What is up? Sorry for the long intro,
but we needed people to have time to
come in. Sure, sure, sure. I was riveted
the whole time. Hey, look, I threw that
together in the last 15 minutes, so
please, of course, I cobbled together a
few things that were already made. But,
uh
Dave, Professor Dave, massive YouTube
channel, man. You do science, you're a
communicator, educator, awesome stuff
you've been doing over there. You've
made some noise, and my favorites are
obviously the cringe-worthy, the
low-hanging fruit, the absolute comedy
of ripping a lot of the people
a new, you know what, okay? Uh I love
it. I love it. So, we figured we'd allow
you the opportunity
to get engaged, uh to debate here on
MythVision, and have someone come over
here and prove creation,
>> [clears throat]
>> argue creation with you, and evolution,
all of that kind of stuff.
Sure, yeah. I mean, I've been doing like
calling shows lately. Yeah, they're
pretty fun, so yeah, always a good time.
I pinned the uh the link, so we can get
some people who truly disagree and
believe in creation,
and uh I am going to have a few I have
to screen who's calling to make sure
they have a video. They've got to have
video because I'm not taking any risks
with random people trying to ruin
channels like yours and mine. You know,
they might be doing stuff they shouldn't
be doing to try and harm the channel.
So,
if you call in,
do me a favor and have a camera, and
also be prepared to defend creationism
over against what the science points
toward. But, what do you think? Before
we get into that, like, what do you
think about the people
that are constantly saying the
scientists do point toward that, and
they can go to and they constantly do
this to the guys from
uh the Creation Institute and all that
kind of stuff, and they go, "There are
scientists who disagree with these
scientists." How do you engage that,
Dave? Yeah, it's pretty easy. I mean,
the overwhelming majority of them are
not actual scientists. They're just
propaganda peddlers. I mean, Discovery
Institute, uh none of those are none of
them are active publishing scientists.
Um they got a degree one degree or
another to to feign credibility, but
then go ahead and deny science. Um
The the the it's it's it's an it's an
adorable argument of from authority
always. Just like, "This one scientist
uh or or or or engineer says this thing
about uh you know, biology or geology
that has absolutely nothing to do with
their expertise. Uh therefore, it's it's
really it's a battle with an
academia, right? Conflicting viewpoints,
conflicting theories." No, it's science
and pseudoscience. And no matter how
much you dress up creationism and call
it intelligent design or some other you
know, ridiculous uh nomenclature, it's
all just propaganda. It's all just
religious propaganda.
It seems like that's the case. I mean,
and everybody keeps running back to
them. Have you noticed something before
we get any callers, cuz I haven't had
any people call in yet, and I'm hoping
they do and they don't run away scared.
Um
Have you noticed that like all of that
kind of
propaganda is getting it's hitting all
the circuits. I've been attacking the
apologist Christians uh who've been
hitting all of the like huge channels
from Joe Rogan. Now, Shawn Ryan I
noticed had Wes Huff on, and then even
the Diary of a CEO had Wes Huff on
recently. And I'm like,
"Whoa, what's happening?" Yeah. I I
don't know about Wes Huff I I think uh
the little bit I know about him, I just
know because he humiliated Billy Carson,
this this total grifter. Um but, I don't
know I the little that I know about him
is that he's just really knowledgeable
about scripture, right? I don't think
that he pushes
Well, I mean well, he's not like an
intelligent design like Discovery
Institute guys. Well, I mean, I'm sure
he believe I'm sure he believes in it.
But, but I I I don't know that he makes
content like lying about science in
really sophisticated ways. Um maybe he
does. I I I haven't looked at it looked
at him at all. But, my primary targets
are those who enact really sophisticated
uh deceptive propaganda campaigns
against uh the scientific community. So,
Discovery Institute is number one with a
bullet. And I mean,
they're making the right they I think
they actually just produced a video that
they're trying that they're trying to
get into like select theaters right now.
And it's just it's every time. It's the
exact same talking points every time.
Irreducible complexity, like all this
crap that has been so thoroughly
debunked, but they just rely on like,
you know, people wanting this stuff to
be true and and and shielding themselves
and refusing to engage with any of the
information or content that debunks
these talking points. So, they just
dress it up in a new like fancier
aesthetic, and "Watch this documentary,
you know, is Genesis history?" Like,
"Ooh, look at all this new cutting-edge
science." It's just the same playbook
over the past 20, 30 years uh with new a
new style, you know, a new narration,
you know. Um but, yeah, I have seen I I
saw I mean, Stephen Meyer went on Joe
Rogan. Um
I'm trying to think who else they're
just they're really trying to hang on to
this. Um
But, uh yeah. The ideas that he's
peddling, how old are they? I mean, they
go back to like
early 1900s a lot of this stuff. It
seems like
>> No, no, not not early 1900s. I mean, the
the the modern the modern uh creationist
playbook or or the the most let's call
the most sophisticated version of it is
Discovery Institute's intelligent design
propaganda. Uh and that was formulated
kind of in the '90s and then in the
'00s, the early 2000s, some of these uh
some of these guys um you had Demski and
Behe coming up with these um you know,
genetic entropy and
none of that stuff was possible in the
early 1900s. The field of genetics
didn't exist. Um you know, it it it it
they try to what the most sophisticated
propaganda tries to do now is to appear
as academic and credible as possible
because the the ranting preacher going,
"We didn't come from monkeys."
Even
even
fairly intelligent science-illiterate
people can kind of smell that and go
like, "What's I'm not like I I I I was
there in ninth grade biology. That's not
really what we learned, and I forgot a
lot of it, but this doesn't seem
credible." So, they kind of do this
thing of like, "Look the they'll lie
about primary literature, but in a way
that if you don't understand that field,
it's it's hard to detect, right? Because
they themselves are somewhat
knowledgeable about molecular biology or
anthropology or geology or whatever
field it is. So, they'll you know,
they'll they'll uh
doctor a data table to make it seem like
it says something it doesn't, use, you
know, legitimate scientific uh jargon to
to to uh to twist what literature is
saying, and um you know, prop up this
guy has a PhD from so-and-so, so he must
be right.
Never mind the 100,000 PhD scientists
that know that he's not right. You know,
it's uh it's the same pageantry. But,
but I would say but what I would say is
that in the past 20 years or so, it
really hasn't changed too much. They
tried to do Kitzmiller v. Dover, they
failed uh to get uh religion being
taught in public schools, and they've
kind of been floundering ever since.
But, they're using YouTube and other
media to try and kind of like get
another round of relevance going.
They're not doing too well because
there's so many people like me and
others that that kind of, you know, I
have my whole Discovery Institute
series, every single one of those videos
has a ton of views, and uh
yeah.
>> [clears throat and cough]
>> Hey, call call in uh in- inkjet. I Okay,
what does this say?
This is somebody on my Facebook that has
been anytime I post stuff about you, uh
Shawn Carroll, or any any atheistic type
of people,
um they they con- they always have
something to say, and I know in the
biblical field of what they're arguing
is not what consensus critical scholars
have to say about the topics. Okay.
>> know. They know better than I do, or
that
cuz I'm going based off the critical
experts, right? So, I'm sitting here
looking at it going, "Huh." And it it
seems interesting. Please call in
because we had someone just call in, but
they couldn't show their face. And
again, [snorts]
that's a problem. Well, in the meantime,
do you want to just talk about that
comment? If you want to bring the
comment back up, it's just like it's
just complete gibberish. It's
meaningless.
Idealized \{slash\} special science? The
[\h__\h] does that mean? Doesn't mean
anything. Fundamental sciences, special
relative special relativity is physics.
Physics I mean, fundamental science also
doesn't mean anything. Um it it like
yes, physics is one of the, you know,
uh core core physical sciences. Um so is
biology, right? Physics, chemistry,
biology.
These are the natural sciences. Uh and
and uh evolution is the cornerstone of
biology. Nothing in the field of biology
makes sense outside of the context of
evolutionary principles. Um
So, it's
grow up, atheists. I'm sorry. Like, you
can believe in God and accept evolution.
Evolution doesn't disprove the existence
of any conception of a deity. There are
so many millions of people who believe
in a God and accept science in its
totality, including evolution, and you
can be one of those people. But, if you
choose not to, that's on you. I'm sorry,
you are a science denier, and uh it's
that's all there is to it. You just
refuse to learn evolutionary biology in
any way, shape, or form. There's nothing
else to say here.
I mean, they could come up here and
prove that, you know,
Call in, define what the [\h__\h] is an
idealized science? What is a special
science? What is special science? What
are you talking about? By special
science, do you mean any science that
disproves my archaic, fragile worldview?
Uh yeah, it's pretty special indeed
then, I guess. I don't know.
Yeah.
When I've engaged this gentleman on
Facebook. They
use so many verbose kind of gibberish
type language to describe and defend
arguments. And and look,
I'm sitting there half the time going,
"What? What are you saying?" Yeah, I
mean,
this is why I have the reputation that I
do and this is why it is
it's not that common that you see
someone with the hubris from that camp
trying to debate me because I am one of
the one of the people who does not
tolerate this kind of this kind of
pageantry. If the moment you start
bringing up these nebulous terms, I will
not allow the conversation to progress
one iota until you define that term in a
way that makes sense or admit that you
pulled it out of your ass. Then we will
move to the next thing where you
humiliate yourself and I will pin you
down until you admit that it it's just I
don't take I I'm just kind of done with
this behavior and I don't in in
one-on-one interaction, I just I don't
allow the dish galloping. I don't I'm
aggressive enough that they can't
perform that those kinds of things and
so it's just there are very few
that are going to even attempt to
engage me with it, you know.
Yeah, it's kind of interesting how, you
know, we've been live what now? 13
minutes. I know people have seen this.
We've had this out. Nobody's called in
yet. Why do you think that is, Dave?
What do you what do you think is going
on? Do you think they're Yeah. Getting
the whiskey out, going,
"All right, I got to go."
>> liquid courage going, yeah. I mean, I'm
sure that there exist creationists who
would attempt to engage me with this but
and who just haven't seen it but
definitely like the ones that kind of
lurk on the internet and know your
channel and know that you've platformed
me many times that hate me the vast
majority of them know the moment they
try to open up their mouths about
genetics or phylogeny or any of these
topics, they just they're not going to
get 1 inch cuz they don't know what any
of these words mean. They couldn't pass
a middle school biology quiz like they
just don't have it. Um and I do and I'm
not even an expert. Like I'm not an
expert in any of those fields. I'm not
an expert in astrophysics. I'm not an
expert in molecular biology. I'm not an
expert in geology.
But I have a I have a firm competence in
all of them because I'm a generalist
Right. way more than enough to dunk on a
troll on any of those topics. So uh
that's it, you know, you you don't need
to be an expert to to disprove somebody
who is fumbling middle school level
science. You have to be an expert to
contribute to the advancement of a
scientific field. Right.
>> do that. I'm a science communicator. I'm
never going to advance any scientific
field ever. I'm going to take those
advancements, learn about them and
convey their content to the general
public. That's my job, you know. Yeah.
Um and to also debunk trolls, you know.
Same here. I'll interview countless
experts in the area that I'm studying
and
getting to hear the different it's like
I allow the engagement cuz it's a softer
science. What I'm doing isn't
necessarily in the same arena of what
you're doing. History is so much softer
and you know, it's not as as firm and as
certain and as the confidence is is
[laughter] is in as high. Yeah, more
interpretation and and
somewhat empirical but not entirely
empirical relies on a philosophical
interpretation. But yeah, I I I think
that like I just get so many just like,
"Oh, Dave, like he's just like parroting
other people's research." That's the
[\h__\h] point. I'm I'm taking science
from the scientific community and
explaining it to people. That's my job.
Like people who whine about what I do,
it's like going to a restaurant and and
telling the chef that he's a he's a hack
because he's not also a farmer.
It's like it's a different [\h__\h] job.
Somebody grows the food. That's their
job and then this person takes the food
and and cooks it and presents it puts it
on a plate for somebody to eat. Like
here you go, I made this nice meal for
you. Right. It's a perfect analogy. I my
videos are like a little meal that I
made for you based on the food that
someone else grew.
Um yeah.
>> [laughter]
>> Yeah, that's that's a good analogy and I
I think again, you and I are just taking
what
experts who've actually made the strong
cases, we've researched, we've studied a
lot of this stuff and we're trying to
pitch it in front of the world. Again,
back to my I guess you'd say what we're
doing, it's way it seems a lot more
difficult to nail it down as anything
solid because I can give three working
hypotheses for one
you know, thing. You know, did Jesus
really do this thing in history?
There's a literary explanation that can
make sense of it. Mhm. There's a there's
a real historical explanation that can
make sense of it. Which is it? People
made up [\h__\h] in text and real people did
dumb [\h__\h] that got themselves killed by
cleansing the temple for example.
And you can just go down different paths
and go, "Which is it?" Whereas
you know, they're all working hypotheses
but none of them are like confident as
evolution or as scientific Um
you know, reconstructions of the past
can be. I think that's an important
point. Yeah, absolutely. There are
principles that are demonstrable in in
the present in real time um which
however which also extend into the past,
right? Um I I just did a reaction video
which will come out tomorrow
on the Ken Ham and Bill Nye debate
because I actually never watched it. Did
you ever watch that? I
I it got a little dry. I'm not going to
lie. It was kind of boring.
>> I had seen like little snippets and was
like, "Okay, this was like 2014." I was
like in a touring rock band. I was like,
"Okay, I don't I'm not I don't care
about this right at the moment." But I I
decided to do a reaction to it and Ken's
whole thing was like, "You have
observable science and you have
historical science." Which is like his
way of saying if you weren't there and
you didn't see it, you can never know.
Which is insane because like, you know,
you like when you go to a crime scene,
you didn't see the crime but you gather
clues to like figure out what happened,
right? So that's like science where
we we you know, we gather clues and and
make predictions. We we construct a
model that makes predictions that can
then elucidate what happened in the
past. Like if you like biogeography
where like we found
these types of fossils in this region.
Therefore, if plate tectonics is true
and and you know,
deep biological time is true, we should
find similar fossils in this part of
this other continent because when it was
Pangea, they were connected. And then we
go and we dig there and we find them.
>> [laughter]
>> That's that impresses me. I love that by
the way. So that is that really ruins
this whole narrative of like, "You
weren't there, you didn't see it so all
you have is a story." No, we construct
models and make predictions. All of all
of uh
all of paleontology, the entire field of
paleontology is Darwin saying, "Well, we
we should find all these transitional
fossils and we don't have them at the
moment so the the validity of my theory
will hinge on on us finding them." And
then creationists will go, "See, he even
said it and then we didn't find any."
Uh we found millions of them. Over the
past 150 years, we have filled in all of
these branches of the phylogenetic tree
that perfectly, immaculately conform to
evolutionary expectations. Right, that
is something that creationists cannot
explain so they basically just pretend
paleontology doesn't exist. Right, you
have all these obscure artifacts, all
these obscure finds where
you go back, take canines and felines,
you go far back enough, you there is a
common ancestor that's kind of
intermediary in between what we think of
as the morphology of canines and felines
and we have that. We have all these you
know, specimens up those two branches
after canines and felines diverge from
one another. And you can do that for any
two families or or or or classes or
genera or whatever.
Um it's all there. They just and and you
can Google it and what's the most recent
common ancestor of blank and blank? You
can do it for anything and you'll find
it but they don't do that cuz they don't
want to know, you know.
Hey, Jason King in the back, are you a
creationist? I need to know cuz I'm only
bringing creationists on. Um by the way,
getting your opinion here Dave,
how did you think that I mean, we're
we're going to watch the video but maybe
we can get a tease. How did you think
overall the debate went for
Bill Nye because sometimes when I watch
him, even when he was at the Ark
Encounter, I'm like
he's being so nice and I'm like, "Fuck,
dude." Like like it it's like blind
spots in the moment, you know, we all
have them.
So I'll issue the caveat.
When I react, I kind of tend to go on
really long rants and the the the
the the the debate itself is 2 and 1/2
hours. So I only got through Ken's
5-minute opening, Bill's 5-minute
opening and then Ken had a 30-minute I
didn't know the format but after the two
opening statements, Ken did a 30-minute
thing. Um and so my first reaction video
stopped there. So I really didn't listen
any of Bill and at the end I was like,
"It's almost 2 hours. I'm stopping here.
If you guys want me to continue the
reaction, I'm at like 50 minutes of a 2
and 1/2 minute debate. I can totally do
a part two." And it won't be as
interesting because obviously
like I'm less interested in in
criticizing Bill like obviously there's
going to be things where I'm like,
"Excellent, great point, Bill." And then
other points where I'm like, "That
should have been a little bit more like
this or what I would have said." And
that's you know, I'm not so interested
in like criticizing a colleague.
It's like the Dr. Mike ones where he did
the Jubilee and most of me is just
yelling at the idiots that he's debating
and occasionally saying, "Oh, Mike, I
wish you were a little harder on them on
that thing right there."
You know, I I don't necessarily need a
whole hour of me reacting to Bill but I
can do it if people are interested.
My general sense of from the aftermath
is that he was a little bit too polite,
but this is like I I feel like we're
finally coming around to shifting our
attitude on that. And I, you know, not
to toot my own horn, but I feel like I'm
I'm a part of that shift of just like,
"Look, this is how you treat these
frauds that are trying to poison society
with science denial and erode the
separation of church and state and enact
all of these egregious
changes to society that will violate
human rights and and cause deaths and
all these things. You don't treat them
nicely. We don't punch them in the face,
but you can you can be mean to them."
You know what I mean? It's okay.
Um, and I think we're it's getting a
little bit of that from the scientific
community kind of coming around to that.
Um,
but yeah, I don't know.
Yeah.
>> [clears throat]
>> Well, look, we got two people in the
back. Jason King, I've been writing in
the private chat here asking if you're
creationist. Say yes, I'm a I'm a
creationist if you are. Okay, they are.
And Austin, I'll need to see your video
before I bring you up. So, I need to be
able to see and have you wave at me and
all that kind of stuff just to know
you're real dude. Okay, we're going to
start with Jason then we'll come to
Austin. Here we go.
Jason. Yeah, what's up, man?
I got to say I got to say all right,
first of all, I'm not Brett Keane.
If you get that joke, you've been on the
internet way too long. Not what?
I missed it.
>> I'm not Brett Keane based on
[clears throat] the look. Do you
remember Brett Keane? He was that guy
that was a huge atheist and he became a
huge Christian.
And at the end he was kind of wearing
one of these shaggy beards.
Interesting. No, I don't know him. I I
would go more ZZ Top. Oh, you would have
a lot of fun with this dude. You would
have a whole lot of fun with this guy.
Um,
let me say this. I'm a fan of both of
you guys. I watch every video you Well,
Dave, you can be long sometimes.
But I love Miss Vision Derek, I love
you. I love what you do. I love your
mission of getting all these scholars
on, getting all these opinions. I think
it's great.
Um, so the topic I guess is creationism.
Now, I guess that could probably be
defined like in a series
to where you have the most ridiculous,
which are the young Earth creationists.
I'm in no way in that type of silly.
What I will say is that I think the
universe as a whole
requires an explanation
because otherwise it just happens to
exist.
Whereas if you accept a divine cause or
that the universe itself is divine,
then you kind of bootstrap the universe
itself without all this necessity of
asking further questions that there
never will be an end to
because of an infinite regress. Yeah.
>> So, in that sense I am a creationist,
although I don't believe in dumb
creation stories written by men 4,000
years ago. Not that in a way.
But more in understanding that the
universe itself requires divinity in
order to exist.
But to be to be clear, that's not
creationism. Uh, you're you're a deist,
right? You believe in a god whether it's
an whether it's an entity, a singular
entity, or you're just calling the
universe god.
>> That's the I'm actually a non-dual
Tibetan Buddhist of the Nyingma school.
Okay. Yeah.
>> beside the point. These are all labels
is what I'm saying. What I'm saying is
that there there needs to be kind of
like a foundation
from upon which we can construct this
reality that we perceive, which is the
phenomena of perception. Sure.
>> There has to be and even you would have
something like this,
which is like an axiom that you really
can't question because it is fundamental
to your entire belief system as a whole.
If you get all the way down to the
origin of the universe, how did the
universe start? Yes, we're we're
starting to get into very tricky
philosophical territory. I I'm just
saying that creationism is the belief
that a deity created life
as it is. Well, life. Well, I mean, life
is a product.
See, this is the thing. Like you start
with a foundation, which is the most
fundamental thing. You really can't
define it. This is what's known as
negative theology. It's kind of like you
you admit that there has to be this
thing, but that's where you stop
talking.
That's where the more you talk, the less
you know, right?
>> Sure. Yeah, I mean, in the sense that
Um, I I have no
like we're all trying to answer why does
anything exist as opposed to nothing
existing. And I'm kind of stopping at
the universe. I'm saying the universe
exists without cause. I don't I can't
explain further than that. Whereas a
deist will create another layer and say
there's a deity that exists that created
the universe and then stop there and not
explain the existence of the deity.
Either way, we're dealing with an
absurdity that is very difficult to wrap
our heads around, which is why I do not
argue with deists because I have I have
nothing to argue with them about. I
argue with creationists who deny
science, right? Who deny evolutionary
biology and geology and things like
that. So, honestly, it sounds like you
and I don't really fundamentally
disagree in any way in any in any
substantial way.
>> Isn't this one of Kant's antinomies of
pure reason?
Maybe. I don't know. I'm not I'm not a
big philosophy buff.
Okay. You seem to be pretty smart at
everything you talk about, so. Thank
you. Well, I'm I'm not going to keep you
long. Like you said, we might not
disagree as much. I just want to say I
love both your channels. I love both you
guys. Keep doing what you're doing.
Dave, keep busting those those fakers,
man. And Derek, keep having on all these
great scholars. Really appreciate both
you guys, man. Thanks, man. Appreciate
it, both.
>> ZZ Top. I mean, Jason, have a great
>> bro. Kick me out. I thought
All right. All right. All right. We're
going to go to Austin next. Austin, let
me make sure I could see you again. I
just want to make sure I got this right
here. Jason, I'm going to I'm going to
drop you from the backside. Um,
and there we go. All right. Austin,
where you at, man? I need to see you
from the backside here.
We uh we're going to get our next
caller. I'm hoping we can get some
creationist
to call in. Yeah. You you don't have a
fundamental problem. Like you're like,
"Okay, you think something's there. I'm
not necessarily convinced. Okay, maybe I
just don't believe in god. I just I just
Louis Louis CK has a great line where
he's just like, "I don't I just I reckon
there ain't." You know what I mean? Like
I just I don't but it's not like a it's
not a like
I'm not evaluating
evidence. You know what I mean? Like
there's very firm scientific empirical
evidence for everything in every body of
science. Right? So, in order to to
reject that, you're just you're you're
just blindly rejecting all of this
evidence. Whereas I cannot disprove any
conceptualization of a deity. I could
never
>> do that. Um, so it it's not offensive to
me
if people believe in god. It's offensive
to me
if they believe in a very particular god
that created everything super special
6,000 years ago and he hates gay people
and therefore we should have this
legislation and limit all these civil
rights. So, that's offensive. Just I
believe in a deity of some sort. That is
not offensive to me whatsoever. And it's
not even that interesting a conversation
to be honest. Like you can get really
stoned and like have a like a heady
thing or and and and talk about it, but
it's it's not it's not academic dis I
mean, it is academic discourse, but it
it's philosophy. It's not you know, I'm
a science communicator. I try to focus
on science, so.
Yeah, no, no, no, I get it. I'm not
against that either. Again, it's I think
the reason that I've even had an axe to
grind period was my own experience.
Yeah.
>> And and the harm that it caused me in
many ways to not realizing and and the
funny solution is being a drug addict.
I'm waiting for Austin to show his video
and then I'll bring him on here. Like I
need to be able to see him and stuff.
Um, is that as a drug addict, I was told
I had um, I had an issue with demons.
Yeah, spiritual problems. And come to
find out, I just had medical a medical
issue and also trauma, right? So, there
was other things that could be solved
through means by which science helped us
achieve in recognizing even in the
science of going down paths of
psychology and things like that. It
wasn't magical prayer and things that
made me clean. And that's why it's
interesting when people go, "Hold on,
you got you became a skeptic
non-believer
when you got clean?" Usually Jesus Jesus
saves everybody who's on drugs. What do
you mean? No, the opposite happened to
me. You were empowered by the reaction
against what you were being fed. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah, I was empowered by that and
the knowledge helped me I think realize
I, you know, wasn't broken. It wasn't
I'm a deficient born
sinner evil. Yeah.
>> have agency and the power to you know,
overcome challenges on your own. Yeah.
Absolutely. Well, I look, I'm going to
bring Austin on. I I I thought Austin
would appear with visuals here. Um, oh,
he backed out.
Okay. Well, he showed his face and then
would like
lean down to the ceiling. I'm like I'm
trying to
see people if we can help it and like
have a conversation.
Um,
what do you do with that? Anyway, yeah.
So, so so science, I think that's what
led me down more of my skeptical
skeptical route because I was this kind
of pantheistic I didn't know what it
was, Dave. I just realized that my
religion, the one religion, wasn't it.
And I found all sorts of comparative
mythology and all these things. I
expanded my concept of god and then
eventually I started questioning, is
there a god? Once I saw evolution,
evolution got me really going, "You mean
to tell me something made this? And that
long it was eating itself? Life itself
cannibalizes in order to exist?" That
kind of messed me up. What you're what
you experienced is very very common.
There are so many people that grow up in
in a fundamentalist setting and then as
they secularize, they kind of retain
this like Christ lens and they try to
retain like like uh, you know,
rationalize the mythology in in a more
abstract way. And some of them stay
there and some of them eventually just
completely secularize and either become
atheist, agnostic, or whatever. And all
of it is fine. The point is that
fundamentalism is bad. As long as you
deprogram from fundamentalism, you can
remain
spiritual or or religious to some
extent. I know plenty of religious
people that are in incredibly
compassionate and tolerant and science
accepting and not you know what I mean.
Um
but you know I feel like even better is
kind of shedding that layer as well. But
but that's everyone's own choice. You
know what I mean. If you want to have a
spiritual lens to the way that you view
the world, that's not you're not anybody
by having that personal relationship
with reality. But um
yeah, fundamentalism is a problem,
religion not inherently. It's just that
when religion is so present culturally,
there will always be the risk of special
interest groups pulling moderates over
towards fundamentalism, which we are
seeing right now.
Um
so it's even better if we can just get
rid of it entirely, but I would never
like yank it away from someone who is
not problematic. Um I've so many my my
wife's entire
family is is Muslim and there's a very
incredible spectrum of religiosity among
them. Some of them are
are pretty devout and and hijabi and
pray five times a day and things like
that. And some of them like my wife are
just 100% secular
you know atheist. She wouldn't want her
>> [laughter]
>> mom to know that. But
you know just
and all of them are completely tolerant
and compassionate and accept science all
you know even the most devout ones are
not judgmental. They don't like oh you
need to do more this or it's nothing
like that at all. So they're not a
problem societally at all. And and the
same goes for any Christians or any Jews
or any Hindus that are also that way.
Yeah, the only problem like I said is
just
they it's possible that some of them can
get ensnared and and and be and be
polarized to become more
>> [clears throat]
>> radicalized. But um
Yep. We see that all over. All right,
Austin, thank you for being on the
camera, man. I
welcome to MythVision.
Hello.
Hey hey hey, are you you creationist?
Oh, my phone's shutting down. I'm sorry.
[laughter]
You got a you got a charger there?
Yeah, it's literally going to turn off.
I might be back in a few minutes. Okay.
[snorts] Okay.
Um
yeah. Okay.
>> false starts here.
This sucks, man. I WANT SOMEONE TO COME
ON. YEAH.
YEAH, so We we we want that viral
moment. I I admit that I mean you're
probably the most reposted
uh discussion source on my channel. I've
probably done reposted like five at
least or maybe six of yours. And the one
that just got so many views is that dick
bag flat earther that had a meltdown
with me. I I titled it you know like
flat earther debunked live or something.
I think it has like a million views on
my channel. [laughter] Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah.
>> I haven't checked that in a while, but I
remember the guy and he was getting real
mad cuz he was trying to say you can't
fly from Chile or something to
>> Yeah, he was saying that the flights
don't exist. And then he was like well
let's prove it. Let's get when I'm like
what do you want me to do? Meet you in
Chile and take a flight together? Like
Google it like find the flights, buy a
flight. I you know and then he's like
they won't you can buy it, but it'll
never take off. I was like what do you
want me to do with that, man?
>> [laughter]
>> And then he was melting down about you
know I was talking about the rotation of
the celestial sphere northern versus
southern hemisphere.
And he just like
>> [laughter]
>> it was so brutal. But
>> that when you wouldn't you say those
were the initial viral debunker videos
you did were the flat earth episodes?
Because I remember coming across you
years ago and going my god this guy is
going in hard. I mean
those were the the hottest early on I
recall of your channel. Maybe there were
earlier ones, but My very first debunk
is still the most viewed video on my
entire channel. My response to the
Globebusters. So Really?
>> And comparatively I mean my tone was
very scolding, but
it was a lot nicer than I am now just
because I've had five six years to like
just I'm so done with it. I'm so done
with the constant onslaught of trolls. I
made an entire video called Professor
Davis
stupid toxic jerk face or something like
that. Um
where it's just it's so much of just
like showing comment thread after
comment thread after comment thread of
some pathetic troll who's having a
tantrum about a video they did not watch
a single second of where I expose Avi
Loeb or you know I
whatever whatever fraud I'm exposing.
Didn't watch a single second of it.
You're such a stupid indoctrinated mean
jerk face blah blah blah. And I'm just
saying where am I wrong? Where am I
wrong? And insulting them as they
deserve. And they just have a complete
meltdown and uh
It's just yeah. So over the years I've
gotten a little saltier just because
like I'm done with it, man. Like just
you're all so pathetic. There's just
nothing there's nothing here to but
mockery. I can do nothing but mock you.
You deserve it. Yeah, and it's kind of
interesting because if you take the I
don't know if I'm going to get quite
there. Who knows? I might end up getting
there. I mean I think of
what's it called the Brandolini's law
takes an order of magnitude more to
debunk [\h__\h] than it is to make
[\h__\h]
>> 100%. It's absolutely true. You almost
want to match that energy because how
much time do you have to spend on 15
minutes of someone trying to pretend
that they know what they're talking
about, but they're spewing [\h__\h] You
have to unravel the [\h__\h] Then you
have to explain why it's [\h__\h] Then
you have to build up fundamentally and
show your method and explain and it's
like dude, there's so much work.
>> There's so much. The silver lining
though is if you put in the time and
effort, which I do and and really just
get to the bottom of it and
fundamentally expose the propaganda,
whether it's whether it's one idiot like
Ashton Forbes or something or it's like
a very well-funded propaganda campaign
like Discovery Institute. It when you
really break it down and just really
thoroughly expose it, their credibility
is permanently shattered with everybody
who watches that video. And then that
has kind of a a trickle-down effect as
those people influence those around them
and uh
um
yeah, so that's why I do what I do.
That's wild. We got a couple
uh
Here we got a new member.
Um Salernite says most public schools
teach evolution. Why? Someone asked. So
we're we're waiting just Dave while you
explain this and this [clears throat]
shouldn't be needed, but I guess it's
necessary. Um
Call in if you're a creationist who
thinks that God created the earth. I
don't care if it's 50,000 years ago. You
think creation is true, evolution is
false,
uh call in and challenge Dave. All
right. [clears throat] Sorry.
>> Yeah, they teach evolution because there
there is biology class just like there
is algebra and history and all of the
other stuff that you learn in school.
Um the point is to learn facts. Where'd
you go? I lost you. I'm I'm here. I'm
here. I'm just
>> [laughter]
>> giving you spotlight.
>> Give me the spotlight to make fun of
this comment. I mean it's just come on,
man. Like what?
Why do schools teach things is your
question. What do you want me to do with
that? I don't [laughter] know.
Okay, coming back. Oh, looks like no
way. We got
We got a
James Tour in the back. Are you serious?
I'M TOTALLY JOKING.
>> [laughter]
>> I WISH. [screaming] HOLY [\h__\h] WOULD I BE
LIKE YEAH, he wouldn't even like
This would be a pretty viral clip if we
[laughter] did that. Yeah.
Look, I wish he would. He wouldn't even
talk to me. He he offered skeptics this
thing one time. I think I told you this
last time. He's like hey, I'll be happy
to come on and explain to you why I'm a
Christian. And like I'm like okay, I
wrote a very polite, respectful. I mean
like I can't be any more polite. I did
not give even a whiff of anything. And I
was just like look, I'd be happy to have
a discussion with you and reason with
you and
give you my thoughts, you give me my He
wanted a one
way just let me say it and shut up and
leave. And then that was it. And it's
like I don't care.
>> Yeah. So so get the so this is his his
Jesus was resurrected spiel, right?
Yeah. So I in in what in the last video
I did on him,
um a few people
kind of you know tricked him in I mean
they like did the thing and recorded it
in order to send it to me so I could see
what's going on. And I played clips of
it. And he really just is steamrolling
through his PowerPoint just like this is
my spiel that I'm doing for my Jesus
karma points. Anytime there's like any
like well but what about this? He's like
I don't get He's just goes right through
it. I mean it's it's really hysterical.
Um Jesus.
>> So
>> [laughter]
>> He should probably just stop doing that
now at this point cuz he's going to end
up in a situation where Yeah, I was kind
of hoping that like more people would do
that to the point where he's like well
half of these people are jerks just
sending these videos to Dave. So I
shouldn't do it.
>> [laughter]
>> Oh my gosh.
>> Yeah. Next super chat is Itchy Goat.
Thank you so much or Itchy Goat. Thank
you so much for the super chat.
Professor Dave, your content helped me
turn my uncle from flurf to globe model
and helps me debunk anti-vaccine
narratives and be able to debunk
creationists. That's that's the that's
the trifecta right there. Uh flat earth,
anti-vax, and creationist.
Those are probably my three most
uh covered topics that I've debunked
probably, I think. Yeah. Yeah.
They're the most viewed of mine that I
that I've come across that I think are
like whoa. I mean you see your analytics
better than anyone else, but then you
also have Pariah Side Pop. Thank you so
much for I think I hope I said that
right. Thank you for the super chat. I
can larp as a creationist if you want.
Nah, we're good. I've had great
practice. Here's $5. Thank you or Derek,
I love your channel. I hope the little
one is doing better. Um
yeah, the I mean, I can't even remember
which kid was sick when you wrote this.
Uh
but all the kids are doing well. We're
all getting over something cuz there's a
bunch of allergies. We went to go visit
my mother-in-law, Dave. Uh she has stage
four stomach cancer. I'm sorry.
They found it's it's pretty advanced.
It's
>> Oh. called a sister brother
Joseph Mary nodular and it like it hides
on you and then it came up out of
nowhere and
so she has like within at this point
probably 10 months max with chemo to
just try and extend her life. Without
it, maybe two, three months. But uh
there's a lot of pollen up there in
North Carolina and something happened
with our
with getting a little sick from that. Um
>> Yeah. How old are the kiddos?
So I have an 18, now 19-year-old. He
just turned 19. Wow. Yeah, I was pretty
young, man. I was Look, I was a Jesus
freak getting married. I am lucky
though. The my partner
like most people get married young for
dumb reasons or whatever. Like I am very
lucky and Ryan was 16, I was 17 turning
18 when we got married. Wow. Okay.
I had
>> You you look younger than me. You're
like what, 37 or 38 or something? 37,
yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so my oldest is is 19.
My young my middle 16 and then my
youngest is 12 turning 13 so in August.
Yeah.
>> Okay. I I I thought you're going to be
like, oh they got sick cuz they're
they're like one and three and like
little kids get sick all the time.
You have adult You have an adult child.
Yeah.
>> Wow. Dude, you're going to be You're
going to be in your 40s when you're all
done. That's crazy to me. I'm just
getting going and I'm in my 40s. There's
pros and there's cons. The pros are I
don't have to wake up ass crack of dawn
whiny babies, snotty nose, diapers, try
to teach them, train them. The The cons
are is that life works backwards, man.
Like when when when you and me are 60 or
70, we're going to look back and go, I
wish I knew this when I was 12 so I
didn't do all the dumb [\h__\h] I did in
life and I thought and went down paths.
You know what I mean? Like
It's always backwards and so there's a
cool advantage of me having a long life
where I'm not raising kids as an older
person. But they went through some crap
that I went through. You see? So
>> Right, that you could have kind of
gotten out of the way before having
kids, yeah. I feel like I kind of split
the difference. I'm like an average age
dad. So there's like I like I didn't
have kids until I was you know, could
sustain it financially. But also like
I'll chase them for a few minutes and
I'm like, all right, daddy's got to sit
down.
>> [laughter]
>> Yeah. So.
Yeah.
>> Yeah, you'll be you'll be more tired
later on, I think. Totally.
>> said, you don't have to make fake
channels about getting clean, too.
Uh I don't know what that means.
>> that's really, really weird to me. Um
Fake channel? I mean, what?
I see Metaphysics Mike in the
background. I'll give you just a second.
I'm going to just comment to this. I
have an old YouTube channel where I was
getting clean off heroin and I document
my experience [snorts]
of getting off of heroin. I was addicted
to to opiates for many years and then it
progressed and it became injection. Uh
bottom of the barrel. I was struck
almost 11 years ago. So I documented
that and during that time is when I
started to deconvert. So it was around
10, 11 years ago when I started to
slowly, gradually come to a more
skeptical uh position, but also
loving science, learning there was
critical scholarship all along about the
Bible I had no clue about all of that.
But uh that channel is is out there. So
I guess it's just some troll trying to,
you know, anyway.
>> Okay. Um
All right, Metaphysics Mike, can you
wave wave at me just so I know you're
real? Okay, cool, cool, cool. All right,
welcome. Are you a creationist,
Metaphysics Mike? Yes, I am. Okay.
Finally someone. Thank you.
All right, so um
you're here to debunk Dave, right?
I'm going to do my best. Okay. We got
limited time
and patience.
But we'll see. Let's do it. Do you have
a Do you have a child on your lap? I do.
Yes, I do. Uh listen, I got to take this
opportunity. Nobody's joining, man. I
get to speak with Professor Dave. Oh,
yeah,
take it even though I'm with my son.
This is cool.
>> That alone we have respect. Okay, go
ahead. Go ahead. Let's Okay, so Dave, do
you agree that DNA contains highly
specific information?
You of of a living organism, uh yeah.
Not not not in general. Right, it can be
you can have a DNA strand of any random
nuclear bases. But uh the DNA of a of a
living organism has the code for that
organism, yeah.
Okay, so DNA is not just like a chemical
blob. It's store It stores instructions
using symbolic sequences.
No, it's not it's not a symbolic
sequence. It's a sequence of nuclear
bases, right? You just have A C T G in
some order.
Uh that doesn't make it a blob, right?
So let's save some time. You're going to
do a whole like specified information
William Dembski thing, right?
No.
Okay, then then keep going.
Let's Let's hear it. Okay, DNA contains
highly specific information. You agree,
yes? It has it the DNA of a Right, not
generally DNA, right? You can have a DNA
molecule with any random sequence of
nuclear bases. The DNA contained within
the genome of a living organism has a
sequence that is specific to that
organism. It doesn't inherently have
specified information.
Okay, so are you familiar with the the
tool CRISPR? You you know what that is,
certainly, right? Yeah, okay. So are you
aware that scientists use CRISPR to put
a GIF inside a living organism's DNA?
How is that possible?
What do you mean how's that possible?
You can excise any portion of the DNA
and put in any sequence you want. You
can You can synthesize a sequence of of
of of DNA and insert it in a genome
wherever you want. It's site specific
gene editing. Yeah, exactly. So it's a
sequence of specific information like
code or language, yes?
It's not code or language. It's just
>> It's like code or language.
>> It's not. You have four bases All right,
so then you're just wrong.
You're wrong. We're on premise one and
you've already lost. DNA is specific
coded information. Yeah, no, you're
Professor Dave, you don't know that DNA
is coded information. Would you like to
try again? I know that you can go from
DNA to mRNA to protein if that's what
you're talking about. You're just
obfuscating with whining about
semantics, right?
Let's talk about CRISPR. What How does
CRISPR do anything that you're Right,
human beings say, I'm going to insert
this this sequence into a into into the
genome right there. Who cares? Why Why
What does that have to do with anything?
>> What it shows is that it's a pattern,
right? It can be manipulated. You talk
about T C G, right? Okay, so that makes
it a code.
That makes it a code like information.
Okay, so let's try this again.
DNA contains highly
DNA contains highly specific
information, yes? In a living organism.
You're starting to repeat yourself.
We're getting really close to muting and
bailing on you, dude. You don't
understand that DNA is code. You You
haven't comprehended that yet.
>> said that that a gene codes for a
protein. Yes. Okay, great. Okay. So
currently any random DNA strand isn't a
code just because you say so. You can
have a random You can have a strand You
can have a DNA strand of random bases.
That doesn't code for anything.
Okay. All right, so
you're agreeing with me that DNA
contains specific information. All
right, premise two. Codes and
information in an ordinary experience
come from minds. Do you agree with that?
>> We can create codes. That doesn't mean
anything that acts as a code must come
from a mind. That's
>> Okay, so okay, so let me get this right.
Computer code, books, blueprints,
software Yeah, those are all things that
humans created. Humans can create things
that doesn't mean that DNA is made by
humans. Do humans have minds? Do humans
have minds? Let's get a finger on the on
the mute and disconnect button here.
This guy's getting real testy. Yeah,
we're getting heated here and I I I'm
enjoying that we're getting heated, but
we got to let we got to let Professor
Dave at least get some back and forth
here.
>> My my bad. If I cut you off too early,
Dave, my bad. Humans can create codes.
That doesn't mean that any system that
behaves as a code must be created.
That's a fallacious reasoning. Sorry.
>> Okay. All right, so then you're still
agreeing though that everything like DNA
in our world like code, books,
blueprints,
Can you tell him not to cut me off,
Myth? You going to tell him not to cut
me off? Let him know.
>> We're done. We're done.
We're done.
>> All right. All right. All right, you you
got to
>> Every [\h__\h] time, man.
Look look look look, at the end of the
day, I really, really wish
uh we could try to have a debate, but
not scream. It's kind of loud. A lot of
people were saying
>> I mean, it's a lot of emotional
investment there, you know.
>> [laughter]
>> I mean, look, let's continue. We can
continue talking about this. This is
This is what they do, right? They They
play up this thing of like a code. Like
if humans make Morse code and all of
these, you know, cryptography and all of
these codes, that means DNA has to be
have to has to come from a creator
because it act you can arguably acts as
a code in transcription and translation.
It's completely fallacious. You can have
random sequences of nucleotides that
through natural selection, right? You
have random changes that code for some
functionality that is then selected for.
That's it. That's all it is. Uh there's
no point in like trying to talk about
systems chemistry with that guy. There's
no I mean, won't be able to do it, so
he'll just start yelling uh but yeah.
>> [laughter]
>> Okay. Okay, yeah. So yeah, that was It's
interesting the I watched the show
before we get to our next caller. Um I
watched that recent show on dinosaurs on
Netflix. It was really well done. The
polished feel did it. Uh
>> [sighs and gasps]
>> I don't know if it was Spielberg, but I
know that the uh I think he had a hand
in it. I I didn't watch it, but uh but I
think he had a had something to do with
it.
Morgan [snorts] Freeman did the whole
narration, and it's
freaking gold.
>> What is a science documentary without
Morgan Freeman documentary narrating it?
Yeah, so here you have an omniscient
narrator telling us the story of the
dinosaurs, but there's another one, of
course, that he does Life on Earth. And
I'm watching just natural the way that
they describe how nature itself starts
to select. You know, it's doing its own
thing in the environments and all of
those pressures, and I'm thinking, okay,
this is an is an analogy to your point
about we can go and look at what humans
have done.
But then, how do you It's not an
analogy. It's it's just how how
evolution works, right? You have random
changes to the genome that are then
selected for because if they confer a
survival advantage, they're more likely
to survive and reproduce, and thus it
will proliferate in a in a statistically
significant way, that particular
mutation. So, I mean he definitely
doesn't understand that. What he would
probably do
what what a lot of creationists do is
try to go all the way back to
abiogenesis, which they think is where
DNA came from, which it didn't. Right,
the first life was clearly RNA-based,
and then DNA came after. Um and so, they
can try to like whine about how did we
get DNA in the first place, which which
is a totally valid
uh thing to discuss, right? Um
we don't have every single puzzle piece
about how you know, auto
autocatalytic sets of RNA uh first began
to proliferate, and we aren't don't have
every puzzle piece about how DNA uh came
to take over from RNA as the genetic
code. Right, we understand the benefits
of DNA over RNA, way more stable. Um but
uh but yeah, I mean, it just for if
somebody doesn't have any understanding
of molecular biology, what is the point
of having that conversation? There's
there's nothing to have to have there,
you know.
Got it, got it. All right, uh Austin,
what is up? Welcome back, man.
Hey, what's up, guys? How you doing?
Good, good. Are you a creationist?
Um [snorts]
I don't know, but I got some questions
related to it. Shoot.
Okay, um well, first a comment. I think
I actually do know that, Mike guy. I
think code is just
a description of the mechanics, you
know? Would you agree with that? Sure,
yeah. I mean, you have you have a
sequence of of nucleobases that are that
are read by uh that that are read by RNA
polymerase to generate an mRNA
transcript, and the mRNA transcript is
read in the ribosome to generate a
protein. So, in that sense, right, you
have uh codons, these three bases that
code for a particular amino acid. So, it
it it is perfectly acceptable to refer
to it as a code, but it doesn't then
follow that just because we make codes
that that was made by something
sentient. It can totally form by natural
processes.
Yeah, it's like a description of a
really complex machine.
>> It's a description yeah, it is it's a
description of a thing that happens.
Yeah. Um
I was thinking I guess there's two
ideas I had. One is what
Well, I guess I'll jump to the second
one. I don't really know much, but
wouldn't like ideas of hybrid
um I guess I would call them hybrid. I
don't know what they are, but hybrid
animals kind of like
uh [snorts] complicate things with
transitional fossils? Cuz you would have
like, you know, this species can or this
species cuz I I guess like, you know,
lions and tigers, are they different
species?
They're different species.
>> You know, so
so so, wouldn't that complicate things
with transitional fossils kind of saying
like it's not as solid as people were
saying?
Well, I mean, so that's a decent point.
I I guess what you could say is that
like in the future, if we saw
a fossil of a liger or something
like that, could that be confused as a
step in evolution as opposed to a hybrid
animal? That's perfectly fine. And and I
mean, it's entirely possible that there
exists a specimen that it has been
misinterpreted. But the point is that a
hybrid animal is very, very different
from a population of organisms that is
evolving over time to create new forms
within the population, right? You you
can see a population evolving. And so,
if we have one unique specimen, there's
obviously a lot of room for doubt. But
when you have a transitional species
where we have dozens and dozens and
dozens of specimens of of that
transitional form, it kind of doesn't
leave any room for an interpretation
like that. Um yeah, like when you have
one specimen, you can totally
have an academic argument about what the
hell that thing is, you know what I
mean, and where to place it. That that's
fine. I mean, I I would agree with that.
But um in in terms of trying to cast
doubt on the entire field of
paleontology as all being some kind of
hybrid form like that, it just it just
doesn't work, you know.
Okay, maybe I don't understand it well,
but um I guess But I I can clarify. I
mean, what what I'm saying is that when
you have when you have a very firm uh
lineage of transitional forms that go
from what we know what we you know, what
we describe as a common ancestor between
this lineage and this lineage, and it's
all just very gradually going in this
direction, whether it's from something
more ancestrally ape-like to Homo
sapiens or, you know, uh dinosaurs to
birds or you know, that very, very
smooth gradient going from raptors to,
you know, more bird-like dinosaurs to an
ostrich or whatever it is. Right, this
is a very uh this is a continuum
of of gradual morphological change. It's
not like an isolated like, oh, that
looks like one thing is halfway between
this and this, so
that's what all of evolution is. Right,
it doesn't really work. We have so many
data points to work with, you know.
Wouldn't like any fossil that we
discover be related to some other fossil
to where you could put it somewhere in
this line
or this continuum?
>> Yeah,
I mean, all life is related to all other
life. Uh usually almost I mean,
I want to be careful cuz I'm not a
paleontologist, but my understanding is
that almost every specimen that we find,
it's not too hard to place it in in a
lineage because we have so much data. Is
it possible that there is one that I
never heard of that people are like,
what the heck is this? We don't know
where to put it.
Uh probably, yeah. I mean, yeah, I just
don't work in the field, so I don't
know.
Yeah, I don't know. I think there's more
questions. And then, I guess my final
one is kind of related to these ideas.
>> [snorts]
>> I maybe you already answered it, but
like the technical idea of
animals not being able to breed with
other animals isn't nec- or like and
that being related to the species isn't
like hard rock set technically.
Yeah, no, that's absolutely true. Yeah.
Okay. Cuz see here here's the thing,
nature doesn't care about our
categorizations. So, when we when we use
terms like species, genus, family, like
this is all [\h__\h] that we invented and
imposed on the natural world. Nature
just does what it does. So, when we say
that uh members of a of a
in order to qualify as members of a
species, they must be interfertile, and
that organisms can't mate with other
species to produce viable offspring,
there are counterexamples
of that. Um and it's just nature giving
us the middle finger, just like I I defy
your attempt to
to categorize me and put me in boxes. It
just kind of does what it does, but on
the whole, it it the the the biological
definition of species
uh does hold very well. It's just that
yeah, there's it like I I don't remember
exactly what it is, but I think that
there are examples of members of
different species indeed producing
viable offspring, not like a mule that's
uh sterile, but like continues to to
produce reproduce. So, it's super
interesting, super fascinating, but in
no way
contradicts any evolutionary principle.
Um
I I agree. I think it does question the
like
some of the stuff about it, but I I
don't think it
it pierces the core of it. Like the
trans- like what we talked about
transitional fossils and stuff like
that, but I what do you think of
I I mean,
slightly un- slightly different species
producing viable offspring doesn't
really violate evolutionary principles.
If anything, it's a way of accelerating
morphological change, right? You have
two slightly different things that are
then creating offspring.
Yeah, yeah, maybe you're right. I didn't
think about
that cuz then the hot the hybrids would
just be part of it. That's what you're
Right. Yeah, you you just have like the
the point the the the driver like the
reason sexual reproduction um was
selected for and exists in the animal
kingdom is because of the enhanced
ability for genetic diversity. You have
two different genomes as opposed to like
um bacteria just replicating with one
genome. You have two different genomes
coming together, so you have more
genetic variation. So, if you have two
individuals of two different species
that are obviously very closely related,
but two different species, that that's
even more genetic variability to produce
a
unique offspring that could have some
survival advantage, you know.
Yeah, I guess it would be like
Yeah, okay. I guess my final thing would
be, do you feel like there any aspects
of Lamarckian evolution that um are true
or maybe that idea that we acquire
something and that gets passed on in
some way?
Not really. I mean, epigenetic markers
being passed down one to two
generations, you could make the argument
vaguely represents Lamarckian evolution,
but it's not really. I mean, what
Lamarckian evolution was was that he
thought a giraffe is react a singular
giraffe is reacting to its environment
and going, you know what? I need a
longer neck. So, I'm just going to go
like this and make my neck longer on
purpose and then my offspring will have
a longer neck and they'll have their
too. It's not that it's it's natural
selection among a population of
giraffes. The ones with the longest
necks have the highest probability of
eating and therefore surviving therefore
reproducing. So, the genes for the
longest neck proliferate. Um but yeah,
this I cover this in my Dennis Noble
video because this whole third way and
uh thing that that possibly that you've
heard or at least some people that bring
up Lamarck have heard of. It it kind of
stems from this sort of bastardization
of what Lamarckian evolution is and
um and that whole thing. But but like
the the one thing I will concede is that
yeah, this sort of thing of like an
epigenetic marker can sometimes be
passed down one or even two generations
I think might be the most that we've
seen, but it just is not it doesn't hold
a candle to
to to you know, the way the genome
mutates and and proliferates. So.
Austin, I appreciate you, man. I've got
I'm going to get you off of here. I got
to take some super chats and
I really do appreciate you calling.
>> Thanks, man. Yeah, those were great
questions. Appreciate it. See you. Thank
you.
Awesome. Few super chats here. I think
they're relevant.
Victor Engelman, thank you so much.
Says, how do creationists define and
qualify or quantify, sorry, information?
Yeah, I mean, so creationists want to
and this is kind of what that other guy
that other caller was doing is just
about code and information. The wanting
it to be this like special amorphous
entity that needs to be bestowed upon a
like DNA the sequence of bases is the
information whether it's DNA or RNA or
or a protein right the sequence of amino
acids. That's the information. That's
all there is to it. Um you know, that's
when you have a sequence of bases in a
particular gene that informs what the
mRNA will be which informs what the
sequence of amino acids in the resulting
protein will be.
That's all it is, you know, you
information you can have you can have a
a system of particles in a gas and each
one of them has a momentum and has a
particular momentum. That's that's
information, right? It's just a
our way of describing
properties of a system that that are of
interest to us. That's that's really it.
And Victor I think asked the same
question twice. Thank you for the super
chat. I appreciate it. How do you define
and quant
specifically addressing the same thing.
Um
We got another one here. Modern killer
88 says, premier [\h__\h] right there.
Feel bad for his son. Hopefully the guy
who called and had his son on his lap.
>> [laughter]
>> Oh, that's what they're talking about.
Oh, okay. I'm thinking who?
So, they're talking about Metaphysics
Mike which is backstage. We've been
talking in the private chat in the back
here.
Um
But yeah, I mean, I think if he was just
a little more calm down like even Jim
Bob whom you totally like can't even see
on the same page. At least he feigned
politeness in order to try to like last
long enough to get his little guy Did
you know that he that he clipped that
part where he was desperately fishing
for me to say, my brain has no purpose
and I refused to say it because I knew
that that's what he was fishing for. I
just explained the science that he was
denying to him. He still clipped that
90-second bit and put it on his channel
with me with a big nose and like, haha,
I got Dave to say this thing that I
didn't say and his idiot fans don't even
watch the 90-second clip to see that I
didn't say what he put in a speech
bubble on the thumbnail. It's
unbelievable.
>> on he went on Twitter and he actually
was using it as kind of like a talking
point.
>> Yeah. And I'm thinking to myself, I
didn't see that clip or anything, but
Yeah, yeah. A little earlier you were
explaining like it has utility. Like
it's useful.
>> use it for thinking, but it's not an
inherent purpose bestowed by a divine
creator, right? It's just like they need
like that cult like they just want a
little gotcha and when they can't even
get that in a 30-minute exchange, he
can't get a 1-minute gotcha. He just
clips it and pretends it is anyway and
tells his fans that it is one and they
don't even watch a 1-minute
to see what actually happened. It's
unbelievable. It's so pathetic.
The next super chat, Daniel Daylanoche.
Thank you so much for the super chat.
Creationists love to equivocate between
actual codes and the genetic code which
is just a word we use as a metaphor.
Same with information. Yeah, that's
absolutely correct.
Thank you so much. Appreciate that.
Yeah,
um if there are other creationists that
are out there who want to challenge
Dave, want to prove creationism,
uh please call in. I pinned it in the
chat. So, Let's we're going to cap it
around 90, right? Or what another 10
minutes or something or
where how long have we got?
>> Uh we got like 20 minutes, yeah. Max.
It's 1 hour and 7 minutes in. We got
like 20 more minutes, so. I'm just
trying to get somebody to call in. I
know Metaphysics Mike, I see you back
there, but we we've been chit-chatting
in the private already. I'm like Yeah,
you you had your shot, dude.
>> [laughter]
>> Yeah. Matt doesn't have a
a camera. There's another guy Matt in
the back, but there's no camera and
they're not a creationist. So, we're
taking creationist calls. We may have to
just hang out you and me in the
meantime.
Hopefully we do get a creationist to
call in and go from there, but
Another [clears throat] super chat.
Would it be considered creationism to
not believe in an all-powerful God, but
believe in old advanced alien species
could have seeded life on the planet?
I mean, no, not not traditionally. That
would be some version of panspermia. Uh
>> [clears throat and cough]
>> Or or perhaps not even panspermia, but
um
um yeah, that that's like your um
uh Prometheus uh
>> [laughter]
>> Yeah. plot line
which is
>> though. Cool movie, but you know. Cool
movie, yeah, not the best of the Alien
franchise, but um
they're all pretty cool at least.
Um
But yeah, I mean, and also honestly the
plot of 2001 A Space Odyssey which is my
favorite movie of all time.
I would say done more masterfully and
subtly in in 2001. Um but yeah, it's not
a it's not an anti-scientific premise.
It's a it's science fiction, right? It
is science fiction is something that is
scientifically plausible that didn't
happen.
You know what I mean? Um So, yeah, it's
my favorite movie ever and in that movie
aliens you know, facilitated uh
uh the evolution of life on Earth. Um
Which is super cool idea, but it's a
it's a movie.
>> [laughter]
>> Yeah, it's fun. But the answer is I
don't think that that would be
categorized as creationism. I think
creationism we're talking about a deity
specifically creating ab initio.
Um
But yeah.
Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that.
MJ, I really appreciate that. So,
in the back
Matt, you don't have a camera. They're
asking questions, but Metaphysics Mike
says, you have my word I'll be chill.
Nah.
Nope. All right. Metaphysics
>> Work on that anger management, dude.
See you, man.
All right.
Um yeah, look, I I don't know how to you
know,
help people. I mean, look, debates
interest I want to be I want people to
be able to come in here and challenge,
but I do want you to be able to speak
and hear each other, you know what I'm
saying?
So, Yeah.
and let each other speak. Oh, I know who
this is. All right, we got a creationist
in the back. Toronto Bible Study, we
have literally 19 minutes before I have
to say bye to Professor Dave. So, you
are a creationist, correct?
Uh yes.
Okay. What's your what's your problem
with what Dave uh
what Dave teaches?
Well,
I would just say that I mean, I do think
uh this
there's strong arguments strong
cumulative case for um
old Earth and evolution, but I don't I
do still doubt them.
I think I think I think my problem with
um
people like you, Dave, is that
>> [snorts]
>> you seem a little bit too certain about
it and also also I would also say that
it's odd the way they try to deny things
like or they'll start to say, well,
these evidences are strong therefore no
God or therefore no design possibility
or you know what I mean? That's what I
find No, I mean, it's certainly not no
God. Science does not disprove God and
I've never said that. So, I mean, I feel
like you're mischaracterizing me. I
mean, you cannot find a quote of me
saying anything like that. But more
importantly what I want to say is that
when I make content debunking
creationist propaganda, it it's not to
mock the idea of religiosity or belief
in God or anything. These these are very
coordinated propaganda campaigns, right?
When I when I debunk
Discovery Institute, they very
deliberately and deceptively lie about
scientific research to the point where
they doctor data tables and misrepresent
they lie like I have to get quotes from
the researcher saying, yeah, they're
lying about my research. Like it's
really deceptive
you know, toxic rhetoric. So, it's not
to shame believers, right? I'm trying to
expose this their sources of information
so that they hopefully can come to the
conclusion on their own that they put
their put their put stock in the wrong
sources of information and then you
know, maybe evolve in their world view
on their own. Um
But the goal is never to go like if you
believe in God, you're dumb. This never
ever said it. In fact, earlier in this
conversation with with Derek, We were
talking about specifically that that I'm
not offended whatsoever by the belief in
God, simply by science denial and
specifically anti-science propaganda.
So.
So what what do you disagree with Dave
on? I mean what would you I mean he
believes evolution. He believes
abiogenesis, life came from non-life.
Well
well well okay, I would say that's like
a major problem. I think I think you're
kind of um
I don't know I don't know too much about
your work but I've seen a few of your
videos and I do feel like you kind of
make it seem as if abiogenesis
>> Where where did life come from then? If
life didn't come from organic
you know, chemistry if you will, how did
it come to be then Toronto? That's kind
of a I know I know you well enough by
the way Dave, I know Toronto well
enough. We've had engagement several
times.
>> [clears throat]
>> Like what's your problem with what Dave
said? Like
why is creationism true? You know what I
mean? What do you say about the origin
of life Dave? I'm not really sure.
Okay, I mean see the the problem with
this topic is it's extremely dense. It
requires a lot of discussion of
molecular biology principles that are
not I mean it's hard to explain which is
why I have hours and hours and hours of
content going through primary literature
and explaining these different models.
Um
I mean what is it worth like trying to
summarize it it in in a in a cliff notes
fashion? I can I certainly can try to do
that. Can I say this then that I think
there's in the field there's an
acknowledgement of this gap between
the chemistry
and the first kind of
protocell machinery you would require to
have a cell like a ribosome or something
like that. There there's a this
acknowledgement that Well not not not a
ribosome. in the field there's a this
acknowledgement that that's a serious
problem for them right now, right? Or
what would you say about that?
>> Sure. So I would say a couple things.
The the first thing I would say is that
there creationists will constantly
misrepresent the field and what the
first protocell would be. So the worst
creationists will show a eukaryotic
cell, a modern eukaryotic cell with all
of the organelles and everything and go
how did this just happen? Yeah. No, this
is ridiculous.
>> Even even a ribosome even a ribosome is
very difficult to come to just from
chemistry, right? Like that's the
problem, isn't not necessarily. It's
just it's just an RNA strand and and
then and then you have tRNAs. I mean
it's it's RNA, right? A ribosome
it's ribosomal RNA.
Isn't it the thing that Okay. that kind
of test the RNA or or or kind of RNA
>> but but also but also we're not talking
necessarily about ribosomes, right? The
what I was doing is I'm saying even if
you show a prokaryotic cell, even if you
show
you know, a back a modern bacterium,
right? That's still tremendously more
complex. So it there's there's a a
deliberate
you know, attempt to misrepresent what a
what a protocell is, right? You have you
have some RNA and you have some
polypeptides and you have some kind of
metabolism going on. Um so that's very
rudimentary protocell. Now the other
side is that I absolutely will concede
that we don't have a one like a perfect
step-by-step understanding of of how the
first protocell came to be. I'd be lying
if I said that, right? It's not it's not
open and shut.
It's it's it's an ongoing thing. But but
the thing is that and this is what I do
when I debate James Tour and when I you
know, debate it's it's the it's the it's
the absolute unwillingness to engage
with the with the products of of say
systems chemistry that is showing
autocatalytic behavior and showing how
self-replicating systems I mean we're
we're showing the behavior of
self-replicating systems. Is it a
protocell? No, it's not but it's just
it's this inability to go hey, here are
some principles that are really clearly
elucidating how how life can have arisen
and just sort of doing this big smear
campaign and you know, that's what you
do.
>> Well let me let me paint something for
you Toronto because I've given this
analogy briefly and this is completely
out of but this is I think easy to
grasp. You live in California, right
Dave? Yeah.
Okay, I'm in Florida. Let's just pretend
I'm on the phone with you and all of a
sudden within like 45 minutes to 60
minutes, I just hung up with you. You go
in your living room and find me dead on
your couch. Mhm.
45 minutes.
How the hell did that happen?
All right?
>> Yeah. They don't find any receipts. I
they can't prove that I got in a jet cuz
I know a friend who's a billionaire who
flew me and somehow I ended up on your
couch.
The last thing you're going to think is
I instantaneously teleported by magic,
okay? You're going to look for every
other possible explanation before you
end up running to abracadabra. And this
is how I look at abiogenesis in my mind
as someone who knows what it think God
did it magic, you know, that kind of
thing and go okay.
We have all this natural process, this
history of fossils, the history of of
being able to see this in action. I
can't see past a a certain point
backwards. But I'm not going to jump to
abracadabra. I'm going to suspect it's
something I'm not aware of or I don't
know that did that but it's not going to
be like magic. It's going to be
something that is in that gap of my
knowledge. Derek might have known a
billionaire who had a jet that could get
him there in 30 minutes. Or I was
talking to a voice actor on the phone
and you were here the whole time or I
Exactly. All of those are more likely
than the abracadabra thing. So in my
mind when I ask if you're a creationist
whether you want to say creationist from
the abiogenesis onward, meaning God came
down and did something, you know,
himself or the real creationists Dave
was hoping would call in where the ones
who think 7,000 years ago the earth was
made and he made Adam and Eve and
they're real literal people and all of
that kind of stuff. Well it sounds like
he's not engaging in those beliefs. It
sounds like you accept the majority of
the scientific explanation for
the proliferation of life on earth.
You're just kind of like
Look, I'm very sympathetic to people
that are mystified by abiogenesis. It's
very hard to understand. It's very hard
to read this literature and yeah.
Yeah and then and then well to answer
what you're saying Derek, like
the reason why we we go to these to this
explanation of God is because
philosophically
right? There's many problems with this
naturalistic view
of the universe and everything. Like for
example
um where where did the universe come
from? Why is there universe rather than
no universe? These questions are
important. But that's that's the only
you're describing a God of the gaps and
you're describing the the last remaining
gap where your God where your God can
live and I'll concede that gap. You you
can believe in a God that triggered the
beginning of the universe and then the
rest
evolved by natural principles. I have no
problem with that. No, I don't even I
don't even
real quick let me let me let me get
closer to I really want to pin you down
here to see where you're at. Do you
think Adam and Eve were the first humans
on earth?
Um well look, I believe the Bible,
right? So
but I
look, I understand I understand that the
scientific explanations are
very strong. I get it. I get that.
However, I would say that they're
abductive arguments, right? So there
could be some other data that we're not
aware of that that could complicate the
matter.
>> literally the entire body of scientific
knowledge. I mean it's
>> no. For example, for example, look it's
the logic it works like this, right?
Like
I I I walk downstairs in my house and I
see a wet umbrella.
I assume therefore that it's raining
outside.
It's a it's a reasonable it's a
reasonable inference, you know?
However, what I didn't know is that my
kid took the umbrella outside and was
playing with the other kid next door and
that they were spraying with a hose and
that's why the umbrella got wet. I just
wasn't aware I just wasn't aware of all
the facts. What about Adam and Eve
though? Adam and Eve though. Like just
getting to one example because I think
this is important in knowing where you
are on creation. Do you think that Adam
and Eve were the first human beings and
they were historical? Well I think there
there is some evidence from from even
from gene gene gene science like that
that that there's this kind of um
bottlenecks and this idea of like
um
It is genetically untenable for all of
humans to descend from a pair of people.
It does not work.
Not Adam and Eve, not Noah. They did
that that there was that there that that
all humans are are kind of
descended from um
Or like let's say let's say let's say
there was like a group of humans
and there was one set like Adam and Eve,
let's say.
Why are you Toronto? What are we doing
here, bro? The the problem so we were
doing better before because for you to
be confused about the concept of
abiogenesis and require clarification is
100% understandable. But biblical
literalism is indefensible. I'm sorry.
It flies in the face of every scientific
principle, every field of science,
geology, physics, chemistry,
biology, all of it. It's just not
defensible. That's why it is a blind
faith position. It's Did you just hear
what I said about
about the abductive logic? Did
What do you what do you say what do you
respond to that? Yeah, you're talking
about the umbrella did it rain or did
the kid throw it with a hose? It doesn't
work because you're you're taking one
one inference that has no evidence
whatsoever except for a book that you
blind have blind faith in versus the
entire body of scientific knowledge.
>> Wait wait wait, I don't have blind
faith.
Hold
>> Hold on hold on hold on a sec. Hold on a
sec. Maybe you don't.
>> Now this is the this is the other
problem with this is that Derek, he
comes at the at the resurrection story.
Which is another which is a very
strongly evidenced No. No, it isn't. It
isn't. [laughter]
No no it's very strong. Excuse me. It's
really not though. This is the this is
the thing. Because Derek has this kind
of
naturalistic animal view
>> with the book, bro. You're No no I'm not
saying the book I'm not saying the book
the the book is historical evidence in
itself and that's the I'm not denying
religious scripture is not a historical
document not it's not a purely
historical document. I'm not saying it's
purely historical but even like
historians of the period acknowledge
certain things right? We understand
>> existed this person existed it doesn't
mean something happened.
>> no, wait, wait, wait don't stop there
Jesus existed Jesus was crucified.
Uh-huh. The
excuse me the no it's highly well almost
all of the scholars of the period agree
with this. Yeah. And then also Probably
they do they say that
>> excuse me they also agree that the
disciples sort of um
Well the disciples
>> What's this got TO DO WITH ADAM AND EVE
THOUGH? Like why are we running I'm
pointing out that if if it is true that
Jesus rose from the dead and there is
evidence to believe that
then then there's reason to believe that
the Bible is true. Okay. So there isn't
but there isn't any evidence for that
it's just a book says a thing. I'm
sorry. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
wait, what are we talking about? The
evidence for Jesus or the evidence for
Any of it. Wait, wait. All biblical
literalism is some book says a thing.
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
wait, wait, wait, wait. What in the
world
>> any of it? We just established that
even secular scholars agree that Jesus
>> Okay, I'm talking about supernatural I'm
talking about supernatural claims not
there was a guy named Jesus of Nazareth.
But that's what I'm saying you can't
just deny supernatural claims. I can't
because there's no evidence for them
other than some book says a thing.
>> there is evidence for them.
>> What is the evidence other than a text?
What is the evidence other than a text
says something? What is what is that
evidence? Well the evidence for any
ancient event is that a text says
something.
>> Right, right, but that's my point. Other
than You have to corroborate with many
sources.
>> these are four different gospel accounts
also Paul's writings also other
non non-Christian writers of this period
discuss the resurrection or the discuss
the the Christian notion of a
resurrection.
>> That Christians believe in this Yeah
that's what they're saying yeah well the
fact that those Christians believe that
I mean like I said I don't know we got
off topic from I knew we were going to
go here that's why I'm like what's this
got to do with Adam and Eve but your
point is to just say I think it's
reliable and if I can believe the
resurrection then that makes the Bible
>> That makes science not true.
Right. At the end of the day. No I'm not
saying I'm not saying I don't think
science is not true. What I'm saying is
that But biblical literalism requires
science to not be true. You got to
filter science No, no, no, no, wait,
wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
wait, wait, wait, wait, first of all
there are stronger claims in science
than others. For example
there's there's science that we can
observe in the present and there's
science that's historical.
>> Don't do it don't do the Ken Ham thing
we were just making fun of this earlier
in the stream.
I Wait, there's hold on, hold on don't
just say it's the Ken Ham thing. There's
a reasonable distinction.
>> There's no reasonable distinction to be
made. It's not a reasonable distinction.
>> it is of course
hold on a second hold on a second. Okay,
say your thing and then I'll mock you
for it. I'm sorry.
>> Let's let's distinguish between these
two types of logic being used here.
Inductive versus abductive right?
So [snorts] as as we discussed just now
abductive logic if you have this other
data that you're not aware of it can
completely change the picture. Whereas
induction where we when you have an
experiment
that's a much difficult it's much more
probable
uh conclusions you can make right? So
that's a real distinction and we can
make that distinction in science and
denying science.
>> when you are assessing things that
happened in the past you create models
to explain data and those models make
predictions and then you can compare
those predictions to further data that
you
>> I agree I agree. Then you collect so
that's like we were talking earlier
about biogeography where if if
evolutionary biology the timeline is
true and plate tectonics etc. When we
find these fossils in this region we
then predict that the continents were
together we should find those same
fossils right here. We go and dig and
look and we find them right? That's not
something where we're we're
pontificating on something historically
that's really rigid empirical science
where predictions are vindicated which
which vindicate a model. Yeah but that's
the predictive nature of it. That
predictive nature of it is what I think
is very powerful.
Toronto
real quick Toronto or Toronto we have 4
minutes left Dave. You had one guy in
the back that was waiting to try and
come on but we have 4 minutes and a few
super chats I have to get before we say
goodbye. Toronto I have to let you go. I
wish you had came in earlier we could
have done this sooner.
But I I really appreciate it. Hey don't
worry we're going to do more.
I appreciate that that was at least
pretty respectable so thank you.
Have a nice thanks Toronto. Have a good
one. Yeah Toronto's a he's a
a usual you know what I mean he comes
back all the time. Um we do have one
person in the back I don't know if you
with 4 minutes left we're probably too
late now 3 minutes. If you have to read
super chats I mean I I don't want to
like start something and then be like I
have to get you know what I mean. Yeah,
yeah, yeah should I read the super chats
real quick or
Whatever you want to do you know what I
mean. Cuz I don't want to I don't want
to abuse your time. Okay you Yeah I just
I kind of got to got to jet in a minute
but uh Yeah let's just do super chats
then. Look I I I don't want to keep you
long and that's why either way I was
going to have to tell Toronto later on
anyway. I do appreciate that he's a much
more um That was civil I mean like he
has he has objectively fallacious
reasoning and positions but like you
know I was able to explain things and he
didn't flip out and
you know ultimately I don't think he
changed his position at all but you know
we didn't it didn't escalate I mean this
thing of like me like I I don't escalate
right? When other people escalate and
then I respond you know? He didn't
escalate so I didn't escalate it's fine.
Exactly. Valena thank you so much I hope
I said your name right. Thanks for the
super chat. My question was can it be
that atheists fear to be punished for
their sins and they deny greater power
because it's safer and safer to continue
sin?
It's not up to us if we get punished for
the sins of you know
what do you mean? Like us continuing to
sin is going to absolve us of sin
somehow? I don't understand.
Yeah I think it sounds almost like they
don't want to believe cuz they want to
keep sinning or something I'm not really
sure like
>> Yeah I mean you're going to have to
convince me that I sin first.
Sorry you know not not believing in your
deity is not a sin to me so I don't uh
Mhm. Yeah thank you. Victor Engelman
fording yacht. Uh
I don't know if this is a source kinds
water underground flying running grazing
Genesis 1:21-24 fouls water cattle
creeping beast sucking hoven. Yeah.
Yeah the creeping kind what the [\h__\h] is
that?
>> [laughter]
>> What is the creeping kind right? A
millipede and then a a lizard too? I
don't know like what what is it?
>> [laughter]
>> Thank you Victor and then Alex Lipton
universe thank you so much. I read the
line The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe
which means there's evidence there's a
magical wardrobe in history facts.
Um I use Harry Potter as my go-to it's
like look some book says a thing it's
just not going to cut it man I'm sorry.
Even when they go to like cuz I know
this field really a lot they'll go to
the word Roman Greco-Roman bio
talking about it's biography but when
you go and read what Greco-Roman
biography had not only were historical
people fully legendized like they made
up speeches for them they invented a lot
of fiction about them but they even
wrote biographies in the same genre the
Gospels are about mythical people who
never existed. So it doesn't determine
anything about history at all. No you
you have to you you find Egyptian texts
and Assyrian texts and Babylonian texts
that all like corroborate a particular
thing happening and you have different
thing you know can be very clinically
just like oh this happened you know like
I'm not a I'm not a even a historian and
I know that you have to like corroborate
with multiple sources to believe that
that thing happened you know.
Exactly exactly. Hey everybody backstage
maybe next time hopefully we can get
more creationists early on when you had
time we can't spend forever in these
streams I would really like you know we
had what? 25 minutes before anyone
really decided so
>> [snorts]
>> Dave any anything you'd like to say
about what we've done today what
happened today anything?
No par for the course I mean you had one
guy flying off the handle and then you
had another guy that
you know is clearly indoctrinated
but you know has the
I think the rational ability to learn
science if he's becomes open to it later
um
Yeah no that was that was a
representative smattering of your
typical creationists I think.
Some some people were asking good
question I I like the guy that was like
I'm confused here are questions I have.
I love that. I love those. I want to
explain this to you and then and let you
sleep on it and then you'll maybe next
year or whatever you'll come around you
know.
That's the goal.
I agree I agree. All right well Dave
thank you for your time. Let's do this
again of course and hopefully we can get
some people earlier and
that aren't screaming in your ear cuz I
do like it when it gets tense but
It's just I'll let it go for a little
bit and then it's like what is the point
it's like that other flat earther it's
like just what what are we doing like
there's no reason to be doing this you
Yeah. Yeah. Well thank you so much
everybody like the video share it go
subscribe to Professor Dave until next
time we'll see you then.
Thanks Dave. Thank you.