Debate: Is Evolution Scientifically Possible

Mr. Smalley, do you believe that abortion is moral? Oh boy I'm glad I'm debating him instead of you

All right, welcome to apologetics live we are live Thursday night

Here to answer your questions typically but not tonight Tonight is one of these nights where we have a formal debate and when we have formal debates.

We do not have participants and Therefore you can put comments

We will read the comments as they come in and if there's time at the end We will take your comments and ask them to the panels for discussion

So if you do have comments just put them in we'll I'll be monitoring for them

This is again apologetics live. We're here every Thursday night 8 o 'clock Eastern Time We usually will answer any kind of questions

James White is busting on me that my green screen is gone and I no longer have a brick wall I will get a better green screen

Instead of my empty books as we'll see when we bring Anthony in he can now brag He has more books on his bookshelf than I do but oh well, so with We we are gonna try to not do too many announcements here because we want to get right to debate give the the guys as much time as they they

So they can have all the time to use so but just to mention to check out striving for attorney org

The stuff we have going on now that you're in, you know Confinement like the rest of the world.

It's a good time to go to striving for turning org Check out the Academy classes that we have for free.

It is a good time to just sit around Take some classes and get some some education. I'm gonna bring in so the topic tonight is

The the formal topic that would that was agreed upon as I try to look for it is evolution

Scientifically possible that is the topic on the pro is I'm gonna bring him in is

Patrick Dennis Patrick I'm gonna give you a chance to introduce yourself Okay, you hear me just fine.

Yes, we do Okay, I just wanted to make sure since I've been shuffling Chrome tabs and screens around I didn't muck anything up.

Well, I am a undergraduate Degree holder in microbiology

I went to the University of Texas at Arlington about 20 years ago graduated with the bachelor's degree in 1999

Major microbiology minor in chem And then about five years ago.

I completed a master's degree thesis independent research project in Biological Sciences Department there at Texas Tech and I focused on cancer biology

So that's my background And I guess get started now after my dog quits scratching.

Well, I'm gonna bring Anthony in to introduce you So Here we'll bring Anthony in go ahead introduce yourself before you start with openings.

Hi, I'm Anthony Silvestro for those of you Who don't know me? My undergrad I was a dual major in math and chemistry and went on to dental school.

You're not really a doctor Wait a minute. I'm not a real doctor. I'm a dentist That's okay

And and you know, I was an evolutionist for a year the Logan eyes 11 years ago now and Can see absolutely clearly and there's questions that I wish

I would have asked two years ago and didn't know to ask a Of any biology teacher I ever had both in high school college and dental school

Okay, we are gonna be concerned about your internet because it was breaking up a bit

You if we if it continues you may have to turn yourself off camera But make sure there's no one in your house like watching movies or Trying to figure out how to you know, watching

YouTube videos on how to save Red Cardinals. All right All right, so I'm going to I will bring in Patrick and The way we're gonna do this folks is we're gonna have for folks who are

Regulars here at apologetics live, you know how we do the debates. It's gonna be a 10 minute opening Patrick is on the pro

So he's gonna start he'll do a 10 minute opening Anthony will do a 10 minute opening Patrick will do a 15 minute cross examination followed by Anthony with a 15 minute cross examination

Sorry rebuttal. Sorry 15 minute rebuttals Then they will have 20 minutes each for cross examinations the way that we do the cross examinations

They will each get one minute to ask a question and then they the opposing person has two minutes to answer the questions

If a question is not answered The person can say that they didn't feel it was answered the time doesn't count against them

The person has two minutes to to answer that question and the one minute is not a time where people can ask

Question or make statements is a time for asking questions So if either of the people end up not answering questions

I will call either side out if either side of them is Making a statement during the one -minute question.

I'll call them out We want to make sure that we do that and then after that there will be a 10 minute closing

Patrick will start and then Anthony will finish if there's time left any questions that I see in in the comments we will be asking them and so Chris Han holds asked the first question.

He just says wait, we're quarantined. Okay, so he must live somewhere where he's not All right. So with that, let me get our clock going the clock will disappear and only appear in the last two minutes

So Let's get this ready. Are you ready Patrick? Sure. All right, go for it okay, so What I want to start out by showing is these pictures from the two science journals nature and science

And I really just do do that to start off I'm trying to demonstrate the relationship of evolutionary biology and other disciplines in biology

But well, let me start a little interruption there I really just do this to Demonstrate that there are some aspects of biology that creationists are accepting of such as biotechnology

The sequencing of the coelacanth genome would be one example of biotechnology okay, and There are other aspects of biology that they aren't accepting of such as insect phylogeny okay, that's basically a cover of a journal that's talking about a paper where they worked out some of the evolutionary relationships between different types of insects but obviously the

Study on the right relied heavily on the same sort of technology on the as Sequencing and other things like that so there's really no conflict within the holder the wider broad field of biology between evolutionary biology and the techniques they use they all synergize with one another and There's just you know, no sense for saying something like DNA disproves evolution or You know when

DNA sequencing is one of the primary techniques used in evolutionary biology these days

And I live next to the train tracks. So if you're having problems hearing me, let me know and I'll yell What evolution is is really just the study of biodiversity

So I think I'm gonna have to spend a large amount of time Talking about what evolution isn't just to save time of the opposing side talking about How evolution doesn't coincide with this?

Observation or that observation when evolution has nothing to do with that particular thing. You might as well complain that Evolution you can't really say that evolution isn't scientific and then say it because it doesn't explain why the sky is blue Well, it's not meant to Explain certain things.

So that's not really a valid criticism One of those examples that you commonly see online and social media is the conflation of evolution with the biochemical origin of life so evolution just as a starting point needs a population of imperfectly replicating genetic union units could it could be organisms cells

Animals plants viruses as we're learning about right now It needs a population.

It doesn't discuss how those populations came to be it needs something in the starting gate and that's a genetic unit that can

Reproduce and that genetic unit or population needs to reproduce and perfectly

Otherwise we would just be talking about carbon clones and There would be no need to talk about evolution because they would always stay the same from generation to generation

Another thing that evolution isn't is It's not predicated on an increase in complexity or information

It may actually result in those but those are

Consequences not predicates so a good Example that would illustrate this is saying which is which is more complex and which has more information

Tetrapod limb on the left. I think that's a mouse paw or a lobe finned fish limb on the right

All tetrapods are descended from lobe finned fishes But I don't really know how you're going to say one is more complex or has more information in it than the other

Okay, I had this slide actually deals with something that might that evolution is and it's also a clarification of terms microevolution that's

Variation at the subspecies level or if you're going to want to talk about something that's current events kovat 19 a strain things that may differ based on just a few nucleotides or sets of genomic loci

Would define a strain and we can determine how strains of kovat 19 have propagated across the globe based on DNA sequencing in other words, we have and perfectly replicating genetic units that Vary as they reproduce from generation to generation

On the left is just different varieties of tiger. They're all the same species of tiger. They're just separated by Geo geographic locations, so they do

Start to acquire some of their own isolated traits through that isolation into separate gene pools

Okay, so I've defined showing you what microevolution is and now we get into some of the gray areas that maybe some people

Don't understand as well Okay Speciation is actually microevolution

So you a lot of times you may talk think that macroevolution really only applies to say comparing mammals to reptiles to Insects or whatever.

Okay, so I have here 20 examples of different species of lady beetle.

They're all different species. They don't intermingle in terms of their reproduction

Maybe if you found Species that were geographically very near each other that were derived from a recent common ancestor

You might be able to find that but on the whole they're isolated reproductive populations and their species and that is the cutoff point for macroevolution in terms of the scientific definition

If you talk about different orders, different classes, different phyla, that's also macroevolution but those categories and those levels

Start and become established at the level of speciation Okay.

Now let's talk about the acceptance of evolution throughout different Forms of creationism.

I'm really not concerned with the two models on the left what I really want to focus on here is the third one which is sort of the

AIG Ken Ham model and The BioLogos model which are the evolutionary creationists or the theistic evolutionists on the far right

As you can see There are some differences, but they're all some commonalities they all have sort of a they're all demonstrating or sort of trying to portray or convey

What happens as a result of speciation in the form of a branching motif?

the only difference is is that the young earth creationists typified by Ken Ham and AIG sort of have a orchard or an orchard model and that's they typically use the terminology of kinds or created kinds each one of those four stems at the bottom are consequence of a special creation they claim whereas the evolutionary creationists, theistic evolutionists as well as just the agnostic biologists all

Look at evolution in terms of unified clades and the only way that the the the only reason that the two models vary is because the young earth creationists set an arbitrary

Point by Sorry, my dogs distracting me by breaking those

Groups up. Okay. Let me shut her up You shut up Okay, so In other words just to sum up they have very very similar attributes

Okay, so let's look at the next slide why is it not appearing? Okay, so let me focus in on This particular slide.

This is a slide that Ken Ham used in his debate with Bill Nye and He put up his you know, just like the previous slide.

He's got Four Fibers, he's got six this time the previous slide had four four stems.

This has six stems Representing different types of animals that he thinks were created kinds the the fourth one is just ceratopsians prehistoric non avian dinos and He think he's using this graph or diagram to show that all subsequent

Ceratopsians are just derived from initially Created pair. Okay time

Right, that's time. That was time. That was ten minutes. Yeah. Well a little bit left over for my closing

Okay, I didn't very well. Sorry not a problem. I and I paused it when your dog was barking

So no worries with that. I said I didn't I didn't count it against you. All right, let me bring dr.

Silvestro in and Your clock starts or when you're ready, you ready? I'm ready.

All right go First of all, I want to thank Patrick for agreeing to be here today to debate this topic at hand

And I want to thank Andrew for being willing to host and moderate this debate for us Second my primary purpose is that it is to see

Patrick said look for both people who know me. I don't care for doing debates But I do them in situations like this because my heart is

To see the lost saved Patrick We're both sinners meaning we've both broken

God's laws and deserve just punishment and hell for eternity But in God's grace, he sent his son to pay the penalty died the death that we deserve

Through his death on the cross burial and resurrection. He paid that penalty in full for those who repent and believe the gospel

Molecules demand evolution is just a way for people such as myself at one time and such as yourself today

To suppress the truth about the Creator God that you'll be held accountable to without excuse when you die

Now for the topic at hand today is evolution scientifically possible.

It makes sense that we define our terms right off the bat So Patrick, I I commend you it's starting to define some of the terms

Although we have some disagreements here So if by evolution we mean a generic definition of change over time

Patrick and I would agree that generically change does happen over time If by evolution we mean some type of change within a biblical kind Like what secular science tries to explain in scientific journals such as natural selection adaptation the like we would also

Somewhat to mostly agree that those concepts can be scientific at least to a degree however, what we are debating today is whether molecules to man evolution called macro evolution by many is

Scientifically possible and to that question. I give a resounding no In order to lay out my argument we need to define the term science according to Webster's new collegiate dictionary the definition the definition of science is knowledge attained through study or practice or knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws

Especially as obtained and tested through scientific method and concern with a physical world

According to the Science Council Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence

So from these two sources as well as every other source that I've checked Science is defined by knowledge gained through the scientific method

Therefore science knowledge is not gained through hypothetical ideas philosophical musings or even one's imagination

What then is the scientific method by which we can do real science?

The scientific method consists of usually six steps according to most places

Number one make an observation and define purpose number two construct hypotheses based off of that Number three test that hypothesis and collect data number four analyze that data

With that data, we're going to draw a conclusion and then communicate those results We must then if our test showed that our hypothesis seems to be right according to one test

We must have lots of repetition repeat these tests over and over again. We must critically analyze these tests

There must be falsibility or false of falsifiability to these tests by the way And then in that we verify through this testing

And not just us but it has to have critical exposure to scrutiny peer review and assessment so in simple terms for anything to be scientific according to scientists a

Hypothesis must be made from an observation and that hypothesis must be run through the scientific method

With multiple repeatable and verifiable results in order to call something a theory that's science

Every def every definition every journal out there. That's science However, there's a clarification needs to be made here.

What we just talked about is called experimental science There are actually two types of science experimental which we just established and something called historical

Experimental science where one would use the scientific method is Catastrophically problematic for the molecules to man evolutionist

One of my first questions of Patrick during the Q &A time will deal with this very issue I will ask him this question.

He's gonna know ahead of time. Has it ever been observed? That any that one kind of animal has ever evolved into another kind Examples would include an ape -like creature evolving to a man

How about a chicken or a bird from a dinosaur as nearly every zoo in America claims?

And while I'm not a prophet if he's being honest, his answer will be no When I ask the next question, why not?

He will most likely say that not enough time has passed to observe this macro evolution to occur in Using experimental science.

The person is trying to test an observation today That is repeatable, but macro evolution is not observable.

Let alone testable and repeatable molecules man evolution isn't actually scientific according to the standards not set forth by me but set forth by Scientists in scientific journals all over the world for decades

So because of this historical science must be employed to see if molecules demand evolution is even possible historical science uses observations made today that are testable and repeatable to try and guess what happened in the past like molecules man evolution an

Example of historical science would be trying to figure out the perpetrator in an unsolved murder and then bringing that person to trial where there's

No eyewitnesses the detective must utilize clues that can be observed and test them to try and figure out who the murderer was

This circumstantial evidence at best can possibly provide a very good guess as to who the murderer was

At worst it wrongly convicts someone who is innocent This means that the circumstantial evidence can lead to a completely wrong conclusion

In the case of molecules demand evolution because it is not scientific from an experimental science perspective

Let's be honest You can't observe it The only way to determine if it is scientific is if we can test things today that may contribute to evolution thus within the historical science fantasy of Molecules man evolution we can attempt to use experimental science to test things.

We can actually observe in the present While molecules demand evolution has many aspects to it.

We can boil everything down to its mechanism of action On the most basic level getting to the micro details of molecules demand evolution.

How does it supposedly work? If I can demonstrate that the supposed mechanism of molecules demand evolution isn't science then

I will have won the debate Throughout the course of today we will do just that While this is enough to destroy molecules man evolution and show that it isn't scientifically possible.

There's more Have you noticed that evolutionists always want to start with a single simple cell we saw this in Patrick's opening

This is predictable. Why because they all do this It's because they have another catastrophic problem.

This is why Scientists estimate that an average single cell has a hundred trillion atoms

Here's the catastrophic problem How did trillions of non -living atoms arise at the exact same time in the exact same place?

coalescing to billions of molecules proteins and machines that a very specific design and function and Then form a living cell that can take in nutrients metabolize

Excrete waste products and reproduce here's a clue they didn't and Scientists know that in Fact the statistics show it is impossible for a single medium -length essential protein to build a form

Impossible in the billions of years. This universe has been around let alone all the proteins necessary for life

See one very modest protein or functional protein probability Would this size of this would be a hundred and fifty amino acids the probability of a 150 chain amino acid protein moderate sized protein to form is one in ten to the hundred and sixty -fourth power for one protein to form the simplest form of life has 300 of 400 of these proteins simplest cell possible

Which means that take 10 to the 164th power and multiply that by 3 to 400

That's insane you're taught the improbability NASA's improbability statistic is 10 to the 50th power the the amount of known particles in the entire

Universe is somewhere around 10 to the 80th power and yet we've got a power for we've got one

Protein to form is is one chance in 10 to the hundred and sixty -fourth power. It's it's insanely impossible

See non life pond scum turning the life isn't scientific. It's magic So not only do evolutionists not have a mechanism for molecules and man evolution to work and they ignore the problem of how life

Originated and how the supposed first cell coming to be they also disregard one other thing

Where did all the matter in the universe come from that is needed for molecules man evolution to be able to occur?

There's only three possibilities number one the universe created itself. That's not scientific number two

The universe has always existed. This is required an infinitely old universe This goes against all known science like the second law of thermodynamics, so that's not scientific which leaves us with one possibility

God the universe was created by God on every level Evolution is not scientific has no viable

Mechanism can't explain how the first cell came into being and ignores how all the matter came into existence in the first place time

Thank you. All right put you back All right. Let me reset the clock here

Patrick and while I do it'd be time I could let you know that if you

You had a couple more slides. Did you want to use them in your rebuttal at all just so I know

Well, no because I can just refer back to them once that are relevant you've already seen

Just wanted to know whether to do that, all right Appreciate the question, but we'll try to do without it.

Okay 15 minutes when you're ready okay, so Well, you know what given that amount of time

I thought we were in the two minute back and forth Can you just turn it back on? Yep. This is Really has to it has does it have specifically address something?

He said and I hope we're not timing now because we're just trying to Stop the clock. I'm not gonna

I'm not gonna run your time when we're asking a question of format No, we you could if you if you feel that there's son rebuttal you want to rebuttal to his his opening

But if you feel that your slides are gonna to help with yeah, okay. Let's just go on with that.

Let's just act like I Finishing up, but it's still relevant to the rebuttal.

So let's just put my slides about on And go from there. And if you feel like if you feel like I'm deviating from the format

Just let me know and I'll try to rephrase or read redirect my course.

Okay Okay, sure Okay, so I knew molecules demand would come up It's just something maybe for a question -and -answer

Section coming up later. I defined evolution. It's an exploration and examination of biodiversity.

I told you what you need Did we lose him?

Do you hear him Anthony? I brought you in for a second. Let me stop his clock I don't hear anything. No Okay One of the things with technology folks

I stopped his clock there I Will try to reach out to him.

So We do know that with everybody home watching internet everywhere or on the internet everywhere some people have noticing issues, oh

I'm sure there's problems within Which a lot of the guys out there a lot of the internet companies and people bar

Well, okay. We're gonna wait for him to come back in Yeah, I will say, you know that it has been a thing with everyone working from home and binging

Netflix The the fact that there hasn't been more problems with the internet has actually

Has been good. I guess it shows that you know, some of the companies have really Done a good job.

So I'll go back. This has nothing to do with the debate So I'll bring this up for your sake

Anthony until we wait for him to come in Jess says as a dental assistant myself, I'd love to work alongside a dentist who loves

God What a good day it'd be at work So I I kind of described, you know before you sold your practice that most of your staff were believers and and Basically, every patient heard the gospel

Yeah, that's a lot of fun Would not make just feel jealous or anything, you know

Yeah, it's one thing to find a dentist who's Christian which is wonderful to have but it's another you know When you're allowed to openly speak about I know a lot of I know a number of Christian dentists and doctors who?

Keep it under their vest. They won't talk about it at all. So Justin Pierce wants to know if it's or says it would be awesome if I got saved

James Watkins is just surprised that I know what Netflix actually is. Yeah, I am too.

Actually. Um, Jess says I couldn't imagine Jelly Belly, it's hard to find

You know, so there was a question earlier People were finding it quite amusing with his dog there

But I know Donald Jack somewhere asked the question here it is He said what kind of dog do you have

Patrick and just in case Patrick didn't see it He put kind and in all caps on a second one

Just to make sure he he saw okay here he comes back in cool, okay technical difficulties

Not a problem So are you like on your phone now with a

Yeah, I had to switch to my Phones hotspot and usually

I play I play video games on that so it's pretty reliable Maybe even better than my house's internet connection.

All right. Well right now it looks like I don't know black screen we don't see your picture anymore, but Okay, well

I need to set that up I did I only got to where I could actually hear you guys Yes Now for folks who don't know you did say, you know, you've been quarantined and you didn't get a haircut

Well there I am in all my glory My son cut my hair. So if you want me to send to your place he can

Dude, you just need to shave it at this point. All right, my wife won't let me I would go complete bald

But Don Donald Jax would love it. All right, I stopped your clock. So we're gonna I'm gonna actually reset your time there

Patrick, okay So you see my screen now I'm not wait.

Okay. Let me work on that a little bit more. Oh, I have to put this actually hit the share button oop and Select what

I want to show to All right, Anthony. I'll put there we go age.

I will bring Patrick up there Okay, so we're gonna start you over in time Okay I do have the question still on screen

Donald Jax was asking. What kind of dog do you have? He highlighted the word kind for you. She's yeah, right

He is a same species as a wolf But she is the

Australian Shepherd Variety. All right, my route through micro variation

Some someone actually wanted a hyper hypersensitive dog that barks at everything

All right, you ready you ready to start minutes? Yep. Okay go okay, so let's just look back at the little more

Informative version. This is the actual slide Ken Ham used in the Debate with Bill Nye.

I can't remember was that 2014 something like that and He's got one particularly interesting example here first it's

Triceratops and he has got some putative evolutionary relationships

Drawn up there. I think I think the blue lines that cut across all of the Kinds or the

Reduction in varieties brought about by Noah's Flood and then obviously because they're triceratops and ceratopsians went extinct

Their lines don't go much further after Noah's Flood Interestingly enough of all of the

Triceratopsian fossils we have we have Just this huge diversity that you can see on the right now.

These aren't subspecies they aren't just variations of a single

Type or variety these are all separate species. They're all Reproductively isolated from one another

This is macroevolution therefore Ken Ham and AIG's model for biodiversity

Incorporates macroevolution whether they want to admit it or not Okay, and I think I've already said those statements.

I put them up there just to make an emphasis, but there they are again Okay, so Let's shift shift the ball, let's hand the ball off to the

Theistic evolutionists and just the agnostic biologists and look at all these varieties

Okay, we have two mammals two archosaurs. That would be the non avian dinosaur and the bird okay, and Then three reptiles.

That's the lizard on the right the Ceratopsian and the bird and then it looks like one amphibian

Okay. Now the same sorts of traits that you use to group dog kind or Monkey kind or whatever else you want to call these together

Can be derived you can derive you can extract other traits out of those Six that are there as I've already done in a little bit two of them are mammals

Well, if you're gonna group all of the dog kind together based on their dog like traits, well, why can't you group

Mammals together based on their mammal like traits and that's what one of the slides does later on It seemed like early on Andrew sort of equated

Evolution with atheism. I have a few examples here of Evolutionist scientists that are

Christians and Various denominations they still use evolution to make predictable predictions in their work

One of them's Mary Schweitzer she's probably most familiar to a lot of young earth creationists or creationists because she's on the forefront of the soft tissue and fossils research

She has some very interesting quotes for creationists who misuse her work to make various claims

Another is Francis Collins Director of the NIH he's also

Heavily involved. I'm not sure quite sure what his status is with the biologus organization Once again he is

Also an evolutionist. So there's no contradiction either. You know, it's I'm just trying to deflate the straw man of evolution equals

Atheism because it's just not the case Kenneth Miller is another one

Okay Several of my friends I cross paths with on Facebook and social media

Put this together this work this book together It's dealing with geology, but there are some

You know evolutionary overtones when you talk about the different sorts of animals and how? In different strata along the

Grand Canyon walls that are explained by evolution rather than some

Creation event I think can walk in Wolgamoth is one. I think you're

Andrews friends with him on Facebook. I think I noticed the other day and Where we are, where are we time -wise?

Good Lord Hello Yeah, no,

I posted it up there. You have nine minutes 35 seconds. Sorry. Oh really? Okay. Sorry. You meant you heard me

Benting If I have that long, let me just go on let's

Let's I found I saw a very curious post from Anthony and I guess I thought maybe

I called you Andrew a few times I apologize The other day in the

Facebook group where we first met he wanted people to come look at the is -genus history movie now this follows up with the diagram from AIG that I Kenham used in his debate with Bill and I several years back.

There is a section where Del Tackett spends a lot of time with A Todd Wood biologist.

He is a PhD biologist and he's sort of the resident

Baraminologist which is the creationist version of Phylogenetic sys there's a section where he and Dale spent a lot of time at the zoo looking at the various animals and And Fufilling the the evolutionary explanation for their biodiversity on the one hand

I respect that because they are actually talking about or at least Todd Wood is actually talking about what evolution is supposed to address which is biodiversity and not the biochemical origin of cells or whether the sky is blue or whether evolution explains that or Why can't evolution make my car run better or anything like that?

He's sticking to the topic So there are some very choice quotes from Todd Wood on his blog and some of them go into Follow along the lines of there is evidence for evolution gobs and gobs of it

It's not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion

It's productive framework for lots and lots of biological research there has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory and The people who who dismiss or fufu evolution

Probably are just unacquainted with what it's actually supposed to Address or What the actual evidence is?

he finishes by saying an extremely successful scientific theory and then he he wraps up something which

I also respect very much and and concluding that his rejection of evolution is a faith choice that he chooses to make when he has a

Bible in his left hand and Campbell's biology textbook in his right hand. He is making a faith choice to accept what the

Bible says regardless of the evidence and If every creation has said that I probably wouldn't spend as much time

Being the way I am so Where are we at right now time -wise?

We're at six minutes Okay, so once I've sort of gotten those hurdles out of the way, let's just talk about something that evolution addresses

Specifically and is not you know is actual science and I'll show you some of the nuts and bolts of the science

Oh, it's going to be a very rudimentary crash course and it sort of helps dispel some of the

Straw men that I often hear so a lot of times when you talk about Say humans and non -human apes or Birds and non avian dinosaurs and avian dinosaurs

You'll just hear constantly that that's just based on similarities Biological biology is not assessed by a simple side -by -side comparison of things

We're concerned with using traits that say what an organism is and you know

More so than what it does or what color it is or how much it weighs So we're using trick traits that have a genetic basis.

So at the same time Blue eyes red hair

All of those traits that run in families obviously have a genetic basis The same thing is true of having a backbone or having four limbs so we

We don't just use side -by -side comparisons. We actually look at matrices

Involving several different species and several different traits and then we can derive

Phylogenetic trees based on those assortment of traits For instance starting out here.

It's my pointer. We're looking at vertebrae

Okay, the all of these animals are vertebrates sharks ray fin fish amphibians mammals reptiles

And then the next trait That we see is bony skeletons and one way we can know that bony skeletons is is a valid trait to proceed to next is

Just using simple logic like all vertebrates have bony Have bony skeleton, excuse me

All bony skeleton animals are vertebrates, but not all vertebrates are bony skeleton animals and that excludes

Sharks, so sharks the first to diverge Now we can do something with that bit of information.

We can look in the fossil record and say Do we see evidence that? sharks diverged from Bony fish first and that's actually what we find and then we can use other traits, too

Not just as well on them too long. The next would logical one would be four limbs The next is an amniotic egg and we put we group all mammals and reptiles based as Group that all have amniotic eggs.

They're all amniotes You might say hey humans are mammals Well, they don't have eggs well the internal placenta is a just a shell -less internal derivative of an egg that's where the term amniocentesis comes from we're looking at the the vestigial amnion in the

Fetus when we do that sort of medical procedure Once we get these relationships

Organized and we're not just looking at them. We come up with a way of Reconciling and consolidating all of these groups that AIG claims are separate created kinds

Once again, I don't really understand the logic of saying all wolves Are related to each other by common ancestry or all dogs are rather or all apes or whatever

Just based on their qualities of having dog -like qualities or ape -like qualities and Ignoring all the other

Associations that you can make they're all vertebrates These are all tetrapods They all have four limbs

Everybody except the frog is a amniote so There's no reason to ignore those

Associations which are testable just because of an arbitrary ambiguous definition of what a kind it constitutes

So, you know, this is where some of those Associations or groupings that creationists don't like come from Here's one that has a little bit of a biblical spin on it

Just for fun snakes and diapsids there in the middle means reptile

But Snakes are reptiles obviously and all reptiles are

Tetrapods or four -limbed animals. So snakes are Technically still four -limbed animals, even though they don't have four limbs.

They're just derived from an ancestor that did have four limbs Actually snakes are just like legless form of lizard.

They're they're clustered within the lizard clade another one would be birds and diapsids

Okay, technically birds are reptiles based on this Classification, you know, we learned

Linnaean text taxonomy in grade school birds mammals amphibians

Reptiles insects so on but looking at their shared derived traits

Logically, we have to conclude that birds are reptiles. There's just no other way around it.

That's time And whales are tetrapods, too. I Will bring

Anthony back in I will reset your clock you have 15 minutes when you're ready

Okay Go for it, okay, so As a

Christian I proclaim that we have a reliable eyewitness for how every living thing on this planet came to be by Creator God Furthermore God did not create a cell and then allowed evolution to take its course

Instead he created everything after its own kind dogs cats chickens and such Every kind reproduces after its own kind and guess what?

This is consistent with what we actually observe dogs will always produce more dogs No matter how what new wacky breed we come up with next a

Chihuahua Dane boxer retriever is still a dog Cats will always produce cats. Even those mean evil little house cats and Humans will always produce humans when

Patrick brought up the issue of some Christians that have no problem with evolution

Well, you know what I as a Christian have a problem with professing

Christians who believe evolution could have been used Why because it goes directly against Scripture.

It's irreconcilable with Scripture. So when a Christian says evolutions possible

We don't say oh look There's a guy who found a way to make them both work now we say that guy is a compromiser because he's actually going against Scripture to try to get evolution and millions of years stuck into the

Bible now when we talk about evolution equating to atheism

Patrick this is why is because Evolution is not a mechanism of a creator

God. This is of the creator God This is this is a mechanism that is designed by people who hated

God back in the day This is a mechanism that does its best to explain away God or try to explain away

God It's only the foolishness of some professing Christians that try to smash that into the

Bible somewhere We read the Bible and it says that God made each after its own kind and to reproduced after its own kind So we don't see him taking a kind and making it into all of the other kinds

That all over the face of the earth. We don't see that We look through the Bible and we don't see any evidence of millions to billions of years.

We see thousands of years when we just read the Bible plain as day, so those are some of the issues

I have with with the creationists that are out there So I maintain

Creationists that well again people who believe the Bible call themselves creationists, but believe in evolution. I have problems with them

Having said all that I maintain that the scientific speculations about molecules to man evolution are bad

They're self -serving guesses at best, right? I mean you were taking pictures Patrick the same thing

I'll evolution is do we don't they don't nobody ever talks about the nitty -gritty which we're going to get into here They just want to put pictures and show how pictures look like other pictures and how certain traits may group in things into other traits and you know what that might be good and well for Linnaeus and it might be good and well for taxonomy for us to try to classify organisms and to name them

By their genus and species, but aside from that There's no science that's actually behind it other than a few observations on just structural issues

So having said that You know Patrick I wanted to hit on something which I knew would come up at some point

You you said using logic in defending one of the points you're bringing up using logic

So here's here's the question I have for you is is and this is really for everybody is has

Patrick Been speaking with some intelligibility today. I mean has he been able to form thoughts in his head?

Has he been able to reason with those thoughts? Has he been able to communicate those reason thoughts to us by actually controlling his mouth his tongue his lungs in his voice box?

If he believes in what he calls the science of molecules to man evolution Then Patrick can only be the result of the exact same things that evolution would would bring about which is random chemical reactions

That have done nothing but obeying laws of chemistry and physics, which I'm not gonna ask for those came from we're just gonna assume they're there but He'd be relying on those

That have gone on for billions of years since the beginning of life. We know it That's Materialism in its purest sense right that everything is the result of millions

To billions of random chemical reactions over billions of years doing nothing but obeying laws of chemistry and physics

That means everything started as materials everything today is still materials and if that's true

Patrick You've got a problem because You obviously are speaking with some intelligence

You obviously are controlling your words you're controlling your thoughts you're controlling your reason you obviously are attempting to use logical arguments the same way

I am and yet How can you account for those?

How does a materialistic worldview? That produces nothing but materialism all of a sudden lend itself to laws of logic or your ability to think and reason and then be able to control those words because on one hand in an evolutionary worldview

Your words would just be the product of random chemical reactions doing nothing but obeying laws of chemistry and physics instead

Your words that are coming out You're controlling you and I both know that so does every person who's listening knows that you're controlling every one of those words the reality is is that You're using the very process of reasoning that would be discredited in materialism

So here's the big issue issue of them all though, so let's put this aside for a moment in order to determine if evolution is scientifically possible a

Person must be able to do science in the first place In order to do science you have to rely on your senses your have to rely on your ability to think

You have to be able to reason and many more things yet that contradicts the materialistic worldview that you're trying to prove and The moment that Patrick or any scientist employs any one of these things

He's actually borrowing from my worldview the Christian worldview and one in which we were designed and created in That God gave us these abilities to do these things

It's not the culmination of random chemical reactions that are doing nothing but obeying the laws of chemistry and physics

I think as as I'm gonna turn ship now a little bit

I want to rebut a few more of the things that that you had you had brought up Patrick the the first thing would be you keep going back to The that evolution is is just biodiversity but yet that's

I and I know definitions have changed continuously in the Secular science world because every time we we refute something that is said in secular science

You guys change the definition we look at the fact there's a Cambrian explosion, right? we have single simple organisms in the cell record and a fossil record and then we have all of this really complex type of organisms everywhere

Billions of them all buried all over the earth and we have literally nothing in between the transitions are gone

Darwin said the biggest problem to his theory biggest boon to his theory would be if these transitions were never found

Well, where are they they're not anywhere to be found and so in understanding this this evolution in Biodiversity.

Yeah, we we see that there's all kinds of complex organisms, but in your worldview on evolution

Where are all of the transitional fossils? Where are they at? Why do we not see any of these transitions up all we're seeing is pictures from you of all the animals that we know of Today or that are in the fossil record that are already complex.

We see nothing that leads up to any of these things So yeah evolution is is biodiversity, but that's different than than what has been a standard definition evolution we have to account for where did everything evolve from going back to The single simple cell that evolutionist claim was there all the way up to complex organisms we see today and so This is really the issue that I want to focus on right now in my opening.

I had talked about the issue of where We we can't observe macroevolution happening, right?

All you're shooting is showing pictures We can't observe these changes happening. The only changes we can see happening is and we look at antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Well, guess what? They're still bacteria. That's not that's not a macro evolution to any degree. We're not seeing a kind to another kind And I could bring up many other examples of this so we can't test scientifically if evolution

Is possible because you can't observe it. So we have to what do we have to test? We have to test the very mechanism.

And so as I've talked to numerous not just masters But also PhD level and postdoc biologists evolutionary biologists genetic biologists

I've asked them all the same question. It's this What is the mechanism for?

Evolution to supposedly work because you can throw all these terms at me natural selection adaptation Genetic drift and blah blah blah blah all kinds of stuff and the reality they all rely upon Mutations not just any mutations new mutations that increase functional genetic information over time

So when you said something Patrick about about information and and you know We always want to focus on the issue of complexity

Well, of course we do because you're very not just you but the scientific community in secular science says that all life

Evolved from that single cell. I want to know how did it happen? How did billions of bits of information get inserted into the genome?

where'd it come from and This is the thing is There are no

Observe, there's no observable evidence of any mutation ever increasing functional genetic information to the genome all three fine mutations do is

They recombine information is already present or Have a net loss of information.

Usually it's both That's the issue and Patrick look you study cancer, right?

I mean and thank you for being a guy who is studying cancer. Cancer is horrible. I Would love to find

Find I'd love to be able to say that we found a cure for cancer. This is awesome. But what does cancer represent?

It represents bad mutations that happen over and over again

That completely kill off a body Well, we also have something else called

Genetic entropy. Why is it? Why is it that? Every successive generation.

I mean look you can look at you can look at secular scientific journals not even creation journals They talk about this idea of genetic entropy.

So on one hand evolution says that somehow information is being added to the genome as time goes on Right, but there's no evidence that they've never observed a mutation that has ever increased information

Functional genetic information in the genome. They've never observed this But what they have observed is that genetic entropy

Occurs meaning that 50 in humans alone 50 to 100 new mutations permanent negative mutations net loss of information

Mutations are being introduced in every successive generation Why?

Why are scientists asking the questions about how to stop genetic entropy because at some point in the future

We're not going to be around anymore. We're gonna be we're gonna be such mutated messes. We can't reproduce anymore

Why It's it's because of this there is no evidence on the

DNA level cellular level However, you want to call it there is no evidence for any mechanism for evolution.

All you have are pictures Having said all that I'm gonna try to address a few other things that that you talked about Evolution you talked about imperfect cloning.

Okay, I get imperfect cloning But again, here's the issue you have to have new information added the genome that is a benefit to That organism so that as time goes on an organism can survive

You know reproduce and then passes genes on next generation and that they should be better Why because you went from a single cell to all the complexity that we see today

That's why and again, no transitional fossils You compare a mouse pod and a fin for complexity

Whatever. I mean you're showing us pictures What's the mechanism for this to work again?

There is no mechanism evolutions and macro evolution is not scientific

Speciation is not macro evolution. I've never heard this definition before Speciation always has belonged to micro evolution

The thing we would agree on is when we look at Ken Ham's drawings which any of us young earth creationists would would believe is that is that if two animals

Can reproduce like a lion and a tiger they can reproduce and have a progeny

Well, then they would be of the same created kind Yeah, we we have no problem with that we would agree that that is speciation

That's and we would agree that they're the same created kind macro evolution is higher than that It has to go to how do you get the single cell to the complex?

organisms that we see today and on that I know my time is is just about up and You know again again.

I'm just waiting for any type of evidence That shows how evolution could be scientifically possible time

Okay, let me bring Patrick in. So what we'll do here now is Start with Patrick And just reset the clock here

Patrick you'll have one minute to ask a question And it's just you remember.

It's it's not a time for statements. It's time to sure to ask questions You just reset the clock and Then Anthony you will have two minutes to answer what

I'm gonna do. Just make it easier so I could reset I'll start I'm gonna leave two minutes on the clock, but you'll have one minute to ask the question and then two minutes to answer.

So we'll have a total of ten minutes for this so I have to just keep my

Other clock give me one sec. I should have had that ready All right

All right, so we got You ready for your question?

Can you hear me? I just saw a message pop up. I don't know if it's old or new Oh, yeah, I can hear you.

Yeah, okay. I can hear you You ready? Yeah, I sent you a message way before when when you drop. Yeah, I didn't know if it was an older one.

Yeah Okay, you ready for your first for your questions. I'm first. Yep You get you get to ask a question

Anthony is two minutes to answer you can then ask your second question up until ten minutes Okay, right

Ready sure. Yeah Well in terms of evolution and consistent reproduction

We Biologists see cats and reptiles in the same kind Beyond being cats or reptiles they are

Amniotes which is demonstrable by the way They also have four limbs.

They're tetrapods. Also, obviously demonstrable. Is there a question coming? Question.

Yes So you said cats always produce cats all the standard examples right there

Do vertebrates always produce vertebrates? Well It's not a good question because on one hand vertebrates would always produce vertebrates

But it's only be but that's too macro of a level Vertebrates in general. There's no there's no animal that's called a vertebrate, right?

So it's it's it's a cat or a dog or a name some other vertebrate and yeah in within that kind That are vertebrates they can reproduce within that own kind Okay, what what's the format next for your next question, okay 20 minutes of questions, right?

Well, if I if I deviate or do something wrong let me know

Example of a fish fin or and and the mouse paw

They're actually Issues there, but let's let's just get to the question

Which is more complex so evolutionists think all tetrapods as exemplified by the

Mouse paw Derived from sarcopterygian lobe fin fish and as a consequence of monophyly all

Tetrapods are technically classified as lobe fin fish. I know you're gonna balk at that and creationists don't like to hear that So if we think tetrapod limbs derived from lobe fin fish,

I guess obviously the increase in information went from fish fin to Mouse limb, is that correct?

Is a mouse limb more complex than a fish fin and how so Well, the problem with the question is that when we when we would argue about or make arguments about complexity we would be looking at what evolutionists have historically said are

The earlier life forms that have evolved into the more complex life forms

So I would I personally I don't believe it's a valid question looking at two different kinds of animals and Determining one is more complex than the other the thing that we're concerned about is that they both are really complex compared to what scientists some scientists evolutionary biologists believe

Were the organisms of billions of years ago and that they're more complex Than all of its ancestors going all the way back to billions of years ago so that's really the complexity that we're concerned with and And that's where we see nothing in between the simple to the to the really complex

Okay What's the difference between?

Philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism for our intents and purposes

Nothing, that's not right Not for my purposes

Which one is the scientific method based on? Okay, so repeat your question then because I'm on a different track than you

I think what's the difference between philosophical naturalism and methodological Naturalism and which one scientific method based on well scientific method would be on your on the second one.

Not the first one. Okay Which one does evolution?

exemplify the first one It's a it's a philosophical argument not a scientific one, okay

You also mentioned earlier random chemical reactions Obeying the laws of chemistry and physics.

I would just like that's a little bit of contradiction I think if you'll think about that for a second and Like give you a chance to clarify that What do you need clarification on what what's the question random things obey laws

You said random chemical reactions obeying the laws of chemistry and physics Well doesn't that's contradictory.

Oh, yeah. Well, I so I would agree and that's why I said that That's why

I clarified when I when I said this Okay, random, you know random chemical reactions

I said doing nothing but obeying laws of chemistry and physics and so in my in my in my statement was that I'm not even gonna make you account for where these natural laws came from laws of chemistry and physics

We're just gonna assume they're there even though in technically I shouldn't assume that they're there either in your worldview I should

I should pin you down and say where are where do the natural laws come from and Where it is your ability to have all of these things, you know

Your ability to reason and think everything come from Because otherwise the evolutionary worldview if you take it back far enough must start at a place that is just random chemical reactions in dirt in pomskum in something that somehow arose and it to the products

That somehow formed into the first cell Okay is that Over yeah,

I feel like we should be on CB's or walkie -talkies. I Think I should just say start saying 1040 and when

I'm done, right? Okay, let's talk about The Darwin quote did you are you aware that's a quote mine

That I took his quote. Yeah, I do. I have it in my book Okay, the missing transition the missing transitional fossils, yep in chapter 10

What does he go on to say oh He goes on to say lots of other stuff But but his point his point stood he still believed that they would find him one day and I and I don't

I I? I don't have a problem with his with the way he wrote his book I'm just saying that it's a hundred and almost sixty years later, and we're still looking for him, right?

so so first off Do you acknowledge he was just using sort of Victorian era?

language with a sort of a You know slaying out a a premise and then he would go on to discuss it

Absolutely, I reckon okay So we we have tons of transitional fossils

And I mean really I don't even I feel like I'm making I'm deviating from the format. Let me know

Yeah, you just it's time. Yes question. Yep, right. Okay, that's fine.

We have to print tons of transitional fossils and also, okay, let's

Let me look at your example where you talk about my cancer research Are the mutations that occur in cancer cells

Admittedly, they're bad for the host but Is it possible that the mutations that occur in cancer cells are good for the cancer cells do they confer a survival advantage for example in terms of Allowing them to colonize new tissues in the body or to avoid

Being killed by chemotherapy Not at all because once the cancer eats out the host and the host dies that cancer dies with it

So it has no ability to reproduce and put itself into a new host. It's gone.

So if that's not evolution Well, okay Are we not as species?

Limited to the planet Earth. I mean for instance, we could pollute the environment

Beyond recognition and it would be bad for us and we wouldn't be breeding anymore and reproducing but does that really

Have anything does that have any relevance to whether the mutations are beneficial to us

At the time assuming assuming we we have mutations that are beneficial.

I just gonna let you ask you to give me that Latitude there

Well, in other words is the condition of their environment really of any relevance to Whether their mutations are beneficial.

I mean, we do we know expect mutations to have any sort of concept of the long term do we

Well, I mean yes a couple questions there. So I'll ask I'll answer Yeah, that's okay. I'm fine with that So your last question

I'll answer first in in terms of mutations that the the issue is is

We have genetic entropy happening and I know you'd acknowledge that the When we talk about the billions of years that it supposedly took from the first cell all the way up to us today

If genetic entropy was going on all this time. We never would have evolved. It wouldn't even be here having this discussion today

So so genetic entropy would have would have flushed out some some organism billions of years ago

According to the rate that it's happening today when it comes to beneficial mutations I would agree that the research is one in every five to six thousand mutations is a perceived

Beneficial mutation and yet in every one of those cases such as sickle cell anemia

Antibiotic resistant bacteria and others it is it's always a net loss of information

And it just so happens that it's in that specific time and specific environment. It has an advantage

Right then and there but you take that antibiotic resistant bacteria and take them and put them into a normal environment

It's now at a genetic disadvantage so so Mutations don't really answer the question because again it my point when

I when I talked about this is that we need mutations for Macroevolution for molecules man evolution to be viable

We need mutations that puts new information new functional genetic information into the genome

It's the only way you can explain a simple cell Billions of years ago getting up to all the complex life.

We see today including us who's made of you know around a hundred trillion Highly complex specialized cells, okay

Did you know that genes? can actually Diversify and produce more copies of themselves each

Maybe with one lineage retaining the original sequence and then the copied lineage Experiencing some mutations that would allow it to diversify into different functions.

Did you were you aware of that? I I am and we'd be talking about the field

Epigenetics and here's here's the thing and in what we didn't have time to get into all of this today and I won't be able to do this in the closing either, but I would

I believe that according to the Bible that original pair of canines the original pair of felines a pair of whatever current animal you know type that came off Noah's Ark They had built into them not only massive amounts of genetic variability

But they also have built into them a genome that responds to the environment There's some wonderful new studies that have been out in the last five to six years wonderful research being done

It talks about how sensors in the body and we see this all over the animal kingdom plant kingdom and whatnot where sensors

Can not only cause an organism to move and do things but it can also Turn off and on switches in the genome to allow certain genes to be expressed or suppressed

So we see those things happening, but it's because of information already built in the genome so I don't have an issue with genes being able to duplicate because that that was

Then in by God's design, it would have been built into the genome. But even then when you bring up the idea of mutations

Mutations don't add new information They again they either recombine already existing information or it's a net loss of information and even the times that recombines

It typically ends up being a negative to the organism So it still doesn't answer the question at all in terms of his evolution scientifically possible.

Okay, how is the Information content of Are you are you talking about maybe a genetic sequence here a string of three

A's? and three T's and And you might have seen somewhere in the middle would that constitute new information?

I mean if we're measuring Nucleotides as sort of being synonymous or analogous to bits

Would that constitute new information Well, probably not and the reason why is because while it looks really cool in textbooks when we

See this double helix of DNA, you know along our textbook pages and we see all those bits that you're talking about of information in that genome as You and I both know that doesn't make

DNA functional functional DNA is when you have that double helix strand. It's actually

Twisted and tied up into a three -dimensional shape So that means that because it's a three -dimensional shape and it's kind of twisted up in different ways

Think of like for anybody out there listening if you've got a pair of earphones, right?

You can take earphones and hold them up, you know right in front of you But if you jumble them together and throw them in a drawer what happens?

You go pick them up a week later and you've got to untangle them, right? Well when you tangled them that strip of headphones when it's tangled up you have parts of the bottom strip that may be

Overlapping part of the middle strip and part of the top of the strip overlapping a part of the three quarters the way down on The strip there's a three -dimensional shape and structure to this to which those genes turn off and on other genes

So it's actually it's yeah It's actually far more complicated than just saying what

I even said today where we need mutations and increase functional genetic information Not only do you need mutations that somehow increase functional genetic information into that double helix into that genome

You also have to have it make sure that it doesn't mess up the

When it's in its three -dimensional shape mess up the off and on and regulator genes that come from other areas of the genome

That just will happen overlap that part of the genome when it's folded in this three -dimensional shape So when you have all when you have all those factors put in place and not only that in genetics

We call it four -dimensional because that three -dimensional structure can change shape like in liver cells

Depending on what type of toxin it has to excrete. It's so complex time Okay, you you still have three minutes left for questions.

Oh, okay so information May or may not be

Calculated or measured on a nucleotide Basis like the number

X number of nucleotides is greater Than Y number of nucleotides.

Therefore. It has more information. Is that correct or incorrect? Well, I think in a very very very simplistic view or simplistic model

You can say that but it's not going to apply to every situation Now, of course, I use this what you're saying right now

I use this in my own book in talking about the Differences between a chimpanzee genome versus a human gene human genome and why it would have been impossible

For all of those changes to occur Between a human and I'm sorry between not a chimpanzee, but you know

It would be a common answer Using a chimpanzee genome we can still get an idea with how vast the differences are

We're talking hundreds of millions of base pair differences. So I use that as an example in my book Simplistically and I can demonstrate how evolution is not scientifically possible in given amount of time for that Let alone the fact that your your example and what

I'm talking about here It's it's that's way too simplified because of the fact that genomes are folded into three -dimensional shape with ability to regulate what itself and The ability to actually change shape in certain circumstances

Like I said liver cells when they're when they're trying to get rid of toxins You see you see this you see think you see these

The genome being able to fold in different ways. I mean, it's it's incredible again all by design by God Not from randomness over billions of years.

Okay, so time for one more quick one minute left So I'm gonna try to boil everything down here.

Sorry. I didn't mean to talk Over you where you finished? Oh, I'm good. Yeah, good Okay, so You Don't think evolution is scientifically possible

Because the only proposed mechanism is is mutations for generating genetic diversity

And You tack on the need for increasing complexity via mutations which you

Think is impossible. Am I being fair up to this point? Yes, you are. Okay, but you can't

Give me a way to measure information or complexity quantitatively

Well, no I said in a simple in a very simple sense you can use that It's just it's it's much it's much more complicated than that.

But even in a simple sense if you try to calculate it It's impossible. Just like when I said earlier in terms of what are the what's the probability of a single protein?

Being able to form out of out of nothing let alone the first living cell So so I have no problem with using that as as a way to try to quantify it the point

I was trying to make is that I To be scientific as I said in my entire opening to be scientific

We have to be able to apply the scientific method which means we have to have something that we observe test repeat

Verify results, right? We have to be able to do those things. It can't be done with macro evolution You'd never observe that happening.

All we can observe is certain traits being expressed within a genetic kind like in E.

Coli bacteria studies or in antibiotic resistant bacteria or Darwin's finches right and they're still finches in the end with slightly different sized beaks

So the issue is that we're what is the mechanism is there any mechanism possible

For evolution to occur because I'm just trying to find a way to be fair to evolutionists

How can we apply a scientific method to try to make this scientific? I go as far as to say evolution is not even a theory

It can't be because you can't run it through the scientific method and there is no you don't have any ways any

Mechanisms for evolution to occur so you can't run that through the scientific method either which means that it's not a theory

It's a hypothesis at best So that's yeah, that's where I stand on it

Okay, that's time. So now it is 20 minutes for Anthony to ask questions of Patrick Anthony You'll have one minute to ask a question

Patrick You will have two minutes to answer and again if if you feel that the questions not being answered

I the question gets re -asked. Okay. Okay ready? Go ready? And by the way, thank you

Patrick. It's been a very respectful debate. I enjoy that. So it's it's always fun to Sorry, I don't mean to talk over you either

We act a certain way online when I'm reciprocating Behavior that I get

I don't I don't start out out of the gate like that. I Get it

I get it Okay, so you're here are some questions. I'm gonna ask you Patrick Number one has it ever been observed that one kind of animal has ever evolved into another kind?

Such as an ape -like creature evolving to a man or a chicken or a bird evolving from a dinosaur

Evolution takes place over several generations and the major evolutionary transitions took place well before Mankind even walked the earth before he even invented a scientific method so That's one part of your answer.

Mm -hmm. The second part of your answer is that Apes and humans are the same kind according to agnostic evolution

Birds and reptiles are the same kind so there's no change of kind required and I had one other point that I was juggling up there at the top of my mind, but I can't remember what it was

I Repeat your question again, and maybe it'll come to me.

Yeah, has it ever been observed that One kind of animal has ever evolved into another kind Examples would include an ape -like creature evolving to a man

Or a chicken or a bird evolving from a dinosaur Well dinosaurs went extinct before humans ever walked the earth.

So My two points address your

Once again you complained about several of my observations or questions

That's that's a bad question for the two reasons that I Stated one.

There's no change of kind and to those transitions took place

Before humans ever walked the earth and there's no reason to expect major What what a creationist would call a change of kind to occur in the present day a lot of the major transitions that you for the answer

So for yes, here's a yes or no question so just to clarify

Have you has any human ever observed? One of these things happening what it has a the ever observed one kind evolving into another kind Okay.

Well what? Creationists would Where they would draw the the line in terms of a different kind Say Any of the examples you stated

An example of a kind changing another kind I don't care what it is. I'm just asking I Don't use the definition.

I don't I can't wrap my head around What your definition of a kind is

I think in clades? So there are clades sub clades within sub clades that make up One of the three clades in in biodiversity that being eukaryotes

Eubacteria organism member clade

So I don't see any change of kind when we talk about So for all

Are also vast killer plant seed plant that isn't a vascular plant but in terms of evolution

Being a vascular plant is a prerequisite To the evolution of seed plants

I don't know where you draw the line in terms of kinds for that It's just it just makes it doesn't

I can't wrap my head around it. Like I said, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't compute Okay, did a mammal was it ever observed that a fish?

turned into a human being because that's in that is a

Claim of the evolutions sure humans are tetrapods obviously the genetic basis for Tetrapod limbs

Is Resident is still You can still sort of suss it out you can swore, you know with with tweezers you can trace it out of the

Genetics of some lobe -finned fish others you can't so they're not direct. They're not closely related

You know, they're not in the same lineage of ancestry But no one has ever observed that that occurred in the Devonian period approximately 485 million years ago

There weren't any humans around but technically humans are classified as lobe -finned fish

Just asking if it was ever There's no, I mean, there's no it's no it's not ever been observed, right so it's not ever been

You can observe it medically Okay fair fair enough, so in In when bacteria develop resistant antibiotics, what do they turn into?

A strain or a subspecies of the same bacteria

Based on the law of monophyletic restriction or excuse me. I mispronounced that a little dry mouth

Monophyletic restriction we wouldn't expect them to turn into anything else Especially just based on a variation in a single trait

Okay When the when the flu mutated every year

Anthony I Was gonna make a sort of accessory point, but it's really not necessary.

Go ahead From China, excuse me. I'm you being racist COVID -19 from China Isolate is still a coronavirus 19

If you compare the an American isolate from American patient That's that's just too short a distance to I mean there are major change

But you wouldn't expect that Coronavirus to ever change into anything else biologists are aware of a phenomenon called monophyletic restriction

You know, yeah We wouldn't expect it to so We look at some so like DNA.

There's many other coding systems out there And so one of those would be like so a working coding system like computer code, right?

Have do you know of any any working coding system anywhere in the universe that Has ever come about without an intelligent designer?

Well, I can't even think of a working computer computer code that wasn't designed by a human so I Guess the answer to your question is no.

Yeah, I would agree. So Is DNA infinitely more complex or at least infinitely is it much more complex

Than any computer code Sure.

Yeah, I would agree So by logic if if all working coding systems like computer codes must have had a designer

Would it logically follow that? DNA must also have an intelligent designer

No Why not? because it's a chemical because humans design computer codes if your premise is that humans design

DNA and you know if you verify that is exactly analogous to a computer code rather than just a convenient metaphor for Relaying some of the attributes that it has then this would be a reasonable topic

You have any guess I'm sorry you demonstrate that it is exactly analogous to a computer code exactly comparable or Can't think of the word

Well, I think it's very analogous because there's information loaded into both of those analogous and it's a metaphor but They're not the same thing

Okay, so I'll ask this question then In a in a human being we've got something like three billion letters of DNA information, right?

How could mutations accidental copying mistakes Create the huge volumes of information in the

DNA of living things again you go from a single -celled Organism that actually would have had

DNA in it How did that how did that DNA even evolve itself let alone?

How does mutations add? Information to get the DNA that we have today

Okay. Well this goes back to the Distinction between the biochemical origin of cells or their genetic systems or their organelles versus The theory of evolution which is the facts and theories concerning the generation of biodiversity

Mutations don't create Genomes they create genome diversity

So, you know if you want to talk about evolution You know you want to talk about how one you go to your local college campus

Talk about evolution you go to your biology department how genomes are related how we can infer That whales are mammals and thus necessarily

Whales derived from tetrapod four -limbed ancestors that were also mammals.

That's one set of questions but if you want to talk about how the first genomes

Or this first sets of genetic instructions Originated and you know how sets of genes accumulated into the first replicating cells you need to go over your biochemistry department

There's a little bit of overlap between those two areas but we don't use the same techniques and we don't study the same things and like I keep saying

Evolution doesn't explain why the sky is blue nor does it explain the question you just asked me

Nor does it meant to Okay, but if mutations are the way that Evolutionists it's the mechanism that all evolutionists point to as the bottom like base function for New information we put into a genome

I'm just asking how can mutations possibly have put new information into DNA over billions of years

What is the mechanism for it? Well, we you can do that.

You can do like you can clearly I don't you know, first of all, if you need to establish what information is what constitutes information.

So Let's go back to the coronavirus example we have sequences that came out early on from isolates in China and We can derive a sequence from a new isolate from someone in Chicago Tonight they're gonna vary some of those

Of the characteristics of each isolate or might vary as well in terms of infectivity

Obviously the the change from bat or Pangolin or whatever animal it was a human involved some addition of information via mutation

We might not be able to say exactly what mutation Contributed to a jump and it's probably more all in all likelihood more than one mutation

So this is a you know, it's a very slippery slope. You have to be able to say what the information is and Then you want to say mutations can't contribute can't add information

But then you have to say well, what did that information do? And if you know what what that particular?

Change is say being able to go from infecting bats only bats to humans

Then you can sometimes find specific nucleotide differences that contributed contributed to that shift say it allows interaction with a

Receptor on a human cell as opposed to a bat cell, you know And if that doesn't conform to your information to your definition of information,

I don't know what to tell you If you want to talk about broader macroscopic changes like say going from chordates to vertebrates

More than one change that's more than one mutation many many many more How much time is left

Andrew the total of five minutes 24 seconds. Okay. Thank you Okay, I I think

I'm gonna get away from this for a moment So you had a picture in the beginning of of coelacanth right and coelacanth is is an ancient fish

Right that died off supposedly 65 million or so years ago But then somewhere around 80 years ago, we found one off the coast of I don't know which continent anymore

But we found a coelacanth again and he was remarkable about is over 65 million years.

It didn't change. It looks the exact same According to the fossils of 65 million years ago to today.

Well, so so Patrick How do we explain living fossils because I can rattle off numerous numerous fossils.

I mean from from Spiders to again coelacanth to starfish to frogs your question

Okay, so all right And they look the exact same today or really really close where they'd be the same kind As they did millions to hundreds of millions of years ago.

How is that to be the case of evolution is is something that happens? Okay well the the problem with the the coelacanth example, is that what

People mistake or call it being a living fossil is really just being

Ambiguous and and sort of fuzzy in their acknowledgement of a species versus a genus versus a family the

Living to genera, I believe may they might be from the same genus. I can't recall off the top of my head

They are two species from the Indian Ocean and off the coast of Madagascar They actually do look very similar

But our fossil coelacanths are Very diverse in terms of body plan

They also inhabited different habitats So, you know a lot of freshwater coelacanths

Near shore environments a lot of different fan arrangements and morphologies

So really you're just sort of you know, and I don't blame people for not understanding

But it's really just conflating conflating extinction of other Genus and other species in genera

With one that happened to survive that no one noticed for a long time because it lived in the very deep ocean

You know, there are parts of the deep ocean. We don't know a whole lot about and we're always discovering new animals in those habitats as well

So it's the the no change The living fossil fallacy as I like to call it can be explained by just having a better understanding of the diversity of Coelacanths and the prehistoric time versus our one or our two living examples nowadays and they're not really similar to the fossils that we do have

Though the ones that we have fossils for As a follow -up question, what's that you probably have time for one more question two minutes unless the answers quick, okay as a

Okay, so from in your coelacanth example here when it comes to human beings the ancestor that we supposedly diverged from so the common ancestor with a chimpanzee was

Supposedly somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of million years ago and That means that we would have added hundreds of millions of base pair differences into the genome from that common ancestor to humans today

We would look very different than what that was. I mean, we don't look anything like What what evolutionists purport as being transitional fossils

Why is it that we look very different even in just a couple of supposed, you know millions of years of evolution?

But yet the coelacanth looks virtually no difference, even though you may call it subspecies Why is it the frog looks virtually no different, even though you may call those subspecies.

These things don't look different and Yet they would have been for 60 to 100 million years in In the case of a lot of these living fossils between how well the fossil was dated to what we see actually living today

Why did the evolution not occur? Well Evolution first off evolution isn't predicated on physical change

Sometimes that's all we have to work with especially if we're looking at fossils Once again,

I just really want to go back and correct you. That's just that's not correct The coelacanth that we have two living species of Today are nothing like our fossil coelacanths except if you were to go back and find a fossil of The current living species at some time point

And Once again, you're talking about why don't we see change? once again,

I just chalk that up to a lack of Understanding or a lack of living biodiversity and when it comes to humans, we're looking at the hominin line and There are human homo sapiens which are alive today homo neanderthalensis, which could you know, which is still a human it's in the genus homo and Several others that you know,

I don't feel like rattling off the names including within the genus homo and then several species within the genus

Australopithecus Those are all hominins and the ones that have are in the genus homo are humans

So I think we would all have a very different idea of evolution and be a little more

Accepting of it if there were more examples of living biodiversity that we're familiar with and the same thing goes for animals you know, we're not familiar with the you know, simple chordates and Say the egg -laying mammals like the platypus and echidna that Other people are

Familiar with you know that may live in those specific areas So I don't agree that there's a lot of diversity

Okay, so that's time. We're gonna go to Anthony in timeout.

I just like saying that. All right And I'm gonna reset the clock to 10 minutes you'll have

You'll have 10 minutes for your closing remarks Are you ready? Yes, let's says my screen showing or my

I'm just gonna go back to my PowerPoint to address a few things Sure, I'm gonna improvise a closing statement.

How long do I have again? You have 10 minutes Okay You ready?

Yeah, all right go Okay, I believe this was the last slide

Okay, so You know, I mean you you can talk about Evolution whether evolution is scientifically possible.

I don't really understand using the biblical Basis for whether it is which you have done which my opponent has done as A Measuring stick of whether something scientific

I like to use results based Inform you know lines of reasoning

Evolution bioinformatics medicine biotechnology all

Produce results and in many cases they produce profit They put money in people's pockets, you know, unfortunately a lot of times.

It's not the right people It's not the people on the ground floor doing the hard work, but they produce profits

And if these were just if you know evolution was just a random thing

Even because you hated God It would be just a huge stroke of luck that you took this gamble on This worldview and then it put results in your pocket

Okay. Now I know in medicine. We're talking about things like and I buy

Bacteria or even the Ways that and evolutionary

Relationships and lineages is being used to in the epidemiology of the coronavirus right now

And I know you were gonna just call Evolution but there are wonderful Medical school

I always like to go back to the example of Neil Shubin his Exploration team went and camped out at the

Arctic several years and you know in Greenland several years in a row They found the transitional fossil

Tiktaalik, there's an example of a Transitional fossil that someone found that actually does exist

Contrary to what my opponent said But for his day job, he actually works at University of Chicago Medical School You know and it's not like he has a clear line.

Okay a clear line Well when it's summer and warm I go study fossils in Greenland and then for my day job it pays the bills

I go teach gross anatomy to medical students At the you know at the med school, you know his research disciplines that he uses the fossils for and the stuff that his

Lab does you know at the bench in the wet lab so to speak are integrated one branch informs the other so He's he looks at the the fish the fish fin the lobe fin fish fin to limb transition and Then in his day job in his lab

He's looking at the genetic basis that converts converted fish fins to tetrapod limbs

And this just isn't some pie in the sky Pursuit obviously it requires funding and you need to back up The by the funding when you're asking for people for money to do these research projects and the reason that they tend to fund these research project is projects is because they have practical value and You know, obviously he's looking at the the fish fin to tetrapod limb transition.

He's looking at the stem cells and the genetic Programming if you will that dictates those

Dictate that ever dictated that evolutionary trend and if you're looking at stem cells, then that just blossoms into the whole sorts of stem cell therapies

Things like that, you know, I I guess the far -fetched scientific thing would be you know regrowing limbs or regrowing organs or you know doing organ transplant transplant

Transplantation, so they're practical results driven Impetuses for pursuing evolution as a as a line of research.

It's not just some philosophical Fantasy, okay, let's talk about the difference between observational and Historical science

And whether evolution Even though you can't see Macro changes happening in real time whether you can make theories or you can make you can inform

Hypotheses and then go test them based on things like the fossil record like I mentioned earlier

You're never going to be able to find and I like to work on plants or use plants as an example because it's something people

Have ready access to You can go outside right now you can find Seed plants that are flowering and you can find seed plants that are non flowering

But you're never going to find a seed plant of either type. That isn't also a vascular plant. So the inference is that Vascularization preceded seeds in the evolutionary history of plants

We can go and confirm that you can go back and find The earliest you know that vascular plant fossils such as those of ferns

Preceded gymnosperms, which would be something like a cedar tree and angiosperms a tree that produces flowers

Okay, so you can make Hypotheses and then test them using other

Disciplines you have to be synthetic and comprehensive in your approach You can't just say

Observational science requires eyewitnessing. That's a fallacy. How much time do

I have left? Damn it. I have time.

Are you hearing me? Lord we can hear you.

You have three minutes and five seconds. Can you hear us?

Yep, I'm back. All right We we heard we heard everything even

The foul language I see you're trying That because I didn't think

I was still on yep, no you're on so go go ahead on 20 seconds to start this up again

Okay, well we can do the same thing with The evolution of metamorphosis and insects obviously that's something we're not

Okay okay, I Don't think there's any point in continuing on First off given the technical difficulties and secondly,

I just heard my voice rapidly repeated You tried to come in you should be good now, do you hear me?

Okay. Yeah. All right. You got three more minutes Or not, he just dropped out, okay,

I will reset the time I'll bring Anthony in And Anthony you'll have ten minutes.

You ready? Yeah, I if he comes in I may want to repeat

Some of this but some or I hope that we send it to him so he can listen to this afterwards

Okay, so for those of you who are still listening First of all, I have not used the

Bible as a measuring stick. Let's make let's be clear here Okay So I'll start you.

Can we start again Andrew? So you well, that's three minutes. Did you want to yeah, I'd let

Patrick Okay, let me let me give him his three minutes and Let's see.

Hey, you ready? Yeah before Okay, this is just another example of how we don't have to witness

We we have to witness things through eyewitness observation Just something to add to that.

That's one of the most most unreliable forms of witness testimony in In courtrooms so it's better to be able to Coordinate different lines of evidence.

So one of those would be the genetic differences between different types of Metamorphosis and insects so not all insects go through the larva the egg larva pupa stage to adult we have a metabulous insects, which as the name implies don't have metamorphosis and then hemimetabolous where they sort of go through an intermediate form of metamorphosis, so there's right there is a

Continuum or a gradual series of Different types of metamorphosis that has an evolutionary basis

You might say well, those are just different types of evolution that they were made that way but we can go into the fossil record and find examples of a metabulous insects

That are the oldest insect fossils and then we can find Examples of intermediate hemimetabolous insects that are a bit younger and And then just insect fossils are all representatives of holometabolous insects that have the egg larva pupa adults series now nice not to say that these don't overlap once they originate but We can find the earliest examples in a clear

Rated Hierarchy that goes from a metabulous to hemimetabolous Insects and that's all am

I still with you Yes, you have another minute if you want Okay Okay bringing

Anthony in I'll put you in Backstage I gotta reset the clock for you so that actually we should just leave you at the three minutes

That would be good All right, you ready listen to me already You ready?

Yeah, I'm ready. Okay. So first of all, I want to thank my opponent Patrick and our moderator Andrew I also want to thank everyone who's listening

I pray that if you're a Christian this debate has been edifying for you If you're not a Christian, I pray that you see the eternity altering error of believing in it in the

God of evolution and secular science because yes, it is a religion, too I've not

According, you know Patrick says I I use the Bible as my measuring stick It's not my measuring stick as a

Christian. The Bible is my sole source of authority So you could throw all the evidence you want at me about evolution

That's fine. And I'm still going to rely on what the Bible tells me versus what fallen man will tell me

But that wasn't the issue of the debate today. The issue of the debate today was I asked for Any evidence whatsoever for evolution to be scientifically possible, right?

that was the debate is evolution scientifically possible and so because as Patrick admitted finally later on He admit think we had to squeeze it out of him

But he admitted you can't observe this right because supposedly it happened many years ago So we couldn't have observed any macro evolutionary issues or macro evolution happening

So instead I said to make it scientific just give me a mechanism just let's test

Let's observe. Let's observe if there's any possible mechanisms let's test those mechanisms to see if we can find any scientific evidence for evolution and The only way to do that in the here and now is through mechanism some type of mechanism

And so this is what I asked I've established and this is what I established I established a that the mechanism for molecules remain evolution to theoretically work is through mutations

It's the only way that it can occur, but it's not through any mutations. It's one. It's ones that Have to increase functional genetic information over time

That's it It's the only way that's going to occur to go from a single cell to the complex organisms We see today and all the fossil records.

We have to have information out of the genome Have have there ever been any observed mutations that have increased functional genetic information and the answer is no

There's never been any it's zero Let me repeat.

There's never been a mutation It's ever been shown to increase functional genetic information Every mutation whether beneficial neutral or negative has really displayed a net loss of information or just a recombining of information that is already present and When we look at the

Noah's Ark example where and and the tree orchard versus the one tree of life that the evolutionists believe in we look at the amount of variability in in the original dog kind that came off the ark that same dog kind that produced wolves and dingoes and All the breeds of dog we see today came from one original pair

Let's talk about the genetic variability for this to occur because you've got to have a lot of variability a lot of information

Already built into the genome that allows those dogs to speciate out If we look at a husband and a wife

They have enough genetic variability that they could have ten to the get this 2017th power that's a one with 2017 zeros after it

But they got that many children before they're guaranteed to produce an identical one That's how much variability is in a human being

Let alone, what do you see in the genetic variability in all these animals? It's easy to conceive how you get all these different speciations and subspecies

Within a created kind by God. I Also pointed out that not only do we have this catastrophic problem in evolution where there is no mechanism that has ever been shown

Ever been observed to be able to prove that evolution is even possible scientifically

That's not the only problem as I stated in my opening That they always start with a single cell the simple what they call the simple single cell why?

Because they have no idea how a cell could have come out about in the first place So, of course, they have to start there and try to make up more fairy tale information starting from the cell

Going into how we get to human beings of today They also can't explain where all the matter in the universe came from in the beginning

Again goes against all science as I stated in my opening Evolution is starting point notice is always billions of years ago millions of years ago long ago once upon a time

Well, guess what? Every fairy tale also starts the same way this just so happens to be the one that some adults use that hate

God This debate in reality was not a debate about whether Molecules man evolution is tiffet or if it's typically possible.

This is really a debate about world views Because Patrick claimed to be an atheist according his worldview were the result of materialistic naturalistic processes

We somehow evolved millions to billions of years ago from random chemical reactions That are doing nothing but obeying the laws of chemistry and physics today again

I'm not gonna say where those came from. We know it's God but from an evolution standpoint I'm just gonna give it to him and we're just a result then of these random chemical chance processes

That means we would be according to the macro evolution according to molecules man evolution We're just bags of random chemical reactions doing nothing but obeying laws chemistry and physics

Which is only capable reducing more chemical reactions doing nothing but obeying laws chemistry of physics

It does not produce logic does not produce ability to speak and think and reason like Patrick did today

Whether we agree with his assessments or not of which I obviously don't

I Don't believe Patrick gave a single good answer today He think he avoided every one of my questions in terms of mechanism

He kept showing more pictures, which is all evolutionists are really trained to do. This is what I was trained to do years ago

Before I was taught to ask questions that penetrate just a little bit past surface level

But I go further Was there even a point purpose of listening to Patrick any point today because in his worldview we really should have just shut off the volume and gone and gotten a snack and and ate it because His words would have just been the result of random chemical chance processes

Doing nothing but obeying laws of chemistry and physics if we believe his worldview But of course we listen to him why because we know that that's not the case

We know that Patrick did and Patrick knows this himself he did speak with intelligible thought today

He prepared for this debate using his ability to reason which he can't count for in his worldview He controlled his thoughts today, which he can't account for his worldview

He also purposefully selected his words and spoke those words today, which he also can't account for in his worldview

So how then could Patrick do this? Well For the Christians in the room It's because he's made in the image of God who gave him the ability to do all these things and much more

Romans 1 clearly states that everyone knows a true God that exists by his creation and the things that have been made.

I Point out some wonderful signs today about this wonderful genome It's obvious designs.

We have a computer code that it obviously designed Patrick admitted that Also admitted that the human genome is one more complex than a computer code and yet somehow

There's a disconnect and not understanding that that was also designed Not just by a human because a human could never design

DNA That is designed by God the one who has all knowledge the infinite being is who designed

DNA Romans 2

Verifies something also that's very important in this world Romans 1 everyone knows true God that exists Romans 2 is

That the moral laws are in everyone's heart that includes mine that includes yours Patrick But Romans 1 also tells us that many people including

Patrick here suppress the truth about God how well, it says in Romans 1 in their unrighteousness sin causes the unbeliever as It did to me in my past It caused the unbeliever to do the same thing

Adam and Eve did when they sinned at the beginning of time about 6 ,000 years ago the unbeliever attempts to hide from God Yet even in his hiding by suppressing the truth about God They'll still be held accountable to him without excuse on Judgment Day Patrick I agree to do this debate only because you pretend to be an atheist

You know as well as I do that you're created in the image of God and have broken God's laws at least thousands of Times in your life

Every time you've lied stolen something committed adultery in your heart by lusting after a woman Committed murder in your height by committing murder in your heart by hating someone or speaking ill of someone you've broken

God's law and For our law -breaking for your law -breaking you deserve the same way

I would deserve nothing, but the Almighty wrath in God a wrath of God in hell for eternity As our sins are against the eternal

Creator God, but his grace and mercy God Himself took on flesh and lived life

We're not capable of went to the cross to die through his death burden resurrection pay that penalty in full

For those who repent and believe Patrick I pray today that you cry out to God that he grants you repentance in faith

This isn't about evolution anymore. This is about your salvation. This is about where you're gonna spend eternity

Look you you said earlier today Something about holy hell or something like that or Jesus I can't remember what the what the phrase was

But it shows the suppression of truth and I will say one last thing you said snakes were legless lizards

Well, guess what? So does the Bible you can read that in Genesis 1 through 3 All right.

Well that is time and I just want to thank Both Anthony and Patrick for coming in and doing this debate it is it's always good when we have debates that are done and people are respectful

So that's I appreciate both of them. I I didn't want to say this at the beginning because so I would never be accused of Poisoning the well, but the way this debate occurred was the fact that There Anthony he mentioned his book several times

He just never mentioned the title by the way or where you can get it So I will give a shout out to that his book is called on the origin of kinds and you can get that at striving for eternity dot o -r -g and if you

Get that book you'll also realize he has a Facebook group that is also by the same name, but there is a

Question that you're asked to get in that Facebook group. That group is only it's not debate group

It is a it is a group to discuss young earth creationism So to get in that group, you must answer a question.

Do you believe in young earth creationism? this debate started in that group, which means

Patrick would have had to lie to get his way into that group or someone didn't

Let or let him in without answering questions one of those two We could verify if the questions were answered if I was an admin there

But I'm sure someone else other one of the other admins would but that's where this debate this started in a group that was meant only for young earth creationists and Here we go.

Brian Brian 9 says great book highly endorsed. So Folks if you want to get the book on the origin of kinds

I do recommend it as well Brian Eddie says it's a great book

So getting some some some people who've read the book so you can get that at striving for attorney org now

Listen, what we're gonna do. We're signing out for now This will be a podcast form as well.

It'll drop tomorrow But we're gonna do a bonus episode for the podcasters We'll also do it for those who are here

Let you know we're going to do a post debate discussion we're going to just take about maybe five minutes to give

Anthony and I a break to run and We'll be back here. I've put the link in the

Into the YouTube channel for folks who are watching on Facebook or Twitter It's gonna be right back up there.

If you're watching on YouTube go to Youtube .com Striving for eternity that gets you to the

YouTube channel. You're what if you're watching on YouTube just click the link for the channel right there and We're gonna have a post debate discussion, but I'll put the link for folks who want to join