Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / Kent Hovind Live Radio Debate

Transcript

Kent Hovind Live Radio Debate · Brett Keane and Eve Show

0:00
When we're sitting here in Charlotte, NC, to have a radio
0:03
debate with Doctor Eugene Scott from California.
0:06
Going to start in just a few moments.
0:08
Supposed to go who knows how long.
0:10
I'm speaking Denver Baptist Church tonight, tomorrow night,
0:13
thought We just videotaped this radio debate and see how this
0:16
turns out so folks can get the a feel of what it's like to have
0:19
to debate with these folks who believe in evolution.
0:21
We're at WBT 11:10 AM and it is now 310 in the afternoon on the
0:29
8th and we're ready to start. Oh boy.
0:31
It was a busy weekend for me. I don't know about you, but
0:35
spent part of it with Katherine Levitt.
0:37
We'll talk about that later though.
0:38
More about that later. We've been talking about this
0:40
for a couple of days to get everybody ready for this.
0:43
A couple of months ago, Doctor Kent Hovind joined us on the
0:46
year when he was in town to speak at the Concord Bible
0:48
Church. And he is back tonight and
0:51
tomorrow night to speak at the. It'll come to me.
0:55
Help me out here at the Denver Denver Baptist Church up on Lake
0:59
Norman, about 30 miles north of Charlotte Hwy. 16 tonight and
1:02
tomorrow from 7:00 till nine. Doctor Hogan is a creationist.
1:06
He became a Christian at the age of 16.
1:08
And although he was, you have a scientific background that you
1:12
were, I believe, a science teacher.
1:14
Is that correct? Yes, Sir, high.
1:15
School science teachers, you came to disbelieve what the
1:19
theories of science we're teaching.
1:21
Well, why don't you tell me? What I came to disbelieve
1:24
evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with
1:26
science. I still love science.
1:27
I'm in favor of science. But it's just evolution that's
1:29
stirred in with science that I disbelieve.
1:31
And have since done a lot of your own research in this and
1:33
have come up with presentations that you take around the country
1:37
to show the veracity of creationism versus the theory of
1:41
evolution. Yes, yes, Sir, that's.
1:42
Correct. The last time that you were
1:43
here, you volunteered to come back, and you've also
1:46
volunteered to debate with an evolutionist.
1:49
And so we have contacted one, and she's joining us today from
1:53
California. Dr. Eugenie Scott has been,
1:55
since 1987, the executive director of the National Center
1:58
for Science Education, Incorporated, and it's a pro
2:01
evolution, nonprofit science education organization with
2:03
members in every state. Doctor Eugenie Scott holds a PhD
2:07
in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri.
2:10
He's taught at the University of Kentucky, the University of
2:12
Colorado and in the California State University system.
2:16
She's a human biologist. Her research has been in medical
2:18
anthropology and skeletal biology, and she has worked
2:20
nationwide to communicate the scientific method to the general
2:24
public and to improve how science as a way of knowing is
2:27
taught in school. She has appeared on our
2:29
magazine, Geraldo Crossfire, Issues on trial, the MORNING
2:32
EDITION on NPR, the Pat Buchanan Show on All Things Considered,
2:37
etcetera, etcetera. And she joins us this afternoon.
2:39
I thank you. I'm not exactly sure how it will
2:42
begin, but I guess we'll begin with the basic argument.
2:45
And the basic argument is that scientists, or some scientists,
2:48
believe that the world was not created precisely the way it's
2:52
spelled out in the book of Genesis.
2:53
But creationists believe literally in the book of
2:56
Genesis. That's pretty much the argument
2:58
we have here. Well, there are probably quite a
3:00
few creationists who would still not believe in the liberal
3:02
Genesis account. They would maybe say God did it,
3:04
but not according to the book of Genesis.
3:05
So there's there's a variety of creationists.
3:07
I am a Bible believing Young Earth Creationist.
3:11
I believe the Bible is literally true, scientifically accurate,
3:14
and that the world is less than 10,000 years old.
3:16
And Doctor, what are the evolutions to say Doctor Scott?
3:24
Could that speak around you? Can't hear her?
3:38
Put that by the microphone. Usually I have to bring it up.
3:46
Got back a few weeks ago from a three day retreat with a bunch
3:49
of United Church of Christ ministers, and I assure you
3:52
every single one of those ladies and gentlemen creationists, not
3:55
every single one of those accepted evolution as the way
3:59
God chose to bring about the world.
4:02
I would say that the distinction perhaps can't.
4:04
You might agree with me on this, the distinction between creation
4:07
and evolution. It is not whether God created,
4:10
because certainly God could have created any way he wanted to,
4:14
including through evolution, if that's the way he chose.
4:17
The distinction really is the question of history.
4:19
What happened in the history of the universe?
4:22
Did everything appear suddenly all at one time, as a literal
4:25
reading of the Bible with the of Genesis would suggest?
4:29
Or does the universe have the history?
4:31
Did change take place since the beginning?
4:33
Whatever that beginning, whenever that beginning
4:35
occurred? I would.
4:37
I think it is clear that the vast, vast majority of the
4:41
scientific community agree that change has taken place since the
4:45
beginning, that what we see today in the world is not the
4:48
same as what has been in the past.
4:52
Well, I would have to say that we have, we need to define our
4:55
terms here. Evolution, the word simply means
4:57
unrolling or out rolling or rolling out.
4:59
So you know, there's a lot of varieties of it, but change with
5:01
your time. And I agree there there's been
5:03
changes through time. But there is a cosmic evolution,
5:06
which is the the bigger scheme of things, The Big Bang theory,
5:10
you know, the universe starting from nothing.
5:12
And then there is a biological evolution, which is changes once
5:16
life gets here. Then there are changes.
5:18
And what I object to, I guess, is the general theory of
5:21
evolution, that the entire universe made itself out of
5:24
nothing for no apparent reason and that no creator is
5:27
necessary. I would say that a real strict
5:29
definition would make evolution atheistic.
5:32
You don't need to. I don't see how you can say that
5:35
because evolution is a science and a science cannot be
5:39
atheistic or pro religious. The science has to be neutral
5:42
toward religion and. What?
5:44
I hear you. I don't interrupt with Doctor
5:46
Scott. What I heard you saying in your
5:47
opening comments was the fact that at least what I gathered
5:51
was the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive that.
5:55
But the the thing about science is science is a particular way
5:58
of knowing. Revelation is another way of
6:00
knowing. There's a variety of ways of
6:01
knowing. Science is a particular way of
6:03
knowing that is restricted. In science, we're trying to
6:07
understand a restricted phenomenon, which is the natural
6:09
world, and we have restrictions on how we go about understanding
6:14
that phenomena. Well now let me ask you this
6:16
because it's called the theory of evolution, correct?
6:19
So if it is in fact a fact, why is it referred to as the theory
6:24
of evolution? It's both.
6:26
What do you think when you hear the word gravity?
6:28
What do you think of? Newton I guess.
6:33
The theory of gravity, right? Correct.
6:35
Gravity is the theory, Evolution is a theory theory and science
6:39
is a term of art. It means a special, a special
6:42
thing within science that it doesn't mean on the street, so
6:44
to speak. If you talk about, well, I have
6:46
a theory that the giants are going to win the World Series
6:49
this year, that's sort of a casual use of the term theory.
6:52
That's not the same as the way a scientist uses it.
6:55
The word theory in science means explanation, and gravity is an
6:59
explanation for why things fall to the earth when you drop them.
7:03
Evolution is an explanation for for a wide variety of of
7:08
information, things from the fossil record, from
7:11
biogeography, from biochemistry, from geology, from lots and lots
7:15
of different areas. And to say that evolution is a
7:18
theory merely means that it is a well founded explanation, the
7:22
best explanation we've got so far and the one that is accepted
7:25
thus far. Now both of you have scientific
7:27
backgrounds, so it would seem to be that science is open to
7:31
question and open to revelation. So therefore, if 10 years from
7:35
now you discovered something in your scientific research, either
7:39
of you, that would dispute the theory of revolution or
7:43
evolution rather, or would dispute your your, your, your
7:46
theory of creationism, would you be either of you be open to
7:49
change? Absolutely.
7:51
That's an excellent question. And I would actually like to ask
7:53
Kent, what kind of data would refute young Earth special
7:57
creation? I've never been able, when I've
8:00
asked this of other young Earth special creationists, I've never
8:02
been able to get an answer that's that is actually
8:05
testable. Can you give me an example of
8:07
what kind of data would cause you to rethink whether the world
8:11
is created all at one time and all of the plants and animals in
8:14
their present form? Yes, there's You mentioned a
8:17
keyword there. Testable.
8:18
I think you've made a statement a few minutes ago that evolution
8:21
is a science. I would object to that
8:23
vehemently. Evolution is a philosophy.
8:26
It's actually a religion. It's something.
8:27
Let's talk about the science first.
8:28
OK, yeah, that's what I want to distinguish between.
8:30
See, evolution is not science. It's a religion that people
8:32
choose to believe in. But, Ken, what are what kind of
8:35
data would cause you to give up your conclusion that the literal
8:39
view of the Bible that ever all the plants and animals were
8:42
created in their present form? A short period of time ago,
8:44
within thousands of years, right?
8:46
Kind of data would cause you to give that idea up.
8:48
Yeah, I will get to that in a second.
8:49
But we got a couple things hanging that I think are very
8:51
preliminary to this. The definition of science is not
8:55
a way of knowing. You'll notice in the last 20
8:57
years, there's been a real tendency in the textbooks to
8:59
change the definition of science to what she said earlier.
9:02
Science is a way of knowing. You look it up in a dictionary.
9:04
Science is the accumulated body of knowledge that we have.
9:07
It's things that we know. The scientific method involves
9:10
things that are observable, testable, and demonstratable.
9:13
Evolution is none of those. Nobody observes it happening.
9:16
We don't observe any major changes.
9:17
We don't see a horse, you know, coming from a butterfly.
9:20
We don't see. We don't see.
9:22
We don't see. Evolutionists would never
9:23
predict that. Sure.
9:24
Well, they they predict it did happen over a long period of
9:26
time. Hardly.
9:27
I don't think anybody's predicted that horses came from
9:29
butterflies. I think somebody's misled you
9:31
about what evolution is, if that's the.
9:33
Case Do you believe? Wait a minute.
9:34
Wait. Do you believe?
9:35
What introduced? Us to OK Do you believe fish
9:39
gradually changed amphibians? Amphibians changed reptiles.
9:41
Reptiles changed to mammals. Actually that's not the way it
9:45
happened. But we keep to get, we keep
9:46
getting distracted here, Mr. Collins.
9:48
The the the question I asked, which we sort of haven't been
9:51
able to get to, is what kind of data would can't accept that
9:56
would demonstrate to him that all plants and animals did not
9:59
occur suddenly all at one time within the last couple 1000
10:02
years. All right, let me jump in here.
10:03
I'd like Doctor Hoeven if you would answer that question.
10:05
I'll come back and we'll all have her answer.
10:08
How the how evolution happened If it didn't happen the way you
10:10
just described, with fish becoming amphibians, amphibians
10:13
becoming reptiles, reptiles becoming mammals, we'll find out
10:16
how it did. Happen.
10:16
Which is ultimately what they believe.
10:18
That and life coming from non life.
10:19
But answer her OK. In order for something to be
10:21
scientific, it has to be observable, testable,
10:23
demonstratable. There is no way this argument's
10:26
going to be resolved scientifically.
10:27
You can't offer data that proves the earth is billions of years
10:30
old because you were not there. I was not there.
10:32
Nobody you know was there. It is outside the realm of
10:35
science. This idea of proving the Earth
10:37
is young or old is is simply impossible.
10:40
Scientifically, it's not testable.
10:42
It's not demonstratable. The problem is, there are two
10:44
different ways to look at things, and some people and they
10:47
interpret the facts in light of their philosophy.
10:50
The evolutionists have already decided the Earth is billions of
10:52
years old, and so when they look at the fossil record, they see
10:55
those different layers of rocks as being different ages.
10:59
The creationist looks at the different layers of rocks, the
11:01
same data. We're both staring at the same
11:03
geologic formations, and we Creationist comes to the
11:06
conclusion that all of this, all of these rock layers, were
11:09
deposited very rapidly in a catastrophe, the worldwide
11:12
flood. So we both have the same data,
11:14
but we're coming to opposite conclusions based on our
11:16
prejudices, our preconceived ideas, what we're.
11:19
Saying then is there are no data that would cause you to reject
11:22
your point of view because your your scientific creationism
11:25
really isn't scientific. Well, neither is evolution.
11:27
You mentioned in the letter that you faxed.
11:29
In evolution yet we're talking about you.
11:30
We'll get back to evolution in A.
11:31
Second, no, no, I agree the. Thing is that scientific
11:33
creationism is not scientific. I agree there's no possible way
11:36
to prove it scientifically. Why do you Why do you guys keep?
11:39
Why do you guys keep trying to get it taught in the public
11:41
school science classes? If it's not science, it
11:43
shouldn't be taught. Well, see, that's to prove the
11:45
point. Evolution isn't science either,
11:46
and it shouldn't be taught. Talk about whether evolution is
11:48
scientific. First of all.
11:50
You have an exceedingly narrow definition of what science is.
11:54
If we had to refer to things scientific as only those which
11:58
were directly testable, directly observable, we'd have a pretty
12:02
short list of sciences that we could that we could talk about.
12:06
For example, particle physics. Nobody has seen an atom.
12:09
Nobody can observe the particles that are smashing into each
12:12
other in a in an atom smasher. Oh, I agree.
12:15
Sure. So therefore particle physics is
12:17
not science. No, there there is a lot of
12:19
theory, but in particle physics an awful lot of theory.
12:22
But hey, but it's not science because you can't directly
12:24
observe it. Well, my point in this is that,
12:28
and it's very difficult to get an evolutionist to admit this,
12:30
what they have is exactly the same as what a creationist has.
12:33
They have a strong belief in something that is not
12:35
observable, testable, or demonstratable.
12:37
Both are fundamentally religions.
12:39
You know, you're saying that unless it's directly observable,
12:42
it's not scientific. So but but you'll I I think that
12:45
you'll probably agree that particle physics is a science,
12:48
so there must be some kinds of sciences in which direct
12:51
observation is not completely relevant.
12:53
OK, yes, and I would say Creation would fall into that
12:56
category. Creation is is a scientific
12:58
theory that is not directly testable.
12:59
I mean, we weren't here when God created the world.
13:01
But it is I can think of some ways to test Young Earth
13:03
Creationism. OK, let's hear one well.
13:07
You should be doing this job because one of the things that
13:09
that a real scientist does is come up with ways to that his
13:13
theory or explanation could possibly be refuted.
13:16
OK, I've got a good one for if you can't think of one, but.
13:18
You know if you have the if, if if the entire geological column
13:23
was laid down by the flood, which is your position, How do
13:25
you explain 80 different layers of coal in the Midwest?
13:30
Were there 80 different floods? Oh, no, no.
13:32
That could all be done in one flood.
13:33
Mount Saint Helens is doing a good job approving that forest
13:35
right now as we speak. No, no.
13:37
That Mount Saint Helens shows the catastrophes of various
13:41
sorts, and large quantities of water can produce very
13:44
impressive geological features. It does not by any stretch of
13:48
the imagination, demonstrate that the whole Grand Canyon
13:50
could be laid down by by water. Well, no, wait, wait.
13:54
Now you would have to agree. I'm sure, if you've studied your
13:56
geology, that all of the layers of strata in the geologic column
14:00
in the Grand Canyon are sedimentary rock, which means
14:02
they were indeed laid down by water.
14:04
Some of them were laid down by. Volcanic, yeah.
14:07
Wind blown deposits, which is pretty tough for you guys to
14:11
handle when. No, no, no.
14:12
Let me talk about wind blown ash and stuff.
14:14
Sure, that happens. I think in the flood there was a
14:16
catastrophe, disaster, volcanoes going off, there was ash layers.
14:19
It's. Crazy because you got the flood
14:21
going over, depositing a water layer, and then you have the
14:24
flood waters going someplace, an ash layer being deposited, then
14:27
the flood water coming back and depositing water.
14:29
You know, this whole thing is just really silly.
14:31
OK, I got, I got. I got to take a break right now
14:33
and and we'll come back and we'll continue this conversation
14:35
and I want to find out since you refuted.
14:38
Well, I want to I want to find out how you feel evolution
14:40
actually did place take place And let me get a response from
14:43
you Doctor. Doctor Scott, about what data we
14:47
have that proves the Earth is older than how old, he said.
14:49
Is Doctor Hogan 6006? Or 7000 years.
14:51
OK, our guests are Doctor Kent Hovind here in the studio and
14:54
Doctor Eugenie Scott on the phone with us from California.
14:57
And we'll continue our conversation in just a second.
14:59
Going somewhere over the holidays?
15:00
Rent a book on tape from Audio library.
15:02
Entertain the kids in the car. Catch up with the hottest new
15:05
novels and best sellers on tape with over 5000 titles to choose
15:08
from at Audio Library, Cotswall Mall in McMullen Creek.
15:11
I want to tell you about a place called with a PhD in physical
15:13
Anthropology and here in the studio with us.
15:15
She's joining us by telephone, by the way.
15:17
Here in the studio, Doctor Kent Hovind, who is in town to speak
15:19
about creation science at the Denver Baptist Church tonight
15:21
and tomorrow night. He has a master's degree in
15:24
education and APHD in education as well, Began a full time
15:27
Ministry of Creation Science evangelism several years ago.
15:31
He's been our guest before and he is the one that suggested
15:33
this debate between creationists and evolutionists.
15:37
Doctor Scott? Yes, Doctor.
15:40
Hogan posed a question a little while ago about how
15:43
evolutionists view evolution. Did fish become amphibians?
15:47
They in turn became reptiles. Reptiles became mammals.
15:50
Is that how evolutionists view this?
15:52
This process only in a very rough and general sense.
15:56
You ought to think about evolution.
15:57
Let me give you a little metaphor to maybe help you
15:59
understand it a little bit better.
16:01
You have you have parents and you have grandparents, and you
16:05
have great, great grandparents and great, great greats and on
16:07
and on ad nauseam. Those are your lineal ancestors,
16:10
right? Simultaneously, you also have
16:14
your not just your parents, but your uncles and aunts and your
16:17
great uncles and great aunts and your great great uncles and
16:19
great great aunts, et cetera. You've got all these collateral
16:21
kin as well, and you've got their offspring.
16:24
You've got your cousins and your second cousins and your third
16:26
cousins, your umpty UMP cousins and so forth.
16:29
When you look at the fossil record, the probability of
16:33
fossilization is not very good. What you're likely to find is a
16:37
lot of these collateral kin and not not, not necessarily very
16:41
many of those linear kin, lineal kin, the parents and
16:45
grandparents, and great great grandparents of the species.
16:48
Now if we look at the fossil record, what we see is a very
16:52
definite pattern. We see at the beginning very
16:54
simple organisms and then we find multicellular organisms.
16:58
We find in the Cambrian, we find a a a whole explosion of of
17:03
invertebrate organisms with hard shells.
17:05
So they show up better in the fossil record and we can find
17:08
ancestors for most of the living invertebrates in that Cambrian
17:12
explosion. A little bit later on we find
17:15
that the in the marine, in the in the ocean, you find animals
17:19
that look like very primitive fish.
17:21
They're not fish like you're going to go out and catch this
17:23
weekend. They're not the Bony fish,
17:25
they're a very primitive kind of fish.
17:26
They don't even have Bony skeletons.
17:28
They've got cartilage skeletons. If you want to call them fish,
17:31
you can call them fish, but you shouldn't get them mixed up with
17:34
your local perch and your local trout.
17:36
It's only later on that you get those more advanced kinds of
17:39
fishes. But what I hear you saying so
17:40
far, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we have instances
17:44
of fossilized records of various and sundry different species,
17:48
some of which do no no longer exist.
17:50
They are extinct, but do we have any missing links?
17:53
For instance, where is the missing link that would go
17:56
between a man and an ape? Where is the missing link that
17:58
would go between a that the fish you were just talking about and
18:01
the kind of fish that we have today?
18:04
There are actually, there actually are intermediate forms
18:07
between the primitive fish and the Bony fish or the
18:10
Osteichthys. I'm sorry, I don't, I'm not a
18:13
specialist in ichthyology, so I really can't just roll those
18:16
right off my tongue. There are some nice transitions
18:19
between these early fish like creatures, these early marine
18:22
forms and the earliest land forms.
18:25
Some people call them amphibians, They're probably
18:28
better called tetrapods, which means 4 footed because they have
18:31
some similarities to amphibians. But when you think of amphibian,
18:34
you think of a modern day amphibian like a frog or a
18:37
salamander or something. They really, they weren't like
18:39
those at all. They were very primitive when it
18:42
comes to humans. And oh, I'm sorry, I got
18:45
distracted here by your question.
18:47
We do have nice intermediates between those early marine forms
18:50
and the first land forms. We've got lovely intermediates
18:53
between primitive land creatures that some people call reptiles,
18:59
although they're not identical to modern reptiles of course,
19:01
and mammals. And eventually, when you get up
19:04
to the primates, you've got quite a quite a a marvelous
19:08
record of of fossils of of early humans.
19:11
There's a lot of confusion out there.
19:13
People think that the human fossil record is particularly
19:16
skimpy. It isn't.
19:17
We've got lots and lots of fossils.
19:18
But do we have fossils of humans that are more like apes than
19:21
humans, in other words? In fact, if you read the
19:24
creationist literature, they have a great deal of difficulty
19:26
with the human fossil record because in their way of
19:29
thinking, there's only the created ape kind and only the
19:32
created humankind. And so they have rather a lot of
19:36
difficulty forcing every fossil into this Procrustian of either
19:40
ape or human. And what's amusing to look at
19:44
the creationist literature is you take a fossil like Homo
19:47
erectus, the Peking man or Java man fossils, and some
19:50
creationists say, oh, it's just an ape.
19:52
Another creationist say, Oh well, it's all human.
19:54
I mean it's obvious that this is an intermediate form and it's
19:58
it's it's difficult to classify, OK doctor earlier than the than
20:03
the Homo erectus fossils and it gets even more difficult to
20:07
classify these forms. They look more and more ape like
20:09
I. Want to ask you a question to
20:11
2nd about the age of the Earth and why you feel that you have
20:13
scientific proof that it is as old as the evolutionists say it
20:16
is. But Doctor Hoban has been taking
20:18
notes seriously over here, so let him have a crack at some of
20:20
the things that you've said so far.
20:22
Well, yeah, we cover uncovered a can of worms here, she says.
20:25
The fossil record is not good. That's always a good one.
20:29
Shield to hide behind, you know, we don't have these missing
20:31
links. Actually the whole chain is
20:32
missing. Well, we've got plenty of
20:34
fossils, we've got lots of intermediate forms.
20:36
OK, I disagree 100%. I think I could discredit each
20:40
and everyone. Or it could be interpreted from
20:42
a creationist viewpoint. There are probably many species
20:44
that have gone extinct. If the creator designed the
20:47
creation with a variety of different kinds, basic kinds of
20:50
animals and they produced varieties of offspring.
20:52
For instance, dogs, you know, you can there's 250 kinds of
20:55
dogs and they all came from the same from from a common
20:58
ancestor. It was the dogs that got off
20:59
Noah's ark. How about beetles?
21:02
There's hundreds of kinds of beetles.
21:03
I don't know how many different various kinds there are.
21:05
There's lots of species and subspecies and you know, you
21:07
break it down. See our our modern
21:09
classification system done by Carolus Linnaeus here in the
21:11
last few 100 years, is not necessarily, you know, species
21:14
is not necessarily the biblical kind.
21:17
That's that's a very difficult issue for you folks because.
21:19
It's difficult for. You folks defines kind as
21:22
species, as family, even as order, and one even defined it
21:27
as a phylum. So if you've got a concept that
21:30
is that wishy washy, it's pretty difficult to say that it's a
21:33
very good scientific way of classifying.
21:36
But do we have anything that's currently living that we can
21:38
point to and say, yes, that used to be so and so, but it has
21:42
evolved into something else we do have.
21:43
We do have things that we can point to and say, yes, they have
21:46
adapted to their environment, but can we say that one kind of
21:51
marsupial became another kind of marsupial?
21:54
How about lions and tigers? How about if we look at at
21:57
speciation and action, so to speak?
21:59
If you take lions and tigers, basically they occupy the same
22:02
kind of ecological niche, one in Africa, one in Asia.
22:05
It's a large felid. It's hunting, hunting large
22:10
ungulate animals, generally by stalking rather than by running
22:13
them down. And it basically kills animals.
22:16
Because of its very, very great strength, tigers and lions can
22:21
interbreed in a zoo. There have been a few cage cases
22:25
where accidentally, tigers and lions have gotten together in
22:29
the biblical sense and have proved to produce ligers or
22:32
tigons, whatever you want to call them.
22:34
But that's a hybrid between a tiger and a lion.
22:36
And they should normally occur in nature, of course.
22:39
But what that shows is that these two species who which are
22:43
really quite different morphologically actually are
22:45
genetically similar enough to exchange genes and and still be
22:49
considered close to being the same species.
22:52
Now I suppose a creationist would explain that will God
22:56
actually created the lion kind or maybe the tiger kind and
22:59
they've diverged since the flood.
23:01
I think that the evolutionist argument is much more
23:03
satisfactory. It would the evolutionist would
23:06
say that you've got back in the Miocene period you've got large
23:10
cats that expanded over the Africa and Asia and even EUR
23:15
Asian continent. They were separated off when the
23:20
during the Pliocene when the climate got considerably drier
23:23
in the Arabian desert area. Sort of cut off this faunal
23:26
transfer from one continent to another and you end up with
23:29
lions in Africa and tigers in Asia, which are in the process
23:33
of diversifying into two separate species.
23:36
Let me let me ask you a question.
23:38
But they're still the same kind of animal.
23:40
There's still a cat. I mean, change the butterfly to
23:42
a lion. Now that would be evolution.
23:44
And see, it wouldn't be. It'd be, it'd be nonsense.
23:46
No evolutionist on this planet ever said that lions are
23:49
descended from butterflies. OK, they believe.
23:51
If you go back far enough, you can probably find a common
23:53
answer to butterflies and lions. See that?
23:55
That's a religion. You flies and lions, But it's
23:57
absurd to say that lions and butterflies are directly you
24:02
know, one evolved into the other.
24:03
OK, let me let me ask Doctor Hoeven the question.
24:05
I have to take a break in a second here.
24:06
But how do you explain if, if life began, as the Bible says it
24:10
does in Genesis, in the Garden of Eden, that animals were
24:14
created on one day and then man was created on another day and
24:16
woman, you know, following that. How do we explain that all the
24:20
Kangaroos in the world are in Austria, that all the tigers and
24:25
lions except those who've been moved artificially here in
24:27
elephants or in Africa, that horses were not native to
24:31
America, that they were brought here from Europe?
24:34
Why wouldn't? Why wouldn't?
24:38
Why wouldn't? Particularly the Middle East.
24:40
How do you have elephants and and that's what you're asking.
24:42
Pardon me? You're at the question you're
24:44
asking Mike, is how do you explain biogeography?
24:47
How do you correct, yeah, distribution of plants and
24:49
animals? Well, I would have no problem.
24:52
I would say there was a worldwide flood 4400 years ago.
24:55
There were two of each or seven of some basic kinds of animals
24:57
on the board Noah's Ark, and in the last 4400 years there's been
25:01
an enormous variation within the created kind.
25:03
I don't know if lions and tigers have a common ancestor.
25:06
But wait a minute. If the flood took place and the
25:09
and the ark came down on Mount Ararat.
25:11
In that region. Right In that region, how do you
25:13
explain Kangaroos exclusively migrating to Australia across a
25:18
large landmass and across a large body of water after that,
25:22
and having oak trees in England and America but not in the
25:26
Middle East? Well, the diversific different
25:29
climates are, you know there's biological warfare going on.
25:32
That's not a good term to use, you know, but the the species do
25:35
compete for for land space and and some maybe would not be
25:39
competent to survive. How do they get there?
25:41
How? Do they get there?
25:42
Well, if the oceans were not as deep as they are today, if you
25:44
lowered the oceans just 1000 feet and the average 15,000 feet
25:48
in depth, if you took that much water out of the oceans, all the
25:51
continents become connected. There's the continental land
25:53
bridge would be enormous between all these continents.
25:55
The Bible says in the book of Genesis, chapter 10 in the days
25:59
of Peleg, about 100 years after the flood, the earth was
26:02
divided. There are several different
26:04
creationist viewpoints on that, and it's not provable, nobody
26:07
was there. But the interpretation that I
26:10
give to that is that the ice caps that had come all the way
26:13
down to Kansas City, MO, during the time of the flood were
26:16
melting back. And that's why we have a
26:18
continental shelf. And that's why within the first
26:20
100 years, the animals were able to get to different continents
26:22
and then became isolated there and trapped where they are.
26:26
There are marsupials over here and kangaroo fossils have been
26:28
found in other places. They've been found in Africa,
26:30
but they. Haven't.
26:31
Yes, they have. Fossils in Africa?
26:33
That's nonsense. Your question is an excellent
26:36
one, Mike. You've got the two little
26:38
Kangaroos hopping from the Middle East over across South
26:41
Asia, and actually some creationists bring in
26:44
continental drift. Here they have the marsupials of
26:47
of Australia, this very unique fauna hopping over into the
26:52
continent of Australia, which then amazingly breaks apart from
26:56
Asia at that point and sails down about 45 mph to its present
27:00
location in the South Pacific. But isn't it funny that that the
27:04
only place where you find fossil Kangaroos and fossil Australian
27:07
marsupials is in Australia? How come if those little
27:11
varmints had to go all the way from the Middle East to South
27:13
Asia and across into into Australia, that they didn't
27:17
leave any fossils behind them? They must not have reproduced
27:20
and and just a minute kind managed to stay close to each
27:24
other. Did they hold hands all the way
27:26
across the ocean? I mean, you know, the
27:28
biogeography is is a real problem for flood geology.
27:31
And I got to take a break. And when I come back, I want to
27:33
ask you, Doctor, Doctor Scott, how you can prove through
27:38
scientific means the age of the Earth.
27:40
Because that's one of the questions that came up last time
27:42
Doctor Hoeven was here. I believe I'm not mistaken.
27:46
You refuted carbon dating. Yes, Sir.
27:49
OK, we'll talk about that when we come right back on WBT is the
27:59
VA and FHA refinancing program that you've heard so much about.
28:03
No credit report, no job or income verification, and no
28:06
points on loans over $70,000. Mortgage Group of America, Can I
28:12
help You? Mortgage Group of America is
28:14
meeting the growing demand for innovative mortgage refinancing,
28:17
and right now interest rates remain at a 20 year low.
28:20
But how long it will last, no one knows.
28:22
By calling right now, you'll start saving money every month
28:24
on your VA or FHA mortgage payment.
28:27
There's no credit report, no job or income verification, and no
28:30
points on loans over $70,000. Justin joins us from California.
28:34
She is a pro evolution evolutionist.
28:38
I guess is the the best way to say that Before we I want to get
28:40
into the topic of because both of you want to get into this the
28:43
topic of creationism and evolution versus religion or
28:46
evolution as a religion. But first both today and last
28:51
time Doctor Hovind was here he disputed the scientific
28:54
evidence, quote UN quote, of the age of the earth as put forward
28:58
by scientists who have used carbon dating.
29:00
How do we know, Doctor Scott that the Earth is older than
29:03
Doctor Hovind says it is 6000 years old.
29:06
Well, we know immediately from looking at tree ring dates.
29:10
You know, you understand about how every year a tree puts on an
29:13
annular ring, right? And you can, you can match up
29:16
trees from an area and literally count back 123-4567 years from
29:22
when that tree was cut down to when it was started and so forth
29:25
and so on. And tree ring dates already go
29:28
back to in excess of 12,000 years.
29:30
So right there in a very very simple, non chemical, non, not,
29:35
not difficult at all procedure. The world is obviously more than
29:40
6000 years old. You can do the same thing with
29:44
with cores from from the ocean, sea cores and cores from
29:50
glaciers. Glaciers also put on sort of an
29:53
annular ring in a sense they they put on identifiable layers
29:58
with every year. I mean there's all kinds of ways
30:01
that don't really take a whole lot of, don't take a big
30:03
laboratory to understand to immediately show that the world
30:06
is more than 6000 years. But of course, evolutionists
30:09
claim that the world is billions of years old and you don't have
30:12
to depend upon radiocarbon dates.
30:14
That's only one kind of of radioactive isotope.
30:17
Doctor Hoeven was over here, shaking his head during the tree
30:19
ring explanations. Sure, yes, overlapping.
30:24
There, Doctor. Yes, I'm there.
30:25
Just checking, yeah, the overlapping tree rings is an
30:27
interesting one. There's been a lot of different
30:29
studies on that. Dendrochronology is interesting.
30:31
The the idea is that you can match up the burn marks if a
30:33
tree had a fire for forest. No, no, no.
30:36
You don't match up the burn marks, you match up the actual
30:38
width of the rings. OK, the you have to use the same
30:41
species. Sure.
30:42
And I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that some trees
30:44
produce more than one ring a year and some produce no rings a
30:47
year. It's it's not an exact science
30:48
like you try to make it out to be.
30:50
Well, it is because if you use bristlecone pine, they only put
30:52
one year. They only put one sitting per
30:55
year in bristlecone pine are like redwoods.
30:57
They last for a very they live for very, very long periods of
31:01
time. Oh, I agree.
31:01
And the oldest living bristlecone pine is 4300 years
31:04
old, which would put it after the flood.
31:06
The Bible teaches the flood was 4400 years ago.
31:09
The flood flood took. Place now Why is the oldest
31:12
living tree, 4300 years oldest living bristlecone pine?
31:15
I think that's pretty impressive that there's anything that old.
31:18
I mean, Oh yeah, you're expecting to have one that's
31:20
6000 years. Old Come on, why not.
31:22
I mean you're the one that believes it's that old.
31:23
I mean I'm saying there isn't any physical proof that anything
31:27
was here before. And I think before the flood,
31:29
you know some trees were obviously growing in around the
31:32
world. And the the evolutionist idea
31:34
that they try to get off across the point that the creationists
31:37
believe that all life started in the Garden of Eden.
31:39
That's not at all what the Bible teaches.
31:41
Animals and plants were created all over the world.
31:43
It was only man that started in the Garden of Eden.
31:45
The world was full of critters. She mentioned the ice cores.
31:48
That's interesting. They just dug up some World War
31:50
2 airplanes that were had crash landed there down in Greenland
31:54
in 1944. I believe they were 250 feet
31:58
deep in the ice with thousands of layers, laminate layers.
32:02
It would look like they've been down there for 50,000 years
32:04
because of all these different layers.
32:06
All you got to have is 1 volcano 1000 miles away or 10,000 miles
32:09
away and you get a ash cloud drift over it, deposits many
32:12
layers. Ice cores is a very inexact
32:14
science. You cannot prove the world is
32:15
billions of years old from that. Most planes are 250 feet deep.
32:20
About those plans, but I do know that when it comes to tree
32:23
rings, you don't have to have one tree that's 14,000 years old
32:27
in order to to trace back the annular rings.
32:31
You compare different trees. If you find an archaeological
32:34
site say in the southwest that where the Indians had used
32:38
bristlecone pine for beams or for some other purpose, you can
32:41
take a core from that and you can match it up to that tree
32:44
that is 4000 years old and see where those rings match up.
32:49
And they will. They'll they'll be wider,
32:50
narrow, wider, narrow, depending and and you know it's.
32:54
Well, hold on. I'm sure you're familiar if
32:55
you've, you know, had biology and stuff, that trees, the width
32:58
of their ring is determined by a number of things.
33:00
And the California fires here this last week showed us that
33:02
sometimes the fire Rep rips up one valley and leaves another
33:05
valley alone. Maybe the burn marks or maybe
33:08
even the width of the rings. If a tree was growing with other
33:10
trees around it, as it matures, the other trees fall down, it
33:13
gets more sunlight. Now it gets a wider ring where
33:15
another tree 50 feet away does not get a wider ring.
33:18
The rings do not always match up exactly, and it is not an exact
33:20
science like they try to make it out to believe.
33:22
OK, I got a break one more time. When we come back to me as the
33:25
inter Inter Interloper here, or the intermediary here, it seems
33:29
to make a little difference whether you're right, Doctor
33:32
Hoeven, or whether Doctor Scott is right.
33:33
Because it to me, evolution is not mutually exclusive to a
33:37
belief in a creator, and not nor is your point of view Dr.
33:42
Hoeven. So I want to find out why you
33:44
both feel the way you feel and and and why you feel like you're
33:48
hoping that the evolutionists are are really a religion, a
33:50
religious. Group.
33:51
That's all it is is. Religion to me that's, I don't
33:53
understand that. So we'll get the answer to that.
33:55
And when we come back in just a second with what you need to get
33:58
cooking this holiday season, indoors and out, butterfields,
34:01
etcetera, in South Park. And the Branch brought up the
34:04
topic of religion here. And there is some question about
34:06
whether evolution should be taught in the schools and about
34:09
whether creationism should. You know why it's not allowed to
34:11
be taught in the schools. And you, Doctor Hovind, feel
34:15
that the evolutionists approach this like a religion.
34:18
Why? Well, to me, religion
34:21
automatically says there must be a God at the top of the
34:23
pedestal, and the creationists deny that.
34:27
Evolutionists believe well, no, no, the.
34:30
Evolutionists definitely have a couple of gods.
34:32
They have the God of chance. They have the God of time.
34:34
They believe the world's billions of years old.
34:37
They it's a religious belief in the sense that it's not
34:40
observable or testable. They cannot show how the matter
34:42
got here. The world is made of matter.
34:44
Space is full of matter. Where did it come from?
34:46
How did it get here? There has some.
34:49
It had to be created. So there it is a religion now.
34:52
They believe no, no deity was responsible.
34:54
The earth, the universe just kind of made itself a cosmic
34:57
quirk of some kind and then they have to somehow get life from
35:01
non life. Well, that's a religious belief
35:04
that's not observable or testable or demonstratable.
35:07
That's something they believe happened in the distant past and
35:11
that's it's just a religion. Is that the way you Doctor
35:13
Scott? You know, it's funny hearing
35:16
hearing a creationist define what evolution is.
35:18
It's sort of like sort of like having Madeleine Murray O'Hara
35:22
to follow us. You might learn something, but
35:23
it eludes. First of all, first or the
35:26
beginning of evolution, at the beginning of what?
35:29
Evolution is, what creationism is.
35:31
And we did start with The Big Bang.
35:34
Fine. I don't care how The Big Bang
35:35
got here. Maybe it was supernatural, maybe
35:38
it was natural. However, The Big Bang got here,
35:40
matter was produced. And at that point, we had the
35:43
evolution of stars, we had the evolution of galaxies, we had
35:46
the evolution of planets, like our own.
35:50
Start with some, start someplace else, start with the first
35:52
replicating molecule. Maybe it occurred naturally,
35:55
maybe it occurred supernaturally.
35:56
We don't know. Right now, science has to
35:59
investigate it from a natural standpoint, because that's the
36:03
limitation of science. Sciences I mentioned before is a
36:06
limited endeavor. We have to explain the natural
36:08
world using natural processes. There's nothing any more
36:11
atheistic about science than there is atheistic about long
36:15
division. You can do long division without
36:17
invoking the supernatural. You've got to do science without
36:20
invoking the supernatural. I.
36:21
Agree. Let's take that first
36:23
replicating molecule. OK?
36:24
However it got here, what happened?
36:27
Did all the plants and animals occur suddenly at one time?
36:29
That's Kent's position. My position, and that of the
36:32
vast majority of scientists, is that after you get that first
36:35
replicating molecule, you have the gradual development of
36:39
plants and animals through time, not the sudden appearance of
36:42
everything. So that's the difference between
36:44
creation and evolution, and that's the confusion that they
36:46
make between first 'cause and evolution.
36:49
Evolution does not depend on a natural origin of that first
36:52
replicating molecule. OK.
36:55
You said mentioned a couple things there.
36:57
You said that you I think if I understand you right, you kind
37:00
of admitted that you, the at least The Big Bang part and the
37:03
first replicating molecule part are not testable and are not
37:06
part of science, and yet they are very much part of the school
37:08
textbooks. No, I didn't say they weren't
37:10
testable. As a matter of fact, there right
37:12
now is very active science going on in discussing which of a
37:16
number of alternate explanations best explains the origin of the
37:20
first replicating molecule. Sure.
37:21
Is creation one of those you're considering?
37:24
Not from a from a scientific standpoint you can't, because
37:27
you can't consider supernatural explanation.
37:30
In science, it's one of the limitations.
37:32
OK, so the entire subject of origins is outside the realm of
37:36
science, and until they get it solved positively, I would like
37:38
it out of the textbooks. I don't think kids should be
37:40
taught your view without being taught all views.
37:43
I don't think that it is outside of science.
37:45
I think a supernatural explanation is outside of
37:47
science. Well, hold on you, you begged
37:49
The question How did the universe get started?
37:51
How did the first life get started?
37:53
Do you know? Can you prove it scientifically?
37:56
You're outside the realm of science.
37:58
There are a number of theories that are competing with each
38:01
other right now about the first replicating molecule.
38:04
Sure. And the kids ought to be shown
38:05
all of them, including the creation theory.
38:08
Actually, it might come as a surprise to you, but when I was
38:11
teaching evolution at the college level, I would mention
38:14
to kids that we were I I would say, well, here we're going to
38:17
study evolution. Evolution means change.
38:19
Describe it a little bit. And there's lots and lots of
38:22
evidence to showed that this change through time took place.
38:25
And now we're going to discuss or during the semester we're
38:27
going to discuss how this change could have come about.
38:29
And it could have come about through a natural selection,
38:32
through Lamarckism, through salt, Asian, etcetera, etcetera.
38:35
And possibly it might have come about because it was the will of
38:38
the supernatural, because it was God's will.
38:40
Yeah. But you missed.
38:41
You still missed the origins. Part important part, I'd go on
38:44
to say we can't study that in this class because this is a
38:47
science class and science is incompetent to study the
38:50
supernatural. I guess if we somehow invent A
38:53
theometer, we can do it, but until that point we can't bring
38:57
supernatural explanations in to explain the natural world.
39:00
And with that I got to stop because we have to break for
39:01
news. Doctor Kent Hovind here at the
39:03
studio, Doctor Eugenie Scott in California.
39:05
They both agreed to stay over into the next half hour and
39:07
we'll continue our conversation following the news.
39:09
Next here on 11/10 WBT Charlotte questions, although we request
39:14
to keep your questions very short 570-1110 or toll free 800
39:18
WBT 11/10 We left off in the last half hour where we had the
39:21
argument between evolution as a religion and the fact that
39:26
evolution is taught in schools while creation is creationism is
39:29
not because it is considered to be religion.
39:32
Doctor Scott, do you see a problem with teaching one but
39:35
not the other? Not at all, because I do not
39:38
agree in the slightest that evolution is a religion.
39:41
Evolution is part of science. Science has to be religiously
39:44
neutral. It's a limited enterprise that
39:46
must explain the natural world using non supernatural means.
39:50
But you're not. Are you discouraging the
39:51
teaching of creationism to children?
39:53
I am discouraging the teaching of of creationism as science to
39:57
children. I think that children should
39:59
learn biblical literalist creationism.
40:01
They should learn non literalist creationism.
40:03
They should learn the creation stories of the Mundaraku and the
40:08
Hopi and the Australian Aborigines.
40:09
I think comparative religion is a wonderful idea and I think
40:13
children need to know that. Doctor Hopkinson's doctor Scott
40:15
believes that the children should be taught all of those
40:18
things. Do you believe children should
40:19
be taught all of those things? Oh, I I I collect the public
40:22
school textbooks. I assure you they are not taught
40:24
biblical creationism in the public school textbooks.
40:26
At least at the grade school, junior high and high school
40:27
level. It is not offered.
40:29
I have the books from every major publisher.
40:31
But you believe they should be taught?
40:32
Sure, that's only fair. They should be taught the other
40:34
the other creationist theories of other religions.
40:37
Oh yeah, I think on a level playing field, if kids were
40:39
allowed to view all the various options, if they if somebody
40:41
says, hey, we think the world's not standing on the back of a
40:43
giant turtle, they would see that silly.
40:45
And I think the create, the literal biblical creationist
40:47
view would win out hands down. So we have.
40:49
Actually, between the two of you on this topic, we have no
40:52
argument. It's just that Doctor Scott
40:53
doesn't want to see the creationist point of view taught
40:55
as science. Is that correct?
40:57
Right and but see, she wants her evolution, which is a religion
41:00
included in with science. That's where I would differ.
41:02
Evolution should also be in the comparative religion.
41:04
I don't understand why you think it's a religion.
41:05
I don't. Understand, in order to be
41:07
science, it has to be observable.
41:08
Nobody observed only when the world was created.
41:10
Nobody's ever seen an animal change to any other kind of
41:12
animal that's never been observed.
41:14
They all with cats always have kittens.
41:16
Let's go quickly to the phones before we run out of time in
41:18
this segment. WBT, you're on the air with our
41:19
two guests. Hi.
41:21
Yeah, I think the truest thing that's been said here is that
41:23
this is a situation that cannot be resolved.
41:26
Obviously both people have their own set of facts and they're
41:30
going to interpret it. But I have a question.
41:32
Assuming this lady Miss Scott, is saying that the only place
41:37
that we have a story of creationism is in the Bible, and
41:41
assuming that story of creationism is wrong, The
41:44
problem that I see is the whole Bible crumbles.
41:48
In order to take her theory, have her explain how it could be
41:53
that you could have millions of years of death through evolution
41:58
and the Bible specifically says no one died until man sinned.
42:03
Now the danger is when you take her view, as Christians have
42:07
tried to do in the last few years, you destroy God's
42:10
creation. And if you read the book of Job,
42:13
you will find that God didn't even address Job and give him an
42:17
explanation of how he was or how he was.
42:19
He said, Job, Can you even explain my creation?
42:23
In Exodus chapter 19 verse four, it says that God sent Eagles to
42:27
fly Israel on their wings to out of out of Egypt.
42:31
Did that really happen? Well, this metaphors and similes
42:33
used all through the Bible. The weatherman says the sun rose
42:36
this. Morning Who's to Who's to Who's
42:37
to pick and choose What are metaphors and what are what are
42:39
literal? Well, in the in the Hebrew
42:41
rendering, it's obvious. I mean they could any any child
42:44
can pick it out, you know. But the weatherman this morning
42:46
said the sun rose at 6:15. Did the sunrise or did the Earth
42:49
turn? You want to answer my question,
42:51
how could we have evolution? See, I much resent someone
42:54
saying it doesn't matter whether the earth evolved or was
42:57
created, and I think God finds that to be an abomination.
43:00
All right, stop. Well, I told you to keep it
43:03
short. Now I agree.
43:04
It matters. Gone.
43:05
You're gone. You can listen to the answer on
43:07
the radio. It matters a lot, I agree.
43:08
Doctor Scott, do you have a problem with that?
43:10
I'm not really sure what his question was, to tell you the
43:13
truth. His question was how can we
43:15
believe in evolution with thousands and thousands and
43:18
millions and millions of years of death if the Bible says that
43:22
no one died until man sinned and man didn't sin until Adam and
43:26
Eve ate, ate the apple off the tree, which I would.
43:28
I don't know how many days that was in the Garden of Eden, but
43:31
it wasn't very. Long Well it's a non question
43:33
because he's saying first assume the Bible is literally true,
43:37
which of course the majority of Christian denominations do not
43:40
assume. And then if you assume the Bible
43:43
is literally true, how can you say you're right and of course
43:47
in science you're not assuming the Bible is literally true.
43:50
I mean maybe maybe a way of turning this question around
43:54
would be to ask him. I mentioned before that there
43:56
were 80 separate layers of coal seams in the Midwest.
44:01
If you take a look at the amount of coal reserves that there are
44:04
in the world, the entire biomass of the world today couldn't
44:08
possibly be converted to that much fossil fuel.
44:12
There had to have been an enormous amount of time involved
44:16
in the laying down of those coal seams.
44:18
Or or a different a different set of conditions.
44:20
Much organic material at one time, you know, obviously there
44:24
was death. I think your your caller might
44:27
might need to talk to a minister more than to a scientist.
44:30
Great break. We'll come right back with more
44:31
of your phone calls. Doctor Kent Hovind Dr. Eugenie
44:33
Scott here on WBT own Carolina Panthers helmet number one and
44:37
help United Way of Central Carolinas solutionist and we're
44:40
you're next on WBT. Keep it short.
44:42
High. Have a question related to the
44:45
for the creationist, Given the fact or given the the fact that
44:51
the Bible says that the stars, the sun and the moon were
44:54
created during the seven days of creation, and the fact that it
45:01
is that stars are measurably millions of light years away,
45:05
and the light that we see now was in fact being produced
45:10
millions of years ago, I don't see how that can be reconciled
45:14
with the 10,000 year. OK, good.
45:17
Question the creation. All right, good question.
45:18
Sure, good question. Now you're you're laboring under
45:20
a delusion here. You say the stars are measurably
45:23
millions of light years away. That simply is not true.
45:25
The furthest they can measure using parallax trigonometry is
45:28
about 60 to 100 light years. So we do not know how far away
45:31
those stars are. It could be the whole universe
45:33
is rotating like everything else is, and the red shift is caused
45:36
by the stars moving instead of by their great distances.
45:39
Nobody knows what causes the redshift and we do not know how
45:41
far away the stars are beyond 100 light years.
45:44
Some say 200. OK, I'll give them 200.
45:46
Secondly. Secondly, I'm not saying they're
45:48
all within 100 light year radius.
45:49
Now don't misunderstand that, I'm just saying they cannot be
45:51
measured. Period.
45:53
Secondly, we do not know that the speed of light has always
45:55
been what it is today. There is no possible way to
45:58
prove the speed of light is a constant and it has always been
46:01
at this speed. And thirdly, you cannot prove
46:04
that God did not create a mature creation.
46:06
Adam and Eve were full grown. They look like adults when they
46:09
were zero years old. How do you know?
46:11
Were you there? No, I wasn't there.
46:12
But see, that's a reasonable explanation of it.
46:14
The evolutionist explanation is the only one that is tax
46:16
supported. I'm not against people believing
46:18
in evolution. I'm against supporting it with
46:20
my tax dollars. Doctor Scott, any comments?
46:22
Well, he gets into real problems with theologians if he suggests
46:25
that God is a trickster that made everything just look old
46:29
because he wanted to fool us into thinking evolution had
46:32
taken place. So that was that was an
46:34
explanation that was rejected 302 hundred years ago When?
46:38
Sorry, 300 years ago when it was first suggested by Hermann
46:40
gossip. The the idea that that God just
46:45
made everything look old is one that theologians have a lot of
46:48
trouble with, for obvious reasons.
46:49
No, I didn't say he made it look old.
46:51
It has to be mature. The trees had to be full grown
46:53
or they don't work. Adam Eve, he didn't create
46:54
babies. It's just a matter of function.
46:56
It has to be mature. In terms of the distance of the
46:59
stars, he just made it look like the stars were billions of light
47:04
years away. Do you know that light has
47:06
always traveled at the same speed?
47:07
Do you know what light is? Can you show me anybody who
47:09
knows what light is? Is it particles?
47:10
Waves. Photons.
47:12
Kept up with the creationist literature, there's been quite a
47:14
bit of discussion about Barry Setterfield's idea that an
47:18
Australian creationist that somehow the speed of light has
47:21
slowed down in the last couple of thousands of years.
47:25
Most creationists have rejected that firmly.
47:28
Well, I don't know. I wasn't there either.
47:29
But I'm just saying it is a reasonable explanation and the
47:31
evolutionist explanation is the only tax supported religion we
47:35
have right now. And I resent that.
47:36
All right, let's go off to another phone call.
47:37
WBT Hello. Mike, I appreciate you having
47:39
this discussion on the air today.
47:41
You can make it quick. I've got quick quick quote.
47:43
And then a question for your guests in California as to
47:46
whether or not evolution is fact or faith.
47:49
L Harrison Matthews, in his Introduction to Origin of
47:51
Species, Darwin's Origins of Species said the fact that
47:54
evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in
47:58
peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved
48:02
theory. Is it then a science or a faith?
48:04
Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly
48:07
parallel to belief in special creation.
48:09
Both. What's your question?
48:11
Don't read a book to me. What's your question?
48:12
Well, I was just saying, he said, What's your question?
48:14
My question is how does she reconcile the fact that there
48:17
are dinosaur footprints that have been found alongside of
48:20
human footprints in Texas, if assumingly she believes that the
48:23
dinosaurs were extinct before man came into being, doctor.
48:26
If your readers want to know about the Paluxy River
48:28
footprints, they can call me on our 800 number.
48:32
If you if you don't mind me giving it Mike, we have
48:34
carefully analyzed the Paluxy river foot, so-called man tracks
48:38
and dinosaur tracks together. There's nothing to it.
48:40
They are erosional features. They're scour marks.
48:43
In some cases they're eroded dinosaur prints.
48:45
I'm sorry to say there is no evidence of dinosaur and human
48:48
footprints together in Texas or anyplace else.
48:51
OK, I was there two weeks ago, Mike in Glen Rose, TX.
48:53
This is a casting. I'm holding it in my hand.
48:55
You're welcome to example. This is a casting from there,
48:58
certified by Clifford Burdick, a geologist who founded in the
49:00
Strata. There are 600 of those
49:02
footprints. I have walked in them myself.
49:04
I have analyzed them carefully also and I would disagree, 100%
49:07
Doctor. Scott, this footprint is as long
49:09
as my forearm. 16 inches long size 24.
49:12
It's probably just as deep as the dinosaur footprints were,
49:14
too. They tried to say that's a
49:16
dinosaur. I have no idea.
49:17
You know the wonders of radio. I can't exactly see what you're
49:19
holding up. Well, I'm telling is a casting
49:21
of a footprint, that is, that is the length of my forearm.
49:23
Size. 24 and it is a footprint. I mean it is a large, unless it
49:28
was artificially made, it is a large footprint.
49:30
Well, a lot of them were artificially made.
49:32
Just. A minute.
49:33
Industry Back in the Depression, people would cut out dinosaur
49:36
footprints and sell them to tourists.
49:37
And they just human footprints they sold.
49:40
Even better, and Burdick will admit that an awful lot of those
49:43
prints are human foot our our carvings are are, are fake.
49:48
An awful lot. Wait a minute.
49:49
Five or six were carved and that.
49:51
You're right about that. But 600 have been excavated.
49:53
Let me try to get a one more phone call before we go any
49:55
further here because we're running out of time fast.
49:57
Hi WBT you there? Guess not.
50:00
Hi, WBT you there? Yes, Mike, I am OK.
50:02
I have a question for Doctor Scott and I'm not a scientist by
50:05
any means, but in regards to the law of thermodynamics, how can
50:10
you explain the first law where states that that matter and
50:13
energy works from a organized state to a disorganized state in
50:17
light of evolution, which seems the opposite from a disorganized
50:21
state to a very organized and complex state.
50:24
And I'll hang up and listen to the answer.
50:25
OK. Thanks for your call, Doctor.
50:27
Here, here again, Sir, I'm afraid you've been misled by
50:29
somebody. They've only given you part of
50:31
the story about the second law of thermodynamics.
50:33
They've left out a very important component, which is
50:36
that yes, there's a tendency for matter to become or energy to
50:39
become less organized in a closed system.
50:42
The planet Earth is an open system because it receives
50:46
energy from the sun, and there is no problem at all from a
50:49
physics standpoint with evolution taking place because
50:52
on the planet Earth and perhaps elsewhere in the universe, who
50:55
knows, we are dealing with open thermodynamic systems.
50:58
Doctor Scott is the Executive Director of the National Center
51:01
for Science Education. You wanted to give out your toll
51:03
free number. Go ahead and do.
51:04
That if any of your listeners are interested in the creation
51:06
evolution controversy, they can call me at 1-8 hundred 290 6006.
51:14
800-290-6006, We're out of time. Doctor Kent Hovind is in town
51:20
tonight and tomorrow night to speak at the Denver Baptist
51:23
Church from 7:00 until what, 9:00?
51:25
Yes, tonight. And it's a, it's a, it's a multi
51:27
video, it's a slide. Yeah, I got lots of visuals,
51:29
hands on stuff, and I cannot afford an 800 number, but if I
51:31
could give mine they could contact me.
51:33
I'm at Pensacola, FL and it's Hovind and it's nine O 4479.
51:38
Dino, Dino. Is that the 8987 number?
51:41
Yes, OK. No, the weather, I got to my
51:43
home phone. Yeah, Dino is the office line.
51:44
OK. Dino is the office.
51:45
OK, Dino, it's spelled HOVIND. Kent Hovind Pullman, thank you
51:50
very much for joining. Us thank you.
51:51
For thank you, Sir. And I hope we can call on you
51:53
again, Doctor Scott, sometime in the future.
51:54
I'd be happy to. Thank you.
51:56
Thanks for staying over too. It's 4/20.