 For truth, I'm just going to go over the introductions here. This is going to be a really really exciting debate and Question and answer so we've had people waiting in the chat almost for two hours now. So this is this is going to be fun This is going to be engaging We've got raw Matt here who's going to be moderating So thanks Matt. We've got Jackson wheat and RJ Downer. It's a lion's den two-on-one debate We've gotten to fill them free. So thanks for doing this guys. Thanks for giving us your time the structure the format is going to be five minute openings and 45 minute discussion followed by 45 minutes of questions and answers so send your questions to Matt make sure you tag him at Modern-day debate and we'll make sure we get to those because 45 minutes is a long time although I'm sure it's gonna Fly by I'm gonna hand it over to Matt Who can then I guess? Hand it over to Neff or whoever is starting Alright, hey everybody. I hope you're having a good night and before we jump into this I just want to let everybody know that you can find the speakers that are on now down in the link in description below I posted a specific one for James below that links to his book and to his website and to his YouTube channel and This one's going to be two versus one About a five minute opening and discussion We're gonna jump right into that and again post your questions to me and don't forget if you like the channel hit subscribe and Any questions at any time direct them towards me and I'm gonna do my best to try to moderate if it gets chaotic So whoever would like to go first take the stage Well, you decide don't leave it up to us Okay All right, now we have to jump in nobody's ever called me shy Well, he just said me so I guess I'll go first Okay, so I'm gonna screen share a little something here So I'm screen sharing now. All right. So can you see what I'm screen sharing? Does anybody can tell me verify for me, please? They see a picture Yes, okay, great. So here's my position Evolutionism is a secular religion promoted with 19th century science. It's not science It's a philosophy millions of discoveries in biology have refuted evolution theory Conclusively evolutionists were denied the imprints of design in the most bizarre ways For example, they would obviously they would look at this pile of dirt and sand and grass in the middle of a field And obviously conclude that some intelligence put that there They wouldn't believe that the wind just piled that that that saw it right there. Somebody dumped that But then they'll look at this m a cf p pf protein ring, which is comprised of numerous components Tens of thousands of amino acids all of them every single one in its exact location So that the this device it is a device to provide Function, which is to punch holes in the membrane of a bacteria so that toxins can be in in putting to the bacteria to kill it Is not designed So the dirt pile is designed But this complex ring of thousands of amino acids which has mechanical function For the purpose of killing a bacteria produced by the human immune system is not designed. This is the evolutionist for you So evolutionists would acknowledge that this simple machine on the right this egg beater, which has about nine six eight six eight moving parts maybe four is obviously designed, but the This machinery in the in the cell, which is of nanotechnology and has Staters bearings gears and it's electromechanical engines is not designed. This is evolutionists Okay Evolutionism is a secular religion promoted with 19th century science Charles Darwin couldn't possibly have imagined what science was going to discover What you're looking at now is the hewkins machine duplicates the DNA molecule as the strand of DNA exits this machine It's spinning at the speed of their turbine in a jet engine thousands upon thousands of RPM Assembling the exact arrangement of amino acids is found in the original strand and reproducing it on the fly This is machinery comprised of numerous components of the specific exacting size shape in dimension form Which operate in unison in a specific pattern which have clamps and grips They bond they bind they link they squeeze they release they cut they grab and They do this in unison in a specific order to reproduce the DNA molecule and evolutionists will say that's not designed I mean, it's just nonsense. For example, here's what this is something that Jonathan Wells PhD biologist I said but biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous or similar structures are not produced Are often not produced by similar developmental pathways They are known for 30 years that they're often not produced by similar genes either So there's no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish the homologies or due to common ancestry rather than common design So see evolutionists have known these things for a century and they continue to deny them They deny them because of the religious aspect in not because of science So Jeffrey Tonkin's Genesis says by using the same techniques we use in making comparisons between humans and chimps human DNA also turns out to be Roughly estimated to be about 35% similar Identical to a daffodils DNA, but nobody would follow that the daffodils 35% human or vice versa This is a face palm even the daffodil is doing a face palm or this so It's you know, I don't have time to present it but from the properties of information the properties of linguistics and the properties of algorithms in the DNA molecule empirically Empirically verify if anything could be said to be proven in science The the fact that DNA is a package of information that operates algorithmically and is organized with linguistics is proof That all living systems are designed We're in the 21st century now. This is not 1840 anymore Science has proven life is designed evolutionists rely on a package of assumptions to promote evolution with 19th century scientific views But they have been left behind by modern science. So that's my position The the evidence is overwhelming and empirical and there is no good argument from an evolutionist Similarities is what evolutionists based the vast majority of their beliefs on and they think that similarities is evidence of common ancestry And that's the biggest argument similarities, but similarities are just based on assumptions the empirical evidence shows life was designed It it's it's algorithmic its information and it's linguistically organized these three things come only only from intelligence molecules bumping into each other cannot produce information or in from algorithms or Linguistics now because DNA is a package of information organized linguistically and which operates algorithmically We know That life was designed and that concludes my opening statement All right, good job now And Whoever would like to go first on your team take off. It looks like Jackson's Raven is answering RJ can I go first? Yeah, go ahead. By the way, is everybody seeing me. I turn Okay, okay, okay So hello, I'm Jackson No creationism is not and has never ever ever been science neither is intelligent design Because there is no testable mech. There's no testable mechanism for either of them. They are literally based on magic They have always been What we have in what we need in science are naturalistic mechanisms things we can test We can test natural selection. We can test sexual selection. We can test genetic drift gene flow mutations speciation We can test all these things you can't test creationism. It's not science Neff threw out a whole bunch of jargon Which most of it had absolutely no meaning whatsoever. He threw out information and algorithm I'd love to actually discuss examples with him of these things and pin him down specifically as to what he means For instance, when he brought up the ATP synthase No, these things are not perfect If you study any of the if you study ATP synthase at all If you read any of the technical literature, you can see that is very far from being a perfect system It doesn't always just spin in this one direction. It actually spins Uh, there's a a lot of stochasticity to its spinning as to what it does there's a There's a whole sweep of literature on its evolution on the evolution of uh of ATP aces V and f ATP aces And how these devolved step literally step by step into the modern ATP synthase and from then on genetic information Is not really a thing. It's a buzzword algorithm a buzzword uh Jonathan wells is an intelligent designer and his is extremely wrong on numerous things Uh, I mean for instance, he was anti the whole uh peppered moth natural selection experiment, which was entirely correct And yet he tried to refute it even though he was wrong, but whatever Uh, yeah, so you also then have to understand neph talks about its evolution was refuted in 1840s Why then are over 99 percent of evolutionary of of scientists in life science geologists paleontologists biologists They're evolutionary biologists because the mechanisms that they propose Work the explanations that they propose work There are no explanations posited by young earth creationists That explain natural phenomena. They can't explain index fossils. There are literally no explanations In the creationist camp for index fossils. We've tried to find them rj and i have uh in For our book and for videos we've done There are no explanations from creationists on a lot of things because they can't explain them And so because they can't they won't they will avoid these things like the plague genetics in a lot of ways Is avoided they use buzzwords Georgia pertum loves using buzzwords like information But doesn't actually get into the nitty gritty I would love to discuss details with you of examples of beneficial mutations and things like that So that we can hammer out. What exactly did you mean by information? So If you want to know more about evolution go see rj on my channel Because we both love to talk about that stuff Evolution is most definitely true. So I think i'll hand it over to rj. All right, okay Yeah, i'm just also looking at the people in the live chat in there uh The essence of evolution is natural common descent And it's revealing that um neph went right into an origins or but a bus approach How do individual molecules arise? How does an individual system functions without looking at how it actually operates in living organisms? He's relying on secondary sources a great deal But we've got to think about what actually is going on with organisms that exist in the living world And all the vast amount of technical literature virtually none of which has ever been done by a creationist or even an intelligent designer All of those cute graphics all of that material on atp a's is all of that that is not coming out of the creationist literature It's never been coming out of them What we have in natural selection Acting on individual organisms is is an empirical thing organisms breed egg beaters Do not breed they do not replicate. They do not have inherited replica Variation it is a terrible example But actual organisms actual things do and there is a vast field in any one of the areas That either neph will bring up or I bring up don't take our word for it Research on your own and discover the vast amount of data field that is that is being left out of the creationist position Every scrap of information on fossils on genetics on the interactive biology on ecosystems on biogeography Layer on layer on layer of interconnecting evidence neph he can't even acknowledge that the earth is billions of years old He can't possibly fit his the data field into a frame that's that screwed up to where there's no functioning map of time going on Um, I didn't anticipate having to do a very long introduction because I want to discuss the data I want to discuss the fossils. I want to discuss biological information. I want to discuss paleo genomics Uh, I want to get to the nitty gritty of why jackson and i Are firmly convinced that evolution is true not because we are emboldened by some ideological materialist dogma But because the evidence absolutely demands it and no alternative exists as an explanatory model It gets anywhere Near a full representation of the data field not jeffrey tompkins And his various evasion material not jonathan wells or anybody else they could have cited of which by the way There's only about 60 fact claimants operating in the entire anti evolution movement compared to in my last count I think i'm up to about 67 000 scientists who are doing the actual technical work No, this is a very lopsided worldview here And the fact that paleontology in particular is a field where Creationists haven't been active Players in over 100 years. It's just dead as a doornail as a discipline. So let's get to the facts Let's get to the discussion on this and not have to spend time. Um, winding up for the pitch. Let's do the pitch Okay, all right, then we we are jumping into it you guys went quick So we've got extra minutes on uh for q and a now goes up to 50 All right, so we're jumping into the 45 minute discussion. So, um That was good. We will hop into that now with, um Sorry making sure that i've got every I don't read super chats now, right? That's before q and a Sorry I'm going to assume that so Uh Neff you are you are up my friend. Okay, um Um So, uh, what i'm hearing is a lot of appeal to authority, you know, you guys this We hear that a lot. I understand you guys claim that you know atp has been they figured out how it evolved There's assumptions in that. Um, uh, it's scientific literature now is publishing that it looks to me It looks to be like the uh, uh vacuoles in the in the cell membrane actually evolved from the atp synthesize Not the other way around I don't know if you're aware of that literature, but you should be because Okay, so but now here in that information algorithms and linguistics are buzzwords Instead of uh, actually properties of dna. We'll go over that if you like that's that's tomorrow Do you claim that all al us have the same information? no I probably don't claim that majority of me think I do. How do we how do we get the al using our genome? Redundancy is expected if it the genome is designed Are you claiming that all it's also used? it's used by the uh by the uh the genetic information to uh to uh turn on backup copies People in the in the chat who don't understand what we're saying or watching the show Explain to the audience uh neph What al use are and how many of them we got in our genome? Well, I don't know how many but there's many and uh, there are genetic repeated strings of information The the dna is is packed them with them. There's uh, can you give a rough guess possibly? I don't I don't know exactly possibly uh hundreds of thousands to many millions Okay, so yeah now you're in the ballpark 1.4 million and growing. Yeah, did adam and have any of them? So, um genetic redundancy is an expected if design you have a jet airplane You have three computers in it because if one of them fails So I there's my there's the creationist response genetic redundancy is expected if design is true If so, okay, so that here's the difference though with the airplane They're actually working the pseudo genes a lot of times are repeated genes that have literally no function So it's not like having multiple uh turbines on an airplane It's like having multiple turbines on an airplane that don't do anything. Well, you don't know what they do Because you don't know what they do what they do actually we can test that We can sequence Jackson, we don't know what they do does not mean that they're not there for a reason. We can sequence the genomes of different And compared Let me let me get back to this claim that dna the information linguistics and algorithms are are uh, you know Candy words and they're not actually properties of DNA But that's demonstrably false because the the reason we know that is because the dna The information in the dna actually specifies See Now let's talk over each other constantly give me just a few seconds to talk and then I'll give you a few seconds talk Okay, so dna actually specifies it specifies the arrangement of amino acids specifically which ones In what order so as to produce the three-dimensional product of a protein It specifies which genes to turn on and off during fetal development So as to specialize cells and to develop the various anatomical features of an organism These things don't happen randomly. They're specific. They were happening randomly now information specifies things Who said they were happening randomly? So this is one of the ways we know that what's in the dna is actually information because it specifies biological functions and the structural design of the organism Yeah, who said it that this was happening You said it happened randomly. I'm pointing out that it didn't know I didn't know I I agree It didn't happen randomly. I 100% agree with you. No one thinks that it did No one I didn't say it did. I'm telling you that that's the contrast Are you comparing who thinks it's random then the cond the contrast I'm pointing out. It's not undesigned either It's not happenstance association of molecules Because that doesn't produce information. Hold on time out time out time out. Okay Determinancy First of all evolution is not random So when you say evolution is not random and molecular interactions are not random So when you're so when you're comparing these when you're saying this is designed Because it does stuff non randomly that doesn't that doesn't logically follow There are lots of things. Uh, you are aware of like hydrogen bonds and ionic bonds and you're on the wrong track I'm talking about it specifies Okay, okay. Well, I'm trying to understand why you're comparing it to randomness I'll tell you because natural processes don't specify anything or natural processes random Natural processes can appear to be random, but they're not random, but jackson. They don't specify anything Information It's highly specific it specifies things that are oobuller Complex in the highly ordered. That's not that's not a product of happenstance And it's not a product of undirected processes. Okay, so that's a non sequitur Again, are you saying it's directed? It is directed in large part by things like natural selection sexual selection There are mechanisms of evolution that are non random. There are mechanisms evolution that are random such as genetic drift, which uh spreads Uh, certain alleles randomly and generally in small Natural selection doesn't direct the development of genetic information. Natural selection is by definition is a selective mechanism It does not direct Nothing is directing anything Jackson do you understand the difference between direction and selection? So Nothing there is no evidence that anything is going in any direction. What we have are things like selective pressures Which cause populations to go in directions Okay The dna is Specifies Highly complex things Between these things that you're trying to draw a non sequitur argument jackson You're not listening actually What i'm saying is dna specifies in order in other words if you have a An operations manual for a photographer's light meter the instructions on it tell you how to operate the thing Okay, they don't they're not they're produced by the thing So natural selection doesn't specify the instructions in the dna It's selects from what may already exist. Okay, it doesn't What's that guys? Let's let's have a rj jump in here. You've been silent for like five Yeah, i'm trying to bring up a specific example of actual dna in our actual genome the 1.4 million copies of al use Some of which do something some of which doesn't if you have a model here You could tell us whether adam and eve the original created kind and or noa and the kids had any al use What they were as a pre zygotic design Uh to start out with uh, which ones were functional which ones aren't it's only a few thousand years ago That's an easy thing to do from a Really? Really? Wait a minute. Let me finish the question How many al used it adam and eve have were any of them functional? What did they do compare and contrast with existing al use and what they do and What and do you admit that there has been any natural evolution of them since their initial creation? Okay, james. Here's the absurdity of what you're saying We don't know what the vast majority of the dna molecule actually does But you're expecting me to be able to tell you what all the al use did in adam's dna That's just ridiculous. I've already answered you and the answer is I'll wait a minute. You asked a question. It's my turn to respond. Okay. I You said you said, uh, you're harping on about uh al you repeats in the dna And i've already explained that if dna is designed we would expect it to be there But what I'm getting is a lot right now. There's a lot of goalposts moving I'm I'm telling you that dna is empirically proven to be a product of intelligence because it's information that operates linguistically and and There's an organized linguistically and operates algorithmically and you and my question Hold on James, please cool down a second and my challenge to you is to explain the existence of information Linguistics and algorithms with undirected natural that's your mantra apply it to al use Are you claiming you have read? Are you saying you have read nothing at all on al use and if so, why not? I've answered your al you question Is there expected to be there if dna is designed? To a different field of the al use in our brain that do stuff. Are those intentionally designed? We have a whole technical literature on it Everything about dna is designed Now are the al use that cause diseases also designed if they've been mutated and now cause a disease that the mutation process is not Is not part of the original design Designed how did you determine that? So good designs go bad a bicycle rusts and falls apart. Do we say the bicycle isn't designed because it can rust? How did you determine what al use were in the original design genome to be so sure? I can't do that nor can you show For created perfection James north can I can't show you that any more than you can show me why al use are proof of evolution Because we can crack there that you want to tack tackle that one jackson My question my my challenge to you is to provide an A mechanism to produce information linguistics and algorithms by undirected chemical processes Nefi that is all jargon word salad. Let's talk about an actual example. Why don't you pick a gene? That has it has studied behind it like like uh the gene for hemoglobin. Why don't you pick one that we actually know? Well, the genes that produce the proteins Hold on hold on we have an actual very detailed evolutionary history Of the gene that produces uh that produce hemoglobin. Do you understand? Have you read any of the literature on it? Um similarities and genes in one species to produce hemoglobin in one species And in another species is not evidence that Can I ask you a question? Do you have similar? Let me respond guys if you're just going to talk over and over I'm trying to respond to a change when you're yelling at me james. You're yelling at me. I'm responding. It is James you're yelling at me. I'm trying to respond to jackson So you never jackson rj hold on hold on jackson. Um the cascade process of the hemoglobin, uh, you know Proteins, you you know that it's like uber stuber complex, right? You know that they're welcome Hold on. I didn't even get to finish my response guys Wow Okay, so if you want to believe that that cascade can happen by chance Undirected associations of molecules you're welcome to but but I I can't go there But what I can't tell you is that dna is information linguistics and algorithms and you're denying that you're saying it doesn't specify My question to you is ds dna specify the arrangement of amino acids to produce the proteins and does it Does it specify the The the spell cell specialization and arrangement that produces the anatomical structures of an organism during field development Is that specified or unspecified jackson? Let's start at the basics because I think we have to We have to start with the basics with you. Why don't you answer my question? Do I think it's I do have a question for 10 minutes you I I have already agreed that you know dna specifies amino acids which become proteins all that I've already said that fine. We all accept and acknowledge that and does it also specialize specify the Cell specialization and arrangement and their organization to produce the structural designs of the organism I've already said that's true. I've already thought we all know that that's true Does specify right right what do you mean by information? What are you referring to? Well, I didn't have to tell you what information is. Okay. Please do. Please be Information is knowledge conveyed from a sender to a receiver using language agreed upon by both parties Okay When dna interacts with RNA polymerase, which one of them contains knowledge The knowledge that the arrange specific arrangement of the amino acids Will produce the machine component that has a function It's not non-functional So is the knowledge that was encoded into the dna the recipient of that knowledge is the molecular Is the machinery of the cell. Okay. Okay. So so by your own definition chemicals are knowledge The chemically arrangement of nucleobases in dna is knowledge by your definition Is recorded knowledge and you've already agreed that they specify because they specify evolution cannot be true That okay, that does not logically follow in any conceivable university, but let's hold on Let's so so nephi product of intelligence Again, that's In this context, that's entirely false because I encourage you to look at dna and figure out which part of it If we're talking about transcription and translation, which are involved in making proteins Which part of that is designed? Which part is is knowledge and according to you as in just now you just said Knowledge is the sequence of nucleobases How on earth is so knowledge is just chemicals According to you, which is a very bizarre definition. We already have a definition The dna molecule is a medium encoded with the information just like a book is a medium encoded There's no information encoded in it. It is what is it? No, there isn't it is a set of Let's talk about that dna. Oh, absolutely. Dina is a molecule Dina is a molecule the sequence of which the sequence of of of molecules within it has functions So if you can point to a part of that that is not a molecule by all means Function, there you go now. So you've admitted jackson the dna specifies and then it produces things I don't know about this nephi. It specifies things that have function We've already been able to do is the specification Is something that's produced by intelligence So if I can point you to an example of Hold on, please. Let me finish specific Specification is something that's produced by intelligence. Wait, nephi. If I can point you to an example Okay, so I can point you to an example of jackson jackson If I can point you to an example jackson to specify something Is to state what will happen is to order it by intent. There is an intentional purpose And there is a volitional action taken by a mind and intelligence when specificity Is exist so when you acknowledge that dna specifies these things you're acknowledging intelligence system Okay, sir if I can point you to an example of a gene which has undergone mutation Which now has a new function or has changed in function? Will you admit that that it does not require? Intelligence will you admit that if I can point you to an example Change in function Yes, if I can point you to an example of a change in function Then will you renounce the idea that? Intelligence is needed to evolve genes or to change genes. No because you can modify an existing design So No, no, no, let me ask you a question. Let me answer. No, okay Okay, you can modify a gene and produce something that's going to have a negative effect Or something that has a positive effect and carries along the negative with it And that's not evidence of mutation I didn't say that I didn't say that did I I didn't say that First of all, you don't know that there is negative going along with it. You haven't there I don't know how you just determine that if I can point you to an example Of a gene of a single gene that has changed as a result of mutations not by humans Not by artificial selection of mutations in nature Which has changed a gene function Will you admit will you renounce the idea that intelligent design is necessary for uh for genes? Okay, all right before neff answers right now I'm gonna have uh rj and james come back just so we've got some equal time I mean Really specific example jackson you can have your uh gene handy. I want to go deeper to the coding level mitochondria among others have variant coding systems They don't have identical codon assignments. Does neffy claim that all of those codon reassignments were intentionally done by a mind or does he allow that formal Information generator system to have been modified by natural means Mutations can occur make the mutations don't design anything They've never so you are never been observed The mutations design anything with function. That's not a let me change the question Have you ever studied anything at all about the mitochondrial codon assignments? Yes or no? Uh, no, I'm not sure. I'm not sure what that is Okay, and I'll tell you why because it isn't discussed in the anti evolution literature So just give me a summary of what you think So I'm trying to get you to apply your vague notions of information to actual things Are you claiming that the codon system that is used in mitochondria? Is designed to be that way by a mind or did it come about as a natural evolutionary variation on the previously existing codon system? Apply your model Okay, there is nothing about dna that is not designed except the negative effects of random mutation There's nothing about it. That's not so you are claiming that the mitochondrial codon system was deliberately designed to be the way It is as was the one that is not that is different in the other organisms God designed organisms to have variety So so you're claiming that there even though we can observe the actual mutation process of codon reassignments in nature today That you're claiming that god is the one that's designing that and not the natural mutations So what you're talking about now is programmed to mutation. There's two kinds of mutation basically There's Undirected random mutation and then there is mutation or change to dna Which occurs because the information directs it the information In one of the examples of this One of the examples of this is somatic mutations in the immune system Which work on the fly to looking looking looking for something that works to stop an ant Okay, so That's by That's evidence of design by the way So the now what i'm hearing is that information algorithms and linguistics don't actually Exist in dna even though it's been well published numerous times that this is a these are properties of dna I am numerous science papers. Are you want to wear it? Wow, really? Yes. Okay, so you don't you don't know Oh, sure Okay, so give me just a moment. I'll pull up sources for you Here's but I want everybody listening to understand what we're hearing now Is james is is arguing that it's not published in any science journals that dna is information Is that what we're hearing james By the way, we're way far away We're by the way. We're really far away from the evolutionary data field We're into an abstract origins of us information and semantic and semiotics and abstractions We have a source that you cannot apply You can't apply it to alu Can't apply it to any dna name for me any notable creationist who does work in genetics So james Are you you're i'm going to be clear about this It sounds as though you're saying that it's not published in any science journal That dna is information linguistics or algorithms. Is that what you're saying in the way you wanted to be? No, oh wait a minute Oh, okay, so do you recant what you just said? Nephew, why don't you define something because we try to get you down what information Here are some sources. Okay, uh Rutgers university the linguistics of dna word sentences grammar phonetic semantics Okay, uh the genetic group Are they not earth creationists? No, none of these are creationist sources. Okay. Do any of them? Every one of them is James hold on do you ask for Common to sand james. I you ask for sources. I'm going to give you a few do any of them reject natural common to say That's irrelevant to whether or not they discuss I'm going to take off it's been good But if if you guys are just going to talk over me constantly and don't allow me to respond anything And won't respond to my response to your claims, then it's just not point. There's no point may be in here So unless you guys can tone it down just a little and allow me to respond to your claims And this is just you guys talking over somebody constantly as though you you win the game It doesn't work that way with me. All right, so I'm going to provide what you asked for whether you like it or not All right, and I'm going to look at every single one of them james. You've got to chill your machine just second Okay, now I the point is this it doesn't matter to me Whether these guys who publish this all believe evolution. That's not the point The point is they acknowledge that dna is information organized linguistically and operating algorithmically That is the point I'm making we can discuss whether or not they accept the the inference of design from that or not That'd be just like you refusing the inference of design. It doesn't matter one bit to me It doesn't put a speck of dirt on my shoulder Here's the point though genetic language grammar semantics. This is published in uh, nc in cbi Okay from the swedish, uh, karlinka institute talks extensively about semantics and linguistics in in dna Here's another paper. This is from the united states national library of of medicine They speak of linguistics properties of dna the alphabet of dna operates Does anyone of those indicate design? This one is from live science. There's one of them. Hold on. Here's from genetics.org This one's from s.bu.ed Here's from ncbi The linguistics, you have a lot of sources that were I have a lot of sources. Right. Yes So james james is early claim that it's not published in the journals that that dna is linguistic and operates algorithmically Is Yeah, what what are you saying is yeah, they they are using these terms analogously You are trying to make an argument From analogy to design when none of these people are saying that or indicating that in any way shape or form That is complete nonsense. It's a non sequitur. No, it's not nonsense But that's exactly what i'm doing, of course when I stare and then looking at it The argument is a non sequitur. I don't say gee that's similar to a car. I say it is a car because that's what it is It doesn't matter to me that you or anybody else denies the fact that dna is information linguistics and algorithms See, that's what's happened. You remember I said What does that mean when I started out in here? I made during my opening I said that evolutionists refuse the imprints of from design and even though it's it's it's obvious and empirical The fact here is what's modern science remember I said it's 19th century science a secular religion promoted So the 20th century science has discovered that dna is a package of information That's organized linguistically and operates algorithmic and the challenge to the evolutionist is show us a mechanism Is Algorithms or linguistics to be show us how that indicates an intelligent process Oh my gosh, this how do you keep repeating the same mantras? We've already been over also your screen To answer it Okay. Yes, we have actually this was good. This was back to what I said originally Or originally when I yes it was when I was talking about natural selection and uh intermolecular forces things like that That is not just random When you say undirected it seems like you're referring to something being uh teleological like there's an end goal There is no end goal teleological. Yeah. Yeah, there is that doesn't exist in in biology. Sorry for you No, no see when things are No We listen to you ramble. We listen to you ramble. It's my turn. Okay natural selection Uh selects organisms. Okay, you have mutations every combination these generate genetic variation These are either selected. Why not select? Yes, they're selected by the environment or by other um or by mates and as in sexual selection And you have other mechanisms like genetic drift and gene flow So these all contribute to the biodiversity of life now I was talking earlier about showing you, uh mutations. There are as you mentioned earlier the the you know unspecified mutations or whatever We can talk about examples of those you won't you have your one talking point Which is look at language dna is a language dna is an algorithm. That doesn't mean It doesn't mean anything if you can't absolutely refutable if you can't give a single example I can't referring to genes referring to specific genes as we've been trying to pull you over and over and over All of them every one. Wow all of them every single one So Jackson, here's the other thing about believing that the natural selection creates the genome. Uh, that's not true No, it's Jackson natural selection can't see the vast majority of mutations the only time natural selection Can see a mutation is if it causes such a negative effect in the organism that that gets wiped out by natural selection But that's not true either virtually virtually Jackson Hold on please All mutations are invisible to natural selection virtually all are you kidding me? Because they cause such a minute change to the organism that natural selection won't see it. Oh my goodness I can't believe you just actually, you know, I'm not surprised because everything you said has been so absolutely So that's that's a science fact It's not actually read a single read a paper on the fitness distribution of mutations. Are you kidding me? That's my ideas are based upon millions of mutations not individual ones Jackson Hey, nef. You're uh, dream sharing by the way, can you step that off your screen? Yeah Oh Natural selection can only see a mutation if it produces a profound effect in an organism The vast majority of mutations cause Slightly deleterious effects and they do not are not visible to natural selection And if you don't like that take that up with Jonathan sanford. He probably knows more about gna Jonathan sanford, really? Are you kidding me? I Yeah Let me ask a nephilim a very specific question about Jonathan sanford. Have you ever tried fact checking his source at the citation? I've read some of them. No, you haven't What do you think it means to do a source fact check analysis? nephilim What do you think it means to do a source analysis? Uh of a technical argument and apply that to sanford the claim has been made That it's not true that the natural selection cannot see the majority of mutations, but that is is true That's that's that's not a creationist idea answer my question on sanford who you brought up Yeah, I don't care if you'd be right all the creationists in the world. It doesn't change anything about the facts So Are you telling a take out your bible and swear at it at impairment of your eternal damnation and tell us all Have you ever tried source fact checking to the original claims that sanford does when he cites a technical source To make sure that he is not misrepresenting the technical literature I have uh verified the things that jackson that he has said I mean that uh, james that he has said with secular sources. So I don't need to dig Such as what? Well, such as determination by slightly deleterious mutation. Why have we not gone extinct a hundred times over by Are you because are you aware that he missed he misrepresented the paper? He got that from The point of james crow's work The the point is Mutation By natural selection unless they cause a profound we have you on camera right now You just failed Because the claim that you just brought up which we but with our day and i have both looked into Was wrong. You did not Everyone in the audience Just how you fail on that claim nefi everyone in the audience So here's the claim that you evolutionists are making right now. You're claiming that natural selection sees every mutation that happens in the dna No, I The majority even that's ridiculous What do you guys get a crazy pseudoscience from what the hell I mean You haven't brought up a single scientific I'm going to look i'm going to put like this There is not one science paper in any journal that says natural selection can see the vast majority of mutations It is a ball-faced lie to claim that modern evolutionary theory is working on 19th or old science I read the technical literature the entire science work is being done in the evolutionary community It's hard to scrape together a hundred people in the entire creationism movement that have even been published in regular science materials And virtually none of them are geneticists. They are not contributing to that field. They're not contributing your paleontology They're not even doing the work on those atp or any of those other subject matters try tracking them down and finding out Stop trying to give the impression that your creationism that is 20th century young earth creationism Invented in the 1960s and refined in the decade since is somehow representing the science field when you don't do the work and never have Creationism existed before evolutionism James. That's ridiculous. Not your creationism. So oh, yes, it did It absolutely did So So Jackson What you put forward is this idea that natural selection sees the majority of mutations That occur in organisms and that's scientifically not true and true That's not published in the journals. No scientists. You won't find one paper in one science journal anywhere that says that Not one evolutionist biologist or geneticist on this planet would make that ridiculous statement So you put forth pseudoscience And then what you're trying to do is you brought that No, Jackson and what you did is you brought that pseudoscience argument that scientifically invalid argument to play in trying to answer for Uh, the the fact that dna specifies the complexity and the arrangement of cells to produce the physical structural designs of living things And the arrangements of proteins you're saying that you you pointed to natural selection And I said natural selection doesn't prescribe these things, but you kept saying natural selection Is collecting is selecting constantly and that's what Yeah, it is. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on a little Jackson. This is what you did Alluding that natural selection is what ends up Causing the what we call specificity in the dna that specifies all this stuff, but that's not What you your argument you made to try to support that idea as a pseudoscience argument the natural selection You can see the majority of mutations, which is scientifically false So you're putting forth And your pseudoscience against real science and that's why evolution is None of that none of what you said logically followed not a single bit of every Exactly a breakdown of what I don't understand why I get into these conversations with you because it is obvious It is painfully obvious that you have never ever bothered to read any literature in genetics You've never bothered to practice anyone. It is astounding Well, we showed that just a little while ago I only uh, where these papers in the journals that say natural selection can see the majority of mutations. Where are they? You got some they don't need to see is there one My challenge to you My challenge to you to carry forward after this hangout is for you to do a video showing the science papers in the journals That state that where geneticists state the natural selection is able to see the majority of Majority, I will say many what percentage Jackson Is 10% I have no idea. Oh, you don't even know but you say it happens If we can we can verify that it happens. Are you joking? Like seriously a specificity of information in the dna Of the Italian wall lizards you ever heard of Italian wall lizards there They possibly moved from one island to another and via natural selection. They developed new characteristics new Yes, they did actually they have changed both ethologically Uh, and they have changed in their morphology slightly because it's only a few decades And we can see I discussed that that's one of the first things I talked about when I got on We know that this occurred via mutations and recombination generating genetic diversity And this was naturally selected You have no argument there. Oh, I do Let me respond to that claim. Okay. So did that not happen? Did that not happen? I'll explain it. So here's what happened a Species of lizard called pard macau roux and they released And they and they and they named it after the island and Jackson Jackson Jackson Jackson the darkest sigula Jackson The island and Jackson. Hold on. Hold on. You have never read anything about Jackson That they named I know nephilim causes that in people Hold on now. Let me respond They named the lizard pard macau roux and the specie the speciation event what they call Pard capistae. Okay. So you might need to look into that. So here's what happened They released the lizard on the island in the Mediterranean Read the let read the literature Jackson literature already in the Mediterranean. You're you're laughing at yourself No, when you don't when you go out of this hangout and look into it, you're gonna laugh at yourself. So here's Now let me respond guys. Hold on So here's the claim. Okay. So this is what actually happened. They released the lizard on an island in the Mediterranean They came back 36 years later researchers collected some of these Lizards and they studied them and found sequel valves in their stomachs that were not there They're not in the parent population that existed on the mainland of Italy. Okay So they then they changed the diet of these lizards in a controlled environment to an After 16 weeks, they these uh, the sequel valves disappeared again So what this demonstrated is that a change in the environment when the lizard was loosed on the island Changing its diet caused the organism to respond to that environment by stop expressing the genes that produce sequel valves in its stomach Then when the organism was taken from the island and back to the mainland and this diet was reverted to its original They gained the sequel but they were they lost the sequel valves again. So all this That the genetic information to produce the sequel valves already existed in the Mutation didn't design it. It was not all that was was natural selection causing an ingeniously designed process Whereby the organism turned off the genes for sequel valves You find the paper find me the paper where the researchers say And turn them back on the researchers say the sequel valve already existed finding that paper That was a failure of evolutionists Jackson that example of evolution That example of evolution completely misunderstood and misrepresented that it is comical. No, I gave you the facts about it Jackson That example of evolution left evolutionists with egg on their face for years. No, you have never Citation up in the video description or in the comments on the video after Please do We have five minutes left. You're crazy belief that mutation created sequel valves is not supported by Now I want to talk about Younger you're a young earth creationist correct Neff? Of course I am I believe the truth Okay, so, um, you believe that there were thrapsids created in Eden and there were also thrapsids on the ark, right? Um, of course there was there was seven of every kind of clean kind and two of each unclean on the ark, of course Okay, uh, uh, uh, how many thrapsid kinds are there? I have no idea I don't even know how many original kinds of of of bird that god made. He may have made He may have made You don't read leitner's work on created barren kinds in birds. Um, I don't think they've got barren ology down to uh You know, it hasn't nailed it all down yet. Neither They can't nail it because barren ology is built on a false assumption, but there is a Literature are you telling me that you haven't read anything on the barren ology of birds by leitner? I've read some things about barren ology, but as I said Uh, barren ology is going to be something that's terribly difficult to nail down It's going to take a long time and neither can evolutionist nail down their claims that one type of organism evolved from another Let's talk about those thrapsids. Oh, where are they now? Well, they're on the either end of the earth or they're living here or they're extinct one of the two. What do you mean? If you bumped over one, what would be the characteristics of a thrapsid that would make you go? Wow, that's a thrapsid well, um That would uh, just I guess I'd have to study the anatomy get to the point. You're you're trying to make you're going to make That there's an evolution Years worth of life that you don't even allow to be a hundred million years worth of life Because you're a young earth creationist and then you pay zero attention to it And therefore don't notice that creationists can't pay much attention to it either because it is impossible to cram the damn thrapsids Into the framework who you pull up a sore or she pulled up something you copy from something else Well, the claims of evolution are just ridiculous and been refuted This is the one that you're probably wanting to harp on so much the one that I refute You posted you posted jaw to ear magic back in january on that in response to my video So I am really anxious to discuss that post Okay, so shall we do that? So how is it possible for those organisms to have evolved? Uh, I'd be delighted to talk about uh, let's start off with the dentary bone in thrapsids Are you aware of the selection pressures that were in play on the evolution of the dentary bone? Uh, there's no such thing as evolutionary pressure. I don't know what you're talking about One of the dynamic pressures that are applying to insectivores Um Neff There is no such thing as evolutionary pressure james. You're talking you're Are you aware of how uh, insectivorous diet alters the shape of jaws and the teeth structure I'm aware that bones detach from the area around the anterior portion of the jaw In a certain species and migrate to become the ossicles of the middle ear. I am aware of that If that's what you're thinking. Yeah, that's what I was talking about. I'm still talking about the dentary bone So you have You are unaware of the fact that an insectivorous diet selects for narrow jaws with backward painting teeth So and how is that evidence of evolution? Oh, it's pieces of the evidence It's one of the reasons why the dentary bone was expanding in the synapses for the development of the jaw forms Well, expanding jaw shrinking jaw, that's not evidence of evolution. They have a chance. Yes, it is. Why do god make prevent Ignatians? How did dna come into existence by chemical means? I'm I'm asking the question here. Oh, no, I mentioned I'm asking if my turn to It's my turn. Have you ever It's my turn to ask when you've asked about four or five You're never going to be able to explain why god would make a form that was directly predicted for random genetic mutation How's it possible for random genetic undirected chemical processes to to Create the specified information applying linguistics organization and algorithmic operation to it so that it specifies the structural Of organisms. Can you explain to us how much? You can't answer can you Because it's a meaningless question because your genetic algorithm and all of your dribble don't explain the damn thing You can't apply it to anything We have already asked you to apply your models to mitochondrial dna and codon assignments to al us Could deal with it on any subject whatsoever. You can't apply it to anything Spurgle flap nickel blocks newbie blobe because it's exactly the same meaning was concept Well, you're saying that information linguistics and algorithms are meaningless. That's ridiculous The way you use them are because you can't apply them to anything. We just seen you not do it They really are algorithmic. They really are linguistic and it really is information You're you're claimed that it's not as bizarre and you can't apply it to anything You can't explain the data. Absolutely. I can it specifies for example In the protein and production of large proteins, which have thousands of amino acids It specifies this one will go here and this one will go there This one will go here and the finished product is so complex that scientists are still not completely sure how protein And these Are then become mechanical components in a machine Has functions so all the proteins in the helicase machine all the proteins in the polymerase machine All the proteins in the ribosome. These are all designed because they're specified And what's in the middle of a Your proteins are specified complex in the middle of a ribosome What's in the middle of a ribosome? I don't play evolutionist tests. What make your argument? Uh, in the middle of a ribosome, it's a RNA molecule not a protein. Why is that? I didn't say there was a no RNA is brought to it So Because that's how it's designed Can you tell me how a molecular components The comprised of thousands of amino acids with outrageous specificity and form and shape Are arranged by Undirected process So when they when they are when they're assembled together they operate mechanically to select or reject a specific Can you explain how unspecified undirected process is why it's logical to believe that can be the producer of that He's in he's in mantra mode again. I can't get you to deal with Thanks name a molecule and I'll I'll want to be asking you source data on it that when you are looking at any of these Molecules that you claim are so outrageously perfectly fabulous. Have you bothered to read much of the technical literature on it? I don't play evolutionist test And I allowed it to go a couple minutes more just because the openings were somewhat shortened, so I think it's suitable to Give the debaters a couple minutes to kind of just conclude their thoughts If you guys want to do maybe two minutes I can put the timer on that just if it since you started enough We could always let you conclude Your thoughts on the discussion portion and then move on to rj and jackson And then that'll be followed by the q&a for 45 minutes Okay now whenever you're ready. I'm going to start the time. Okay. I'm ready. Thanks. So I get questions They don't get answers. We heard jackson makes suicide on science arguments that You know that somehow Natural selection is able to see the majority of mutations, which is not already said not in the literature Or it's not even a large percentage of them Not even a small percentage of them. So unless they produce and And then use this as an argument for the specificity The of the dna which is absurd. So Is our dna algorithmic? Absolutely here it is it sure is this is one actual Algorithm in your dna It's going on right now in every cell in your body That is an active this is an actual algorithm in your dna written up in computer language so that humans can Can understand what's happening That's not like an algorithm. It is our algorithm if Results else then These are mental processes Information is specified now. Here's how we know the dna is not a product of of a biogenesis But a product of design dna is a physical medium encoded with immaterial information which is organized linguistically and operates algorithmically Algorithms have no mass or dimension They're produced by intelligence algorithms are created by forward thinking and decision making which are mental processes Okay, so i'm not going to go through all these points It's empirical algorithms are productive intelligence Information the dna product cannot be a product of natural processes because chemical determinacy cannot have organized the dna base pairs Because any base pair can bind to any of the sites on the ribose backbone any of them There is a dependency between one strand and the other but that chemical dependency can't have ordered the information on one strand And information is a non-material fundamental entity which cannot be produced by material processes Information is a product only of intelligence. Therefore it dna is a product of intelligence and not material processes Since organisms are prescribed by genetic information All organisms Thanks so much brother Okay, so i've got the uh time we're going for you gentlemen. You guys can use um the Time according to however you guys want to use it go ahead Yeah, uh nephilim is doing a perfectly fine repeat of his a priori assumptions His use of jargon and all of the rest his uh presuppositional origins or bust approach Where he thinks he can dispose jujitsu all of the evolution data off the field The problem is as we've tried to show here is that he can't apply it to anything Disparaging all of the science material that creationism hasn't done is A complete fog bank if you can't apply it to anything and whether it's al use or mitochondria Or any of the molecules that he himself brings up or the creation scientist He brings up on these various issues He's never been able to focus in and actually come to commit himself or apply his model To how many al use adam and eve would have or why there were probatic methods or any of these other issues This is the problem with all creationism nephi is basically a bottom feeder Who's trawling off of a group of creation scientists and there are only about 60 fact claimants in all of anti evolutionism So it's not a big field and cherry picking blips of information to fit the apologetic line But don't take either one of our word for it Go out and read the science on any of these things yourself and find out how gigantic the data field Is and how completely irrelevant creationism and intelligent design as well in the on the creationism light side has been for the last decades You can have it rest of the time jackson Yeah, I concur with pretty much everything argie said we've seen nephi has not addressed anything and again No, i'll just say natural selection sees Many mutations i won't we'll say not the majority we'll say many okay that way you won't straw man me again even though i've already said that so But yeah, you have not addressed anything we've attempted numerous times to get you to address things You don't read any of the literature and it's painfully obvious So i'm done i don't you know that right i don't read any literature It's obvious it is very obvious because i don't believe what you do i haven't i don't read any literature wow So crazy, you're you don't have to believe you don't have to believe what i do, but you're like That is time um very engaging discussion very good, um Uh, thank you guys the audience had a lot of fun that flew by So i guess i will be handing it over to raw matt who's got some super chat I do want to say anyone who's not subscribed to modern day debate. Please subscribe Uh, it's an amazing debate channel the neutral Nonpartisan lots of good debates coming up as well in the future. So lots to be excited about James is doing a phenomenal job here Matt i'm going to give it over to you. You can go over the super chats and the q&a the q&a is for 45 minutes So go ahead brother. All right. We'll do we've got uh, we've got about Justin As a comment, uh, one was from Stesson steen. He said sadly james could not join us from the film set of magic games With his magic mic too So that's what he's up to right now and praise. I am said to jackson irreducible complexity the flagular modem and liu Apparently intelligent design. Nope. They're not go watch my videos. Yeah next I'll tell him is a fat example. We could do tons on that All right, and um, maybe it'll come up in the questions too and then um, I'm sorry wilson says rj How many tables have you flipped? Oh, well, I I'll say that I have the urge to do so around nephilim in a way that I don't other people because he That presuppositionalism greats rather it but generally speaking. I know of no tables I have flipped but once in a while if I have too much to drink of champagne. I might not use a coaster Got it All right, well, we're gonna jump into the questions then. Um It was a good amount of kind of equality which is usually most things are virtual creation. It's gonna be great The first one will go to nephilim. Sorry wilson. I'm having a hard time hearing you. There's a lot of tap on Really someone needs to mute their mic. I'm hearing a lot of sounds Taint me That was me. Sorry about that. Okay. All right neph. Well, this question is actually for you neph. So, um, What would be the mechanism? Actually, there's two questions. I put them together because they're similar. So I'll just ask you both What would be the mechanism of action for intelligent design? Also, what criteria can we apply to classify to classify whether something was intelligently designed or not if everything is designed Isn't it a meaningless observation? No, I don't say everything is designed Rocks rolling down hills is not designed gravity was designed The the process of rocks rolling down hills is not designed. Uh, so that's kind of a non sequitur so, um How does things get designed they get designed by uh, the bullet personal volition intentional volition of a mind Which specifies things And that's one of the empirical evidences of intelligent design and living things is that dna specifies extremely high levels of specificity The highest known in the world The highest that there is higher than any computer code information any linguistics microsoft windows, whatever more complex specificity than that Okay exists in your dna. So now that's the process is an intelligence Ordering it. Uh, can we watch god? Arrange the base pairs of the dna and build the ribose molecule No, but we can look at the product finished product and infer design Just like we can infer design if we see a pile of dirt in the middle of a field Or if we see a bicycle nobody looks at that and thinks oh, that's just what weather made But the problem is that evolutionists will look at the most complex Interdependent things known that operate linguistically and possess information and algorithms and say oh, that couldn't have been designed So what we infer about design is one of the things that gives us inference of design is specificity High specificity is is high evidence of design Okay, all right Uh a response on that one Uh, the the obvious case is michael b. He who's tried to argue that uh the flagellum and other things are irreducibly complex All of those attempts have been based on a negative argument that supposedly evolution cannot account for feature x therefore By default it's design. What's fascinating about all of the intelligent design community and young earth creationism as well Is they never think through what a design event would actually look like Are is an entire field of wildebeest Is an organism being created along with its parasites? What exactly would a flagellum design event look like and when would it be? Even though they don't accept young earth creationist chronology. They don't apply it in a chronological frame either This is true of bill dimsky. It's true of jonathan wells. It's true of of steed meyer It's just a fog bank. So there is in effect no Actual design model that's being presented. It's a not Darwinism not natural process approach So it's a negative argument the the difficulty is That's not lines in span on all of his things He argued that if any one of his irreducibly complex components could be accounted for by a natural means so much for intelligent design So much for irreducible complexity. He doesn't want to look close at that And oh and so there's been a lot of little fine-tuned goalposts moving over the last 20 or 30 years on these little points Anyway, that's my do you have anything you want to add there? I didn't make a negative argument I made a positive argument from specificity. Well, you think that's a positive argument So so you what you just did is attack a straw man What would if I were to go back to Eden next question? Please? This is not the base direction of a probatic method What would I be seeing we're three debating this question and answer No, okay. I'm sorry. I'm I would have thought you would have wanted to tell us what you think happened But maybe you don't know what you think happened All right, but I just was correcting you that you straw manned me that it was a negative argument I didn't do that James. I made a positive argument from specificity. Did I know it? Just correcting you. But how do you determine specificity? There's another subject problem We can we talked about some of that but that's another time. We'll do that another time I just correct you about straw manning that's all that specific just correcting your straw man Well, you're wrong on your correction. Well, you did straw man me Anyway, you got another question there matt. Yeah, it's coming for you actually rj from dr. Argoni It is uh, why is it so important to fact-check claims with source data and to not misrepresent those sources Yeah, because without it you don't have a discipline. This is true in history It's true in science. It's true in absolutely everything if you make a claim on what basis do you do if you're making a claim that is asserting It's empirical. Where do you get your information from if you're the one doing the work? You may be presenting your own work has it been represented in peer reviewed literature If you can see examples of where people when they make their arguments are misrepresenting the sources are bypassing relevant information suppressing information in their own sources That is a big giveaway that you have a problem And if you're not offering sufficient argument, but only offering side arguments and maneuvers around and avoiding working out what you think happened That's furthermore how how you determine that is to source check And so every person should be putting everything to the same standard And I would contend that if you try to do that with creationism and if you try to do that with neft Uh, you're gonna be in big trouble and you're seeing that they they're not playing fair with their sources Or they have a tunnel vision dogma that's so rigid that it doesn't allow anything not to fit Got it got it All right, the next one is for neff This one's a statement that goes into a question to consider the supernatural probable We have to show that it is possible Do you have any confirmed examples of the supernatural and and not a proposed like life for the universe? Uh, sure. Well the the the existence of the human mind In fact, every word that comes out of the mouth of every person in the world evolutionist atheist hindu christian It doesn't matter who you are when you speak you empirically verify that you have a non physical mental intelligence Um, and that's because uh, we use language language requires symbolism It's dependent upon symbolism But the application of meaning to a symbol or interpretation of meaning from the symbol is a mental process Not a material one. It's not a chemical process. That's a mental process So when we speak say for example I say the word dog when I write the word d down on a piece of paper a dog does not magically appear sitting on my desk Okay, the the arrangement of the matter simply Symbolically represents the animal that the sound of the And the oh likewise oh and the g guh But and then we get more symbolism involved when we apply those three Specifically in order we get the word dog But those are symbols and they represent something that's other than the paper in ink or the the bits of data Being displayed on a computer screen. So uh, the symbolic meaning of those letters Representing the dog which is external to the paper and ink Is symbolism symbolism has no origin in material chemical processes matter isn't forward thinking Symbolism requires forward thinking it requires that an intelligence says this When I arrange this in such a way it will represent something external to itself and someone will be able to recognize this and interpret it and The symbolic meaning of what it it means so the application of meaning to a symbol And the interpretation of meaning from a symbol or mental process is not chemical ones and so Language because it depends on symbolism is empirical evidence that every human being has a non physical component That is not comprised of chemistry And so whenever we speak we we we provide empirical evidence of the supernatural That is something that's above and beyond the natural That is not explained by the physical or chemical processes of a human brain or a human entity. And so the Empirical evidence for the existence of the supernatural exists with every word that every human being will ever speak Ah, I'd like to put in a comment on that The linguistic evolution and also our brain systems are also areas that creation is to void like the plague I know I track that in my tip work. So for example our linguistic system is actually Hitchhiking on the primate brain system that's used for gesturing not a vocal calls And in fact, there was just a brand new paper I think in science about how the actual act of pointing is a Substructure that plays a role in linguistic system. The chain symbolism doesn't exist in chemistry. I'm sorry Symbolism doesn't exist in Don't go back on to that. You brought up the subject of language and the like I'm just pointing out that uh, um, if you want to find out just how much has been done on the field of Brain evolution and linguistic evolution you will find zip on it in the creationism lexicon because they're not ones doing the work Symbolism requires external meaning to be applied to something that requires forward thinking and external Meaning that doesn't exist in chemistry. James. I'm sorry I But it exists with neurons and neurons and ultimately made of chemicals you're you're you're at the moment A scatter I can bet I can bet your interior cigarette cortex is just a buzz all through this debate If you want to debate the existence of mind independent of the physical body sometime in if actual structure debate I'll happily do that for you, but you can't get or an unstructured debate either way That's that's you can't anyway next question doesn't exist in chemistry no matter how many molecules you put together All right next question guys. Um neff. That was uh, uh that iam wilson. He actually super chatted I guess you didn't finish answering this question. So, um, I'll ask you this next I just we I'm gonna keep it even but it's basically what was the mechanism of action for intelligent design I think he was gonna say Potential volition and forward thinking are the actions that specify I think already, uh address that Okay, I'll keep an eye off in the chat form to make sure he's content with this Uh both rj and jackson for this one What level of observed bacteria and viral intelligence would cause you to consider that there was an intelligence behind this or the result of design No, I'm not expecting to see intelligence in bacteria. They don't have nervous systems Uh, you have to get way down the road into multicellular organisms that now have much more sophisticated neural structures And you're not not hitting that initially and jackson can weigh on that as well until you're starting to hit jellyfish They have some interesting little Feedback things and there's a huge technical literature on the origin of nervous systems. So it's it's a it's a category mistake No, I'm not expecting to see intelligent behavior. Although there is quorum sensing in bacteria But that's an unintelligent process even rudimentary Uh tit for tat uh you scratch my antenna I'll scratch yours actually shows up in yeast so there's a super a substructure of um Things that are kind of like in the same way that the fibonacci series shows up in a lot of plants That's not designy It's just the way material systems function But anyway, I'm sure jackson has more to say on that than I do Uh, I'm honestly confused by the question the idea of applying intelligence To bacteria and viruses is very bizarre I'm not are you asking how could we Determine like like intelligent design is in for my god in that if so How could I'm not really sure how uh You could do that. I suppose if you were looking at their genetics and their proteins and whatnot and any of it were not coming about through mutation and Other natural forces Other than that, I'm not really sure what to tell you It's a strange it's a strange question. I apologize if I just misunderstood Fibonacci curves are a result of chemical determinancy in in crystals and things like that But when we find them in organisms, we have a reason to believe in design Next question. All right Neff the meteor hole that's in mexico the size of manhattan When did this happen after the flood before the flood or was it the cause of the flood and uh, Where is it recorded that it happened if the flood is So recorded. Okay. Ask the question again. I didn't hear the first part to understand the first part say it again, please What about mexico? Uh the meteor hole that's in mexico. Oh, okay. Yeah. Well, there's there's uh There's evidence that that may not actually be a meteor hole It's it's likely more likely a giant bubble in the surface of the earth that uh, that has come up There are many of these on the earth and this one happens to be extremely large So I don't believe that it's a meteor impact. I believe that I've forgotten the scientific name the geological name for these But uh, it's it's likely uh material that bubbled up from the earth like a gigantic Like a bubbling mud the bursts, uh, this is likely what happened. Are you talking about like lava please? The Chicks on excuse me the chicks on uh supposed impact site I'll say this about it also. Um is it's claimed it's believed that this is what brought the uh iridium layer That's found in the geologic column but that could be explained by the waters that exited from the interior of the earth the flood the earth because uh Highly mineralized water coming out of the earth could have easily brought a layer of iridium to cover the globe No, actually, I do have things to say about this. I do actually have something to say about this. Yeah Have you heard about the tennis site recently? No, I haven't so this is a layer that has been found uh recently as in like January or February or something like that. It was early this year. Uh, which actually records It is hours after the impact site in chiksula, but it is the same layer. Yeah, it is the ejecta layer From the impact there are tech tights There are assumptions that go on Do you know what a tech tight is there is I don't pay English in this question games I'll tell you what There are many assumptions. Hold on. No, I'm sitting here silently for like 20 minutes. There are many assumptions that go on It was my question. Let me finish and the fact that the column buried within sedimentary strata By the flood That's not that's not even possible. First of all, I ask I encourage you to take a course in geology That's literally not even possible. But tech tights are meteor are meteorite ejecta We have found them in large quantities In the kt boundary as we would expect given a freaking meteor and they're in huge quantities at the tennis site because A meteor hit the planet. It was the chiksula meteor That's not hard. This is rocket science. There's evidence to the contrary. No, there's none The fact that this layers and any layer like it that we find in the geologic column is sandwiched between sedimentary strata proves It was created by the flood Even possible How does water It cannot have been produced by uniform. How does water lithophilic sediment nef Please explain that to me if you want to very debate the geologic column in the flood of north I'm asking you this one simple question. How does water lithophilic sediment? Please answer materials concrete into stone because of the mineral content is right does water Lithophilic sediment you are on record now as not having answered lithification is a product of sedimentation How are you getting these sediments to Compound to top each other in different layers and lithification is occurring in each one How is that occurring in your worldview because there are no creatures to explain that? That's understandable by the flood of no one. I'll be happy. No, it's not. There is not a single creation as to We can say it's not true, but the geologic column cannot have been produced by uniform materialism It's impossible. Do you know how I know that creationists don't attempt to explain this? I have read them are Are both reading them right now writing about their idiocy and none of them attempt to explain it James the geologic Okay, yeah, I do so mad RJ if you want to throw it and then we'll move on to the next First off The fact is that yes, it's quite correct the geologists the creationist geologists have never worked out how the hell it turns into rock So fast nobody in that area has worked about that because it's physically impossible. That's not true Specifically no specifically on shicholub. It's not just chicholub. There's a huge number up. She's happy Please please hold up You get pissed with me and I get pissed with you but neither way the thing is that there's a long stretch Of a meteoric impact of material. I cite some of it in tip 1.2 at my website You can go and look through the technical literature on that stuff It's not just chicholub, which happens to be the one that comes at the end of the kt You've got the manigookan creator and all that crater that's occurring earlier Creators are very distinctive I invite you Nefi to write your monograph on the notion that the chicholub A geographical feature was produced by a bubble of lava. We invite you We urge you to write that paper and we will want to see the evidence that you present for it It's it's not worth my time And as I've explained the geologic column cannot have been produced by uniformitarianism because it's comprised of sedimentary strata, which I've So wrong I've been runs away of we have clear distinct boundaries between them an absence of erosion and particle size distribution That's only producible by moving water. No, there is not a particle size distribution. That's a lie actually That's false. You just tonight. No if you have ever no actually no no no no no no no no no no these the particle size of layers Varies dramatically between layers. Are you kidding me? Are you joking? Jackson particle size distribution That indicate a flood Jackson particle size distribution is a prominent feature of the geologic column No, it's not They don't get the flood model Anything on sedimentology in your life you are no idea what you're talking about Jackson, you just said every geology you have no idea what you are talking about You just have every geologist in every geology course that you are you have never taken a geology course We have very different worldviews, but this is hilarious Here's more of the pseudoscience folks look at it for yourself Particle size distribution is not a prominent feature of the geologic column. So says jackson lee. Wow You just admitted that particle size varies by layer You just said that I didn't so it varies wildly by layers varies, but it's a prominent feature in the geologic column You said it's not what does that mean? Creation science Scientifically, what does that mean nephew explain that explain that sentence to me? What does that mean more evolution of pseudoscience jackson? You're not aware of this What does i'm asking you to explain what you mean by that nephew because clearly we think two different things when you say When you say When you say particle size distribution is a prominent uh feature of the layers What do you mean by that because obviously we're thinking two different things. So what do you mean? That means a very great number of the deal of the stratum in the earth have just display particle size distribution Which you just did not which means what which means are they are they are they big small up down pointy? What what do you mean by particle size distribution? What what do you mean by part? What is particle size distribution? Do I need to tell you? Yeah, what what does that mean if you're looking under a microscope at a at a deposit? What are you looking at? There's a distribution. I don't really a q&a section here not We can move on You might have to answer it anyway, so uh the next one is iam wilson. He just super chatted five dollars for this one He says uh Ness, where did all the effing water go after the flood? Oh, that's easy. It's in the oceans In the ocean. Yeah There's a model that explains how it got there If you look at the uh pull up here's a cool thing you can do pull up google earth and and look at the uh Coastal uh the edges of the continental plates all around the earth and what you'll see is vertical striations in the continental plates These were caused by two things one the ocean floor is sinking After the waters that were in the earth the flood of the earth were evac Evacuated from within the earth they left space gravity Pulled the ocean floors down to fill that empty space And so that's where the flood waters went into the now deeper oceans Now another profound evidence for this uh that the ocean floor sank and for the flood of noa is actually the massive amounts of frozen methane hydrates that line the coasts Of the continental plates of of the earth there is absolutely an enormous amount of energy Stored there and these methane frozen methane hydrate deposits all around all the edges of all the continents of the world Is so much so that now there that uh that uh that noa says National oceanic administration says there's enough energy there that if it could be mined efficiently it would power the whole world for a century So now that's explainable by plant matter being ripped off the continents Floating along the edges of the continents just like if you put a small floating thing Next to a big floating thing in a in the water in a bathtub The small floating thing because of the cohesive properties of water tends to migrate towards the big thing and stick to along the side of it Stay there Well, that's what happened with these massive mats of plant matter at the end of the flood of noa too Instead of floating off all over the whole oceans The majority of it should have Floated along around the edges of all the continents as it rots It sinks and it becomes then raw matter for aerobic bacteria to turn into methane and then further sedimentation buries it and now you have massive amounts of of Frozen methane hydrates lining the continental around the edges of the continents so the simple explanation is That uh Is the is the flood of noa the waters are in the oceans now That's where they they came out from in the earth and now they're in the bottom of the oceans One more point about that is that there is nowhere near enough sediment on the ocean floors to account for uniformitarianism There's only about 20 million years worth if uniformitarianism were turned There should be hundreds of millions of years of sediment on the ocean floor where did the sediment go? It's not there because uniformitarianism is not true All right, do you not know what plate tectonic says? Are you joking? Are you kidding concept created by a young earth creationist over 150? What are you joking? Who is the what is the name of adopting our ideas and stealing that was alfred vegner Who was not a young earth creationist what on earth? Yeah, we want you to document that and we want you to document that claim about all these hydrates and all that Put your creationist papers up that discussed All that I have ever seen in any of the creationist literature on this stuff About floating forests and all these things are what amounts to a cartoon They do not get anywhere near accounting for the detailed By all means put your sources up on that so we can see it Okay, so james, are you saying that these methane hydrates are not the deposits are not there lining the continental? Oh gosh, I've been studying methane hydrates for quite a while In fact, there's some circumstantial evidence that a few odd bermuda triangle events are actually due to big boom Bubbles of methane coming up and altering the sea up on the top. No, there's a ton of those But uh, I'd like to see your creationist explanation. Just waiting. It's the flood. It's the flood. It's the flood ain't gonna cut it Okay, so you're saying that the methane hydrate deposits aren't there like uh around me. I know that is not what I said Do not represent what I just said. There are methane deposits and I invite you. I urge you I plead with you to put your sources up So everybody who watches the video can go down into the uh comment section See your documentation and inspect it Do that please so you want me to put up the same information you believe then right that there's You know, I'm saying you put up your Source material unless you're pulling it out of your ass like a methane hydrate deposit there You had better put up your sources By all means documented. You're you're confusing. You're saying there is or is not these methane hydrates lining He's already said they exist. What's up your sources that say they are from the flood All right, okay That's that's what I thought you meant You got another one now if scientists are motivated by religious arguments Then why are some of the scientists who are creationists still believe in evolution? What what exactly motivated them? Well, there's two things going on there one. There's uh, there's a There's a couple of things really uh, there there for some it may be a spiritual reason why they're not willing to accept If if uniformitarianism is not true if special creation is true It makes the crucifixion of jesus christ for your sins Extremely personal some people like to distance themselves from christ in that way and still believe it'd be them to be a christian Uh, that that might explain a small percentage of them a large percentage of that also I believe is that uh many scientists who have uh lucrative jobs Know that there'll be canned from their jobs if they If they doubt evolution those those things are changing that's changing slowly in the scientific community Uh, it's not quite as dogmatic as it used to be because of creationists suing universities and uh and exposing this this uh, this discriminatory process, but So for some of them many of them it's going to be the fear of losing their jobs So that they'll argue the evolution is true for those who believe actually believe that evolution is true I would just say they're simply misguided people can be misguided no matter what their religious beliefs are Or atheist beliefs uh being misguided is not an argument against the evidence All right, okay I'll just put in that since I study these all this area beyond the little young earth creation is niche that neph represents Is that uh religious scientists have been existing from the get-go and ones who want to pay attention to all the data Pay attention to all the data you tend to find that people who are a full young earth creationists tend not to be In fields they are terribly expert in and if they are expert in those fields They tend to ignore huge swaths of data. That's certainly true for snelling and others Um, you find some creationist cosmologists, but relatively few Virtually no working paleontologists in the field not because they aren't allowed to do work in the field But their their their mythology blocks off their ability to make sense of most of the data So if you look at the stuff that Chadwick and brand and other people are doing, uh, if it's very limited they still publish Uh, but there's only so far you can go with a model that doesn't work So james, here's my my response to that is all the evolutionist scientists are scientific Scientifically dead wrong putting forth garbage pseudoscience from the 19th century And and you're berating creationists for putting forth the truth. Oh really? Eugene kunan lives in the 19th century. Wow. Just wow Lensky lives in the 19th century. These are the people doing the work Evolutionism is 19th century science. I pointed that out With 20th and 21st century data, which you your side ignores 90 of the data from anyway Interpreting it with 19th century mind. That's what they're doing. All right guys, uh jack's incorrect And then our day it's actually for both of you. Um, what do you guys think about alternative evolutionary theories such as orthogenesis Salutation and uh structuralism Well, that depends. Um, it kind of depends. Well, okay, orthogenesis is directed evolution. So that's a no um structure Yeah, the saltationism is also a no We know that there are no macro mutations which are just you know starting holes or which well There are some very very limited examples of of what we call saltation speciation like a polypoiety, but That's really in like plants and a few invertebrates Yeah, it's it's not a whole there's not a whole a whole lot of examples those There are as for structuralism that kind of depends on what you mean. I've actually been having uh, I had a back and forth with inspiring philosophy of now where we What the structuralism that he proposes is not the structuralism of simon connolly morris and and uh michael dentin they have they're they are far more Structuralist, uh than he is there are some aspects of structuralism that uh that are normal that are fine that work. Um Uh, I forget the name of her aturing there are turing mechanisms for instance That's you know, that's a structuralist thing stripes on animals come about from turing mechanisms But you the way cells interact in in the epidermal layers. Well connolly morris I think has a legitimate point about how uh convergence would play a role in multicellularity that the way biological systems function I thought we were answering questions not making arguments about evolution. We are answering the question He asked us what are our thoughts on alternative evolutionary theories We are and ultimately that bases on data and i'm sorry neph unlike you. We really aren't interested in the data Yeah, so, um, yeah, so there are so there are aspects So there are aspects of structuralism that fit into uh the modern evolutionary synthesis Uh, not really orthogenesis and very little Uh saltationism, but there's supplements not not rivals. Right. Yeah, that's so does that answer the that answer it thoroughly Yeah, that was where his three examples and you answered each of them. So, okay, cool a personal question for uh Snake was right for neph. When do you want to do that micro evolution debate you offered me last time? Also, uh, what does the creation of life have to do with evolution? Well, I would be more interested in debating snake again Uh, if it was a case that when when I do debate him that he would actually provide scientific Evidence and references instead of just telling me what he believes I've come I've become bored with debating some people who are unable in or unwilling in a debate that last You know an hour to just tell me no, uh, no, uh, that's not true And that's the whole crux of their arguments instead of sources images Uh discussion data facts things like that. So i'm not sure i'm interested in it at all Uh, well, he likes to debate. Maybe you can find some another another topic other than That one like he'll talk he'll talk about any subject. I've debated him about four times now And uh, and the vast majority of everything has to say is not that's not true This is true without providing any sources without showing any information No screen shares and no nothing and that's to me boring. So Okay, well, I'm sure he'll be leaving a comment after this one. All right, um Uh, neph again, what is your take on the theory of the scholar john m Allegro fleshed out in the book the sacred mushroom and the cross the claims that jesus was a psychedelic mushrooms Um, I I've heard the claim. Um, I'm not real familiar. They haven't read it, but I would just say, um That that that would uh, you know, that sounds like something you'd hear almost from richard carrier Richard carrier doesn't even go that far into la la land. Uh, that's that's really bizarre. Um, the there are so many arguments that that Just Make that whole claim look so utterly ridiculous the historical the argument for the historicity of the resurrection of jesus christ the uh, the the fact that the uh apostles uh were Scaredy cat deniers at first in their lives were transformed to become bold proclaimers willing to go to their death For what they knew to be the truth or what they perceived to be the truth What they witnessed and saw and said that they witnessed and saw we saw this man jesus We laid our hands on him. We did this et cetera. Um, then there's the evidence in the old testament which which, uh verifies at least 365 Fulfilled prophecies of jesus christ and there's a carrier 10 11 where in which god says i think i got that passage Right 10 or 11 10 12 something uh worrying god himself says he is the speaker I will become the one who is pierced and they will look at me and mourn for me as one mourn for his only begotten son and uh and and uh, so god himself says that he will go to the cross For a sense in the old testament fulfilled in the life of jesus christ There's there's the uh names prophecy of the book of genesis in other words There are so many arguments that the bible is actually in fact the true inspired word of god that possesses Knowledge that it could not possess Uh repeatedly over and over specific knowledge like scientific foreknowledge fulfilled prophecy that Because of all this, uh, it's just absurd for anybody to say jesus was a uh, uh, a mushroom popper Or that the apostles were and that's where they got the idea To write about the events of jesus's life. That's uh, so utterly unacademic That i don't even think richard carrier would swallow such a bogus idea side. Uh, it's preposterous All right, uh for rj And and jackson, uh, sure It says uh has it ever been scientifically demonstrated that life can come from a non life from utopia buster No, no one's ever tried a bus question. Uh, no, we haven't worked that out yet. That's correct Although there's been an enormous amount of work on there Uh, it's way more complicated the thing to solve than lightning forming in a thundercloud. We don't know how to work either Uh, it is if you're using that argument as nef and other presuppositionalists do to try to dispose of all the evolution data afterwards All right, i'm an evidence. Um, we will say though We will say though, uh, no one has ever As far as we're aware at least in a technical literature. No one's trying to create life They're trying to create a set of steps a set of mechanisms. Which could theoretically, uh, Allow for the formation of life things. There's a paper that came out I think was just today talking about Uh, high energy amino nitrials and things like that. And so no one's trying to no one's trying to just take You know the protein formation that's just Yeah, no one's trying to take, you know the the prebiotic soup and form of a bacterium out of it That's no one's ever done or attempted to do that. So It's it's kind of that's what like creationists like to straw man. None of that makes the reptile mammal condition go away My response to that would be uh, is scientifically impossible abogenesis scientifically impossible Experiments have shown they can't even get a decent carbon A carbohydrate to form and yet, uh Carbohydrates are extremely extremely complex. Um, when a man is uh, you know what a carbohydrate is carbohydrate forms Uh, there are six potential binding sites on that molecule that would begin the production of a complex Carbohydrate is there would begin the production of a complex carbohydrate like one life can use Um, there are six trillion potential combinations that can be produced to produce the complex carbohydrate life Excuse me, jane So there are six trillion potential combinations of these, uh, these molecules that can be arranged To produce a complex carbohydrate like the ones life, uh, is it requires? Um, there's only one That works. I see. I got a question for you. I got a question for you. What what are the three? What are the three atoms in a carbohydrate? I don't take evolutionist What are the three atoms in a carbohydrate? What are they? I don't take evolution? You don't know you do not know how to make an argument when you don't know Okay, so I I don't I don't remember the names of them. Therefore And you win therefore you win because I don't know what the names of those are I can't remember Really? It's they're in the name. They're literally carbo. That's carbon and a hydrate, which is h2o Okay, whatever you you win because I can't whatever. Okay. Next question. You next question All right. Next question. Um, uh neft Why does design dna exclude evolution give given that the dna can change evolution is part of that design Uh, that's that question again. The the evolution is a part of that design. I'm not sure under follow Ask the question again, please. Sure. The question was at the beginning and then you made a statement after it says Why does designed dna exclude evolution? Okay dna can change Mm-hmm Okay, so dna can change But change doesn't equal evolution And uh mutation can't to build the dna molecule. We know that now from modern scientific experiments and the design of dna Uh chemical determinancy doesn't order the base pairs on the ribose backbone molecule of the molecule Any of the nucleotides is capable of binding along any any site along the ribose backbone of the dna so, um The uh, so why does it exclude? evolution is because dna is information which organized it linguistically and operates algorithmically and these three things or products only of intelligence There's no potential for them to be produced by anything other than the act of volitional act By an intelligence they require forward thinking and an intentional act of volitional act by An intelligence. So that's empirical Verification that life all life is a product of intelligence Beyond that the sheer complexity And specificity of the information in the dna is so great that To believe that it was this in complex order that produces the most complex things known to exist in the world Can happen by happenstance associations of molecules natural chemistry Is not supported by the scientific data Journals that nobody has published anything that gives us reason to believe it's possible Scientists even secular scientists have published countless times and stated so in their books that they can't find a mechanism for it And that it just hasn't gone anywhere the whole origin of life Field is is scientifically pretty much dead so, uh the complexity and specificity of organic life with its Outrageously complex designs Does not give anybody the inference that natural Undirected unintelligent processes has made it everyone when they look at anything that's come that's that's supremely complex and has function Automatically in first design But evolutionists are people who will look at these things and then claim there's no inference of design Which demonstrates that evolutionism is a denial of science Okay, let uh, I have something to say about that the It's other origins or bus presuppositionalism the moment you have a living organism regardless of how it came about even if a Please please An organism that reproduces and has natural variation. It becomes a Darwinian replicator and we can trace In an enormous. Oh, no, you may think that's false. That's that you don't like that Paleo genomics is an example of where they are retro engineering the evolutionary sequences of actual molecules It turns out they're not so specific as you seem to think they are But since you don't get close enough to the data field to spot that all you've got is your algorithms and your and your Jargon, you don't do that James you just demonstrated your ideas are questions from matt. You just demonstrated your ideas are presuppositional. All right, um rj Actually the person's name was rj as well rj brine uh to rj and we do you think you can have knowledge by means of philosophy? Oh, well philosophy is not merely Useful it's essential if you're dealing with uh, Undecidable propositions anything relating to morality and ethics and the whys of things are absolutely philosophical You don't get at that from science. So of course But I also have to pay attention to the decidable stuff and their science is the mechanism And they're the duty of every rigorous person is to pay attention to as much of the data as possible If they have an alternative view neffy's Creationism is an alternative view by all means grapple with the data But grapple with all the data and explain things not Indulge in jargon data couldn't exist if atheism were true All right, neff from emotionally stunted. We're down about less to five minutes now. So I'll hurry Neff, what is the difference between a designed gene and a duplicate gene that was modified to perform the same or specific function as the design gene? Um modified to perform provide the function. Well, um This this modifying something to produce function is a design process That's not uh undirected And a duplicate genes cannot explain the existence of the dna. I've got an entire article about this on my blog The two are a hypothesis and the whole thing is just a scientific failure of the highest level duplicate genes can do The evolutionist belief is that duplication After dna was designed by uh un intelligent processes and you had it then dna duplication's uh events of sequences of information Then become Uh modified by genetic mutations so that they produce information that codes for To specifies the most complex things known to exist and this happens over and over and over and over again Orphan genes is one argument against that but this uh duplicate information is not new information and uh duplication in the um So when a gene it gets duplicated that doesn't constitute new information. Okay So evolution requires new information a continuous input Of new information, but it's not observed that duplication Uh and subsequent mutation design genes that that have that produce High specificity or produce uh new new functions That that's not documented and so that the process of simply duplicating existing information Doesn't satisfy the requirement of evolution that requires a continuous input of new Information it's an evolutionist myth religious myth The mutations design information that specify and create function. That's an atheist myth Okay, well, uh, it's an amusing phenomenon that we're watching here nephilim doesn't keep up with the creationists Uh quite if if you're a non geneticist like nephilim, you can make that argument about gene duplication Of course a duplicated gene is identical to its original copy the moment it starts to mutate though It now can take on new functions and then there is a gigantic amount of technical literature on this and creationists have accepted it Georgia Pergill and others Accepted please please please Somatic mutation doesn't let him finish. Let him finish The that the geneticist that it's been impossible for the higher level genetics of the creationist movement to ignore gene duplications They sweep them aside. They don't want to deal with the substance of it You're mentioning orphan genes got such a laugh out of me because I did a Detailed analysis of nelson and bugs's paper on the orphan gene issue of where they were just bypassing the data in their own Sided sources right and left. Uh poll nelson is the younger creationist, but it doesn't uh, usually identify himself Well, you're gonna laugh at all real science, aren't you? You know What somatic mutation is not evidence of the Evolution you try to tell me that all that all the mutations involved in all the known gene duplications are just somatic mutations No, uh, somatic mutation is what you're alluding to and somatic mutation is a designed process So you keep on declaring anyway get back to another question unless jackson has something to add to that And then you're alluding that that explains evolution. It sounds like he just said all mutations are are now Designed so no, no, no, I didn't say that Yeah The problem we'll never say is with mutations or design. No because we can't ever actually get him to discuss He hasn't drawn it to a wall because he hasn't read anything You can't show that mutation can create the information linguistics or algorithms or or overlapping message And information that constitutes a genome You can't even put what's that for and you can't show that evolution designs anything structural in any organism Try showing me evidence With a design with an evolved system right now The design show me the evidence that mutations design things I mean, we gave you the example of hodarkus sicula earlier, which is not named pod makaru. That's the island which you painlessly misrepresented Oh, no, no, you refused it because you don't know anything about it That's recessive genes become you show me the paper that says they already had the gene for the cecum. Show me the paper Now you want to go find it You go find a challenge to put your documentation up about that example I hope you're making writing these down How about you provide all the documentation for all the claims you've made in this place and then I'll do that Watch Jackson's videos and read my So I refuted that claim You don't know anything about it. That was turning the gene. Watch you fail on it Jackson. I've studied that subject And it's an example of turning genes on and off mutations You didn't even know what the lizard was Was the island it, you know, Jackson If you believe Jackson if you believe that mutations designed all the intricate little different tissues And integrated them as the nervous system of this organism so that it would have sequel valves in its stomach in 36 years You have left the planet No, because it's already been studied the researchers have already done the research They've already done the research. It's out there. You haven't studied any of it. They didn't demonstrate any such thing No, they didn't demonstrate. You have no background in any of this. You have never bothered to do research You don't care about research that disagrees with your presuppositions because you are a presuppositionalist All you've given us this entire time is jargon Jackson. It's only been jargon. Do you have declined on every You have declined on every example You have declined on every example to actually engage with us. You didn't even know what a carbohydrate was Jackson No, you have failed. You have fractally failed on every possible and they compared the DNA of the two species pal It's the same species the same There's no evidence the mutation took place to build it and if you believe it good Literally, no idea what you're talking about No idea what you're talking about. Okay. Good. Good like believing mutations designed sequel valves in 36 years. Good We're over it. We're over on time guys I was letting it go all right or if you wanted you can leave a do a one minute state that goes out and um, then I'll Yeah, I'll do mine real fast Jackson I would like for you to explain to us in in in the video somewhere If you could how the researchers verified that random mutations designed the various different little tissues And and then so that they all integrated and function together as a sequel valve And then the integration of the new nervous system tissue and integrated that into the organism's Nervous system in 36 years. There's no scientific that there is no verification of that So it will be addressed. They compared the DNA and so I I just want that's that's all I've got to say I'll say two things and then I'm done. You guys can can make all your evolutionist presuppositions. You want Show us the evidence that it's been documented that genetic mutations They know the genes that mutated and created the sequel valves as opposed to being genes turned on and off Okay, your claim. Okay. Do that. Okay. So now my finishing statement is this Evolutionism is a secular religion promoted by 19th century science My opponents made numerous claims that they couldn't couldn't support they couldn't answer most of my questions and uh, and they engage in presuppositional apologetics That's the end of my thank you for watching Thanks enough. Um rj you're up. Oh, yeah, uh short a bit We've done what we could to defend the evolutionary position and to try to drag nephilim Occasionally both of us kicking and screaming To try to discuss actual data and to apply his non model to something and we urge him We plead with him to put his documentation up for the various claims that he's made during the video So everybody can make use of them and see them. Uh, bj says we should have an after show chat If somebody wants to set that up i'm i'm i'm game Jackson, um Okay, um, yeah, I think the video speaks for itself Uh, nephi did not engage on any points at all not one. He never engaged on any examples Uh, that's pretty evident. He also didn't even know what a carbohydrate was Seriously, that's that's like middle school level stuff. All right There's if you want to know what uh evolutionary biologists think Uh, because that's not over 99 of the biologists Uh, just read it go if you have a question go to google scholar type in, you know, uh, a subject and read the technical literature on that if you, uh rj and i make videos, uh Where we cite the literature i've done we mentioned the flagellum take any of our word for it Right, exactly your own reading exactly. Uh, yeah, we did a video on the flagellum where he provided literature on that We did a video on evolution atp synthase We provided literature on that Um lots and lots and lots of stuff there nephi has no idea what he's talking about And that's that's pretty much it. Uh, yeah, maybe an after show Uh, we'll see if some people make it so you know, thank you unite gondwana land All right, okay, everybody. Well, thanks for watching. I hope you all enjoyed one of the thanks standing for truth If he's there listening for to help that was helpful Uh, thanks jackson and neph rj for coming into doing the debate I hope you will come back and do it again And uh, don't forget if you enjoyed this debate to hit that subscribe button below And if you personally want a debate then just leave a message and james will get back to it as soon as he's back in town and have a great rest of your weekend and uh Have a good night