 Everybody today we are debating intelligent design on trial and this is a triple threat debate and we are starting right now. These in general have been thrilled to have you here for another epic debate as this is going to be a fun one folks. We haven't had a triple threat debate in a while but I can tell you that these are really fun. This is basically anything goes. So these guys they might tag team like they might in other words tag team up against the other guy or it might be more like sometimes we'll have kind of somebody's like eh well I kind of sympathize with that argument I don't know if this objection against that argument is actually very good even if I don't agree with the conclusion of the argument. So anything goes no holds barred and it is on intelligent design so this is going to be a lot of fun. If this is your first time here consider hitting that subscribe button as we have a lot more exciting debates coming up. In fact you'll see at the bottom right of your screen this Saturday Sargon versus Vosh is coming and it's going to be a huge one. Terrific very exciting. These guys are going to be debating immigration capitalism and socialism as well as transgenderism so it's going to be wild. I want to let you know for our guests today who we are honored to have with us their links are in the description so if you're listening and you're like hmm I like that that feels good you can find more of their content at those links down in the descriptions like that little description box just down there so. But very excited to have these guys here so Mac can you like I'm waving up at you can you I know so I'm waving upward I forgot Mac can't see me right now that's embarrassing I was trying to do the old like Brady bunch thing you know when they would like see it. So anyway we are going to be a lot of fun. I want to introduce these guys and then we'll jump right into it. It's like really flexible opening statements to the point where if they don't if they don't really want to do opening statements they want to jump into discussion right away. They can say I'll pass on the opening I just want to go into the discussion with that given that our dearest friend true empiricism takes the affirmative today will let him start but I do want to say it first thanks so much great skeptic or reacts and true empiricism just for being here guys it's a pleasure to have you it's a pleasure to be here thanks for the invite yeah absolutely so this is going to be really fun folks if you have a question fire that question in the live chat it'll make it easier for me to not miss it if you happen to put at modern day debate in that question chat so so folks true empiricism the floor is yours you've got like a flexible eight to ten minute opening statement you can take that if you need it and I probably won't need that well what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna give my argument really quick that way we can jump right into the discussion it'll be the same argument as last time premise one certain patterns in nature only known to come from an intelligent agent's premise to those patterns are observed inside of the cell conclusion therefore because those patterns are observed in the cell best explanation to hold to is that an intelligent agent was behind them and so right guys provocative daring very short into opening statement or yeah so gentlemen if you guys want to make an opening statement you can otherwise you can pounce untrue empiricism all righty cool yeah I'm no scientist I would like to just say real quick I'm Matt Clark I have the YouTube channel very skeptic and also the League of extraordinary atheists for humanism I my main focus is not evolution I do like to talk about an intelligent design because I think anyone who doesn't um agree on evolution then they just pretty much don't understand it because it's pretty it's pretty easy to understand but that doesn't make it easy to explain because there's so many facets and then it goes into such depth that it's easy to get kind of just kind of get lost and know which ways left which ways right which ways back which ways forth just because there's so many specimens and this is I understand it's hard to keep it straight sometimes but the premise is simple so I really hate the arguments where a dog will never producing on dog because that's completely absurd and correct a dog will never produce a non dog a dog will always produce a dog and it might just be a different kind of dog and they might not be able to produce with other kinds of dogs in the evolutionary chain because of speciation that's just evolution it's just it's a pretty easy concept so I'm just kind of here to do my best to set the record straight and just try to simplify the concepts because I don't think they're too hard but I understand that they can be confusing so I'm here for a good conversation you bet thanks so much absolutely um so I am oreax I am a comedic pagan so I believe in the Egyptian pantheon and I have a youtube channel as below where I will talk about the paganism in general that sort of thing but I'm here because regardless of religion you can take a a stance such as this where I believe in evolution and divorce that from the whole religion concept and all this you don't need religion you can believe in science in this case especially with this where it's demonstrable and that you can you can more prove that evolution is um by the scientific standard it is very much something that we can go and observe and see and see that for life especially there is no need for a creator in this aspect so that that's just all I have to say I didn't really have an opening statement you bet we can go into open conversation with that thanks guys okay so what about evolution do you guys believe makes an intelligent designer unnecessary I'm just the fact that it can happen that um I mean you can say it however you want we could we can use the term evolution that I agree with like largely um or just just like breeding like different breeds of dog they breed you can breed um you can breed them to be smaller and cuter and furrier um and somewhere down the line and it tends to happen to what with certain species that you can't go back so far and reproduce with different kinds of we'll say again dogs um but um you've had this with rabbits and also um insects um you'll see speciation occur um and it's that's like the simple part um just the fact that it can't happen and you can get variations within a species or through speciation um you get a ton of variety just naturally um in nature so that along with um like astronomy and just how star formation works you want to go back that far too we can um it just I don't really see a need for a god at all um it is not the the defining thing um that um makes me not believe in a god but I really don't see a need need for one in that argument I think we have enough evidence um showing how evolution works um that we just he just doesn't really need to be part of the this kind of conversation well there's a couple of things to know here the I actually uh bred wolves and the wolf dog hybrid since I was um very young Canadian gray wolves, timber wolves, tundra shepherds, Ikea, Siberian huskies, malamutes I've trained them the difference is between wolves and dogs is less than two tenths of one percent of the same DNA and um the it's very minuscule the difference is between what you see between even coyotes wolves and dogs it's just very minuscule um but I would say that if you're gonna believe that the continuation of those changes where you uh where you are suspecting that we had diverged from some sort of common ancestor you just as an example before chimpanzees and um and humans we supposedly diverged from a common ancestor a long time ago you're no longer dealing with those similarities in genes you're dealing with a difference of about 48 to 58 million nucleotides and so the similarities in between these different species that doesn't really really say anything to myself the question that I would have to ask is how do you account for those differences and um when you're talking about speciation events there's a lot of speciation events that happen um and that organism might not breed with one another because they may not have interests in one another or there might be a physical problem why they can't breed with one another like uh genes being repackaged but they tend to stay the same organism that they are and the anatomical changes there's no let me put it like this this this is the example that I typically bring up as to what my problem is with evolutionary theory okay there are a lot of mechanisms positive horizontal gene transfer vertical gene transfer gene duplication um mutation you name it but none of the mechanisms of evolution it seems like in any article that I've looked through or with any person that I've spoken to about the topic seem to be able to show that any of the mechanisms have been tested to show how these animal anatomical features can arise and so when you're talking about speciation events you're talking about differences between dogs and variation it doesn't answer the question it stays in the confines of variation dogs are still what they are even if they can't breed with one another it's a very subjective thing you can say well they're not breeding with one another because you perceive in your head they've diverged and they're going to continue to diverge and so they become something distinct but that doesn't get us to any sort of objective case as to whether or not we all share common ancestor with with uh with some group of organisms millions of years ago do you know what I'm trying to say and so my question is is how can you account for those major changes occurring what evidence can you show that there is a mechanism in evolution that has been tested to show that these changes can occur because I think if you're the word to claim that you know myself and an octopus and and um all canines and then all creatures share a common ancestor millions and millions of years ago that we need to at least know that there are mechanisms that have been tested to show that that is actually a possibility and so I'm going to use that as an example to segue into why I believe Intel was designed is the better explanation because we actually have a causal example of language for example that's obviously analogous to the dna code that would be talking about it's simply brought up by the proponents atp synthase and use that my last argument to what we consider a turbine these are attributes or or patterns that we know uniformly have come from an intelligent agent there's no opinion there these have always come from an agent we have a cause a causal linkage there but what with evolution is does that exist it seems to me that all we're looking at is similarities in an organism so uh just to just end it here I don't think that speciation is going to get us anywhere and I don't think that uh talking about variation within the dog species organisms that can breed with one another uh it can it's it can get us anywhere past a subjective perception you know what I mean because if you're if you're an evolutionist and you already are convinced of evolution for some reason and you you can connect dots all you want to say well these organisms look similar similar speciation means whatever you feel like it believes you know that it is but doesn't answer the question as to whether or not we all diverge from a common ancestor so some something um interesting to look at would be retroviruses as well and how they have um they do have the ability to go back and we're able to look at the ancestors um for example humans and examine the DNA that they have or that they had a time and compare that to the DNA that we currently have and we we see that there are large variations um within the DNA and how the human being is structured themselves based upon the information we have in the human genome right now I'm sorry say that again the variation in the human genome has been tested yeah so because we have um two variations of the human genome one from a retro virus and another one from uh our current understanding of the human genome as we understand humans right now uh you can compare the two and see uh major differences and mutations um and and the like of that so I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that I mean we do know that there's variation in endogenous retroviruses we've compared our genes with chimpanzees and I believe there is there's a mismatch data there because gorillas seem to have some closer relation in the endogenous retrovirus virus uh segments as well I believe so that really didn't make any sense because chimpanzees are supposed chimpanzees and humans supposed to diverge from one another but the the whole endogenous retrovirus topic and variation within humans I mean it does like again it doesn't really answer the question and we're going to say we diverge from a common ancestor millions of years ago pointing out similarities that we may have with endogenous retroviruses or similarities in anatomy or homologies we may share in proteins you can connect dots all you want it's going to be peridolia it's going to be pattern-seeking what I'm looking for is okay the claim is that if the changes continue to happen with an organism for millions of years right that organism is going species A is going to become distinct from whatever follows millions of years later right because small changes have accumulated right and so a lot of times not always but yes well so you're dealing with the differences so that's why I brought up chimpanzees and humans everybody points out 96 97 percent of the same DNA but it's the differences that that are important because it's the differences that were that that evolution is assume will happen if you allow the changes to continue over and over and over again it's how do we account for that are there articles that actually show mechanisms of being tested to account for uh those changes right because we can talk about variation all day long but it's it's I can get you can perceive that but if I look at variation I mean it's it's not going to do anything for me in an objective point of view do you hear what I'm saying if you already believe evolution is true and you're you're going to look at variation endogenous retroviruses or homologies or similarities I can get it how you can perceive that you can connect dots but from if we're talking about science science needs testable mechanisms and if the mechanisms of evolution haven't been tested to show this is actually a possibility then how can we say that it's actually a legitimate scientific theory then so there are different branches um of like the study of evolution uh one of my favorites is phylogeny um and this is something that aren't rock knows very very well because he has the phylogeny um explorer project um and I'm on this website right now because it really it really breaks down evolution in a digestible way to where you can see um how smaller closer to like single celled ancestors just evolve through the lines and how things evolve to other things but are still the previous things like we're all eukaryotes right um and again I'm no scientist myself evolution is not my main field of hoppy even but phylogeny is my answer because it um it is just a family tree it is it is like the evidence you're more or less looking for is the study of phylogeny it just shows you how everything is linked together and how we know that and it has um a ton of evolutionary um biologists um sending their information to this project um constantly um so I don't know if you've ever looked at phylogeny I have um I wouldn't use Zyronarvally as as a source maybe Ken Miller or something I've spoken to Zyronar and he doesn't really know a lot of the things that he passionately speaks about there's a video on my channel where I'm actually cross-examining him over a particular issue the ATP synthase that we refer to now and from his own admission he did he didn't have a good comprehensive understanding of it but even the phylogeny I mean he goes back to the peridolia issue phylogeny taxonomy I mean most of those materials are studied look at it like this like you'll see charts and you'll see this idea of this divergence where you see you know we all know the the chim the these diagrams where they show chimpanzees he's slowly walking up right then he got a modern human um or you know just these graphs that they show where fishes are diverging and he got amphibians and all these different creatures um the reality is is that these pictures of these these cartoon renderings that they show in these graphs that's not the real thing that you're looking at I mean most of the fossils that we see of of human beings and like Homo erectus Homo Archaic Homo Neanderthal then before that Australopithecus what you're looking at is a divergence of early humans and then you're looking at apes and I know we they like to consider as apes as well just hopefully I can get a little bit of charity so you guys get what I mean we get uh we got apes and then we get we got human beings early early homos obviously they're they're humans Homo erectus Archaic Neanderthal they're all humans then you got Australopithecus and some of the early apes over here what you're seeing is is what would look like a trans a transformation basically there's no transition there and even if you ask what the scientists say most of the bones that they that they're looking at they are completely manufactured here's what I mean by that they may only have a tooth half of a half of a skull they may have to use mere imaging techniques to get an idea of what the entire skeleton looked like but looking at the genome they assume that this these are humans and these are these are early apes and that's not all but you know all the time but the point is what I'm trying to say is that these renderings that you get these cartoon renderings or these graphs that you get that's not the case the second point that I'm trying to to make is that these uh that all we're really seeing in the fossil record especially when we're looking at human beings and uh and the early apes is we're looking at what appears to be chimpanzee or orangutan like creatures or gorilla like creatures and then you see a diversity of what we could we would consider human beings and so when you're when you're dealing with it with with phylogeny and taxonomy it's a very funny thing because anybody can point out I mean I believe they said that 98 percent of all 98 99 percent of all species that ever existed are hercestines so it's very easy for people to randomly point out some species that we've never heard of before with a very scientific sounding name and categorize it based on this like I mentioned this peridolia and so I guess the problem is is that we're stuck in and and the question that I that I that I asked you of earlier is how do we leave the confines of this subjective perception of lining up similarities and homologies and because anybody can do that you can do that with cars you can do that with motorcycles skateboards and I assume because of their similar parts they all diverge from a wheel a long time ago right I'm not interested in that I'm interested in the claim of evolution that the small variations and changes will accumulate to the point to where they will become a distinctive change and that's that's how these major differences occur right small variations lead up they accumulate then you have these major changes can the mechanisms of evolution deal with it can the mechanisms of evolution build these anatomical differences that we see between birds and wolves and human beings if that answer can be at that question the answer to that question can be can be answered I think that we can we can definitely get somewhere but similarities is just subjective we can't do anything with the similarities so what part of what part of birds do you have an issue with like do you have an issue with finches and chickens being related at all or are you are you not convinced that velociraptors had feathers or what's oh no no I'm not trying to get where is it disconnect for all I'm trying to say all I'm trying to say is like I can grant you that velociraptors had feathers it wouldn't matter to me it could have been a creature that had feathers that looked reptilian or like a dinosaur with feathers that we know that there's all sorts of bizarre creatures on this planet that have been alive and that are extinct and exists now today doesn't really matter to me if there's a bizarre creature like that that exists you can do whatever you want with that but when I look at the fossil record we'll say on this issue of phylogeny the reality is is that this idea that people have of there's a small there's a gradual changes that have happened throughout the fossil record is not true look at the mammalian radiation look at the Cambrian era where all the major phyler are there the chordates the echinoderms and and so on there's no evidence of divergence there even when you look at the pre cambrian you only see some fauna and some cyanobacteria a couple of other little stray organisms there but we don't even know how all the major phyla have have actually come into existence that's according to the fossil record if you want the fossil record there's these little spurts of air of time framed where we have no evidence of divergence for many many creatures so what i'm trying to say here is that if we look at the fossil record we can't really do anything with that anyways but there's all sorts of there's all sorts of problems here when we're just staying stuck on the confines of similarities right because i don't care of what if there's an organism out there that that is bizarre or that might have similar features to another it if you are an evolutionist and you believe evolution is true and you connect dots in your head and say this creature looks similar this one this one doesn't have as many of the similar traits to this organism push this a little further down all that is is peridolia it's like you're looking in the clouds and seeing faces in the clouds cars in the clouds i can perceive the same thing that you're perceiving i get what you think in your head by looking at that but that's not how science works science is supposed to have tested mechanisms but i mean or reacts do you want to so something that i that i wanted to get on is you said that evolution is the is uh is relatively similar you made the analogy that it's like um i'm like motorcycles and cars and we can connect the dots like that that watch i mean a lot of the issues with that in that analogy would be that you those aren't reproducing at all and we have no example of that with when it comes to biology and evolution we have examples of changes happening to these creatures over time you know whether you want to say a short time or a long time but we have examples of this within science um take the peppered moth for example we have you know evidence that it can change how uh how within a few decades of our time that these creatures change their appearance and how they look how they how they function in all of this it's completely it's completely just strange to refer to that to just saying well you're looking at clouds and seeing whatever you want to see in the clouds it's it's completely it's a completely different thing well that's actually not true at all what you mentioned was variation and i have no problem at the mc one arm mutation that allows for um for uh pale skin right here that that mutation that actually happened to develop the new traits with that trait you know whether they're not doing it cause people to be more prone to cancers at 4400 generations of pathogens that scientists were doing on bacteria or i'm sorry and their experiments we ended up finding out that they were they had depleted in and stature they became more prone to disease and illness and in many cases they were not even able to to debris any longer um the the fruit fly experiments where we've been doing experiments on them for the last hundred years increasing uh over 1500 times using x-ray machines we see the same thing there there's a decrease in stature they lose the uh a large percentage of their lifespan or they can't breed or they're they're formed born with some sort of deformity and so you can sit over here and talk all day long about while variation happens it seems like the evidence is showing that the accumulation of changes have taken too far the opposite of evolution happens things seem seem to devolve they seem to lose their stature because i think that would make sense uh because if dna is a language or a code at least according to what the mainstream scientists say if you are copy for example the declaration of independence and maybe have a mistake once here or two there you know you can read it in some case you might even get a word that might uh not show up there but if you continue to do what it's going to get to the point to where your information is becoming unreadable and so i think that that's what we are scientifically observing what we're looking at uh what happens with uh with different um with different organisms that are constantly being overbred but let me make this point because i think this is very important here if you're going to claim that okay it's difference with organisms with living organisms because they can reproduce okay that's a claim that's an assertion okay that's good let's stay there what evidence do we have that shows that the accumulation of changes in any organism that has been able to produce has been able to develop any sort of major anatomical feature and since we're on the topic of intelligent design intelligent design is relevant here right intelligent design is if anybody can go to the design website to deal with the argument that i presented here that there are certain patterns in nature that are best explained by an intelligent cause and because those patterns are observed inside of the cell the best explanation is that it's come from an intelligent agent certain patterns not all patterns certain patterns language that's that's one topic you guys can hit on the ATP synthase that's a that's a molecular turbine with knowledge by mainstream scientists and um there's many other objects like that like the um the helicase the beta clamps i think that that those are some good examples as well just to be sure show me how any of these these these instantly can be go ahead or reacts so so from what i'm understanding here you are conceding that variation happens we we both agree that that happens then i would ask if you're saying that variation happens and within this variation you're also claiming that because of that they that these because these variations will stack up and they will have detrimental causes so even conceding this why do we have life at all if that's what happens if evolution uh macro uh micro sorry is continuing here then at what point would we not have any life because you you would have to like there would have to be some kind of thing that would stop this and it would have to go backwards at least at some point or wouldn't have to change at all but there's all sorts of genes and mechanisms side of the cell that actually help to help it to recover and to heal the pvt-7 gene for example the the there's all sorts of ways that the cell tries to heal itself and cope with mistakes when when they happen um apoptosis that's a good example um but uh i think that this is a bit of a right hearing you're going down i think that the question is is that whether or not evolutionary mechanisms via the continuation of changes in living organisms because you said that there's there's a difference here living organisms they can reproduce okay well yeah i agree with you they can reproduce after what what whatever organism that has reproduced they will continue to be that organism that has reproduced um but that's there's no problem there but once you start you're there's a different claim here that we're smuggling in well it's different with evolution because when they reproduce they don't just reproduce after their own kind and i'm not trying to get into the issue of kinds of species because i'm not a young earth creationist um but a dog wolves coyotes um um birds whatever they will continue to be that organism when they reproduce you're claiming that well no it's different here because somehow there's this play-doh effect that if it continues to happen there's going to be something else that's going going to emerge through millions of years okay that's an assertion that's a claim how do you prove that claim one sorry i missed a little bit of that but i think i get the i think i get the just of it though one thing i want to mention forgive me mac if you're able to let us or i should say gray skeptic if you're able to let us know when you do have to like if you can give us a heads up of uh like maybe like 10 minutes 15 minutes before you do have to go we'll probably jump into the q and a at that point but go ahead right now okay got you i have about 15 or 20 minutes now so so you know i think what we'll do is forgive me gray for cutting it again so sorry i know that's okay what we'll do is i'll give you a chance to respond and then um or yeah so if you were if you have like a pressing issue that you definitely want to get in we can let you jump in uh with a pithy response as well and then we'll probably go to q and a after that given that we let true empiricism start we'll let the opposition end if that works for you guys sure yeah right okay that works that works fine for me um so really this is kind of at at the premise of your thoughts here um i don't i don't agree with the um with the assertion that we just have the assertion of hey this looks like this list looks like this let's line it up and draw a picture uh because well that's just a picture that's not the real thing because of course yes no these are artistic um um takes on how we know to lighten to line things up because of bone structure because of dna because of location um and migration like we don't do it just because like oh this one kind of looks like this and this one kind of looks like this one it's not just guess work like biologically and just how we line things up in evolution that's just not how it's done that's not how scientists and then you know that you know that you've said that that's that's not um that's not how science is done but that's not how we science we don't just take guesses we don't just go by visuals we um a lot a lot of fossils are found actually by migration patterns we can we can determine where missing links and quotations are uh because we know how uh species moved and we know um different earth um ages like ice ages and stuff so so we know a lot about migration we can we can determine where things um may have went we go there we find it it's a different variation of maybe the same species or from that at the same evolutionary line um and it's really interesting that we can do that because it's not just just guesswork it's science we use we use different things um to find this evidence that then supports what we were looking for these these missing links so oriax if you want to bounce off of that or anything else um i just want to state that uh just because there are two hypotheses uh just because one explains the phenomenon doesn't mean it sound or falsifies the other hypothesis so the other thing to keep in mind is when we're talking about a scientific theory uh models of this theory work because it is predictive and the other thing would be if the other side is not a predictive model then why should i take it over evolution i think that's what i'll end on there you've there's been a lot of predictions of evolution that's actually failed hold on one sec just to just to forgive me just because gray skeptic let me know that he has got to leave or a little bit early uh is i think we'll probably go to q and a so sorry to do that to your true empiricism i know you've got a a round in the chamber ready to fire out but just uh just because we want to be able to ask any questions toward uh gray skeptic before he does have to leave yesterday was really awkward where kent hovind he always he likes short debate times and so he left before we got to read all the questions and it was like hate when that happens but and not not that nothing against you gray skeptic so sorry um it's just that i love to get to ask the people while they're here so thanks so much steven seen thanks for your sick super chat he said four days since i've seen james i'm in heavy withdrawal nasty guy just like his sister stupid horror energy thanks steven seen for your other super chat who said over under number people thinking of speciating with modern day debate that's disgusting okay pride steven's thanks for your patreon question he said has true empiricism looked into genetic algorithms which mimic biological evolution and achieve complex goals completely through randomness i guess i have and usually what they have to do is they got to set the thing in motion for it to start in any way being creative to begin with so i think it's it's all in the underlying program before they kick things off so that doesn't work there's actually a lot of examples out there of why that fails it's too much for me to get into here now but uh people who are listening just go ahead and you probably find the information very easily if you just google it got you i've looked into it you got it vik ramsey thanks for your question they asked question for the id person his name is on the screen uh for the id person before you can discover intelligent design don't you need to have a designer if no designer is discovered then isn't id presupposing a conclusion without evidence wow i mean the creation is what indicates a creator it's if you follow the mind of reasoning that i gave out in my argument that it would logically follow that there was a creator it's if you're finding an instrument you know it's just based on our uniform experience if you're finding objects that are only known to come from an intelligent agent and and they're observed inside of the cell what do you think the best inference is i mean we could put it like this i mean i think the best way for people to understand how an abductive type of perception should be imagine if you had a this is basically i go as imagine if you were sick you had a cold or a flu maybe you don't know that you have a cold or a flu but you based on the symptoms you infer that you have a cold or a flu and so i think that that's maybe a better way that to help people understand it maybe they don't get the argument as it's laid out i don't know how you can't but um creation indicates a creator i think that there are fingerprints of design that we're seeing inside of nature and those very clear fingerprints of design is what indicates that there's a creator it's we're not working in reverse i don't know how anybody can even think that gotcha thanks so much nice up i'm just oh wait j shy thanks for your super chat just came in they said true it's not just similarities it's the pattern of both similarities and differences in all caps they said showing a twin nested hierarchy which can only be explained by common descent uh so in basically what they're saying is true it's not just similarities it's a pattern of both similarities and differences showing a twin nested hierarchy which can only be explained by common descent and we have fossils we have fossil genes as proof how do you like them apples true empiricism well i i mean that that's an assertion i mean if if the differences are counted for by evolution i'd like to see it um i i haven't seen it yet maybe he can give you some more money and put up another comment there and let us know what what it is that he thinks you know proves his point we do have subtracted all up in your face they asked are snowflakes intelligently designed by your logic oh that's that's dealing with the issue of complexity not not a causal pattern right i'm not i'm not arguing complexity i'm arguing for here's an object we know for a fact this object has always come from an intelligent agent in the past um so because that object has come from an intelligent agent in the past that is uh that is the reason why we infer it was it came from a designer because when you talk about complexity it's just that's subjective too i don't want to get into complexity i'm so no i mean snowflakes i don't know how anybody would say they're complex they're they got a pretty makeup to them but i wouldn't even consider them complex gotcha so are we we have no questions for we have no questions for gray skeptic or oriax if you do have a question for them shoot it in a live chat we'll try to get through it i'm surprised literally none so i'm sorry wilson thanks for your question they said for true empiricism how are you sure that quote-unquote intelligent design must be related to the god of the bible and not a god such as as uh forgive me if i mispronounce this as a thought the blind idiot nuclear chaos well um that that was something that i wanted to hit on earlier the bible intelligent design and religion are separate from one another the intelligent design doesn't attempt to prove god or any specific religious belief that's why there are scientists on the id side that actually are agnostic or don't believe in christianity at all i'd say that there are separate arguments that can be made that you can reduce to a conclusion to christianity the the enormous amount of historical evidence out there supporting uh uh jesus christ and the crucifixion there's antithonal reasons as well there's a lot of philosophical reasons out there um that can narrow non-theism but i wouldn't say that intelligent design would prove christianity or any god specifically how can you do that um if we're only trying to point out and you know that there's intelligent causation you know that you're you're seeing tell tale marks of the designer of a designer you don't have that name there so i don't think that scientifically speaking well um you can really prove any god just specifically by talking about intelligent design i think it's just a very neutral position to take gotcha brian stevens does have a question for grace skeptic and oriax what evidence would increase your belief in creationism maybe i need to think about that um to increase well i can i can give you one sec because i did want to plug tomorrow jim majors will be debating his father darth dawkins or now as he goes by dunkin atheism do want to mention that to you in case you had not heard about that tomorrow is going to be a barn burner as jim majors confronts his father on video so really exciting and uh but go ahead so i'll let you answer the question thank you so not not only would there need to be um evidence of a creator that is beyond a shadow of a doubt you would then have to conclude that a that the creator whoever whatever however that would be would then have to have something to do with the design of not only the world but the creation itself and the life that lives on planet earth gotcha thanks so much let's see we just had ask grace skeptic what was the first organism and what did it turn what did it form into and how so oria i suppose oriax if you want to as well this is from cameron p thanks for your question yeah um it was small and it turned into something a little less small um it uh just duplicated um but it was still very small it's the best answer i can give you and be completely honest no problemo oriax if you want to you can add or if you have a different even account you can say that as well um i don't know a biogenesis is something i know a little about and uh won't claim to know anything uh i i would imagine though um from what i know it would be probably some kind of small single salt organism probably bacteria something or the rather and uh then it just kind of uh went from there again i i don't know i'm not really a scientist so i don't know much about a biogenesis you got it thanks so much next subtracted thanks for your super chat they said what mechanism does intelligent design have to offer so what mechanism well i'd say that the mechanism is intelligence intelligence is the driving force if you if you don't have that ability that deterministic foresight to understand this component goes here here and here so that you can develop that object um you're not going to be able to make it so a mechanism is basically the driving force and so since intelligence that thought process that ability to think and to understand how to be creative is that necessary driving force obviously intelligence would be the mechanism um so yeah i'd say intelligence would be the mechanism you got it arne rurvik let me know if i mispronounce that thanks for your super chat question they said question for true empiricism eating through the same hole as breathing is pretty stupid no shouldn't you call it stupid design well if you call it if you you can say that it's bad design but bad design does not equal not to design right i got it like this example a lot my Volvo has the car in the trunk and it's powered by electricity and so you lose the key you can't get it you know can't get it uh open so that you can uh um you know charge the battery it's a dumb design i don't know why they built it like that but that doesn't mean it's not designed we know for a fact the car was created just um there's a criticism there so i mean bad design doesn't equal not design and um got you as my thank you and shay ar forgive me i'm so sorry i did miss your super chat you were right i went i pulled up the tab and i found it question for oreax how many impossible burgers do you have to eat to grow gun nipples i i i don't know why you keep asking me this question i i don't know i don't know the context of this question i don't have an answer wait me asking it or no no ar i don't know why ar keeps asking this question okay gotcha i don't either i don't answer i don't know what it means i don't know i have no idea i think it's i i don't know they kept wanting to ask me this question but i don't have the answer for it i i don't know thank you will uh just to sorry respect your time gray skeptic i know you've got to go pretty soon are you uh at that like two minute warning or even less yeah that's probably fair is about two minutes okay we'll try to read through these really quick uh just maybe a couple more okay i'm sorry to inconvenience everyone no no that's totally understandable like i i my presumption is that well even if it's not family i totally understand you guys have got a lot to do and so we're happy to have you here at at all but let's see i know you guys have got a lot going on and arm rovick just sent a super chat and thanks for your question he said are you calling god a quote unquote bad engineer true empiricism i'm just responding to his statements if i were to acknowledge it for what it is just grant it it doesn't logically follow it and tell us that there wasn't an intelligent design and you can criticize what you subjectively perceive to be bad design all day long it's the bad design exists all over the place but it doesn't mean not to design so it just doesn't follow gotcha next up thanks so much sebella shepherd i always wonder is she trying to troll you or is she a legit fan she says is ronnie having an aftershow oh uh yeah i guess i'll probably do an aftershow maybe for a little bit not not too long gotcha i only ask because they use your real name so i'm like letting it out okay next up we'll try to do one more so let's see emotionally scented emoticon thanks for your question they said for te what does he mean by quote unquote new anatomical features when evolution works primarily by modifying existing features does the evolution of brassica count and why or why not we can narrow down specifically to what i what i mentioned earlier just the differences that you're finding in the organisms i don't care about the similarities those differences what would be a new feature in relation to what it what what what the ancestors were right i mean for humans for example we were to continue to breed and then somehow millions of years in the future we gave birth to some or some sort of organism arise that was distinctly different than what we are whatever made it distinctly different according to evolutionists was the end result of accumulated changes producing new information to build whatever new traits that organism had and so you can just narrow down what i mean by new feature to the differences that we're finding in organisms so that's what i that's what i mean by that those differences or if you if you know if you want to claim that something new could arise a new feature can arise up some sort of i'm feeling to entertain that but that's what i mean i'm talking about differences how can we account for those differences gotcha vibrant brandy has one for you gray skeptic if if you gotta go it's okay but if i can ask this one for you gray since it's specific go for it thanks for your question vibrant brandy they said what would you think if you came across a watchmaker dead on a beach it's undeniable that watchmaker had to be designed what are your thoughts about that statement whoa um that's a good question i think i would be um probably a little grossed out because i kind of hate dead things um so other than that yeah i think i'd probably just uh call some professionals and not try to to guess anything because uh i probably wouldn't search the body for evidence gotcha thanks so much and then one last one because arne is coming after you true empiricism he said why are you dodging true empiricism why am i dodging what am i dodging he asked apparently he wasn't satisfied with your answer to the question of whether or not you're calling god a bad designer a bad designer um i mean no i mean i'm not calling god a bad designer at all i didn't say that anything that god did was a bad design he did i'm just saying okay let's grant it does that mean that the design argument is is invalid because you're criticizing that design no obviously that doesn't logically follow it's a bad it's a bad bad argument gosh yeah so thank you very much gentlemen for being here want to remind everybody their links are in the description so if you're like great skeptic looking just foxy you can always click on his link and see more of his beautiful face we're too kind want to say we appreciate everybody being here whether you be christian atheist democrat republican you name it no matter where you're from no matter what walk of life we hope you feel welcome and with that want to just say one last thank you to our speakers for being here it's a pleasure guys we know you get a lot of channels out there to go on and so we appreciate you spending your time with us thank you you betcha and thanks yep and uh thanks everyone for uh for watching tonight it was nice thank you yes it was very nice to be here always a pleasure gentlemen take care and keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable everybody