
43:59
or warm climate. They've got Eleven Hundred
44:01
varieties of apples. That man has successfully
44:03
crossed problem created. They're all still apple and most
44:08
of them would not if he'd like to take the dogs, if you turn
44:11
all the dogs loose in the world into the woods.
44:15
Most would not survive, natural selection.
44:18
Would select the general and it will go back to the general
44:21
average ordinary mutt. So my point is, you guys imagine
44:26
these family trees and it's not science, we see dogs produce
44:30
varieties of dogs and we see dead ends.
44:33
We see big ones and little ones can't go any further.
44:36
Ask anybody who breeds dogs? Like my wife has several members
44:39
of her family and people relatives that do this for a
44:42
living. They will.
44:44
Yeah, there's a limit. It could be the dog, the wolf.
44:47
And the coyote had a common ancestor, but you believe a dog
44:50
and a banana. Have a common ancestor, don't
44:52
you? Tom.
44:53
Well, what's the limit? So yes, I believe.
44:55
Dogs are bananas, have a common ancestor, but you keep saying
44:57
there's a limit. What's the limit?
44:59
But I don't see a limit. Dogs are still getting bigger.
45:01
I don't where's the limit? I guess, we have to go by what
45:03
we observe, which is called science.
45:05
We observed, there's a limit. You run into a stone wall, you
45:08
can't get bigger than a Great Dane.
45:10
You can't get smaller than a torch you all with.
45:12
So we maybe we've reached the limit.
45:13
That's fine. Did you get better?
45:15
They're getting bigger. What do you mean?
45:16
We can't get bigger. They are getting bigger.
45:18
Oh, get get one as big as an elephant then, come on.
45:21
Well, they get bigger and small amounts, but they are getting
45:23
bigger. So we're getting there.
45:25
Give us your fears. Will get one that big through
45:28
selective breeding. They've gotten as big as a Great
45:30
Dane. Okay, can still get bigger so we
45:33
can get them. You think that you think they
45:34
can get bigger? They are getting tell me.
45:36
Where's the observation we get bigger ones like every year
45:39
there's a new bigger one. You think they're still getting
45:42
bigger every year. They're getting bigger.
45:44
Yes, like that's why the believe that yes, we have never leave
45:48
that competitions for like, the largest animal or the tallest
45:51
animal, and every year they get beaten by a different one
45:53
because they keep getting bread to be bigger and stronger, and
45:56
faster. Like, we have cows now that are
45:58
just would like 100% muscles to the point where they can't
46:00
reproduce. So yeah, we've made them so big
46:03
that, they literally can't reproduce on their own anymore.
46:05
Yes. We, they are still getting
46:07
bigger stop. And think what?
46:09
You just said, we reached a limit, didn't we?
46:11
They can't reproduce anymore. Hello.
46:14
Oh, but they're still getting bigger.
46:15
They're continuing to get bigger.
46:17
Not if they're not reproducing anymore, they're going to die.
46:20
They can have to reproduce babies because they don't live
46:22
forever. The carrots naturally.
46:24
Improving my point Evolution doesn't work can so they can't
46:29
naturally produce. We artificially reproduce them,
46:31
artificial insemination. They're still getting bigger,
46:33
we're making them even bigger than they are now.
46:36
Through artificial. Insemination, isn't that going
46:38
to kill the mommy cows? They get the sperm from the
46:41
giant bull. There is there is a limit.
46:44
You think we'll ever get a cow as big as an elephant?
46:47
Yes, that's also possible. You think you think they'll ever
46:50
get a cow as big as Texas know? So there is a limit somewhere in
46:55
there. Right there, the laws of physics
46:56
mean that Adams can't go go, go together, but that's all of
47:02
genetics and all of observation says there's limits. 39 breeds
47:06
of dogs. That's not funny.
47:08
That's not Texas. 339 breed is not the size of Texas.
47:11
So all of evolution is yes. We agree in evolution.
47:15
There are limits, like obviously, you can't break the
47:16
laws of physics. You can't make a dog that can
47:19
travel faster than the speed of light.
47:20
Okay. But we can have like amoebas go
47:24
to dogs. That's simpler than creating a
47:25
dog, the size of Texas. So yes, we agree Evolution.
47:29
No, you can't make a dog, the size of Texas because literally,
47:31
the atoms would not be able to hold themselves together, but
47:34
you can make an amoeba in To a dog.
47:36
Because the only difference, there is the pattern in the atcg
47:38
and the DNA, which is very easy to change happens all the time.
47:42
Okay. No way right?
47:43
You just said I'm making for 15. All TV for 15.
47:47
You just said we can get an amoeba into a dog.
47:51
I believe is what you said? We could go back and play.
47:53
Have it's literally happy to have proof.
47:55
Hey wait, you're saying we have turned an amoeba into a dog.
47:59
Is that your statement Evolution did?
48:00
Yes, we can prove it. Yes, you can prove that.
48:03
Yes, all we've ever seen is amoeba.
48:05
Reduce amoeba. I've never seen a non.
48:08
Can't be produced by a Kent, but I can still prove it happened.
48:13
I'd like to see how many lab. How many science Laboratories
48:16
are the K. What I will give you 500
48:18
dollars. If you can get an amoeba to
48:20
produce a non amoeba. Well, if I could do that in a
48:24
lab on my own, I'd win a Nobel Prize which give me a million.
48:27
So, how do you? I could get a lot more than $500
48:29
that. But again, I'd only need one lab
48:31
here, like I can show a non Kent was produced by a can't with one
48:35
lab, which is doing DNA tests. See what I can produce?
48:37
I think enjoy an amiibo was went into a dog with the same DNA
48:41
testing. It only takes one, Have to do
48:43
this. It's just basic evidence.
48:45
They take a lot of labs. Okay, get all the labs in the
48:47
world, they have these family trees.
48:49
Like it's part of Science and we go back up here and they call
48:52
this science. It's not science to say an
48:56
amoeba turn to a human or protozoa turn to human.
48:59
All we've ever observed is protozoa, produced protozoa
49:03
amoeba produce, amoeba humans produce humans.
49:06
You're choosing to call it a adult and a kid muddying.
49:09
The water is still a human. As any human ever produced a
49:13
nonhuman, how many babies have been born in the history of the
49:15
world. And how many have had turned out
49:17
to be human? How to present you thin, don't
49:19
understand what you're saying here.
49:20
So I've never observed a can't produce an on Kent.
49:24
I've never observed this happen, but I can still prove it
49:26
happened. You don't need to directly
49:27
observe this one species evolve into another when you don't need
49:30
to observe that you can prove it happened without observing it's
49:33
called Heaven. Do you can prove you can prove
49:36
an amoeba. Turn to a dog.
49:38
Please, what evident what evidence do you have for that?
49:40
This is the You're supposed to show the evidence for evolution.
49:43
Why would you believe such a dumb thing that an amoeba can
49:46
turn to a dog? Why do you believe that?
49:47
Because that hypothesis has made successful novel predictions
49:50
that have told us many things about the world that we didn't
49:53
know yet, it was able to predict the future and give us insight
49:55
into how the world worked before we knew it and it's the only
49:58
theory that did that. So it's the only one that any
50:00
rational person can believe and be justified.
50:04
Well, well well the theory that God said they're always going to
50:07
bring forth after their kind when that's what we observed.
50:09
That's a rational. That's a rational.
50:11
Three. All we've ever seen is amoeba
50:13
produce amoeba and dogs produce dogs and they don't ever change.
50:16
Well that's again post. Hoc rationalization, that's not
50:19
a prediction. That's people that are goat.
50:21
Herders 2,000 years ago, looking around them, and saying what
50:23
happens? And then they wrote it down in a
50:25
book, that's not a prediction. That's a post-conviction.
50:28
So, that's not evidence. That's goat.
50:30
Herders writing down what they observe.
50:33
Yeah, and some moron walking around the islands because you
50:36
can't get a real job named. Charlie Darwin sees a bunch of
50:38
birds produce a bunch of birds and says, wow, this proves
50:40
everything is created. You want to make fun of the goat
50:42
herders man. You like I make fun of your
50:43
stupid religious leader. Charlie Darwin to.
50:46
Okay well that's that's I agree. I agree with you there.
50:47
So would Darwin said, wasn't evidence?
50:50
What Darwin said was a theory and then the evidence was, when
50:53
his theory was confirmed, he predicted things and he got it,
50:55
right? And that was the evidence.
50:57
Oh, so he's just his predictions or anything, but at least he
51:00
made predictions about things. We didn't know yet.
51:02
And then Once you got those right there, proven correct.
51:05
That's the evidence which didn't happen for the Bible.
51:07
They didn't never had happened. I will predict something that we
51:10
don't know yet. I will predict that if you start
51:13
with a colony of amoeba in a laboratory and and let them grow
51:17
and develop and reproduce for a thousand Generations.
51:21
I will predict it'll still be an amoeba.
51:23
How's that for prediction? Tom?
51:25
We do already know that. That's something that's
51:26
literally been done in a lab. We have things going on with
51:29
this me. I cannot understand what you are
51:31
saying. Talk More clearly and enunciate
51:33
and slow down. What did you say?
51:35
I said we have done that. We've literally done that in a
51:38
lab. I'd Rosen Generations isn't
51:41
enough to produce a new species. So you're again, that's not a
51:43
prediction. I just don't think you
51:45
understand what a prediction is. I understand what a prediction
51:49
is and a post diction. Now.
51:50
Listen. So then, why do you not not give
51:52
any predictions you keep like if you what, Bobby a prediction
51:55
because you don't okay, don't think I didn't know what it is
51:57
in the laboratory. You're saying they did a
51:59
thousand generations of an amoeba and it was still an
52:01
amoeba because that's not Enough time I will predict.
52:04
If you give it ten trillion Generations it'll still be an
52:08
amoeba. Okay.
52:09
That's a good prediction. But now we would need to confirm
52:11
it until it. You confirm it, it's not
52:13
evidence for your position. So, okay, if you do that, if you
52:16
do the experiment and you proved that after 10 trillion things,
52:20
no new species is formed. Then that would be evidence of
52:22
your position. But since you haven't done that
52:23
experiment, it's not evidence of your position.
52:26
That's why I said every Farmer on the planet that has Ever
52:29
Raised anything from corn to potatoes, two cows.
52:32
How's to anything? Will tell you, they always
52:34
produce the same kind. That's what everybody's ever
52:38
since. They first started planting
52:40
wheat and developing it. They've got weed that grows in
52:43
dry soil and moist climates. And they got wheat.
52:45
That will handle the cold weather, and they've got a whole
52:47
variety of wheat, but they still got wheat, 100 different
52:50
varieties. They can't get out of wheat.
52:52
It's still wheat. Same thing will take the dogs as
52:55
a classic example. All they ever get our dogs, I
52:58
predict the always get a dog, no exceptions.
53:02
That's what that's what every Farmer in the history of the
53:04
world will tell you. But you wish to imagine
53:07
religious imagination that if we wait long enough, these amoeba
53:11
would produce a non amoeba, the charges that were the kids in
53:15
school, and amoebic turning into a human.
53:18
Where's the scientific evidence for that?
53:20
How many generations did that take Tom to turn that amoeba to
53:23
a human billions? I think billions of generations.
53:28
Yeah. So the the instead of a turning
53:31
a frog to a Prince with the kiss, you're going to turn to
53:33
frog to a prince with billions of years.
53:36
Your magic ingredient is time with the formula for creating
53:40
mutation in DNA, which we can again, proved.
53:42
So I don't have the problem here.
53:46
There you go, I'll send you one if you'd like if you add
53:49
millions of years. That'll work.
53:52
If that doesn't work, try billions of years Tom, it
53:56
doesn't work with trillions quadrillions or quintillions or
53:58
60 millions of years, it won't work.
54:00
It's not rocket science. You believe what happened?
54:04
You imagine it might happen, but that's not science.
54:08
Where's the scientific evidence that an amoeba turned to a
54:11
human. Well, the games are being, the
54:13
kids are being taught that. Where's the science.
54:15
I've already answered that many times, and I was correct with
54:18
all my engines before, but as you mentioned, the Thousand
54:21
experiments that I've done the Thousand generations of
54:23
bacteria. We can measure the rate of
54:24
genetic change in those things and then we can plot out the
54:27
rate and show. Oh, look.
54:28
If this rate continues over billions of years.
54:30
Yes, we can get dogs from amoebas.
54:33
So yeah, we've literally proven that we can do that in exactly
54:35
the timeframe predicted by Evolution.
54:37
We don't need. You don't like billions of the
54:41
planets. Only corporately, I forget gold.
54:43
I predict that cows can be trained to jump higher and
54:47
higher. If you work them out, put them
54:49
in the gym and make him lift weights etcetera.
54:51
And a cow can jump. Therefore, if we work hard
54:56
enough, a cow can jump over the moon.
54:58
That's what you are saying. Tom.
55:01
No, it's not all know which I've already explained.
55:08
I never see a Kent produce a non kids, but I can still prove it.
55:11
Again, you keep being confused because you think you need to
55:13
directly observe this mean we can directly observe micro
55:15
macro, Evolution when lab we have done this, but you don't
55:18
accept that. So it's not really.
55:19
I can prove that too, but we don't need Like you keep saying,
55:22
we haven't observed, a non cow come from a cow.
55:25
I haven't observed, a non can't come from a kid.
55:28
I don't need to like we can prove it's true without
55:30
objective observing it. So you saying, we don't have an
55:32
objective. Observe it doesn't disprove
55:34
anything. I can still prove, it's true.
55:36
I don't need to directly observe it.
55:39
Science is what we observe study.
55:41
Yes, cabbage. Like what I just said?
55:43
Yes. Okay.
55:45
In the lab. They've been raising, amoeba and
55:47
bacteria and all kinds of things for us to say the history of
55:51
really modern science goes back a few hundred years when they
55:54
had microscopes the last three or four hundred years to be able
55:56
to do this kind of see the even see these kind of things.
55:59
So we've observed for a couple hundred years, these bacteria or
56:02
amoeba or protozoa, and the laboratory and they've done
56:05
cultures on them. And they've raised, who knows
56:06
how many quadrillions of them. Have they ever gotten in a
56:10
protozoa artist, take an amoeba, have they ever gotten an amoeba
56:13
to produce an on amoeba? An amoeba the proofs.
56:18
Again, I don't need to prove that I can just show that.
56:20
Does the DNA change? Yes, I've proven it so I don't
56:24
need to observe this. I can prove it through looking
56:26
at the pattern of the DNA just like I can prove a non can't
56:28
come came from. Can't without ever seen it
56:31
doesn't it has a lab ever taken a non Kent and produced a Kent
56:35
or a can't introduce a non get nose.
56:36
Never happened in the lab can I prove it true though?
56:39
Yes I can still look at your DNA and prove can't produce a non
56:42
kids just like I can prove other enemies.
56:46
You can't Thank you. Can imagine all we've ever seen
56:49
is kids produce kids. Kids produce kids.
56:55
Well adults humans produce human.
56:57
See your muddying. The water with kids in adult
56:59
humans produce humans that we can observe.
57:01
I got three myself, okay, and they've got a bunch of
57:04
grandkids, so we wanted to predict when my grandkids get
57:08
married have babies, they will be human.
57:10
I'll predict that I'll bet you 20 bucks, 800 bucks on that one.
57:13
Great. And I've already disproven that
57:15
point and you haven't addressed it.
57:16
So I can prove a Kent's can produce a non Kent and I don't
57:21
need to observe it. So that's your argument.
57:23
You've never been You never, I'm not understanding what you're
57:26
saying. Are you saying a cat K ENT or a
57:29
kid? Tid against you Kent, Kent,
57:31
hovind, Kent. I can't produce has a non Kent,
57:34
Kent produces Eric. Eric is not can skin produces a
57:36
non Kent and that is your evidence that an amoeba turn to
57:39
a human. No, that's mad.
57:41
Are you living on anyway? So, uh, that's not my argument
57:44
here. Is that your argument is silly
57:46
and I can prove your argument is silly, so your argument is, is
57:48
that we've never seen. Like, you find, you will find
57:50
the same person in the world. They will believe what you just
57:53
said, let me try to clear, so, So your argument is, is that
57:55
we've never seen a cow produce a non cow.
57:58
Now, let me let me take that argument.
57:59
I'm going to refrain the structure here and use the exact
58:01
same structure of your argument. And, let's see how silly your
58:04
argument is. I've never observed a can't
58:07
produce a non Kent, just like, I've never observed a cow
58:10
produce an on cow, but I can still prove both in the exact
58:15
same way by looking at the DNA. I can look at the DNA of your
58:18
kids and compare it to yours. And be like, oh look, a Kent has
58:21
produced a non Kent, there's evidence of this so I can
58:24
believe. Eve that you a Kent has produced
58:27
a non Kent by looking at the evidence.
58:29
Just like I can prove that a cow or amoeba has produced a non
58:34
amoeba by looking at the DNA evidence, so I can be justified
58:37
in both without ever having to see a can't produce a non kids
58:41
because I can look at the DNA, which is the evidence.
58:43
So I don't need to see, okay, to produce an on kids.
58:46
I just think I see the DNA, right?
58:48
I think we are. I think we are watching visible
58:51
evidence that our Public School produces morons, No, I mean I
58:56
didn't go to public school, so I think you've lost, okay, you can
59:01
believe whatever you wish to believe.
59:02
Okay, this is not science. It's true.
59:05
Can't produce a non Kent. Therefore amoebas and mosquitoes
59:10
and whales are related. What kind of logic is that?
59:13
So if a kid's competition, right human being, I have done that
59:16
same number of chromosomes as my son.
59:18
There are differences. I have more blond hair.
59:20
He has more red hair. Okay.
59:22
So we're still human. This is not evidence that cows
59:27
and bananas are related. You guys want all the kids to be
59:30
taught that everything is related?
59:33
That's not science. It's an imagination and you
59:37
didn't offer evidence. Well it can't produce Tan on
59:40
Kent Tom that argument is stupid.
59:43
You know I live it's very stupid because it's your argument that
59:47
I'm just mirroring it to show how stupid your argument is.
59:49
Yes, I agree. It's a stupid argument because
59:51
it's yours. Show me.
59:53
Show me a human that produced in.
59:55
On human and less worried that we use the word human and talk
59:58
slowly. So I can understand you.
1:00:00
Yes, I don't give the whole point here is I'm mirroring your
1:00:03
argument, trying to show you that your own argument is stupid
1:00:06
by taking your argument, replacing the nouns.
1:00:08
Like, I don't need, I've never seen a can't produce an on kids,
1:00:11
but can I still have evidence even though I've never seen it.
1:00:14
Can I still have evidence? It's true.
1:00:16
Yes, so the fact that I've seen it, this what this proves is
1:00:20
that whether or not I've actually seen a can't produce an
1:00:23
on Kent doesn't matter. To the argument because there's
1:00:26
other things that count as evidence here.
1:00:27
So whether or not I've seen an amoeba evolved into account
1:00:31
doesn't matter the same reason. It doesn't matter if I've seen
1:00:34
they can't produce a non kids because there's this other thing
1:00:38
that works is evidence, it's called called DNA.
1:00:40
I don't need to see it if I have the other evidence.
1:00:43
Okay, so you saw a cat produce a non Kent and therefore because
1:00:49
we have probably differences in our DNA therefore mosquitoes and
1:00:54
whales Related. That's your logical conclusion
1:00:57
from that no get produced an unkempt.
1:00:59
Well the purpose of the debate is for you to provide evidence
1:01:02
for evolution. Where is have finally found the
1:01:05
slide 4. Slide number 1415 all TV 14 15
1:01:10
okay. There are 50 varieties of what
1:01:12
my slides up. Put my slides up.
1:01:14
Hey, wake up over there. There are 50 varieties of
1:01:18
watermelons. I predict they had a common
1:01:20
ancestor, I predict they will always produce watermelons.
1:01:23
The Bible says they'll bring forth after their Kind, there
1:01:26
are five hundred to maybe a thousand varieties of mangoes.
1:01:30
They probably had a common ancestor, they produced after
1:01:32
their kind 2,500 varieties of apples.
1:01:35
They have always going to produce an apple, okay?
1:01:38
All which how many wasps are there seventeen?
1:01:40
Thousand species of wasps? Wow, three thousand varieties of
1:01:44
tomatoes. All we've ever seen is they
1:01:47
produce the same kind? Where's the evidence of
1:01:51
anything? Other than that I can't produce
1:01:53
Jane on Kent? Is it going to Your argument?
1:01:56
No, that's your argument. I'm trying to show why your
1:01:59
argument easily fails and we can prove your argument fails.
1:02:02
So like, you're saying, the fact that we've never seen a non cow
1:02:06
produce a cow is evidence that it's never happened.
1:02:09
That's that's that's your argument and so I could use the
1:02:12
same argument and say the fact I've never seen a can't produce
1:02:14
a non-contingent evidence is never happened.
1:02:16
Now you could say well that silly see I don't need to.
1:02:19
You don't need to have seen my child being born to know.
1:02:22
He's my child. There's a different way, you
1:02:24
know. You don't need to see it.
1:02:25
There's a different way to show this has happened and that's
1:02:28
with this thing called DNA. We can.
1:02:29
We can do ancestry tests and be like, oh look his DNA has the
1:02:33
same mutations as your DNA. And so you're related and since
1:02:36
we can do the same thing with animals, we don't need to see it
1:02:39
happen because it's happened over a long time frame.
1:02:42
We can't literally see long time frames but we can still know
1:02:44
what happened in the exact same way.
1:02:46
We know that Erick is your son by comparing the DNA.
1:02:49
So the whole point of the Kinton on can't thing is that we don't
1:02:51
need to see it Kent. I've just proven your argument.
1:02:53
I don't know why you keep repeating okay.
1:02:56
Focused on your son. Listen carefully.
1:02:58
There are 75 hundred varieties of apples.
1:03:01
I bet they have very similar DNA.
1:03:03
There may be some differences in the DNA of the apples, I don't
1:03:06
know. Actually, I don't care, but I'd
1:03:08
be willing to bet. They're always going to be an
1:03:10
Apple. So because there's differences
1:03:11
in the DNA between the different kinds of apples.
1:03:14
There for apples are related to pigs.
1:03:17
That's your logic. No.
1:03:20
So I'm saying that there are patterns in both the apples and
1:03:23
the pigs that are the same just like there's patterns.
1:03:24
Has between Eric and you that are the same.
1:03:27
So the patterns in the separate species, both the pigs on the
1:03:30
apples is the same. They have the same Erv.
1:03:33
Same endogenous retroviruses in the exact same location, same
1:03:36
DNA. So we can know they're related
1:03:38
and the same way we know all of your kids are later.
1:03:40
So we know Eric and I don't know the early Christian, there was a
1:03:43
this they're both related to you because they have the same
1:03:46
pattern to the same location, the same pattern and the DNA
1:03:48
structure. So we know they came from the
1:03:50
same parents and we do the same thing with pigs and apples and
1:03:53
amoebas Okay, I will confess that my son and I, and had a
1:04:00
common ancestor, Grandpa and great-grandpa.
1:04:04
And I'm embarrassed to say it, but you and I probably have a
1:04:06
common ancestor. Also, if we go back far enough,
1:04:09
we're still human the apples. That we see have a common
1:04:12
ancestor called an apple. Sure, there's variations of the
1:04:16
DNA, you might get red ones, or green ones, or yellow ones, or
1:04:19
big ones or little ones, or sour ones or sweet ones.
1:04:22
But they're always Apple. There are 17,000.
1:04:24
Pieces of wasps might have had a common ancestor.
1:04:28
That doesn't prove wasps are related to tomatoes.
1:04:31
There might be DNA similarities that could prove a common
1:04:34
designer. That's a different argument.
1:04:37
I don't know. All I know is all science has
1:04:39
ever. Observed is tomatoes.
1:04:41
Produce Tomatoes Farmers? They do it and you get a new
1:04:44
crop every year. Now with Kent producing Eric
1:04:47
that took well didn't take very long to producing but raising
1:04:50
took a long time so that's a different story.
1:04:55
So I think that we can a new generation time for tomatoes
1:04:59
every year. Wow.
1:05:01
So in one human lifetime we could observe you know 70
1:05:05
different Generations. You couldn't do that with humans
1:05:08
so let's take something with a shorter timeframe, like amoebas.
1:05:12
You believe there's evidence that amoebas be produced a non
1:05:15
amoeba I know you. Do you think an amoeba turn to a
1:05:19
human and you think they should put those charts in the school
1:05:21
because they drew a line between the human going back to an
1:05:24
amoeba. Amoebas have a real short
1:05:26
generation time. One scientist in the laboratory
1:05:29
could probably in a 30 year lifespan.
1:05:32
Watch thousands of generations of amoeba.
1:05:35
Where is the evidence that an amoeba ever produced a non
1:05:39
amoeba Google? It has an amoeba ever produced
1:05:42
an on amoeba so far. No, but we're going to keep
1:05:44
trying someday. It'll happen.
1:05:46
Okay. Well, until then it's not
1:05:47
science. No, again.
1:05:50
So I've already proved that wrong like to the point where
1:05:52
any child like it's like at least above five.
1:05:54
I can understand this, you don't need to directly observe it to
1:05:57
prove it happened. You can prove it happened in
1:05:58
other ways and so I've debunked your argument there.
1:06:00
Can You've Lost That Point? Wait, wait, wait.
1:06:04
It could happen another way. What other way is it?
1:06:06
Where's the evidence of a watermelon?
1:06:08
Producing a non watermelon? They got itty bitty ones.
1:06:10
The size of a grape. No, okay, well, I'll say it.
1:06:13
I'll say it slower for you. So, so try to try to listen.
1:06:16
Not only even more, but may use some common sense this time.
1:06:20
Go ahead. Well, the problem is, if you
1:06:21
didn't understand the words, I said that's, I don't think you
1:06:24
comprehend. The sentence and the argument
1:06:26
there. So the argument is that we don't
1:06:28
need to directly observe it happening.
1:06:32
There are other ways to prove it happened, other than directly
1:06:37
observing it. This is a thing in science
1:06:39
called indirect observation which is kind of observation.
1:06:45
So we can prove that Erick is your son in a different way.
1:06:50
Other than seeing it happened, we don't need to see it happen
1:06:53
to prove it happen. And we can prove it happened in
1:06:56
a different way. So you keep saying we've never
1:06:59
seen Evolution happen. We have but that's a different
1:07:02
topic but that doesn't matter because we can prove it in other
1:07:05
ways. We can correct patterns in the
1:07:07
DNA. So if we look only yes, which
1:07:13
means I've never seen it. So I've never seen Eric being
1:07:16
created right. But can I prove it?
1:07:18
Can I prove it still happened? Sure.
1:07:20
Okay, so how what what the Bible says they bring forth Our time
1:07:25
that way we would have had a question.
1:07:28
How would I prove that Eric was your son?
1:07:32
We are both human. We both fit the category of
1:07:36
mankind. How would you?
1:07:38
I'd rather take it. You've heard it to something
1:07:40
more common sense. How would you prove wasps and
1:07:43
tomatoes are related? I had a question you.
1:07:45
So this is this is a specific question.
1:07:46
I'm asking you don't don't try to tone to Under The Verge,
1:07:49
don't try to avoid the crushing argument.
1:07:50
That's going to destroy your entire position.
1:07:52
How would I prove that Erick is your son Well, there could be
1:07:57
DNA testing to prove. Eric is my son, so a, but I
1:08:00
never saw it happen. I never saw a can't produce an
1:08:02
ankh it's never been done in the lab.
1:08:04
No one in the lab has ever produced a kit from a non kid.
1:08:06
Therefore it's a lie completely not evidence because doing it
1:08:09
doesn't matter because I've never seen on calm down shop in
1:08:12
any court of law. There are different types of
1:08:14
evidence. There is direct evidence.
1:08:16
There is indirect evidence, there is an inference and they
1:08:21
have different weights that they carry and law.
1:08:23
We could see probably the DNA code.
1:08:25
Code of all these different tomatoes.
1:08:28
Have enough similarities that we could say, maybe all the
1:08:30
tomatoes had a common ancestor, that does not prove tomatoes and
1:08:35
wasps have a common ancestor. You are wildly jumping to
1:08:39
conclusions. Trying to include your religious
1:08:41
belief that everything had a common ancestor.
1:08:43
Nobody designed it. You're in while be jumping to
1:08:46
the conclusion to try to avoid the obvious that God said.
1:08:49
They bring forth after their kind.
1:08:51
You don't like that. Okay, lump it.
1:08:54
He'd said they're bringing After their kind.
1:08:56
That's all we've ever seen. Kent hovind, a human being
1:08:59
produced. Eric hovind, a human being, and
1:09:01
he produced his kids, a human being.
1:09:04
That's it. That's not proof.
1:09:06
We're related to Apples. There is no direct or indirect.
1:09:11
Certainly, no, indirect evidence direct evidence it.
1:09:14
You can imply this if you want. Wow, look at this.
1:09:17
They're both eukaryotes. Wow, you know, apples and humans
1:09:20
are both attracted by gravity. Oh, that proves they're related.
1:09:25
That's the kind of dumb logic. You evolution is follow.
1:09:28
This is insane. Where's the scientific evidence?
1:09:31
That everything is related. Tom, you're the one who believes
1:09:34
this stuff. You believe that you believe
1:09:36
you're related to an apple. Yes, I am related to Apples.
1:09:42
I believe it too. Congratulations, you've accepted
1:09:47
Evolution I wouldn't late. Okay, let me let me jump in
1:09:52
guys, this has been a great debate.
1:09:54
We've got over 420 people in the chat, you know, many calling
1:09:58
this historical so it's definitely been a ton of fun.
1:10:00
The timer for the discussion went off about five minutes ago.
1:10:03
So we had about a 35-minute, it's caution.
1:10:07
I really just don't know where to jump in great discussion and
1:10:11
dialogue guys, let's move it and some closing statements a Tom
1:10:14
started off the discussion. So Doctor can ended Tom we're
1:10:20
going to hand it over to you. For a five-minute concluding
1:10:22
statement then Kent will give you a five-minute concluding
1:10:25
statement then we'll get into some audience questions.
1:10:27
So Tom gorgeou is go ahead. Yeah so I mean I think I
1:10:31
demonstrated? Why can't the argument doesn't
1:10:32
work with his own words there? He's like, oh, you've never
1:10:35
observed. It happened in a lab.
1:10:37
And I said, well there's other ways to show evidence and it's
1:10:39
the DNA pattern and then when I flipped it argument on him so
1:10:42
I've never seen in a lab. A can't produce an on kids.
1:10:45
He admitted that there's this This other kind of evidence that
1:10:47
you don't literally need to see it happen.
1:10:49
If you have this other kind of evidence called DNA testing, so
1:10:52
he admitted that he can we can we can discover this and other
1:10:55
ways, we don't need to see it in the lab so it kind of undermined
1:10:58
his entire point and he admitted it and then just to put a cherry
1:11:02
on top. He admitted that I'm related to
1:11:03
Apples, which proves Evolution. So thank you.
1:11:09
All right, I appreciate the closing statement there, Tom,
1:11:12
short and sweet. We also did just set a new
1:11:15
record. We got 425 people live.
1:11:18
The previous work record was another debate with Ken's on end
1:11:21
times, theology, where we had about 420 lives.
1:11:24
So great job. Keeping this a fun debate.
1:11:26
So cat we're gonna hand it over to you, brother five-minute
1:11:29
concluding statement, whenever you are ready, all right, so by
1:11:32
Tom's logic, if I observe him being a careless driver for 10
1:11:35
seconds, that proves he created every accident in the world.
1:11:40
We're about 60 different kinds of oak trees.
1:11:42
In the United States, they might have had a common ancestor 195,
1:11:45
right? He's a chicken's eight kinds of
1:11:46
bears, 50 varieties of watermelon 7,500 varieties of
1:11:49
apples. Okay, I accept the fact that
1:11:52
there are variations of all these things.
1:11:55
I think it's evidence. They had a common Creator, not a
1:11:58
common ancestor. Okay, 45 varieties of pumpkins.
1:12:02
I accept that 111. Varieties of pine trees.
1:12:04
Okay. Twelve thousand varieties of
1:12:06
grass. Whoa, 150 species of roses and
1:12:10
bunch of hybrids, 60 species of rats 1,000 species of sharks and
1:12:15
Rays. New species, discovered, every
1:12:18
year agree that 60 species of eagles, I accept all that.
1:12:22
That is science. Anything inside that circle is
1:12:25
religion. That is not observable that
1:12:28
Eagles have a common ancestor with sharks you can believe that
1:12:32
if you want, how don't see how you can't see this, the idiocy
1:12:36
of your logic. I'd say, accept the fact that
1:12:38
cows can jump. They can be trained to jump
1:12:41
higher if you work them out there for cows.
1:12:43
Can jump over the moon. If we wait long enough, this is
1:12:46
your logic. I think Evolution and I Stand My
1:12:50
Ground. Evolution is the dumbest and
1:12:52
most dangerous religious cult in the history of the world.
1:12:55
You can believe you're related to an Apple.
1:12:57
If you want, do you eat them? Are you eating your relatives?
1:13:01
Whoa, you believe you came from a rock which is what evolution
1:13:05
teaches the Earth cooled down. Had a hard Rocky cross trained
1:13:08
on the Rocks, were millions of ears turned him into soup and
1:13:10
the soup came alive. Tom, do you drive on the highway
1:13:13
and run over your ancestors? I think Evolution has got to be
1:13:17
the dumbest and most dangerous idea and Mankind has ever come
1:13:20
up with. It's a desperate attempt to get
1:13:22
away from the obvious fact. God, created the world, there's
1:13:26
no other explanation. There's no other explanation
1:13:29
than to say some human mind, some Man created this ink pen.
1:13:34
There's just there isn't a good natural explanation to leave
1:13:36
man. Out of the equation.
1:13:38
There's no natural explanation to explain the salt shaker even
1:13:41
though it's made a clay, which is right here in my Gravel Pit.
1:13:44
There you can't say this thing made itself, they doesn't.
1:13:47
There's there is no naturalistic explanation within the clay to
1:13:51
create the salt shaker. There's no natural explanation
1:13:55
with in the dirt to create man. Now God can take the dirt and
1:14:00
make man, man can take the dirt and make pottery onto the clay.
1:14:05
Man can take iron ore and make her car but the iron ore can't
1:14:08
make a car by itself. You guys want so badly to leave?
1:14:12
God out of the equation. Okay, we'll see how that works
1:14:14
for a judgement day. I did my best.
1:14:16
That's right, go ahead. Okay, I appreciate it, dr.
1:14:21
Dino that concludes the closing statements again.
1:14:26
Fantastic debate, tons of fun time flies by.
1:14:30
So let's get in about 15 to 20 minutes, worth of audience
1:14:33
questions. We have a ton here so what we'll
1:14:37
do is you Reginald, you is whoever the question is for will
1:14:41
make sure they get the last word Tom, let's say the questions for
1:14:44
you will let you respond can add in a few points.
1:14:47
Then we give Tom the law. Or Okay.
1:14:49
So let's pick the first question that came in all the way at the
1:14:55
beginning. And also I want to thank
1:14:59
everybody for their super chats and comments.
1:15:05
Okay, here we go. So this first one comes in from
1:15:09
Rebel Nazarene and it looks like this question is for you Tom.
1:15:15
So, Rebel asks, ask Tom, how can the law of entropy And evolution
1:15:19
both be true. They are opposite phenomenon.
1:15:23
Go ahead, they are not opposite phenomenon.
1:15:27
Entropy is just a state that usable energy decreases over
1:15:29
time. Evolution is an added set of
1:15:34
organization which does take energy.
1:15:36
But as long as there's some other source is emitting more
1:15:38
energy that it takes to build the organization and evolution,
1:15:41
then entropy is conserved because there's more energy
1:15:44
being lost than gain. So, the fact that we have this
1:15:46
big thing called the sun, which emits two, In tons of energy,
1:15:50
there's excess energy, sent off by the sun, then is required to
1:15:55
produce the organization and evolution.
1:15:57
Therefore, the net system of the solar system is still losing
1:16:00
more energy than its gaining, even though in certain pockets
1:16:04
of it where heat and chemical interactions happen.
1:16:07
There are some organization being gained the overall amount
1:16:10
of entropy is still decreasing because or increasing because
1:16:14
the amount of energy is being lost because the amount of the
1:16:16
sun is emitting is far more than the amount required to have a
1:16:18
Lucien very simple. All right, I appreciate it.
1:16:26
There Tom will hand it over to Ken if there's anything you
1:16:30
wanted to add. Go ahead, well yeah, he has
1:16:33
demonstrated great faith to believe that the sun's energy is
1:16:37
going to somehow make these changes.
1:16:39
What we've seen is the law of entropy everything seems to be
1:16:43
falling apart everything. Degrades, the more the gene code
1:16:46
is Multiplied in the DNA were gathering a genetic load.
1:16:51
Mankind today as a genetic load much greater than 1,000 years
1:16:54
ago. There's all kinds of defects in
1:16:56
our genes. They're slowly if you took a
1:16:58
piece of paper with anything written on it and ran it through
1:17:00
the copier, then you took the copy and ran it through the copy
1:17:04
a copier and you made a copy of the copy of the copy.
1:17:07
You go about 20 or 30 Generations, you won't be able
1:17:09
to read it. We're about probably four or
1:17:12
five, three or four hundred Generations from Adam and our
1:17:15
DNA code is degrading. It's not improving.
1:17:18
And so, the law of entropy is true.
1:17:19
Adding more sunlight is Make it worse.
1:17:21
You're going to get a sunburn. So it's add energy, doesn't help
1:17:26
dropping a hand. Grenade into a pile of sticks
1:17:30
will not build a house, adding energy.
1:17:32
It takes intelligence to take the sticks and turn them into
1:17:36
something useful. It takes intelligence to get the
1:17:39
clay out of the ground and turn it into a salt shaker.
1:17:41
It takes intelligence, okay? It does not take intelligence to
1:17:45
graduate from school these days, but it does take intelligence to
1:17:47
build things, okay? So I rest my case.
1:17:49
Go ahead. Thank you.
1:17:51
Their doctor, Dino, and Tom question was for you.
1:17:54
If you want to final word, go ahead.
1:17:56
Yeah, we can obviously see things are growing in
1:17:58
complexity, like, oh, life is grows.
1:18:00
You start from a kid form and then you grow and add complexity
1:18:03
to your life form. Crystals, add complexity from
1:18:05
the beginning things. Organized all the time.
1:18:08
If you add energy to the system, it can organize if there's
1:18:11
excess energy in the system. So this is it's pretty obvious
1:18:14
how this is possible life can organize and system of excess
1:18:17
energy is being added to it by like, oh, I don't know the song.
1:18:23
Okay, thanks for that final word there.
1:18:25
Tom moving on to the next question.
1:18:26
This one comes in from born 100 years later I've got it up on
1:18:30
screen here. And again the question is for
1:18:32
you t jump. So he asks, 1,000 Generations
1:18:37
isn't enough time for one change.
1:18:40
How many changes are necessary for a completely new kind?
1:18:46
And he just says, do the math, how does this fit in your time?
1:18:50
I'm line. Yeah.
1:18:51
So it depends like there's no such thing as a conquering.
1:18:53
That's just a made-up definition by creationist.
1:18:55
There are different kinds of species and different.
1:18:57
Kinds of species have been produced in a lab like there's
1:18:59
been the longest experiment on Evolution.
1:19:01
I think it's gone on since I was born 33 years or so where
1:19:05
they've done continuous different, generational changes
1:19:09
to E coli and the like the some of the fastest reproducing
1:19:12
bacteria in order to test Evolution and they have produced
1:19:14
many different species of evolution of bacteria.
1:19:17
So yes, we've literally seen it happen.
1:19:19
A thousand. I mean each generation has
1:19:21
changes. Like there are tens of thousands
1:19:23
of changes to mutations in every generation, but to create a new
1:19:27
species takes more. Depending on your definition of
1:19:30
species and science has proven this in the lab.
1:19:32
We do, we know what causes different species and it happens
1:19:34
all the time. I don't there's not like a
1:19:36
specific number. It's just based on when do the
1:19:38
changes happen enough to produce a new functionality that can't
1:19:43
makes it a different kind of a thing like going from a single
1:19:46
celled organism to a multicellular organism which we
1:19:47
have also observed happen in lab.
1:19:49
So I mean, it's not like a specific number.
1:19:52
There's just like an on average. This is the amount.
1:19:54
It takes given the environmental factors but it definitely
1:19:57
happens. I don't know the exact number,
1:19:58
but we've seen it happen. Many times.
1:20:01
Okay, over to Kent for your response, another clear
1:20:05
demonstration of his faith, his religion, he believes it could
1:20:08
happen. If we give it enough time, this
1:20:09
isn't science. I think in science class, we
1:20:12
should teach science. I think in math class, they
1:20:15
should teach math. History class, teach history,
1:20:17
evolution is not science. It's a religious belief that if
1:20:20
we give it more generation the question is very legitimate.
1:20:23
A thousand Generations isn't enough time?
1:20:26
How many would it take? I covered a couple weeks ago.
1:20:28
I was trying to find my slides. Now I got Like there's no good
1:20:32
definition of species, there are 21 different definitions of
1:20:36
species. Now, what exactly is a species
1:20:39
is a dog, in a wolf? A different species?
1:20:41
Yes. Can they still interbreed?
1:20:43
Yeah, well, so he said the creation is made up the word
1:20:47
kind of God made up that he said 10 times in the first chapter
1:20:50
they're going to bring forth after their kind.
1:20:52
That's all we've ever. Seen is dogs produce dogs cows
1:20:55
produce cows. Anybody wishes to believe
1:20:57
something other than that is welcome to believe it but it's
1:21:00
not Science. Here we go. 537 almost found it.
1:21:03
If I vary 7, enter mankind, has played around with the gene
1:21:07
code, and selectively bred different kinds of corn,
1:21:10
different, kinds of dogs, 12,000 species, of grass in the family
1:21:14
in the world. They're still grass is still a
1:21:17
plant. You think they'll ever with
1:21:19
enough Generations? If we give it 20 trillion
1:21:21
Generations, will they turn grass into an elephant?
1:21:26
You believe they would, but that's not science.
1:21:29
That's a religion. I wish you guys.
1:21:30
Could admit you have a religious belief and stop pretending.
1:21:34
It is science. Thank you for the response there
1:21:37
can and T jump. Again question was for you.
1:21:39
Go ahead final word on my faith in evolution is equal to my
1:21:43
faith that a can't produce a non Kent and so if you think that's
1:21:46
Faith, then I guess I guess I guess so.
1:21:52
Okay, thank you, gentlemen, for the engagement on that.
1:21:55
Good question. So next one comes in short and
1:21:57
sweet. This comes in from bubble gum
1:22:00
gun. I appreciate the Super Chat and
1:22:01
the support. So, question again, is for you.
1:22:04
T, jump. So he asks, can a chihuahua
1:22:07
evolve into a wolf if so do it. So, there you go.
1:22:11
He's challenging you. Yes.
1:22:13
Yes, it can. Can you donate all of your money
1:22:15
to my bank account? If so do it?
1:22:20
All right, thank you. There you go.
1:22:22
There's a challenge out there for you.
1:22:24
Bubble gum gun. So over to you, dr.
1:22:26
Dino anything. You'd like, I suspect that the
1:22:30
original dogkind. Let's call it a wolf.
1:22:33
Maybe it was something like a wolf has been selectively bred
1:22:35
down to the Chihuahua and they might have lost.
1:22:38
Now, a lot of the original genetic code, they didn't gain
1:22:41
anything, they lost to where you probably, could you call the
1:22:45
Chihuahuas and crossbreed them and get, you know, a little
1:22:47
closer back. but if I don't think it ever going to go all
1:22:49
the way back to a wolf, If it happened to still be a dog kind,
1:22:53
didn't didn't prove nothing. So they wasted a lot of money.
1:22:56
Making this stupid Chihuahua. Thank you.
1:23:00
Can t jump, final word Robin? Good.
1:23:06
Okay here we go. Next question comes in from
1:23:08
Endo, vital are super chat again.
1:23:10
I appreciate the support and do asks cat.
1:23:13
So question for you there, Ken, how similar does DNA need to be
1:23:17
to show that we have a common relative.
1:23:21
He says are chimps DNA, similar enough the entered halls for
1:23:25
example, or it only works for your son.
1:23:29
Well, I don't work for my son. I think, in a court of law, they
1:23:34
would try to look at DNA that, you know, there are limits to
1:23:37
this. How much can you prove?
1:23:39
I think, you know, I think we could prove that probably, you
1:23:42
know, humans from Asia and humans from Africa and humans
1:23:46
from North America, have a common ancestor.
1:23:49
If you go back far enough, I think his name was Adam.
1:23:51
Even though his wife named Eve and I know where they lived.
1:23:54
Yeah, Garden of Eden. So that's as far as we can take
1:23:56
it, humans produce humans. Somebody wanted People said,
1:24:01
can't produce an on Kent. What did you expect?
1:24:03
An exact clone what do you expect out of this?
1:24:07
Good, a good observation. So yes, I think that the DNA
1:24:11
there's a lot of variety within the DNA.
1:24:14
You can take the English letters, the 26, English letters
1:24:16
and rearrange them and produce, thousands of words, but you're
1:24:21
never going to get Chinese out of there not available.
1:24:24
Go ahead. Thank you guys.
1:24:28
I don't think he has had a question.
1:24:29
Like, the question was is what is the limitation?
1:24:33
Your how would in a court of law?
1:24:34
If they look at your DNA and your son's DNA and say, yes
1:24:37
you're related and they look at chimpanzee DNA and a dolphin
1:24:41
DNA, why would they not? Also say they're related?
1:24:43
What point of the similarity in the DNA are they get is the
1:24:46
court of logger like not related even though they have the same
1:24:49
patterns. Well, I've got, I'm in the
1:24:52
middle. My library here with thousands
1:24:53
of books. I think we can prove all of them
1:24:55
have the same. Only six letters of the alphabet
1:24:57
for their code to write the book.
1:24:59
Therefore, all these books have the same author.
1:25:03
That's your logic. Look, they got the same.
1:25:05
Same 26 letters. Aha proof of the same author.
1:25:08
Of course, there are limits. Yes, you can rearrange the words
1:25:11
of the 26 letters and get a lot of different words.
1:25:14
That's the code everybody in English rights with the same 26
1:25:17
letters. I bet we could find similar
1:25:19
sentences in some of these books.
1:25:21
So it's not proving a common ancestor.
1:25:23
That's the code with which you write it.
1:25:25
The fact that chimpanzees have a few similarities with humans,
1:25:28
doesn't prove common ancestry. Microsoft Word, has a lot of
1:25:32
identical lines of code. Microsoft PowerPoint.
1:25:36
That doesn't prove that came from Morse code.
1:25:38
That proves the same guys are reusing some of the code.
1:25:41
So God used some of the code to make fingers in humans and guess
1:25:45
what? Chimpanzees have fingers.
1:25:47
Wow! Let's use the same code to
1:25:49
develop. Tell the body to develop a
1:25:50
finger. It doesn't prove ancestry.
1:25:53
Same designer wrote the code. Chevy puts round tires on their
1:25:56
trucks and on their cars. That's proof.
1:25:59
They came from a skateboard. All right, I appreciate the
1:26:04
answers there in Is on a good question.
1:26:07
Also, disclaimer to the audience, we got a lot of great
1:26:11
super chats and I appreciate that but any Super Chat that
1:26:14
comes with either an atom towards The Debaters or even an
1:26:18
off topic question I can ask though, so I appreciate the
1:26:22
support but we're not going to ask those types of questions.
1:26:23
So here's the next question. This one comes in from redefined
1:26:27
living. This question is for looks like
1:26:31
it's for you there, Tom. So, he asks, question did
1:26:34
evolution Dict that endogenous retroviruses would have function
1:26:40
before the specific functions were found.
1:26:44
Yes. So function as defined by the
1:26:46
encode project, is just any binding kind of thing and so
1:26:49
yes, we predicted that the Erv is in pretty much every pattern
1:26:51
in DNA would have a function in that it would bind other
1:26:54
molecules and DNA. They don't have any coding
1:26:56
function, they don't code for anything, but they do have a
1:26:58
function in the fact that they do buying with other molecules.
1:27:00
So yes, those are that was predicted by Evolution a long
1:27:03
time ago. Okay.
1:27:05
Thank you. Tom, for the response, Kent,
1:27:07
anything you wanted to add, I disagree completely.
1:27:10
The evolution of religion was invented way before they ever
1:27:12
heard of an Erv. Now, everything that is
1:27:15
discovered since Darwin came up with his dumb idea, somehow has
1:27:19
to be shoehorned into this for dumb religion.
1:27:21
So anything they find will be forced to fit that theory.
1:27:25
So no, he is not correct CRVs. Weren't even heard of or even
1:27:28
thought, never never discovered until way after Darwin's
1:27:32
religion was invented, so he is mistaken.
1:27:36
Thank you and T. Jump question was few final
1:27:38
word? Apparently, if Darwin do it it's
1:27:41
not a prediction by Evolution. I have never heard of this.
1:27:44
I've never heard that all predictions must have been made
1:27:47
by the first writing. In the first version of the
1:27:49
first Theory, by the guy who wrote it or else, it doesn't
1:27:51
count. This is a new thing.
1:27:52
Again, this must be in this creation has documented new
1:27:54
definitions. I haven't heard of, I got to
1:27:55
find this creationist book of new definitions.
1:27:58
It's got some really interesting stuff in there.
1:28:01
Okay, well I appreciate it. Let's get to the next question
1:28:04
here, man. This chat is flying.
1:28:05
So let me see if I can find it again.
1:28:09
Actually no, I got it up on screen here, so $10 super check
1:28:12
comes in from William Jacksonville.
1:28:14
Jackson, why appreciate it. So question is for, I guess it's
1:28:18
for you to jump. So he says, Kent is a name of a
1:28:21
human. So.
1:28:22
Yes, he produces humans. But yes, he could name him cat,
1:28:27
so I don't know, I guess can't produce a against could produce
1:28:31
a kids rather than on Kent, which would be fine.
1:28:33
I mean, because the whole point of my argument was that has a
1:28:36
kids ever produced a non Kent and do we have reason to believe
1:28:39
it? Other than the fact we have
1:28:40
never seen it. So even if it did produce a
1:28:43
Kent's like an exact copy or just named his kid kids, that
1:28:47
would still be evidence to my argument.
1:28:48
Because of the argument is, do we have evidence that can't
1:28:52
produce a non Kent even though we haven't Seen it and the
1:28:55
answer is yes. Which means we also have it
1:28:57
instead. An amoeba can produce a fish,
1:28:59
even though we haven't seen it. Okay.
1:29:03
All right, actually. Yes, I did produce a cap.
1:29:06
My first son is named Kent. Okay.
1:29:08
Then I produced a non Kent named Eric.
1:29:15
Then I produced on daughter. Whoa, now what are we going to
1:29:18
do? Gee whiz.
1:29:20
They're very different. They're all human.
1:29:23
Tom human that doesn't prove were related to mosquitoes.
1:29:29
I still don't think you were following the argument there.
1:29:33
Go ahead. You guys are making for a good
1:29:40
debate. So here we go.
1:29:41
I appreciate, good question, and good Super Chat and thank you
1:29:45
for the answer there. Dr. Holden.
1:29:46
So next one that comes in now we got one for you.
1:29:49
Tom. So good mix of questions.
1:29:52
It looks like at this point. So this one is from Landon
1:29:56
Freeman. So he asks venom has allegedly
1:30:00
evolved roughly 30 times independently that he's pointing
1:30:04
to convergent evolution. How can a goalless Mindless?
1:30:08
As like Evolution be so consistent, repeatedly
1:30:12
reintroduced reintroducing biological feature because it's
1:30:17
determined by the laws of physics.
1:30:18
So they come up with a similar patterns and so if, if the
1:30:20
environment it's beneficial in the environment, then it will
1:30:23
more likely evolved in something that's detrimental in the
1:30:25
environment. And so because it's determined
1:30:27
by physical patterns and structures, some things will
1:30:29
more likely evolved than others. And so we'll see patterns, like,
1:30:32
legs and lungs and eyes the, yes, those the things that are
1:30:36
beneficial to evolve more often Okay, thank you over to you, dr.
1:30:43
Over wishful thinking, I think the Venom and and the method to
1:30:47
inject it. Like, let's take a rattlesnake,
1:30:49
for example, the whole system of injecting the Venom that a
1:30:53
rattlesnake puts in, is a really complicated system.
1:30:56
It has heat sensing organs. That can see in the, it can
1:30:59
sense the Heat and the dark to find the prey bite.
1:31:01
It inject Venom, and has to constantly reproducing this new
1:31:05
Venom. So I think just this the Venom
1:31:07
production system, whether it's Sceeto or a wasp or a
1:31:11
rattlesnake or a black widow. Spider is mind-boggling and its
1:31:14
complexity. You'd almost think there was a
1:31:16
designer, if you hadn't gone to public school, And I think it
1:31:23
was for. Yeah, it was for you.
1:31:24
Tom you can have a quick final word.
1:31:26
That's fine. Okay, let's move on.
1:31:28
We got a ton of such as super chats coming in here guys.
1:31:30
So we're going to get through these last three and call it
1:31:35
their time is flying by. So this next one comes in from
1:31:39
swe and okay, we got it up on screen chat is wild.
1:31:44
I appreciate the Lively chat. OK, 10 dollars to chat, I
1:31:46
appreciate it from swe. This one is for you.
1:31:50
Dr. Joven. So she asks, what does can't
1:31:53
think about the fact that Studies have shown the
1:31:57
single-celled ancestors of animals likely already had some
1:32:02
of the mechanisms that animal cells use to develop into
1:32:08
different tissue types. Well, if I understand the
1:32:12
question correctly, the single-celled organism, let's
1:32:15
take it and call it an amoeba already had two mechanisms to
1:32:19
make an arm and an eye. A brain and a nervous system and
1:32:22
the skeletal system and a muscular system.
1:32:24
I completely disagree. I don't know where they went to
1:32:25
school, but over taught him that lied to him.
1:32:27
They should get their money back.
1:32:28
Amoeba are incredibly complicated, one amoebas more
1:32:32
complicated than the space shuttle.
1:32:34
One amoeba, and all they ever produced is maybe amoeba.
1:32:38
So if an amoeba has the DNA code, that happens to match some
1:32:41
of the DNA code in four different animals.
1:32:43
So that's the same designer. Neither one is actually provable
1:32:47
in a court of law. So why do we all pay for one
1:32:49
religion to be Taught, let's just ignore the subject teach
1:32:53
biology in Biology class. And forget, evolution is not
1:32:56
part of science is certainly not part of biology.
1:33:01
Thank you, their doctor, Dino and Tom you, if you want
1:33:05
anything to anything that go ahead.
1:33:10
Tom, I think you're on mute, sorry you muted me goddamn it
1:33:14
but I think that I don't think can answer the question like
1:33:17
last time, like I think he's just he hasn't really answered
1:33:20
the questions that people are asking is kind of like avoiding
1:33:22
them. I don't know, I don't get it.
1:33:25
Okay, over to you Kent for your last word on that.
1:33:30
No, that's fine. I think it's down my first c79
1:33:35
there. Now we've never seen an amoeba
1:33:37
producing an amoeba that's just it's nonsense.
1:33:40
It's non-scientist religious belief.
1:33:41
It's imagination. It's SpongeBob to believe it can
1:33:44
happen. That's fine.
1:33:46
And even if it did have, even if it's true, we couldn't prove it
1:33:48
scientifically. So it's outside the realm of
1:33:51
Science and the topic of the debate.
1:33:53
If you go back and read it, Tom is, where is the scientific
1:33:55
evidence for evolution? There isn't any none I win.
1:34:00
Let's go home. Okay, thank you guys.
1:34:03
Last two super chats here and anybody who brings in any more
1:34:08
Super chest. I apologize.
1:34:09
We do got to wrap this up at some point, so Canadian Catholic
1:34:12
$5 who try to, I appreciate it. This is a question for both.
1:34:15
So we'll get both your input in on this one.
1:34:17
Canadian. Catholic asks, do you think old
1:34:20
Earth creationism is a good bridge between evolution and
1:34:24
creation. Tom, we can start with you if
1:34:27
you'd like since Started with the last.
1:34:30
Sure I'd say. No I'd say it's mostly post hoc
1:34:32
reasoning. Where after the young Earth
1:34:34
creationist view, which is the predominant view in
1:34:36
Christianity, for a long time, got debunked by Evolution and
1:34:40
proven wrong the Christian worldview shifted to try and
1:34:43
make it fit, the scientific data, which happens a lot.
1:34:45
God of the gaps after many of the Christian things that have
1:34:48
been proven wrong over and over and over again.
1:34:50
They change their view to try and make it fit science, which
1:34:53
shows that science is better than the Bible.
1:34:55
And they tell us more about reality and religion.
1:34:57
Just Has to fit the science, not the other way around.
1:35:00
So I don't I mean it's better in the fact that it more
1:35:02
corresponds to things we know in reality but it's not a better
1:35:06
hypothesis because again it's just post hoc fitting the data
1:35:09
that science discovered Okay, over to you.
1:35:13
Dr. Dino for your response? Well, he is dreaming when he
1:35:16
says it got debunked, so they tried to change a new Theory.
1:35:18
I've never changed mine from the God never changed it from very
1:35:20
beginning. He said, he made it all in six
1:35:23
days. Jesus said, the creation of Adam
1:35:25
was the beginning Bible says, nothing died.
1:35:27
Till man, sinned. God made a perfect world and
1:35:29
man, messed it up and someday God is going to fix it back.
1:35:32
Like it used to be and I'm looking forward to that, but no,
1:35:35
there's never that has never been debunked.
1:35:38
So there's no reason to try to compromise this dumb Evolution
1:35:40
Theory. With the common sense, obvious
1:35:43
evidence. Somebody had to create this.
1:35:46
Adding billions of years is not going to help Jesus said the
1:35:49
creation of Adam was there beginning, Catholics are
1:35:52
teaching. There might be a gap, it might
1:35:53
be millions of years in there, well, then they're calling Jesus
1:35:55
a liar. He said that was the beginning,
1:35:58
the Ten Commandments Exodus 20, God wrote it, on the rock, with
1:36:01
his finger. In six days, the Lord made
1:36:03
Heaven and Earth. They're calling God, a liar.
1:36:06
I completely disagree. There's no reason to try to
1:36:09
compromise at all, 6,000. Years is a long time.
1:36:12
Plenty to put everything in that happened in the world,
1:36:15
especially when you include a big flood to make all the
1:36:17
fossils and all the layers and all the Canyons one giant flood.
1:36:21
The Bible says the scoffers in the last days would be ignorant
1:36:24
of the creation. And the flood.
1:36:26
We got demonstrated here tonight.
1:36:28
Live on screen. Go ahead.
1:36:30
Thank you for the response. Can't and Tom last Super Chat
1:36:34
for the night that I can get to. Here.
1:36:36
Comes in from Logan, misiek $10. I appreciate the support and
1:36:40
this one is for UT job. So I've got it up on screen and
1:36:44
we can read it together here. So he asks, if I kill a deer am
1:36:48
I killing my family member because we have some similar.
1:36:51
DNA are humans. Bananas.
1:36:54
What is your state? Well I guess there's a few
1:36:55
questions in there, you know they take your time choose,
1:36:58
whatever you'd like to respond to their Tom.
1:37:01
Sure deers are related to humans in that they came from a common
1:37:05
ancestor. They are just very distantly
1:37:07
related. Humans are related to ban as
1:37:09
they are not literally bananas in the Except if you ask Ray
1:37:11
Comfort, what is your standard of Truth?
1:37:13
My standard of Truth is Justified.
1:37:15
True belief and novel testable. Predictions is how I know right
1:37:18
from wrong. I assume he means correct.
1:37:20
True faction. False facts are he means moral
1:37:22
facts. I believe there is an objective
1:37:23
morality. I think it's the best of all
1:37:25
possible, worlds, and it's defined as a world where it's
1:37:28
impossible to force anyone to do anything.
1:37:30
They don't consent to doing. That, is a morally better world
1:37:33
than anything. In any religious texts,
1:37:35
especially the German babies in the city.
1:37:36
Bears to kill killed kids for making fun of all guy.
1:37:39
Like, clearly my models better than the The god of the Old
1:37:41
Testament, okay? Over to you Kent if there's
1:37:46
anything you'd like to add to it.
1:37:48
Well, I caught about a third of that have to go back and listen
1:37:51
carefully. If I kill the deer my killing my
1:37:53
family member. Absolutely not.
1:37:55
It's okay up on our deer feeder we've got to sign this corn.
1:37:58
Is for squirrels, any deer caught in this corn will be
1:38:01
shot. Yeah, we do have some similar
1:38:05
DNA. We got a common ancestral
1:38:07
humans. Bananas.
1:38:08
No. Okay, not at all.
1:38:10
What's your standard The truth. I have a standard.
1:38:12
I have a tape measure to measure what I'm going to do carpenter
1:38:14
work, I have a standard of inches, I can measure things or
1:38:17
feet. I've got a standard for right
1:38:19
and wrong. There are standards of weight.
1:38:21
There are standards of speed. There are all kinds of standards
1:38:23
we use in science. Evolution doesn't have a
1:38:26
standard. How do you tell right from
1:38:27
wrong? Great question.
1:38:29
I think the Creator who created this world gave us the standard
1:38:33
to judge things. By, is it wrong to kill another
1:38:36
human? Absolutely.
1:38:37
Is it wrong to ever depends on the situation?
1:38:39
I mean, if they're attacking you or Trying to kill you or for
1:38:42
certain crimes, but generally it's wrong.
1:38:45
Is it wrong to kill the deer and eat it?
1:38:46
No, they taste. Great go for it.
1:38:50
Okay, thank you for the response.
1:38:51
Can't and quick final word from you at all.
1:38:54
T, jump I'm good. All right, well, there we go, I
1:38:57
appreciate all the great questions and super chats that
1:38:59
have come in time. Flies by this was definitely a
1:39:04
debate to remember, it was a much-anticipated debate and it
1:39:07
was worth the wait. So a logical plausible, probable
1:39:09
sends in a Super Chat. He says late night after show.
1:39:11
I guess he could not resist. He was supposed to take the
1:39:14
night off but this debate was too much fun.
1:39:16
So he is having an after show. He says, look for links.
1:39:19
In the chat. Tom dr.
1:39:21
Hogan thank you so much for giving us your time for tonight.
1:39:24
Let's have some final words. Final thoughts before we shut it
1:39:27
down. T jump again, thank you so much.
1:39:29
Final words, thanks Donnie for hosting, the briefing is always.
1:39:32
Thank you can't for showing up. Appreciate the conversation, was
1:39:35
really entertaining talking to both of you guys as always,
1:39:37
thanks for hosting the show. I appreciate always the engaging
1:39:40
conversations and debates between, creationists and
1:39:42
evolutionists. It's a good thing to have
1:39:45
dialogue, even if we disagree. And so, I appreciate it.
1:39:48
As always. Thank you, I appreciate that
1:39:51
Tom, and can't thank you as well for doing this and engaging in
1:39:54
so many debates lately. As we have this Evolution debate
1:39:57
challenge, final thoughts, final words.
1:40:00
Well, thank you, I enjoy doing it.
1:40:01
Bring a model, take them all on same time.
1:40:03
Okay, I believe in the beginning, God created the
1:40:05
Heaven and the earth. I believe that's the only
1:40:07
logical answer. We can come up with somebody had
1:40:09
to design it. If I'm walking through the woods
1:40:11
and find an arrowhead, I have to conclude somebody made it.
1:40:14
I might not know who but I think somebody made it doesn't happen
1:40:17
naturally. I think the evidence is
1:40:19
overwhelming Whelming, there's a God.
1:40:21
Some people don't want to see they so badly.
1:40:23
Don't want to see it. They will instead believe wild
1:40:26
ideas like they're related to an Apple.
1:40:28
Okay, I don't think that'll go well for your judgment day.
1:40:31
Will see Tom come visit dinosaur adventure and I'll give you the
1:40:34
tour. Yeah, we should do a live debate
1:40:36
at your place. Sometime, they'll be awesome in
1:40:38
person to make. I didn't understand a word of
1:40:41
that one stage. We should do it on stage.
1:40:46
Come on, you're invited. The next debate could be live
1:40:49
and in person and even more fun than tonight.
1:40:52
So again, can t jump, thanks for a wild debate.
1:40:55
A fun debate will let you guys get out of here, blessings to
1:40:59
the chats. Thank you for tuning in and
1:41:01
saying, for Truth is Out.