 Hey everybody, today we're debating the age of the universe and we are starting right now. With our guest Avi's opening statement, thanks Avi very much for being here, Avi is taking the position that the universe is in fact more than 6,000 years old and the floor is all yours Avi. Alright, let's just get started. So we'll start with a formal argument. The main argument sharing my screen is it coming through James? You can see it? Okay, cool. So the main argument is if light traveled the distance of over 89,944 light years at an average speed of less than 15C, or 15 times the speed of light, then the age of the universe is greater than 6,000 years old, that is takes the form of P implies 2, permits 2 is light traveled the distance of over 89,944 light years at an average speed of less than 15C, that is asserting P. So conclusion is the age of the universe is greater than 6,000 years old, that is implies Q. This is known, I'm sure Tana is familiar with this, this is known as the Starlight problem, various creationists are familiar with the Starlight problem, various answers have been attempted to be provided for the Starlight problem. One attempted answer is that we don't know how far the distance of these stars are, the claim would be that they're just measured by luminosity, it's actually not true anymore. The Gaia mission actually has measured by parallel extragonometry because millions, if not about a billion dollars have been put into the technology to measure very, very small angles at the order of arc seconds or a billionth of a degree around there. And because of that we're able to actually resolve these very tiny narrow triangles. So actually we can measure this with parallax at this point. So we do, we are able to resolve these distances that are further out than 6,000 light years. Another attempt is the CDK approach, which is put forth by individuals like Barry Sutterfield, that involved the decaying speed of light over time. However, the issue is even if you grant that the speed of light is not a constant and you use the regressions in the Sutterfield dataset, which I have looked over and I have done. They actually don't give you enough time because they would still have to, given the distances that we observed they would have to travel at 15 times the speed of light on average. And it hasn't even touched that based on the regressions of that dataset, even if you extrapolate it out and assume that the speed of light in the past has been increasing exponentially. Another attempt is that, as mentioned in Isaiah, that God has stretched the heavens. And this attempt is, attempts to resolve that issue by saying God stretched the heavens. Not either because even if we assume that all the stars that we see now were once in 6,000 light years of proximity and they were stretched out, we would still, at that close distance, we would still expect to see an increasing angle in our parallax observations, which have been measured over different time points and we don't see that. There are many other problems with that as well, involving its gravitational effects, involving its energy effects, if all the stars were really that close, it may even be enough energy to melt the earth. But the biggest issue actually is just we don't observe those parallaxies. But ultimately, since I've put my argument in a formal argument, this is a modus colons argument. It's a deductibly valid argument. So if Kent would like to reject the argument, he would need to reject one of the premises. He would need to either reject P1 or P2. I'll also note that these premises have supporting arguments of their own. So if he wants to reject one of the premises, then there will be deductively valid supporting arguments for each of those premises and he'll have to reject one of those premises and down the deductive tree would go. I'll also note that given that Kent is taking the composition and not the agnostic position, he'll actually have to show that one of the premises is false or else he'll just be agnostic on a deductively valid argument, which if it goes through, would actually result in the proposition going through. So one last thing I'll say before I will see the remainder of my time, can see the remainder of my time to Kent, is what this debate is. The debate proposition is the age of the universe is greater than 6,000 years old. What this debate is not, is not a debate about evolution. Whether evolution happened or not is compatible with the age of the universe being greater than 6,000 years old. There's no contradiction from there. Whether it is also not about the age of the earth, whether the age of the earth is greater than 6,000 years old is also compatible with the universe being greater than 6,000 years old. Same thing goes for Jupiter, Mars, you name it. And so as long as I can show that there is something, some matter or energy that is greater than 6,000 years old, then that's given that the universe assumes everything, I can show that the universe is greater than 6,000 years old. So I hope we can keep the debate on point and we can focus on the actual deductive argument and I would, I hope we can know which premise is rejected. And I look forward to discussing the starlight problem and the various there, but there are other, there are other answers. Of course, there's time dilation, the answers proposed. There's all sorts of, today it's still debated, but none of, unfortunately, none of the arguments, none of the proposed solutions to the starlight problem are actually compelling. But yeah, so I'd like to know which premise is rejected, giving the deductively valid argument. And yeah, I'll, I'll give you the remainder of my time to. Thank you very much. We appreciate that opening statement from Avi. Want to let you know, folks, as you can see at the bottom right of your screen, we are a neutral debate platform, hosting debates on science, religion and politics here at modern day debate. And we also want to let you know, folks, our guests are linked in the description. So if you'd like to hear more from either of our guests, and that includes if you're listening via podcast, because modern day debate, we were excited to say is available on your favorite podcast app. Now want to let you know, you can find both Kent and Avi's link to their sources in the description of that podcast episode as well as here on YouTube. So thanks so much. Kent, the floor is all yours. We're glad to have you back. Well, thank you. It's good to be back. And thank you, Avi. Good to meet you and enjoyed that. So I was so short, I was hoping to get about 45 minutes to talk about the age of the earth, the universe and stuff like that. People just had to get my video series. I've been producing videos for years on science and the Bible. My seminar part one talks about the age of the earth and covers all the arguments you covered in great detail, but I can't cover it all in five minutes here. I'll work out, you can call 855 Big Dino, come visit our dinosaur adventure land in Lenox, Alabama, we're having a blast. I look at the age of the universe and the age of the earth and everything from several different perspectives. One is what does the scripture teach? I mean, that's the birth certificate. What did God say about it? Assuming, you know, I believe the Bible is true and I think it's never been proven wrong. In the 10 commandments, God said very clearly that you should remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy because in six days, the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is. Here's God claiming, and he wrote it on a rock with his own finger that he made everything in six days, heaven and earth in six days. He said it again in Exodus 31. Now, of course, some people say, I don't believe the Bible. Okay, well, that's fine. I'm telling you, my position is I do believe it. I think it's been proven over and over many different ways to be historically accurate, scientifically accurate in every detail. God said it's a sign talking about the Sabbath between me and the children of Israel forever. For in six days, the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and on the seventh day rested. So the scripture certainly teaches the earth is not billions of years old. The age of the earth. There we go. Got your picture in there. So in my video series, I talk about a variety of things, including the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is certainly teaching that they don't like the word Big Bang. They say it was a rapid expansion. You mentioned the verse in Isaiah. Obviously, there's actually 17 verses in the Bible that talk about the universe or the God stretching out the heavens. That would, of course, mean the stars could be any distance away and still be only 6,000 years old. So in my video number seven, my Q and A, I'd have a long session on the age of the universe based on the starlight question in the book of Nehemiah. He said, thou hast made the heaven the heaven of heavens. So many times in the Bible, the Bible claims, at least, that God made it. Now, astronomers have observed a star blowing up about every 30 years. They call it a nova. If it's a big one, they call it a supernova. It appears that they are blowing up. They've only been less than 300 supernovas ever seen, determined, visualized. So that would be only less than 10,000 years. There should be lots more supernovas, if indeed, the universe is billions of years old. And of course, that begs the obvious question. How did the stars get started? Nobody has ever seen a star form. All we've ever seen are stars blowing up. So the idea that there was a miraculous, instantaneous creation of everything, and then from here, it's winding down. That certainly fits all the physics. Everything we know is winding down. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are very clear on that. So there's no observable evidence for how a star could make itself to begin with, let alone all the stars fit into a dot, the big bang, etc. So the dates given in the Bible add up to 6,000. The scientific evidence is from the stars less than 10,000 just based on supernovas. There have only been three or four completely reliable observations of supernovae in our galaxy, 10, 54, etc. How many supernovas have been observed so far? Using telescopes, this guy said more than 10,000 have been observed. Oh, I don't know about that. Astronomers reckon there are only three or four completely reliable observations. So they're making this up. We see stars blow up. We also see the galaxies are spinning and having spiral arms on them. The spiral arm should be smoothed out, dissipated if they've been spinning for billions of years. If star births should equal, at least equal star deaths, and nobody's ever seen a star forming. There's estimate now 76 trillion stars is the current estimate based on the telescopes. That's how many stars they think are out there, 76 trillion. You divide that by 20 billion years. There should be, let's say, million, billion, three and a half trillion stars forming every year. Six million stars forming every minute. We've never seen one. Not one star has been observed to form. Star births should at least equal star deaths, and we don't see any star births. So I think it's much more logical to say, okay, maybe everything was created and it's winding down. That's what we observe from all of science is the second law of thermodynamics. Things are falling apart. Back in 86, they knew the silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is we don't know how a single one of these stars managed to form. We don't know how stars form. It's imagination. I can give you all day on that. The origin of stars is an unsolved problem for contemporary physics. No one understands how star formation proceeds. It's remarkable. All we're seeing is the destruction. That's all we see in everything, every area of life. We see things winding down. Second law of thermodynamics. God claims that he made the stars and he gives the number to all the stars. He counts them. You know how many there are. He says the stars that be a water is the heaven of heavens that waters that be above the heavens. I'm one of those who believes, I don't ask the taxpayers to pay my salary while I teach it, but I believe there used to be a canopy of water above the atmosphere. All the ancient Jews have taught that that there was a crystal and canopy two or three inches thick above the atmosphere and another layer of ice above the stars. Apparently from Psalm 148, there was water above the heavens. He lay at his beams in the chambers in the waters. He walks upon the waters. It says, it's all through the scripture. So maybe everything we see is in a big glass ball on God's dresser that he picks up and shakes once in a while, but it's estimated there are stars. Enough individual, every individual could own 11 trillion stars. You mentioned about the telescopes and parallax trigonometry. I taught trig for years. I would love to see the math on that one. I do not believe it for one second that they can measure those angles from a moving target. The earth is moving around the sun pretty rapidly. The earth and sun together are moving around in a circle and the earth is spinning. And you've got all these things and you're saying you can measure, what was it, a billionth of a degree. I'd have to see that. Or a micro arc second, yeah. Yeah, micro arc second, okay. So the viewing area they looked at above the Big Dipper was 1 30 at the size of a full moon or about the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length. They looked at it for 10 days. They realized there are more stars in that little area than that they never knew about. They couldn't count them in the size of a grain of sand at arm's length. There are more stars out there. Stars are so far away, all we see is a pinpoint of light. All they really observe is the color of their light. That was from Stephen Hawking, okay. So to measure the distance to an object like a star, you can have to know one side or two angles or one angle and two sides, simple trigonometry sine, cosine, tangent. Well, first diameter is only 8,000 miles or slightly less than that if you wanna get technical. So the diameter of the Earth's orbit is used, which is 93 million miles. Well, that's only eight light minutes. It takes light eight minutes to get from the Sun to the Earth. So the diameter of our orbit is about 16 light minutes. There are 525,000 minutes in one year. So if you have a orbit of Earth's orbit is 16 light minutes and you're trying to measure one light year at 525,000 miles, change it all to inches. That would be 8.3 miles. I'm sorry, inches should have been. So you have 16 inches compared to 8.3 miles. And I don't think you can tell exactly where you were six months ago. They've been talking about this for a long time. I point out that even if the stars are billions of light years away, it doesn't matter. That doesn't prove the age of the universe because there are many obvious assumptions there. The stretching of the heavens is one of them. God claimed He made it mature. How old was Adam on day one? Well, day six when he was made. Adam was in the prime of life, 67. So he was the perfect age. He was a full grown man, named animals, walk, talk and get married first day. So I think a mature creation, including the stars with the light already showing and the stars being stretched out is what the scripture teaches. So I hope to the position nobody has ever proven that the universe is more than 6,000 years old with any method and starlight certainly won't do it because you have to, based on the assumption that the speed of light has always been constant. We know the speed of light has decayed and can be changed. I taught physics for years. You can alter the speed of light in your lab in a high school laboratory. So anyway, I watched my video seven, if you would, there's a whole lot of stuff on the Hubble constant. How do they say the universe is 13 billion years old but it's 156 billion light years wide. That's what they're teaching now, hold it. 13 billion years, in 13 billion years it expanded to 156 billion. I'd say that's a stretching out. They say it's stretching out 11 times faster than the speed of light. And yet you wanna use the distance to a star to say this book is wrong because this book teaches 6,000 years roughly and you don't believe that for some reason, which is fine. And there, because the starlight's not gonna show that. The distance to measure intergalactic measurements, they've tried all sorts of ways to do that. And I'll be glad to talk about it in detail if you'd like. They try luminosity. They say, well, this star's brighter than another. Well, that's as obvious assumptions because you get the inverse square law involved with luminosity, but I would encourage you to think about a couple of things. Scientists cannot measure the distance more than 100 light years accurately. No one knows for sure what light is and we do not know that it's always traveled at the same speed. The whole theory behind a black hole which scientists claim there are lots of black holes, okay. Well, then you can't say light travels at the same speed because it can be attracted by gravity. If light can be attracted by gravity, then you can have a black hole. They slowed light down to 38 miles an hour 30 years ago or 20 years ago. In the year 2000, they slowed light down to one mile an hour. Then at Harvard, they slowed it down to a dead stop. So the speed of light has not proven to be consistent, certainly could not be proven to be the same all through space and all through time. They succeeded in holding a light pulse still back in 2003. Scientists broke the ultimate speed barrier, the speed of light. They speeded light up to 300 times the speed of light, New York times back 20 years ago. So the speed of light has apparently decreased so rapidly experimental error cannot explain it. All the observations for the last 50 years show the speed of light decaying until the 1960s when they started using the cesium-133 atom as a base. So you're using light to measure light. You have a rubber ruler. If the light is decreasing, so is your ruler at the same speed. This is freshman law 101. Anybody could prove that wrong. This guy said the speed of light was 10 billion times faster at time zero, back in 87. Speed of light was exceeded by a factor of 100. So the idea of the Big Bang, which they now call, they don't say it was an explosion, they say it was a rapid expansion. Okay. Well, shocking possibility is the speed of light might change. Speed of light may have changed over history. Nothing's reliable, not even the speed of light. We've shown that at times varying speed of light could provide a resolution to the well-known cosmological problems. And I've got tons of stuff on that from the guys who wrote articles about it in London Sunday Times back 20 years ago. Anyway, I think I would be wise to say, the Bible clearly teaches, and Jesus clearly taught that the creation of Adam was the beginning. I'm sure as a non-practicing Jew, you don't care what Jesus taught, but certainly the philosophy of life is very different. Did man bring death into this planet, or did death bring man into the planet, into this world? And they're just polar opposite philosophies and they bring about polar opposite worldviews and which influences everything about you. So I think the speed of light has been demonstrated that it can be speed. Speed it up or slowed down. We don't know the measure distance to those stars, you simply cannot measure. Most people say a hundred light years, some people say 500. All right, I'll give them 5,000. But you cannot measure 20 billion or 13.772 billion light years. It just, it can't be done. So they're dreaming. Sorry about that. Go ahead, go ahead. And time, thank you very much for both of your opening statements. Want to let you know folks, if you haven't heard, we are absolutely thrilled this coming Monday, a juicy debate on whether or not there is evidence for Bigfoot with Team Skeptic and his partner against Pat and his partner. It's going to be epic folks. You don't want to miss it. So do hit that subscribe button right now as well as that notification bell. So you don't miss that debate as well as many other juicy debates coming up here on modern day debate. So we're going to go into the open discussion section. And so gentlemen, you're both experienced debaters. You're both professional. We trust that this can go easy going in terms of me not being too involved during the open discussion. But if it does get rowdy, I will jump in and break it into kind of like three minute intervals. And so with that, the floor is all yours gentlemen. Thank you. Okay. So I'll just respond to what has been said here. So the first thing I'll notice that not a single premise of my argument was rejected. So again, I proposed a deductibly valid argument in order to, for the argument to not go through a premise needs to be rejected. That being said, I'll still go through the things that Kent said and respond to them. The first thing is not enough supernova. That's 10 potentials is a big proposition because that doesn't show that the age of the universe is less than or equal to 6,000 years old. It also relies on several assumptions of its own assuming that the light of different supernovas will reach us yet. It assumes that the amount of expected supernovas that you would anticipate to occur. And yeah, those are the two assumptions. Then even if we grant those assumptions, it still doesn't show the age of the universe is less than or equal to the 6K because it's compatible with an age that's greater than 6K spinning galaxies. Again, same same issue. It doesn't show the age of the universe to be less than or equal to 6K. Star births, same thing. We don't know how the star formed. That's just tangential. It also doesn't show the age is equal less than 6K. Parallax trigonometry is showing the measurements. I'd be happy to go through the papers and we can show exactly how they go their methodology and their results. I'll also add with the distance, the diameter is actually a little bit more than the distance from the Earth to the Sun because the guy emission telescope is actually at Lagrange point two. It's a bit of a nitpick, but it does add actually a little bit of distance, but that's fine. Mature supernova star existence problem. Again, I'm not sure how this shows that the age of the universe is less than 6,000 years old stretching the heavens. I've addressed this already. The problem with that is that we would expect the parallax angles to increase over time if that was the case. We don't see that 11 times faster than the speed of light stretching out. Actually, you need to have an average of six, sorry, 15 times the speed of light to get enough distance for compatible with 6,000 years old. Speed of light has slowed irrelevant. That only adds more time. It actually needs to be 15 times faster. CDK, you've mentioned, I saw one of the slides you posted. I'm familiar with what paper that comes from. Actually, you mentioned that the 1960s, the level, there was a leveling off of the measured speed of light. That's actually not true. If you look at the actual data set, it leveled off a little bit before that. I'm happy to show you the data set in Setterfield's collection. If we look at the data set for Setterfield's collection, it actually, even if we exclude the data points before atomic clocks, so I understand the argument, of course, that the speed of light, measuring the speed of light with atomic clocks are basically relying on light itself. So you have to roll the ruler. We don't need those data points. About 30 more seconds I can give you because we're just gonna jump into three-minute intervals because this has been a little bit long. Sure, 10 billion times faster theories based on the initial first seconds of the Big Bang anyway. And that wouldn't even apply to stars both on our views because stars are created on fourth day. So. Gotcha, and then Kent, I'll give you the same time, the exact same amount of time, which is about two minutes and 50 seconds. Well, to measure the distance to one light year away, okay, one light year, if you're using Earth's orbit around the sun, you would have to say, okay, I can remember exactly where we were six months ago on opposite side of this orbit. I just don't think that's possible. Maybe it is. I'd like to see how they did that, but I'll give them that. But the orbit of the Earth around the sun is 16 light minutes. Change that to 16 inches. The distance for one light year here, 8.3 miles to measure one light year. That's a skinny triangle, 16 inches to eight miles. Now, if you want to measure 100 light years, 100 light years, you'd have to have two surveyors, 16 inches apart, both looking at a dot in Chicago, 830 miles from my house here. And they don't know the distance to the dot. They see a dot in Chicago and they're 16 inches apart, and all they have is how far out of parallel are their telescopes? How far code in are they? You're 16 inches apart. You're both looking at the same dot, 830 miles away. But you're going to try to tell me the distance to that dot based on how far out of parallel they are. In any court of law with an honest judge, they would throw that out and laugh at you. That's to measure 100 light years. Now, if you want to rely on that, Avi, you can, obviously. But I don't think that's common sense for one thing. I certainly don't think you can tell exactly where you were six months ago around Earth's orbit. This telescope adds a little distance by being it orbiting around the Earth. OK, what? How much? Another light? So it's on Lagrange point 2. So it doesn't add a whole lot. It adds about 1.5 million miles, if I'm not mistaken. Sorry, 1.5 million kilometers. So it goes from 150 million kilometers to 151.5 million kilometers. It's just an epic, like I said. But it does add a little bit of a bit. But that's not where the precision comes from. It comes from the accuracy of measuring very small angles. Sure. Well, the accuracy of measuring an angle, if I told you I can get two people in Pensacola, Florida, 16 inches apart with the most powerful telescopes in the world, and they're looking at a dot in Chicago that's 830 miles away, that would only be to measure 100 light years. That is a real skinny angle. They say you want to measure 15 billion light years. I simply don't believe that. I don't think anybody in the range. Just a quick question. The claim is not that they're using parallax triangulation to measure 15 billion light years. Obviously, that distance is not going to be able to be measured, even if you are able to resolve micro arc seconds, a resolution. However, given that we have been able to resolve micro arc second base resolution, it pushes the parallax triangulation distance out to the order of tens of thousands of light years, getting even up to close to 100 on the order of 100,000 light years. But no, you're not going to get a billion light years or a billion light years. However, you will get at that resolution, you will get tens of thousands to 100,000 light years if you actually do the math. Anyone wants to do this at home, 151.5 million kilometers multiplied by the tangent of one divided by the angle in degrees. If you convert the arc seconds to degrees, you'll get around a billionth of a degree or something like that. And that'll give you the kilometers converted into light years. And you want to get the tangent of a billionth of a degree. Yes. One billionth of one degree. Yes. You're willing to say, I try to understand here, that God was lying in the 10 Commandments when he said he did it all in six days based on that. I don't see how that entails God lying. But I just all, I don't know. If you want to say that, draw any entailments, that's fine. But I do accept the measurements. And we can go through the methodology if you like of the Gaia mission. These are recent missions, actually not that recent anymore. But since your original seminars on this topic, there have been missions that have been billions of dollars, about a billion dollars, put into measuring just that, small angles. They put a lot of money into the technology of measuring small angles. The most precise one was the Gaia mission. And that is able to resolve micro arc seconds. And because of that, you're actually able to push that parallax triangulation out from what we previously were able to from 100 light years, 300 light years, to tens of thousands of light years, to hundreds of thousand light years. But you just said a minute ago, you weren't relying on parallaxes for your premise to say the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. And here you are, you're relying on it again. No, no, no. Just to be clear, I'm not relying on parallax for any view that there is a measurement further than hundreds of thousands of light years. But I don't need to do that. I don't need to do that. Because even what's relying, what's doing the work and the argument is relying on distance measurements of parallax triangulation for those stars that are tens of thousands to 100,000 light years. Once I have that data, I can make other inferences to make the argument go through. I'm not using any luminosity measurements. I'm not doing any of that. I'm just, all the distance coming in is based on parallax triangulation measurements. OK, let's assume for the argument that, yes, that star they're looking at is 50,000 light years away. Does that therefore mean it's 50,000 years for the light to get here? You now have to go to step two and demonstrate that the speed of light has never changed. No, I don't have to do that. I don't actually, and that's in my argument, because actually because even if I grant that the speed of light has been faster in the past, it still doesn't do enough for you. You actually have to get it to a certain speed and a certain average speed are greater in order for there to be enough time to reach it. So just saying the speed of light was greater in the past is not enough. Even if it was two times as fast, it still wouldn't be enough time. If it was three times, it wouldn't be enough time. 10 times faster wouldn't be enough time. It actually would have to have an average velocity. Given the furthest parallax we've measured, even if you take the lower estimate of that uncertainty, it would have to be 15 times its current speed. And that's not consistent with the regressions of the various setter fields dataset. If you look at the speed of light that was measured over time. In fact, it's actually one of that dataset, part of that dataset is in one of the slides you actually showed on screen from one of the creation journals. So even if you were to take the integral of that chart and you were to take, you would get the distance and that doesn't actually turn out to be enough distance to cover such that the speed of light would, even if it was faster, it wouldn't have, even if we assume it's exponentially faster, based on fitting those data points, it actually wouldn't be enough time to get to 6,000 years. You would need more time for it to get here. Now we can talk about the expand other answers like expanding, there are issues with that as well. But if you have any, I really, I mean, here's the thing, like just to keep this structured, like I just like to know what premise is rejected because here's the thing, like in, I presented a formal argument, right? And if I presented a formally valid argument, there really does need to be a premise that's rejected here, or else the argument just goes through. So premise one, again, if light travels at a distance of 89 K plus light years at an average speed of less than 15C, notice how there's less than 15C here. I'm not relying on the assumption that the speed of light is a constant. I'm just saying that if the average speed was less than 15 times its current value, then the age of the universe is less than 6,000 years old. Premise two, search. Let's take one at a time. Is that, you wanna talk about that one? Yeah, sure, let's talk about one. Okay, you're telling me that if light was traveling less than 15 times the speed of light, which is what C is, that it would still prove the 6,000 year age for the Bible teachers to be wrong. This, of course, ignores in your argument here, ignores the stretching of the heavens. I think you'd find just about every textbook these days and every university is teaching that the Big Bang was a rapid expansion. They don't like to use the word explosion, but it's a rapid expansion. So if the matter, if space itself was expanding, which is what they're all teaching, I don't believe that, they're gonna say, okay, space expanded. Well, then your distance to the star is meaningless, absolutely meaningless. It could have expanded from next door to me to out there in a microsecond and be 20 billion light years away in a microsecond by the extension of the space. I've addressed this. Yeah, so I've addressed this, so I respond to this already. So even if you wanna say that the heavens have expanded, at some point in order for the light to have reached us from all these different stars, even if you wanna say that each star just was stretched further away, they would have had to at some point been within a 600 light year radius of us in order for the light to at some point reach us. And if that's the case at that starting point, what we would have expected to see if the age is really 600,000 light years is we would expect that the parallax angle would actually be increasing because what happens is when it's stretched away from us, what happens is if you imagine a photon coming down from that star that is being stretched away from us each time, that angle is going to, the parallax angle is gonna increase. However, on the various different missions, we don't actually observe that at all. And if you wanna say that we're already, we don't observe it because we're already at the level where it's far away and it's not moving away from us, well then we're back to square one with the same problem because then how are we triangulating a constant angle? And where you can't say the angle is gonna be offset by a decrease in this type of direction because we can measure the same distance from the Earth to Lagrange point two. So that's the problem with saying that heaven stretches an answer for it. So the premise one still stands. Well, I disagree. Put it back up, would you? You're saying, sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Go ahead. Yeah, yeah. If it traveled at this distance at an average velocity of less than this speed, then the age of the universe is greater than 6,000 years old. And if you reply with the stretching of the heavens, I have an argument against that, which I deployed. Well, yeah, I would still reply with the stretching of the heavens number one. Secondly, I would reply with a mature creation. Adam was full grown on day one. Could walk to our name the animals and get married. I think you're putting obviously limits on God who can't do that. If a star, like the sun is eight light minutes away, okay? If the stars were created on day four, like the Bible says, and then they were stretched out into place, Adam would see the taillights of these stars as they're stretching out, and they would have a red shift, which is what we observe with all of the stars. Why are they all red shifted? Just to real quick, Kent. So that actually doesn't reject premise one. That would be actually be a rejection of premise two. So remember, premise one is a conditional. So in other words, if God, I'm familiar with the answer that God created just like you can create an old man and old woman, God could create an old universe and the photons would essentially be in place already. The issue with that is that's actually not a rejection of P one. That's a rejection of P two. And it has interesting entailments that you would have to bite the blood on. We can talk about that. Actually, now that I think about it, the stretching of the heavens may be also a rejection of P two more than rejection of P one. Because if you want to say that, then you would reject that light to actually traveled over that distance. But it wouldn't reject P one that if light did travel over that distance, at least be less than that, than the age of the universe created in 6,000 years old. We'd actually had a mathematical entailment for the truth of that premise. So that's fine. You can reject premise two. Let's take an analogy that all ages gonna be watching this from my program anyway. Everybody try to understand. If we saw Adam on day six, God makes Adam out of the dust. He raises him up. He says, Adam could walk, talk, name the animals, get married. Let's assume Adam had a beard for an assumption. Could we measure the length that the rate his beard grows and calculate his age based upon the length of his beard? No, it was just created five minutes ago, in place, intact. So I guess the God that I worship anyway is certainly capable of creating everything. It has to be a fully functioning universe. There has to be, Adam had to already have a digestive system and an integumentary system and all the systems in place, ready to go. It doesn't work otherwise. You know, your car is no good with a motor and a transmission. Yeah, I'm familiar with that answer. So here's my issue with that. So the issue with saying that is, even if that's true, so if that's the case, if God really created just like he can create Adam with a beard, he can create the stars with the photons already on the way. The problem with that is given that you, as you have admitted, we've observed supernovas. And so we've observed stars covering the state of existence and non-existence. In non-existence in the state as they've exploded. So the problem with that is when, if that's true, then what that would mean is that when we're observing a Stargo supernova, that Star not only doesn't exist, but it never has existed because the light wouldn't have enough time to go back to a point at which the Star actually existed at a Star. And so here's a premise that you would have to direct. It's one of the supporting arguments of the premise. So if you look at the syllogism, we'll go back to it. So one premise you'd have to reject. So that's a form of rejection of P2. So if you posit that the light is already in route, you're rejecting that light travel the distance of over 89,000 light years at an average speed of less than 15C. There is a supporting argument for P2, which just breaks up the propositions that form P into RNS, which is light traveled at a distance of over 89,000 light years and this travel occurred at an average speed of less than 15 years. You want to reject P2, that light travel at a distance of 89,000 light years by saying the photons were already created in route, just like God created Adam with a beard. There is a supporting argument for P2, which is if the distance from us to the star is 89,000 light years and light traveled from the star to us through non-normal space time, then light traveled to us to a distance of 89,944 light years. The distance from a star to us is 89,000 light traveled from the star to us. Now you'll reject P3, that light travel from the star to us. I have a supporting argument for P3, which is if all the stars in the sky have existed and we observe the stars light reaching us and the stars light traveled to us through non-normal space time, then light traveled from the star to us. That takes the form of D and conjunction W, conjunction Y implies U. Premise two is all the stars in the sky have existed. D, premise three, we observe the stars light reaching us. W, premise four, the stars light traveled to us through non-normal space time, that's Y. You want to reject that all the stars in the sky have existed, at least that's an entailment on that view because guess what? If it's true, if all we see are the photons and not the actual star, we see a supernova, that means that star never existed. And so when you look up into the sky and you look at the stars, you would have to bite the bullet on saying, not only do some of those stars not exist, but that they never have existed. And I don't know, and actually you can laugh, but other creationists have recognized this. Barry Setterfield, whose data set you've actually shown in one of your slides has recognized this problem. And that's the reason he goes with the CDK theory, the decaying rate of light theory, as opposed to giving the answer that you just gave. So well-respected creationist have recognized the answer that I'm giving you right now. It's not something to be laughed at. You got a really complicated questions going on here, four or five of them at the same time. First of all, the purpose of this debate is for you to show that the Earth, the universe is more than 6,000 years old and your only argument is from starlight. Are there any other arguments you want to talk about? That's all you need. I don't see why, that's all I need. Okay, if that's all you need, fine. So if indeed you could say, the stars, it cannot happen in 6,000 years. It cannot be in your mind, the universe cannot be created with stars showing on the Earth in 6,000 years. It has to be, it can't be any other way. It has to be, the Bible is wrong. Am I summarizing you correctly there? There are, it is always, I'm not gonna say there's a logical contradiction and count by it, but you would have to bite the bullet on things that I think you're uncomfortable in biting the bullet on. So you would have to bite the bullet on one of the following things. So maybe you are, actually, I don't know. Maybe you are comfortable in saying, yeah, you could, yeah, I mean, look, you'd have to. I don't wanna bite any bullets at all. When I say, yeah, when I say biting the bullet, I mean like a literal, like I know you, it's a figurative figure of speech. Yeah, okay. You would have to accept a proposition that you may be uncomfortable in accepting. No, no, I'm perfectly comfortable, I'm fine. Okay, so the photons en route, I don't believe that, I think God could create, well, Adam had already had a, he could talk first day. God had to create him with a brain fully loaded computer. I don't see a problem with that. I think that's the only way it's going to work. You know, Adam didn't have to learn to walk and talk in the Garden of Eden. He was created, able to do those things. So to have a fully formed universe is not a problem in my theology. It's a God that makes me say, wow, what a mighty God we serve. I don't have any problem with that. But to say that- But here's the issue with that. Well, the issue with saying that is that the entailment of that, what follows from that is that when you look up at the quote unquote stars in the sky, that you would have to say that not only do some of those stars not exist, but those quote unquote stars that you see never have existed. You would have to be denying the thing that you think you're even seeing. That's what that's the issue. And this is what other creationists have recognized and this is why they don't give that answer. Other creationists who have published in the creation journals, that like Barry Sutterfield that I've mentioned again, they've recognized this as the answer and that that's why they don't give this response. Because they recognize that that is an unpalatable entailment of the answer. If you're okay, if you're comfortable- Just to be sure we hear plenty from Kent as well, let's- Yeah, no, I have never made that assertion that you're putting in my mouth here. No, I do not say the stars never existed and only the photons existed. I believe God made the stars, every one of them. And I believe some of them have blown up since then there's been a decaying in the universe. There is no evidence anywhere of any new stars forming. What would they be forming from? And what did the original stars form from? I mean, there's a whole lot of matter in the universe. You have to have a combination of time, space and matter all being created. God sold it, settled that in 10 words. In the beginning, time, God created the heaven, space and the matter. But the big bank theorists want to have all the matter in a dot and the matter and space and energy, all the heat of all the stars was in a dot, smaller than a proton. I think that's extremely stupid for an intelligent person to believe that. But then they say that. This has nothing to do with the big bank. Well, so this has nothing to do with it. No, not relying on the big bank at all. Your argument's not relying on the big bank. There's no idea that the stars, you believe you can measure the distance to these stars. I don't think you can go past a couple hundred light years with any accuracy to measure. I'll have to look up this new thing you've said. But you got a telescope. Telescope is a telescope orbiting the earth or is it on a mountain that you're talking about a few extra? No, the telescope is orbiting a location known as Lagrange point two. It's orbiting earth at that location. So it's like it's not orbiting. So if we have earth over here, like if it's my fist, it's not doing this. So here's the sun, here's the earth and here is Lagrange point two. Lagrange point two is being orbited by the guy a telescope. But what I want to get to is, here's why it entails that some stars never have existed when that you quote unquote see. The entailment is that if we observe stars go from a state of existence to a state of the non-existence, the question is, how did that information, those photons that delineate the star going from a state of existence to non-existence reach us? If you want to say that God created an older world, old universe, just like you can create Adam with an old beard, then what is entailed from that is that that quote unquote star never existed as a star. All it was, it was a stirring of photons leading back to the point of a supernova. So you would have to say that when we observe, if you use that answer, you would have to say, unless you have some other propositions that you want to tack on to it, you would have to say that you observe that star, that you observe never actually existed as a star. That's the issue. I don't know how you can believe that I believe such a dumb thing. I do not believe that. No, I'm not saying you believe it. Just to be clear, I'm not saying you believe it. I'm just saying that is an entailment of that belief. I disagree. I'm saying that you may not, oh, well, we can discuss why it's an entailment. You may not see why it's an entailment. Yeah, sure. The reason it's an entailment is because if you have a star that is greater than 600,000 light years away that you observe to go supernova, and you want to resolve the problem by saying the photons were created in route. That's the resolution. I don't resolve it that way. You keep saying that. I've never resolved it that way. But you're saying that God created, you're saying that God created an old universe if that's the resolution. If the resolution is that God created an old universe just like he created Adam with the beard. The issue with that is that we still need an account for the photons delineating the change from the star being existing as a star to the star existing as a supernova to reach us. Now, if you want to say that the age of the, that the universe was just created old, what follows from that is that those photons were in route when the universe was created. That's the only way you can get there unless you want to type on other propositions. I'm not, it's not just me. You can ask your creation of scientist friends as well. They've said this too. It's not just me saying this. You don't have to take my word for it. We have about four different threads going here. It's going to be hard to weave this all together. Oh, I've never said that, okay? That God, that the photons that came from a non-existent star, I believe, as I said. I didn't say you said it. I said it was just entailed by the creating of the whole universe. That's what you believe. That's what you think I believe and I don't. Okay, so. Okay, that's true. Very clearly. Okay, I believe very clearly that God created everything in six literal 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago. And I believe he told us 17 times in the Bible that he stretched out the heavens. And I think he said it that many times for a reason. He wants to make sure we get the message. He stretched out the heavens. So I think there is overwhelming evidence that the stars are receding from the earth. All of them seem to be receding from this point. Everywhere we look, we see a red shift. Well, isn't that strange? If we are expanding with it, or if it's some of them coming towards us, they should give a blue shift. So they're not. We see red shifts everywhere. I believe the universe is expanding. I believe the universe is wearing out. I believe stars are burning out. I believe, and the stretching of the heavens, the star could have blown up 1,000 years ago. We are just now seeing the explosion because it took so long for the light to get here. I don't have a problem with it. I don't think you've demonstrated that the universe is more than 6,000 years old, the premise of the debate. Then what premise do you reject to the argument? Yeah, then what premise do you, then what, so once, I'm just real quick, because you've asserted the same response again, the stretching of the heavens, again, the same argument again. You're gonna have to slow down. I'm getting about every third word here. Yeah, sure. Okay. Sure, the issue is that if you start at within the radius of 6,000 light years and the stars were stretched out, the issue is we've observed the parallaxes of the stars over time and the parallaxes haven't been changed. We haven't observed that type of change and at that starting distance, we would have observed it. Again, so what I'd like to know is what premise of my argument do you reject? If you say I haven't established it, guess what? It's a deductively valid argument, so you're gonna have to reject either premise one or premise two. I'd like to know which premise you reject. Well, I'm still a little lost here. You're saying, I never said that everything was within a radius of 6,000 light years, yet everything might have been within a radius of 30 inches. God could have created things right from the last moment. I said at least, at least, at least. Well, if there were, if there are 30 inches, then they're within a radius of 600, 6,000 light years. God could have created, I would just follow. Right. He could have created everything wherever he wanted to create, at least the God that I worship. And he could have written a book and told us clearly what he did. He said very clearly he made everything in six days. I sit in the 10 Commandments and I believe that to be true. And we come to Jesus, my hero, who said that the creation of Adam was the beginning. And so I believe that. And so those are the premises you are rejecting. You are rejecting the idea that the Bible is true, which is your business. You're rejecting the 10 Commandments which your people believe, I think, or did. You're rejecting the teaching that everything was created in six days and everything was created perfect. You want, where did this, where did these stars come from? Abby, where did the stars come from? Ken, I don't see why I would have to know that in order to know that the age of the universe is greater than 6,000 years old. So I would again just repeat that I don't see a premise that of this argument that's been rejected. This is a deductively valid argument. What premise do you reject? Is it premise one or premise two? We're gonna have to go through this real slow. It's been an hour already. If light traveled a distance of over, say, 90,000 light years at an average speed of less than 15 C, then the age of the universe is greater than 6,000. Well, if light traveled that distance at an average speed of less than 15 times the speed of light, I would go back to what I said. God is capable of creating things fully mature, fully functioning and stretching out the heavens and the speed of light has not been demonstrated to be constant. We don't know what it's been in the past. And we see a red shift. We do see the stars receding. So yeah, have they always been receding at the same speed? Why would God say at 17 times that he stretched out the heavens? I think it's because he stretched out the heavens. So I don't think, I'm sorry, go ahead. Again, we've, yeah. So again, that doesn't, that's not a rejection of P one. I don't know if you were trying to reject P one, but to say that God stretched out the, to say that the stars were initially within the 6,000 light year radius. I never said that. I never said that. No, no, no, no. You said at any point, like, okay. So they were stretched out, even to say that. But I never said they were within a 6,000 light year radius. I never said they were all within a 6,000 light year radius either, you're making that up. Well, presumably, well, presumably you'd want to, presumably I'm trying to be charitable and give you a steelman here because you'd want to say that to resolve the issue of how the light could have reached us or unless you want to employ other issues and other propositions. I'm not trying to like put words in your mouth now. I know you have other answers. I know there could be other answers. God could have great. I'm sorry, I don't mean to like, yeah. I just, but the main point I'm trying to. We've got a couple more minutes and then we have to, we've got a couple more minutes and then we're going to have to go into the Q and A. We have you guys a chance to try to draw together some of the threads from this debate. Sure. The issue is none of those explanations actually reject premise one. They're actually just the rejection of premise two. That's all I'm trying to say because if God created an older universe or stretched out the heavens, then that would be a way of rejecting premise two that light actually traveled that distance because if you rewind the clock back to the creation then it would have just appeared because God just created it then. If you're talking about actual time, I'm not talking about like the, just like not talking about like how the universe appears but it would be just the actual time itself. So it would be a rejection of P two not P one. So I'm trying to say. Right. Are you aware that many people are teaching that time and space are dilation? That's the whole theory behind the clock. Yep. Okay. I'm familiar with some answers. Yeah. How would you ask? How does it fit into your theory? Yeah, yeah, sure. Yeah, so I'm familiar. So that would also be a rejection of P two. Well, actually sorry. It wouldn't be a rejection of a P two. Actually, no, it would be a rejection of P two. Yeah, it would be a rejection of P two specifically of the components that, and I'm sorry, yeah. So it would be a rejection of, I believe the rejection of P two. Actually maybe rejection of P one, I have to think about that. But in regardless, it would be responded to because I know of only two ways to have that sort of time dilation. The ways it would have that sort of time dilation is one of two ways. Either you'd have to approach two of different observers who have to approach a very high velocity relative to one another, close to the speed of light, or there would have to be a massive gravitational well that would be astronomical. In any case, it would be a very hard stretch to say that this is what's going on in relation to every single star that we observe. And even if you want to say that it would actually, it cuts against, it actually, in many cases, it actually makes the problem worse because if you actually, the clock, in many of the cases actually just make slow light down, make light go slower, which actually just requires more time. And you don't want to do that if you require 6,000 years for the light to get to us. So the problem with asserting those things is they actually make the problem worse many times than they make the problem better. Well, as I'm showing on screen here, if you can call that up full size there for me, James. Sure, once again. Back in 2020, 20 years ago, you got that. They were able to speed light up to 300 times the speed of light. So you're talking about 15 times the speed of light to get my 6,000 years. Well, they've been able to speed it up to 300 times in laboratories, 300 times the speed of light. So I just don't see how you can cut, you're all you're relying on is, you don't even know what light is. Nobody knows what light is. Give me a jar of it and paint it red. Nobody has a clue what it is. I taught physics for years. I'll try to, we know what it does. We can measure the speed of it maybe. But God says that he is light and he created light before he created the sun, moon and stars. So he created the earth and God himself is light. Later on day three, he made the sun, moon and stars. So I just see the scripture is pretty clear even though I can't completely comprehend it in my brain. God is capable of doing those things. And so I don't think your premises you're hung up on here need to be rethought completely. I have a premise that God is able not only to create but to tell us how he did it and to write a book and to preserve that book. And your people for heaven's sake were the ones preserving it all the time getting killed for doing so. And thank you very much. But you ought to read it and believe it. Avi, it'll tell you how to go ahead with it. Yeah, sure. So, yeah, so I'm not just relying on fun. Really, I can give you a super short. Actually, what I want to do is we do have a lot of questions. And so I do actually want to jump into it. Okay, well that's fine for one second. No, Avi, listen, listen up. So the idea is if you want to have less people get their questions asked while we have you guys, that's okay, but letting you know that. Sure, I'll briefly respond to that. I'm not just relying on that. The fact that I'm not sure about the methodology of this increasing speed of light in a laboratory, that's fine, but even if that's the case, that's fine. I'm not relying on that. I'm relying on that same data set that you're pulling up in the slide right now. I've actually integrated the functions. I've looked at the regression lines and these are 120 measurements of the speed of light across time. And if you take the integral of that, you don't get enough distance that would carry as much distance as we observed by parallax trigonometry. And even if you exclude the atomic clock data from 1967 when it was first used as a standard, so you don't have a ruler, it doesn't change the results that much at all. I'm relying on data sets. I'm not just on data sets that you've cited. So no, I'm not just, and I don't see how the laboratory measurements change that. Okay, I told you, it will be quick. Gotcha. Kent, if you have any last responses, I'll give you a really short and pithy one given that Avi started tonight, and then we absolutely have to go into the Q&A, so maybe like 30 second type of response. Sure, no, I'm ready to go into Q&A. I stand by what I've said. I think the Bible is true. I think God created it and he told us how he did it. I believe that. You got it. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I want to let you know, folks, our guests are linked in the description and you can hear or read plenty more from what you've heard tonight by clicking on their links below as we really do appreciate our guests. And we are going to jump into it with this first question. Steven Steen, Dad, I miss you. Please answer my calls. Okay, not mine. Cider in Fort, it says the half life of uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years. It decays into radium-226, which decays into radon-222, then becomes polonium-210, which decays into lead. The existence of lead as an element disproves the 4,000, or they meant the 6,000-year-old idea of Earth or the universe. Who's got a question? The people- I think it was a statement. People that submit super chats either put in a question or a comment, but you definitely get a chance to respond. I do, or I'll be. I think they were objecting to you because they said that these things disprove a 6,000-year-old Earth. So uranium decays to lead and other elements along the way, and therefore, because we have lead, it must be more than 6,000 years. So God's not capable of making some lead to begin with. That makes no sense at all to me. I think God could create everything. And some radioactive elements, all of them are decaying. Nobody's seeing any increasing. So not without incredible input of extra energy. So, no, it's not a problem at all. The dating methods I cover on my video number seven about the carbon dating, potassium, argon, uranium, lead dating. So if they want more on that, we can watch my video seven. I give a half-hour answer. You got it. I'm lost on how they see a problem there. You got it? Thank you very much. And Schrammer Jr. says, can Kent provide some proof either that the universe is old or that an old, oh, I think they mean like created old, or that an old universe is a valid interpretation of the Bible that would convince him, or, okay, no, that's not what they meant. Sorry, I butchered that. Can Kent provide some proof either that the universe is old or that the universe, or that an old universe is a valid interpretation of the Bible that would convince him of one of those ideas? I'm willing to listen to any evidence. I'm not closed-minded at all. All I've seen is, all the evidence indicates a mature creation is the only way it's going to work. I mean, which came first, the male or the female? You gotta have in the same time, the same place, and they gotta find each other and be interested. You gotta host a problem there, but it has to be a mature, fully functioning creation. It's not gonna work otherwise. There are all kinds of billions of symbiotic relationships where plants require certain animals and animals require certain plants. The idea of it all being made in six days, all functioning, all working smoothly, I just don't have a problem with worshiping a god like that. Dr. Jen, thank you very much for this question coming in from Steven Steen says, premise one assumes that God could not create light traveled from the distance stars as part of creation. This is unjustified and premise one can be dismissed immediately. So that's completely false. It assumes no such thing. All it's again, premise one is a conditional. So it says if light traveled at a distance of this given distance at a speed of less than this speed then the age of the universe is less than 6,000 years old. This is just entailed mathematically by what distance and time is defined to be in relation to distance and speed. You can do the division if you'd like. If you wanna say that God can do something such that the light is already there or you can create an old universe which would entail that the light is in route even though that is dismissed or if he wants to do any of these things, you're just denying premise two, not premise one that light actually traveled that distance less than that given velocity. You're not denying premise one. So that's a conditional. So it's not actually asserting P. It's sitting just P implies Q. That's all. It's not assuming anything about what God cannot count or count not do. Gotcha. Chris says Kent asking quote unquote why can't one observe the entire birth cycle of a star when you know that the process is extremely gradual why would you ask that when the process is, they say extremely gradual? Well, Chris, how do you know it happens at all? To say it's extremely gradual is a polite way of saying we never see it, we don't know it, but we believe it. You're demonstrating you have a religious belief that stars can form. You really believe dust can accumulate into a solid and ignite. Where's the gravitational pull between these dust particles? What's gonna cause this? Nobody's ever been able to give a reasonable theory of how stars form. One guy years ago taught if 20 stars explode near enough, they can produce the energy to push the dust together and make a new star. Oh, so you gotta lose 20 to gain one. Brilliant, you ought to run for Congress. Help them guys borrow their way out of debt. Nobody's has a clue how stars can form. There are various theories, there's all kinds of hypotheses, but certainly nobody's observed it. And you're just admitting it there, Chris, to saying, well, it happens so gradually, of course we can't see it. That doesn't prove it happened. In any court of law, you'd be laughed out. If that's your evidence, we know stars formed because we can't see it happening. Come on, try again. Gotcha, experiments and prebiotic chemistry says Kent, this is more of a theological question they have for you. They said, if Satan knows for sure that God exists and yet he chose to rebel, then it seems like the free will defense against the problem of evil is out. So why doesn't God intervene to stop all evil and suffering? Well, I thought we want to stick on age of the universe here on this debate. I mean, James, I'll go off any tension you want to. Do you want to have another one on that or? You got it. We will jump to the next one as we do have a lot of questions. And folks, I gotta let you know for sure, please don't send in any more questions. We won't be able to get to them. We have limited time. And we're gonna just hopefully get to all the questions that we have here. The logical plausible probable says right after the debate, 20 minutes sneak peek of Dr. James' tour interview plus epic after show and open mic discussion on who won tonight's debate. So thanks for that logical plausible. And Rory Borkman, thanks for your super sticker experiments and prebiotics and Kent. So Adam and Eve, let's see, it's probably another theological one. So they said, so Adam and Eve ate one forbidden fruit one time. So then we all deserve to die horrible deaths and babies deserve to get cancer until the end of time is this the case. If you want to pass on it, given that it's not per se on the age of the universe. Stick on the age of the universe. I'll take on all these. Tell them to call my YouTube channel, Kent Hovind official, where we have Q and A every Friday night. And I'll be glad to take that one on. Gotcha. This one coming in from logical plausible says right after the debate, again, 20 minutes sneak peek of the Dr. James' tour interview epic after show and open mic discussion on who won tonight's debate as well as Patriot University PhD. As most of us will be at Amy Newman's after show and you should come over to that after show. So there's more than one after show. And Magellan says, Kent brought his baking soda. Let's see. I don't even know if that makes sense, but silent zero. Thanks for your question. Said welcome to Narnia. Okay, sip. Thank you for your question. Said last Thursday, yeah, looking for serious questions here. I'm going to read it just to humor you, but last Thursday is a great spaghetti. Monster created everything last Thursday with the appearance of age and everything with its current properties. Okay, so I think they're trying to do a parody argument, Kent. I don't, it's not really, but it's not, I don't see the thrust of the actual parody argument. If you want to respond, you can. I don't know if it's worth responding to. Well, no, no, I want to stick with the age. The whole premise that Avi has given his entire premise is based on the idea because of stars being too far away, therefore the Bible's wrong. That's his whole argument. I do want to mention folks, we are looking for- For that interpretation of the Bible, it's wrong too, but yeah. Okay. We are looking for serious questions, folks, and want to let you know we are considering quick public service announcement for give me Kent and Avi, but want to let you know folks, we are considering in the future, we may actually, it may be a risk to do super chat in the sense that we may read like the questions that are clear and coherent during the debate, and then maybe read the other questions that are not necessarily coherent in the post-credits scene because sometimes questions are not either related or sometimes they're not coherent, but that's rare to be fair. Carl Sagan says, okay, gotcha. Appreciate yours. Actually, we'll read that later. Actually, so it's coherent, but not related. Actual socialist trash. Thank you. My favorite name says, how do you reconcile? This is for Kent. How do you reconcile the chromosome 2 fusion in humans and the obvious endogenous retroviruses that match perfectly with humans and chimps? No common design, please. Well, we'll give you a chance to respond to Peter. He's saying there are similar, well, again, we're off on a different topic, but there are similarities in the chromosomes of humans and chimps, he thinks. Actually, people don't, you better really study that. Okay, I could put documents and say look at the similar documents. These two documents both use the same 26 letters of the English alphabet. Aha, that proves they're related. That's the language with your, that's what you write English with, 26 letters. So no, same designer argument is very valid in all of these. And I think the differences between humans, if this guy wants to be related to a chimp, go for it, okay? You can have any kind of ancestors you want. Some of my ancestors swung by their necks, but none of them swung by their tails. So I think it's silly if a person, they want so badly to be related to animals so they can justify acting like an animal, my humble, totally unbiased opinion on the topic. Okay. Gosh, yeah, thanks very much. Yeah, I can, yeah, so I think the question, I think the point of the question is that when you look at endogenous, now this, I agree it's a different in the debate topic, but I think the point that he's trying to get across is that those specific sequences of endogenous retroviruses, being the GA, GPO, and ENV genes, are recognized specifically for coming from a specific source, which are retroviruses. And the retroviruses insert their genes into our genes. And when they get into the gametes, the sex cells, we can reproduce and every cell in the offspring will have those genes. And so the point is that they think, yeah, and so if we find those specific endogenous retroviruses in the same sequences, it would give someone an inference to infer a common ancestry. I think that's the point that they're trying to get across. Or they both- Now you can say it got created, yeah. Right, right. Or they both went through a common catastrophe that would have caused something to happen. I think Frank Cherwin at Institute for Creation Research, ICR.org is a good long-time friend of mine in Dallas. He has done a great article on that. So it certainly does not prove common ancestry. That is one way you could interpret it if you wish. I don't wish to be related to a chimpanzee. But if he wants to be, that's fine. I'm gonna jump to this next one. This one coming in from, Mike Billers, thank you very much, said, did God create a supernova on day one? I'm not asking about a star that went supernova, but just a supernova. I think that's where you can- No idea, no idea what God did on day one. And Mitchell asks, question for Avi. If light is subject to entropy and it is a wave and particle simultaneously, according to your paradigm, they say, how is it that radio waves travel instantaneously knowing that they require photons to travel? I'm not sure what the emphasis to radio waves or information actually traveling to distances instantaneously or how that entails that they travel instantaneously or what that has to do with my argument. Nothing, again, nothing in my argument actually requires a given paradigm of what light is. I don't need to know if it's a wave or a particle or partially wave, partially particle or what its behavior is. All I need to, again, none of that stuff is, nothing in my argument relies on that. All it relies on is if we have a given distance of the source of the light and the light was traveling at an average speed of less than a given number, then by analytic entailment we can infer the distance. And if we shoot down all these excuses, I would say, because there are post-talk rationalizations, then the argument goes through. Really, really, the argument should go through in virtue of no premises just been rejected. Again, like I just keep asking for what premise is rejected. And I haven't heard P1, I haven't heard P2. I've been trying my best to find out what premises rejected, but yeah, I just wanna know what premise is rejected. So, and nothing in that question, nothing in my argument relies on any of these paradigms. Even if it's a photon or a wave, doesn't matter. Gotcha, and Ozzie, and thanks for your question said, Kent, would you ever accept that the earth is over 10,000 years old? No matter what the evidence shows, are you always going to presuppose that the Bible is true and unfalsifiable? Well, I'm willing to look at any scientific evidence. I think anybody should. I think we should also be cautious all the time we interpret anything we see through our paradigm. And I have a paradigm, of course, that I do believe, I've come to believe that the Bible is literally true and the earth is created instantly in six days. It's the only way it works with all the billions of symbiotic relationships. So I've never seen any reliable evidence that would make me reject the idea of a 6,000 year old earth. I don't think potassium argon would do it or uranium lead or carbon 14 or carbon 13. None of the dating methods I've seen, there are none that cannot be explained with a 6,000 year old earth. And I certainly don't think he has demonstrated the 6,000 years is wrong with his P1 or P2. He can believe that if he wants, but we don't know what light is. We don't know it's always traveled the same speed. We know the velocity of light can be altered up or down. And the God that I worship can make everything fully functioning, fully intact. He made a full grown man, full grown woman first day, full grown garden. They had something to eat first day. I just, I don't see it working any other way. Logically, it's not going to work. Gotcha, logical possible probable strikes again, saying right after this debate, 20 minutes sneak peek of Dr. James tour interview, epic after show and open mic discussion, who won tonight's debate? And Amy Newman also says after show at Amy Newman's channel, Kent asked a question, said, I don't believe in the Bible. Do you think there are any scientific ways to know the age of the earth purely scientifically, so not relying on the Bible? Well, yes, on my video number one, I cover about 30 different ways to look at the different parameters. If I told you this ink pen was 8,000 years old, you could probably logically disprove that and say, hold it, this has got plastics in it. They weren't developed till after World War II. So it's gotta be after 1946. Oh, and you could find it's bit corporation, which was created in 1960 or whenever that was. Oh, therefore, with a couple of simple logical steps, you could prove my 8,000 year age of the pen is wrong and probably more like less than 50 years old, maybe less than 30. So there are different ways to narrow down the age of the earth without the Bible at all. You could look at the human population. There are what, six billion people in the world. I do the population graph growth curve on my video number one and show that there are all kinds of ways without the scriptures. If man had been here for millions of years, the population would have exploded a long time ago. The erosion rate of the continents, the erosion rate of Niagara Falls, the salt in the ocean is increasing, it's 3.6%. They can watch the salt increase. There are all kinds of non-scriptural parameters that say less than billions, less than millions. And none of them point to exactly 6,000, but that's not the point. The point is you can reject the billions of years, lots of scientific ways, just from things we see on the earth. Now cover that. The sun is burning up 5 million tons of fuel a second. You go back and shrinking five feet an hour. That's what's been observed. We'll go back in time. Pretty soon you got a problem. You can't go back billions of years without the whole universe being burned up by just our little sun. The moon's getting farther from the earth. A couple inches a year, it's been measured. They know that. It goes back to a one billion year time max on the earth moon system. I hate to interrupt, Justin. So watch my video number one, drdino.com. Getting to more questions. Foxfire, thank you very much for your questions. Mr. Science Man, Kent, what is a langrange point in detail? Am I saying that right, langrange? Lagrange, Lagrange point. Thank you very much. Well, Lagrange point, I think what Abby said, I'm curious about this. They have a satellite circling out, not circling the earth. What is, do they have to constantly change direction? This is gonna take enormous amount of fuel unless it's orbiting something. It doesn't, it doesn't, that's the point. The point of a Lagrange point is that it actually minimizes the amount of fuel that's taken. Just to be clear, James, was that question for me or for Kent? Because I was the one who mentioned Lagrange points first. Yeah, yeah. I'm curious how anything can stay in a Lagrange point. It has to be using somebody's gravity. Is it using moon's gravity, earth's gravity? Is it a combination? How is it staying? It's using a conjunction. Yeah, it's using a conjunction of the earth and the sun's gravity. So there's four different Lagrange points at which if you place an object there, then the math just works out the gravitational forces work out such that the object will stay stationary in that with relative to the earth and the sun with very little inputs that are required. That's why these, in these missions, certain satellites are put at one of these four Lagrange points. One of the Lagrange points, so if we have the sun over here and the earth over here, you have a Lagrange point here, sorry, here, here, here, and here. And in those four points, it just happens to be that the gravitational vectors work out such that the object will stay stationary with relation to the earth and the sun with very little force inputs required, and that's how you optimize the fueling. So it's being pulled by gravity of the sun and the earth equally, right? So, and then because that, and you said it puts it out, how far away is that Lagrange point from the earth? It's not, it's, like I said, it was a, it was a nit, it was a nit, I described it as nitpicking, and it is, it's just, it just extends the base of the triangle a little bit more in, in relate, it's, you want to be precise, it's 1.5 million kilometers, which is, it may seem like a big number, but in relation to the actual distance, which is 150 million kilometers, it's not a lot, it just increases it a little bit. It wasn't, nothing turns on it. It's just a little nitpick I had, that's all. Right, and so to get, instead of a 16 inch base of your triangle looking at Chicago, you now have a 16.1 inch, come on. Yeah, what does the work, what does the work, yeah, what does the work is not, is not increasing the base of the triangle. What does the work is the mill, hundreds of millions of dollars that were put into technology to measure infinitesimally small angles. What does the work is they put hundreds of million dollars into it and they have to justify it somehow. I've got to spend all that money on something that was, I think, completely useless, but go ahead. I do want to, that one, for the record, Avi, that one was for Kent. They said, Mr. Science Man, Kent, unless you go by that name, but let's see, Bella Cum Gunn says, the universe without a creator, not super on topic for you, Avi, but nonetheless, if you want to humor it. They say the universe without a creator is mathematically impossible. I'm not saying that Kent is right regarding the age of the earth, but I am saying that atheism is wrong. And they're saying creationism doesn't equal Christianity at the end. But Avi, what do you think? They're attacking your, are you the lackthiest or atheist? Well, I'm an agnostic. I don't know, is my answer. I don't describe myself as an atheist, both the positive or the type of atheist that lacks belief, I describe myself as an agnostic. But anyway, to the point, yes, I agree, it's a change in the debate topic, but I mean, if you think you have some kind of, you can derive a contradiction with respect to the laws of mathematics and the lack of the creator, I'd like to see the mathematical formula and specifically what propositions form the contradiction or what equations that we can derive that form such a contradiction to occur. And if you want to present that, that's fine. I'd be interested in it, but it has nothing, nothing about this debate turns on that. Gotcha, and Magellan, thanks you, thank you for your question, says CERN confirmed that last September's results that showed neutrinos traveling faster than light were caused by faults in its testing equipment. I don't know who this would be for. That is true, I remember reading, I do remember reading that article. Every time I've seen, and that's why I was skeptical of like these laboratories that claim that they've sped up lights, like, I'm not sure who that question was directed to, or that statement was directed to, but yeah, so every time I've seen it, it's possible, but every time I've seen it, it turns out that there's like some irratum that was published later that it was faulted equipment or something. But regardless, it still doesn't turn on any of the debate because again, the light that is in question actually wasn't the light that was produced in the laboratory. And it's observed light based on data sets that were collected over time by certain individuals. But we're just trying to get an answer to this question. Gotcha, and Pineapple Plata Potemis says, I've remote viewed, and I've told the CIA, do you both disagree with psychic powers existing? I do. I at least I don't see any reason to accept psychic powers. Like, if you mean like tarot card readings or like people who read the poems and stuff or tell your fortune. Definitely. Yeah, I don't believe in them though. Gotcha, you might have something in common. Kent, I don't think you do either. I don't either, right? Gotcha, you're good. So, same boat. There you go. Yeah. Jake, we have just a few more minutes folks and then we're gonna have to wrap up. But Jake Dragolas, wanna remind you folks, our guests are linked in the description and that includes if you're listening via podcast folks. You can find our guest links in the description box for the podcast episode for this debate as well. And Jake Dragolas says, for both gentlemen, what would convince you to change your mind? If nothing, why bother looking at any evidence? Just a quick correction for, I believe there may be, I think I may have misspoken on the number of Lagrange points. There may be five points and not four points. I'm just getting corrections. Yeah, there are five Lagrange points. There's L1 to L5. So apologies for that. I forgot one of the Lagrange points. Gotcha. And Kent, if you wanna respond, you may. Got to repeat the question. I got a little distracted here. No problem. What would convince me to change? Was that it? What would convince me to change? Yep. I'm willing to look at any evidence. I've been doing this for 52 years. I've been a Christian and accepted the Lord as my savior 52 years ago and I've been reading the Bible and I taught science 15 years. I love science. Science means knowledge. What do we know? We know dogs produce dogs. Now we know that. We do not know that dogs and mosquitoes have a common ancestor. You can believe that. That's outside of science. I'm willing to look at any evidence. I'll look at the Lagrange points. But again, it doesn't matter. You're only adding 0.1%. You're still not made. And you're all relying on, you don't know these great distances to these stars. So you get 10% more accuracy in measuring them. Most people say you can't measure more than a few hundred light years. After that, it becomes wild guesswork. Not anymore. Okay. Not anymore. So that used to be that case. So that was true when you made these seminars, when you made these recordings. I've seen them. But there's been an enormous amount of progress since then in measuring small angles. And that's not what people say anymore. People actually will, if you ask anyone in the field who's familiar with the Gaia mission, they will tell you that that distance has been pushed out with parallax triangulation. So they can measure the distance to a star now beyond 6,000 light years because of parallax trigonometry from a satellite at the Lagrange point. Is that your- Based on, yeah, based on advances in technology in measuring small angles. Yes. Okay. Got you. I stand by what I said. I'd have to really have that proven to me. I'm willing to listen. Sure. Yeah, we can go through it after. Right. If they could prove the distance, if they could, that still wouldn't negate my premise. So what? The speed of light is still a factor and the instant creation is still a factor and the stretching of the heavens is still a factor. Go ahead. All factors that I've responded to and I don't think I need to repeat the addressing each one again. But if you want that, at some point we can have a follow-up debate and we can go through those in more detail in their entirety. Gotcha. And William Clapper says, love the debates. Thanks, William. Thanks for your feedback and all credit to the speakers who are linked in the description as they are the lifeblood of the channel. We really do appreciate them. And Tyler West asked Kent, if God spread out the galaxies faster than the speed of light to get their present position, why wasn't the light redshifted into oblivion? I don't know. I'll ask him when I get there and you can ask him when you get wherever you're going. Gotcha. So, yeah, I mean, the thing is, I think what he's trying to say, Kent, is that you would have certain expectations if it was stretched out, right? You would expect there would be like, if you were to go from this massive stretch, it seems like there would be a massive redshift. There's other problems too. There's, like I mentioned, that you don't observe the change in the product. Just to keep it on the top of your question, and just because I do want to get you guys out of here in that hour and a half, as promised, I do want to give Kent a chance to respond to this particular point before you bring up new points, Avi. And then we have to wrap up. Kent, did you have anything you wanted to say to that point from Avi regarding the question? The redshift, yeah. Well, the redshift, I think, is the Doppler effect of light, if we understand if light can be affected by Doppler effect, which apparently it can't, redshift, blueshift. So the star moving away would create a redshift, the Doppler effect, the stretching of the light wave. Well, if the light wave can be stretched, if you can get a redshift at all, that ought to bring wells in. Somebody said, wow, light can be stretched, light can be refracted, it can be slowed down, speed it up. The fact that we can even get a redshift is a strong indication that there's something about light which we don't know what it is that is able to be speeded up or slowed down. So I think it really opens up the door to say, wow, I think I'm going to believe the Bible and tell it's proven wrong. I don't think it's been proven wrong because of the starlight or the distance. Gotcha. Just to real quick, the redshift shifted light doesn't change the heat. I do want to, because the question was for Kent, I do want to give him the last word because the objection was for him. But I want to also mention, folks, one of your friendly reminder out there, thank you for not insulting our guests. We encourage you to attack the arguments, but we don't want you to attack the person because we really do appreciate them and we want them to feel welcome. And so attack arguments of either side as much as you want, attack me if you want. But we do want to say, folks, we really do appreciate the guests, so please don't attack the person. Please, what I was going to say is, quick public service announcement again, is I do have some people that'll email or in the chat be like, hey, why did my, we are actually blocking people if they're doing this. And so for real, want to let you know that we have started to kind of tighten things up as we really, frankly, should have done that long ago. It's long overdue. So anyway, our guests are linked in the description. Thank you, Kent and Avi. We appreciate you both for hanging out with us. It's been a true pleasure. And we are going to, in a moment, I'm going to be back with a post-credits scene, folks, to let you know about upcoming epic stuff for this channel. So stick around for that. But one last thank you to Kent and Avi. It's been a true pleasure to have you. All right, Avi. We're having this. All right. Hey, anytime. Thank you, sir. All right. Thanks, guys. I'll be back in a moment. Thanks for stopping by. Thanks, folks. I'll be back in a moment. We were absolutely thrilled. That was an epic debate. Want to say thanks so much for hanging out here, folks. I want to let you know because I had not brought this up during the debate, but if you haven't heard from the other night, we are pumped and are especially pumped after last night, you guys, as right now we are, hold on, not that picture. That's embarrassing. Okay, poor Steven Steen. Look at T-Jump there on the far left. Very embarrassing photo of Tom from high school. But let me first show you this. If you have not heard, folks, we are absolutely pumped for this upcoming debate on June 5th between Dr. Kenny Rhodes and Matt De La Hunty. We are absolutely pumped for you guys. It's going to be epic. And so for this particular debate, it is a crowdfund. In other words, we're raising funds for the honorariums of the speaker, as well as other things. So for example, we're basically building into the fund, the Indiegogo fees, but also want to let you know, folks, we are also going to put out ads to make this event especially huge. We are absolutely excited about it. We have done this before, so you'll see on the bottom right of your screen. Back in January, we had raised about $3,100 in a crowdfund within about 30 days from 143 backers for this epic debate, which had inspiring philosophy and Michael Schirmer. So we've already successfully done this, folks, and want to let you know Indiegogo, if you have not already seen, if you would like to, we invite you to join this crowdfund in terms of, for example, if you've ever enjoyed Kenny Rhodes' work, if you're excited to have him here, or if you've enjoyed Matt De La Hunty coming on and you want to see him come back, please join the crowdfund, which is linked down in the description. And you guys, it's absolutely, I'm actually, it's like, it's hard to embellish or it's hard to overemphasize just how pumped I am about this, is that in particular, this event is going to be gigantic. And as of last night, we hit about 28%. And I'm putting that in the description right now. So at the moment, it's at the very top of the description in this video. So if you, you might have to refresh the page, but do want to let you know, folks, if you refresh the page and then look in the description at the very top, I have linked this crowdfund. And so we want to invite you, if this channel has ever provided any value to you, please join in with this crowdfund with us. And like I said, if you are like, hey, man, it'd be awesome to see Dr. Kenny Rhodes or hey, it'd be awesome to have Matt back on. We want to give them honorariums because a worker is worth their time. We want to show them appreciation and we really do appreciate them. So, N-O-X-D says, how do I pitch some dough into this fund? Thanks for asking, we appreciate that. N-O-X-D is basically really cool. I want to show you this. One, if you're looking on screen, what I'm going to do is show you that you can actually go into Indiegogo. So Indiegogo is just like Kickstarter, which we used last time. And you can actually log in through Facebook. So you don't even have to create an Indiegogo account. If you have Facebook, you can actually just cruise on through that entry into Indiegogo and just quickly give a donation to the crowd fund that way, which is really nice. And folks, we have added tiers this time. I want to show you, this is really exciting, is that last time the tiers are kind of like, yeah, we don't have a ton, that's true. Like we could have more and we're working on it, but I want to show you some of the ones that we have. So in particular, at the lowest, just helping make the event happen because that's the trick, folks. We need to raise the 3,500 to make this event happen. And so just $3, the price of a cup of coffee, really cool. That's one way you can just basically, if you want to help make the event happen, as well as the next one is make this event huge, which basically adds an extra $3, which helps us put out advertisements to make this event gigantic. Next one would be $12, your name on screen and the ticker at the bottom of the screen, as well as your name being read out loud. And that is at the end of the debate, which is $24 at that, what is that? The fourth tier and then at the fifth tier, receive an embossed modern day debate postcard, as well as, this is maybe the coolest one and probably the coolest addition. You'll see there, it's at the sixth tier, the modern day debate t-shirt, folks. And the cool thing is, if you sign up for one of these perks, you not only get that perk, but you also get all of the perks below it. And so, this page is, what's the word I'm looking for? It's not updated, such that there have already been a lot of people signing up, which is super encouraging and I'm gonna show you guys the meter in just a second to show you the progress in which we've made, but also a modern day debate hoodie at 85, so that's the, would that be the eighth tier? Long story short, if you signed up for example, for the hoodie, you'd get the hoodie plus the modern day debate t-shirt, plus the embossed postcard shows up to your house, plus your name would be read out loud, plus your name would be on screen. So, like I said, you get all of the perks at that list, or I should say tier, as well as those below it. And so, really exciting stuff. We are pumped though, you guys, about a lot of stuff going on. But I do wanna mention, let's see, I wanna say hi before I go on more about that epic event that we are really excited about. Let me just show you this progress bar really quick, because this is frankly just encouraging. Last night, we had a generous donor throw in a significant amount of funds, and that honestly means a ton. So, you can see on the far right of the screen, that is the crowd fund fundraising meter. So, really cool that you can see we're already at close to $1,000 within the first, just within three debates of fundraising. We're already close to a third, we're at 28%. So, we're close to a third of the way there, which is just really encouraging, folks, that we are absolutely going to make it. I'm just thrilled about that, and so, do wanna let you know about that, is that debate, which you are seeing in the bottom right of your screen, I know a lot of people were concerned, they were like, oh man, if we don't get to have Matt back on, well hey, this is a great way to just show our welcome to Matt and say thank you, Matt, for helping modern day debate so much, because it's true, Matt has helped modern day. We've had a great relationship, and so, we do appreciate that. And we're excited to have Kenny come. And so, thank you, though, for being here in the chat. I wanna get to quick say hi to you guys and just let you know, we appreciate you being here. Imran Khan, thanks for being so sincere and owning it and apologizing. I really do appreciate that. Seriously, thank you for being so humble about it. You mean more to me than you know, because seriously, I just appreciate that, because sometimes people will be like, screw you, James, you're dumb, and it's like, oh boy, okay. But be badass, good to see you again. Says, love you, you always have to offer a punching bag for a tax. You are so funny, let's see. I don't remember how you always offer to be a punching bag for a tax. Yeah, I don't mind. I mean, if you wanna be like, oh, James is dumb, like, whatever, like. But we do really appreciate the guests, because that's the thing. Some people, I think, I almost wonder if people even, this is 1%, remember folks, 99% of you are awesome, and I'm very serious about that. It's just like 1%, sometimes, you remember when the last time we had Matt come on, Matt Delanti, you know, somebody's calling him like an NAZI in the chat, and I'm like, what, what on earth? No matter what you think about Matt, that's not fair to call him that. That's slander, it's libel. Like, it's like, don't treat people like that. And so, when those people come into the chat, and they're like, oh yeah, I'm gonna trash this person, it's like, you don't care about modern day debate, because we're not gonna be able to host guests if they feel like nobody, you know, if they don't feel welcomed, if they feel like people trash them when they come on. And so, that's a really big deal. Those people, I would say, don't care about the channel, that 1%, remember, 99% of you are great, and I appreciate that. But I wanna say hi to you before we talk more about this fundraiser, which, as I mentioned, that is in the description box, and also, the crowdfund link. I'm putting that at the top of the chat as well right now, so I just threw that into the chat, and wanna let you know you can click on that, and I'm also going to pin it to the top of the chat in a second, but wanna say hi to you first. Mitchell, thanks for being here with us, we appreciate you hanging out here. Kamrat, Jerry, we're glad you're here, and Purgatory, Prytania, thanks for being here. Jane, Doug, Hatir, thank you for being here, let me know if I'm pronouncing your name right, for real, sorry if I didn't. And, Heat Shield, good to see you again. John, Makovec, thanks for coming by, as well as, be badass, oh yeah, that's where I got to say hi. Travis Pratt, glad you were here, and thank you for your kind words, thanks for saying thanks. It's my pleasure, it's a lot of fun to be here. This is honestly, I always tell the guests before we go live, I'm like, I'm pumped, this is great. So, third finger from the right, good to see you. Tuss Beatbox, good to see you again, and Let's Farm, happy you are here with us. As well as those of you in the old Twitch chat, Ozzie and says, in YouTube chat, I can't post links, can I? Oh, let me make you a mod, sorry about that. Hopefully you're able to, you should be able to, I trust you. But yeah, so, I'm gonna put that Indiegogo, let's see, the crowdfund link. I'm gonna put that in the old Twitch chat as well, so that is now in the top of the Twitch chat. And so, saying hello to you though as well in YouTube. Amy Newman, good to see you, thanks for being here, and Pigs Can Fly, thanks for coming by, and Nicholas Proclaimer of Messiah, thanks for coming by, Caveman Smash, glad you're here, Augmented Space, good to see you, and Science Works in Mysterious Ways, pumped you're here, Benny, glad you're here, Brian Griffin, thanks for coming by again. As well as Converse Conductor, thanks for being here, thanks for always being positive. Not Evolution, thanks for being here, Ross Thatcher, good to see you again, and Hasim Haqqan, thanks for coming by, as well as Something From Nothing, Dave Langer, and James Coolkid, thanks for coming by, as well as Bond, good to see you, are here, and H. Jasper E, thanks for coming by, we do appreciate you hanging out here, and yes, J-C-A-D, good to see you again, Tape Deck as well, thanks for coming by, Eric Nelson, as well as Fishfrog Dolphin, good to see you here, and Travis Pratt said is there a fund, let's see, the chat's moving fast on me, be patient with me folks, I'm almost caught up, let's see, Hannah Anderson, good to see you, and Stripper Liquor, good to have you here, and then, let's see, and Haqqs, whoot, thank you very much for your positivity and your enthusiasm, glad you're here, as well as Master Optics, good to see you again, and Actual Socialist Trash, my favorite YouTube name out there, thanks for coming by, as well as, we're almost caught up, that's awesome, B-W-P, we're glad you were here, and then says, let's see, B-W-P says, why does James push for the Q and A so harshly? Yeah, I was a little, I was probably, I was hard on Avi today, the reason though, is that honestly, no joke, Kent used to say he wanted to be in and out in an hour, and so I was already stretching it by having it be an hour and a half, so I will concede though, that was probably, maybe, yeah, you could say it was passive aggressive, and I'm sorry for that, Avi, I'm embarrassed by that, so Avi, if you're listening, I want to let you know I'm sorry that I was so pushy, about going into the Q and A, like I said, the hard thing for me is that, oftentimes people, oh, Asean, thank you, said I didn't notice the tears when I donated, don't worry Asean, you're at the highest tier, so for real, if you want to do a meet and greet with the debaters, you can, like you're invited, and you also have earned all the other tears, so thank you for your generosity, and augmented space, good to see you, says coffee is $7.50, you're right, so you could, even if you did the second tier of the fundraiser, of the crowd fund, $6 is still less than a cup of coffee in a lot of places, so I want to say we appreciate that support, though, of this event, and then I'm almost caught up, oh, but your question though, or BWP, you're right, so I do apologize for Avi for that, but the reason though is like, I do want to get through people's questions, because people have the expectation that questions will get asked to the speaker, sometimes the speaker will be like, all right, I told you I can stay for an hour and a half, I'm gonna leave, and then they'd like leave, and then people don't get their question asked to that speaker, and then I get so much heat, and I'm like, I can't help it if they leave, like they left when they said they were gonna leave, and so, but you're right, I could have worded it differently, I would concede that. Proper FPV, thanks for coming by, and Heald Shield said, let's see, I'm not going through Facebook, need other Linky, Facebook can burn up in the atmosphere, other option Linky, there is another option in that Link which is in the, oh, that's right, I'm gonna pin it to the top of the chat. Crowdfund, is that, I would want to mention though, is that even if you have just ever enjoyed this, if you've ever enjoyed this channel, if you're like, yeah, I've enjoyed it, you know, it's like, yeah, that's fun, like I've gotten some entertainment time out of it, is that would you be willing to join with us in the crowdfund for that reason, as we're like, hey, like, we're excited about this, is even if you were like, hey, you know what, James, I don't even really like, I'm like, ah, this is debated, it's like, ah, this debate's okay, but it's not the greatest, wanna let you know, we're really excited, this crowdfund strategy is going to allow us to do awesome new things in the future, assuming it works, like when we see that it works, I'm not joking, the next goal, I'm very serious about this, our next goal is to do a debate on, it's gonna be titled, God and Politics. So it would cover both topics from God and atheism, as well as from politics, starring, featuring, Dinesh D'Souza and Vash. So we really do wanna get some super high-profile debates, but we want to, these first couple of fundraisers or crowdfunds, it's kinda like we can't, it's hard for us to take that big of a risk right away and so we're kinda trying to do some smaller ones in terms of like kinda building up to where we need to be. So Zebulon, so we do appreciate all of you though, for joining in with that, is that it's exciting that we get closer as we get closer to it. Zebulon 181, so say my name, say my name, thank you very much Zebulon, I'm like a huge fan of, is it TLC, I can't remember. Dornovhead says, does the hoodie come, does the hoodie come that real James smell? I think you mean with that real James smell? No, I'm afraid not. You wouldn't want to know what I smell like, it's very, very bad, but TapeDeck says, Zoom Chat with James is dangerous, LOL. That's true. You could put that on your YouTube channel though, if you wanted, if you're like, man, it'd be cool, I'll throw $100 in and then, so it's a way of supporting both the crowdfund or the debate and really the growth of this channel. So even like, I would say, you know, just by like supporting this crowdfund, like that really does support the channel. So we really do appreciate when you guys are willing to join in with that. And so EndoXD says, can you post a link in the chat? I'm stupid, I don't know what Indiegogo is. Yeah, good question, Indiegogo is just like Kickstarter. So last time we used Kickstarter, as you know, and so do wanna let you know that this one is basically exactly the same, except the colors instead of being green and black are pretty much pink and white, or what would that color be? I don't know, pink, purple, and white. And so thanks for your kind words. So it's basically exactly the same. It's honestly, it's almost like they, it's too similar to be a coincidence. Indiegogo I think was, they started up basically to be a competitor with Kickstarter. Basically we're doing the same thing, but they do have more flexibility and that's why we switched to them. Stripper Liquor says, how much of a donation to get a pair of your boxers? Nasty guys, Stripper Liquor, but approximately $150. I'm just kidding, I'm not getting out my underwear no matter what. Let's see. Ozzie said, or, okay, got you, talking to Dave Langer, I think. And then, thank you, JakeDrogAllis, said, thanks, this community is so cool. Thank you, Jake, for that positive feedback. That positive feedback makes a lot, for real, it means a lot. And say, good to see you again. And Ross Thatcher and Ozzie in the old YouTube chat. And Grimlock says, I don't know, I pay $3 for a jar of grinds. I don't know what grinds are. Louis Presciato, good to see you. Says, hi, James. And Tuss Beatbox says, this debate was such a great setup. So happy Avi got on. His performance was amazing. Might have been the strongest opening ever on modern day debate. I agree, this is a really good debate. Tonight's debate was like high level. Like, I didn't promote it until, what was it like last night or this morning? If you haven't yet, feel free to hit that like button, folks, because that does help the stream as well, and we appreciate that. I didn't record it until, or I didn't put up the event page, because I wasn't sure it was gonna happen, because I was like, is this really gonna happen? Eric Nelson thinks you're kind of worried, says, love you, James. I appreciate that, Eric, love you too. And, let's see. Cinegeek says, Shalom. Thank you, Cinegeek, for being here. And Shalom as well. And Bubblegum Guns says, James is intellectual Chad. Thank you, that's funny. I wish that were true. Third finger from the right says, James smells bad. It is true. You guys, today I smelled so bad this morning when I woke up. Doorknob heads says, James smells like, smells like thin slices of sharp cheese. Boom, drops the mic. That's funny. You're a nasty guy. Nasty, nasty guy. And something from nothing good to see you. Dave Langer, thanks for sharing that Indiegogo link in the chat, as per, I think Ozzie requested it. So thank you for doing that, as I was slow on that. I've gotta be more on the ball on this. Jamie G., thanks for coming by, says, nice glasses, James, where did you get them? The ugly glasses store? Ha! The, actually it was the ugly, the ugly glasses sub-department on Amazon. So the joke's on you. And augmented space, let's see. Good to see you. Grimlock, good to see you. And Comrade Jerry, part of the 99%, that's true. Like I said, only, it's only like 1% of the people that are on this channel that come on and they're like, I'm gonna try to like, rile up the debaters and insult them and like, and it's like, we used to have a really easy going, where we used to be just like, hey, just no hate, no, no hate speech. And we still have that rule. But we also added the rule of like, ah, if you're going after the debaters, like that is like, we're not gonna be able to host them again if they don't feel welcome. Like, why would they want to come back to a place? And so the people who do like, do the personal attacks on the debaters, it's like, you are kind of working against the purpose of this channel in terms of its sustainability. So practically speaking, you are kind of working against our vision, our goal, which is to provide a neutral debate channel, a neutral platform where everybody can have their fair shot to make their fair case on a level playing field. That's very important to us. We wanna provide that on YouTube. Frankly, it's hard to see where that is. I mean, maybe Intelligent Squared does that, but frankly, they're not my cup of tea. And more power to you if you like them. I bet a lot of you watch them. But for me, I'm like, yeah, but you know, we're big on like religion and also kind of these like, topics that people are like, why, like what, big, what are you like guys are weird. But we like it, we can't help it. And so Platinum says, evening, James, thanks Platinum for coming by, as well as Let's Farm, this is great debate tonight, James. Thanks. I completely agree, the debaters did a great job. It was a lot of fun. And Travis Pratt says, hey, James, good to see you, Travis. And Resort of Gore, congratulations on the crowdfunding. What about that electoral, electoral erection meter? No, probably not doing that. And Heat Shield says, James, you're starting to sound like me in that. Hit me all you want. I'm built for it. Leave my guests alone with that or feel the heat. Yeah, I agree. And I was, I just saw somebody said, Augmented States says, where's don't hurt as much as people want them to? Hey, nobody has a more stoic philosophy than me. Like I'm like, that's why I tell people, like go ahead and insult me. I don't like call me a dummy or whatever. Like, who cares? So I'm like very stoic. I think it's best to have a stoic attitude of like, hey, I'm not gonna care what other people think. However, for me to like say like, oh, that's just the philosophy of the channel. And if debaters wanna come on, like it's not my job to change the debaters and make them into stoics like me. And if you're using that argument of like, oh, they should just be more stoic. If you're using that as an argument to be able to insult people more, it's like, I don't see that as like, I don't see that as even being sincere. If you're insulting them or trying to trash them, I don't think you really want them to like better their own well-being. So yeah, long story short, we're sticking with the rule. And be badass as sometimes so many people get away with saying terrible things to the guests and then other times it's lectured, you should get some more backup. That's true. If there are people that are getting away with stuff, then feel free. If you wanna be a moderator, be badass. Like I'm willing to welcome you as a moderator to make sure we have more moderators doing backup. The moderators I think do look for it. And I have to give some huge credit to moderators that are here at this channel cause they do, I see them call out people when I really like that. And if you ever, moderators, if you ever, if somebody give you pushback, like feel free to tag me and be like, hey, this person like is just kind of like saying, like they seem to think that I'm like just trying to make up this rule on my own. And I'm willing to say like, hey, nope, that's like an actual rule of the channel. Like for real, the mod is carrying out what we've asked them to. And so let me know if you want backup, so to speak. And Hax said, I had to go out for a bit. Sorry if I missed a shout out. We're glad you're here in Hax. And you might have missed a shout out. But Benny says, thank you, James. Thank you, Benny. We appreciate that. And, Emeron Constant, no problem. Have you encountered any crisis of faith lately? I assume one can if they're constantly supposed to different views and people. No, actually, so my views, haven't changed too much. Politically, I hadn't read as much, but having had a philosophy masters before starting the channel, like don't get me wrong, we do have quality gas. And I'm not saying that it's not useful to host debates like these. But like, I had been exposed to a ton of ideas. And frankly, a lot of people, I can't say which, who, but some people, they seem to not want to read the, and I'm not saying this is true about you, but some people, they're almost like, well, no, I learned about this stuff through YouTube. And I don't read the peer reviewed research on these topics. And I'm like, yeah, it's better than nothing to listen to it on YouTube, right? At the same time, when they only base it on YouTube, I'm like, and then they think like, so sometimes those people who only base it on YouTube are like, James is, and now I'm not saying that's you, but some of them are like this, where they'll say, James, have you changed your beliefs since these debates? And oftentimes those seem to be the people that haven't read the peer reviewed literature. And because for them, that's just it, it's just YouTube. And I'm like, don't let this channel be the only way, don't let YouTube even be the only way that you learn about these topics. The peer reviewed literature, there's a ton of ideas out there. And so I highly encourage you to check those out if you haven't already, though maybe you already have. And tell it like it is, hi there. Hi there, back to you. Tell it like it is. And thank you, Hannah, who said, hit that like or that dislike button, express yourself, I agree. Thanks for your super, super sticker, super, yeah, super sticker, fist bump from Jimmy G. We appreciate that. Thanks, Jimmy G, for that support. And Ross Thatcher says, appreciate the trust in the wrench, James. Always good to be here when time permits, Sunday morning debates rock. Thank you, we appreciate that, Aussie. And thanks, Dornab, head, let's see. Flat Earth guy, good to see you. And Grimlock, oh, I didn't see your super chat until now. They said, oh, it moved on me, where'd it go? Me, two seconds, I'll find it. Said, how much for a James body pillow? That's funny, I don't think there will be one of those. You wouldn't really buy it. Somebody the other day is like, would you shave, James, shave your head. And if you shave your head on stream, I will donate $1,000 to the crowd fund. And I was like, okay. But then they were like, oh, just joking. But for real, we might have to do some sort of perk like that where it's like, I know we're, I'm planning on having a 12 hour live stream where we will host at least four, maybe five debates within that stream. And we're gonna use that hopefully as a big time fundraiser for the crowd fund as we're excited about that. But Hannah Anderson says, James, you could also ask the debaters if they wish to continue or if they are done, yes. That's true. I think you're, are you referring to like, when they're speaking and like, before I jump into the Q and A, is this about the earlier chat about me being pushy, about going into Q and A, let me know. It's okay if it is. I'm open to constructive criticism. I appreciate when people like give me ideas. The one thing I don't like is sometimes people are like, man, you know, like this is the kind of stuff that I'm like, you clearly don't want to help. You're just trying to discourage people. And it actually makes me more motivated when they do this. They're just like, this channel sucks. This channel will never be taken seriously. This channel is stupid. And I'm like, well, it just motivates me more anyway. So I'm like, I'm the kind of person that likes to be a contra, you could say a contrarian. But the other thing is I'm like, when I see that, in those cases, I'm like, well, you're, you're not even offering any ideas and like how to improve or what could be fixed. So I appreciate that you're offering that actual, like actual ideas there, Hannah, that means a lot. I take that as like really positive criticism. And I know you support the channel. So thank you for showing you support the channel through giving those alternative ideas. Sigman, he says, apologies for my $2 super, super snark. Excellent stuff as always. Yeah, I wasn't sure if everybody would know that was a joke or serious. And I didn't want people to actually like think that John's after show wasn't really gonna happen. So that's the only reason I didn't read it. Let's farm says coffee is $7.50, but refills are free. So I'll take a refill. Where is it $7.50? I don't know. I thought you can still get a coffee like a Panera for like what, three bucks? I don't know. Heat Shield says nice link. I don't get on Facebook, but I'm definitely interested in helping the fund. Thank you Heat Shield for being willing to consider jumping in on the crowdfund. We're excited about it, folks. And believe me, we're gonna make this happen. If we don't make it to the 3,500, like the debate won't happen. And so it's kind of like, hey, like, I know you guys love Matt Dilla Honey debates. I certainly enjoy them. And I think you're gonna love Kenny Rose. Dr. Kenny Rose is a really pleasant person and really well read. And so I think that it's gonna be a great debate. And so we do because the debaters, like they put in a lot of time and sometimes people are like, you know what? These debaters, like they should just do it for free. And I should just get to watch it for free. And I'm like, if they wanna do it for free, they're welcome to. I mean, a lot of debaters, 99.9% of the debaters, they come on for free and they just do it because they love it. Or maybe they wanna get their new YouTube channel, some exposure or something like that. But at the same time, like Kent or, well, actually Kent has helped us too. Kent has never asked for a dime. I even offered an honorarium to Kent back when it was hard to get him back on. And Kent has never accepted any honorariums or any fees from us. And so long story short though, Matt has helped us a lot. I mean, in a number of ways. And so that is one reason why it's like, hey, we really do wanna kind of, I know that some of you, maybe I don't know if you, we want to give thanks to or help or do something kind for the speakers as we really appreciate them. And Dave Langer says, you need to put your bathwater as a tier for the crowdfund. That's funny. Maybe we should do that as a joke. I'm actually like, I'm like, that might actually, something as a joke, it might be funny, but that's just hilarious. Bbata says, can reporting someone's comment automatically let you and the mods know they're being disrespectful or does it just make them blocked towards my viewing? If you give them a timeout, other mods will see it and mods, it's good for you guys to back each other up because if you back at each other up cause you're like, you know, if the mods hang out in the chat and they're like, ooh, somebody just got timed out and it'll show like, it'll be like someone. So we've got timed out by Bbadas. Then the mods will know like, oh, okay, like does Bbadas need backup? And so it does show. Thank you, Ozzie. You can buy my boxers. That's funny. That sounds super hot. H-A-W-T as Steven Steen would say. And Fortefyde Soyboy, my favorite, my new, you're tied up there with socialist, actual socialist trash and Fortefyde Soyboy. You guys are my favorite YouTube names. So thanks for being here. Fortefyde, Fortefyde Soyboy. I'm having trouble here, you guys. It's getting late for me. GangsterGhost, thanks for coming by. Says James, how are you? I'm doing well. I am super excited. And by the way, you guys, I'm honestly, I am so encouraged and so thrilled that the Kickstarter, you guys, last night, someone gave an anonymous huge donation and we made it up to 900 and I think it was 927 at the end of the night last night. And we're up to 987 now. So thank you so much for that support. Do want to encourage you folks. We are excited about that. H. Jasper E, thank you. Oh, Bruce Wayne says, hey, the crowdfund link in the description doesn't seem to be working. Crap, thanks for letting me know about that. Let me try to fix that right now. I'm glad you said something because I did not know. We're gonna fix, we're gonna find out right now. I know why it worked last night. And so I'm gonna use the one that I put in the description box from last night's debate. Oh wait, I can do it this way. Ryan Griffith says, Watermelon or Candelope James? Definitely Watermelon. And Ghost, Gangster Ghost says, James, would you like to host a debate between Kent versus Dawkins over who is more of a man? More of a man? I am open to that. But Carl Sagan says, I want James to read out my super chat in full. I can go back to read your Derek Zulander one. Let me pull up this crowdfund link from yesterday. Hopefully it works now. I don't know why it didn't work earlier. Please let me know, does this link work? Okay, I just put a link in the live chat. Can you let me know if it is working? And Brian Griffin says, let's see. Yeah, Bruce Wayne says, how come the crowdfund shows is invalid? I am sorry about that. I'm gonna figure that out in a moment. But HS4E thinks you're a super sticker. Appreciate that. Please let me know. So I just put a new crowdfund link in the description. Please let me know if it's actually working. We can hopefully solve this problem together because I have no idea. Tim Durand, good to see you. And Bob Nodell's gyroscope, thanks for being here. As well as Mr. P, good to see you, Mr. P. Tim Durand says, I always love these post-debate chats with James. Almost feel like I'm hanging out with a friend. One day, James. Thanks, Tim. That means a lot, seriously. Appreciate that. And let's see, based on your feedback in the chat, let's see if it... Can you guys... Oh, okay. Bruce Wayne says, yes, that link does work. Thank you for letting me know about that. Thanks and hacks for letting me know as well. I do appreciate that. BootyMeet, glad you were here. And now I'm gonna fix that link in the description box. Let me see what it had in there. Oh yes, because they were showing like the perks table or something. But now... Oh yes, much better. So I'm gonna put the crowdfund mentioned in stream and now I'm back in the old live chat. Thanks for your patience, folks. Thanks for letting me know about that. I should... Okay, so I'm gonna put that in my notes of like things to do, is I'm gonna put that in every single debate because I wanna make sure that I don't screw that up. Put this link in the description for every single upcoming debate. There we go. Okay, now I'm back into the old live chat. Thanks, Twitch, for hanging out with us. SideshowNav, glad you're here. Ozzie in there, I see ya. And has it changed much since I was last in here? Sorry, I'm like, Corv7Nus says, we're glad you were here. Corv7Nus, we hope you enjoy yourself. And SideshowNav says, yet another great show. Thank you, SideshowNav. I appreciate that positive support. That means a lot. And Bruce Wayne says, the new one you posted in the chat is right here. Okay, cool. So yes, it is working. And now what I'm gonna do, so it's now both in the description and also the actual crowdfund link. And I'm wondering, do you guys... Yeah, so the actual crowdfund link mentioned in stream, I just put that into the live chat. And so I'm gonna pin it to the top of the chat. Oh, it means I put the wrong one in Twitch as well. Sorry, gang. We'll pin this new one. Thanks and hacks for your positivity. He says, thanks for the show, James, Maz, and guests. We appreciate that. That support means a lot. And where did I put that link? Let me find it. There it is, okay. Platinum says, we need you on Discord to organize moderators more and also to have a means to discuss things in private. It's incredible how to communicate like this. Platinum, I'm sorry. Like, I'm just working on the PhD is already like so many PhD people burn out. I just don't know if I can do that. And if it's to the point where it's like, man, we should just shut down. Like I'm not trying to threaten this or anything. I'm leaving this up in your hands. If it's to the point where it's so rowdy or hard, like don't ever feel obligated to do it. I hope you know what I appreciate. People who do help out with the Discord, but I just am honestly like stretch so thin right now. Like YouTube is not, like some people, they, what's the word I'm looking for? They do YouTube full time. I'm just a grad student. And so for me, like this is a fun passion project, but it's hard for me to like, I just don't know if I can get in there anytime soon. It's honestly been so hard to try to learn it. You can always email me, that's for sure. And I can try to help you that way. And potentially even if we email, I can share my number with you if I haven't already. But yeah, it's honestly really hard for me to try to manage Discord too. It's just really hard with both Twitch trying to figure that out and then YouTube and then all the other social media and stuff. But I appreciate the invite. And SineDudeHeight said we get one more debate today or can I go to sleep? You can go to sleep. That is it for today. And Bebetta says you froze so perfectly. I thought my Wi-Fi crashed. That's funny. And so let's see. Want to say thank you guys so much for all of your support though, seriously. Thank you. Thank you for everything. And so Platinum, the answer is no. If it's just like when people pressure me for more and more and more, it's like bro, you just don't get how... If you get your PhD and you run a YouTube channel like Modernity Debate, you'll understand. But I mean really, it's like when people pressure for more it's exhausting. I'm trying my best here. So I appreciate all you do. And it's just like, but to say that I have to manage my own community as well is it's like, I'm sorry, I'm trusting other people to manage. And so that's just the way I have to do this. So SineDudeHeight says goodnight from Germany. Thank you, SineDudeHeight. We hope you have a great night. Thanks, Danny3640. It says don't burn out, James. And so thank you everybody. But Platinum, I can see you're trying to put me on a guilt trip. That's what it looks like when you say like well, dot, dot, dot. It's like, okay, just stop, seriously. If you're gonna just keep pushing it seriously, I don't wanna hear it anymore. And if you don't wanna be a Discord mod, don't feel bad. It's not a, like don't feel obligated. Nobody's making you do it. Like be bad. It says, yeah, I'm not a moderator so I can time them out. Timeout who? Oh, you mean people in the YouTube chat? Let me think about that. Yeah, I'm not a moderator so I can't time them out. Oh, yeah, so be badass. I'm willing to give you a shot. So if you wanna do it, I just made you a moderator. Don't feel obligated. If you don't want to, it's honestly totally okay. And so we do appreciate you guys. So thank you for your kind words, Sigma Any. It says no pressure, James. I do appreciate that. But yeah, it's just like I'm trying to do, a lot of people don't realize how many emails I'm sending out and oftentimes that never get responded to that like I send out and trying to get new people on the moderator debate and stuff like that. And so yeah, it's like there is a lot. And John Rapp says, so like herding cats. So you could say that. And Dave Hill says, don't worry about it. If you hadn't delegated, you'd probably already be burnt out. Yeah, well, I'm honestly like pretty much this semester I've been pretty burnt out. So I'm like looking to take some rest especially in the next like week or two. So in hacks as I would mod, but the power would go to my head. That's funny. Thank you guys for being here. It's always fun. Thanks for all of your support. Thank you guys for everything. Seriously, I appreciate it. I hope you have a great night. And so keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. And yeah, that's actually a good point is be badass. I think you said before, like there's a lot of like bad stuff that slips by. You could always point it out to the moderators too. If you're not a moderator. Cause we do have a lot of moderators. So, you know, I'm a little bit like that's a little hard to believe that people are trashing the guests and that it's not being spotted. But so thank you guys for all of your support and love. We do appreciate it. So I hope you guys keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care. We will be back. I think the plan is to come on Friday. Let's see. Trying to remember what day is it? Saturday? So I think it's on Sunday, if not Tuesday. So yeah, pumped about that. So thanks everybody for your support and your love. It does mean a lot more than you know it really does. And I hope you guys keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care everybody.