Justin Peters at a Kenneth Copeland Conference?

It's fascinating to me how easily someone in one religion can find the fallacies and biases in another religion.

I think that what's fascinating...

You're razor sharp on your criticism of Islam here. Yeah.

But what I find fascinating, Jeff, is that you recognize that with other religions, but you don't do it with your own. Because I... That may be the case.

And there's that confirmation bias coming up again. One, two, three.

Welcome to Apologetics Live and the Theme of Confirmation Bias

Welcome to Apologetics Live. We're here to answer your questions and challenges about God and the Bible. Meet your hosts from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport, Dr. Anthony Silvestro, and Pastor Justin Pierce.

That's right. We are live, Apologetics Live, here every Thursday night. Well, at least most Thursday nights, to answer your apologetics questions or challenges. We can answer any question you have about God and the Bible.

You doubt us? Well, take the challenge. Go to ApologeticsLive .com. Click the little icon for StreamYard. Join us and see what we can do. Just a theory. We're not being boastful in that. We have just believed that, well, we can say, I don't know.

And that's a perfectly good answer. All right. Pastor Justin, welcome. Oh. We got you here. Finally made it. Yeah. You've been out at seminary and things. So we're going to just do something real quick off the board there.

Let me play something from the Rappaport. Here, we'll play this clip.

It's time for Name That Fallacy. Name That Fallacy?

Name That Fallacy. You got a board over your shoulder there. So why don't we name that fallacy? Pick one at random, and let's discuss that fallacy. Confirmation bias. Oh, you cheated. Well, we already saw an example of that.

Actually, you just did that one. Let's do a different one. Well, hold on. Actually, that's going to come in really good. Confirmation bias is a good one. What we have with confirmation bias is where someone is going to look at something.

A good example of this would be, well, things like evolution. That's a good example. What do you have? You have people that believe in evolution, and they will only accept information that supports their bias.

In other words, the starting point is evolution is true. Now, when we look at information, we look at it. What does it that supports the conclusion? So you have a bias toward your conclusion. And so the only information you'll accept with confirmation bias is that which confirms the bias, hence the name confirmation bias.

Now, one of the ways I like to illustrate this, especially with those that profess to be atheists, is with a little scenario. So, Justin, play along with me. We'll have some fun with this, since I didn't know you'd choose that one.

I have a different one that we'll talk about in a few minutes. And I want you to give honest answers for this and not try to play games, but I'm going to pretend like you're a professing atheist. You want to believe that evolution is true.

And so typically what you find with evolution is that people will make arguments, and no matter what kind of arguments you give, they're going to find a way to confirm their bias. They're going to find a way to excuse whatever information you give.

So now, Justin, not to give too much details about yourself, your name is? Justin. Justin, okay, there we go. You were born in? America. Okay, you want to go with that? That's fine. And the year, roughly?

Roughly 1900. 1900s. Okay, be more specific. Okay, 70s. Huh? 1970s. 1970s, all right. Now, folks, I happen to know for a fact that the person that I'm sharing the show with right now, his name is Steve.

He was born in Italy in 1915. Now, Steve, do you want to try to prove that I'm wrong? Go ahead, give me evidence. Birth certificate. We have manufactured, people have made fake birth certificates. You can ask Barack Obama, he's got one.

Go on. Okay. Okay.

My mom was there.

She's been lying to you all your life, Steve? Do you think she's going to start telling you the truth now?

Well, that's a possibility. So let me see, driver's license?

Yeah, I had a fake one of those when I was 15, you know. Okay. You see, what am I doing? No matter what evidence he gives me, even if it's legitimate evidence, what do I do? I excuse it away with something that I'm going to hold to.

I'm going to start with my bias. I'm only going to accept information that supports the bias. Anything that doesn't support the bias, I reject or find a way to excuse. That is confirmation bias. There you go.

I've actually done this example with many professing atheists. It's kind of fun to do. They really try to convince you that they know their name and things like that, and yet you can very easily reveal that, no, they're wrong.

Okay. What ends up happening with it is they start to go, wait a minute, I know all these details. Yeah. But you see, if you allow that and now apply it to the same way that people argue for evolution, you see that they do the same thing.

They look at evidence, they can see the evidence. Let's look at some examples for the billions and millions of years the universe existed, supposedly. Simple things like, well, we could look at blue stars, for example.

Stars that are blue or hotter, they don't last very long, and therefore what you end up seeing is that if you have a blue star, it would cool down over millions of years, and yet we see blue stars. We see comets.

What's a comet? Well, a comet, you end up seeing the tail of the comet. What is that? That is just a ball of material that is breaking up as it goes through space, and that's the tail is the breaking up of material.

Well, they can't last millions of years. So someone goes, oh, we have an Oort cloud. What Professor Oort named it after himself. And so this mythical thing that's in the sky somewhere that creates new comets.

Have we seen an Oort cloud? Is there any evidence of an Oort cloud? No, but it must exist because we know the universe is billions of years old. That's the bias. And now we see comets. We know they can't last that long, so there must be something that produces them, along with blue stars and other things.

That's how confirmation bias works.

Now, oh, go ahead. I was going to say, David Neff, he's our local critic that thinks he knows everything. He actually says that he's doing a facepalm, and he says he's convinced that this is satire. So I want to see.

Go do some research on blue stars and comets. And you can actually see. Go research what an Oort cloud is. And you will see that the argument for an Oort cloud is that we know comets can't last millions of years.

And so hopefully I am trying to get Dr. Jason Lyle on so we can maybe talk about this in greater detail. If he comes on, we're hopefully having him on to talk about flat Earth. That'll be a flat-earth subject.

So some of the things I want to talk about before we get to the main topic, which we're going to talk about, Justin Peters and I, where we were last week. But first, I am hoping next week we are hoping to get a gentleman on.

He's got a great first name, but bad theology. His name is Andrew. I won't give his last name yet, but he is hopefully going to come on. And he is in my Christian Apologetics Facebook group. Now, I have a simple policy in Christian Apologetics.

We don't allow trolls, but we don't just remove trolls. We give them an opportunity to defend themselves. And so he has been making a case. He asked the question, who wrote Q? Now, background on what Q is and what we're hoping to have with him next week.

Q is short for Quellum. It is German for source. The idea is that there must be a source document where Mark got his information that was then added to by Luke and Matthew. Do we have any historical evidence for Q?

No. If you get my book, What Do We Believe? Chapter 2, I go through that. I even give you, you know, from Rosanelle, New York Times bestseller book. And he ends up saying that there's no evidence for Q.

But we know what it said by looking at what Mark says and looking at what Matthew and Luke add to it. And from there, we can imply what it says. The reality is we don't have evidence. Evidence would be some reference to this source document.

There's no reference to this prior to the last couple of hundred years.

Well, and the reason they would say that you have to have Q is simply because of the relationship between Matthew and Mark and Luke and the synoptics, how closely they are, and they work off of each other, or they appear to.

As you look at them, you say, man, these things are so closely related and the conversation is so closely related. We must have all of these guys must be using a single author. And we're like, his name is God.

And they're going, no, his name is Q.

But there's no evidence. Well, the issue with it is that by saying there's a source document, that avoids eyewitness testimony, which is what the Gospels are. And so you don't have this. The way they argue for Q, the argument is there had to be the source document that Mark copied from.

And Mark started to embellish a little bit and say that Jesus was God, just a little. But then Matthew and Luke supposedly did it more. They embellished a lot more stories. And then John was kind of just off on his own.

And that's why John talks about Jesus as God. And they talk about this as the evolution of how Jesus became God. Here's some of the dilemma with it. First off, and you know I've been working on a book for years now, unfortunately.

But I'm bad with it. I love the research for books. I don't like the writing process. But I've done the research. And I've counted through the Gospels all the direct and indirect references for Jesus Christ being God.

And Luke actually has the fewest amount. Now, it is true that Mark is the shortest. So the idea is that since Mark is so short, Matthew and Luke embellished off that. However, my argument would be that Matthew is probably the first Gospel because Matthew is written to a Jewish audience, which would have required an earlier date.

Because a later date, the Jewish-Gentile issue is not so much of an issue. And therefore, that doesn't make sense that Matthew would be writing to a mostly Jewish audience when most of the church at that point was Gentile.

Go ahead. Sorry, thought you were done there. In my New Testament Studies class, we're actually reading through the four Gospels. I forget the author's name. But he actually presents the same discussion.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those are the authors' names of the Gospels. Yeah, there you go.

And he actually starts with Matthew. And he discusses the fact that this invisible cube that has no historical background, no evidence, no discussion. It has, like I said, no history. Nobody, Josephus, no one ever referred to anything like this until you come up into the 1930s to 70s, somewhere in there.

I can't remember exactly what it was, but I think it was the 70s. Actually, before anybody even started trying to really lay this at the feet of one author that everybody stole from. I really do like that because it's like, so it can't be God, but you've got to say an author that you can't find in any antiquity anywhere.

He's got to be the one. It's kind of like an Oort cloud. Yeah, it's kind of like the Oort cloud that David Neff really wants to have discussions about. He's in the background just going crazy because he really wants to talk about your Oort cloud.

Okay. Well, we'll see if we get to that because we do have to see if we get to that second hour. But let's deal with this Q thing. One of the things is that what you have the argument for with this is that you had to have one source that another author got it from that source, got it from that source, got it from that source.

That is not how, we'll say, newspapers work. I mean, just take a look. You have newspaper articles. What do you have? You have lots of articles written about an event that happens. You have differences in those articles, but a lot of similarities.

Do the similarities mean, as they argue, that there had to be an original source? Well, there was an original source of those things. What is it? Eyewitness testimony. People sit in White House press conference in the pressing room.

They sit there. They hear who's ever going to be speaking. Say it's Joe Biden. Well, it's usually not him. He's not there too much. But he gets up to speak. What happens? You end up having people reporting what he says.

Now, are people going to have the wording exact, even when they're quoting him? No, sometimes they're going to be a little bit off. Sometimes people are going to focus on one detail versus another detail.

That's what you have with eyewitness testimony, exactly as we have in the Gospels. Some articles are going to be longer than others. But just because one person's article is longer doesn't mean he copied it from another.

So these are some of the things we're going to end up dealing with. But the one question I had for this guy, Andrew, in the Christian Apologetics group is, where's your evidence? Yeah. Well, we can imply it.

Well, implying it, well, what that is is a different fallacy that's probably up on your wall called begging the question. Begging the question fallacy is when you have to first accept the very thing that you're trying to prove.

So he accepts that Q exists, and that's the thing he's trying to prove. He accepts that Q must exist because you imply it. There's no evidence for it. Remove the acceptance of Q existing, and you find no support for it.

Yeah. And you have to think about it. It's the same thing as the Oort cloud.

It's all by faith. We don't have any evidence for it, but we have faith that it has to be there because we can't have faith in the biblical writers.

Let's be specific with this, okay? Because a lot of people use the word faith incorrectly. There you go. Your faith is the idea of trust. I mean, I put trust in this chair, so what do I do? I put my full weight on it.

My feet are up in the air right now. My hands are up. I'm putting all my weight on that. Now, I can do that because I've recently lost about 35 pounds, and so I can trust it a little more. But the reality is if you put faith in a wrong thing, if this chair was half broken apart and I lean on the arm and it falls out, I've put trust in the wrong thing.

So faith is the idea of putting trust in something. It's not a blind trust. When we refer to faith, a lot of people refer to it as what they refer to as a blind faith. In other words, you're putting trust in something with absolutely no evidence supporting.

I have reason to believe this chair can support my weight. Why? Well, for one thing, it's done it many times before. I've sat in this hundreds if not thousands of times before. I know how chairs work, and so I can look at it and realize that once I put it together, it was going to support the weight.

There's reasons based on things that I've observed where I can trust that the chair can hold my weight. But putting trust in an ORCloud or putting trust in Q when we have no evidence for it, there's nothing that refers to this.

There's nothing that we see that supports that the arguments are other than the conclusion you need to have. That's different. That's what we call blind faith. And that's more what you're referring to.

So there's a difference between faith and blind faith.

Absolutely. You know, and the thing is, you have to think about it. When you come up with a rescue device, such as the, you know, it's ORCloud or Q. When you come up with a rescue device, you have to ask why.

Why are you in need of this rescue device? Now, admittedly, everybody has one somewhere. We all have one somewhere. But when you're talking about a rescue device that is blind faith and you're going, ORCloud, why do we need an ORCloud?

Because this comet can't last more than 100 ,000 years. We see the cycle comes through, you know, and you go, okay, so why do we have all these comets? Oh, there must be a comet generator. And so there's your ORCloud.

Because you don't have to accept the millions of years. Exactly.

Yes, you have to have the millions of years. So in order to have it, you got to say, we've got a comet generator. And it's out so far that no one has ever identified it or seen any inkling of it. Correct.

It's beyond the reaches of the galaxies. It's, you know, it's past any known possible ability for us to even see it in the universe. So where's the evidence for it? Well, it's a rescue device. And you're right.

Jason does a great job talking about that, you know, when it comes to the ORCloud as that is a rescuing device. But the thing is, as a rescuing device is so persuasive to someone who doesn't want to look at the other argument with equal validity.

Yeah, so let's do this.

I'm going to do this, even though we do want to talk about where Justin Peters and I were at last week. We were at the Kenneth Copeland, as Justin says, the Southwest Unbelievers Conference. It's the Believers Conference.

But before we get to that, and Justin may be coming in second hour, since David is here, why don't I bring him in? He's asking the question, what evidence would you accept for an ORCloud? So let's bring him in.

We've had him in before. Some of you guys may remember him. David, welcome. Want to be able to kind of discuss this for a little bit. This isn't the, you know, and you've said you'll come back on when we do.

If we do have Jason in, that would be a fun discussion, maybe. But welcome to the program.

Well, thank you so much for having me on. It's great to be back. I must say that I love talking with you guys. And I always have a good time. And I hope you have a good time with me as well. So, yeah, I do want to challenge a little bit about the ORCloud.

Before we get to the challenge, a quick update. Where are you at? How are things going? Oh, things are going great.

So I confirmed my enrollment. I'm going to the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, starting the fall. I am majoring in biochemistry and molecular biology. My passion is in evolutionary biology, viruses, stuff like that.

I love virology and immunology. So just things are great. And I'm also really interested in astrophysics and astrobiology as well. And one of the professors at UMBC is doing work on astrophysics. So I connected with her.

And I might try and do a double dip in interdisciplinary science and biology and astrophysics. Really fun stuff. Yeah. That is.

I got to pull this up. What do you got to pull up? Facebook user. I tell you, I love Facebook users. He or she has got great stuff put on there.

So when you said, if people want to have their name show up in the comments, what you have to do, go to projectslive .com. There is instructions on how on Facebook you have to give permission. You have to get your name.

David, you're breathing way too heavy into your mic.

Oh, sorry. Is this any better? I actually bought a new microphone recently, and this is it. It's coming in loud.

My guess is, if you see how I have my microphone and my voice is going across it, unlike the way that my camera has it.

My microphone, is this any better? My microphone is attached to my headset, so I'm trying to.

It's when you're breathing. If it's too close, it's good to have it close. But when it's close, if you don't have sound covering it, sometimes when you breathe it, you get the Darth Vader. Is this any better?

Yeah, that sounded good. We'll have to wait to hear how you breathe, though. Okay, so Facebook user, I actually understand a little. I didn't get this at all. I got the Captain Picard reference. I don't get the Q reference, but he said, I thought Q was an arrogant, omniscient guy who annoyed Captain Picard all the time.

So Q on the Star Trek, one of them.

I think Voyager, I think it was.

I don't know. He would show up all the time, and he was like

James White will correct me if I got that wrong. Trust me.

He was like a I don't know what you call it. He's like a demigod type thing that can just do whatever he wants, and he just shows up and harasses people. Okay. There you go. I call that Anthony Svestra.

But he's not here, so we could All right, David, so go for it.

All right, sure. So the question that I obviously have for you is, what evidence would you actually accept for an Oort cloud? We have comments that are of very long range, very long periods, over 1 ,000.

I think one I'm not sure. I think one might be actually 10 ,000 years or longer. So the obvious question that we have to ask is, where are these very, very, very long-period comments coming from? Where are they originating from?

They are obviously very, very, very far away from the sun in order to have in order to have 1 ,000-plus-year orbits. So it is logical to assume that they must be coming from either very, very far out in the Kuiper belt or even further in the Oort cloud.

So I guess, for me, the biggest evidence for the Oort cloud is these very, very, very, very long-period comments that we obviously have to account for.

Okay, so the first question is, how do you know? Let me ask you all the questions. You probably won't be able to answer them all, but these are the questions I'm thinking. One, how do you know that the orbits are 1 ,000 years?

Because we haven't lived that long enough to have someone observe that same climate. We didn't have the technology to do that. The second thing I'd say is, how do you know that they're millions of years old?

We can measure, right? We have a comet that comes by, what is it, every 76 years? Yeah, Halley's comet. Yeah, Halley's comet. We're able to measure its size every time it passes through. So we can, from that, deduce how much smaller that comet is coming when it's coming around us each time, right?

Because we have the technology within the 100 years to be able to measure stuff like that. So we can actually, and every year it comes by, we can measure it better. With that, we can see, we can do the calculations to see how long Halley's comet is going to be around, right?

Right, yeah. But when we say that comets were thousands of years, okay, millions of years, all right, we have to have a way of measuring that. It assumes the size, what would be one, right? Because if it's decreasing in size, you either have to assume that it was much, much larger, it was going through space, which does present a problem, because if it is larger, it's going to get pulled into a gravitational pull of something, like the sun, or you assume that the universe wasn't that old.

And so the first question I guess I'd have for you is, how do you know that these are thousands of years old? And the second one is, how do you know that the universe is really that old by the comets?

That's a great question. So I'm going to kind of in typical Jewish fashion answer this with a question, and that is what...

For the record, you are Jewish, right?

Yeah, so what evidence would you accept? So what evidence would you accept?

Yeah, the evidence I would accept is an actual Oort cloud. Okay, so... Why do we accept a black hole? Because we've been able to demonstrate them, right?

Right, of course. So let me ask you a question. If a team of astronomers were able to definitively prove that an Oort cloud exists via observation in that cloud, would that force you to accept millions of years?

Well, that would... Well, no, it's a fair question. I'm sorry. No, no, it is a good question.

But let me jump in and answer that. And I'm going to say emphatically no, because what you're saying is there's an Oort cloud. There's an if, that if this is proven, there's an Oort cloud. And I'm going to say no.

That's not going to change my understanding of God or anything else. And here's why. Because God creates everything with age, in the appearance of age and time. Okay, so when God made the first tree, he didn't make it from a seed or a germ and then have it become a tree, a seed, and then have it grow into a poplar tree or oak or whatever else.

He made it with its age and its time. You ask the question, where do these stars and everything else come from? When God made the universe, he made it perfectly in time the way he wanted it. He didn't make it saying, oh, it's going to start like a winding clock that's brand new that's never had a moment of unwinding.

He made it in time. So everything is working from God's point of view, from God's vantage, the way he wanted it. And it all is working perfectly. Peter tells us in the scriptures that everything was made and we don't take into account that God made it to look the way he wanted it to look.

He made Adam and Eve, for example, and he made them as, we don't know how old, let's say 14, let's say 16, whatever you want to call it. Maybe they're 30, who knows? But they were adults. They could procreate.

They could have children. They were adults. They could live a life. And we see that according to the scripture, all the animals, they weren't the question, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? It was definitely the egg.

We all know that. It was scrambled. I didn't know if anybody was listening or not. I just had to throw it in. See, I'm just making sure you're listening. But think about it. He makes everything with the appearance of time and age.

So that wouldn't change my understanding of what God is doing. So go ahead.

All right. Let me answer your question, David, but I'm going to counter a little bit of what Pastor Justin said, because some people use this argument when it comes to starlight theory, and there's a problem.

Go ahead, Dave.

Yeah. So, yeah. I think if I wanted to respond to Pastor Justin real quick. So basically, Pastor Justin, I want to make sure I'm representing you fairly and accurately. Basically, what you're going to be saying is that no evidence would be sufficient to convince you that ultimately the Bible is the ultimate standard, and any evidence of an old earth or an old universe would be the appearance of me.

Am I understanding you correctly? I just wanted to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you.

So you're asking me if the scripture is the ultimate standard without any other standard above it. Basically,.

I just wanted to say, basically, you're saying no evidence would ever convince you of millions of years, basically.

You would have to show me a standard above the standard of scripture. All right. And that is fair.

I respect that. Thank you for clarifying.

Well, let me get to answering your question as well. I could. And I do want to just address what Justin said, because a lot of people will say that when it comes to stars, the star light that we can see from earth, that the idea is that the star light was created, that God created the universe with the appearance of age, and therefore the star light is there.

One of the problems with that argument that people have is when God does create with the appearance of age, did God create trees, even though they might've been fully grown, did they have several rings in them or just one ring?

Well, we don't know. But the star light becomes an issue of if God created a light from a star that didn't actually exist, that I think would be a problem. We can see stars that die out, and yet they're millions of light years away.

So that argument, at least for star light, I wouldn't.

Right. But you're talking about the expanse. Yeah. I mean, there's different things with that.

Right. And if I can jump in real quick, I think that's where you would put Dr. Lyle's convention into play, because basically, from what I understand, I want to make sure I'm understanding Dr. Lyle's convention, is that when we see stars from 13 billion light years away, when we see them go supernova, it happened when we observed it and not 13 billion years ago.

Well, not when we observed it.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understand.

Yeah. I mean, we observed it, but it happened at some time in the past, but he would say less than 6 ,000 to 10 ,000 years ago. So Dr. Lyle's view is that the only thing we can measure, the speed of light, is the round-trip speed of light.

In other words, you have point A and point B. There's no way to measure, because the way we can measure light is you have one point with a mirror on it, and you shoot a light from the mirror to the mirror, and it comes back.

And we can only test or measure the time it takes for that light beam to get to the mirror and come back to us. And so that's the round trip. And so his view is that the speed may not be constant. In other words, when the light is going away from us, it may look like it is taking longer to travel, but when it comes toward us, it's faster.

Therefore, it might be almost instantaneous. So with that, what could be implied, as David is saying, is that the death of the star looks to be instantaneous, so it's when it's happening. He would say it was sometime in the past.

How far in the past, that's what we don't know. It depends how fast. The light does take time to travel to us when it's facing toward us. We just can't measure that. So you put up this comment, Dr. Jason Lawson.

Yeah, same thing you were talking about. That's why.

Okay. So I want to get to what you were asking, though, that Justin didn't answer. What would I accept? Would, if we found an Oort cloud, would that prove millions of years? I would say it wouldn't. Now, I am going to argue that we cannot do science without God first existing.

Okay? And when we talk about this realm of evidence, it presupposes there has to be God, even if you don't believe in God. And, David, you and I, we've talked about this in the past, but we have new listeners, so if you can indulge me a little bit to explain this, even though I know you're familiar with it.

Is that okay? I'll go right ahead, please. I think it's important for you guys to explain it. Yeah, because we always have new listeners, new audience coming in, so we always want to make sure we explain things, not just take that for granted.

So the thing is that when we use things like you and I right now, we're having a conversation, we're using words, we can interpret those words. You and I both have an ability to reason. When we're using the words, we're going to employ that reason.

We're going to employ knowledge. We're going to employ things that are immaterial to us. So we have a material world, and if you're an evolutionist, depending on the type of evolutionist you might be, you would hold generally to that this material world is all we have.

And, therefore, everything's a product of the mind when we talk about truth and knowledge and ability to reason and laws of logic and morality, all these things, I would say, are immaterial and require an immaterial source.

Now, if you say that they're material, one of the things, and, David, you and I have never discussed this, but it would be an interesting thing for you to see what your thought is. Nowadays, the big thing is that people are discussing that you can have someone that is biologically born male, but they identify as female.

Out of curiosity, not saying that this is you in any way, but do you accept or do you believe that people who are born biologically male or female, either one, can actually be a different gender by how they identify?

Do you hold to that belief?

I'm sure. So I would rather talk about that some other time because I think that is a very important discussion to have. But, in short, I would say this as a person studying the biology, is that biological sex and gender is not binary.

And we know this because with the sex chromosomes, there is actually a far difference. In high school, you're typically taught, okay, males have an XY chromosome and females have an XX chromosome. But we know that this isn't always the case.

We know that sometimes a person with a female type could have an XY chromosome and a male could have two X chromosomes. We also know XXY, XXX, XYY, and others, chromosomal anomalies. And we do know often sometimes the genitalia as well is ambiguous.

And, in fact, it goes through several times.

Yeah, I mean, those are the exceptions. We don't want to define things by an exception, right, by anomalies. Of course.

So I felt like it was important to get this out of the way. So the point I'm making is the first point is that biological sex isn't as black and white as people want to make it out to be. And I'm sure you would accept that intersex people do exist and that it does happen.