3 Evolutionists vs Kent Hovind

3 Evolutionists vs Kent Hovind

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
3 - 10 Nine Eight 76543210 Ignition.
All right, well, it's an honor to be here tonight.
My name is Kent Hovind. I live in Pensacola, FL.
I taught high school science for15 years and now I travel and do
seminars on creation, evolution and dinosaurs.

(00:21):
And my ministry is not government funded.
This is not my wife, just a picture of her.
We have three kids, one of each.I have all the kids married off
and the dog died, so I made it. I'm home free.
It's wonderful. And my lovely daughter and her
husband are over here. So raise your hand there, Paula.
Marlissa, good to have them heretonight.
And I got two grandkids, one more due in a few days and

(00:43):
another one due in about seven months.
So I'll have 4 grandkids all under three when it's over with.
I'm the founder of Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, FL.
If you ever get up to Pensacola,you need to stop and see that
place. We have a Science Center, a
museum, and a theme park all based on creation and give glory
to God for his creation. Instead of teaching evolution.
We offer a lot of home school classes.

(01:03):
We have a lot of video materialsavailable.
We have a creation boot camp coming up this September, and
you're all invited to come up tothat.
We believe that the creation ought to glorify the God of the
Creator and he ought to get credit for what he did.
So our position is the Bible is true, evolution theory is
seriously wrong and one of the dumbest and most dangerous
religions in the history of the world.
That's our totally unbiased opinion on the subject.

(01:25):
Thank you so much. Professors.
I'll start. My name is Jim Strayer.
I'm from Michigan. I started my educational career

(01:47):
in a small Methodist school. I went there for two years and
then transferred to Eastern Michigan University to get the
major in biology and a minor in chemistry.
I taught school for a few years and went into the Army and
served as a corpsman in the US Army Hospital.
Came home and and after a few more years of teaching, I was

(02:08):
awarded the National Science Foundation Scholarship to get a
master's degree in biology and got that from the University of
Michigan. OK, OK.
I have, I have you finished. Sorry, no, I have around 100
hours of semester hours of, of science and and most of that's

(02:31):
in biology and I retired a few years ago.
And since then I've been keepingactive by giving lectures on
Charles Darwin and evolution andrelated biological subjects.
I'm very happy to be here and I feel very comfortable in front
of a college crowd and we shouldhave a good time.

(02:55):
I'm rhino sleeper, I teach here and that means I live around
this area too, and there's no way I'm going to be able to top
that introduction that we just heard.
So I'll just be staying on the side of modesty and stop right
here. My name is Luther Reisbig.

(03:21):
I'm professor of aerospace engineering.
I graduated from Michigan State University where I got my PhD in
engineering there. I'm probably the least qualified
person to be here talking about any of these matters, but but
I'll apologize and we'll do whatwe can.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Doctor

(03:48):
Hovan. You'll now have 12 minutes to
make an opening case. All right, well let's define a
few positions. I believe very strongly that the
earth is about 6000 years old. It was created in six literal 24
hour days. This position would make a few
predictions. The Bible says clearly in six
days the Lord made heaven and earth and all that in them is

(04:09):
everything created in six days. Now based on that prediction,
based on that premise, we can make a few predictions, which is
what science is supposed to do. A scientific theory is supposed
to allow you to make predictions.
I predict, based on the Bible teaching, that the universe will
show evidence of order and design all over the place.
OK. I predict that we'll find
thousands of symbiotic relationships in nature, animals

(04:29):
that require certain plants and plants that require certain
animals, and it works just fine because they were all created
within a few days of each other.Not a problem at all.
For the creationist viewpoint. I predict that there will be
limits to the variations that life forms are able to produce.
The Bible says they will bring forth after their kind, and
that's what we've observed our 6000 years of human history
shows us. Dogs produce dogs every time.

(04:54):
Might be a big dog or a little dog, it might have curly hair or
straight hair, but it's going tobe a dog, guaranteed.
OK Farmers actually count on that.
I mean, when they plant corn, they expect to get corn.
And so far it has happened. So certainly there are
variations, but there are definite limits to the
variations. And this is where the major
difference comes between the creationist and the

(05:14):
evolutionist. I predict that there are not
only limits to the variation. I predict that there will be
actually a purpose to life because we were designed by a
creator for a purpose. That's a prediction based on the
Bible view. I predict there will be non
material things like love, senseof justice, mercy, innate
knowledge of right and wrong, a conscience and absolute truth.
Those things are not possible with the evolution theory.

(05:36):
They are predicted based on the creation theory.
Somebody designed this for a reason.
I predict that there will be a way to find the will of the
Creator, such as messenger speaking for him or maybe even a
book telling us why he did it and how he did it.
I predict there will be an afterlife where we'll face the
Creator to give an accounting. OK, the Bible dates, if you add
them up in Scripture, comes to about 6000 years ago for the

(05:58):
creation, not millions. There's a large difference
between 6020 billion. Congress doesn't seem to
understand that, but there is a big difference.
OK, now based on the Bible teaching that the earth was
originally created where people live to be 900 years old, I
predict we will find lots of legends about a golden age and a

(06:19):
creation event. This seems to be kind of
universal. Throughout history, most people
believe there was a creation andmost people believe there was a
time when man used to live to near to be nearly 1000.
The Greeks talked about it, the Babylonians talked about it, the
Sumerians, everybody talked about this golden age.
Why? Well, that's predicted based on
the creation viewpoint. OK, I predict there will be
skeletons found of people showing signs of great age

(06:42):
because they were living to be much older.
You know, before things happen. Then as you grow, especially the
brow Ridge of your head never stops growing.
The constant pull on the back ofyour head, the occipital bun,
based on just the muscles from holding your head forward, is
going to elongate the head. Over two or three or 400 years
people would look exactly like the Neanderthals look.
Brain 13% bigger than ours, few strange things about their head,

(07:02):
but 100% human in every respect.I predict that there will be
biological problems with modern man, such as wisdom teeth.
Because we're not as big as we used to be and we're developing
probably faster. People are maturing faster.
They're only living to be in 80 or 90 instead of living to be
900. And wisdom teeth are a problem
today not because of evolution, but because we're actually
genetically inferior to the original model.

(07:24):
Adam and Eve. OK, I predict that there'll be a
universal longing for things to be restored to the Garden of
Eden conditions. That's what everybody seems to
want. OK, now what difference does it
make if you believe in evolutionor creation?
Well, if evolution is true, how do we tell right from wrong?
Anytime. Tonight I would like any one of
these gentlemen to answer the simple question, If evolution is

(07:44):
true, how does anybody tell right from wrong?
If I wanted you to make a list of 10 things that are wrong,
before you put anything on the list, I want to know how are you
deciding? Are you deciding right from
wrong based on what Osama bin Laden thinks?
Do we decide right from wrong based on what Congress thinks?
Do we decide right from wrong based on the majority?

(08:05):
How do we decide right from wrong?
Simple question, I've never had it answered.
If evolution is true, death brought man into the world and
death is actually the hero of the plot.
Because if evolution is true, one animal evolves a little
better than the rest for some reason, maybe a mutation or
something. What?
What must happen to the rest of them?
They have to die. Otherwise the good genes are

(08:27):
diluted back into the populationand lost.
Evolution is a religion of death.
Death is actually the hero of the plot.
If the Bible is true, then man brought death into the world.
If evolution is true, death brought man into the world.
These two views cannot possibly be more opposite.
Somebody is wrong and I enjoy showing them who they are and
that's why I'm here. OK, now the Bible says clearly

(08:51):
that by one man sin came into the world and death by sin.
The reason we have death and suffering today is because of
man's disobedience to the Creator.
The Bible says by man came deathin Adam all die.
We have suffering and death because of man's disobedience.
If evolution is true, you could read Charles Darwin's book page
170 or page 217. He said, hey, death and struggle

(09:13):
for life is the is a wonderful thing.
That's how we get ahead. OK, now the creation view says
there was a flood about 4400 years ago.
Now this would make a few predictions based on the idea
that there was a universal flood.
I think I could predict that theearth will have hundreds of
layers of strata. Floods automatically do that.
Moving water sorts particles andall sorts of layers.

(09:34):
You can get a jar of dirt, add some water to it and shake it up
and set it down, and in 20 seconds you'll have layers
forming in your jar. Moving water automatically sorts
particles. It's called hydrologic sorting.
Engineers ought to know about that.
I predict based on the Bible teaching of the Flood, that
there will be billions of fossils, including coal and oil,
found in those layers of sedimentary rock that we find
all over the earth. I predict there'll be huge

(09:56):
canyons and deltas showing evidence of rapid in massive
erosion. I predict there will be legends
of this worldwide flood found incultures all over the world.
That's a prediction based on thebiblical view.
Bible. Biblical view of creation is
certainly scientific. It makes predictions.
OK. I predict there'll be petrified

(10:16):
trees in the vertical position extending through all of these
layers. Thousands and thousands of these
trees have been found around theworld, petrified, standing up,
connecting layers that some people want you to believe are
different ages. Now, I don't know how long a
dead tree stands up around here before it falls down, but up in
Pensacola, you get maybe 5 or 10years maximum before the tree
falls over. And yet they're telling us these

(10:37):
layers are different ages. We have dozens of pictures of
these Poly straight fossils on our website, doctordino.com.
Now, if somebody wants you to believe the layers are different
ages by millions of years, well,they're welcome to teach you
whatever they want, but this is simply not in in accordance with
the evidence. I believe the Bible would
predict we would find things like this Poly straight fossils.

(10:57):
A worldwide flood would do that.Now science means knowledge.
OK, a more expanded definition of science means knowledge
gained by observation and study and testing.
My contention is there is absolutely nothing scientific
about the evolution theory if wedefine what we mean by evolution
carefully, which I want to do inmy last few minutes here.
I like science. I taught high school science for

(11:19):
15 years. I love the study of science.
I am not against science, but I'm against using lies to
support a theory, and I'm certainly against telling people
that science can go farther thanit really can.
OK, now Texas has a law that requires textbooks to be
accurate. So does Florida.
Florida Statute 1, Double O 6, says there must be accuracy of
instructional materials. Textbooks ought to be accurate.

(11:41):
Wisconsin says textbooks ought to be accurate.
Alabama says textbooks shall be adequate and current California
says textbooks shall be factually accurate.
Minnesota says a teacher shall not deliberately suppress or
distort subject matter. These are all wonderful laws,
but not one of those states enforces them.
The textbook says we have evidence of evolution.
OK, what kind of evidence do they give?

(12:01):
This guy says evolution is fact,not theory.
Birds arose from non birds and humans from non humans.
No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural
world can deny these facts. Well, it's OK to make a
statement like that, but that's just a mantra.
That doesn't make it true because he states that.
Even if he states it loudly and forcefully, that doesn't make it
true. OK, the word evolution has six
different meanings. First of all, there would have
to be cosmic evolution. That would be the origin of

(12:24):
time, space, matter. They try to answer that with The
Big Bang theory, with which there are numerous problems.
We cover that on our videotape #1 The second meaning or level
or stage of the evolution theorywould have to be chemical
evolution. If The Big Bang produced
hydrogen, well, then how did we get all these other elements?
They want me to believe that uranium evolved from hydrogen.
That's Oh yeah, you get fusion in stars.

(12:44):
Well, first place, you can't fuse past iron #1 and secondly,
if you want the stars to producethe elements, you have a chicken
and an egg problem here. Which came first, the elements
to make the stars, or the stars to make the elements?
You have a real problem here, but they never talk about
chemical evolution. I'd like to hear that answer
tonight. Thirdly, we'd have to have
stellar evolution. The stars would have to evolve.
Nobody's ever proven the formation of anyone star.

(13:07):
We see a few a few spots gettingbrighter and they're assuming a
star is forming. No, it could be the dust is
clearing, it could be a supernova taking place.
There's there's all kinds of explanations.
Nobody's ever proven a star can form.
And yet it's known now that there are about 11 trillion
stars per person on this planet.Each of you can own 11 trillion
of them. How did the stars evolve?
Fourthly, we have to have organic evolution, the origin of

(13:28):
life. How did life get started?
Fifthly is macro evolution, where an animal changes to a
different kind of animal. Nobody's ever seen any of these
first five. Lastly is what's called
microevolution. I object to the term, but they
use it, so I'll use it. Microevolution tells us there
are varieties within the same kind.
Big dogs, little dogs. OK, this one happens.
The first five are purely religious, and if you want to

(13:50):
believe in those first five, youenjoy yourself.
But don't call it science and don't make me pay to teach that
to the next generation of kids as part of science, because it's
not. It's nothing but a religion.
They teach 20 billion years ago Big Bang and you know, that's
what that's what the evolution theory is based on.
You have to have an origin .18 or 20 billion years ago there
was a Big Bang. I think the evolution theory, as
is currently taught in our textbooks is totally

(14:12):
unscientific. There is no not a shred of
evidence to back it up and I simply resent paying for it.
So my position is that the evolution theory which teaches
clearly 20 billion years ago BigBang.
Then it says millions of years of torrential rains created the
oceans as the earth cooled down,you know, cooled down into a
rocky crust and then oceans formed over millions of years.
This textbook says swirling in the waters of the oceans is a
bubbling broth of complex chemicals.

(14:33):
Progress from a complex chemicalsoup to a living Organism is
very slow. Sure is.
It don't even happen. That's how slow it is.
This guy said the first self replicating systems must have
emerged in this organic soup. So according to the evolution
theory, 20 billion years ago, Big Bang, 4.6 billion years ago,
the earth cooled down. It rained on the rocks for
millions of years and turned them into soup.
And the soup came alive 3 billion years ago.

(14:57):
So great great great great greatgreat grandpa was soup.
OK, now it's true there's a lot of dogs in the world, but they
didn't come from a rock for three points 4 billion years
ago. Whatever you want to say.
So the evolution is a dying religion surviving only on tax
dollars. Evolution theory is positively
anti science. There's not a shred of real
evidence to support any of the theories except OFT repeat and

(15:17):
lies. Let's define one more term in my
last 30 seconds. Stupid, lacking normal
intelligence. Foolish, silly, a stupid idea.
Dull and boring. Evolution is not even a good
theory. I think it is stupid.
Thank you. Professors, you'll now have 12

(15:43):
minutes to present your opening arguments and additional 5
minutes to rebuttal Dr. Hogan's position and state a question
back to him. Thank you.
Well, I suppose you'd like to know what I teach when I teach
evolution. I think you should take a look
at the black sheet up here to see what the definition of

(16:04):
evolution is. Biological evolution is a change
in the gene pool of population over time.
It's really very simple. Do we have a gene pool?
Do we have DNA? Well, of course we do.
Every living thing has DNA. Does it change?
Well, of course it does. We can see it change.
We know what what DNA sequencingis.
We do it all the time. We can check the genes in any

(16:26):
plant or animal now that we wantto.
Has there been a time enough, enough time for that to happen?
Well, of course there has all right.
If you'll take a look at the, the, the the green sheet over
here, you'll see that the age ofthe Earth has been found out by
astronomers studying the age of the Earth.

(16:46):
The geologists are the age of the Earth.
We used the radioactivity to find out the age.
We've used plate tectonics and movement of planets.
We use biology. And what's interesting about
these things is that they've allarrived at the same answer using
different science. If one of them have found a
different answer, there would have been something wrong.

(17:07):
But they didn't. The astronomers agreed with the
geologists, and the geologists agreed with radioactivity, and
the radioactivity agreed in plate tectonics.
They all agreed on a basic time that we've just heard, four and
a half billion years old. Now, how do I, how do I try to
get this across to my students? Well, I talked to them about

(17:30):
natural selection and what natural selection really means.
If you look at the red card downhere is that everything that has
genes overproduces, everything that has DNA overproduces.
So there's always more population than can can be
there. Let me give you an example.

(17:50):
If you started out with two cockroaches, and cockroaches
lived in a perfect place, a cockroach perfect place, at the
end of seven months there'd be 164 billion of them.
Well, there's not 164 billion ofthem because there's no perfect
place for them. Instead, they're in competition

(18:11):
with each other. They're in competition for food,
they're in competition for space, and they're in
competition for mating. So what happens is that there
has to be a survival. Well, who survives?
Some people say the survival of the fittest.
Well, that means you don't understand evolution.
It's not survival of the fittest.
It's survival of the one that can live long enough to find a

(18:31):
mate and reproduce. Ants work together.
Only one of them is going to reproduce.
The rest of them are going to try to help somebody reproduce.
So it's survival of the fit, notsurvival of the fittest.
And then, of course, what happens is those individuals get
to reproduce and that species survives.

(18:53):
But look, we talked about billions and billions of
cockroaches not surviving. Why is that?
And the answer is they had some genetic changes that weren't
good. The idea is to have some tiny
little changes in your DNA. Maybe it takes five or 6720
generations for it to show up even.

(19:13):
But when it does show up, it's good.
Evolution is extremely inefficient.
So is little synthesis inefficient?
Biological processes are inefficient.
It's just a bad design. But what happens is some of them
make it and, you know, some of them don't.
So when I'm doing this, I, I, I have to use some kind of a

(19:35):
science. So if you look at the black
sheet down here with the blue markings around it, I talk about
fossils and I talk about genetics and I talk about
homology or the structures of plants and animals, and I talk
about distribution in the planetand I talk about Embryology.
But what's interesting about these things is they all agree.
They all approach evolution froma different point of view, and

(19:58):
yet they agree if we didn't haveany fossils at all, not it
wouldn't matter. We still have enough information
to prove that evolution took place.
If we didn't have any homologic structures to look at, it
doesn't matter. We still have enough evolution
of facts to show that it took place.
Now I have I had a problem solved for me by the Supreme

(20:20):
Court. It happens that that there have
been nine cases brought by creationists to the federal
courts against evolution. They were competing against each
other in the Supreme Court. The first one of those cases

(20:40):
that really was important took place in 1968.
But in 1982, the Supreme Court case of McClellan versus the
Kansas Board of Education ruled in a decision that gave a
detailed definition of the term science.

(21:00):
The court declared that creationscience is not, in fact, a
science. What that meant is that people
were teaching high school like me at that time.
That meant I couldn't teach creation.
It was a religion. You know, I I could teach, I
could teach evolution because itfit the definition of science.

(21:23):
Now that that court case was challenged by two teachers, One
of them challenged it on the basis that he had the right to
teach because of freedom of speech, he could do what he
wanted to do in his class. Well, he lost that case and he
lost it very simply because he was trying to teach creation in
a public school that doesn't allow religion to be taught in a

(21:45):
public school. He lost.
He should have known better to bring the case.
And then another guy challenged it.
He challenged it on the idea that, well, I'll make my own
curriculum. I'll show those guys.
Well, of course, what happened is the school board said, hey,
fella, you don't make the curriculum in this place.
We make it. And he lost the case too.
Now, I hope that makes you understand why the creationists

(22:09):
want to get to the 7th grade. They're going to get to the 7th
grade because that's the only place you can talk to school
boards who don't know anything about evolution.
Let me explain this to you. When I'm going to use a
textbook, what do I use? I use one like this one.
Now, this textbook is a pretty basic text.

(22:30):
It could be used in the University of Florida,
University of Michigan, and any,any large school in the United
States. It's small schools.
As a matter of fact, I looked atthe six books that are used here
at Embry Riddle University. They're great.
One of the evolution and one of the ecology books here has one
of the best chapters on evolution I've ever seen.
It's a great book. Anyway, this is what I had to

(22:53):
use. And if you think about it a
second, all the facts in here have to be able to stand
scientific scrutiny. Somebody, it's looking at these
babies, you know? Well, here's what you find out.
There is not a school in the United States that does
scientific research that acceptscreationism.

(23:14):
Not one major college or university in the United States
accepts creationism or intelligent design.
Matter of fact, we see it a different way.
I really checked. I mean, I really looked and I
couldn't find a major college oruniversity in the world that
accepted creation or intelligentdesign.

(23:37):
Now I got to find out about thisstuff.
So where did these guys get their ideas?
So I ordered some Bob Jones textbooks.
This is a Bob Jones life sciencebook.
They use it in the eighth grade.It has 500 pages in it.
It has 250 references to biblical verses to explain

(23:58):
science. It has not one.
Not one reference to a scientific journal or book.
It uses the term God 380 times, Satan three times and Hell
twice. Here's the.
Biology book that Bob Jones putsout for high school students it.

(24:20):
Has 600 and. 92 pages. 350 references to biblical verses to
prove science. Not one reference to any
scientific journal or scientificbook.
It mentions God 600 times in Satan, 40 times.
This book is put right here in Florida.

(24:42):
You know what's a creation book Because it says so.
Biology, God's living creation. It's a creation book.
This company claims that they are the largest textbook
publishers for creation of schools in the United States.
Now remember, we're talking creation of schools.
These things would never be allowed in a public school
because they're religious. This book has 650 pages in it,

(25:04):
150 references to the Bible, no science references at all to any
book, any article, anything. It mentions God 425 times.
Well, I'd like to ask a question.
You know, when I come before a group like this and I, and I,

(25:25):
and I want to show you that I'vetried to keep up with things.
I mean, I read the Scientific American and, and I trust the
Scientific American. I get a, a book that's specially
put out for teachers called the National Center for Science
Education. You know, that's a lot about,
about evolution and creation. I trust that book.
I, I go to the bookstore and getand get discovery.

(25:46):
I trust that too. And I trust the National
Geographic. They've been at it 100 years.
They know how old the Earth is. So I'm looking out at this
audience. You look like a really great
group. Lots of college students and
lots, lots of creationists in here.
I'd like to know where I stand before I go any further.
How many of you folks would liketo see every Riddle University

(26:10):
be the first university in the world to accept creation and
intelligent design in their science department?
Can I show your hands? Thank you very much.
That's that's exactly what I expected, you know.

(26:31):
OK, now I want to. I'm.
I'm often asked. Well.
How? How do you?
Handle the stuff with the with the students as far as now the
the the evidence is collected. Well, let me just give you a
list of things here that the pieces of equipment the

(26:53):
scientists use to study evolution.
Computers, ultrasound, core boring sonar, lasers, deep sea
vessels, chromatography, electron microscopes, DNA
sequencing, ultraviolet light, radioactive dating, television,
electrophoresis, X-rays, robotics, spectroscopes,
photography, and Geiger counters.

(27:14):
Those pieces of equipment are used in chemistry, physics,
geology, and evolution. We get the same results they do.
There are people in here that I imagine would not want a crime
to be solved because you wouldn't believe the evidence

(27:35):
that was collected by using these methods.
These are the methods that evolution uses.
Professors you'll have. An additional 5 minutes to
rebuttal Doctor Hoeven's openingstatement and to pose question

(27:59):
or a question to him. I, I am curious about your
presentation, which was, you know, I'm, I, I am impressed.
The only one I've heard speak that quickly was a Texas
auctioneer. But I I I tried really hard to

(28:20):
concentrate and get it off the earth was created 6000 years ago
in six days by God. I am confused.
Being philosophically consistentand being very honest person.
I'm sure you can tell me where God came from.
And in. Addition, In addition, once
you've told me where God comes from, please try to clarify how

(28:43):
you can figure that a spiritual force can have an impact on a
material universe to create it. I think that some years ago we
already talked about that kind of thing in philosophical
circles. At any rate, by posing the
question, if angels are made of spiritual matter and a pen is

(29:06):
made of material matter, and spiritual matter displaces no
space, how many angels can danceon the tip of a pen?
I have a sense of sort of reversal experience here, but
but please do go ahead. You've got 5 minutes now.

(29:27):
I just wonder which question. That's all right.
You may take the. First few minutes we're supposed
to do one question at. A time.
Which one would you like? That was.
Part of the format for the debate, so which which I want
you to fill in the. Story of the rest of the
beginning of the universe. God.
Spiritual matter impact on material matter, So 2.
Questions. All right, go ahead.

(29:48):
All right, your question. Where did God come from?
Assumes that you're thinking of the wrong.
Obviously it displays that you're thinking of the wrong God
because the God of the Bible is not affected by time, space, or
matter. If he's if he's affected by
time, space, or matter, he's notGod.
Time, space, and matter is what we call a continuum.
All of them have to come into existence at the same instant.
Because if there were a matter but no space, where would you

(30:10):
put it? If there were matter in space
but no time, when would you put it?
You cannot have time, space, or matter independently.
They have to come into existencesimultaneously.
The Bible answers that in 10 words.
In the beginning, there's time. God created the heaven, there's
space and the earth. There's matter.
So you have time, space, matter,created a Trinity of Trinity's

(30:32):
there. Just as you know, time is past,
present, future. Space has length, width, height.
Matter has solid, liquid gas. You have a Trinity of Trinity.
It's created instantaneously andthe God who created them has to
be outside of them. If he's limited by time, he's
not God. The guy who created this
computer is not in the computer.He's not running around and
they're changing the numbers on the screen.
OK. The God who created this

(30:53):
universe is outside of the universe.
He's above it, beyond it, in it,through it.
He's he's unaffected by it. So for and the concept that of a
spiritual force cannot have any effect on a material body.
Well, then I guess you'd have toexplain to me things like
emotions and love and hatred andenvy and jealousy and and
rationality. I mean, if your brain is just a

(31:14):
random collection of chemicals that form by chance over
billions of years, how on earth can you trust your own reasoning
processes and the thoughts that you you'd think, OK, so your
your your question, where did God come from?
Is assuming a limited God and that's your problem.
The God that I worship is not limited by time, space, or

(31:35):
matter. If I could fit the infinite God
in my 3 LB brain, he would not be worth worshipping, that's for
certain. So that's the God that I
worship. Thank you.
Would you please present a? Question to the other side I was

(31:57):
curious about. The previous presentation he
said he trusted National Geographic.
Just to give you one example. OK, the Bible teaches clearly
that the birds were made on the 5th day and the reptiles were
made on the 6th day. OK, Evolution teaches exactly
the opposite, Reptiles first andthen birds.
The Bible says birds first, thenreptiles.

(32:18):
Actually, everything about the evolution theory is backwards to
what the Bible teaches. Somebody's clearly wrong on
this. This guy says dinosaurs are
alive as birds. Scientists says, OK, well, this
is absurd. Obviously nobody's ever seen any
animal produce a different kind of animal.
They can believe that if they want.
Here's the USA TODAY missing link discovered October 1999,
National Geographic, one that hetrusts.

(32:40):
Missing link. Breaking news, folks.
We have found National Geographic November 1999 the
missing link. Few months later, oops, it was a
mistake. Some Chinese.
Guy had taken a couple of fossils and glued them together
and fooled everybody. National Geographic paid, I
think, $80,000 for that fossil. It was incredible the amount of
money they paid for that. And there's all kinds of it I

(33:02):
can show you over and over whereNational Geographic is not
trustworthy. The entire argument that I heard
a few minutes ago was majority opinion supports evolution.
OK, first place, I don't think that's true.
OK, How many of you in here tonight at a secular university
do not believe the evolution theory that they present?

(33:22):
OK. How many do believe the
evolution theory that they present?
OK we could take account here. I suspect that was majority for
the creation side. We can count if you like.
But I know this about 9% of the population in Gallup polls and
surveys taken says they believe in atheistic evolution.
No God is involved. 90% say yes there was a God involved and 50%

(33:42):
of the entire population says God did it in the last 10,000
years. So if you're using majority
opinion as your argument, I think that's obviously
historically you can prove that's pretty easy to prove
wrong. Majority opinion proves nothing.
Majority's often been wrong. So all of the experts on birds
are saying the dinosaurs could not possibly have turned to
birds. There are just millions and
millions of differences. So I guess I'd be curious, with

(34:03):
all the evidence that we've gathered over the years, why you
would think a dinosaur turned into a bird when dinosaurs,
reptiles produce reptiles, birdsproduce birds.
I mean, there's no evidence of this.
So my question why do you think dinosaurs turn to birds if you
think that? Evolution is a process where all

(34:24):
kinds of DNA and all kinds of animals are making changes.
Some of that changes in DNA are going to turn out to be pretty
good. Some of them aren't.
If we take a look at an example from.
Your. Research saying that, how about
how about Noah's Ark have one kind of animal?

(34:50):
That evolved. Into dogs, foxes and wolves in
6000 years? Not possible at all.
Not couldn't even begin to happen in 6000 years.
Noah's Ark, one kind of horse developing into a zebra and a
donkey? Not possible.

(35:11):
No. There's no way DNA can change
that fast. What evolutionists are saying is
the the process of DNA changing takes a long time.
You see, the creationists want it both ways.
They want to make fun of evolution and saying, well, why
does that thing want to do that?Well, it doesn't want to do it.
DNA is changing randomly, but atthe same time they want to say

(35:34):
that you can have all kinds of animals evolved in 6000 years,
just hopped off of a ship some place that Noah was running.
It's impossible. There's absolutely no way that
that amount of DNA could change in 6000 years.
The only way you can solve that is by saying the usual way.
It must have been a miracle. Well, in science we don't talk

(35:55):
about miracles. We talk about evidence.
And that's what's important to us.
And I kind of resent Dr. Hovine telling us this is what we
believe and this is what I predict.
My prediction, my prediction is there's a revolution that's been
going on for a long time and it'll continue to go on and
it'll go on the same way it's always developed.

(36:18):
DNA will change bit by bit, little by little, and plants and
animals will change. I have a a couple of creationist
magazines at home that tell thattold me in the creationist
magazine that the reason that wehave thorns on blackberries and
roses and the reason we have a toothache is because Adam and

(36:41):
Eve fell from grace when they sinned.
I have a hard time accepting that as scientific evidence.
I would rather use as my scientific evidence tracing the
origin of of thorns and and origins of teeth back to their
beginning rather than relying onthe fact that Adam and Eve
sinned and that brought a disaster into the world.

(37:03):
I'm done. Professors, would you like to
formulate a question or another statement?
You do have two minutes. Do we have more time do.
We have more time, you will. And after 5 minutes, how many?
After. Mr. Hogan goes I I didn't.
Hear what you said I. I we can't understand you.

(37:24):
I'm sorry. You'll have.
Five more minutes after Mr. Hogan has his.
So what were the two minutes? That you said that we had time
right now. Is it around the board?
One minute and 47 seconds and wejust talked about it.
And. Who has that?
Time right now you do any. Any three of us?
Yes, Sir. Oh, OK.
Just trying to. Get to I'm sorry, image
straight. Thank you.
I, I, I do wonder about my earlier question.

(37:46):
I don't feel comfortable about it's being answered.
That is, you keep insisting thatthe God of the Bible in some way
is responsible for all this. You may even if you were to
prove that there's some kind of spiritual force, it is not
necessarily the God of the Bible.
So you're taking a giant leap there.
So I think there's a lot of thathas to do with lots of faith
that has to be developed in there.
And I see that from our group here.

(38:07):
And I think Mark Twain said about faith, that faith is
believing something you know ain't true.
That's, that's I, I don't think you can rely on faith.
I don't. I think you need to.
If you want to be honest, intellectually honest, you've
got to come up with something a little bit more solid than just
to buy in to the fact that 80% of US Americans are God

(38:29):
believers and only 14% are not. So I'm.
I don't know is is that, can he answer that or absolutely?
All right, that'd. Be nice, what was the question?
Phrase the question again, please.
You didn't really get. You made a statement.
I didn't hear a question. What do you want to hear?
OK, my original question was foryou to show where the deity

(38:54):
comes from and you keep insisting that it is the God of
the Bible, but that is another leap of faith that seems to be
part of that. Can you sort of trot that out a
little bit more? And let let me say one thing
also about the, the story that you gave about the National

(39:16):
Geographic, the OR, or was it the Scientific American with
the, the bird and dinosaur thing, It shows that the
scientific community is working.These people are in dialogue.
Error may occur where reason is left free to correct it.
And in your system, it's nailed down by the Bible.

(39:38):
And no, I cannot challenge that with the invention of all kinds
of strange beings. I just looked, this is very much
news to me. I looked at one of the books
that Jim has here, where the assertion is that evolution is
inspired by Satan and what now we have.
Thank you, Sir. We're going to.
Cut you off and you can be back in 5 minutes.

(39:58):
Carry on. I guess I'm still a little
baffled what the question was. If your question if you're going
back to you didn't like my answer of how God did it.
God was just God is outside of time, space, matter.
I think you need to stop and look at the theory that you are
believing in. Apparently because there are so
many thousands of unanswered questions.

(40:20):
See, it's not much easier for meto believe in the beginning God
than to believe in the beginningdirt or matter.
The evolutionist does not answerthe question.
There's six different types of evolution as I shared clearly
earlier. If The Big Bang theory is true,
then I would like to know what exploded and where did it come
from and where did the energy come from and where did the

(40:42):
space come from for the matter to expand into and where did the
organization come from and wheredid the information come from?
There's a whole host of questions that are a whole lot
harder for you to answer then inthe beginning.
God, where is it? Where does information come
from? Man is this universe is not just
random molecules circulating around.
I mean it, it, it carries information just like a book is

(41:02):
so much more than ink on a paper.
It carries information and the DNA is more than just chemicals.
It's information. So the evolutionist never
answers the question, where did this information come from?
Where did the energy come from? Where did the matter itself come
from? And you gripe about my belief.
I, I believe by faith in the beginning, God, I know, I, I

(41:24):
admit I don't understand that. But you believe hundreds of
things by faith. You don't even understand that
you're believing by faith. You think matter is either
eternal or can create itself? What's the two choices?
How did matter get here? The world is here.
How? Where did the matter come from?
Did it just happen by itself or is it all just imaginary?
We're not really here at all. You're faced with the option of

(41:44):
we're not really here, this is all just our imagination, or it
had a beginning, Or matter is eternal, which is both.
Both of the second two options are in violation of the obvious
laws of thermodynamics. Matter doesn't create itself and
everything degrades over time. So either it had a beginning or
it didn't. If it had a beginning, then what

(42:04):
was before the beginning? I mean, there's so many
thousands of things you take by faith.
You say, I say in the beginning God and you say, well, this
matter somehow either was alwayshere or created itself.
And then this matter somehow became alive and then this first
living thing learned how to reproduce and then it learned
how to make something other thanits kind.
I mean, even though nobody's ever seen that, nobody's ever

(42:26):
seen a dog produce a non dog or you mentioned about, you know,
the dog fact that a wolf and a afox and a dog coming from a
common ancestor of Noah's ark inonly 4400 years, for heaven's
sake, you believe they came froma rock.
I mean, come on. I don't think my theory is that
silly at all. So if my answer to your question

(42:47):
is still the same, I believe in the beginning God, I do take
that by faith. Here's the major difference.
Major difference that I don't think you're going to
understand. I admit mine is a religion.
They do not admit theirs is a religion.
They want you to think what theybelieve is science.
And all of you should pay for their religion to be taught in

(43:08):
this university. And that's the situation we have
today. And that's unfortunate.
They've always been situations where the majority taught
something. I mean, in the Soviet Union 15
years ago, if you stood up and said, hey, kids, I don't believe
in communism. I think capitalism is a better
system, you would be in Siberia if you survived.
And here in Emory University, ifyou stood up in your classroom
and said, I don't believe this evolution theory is true, I

(43:29):
think it's pretty obvious there must have been a designer to
this system. You would be an intellectual
Siberia. You would lose your job.
It has happened to hundreds of teachers just simply for
standing up and say, look, I think the evidence is here,
folks, There must have been a designer.
If I asked you to explain how computers came to be, but you
cannot use man as your answer. I only want a purely

(43:50):
naturalistic explanation for theorigin of computers.
Purely naturalistic. The answer has to lie within the
computer. How did these molecules get
together? How did this data get together?
How did these plastic molecules come together?
And the and the different silicone chips?
How did it happen? Your answer has to lie in the
computer. I've already eliminated the only
obvious answer to the problem atthe beginning.

(44:11):
By my definition, they're tryingto eliminate the only answer to
the only logical answer to the question by their definition of
science. They want to define science as
things that we can observe and test and demonstrate the natural
world. OK, well then that eliminates
both evolution and creation. Both are unobserved.
We don't see anything changed. We don't see anything created
from nothing. Here's the problem.
Both creation and evolution are religious.

(44:33):
I admit mine's a religion. They don't admit theirs is a
religion. And all of us are paying for
their religion to be taught in the school system.
And I for one resent that. So my answer is still the same.
God did it my question for them,now your.

(44:53):
Question for them. Quickly, please.
OK. My question for them, I have
several thousand questions I guess I'd like to ask.
Does your? Textbook you're holding in front
of you that you said you trust here at used at this university.
Does the your textbook teach that there are vestigial
structures? If you can maybe just look in
the index under the word vestigial.

(45:13):
I'm going to take back at 5 minutes or just ask a question.
Yeah. Just a question.
You already had your five. OK, does your?
Textbook teach that the appendixis vestigial and is no longer
needed. Even though all doctors know the
appendix is not vestigial, it has been proven to be part of
the immune system. If your appendix is taken out,
you can live just like you can live without both your arms and
both your eyes. It doesn't prove you don't need
it. So just simple question, does

(45:34):
your textbook teach the kids that there are vestigial
structures and that is thereforeevidence for evolution?
I think you have that one of your posters here if I'm not
mistaken. Yes, it does teach.
Us. There's vestigial structures,
professors. It doesn't.
Teach there's a God though. You have 5 minutes.

(45:55):
I don't. I don't get the point.
That's the way, that's the way DNA works.
There are there are certain changes in the DNA molecules
that will make some organs more efficient and some less
efficient. That's just the way it is.
You can find the vestigial structures on plants also.
If we have you and I have no control over what goes on in the

(46:19):
DNA in our body, we just pass iton to our offspring.
But to to say that to make one example like that and say that's
going to get rid of the theory of evolution is ridiculous.
We've got all these other proofsthat about evolution.
Vestigial structures are just one tiny part of that.

(46:40):
OK, let me let me ask, let me say another thing.
I know where God came from. Man made him.
I also know where your. Computer came from, you know,
from science. It was put together by people

(47:01):
that understood physics and chemistry.
It was put together by people that are molecules and atoms.
It was put together by people with intelligence, people that
knew how to love and hate and and carry on biological
relationships because they have intelligence.
We got intelligence because we have brains.
We've got brains because we've got DNA.

(47:22):
It doesn't make any sense at allto say that.
Or the people that don't have religion, don't have feelings,
don't follow the law. The Constitution of our country
does not mention God or religion.
It's a we are a nation of laws. We're a nation of laws because
we're a nation of people that have intelligence.

(47:42):
That's the way it is. That's the way animals operate.
Some animals evolved a differentway.
They evolved so they could fly or they could crawl or they
could run. And what was successful for them
worked out for them. What's successful for us is that
we have a good brain and it's and it, and we'll have to wait

(48:03):
and see what happens. Not in our lifetimes, but all
animals are in the same boat. All plants are in the same boat.
Sometimes when people were were doing this kind of stuff, people
are always thinking about human beings.
You can find the evolutionary theory in any any part of life.
It doesn't matter if you're talking about Maple trees.

(48:23):
I I still want an answer to the question of how did all these
different things evolve in just 6000 years?
When it isn't possible. It's mathematically not
possible. If it were, by now farmers would
have bred a different species. When he says something like,
well, you feed dogs, you always get dogs, well of course you do,

(48:46):
because you can't change them in6000 years.
If you could, farmers would havebred something different.
We've been breeding Ant plants and animals for 4000 years.
We can't do it simply because ittakes too long.
The Earth is old enough for evolution to have taken place,
but we haven't had enough time. They get different kinds of

(49:08):
animals, starting from Noah's Ark.
Ryan Hall, you want to say something?
We have a minute again. Yeah, we got one.
And a half. Oh my God.
Yeah, I, I, I do. One thing that sort of crossed
my mind as you were speaking is the difference between science
and religion. And it seems to me there is a
very clear cut difference. Science is self correcting in

(49:32):
the sense that the battle of disagreement will edit out that
which is wrong, and by essentially falsifiability.
That is, in other words, if a scientist advanced a particular
idea, he also can tell what particular conditions must be

(49:54):
the case for him to retract thatidea.
And this is something that is absent in religion.
That is, religion is seeking truth, absolute truth, and
charges science with not findingtruth, which it isn't trying.
Science works with probability and with self correction
religion. Ultimately I know I am right and

(50:18):
I'm not allowing anything else. This is what is so devastating
to try to talk to anybody who isa person of faith.
You can't get anywhere because I'll weasel out just about
anything you try to to offer by inventing new and new and
different interpretations and new passages of the Bible and
whatnot. And everybody else, of course,

(50:38):
is wrong except the one person is looking at it.
That kind of system, I think, cannot be possibly science.
Well, he said, science. Is self correcting.
I agree. I happen to like science quite a
bit. But see, the creation view
doesn't have to be constantly corrected because it's right,
OK. And you?

(50:59):
I like the answer that one gentleman gave.
He said, obviously the computer is here because of man, because
of intelligence. I mean, obviously this took a
designer. Well, duh.
So did the universe. So did the single cell in your
body. So did every living creature.
I mean, you can't explain the computer inside the computer,

(51:20):
can you? And you can't explain the
creation inside the creation. There has to be something above
an intelligent designer and you talk about devastating to talk
to a person of faith. What you said a few sentences
earlier was or what the other gentleman said was, of course we
don't see changes. Farmers have been raising dogs
for, you know, 4000 years and wedon't see changes because it

(51:43):
takes too long. If you don't see faith in there,
I can't help you. OK.
You are relying on the unseen. Oh yes, long ago and far away.
Evolution has got to be the biggest fairy tale for adults
ever created. Everything you said required

(52:04):
faith. Well, we see dogs produce dogs,
but if you give them billions ofyears, well, OK, you just left
science and went to religion anddidn't even see it.
You didn't even see what happened in your mind.
And one of you teaches a course on logic.
I mean, if this was a student ofyours doing this, you'd give
them an F. And yet your fellow professors
believe it and you think it's great.
They jump from faith to science back and forth all the time.

(52:27):
Well, we see dogs produce dogs. But if we had enough time, stop,
stop, stop. You're leaving science right
that moment. So I've got 3 minutes.
Let me just cover a couple things that I resent being in
the textbooks. And I would like to hear if this
is in your textbook. My question is, is this in your
textbook? And after I show you with you
the evidence, I want to know why.
OK. This textbook says many
organisms retain traces of theirevolutionary history.

(52:49):
For example, the whale retains pelvic and leg bones as useless
vestiges. Earlier it was mentioned one of
the evidences for evolution is vestigial organs.
Andrew Carnegie left behind millions of dollars to start an
organization called the NationalCenter for Science Education, of
which you are a part. OK, the National Center for
Science education. I was in Berkeley last week. 147

(53:09):
professors at Berkeley refused to debate me.
Jeannie Scott won't debate me for any amount of money on the
planet. Here's Jeannie Scott right here.
I'll fly out at my expense and take them all on.
This is welcome to the homepage of National Center for Science
Education. A tax exempt nonprofit
membership organization working to defend the teaching of
evolution against sectarian attack.
We are a nationally recognized clearing house for information

(53:32):
and advice to keep evolution in the classroom and scientific
creationism out. The National Center for Science
Education is a little bitty storefront building in
Berserkley, California. I was there four days ago and it
got five people working in this little building.
And they they teach that maybe the cow evolved into the whale.
That's what their literature teaches.
This textbook says the whale hasa pelvis and a leg bone.

(53:53):
Whales have hind limb bones thathave no function.
Just imagine whales walking around.
It's true. These are the bones they're
talking about right there. Just imagine the whale walking
around. I'm sorry, I tried and I can't.
OK. They say the whale's pelvis has
no apparent function. The whale's pelvis is evidence
of its evolution from 4 legged land dwelling mammals.

(54:13):
This is simply a lie, OK? Those little bones are anchor
points that special muscles attach to that allow the whales
to reproduce. This has nothing to do with
whales walking on land, it has to do with making baby whales.
So either the authors of this textbook are ignorant about
whale anatomy and certainly shouldn't be talking about it,
or they're deliberately lying toyou and desperate for evidence

(54:34):
for their theory. So my question is very simple.
Does your textbook teach the whale has a vestigial pelvis?
If so, why would you use a biology book in your biology
class at A at a famous university like this based on an
author that doesn't even understand his basic anatomy of
whales and he's either lying to the students or he's ignorant?
Why would you use something likethat?
And how could a vestigial structure be evidence for
evolution when that's an exampleof losing, not gaining?

(54:57):
It doesn't tell you how the whale got the legs.
Oh, it's slowly losing. Well, in the 1st place it's not
slowly losing. I'm OK, it's a lie.
Secondly, even if it was, that'sthe opposite of evolution.
How on earth can this be evidence for a theory?
Yes, boys and girls, we're slowly losing things.
That's how we got it all well. Duh.
So my question is simple, does your book teach there are

(55:19):
vestigial structures, specifically the whale having a
vestigial pelvis? If it does, why would you use a
book like that in a university like this?
Excuse me, Sir, it's. Just a quick reminder.
We. I'll turn your mic on just a
second. We're going to go to an.

(55:39):
Intermission in one more iteration.
So yes, absolutely your table, your table and we're going to go
on intermission after that the. Book does not teach that the
whale has a vestigial pelvis. That's one of the most ignorant
statements I've ever heard of. The pelvis is an absolute
necessary thing for the whale. He attaches all of his muscles

(55:59):
to it. It's one of the major things
that helps him swim. I happen to be keeping up with
what's going on with the evolution of the whale.
And we have a very good set of bones saved from fossil records
showing that the whales evolved through a long period of time

(56:21):
from animals that are on land toanimals that are in the water.
We have that evidence. And for to say we don't have it
or to say that we're lying is disingenuous to this audience.
I, I ask you don't believe, don't believe me.
Let me get off the subject a second right up there.
Here's the things we try to do in science.

(56:42):
We say let's not believe revelations.
Just somebody just says, I know because I know, I know.
That's not good enough. Believe authority.
No, let's not believe authority.Let's not believe any of us up
here at the table. You folks can get the copy of
this book or this thing here andGet the facts.

(57:04):
You don't have to believe me. You don't have to believe him.
You can find out for yourself. You don't have to trust
authorities, even me. The second thing is tradition.
You don't have to trust tradition.
I mean, what the I mean, come on, there's different traditions
all over the world, but we can trust science because science
should be the same all over the world.
What I'm trying to say to you iswhen I teach my classes,

(57:27):
evidence is what's important. I have no evidence that God
exists. I have no evidence that there
was a Noah's ark. I have no evidence that there
was an Adam and Eve. I have evidence that whales
evolved from animals live on land, and I can prove it.

(57:50):
Well, we, we do have. I haven't had anything to say.
There's a lot of talking going on, and that's unusual for me,
but the the one thing that we can prove by the great
philosophical statement kajito ergo assume in Latin, which says

(58:11):
I think. Therefore I am.
Now what that says is that I exist and prove that I am there
because I can think, but it doesn't necessarily say that you
exist. I can't prove that you exist,
but I can prove that I exist. And I also know that I'm here

(58:34):
and I'm and, and I do believe inyou.
There's high probability that I do believe in you and you are
here. And somehow you got here and
somehow this happened probably in the last time between 10 and
20 billion years ago, probably to the record of the Earth,
which was maybe 4 to 6 billion years ago.

(58:57):
And basic all of this biologicalstuff is very interesting.
And it does. Prove to how?
Science brings about to cause things to happen, but it's so
complicated. It is so so.
Complicated. That that it you, you can you

(59:20):
can confuse the process by misinterpreting the results.
We do have, as my colleagues say, the scientific method and
it based on the best informationthat we can put together to form
to what we know is true. It doesn't mean that we know the

(59:43):
truth. It means we have maybe some
probability of the truth and that may be the best that we
will always have but to. Just talk about.
Start talking about chickens anddinosaurs and I like eating
chickens because chickens are descendants of dinosaurs.
And every time I eat a chicken, it makes me happy because I

(01:00:06):
think a lot of them ate our ancestors a long time before
that, about 160 million years ago.
So I'm going to, I'm going to leave with my colleagues and.
With the fact that we, I exist, we do think and we are here and,

(01:00:29):
and how the record got as to howgot to be here could be debated.
We do have information, we, we probably miss more information
than we than we know. But I will say this, that we've
got to be very careful as to howwe interpret the record when

(01:00:52):
we're trying to, to talk about something because we are, we are
subject to ourselves to, to, to sink into confusion and to
basically involve yourself into what becomes voodoo science.

(01:01:12):
And, and that is very, very dangerous.
OK, let me cover 5 main points here.
He said we have evidence of whales evolving from land
animals in the 1st place. This is absolutely incorrect,

(01:01:36):
OK? If he's talking about
ambalocitas, you need to study here.
This was made mostly of imagination.
If that's your evidence, you need to study the ambalocitas a
little better. OK, there is overwhelming
evidence that ambalocitis is just an unusual animal, or just
an animal that may be still existing someplace.
There were just a few bones found and a whole lot of plaster
of Paris and imagination used toput it together.

(01:01:58):
Vasilosaurus is not an intermediate.
The Serpentine form of the body and peculiar serrated cheek
teeth made it plain that these animals could not possibly have
been ancestral to any modern whales.
This is from one of the experts on invertebrate history here the
evolutionary. His origin of whales remains
controversial among zoologist Compton's Encyclopedia a couple
years ago. Pachacetus, pictured here, is

(01:02:21):
made from one small piece of a skull, a few piece of jaw, a
small piece of jaw and a few teeth.
You. Find.
A piece of the skull, a few teeth on a piece of the jaw, and
that's proof it's intermediate between a whale and a cow.
You have got to be kidding. I'm sure this is one of the ones
in his fossil proof revolution. And you're missing such a major

(01:02:41):
point. I don't know if I can help if
you can't get this, but no fossil, no fossils count as
evidence for evolution in a court of law.
They would laugh at you because you bring some bones in and say,
your honor, this is the ancestorof Wales.
Well, first place, there's not enough to tell what it is.

(01:03:03):
Secondly, you don't know that that is the ancestor of anybody.
You don't know that that animal had any kids that lived.
It is absolutely impossible to use any fossils at all as
evidence for evolution. And anybody that's telling you
fossils are evidence for evolution, you talk about voodoo
science. That is it, folks.
OK, we know these bones produce something other than their kind.

(01:03:27):
Even though no animal today can do this, these bones were able
to do it. That's absolute voodoo science.
That's a good word for. I've got to use that one for
now, and I appreciate that. OK.
And if we could rewind the tape,we would hear you said many
times. Well, probably it happened.
We're here, so that proves we'rehere.
So that proves evolution. Man, you talk about voodoo

(01:03:50):
science and absolute insanity and logic.
We're here. I agree.
That doesn't have that doesn't offer any support for the
evolution theory. Yes, I agree.
We're here. I I happen to like being here.
OK, so and then you said something I think the average
audience may miss if you're not careful here.
He said, well, it's so complicated.

(01:04:12):
And the implication that I get, because I get this all the time.
I've had done many debates, universities and I I don't I
I've never had a class in debate.
I don't understand how the rulesare and I don't know all about
all this time keeping stuff. All I know is I think the
evidence is is overwhelmingly obvious.
There must have been a designer.OK, And I'm here to defend the
biblical view of creation as theonly logical scientific choice.

(01:04:33):
And I'm here to tell people I resent everybody's tax dollars
going to pay for this voodoo science of evolution to be
taught in this university and other universities around the
world. Beer is often sold at football
games, but beer has absolutely nothing to do with football, OK?
Beer does not become athletic byassociation.
And just because evolution is mixed into a science book, that
does not make evolution part of science.
It's just mixed in the book and I'm sorry about that.

(01:04:55):
OK, I'm trying to fix it. But he said it's so complicated.
We don't want to confuse, confuse the people or something
to that effect. I don't remember the exact quote
here. To me, what what that's trying
to imply is they're smart. You're too dumb to understand.
And anybody that doesn't believein evolution is simply dumb.
And if you, if you just would study this for 100 hours like I
have, then you'd believe like I do.
And since you don't believe likeI do.

(01:05:17):
You haven't studied. Enough and you're dumb.
That's the implication I'm getting.
Is anybody else getting that from this tonight?
OK, now we do exist. We are here.
I agree. And that is your evidence for
evolution. You got to be kidding.
All of the evidence of evolutionfrom whales first place, no
fossils count. None.
Think about it, no fossils can possibly count for evidence.

(01:05:40):
And the fossils they find are little fragments here and there
and they are putting their imagination and interpretation
on those fossils. Look, when you find a bunch of
there is no such thing as a fossil record.
How they teach that blows my mind.
They say, well, in the fossil record, I said, well, what
fossil record? There is no fossil record.
There are a bunch of bones in the dirt.
There's a bunch of. Bones in the dirt.

(01:06:01):
I agree. I happen to have a huge fossil
collection myself. But those bones don't have dates
on them. They don't come with a little
tag saying this one evolved intothis one.
All you do is put your preconceived evolutionary
imagination idea on top of thesefossils that are found.
See, the creationists and the evolutionists are both looking
at the same evidence. We both see the.
Fossils, I see that as an example of death.

(01:06:24):
They see that as an example of, wow, that's how we got ahead.
All these animals died. Isn't that wonderful?
No, that's proof there was a bigflood because fossils just don't
normally form except under special conditions.
And billions and billions of fossils are found.
That's to me, that's evidence ofthe Bible.
I see it that way. Thank you.
The first question will be. Posed to the evolutionist side.

(01:06:44):
The question is. Is The Big Bang theory a
reasonable scientific theory? Please explain.
You'll have 7 minutes. Mr. Hoeven left 3 minutes to
rebuttal and then we will go on to completely independent
question Is The Big Bang theory a reasonable scientific theory?
Please explain. Thank you, Judge.
Is that to? Us so that's what we're asking

(01:07:05):
I'll answer it wrong. Yes I will I will answer the the
issue for the team yes, the The Big Bang theory is viable, but
it's one of two theories about the existence of the of the
universe, one of which was a constant energy universe.

(01:07:25):
It said that basically simply exists and energy is somehow
generated with within itself inside.
There is no scientific evidence to show that that particular
theory of the universe has ever been proven or or shown any

(01:07:45):
evidence to to show. The Big Bang theory does have a
sea a piece of evidence that Wilson and Conzio from Bell Labs
got a Nobel Prize for discovering.
The fact that there was radiation throughout the entire

(01:08:08):
universe is in all particular directions believed to be the
the remnants of the explosion ofthe energy in the birth of the
universe. And their antennas would
basically they could point no matter how they pointed the
antennas in any any direction. They discovered that the
intensity of radiation in that particular direction was the

(01:08:31):
same, which was was essentially proof, a proof of the of a piece
of data that showed that there may have been something that
that made the The Big Bang theory.
So that we, we, we have that thescientific evidence right now is
that The Big Bang theory is the best knowledge that we have.

(01:08:58):
It is believed there are some very strange things about it.
It starts essentially with therewas a void.
Now the void is it wasn't a holeor a box with nothing in it.
It basically didn't even have space.
It was nothing. And somehow a black hole the

(01:09:23):
size of an atom became unstable and exploded and it filled
essentially into an area of an atom 10 to the six more mass
than we currently have in the existing universe.
I find having something that packed together and how close we

(01:09:46):
are here and if we believe in the conservation of mass
principles and things of this nature, all things have to be
conserved and the conserved the,the conservation has to exist
either in the beginning, in the middle and at the end.
And as such we are here and knowtoday the information and the

(01:10:11):
knowledge had to have existed atthe at the beginning of the
creation of the universe. Now you can, you can, you can
place anything that you wish about how this happened or who
happened or how it happened or where it come from.
I don't know how a God could come outside of our universe
because there's nothing outside of our universe.

(01:10:33):
It's a void. There's nothing you can't go
outside of our universe. But we, we do know that the, the
10 to the billion years ago that, that, that from the the
beginning of 10 billion years ago, we have the universe

(01:10:53):
essentially to its time to date,the cooling of energy in the
formation of stars, in the formation of materials and
eventually forming planets. And six, four to 6 billion years
ago, we had a crust around this particular planet and eventually
some, some chemicals got together and, and we had life

(01:11:18):
and, and the rest is here and we're here.
And I can, I, I, I believe that and I believe that it's so.
And I all of the, all of the absolute details, and there are
many, many details are, are probably less important to me

(01:11:40):
than the fact that it did begin and it does exist and that we're
here today. I'm not, I'm not fighting about
with religion. I, I'm a Christian.
I have no, I have no conflict with, with Christian beliefs, my
Christian beliefs and and with the scientific methods that I

(01:12:00):
also believe in as well. So, you know, I don't see
anything that's contradictory tothis.
Luther, you're more am I on OK. You're more of an expert at this
than I am. So I was just going to ask you
to elaborate a little bit of thepossibility of getting some
corroborative evidence of something like The Big Bang

(01:12:24):
through the view of the Hubble back into time.
Is that something that might? Provide.
Corroborative evidence for them.Yes, the, the, the scientific
record is, is, is accumulating substantially about our, our

(01:12:44):
measurements and, and essentially what is going on in
the universe and essentially what, what we know about the
mechanism of this. We're dealing with astronomical
sizes and huge and huge and hugeplaces.
And if it started with a little place the size of an atom, we do

(01:13:09):
know that it is done. I can tell you one thing that we
can all say that is true. Time has always gone forward,
and time goes forward with entropy into diversity, and
diversity generates through time.
It creates everything that's possible.

(01:13:31):
And what we? Have today possible?
Is what we have and what we are observing.
Doctor Hoeven you will. Now have 3 minutes to rebuttal
that statement and then I will ask you a completely independent

(01:13:52):
question. Thank you.
OK. Humanists regard the universe as
self existing and not created based on The Big Bang theory.
Textbooks say 18 or 20 billion years ago there was a all the
matter in the universe, which would be a lot of stuff.
And by the way, the word universe means a single spoken
sentence. Universe single spoken sentence
God said when he said there nothing can exist outside the

(01:14:14):
universe. This is about like two computers
talking to each other. Does man exist?
Nothing exists outside the computer where it duh.
OK, all the matter in the universe was in concentrated in
one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller
than a period on this page. I think that's what we just
heard a moment ago. OK, this textbook says after
many billions of years, all the matter and energy will once

(01:14:37):
again be packed into a small area.
This area will be no larger thanthe period at the end of this
sentence. Then another Big Bang will
occur. It happens every eighty to 100
billion years. Save the planet.
We're going to get squished, folks.
OK, this guy said nothing reallymeans nothing.
That's. That's brilliant.
OK, not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space
and time. However, physicists theorize

(01:14:59):
that from the state of nothingness, the universe began
in a gigantic explosion. I believe that's what I just
heard in the last few minutes. OK, this whole Big Bang idea
started with a guy named George or Isaac, I mean Edward George
Latimer, who said the thing thatexploded was a few light years
in diameter. Well, at the least that's about
12 trillion miles. OK, then by 1965 they said,
well, it was only 275,000,000 miles, 1972, I think it was.

(01:15:22):
Scientific American said, no, the thing that exploded, The Big
Bang came from something only 71million miles in diameter.
Later they said, Oh no, it's only 54,000 miles. 1983, they
said the thing that exploded wasa trillionth the diameter of a
proton. Now that's tiny.
OK, And now they're saying nothing exploded.
Here's Discover magazine. Two years ago.
Where did everything come from? The universe burst into

(01:15:44):
something from absolutely nothing, zero, nada.
As it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that
came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible?
Ask Alan Guth. His theory will explain
everything. Well, what does Alan Guth say?
In Scientific American, Alan Guth says the observable
universe could have evolved froman infinitesimal region.
That's a dot, he said. It's then tempting to go one
step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from

(01:16:06):
literally nothing. Folks, why would a sentence like
this be found in Scientific American?
There's nothing scientific aboutthat stated exhibits incredible
faith. But the textbooks teach this.
This dot was spinning. It's spun faster and faster.
Finally, it exploded The Big Bang.
There are so many problems with The Big Bang, simple physical
science problems. What exploded?

(01:16:26):
Where did the matter come from? Where did the energy come from?
Where did the organization come from?
Where did the information come from?
The story he gave was so good. I got to replay the tape and
hear this. You know, 4.6 billion years ago,
the planet developed a rocky crust.
The chemicals got together, you know, blah, blah, blah.
Here we are. Exactly what I said earlier.
That's what that's what the theory teaches.
Now, if he wants to believe that, that's fine.
I don't care what you believe. But don't call that science and

(01:16:49):
don't make me pay to teach that to the rest of these kids in
this university. These kids came here to learn
some science, not a fairy tale like that.
Thank you, Doctor Hoeven the next.
Question will be posed to you. You'll have 7 minutes and then
the evolutionists will have 3 minutes.
The questions more of an open end one.

(01:17:11):
Please prove, disprove, or generally talk about carbon
dating and how it relates to evolution.
Get my projector. On here, See I have about 7000
slides in PowerPoint so it helpsif you ask the questions in the
same order that I have the answers.

(01:17:35):
Carbon dating. OK, carbon dating.
Actually, fossils are dated by their position in the geologic
column. They are not dated by carbon
dating. Or potassium, argon, rubidium,
strontium, LED 2O8, LED 2O6. None of those matter.
A fossil is dated by the position in the geologic column.
They're called index fossils. This guy admits it.
Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the
geologic column had not been erected first.

(01:17:56):
The geologic column was inventedin 1918 thirties.
That was taught for 120 years and became accepted as science.
And the geologic column doesn't exist any place on the planet.
OK, there is no geologic column.There are layers of rocks and
they're assuming that it's different ages.
That's the problem right there. This guy says fossils have been
and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and

(01:18:16):
correlating the rocks in which they occur.
We go through all kinds of examples on this, but on video 7
Pierce atmosphere is about 100 miles thick.
It is mostly nitrogen, 78 percent, 21% oxygen, little bit
of CO2 for plants to breathe andvery little radioactive carbon
14.0000765%. This radioactive carbon 14 mixes
with oxygen and it becomes carbon dioxide.

(01:18:38):
Most of it does and the plants are breathing carbon dioxide.
Now carbon 14 is formed when radiation strikes the
atmosphere. The nitrogen, which is the
majority of gas are up up there and here.
Nitrogen gets bombarded by cosmic rays and it bombards the
upper atmosphere producing fast moving neutrinos.
These neutrinos collide with atmospheric nitrogen, producing

(01:18:58):
carbon 14. That's how it's made.
If you look at a periodic table,carbon and nitrogen are right
next to each other. Nitrogen is normally an atomic
weight of 14 and carbon is an atomic weight of 12.
But if the nitrogen gets blastedwith these neutrinos, it turns
into carbon 14, which is a rare,very rare and radioactive
element. It is radioactive just like

(01:19:18):
uranium or any other radioactiveelement and you can hear it as
it decays or breaks apart and throws off all the little
particles into the into space around it.
Now carbon 14 is being produced by the sun or by the neutrinos
by the high speed radiation. Long, doesn't matter.
It breaks back down to nitrogen.About half of it breaks down
every 57130 years. OK, this is the estimated to be
the half life. Obviously nobody watched it for
5700 years. But during photosynthesis,

(01:19:41):
plants are breathing in CO2, andso the animals eat the plants
and make it part of their body. So you and I probably have
carbon 14 in us because at some time in your life you have
either eaten plants or you've eaten animals that have eaten
plants. That's about all there is.
OK, so these plants are absorbing things out of the
atmosphere. They're absorbing the carbon 14.
It becomes part of their tissue.It is assumed the ratio of C-14

(01:20:04):
to normal C-12 in the atmospherewould be the same ratio found in
living plants and animals. If the atmosphere is .0000765%,
it is assumed plants and animalshave the same percentage.
That has never been demonstrated, but that's that's
a reasonable assumption. OK.
When the planter animal dies, itstops taking in new C-14.
So in theory you can tell how long it's been dead by measuring
how much C-14 is left. This entire process was invented

(01:20:27):
by Willard Libby, Nobel Prize winner for inventing carbon
dating. University of Chicago in 1947 to
53. He worked on this, moved to
Stanford University. Carbon 14 continues to decay
after the animal dies. If half of it's gone, you would
assume it's been dead 5700 years.
It can't get anymore, obviously,so it's going to go out of
balance. Carbon dating is actually a

(01:20:48):
comparison of the carbon 14 in the object with the carbon 14 in
the atmosphere. It's a ratio, OK, if it's
.000765, it is still alive. If it's only 00003825, it's 5700
years old, etcetera, etcetera. The less it has, the older it
is. This is how the theory works.
It goes from 1/2 to 1/4 to an eighth to a 16th to not much.

(01:21:09):
OK, they compare the amount of C-14 in the object being dated
with the amount in the atmosphere to estimate how long
it's been dead if only half of it has been.
If it's only got half as much, it's assumed it died 57130 years
ago. Sounds good, but there are some
assumptions that mess up everything.
If I told you to fill a barrel with water, but there were holes
in the barrel, as you're puttingwater in, it's leaking out.

(01:21:31):
It's kind of like a check checkbook.
You know, you keep putting the money in, it keeps leaking out
in different places. But at some point you're going
to reach a stage called equilibrium.
You'll never feel the barrel past that point unless you speed
up the intake or cut down the outgo.
The Earth's atmosphere is going to have the same problem.
If you took a brand new planet Earth, created it, poof, and
stuck it out going around the sun 93,000,000 miles away, it

(01:21:51):
would start developing C14 from radiation and start losing it to
decay. So the question is they they
wandered this back in 1950, how long would it take Earth's
atmosphere to reach equilibrium?The consensus was it would
probably take about 30,000 yearsfor the Earth to reach
equilibrium. And then Willard Libby and the
boys at University of Chicago made a tragic mistake.
They made two fundamentally fatally flawed assumptions.

(01:22:14):
They said well we know the Earthis millions of years old mistake
#1 so we can ignore the equilibrium problem.
They ignored it. Problem is radiocarbon is still
forming 28 to 37% faster than it's decaying with carbon 14 is
proof the earth is less than 30,000 years old or else it
would all be stabilized by now. It would be stable in the
atmosphere and it's not OK, we can talk all day about that, but

(01:22:37):
basically if an animal is still alive, it should give you about
16 clicks on your Geiger counter.
If it's only giving you eight, you're going to say it's 5700
years old. If it's only giving you four,
it's 11,000 years old, etcetera,etcetera.
This is how carbon dating is done.
I won't have time to cover all of the evidences I have, but I
just give you a few examples of how it simply doesn't work
because one good experiment is worth a pound of theory any day.

(01:22:59):
Back in 1949 when they developedit, the lower leg of a mammoth
dated 15,000 years old, but the skin dated 21,000 years old.
Same animal. It's not working.
In 19491963, living mollusk shells dated 2300 years old.
It's still not working, folks. 1970 At the proceedings of the
12th Nobel Symposium, they said if a carbon date supports our

(01:23:19):
theories, we put it in the main text.
If it is not entirely contradictthem, we put it in a footnote.
If it's completely out of date, we just drop it.
Freshly killed seal carbon dated1300 years old.
One part of a mammoth is 40,000 years old.
Another part is 26,000 from the same animal.
Now we can talk all day about carbon dating, but here's living
snails, carbon dated 27,000 years old. 1984 Science magazine

(01:23:42):
there's I don't have time to cover them all, but watch my
video #7 which is why it's out there. 1992 two Colorado Creek
mammoths and Alaska found side by side one day to 22,000 years
old. The other one was 16,000 years
old. They're side by side. 1996 at
Berkeley University, they used the most advanced dating
techniques they have. They discovered these things
that they thought were quarter million years old actually were

(01:24:04):
53,000 to 27,000. I'd like to point out, your
honor, that is still a 96% error.
If you think carbon dating proves the age of anything, you
need your head examined. Thank you.
I'd like a show of. Hands of how many understood

(01:24:25):
that I just We aren't the only liars here.
I. I have a pamphlet here written
by the Institute for Creation Research on radioactive

(01:24:48):
isotopes. I'm quoting a sentence of the
conclusion they're they're doinginvestigation on radioactive
isotopes. The thing is called a rape and
it says we would appreciate yourinvolvement in this effort.
The most important contribution you can make is through prayer.
We recognize this is a monumental task and we need you

(01:25:11):
to pray that we have wisdom as we work.
Science would never pray for success I wanted to find out why
the evolutionists and the creationists disagreed on this
carbon dating thing so much so Iwent to one of the most famous
creationists that I know. Henry Morris is the past

(01:25:31):
president of the institution Creation Research.
In his pamphlet of the Creation Institute Creation Research
Society in March 1982, page 226,he explains why only dark carbon
dating that shows a short time is effective.
I quote when God squeezed energyinto atoms, He squeezed and held

(01:25:57):
the atoms so tightly that there was no unstable elements and
therefore no radioactivity. At the fall of Adam and Eve, he
relaxed his grips slightly whichaffected every atom.
It allowed some to become unstable, that is radioactive.
It's all because of Adam and Eve's sin that we have unstable

(01:26:21):
radioactivity. Isn't that right?
Want to add anything to this? We don't need.
That any more time we're done, OK?
Let me go ahead and pose the next question to you.
I'd like to give you guys an open-ended 1/2.
For fairness sake, let me just read the question to you
verbatim and then please talk onthis topic.

(01:26:43):
Question says in evolution thereappears to be no real purpose to
life. What hope do you have to offer
me to even bother to continue tolive?
So I guess. I you.
Know. What?
How do you say? For the sake of open endedness,
please, I I guess we're talking about morality, purpose,

(01:27:05):
anything along those lines. Well, let me, let me.
Let me point point out one thingthat this is, you know, sort of
confusing terms. There may not be a purpose
ostensibly defined for the universe as a whole or for
society as a whole even, but that doesn't mean that an
individual could not set up a purpose for him or herself.

(01:27:28):
I I'm going to live first, then I decide what's worthwhile for
me to strive for in my life. If I simply subject myself to
the mass and say because they don't have a purpose, I'm going
to kill myself, there's something demented.
I think I need counselling at that point for all practical
purposes here. So here again, I think, I think

(01:27:49):
a purpose is something that we create individually for
ourselves. It's not something that we
deduce from the nature of the universe in any way.
I'm sure that everyone here has some kind of a purpose in their
existence defined by themselves to find where they're going to

(01:28:10):
go. So that that would be my take on
that. And did you want to sure look at
DNA? Changes and it changes so that
animals and plants survive. If the DNA changes in a brain of
an animal to make that animals breed successfully by taking

(01:28:35):
care of its young, taking care of his brothers and sisters, and
taking care of his family, that animal may survive.
If on the other hand, the DNA goes in a different direction,
then the animal learns to swim or or fly that can and that
animal can survive. Certain animals have more
emotions than others. We can measure the emotions in

(01:28:57):
dog and if anybody here want a dog that doesn't have any
emotions, you know, my two dogs have all kinds of emotions.
I can tell when they're guilty and I can tell, you know, when
they're happy and I can tell when they're sad.
It's and it's good for them. They have the DNA in their
brains that gave them the ability to be pack animals and
they survived because of it. Now, some animals like cats and

(01:29:21):
how how many cat owners in thereknow that cats aren't pack
animals. They don't care if you're home
or not. You know, dog owners know the
dogs can't wait for you to get home.
The cats survive because of the way they evolved.
Human beings survive because of the way we evolved too.
So it's important to us to take care of our children to.

(01:29:41):
It's important for us to make sure that our families survive.
It's important for us to get madonce in a while.
It's important for us to love. Those things have to be able to
come out of us because we've gotthe right chemicals in our body
to do that. If we didn't have those
chemicals, we couldn't do it. So it's it's anytime you talk

(01:30:02):
about any kind of emotions, we've got them, and so do lots
of other animals. If we want to talk, we can even
talk about plants, for heaven's sakes.
If insects attack a Maple tree, that Maple tree gives off a
chemical called a pheromone thatgoes off through the rest of the

(01:30:22):
forest and unites with the leaves and the trees and the
rest of the forest. Those trees pick up that
pheromone and then they produce a chemical to withstand the
insect infection. That's important for those trees
to be able to do that. It's important for them to be
able to communicate with each other by using chemicals.
It's important for us to do the same thing.

(01:30:44):
What we smell on each other is important.
What we see on each other is important.
Those things are controlled by DNA.
Can you? Can you, can you teach your
child to love? Can you teach your child to
hate? Sure you can.
But you can do it because those chemicals are there.

(01:31:06):
We are an animal that has the ability to make our environment
part of what the so we can survive.
We can control our environment. We can control it because we've
got intelligence. We can control it because we
have emotions. We get those things.
We get the basic cards we play with from DNA.

(01:31:27):
Some of us get a better deck than the rest.
What are you going to do about that?
And the answer is you can't do anything about it.
You can try to fit into your environment.
You can't make yourself something that you want to be
just by wishing it you got you were a, a sperm and an egg, you
know, and that's sperm and an egg developed from a lot of

(01:31:51):
cells. Let me, I, I want to ask you a
question because another question because I hear, I hear
this a lot and people are, are saying well.
How do you know about? That evolution, you weren't
there. How do you know that those
things are really happening? You weren't there.
Well, my question to you is, were you there when you were

(01:32:14):
conceived? Do you remember then can can you
prove that you were conceived ifyou weren't there?
Well, some of you are saying, well, that's a, a, a silly
question. Well, of course it's a silly
question. And it's a silly question
because we can look back in the past, we can trace back what

(01:32:39):
happens to animals to make them behave a certain way.
We can trace back to certain animals to make them, to show
what kind of characteristics they have.
If you were to take a little chunk of skin right there for me
and look at that hair follicle, then you were to take.
A. A.
A. A a bird and and take his wing

(01:33:00):
and take that little follicle out right there.
That's a, a feather follicle. Of course, if you took it from
his leg, it would be a skin. A a a scale follicle.
If you took a little chunk from a fish, you'd get another scale
follicle. So there's scale follicles, bird
feather follicles and hair follicles.
When we look at the DNA in thosefollicles, they're almost

(01:33:22):
exactly alike. And then when we look at the DNA
that produces the proteins that makes hair scales and feathers,
it's almost exactly like we can show relationships.
That's important. Evolution wouldn't mean anything
if we couldn't show relationships.
If, if we found that a a dog wasmore genetically related to a

(01:33:45):
frog than it is to a cat, we'd know something's wrong.
But we never find that we know we've got so much information
genetically that we'll probably,we may never figure it all out.
We've spent a lot of time here talking about fossils.
Fossils don't mean anything as far as evolution is concerned.
We don't need them. We got all evidence we need to

(01:34:07):
prove evolution without fossils.Forget fossils, they just aren't
important. What's important is DNA.
All right, the question was what's the purpose of life?
OK. Joseph Stalin executed 14,700

(01:34:30):
Polish officers, prisoners of war at the Katyn Forest.
Why did he do that? How do you execute?
Prisoners of war Adolf Hitler executed at least 6,000,000 Jews
plus millions of others. Why would a person kill Jews?
Well, Hitler thought they were an inferior species that hadn't
evolved as far. He was actually trying to speed
up the evolution process. 1975 to 79.
The Khmer Rouge under the leadership Paul Pot, executed

(01:34:52):
more than 1/3 of their entire population.
Check out the killing fields. Why did they do that?
Why were the Australian Aborigines treated like they
were animals? Why were Australian Aboriginal
skulls dug up out of graves? Or people were executed and
their skulls were boiled down and their soul to museums in
America to have displays for evolution?
Because they have a bigger jaw than other humans do.

(01:35:15):
Kip Kinkle said if there was a God, he wouldn't let me feel the
way I do. There is no God, only hate.
Huh. Well, in May 1st May 21st, 1998,
fifteen year old Kip Kinkle, a student at Thurston High School
in Oregon, entered the cafeteria, fired more than 50
rounds from a semi automatic rifle. 26 students were injured,
two were killed. Later, the bodies of his parents
were found in his home. He was taken.

(01:35:36):
He was arrested, taken to a police headquarters where he
attempted to murder a detective.He said if there was a God, he
wouldn't let me feel the way I do.
So there's no God, only hate. Why?
Violent crimes increased nearly 1000% since I was a boy.
And that's the time evolution became a popular theory in our
textbook. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris
made a video prior to the Columbine shootings.
They're talking about a footballplayer.

(01:35:56):
They said he doesn't deserve thejaw evolution gave him.
Look for his jaw. It won't be on his body.
Klebold's father was a geologistwho believed in evolution.
Both Eric and Dial In were followers of Nazi teachings.
The shooting took place on Hitler's birthday on purpose.
It was planned to commemorate Hitler.
Eric's T-shirt said natural selection.
They killed Cassie and Rachel just because they were
Christians. They killed Isaiah just because

(01:36:18):
he was black. Hitler hated black people, after
all. They hadn't evolved as far.
That was Hitler's thinking. The clothes may give a clue to
the thinking of these teenagers said natural selection, Yes.
What about this natural selection?
Well, natural selection selects.It doesn't create a thing.
It's selects. It's all it can do.
It's not, it's not a creation process.
We go into that some other time.So my answer to the question is,

(01:36:40):
is there a purpose to life? Absolutely, there certainly is.
God created this universe with aplan.
He created man with a purpose. Now I have found in my doing
speaking on this topic about 800* a year all over the world and
15 years worth. Now the reason people accept the
evolution theory is not because they have a scientific reason.

(01:37:00):
I asked a kid two weeks ago, I was debating 2 professors or I
forget where I was. I didn't matter. 3 weeks ago one
kid came afterwards and said evolution's a fact.
I said well Stan calm down. Let me ask you a question.
If evolution if, if creation wastrue, if the creation story's
true, would that affect your lifestyle any?
If there was a creator that saidthou shalt not commit adultery,
don't know pornography, no lying, no cheating, no stealing,
would that affect your lifestyleany?

(01:37:22):
He said You're trying to embarrass me, aren't you?
I said I don't even know who youare, I'm just asking you a
question. The reason people accept
evolution is because of their sin, not their science.
Doctor hoeven this. Question is going to you first.
You've mentioned the second law of thermodynamics to prove that

(01:37:46):
God must have provided an initial energy or the initial
something in the universe. Have you considered that some of
the laws of nature only work in certain situations?
For example, Newtonian physics breaks down towards the speed of
light. So does it the second law of
thermodynamics really prove thatGod created the universe?

(01:38:06):
There are several ways to definethe second law of
thermodynamics. There's all kinds.
Let me try to get, well, it'll take me a minute, but basically
it all, they all boil down to the same thing matter.
Everything tends toward disorder, OK?
Things don't order. That doesn't prove God created
the universe and it certainly doesn't prove the biblical view.
OK, And it doesn't prove everybody ought to become an
independent, temperamental, fundamental right wing radical

(01:38:28):
chicken eating Baptist like me. However, if you keep studying,
you will get there. OK?
I think the second law of thermodynamics demonstrates
there must have been a beginning.
Since everything is winding down, everything is falling
apart, there had to be a beginning.
There had to be something that wounded up.
So yes, I think the second law of thermodynamics is proof

(01:38:49):
positive that there was a beginning.
Even the evolutionists will admit that.
Oh yeah, 20 billion years ago. What was before that?
Was there any time or space before there was matter?
And where did this matter come from?
They have a totally illogical theory, yes.
I think that it's logical to sayin the beginning God instead of
in the beginning you know nothing, or in the beginning

(01:39:10):
dirt or in the beginning matter.You know they worship matter
like the Christian worships God.There's no difference.
They're both religious. I think ours is more logical and
scientifically defensible, but they're both ultimately in the
in the final analysis or simply religious theories.
So the second law of thermodynamics, which is as far
as anybody knows, universally believe as far as Newton's laws

(01:39:30):
breaking down at as you approachthe speed of light, there's a
lot of theories about that. There's also theories.
There's an article in Discover magazine last year, April of
2003, that says Einstein was simply wrong, folks.
OK, there's a large article in there.
The speed of light is not a constant.
So I don't think it's correct tosay that we know for sure that
these laws breakdown as we approach the speed of light.
It may be true. I don't know.

(01:39:51):
I don't think anybody knows, would be my point.
I cover quite a bit about the speed of light and evidences of
it in the last 10 years. Proofs actually, scientific
experiments that say the speed of light is not a constant.
I'll get you some of those here if I can get.
Oh, no, sorry about that. See, I told you about asking the
questions in the right order, didn't I remember?
Now be a lot faster. The second law of thermodynamics

(01:40:14):
says everything's falling apart.There's lots of stars out there.
I mean like billions and billions of stars.
We don't have a clue how any oneof them could form by chance.
And yet, obviously, they're here.
So the second law of thermodynamics, the Christian
would predict that God created auniverse and we'll see things
falling apart. Universe is, is winding down.
OK. It's not getting better.

(01:40:34):
And stars are blowing up. It's called a Nova or a
supernova if it's a big one. So yeah, we're losing things.
And eventually the universe willexperience what's called a heat
death. Everything will be uniformly
cold. And right now they look out in
space and see this three degree Kelvin, you know -270 centigrade
or -450 2.7, whatever it is, Fahrenheit, you know, it's a
universal temperature out there.Seems to be the same everywhere.

(01:40:56):
And it seems to be this background noise, this
radiation. OK, that appears to be true.
What does it prove? Oh, that proves The Big Bang or
it doesn't prove The Big Bang. Not to put it doesn't prove The
Big Bang at all. Nobody's for sure what's causing
that. We are seeing stars appear to be
drifting away like the red shift.
OK, there's not much question. There's a red shift.
The assumption is that maybe it's caused by the Doppler
effect. But actually nobody knows what's

(01:41:17):
causing the red shift. Even if it's true that it is
stars drifting away or moving away, that would still beg the
question of where did the energycome from to propel this thing?
Where did the star itself come from?
And I don't think we can prove positively that the the redshift
is proof of either great distances or that the universe
is that stars are moving away. They give the same thing with
parallel motion or perpendicularmotion to your line of sight.

(01:41:38):
This guy said there was an earlysign that redshifts indicate
distance of galaxies. For quasars, however, the
diagram shows a wide scatter andapparent brightness at every
redshift. In fact, there is little
correlation of brightness to redshift at all.
Either quasars come in an extremely wide range of
intrinsic luminosities, as most people believe, or their
redshifts do not indicate distance.
Sky and Telescope Magazine 10 years ago.

(01:42:00):
Thus, for us the only conclusioncan be that can be drawn is at
least some quasars are relatively nearby and a large
fraction of their redshift is due to something other than
expansion of the universe. Some people think redshift is
for the Doppler effect from stars leaving.
Maybe so. If it is, that's still an
example of the second law. We see things get old, they die,
they fall apart. And if their if their philosophy
of life is you're only here to pass on your genes, that's the

(01:42:23):
only reason you exist. Eat, drink and be merry.
Tomorrow we die. That's a pretty pessimistic
worldview. I think there's a much better
view than that. You were created in God's image
with a purpose. It's true.
Everything's falling apart. The heaven's wax old I I'm
getting old. Everything's falling apart.
My car is falling apart. Everything falls apart.
How did it get wound up? Where did the initial

(01:42:44):
organization, energy and intelligence come from?
Information is consistently being lost.
Every time your DNA replicates, the little pieces break off and
you know it's like split ends ona hair and you eventually you
can only replicate it so many times and it it quits
replicating and you die. You know that if.
We are a. Copy off of a copy off of a copy
off of a copy off of a copy off of a copy off of a copy off of a

(01:43:06):
copy of Adam. It's amazing we can even stand
here and talk about it. OK?
The information must have been incredible in the original,
because it's been degrading eversince.
That's the second law of thermodynamics.
Everything is degrading. This building is degrading.
If you don't have people constantly maintain this
building, it will fall apart. The entire highway system in

(01:43:28):
America will fall completely apart if we don't keep
maintaining it. Every building on this planet
will fall down into a pile of rubble if somebody doesn't keep
fixing it. And even then, if they try
desperately to keep fixing it, at some point it's still going
to fall down. It's inevitable.
That's the second law. So if you think that evolution
can overcome that second law, I would like to understand how.
OK, the second law tells us everything's falling apart.

(01:43:50):
Therefore, obviously, there musthave been a beginning.
I can answer that in 10 words. In the beginning, God created
the heaven and the earth. That's logical answer for me.
You can have the rest of my time.
All right. Are we supposed to resolve?
This can. We do that.
I'll try. That's a.

(01:44:14):
Mouthful to say the the least. First of all, the the laws of
thermodynamics are commonly called the laws of
thermodynamics. People like to talk about the
second law. Albert Einstein has said that
the laws of thermodynamics are the only laws that will stand

(01:44:35):
and never be overthrown forever.Stephen.
Hawking, a person who is believed to be one of the
brightest men on the planet, hasused the second law of
thermodynamics to show the mechanism by which black holes

(01:44:58):
have have worked. Which, you know, I think that's
that's rather amazing. The opponent is saying truly
diversity is a measure of the second law of thermodynamics.
But I let's don't badmouth it too muchly because as the

(01:45:18):
universe, as it exists, as we know it, it's the only one that
can exist for us to exist to follow these particular
principles. So therefore, you know, I'm, I'm
very reluctant to say this is something that we want to have
to, to ask God to overthrow thatit seems to be the very maybe

(01:45:41):
the the very thing that will make it possible for things to
exist energy and how it got together, I don't know.
But the fact that it is in a concentrated form that can go to
a less deform kind of less concentrated form and we can

(01:46:03):
utilize when things go from hot places to cold places.
And we did that when he drove our automobiles here today.
You did this, you're driving around with an automobile that's
8000°F inside of that engine with a burning of gasoline.
But you know, you don't have to have that inside of the car.
Of course, you're, you're surrounded by the 40° or 50°

(01:46:27):
temperatures that you're drivingthrough the, through the,
through the atmosphere. The, the laws of thermodynamics
are much misunderstood. I can look out across the, the
class or the students here, and many of them are my, my

(01:46:49):
students. And I can probably, I can
probably confess to the confusion that exists in
thermodynamics. I probably contribute a great
contribution to to adding to that confusion.
But the what we have heard todayare and I've I've got to I like

(01:47:13):
to use colorful language. So I'm very careful and I'm told
I can't do that here, but but I'm going to have to leave it
with this that I I'm certainly glad I don't have to step in
something. Thank you this question.
Will be posed to your table. Evolutionary theory predicts

(01:47:36):
that mankind will continue to evolve.
How long, in your estimation, will it take for a distinct new
species of humans to emerge? In other words, how long will it
take for there to be two or moreincompatible species of humans?
And let me add something to that.
Where? Where do you foresee this going?
The evolution of of humans. I can tell you one thing.

(01:47:59):
We'll never have a war because there's been a disagreement on
science. What we will have is people
advancing because we've learned how to live with each other.
If we don't do that, we're not going to advance at all.
We have certain things that are going to take place with every

(01:48:24):
species. If we go back and look how
species have evolved over time, we can see that almost
everything that's ever lived on this planet is extinct.
Evolution is a really inefficient situation.
Well, as a matter of fact, the intelligent designer is about as

(01:48:48):
inefficient as you can get. Do you know how many kids die
every year because they choke todeath because our throat and our
windpipe are so close together? I mean, whoever designed that
first engineering student could do better than that.
Just think how many people in this audience probably got all

(01:49:08):
kinds of hang ups because we've got a system that gets rid of
our waste material retinator system that we do, we reproduce
with. I mean, you know, there's all
kinds of animals that got betterreproductive systems than that.
They don't. You know that the intelligent
designer designed a snail that has his anus right above his
mouth. Come on, who did that?
We can explain those things by looking at evolution.

(01:49:31):
You can't explain those things by looking at a designer.
The designer did a terrible job on the eye.
People have eye problems becausethe nerves in the cornea and the
nerves in the retina are in the wrong place.
And it happened that way becausethat was the only thing
evolution had to work with. There's all kinds of problems

(01:49:52):
with design in the world. There's all kinds of problems
with with evolution. And what happens is we try to
correct them now. What's going to happen to us in
the future? It'll depend on us.
I mean, I like the question because what it involves is
ecology involves environment, itinvolves saving the planet.
It involves, you know, under what it involves is

(01:50:15):
understanding evolution. You know.
One of these textbooks, I think this one, it says, it says in
here, do not worry about the future.
Because. God is going to kill all of us
soon. You know they say almost word

(01:50:38):
for word what I said in there is.
Do. Not give your life for
evolution, because I mean, do not give your life for
environment because the environment will be destroyed by
the Lord, you know. Well, if you believe that, then
I guess you don't need to worry about the ecology.
I guess you don't need to worry about the environment.

(01:51:00):
But I don't believe that. And I think that we should worry
about the environment. I think we should worry about
the future of our kids. I think we should worry about
what's going on and I think we should understand evolution so
that we can stay healthy when we're doing it.
We need to understand our immunesystems.
We under need to understand thatbacteria change in a moment's
notice. We under we need to understand

(01:51:21):
that highly formed animals can'tchange quickly.
And we're a highly formed animal.
We we evolve really slowly. Bacteria evolve very rapidly.
Insects can evolve certain things in just a matter of a few
months. We're we have all slowly, we
need to understand what's going on with our DNA.

(01:51:42):
We need to understand what's going on with the DNA of every
plant and animal that lives on this planet.
That's how we survive. And if we don't do that, we may
not survive. It's a, it's a, it's a, it's,
it's that simple. Actually, we need, we need to
use our brains. We cannot be in the situation

(01:52:05):
where we say. Here's.
A book that's got all the answers in it.
We don't need to know anything new.
When my father talked to me whenI was a boy and he said when you
read a book, be sure to look in the back of it and see if
there's a good bibliography. If there's not a good
bibliography in there, it may bethat the things in that book

(01:52:26):
aren't true. And then he handed me a Bible
and I look for the bibliography and there wasn't one.
That's all I got to say. Well, I, I just kind of wonder
whether there's any kind of a reason to assume that evolution

(01:52:48):
would necessarily lead to some kind of proliferation of one
particular species. That's that's sort of an
assumption in the question that I don't really quite comprehend
why it makes that. I think if you look back, we
know that the we're coming from proliferation.
That is, I understand that some comments have been that the
Neanderthal does not share our genes.

(01:53:12):
That is that. Are you up on that?
That that is, we had a proliferated species.
Neanderthal was also human related and there's every
indication that chimpanzees are of the same branch in some way
or other because they have an intelligence of a 5 year old and
are capable of manipulating language and communicating with

(01:53:32):
us. So we're sharing this world
already with quite a few different species that are
awfully close to us. Let me also mention the dolphin.
Their stories that go back all the way to Roman times of
cooperation being being inhuman and and dolphin.
So if we're talking about intelligent siblings, I suppose

(01:53:56):
on this planet there may be plenty already.
We don't have to wait for that to develop.
Beyond that, I don't know what the future will bring.
And I think that is what characterizes scientific
mentality, is that you are willing to live with uncertainty
yet don't know it all. That's why you're motivated to

(01:54:18):
learn more. And I quite agree with that,
with all the answers in one book.
That's very authoritarian, undemocratic kind of thinking.
One of the most frequent, our colleague here mentioned Adolf
Hitler, one of the most frequentwords in Adolf Hitler's mound.
My mouth was God and divine Providence.

(01:54:42):
Therein lies danger. It's an authoritarian kind of
thinking that is not healthy. All right, that's interesting.
I don't want to step in much of that either myself.

(01:55:04):
How long will it take for us to evolve into a new species?
I don't. Nothing ever evolves into any
new. Well, I had to use the word
species. So nothing ever evolves into a
new kind. Nobody's ever observed anything
changed to a different kind. Bacteria are still bacteria.
If they become resistant to a drug, it's because they lost the
locking mechanism on the ribosome, so the antibiotic

(01:55:24):
can't lock on. It's no different than somebody
handcuffing everybody, hauling them off to jail to kill them.
But you don't have any arms, so they can't handcuff you, so you
survive. Wow, beneficial mutation.
Well, it might be for the moment, but it's not any new
information. Bacteria don't evolve into
something else, they lose information.
They're resistant to a particular drug for a short
time, but then you put them backin the population of regular

(01:55:45):
bacteria and they're inferior. Nothing ever.
The bacteria are still bacteria,for heaven's sake.
That's not an example of evolution.
OK, We're going to evolve how toget along.
People choke because of poor design.
How many of you happen to like the design of your esophagus and
your trachea? I use mine.
I've been using it for years. OK, It works fine.
OK. The, the, the, the purpose of

(01:56:07):
life is to save the planet and to understand evolution.
Let's get more government funding so we can teach more of
this stuff, so more kids can notonly step in it but wallow in
it. Here he said the eye is a poor
design. Well, now let's see about that.
Charles Darwin said to suppose that the eye could have been
formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd.

(01:56:28):
OK. And yet he goes on for four
pages after that and tells how we think it happened.
The retina of your eye is about one square inch.
It has 137 million light sensitive cells wired to the
brain. I've done a huge amount of
electrical wiring in my lifetime.
I cannot imagine hooking up 137,000,000 connections in one
square inch. My heavenly Father did it and it
works pretty good. It worked till a couple years
ago. I had to get these dumb things.

(01:56:48):
OK, because that's an example ofsecond law thermodynamics.
By the way, decay. Now I debated an atheist in
Buckler, Ed Buckler Buckner in New York.
He said the eye is poorly designed.
Like I believe I just heard a few moments ago, it's a poor
design. He said the retina is in front.
The blood vessels are in front of the retina so they block part
of the light coming in. He said the octopus has a much
better eye because their blood vessels are behind the retina.

(01:57:11):
That's proof of evolution because of poor design.
I said, Ed, we live in the air, OK?
Air is a poor insulator for UV light.
Your body needs the blood vessels in front of the retina
because that's your last defenseagainst UV light.
Octopus live in the water, OK? Water blocks UV light.
They don't need their blood vessels in front.

(01:57:33):
Now, if you want to swap eyes with an octopus, you just go
ahead and enjoy yourself, but you're going to be blind in a
few days, OK? Their argument from poor design
is like saying, well, God wouldn't do it this way,
therefore it must have evolved. That's a lousy argument for
evolution. That's a proof evidence.
That's an evidence to me that wewere originally perfectly
designed and we're the whole whole, all of humanity is just
plain falling apart, folks. And yes, God's going to have to

(01:57:55):
step in here pretty soon and we're going to all kill
ourselves. OK.
Thank you so much. Professors.
Rise, Big Sleeper and Strayer inthe entrance of time.
Seeing that we have left time for a 10 minute closing
statement for each side, let's go ahead and present those now.

(01:58:18):
Would you please go ahead? Thank you.
OK, this is this is my closing right?
Yes. OK, good.
Well, this is, this has been an interesting discussion that
we've, we've had, I, I, I wonderhow we have all changed in our,

(01:58:44):
our minds and thinking and knowledge of what we have talked
about. We've talked about some good
information. I've heard some bad information.
I happen to believe in the scientific method.

(01:59:05):
Without the scientific method, we have no defense of of.
Sinking. Into ignorance and despair and
to people who do not understand the the things that have been

(01:59:25):
accumulated for science. We, we are, we are cursed to do
ignorance and ignore and, and, and, and what I would what I
will repeat voodoo science that people will, will believe in,
in, in crazy kinds of things. And, and we see those kind of

(01:59:47):
things going on in people today.The one, the one thing that we
have is that we have knowledge and we have a way of, of testing
knowledge. And putting to the test of a

(02:00:09):
number of people essentially to evaluate and agree in what is as
correct as we possibly can. If we have nothing, then we, we
are in despair and, and we have,we have nothing that we can
possibly survive. I don't think that is true.

(02:00:31):
I think the scientific method is, is a wonderful thing and I
think it, I think we, the discussion we've had today has,
has proved that, that it is correct.
When you die, the world is not going to change.

(02:00:56):
The world will. Stop.
Because your. World is in your head all along.
You have no direct contact. With the world.
Out there, you have no immediateknowledge of the world.
The only knowledge you have is immediate knowledge through your
senses. For that reason, you work with

(02:01:18):
frameworks, trying to understandtheoretical frameworks, trying
to understand what's going on out there.
You're trying to make tenuous predictions about what you think
the next event will be, and if the 10 years prediction doesn't
work out, that you're going to overturn.
The. Hypothesis to work on evolution

(02:01:40):
is no, it's a theoretical framework.
As long as new information framework, we're going to keep
working with it. When we have an overwhelming
evidence that doesn't fit, then the scientific community will be
just as comfortable overturning that and altering it to
something different. And it's a fairly simple system.

(02:02:02):
That's why it works. What we've been shown today is
that we should throw that out, replace it with a spiritual
being where we don't have any idea how it is interacting with
the material world and that material world which we can't
really understand either. And in that complicated system,
we're supposed to work scientifically.

(02:02:24):
I suppose the next time you go to the physician and you have
some kind of a pain will be pointed out to you.
It's probably some Little Rock that God forgot there.
Doesn't make any. Sense to me and and what I want
to say to conclude here. At the beginning, Doctor Hovind
offered a general ethical principle, and that is that we

(02:02:47):
have an inheritance of sin. I find it.
Abhorrent. I find that absolutely
incredible to even believe that anybody who has seen a baby and
is holding us in your arms, would you really believe that
that is hell bound, that that has inherited sin?

(02:03:09):
It's a, it's a, it's a most objectionable concept that is
being carried around here in thename of religion.
And for that reason, I also believe that we really do have a
very clear cut science ever because evolution is self
correcting. It is cuming data that it's
checking each other. It has the open scientific

(02:03:30):
community exchanging ideas with each other, checking on each
other, and not some kind of an authoritative system that is
loaded down on us where where wehave no possibility of
questioning. The one is democracy, the
scientific community. The other is a form of
authoritarianism that I find very objectionable.

(02:03:57):
I'd like to quote. From this creationist book for
my closing, there's a section inhere 342.
It says scientific truths revealed in the Bible, many
important scientific truths revealed in the Bible thousands
of years before they were discovered by modern scientists.
And then it lists several of them.
One of them has to do with the earth rotating on its axis and

(02:04:20):
that's, you know, the six day thing.
Another one has to do with the Earth running down the second
alternative dynamics, and there's some stuff about blood
and water and that kind of stuff.
But anyway, here is the proof from the Bible that the earth
rotates on its axis. It says it tells these students
to take check. Luke 1731 through 34.

(02:04:42):
In that. Day, he which shall be upon the
housetop and his stuff in the house, let him not come down and
take it away, And he that is in the field, let him likewise not
return back. Remember, Lot's wife, whosoever
shall seek to save his life shall lose it, and whosoever
shall lose his life shall preserve it.

(02:05:05):
I tell you, in the night there shall be two men in one bed, and
one shall be taken and the othershall be left.
I did not understand that I called a Becca.
I said, what does that mean? Well, you check for the
Teacher's Manual to find out what that means and they keep,
they went right and they came back.
They said, we're sorry, that's not mentioned in the teacher's

(02:05:26):
manual. I said, well, you know, is it a
possibility is a misprint. They took that as an insult and
said no, it's not a possibility.And click, they hung up the
second one, the universe is running down.
To find out the proof from the Bible that the universe is

(02:05:47):
running down, you go to Isaiah 51, six, and it says, lift up
your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath.
For the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth
shall wax old like a garment, and these that dwell within
shall die in like manner. But my salvation shall be
forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

(02:06:10):
I didn't understand that either.I hope the.
Applause means that you understood that that has
something to do with the second law of thermodynamics, and not
anyway. Anyway, I decided to take a
quote from one of the best known.

(02:06:33):
Creationists. In the country explaining to me
or to all of us why all these colleges all over the world do
not accept creationism. Here's the quote.
It's from a fellow named Kent Hovine, and it came from the
sources. I got it from the Internet, the

(02:06:55):
unmasking, the false religion ofevolution.
Here's his quote. There is definitely a
conspiracy, but I don't think it's in a human conspiracy.
I don't believe that there's smoke filled rooms where groups
of men get together and decide to teach evolution in all the
schools. I believe it is a much higher
level. I believe it is a satanic

(02:07:16):
conspiracy. The reason these different
people come to the same conclusions is not because they
all met together, it's because they all work for the devil.

(02:07:38):
I think that. Was one of the most arrogant
statements I've ever read in my life.
And. If we're going to use the Bible
for science, we've got some tough things to explain.

(02:07:58):
What about the cockatrice? It's mentioned four times in the
Bible. It's a chicken, a rooster that
lays poison eggs that can fly and spits fire.
The what are? We going to do about Dragons
being mentioned 17 times in the Bible.
What are you going? What are you going to do about
unicorns or mentioned eight times in the Bible?

(02:08:21):
I want to tell you what we have never found a fossil or Unicorn.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we did?
Then you people have something to applaud for.
OK. Thank you.
All right, Well, first I need tosay, fellas, I thank you so much
for doing this. These students get about nine

(02:08:43):
months out of the year teaching on evolution.
It's about time to get a couple hours at least to hear a
conflict between creation and evolution.
And I will be glad to come back at my expense.
Anytime now people say, oh, creationists win the debates
because they have, you know, better visuals.
OK, I don't use any tax dollars to buy my visuals.

(02:09:04):
You guys got unlimited funding to buy stuff here, get some
better visuals. Don't blame me.
People say, well, creationist win because they have a dumb
audience. The dumb people are dumb if they
believe in creation. That's that's the implication
over and over. People be believe because we
need more money to teach evolution.
That's why it's a lack of funding.
That's why we're losing these debates.
No. Maybe you're losing the debates
because you're wrong. And I'm right.

(02:09:26):
OK, several points were brought up and I'll use a few of my
minutes for this, and then I want to give a quick closing
here. I'm in favor of the scientific
method. You develop a theory, you gather
facts to support your theory. If you can't find any facts, you
throw the theory away. Evolution would have been thrown
away a long time ago, except they don't have a replacement
theory other than maybe somebodydesigned it.

(02:09:49):
Oh, they don't want that one. He mentioned.
He doesn't believe about inherent sin.
Well, I happened to have had three kids and two grandkids.
One more do any day. We didn't teach any of them to
lie or cheat or steal, but they all just kind of did it
automatically. How many of you noticed the same
thing with your kids when you'reraising them?

(02:10:11):
OK, yes. I think it's quite obvious to
anybody that's raised any kids. There is an inherent sin nature.
If you think man is inherently good, you're living in La La
land, OK? Man is inherently bad, OK.
And he needs a savior. He said you don't want an
authoritative system that's veryobjectionable to you.
That is my entire point. The reason people reject the

(02:10:33):
creation stories because they don't want somebody telling them
what to do. The Bible says in the last days
scoffers would come that would be willingly ignorant of the
creation and the floods. Second Peter chapter 3.
Read it for yourself. They're willingly ignorant of
the creation because that creation event tells us God
created this place, which means he owns it, which means he makes

(02:10:53):
the rules. They don't want to admit there
was a flood because that flood indicates God has the authority
to judge his creation. They just don't want to admit
that. I cover this very thoroughly, by
the way, on Seminar Part 2. You might want to watch that
one. And they're right there out
there. And by the way, my stuff's not
copyrighted. You can get it, copy it, and
send back the originals and get your money back.
That's always been our policy. So yes, I can understand why the

(02:11:14):
idea of an authoritarian, you know, Bible, is objectionable to
some people because that Bible says thou shalt not.
Do you know quite a few things. OK, so yeah, I I understand the
Bible says the fool has said in his heart there is no God.
I think the evidence for a designer is so obvious all
around us. If you're walking through the

(02:11:34):
woods and you find a painting hanging on the tree and you see
no footprints, you see no people, you still conclude there
was a painter. If you're walking through the
woods and you find a building and you see no footprints, you
see no people, you still conclude there was a builder.
When you see a watch, that's proof of a watchmaker.
When you see a creation, that's proof of a creator, whether you
ever meet him or not. There just had to be one.

(02:11:56):
Now, who is it? Is it Allah or Buddha or
Jehovah? Well, that's a different set of
arguments. But the fact is there must have
been a designer. Whoever he was, there had to be
a designer. We can argue later about which
one's right. OK, But there had to be people
object to that. You said, what does Luke mean?
Luke was telling them that in that day, some will be in the
field and some will be in bed. That's proof.

(02:12:17):
The world is round. It's dark on one side.
That's evidence right there. So I can explain.
I don't know why Becca couldn't explain it, but that's pretty
obvious to me. Now hang on, what happened here?
OK. I visited Wayne Strickland's
tombstone. I don't know if the other dates
filled in yet or not. It's been a couple years since
I've been there. But the date was empty when I

(02:12:38):
was there. He said he's an atheist.
Bible says the fool has said in his heart there is no God.
God does not believe in atheists.
Actually, I don't either. OK, you're going to die one of
these days. I'm going to die now, fellas, I
didn't drive all the way over here and leave my gorgeous wife
because I like being gone, OK? I I didn't come to win an
argument. I came to win you over.

(02:12:59):
Honestly, I. Would like to see you saved
going to heaven. Maybe you think you are I don't
know but if you think God used evolution, you have the wrong
God. OK, I know you write all kinds
of articles for the Atheist Magazine according to your bio
here, Jim. And, and I think that people run
from God. People can't find God for the
same reason a thief can't find apoliceman.

(02:13:24):
I sacrifice my time to travel and to do this because I'm
concerned that people are actually dying and going to
hell. I'm really concerned that that
really happens. I believe the Bible teaches
that. I believe that's literally true.
I believe we were designed for apurpose, and God loves each of
us. He hates our sin.
The Bible says he's angry with the wicked every day.

(02:13:45):
God hates our sin, but he loves us.
And we are inherently sinful. And we're going to die.
All of us are going to die. And you're going to be dead for
a really, really long time, OK? George Washington died 205 years
ago and he is still dead. I don't care how long you live,
you're going to be dead longer than that.

(02:14:07):
And you better think about that long and hard.
You better be really positive. You're right on this one.
God made this world. He owns it.
He makes the rules, and we are guilty of breaking his rules.
So rather than admit we've broken his rules, people say,
well, there is no God. We got it by evolution, which
means, of course, there are no rules.
If evolution is true, there are no rules.
I asked the question at the beginning.
I never got an answer. If evolution is true, how do we

(02:14:30):
tell right from wrong? How do we?
Tell right from wrong. God told us very clearly, thou
shalt not bear false witness. Don't lie, we've all lied.
Don't steal, We've stolen things.
We broke his commandments. Folks were guilty, period.
Which means we're going to be punished or you got to find a
substitute. And that's where Jesus comes in.

(02:14:51):
The God that made this world also came down and said, look,
you blew it. You're all sinners, you're all
going to hell. However, I still love you and I
still want to forgive you. I'll even die and take your
place. You can't beat a deal like that.
Now, Romans chapter one, Romans chapter one gives us a clear

(02:15:11):
progression. And I would recommend every
atheist or evolutionist or agnostic read Romans chapter one
very carefully because that which may be known of God, he,
he may be known, OK, you may know things about him.
You can learn about God. That which may be known is
manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them.
You know there's a designer, OK?I don't care about all your

(02:15:33):
arguments. You know, somebody made this
place. The invisible things of him from
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power in
Godhead. So they are without excuse.
Judgement Day. You're just flat.
Seriously in trouble. OK.
Because then when when they knewGod, they glorified him not as
God, neither we're thankful. But became vain in their

(02:15:53):
imaginations. And their foolish heart was
darkened. Professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools and change the glory of the
uncorruptible God into an image made like a corruptible man and
birds and four footed beasts andcreeping things.
They worship the creation. That's what evolution is all
about, save the planet. Wherefore God gave them up to
uncleanness through their own lusts, to dishonor their own

(02:16:15):
hearts and dishonor their own bodies.
Between them He changed the truth of God into a lie and
worship. Served and worshipped,
worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.
I mean, to them, the animals aremore important.
Look, I like animals. I take care of the animals we
have around our place. And I think Christians take care
of their things. But folks, this whole concept of
nature is all there is. We got to save the planet.

(02:16:37):
I don't pollute. I try hard not to.
I work very hard to keep our place clean and we do a very
good job. I think you can come visit
Pensacola, FL. But that's not the that's not
the ultimate goal of life. Bible says God gave them up.
You follow this trend. They don't want God telling them
what to do. So God gives up on them.
OK, you do what you want, and they get turned over to vile
affections. That's the way it always goes.

(02:16:58):
It descends. You can read the rest of the
chapter. It goes right into
homosexuality, by the way, If your job is to pass on your
genes and you're the fittest, well, they're not the fittest,
that's for sure. They're not passing on any
genes. Anybody.
I talked. I've been a long time on that
one. But God's going to judge this
planet. He tells us he's going to have
to because man has rejected him.Now, they professed them.
They thought they were wise. They became fools.

(02:17:20):
And if you believe your grandpa was a rock, you're fool.
Some of my ancestors probably swung by their necks.
OK, but none of them swung by their tails.
Now, if you think your grandpa was a monkey, I think you're
still a fool, but that's OK. You have the right to believe
that. You do not, however, have the
right to use tax dollars to teach that fairy tale in a
public university at taxpayer expense.
I think evolution should be taught in private schools at

(02:17:41):
private expense. Now, you guys are not the enemy.
I don't. I, I, I I love you and I want to
help you, OK? I think you're deceived.
And it's worse that you're deceiving others if you're
teaching this stuff. Now, there are people here
tonight with yellow shirts on. If you'd stand up, if you,
you're supposed to be standing up with the yellow shirt, you
know who you are. These people right here are
willing to talk to you and show you how you can become a
Christian and go to heaven, OK? That's why I do this.

(02:18:02):
I want to convert people, get them saved.
That's why I'm here, OK? I think the scientific evidence
is on our side. I think I'm right.
I think I won the debate tonight, actually.
But it's not because I'm smart. It's because I'm right.
And God loves you. He wants to save you and forgive
you. See, one of these folks
afterwards will be glad to help any way we can.
Thank you so much. We hope you've enjoyed this.
Video series on creation, evolution, and dinosaurs.

(02:18:23):
Much more important, though, than knowing all the truth and
facts about science is to know the truth about whether you're
going to heaven or not. If you've never trusted Christ
as your Savior, let me explain quickly what you need to do to
go to heaven. The Bible says we're all
sinners. We've all broken God's laws.
We've disobeyed the Creator. We've we've done wicked things.
We're sinners. Some are worse than others, at

(02:18:44):
least in man's eyes, But we've all broken God's laws.
And the Bible says you have to repent.
The word repent means to turn. It actually means two things, to
turn from your sin and to turn to God.
God's looking for a change in your attitude where you say,
Lord, I don't want to do wrong anymore.
I'm sorry I've offended you. I want to do right.
And you turn from sin and you turn to God and say God, would

(02:19:04):
you please forgive me? Would you save me?
The Bible says in Romans chapter3, verse 23.
That all have. Sinned and come short of the
glory of God, you need to admit you're a Sinner #2 the Bible
says in Romans 623 the wages of sin is death we deserve to die
and go to hell because of our sin, but.
Jesus died for. You, He loves you, He wants you

(02:19:26):
to come to heaven and anybody that will ask Him for the free
salvation, God will give you thegift of eternal life.
It says in Romans 623 it's a free gift and it says in Romans
chapter 10 and verse 13, whosoever shall call upon the
name of the Lord shall be saved.If you would just call and say,
Lord I'm a Sinner, would you please forgive me and ask him?
He will give you that free gift of eternal life.

(02:19:47):
Why don't you? Just pray with.
Me right now and you could receive Christ as your savior.
There's no magic words, God's looking at your heart, but if
you could say this and mean it, God would forgive you.
Just say dear Lord Jesus, I knowthat I'm a Sinner, I've broken
your laws, I'm sorry, please forgive me.
Please apply your blood to my account.
Forgive my sins and take me to heaven in Jesus name.

(02:20:09):
Amen. Bible says if you call upon the
Lord, you shall be saved. So if you've asked the Lord to
save you, he promised he'd save you.
Now your job is to grow, read your Bible, pray, get involved
in a good Bible believing church, and begin to grow to be
a good Christian. Thank you so much, caller.
Right? If we can be any help at all,
we'd be glad to help.