Post Debate: Is Evolution Scientifically Possible

Apologetics Live iconApologetics Live

3 views

Dr. Silvestro will join Andrew to talk about his debate on the tropic, is Evolution scientifically possible.

0 comments

00:03
This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host, from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rapoport.
00:17
Alright, well welcome to a special bonus edition of Apologetics Live. This is the post -debate discussion for folks who have not listened to or watched the debate with Dr.
00:30
Anthony Silvestro and Patrick Dennis that was held on Apologetics Live.
00:36
Go back and listen, watch that. It'll make more sense what we discuss now. But we've given the links for folks to come in.
00:43
I'm bringing Dr. Silvestro in first so folks can come in. We'll go for an hour or so discussing the debate and what people thought.
00:51
There were a lot, a lot of comments. And so if folks want the link to participate, we'll find where Mr.
01:01
Watkins is at. He wants to join us. That's actually a dangerous thing. We probably shouldn't let him in. Alright, so what
01:07
I did ask you offline is, that seemed a little bit painful. You know, he didn't seem like he wanted to answer questions.
01:22
Really, he avoided the topic. I mean, the topic was, is evolution scientifically possible?
01:29
And all he showed was pictures. I mean, he talked about common traits among animals.
01:41
Yeah, it was frustrating a lot to me.
01:47
But I mean, it's what it is. I know you don't do this, but I write my...
01:55
So somebody made a comment about, it sounds like I'm a seasoned debater. I'm not. This is my second formal debate.
02:00
I had one about two months, three months ago, something like that. I prepare, though, for things.
02:08
You know, so I wrote out my opening 10 minutes. I wrote out about 10 of the 15 minutes for the rebuttal.
02:16
Because, you know, you have to assume what's going to be said in a rebuttal in any debate, right?
02:21
You have to know what the opponents are going to say. And so I knew what was going to come. And so I had that in my rebuttal.
02:28
I took a lot of notes during his opening so that I had other stuff, other points that I could bring up at will.
02:36
I could only touch on a few of them, but I was able to do that. And I actually write a good part of my closing.
02:43
Having said that, if you ask me how much of my closing I actually read, it was probably only 20 to 25 % of it.
02:50
Because there were other things I wanted to address. And a lot of the closing is just reiterating the stuff from the opening.
02:57
And the content. But it just goes to show, Andrew, and those that are listening, this is a fundamental problem.
03:05
And this is why we need to be able to teach the youth.
03:10
We need to teach adults and everybody in between how to defend the
03:15
Christian faith. And evolution, as you see, I mean, guys who are evolutionists, this guy has his master's degree in biology, right?
03:25
Master's degree. He's got really some, what looks to be pretty good research into cancer therapy.
03:32
So he's got to know some things. And yet evolution is taught at such a, what they would call high level, because they use fancy terms and all kinds of stuff.
03:43
They speak very eloquently. Way up here. But once you ask some probing questions, like they just don't know what to do.
03:52
Yeah, I mean, I think that when it comes to a debate, he never really addressed the main topic.
03:59
I think that one of the things, and I believe we'll find out if it was Chris who's coming, who'll come in soon.
04:05
I think someone had mentioned in the comments, it seems like he just had a presentation. And he just wanted to go through it.
04:12
It didn't seem like he was really prepared. One of the things that for folks who don't know, some of that happened before we went live, right?
04:20
We went through the different rules and how we're going to run the debate. He was unaware with how rebuttals work, closing arguments work.
04:31
It seemed he's unfamiliar with debates. So I'm going to assume that was his first debate. We talked about whether he was going to use his slides, and he said he would only use it for the opening.
04:45
But then during the rebuttal, he never actually did a rebuttal. He never rebutted anything you actually said.
04:51
He just went back to his slides. His closing, he didn't close out any of his arguments. He just went back to his slides.
04:57
And I think it was Chris who just said it looks like he had a presentation that he wanted to do and not really a debate.
05:04
He really wasn't addressing the things that you said. It was kind of funny because before we went live,
05:11
I was trying to get from him. He mentioned the paper that he wrote. He would not even admit to that.
05:18
I mean, I couldn't get a direct, like, did you write this? So I just tend to think that he was maybe just so worried about getting trapped that he wouldn't answer anything directly.
05:30
Or he just really doesn't. I'd hate to say he doesn't know what he's talking about, but he presents that about him that he can't answer directly.
05:45
Even simple things. You even said this is a yes or no. And then he literally ran two minutes and never answering the question.
05:52
He never answered it. You asked him. Yeah. I was thankful he answered some things later.
06:01
In the DNA, right? I mean, and this was very telling to me, right?
06:06
We talked about a computer code. He said absolutely had to be designed by humans. Then would you agree that DNA is much more complex than a computer code?
06:16
Yes, he agreed. Okay. So wouldn't it follow logically that there must have been a designer, intelligent designer for DNA?
06:24
No. Why not? And again, no mechanism, no explanation.
06:31
Here are some things I picked up on. First off, his opening. He redefined macroevolution.
06:39
Yep. And he did that, I think. Huh? Yeah, majorly. I've never heard it defined that way before.
06:46
Now, the interesting thing is most evolutionists claim that macroevolution is a
06:52
Christian term, is a creationist term. And they're right, because it really is.
06:57
The creationists who use the term micro and macro, as you and I have discussed plenty of times, the general science community would refer to special and general, which is why
07:07
I tend to use those terms. But he gave in on that. He redefines that.
07:13
And then he goes to try to get people that deny the deity of Christ to say, look, they're
07:18
Christian. Well, then I guess evolution must be wrong because you were an evolutionist.
07:25
And look, you agree that it's wrong. I mean, there was a lot of him, and there was a lot of the comments
07:31
I saw as people were commenting, where he's not giving the evidence.
07:36
He's just saying, because the debate wasn't about what other people believe. He was addressing what Ken Ham said.
07:42
He wasn't addressing what you said. And that's where I think there was a fundamental breakdown.
07:48
I think that he understands the, I think,
07:53
Christian lingo, and he's trying to seem like he can fit in that and debate from there.
07:59
But the problem is he was redefining terms. He was using logical fallacies and not actually answering the issue of the debate.
08:13
Where was the evidence? That's what was missing. Yeah. Nor would he answer anything that I had in my opening statement.
08:20
He didn't answer most of the questions he didn't actually answer. And I know you have the rule in place that we could say, hey, you didn't answer my question, but I don't want to keep wasting time on him just rambling.
08:34
You asked the same question twice. What's that? There's one time where you asked the same question twice. You asked a question he didn't answer for two minutes, and you just said, look, this is a yes or no.
08:44
Right. Early on for two minutes. I don't think he was running the clock.
08:50
I just don't know who's doing that. I just don't think either. He didn't want to answer.
08:56
I thought at the end, it was really funny because he wants to say, well, we have to define what a living fossil is.
09:04
And that wasn't even the question. He picked up on the term living fossils. The reality is the question was, look, this is sun that supposedly went extinct and suddenly we find it again.
09:17
And it looks the same. He goes, well, we wouldn't know how to do it unless we found a fossil today.
09:24
We don't need a fossil. The fossil gives us the bone structure. We can look at the same bone structure.
09:30
And guess what? It's the same. Yeah. Yeah, I know. Yeah. Well, yeah, it was it was interesting.
09:41
You know, I feel bad for him, though, because, again, I remember my own time as an evolutionist years ago.
09:47
And literally, I mean, you're you're taught this high level thing. Right. And you're never questioned about it.
09:54
So you're just you're just fed facts and you never critically think about evolution and mechanisms and everything else.
10:02
I feel like I was so stupid all those years, you know, getting my straight A's and taught classes.
10:08
And yet, yeah, I didn't know to ask a probing question on this stuff.
10:13
You just buy into it. Yeah. And Chris has a point here. He's saying most of his time was spent moving the goalposts.
10:22
And it was a lot of that. Yeah. You know,
10:28
Humble Clay said 50 percent of the last two hours was wasted time. I hope that wasn't the time you were talking.
10:35
It was fine. We'll have to get a Humble Clay in here at some point.
10:40
But let me bring Thomas in. He was the first one in. It looks like he's eating a banana. I don't know why he's always angry at bananas.
10:47
Every time I see him, I see him angry at a banana. Maybe he's just really angry with Ray Comfort. I'm not angry at a banana.
10:54
Ray's the banana man. How are you doing, Tom? How are you guys doing?
11:04
Internet is not great at all. Neither is
11:09
Anthony's, so it's okay. Yeah, I think mine's worse than Anthony's. That's why you're off camera, huh?
11:17
Exactly. Exactly. All right. What were your thoughts of the debate? I think everyone's pretty much said it.
11:24
He came in and he seemed very, very unprepared to debate. He just wanted to make a presentation.
11:30
I thought Anthony was very well spoken. He made his case. And I know what the guy thought he was coming here for a straight science debate.
11:41
And I thought that you did very well, Anthony, with presenting the gospel in the beginning and then bringing it back home to that.
11:48
So good job with that. Amen to everything you said. Hey, so we do have a question from a friend of ours here,
11:57
Anthony. He has a question. Who's your favorite message
12:03
Bible -only advocate? Of course, it's Donnie Jacks. Wow. So you're saying that you prefer
12:09
Donnie Jacks over Cody, the founder of the message -only -ism? I thought
12:15
Donnie was the founder of that group. No, I think Donnie's just more vocal. Donnie got accused of it, and he said he was somewhere.
12:25
That's the case. It's Cody. Yeah. Cody now has a follow -up. He says, where is it?
12:32
Follow -up, do you guys believe babies exist? That may cause us to have to play that clip.
12:40
Rearrange pond scum is what happened. Yeah, we'll have to see. We'll save that for the end. And if not, we'll close out with that.
12:47
So, Thomas, any questions from the debate that you have for Anthony?
12:54
Where did all his hair go, or anything serious? Tom has seen the evolution.
13:02
I've known Anthony long enough. I know where his hair went. Years of softball losers.
13:11
Yeah, we had some bad teams over the years, didn't we? You were pulling all your hair out? You know,
13:21
Tom, he brings up something interesting. You know, science, right? You know,
13:28
I went with a half science, half presuppositional argument in here.
13:35
Obviously, as a presuppositionalist, I believe my entire argument is presuppositional. However, I also want to show why my worldview is the correct worldview and how science actually comports with what we believe with the
13:49
Bible. I think the part that was disturbing to me is,
13:54
I didn't really hear any science come from Patrick. Yeah, there just wasn't.
14:01
That was the thing that was, I think, overall that people saw. It's funny because you give one quote, and he calls that quote mining.
14:10
And then he's trying to support his whole argument on what others say.
14:17
And it was just a very interesting how it seemed like his argument was, there's enough of us who believe this.
14:25
You should too. But it wasn't quote mining anyway. I mean, I took it the way he said it.
14:32
I don't disagree with Patrick in his assessment that there's more words after it. Well, of course there was. My only point in bringing this up is that 160 years later, guess what?
14:42
We still have the problem of no transitional fossils. I mean, this is actually one of the correct things that was said by Charles Darwin in his book.
14:54
So, yeah, it was interesting, but it wasn't a mine quote at all. And I think that came out right afterwards as I had it in the right context.
15:04
Yeah. James dropped out. Naughty James. Well, it's not like he got out of work.
15:11
Yeah. I brought Chris in. Yeah, James is just like he's just got to sit home with coronavirus.
15:18
Actually, James had asked this question over and over again, and we didn't have time for questions. But he basically was asking,
15:24
Chris, you got corona there? Will you stop that? I saw you earlier when you were in the backstage like coughing away.
15:33
The thing James Watkins kept asking was, you know, why has he got an issue with coronavirus?
15:41
I mean, from an evolutionary position, hey, it's killing off those who are older, those who are weaker.
15:50
It doesn't seem to affect the young. It doesn't seem to affect, you know, it does seem to affect more men than women, by the way.
16:00
There's different arguments. It was very interesting. I read one article from a woman trying to say that women were, they were using that to say that women are more superior to men when it comes to survival.
16:13
But the actual studies show that it has to do with obesity. Why more men?
16:21
It's one of the factors they're finding is people that are outside of these different age category, and that is obesity.
16:28
Obesity is one of the big factors. So, you know, I mean, with that,
16:33
Anthony, you know, it is time for you to get in shape. I'm just saying. So are you saying that for every five pounds you lose, your coronavirus infectious rate goes down like 20 %?
16:45
I was talking with Mike Riddle today, and there was one thing he did ask me. Yeah.
16:51
He wanted me to make sure that I help you get into shape. That was his words. I'm sorry.
16:56
You know, and I keep pointing out to Mike that he lost to a girl in the
17:02
Olympics. I did bring that up to him. I did bring that up to him. I said, but the issue is, for those of you who don't know,
17:09
Mike is an Olympic caliber decathlete who lost to Bruce Jenner back in the day.
17:17
So he lost to a girl. You know, I've never lost to a woman before in anything.
17:23
He goes, that girl had a lot more hair back then. So, Chris, you were like the commenting phenom there.
17:35
You know, I think this is the hard thing when you're especially moderating a debate. I can't say anything.
17:42
You know, and I'll be honest. I mean, yeah. And thank you. Because it's the thing that kept my attention was watching the different comments coming up on the bottom of the screen throughout the debate.
17:55
So, thank you, Chris. They were excellent. Could you both see the comments? What's that,
18:01
Tom? What's that? I think Tom was saying something. Could you both see the comments as you were debating?
18:09
Oh, maybe not. He didn't talk. Oh, yeah. Well, I don't know if he could.
18:16
I did tell both of them that I would be putting comments up, that they should, you know, it'll be whatever the comments are, not to worry about trying to answer any questions from the comments because I'll put those at the end.
18:28
But I didn't want that to be a distraction for either one of them. They were where the comments would be up, but he also was struggling with his computers between his slides, his notes, and being able to see his screen.
18:42
So, I don't know if he saw the comments. Okay. Just curious because it was kind of brutal in there for a bit.
18:50
I was only seeing some of them that were popping up. I mean, I don't know if Andrew has to select them or not.
18:55
I don't know how that works. Yeah, it works. I have to silence how the ones are selected. I'd like to go back and read them all.
19:01
Well, I try to put most of the comments. When we do a debate, I try to put most of the comments, whether good or bad, like for both sides, you know, except for ones that have nothing to do because sometimes people in the chat start having their own debates.
19:15
So, if it has to do with the debate going on, then I just try to show them and give time for people to read them before moving on.
19:22
This was one of these ones where it was like clicking a whole lot of them. So, Chris, what were your thoughts?
19:33
First off, Anthony, I think you did a fantastic job. You made a consistent argument that actually addressed the actual question.
19:45
You actually tried to point out the issues. You actually tried to ask questions that would address whether or not evolution has a scientific basis, whether it can actually be demonstrated, etc.
19:59
And that was, I think, one of the – that was probably one of the best things to watch in all of this because one of the observations
20:07
I made is I don't think Patrick had any expectation that his comments and his assertions would actually be challenged.
20:14
And when he was actually cross -examining you, you could tell he didn't expect you to actually have intelligent answers.
20:24
It fumbled him completely. And there were times when it was like, well, did you know this?
20:29
And you're like, yeah, and you give it an explanation, and you can tell he's like, I wasn't ready for that. So I was very impressed.
20:37
I think that was great because it helps Christians to recognize we do have answers.
20:42
We don't have to be afraid of the big bad evolutionists who think that they're the big brains.
20:48
And so that was fantastic, and I appreciated that. My overall observation of the debate was that Patrick, and you were right,
20:56
Andrew. I think I was one of a couple of people that made the observation. He had a script of sorts.
21:02
I think he's used to giving presentations, and he's not used to having to be in a position where he's having to prove his assertion.
21:12
He's either lecturing, and so the students have to take the notes to get the grade, or he's talking to people that agree with him.
21:21
And so now Anthony is asking him specific questions, and he's like, well,
21:26
I don't really have an answer for that. So let me go into the weeds over here and move the goalposts this way and that way so that I don't – because now
21:33
I can say that fish and man are the same thing. It's like what? So it was really interesting to watch.
21:42
I felt bad for him. I know the frustration – part of his frustration was from the internet connections.
21:47
That will drive anybody batty, so I didn't feel – I didn't feel bad for the guy. But I really believe listening to voice and radio, and you understand how the internet can drive you guys batty.
22:00
Ever since I switched away from AT &T – did I say that? I haven't had any problems.
22:10
But yeah, it's – I can understand the frustration that that presents. But clearly you can see there's a point where he wants to obfuscate the issue.
22:21
You can't give a clear answer because a clear answer is condemning. It destroys his argument if he says, no,
22:27
I've never – there's never been an observation of an ape -like creature going to a man. And Anthony, you made that clear.
22:34
You didn't say this specific monkey to this type of man. You said ape -like creature to a man. Oh, well, they're all from the same thing, and they're this and they're that.
22:44
You were making it clear enough that there were – he knew what the question was.
22:50
So he couldn't answer that question. So he had to redefine it and say, well, I don't know where you're getting kinds from.
22:57
Well, yes, you do. You know exactly where because you gave him the example, and he had to obfuscate it multiple times in order to not answer the question.
23:06
Yeah. No, you're right. I mean he showed multiple pictures. He clearly knew what a biblical kind was.
23:12
And what he did is he used that definition for macroevolution.
23:18
I don't know if you guys noticed that. I mean we're like – Yeah. Yeah. I mean he actually supports our argument better than he supports his by using that definition.
23:30
I've never heard an evolutionist use that as a definition before for macroevolution. So it was interesting.
23:38
I thought the most interesting part of that was he's talking about Ken Ham's pictures, and he's talking about the various ceratops.
23:46
And then he says, we know these are all different species. And every time I've heard an evolutionist refer to the species, they're talking about types that cannot breed together if I understand it correctly.
23:58
And so how do you know that? You've got bones. How do you know what the internal structures are? How do you know whether they could reproduce with one another?
24:05
How do you have any clue whether or not they were different species? All you have are bones that you assume that all the colors and all the skin stuff that we put on them in the pictures is accurate.
24:18
And I thought that was rather interesting. And then he says, so every creationist believes in macroevolution because we believe in this.
24:26
And it's like that is not at all what we believe, and I have no idea where you got that from. Yeah. So thank you for bringing that up,
24:32
Chris, because you're right. That is something I had written down in my notes. But you only have so much time to ask questions.
24:40
And I gave what I thought were clear, concise questions that would give me back clear, concise answers.
24:49
I could only get through a fraction of the questions I wanted to. That was one of them, was to tag him on the triceratops or the ceratopsia thing, because you're right.
24:58
How do you know? You've got a pile of bones. How do you know? So you said it very eloquently there.
25:04
I don't need to repeat it for the audience. But you're right on the money with that.
25:11
So there were a lot of things that could have been talked about and just run out of time.
25:17
Well, for folks who don't know when you do debates, and this is the hard thing about debates, is one, you got to stay on topic.
25:25
All right. If it really doesn't matter whether or not we were talking about this,
25:32
Mike Rodell and I today with the debate with Ken Ham. I actually think Ken Ham nailed the
25:37
Bill Nye debate after the debate. He did a video after the debate where he went completely pre -sub, and he had
25:45
Bill Nye on the rope several times, but it wasn't a knockout punch. He did the knockout punch after when no one saw it except his own audience.
25:54
So the issue is I think he fell short in that debate. Why? Because the way he chose to debate it, instead of going pre -sub, he argued too much evidential.
26:06
And Bill Nye just threw out statements that later they fact -checked and found were wrong.
26:14
But see, that's after the debate. The debate, he actually, you could argue he could have won the debate in some people's minds because he threw out this, this, this, this.
26:24
And it's only until you fact -check it that you can be able to make that case.
26:31
And that's the thing. With a debate, you have to stay on topic. He never even got to the topic. Some of the people said that there was that train.
26:39
That train was coming to run him over. It just, he never got to the topic.
26:45
Someone said, mic up the dog and have him hit the train. It would have been a better debate.
26:53
I was like, wow, that hurts. That's mean. But, you know, that's the thing.
27:00
So you have the case that he wasn't prepared for a debate or he doesn't know how to prepare for a debate.
27:06
He never got to his topic, one. Two, he didn't use his time for what it was meant for.
27:15
He basically used the opening, the rebuttal, and the closing for his opening.
27:24
And nowhere in there did he actually address the topic of debate. And so for that reason, he lost.
27:33
Now, Hunter Bailey's asking a question here for you. Oop, wrong one.
27:38
Let's see. Here it is. How do you debunk chromosome two, human chromosome two?
27:46
So that's a question for you, Chris. Not my field, dude.
27:55
There's way too much information and it's way too detailed for us to talk about here.
28:03
I will tell you there are some wonderful articles. Georgia Purdom, the staff
28:08
HD geneticist for Answers in Genesis, has some articles on this. I would encourage you to read.
28:16
Having said that, notice in today's debate, I don't have to answer anything that is complicated.
28:24
When you answer a complicated question regarding evolution, you will fall into the trap of having to explain a lot of stuff over a really minute detail.
28:37
Instead, when we go after an evolutionist, we have to go after exactly what we did today, the mechanism.
28:43
What is the mechanism? Show me how this can possibly work. Because the reality is you don't have a mechanism.
28:50
You don't have a way that this could possibly work. So I don't have to worry about specific genes on chromosomes.
28:57
I don't have to explain the issues of where they believe a fusion occurred between, you know, as a difference between the chimpanzee genome and a human genome.
29:09
I don't have to worry about any of that stuff. I have to worry about the actual mechanism to begin with. Yeah. And someone was saying, you know, they're purposely vague.
29:19
They can't be specific with it. And this is the thing. When he contacted me and said he wants to debate.
29:28
Okay. Then you're going to take the pro in a debate. You did not have to disprove every point he made.
29:35
You only had to prove that it is scientifically impossible, which you did just when you laid out.
29:45
Here's what statistical impossibility. You said 10 to the 50th power. It's 10 to the 48th.
29:50
But depending on what you read. Yeah. It's easier to say 10 to the 50th.
29:56
But the point is, here you gave the stats. Probability wise, we're talking impossibility.
30:04
That is a statistical term. And so what you do, you gave the statistics.
30:11
Here you go. It's impossible. He never even tried to address that.
30:17
And yet that was the purpose of what he had to do. And Chris is right here.
30:22
Chris is here, and yet he's typing these things. I didn't want to interrupt.
30:29
You were saying such nice things. Patrick had the burden of proof in the debate on the matter. He failed. Okay. You want to say that,
30:35
Chris? I think you said it for me. No. I was watching the chat room.
30:42
No. That's the thing. He's coming in. As you said, he's pro evolution is scientific.
30:48
So if you're going to make that claim in a debate, you have to make that burden of proof. It's not the burden of proof on the person on the opposite end.
30:57
All they have to be able to do is question and demonstrate that your assertions and your presuppositions are incorrect.
31:05
If you're taking the pro side, the burden of proof lies upon you. You're going to say this is what happened.
31:12
You have to be able to demonstrate how that's the case. And Anthony's questions were very consistent. What is the mechanism?
31:18
How did that happen? Where does the information come from? And at no time would he ever answer that question because you don't have an answer.
31:26
There's no way to go back in time. Anthony, thank you for pointing out historical versus regular science.
31:33
You have to be able to go back in time to show where that happens. And Patrick knew that.
31:40
He knew there was no way that he could answer that question. So now he has to change what information is.
31:46
Now he has to change what kinds are. And when you do that, you just give up the debate.
31:52
You're not making a case. You're simply making assertions. And then you're throwing up dust in hopes that nobody noticed you didn't have an answer.
32:01
Yeah, which is consistent with really every evolutionist I've ever talked to. You know,
32:08
I'll never forget. I don't think I put this in my book. I intended to. But when
32:14
I was in the final edits of it, we were doing repentant witness up in New York City. And we were witnessing outside of Washington Square, outside of NYU, the one afternoon.
32:26
And there was a guy when I was up on the box and I'm preaching against evolution and, you know, preaching for God and his design.
32:34
This guy was standing, you know, in a circle and just shaking his head the whole time, head down, shaking the whole time.
32:40
So after five, six more minutes passes of him doing this, I get down, next guy gets up.
32:46
So believe it or not, I do get down off a box on occasion, as long as it's not Andrew that follows me. If it's Andrew that follows me,
32:51
I never get down. Everybody tries to keep Andrew from talking.
32:58
We try. So I go and I talk to this gentleman. Turns out he was finishing up his research for his dissertation, about to get his
33:08
Ph .D. in evolutionary genetics. And he was finishing his research at NYU's hospital.
33:17
Guy's a genius. I mean, we had a great time talking for a few minutes. But I asked him the same question that I asked today.
33:23
It's like, what is the mechanism? And he said, OK, well, it's through mutation. I said, of course it's through mutation. But it's not just any mutation, right?
33:31
As you guys heard me say multiple times tonight, it has to be mutations that increase functional genetic information over time.
33:37
To go from a single, simple cell to all the complex organisms and life we see today, you need to add information and boatloads of it to the genome.
33:44
So I asked him, how many mutations have ever been discovered that have increased functional genetic information over time?
33:51
And what does he tell me? Point blank. He goes, none. And I go, then why do you still believe this?
33:58
And he says, I believe we'll find the answer one day. Find some of the gaps. You know, it's what it is.
34:05
Hey, so I just added Mr. James Walkins. Oh, I'm glad you're back, James. Mr. Coronavirus, dude.
34:12
That's the first time I've heard anybody call me. He actually has the corona, not me. Well, he doesn't have it either.
34:20
He was just tested and told. Didn't you say he came back and they changed their...
34:27
I don't think he's been keeping up. That Friday after we recorded on Apologetics Live, they called me and said that I'm actually positive for it after all.
34:37
Oh, really? Okay. Well, then you mean I actually have to pray for you now? Yeah.
34:43
Yeah. I mean, but praise God, though. My symptoms are, you know, other than having a little bit of head congestion and a little bit of a sore throat, my symptoms are pretty much done with.
34:56
Oh, praise God. So are you having... I mean, this doesn't do it to debate, but this goes back to what we talked about last week.
35:06
So are you having like Tim is, where you have a nurse that calls you every day to check on the symptoms and all?
35:12
They're not calling me every day. They called me yesterday to check on me, and I guess because my symptoms are starting to subside, they're not following up as frequently.
35:24
I think Tim kind of maybe had a little bit of a rougher case than I did. So they haven't been following up with me as frequently, but they have called just to make sure that I'm staying quarantined, to make sure that my breathing and all was still good.
35:43
Hey, I know you're supposed to be quarantined and all, but you wouldn't mind going over and visiting
35:48
Frank, would you? Not at all. Actually, the last time, back after Christmas, two of Frank's girls come up here and stayed with us for a few days, and I got strep throat, and I sent them back to Georgia, and they got it.
36:03
So if they wanted to come up here now, I could send them back with a better gift than I did around Christmas.
36:14
Oh, man. All right. So what were your thoughts about the debate?
36:22
Well, number one, there was just no preparation. It didn't seem like on his part. I just kind of felt like he didn't answer any of the basic questions associated with his position.
36:36
And number two, I understand that he does some cancer research. Is that correct?
36:41
That's what he claims. Yeah. So, I mean, my question to him is based off of that is, why is he doing research on this?
36:51
I mean, cancer is just doing exactly what it's supposed to do and weeding out the weak. And, you know, multiple times during the debate, you got a glimpse of his truth suppression.
37:02
I noticed that he said, good Lord, a couple of times. And, you know, it's never good
37:08
Allah or good Buddha. It's always good Lord. No matter what region of the world that you're in, it's always the
37:16
God of the Bible that's blasphemed. That's a phrase
37:21
I couldn't come up with. I knew he said something like that. Yeah. Yeah. But I'm glad that the gospel was presented to him.
37:30
I think that probably was most important of the debate was getting that relayed to him.
37:39
And that was in the beginning and at the end. Yes. It was funny because someone who, I guess, came in late, she commented,
37:50
I think it was Jess, was like, okay, now time for the gospel. And someone was like, he already did that, but I think he's going to do it again.
37:59
Well, you know, my fear is, look, I know how powerful, the powerful arguments we have as creationists.
38:08
When we understand it properly, we're right.
38:13
My fear is, I don't want to see somebody drop out. I don't want to save the gospel for the end, have somebody drop out of a debate and never get it.
38:22
So that's why I like to front load with the gospel and then also give it again at the end to make sure that it was clearly presented to them.
38:36
But we did have Vincent in here for a second, trying to, he was having some trouble trying to get him to come back in again.
38:46
So, so anything else that you had, James, from the debate? No, that was pretty much it.
38:52
I thought Anthony was very articulate and actually followed the protocols of a debate.
38:59
Didn't give a presentation. Yeah. You know, it's good when you get someone to debate like that.
39:07
You don't have to be a good debater to look like an outstanding debater. I remember doing the one,
39:14
I mean, this guy didn't make you look as good as the guy I had on Marlon's show.
39:20
Right. I mean, that guy was so bad that I actually looked like I was a good debater in that one.
39:27
But it really was only because he was so bad. This guy was a little bit better, but kind of equivalent there.
39:37
You know, and that's the thing sometimes you don't know. I would be curious to find out in the group where he got into, did he answer the questions?
39:51
From my understanding, I'm an admin in the group, obviously, but I'm not the one who does most of the work in it.
39:59
It's usually Brad Worley does it. Let me go into a group.
40:05
But from my understanding is he Brad does not allow anybody in unless they've answered those questions or he'll ask me first.
40:14
If you know, if somebody doesn't. So the question is, is this is not a debate group. Are you a young earth creationist or at least seeking to be one?
40:23
Right. And so unless we get a yes answer, we don't automatically approve them. If they say maybe we may text, we may
40:30
Facebook message them to ask additional questions. So there's no way he'd have been let in if he if he just said no.
40:38
And and he would have been followed up with had he had he said maybe. Well, Patrick, just, you know, it was funny, by the way, that he kept he kept saying he kept referring to you with my name.
40:51
I was confused at that. I know he was like in a Facebook group. And I'm like, no, he just sent me a message.
40:59
And I don't know if I asked him if this is meant for you, but he just he just said he sent me a
41:05
Facebook message. It says examples of macro evolution, a species that splits into two or a species that changes changes into another species over a given time are examples of macro evolution.
41:23
These changes can be the result of species, species selection, independent evolution, parentheses, also called variation on parentheses, historical constraints or developmental constraints.
41:40
But here's the problem I have with the definition he just gave. It's now fundamentally no different than micro evolution.
41:48
He's exactly what he's just said, right? What he just did in that definition is say that any change. Is both micro and macro, which makes the, you know, basically makes the whole, you know, specification of the definition mute.
42:08
Well, that's, that's the bait and switch that I talk about in my book, right? That they, that evolutionists will say the word evolution.
42:18
They intended to mean macro evolution, but the evidences they give are micro evolution.
42:24
So they constantly say they constantly use this bait and switch. It's one of the reasons why
42:30
I prefer to use the term molecules to man evolution rather than macro evolution, because it gets the point across better.
42:39
Okay. We got to put Brian's comment in here. We got to get Brian in here. Brian had some great comments during Brian's comment.
42:48
He was, he was lifting all the things, you know, fossil evidence, zero this year.
42:53
So Brian's Brian, great job, Anthony. Anthony 10 dog one.
43:03
Okay. I don't know who this is.
43:11
They just put themselves as T R U C U T U. And they put that twice.
43:18
So I will let you unmute yourself and come on in and ask, talk about the debate.
43:25
Let's see. I guess maybe I can't unmute you. We'll just call him
43:33
T cause that's what shows up. But I guess he doesn't have, he, she doesn't have anything to say.
43:39
Okay. KT says that the dog one. It's really bad when the dog wins the debate.
43:50
I mean, Patrick did lose his cool before the dog did. Yeah. I'm disappointed that the dog hadn't evolved enough to know to be quiet.
44:02
Oh, wow. Yeah. That was one of the comments that James made.
44:10
If I ever have to tag team a debate, James, you're going to be on my side. Because the comments that you come up with are just, just amazing.
44:20
Yeah. It was kind of interesting cause the, you know, there are times you want to mute before, you know, when you're doing a debate, you just mute when you walk away sometimes, you know, cause
44:38
I don't know if he knows this or not, but the dog has not evolved far enough to understand the language he was using.
44:49
I think, uh, I think Donnie Jets has comment. What kind of dog? Yeah. He was out when that happened.
44:58
And I, I was, he had, that's when he dropped out. His internet was a problem. Uh, I'm going to add Vincent back in here.
45:05
Did T not have a question? Uh, I don't know, but since, uh, we're only limited to six,
45:12
I'm putting T in. In timeout. No, I'm backstage. So Vincent, welcome.
45:20
You can unmute yourself. Vincent has had trouble with, uh, getting in here. Hold on.
45:26
Can you actually hear me? Yes. Yes. It has been a fight to get in here.
45:32
I'm just saying. I don't know why.
45:38
It's like I've been in here before. It's like, it doesn't make sense why it's so hard. Vincent, what is your background?
45:44
What do you do for a living? I work at an IT in a hospital. Okay. So, um,
45:50
Chris, you got in here. How technically challenged are you? I work in law enforcement.
45:58
Does that help? Why is it so hard for me to get in? That's my question. Andrew is in control of all the buttons.
46:07
So yeah, it may, it may be Andrew trying to purposely keep me out. I understand. I just don't know.
46:13
It really is. It's like, why is this so hard? I've, I've been doing this for years with in, in multiple platforms.
46:20
It doesn't make sense why this one's so hard. So, so what were your thoughts of the debate?
46:25
Uh, I've only listened to part of it, but yeah. I mean, you know, what side I rely on or fall on the evolutionist side.
46:32
We know. Yeah. I love this guy. Aren't you? Yeah, sure. I am.
46:38
I am definitely a younger. Nationist. So I know a lot of people frown upon that these days, but you know what?
46:47
I like the truth. Yeah. Amen. Okay. So Chris, can you explain what
46:53
KT means that, uh, Chris knows how to pick internet locks? I don't.
47:02
I haven't picked. I can't even pick a regular lock. I don't know anything about internet locks. Uh, Tom, I want to ask
47:09
Tom. If he has anything else, Tom's been kind of quiet and T is trying to come back in,
47:15
I think. So I just want to see if. No, you can boot me if you need to. My internet's too sketchy.
47:21
I'm just listening. Okay. I'm going to, I'll put you in the back room and we'll bring it back in. If T doesn't.
47:27
So T you're back in here. You can unmute yourself. We'll see if T can do that.
47:37
I'm sure that T R U C T U T U T U.
47:46
And that's repeated twice. I'm sure that wasn't their given name. Um, I could be wrong.
47:54
I make no bets on that. We do this, you know, we'll be in New York and I'll ask someone, you know,
48:01
I always like to know the name of the person that is heckling me. And, um, you know, so I'll ask people their name and some people just, they have strange names.
48:14
Like you don't need to know that. I've, I've, you know, uh, or you're ugly.
48:20
Yeah. I mean, I get, I get different things and I will call them by whatever name they tell me their name is.
48:27
I mean, you know, I, I'll be like, well, you don't need to know that. That's a funny name for your mother to give you, but okay. And then
48:32
I, until I had one guy that actually got so frustrated, he actually gave me a name.
48:39
I don't know if it was really his name. So, uh, so you know that, uh, you, you're in the room now.
48:49
You can ask a question. I see. How many
48:58
BHI guys wouldn't give us their real name? I just, just going back to past things.
49:04
Oh yeah. I don't know of a single black Hebrew is the light that I think gave me a real thing.
49:10
Maybe their family name of Judah. This is my, uh, new name.
49:16
Yeah. Well, you know, that's actually a funny thing that, um,
49:22
Tovia Singer brings out when you have a bunch of people who are, uh, you know, like his argument is that people will work for Jews for Jesus and, and things like that.
49:33
They, they change their name to sound more Jewish. Um, and I don't, you know,
49:38
I don't see that with, you know, some of the guys like that. So, but I do see that with the black
49:45
Hebrew Israelites, they, they try to have a very Jewish sounding name. Um, but I could probably make a bad joke right now, but I won't.
49:56
I am Vincent Luwai. You can always make up the, cause they have this weird, uh, phonetic for the supposed
50:03
Hebrew that they speak. Which, which they, so the
50:09
Hebrew that started in 1950s in Harlem. Right, right. That's, that's a true
50:14
Jews right there. So you better, you better, you better know, bro. Yeah.
50:21
We're still trying to get T to unmute, um, to unmute when you come in, you're, you're actually in here in video.
50:27
You just got to go to the bottom of the screen and click the little microphone button that says unmute. So, um, until he unmutes,
50:37
I kind of got into the doghouse a little bit. Cause I, uh, I told Shelby, I told
50:43
Shelby, I was like, if you do in fact do come down with COVID -19 now, you will know how a man feels whenever he has a head cold.
50:59
I'm just going to say you're an inspiration for all us fat dudes here. So I want to congratulate you and thank you.
51:08
So James, the question now has to be asked. Um, now that you have
51:13
COVID -19, if you have the symptoms that equivalent to for you.
51:20
Yeah. It hasn't been, uh, it hasn't been, uh, achieved yet. Oh, we, we don't, we don't have enough data.
51:27
Not as bad as a man cold. I got you. Thank you. All right.
51:34
So we're waiting for T to type in a comment in the private chat here. Maybe we can get to that.
51:40
Here we go. It says, don't see it. We'll just type, type the
51:45
T we'll just ask you to type the, your question. If you don't want to be on audio, just type your question.
51:52
Right in that box. And Anthony will answer it. Anthony needs to work on his spacing, but okay.
52:04
I invited Anthony over for dinner last week and he didn't take me up on the offer for some reason. I didn't even respond.
52:16
That's why he was saying that he wasn't positive. He wanted Anthony to come over. Oh man.
52:23
He's great. All right. We're trying to wait for T to ask a question.
52:33
Or he or she keeps typing, but the same question. Yeah. I don't know.
52:42
All right. Let's see. So, so I didn't hear all the, all the argument tonight.
52:50
What was the best argument from the other side? What was, uh, from y 'all? From the dog.
52:56
The dog, the dog made the best argument. What was, what, what do you think personally?
53:02
What was the best argument? Cause I didn't hear a lot of it cause too much going on. Sorry. I honestly,
53:10
I don't know that there was a good argument at all because every question I asked, every objection I made, um, wasn't answered at all.
53:19
So I, I couldn't even give the best argument that he had. Well, the problem is, is he never really made an argument that was applicable to the question.
53:30
You know, he talked about how there, the varieties within a kind somehow prove evolution.
53:38
There are Christians who believe in evolution. So that's good. Makes it a bit. Okay. There wasn't an actual statement at any time in the debate where he said, here's why evolution is scientific.
53:51
He gave no evidence. And I agree. A lot of times they try to use the, the macro, the change within a kind to prove the map or they try to prove the micro use the micro to prove the macro.
54:05
And it's like, it doesn't follow cause you, you can prove the micro, but you can give examples of the micro, but you can never give example of the macro without inferring it.
54:16
Like they missed that point and they can't get past it. Vincent. It looks like a humble clay has answered your question between the dog.
54:33
Now, now I'll give you, I'll give you a little less tongue in cheek answer, Vincent. One of the, the only argument that he really used that is a standard evolution pro evolutionary argument is the idea of, of having similar traits, right?
54:53
So he spent, he spent a lot of time with pictures that really didn't show a whole lot, but some of the pictures showed why he believed some things to be more closely related evolutionary to other things because of similar traits.
55:09
And that's an age old tired arguments that that's has nothing to do with anything really.
55:17
So I, so if I'm being honest, that's probably the best evidence he had, but it's, it's just, it's really easy to refute it that you could really probably brush it off with a common designer argument.
55:29
It's like, yeah, to be honest. Yeah. And that would be the way that we would explain it very easily.
55:36
It's you, you got a common designer and, and, and still it doesn't answer anything about evolution. All right.
55:42
Giving us is, is, is observations of pictures you put together and think they're closely related without any other evidence other than pictures.
55:52
Yeah. It was, it was here. It wasn't evidence. It was, here's pictures.
55:59
They're similar. Therefore it happened. Yeah. Right. Right. Disregarding similar faculties may be caused by a similar designer.
56:11
You know what I mean? It's yeah. The creator probably uses proven things within his creation.
56:20
So why would you not understand that aspect of it? And I, and I think Katie has it, you know,
56:26
Katie sees Patrick didn't seem to be prepared to give or respond to questions. So true.
56:32
Asked his question in the, in the chat here. Yes. When you read it,
56:38
I was going to, but go for it. It says, I believe I went through evolution from a zygote to a baby in nine months.
56:45
Why thousands of years of evolution is not possible. Well, let's say they already billions of years and that's development, not evolution.
56:54
Yeah. I mean, that's great. That's a great point is, is there speaking of development there, here's the other issue is when we talk about like information, science, information in general, and that was a large part of my argument tonight is that to go from the single cell to the complex organisms, we need to add information to the genome.
57:12
Well, that zygote has all the genetic information already embedded into it.
57:18
That's the same information that's going to cause it to develop essentially age from a zygote to a baby, to a adult, to a old adult, and then die.
57:32
so it's not a different, it's not different bill of a kind. It's not even different species.
57:38
It's, it's just development because it's all the same information. So you have the zygote and it's going to always develop into a human being every time.
57:50
It's not going to, you're not going to have a cat come out. Now, Patrick does give me, he did respond.
58:01
He said that his definitions of micro and macro because I had said that they're now, you know, with his definition of macro, it makes them functionally the same and useless.
58:15
He says micro evolution is the variation within a species and macro is that which produces a new species.
58:25
Now I think that it's really interesting because what he's doing is redefining the macro to the specie level, which all creationists agree with speciation.
58:39
And so he does it to that level and not the level that it's defined at, which is, if you want to say the family or we would say the kind, but the reality is, is that he he's changing the level.
58:53
And so, so let's just stick with general evolution and special evolution.
58:59
Special evolution is the adaptation with, within a species to where they're within a kind, we say biblically, but where you have speciation occur, where you have some differences, some adaptation, some changes, mutations, where you start to have generation after generation changes that occur.
59:24
And that could lead to speciation. That is special evolution. That is not general evolution.
59:31
When you have whole new families, when you, you have the change that occur to it, to the higher level.
59:38
And that's where the definition is. And this is the thing that I find happens over and over again.
59:45
Anthony is, and you brought this out in the debate that the definitions that atheists use, they keep changing it.
59:54
They have to, because as we give answers, they don't want to give up their position.
01:00:00
This is what proves that they're a blind religious belief. And someone in the, in the chat had said, had called it that it might've been
01:00:07
Brian, Brian nine. I can't remember, but someone had said that, that it is, it's a blind religious belief because of the fact that when the evidence occurs, they just ignore it and, and redefine things.
01:00:20
We've, we've had that with the definition of what an atheist is. An atheist used to be someone that knew
01:00:28
God doesn't exist. And agnostic was one that doesn't believe that God exists, or they don't know that God exists.
01:00:37
And so the atheist couldn't prove that God doesn't exist, which is what they asked us to do.
01:00:42
They said, we had to prove God exists. Otherwise he doesn't. And when
01:00:48
Christians started flipping that and saying, well, you have to prove he doesn't exist. Else he does.
01:00:53
Suddenly they didn't like that. So instead of giving that up, what do they do? We'll just redefine what an atheist is. An atheist is someone who lacks the belief.
01:01:02
Well, that's agnostic. That's the definition of agnostic, you know?
01:01:09
So that's what they ended up doing. And, and we see this countless times where they just redefine terminology.
01:01:16
So one thing we, we didn't have time to get into Anthony. He, he brought something up.
01:01:22
I don't think he was ready for you to understand epigenetics. Do you want to take a little bit of time?
01:01:30
I figure we'll go for maybe, maybe 10 or 15 more minutes unless more people have questions, but could you take at least 10 minutes or so, 15 minutes and kind of explain what you didn't have time to explain there with the epigenetics and why that actually wasn't a good case for him to make, why it helps our position more.
01:01:50
Yeah. So without getting into too much technical detail, I'm going to keep this on a very, very surface level.
01:01:59
And there's a reason for that. We don't need to dive into, into a lot of depth on this. That's so Chris can understand, right?
01:02:05
That's correct. So I can understand. And to be fair, epigenetics is not something that we understand really well yet.
01:02:18
Anyway, this is a newer type field within genetics. and so we're, we're continuing to blaze ahead in this.
01:02:27
So we have always thought about the genome as being this, imagine like a computer code, right?
01:02:36
And so imagine you've got pages, one column of where the computer code is, right?
01:02:42
And so you have this, you've got maybe a thousand pages of computer code. You can tell me any developer knows,
01:02:50
Vincent, you're listening to this and realizing he doesn't know anything about code. We talk about lines of code. You know?
01:02:57
Well, okay. Lines into pages, whatever. I don't care. Same thing. Six lines to find a page or what do we need to find pages right now?
01:03:14
I'm not sure y 'all did y 'all hear me? He did. It's 66. Tell you what? It's weird.
01:03:20
Just, I can use a book instead. So if we had a book, yeah, because,
01:03:33
Hey, let me start talking about how to do drilling when we want to do a filling, you know? So we take a drill or electric drill and we just put a, you know, a computer code.
01:03:45
Yes. You do line by line, but you eventually have pages of this. I've seen it.
01:03:52
Only if you print it out, print it out. Of course, that's what I'm talking about. This is not this art of a concept.
01:04:06
You chose the wrong subject. Sorry. Okay. So anyways, people want to look at DNA, kind of like a book where we, we have information on it that is stacked page to page to page.
01:04:19
And it's all just congruent thing. And within this book, there are many, many, many, many chapters.
01:04:27
So let's call those genes. So people look at this book all in, in, you know, in one line, so to speak, right?
01:04:35
If you take all the pages apart, tape them all together into one long line of pages, you would see that there's information throughout the pages.
01:04:43
And, and maybe every page is a gene or you put a couple of pages together and all that information is a gene. So you got all these genes strung along.
01:04:50
And so it's always been thought that we have these genes that, that are just in this like straight line, right?
01:04:57
Double helix. What we have found is this double helix is actually folded onto itself into a three -dimensional shape.
01:05:07
So that in this line of pages, this book, you may have pages 90 through a hundred, the way this is folded.
01:05:16
It's folded over the top of say pages three through six, and it's like backwards on top of it.
01:05:22
And then you've got other pages that are wrapped along the side, right? And so what we're finding is that you don't just have genes, but you also have these genes that are regulating other genes from different pages that don't seem to be, that don't seem to lie.
01:05:37
They're not lined up. If you just pull it out straight, but they line up properly. If they're folded the way the
01:05:44
DNA is folded. Now this is important. Why? Because when we understand how say
01:05:52
Darwin's finches changed, right? Did their beaks change? Absolutely. They changed in size.
01:05:59
They changed in the thickness. So how strong those beaks could be. How do they change?
01:06:07
Did they change in this tired old model that we see with not just evolutionists, but also with some creationists in what's called natural selection, where you had some birds with stronger beaks, some birds, a weaker beaks.
01:06:19
And, you know, when it, when the food got harder, the stronger beak ones survived, the weaker beak ones didn't, they die out.
01:06:24
Now the stronger beak ones continue to proliferate. That's not exactly how genetics works.
01:06:31
And the more that we learn about this, the more we find that that is probably not the mechanism.
01:06:38
The mechanism seems to be what we look at with sensors. And so Randy Galuza from ICR has been a leading researcher in this.
01:06:48
And, and one of the examples we use when, when we teach is this, if you're driving a car at 60 miles an hour on cruise control and you're driving along the road and what happens if you hit a hill, your car at first slows down, right?
01:07:06
But then what happens? The car speeds back up to 60 miles an hour. Now what happens?
01:07:12
Did some magical brain in the sky cause the car to speed back up again?
01:07:18
No. Did the hill tell the car to speed back up again? No. What happened is you had, not me, by the way,
01:07:27
Chris, um, what, what actually happened, just point out for the record, the police officer says who drives only 60 just for the record.
01:07:36
It's funny. Clarification, parole information officer. I don't do the traffic stuff. Okay. But so what, what happened to the car?
01:07:45
Why did the car speed back up again? Well, it's because there were sensors inside the car that are continuously tracking the environment.
01:07:53
It's called continual environmental tracking, right? CET. And it's, it's tracking the environment.
01:07:58
It tracks when the car slows down because of the hill. So what does it do? It speeds back up again.
01:08:04
Well, guess what? Our genes, our genome is dynamic the same way. Our body has sensors all over the body and it causes genes to be expressed, some to be suppressed.
01:08:18
Some of those genes that are expressed or suppressed can actually be passed on to the next generation. We see that we see that with Darwin's finches and the bird and the bird beaks.
01:08:27
So it's not mutations that cause new information in the genome. It's actually information that was already pre -programmed with sensors that are pre -programmed to cause those genes to be expressed or suppressed.
01:08:42
This is what the field of epigenetics is actually studying out. It is fascinating.
01:08:47
And so when I talked about how the, the DNA is actually folded upon itself, we're finding that those are regulator proteins in a lot of areas that are causing at least some of the expression and suppression of certain genes in certain environments through this, through our body's mechanism of continuous environmental tracking.
01:09:08
So that's, that's a very basic understanding of, of epigenetics that I think everybody can pretty much grasp.
01:09:16
So when we, when we go to a cold climate, look,
01:09:22
I can't stand the cold. My wife and I, we want to get down South and get away from Ohio.
01:09:28
What is wrong with you? Yeah. We want to stay close to where James was at.
01:09:35
But here's the deal. You know, I'm pretty comfortable in my environment here in Ohio.
01:09:42
If I would move to say Northern Canada, I would, I would not like it.
01:09:48
It would be really cold. And I would feel really cold constantly. Why? Cause my body was used to the temperature range that we have here in Ohio, but you get used to it, but you get used to it.
01:09:59
After a few months goes by, what happens? Your body adapts. Why? Not because of mutations, but because of genes that are already present, that allows your body to track the environment with the sensors and then respond to that.
01:10:14
Now we can't respond to everything, right? I can't, I can't go live underwater and think that all of a sudden
01:10:21
I'm going to have genes allow me to live underwater. like, so there's, there's limit in terms of what epigenetics can do and what
01:10:28
God has programmed into the genes. But, but that's essentially how it works. So as an aside,
01:10:35
I want to answer a question here. I was looking through the live comments and Brian Nindy asks us questions. I hope you're still on.
01:10:41
If not, Brian, do this later. But he said, quick question, Anthony at G3, you were saying that even if mutations could increase information, the timetable still doesn't jive for that to even be possible.
01:10:56
Comment on that. yeah. So number one, it is mutations do not increase functional genetic information of the genome.
01:11:05
Point blank done. However, in hypothetically in a situation that if mutations could do that, was there even enough time for this to occur for say the common ancestor of a chimpanzee and a human?
01:11:23
Well, let me give you some, some numbers here. Um, chimpanzee and a human supposedly broke away, you know, between two and 10 million years ago, depending on, on what research you, you read.
01:11:36
Uh, let's go with the liberal view. Let's go with, with 10 million years. Now the, the base pair differences.
01:11:42
So along the genome, we've got different letters, right? That make up the code, kind of like letters in words, letters in books.
01:11:49
So we have these letters, A, G, T, and C. There are somewhere around 450 to 500 million base pair differences between a chimpanzee and human.
01:12:03
If we split that difference in half, which is not logical to do, it should, it's probably much higher than that, but let's just, again, we're going to be as, as forgiving to the evolutionists as possible.
01:12:14
Let's assume that our common ancestor between a chimpanzee and a human would have had a difference of 225 million base pair differences.
01:12:26
This means that you have to have 225 million point mutations that added information in order to go from the common ancestor to human in only 10 million year span of time.
01:12:45
225 million in 10 million years where we produce, at the earliest, a human could reproduce at around 12 to 13 years old.
01:12:56
There is, there's not enough time for that to even occur, even if you could have information added to genomes.
01:13:04
And that's assuming, again, being liberal, even on this point, that it's assuming that every mutation that you have along the way, going from the common ancestry to human, actually adds information and does it correctly.
01:13:17
That assumes that there's no mistakes made. There's no bad mutations made, no anything else, that every single mutation is a correct mutation on that path from the common ancestry to human.
01:13:28
It's impossible. So, so I hope that answers the question for you, Brian. Yeah. And, and we, we now see what
01:13:35
Chris's thoughts are. He says, if there's a quiz, I'm getting flunked. I may,
01:13:40
I may have put that in out of context. I could be wrong there, but so, you know, just before we wrap up, you know, just because I implied that your debate partner there might've told a lie.
01:13:57
He's, he's letting me know, I guess he's, he gave me a picture of the,
01:14:02
I could share my screen so you could see the, you know, this is what you're asked when you get in the group.
01:14:09
And so he was saying that maybe this needs to be reworded because I guess he's saying this last part where it says, this is a
01:14:16
Y E C, which stands for young earth creation, only group, not a debate form.
01:14:22
You are you a young earth creationist or curious about young earth creation position?
01:14:28
Like, yes, is he saying that he was curious on a young earth creation position, but he came into the room, if I remember correctly, debating and, and that, that was the issue.
01:14:42
It wasn't that he was curious about it. He was curious to try to debunk it.
01:14:49
I think that's exactly what happened. So, so he may have said curious. Again, I, as I said earlier,
01:14:54
I don't know, but what I do know happened is the moment he was in the room, cause he's, he's actually only been in the room for like eight or nine days.
01:15:01
This is a very recent thing. And, um, with, I didn't even know he was in the room, didn't know he was logged in.
01:15:07
Cause again, I don't, I don't do that in the group, but what ends up happening is, is I get tagged by people who get frustrated with trolls that get in.
01:15:16
So I kept getting tagged. I'm like, okay, who's this Patrick Dennis guy. And so I had to go research and he wasn't curious.
01:15:23
He was, he was debating and posting ridiculous comments. Some, some mean comments to people within the group.
01:15:31
And that it was when I was reading those that I muted him and I, in the group.
01:15:36
And I said, Hey, I am happy. If you want to, I will find somebody to debate you.
01:15:41
If you want to debate this, I'm willing to debate you. If you want to debate this, um, let's, let's get it set up.
01:15:49
Um, because this room is not for debating. This room is for us to, to sharpen one another and, and just learn more.
01:15:56
And, um, he agreed to the debate pretty quickly and that's kind of what happened. So this debate was only agreed upon what last week on Wednesday, maybe.
01:16:05
Yeah, it was, it was like middle of the week last week. And I, I saw that you, you put the thing saying that he was muted.
01:16:12
Here's why, uh, that you'd be willing to debate him. I said, Hey, we could do, we could do it on a
01:16:17
Paul Jack's live. And he's constantly confusing you. And I clearly, because he, he sent me the, a message saying he accepts my challenge.
01:16:26
And I went, uh, what challenge challenge to debate me?
01:16:31
And I'm like, uh, what challenge wasn't like a sword duel.
01:16:36
And he was like, well, either way, I'm meeting you. You know, you would have, uh,
01:16:44
James, you would really have loved the video. My, my wife, my wife had me watch her sister sent it to her.
01:16:51
It's, it's, you know, the, the, this woman is in the store and some guy wants to buy a case of beer and he can't like, she's taking too long like to buy her cigarettes or whatever she was doing.
01:17:04
And she's asking questions and this guy's getting annoyed and he just puts his beer right on the, you know, he's supposed to keep the six feet.
01:17:11
He puts the beer and tells her to back up because he's got a party to go to. And she's like, you got nowhere to go.
01:17:17
Like, and she's just like, he's getting in her face and she just gets right back in his face and wasn't backing down.
01:17:25
And, uh, so then there's video of him. Like she comes out of the store and he starts, he gets in her face and he starts, you know, his fists go up and he goes into a boxing stance.
01:17:39
She pulls out a gun. He went running. He didn't realize she brought a gun to a punching fight.
01:17:50
That's why you should carry right there. Uh, so with that,
01:17:56
I, we're going to close out. We want to only go for, for about an hour, give some, uh, background. Uh, thanks for you guys that came in, uh, since we did have, um, we did have the comment about the, you know, the whole comment about do babies exist?
01:18:12
Uh, it was only fitting as I, you guys, I'll put you guys in the back room so you can enjoy this. This is clearly one of the, my, whenever I'm not feeling well, this is what
01:18:24
I play. Cause this is the funniest clip like ever, but this was, this actually happened on our show and I will play the exchange between someone with Matt slick.
01:18:36
And then I will play John Wilkinson's response. It's about two minutes long.
01:18:43
You will enjoy here. You go. You said statements either true or false. I gave you a statement and you said it doesn't apply to that.
01:18:51
It's not only true. That statements would be either true or false. So is it true that I'm talking to you?
01:18:57
Was it true? That is true statement. I'm talking to you. Is that true? Yes. Okay. Is it true that babies exist?
01:19:04
Um, well, I mean, babies exist. Babies exist.
01:19:10
Babies exist. Is that true? Or is it not the case? That is true. Um, I mean, if you want to go down the, you know, if it wouldn't be very strict about it,
01:19:16
I would be skeptical about it. Okay. We're done talking. There's no sense in having a conversation with someone who, who just can't even recognize the statement that babies exist.
01:19:26
Well, give me a break. We're never going to get anywhere. He's not, uh, he's not having a normal conversation.
01:19:32
We're just going to move on to something else. It's ridiculous. He's not interested in a conversation. No, no, he's just interested in arguing.
01:19:39
That's all. I just know, you know, I just trapped him. I already decided as soon as I said, you know, how's he going to answer this one?
01:19:46
Babies exist. If he gives me a hard time, I was moving on, you know? All right.
01:19:53
John, you had some, I was going to say, he doesn't want to have a conversation. You asked him a very simple question.
01:19:59
Do babies exist? And he has to dodge that. If you want to be very strict, we have to.
01:20:06
No, it's a simple question. It's simple, that's true. That's true, that's true. It's simple.
01:20:13
It's simple. It's a simple freaking question. Come on. Get a freaking idiot.
01:20:19
It's a simple question. John's a little fired up. I'm not losing. I'm just going to lose it.
01:20:24
I'm just, I'm tired of this. I'm tired of these games. Oh, I'm tired of this. Who's your first baby?
01:20:31
It's babies. We have to first demonstrate the right to vote. Then we have to demonstrate -
01:20:36
I kid you not, man. You guys will do anything you can to deny God. You will do anything.
01:20:43
You will do anything to deny God. You guys are idiots. I don't deny God. So, tell us what you really think,
01:20:49
John. Oh! He's saying it. I'm telling you, man. I just - I'm very much aware of Matt's moral criteria.