 Two one Hey everybody today We're debating intelligent design on trial and we are starting right now with T Rock and Taylor's opening statement Thanks so much for being with us T Rock and Taylor. The floor is all yours T Rock Thank you. I'm going to share my screen real quick Let me know when everybody can see it go okay, I This is kind of a creation versus evolution creation intentional design versus Naturalistic evolution Discussion and so I'm going to present some criteria here for how to recognize design. It's very intuitive for for people of any age for example thing is designed and that was intentionally done by somebody intelligent and At that human intelligence above and beyond what animals are capable of so with that I Always like to remind people thou shalt not take the name of the Lord that I got in vain Okay, so I've got some talking points here Efficiency high efficiency indicates better design generally the the ATP synthase in Biological systems is extremely efficient way beyond what the most efficient machines that people are able to create can achieve Integration If you don't know what integration is it's basically how components interact together And so it can be at the component level or the system level designed systems always have elements of integration either and either or Multicomponent or multi-systems so you take a very simple concept like pen and paper The the pen and the paper integrated together with the ink and they're both integrated with the human Scale with Hand-eye coordination that sort of thing. It's it's it's actually as simplistic as as pen or pencil and paper is it's extremely highly integrated for You know intelligent use so even very basic systems have show high degrees of system integration Available resources good designs capitalized on available resources The dirt that we walk on is integrated and designed and available for Primarily well a bunch of obviously a whole bunch of applications, but plants grow in the ground That's our food source the ground provides us a place to live and operate and so on and so forth But good design utilizes available resources and looks ahead to make sure that resources will always be available Designs that do not use that foresight can still be considered designs, but they're decidedly inferior Okay, so redundancy of systems or components You can think of something like a spare tire on a car It's a redundant piece that you don't have to have to operate the car But it is a an indication of a higher level design for contingencies Hmm, just one example systems controls You have material. What are you gonna do with it? It's information that tells you when where how much the proportionalities the order of events or the sequences that those materials are gonna come together so by definition things that control those parameters are Information systems Hmm self maintenance This is not all designed systems in the human world do this, but the ones that do Display a much higher level of design than systems that don't Adaptability and versatility so here you can think of differences between like a skateboard wheel in a in a car tire car tires by their nature are designed to Operate on a wider variety of surfaces than a skateboard wheel is and versatility Being able to use something for more than one purpose. Those are also Highly indicative of design input output control so Think of an automobile and how you put gasoline into it So your your tank is designed and your system is designed to use one type of fuel You put a cap on there so that you can control what goes in and therefore what comes out of the system Specificity the more specific you get the higher level design tends to be you you can you can be too specific and create unnecessary Specificity ie something like Rube Goldberg, but high levels of specificity equate to high levels of design Now biological systems have every one of these indicators every single one of them It's pretty much unheard of for people in natural conversation when they're not being defensive about origins topics To deny that these all exist in the biological world Okay, naturalism without intelligent input always yields randomness no specificity no control No foresight for resources and no efficiency is in zero none. There's nothing to measure because Efficiency is basically a parameter of design and you can measure efficiency in something like ATP Synthesize indicated earlier, so I will stop there so that Taylor can have a turn Okay, we're ready one moment. Let me share my screen real quick. I need to stop share mine Okay Let me see Let's share screen Okay, can y'all see it? Yes Okay, so yeah, um today we're debating whether science suggests a biogenesis or intelligent design and I believe Science suggests that we are intelligently designed The purpose of science is generally a pursuit of knowledge and there's many different fields of science cell biology physics chemistry theology or philosophy and Actually, most scientists do believe in God so most scientists are not atheist contrary to popular belief and So there's a lot of questions that science hasn't answered yet such as the creation of the universe the creation of life consciousness and the more we learn excuse me, sorry the more we learn the more we wonder how these things came about and Yeah, it doesn't seem like time is really on our side in terms of Figuring out some of these main problems that we cannot seem to solve so a biogenesis is life arising from non-living material and there's currently no working theory that scientists can come together and agree on and People just think that if there's enough time Then the cell will get created but contrary to popular belief Time does not really help in terms of these things coming about if there is not proper conditions for them to come about also Pan sperm is another theory where life originated from another planet But even with that that just pushes back the question of where did life originally begin in the universe and how? and Also Darwin said if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed Which could not possibly have been formed by a numerous successive slight modifications. My theory would absolutely break down And in my opinion and many other scientists believe that we have found things like this where if you Take away any component the organelle will not function Or different components of the cell if they're taken away the entire system will not function so a biogenesis was first proposed by a Russian scientist in 1924 and At that time we just thought the cells were balls of jelly So we didn't really understand the complexity of life at that time. So in 1953 we Saw the structure of DNA just to give you an idea of how early a biogenesis was was Theorized it was it was very young and very early and so at this time We did not understand the complexity of the cell But now we now that we can see how complex the cell actually is we are trying to figure out how this got started Okay, so when and how life began to remains highly uncertain This was actually a paper I read the other day on evolution that mentioned this so scientists do acknowledge that when and how life began is highly uncertain and The theory of origin of life still requires fundamental perhaps revolutionary developments Here was another conference of a biogenesis scientist who can still not come to any sort of consensus on how life began so I love this picture of the flagellum this is something I actually study and You can just see the complexity of it and the beauty and the design and so Specified functional complexity is a system with several interacting parts which it just part He didn't erupt you up. I hadn't realized until just now because I was trying to keep up with the live chat is We're not actually seeing your slides advance I'm not sure if you're changing the slide to the next one But you mentioned the picture of the I think flagellum and I eat the flagellum. Okay. Thank you I think that you you must have shared your presenter view and Can y'all look at it now now? James you're gonna have to resize it though. You're gonna have to resize the window. Okay. Well, we'll just go from here then It's okay So here is the is every is everything okay right now. I'm just resizing and it's ready right now Okay Yeah, just the previous slides. I'm not sure what y'all saw just going over a biogenesis And this was the specified functional complexity Which is a system with several several interacting parts If just one part will remove the system will not function, so I love this picture of the flagellum it's actually something I work with and You can just see the beautiful design in the flagellum in the microtubules and If one of these parts were missing then the entire System would not function. This is what daron was mentioning where if we find irreducible complexity Then we'd have to throw out the theory. I'm not saying that that's what we should do But I'm just saying that we have I believe we have found irreducible complexity to say the least um Yeah, so in terms of a biogenesis like I said scientists cannot really come to a consensus on how life could have started From non-living materials. We cannot create a living cell in the lab from scratch And so the RNA first theory is kind of the predominant theory And there's a paradox of this if RNA if double-stranded RNA Was the first form of genetic material to come about then If it was folded into a protein form or an enzyme form then it would not be able to transcribe itself But if it was free then it wouldn't be in an enzymatic form for replication So there's a lot of problems here in paradoxes here and you can see on the side This is a schematic of the paradox of the RNA first in which many scientists agree that this is not a Proper theory that we should follow Also, you can see this huge number here This is how many randomized RNA molecules are required at starting point for the isolation of a ribosomic in vitro selection in in vitro selection experiments So like I said if it's folded it's unable to transcribe and in the absence of other specialized Ribosomes are excessive heat. How could the two strands of the ribosome faithfully separate in first place? So normally you'd need things like helicase or microtubules to come and separate the different strands to RNA and Yep, okay, so here was a paper I saw earlier RNA world hypothesis the worst theory of the early evolution of life except for all the other ones So this just gives you a good a good image of what we're actually dealing with here in terms of original life and Here's at the bottom left is couple of the different problems with RNA first hypothesis Also chirality is a big problem How could we have only had purely right-handed nucleotides and purely left-handed amino acids is very baffling to scientists? So it seems like the more that we learn the more we are baffled and this is another example of how because we know that in a if we if we are putting nucleotides together and forming nucleotides to form things like RNA then You would have an equal amount of left and right-handed which would make it not be able to polymerize into DNA RNA or protein So, yeah You got it. Thank you very much for that opening as well Wait, I just have a how to have a couple more back and just like I can I can skim through sorry so also You know, here's here's a couple of the different problems a biogenesis. There's many different problems with it So you can look over those and start of the universe The big bang is also a big question for scientists about how it happened The universe could not have come from nothing and there should have been equal amounts of matter and antimatter And it should have theoretically collapsed in itself The fine-tuned early universe so Sir Roger Penrose calculated that the probability of our universe starting out a very low entropy Just by pure chance is 10 to the 123rd power so this is how fine-tuned the universe is and Physicist agree just like a biologist agree on how did this come about how did life come about how did the universe come about? These are questions that are that are you know, the more we learn the more we wonder And people mentioned God of the gaps a lot So I've came up with this term the science of the gaps So people have faith in science that you know, well just with enough time Science will be able to fix these problems and we'll understand it so I call that science the gaps because it's actually not even moving in that direction and You're assuming that science is going to be able to solve these problems when we're actually moving in the opposite direction And also people That you know argue against intelligence design use the genetic fallacy the genetic fallacy Is that you cannot discredit a belief by discredit discrediting its supposed origins? So the attempt to discredit a belief on the grounds that its origins are dubious So just because God may see dubious does not mean that you should discredit the belief and that's it. Thank you guys Thank you very much for that opening statement We are going to kick it over to you can say the skeptics of intelligent design thrilled to have you here with us as well Amy and dr. Thompson if it's your first time here at modern 88 folks hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up You don't want to miss them and with that. Thank you very much. Dr. Thompson. The floor is all yours I'm unmuted great. So thank you for having me. I'm glad to be back in modern-day debates I also have some slides to share. So let's do that And let me know when that's ready It's crystal clear awesome, so You know, thanks again for having me I want to stay right up front intelligent design is not science It clearly is not science and I'm gonna make that case as is Amy So intelligent design is in fact a political effort to counter the results of a Supreme Court case called Edwards v. Aguilard in 1987 that's when the Supreme Court decided that biblical creationism is religion and should not be taught in public schools Intelligent design is actually just what I like to refer to as diet Creationism, you know, it's it's got the same great taste, but none of the calories the thing is it has less explanatory power than biblical creationism and in fact It is a God of the gaps fallacy the entire program is a God of the gaps fallacy Anything science can't explain must be God. Oh wait. I'm sorry wait. I mean an intelligent designer We can't use the G word here by the way Intelligent design was also found to be religion in 2005 in a court case called Kitzmiller readover I encourage anyone to look up the the the the judge's decision in that case They lay out exactly the fraud that is intelligent design So let's walk through it Intelligent design, what is it really? It kind of has two ideas neither of which are actually novel Intelligent design has one idea, which is irreducible complexity Taylor kind of laid out the idea of irreducible complexity This was formulated by Michael B. He in his book called Darwin's black box Some biological systems have multiple interacting parts that cease functioning if any one of the parts is removed Thus it could not evolve by a natural selection. That must mean it's designed magic Specified complex information is the other idea that's there the that's been put forward by intelligent design theorists This is formulated by William Dempsey. So in that case intelligent designed objects have patterns that are specified Quote and complex that is unlikely to have occurred by chance Therefore it must be designed again It's just ruling in place that God must be the I'm sorry wait intelligent designers must be the explanation So let's look at this. Let's check the intelligent design tests and actually apply to something So there's something called sorted pattern ground. All right, we're gonna get a little way from biology fear for a moment Let's talk about something else Something called sorted pattern ground is a phenomenon that we see in polar regions This is an example of something that is specified and complex people have theorized how these Circles that are perfect circles remember T-Roc said perfect circles don't occur in nature We have these nearly perfect circles or these perfectly parallel lines Appearing in nature in the ground and people theorized that maybe these were ancient humans that went to the polar regions that did this or maybe it was You know aliens or demons or maybe alien demons or something like that, right? Who knows? Well in 2003 there was a study published in the journal science where it conclusively showed exactly a mechanism to explain this This is known this paper is called self-organization of sorted pattern ground now We know there are certain phenomena that happen with freezing and thawing cycles in polar regions This leads to a self-organization that leads to this stunning pattern of stones and soil There are just two fake feedback mechanisms that we know work very very well and over the years You're going to see the emergence of this pattern that occurs So these guys used, you know, basically uniformitarianism that we know we can observe over time and then applying those principles Across iterations using a model that allowed for us to see over time with their model the exact emergence of these patterns So of course, there's a natural explanation for this. Geologists never pretended that like okay There must be some kind of magic that occurred, right? But if we apply the intelligent design argument to this, you know if this was done prior to 2003 We would have to conclude that it was designed. This is specified complex information, right? So it's got to be designed But now that we have a natural explanation for this for something that we can see is specified and complex Then it's not designed. This is illustrates why intelligent design is a complete dead end as a tool for understanding anything in Life and in the universe. It doesn't actually teach us anything So why is intelligent design a dead end? First of all, it has zero Explanatory power. It doesn't actually tell us anything about and very important questions about the universe and life on earth Intelligent design theorists don't bother to answer critical questions such as where was life designed? When was life designed? For what purpose was life designed? Who did the designing and the thing is any time you want to apply intelligent design to actually intelligent objects You can answer all these questions. It's actually quite intuitive. Let's look at an example. What is real intelligent design look like? Here's two examples This I would argue is intelligently designed. This is the Russian ice gander e-missile That's being used right now by Russia to kill innocents in Ukraine This is over here is the American Patriot system Okay, the American Patriot system on the right is this missile system is being used to counter the missiles that are made By Russia that they're using to kill You know people in Ukraine. So where were these designed? Well, this was designed in Russia because it says made in Russia This was died and designed in the US because it says made in the US when was it designed? You could pretty much figure that out relatively easily right for what purpose and this is critical, right? These have a purpose right one is for killing one is for protecting against that killing There's a co-evolution arms race that occurs here where one is being used for the other and who are the designers? We can answer this well the Russians designed this of course and Americans designed this and you can apply this to intelligently designed objects I can go to any factory and figure out how is it being done? Who is doing the designing? The intelligent designers don't ever bother to answer these questions now Why am I spending so much time talking about military weapons? Well, it's because if we wanted to take intelligent designs seriously for a brief moment We would have to conclude that there are indeed multiple designers just as there are multiple human intelligent designers nature is Violence in tooth and claw it is all about animals killing other animals. It's about plants killing animals Animals killing plants even fungi, right? So this is quarter steps down here in the bottom So this is from the last of us this this recent program. There's an HBO There's a there is a kind of fungus that takes over the nervous system Makes them essentially zombies has them crawl up and then they sprout spores across the world You're not going to imagine a benevolent designer creating these things This is the design of psychotics, right? Who are clearly designing animals to kill each other So these are the purposes that obviously an intelligent designer must well I'm sorry multiple designers would have had to have applied and it doesn't make any sense that there's a single designer because you know These are cross-purposes. Why would a single designer create all these animals that are about Parasitizing and killing so I'm gonna leave it there and I'm gonna pass this over to my partner Amy Thanks very much. I could get over to Amy indeed floor is all yours Amy Thank you so very much, doctor Hello everyone my name is Amy Newman and I am a newly minted professor of information systems a counter-apologist and unfortunately Prop comedian Thus I am coming to you not as an expert in biology but as a skeptic whose Epistemological toolkit with the tools I trust come mainly from Empirical means or in lay terms science When I don't know an answer That I want to know I Go to experts in the field Whether that is biology chemistry physics or as far as I can tell every other subject that's actually testable This process is what keeps us safe from Conspiracy theorists and people on the side of the street selling us oil made from the juices of pythons So when we talk about intelligent design on trial, which is the subject of tonight I find not the people sitting in the pews, but Intelligent design sales people can be slippery They don't like answering questions That would make their model of reality a tangible model in the real world Creationists, which is what their original name, but they got kicked out of every court case they have ever put forth because even conservative Christian judges can tell you that God done it is not a scientific model So they had to come back with something that at least Sounded better more sophisticated More market tested Thus now we have intelligent design They even made their own books like the 1989 to 1993 of pandas and people Created by the very much not or will he had foundation of thought and ethics a Christian Organization whose books include chapters with subjects like irreducible complexity Written in from Michael be he asserting the biological systems are too complex to have formed on their own Yes, the ID community has even found their own mascot the bacterial flagellum Which if you don't know what they look like think of a cellular sperm With a little tail motoring away, how else could this have formed if not? God, I mean an intelligent designer who is God But we now know this tail may have had other functions like being an injection tool because nature is sloppy Working with what it has in fact we contrast artificial with natural We are naturally forming a television is not there are no wild televisions hunting for electricity We don't have those super cool 90 degree edges Instead were soft squishy bags of meat My last point is the question the notion that Complex is a sign of design. Is there a reason most of us don't use the yahoo search engine and instead use Google nice clean simple Google I'll have to Google that or how about getting into your car Do you want a complex way of getting inside? Or something simple we can do this over and over heck Sometimes we even need complexity oftentimes for the designer to then Clean things up and make it simple again But the notion that complexity makes something designed is nonsense in Conclusion, I'm going to reach into my toolkit for someone who sums this topic up better than I could By Amanda Gephter from London Economics and MIT Writing in an article for new scientists Try this experiment if you find yourself talking to a proponent of ID say Okay for the sake of argument. Let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it now Tell me how intelligent design works Having tried this a few times myself I am confident that you will be met with nothing but awkward silence and quote Thank you Thank you very much for that opening statement Amy We're gonna jump into the open dialogue want to let you know folks We're gonna have a quick one tonight So the Q&A is going to be right after the open dialogue and we're gonna move fast So if you happen to have any questions feel free to fire them into the old live chat If you tag me with at modern a debate, that's one way to ask or a super jet We'll have your question go to the top of the list and the table is set. Let's get to the main course Thanks very much to our speakers for being here. The floor is all yours for open dialogue alright Well, I have a couple of questions. I don't mind if that's okay if I can open with so T-brack, you mentioned that human design has self maintenance and I'm curious if you can tell me a little bit about human designs that have self maintenance that's equivalent to what we see in biological systems Well, we don't that was the point. Ah, so why would self-maintenance be a sign of intelligent design? Because the more a system can maintain itself the more the the so I think Everybody understands that the lower maintenance your vehicle is The better it is for you the more you have to cater to oil changes Spark plug changes tire changes. The car can't do any of that on its own, right? Okay, right? But but like why is that a sign of intelligent design though? That's the thing that I don't get like you can't point to an example of why something that is Bullies just sort of maintained and self propagating. I can you've jumped right past what I was talking about, okay? So when you take that concept And you take something as simple as say Self-lubrication so there are bearings for example that are designed to lubricate themselves There is a great way to wear out Absolutely, okay, and then what happens do they have baby bearings that then can go on and propagate? No, but the point here is to your original question God's creation it would I'm sorry. Wait. Did you say God? I thought we're talking about intelligent design Which is God, I didn't know there was birds we couldn't use No, no, no, I mean That does help answer one of my questions like who is the designer? I was really joking Okay, right so I'm kind of curious then so why don't we move on to that? So you say God is the intelligent designers that right so what is that like I you know like I've got a phone here It's made by Samsung it says Samsung on it says made in China I can go to China and watch the designers making my phone like of course it doesn't self-propagate It's not going to be self-maintained. I have to charge it. It's gonna break eventually and I'm gonna have to buy a new one Right, that's one thing that companies love so I'm curious When you say God, what do you mean? The designer the designer. No, but what is that right? I can go to the Samsung factory and tell you about the Samsung factory like who is there who put together my phone But when you say God like just saying the designer that doesn't help me. It's not specified enough. Let's say that Right. Well, neither is the theory of a biogenesis or we're not talking about a biogenesis Intelligent design is on trial here You're fine. I've just been listening Yeah, it's I think Taylor and I both agree. It's the God of the Bible the God described in the Bible Okay, and so I want to hop back. How do you know is that though? No actually? How do you know that designed objects were so when you say that all right? So what was designed by God were those rings that I showed this the the pattern ground the specified pattern ground that I Showed is that designed by God? So if you mean in the immediate senses and I can't answer that in the immediate sense But I can tell you that God designed the universe the stars the planets our solar system our moon the water that we drink The plants how yeah, that's a brilliant question. That's just like I just can't answer how either so can't answer Can't answer how a big bang happens. Can't So so it's not the whole point here is not how it happened it's Yeah, was it you was it tell intelligently designed is the evidence stronger in favor of design versus a purely naturalistic explanation and so you cannot form a planet Under naturalistic conditions period So how does the God form a planet right tried to tell you this we none of us can answer how anything you can't answer You can't answer you can't answer how if how I can answer how my phone is made like I can go to the Samsung factory I can look the schematics. I can it was intelligent design wasn't it exactly. Yes. I totally agree But what if no intelligent design is there does a does a cell phone get made? Yeah, of course it gets made. Yes, right in the absence of intelligent Okay in the absence of intelligence design. No, obviously not right. Okay. Thank you, right, of course Yes, and there are processes that we can describe by which it was done Who did it when it happened? But you can't do that with your I guess we're going to calling it the God You know design neither neither can y'all But no, I think that we actually have excellent explanations for That's not what we're talking about tonight. We're talking about intelligent design Kind of overpowering everybody. Okay. Well, I'm just you know, like I'm trying to keep people on topic The topic is intelligent design. Okay. Yes, exactly precisely Um, so I had a couple questions written down from our introductions One of them was that intelligent design is not science and I wanted to know if y'all believe theology is science Or is that no longer a science? What is your definition of science? I can give my definition which it is a process not a body of knowledge It is about forming hypotheses going out and collecting data and forming testable theories That people can peer and a biogenesis is not a testable theory So should okay, but what's your evidence for intelligent design? Go floor yours You're saying that the cell what you're proposing an explanation for how life was created So you're proposing an explanation. I'm proposing intelligent design So is a biogenesis technically a science if we cannot replicate it And if we have no evidence to show that it happened So this is the God of the gaps fallacy that you're talking about and you can just prove Because there's no Look, I did it happen then you're you're saying that it happened naturally and that's your argument So give me an explanation to how my argument is that intelligent design is an insufficient explanation For so is the scientific explanation. That's not what we're talking about tonight. We're talking about Just to be sure that there's not too much interrupting I do just want to be sure that we're able to hear everybody and it's I appreciate everybody's passion It's much better than a passion list debate So I appreciate that but I just want to be sure that because it defeats the purpose If they can't hear you guys that there's not too much interrupting So chris, let me let me kind of point out the fallacy in your your thinking there You cannot explain So you're using a a modern historical context for design and now you can say, okay I know I know how and who and where a cell phone gets designed. So that's purely human context But you cannot tell me how The megaliths Were constructed. You can't tell me how the pyramids were constructed. They're very clearly documented historical events But there's hardly a person on the planet that can tell you how the egyptians built the pyramids I Mean they stacked some rocks on top of each other starting from the bottom up now That's real and precisely everything we have a bunch of different ideas of Approximately how it was done We know that there were human beings in that area at that time that there were the settlements for the people that They were assembling these things. We know that there's chisel marks on the rocks We're not going to assume that it was some sort of magical sort of Origination there's evidence of that it was humans that actually assembled the Do we know every precise detail? No, I would say not and I would say that this is actually a great analogy to Biogenesis we have ideas about how a better genesis worked the RNA world hypothesis isn't necessarily the best hypothesis In fact, I'm particularly fond of the amyloid world hypothesis I don't know if taylor's familiar with it But she should probably look at it because it's in fact sort of discussed in that paper that she cited at the beginning I don't know if you actually read that one that was from bnc So give us a walkthrough of the amyloid world. Well, I that's not the topic of the debate That is precisely the no it isn't we are talking about intelligent design. Well, we're talking about intelligent design This is not you're saying that it wasn't here, but let me ask Am I am I irreducibly complex? That's a good question Am I irreducibly complex? I believe that there's many aspects of life that have irreducible complex Am I irreducibly complex? Can you please explain the amyloid hypothesis for the viewers? I will let the it's too boring for the viewers. I'm not gonna. No, they want to hear it I wouldn't know am I irreducibly complex. We're talking about something you should be able to explain it Of course. Yes, and we can talk about I mean, do you want me to go ahead? I'm gonna kick it over to Amy if you guys can't agree. Yeah, that's fine. I'll let I do want to know just to be sure that the amyloid hypothesis Is it fair to say that the amyloid hypothesis? Is this a hypothesis that favors intelligent design or other accounts of I will clarify No, the amyloid world hypothesis is an alternative to the RNA world hypothesis So amyloids are sheets of protein that apparently have some degree of self assembly and we have an interesting model for exactly how this works Now, is this a full explanation for the origin of life? No, I would say it's an open question We don't have a full explanation for the origin of life. It is a difficult thing to work on I had a great conversation with South Cordova on my youtube channel about this Where I went into the details of like origins of proteins and other things and tried to explain it to him But that's actually not what we're talking about today. We're talking about intelligent design. So I'll let Amy take over I did that amyloid You could say uh sustained on that one in other words. I do think that because it's not per se an argument or Hypothesis or theory in favor of intelligent design I do want to keep it more focused on the arguments for intelligent design and that one sounds like it's You could say for the opposite or at least something different And so I do want to without going deeper on that issue. Amy. What were you what did you have in mind that you want to say? Well, I guess I had a question and maybe a statement because you said how You want to know how Things like a self replicating molecule happen, right? Because that's a scientific question Yeah, you're proposing a scientific explanation. Sure. And you want to know how How how how how so I just want to reassert That you can Say that intelligent design is real But you can't actually explain a how to anything you do not have any house And so I would like you to explain how god did anything back over you Yeah, so how god created everything. Um He created the living cell and all of its working components at the same time Unlike The theory by genesis would be able to explain where you basically have a chicken and the egg question with literally everything The dna come first the proteins come first. He's saying a protein came first, but there's Impossibilities with that. How was there? All the right chirality form of amino acids present. How did they come together? How did it self replicate? So these are all questions that do not have answers and they're critical um, so you cannot disprove that god Designed every but I can just prove that a biogenesis is not possible And I gave many explanations in my opening statement of how a biogenesis is not possible So to answer your question on how god did it your answer is real quick Was your response? Did you not hear me, man? Yeah, she said I said god created all of the working components Mutinously right real quick is meaningless as me saying though is your theory that has no working theory That so I actually did I heard you very correctly That was your response and then you went on to talk about a biogenesis and said nothing about how your god does anything So I'll hand it back over to you. How does your god? How about a planet? How does he you said? I think I gotta read I think I gotta reiterate the problem with the direction you guys are trying to push this conversation Nobody can answer how you can't explain how a planet forms naturalistic You can't explain how A moon gets in the proximity of the earth without destroying it through naturalistic processes You can't even explain how the magnetic field of the earth has lasted billions of years And and so the point here is not to answer how anything happened. It's to Indicate indicate that all of the criteria associated with intelligent design Is readily evident in the biological world Okay, so let's back up a little bit. Taylor You mentioned the bacterial flagellum and as Amy pointed out, this is intelligent designs mascot So I assume that you feel that the bacterial flagellum is the is is a iridistably complex at least I wouldn't say the flagellum is our mascot. I would say the dna codes our mascot. It's pretty awesome Uh, but yeah, I believe that there's irreducible complexity in many many aspects. It is the bacterial flagellum irreducibly complex Um, yeah along with many other components of the cell. Are you familiar with the type three secretory system? Yes, I've read all about it. Okay, so does it have components of the bacterial flagellum? Um, it's essentially a secretory system. Yes, the type three secretory system Okay, can you elaborate on what what components you're looking for in that? So the type three secretory system has essentially Just some parts of the bacterial flagellum and it's used for some Protests to inject content into cells that it's trying to In fact or or to take over control of and it has basically some of the parts of the bacterial flagellum But not all of the parts. So you could say that it's a simplified Bacterial flagellum that's missing some of the parts. In fact, it's missing quite a few of the parts so How is it irreducibly complex if a simpler version of The bacterial flagellum that is missing some of the parts actually has a function. Can you explain that to me? uh, yes, because the Okay, so in the process of the flagellum evolving It would not have had the critical components in order for it to function But the type three secretary Components are just You know extra and nuance. They're not critical to the infrastructure of the flagellum. No, they're not extra These are parts of the bacterial flagellum. It's not all of the bacterial flagellum It's just some of the parts of the bacterial flagellum if the bacterial flagellum wasn't in truly like irreducibly complex Meaning if you take any one part away It should cease to have any kind of function whatsoever The type three secretary system clearly shows that there's common origin to these things That one was taken from the other and that like some of the components can be lost Like you don't need all the parts of the bacterial flagellum in order for it to have some kind of function And so therefore what components we're missing what components we're missing that um, look, I'm a neuroscientist I don't work in this stuff. So I'm not But every time I ask you specifics such as the amyloid protein hypothesis Yes, and I will send you I will send you go ahead and explain it here to them. We're gonna I hear that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about. So chris chris. Let's go. I will that's ridiculous I will be perfectly honest with you. I I am familiar with the irreducibly complex argument, but I'm not like super steeped in it But I it does Honestly sound like you're completely misrepresenting what it is Explain what I'm misrepresenting okay, so In my slides one of the things that I was talking about is redundancy of systems And and this actually came up in a debate. I had very very recently. I was talking about How every living creature on the planet has a role that that participates in this grand recycling scheme. So So Something was said about trilobites going extinct and the you know the the balance of nature didn't fall apart because trilobites went extinct But this is exactly the point There is so much redundancy in nature to prevent easy extinction So irreducibly complex Things can be if if an animal can go extinct Or your spare tire can fall out of your car and no longer be there the car still functions And what did you think of one of the functioning tires like one of the four tires that's attached to well That's that's exactly the point why I said you're you're you're kind of misrepresenting the argument because you can you can have You can have just about any given system in biology And you can find that there's a redundant replacement for it that helps fill the gap And so in in the um, and that's an element of design That is specifically an element of design redundancy is there as a failsafe We do it in systems My car has been in a shop enough times to know it's not particularly redundant Did you ever talk about the Origins of life as well instead of just nuances of you know different components of life like the flagellum So that's why I was talking about the amyloid world hypothesis and um, the critical things that it lacks And in the ability to explain the origin of life So I would like to go back to talk about intelligent design, right? So am I an intelligently designed organism? Like did someone design obvious? Obviously not as we can see. Okay. Okay. Well, well, that's really nice of you taylor I'm just kidding. Quite all right. It's nice joshing. I Short answer. Yes. Yes. Okay. Great. I get some sort of straightforward answer. So does that mean I'm irreducibly complex Once again, you're kind of alluding to a very strong misrepresentation. What's the misrepresentation? There again The point is not that you your scaling is wrong No, the point is he rock. Have you read do no listen Darwin black box I I just kind of answered that indirectly a little while ago that you haven't okay The the whole point here is and and to be clear You notice in my opening statements. I didn't miss mention directly. You're a little complexity I believe it's a valid argument, but not the way you're you're presenting it what I Am strongly pushing is systems integration. Are you integrated into anything in the world? That everything about design requires some type of integration And you are highly integrated into the world Because some of your metrics I always find it weird what People think is intelligently designed and what is it? What is it about complexity? That makes you think that is the hallmark of design another misrepresentation of I've never said that irreducible complexity was a hallmark I think that the lack of theory for how life got started is the hallmark in my opinion Just because there's no working theory to how life got started Something okay, so the cell like for example like the chicken and the egg problem with the DNA the protein So he mentioned the amyloid world hypothesis and that basically this protein had enzymatic functions and was able to replicate itself But we know that there would need to be other proteins there and a genetic code present Along with the cell membrane and a form of energy metabolism So all of these all of these systems components would have needed to be there simultaneously And that's how I answered Amy's question on how God created it Even though that was trying to bait me. But anyway, um, I can ask you But what about complexity to you says this Makes it design. It's the impossibility to come about naturally is what makes me say It's most likely intelligently designed Okay, sorry, it's it's not complexity. You keep misrepresenting the argument again. It's not complexity. That's not what's Issue here T rock. No, I'm sorry I can't help it that you're ignorant of the intelligent design argument But the major players that are the intelligent design theorists if you're talking about Steven Darwin came up with your Hold on And no, I he did not so we're talking about Steven Miller. We're talking about William Demsky We're talking about Michael be he all of them They even have it in the words of the things that they made up specified complex information Irreducible complexity That is the crux of the argument really two really important points that you're completely off based on number one You're not debating Michael beaty Okay, but I thought we were talking about intelligent design Specified complexity is a very different thing than complexity I So complexity Has is not connected to design at all in in and of in and of itself. That's not even the argument That's not what I was arguing. I was not saying because of irreducible complexity. We were designed I was saying from a lack of theory for a biogenesis and The start of the universe as well for lack of working theories of these models. That's what I'm working Wait, tell me a little bit about what you believe is the earth 4.5 billion years old I Believe that the universe and life was intelligently designed. Okay, that doesn't answer my question When did the design occur? Let's talk about that. I haven't I haven't researched things like, you know, how old the earth is That's not even what I'm arguing. Are you curious about it at all? I mean like I can tell you when my phone was made intelligently designed Okay, yes, but when the more we learn about these systems the more we realize that these could not have came Battle in accident When Man No, I'm not 6,000 years There we are a couple hundred years and how do we know that? We know that by the absolute best scientific methods possible, which is eyewitness account Now he's that you're just trying to discredit him and that I just want to point out if you think the world is 6,000 years old You are off by 99% Like that is a Somebody's off by a huge percent. Yeah Sure, it's the difference between The distance between new york and la and thinking that la and new york are actually around 26 feet away from each other That's the difference. So now you're trying to argue things that don't even pertain to them. No, it's critical. I'm sorry. It absolutely is critical So I think that's something else That's not even relevant to the conversation. It's not irrelevant. It's not at all like when things were designed That's insane. That is completely insane to me. I'm sorry But you have no curiosity about when this actually happened zero there. We're talking about how it came about Okay, so let's talk about it. What was designed at the beginning? Was it just like a single cell? Is that what you think? I think I think that a cell was designed. Yes, okay one cell So what did humans evolve from a common ancestor that was shared? And I'm not going to tell you all the nuances of my theory until you at least give me a layout of yours Which you have yet to do you have yet to even explain the amroel Taylor you work in biological sciences. You're well, you're certainly well acquainted with what I believe which is I'm not talking about the 99% of all working out of yours actually believe You can't even give me a layout of your theory Look, I will have you on my youtube channel and we can talk about it and we can hash it out because This is where we're hashing it out. Let's hear it. We're not hashing it out right here. We're talking about intelligent design So you're saying that intelligent design isn't true and that science can explain it all All right Taylor Taylor you're not answering the question. T mark. Why don't you tell me you have an answer We're designed you still haven't answered when we were humans designed Day six of creation week about there we are thousand years ago. Thanks for being at least precise You actually have more explanatory power Adopting biblical creationism than you do using Taylor's method, which is intelligent design, which is like I don't know Who knows it's to be clear You don't know I don't know Chris tell us your theory Which you have yet to talk about we're talking about intelligent design. Wow. Okay. I think the audience could see through that But anyway, well, okay. So so listen real quick um To be clear a couple quick points. I did not come here to argue classical intelligent design Okay, that's the premise of the debate It says intelligent design on trial. I'm looking at the title of what the debate may be so but that's not the email Let me see Point number two though Hold on I gotta collect my thoughts again, but um to two Taylor's point If you want to say that intelligent design is not an answer You're gonna have to compare it to something else to say that something else is a better answer And actually I would say my entire point of this debate is to show that you guys can't answer questions like not none That it will always be pretty direct with my answers. Thank you You have been very direct in your your your bit of biblical I will accept that but I will say if we were to ask how god actually Did anything the how and that is one of the points I asked that because science is about the house Like we're not about And science can't answer these how questions if they could we wouldn't be here Exactly, I would not be here if there was a working theory for a biogenesis or okay Look, and you're saying science has answers. So where are they? Yeah? So I would say let's take T rocks uh proclamation from the intelligence design perspective that human beings were created On day six of just gonna pick apart our theory. No, no, no actually giving explanations Science has an excellent explanation for the origins of human beings Right. Well, there was a there's a common ancestor between chimpanzees and human beings By the process of descent with modification via natural selection and sexual selection It's determined to be a fraud wasn't it just to let him finish one here Yes, I don't need to be interrupted taylor. I would appreciate it. So um the Yes, lucy is just one of the many australopithecines that we have As an example of the other australopithecines like there's a you can look at the gradient of human evolution The australopithecines certainly it walked upright But they had very small brain cases and then if you look at later fossils in the fossil record Then you start to get into homo habilis and other homo homo species Now they the early ones had relatively small brain cases But they're getting larger and larger and as we go on through evolution We can see bigger and bigger brain cases the Nobel Prize this last year went to to savante pavo He's a scientist from sweden who works at leipzig university at the moxponk Institute for anthropology. I believe it is and primatology. He was working on ancient genomes He has sequenced the neanderthal genome. He has a ton of papers on the topic of human origins I encourage anyone to look at these papers. They're fascinating super interesting work Clearly laying out the case of human beings Sharing a common ancestor with not only neanderthals, but the other Homo species and getting into the australopithecines and the genetic evidence just clearly shows that at the very least chimpanzees and human beings shared a common ancestor I think i'll take direct issue with your use of the word clearly here because 40 000 whatever the number is i know there's a broad range for the existence the alleged existence of neanderthals But I believe if i'm not mistaken you can correct me on this somewhere on the order of 40 000 to 200 000 years Was the existence of neanderthals? No neanderthal origins. It's not so based on savante pavo's work We can best estimate that the the last common ancestor between neanderthals and human beings was around 700 000 to 800 000 years ago Okay, so 700 800 000 for the mech. I just want to jump in i'll give you a chance to respond t rock But I do want to mention folks we're going to jump into the qna pretty quick here So we've got a little more open dialogue, but the qna is coming fast So do get those questions in in the live chat if you have them go ahead to you rock Okay, so so you're saying seven 800 000 for the beginning of neanderthals up to about 40 000 years Yeah, that's right. Okay. So here's my point though. Your whole use of the word clearly um Under naturalistic conditions real world Natural conditions. There is no reason in the world to expect that neanderthal dna Lasted 40 000 years. There is none whatsoever. That's not true at all Savante pavo has papers that shows No, no, how long it can last is is that's the under the right conditions It can last a very long time fossils in tropical regions that are exposed to high temperatures Yes Are found or exact opposite of how you calculate the alleged Conditions Scientists um actually quoted this it's a paper about evolution. It was published recently and this is a very Um, uh, very hot esteemed journal It says the fossil record the fossil record is like a movie with most of the frames cut out because it is so incomplete It can be difficult to establish when a particular particularly evolutionary changes when particular evolutionary changes happened So it admits in itself in an evolution Pro-evolution paper that the fossil record is like a movie with most of the frames cut out and that it's very incomplete So you have it when your own scientists acknowledges you have to acknowledge it as well Sure, I would acknowledge that there's incompleteness to the fossil record, but there's enormous Uh, uh, um conclusions that we can draw from and I'm still waiting on your theory for the original but But we're not talking that has nothing to do with the original amyloid The amyloid hypothesis. I'm still in here. It's okay. Hey, look it up. It's great But we're talking about our intelligence. All right. So let's get to so so t rock you say that I'm intelligently designed Am I an irreversibly complex system points? But you're saying that you have Well, look the thing is t rock at least can give me some answers. Taylor. You have no answers. Give answers either We're not talking about my theory if we wanted to have another debate James have me on next time and we'll talk about it, but I'm not We're not here to talk about it. I do want to be sure that we Let's see We may actually jump into the q&a early So I want to let folks know that you're watching don't worry if you've enjoyed this debate as I'm sure you have We've gotten a lot of good engagement. We may actually do a part two of this in the future We had a late start tonight and so I promise the speakers that we are going to get them out of here Within about 15 minutes of right now. And so do want to say if you have those questions, let me know as we're going to speed through the q&a so we can get everybody out of your on time and Any final thoughts drawing the threads together? We have one question that's already come in Oh, I just want to say one final thing the reason why creationist intelligent designers Why they bring up things like a biogenesis consciousness all of the outer edge scientific hypotheses that we're working on is because they don't want to defend intelligent design And so they go towards the things that we're basically working on and they go, uh-huh Yeah, haven't solved this yet. And it's like, yeah, that's the that's the entire point. That is why It is the edge of science. That's not evidence for intelligent design possibilities within those theories And I have not heard any good evidence for intelligence The night is still young though. Well 15 more minutes. Okay, so again, let's let's let's kind of cap that real quick Because this idea of I haven't heard evidence is like it's so subjective. How do you want to define evidence? But but forget all forget all that for just a minute because Again going back to how we actually recognize intelligent design and chris brought up a couple photos of of tanks that are obviously designed But those systems have the exact types of parameters that I listed as indicative of intelligent design So per my or my very beginning at my opening Tell me which one of those efficiency, integration, resources, redundancy, system control, self-maintenance, adaptability, input, specificity Tell me which one of those does not apply to both building tanks and biological systems Tell me which one Self-maintenance? Like we could start there. We already talked about this But show me how a tank is fully self-maintening You kind of railroaded the conversation before we actually developed it Okay. Well then to explain to me how a tank is self-maintained I I gave you examples of how you pointed one part of lubricating bearing. That's not the whole tank Again, you keep interrupting you talk for three minutes uninterrupted and then you won't let us talk 15 seconds without interrupting chris So you want to hear it be quiet and listen It goes like this. We have minor instances of Self-maintenance like self lubrication. It was the one that I brought up We would like to have more so you took your cell phone for example your cell phone doesn't go charge itself But guess what? We actually have designed electrical systems that do go charge themselves And the more of that you can do The more advanced the design is typically considered Biological systems are highly self-maintained Mechanical systems are very are doing it at a very low level which could send us into this very interesting conversation about biomimetics What do engineers in the real world actually do to find higher levels of design? They look to the biological world Can I just very quickly ask t-rock what he thinks is efficient about a giraffe's neck? um There so I talked about this a little bit not a great length And there's never enough time to but every animal on the planet serves a function in the biosphere, right? giraffes and and virtually all Animalia are some sort of horticulturals so giraffes play a particular role in Horticulture where higher little Foilage and stuff like that is concerned so they need the taller They need the longer necks to reach higher than most other animals are able to So what's efficient about it? They are designed so that they can take their head And dip it down to ground level and get a drink without their heart exploding And people would love to know how to replicate that type of design Because the pressure that you get built up in your brain Or and I said heart your the brain the problem is you get too much fluid pressure down on the brain Whenever you have that much weight um and that much mass fluid mass pushing towards the brain But giraffes with their long necks actually have a workaround so that they can do that efficiently And that doesn't sound efficient that sounds like it's on the edge If you were if you were actually an engineer, I might would give some credence to what you're saying but I don't see it That is an actual argument at At hominem This is a great opportunity to go into the q&a because we do have such limited time I need to do that to you Amy But we do want to move really quickly you want to say thanks so much for your questions folks If you enjoyed tonight folks, I've got to tell you we are going to try I'm going to try my Darnitas to get a part two of this one because this one's especially short as we had a delayed start tonight This one coming in first from bubble gum gun says Chris and Amy. Why are you scared to debate me on modern day debate? Don't worry. He says that to everybody, but I'll give you a chance to answer Can I answer so bubble gum gun? Listen, man, you don't have to debate us You can argue with the creationists. You can argue with t rock t rock believes that dogs and wolves Actually share a common ancestor and he actually believes that all the canids share a common ancestor Right. So and so do I right because there was a single kind on the arc and that they evolved By a natural selection to have this vast array of really interesting complex animals that we refer to as the canids T rock believes this as do I I don't know what taylor believes because she's an intelligent design theorist It doesn't actually have any explanations, but debate t rock, man. Don't come at me I also just I don't believe natural selection had anything to do with the speciation of canids Oh Taylor Taylor you want to get a jab in on that jab from uh, Chris? I'll give you a chance to respond. Oh, they don't have any explanations. Um, I'm still waiting on your sir So whenever you uh, think of how it could have happened naturally by your theories is let us know Great. So let me then get the final say right because the question was for us taylor come in my stream Let's talk about canid evolution I would love to talk with you about canid evolution and hear your inputs on it You have the working knowledge for this as a biological scientist. Let's work on it. We'll come out and we'll talk about it Oh, I've got to move to the next one this one coming. Well, Amy if you can give me in one sentence Why are you so afraid? In the words of bubblegum gun to debate him. I won't debate him at any time. I'll debate anyone anywhere And you know, wherever it's safe, but I will debate you Juicy to say the least I also just add Argument for authority. It's super pithy just because I have to get through a lot of questions in eight minutes I'm sorry. It was an argument from authority fallacy because when you are speaking to an actual Authority and you are appealing to them. That is fine. But just saying you're not an engineer I have taught robotics class for years I have at least an information systems and a robotics background That is not however, why a giraffe's neck is not inefficient. It was cobbled together. That was a little bit longer I'm sorry, james. So back at this one coming in from super adam's vid says if I was to mirror any single cell Atomically and hit play Would it be alive? Where would design begin and chemistry stop? Can't allow any more buttles by the way, so you've got to give a quick pithy answer and I got to move the next one If you were to figure a living cell, I'm sorry, you can go ahead t-rock No, I was just wanting clarification for who it was for that was for you t-rock Sorry, can you repeat the question? They said if a cell was mirrored, would it be alive? Any single cell atomically and hit play would it be alive? Where would design begin and chemistry stop? Well, that's that's a really interesting question. Um, you're actually kind of outside the capability of science altogether there because um What it alludes to is if you put all the ingredients together correctly Is that what causes something to be alive? But because the um, the naturalist cannot define What or how a i by a biogenesis happens they cannot answer that question anyway But the short answer is no it would not be alive It would just be an assemblage of stuff that's fixing to follow And what's it what's it mirroring if there's no life there? Sudan him says after show on Amy Newman's but To the intelligent design team. Would you agree that you don't know quote-unquote? How? i.e mechanics of how an intelligent designer did the designing and they said versus at the athias So we'll give you a chance to respond to that first and then we'll get to the question for the athias Oh, we already answered that question. Um, I think he's simultaneously created each component But you know, obviously, we're not gonna have all the answers for the same reasons that the um My opponents don't have all the answers on how I've got started or a working theory of a biogenesis Or any evidence that happens to the athias. Do you claim to know the mechanics? Why does science say I don't know? I I mean do you want to take that I can take it if you don't want to or Sure So science doesn't necessarily say I don't know It is investigating the question of life's origins Diligently and thoroughly it's a difficult issue to address because you're talking about billions of years of Evolution at the molecular level that does not fossilize and we can only piece it together by looking at the genomes of animals living today But at the very least our side can talk an awful lot about what actually happened as far as in life on earth And it's fully consistent with the data as presented genetics Fossil evidence Biogeography when you get into the details like looking at canid evolution None of it makes sense with the create the little little literal biblical creationist model Which at least that gives us something to work with and as far as intelligent design goes No explanatory power whatsoever other than to say that an intelligent designer did it and I'm not going to get it Tell you anything more beyond that This one coming in from do appreciate it. Magellan said how is the low low law? Loa Loa a worm that lives inside your eye and slowly turns you blind an example of Intelligent design if we were intelligently designed by a perfect being why would there be any diseases at all? Um Taylor if you want to take that you can but I'll go if you don't You can go ahead so that's really really interesting that that the Skeptics and the naturalist always try and do this that's much more of a theological question than it is a design question It's got high functionality regardless of what it's doing But the benevolent designer created a very good world where that sort of thing did not happen Again, this is a theological question. If you can't grasp the science, you're not going to grasp the theology at all but The benevolent creator i.e the god of the bible created a very good world where that sort of thing did not happen It was the fall of man into sin that caused all of creation To basically pursue paths that they were not designed to do in other words free choice kind of thing You can eat of the tree or not eat of the tree You can eat the vegetables you're told to eat or eat an animal that you were not told to eat so The world is in decline right now because of that and uh disease and carnivory and all of that is a direct consequence of not following the intended design You gotta gotta move fast this one coming in from do appreciate your question Ozzie in talks says if there are possible natural explanations for an event Then there is no reason to presume intelligent design Intelligent design is an unfalsifiable claim with no evidence Well, if there were the contrary then i agree if there was explanations, but we have yet to receive them Um, and there's no working theory. Um, as i mentioned before now if you could propose a working theory Then i'll say look you won you won but i have yet to receive that This is one for me that was a For me that question slash comment was uh from the from the questioner in the audience was a big fat logical fallacy because um Intelligent design can do what randomness can do but randomness cannot do what intelligent design can do So to say that you to even to even claim that you have a good natural Explanation for anything that exists is another big fat scientific and logical fallacy But you're you're basically saying that if i have a natural explanation Therefore intelligent design cannot be true. That's just a big fat logical fallacy and and i'll go on to say that When you when people like chris chris has done this multiple times now When you say a designer would or would not do this or would not do that You can't tell what another human individual would or would not or how or or should not design anything You can tell me for example to design you a vehicle to get you from here to california You have no idea whether i'll even put wheels on it or not This one coming in from do appreciate it mont mont said i would like to hear taylor comment on orgel's first and second rule It's spelled o r g e l orgel's second rule Uh, do you have the rules pulled up? Let me look at it right now orgel Um while you're looking at it i just wanted to mention a genetic fallacy which has occurred many times during this debate It's the attempt to discredit a belief on the grounds that its origins are dubious So orgel's first rule is whenever a spontaneous process is too slow or too inefficient A protein will evolve to speed it up or make it more efficient That's an already living cell. That's an already living cell. We're not talking about From from dirt and from non-living materials. That's an already living cell. So it makes sense because we have a wonderful designer The second one is this really what it is that evolution is Cleverer than cleverer than you are. Yes. Okay. That's what yeah, you got it. Well, then why can't we Why can't we even give a working model for it? Oh, we have working models. We can talk about evolution Well, you have yet to give it so We're not talking about evolution tonight. I'm sorry. We're talking about intelligent design So what we're talking about intelligent design anyway, of course This one coming in from do appreciate your question We got that one. Thank you very much Ozzie and for gifting those Memberships in the live chat folks if you haven't yet use those emoticons to call your friends a soy boy in the live chat Average gamer moves says if there is an intelligent designer, why would they create? the bab ii russas in princey's swine in indonesia Upper tusks to keep growing to the point of penetrating their own skull causing death Isn't that evidence of bad design? Us trying to ponder god is like an ant trying to ponder us and I don't think it's ever gonna happen Unless you can talk to This one that was a rinse and repeat of the the the earlier question of the exact same thing And the the bad design equates to not design is another major logical fallacy You can poorly design anything you want doesn't mean it's not designed Well, I'd like to give a shout out to the multiple designer theory. So Super atoms vids says can we take a second and all look at how okay. Thanks for your kind words They uh say jacked james has gotten I appreciate that that's uh, it's true man. You totally jacked It's the camera ads like Ah, you know james. Look the camera ads. I'm gonna say the same thing, but no one's gonna say i'm jacked That's funny. I appreciate that this one's very Can I give a huge credit? I want to let you know folks for the thumbnail I know that chris looks insane But I've got it which I by the way, I appreciate you being such a good team player chris because A lot of times I ask people can you give me an insane look or you know, and I appreciate you were very worried about I'm this esteemed professor at virginia tech and you're like Ask this guy to give me a crazy look and I can set you five pictures and you're like, man This guy, I swear. Yeah, I was happy to do it. Whatever like I can't if I can't make fun of myself like, you know, then I'm just gonna be taking I think you were intelligently designed That's lovely. I appreciate that. Thank you. It's very kind and this one from Let's see copy mom says if science is insufficient to prove creation Why is the scientific definition of evidence so impossible for creation? If I mean intelligent design Why is the scientific evidence? What? You say why is the scientific definition of evidence so impossible for intelligent design? Why why is the scientific definition of evidence so impossible for intelligent design? Yeah, why is the definition so impossible to prove creation? Yeah, I don't think it is. Um, I think that um science is a pursuit of knowledge and like I mentioned earlier The theology is a type of science And uh, we're just looking for the most logical explanation. Um And yeah, if there's I I don't think it's that the lack of theory. I don't think it's the lack of scientific theory that makes mine True, but I think it's the impossibilities within their own theory That make the intelligent design theory more correct because there are impossibilities in a biogenesis that I mentioned in my presentation In my opening presentation that nobody here has addressed This one coming in That was real quick that that claim about the definition of evidence Another huge logical fallacy definitions of words are subjective by definition We decide what we want words to mean because a group of people got together and created a definition to exclude A creation approach to science does not mean evidence is impossible for science. It means your definition has excluded it My definition has not This one coming in from evidence for my we cannot take any more questions folks I wish we could but we're gonna finish reading these last few and we're gonna let these guys out of here This last several we have one. Thank you very much medical mastery says monkey man theory lost tonight Monkey man theory. Is that like a new way of making fun of evolution? Is that what you apparently I guess that's directed to us Cool It's fine. I'm actually an ape But you know, I'll hang with my my monkey brother in Aren't we all new to me? I haven't heard that one. Let's see this one from Dr. Kent Hovind I have a feeling this isn't actually is the after show on an evidence channel mr. Curry Okay, apparently they're a fan of the prank soundboard calls. I appreciate that This one from Ozzie in talks says I didn't say intelligent design is false I said it was unfalsifiable So it can only rationally be accepted when all other falsifiable possibilities are excluded Yeah, and I think we're at that point. Um, where all other possibilities are excluded I think theory of avi agences has been shown to have in possibilities within them And I named many of them in my opening statement that I received never buttle for You've got it the the logical fallacies keep pouring in unfalsifiable The truth is unfalsifiable. You can't make something that's true False it's unfalsifiable literally and so that's just another huge logical fallacy Thank you. And this one coming in from do appreciate it and jelon says t rock and taylor Do you ever realize how let's see I they say i'm not persuaded Your fall of man excuse for bad design is textbook. No true scotsman fallacy Um, another huge logical fallacy They just they just won't quit with this stuff because the no true scotsman fallacy is is basically like It's it is applicable in a lot of circumstances But the problem is is that we have a bible that's been preserved for thousands of years So it becomes our standard. So we have a book to define the scotsman so to speak and so And so it this is not a no true scotsman fallacy at all I I It was incredible to me the the silence I got back from chris whenever I compared my parameters in biological for design in biological systems as compared to Mechanical systems. They're they're parallel to the t. It's just that one is far superior than the other Obviously, well and I would if you're calling me out. I'd like to respond I would say that the you the similarity if you want to draw any similarities Clearly shows that if we're going to assume intelligent design that there must be multiple designers And I want to hear you know for our polytheistic folks that you know, there must be multiple designers out there If we're going to assume that all this is intelligently designed It certainly doesn't make a lot of sense that like the fall from grace and somehow that that led to parasites that Intervade our eyes and like eat our eyes from the inside out because I eat from an apple I explain this before chris um The whole point behind the fall is that if you're given specific instructions like don't put water in your gas tank And you put water in your gas tank. Do you think something bad's going to happen? Penn says red piero one says if we are created after god's image does that mean that god cannot use the restroom when he has Swollen prostate. I don't know is swollen prostate that makes it hard to go to the bathroom Yes, as you get older. I don't I'm not speaking from experience Yes, that's why I know for a second it sounded like that, but no, I don't know that from experience But yes, that's indeed what happens prostate can get swollen and older men and therefore they can't pee Which is why they got to get up multiple times in the night and take a leak That's what he's talking about and why is that intelligently designed and and if it is Does that mean god is designed in the same way because if we're creating god's image Interesting that uh, sorry red piero if you're going through that and this one coming in cool lambo says t rock. Will you marry me? Wow T rock you got a fan out there No Okay, wow What an ice cold rejection. This is what I think this is our last one for the night. Thank you very much for your question Thunder storms as was wondering opinions on nicola tesla Vortex math called the fingerprint of god. What are your guys's thoughts? Nicola tesla was a lot like newton. He was a genius. He had a lot of really cool ideas You still have a few out there ideas Oh god This any of it anybody else Cool, I think that's it. Let me just double check. I want to say thank you folks Our gas are the lifeblood of the channel So we do want to say we hope you guys really we do appreciate their liveliness And that's what makes it for a fun debate and you know, we're all friends at the end of the day We see you know, we disagree lively and you know, we press each other and we poke each other And then we're kind of like, hey, you know, no problem Like I hope you have a great rest of your day and you know, we're always there for each other in the hard time So we appreciate you guys. Thanks so much. It's been a true pleasure. Taylor t rock dr. Thompson and amy. Thanks for being with us tonight I'm going to take you up on that offer. I'd love to come on your show and talk with you. That would be great Yeah, and you know any I do have a youtube channel. I just plug it real quick I talk about neuroscience and talk about evolution Um, yeah, if anyone wants to I'm close to 2k subscribers I apparently that doesn't matter, but I do want to get over that 2k mark So if people want to subscribe that'd be awesome and I'll take you up on that for sure Chris, do you care to have me on your I would have you on too. Sure. We could for one on one without, you know, a bunch of Yeah, definitely. I'll have you on I'll reach out Okay, and there's an after show at my channel if you'd like and also sending love to the mdd discord as well You should I'll check out Thank you appreciate that and I'm adding guest links. It's been a crazy day So I still have to add guest links to the description box. I'm doing that right now So give me two seconds as I add those do you want to say folks? Don't worry most like only about like Less than one percent or viewers of this debate see this debate while it's live So folks do want to say refresh the page as I do want you to see our guest links And that includes if you're watching later on maybe you're watching in the video on demand And want to say thanks so much for being with us to our speakers and our audience Thanks so much for your questions. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable and we will see you next time folks Thank you