 Frequent minute. Amy has a new look. Yes, Amy has a new look. Hey, everyone, tonight we're going to be debating whether Mormonism is true and kick us off with our 10 minute opening. We have Kyle on the side of Mormon. So now I'm going to kick it over to you for your 10 minute opening and the floor is all yours. OK, I'll go ahead and share screen then. OK, hopefully we can see this. Really happy to be here. Thank you for having me. This is my favorite subject to talk about of all time. Zoom in a little bit. It's kind of small. Yeah, so thank you much better. Here, this is just a basic definition of science. And I just wanted to start out by establishing some really basic common ground. So here we have science means just a systematized knowledge in general. T jump, do you agree with that? What was the question? Science means systematized knowledge in general. Do you agree with that definition? Science is a method to gain knowledge. I don't think science is knowledge. OK, so you don't you don't agree with this definition. Science is a way to gain knowledge. It's not a it is not knowledge itself. OK, so there goes a branch of knowledge study system. Systematic or sorry, systematic. Yeah, systematic knowledge. Any of branches of knowledge, systematized knowledge. OK, so yeah, you're just kind of going off of something completely different there. You're kind of referring to the scientific method. So it's a method. Science is a method. There isn't. There is no like science knowledge. Science is a method. And the method gives us facts, which are then called scientific facts. But science is the method. OK, so you don't agree with any of these definitions then? No, those are all agreed with me. Systematized knowledge in general is a method. Yes, systematized system is a method. System and method are the same thing. Those are synonyms. OK, so it's not just a way it's organized. The system systematized is different than organized. No, system and method are synonyms. System and method are synonyms. OK, OK. And over here, I've got the definition of evidence. I like something that makes plain or clear an indication or sign. His fever or his flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. Or I could say, you know, my head felt warm, which was evidence that I might have a fever. So it's not for sure. You know, my hands might just be cold because I'm nervous or something like that. But it's not proof that I have a fever. It's just a sign or indication that this might be so. Do you agree with that definition? Sort of, I would say I would use the I would actually use the Stanford encyclopedia philosophy definitions. They're a lot better than the source the source dot com. But the definition of evidence dot com. Well, the definition of evidence is anything that can increase the probability of a proposition being true or false. That's that is evidence. And anything that can increase the probability of it being true or false. Yeah. OK. And so someone's head feeling warm. That is increase of the probability they have a fever. Yes. OK. OK. OK. I think that'll work. So over here, I'm going to address something that's going to be a little bit out there, but I promise you I'll tie it right back in here. This is from the onan dog and creation story. It's part of the Iroquois Nations creation story. And it's called the Earth on the Turtles back. Have you ever heard of that? Yes. Yes, I have heard of that. OK. So we've got the Earth on the Turtles back. Native American. They're like around the Great Lakes area of the United States. And in this story, we have this creation story goes as there's a sky people, people who live up in the sky. And this woman has a dream. And in this dream, she sees a tree and she's gets this big prompting that she needs to uproot the tree. And so she goes and tells the sky chief. The sky chief says, yes, we need to pay attention to our dreams. And so they go with the help of the sky chief. She uproots the tree. And all of a sudden when they uproot the tree, they find this hole in the ground. And that leads down to this other world. Basically, that's been beneath their feet this whole time. And as she's looking into the hole, she falls down to this hole. And then the animals come up to rescue her. So all these swans come up to to to rescue her and in protecting her as she's falling. And then there's a turtle there and a bunch of animals. Oh, we got to go rescue her. And so there's a muskrat that dives way down deep to pick up some earth. And he goes and puts earth on the back of this turtle. And so, OK, that's interesting. But there's multiple versions of this story. We have this one where the woman has this dream that's saying that's what she needs to do. But there's another version that comes from a different textbook. And this textbook, the woman was more of a troublemaker and they kind of villainize her. She's trying to go find some different food to eat. And so it wasn't really a good. It wasn't really a neutral happening for this fall to happen. But as we look at like the main idea here is that there are variations in the same story, there's both two stories that come from the same the same tribe, but they're slightly different. However, as we really kind of dive into it and take a look at the finer details, we see a lot of similarities between this and just the book of Genesis chapter one, which is the I'm sure you're familiar with the the Genesis creation story and how things were made. But in there, there's a woman who interacts with I guess this is Genesis chapter three that I'm kind of diving into now. But there's a woman who interacts with the tree. And then there's the fall of mankind. And but there's a slight variation in here because over here with Earth on the Turtles back. There's the animals that are there to kind of protect and watch over the the people, but it's reversed in the book of Genesis, where man has dominion over all the animals. But over here with the Onondogid story, it's completely reversed. It's oh, no, we the animals are here and they have dominion over over man. Man wouldn't be here without the animals. And it's kind of a really kind of cool influx there. I think it's the right word, just kind of you can see the the mirror image almost with just some slight variations. And that's kind of how a lot of religions go. They all started off with one basic origin story. And then they kind of split off over time because and sometimes it's intentional and other times it's not so intentional. Sometimes people just kind of slip of the tongue. Oops, my memory isn't perfect, kind of the thing. And then there's other instances of I don't really like the idea of man having dominion over all the animals. I think animals end up helping into. They feel more inclined to have more respect for the animals. And so they kind of reverse it in that way. So I don't want to spend too much time on that. But that's really some strong evidence here that the two stories were from the same origin and then they just kind of splintered off over time when we kind of see the common features. Now, this next one I'm going to show you this is from a codex. And this is an Aztec human sacrifice ritual. And I hope you can see that that big enough. So here we have the priest and he's ripping the heart out of his sacrifice. And as you look at that, they've taken the blood of this human sacrifice and they've marked the blood on the lentil piece and on the posts in the background. Blood on the lentil piece and the post in the background. Just a codex, yeah. And this is Central America over in the Mexico area. And, yeah, that part really stood out to me because that's something we directly see in the Old Testament in the book of Exodus. That's what Moses did in the Passover was he took the blood of the lamb and he marked it on the lentil piece. And so it's very, very specific. But this is a human sacrifice instead of a sheet. But when we read the Book of Mormon, there comes a time where they say where Jesus comes to the Americas and says, I will no longer accept the offering of blood. I don't want any more animal sacrifices. That's to be done away. And so in the Book of Mormon, we find that it says right here, and you shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood. Yeah, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings. And you shall offer for me a sacrifice unto me of a broken heart and a contrite spirit and who so cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost. And so here. Today, we we understand this to be a very spiritual, broken heart, being very humble, having a lot of humility. However, right here, it's we've got a big sacrifice, but they're taking it very literally. So it's kind of one of the slight variations. And I was like, wow. So when I look at that, I see some really strong evidence that there were Israelite people in the Americas at one time, way back in history. And so that's right here in the Book of Mormon. So there's further evidence when we look at the ancient pyramids, we see a lot of pyramids all throughout the Americas. And we even see mummies. Where did they get this? How are they getting all this Egyptian knowledge? Kind of where all of these similar similarities, the we get this preponderance of evidence. And right there in the very beginning of the Book of Mormon says, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians. So we've got direct Egyptian influence. Right there in Nephi chapter one. And we also have Hebrew influence right there in the Book of Mormon. So this is kind of furthering that that pile of evidence. Could I have a time check? Yeah, we're actually just a little over 10 minutes right now. I know we had a little we had a little open discussion at the beginning. So that's fine. So if we want to do if we want to go stop screen sharing for now and we're going to get over to T jump there and let him have his 10 minutes there of rebuttal. But just want to let you know, everybody, I am your host tonight. My name is Ryan, glad you're all here for my debut. This is the first time I'm doing this. Just want to do some housekeeping here. So I want to let you know that modern day debate is a neutral debate platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. We hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're from. Don't forget to hit the subscribe button. We have many more debates coming up. We do have a Q and A at the end of the show where you can ask questions to our guests here, but just be sure that you're attacking the argument, not the person with that. I'm going to kick it over to T jump and 10 minutes for your opening statement. Four is all yours. Sure. So there are a number of contradictions. Tons of factual errors, historical errors, mis. Literary errors and lots of errors in the book of Mormon. It's essentially been disproven resoundingly in the like history, so one elephants in ether nine, 19 elephants were not did not exist in America at the time of ether didn't happen. Horses didn't exist in that area. The time where they were in like Canada and some other areas. Steel, there was no steel at that time period. Steel, it wasn't invented until later. Silk, silk came to pass in the eight later, not there. Wheat and barley, wrong time period. She didn't exist until about later, which when they were brought by the Europeans. Goats also introduced by the Europeans, cattle and cow. There's no evidence that the old world cattle members of the genius boats inhabited the new world prior to European contacts, swine and also brought by Europeans. So there's lots and lots of errors, archaeological errors. We can also use Native American genetics to show that there's no Israeli lineage tied to them. We know where people are from because we can do DNA tests to show their lineage and there is no Israeli DNA in Native American lineage. It would be pretty easy to prove, actually. So it's pretty, pretty obviously false. I didn't quite understand. Kyle's opening seemed like he said they put blood on doors. This is similar to how it was done in the Old Testament. Therefore, there's a religious link. There's lots of similarities between things people do in crazy cultures. This doesn't mean that they originated from Israel. If that was the case, then the blood placed on the doors by the Japanese people would be evidence of Israelis in Japan, clearly not the case. So obviously you can have similarities between different ideologies without them having originated in the same thing. As long as they originated in the human mind, like there's lots of similarities in religions like they come from a sky daddy of some kind. That's not because they all originate in the same religion. That's because humans like to make up sky daddies. It's something that's very intuitionally convenient for us. So that's about all I got. Yeah, Mormonism is false. Oh, by the way, I started a church, atheist church, the church of the best possible worlds. Please, please check out my GoFundMe on my Twitter. Go for it. Go in there. All right, excellent. Yeah, so we can kick it over to open discussion here or we can do a rebuttal period. It's up to you. If you had more screen sharing you wanted to do, Kyle, if you weren't done your presentation, that's fine as well. It's at your discretion. If you guys would like to jump into open discussion or if you would like to have some more. Focused time to present your argument there. I think I'll let you know if something pops up that really needs screen. I think I got the bulk of my points done. That needed visuals anyway. All right, excellent. Then yeah, so what we could do then is we can kick it into. Open conversation. Yeah, open conversation. Sorry. Thanks, D jump. All right, so yeah, I'll let you guys have it. Thanks. You said the Japanese blood on their doors. I've never heard of this before. There's actually dozens of cultures that put blood on the doors. It's actually really common. It's not even it's not rare. Many cultures that do that. Yes, looking to. I've never heard of this Japanese culture. Was it specifically on the doorposts and let's piece. OK, we do believe that the ancient Israelites were scattered and they weren't just here in the Americas. Jesus said, other sheep I have, which are not of this fold. Them also I must bring. And there should be one voice and one shepherd. And so we really believe they were scattered throughout the world. And that's why we see a lot of the same kind of architecture throughout the world. And so I don't know if you've ever compared Angkor Wat out in Indonesia and compared that with Chichen Itza and some of the other like Mexican pyramids. There's humongous similarities between the two. And so it really kind of shows to me that the ancients were far more advanced and civilized than a lot of the people in the world today really think they were back then. Well, I agree they were they're pretty advanced for their time period. That's true. But the reason they're similar is because their pyramids, pyramids are a triangle. It's like three dimensional triangle. Of course, any pyramid made at any time is going to have similarities to other pyramids because it's a pyramid. And so like the materials that they use to make the pyramid are going to be stoned because they can't make other things. So any any pyramids made of the time period are going to be made of stone and they're heavy, so they're going to have to be transported in a very similar way. So there's going to be lots of similarities if you build a similar structure with similar materials with the same technology. Yeah, there's going to be tons of similarities. It's not because they knew each other or had a connection because they were building the same shape with the same tools and the same materials. And so they're pretty relatively intelligent humans. And so they were probably going to use the most efficient way to do that by moving them in a way that they can capably do and not be dumb about it, which was the same in both cultures. Because there's no really the fact that these were built in the same ways and evidence that they had some kind of connection socially. No. Well, it's that's art history for you. This kind of recognizing iconography, really strong iconography and kind of watching it one nation influence another nation. And so one thing that we are able to really recognize here in the Americas is we just look at the White House and it's got the big huge dome on the top. And you can that was one thing I specifically learned in my art history class is learning about just that iconography and tying it all the way back to the pantheon and in Rome and about how one started here and then kind of progressed over time. Right, because it's literally based on that. But people built domes in different cultures and they weren't all based on some superdome in the past. They just came up with domes on their own. You're thinking people were building domes before looking at the pantheon. Yes, people built domes all over the world. I mean, there was the first ones and then other people built them to not based off of the first one with other technology. Domes have been built in multiple ways in multiple cultures. They started like underground domes by building the framework and then covering it with mud prior to the pantheon. The Romans built the first free hanging dome, which was pretty impressive for the time period, but domes have been built way before that igloos have been well built as domes way before that. OK, OK, I can I can take it with igloos, but igloos aren't really painted on the underside to look like the heavens. And so there's certain kind of iconography that kind of goes into it. And so it's kind of like having a very specific logo. And then all of a sudden seeing that logo in other parts of the world where it really shouldn't be. And so one of these kind of iconic markings, you can see the triptych doors where you have the larger door in the center. And then you have two smaller doors to the left and right of it. Something we specifically see in Corois and we also see it out in the Americas as well. Because it's really convenient to have exits on either side of the entrance. That's that's why those doors are there. That's not this is not some kind of cultural zeitgeist that people like, hey, we need a big door in the middle and two doors on the side because religion, it's because it's convenient. It's like the same reason that pyramids were built in the shape of a pyramid is because it works. It's convenient. And so the reason you have two exit doors on either side and one big entrance door in the middle is because it's more efficient to get people out that way. Movie theaters do this also. Does that mean that movie theaters are influenced by religion? No, it's just it works well. OK, so I'm just thinking about like Roman columns and they've got the different kinds of Roman columns. And all of a sudden, if you see those certain same columns in other places in the world, you're going to say, oh, that was just coincidence that it has like the exact same columns. No, that would be very, very interesting, but they don't have the exact same columns anywhere else in the world. I'm using an example. I'm using an example to say, hey, if you saw this Roman column with the kind of the scrolls on the top and the bottom, that's a pretty iconic image. Would you agree? And so if all of a sudden you were seeing those in Japan from like ancient times, you're like, Romans, Japan, what? And so it's going to raise some questions and kind of show some evidence of one culture influencing another culture. I'm not saying this actually happened with the Roman columns, but that does happen with other things such as the cryptic doors and also with the the steeple arches. They've got certain arches in Egypt that have like stairway arches. That's the best way I could describe it. You kind of saw two kind of stairway arches. There's a whole bunch of them. And so this is kind of one example, but I think we're kind of diverting away from the point of the main thing, which is specifically marking the doors with blood. And you haven't really shown me all this other evidence of the Japanese and if they did it in the same manner, anything like that. Not that it would really knock anything because, yeah, it's one icon that's being shared among other places. And there can be variations to that. OK, so there are lots of myths people do specifically with blood and there's no reason to think that these are connected be culture. That's there's no connection there. You've made no argument for that. Whatever you said, oh, look, these people put blood on the door. Oh, and these people also put blood on the door. You have made no argument that that indicates that they're the same culture. You just said, oh, look, two similarities. They also do. That's what we do. Yeah, no, that's not for historians to do. That's not not what historians have a very rigorous method for establishing if one culture was affected by another. Just seeing that they do things similar is not that method. That is not what we do. That's like if I said, oh, look, you have a beard and I have a beard. Therefore, we're brothers. Like, no, no, it's not the correct method. So, OK, I'm I'm considering taxonomy and the way taxonomy is done is by looking for similarities in animals. And so here is a very similar concept. It's like taxonomy, but with culture. No, no, no. So so similarities between animals are extremely specific. Like, you can find exactly the particular bone where it splits off from a double his jaw joint to know exactly where the evolutionary tree branches off. And so it's not just saying, oh, look, that has toes. That also has toes. They're the same. That's what you're doing or the equivalent to what you're doing. No, no, no. The fact that people put common ancestor. Common ancestor. And so we can say we we do that with birds all the time, is count the number of toes on the bird and say, OK, yeah. This one's got like the cross bird, like the woodpecker. They've got the cross, like four toes. Yes, yes, exact, precise numbers, exact, precise shape. Those those are good analogies saying they put blood on doors. He's not analogous to that. That's like saying, oh, it has feet and elephants have feet. They must be cousins. Sorry to interrupt you guys here. It does look like we moved a little bit away from the topic of is Mormonism true? So if we can move back into the debate topic, they're a little bit more succinctly there. I do also have another announcement here or some more housekeeping, I should say. If you didn't know all the debates on modern day debate, debate YouTube channel are uploaded to the podcast within 24 hours of them being live. So modern day, you can find modern day debate on your favorite podcast right now. And you can hear all of these debates ad free. So we can push the topic a little bit back into the topic of Mormonism. And it seems like that's what the live chats kind of push in here. Okay. So the argument is that simply saying that there is a similarity is not evidence that they are intrinsically linked. In order to show they're intrinsically linked, you would need something concrete like DNA. We know for a fact, there is no common DNA between American Indians and Israelites. The genetic markers between those two groups are entirely separate. They have a common ancestor hundreds of thousands of years prior to that. There is no mingling between once you get Israeli ERVs to Native American ERVs. It doesn't happen. There's no such thing. So we can tell they are not the same. Okay. So you seem to have this major impression in your mind that if the Book of Mormon were true, it would have to be perfect. No. That's kind of the impression that you gave me. You were saying, oh, well, there's all these inaccuracies in the Book of Mormon. And so because there's inaccuracies, it can't be true. That seemed to be your argument before. No, like your claim specifically about Israelis being in South America, that to be true would have to show DNA proof, which it doesn't. So that part we know is false for that reason. The claims about Mormonism being like the word of God or whatever, if it is the word of God, you would expect it to be true mostly and not have blatant falsehoods. And it has blatant falsehoods, which would give us reasonably this human, give us its evidence that it's man made and not God made. The very, like in the introduction of the Book of Mormon and at least in two other places in the Book of Mormon, it says that it has potential errors in it. It openly acknowledges that. It's saying, don't treat me like I'm perfect. It's got potential errors in it. It's written by man. It's translated by man. So yeah, we should expect that. We should expect there to be some kind of errors in it along the way. It makes room for that. That doesn't lend evidence that it's Book of God. So like I can say, I have a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing being of the universe. Oh, but it has some errors in it. That isn't evidence that it's actually the case that it's written by God. That's called a hedge. Your hedge your best. No one claims it was written by God. If it's like inspired by God or whatever, true facts. Inspired by God, but written by man. Right. Which, yeah. What's the difference between? Mormon was not God. What's the difference between a book that inspired by God, written by man with tons of mistakes and a book made up by man with equally as many mistakes? What's the difference? How do you tell the difference? You said that really fast. I'm sorry. How do you tell the difference between a book that was completely made up by a guy who claimed it was inspired by God and just has a whole bunch of mistakes because he didn't know anything. So he got a bunch of errors. And a book that was actually inspired by God but written down by a guy who didn't know anything and got made a bunch of errors. All right. A bad guy wouldn't write something like this and a good guy who was just making it up. A good guy wouldn't write something like this if he's just totally ad-libbing and just making things up. If he's just writing a novel, a good guy wouldn't do that. A bad guy isn't going to write something that's that great. I'm not following this good guy, bad guy, dichotomy. There's no evidence that good people and bad people have a proclivity to write certain words as opposed to others. There's no scientific evidence of that. People make stuff up all the time. Good people write bad stories. Bad people write good stories. There's no good, bad people will do this argument. That doesn't make any sense. Yes, people can make stuff up. I mean, Jonathan Smith was a terrible person. He was a liar, a fraud, convicted many times over. He was a bad person. I don't know who Jonathan Smith is. The guy who wrote the Book of Mormon. Whatever his name is. No. No. There's Joseph Smith. Yeah. Okay. So. Convicted fraud. Convicted fraud. We know he's a bad person. But I wouldn't bring in his character. I don't care about his character. His character doesn't matter. You're trying to make some kind of argument that his character would make it impossible for him to write this book. Like, no. Okay. In fact, most people who make religious books are bad people. So it would actually make more sense that. The bad people would exactly write this. Okay. Well, I'm. Yeah. So the, the whole thing here is. It's not like a, it's not written as a perfect book. And so you're, you're talking before what's the difference between someone just making it up. Not being inspired by God and someone who is. Writing it being inspired by God. Right. That was your question, right? How do you tell the difference? Like what is the, have a digital difference between the two? Well, there's the book of Mormon promise, which is what really makes it stand out. And that is God testifies of his, of. On his own behalf. He's able to speak for himself. We believe in a living God, not just a dead God. We believe God still speaks today. And so when I have an experience with God. And I write that down in my own and perfect language. That's just as valid as the book of Mormon is for me anyway. Okay. But the question is, is how do you tell the difference between it being made up and it being true? So, so people can have delusions and they write down those delusions, which are not true. And then people supposedly have a vision of God and write down those delusions. And those are supposedly true. How are you the difference between the true visions and the delusions? We study it out for ourselves. This is kind of a huge part of it. And so Alma talks about treating the word like a seed that we plant in the ground and grow. And so this kind of gets into this analogy of where it takes some study. It takes some thought. It takes some investigation. Well, I'm asking specifically for your methodology. So I understand that you, what you presumably have some methodology. So I'm asking you, how do you differentiate testimony in of God versus testimony of delusions? That's sort of a specific question about methodology. How do you do it? All right. So the very first start is just through prayer. You can ask God if he's there and God answers his prayers. He's willing to testify in miracles in people's lives. God, are you there? Can I get a gold brick, please? Okay. So there's more to it than just that because and you have to understand kind of the expectations that go into it. And so. Okay. Tell me what magical word prayer I have to say to get my answer. Well, there has to be a, that contrite heart. Okay. You have to have that contrite heart being willing to change because I'm totally open to change. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. Tell me what magical words I need to say for God to answer. Cause I've been trying for years now for many years, never got anything. So, so what, what is the magical word combination I need here? Okay. He's the one who judges your heart, not me. And what I do is I help people build that relationship. And so one of those ways that you can really show that you are sincere and are willing to change can be through fasting. That's one great way to show. I'm sincere about this going to church. There's certain commitments that you have to show him. I'm, I'm, see, I'm, look at me. I'm being committed. And so it's kind of, I'm going back to the seed here. You don't just plant it in the ground. Okay. I'm expecting fruit now. It takes time for that tree to grow and develop and produce fruit. And when you get, once you have that fruit, wow, there it is. And that's how you know. So, so how do we verify the fruit is there and not a figment of your imagination? That's the question. Like I said, it's like planting a seed. And so we, what is that? What is the success rate? So like, let's say we take a group of a thousand people. We all pray, we all fast. How many of them are going to get the word from God? I don't know the answer to that because different people. Is it circumstances? Is it more or less than the amount of random chance? That's, that's what I'm interested in. I think that's kind of amount of random chance. Yeah. So just placebo, you know, placebo, double blind child's where we give half people a placebo. It does nothing and half the people, the drug. If the drug has the exact same positive effect as the placebo, the drug does nothing. So you have a control group, which is random chance. How many will see visions of God via random chance? And then you have some methodology and that methodology has to increase the number of people who hear from God. Otherwise it's no different from random chance in which case it does nothing. So you're talking about like a specific like study. Get a whole bunch of any method, any method. So any methodology that you propose that can get us in communion with God. If it works at the exact same rate as random chance, that means it doesn't work. It does nothing. So you need to give me a method that I can do that will have a higher rate than random chance to get into communion with God. We got plenty of atheists here to willing to try it. Willing to get in there and do that. So like I said, there's kind of that level of commitment and you could do that. I don't know any kind of statistics for you on the matter. I can just kind of point to my ancestors and the miracles that they've seen in their lives and I can read from you from their journals if you wanted me to. And yeah, they've seen some really amazing things happen. Well, again, the question is addressing all of those. It's how do you tell the difference between that really happening and being a delusion? That's the method I'm the I need before we can go through is this testimony reliable? We need to know how do you tell the difference between imagination and reality? My method is novel, testable predictions works extremely well. It's what science uses. It's the only reliable way that we have that can differentiate imagination from reality. If you can make a prediction about the future that we don't know anything about yet and get it right consistently, that is phenomenal evidence, simply saying you have personal testimony does not do that because everyone does. Everyone claims to have personal testimony. Every religion, every delusion, every ghost story claims to have personal experience. That is a terrible source of evidence. This is why we don't use it in the court of law. We don't use it in history. We don't use it in science. Okay. And so this is kind of going down to your whole definition of proof, which you don't really believe in because we could be a brain in a vat. And if we are all brains in a vat, then everything we see is a. I didn't say anything about proof. Evidence, evidence, anything that increases the probability of a proposition being true. So I don't need proof. I need evidence. Okay. Well, you want something that you want to know for certain that it's not a delusion. No, no, no, I want evidence. I don't need certainty. I need evidence. So evidence that something is not a delusion is novel testable predictions. It's not proof, but it is evidence. Okay. So novel testable predictions. And so how would you go about doing that in taxonomy when it comes to classifying animals? Evolution does it all the time. Like evolution has no problem doing this. They say we predict that we're going to find, if evolution is true, we predict we'll find a fossil that is a halfway between a lizard and a fish. And we'll find it exactly this geological time scale. No, nowhere before it, nowhere after it. And we'll be able to, and then they say, okay, we've never seen this before. Now we predict it's going to be here. Then we go, look, we go dig. And in fact, hey, we found it. That's a novel testable prediction, which was confirmed for tiktalic, one of hundreds of thousands that have been done in taxonomy related to evolution. Others would be ERVs. If you predict that two species like elephants and hippos are related, you would expect to see ERV markers that are similar in such a case that they branched off at certain points in the DNA at similar time scales. So we test the DNA, we find, oh, look, they do. That's confirmation, novel testable prediction that the two are related. Okay. So I've kind of talked about the evolution of religions over time. And that's why I shared with Earth on the Turtles back and the Aztec pyramids and saying, these two things evolved from one common ancestor with the ancient Hebrew religion. And that was my whole statement. And so you're, and so I've got the Book of Mormon and I've got the Bible and I've got these two, these other things which are kind of showing that there's some similarities, such as kind of pointing out number of toes on the bird. And so we're kind of looking here for further ancient things that would kind of connect it as you're talking about kind of those predictions. And so Joseph Smith, to my knowledge, had no idea about these Aztec codexes. No idea. Okay. That was something that was out of his mind. So all of a sudden these codexes pop up and, oh, wow, look at that. I'm going to say that's evidence. It's improving the possibility that Joseph Smith was right. What did he predict? What was the novel prediction that he made? The novel prediction he made was that there was Hebrew influence here in the Americas. That was his whole thing. He did like 14 year old boy doesn't just, oh yeah, that's totally the thing. So if I predict there's Hebrew influence in Japan and I see a similarity between the Japanese and the Hebrews, does that mean I'm right? If you find similarities, then that is, that's going to increase the possibility that you are being right. That's, I agree. No. So in order for it to be evidence has to be specific. You can't just be vague and ambiguous. It's called an ambiguity fallacy in science. You're not allowed to say there will be some similarities between this culture and this culture. That's not evidence of anything. If you want evidence, what you need is something specific, which is why I said you will find a transitional fossil between a lizard and a fish at exactly this geological scale and never above, never below. It's extremely precise saying culture A will impact culture B in some unknown way. And then you look at all of the tens of thousands of things relevant to culture A and try to find one or two similarities between culture B. That is called an ambiguity fallacy. Any of the tens of thousands of factors relevant to culture A may or may not be similar with every culture in the world. You can pick a random culture Eskimos and find similarities between their culture and Israel culture. Does that mean they originated the same? No, it means that people adopted random cultural things and some of them are going to be the same across cultures. There are lots of flood stories. Does that mean they all came from one flood? No, because floods happen all over the world. And so because floods happen all over the world and impact people in a very profound way, they will all come up with stories related to floods. It does not mean because that they are similar, that they must have originated in the same story, one flood. No, it's not how it works because people have brains and people work in similar ways. Their cultures are going to have similarities due to random chance. So again, in order to have evidence of your claim, you need something that works at a higher rate than random chance and simply saying that culture A will have some impact on culture B will not be higher than random chance because you can find any culture, some similarity to any other culture. Okay, so before you ever made the claim that there's going to be some Hebrew evidences in Japan, you were not aware of any of these kind of things. You weren't aware of any kind of similar iconography. And so I think one of those really unique icons in... I guess I'm thinking of China here. China's got the big lion heads. I guess Japan has some of those too. But the dragon lion guard dogs that they put on their temples, I'm just pointing out like a major icon. And so if you were to see some of those suddenly pop up in Israel, that's going to show you a connection. There are tons of those all over the world. Tons of these kind of lion heads. Dog lion statues are very common. Very common. And you're thinking those just happen by chance? Yes, because dogs and cats are very common. And so people make statues of dogs and cats. It's not because there's some of some common culture. It's because, hey, oh, look, a dog. Those are pretty cool. I'm going to make a statue of it. Egyptians had tons of statues of dogs and cats. Not because they were influenced by Japan. Japan wasn't influenced in their dogs and dragons by Egypt. It's because there are dogs and cats at each of those locations. And so they made statues independently of dogs in those locations. Okay. I'm kind of thinking of coloring contest right now where you walk into a coloring contest and you see a ton of different pictures that are all just colored different ways. It's all the same under drawing. The same black and white drawing that they're going from, but they're just colored different ways. And so I'm going to say, oh, wow, they're all kind of based on the common under drawing. But you're just saying, oh, yeah, they're all just kind of drawing that under drawing on their own. And they just happen to look the same. And it can be very, very specific in times. Well, no, no, that's the part you're missing. None of what you said is specific. Blood on doors is not specific. Blood on doors is like sculpture of a dog. They don't have the same architecture. They don't have the same historical connotations. It's not like the Japanese dogs have a very specific history to them, which are completely different from the dogs in Egypt. They both have statues of dogs because dogs are really common, but they aren't the exact same statute, which is how historians can tell that they are not in any way related to one another. People just happen to see a dog and like, hey, that would make a cool statue. And so when you're trying to make a connection between cultures, you can't use something extremely vague like, oh, there's blood on the door. Or, oh, look, a statue of a dog. You need to predict specifically. No, the science has a method specifically to be able to. You're just saying that it's not specific. And I think it's super specific, especially with the whole heart thing and being a sacrifice. Human sacrifice was common just like dogs are common. It's very specific. Sacrifice of the heart just like the Book of Mormon describes. Sacrificing the heart was extremely common all over the world. All over the world. Yes. Yeah. I'm not familiar with just saying all of the world doesn't quite substantiate your claim. Google heart sacrifices. That human sacrifice on doors. Yes. Google blood on doors. Like this is cultural things humans do all the time. Like, I don't, I don't understand the problem here. Yes. People will kill people and then they'll put their blood on doors or pillars to scare away other people to be intimidating. It was very common. Romans did it. All I get is Egypt and Passover. I don't know. Maybe you're going off of a different Google than I am. But yeah, that's, that's my thing. You're not going to get on. I know. You're not going to get on. I'm going to say that. Yeah, I'm not going to get on. I'm going to say that because you're in place of each or. Your search engine may be a little biased. Okay. So your claim is. I'm claiming that you probably search things mostly related to Christianity. And so it's probably. Okay. So your, your claim is unsubstantiated. Then you just said, Google it. And I Googled it. And that's all I got was Hebrew. So, I mean, I don't need to substantiate this at all. It's a super common knowledge. You can call it. blue. You can go talk to an expert on that one. This is very common in human culture. Go bother historian on that one. Okay, so you're just saying it's specific. I called you out on it being very specific. It's not specific blood on doors is very specific. No, it's not like on the door itself. It's like the wood in between it's on the doorposts. If you think it is you don't know what specificity is you don't know history. But you can take that up with histories. Like if you think that's great evidence, then you're done. Like I don't really care. Like it's not I've proven it's not you can take it up with historians. If you want lots of examples, there's plenty of them. Okay, and yeah, it's just coming down to that. Vikings that did it. Eskimos. Vikings have done that. I've never heard of Eskimos doing that or Vikings doing that. I think you're just gonna do more research. You can do more research like it's on you. It's your claim. Nope, you're done. You don't need to give common knowledge things that happen all over the world. Like, ah, it's the same. Like your argument is just dumb, saying that oh, look, there's blood on doors in this culture and there's blood on doors in this culture does not mean they're the same. Have you never heard of correlation does not imply causation. This is very basic. Definitely heard of that. I've definitely heard of your arguments is a fallacy of correlation. There you've made no evidential argument to support that the fact that a culture has one similarity implies that they originate with the same thing. I debunked this argument in its entirety. When I told you that every culture throughout humanity is going to have some arbitrary similarities to other cultures, you would need to show that the number of similarities between whatever the Aztecs and the israels was higher than the rate of chance until you can demonstrate that pointing out cherry picking a few particular things which might be similar is not evidence they are the same. Furthermore, I proved they are not influenced because genetically we can show they have the different ERVs. We know for a fact there was no influence between these two things. So I gave three points that I didn't make any argument about genetics here. I know you did and so that doesn't have anything to do with my argument. I just said that they were taught by the same people. Which means the people had to be there, right? At one time but they could have left afterwards and so I can go and teach someone down the street and they can remember the things that I taught them and then I can leave and I don't have to be there anymore. Okay and that didn't happen. We know historically that didn't happen. It's been proven that didn't happen. There's evidence and so we we see the signature and so it's like no again again that's not evidence because you're cherry picking a few things which are the same between several cultures which you can cherry pick from any culture in the world which means what you really need to do is show that there are more similarities than random chance. So for your argument to actually be a good argument what you'd have to do is go between all the different cultures and see if you can find similarities between those cultures in Israel and see if there's a more similarities between the Aztec people in Israel and again you also have to use the historical method that they used to already disprove this to to change their position. If you can change the historical position and show that the historians are all wrong that would be phenomenal evidence. You're not going to be able to do that but that would be the first step in trying to make your argument make sense. The first step is by pointing out what random looks like and so I just take every culture in the world and send it through a blender and say that's random and because this does not look like that therefore it's right. No you say if your argument is correct then there would be more similarities between the Aztecs and the Israel than there are between the Israelis and the Eskimos or the Israelis and the Japanese or the Israelis and the Australians. If the number of similarities is approximately the same then there's no evidence that the Israelis had any impact on the Aztecs whatsoever. It just happens to be that randomly some aspects of their culture happen to be the same as some aspects of a different culture. So your claim in order to be verified you can't cherry pick a few similarities because I can cherry pick similarities of a different culture. You need to show that the number of similarities is greater than that of random chance or what happens by random chance between cultures that are not related because that makes sense. Well you're just going to say cherry picking no matter how many things I pull out I'm pretty sure. No you'd have to show like what is the number of similarities between all the cultures on average. You would have to do the work to actually show what that is. I don't know what that is. Have you ever done that with anyone? Like if you were just look at okay if we were to just do this with science all the time like this is the scientific method. If you make a claim you happen to have a null set the the period what it's called now P values and of the P values you have a base the placebo and then you compare that to your expected result to see if it's more or less than the P values and so you claim is that Israelis influenced the Aztecs so for a P value what you would need a neutral value that would falsify your claim is if the number of similarities between Israel and the Aztecs was exactly or approximately the same as the number of similarities between Israelis in the culture they didn't influence and then if it had more a lot more that would be good evidence that it is not just a coincidence so you to make this argument not be fallacious would need to come up with a value of the approximate random similarities between cultures that happen without any association and then show that the similarities between the Aztecs and the israels is more than that simply saying simply picking a few similarities doesn't give us anything it's the signature on a drawing basically I look at the drawings I can look at a series of drawings to see very different drawings but when I look and find that signature to see who drew it that tells me who drew the picture that's the basics with no because there are different signatures many paintings have different signatures so the fact that they have a signature doesn't mean they came from the same individual so what you would again need to do to show that it is the same signature you need a baseline a baseline number what is the amount of similarities that happened by random chance between societies that have no influence you need to get that number first and you're setting an impossible standard here that's not an impossible standard no one has ever ever ever gone and listed and numbered every attribute of an entire society before you don't need to list every attribute that's again that's that's what you're talking about I'm literally I'm literally telling you basic historical method of how to associate different cultures this is by historians do you're they take the aspects of the culture they take the aspects of the culture and compare it to a different culture and see if it's just happens to be the same that's randomly happens between societies or if there is an overrepresented proclivity of similarities between the culture and you can tell which cultures influence other cultures I'm literally just telling you the basic science of how history works here you take a baseline a baseline is what you would expect if there was no correlation you need that number this is a p-value it's basic p-value science and once you get that number you compare it to how many similarities are in your two hypothesis cultures to see if it's more or the same to that number this is not hard this is I'm not making any unreasonable request here it's basic you're trying to create this number that no one has ever numbered before no I literally just told you yes they have this is how historians do it this is how they know one culture affects another culture I can list a lot of other attributes too this is just I don't care I don't I need to first I need to know the number of what is the number of similarities between cultures at random I need to know that number first it doesn't matter how many ever done that ever I literally already answered that listen next time so what you need is a baseline value you listing similarities is irrelevant I can list tens of thousands of similarities between me and apes that doesn't mean that my mother was an ape for a monkey the fact that you can list a bunch of similarities tells us nothing unless we can trust it to the number you would expect to happen by random chance until you can say that you have nothing you have zero right you're the one who believes in the whole evolution thing and common commonalities indicate a common ancestor that's your whole thing oh I wasn't so yours I was literally saying I have 98% of my DNA and chimps are the same so I can list literally hundreds of thousands of genetic similarities between me and the does that mean that my ape was literally my mom was literally a chimpanzee no you don't claim that you're kind of straw manning yourself there oh my god so the argument here is that the number of things you can list does that tell me whether one was influenced by the other so I can list tens of thousands of similarities between me and a chimpanzee does that prove my mom was a chimpanzee you're straw manning yourself no no no oh my god I don't even know how to so what you need in order to prove a claim is to say what is the amount we would expect by random chance what is the amount of similarities we would expect by random chance between me and an ape well because we come from a common ancestor is going to be about 98% of the genome that's going to be the same so that doesn't actually tell me whether or not an ape was or a chimpanzee was my mom because it's what we expect if it's not my mom it's what we expect so in order to know if a chimpanzee was my mom you would expect it to be higher than that number 99.999999999% of the DNA would be the same then you need to include yes my mother was a chimpanzee but so the point here is I can list 98% of similarities but that does not show a chimpanzee as my mother because it is the equivalent of what we'd expect if it was not my mother so the point is that you need a baseline number first and then show your similarities go above that baseline not just list a bunch of similarities that's irrelevant it's gibberish not science not evidence okay well I've never seen anyone do science the way you're describing by then you've never seen anyone do science I've never seen anyone do science literally every scientific paper get a p-value every one of them every single paper you're just making stuff up now no you're done you're done you're done substantiate your claims do p-values like you need a baseline I literally do you have you never heard of a placebo I've heard of placebo yes out of you but not all sciences is the same why do they use placebos every scientist who does any trials uses placebos why do they do this why are placebos required in every single medical test no exceptions why are they required not every single medical test requires by definition placebos by the FDA that's great for medicine okay it's a why are they required don't use placebos in our history use the exact same thing in history use a baseline p-value contrast that to the data every time you're your ignorance of basic science and now you're insulting me yes because you're dumb and I'm giving you the basic science to tell you how to provide evidence you can't do it you're giving a bunch of random things which you think are evidence giving no way to show that it's not just an effective random chance yours isn't evidence I'm explaining this to you you're done I can come up with more and you're just you're getting mad you're just getting mad because I've crushed you that's on you okay you're done you're done you're done that's on you you're done we can move into because you don't want to hear anymore I got it we can move into the Q&A now guys if you'd like yep that sounds good all right excellent and just before we go into Q&A I just reminder that our guests are linked in the description if you want to hear more and that includes at the podcast or the episode for this debate we link all our guests in the description and each podcast episode as well all right so we'll get into the the super chats that we had here so our super chat starts out with big bad mama for two dollars says Kyle book of Abraham hoax question mark do you understand what they're trying to imply with that or like I'm not very very specific a lot of a lot of people who don't believe that's all you can say is book of Abraham hoax you could say the same thing for people who don't believe in the book of Mormon book of Mormon hoax you know that's just what people say I say NASA's a hoax so that's yeah whatever okay I if we got that right there big bad mama you let us know in the live chat there if you want to clarify a little bit just pop us a message in the live chat all right so coffee mom 499 Kyle what is the current apologetic for the book of Mormon claim that God turned certain people's skin black because they disobeyed him basic science says that is a lie basic science says that's a lie well people end up changing over time and does god end up distinguishing people why not so and you can just say basic sciences is a lie but yeah when do you go out there and describe what god does at all like would you go do that and say okay that's this is a lie that's not okay when you can show some basic science that says what god does and doesn't do then we can talk all right gotcha all right and moving ahead and we have bob for two dollars and 22 cents asking what is reformed egyptian reformed egyptian is egyptian that was made so you can write it easier and so it's not like straight up egyptian so in english we they have a shorthand writing in shorthand versus longhand i don't know how to write in shorthand it's something more reporters did back in the day so it's that's my understanding of it is reformed egyptian is like a shorthand egyptian all right excellent all right let's bear with me for one moment here and right and shurik has a commentary for 199 trump's heavenly clam chair makes god blush try to freak likes the chair all right um yeah for a 999 two times over sean erickson asked well he didn't ask a question he has more of a commentary here saying kyle i was raised in Mormonism growing up in utah and i came out of it a long ago you know just as well as i do it is demonstrably false i truly hope you find a way out my friend good luck uh any comment he seems to be really omniscient there he's like oh i i know what you know it doesn't work that way i'm i think he's the irony my irony alert irony meter i don't claim to be omniscient i don't claim to know what you know so that's one of those boundaries i prefer not to cross all right gotcha uh all right so we'll keep going here another one from bob here for two dollars and 22 cents uh we have how according to the witnesses did joseph smith translate the book of Mormon how did he translate it yeah so they're asking how according to the witnesses how did he translate the book through inspiration and the power of god okay gotcha there and mark reed for five dollars asks kyle romans used to put hyena blood on doors to protect from witchcraft t jump is correct on this point thresholds were important so was blood all right you guys hyena blood okay that's not really straight from the heart or a sacrifice any comments there t jump on that one that's kind of for directed to of you there says you're correct so i mean yeah yeah so it's just there are similarities between cultures and things that people value blood is one of them hearts as another one and so the fact that people use those in rituals to do magic is extremely common and i don't kyle wanting specific examples of this is just kind of silly like yeah yeah there's tons of them okay i don't know how it's is it being put on the on the mantle the top on the bias is just being tossed on the door like it's really really not specific at this point if we could expound on that and also rom was not that far away from israel so should there be some kind of a cultural uh influence yeah protect from witches to protect what what do you think happened in the in the Passover you're kind of protect from witches we put the blood on the door to protect from the destroying angel so if you think that as an evil spirit or something like that oh the Israelites they did this and that protected them so we're gonna adopt that and that's kind of the way cultures are influenced by each other and so we just look at the greeks and the romans and about how they have they very similar uh the correlation not causation literities are common you get you need a base value of how many similarities happened by random chance before you can don't believe the romans believed in the same kind of gods as the greeks they just changed the names to a lot of them and all through a few of the stories those are different gods than the Hebrews oh yeah i agree i agree but this is kind of about the question is is can launching another can people do things that are similar by random chance does that happen by random chance yes do people randomly do certain cultural things that happen to be really similar because of one block on top of another i could say that that people could randomly do that okay great so the question is is how do you tell the difference between similarities that happen by random chance and those that are more than random chance the question you need to answer is as well how often do they happen at random chance and how often would be more than random chance right so we can look at the greeks and the romans right you are the one talking about this big p value with the the greeks and the romans where do you see that p value anywhere or is it just say oh yeah we see similarities i'm going to call you out on this one saying that you're just you know we know specifically that the romans the roman gods are translated to the greek gods and they have different names for the same thing we know those are culturally translated from one to another because of the amount of similarities is higher than that of the rate of chance there are lots of similarities okay so you're you're okay i'm trying to hold you to your same standard that you're trying to hold me to and so you're saying that we've got all these things and we can't just say it all happened by correlation does not equal cause a causation we have to have the p value we have to have all these numbers in there yeah i don't see any numbers have you ever heard of any numbers yes that's literally literally what they do in history yes in every history textbook i've ever read i've never heard them list out the numbers when it comes to the similarities maybe you should read better books if you want to claim that's the case substantiate your claim i'm well again they all do this this is literally a thing all do what is the amount of similarities that happened by random chance is this more or less that's that's the premise of every paper when they're claiming similarities all right well let's see this what happened by random chance is this more than random chance that's that's the question that's how you know we can look at the the minds and the Aztecs the greeks and the romans we can there's a lot of different neighboring civilizations that have influenced each other we could look at japan and china and they happen at a higher rate than civilizations that are unrelated right if civilizations are unrelated they will have some similarities but that number will be lower than civilizations that influence each other right they're going to have more similarities right yeah yeah and so that's what i'm talking about but i've never seen anyone number it you're saying that it's all about the numbers and so china and japan somewhere somewhere out there would have had to number it but you have they do they do they literally do in all of the papers we read the papers on history papers but i'm not going to point you to any specific papers because they all have it it's pick one because it's the s okay you're just making stuff up just like last time when i was making stuff about the blood on the door you're wrong this time as well you're just trying to insulate yourself and your i still haven't seen any i still haven't seen anything to substantiate your claim again you're just trying to insulate yourself from common knowledge facts of history please get educated on basic academia just google history papers because you're mad no i've destroyed you like you just don't know history just you're just completely destroyed you you can't destroy what you can't change your claims yes p values common term used in all papers oh but you haven't given specific paper it's p all papers really yes i've never seen that any yeah i guess it's pretty important you may want to google basic scientific facts before you really talk about things because yeah it's pretty important talk to history paper i read was from jacklyn mclaughlin or mclaughlin as some people like to say and uh which is saying science never proves anything but i don't see any kind of p value in that paper so you're saying it's in all papers therefore it should be in that paper but it's not in that paper so therefore you're wrong it hold she probably doesn't know how to write a paper then but this is dr jacklyn mclaughlin in the college in the in the journal of college science teaching so she's the teacher of the teachers and i can pull it up for you right now and i can screen share it with you and totally demolish you on that so uh no but because you're making this you're making this all-encompassing claim it's in all papers that's your all-encompassing claim but it's not the case okay but your dumbass paper has nothing to do with reality it's not a claim about reality i'm glad you disagree with jacklyn mclaughlin because i don't know the philosophical conclusions have nothing to do with does one culture or one fact in reality relate to another fact in reality saying science doesn't prove stuff is not a derivative equation between two facts what you're saying is just again your ignorance of science to make a relevant analogy here if you're trying to compare two species or two cultures and want to know if they relate in some way you're going to need a base value of how much they're going to write by chance and the number of relations to know if it's more than that this is very basic science the fact that you're so ignorant of basic science is just astounding i'm debunked you're just you're just throwing more insults i'm just debunked you're just throwing more insults okay i can be more debunked you move on okay all right let's move on to the next question there follows the person doing the debunking doesn't get all all insulting they don't there's no need for that if you're winning there's no need that's a fallacy fallacy moron you can insult someone and win at the same time as i'm doing now moron all right let's move on to our next question there super chat from touring test two kyle has inoculated himself from against education all right so for 222 bob has sent in another question here uh the question is why was joe smith in jail before his assassination i think that's for you there as well kyle why was he in jail because of his for his assassination well people didn't like him and so he got thrown in jail multiple times throughout his life and so yeah people would accuse him of different things all throughout his life and yeah the question is yeah if he was there like why would they give him a gun that was like a big thing there's a lot of things that kind of went into there he was there peacefully he was there peacefully he was being held there against as well he yeah if he wanted to go out and fight the the jail man he could have done so but he didn't all right got you there all right so elusive viper sends in ten dollars and says how does kyle address the idea that social traditions can arise from biological evolutionary means blood is objectively important for life it's not impressive for multiple societies to value it so just to clarify the star that question uh how does kyle address the idea that social traditions can arise from biological evolutionary means so like language itself if we get into etymology a lot of these languages kind of come from very common things they all kind of come from root cultures i hope we can agree on at least on that part and so it happens the same way with language language itself kind of shows common ancestors of man and that's basic etymology and so it's goes farther than just language it also comes out in cultures and so a lot of people view blood as life because they come from the same kind of cultural background or originating in the same place as their language is coming from or they die when they bleed and so they think blood is important because if they lose it they die could you also associate blood with death in that way yes that's probably why it has been seen as important throughout all cultures even though they have no relation to one another because they die if they lose the blood or they die if they see the blood so it can equally be put on with death in fact with it actually gets seen as death a lot of times because a lot of people say oh their divinity don't bleed and so that it actually becomes a mark of mortality having blood is what makes you mortal all right gotcha and i got ozion talks five dollars i believe god does not exist and that i'm rational for my belief not sure about Mormonism with infinite gods and humans with one causing the other okay so can you say that again uh yeah i'll read this tiley i believe god does not exist and that i'm rational for my belief uh so the bulk of i think the commentary is not sure about Mormonism with infinite gods and humans with one causing the other with one human causing another human to come to pass all right i guess there's a lot of because in Mormonism you can become a god and no no no it's it's we are gods we are children of god and so that's kind of uh when jesus said ye are gods that's written in the book of songs yeah and so it's not just having one god but we are all the children of god all right and so if they want to say they don't believe in a god they have to define this word god and so yeah i just look at the ancient egyptians and they believed their leaders were gods and that was something like a title that even like the judges and and throughout the uh throughout the old testament they would be referred to as gods uh that get that title being god's representatives and so if you want to say that judges don't exist that's on you all right excellent so uh we'll continue on here uh matt lace and zen two dollars i hope i said that right uh it says when does the Mormonism debate start uh so we can we can move on from that comment there uh for ten dollars riana randall says kate a book of abraham joe translated egyptian and said it was written by abraham then it was actually translated and turns out to be a basic funerary test please explain how this that's not a con please explain how that's not a con well we can look at the book of abraham and do a deeper study on that if we have time so uh yeah that's all i could say on that okay and how are you fellas doing for time right now because we have a couple of questions in the live chat but we're getting near the end of the super chats here so we can keep going with some of the other questions that we had in there it's up to you fellas entirely sure i got one super chat from my end uh kyle i see similarities between your hair and hitlers how heavily were you influenced by him you see similarities i don't know so that one's a little bit too on the uh attacking the person side of things but uh i appreciate that t jump there we go uh so uh yeah we have another one in here for five dollars uh bring them young taught that both the moon and sun were inhabited by people has the Mormon church ever found scientific evidence of that to be true i haven't seen any scientific evidence of brigham young ever saying that and so he's been attributed with saying a lot of different things exactly how many of those things he actually said i don't know so i think we'd have to kind of cross that bridge when we can see the evidence for it okay that's yet and our last super chat uh for the super chat question so far we have that band get dana guy i says kyle do you agree that any contradiction proves that it's false if you say no then you have a different standard for moon landing versus Mormonism any contradiction okay well when it comes to the scriptures i look at like a whole collection of things okay and so i kind of tested out piece by piece and so i can say okay this part's true this part's true this part's true oh but i'm not really sure about this part and so but i'm gonna go in and look for other things and so i was talking about this with the bible recently okay the bible talks about a place called Jerusalem does Jerusalem exist okay Jerusalem does exist that part of the bible is true okay well it also talks about a place called Egypt does Egypt exist okay yes Egypt is an actual place it does exist okay that part of the bible is true it also talks about the red sea is there a red sea between Jerusalem and Egypt oh yes that does exist okay that part of the bible is true and so we can break it down into multiple pieces and then all those pieces together make one big thing one much larger picture but if okay well it says something about corn in in Jerusalem they planted corn did they have corn at the time i don't know i don't think so maybe that's an error in translation and so that part might not be true but does it disprove the entire book it just was part of that book not the entire book all right excellent so uh yeah well we wait for more super chats if you guys aren't in a hurry to go anywhere i get some regular questions i pulled out of the chat that might be of interest conversation here uh if you guys want to stick around for those so uh i have here uh from joe domen asked earlier on what supernatural events has kyle seen if any what supernatural events have i seen if any i've seen quite a few uh kind of like uh i've i talked about some of the dreams i have i've had on my channel i've had different dreams that have been significant and have meant something to me learning things that i'd never known about before like i didn't know what treacle was and now i had a dream uh recently i had this dream where i spoke with john westley powell and then i was like okay what's your favorite food and he told me it's like a treacle smoothie and i woke up and i was like it's a really oddly specific dream why would i randomly be dreaming about john westley powell and uh yeah and what's treacle and so i actually went and looked it up and uh john westley powell isn't an actual person he was kind of famous explorer in the in the midwest i knew about that vaguely but i had no idea what treacle is and so i i didn't even know how to spell it so i went and started looking around online to try and figure out what treacle is and i figured out to spell it and found out that treacle is a kind of molasses a molasses that was back in john westley powell's day it's the right time period and uh and there was a drink additive so i thought that was interesting so that's kind of one example i could talk all day about other examples that i've had or my ancestors have had but i think yeah we'll give some time for other people okay uh yeah i i do have one here as well for uh t jump uh somebody made a commentary on they said that you made said the phrase the science of history and they had a bunch of question marks i'm not sure if you had said that or if you had commentary on that but uh yeah history is a science the field of history is one of the fields of science i'm not sure what he so there's it has a methodology the methodology can be used to verify claims history is a science it's one of the soft sciences i don't i don't understand the question exactly i think he's looking for the methodology of history and how you use specifically like the scientific method in history because it's not really something that you do as much testing with maybe well you do actually there's lots of them archaeological testing so you make novel predictions about where you'll find like they did this for the population of the promised land after the exodus they made predictions about how many pots and huts and things they would find when they dug up every inch of land from the location and they did this and they found that the population was significantly smaller and never had a massive increase so they do the same novel testing predictions of history that they do in every science all right awesome uh yeah so we got another super chat in here $1.99 from kyle uh sorry not from kyle sorry from coffee mom says kyle new york exists is spider-man true no no okay but that part of spider-man is true okay any comment from you dirty jumper good on that well it's it's a perfect analogy for his argument the fact that there is one similarity between two stories doesn't mean that the two stories are uh inspired by one another i think that's the better way to phrase it would be something like was spider-man influenced by a different story that had uh new york in it because they both have new york will know they could both just have learned about new york in completely separate ways it doesn't necessarily entail that one story would have been inspired by another they can both come to the same new york example of a fact without actually having been inspired by one another okay what about ninja turtles and the movie that just spider-man amazing spider-man number two and ninja turtles the whole plot line of mutating the world climbing up to this big tower and having this big epic battle on top of the tower we see commonalities in both movies yeah those are tropes like the same plot well there's there's lots and lots of tropes that are very similar between movies that have absolutely no relation to one another so like towers fights on big towers is something that's happened in tens of thousands of movies that does not mean that they are all inspired by one super movie that happened first that had battles on towers um there are common things trying to spread and get a gin all over the place and so spider-man two they're they're trying to turn everyone into the lizards and then yeah i have no idea about indian turtles wants to turn like i don't know the specifics of those two stories so i can't i don't actually know if they're related to one another or not but i do know that there are tropes in movies that are there's lots of tropes in movies and that doesn't necessarily mean that they're all inspired by the same thing okay so but we we do agree that there are a lot of recycled material that you see all the time in movies or one movie is definitely influenced by another movie sure so all of a sudden if we see another movie come out there that has people living in a computer program you're gonna say wow and you're gonna immediately go start looking for similarities to like the matrix or something like that right yeah but it doesn't mean it's influenced by the matrix because there are movies that exist independently came up with these stories without watching the matrix like the fact that they have the same story doesn't mean that they originated from the same source material okay i think the more recent one is i read the book i robot and i see that book influencing tons of other movies out there from similar concepts like mother if you've ever watched that one on netflix that one's very much kind of borrowing from i robot all right excellent yet we have another one in here from that bandana guy another one for ten dollars and he asks kyle then you don't have the same standard in thought when it comes to evidence in the moon debate you said the moon landing was fake because of contradictions but yet not in Mormonism question mark dishonest he's coming at you a little bit there yeah i think you'd have to go into more detail than just that like he's got to substantiate his claims all right excellent so yeah that was the last super temp there let's move over to some of the other questions i had here uh master optics asks what does architecture have to do with Mormonism what does architecture have to do with uh the book of Mormon and so the book of Mormon specifically talks about a group of Israelites with that Egyptian the Hebrew Egyptian culture coming to the americas and that's kind of like a major theme in the book of Mormon from uh yeah a good most of most of the book of Mormon here uh talks about that family coming to americas and then growing from there and so a lot of that is directly about that and so we're talking about Mormonism i'm talking about the book of Mormon and so yeah great great book it has a lot of different details on that and so uh there's a lot of really fine things about it that i'm just going to say that Joseph Smith there's no way he could have known that uh such as the codex is here yeah so his architecture argument made logical sense if there was lots of architectural similarities between Israel and the asex that would be good evidence that they influenced one another so that i think the question didn't understand the logic of his argument which it was a logical argument just don't think it's true okay all right excellent uh yeah so we have another super chat here uh let me just look at this uh just let me say so uh from Montiero uh two dollars says why did Joe copy Freemason rituals into his temple why is there masonic like similarities within the church of jesus christ a lot of these saints well Joseph Smith saw a lot of things and when he saw certain things those things inspired him and so from like ancient days and so uh yeah that's kind of what opened his eyes and so the way that was currently being used was wrong and so he it's about a restoration taking things that are currently being misused and correcting those things and using them the right way all right gotcha so i'll also point out that mason's killed Joseph Smith that was they've the ones who murdered him when he was dying he was calling out to the mason's he recognized and the group of uh people so all right awesome and uh so sorry that kala dost that i'd missed to your super chat there uh kala that sent in a $20 super chat asked if kyle if significant cultural similarities between israelites and aztecs existed then how come we don't see it in significant cultural practices such as warfare why were they so different there's a lot of time and so these ancient israelites came in around like 600 bc and so there's from 600 bc and then going on there was a lot of time for them to be influenced by other cultures around them and never said that they were they got here to an uninhabited place it actually says they got here and then there were other people here and so uh other tribes that they were influenced by and so there's a lot more mixing going on there than just okay it's a direct influence only one line of influence all right excellent sorry if i seem like i'm coming out to there kyle i got a lot of questions here for ya uh from the super chats um just bear with me here will i just scroll up here um my apologies i just uh lost that one there so uh yeah there we go how many wives from toy ranch for five dollars how many wives did joseph smith have if your answer is less than 30 look it up i i've specifically looked into the number of wives and so a lot of those things are kind of like hearsay uh there are other ones that are much more specific and people oh yes we were married and so i'm going to say more than one i can feel confident in saying that uh i could say as much as 10 but i don't know uh a lot of the details after that it's kind of wishy washy and so yeah all right but yeah uh whether or not joseph smith had 10 wives or 100 wives that doesn't really disprove the book of warming it just kind of says okay that joseph smith had a lot of wives doesn't prove the book of moment is wrong all right excellent and that bandana guy as struck again for five dollars says kyle in the book of Mormon people getting baptized in jesus name before jesus was born just to name one of many contradictions so i think he's saying yeah the people were getting baptized according to the book of Mormon before jesus was born they seem to think that baptism was a new thing in the new testament that uh that john the baptist suddenly started baptizing people i don't think that's the case and i don't know what's giving him that indication that baptism was a new thing in the new testament not an old thing that kind of went before jesus was born well to our super chatters uh credit here they said that specifically that they were being baptized in the name of jesus i think that's kind of the specific thing that he was honing in on there um in the name of jesus and so the book of Mormon was translated into english and so i understand that jesus's name was actually uh joshua and uh and the peabrew kind of yeshua uh but it was kind of the aramaic was closer to jesus or something like that and so we ended up kind of going with it that way so there's different pronunciations but it was it was translated into a a language that we can understand and kind of yeah i was right um baptism predated christianity uh thank you god in judyism prior to christianity all right also there's several other religious sects that did it outside of judyism that's really interesting we're kind of looking into that that's kind of one of those markers for me kind of one influencing another if you're finding baptisms in other locations just randomly that'd be very peculiar all right excellent so uh i'm sorry if i mispronounce your name i got five dollars from hind rick van uh and me with me when housing uh sorry about that his question is kyle you are putting too much emphasis on your intuition do you do anything to counter your biases how would someone else independently verify these commonalities without your intuition uh without my intuition so i'm when i'm thinking of intuition i'm just thinking about my brain and my ability to think for myself and so they're trying to ask me what's a way i can think about this without thinking about it the question is is you think there's a connection between these two things based on your intuition how do you show there's actually a connection between these two things and it's not random chance that's the question so you're trying to just eliminate bias here not just thinking about taking my brain out of it yeah so it's like you're saying that you have an intuition that is your bias he's saying how do you show this is actually a connection and not just a figment of your bias well this is kind of where i started out by talking about the word evidence and so my my head is warm okay and it feels warm is it that's evidence that i might have a fever is it proof that i have a fever no because my hand might just be cold and so that's all i did was present this as evidence if you want proof it comes down to building that relationship with god for yourself getting answers to your prayers witnessing the miracles for yourself and that's what ultimately puts it down for in the end for for proof that you don't believe in so i understand you don't believe in proof that's why i didn't address go straight for the proof i wanted to kind of build on common ground awesome all right and we have good question here making a declaration for five dollars they say the book of Mormon is false because there were no horses in america until the spaniards all right well t jump started off by disagreeing that there were different parts of america that had horses and other parts that didn't so i'll take that common ground for what it is okay all right awesome uh riana randall five dollars uh the first edition of the book of Mormon was written in the trinitarian view only later did joe split the father son holy ghost why do you think that is i think that there's room for additional revelations that kind of came into play down the road and so i think he was learning about things as time went on all right excellent and just bear with me here i gotta scroll up because we've got quite a few super chats come in just bear with me here all right so uh d on five dollars says if the book of Mormon is true why do native americans fail to turn white when they become Mormons uh because they don't need to i think that'd be kind of strange really it's not like there was a reason for a distinguishing uh a distinguishing factor and what's the reason at this point all right got you there uh riana randall again why so many contradictions between the first versions don't sidestep uh they have come in the collect side chat so they want a real direct answer for this question here why so many contradictions between the many first versions the many first versions uh they're being very specific about this about some kind of contradictions but they're not pointing at any specific contradictions there are contradictions but what contradictions so it's not specific enough for me to answer all right gotcha uh montiero for two dollars asks why does lds refuse to excavate camora why do they refuse to excavate it uh i don't know if they haven't heard of the history with it but a lot of people had been digging up that whole hill like throughout throughout history before it was bought treasure hunters would go all over that hill trying to find additional gold and uh so i don't know why they'd need to find further excavations when a lot of other people done so i don't know maybe they're holding it like sacred they do kind of treat it like a sacred ground and so i don't know that's the last answer i can give you all right excellent uh riana randall again strikes for ten dollars the church says marriage is between one man and one woman not true though is it quest mark the prophet and the oak had two wives and will practice polygamy correct the prophet and the oak i'm not sure what he's referring to there but i just can point to ancient prophets it was not like a new thing joseph smith said hey we're kind of going for a restoration of all things and yeah in the bible and so that was kind of one of the things that was taught historically in the bible we look at abraham and he had multiple wives and so yeah so he ended up having multiple wives as well awesome uh that bandana guy five dollars again so the last question they'd asked was about the the baptism timeline so they did message back to clarify they say no kyle i am talking about the timeline jesus wasn't born therefore you can't be baptized in the name of jesus you can't be baptized in the name of jesus before jesus was born i don't know where they're coming from with that i don't think yeah i think their first question was implying that there's a claim maybe in Mormonism that people were being baptized in the name of jesus before his birth i'm not sure if that's something yeah well they yeah that's taught in the book of Mormon like 600 bc that they knew jesus was going to come like there's a lot of prophecies even in the old testament of the coming messiah and so they were being baptized in the name of this coming messiah and so i don't know like there's a lot of prophecies about him coming and so i don't really see where they're coming from on why oh how did they know well a lot of people knew we just look at like all of the parallels when it comes to moses and jesus and yeah there's a lot of parallels between that i can look at joseph in egypt uh joseph in egypt uh there's a lot of parallels between him and christ and yeah there's just tons and tons of them and so like all of the scriptures point to jesus the way the truth the truth and the life real sudden yeah uh i was going to say uh we've only got a few more super chats here uh to wrap up um from rihanna randall ten dollars your proof is the promise and the prayer which every other faithful theist has how can you say they're wrong if you came to different conclusions the same way is faith a reliable path to truth i'm not really aware of too many other religions out there that teach we can know through prayer like yeah i don't see the buddha saying yes you guys can pray and then buddha is going to answer your prayers and work all these miracles in your life i've never heard that before i've yeah so exactly where this is coming from i don't know so enlightenment not prayer but yeah they do okay skeptics and scoundrels i will let you fellas know in the live chat that uh we're going to wrap it up here in the next few minutes so uh yeah we'll get these questions done up here as i think t jumps uh ready to uh ready to call it a debate uh kyle you claim similarities between two oh sorry i'll start from the top here skeptics and scoundrels ten dollars says kyle you claim the similarities between two cultures as evidence of a relationship for just a moment let's pretend you're wrong how would you come to realize that how could you follow how would you falsify that idea so he's asking if there's something that could falsify your claim how could that be falsified i don't know it's kind of for me the one i've been thinking about a lot lately is uh just like okay how can you prove that the earth is a globe at this point and so that's just kind of the the picture that i've got in my mind is okay well at this point you'd have to like crumple it like take a pancake and crumple it into a ball and that's how you prove a pancake is like oh i didn't prove that this pancake is not a ball and so yeah it was like i can't prove that this pancake is is not a ball it's it's a flat pancake and so it's kind of the same thing with this is i can't falsify it's kind of so blatantly obvious i i forgot you were flattered oh yes i'm a flatter there so all right brian jenkins 499 kyle why does why does smith have extra marital affairs with dozens of women and only received his revelation of plural marriage after emma became suspicious um again that's a open claim there's a lot of people who throw things at them and smear things at them but yeah let's get approved that they actually happen first all right excellent uh well yeah we'll whip through these last couple chats here and then we're gonna wrap it up here uh they just keep coming in uh kyle the issue now i don't know who to trust you or the other religions weak evidence uh is when the conclusion can equally be substituted for the arguments well uh i say i'm not telling you to trust me i'm not telling you to trust the religion i'm telling you to trust our heavenly father but him speak for himself god speaks not just spoke god's yeah god speaks his works are without end and his words never cease that's that's the reason i'm going for awesome add good question five dollars for t jump t jump the last american horse died 10 000 years ago during the glacial age and they were three-toed horse like mammals sure that's that's horses in america all righty okay why couldn't joseph smith sorry montiero for two dollars why couldn't joseph smith re-reveal the stolen book of mormon pages why couldn't joseph smith re-reveal the stolen book of mormon pages i don't see why he couldn't have uh it just wasn't there for him it just that was it all right it comes from it's revelation from our heavenly father and unless he gives it to him it's not going to happen all right excellent well that's the end of our super chat so i think that will conclude our uh our discussion here for today so i'd just like to say thanks to t jump kyle for uh coming out and debating and uh everybody in the live chat there giving me an easy time on my debut here doing the moderation so thanks everybody and uh we'll see you next time all right okay thank you all right thanks fellas