 Hey everybody today, we're debating creation evolution and we're starting right now We're gonna get rockin and roll and thanks so much gentlemen for being here as mentioned We will have these eight minute openings So professor Dave, it's a pleasure to have you here as well, and I've got the timer set the floor is all yours Okay, so sorry. What do I do share screen? Is that Did that work? Almost got it. I think Usually perfect Okay, so Are you guys seeing full screen my slides? We are and I'm just adjusting the size to make sure it fits just right Yes, so much. We are good to go. We see them crystal clear Okay, so you just start when I start. Yes, sir. Okay, here we go Let's begin by stating that evolution by natural selection is an observable fact Exposed some bacteria to antibiotics chance mutations lead to resistant ones the rest die and soon they're all descended from the resistant ones That's evolution by natural selection Speciation or the production of new biological species is also an observable fact We have observed the emergence of new species of microorganisms plants and animals We know so much about it that we have new we have terminology to describe the different kinds of speciation that can occur If you understand biochemistry none of this is surprising at all DNA undergoes mutation new genes means the expression new proteins with the potential for novel Functionality and eventually completely different organisms. This happens faster than one might think even a single point mutation can produce legs Where antenna should be additional sets of wings and other remarkable changes can't will respond by saying that these are never different Kinds of organisms. Well, what is a kind? This word is in the Bible, but it's incredibly vague We can read about cattle a creeping kind and a beast kind. What is creeping what counts as a beast? Who knows science is not vague like this a species is a group of organisms capable of interbreeding So if organisms can produce viable fertile offspring, they're of the same species So is a kind a species well then the argument is false Speciation occurs. There are new kinds is a kind some other taxonomic category like a phylum or something else Then that's no problem because new species always belong to the same clade when eukaryotes first of all Every descendant thereafter was a eukaryote no matter what else they became animals always produce animals mammals always produce mammals and so For so if a kind is anything other than a species this will not contradict evolution in any way whatsoever Instead of defining the term Kent will perpetuate the ambiguity of the Bible because he needs to blur its meaning to suit His argument now if speciation happens today It's logical to extrapolate that it has produced all the species that are already here if this is the case There should be some evidence for example shouldn't there have been any intermediary species well fortunately fossils exist And after we found enough of them we were able to identify more transitional species than you can shake a stick at We have fossils that bridge from fish to tetrapods from land mammals to ocean mammals from dinosaurs to birds and every other transition you can think of We also see that fossils deeper in the ground which are older are less than similar to currently existing life which supports slow change over time This is such strong evidence for evolution that Kent will have to resort to claiming that the geologic column does not exist But this is a baseless lie furthermore We can figure out how old these things are with radiometric dating another technique that Kent will desperately Accused of being invalid without any basis whatsoever Isotopic decay rates are constant and measuring their levels reveals their age We can corroborate these ages by using multiple nuclides and when we get the same age using uranium dating as with potassium argon dating The notion that these coincidentally offer the same result not once but thousands of times is a statistical absurdity We can also compare with unrelated methods like tree ring dating or referencing documented historical events Radiometric dating works period then with biogeography We predict the locations of fossils based on the configuration of prehistoric land masses and guess what we do indeed find them there You can't get more empirical than I bet I'll find this thing here, and then you look and you do now Kent will say that none of this is proof of anything well proof is exclusively for mathematics and logic So anyone who asks for proof and science has no idea how science works in science We only say that something's consistent beyond reasonable doubt for example a very old earth is consistent beyond reasonable doubt as is agreed upon by Literally all geologists the people who study the earth for a living So when someone uneducated like Kent says anything the contrary it is totally baseless and can only be traced back to one piece of supposed Evidence some books says a thing similarly all biologists agree that evolution by natural selection is consistent beyond reasonable doubt But Kent will say some books as a thing Kent also strangely proposes that many unrelated fields are somehow part of evolution Most people would refuse to discuss the subject in a debate on evolution However, I'm very interested in demonstrating that Kent has no idea what he is talking about in virtually any academic field So I'm going to permit the discussion of these topics, and I hope very much that he wishes to discuss them In fact, let's introduce them now Kent wants to know about what he calls cosmic evolution Which he thinks is the origin of time space and matter in a huge explosion The big bang was actually the origin of space time and energy not matter and it wasn't an explosion on Uneducated people like Kent imagine the big bang as fully formed planets and galaxies tumbling out of a kablooey graphic This would indeed be quite absurd in actuality the model describes the universe arising from an initial singularity And then progress through a series of epochs that require a lot of knowledge and particle physics to understand Adams took three hundred and eighty thousand years to form and stars and galaxies took 150 million There's overwhelming evidence to support all of this one the recession velocities of galaxies in the expansion of the universe To the cosmic microwave background radiation a remnant of the recombination event predicted by the model and confirmed observation three the ratio of hydrogen to helium that is predicted by the model and confirmed by observation for hypothetical particles from early epochs that are confirmed in particle accelerators Astronomers unanimously agree that this model is consistent beyond reasonable doubt So when Kent begs to differ once again, he can only respond with some books as a thing Next Kent wants to know about he and no one else calls chemical evolution He wants to know where all the elements come from they're made in stars Kent This is immaculately well understood the process is called stellar nucleus synthesis It's really hot in those stars So all those nuclei are whizzing around and sometimes they fuse two protons gives us helium fours beryllium Six is carbon eight is oxygen and so forth This goes all the way up to iron inside a star heavier than iron requires high energy events like supernovae And the very heaviest are synthetic produced only in particle accelerators. They're all there is all the elements no problem Next Kent wants to know about the evolution of stars and planets again No mystery here hydrogen collected by gravity to form stars stars fuse all the elements eventually they explode all that map Plex to form another star and now with all those other elements there'll be a protoplanetary disk from which planets can form This is exceptionally well understood and we can see nebulae and proto stars all over the galaxy There is zero controversy about any of this in the astrophysics community So if Kent has an objection it would no doubt be based on the fact that some books says a thing Luckily Kent wants to know about how life came about on earth This is called a biogenesis and plenty of work has been done here in the 50s It was shown that amino acids form spontaneously in early earth conditions and the same has been shown for nucleotides Ribonucleotides polymerized on hot clay to produce RNA and we've observed riboscience Which have catalytic function and thus offer an early modus self-replication Amino acids must also polymerized to form proteins and there are several viable hypotheses as to how this happened if Kent is interested in Discussing organometallic catalysis. I would be happy to elucidate further finally Antiphylic molecules spontaneously self-assembled into ordered structures like micelles and bilayers making boundary formation the least mysterious aspect of A biogenesis only with knowledge in biochemistry is a biogenesis become quite sensible So it's not surprising that Kent rejects it because he has zero knowledge of biochemistry The only evidence Kent can ever cite is some book which is allegedly written by an omniscient deity But doesn't bother mentioning anything scientific anywhere. Why doesn't it reference bacteria or DNA or the laws of physics? That would be quite something and also trivial for the God that created the universe and yet nothing intelligent is in this book at all That's because in actuality the book was written by ancient ignorant immoral men And it's not evidence of anything whatsoever. I look forward to demonstrating this repeatedly throughout the debate You bet. Thank you very much from Professor Dave That was his opening statement if you're just tuning in and we will now kick it over to Kent Hovind who will be giving his opening statement and that will also be Eight minutes, we're just gonna switch the boxes the old switcheroo happened in one sec So Kent I have the timer set for you and glad to have you here as well The floor is all yours Well, thank you for having me again Dave I want to say I I have just heard of you today and I did get to watch a few minutes of one of your Videos you did and I very much appreciate your your style of trying to keep things simple. That is commendable Your goal your visuals are excellent. You sound very angry at some book that you don't like I think I suspect I suspect I know why according to 2nd Peter chapter 3 I think we should put your name in there. Anyway, I'm shocked that you would give some of the so-called Evidences that you gave that have been proven wrong some well over a century ago that you're still claiming to you said in the video That I saw that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution. I would like to see that you said there's evidence for from Homology similar structure. Do you not comprehend that this is evidence of a common designer? With a common there's a lot of commonality between Chevy Pickups and Chevy cars. I mean the lug nuts will interchange. It doesn't prove they're all coming from an explosion or a skateboard there And I really was saddened to see that you are still teaching. There's evidence for evolution from Homology about the vertebrate embryos looking the same Dave. This was proven wrong in 1874 if you're destroying children's faith using something proven wrong 140 years ago So you might be a child abuser. This is certainly wrong to teach this the embryos do not look similar They are vastly different. Those are not gill slits I'm Disappointed that someone with your now knowledge level would still be using something proven wrong 140 years 145 years ago. Okay, you need to stop using that This is criminal behavior in my opinion to teach children something that is just a lie That's going to turn them away from their faith and the obvious that there was a creator You're still saying there are vestigial structures What on earth would a vestigial structure? How could there be any evidence for evolution? That's an example of losing something not gaining something You lose everything and that's how you get it all. I don't understand I'd like you to elucidate on that as you mentioned, okay Then you said the snakes have pelvic bones. You've got to be kidding I'll cover all these if you'd like in great detail And I may have to add you to my list. I just heard of you today Have a long list of whack an atheist that I do every wednesday night So I'd be it'd be an honor to whack you with a little bit of science and knowledge And we use spongebob and I'll put your name on there and try to get a little science and knowledge in there And whack you back into common sense. No, none of these are evidence for evolution The title of the debate is does the evidence support creation or evolution? Well, there's some book that you refer to the bible claims that god created the heaven and earth That's what it claims You claim that a singularity whatever that is Produced everything in the big bang That's ludicrous at many levels. It doesn't explain where space or time or matter or energy came from Where did the laws come from like the law of gravity? Centrificial force these various laws. Where did those laws come from? We'll cover that sometime The bible claims clearly that jesus christ is the word of god and he created everything and and john chapter one You can read that for yourself. Jesus created everything That's what he claims because jesus is god almighty in the flesh and you will stand before him one day Dave as your judge whether you like that or not coming soon to a city near you Jesus claimed that the creation of adam was the beginning when he made adam and eve Matthew 19 4 and mark 10 6 and the bible clearly claims in the 10 commandments in six days The lord made heaven and earth Well, that would real very simply explain all the symbiotic relationships that we see plants give off oxygen Take in co2 animals take in oxygen give off co2. They reciprocate the gases That the symbiotic relationship there are millions of symbiotic relationships in nature certain plants require certain animals I think that defies an evolutionary explanation But god said he simply did it all in six days now You can choose to deny that as i'm sure you've chosen chosen to believe that it didn't happen that way But you cannot possibly know that it didn't happen that way so Jesus said the creation was when god made adam and eve and the bible says clearly that man Brought death into the world roman's chapter 5 first grantians 15 Man introduced the reason the world has problems today in death and suffering at all levels Is because of man's sin yet your religion of evolution teaches that Death brought man into the world billions and trillions of things had to die For man to get here exact opposite of what the bible teaches just so you understand you're welcome to have that religion But it is indeed a religion and it is indeed completely contrary to the bible Did man bring death to the world or did death bring man? So jesus said the creation of adam was the beginning of course you're calling him a liar at this point The bible says nothing died until man sinned and you're calling the bible a liar And the bible says adam was the first man That's what it says and eve was the mother of all living the bible says we all came from adam and eve I think you could trace that back scientifically to the mitochondrial eve and y chromosome adam if you'd like But the dates in the bible add up to about it says adam was 130 and seth was 105 and enos was 90 If you add up the dates in the bible you're going to get what everybody else gets The earth was created about 4 000 bc or 6 000 years ago. That is a clear teaching of scripture And obviously you don't believe that because you need billions of years for your frog to turn to a prince You see dave when a frog turns to a prince by kissing it. That's called a fairy tale But replacing the kiss with billions of years is still not going to turn the frog to a prince It is still a fairy tale dave that you are teaching and believing and teaching to others The bible dates add up to 6 000 now all the evidence that we see and the purpose of the debate is what does the evidence show Evidence shows that single cell one single cell is more complicated than a space shuttle Darwin thought a cell was a glob of jelly mean not much to it now We know it's one cell more complicated than the most complex machine ever built by man All the evidence shows that design demands a designer at every level At every level design demands a designer Evidence shows that information does not arise by random chance. It just doesn't happen. So, um Let's see for 14 or two. I want to have time to cover all this. So let me I'll add this when I do the Wacken atheists here Uh, let's see 14 o 2 What's happening here steve? It's not working steve Stephen I've got it on this one Oh, there it goes. Okay Dave I was I think that your camera might have stopped just so in in case you didn't know not a big deal Okay Are you pausing the time here john or uh James Yeah, I can do that. Okay Okay, uh in the movie uh tom with tom hanks the green mile It was a fact there was evidence that two girls are missing No question the girls are gone a massive manhunt was organized It is a fact in the movie at least john coffee is found holding the two dead girls. That's a fact The evidence showed clearly they're missing when they're found. He's holding the two dead girls It's a fact. He was arrested and executed for the crime In the movie at least so that's a fact that the evidence showed that he did it. It was also a fact That he didn't do it It's a fact that this guy did it in the movie So I think what you're looking at is you're completely misinterpreting the evidence You're seeing similarities of different creatures and assuming you're concluding Common ancestor rather than common designer. You're doing the same thing that the people did in the movie here with executing the wrong guy You're executing the wrong guy. You're claiming this book right here Which you obviously have quite a hatred for for some reason you're claiming this book has errors in it I'd like to see some of those errors. You're claiming it's not a science book. It is absolutely no science in it whatsoever Really, I think I can go show you thousands of scientific facts in this bible It says in this book that all the animals will bring forth after their kind Cows produce cows dogs produce dogs. That's a fact dave. This book says they'll always bring forth after their kind Would you please show me where any animal is ever brought forth something other than it's kind? And no fossils could possibly count. I can't believe you listed as evidence fossils as you know Well, fossils don't count as anything except something died Bones in the dirt do not indicate something changed. Why does no animal today have the ability to change to something else? But you think a bone in the dirt could do it That's not science son bones can't talk. They don't have a date stamped on them We're putting our interpretation on them No plant or animal today can produce anything other than it's kind And if you object to the word kind, I'm sorry the word species is also pretty Uh Hard to define exactly. I covered that the other night on my bible study here Wacken atheist what exactly is a species if you look up species It'll give one of the definitions of species as kind I think in 99 percent of the cases. It's obvious what a kind same kind is. Okay. I think my time is up Anyway, love your style. Love your goal. You're completely wrong dave. I'll try to get you converted tonight Okay, go for it. Okay ready to discuss You bet you are Absolutely. Okay. So apart from the same ridiculous pageantry that you offer in every debate where you talk about frogs turning into princes And cars assembling from tornadoes all of which have nothing to do with evolution whatsoever But you use to trick simple-minded people into believing your lies Most of what you talked about in your eight minutes was based on the bible not science So you talked a lot about the bible. So let's go to the bible first Number one, why do I care what the bible says and number two you mentioned something about There's nothing wrong in the bible or something like that. Is that what you're you're saying? I'm completely i've read it for 51 I've read it for 51 years now. I'm not aware of any scientific errors in that book, you know I have some passages. I'd like to share with you. Is that okay? Well, first of all is is this is the purpose of this debate tonight to show that the bible is wrong You're supposed to be presenting evidence that evolution is true But the bible is your only the bible is your only piece of evidence for creationism So i'm going to show you that it's not evidence. Dave. Dave. You just said that the bible In a mind I can see animals produce after they're kind Cows produce. What is it kind kent? What is it kind? You're missing the point. Do you know i'm not missing the point You define the word. What is it kind? Well, originally it was those that could originally reproduce and they might have diversified now where we have a So you mean species to bring forth from their find their kind do you mean species? It doesn't use the word species That's carolis lenius's term. I believe I don't think made up the word species but but you're talking about bringing forth So a species is organisms that can produce viable fertile offspring So is that what you mean by kind? Okay? If a man or a woman today is sterile and cannot produce children at all are they are they still Seatians in general John Dave Dave they can't reproduce. They're no longer human So so it's not a it's not a species. You're saying a kind is not a species I think the kind the word kind and species probably are synonymous at many levels, but I wouldn't Can't you can't have it both ways you can't have it both ways You have to say what a kind is if a kind is a species Then you're saying that they're not new species and you're wrong because Occurs if you're saying that a kind is anything other than a species Then that statement does not contradict evolution whatsoever because every time Organ new organisms come forth. They are part of that kind which is a clade You're talking about anything else. You're talking about mammals talking about karyotes Whatever it is that you're talking about if evolution does not require for new kinds to occur They will always be within that kind So you're either wrong or you're not contradicting evolution. Which one is it? All right, james, I would request that you kind of keep track of the time It looks like he's trying to monopolize all of the time. I would like half the time, please So if you can please moderate as you're supposed to okay, dave, would you please tell me what is the best example? You know of of any creature producing something other than the same species What is it? Do you know what polyploidy is? I do What is it polyploidy is a doubling of the chromosome number. It doesn't add any new information at all Uh, okay, does it produce a new species? Does it produce a new species? If I copy a videotape and make I go, oh wow, I got two videotapes. They're identical It's the same information, dave Then why is the organism not able to interbreed with the parent organisms? It's a new species. Polyploidy produces new species Polyploidy produces things that usually are infertile and cannot reproduce at all That's not true at all. That's not true at all. So many plants that you eat can Stop when you say something wrong, I'm going to correct you. I'm not interrupting you when you say something wrong I'm going to correct you what you just said is demonstrably Many of the plants that you eat are tetraploid hexa ploid octa ploid many plants have evolved through polyploidy And that's a table of instant speciation. Let's give kentus And when you are wrong, I'm going to correct you dave This book is the book that god preserved for us to read. You're gonna be judged by this book Well, we didn't get a chance to talk about the bible because I had some passages I wanted to share with you Sure, sure. We can do that another time. But okay polyploidy hexa ploidy any of those all they are as I think I pointed out early And already answered the question It is a doubling or tripling or quadrupling of existing information. Is there new information added with polyploidy? I mean new information. Yes, there is if two polyploid gametes fertilize one another What what is the new information that's added? The information about the gametes the information with two gametes. Do you not know how this works kent? Do you not know how myosis works? I could oh, yeah, myosis. We're not just saying one thing now polyploidy Can you say a lot of a lot of prey out there that are running from predators? Rabbits have been running from predators for a long time. Why haven't any of them evolved wings? Don't you think that would help? That's not how evolution works Evolution doesn't work at all. Okay. There is no evolution. No You can't just say evolution didn't do this or didn't do that Evolution is random mutation by chance that is then selected for by natural selection You can't say that evolution didn't do this one thing that I think it should do nature is blind That is not a valid. Would you please give the audience an example of something that has been a mutation that has added new information Not doubling existing information like polyploidy What do you mean by new information? Every single mutation is new information. It's a change in a base pair. That's new information Every mutation is new information Whoa, I'm going to quote you on that one every mutation Is new information Yeah, instead of a g there's a t or instead of an a there's a c. How is that not new information? So if we make a typographical error in typing a book that is going to create a new new thing A new block See, this is what you do you do I mean like if he like if he wants to do an analogy like it's You know, I think it's like a fair game But his analogies are always Well, I mean like I'm I'm totally okay like if if he has a moment to explain the analogy and then we'll definitely come right back to you if you have an analogy and then I'll tell you why it's stupid Okay, I asked you what is the best example you know of of an animal that created a new species That had to contain new information. What would you give me? Yeah, and I use polyploidy because it's undeniable because it happened instantly in one generation as opposed to Give me a specific What is a specific plant or animal that you with polyploidy has added new information that made a new difference Plants that you there's tons of plants that you eat like bananas and stuff like that. Okay So bananas are an example of Octopoid, huh? Okay, so a strawberry that became octa octopoidy Eight times the volume all the end up with those giant strawberries that taste terrible. Is it still a strawberry, Dave? You mean the taste of all strawberries. We're talking about all strawberries. What do you mean that tastes terrible? What are you talking about? Well, I've seen the giant strawberries they produce with octopoidy and they're hollow and they taste terrible In humble opinion, that's okay. Strawberries are octopoid Strawberries, okay, not the special whatever you're talking about. If you know what you would It's still a strawberry But it can't we This is it's a simple. Yes or no, Dave. Is it still a strawberry? What are you talking about? We're talking about you got a strawberry turned into a strawberry What are you talking about? These are different species. Okay. I'm using We can talk about speciation. Did you not see that? I want a simple answer. Your answer was strawberries are a great example of octopoidy. There's no new information It's still a strawberry. How is it not new information? How do you not understand? Okay, see when you say things like frog turning into a prince, you're just revealing that you are a conman Why are you saying things like frog turned into a prince and a car doesn't make itself from a tornado? These things are not valid analogies. You're saying that a tornado doesn't make a car What the hell does that have to do with evolution? It's a man-made object. Your argument is basically there is a thing that is designed Therefore everything is designed. Okay. Well a snowflake forms spontaneously. So everything forms spontaneously It's the same thing. The conclusion does not follow from the premise It's not a valid argument, but you say these things to simple-minded people to trick them I'm not simple-minded. So why are you telling them to me? I think you are much more simple-minded than you realize. Let me show you the picture here This yeah, this textbook shows and I got all the textbooks beside me that a human and a bird have a common ancestor Which was uh an amphibian Let's see. Let me find a family tree that they show here because I mentioned about the frog and the prince Okay, they have these textbooks with these charts all the time showing all these animals going back to a common ancestor Do you believe you have a common ancestor with a strawberry dave? Yes Okay, you're welcome to believe that that's not science. That's a religion. Yes. It is science Nobody's ever seen a strawberry produce a non strawberry. You might get a bigger strawberry That's not what evolution says happens when you say dogs never produce non dogs and things like that You're mischaracterizing science. You're mischaracterizing evolution Deliberately again to trick people into believing you it nothing in evolution ever says that dogs produce non dogs Nowhere is that said what does that have to do with anything? Let's calm down. Let's take that statement Nowhere does evolution say dogs produce non dogs is an amoeba a dog No, just yes or no. Okay. Did the dog come from an amoeba? What They had a common ancestor. Come on. Yes or no. The dog come from an amoeba What does this have to do with anything? You know It did not come from an amoeba. No, it did not come from an amoeba. What does that matter? Well, the charts in the book show the amoeba turning into all the creatures including the no, they don't Show me a book that shows that can't no book shows that Show me Anything coming from an amoeba Okay, an amoeba is a protist that has a common ancestor with all other eukaryotes. They an amoeba is a eukaryote, right? Is an amoeba a eukaryote a eukaryote simply means the cell contains a nucleus that's bound in a membrane That's a common as many other organelles and very similar metabolic pathways These are all of the next year of evolution And i'll use the same terminology you've been using in your simple mind You think because they're all eukaryotes therefore they're all related could not be a common design You know all the cars on the highway have metal in them iron You're just using the exact same analogy. Why are you talking about cars? They're not biological organisms. This is not a valid analogy You're saying that they're not designed. Therefore everything is designed Adding biological ability to reproduce makes it a trillion times more complicated much harder for you It'd be much simpler for a skateboarder Do you know what a paternity test is? Do you know what a paternity test is? Here we go. Here we go. Uh, two or two, alt dv two or two You asked for Here is a tree of life used in the textbooks that shows humans and arthropods and worms coming from a Single cell or sponges. Do you believe we all came from sponges, Dave? Do you believe this textbook is right? You're doing okay. How about this one humans and trees and reptiles all came from a protist So if it wasn't an amoeba, did we all come from a protist? Do you believe that is this textbook, right? Uh, I believe it may have been some kind of protist. Yeah, okay. Okay. How about this one humans and birds and mosquitoes? All came from oh look at this and worms and snakes and sharks all came from Let's see and amoeba. There it is. Do you believe an amoeba turned to a dog? That's my original question. The amoeba is not at the root of the tree and no It's not saying that amoeba turned into a job into a doctor. You are mischaracterized in science and All you're saying is I don't understand it's gonna be true. That's what you're doing. The last thing I want to do is mischaracterize science I think you are misrepresenting science. That's what you that's your mo. That's what you do all day long That's all that you do. That's all that I do mischaracterize in science Okay, now Dave, let me make it very simple for you. You like to make things simple This chart shows humans and mosquitoes coming from a protista. Did the dog come from a protista? If you already did this nine times, you can say all all all animals and all plants You're not answering the question. Dave, Dave You're just asking the same question 18 times. You can say And then in a month, yes, they're all needed. The answer is yes Okay, good, fine. So the dog. I'm trying to make a point here now, Dave The dog came from a protista is and a protista is not a dog So you said that I will always say dogs produce dogs and you say that's not what science says That's not what evolution says. Of course, don't they both you carry out? Then why didn't they why don't they both you carry out? Why didn't their protista keep producing protista somehow it produced a human on this chart Did you not know that there are many protists in the world? Yes, do you not know that they have lines on this paper connecting the people to the protista? So you see the lines on the paper son? They connected a line from a human to a protista All the lines are being produced on a protista So it's not true. Why why is that not true? You're just saying that you don't understand. It's not true What's the point? I don't understand it. So it's not true. I don't believe this for a second I think it's retarded to believe a protista turned to a human I don't believe that that's fine. No one says that. See that's you was characterizing it. You said protista turned to a human This chart is right Over over two billion years Ken. Oh, okay. Okay. So instead of a kiss to turn the protista to a human It took billions of years. That's your new magic ingredient. What's wrong with that? If you kiss the protista, it won't do it But if you wait billions of years the protista won't turn to a human You just try to mock it. You say oh kiss and tornado. It's this is what you do. I am mocking it because it is stupid It is stupid to believe a protista evolved to a human Based on your incredible expertise that does not exist because you have no education whatsoever Here we go with the uh, uh, okay. I'm a care garden dropout. Okay, but I don't think anybody's ever seen a protista produce a non protista Where's an example evolution does not What are you talking? Wait Evolution does not say that it must what do you say this chart came from an evolution textbook and it shows a protista turning to humans gorillas They're eukaryotes kent. They're all eukaryotes Turned to a pine tree and a human this chart says they did This is what kids have to learn in school. You do believe a protista became a human and a pine tree Over a billion years. Yeah Huh, okay. Just admit it if you want to believe something that dumb, that's fine Okay, don't call it science. All you're saying is that you don't get it. So it's not true. So let's get into this Let's just fine. I we're gonna get any of this. You're gonna tell tell take all the inals forever Let's talk about What is the paternity test? Okay, what is the paternity test? What uh, somewhere for the protista to become a human Okay, so you only have my questions You're just gonna go on and on and on and on about protists turning into I want the audience to see what a dumb religion you guys have chosen to follow Not a religion. Not a religion. It is a religion. You believe there's no moral code. There's no social structure. There's no Put your name on right here You imagine that over millions of billions of years the protista could turn to a pine tree and a human That's what the chart show and that's my objection. It doesn't happen Overwhelming evidence to support it. Well, I've asked you to show it to me The protista did you not hear the part about fossils? Dave Dave Dave protista don't have a lot of things that humans have Protista don't have fingers and arms. They don't have the brains that they do protista have everything humans have No, I agreed with you when you said they don't have hands because anyone So so good. Good. We're getting somewhere. We're getting somewhere along the line The protista had to have new information added to turn to a human on this chart Yeah, and I just told you that all mutations are new information. It's new information. It's a new gene Okay, you're welcome. You're welcome to imagine that this happened But where is the scientific evidence for any protista adding new information protista have a very short generation time I don't know what it is for a protista probably a couple of hours You can get a whole you can get the equivalent of millions of years To turn into a human what does that have to do with evolution at all? I'm telling you that very slow accumulation gradual change mutations new genes Do you not see my slide in the beginning? It's biochemistry. Do you know any biochemistry? Do you understand gene expression? Do you know how? Dave Proteins Yes, I understand you do a good job of making things simple. I'm trying to make it simple for you. The charts are showing the kids Oh, yeah, the chart. Here's the chart right here. I don't know where you see it on your screen here Right this way. Okay. I can't get in front of this chart shows the protista becoming Slowly over billions of years through gradual mutations to random chance mutations The protista turned into a pine tree a human a horse a gorilla a dinosaur a shark and a starfish And you believe this stuff, don't you you believe that don't you? Yeah, listen, Dave, you are welcome to believe that but this is a religious belief. This is not science. No, it's not You have a religion and don't know why did you refuse to address any of the things that I said in my opening statement Why are you not addressing fossils and geological data? I know Let's just take let's take One of my requirements when I debate someone is we talk about one topic at a time if you'd like to talk about fossils I would be glad to let's stick on that one. Let me point out. Let me explain it to you. They hang on. Hang on science Pay attention Fossils You cannot prove any fossils had any children at all. I've got fossils all over our museum here. Here's a petrified clam Can could we prove could we prove this claim? May I respond to the dumb thing that you just said? May I respond to the dumb thing that you just said or do you or do you just want to keep steam rolling and say dumb thing? You're not listening anyway, but did this did this know I heard what you said And I know this talking point of yours. You say that a fossil there's no proof that it reproduced or anything like this That's true. Isn't it? Why does that matter kent if a human being dies kent? Let me say what i'm going to say because i'm demonstrating to you that you have no idea what you're talking about Okay, a human being dies without having reproduced to the entire human species go extinct No So Doesn't have to have reproduced it is a member of of a some species a population that one died and we found it So what okay? Wonderful. That's great. We have fossils all over our museum. Dave a simple question Could you? Yeah, because you don't get it. Could you prove this fossil? Dave you said fossils are evidence for evolution. I'm pointing out you can't prove that fossil had any children You couldn't prove it had children that were different. Did you hear what I just said that fossilized organism doesn't I've heard it till I want to puke on it. Okay You want to puke on it because it demonstrates that you know what you're talking about I have every idea what i'm talking. You're the one that you don't or you wouldn't say that dumb thing that you just said No, I said what I said was true. You don't get it fossils could in a in an honest court of law No fossils would count they would all be thrown out because where the judge is a developmental biologist What do you mean a court of law? Here's Dave. We don't see any animal today. This chart shows a protista producing a human We don't see protista produce anything other than protista today But you think a fossil you could do it you what do you mean other than protista? Evolution does not say that see this is why you need to define kind Because if you are saying that kind is species then you're wrong Speciation occurs. Do you agree that speciation occurs? That's a slippery term. Yes. I'll give a qualified. Yes. I agree though It's really not a slippery term though because species is a slippery term like like kind species Is a population of organisms that can produce viable for offspring. It's actually a very rigid definition Now there is a whole population of protista on this planet like trillions of them They are having babies all the time Do they ever produce anything other than a protista today today? He doesn't say that they will everything says that they did A protist is not a species a particular species of paramecium May evolve into or a subset of a population of paramecium may evolve into a new species of paramecium But a protist is not a species Right a protist is a group and you're deliberately using protist because it's so uh so poorly defined It's not a kill it was on the chart. I just showed you one on the chart. I'm trying to get I'm trying to help you understand So I'm okay. Let's try this one. You're not trying to help anybody understand anything ever. You're trying to make money That's what this is. Don't stress These folks live here and work here. Am I in this for the money? Oh, no, you but come visit. Oh my gosh You're a minion. I'm not gonna be in a dream with you. Yeah, but I don't know what you're talking about now Yeah, okay. Okay dino park, man Okay, I have parks. I have slides just like this somewhere in my 10 million slides Showing all life forms going back to a common ancestor, which was a single cell creature Whether it be a protista or an amoeba or whatever class you want to put on it You think this single cell creature Became a horse a pine tree and a human over millions of years slowly. I'm asking The same thing over and over and over again in the budget because it's not an argument They know it's not because You and I both taught mathematics two plus two is four. It was four a hundred years ago. It's going to be four hundred years from now You don't have to do anything. What does that have to do with the fact that I don't need to know what I say This is becoming very circular because all you're doing is the same thing over and over again saying Proteus to plants going on. This is so crazy. So let's talk about the evidence. Let's talk about possible Let's talk about the evidence Have you ever seen a protista or an amoeba or any bacteria produce something that you just said fossils And you're going off in the exact same talking point that you just fossils Okay, have they have they found any fossil protista or bacteria or amoeba any single cell fossils a lot of them have been found I mean Lots of rock formations are made of trillions of fossil single cell creatures Have they ever found any of them with evidence of new information like a leg or a wing or an arm or an eyeball Bacteria don't have those things. They're not multicellular organisms. So what you're saying has nothing to do with anything whatsoever But the chart shows they became multicellular organisms and you think this happened. They drew a line on paper Right over many many years new species came about but that does not mean a bacterium must have a wing That's a very dumb thing to say and it's okay. No, you're not getting it. You're still not getting it Hey, hang on. I'll get right here Let's see right here Science is knowledge. What we see an observant test is Single cell it's a very cute prop kent. It's adorable. It's very appropriate too. Very appropriate It's not because you imagine that all these things came from a common ancestor. You have a wild imagination, Dave So all we're establishing that is that you don't believe biology and so we're not getting any there anywhere with that So let us talk about biology Bio means life and I taught biology 15 years. I believe No, you didn't can't I didn't okay. Okay. You lied to children in a church. That's not teaching biology I lied to you're the one lying to children saying we all came from an amoeba or a single cell creature I didn't say You're lying to the children, Dave. You're teaching a dumb religion of evolution Okay, you're just repeating the same thing over and over again. So why are you talking about it? It's true and you're not getting it I'm That's what you're doing kent. Why explain to me why? Okay, all of the fossils you agree that there are geological strata. Yes I agree that there are many layers of rock on the earth. I do not agree. They are different ages I have I have right here. I have an art museum pictures of petrified trees standing up connecting all these layers now Whatever you want Call i'm asking you a question call them whatever you want in these layers. There are fossils. Yes, I agree And they are organized in a pretty particular way. Yes The fossils are not always in that particular way if there's any essentially always in that particular order Then you have been lied to and you swallowed a line. No, no, I haven't No, I haven't Can you find for me a hominoid fossil in a very low layer next to a trilobite fossil? Can you find that? That's very interesting. We have a section of our museum working on right now about trilobites living with humans all along There might even be some. Yeah, that sounds fascinating though. It's not a piece of reality Babe now you keep yelling me so I never got to answer to ask you my question My question for you is that uh, you believe that these layers were deposited during some kind of Flood as waters were draining or something like that, right? I agree. Yeah, the layers were deposited in a flood okay, so Then what I want to know is number one most of them nearly all of them They're still layers today being deposited, but I'd say 95 of what we see was deposited during Noah's flood Yeah, number one. Why do the layers have zero correlation with density? Why does the density not increase as you go down and number two? Why are these fossils in those specific layers in that specific order? Everywhere around the world Okay, they are not in that order, but let's take one question at a time I have in front of me a sand art toy that has four different densities of sand black dark blue light blue and white Four different densities, but every time you flip it over it makes 30 or 40 different layers Are any of those limestone or sandstone or granite are those in there? I'm not sure what you know about physics or hydrologic sorting, but Water automatically sorts things especially during the tide tidal change during the flood in the days of Noah The earth is turning around, you know in spite of the flat earthers and the earth the tide goes up and down And so if the earth were turning for a year while the tide's going up and down with no interruptions It would make thousands of layers and the density would be completely confused Generally What do you mean completely confused? What does that mean? Well some during one tide You would get more dense and light dense And then six hours later you get another tide coming in bringing another layer on top of all that So you may get more dense and less dense just google Stratigraphy experiments in stratigraphy Stratigraphic experiments at colorado At the navy You're saying that tides exist Everywhere on earth in every location on earth at the same time. Is that basically what you're saying? Well during the flood in the days of Noah the earth was covered and the tides would cover the world No, some parts of the world have a high tide while other parts have a low tide You see so how can you get the same strata everywhere on earth tides occur at on a coast If the earth were covered with water during Noah's flood tides would occur everywhere Dave What do you mean? They would occur anywhere tides occur on a coast tides come in and out if the world is covered by water Where is a tide? How does how does a tide? Let me let me explain Here is the pacific ocean They have a high tide and a low tide in the middle of the pacific You don't see it because you're in a ship floating up and down But the pacific ocean actually comes up and down during the tide. What do you mean tide occurs at the coast? Have you ever studied anything about earth science? I know about lunar tides. You're talking about the depositing of sediments in a particular way Right. See the world is turning at this latitude 31.336 degrees north latitude in Lenox, Alabama We're turning 886 miles an hour toward the east if the tide were going up and down during Noah's flood The water would have to rush sideways at really high speeds to fill that bump and then rush down the other way at high speeds So let's listen to the bump really high speeds. What does that have anything? How is it any different than tides today? Okay, it's not it's not but the tides today get interrupted by banging into the continents earth turns toward the east So the tides generally at the west the east eastern coast a little more because the tide is being drawn out by the moon You're trying to describe some kind of magical quality to tides that doesn't exist We see what tides do today It's very simple here. Look at this I just flipped this thing over these four different densities of sand made. Whoa probably 20 different layers And again, are any of those things sandstone or limestone or granite or anything that would be applicable to this discussion? I think I think it's pretty obvious even from the name you might even get this sandstone is made from sand Okay, we have sand is moved very easily when tides move back and forth Water going up and forth, but it's not the same material. How does it possibly come back? You would have to harden over the next few hundred years after the flood After Noah's flood the layers would harden and some of it's a chemical reaction There are different types of sedimentary rock And how does this process occur magically at every location on earth at the same time such that the strata are the same everywhere on earth Well, first, if you think the strata are the same every place on earth you have really been lied to and you're educated You're the one doesn't have an education The strata are all different areas and all over the world petrified trees are found standing up connecting these strata So that's not a problem with different ages summer and volcanic ash some could be due to a local flood That is not evidence against anything. I agree. I got it. You need to watch my video number six I don't need to watch any of your videos kids. You didn't I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. I didn't and I don't need to Oh, I know you didn't it's obvious, but you need to it would help you a lot Okay, you really do need to Okay, say what I'll watch some of yours and I'll put you on my list to whack an atheist Are you an atheist or just an agnostic or what are you? I don't really feel like telling you because it's not really uh part of this discussion Uh, it has nothing to do with god whatsoever unless we want to actually talk about the bible like I wanted to do earlier Can we no no that wasn't the title of the debate the debate was the evidence for evolution You're claiming there is evidence No, the title of the debate is evolution versus creation and the and the bible is your evidence for creation Well, no, even without the bible I could say this obvious. There's a creator I think somebody created this coffee cup and nothing to do with the bible. This has a yeah Another man-made object that has nothing to do with anything Your argument is that a designed thing exists. Therefore everything is designed Well, I can tell you that something like a snowflake forms spontaneously So everything forms spontaneously neither of those conclusions follow from the premise. They're both bad arguments You should stop saying it even though it's one of your favorite ridiculous things to say Well, it's not ridiculous. It's true and you're not getting it obviously So I need to say it over and over again. I'll tell you what most of the audience is getting it Even though you are not it is true Do you believe the first living cell the first living creature on the planet came from something that was non-living? Because I used a coffee cup which is non-living. Do you believe the first living cell came from something non-living? Kind of a gray area, but at some point you'd probably have to you'd have to demarcate that. Yes Okay, so how did this non-living whatever it was soup collection of chemicals you can have whatever you want How did oh, you're not saying rock anymore? Well, that's what the textbook shows that the rock. Oh, no, no it doesn't But that's what you always do say but but it's interesting that you're not saying it right now because I'm gonna try to get you to admit it Dave now listen Do you believe the earth began as a hot ball of rock 4.6 25 billion years ago or whatever number they're using now? Yeah Okay, did it get did the rocks cool down and then it rained on the rocks and produced a chemical ocean soup Oceans containing chemical soup You can call it soup. I wouldn't but fine that most of the textbooks call it a soup. Okay Do you believe this soup come how came alive? Even over millions of years life Organic molecules organize themselves into ordered systems, which eventually we describe it The living things came out of this Organic these molecule organic living molecules organic molecule came from this soup from the rocks that got rained on Dave You believe you came from a rock. You just admitted it. Don't even know it No, I don't I believe that organic molecules produce life But you know who does believe that humans came from rocks you do you believe that god created adam from dust So you're just you are correct Let me try let me try to explain i'll try to explain it simply This coffee cup is made of 100 natural materials Okay, ceramics from the ground and stuff like that for a man to take this materials from the ground and produce a coffee cup Is understandable for an intelligent god to take the dust and make a human That's logical for the dust to make itself into a human. That's not logical Dave Are you running away from a biogenesis? Do you not want to talk about that because you're going back to your Please tell me how life about started Dave But please tell me how did life get started from this? Absolutely. Absolutely. I can tell I can summarize what we know We know that very basic organic molecules are demonstrably able to form We know that nucleotides are are able to polymerize spontaneously We know that ribozymes are able to self replicate Ribonucleotides. There are a number of viable hypotheses about how about how amino acids initially polymerized We're talking about tidal bulls talking about hydrothermal vents Admittedly, we do not know exactly which of these occurred, but they are extremely plausible Then this right, I mean, how long do you want to talk hyper cycles? Proto by ants getting to the first proto cell, right? This is all this is all This is good. This is good. I'm glad you I'm glad you said what you just said I think you need to analyze this line by line You said there are many hypotheses of how life got started None have been proven of course, but there are many hypotheses Why don't you take each one of these hypotheses and simply do it in the laboratory and test it? There's a whole lot of laboratories out there. Why don't they take some soup and make it come alive today? Have have has anybody in any laboratory ever seen or produced even with all the chemical brains and chemical chemists in the world Have they ever been able to make life today or did it only happen long ago and far away in the imagination? Actually, actually Craig venture did create synthetic life. He did Craig venter. I'm going to write this down now Created synthetic life. Okay And where is this working? I look at this just venter v e n t o r Yes, google's name Okay, I will certainly do that. So listen carefully. Is Craig venter a pretty intelligent uh scientist? Seems like it to me Okay, so if an intelligent scientist created life, wouldn't that really take intelligence to make life? Very clever. I see your argument. So so you're sort of saying I see one There's hope you finally see one So you're saying you're basically setting up a situation where nobody could ever demonstrate the validity Of a biogenesis because you're going to say that it will always require intelligent design Well, sorry that has nothing to do with anything that doesn't demonstrate that a biogenesis It demonstrates the whole point. Nobody sees it happen without intelligent input An intelligent god can take the dust and form it into a man and breathe into the nostrils and it comes alive And you don't think that's stupid No, I think that's an only answer we can come up with you're looking at you're you're looking at cladistics and evolutionary biology and very well understood Things that that that slowly create an organization over time and you and you think that's stupid and you think a god going On dust is not stupid Hold it. You said this is well understood But you you admit it. They don't know how life got started. There's a bunch of hypotheses We don't know which hypothesis occurred. We don't know which of these hypothetical processes They're all they're all very plausible They're all plausible. Well, then make make life 20 different ways then Why don't you do it in the soup and do it in the ocean and do it in the form little pond? Yeah, do it in the ocean where all of the living organisms are that consume organic materials. How's that going to work kent? You mean because there's already living things there life can't get started again because they would eat it Is that what you're trying to say? Yeah, okay, okay. Let's get rid of all the living organisms. Let's get you a pot of hot soup Just chemicals no living organism and make some life You said yeah, but then you're gonna do the whole ha ha ha see intelligent creator That's what you're gonna do. That's why you're setting this up this way. You're finally you're finally getting it. Dave Nobody has a clue how duplicitous you are. That's what i'm getting Nobody nobody has a clue how life got started. They can't make it happen in the laboratory I don't believe you at all about this ventur guy making synthetic life. What is he defining a life as anyway? The same way everybody else defines it. He made a synthetic genome And it's an organism did this did this synthetic life that he created Was it able to move breathe respirate reproduce give off waste the things normal life things do Yeah, it's a unicellular organism. It's a bacterium So he created a unicellular organism He created the genome. He synthesized the genome for it. Yeah Let's see. It's up on the screen here. The first synthetic cells made in 2010 Inventors team at the craig j vent c craig ventor institute in california by you Copied an existing bacterial genome and transplanted it into another cell Now hold it. He copied an existing one and put it in another cell. You think he made life Well, it's a new organism. He invented a new organism. The question is a biogenesis. Did he create life or copy a living organism? He did not create it from constituent parts, but that's not the question you're asking me in that moment He created a new species. Okay, so who's being uh Evasive and duplicate duplicitous here. I just answered the question that you asked me can't okay Have have any scientists been able to create life from totally non living material Taking the existing gene code of a bacteria and transplanting it is not creating life try again Who else besides ventures? I mean it technically it is he created a new living organism He did not create life He created the point created a new bacterial species that is alive. I didn't say who make a new species I said, how do you get life from non living material? He did He started with some living material Dave bacteria the one he started was already alive Okay, so it's a different topic of discussion, but it doesn't matter. It's not disproving a biogenesis in the slightest It matters greatly because that's why I said you guys believe you imagine That life can get started from non living material and it can't happen. It's never been observed. It's not science I told you you don't have to observe something. Can you see atoms kent? Can you see atoms? Oh, now you're going off on a rabbit trail unnecessarily here. No, it's not a rabbit trail You just said that we don't know that we know it can't happen because we can't see it I'm asking you if you can see atoms. Can you see gravity either? Can you see gravity? Can you see you don't? Both exist isn't that incredible? So we're establishing that you don't need to watch something happen or be able to see it to Have evidence that it occurs or has occurred and and you are wrong that there is no viable hypothesis We have viable hypotheses that that that are very credible now saying that there's two reasons why why This thread that you're that you're pulling along here is ridiculous because number one anything that I say You're just going to say see it's an intelligent designer. So it really is not going to be Religious is true because it's true. No It's not true An experiment you're you're asking for an experiment that is going to the conditions from which Huh got about one minute left And then we have all the discussion It's 40 minutes Okay. Well, that was fun. That was fun. I had fun That I would we didn't get a chance to talk about the bible, which is most of what you talked about originally I still would like to Well, I'm sure we can do that. No, I believe the bible you I'm not asking it to be taught in schools So you're demanding that your hypotheses of life starting from a soup Be taught in schools you want me to pay for that for the kid you're brainwashing the kids you're lying to the children You're gonna pay for that started you're gonna pay for that with what? All of the property tax property tax pays for the schools Yes You want to talk about taxes? I say every tax I oh you want to get on that rabbit really talk about a straw man Yes, I'll take that on if you'd like. I just find it ironic that you bring up taxes Well, and I think Because I'm trying to explain to you because you seem to be a little thick headed here Schools are paid for by property tax roads are paid for by gas tax I pay every tax I owe and there's a website 15 hours of just about kenthoven is innocent if you want to go Go to that ad hominem attack. Yeah, I'm sure you're innocent. That's why you're a convicted felon I'm sure you're innocent even though If we get the case overturned and they give me 300 million dollars. Are you going to apologize, Dave? Yes, you all you will. Yeah, I will. Yeah, okay Come on come visit us. Hey, it's gonna happen. You watch now. If not now judgment day, it'll certainly happen We uh, you've not you've not you've not given any science How life got started. I hate to break off But just to it's really hard with only 40 minutes, but just uh Jump in while we can to go to q&a So thanks so much for Thanks for your questions everybody and next we will jump right into a soldier Try to go as fast as we possibly can and I don't know if we'll get through everything, but we'll sure try So it's harry james. Thanks for your super chat. They said a dog a bear and a butterfly Which is not like the others and why? Well, it depends what you want to call similarity. I can say they're all attracted by gravity So therefore they're similar They all take up space therefore they're showing What exactly does that mean? I think that they were kind of using your common question To our opponents. Namely, they're saying a dog a bear and a butterfly Which is not like the others and why I think that you know what I mean when sometimes they're all animals Oh, butterfly if you want a insect if you want to put that in it But I think they all have some similarities because they have the same designer very smart designer designed all the different types of animals I'm so sorry. I always make I think that I lose my care. We got it back. I think no, no, it's here It's just that they're saying which is not like the other so they're saying are three And they're saying a dog a bear and a butterfly which is not they're like the others and why They are all different from each other and we have four year olds here at the campus that can Show you that a bear and a butterfly and a dog are different animals different kinds of animals I think we could find some similarity that you know two of them have hair all three of them breathe One breathe through the skin one two breathe through the mouth. I mean the question is seems awful vague I think a bear and a dog are different in a lot of ways. I think most four year olds could tell you that Gotcha. Thanks so much next up Arne Rorvick. Thanks for your question. They said question for hoven. Do you think god is disappointed? In your lack of new materials, so they want new speeches kent. Uh, they they say that you're using The same material that you've used for years Well, I taught math and two plus two was four when I first started teaching two plus two is still four I don't need any new material on two plus two. I don't need any new material on the creation It's true what I said before it's true what I'm saying now and it's true What I'm going to say in 20 years if there's something that I'm saying that's incorrect Maybe they're just tired of me saying the same thing because they still can't answer it Of course it annoys them because it shows how stupid evolution is. I enjoy doing that So I I do produce a lot of new slides and visuals I work very hard at my job here and I try to produce we have cool science Experiments here at our science center in dinosaur adventure land all kinds of fun stuff to do down here But yeah, I produce new stuff all the time. We work hard around here, don't we? We produce all kinds of stuff. I've got about 30 people living here now So yes, I do produce but as far as new I don't need to change truth. Truth is not going to change And dogs produce dogs. I'm going to say dogs produce dogs for it from now on because that's you know what dogs produce dogs No exceptions And they didn't come from a protista Gotcha Yet you believe in a more rapid version of evolution than everybody else because the kinds that are on the ark have produced all the Variation today in a few thousand years. So you actually do believe in evolution. Kent I believe in I believe in rapid variation within the kind That's nothing like saying dogs came from a rock, Dave You're the one within the kind that produces new species that cannot interbreed with one another Well, that happens. I mean there are humans today that's can't breed can't make babies. They're therefore they're not human by your logic That's not homo sapiens the species as a whole So when you say dog, what when you say dog, what do you mean? Do you mean canis familiaris? Or what do you mean when you say dog? That's not a scientific term I think the wolf the canis lupus canis domesticus canis familiaris I'm not sure exactly where that kind Border is but I think most people would say there's a there's a barrier You can't get dogs smaller What about coyotes and jackals and foxes Foxes might even be in there. I don't know what the original kind way If two dogs Got to jump into the next question pretty soon here guys. So sorry to do that to you But just because we have limited time, uh John Lloyd, let's see Terry James Thanks for your super chat. He said can't why do whales have digits but fish don't Well whales are mammals. That's a modern class People decided to put whales in the mammal category because they breathe there and produce live young etc So it's our man-made classification system started by carolus lineus and we've modified a thousand times since then I think in the biblical classification if it swims in the water, it's in the fish category. So Whales would be in the fish category by their classification. It's a matter of who's making the clan Who's making the rules, you know, it varies all the time. So I don't think that Errors in the bible one of many errors in the bible That's not an error to call a whale a fish. There was no way they Whales are not fish today. They're not because somebody decided to put them in the mammal category Do they swim today? They're not before you were so they changed. What is it? Dave? Dave? Do they swim in the water? In the water? Yeah, they're not water. They they do whales climb trees like squirrels should be classified in the water too. Am I a fish? I swam for 14 years. Am I a fish? They we've classified whales and mammals in the same category, but squirrels climb trees and whales can't What does that do with anything? Whales are not fish Also, it's not equal to exactly three. There are tons of errors in the bible whether you want an error By our modern classification system whales are no longer in the fish category. I don't think god cares what we call them He said if they swim in the ocean or the water, they're in the fish category So he put him in with the fish and that's fine. Is that or that the people who wrote the bible had no idea what they were talking about? I think anybody looking at a whale swimming in the water would say, you know, that could be in the fish category No problem. How does god have so little understanding of his own creation that he thinks that whales are the same fish You've got to jump back into the questions here. So sorry guys. Just got a lot here. Dwayne Burke. Thanks for your question. I asked Uh professor Dave, how do you know anything to be objectively true when nature is evolving? Hence your test and answers change until the heat deathly nature The what the heat what I think Um, maybe they mean the heat death in nature like the end of Like the end of the universe Uh, okay, the the laws of physics are are constant. So I don't know what what that means. I don't understand what the question means I'm not certain either. I'm asking like how we know Regiometric dating works because how how nuclear decay the rates of nuclear decay are constant Which we didn't get to because kent knows that he has no ability to explain that Uh, you you you're dreaming son. I can make fun of that Yeah, okay. Yeah, you can you can show me you can show me you can read all your Brad Iverson Brad Iverson, thanks for your question. They said kent if man walked with dinosaurs Why are there detailed cave paintings of lions horses and cave bears and other mammals? But not one painting of a t-rex a patosaurus or triceratops Well, I think you need to watch my video number three about dinosaurs living with man There are lots of paintings cave paintings stories There have been missionaries in africa talking about in the congo swamp Which is bigger than the whole state of arkansas talking about the apatosaurus may only 20 feet long now, but still alive There have been thousands of reported sightings that certainly appear to be dinosaur type creatures still alive There have been hundreds of sightings of what appear to be pterodactyls in various spots around the world Watch my video number three on dr. Dino.com. So the person who asked the question is Is unaware that it has happened. There have been many cave paintings ancient artwork roman pottery shows dinosaurs on them Egyptian pottery shows dinosaurs on them. So I think the question is is invalid got you. Thanks so much Steven steen. Thanks for your super chat. That says message blocked. Don't want to know what you wrote Mothra J. Disco. Thanks for your super chat. They said kent Why do you keep ignoring the new material and evidence in order to maintain the illusion that you care about the truth? Let's see Oh, so I know the answer that day. What am I ignoring? I I'll look at any new evidence you've got I asked Dave does he know any evidence of how life got started and he gave a bunch of hypotheses But nobody's been able to do it So the nothing's changed I'll be and I'd be glad to look at venter venter didn't make life He took bacteria brains out of water. There's nothing to do with biology You can't it's nothing to do with biology to do with it. Biologist bio means lies. I mean evolution That's nothing to do with biological evolution, which is what you what you think that you're talking about when your Evolution has nothing to do with science. Dave evolution has nothing to do with science Science is things we can observe study We can't make life in the land Seeing but you admitted that you can't see atoms and atoms at the basis of chemistry So there's really no water to this argument that we have to see things So, uh, you're wrong So if science has never been able to produce life, therefore It's part of science because we nobody's ever seen it has also never been able to produce a universe. So what? We have evidence that's what the big thing Dave that's why stuff like those topics should not be included in science biology should teach biology You think that an astronomy a strong class should not talk about the origin of the universe for which we have tremendous disempirical evidence all astronomy You didn't want to talk to me about cosmology. Is it because you don't understand physics at all I don't I taught physical science 15 years. Dave. You want to have a test on? No, you didn't no, I didn't okay. No, just to try to get through more questions. So sorry folks And how would have Dave We do want to also if you are watching and enjoying this which is by the way kent and professor You guys have to let you know This is the third biggest audience we've ever had at modern day debate people have been loving this They're honestly like just on their feet to applauding. They're just pumped So want to let you know the live chat is just like roaring So it's like my attention is divided and so If you are watching though and you're enjoying this Hey, feel free to give this video a thumbs up to just let us know and we'll try to hopefully We'll get to have these gentlemen on before because I have to say you guys are very good debaters. You're very quick You're very it's like you guys are It's been a very lively discussion Jason Everett's thanks for your super chat They said kent don't you think you should learn what the theory of evolution is and what it actually says before debating it a hundred times It's been 202 time 203 debates coming tonight. I think I understand clearly the evolution theory Says that the everything came from a dot of near nothing that exploded for some unknown reason 13.772 billion years ago A bunch of it cooled down and created the earth. It was a hot ball of rock It slowly began to rain on the rocks for millions of years and finally turned them into soup and the soup came alive And that first life form found somebody to marry and something to eat and slowly evolved from Single-celled organism into humans and pine trees and whales That's I see the problem is I do understand what the theory says No, you don't that's why you say things like dogs always create dogs, which has nothing to do with anything You don't You summarize both fields of science and then just brush it aside as though there aren't thousands of scientists Haven't been stated that all of those things are Dave Hi I am objecting to the textbooks that put this kind of stuff in here and say Everything dogs pine trees and humans have a common ancestor, which was a protista or an amoeba or something like that This is what is being taught. This is not science. That's biology. Biology is science Biology is science. Biology is science. You could teach the kids all the biology. Okay boys and girls This is the radius. They all know the carpals the metacarpals the phalanges the phalanges Not biology and so you want to teach biology But you don't want to talk about how all eukaryotes have the same cell organelles And you don't want to talk about how all eukaryotes are using the same I'll be glad to talk about the fact that all eukaryotes have the same type of cell structure Though there are really some wild differences. I think you'll admit all that means is you carry out all that means is The nucleus is bound by a membrane And then a bunch of other organelles that are all doing certain things. Why does that prove common ancestor? Why doesn't that prove common designer? You refuse to answer this earlier. Do you believe in a paternity test? Do you believe in the validity of a paternity test? I think that I think there can there can certainly be some errors, but I think it's highly accurate Yeah, paternity tests are highly. Why is it highly accurate? Because of the genetic similarity because there's a lot of down with three conclusively ancestry through genes Oh, yeah, I think we I think I think we can test microsoft powerpoint and microsoft word have thousands tens of Mandate objects ten invalid invalid analogy not like what we're talking about We can prove that your son is your son through genes, right? And we can prove that his son is his son through genes, right? So how many tell me how many generations need to elapse before you do not trust genetic data How many generations need to elapse before you say no? Lineage cannot be demonstrated through genetic similarity. Okay. Do you think You think a paternity test would show that you are related to somebody in china? I mean, yeah, okay, we probably do Right, I bet we all have a common ancestor with the chinese. I think her name was eve and his name was adam Now, I don't believe yeah, so how does that work though? By the way, noa has three kids and like one is asian Hey, what's the gene code of this rock that you came from? No gene code at all So you do want to do the rock thing that we just you do believe you came from a rock you admitted it Don't even know it molecules, but you believe in the rock thing No scientist has ever said that life comes from a rock. You've been corrected on this a thousand times and you keep saying Where did the molecules come from it rained on the rocks for millions of years Kent if your mother eats a pizza while you're in the womb, are you made from pizza? Are you made of pizza? Are you a pizza? What a strawman argument? Dave, you believe You're saying that because chemistry happened near rocks near rocks we came from rocks No, no, what does that do with anything? Okay, the chemistry. Let's talk about the chemistry. What molecules are in this water? Where did those molecules come from? I want to give you a chance to Kent I'll give you a chance. I'll give you a chance to answer these questions But I then we've got to for sure go back to the question. Sorry folks I'll give you a chance to respond Kent, but but after that then we have to go back to the q&a I am completely lost on what his question was now. It would go. What was it? Oh paternity test. Yeah, I believe paternity tests are fine I don't think they would show that we all came back from a rock though I don't think paternity tests would show that no rock because rocks don't have genes can't again Hey, you're getting it. They're okay. You're getting it. I'm not getting anything about what you say No, maybe you're right. You're probably right. You're not getting anything. Go ahead because we'll keep saying this Don't think about the rocks and that cars could be made from tornadoes and ridiculous things that have nothing to do with biology whatsoever Uh, see darwin. Thanks for your let's see I'm trying to make sure I get ones that ideally like address the content in the debate some of these are less related so uh packs americana does can't realize um Well, we'll give it can't a chance to respond clear this up in case there's disagreement packs americana Thanks for your question. He said does can't realize that he's turning people away from the gospel People think that you have to believe this Stuff to be a christian So The is that the case would you uh can't say that you have to believe in uh young earth creation view in order to be a christian No, you don't have to believe in young earth creation. By the way six thousand is not young six thousands a long time Billions is pure imagination, but six thousand is not young But no, you don't have to believe that to be a christian many many bible believing many people love the lord believe they've been saved They're going to heaven they're christian and they believe the earth is billions years old They're wrong But jesus simply preached the truth all you do preach the truth and some turn away because of that In john chapter six at the end of chapter six almost everybody turned away from jesus for just simply preaching the truth It's been the history of all through the bible the prophets would preach the truth And some would get angry and they'd stone them to death or kill them or do mean things to them So preaching the truth sometimes angers people. I think dave's pretty angry tonight Radio retrogating versus some book says a thing. Thank you for for confirming what I said in my opening statement Some books I don't care what your book says. It's a book and some rock came alive. I don't care what you're about harry potter There's a guy named harry potter. He does magic and flies around did that happen, too Is that is that true? You're the one with the imagination. You think a protista became a whale and a pine tree That's imagination. Dave. That's not science Argument for new credulity. I'm sorry that you don't understand it. It is. It is incredulous It is completely incredulous to believe a pine tree You know scientific training and doesn't understand science at all as you continue to demonstrate Oh, I think I have to learn science to understand it. Did you know that? Did you know that you have to learn science to understand it? Sure. I've learned an awful lot of science. Okay, and I understand it very well Did you learn science in andresandgenesis.com? Where did you learn science? Well, the word science means Go ahead kenton and we got to go right back to q&a I have been studying science all of my life. I love learning new things I've studied an awful lot in quite a few fields of science. I'm not the world's expert on any of them But I've got enough common sense to know that dogs produce dogs and cows produce cows And if you want to believe believe dogs and amoebas are related, you can believe that But that's not science the word science means knowledge from the latin word seer to know We know dogs produce dogs. We do not know dogs came from a protista. You do not know that you can believe that You're gonna stick with dogs produce dogs. All right, because it's so hey It's true ask any kennel ask go to any kennel call them up. Do your dogs ever produce anything but a dog? Gee, I wonder why do you think it might be because we breed them? Do you think it might be because we make them have sex with each other? Do you understand that there has to be a disruption of gene flow for speciation? Thanks We're gonna give hold on a second. We're gonna give kent We're gonna give we're gonna give kent a chance to respond. Thanks for letting me know about my echo in the audience By the way, I hopefully I got that fixed kent will give you a chance to respond and then we'll uh Jump back over to the q&a. Just uh, so sorry guys. We're hold on one second. Just let's let's just give him We got to give him a chance to respond One sec one sec hold on one sec. So sorry guys. We I uh, oh gosh. What is going on here? This has been a terrible that you guys you guys are doing terrific I'm just I'm getting feedback from the uh the people in the audience. Tell me that you guys don't have audio So sorry you guys Goodness gracious. I don't know what's going on Um How on earth did this happen? I'm so sorry you guys this is uh It's usually not this bad. We were going pretty well for a while without these types of uh problems So hold on one sec. I'm gonna fix it. I know that they can audio input capture so You can just remove this First oh, let me let me try this Okay If you guys are Able to say hello for me Hello, okay. Hello. That's my guy. Thanks so much. You guys are back. Sorry about that very embarrassing. Okay Thanks so much folks for letting me know that goodness gracious. Okay, you guys have been amazing Thanks both Dave and kent for being so patient. Uh, and by the way also, thank you for this amazing debate This has been off the charts amazing. We're gonna try to get through a few more questions and then So uh, we've got to kind of move But I don't know if if you're able to stay longer kent, we'd love to have you But I know that usually you you usually lamp about an hour and we've gone already beyond that So If you're if you have to go, we can go a couple more questions, but let's do hurry. Okay. Okay. Thanks so much Next up. Let's see Steven kent, let's see Marty Brian bedazzle said caterpillar turns to a butterfly I'm not sure what if either of you guys know what they might be like getting at Like a chrysalis and uh, yeah, I'm not familiar with insect biology Got shit. I agree I would agree caterpillars turn to butterflies because they follow an amazing code It's unreal, you know a 3d printer can turn some Some some material into an object like woke because it follows a code The butterfly coming from a caterpillar is an amazing example of design didn't happen by chance Says who? I did. I just said it. Oh, why do I care what you say? Are you a biologist? Why do I care about what you think? I'm sure you don't care. I don't care what you think either day. So we're even Yeah, but I'm reporting the consensus of the scientific community Okay, right. So you say there's a designer. Where's your evidence? You have you have produced no evidence for a creator whatsoever And you refuse to talk with me about the bible and all of the errors in the bible And by the way all the poor morals in the bible like slavery Incest and rape and you deliberately will not talk about those things with me because that Destroys your one piece of evidence and you can no longer say some books Dave the title of the debate is which what's the evidence show creation or evolution the evidence shows this was created The evidence shows the world was created You don't just say that in every debate. You say it multiple times in the same debate even though You don't get it I'm trying to help you get it. You don't get it. You can play with the props all you want It's not a valid analogy. You can say that there is a thing that is designed there for everything is designed And I can say that something forms spontaneously. So everything forms spontaneously the the conclusion does not Okay, we do have to get to more questions. So we do have to try to jump through maybe just a couple more. So let's see Jay shy, thanks for your question. They said Kent dogs didn't come from amoebas because amoebas are not obozoans or I say this wrong Let me know um opus Opist opistakans They share common eukaryotic ancestry, but diverged so I can read that one more time Kent dogs didn't come from amoebas because amoebas are not obozoans or Opistakans they share common eukaryotic ancestry, but diverged Well, he is welcome to believe they share a common ancestor. I've been asking Why don't they do it again where we can watch it in the laboratory? That's not how evolution works, Kent You don't get to just arbitrarily Thanks for your I hate to interrupt just to because I want to try to get through as many Uh, maybe last one and then I think Kent might have to go Yeah, let's do another one Thanks for your super chat. They said descent from darlin.org over a thousand phd holders disagree with evolution Oh, okay, they capitalized the evol and then they said must be a scholar or hold a phd to sign the petition Get with the times so I think it was a challenge more directed toward you, dave if you want to respond you can So you found a couple of people that uh, that disagree. I don't understand. What's the what's the problem? Hold on all right, we will Go uh, kent if you have to go not a problem. I have kept you past the time Let me say let me say one thing to what he said there several times throughout this debate at the beginning He said all scientists believe a bcde is not correct, dave. It's not all scientists But I would like to point out this is a very poor argument for majority opinion Did you know all the scientists in north korea think communism is wonderful? And you don't dare publish anything in a journal over there against communism What does it have to do what does politics have to do with anything? I'm trying I'm trying to point out the obvious that the fact that in any culture a majority believes something Doesn't make it true. The majority of the germans followed hitler 55 million of them 120 million russians followed stalin during world war two. What does that have to do with science? What does that have to do with science to you dave? You're using majority opinion, which means nothing the majority of george washington's doctors Thought he had bad blood take his blood out. He'll get better and they kill. Oh, you're going to use an example from 300 years ago to talk about bad science. Is that is that really appropriate? George washington was not 300 years ago. You need to do some history lessons, but that's okay 1799 he died that's less than 300. That's 220 and something Okay, okay 200 300 you should run for government. You make a good politician spend money. Oh, that's cute That's a cute joke. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your compliment now My point why are you going 200 and some years back to to to to find bad science? Has there been no bad science in the last 10 years where they proved something wrong? Well, sure science is changing all the time, but you cannot say that Unanimously agree that earth is 4.6 billion years old. You're putting radio electric against someone begat begat begat Which is not science. Listen to what you just said scientists unanimously agree The universe is the earth is 4.6 billion years. You are mistaken. They don't Find me a geologist that does not believe in the 4.6 billion year old Oh, this is very simple days If if I find you a geologist like curt wise who does not believe the earth is 4.6 billion years old as a phd from harvard You will say he doesn't count because he doesn't believe the majority If I say something you'll say hoping you don't know any science So it wouldn't matter if anybody disagrees with you. You disqualify them at the beginning But you refuse to discuss the evidence that supports it. You will not discuss. I've been asking for the evidence Radiometric dating. Why won't you discuss radiometric dating? We didn't get into that tonight? I'll be glad to but we're out of time. Let's do it next time But I asked for the evidence of any animal ever producing a baby that was a different variety different Obviously different kind and as I told you speciation occurs, but you refuse to define kind That's why it's a game. It can't be fun because if you have species you're wrong And if it's not a species it does not violate evolution at all That's why we'd have to use examples understand what I'm saying Dave a strawberry becoming a strawberry is not evidence that a protista became a whale What do those two things have to do with each other? I'm not a dumb person You have a religion. You don't have a science. You have a religion. I believe no moral code No social structure. No invoking a deity. No rituals. It is not a religion. You can call it one, but you're wrong Okay Yeah, you have an imagination a wild imagination. I didn't imagine anything. I didn't imagine anything. It's empirical What do you imagine that the entire all the planets all the stars are gonna die You imagine everything squeezed into it. Yeah I just wanted to imagine that just to thank you James. Okay, we can if you have to go totally understandable kent as you've already stayed way Way longer than we Agreed on and so we really appreciate you staying extra time And if you have to go no problem, we I do I do You bet. Yes, I do No problem. I do want to read like the super chats that are asking questions about the debate content um, and that's like I'm okay. Like if if you have to go kent we May stay and just read through those as quick as possible just because I do want to honor those as we do try to read them and uh But if it's like, okay, if you have to drop out from the the zoom chat, uh Let's see. This is like, uh, I'm it's a good problem to have we have a lot of questions So snake was right. Thanks for your super chat. He said doesn't common design quote unquote Mean that only micro differences separate the forms. That's an argument for evolution If you want respond kent you can but if you Don't want to your Did he go? Oh Snake was right has very seldom been right on anything. He's commented quite often on our channel But he can think he's right, but he's not right. Anyway, his question was common design. What now? Yeah, sorry So I just love to get that singer. Um snake was right. We love you buddy. Okay. They said doesn't uh, Quote-unquote common design mean that only micro differences separate the forms That's an argument for evolution No, I think the differences within the form like a chihuahua and a great day Whoo, they're wildly different, but they're still dog Why Why don't you use a different example? I don't I don't breed dogs. They may do that some parts of the world They're domestic they're not under influence of natural selection. It's not a valid example Well snake was right. I would say the variations that we see within every kind is limited What's a kind? Why don't they get a dog as big as an elephant? There are animals as big as an elephant like an elephant Why don't they get a dog as small as a hamster amazing? Let's see What does it have to do with anything? Okay? Once I just we'll try to fly through a few more while we're trying to help you understand That's all um Mothra J Mothra J disco says trans rights are human rights and we do want to let you know Whether you be gay straight trans no matter where you come from christian atheist republican democrat We're glad you're here. We hope you feel welcome Next let's see Area 85 restorations. Thanks for your super chat. He said quote unquote For kent like I don't why'd you put that in quotes? Okay, so they said all the theory of evolution states Is that life creates new subcategories honest question? Do you not understand this simple concept or are you purposely misrepresenting evolution? the latter He gave two false dichotomies Which is two two plus three is five or two two plus three is ten or two plus three is 20 neither one is correct I do No, I keep trying to give analogies to help you understand. Dave. I'm really trying to help There are dumb analogies that don't correlate with reality at all Okay, well the I lost the question there, uh, james. What was it again? problem, uh, they said For kent in quotes that they said all this theory of evolution states Is that life creates new subcategories? honest question Do you not understand the simple concept or are you purposely misrepresenting evolution? So is is this person saying that the evolution theory does not claim that a pine tree and a Whale and a banana are related. I show you the charts. They do claim that See, I wouldn't object if evolution only taught new subcategories can be created And now we have dogs wolves coyotes a new category. I would agree with that But see they want to use you believe in evolution They want to use that evidence and make everybody believe that that proves dogs and mosquitoes are related That's stupid. That's all you do is you go to to distant related species to make it The same concept they're not related at all. They're related in your imagination. Aren't they eukaryotes? That's the kind that's your kind that you want. They're eukaryotes Did you know whales and battleships are both attracted by gravity that Not biological organisms That's a design of a cell it has a nucleus with a membrane next question area five James hold it. I got to go. Let's do another one. Dave anytime anywhere come down to dinosaur adventure Then you can sit right here beside me on my channel and we'll have a debate pick one Wow, that sounds like fun But it could have a blast in our in our science center. We'd have a blast. Okay, gotta go James to do another one But one topic at a time and we'll be glad to do that. Thank you so much always fun. Take care. Thanks so much Let me just try to pull in the pictures. We when it's when somebody leaves on zoom I have to like rearrange the pictures really quick. So, uh, I could try to find questions specifically for you, Dave And uh, thanks so much for being here. It's been a pleasure. It's been a wild one So I appreciate your patience. It's this has been like in a good way I like it's been one of the more challenging ones to control I end but like I said people have honestly just been loving this in the chat people have just been going crazy for you guys Yeah, it's you know, it's uh, it's aggravating. But uh, I'm doing my best here It's a wild one. It's uh, but yeah, I can definitely you have you debated before have you been on like a A debate league or anything Like no, actually, no, I actually I've really done any debates at all. I I suppose this is my first Uh, I can't really think of any other debate I've done Gotcha quick on your feet So That absolutely and then let's see for those of you like see I think 99 percent of you are friendly Which is in the live chat, which is awesome Uh, want to ask if you could be kind to the guests We are thankful to have them both of these guys today came on They just came on because they loved a debate like they didn't ask for anything in return And so I'm kind of like I want to honor them as much as possible And uh, let's see. I'm trying to think uh, let's see if we do have one for you, Dave Uh, okay, so we do have a here's a feisty one. They said so this is uh Jeff Jap Exitkin 007 thanks for your super chat. They said I'd like to see professor And they put professor in quotes. They said I'd like to see professor Dave Uh discuss a biogenesis on james's debate tour. I'm sure he'd gladly Disagree with his stance and set him straight. Oh, no, the doctor. Dr. James. Are you talking about like dr. James white? I'm confused but There are two biochemists that that speak out aggressively against a biogenesis I I've I've never heard a very convincing argument from any of them They use really ridiculous arguments about like the probability of a protein forming, but they're misusing probability They're they're utilizing the probability of a specific amino acids amino acid sequence Forming which of course has nothing to do with amino acid polymerization If amino acids polymerize you're going to get a protein 100 percent chance you get a protein of some Sequence and uh it then nature will select for sequences that are useful So I've never really seen any convincing argument against a biogenesis Of course, I must admit because I'm not intellectually dishonest Kent is that we don't know exactly what happened We have viable hypotheses and we didn't get into it because kent didn't want to embarrass himself about how little knowledge Orphanic chemistry he has but there are many, uh, there are many, uh mechanisms Utilizing organometallic catalysis that can be stereo specific Hence solving a lot of problems with the handedness of biological There's just there's a lot and it is ongoing. We're learning more all the time And uh kent has his ridiculous, uh gotcha challenge where if I explain how we could demonstrate it in a lab He'll say ha ha gotcha intelligent design And then he doesn't accept that we can't see it spontaneously in the ocean because there is life there already that will perturb any system That's producing it not to mention the fact that it took half a billion years to happen. So, um Yeah, it's uh, it's an interesting area of study. I'm not an expert on it But I do uh organic chemistry is my specialty. So I understand a lot of it to an extent And uh, I yeah, hopefully I'll learn more about it one day Gosh, yeah, thanks so much. Let's see. Uh, see if I can find any Uh, this is one that hopefully we can if we're able to get a part two because this was so good Would people be okay with us saving those questions for the next one? Or is that just a terrible idea? I have a feeling it's a terrible idea Um, we we don't have too many more questions But a lot of them are for pretty much all of them are for kent and so I'm like without him being able to respond to it I hate doing it. Um Well, he'll just evade him anyway, you know what I mean We uh, we definitely ask him to ask him to define a kind about 18 times and he won't do it So it's and he never will because he he he is forbidden from defining kind or it will demolish his argument Gotcha. Let's see we um Maybe what we will do. Uh, let me so surf Thanks for your question. They said hey kent how about a citation for those charts that you pull up Since you crop out the text, uh, let's see. So they want to know where What references he's using I do know that brian stevens asked one or two and I wanted to get to those Uh, let's see Area 85 restorations. Thanks for your question. They said if kent understands evolution as he claims I'll give him a hundred dollars If he can answer the following question What two things are wrong with the statement quote a dog will never produce a non dog according to the theory of evolution Then Elijah bar Define a dog. He won't even say what a dog is. He's doing it very deliberately to obscure the facts surrounding That whatever he's trying to talk about Gotcha. Next up we uh, let's see Elijah bar so box. Thanks for your question. They said if humans have zero capacity to hurt Yahweh Let's see. Why is he so mad? Why did Noah bring mosquitoes on the ark? Maybe we'll get an answer for that next time. Feel free to ask it Uh Subtracted said hey kent How did Noah get the one billion species of bacteria and microbes onto the ark? So we definitely I honestly because of these questions and because people honestly were Loving this debate if we can get you to come back sometime We would love to get to you know, the opportunity If you I think the only way I would want to do it because this was pretty aggravating because he just evades everything I say if you want if you wanted to structure it around However, many of these very very good questions for kent and Allow us to watch him attempt to answer them and I can keep him in check when he says something on scientific That I would maybe consider But this was not terribly productive because he will not concede Anything anytime I I think you'll notice How how I very validly and definitively pointed out that his analogies are invalid And yet he said them like eight times in this debate Which he does I've seen him say them all before and all these other debates, but he just keeps saying illogical incorrect things To appease his viewership. So This precise format. I don't know if I'd want to do again Maybe another one where he has feet to the fire about about specific scientific questions. That might be something Gotcha. One thing we might be able to do. I don't know if this would make any difference With destiny we had like two minute two to three minute statements Or like each person would get their two to three minutes And we just alternate and we did that for a while And they had like opening statements at the start. Um, whether or not that would address like your concern. I'm not sure but He just he any block of time he's permitted to speak He just vomits all of his talking points that are just misrepresentations of science So it ends up being unproductive because I will respond to his vomiting and then he'll just vomit something else and then his viewership can't tell what's going on and People with scientific background know what he's doing, but it just it doesn't end up being uh, uh productive, you know Gotcha. Well, not not unnecessary. It's definitely been people of uh, enjoy getting to hear you guys this time Brian Stevens, thanks for your question and uh You said thank you to professor dave. I went to a religious school growing up education helped me realize creationism is bunk science So you've got a fan out there professor dave and glad There's a convert. Yeah, and and by the way, you know, I can't want to I'm sure he's gonna do a One sec. I just forgive me. I just because he's not here. I don't want to Oh, okay, okay I don't want to be too hard on him because I'm like I was just gonna say that you do not have to be an atheist to To to comply with scientific evidence, right? You if you want to believe in god started the universe I'm comfortable with that. There's no no problem with that. So, uh Yeah, that's uh Gotcha and religion and science and coexist Appreciate that and with that folks, uh, let's see I've skipped a lot of super chats. Some of them were kind of like pointed Um in terms of addressing kent and since he's not here as like I think it's like I'm okay with answering asking questions that maybe he'll answer next time or something but In you know, I some of the pointed ones. I'm like, I'm definitely not gonna say that if it's if he's not here to Give a response. But uh, let's see Virilian, I wasn't sure who this is for He said having a phd in political science makes you no more of an expert on evolution than a lay person I'm not sure. Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of truth to that. I mean, I think it's pretty yeah It's pretty demonstrably true. I mean and then particularly particularly when you have zero degrees of any kind who are pretty demonstrably not an expert on anything which would be kent's case, but uh Yeah, I I agree with that Gotcha This has been a true pleasure. I honestly enjoy everybody Like thanks professor day for hanging out with us today. It's been people. Honestly, like I said, I've been going bonkers over this So It's and thanks everybody out there for your questions. Thanks for hanging out here Like we said, uh, let me know if you have ways that you think it could improve the channel Please do feel free to say so like I I'm always happy to like get feedback And especially like if it's something where you're like, hey, yeah, like This could be better. We are working on some upgrades One in particular like we are working on video upgrades Maybe like dslr And we are working on the audio is not like I do have I did budge for like a good mic So we do have a good mic It's just that sometimes I embarrassingly Accidentally step on the core and I pulled the cord out and it's muted and it's very bad But thanks everybody. We do appreciate all your feedback. This channel really is like I the the debaters are the lifeblood of it So we appreciate the debaters And then also the questions so many of the questions like the great ideas like 99.9 of them are from you out there So thanks so much and with that want to say take care and once again Professor Dave and kent both have their links down in the description So please do check out those links if you enjoyed what you heard today and once again, thanks professor Dave for being here Thank you. Bye everybody. Take care