 not science gives evidence for God and we are starting right now. With the Theist team's opening statement, thanks so much for being with us. Maddox and Taylor, the floor is all yours. Well, thanks so much, James. James, appreciate you setting this up tonight. And tonight we're going to be discussing the topic of is there scientific evidence to support the existence of God? And by that, I mean an agent, the necessity of which is supported by the evidence. We're not here to argue for a specific religion. Obviously, if it is not rational to conclude the former, then by default, the latter is not reasonable on its face. And the entire discussion would be another waste of time. I heard a few moments, my partner is going to be presenting a variety of pieces of evidence. And the fact she's currently working on her PhD and one of my favorite topics, cellular biology is one of the primary reasons I decided to accept this debate. And you know, in our preparation for tonight's discussion, she was rather surprised by some of the things I mentioned, being so often dismissed, rejected or claimed to be false by previous opponents. So as you listen to her arguments and later on the supposed rebuttals potentially from our opponents, remember, these are things she works on and with on a daily basis. But most importantly, if you truly have an open mind, you're not watching solely to hear your side's talking points and not actually engage in rational analysis of them, then consider the following. If in all other known and observed cases, the types of evidence presented, the necessity of a preceding intelligent agent for their existence is the rational, indeed, the logical plausible and probable conclusion, especially when viewed as a conglomerate of evidence, then why would the same not apply in relation to the requirements for our existence? Either we have the intellectual capacity to reach sound conclusions, or we do not. Either we have the ability to determine what is sound or we do not. However, if you want to always cling to the position that there is always some other possible explanation, therefore we can reject the conclusions staring us in the face. Well, you always have the privilege to do so, but it doesn't make you right. And more importantly, it doesn't make your opponents and people who disagree with you wrong. Now I'm going to turn it over to my partner and I hope everyone listening will pay very close attention to what she has to say, the arguments that are put forth and ultimately the rational conclusions that can be derived from them. Taylor, the floor is yours. All right, so I'm going to share my screen. So today we're going to be debating does science give evidence for God? And I'm going to be arguing, yes, it does. So science in general is a pursuit of which and that is supposed to be unbiased and there's supposed to be evidences and mathematic equations supporting whatever your explanation is for certain things in nature. So we have always wondered, where did we come from and how did we get here? And so there's many different areas of areas of science to answer these questions. My specialty is cell biology, but there's also physics, chemistry, theology and philosophy. So interestingly, philosophy and theology are not discounted from being scientific arguments. So the biggest questions have yet to be answered by science. The general public tends to believe that scientists have it all figured out, which is a large misconception. Many of the biggest questions of the universe and how we got here, including how life arose, have yet to be answered. And in many cases, there is not even a working theory. And there are scientific explanations for these things that defy other science, making it non scientific. And the some of these things arising naturally like life or the universe, the chances are just so astronomically low that you can almost discount them as even being a working theory. So for example, as we learn more about science, the questions and the answers are actually becoming harder. So how did we get here? For example, a biogenesis, that was a theory of how life arose. At this point, we thought that cells were just balls of jelly. But now that we know that cells have very complex machinery, the question to how life arose naturally without any divine intervention are becoming harder and harder to answer. And then so the universe, how did it get created? As we learn more about the universe, such as dark matter and dark energy, we learn, we look at the universe and see that it's actually speeding up, suggesting that this dark energy must be present. And that most of our universe actually consists of this dark matter and dark energy that we can't even observe. The mathematics are basically there to fill in the equation. So the more the more that we observe, the further away from the answers that we're getting by only using scientific explanations. So a biogenesis is the theory of how life arose. A biogenesis is basically a theory where the chemical components of life came together to form a living cell. And as I mentioned, this theory was created whenever we thought that cells were very simplistic balls of jelly. But now we know that they have extremely advanced machinery, some of the machinery being more advanced than say rocket ships. And some of the machinery is so effective that us humans are trying to mimic it for our everyday technology. And it's just a better machinery that we can even create using technology. So the general theory of a biogenesis, though, there is not a unified theory, because all of them have significant problems. No matter what theory that I mentioned, whether it be pan, panspermia from another planet or life arising here from chemical components, they all have significant gaps in them. But on the screen right here is how lightening was used to create these basic earth components. And then that basically made some type of primordial soup, which the chemical components came together to form life. So these basic components that we're saying were formed on the early earth, were about, say, five atoms big, maybe an amino acid. But now we know that the cell has billions and billions of atoms working together as machinery, and not just small little four atom complex molecules. So the questions are becoming bigger and bigger as to how these things naturally arose. So to start off with a biogenesis, the materials for life do not naturally form. For example, if we have proteins, that's put together using amino acids. Proteins are also used to make DNA. And so then a chicken and the egg question arises whether proteins came first or DNA, because DNA gives the instruction for proteins and proteins build up DNA, none of which can naturally form because both need enzymes to put them together. So we cannot find the natural building blocks here on earth. And we cannot come up with a theory as to how a cell could have even arisen. The primordial soup would have been toxic. So as you see on the screen, the carbonyl groups would have been destructive to amino acid, NH2s, which are both necessary for life to form. So they would have kind of broken each other up. And then on another note, for the first cell to come about, you would have needed oxygen. Yet if oxygen was present, things would have been oxidized. And you would have needed water. But if water was there, things tend to disperse. So therefore, we cannot come up with even an idea of how life arose here on earth by completely natural means. So because of this, we came up with these different theories, basically pushing back the question, which is I've seen many scientists do, pushing the question back to, oh, well, it must have came from another planet. Well, that doesn't answer the question of how complex cells arose from merely chemicals. Just to give you an idea of how hard a cell is to construct, we can't even construct a cell from the basic components in a lab. So that's different from merely inserting DNA into a living cell. Now, I'm talking about constructing an entire functioning cell from the simple components. We have not been able to do that just to show you how complex it is. And I hear people often say, oh, if you just give it enough time, then the cell will naturally arise. I would say that that theory is equal to saying that if you throw a turkey leg into a pot of water, given enough time, a living turkey is going to come out, and that's giving it the benefit of the doubt. So another thing is that Darwin mentioned about irreducible complexity. Darwin, who created this theory when we thought cells were balls of jelly, said that if we find irreducible complexity in cells, then we will have significant problems with the theory of evolution. I'm not really going to be arguing evolution today, but I am going to be arguing abiogenesis. So we have found irreducible complexity in many instances, meaning that if any of the necessary components needed for something to function are missing, then it won't function properly. And so then with that notion, how did things evolve? If without a certain amount of working components, it didn't function, then why would evolution evolve in that way? Why would that keep evolving to create something that a huge portion in time had no function? So right here is a flagellum tail. Here is sperm. And here is the modem to a flagellum. As you can see, all of the different components, it's very complex, like many biological systems are extremely complex. And whenever they talk about the idea of a protocell, you can't simplify a cell. There's no matter how simple a cell is, there's still going to be a level of complexity that's impossible to achieve naturally. So you don't need to reproduce, have some form of energy production, and that in itself is a huge complex task. So right here is a flagellum tail. And here's all the different components of it. And maybe with a few of these missing, but without the significant portion of these different mechanisms of this sperm tail, then it would not work. The flagellum would not spin. So yeah, that's just an example. And there's many others of irritable complexity, none of which have been seriously debunked such as this one. So then another question is the start of the universe and the Big Bang. We've seen through cosmic background radiation that the universe does have a beginning, but we don't know how this happened. The universe could not have just come from nothing. There must have been some type of either previous universe or energy already present. So that they have been trying to get around this theory because what created the universe? So they're coming up with these radical hypothesis such as a Big Bang loop or a multiverse or a simulation to try to get around this. And there's also big stipulations with the Big Bang such as that matter and antimatter should have theoretically collapsed when they created each other. And we still don't fully understand the model of how the Big Bang happens. So simulation theory, we cannot be in a simulation because you cannot upload consciousness. We fully don't understand consciousness. So that can disprove the simulation theory. And the Big Bang loop, modern science tends to suggest that we are going to experience a big rip and therefore the big crunch will not happen. And current data shows that we're going to experience the big rip. Fine tune of the universe here is the astronomically low chance that alone this universe could have created this low entropy state would have been would have been needed. And so right now, there is a there is not a scientific explanation for everything. There is no working scientific explanation. And since my opponents will argue that God does not exist, I would like a working theory to how we got here. Thank you. Team, we're going to kick it over to our atheist team. Thanks so much for being with us, Amy and Leo. Before we do want to say folks, no matter what walk of life you are from, hope you feel welcome. We're thrilled to have you here, whether you be atheist, theist, Republican Democrat, you name it. We're thrilled to have you here. Modern day debate is a neutral platform, hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And with that, we're going to kick it over to Amy and Leo. Thanks so much. The floor is all yours for your opening. Woo, thank you so very much, James and my interlocutors for joining us for the panel and everyone out there on the interwebs. And my name is Amy Newman. I am a counter apologist, comedian and academic recently having graduated with my Masters of Science in Information Systems. Tonight, I have come to speak with you about does science give evidence for God? No, by science, I mean coming up with a hypothesis, figuring out a way to test said hypothesis, doing so, recording the results and submitting them for peer review. This is how we falsify claims, which is exactly what creationists are unable to do. Yes, creationists, or rather the people pushing God as an explanation for many, if not all, of the scientific principles come from Asiiti. Though God is not an explanation for anything, what they would need to do is explain how God did something and then show us how to duplicate the process. Like I said, a hypothesis becoming a test and a verification of said experiment by the community of their peers. If this isn't something that can be done, then creationists don't use science for God. When we ask them how God made, say DNA or a star or really anything, we get crickets. That's because they don't know how anything happens unless they use naturalistic science. Because when it comes down to how things happen, logistics in the real world, science is how we get things done, how we make airplanes, how we drill for oil, how we make vaccines. But what I expect we'll get is an appeal to how hard it must have been for life to arise. Even though the environment was ripe for it, being in the circumstellar habitable zone where we aren't frozen or on fire, having tons of liquid water in amazing solvent. No, maybe we'll ask how could the universe have existed at all? Or maybe we'll just talk about genetics, about codes, naturally arising ones for the past 4.5 billion years. Or maybe we'll learn where God comes in. This seems to be a sticking point since many creationists don't accept the age of the earth or evolution or much of what the scientific community teaches. So does science give evidence for God? No. But could, if suitable evidence came our way, many scientists, professors, and scholars are theists. It's just they separate religion into one bucket and science into the other. If one wants to mix the former with the latter, they must present their own theory to be peer reviewed. Thank you. Just jump in really quick. Since I gave the other team a little bit of extra time so they could finish their opening, I'll give you guys the same. So you guys have a little bit more than 12 minutes, namely about 14 and a half. So Leo, I'll let you kick it over to you or Amy kick it over to you. And then if you want to come back later, Amy, or if you want to just continue now, you can. Otherwise, Leo, the floor is all yours. Yeah, I don't think I'll take in two minutes. The topic of tonight's debate is does science give evidence for God? So the framework that I'm going to be working from isn't evidence broadly. I would say that in a more broad sense, it is reasonable to say that there is evidence for God. But unfortunately, we're not talking about is there evidence for God. We're talking to science give evidence for God. And so evidence more broadly, I think could just be construed as data points which confer justification or warrant for accepting the truth of some proposition. But in science, I think it's just it's a little bit more specific, whereby it's reproducible data points that are expected given some model. So in science, evidence is going to be with respect to some model or some purported explanation. And the thing is, in science, I should say more in philosophy of science, models or explanations are strong when when you can establish counterfactuals is the technical jargon. I'm going to break that open. So a counterfactual in this sense is really just a way the world could have been possibly. So imagine like a world where the earth is like, you know, 3% larger than it is now. But like literally everything else is the same. That would be a counterfactual example, something that could have been a fact, but is not a fact in the actual world. So explanations, ground counterfactuals, that is to say that that they they work from a perspective of if the world is this way, we should expect to see this. Or if it's this way, we should expect to see this and not this. And so then what we can do is go out and test those models against the world we do see, and figure out how those observations line up with the model that we're purporting as as as an explanation. And like my my friend Amy said, a criteria and a falsification is going to be important here. And that plays into establishing counterfactuals being able to say, this model predicts that we should see this if the world is this way. And then we go and see if the world is that way. This is a big part of what it means to explain something in science, what it means for a model to have explicative power. The thing with theism or God or any supernatural, extra natural or otherwise, non natural explanation that one can posit is that oftentimes they're defined so vaguely that they could be consistent with pretty much any way the world could have been. The world could have been at least in classical theism, God is oftentimes defined as being omnipotent. So quite frankly, the world could be any particular way and God could exist. And what this means is that it's going to be hard to ground or establish counterfactuals when you're talking about something like theism or some other supernatural explanation. You can point to all of the typical things that the apologist point to, life, the big bang, consciousness, all of these things, things that have already been mentioned. But the thing is, those can be consistent with God. Those can be consistent with aliens creating life. There could be like super intelligent aliens that created life on the planet. There could be like hyperdimensional beings that created us as a lower dimensional simulation. There's a variety of things that are logically possible and showing that they're not as going to require presenting a contradiction. And what this means is that none of those facts pick out God specifically as an explanation. So the physical facts of the way our world is under determine God as an explanation. That is to say that the physical facts that we get through the empirical methodologies we use that we call science, they don't pick out God as an explanation over a number of other potential explanations out there. And as a result of this, I don't think that it's accurate to say that specifically science or the methodologies that we use that we call science give evidence for God, not in any sense that they give evidence for a matrix or, you know, some sort of super intelligent hyperdimensional beings or anything else, the plethora of things that other people can posit. And so in a more rigorous sense here, because I think that's what we're talking about when we're speaking about specifically science, science cannot provide evidence for supernatural entities, whether they be gods or something else. And this is actually a point that's often admitted by many theists that science isn't what we use to give evidence for God. You can't use science to show that God exists. So I only mentioned this to point out that this the point that I'm making is not a point that even many theists would disagree with. You don't use science to show that God exists. We don't come to believe in God through specifically science. And I don't think that one could. And I think that a firm answer that I would give to the question post tonight is no, science does not give evidence for God. You got it. We're going to jump into rebuttals and want to remind you folks of a couple of things in particular. Don't forget to hit that share button below as we have a lot of juicy debates coming up that you don't want to miss and that maybe a friend would enjoy. For example, this Saturday, David Wood returns debating Nadir on whether or not science supports the idea that Muhammad was the one true prophet. You don't want to miss that one. So as I said, hit that subscribe button if you haven't, or hey, maybe you're subscribed already. You can share with a friend who might enjoy it as that share button is just down below. We're going to jump into these eight minute rebuttals and then want to remind you folks, as always in the chat, want to encourage you totally cool to disagree, totally cool to share your ideas. But if you seem to be purposely targeting somebody, one of the speakers, you will get the boot because if it looks like you're purposely trying to harass somebody, we're not going to deal with it and we will ban you and we're not going to care about it. So with that, we're going to jump into the rebuttal. Thanks so much, John and Taylor. The floor is all yours. Thanks so much, James. And it's kind of interesting as I was listening to Amy and Leo in their opening statement, they kind of did exactly kind of what I was predicting and what I was addressing in my very short opening statement, which was, you know, you can't just look at this from a singular perspective. When evidence is presented, you must look at it from the conglomerate. If you only look at it from a singular, then it's very easy to dismiss different pieces and say, Hey, this is no evidence in fate for against the position. Now, in relation to the overarching point that was being made of, you know, science can't do X. Well, the science could actually show that something isn't rationally, it's not rationally possible from a purely naturalistic perspective. If you're going to say that science only investigates the natural world, then if the evidence you're seeing indicates the necessity of something that would not be bound by the natural world, then obviously you could use science to gain evidence. And that's kind of the point that's being made. A lot of things that Taylor was talking about is we're starting to discover all these different things that would present it being the rational conclusion that there was something that was preceding and necessary for these different things to come into existence in order for all of the conglomerate that we exist in to come into being. Now, one of the points that Amy made about, Oh, if you don't have a complete theory on the other side, then you can't dismiss or defeat or even open the conversation against another one. Well, I've actually asked that question. So many atheists in my debates have made that point. I actually made it a point of mine to go talk to different PhDs about this exact topic. And they all kind of looked at me, like, what do you mean, somebody says you have to have an entirely complete model on the other side in order to defeat a different one based on evidence. And that is just a fact. Like, there can be all sorts of evidence that says, Hey, this one is not necessarily the, you know, proven beyond, you know, proven position in this model. And hey, just because you disagree with me because you don't have one that completely replaces mine, therefore you can't win. I mean, that's just ridiculous. That's, that's way off there. And like I said, I wouldn't ask multiple PhDs about the exact question. And that was kind of the response that they gave me. Now, in, you know, as we go further into this, kind of, you know, start discussing an open discussion later on about different pieces of the evidence, we either have to operate, as I said, my opening statement from the position that everything can just happen and there's no necessity of intelligent agency being required for anything. And everything is, everything is just possible to happen, you know, through undirected process, or there are certain things that would necessitate a preceding agent. Now, if you want to say, Oh, it's aliens or hyperdimensional beings, that's fine. But that would still, that just kicks the can, as Taylor kind of mentioned this, kind of kicks the can down the road to say, I want to touch that one, because it could be something else. Well, if you're going to go down that rabbit hole, how is it really any different than from the macro view of dismissing our position that there's a God, if you're gonna say, well, you can't prove that with science. Well, right so far, we can't prove additional dimensions, we can't prove hyperdimensional beings, whether they exist or don't exist. So we're both at that point, we'd both be operating from a what is the cumulative case of evidence for against a ultimate mind that created everything, or a blue undirected process, nothing that controls it, and all of these things that, as again, as I mentioned, opening statement, in any other context, we would say, Hmm, well, that would definitely necessitate a creator, and that one would do, and that one would do, and that one would do. Well, let's just say that even though we have to look at all those different things until we talked about this in relation to the intricate machinery and different things that she looked, she looks under microscopes and all the amazing imagery, imaging technology we now have to observe in real time, and either all that stuff is operating and somehow, you know, controls itself and has all the necessary information and functional information that's required for the operations to take place. And either all that stuff, and all this incredible designs and intricate moving parts all just form over under the undirected process over millions of years, or it was created, or the preceding necessary components in order to create additional functional information must come to existence. This is why in the relation, and this is why I always talk about this in relation to the modern era in which we live, the even if we could create an AI which could create an entirely new operating system, or create entirely new systems and programming, even if we created one that could do so, the likelihood that any rational human being would say that somehow that AI and all of the necessary components for it to function could somehow have formed itself, and would not be, even if you never saw it, you never observed the person, you never saw any write the code, none of those things, or if we found the exact same thing on Mars, and we never saw any aliens, we never, anybody created, but we go and Elon Musk's, you know, latest Starlink ship, we head over there and we find our SpaceX and we find some of the stuff sitting on Mars. Nobody would say, oh, well, we never saw somebody create this. So it must have been, you know, just happened. No, we would never make that argument. That would not be rational. And I think that, again, as we get further into the discussion, we dive into more details on the different pieces of evidence, the audience really needs to be thinking about this from the perspective of what is the ultimate conclusion that can be derived? Can we dismiss each individual piece of evidence, or must we look at them as you would in any legal case, from a big picture perspective, and the culmination of all the pieces of evidence in reaching your ultimate conclusion? I yield on my point, Taylor, everything you want to add? Yes. So I heard y'all mention how, you know, God doesn't help us understand life and things like that. But even more so, science doesn't help us understand how life got here, how the universe got here. At least God is an explanation. But as we're learning more and more with science, we realize that science is not giving us the answers to an unimaginable extent. And to say that it's radical to mention God is just absolutely ludicrous. So for example, well, a lot of the major prominent figures in science were theists. And for example, Einstein said, we want to understand how God works. And the person who discovered the background radiation from the Big Bang said that we viewed God. Like, I felt like I was viewing God when I was looking at the background radiation. And this is witnessing something supernatural from whenever the universe was created somehow. The laws of science, such as that things energy cannot be created or destroyed, and that life must come from preexisting life. Those are laws of science that can't just be ignored to fit a certain narrative of atheism. Scientists are not generally atheists because we see God in our everyday work. Some of the miracles that we're viewing, it is evidence for God just looking in nature and some of the amazing how the cell works, for example, on the inside. It's literally a baffling. There's so many intricate machines going on in the cell that us humans can't even replicate them. And so if you want to see evidence for God, just look at the laws of nature and the way that nature behaves. And I heard someone mention that God is not in science at all. There are theologies and sciences about, for example, how to contact ghosts. These are studies. God is mentioned a lot by scientists and to say that he is not as ridiculous. And he is becoming mentioned more because there is just simply no scientific explanation for the biggest questions in life. And contrary to popular belief, we're not getting closer to these answers. We're getting further and further away from them. So we must take the idea that there must have been some type of intervention if there is scientifically no explanation for these occurrences. Thank you. You got it. With that, we're going to kick it over to the rebuttal for Amy and Leo. Same amount of time, eight minutes. And as mentioned, folks, if it's your first time here at modern day debate, welcome. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you were from as we're a neutral platform, hosting debates on science, religion and politics. With that, Amy and Leo, thanks so much. The floor is all yours. All right. I just wanted to say, even though I came off spicy, I really do love all my fierce brothers and sisters just putting that out there. So just some points, even just from the last rebuttal, and then maybe I'll go to the intros. I would say conglomerate, it is generally not only are they anecdotes, I would say many of them are bad anecdotes. Just to share a point, most of the scientific community doesn't view fine-tuning as very important because you'd have to put a value on that life. So the fact that the universe could be different and there could not be us doesn't seem that actually important. But a whole bunch of these arguments, I would still say it's not an emergent property in that most of these aren't accepted by the scientific community. Maybe if it was a, because a theory is a framework of facts, maybe if they were facts, one model defeat, you're right, it's not creationism versus evolution because evolution is a fact. Evolution is a force of nature. It will happen for as long as life exists. So it's grinding down on large populations, genes are randomly mutating and the environment is naturally selecting them. That will continue to happen for as long as life exists. If you wanted to prove any of that came from a creationist viewpoint, you would have to make your own model. I'm not saying make a model defeat evolution. I'm saying please make a creationist model because one doesn't exist. Let's see science. I mean, I will reiterate, I just want to put out there as mean as I am sounding right now. I do think that there are many smart theists including on this panel in the scientific community. It's not that I, you know, the head of the human genome project was a Bible-believing Christian and yet when he went into the lab, he put that coat away and he put on a lab coat. So let's see, God is just kicking the count. Oh, another good one. God is just kicking because you guys are the universe or where it came from. If we even say a multiverse, you would just say that's kicking it down. But for whatever reason, God gets to be eternal. Whenever we're like the universe is eternal, the multiverse is eternal. Guys are like, that's cheating. You can't say that. And then we're like, all right, where did God come from? How did he get here? What happened? And you're like, that's cheating. God was eternal. You can't ask that question. That makes no sense. Yes, that's the point. God's not an answer. In fact, if you just ask that for anything, like, how did the universe make genetics? You would have to figure that out just like, how did God make genetics? How did God make a star? How did God blah, blah, but in certain, certain, certain unless it's just the naturalistic model in which case, yeah, formed itself. No one, there's a bunch. I normally put these in my intros, but there's a bunch of buzzwords like nothing and chance. I'm trying to remember a few more. Your grandpa came from rocks and all these that get aligned, but atheists don't normally talk about these. It's generally creationist talking points. God is not, and I only have a few more seconds. I'm going to hand it back over to Leo, but energy cannot be created or destroyed. That's actually a point I normally bring up to precepts because I'm like, nope, it was always here. I mean, I agree with that. I just don't think to repeat it. I don't think that God created energy because energy cannot be created or destroyed. And I guess I'll go, I'll hand it back over to Leo and we'll continue talking. Thank you, Matt, Jamie. Yeah, I was listening too intently to our interlocutors' introductions and I forgot to take notes, but there were a few things that I remembered that I wanted to mention. With respect to a biogenesis and models of the origins of life, this is an area that I would say is probably analogous to the problem of quantum gravity and physics, where obviously there's an explanation for why life exists in the natural world and obviously science is going to pursue natural mechanisms, whether or not that's what did it, science is going to be pursuing that as an explanation, just like we do for quantum gravity or trying to figure out how to get superconductivity to work at room temperature or any of the other problems where science doesn't really have a single clue about how to do that. But with respect to origins of life, I don't think I would say it's accurate that scientists don't know anything. I don't think we really have a set answer, but as I understand it, there are numerous viable mechanisms. One of the ones that me and several friends of mine, colleagues on YouTube, in fact, have been looking into is one called the Hot Springs Hypothesis by Diemer and Damer. And that one looks pretty interesting, but there's numerous viable mechanisms out there. Is any of them perfect? Absolutely not. I mean, there's numerous viable mechanisms for a lot of things in the natural world, and we don't really know which ones might be correct or which ones might not be correct. I mean, we still don't fully understand how galaxies form. We still don't fully understand how supermassive black holes form. There's a lot of things that humans don't understand. We've only been around in our current form at least for about 200, 250,000 years. We shouldn't be expected to have all the answers to everything everywhere all at once. I just think that's a little bit unreasonable. With respect to fine tuning, because this is a term that's thrown out a lot, in physics, fine tuning has a particular meaning. And all it means is that in order for certain models to accord with the observations that we have, certain free parameters inside of them have to be very finely tuned. That is, they have to be adjusted into an extraordinarily narrow range in order for the model to work. And we don't know why those free parameters have such a narrow range. There have been numerous parameters in physics that have been like that, and then we found out why they have such a narrow range. And it has to do with interactions or relations that they stand in with other physical things. But fine tuning in physics doesn't mean anything close to what most apologists mean. Apologists generally are sort of insinuating some sort of intention in that term. When they use the term fine tuning, they mean it more in sort of an intentional adjustment of something such that it brings about a desired outcome. But that is not at all what physicists mean when they use the term fine tuning. And with respect to consciousness, I heard that we don't understand at all consciousness. That's just straightforwardly false. We understand almost every aspect of consciousness, though we're not necessarily certain how each of these parts goes together to really give rise to the whole picture. We've been capable of taking the things that people are thinking and mapping them on computers. I mean, we have anesthesia. We can literally put somebody in a state of non-consciousness. So it's something that is understood by humans, to the point that we can turn it on and turn it off. It is something that we continue to study. There certainly are aspects about consciousness we don't fully understand, like there is pretty much anything in reality. But to say that we have absolutely no understanding of what it is, I don't think you'd find a respectable neuroscientist that would agree with that. And I think that's all I have to say for now. You got it. We're going to jump into this six minute rebuttals. And folks, if you happen to have a question, you can submit it in the live chat. If you tag us with at modern day debate, that's one way to do it. And if you send in a super chat, we put those at the top of the list, and then we start reading through them in the Q&A at the end. So with that, we're going to jump into Maddox and Taylor's rebuttal, second rebuttal. This is six minutes. So we're going to have one last six minute rebuttal from each team before we go into open dialogue. Thanks so much. The floor is all yours. I'm going to yield this one over to Taylor, because some of these things are definitely in her area of expertise. Okay. So starting with Amy, I heard you mentioned that fine tuning is not that important. I was reading a bunch of papers yesterday about the creation of the universe, and it is so important that we're actually creating these crazy models of how the universe might have got here because of the fine tuning problem. Just about every paper I read on the start of the universe, the Big Bang, different models of the universe mentioned the problem of fine tuning. And that's why we have come up with these crazy theories like this multi-dimensional theory. And these theories came from the problems of fine tuning. The fine tuning problem is a huge problem in the physics community, such as not right. And I'm not saying to reconsider evolution as a whole, but I'm just saying based on Darwin, he mentioned if we find irreducible complexity that we should reconsider, and we have found irreducible complexity, and we have not reconsidered all of the aspects of evolution, especially the theory of aviogenesis, which needs serious reconsideration because of the fact that there is not a working theory. And if somebody said there is a working theory, the primordial soup, that's not even close to a working theory. That doesn't explain anything. I mentioned in my opening, I don't think that my screen was sharing, but in the primordial soup, there is multiple problems, such as the necessary components that would have needed to be in there for life would actually interact with each other and make them non-compatible for life. And in some instances, you would need water. In some instances, you would not need water. So if it's in the soup, things would tend to disperse, and there would be serious problems with forming in the pond. And so that's why they have other theories of coming from another planet. It started in the atmosphere, then it got struck by lightning. So no, there's not even one model on where it came from, but there's also not a model on how it came. So what came first? DNA? Okay, we needed proteins to put together the DNA, but DNA gives the instruction for proteins. So which one came first? Proteins are DNA, neither of which form in nature. They both need these times, etc. I mean, there's just infinite problems with abogenesis, and no, there's not a working theory. So in terms of creation, you say scientists don't mention this. I highly disagree that scientists don't mention the serious, the problems with creation, and that's why we're still putting millions of dollars into research today to try to figure these things out. There are serious problems in our scientific models, which I've asked y'all to give some explanations for, maybe how y'all feel the universe came about, or if there's any working scientific explanation of how we got here, I would love to hear about them. So quantum gravity, I read about that, but that's not necessarily a full explanation for the start of the universe. Quantum gravity still hasn't been completely worked out, and in terms of quantum tunneling starting the big bang, you would have still needed energy present, and in terms of the quantum tunneling starting the universe, there would have, it wouldn't have started from per se nothing. There would have had to be something there, even if that means space-time. And then whenever the quantum tunneling happened, it had to come from another universe, which is the latest theory. So that also pushes back the problems of where the universe originally came from. The viable mechanism for a biogenesis, I talked about that, there's just not one, there's not a viable mechanism right now, and it seems like the question is getting harder and harder to answer as we learn more about how the cell works. So yeah, that's the main problem, just how the answers are getting harder to achieve the more we learn rather than vice versa. Why do we have fine tuning? I heard somebody mention that scientists don't mention this. Fine tuning is heavily mentioned in the creation of universe science and in physics, and in a huge paper written yesterday about 30 pages on the Big Bang, they mentioned it is extraordinary to think that these things happen naturally. They mentioned that in that scientific paper that it is extraordinary that these things happen naturally. Scientists mention this. So it's not just creationists or theists that are mentioning these problems. And though we can see brain scans in response to consciousness thing, though we can see brain scans and we can see and observe different things, that don't mean that we necessarily understand how they are working. And you mentioned anesthesia as well. And we don't understand how anesthesia works. There is some theories about how anesthesia is very interesting because this leads into a theory of how consciousness actually works, which is from microtubules and quantum physics, which I'm also very interested in that theory. But yeah, that's about it. Thank you. You got it. Thank you very much. And we're going to kick it over to for the last rebuttal. Amy and Leo, six minutes. The floor is all yours. Thank you so very much for that, Taylor. And everything you guys have been presenting. I want to just point out what I was talking about fine tuning. It's not that the parameters don't exist and that physicists use them. It's that if they were to be changed just a little and it would wipe life out, that doesn't seem to because the point is, is that if you change it a little here, you change it a little there, then life as we know it would be completely wiped out. But it may have been if you change the parameter a little bit, you get a different universe. Maybe there's different types of life. That's all I would say that. I would highly push back on irreducible complexity. I think that irreducible complexity is maybe the hypothesis that they have been trying to put for sale. This notion that it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to something I as Maddox has heard me say before, complexity is not the hallmark of design. All you need to ask yourself is which browser search engine would you rather use Yahoo or Google? Why did the Apple phone become so successful for its simplicity? A lot of great design comes from taking complexity and actually re-casing it so that can be simple again. And this notion that anything could have been too ear-deer should be complex to silly just because all you need is just a little of something, a mutation, just a little bit of an eye flap to just even get a little light. And then you can start to develop black and white, then you can get all the way to colors and 3D. The funny thing about abiogenesis, the reason that I think they talk about so much abiogenesis is because it is where science is learning right now. I feel like a lot of times they want to attack evolution, but it sounds like Taylor actually may accept evolution, so I don't want to actually go on that. Oh, she does it. Okay. Well, I think they attack abiogenesis because they can't attack evolution. And so evolution is going to continue to be taught in schools. And so you got to talk about something. You got to go to the frontier and Leo nor myself are going to explain where the universe came tonight because that might not even be a probable question if the universe is eternal. And so we have to and I just if I could make a final point on God, you can use this as a fill in the blank, just like you can use the universe. You could say, how did this come about? And you could say the universe made it and you'd say, okay, but that doesn't really explain it. You could say, well, how did this came about? God made it. Okay, but that really doesn't explain what you now need to do is how did he do it? How were she or that? Well, I want to know how the actual mechanism that God is doing. So my exact question would be the opposite to you. How did God make life? And is there a scientific way that we can find out and now turn it over back to Leo. Sorry about that. I was making one final note there. So in the rebuttal, John said something about a singular perspective versus a conglomerate perspective. I'm not sure I understand what that means. I don't know how that bears on the point. Look only looking at one piece of evidence versus all of them together. Oh, okay. Yeah, I didn't I didn't mention anything about anyway. And he said that science can show that some things are unnatural. I would be curious what the methods that are used to do that are how that's done and whether or not that's been done in the past, because I don't think that anything unnatural has been shown to exist at least through scientific methodologies. But he is correct when he says that you don't have to have a model to falsify another model, that is correct. But having a model does not necessarily falsify any other potential models. So that's also something that we need to be considered there as well. He also mentioned necessity of intelligent agency. I'm a little hung up on the word necessity there. I would just need I would just need to break that open and figure out the connotations there. And he says that we don't have any evidence for any hyper dimensional beings or any of the other things that I posited, which was kind of the point we don't have any evidence for God, either all of them are equally under determined by the data that we have, the data doesn't pick out any one of those explanations over any of the others. Taylor said that you God does that we were saying that God doesn't help us understand life. I don't really think I at least I can speak for myself. I didn't say that. But then she says way to be a bit neither to science. That's just a what about ism that doesn't I mean, oh, I could grant that science doesn't explain it that doesn't automatically mean God does read what I said earlier about having a model doesn't mean that some other model is intrinsically false. Also, she gave some quotes from scientists like Einstein and stuff where they mentioned God. I to me, these are just quote lines. I just don't see how these counter any of the points that myself for me have been providing. I don't really care what Einstein believed. I don't think it's relevant. Also, there was a lot of well, this stuff is really cool and complex. And I don't understand this. And it's really it's just so awesome. This is just an appeal to all it. It doesn't mean that anything was designed. What's the inference that's being made something's complex. Therefore, it's designed. I don't understand the inference that that's being made there. I would need to be walked through that. As it relates to the models of the origin of the universe, they're not postulated as solutions to fine tuning problems. They're postulated oftentimes as solutions to either quantum gravity or as a result of some other models like strength theory, for instance, wasn't even originally postulated as a model for the origin of the universe, even though it says something about it. And quantum gravity not being worked out was the point of me bringing it up. A biogenesis hasn't been worked out either. But I don't think either of our opponents would argue that because quantum gravity hasn't been worked out that it's that it's somehow not natural. And just if I made the final point that I wanted to make quickly was Amy brings up a good question. How we're always asked how did nature do this? How did the natural world do this? But then God doesn't have to meet the same standard. We're going to jump into open discussion. So with that want to remind you folks as always want to encourage you attack the arguments as always instead of the person. And we're going to jump into open conversation. The floor is all yours everybody. Leo, I think the to your point about the how this also correlates with the necessary. So in that context, I just mean the general definition not to go down the philosophy perspective. But yes, it will be required based on previous knowledge, right? So we know that XYZ is necessary for this to occur based on a general understanding of similar actions, right? Like this is a pretty well that concept is pretty well established right in science, right? We know that, hey, based on these things in conjunction with XYZ, that this would be the rational conclusion and hypothesis are formed on these and ultimately experiments are done and theories are ultimately devised from following that same train of thought. So the part of the reason earlier that I made the point about finding, you know, some high level technology on Mars and we didn't, it was kind of anticipation of this point, right? So we find something on Mars that was not put there by us. And the based on investigation, reverse engineering, etc, etc, which is exactly what Taylor does in her research, she's reverse engineering, how microtubules work in relation to consciousness or the how the brain works or anything else. We're doing reverse engineering. And if we come to the conclusion that there's digital information, there's all these engineering principles, so on and so forth in this robot that we find on Mars, even though we don't know how they built it or what equipment they used to make it or so on and so forth, it doesn't mean you can't very rationally view it as evidence that there must have been a free city intelligent agent that was necessary for it. So the point in relation to extrapolate this out to evidence for God, if we're seeing the exact same type of concepts necessary for life to exist, then and per everybody's position, right, the before life came to be on earth, this would be what these are things that have to be accounted for, then why can you not, you don't have to say this is the only explanation, you can come up with a different hypothesis if you want to, but you can't in my opinion, you can't just exclude the point that we're making, which would be that there must be a creator that was not bound by the same limitations that are forms of life are that would be required for us to exist. Does that make sense? Yeah. So with respect to what you said there at the beginning, when you said like sort of this if X, Y and Z, then I like say P or something. Did you mean that in like a causal sense, like that this just like mechanistically occurs or did you mean in like some inferential sense that like we deduce P from X, Y and Z? Okay. That's why I said I was in the general sense of basic human interactions, right? So like if you see a, I mean, come on, Leo, let's really not play this minutiae game and you know, I've had this conversation over and over again, but if you find a intricate painting on a wall, you're never going to argue, even if you want to ultimately come to conclusion it was painted by a freaking robot of an AI system that's we're trying to create right now to create art, right? Or create images digitally. The nobody's going to be like, oh, well, I don't think like, was that created by something or just like pop into like create itself? Like nobody goes down that rabbit hole was the whole point that I'm making, right? Again, as I said, we're not going on like the philosophical. I just wanted to say quickly, but I would infer that a painting if I saw it was painted, not because of any physical facts about the painting, but because of my background knowledge, right? So the praise on I made the point of based on previous knowledge. Yeah, but if it's based on background knowledge, and that wouldn't be scientific that would that would be that would be inferential that would be based on your background knowledge, not an impure not on the physics. So are you are you suggesting that the baseline knowledge that a scientist has learned from a variety of things is not being used to infer potential explanations for something that are coming across they have not yet been fully explained? I'm sorry, what was that? Are you asking if scientists have user background knowledge when they when they use a scientific methodology for inference, right? Well, yeah, I mean, in some sense, but not in the sense, but not in an explicative sense. Right, right. That's my point. They haven't yet like proven beyond all doubt how this is, but they were able to infer based on preceding knowledge, what is the likely explanation, correct? Yeah, but that inference is made based off of the physical facts. Okay, so conceptual facts, it's based on information that they have already about the necessities for whatever it is, right? Yeah, the physical facts. Right, right. So the whole way the world is, those are the physical facts. But when I infer that a painting is designed, it's not because of any physical fact about the painting. It's because I know that humans specifically, which are intelligent agents, paint things. So if I saw a painting, I'm not just going to assume that it's intelligently, because I'm going to know a human did that. Right. So I don't have a knowledge of any other type of intelligence doing that. Go back to the point that I started this whole thing off to circumvent the point you're making right now, which is no human that we currently know of has ever physically been to Mars, correct? Correct. Okay, cool. So now we probably have, I'm going to assume that NASA has a list of all of the rovers and such that have landed on Mars. Is that a fair assumption? I would bet they do, yeah. Okay, cool. So let's say in the near future, Elon Musk pulls off creating the Starship that can, SpaceX that can go to Mars, we go there, we discover something that is not on any of the lists. Okay, it is not designed like our engineering is, right, or our robots and stuff. But we dive into it and we discover that there's digital information, there's coded information, there's schematics for 3D printing, and that's, and we have this functional working component here, right? We know that we didn't create it like a robot, essentially. Right, but it's not like ours. It's some other kind of technological mechanism, right? We have now established this and it's not ours. Okay, so your whole point of, I know that humans paint paintings therefore does not apply because we've already established there are no humans that have been there on Mars per your own acquiescence. And we're now finding something that we know beyond all doubt is not something that we created. However, it has the principles that we know from our inventions are required for intelligence is necessary for these things to exist. It's just like with SETI, right? SETI is one of the things we're looking for is different patterns based on like prime numbers and all that kind of stuff because they recognize that, hey, this very simplistic information would necessitate a intelligence. That's how we're looking for extraterrestrial intelligence is based on that. So my point is if we find high level like nanomachines on Mars, nobody's going to say, oh, well, we don't, well, we haven't seen a human create this one. Therefore, we can eliminate this being evidence in favor of intelligence at some point being on Mars. So all the point I'm making is you can extrapolate this logic out. And if per the position of, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, but you guys are, it's your position that life came to be on earth with no preceding intelligent agency being necessary, correct? Yeah. Okay. So the point is you can apply these on both stages to be like, oh, well, because I know humans create X in this context, it doesn't apply it on, it applies in terms of eliminating. And on the other side, you can do the opposite. That doesn't make any sense. Anyway, I've been rambling for a while. I just, I want to respond and then I want to let Amy go because she's been trying to get in, but I do want to respond to that. Yeah. If we were looking for something and we found it, I would think that we would only infer that it was made by some sort of non-human intelligence given that it resembled our technology. If it was something that was so far beyond us that we couldn't, it couldn't resemble our technology, then I don't think that we would be capable of inferring that it was intelligently designed. But that just leads into the broader point that I'm making that, yeah, we can infer that some things are intelligently designed even by non-humans, but it's never going to get you to specifically a God. And I would argue that even, that there's going to be explanations that are going to be more simplistic and more parsimonious than a God, like some hyper-intelligent extraterrestrial species or something like that. So, I mean, I understand completely what you're saying and I'm with you. I mean, I think we can infer that non-human intelligence is designed thing, but I also think that that place at the point that any particular, what the intelligence is, is going to be under-determined by the physical facts alone. And so when I mentioned that we're referring to our background knowledge with reference to what kind of intelligence designed something, that was kind of the point is that we're not looking at the physical facts. We're no longer looking at the science, then we would be looking based on our background knowledge in order to infer what kind of designer it is. And then you're just, sure, maybe we can do that, but then we're just no longer talking about science. And I'll yield to Amy and Taylor. I just want to talk about this kind of, I would say, which is a watchmaker analogy because if you go towards a dam, you need to investigate whether, or I guess I already gave the punch line, if you go towards something clogging a river, you need to investigate whether intelligence has clogged it or whether it was naturally occurring. And when it comes to what I believe most creationists call codes, they've been naturally occurring for 4.5 billion years. And it's just recently that there have been artificial codes. And so I would need a reason for why we would think humans or any life is not naturally occurring, but actually designed. Well, I would say because the reason that we are in all is because chemicals don't naturally behave this way. So we look at chemistry outside of a cell and it has no, it has no goals. But inside of a cell, we're seeing atoms and chemistry behave as if they're almost alive. And it's really amazing. So yeah, we also can't see, huh? Yeah, yeah. So right, it's just that we don't normally see chemistry behaving this way. And on primordial earth, it's amazing to see that it would behave this way to create some sort of chemical bonds that don't naturally occur in nature. But if we were seeing the chemical reactions the way that we do, and we're seeing that in the natural world and all the chemicals that are made of are like just elementary particles and all natural stuff, wouldn't that mean that it happens naturally? Not without an enzyme, not without, Yeah, but enzymes are natural, aren't they? Aren't they just molecules? They can't naturally form. How do we know that? Like what criteria would we use for determining whether something happens naturally versus not naturally? Well, because enzymes are proteins and proteins are made up of amino acids and you need an enzyme together, those amino acids to create a protein. So you're saying that it's, oh, what's the, a feedback loop and that, how does a feedback loop create itself? Something kind of like that? Yeah. And I think that's a fair point because your feedback loop isn't typically something you would imagine creating yourself. I guess that the way I would respond is just for my knowledge, because I mean, biology isn't normally what I talk about and everything, but is that you can get feedback loops started from something that might not have been a feedback loop or chemical reactions happen that start to feed into each other and create a feedback loop and then that being a more stable reaction begins to dominate in the environment and thereby is sustained through time. I mean, there's, there's like multiple machines going into this process that we're talking like it's so simple. It's actually very complex. And in terms of these things creating themselves, you know, if we ever saw a robot, would we assume or ever think that a tornado went through a junkyard and created a functional robot? Can I respond to that? It's like to say that the natural, that a cell came out just from basic chemical components. So a robot actually arises from us creating it, but you could say like, if we just leave a bunch of living organisms, can we imagine them to multiply? Yes, we can. They naturally arise. Plants and animals both have sexes. They both just, but not without life already there. Well, and that's actually my, so you guys both question a natural origin by which, but I want to stress again, just saying God did it, which I'm not saying you are, you may have more complex, but I would like to then ask, how did God start life? Okay. So even if, even if you want to continue to go down this rabbit hole, the, whether or not God, the God concept has to, does something from a physical sequence of events to do something? No, no. I'm talking about a sequence of this being done by that agent. Doesn't mean that you're eliminating the, whether, if I come up with the, well, I think he put these molecules in this order, this exact order for the first form of life to come into being, this was the entire genome. And here is the necessity amount of information that will be required. So in line with that, by the way, the current standard of the required information for the minimal form of life is almost 500,000 base pairs and I think 473 genes. The, it is, it's a huge necessity of information is required for the most simple, the recognized simplistic form of life to, to exist. So you can't circumvent that. So whether or not you want me to sit here and come up with a, well, here's how the order we think that it was done in, that doesn't remove the requirement for a intelligent agent being necessary. They would be like saying Craig Venter, who like the, all the news said, oh, creates a artificial cell in the lab. What he really did was he hijacked genes from organism A, insert them in organism B, and inserted some artificially created DNA, which had like watermarks and their names encoded into it and different stuff. And they put like a picture of some horses, by the way, digital information they stored pictures of horses and like some music and stuff in the DNA sequence. And, but the VAT like 99.8% of it was preexisting. And then we say, oh, that is a synthetic form of life, right? Was anybody going to come across and say, hmm, unless you can show me exactly how the rest of it came into be, that what we were able to derive was done by Venter and his team didn't actually happen. And that must be 100% naturally occurring. If we can determine that, then you can't just eliminate conclusions based on things that are way, way more intricate and detailed than the little minuscule modifications that we've done that get a massive amount of accolades for the supposed scientific discoveries while we're ignoring the significance of everything else. Go ahead. Can I just, I want to interrupt and why I want to say or, or let you finish, I'm so sorry. But why that is more a political answer than it is a scientific answer? Because the question was, how does God make life? And so I will turn the chair back over to Matta. Can I ask a quick question? Or I just want to know from, from John and Taylor really quickly, do you think it's possible for God to have created life without using any of the things that we see in life today? Is that possible? I think Taylor froze. Read the question, Leo. Is it possible for God to have created life without using any of the structures that we observe in life today without DNA, without proteins, without even cells? Is it possible that God could have done that? Right. Yeah. So there's some things that would be simultaneously created in the creation of the cell in which, yes, he could have done that. So, so he could have created life without even using cells. Well, cell is the first form in a simple form of a life. Yeah. But could God have created life without using cells? Is that a thing that God could have done? God created a cell. I know that so yeah, God did create a cell, but could God have created life without cells? Leo, what does that have to do with it? No, it's just a question. I would like to know from you guys whether, I mean, it does lead to something that relates to the discussion. Leo, let's think about this. That would be like saying, could Amy write a program in Java or basic or C sharp? Except that's not relevant to the discussion. The question I'm asking is, well, that you could create life. Well, maybe missing my point. You could write a life form, i.e. a program in a using a different language, right, in order to create it. So God had to use some sort of language to create life? Well, I mean, it seems to me that everything is ultimately in the states on information of some kind, ultimately, but so God had to use information to create life. We haven't established that there's a God yet. Now we're trying to understand. But isn't the topic of the debate the science give evidence for God? Right, right. We're talking about what we observe, not hypotheticals, man. We're talking about the world. This is a dot. Hypothetical is just a question. Let's not talk about what we actually see. Sorry. Sorry. The hypothetical is just a question. I'm actually here, you guys. Go ahead. We'll give you maybe a minute or two, Leo, and then we'll come back. So the hypothetical, I'm just asking a question about whether it's possible. So I'll just make the point of asking the question because it seems they don't want to just give a direct answer as to whether God could or could not create life utilizing something that is completely unrecognizable from what we see. I don't know why. So the point of me asking that question is because if it is the case that God could create life utilizing different mechanisms, then they're going to need to provide an explanation for why particularly the mechanisms we see are the ones that we used. And I don't think they're going to be able to do that because that would require appealing to things that aren't relevant to science. That would require appeals to our background knowledge about God's intentions if we can even know what God's intentions are, such that we would know what it is that he would or wouldn't want to do to be capable of knowing what ways he would or would not have wanted to create life. So if they're going to say that God can create life using different methods, then why is it that he used specifically what we see? And if it's the case that God couldn't have created life a different way, maybe this isn't relevant to our interlocutors. I'm not going to suppose what kind of theists they are in the debate. But if they would posit that their particular God is omnipotent, if he were to be restricted in specifically what he could or could not do with respect to creating life, then that's just to give up his omnipotence. I mean, I just see this as a very weak argument. Well, it was more a question, but what specifically about is it that you're objecting to? I just don't see it relevant to the question at hand if science is God. Well, but that's the topic of the debate, isn't it? Can I ask you a question, Taylor? What would it take for you to be convinced that there wasn't good scientific evidence for God? Science can explain how the universe got created and how life got created and the biggest questions that are only becoming harder and harder to answer if they had a working model or a working theory. I'll accept that answer, but I just want to add on an addendum, which was if we could then prove a multiverse, which I think would be something like that, don't you think that that, to use an expression we've been using, it's just kicking a can, though? Or would that answer it? If we can prove a multiverse, will that be a satisfactory answer? The vast majority of the theorems I've seen and concepts on this all look at there being a ultimate beginning, even if there is a multiverse. Now, there's some that say otherwise, but the vast majority and the point being that even if we are a universe that's a subset, if the likelihood is that that one ultimately had a beginning as well, and there's actually a greater amount of things that have to be accounted for in a multiverse, an individual one, then you're actually just giving more credence to the point that's being made. Now, in relation to something about the point you were making earlier about like, oh, naturally occurring codes and such, would you agree or disagree that the codes that humans are creating now follow the exact same principles as the ones that govern the genetic code and biological codes? I would say they are often similar, but it's often the, not only the cart before the horse, but I think what many creationists don't finish the conclusion is that when you're talking about reading and writing, it is all, it's the DNA that's doing it, but I feel like creationists would like to say that it is a supernatural. There is actually a right or before, because didn't something have to start the DNA? Because right now, that's not what I asked. That's not what I asked. I said similar. Yes. I was addensing, but similar. I believe it is similar. Okay. Well, okay. So proceeding. Okay. So are the principles of information and communication theory, are they the exact same ones that are applied to code theory in genetics, or just kind of sort of similar? And just to now we'll just not say the exact same principles. But because I've heard you talk about how it has similar syntax and things like that, nonetheless, there is major differences in that we edit and create the code, we manipulate it. And that is not what's happening. A conscious agent is not doing it on the molecular level. And so I think creationists, they say, look, this had to have been made by an intelligence because this is sharing the same thing of a code. But for 4.5 billion years, before any conscious agent, the DNA has been doing its shtick. And so it still brings me back to my original. I want to know if God is the creator of DNA, then I want to know how it came about. Okay. So again, so multiple levels, you like have dodged the point that was being made in relation to your, how did God do it? That is that is irrelevant to whether or not you can infer that an intelligent agent was necessary. And the whole point I was asking, we can par that. We don't even have to agree with that point yet. I was quite sorry. I'm responding to Amy while you were gone. She's been talking. The point that I am making is that if it's exact same principles, which by the way, if you want to deny this, as I've done many times, we can pull out the papers where they talk about this and how it's exact same principles. Anyway, the point is from a, what is the rational extrapolation is unless you're going to argue, Amy, that there is consciousness that is expressing the code that is stored on your computer and is making the transmission of the information, of everything that's happening for all the programs that are not me talking right now. Everything else is operating the operating system. Everything else, unless you're going to say that your computer is conscious, then you enter in expressing the information, then your whole point about information being expressed in biological systems is completely irrelevant. Like this is just because we're not observing the conscious agent doing the encoding has zero relevance to whether or not it is encoded information that must be accounted for. Just like if we go find, this whole goes back to my earlier point about, hang on, last point, we go on, if we go, let's slightly change the thought experiment on Mars. We go to Mars in a tube, we find, actually it can't be a tube, let's just say we're sitting there, somehow it survived. A biogenesis, it can survive for long periods of time, so let's just say it's happened. There's a strand of DNA and we are able to do the exact same process we have done here on Earth and we extrapolate out of it, we crack the code, we extrapolate all the information and we find the syntax, semantics, pragmatics and all of the encoded information necessary to 3D print a freaking nano machine. Are we going to say the same principles of communication theory, everything else that applies? Don't apply in terms of the necessity required for it to exist on Mars versus Earth? Are you going to make that argument? Can I part of the article quickly? Because if we don't need- If we don't need- How does the same logic not apply? Well, I want to, because I feel like you also did- Well, I feel like you didn't answer my question either, which was how can we- It seems that DNA is naturally arising. I want to know how we can figure out that not only that it was from an intelligent creator. Amy, is DNA self-replicating? But hold on, there's a greater point that's being missed here. If we don't need to understand particularly how God did it to be able to infer that God did it, then I can say the same. I don't need to understand exactly how it occurred naturally to be able to infer that. And not only that, but I would argue that I can more parsimoniously infer that it's natural than you can that it's intelligent or at least a supernatural intelligent. I mean, if you want to posit a natural intelligence, I'm sure that's all right. Because the only explanations we have, at least with respect to particularly science, which is the focus of our debate here tonight, there aren't any non-natural explanations. There isn't a single one anywhere in science for anything. So it seems that if we're talking about scientific evidence, that the most reasonable inference to make is that whilst we don't understand not just abiogenesis and a variety of other things, we can infer that the most likely explanation is that they're natural because that's the only established precedent that we have. Well, I would go as far to say that there are impossibilities in abiogenesis. Like what? Like there needed to be oxygen, but if oxygen was there, it would have oxidized DNA. These two components necessary for life could not have been in the same soup. It would have turned to a organic compounds that are not fruitful. Things arise naturally, these polymers, without needing an enzyme, which is another problem, a chicken and egg problem. There are multiple just impossibilities based on everything we know about biology in this theory. So I don't know what problem oxygen would have posed because the origins of life DNA was not only that, but DNA wasn't positive to be the first molecule RNA was. But the word that I'm getting hung up on is impossibility because that's a really, I take the word impossibility quite seriously. I don't know if you mean like logically impossible. It's oxygen. You're saying what? I take the term impossibility very seriously as well. So when you say impossible, do you mean logically impossible? No, I mean like you're saying our theory, but we know that RNA neither polymerizes nor can survive at all just in the open environment. It is very... What do you mean by open environment? RNA is extremely unstable. We have to keep it in negative 80 degrees to keep it in the RNA form because it is so unstable. How come it doesn't have to be in that temperature in our body? Everything is perfectly suited for life. You don't think it would have been on the early earth? I mean, if it wasn't, why would life... Taylor, Taylor respond to Leo's point in from a scientific perspective. Okay. So he just asked why is RNA able to survive in a not negative 80 degrees? How was able to survive at room temperature? Please tell him all the difference, not all of them because there's too many to count. But the reason why these things are the stability is able to be maintained. What else is required in order for that to happen? In the cell, things are just very perfect. The system, it'll separate things and keeping them together and keeping them from destabilized. In the cell, it's an extraordinary... Even fully understand how the cell works. RNA and the cell, they're together for a variety of biological reasons. But outside of the cell, it is very hard to keep an RNA molecule without it degrading. They've done it, so I don't see why it would be that hard. Leo, using enzymes and a variety of other components to protect it, right? So the point that Taylor's making, and the whole reason I bring this up, is the fact like the average, the normal shelf life RNA is about 30 minutes. And so if you don't have all of these other components that are necessary... I'm failing to see how this means God exists in created life. So it has a shelf life of 30 minutes. That's not inconsistent with a naturalist perspective. It would not be... From a bio-dense perspective, it's something that definitely has to be accounted for. Well, sure, it has to be accounted for, but that doesn't mean God exists. Right, but from a simultaneous perspective. So this goes back to the... Yes, you don't think that... I don't know what you mean. Why do you think... Oh, dude, at some point, why do you think they're all trying to come up with ways for lipid bilayers and all these other things to happen? Because they're trying to explain something. Right, they're trying to come up with an explanation for somehow how you can even have the individual parts. But the whole point that Taylor was making in relation to the water paradox and the UV paradox and all these different things that get in the way from a bio-dense perspective is you need to have these components existing simultaneously. Even if you want to go simpler form, you have to have them all existing at the same time in the same geographic space. On the molecular level... On the molecular level... No, no, just to have... No, I'm talking about the supposed proto explanations that nobody actually knows what proto cells are. They don't exist. The proto membrane, proto this, proto that. We don't actually see it. We don't know what they are. They're all hypotheticals. But even those still have to be in existence in the same place at the same time. But you can't get around this. Sure, but not only does it mean to gather on this. So I'm confused how this bears on the discussion. Well, can I ask you guys just... I want to know, do you guys think that one day there is going to be a supernatural explanation for a biogenesis that is going to be accepted as the scientific theory? Well, it depends on who you ask. I mean, scientists have vastly different factors in which they come from. But I don't know if the scientists... Scientists' egos are too big to seem like they want to admit that they don't understand everything to the general public. If you go around and ask, think that we have everything figured out, which is absolutely not correct. Even in terms of inside of a cell, we don't have it figured out. We definitely don't have figured out how one got created. So maybe, maybe not. I don't know what scientists you're speaking to, but all the ones I talk to straightforwardly say, yeah, we don't really understand this all that well. My scientists seem to be quite straightforward with that. Anyway, that's not really related to the discussion. Yeah, but they... I want to know... They clean desperately. All the physical facts that John brought up, I'm just... I don't understand how those in any way conclude God. Like, I can grant all of those. That doesn't mean anything. Okay, so Leo... And I'm going to use the analogy that atheists just love to dismiss. If you have a frame and some wheels and a motor and a transmission, is there any scenario in which, A, those are going to have created themselves, and B, that they combine themselves to form the most rudimentary... Let's say early go-kart. Is that what you want? Are you asking me if an internal combustion engine could just self-assemble? Yeah. Well, of course not. Okay, now let's say it already exists. Okay? And you don't have to explain how it happened. Let's just say that it exists, along with the frame, the wheels, and the bolts, nuts and bolts are necessary to hold it all together. Right? Is there any scenario, even though, if they were somehow all connected, that that is remotely plausible to have happened without a pre-seeing intelligent agent that knew how to connect all the pieces together for the most rudimentary, basic mechanism that we're talking about? Well, of course it is, but that's just because we... It is, or it isn't. It is. And that's just because we can appeal to our background knowledge to know that internal combustion engines are things designed by humans. So I'm failing to see the analogy. We don't have. You guys have even admitted humans can't make cells in the lab. Humans can't make DNA in the lab. So we don't have a background knowledge of those things being designed by an intelligence. So what I'm asking you guys is, in virtue of what are you making that inference? And if you're going to say it's from science, then you're going to have to appeal to the physical facts. But neither of you to have presented any physical facts that me or Amy can't account for without worldview. So we're talking about things like ATP synthase, which is way more intricate than an internal combustion engine. And it is the necessary... It's more intricate than an internal... I don't know if I agree with that. Are you... Dude, an internal combustion engine is a joke. It's freaking... That's like, that's Legos compared to ATP synthase. It's like Legos in virtue of what? Is an internal combustion engine powered by protons? What does that have to do with what I'm asking you? Does it... Okay, so... What makes ATP synthase more complex than an internal combustion engine? Taylor, do you want to tackle that one? Or we can postpone it. I mean, the question is ultimately not... I was just... No, no, no, Taylor, period. If you want to redress this one, because I mean, I imagine you're probably laughing over there at this point on... Yeah, I mean, ATP synthase is extremely complex, where we're still trying to understand how it works. If only we could remodel it, we'd have very... Well, I mean, we do know how it works. I mean, if we... We just don't know how it developed. We're not sure the evolutionary mechanisms that led to it. That's... There's new discoveries about ATP synthase happening on a regular basis. There's publications... I would imagine. Okay, so the... And they're discovering new pieces. It's just like with... For anybody in the audience, I suggest you go to iBiology and watch a three-part lecture on DNA replication by Stephen P. Bell. And he's not a theist, to my knowledge, but he goes into great detail about the different mechanisms necessary for DNA transcription to take place, or replication to take place, for example. And there are all these different mechanical parts that are necessary before replication even starts, before the helicase and the polymerase even start doing their magic. There is a ridiculous amount of components that are necessary to perform mechanical actions on the molecular level, not just like, oh, just a reaction. There's like... It's like physical. Like there's the clamp and the clamp loader, which by the way, if you don't have the clamp load or the clamp, the polymerase falls off after about 100 base pairs, by the way, just so you know. You have to have this in place in order for replication to go on. And you're saying that we don't need... Like these things aren't complicated. These things aren't like incredibly intricate and interdependent. Oh, they very much they are. What I'm asking is, why does that mean that they had to have been designed by an intelligence? In virtue of what does complexity mean? Because you have a sequence that is required and all the parts are not chemically interacting with each other at the same time in order to make the sequence take place. Yeah, but that's the same thing with geologic activity too, with tectonic activity. It's, I could say the same thing about that because it's very, very complex and highly dynamic. Same thing with climatological behavior. In virtue of what does that mean it's designed? Hang on, are you suggesting that a volcano has the digital information for nanorobots and machines? No, that wasn't the point. That wasn't the point. Well, then you can't, then your point can't get to be used. No. Your analogy is false. You were missing the point. So let me explain. No, I'm not missing the point. What you were doing was changing the content of the point. I wasn't talking about the context. You did that. I wasn't. Sorry. You did. Sorry. That's the point of an analogy. I was comparing the form of the argument. You're talking about there's a bunch of, there's a bunch of structures that are, that are highly complex and are interacting in ways that we don't even fully understand. Yeah, that happens even in the climate. There are climatological processes that are highly dynamic, highly interactive that we don't fully understand. So what I'm asking is, so what I'm asking is, do you think that those were designed by an intelligence as well? Do you think that there are like weather fairies in the atmosphere, like making? Have I mentioned weather fairies one time? I hate to interrupt, but Taylor, it looks like you were wanting to jump in. I know that it's been back and forth with John and Leo for a while. I want to give you a chance if you had anything and then Amy as well. And then we're going to go into Q&A because we do have a lot of questions. Pardon my interruption, Leo and John, but don't worry, you'll get to go at it again during the Q&A, I'm sure. Yeah, so I mean, once people actually look into these things and look into biology, I think only at that point can you understand or begin to comprehend the level of complexity that goes on inside of a cell. In terms of RNA, there are stabilizers in the cell that don't exist in nature. And how RNA didn't undergo hydrolysis in the primal soup is a big mystery as well. So it's just about, in terms of understanding this and the complexity, I think you have to, and there's wonderful videos of what life looks like inside of the cell. Just take a look at it. It's just remarkable. And in terms of abiogenesis, like I said, I'm going to stand to that there are impossibilities pointing to some higher intelligence, but the science is getting further and further away from an explanation of these things. You got it. Any last thoughts, Amy, before we go into that Q&A? Well, and I find this, you know, not just tonight, but through many creationist arguments, as it leans on incredulity is that it's taking, you know, not to say potshots, but they basically are, you know, how did life arise? How did the universe come about? A lot of these we don't have answers for. And I feel, and yet I also know it's a justified true belief that when we don't have good evidence for something, we shouldn't put in our own answer. And so that would be what I find a lot of these and just mainstream creationist arguments is that they go towards what we don't know. And I don't think that when we fill in many of those gaps, that any of them are going to be supernatural. We are going to find that each and every one has a natural mechanism that we eventually understand. So I look forward to the scientific journeys. And I do, even with all the spice, I do want to thank Leo, Maddox and Taylor for joining us for this debate. So is there any final comments? I think we're about to move to Q&A. The format we had was discussion and then Q&A. Those were kind of your guys' last comments in terms of just because you and Amy hadn't gotten in for a little bit. Do you have anything, Taylor, is that your way of saying that you had something more you wanted to add? Otherwise, you can jump into the Q&A. I mean, I just want to mention how it's interesting how we're having to defy our own laws of science to kind of ponder to these impossible theories. I'm not just saying that we might not understand this yet, but yeah, we're getting close. It's far, far, far, far, far from that. And it's actually going in the opposite direction scientifically. And we're actually denying scientific facts to kind of ponder to some of these atheist theories that have- I'm going to jump into the Q&A. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Bubblegum Gunn says, Amy and Leo, are the earnest Hegel's fetus drawings bogus and wrong, yes or no, and was Hegel convicted of fraud? And do human fetuses have gill slits? I don't know what any of that means or the relevance it has to the discussion that was had. Hegel tried his best before photography to draw accurate pictures. There was a controversy that seems to either never have been resolved or seem to have resolved on his side. There was nothing came about. Wait, Hegel, the philosopher? The early, I guess, national philosopher, biologist, whatever you want to call? Hegel, yeah. I just don't read continental philosophy because it's absolutely boring. So that's why I don't know anything about it. This one coming in from, Mr. Monster says, humans are carbon-based, not silicone-based. How could humans possibly be made from the dust of the earth? I think that's possibly for you, Maddox and Taylor. How could we be made from the dust of the earth? Is that the question? That's what they're asking. I mean, that doesn't really make any sense. I mean, the elements that are necessary for life to exist are the stuff that's in the dirt. So why would you, if you're creating something that's going to need to have ongoing life and need to draw on nutrients from, it would make sense to have the things you made it out of be also accessible for energy. The second thing that silicone is accessible and why aren't we made of that? Carbon is just more suitable for big reasons. Silicone, whenever you get to, the interactions are different. And we've looked into this in silicone-based life. Silicone could not replace carbon. Even though they would have the same amount of bonds and interactions, it might not be as stable. And so we are made of carbon. Even though silicone is present, carbon is useful for many processes of life. You got you. Thank you very much for this question. Coming in from O'Flamio says, if there is no evidence for God, what is Dr. Angela Puka talking about when she explains the difference between soft polytheism and hard polytheism? I'm sorry, what was the first part of the question? If they say if there is no evidence for God, what is Dr. Angela talking about when she explains the difference between soft polytheism and hard polytheism? I don't understand the fact that polytheism is a thing. That isn't in and of itself evidence. I'm confused. I'm sorry. I'm confused. And I looked it up because I saw that question incoming and it's just hard polytheism that are God's distinct separate real divine beings rather than psychological archetypes or personification of natural forces. So it looks like hard polytheists reject the idea of all gods or one God. And this is often contrast with soft polytheism which holds that different gods may be respected or may be different aspects of only one God. So it looks like it's the difference between the real and the more metaphorical, psychological type of theists. Hoffter Sard. This one coming in from Coffee Mom says question for both sides. Were you raised to believe religion over science? Question for the theists. Well, we'll go for that first since there's two questions in here. Were you raised to believe in religion over science? Actually, science actually brought me closer to God because just observing the processes and how they could have got here brought me closer. But I actually asked my sixth grade teacher how life could have came about. And she said because Adams wanted to create more Adams and it was just a really crazy answer and it kind of threw her off. And how life arose has always been something been interested in. And after looking into it, I've just came to understand the idea that there must be a God through science more so than anything else. No, no way shape or fashion was I raised that science versus religion, science over religion or vice versa. So no, I know it's interesting how people ask these questions. I always think that somehow you must have suffering from cognitive dissonance or something if you had any kind of religious background. But that's not the case. You got it and they also asked question for you both. Which Taylor already kind of answered said question for the theist. Do you did you decide the universe was created by a God through your own research? Well, maybe not directly addressed by you. So if each of you want to say something, you can. Yes, it did come through our research. Yeah, my ultimate conclusion and people who've seen my debates and stuff will know that believe in the past decade, I've been going on a search for myself to find out whether or not that's the real reason my channel is called logical plausible probable. It's whether or not based on the evidence and things that can be have been discovered and they can be analyzed and considered. Is it the more rational conclusion that God exists? And that's the inclusion I've come to. You got it. This one coming in from do appreciate your question. Fernandez T says what's up on our day to date. Just showing support. Thanks for your support Fernandez T seriously. And House of Comments says God bless you Maddox and Taylor. Fun debate. James go team logos. What is team logos? Well, that must be. That's Latin. I'm trying to remember a spirit. I was thinking like in the Greek like Greek logo. Her Greek just like kind of being logical or having like a sound argument. But made by Jim Bob strikes again says Leo if studying the world from an intelligent design view produced more knowledge, would you adopt that method even if you didn't believe in it? What I don't understand how you can have knowledge about something but not believe in knowledge is justified. True belief. Also, I don't know what it means. What they mean when they say if looking at it through this world gave you more knowledge. I don't the whole point is that the physical facts don't. They under determine. They under determine naturalism specifically at well, at least to some extent. And getting into more like statistical arguments, Bayesian arguments that's a different anyway. Yeah, I just the question is a little bit confusing to me. This and coming in from Mark Reed says, Taylor, how many universes have you studied as a comparison? And how can you make any statement on fine tuning if you have no comparison to make? How many universes have I studied? I mean, we can obviously only study this one. And I guess he's asking about the first theory, which I believe is much more further out than believing in regard. That's kind of like their desperate last attempt at making some justification for the amazing fine tuning of this universe that all physicists acknowledge. Someone just put something in the chat that I think John one one. If I remember right logos might be in John one one. Namely, but anyway, so logos might have referred to a deity in particular the Christian deity. But whatever it was for, let me know in the chat if the person who said that question. I think logos is referring to Jesus Christ, I believe. You got it. And thanks for that feedback in the chat from Jason Torn on that. And Dharma Defender says no giving all organisms the same genetic code DNA and just changing a letter here and there is lazy and unbecoming of an all. Powerful God. That's I mean, that's not what happens. If he's referring to evolution, it's not just one letter here and there. I don't know how we determine from the physical facts whether or God created anything because how do we determine what it wanted to do? Maybe it wanted to do it that like I just I don't and that's the thing like you can't look at the physical facts and say, well, God didn't do this just the same way you can't look at it and say God did do this. They're under determined the physical facts. Don't pick out either one of those over the other. I don't. Science definitely doesn't suggest that there isn't a God. It doesn't suggest there is either. In relation to the question. Can you read that one more time, James? Sure. They said giving all organisms the same genetic code DNA and just changing a letter here and there is lazy and unbecoming of an all. Powerful God. I think they're saying God wouldn't use. I just want to make sure I didn't misinterpret. So number one, the using the same code base is different than using the exact same overall. Sequences for the genome. So there's that's a key distinction now from a design perspective, if you are creating pretty much any dev is going to have a primary framework and language they like to do it. They can do different things based on what they're writing or creating something slightly better for XYZ type of use. But things were used on all sorts of different things. Anybody that comes and says that somehow that's not smart is just ignorant. In relation to the number of changes as Taylor was mentioning, there's not just a few changes here and there. For example, purposes in relation to the supposed closest relative, there is no less than 35 million differences. And it's actually more than that. Now that we've actually started to add up the short tandem repeats and other things that were kind of excluded, but there's no less than 35 million. So I don't think it's just changing the letter here or there and getting things and same thing with like mice versus humans. If you actually look at the entirety of the genome, not just the coding regions, you go from 84% similarity to 9% similarity. So I'd say it's more than a few letter changes here and there. You've got it and this one coming in from do appreciate it. Mark Reed strikes again. He says, Maddox. Why would we make a rover on Mars is similar to biological life when it does not have the properties of life? Does the rover reproduce? Can you read that one more time just so I make sure I don't misinterpret the... One of my favorite people of all time, Mark Reed. Good. That's right. It says, why would we make a rover on Mars as similar to biological life when it does not have the properties of life? Does the rover reproduce? That was not the point number one that was being made. We were talking about the root necessities of what was being discovered to make whatever you find, whatever mechanism you find exists, which in this context would be application of the principles of engineering, digital information, and the components necessary to manufacture the component. Now, if you have the ability to self-replicate, then that just makes the question that much more difficult, Mark Reed. If you have the capacity for self-replication, then the information necessity that must be in place goes up exponentially versus just being able to print one copy. And this is a well-recognized principle in abiogenesis, in every aspect of biology. This is known. So I don't know why you keep asking these types of questions, Mark. You've asked them for like two years and somehow seem to never grasp the response, or apparently you never go look this stuff up, because there's papers on this exact topic in terms of the information necessity in my folder for the annoying people, which is in the about section of my YouTube channel. Thanks. This one coming in from, do appreciate your question. Fernandez, he says, multi-verse. Someone's been watching too much. Marvel. Jamie Rahul, if you guys don't respond, you can. This one coming in from me. I mean, I was just going to say that there are viable models of physics that, but the discussion of a multi-verse, at least for me, it gets into more like metaphysical aspects. But yeah, I'm sorry. No problem. Mark Reid says, see, is that Mark Reid again? Yes, it is. He says Maddox. Have you been praying for Randolph Richardson to get two weeks of omniscience and omnipotence to prove that God exists? Hey, you know, at this point, given the fact that yet another atheist necessitates becoming God to agree that there is a God, I mean, yeah, at this point, hey, maybe some rationality would come back into the YouTube evo-atheist universe. If Randolph Richardson can be granted power, maybe I should start praying for that. That might be a way for the divine hiddenness problem to be solved and all those things to just, you know, be addressed. So, you know what, Lord, please give Randolph Richardson omnipotence for two weeks. Oh, and by the way, for those of you who are wondering what's going on, go watch my debate with Randolph Richardson. We went to this whole thing, and he said, oh, well, I only want a few of God's powers. I don't want all of them when I was said. So you have to become God to believe in God. I mean, it's a talk about the self-centeredness, but I yield. Go ahead. By the way, for those of you who are right, we are going to have a dumpster fire after show on my channel after this. It's going to be a fun one. You'll also head on over. But continue. Next question. You got it. Thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from the sinister porpoises Taylor. The oxygen idea is wrong. He's just a human being. He's not a human being. He's a human being. You said that his zombies are basically people. Yeah, I don't understand what people say. Well, imagine that there was something that's exactly like a human with his consciousness, but it's not conscious. Well, if it's like a. The P's on. It's a dumb argument. People who use it don't they don't know what they're talking about. They don't know their philosophy of mine. They need to go open a book. wrong. See Arkaya. Arkaya is alive. That is not in terms of creating a cell. You cannot compare a living cell to creating one because it's vastly different circumstances when we have an already living cell versus local components that are supposed to come together and create life with no work. I was just going to say right together right now over me. Okay, this one coming up from extra Deloitte Delight says the area of the brain we're in seizures occur is also the same area where religious raptures occur. I'm guessing they may be mean raptures as in experiences. They say would it be possible to get rid of religion knowing that this is the case? No. This one coming in from mango tea says nobody says alien Leo. Have you not heard of the contingency argument? Atheism is designed. Let's see. Okay, that's pretty just another insult. I'm kind of curious. I want to know what you don't have to. It's your channel. You don't have to read it if you don't want. But I am curious. They say atheism is designed by individuals looking to fill their emptiness. I have heard of the contingency argument. It doesn't really work because it rests on something called the principle of sufficient reason. And while there's a bit of nuance to that, generally speaking, the PSR, as it's abbreviated, says that for all contingent, contingent means that could have been otherwise. So I mean, I'm drinking Budweiser right now. That's a contingent fact. I could be drinking, you know, Miller High Life or something like that. It could have been otherwise. That's what it means to be contingent. All contingent facts necessitate an explanation. There's never been a reasonable argument given for why that should be accepted. And the concept of libertarian free will does not concord with the PSR because under libertarian free will at the end of the day, the decisions are just brute contingencies. They just they could have been otherwise, but they're not. That's just the way they are. And so it's hard for those asserting the PSR to reconcile it with libertarian free will. So the contingency argument is really not a very strong argument at all. There's been explanations to get around that fatalism position. And I don't know what it has to do with fatalism. Well, everything. Anyway, we'll have another debate on that one. Let's continue. This one coming in from do appreciate your question. And can I just actually I feel bad. I just want to I have a knowledge. I heard the contingency argument. I want to put forth the proposition. I get what I normally find, which is it could be that we are contingent on God's existence. It could be that God is contingent on our existence. And so I just want to know how can we know which one of us is true? Which one has the facts? This one coming in from do appreciate your question. Comment solitary yummy says Taylor is very intelligent and a winner. You have a fan out there, Taylor. Good for you. This one coming in from logical plausible probable Jen Maddox himself says, Okay, I'm gonna have an after show. It's going to be a dumpster fire. Look for the link in the chat. That's right. I haven't mentioned folks. Sorry. All of our guests are linked in the description, including this link for John's crazy dumpster fire. I'm sure you'll be offended. It's going to be a great time. Native Atheist says theists lost again. Just more God of the gaps. I mean, I thought they held their own, but I guess he just, yeah, I thought particularly a question as much as just a claim. Well, it's usual. By the way, so for everybody who is just tuning in or actually listening to what I'm about to say, this was actually Taylor's first debate. So number one, I think she did a fantastic job. Yeah. Number two, if all you derive from the things that we talked about, the arguments put forth, the piece of evidence, et cetera. If all you derive from that was a God of the gaps position when we were anyway, if that's all you got from this, then I'm just gonna have to question your IQ. And maybe you need to go do a little bit more Google Googling, because you'll find out that the points we were making were actually to overcome the standard. Oh, it's just got out of the gaps position that we hear at nausea. So I think it is bigger and bigger. What are you gonna do this one coming in from bubble gum gone says Leo and Amy, what's your criteria for evidence in particular? I outlined that at the beginning of the debate when I said that evidence generally would be that which confers warrant or justification for accepting the truth of some proposition. But since we're speaking specifically about the science, give evidence for God that thereby in science evidence would be reproducible data points, which would be expected given some particular model that evidence is going to be standardized in the sense that it's going to be given with respect to a standard such as a particular model that you're using to try to explain something. Exactly. You should have some sort of hypothesis that then is actually put into a form that we can test not only should it be tested, but then you should take the results and have it peer reviewed. That is a guess what Amy, if you guys figure out how for and you as you as you know full well, Amy, because you know, I've had this conversation, excited if you go figure out and solve the $10 million code problem that's being put on by Perry Marshall judged by the rules members of the Royal Society, MIT, Stanford, etc. If you go win that 10 million bucks, then I'm gonna probably have to concede that the whole premise of intelligence agency and therefore God has been defeated. So why don't you go hop on that? And then we'll just and then you can defeat it. So sounds like when I tell some like go win the Nobel Prize, go right, right. I'm giving you I'm giving you the direct reciprocal in a counter to your point about how can these be overcome and so on and so forth. I'm saying that my my premise that my existence requires ultimately requires God being that is not bound by the limitations of the natural world, right? If the root necessity that is recognized for life, ie the genetic information that is necessary for all forms of all recognized necessity for all forms of life and all the mechanisms necessary for its execution. If the formation of all that can be discovered, then you have defeated my position. So my position is falsifiable. I do respect word because this question was originally me. Go ahead, Amy. Well, I would just like to know how they can falsify their own position. I'm trying to understand what exactly are they presenting? Are they saying I didn't know it all rested on one challenge. Yeah, I'm trying to say what is the challenge I was giving you one example of how they can be falsified. There's more than one by solving that problem that I don't think that would falsify God at all. Okay, personally, I'm sorry, Jim. I'm sorry. Okay, we're gonna we got to move on. Taylor Taylor from a scientific theory perspective, if you are able to falsify a foundational tenet of something, does that not negate an entire theory? Right. But yeah. So if my position at the point that what is the response? No, Amy. No, the point is make it snappy Maddox. Let's go. Okay, James. The the point is, Amy, you know about this, you know about the $10 million code problem prize, because you and I discussed this in the past. So I don't know why you're playing ignorant. Now, the point I'm making is is if we can if scientists can go figure out a natural mechanism and process for creating genetic code information with no interaction from an intelligence agent, if they figure that out, that's the prize. That's the contest right now. 10 million bucks on the line. If you pull that off, then you have falsified the foundational point that I from my perspective, which is this is what this is one of the many reasons I think it is a necessity for a pre see intelligent agent to be in place, not bound by the same constraints that I am in order for me to exist. Well, it sounds like you're saying and tell me if I'm wrong, if you can create we got it like natural. You have to like this is going on forever. I'm Sir fire after just one last thing. And what it sounds like you're saying is create a biogenist naturally do it do it again and we will and I'll be on your side. Seriously, no, I can't believe I can't do that. That is not what I said. This one coming in from Swifter says how does one who denies common ancestry explain away this centenie of ERV loci between chimps and humans, given that integrase functions probabilistically. I don't know if we debated evolution that much here. I don't even know what was said. We're talking about endogenous retroviruses locale in the genomes between chimps and humans and other things. There's papers written on this explanations for this. The there's been multiple debates. I think there was actually a debate two weeks ago on standing for truth about this exact topic. You should go watch that because they went into great detail about different explanations for the ERV locations, et cetera, et cetera. And there's also a bunch of other things we're discovering now in biochemistry about like islands coming in from appreciate it logical. I mean, John, I got to read the super chat. It's from you logical plausible probable strikes again says don't miss the after show. It's going to be a dumpster fire. My link is in the description and it's true. John's link is in the description. It's probably going to be very aggressive and brutal and all the other guests are linked there as well. That includes if you're listening to the podcast, I just found out we did a poll 24% of you you didn't even know we have a podcast. There's no ads on the podcast. So it's really convenient. If you want to listen to these debates, we put these debates up within 24 hours of them being live on the podcast where you can find our guest links as well because Amy's Leo's and John's and Taylor's links are in the description box for the podcast episode to contrary and 420 says God quote unquote defined as an active present consciousness, which each of us can feel now is completely disprovable by scientific analysis as consciousness cannot be added or removed as an independent variable. Hence, the hard problem. That's not the hard problem of consciousness. The hard problem of consciousness asks how our subjective qualitative experience can arise or rather be explained in terms of mere physical facts. That is just a discussion that should have been taken up in the open discussion. It didn't. I probably should open it up here. But yeah, they just did not properly represent the hard problem of consciousness also. Again, like we like from emotions to memory to all of our senses to our desires and our beliefs and how those are generated has all been understood. We know where in the brain it occurs. We know how it interfaces all that stuff. So yeah, consciousness has been almost effectively explained entirely via physical processes. Taylor, you can respond. You can respond to that. Let's just ask an uncle wrong. I don't know what's wrong about it. That there is huge problems in understanding consciousness. Like what? Okay, for example, do you know how memories are stored? Yeah. Okay, sorting groups of neurons. Huh? They're sorting groups of neurons. Yeah. And what in what form? It depends on the neuron. And what will I mean? And what will denote a memory of a blue ball versus a red ball in that neuron? It depends on how it interacts with the rest of the brain. You got to remember consciousness is highly dynamic, but I don't want to hold this up. So that'll be my last comment. This is coming from Sky Lounge says Theus, the Krebs cycle that powers mitochondria can be mimicked by underwater alkaline vents. See Sean Carroll's latest podcast with Nick Lane. Theus, what have you got? I think that they need to go actually read Nick Lane's book, which I have because he sure as heck doesn't get it act like they've figured it out, because he actually says they haven't figured it out. And it's pure hypothesis. Oh, we got this little, little tiny piece. And if you think that what he thinks they've figured out is the equivalent of the Krebs cycle. That is hilarious. And quick sidebar for that respond. In regards to the consciousness and the memory storage problem. If Taylor will come and join us today after show, she not need to talk about this because those of you don't know, she's actually working on her PhD in regards to this kind of topic. So be very fun for us to discuss. I yield. Go ahead, Taylor. I'm sure you're freaking out even more than I am about that one. The mitochondria is like incredibly complex. They have entire PhD courses. Just learning about this one process and creating ATP it is they have like a mitochondria, like a chart of like these energy cycles and it's huge. And it's just the fact that they say that event can like act like that is just absolutely they just lack the knowledge and biology. And whenever somebody is lacking that fundamental knowledge, it's really hard to talk with them because they think that these things can just be described away in a simple way when it's just obvious that you're lacking, you know, fundamental biology or cell biology. Can I add one clarification to that question really, really quick? I just wanted to say that the person never said that the guy that Nick Lane said he had it all figured out or anything. All he said is and I heard I remember listening to the podcast and John's right, he did not say that it's all figured out. He said the opposite. He said we don't we did this as a hypothesis we don't know but the all the guy was saying and Nick Lane did in fact emphasize this as well as that they were able to mimic the Krebs cycle with something that that's very, very analogous to it. And I think that that was all the point that the commenter was making. Well, I think that maybe Nick Lane was glossing things over because in his book, he sure in the story, he's talking about that different street black and white, alkaline vents and all that kind of stuff. He sure as hell did not say that they had successfully mixed. No, you need to go read his book. Well, he did in the podcast because very often right and very often they in general interviews, more generic statements are made versus what has actually been shown in people's research. That's very true. And very and very, very often this is well documented as well that in a biogenesis research, especially, there's all sorts of, you know, the titles of papers and the abstracts are very optimistic. And then you go and read the paper and the conclusion, well, we didn't actually get all the stuff that we put in the headline or in the title of the paper. We didn't actually solve all that. But we just want to make sure everybody thought we did so we get funded the next time. We must move on. This one coming in from do appreciate swifters question says they did not give an example for into grace. Do you have any evidence to explain this huge problem? I don't even know who that's for you guys. I don't know shit about into grace. I'm I don't I so it's been it's not for me. I never mentioned it. I don't know what's going on. This one coming in from contrary and 420 says never bet there's never been a proven material basis of consciousness. If so, it could be replicated. It's unscientific to have false confidence in undiscovered fields. Parts of consciousness have been replicated in neural networks. And again, we've mapped numerous aspects of consciousness from the literal thoughts that people are having in the brain that that that's just significantly more expected. Those evidential chips, so to speak, fall in favor significantly more so of a physicalist perspective than they do anything else. And it may take a year. It may take a dozen years or 50. But we're eventually going to replicate, I believe, consciousness. I think we're going to replicate life. And along with that, it will stem from the field of artificial intelligence. But those are all separate entities that will have to be explored and replicated. And I think that is the test for how we understand consciousness. We're going to write a lot of theory. I think that we have a lot of good testing. A lot of what Leo was saying was true, I think. I just think that the test will be that formal replication. And when we put our hands up to another synthetic hand, and it shakes us, we'll know we've been there. I'm sorry, Taylor, all yours. It does not mean we understand it. You can look at a brain scan and say, Oh, look, showing up here with this stimulation. That does not mean we understand consciousness. That depends on what you take consciousness to be. If one takes consciousness to be a function of the neurophysiological processes in the brain, then understanding those neurophysiological processes give us an understanding of what consciousness is. That's just going to go into more philosophy of mind. By the way, the integrase was the reverse transcriptase process of being able to insert like a virus. And we just with transposable elements too, but like inserting different portions of the genome. That's what they're referring to on that regarding the whole consciousness thing. It's even for the neuroscientists who claim that everything is ultimately dependent on physical process. Not too many of them are running around claiming that we understand it. And like grass power is all working like that's not even the world. The mass majority of them I've interacted with and seen and read. I'll talk about how we don't know. Like, oh, we're gaining all sorts of information, but our overall understanding is not even remotely close to comprehensive in terms of relation to understanding consciousness. I'll give the last word to Amy and or Leo, since the question is originally for them. And then we've got to wrap up. Just a short and pithy last word if you have one. Yeah, I was just going to say, yeah, I mean, John is half right. Neuroscientists say we don't fully understand consciousness, but to say that we don't understand that it's it's a physical process would would not would not be correct. And I would just say that right now there's a lot of it's like in islands, floating islands, there's a lot of experts that specialize in their field and that it will have to come together to actually write good theory and then good experimentation because I do think I said 50 years might be 100 years. We're eventually going to have synthetic humans. We're eventually going to have synthetic life. And hopefully neurotransmitters are this one coming in from contrary and 420 says you observe consciousness with consciousness. You can't remove it as an independent variable to study with the scientific method in proper confidence. Yeah, we can't do the same logic either. So I fail to see what the point is. That's it for our Q&A. We want to say thanks so much for being with us tonight, folks. Thanks for all of your questions and especially thanks to our guests, Amy, Leo, John and Taylor. It's been a true pleasure to have you guys on tonight for this debate. Can I say one thing to you, James? For sure. Or more for the audience. Guys, guys, guys. Okay, I know you didn't click the button. I did the red button. It's down there. It shouldn't be red, right? It should be great. Click the good. No, don't lie to me. All right, just click, click, click the button. Click the button. All right. Make it gray. Click the button. The little bell next to it. You click that too. That shouldn't be highlighted. It should be all filled in with that green light. Click it. Just do it. Just do it. Just do it fast. I can do it fast. Thank you for your support. I appreciate that. And one more thing, James. One more thing. And not that this is remotely beneficial to me or anything, even though it might be. I think for James' sake, you also need to be sharing this debate on your social media accounts, post it to your channel, all that kind of stuff. Because people forget. They think, oh, I liked it. I subscribed. But they forget that YouTube's algorithm is also looking for shares as one of the major components for how things get rated. So make sure you also share this and tell your friends about modern-day debates. So hopefully real soon James will skyrocket from 71,000 subs to 100,000 and get to the next level. I appreciate your support. 100,000 subs to it now. That means a lot. It is true. You guys, you don't want to miss it. Do hit that subscribe button and share it out because we have tomorrow night, as you can see at the bottom right of your screen, creationists versus atheists. They'll be debating Young Earth creation in particular. T-Jump and Mark Reid partner up against two creationist instructors. I think it was Dr. Mark and the other fellow. I can't remember his name, but it is going to be a big one. You don't want to miss it. And so with that, I want to say one last thank you to our guests. I'm going to be back in just a moment for just a moment because I've got to wrap up and get out of here pretty quick as it's getting very late. I'll be back with a post-credits scene that will be short and pithy, letting you know about sweet upcoming debates. But I want to say one last time thanks to our speakers. It's been a true joy to have you tonight. Hit that Patreon. Thanks for your fast. And we'll be, I'll be back in just a moment. Folks, stick around. So I have you here. I want to say it has been a fun one to be sure. I've got to run because we've been on here for a while. Sorry we didn't get to all your questions, folks. As always, we try to get through as many questions as possible. But at some point, I do have to let the speakers go. For some of the speakers, it's 11.42 p.m. And so if they, especially if they have to get up for work tomorrow, I'd like, I do try to let them go. And so we always try to get through as many questions as we can. But we, as always, we can't guarantee it. But I want to say thank you guys for your support. Seriously, we're at 189 likes, which means if we only have 11 more, we'll have 200 likes for the live stream. In other words, hundreds of likes just for the live stream by itself. That really does help support the channel. So we do appreciate you guys with all the ways you support the channel. And I'm for real, you guys think, as I mentioned, you guys think I'm blowing smoke up your ass. But I'm not. You guys really are helping the channel, doing things like sharing it. That's another thing too. Like if you hit that share button, you can share this debate with somebody who you know and maybe you talk to them on Facebook or Twitter DMs or discord or maybe real life, like a friend that you can send them the text, you can send a text message with the link of this debate because you can hit that share button below. I don't know if you guys use that a lot. I use it a lot, no joke. I oftentimes will, when I'm watching videos, I only like, oh, it's like I really like this. And I know so and so my friend likes this a lot too. And it's like, that's kind of like the completion of the joy of it. You know, it's kind of like a lover talking about how they're so in love with somebody and it's like, that's like kind of part of the like the final like the kind of like the the end point in like the last step of the enjoyment of the thing is to share it with somebody. And so I do encourage you that helps us a lot as a channel. Good old fashioned word of mouth because here's the thing. If I just share it on Twitter, if I'm just like, oh hey, like, check out this debate. People on Twitter would be like, yeah, like James, of course you would you know say that modern day debate is fun and that we should check out this debate link because you know you're like the host of modern day debate. But if you as a third party share it, that has a lot more credibility because people are like, oh, okay, like third party. It's like an Amazon review, right? But the Amazon seller, of course, like the Amazon seller, you could say like they'll put in their description like, oh, this is the greatest product ever. But third party testimonies, you could say, really do carry a lot of weight. And so we want to say thanks for helping the channel that way. We're already up to 197 likes. So 198 it just turned and almost to 200. But want to say those are ways that really help the channel. Here's another one. Submitting questions during the Q&A. That helps because if there are no questions, there's no Q&A. And that's something that's a segment a lot of people really enjoy as they like hearing people like bring up these different ideas and kind of new ideas that kind of refresh the debate. And Jaco, Juhani, thanks for becoming a member, namely a member of the modern day debate channel memberships at the extra juicy level. We appreciate your support. That's another way you can help the channel. We really do encourage you. Hit that membership button as we have all these amazing emojis, for example. And it's just a way really to help the channel. But you can also use these emojis such as the one that I'm putting in the live chat right now. Soyboy, if you want to call someone a soyboy, you can do it with the emoji in fact. So that's very satisfying. But want to say we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from for real. Thanks for your guys' support of the channel. It is fun. It's exciting to see modern day debate grow. We started about three years ago. Was it really? No, no, it was almost four. So it's three and a half years. That's when we started, which is crazy. It's like, wow, three and a half years we have grown so much. It's encouraging to grow to 71,000 subscribers. Thank you guys for your support. And this is only the beginning. Believe me, it's only the beginning of our story as modern day debate is going to continue growing and surging ahead as we are determined to have a positive impact and influence on YouTube as we pursue the vision of providing a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field. That's important for us. YouTube deserves a better class of debate channel and we're going to give it to them. So want to say thank you guys for supporting that vision, joining the movement with us as we really want everybody to get their fair shot. If someone really, oh shoot, I just realized oh the links are good. Okay, so links are in the description for the guests. So want to remind you of that as we want you to check out, you can learn about the views of our guests by checking out those links. And I also want to say though we are absolutely determined and excited about the impact that modern day debate is having. Whether you be Christian, atheist, Muslim, you name it, we want you to feel welcome. That's for sure and likewise we hope you feel welcome whether you be maybe you're politically far to the left, politically far to the right, you're a Trump supporter, Biden backer, Bernie Bro, no matter what you are, we hope you feel welcome and likewise whether you be gay, straight, black, white, unusually muscular, or a beta, even if you're a beta, you're welcome here. So we really do want everybody to feel welcome. That's important for us. We're a free speech channel and people, and that's funny. Oh, Tangelo, I don't know if that's really you in the chat. I got to tell you, I got to tell you 99% of the people that encounter this channel are positive supporters and we appreciate that so much. You guys, seriously, we are so that we're overwhelmed with thanks. And when we see sometimes once in a while, it's very small groups of people, so don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. In fact, I kind of like it. Deep down, they don't know it, but I do like it. We have like small numbers of people that are like, modern day debate, they're so inappropriate. How can they host this topic? How can they host that person? I'm offended. Boycott modern day debate. Oh, Tangelo, I saw you in the live chat. Oh, Tangelo, wasn't it just two weeks ago on Twitter? You were saying that people should boycott modern day debate. You couldn't even hold out for two weeks and you're already back in the live chat. Oh, Tangelo, oh my goodness. You have to at least give it two weeks until you're finally, oh my goodness. Give it at least two weeks. And then, you know, like before you come back, but when you say you're going to boycott us and then you're back a week and a half later, oh, Tangelo, that doesn't look good, oh, Tangelo, it looks indecisive. You guys have to stick to your guns. You can't be like, oh, okay, actually I'm back. Otherwise, when I see you guys boycotting, so boycotting, when I see you guys boycotting modern day debate on Twitter and then all of a sudden you're like, you gave up on it. It's like, oh, nobody's going to take you serious anymore. Come on, oh, Tangelo. You're giving, I had a lot of satisfaction because it was like, hey, you know, this is pretty exciting because let me see if this is updating. But I, the truth is deep down, I don't tell people. Maybe I shouldn't say it, but I get a lot of satisfaction out of the fact that, oh, I've got to update the links. Sorry, guys. Let me fix this and then, oh, sorry about that. If I did me, if I missed a super chat, Malivia, I'm sorry about that. He said, so let me know, Malivia, what I'm going to do is I'm going to tag you. And I'm giving you my email right now and I'll check and I will give you a refund for real because we, if we promise we're going to read super chats, then we have to actually do it. And so if I don't, that means I will send it back via PayPal or Venmo because I am really sorry about that. So if you email me at modern day debate, I did not mean to screw you over. It wasn't mean, it was just purely that my eyes must have just gone over it. I'm sorry about that. So I do want to tell you, I don't think you did this, Malivia, but sometimes people are like, you didn't read my super chat. And it's like, well, sometimes like, not always, like not you, Malivia, but sometimes a person super chat, something that it's like, okay, that's not appropriate. I can't say that because it's either against terms of service or okay, it's Malivia said, James, why are you so jacked? Thank you, Malivia, for saying that. Now I see it. You did send that. I appreciate that. I didn't even see that until now. But yeah, so your super chat's cool. It's not against terms of service, but we obviously, we can't read anything in other cases. We can't read anything that's against terms of service. We can't likewise, you know, things like that. So, but you're cool, Malivia. You didn't break any rules. But yeah, sometimes people are like, why didn't you read it? And it's like, well, we can't, that or if they're like targeting a guest, it's like, well, we don't want to target a guest because we're thankful that they come on the show. Thanks, Joe Schwartz, for your super chat just flew in says, you demand, James. Thanks, Joe. Seriously, that means a lot. And want to say though, thanks for all of your guys' support. Seriously, I'm excited about the future. And this channel, we're planning out some big moves. Like this channel, we're planning and getting some big new people this summer. We're excited about it. So, you guys, the future is bright. We've got big things that we're working on and we are going to just keep on forging ahead as we pursue the vision of providing a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field as we try to bring people from different walks of life together to talk about the big questions of life. So, thanks guys. I love you. Thanks for all of your support. I'm excited about the future. And as mentioned, if you haven't already, yeah, may hit that subscribe button as we have many more juicy debates coming up and we're excited about that. That is exciting as you don't want to miss it. For example, that big creation ism debate. Whether or not the earth is or life has been specially created in the last 10,000 years. That's tomorrow night. You don't want to miss it, my dear friends. It's going to be a big one. And then saying hello to you in the chat, I've got to run. Seriously, I wish I could stay longer, but I've got to run. Jeremy Nolan, thanks for coming by as well as Fernandez T and LRN News as well as Seraphim Goose and 33% Done. Thanks for being a channel member supporter. I appreciate that. And want to say though, thanks guys. I love you. Thanks for making this fun. And I'm looking forward to seeing you in the next one. Thanks for all your support. Brooke Axel Folly, Jacob Dylan, Gross Patat, Adrian, Get The Down, Woody Woodpecker. Thanks all for your support. Human beta girl. Thanks for being with us and for your support. And we're excited about the future. So I will be excited to see you guys in the future. I love you. I hope you have a great rest of your night.