Post Debate: Is Evolution Scientifically Possible

This is Apologetics Live. To answer your questions, your host, from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rapoport.

Post-Debate Discussion and First Reactions

All right, 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. Anthony Silvestro, Patrick Dennis, that was held on Apologetics Live.

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. 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.

There were a lot, a lot of comments, and so if folks want the link to participate, we'll find where Mr. Watkins is at. He wants to join us. That's actually a dangerous thing. We probably shouldn't let him in.

All right, so what I did ask you offline is, that seemed a little bit painful, you know. He didn't seem like he wanted to answer questions.

Really, he avoided the topic. I mean, the topic was, is evolution scientifically possible? And also he showed pictures. I mean, he talked about common traits among animals. Yeah, it was frustrating a lot to me, but I mean, it's what it is, you know.

Debating Preparation, Rebuttals, and the Need to Teach Apologetics

I know you say don't do this, but you know, I write my and so somebody made a comment about, sounds like I'm a seasoned debater. I'm not. This is my second formal debate. I had one about two months, three months ago, something like that.

I prepare, though, for things, you know. So I wrote out my opening 10 minutes. I wrote out about 10 of the 15 minutes for the rebuttal because, you know, you have to assume what's going to be said in a rebuttal in a new debate, right?

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, and then I took a lot of notes during his opening so that I had other stuff, other points that I could bring up at will.

I could only touch on a few of them, but, you know, I was able to do that. And I actually write a good part of my closing. Having said that, you know, if you ask me how much of my closing I actually read, it was probably only 20 to 25 of it because there are other things I wanted to address.

And a lot of the closing is just reiterating the stuff from the opening and the content. But, you know, it just goes to show, Andrew, and those that are listening, this is a fundamental problem, and this is why we need to be able to teach the youth.

We needed to teach adults and everybody in between how to defend the Christian faith. And evolution, as you see, I mean, guys who are evolutionists, this guy has his master's degree in biology, right, master's degree.

He's got really some what looks to be pretty good research into cancer therapy. 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.

They speak very eloquently, way up here. But once you ask some probing questions, like they just don't know what to do.

How the Debate Format Broke Down

Yeah, I mean, I think that when it comes to a debate, he never really addressed the main topic. 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.

I think someone had mentioned in the comments, it seems like he just had a presentation and he just wanted to go through it. 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, 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. It seemed he's unfamiliar with debate. So I'm going to assume that was his first debate. He asked, you know, we talked about whether he was going to use his slides and he said he would only use it for the opening.

But then during the rebuttal, he never actually did a rebuttal. He never rebutted anything you actually said. 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.

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. He really wasn't addressing the things that you said. It was kind of funny because before we went live, you know, I was trying to get from him.

He mentioned the paper that he wrote. He would not even admit to that. 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.

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. Even simple things. You even said this is a yes or no.

And then he literally ran two minutes and never answering the question. Never answered it. You asked him.

Yeah. I was thankful he answered some things later in the DNA, right? I mean, and this was very telling to me, right? 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?

Yes, he agreed. Okay. So wouldn't it follow logically that there must have been a designer, intelligent designer for DNA? No. Why not? And again, no mechanism, no explanation, no.

Redefining Macroevolution and Avoiding the Main Question

So here are some things I picked up on. First off, his opening, he redefined macro evolution. Yep. And he did that, I think, huh?

Yeah, majorly. I've never heard it defined that way before.

Now, the interesting thing is most evolutionists claim that macro evolution is a Christian term, is a creationist term. And they're right because it really is. 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 I tend to use those terms.

But he gave in on that. He redefines that. And then he goes to try to get people that deny the deity of Christ to say, look, they're Christian. Well, then I guess evolution must be wrong because you were an evolutionist.

And look, you agree that it's wrong. There was a lot of him and there was a lot of the comments I saw as people were commenting where he's not giving the evidence. He's just saying because the debate wasn't about what other people believe.

He was addressing what Ken Ham said. He wasn't addressing what you said. And that's where I think there was a fundamental breakdown. I think that he understands the, I think, Christian lingo, and he's trying to seem like he can fit in that and debate from there.

But the problem is he was redefining terms. He was he was using logical fallacies and not actually answering the issue of the debate where evidence that's what was missing.

Yeah, nor would he answer anything that I had in my opening statement. He didn't answer most of the questions he didn't actually answer, you know, and it was and I didn't. 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 in question twice.

What's that? There's one time where you asked the same question. You asked the question. He didn't answer for two minutes and you just said, look, this is a yes or no.

Right early on for two minutes.

I'm not. I don't think he was running the clock. I, you know, I just don't know who's doing that. I just don't think either. He didn't want to answer. I thought, you know, at the end, it was really funny because he wants to say, well, we have to define what a living fossil is.

And that wasn't even the question. You know, he picked up on the on the term living fossils. Oh, well, you know, the reality is the question was, look, this is sun that supposedly went extinct and suddenly we find it again.

And it looks the same. He goes, well, we wouldn't know how to do it unless we find unless we found a fossil of them today. We don't need a fossil. The fossil gives us the bone structure. We can look at the same bone structure.

And guess what? It's the same. Yeah. Yeah, I know.

It's yeah. Well, yeah, it was it was interesting. You know, I feel bad for him, though, because, again, I remember my own time as an evolutionist years ago. And literally, I mean, you're you're taught this high level thing.

Right. And you're never questioned about it. So you're just you're just fed facts and you never critically think about evolution and mechanisms and everything else. I feel like I was so stupid all those years, you know, getting my straight A's and taught classes.

And yet, yeah, I didn't know to ask a probing question on this stuff. You just buy into it.

Goalpost Moving, Similar Traits, and the Burden of Proof

Yeah. And Chris has a point here. He's saying most of his time was spent moving the goalposts. And it was a lot of that. Yeah. You know, humble clay said 50 percent of the last two hours was wasted time.

I hope that it wasn't your. The time you were talking was fine. We'll have to get a humble clay in here at some point. 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. Every time I see him, I see him angry at a banana.

Maybe, maybe he's just really angry with Ray Comfort. I'm not angry at a banana. Ray's the banana man. How are you doing, Tom? How are you guys doing? My internet is not great at all. Neither is Anthony's, so it's okay.

Yeah, I think mine's worse than Anthony's. That's why you're off camera, huh?

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. All right. What were your thoughts of the debate?

I mean, I think everyone's pretty much said it. He came in and he seemed very, very unprepared to debate. He just wanted to make a presentation. 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. And I thought that you did very well, Anthony, with presenting the gospel in the beginning and then bringing it back home to that.

Good job with that. Amen to everything you said. Praise God. Hey, so we do have a question from a friend of ours here, Anthony. He has a question. Who's your favorite message Bible-only advocate? Of course, it's Donnie Jacks.

Wow. So you're saying that you prefer Donnie Jacks over Cody, the founder of the message-only-ism?

I thought 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.

That's the case. It's Cody. Yeah. Cody now has a follow-up. He says, where is it? Follow-up. Do you guys believe babies exist? That may cause us to have to play that clip.

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. So, Thomas, any questions from the debate that you have for Anthony? Where did all his hair go or anything serious? Tom has seen the evolution.

I've known Anthony long enough. I know where his hair went. Years of softball losers.

Yeah, we had some bad teams over the years, didn't we? You were pulling all your hair out? So, you know, Tom, he brings up something interesting. You know, science, right? You know, I went with a half science, half presuppositional argument in here.

Obviously, as a presuppositionalist, I believe my entire arm 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 Bible.

I think the part that was disturbing to me is I didn't really hear any science come from Patrick. Yeah, there just wasn't.

That was the thing that was, I think, overall that people saw was he was giving a lot. It's funny because you give one quote and he calls that quote mining. And then he's trying to support his whole argument on what others say.

And it was just a very interesting how it seemed like his argument was, there's enough of us who believe this. You should too.

But it wasn't quote mining anyway. I mean, I took it the way he said it. 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?

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. 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. Yeah. Yeah. James dropped out. Naughty James.

It's not like he's got to work. Yeah. I brought Chris in. Yeah. James is just like he's just got to sit home with coronavirus. Actually, James had asked this question over and over again, and we didn't have time for questions.

But he basically was asking, Chris, you got Corona there. Will you stop that? I saw you earlier when you were in the backstage like coughing away. The thing James Watkins kept asking was, why has he got an issue with coronavirus?

I mean, from an evolutionary position, hey, it's killing off those who are older, those who are weaker. It doesn't seem to affect the young. It doesn't seem to affect, it does seem to affect more men than women, by the way.

Like most things. There's different arguments. It was very interesting. I read one article from a woman trying to say that women were, they were using it to say that women are more superior to men when it comes to survival.

But the actual studies show that it has to do with obesity. Why more men? It's one of the factors they're finding is people that are outside of these different age category. And that is obesity is one of the big factors.

So, I mean, with that, Anthony, 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

I was talking with Mike Riddle today and there was one thing he did ask me. He wanted me to make sure that I help you get into shape. That was his words. I'm sorry.

And I keep pointing out to Mike that he lost to a girl in the 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, Mike is an Olympic caliber decathlete who lost to Bruce Jenner back in the day.

So he lost to a girl. I've never lost a woman before in anything.

He goes, that girl had a lot more hair back then. So, Chris, you were like the commenting phenom there. You know, I think this is the hard thing when you're especially moderating a debate. I can't say anything.

You know, to 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. Thank you, Chris.

They were, they were. What's that? What's that?

I think Tom was saying something. Could you? Could you both see the comments? Oh, yeah. Well, I don't know if he could. He I did tell both of them that I would be putting comments up that they should, you know, it'll become whatever the comments are, not to worry about trying to answer any questions from the comments, because I'll put those at the end.

But I didn't. 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 his slides, his notes and being able to see a screen.

So I don't know if he saw the comments.

OK, just curious, because it was kind of brutal in there for a bit.

I was only seeing some of them that were popping up. I mean, I don't know if Andrew has to select him or not. I don't know how that works.

I have to silence how the ones are selected. I'd like to go back and read them all. But 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.

So it has to do with the debate going on. Then I just try to show them and give time to be able to read them before moving on. This was one of these ones where it was like clicking a whole lot of them.

So so, Chris, what were your thoughts?

My first off, Anthony, I think you did a fantastic job. You made a consistent argument. That actually addressed the actual question. 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, et cetera.

And that was, I think, one of the you know, that was probably one of the best things to watch in all of this, because one of the observations I made is I don't think Patrick had any expectation that his comments and his assertions would actually be challenged.

And when he was actually cross examining you, you could tell he didn't expect you to actually have intelligent answers. It it fumbled him completely. And there was times when it's like, well, did you know this?

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 I was very impressed. I think that was great because it helps Christians to recognize we do have answers.

We don't have to be afraid of the big bad evolutionists who think that they're the big brains. And so that was fantastic. And I appreciate that. My my overall observation of the debate was that Patrick, as you were right, Andrew, I was I think I was one of a couple of people that made the observation.

He had a script of sorts. 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 is approved, he's either lecturing and so the students have to take the notes and get to get the grade or he's talking to people that agree with him.

And so now Anthony's asking him specific questions and he's like, well, 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 I can say that fish and man are the same thing.

What? So it was it was really interesting to watch. I felt bad for him. I know the frustration. Part of his frustration was from the Internet connections that'll drive anybody batty. So I didn't feel I feel bad for the guy.

But we really listen to voice and radio and the Internet can drive you guys batty.

Ever since I ever since I switched away from AT &T. Did I say that? But, yeah, it's I can understand the frustration that that presents. But clearly, you know, you can see there's a point where he wants to obfuscate the issue.

You can't give a clear answer because a clear answer is condemning. It destroys his argument. If he says, no, I've never there's never been an observation of ape like creature going to a man. And Anthony, you made that clear.

You didn't say this specific monkey to this type of man. You said ape like creature to a man. Oh, well, you know, you know, they're all from the same thing and they're this and they're that. You were making it clear enough that there were he knew what the question was, 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. Well, yes, you do. You know exactly why. Because you gave him the example and he he had obfuscated multiple times in order to not answer the.

Similar Traits, Species Definitions, and the Creationist Response

Yeah, no, you're right. I mean, he he showed multiple pictures. He clearly knew what a biblical kind was. And what he did is he used that definition for macro evolution. I don't know if you guys noticed that.

I mean, we're like, yeah, yeah. He actually supports our argument better than he supports his by using that definition. I've I've never heard an evolutionist use that as a definition before for macro evolution.

So it's interesting.

I thought the most interesting part of that was he's talking about Ken Ham's pictures and he's talking about the various seratops. 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, you know, types that cannot breed together, if I understand it correctly.

And so how do you know that you've got bones? How do you know what the internal structures are? How do you know where they could reproduce with one another? Yep. 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. And I thought that was rather interesting. And then he says, so every every creationist is believes in macro evolution because we believe in this.

And it's like, that is not at all what we believe. And I have no idea where you got that from.

Yeah, thank you. So thank you for bringing that up, Chris, because you're right. That is something I had written down in my notes. But, you know, you only have so much time, right, to ask questions. And I gave what I thought were clear, concise questions that would give me back clear, concise answers.

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. How do you know? You got a pile of bones.

How do you know? So you said it very eloquently there. I don't need to repeat it for the audience. But but you're right on the money with that. So there were a lot of things that could have been talked about and just run out of time.

Well, for folks who don't know when you do debates, I mean, this is the hard thing about debates is one. You got to stay on topic. All right. If it really doesn't matter whether or not we were talking about this.

Mike wrote all night today with a debate with Ken Ham. I actually think Ken Ham nailed the Bill Nye debate after the debate. He did a video after the debate where he went completely priest up and he he had 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 his own audience. So the issue is, I think he fell short in that debate. Why? Because the way he chose to debate it instead of going priest up, he he argued too much evidential.

And Bill Nye just threw out statements that later they fact checked and found were wrong. 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 could he threw out this, this, this, this.

And it's only until you fact check it that you can, you know, be able to to make that case. 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.

That train was coming to run him over. You know, it just he never got to the topic. Someone said, Mike up the dog and have him hit the. It would have been better. I was like, wow, that's hurts. But, you know, that's the thing.

So you have the case that he wasn't prepared for a debate or he doesn't know how to prepare for a debate. He never got to his topic. One, two, he he didn't use his time for what it was meant for. He basically used the opening, the rebuttal and the closing for his opening.

And nowhere in there did he actually address the topic of debate. And so for that reason, he lost. Now that Hunter Bailey's asking a question here for you. Wrong one. Let's see. Here it is. How do you debunked chromosome to human chromosome two?

So that's a question for you, Chris.

You know, not my field. There's way too much information and it's way too detailed for us to talk about here. I will tell you, there are some wonderful articles. Georgia Purdom has the staff HD geneticist for answers and Genesis has some articles on this.

I would encourage you to to read. Having said that, notice today in today's debate, I don't have to answer anything that is complicated. When you answer a complicated question regarding evolution, you will fall into the trap of having to having to explain a lot of stuff.

Over a really minute detail. Instead, when we go after an evolutionist, we have to go after exactly what we did today. The mechanism. What is the mechanism? Show me how this can possibly work. Because the reality is, is you don't have a mechanism.

You don't have a way that this could possibly work. So I don't have to worry about specific genes on chromosomes. I don't have to explain the issues of of where they believe a fusion occurred between, you know, as a difference between the chimpanzee genome and a human genome.

I have to worry about any of that stuff. I have to worry about the actual mechanism to begin with.

Mechanism, Statistical Impossibility, and the Burden of Proof

Yeah. And someone was saying, you know, they're purposely vague. They can't be specific with it. And this is the thing. You know, when he when he contacted me and said he wants he wants to debate. OK, then you're going to take the pro in a debate.

You you did not have to disprove every point he made. You only had to prove that it is scientifically impossible, which you did just when you laid out. Here's here's what you know, statistical impossibility.

You said 10 to the 50th power. It's 10 to the 48th.

But but depending on what you read.

Yeah, it's it's easier to say 10 to the 50th. But the the point is, here you gave the stats. Probability wise, we're talking impossibility where that's that is a statistical term. And so what you do, you gave the statistics.

Here you go. It's it's impossible. He never even tried to address that. And yet that was the purpose of what he had to do. And Chris is right here that Patrick had. Chris is here. And yet he's typing these things like.

I didn't want to interrupt you were saying.

Patrick had the burden of proof in the debate on the matter. He failed. OK, you want to say that, Chris?

I think you saw you said it for me. I don't know. I just I was watching the chat room. No, that's the thing. He's coming in. As you said, he's he's oh, evolution is scientific. So if you're going to make that claim in a debate, you have to say you have to make that burden of proof.

It's not the burden of proof on the person on the opposite end. All they have to be able to do is question and demonstrate that your your assertions, your positions are incorrect. That's in the if you're taking the pro side that you the burden of proof lies upon you.

You're going to say this is what happened. You have to be able to demonstrate how that's the case. And Anthony's questions were very consistent. What is the mechanism? 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. There's no way to go back in time. Anthony, thank you for putting pointing out historical versus regular science. You have to go back in time to show where that happens.

And Patrick knew that he knew there was no way that he could answer that question. So now he has to change what information is. Now he has to change what kinds are. And when you do that, you just give up the debate.

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 any answer.

The Role of Information, Mutation, and Epigenetics

Yeah, which is consistent with really every evolutionist I've ever talked to. You know, I'll never forget. I don't I didn't I don't think I put this in my book. I intended to. But when when 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 and Washington Square outside of NYU the one afternoon. 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.

This guy was standing, you know, in a circle and just shaking his head the whole time, head down, shaking the whole time. So after five, six more minutes passes of him doing this, I get down. Next guy gets up.

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, I never get down.

Everybody tries to keep Andrew from talking. We try.

So I go and I talk to this gentleman. Turns out he is he was finishing up his research for his dissertation about to get his Ph .D. in evolutionary genetics. And he was finishing his research at NYU's hospital.

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 is like, what is the mechanism like? And he said, OK, well, it's through mutation.

I said, of course, is there mutation? But it's not just any mutation, right? As you guys heard me say multiple times tonight, it has to be mutations that increase functional genetic information over time 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. So I asked him how many mutations have ever been discovered that have increased functional genetic information over time? And what does he tell me?

Point blank. He goes, none. And I go, then why do you still believe this? And he says, I believe we'll find the answer one day. Find some of the gaps.

You know, it's what it is. Hey, so we just. I just added Mr. James Watkins. I'm glad you're back, James.

James. Coronavirus, dude. That's the first time I've heard of coronavirus.

He actually has the corona, not me.

Well, he doesn't have it either. He just he was just tested and. No, I think he did.

He said he came back and he changed. 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.

Oh, really? OK, well, then you mean I actually have to pray for you now? Yeah.

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 pretty much done with.

Praise God.

So are you having. I mean, this doesn't do it to debate, but this goes back to what we did talk about last week. So are you. Are you having like Tim is where you have a nurse that calls you every day to check on the symptoms and all.

Or. 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. 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 in quarantine to make sure that my breathing and all was still good.

Would you? Hey, yeah, I know you're supposed to be quarantined and all, but you wouldn't mind going over and visiting Frank, would you?

Not at all. Actually, the last time back after Christmas, Frank, 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.

So if they were if they wanted to come up here now, I could send them back with a better gift than I did around Christmas. Oh, man.

All right. So what were your thoughts about the debate? Well, number one, is he there?

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. And I understand that he does like some cancer research.

Is that correct? 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? 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. Notice that he said, good Lord, a couple of times. And, you know, it's never good Allah or good Buddha. It's always good Lord.

No matter what region of the world that you're in, it's always the God of the Bible that's blasphemed.

That's the phrase I couldn't come up with. I knew he said something like that. Yeah.

I'm glad that the gospel was presented to him. I think that probably was most important of the debate was getting that relayed to him.