Links to speakers: Leophilius: NephilimFree: …
winning streak
tonight we're debating create
Evolution and we're starting
right now now
ladies and
gentlemen thrilled to have you
here for another epic debate
this is going to be a
fun one folks want to let you
know if it's your first time
here at modern-day debate
consider hitting that subscribe
Button as we have many more
debates to come so for example
this coming Wednesday very
excited for a good ol Flat Earth
versus Globe Earth debate and
many more
as well so with that want to let
you know no matter what
Walk of Life you are from
Christian atheist flatters low
birth you
name name it we hope welcome and
we're glad you're here so with
that I want to let you know for
tonight's debate
we're going to have a fairly
flexible format in particular
it'll be about 10 minutes for an
opening from each side followed
by 50 to 60 Minutes of
open dialogue and after that
about 30 minutes of Q&A if you
haven't have a question feel
free to fire it into the
old live chat if you tag me with
at monitor Abate it makes it
easier for me to get every
single question in that list for
the Q&A and then super chat is
also so an option in which case
you could make a comment toward
one of the speakers as well
during the question and answer
to which the of course we get a
chance to respond to we ask that
you be your fregula friendly
selves and with that want to let
you know who our guests are if
you have not heard of him I was
telling Neff before we started I
said it's funny that the Legacy
Nephilim free has in the YouTube
debate world because sometimes
we have these like big YouTubers
who come on and in passing I say
we got this debate coming up
you know whatever day
was Nephilim for either like
that's what free is he still
around you like yep he is he
at it so he is pictured on your
left and also the stunning
creature in the thumbnail for
tonight's debate so want to let
you know both of the speaker's
links are in the description and
want to say welcome nephilimfree
what can people expect to find
it your
link one more of the same
Christian apologetics creation
apologetics this is what
I do I've been doing it for 12
years or so it's what it's my
hobby and I love to study the
subjects and share information
and so God willing I'll do it as
long as the Lord is inspiring
me to do it gotcha and we are
very excited to have you
here in F we're
also excited to have you here
Lee Ophelia's once again to have
you thanks so much for joining
us it's a true pleasure we
really enjoyed it last time so
this is a real treat for us to
have you
back what can people expect to
find at your link well I just
recently started my YouTube
channel I don't have any content
out as yet I just recently got
service on my phone so I should
be verifying my channel
hopefully next week by the end
of October I will have the first
video so I plan on uploading an
introduction to my channel
I'm going to do a video on the
my journey to atheism atheism
and to natural ism so I do a lot
of Science Education science
communication my main focus is
Astro physics cosmology and
quantum mechanics with a little
bit of politics and agriscience
so that's what you can expect to
find out my links my YouTube on
Twitter you just post whatever I
want don't follow me on Twitter
if you don't admire am illya
Clark you got it
thanks so much and with that why
don't you know a final
housekeeping thing I forgot to
upfront folks if you have not
heard if you have been living in
cave on Mars with your fingers
in your ears modern-day debate
has invaded the podcast world so
that means all of your favorite
podcast folks I love Podcast
Addict all of them out there we
should be on there already if
you can't find us on your
favorite podcast app let us know
we'll work hard to get on there
for you so you can listen to
debates there as well so with
that for tonight nephilimfree is
going to get
the ball rolling and I want to
say given that that if you're
out there I
wanted I want to give a shout
out because I
really do and I'm actually being
serious for like once in my life
Thoth Tioga I was so hard I was
so just unfair to Tioga last
there was other you know things
and stuff in terms of what
happened but I just want to say
we appreciate you Tioga so much
we appreciate everybody and that
the the other people that I was
had a little bit of you know
we're you could say we're we're
norming and storming as they say
in in organizational speak
we're asking the moderators we
appreciate you so much for all
you do and we're asking
the moderators to be let's see
so there was a discussion
yesterday over moderators and
all that good stuff which is
mildly heated and I have to
admit that I was I was too
hard on to yoga perhaps I was
too hard on others I'm not
convinced I was for those other
cases but I will say I for sure
was too hard on to yoga will
continue to talk about that but
is it is a reminder of to our
moderators we do want to ask
that moderators and
also those speaking of the
moderators that you would be
friendly toward each other is
one thing to attack ideas it's
another thing to attack people
and that goes
for everybody so so want to let
you know folks we are really
shooting for a community here
and we've always been pretty
easygoing in terms of letting
people say almost anything they
want but we are asking you to
work with us we give you that
freedom and we hope that
you in return will use it in a
way that is productive
friendly so with that we are
going to jump into Nephilim
freeze opening the floor is all
yours yours Nephilim okay
attempting to screen share see
if you can allow that please
absolutely they can see it
completely okay yeah
okay I'm looking at the watch
page and shut up good-looking
fellow in the top right there
who's that guy all right let's
see it's not showing up in the
watch page okay now it says
double click to enter
there there we go okeydoke here
we go Okay so people who believe
in evolution believe it's true
because they believe the
following 19th century myths
which have been disproved by
20th century science the matter
organizers itself into
considerable levels of
complexity by chemical
determination which contradicts
the laws of physics and observed
chemistry that genetic mutations
incrementally build new
designs are modifying extant
designs with new bio mechanical
this country
years of genetic experimentation
or that similarities in the
structural designs of various
kinds of life as evidence that
they are related by Common
ancestry which ignores countless
incongruencies creationists
don't have these problems on the
evolutionists have them when
presented with
the evidence that these myths
are false and if the evidence of
creation is true anyone who
investigates afterward the
validity of the evidence will
convinced the evolution is false
and creation is truth after
investigation is verified this
to them anyone who denies the
creation is true or continues to
argue the evolution is true is a
denial of science because they
have a paradigm that they're
unwilling to give up
because the alternative is
unacceptable to them these are
simply thanks 1 million studies
are more have
been conducted in genetic
mutation it's been done for
consistently consistently for a
90 years mutation is no such
thing as a mechanism for
that's a 19th century early 20th
century century myths mutations
do not build structural designs
in living things if they do not
even Lucien cannot be true
because mutation and natural
selection can't have built all
the functional structural
designs of all the various
living things in the world in 90
years of experimentation in
has disproved the myth the
mutation is a designer of
structural design for example as
far back as a 1983 and long
scientists have stated it is
striking that but not much
mention fact though geneticists
have been breeding fruit flies
for 60 years or more in our labs
around the world now this was
published in 1983 60 years in
labs around the world
flies which produce new
generations of relevance to 11
days they have yet to seen the
emergence of a new species or
even a new enzyme so even by
1983 60 years of mutation
experimentation have been
performed in the mutations
were consistent the evidence is
clear they don't design anything
they destroyed Lynn margulis the
famous evolutionist author so I
have seen no evidence whatsoever
that these
revolutionary changes through
accumulation of
natural mutations Jonathan Wells
multiple phds California
Berkeley University says but
there is
no evidence that DNA mutations
can provide the sort of very
thick variation needed for
illusion there's no evidence
that for beneficial mutations at
the level of macro-evolution but
there is no evidence for the
level of common regarded as
microchip but there is evidence
for microevolution and also
theodorus dumanskiy the famous
Genesis and most most mutants
which arise in any organism are
less disadvantage or more or
less disadvantages to
their processors possessors the
classic mutants are retained by
mutating flies he says they
break down Oregon's they caused
The Disappearance of them
mutants have changes in pigments
and legs were eyes are supposed
to be in some arm fatal
and so this is all we observe
when it comes to mutation it is
simply true
verified by 90 years of
experimentation mutation is not
a mechanism for evolution as he
boosts Miss claim therefore
evolution is false it's been
known for a long time it's been
known for 90 years
but Eeveelution us are in denial
of 90 years of scientific
evidence genetic information is
overlapping in nested it's
a single string of information
in the DNA could code for
numerous different proteins
sequences are trapped within
each other and they overlap each
other them information is highly
compressed base pairs share the
same different sequences of
information share the same base
parents so what happens when you
insert have an insertion
mutation you break the DNA to
stick in a new Gene and guess
what happens
you just damaged
damaged several genes that's
what insertion doing mutations
do here's a reference that
deletion in mutation insertion
duplication genetic mutations
are one of the single greatest
causes of disorders they're not
a mechanism for Designing
anything the fossil record
doesn't give us any evidence of
evolution it's discredits it
Stephen Jay Gould the famous
paleontologists stated everybody
knows the fossil record doesn't
show much for gradualism is full
of gaps and discontinuity is
most species don't change change
they may get it
a bump here then remain the same
species the remarkable stasis
has generally been ignored if it
doesn't agree with
your ideas you don't talk about
it the fossil record does not
show gradual change and every
paleontologist has known it
since cuvier Cuvier David be
kids professor of geology
University of Oklahoma despite
the bright promise that
paleontology provides a means of
seeing Evolution it is Friends
painted some nasty difficulties
for evolutionists
the most notorious of which is
presence of gaps in the fossil
record Evolution requires
forms between species and
paleontology does not provide
provide them
does not provide provide them
David kits was an Eeveelution
missed by the way he's just
being honest steaming educate a
girl also said and so have
numerous numerous other
scientists made statements
exactly like this stasis or non
change in the fossil of species
during their lengthy geological
spans was tacitly acknowledged
by paleontologists but most
almost never studied explicitly
because prevailing Theory
treated stasis as uninteresting
non-evidence for non Evolution
evolution the
prevalence of stasis became an
embarrassing feature of the
fossil record left to be ignored
as a manifestation of nothing
that is none even so neither is
genetic mutation a mechanism for
evolution we don't even have
physical evidence that took
place on the earth Niles
Eldredge made the same statement
no wonder paleontologist shied
away from Evolution so long it
seems to know verb happened
the city was collections of rock
Cliffs um zigzags minor
oscillations and very slight
accumulation of change over
millions of years the rate to
slow to a really account for all
the prodigious change that has
occurred in evolutionary history
we do not see the
introduction of evolutionary
novelty it usually shows up with
a bang and often with no with
firm evidence that the organism
did not evolve
elsewhere Evolution cannot
forever be going on elsewhere
elsewhere so scientists are in
our Green and agreement the
fossils don't
show even Shank so what about
these ideas of 500 genetics the
go to store Story of
evolutionists that genetic
similarities between creatures
is proof of common design but
what you never hear about
or the countless incongruencies
that ruin that idea for
evolution is it's a fancy story
but it's just not true this
science paper discusses the
difference in
digits between I mean dinosaurs
which from which birds allegedly
involved and birds themselves
provides a nasty genetic
conundrum for evolution Theory
this paper describes teleost
fish and says the there
genetic incongruencies between
the phylogenetic some different
species of fish is a problem for
evolution this paper says
incongruencies across
different data sets is not a
novel observation with within
phylogenetic analysis
not surprisingly we found in
between the phylogenetic signals
of the genes and morphological
characters and
this is across the board for all
life kinds so an evolutionist
tell you that genetic
similarities between one kind of
living thing and another is
that they're related they're not
telling you the whole story
there is some molarities in
between other kinds of lengths
lengths as because they live in
somewhere environments but the
incongruencies are numerous and
countless and they don't talk
about them because they killed
the idea
phylogenetics here's another
little confidence can be placed
in phylogenies generates holy
from higher primate Chrome
cranial Dental evidence so
even for mankind it's the same
another one provides problems
for evolution in in with the
idea of phylogenetics
I could list dozens and dozens
of these I'm just showing you
some of the better ones
understanding phylogenetic in
congruence lessons from Far most
only bats
another one every kind of living
thing they discover they study
they find problems for the idea
father genetics the idea that
the genetic similarities found
in one kind of life is evidence
that they're related to another
kind of life that one type of
organism is related to another
through some evolutionary
history the more they studied
the with with genetics which is
ever increasing the more
incongruencies with that idea or
discovered so the story is
it was a fun story in
the 1980s that genetic
similarities between different
kinds of life is evidence that
their common have common
ancestry but that idea has been
shot to pieces by modern
genetics which endlessly
finds incongruencies with this
idea which evilish Mists are
either ignorant
of of or don't talk about out
now now here's another one
mitochondrial DNA markers
another problem for evolutionist
evolutionist phylogenetics
here's another jeans two
different species orphan genes
the found everywhere in
different things these are genes
that can't be found in one kind
of life that are related
allegedly to another kind you
study the one you find these
genes you study the other
creature it supposedly closely
related to and it doesn't have
have them but it ought to to
here's another one eighty
percent of proteins between
humans and chimpanzees are
different but at least one amino
acid often several
the idea protein evolution is
impossible here's another one
staple this one's really funny I
laugh at this Staples of the
middle ear the creature is going
upwards with red arrow more
allegedly ancestors of one to
the other at the bottom we have
the oldest creature the one
above it then above it the
brother each one of these was
allegedly a transitional form to
the next one now look at the
stapes in the ear
they have they have these parts
these limbs that come off them
they're called Kira okay and son
have one in one kind of life and
some in another
and where allegedly going from
the bottom creature evolved
through steps to the one at the
let's look at this in congruence
the one at the bottom has dual
Cura in the states of the year
the next one has only one the
next one has to again the next
one has to the next one going up
just one the next one
one going up just one and the
next one has to again you see
what sense does it make to
believe that these creatures
show an evolutionary transition
from one to the other going
upward through the geologic
column and the at the states in
the ears bounced around from to
to cure up to 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1
is there any common sense to
this of course not it
demonstrates different designs
evolution were true that we see
transition from one state to to
and that's all you'd see 2 to 1
to two to one this demonstrates
these creatures were not related
there's separately designed the
skills Eeveelution Theory
changes to allele frequency in
populations which results in
genetic drift is another alleged
man for evolution I have sources
if you don't what I've got on
the screen
here but this is of these are
simply observed facts
established by science changing
allele frequencies in
populations creates increased
heterozygosity commonality in a
population of some alleles
while reducing heterozygosity of
others over time instead of
introducing new features it
it causes existing traits to be
either become lost or
increasingly common which is not
a mechanism for evolutionary
change because there's no new
information created an organism
either gets more like itself or
it loses things
but it doesn't move towards
becoming something else changing
allele frequencies in
populations is not a mechanism
for evolution change changing
continuously results in certain
genes um in recessive and no
longer expressed in a given
population which constitutes a
loss of genetic information
that's opposite of evolution
Evolution requires a continuous
input of new genetic information
because you're the fish can't
have had all the genetic
information for the Stinger in
the tail of a scorpion despite
that the spines of the other
porcupine and Eyeball of human
being Etc that information
couldn't have
all been in the vicious Gino
Dino you got get new genetic
information to produce all
these thousands and thousands of
anatomical features in all these
living things of you loosens
true but changes to allele
frequency just get dreams turned
off that's a loss
of genetic information
everything in
the world is becoming more
itself or doing extinct because
of this process
so changes to allele frequency
is not a mechanism for evolution
it's a mechanism for genomic
entropy entropy which causes a
loss of Genoa genetic Hydra
Gonzaga City for healthy alleles
while making mutant alleles more
common in large populations
thereby causing disease
promoting genes to become
increasingly common in that
population that's not a
mechanism for evolution either
that comes that's a mechanism
for extinction over over time
now if you don't want to have on
the screen here I'll be happy to
show you sources from secular
mainstream science source
that what I've said about these
changes to allele frequency is
not some creationist invented
this is from their camp this is
published by them they
acknowledge changes to allele
frequency causes increased
heterozygosity from members of a
population or losing features
for others and results results
in genes being in permanently
turned off to a population
that's how you get a Chihuahua
from a grant from a dog by
turning off genes turn off the
genes that make it big so it's
slow turn off the genes that
give it a long tail so it has a
short one turn off the genes
that make lots of hair so it has
very little turn off the genes
that make a long nozzle
so it has a short one that's how
you get a chihuahua by turning
jeans off now that's what's
happening in all living things
in this world slowly
slowly is the genes are being
turned off in organisms are
becoming more like themselves
they're not gaining structural
design switchy dilution requires
they're simply gate having the
same or they're losing futures
but they aren't gaining anything
so so what's the conclusion
changes to allele frequencies in
populations it's not a mechanism
for evolution either it it
causes a loss of genetic
information that's the opposite
of English so so there are in
illusion there are no mechanisms
for evolution the night of the
alleged mechanisms of evolution
random genetic mutations acted
upon by natural selection has
proven for 90 years to be no
such thing it's a mechanism for
extinction because
it causes deformities weakness
death and still Burns that's all
it does it doesn't design
anything there's
zero scientific evidence for
that it would have to be the
designer of
all the Fantastical structures
in all living things with the
world if it worked thank you so
the fossil record doesn't show
us any evidence for evolution
ever happened dozens and dozens
of the world's most prominent
scientists some of them
paleontologists in geneticists
have written in
their own books the fossil
record does not show the clear
evidence of evolutionary
transition you have to imagine
it with your mind now about that
exactly what to expect if there
was a flood or if creation is
true the creatures don't see so
that's not a mechanism changes
to allele frequencies in
populations not a mechanism
of evolution genetic
similarities has been destroyed
by countless incongruencies and
genetics between one kind of
Life any longer
all I haven't even talked about
the evidence for creation which
was empirical and overwhelming
maybe I would do that when we
ever talked the scientific
evidence of Simply clear
evolution is scientifically
invalid idea and creation is
confirmed by modern science we
don't need 19th century myths
and time thank you very much
nephilimfree I'm going to pop us
out of the
screen share and want to say
thanks so much appreciate that
we are going to
kick it over to Lee Ophelia's
for his opening statement
thanks so much leo
is all yours thank you very much
James and thanks again for
having me here tonight and thank
you Nephilim for that
introduction for lack of a
better word so I am debating
somebody who is a creationist
but more importantly they are
a young Earth creationist so in
my introductory statement I
would first like to demonstrate
that the age of the Earth is not
somewhere between 6,000 and
10,000 years old
radiometric dating is foreseen
that we can go to the shows this
and we can't just radiometric
dates stuff on the earth we can
do it on the moon as well and
the dates of the things that we
radiometrically date on the moon
corroborate the ages that we get
on the Earth there's also
another problem we know that
radioactive isotopes will be k
at a particular rate so we can
measure how much the parent
isotope there is and how much of
the daughter Isotopes there are
in order for there to be the
amount of daughter Isotopes to
parent isotopes that we see
today given the six to ten
thousand year frame the amount
of energy that would be released
by this mean that the average
surface temperature of the Earth
would I miss I'll give you the
time back I promise is just that
it's there's a little bit of
popping on your mic or I think
it might just be that as it may
be just right in front of your
Airway something like that
thanks so much
is this a little better it is
better because it's not popping
but it's maybe a little bit low
on sound okay
I'll just I'll just try to speak
that's pretty good right there
all so
given the amount of daughter
elements that we see daughter
isotopes that we see two parent
in the time frame set out by
Young Earth creationists the
amount of energy released from
all this radioactive decay and
such a small frame of time the
average surface surface
temperature excuse me of the
Earth would be about
about was in degrees that's
seventy thousand degrees Celsius
I don't know about you but it's
only about 55 degrees outside
here in central Iowa so that
seems to be a huge problem
for particularly the young Earth
model ruins of human
structures also directly shows
that the Earth and modern humans
are significantly older than
what Young Earth creationists
argue the stone wall which is at
the of Patra in thessaly Greece
is dated to I believe 21,000 BCE
that's about 15,000 years prior
to the supposed creation of the
entire planet on the young Earth
creationist model Gobekli Tepe
in the Anatolia region of turkey
is dated to about 9000 BCE or
roughly 3,000 years prior to the
supposed creation of the entire
planet on the young Earth model
we also have trees and rocks
that we know are
significantly older than six to
ten thousand years as for
evolutionary theory being
correct one of the biggest
things is what one of the main
principles of evolutionary
theory is morphologic change
through geologic time and this
is observed through the fossil
despite what you may hear this
is thoroughly corroborated by
the genetic record and the
geologic record and is
thoroughly reported on in the
academic literature and is
accepted by every single
relevant academic field all of
biology operates from this
standpoint this is something
that must
must be dispelled in order for
creationism to be true
and it's been verified Beyond
any reasonable doubt geologic
column the duh geologic column
also demonstrates evolution by
showing us clear boundaries
between strata certain animal
forms only appear in
certain strata and the further
back we go or the further down
we go the simpler we can see
life-forms getting we can also
date not only the strata that we
find these life-forms in we
can also date the life forms and
the dates corroborate with each
other we also contrary
to popular creationists belief
do not see a mixing we've never
observed a mixing like they have
claimed as a result of the flood
this demonstrates an
evolutionary process
in life forms Through Time again
corroborating morphologic change
through geologic time
another core tenets of
evolutionary theory that has
been thoroughly demonstrated
molecular clocks also Aid
geneticists in calculating
Divergence times
and speciation times for
organisms IE when when they
evolve into
genetically or morphologically
different forms which is
something that we would only
expect to observe if
evolutionary theory were
accurate and explain it if lo
and behold this is something
that we observe there's a gene
called the guillot gene which is
a gene that I believe produces
an Ami I think it's produces an
enzyme that produces vitamin C
this is a broken chain and it
exists in the
same exact spot in almost all
primate genomes
if creationism were true this
breakage must occur by chance in
the spot and almost
all primate genomes which is so
statistically unlikely that it
can't even be considered a
viable explanation a problem for
creationists under Evolution
this is an inherited trait given
a simplistic explanation giving
a simplistic explanation
for why it is observed in the
same spot in almost all primate
genomes because this Gene is
broken these primates
these primates cannot cannot
synthesize their
vitamin C which is why we have
to eat fruit this is also why if
you know anything about Pirates
they would all think of the
disease referred to as scurvy
from not eating enough fruit
while they were at Sea because
fruit just did not keep as well
as salted and Smoked Meats and
reds now I'd like to move for
move into some questions for my
opponent that I would State seem
to work against his worldview
first off why do we observe in
the Genome of organisms multiple
genes whose proteins shared the
function oh rather redundant if
there is a Creator behind
everything however evolutionary
theory tells us that as
organisms develop and you see
the development of organs and
the specialization of function
you begin to require proteins
that can share a function in
different parts of the body this
is done to accommodate or gives
an organismal complexity or
requiring the same function
within different different
environments within the body
that certain proteins may not
survive in which is why we need
different proteins that have the
next question what about
creationism specifically would
predict the structuring in order
of the geological column why
does it appear to show very
concise stratification what
predicts the chemical
composition of the different
strata formed under different
conditions and in specific
environments over time organisms
can cause the environment to
change which can cause minor
changes to the strata and we can
observe these changes
stratification which is an
observed a geological process
can also
explain this then does away with
the the notion of a 6,000 year
old Earth making it hard for
creationism especially young
Earth creationism to answer this
question third question within
the geologic column we see the
markers or chemical signatures
of five mass extinctions Each of
which are
incompatible with a global flood
which is a point that is often
made by creationists young and
old Earth for instance most
areas on the planet Are very
very very
poor and an element known as I
radium however we know that many
asteroids are often rich in I
radium especially in our solar
system it's it's quite
coincidentally the dental
that we find a band of iridium
which separates the remains of
the dinosaurs from
Pro post Cretaceous fauna this
indicates a collision of an
iridium rich asteroid with the
planet Earth does a global flood
creationist model
account for this
my next question why is the
geologic column in the shredder
organized based on taxonomy and
not on hydrologic sorting or
ecological sorting as
creationists often claim as
predicted by a global flood as
well why does it comport with
evolutionary theory this
taxonomic sorting demonstrates
that evolutionary theory seems
to go figure line up with our
observations finally whether a
creationist except speciation or
not how does the
creationist model identify the
original kind or the original
creature within
each kind as the one that was
specifically created by God
how far back can we go before we
reach the termination point
where we say we that you're not
going to find any life forms
prior to this because these are
all of the ones originally
created by God according to both
the fossil record and the
genomic record we can go back to
the earliest forms of Life
about four billion years ago
demonstrating that there is no
moment of creation of life forms
or time
we see them today again
corroborating evolutionary
theory so what we see is that
creationism is just not at all
compatible with the data that we
have collected and the
observations that we make and we
see that evolutionary theory
does comport with the
observations we make in the data
that we collected as well we
observed that evolutionary
theory is thoroughly comported
by other fields directly related
or not such as genomics and
geology corroboration tends to
make a model significantly
stronger and provides
significantly better explanatory
power to it this corroborates
evolutionary theory it
demonstrates that it is an
accurate and explanatory model
that is capable of actively
describing the observations that
we make why we make these
observations corroboration as I
said lends Credence to an
explanatory model we don't find
anything that corroborates a
creationist model which brings
me to my second point that
creationism is not even a model
it's not a hypothetical model
and it's
not a theoretical model either
doesn't really explain anything
this is mainly because it has no
mechanism of operation they
can't tell us how God creates
or why he would want to do so in
the first place nor does
creationism make any novel
testable predictions that we can
later confirm in the laboratory
models must be
capable of explaining
observations made or data
collected by providing a
mechanism for how those
observations occur or why such
data is being collected
collected creationism does not
do that it is an assertion that
God did it but it provides no
mechanism for how God produces
biodiversity nor does it make
any novel testable predictions
that can be later confirmed via
laboratory experiments
assertions are not models
assertions don't explain
things and creationism is a
baseless assertion that is not
by the data that we have my
third point is that creationism
has already failed to opals
as a science obviously this can
be demonstrated by the
scientific literature and the
academic consensus in the
relevant fields but there are
also two court trials that
we're done the first one being
MacLean versus Arkansas Board of
Education and a federal judge
ruled in this in this in this
case creation science does not
qualify as a scientific theory
mainly for the reasons that I've
already outlined
and it struck down in Arkansas
law requiring equal time for
creation science and evolution
yeah in Edwards versus uh
Gillard the Supreme Court ruled
the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled I believe of the
United States ruled that a law
requiring that creation science
be taught with Evolution was
unconstitutional because the law
was specifically intended to
advance a particular religion
creationism and intelligent
design are not scientific
theories they are not scientific
models they are strictly
religious views and this was
ruled by District Judge Johnny
Jones the third
in the Kitzmiller Dover trial
which is another trial also in
this trial expert witness dr.
Kenneth Miller who is a
professor of biology at Brown
University testified quote
intelligent design is not a
testable Theory and
as such is not generally
accepted by the scientific
community end quote my final
words are this
we can see plainly that does
that not only does none of the
data that we have collected thus
far or the observations that
we've made thus far comport with
the creationist especially a
young earth ation it's desertion
assertion but that the
creationist model young Earth or
old Earth isn't a model either
hypothetical or theoretical it
is a baseless assertion with no
mechanism a lot of operation in
which makes no novel testable
predictions which could be
confirmed in laboratory
experiments we also see see that
in actual courts of Law and at
least two or three separate
cases in fact creationism
cleverly reverted to intelligent
design or creation science was
deemed to be entirely
unscientific and was not to put
a religious worldview and
thereby should not
and is to be taught in schools
this demonstrates the
shortcomings of this assertion
because it's a certain it's an
assertion not a model
demonstrating further its
inability to provide
corroborative explanatory models
for the observations we make and
the data we collect it seems
quite clear that creationism
young Earth or old Earth does
not comport with anything it
does not explain our
observations it does not provide
excellent expletive mechanisms
for why we make these
observations it does not make
make novel testable actions that
we can confirm and it doesn't
even hold up in a court of law
for this reason it should be
swiftly rejected as an
explanation for anything because
it holds none of the marks of a
rigorously tested and repeatedly
confirmed explanation of the
data in short evolutionary
theory thoroughly explains what
we observe it comports with
reality which is why it is a
theoretical framework and
creationism merely blindly
asserts no God did it and I
yield the remainder of my time
to the moderator thanks so much
Leo we will jump into the
open discussion one thing I want
to mention is a side note folks
is that I did somebody asked me
to look at in the bot ban list
of which people
who are hidden there were
there's a lot of people in there
of which a lot of people
deserve to be in there we've had
some like what's the word I'm
looking for unappealing
characters sometimes come by but
there were also a lot of
people in there that I was like
I don't
know if that would be I don't
know what I've never seen them
do anything that would make me
think that they would somehow be
banned at some point so want to
remind moderators please help us
out by not going rogue
try to
if it's a gray area and they're
targeting somebody give him a
warning and if
things in increments we don't
see that and it would also be
the product it would be the
producer of genetic
information so your statement is
bogus because no one are not
things that you say or
qualify as you know matching
reality don't match reality for
even if they do you mentioned I
want to point this out you
mentioned these courts ruled
evolution is not scientific and
therefore it can't be taught
that's not what they did you
misrepresented information no I
can give you that
mommy let me finish yeah but you
you've been okay
what they ruled was that the
creation is and the intelligent
design is a religious
idea in basis and that's why not
because of that they also said
that it can't be scientifically
tested and it is not rigorously
that's not why you
misrepresented know that is why
it would you like me to read
directly from Cornell dot edu on
what they said they said it was
religious and that's why the
yeah and that it's not
scientific no and I don't care
about the and they said it was
not real it was man that it's
not scientific that is why
why okay and then it's
fine out if they're literally
saying this isn't science that's
what the argument was was from
the from the the attorneys the
evolution I was like that's not
scientific but that's Court
ruled that it was religious in
nature and that's why it's and
that it's not scientific that's
not what the courts say yes yes
it is something yes this
represents what you obviously
haven't looked at it because I
literally read this it doesn't
matter what courts not edu and
they literally said it's not
flying towards don't determine
what scientific truth or not
easy know what I what I pointed
that out with was to demonstrate
that this is already been
brought the courts of Law and
they brought in professional
scientists and literally all of
them said this isn't scientific
that's lights but I'm not going
to be point you were getting
that we haven't found
transitional fossil so like in
humans we haven't found
australopithecines Australia
Pizza scenes are extinct tapes
how was that yeah and humans are
also Apes their transitions from
the earliest a document human
you're welcome to believe that
we don't I don't believe it we
can demonstrate it with date and
we already have we don't have
any trans yes we do yes we do
also want the scenes are
transitions there's okay you can
find humans are also very
different from Human they're not
human they have many many human
features in common that's for
knuckle-walking they don't have
a chin they have a
pronounced brow Ridge they they
have different number of
cultural and sacral rib
vertebrae they have different
number of ribs different number
of skull bones they have a
baculum unions don't
have a vacuum that's a bone in
the penis they have all these
features and they're all
distinctly rape
human humans don't have their
transitions we don't have those
too because we are not we are
not australopithecines sorry but
I know
I know you believe we can
demonstrate it on how are you I
know you believe that but I'll
run point also all so you're
saying that we haven't come
let's not talk over each other
other constantly let's not talk
over each other why don't we do
this because it's super intense
right off the bat let's switch
into at least temporarily a
three-minute back and forth
interval so three minutes for
let's see we'll go over to Lee
Ophelia's now and then three
minutes were enough and we'll
just keep alternating like that
I think it'll have to be there
you got it so we can find
transitional fossils also in
Wales I believe pakicetus is one
well how is it higher higher
essence God how well
how do you pronounce that
higher higher harass the theory
um I think so we can look in
almost every species in fine
transitions every species is a
transitional species because we
can figure out what it evolved
out of and things that evolve
out of it so you're just
explicitly wrong I mean to
straightforwardly I don't need
three minutes you're just wrong
that's why you're saying well
you could believe that because
you don't have a response
because you're wrong
all right it sounds like you're
good for your three minutes you
ready to kick it over
to go ahead Sky sure pack a
fetus from to the Lambda living
creature it's not transitional
we don't have
any transitional forms in the
fossil record number scientists
have stated so in fact all the
prudent which is nice so
countless ones I gave it a list
of only
three I could lift 30 so they've
acknowledged the fossil record
doesn't show it in as far as
well even though
what we have is we have
creatures with have a rear legs
and then we have whales which
have none and so we go from a
creature that's you know ways a
hundred pounds to a creature
that weighs Maybe 1,500 pounds
to one that weighs 10,000 pounds
and it doesn't show to users
that's roughly the same amount
of time that Leo use so we'll
just kind of keep it back and
forth it let's do
30 had five
seconds I don't think that you
understand what a transition is
we wouldn't expect them to have
the same features that that's
kind of the point of a
transition I need to correct
myself with her a theory mm it's
either that or her a call
theorem I would assume it's her
ass etherium I believe is
actually a horse transition so
is oral or a hippest I believe
is another one and there's one
more Mesa hippeis so yeah we we
have definitely found
transitional fossils you don't
have to believe that but we have
they don't have the same
features because their
transitions no we don't have the
Transmissions all we have is
you're just repeating it's my
turn to talk well we have is
creatures that have rear legs
and then we have whales which
have none that's all that show a
loss of genetic of Bones there's
not a progression that's a leap
immediately from creatures that
have legs to creatures which
have none that's what the fossil
record shows that doesn't show
evolutionary transition that's a
transition if well in your
imagination don't know show it
in the data it is this is why
the scientists acknowledge they
don't see transition in the
fossil record what scientists
so I could name sir gonna switch
it over
so go ahead Lee leo I just want
to know what scientists and what
papers they published it of
overturned the entirety of
consensus in every field of
biology gotcha all right we'll
give you a
a minute and a half enough okay
Colin Patterson
Stephen Jay Gould David be kits
it's Tom Kemp
Niles Eldredge bowler
I mentioned Gould
Donald her profile Arthur Arthur
Kessler David pill Bean
professor of anthropology
at Yale University Stephen
Steven Stanley
let's see you healthman
David dr. wolf wolf Eckhart Je
o'roarke John and
my clothes published 1988
salvadori Salvadori llúria
you want me to keep going that
was a minute so I could go on
and on so most of those
were creationist you didn't
mention color cannot I can I
finish please you're gonna have
to let him finish so
Colin Patterson did not support
creationism but his work has
been cited by creationists with
claims that it provides evidence
of the absence of transitional
in the fossil record in the
second edition of Evolution 1999
Patterson stated that his
remarks have been taken out of
context quote because creation
is flex scientific research to
support such theories as a young
Earth a world wide flood or
separate ancestry for humans and
apes their common tactic is to
attack evolution by hunting out
debate or dissent among
evolutionary biologists I
learned that one should think
carefully about candle and
arguments in case one was
Furnishing creationist
campaigners with ammunition in
the form of quotable quotes
often taken out of context it's
all your doing it your quote
mining people who don't agree
with with you and then somebody
creation scientists who have
already been rebuked by their
fields so here's my response to
that well he's upset that his
statements are the legend been
taken out of context I
understand every evolution is
scientist who's made these
admissions in their own books as
done that but you mister you
just lied to the General Public
I didn't name a single
creationist you know those
people are creationists are all
the evolutionists I could list
30 more and they're all
evolutionist okay I so I i
you've missed representing the
fact they're not creationist so
it is true scientists have
acknowledged in general the
fossil record does not show
evolutionary transition you
can't see it in the fossils in
margining numerous imagine that
the creature was no bones evolve
from the ones with bones that's
all see you have to Envision it
so if
evolution were true how is it
then Leo that we don't have any
scientific data that shows in 90
years of data show the opposite
of this that genetic mutations
build structural designs in
increments in living things
which would be necessarily
if he moves from a true why is
it the changes to allele
frequencies in populations
continuously causes genes to be
turned off and lost that's a
loss of information instead of a
gaining not why is that true
it's not let me get my sources
okay you can talk as long as you
want you're going to say that
that's that's that's it off a
great pleasure and just cry
so how much information did we
start with and how much was lost
okay jeans my any Gene that
becomes recessive in a
population over
one one generation to another is
a loss of genetic information
because how much information did
we start with and how much
longer expressed in that
population so because it's not
expressed the gene isn't there
no it's there it's okay so then
what did you lose the
information that can't be
expressed anymore as much lost
but it's still there it's just
not being expressed its lost to
the species organic and
organically because it it cannot
the gene is still there if the
gene is what holds the
information the information is
still there it's just not being
pressed on Earth it's a book is
present in a room and you can't
read it that information is no
use to you your makeup but the
information is still there they
are that's not look every time I
speak when I get 90 percent done
with a sentence you start
talking over me let's not do
that okay one sec my response
back into the three-minute
intervals so or are we going to
stay that way stay that way
because you know Eva Lucien is
to get fired up their world
views under threat and they
can't help them your two minutes
is underway enough okay okay so
because the organ at your
argument about that is
ridiculous because if the
information is not present and
not available for being turned
on that if it's not ever going
to be turned on in that species
anymore it's lost to the or no
it's not it's there another
leverage the president not have
to minute and a half whether
it's present or not is not
the point it whether or not it
can be expressed
is the point if you take a
genome and you continuously turn
genes off in it and the number
of progenitor ations that keep
going or product only of the
genes that don't get turned off
the end result is the last one
in that chain is an organism
produced by a limited amount of
information that was in the
original genome that's a loss of
information to the organism
whether it's still present in
the DNA or not doesn't matter
it's not going to be expressed
any more so your argument is
ridic pretty ridiculous
to argue that so so I'm gonna be
digging for these sources you
said changes to a little
frequencies in populations is
not a mechanism for loss of
genetic information but I'm
going to show you that it is
because I'm going to take great
pleasure in discrediting you on
that I want you to learn about
your mistakes you need to be
careful about what you say so to
take your analogy if you have a
book on a table but you can't
read the book the book is still
there in the information is
still in the book you just can't
read it so there you haven't
lost any information you just
can't decode the information the
information is present you just
don't know know how to read it
your own example proved you
wrong and I find it laughable my
goodness that's pretty
unbelievable that you actually
say that really it's that's
bizarre I use your own words so
I don't know why you're talking
about what I said I used
to what you said it truly is so
if I could share something on
the screen real quick James
please you both then I want to
Leo that his statement about
changing allele frequencies is
not not
okay here is a couple of sources
for that from Christian
apologetics power yeah biology
reference population genetics
Adam and Eve please
give you a minute to run through
this okay okay here's one
creationist Source Adam and Eve
one of the world's foremost
geneticist dr. Johnson Sanford
and John Baumgardner creation
and others okay hardly a Winder
law encyclopædia Britannica
not creationist so evaluation of
Gene variants link to hearing
loss not creationist loss of
heterozygosity what's a good for
biomedical medical genomics part
of Springer nature not
creationist okay I could provide
90 more sources so you're wrong
allele frequencies in
populations causes a loss of
information to this species
because the genes get turned off
so my question remains If
evolution were scientifically
valid why is it the 90 years of
experimentation and mutation of
it consistently the mutations do
not design incrementally design
anything in structural design
the biology of living things
instead they cause weakness
deformities death and still time
all right ready for you leo
oh I have to I have to I was
wondering I was hoping that he
would keep that up because half
those sources number one where
creationist number two the other
ones didn't show like the one
from the Encyclopedia Britannica
said that they will become more
common or more rare so I'm just
going to steal from a mean here
and and
so you didn't show that that
information is being lost lost
it might not be expressed but
it's not being lost
and by the way John Sanford is a
Korea is a creationist yeah yeah
we all know that you decide that
you were pulling
from is what's called what was
it apologetics Christian
apologetics Dosa right there
over a long period of time the
selective pressure will change
the frequency of appearance of
certain Gene forms ha and the
traits they control will become
common or rare in the population
and quote Harvey Weinberg long
encyclopædia Britannica the very
resources you're citing are
showing that you're wrong
so again from the mean
okay so let me explain the
absurdity of your statement how
incredibly wrong you are in
can't see it my statement
these are your sources dude if
you so we'll go back to enough
features become more prominent
or continuing these we lost
that's not a mechanism for
evolution because of this the oh
you're not you're not
actually thinking about
this information you're in I'm
going to deny it mode is faster
than hard as I can you're not
thinking about this
this information changes to
allele frequency do yes they
make alleles or genes that
already exists in the Genome of
the creature ever more prominent
in the population or they've
removed them ever more so from
the population yeah okay okay so
the Elena nilsen so the alleles
that get lost over time
our law by being by being coming
from Italy recessive
is lost information to the
genome in other words this is
why he'll
he'll human Nations tribes of
mankind and even families look
more and more like each other as
they marry and breed because
they're sharing their
alleles they don't gain anything
they don't gain nothing okay and
genes that are in their genome
of that family are
getting turned off endlessly and
that's why a population of
people on the Earth end up
with black hair instead of blond
red and other mixtures of here
because the genes for black hair
is dominant
and the other
get faded away those genes are
not expressed any more but only
the black hair that's not a
mechanism for evolution that's a
mechanism for making everything
look the same and at the same
time losing genetic information
so they are losing genetic
information which is the
opposite of evolution they
aren't gaining anything all
they're doing is spreading
alleles some some of them are
endlessly spread and others or
endlessly lost that's not even
Lucien Leo that's a loss of of
genetic information and making a
population of look more like
itself that doesn't introduce
anything structurally new into
living things you have to have
mutations I knew information
so we'll kick it over to Leo to
use for two minutes didn't you
you just said Nephilim that
changes in allele frequencies
can cause certain genes to be
more commonly or more rarely is
there something along those
lines that's exactly true
yes that's what these right
right State
got that is literally what
evolution says literally okay
okay let me explain
but like your own you're stating
the information
that you're wrong they all let
me Express wire
I let me explain why your
laughter is silly changing how
existing genetic information
information is present in a
population by spreading those
alleles is not a mechanism for
change the information listen
carefully to me the information
already exists for evolution to
be true you need
Jane you need random mutations
to design new jeans that help
then become spread for new
features so that Eeveelution can
occur so
the structural design change
will occur then changes to
frequency spreading
existing existing jeans be a
mechanism for evolution then it
could be an only then by by
existing genetic information
that's already in the organism
endlessly in its
populations its offspring is not
a mechanism for change that's a
mechanism for the same you need
random mutation to design new
genes which can then be spread
by changes to allele frequency
in a population for
evolutionary change to occur
sharing the same information
amongst the population endlessly
won't transform that organism
into a fundamentally different
kind and losing
information by turning off genes
and recessive Lee endlessly is a
so the result is the genes that
make the organism endlessly the
same are passed on while at the
same time genes are being turned
off in the
organism is losing information
now do you see why your laughter
is so
so silly
learn something do you think
that evolutionary theory teaches
that new jeans just pop out of
nowhere so where is he thing
is–and the changes in the
frequencies of the alleles you
don't need new alleles you just
to change them that's what
evolution says you have admitted
as much he essentially already
conceded your point so when does
he only has changed not the
frequency of them them genes
themselves that's what you not
have that's what you have have
to have Eeveelution because so
you're selling okay Li are
you're saying that if the
organism's genome doesn't change
but you keep spreading the genes
that already
exists organism will transform
into a fundamentally different
kind of organism that's not what
evolutionists scientists believe
where do you get this is your
personal private idea of
Eeveelution not the one held to
by Berkeley University or any
other brownie pollution from own
promoter nobody believes what
you're saying Leo this is in
your head well this is our
Evolution Works according to
evolutionists random mutations
selected by natural selection
become prominent in a population
by spreading through
Gene through the ill frequency
change without exactly true that
right without changes to the
genes by mutation to make them
transform them into
new information that was
structurally design change the
organism structural design you
don't get any Eeveelution any
change or you get is spreading
the same genes that have not
changed you have to couple
changes to a very low frequency
random mutations changing genes
into new
information yeah Evolution
evolution right so your art your
laughter about changing allele
frequencies was silly
now what's the mechanism for
genetic information to new arise
so that we can
have changes to allele frequency
that do structurally
transitional creature to a new
type where is that information
what's the evidence for that in
the in the changes of the
frequencies of
the alleles no no as you
yourself that to change the
genes themselves before
you don't read well and that's
what a change in the frequencies
of allele is it is a change
change they are yeah I really
don't talking about understand
the basics of evolutionary yeah
you don't understand
understand but yeah but you you
want watching for a while we
should do is kick back into that
to minute interval we're gonna
stay in that mode all right so
yeah cuz you why don't we do
this we'll go to Neff you got
two minutes and then we'll go to
so they always think you have a
fundamentally flawed
understanding of evolutionary
own private
interpretation of the ablution
Theory this is how Evolution
Theory Works according to
evolutionists scientists genetic
changes occur occur called
caused by random imitations The
transform genes so that they
produce new information that
will change the structural
design of an organism over time
those changed alleles are then
spread through the population
for to cause a population of
organisms could become
more different than the prior
population because mutation has
changed its
alleles spreading the alleles by
itself is not a mechanism for
evolution separating spreading
genes that are turned off is a
loss of of information
opposite of you butch it's not
what you have to have is changes
to the information that can then
be spread into the population by
legal change frequencies in
order for evolution to be true I
have asked you what is the
genetic evidence
that random mutations
designed new information the
codes for structural design
changes in the anatomy of living
things because if that doesn't
happen even Lucien is not true
what is the scientific evidence
for it deal I've already
outlined that I'm not going to
just say oh you didn't nation
at all yes I did and you also
agree with me you also agree
with me on that is of the
alleles can cause different
traits to arise and other treats
to disappear nah you don't need
a change straight up add be like
boom all of a
sudden a new Gene appears that
that's that's not its changes to
the existing genetic genomic
structure that allows for
different traits to be
expressed that different right
that's what change in the
frequency of illegal means
that's how Evolution works
you've already admitted admitted
it let's move on now you're
completely misunderstanding I'll
say it again and you can say
that but I just projecting I
mean unless you've got more
lieu of furious that was only
about I think like 25 seconds
okay yeah give him give him a
there was another thing that
that nefeli mentioned that
doesn't make sense in the
literally I mean anybody in the
chat right now James could do it
himself or he's probably
too stuck getting the superjet
to do it but something about
genetic entropy entropy which
isn't the thing because entropy
was relates to thermodynamics
not not to genetics so that that
term doesn't exist there's no
such thing as genetic entropy
Adil Adil
gotcha so we'll kick it over to
now for maybe a minute okay so
you still have a
flaw in this understanding of
the evolution because you're so
dogmatic you have to have
changes to the
genes that can then be spread by
changing the frequencies just
were you pretty rough let's go
back to the point
bye and they're not transformed
in the new information that
structurally changes the
organism number time it's not a
mechanism for evolution it's a
mechanism for the loss of
information because genes get
turned off permanently Okay so
for evolution to be true you
must have genetic mutations
modified genetic jeans so that
they can be then spread with
changes those changes have to be
changes that change the
structural design of the
organism or the dog remains a
dog the marsupial
remains a marsupial the fish
remains a fish the bird remains
a bird and nothing new ever
arises there is no the law of
monophyly that which is a so we
uh no we need this genetic in
from evidence that the random
genetic mutations modifying
jeans build information that
changes the structural design
incrementally in organisms what
is that evidence that's why I'm
going to ask you this is the
third time
I've asked you that question so
as for genetic entropy it's been
well established by the
science miles even the secular
ones that genetic mutations
overwhelmingly destroy genetic
information and cause a buildup
of a hundred mutations per
person per generation have a new
mutations in the genome you have
a hundred your kids don't have
and your kids will have a
hundred you don't have
your grandkids will have a
hundred you don't know that your
kids don't have and so on and so
forth 100 every time a person is
born and his children a new 100
mutations 90 years
experimentation that mutations
are destroyers of information
they're responsible for
virtually every single
disease and deformity they we
have no physical evidence of
mutations designing the where's
that you minutes we'll kick over
to Leo for two minutes actually
most mutations don't do anything
at all some are negative some
are positive most don't do
anything I've already addressed
this and
I tried to take it to another
topic but of course you can't
ever do that so let me just
adjust what you said by citing
an actual Source
source here on unquote a survey
of 21 different populations of
sticklebacks both freshwater and
and type of fish from different
regions of North America Europe
and Japan is revealed a pattern
consistent genetic differences
that distinguish the fresh water
from the Marine forms however
only 17% of the distinguished
distinguishing mutations were
found in exons that alter the
amino acid sequence of the
encoded proteins all the rest
work silent and most 41 percent
or more of these occurred in
intergenic regions these results
further demonstrate the
importance of mutations and
Regulatory regions promoters and
in the
in of adaptive phenotypes so
you've already conceded your
point I'm trying to figure out
what y you and numerous other
creation is keep bringing up
this genetic entropy which is
not a real thing it doesn't it
doesn't exist kick it over to
enough there's whoo oh sorry
didn't mean to interrupt you got
it you got Morgan oh I wish I
was just gonna say that genetic
data Kendra peaches does not
exist it's not a real thing and
you've mentioned it a couple
times already God she looks like
Neff is
it into screen share and the
floor is yours Neff okay okay
yeah okay so well you can't see
this for thing can you go full
for a second thank you so most
mutations are not visible to
Eeveelution your idea of
evolution they're not visible to
most organisms exactly can't so
they can't promote Evolution
they can't they and we don't
have evidence that they change
structural design of living
things that's what you must have
if you were true okay so here's
some sources it's been known
since since
camera and OTA in the 1960s and
70s that the mutations in
general are deleterious they
cause weakness into for me
and that's why scientists like
chimaera argued in order for
mutations not
the build-up of mutations the
slight damage that they cause
which is entropy to
causing species to go extinct
species would have to produce
four million examples of itself
in only two of them survived the
ones that were lucky nobody else
has to die and that's not what
happens in the real world so the
I your
argument against genetic
interviews false science you're
in denial of modern science when
you deny the genetic
interviews through no not yet
it's been demonstrated since not
have OTA what was in
if it's if it's not true then
why did camera argue that in
order to avoid Extinction a
creature would have to produce
for million varieties of itself
in the only two of them survived
why is this been known since
since 1972 why don't think that
we've discovered a new things
from 1972 so so
nothing has changed no nothing
has changed mutations
are destructive the vast nothing
so where
is it having a that is
explicitly most where is where
is the evidence that genetic
mutation causes
change to DNA in such a way that
the information is changed so
that it
causes incremental change in the
structural design of living
things again machine is true
this must be
true what is the soil kick it
over to Leo for about a minute
did you not hear anything that I
read about sticklebacks
obviously not as for mutations
being mainly deleterious that
that's just it straightforwardly
not to you yourself said that
most mutations don't really do
anything they can't be seen in
within the evolutionary
framework because most of them
don't do anything from New
Scientist quote the list of
examples could go on and on but
consider this most mutations can
be reversed by subsequent
mutations in DNA base can be
turned from from an A to G and
then back to a again for
instance in fact reverse
mutation or reverse for any
mutation that results in a loss
of information logically the
reverse mutation must result in
its gain so the claim that
mutations destroy information
but cannot create it not only
defies the evidence it also
defies logic and quote also you
keep going on about genetic
entropy so do you do you know
know what the equation for
entropy is is is it my turn yeah
I ask you a question okay okay
I don't need to know a
mathematical model to know what
the science day I didn't have
public model
is published in the journal
instead I didn't
have to I think that's what
we'll do is give me a minute and
then we'll come back
I promise so reverse mutation is
DNA repair and if you revert a
gene back to what it was before
you haven't gained any structure
to any change to the information
that causes the illusionary
change that's a fail
fail okay
of attachment game okay that's a
fail nope reverting to the same
information by fixing about
education in fact does not
create new genetic information
which you lose requires that's a
fail Okay so we're still looking
for this genetic influence that
mutations cause change to DNA
that changes the structural
design of living things 90 years
of experimentation of produced
no such thing only evidence of
mutations cause deformity
weakness death and stillbirth
what is the genetic evidence
mutations cause change to the
structural design of living
things incrementally the paper
you published about stickleback
fish doesn't do that it does not
I've read that
it doesn't provide evidence of
split that structural design
change occurred due to mutation
creatures Anatomy
Remains the Same gotcha let's
switch it over pretty soon here
where's the evidence the all
before the barbecue I've already
provided it your what you're
doing is just moving the
goalposts you asked for evidence
I give it
you repeat the same thing and
then ask for evidence evidence
and by the way the reason that I
asked you for the equation of
entropy by the way it's s equals
the boltzmann constant times the
lock the natural log the natural
logarithm of K of Omega which is
the number of microscopic
configurations is because you
would have to find a way to
equal to make that equation
relevant to genetics genetics
which you can't do and nobody's
ever done do you know what
entropy is we must
what we'll do is I gotta give
you guys a five-minute warning
before we go into the
Q&A so we may be I will do is
just give two minutes to Neff
and then two minutes back to Leo
phileas and then we'll go into
the Q&A okay sounds good when I
said when I started this debate
debate is 90 years of mutation
experiment you've demonstrated
the mutations or destroyers or
genetic information they don't
produce new information you have
to have the new information that
changes the structural design
of a creature so you don't have
the same creature endlessly you
can get a fundamentally
different kind through changes
to allele frequency how
frequently those mutated genes
that code for structural design
change or spreading in the
population without the mutations
doing this there can be no such
thing as evolution
nobody can answer that question
question Leo hasn't he won't he
can't nobody has scientific
evidence that mutations design
structural design change in
increment incrementally or
change anatomy in the slightest
bit in living things we don't
have that evidence we have 90
years of evidence against it
changes to allele frequency
cause a loss of genetic
information just as I pointed
out Leo
laughed at that idea and then
because he misunderstood the
changing how frequently genes
were spread doesn't isn't
sufficient for evolution you
have to change the genes
themselves cells and then spread
them for evolution to be true
but there isn't any
mechanism for that in biology
there are two show
oh looks like I think you're
done okay was always switch over
to Leo floors all yours so as it
were relates to
changes in the frequencies of
alleles Nephilim already has
already explained what that
is and then tries to redefine it
after explaining what it is its
own source state provided
disagreed with them and I coded
1 so as
as it relates to me station from
New Scientist again quote the
list of examples could go on and
on but consider this most
mutations can be reversed
by subsequent mutations in DNA
base can be turned from an A to
G and then back to an a again
for instance in fact reverse
mutation or reversion is common
for any mutation that results in
a loss of information
logically the reverse mutation
must result in its game not
getting the same but the gain so
the claim that mutations
destroying information but
cannot create it not only device
the evidence at all so defies
logic and quote that's from New
Scientist from apps not org
quote mutations
important role in evolution the
ultimate source of all genetic
variation is mutation mutation
is important as the first step
of evolution because it creates
a new DNA sequence for a
particular Gene creating a new
allele recombination also can
create a new DNA sequence a new
allele for a specific Gene
through intergenic recombination
mutation acting as an
evolutionary Force by itself has
the potential to cause
significant changes in allele
frequencies over very long
periods of time and quote and
finally from one of
the world's most reputed
Publications quote mutations are
essential to Evolution every
genetic feature in every
organism was initially the
result of a mutation the new
genetic variant or alleles
spreads via reproduction and
differential reproduction is a
defining aspect of evolution it
is easy to understand how a
mutation that allows an organism
to feed grow or reproduce more
effectively could cause the
mutant allele to become more
abundant over time soon the
population may be quite
ecologically and or
physiologically different from
the original population that
lacked the adaptation that this
is just how Evolution works even
deleterious mutation
evolutionary change especially
in small populations by removing
individuals that might be
carrying adaptive alleles at
other genes and quote so yeah we
know that what mutations do we
know that they play a role in
the changes in frequencies of
alleles and we know that this is
what drives evolution my
opponent has consistently
claimed that I haven't provided
evidence for this but I have it
hasn't we will jump into the Q&A
thanks so much for your
questions folks always
appreciate it want to remind you
if it's your first time here
consider hitting that subscribe
Button as we have many more to
Bates to come you'll see at the
bottom right of your screen we
are very excited as are in raw
and T jump will be teaming up
yet again that'll be coming next
Friday and that'll be against
ask cliff and Stewart his real
life son that will be on whether
or not
Christianity is true so that
should be a juicy one and with
that we'll jump into these
questions so thanks so much for
your first question this friends
from cider and port a call-out
you could say says hi James it's
religion is BS BS after Rebrand
so new name says if it's
something you'd be down with for
myself and Leo would like to
debate Jill and Smokey on a
trump topic if all parties agree
I'd love to take part if you'll
have us well that would be a fun
one I'm totally open to it I
mean Smoky triggers a lot of
people but we might still do
it Josiah Henson thanks for your
question said but yeah cider and
port for real shoot me an email
we'll try to do that that sounds
fun just
I Hansen thanks for your kitchen
as well said yec the other Flat
Earth next now if you want to
respond you can
it's not pertinent to the debate
and I don't think so no phone
free is not amused okay not 7
thanks for your Super Chat said
love this show appreciate that
friend thing so much that
encouragement speed of sound of
gravity glad to have you says
after Show Leah
phileas bags enough Fulham on
speed of sound of gravity's
channel so thanks so much speed
let me know if you want to link
that what I can do is
maje you up and then you can or
if you just so you can then link
it in the chat and we can pin it
for people to click on that
after show so thanks so much
Scott Duke for your Super Chat
said James I'm glad to tune in
tonight to see
the legendary Leo phileas drop
some real science on us oh
no f-prot you okay next thanks
for your Super chat you guessed
stupid energy is in the building
she says transcription factors
control any any Devo Ram as long
as their targets have
the right cis-regulatory
regulatory sequences so you can
use the same tool
box in very different
development programs such as I I
I think that's for you enough
the genetic Pathways for the
of the anatomical features and
various living things don't
comport with the evolution
what scientists have discovered
is that different feature in
a living thing is produced by
for example a particular
tissue and in one organism and
then in a different
organism its allegedly closely
related to a completely
different machine tissue tissue
at some different genetic Pat
developmental pathway
Eeveelution couldn't possibly de
play hopscotch jumping from one
mission in tissue to another in
different genetic Pathways to
produce the same feature in
creatures that are allegedly
closely related
so I'm sorry but modern study is
in genetic Pathways of killed
idea of common ancestry gaja and
thanks so much for your question
this one comes from
this is actually a statement Sol
appreciate it
says James I took my mom's
credit card like you told me to
here you go that's good I like
that is one of the funnier super
chest not funny funny speed of
sound of gravity
thanks for your Super Chat said
after show the Ophelia's bags a
Nephilim free you do two of
these these appreciate that said
bags a Nephilim free
on speed of sound of gravity's
Channel Shameless I'm channeling
John mad ox well thanks so much
much does does
up say that Shameless I don't
know it's be a stupid energy
thanks for your Super
Chat said the pelvis of Rod ho
cetus was large
light land mammals and it's
connected to the sacral
vertebrae the
ilium of the pelvis was short
which means it used their hind
limbs for
swimming it's transitional
transitional nuff
that's option when it comes to
alleged ancestors a man the
pelvis is of creatures allegedly
related to us changing Heights
but they the iliac Blades of
them curve for their outward to
the side
very different from man's so we
don't we don't see in the bones
of living
things transition from various
creatures and whether they're
human or or non-human imagined
because we have one creature
with a certain type of anatomy
and another creature with a
different Anatomy you have to
see the transition from one
Anatomy to another
we we don't see that we see
jumps and that's not even
11:00 can I provide just a
really quick response to that
that would be a viola is
essentially a
violation of the law of
monophyly that is one of the
bases for evolutionary theory
now certainly not present in the
fossils I'm sorry that the
transition is not not there you
have to make the
leap and say oh this creature
with the different structural
design is a result of that one
over there but we don't have the
increments in between the
shoulder happened to move
forward this one comes from
experiments in Prebiotic
chemistry appreciate it says I
don't think I've ever seen a
more complete take of
creationism good job Leo phileas
well are in Rod does
significantly better than I
could ever hope to do
so watch some of his debates all
right that's enough enough of
you ever cross with our and
before we've been in live
streams a couple of times
together for you know twenty
minutes thirty forty minutes at
a time
all he does is yell at you and
talk over here in this all right
you're not here to defend
himself we're not going to go
down that way all right next
sparked 344 thanks for your
question said for
Neff have you actually taken the
time to verify that those people
are actually denying Evolution
namely the scientists you
mentioned if so how how well
because of their honest
statements for example about the
observed effects of
genetic mutations which
are a million or so and the
clear statements by
evolutionists scientists
themselves about the absence
of clear transmission the fossil
and there are numerous examples
of that only provided a couple I
could provide dozens is is that
is the evidence
it's not whether or not they
afterwards still believe in
evolution is true or that it
it happens just being honest
with the evidence and then they
say clear evidence of transition
from one type of living thing to
another is not present in the
fossils it's just an honest
statement and that's just the
evidence that we have you got it
and thanks for your question
this one comes in from
Raptor Hovind the says James is
more complicated complicated
than the space shuttle thanks so
you know it feels good every
time I hear that and sphincter
of Doom thank you for your
super shot nasty guy says quote
genes being turned off is
permanently lost unquote Neff
seems to have never heard of out
of his mmm
out of his sons don't produce
structural designs have become
fixed the most famous
out of ism is what evolutionists
used to claim in there in their
ignorance was evidence of a tail
and human beings which is
nothing more than a flap of skin
covered by fat it doesn't have
anything to do with the spinal
cord at all
surgeons remove them regularly
with no effect to the organist
who human being so so
Eeveelution is claimed that this
was this
this atomism an Evidence of
transmission that
human beings were once had eight
ancestors but it's not related
to the spinal column at all it
doesn't have part it's not it
doesn't have any part in the
coccyx so that's your Adam isms
For you next up sphincter of
Doom though boy says Neff how
can you explain the dozens of
e RVs that humans share with
chimps the exact same Locus in
if not
not shared ancestry that's an
excellent question firstly
they're not in exactly the same
location there are similar
and part of the reason for that
is human the chimpanzee genome
is 10% larger than humans that
kills people in pollution
iteself I don't have time to
explain why but so the idea is
just it's just a bogus
Eeveelution assumption so so
what we
have to have is changes to
genetic information that codes
structural design change
Revolution to be true
simply isn't any of that prvs
have been discovered the more we
study them the more we discover
the ER vs
R transpose mu L amounts to play
curricular roles in human
development they helped develop
the lungs the heart the liver
the pancreas and the bladder and
other organs it's be irrational
to believe that the information
in the Genome of a virus has the
information to regulate gene
expression to produce
a human organ so there the
evidence shows they're not the
DNA of the virus
they're simply very similar
strings of information found in
one kind of living thing in
another that are Gene regulators
God John and and next up thanks
for your support at from Martin
see says for nephal abeyta says
under sorry says under
creationism how did I gain
Neanderthal genes that
sub-Saharan Africans do not have
very good question question
well simple that human beings
produced populations and changes
to allele frequencies in those
populations cause
genes to become expressed in
such a way that organisms come
to look more like themselves
over time and she has become
turned off every human being
doesn't have to have the same
set of genes as another because
genes can be turned off in genes
can be lost so I
don't know about this particular
argument that that these genes
are not present in one or
another I've never heard of this
but and I strongly doubt
that it's the case it might be
that the genes are not expressed
but not present I doubt that
severely the entirety of the
Neanderthal genome is not has
not been completely sequenced as
far as I know and and by the way
Neanderthal is completely human
anyway even hivishness
scientists themselves admit that
Neanderthal is human next up
they don't I can let you finish
the other nothing else will well
the next one from stupid or
energy says Neff when they
looked at the peppered moth
genome and found the allele that
causes dark bodies they found
significant diversity
diversity dip that's excellent
so no matter how many times you
change the color size shapes or
even patterns of living things
you'll never get a fundamentally
new type of living thing
changing color and endless
number of times doesn't
transition of creature from
becoming towards becoming a
fundamentally different type of
organism which is what
Eeveelution posits it would you
could change the color of an
organism 10 trillion times it
won't move it towards becoming a
different type of organism
so that's a violation
love monophyly that's not
evidence of the evolution color
doesn't affect structural design
of the anatomy therefore it
doesn't support evolution next
thanks for your question this
one comes from our dearest
friend the quiet
gorilla thanks so much for your
support said just a little
unconditional love for the
channel we really appreciate the
support and sphincter of Doom
strikes again
rivaling stupid energy tonight
says adding or deleting jeans
any population
changes the frequency see of
those alleles and thus alleles
overall in the population Neff
yes exactly that
doesn't create the new
information that creates a
fundamentally different type of
organism okay I've been over
this a number of times already
in this debate and this was one
of those great errors
it seemed had difficulty
understanding changing how
frequently of the exactly
information that's already
present in a creature is present
in the population doesn't move
move it towards me
a fundamentally different type
of organism changing how
frequently the pages from the
Bible are present in your stack
of pages in The Bible doesn't
change the information in the
Bible it just changes how much
of it you have it's not a
medical reason for a translation
of a book into something other
than a book some mutations that
modify the information that
change the
structural design of organisms
is what is required for
evolution evolutionists are play
the game of pretending that it's
not true because they want to
deny their Theory because 90
years of study proved there is
no such mechanism next month one
what you said I need to do this
but we have a lot of questions
violation of blahniks by the
second least one is
restructuring information
through this can change help
have to because we have so many
many we have so many questions
gentlemen were going to the next
question I hate to do this to
you but we just have so many
sphincter of Doom strikes again
saying Neff is confusing
changing the frequency of
alleles and all existence and
changing the frequency of
alleles any certain in all caps
population exactly that changing
the frequency I'll say it again
this is evolution is pretending
that the theory of evolution is
not what it is because they
can't support it no it's
have frequent changing how
frequently existing information
is present in a population
doesn't cause structural design
change if
evolution were true you would
have to have random mutations
changing the information so that
had changed genes that can
promote promote structural
design then is spread amongst
the population that's what we
don't have evidence for the next
painting this one I hate to do
this Neff but yeah
if there's unless there's
something you absolutely
have to save people go crazy
next Matthew steal things
to your question said now if why
do your arguments against the
fact of evolution requires so
many straw man fallacy these
well I would turn that around
and ask why do you put forth a
straw man fallacy question
against science sassy Ian Chen
thanks to your question said
Stan Emilia Clarke I don't know
what that means Stan Emilia
who's that
she portrayed Daenerys Targaryen
on the television adaptation of
the A Song of Ice And Fire
series otherwise known as Game
of Thrones and and thanks so
much speed of sound of gravity
says what about a PO – A one
a mutation change the gene in
resulted in every function of
the gene working better even the
antioxidant function well it may
happen that for a particular
species something like that can
happen high adaptation by
genetic mutations
been observed in human beings
then take your the red blood
cells can hold more oxygen but
the problem for that is is that
still doesn't support
Eeveelution it doesn't cause
structural design change in an
organism it just changes
a biochemistry in some way for
Eeveelution to be true the
structural design change of an
organism must change
change so that it more one type
of organism towards becoming a
fundamentally different kind if
that's not true Evolution isn't
true there's no scientific
evidence that supports in
evolution doesn't violate the
law Los Manos violation for 90
years has refuted the idea we
just don't have
a neck top saying that it does
Co don't interrupt this is my
time to answer a question
I know you're desperate okay the
Sasse enough Raptor
hoeven says neffe you go
go girl the next Woody it says
sends a heart thanks so much
Woody and we always appreciate
you know I got to give you know
you gotta give credit where it's
due Neff
has gotten a lot a lot of
criticism a lot of Guff you
could say he's always been you
could say you know he's never
given up
he's really appreciate you
coming back on don't worry Leo
we might have some some some
stinging super chats for you as
well so far enough is getting
most of a but Jamie Jamie
Russell things
question said I recommend the
evolutionist debater oh here's
one is it at least look at
Sanford's paper or lectures
before denying his findings he
is clear on how he uses entropy
how does he know that I haven't
done that that's my that would
be my question him secondly I
have he redefines entropy
something that's not entropy
State exists strictly within the
thermodynamic realm it doesn't
relate to genetics
the only people who would try to
argue otherwise are ignorant of
either genetics or
thermodynamics or both and I
would argue that it's probably
both but more so thermodynamics
because creationists aren't very
well versed in the realm of
physics entropy is simply decay
nope that is not entropy
sphincter of Doom thanks for
your questions as what does
looking more like themselves
quote unquote even mean
mean figures for you Neff ask
the question again he said what
does quote looking
more like themselves unquote
even mean well that's what
happens to
populations and families too
everybody observes that families
have traits that you can see
similarity in the grandkids they
look like
their grandparents you know I
mean ask the question seems kind
of ridiculous to me I don't
why somebody would struggle to
understand this basic concept it
that probably everybody by the
you're 15 years old understands
are you eating like people there
I'm just
trying to clarify just as I am
saying that black people traits
toward the mean is sort of if if
the information is spread
through a population that the
existing information in the
genome a creature will
continuously look more
like itself its features will be
refined so they are the
is is homogeneous come on okay
that's and then then the losing
of alleles is is a mechanism
that follows that goes along
with it
that's turning off genes loss of
genetic information see that's
what changes to allele frequency
is but that's by itself is not a
mechanism for evolution
evolution God's here
thank you for your question from
sphincter of Doom says oh we got
got another one says neftis
missed an example of a
transitional form by being a
different size but now says
sighs changing Size
doesn't change your species
changing colors sizes shapes
even in patterns is insufficient
to explain Eeveelution as it's
clean by evolutionists
evolutionists claim one type of
organism arises from the
fundamentally different type of
organism this fish evolved into
land dwelling creatures with
legs and lungs see that's a
fundamentally different type of
organism and this there are
millions of thousands
upon thousands of examples they
Eeveelution claims as structural
change that's what
snails if the structural design
the anatomy of organisms never
changes there is no Evolution
you only have that same species
you see so Evolution requires
that the structural design of
the body plan of an organism
changes over time
we don't know the mechanism for
it there's no examples in the
fossil record and
if evolution were true that
would be millions of species
walking there today that show
that in their body plans in
there are none Eva Lucien is
therefore false by these things
alone next this one comes we
don't have any for poorly
Ophelia's he's waiting for
questions and we haven't got any
form of folks do you have any
questions for Leo let me know we
can definitely we'd be happy to
read them and so yeah thanks
so much
and we will kick it over to the
next question so this one comes
in from dearest
dearest friend you guessed it
sphincter of Doom says taking
words out of out of AdWords
maybe they're saying taking
words out of and
adding words into the Bible
makes a different story with in
the Bible
I think they're using this as an
analogy to argue that your if
you take out information or add
information into the genome that
it changes
like the creature you have have
well so that
you're welcome to believe that
but in when it comes to genetics
but we don't observe such a
we don't observe we observe the
genes get spread existing jeans
what this person is arguing is
that the genes will be
recombined in such a way that
they produce fundamentally
different types of organisms
over time we don't have a
mechanism for that in genetics
nobody knows of such a thing
genes code for what the feature
or function that they do that
has to change if you lose Ian is
true so what happened the genes
being coded or expressed well
that's right you can't get
features that's what I asked you
for evidence for for the route
the debate and you couldn't
address it we must move to the
next one I want to let you know
folks that they're on the top
left of your screen that is not
that's a picture of a but it is
not f13 so little hope Kent
hovind joke next fact-based
living uh-oh uh-oh very sassy
coming at you lie Ophelia saying
seriously stop putting the
ignorant on the pro
Evolution side do you know this
letter to be waiting is this a
rival of yours no I don't know
it is in order to be ignorant
you have to not know what you're
talking about and it's obvious
that I do considering that I've
cited professional journals that
are saying
the same thing I am you gotta
kick and snap be given the last
of Doom says I would be open to
debating a number of topics From
Evolution to nuclear power to
abortion among others well
thanks so much for letting us
know I'm at
modern-day debate at gmail so
it's a harder for me to right
now like the semesters at warp
so it's hard for me but I can
see if I can find you somebody
and animated Effigy thanks for
your question said Neff your
understanding of science is
completely subservient to
to your Visions which is why you
get the wrong conclusions with
in all caps
bad science science well it's my
science what
I call it what you calling
science is
is my science then my science
demonstrates that 90 years of
experimentation of not providing
a mechanism that mutations
structurally design organisms or
change their structural design
incrementally that changes them
to allele frequency by
themselves don't create new
information becomes console also
they and if he pollution is true
it might because of those things
are false then you've got
serious serious next thanks for
your question this one comes in
from you guessed it stupid
energy strikes back saying Leo
please talk about the null
hypothesis and selective sweeps
yeah I wasn't able to get that
far I actually have heard of
select a selective sweeps but I
don't have enough confidence in
my understanding of it to really
Define what it is in terms of a
null hypothesis that's
essentially what we start with
we don't really have anything
which is why most physicists and
and biologists
are nationalists because we
don't have a precedent for
non-natural causation which is
also a problem for the
creationist model the null
hypothesis is that everything
can be explained naturally until
otherwise proven to be out until
proven otherwise Mitch has not
happened of course I don't know
hypothesis is hard to explain
without diving bunch of math but
I don't really feel like diving
into genetic information
and algorithms dispersion they
require intelligence
quad those things are Clyde's
do not be this one a shot at
getting things therefore hush
you Clyde I'm just teasing no
you don't have to do another
Super Chat I saw your first
super chat but I mentioned that
it looks like you retracted the
question so if you just put it
in as a normal chat I'll keep an
eye on the live chat right now
if you can resend it just tag me
with at modern-day debate it
makes it easier
for me to see it and we can read
it as if it were a Super Chat
because I did see you gave a
super chat but without a
question in it so thanks for
your super jet from Sparks
344 let's see no no first
Maynard saves had one in first
who said leap for Leo phileas
please explain a mechanism that
could change a Megalodon from a
herbivore to a carnivore IE
before and after the fall of Man
all I'm going to say is I love
you made her you crack me up oh
man that's funny funny that's
II know Maynard saves and he's
pretty much trolling so that's
why I'm laughing would require
tremendous number of protein
changes in protein Eeveelution
is impossible let's see
next up thanks for your question
this one comes in from Spar
344 says spurt 344 yeah says
modern-day debate for Leo
please explain entropy and mono
phylogeny so
entropy is essentially the
measure of what is it went how
it's done
technically the like the measure
of energy per unit temperature
that is unavailable for work I
believe is what that is it
essentially tells us that as
time goes forward the amount of
energy that you can convert into
work decreases the law of
monophyly essentially states
that nothing is ever going to
create something that had
already isn't so eukaryotes well
eukaryotes will only produce
eukaryotes Apes will produced
Apes fish will only produce fish
birds will only produce Birds
which is why when Nephilim says
well we've never seen it's
essentially the argument that
Kent hovind Russ well I mean
we've never seen a fish turn it
to one mosquito that's because
that's a violation of the law of
model which is
fundamental to evolutionary
theory gaja and climbing I can
give you like a 10-second well
first let me say this and then
if you guys want to talk a bit
just because
I'm waiting on Clyde still Clyde
you gotta I need you to put your
or question in the live chat
broke because you're super chat
it had it had it retracted like
I think you deleted it or
something so you got to re-enter
the the question in the chat
just tag me with that modern a
debate then I can read it if you
like presumably you wanted it to
be red I just saw your your
stuff in the live chat so
go ahead Nassif will give you
guys like a chance to talk this
out for
a couple of minutes he's talking
mein Führer pretty simply means
moving towards disorder or
long physics that's what it
means scuse me or a loss of
energy usable energy in physics
they only look up the definition
of entropy you'll find it's not
it doesn't idea doesn't
relate only to physics that's a
numbskull idea but we'll see
well entropy is only a physical
thing I just typed in entropy a
thermodynamic quantity
representing the unavailability
of the unavailability of a
systems thermal
energy energy for conversion
into mechanical work often
interpreted as a degree of
disorder or Randomness in the
system so yeah it that's exactly
what I said from let's go to the
Encyclopedia Britannica entropy
is the measure of the systems
thermal energy per unit
temperature that is unavailable
for doing useful work so yeah
entropy is thermodynamically
thermodynamic property
thermodynamics is physics you
can't have entropy
and it not be physics test just
that's that's absurd because no
way it's not well well the
Webster's Dictionary disagrees
with you you
Webster's Dictionary is a
Webster's Dictionary be quiet be
the Webster's Dictionary also
defines it as a process of
degeneration or running down or
trending towards disorder and it
gives an example of copying and
editing and proofreading and it
also speaks of communication I
figure out a measure of
efficiency of a system or coded
language being transmitted
through I'm going to give hold
on one second
I to give hold on one second
okay they can't you're on mute
so sometimes when you try to
talk over me they're not
hearing you in there laughing at
you so basically what we'll do
is I'll give you the last word
on that one Leo because the
Super Chat was originally for
you and then I've got a read so
just like a 30 seconds and then
I've got to read this question
from Clyde and then go ahead so
go ahead
I'm aiso so he I just went to
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary it
says broadly the degree of
disorder and certainly in a
system which means that he's
equivocating by using two
different definitions of the
and one particular context
that's textbook Commission of
the fallacy of equivocation on
his part next I must go to the
next one Clyde Society thanks
for your questions and for Lee
Ophelia's please show a paper
where accumulated mutations
were ever actually a
reserved and documented to have
resulted in significant
anatomical body body change I
give you a paper I'd have to
search for it but we know that
happens obviously the person
asking the question hasn't ever
actually tried to search for it
because if they would think that
they'd have found it because we
know that happens we've observed
it I've got to give Them enough
enough I gotta give him the last
word on that one they're super
chat was directed at him so what
we will do is want to say folks
if you've enjoyed listening to
our speakers please consider
hitting those links in the
description box so you hear more
from them as we really
appreciate those guys coming on
we appreciate your guys as
spirit and thank you guys so
much is a great debate seriously
I really do I buy far love it
more when it's like
passionate and Lively like this
and where it's like you're you
know trying to trying to make
your case as much as possible so
thank you guys this is honestly
been superb and also want to let
you know folks
if you've enjoyed this debate if
you thought okay
okay use of my time you know hit
that like button the word on the
streets is that helps I mean I
don't know I'm I'm skeptical
does it
really I always kind of Wonder
is it just like it's like the
postal service and zip codes
as Newman says in Seinfeld
they're meaningless I don't know
if the like button makes a
difference or not but
with that thank you guys so much
though seriously enough and Lee
Ophelia's it's honestly been a
pleasure to have you thank you
thanks for having me appreciate
enjoyed it thank you
absolutely without keep
something out the reasonable
from the unreasonable folks we
are excited to hope the next one
will have is you'll see at the
bottom right of your screen this
Monday Vash returns I think it's
been since like June since we've
had Vash on it'll be against all
over you guys probably remember
him in the pandemic debate
several weeks ago with t jump
they will be debating whether or
not climate change is a real
threat so that should be
a juicy one this coming Monday
the internet it might not be
able to take it it might just
implode so thanks so much folks
I hope you keep sifting out the
reasonable from the unreasonable
care and have a great rest of
your your Saturday
there's nothing
yeah yeah
oh no winning streak
there's nothing

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published