 Hey everybody, today we're debating intelligent design versus evolution. We're starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for this epic debate. This is a tag team debate and we are really excited as these people have been here before they debate debated before they're articulate, they're energetic. So this is going to be a fun one folks want to let you know a few things up front. First, if this is your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have a lot more debates coming up. So for example, you'll see at the bottom of your screen, this coming Monday, the snake was right and Steve McCray will be facing off on a number of personal issues that they will resolve for once and for all. So that should be a lot of fun. But want to let you know we're a neutral platform and despite the thumbnail that you are seeing from Monday's upcoming debate on the bottom right of your screen, which is a joke. We are a neutral platform. So we don't take a stance. That's just a joke between me and Steve. And with that, want to let you know if you're a Christian, atheist, Republican Democrat, you name it, we hope you do feel welcome here and we only have one rule which is that there be no hate speech. That's the only thing we'll actively delete and ban. And we just ask though, since it is, you could say you have a lot of liberty here. We just ask that you kind of meet us halfway be your regular friendly selves as we enjoy so much in the live chat and we'll get started with that. So want to let you know we're going to have our dearest friends representing intelligent design go first, namely John Maddox and Nephilim free. And then we're going to have Amy and T jump representing evolution tonight. So it's going to be 10 minutes and it's going to be for each side 10 minutes split however they would like. So we will go into open conversation after that followed by Q&A. So if you have a question fired into the old live chat tagging me with at modern day debate to make it easier for me to not miss any questions. Also super chat is an option in which case you can also make a comment toward one of the speakers for the question and answer and a super chat will also push your question or come to comment to the top of the list for the Q&A. So with that very excited to have all of you here folks always fun. We're going to kick it over to Maddox. I think is going first appreciate you guys all being here and want to let you know everybody I put all of their links in the description. So if you want to hear more you can hear more from each and every person here. John Maddox the floor is all yours. Thanks James fun to be back again looking forward to this debate. Anybody wants to check out my videos and you just search for logical plausible probable. It's my channel name and find out more over there. Now tonight for those of you watching this debate you're going to be presented with two very distinct dichotomies on one side. There is the position that intelligence is not required for the existence of what we now know are the requirements for life prescriptive information of stunning complexity and artistic beauty which is made possible by nanotechnologies that far exceed our imagination and even comprehension on the other side is the foundational argument that this is not possible without an intelligent agent providing both the information required and its instantiation into a physical medium. Moreover it is my position that when the requirements for life are examined through an unbiased lens the supposition that it is plausible for our existence to occur without direction requires a suspension of rational thought. Those like at least a T jump and I'm not sure about Amy but very often they try to obscure the truth and the arguments and when questioned create elaborate stories to discredit their opponents and as the proof supposed proof of evolution and chance occurrences begin continues to evaporate. They either refuse to accept being correct or invent new explanations of how already failed theories are 100% fact. Moreover it is my assertion that all variants of Darwinism which is reliant on dogmatic naturalism and reductive materialism by the assumption that a biogenesis is not relevant to its very core is therefore the fruit of a poison tree and must be treated as such and you know I find it so interesting how those in favor of this position attempt to circumvent this inescapable enigma that somehow the mind-bending lack of plausibility and probability required for a biogenesis to occur without intelligent agent being possible is somehow a reasonable conclusion. And the very often put forth position of you know supposedly a proof of chance a biogenesis is life exists therefore no matter how improbable it must have occurred by chance. I would contend that this is quite possibly the most illogical conclusion that's ever been put forth especially about a position that is so fundamental to our very existence. There are innumerable things that are possible but no sane person would ever posit they could exist without intelligent agent as the required catalyst for their inception. So how ironic is it for those who deny the need for a creator to demand we conclude that these things are possible by chance. Would you conclude that the software for example enables us debates could ever be formed without programmers would you argue there is no meaning in the source code which makes this possible would you ever claim that abstract meanings that were applied to the code that makes us all possible did not require intelligent agents to define what they mean from a syntax semantics and pragmatics perspective and to ultimately create the hardware that is capable of translating the code into action. I would wager that nobody listening to this and watching whatever say this is possible so how then can those in favor of evolution and chance a biogenesis argue that no designers required for our existence while claiming the same abstract abstractions which enable life somehow do not require intelligent agents. Now ultimately it is likely that. Nephilim and my and myself's opponents will attempt to dismiss these kinds of arguments and claim that you know things just aren't truly understood yet and at some time in the future we will and that only creationists think that these things require design I would say do not be fooled this is a standard tactic levied against anyone in favor of an intelligent designer and is nothing but a very shrewd defense mechanism created to escape the unavoidable questions as you consider the arguments made and the expansion of them throughout this debate I would say ask yourself this who is really the one who succumbs to a God of the gaps mindset is it those who conclude it is a more logical plausible and probable conclusion that these things could not occur by chance or those who argue no matter how in any other context their positions would be laughable you must believe this could all happen without a designer being required I contend the evidence in favor of our creator is a cell of truth and while people like my opponents attempt to escape this ultimate truth they are forced to kneel before the gods of chance and chaos nef the floor is yours. Nef you might have yourself on mute. Okay great if you could screen share what I have to present there we go okay so what are the properties of design first we have to understand that functionality is not the same as activity okay so here are some of the properties of design a high level of specificity which results in functionality integration of interdependent entities which results in functionality the presence of semiotics that the use of symbols to represent a process and the energy entity or concept the presence of prescriptive information from Asian which prescribes the properties of entities which results in functionality the presence of functional information which specifies the order of the series of actions or a process which results in functionality, or an arrangement which inspires imagination and provides aesthetic pleasure such as art. All these are processes of intelligence, all of them, and intelligence is necessary for any of them. Specificity is a mental process. To integrate things is a mental process. To use symbols to represent something is a mental process. To prescribe something is a mental process. To order a series of actions for function is a mental process. And to arrange things for pleasure or imagination is a mental process. These are the functions of life. Modern science has discovered that bacteria are able to have, that their ribosomes and their polymerase machines are designed in such a way that they can bond. Unlike human cells, these machines can fit together, bond to each other and make a single unit. So you don't have to transport, the cell doesn't have to transport the RNA to the ribosome for translation into a protein, it's already there. It goes from one machine right into the other. This is incredible design. The specificity of the arrangement of amino acids in these two molecules so that their faces match up just right so that they bond in exactly the right place for this DNA molecule to be RNA. DNA first into RNA is just amazing. The specificity is out of this world. If that's not designed, I don't know what it is. To specify is a mental process. Modern science has discovered all kinds of features of living things that are designed. For example, this paper in the science journals, dichotomy of the definition of prescriptive information, describing algorithms in ribosomes and whatnot, is describing mental processes that exist in living systems. To prescribe things is a mental process. To order a series of actions such as an algorithm is a mental process. Here's another paper by the same authors describing the same features. To prescribe is a mental process and to order a series of actions that has function is a mental process, not a chemical one. Ken Dill, director of the Laufer Center of Physical and Quantitative Biology, a professor of physics and chemistry at Stony Brook, states this. The case I want to make for you is that proteins are machines. You have 20,000 types of machines in your body and other living systems have other kinds of protein machines. There's tens to hundreds of thousands of different machines. And the first thing I want, the case I want to make for you is that these are real machines. This is not a metaphor. To prescribe is a mental process. To integrate is a mental process. To order a series of actions for function is a mental process, not a chemical one. Intelligence is always involved. Dr. Tony Parson, part of the Human Genome Project, attempted with his team of people to map all the protein interactions between the P53 protein and other proteins and the DNA molecule. They ended up quitting very quickly. They conceded defeat and threw up their hands and said, when we started out, the idea that signaling pathways were very simple and linear. Now we appreciate that the signaling information in cells was organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It's infinitely more complex. There's 200,000 estimated proteins in a cell. They were unable to even come close to mapping all those of one protein, all the interactions of one. They gave up. They said it was infinitely complex. The interdependencies between the P53 and other protein sets and the DNA and RNA was so complex, they gave up. They couldn't map one. I'm going to tell you that to order something that complex for function, that kind of integration and interdependency is not something that's plausibly accost by undirected chemical process and intelligence must be present. New scientific study by the Karolinska Institute in Sweden has discovered that the grammar of genetic information is more complex than that of any spoken human language. DNA possesses information, linguistics, algorithms, semiotics, aprobatics, phonetics, semantics, punctuation, syntax, and grammar. These are all produced by mental processes. None of them are produced by undirected chemical processes. None. To use symbols to represent something is a mental process, not a chemical one. Linguistics requires mental processes. Here's another such paper describing prescriptive information in DNA. DNA possesses prescriptive information that makes choice contingent, causation, and control. Choices. Molecules choose to do things? No. A choice is made by our mind. To prescribe something is a mental process. And to order a series of actions for function is a mental process, not a chemical one. In Cornell University, not too long ago, had a symposium, the scientists get together to discuss the origin of biological information and linguistics because it's perplexing. Because scientists know intrinsically that these properties are products of mind only, and yet we find them as critical components in everything that happens in a cell. This poses an unfathomable and unfixable problem for evolutionists. It cannot be that nature has produced it. These are gears on the legs of an ISIS bug. They are designed not only so that they mesh with each other by one being offset slightly from the other, but the shape of them is so great that it reduces friction immensely. The legs are geared together so that when the bug jumps, he jumps exactly straight. He doesn't put forth more power out of one leg than the other. Both legs put out exactly the same amount of energy, so when the bug jumps, he jumps exactly straight every time. These are gears, just like the gears in the differential of an automobile, right there on the legs of an insect. Did nature direct these offset gears designed to reduce function more than man-made gears? I don't think so. Now, evolutionists would look at this pile of dirt and admit, oh, and intelligence put that there. That pile of dirt didn't collect itself in the middle of that grassy field, but they'll look at this protein ring, which is comprised of many thousands of amino acids in exact specified locations to create a function, which is the popper hole in the membrane of a bacteria and allow poisons to enter to kill the bacteria, and they'll say that's not designed. Evolutionists will look at the space shuttle and say, it's obviously designed, but they'll look at a cell, which is orders of magnitude more complex than a space shuttle, and they'll say, that's not designed. So what's going on here? Well, because of the incredible discoveries of modern science, we know for sure. We know without question that biological systems were designed. They possessed properties of design. Mental processes are necessary to produce their features. And today's evolutionists are in a terribly uncomfortable position. Modern science eclipsed Charles Darwin's idea by orders of magnitude. Had Charles Darwin known about the cell, what we know today, he would not have written his infamous book. Today, to be an evolutionist is to be in denial of modern science. That's the end that concludes my presentation. Thanks so much, Nephilim Free. We're at about six minutes from each of you, roughly. So what we'll do is we'll give the same to Tom and Amy as we usually have flexible opening statements. That's why we'll let each of them have as long as six minutes, or they can divide that 12 minutes up, however they would like. So with that, thank you both and wanna let you know, Tom or Amy, if you can remind me of which one was it? I forgot who was gonna go first between you. Whoever would like to go first, the floor is all yours. I had to go second, yeah. So yeah, so intelligent design is complete bullshit. Everyone knows bullshit. It's like flat earth levels of bullshit. Everyone in science rejects this. It's not even up for debate anymore. This has been debunked so much. You even had a federal court case that debunked this nonsense. These are the dumbest arguments humans could possibly come up with. So and we have names for these arguments. Like it's called the argument from analogy fallacy. If you make an analogy that, oh, humans design stuff, and this is really complicated, therefore designed, well, we know that argument immediately fails. So let's, nope, we're done with that. All science, yeah, we're done with that. It's not even up for debate, it's gone. And another one is an argument from ignorance. We can't explain that yet, therefore designed. Again, we're done with that. That's not even up for debate. That's such a crap argument. We already know it's done. So all the intelligent design arguments are just, we can't explain stuff there for God. It's just a typical God of the gaps argument that we've seen for the past 1,000 years. Like we can go back 2,000 years ago and say, well, oh, we can't explain lightning. It's really complicated. None of the forces we know about could possibly produce lightning. Therefore, it must be created by Zeus. It's the exact same argument they're making. It's just dumb ass nonsense. So we know intelligence design is false, for sure. And to believe it, you kind of have to just not really think about stuff very well because we know the arguments are just clearly fallacious. Just obviously, step one logic, this is false, don't use this argument kind of a thing. But they keep repeating it over and over again. So we have to keep just shooting them down and say, nope, that's an argument from an analogy. I'm sorry, kiddo, that doesn't work. And just pat them on the head and then shoe them off because it's such a terrible argument. And that's all intelligence design is. It's just a bunch of terrible arguments. That's it. I mean, you could just classify religious apologetics as like the collection of all things that demonstrate what bad human reasoning is. And you can just identify the label of the fallacious argument we know it doesn't work. And so that's all their arguments are. It's just, hey, really complicated. I can't explain it, therefore design. Clearly fallacious. And that's just the extent of intelligent design down. Floor is all yours, Amy. I'm gonna share, I guess, tell me when it's being shared or viewed. I see it. All right. Hello, everyone. My name is Amy Newman. And today's presentation is gonna be evolution versus intelligent design, a tale of false psychotomies. So why are we in this mess? Well, this is viewed as a proxy debate for atheism versus theism with, of course, evolution on one side and creation on the other. But this is not actually the case. Reformers and non-literals believe both. And overwhelmingly, the creationists are religious fundamentalists, which of course drive the reformist crazy. However, there actually are atheists who believe in a simulation where that we have alien overlords. And so it actually would fit into categories like here, where we would have evolution and no creation, no evolution and creation, but then we could also have evolution creation and someone could come with no evolution and no creation, something completely different. So what about design? Well, most of our universe cannot design. In fact, most of life cannot even design and most multi-sale organisms cannot even design. We're really talking about mammals, birds and a few other species who are actually able to do this. And I would really like to know what this designer is. Do they have cells? Can they reproduce? And how? What mechanisms do they use to design? And can this be replicated? And I'd also like to know why they seem to struggle to manifest in the physical world. The longer we seem to get away from the actual claims, the less these designers seem to appear. I also would like to know what exactly intelligent design is. I would like to know why complexity would be the hallmark of design when generally agreed upon in the design community is that simplicity is the goal of design. And my example is this, is what you want to use Google search engine or Yahoo search engine and why? And I'll demonstrate this. This is an up-to-date homepage of the Yahoo search engine. And this is an up-to-date Google search engine. And I'm going to let everyone's own artistic choices decide for themselves. So what about evolution? Well, this means that genes randomly mutate and that the environment selects for them. An example would be a green bug has a higher chance of surviving in the forest because of their natural camouflage. However, in a snowy terrain, the chances of them getting eaten by a hawk go up. And so the white bugs actually have a higher chance of survival. And it's important to note that while genes may be random, the actual selecting pressure is the environment. And I would also like to stress that this is not the micro versus macro debate which I've seen go on. We're talking about speciation when one species breaks off into two because they cannot mate. We would not expect dramatic physical changes between the two species. Two fruit flies who speciated will forever be fruit flies and major physical changes just need time. Now, from my last point, I wanna discuss common descent. I'm gonna show a few individuals which have taken selfie-like photos because I think in this case, a picture is worth a thousand words. So both this guy and the one before are monkeys. Even so, you can see how strikingly similar so much of our facial features are. And I'm pretty sure this is what all of us look like under a camera phone. However, this gentleman here is an ape like us. And all I'm asking is can we not see the resemblance of ourselves here? I do. And I think we can understand this fact connects us as a species to the entire planet. In conclusion, evolution is a combination of two facts that genes randomly mutate and that the environment selects for them. This is not the opposite of creation or a God, merely a mechanism like gravity grinding down on living organisms. However, I have never seen any good evidence for creation so that would need to be demonstrated in the positive. Thank you. Thanks so much, Amy. We will now kick it into open discussion mode, folks. So this is going to be a lot of fun. This is where we will have just that kind of open conversation and where the debaters will kind of jump in at any point at which they feel like adding something. So with that, thanks so much, speakers. The floor is all yours. Well, Tom, I find it rather entertaining that your introduction basically embodied exactly what I predicted in mine that you will just dismiss it. And I think your words were bullshit. Okay, talk again. In regards to intelligence design, I appreciate it's the word you used. But just like in you and I's debate, you completely dismiss any evidence in regards to what would require a designer in any other context. What do you mean? As far as I know, you don't have any evidence. You just have an argument from analogy which is obviously fallacious. Well, and that's why we discuss things like prescriptive and descriptive information versus noise and what is required in any other context for that to exist. Again, not just argument from analogy, obviously. It's not argument from analogy. If something was required a do this, then this, then this, and it's done in an abstract manner, that is not just some random occurrence in any other position. So trying to dismiss that from, oh, it's argument from analogy, like you always try to do. Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about. In biology, it's all just physics. The determination of biology is based on the shape of the DNA and the shape of the protein. So there's no. I showed you about six different science papers in my presentations, which published in secular journals, which describe DNA as possessing algorithms, prescriptive and functional information. Those are all physical. So again, all of those things support my position. No, information is non-physical. No, it's physical. It can't be if it's. No, they all agree it's physical. Let's, I'll tell them right back to you guys. I just want to hear from Amy really quick and we'll kind of just kind of rotate around. And I actually wanted to ask a question for you guys to both Neff and Maddox. Do you believe that this designer also has DNA? No, I don't believe God has DNA. But DJ, information can't be physical. But then what is this God made of? That's not real. That is a relevant to whether or not a intelligent agent is required for our existence. We're not arguing cosmology. We're arguing whether or not, in order for life to exist, an intelligent agent is required. We want to have the religious debate. We can have a different, entirely different debate. This is about whether or not. I view this as a proxy debate for religion. Well, intelligent design versus evolution are two stark dichotomies on the. But you do believe that it's like some guy who made us, right? I think it's an intelligent agent. I think that the evidence of the requirements for life and the clear design elements from a technological perspective would be, it's laughable to conclude that they could exist without that agent, which has the foreknowledge of the outcomes in order to instantiate the information requirement into a physical medium, which is why T-Jump's position about information being physical, the mean, the medium which contains the information can be physical, but the meaning at the abstract meaning of it is not. And I have a definition of information. There's no abstract meaning. It's not even very specific. The information is the order of the DNA and it's read by the physical shape of the protein. So it's all physical. There is no abstract anything in the cell. Like everyone in biology says that's nope, you're making shit up. That's demonstrably false because T-Jump's information is not bound to its medium, which proves it's not matter. You're making shit up. Hold on, hold on. You're making shit up. Information is not bound to its medium. As far as I... We do have to let each other talk. So we'll go to Neff and I promise we'll keep circling our own, go ahead Neff. So for example, I'll demonstrate for you how we can know conclusively information is not made of matter. Information is not bound to its medium. So if I have the Bible and it's encoded with information, but when I convey the information that's in the Bible by speaking it to you, typing it to a computer disk, mailing it to you, whatever, I don't have to move one atom of matter that comprises the book anywhere to share the information and yet the information doesn't change. So what this proves is the information is not made of matter because it's not part of the medium. So information is not made of matter. I'm just gonna eviscerate your entire position. I'm gonna read directly from a paper. Go for it. The innumerable attempts that have been made to reduce the functional information of genomics and molecular biology to nothing more than physical combinatorics and or thermodynamics will fail for reasons best summarized in the peer reviewed anthology entitled the first gene, the birth of programming, messaging and formal control. I mean, your ongoing argument that the medium, which is the genetic code which is housed inside the DNA is purely physical when it is a well-recognized fact and there's even a new field of science, relative new field of science, biosymiotics, which is specifically focused on the signs and abstract meanings of the sequences which result in alternative outcomes but do not have direct chemical transformation in order to execute the function. I mean, this is exactly what protein synthesis is, is the transfer of abstract information from two different syntaxes into an outcome. Absolutely nice. Hold on one second. I just want to make sure that we will hear from Amy and then we'll go to T-Jump because we've heard from both of the creation sorry, the intelligent design peeps. And so I want to go back to first Amy and then T-Jump. I think I can help clear this up. As far as I can tell, information is a concept that only happens among consciousnesses. So I would like an actual definition of information. I have my definite information, but I don't want to give it until I kind of, what do you guys mean by information? Let me address that real quick. John, and then I'd be pleased if you did. The correct definition of information is knowledge conveyed from a sender to a receiver employing a language agreed upon by both parties. For example, if two people are a stargazing and one of them observes that the planet, a star is blue, he's only gained knowledge about it. There's no information created yet. But when he turns to his fellow stargazer and says, do you see that star? It is blue. Now information has been created because something has been informed. Knowledge was conveyed from a sender to a receiver. And if they both speak the same language, the knowledge can be conveyed. But if one speaks Chinese, the other guy speaks Portuguese, no information can be conveyed. So both have to agree on the language. Knowledge conveyed, sender to receiver, agreeing upon a language. Can I just respond very quickly? I don't 100% disagree with that. But I would take the word knowledge out because I view knowledge as like a subset of beliefs. And once again, knowledge is something that an agent, so bacteria or fungi don't gather knowledge the same way. We do, what I was more looking for, and this is the definition within information systems is that information is data that has been deciphered. So without a mind, there's just random data. Data, you could just have characters and even if you just were to take Chinese and you didn't understand Chinese, it all just be data. It just looked like gibberish and that's what it sounds like to you when you speak, when people speak Chinese to you. But you start to learn the codes, you start to be able to decipher Chinese and automatically your brain starts to twist the gears and what you're doing is you're turning data into information. And that's really what I would call information. To decipher is a mental process, not a chemical one. To decipher is a mental process, not a chemical one. To decipher is a mental process, not a chemical one. No, all of that's just nonsense that has no basis in reality. You're just making shit up. So again, I just go to the Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy, Information and Evolution, section eight. The last sentence of the first paragraph states, we rightly ignore some property of DNA and focus on others but it is a mistake to treat these abstractions as extra entities with mysterious relations to the physical domain. So it just says that, nope, that's all crap. It's just physical. Well, I can provide you a quote from Dr. Werner. I don't care. I don't care. It says the opposite. T.T.J., let me finish this. I'm not done yet. Stop talking. I'm not done yet. I'll let you finish. So again, the consensus in biology in every field of science is you're just making shit up. Like, information is just physical. You just Google physical information in every field and that's what it means is it is physical. In physics, it's physical. In biology, it's physical. In every field, it's physical. There is no abstraction here at all. The consensus in all scientific fields is you're making shit up. No, that's not it. That's not it. It kind of work with false statements. Nope, I just read it from the Stanford Encyclopedia. Okay, are you going to shut up now and let us talk? Or are you going to be going to be a jerk? Okay, awesome, cool. Now, in the context of Amy to address your point there, would you say that when a programming language, again, as I've mentioned in my opening statement, the programming language has enabled us to have this conversation right now, or is there consciousness that is a mental faculty in the current moment that is executing the interpretation, the transmission of the information that is my voice and the meaning of the words that I'm using over two years right now? So in my opinion, there is a form of consciousness that the computers have, but they lack a lot of the features that we have like self-awareness, sentience, and other things. I'm referring directly to the hardware and the software and the compilers that are enabling the information system transfers to occur. Do those physical mediums have mental faculties? Do those physical mediums have mental faculties? Not, no, I would say the hardware is simulating certain processes that we do, like information processing. I would agree 100%. Just to be sure that you're done there, Amy, just because it's getting, I appreciate everybody's passion, but just wanna be sure everybody has a chance to finish. I love all three guys here, so we're good. Especially T-Jump, but the two others too. Let's not go nuts. Okay, go ahead. Now I'm glad you agree with that point because where I'm going with all this is while in the physical mediums and components that are enabling that information transfer to occur do not have mental faculties themselves. They do have functions and processes which were initiated by intelligent agents, humans in this context, in order to interpret the information from in all the different facets that's occurring. This is going all the way from the computers, the microphone, through the ethernet, back to your computer being translated in broadcast. Turn back into audio. The exact... I would say the differences though is that we actually came first. And so even though it looks like we have a lot of these functions that come from the computer, I actually think that we are building a lot of functions that we have in a simulated way. And then we're just looking back at it. Okay, I would not disagree with you on that. The point I'm making is that on the biological level the exact same process is occurring that in terms of information transfer and execution, compilation and translation is occurring for the fundamental elements of biology which enable life to exist. So I guess the ultimate question I would have to you is if is it your position that intelligent agents in this context humans were required for the... And is it reasonable to conclude they would be required for what we're using right now to have the conversation? And if so, why if the exact same things exist in biology is it not also a logical deduction that an intelligent agent was required in order for those things to exist? I think it had to come from us because we're building things. We are building structures like say we're in cybernetics and you want to build a fake hand. You do need a human to actually build that but I think what we're trying to say is that there are structures that naturally form that not only is it artificial but it is natural that we are natural machines. The problem with that is nature doesn't make machines. Nature doesn't, there's no chemist. First let me share this with you. This is from Dr. Gitt Werner, former director of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology about information he says. Information is a non-physical fundamental entity which the laws of physics and matter cannot produce. Information is a product of non-physical mind. No physics thing itself is information. Observing something allows you to gain knowledge about its properties which then can be conveyed to someone else thus producing information by sharing knowledge we have gained through investigation, observation and study. So information is not physical and no chemist in this world knows of any process by which matter organizes itself into complex things especially things which have function. For example, a chemist's job is basically to make matter do what it does not want to do. That's what every chemist does. Every chemist in the world knows matter does not organize itself to levels of complexity. It just doesn't happen. And what man is able to make chemically is infinitely less complex than what we find in biological systems. And another thing you said that I would address is that we have these properties and therefore nature made them. The problem with that is what made all the little features in all your cells in fact integrated them to make your organs is prescriptive information. That is it's an information package, the DNA. The information in that package prescribes. It's now it's published in the science journals today that it's prescriptive information that prescribes the machinery of your cell and how it functions is prescribed by information. It's not that nature makes it. It's told, nature is told how to assemble it with machines that already exist. So you have to be able to explain. This is the problem for the evolutionists. You have to be able to explain the origin of information, the prescriptive and functional information and then how natural undirected chemistry is able to design things. Give me a shot at that. I'd also say that we're missing an important part here is that not only can things be matter but things can be energy. And so when we're really talking about our thoughts we're really talking about the neurons which are made of matter, which are having a charge and releasing little chemical bolts. And so the actual thoughts are probably what we would consider energy. But I'm very scared sometimes when people use the word energy. So in this context, I mean to do work. The neurons are sending impulses that we translate as our thoughts. And I just wanna ask, I wanna ask Neff if you can address this to me, especially in the design community, complexity is known as not being designed. Why do you guys think that complexity is designed and not simplicity? I disagree that complexity is not known to be designed. Every engineer and software program in the world would disagree with that. No, I disagree with that. I would say they are. I think your ideas about mind being a chemical process produced by the physical brain is false for a number of reasons. I could discuss the philosophy of mind if you wanted to, but that's not what we're talking about tonight. We're talking about design, biological design. Is the biological systems that we observe, are they designed by an intelligence or is nature capable of producing them? I've provided scientific evidence that nature possesses properties of design right down to the genetic information which is algorithmic and linguistic that prescribes all the features. It's a book of information on how to make them. But the burden for you and TJ tonight is to show the undirected, non-mental processes are capable of designing the features of living systems. And I've yet to hear an argument for that. We can actually demonstrate it in a lab. That's the number case. I'll give us what's the site address. John Sutherland took a bunch of sugars and phosphates, mixed them together. But UV light created RNA spontaneously, no human intervention at all. That's not true. Yep, it's true. Who did this? John Sutherland. Okay, you said John did it? John Sutherland. John did it, right, nature didn't do it. Good job. No, kiddo, he put the experiment. There was an intelligence involved, TJ, fail. See, that's why AD proponents are so stupid because they think if you put the lab pieces together that kind of constitutes as human intervention. That's how stupid they are. The process was ordered by an intelligence, TJ. Wrong. This is from 2018. You have to be an idiot. It is not easy to see what replaced the pipe, the flasks, pipettes, and stir bars of a chemistry lab during prebiotic evolution, let alone the hands of the chemist who perform the manipulations. Again, this doesn't end the way how many of us are. And yes, most of us are. Again, I haven't even had to define this. I do want to let him finish. So again, so you have to be an idiot. No, not you, Tom. I hadn't finished, so I was still in the middle of my speech. So you have to be an idiot to believe in intelligent design. If you think that any mechanism set up by a human hand must necessarily have human intervention, then you just literally don't understand how science works because you're an idiot. So we've done many experiments that have shown RNA, self-reproducing informational systems purely by natural processes because they are just natural processes. And the stop, stop, stop, stop, stop. All right, so we've done this. We've seen it in a lab, it's over, but I wanted to read something real quick. Creationism is a pseudoscience. You could just look at the, forget where it was, where did I keep it? Oh, here it is, here it is. Level of support for evolution. The vast majority of the scientific community in academia supports evolutionary theory, explanation of the fully account of observed in biology, paleontology, microbiology, genetics, anthropology and others. A Gallup poll shows that only about 5% of American scientists support intelligent design. Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design a neocreatious offshoot to be unscientific, pseudoscience, junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences have stated that intelligent design and other claims of supernatural invention are not scientific because they cannot be tested by experiment. They do not generate any predictions. They propose no new hypothesis. In September of the 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific. I can just go down the list. I'll put in pretty much every scientist here that says this is just joke, non-science. All you're doing is making stuff up. You look at something, you call it complicated and say, well, we can explain this as mind, not evidence. I want to respond to what you said and explain your error in thinking that nature did this in the laboratory. Let me explain how they do these things in the laboratory for you. Firstly, the temperature is set for the right temperature for the process to go on. Impurities are removed. Hold on, let me think. Impurities are removed. Chemicals are added in the right order one at a time. Okay, we've got it. Okay, we've got it. I'll add a time. Okay, so they set the temperature correctly. They remove impurities, which would prevent the chemical bonds. They add the chemicals in the right order at the right temperature so that they will bond. Everything about it is controlled by a human being. It's not like they took all the components necessary, threw them into a flask and waited for 24 hours. That's not what happened. That is not how they do it, TJ. Yeah, that's exactly how they do it. Every node is not. If you read what they write, every process along the way, every step is controlled, tightly controlled by an intelligence. No, again, so the reason I posted that one is because that's exactly what they did. So that proves you wrong. No, it is not what they did. That's why I lifted that one. Go look it up. No, it's not what they did. I have another question for you guys. We have a chance. So, okay, maybe you guys don't know what the actual designer is made of, but which is fair. Saying I don't know is actually the most honest thing we can say, but how about, how did he make life? How did, like, what is the process by which he designs? Like, what is the mechanism? Like, is there an actual software? Is it, like, what is it? Intelligence. How do they do it? Well, I mean, intelligence is something that we're doing, like it's, there you can use knowledge where it's like you're gathering knowledge It's the same process humans employ when they design mental processes. Yeah, but we can't go like this. We can't be like, okay, I'm gonna make a baby. Baby. Now you're on game for the existence of God. What we're looking for is- No, I know how he did it. What we're looking for is the evidence of design in the biological systems. Either is it designed by an intelligence or designed by undirected natural chemistry. The mechanism by which God is able to do it is not pertinent to the discussion. But I'm just- Whether or not- It is to me. Whether or not the properties of design are present in living systems or not is the debate. I'll give an example. So I'm a coder. I like JavaScript. I'm writing in JavaScript and I'm using a compiler. I'm using Notepad++. That's, you know, I'm using English because English conveys the language. I'm sitting there and I'm putting comments in. I'm uploading the file to the web to see if it's working and testing it. Does this designer have that type of mechanism? Do they test? Do they fail? Do they go back and try it again and try the code differently? Well, let me address. Since you're a coder, we can actually talk on the same language here. So let's address the position about the coding aspect, right? So number one, the genetic code has syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The, and since you're a coder, you know exactly what I'm talking about. And there is a compiler. There is a executable functions, right? There are also if, then, and else statements and outcomes beyond. And just as a, let's put this in context, there are multiple programming languages that have been developed, which directly translate into genetic functions. I think there's like six or seven of them now. And there's, there's a massive push, just like not that long ago in the coding realm, where, you know, the fights between Python, Ruby on Rails, all those different ones, which one's gonna have the most popularity in the most functions, right? And then AngularJS and Node and all those different pieces, which one's gonna be the most popular? But the same thing is occurring in bioinformatics and genetics because they've realized, holy crap, this qualifies as Turing complete. And we have been able to create our own languages, which can be compiled and executed into biological functions. And all of the logic rules exist, the logic gates for all of the programming. So in the context of existence of life, if every form of life that we see has a fully executable programming language, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, and all different variables that are required for it. And we observe this, the abstraction of the meaning of the code base as being translated. Since you're a coder, do you ever think that ASIC and anything else would be able to be translated into binary from JS and vice versa without an intelligent agent first having applied the abstraction to the meaning of those code bases? I think that when we are actually programming, it is an intelligent agent that is putting things together and trying things out. I think in each question about how to do it, I do wanna be sure that Amy gives a chance to respond and I promise to bring it back to you. I wanna make sure my question is clear. Should I ask the question again? The clarification I'm asking for is, could the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of and the asynchronicity of JavaScript exist without an intelligent agent having first assigned the meaning to var, right? And then was an intelligent agent also required for the creation of the compiler and the translation process that turns it into binary machine code for execution? I would say something similar or analogous conform without a A designer. I think what it would be is that nature would, as I use the example grind down, if something in the DNA code is programmed wrong, it will end up failing and taking its own self out of the chain. I think that it's actually different because I think it would be more similar if there was like actually a God could come down and he'd be like, look, Bob, you have a cool set of DNA but things just aren't working. I gotta go in there and I gotta change your DNA. I gotta fix things and like. Right, but you're still, I think it is possible. I think it is possible to naturally have. In fact, it brings me back to my last point. I think this formed before coding languages. So yes, it is possible if it's- I think it is possible. So what you're describing is the modification of a already written function, not the origination of the function itself. Right, so if it's physically determined and the language already exists, it can be modified physically, yes. How does the, in the entire point that I'm making and I've asked it in multiple different ways now is how does the language and the meaning of the language and the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, which govern the language, which enable the language to exist, how do those come into existence without the intelligent agent to assign the abstract values to it? Because it's physically determined. It's literally just the physics and the shapes of the face. I think the physics and the chemistries are the actual laws. In fact, even when we're describing, when we're being descriptive, we're just trying to actually record what we see and not trying to put our- Never gonna make a quick response. I'm gonna read from a paper and I'll shut it up. Yeah, turn on and go for it. And this addresses what you're saying, Amy, as well as- Okay. He jumps earlier tangent about RNA. Nucleic acid can spontaneously form without purpose, such as a polyadenosine, something other, forming by physiochemical law on a Montromoleurite clay template surface. But the latter is a classic example of all the switches being set the same way when law is involved. A polyadenosine is a nucleic acid, but it can't program anything. It can't relay any information because all of the four-way switches have been set the same way by law. What so many fail to realize is that RNA and DNA are nothing but ordinary physical molecules that have the potential of being used for information retention only through selection of each nucleotide. It is the sequencing of particular nitrogen-based selections that accounts for any information retention in a nucleic acid molecule, not the largely inert DNA itself. Prescriptive information is not physiodynamic. It is formal, though it can be instantiated into a physical medium using dynamically inert configurable switches. The- Number one, that just the relevance of RNA being able to form from a purely chemical perspective is irrelevant to the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics that have to be derived from the non-random structure of the sequences in it. And the development of a syntax that can be translated and executed through semantics and pragmatics. And that is abstract. Again, I keep using this term. It is abstract information that does not have physical form because it's two completely separate things and it's like saying that the meaning of the JavaScript you write in English and its translation into binary that somehow those two are the exact same thing without the translation protocols. And moreover, how do you conclude that even though they can be interpreted to mean the same thing by a computer that has the appropriate elements or a human reading and has the intellect, how do you say those things happened without the intelligent agent just randomly occurred? Because I- Because it was determined. And I think we're replicating what nature does, not the other way around. So like in if then else case, it might just be, I'm trying to make one, it might just be in nature that something, you know, if two molecules bind when they have five atoms, then do this. If five molecules do not bind when they do the other thing, you could actually make logical flows from nature and from physics itself. It's just that the intelligence is putting that onto it. It's not an actual, it's not as someone as if someone's writing there and going, John Doe, I'm gonna make John Doe, Jim Doe, I'm going to make Jane Doe. It's that it is a chemical process that started that is replicating. And because of the pressures, the environmental pressures, it has gotten better at doing this copying task. That's what the NAA is. What I'm hearing is a total failure of reasoning here. What's going on is you folks are denying that information is immaterial. T.J. is misrepresenting. I said it was energy. Misrepresenting what scientists do in a laboratory to cause things to happen. I'd like to share my screen for just a second if I could. Praise, could you share my screen for just a second or show something on the screen. Thank you. This is a paper published in Nature. You know these people love evolution. Genetic programs published 2012. Genetic programs constructed from layered logic gates in single cells. So we know that today that logic gates, just like the schematics in an electronic diagram are used by the cells. And this is what they say. Genetic programs function to integrate environmental sensors, implement signal processing algorithms and control expression dynamics. These programs consist of integrated genetic circuits that individually implement operations ranging from digital logic to dynamic circuits and they have been used in various cellular engineering applications, et cetera, et cetera. So what modern science has discovered is logic gates are programmed with algorithms in your DNA. And so just like the schematics of an electronic circuit board that goes in a computer or electronic device has all kinds of logic. If this, then that. If qualification is not met, then go back to step three. If step three is insufficient, move to seven, seven. If it passes step seven, go to eight. If step eight requires you to make a choice between B and C, then go to B. And if it works, then not go back to A and then try D. This kind of thing is logic gates and genetic expression been discovered in modern biological systems. You guys have to explain the logic gates and programming why algorithms and logic is used by cells, complex logic. Not simple, not, if A is bigger than B, then let's do C. Complexity isn't the whole market design. We don't have to do it. It's one of them. It is one of them. Complexity is. No, and here's why. Because as I've said, no chemist in the world knows of the process whereby natural laws cause matter to organize complexly. We've observed it in a while. It doesn't happen. Why would you want complexity? That's not the hallmark of a designer. So that complexity is a hallmark of a designer. No, it's not. Who would you be able to show engineers that agree with you? So again, every engineer would agree with me. That is not true. So again, not true. Find one that does. So again, we've seen it in a lab. We've observed it. So praise is a special pleading, trying to argue that humans' hands touched at some point isn't actually an argument. No scientist accepts that. Everyone in biology accepts this as purely natural processes. Again, which is why I just quoted all of these Nobel laureates in science as you just say, intelligence design is bunk. I mean, they all just say what he's saying is garbage. They all know the science, but they all just say what he's saying is garbage because they know it doesn't represent anything about what they're doing. It's like, yes, are there logic gates and cells? Yes, is that physical? Yes, is information physical? Yes, there's no abstractions anywhere in biology. It's purely just physical as the quote I gave from the Stanford and Psychopedia philosophy. Like no one in science supports what he's saying. He's just making crap up. It's a really nice, interesting hypothesis that he's made up and cool story, kind of like Harry Potter, but it has no basis in reality. To quote the Stanford and Psychopedia philosophy again, to be for a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be consistent, parsimonious, useful, empirically testable and falsifiable based on multiple observations, correctable and dynamic, progressive, provisional or tentative for any theory or hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most or ideally all of these criteria, the fewer criteria, the less scientific it is. If it only meets a fewer or none, that it cannot be considered a scientific or in any meaningful sense of the word. Typically, objections to defining intelligent design as science are lax consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, is not correctable, dynamic, progressive or provisional. Yeah, it's just junk, just entire junk. Like everyone in the scientific community agrees it's junk because it does nothing. No, that's not true. In fact, intelligent design is gaining ground in secular scientific circles. That's why at Cornell University a few years back there was a symposium, a mixture of intelligent design proponents and secular, completely secular scientists who gathered at Cornell University to discuss the origin of information in biological systems. And so 15 years ago, such a symposium at a major Ivy League secular university would not have been possible. Today it's happening because scientists are coughing up evolution left and right. So there's statement that information is not physical. I've proven that false by the fact that information is not bound to its medium. What I'm hearing from you is that nature can, all we're hearing is intelligence isn't involved, but we haven't, John and I have been providing evidence for things like logic gates. We haven't yet heard you guys provide a single rational reason, much less a shred of scientific evidence, although it shows that nature is able to do these things. That's what you guys need. All we're hearing is no, it's not true. That's all we're hearing. We're gonna switch it over. But like, they happen in nature, but you showed evidence that they happen in nature. You're just trying to say that the simulated versions that we created are the same as the ones that happen in nature. No, I provided evidence of intelligences involved. Let me address that. I mean, you mentioned this earlier. So I'm gonna, you were talking about, you know, genetics and computer science, right? So, read some from a paper here. So the first problem with trying to reduce the cybernetic nature of molecular biology to mere metaphor is that biological programming predates the very existence of metaphors. Molecular biology provided the model for the entire field of cybernetics. Genetic cybernetics inspired Turing's Von Neumann's and Wiener's development of computer science. Had it not been for their observation of linear digital genetic control, computers might never have been invented. The argument is therefore untenable, if not amusing, that computer science generated only an analogy applied to molecular biology in the mind of humans. If anything, computer science is analogous to the formal logic of molecular biology that not only proceeded but produced homo sapiens, brains and minds. The obvious point of all that is that we're doing a complete flip-flop of what is actual reality. And the complexity, there's another term of maximum compressibility in the context of the simplicity that you're talking about. So genetic code has the ability to have multiple function executions built into the exact same sequence. So imagine when you are writing a, you're writing an app, right? And what if you could have more than one function execute from the exact same lines of code because there can be a subset syntax built into the JavaScript? That is, in my opinion, very cool, number one. Number two would make things a hell of a lot easier. And but number three, that would be extraordinarily hard to do for, at least for me, and I wager for you too. We're sitting there figuring out a function you're writing the code. But if you were being able to basically be writing two simultaneous functions with the exact same lines of code, that would be almost, right? But it'd be more simple. But at the same time, it would require that much more mental capacity to execute, right? Well, that is exactly what is occurring in the genetic code. You've got the sequence information for proteins in terms of this codon equals this amino acid, which you also have additional a subset code base called translational pausing, which alters the timing of the actual execution, just like in a 3D printer and like using G code, for example, is modifying the timing, the physical position angles, things of that nature. Well, the exact same thing is happening in protein synthesis being executed by a programming language that has double syntax being able to execute that control with the exact same data stream. And it's things that like that, that to me are, number one, phenomenally cool. And number two, stark evidence for the requirement of intelligent agent to be able to execute simultaneous functions inside of a dataset. Yes, we call that an argument from analogy, so we know that's immediately false. It's a really nice story they've made up to try and justify their preconceived ideas, but we know it's false again. Okay, so there's literally papers up the ying ying on this. Whoa, so again, additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design and neo-creations offshoot to be unscientific, pseudoscience, junk science, national academy of sciences, considered intelligent design to be not science, because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate predictions, no, about this. Like everyone in science agrees it's just garbage. Like you keep mentioning all these scientific papers. Whoa, whoa, whoa. So you keep mentioning all these scientific papers, but they all show you're wrong. Like the entire scientific community says you're wrong. Like you're not composing what they say. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's see if we have a minute to the past. We'll give Tom another like 10 seconds, and then I promise we'll come right back to you, John. Well, I gave him like five minutes. So the scientific community says, everything you said is just a bunch of junk nonsense that you made up to make up your own criteria of what you think reality should be, but no one actually cares. Like the scientific community actually works on testable predictions and what they can demonstrate in the lab and all of your stuff is just made up post-talk rationalization, which is why everyone in science considers intelligence as dying to be a pseudo-science. Like the National Academy of Sciences quote, Stanford encyclopedia quote, Nobel laureates quote, polls on the topic, like you can pick whatever criteria you want. Croning scientific papers isn't gonna help you. Cherry picking quotes isn't gonna help you. Reality just says it's a pseudo-science. And Maddox, can I ask, say we're just building a new program. We're just starting out. We're just opening. We're getting ready. Don't we start out making things a simple thing? Don't things start out simple and not camp complex? Doesn't the fact that our code gets like super long, just a matter of time. And then we have to spend time putting time into this complexity to rearrange it so we can re-simplify it. We spend all this time trying to make things simple. And God forbid the users can't understand what we're doing. Well, then we got to spend more time trying to re-simplify things again. Right? Yeah, but you're the, in terms of how, okay, does the app that you're creating, does it start out simple with only a few lines of code? Yes. But you don't publish that until you have a workable model, do you? And but- No, I agree with that. I agree. But beyond all of that, and this goes back to the ultimate root of the discussion is, it doesn't matter if the app started out with a couple of lines of code as you were building out the structure, you still probably were using a framework, right? And you were using, you had to have, and you had to have been using a language, right? So the point is that you never could have even started simply unless those things existed prior to. And the point that I'm making is that the language and the framework are fundamental requirements for life. So it doesn't matter if you could have started out simple or not. It's how do you start in the first place? If you didn't know, if going back to Fortran, right? If that never had been created, then you never would have been creating punch cards and everything else that was happening in that timeframe, right? And you never would have ultimately concluded with what we're doing now, which in terms of the type of coding that we're doing in the digital space. The, but again, you have to go back to how does the language and the syntax, semantics and pragmatics that enable it to exist, how do those occur without the intelligent agent? Because unless you're going to say that JavaScript and what it means can happen without somebody creating it and providing the abstract meaning, then it's a non-starter for me. I would say a natural language can occur. It sounds weird because we're used to talking about programming from a person. We're used to talking about programming from ISAT here and I made an app. But, you know, these functionalities, we haven't gotten to the age of the earth, but let's just say thousands to billions of years. These are things that have been forming and now grinded down until their most usefulness. You keep using the grinded down, but that means the grinding can only occur if the function already exists. But would you agree? We're also not talking about a biogenesis. We're talking about like once, because I actually, it sounds crazy, but I wanted to go out of my way to say you could be a religious evolutionist. That is actually in the deck. Well, here's my thoughts. TJ, you quote secular guys who deny intelligent design, but then you complain that when I cite opposing evidence, when I provide actual evidence from science journals. So if your claim quoting people doesn't help your case, I can throw that right back at you. So you're not making an argument or you're doing this complaining. If I could share my screen. Well, I wasn't refuting, like I grant that there are logic gates in itself. All of the natural science supports the evolution literally. I'm not refuting that. I'm accepting those things and they support my position, not yours. Well, I know you believe that. I know you believe that. Let me share my screen. It's like, well, not all of them. No, because there's plenty of people who believe in creation or intelligent design. Let me share my screen, please, if I can't. So let me share this with you. What everybody knows that program or make choices is a mental process. Here's the paper that I cited earlier, one of them. Dichotomy and that means it's a problem for evolutionists that can't understand, can't find a way to solve it. Dichotomy. In the definition of prescriptive information suggests both prescribed data and prescribed algorithms, biosemiotics, applications and genomic systems. They state in their paper, prescriptive information. That is the information prescribes something. It says, this is how you make it and this is what it'll do, right? Prescriptive information either instructs or produces function, formal functionality in a way as to organize and institute a prescribed set of logic gate programming choices. Everybody intrinsically knows that logic gates are produced by mental processes. No, no, no, no. And programming is produced by intelligence. They state without such steering of psychochemical interactions by choice, contingent, causation and control. Metabolic pathways and cycles would be impossible to integrate in the cooperative and holistic metabolism. The organizing principle states that non-trivial, formal organization can only be produced by choice, contingent, causation and control. So what science is publishing, let me finish. So what science, I didn't finish and then want to give you a heads up. I'll let you finish in a sec, Neff. Just want to let everybody know we will be going to Q&A pretty shortly here. So both debaters and the audience. And so go ahead, Neff. So this paper and many like it now published in the science journals that DNA is programmed information, it's algorithmic, it possesses linguistics, which includes semiotics, the application of meaning to a symbol and interpretation of meaning from a symbol, which are both mental, not chemical processes. And they're stating now choice, contingent, causation and control. Nobody believes in the right mind that chemicals choose anything. Choices or mental processes made by intelligences. And so what science is publishing is that everything about biological systems is designed by intelligence, whether they accept the inference of that or not. So far I want to make an observation about this debate. John and I have been providing logic and actual evidence from science journals that systems, biological systems, employ mental processes, information, choice, contingent controls, algorithms, semiotics, linguistics and complexity that goes beyond what's probable for natural chemical processes. So far all we've heard from you two is no, it's not true and that's BS. We haven't seen one shred of evidence yet. Can I ask you that? The undirected chemical processes are able to design anything biological. So if anyone is listening, you notice Neff made up a statement in there. He said, everybody knows that, I think it was, Some people are saying, I'm just kidding. Exactly. So everybody knows. No, no, no, no, no. Donald Trump's statement. It clearly means Neff made this crap up and he wants everyone else to believe it. Just like Donald Trump uses that term, exactly the same. So that statement isn't in there. He doesn't, there's no mention to these things are mental in that quote that he just completely just made that up. Secondly, I quoted all of these scientific journals to say, ID is crap. I mean, I could give you all the scientific papers of RNA and all the natural processes that we've discovered and all the progress we've made in these fields, but why when I can just show the entire field of ID is crap by the vast majority of scientists. That just covers the entire spectrum of everything right there. That's all we really need. I mean, we're done on that point. Science says that's crap. And Neff, I wanted to, yeah. Somebody sang so it doesn't make it so. I didn't want to pull an argument from authority, but I have looked up some, you will admit Neff that at least most of the papers you are quoting are from quote, people who believe in evolution and are trying to show mechanisms in evolution. They're not actually creationists trying to prove creation. And that's why I say- It doesn't just prove your point on the same. Yeah, that's why I cite them. So the evolutionists can't complain. Oh, that's the work of a creationist because if I did, that's exactly what they do. That's why almost everything I cite is from secular journals, secular papers written by evolutionists. The properties of design is what we're talking about properties. I'm providing scientific evidence that intelligence and mental processes are involved in the design of everything biological. And what we're hearing from you is T.J. saying, no, all these guys say it's not true and not a shred of evidence that undirected chemistry can do it. So you guys are completely failing. John and I are providing evidence you guys are saying it's not true. Well, that's wrong actually. So again, all I need to do is show here are the experts in the field who say you're making shit up. You can claim it explains it. You can claim it's evidence. And then the experts in the field who understand the evidence and say, you're just making shit up. So we can make shit up too if you want. I can make up, Pixies did it. And now we have an equivalent explanation to your nonsense. So you're appealing to opinions and now providing statements and science proofs. What we should do soon is probably go into these closing statements which can be like roughly two minutes or flexible and we can just kind of rotate. So I hate to interrupt there. I know that we can keep going, but just to kind of respect everybody's time and because it's already been, time's been flowing, it's already been an hour and a half. So we were going to jump into the Q&A in just a little bit. If we start with who we originally started with, we can just kind of go in that same order. So if I remember right, it was Maddox who first started, if you have a, maybe just a couple of minutes, we'll give you Maddox and this is like flexible, but please help me by being short and pithy. We will kind of go around the circle and we will finish up with Amy. So Maddox, thanks so much, the floor is all yours. Well, this was a interesting debate. Amy, I actually appreciate the conversation with you. T-Jump still continues to be full of shit and is while claiming that we are not actually making any real arguments and nothing but analogy, all he does is make appeals to authority and apparently does not have the mental capacity to actually comprehend the arguments that are being made beyond what he's told they mean versus the potential implications of them from a macro view. Ultimately for me, if you look at the evidence and you actually go down the proverbial rabbit holes of what makes life possible and the fact that it is prescriptive information that has been injected into a physical medium in order to execute the nanotechnologies that are required for us to exist. Everything from the transcription of DNA being done by molecular robots to the information systems and communication systems that are executed in every facet of every form of life to the nervous systems and the communication networks that work in unison to provide the ability for all the things that we take for granted to exist to set claim and to argue that these things should have no possibility of having been designed when in no other context they would ever be considered possible without an intelligent agent. To me it just exemplifies and embodies the reality that atheists are searching for any way to escape the stark reality that a intelligent agent exists and had to have existed in order for us to be here and to be even having these conversations. So for the audience, as you listen to this comprehend, think about the discussions that I've had tonight. I implore you to go and do some research for yourself. Don't just listen to the crap that gets spewed by any of this content to you. The crap that gets spewed to just completely dismiss all of these things. Go look out for yourself, make your own analysis and see if it is a reasonable conclusion that an intelligent agent is a more logical, plausible and probable conclusion than chance occurrence and undirected process. Thanks so much. We will now kick it over to Neff and this will be roughly flexible two minutes as well. Neff floor is all yours. Okay. Today's evolution has turned denial of modern science because of the discoveries of modern science. It's been discovered that biological systems have incredible features of design and mental processes are at the basis for the existence of everything about life. The modern, the science journals are publishing that genetic information is programmed. It possesses choice contingent causation and control. Everybody intrinsically knows to make a choice as a mental process, not a chemical one. And logic gates, complex logic gates like electronic schematics that are extremely complex and have numerous built-in steps and don't have any fatal steps. And everybody knows that complex logic is a process of intelligence, not chemistry where decisions are made and choices, things are compared to decide what's the next step to take, what's the best step to take. These are processes of intelligence that can create logic, complex, logic gates. Everybody knows it except the evolutionist must deny it. So what we're hearing tonight is that evolution theory had ran into modern 20th century science and got smashed by the discoveries of modern biological science. And evolutionists have to be in denial of a tremendous amount of discoveries claiming matters. Information is not immaterial. The algorithms in DNA, it's not really an algorithm. It just looks like one. This kind of thing is what we're hearing from them. And throughout this debate, all we've heard from myself and John have provided actual scientific evidence, even statements from science journals and images of things that are biological. And all we've heard from our opponents tonight is no, that's not true, it's BS, you're wrong and my guys say so. So this debate has all been about me and John providing evidence and them being naysayers. And that's not an argument. Thanks so much, Neff. We will now kick it over to T-Jump. Thanks so much. Yeah, so essentially the intelligence line argument can be summed up like this, they're making shit up. That's essentially the summary of their entire argument. They accuse me of arguments from authority, well clearly they just don't know basic philosophy. An argument from authority is only a fallacy if they're not actual authorities. To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the fallacy, on the section of fallacies, this section, the fallacy involves accepting of evidence as for a proportional or the preponderance pronouncement of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority. So if they're really an authority, it's not a fallacy at all, it's in fact what you should do. So to quote again from the Stanford Encyclopedia and all the sources I listed, the mass consensus of scientists everywhere all over the world think that intelligence is a bull crap because it does nothing, it makes no predictions, it makes no progress in science, it's unfalsifiable, it's non-parsemonious. Everything is just wrong with it because it's a garbage hypothesis, they're just making shit up. Anybody can make shit up. They didn't provide any evidence at all, they just said here's stuff that we see in science and we can make up an explanation for it but then anybody can do that. The consensus in science is that there's natural explanations for all of that which makes testable predictions like the RNA one that we've done RNA and clay, the RNA made by the guy I mentioned earlier, John, whatever, we've made testable predictions, we've made progress in the field, intelligence has done nothing and they're just post-talk rationalization of making stuff up. And then they special plead and say, ah, the human hand touched the experiment so it must be human intervention, proof of intelligent design because that's what they have to do, they have to special plead and move the goalpost because they don't actually have an argument, they have no evidence they're just making shit up. We've actually demonstrated this in a lab, we know natural processes can produce these things, there's no such thing as specified information, information is purely natural, it's purely physical, it can be reproduced by natural processes which we have seen in a lab and can reproduce, anyone can do it, it's just, intelligent design is just garbage. Gotcha, thanks very much, Tom, we will now switch over to Amy for her flexible two minute statement. And if you don't mind, can I screen share again or if you just make that by screen? If our producer is still with us, who knows? Oh, thanks so much, so glad you're with us, Grace. Wake up, Grace. Ladies and gentlemen, evolution to me is a combination of two facts that genes randomly mutate and the environment naturally selects them. I could spend a lot of time talking about common descent or intelligent design, but I honestly think a video is worth way more than anything I can. So here is a father gorilla playing with his son. Thanks so much, we will go into Q&A folks. So with that, do wanna say just a couple of quick reminders, folks. First, I put all of the links of these speakers right there in the description, just for you. So that way if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I want more, well you can have more by clicking on those links below. Also wanna let you know, thanks so much folks. I always love just hanging out in the live chat and I appreciate it. I wanna give you could say a shout out, some street cred to those of you being positive and friendly, your normal friendly selves, we always appreciate that. And it's like loose, it's kind of like, hey, sometimes people are gonna, they're gonna bicker, they're gonna fight and it's like, hey, we'll let it fly. They'll be friends after. But do wanna just at the same time, kind of give that thanks and appreciation for those of you who are kind of like, hey, we like to debate, but we also like to not be abusive. So thanks so much for that. All right, getting it started here, want to say, hold on one sec, how am I gonna, my computer's slow, we'll get there. Thanks so much for your super chat from Caleb as he likes to be called, who says everybody is a winner in a debate with no blink. Okay, I can't rip on the person cause they're not here, but Caleb, thanks for your super chat, also says T-jump's chair is evidence that bacteria can evolve and take on any form. Oh, Tom. Don't you debunked right there, proof of evolution. Very. Also, somebody says the links in the description don't work, or at least mine is. Seriously, hold on. Let me check on this, Tom. Bruce Wayne said that. Thanks for letting me know about that. That's embarrassing, folks. Hold on. That man. Well, I know that Tom's, Tom's it might be that you, let's see. You will have to copy and paste these into your browser because one or two of them will not work simply by clicking it. And that's, so for example, Amy Newman.media, that's Amy's actual webpage, and then youtube.com slash T-jump. If you just throw that into your browser space bar, you can find their links or their pages. So thanks for that, though. Appreciate it. I'm sorry, Wilson says T-jump's link isn't clickable. What a diva. Okay, thanks for your, just teasing. I'll work on it. Dave Gar, thanks for your super chat who says, hope all are well in these trying times. Thanks so much, Dave Gar. I really appreciate it. Hope you're well, too. Michael McCaffrey, thanks for your super chat who says, James, hope everything is going great. Keep it up. Well, thank you and all credit to the speakers. I mean, the speakers make this channel fun. And so we're thankful that they hang out with us here and kind of, you know, express their passion on this channel. So Dwayne Burke, thanks for your super chat who says, fossils aren't evidence for evolution. You can't determine if a fossil is that of an undiscovered animal or that of a transitioning animal because no one knows all the animals that ever existed. It's just testable predictions. So we make a prediction and say, if evolution is true, we can predict that there will be fossils of this kind at this layer and of a different kind of a different layer and a different kind of a different layer and it will follow the same progressive stack and there won't be any in here and here and we get that right, that's evidence of evolution. The fossils themselves don't prove evolution. You're right. Planted there by magical leprechauns who just wanted to deceive us, it's possible. But the fact that we made the predictions, we would find them in the specific places we did before we actually knew and get it right 100% of the time, that is evidence of evolution. Gotcha, appreciate that. Let's see next up. Thanks for your super chat from Michael McCaffrey who says, you're welcome, appreciate it. Dwayne Burke, another super chat. Thanks so much. They say, to say that nature or non-intelligence can create DNA code and assign each person a unique fingerprint, each is delusional, coding requires intelligence. But the fingerprint happened billions of years before coding for any type of human coding. Like they're putting the cart before the horse. Gotcha, thanks so much and thanks so much for your super chat from small time art. Ooh, they're coming at you now. They say, Nephilim Free, your smug condescending arrogance is unnecessary. He's not actually, that's just his voice. He's perfectly nice. So, well, I would respond to that by saying, I think that the absurdity of the claims of evolution is that rock soup is gonna organize itself into the most complex thing known to man except the multi-sagal organism. And the claim that undirected chemistry is able to account for the complexity and the design properties of living things is such an egregious false thing to be putting forth in the world, especially to be telling children these scientific fallacies that it requires just being absolutely straight off the cuff about it and not playing games. So you don't think carbon can form life? Time for debate is over, I think. Yeah, let's see. We can go to the next one. Thanks so much for your super chat. From Dwayne Burke says, T-Jump, any test done in a lab just corroborates the creationist position that intelligent causation is required to put together the ingredients. Right, a human hand touched it so it can't be just natural processes because clearly that's how science works. It's like, ah, no, no, and these experiments represent nothing in the universe. It's clearly this human intervention that made all of these. Like, yeah, because that's what scientists say for sure. It makes perfect sense. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your super chat. From Movie Theory, who says they're coming at you, T-Jump, they say the live chat is right in all caps. T-Jump getting spanked in all caps. The live chat is right. Like, when has that ever happened? Oh my gosh, okay. Everybody in the live chat, don't leave. We love you. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the... Next up, we've got to give T-Jump's arrogance. I hate to interrupt you, John, just to not make sure we don't team up with two jumping on Tom. Dwayne Burke, thanks for your super chat. Who said T-Jump, any... We got that one, sorry. I'm sorry, Wilson, thanks for your super chat. Who says, if intelligence is the mechanism of action, can NAF provide an example of intelligence and intelligence alone creating anything? We shouldn't be expected to be able to observe God creating anything, or the designer create us or anything biological. We infer design by the properties of the design. Human beings are designers. We do observe human beings design things. And they have the same properties as the designs found in biological systems. Gotcha. Thanks so much for your super chat from Phillip. Good to see you again, Phillip. They say for the ID guys, according to your logic, if humans begin to grow babies in test tubes, that means babies can't be conceived naturally. No, that is a category false assertion because the process by which the baby being grown in the test tube and in vitro fertilization and such is using pre-existing processes and biological functions in order to execute that outcome. So it's not that it's, yeah, it's still using fundamental biological systems that pre-exist just because it's being done outside of the woman's uterus has your relevance to the processes that are being, they're taking place. Small time art. Thanks for your super chat as well, who says by creationist logic, Rube Goldberg is God. Yep. I think that it's, they're objecting, they're railing against you, Nephilim Free or John, if you wanna respond. I think the question, the statement is absurd. Rube Goldberg was a human being and obviously an intelligent designer to say that he must be God by the same logic to liken that to the argument for intelligent design. I think it's pretty fallacious reasoning. Gotcha, let's see. I'm sorry, Wilson, thanks for your super chat who says, I remember years back, Neph defending one of his running buddies when they described DNA as a four-digit binary. Fellow science guru, true empiricism. I was pointing out that DNA is a code that is represented by the symbols ACG and T, which are the base pairs, the nucleotides that are ordered along the DNA molecule to provide encoded information, ACG, T. It's a quaternary code base that uses a triplet codons in order to form the syntax, which is executed into vS and magics and pragmatics for protein synthesis and all other aspects of biological function. Yeah. Add an enzyme in cytosine. I'm making shit up. That is literally a well-known fact in every aspect of genetics and biology. It's a parallel idea. Apparently you don't actually go and you, okay, why don't you go check out your Stanford dictionary and find out if there is a syntax in the genetic code that is derived from a quaternary code base that uses a triplet codons in order to execute the sequences. Why don't you go Google that and get back with me because that is some extraordinarily basic information that is accepted by every facet of biology. We do have to keep going. Just let's see. Thanks so much for your super chat from Caleb, who says, congrats on the win Maddox and NefiPoo. Sorry, Nef. I'm only reading what somebody else wrote, okay? Nef one time he told me, don't call me Nefi. We appreciate you, Nef. I'm sorry, Wilson, thanks for your super chat. Who said, easy win for T-Jump's chair. Very nice. As usual. Kala, I mean Caleb, thanks for your super chat. Who said, T-Jump's chair is evolving new bacterial life forms. It continues. That is probably true. I don't dispute that. Next up, Apollo Jedi, thanks for your super chat. Who says, T-Jump's doing quote mining and reading his script again. Don't know how you can quote mine for like 90 something percent of scientists. I don't know how that works as a quote mine. Gotcha, thanks so much. Lord Jeffrey, thanks for your super chat. Who said, humans creating does not equal God creating everything. This is the equivocation fallacy and illogical gibberish. I think that's for you, Nef or John. Can you read the question again? Yes. Lord Jeffrey said, humans creating does not equal God creating everything. This is the equivocation fallacy and illogical gibberish. We haven't said that it's equal. So we haven't made that equivocation. Gosh, thank God. Thanks for your super chat. Caleb, who says, kittens enjoy playing too. Amy, oh, you're still hunting you. I think you muted yourself, Amy, unless our producer- I'm sorry, what was that? They said, kittens enjoy playing as well, Amy. I think they're referring to your gorilla video. Yeah, that is absolutely true. And cats are actually highly developed mammals. They share a lot of DNA with us. They're extremely social creatures. I think that's why actually, one of the reasons why we domesticated cats because they share actually a lot of qualities that we have, like, I think curiosity is a big one that we can see in cats. So what I'm saying is, I agree with you. God, Joe, thanks so much for your super chat from Dwayne Burke, who says, Joe Exotic is T-Jump's dad. Do I get some of his money then? Nice. Merlin72001, thanks for your super chat, who said, T-Jump and Amy, what is the value of wasting? Oh, Neff, you're about to get a big backhanded insult. They say, T-Jump and Amy, what is the value of wasting time talking to Neff? He just goes down the same dialogue tree he's had for over a decade and refuses to learn anything about actual science. Hashtag Neff word salad. Genevieve paid me in cookies, that's why I did it. And this is a lot of fun. And I think he was a gentleman in this debate, so I can't complain, can't complain at all. We'll give you a chance to defend yourself as well, Neff, but I appreciate each of you not adding to the sick burn from that super chat, T-Jump and Amy, but Neff, if you want to respond to it, you can as it looks like you've got a critic here. Sounds like a compliment to me, I get lots of those. Gotcha, thank you very much, and we have time for maybe just a couple of really quick questions in addition from the standard questions as well. Call me, Emo, thanks for your question, who said, for the ID side, by what method or methods do we identify the descendants of an original design, e.g., can all 10,000 plus species of ferns be descended from an original archetype? Explain your answer. Is this a question for him? So it's for you, and John, but basically the question is, by what methods do we identify the descendants of an original design? Well, I would say this, there's no anatomical difference between varieties of any kind of organism, like broccoli and cauliflower, no, there's chain differences in morphology, but not anatomy, evolution requires change to anatomy to be true. We don't know of a mechanism for it or an example. So showing differences in morphology in ferns is not showing that nature is able to create anatomical designs, which is a requirement for evolution to be true. Gotcha, small-time art, thanks for your super chat, just flew in. They said, T-Jump, excellent job on rustling the jimmies. I don't know what that means. This doesn't sound good. What does that mean, Tom? Is that one of your phrases? Rustling feathers, you know what I mean? Yeah, similar to that. Okay, it sounded like something completely different. Don't get your panties in a bunch, kind of a thing. Ah, okay, they're saying that you, are they saying you rustled? It's a fortune, I mean, so just let it go. It says, I'm trolling the intelligent design people by calling them stupid, yes. Oh, I didn't know that it was from that website, Amy. Not 100% sure if it came from there, but I've seen it on there, at least. I didn't know you were hanging out there. Not that I would ever. Hey, what website was this? Just curious, okay. Amy's a curious person. Thanks for your, let's see, we've got a couple more questions we'll try to get through. Thanks for your question from, I see one from Brian, I don't think he did. That's all right, let's see. Mike Keenan, thanks for your question, that said if God has no cells, why is it said we are made in His image? Read that one more time, please. If God has no cells, why is it said that we are made in His image? That's a good question. Well, I mean, I would say that the, I mean, that's a one worthy of a full-scale debate, but I would say just from a intrinsic perspective, it would be the cognitive function, the self-awareness and ability to create things that requires the abilities that humans are the only ones that exists, that have all those capacities to create things beyond direct cause and effect in the short term and actually be able to have foresight for knowledge and understanding of information rather than just pure reaction. Gotcha. Thanks so much. And thanks so much for your question from Ethel Chip, who asks what brand of headphones are you wearing, Amy? muted, can't hear you. It is, I keep on doing that. It is a Razer headphone. It's fantastic cause it matches my actual pink computer. Nice, terrific headphones. Everybody's saying they're the best. And with that, wanna say we are excited folks as we will be back on Monday as Steve McCray and Snake is right face off on a number of personal issues. So hopefully we will see you there for that one. That should be a fun one. And wanna say thanks so much again though to our speakers as they really, we just appreciate them so much hanging out with us, it's always fun. And so Tom Jump, John Maddox, Amy and Nephilim Free, thanks so much for hanging out with us and doing this tag team debate tonight. Thanks James. Absolutely. And last plug for their links, they are linked in the description folks. So if you're like, I wanna hear more or I wanna make fun of Tom's appearance. Well, you can, those links are waiting for you in the description. So thanks so much. It's always fun folks, we hope you have a great night. And if our producer is still, can you hear us? If you're out there, we are ready to wrap up soon. Thank you very much.