Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / Kent Hovind vs Mike Shermer

Transcript

Kent Hovind vs Mike Shermer · Brett Keane and Eve Show

0:09
Thank you and good evening. I'll go over the format.
0:12
As we know Doctor Shermer is going to be going 1st and
0:15
followed by Kent Hovind. They start with a 25 minute
0:18
presentation and Doctor Hovind will give 25 minutes, then 10
0:23
minutes, 10 minutes, 4 minutes, 4 minutes, then we're going to
0:26
have a 5 minute break and then question and answer.
0:29
And how the question and answer is going to work is that they're
0:32
passing out written forms. So the questions will be written
0:35
and then chosen and then read to the debaters.
0:38
And the format for the question and answer is the person who the
0:42
question is directed to gets 2 minutes and the other person
0:44
gets one minute to respond. Now and again, if you do cheer
0:51
or yell for your favorite, you're going to be taking up
0:53
their time. So please be quiet while they're
0:56
talking, let them get their presentations out and let's all
0:58
be respectful and have a good time tonight on the creation
1:01
versus evolution debate and just by who's passing out the
1:05
questions, the papers, where they at?
1:09
OK, well, I'm sure they're in good hands and they'll be passed
1:11
out during the debate. And again, 5 minute break before
1:14
the question and answer. Let's begin with Doctor Sherman.
1:27
How we doing? Oh wow.
1:31
Hope the fire Marshall's not here, man.
1:36
I don't know. It's just sort of a psychic
1:37
hunch I have. I got the feeling there's
1:39
slightly more believers than non believers here.
1:41
I I don't. Just a show of hands.
1:44
How many of you believe in a God?
1:46
A personal God like the judeo-christian guy.
1:52
OK, well, oh, look at the time. And I believe there was a Laker
1:58
game on tonight. What was that last night?
2:02
Well, I am Michael Sherman, the director of the Skeptic Society,
2:04
the publisher of Skeptic magazine.
2:06
We were handing out some propagate, I mean literature
2:08
earlier. If you didn't get any, we do
2:12
have a table in the back. My associates, Matt and David
2:15
are back there, happy to to help you out there.
2:17
I am really glad to see so many people.
2:19
It's a beautiful night. You don't have to be here.
2:21
You could be out enjoying the great outdoors, but that we
2:24
appreciate that. Obviously there's great interest
2:26
in the subject, a subject we deal a lot with.
2:28
It's Skeptic. We deal with it because it's a
2:31
hugely popular American subject. Only in America, with a few
2:35
other scattered places in tiny bit in New Zealand is
2:39
creationism even a subject of debate.
2:41
But here it is. We are in America.
2:42
This is a subject near and dear to many people's hearts, so we
2:45
deal a lot with this. Basically, skepticism, science
2:50
are the same. That is, a skeptic is not a
2:53
position that you take. It's not a noun.
2:55
I'm not a skeptic like I'm a thing.
2:58
Oh, you're one of those skeptics.
3:00
You don't believe anything. I believe lots of things.
3:02
Like, for example, evolution. It's not a position that you
3:05
take. It's just an approach to claims.
3:07
For example, when I investigated the Holocaust deniers, they
3:10
thought, well, we're skeptics. We're skeptic of the Holocaust,
3:14
and he's a skeptic, so we have a brother in arms.
3:16
But in fact, I ended up being skeptical of the skeptics.
3:19
So skepticism is just an approach.
3:21
You can be a skeptic of a claim. You can be a skeptic of the
3:23
skeptics. What we're after here is to look
3:26
for natural explanations for phenomenon.
3:29
For example, it's entirely possible that aliens landed on
3:33
Farmer Bob's Field in Pucker Brush, Kansas and carved out
3:36
skeptic.com as a promotional gimmick for our organization.
3:40
However, I think it's more likely that we assume that this
3:43
was created by Photoshop. That is, before we say something
3:48
is out of this world, we have to first make sure that it's not in
3:52
this world. So for example, it's possible
3:55
that our governor was successful in his campaign because aliens
4:01
backed him. And and by the way, that's Danny
4:04
DeVito as Cruz Bustamante, which is that was very clever.
4:09
I should know, apparently I've been tracking these alien images
4:12
for about 20 years. This is the first alien I've
4:15
ever seen that's been working out with biceps and triceps.
4:20
Arnold's got the aliens pumping iron.
4:23
And by the way, you don't mind the informality of it's a little
4:26
warm in here. Hey, few bodies, so they got the
4:29
air cranked up. If you're hot, I guess this is
4:31
this as good as it's going to get.
4:32
So now when we talk about evolution creation, the first
4:37
thing we need to decide, or that you need to decide if you're
4:41
open to the question, which creationism are you going to
4:45
embrace? Here's a useful continuum.
4:47
I've been debating creationists for nearly 20 years of all
4:51
stripes. There's flat Earthers,
4:53
Geocentrus, Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth
4:55
Creationists, Gap Creationists, Creationists that believe there
4:58
was a gap between Genesis 1/1 and 1/2 to allow for geological
5:02
time, day age creationism. That the days of Genesis
5:06
represent geological epics, therefore allowing for an old
5:09
Earth progressive creationism, Evolutionary creationism.
5:12
These are creationists who believe that God operates
5:16
through the laws of nature, theistic evolution, which is
5:19
largely part of the the intelligent design movement, and
5:22
finally down to the end of just materialistic evolutionists.
5:25
So you need to ask yourself which one is Kent Hovind?
5:30
Part of which? Which creationism are you
5:33
interested in hearing about? Which one will be presented
5:35
tonight? There's a bunch of different
5:37
ones and they all have different arguments and interestingly they
5:41
disagree amongst themselves. You can go to, for example,
5:43
Answers in Genesis, which is a very conservative Christian
5:47
creationist organization that disagrees with most of what my
5:51
debate opponent will say tonight.
5:53
So there is great diversity here.
5:54
You have to choose, pick and choose and read and figure out
5:57
which part of the creationism you want to embrace, if at all.
6:01
Now, first of all, we have to recognize that in fact, most
6:04
people embrace evolution. 96,000,000 American Christians
6:08
accept evolution. In a 2001 Gallup poll, 37% of
6:12
all Americans agreed with the statement that human beings
6:15
developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life
6:19
and that God guided the process. Since 90% of Americans, roughly,
6:23
are Christians, that means 96,000,000 American Christians
6:27
believe in evolution. Now it's not that that makes it
6:30
right, but that at least if you are a Christian who wonders
6:34
whether it's OK to accept the theory of evolution, obviously
6:37
it's quite OK. In fact, a billion, a billion
6:40
Catholics who are sometimes skeptics accept evolution.
6:44
The Pope himself, John Paul, the 2nd 1996 encyclical, said new
6:49
knowledge has led to the recognition that the theory of
6:52
evolution is more than a hypothesis.
6:56
It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been
6:58
progressively accepted by researchers following a series
7:02
of discoveries in various fields of knowledge.
7:05
The convergence. This is an important statement.
7:08
The convergence neither sought nor fabricated.
7:12
This isn't a conspiracy on the part of scientists.
7:14
It just happened. This way of the results of work
7:17
that was conducted independently is in itself a significant
7:21
argument in favor of the theory. I'm going to play this up quite
7:24
a bit tonight. This convergence from
7:27
independent lines of inquiry, independent of each other.
7:31
These guys aren't meeting on the weekends and say, look, we got
7:34
to get our story straight because that can't hold vines
7:36
out there, you know, stumping the debate circuit.
7:40
They arrived at it independently.
7:43
The Pope, by the way, in 96 was responding to an earlier,
7:46
earlier cyclical in the 1950s in which that Pope said it's
7:50
possible evolution may be true. We should be open to science and
7:54
not just reject it. And this Pope said it is indeed
7:57
true. In fact, even our ex president,
8:00
Jimmy Carter, an evangelical Christian, calls himself a born
8:04
again Christian when a couple of months ago the state of Georgia
8:09
required that textbook biology textbooks in public high schools
8:13
have a little sticker in them warning the students about
8:17
evolution. As a Christian President, Carter
8:20
said, a trained engineer and a scientist, and a professor at
8:23
Emory University, I'm embarrassed by Superintendent
8:27
Kathy Cox's attempts to censor and distort the education of
8:30
Georgia's students. The existing and long standing
8:34
use of the word evolution in our state's textbook has not
8:37
adversely affected Georgians belief in the omnipotence of God
8:41
as creator of the universe. There can be no incompatibility
8:46
between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology,
8:50
biology and astronomy. There's no need to teach that
8:54
the stars can fall out of the sky and land on a Flat Earth in
8:57
order to defend our religious faith, OK?
9:03
The problem with all creationist argument, and this is probably
9:06
the most important slide I'll put up tonight, is that it is
9:09
nothing more than a God of the gaps argument.
9:12
That is, wherever there's a gap that scientists seemingly can't
9:16
explain, or if you can find a quote where it makes it sound
9:20
like they seemingly can't explain, that must mean that's
9:23
where the miracle happened. That's where God intervened.
9:26
Or if you're an intelligent design creationists, you don't
9:29
use the word God, you use the word ID, intelligent designer,
9:33
whatever you want to call it. That's where the miracle
9:35
intervene. It reminds me of Sidney Harris's
9:37
famous cartoon, my favorite, where the one scientist writes
9:41
up there in the step Step 2. Then a miracle occurs and he
9:45
says I think you should be more explicit here in Step 2.
9:49
I can't emphasize enough how important this point is.
9:53
This is the central point that to simply say, look, I don't
9:59
think you guys can explain this problem.
10:01
Whatever it is. Therefore, that's where a
10:05
miracle happened. God did it.
10:07
It did it. Even if that's the case, it
10:11
doesn't explain anything. It just says poof, a miracle
10:15
happened. We'll just put a filler here, a
10:18
word filler. We'll say God did it, It did it.
10:21
Miracle did it. Whatever.
10:22
It doesn't explain anything, Even if Kent Hovane won every
10:28
single debate he ever did. Even if every scientist in
10:31
America said, you know what, I think God designed the whole
10:34
thing. And I think, I think biology
10:37
proves it. It wouldn't change anything with
10:39
the way science is done because this has nothing to do with
10:43
science. Science is the search for how
10:46
that happened. What happened in Step 2.
10:49
If it did it, don't you want to know how it did it?
10:52
If God did it, don't you want to know how she did it?
10:57
For example, we know evolution is a very fairly simple thing.
11:01
It's pattern of descent with modification whatever causes
11:05
changes in gene frequency. So if we just take any
11:08
particular phylogenetic tree, a descent of organisms across
11:12
time, here's the ceratopsians, evolutionists.
11:16
Scientists offer an explanation for how this diversity, this
11:21
biodiversity, occurs through genetic frequency changes and
11:25
and population genetics and mutations and so on and so
11:28
forth. Whether that's right or not is a
11:32
separate question in a way. If it's not right, well, then
11:35
you figure out how it happened. But to simply say well, well,
11:39
well, God, did it or it did it. Well, aren't you curious how it
11:43
did it? I mean, did it create this
11:46
general type and then natural selection created all the
11:49
varieties? Did God create each species and
11:54
then nature created the subspecies?
11:57
Did God create the families and then nature created the genus
12:00
and species? Or did God create every single
12:02
level, living single Organism, one at a time, throughout all of
12:07
history? Or did he set it up at the
12:08
beginning and then it just sort of ran like a clock and created
12:11
it? These are interesting questions,
12:13
but we're never given answers to these because they don't have
12:17
answers to these things because that's how science is done.
12:19
Science wants to know how it's done.
12:23
So evolutionary theory is the best explanation we have for
12:26
this. It is provisionally true.
12:27
True with a small T We're not after somebody mentioned truth
12:31
earlier. Truth with a capital T doesn't
12:33
belong in science. It's provisionally true.
12:35
Why? It gives a coherent explanation
12:38
of what we know. It's consilient.
12:40
Independent lines of inquiry jumped to the same conclusion.
12:44
That's that convergence the Pope talked about.
12:46
Again, it's not that these guys are meeting on the weekends.
12:49
Oh, we got to get our story straight.
12:51
I'm going to say it happened 6,000,000 years ago.
12:52
What are you going to say 7,000,000 years ago?
12:55
Well, hovine might be in on this.
12:57
You know, he might find out about this.
12:58
I'll say 6.5. You say 6.5, and we'll be safe.
13:02
That's not how it works. And even if it did work that
13:05
way, if they were that consistent, then I'd be
13:07
suspicious something was up. In fact, there's always error
13:10
variance in the estimates given by scientists.
13:13
Finally, it predicts new findings, which so far have been
13:16
confirmed. And I'll show you a bunch of
13:17
these empirically. So, for example, there's a
13:20
conciliance on estimating the age of the Earth, right?
13:24
It's not a perfect number, but there's a little bit of error
13:27
variance there from independent lines of inquiry.
13:29
Potassium argon dating? Radioactive decay dating.
13:32
Carbon 14 Dating, the age of the moon.
13:34
The age of the solar system, the age of the universe.
13:37
These are all different scientists that publish in
13:39
different journals, that go to different conferences.
13:42
They don't know each other, they don't communicate.
13:44
They are all arriving at the same kind of sequence of that
13:47
long evolutionary history of a very old Earth, 4.6 billion
13:51
years roughly, and a roughly the same age of the moon slightly
13:55
less. The age of the universe looks
13:57
like it's about 13.4 billion years.
13:59
But this number varies because new data comes in.
14:02
And so again you get this, this jumping together, this
14:05
convergence from different lines of inquiry.
14:07
And you see that throughout the science of evolution, for
14:11
example, fossils show intermediate stages, which is
14:14
what we would predict so such, for example, the evolution of
14:18
whales. This is a favorite tactic of
14:20
creation. Show me one transitional fossil,
14:22
just one transitional fossil. And I remember this particular
14:26
slide here came out in the journal Science one night, came
14:29
out the same week I was debating Dwayne Gish.
14:31
So just show me one transitional fossil.
14:33
So I put this up and, well, here's three.
14:35
And he said, OK, now we have 1234 gaps in the fossil record.
14:39
Show me 4 transitional fossils. Pretty sneaky, huh?
14:43
That's pretty good, right? In other words, there's an
14:46
infinite number of gaps that I will always, as a creationist,
14:49
demand that you present. There's no amount of evidence
14:51
you could present that would disconfirm my theory of
14:53
creation. That's not science, right?
14:56
That's not how it's done. You can do it.
14:58
You can call it theology. Whatever.
14:59
It's just not science. And we're supposed to be doing
15:02
science here. You see this also in the
15:03
evolution of the skulls. Whale skulls with Packacetus 50
15:07
million years ago. 80 Acetus 25,000,000 years ago in modern
15:11
beluga whales common descent common anatomical structures.
15:16
You can see the sequence. You can see how the structures
15:18
change over time and in fact there's almost an embarrassment
15:23
of riches. There are so many fossils.
15:25
I'm I'm just staggered that creationists hang on to this.
15:28
Show me just one transitional fossils.
15:30
There are so many. It's just staggering.
15:32
This is just a nice little picture of Stephen Jay Goldwyn.
15:34
He was a very young man at the Harvard Paleontological
15:37
Collection. These are just fossil.
15:38
This is just fossil mollusks, right?
15:42
There's just drawer after drawer after drawer after drawer.
15:45
Last week. Two weeks ago, I was at Donald
15:47
Johansson's lab at Arizona State University.
15:50
The guy discovered Lucy. I'll show you in a moment.
15:52
We just had drawer after drawer after drawer of hominids and we
15:54
were laying them all out. I took my 12 year old daughter
15:56
so she could kind of see all the cool stuff and meet Lucy.
15:59
She met Lucy and there she is. Not the Lucy.
16:03
Yeah, the Lucy. Anyway, and and I just made a
16:08
little junk out. But you don't have any
16:09
transitional fossils and you know we all had a good laugh
16:11
because you know, just table after table is just spread out
16:14
with these things. There's so many.
16:16
It's an embarrassment of riches. The the, the sequence you
16:20
usually get. And here's a the problem that
16:22
most people get into that don't understand the theory of
16:24
evolution. They see it as this kind of
16:26
progressive linear ladder March from small to large, simple to
16:30
complex in a line where one leads to another, leads to
16:33
another, and so on. This is the most famous slide
16:36
ever done from time life. It's been parodied so many
16:38
times. I have a couple dozen of these
16:41
slides. I like this one, and in
16:42
particular this one with Homo European Unionists.
16:45
From the end there. It's a very American
16:50
characterization, of course. I suppose a new one would have
16:53
the fringe crawling on their bellies or something.
16:58
In fact, evolution is a richly branching Bush in which we have
17:03
an evolution from a common ancestor.
17:05
Of course you you know that. We didn't come from chimpanzees
17:08
and gorillas, you say? How?
17:09
How did we come from them? They're still alive.
17:11
We didn't come from them. We come from chimps over here,
17:14
gorillas over here, a common ancestor about 8,000,000 years
17:17
ago. What's interesting about this
17:18
slide is that is that back in the late 60s and early 70s,
17:22
everybody believed that the common ancestor here was like
17:25
between 15 and 30 million years old.
17:27
And Vince Saric at UC Berkeley, based on early biochemical
17:32
comparisons across species, said no, no, I'm predicting that the
17:36
fossils are going to show that is in fact, closer to seven or
17:40
six or five to six, six to seven million years ago, the common
17:43
ancestor. And he proved to be right.
17:45
It took almost 25 years for paleontology to catch up with
17:49
biochemistry. But here's an example of where
17:51
these guys are not in some back dark room meeting to get their
17:55
story straight about the age of things they can silly.
17:59
There's a consilience. It turns out that the fossils
18:01
match the biochemical and genetic tests.
18:05
And this you have this richly branching Bush here.
18:07
Transitional fossils. There's tons of them.
18:09
It looks more and more like a lot of these different species,
18:13
such as Saccalanthropus chidensis 6 to 7,000,000 years
18:16
ago. This was found in 1991.
18:19
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 4,000,000 years ago.
18:23
This is Kenanthropus Cloudy OPS, which is discovered 19923.5
18:28
million years ago, the famous Lucy 3.2 million years ago.
18:31
The beauty of Lucy is that you can really you can sit there and
18:34
hold in your hand and and and if you're in Don Johnson's lab, you
18:38
can a chimp pelvis and hip socket, a Lucy pelvis and hip
18:44
socket, and a modern one. You can.
18:45
You can see the beautiful transition there from
18:48
quadrupedalism to bipedalism. And this is not the only one.
18:52
I don't think Lucy's the only fossil they've got.
18:54
They've got dozens of these australopithecines now.
18:58
Homo habilis, 1.9 million years ago.
19:00
Homo georgicus from Georgia in Russia, 1.8 million years ago,
19:05
discovered in 92 sorry, 2001. Homo erectus, 1.5 million years
19:10
ago. Homo neanderthalensis half a
19:13
million years ago. Neanderthals and us, we live
19:16
simultaneously over the last 100,000 years.
19:19
What happened to those guys? That's them on the right.
19:21
That's us on the left. What happened to them 3040
19:24
thousand years ago? Gone.
19:25
Interesting subject. Not for tonight, but it's an
19:28
interesting subject. What happened to those guys?
19:31
And most recently just discovered by Tim White and
19:33
published last year, Homo sapiens idolatry.
19:36
It looks like the best evidence we have now.
19:39
Every single one of us from everywhere on the planet comes
19:42
from a single population of hominids out of Africa.
19:45
It's these guys 160,000 years ago.
19:49
That's the best evidence we have today.
19:51
That's incredible. Diversity of of humans we have
19:53
around the globe all evolved in this relatively short period of
19:57
time. Very rapid changes, additional
20:01
tests. We would expect modern organisms
20:03
to show a variety of structures from simple to complex,
20:07
reflecting evolutionary history. For example, the eye has evolved
20:10
numerous times with varying complexity.
20:14
And again, it's not a single intelligently designed structure
20:19
that works across the board which you would expect an all
20:23
powerful intelligent designer to create.
20:25
In fact what you see are these these sort of oddities of nature
20:28
that evolved with whatever was available in the environment
20:31
with with whatever they had to work with.
20:33
These are eyes have evolved independently dozens of times.
20:38
In fact, you would also expect biological structures, if
20:41
evolution were true, to to show history.
20:43
Not intelligent design, but history.
20:45
Take our own eye. Just take the structure of the
20:48
retina with the rods and cones on top, amocrine cells, bipolar
20:54
cells and ganglion cells. But it's upside down.
20:58
This is the weirdest thing. It's upside down.
21:00
The light comes in this direction and doesn't get to the
21:05
only about 10% of the photons get all the way back to the
21:08
light sensitive rods and cones. What was Ed thinking when he
21:11
made this thing, right? I mean, he wasn't thinking
21:15
because there is no intelligent designer from top down.
21:18
It's a designer from the bottom up, a tinkerer using with
21:22
whatever materials are available.
21:26
We would expect organisms that share most of their DNA to look
21:29
a lot alike. In fact, they do and to behave
21:32
alike. In fact, they do.
21:34
Chimpanzees are very tribal. You may have noticed from recent
21:38
current events in politics. We're very tribal, right?
21:41
There's a whole series of these similarities across species.
21:45
Is there enough time for evolution to work?
21:46
You bet. Not only of every.
21:48
As every human come from a single population out of Africa
21:50
160,000 years ago, every single dog alive today comes from a
21:54
single population of wolves only 15,000 years ago.
21:58
Of course this is some part partly directed evolutionary
22:01
change of course, but it shows how rapid DNA sequences can be
22:06
manipulated as a test of evolutionary theory.
22:10
I would love to see a creationist just once come up
22:14
with a fossil bed that shows trilobites and in the same
22:19
bedding plain hominids. You never see trilobites with
22:24
hominids. Now creationists will say
22:26
something like, well, there was this hydrodynamic sorting in the
22:30
flood and all the stupid beasties died and fell through
22:33
in the flood and drowned early and the smarter ones climbed to
22:36
the higher hills. Something like not one smart
22:38
trilobite managed to make it up with the hominids.
22:41
One trilobite was in the pocket of the hominid and he managed to
22:44
survive. Not one.
22:45
Of course. With evolution we would predict
22:47
that this is what you would find, these sequential bedding
22:50
planes with different fossils in the beds and that is what you
22:53
find. But it.
22:54
But in any case, it's a testable hypothesis.
22:57
It's an experiment you can run. Instead of reading gracious
23:00
literature, go out and start digging.
23:03
And if you find something like this, that would be the kind of
23:06
evidence that would overturn the theory of evolution.
23:11
We also see homologies, that is, common anatomical structures due
23:15
to common ancestry. Most of you have seen these
23:18
things. The similarity between the whale
23:19
arm and the human arm. Similarities between whale
23:24
structures and even Hummingbird structures.
23:26
Similarities between our arm and whale arms.
23:31
If if Ed God created the whale flipper, why did he use a
23:36
mammalian arm structure for it? Why didn't he just make it like
23:40
a fish flipper? The fish flipper works great.
23:44
Why have marine mammals swim like this whereas fish swim like
23:50
this? Swimming like this is really
23:52
more efficient. It's a better way.
23:53
It's the original way. If God created fish this way,
23:57
why not marine mammals this way? Marine mammals swim this way
24:00
because that's how land mammals run.
24:03
That's how their spines move as they propel themselves forward.
24:08
Vestigial structures are also very telling.
24:11
For example, we have discovered now a snake and ancestral snake
24:15
here with hind legs. Why would snakes have hind legs?
24:21
And why would snakes today as well as whales show these
24:26
vestigial legs? These legs are absolutely
24:28
worthless today. They don't do anything.
24:31
Why would an intelligent designer design this really
24:34
clumsy, unintelligent, historical looking thing?
24:37
Unless you want to impute to God or to Satan that he's just
24:41
testing our faith by throwing those things in there to see if
24:44
that'll confuse you with the facts.
24:46
OK, other than that, this is a sign of history and evolutionary
24:51
sequence, not intelligent design.
24:56
So a fundamental question then. Wrapping it up, I think I've got
24:58
2 minutes. Here is the universe designed
25:03
back in the 18th century when Darwin was studying.
25:06
The answers were yes, by William Paley.
25:08
A watch must have a watchmaker to which David Hume encountered.
25:12
To this old argument, no, actually nature resembles A
25:15
mindless Organism. I think this is not quite right.
25:18
In fact, I think a better question is the universe
25:20
naturally or intelligently designed?
25:22
It's obviously designed to a certain extent, right?
25:26
But it's it's historically designed.
25:28
It looks kind of clumsily designed.
25:31
So to the answer of of you know where did this come from?
25:35
For for creationists, they offer a supernatural explanation right
25:39
here. A miracle happened.
25:43
I think you need to be more explicit in Step 2 there.
25:49
In a way, this is no different than a Gary Larson cartoon.
25:52
God makes the snake boy. These things are a cinch.
25:59
I really fail to see, honestly, how this is any different that
26:03
any creationist argument I've ever heard.
26:05
A miracle happen. That's it.
26:11
Naturalism's answer. Evolution or descent with
26:14
modification, of course, is slightly different.
26:16
We see a sequence. Historical sequence.
26:20
Darwin wasn't the last. But OK, so finally then, how do
26:26
we get these complex structures out of here?
26:29
Oh, my time is up. All right, let me just wrap up
26:31
here then. Just one final comment.
26:36
If humans were designed by God or intelligent designer, this is
26:39
what we would look like instead, and I'll go through the details
26:44
of that in a second. Instead of humans were designed
26:47
by evolution, this is what the case would be.
26:58
And as you know guys, this is the way it is unfortunately.
27:05
Thank you very much. Thank you Doctor Hovind will now
27:23
give his opening presentation and after that will be the
27:27
rebuttal time, 10 minutes rebuttal and then 10 minutes
27:29
rebuttal. So, Doctor Hovind.
27:42
Thank you so much. It is an honor to be here in
27:44
California again. My name is Kent Hovind.
27:47
I taught high school science 15 years and now I travel and do
27:49
seminars on creation, evolution, and dinosaurs.
27:51
This is not my wife. It's just a picture of her three
27:56
kids. Got them all married off and the
27:58
dog died. So I made it.
27:59
I'm home free and I have two grandkids and any many moment
28:03
now I'm going to have #3 and then in about 5 months have #4.
28:06
So we're collecting grandkids. I'm a founder of Dinosaur
28:09
Adventure Land in Pensacola, FL. It's a Science Center, theme
28:11
park and museum based on creation instead of evolution.
28:15
We've had thousands of visitors, over 33,000 so far in the first
28:18
two years we've been open. We teach a lot of classes on
28:20
science. We are not against science.
28:21
We have a home school. I mean have a creation boot camp
28:24
in September. Teach people how to be a good
28:28
creationist, to go out and fight against these guys who believe
28:30
in evolution. So we need more people doing
28:31
that. My goals are to present the
28:33
truth and expose error. I'm not against any particular
28:36
theory. I'm against lies.
28:39
If you have a theory, great. If you're going to use lies to
28:41
support it, that's not great. So my goals are to strengthen
28:45
the faith of believers, to win the loss to Christ, and to win
28:47
Michael Shermer to Christ. He is not the enemy.
28:59
He does work for him, but he is not the enemy.
29:01
OK, All right, let's let's define a few terms here tonight.
29:08
Science is knowledge. It comes from the word to know.
29:12
OK. Knowledge gained by
29:14
observations, experimentation, testing, study, etcetera.
29:17
OK. Some try to limit the definition
29:19
of science like we heard tonight.
29:20
They want to limit it to the natural world.
29:22
If it's not natural, it's not science.
29:24
OK, well, let's just follow that logic to its logical conclusion.
29:27
The operation of the world can be understood by scientific
29:30
discoveries in the world. That does not mean you can
29:33
explain the origin of the world by looking in the world example.
29:37
The operation of a computer can be understood by science.
29:40
It it all takes place in the computer.
29:42
There's nothing magic about a computer.
29:43
There's not a little man running around in there changing the
29:45
numbers on the screen. OK, It is a it is a natural
29:48
explanation that you can find in the computer for how the
29:51
computer works. There is not a natural
29:53
explanation in the computer for how the computer originated.
29:56
You had to go outside the computer.
29:59
Somebody outside the computer built the computer, OK?
30:02
Somebody outside beyond, above, greater than, smarter than the
30:05
computer had to build a computer.
30:06
And just because you can explain the operation of a machine does
30:10
not mean you can explain the origin of the machine with the
30:12
same set of rules. So religion is a set of beliefs
30:17
concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.
30:20
I'm going to define a few positions here.
30:22
I take the position that the Bible is literally true and
30:24
scientifically accurate. The earth was created in six
30:26
literal 24 hour days about 6000 years ago.
30:29
Now, if that's true, I call our ministry Creation, Science,
30:33
Evangelism. I think the scientific evidence
30:35
supports the creation view, A good test for sciences.
30:38
Does it? Does it make predictions?
30:40
OK, Based on the idea that the Earth was created in six days,
30:43
6000 years ago, there are some predictions we can make.
30:45
The Bible says clearly he did it all in six days.
30:47
Well, let's make a few predictions.
30:49
I predict the universe will show evidence of order and
30:51
intelligent design. I predict there will be
30:53
thousands, if not millions of symbiotic relationships.
30:56
All the plants and animals were created within a few days of
30:58
each other, and there are millions of these that depend on
31:01
different things for different reasons.
31:02
Symbiotic relationships, I think, defy an evolutionary
31:05
explanation. I predict there'll be limits to
31:07
the variations that life forms are able to produce.
31:10
The Bible says they bring forth after their kind.
31:12
You may get a big dog or a little dog or a wolf or a coyote
31:15
or a dog, but you're going to get the same kind of animal.
31:17
Now, somebody might decide to call it a new species.
31:20
OK, I'm not using the word species.
31:21
It's the same kind of animal. There are limits to the
31:23
variations. Any farmer that raises anything
31:26
from corn to cows will tell you there are limits.
31:29
Sure there's varieties, but they're limited.
31:31
OK, lots of dogs in the world might have had a common
31:33
ancestor, a dog. OK, I predict based on that does
31:40
not prove dogs came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago by the
31:43
way. OK, I predict there will be a
31:45
purpose to life. We were designed for a purpose.
31:49
I think I know what it is based on the assumption we can make
31:51
some predictions that there will be non material things in the
31:54
world like love, sense of justice, mercy, innate knowledge
31:57
of right and wrong, or conscience and absolute truth.
32:00
Those things can be found. They do exist.
32:02
I predict there'll be a way to find the will of the Creator,
32:04
such as messengers speaking for him or maybe even a book telling
32:07
us how he created it and why. I predict there'll be an
32:12
afterlife where we face the Creator to give an accounting
32:15
for everything you've ever said or thought or done.
32:18
That's going to be a fearful day.
32:19
Then I believe before the flood came, the Bible teaches people
32:23
lived over 900 years. That's what the Bible says. 912
32:26
is the average age from those before the flood.
32:28
I believe that now, what predictions can be made based on
32:31
that teaching? Well, I predict there will be
32:34
legends of a creation event in cultures all over the world.
32:38
I predict there'll be a Golden Age legend where people lived a
32:41
long time. And it's interesting, almost all
32:43
ancient cultures have stories about what they called the
32:45
Golden Age. When people live to be nearly
32:47
1000, I predict there'll be skeletons found showing people
32:50
with signs of great age, such as bigger brow Ridge or bigger
32:53
jaws. I predict there will be
32:55
biological problems today, like wisdom teeth for 40 or 50% of
32:59
the population, indicating man used to be bigger and now we're
33:02
smaller. So wisdom teeth are getting
33:03
crowded into the jaw and in some people they can't make it in.
33:06
I predict since we are a copy off a copy off a copy off a copy
33:09
off a copy off a copy off a copy of the original.
33:11
There are likely to be a few biological problems with this
33:14
generation, but that's that's no reflection on the original.
33:19
The fact that this, this gene code has been copied and copied
33:21
and copied and copied and copied from Adam is it's amazing.
33:23
We can sit here and talk about it, OK?
33:26
It must have been really good in the original.
33:28
I predict there'll be a universal longing for things to
33:30
be restored to the Garden of Eden, and that's what we find.
33:33
Every place, just about every culture has some kind of legend
33:35
or story about a heaven where you get to go.
33:37
Now, what difference does it make if you believe in creation
33:40
or evolution? Well, if evolution is true, how
33:42
do we tell right from wrong? Where's the standard?
33:46
How do we tell right from wrong? Do we decide right from wrong
33:48
based on what Osama bin Laden thinks?
33:51
Should we decide right from wrong based on what Bill Clinton
33:53
thinks? Should we decide right from
33:55
wrong based on what the majority thinks?
33:57
How is there? Is there a standard someplace?
34:00
How do we tell right from wrong if evolution is true now?
34:03
If evolution is true, death brought man into the world, and
34:06
death is a wonderful thing. Death is the hero of the plot.
34:09
See, in order for evolution to work, one animal has to evolve a
34:11
little better than the rest. The rest of them have to die or
34:14
else that new improved gene gets swamped in the population.
34:17
Doesn't do anything. Death is the ultimate hero of
34:20
the plot for evolution. The Bible teaches clearly that
34:23
man brought death into the world by one man.
34:25
Sin came into the world and death by sin since by man came
34:28
death. Bible talks about man destroyed
34:30
God's creation. I predict according to the
34:32
Bible. I read the Bible.
34:33
It says there was a flood, a completely worldwide universal
34:36
flood that destroyed the world 4400 years ago and dropped
34:39
everybody's property value to 0. Based on that belief that I can
34:44
make a few predictions. I predict there will be hundreds
34:46
of layers of strata, rock layers and mud layers, Strata sometimes
34:51
continent wide layers of strata. I predict there will be billions
34:55
of fossils including coal and oil found in those layers.
34:58
I predict there will be huge canyons in delta showing
35:00
evidence of rapid erosion because of the flood teaching.
35:05
I predict there will be legends of this worldwide flood found in
35:07
cultures all over the world. And sure enough, there are
35:10
nearly 300 of these flood legends found from around the
35:12
world. I predict there'll be petrified
35:14
trees in the vertical position running through many of these
35:17
layers. And sure enough, there are
35:19
thousands of them. And here we have people trying
35:21
to teach you that each of these layers is a different age.
35:23
Would you please explain to me how we get a tree petrified
35:26
connecting all these layers? I don't know how long dead trees
35:29
stand up around here in California before they fall
35:31
down, but in Florida you get maybe five or six years.
35:33
If you're going to have a tree stand there for millions of
35:35
years while the layers form around.
35:37
And I'd like to see that. OK.
35:39
Anybody telling you those layers or different ages has has a
35:42
problem in his thinking. OK, I like science.
35:44
I'm not against science and I I do is resent though people
35:47
trying to assume that evolution is part of science.
35:50
Evolution is not part of science.
35:51
Evolution is a religion. It's mixed in with science, I
35:55
understand, but that doesn't make a part of science.
35:57
Beer is often sold at football games.
36:00
Beer has nothing to do with football and beer does not
36:02
become athletic by association with football.
36:04
OK, so and evolution does not become science because it
36:09
stirred into a science book. OK, evolution is a religion.
36:12
Now let's define a few terms. The word evolution has at least
36:14
six different meanings or levels or stages.
36:15
First would have to be cosmic evolution, the origin of time,
36:18
space, matter. Secondly, that have to be
36:20
chemical evolution. According to The Big Bang
36:23
theory, The Big Bang produced hydrogen.
36:25
OK, then how did we get all these elements?
36:26
You want me to believe that uranium evolved from hydrogen?
36:30
That's Oh yeah, Fusion happens in, you know, in stars.
36:33
Well, you've got 2 problems now. Number one, you can't fuse past
36:35
iron #2. You got a chicken and an egg
36:38
problem. Did the did the elements come
36:42
before the stars to to see the star?
36:43
The elements make up the stars and the stars make up the
36:45
elephants. Which one came first?
36:47
They got a real chicken and an egg problem when it comes to
36:49
chemical evolution. Thirdly, there have to be
36:51
stellar evolution. Somehow the stars have to
36:53
evolve. We've never seen one form.
36:55
We see stars blow up all the time, called novas or
36:58
supernovas. And yet there's enough stars out
37:00
there that are now known. The current last estimate was 70
37:03
sextillion stars in the universe that we've observed, which means
37:06
about 11 trillion per person. Those are the ones we know
37:09
about. We don't know about the ones
37:11
that we don't know about. OK, fourthly, there's going to
37:14
have to be organic evolution, the origin of life.
37:17
Somehow life has to get started from non living material.
37:19
The evolutionist is still left 200 years behind the times in
37:22
science. They still believe non living
37:24
material can spontaneously generate.
37:28
That's been proven wrong several 100 years ago.
37:30
Francisco Reddy, Louis Pasteur. Now if you want to believe that,
37:32
that's fine. I don't care what you believe,
37:34
but don't call it science. They'll say I read Doctor
37:37
Shermer's book about, oh, they're doing experiments now,
37:39
trying to do this. OK, well, you do all the
37:40
experiments you want, but meanwhile it hasn't been done,
37:42
OK? Nobody's made life.
37:44
And if a bunch of intelligent people do get together and make
37:46
life, that would prove it takes intelligence to make life.
37:50
Duh. OK, #5 We have what's called
37:55
macroevolution. That's where you change from one
37:57
kind of animal to another. Nobody's ever seen a dog produce
38:00
a non dog. Now, if you want to believe a
38:02
dog came from a non dog, you believe whatever you want, but
38:04
don't call it science. Number one.
38:05
And don't make me pay to teach it to all the kids in school
38:07
like it's science. That's your religion.
38:09
You teach that in a private school at your expense.
38:11
OK, number six, we have what's called microevolution.
38:14
I object to the term. I think it's a lousy term, but
38:16
they use it, so I'll explain it. Microevolution tells us there
38:19
are variations within the kinds. Big dogs, little dogs, straight
38:23
hair, curly hair. I agree that happens.
38:25
The first five though, are purely religious.
38:28
Nobody's ever observed any of these.
38:30
So when I talk about evolution tonight, I am not talking about
38:33
variations within the kind speciation.
38:36
I'm not talking about that. I'm not sure who's deciding when
38:39
we have a new species anyway. Somebody decided a dog and a
38:41
wolf are different species. OK, but a 5 year old knows
38:43
they're the same kind of animal. OK, a horse and a zebra are
38:47
different species, but they're still the same kind of animal. 4
38:49
wheel drive. Genuine leather upholstery.
38:52
OK, so the evolution theory teaches 20 billion years ago or
38:57
sometime in the past like that there was a Big Bang where
38:59
nothing exploded. And then 4.6 billion years ago
39:02
the earth cooled down and then it rained on the rocks for
39:04
millions of years and turned them into soup and the soup came
39:06
alive 3 billion years ago. This is what the books teach.
39:09
OK that's The Big Bang theory. 18 or 20 billion years ago.
39:12
Big Bang 4.6 billion years ago, the Earth cooled down.
39:15
Earth, planet earth cooled on a rocky surface was created.
39:18
This is what all the textbooks teach.
39:20
OK, then as the Earth formed, it was hot and there's large pools
39:23
of bubbling lava. But it slowly cooled down.
39:25
And then boys and girls. Millions of years of torrential
39:27
rains created great oceans. And swirling in the waters of
39:31
the oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals.
39:34
Progress from a complex chemical soup to a living Organism is
39:37
very slow. Sure is.
39:39
It don't even happen. That's how slow it is.
39:41
This guy said the first self replicating systems must have
39:44
emerged in this organic soup. So their theory would say 20
39:47
billion years ago, Big Bang 4.6 billion years ago, the Earth
39:50
cooled down. It rained on the rocks for
39:51
millions of years, turned them into soup, and the soup came
39:53
alive 3 billion years ago. And so there's grandpa right
39:56
there. OK, now there's no question
40:04
there's a wide variety of dogs in the world.
40:08
The question is, does that variation we see tell us there's
40:12
an infinite. There is infinite varieties
40:14
available? No.
40:16
I don't think the dogs came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago.
40:18
OK, so the first five are purely religious.
40:21
Number six is science, but they try to skip the first four all
40:25
the time. I see this all the time in
40:26
textbooks. They try to skip those.
40:27
Now. Evolution #5, the first five
40:30
anyway, I think is the dumbest and most dangerous idea in the
40:32
history of the world. It didn't happen.
40:34
There's no evidence for it. Let's see.
40:38
Marxism. Evolution leads straight to
40:41
Hitler, Stalin, Paul Pot, abortion, communism, Marxism,
40:44
rejection of logic, and to hell if you don't trust Christ.
40:47
Now, Michael Shermer is the editor of Skeptic magazine.
40:51
He he is absolutely correct to be skeptical of some of the dumb
40:56
things people believe out there. There are some weirdos on this
40:59
world, folks. OK, you got some here in
41:01
California and they believe some strange things.
41:04
And I think what he does, exposing the the, the illogical
41:08
stuff that people teach is great.
41:09
I wish he would apply that same logic to his own theory of
41:13
evolution. He's skeptical of everything
41:16
except the evolution theory. For some reason, he's not
41:18
skeptical of that. That blows my mind.
41:20
Now let's define some terms in a Skeptic magazine article here.
41:24
Michael Shermer wrote August 28th, 2003.
41:28
Brights come out of the closet, as many as you are aware of.
41:31
If you're aware, there's a movement to introduce a new
41:33
Mimi, a new name for our society, our group, the
41:36
Evolutionists. Instead of calling us non
41:38
Believers, Infidels, Heretics, Skeptics, Humanists, Secular
41:40
Humanists. Introducing introduced at the
41:42
Atheist Alliance International conference last year in Florida,
41:45
they came up across the idea to call themselves the Brights.
41:49
We are the Brights. Then he goes through the
41:51
illustration in his book about how that the gays, you know,
41:53
pick that term gay so people wouldn't call them queers or
41:55
fags or something else. And it's now it's a it's a
41:57
better term and they've got now gotten political clout because
42:00
of the less aggressive term. OK, what is a bright?
42:04
He says a bright is a person whose worldview is naturalistic.
42:09
Well, let's define some terms. He says Bright is a good word.
42:11
I mean cheerful and lively, showing an ability to think, to
42:14
learn. That's good.
42:15
But now I'm officially out of the other closet in print.
42:18
He's a bright. OK, well, the word people used
42:20
to be called Homo sapiens in the most recent books are calling us
42:23
Homo sapien sapien. The word sapien means wise.
42:28
We're the wise, wise man. We're bright.
42:30
What The Bible says that professing themselves to be
42:32
wise, they became fools. OK, And if you think you're a
42:36
great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great.
42:37
Grandpa was a rock. I think you're a fool.
42:39
OK, we can help you, though. We're here to help.
42:41
Let's define some terms. Stupid, lacking normal
42:48
intelligence. Foolish, silly.
42:50
A stupid idea. Evolution is not even a good
42:53
theory. It is stupid.
42:54
OK, people are welcome to believe whatever they want, but
42:57
I think it ought to be illegal. It's certainly silly and unfair
43:00
to make all taxpayers support this one religion in our public
43:02
school system. And evolution is nothing but a
43:04
religion, OK? In his magazine he said my real
43:08
purpose was to understand Gish and the creationists so that I
43:11
can understand how they can reject the well confirmed theory
43:13
of called evolution. Well, Michael, we're not
43:16
rejecting science. We're rejecting the idea that
43:21
you're stretching this observation of, you know,
43:23
varieties of dogs to mean a dog came from a rock.
43:26
We aren't. We aren't rejecting science and
43:28
evolution is not a well confirmed theory.
43:29
You've got to define what you're talking about here.
43:31
No, I'm not anti evolution. I'm not an evolution denier.
43:34
Like he says in his book numerous times, I'm for truth
43:38
and against error. If evidence exists for a theory,
43:41
show me. But don't use lies to support a
43:43
theory. By the way, Kent is Welsh for
43:45
bright. It's a little bit trivial there.
43:54
Texas has laws requiring textbooks to be accurate.
43:58
So does Florida. So does Wisconsin.
44:00
So does Alabama. So does California.
44:02
Fact textbooks shall be factually accurate.
44:04
That's all I want is accuracy in textbooks, OK?
44:08
Minnesota says a teacher shall not deliberately suppress or
44:10
distort subject matter. Evolution is a dying religion
44:13
surviving only on tax dollars. It's dead folks.
44:15
It didn't happen. Now the evolution theory is
44:18
positively anti science. There's not a shred of real
44:21
evidence to support the theory other than OFT repeated lies.
44:24
Now if you have evidence for evolution, I really want to see
44:26
it. But I heard some things in the
44:28
last 25 minutes that Doctor Schumer said that he ought to
44:30
know, I'm sure he knows are simply lies.
44:33
They've been proven wrong years ago.
44:35
The idea of vestigial structures.
44:38
Here's the evidence they use for evolution.
44:39
They've got pages and pages of this stuff.
44:41
This guy says evolution is a fact, not theory.
44:43
Well, he that's a mantra. They say that over and over and
44:46
over. Pretty soon, students start to
44:47
believe it. Well, it's a fact.
44:48
I heard it. I heard it in school over and
44:49
over. It's got to be true.
44:50
What do you mean by evolution? First of all, If you mean we all
44:53
came from a rock, no, that's not a fact.
44:56
If you mean dogs and wolves have a common ancestor, I would agree
44:58
with that. That would be a fact.
44:59
That's why I have to define the term.
45:00
So here's some of the evidence they use in textbooks to support
45:03
their theory. If I had a theory that the moon
45:05
is made of green cheese, that's a dumb theory.
45:07
But there is no law against dumb theories.
45:09
Fortunately. OK, but then suppose I said NASA
45:13
proved it when they went there in 1973 on a secret mission and
45:15
found the moon is made of green cheese.
45:18
Well, now, see, it's OK to have a dumb theory, but it's wrong to
45:20
lie about my evidence just to get people to believe me.
45:23
And I think it's real, seriously wrong to accept tax dollars to
45:26
get paid while I lie to support my theory.
45:28
And that's what happens in this university.
45:31
OK, they say we've got evidence from fossils.
45:33
Heard that several times when Doctor Sherman was speaking
45:35
fossils. Now think, stop and think about
45:38
it. No fossil, no fossil could
45:42
possibly count as evidence for evolution.
45:44
No fossils count. You can't prove those bones had
45:47
any kids, let alone different kids.
45:51
And he talked about drawers after drawers of all these
45:53
mollusks at Harvard, well, that's wonderful.
45:57
None of them show any evolution, though.
45:58
What they show is drawers after drawers after drawers of dead
46:01
things, proving a flood in the days of Noah.
46:05
Now, evolution is based on 2 faulty assumptions, #1 They
46:08
assume mutations will make something new and better and #2
46:11
natural selection will make it survive and take over the
46:13
population. By the way, evolution is a
46:15
religion of death. That's how things get ahead.
46:17
Things have to die. It's true, mutations happen, but
46:20
they don't cause any evolution. Darwin said it's truly wonderful
46:23
fact that all animals and all plants throughout all time and
46:25
space should be related to each other.
46:28
Darwin observed 14 kinds of finches on the Galapagos Islands
46:31
and he correctly concluded they had a common ancestor, a bird.
46:39
But then he incorrectly concluded that that was enough
46:41
evidence to prove that birds are related to bananas.
46:45
Which is what he says in his book right here.
46:46
And what Doctor Shermer believes and what some of you believe.
46:48
Now, if you want to believe birds are related to bananas, I
46:50
don't care what you believe, but don't call it science.
46:52
Admit it's a religion and go start yourself a private school
46:55
and teach anybody else that wants to come pay and learn it.
46:58
OK, but get it out of the tax funded school system.
47:00
It's a lie. There's no proof any animals are
47:02
related to different kinds of animals.
47:03
OK? Mutations do not produce any
47:06
kind of evolution. Anybody that studies the subject
47:08
will tell you that mutations scrambled information that's
47:11
already existing. Here's a 5 legged bull.
47:14
There's no new information added.
47:15
A short legged sheep. Again, no new information.
47:17
It's a loss of information. Here's a 2 headed turtle That's
47:20
a mutant. It's not ninja, but he's mutant.
47:24
He's going to freeze first winter because nobody makes a
47:27
double neck turtleneck sweater. OK, no, scrambling up existing
47:32
gene code will not give you something totally new.
47:35
That's all mutations do is scramble up things.
47:38
This textbook says normal fruit flies have two wings.
47:40
This mutant has four. This rare mutation, like most
47:43
mutations, is harmful. Watch what it says now.
47:46
Beneficial mutations are the raw material for natural selection.
47:50
Excuse me, why don't they give an example of a beneficial
47:53
mutation? Why did they show us a bad one?
47:56
And there are millions of those happen all the time.
47:58
But they told us the good ones is how it works.
48:01
Show me a good one. You know why they didn't show us
48:04
a good mutation? Nobody's ever seen one.
48:07
One guy said, Oh yeah, people in Africa that get sickle cell
48:09
anemia are less likely to get malaria.
48:13
Well, that's brilliant. That's like saying if you cut
48:14
off your legs, you can't get athlete's foot.
48:20
Both sickle cell and malaria are negative.
48:24
You think that process is going to turn a rock to a human in 4.6
48:28
billion years? Is that that's the one they
48:30
always bring out? Well, if you think that's going
48:33
to do it, I I admire your faith. I don't admire your
48:37
intelligence, but I do admire your faith.
48:39
OK? Natural selection selects.
48:41
It doesn't create anything. It's a selection process.
48:44
Creation is thought of it first. Natural selection is not a
48:48
creative force. It can't create anything.
48:51
It's selects. That's all it does.
48:52
It can't create a thing, OK, if you worked in a factory that
48:55
produced cars and your job was to select the good ones to go
48:58
through and select the bad ones to go out and be fixed or, you
49:00
know, scrapped, how long would it take that selection process
49:04
of get letting good cars do, to change the car to an airplane?
49:09
It'll never happen. See, the select natural
49:11
selection is never going to change the animal to something
49:13
else. It's just going to make sure you
49:14
get a good species of whatever it is, whether it's cows or
49:16
corn. OK, you may get a big dog or a
49:18
little dog, but you get a dog every single time.
49:21
And I have 5 year olds when I do this test, Almost always they
49:24
get it. I'll say here we have a dog, a
49:26
wolf, a coyote and a banana. Which one is not like the
49:28
others? Yeah, the banana Bible says they
49:32
bring forth after their kind, not species kind.
49:36
OK, And that's all we've ever observed.
49:37
Variations happen, but they have limits.
49:39
Farmers been trying to get bigger pigs for a long time, but
49:41
they'll never get a pig as big as Texas.
49:44
Roaches become resistant to pesticides, but they will never
49:46
become resistant to a sledgehammer.
49:48
OK. They always still produce the
49:51
same kind of plant or animal. No new information is created.
49:54
It's always scrambling existing information.
49:56
That's all we observe now. Science is what we can see and
49:59
study and test. If you want to believe it goes
50:02
beyond that, that's fine. I don't care what you believe.
50:05
But it's not science. No new information is added, OK?
50:09
The gene pool of the new variety is always more limited.
50:13
They can take a herd of dogs or a flock of dogs or whatever you
50:15
want to call them and and select the gene code to get a little
50:18
tiny dog or a great big dog. They have the genetic variety in
50:21
the original gene code. You can select for a slice of
50:24
the gene code and get a particular trait that you want.
50:26
OK, long tail feathers on a bird can't fly anymore, but you get
50:30
really long tail feathers. OK, good.
50:33
But you didn't create anything. You selected part of the gene
50:36
pool that was already existing. Somebody kept breeding dogs till
50:38
they got a Chihuahua. All that time and money to make
50:41
a dog that is 100% useless. How long would the Chihuahuas
50:47
last in the real world? Yeah, go ahead, make my day,
50:51
right? Genetic information is lost.
50:55
It's not added. There's no new real.
50:56
Evolution would require an increase in genetic complexity.
50:59
You've got to take the gene pool of a rock, which is nothing, and
51:02
develop the gene pool of every living thing on Earth today.
51:05
Talk about a genetic bottleneck. Take a look at the gene code of
51:08
a rock sometime, OK? There's a lot of kinds of corn
51:11
in the world, OK? They probably had a common
51:12
ancestor. Corn.
51:16
You never get a hamster or tomato or whale to grow on your
51:18
cornstalk, though. OK, sure, there's a lot of
51:20
varieties out there. They call it divergent
51:22
evolution. Oh, it's not divergent
51:23
evolution. It's still a dog.
51:24
OK, they show the kids five kinds of dogs and say, oh, see,
51:27
that's divergent evolution. No, it's a variety of dog.
51:30
It's proof what the Bible says they bring forth after their
51:32
kind. There's a lot of varieties of
51:34
horses out there, Big horses and little horses.
51:37
We had the world's smallest horse visit our museum.
51:40
My granddaughter liked riding it.
51:41
I guess, But they cross breed horses.
51:43
They get Zorses, Zonke, zionis, Zeedonks and shebras.
51:48
They cross breed all every which way because they're the same
51:50
kind of animal. There's a herd of zebroids
51:53
running around, so there's no question there's a lot of
51:56
variation available. The question is, does it go any
51:57
farther? Now if Doctor Sherman wants to
51:59
believe this variation we observe, which is science, can
52:02
be extended, extrapolated to mean infant variation, he's
52:06
welcome to believe that he just left science.
52:08
And why he's not skeptical of his own belief.
52:10
I don't understand. You ought to be skeptical of
52:12
turn your turn your focus on your own belief.
52:15
Mike, I want to. I want to help you here.
52:16
That's what I'm here for. OK.
52:17
Thank you. Thank you.
52:33
Had a little report. Of some people behaving badly.
52:36
Let's respect our neighbors and enjoy the debate, Doctor
52:40
Shermer. We'll have 10 minutes for
52:41
rebutting what Doctor Hovind just taught.
52:54
Wow. You're the only.
52:57
Guy. Can't I?
52:57
Know and give a 2 hour lecture in 25 minutes.
53:00
Sounds pretty good. Shouldn't have that beer before.
53:06
Oh well, but I'm having a good time.
53:09
All right, he brought the beer up.
53:12
I OK. So, Ken.
53:16
Hovind has announced at the beginning that his purpose here
53:19
is to win over non believers to Christ and and me.
53:24
I even made the slide. I was impressed.
53:26
Thanks. And he even got my name right.
53:30
I was in South Dakota. Two nights ago and a guy was
53:33
passing out literature about why people shouldn't believe my
53:36
lecture and he said that Michael Sherman is going to tell you
53:40
things you shouldn't believe. I said, well, OK, where is this
53:42
guy? Any rate, I was actually once a
53:48
evangelical, born again Christian.
53:51
I was. I accepted Christ in 1971, and I
53:54
went to Pepperdine University to major in theology, and I took
53:57
this very seriously. I was really, really a believer.
54:00
I did. I.
54:02
And by evangelical, evangelical, I mean, we evangelized.
54:06
We went door to door. This was literally Amway with
54:10
Bibles. You know, we were selling God.
54:12
That's what you define an evangelical Christian.
54:15
And I went door to door and told people about this stuff.
54:18
And then for Long story short, I wrote a book about this stuff.
54:22
But I found out you had to get a PhD in theology.
54:25
You had to study Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic.
54:28
And I could barely get through Spanish.
54:30
So I thought, all right, I'm going to have to switch majors
54:31
here. Didn't get a job.
54:33
So I switched to the sciences because I was good at math and
54:35
science. And I discovered there that the
54:38
answers are not final. They are provisional.
54:42
They're provisionally true. This is what we know now.
54:46
Furthermore, it might change. And that's OK.
54:50
Really, It's OK. In fact, it's a good thing.
54:53
And best of all, you get to participate in the process.
54:56
And I thought, wow, what a great deal.
54:58
I get to think. I actually have to think for
55:01
myself. I get to try to find out some of
55:03
the answers. The answers aren't out there for
55:05
me to just read from some other authority, but I actually have
55:07
to try to think it through myself for me, at least
55:10
personally. And religion is the most
55:14
personal of beliefs. That was far more enlightening
55:18
and transcendent spiritual than anything I had experienced in
55:23
seven years of being a born again Christian.
55:26
And even today, even though I've been to Shark Cathedral in
55:30
France, it's one of the most spiritual places you can go on
55:33
earth. But to me, to stand in the 100
55:36
inch telescope Dome at the top of Mount Wilson is equally, if
55:39
not more spiritual. So science has at least the
55:43
discoveries of science. Science isn't a religion, but
55:45
the discoveries can be felt in a transcendent way.
55:49
So I don't really see that there's any conflict here.
55:52
You don't have to pick between the two now in terms.
55:57
Of what religion does. Right.
55:59
It does things that science doesn't do, for the most part.
56:02
And so, again, even if it turned out every scientist on the
56:06
planet was religious, believed in God, was an evangelical
56:08
Christian, take your pick. It wouldn't change what they do
56:12
when they're doing science, right?
56:16
They would still have to have to go to work the next day and and
56:19
do science. Science has nothing to do with
56:22
religion in terms of some other claims here.
56:28
Oh, Doctor Hoeven asked about my position on the afterlife.
56:33
Well, I'm for it. Really, I am.
56:38
I hope it's. True.
56:40
And if it's there, I hope I'm going, don't you?
56:43
I mean, right? This would be great, but what I
56:47
want to be true and what is actually?
56:50
True are two different. Things.
56:51
And that's the problem with religious faith is that you
56:57
don't know if it's actually true.
56:58
It's true for you to psychologically, which is fine
57:02
for a lot of things, but that's not science.
57:06
A lot of things are like. That politics are like.
57:08
That a lot of social attitudes are like that.
57:10
But that's not science. It's just something completely
57:13
different. I can't say that the Bible is
57:15
literally true, really. Gosh.
57:18
In Genesis, the first chapter, Adam and Eve are created at the
57:22
same time. In the second chapter, Adam's
57:25
created first, then some other things happen.
57:28
He names the animals. He gets a little lonely.
57:31
He wants to be, you know, the next bachelor real reality show.
57:35
He says to God, you know, I need a companion.
57:38
God says, OK, I'll take that extra rib and here's your
57:42
companion. All right.
57:43
So you know, of course, obviously the Bible's not
57:46
literally true. We have two creation stories.
57:48
They can't literally be true. And of course thoughtful
57:51
theologians say, well, of course they're not literally true.
57:54
These are two different explanations of the same
57:56
phenomenon. Fine, but it's not literally
57:59
true. And in any case can't mentioned
58:03
good and evil morality. Where is the standards for right
58:07
and wrong if evolution is true? If there is no God, where do we
58:12
get these right and wrongs? Well, if we're supposed to take
58:16
the Bible literally, and since gay marriages is a hot topic
58:20
these days, you you've heard all about Leviticus and Deuteronomy
58:24
where it says a man shall not lie with another man.
58:27
All right, OK, but literally, if we're supposed to really turn to
58:31
this as our source of morality, what about the next chapter
58:34
where disobedient children are supposed to be stoned to death?
58:38
Oh, well, you know, we don't accept that today, you know,
58:40
because we're more enlightened. Really.
58:42
I thought it was literally true. I thought all of it was true.
58:46
What about the next chapter in which women, When you marry, if
58:51
you do not show the signs of your virginity on the sheets,
58:54
the next morning after your honeymoon night, you're to be
58:58
taken to the elders and stoned to death.
59:01
That's in there. You can't believe this stuff is
59:03
in there. If you actually read this Old
59:05
Testament, you know, wow, this is incredible.
59:07
This is in the Bible. Yeah, it is.
59:09
So if you're supposed to take it literally, what do you make of
59:12
that stuff? Of course, there's myths and
59:15
legends from all cultures. Some of them are similar because
59:18
it turns out all cultures that live on bodies of water that
59:22
flood have flood myths. Cultures that don't live on
59:25
bodies of water don't have flood myths.
59:27
These are geographically determined.
59:33
Now, Kent said that. Evolution is a religion.
59:36
Look, if evolution is a religion, everything's a
59:38
religion, then nothing's a religion.
59:40
Religion as a word has to mean something.
59:43
If you say that evolution is a religion, it doesn't mean
59:47
anything. Evolution is not a worldview in
59:51
the sense of offering moral homilies.
59:54
And purpose and meaning in life. You as a person who takes a
59:58
scientific worldview like me, you may construct your own
1:00:02
personal meanings and purpose and discover your own right and
1:00:05
wrongs through a variety of ways.
1:00:07
I wrote a book about this called The Science of Good and Evil.
1:00:09
But the the actual science of evolution has nothing to do with
1:00:13
any of that. The people that do evolutionary
1:00:16
biology, they don't do. Morality and theology and God.
1:00:21
And what's the purpose and meaning of my life when they're
1:00:24
doing science? These are two different things.
1:00:27
Turns out, 39% of all American scientists believe in God.
1:00:30
So how do they do this if, According to him, they can't be
1:00:33
doing this? Well, they do.
1:00:34
How do they do that? All right, so these are two
1:00:37
different things in terms of the science of cosmic evolution,
1:00:42
where The Big Bang come from and so on.
1:00:43
And so these are, you know, big subjects, A lot of data.
1:00:48
An incredible a lot of data. When I was in college, The Big
1:00:50
Bang was not accepted. It was kind of a toss up between
1:00:53
The Big Bang and the steady state and so on.
1:00:54
Finally, so much evidence came forth that hardly anybody
1:00:58
supported the steady state theory.
1:01:00
Now pretty much everybody supports The Big Bang not
1:01:02
because they have to or else they're going to have to become
1:01:05
Christians or something has nothing to do with religion.
1:01:08
They are simply concluding that because there's so much data in
1:01:11
support of it, despite of all the skeptics over the decades
1:01:14
that said we don't believe The Big Bang, finally they were all
1:01:17
converted to so-called believers in The Big Bang simply because
1:01:20
there was so much evidence for it.
1:01:25
I'm always amused when. Creationists bring up this.
1:01:28
Evolution leads to communism leads to abortion, leads to
1:01:31
atheism and sex, drugs and rock'n'roll and rape and
1:01:34
nastiness and so on. I can assure you, if you study
1:01:37
history at all, long before Darwin, people were nasty to one
1:01:42
another, and they had wars, and rape was not uncommon, and
1:01:47
thieves and so on and so forth. Criminals.
1:01:50
There's nothing new about people doing nasty things to one
1:01:54
another. That's what we do.
1:01:56
It's part of our nature. We're all so nice to one
1:01:59
another, but it has nothing to do with a particular theory.
1:02:03
And As for it being taught in public schools, well, that's a
1:02:05
political issue. Whether school should be public
1:02:07
or all private, or what should be taught, what gets taught is
1:02:10
in fact whatever is accepted amongst the experts.
1:02:14
The experts accept the theory of evolution simply because the
1:02:16
evidence is so overwhelming. As for the brights, I don't call
1:02:20
myself a bright, mainly because I guess the.
1:02:24
Natural. Implication is, if you weren't a
1:02:26
bright you'd be a dim and well, let his own definitions that he
1:02:32
put up account for that Bibles telling us that people are fools
1:02:36
who don't believe so. I guess you're calling me a
1:02:40
fool. OK, if that's what you think,
1:02:44
that's fine. Finally, As for increase in
1:02:51
information in the genome and so on, we have so many examples of
1:02:55
this. It's incredible.
1:02:55
Lots of examples of gene duplication, chromosomal
1:02:59
aberrations that lead to increases in complexity across
1:03:02
various organisms. And I'll tell you more about
1:03:05
that in my final four minutes. Thank you.
1:03:18
Thank you. Now Doctor Hovind Dr. Hovind
1:03:23
will give. 10 minutes. Rebuttal to the opening comments
1:03:26
by Doctor Sherman. All right.
1:03:36
Well, thank you so much. I'd like.
1:03:37
To comment on several things that he said.
1:03:40
He mentioned there is evidence for evolution from homology from
1:03:44
vestigial structures. The human eyes are poor design,
1:03:46
Can't, won't think I'll be able to cover all that.
1:03:48
But you get my video series on my website, doctordino.com and
1:03:51
watch the whole thing. This textbook says the appendix
1:03:54
is vestigial. This is ludicrous.
1:03:57
OK? This is a lie.
1:03:58
The appendix is not vestigial. You do need your appendix, OK?
1:04:01
The appendix is part of your immune system.
1:04:03
It's true. You can live without it.
1:04:05
You can also live without both your legs and both your arms and
1:04:07
both your eyes. It doesn't prove you don't need
1:04:09
them. OK?
1:04:10
If your appendix is taken out, you have a much better chance of
1:04:12
getting quite a few diseases, and something else in the immune
1:04:14
system has to work harder. It's like losing a finger.
1:04:16
You can still have a grip, but now the rest of the fingers have
1:04:18
to work harder. If somebody tells you the
1:04:20
appendix is vestigial, they are either confused about their
1:04:22
anatomy or they're lying to you. But it's not true.
1:04:26
This textbook says the whale has a vestigial pelvis.
1:04:28
This is one that he brought up earlier about the whale having a
1:04:30
vestigial pelvis. Now hold on a minute.
1:04:32
The National Center for Science Education is funded by Andrew
1:04:35
Carnegie's grant for he loved the evolution theory.
1:04:37
The National Center for Science Education, who?
1:04:39
All of them refused to debate me two weeks ago when I was at
1:04:41
Berkeley. They teach the people that cows
1:04:44
evolve to whales, bossy to blowhole.
1:04:49
Well, here's their evidence. Whales have a vestigial.
1:04:51
Pelvis and leg bone that serve no purpose.
1:04:55
Just imagine. The hind limb bones.
1:04:57
That have no function, the textbook says Imagine whales
1:05:00
walking around. It's true.
1:05:02
Here's the bones they're talking about right there.
1:05:03
You can see them at your Los Angeles museum right down the
1:05:06
road here. Those are the bones, yes.
1:05:08
Just imagine the whale walking around.
1:05:13
This textbook says the whale's pelvis is located.
1:05:15
Far from the vertebra and has no apparent function.
1:05:18
The whale's pelvis is. Evidence of its evolution from.
1:05:20
4 legged land dwelling mammals. This is a lie.
1:05:24
Those bones are anchor points that special muscles attached
1:05:27
to. And without those special bones
1:05:28
and those special muscles, the whales cannot reproduce.
1:05:31
Male and female whales have different bones in that region
1:05:34
for just support different muscles for different reasons.
1:05:36
This has nothing to do with walking on land.
1:05:38
It has to do with getting baby whales.
1:05:39
OK, so the people that are writing this in the textbooks
1:05:42
are either ignorant of whale anatomy or they're lying trying
1:05:44
to push their theory. I hope they're just ignorant
1:05:47
that we can fix. If they're lying, they ought to
1:05:49
get a different job. Picking Peaches are changing
1:05:50
tires. They got no business taking tax
1:05:52
dollars to lie to the kids coming through their class
1:05:55
because these bones resemble those of other mammals, but they
1:05:57
are weakly developed in the whale and have no apparent
1:05:59
function. This is a college biology book.
1:06:01
This guy ought to be fired. He doesn't understand his whale
1:06:03
anatomy. They're teaching this stuff like
1:06:05
it's some kind of fact. Is this a university to get
1:06:07
educated or you just getting indoctrinated in the theory?
1:06:10
OK, they say ambilocetus pictured here is mostly
1:06:13
imagination. The dark bones are the only ones
1:06:16
actually found. Ambilocetus is not a missing
1:06:20
link. Ambilocetus is just a few
1:06:22
fragments of bone. How about them?
1:06:25
A BJ stall? Vertebrate History Dover
1:06:27
publisher said the Basilosaurus is not an intermediate.
1:06:30
He said the archaeocytes could not possibly have been ancestral
1:06:35
to any of the modern whales, Pachycetus, shown here.
1:06:39
All they found was one piece of a skull, a small piece of jaw
1:06:42
and a few teeth. That's enough to know it.
1:06:45
Used to be a whale. You've got to be kidding.
1:06:49
Here you are, Skeptic magazine. Why aren't you skeptical of a
1:06:53
claim like that? No pelvic.
1:06:56
Bones were found and little is known.
1:06:57
About the tail, but the authors are certain the feet were
1:07:00
enormous. As such, Ambulocetus.
1:07:05
Represents a critical intermediate.
1:07:08
This is pure propaganda. OK, we can talk all day about
1:07:11
the whale anatomy. He mentioned about the snake.
1:07:13
I happen to have a 15 1/2 foot Python snakeskin in my museum in
1:07:16
Pensacola, FL. If you look at the South end of
1:07:19
that Python, you will see it has two little bitty claws.
1:07:22
Those claws are attached to little tiny bones going up
1:07:24
inside the snake's body. That's a fact.
1:07:26
OK, they have them. Textbook says these are
1:07:28
rudimentary hind legs of a Python snake.
1:07:31
He mentioned that earlier that the snake pelvis is evidence for
1:07:34
evolution. Look those little claws and.
1:07:37
Those little bones have nothing. To do with walking on land, the
1:07:41
snakes use those claws. In mating.
1:07:42
OK, they. Don't have any arms, right?
1:07:45
And they can't talk. They can't.
1:07:48
Talk and say squirt over honey. OK, this.
1:07:49
Has nothing to do with walking on land.
1:07:53
So the people that are saying the snake has a vestigial leg
1:07:56
are ignorant of snake anatomy or are lying trying to push the
1:07:59
theory off. OK, but it's not true.
1:08:01
They use those bones and those little muscles.
1:08:04
This textbook says humans have a tailbone that is of no apparent
1:08:06
use. Says the vestigial tailbone in
1:08:09
humans is homologous to the functional tail of other
1:08:12
primates. Thus, vestigial structures can
1:08:14
be viewed as evidence for evolution.
1:08:16
You can rewind the tape and see. That's what he said in his
1:08:18
opening comments. One of the evidences for
1:08:19
evolution is vestigial structures.
1:08:21
I would like to point out your honor, vestigial structures is
1:08:24
losing something, not gaining something.
1:08:26
How can that be evidence for evolution?
1:08:27
How did you get it to begin with?
1:08:29
Secondly, the tailbone is not vestigial.
1:08:31
One guy told me. He said up at Berkeley, he said,
1:08:33
I think the tailbone is vestigial.
1:08:35
I said, well I taught biology and anatomy.
1:08:37
I happen to know there are 9 little muscles that attach to
1:08:39
the tailbone without which you cannot perform some valuable
1:08:42
functions. I won't tell you what they all
1:08:44
are, but. Trust me.
1:08:45
You. Need those muscles?
1:08:46
Get your Grey's Anatomy now. If you believe the tailbone is
1:08:48
vestigial, then I will pay to have yours removed.
1:08:52
OK, bend over. This textbook says the coccyx is
1:09:00
a. Small bone at the end of the
1:09:01
human vertebral column. It has no present function, Is
1:09:03
thought to be the remainder of bones that once occupied the
1:09:05
long tail of a tree living ancestor.
1:09:07
Either these authors are ignorant of anatomy or they're
1:09:10
lying. I don't see another option.
1:09:12
OK, if you know of one, please let me know.
1:09:14
But it's not true that they're vestigial.
1:09:17
And even if there were vestigial structures, that is the
1:09:19
opposite. He mentioned that the human eye
1:09:21
is poor design because the blood vessels are in front of the rods
1:09:25
and cones. Well, the fact of the matter is
1:09:28
we live in the air, OK? Air is a poor insulator for UV
1:09:32
light. Your body's last defense against
1:09:35
ultraviolet light is the layer of blood vessels in front of the
1:09:37
retina to protect the rods and cones from UV light.
1:09:41
Some people say octopus. One atheist I debated in New
1:09:43
York said octopus have a much better eye because their blood
1:09:46
vessels are behind the retina. Ours are wired backwards.
1:09:48
It's poor design. I said, well, Sir, octopus live
1:09:52
in the water, OK? Water blocks UV.
1:09:57
Light. They don't need their blood
1:09:59
vessels in front, so if you want to swap eyes with an octopus,
1:10:02
you just go ahead. But you're going to be blind in
1:10:04
a few days. We're designed for.
1:10:06
Living in the air. And they're designed.
1:10:08
For living in the water. And I think the eye is
1:10:10
incredibly designed. At 51, mine are starting to fade
1:10:13
a little bit. But hey, that's expected.
1:10:15
OK, that's an example. We used to be much better.
1:10:17
Things are getting worse. That's the second law of
1:10:19
thermodynamics. Things are falling apart.
1:10:22
Let's see, he mentioned that when he got through Pepperdine
1:10:25
he went to off to Graduate School and decided he got to
1:10:27
think. To me that implies that if you
1:10:31
don't believe in evolution, you you're not thinking.
1:10:34
I happen to resent that I happen to think a lot and I enjoy
1:10:37
thinking and I enjoy the the object of of joy, science.
1:10:41
I like studying. I think what happens though is
1:10:44
you get to get indoctrinated when you come to university like
1:10:46
this. You get to be told what to
1:10:48
believe. You don't really get to think
1:10:51
because if you wrote a paper, suppose a teacher stood up 10
1:10:53
years ago in the Soviet Union where my daughter-in-law is
1:10:56
from. Teacher gets up in class and
1:10:58
says, hey students, I don't believe in communism anymore.
1:11:03
Capitalism is a much better system.
1:11:05
What would happen that teacher would?
1:11:08
Be shoveling snow in Siberia. If they survived and if a
1:11:12
teacher gets up in. This.
1:11:13
University tomorrow. Or Monday.
1:11:17
And, says kids, I don't believe in evolution anymore.
1:11:20
I think creation is true. They will go to academic
1:11:24
Siberia. There have.
1:11:27
Been hundreds of teachers. Fired.
1:11:30
Lost their jobs, lost their government grants precisely
1:11:32
because they didn't bow down and kiss the feet of the sacred cow
1:11:35
of evolution. Evolutions, a religion, nothing
1:11:38
more. There's no scientific evidence
1:11:40
to back it up. If you think there is some, I
1:11:42
really, really would like to see it.
1:11:43
He mentioned that the Pope accepts evolution.
1:11:45
That's because the Pope has never been to my seminar.
1:11:56
And I don't care what the Pope believes on any subject.
1:11:58
OK, OK, What does the Bible say and what does science teaches?
1:12:02
He mentioned in his opening comments that Answers in
1:12:04
Genesis, Ken Ham disagrees with me on most subjects.
1:12:08
That is absolutely not true. I know Ken Ham well.
1:12:11
I've met met with him several times, talked to him numerous
1:12:13
times. He and I disagree on a couple of
1:12:15
little things. We agree on 99% of the things,
1:12:17
and on the other 1%, he's wrong. I'm right, but it's real simple.
1:12:22
But I sell his books and support his ministry, and I think you're
1:12:24
simply wrong if you think there's there's a vast
1:12:26
disagreement there. This little minor stuff doesn't
1:12:28
amount to nothing, he said. This argument's only going on in
1:12:31
America and New Zealand. Well, that's not true.
1:12:33
First of all, I've spoken in 32 countries.
1:12:36
Now this argument's going on every place.
1:12:38
There are creationist organizations all over the
1:12:40
place, and even if it was only going on in America, it still
1:12:43
does. That's that's no evidence for
1:12:44
one side or the other. The argument ought to be going
1:12:46
on everywhere, and I'm thrilled this university would allow
1:12:48
something like this to happen. I wonder how many teachers they
1:12:50
have. How many courses do they offer
1:12:51
here on biblical creationism just to give the give the kids
1:12:55
the other side? Go check your library, you'll
1:12:57
find thousands of books about evolution.
1:12:58
I bet you won't find 5 on creation.
1:13:01
From the creation perspective. You may find some evolutionist
1:13:03
wrote a book about creation, blasting it for some reason.
1:13:07
Coach folks, is this an education to get?
1:13:09
Do you get educated or do you get indoctrinated in places like
1:13:11
this? I just.
1:13:13
I'm sick and tired of them lying to support their theory.
1:13:15
Don't tell me about the vestigial structures.
1:13:17
What evidence do you have to show us evolution?
1:13:20
Not homology. Similar bone structures in the
1:13:22
arms they mentioned earlier. Yeah, that proves a common
1:13:25
designer, the Honda Prelude and the.
1:13:28
Honda Accord have quite a. Few interchangeable parts
1:13:31
doesn't prove they. Both came from a skateboard.
1:13:33
They have a common. Designer OK, so all the
1:13:36
evidence. I've seen he's presented.
1:13:37
Tonight is either mistaken or can be interpreted for creation.
1:13:41
So I stand my ground. I still believe the Bible's
1:13:42
right. Thank you.
1:13:56
OK, we're now to the closing arguments where.
1:13:59
Each man gets 4 minutes and get your questions ready.
1:14:02
What I think would work well is at the end of Doctor Hogan's
1:14:06
closing comments to pass them into the aisle and someone will
1:14:09
get them and then we'll take a 5 minute break and do question and
1:14:12
answer. So get your questions written
1:14:14
and start the closing. And then we throw the chairs.
1:14:25
OK, good. I'll get 4 minutes.
1:14:27
OK, so this is an important concept to understand about
1:14:32
explaining how things evolved. This was put forth in Darwin's
1:14:36
time what is called the problem of incipient stages.
1:14:39
What good is half of a wing? You can certainly see what a
1:14:41
fully developed wing is. What's the functional pathway to
1:14:44
get to the end if by Darwinian evolution you have to go step by
1:14:47
step gradually? Well, the answer is, is that it
1:14:50
didn't come out with that end purpose in mind because
1:14:53
evolution doesn't look ahead. In fact, each of these
1:14:55
particular structures had some other function along the way.
1:15:00
In the end, then, they end up with a final function, which is
1:15:03
different than the specific functions for each of those
1:15:06
structures. So for example, legs.
1:15:09
Obviously their primary purpose is for walking.
1:15:12
If they can also serve for grabbing your honey during
1:15:15
lovemaking, well then that's also a fine, but that's a
1:15:18
secondary function for which they were adopted for later
1:15:21
uses. And and who could disagree with
1:15:24
that? And.
1:15:27
So let's say that the. Legs and snakes become a
1:15:30
functional later. It costs a lot of energy to
1:15:33
support the structure, blood vessels, nerves, and so on to
1:15:37
run legs. So it's simply more efficient to
1:15:39
lose them and still use them for a secondary function later along
1:15:43
the way, such as mating. OK, so that's how that happens.
1:15:46
This explains a lot of things. There's a lot of good research
1:15:49
on that. In closing, the naturalistic way
1:15:55
of explaining how the world works is used because it works.
1:16:02
It gives us something to do when we're doing science, doing
1:16:06
supernaturalism, which is what Ken Hovind does and most
1:16:10
creationists do, doesn't do anything.
1:16:12
It doesn't give you anything. Again, all you've heard tonight
1:16:15
are I can't figure out how the evolutionists can explain this.
1:16:20
I disagree with it. I don't think they've come up
1:16:22
with an answer. Therefore, God did it.
1:16:24
That's not an answer that doesn't give us anything to do.
1:16:27
If you're going to do science, if you want to say, look this,
1:16:30
this is important to me because I happen to believe in my
1:16:33
religion. I need to believe this
1:16:35
particular tenet that the Bible is literally true.
1:16:37
That's fine, but that's not science.
1:16:40
The reason I told you that other people don't accept that is
1:16:42
simply to show that that's not a particularly popular view.
1:16:45
In fact, I think it's a fairly narrow view.
1:16:47
The reason people believe in God and I wrote a book on this is
1:16:51
primarily having to do with emotional, psychological,
1:16:54
cultural, social, family reasons.
1:16:56
The number one predictor of anybody's religiosity is their
1:17:00
parents religiosity. Where they were born and what
1:17:03
their influences were and then peer groups, teachers and so on
1:17:07
has nothing to do with boy. I lined up the evidence and I
1:17:10
saw it was true and therefore I believed it.
1:17:11
Almost nobody arise at their beliefs for that reason.
1:17:13
Same thing with political and social attitudes.
1:17:16
Scientists of course are people, and they're biased as well.
1:17:19
But science has a really important built in, self
1:17:23
correcting machinery that drives it toward error correction and
1:17:29
the elimination of bias. At least it's better than any
1:17:35
other social system. As flawed as it may be, science
1:17:39
is not a religion. It's not even a noun.
1:17:41
It's not a thing. It's a way of asking questions
1:17:45
and answering them about the natural world.
1:17:48
It's not anything more than that.
1:17:51
It's not religion. It's a way of thinking.
1:17:54
It's a verb. Think of science as a way to
1:17:57
approach the world and answer claims and test answers and test
1:18:00
questions and so on. In that sense, science is the
1:18:04
best thing ever developed for understanding how the world
1:18:07
works. Thank you.
1:18:22
OK, we have a new idea on the. Questions.
1:18:25
When Doctor Hovind is done with his closing arguments, pass them
1:18:28
to the aisle and the people at the end of aisles pass them
1:18:31
down. The aisles are jam packed.
1:18:34
Like you said, there's no fire Marshall here.
1:18:36
Good thing. But do that when he wraps up his
1:18:39
closing arguments. Then we'll have a 5 minute break
1:18:41
and we'll do question and answer for about 45 minutes, getting as
1:18:44
many questions in as we can. Now, Doctor Hovind, you're
1:18:46
closing arguments. All right.
1:18:51
Yes, Sir. Thank you, Sir.
1:18:55
All right, there must be a misunderstanding.
1:18:57
Here I don't believe. I ever said tonight.
1:19:01
That science is a religion, I said.
1:19:05
Evolution is a religion. Evolution is not part of
1:19:08
science. That's the point I.
1:19:11
Think you're missing that though.
1:19:12
Doctor Schumer. And I'll just reiterate that I'm
1:19:14
not against science. I happen to like science.
1:19:15
OK so so I'm not against science now.
1:19:18
Bible says in Romans chapter one, because that which may be
1:19:20
known of God is manifest in them.
1:19:22
For God had showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him
1:19:24
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
1:19:27
understood by the things that are made even his eternal power
1:19:30
in Godhead. So they are without excuse.
1:19:33
You will have no excuse. When you stand before God, say.
1:19:35
Well, I believed in evolution because of the evidence.
1:19:37
Now somebody might have led you to believe that just like some
1:19:39
people lead their followers to believe, if you blow yourself up
1:19:41
and kill you know an Israeli, you get to go to heaven and get
1:19:43
72 wives. OK, well, you've been misled.
1:19:46
All right, The Bible says they're without excuse verse 21.
1:19:51
Because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God neither
1:19:54
we're thankful, but became vain and their imaginations and their
1:19:56
foolish heart was darkened professing themselves to be
1:19:59
wise. Or, as in the Greek, that's the
1:20:01
brights they became. Fools and changed the glory of
1:20:05
the uncorruptible. God to an image made like to a
1:20:06
corruptible man and birds and four footed beasts and creeping
1:20:09
things, that's evolution. God gave them up.
1:20:11
That'd be a horrible thing. If God gives up on you.
1:20:16
To uncleanness. Do their lusts of their own
1:20:18
hearts to. Dishonor their own bodies
1:20:19
between themselves, who changed the truth of God into a lie and
1:20:22
worship and serve the creature more than the creator?
1:20:25
Yep, got to go. Meet Lucy.
1:20:29
It was blessed forever. Amen for this.
1:20:31
God for this 'cause God gave them up to vile affections, for
1:20:34
even their women to change the natural use into that which is
1:20:36
against nature, And likewise also the men leaving the natural
1:20:38
use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another.
1:20:41
Then with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in
1:20:43
themselves that recompense of their error which was meat.
1:20:45
Romans one tells us why God's going to have to judge this
1:20:49
world. They knew God spent seven years
1:20:53
witnessing for him, and then turned their back.
1:20:58
They glorified him not as God. They became vain.
1:20:59
That means self-centered in their imagination.
1:21:02
They professed themselves to be wise.
1:21:03
They became fools. God brought them down to idols
1:21:07
and beasts, and God gave them up.
1:21:11
Slippery slope happens to civilizations happens to.
1:21:13
Nations. Happens to individuals.
1:21:14
Can happen to you. OK, now Bible says the fool has
1:21:16
said in his heart there is no God.
1:21:18
Wayne Strickland picked out his tombstone.
1:21:20
Calls himself an atheist. Well, the Bible says, the fool
1:21:24
has said in his heart, there is no.
1:21:25
God, I like Ray Comfort's book. His crew has video in here
1:21:28
tonight. God doesn't believe in atheist.
1:21:34
I don't either question my closing.
1:21:36
I didn't leave my gorgeous wife and traveled out here because I
1:21:39
want to beat somebody in a debate.
1:21:41
I want to see somebody get converted.
1:21:42
OK, All of you are going to die if you die.
1:21:45
Where you going? You ought to think about it
1:21:47
because you're going to be dead for a really long time.
1:21:52
I don't care how long. You live, you're going to be
1:21:53
dead. Longer than that.
1:21:55
So it's real simple. God made this world.
1:21:57
He owns it. He makes the rules.
1:22:00
We are guilty of breaking his rules.
1:22:01
If you don't like his rules and you're going to deny he exists
1:22:03
for that reason, OK, but you're going to face him anyway, he
1:22:06
told us. Clearly thou shalt not bear
1:22:07
false witness. Don't lie.
1:22:10
All of us have lied, he told us. Don't steal.
1:22:11
We've all stolen. We're guilty, folks.
1:22:13
The Bible says God is angry with the wicked every day.
1:22:17
I don't do this. Travel around and speak at
1:22:18
universities. And seminars and stuff, because
1:22:21
I'm in it for the money or in it because I like being gone.
1:22:23
Folks, there's a war going on. You, some of your kids are being
1:22:26
taught things in this university that simply are lies.
1:22:29
Somebody's trying to brainwash you against the obvious.
1:22:31
There's a creator, there's a designer.
1:22:33
So if you die today, where would you go?
1:22:35
You're going to be dead if you're if you're not saved,
1:22:37
you're going to be punished. Or Jesus can take your place. 35
1:22:41
years ago, I asked the Lord to forgive my sin.
1:22:43
Take my place and I'm going to heaven.
1:22:45
It's not because I'm good, it's because I'm forgiven.
1:22:49
You can have the same thing. That's why I came.
1:22:50
Thank you SO. Much first question is for
1:22:53
doctor. Shermer, how did life originate?
1:22:56
What is your best explanation? And you believe life originated
1:22:59
from non life and if so why? Right, an entire chemistry class
1:23:07
in. How much do I get?
1:23:09
2 minutes? 2 minutes?
1:23:10
OK, first of all, origins of life questions are not
1:23:14
evolution. Evolution is a theory that deals
1:23:16
with how life changes when it already exists.
1:23:19
The origins of life is really a chemical question has to do with
1:23:22
chemistry, not biology. But that but that aside we have
1:23:26
some reasonably good theories, although they need a lot more
1:23:30
work because it's a fairly new science of how inorganic
1:23:34
molecules become organic molecules.
1:23:36
There's a very fine model right now that has a lot of support
1:23:40
that clay substrates at the bottom of oceans may serve as
1:23:44
nice mediums for which simple molecules can bind and be held
1:23:49
in their bindings into more complex molecules and how even
1:23:52
protein chains can be formed and crude cells can be formed and so
1:23:57
on. That's how you get started in
1:23:59
the in the process. So it's a very gradual, slow
1:24:02
process. We know that, that it can be
1:24:05
done just by the input of energy, either ultraviolet
1:24:09
radiation or a spark of electricity, these sorts of
1:24:12
things, these experiments are rather crude.
1:24:14
No, there's not a little creature crawling out of the
1:24:17
test tube of course, but there are at least these early
1:24:20
rudiments of life, the beginnings of it.
1:24:22
These basic structures, protein train, chain chain structures,
1:24:26
monomers become polymers. All this happens just by the
1:24:29
input of energy, doesn't require a top down designer.
1:24:32
In fact, it's a bottom up process that's just built into
1:24:35
the laws of nature. OK, Doctor Hoeven, I.
1:24:41
Think the complexity. Of life is so great that they're
1:24:43
just simply had to be a designer.
1:24:45
It's not possible to happen piece by piece.
1:24:48
All the experiments so far in the laboratory to try to produce
1:24:50
life, Miller, Oprah, and Yuri have have really made the
1:24:54
problem more complex. In this picture here, they show
1:24:57
they're using methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen.
1:24:59
Notice they exclude oxygen. They call it They call it a
1:25:02
reducing atmosphere because they know if there's any oxygen it'll
1:25:05
it'll oxidize whatever tries to get together.
1:25:07
All they've been able to do so far is get a few little amino
1:25:09
acids, which is kind of like getting a few letters of the
1:25:11
alphabet by randomly dropping toothpicks.
1:25:13
OK, that can happen. I agree.
1:25:15
You could drop toothpicks and make letters of the alphabet,
1:25:17
but that would not explain how you get an entire book and the
1:25:21
difference from. A few amino acids to.
1:25:22
One living cell is like the difference between a few letters
1:25:25
of the alphabet and a whole book.
1:25:26
It's just orders of magnitude. Now if he wants to believe that,
1:25:30
he can believe that. But again, he's he's left
1:25:31
science and gone to religion. And if he says evolution only
1:25:35
deals with afterlife is here, then he's he doesn't have a
1:25:40
coherent theory because he needs to have something all the way
1:25:43
back to the beginning, in my opinion.
1:25:45
So that was it already. Watch my Yeah, watch my video #4
1:25:50
on the table back there for more on that.
1:25:56
OK, question for Doctor Hoeven. What is your strongest piece of
1:26:00
evidence for creation? I think the evidence for.
1:26:04
Creation would be. The absolute impossibility of
1:26:06
the contrary if we were walking down the highway or walking down
1:26:09
the road and we saw a swimming pool in somebody's backyard and
1:26:11
you can see the waves splashing out the top a little bit.
1:26:14
And I said I think that pool only has water in the top foot,
1:26:18
the rest is air underneath without.
1:26:21
Even going to examine it. We would, the other person would
1:26:24
say, that's silly. It's impossible that they're not
1:26:27
be water all the way to the bottom.
1:26:28
That's the nature of things, OK? It is impossible that they're
1:26:32
not be a designer. Everything is just so incredibly
1:26:36
complex. There had to be a creator.
1:26:38
If you're walking through the woods and you find a painting
1:26:40
hanging on a tree, you automatically conclude there was
1:26:43
a painter. Even if you don't see any
1:26:45
footprints, you don't see the person who made it.
1:26:47
There had to be a painter. If you're walking through the
1:26:49
woods and you find a building, you don't see any footprints,
1:26:51
you don't see any people. You still conclude there was a
1:26:53
builder, and if you see a creation, you conclude there was
1:26:56
a creator. So I think two things I would
1:26:58
say. The design in nature is
1:26:59
impossible to explain without a designer, and it the idea of
1:27:04
creation is true because of the impossibility of the contrary,
1:27:07
it is impossible that they're not be a creator for something
1:27:09
like this rebuttal. Yeah, I think that says it all.
1:27:14
It gets right back to my first slide.
1:27:16
I think you should be more explicit here in Step 2 than a
1:27:19
miracle occurs. Kent Hovind's answer to what's
1:27:23
the best piece of evidence you have for the creation?
1:27:26
Is the impossibility of the contrary.
1:27:30
So all he's. Got is I.
1:27:32
Don't believe your explanation. Therefore the default is my
1:27:35
explanation. That's not an answer.
1:27:38
That's not, that doesn't say anything.
1:27:40
That's not any positive evidence in support of a position.
1:27:47
OK, the. First Law of.
1:27:49
Thermodynamics, says matter. And energy is neither created
1:27:52
nor destroyed. How do you account for the
1:27:54
origin of matter and energy? And is your answer scientific?
1:27:58
That be me? Yes, I see we're doing that back
1:28:01
and forth. Operators are standing.
1:28:06
By for my tape. Well, this is standard.
1:28:12
Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics?
1:28:15
No, of course it doesn't, because if you have input into a
1:28:17
system of energy such as the sun, then you get a reversal of
1:28:21
entropy. That is, you get energy input,
1:28:23
you get an increase in complexity, and so forth as long
1:28:26
as the energy keeps coming in. Once the energy dissipates then
1:28:29
the you get an increase in entropy.
1:28:31
So then, OK, but what about the whole universe?
1:28:35
And then we're going to end up back at these kind of ultimate
1:28:37
questions. Well then where did the universe
1:28:39
come from and where did the energy that created The Big Bang
1:28:42
come from? And so on and so forth.
1:28:43
And then we're back into questions that are sort of only
1:28:45
quasi scientific or kind of metaphysical, which we can
1:28:48
speculate on, but that isn't really a part of science.
1:28:51
We with science have to work on what we have, the second law of
1:28:54
thermodynamics. I'm amazed anybody ever brings
1:28:56
that up anymore. That's just kind of a non a non
1:28:59
issue for for us anymore. OK, I disagree strongly.
1:29:04
I think the second law is. Very valid argument against
1:29:06
evolution. The second law tells us
1:29:07
basically everything's falling apart.
1:29:09
OK, the Bible teaches that clearly everything is waxing old
1:29:11
like a garment. Here, here's Sue at 20.
1:29:14
Here she is at 90. Here she is at 3000.
1:29:17
OK, now the evolutionists will say you can overcome the second
1:29:22
law by adding energy. This is ludicrous.
1:29:26
Adding energy is destructive unless there's something to
1:29:28
utilize the energy. The Japanese added a whole bunch
1:29:31
of energy to Pearl Harbor one day.
1:29:33
They didn't organize anything. OK, we returned the favor a few
1:29:37
years later and added energy to a couple of their cities and
1:29:39
didn't organize a thing for Adding energy is destructive
1:29:42
unless there's something to use the energy.
1:29:44
It's true the sun adds energy to the earth, but it's going to
1:29:46
destroy the roof on your house, not build it.
1:29:48
The sun's energy is going to destroy your entire house.
1:29:50
It's going to destroy the upholstery on your car.
1:29:52
It's going to destroy the roof on your car.
1:29:53
It's going to destroy the paint job on your car.
1:29:55
There's only one thing that can use the sun's energy, by the
1:29:57
way. The moon gets the same energy we
1:29:59
do. OK, it doesn't make anything up
1:30:01
there. The sun's energy is added to the
1:30:03
Earth and and chlorophyll is able to capture it and use it.
1:30:06
So it's a silly argument to say all you got to do is add energy
1:30:08
and that'll fix it. That is simply silly, not true.
1:30:20
OK, question for Doctor Hoeven. Doctor Shermer held up the
1:30:24
example of Lucy's pelvic bone. What is your response to Lucy
1:30:27
being a common ancestor between men and eight?
1:30:30
I give a 30 minute. Answer to that on our video #2
1:30:33
on the table back there and by the.
1:30:36
Way he mentioned something earlier about, you know.
1:30:38
All I had was a religion. And he said, well, it's not that
1:30:40
we need a better answer for step two.
1:30:42
OK, well all you have is a religion also.
1:30:44
But see, I'm not asking for my religion to be paid for by
1:30:46
taxpayers. You are so the burden of proofs
1:30:48
on you, not me. OK, Lucy's Lucy was nothing but
1:30:53
a three foot tall creature, probably some type of chimpanzee
1:30:55
kind of animal. Charles Oxnard studied every
1:30:57
single bone of Lucy and said it's it's not a missing link.
1:31:00
He did. It was called a computer.
1:31:01
Computer. Multi variant analysis I would
1:31:03
point out though from a much bigger picture, no fossils count
1:31:06
as evidence for evolution. None.
1:31:09
You can't prove this critter. Go ahead and turn it on.
1:31:11
You can't prove Lucy had any kids.
1:31:14
And why would you think a bone you found in the dirt can do
1:31:16
something animals today cannot do, which is produce something
1:31:19
other than their kind? No, fossils count as a bigger
1:31:22
picture. And even if Lucy is something
1:31:24
unusual in the form of a chimpanzee 3 feet tall with a
1:31:26
little unusual feature, that still doesn't prove it's
1:31:28
evolving to something else, it could have been a creature that
1:31:31
went extinct, so this kind of evidence would not hold up for
1:31:34
three seconds in a court of law. But see, the problem is
1:31:37
evolution doesn't have to be proven in a court of law.
1:31:39
It only has to be made believable to a bunch of
1:31:41
students who have an academic, or the teacher has an academic
1:31:44
and psychological advantage over the students.
1:31:48
That's why. Evolution.
1:31:49
The people believe that. The guys who studied Lucy say,
1:31:51
look, this is not a missing link.
1:31:53
Charles Oxnard, I'll show you the reference here, you can
1:31:55
check it out for yourself. Studied every single bone and
1:31:57
said Lucy, here we go. The various australopithecines
1:32:01
are indeed more different from both African apes and humans in
1:32:03
most features than the latter are from each other.
1:32:06
It's not a missing link. No, fossils count to begin with,
1:32:09
and even then, Lucy's not a good fossil to demonstrate evolution,
1:32:11
OK? Taxpayers.
1:32:17
Here we go. OK, back to the taxpayers
1:32:19
business. Look what what makes it into
1:32:22
public science course textbooks is the best science of the day,
1:32:29
whatever that happens to be. There's nobody conspiratorially
1:32:32
trying to plant it in there because they're anti religious
1:32:36
or anything like that. If the science isn't good, it,
1:32:40
it is taken out of the textbooks.
1:32:41
And this happens all the time, including within the Biological
1:32:45
Sciences and evolutionary theory.
1:32:46
Things change all the time as new evidence comes in.
1:32:50
The reason you don't see creationist stuff in science
1:32:53
textbooks is because they're not producing any science.
1:32:57
If you want to be taught as a science, you actually have to do
1:33:00
the science, and there's no science done.
1:33:02
They don't write any science textbooks, They don't publish
1:33:06
any scientific papers. All they do is go through
1:33:09
science textbooks and science papers and pick out what they
1:33:12
think are errors and say that's our science, that's not science.
1:33:15
You actually have to produce something, Produce evidence of a
1:33:18
creator, for example. And they don't have that.
1:33:24
Thank you. OK, Doctor Shermer.
1:33:29
You say there is evidence for The Big Bang.
1:33:30
Can you give us your strongest evidence that it occurred?
1:33:34
Oh, I was told there'd be no math.
1:33:37
In this debate. Well, OK, so.
1:33:42
This really has nothing to do with evolution.
1:33:43
This is a whole different theory, and that the larger
1:33:46
problem here is that Kent, Hovind and so many people have a
1:33:51
misinterpretation of what science is.
1:33:53
They think of it as the physics lab experiment as the model of
1:33:56
what science is. So much of science is inference.
1:33:59
So much of it is inferring from different pieces of data,
1:34:03
sequences, so much of the historical sciences are not
1:34:07
anything at all like a physics experiment.
1:34:11
So when you say, well, the Earth is only 6000 years old or
1:34:13
whatever, well look, this is going to throw out all of
1:34:16
cosmology, astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, geology,
1:34:19
historical geology, paleontology, archaeology.
1:34:22
Don't think this has to do with evolutionary theory.
1:34:25
All of science is completely wrong.
1:34:27
If he's right, there's no point of having any science.
1:34:30
He says he's pro science. He's completely anti science.
1:34:33
Because if he's right, it all goes out the window.
1:34:36
So in terms of The Big Bang, well, there's a whole series of
1:34:40
of the pieces of evidence that have to do with how explosions
1:34:43
occur, what kinds of elements you would expect to find the
1:34:47
most of if this explosion occurred, and we do find them
1:34:50
again. I said The Big Bang was debated
1:34:52
for many decades and lots of people didn't accept it.
1:34:55
A lot of hardcore scientific skeptics didn't believe it until
1:34:58
the the evidence amounted so much that it just became
1:35:01
inevitable to accept it. Well, the.
1:35:08
Sky is falling, is what he's trying to say.
1:35:10
Folks. If we believe in creation,
1:35:11
everything's going to fall apart.
1:35:13
I mean, all the sciences have to be thrown out.
1:35:14
That's ludicrous. All the branches of science were
1:35:16
started by creationists. The evolution theory has done
1:35:19
nothing for the advancement of science.
1:35:21
That's not why we put a man on the moon.
1:35:22
That's not why you can do open heart surgery.
1:35:24
Evolution is a useless theory. Even if it's true, it is
1:35:27
absolutely useless as far as science goes.
1:35:30
You don't have to believe in creation or evolution to study
1:35:32
science. You can learn about the biceps,
1:35:33
the triceps, the deltoid, all the different muscles of the
1:35:35
body and never get into origins. It doesn't matter.
1:35:38
No doctor doing surgery cares, cares at all about evolution
1:35:41
while he's cutting somebody's heart out to replace it.
1:35:43
It's it's a useless theory. And then and then there is no
1:35:46
advancement in modern science from this evolution theory.
1:35:49
The Big Bang theory I think is a great hindrance to, and many
1:35:52
other theories about evolution are a great hindrance to
1:35:53
science. There's all kinds of evidence
1:35:55
against The Big Bang, the counter rotation of at least two
1:35:58
planets, Venus and Uranus. At least eight of the 91 known
1:36:01
moons are spinning backwards. Some whole galaxies are spinning
1:36:04
backwards. Three planets have moons going
1:36:05
both directions at the same time.
1:36:08
This can't happen with Big Bang. You need to study some physics
1:36:10
on that one. Thank you.
1:36:21
OK, Doctor Hoeven, you admitted. That Roach has become resistant
1:36:25
to pesticides. Please defend your stance that
1:36:27
this is not a beneficial mutation for their kind roaches
1:36:32
become. Resistant to pesticides.
1:36:34
Because some some of the roaches in that population already had a
1:36:38
resistance when they dug up some of the guys who tried to find
1:36:40
the Northwest Passage, we can shut it down.
1:36:43
I don't have a slide ready for this.
1:36:44
There were guys that froze to death trying to find the
1:36:46
Northwest Passage up in Canada years ago.
1:36:47
When they dug up and did an autopsy on them, they find some
1:36:49
of them were resistant to penicillin.
1:36:52
Well, that's interesting. Penicillin hadn't been invented
1:36:55
yet. See there there are some people
1:36:57
that. Already have a resistance.
1:36:58
To certain things in their system.
1:36:59
So let's say you got 1000 roaches and five of them have a
1:37:02
resistance to a certain pesticide because of whatever
1:37:04
reason. OK, you put that pesticide down,
1:37:06
it kills all but those five. Those five then become the
1:37:10
grandparents of everybody else. So the new Roach population and
1:37:12
now you get a whole population of, you know, resistant roaches
1:37:15
that that happens. It is still a Roach.
1:37:17
It is only something already in the gene code that that was
1:37:21
selected, you selected for that particular thing to survive, in
1:37:26
this case, artificial selection instead of natural selection.
1:37:28
That is not a process that's adding information, and it's not
1:37:32
a process that's going to turn a rock to a human in 20 bazillion
1:37:35
years. It's not going to happen.
1:37:40
OK, well, I'm. Not a big expert on cockroaches,
1:37:42
although I like the hammer part. But these are fine examples of
1:37:47
of what we would call microevolution.
1:37:50
The question is, how do we go from microevolution to
1:37:52
macroevolution? One of the difficulties almost
1:37:54
everybody has with this concept is that we evolved to consider
1:37:59
ourselves on in terms of time frames of years or decades, and
1:38:03
it's hard to conceive of thousands of years or 10s of
1:38:05
thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.
1:38:07
It just seems, you know, impossible.
1:38:09
It's counterintuitive, yet there it is in the evidence.
1:38:11
And so it's makes it hard to grasp.
1:38:13
We see the changes. We see the dogs changing in
1:38:16
course of 15,000 years, humans in the course of 150,000 years
1:38:20
with all the variety we have today.
1:38:21
There it is. It's in the genes, it's in the
1:38:23
fossils. It's it's corroborated across
1:38:25
all these different independent lines of inquiry.
1:38:29
It's it's the power of genetic variation and selection which is
1:38:34
a bottom up designer. OK, OK.
1:38:43
Now this was a question. Directed to.
1:38:45
You. What would you say is the
1:38:47
creationist's strongest argument for the existence of God?
1:38:52
Oh. OK.
1:38:54
This is like on your your application to Graduate School
1:38:57
and says what's your weak point I.
1:39:01
Always put like chocolate. I study too hard.
1:39:06
Something like. That I actually think that the
1:39:09
best. Arguments creationists have
1:39:11
today for inferring design in nature are probably those of
1:39:18
William Demsky, maybe with the irreducible complexity of of
1:39:22
complex structures like the flagellum and so on.
1:39:25
We have terrific answers for these.
1:39:27
This little debate has been going on for about 6 years now,
1:39:31
but I think those are the best arguments for inferring design,
1:39:34
which has nothing to do with inferring God.
1:39:36
In fact, they purposely say that that's not what they're trying
1:39:38
to infer, although it's pretty obvious they are.
1:39:42
But still, in terms of what's the best arguments for God
1:39:45
herself, I guess it would it would just be that it does look
1:39:51
like the universe is designed and in fact let's just say it it
1:39:55
is designed. It's a kind of a jury rigged
1:39:59
bottom up designer. But that is a kind of design.
1:40:03
So when people intuitively say you know, it just looks
1:40:05
designed. Why don't we just say, well
1:40:08
yeah, that's right, because it is in a way, not a top down
1:40:11
intelligent designer, a bottom up tinkerer designer design
1:40:14
nonetheless. So the inference in a way is
1:40:16
correct. I think it's interesting.
1:40:22
Evolutionists. Argue against design using
1:40:25
arguments they designed. Think about that one.
1:40:31
This is the book he's referring to Michael V He's book Darwin's
1:40:33
black box. Excellent book showing how
1:40:36
complex living systems cannot evolve piece by piece.
1:40:38
There are too many interconnecting parts that
1:40:40
depend on each other. He uses the illustration of a
1:40:42
mouse trap with five basic parts.
1:40:43
You have to have at least those five parts you remove anymore.
1:40:46
It ceases to function. Your car has thousands of parts,
1:40:49
some it can live without or run without, some it simply cannot
1:40:52
run without. The hair on the bacteria, for
1:40:54
instance, has a little tiny motor that attaches to the the
1:40:58
bacteria that allows that thing to swim around.
1:41:00
That motor, so tiny 8 million of them would fit on the cross
1:41:03
section of a human hair. The motor turns 100,000 RPM
1:41:06
forwards or backwards. Now if you want to believe that
1:41:09
happened by chance, you're welcome to believe that.
1:41:10
But that's an incredibly complex little motor and really micro
1:41:15
miniaturized anybody's done. Any work with computers knows
1:41:17
the smaller you try to make it, the more problems you start to
1:41:20
have and that's why the cost goes up for a laptop instead of
1:41:22
a desktop. So no, I think there's evidence
1:41:25
of design every place, even out of the micro level.
1:41:39
OK, dinosaurs, what are your opinion?
1:41:41
On Dinosaurs, Doctor Hogan and Where do they fall into the
1:41:43
creation versus evolution argument that happens to be my
1:41:47
favorite. Topic I have dinosaur.
1:41:48
Adventureland my website. Is Doctor Dino my?
1:41:52
Phone number is 479 Dino. I have dinosaurs on my tie.
1:41:58
I'm sick and tired of the evolutionist using dinosaurs to
1:42:01
teach kids that they live millions of years ago.
1:42:02
The fact of the matter is that they were called Dragons all
1:42:04
through history. The word dinosaur was just
1:42:06
made-up in 1841. These creatures have always
1:42:09
lived with man. There are thousands and
1:42:11
thousands of legends and cave drawings and artwork and video
1:42:15
#3 on the table back there covers all that.
1:42:18
Dinosaurs have lived with man all through history.
1:42:20
They simply called them Dragons. The Bible says before the flood
1:42:22
came the people live to be 900 years old.
1:42:25
Well reptiles never stop growing.
1:42:27
Even today they don't stop growing.
1:42:28
Most species don't. So in the pre flood conditions
1:42:31
the reptiles would grow to be gigantic.
1:42:33
They were dinosaurs living with Adam and Eve.
1:42:34
Then Noah took them on the ark. Probably babies.
1:42:37
Just be sure to get a pink one and a blue one.
1:42:39
And after the flood, people killed him.
1:42:41
In all through history there are stories of people killing
1:42:43
Dragons and there could be a few still alive today.
1:42:45
There have been thousands of sightings like Loch Ness
1:42:47
Monster, Lake Champlain monster, A dead one washed up on the
1:42:50
beach in California. 1925 a dead plesiosaur fish.
1:42:53
Fishermen watched it get killed. There are pictures on my website
1:42:56
and I have them here, but I don't have time to get them up
1:42:58
because I have 7000 slides. So if you'd start asking the
1:43:01
questions in the same order that I have the answer, it'd be a lot
1:43:04
faster. Will do.
1:43:09
We need to have live. Internet and just Google.
1:43:10
Ready to go? OK, there's my answer.
1:43:17
Why? Why do you suppose fish died in
1:43:23
the flood? And explain that all these ocean
1:43:29
swimming dinosaurs died in the flood just all of a sudden
1:43:33
couldn't swim? Are we supposed to believe this?
1:43:36
Where in the geological record have you ever seen a dinosaur
1:43:41
and a human together? You never have.
1:43:43
This is an empirical test. This young lady is shaking her
1:43:47
head. Yes, you have seen a dinosaur
1:43:49
and a human together. Good.
1:43:50
Come see me later. OK, this would be a falsifiable
1:43:56
test of evolution. If you could actually find a
1:43:59
dinosaur or a trilobite or whatever, and A and a hominid
1:44:02
fossil in the same bed, that would do it.
1:44:04
That would be a huge point against evolutionary theory.
1:44:07
Has never been found. Hey, Doctor Shermer.
1:44:20
Regarding bird evolution and is there any living or fossil
1:44:23
evidence that a leg became a wing and a scale became a
1:44:26
feather? Yeah, good question.
1:44:30
There's actually a fair amount of good evidence now for the
1:44:34
evolution of birds from dinosaurs and the transition
1:44:38
from scales to feathers, and the transition from walking limbs to
1:44:44
flying limbs. It operates in principle with
1:44:47
the slide I put up with the each part has a particular function
1:44:51
that served some other purpose that in the end got Co opted for
1:44:55
a different purpose. And the wing is a classic
1:44:58
example. Almost surely was once a
1:45:00
thermodynamic regulator, a heat regulator which then gets Co
1:45:04
opted to use for something else later.
1:45:06
Therefore a half a wing has some purpose.
1:45:08
In terms of the fossil record it's pretty good.
1:45:10
Now, we actually have quite a few transitional fossils from
1:45:13
dinosaurs, two birds. And there's a number of
1:45:16
paleontologists that think today the birds are the dinosaurs are
1:45:19
still living, not as Dragons. The Bible, by the way, where are
1:45:24
the unicorns that are referred to in the Bible?
1:45:27
Where? Where are those?
1:45:28
Either in the fossil record or today?
1:45:30
I'd like to see one of those. Another one of those interesting
1:45:32
tests that continues to get failed.
1:45:34
So in terms of the paleontological record, it's
1:45:37
pretty good. We have to remember that most
1:45:39
beasties that die get eaten. They don't fossilize.
1:45:42
Hardly any fossilize. So it's an amazing fact that we
1:45:45
have so many fossils that we do. It's an embarrassment of riches.
1:45:51
OK, I disagree strongly Every. One of the so-called evidences
1:45:54
for dinosaurs turning to birds are are have been proven wrong.
1:45:57
Archaeo Raptor was listed as a proof revolution.
1:46:00
The missing link National Geographic breaking news We
1:46:04
found the missing link couple of months later.
1:46:06
Oops, we got fooled. Some Chinese guy glued a tail, a
1:46:11
bird tail on a reptile. The Smithsonian bought it as a
1:46:16
Chinese smuggler to brought it in a.
1:46:18
Great embarrassment to modern paleontology.
1:46:20
From USA TODAY, we'd go all day about that.
1:46:22
The tale was added by an entrepreneurial Chinese farmer.
1:46:26
Yep. Which one you want to talk
1:46:28
about? Archaeoraptor.
1:46:31
The little Dino fuzz, they call it.
1:46:34
We got plenty of stuff on that video #4, folks.
1:46:36
You need to it's Dino Fuzz. It's not Dino fuzz at all.
1:46:39
It's just simply a simply the chemical reaction that takes
1:46:42
place as things fossilize and it's been proven over and over.
1:46:45
There's consider considerable body of evidence that these
1:46:48
fossil traces, known as Dino fuzz, have nothing to do with
1:46:50
feathers, Alan Fiducia writes. And he believes in evolution, so
1:46:54
that you're mistaken about that. Thank you.
1:47:06
Question for Doctor Hovind. How do you account for most
1:47:09
people's belief that the? Earth is 4.6 billion years old.
1:47:12
Carbon dating. Radioactive dating.
1:47:14
Potassium Argon dating. Go ahead and put the screen up
1:47:18
there while I've got it Here this is.
1:47:20
The California's Nest. He washed up on the beach.
1:47:22
California told you about earlier, had a neck 20 feet
1:47:24
long. Everybody said it was a
1:47:25
plesiosaur right up here in California.
1:47:28
As far as carbon dating, that's anybody believes carbon dating
1:47:31
works doesn't understand the problems associated with it.
1:47:33
And it's not true to say the majority of people believe in
1:47:35
evolution or believe the Earth is billions of years old.
1:47:37
The majority of Americans do not believe the earth is billions of
1:47:40
years old. As far as carbon dating when it
1:47:42
was first invented. 1947 to 53. Wilter Libby, invented at
1:47:45
University of Chicago, got a Nobel Prize for it and then
1:47:47
moved to Stanford when 1949, the lower leg of a mammoth carbon
1:47:51
dated 15,000 years old, but the skin was 21,000 from the same
1:47:54
animal. Talk about a slow birth 1963
1:47:59
living mollusk shells dated. 2300 years old, It's not getting
1:48:02
any better. That's 14 years of practice with
1:48:03
carbon dating 1970, they said. If a carbon date supports our
1:48:06
theories, we put it in the main text.
1:48:08
If it does not entirely contradict and we put it in a
1:48:09
footnote, if it's completely out of date, we just drop it. 1971
1:48:14
freshly killed seal dated 1300 years.
1:48:16
Old 19. 75 One part of a mammoth is 40,000 years old and other
1:48:20
parts 4026 thousand. It's not working. 1981 it's not
1:48:24
working. It had it has never worked. 1984
1:48:26
living snails carbon date 27,000 years old, one atheist said.
1:48:31
Well, yeah, we know why that one didn't work.
1:48:33
OK, then how do you know any? Of them do work.
1:48:36
How? If you know some of them don't
1:48:38
work, how could you possibly prove any of the carbon dates
1:48:41
are working? You can't.
1:48:43
I mean, in a court of law. They'd laugh at you for bringing
1:48:44
in carbon dating. 1992. Two mammoths found side by side.
1:48:47
One carbon dates 22,000 years old.
1:48:49
Another one carbon dates 16,000 years old.
1:48:51
This is not an exact science, folks. 1996 up at Berkeley
1:48:54
University they used two advanced two different dating
1:48:57
techniques. They found these bones are
1:48:58
53,000 to 27,000. That's a 96% error.
1:49:06
This is not. Science.
1:49:07
This is fairy tale stuff. It gets worse with Potassium
1:49:09
argon dating. You need video 7 for that one.
1:49:26
I wrote a book called Denying History.
1:49:29
It's about the. Holocaust deniers.
1:49:32
Here's their reasoning. You know those Holocaust
1:49:36
historians used to say that there were 21 death camps.
1:49:39
Now they're saying that there's only six.
1:49:41
See, they're wrong. There was no Holocaust.
1:49:45
Holocaust historians used to say they gas people at Dachau.
1:49:48
Now they're saying they didn't gas people at Dachau.
1:49:51
See, they didn't gas anybody anywhere.
1:49:54
This is the same line of reasoning that the evolution
1:49:57
deniers use as the Holocaust deniers.
1:50:00
In fact, of course, everybody makes mistakes.
1:50:04
Errors and fakes have nothing to do with the large body of
1:50:07
knowledge to tell us what's actually true about history and
1:50:11
the past. The fakes by the way.
1:50:14
And all these errors were exposed not by creationists, but
1:50:18
by scientists. Because scientists have
1:50:20
integrity and the science itself has a built in self correcting
1:50:25
machinery that drives it toward better and more accurate facts.
1:50:37
OK, this is a little bit of a long one.
1:50:40
Bacteria appears to be the most. Efficient reproducing Organism
1:50:43
on the planet. What is your best evidence that
1:50:47
for the origin of meiosis male female reproduction well?
1:50:57
Bacteria are the dominant form of life on Earth, and in terms
1:51:04
of how they evolved reproductive methods.
1:51:10
Has to do with. Really the going back to the
1:51:14
beginnings of how monomers turn into polymers, how polymers tend
1:51:18
to turn into long protein chains, how long protein chains
1:51:21
turn into something like RNA, how RNA starts to replicate into
1:51:27
DNA and so on and so on into a complex reproductive system as
1:51:33
we see in bacteria today. We have a fairly good
1:51:36
understanding of this in two ways.
1:51:39
One through the vast variety of complexity of life today where
1:51:45
you have from simple to complex organisms and you can see the
1:51:48
historical sequence in the different kinds of reproductive
1:51:53
methods that there are, and from simple to complex, how they
1:51:56
range. That's part one of a historical
1:51:59
science. The same way that astronomers
1:52:01
know how stars evolve by looking at different stars alive if you
1:52:05
will, today at different stages, the 2nd way is looking at the
1:52:09
actual cells themselves and the structures within them.
1:52:13
These complex eukaryotic cells that we're composed of are
1:52:17
actually composed of these very simpler prokaryote cells, which
1:52:22
we just call these little structures like mitochondria and
1:52:25
so forth that that were once themselves free floating cells
1:52:28
that through this symbiotic process of cooperation then
1:52:32
coalesced into these larger structures.
1:52:35
And so these two ways show us again historical sciences are by
1:52:39
necessary inferential from which we have to infer from several
1:52:44
lines of evidence. We now know this again through
1:52:47
these independent lines of inquiry that converge to this
1:52:50
same conclusion. OK, that's a fairy tale.
1:52:55
If I ever heard one because it's.
1:52:58
Here must have happened. That's like, you know the the
1:52:59
motor slowly evolved to fit into the car.
1:53:02
You know they're they're like this.
1:53:04
This is a misunderstanding and a gross oversimplification of how
1:53:07
complex bacteria are. Bacteria are really complex.
1:53:11
People say don't bacteria become resistant to drugs?
1:53:13
That's proof for evolution. Well, that's based on a
1:53:15
misunderstanding. OK, Doctor, Spettner points out
1:53:18
it's based on a misunderstanding.
1:53:19
For the mutations that cause antibiotic resistance still
1:53:21
involve information loss. For example, to destroy
1:53:25
bacterium, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches.
1:53:27
To a part of the bacterial. Cell called ribosomes Mutation
1:53:30
sometimes causes structural deformity in ribosomes.
1:53:33
Since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen
1:53:36
ribosome, the bacterium is resistant.
1:53:38
But even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial for
1:53:40
the moment, it still constitutes a loss of information.
1:53:43
No evolution has taken place. The bacteria are not stronger.
1:53:46
In fact, under normal conditions with no antibiotic present, they
1:53:49
are weaker. Example would be if somebody's
1:53:51
going through town handcuffing everybody, hauling them off to
1:53:53
kill them, and you don't have any arms, they can't handcuff
1:53:57
you. So you survived the Purge?
1:53:59
Well, it might be. Beneficial for the moment, but
1:54:01
it's still a loss of information and put you back in the
1:54:03
population with armed people and you're going to be at a
1:54:05
disadvantage. So no bacteria, this, this
1:54:08
bacteria. Incredibly designed, not not
1:54:10
evolved. OK.
1:54:19
Question for Dyker Hoeven. Please explain the claim that
1:54:23
90. 7% of the DNA between. Humans and Chimp?
1:54:26
Are similar. Can you give me 10 seconds to
1:54:29
get the slides up and then I got 2 minutes OK?
1:54:33
DNA between humans and chimps is similar.
1:54:39
The claim that the DNA is 97% similar simply.
1:54:43
False. OK.
1:54:44
It's about 95% according to the most it used to, say 98.6 in the
1:54:48
textbooks. Here we go here.
1:54:50
This textbook says 96% similar between orangutans and humans,
1:54:53
98% similar between chimpanzees and humans, proving a common
1:54:56
ancestor 15,000,000 years ago. Actually, Barney Maddox was the
1:55:00
leading genome researcher on this project.
1:55:02
He said concerning the genetic differences, the genetic
1:55:04
difference between human and his nearest relative, the
1:55:06
chimpanzees, at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much,
1:55:09
but calculated out that's a gap of 48 million nucleotides and a
1:55:13
change of only three nucleotides is fatal to an animal.
1:55:16
There is no possibility of a change.
1:55:18
Now they've discovered instead of 98% similar, it's only 95%.
1:55:21
So there are millions and millions of millions of
1:55:24
differences. Now if somebody wants to believe
1:55:26
that proves common ancestor, they can believe whatever they
1:55:28
want. But that's not common sense.
1:55:29
I think it proves a common designer.
1:55:31
That's why they're similar structures in many things.
1:55:34
The Honda Prelude, the Honda Accord are very similar because
1:55:36
they both involved in a skateboard by the same logic.
1:55:40
So the the idea that. The bacteria that the.
1:55:45
DNA code is supposed to prove some kind of evolutionary
1:55:48
relationship is ludicrous. OK, the DNA code is so
1:55:51
incredibly complex. To begin with, I can point out
1:55:54
that Microsoft PowerPoint and Microsoft Word have millions of
1:55:58
exact lines of code. I mean, they're identical.
1:56:01
I can click spell check in Word and I can click spell check in
1:56:05
PowerPoint. Get the same results.
1:56:08
That proves this all evolved from Morse code over billions of
1:56:10
years. Well, whether the DNA sequence
1:56:25
similarity is 98.6 or 95 point? 2 or 97 is in a way irrelevant.
1:56:30
The number keeps changing because that's how science
1:56:33
works. It keeps refining and testing
1:56:35
and changing and so on. It's one of the beauties of
1:56:38
science. They're no final absolute
1:56:40
truths. You're not going to read in
1:56:41
Genesis what the number is. It's done through DNA.
1:56:44
The DNA sequencing themselves is only one measure of commonality
1:56:49
between US and the other great apes, and then us and the
1:56:53
monkeys and us and other mammals and so on.
1:56:56
It's just one measure. There's a whole bunch of half a
1:56:59
dozen different biochemical measures of similarity and
1:57:01
differences. Then of course, there's all the
1:57:04
anatomical and physiological comparisons.
1:57:07
Then there's the fossil comparisons.
1:57:09
Again, I can't hammer this point home strong enough.
1:57:12
It's this convergence of evidence from different lines of
1:57:14
inquiry that leads us to these conclusions.
1:57:17
When Vince Saric first put forth that idea that we are more
1:57:20
closely related to chimps because he had this one one
1:57:22
particular biochemical test, people thought he was crazy.
1:57:26
But it is now supported simply because there's so much evidence
1:57:29
from other lines of inquiry. Thanks.
1:57:38
OK. Last two-minute question for
1:57:40
you. Humans need 11 systems in their
1:57:44
body to. Survive circulatory.
1:57:45
Muscular, nervous, skeletal, etcetera, 11 was that 11, it's
1:57:50
yes, 11. Which evolved first?
1:57:53
Which? Evolved last, which evolved in
1:57:55
between. Or did they all appear at?
1:57:56
Once instantly. Oh man.
1:58:04
All right. This isn't even quite the right
1:58:08
question, because it infers that that all systems had to be in
1:58:12
place for the thing that we call human to be a human.
1:58:16
But that's not how evolution works.
1:58:17
It's not the 747 out of the junk pile of parts.
1:58:21
That's not how it happens. It's this long, slow, gradual
1:58:24
tinkering process, circulatory systems, muscular systems, and
1:58:28
so on. All mammals have these, and all
1:58:30
organisms going all the way back hundreds of millions of years
1:58:34
have these various systems of of different kinds.
1:58:37
It's why we have these kind of poorly designed, good enough to
1:58:41
get by systems that we have because they're they're from
1:58:45
these common ancestors from long before our legs.
1:58:49
The veins in our legs are OK. It would be nice if the were
1:58:52
more valves and they were a little stronger because with
1:58:54
bipedalism you have more blood pressure from top to bottom than
1:58:58
if you're a quadruped. But we began as a quadruped, so
1:59:01
we're stuck with the veins and valves that we have that have
1:59:03
been slightly modified and improved.
1:59:05
An intelligent designer would have made a much better than
1:59:08
they actually are. Same thing with lower back
1:59:10
discs. If we were designed to be
1:59:13
bipeds, it would be great if our the discs were much thicker and
1:59:17
denser and didn't wear out so, so quickly yet, especially if
1:59:21
you live 900 years, your back would never make it.
1:59:23
But but we weren't designed by an intelligent designer.
1:59:26
We used to be quadrupeds. There was far less pressure on
1:59:28
the lower spine than there is now.
1:59:30
That's what I mean by this bottom up.
1:59:32
Tinker. It works fairly well.
1:59:34
We get by fairly well, well, but not in any kind of incredible,
1:59:37
omniscient, perfectly designed structure, which is what you
1:59:41
would expect from a top down designer.
1:59:43
What you actually see is perfect evidence of a bottom up tinker
1:59:47
called evolution. Well, I think much of the
1:59:55
problem here is totally misunderstanding in. 1st place,
1:59:58
we are not poorly designed. I think we're it's an amazing
2:00:01
design. I think just one single cell in
2:00:03
your body is more complex than the space shuttle and the
2:00:06
average human has 50 trillion cells.
2:00:08
So it's ludicrous to say that we this all just came about by
2:00:11
chance and we're poorly designed.
2:00:13
Secondly, poor design is a lousy argument for evolution.
2:00:17
So when you, especially when you consider, as I said earlier, we
2:00:19
are a copy off of a copy off of a copy off of a copy off of a
2:00:22
copy off a copy of Adam, it's amazing.
2:00:24
We're sitting here talking about it.
2:00:25
You'd make a take a piece of paper, copy it on the copy
2:00:28
machine. Now take your copy and make a
2:00:30
copy. Take that copy and make a copy.
2:00:31
Do that about 1000 times and see if you can still read it.
2:00:34
Get a computer program, any computer program, Make a copy it
2:00:37
onto a disk, then copy to another disk, then copy to
2:00:39
another disk. Do that 1000 times, see if it'll
2:00:41
still run. That's the DNA code that we have
2:00:44
folks. It's incredibly complex.
2:00:45
I think the only reason anybody would say this happened by
2:00:48
chance. And there was no designers
2:00:49
because they don't want to find that designer.
2:00:52
The atheist can't find God for the same reason a thief can't
2:00:54
find a policeman. OK, last question for Doctor
2:01:15
Hoeven. Why do you believe creation?
2:01:17
Science is not taught in the public schools.
2:01:21
Well, first place. It is taught in thousands of
2:01:23
public schools. There there's.
2:01:24
Never been a law against. Teaching creation science.
2:01:27
There were two schools, two states that passed laws to
2:01:30
require creation be taught, Arkansas and Louisiana.
2:01:33
The court struck both of those down wisely, I suppose, because
2:01:36
if you passed a law that said teachers are required to
2:01:38
breathe, they would strike that down too.
2:01:40
OK, you can't require somebody breathe and you can't require
2:01:43
they teach creation. They never said you couldn't
2:01:45
teach creation. And quite quite the opposite is
2:01:46
true. The courts have ruled
2:01:47
consistently you can teach it if you want, but it cannot be
2:01:49
required. I cover that in all the court
2:01:52
cases on video #5 back there on the table.
2:01:55
So there are thousands of teachers that do teach creation.
2:01:58
I teach creation. I go into public schools quite
2:02:00
often and teach. We have public schools, come
2:02:01
visit our dinosaur Adventureland and we teach them creation.
2:02:04
It's not a problem. There's no law against it and
2:02:07
I'm not against teaching evolution in schools either.
2:02:09
As I said earlier I'm against teaching lies in schools.
2:02:12
Don't tell them you have a vestigial tailbone or the snake
2:02:14
has a vestigial pelvis or the whale has a vestigial pelvis.
2:02:17
Don't lie to the kids I mentioned in Arkansas house
2:02:20
representatives committee considering a bills in Arkansas
2:02:23
to to not buy textbooks with lies in it.
2:02:26
We went through 30 some lies in the textbooks and and one of the
2:02:29
representatives said is it true all these things are are lies.
2:02:32
I said yes. I went for 45 minutes.
2:02:33
These are lies. One evolutionist got up
2:02:35
afterwards and said, well this is an anti evolution bill.
2:02:39
The representative said evolution is not mentioned in
2:02:40
this bill. This bill just says don't lie to
2:02:42
the kids. And this evolutionist ACLU
2:02:45
lawyer at the there said, well all these things are used to
2:02:48
support the evolution theory. Well duh, that's all you've got
2:02:52
to support. Your theory is lies.
2:02:53
Get a new theory. That's the way science works.
2:02:56
Be skeptical when you got to use lies to support your theory.
2:02:59
You ought to be skeptical of that, Michael.
2:03:00
Come on now. Write an article on that.
2:03:03
All right, let's be skeptical. Sure, let's do it.
2:03:06
OK. Sure, let's hear.
2:03:11
Your new theory Kent Hovind, what is the theory you?
2:03:14
Have to offer to replace the scientific theory of evolution?
2:03:18
The answer is no theory. There is no theory.
2:03:21
The reason it's not taught, the reason it's not taught in
2:03:24
science classes is because it's not science.
2:03:26
There's nothing to teach. If you got anything out of
2:03:29
tonight, you heard there's nothing to teach.
2:03:32
All you would do is say God did it.
2:03:35
OK, what do you want to do for the rest of the hour and for the
2:03:37
rest of the semester? There's nothing to teach.
2:03:40
There's no science. If you want to teach it in Bible
2:03:43
classes, fine. Religion classes, theology
2:03:46
classes, fine. But there's nothing to teach.
2:03:49
There's nothing to do. There is no science.
2:03:52
That's why it's not taught. Well, this concludes our.
2:04:01
Debate. Let's give.
2:04:01
A round of applause. We.
2:04:10
Hope you've enjoyed this video series on creation, evolution
2:04:12
and dinosaurs. Much more important, though,
2:04:15
than knowing all the truth and facts about science is to know
2:04:18
the truth about whether you're going to heaven or not.
2:04:20
If you've never trusted Christ as your Savior, let me explain
2:04:23
quickly what you need to do to go to heaven.
2:04:25
The Bible says we're all sinners.
2:04:27
We've all broken God's laws. We've disobeyed the Creator.
2:04:30
We've we've done wicked things. We're sinners.
2:04:33
Some are worse than others, at least in man's eyes.
2:04:35
But we've all broken God's laws. And the Bible says you have to
2:04:39
repent. The word repent means to turn.
2:04:41
It actually means two things, to turn from your sin and to turn
2:04:44
to God. God's looking for a change in
2:04:46
your attitude where you say, Lord, I don't want to do wrong
2:04:48
anymore. I'm sorry I've offended you.
2:04:50
I want to do right. And you turn from sin and you
2:04:53
turn to God and say, God, would you please forgive me?
2:04:56
Would you save me? The Bible says in Romans chapter
2:04:59
3, verse 23 that all have sinned and come short of the glory of
2:05:03
God. You need to admit you're a
2:05:05
Sinner #2. The Bible says in Romans 623 the
2:05:08
wages of sin is death. We deserve to die and go to hell
2:05:12
because of our sin. But Jesus died for you.
2:05:15
He loves you. He wants you to come to heaven.
2:05:17
And anybody that will. Ask him for the free salvation.
2:05:20
God will give you the gift of eternal life, it says in Romans
2:05:23
623. It's a free gift.
2:05:25
And it says in Romans chapter 10 and verse 13 Whosoever shall
2:05:28
call upon the name of the. Lord shall be saved.
2:05:31
If you would just call and say, Lord, I'm a Sinner, would you
2:05:33
please forgive me and ask him? He will give you that free gift
2:05:37
of eternal life. Why don't you just pray with me
2:05:39
right now and you could receive Christ as your Savior?
2:05:42
There's no. Magic words.
2:05:42
God's looking. At your heart.
2:05:44
But if you could say this and mean it, God would forgive you.
2:05:47
Just say, Dear Lord Jesus, I know that I'm a Sinner.
2:05:50
I've broken your laws. I'm sorry.
2:05:52
Please forgive me. Please apply your blood to my
2:05:55
account. Forgive my sins and take me to
2:05:57
heaven in Jesus name. Amen.
2:06:01
Bible says if you call upon the Lord, you shall be saved.
2:06:04
So if you've asked the Lord to save you, He promised He'd save
2:06:06
you. Now your job is to.
2:06:08
Grow. Read your Bible, pray, get
2:06:10
involved in a good Bible believing church, and begin to
2:06:12
grow to be a good Christian. Thank you so much.
2:06:14
Caller Right. If we can be any help at all,
2:06:16
we'd be glad to help. Do you want to know more about
2:06:50
how to combat the Godless Theory of Evolution?
2:06:53
Creation Science Evangelism offers 4 great tools that help
2:06:56
strengthen the faith of believers and win the lost to
2:06:59
Christ. After 15 years of teaching high
2:07:01
school science, Doctor Hoeven began Creation Science
2:07:04
Evangelism in 1989. We are a ministry that is
2:07:08
dedicated to providing tools which will help you combat the
2:07:11
evolution philosophy that is destroying the faith of millions
2:07:14
every year. The first tool Creation Science
2:07:17
offers is their powerful life changing video series.
2:07:21
Over the last 12 years, well over 1,000,000 videotapes of
2:07:24
Doctor Hoeven Seminar have circled the globe.
2:07:26
They are reaping a harvest of souls for the Kingdom of Christ
2:07:30
as well as helping restore the faith of many thousands confused
2:07:33
by the evolution propaganda to which they've been subjected.
2:07:36
These videos are available in English, Russian, French,
2:07:39
Spanish, Japanese and sign language.
2:07:42
The Age of the Earth, first of the seven part series Ages that
2:07:46
God created the universe about 6000 years ago and six literal
2:07:50
days. Would this be true?
2:07:52
Can it be scientifically proven that the Earth is not billions
2:07:55
of years old? This tape gives solid scientific
2:07:58
evidence that the earth is young and that the Bible is
2:08:01
scientifically accurate. How did the environment of the
2:08:04
original creation differ from ours today and how would this
2:08:07
allow men to live over 900 years?
2:08:11
Can Christians have a good explanation for the existence of
2:08:14
dinosaurs? Could some dinosaurs still be
2:08:17
alive today? These and many more questions
2:08:20
are covered in the second and third part of the series.
2:08:23
Evolution has permeated public school textbooks with false and
2:08:26
fraudulent information. This video exposes nearly 30
2:08:30
lies commonly found in textbooks.
2:08:33
Every public school student, teacher, and school board member
2:08:36
needs to watch part 4 of this series.
2:08:39
Find out a few have been lied to in your textbooks.
2:08:42
Discover the terrible difference evolutionary beliefs have made
2:08:45
in the past as well as in recent history in our video #5.
2:08:49
Dictators throughout time have used their evolution based
2:08:52
philosophies to rationalize their brutal actions.
2:08:56
Learn how evolution propaganda is being used today to prepare
2:08:59
people for the new World Order. This is just a taste of all the
2:09:04
information the 17 hour seminar series has to offer.
2:09:09
Also available are college courses that.
2:09:11
Expand on the seminars in Great. Detail for those who can handle
2:09:15
a more confrontational atmosphere.
2:09:17
Our debate series is just for you, I said.
2:09:20
Now, Mr. Patterson, if you think the tailbone is a vestigial I.
2:09:24
Kent Hovind will pay to Have Yours removed Doctor Hovind has
2:09:29
debated a wide range of atheists and evolutionists all over the.
2:09:32
Country. You're sure to find these 12
2:09:35
debates very exciting. These would be perfect to
2:09:38
present to that scientifically minded person who likes to argue
2:09:41
their point. Our topical series includes
2:09:45
exciting. Topics like Why evolution is
2:09:48
stupid. Public school presentation,
2:09:51
Children's video about dinosaurs, the Bible and health,
2:09:56
leviathan, the fire breathing dragon, and many more.
2:09:59
Creation science also offers a variety of visuals like the
2:10:03
Longevity chart, which presents the entire lineage of Adam to
2:10:06
Joseph as given in Genesis. It's exciting to see exactly how
2:10:10
many generations were alive at the same time.
2:10:14
Hundreds of books on a variety of subjects, videos on
2:10:17
incredible creatures that defy evolution, T-shirts, fossils,
2:10:20
and more make creation science evangelism the one stop shopping
2:10:25
Center for your creation material needs.
2:10:28
Our two websites, www.doctordino.com and
2:10:32
www.dinosauradventureland.com provide our second tool for
2:10:37
evangelism. Dr. dino.com is packed with lots
2:10:41
of information, from charts and graphs to articles and
2:10:44
frequently asked questions. This is also where you will find
2:10:47
more information on all of the products CSE has to offer.
2:10:52
Dinosaur Adventureland dot. COM is great for the kids.
2:10:56
They can play lots of fun games and see unusual rides and
2:10:59
activities. Located at Dinosaur
2:11:00
Adventureland in Pensacola, FL. Thousands visit our sites
2:11:04
regularly to gain insight into God's creation.
2:11:07
The third tool available to you is the live seminars conducted
2:11:10
by Doctor Hovind and his son Eric.
2:11:13
Since 1989, Doctor Hovind has held seminars and debates in
2:11:16
hundreds of churches, schools and universities and 49 States
2:11:20
and 30 foreign countries. His fast-paced illustrated
2:11:23
seminars cover diverse topics such as evidence for a young
2:11:27
Earth, how long Adam lived, dinosaurs living with man, where
2:11:31
races came from, radiometric dating and much more.
2:11:36
Our 4th tool is the new exciting dinosaur Adventureland.
2:11:42
Many thousands have come from all across.
2:11:44
America to visit our museum creation.
2:11:46
Bookstore, Science Center and Theme Park where God gets the
2:11:50
glory for science. Our unusual swings, rides, and
2:11:54
activities. Each have a science.
2:11:56
Lesson as well as a spiritual lesson captivate everyone from
2:12:02
age 4 to 94 to order material. Find out how to schedule.
2:12:14
A seminar at your church or get. More information about Dinosaur
2:12:18
Adventureland Write to us at Creation Science Evangelism 29,
2:12:23
Cummings Rd., Pensacola, FL 325O3 or call us at 850-479-3466
2:12:31
or toll free in the US 877-479-3466.