Speaker 1: S s.
Speaker 2: S S.
Speaker 3: S S.
Speaker 4: I don't uggy you're cramb up in that tree. What
you're doing up there?
Speaker 5: Why are you scared while you're running from every debate.
You don't run from Andrew and from me? And I
don't like a.
Speaker 4: Natural madla monkey.
Speaker 6: The females with them bananas between intrance.
Speaker 4: Hanging down upside down. Found that's a smile, metal lunkey.
What you're doing to me a clemming up that trade.
Matt and a female male monkey climbed.
Speaker 7: Up a tree k s sr.
Speaker 5: And he'm doing much more en worse than that. Uh
madal monkey.
Speaker 6: Natal madla monkeys with them bananas between intres hanging down
upside down.
Speaker 4: Found that's a smile, not so lucky. What you're doing
to me.
Speaker 8: A nana that tree?
Speaker 5: Give me a nana nanana.
Speaker 4: One more than nan because my name is mad marg
a god. I say it's not a banana.
Speaker 5: I say it's a JJ that reminds me of j
kep me.
Speaker 4: And that's a bake o mad monkey, Matla ma arkey, madila.
Speaker 6: Monkey, you like the monkeys with a banana's betray that
she standing down upside down frown.
Speaker 4: That's a smile.
Speaker 9: That's all monkey.
Speaker 4: What you're doing to me? Mattal a monkey? What happy
see the baby? I thought you was all about reason
and it was all about science. But now you're saying
all kind of bunch of nonsense.
Speaker 3: Why are you're so big?
Speaker 10: Why are you're sky fire?
Speaker 6: You're so big?
Speaker 11: Why you're super fire?
Speaker 12: You're so big?
Speaker 13: Why are you're sop fire?
Speaker 14: You're so big?
Speaker 15: Why you're superd.
Speaker 12: Why are you so big?
Speaker 1: Why are you sure?
Speaker 12: Are you so.
Speaker 14: Super so?
Speaker 16: Why so.
Speaker 11: Sure?
Speaker 12: Why are you so gay?
Speaker 1: Why?
Speaker 13: That's what they called it? After party.
Speaker 14: I'm I'm, I'm, I'm I'm.
Speaker 17: I was born.
Speaker 18: Romania in a family.
Speaker 4: Fancy pants.
Speaker 18: I was born in Romania in a family fancy cost.
Speaker 5: Santy cost.
Speaker 19: That's how they have charged.
Speaker 20: Right now, that's all about a charge. We're about to
have an eye like church party in the baby, that's
what That's.
Speaker 13: What they called it. After party. You'll never heard of
the after party.
Speaker 18: I was Borner Romania in a Christian family.
Speaker 10: Fancy costa, Panti Costa.
Speaker 18: I was Borner, Romania in a Christian family, Fanti Costa,
Santi Costa.
Speaker 9: About my gi.
Speaker 13: My fresh out to get you, about my gig on.
Speaker 21: First alder depends on bo get wrong. I'm nice, So
what I'm wrong? It's a pretty weekend.
Speaker 13: Maybe we about a half or some charm.
Speaker 18: I was borner Romania in a Christian family. Fancy contar,
fancy cost I was honer Romania in a Fristian family.
Speaker 14: I a compact.
Speaker 11: Don't you want to damn?
Speaker 10: State of God stupping?
Speaker 11: Why you want to do it?
Speaker 10: But the gods you things?
Speaker 11: Can you have to stop down the state of God stopping?
Speaker 10: Always got there be distinct, just got stopping?
Speaker 22: Got sup?
Speaker 11: Go sup?
Speaker 23: Got sup?
Speaker 11: Gesn'testn't do it? Nasty things. All you want to do
is to take out something. Why you want to hurt
me with your cat stopping?
Speaker 22: Why you want to do that?
Speaker 11: To be goat stopping? Because gossip God, your love is dead?
Speaker 4: State of gatathing?
Speaker 11: Why do you want to kill it? Win of got
you training just stut the the strait of garsathing, always
have the state just guing, go goss God got It's
like the the rumor a blue now stick made fun
of me because girls please delet and removed. All okay
to go.
Speaker 22: Goss go you to.
Speaker 24: Black kangs, black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate Persuade,
black king, black bishops, black players, people of the Chocolate persue,
lack kings and black bishops, black players, people of the
Chocolate Persue, lack Kang, black bishops, black players, people of
the Chocolate Persuasion.
Speaker 20: But the dark ages at a time when black people
rule Europe.
Speaker 13: So when you go into the real history, you'll see
King James.
Speaker 24: With that's King James right, that's James Lebron, that's King
lebar right black.
Speaker 13: He was not a white guy. You'll see his whole.
Speaker 24: Lineage of kings, black Kang, black bishops, black players, people
of the Chocolate Persuade, black Kang, black bishops, black players,
people of the Chocolate persuey lack Kang, black bishops, black players,
people of the Chocolate Persuasion, who was in almost sexual himself,
who was in love with his sister Lucretia, who have
made the image of Lucretia to be married, and that
became the Renaissance era queen.
Speaker 19: So are you telling me Lucretia that's a black game
right there?
Speaker 21: Are you going to say that the people that was
framing the black people were also black.
Speaker 14: They don't make no sense.
Speaker 13: Lucretias are black as hell named lucreatias. Church even allowed it,
you know what I'm saying. The Church allowed for straight
pemples that have been suppressed, that have been suppressed.
Speaker 19: Listened to my brother the fifteen hundreds, it was legal
be a pim.
Speaker 3: Black gang, black chicians.
Speaker 24: Black play is people of the chocolate persuasive, black gang,
black visions. Black play is people of the chocolate persuasion.
Speaker 19: Trying to fix today's problems. Try to fix today's problems politically.
Speaker 13: And this is what so many people in.
Speaker 19: Alt circles all ride or whatever the media.
Speaker 13: They all seem to think that there's like a political
solution to man's problems. And really the whole of my
dranty is built on this neo pagan concept of.
Speaker 12: Political salvation, and there is no political salvation.
Speaker 19: For me because man's problems are not essentially.
Speaker 13: Political, they're spiritual. The hierarchy of how man views himself
in the world has been inverted. I've covered over and
over and over the white papers that actually discussed how
to invert and subvert that changing images of man things
like this.
Speaker 16: So what has to happen is.
Speaker 8: That the.
Speaker 13: Inversion has to be reverted back to the way it
needs to be, and that means that first and foremost
for man, it is spiritual issues. Those come first. Then
we have the things like the philosophy and the family
and the social issues and things like that that comes next,
and race, where ethnicity could be classed as part of that.
That is, in other words, you caring for your people
is just a broader extension of the family, the tribe,
the nation.
Speaker 19: Right, It all depends on what we mean by.
Speaker 13: These words in these terms. Now, America and Americanism is
the first attempt at a completely propositional nation, and this
is well known.
Speaker 19: This is not debated in political theory.
Speaker 13: I think even Abraham Lincoln referred to it.
Speaker 3: Though.
Speaker 13: Way, it's nice to have a little bit of that
classic Amid the Ruins fourteen fifty three Dire Wave shout
out to Amid the Ruins. We haven't played that as
an intro for many years, and somebody was complaining, why
did you play that stupid double O seven song when
you could have been playing this. Well, I played that
for like five.
Speaker 19: Years straight every day.
Speaker 13: So there's a time in a season it was good
to take a break, it was good to have a
bit of a different vibe for a little while. But
we've got such a roster now of cringe core dire
wave all over the place that it's a fruitful genre.
And we're even getting Jim Bob songs on the cringe
Court label. Shout out to doctor Evo. Welcome everybody, It's
another day of open forum, open discussion. I want to
first start with a little bit of a little bit
of a dyla monkey, a little bit of a A yeah,
because this video cracked me up. A gaytheist posted a
an AI that's gonna help us understand the Magical Mystery
Tour of Evolution.
Speaker 19: Load up, Load.
Speaker 20: Up for the mystery too, Load up. The Magical Mystery
Tour is coming to make you gay, coming to make
you gay, make you gay.
Speaker 19: Yes, you heard me correctly.
Speaker 13: We can all become Parker and Danny's or whatever that
dude's name was from Pierce Morgan. We can all become gatheists.
You just got to learn the Marvel fan fiction mysteries
of the MCU magical transformations. So let's learn how it works.
Let's check this out, all right, I didn't know I
had music, so let me turn the music down. Hold on,
all right, let's start this over because it's got stupid
ass copyright music.
Speaker 19: Now, let's identify all these cool creatures. Cool creatures, dude,
collect them all evolutionary pokemons, Bro.
Speaker 13: What's this?
Speaker 19: So we got a little slug here? Did you know
that ducks come from slugs?
Speaker 22: Duh?
Speaker 13: At science? Bro, you put a little more science in
that tank and you do'n under stand. Okay, So we
get slugs turn into snails. Yeah, I get that, that
makes sense. Okay, yeah, science. That turns into uh, something
that looks like a tick cross with a gay tick. Basically,
he's got some sass, a gay tick that turns into
some kind of a mollusk of some sort. This is science,
by the way, clearly, okay. And then that turns into
a ladybug, a big underwater lady bug with goggles, with
steampunk goggles. You'll see the steampunk goggles right there. That
turns into a fish.
Speaker 19: Clearly. That turns into Tiktolic, our old friend, Tiktolic.
Speaker 13: Y'all don't know who Titolic. Tiktolic is so famous that
he became a meme. We used to make fun of
Tiktolic ten years ago on the afternoon commute podcast Hoaxbusters, call.
Speaker 19: He he's this little cute do dad here, look at him.
Speaker 13: That's why he made it onto the cover, that little
he was crawling across Candace's desk. On my thumbnail, y'all,
like my thumbnail today, I put Candace, Tiktolic, the Pope,
and my favorite Jewish queen, Buffy the Vampire Slayer right there.
So that clearly existed that thing. Don't worry about the
ergonomics of how it actually fed and run around and worked.
Don't worry about that. Don't worry about whether or not
that thing could actually do anything. It's real because they're
look at watch the science. So here's Tiktolic right here.
But this is like when he got legs. He was
sitting around in that muck and then he was like, man,
I wish I could get over on the land, and
he pooped out some legs, dude, and then he was like, yeah,
now I'm a gator, dude, I'm a gator. And by
the way, when he became a gator, he can immediately
feed on all the techtolics that didn't have legs. So
remember this is three hundred and eighty million. There's hundreds
of millions of years of these cameras, but there's no
fossils of a camera.
Speaker 19: Isn't that interesting?
Speaker 13: There's no actual fossils of We should actually be like
covered up, like walking around swimming through fossils and bones
of all of these monsters, but there aren't any any
monster camera bones anywhere like that. Need turns into another alligator.
So he went from gator to gator. That was an
alley gate. Or he's a gay. Okay, now he's still
in the ponds. Com get out of the ponds. Com dude,
come on, we know you can walk there. We go
get up on the land. Now he's becoming a dinosaur.
Now he's becoming a velociraptor. Now he's becoming we're gonna
have Chris Pratt riding him with Scarlett Johansson in a minute.
They're literally like two million years away from Chris Pratt
riding it. Come on, turn into a gator, turn into
a dinosaur.
Speaker 19: Yes, he's a full tea.
Speaker 13: Rights, now you gonna like he went to full t rection.
Where's the duck? By the way, I thought we were
getting to ducks. So that we're at We're at velociraptor
literal Jurassic World. Bull crap, hold on, hold on, no,
we're about to get to t rex. No, now he
went small again. Hold up, dude, Hold up, he was
a giant ass water wrecks and then he shrunk back
down to a gecko like we got in my backyard.
Now he's going back. Now he turned into a bird. Dude,
what I'm starting to think that ancient animal creatures had
magical powers. They had like Harry Potter powers. This is
the Harry Potter world, bro, this is this is hog
Awarts evolutionary biology. We got to have who's the next
professor at Hogwarts Richard Dawkins?
Speaker 20: Why yes, I did put my peepee in the poopoo
of Dumbledore.
Speaker 13: Why yes, there's nothing wrong with it because there's no
god jo see. Okay, So now we went from t
rex to finch. I don't know anything about birds. I'm
just gonna call this a finch. T Rex to fench
to goose to duck. Oh that's how it happened, clearly.
And then he walked like how the duck swam, but
then grew legs, so there was a there was a
legless duck for a while. How did he paddle if
he didn't have legs?
Speaker 20: Oh did?
Speaker 13: Maybe he used his Dumbledore or his Harry Potter power,
his Hogwarts powers. What's the Hogwarts spell for turning into something?
Some of y'all nerds in the chat will know dar
winning exactly. We straight up dar winning. Matt Duck a monkey,
you quacked up in this tree? Matt Duck a monkey? Okay, okay,
in honor of Matt Dila monkey, I will play the
song because you all want it and it really fits
the Matt Dylan monkey. No, Matt Dilon, No, Matt Dylan monkey. No,
that doesn't summer.
Speaker 19: Only because it fits Matt Dylan monkey.
Speaker 10: Until the monkey.
Speaker 21: You find up in that tree, Matt Duck and monkey
you quacked up in that tree?
Speaker 16: What you doing up there?
Speaker 25: Why you scared?
Speaker 20: Why you running from every de bad?
Speaker 4: You ran from man true and from me?
Speaker 10: Until the monkey Like the email monkeys with tumble.
Speaker 8: Bats between the trees, feeling hagging down upside down, that's a.
Speaker 19: Smart You'll feel that you're making it out of the
trees with this one.
Speaker 13: What you doing to me?
Speaker 1: It?
Speaker 20: Do a monkey.
Speaker 10: Deal a mall.
Speaker 19: Okay, all right, that's enough of that.
Speaker 13: I had to do it.
Speaker 7: We gotta make a tiktolic song. Ticktie lick. I want
to tick touch you, tiktile lick. I want to tikti
lick you, tiktile lick.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 13: Maybe if you if you lick a tiktolic, do you
get a trip like a frog? If you lick a frog,
you get an acid trip. If you lick a TikTok lick,
you get a uh evolutionary descent back into your genetic memories.
Speaking of which, while we're on this subject of Marvel
Universe Hogwarts fan fiction, remember that movie Lucy. Lucy cracks
me up because it's such a stupid movie, but it's
actually worth watching because of the nonsense of what people believe. Right,
you understand that when you buy into this story, you're
actually believing the type of thing that you see in
the Lucy movie. It's so stupid, but it's science, dude.
Just tax science on it. Put a little science in
that tank, put a little peepy in the poopoo with science.
And it's true. And in fact, I even included Lucy
in my book, my third book, because of the evolutionary nonsense.
I included four evolutionary transcendence type movies. Yeah, here we go, right,
So in part three there's a whole chapter on this.
But I also included the Planet of the Apes, Monkeys
and the Reboot. And I'll tell you why in a minute,
because you're like, well, those are stupid. Now, Actually there's
some pretty interesting symbolism, particularly in the Old and the
New Planet of the Apes movies, because they're all everybody
watches those. Oh those are just stupid sci fi movies.
Oh really, but you actually believe stupid sci fi things.
So why is that stupid when you literally believe like
the exact same level of stuff. So Grimes was popping
off on Twitter today, all right, and I like Grimes's music.
Speaker 19: I like Grimes. I'm gonna play it.
Speaker 13: I'm gonna be the hipster, right, and I'd be like, dude,
I was listening to Grimes when like HERTA video had
like forty thousand views.
Speaker 19: That's true, though, I really was. This is pre elon
era Grimes.
Speaker 13: So she was going off about how she liked the
movie Arrival, and I was talking about how it's globalist propaganda,
and then Grimes mentioned that she likes or no. Somebody
in the in the comments was like, oh Grimes, Grimes,
I love you. You gotta watch Transcendence with giant up.
It's so deep if freaking blew my mind, dude, Transcendence
is the stupidest transhumanist movie of all time. And all
of these movies have a very similar theme. What's the
common theme between Transcendence, Lucy, Planet of the Gapes. Oh,
it's the evolutionary Harry Potter Hogwarts Marvel Cinematic Universe mythology.
So if you don't know, in this movie, a hot
chick gets kidnapped by the Triads or the Yakuza. Okay, yeah, yeah, right,
this chick's definitely hanging out with the Triads. Yeah, she's
definitely a like street level addict chick, right sure, And
she gets co opted into being what they think is
a drug runner, so they're gonna cut open her belly
and stick up a pack of drugs in there. Well,
it turns out the drug is this neurotropic, this like
super advanced, it's like super meth. Okay, So basically Scarlett
jahas and gets infected with a gigantic pouch of supermeth
because when they put it inside of her, she gets
beat up and it unlocks her evolutionary potential. Well, inter
Morgan Reemon, who is over here given uh Dawkins style
lectures at some stupid ass college.
Speaker 26: Right, imagine if we could access one hundred percent interesting
things begin to have your news all.
Speaker 19: Bringing and right.
Speaker 13: So we're only using a few percentages of our brain capacities.
And oh, because that proves evolution, because everything proves evolution.
Did you know, by the way, that literally everything proves
evolutionary theory? Literally everything, junk DNA proves it because remember
Richard Dakwin's Dwalkwins Richard Duckkins, since we're on the theme
of ducks evolving from tiktolic, Richard Duccins years ago said
that junk DNA proves evolution because we evolved and we
have all these holdover components, all the bloat wear on
our body that's not necessary. Oh but wait a minute,
it turns out when we figured out that actually there
is a usage for some of the body parts that
we thought had no function, Richard Dawkins flips the script
and says, well, of course there are no junk DNAs
and everything is useful, and that proves evolution. So basically
everything functions to prove evolution even when evolution is disproven,
because it's an unfalsifiable system. There's three unfalsifiable systems out there.
Did you know that? Classical Marxism, because if you ever
critique Marxism, you would only critique it because you're part
of the bourgeoisie. So by default, by necessity, your argument
is disqualified. Papism because every argument against the papacy is
disproven because the papacy refutes any argument against it, because
the papacy is the final authority, and third evolutionary mythology.
They all are unfalsifiable. But here's the problem with unfalsifiable systems.
They're actually extremely weak because a system that's actually strong
doesn't have to constantly concoct bull crap to prop up
the system because it's so weak.
Speaker 19: Anyways.
Speaker 13: So it turns out when Scarlett Johanka Donk gets the
meth released the Supermath into her bloodstream, she turns into
the ultimate Slate Queen.
Speaker 19: Not just the ultimate Slate Queen, she actually transcends time
and space.
Speaker 13: Unites with the nanotech black Goo. Yes there's nanotech black
goo all in this movie.
Speaker 19: She becomes one with the nanotech black Goo.
Speaker 13: She gets revenge on Ryan Rivera over here from the
Sam Hyde show, goes and kills all the Yakuza triads
and yes, I know there's a difference on being silly dummies,
and she turns full look. She gets the spice. She
goes full aryan spice mode with blue eyes. She can
then transmogrify, transmutate into anything, because just like the video
that we watched, transhumanism, trans g r E G E
N D R E I S M is the same
thing as evolutionary mutation. They're all the same worldview. So
why wouldn't she be able to once she harnesses all
the genetic memory powers all the way back to loose.
Lucy is, by the way, the first monkey that I
don't know realized it was gay or whatever, so it
was awake when it was learned that it was gay.
And she goes back in time because she's got godpowers
now she's a goddess, dude. She goes back in time
and she looks in the eyes of the first gay monkey, Lucy,
and guess what its name was, Lucy. I told you
you're too dumbed to even get it, because even when
I told you, you didn't even get it because you're uninvolved. Lucy, dude,
your mind just got blowed, Lucy, for Lucifer is actually
the gay enlightening monkey. Follow with me here, maddyla monkey
also likes monkeys with peeps that are women. Follow with
me here. Transcendence, trans humanism, trans vestism, transvestigial organisms, transvestigial orgasms. Okay,
I'm getting ridiculous. I couldn't resist it though. There's just
too much nonsense in all this bull craft, dude, anyway,
So uh yeah, So when you get the myth the
super meth inside your bloodstream and you become the goddess,
you can pretty much just like neuralink. She has power
over time and space and matter, and then she goes
back in time to stare into the eyes of the
first game. Monky, Lucy, your mind just got blood. That's
the evolutionary word. That's what all you dummies believe, because
it's so. It's because the reason is now in transcendence.
We're is just as stupid. I'm sorry, Grimes, but y'all
believe a bunch of nonsense. John Depp, Okay, he's over
here with uh, Paul Bettany, and he's a he's like
Ray Kurzwall or something. It's been a while since I
watched this, right, so he's like Ray Cursewall and he's
like a tech dork. I don't know what he is.
And he's he's lost his wife, Rebecca Hall, and so
he's gonna put all the information and the data into
the big supercomputer and he's going to bring her back.
Right but then, oh no, wait, never mind, he didn't
lose her.
Speaker 19: I forget what. I don't remember the plot, but basically,
he harnesses a bunch of like.
Speaker 13: Solar panels and create it's a super computer out in
the desert, and he uploads his consciousness to the cloud. Dude,
Oh shit, bro, my man got blowed.
Speaker 19: Imagine if John Dupp uploaded his consciousness to the cloud.
Speaker 13: The cloud would be like eighty proof if he did that.
But I don't know.
Speaker 19: That's the best I could come up with.
Speaker 13: Yeah, the cloud is drunk right now because John Depp
just got uploaded. The cloud is stoned off its rockers
because John Depp just got uploaded to the cloud. Anyway,
this is the stupid shit that people believe. This is
what everyone believes is science. This is like the normy
religion is all this crowd right here?
Speaker 19: Anyways, I want to tiktolic you up and down.
Speaker 13: My tiktolic song is turned into one of those nasty
nineties R and B songs, remember those like Thong that
on Dong Dong Cisco and R Kelly. He could write
a dirty ass song about tiktole it. I want to
take you up and down?
Speaker 27: Ok?
Speaker 13: Anyways, Okay, We'll take a couple of calls because I'm
in the mood now. Y'all got me turned up and
turned on.
Speaker 19: All of this talk of dyla monkeys and licking tiktolics is.
It's good hot in here.
Speaker 13: My feet are sweating, my underwarms are sweating. I'm gonna
have to go take a cold shower because I'm starting
to evolve. Chris jen what's up? What's that stupid R
and B song? Let me lick you up and down? Yes, sir, Yeah, man?
What's up?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 3: What? Bro?
Speaker 13: Give me hell out of here? What you're talking about?
Sons of Jared?
Speaker 19: What's up?
Speaker 13: Dudes? Calling me from freaking fifty five BC, fifty five
million years ago? Trying to call trying to call from
the primordial dudes calling from the primordial suit. What's up?
Speaker 14: Man? What's up?
Speaker 9: Last time we would be here, we talked about the
abstracting from abstraction, the kicking classification, and I got baby,
I don't know.
Speaker 3: If you need to elaborate or we people want to
the topic of today?
Speaker 13: Actually what.
Speaker 3: Last time we Last time I called you, we talked.
Speaker 9: About the kigging classification and the abstract from abstraction.
Speaker 3: Yes, and I know if you want me to or
we can move on to today's topic.
Speaker 13: You talking about whatever you want?
Speaker 3: Bro?
Speaker 14: All right?
Speaker 9: So remember a guy who told you last time and
he said he had a problem with Paul, but he
never told you.
Speaker 3: What the problem with Paul was.
Speaker 19: He was about the Jewish guy.
Speaker 13: Yeah, he's remember that.
Speaker 8: Remember that.
Speaker 9: Did you come across the book The Jewish Versus Rome
by Berry Strauss?
Speaker 3: He's a Jewish writer?
Speaker 13: Is that the one that BB referenced? I don't know,
I'm not sure what No, BB not yahre dude.
Speaker 22: Yeah, I know, I don't know what he's doing.
Speaker 3: I'm not following him.
Speaker 13: So no, it went viral because he said that he's
been reading that book because he doesn't want to lose
against Rome this time, because last time in seventy eighty
they lost against Rome. So that's that's the book that
that Yeah, he's talking.
Speaker 9: About interesting well that book in it yeah, yeah, that's
it's about room.
Speaker 28: But there is they kind of talk about the problem.
Of course, you you're familiar with destroyer, right, the temple.
Speaker 3: Get destroyed and now you have it anydings. But what's
interesting is that in.
Speaker 28: That book they're talking about how Paul the apostle, they
are all like, they consider themselves Jews, right, they were
in synagogue. Some Jews accepted Christ, some did not, thought
of him as a prophet. But the problem with Paul
is that problem is that Paul was the major one
who opened it up to gentiles.
Speaker 19: I mean you know this, Yeah, I'm aarable, what about it.
Speaker 28: So that's why in that book, that's this is where
they go that he shattered the idea of you know,
Judaism in Christianity because he opened up to gentiles.
Speaker 13: Shah, yeah, yeah, the language is gragging me up, man,
it's just funny.
Speaker 19: Go ahead, Yeah, no, Paul shattered that.
Speaker 13: I got it. Yeah, Paul was chosen to be I mean,
Peter originally is the first to speak to the gentiles
and Act ten when he talks to Cornelius. But then Paul,
because of his experience, is also probably evidentially used in
his missionary journeys to really spread, uh, you know, the
Church to the gentiles.
Speaker 28: So yeah, that's the problem. It's no longer ethnic. That's
that's their problem is because.
Speaker 1: Even you know, something happens also when you know more,
when Peter something it used to eat and then correct him.
Speaker 9: I don't know the story, so.
Speaker 29: Of course I think it's interesting, right, and then Peter
so and according to some Jewish people, they believe that
all the Jewish mysticism and this became more like the
Orthodox the longs to right.
Speaker 14: So in a way it's funny that is more.
Speaker 29: It's more Jewish.
Speaker 3: Than today's Judaism. But you know, but most people, Yeah,
that's why we always appreciate that.
Speaker 13: That's why we always promote the documentary of the Right
Christian Works with the Old Customer, because it shows the
real Hebrew religion is not Rabbinic but babbling in tell
what Judaism. The real Hebrew religion is what we have
an Orthodox Church exactly nailed it. And this comes from
full fruition. By the way, by the time of the
Seventh Council, when there's a dispute between the Hellenists and
the Orthodox over Hesnochasm Parer of the Heart icons and Neoplatonism.
This eventually leads to the shutting down the Platonic Academy
by Saint Justinian in the Byzantine Empire, in the Roman
Eastern Roman Empire, precisely because the Church shows Jerusalem over Athens,
and that was the thesis of our talk.
Speaker 19: What do you mean, is the audio aboud?
Speaker 13: Not this crap again?
Speaker 19: Is that better? Hopefully that fixes it. We thought this
was fixed.
Speaker 13: You know, it's weird because there was no there were
no audio issues for the last several weeks, and then
suddenly it just pops back up. Is it bout? Yes?
Speaker 19: Thank you. I know that it's hard to listen when
the audio is bad.
Speaker 13: Thank you for that very perceptive, insightful comment that the
audio being bad degrades the quality of the live stream.
Thank you so much for that comment, because otherwise I
would think that worse quality audio would actually make it
more appealing. But thank you to that Rando for that comment,
which is very insightful, very insightful. I wonder if I
should up the quality? What if I up the quality
of everything, then would the whole thing be better?
Speaker 19: Perhaps? Do you guys think? What do you guys think?
Rowdy Rhodesian?
Speaker 13: What's up? By the way, Silk, that's the song I
was trying to think of, Freaky baby, Let me like you,
let me TikTok like you up and down. Remember how
dirty nineties R and B was. It was gross, dude.
The whole thing is just like, let me lick you
up and down. But we're not being dirty. We're talking
about evolution. We're talking about tiktolic All you perverts in
the audience, Rowdy, what's up?
Speaker 1: Man?
Speaker 30: Hello, Jake?
Speaker 14: Can you hear me?
Speaker 3: Sir?
Speaker 8: I'm calling in because I wanted to ask if you'd
been if you were aware of a.
Speaker 31: Book called Against the Machine by Paul kings North.
Speaker 3: My wife and I have been reading it recently and when.
Speaker 12: We really didn't enjoy it.
Speaker 3: I want to know if you had any.
Speaker 8: Thoughts on it.
Speaker 3: It's by an orthodox lay person. It's kind of about
the sort of.
Speaker 32: Bureaucratic overtaking of organic human civilization by these men mechanisms
of institutional control, that the author kind of describes.
Speaker 3: Monolithically as the machine.
Speaker 8: He goes into it more succinctally that I can describe
it here to you.
Speaker 13: Okay, I'll definitely check it out. Tell me when we're
telling what it's called.
Speaker 9: It's called against the Machine on the Unmaking of Humanity.
Speaker 13: Welcome, Welcome my son, Welcome my son to the machine.
Speaker 20: Fuck my son, dude, machine.
Speaker 19: Man.
Speaker 13: Talk about cocked boomers, Dude, All of the except for
Roger Waters, like the entirety of Pink Floyd, are like
the worst boomers man. Ugh, every establishment thing you could
think of, like David Gilmour had like he had the
black square, he had the Ukraine flag. He was like
masked up. So what does that tell you for your
counterculture boomer establishment mouthpieces of sorrow one?
Speaker 19: Daniel, what's up?
Speaker 16: Hey, Jake?
Speaker 13: Hey?
Speaker 14: Hey?
Speaker 33: Uh So kind of off topic, but I wanted to
get your opinion on this. I've been scrolling through YouTube.
I'm going through Catechism right now at a Greek Orthodox church.
I want to thank you for turning me on to
Orthodoxy now going through YouTube, and I came across this
channel called ben Born Again. I don't know if you've
ever heard of that, but it's saying something along the
line of Hebrew and I heard you speaking about this, Uh,
maybe a couple of days ago.
Speaker 13: The name Yahweh Hebrew Cabala name game.
Speaker 19: Yeah, what was that?
Speaker 3: So the the claim here is that.
Speaker 33: You know, uh, Yahweh is not the actual name of God,
and what we should be calling him is the Father,
which is what Christ.
Speaker 3: Said, and that the name only came came about after
Christ and was found in the Kabbala, the Tetragrammaton or
something like that.
Speaker 13: It's an exodus, It's what do you mean it's in Exodus?
Speaker 33: Well, I mean they're claiming that the said Tuigen never
never recorded that, or that it's a mistranslation, is what
his claim is.
Speaker 13: Okay, why would you listen to some rando retard Protestant
on that.
Speaker 3: Oh, I'm just I'm just getting your opinion on that.
Speaker 13: Yeah, I mean, if it's done, I don't know why
why would we think that it's a mistranslation.
Speaker 33: Well, his claim, his claim is that it wasn't found
until until much later in the k and then in
the Tetragrammaton, and then I.
Speaker 13: Mean the word, the word Yahweh, the word Yahweh is
the basis for the name Yahoodi, which is what a
Jew is, and that's dozens and dozens of times in
the Old Testament, so that that's completely stupid just by
the name of Jew.
Speaker 14: Okay, thank you.
Speaker 19: Yeah. So let's be clear for the slow boys in
the audience, Protestants and idiots like to come up with
these just outlandish, nonsensical theories because they think that, I
don't know, they're in pre list, that's what it is.
So the idea that the.
Speaker 13: Tetragrammats on Urhahwah is not a name of God is
dumb because the word itself is the basis for everyone
who is of the tribe of yu Huda who becomes
a Yuhudite. This is such a I mean, it's unreal
how dumb people are. Like you could literally solve like
millions of heresies by just looking up some of the
basic grammar. For example, there's tons of people that think
that the word Jew is not in the Bible. It's
a made up term, especially these neopagan idiots. Right, it's
literally throughout the Old Testament. Just look at the word
Yahoodi a Yahudite. So originally it's a person who's of
the tribe of Judah Yahuda, Do you think the tribe
of Judah isn't the Old Testament, dummies?
Speaker 19: Okay, where does the term come from? Comes from your
hot yahweh?
Speaker 13: Okay. Then the term for the tribe of Judah becomes
eventually the term for all of Israel, not just one tribe.
They're all just called you hoodites. It's that simple, Okay.
I don't know how people get so confused with all
this just nonsense of all these idiot cultists out there
making of their own religions.
Speaker 19: Warrior, what's up?
Speaker 14: Hey, what's up?
Speaker 26: Uh?
Speaker 8: You care to have like a discussion or debate on
the tiktolic and evolution topic?
Speaker 19: Sure?
Speaker 13: Okay.
Speaker 8: So when I was in college, I took some graduate
level biology courses and oh no, I talked to the
guy who discovered tiktolic, and so the the thing I
wanted to talk about was just like to go through
and see how you sort.
Speaker 3: Of my dress or like with the sort of evidence.
Speaker 13: Okay. What I think is that tiktolic is a bunch
of different bones just crafted together, so like at the
bottom of a river or a lake or a pond
or whatever. You can probably find like all kinds of bones,
and then I could get creative and just craft them
into you know, my own pokemon.
Speaker 9: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Uh, well, well how they actually how they do it,
and you know, you can respond and let me know
what you think. But how they do it is they
will look for the different stratographic layers of the rocks,
so you can tell like the rock layer at least different.
Speaker 13: Yeah, you know that there's fossils by the way that
extend between those layers, which refuse that whole narrative.
Speaker 8: I'm just gonna finish the spiel first, but I just
mean that there's stratigraphic layers and they date them to
certain eras, and you can disagree with the dating and
so on, but that's how they like look for them
and say they looked and they found, you know, at
this layer, we have what look like fossils that have
you know, feet or wrists. And then they said before
that there's none, and then they look for them, you know,
obviously the middle layer, and they go and they look
for the fish there or the you know, the the
wristed fish, and that's what they did. They go to
someplace in Alaska and find it and so you're saying,
is your argument basically that when they find these fossils,
they're just completely manufacturing.
Speaker 3: Them, I like how to pool cloth.
Speaker 13: No, I think they're finding things and they read their
presuppositions about the dating into what they find. So they
assume that, well, this is found in this layer and
that must have been eleven million years ago. This is
found in this layer that must have been fifty million
years ago. So that's the assumptions that are baked into it.
And all you need is a few examples of fossils
that extend between those layers from one era that refutes
the whole narrative. And if you read justis creation early
man he mentions many of those other people have mentioned
these two. This is kind of a well known rebuttal.
It's very similar to the arguments like about the fly
geyser as well. Right, the assumption is that, well, the
fly geyser had to it took eleven million years for
that to form. That's the only way that could so
that proves evolution. But it turns out everybody knows that
the fly guys are formed within the last sixty years. Sure,
do you know what the fly geyser is I've seen.
Speaker 8: I saw video that you posted about a guyser.
Speaker 19: Yes, it's at Burning Man.
Speaker 13: So if you go to Bernie Man, it's right next
to where the fly geyser is, which according to the
normal narrative, should have taken millions of years, but it
did it within sixty years.
Speaker 8: And then again, how do you address things like radiometric
dating the various kinds.
Speaker 13: I don't address it because my critique of all the
evolutionary stuff is from the domain of philosophy. So the
dating methods are all baked into with the presuppositions of
millions and billions of years. So for example, it's the
same with like the light that comes to us from
the far distant galaxies.
Speaker 19: Right, the assumption is.
Speaker 13: That those.
Speaker 19: That that light always that it began from some.
Speaker 13: Very far distance, and the assumption about the measurements assumes
that that far distance requires that the universe be billions
of years old. But the problem is that first of all,
we don't actually know that the light wasn't always create,
that it wasn't created with the light basically immediately hitting us.
Does that make sense what I'm saying, Like, that's like
the institute.
Speaker 8: Light hypothesis or whatever, it's created. I've heard that referred
to as in situlite, where it's like created in place.
Speaker 13: Yeah, that's it. I didn't know the term. You're right,
that's right.
Speaker 8: I had another thing I was going to ask, can't remember,
So that's just through general. Oh, I was going to ask, like,
when we are looking at something like a presuppositional like
apologetic world view in general, does that put us into
a bit of a ghetto with respect to the evidences? Like,
because then if any evidence comes up with you know,
I mean I assume. What am I trying to say?
It's kind of you're assuming these presuppositions. But if some
part of that breaks, like if the system breaks in
some way, like if they discover life on other planets
or something, doesn't that put you into a bit of
a ghetto Or isn't that a bit.
Speaker 3: Of a problem?
Speaker 13: What do you think about that?
Speaker 19: Like, first of all, no, I don't.
Speaker 13: I don't believe that it would ever be the case
that life would be discovered on another planet. I mean
I'd be like saying, well, what happens if the Christian
world is refuted? What would you do? It's basically asking
that same type of questions. So, I mean, you can
pose those questions hypothetically, but it's a question of the
nature of evidences and what exactly they show. So I
think the strength of presuppositionalism is not to reject evidences.
It's to reject evidentialism and most of the modern evolutionary
stuff that you're talking about in terms of the grand narratives.
I'm not talking about adaptation and natural selection. I think
those things are true, but that's not the same thing
as the gigantic AONs assumption about well, that's how we
know that what happened a billion years ago, one hundred
million years ago, etc. That's the huge lead that is
not justified by empirical evidence. That's why paradigms are prior
to evidences. Evidences are always interpreted through the presubpositions of
some paradigm. So if I have the presubposition of billions
of years, that's going to actually, like rose colored glasses,
that's gonna I'm going to read everything through the frames
through the lenses of billions of years and massive amounts
of time. So anything I see is already pre interpreted
as well. That rock layer that you know geological structure
that took billions of years millions of years to form,
because well, we know that to be the case because
of this, this, this, this, this. But the problem is
that what if the presuppositions for that paradigm of long
spans of time are false? And the way that I
could show that is to say, we'll look at the
the limitations of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence doesn't tell you
what happened a million years ago, a billion years ago,
or even a thousand years ago. You have to kind
of construct it based on very limited pieces of data,
and the problem with what you're hitting on. In philosophy,
the term is called the underdetermination of data thesis. So
basically you can do it's called the underdetermination of data thesis.
So basically you can have two different models. You could have,
say a evolution model, say an atheistic evolutionary model, and
a creationist model. You can have pieces of data within
the model or within the paradigm that both paradigms can explain.
So in other words, data itself cannot tell you which
paradigm or model is correct. Hence under determination of data thesis.
So in other words, we have to look at the
paradigms themselves to see which paradigms are coherent and make
evidences even possible before just stacking up a bunch of
data to see like, okay, well, who has more data
and more research papers and peer review on their side.
The reason that isn't going to matter is not because
necessarily peer review is false, although most pere review nowadays
is admitted to be about fifty percent fraudulent or tampered
with from the top of the establishment, from the lands
and down. It's not that pure of view itself couldn't work.
It's that the data is sting on a foundation of
a paradigm that determines how to interpret the data. So
it's very similar to like when Protestants say stuff like, well,
the text just means what it says, and it says
what it means, and we respond by the sustained to
the Protestant. Now that the data is theory laden, there's
no such thing as brute facts. And again, all of
the modern evidentialist scientism worldview, it's all evidentialist. None of
them have the view that we have about about paradigms
or what I have right. So the paradigms mean that
data If I'm right, then data is theory laden. If
they're right, data is self interpreting brute factuality, and that's
the that's the root of the philosophical issue.
Speaker 8: Okay, so when did they first assume that the world
was dissold? When did this paradigm like take hold? I'd
like to, you know, look it up, but I don't
really know.
Speaker 13: Exactly how that happened. Yeah. Actually, I would argue probably
ancient Hindu text is the first time aware of Okay,
and uh, it's it's I think it's Erasmus Darwin. He
was actually studying Hindu techt believe or not when he
started like, yeah, it's either him or T. A.
Speaker 19: Tuxley.
Speaker 13: One of the two was really influenced by these Hindu texts,
and that helped influence Some have argued, I think there's
a convincing case for this, that the Collins brothers have
this in their book that influenced h. Darwin when he
came up with this these vast amounts of time. But
it is literally the ancient Hindu worldview, So there's nothing
actually new about it.
Speaker 8: Let's make that argument today that it does seem that way.
Speaker 19: Yeah.
Speaker 8: Yeah, the only thing I'm trying to do is piece
together of the specific evidences. And it seems like sometimes
both sides will use sort of just as stories to
you know, explain some gap or some seeming because it
seems like sometimes the creationist worldview is a bit like
had Tolmic, you know, astronomy system, where you can add
these increasingly complain like principles to make your system work
when there's some more, potentially more elegant solution.
Speaker 13: Well, first of all, that's a fallacy, So we don't
how do we know that the quote more elegant one
is the one that's more true. There's nothing that tells
you necessarily that a more elegant one or even a
simpler one is necessarily true.
Speaker 8: Truth, beauty, and goodness go together, So elegance is like
a form of beauty.
Speaker 13: And I would assume that that's the okay, but that's
all metaphysics, and no person who's in the domain of
scientism is going to care about your metaphysical assumptions.
Speaker 14: That's fair enough.
Speaker 8: But so you're saying it's just not an issue to
keep adding like principles to make the system.
Speaker 13: Work, I don't know what I mean.
Speaker 19: That's what that's what that's what everyone does. That's what
they do.
Speaker 13: I would argue they do it way more, way more so.
I mean, look at punctuated equilibrium that was added to
make that thing work.
Speaker 8: Yeah, there's lots of like the Cambrian explosion and the
evolution of proteins, I mean personally mathematically impossible. And that's
where you get the Hinduism, because then any probability is
able to sort of repitulate the whole Hindu Like if
you have some probability of life forming, and then they'll
just take that and they'll just say, well, the universe
is infinites we have infinite amount of time and just
keep recycling. And that's obviously a Hindus exactly.
Speaker 19: Yeah, that totally is.
Speaker 13: By the way, how do that's also a metaphysical assumption
that they would have no way to justify. How do
you know the universe is infinite? Yeah, the prema materia.
Yeah yeah, yeah.
Speaker 8: Uh that's kind of where I'm That's sort of where
I'm at.
Speaker 3: That's the things I'm thinking about.
Speaker 13: Okay, now, these are great questions. I appreciate you calling
in where those those are really great questions, and in
fact that actually I forgot I was going to reply to.
People pointed out, oh, professor Dave refuted you. I'm like,
I'll bet you he didn't. I know. I think you
played a clip of me and Jim Bob. Let's see
if we can find it. Look at his face, that's
like the most smug atheist face. Oh but oh look
he's got a chemical formula and equations all over his page.
It must be.
Speaker 19: It must be pretty sciencey.
Speaker 16: Let's see, welcome to Professor Davis.
Speaker 13: This is like the peak era of smug atheist YouTube scientist.
Where's the video responding to me and Jim Bob. Let's see.
Speaker 19: I think it's this one.
Speaker 13: Hey everyone, Okay, let's see if you let's see, I
don't know who.
Speaker 19: That dude is.
Speaker 13: Let's see. So here's the strength of my argument and
the reason that I always beat these types of people,
these scientism goblins. And I think everybody in the sudience
already knows why. It's because, first of all, I went
to college with these guys. I studied under these dudes,
So my philosophy of science. Professor was one of these guys.
He was like a hardcore, you know, atheist scientism guy.
He was actually a pretty good philosophy professor as a
professor though, to be fair, and that class was great
because even though he was a rabid scientism proponent, he
actually encouraged everybody to understand philosophy of science and people
like I've never watched Professor Day, but I'm assuming that
he would not care about philosophy science because usually scientism
physics type people, Neil de grass Tyson, they don't care
about philosophy. They actually discourage people from looking into or
studying it, precisely because philosophy asks the questions that are
difficult for them. They don't know how to answer or
how to grapple with those things. Because philosophy is, as
our friend who called in a minutego pointed out, it's
a more abstracted discipline historically, and it's more.
Speaker 19: Difficult for these guys to deal with. You would think
that since they have an interest in mathematics, that they
would be able to do more abstract thinking, but they can't.
It's really weird, and so there's something that shuts off.
Speaker 13: In a lot of these people's minds, I think, to
where they're unable to conceptualize perhaps the domain of metaphysics
or the domain of even epistemology.
Speaker 19: They're a little more able to.
Speaker 13: Find maybe ethics accessible, just like normies find ethics a
little more accessible because everybody you know, deals with right
and wrong.
Speaker 19: That's not fair, you shouldn't have done that. Right is
a type stuff.
Speaker 13: But when he gets into the domain of metaphysics the
good or how do we justify a knowledge claim, these
people are absolutely out to lunch. They completely fail. And
we saw this, for example, all the way back to
my debate with JF. Remember the original Second Atheist debate
that we had done.
Speaker 19: Jeff assumed that because.
Speaker 13: He was a had a degree in neurosurgery or I
forget what his degree was, right, that he would be
able to do everything. So they had this sort of
like overestimation of competence in every field because they mastered
one field. That's very common in academia. And so when
JF actually came to a debate that was asking pretty
basic philosophical questions, he completely flounders. He fails. And I
would bet money that Professor Dave doesn't know basic fallacies,
doesn't know basic epistemic argumentation and the principles of justification either.
And that's I can say that because I've dealt with
these types so many times and for so many years,
all the way back to nineteen ninety nine two thousand
was when I first started dealing with these types of
professors that it's really, it's really the best route.
Speaker 19: Because you can't escape logic.
Speaker 13: And epistemic questions reasoning. And it's funny because these people
think that they have cornered the market on logic and reasoning.
But when you start to ask one level of abstracted
questions like what is logic, what is reason? Where is it?
How is it? These people are done. Let's see what
he says in regard to an old interview that I
did with the Jimbob Jay.
Speaker 16: Dyer with cartoonists. Maybe I don't know.
Speaker 27: Yeah, I think I've heard that name before, but I
don't know who that is, all right, so we're gonna, yeah,
let's watch this one.
Speaker 13: Damn it. Yeah, Darwinism.
Speaker 34: Uh you know, he could have been right about you know,
some a beak getting bigger, but I've looked into more
of that, and all that shit is going going down.
It is fast because they still haven't accounted for the
fact that there's there's digital information embedded in us.
Speaker 27: And uh, all, No, it's not digital information. It's just
a sequence of of of nuclear basis, that's it.
Speaker 13: Uh Oh, how does Professor Dave know that the information
encoded in US is just a sequence of whatever? How
does he know that it's not actually meaningful information? So
I think he doesn't understand that the sort of smug
snickering dismissing actual meaningful information or tilos purpose even in terms.
I think Jimbob was talking about DNA. That was an
interview we did maybe five or six years ago, But
I think Jimbob was talking about DNA. But to snicker
and sort of dismiss this with this is sort of well,
we all know that it's meaningless information.
Speaker 16: Yeah. I love the like desperation with which these delusional
assets are, Like they're always going like, oh, Darwinism.
Speaker 13: Is going yeah, but you just did that, Like you
just delusionally snickered and did the very same thing that
you're saying that we do down.
Speaker 16: Oh my gosh, it's crashing and burning. Evolutionary biology is imploding.
It's in crisis.
Speaker 13: We weren't even talking about f bio. We were talking
about the grand narrative of the origins of life. So
I doubt he's going to be very charitable.
Speaker 16: Science is in christ, No, you're just moron's.
Speaker 19: I'm sorry, Well that's interesting.
Speaker 13: So did he actually reply to anything other than just
saying that DNA is meaningless? That's all he said and
called us moron. So this is the standard scientism smug
atheism that's out there. And you'll notice look at his
smug face, and he's like just trying to outsmug what
he thinks we are right. So all of their arguments
are actually confidence games. And I say that because argumentation
is about philosophy, it's not about peer review studies and
who has more evidence is And I can pile up
fifty five peer reviewed studies for my point. That's what
normies think is intelligence. That's what dumb dum's that's what
the ladies on whatever podcast like not So Aerudite think
is smart? Right, piling up peer review papers that you
get from chat GBT. Right.
Speaker 34: Information I forgot the quote is something like information habitually
is related to a conscious mind. Like there's no point
in all of existence so far where information wasn't created
by a mind?
Speaker 19: Correct?
Speaker 27: Yeah, yeah, except for all of the times when yes,
it fucking was because what you're referring to as information
is just a sequence of basis.
Speaker 16: That's it. You have monomers that polymerize and that's it.
That's all there is to it.
Speaker 13: This so it just is what it is.
Speaker 19: That's not even a response.
Speaker 13: This is so low tier. I actually thought this guy
might bring a little bit of response, a little bit
of attempting to deal with what the actual argument is.
What the argument is comes from information science, right. It's
an argument that doctor Jason Leyle talks about with the
fact that anytime there's information that is meaningful information, it
comes from a mind, at least as far as we
know now. That's in the domain of information science and
computer science. And so Jim Bob is extrapolating from that,
which is an argument that I made for a long
time because it was in some of the Jason Lewle
Presuppositions augmentation books and lectures. Jim Bob is just kind
of repeating what we talked about for a long time,
and this guy is saying, no, it's just it is.
Speaker 3: What it is.
Speaker 13: Oh really, so let's prese up doctor Dave here, Because
if information isn't meaningful, it's just what it is, then
doctor Dave's arguments aren't meaningful, and his words on his
live stream are not meaningful and have no purpose or tellos,
So therefore his whole response is meaningless.
Speaker 19: On his own grounds.
Speaker 16: Fession with information and a code that comes from the
mind of the blah blah blah, it's just a complete
fucking non starter.
Speaker 13: It's okay, So no arguments, just saying that to believe
that information is meaningful or comes from a mind is
a fucking non starter.
Speaker 19: That's all he said.
Speaker 13: Is this guy, This guy's like the pinnacle four million
subscribers of YouTube atheism these days.
Speaker 16: Just a desperate uh mischaracterization of molecular biology, right.
Speaker 13: Yeah, But the argument isn't about molecular biology. It's about
information science, and he's extrapolating that to all of life.
It's a universal metaphysical argument about tellos and purpose and
meaningful information.
Speaker 19: It's not Jimbob primarily trying to argue about biology.
Speaker 16: You don't know what molecular biology is.
Speaker 20: You don't know what anything is. Well, you don't know.
Speaker 27: Therefore, it is a code from a human mind, you.
Speaker 10: Know, Oh, professor, does the code come from the computer?
Speaker 34: Oh?
Speaker 20: It is the code of the computer meaningful?
Speaker 16: Is it meaningful like you know, an intelligent mind? Yeah,
I don't know. Let's see how they fumble it.
Speaker 13: So you notice how he's not responded with any argument.
He's just said that we're retarded and just smug snickering.
I bet you, Professor Day wouldn't last two minutes in
a debate.
Speaker 34: So it's just something that the you know, and someone
will be like a Darwinist would be like, you know,
no if you have enough time, and it's like, no,
you haven't done the math. You guys didn't give enough time.
You know, fourteen billion years, it's not enough time.
Speaker 16: Do you know a long how many do you?
Speaker 13: How many?
Speaker 34: What are the odds of even one hundred and fifty
amino acids lining up perfectly and make a protein and
have it?
Speaker 16: What are the odds, dumbass? Go ahead and do the
math for us one hundred and fifty amino acids lining
up perfectly? What do you mean lining up perfectly? They polymerize,
They spontaneously polymerize. You'd get one hundred and fifty of
them in a row. There you go, You got one
hundred and fifty.
Speaker 13: Of them in a row.
Speaker 10: Oh, everything just happens.
Speaker 13: Everything happens. It just is.
Speaker 20: You know what'sided?
Speaker 31: It just is.
Speaker 19: Epic skeptic. Uh oh, epic skeptic is.
Speaker 13: In the chat you just got owned door, We got
owned by by somebody, just saying it just.
Speaker 20: Is like these things just happen. They just get together
and it's just that's what it is.
Speaker 16: Uh, what are the odds of that happening? What the
fuck are you talking about? You have no clue what
you're talking about.
Speaker 13: So Jim Bob made a passing comment that everything lining
up to create life seems very implausible. I would argue
that that's actually impossible, that it's anything to do with chance.
But he didn't even make an argument. This is twice
now he's wait. All he said is where retarded?
Speaker 34: And uh nuh huh, that's not even do So they
still need to inject information to tell it what to do.
Speaker 13: We don't even know where that. I mean, we know
where that comes from.
Speaker 16: What do you mean tell it what to do? You
have a molecule and it does something.
Speaker 10: But nothing has purpose? Uh my argument, they don't even
have purpose.
Speaker 20: They just do. What's the problem, you stupid?
Speaker 10: The believers in God?
Speaker 19: They wait Professor Davis a comedian.
Speaker 16: Virtue of its structure. Proteins can be.
Speaker 20: They just do by virtue of what they are to do.
Speaker 27: The thing that they do functional by virtue of their structure.
So you make a fuck ton of them and some
of them are functional.
Speaker 16: That's it.
Speaker 20: Everything just is in the argument. You're retarded.
Speaker 13: So if he doesn't give an argument within the next
few minutes, I'm gonna know that he doesn't have any
actual argument or substantive replies.
Speaker 34: Right, there's so many problems, and they're shutting down the
people that are revealing these problems.
Speaker 16: And they're shutting them down their censorship. You guys, there
are whistleblowers that are exposing the fake Darwinists and they're
being censored and canceled by the woke left that trans communists.
They're trying to take away our freedom of speech.
Speaker 13: As okay, So now he's like trying to make fun
of MAGA and like he's doing this cringe level, like, oh,
these people that are conservative thinks that there's a conspiracy
to censor. All right, I've had enough of this. This
was like even worse than I thought it was gonna be. John,
what's up?
Speaker 10: Just believe in the atheist And what's the problem though,
the only.
Speaker 32: Reason you're able to do this live stream is because
of evolution.
Speaker 10: It's because of meaningless code. There's no meaning in the code.
Speaker 29: Telephones, microwaves, TVs that meaningless they do what they do.
Speaker 3: I own evolution, all the cars evolution.
Speaker 13: Yeah, this is something that Chris pointed out back in
the day. Back in the day on the podcast with
You guys, Chris would point out the like he saw
an ad for cat food and it was it was
branded as evolutionary cat food.
Speaker 19: That's evolutionarily best for your kiddie.
Speaker 14: Yep, that's right. And and David, I mean that's what
they do that you'll hear you.
Speaker 17: It's been a while I haven't listened to debates like that,
but even guys Chris debated back then, there was one of.
Speaker 3: Them who you that argument.
Speaker 14: They're like, well, you're on a you're on a cell phone,
aren't you.
Speaker 3: You have a computer, and that's kind.
Speaker 13: Of well, yeah, that's evolution. Yeah, exactly, the computer is
evolution because without evolution, you could have got a computer,
and computer's pre evolution, and any counter evidence against that
is also evolution.
Speaker 14: You know another thing, some some fun stuff like the
guy was asking.
Speaker 3: About earlier, and you gave the burning Man geyser as
an example. Another one is.
Speaker 32: That they find a World More two poanes undersheets of
ice in Greenland.
Speaker 17: Yeah, there's supposed to be layers of millions of years
of ice.
Speaker 32: But they find World War.
Speaker 3: Two planes underneath them.
Speaker 15: And then the other one is, uh.
Speaker 32: Is when they found they found an ostri and a
strata of of like something was supposed to be older
than the ostriches allegedly, and they just called it like.
Speaker 3: Some new dinosaur.
Speaker 19: That's funny.
Speaker 14: Yeah, so they just that's what they'll do.
Speaker 8: It's like anything.
Speaker 31: And then you know, telling the guy who was on.
Speaker 32: There earlier is Chris actually found this out by calling
He would you know there's old calls.
Speaker 3: From back in the day. Chris used to call universities
and talk to the clips.
Speaker 13: Yeah, he would.
Speaker 32: He would troll, you would troll the university professors.
Speaker 14: And he found out that the way they know that
something comes.
Speaker 32: From a particular layer is because you fill out a
paperwork and.
Speaker 14: Tell them ahead of time. So it isn't like they
test it.
Speaker 3: And you know, we always do this.
Speaker 32: We do this carbon dating on it and we know
by the carbon dating that it comes from this time period.
Speaker 14: It's because if you.
Speaker 32: Find a bone, you say, no, I found it, and
it came from this layer. Therefore it's x million years old.
And then they then, of course every.
Speaker 14: Single time they send you back that it came from
the millions of years of what you already wrote on
the paper.
Speaker 19: Oh yeah, exactly.
Speaker 13: Well as people in the people in the chat are
pointing out, like computers came out of rocks, right.
Speaker 32: Oh absolutely, yeah, I mean flintstones, remember the flintstones.
Speaker 19: But Dave has a degree in science.
Speaker 13: I didn't know.
Speaker 19: I didn't know science was a degree that what's your PhD? Science?
Speaker 13: This is the level of his defenders in the chat.
They think he has a PhD in science. That's not
a there's no degree in science, you retard, I call
in by the way.
Speaker 14: Uh And another funny one real quick is yeah.
Speaker 17: Back back before you debated uh dyla monkey and Andrew
debated him. Chris was the original guy who debated him
on a show.
Speaker 19: Yes remember that he called in. Yeah, and it was
it was.
Speaker 3: Particularly on evolution.
Speaker 29: So people can go dig that up.
Speaker 19: Just actually, let me see if I can find that.
Speaker 31: It's funny because Chris actually like the way the animals is.
Speaker 3: He has up because he's an and that's all he does.
Speaker 13: Actually, most of the atheists just pretty much do that.
I thought Professor David. People are telling me, oh, you
need to watch Professor Dave because he responds.
Speaker 19: All he was saying it was like, you guys are retarded.
Speaker 14: That's all they ever have said.
Speaker 13: Here it is here, do check this out. No, wait,
that's Chris calling into Alan Watt. Is that real or
is that a is that a joke clip we did?
I don't remember.
Speaker 3: No, no, that's a real one. He called an album
lot before.
Speaker 19: I thought this was on YouTube.
Speaker 13: Oh wait, it'll probably be on this guy's channel, I
bet questioning our reality. Let's see if he has a
clip of Chris calling. Here's a bunch of CLIs crips
Chris's clips. Let's see. Okay, here's a bunch of Oh wow,
there's a whole.
Speaker 3: Bunch of experience. I found it on Atheists Experience before.
Speaker 13: Okay, but I got to figure out what it's titled.
Speaker 12: And I know.
Speaker 32: If you type in the YouTube Chris from Oklahoma and
Atheists Experience, it probably comes up.
Speaker 13: I know how to find it. Hold on, if I
go to this guy's channel and I type in, uh,
Matt or Dylan TI, what wait is an atheist experience?
Is that what Matt thing was called? Yeah? Okay, let's
try that. Kay, Okay, now that's not coming out.
Speaker 19: What did you say? Type in what.
Speaker 3: Christ from Oklahoma?
Speaker 13: Okay, okay, maybe you think it's on eh, his experiences
channel or Matt Delaney's channel. You've got, Mike, I.
Speaker 3: Think it's on experience.
Speaker 13: Okay, let's try that. Let's try that. All right, it's
not coming up.
Speaker 19: I know it does exist because I saw it. It
popped up not too long ago. Oh wait, maybe this
is it.
Speaker 13: This might be it.
Speaker 3: Carl in Oklahoma.
Speaker 13: Oh that's Carlo, Carl.
Speaker 3: I just said Oklahoma's I can I can plant it
and send it to you.
Speaker 19: Yeah, we'll play it later.
Speaker 13: But uh, yeah, it's it's this is I'm I'm enjoying
this because I haven't really gotten into or thought about
this whole domain of stuff in a long time. So
it's it's fun to kind of step back into twenty
eighteen twenty nineteen, because back then we were covering this
kind of stuff all the time. Roots run deep what's
up man, Austin Rain says, for ten dollars, do you
ever notice that militant Thomas Christian Wagner looks like Francis
the bully in Pee Wee's Big Adventure. Let's see, let's
see if he does a little bit. Yeah, that's kind
of a that's kind of a Wagner vibe there. I
thought up myself, is that militant Tomas looking at me
right there? That's if you mentioned the essence interesstinction to Wagner,
this is the face you get. What's up, roots, I'm mute, dude.
I'm gonna have to make T shirts. Let's say, I'm
you dude. I mean this is what Neil Neil said,
you gotta make on you dude shirts. I was like, okay,
I found it.
Speaker 19: Do you wanna.
Speaker 3: Me? I'll text it to you.
Speaker 13: Okay, we lost that dude, William, what's up man? Hey,
what's on your mind?
Speaker 3: Yes? So it's a Q and A right, it's open.
Speaker 13: Sure.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 31: I got booted out last time when it was on
one of your spaces because I mentioned our ace realism.
Speaker 3: But I wanted to ask a question about Orthodox ecpicts.
Speaker 13: That's okay, sure.
Speaker 35: So I've been debating a couple of Catholic friends about
our ace and how you effect.
Speaker 13: We're on YouTube, man, I can't that's the topic that
you can't cover on YouTube. So why would you come
back to try to debate that when that's what I
said last time?
Speaker 33: It's just.
Speaker 19: Brandon, what's up?
Speaker 3: Dude?
Speaker 13: So YouTube is, uh, you know, pretty freed up in
terms of what you can and can't talk about nowadays,
except there's a couple of things that they just want
to hellow. So Brandon, when you want to umute, what's up?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 14: Good afternoon?
Speaker 13: Hello?
Speaker 14: Yes, what is the origin of species?
Speaker 13: You mean his Darwin's book that he wrote?
Speaker 14: No, what is the origin of species?
Speaker 13: His theory that he when he studied Galapagos Island that
we have a common ancestor?
Speaker 14: No, no, no, no, Where do they come from? Where
do they originate from?
Speaker 13: You tell me because whatever I say is going to
be I'm sure wrong, and you're the science man, So
tell me science man.
Speaker 14: I'd like to know what where do species? How do
they originate?
Speaker 13: I mean, I think there is some common ancestor from
the different types of entities or creatures that exists, and
then through natural selection, You can have that variation.
Speaker 14: So, according to you, species originate by natural selection. Sure,
so you believe in evolution.
Speaker 13: Yeah, just not grand theory billions of years type stuff.
Speaker 14: Yes, right, so you're an evolutionist.
Speaker 13: In a sense.
Speaker 14: Sure, in what sense are you not?
Speaker 13: In the sense that I just said, I'm not not
millions of years? Not a common ancestor?
Speaker 14: Why not a common ancestor?
Speaker 13: Because there's no evidence or reason to believe that there's
a common ancestor, and it's philosophically nonsensical and it's not empirical.
Speaker 14: What is the contradiction?
Speaker 13: Did?
Speaker 19: I said?
Speaker 13: There was no evidence for it? So something having no
evidence or philosophically incoherent is not the same thing as
necessarily a contradiction.
Speaker 14: You said incoherent, So yeah, that does mean a contradiction.
Speaker 13: Incoherent can be from different ways and in different senses.
If there's no evidence for something, then that's a form
of incoherence. That is not a contradiction. Not everything is
a logical contradiction.
Speaker 14: No, But if you say it's incoherent, tails a contradiction.
Speaker 13: There can be different ways that something can be incoherent.
Something could just be meaningless gibberish. That's not a contradiction,
so it's meaningless gibberish.
Speaker 14: But what what is meaningless gibberish?
Speaker 13: The idea that every being is a transmutation from a
single being, that.
Speaker 14: They all have a common ancestor yes, where is that?
It seems pretty meaningful?
Speaker 13: Okay?
Speaker 19: What is what is the evidence of argument for that?
Prove that?
Speaker 14: So you agree that it isn't meaningless gibberish.
Speaker 19: Where is the evidence or proof for that?
Speaker 14: I want you to take back your claim that meaningless.
Speaker 13: You're not going to argue actually any of the position.
You're just going to You're just going to argue over terminology.
Speaker 14: I want you to do.
Speaker 13: Okay, So do you have an argument for your position
or not? Do you have anything you want to argue?
Semantics about something incoherent? I'm arguing that it's incoherent.
Speaker 14: Right, But you just admitted that it isn't incoherent.
Speaker 13: No, I didn't. You're arguing, Okay, you're just faking it.
This is not an actual argument. Good by wasting our time.
Do I have an actual argument for the position? You're
welcome to come presented Anton.
Speaker 19: What's up.
Speaker 13: If I said skibble squabble squibble squabble. That's not a contradiction,
that's incoherence gibberish, and I believe that tiktolic is gibberish.
Speaker 19: Anton, what's up, Hello.
Speaker 3: J Dire, Thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 14: I wasn't expected to.
Speaker 3: Get jumped on this past.
Speaker 14: Well.
Speaker 26: I'm from Sweden.
Speaker 14: And I've been inquiring about Orthodoxy for the last year
or so.
Speaker 26: And my question is about how can I say there's
not a lot of options in Sweden for the Orthodox Church.
It's usually ep the centric, the churches conserving a romanium.
They're usually focusing.
Speaker 13: On, okay, the working class.
Speaker 26: So my point is the church is close to me
and available is an old calendarist Greek Orthodox church, and
I just want to see what's your take on the
list worth going there.
Speaker 13: I mean, there are some old calendar churches. My church's
old calendar, but they're not necessarily schismatic. So there's difference
between something that being old calendar and schismatic old calendar.
Speaker 26: Yeah, but these are schismatic that they belong to the
true Greek Orthodoxy.
Speaker 13: Okay, then no that you cannot attend a schismatic church
just because it's the only one around. You'd be better
off to just be orthodox on your own, which you
can do, and then wait until you have an opportunity
to reach out and interact with, you know, a priest
that's near you or whatever. Any atheists. I'd love to
get some atheists or some science boys that can actually
argue the position and not argue over terminology. Not everything
is a contradiction, right Again, there's different Like, if I
have no evidence for my theory, that's not a contradiction.
That's just something that's an assertion. An assertion isn't a contradiction.
If I were to assert that the universe was created
by queer gnomes, is it a contradiction, No, it's an assertion.
Speaker 19: Do I have evidence for it?
Speaker 14: A proof?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 13: Well is it a contradiction no? So this guy has
no idea what he's talking about, doesn't know the difference
between something being incoherent an assertion versus a contradiction. What's up, Kristen, Hey, Hey,
what's up?
Speaker 36: Okay, this isn't a super intellectual question, but okay, So
I was in mask yesterday.
Speaker 13: Well that was your first problem.
Speaker 14: I know.
Speaker 13: Well, so it was Catholic.
Speaker 36: Mass, by the way, Catholic, I know, normal Catholic Mass,
not like.
Speaker 14: Not like an Orthodox you know, it's just like normal.
Speaker 8: We don't get that.
Speaker 36: I'm in like seventy thousand people in my county. It's
considered a small town, and I'm rural.
Speaker 8: I'm in the state of Colorado.
Speaker 13: But anyway, I'm in Mass and.
Speaker 36: There's this older woman and she she's looking at Facebook
and drinking coffee and sitting, you know, on a cushion.
I mean, is it for me to like say something.
Speaker 31: She's like, oh, it was during the consecration of the Eucharis.
Speaker 13: Well, I'm not surprised at a Novasorto church that it
would be that informal and that you know.
Speaker 12: Well, my urge is to like say something.
Speaker 36: And I'm like kneeling, but she's sitting back and I'm
right behind her, but I want to say something to her.
Speaker 8: And she's like an elder in.
Speaker 36: The church, you know what I mean.
Speaker 13: Well, you need to get out of the gay Roman
Catholic church and go to an Orthodox church.
Speaker 12: Well I don't.
Speaker 14: We don't have one for probably one hundred miles at least.
Speaker 13: Well, you're better off going to an Orthodox church that's
on her my house away than some lame ass weird
novasorio church.
Speaker 19: But thank you for your call. I appreciate that. Christen laptop.
What's up, dude?
Speaker 13: We got a wye mom versus a coffee mom. That's
just a joke. I'm just joking. eBoy, get their feelings hurt.
What's up, man, I'm you? And then he falls off. Okay, Bryden,
what's up? Well?
Speaker 19: Catholics don't even fast.
Speaker 13: Before they're.
Speaker 19: Eucharist. I don't think do they.
Speaker 13: I don't remember, and it's something and it's something like
thirty minutes or something. I don't remember.
Speaker 19: What's up?
Speaker 3: Man?
Speaker 25: So I have like a kind of a personal like
advice question that I'd like to ask. I have been
a like social media manager splash editor for a bunch
of different comics over the past like three years, and
I've passed a.
Speaker 13: Couple of months comics like Spider Man or comics like
stand up Comedians.
Speaker 25: Like stand up Comedians, And over the past couple of months,
I have started going to an Orthox church.
Speaker 3: I've looked at all of it.
Speaker 25: I'm starting my Cateakisa sometime soon. And I was wondering
your thoughts on like promoting. That's basically what I'm doing
is I'm promoting their their values, and if they're you.
Speaker 37: Know, doing stand up, that's not you know, glorifying God.
I guess not that they have to be Christian, but
that they would be glorifying.
Speaker 25: The passions or whatever. What is your kind of thought
on that? I've asked a couple of different people and like,
haven't gotten a great answer.
Speaker 13: I think typically there's flexibility for this kind of stuff
because you know, we all live in a world where
you don't You can't find perfect Christian bosses everywhere. So
unless as long as you're not directly involved in something
like criminal or something you know, some sort of egregious
you know activity. You know, if I if I was
managing a liquor store, or if I work for a
pharmaceutical corporation, like any of those corporations or these companies
could be adjacent to or involved in some type of vice.
Speaker 19: But it's kind of like the dollar bill. I mean,
the dollar bill is Fiat.
Speaker 13: It's intimately tied into usury and into corruption, but we
can't avoid.
Speaker 19: Using the dollar bill.
Speaker 13: So no, I don't think that as long as you're
not directly participating in something wicked something like that, like
to run social media accounts, you know, unless it turns
into something like I don't know, like promoting tr and
Z stand ups or something like that might be getting.
Speaker 8: A little a little overboard.
Speaker 25: Yeah, okay, I mean it was just like some of
the people I've worked for in the past. I don't
currently work for anyone that crazy, but some of the
people I've worked for in the past, like a lot
of their stand up was about pornography and kind of
in a positive light, oh I say, some type of things.
So it's not like like the way that I reason
it is, like I could work for someone like Jim
Gaffigan or even you know, like normal people that have
more regular stuff, but some of the other like more
gregious passions is kind of what I was, uh looking
at for my for myself, and when I was kind
of I just wanted to hear.
Speaker 29: Yeah.
Speaker 13: I mean that's a tough one sometimes, you know, there's
there's everybody's going to have certain jobs and professions where
they're going to be kind of tough moral calls. So
like you said, maybe you could find some you know,
more wholesome type comedians that aren't pushing you know, but
stuff or whatever. But yeah, good good question, Bradon. I
appreciate that that's a that's a tough and laptop. What's
up man? By the way, guys want to support the stream,
you can do so through super chat. Superjests are done
through stream Labs.
Speaker 3: If you.
Speaker 13: Use the link in the show description, you can send
a super chat anytime and I'll read your super chat
on air.
Speaker 19: What's up? Laptop?
Speaker 30: Yeah, just add a question from the Artison's worldview, like
does it just kind of pot onto this like atstans
just want to recognize an actual physical authority and then
they will respond and just say okay, but then how
do we lose one is just blow down?
Speaker 13: Ultimately to that is that basically it h it's hard
to hear some of what you're asking. I think you're
asking due Protestants just basically lack normative authority. And I
would say, yes, it's not that they don't recognize any authority,
but there's no authority according to classical Reformation standards that
allows a person to bind your conscience. So essentially there's
a word, there's verbal credence given to authority, but nobody
has any authority to morally bind you in your conscience.
Speaker 19: To those ideas.
Speaker 13: So if the Protestant pastor says something you don't like
and he wants to excommunicate you, even though ninety nine
percent presenters don't ex communicate anybody, you could just go
start your own Protestant church down the road. There's nothing
in the presupposition of classical protestantsm that disallows that, precisely
because of the doctrine of the right of private interpretation
and freedom of conscience. So the issue isn't what they
always make it about epistemology, or you're saying I can't
know the Gospel or the Bible without a bishop or
a church tolling me. The issue is more specifically normative authority,
that there's no recognized body of people who have the
ability to bind anyone's conscience to an interpretation of the texts.
And so just like the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution
in our country, there's no body of people in the
Protestant world, because everybody has their own right to private interpretation.
Andrew twenty five dollars, Jay, you have ever evergreen content.
Speaker 19: Thank you.
Speaker 13: I watched a five hour stream where no Muslims could
restate your hypothetical exactly and I think that shows quite
a bit, not just about Islam, but also about the
difference between people, groups and cultures. Fourteen hundred years of
smashing your cousin kind of degrades your intelligence. Unfortunately that
is the case. And if you saw Andrew's debate with
Daniel Hoikikachew, it was all pretty much mask off, wasn't it?
Speaker 19: Yourm the Giant? What's up?
Speaker 28: Yo?
Speaker 12: Jay?
Speaker 19: Yeah? Yeah, what's up? And any working dog.
Speaker 13: Roots? You want to try again? People?
Speaker 20: All people say, why should it be?
Speaker 13: I don't even actually like that song, but it was
only Depeche Mode T shirt that I could find like
ten years ago. What's up? Man?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 14: You talking to me? Jay?
Speaker 31: Yes, sir, Hey, sorry, boss, just give me one second.
I'm gonna I'm about to pull over here. I'm on
my way to work, but I have something I really
want to ask you. Pulling over right.
Speaker 13: Now, let me read this super chat Bunny Maximus ten dollars, Jay,
we celebrate centh class here in inn l.
Speaker 19: I don't know what in l is.
Speaker 13: They say that he's.
Speaker 19: Spanish and black Pete is illegal. Do you know about
this tradition?
Speaker 22: No?
Speaker 13: But it sounds funny. What's what was it?
Speaker 31: Hey, Jay, huge fan, I've been listening for years. Personally,
I just want to say thanks for all you do.
Speaker 3: You're a rock star and I've learned so much for you.
Speaker 13: But am I heir my little rock star? Or am
I more like or am I more like Michael Bolton
when he became a mom core rock star?
Speaker 3: Maybe something in the middle of not answer? I like
that answer.
Speaker 31: Yeah, So I just wanted to preface this. This is
a serious question. It's not a gotcha. I'm an inquirer
into the faith, mainly because a lot.
Speaker 3: Of things I've learned from you and your peers. Uh so, yeah,
I'll just ask away.
Speaker 31: So this is a question that piques my interest greatly.
And I've heard you speak on this specific topic before,
but I'm not sure if you've answered this particular question.
It's something I've pondered myself but I can't quite figure out.
So I wanted to ask for your help and get
your insight. As Orthodox as Orthodox Christians, divine revelation is
ultimately the.
Speaker 3: Grounding for everything that we believe.
Speaker 31: Right, and I say we, I know that I'm not yet,
but just make it easier.
Speaker 13: Shorthand, Yeah, it's the epistemic grounding in the philosophical sense, yeah.
Speaker 31: Right, and tag and the divine mind theory are apologetic
logical proof that back up the position. But I've heard you,
I've heard people ask you before, is your belief in
Christianity falsifiable? And the answer you gave is yes, that
if you came across a worldview there was more coherent
and a better explanation for our universe and existence, et cetera,
you would believe that, which makes sense to me.
Speaker 3: So basically, my question is, how do we square that logically?
Speaker 31: If we say that diviner revelation and the authority of
God is a supreme being our grounding belief, because if
diviner revelation can be forwarded by a more coherent worldview,
then I guess I'm no.
Speaker 13: It's it's just a way that you argue in a debate.
It doesn't mean that it's actually the case. It's just
like you know, if you go back to listen to
some of Boson's debates and he's like rhetorically arguing with Stein,
he says, well, okay, if if you have a better
argumentation present that, what's the what's the argument that gives
a coherent account, So it's more of a rhetorical move.
It's not actually, you're not actually saying that. Oh on,
maybe maybe God can be refuted.
Speaker 31: Okay, maybe I'm missing something, But well, I'm asking because
I believe that God exists, and I'm also a very
philosophically minded person, and having listened to you has taught
me that the two are square in one supports the other.
And that was a truly profound realization.
Speaker 12: For me that I'm really grateful for.
Speaker 31: But I don't know, maybe it's maybe I'm missing something.
You know, I'm only an inquirer. I'm not a member
of the faith yet, so surely it's probably my.
Speaker 13: Well, again, there's a difference between like arguing things rhetorically
in a debate setting, where you'd say to the opponent, right,
I mean, debate itself presupposes a supposed neutral setting, but
in reality, what we're doing is we're almost kind of
subverting debate itself because we're saying, actually, debate isn't neutral,
but we're going to act as a debate as neutral
for the sake of the audience and for the sake
of the process of you know, letting people hear the
message and do a debate, but we are not Actually
we don't actually believe debate is neutral, but debate itself
kind of presupposes neutral settings. That's why rhetorically you will
say things like yeah, sure, go ahead falsify my position.
Doesn't mean that you actually think it can be.
Speaker 31: Okay, So so it's not actually falsifiable.
Speaker 13: Again, it's a rhetorical position.
Speaker 31: Right, I'm genny, I'm not saying you're wrong.
Speaker 13: I'm trying to Okay, it's I'm trying to figure out
how to say this without it being offensive. You're approaching
it into spur giveaway when you say do you know
what I mean? But when you say something rhetorically, yeah, okay.
So in argumentation and debate, not everything is literal. Not
everything is an algorithmic expression. So I don't want to
say that my position is unfalsifiable because I said earlier
and I argued that unfalsifiabilities signify is a weak position. Right,
So for the sake of argument, go ahead falsify my position.
It's no different than when we say stuff like for
the sake of argument, Like let's say I'm debating atheists,
and I say, let's say, for the sake of argument,
your position is true. Oh you're a blashemer because you've
admitted atheism's true.
Speaker 31: Right, Okay, I think I'm still missing something, but it's
on me. I'm just going to listen back to this
and see if I can get it.
Speaker 19: What's not making sense?
Speaker 31: Well, I understand what you're saying. That it's a we
use it that you use it rhetorically.
Speaker 13: If you're in a debate and you say, to an atheist,
let's say, for the sake of argument, atheism is true,
that's what you do when you do an eternal internal critique.
We're not literally saying atheism is true.
Speaker 31: Yeah, of course I understand.
Speaker 14: That's not what I'm missing.
Speaker 3: I understand that.
Speaker 19: Okay, Then what's what's not clear?
Speaker 3: Well, I I don't so so is it true or
is it not? That?
Speaker 31: So when you say if a more coherent worldview was
you were to be introduced to.
Speaker 13: Me again, I'm not I'm sorry, man, I'm not going
to repeat to you for the third time. It's a hypothetical,
no different than an internal critique. And you're stuck on
autistic autistic either or bro, just relax Yellow.
Speaker 19: What's up?
Speaker 13: Wayward frequency five dollars that shall cut loose the pores
in every empty wallet, which has none, none of which
may enter the house of dire The Book of Bitcoin,
sixty seven correct exactly.
Speaker 19: I was waiting for somebody to actually get mad and
think that I was being serious.
Speaker 14: Did she leave? What did you leave?
Speaker 13: Who?
Speaker 1: Night?
Speaker 14: I was cooking shre.
Speaker 19: I ended the conversation so that we didn't end up
into it. I didn't boot him.
Speaker 13: I just removed him from the discussion, because if I
get agitated and I start arguing, people are going to say,
I'm mean, he's going to get his feelings hurt. He's
going to turn into a person to trust, expose me.
I've been through this dance a million times.
Speaker 19: What's up?
Speaker 14: I just wanted to come back to come up here
and booty the guy go down?
Speaker 13: Bullying?
Speaker 19: Okay, what why do you want to bully? And what's
on your mind?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 14: He was he was bringing a night.
Speaker 13: Okay, what's that all that's on your mind?
Speaker 14: Yeah?
Speaker 13: Okay? Thank you? Yellow bullies in the audience. What's up, MK,
what's up? We're getting some wild calls today. It's fun.
People should also have more fun with this, not take
this so seriously. When somebody comes on with a voice
and I do an impression it's because we're having fun,
and all these skittles goblins in the audience are like, oh.
Speaker 14: We got it.
Speaker 19: He's being mean again, looking at me so irritable.
Speaker 13: We're having fun. Learn the nuance and the sense, the
vibe from which we're coming. This is fun, it's entertaining.
If you can't handle it, you don't have to call in.
Speaker 19: Did you ever think about that? Nobody's making anyone call in?
Speaker 13: Look go mean?
Speaker 20: Is look mean? Dude? Then soe call in?
Speaker 13: Nobody's making you tune in either?
Speaker 3: What's up?
Speaker 13: Name KM you?
Speaker 22: Sob Jay just had wanted to give you some pushback
on the age of the Earth conversation. Okay, So first off,
you know, just wondering if I could give you an
opportunity to potentially refute the argument from geological stratification. So
why don't I find a bunny rabbit skeleton and the
Cambrian layer?
Speaker 8: Hi?
Speaker 19: Do you know there is a Cameran layer.
Speaker 22: Essentially a projection of the same methodology as tree rings.
I mean it's like you just do tree rings, but
with the earth and the organisms in there.
Speaker 19: Have you done this or is this what the papers
and the professor has told you.
Speaker 22: I've worked in departments that have done this kind of research.
Speaker 19: Okay, and you saw with your own eyes the age.
Speaker 22: Of the strata, not all of them, but serieses of
the I'm sure.
Speaker 19: Okay, How does the strata tell you the age?
Speaker 8: Is it? Is?
Speaker 1: It?
Speaker 30: Is?
Speaker 3: It?
Speaker 13: Is it listed in like? Is it is it like
chiseled in?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 22: But you can look for a coherentis type alignment between
things like the earth layers.
Speaker 3: Tree rings.
Speaker 19: What does coherentism have to do with this?
Speaker 31: Uh?
Speaker 13: Like you look for conclusions and that's not coherentism. Coherentism
is a form of epistemology has nothing to do with this.
Speaker 22: No, it does, because I'm saying that you're not approaching
it from a particular presupposition of these things are. What's true?
You're just finding correspondences in the same data points.
Speaker 13: That's not coherentism. Maybe something being coherent amongst different disciplines.
But how does that tell you, because you're looking at
a bunch of different things that the specific age is correct.
Speaker 22: It might not give you a particular age, But if
you have an alternative explanation, how come.
Speaker 14: We don't see?
Speaker 13: Now you're doing a two quot way. Now you're doing
a two quote way. So again, when you look at
that layer, how are you getting the right age?
Speaker 22: It has to be ascertained on the basis of other
data points.
Speaker 13: How do you know when you go to the other
data point that that data point is giving the age?
He's moving the problem back and stuff.
Speaker 22: Well, that's a very broad epistemological question that could be
asked about.
Speaker 13: Anything, right, It's not even in a pistemological question now
is how do I know anything? It's a data question
about the age. It is not a question of how
do you know anything? That's not what I asked.
Speaker 22: So all right, well, if I ask you, where are
we see another? Well, no, I'm not asserting that it's true,
so it's not a too coqu I'm asking you would.
Speaker 13: You be able to show you said you want to
do a debate and do pushback. And when I asked
you specifically how you know the age, you keep deflecting.
Speaker 22: Well, I'm asking you to justify your position. How do
we know that the sediment layers are the content?
Speaker 13: We're not on my position yet, we're on your position,
which was based on assertions. And so when I asked
you specifically, how you know you're just saying too quoque.
Speaker 22: I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.
Speaker 19: But if if you want to so, I'm not going
to do the too again.
Speaker 13: If you don't understand it too quoquay and you keep
asking me the same question, there's no point, Chase, what's up?
Speaker 14: Okay?
Speaker 13: Hello?
Speaker 15: I just wanted to say that us people with non
neurotypical voices, we don't.
Speaker 13: Really usually appreciate the jest and we can take Joe,
but some of us just this is how I'm trying
to understand why you would use rhetoric without it being
an either or. And if you speak in this manner,
doesn't it make your position more true because you sound intellectual?
Speaker 15: Well, it actually does, Jay, And this is part of
your weakness in debate, is that those with non neurotypical
voices typically would dominate you in debate if you didn't
try to use your razzle dazzle tactics.
Speaker 13: I believe the term that you're looking for, Chase, is
called word solid.
Speaker 15: Actually you don't really actually even understand this because you
have a neurotypical voice. So I would just appreciate if
you kept things you know, civil with those with the
non neurotypical books.
Speaker 13: Yeah, if you'd actually ever read anything or understood anything
relating to anything at all whatsoever, perhaps you might be
able to actually make an argument. But since you're unable,
I will not even dignify what you've said with an
actual reply.
Speaker 3: I can tell by just your patents that you haven't
even played alden Ring yet. I will leave you. You
can go and play your games.
Speaker 13: Good day, Good day to you, two sir refuted.
Speaker 19: Hello, thank you, Damien. What's up? Damien?
Speaker 13: Gonna bring that omen to us? I sent an omen?
Speaker 12: Can jumy? All right?
Speaker 38: I was going to ask if you saw what the
Patriarchical Constantinople was doing the other day, Not with fo Leo,
but rather they had a statement they released in support
of ethnic and racial minorities and also homosexuals.
Speaker 13: So where is this?
Speaker 14: Yeah?
Speaker 38: I just saw an article from it on Orthodox.
Speaker 12: Christian dot com that was on December fifth, so today.
Speaker 13: Actually, oh, that's very interesting. Let's let's pull that up.
Let's see.
Speaker 12: I'm on my phone right now.
Speaker 13: You know what the article what's the article called?
Speaker 14: Let me see if I can pull it up real quick.
Speaker 38: The articles called Finnish Church Council approves motion on rights
of sexual and gender Minorities.
Speaker 12: It's a long, very long title.
Speaker 14: If if it allows.
Speaker 12: Links in the x chat, I can just put it there.
Speaker 19: Finish.
Speaker 12: Yep, h I posted the link in the ex chat all.
Speaker 13: Right, yeah, because this isn't working for whatever reason? Are
you saying the x chat underneath this?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Yeah, under the space?
Speaker 14: Yah?
Speaker 19: Is that uh all that you have in your mind?
Appreciate that. Let's see what it says.
Speaker 13: H oh wow, Okay, so now we gotta worship tr
A and Z too.
Speaker 19: But I mean, yeah, that's sad.
Speaker 13: Did we not tell you, by the way, that the
EP when it goes in this direction, it's not just
a matter of theology and jurisdictions, it's allultimately for the
for the skittles. They're going to push the EP to
unite with Rome ultimately so that they can have the skittle.
And here is exactly what we said right here. Yes,
I can give you the link right here. Yeah, and
it says it right here. Oh, you gotta you gotta
protect the tieran Z. Protect them what does that even mean?
By the way, protect them from like I mean, you
can repent and come into the church.
Speaker 19: But this is not that mark.
Speaker 13: What's up? Yeah, they're literally saying that the church is
a safe space for tian z. They're trying to make
the church into Starbucks.
Speaker 3: What's a many?
Speaker 13: How's it going?
Speaker 19: Okay, what's on your mind?
Speaker 14: Good is going to let you know of it.
Speaker 39: I'm five ten and one hundred and seventy five pounds
and real trim.
Speaker 13: Awesome, So I got it. Yeah, so you've probably beep
this with.
Speaker 3: The guy divorse. I just haven't heard you address it.
Speaker 39: But it's over like Luke twenty two thirty six, and
you know people, you know, to sell your cloak and
buy a sword. I've heard a lot of people reput
that and say it's just metaphorical and it has nothing
to do with actually like arming oneself. And I was
just curious of what your take is on that.
Speaker 13: I think there's different significant significance is to the passage.
I think indirectly it does support the idea that you
can defend yourself, and that goes all the way. But
back to Exitu, I think it's Exodus twenty twenty two
talks about self defense. So Jesus isn't doing anything different
than what's allowed in exodus for self defense. But also
there's proper things at proper times, right, So there was
a time when it was proper to defend one, but
also there was a time when it was proper for
him to not defend himself and to go to the cross,
because that was kind of his plan and what he
intended to do. And that's why historically the church, the
Orthodox Christian teaching has always understood in a nuanced way,
there's appropriate actions inappropriate situations. So sometimes, as Ecclesiastes says,
there's a time for war. Sometimes there's a time for peace.
Sometimes there's a time for mourning. Sometimes there's a time
for joy and festivity. So we recognize all these things
at the appropriate time, and really wisdom is knowing when
to apply what.
Speaker 3: Very cool, awesome picture.
Speaker 19: Yeah, great question, Banantium.
Speaker 13: What's up?
Speaker 14: Sorry?
Speaker 12: Hey, what's that?
Speaker 14: I'm doing?
Speaker 2: Good?
Speaker 3: Long time I speak? Did Sam ever put out that
episode about sports betting or is he going to get
to it?
Speaker 19: I thought it was the Genrecker episode, did that one?
Speaker 13: Not talking about?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 9: Yeah?
Speaker 14: Sometimes?
Speaker 35: Honestly with the titles and stuff, I just I don't
watch it that frequently.
Speaker 3: I was just curious when it was It was the
John Rocker episode.
Speaker 19: I assume, so, yeah.
Speaker 13: But also sometimes I think one thing he's been doing
too is if some of the episodes run a little long,
then some of the content gets put for members at MDE.
Oh okay, So in other words, I haven't seen all
the episodes, so there might be some of that that's
for the members at MDE. But yeah, good question.
Speaker 35: What are your thoughts about the the recent female DAC
and of thing I kind of missed the beginning of
the stream. Did you guys discuss that article that came
out heard the kind of a research room?
Speaker 13: Did all I saw? I mentioned that it was occurring,
they were gonna they were going to study it, maybe
a month ago or two weeks ago, and then I
saw Tim Gordon yesterday. He was like cheering because supposedly
Rome has said, no, we're.
Speaker 19: Not going to actually do it, and that is that
what happened. I haven't I haven't looked.
Speaker 35: Yeah, I kind of want to comment on it because
it's kind of funny. N's to sure, you know, compliment
loft dog, but there are instances where I'll.
Speaker 13: Listen to his stuff and every now and then he
gets he gets something right, That's that's true.
Speaker 35: Yeah, well he he's been on a on a heater
of being pissed off, and just acknowledging how annoyed he
isn't the status of things. But the funny thing is
when you look at this statement, if people take the
time to read anything, I feel like I've noticed this
consistently and apologetics for a while, so people have no
attentions been you read the article, it fairly clearly says
we're not making a doctrinal position here. This is a
research document and what we're saying is worthy time being.
It will not be sacramental. It doesn't explicitly say that
it's rejected. Interesting they don't find any evidence for it
to be historically that way.
Speaker 13: Well, what I said underneath what what I said underneath
Tim Gordon's post was perhaps we can hope that it
will doctrinately develop to where we can have deaconesses.
Speaker 35: Yeah, that's the funny thing, because the more I've looked
into it, it seems like if you get into all
the categories of what is dogma or not dogma, like
I don't know, like something like twenty percent of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church could be considered theological opinion.
Speaker 13: Well not, there's really true, actually, I honestly think, and
this is the way I argue it, as you probably know,
is like there is no real clear way to know
what isn't isn't doct dogma. You have basically, you know,
the three tiers of extraordinary, universal, ordinary, and ordinary, and
there's nothing that specifically leads you to know in all
these cases what goes in what ben and so we're
kind of in epistemic limbo when the whole purpose of
the you know, papacy was supposed to be to not
put us in epistemic limbo.
Speaker 35: Yeah, I mean you look at the Martellium animus quote
that was contrasted with the UH and unity whatever.
Speaker 19: Oh, by the way, I'm glad you mentioned it.
Speaker 13: I'm glad you mentioned that because I thought I was
going crazy. Well no, because uh, I was watching Tim
Gordon's stream with I forget that guy's name when they
were talking about Joe Heshmeier and they were responding to
him about.
Speaker 19: Talking about so they were talking about what's dogmatic.
Speaker 13: And they were arguing like, oh, you have to follow
Cassidy CANUBII, And I'm like, well, wait a minute, so
now we do have to follow incyclicals, because if that's
the case, then mortality animos is binding.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a direct contradiction to what was just the
least the other day.
Speaker 35: It was just very weird.
Speaker 13: I too feel but I'm but I'm saying more fundamental
than this nonsense, this little minutia debate about feminism, right
because Tim tim is arguing with Joe Heshmeyer about feminism
and oh yeah, that's been funny. Tim is saying that,
and that his co hosts were saying, oh, you got
to follow Casside CANUBII, and I'm like, okay, well then
you also have to follow more Talian animos, which means
that the whole vatcant of apostates.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I.
Speaker 14: Mean, what another thing I find unique?
Speaker 26: And I know.
Speaker 3: The Epi's being how he's being.
Speaker 35: What's funny, though, is every single Catholic saying that it's
like the Orthodox are spurging out and getting negative when
there's the possibility for quote unity. But if you actually now,
just the only thing I'll give them credit for. There's
another thing about people paying attention even in.
Speaker 3: That long liturgy.
Speaker 35: In the speech, Bart explicitly says we have to get
we have to figure out the filio quand people in vulability.
But every Catholic apologist will make the statement of like, well,
all the Orthodox know that Orthodoxy will not be true anymore,
and the Orthodox will be going to the Catholic Church.
Speaker 3: I'm like, now, the.
Speaker 35: EP could make a push for that individually, but even
he in the in the dang thing said there are
two things we have to get over. So it's like
even the most liberal guy explicitly stated, well, he's.
Speaker 19: Just he's just he's just saying that for to placate
people in the church.
Speaker 13: Like they can't just out they can't outright say oh,
but I mean they're already basically allegedly doing like covert
communion already. Wait, who is the EPs they supposedly commune
some cardinal.
Speaker 3: Oh well that's that's not okay. But point being, I
guess we all know.
Speaker 35: If that is the statement of the most quote liberal
of the group of them, and we have patriarchs not
showing up, Orthodoxy just doesn't magically dissolve because the patriarchs
make one off decisions and then aren't patriarchs anymore. It's
just very weird how the whole response came from the
Catholic community, like, you guys are just not accepting the
fact that you're gonna go away. It's like, literally, there'd
be no situation.
Speaker 13: Well yeah, exact, I mean, if if that's the case,
then then we would have disappeared after Florence. So exactly,
thank you appreciate that, Matt, appreciate Matt, Max, what's up?
Speaker 19: Yeah, I mean, they really just can't conceive of a
different ecclesiology.
Speaker 13: Their whole argument is always just premised on oh, well,
the patriarch and the EP or the patriarchs and the
EP are just little popes, and if they do something
and you disagree, then you're disagreeing with your pope. So again,
to refute Tim and his co host, they kept making
this whole argument in their stream against Joe Heshmeier that oh,
Cassie CANUBII, that's binding. You got to follow what he
says on marriage and women. You know, must have meant
to the husbands because it's binding. It's papal teaching, that's binding.
Oh what about pious Eleven's and syclical He wrote two
years earlier that participating in religious ceremonies with other groups
and other faiths makes you an apostate. That means the
papacy is a pastate because they've been doing this for
decades now. So you just refuted your own position by
admitting that Piace the eleventh and Cyclicals are binding. There
should be the end for Roman Catholicism for people who
can put two and two together.
Speaker 19: What's up, man?
Speaker 13: I'm mute, hey Jay, how are you doing? Man? Good?
Speaker 22: Can you hear me?
Speaker 14: Okay? Yep, okay.
Speaker 2: So whenever I'm arguing with Roman Catholics often to point
out that there's obvious contradictions in dogma, and one of
their one of the most common objections I hear is that, oh,
that's not ex cathedra. But I was reading in an
Orthodox book last night that Vatican One says that Catholics
still even have to follow non ex cathedral statements or
things from the Pope.
Speaker 19: Yes, I've made this argument for ten years straight.
Speaker 8: Okay, I just want to clarify.
Speaker 3: I don't know if that was absolutely right.
Speaker 13: There's five different places that say that in Capitolahama. So
they're just they're just making up things that they think
are true that they hear some other pap apologists say,
which is total bull crap, right, And I.
Speaker 2: Was there to see how they can never even really
provide a list of Execathedra statements to its one.
Speaker 3: Yeah right, right, all right, well, I.
Speaker 8: Just want to clarify run that by it.
Speaker 13: Thanks man forciate again, and I'm glad that you got that.
But that's an argument, a point we've been making for
ten years straight. There is no place that tells you
you only have to follow ex cathedral. In fact, that
position is condemned. I think it's even condemned in one
of the places is actually in castid canubi FOLLD. So
if you go to my video, I've listed them all
underneath my video, it's called Catholics Imploding Vatican one. I
don't think this is it. I've shared it on Twitter.
Speaker 9: This is it.
Speaker 13: I'm sure it on Twitter a million times too.
Speaker 19: You get on here.
Speaker 13: Six documents proving that Catholics are bound by more than
the so called ex cathedral savings, meaning Vatican two is
also a dogma. Even if you argue, I mean, first
of all, it is dogmatic. But even if you argue that,
oh it's not ex cathedral whatever, it doesn't matter. You
still have to follow it. It's just they just make
up bull crap to make the position work. Canon seven
fifty two of Catholic canon law says religious submission of
intellect and will must be given to all teachings, even
if they are not a fallible But yeah, seven fifty
two of their canon law C. Deliga Surpius the twelfth
says obedience is necessary even if you think the pope's wrong. C.
Deligas Pies to twelve Cassie KANUBII one oh four, paragraph
one O four. You are bound by religious submission of
intellect and will to much more than merely extraordinary magisterium
Cassie KNUBII one four. And then there's three more.
Speaker 19: Right here.
Speaker 13: This is my video. Was Vatican two inbilable or Catholics imploding?
Go to the description six examples disproving the complete nonsense,
made up position that you only have to follow what
is ex cathedral. I have been arguing this since I
was a Roman Catholic. This is one of the reasons
that I was not an SSPX. The SSPX position is
premised on I can reject Vatican two in anything I
don't like from the Pope's post Vatican two.
Speaker 20: No, you can't.
Speaker 19: That makes you a schismatic. And even Lofton knows this,
even Lasting gets this right.
Speaker 13: But the whole position to make it work can't admit this.
And once you do admit it, it means that run's false. Aaron,
what's up?
Speaker 19: Aaron?
Speaker 13: What's up on you?
Speaker 31: You was good?
Speaker 19: Hey, what's in your mind?
Speaker 12: Yay man?
Speaker 23: I'm Protestant and had a quick question for you. So
what would you say to me as a Protestant? Uh,
what does the Protestant church or not Protestant church? What
do I, as a Protestant lack that.
Speaker 40: Orthodoxy provides objectively the sacraments and grace historically the sacraments
and grace the actual church Protestism is not a church,
it's a Paris synagogue. Without aphostotic succession, you don't have
the church and you don't have the sacraments nor the
grace of the sacraments.
Speaker 31: Yeah, but I'm asking, so, is there like a historical.
Speaker 23: Demonstrative claim that Orthodoxy, that Orthodoxy possesses that.
Speaker 3: Wow, if I stay a Protestant.
Speaker 13: I will have Yeah, Apostolic succession, which is the root
of the things that I listed like having the Eucharist,
having efficacious baptismal regeneration, et cetera. So I appreciate your call,
but those are the things to look into. Is the
historic church. So it's not just you and the Bible.
You got to have the regular celebration of the Eucharistic feast.
But it's also kind of hard to hear you too,
So lehman, what's up? I don't mind people calling in
the calling from their car, but it's just hard to
hear sometimes. Notice guys here, Just to again stress that
last point Cassidy CANUBII, the very thing that Tim Gordon
and his buddy were heavily relying on.
Speaker 19: What does it say? Oh, paragraph one of four says
you are absolutely bound by more.
Speaker 13: Than ex cathedra, and it doesn't matter what your private
opinions are, you submit to the Roman See. Anyone who
questions the guidance of the Roman Sea is relying on
their own presumed private judgments.
Speaker 22: Oh.
Speaker 13: That means every trad cat is a Protestant. According to
Cassidy canobe I, paragraph one oh four. Uh, what's up?
Speaker 19: Don Lemon?
Speaker 14: Hello?
Speaker 29: Hello?
Speaker 13: What's up? All right?
Speaker 14: Come from the Robotictant church?
Speaker 8: And I wanted to tell all the Catholics to go back.
Speaker 41: To Philio Queenie hut Junior. What you know how they
got how's that they got to Philly Oquay, they.
Speaker 13: Got the philio Queenie Hudt Junior. Let's go back to
their Catholics.
Speaker 19: Okay, I like it. We're getting full schizo level. Let's
do it.
Speaker 13: Three hundred. What's up, hey, If y'all want to take
this stream into in the domain of full schitzo, we
can do it. We can do it.
Speaker 19: I don't mind.
Speaker 13: We can go full skitzo, dog, We've done it many times.
We can just start watching ghost videos, dude, freaking cameras
going around watching ghost fart and shit like trying to
figure out prove the supernatural ghost farting and stuff.
Speaker 19: Right, we all do it.
Speaker 13: We'll do Let's just go there if y'all want to,
I mean, you go back to the stream over here.
We went full schizo on one of these streams. Back
here where we go, we went full Skitzo. I can't
find it now, what's up, man, I'm mute. Here it
is right here, look at this. I put a buffy,
I put up a buffy Jewish queen some now or
there we went full skitzo right there, we went for
vampire cults to land between the lakes. Two ghost fart videos.
What's up, man, I'm mute? Three hundred All right, don't
I'm mute?
Speaker 19: Just sit there?
Speaker 13: Whatever?
Speaker 32: To the guy who was talking about the empirical stuff,
the ring are the rings in the trees?
Speaker 3: Was he there when the you you brought this up
he missed it?
Speaker 32: Or was he there when the tree was grown? Because
that would be the actual empirical evidence, not that data.
The data is not the empirical evidence exactly.
Speaker 12: No.
Speaker 3: That.
Speaker 19: I don't think people get that.
Speaker 13: They think that staring at the tree rings is the
pro I'm actually observing the entire life span of the tree.
You can deduce from the tree rings the years of
the tree. That is not the same thing as you
observing the evolutionary process of a single cell organism turning
into tiktolic. Those are two different things, John, what's up?
Speaker 19: I'm mute,