Why Do You Believe in Scientific Evidence of God?

oh just second hello everyone and welcome to another episode of why do you believe in this case I'm speaking with somebody who says that he has scientific evidence of God which is timely because of that that topic has come up quite a lot for me here in recent times so would you introduce yourself sir my name is Robert campanero call me Rob I uh I do a lot of debating discussing mostly on YouTube I haven't done anything like this so far this is my first actually real time chat I've tried to initiate it before but nobody seems to be interested uh but I guess you know I've been doing apologetics for close to twenty thirty years ah so that's okay that's who I am alright well so you're gonna present scientific evidence of God and before we do that I just want to state that just just to clarify on terms I think the most standard deafness at least the most mainstream definition the wondering if it comes up straight away if you just google - you know what scientific evidence is is that you know evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis and so by presenting scientific evidence you understand that in presenting the idea that scientific evidence of God can even exist at all you forsake the excuse used by philosophical theologians that God is strictly metaphysical and thus completely outside of science you're going to say instead that God is empirically qualifiable quantifiable and potentially falsifiable I believe so yes interesting okay very good I'd be happy to hear what that evidence is all right like I said as I said in the email I'll be using the very same scientific method of reasoning that Charles Lyell used in his three-volume publication principles of geology subtitled I just want to make sure I get it right principles of geology being an attempt to explain the former changes of Earth's service by reference to cause is now in operation so basically what Lyle is saying is you're you're on a geological study you come across a layer of ash volcanic ash you ask yourself what is the cause now an operation that's known to explain the effect in question namely the layer of volcanic ash um well you know a flood generally isn't known to produce that effect you know tornadoes hurricanes the only cause known to affect to produce that effect is actually a volcano so Lyle would say obviously it was a volcano that produced the volcanic ash and it's a I mean it's it's a simple it's a simple method of reasoning but the reason he used it was he was trying to counter the Christian proposal that was actually a flood that explains certain certain changes in the Earth's surface and he was saying no no you don't need a flood you can explain these by causes that are now in operation so if you're trying to explain a an event that happened in the remote past you say well what's the cause now in operation that that explains this event and that would it'll be the same cause can I can i clarify what you're saying here so Lyle finds like a magnet intrusion I guess the word is mafic um but he finds a magma intrusion and somebody's trying to say that the thing that causes magma apart from a volcano is a flood oh I I I'm not gonna I'm not gonna defend the flood or anything else I just want to make sure they've obviously floods don't cause magma absolutely exactly that's the whole that's the whole point okay yeah all right so utilizing that same scientific method of reasoning we were talking about the information embedded in the DNA molecule all right so obviously that's something that happened in your past so we let my time I mean well yet still happening right exactly it still happens just like volcanoes are still producing volcanic ash but the first DNA molecule rose what 500 million years ago I don't I don't quick-serve ative lee conservatively it would be something on the order of about four billion years ago or three at least minimum 3.8 billion years ago well the Earth's surface would have needed time to cool give it the earliest deer list biological fossils we have the earliest micro fossils we have are far from 3.8 billion years ago all right yeah so that's that's that's quite a quite an remote event that work that we're trying to explain so we look at the cause now in operation that's produced that's known to produce the effect in question namely the information embedded in the DNA molecule and I'll just ask you what what is that cause RNA well mmm RNA yeah but okay and what what causes the information in RNA it's that spontaneous it's spontaneous yes RNA is normally can be created by an enzymatic process but it also can be perfect can also be lets say composed by what is it it it's a chemical reaction to specific environments where you have the right starting chemicals and then when you add a phosphate to it do we get ribonucleotides and then so on if you can actually spontaneously generate RNA by itself it already can literally create itself in the right chemical environment and then RNA also builds DNA well okay Yuki what you can't produce RNA just spontaneously yes you can not not that I'm aware of yeah I've never heard of a case where an investigator would just set off a reaction go home for the weekend and come back and there's an RN a strength a well-liked yep exactly that has happened I can show you the studies for it well I'm not - I can if you want to I'll be happy to include that study in the information bar below when this video is live okay and the RNA that's produced what protein actually does it code for it doesn't produce it doesn't just broke out for one I mean you have two types of genetic material RNA and DNA right and RNA creates DNA two different processes and then in the in the RNA world hypothesis there would have been RNA first which is an explanation for why some viruses have only RNA and not all right well some viruses have DNA as well but there are some that only have RNA and this leads people to conclude that there was an RNA originally RNA only world okay but you know the RNA world hypothesis has been called the worst explanation for the origin of life these are besides besides all the others okay the earth has been called flat - I mean we need something more substance I'm talking about secular okay so I know so there are people who argue against the RNA world hypothesis who want to go for a DNA first world that that that is not supported no well they're looking out of it origin of research origin of life research was like Christian de Duve has been calling for a pre RNA world hypothesis because the RNA world hypothesis the way stands now it's just not going anywhere that's yeah I think it is and again I can I can show you some studies I don't know I don't have a lot of them but I can show you at least a couple and if there are about dozen or so I think just over a dozen different hypotheses in the in collectively what we call abiogenesis and almost all of them could be true at the same time one of them is panspermia and then the the the prebiotic or what is it the biotic soup I forget what they ever get with the name of that one was and then there's a handful of others I can't remember all of them off the top of my head but as I said almost all of them could be true at the same time because abiogenesis is a collection of different entirely different chemical processes in almost a sequential order and the one for you they have generated spontaneously RNA a couple of different ways in the lab in a couple of different environments just in simulations and then so they did that at least has happened where you can't do that would be an a though RNA can do that with DNA or they can do what can create DNA as I said by a couple of different processes now I have no expertise in cell biology but I have talked to a couple of geneticist who have explained that how the how RNA could have created the first DNA as a slightly different process than the way that it currently reproduces it could have but they haven't haven't achieved that yet do they know that RNA can build DNA and they know that they can spontaneously create RNA okay number of different needs okay you're talking about what what is the mechanism known to be an operation that can explain this we got that no no I'm saying the the the mechanism that's now a knob that causes now an operation that's known to produce the effect of information you're the effect of information and how are we defining information now I'm sorry information printed materials because I mean when we're talking about RNA very rarely does anybody want to describe RNA as information even though it does effectively the same thing that DNA does you know it's coding for proteins we're talking about chemical processes here so in a sense it doesn't qualify as information in one sense but it's it's it's a difficult argument you start talking about it in information theory because it doesn't really works this way I'm all right just just let you continue I mean what you said you had evidence of God yeah and so I just to give a couple of examples I mean again the most standard definition the available body of facts or information indicating whether or belief or proposition is true or valid and being scientific means that it is empirical testable and subject to peer review so right you have such a thing and for whatever reason rather than subject rather than submitting that to peer review you're you're going to present it to me or has it already been submitted to peer review it uh I I don't know to be honest with you well I think that takes out the award scientific so we don't get to use I think like I explained to you in our email exchange typically III D you know anything that would that would be in an ID publication is generally not accepted in the scientific literature so it's not science well that's see that's what I'm arguing it is science well how is it science if it has a predetermined agenda with intelligent design which by the way was was every testable claim that intelligent design ever made was was already disproved by science before it was disproved in a court of law as well so intelligent design is entirely fraudulent science with a predetermined agenda for which they cannot allow evidence to indicate the opposite they can't allow evidence to go the other way they have a very tight focus on they want everything to fall confirmation bias that they will only provide this conclusion and they will not accept they will automatically reject any evidence that indicates anything else that is by definition the exact opposite of science I'm I'm not aware of that now if God were real then we would have and and atheists would be looking for this evidence we would be eager to hear the evidence you have that tells us that God is real if God was in fact real if God was real we would not need apologists they would not have to exist if God was real because we wouldn't have to have somebody making up excuses for why we should believe something that isn't definitely true exactly you know what I have been saying that exact same thing yeah you know the Bible says The Fool has said in his heart there is no God so you think about it if God really does exist and if you would have to be a fool to deny that and you're right there shouldn't be any debate well there's another argument for that and that is that the standard definition of a fool is we're more commonly taken to be someone who to readily believes improbable claims from questionable sources on insufficient evidence surprise it is no surprise that the Bible and the Quran both use the opposite definition of what a fool is so suddenly a fool is the one who doesn't believe improbable claims from questionable sources on insufficient evidence no they they wanted to be an assumed conclusion which itself is a logical fallacy but we are here to talk about scientific evidence for God right and that's why we have to go back to my first question and you said that the cause now an operation that's known to produce the effect of information define information by say printed materials instructions binary code computer code no we can vary we can very loosely attach this to genetic information I'm happy to do that strictly attached I mean okay I'm going to attach it okay we're good eat we're going to use the word information in the context of DNA even though that is entirely chemical and not evidently intended to be instructions so there's entirely incidental see still information we'll go ahead and use that information theorists familiar with the name he said the production of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity so wherever you see information you have to assume it well then we have to do we have to subtract the definition from DNA because it out of obviously doesn't apply why because the way that DNA operates indicates that it is not according to an or design not an intentional design it can be an incidental design only when you look at the population mechanics of it and because it becomes an emergent property but only at that level you have to go through many generations at a population level in order to see that emergent property when you're looking at the individual especially in the individual cell what you have is just it's just a mutation it's a it's a random accident that may or may not have any immediate consequence and that's what I'm challenging I'm challenging that assertion that it that it's just you're challenging basic biology mmm no I'm no I'm challenge challenging the concept of mutations know that it's an emergent property ok it an emergent property means that when you look at the at the the pattern that emerges after you pull away for a long way to see the whole population over many generations you will see these types what's that I'm sorry it's like like a good example where a common example of emerges is looking at a flock of birds the way they all turn and wheel and are together as a single unit but if you look at a single bird of course you're not going to see that pattern aren't one second what I'm see that this is why I wanted to make it at 11 o'clock but what what are you saying yeah yes yes ok ok ok thank you ok according to these centers are according to the evidence senator for center for Odense based management I says that evidence there that when they refer to scientific evidence they're referring to evidence from the scientific literature which is another reason I think if it hasn't been submitted to peer review we don't get to use the excuse that it's a global worldwide conspiracy that's trying to hide it well then what yeah well then why won't they accept why won't they accept those journals that and in there I mean you know let's let's have the game you have in fact if you have a fact that is test of and demonstrable and actually indicates a God we're going to accept that okay but it can't be a logical fallacy it can't be an assumed conclusion of confirmation bias it can't be I don't know how this happened therefore it must be magic that is not evidence it has a fact that actually indicates a supernatural or magical being that being God that is exactly what I'm not arguing okay so I'm not a supernatural he is supernatural he is supernatural so we are arguing for a magical being got it not why I wouldn't say magical well magical equals supernatural they're the same thing [Music] leaving the park do you believe that the Bible is is he is being literally correct when it talks about curses yes okay do you believe that the Bible's being literally correct when it talks about blessings yes you know what a blessing is it's the opposite of a curse they are both magical enchantments are you familiar with the Golem spell uh no okay The Golem spell is an ancient Hebrew tradition where you build a clay figurine or it can be made out of other materials too and then you chant a spell or breathe into it the breath of life that's how Adam was created and even even Hebrew Scriptures or even no Hebrew articles will talk about the golem still being implemented there so these are elements of magic but that's okay if you don't want to recognize that what you believe in is magic we don't have to call it magic we can call it supernatural and it will mean exactly the same thing well I I will show that there is a supernatural in order for the basis for the god belief right so that's the first thing that has to be demonstrated is that there's a supernatural agreed well if we can establish well yeah and if we can accomplish that intelligence was recrop was required for the existence of the information in DNA I think we've established can we do that without circular reasoning or assume conclude without the assumed conclusions or confirmation bias could we is there a way that we can indicate that even if we don't want to believe it yes good give me that well that's why I asked you the first question what is the cause that's now at or I mean let me let me rephrase it from your uniform and repeated experience all right which is the basis of all scientific reasoning where does information derive depends on how you Trent how you interpret it now if you're gonna call information if you're gonna say by you know your your assumed conclusion of confirmation bias is that information by definition can only come from a mind then information obviously doesn't come from DNA or it doesn't go into DNA in either case because DNA evidently does not involve a mind the process of patient I'm saying DNA has to it a mind would have had to have been involved with DNA couldn't possibly be involved and there's no indication of that when you look at the way that DNA mutates or were jenny of the replication it's so it's such a Rube Goldberg machine it is so inefficiently designed one of the things that that that turned me off to intelligent design was actually the ridiculous complexity of photosynthesis it's like no intelligent designer would ever construct something so convoluted as this it would have to be more efficient system so simplicity implies design you know perverse complexity would not that implies dental construct I understand what you're saying I remember from my experience I think the worst design car ever was the Chevy Nova as a matter of fact I think getting something in one language was it Spanish where Nova means no-go and literally it didn't go do you've honest I never driven a Volkswagen Kombi but okay all right beside the point yeah we are looking for a fact no matter how badly designed it is nobody's gonna say nobody designed it alright and I would also I would also say there are biblical reasons you understand it can have incidental resilient we can have incident design right I don't believe so okay so the the braided river systems that you see in Iceland and we have really complex beautiful river systems weather for the river split and and intertwine and almost like a web-like pattern you don't think that there's a river digger right okay so that so it is possible to have beautiful intricate designs that are completely incidental Oh snow flakes are beautiful very good so design does not imply a designer no because because when you're talking about the information that goes into the design of a snow flake we're talking about information that has specificity but it lacks it so that's that's the fallacy we're talking about let me um let me quote are you are you familiar with um Leslie gorg L uh yeah okay he was a society he would say original life research researcher he's uh published who were called origins of life molecules and natural science on page 89 he states quote living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well specified structures because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified the crystals failed to qualify sorry the crystals failed to qualify as living because they lack complexity mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity can I cut to the end just real quick we have at least seven credit for what qualifies is life and that this is this is like seventh grade biology so we don't we don't need to go through that well I think we do because because you're talking about the meandering of rivers coming together and a very bright design does not require design I wanted to establish the point that we can have incidental design which you previously said was impossible you now say that to the problem the problem with the fallacy that the fallacy of the specified complexity argument is that there's no way for you to determine your specificity nor importantly nor how that would imply a God and absolutely under no case it would imply come on by a scientific evidence of God if we use Charles Lyell's method of scientific reasoning which identifies the cause now in operation the only cause in operation has to know to produce the effective information then we have demonstrated scientifically the only cause we have an operation that does what now the only cause now an operation that explains the effect of information if the only cause we know that's been known to explain the effect of information is intelligence then we doesn't apply to DNA because this is incidental but it has to but it can't if information if DNA okay the reason I say that it can't it's because there is nothing to imply an intelligence in there there's not even actually room to assume an intelligence because of the way the way that the genes mutate the way that you have these recombination airs the type of errors that they are the frequency with which they happen through every cell these all imply that it is incidental that it cannot be intelligence how would let me to put it another way how would an intelligence alter your DNA I mean of God okay so we have to have supernatural ie magical in invisible right and it's it's antropomorphic has human characteristics i it doesn't have a dependency on its physical body so if you could wear any physical body it wants to it is so it's immortal so it's a magical anthropomorphic immortal gotcha with something equivalent to a genie I guess yeah that's what we're talking about but how would that a god or a genie or any other sort of magical spirit how would it change it IIIi would argue you quantum mechanics it's how would it do that the same way we do it the same way we do it so yeah it has hands or magnifying glass what does it do no I mean if you go with the Copenhagen interpretation which I believe is the prevailing interpretation at the time at least that's what's being taught in our universities colleges observation is what causes the the wave form to collapse into way into a particle the particle you're saying that we can look at the DNA and change it just just by looking at it no I'm saying I'm no we can't I'm saying we've said it you said God that the same way we honor but we change DNA with physical tools yes and God do you think cool tools no he's using he's using quantum mechanics so he's not doing it the way we would like how does he how did it cost like I say a missense mutation I'm sorry how does he cost just for an example yeah a missense mutation ok I'm not familiar what that is all right baby like a chef mutation yeah any mutation how would he cause any mutation I don't think God does cause mutations I think mutations just happened that would be the only thing that you could that would be the only element of DNA in which you could you could conceivably be thinking about trying to incorporate a god and you've just removed it from the only place you you could have possibly rationalized a place to squeeze it in so what have you got left we have the DNA we have the information in DNA we have the only reason I information is in the DNA is because of the mutation process the immunity of process no no no because no because that is important to geneticists that is exactly where it comes from no that's that's where the market economics textbooks say that that is exactly where that from no yes it is if you like me to quote a genetics textbook that actually says that's where that's where the index ene comes from that the information in the DNA comes from mutations yes yes yes now that you have a DNA with with with the full genome yes and the mutated process in the DNA is where the information that you're talking about comes from it comes from mutations according to now though now that we have now that we have the completed genome yes now mutations needed genome what's that wait why do you say completed genome because it's it's completed we have a DNA strangeness estate is a completed genome I mean if you know if your genetic structure differs from mine by anything at all and it does I mean we can do a paternity test our genes will be different much more dramatically so between us and and other let's say another species perhaps right but we still have the same basis you can still do it to a genomic ortholog for our our construct to find where the commonality it written emerges from and so you wouldn't have a completed genome in any case I mean even if you were even if you go back to the very beginning like what they do in they identified the core set of gene for all of animals so like all other animals are built on this small core is that a completed genome because that's all they had then and then they just keep adding to it so that we end up with I know I shouldn't said complete it I should I should have said a genome sufficient to give functionality to to whatever species it's okay so we don't have to get back to your question you what it what is the mechanism that is known to be an operation that can explain DNA what is it I can explain the information in DNA which we know to be the the mechanism that we know to be an operation is the mute ative process in mutations themselves no that's the process that the genetics textbooks say is the source for new information in the genome yes yes for new information in the genome but where did the genome come from as I told you RNA okay and then that's why I asked you the own are the are the RNA strand that you're referring to what specific protein does that code for because I can you know I can take a yeah I can take protein does DNA code for what specific protein does DNA code for it codes for all the all the necessary DNA so why would he not be the same answer for RNA I mean why would you imagine that it would be only one protein well because you say yeah I mean you ask me what which protein does does RNA code for that implies that there's only one you're thinking there's only one obviously that I would know there's obviously a lot of proteins I'm asking you which protein does a laboratory created RNA strand code for that depends on the codons you change the seasons you change the protein yes so which so which cake does it code for a protein that can perform a necessary function within within the cell that's a weight if it can then I will concede this point okay we're done we're done though because as I already told you we have viruses that subsist only on RNA RNA can build DNA RNA can be created without your RNA replicates itself and yeah forms the functions in the it well you wouldn't really call and a virus and organism technically it's not alive because it doesn't meet the all seven criteria it doesn't have homeostasis for example I think that that's the one of the big ones that it doesn't have but it's still it's still replicated keep the organism functioning so yes it be it codes for proteins that establish the function that Nitta gate the argument well yeah it's it codes for protists that it you said that if it could code for proteins that would substantiate the host organism in which or the world you know they sell let's say then you would concede the art which obviously it does we do have that we do have viruses that run entirely just on RNA with no DNA in them so you therefore consider the argument no I'm saying the the the RNA mmm-hmm that you said was just was just produced somebody set off the reaction they went home for the weekend and it came back and it was more complicated than that but it can happen even on it's a short purchase you you can the RNA can create itself in a natural environment but they've also duplicated exactly how this can happen in the lab I you know I have a question but I don't I don't want to get off I don't want to get off target the RNA that was created in the lab my question is what specific protein does it code for does it code again it codes for different proteins depending on the arrangement of the codons so you changed the code is and then you changed which protein it is got it yes so that's those four different proteins just by us just like DNA does but does the protein that it codes for is that protein able to perform a function within a cell again since it is genetic material you understand that RNA is genetic material I understand okay so it functions the same way that DNA does in respect to those host cells that run only on RNA so the answer is yes they code for proteins that perform functions okay I I would hear us it wouldn't be able to exist would it I mean you wouldn't have a proliferation of viruses I would just completely break down they wouldn't be able to to into to continue their own existence much less continued replication into other cells they wouldn't be able to do that they have to have their RNA has to code for proteins effectively or if it were it can't exist any longer right you're talking you're talking about viruses huh I'm I'm just because you wanted to be able to talk about only RNA which means that the only organism would do points I keep calling an argent the only cell we have that runs only on RNA our viruses and not even all viruses because some of them do have DNA okay okay so alright so have we have we created an RNA strand that codes that you could take the RNA from the virus put the put the RNA strand that you created and and that that the that virus would would continue to function that's what viruses do they spread their DNA where they excuse me their sprit well sometimes DNA and they spread their RNA and yes it performs that function I don't think yes what do you have what fact do you have that implies what experiment could we do what what can we do to show that there is a supernatural we could take our uniform and repeated experience all right which is does the natural universe okay all right exact the cause and effect structure of the universe mm-hmm we we and we observe that the only cause that's known to produce the effect of information is our purely material what's that our purely material okay or material right but I think I offered the mechanism about a supernatural being could interact with the material world I missed that part coin quantum mechanics okay so what I've analyzed it mekin how how would how would a God do anything we were talked about how he would generate a mutation and you're gonna say that he uses quantum mechanics to cause the frame shift mutation explain how that works no I wouldn't say he does I'd say French Jeff mutations or any mutations happen just you know copying errors and so copping here so not intended we've nominated design then we've eliminated design from from mutations yes very good so all of the information that comes into the genome comes from a from a process that you have now eliminated intelligence from so that the word information by the original definition you don't you can't even apply that here by your own argument so how would a God do any other thing through quantum mechanics how well it's again in theory this book doesn't exist okay in poetry we are working with a very different concept of theory here okay for me for me a theory just to clarify for me a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and vindicated so robustly that it would be perverse not to accept it anymore and so it elevates from mere hypothesis to theory which is the highest level that it can achieve that's closest to proven correct that science can ever get and that's why atomic theory is a both of that fact and a theory and theory of gravity is both the fact and a theory a theory of evolution is both a fact and a theory as our you know the cell the cell theory and germ theory of disease and so on so theory is not a speculative guess I didn't mean to give that impression okay in theory the book you're holding in your hand does not exist that sentence doesn't according to the prep the most prevalent theory in quantum mechanics is that day right if we this book right here you see it you know doesn't exist independent of observation okay so we have to see something for it to exist well that's right according to the Copenhagen interpretation yeah the moon of moon Miranda which is one I think the seventh moon of Uranus we only saw that for the first time roughly twenty years ago when we sent a we will we'll take pictures of it so the date of the moon exist prior to that yeah I'm not I'm not I'm not going that far into it I am NOT a quantum physicist I don't have all those answers I just existed before we looked at it according to the the the the most prevalent understanding of quantum mechanics today and one it's been taught in colleges and universities matter does not appear independent of observations now you're telling me I just want you to know that in the in the comment section of this video you know there's a lot of pedantic people who know a lot more than I do and they're gonna be criticizing my understanding in these comments but imagine what's gonna happen when the theoretical physicists get into this comment section and they talk about how you're saying that they're saying that the moon Miranda did not exist before our probe went to take a picture of it I just said I'm not I'm not I'm not getting on a speck you I'm not getting any well I'd say that a thing cannot exist until sweep done till we look at it I said my utter does not exist according to quantum quantum mechanics Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which Sean Carroll happens not to hold that matter does not exist independent of operation now if somebody in the comment sections wants to say I'm wrong about that I'm willing to be corrected but it's my understanding that what I said is accurate and and and that that's the same mechanism that God that God in order to mediate a mechanism we didn't get a mechanism you're saying the moon Miranda may or may not exist but you have to look at it for it to be there it wasn't there I said I'm not going to answer to that because I don't know the what would you like to answer to give me something that implies what mechanism God uses to evoke quantum mechanics how would you quantum mechanics to do things by observation so god looks at something and and the moon Randa exists because he looked at it or ha so god looked God looked at your replicating cell and created a shame for frameshift mutation because he looked at it well I just said I don't believe God is involved in mutations okay you don't believe God is involved there are things that's an important point there are things that God does not do there are things that God is not involved in that that's an that's an interesting point because a lot of people say that absolutely everything happens even though horrible stuff is actually God doing it oh you're talking about his predetermined it's it's you know for ordination and everything in that sense yeah he's involved in absolutely yeah sure he's involved in it so there's nothing God doesn't do so even mutation God's involved in all of our mutations if you want to go with with with for ordination and you know I don't want to go with anything I'm waiting for you to give me a fact that implies a supernatural exists okay the information in DNA cannot be explained outside of information in DNA has already been explained by the mutated process that is in the textbooks yes the mechanism that we already know to be in operation that has already explained this is mutation now that's in the textbook but your shaky said nation of of DNA and he already said that intelligence you said that intelligence couldn't effect mutations anyway I didn't say it couldn't I said it didn't all right well you said it didn't very good okay so the mutation process this is where we were at the information comes from in the DNA and and God has nothing to do with that that's where the new information comes from right what's for a new right what I'm asking is where the original information come from well when it was new it was a while back so and then and then it was a newer version than that when that was new and then if you go back further well then the previous configuration which is not the same as this configuration that was then new if I go far enough that right so it didn't just spontaneously come into existence yeah what is spontaneous media because I know that that word can generate some confusion with RNA we know that there are chemical environments in which RNA can be their chemical conditions in certain environments in which will produce RNA that technically is spontaneous but some people think the spontaneous means poof out of nothing that's clearly not what we're talking about but that is actually what creationists are talking about they're talking about things puffing up nothing okay all right all right all right I'm not talking I'm talking about a process okay some sort of process I'm so weird chemical reaction whatever that produced the specified sequence of nucleotide base pair do we determine whether something is specified how do we determine if the specificity in indicates supernatural the specificity specificity would would indicate information but the information is the information is there's a sequence of codons for whatever type of proteins they produce if we're G we're still talking about genetic material so where is the specificity that you already said isn't implied is how is that implied because because the specified sequence of nucleotide bases in that in that gene code for a functional protein a protein that will actually sorry I lost my train of thought now well that will actually perform a function within the cell right and we've established that RNA can do that all on its own just within viruses and you said that if we could establish that that you would concede the point so I'm wondering are RNA the RNA in that particular virus can function right but I want to know is can we produce a strand of RNA that we can we can take them we can take the RNA out of the virus take the RNA strand that we just created put it in the virus and now can that virus still function yes and craig venter has done that too so what is the fact that implies a supernatural and we don't have scientific evidence anymore you said you're going to present scientific evidence but what you actually got is nothing that was ever submitted to peer-review we have the great conspiracy theory that you know that you want to believe that you know we're gonna we're gonna block because we want to pretend that God doesn't exist let's think about that for just a second if God were real wouldn't we want to know that I mean we'd really want to know that because because what happens if we pretend that if we know that God is real but we pretend that he isn't real that's the only thing that will genuinely piss him off if you believe in God then everything can be forgiven God will forgive you every sin but the only thing that will that he will not forgive is it when you say you don't believe when you don't believe in go when you blaspheme the Holy Spirit you can't be forgiven for that so if there was a god there would not be a conspiracy where we would be wanting to hide that we'd all want to know so they're near would not ever be a situation where we would be trying to block your research from proving that there's a God we'd be very interested in that research so please show me that fact save me from Hell by showing me the fact that indicates that there's a supernatural IIIi would not concede that everybody is that honest about their own oh the other a lot of people aren't honest there are some people who are so dishonest that they work that they work in the most dishonest business that I can possibly imagine one where they assert things as fact that are not actually fact pretending to know things they don't know and where they admit up front that they refuse to ever admit when they're wrong you know what that business is probably prosperity preachers apologetics not and if you'd like some examples of that I quoted from Answers in Genesis and a creation research or the Society for Creation Research and a handful of others that all specify in different ways I paraphrase at different different ways where they will never admit and even they will never even consider evidence that they might be wrong the possibility that they might be wrong will be forever rejected that they can't even be objective in that they can't think hypothetically they won't it's all about I'm not and that's it i I I can't answer for them okay I can't answer okay but all right but what we have here is I'm still waiting for effect it's not scientific evidence because it hasn't been subjected to peer review we haven't tested it so all we're down to now is a fact that you're into gonna declare as evidence what is it well you said that they've created an RNA strand in the lab that they could that they could substitute an RNA strand or virus young lawyers you'll still strand more than just a strand they took with Jenner material and made whole cells out of it so yeah so they made cells yes i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i okay you're gonna have to you're gonna have to send me that research all right so is your argument for the scientific evidence of God that you dude it is now just the fact that you want to argue is that really just the fallacy it's specified complexity based on your lack of knowledge for cell biology and I'm not saying I'm so by I'm not saying I know dick about jack about cell biology or genetics I really don't write I mean III understand taxonomic classifications that's that's what I do I don't have any ant knowledge in these other fields but I just I just want to specify that's that's your argument no my argument is that the only caused known to Bruce that's known to proves the effect of information information that is both specified and complex is intelligence okay so your argument is actually the fallacy of specified complexity so we don't have a way of identifying lis specificity except in the specifics that you've already given which have already been explained and attributed to material processes that you've already admitted are incidental and involve no intelligence no okay so we're still talking are we still talking about specified complexity to put the information into the cell yeah no I'm sorry okay go ahead yes that again I'm I was asking if are you still trying to argue for specified complexity to imply that he's super natural intelligence put the information that we know actually comes from unitive processes into the genome of the cell initially yes initially okay yes so explain to me what just let's just have some fun with this what does it mean to have initially done that when did he do that was that 3.8 million years ago it may have been okay well that would explain why we have fossils of bacteria 3.8 million years ago right okay if DNA or RNA or whatever was in existence 3.8 million years ago then yes that's well that was a tree that was actually DNA at that point man because they were bacterial cells so yeah we have from 3.8 billion years ago to what is it roughly 600 million years ago when we finally have but more than just trace fossils of tunnel tracks and things we finally get a soft body for multicellular animals so that's quite a distance from 3.8 billion years ago to say 600 million years ago is quite a jump right yeah over two billion years now evolution would would explain you know that there's a half a dozen different incremental sequences in that that get to multicellular life and that that would explain why it was such a huge period of time because these incidental things they're not being directed so it's not going to work that fast but you're saying that it was directed so can you tell me why it took god billions of years to improve his designs from bacteria to the most primitive multicellular life forms I cannot okay we're running a little shy on the facts that indicate a dot the information indicates the information intelligence the information from the cognitive process the information comes from the mutations the material process which you've already identified as incidental the innate already exists of information at all of information that already exists okay so you're saying that God built it would eaten without having need to because I mean RNA can be produced all by itself but God created RNA and and and even though RNA can produce DNA all by itself God then made the RNA I'm not I'm not willing to grant that I wouldn't what is your argument what did God do and when did he do it how did he do it okay God was responsible or like I said I don't wanna I don't want to say God because if I say God everybody everybody has some you know I'm gonna just say and intelligence and leave it at that okay there was an intelligence some sort of intelligence that 3.8 billion years ago was responsible for the information that's embedded in the DNA molecule okay so and the reason I say that is because the only cause that we know that's capable of explaining that effect irritations mutations it's due see I can take it I can take a scrabble sentence okay and I can arrange I can arrange the letters okay so that so that it actually says something else but I've done that intelligently okay now let's say you do it unintelligently right but when you do if I do it on to tell it let me answer that if I do it on intelligently you're gonna get gibberish not always because yes no no no no not always because if your sequence of letters produce something if you get a certain sequence of letters they're going to produce something and you get you get many different sequences and they and many and they can produce many different things now some of them some arrangements won't produce anything but you get some and they'll produce something and then you get a fancier a produce what do you mean we're talking about with the genome we're talking about you have codons that are their coding for a protein right so in this configuration will produce this protein you change the configure it up to produce this other protein instead they will change their shape their function depending on their the arrangement of these codons it's just the sequence of them right just already your sequence and that will produce this protein or this one no this one and it'll change the shape the function the physiology of the organism right now you have your Scrabble board exam you've got billions of letters in there and any few sequences can produce different proteins and you can jumble them up in again a lottery tumbler if you like so they come out completely random but in these random associations some of them will produce this protein some of them will produce this protein some of them will produce different different configurations if you won't produce any at all and then you have an evolutionary process already happening completely without any intelligence involved first you started talking about Scrabble pieces and then you shipped it all of a sudden to write so you have your Scrabble pieces accepting and because this is gonna be a nice analogy to explain the best way that I can you know how these sequence of codons code for different proteins I'm sorry just imagine your size in other words I think I think it's what's that I think it's a perfect analogy okay very good so we have no indication of intelligence at all if you have if you have an intelligent Lise spelled out sentence John take out the trash we have intelligence right but we don't have that do we what we have is am unit of process that's constantly replicating that is constantly changing and when you have a an advantageous configuration you have some point yeah and then other configurations are not so successful so you end up again with an evolutionary process and this produces emergent properties well the difference between looking at it theistic aliy as you imagine that you have an Orchestrator coming from the top down he's the administrator he's telling everything how to happen and that's very inefficient actually but then you have the emergent property coming from the the cellular level or the quantum level actually and these are emerging these properties from the bottom up not from the top down so in other words the reason you're looking at a theistic lis is because you're looking at it exactly upside down let's go back to our Scrabble all right back you got a bunch of Scrabble pieces over here just all mixed up randomly if I start grabbing without without looking what I'm what I'm getting and I'm I'm taking them and I'm placing them on that on the thing what am I likely to get gibberish or or or a functional sentence I think depends especially when we compare every language you could be getting all kinds of things especially when each one has the potential if each one of these sequences has the potential of producing something then you know if that's the case then you don't have to have an intelligence in there at all because we're not talking about a coded language where you can just look at the letters and well I understand what that means no it means something only because it produces something and then because it's producing yes it got a pretty different different concentrations are going to produce different different proteins different parent configure or different larger configurations and so forth indicating that no intelligence at all is necessary or involved okay and what I'm and what I'm saying is that if you if you create a DNA strand that codes for anything and that and then you said that DNA strand can can into a DNA molecule what no officer RNA I'm sorry RNA is a molecule as well right but I'm saying RNA is single helix and and there's I wish I'm so embarrassed that I didn't retain any more from the little studies that I had here because there are people who know genetics and a community in the boards right now who gotta be screaming what an idiot I am because I can't remember this there's a 1 1 element different between RNA and DNA besides of being cytosine there we go thank you with your uracil yeah yeah yeah I hate having nothing what I can't remember yeah ok so I mean accounting for that ok so RNA produces DNA the information from DNA is produced by mutations it's entirely incidental and the RNA can be spontaneously generated through a number of different processes we have the right constituents in the right chemical environments over a replicative process and generally this is a repeated process of heating and dousing drying and Aradia yeah irradiation dehydration and inundation so you have this replicative process and if you add the right phosphate at the right time because easeful to become increasingly complex and then when you add the right phosphate you get private nucleotides and so you have these you have monomers that will with even without an enzyme they will reproduce it too into RNA and then I don't have the the explanation off the top of my head for this because I barely understand any of this at all yeah but what a friend of mine was explaining how they biologists friend was explaining how RNA produces the first DNA through a slightly different process then it produces DNA now so at no point do we need God to make DNA or RNA or anything for thee okay so you're staying there are the RNA world answers the question of the origin of life the origin of life once again is a is a sequence of different processes it's not one thing put in a jumble or put in a paint mixer and comes out alive okay different Brussels and they're cumulative so you have to build up to this and then change the environment and change the process and then you get to the next stage of that okay baby you're saying that the RNA world hypothesis at least explains where DNA came from I think any parent comparing all of the Brussels agreement on that comparing all of the hypotheses that I'm aware of the dozen or so RNA world certainly has the most going for it I grant you that I'll grant you but it's also been called the worst theory of except for except for all the others okay well I'd like to see somebody come up with something that is better supported than the RNA world hypothesis right now there's nothing right now there's no then RNA then it doesn't matter if somebody said that that RNA was the worst that RNA first was the worst hypothesis doesn't matter this somebody said that if they don't have anything better then it's not the worst is it if they don't have anything better it's the best okay I guess so well that was I guess he misspoke the author of that article but what I'm saying is okay so you have you your have your RNA strand RNA molecule your RNA molecule becomes the DNA molecule all right and then you're asking what where's the specificity you define the specificity that was that your original question how do you in okay so we have processes a number of different processes none of which require any intercession from any deity there's nobody there's no intelligence necessary for any of it so where do we get the specificity because I'm seeing an emergent property and by completely relative increments selatan intelligence isn't necessary for the specificity I know that the I know that the assumed conclusion circular argument is that the intelligence implies the specificity but we haven't identified ethnicity is so you and I are both looking at the same thing I see I see am unitive process that by itself implies that not only is there a complete absence of a possibility for an intelligence to be involved there's no necessity of a I disagree with that okay so now if you disagree that there is no possibility show me what that possibility is show me how a god is possible I thought I said the mechanism is quantum mechanics now how he utilizes that and so you don't know you don't know so you don't know how he uses quantum mechanics you don't know you do you can say the word quantum mechanics without necessarily knowing what quantum mechanics is but it's a it's a it's a complex sounding word so that must make you feel good about that but it has nothing to do with a god I'm not a quantum physicist but I granted that because you said God is using quantum mechanics and that just demonstrates right there that's that's fine but we give in order to establish whether something is possible would you would you say that everything is possible no okay so it's not possible for like in the old children's nursery room it's not possible for the cow to jump over the moon right and it's not possible because muscle type with bone density the amount of weight necessary for the kind of trajectory in order to leave you know all of these reasons it is impossible for a cow to jump over the moon so we can't say that everything is possible how would we be able to say whether someone could jump a certain a certain height or whether some thing could jump a certain height we'd have to be able to measure the math work we'd have to be able to establish whether that a possibility exists right sometimes we'll have something that we can't explain but we know it's a thing so we would have a verified phenomenon right so I mean some people like the cosmic redshift for example you know it shows that the universe is expanding out well well obviously if you track that back then the universe is compressing back so there's our indication of the Big Bang we can't really explain the Big Bang we just know that we have the verified phenomenon to show that's happening right at the Big Bang what you accept the Big Bang to play accept the Big Bang uh I'm gonna say no and the reason that I'm gonna say no is because I won I don't understand the Big Bang and I have it on good authority that nobody does either and to I don't think that in Sean Carroll is another one that backs this up he says that there that the singularity is one of the things that apparently we're moving away from that there are some physicists and no longer accept the singularity and I always have problems with that I will accept that the evidence indicates that the youth verse is expanding that being the cosmic redshift I don't have another explanation for that so I'm gonna say that the universe is evidently expanding if we track back time then the universe was compressing but does that include a singularity I don't think so okay but that's not up to me so I'm not I don't believe the Big Bang I understand that there's not a better explanation so I'm gonna have to accept that right but I understand that they also are moving away from the singularity and Sean Carroll specifically said that the universe never had a beginning fine you know I don't want to get I don't want to get off into cosmology but III don't know every time we talk about creationism and stuff always cosmology comes up I think not to talk about it and it'll still come up well I'm sorry my fault my bad um where were we ah all right so we have a process where in oh I'm sorry if we're going to establish that something as possible we have to have the precedent or the parallel or verified phenomenon indicating that such possibility exists all right so you're talking about a disembodied mind mm-hmm making things happen mm-hmm what is the mechanism known to be an operation that can explain that consciousness consciousness makes things happen according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics yes okay well I will raise my glass and not better why don't you raise glass use your consciousness to raise my glass again is there a mechanism by which you could do this I'm gonna I'm gonna say I'm gonna okay I can't because I'm not God is there a mechanism by which anybody could do this there's a mechanism with by which I can take a wavefunction and collapse it into a particle is there I can do that it's not a mechanism a mechanism by which God can do anything not everything anything show me a mechanism that God can use to do something I said quantum mechanics like 10 times yeah you've said a word you don't understand ten times which clearly does not answer the question I understand this is what I understand and if there's a quasi quantum physics that's what that wants to comment no even if you're gonna use if physicists are gonna use quantum mechanics do we just say they use quantum mechanics that's it that's the explanation well how did he do it we use quantum mechanics oh we use twanda mechanics so he wished the moon Miranda into existence by looking at it no there's a way you got to do stuff to use quantum mechanics so how how does God do all anything how does God do stuff through observation so he looks at something and it does something because he looked at it and he done and it does specific things because he looks at it so if God sees every sparrow fall did he kill the sparrow yes I say he shouldn't have looked at the sparrow now he caused the Pharaoh the sparrow to fall by by observing okay so is there anything God doesn't observe no okay so God is completely eliminated from everything if there's not a mechanisms he sees everything so looking at stuff doesn't cause anything looking at looking at stuff doesn't cause anything right because he sees everything so we can't say that looking at anything causes the thing to happen sparrow yeah looking at this baraka closet to be dead or looking at the sparrow could cause it to turn into a moose we're looking at the scarab sparrow could cause it to to lay an egg if fresh blood like a neutron bomb if he looks at if he chose if he chooses for that Oh see if there's choice involved it's not just that he looks at it he has to look at zoos so glass dishes he makes wishes and the wishes come true no no no okay so he doesn't wish to do the things that he does okay okay that's fine I would rather use the term will he will sit and it will make that sparrow die die sperm got it yeah so in in the in looking for scientific evidence of God we have something that is everywhere and everywhen sees everything and just wishes for some things to happen wishes for bad things to happen ignores our prayers when we when the whole family gathers together and prays that please find our daughter she's been missing for three days and then I hunt a whole church congregations praying the little girl turns up dead anyway God knew that that was going to happen in advance didn't do anything about it so we have no indication that there is a God at all we have RNA creating itself creating DNA DNA replicating with mutations generating new information no place for a god there no no definition for the specificity unchallenging you're certain that the RNA creating DNA created any any kind of information well we understand that you understand that the date there still would be a RNA genome in different viruses and they're gonna be different from each other right yeah and you understand they mutate right yeah which produces different viruses right yeah okay so challenge accepted it whooped how because new information comes from mutations and the mutations do CH do produce usable material causes differences right and so you end up with variants and and evolution is a theory of biodiversity so now we have an increasing diversity because of this building variants this genetic drift all right but you still haven't accounted for the information did you count that I keep repeating for you is the mutations that is the mechanism known to be operate in an operation now that produces information not just new information but prior information and prior to the prior information the preview thinking nothing can mutate that doesn't first exist again virus RNA can be created spontaneously through natural processes and in the right constituents right chemical environments granted right so it doesn't hang on as RNA it exists as as ribonucleotides or whatever it had it has prior chemical constituents before we recognize it as RNA but now it's RNA made from prior stuff didn't come out of nothing now it's now it's RNA and now RNA undergoes this other process where we and it produces a double helix it produces DNA right and now DNA exists outer than other which which hasn't been shown but but that's that's the current theory that we're trying to work with well we know that da Rene produces DNA now so what is the mechanism known to be an operation that explains this no I I can't you can't let me what okay can't let you go there we don't want to go for it the RNA produces DNA you understand that's that's high school biology now that's the RNA hypothesis no no that's next demonstrate that's that's biology now that's rip that's showing that this is this happens every day all day throughout all organisms verified in the lab yes we verified in classrooms yes produces DNA yes that did yes they produced DNA in the laboratory no no no RNA reproduces DNA they reproduce DNA in your chemical reproduction it uses RNA to do that and as I said it was a different process that biologists biologists are but it wasn't the same process but if the original process RNA can also produce DNA this other way but the way that it happens every day in our cells is a different way oh you're talking about in ourselves where else would it happen um I'm looking at I'm looking for a I'm looking for uh you know I'm looking to do it in the lab that's done in a lab what do you want you're saying Lauren at no point do we have a definition for specificity at no point do we have a fact that implies a supernatural could exist and we don't have a mechanism by which the the hypothesis hypothesized intelligence could do anything at all and there's no necessity anywhere in the history of biology for this entity to will anything to be different where is the necessity of God in the information that is generated by mutations and you already said does not involve God that God's not even involved in that literally and then it happen it happens randomly incidentally without his involvement and yet that's where the information comes from so you have argued against yourself to say that there is no God by your own argument the mutations the mutations happen within within DNA which already exists information and the prior configuration is different from the configuration it was before and that is different than the configuration it was before that and then it was different than - so it's constantly changing and it's always through mutations it's never not through mutations if the original construct was also through mutations recumbent in combination with with RNA being slap together so yeah RNA puts it together in the neighbor every replication it does the same thing where RNA comes back again and changes it again and these mutations are this source have always been the source of all information in our genome period that is the mechanoid own to be an operation that does explain this no because your your leapfrogging the information problem what okay all right I'm I think I'm done we've been an hour and a half I I wish that I hadn't shown so much of my own ignorance and how much I could not remember from college biology classes I took two of them yeah and it was and they were intense but I don't remember it all sadly oh well do you understand you understand what I'm saying I understand that you don't understand what you're saying that much is evident you keep arguing that science can't do the things that science does the science doesn't know the things that science knows you said they will never do what they've already done and so you want to imagine that there has to be a magic invisible man who uses quantum mechanics as if that's an explanation we use quantum mechanics but we have an explanation for what we how we use it how we will our mechanics well was the question that I asked when you said they produce RNA and in the laboratory through through natural natural me that they simulated a prebiotic environment so they can produce this well not really the process I gave you was a repeated cycle of inundation dehydration and irradiation and if you have the right constituents to begin with then you you inundate dehydrate irradiate and keep that cycle up and it will actually become more and more increasingly complex increasing complexity until your point to get to the point where you add the phosphate revenue nucleotides there you go okay but I ask you but I ask you a question about the RNA about the RNA strand do you remember what the question is we do ask me a lot of questions which question about now what protein did that I just won a bunch of times it but it codes for different proteins depending on the configuration of kotas just like this right is the protein that it codes for the answer that over and over again is yes the answer I have given you repeatedly is yes oh yeah okay and that's I see dots that's where I disagree that that's where I disagree okay so you need multiple viruses no no no no I don't believe any random ordering of nucleotide bases or base pairs is going to produce anything that can function in a Cell yet we ask that it does what's that and yet we have proof that it does you don't believe that viruses evolve I'm not I'm not talking about that oh yeah I'm about it it's exactly what you're talking about if you're not yeah it's not changes in RNA produce do not produce mutations which then reduce it would then increase the variety viruses that's what that is evolution that you're talking about even before that even before that before that we're creating that we create that we create the RNA okay now the nucleotide base will be the sequence of nucleotides bases you said they do Co proteins and I said yes they will code for a protein any any scene that's different cooking different proteins according to their configuration different right right so it'll code for any protein the question is for different proteins not a protein so you keep a so which protein it's not one protein they code for different ones according to their configuration so this you just just sequence this sequence shows my four increments right and in this sequence they code for protein Y and in and in this sequence they proteins code for protein J and you're saying and you're saying the protein wat it will will perform a function with business know is attached this gene which has attached this gene and Liberty jillion other genes okay okay so let's go back to protein why because that's that because that's the pen our ladies at least we're taking step - all right so we have protein why that was coded from from the RNA right now we have protein why will critique why performace on a function within the cell that's my question and apparently you're saying yes it will yes the answer I keep giving you is yes oh the proof that we have for that and the proof we have for that is that it is that viruses do evolve we do get an increasing diversity of viruses and these are because of mutations so we know that they are actually functioning and we've also applied we've also applied natural selection to these because this is why you have to get a flu shot every so often because these mutant these viruses do change so these mutations produce proteins that do pro code for a function yes they do mutations that have that have mutated from a specified you don't have a definition for specificity no you didn't you said you said the specificities he implies intelligence but you have to assume the intelligence in order for the specificity to specify it I'm not sure how to define I'll give you an example of specificity um can you give me an estimate John give me a way to specify whether something is specified give me a way to test whether complexity is specified or not specified what's the way to test it out ah take take any one of our emails is it intelligible so you don't have a way to test for it yeah because you know you know that the vast majority of the you know that they you know that the vast majority of the human genome has no discernible function right I mean eight property no no no no yeah eight percent of our genome is endogenous retroviruses know this what like forty five percent of our genome has completely the junk DNA you know that we only have like fifteen percent of our DNA that's that's coding DNA right yes yeah yeah and the right it's not junk DNA and we have a substantial amount of it actually is forty five note of it has no discernible function is a great deal of it this just copies of copies I some of it or ssin of it is due to a buggy enzymatic process so that the pretty the majority of the human genome is dysfunctional no that's incorrect that's incorrect I'm getting that from a geneticist uh well I'm getting it from other you know I know it non geneticist or apologists and you should never get your information from an apologist because it's not going to be a well well how about a say synthetic synthetic biologist is that what it's called I'm sorry his name is James tor let's put it that way don't bring him up why guy doesn't know anything tourniquet could not argue against me and I don't know god Dean Dean Canyon I don't know that name okay but what relevance would it be you have not been able to produce a fact you don't have a way of testing whether specificity is specified or not now you you would say whether it already came from an intelligence you say it already came if it already came from an intelligence speaking your language and then you get an email in your language and you can read then you would be able to interpret that way but if it comes in a different language or if it comes in Russian Cyrillic it'll be true it'll be gibberish to you but that doesn't mean that it doesn't meet something and if it produces proteins you would never need an intelligence to interpret it or to create it so you've got nothing to imply a guy it doesn't but if it doesn't do anything anyway does well we know it does I'm let's go back to let's go back to protein why Oh God why why why why get back to protein why because we haven't because we haven't answered that question what cause maybe protein why okay and that not perform comeback cannot perform a necessary function within the cell when I answered this previously and you didn't understand the answer you said you didn't believe that and the proof that I offered that regardless of young lr this happens was because of the way the virus has evolved proving that they actually are increasing their diversity which means that those genes are actually coding for something that works we can recycle the same circle but it's just a circle now because everything we've said for the last 20 minutes is repeating what we said previously we're not going anywhere you're not learning anything and you are unable to admit that you do not have any evidence for God and you're unable to admit that no evidence of God exists so we have nowhere to go you can't show me the truth of your position I can we're done okay well and what you're not in what you're not seeing is that information that's not just on taneous lee however you want it to find spontaneously generate accept that we know that in this case we're talking about genetic material it you're gonna be generous enough to use information in context with genetic material we know for absolute fact and proven that it does yes we know that it doesn't prove that it does so we just negated what you said you said you would concede the argument if if gene y was gonna protein or protein y would have a useful function yes it has a useful function we verify that you can see the argument we're done I don't want to reacquaint any of this anymore well I'm gonna I'm gonna have to see that research III said I said I would concede if I if I could be shown okay make it probably yeah I'm gonna throw in a video that I did teaching middle schoolers about abiogenesis I will probably put that in there because it includes an explanation of that very process and it's a lot less dry than the study itself it refers to study the script and explains what it is that you look it up if you need to but that thing would be easier to put that video in that's what I'm gonna do all right I'll watch it all right talk to you later all right Arn thank you

Channel: AronRa

Views: 26,090

Rating: 4.8933716 out of 5

Keywords: Robert, Campanaro, Specified Complexity, Intelligent Design

Id: yweDZnnw7uk

Length: 88min 53sec (5333 seconds)

Published: Fri Aug 16 2019