Debate @ University：Creationist vs Evolutionist ＜Kent Hovind and Mike Schultz＞ – Genesis is history

it is an honor to be here I appreciate you attending this discussion on creation and evolution I certainly appreciate the good spirit I've always gotten when I've done debates with Terry Pruitt I'm glad that he's open-minded and we're going to try to convert him today he'd be a great asset to the creation side when we get him converted over I was high school science teacher as Chuck said for 15 years and now for ten years I've dedicated my life to traveling all over the world and speaking on this topic creation and evolution basically there are only two options like the Russian astronomer said either there is a God or there isn't both possibilities are frightening if there is a God then we better find out who he is and what he wants and do what he says if there isn't a god we are in trouble because we're racing around the Sun at 66,000 miles an hour and nobody's in charge a frightening thought you know there are four great questions to this life every religion in the world including atheism tries to answer the four fundamental questions of life the way you answer these questions depends upon which way you view the world and there's only two choices creation or evolution now if the evolution theory is true they say you know it's amazing a big bang made this whole place from nothing that's the humanist world view that says man is God that's a very appealing religion because then you get to decide what's right and wrong nobody tells you what to do that'd be great to be your own God then there are no rules the other way to look at the world is to say you know it's incredible design there must be a designer that's the creationist worldview which says God is God and these two worldviews are at war with each other as even Sir Arthur Keith said he wrote the foreword to Darwin's reprint in 1959 and he believed in evolution he said folks these two few these two philosophies these two worldviews are at war with each other if the evolution theory is true Who am I and what am i worth well if evolution is true you're nothing important you're just a piece of protoplasm that washed up on the beach and you're not worth a thing matter of fact you're part of the problem because you're one of the polluters of the environment and the more of you we can get rid of the better that's normal thinking if evolution philosophy is true I believe where did I come from well if evolution is true you came from a cosmic burp about 20 billion years ago why am I here what is the purpose life well if evolution is true there is no purpose to life you might as well have fun if it feels good do it where am I going when I die well if evolution is true you're just going to the grave and you're going to get recycled into a worm or plant these two worldviews could not be more opposite the Bible says in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth folks if that verse is true we better find out who he is and what he wants and I've decided I'm going to do what God says or try to for my life and I want to courage you to do the same thing if you're here today and you're not a Christian we'd like to encourage you to at least open your mind just a little bit we're going to try to show you some evidence that this world was created it had to be designed and the evolution theory has absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever we offer a quarter of a million dollars for real scientific evidence for evolution we think evolution is a philosophy it's a religion but it's not a science thank you I'm Terry Pruitt and I have been teaching evolution for something like 25 years during the time that I've been engaged in that process there have been tremendous changes in the fossil record and tremendous changes in our understanding of the processes through which human origins and the origins of all of the specific kinds of life on this planet or other life that we've ever encountered are linked we have been presented already with a number of questions and although I'm not going to respond directly to count on all of the points at this point i do want to argue at least that rather that's being a yes or no black or white design or no rules humans of no importance or humans of great importance kind of black and white question i think there are many different levels of approach and of understanding and and the one that I represent today more than even my sort of deeper position is the one of theistic evolution I'm going to represent the theistic evolutionary perspective today in part because it otherwise would not be represented and this debate would appear to be a contest between two sides when in fact it's a contest that involves many different elements in a continuum of ideas and processes and thoughts that have gone over many centuries I want to contend today well I have two strikes against me with at least part of the audience I believe because not only am I an evolutionist but I'm also a form critic and I understand that form criticism and textual criticism in the in the Hebrew Bible and in and in the Christian Bible are not necessarily popular things in some circles but I treat God's text or what many would consider God's text as a human product it is a text about God and it is a text about the particular beliefs that have given us the the religious and many of the spiritual traditions of our time I live in a world where the Bible is considered gods text even if I don't treat it as my God's text but I also argue that the world which Kent has already asserted God created is also God's text and if we have an obligation to read the text of the Bible then we also have an obligation to read the text of the world and I don't believe Kent would disagree with me on that and i'll leave that as my opening comment and we'll come back in a little bit my name is mike schultz I've been in this creation thing now for about seven years I used to be a garbage man of all things just taking people's garbage out before I got say before I accepted Christ as my savior like the Bible says and I've always been interested in this topic this is what kept me from being say for 23 years of my life and I got saved then I really started to study this topic and realize that the Bible is true I am NOT a theistic evolutionist I believe that God created everything and he did it just like that I don't think God has to use mutations and billions of years I think the Bible if you read it clearly it clearly says God created everything in the beginning I think Jesus put that Adam and Eve like Mark 10-6 says at the beginning I don't believe in any form of evolution I'm here today because basically of what second Peter 33 says I'll throw it up here on the board for y'all that's okay the second Peter 33 basically says knowing this first in the last days there shall come in the last days scoffers walking after their own lusts I believe that's what's going on today and it worries me this is something that kept me from being safe for a long time this is my first debate I get to preach on this topic quite a bit what worries me is the things that are being presented in the textbooks have been proven to be false some of them for over a hundred years yet they're still being taught in our textbooks today today I'm going to try and bring some of those up I think this is the lie of the end times basically the scoffers the Bible says are ignorant of three things the creation the flood and the coming judgment of God and this poison is being taught right alongside of science in our textbooks it's being portrayed as science but as ken has already said it's not science at all things are being taught that we came from a microdot it's just incredible but there's no science behind it many of these claims that are being taught every day have no scientific evidence there's nothing behind it whatsoever I'm afraid that when you're being taught that you're an animal and you share a common heritage with earthworms that the end product will be you'll end up like this and you don't have to live like this God created everybody in His image he created you in His image he's got a wonderful future for you Adolf Hitler said if you tell a lie long enough loud enough and often enough the people will believe it he also said people are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one I believe evolution is that big lie and it's led a lot of people astray and it's definitely been detrimental to science a God gave man a mind of her son is to draw man to him and that's what's happened in my case I hope to represent that side today thank you well thanks for coming out today my name is League power I'm teaching the fast from here uws I'm not a biologist and not feel so all I hope to do t today is give you some reasonable grounds on pond which you can make a decision if you need to make a decision about this issue but I should say by way of introductory comments this debate is kind of unfortunate right I mean this debate neaten be in this room Newton be but the broader cultural debate is very unfortunate it's very divisive and it's being fought out in school classrooms and Boards of Education all over the country and that's at least divisive and unproductive that's not where it ought to be fought out but it's being fought out there for a deeper reason I think and that's because I believe our guest today here are threatening a Christian worldview much more than Darwin or you or any secular humanist ever did that's because if they are right if they're on the right track then Genesis and the account of Genesis has to come over onto scientific terms and go into a lab and stand head to toe to the National Science Foundation and all the universities and all the research institutes around the world who are exploring and making progress in evolutionary terms and an evolutionary theory and refining that theory Genesis has to stand up to all those guys and girls and I think you lose I think that debate if they're on the right track is a losing one so if I was a Christian in this room I would be on my side particularly on Terry side and believe in theistic evolution right just so you understand theistic evolution is the view that it's a version of theism and theism just says that some divine power is required to some supernatural force or divine power is required to get this business we call the universe rolling but he needn't have done it in some account as presented in Genesis and certainly need to have made whole species out of cloth or you and I out of mud and then blown a wind over us no he's much more subtle processes and a much more supple supernatural force than that and that's what I recommend to you all it don't you those Christians in the room i recommend theistic evolution and not creation science thank welcome Genesis to go into the laboratory and be tested I'd like to see any scientific evidence that discredits anything told in the book of Genesis book of Genesis tells us all the animals are going to bring forth after their kind I think we've had thousands of years of breeding experiences has proven that to be exactly correct dogs produce dogs and you know cats produce cats nothing is enough there is nothing in Genesis that can't stand all the scientific route you want to give it as far as from the philosophy and let me tell you how this all started back in the early 1800s the geologic column was invented by the way the geologic column is a hoax it does not exist any place in the world except in the textbooks the geologic column teaches that each of these layers of rock strata that we see are millions of years different in age this kind of set the stage for people to begin to doubt the Bible in the early 1800s we have ample evidence that those rock layers are not different ages there are poly strata fossils rocks running up through multiple layers this rock petrified trees standing straight up are very common they're found all over the world I've seen dozens of them they're petrified trees in the vertical position indicate the rock layers are not different ages I don't know how many states they've been found in but quite a few places where they have coal they find these poly strata fossils but this geologic column is what convinced Darwin that the earth was millions of years old as Darwin sailed around the world at night 1831 I make it here second it as Darwin sailed around he began to read a book by charles lyell that had been published in 1830 Darwin graduated from bible college to be a preacher at age 22 when he got this job to sail around on the Beagle he wasn't paid anything he couldn't find a paying job as bad or somebody helped him get this job on the Beagle he was not a scientist he was a preacher but as he sailed around he read the book by charles lyell and that book changed his life forever he began to have serious doubts about the Bible later in life Darwin said this belief crept over me slowly I felt no distress and many Christians go to universities and slowly begin to disbelieve the Bible not because there's any scientific evidence given against it I think it's mostly because of peer pressure or the mocking that some people do they mock God's Word I would say the theistic evolution position would certainly not be at all what I would take a god that has to use suffering misfits def a god that doesn't know what he wants first time and can't make it right in six days like he said that's a god I would not worship that one at all certainly not the God of the Bible as Darwin sailed around he came to the Galapagos Islands here on the Galapagos Islands Charlie notice there were 14 varieties of finches and right here is where the whole problem I think comes to a head Darwin observed these varieties of birds and he concluded probably all these birds have a common ancestor I bet you're right charlie and it was a bird and then he concluded we can draw this another step and say this proves the birds and the bananas are related oh and I would disagree with that one person said Oh Charlie never said the birds and the bananas are related oh well sort of in his book on page 170 Charles Darwin said it is a truly wonderful fact that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other it looks to me like he's saying the birds and the bananas are related Charlie observed what we call microevolution dogs producing a variety of dogs birds producing a variety of birds that's a fact folks that happens nobody argues with that microevolution is certainly true and I would not argue with that for a second the whole problem i think in universities and across the world with this evolution creation controversy the whole problem is the definition of that word evolution I think students are being deceived because one definition of the of microevolution certainly is scientific dogs produce dogs you might get a big dog or a little dog and they probably had a common ancestor it could be the dog the wolf in the coyote are related I wouldn't argue about that but a three-year-old will tell you it's the same kind of animal let's put a dog a wolf a coyote and a banana on the table okay boys and girls which one is not like the others well a three-year-old knows it's the banana okay it could be that the horse and the zebra came from a common ancestor I wouldn't argue about that but stand 30 feet away and look at him you're talking about the same kind of animal that's not evolution the Bible says the animals will bring forth after their kind that's all that's been observed see the problem is this word evolution there is cosmic evolution that's the Big Bang there's no evidence for that whatsoever there's chemical evolution how do you get from hydrogen which the Big Bang produced hydrogen and helium how do you get the higher elements how did that happen how do you get stellar in planetary evolution nobody's ever seen a star farm some people say well we think there's one forming in Crab Nebula haven't seen one yet there's organic evolution the origin of life nobody's ever seen that macro evolution changing from one kind to another nobody's ever seen that and then we have microevolution which certainly does happen the first five are religious they are not scientific and I resent my tax dollars confusing the kids into thinking all of those are related they're all the same they are not the same I want to really respond to several things the first thing is that the individuals who are responsible for creations science are the second generation of people who follow the writers of the fundamentals the fundamentals being a series of tracks that were written between around 19 14 and 19 19 by conservative Christians who were alarmed with the success of biologists in essentially selling the evolutionary model to the Christian community over and over and over people were experiencing the evidence and deciding that the earth was much older than Genesis said it was and that other facts presented or statements presented in Genesis were not factual or were not factual in the sense that people had thought they were factual as it turns out it is clear that Genesis is merely one of many kinds of creation stories and origin myths which has been presented over the eons by different groups of people it happens to be the one that has been foundational too much of our culture and so these Christians people a very good conscience wrote the fundamentals almost to a person the people who wrote the fundamentals believes in an earth older than the earth that Kent Hovind believes in and most of them were were either gap theorists or they were they were they were individuals who very well educated very conservative Christians who we're in effect creationist but they were the beginnings of sort of a line drawn in the sand said theistic evolution is as far as we're going to go it was the second generation of people following the fundamentals who picking up on a couple of individual preachers decided that Genesis had to be literally true in an errant now you challenge to show a falsehood in Genesis there are many that we could look at I would like to point out one I don't know what that what is the length of a cubit that you have can't but 20.6 what inches so a little over a foot and a half all right the in fact the ark then would be some 450 feet long as it turns out physics and modern science empirically realized at the end of the middle of the last century that the biggest wooden ship that can be built is only about 300 feet long anything bigger than that had to be seriously girded with iron and the the boats tended to be very unstable in the water they tended to sag in the middle or rise in the middle in the ends would sag they tended to leak like sieves and they tended to be very unseaworthy and so they quit making them and in fact one of the things that caused us to go over to steamships was the complete instability of sailing ships or other kinds of wooden ships wooden structures made for water over 300 feet length so in addition to making the ark Noah has to depend upon the miracle of God to keep it from sinking in addition the ark would have displaced by the accounts by the accounts of some of the creationist it would have displaced enough water that the account of how much water over the tops of the mountains in a worldwide flood would be such that it would have run aground on the highest mountains not not that it necessarily would have gone there but it could have run aground so certainly it is a slipshod approach to and recreate in the world to to do the destruction and to manage the creation in human terms in such a way that it could have failed so easily I'll add one other thing how I got 60 seconds well we'll do this another time let me point out that all philosophers in the 19th century we're trained in metaphysics that is first principles in natural philosophy in theology in social philosophy at the minimum as well as in ethics and and anesthetics the basic systems of philosophy for Darwin who have been trained in theology is absolutely not a surprise everybody was don't you think it's curious that Darwin Hume and so many other scientists great thinkers of the greatest century of the modern era the 19th century should come up with evolution reading God's natural txt the world you sure Mike you have five minutes no it has been discovered and it was not discovered 1978 and the Turkish government has it built a visitor center for a road to it you can watch them dig it up today if you like I'd love to show pictures of it at the end of the show if you'll let me and discussions not about Genesis it's about proving evolution we're attacking and they're defending also I don't see that a God who would use I don't think God would use evolution it's not the clear teaching of Scripture you would not be able to read the Bible and come away with evolution unless you came to it with that preconceived ideal from a public education I don't believe God is is cruel he doesn't need misfits and mutations to make everything you can make it right the first time I think there's many indications just in nature he's given us where bees need flowers and such another remark was basically I guess I guess I lost my thing there that's okay we'll do what we can here to get it going the first generation was not alarmed they were basically just saying there's no evidence for this that's what we're saying today we're still here today defending that there's no evidence for evolution well technology is great until it crashes but here we go we got it again let's bring up some lines that are taught to text books today as truth and in the opposite of truth and in fact is basically a lie they're teaching today that we have a vestigial organs and that is proof for evolution I don't know how you can put one and one together and come up with that as your equivalent but that's just not true medical science has proven a use for just about every organ I I've ever heard was used for evolution many things are being taught today like whales used to walk around on land that because they have a vestigial pelvis I'm sorry that whale needs that pelvis just to reproduce some very special muscles anchor on to that that's not a pelvis the whale needs it has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever yet these things are being taught as fact we're taught our tail bones our best digital we will pay at CSU to have anybody's tailbone removed to make this point you need that tailbone some very special muscles anchor to it that you will need in about a day these things are not proof for evolution yet they're still in our textbooks even if they're worse in this digital organs that would be the opposite of evolution these lives are mixed in with science and we love science the creation science evangelism we know real science like these lights and computers will draw you to God but there are point there's a poison mixed in right now today I probably would not find I have a hard time finding this and probably a biology textbook from this campus Hagel's drawings of a baby going through supposedly all the four steps of evolution before it becomes human well this was proven to be a lie almost a hundred years ago Hagel was convicted of fraud at his University University of Jena I guess that slides not going to come up today all the supposed evidence they have also evidenced or the cavemen those have all been thrown out not just by the creationists but by the evolutionist themselves it doesn't matter look at the caveman the and earth all built up from a pig's tooth Piltdown man built out it was a fraud convince cull and I Apes jawbone for 40 years that was in our textbooks leading students astray as divine supreme proof for evolution I wonder how many kids doubted the Bible because of this and died and went to hell because of this lie it certainly was not a fact it certainly was not proved at that point and it certainly still is in many textbooks across the country as proof for evolution when it's been proven wrong Neanderthal man that was a man with arthritis they saw the skeleton it was bent over they said he's halfway going he's halfway from ape walking on forests to a man walking on tues it was an old man with arthritis he was halfway going down these things are ridiculous but they're still in textbooks today Lucy the problems are incredible with Lucy the remains are from different animals remains found scattered over miles at different depths and that's even if you believe in the geologic column lose these knees were not her own there was nothing below the hips yet they put feet human feet on the displays and in the pictures and the textbooks and at zoos Donald Johannsen claimed that this angled femur proved that she was evolving all tree-dwelling monkeys have an angled femur so they can get a better grip on the limb their own and he said well after that well the bigger bones proves it's evolving it just means it's a bigger animal you don't would not look at a Clydesdale horse and think it's turning into a Mack truck because it's heavy bone and Lucy is a modern chimp alive and well in Sumatra and just number seven alone i think is good proof for a divine creator made right the first time there's an article showing right there Lucy's alive and well in Sumatra creation ex nihilo magazine march through may 1996 page 8 if you want to read more on this just get Marvin lumen Alec bonds of contention folks there's a lot of things being pushed as truth in fact that are not and have been proven wrong for many years now and we're not alarmed at evolution we're alarmed that so many lives are being used to push it thanks well again I'm not a biologist right and I'd recommend that we hold off and until we get some education in biology to evaluate some of the claims being made up here today I think it's very hard for you or I to make sense of these complicated claims about vestigial organs and all arrested let's try to abstract away from this and think about the bigger picture why should you believe in a natural selection and evolution via processes described by Darwin or neo Darwin's neo-darwinian Tarot in ian's well you I mean not a not a biologist or a student of biology but you yourself I know what evidence they have and if they didn't believe it they ought not be biologists but why should you believe it well first let me tell you why you don't think you should believe it right and we'll go through a few of those and I think in the next session I'll tell you maybe why you should you shouldn't believe it then because it's true right truth is too heavy a word better left for the theologians or philosophers right there's very various theories of truth and truth is one and all these it's too heavy a term right expected to believe a theory because I told you it was true or even though it was demonstrably true right that I could prove it to you I really sincerely doubt that i need those biology textbooks say that they have proof for a theory in biology right scientists don't talk that way they don't talk about demonstrative proof that's a legit logical term right better left for the logicians what we're talking about here is confirming a theory right theories get better and better confirmed they don't get proven so I offering 250 million dollars or something for proof of illusionary theory is a soph ism right maybe you should believe it because it's empirically adequate right because it describes all the facts of the natural world I don't think so right lots of theories could do that even in account like Genesis could explain everything and described in different words model that is all the natural processes that you you will observe in your life but we're we have very limited access to the universe right we haven't seen it all we don't know what all the facts there are to be described and this theory may not be empirically adequate right Darwin himself admitted to huge gaps in his theory and we've just added a major refinement to that theory in 1953 when we figured out that the code of life right DNA the digital code by which micro and macro if you're going to admit microevolution I think you have to admit macro given if if micro happens according to mechanisms at the genetic level but we'll get back to them I digress no I don't think just because a theory describes all the facts you should have believed it a simple vacuous theory right could do that maybe you should believe neo-darwinian evolution through natural selection because it's simpler but I think for most of you most of the people in this room Genesis is simpler right so I don't think that's going to get us very far and it's same with aesthetically beautiful and pleasant I mean perhaps for a biologist like dr. Gould up there are other biologists they can see the simplicity and the elegance in neo-darwinian evolution but I can't frankly it's scientists hard right myths are easy and they're meant to simplify maybe you should believe it because as I said before the vast majority of informed and reasonable professional people do right maybe you should believe it because all of the scientific boards and all of the people who we trust right to cure our diseases and to inquire into the natural world maybe you should believe because they do but no you shouldn't right that's another bad reason to believe it just like I'm not going to tell you what to believe based on authority neither should my opponents right you should those scientists don't give you a reason why you should believe it right you have to figure it out for yourself and that's sorry a harder task but you have to be the one to evaluate the evidence and I think when you do that the reasonable conclusion is that the world is more than six to ten thousand years old and life forms evolved from simpler ones through mechanisms involving DNA cheers in which each of the participants have three minutes to respond I assume extemporaneously to what they've heard over the last several minutes so Kent take it away three minutes all right I appreciate that I want you to notice throughout this discussion today mr. powers has referred a few times to Genesis being simpler I think there's a subtle connotation in here like if you believe that you're dumb scientists know the bet know what they know better you know it's kind of I'm smart you're dumb philosophy I many philosophers should know that's it's not good logic okay and to say Genesis is simpler here you are saying that you know I believe it is pretty simple it's written anybody that's exactly the way it happened and I don't think you have to be stupid to believe that I got night to about 160 and taught science 15 years and debate on this topic all the time there simply is no evidence for evolution I think it's simple to see dogs produce a variety of dogs and to assume that this proves that micro proves macro which is what he said I disagree 100% takes a giant leap of faith and logic to go from micro to macro nobody's ever seen a dog produce a non dog what we have here is a classic case of bait and switch if I said boys and girls I got a new Mercedes for ten dollars people would line up for ten miles down the street to get that thing and when they got there I'd say well we just sold it how about look at this one it's only ninety-nine thousand bait and switch is illegal folks people get thrown in jail for that for advertising false advertising and yet your textbooks at this university give the kids a classic case of bait and switch they give them a definition for evolution like descent with modification this 1999 edition textbook that I just reviewed last week for the school system says evolution means a change over time that's not really what they mean here it says evolution is defined as a change in species over time this is deceitful what happens is they get the kids to believing in evolution with this definition which is true but then they switch them they slip in the real meaning like cosmic evolution Big Bang organic evolution the other five that I mentioned for which there is no evidence whatsoever I come from Illinois corn country there's all sorts of corn up there folks you can crossbreed your corn they have the number I'm there's so many different varieties of corn they named them number but you're never going to get a hamster or tomato or a whale to grow on that corn stalk okay you're going to get corn see variations happen you get a variety of dogs variety account variations happen but they have limits and somehow the evolutionist either doesn't see this or doesn't understand it or doesn't want to admit it but yes we have varieties but there are limits farmers try to breed for bigger pigs don t you think you'll ever get a pig as big as Texas no there's a limit in there someplace and the limit is what Genesis said there would be after their kind roaches become resistant to pesticides after a while they do but they never become resistant to a sledgehammer there's a limit to the resistance and I don't know how somebody can believe we all came from a rock over 4.6 billion years evolution doesn't happen variations happen but they're the same kind of animal you might get a big dog or a little dog but that's not evolution it's just a variety and the gene pool already contained that information gene pool is much more limited of the new variety that's not evolution and genetic information is lost with all these changes nothing is gained and people like Niles Eldridge will admit there is no evidence for this theory we'll get into that next time again a 3-minute rebuttal dr. Pruitt I I want to start by saying that Darwin was not accepted at first and in fact Darwinian evolution is not accepted today in its totality we fight with each other over the data and over theories if you talk to two evolutionist one will be a proponent of punctuated equilibrium and another will be proponent of gradualism and all of these things are things that I'm not going to deal with until my next data section but we are talking about Genesis here because ultimately the text that creation science uses as its basic check to see whether things are right is Genesis now all texts require interpretation let's consider the story of Joseph when Joe not let's not consider the story Joseph let's go to Jacob when he's living with Laban and he's taking care of his his flocks now you can choose to interpret what Jacob did to get one kind of of animals on one side and another kind of animals on the other and ultimately he ended up with all the flocks because he got all the striped ones of the spotted ones you can interpret what he did as microevolutionary knowledge which is when we were looking at it or you can interpret what he did is magic and in fact Genesis implies that what he was doing was magic because in fact before we had a knowledge of genetics all the stuff that we did that worked like that was magic in effect scientists are great magicians the point that I'm making is that the text of Genesis is the foundation of creation science not the record and I could contend and refute every single contention that's been made against the fossil record against the material record that has been made by my colleagues if we have enough time we can take the time and do it I can refute every single claim about Neanderthal about Lucy I wouldn't I don't care about so much about Lucy Lucy's knees I thought her hips were pretty impressive all right and in fact half-truths is what you're hearing from the other side half-truths we tell the part of it that fits our argument we leave out the part that doesn't fit and that is something that's not allowed in the rules of science the rules of science say to us you look at the world and however the world comes to you that's what you've got to contend with and if nature comes back and says know if you're a theistic evolutionist and you're saying God is coming back and say no you haven't solved it yet you're not supposed to have that perfect knowledge I'll finish this by saying Kenneth Pike who was a very devoted Christian and supporter he was one of the founders of the wickliffe Bible translated group said that the perfect epistemology would be the epistemology of God that knowledge of what happens in its detail in perfection I'm not perfect I'm a human I have to deal with science here we go technology is working I love science okay well I still contend I don't believe in the theistic evolution I don't believe in any form of evolution especially that we came from Iraq there's no absolutely no genetic material in a row and that presents kind of a problem for a theistic evolution unless you're looking for a miracle but I will go back to what's being taught in our textbooks as truth in fact and that is horse evolution you'll even see it at the zoo's horse evolution is supposed to be then end all be it all to prove that horses evolved yet that's not what they're teaching the kids in school they're teaching the kids some crazy things like these horses are evolving but the truth is they won't tell them that starts out with you hippest with 18 pairs of ribs then you keep going on to the next generation and they just can't make up how many ribs are supposed to have there's a lot of problems with this horse evolution was made up by ethnicity Martian 1874 from fossils scattered across the world and not from the same location which was Lucy's problem scattered over over almost two miles at different depths modern horses are found in layers with and lower than ancient horses if you believe in the geologic column that presents a problem for your theories the ancient horse is not a horse but as just like any the high rec still alive today I've seen one in a zoo before ribs toes teeth everything is totally different South American fossils go from 12 to 1 towed to three-toed and they're never found in the order presented often ill just putting together like he thought he should they should go and it's all being taught as fact and pedaling to push evolution is true and once you start to fall for this lie of evolution that has no evidence for it scientific evidence stuff that you can measure taste touch way and smell and all that once you begin to fall for that you're gonna have a hard time with the Bible they're pushing that dinosaurs evolved into birds I just read an article on this in magazine here about a month ago they're bringing it back again using the Archaeopteryx argument all over again yet they're not teaching the kids it was proven to be a lie and what good is half an arm and half a wing for millions of years you just can't catch that dragon fly out of the way the problems with Archaeopteryx was well the feather imprints were shown to be a fraud in 1990 and this hoax is still being used in public school textbooks and the newspapers on discovery channel because of the fake feathers the slab halves of both halves of this fossil don't even line up anymore to real birds have been found that predate Archaeopteryx again if you believe in the geologic column that presents quite a problem they say the wishbone was there's a whole chiseled out for the wishbone and was put in backwards and upside down folks there's a lot of problems with death they're presenting they're not presenting the whole truth about these fossils it's considered to be the little copy dinosaur that people saw in Jurassic Park the sequel and the feather imprints are only found in two of the six fossils and these have been proven to be faked somebody slaps the cement some cement on one of these halves and imprinted feathers in it is what our sides claiming there's not enough fossil records to answer when where and how Homo sapiens emerged this is from an evolutionist apart from very modern examples I'm sorry I have to stop here thank you again I'm not a biologist again I'm not a theologian I think all I can rely on right and recommend to you all is that you take in these facts and half-truths some facts the fossil record is incomplete some half truths that I don't know where to begin I just hope that you're taking this in using your full critical reflective capacities you know that evolution through natural selection gave you that is I hope that you haven't lost sense of the discussion here before us today right why should you believe this theory as opposed to it and account based on Genesis we're talking about you're adopting or revising a belief this evidence might be impressive if we knew how to evaluate it but unless you know what again what vestigial organs are a lot Archaeopteryx is and how gradual changes from a dinosaur into a bird if that doesn't even make sense to you you see you can evaluate the claim that that's what in fact happened right you don't have a leg to stand upon unless you can have some you know reasonably informed in critical capacities to evaluate that claim it's neither here nor there I can't you know I've read richard dawkins book rivers out of eden i recommend it to all of you it's got a beautiful discussion of how a capacity such as the eye or vision or a wing can evolve out of from nowhere so to speak by a miracle I I fully recommend that book to you as an account of how that process can actually happen but until we've got red got that book behind us we cannot evaluate these claims and many of these other claims in my next non rebuttal phase I'll tell you why you should believe in evolution through natural selection okay promise okay well we are to that section it's the data section ken joven you have five minutes to present your material my seminar is 15 hours long so we're going to have to really rush are we I certainly I will have to say right up front I resent both of these gentlemen saying we're presenting half-truths I would like you to be very specific pick on one please and show me and also you keep saying there's evidence for evolution I'd like you to be very specific give me your best shot give me the first best evidence you've got I really would like to see it I'm telling you there is no evidence whatsoever for any evolution among the above the microevolution level and again I resent and I think you should resent the implication here that unless you have the critical thinking skills to evaluate the data you really should get some more education in other words you somebody else is smart the people who believe in evolution are smart to people who don't believe it or dump it to me that's what's coming across loud and clear okay one of the evidence is used for evolution and I taught biology and earth science for 15 years one of the evidence is that's in every textbook I've seen is the fruit flies they're going to say they did experiments with the fruit fly since you get a new generation every 11 days they can prove evolution of a millions of years compacted into one human lifespan after nuking and radiating and microwaving these flies and getting them to cause all sorts of mutated babies they got sliced with curled wings they fly around the zoo zoos couldn't go anywhere they got flies with no wings that's a crawl now to fly they raised all sorts of mutated flies they never got a beneficial mutation none of the millions of flies that were raised in laboratories ever showed any improvement everyone was detrimental but somehow in their twisted logic these guys we did this experiment said you know what all the mutations we observed were worse off now that's a good observation and I would agree with that but then they concluded this proves flies have evolved as far as they can go now that's a lousy conclusion to reach from the data what you should conclude is God made him right the first time thousands of textbooks I have reviewed literally hundreds and hundreds of textbooks i have several hundred in my library you can ask my folks that work from in my ministry but nearly everyone i'm aware of uses the peppered moth as evidence for evolution they counted the moths on the trees and found out there are 95% light and five percent black in the areas where they were burning coal in the factories the trees turn black and so they claimed there were five percent white and ninety-five percent black turned out later the experiment was a complete fraud only two moths exactly two moths in 40 years were ever seen resting on trees they had to glue the moths to the tree and glue a dead stuffed bird to the tree to take the picture to as evidence for the theory the whole thing has been discredited it is still in textbooks now though the purpose of this discussion today is to show what evidence do we have for evolution what Mike and I think are trying to do instead of going off in the philosophical realm we're trying to say look there is no evidence everything they're telling you that is evidence is not evidence it's false the moth evolution is not evidence for evolution but the students are taught this in every textbook I'm aware of actually it's evidence for design then they have the gall to tell the students to think critically with a question like this do you think humans are still evolving that's one of those loaded questions like have you stopped beating your wife yet there's no way for a kid to answer that question the question assumes evolution happened this is not teaching them how to think this is teaching on what to think that's a soviet-style indoctrination type question the textbooks are going to say we've got evidence from structure they're going to say it's called the homology argument the two bones in the wrist the radius and the ulna of all the different animals and that's supposed to be evidence for evolution this textbook says comparative anatomy provides further evidence of evolution which is what the debate is supposed to be about the commonalities suggest these and other vertebrate animals are all related they probably evolved from a common ancestor now hold on just a second if you see some similarities in different forelimb structures of different animals that does not prove they had a common ancestor it might prove they have a common designer the same guy built them all that's why they're similar why aren't students told a there's several ways to look at this I mean the students come to the University of West Florida to get educated or to get indoctrinated see indoctrination only shows one side my son right now and his wife are speaking in Ukraine he's been over there for three weeks I've spoken over there before in Ukrainian schools former Soviet republic all the students ever see is one side when I spoke over there to have 30 professors at the University in chernova see one of the professors was crying last the interpreter so was he crying about and she said he's never heard the creation story he didn't know there was one he wants you to keep going he wants to hear more about this and the students at University of West Florida need to see both sides the evidence for evolution is defunct there's none tarea five minutes to present your material on data again am I on I'm on I'm not going to respond to the ad hominem and therefore I'll go on with some evidence first of all the theory of evolution is dependent the synthetic theory of evolution which is what we pursue today is dependent upon for primary premises these are the principles through which evolution works their natural selection isolation mutation and and I've forgotten the other one well see that's that's what educational do for you just forget I'm getting old that's the problem isolation mutation selection and drift I'm not going to explain those to you because it would take my whole five minutes what I will tell you is that natural selection was the ground point that Darwin and and Wallace both came up with independently looking at the same world on opposite sides of the world looking at the diversity of the species and saying that somehow the characteristics being passed from one generation to another were being selected for they didn't know the mechanism that was left to the work of Gregor Mendel a monk working in Russia in the 19th century and his work was uncovered in the 1920s and began the study of genetics which gave us the study of population genetics and genetics led to Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid and the functions of deoxyribonucleic acid and ribonucleic acid in protein synthesis the basis of all life the very same chemical structures in us are in the pine trees outside and they operate to create the diverse proteins the diverse biological characteristics and qualities which give us our specific through time one of the ways that mutation works is that chemical switches start and stop in different processes an enzyme switch in the genetic material itself determines the shape of your molars and the number of cusps and we know that we share cusp a turns with gorillas for example all of you in this room have the potential of having y5 cusp on your wisdom teeth if you have them many of you don't even have wisdom teeth some of you who do have wisdom teeth have cus patterns that are identical to gorillas teeth that doesn't prove anything I mean I I think Kent's argument that one designer could produce similar designs God knows Detroit has done the same thing you can put different labels on it but the fact is that if you look at the full record and I think Nick made this point a little more subtly than it should have been made so I'm going to try to do a little more resounding Lee if you look at the full record of biology at the advances of the 20th century at the human genome project at the processes of inoculation at the medical knowledge that we have in this century all of which are founded on the very same empirical generalizations as the interpretation of what I have called God's text the natural world which is evolution as a theory then those data don't individual individual data may stand or fall we may show and it's a common technique of my opponents to pull out one or another example of something which didn't work out and in some Piltdown I'm really tired of hearing about filled down it was anthropologist to expose Piltdown in the textbooks there's not a single contemporary text book that teaches built down except to tell that it was oaks by an over-exuberant over zealous really person who was looking for a lot of kudos science works through anonymous quiet work most people don't even remember one of the discoverers of deoxyribonucleic acid partly because she was a woman and partly because she died before they gave the Nobel Prize so Watson and Crick and her partner you know got the prize the fact is that evolution is the best interpretation of the natural record we have before us a biology of human of process biological process and of the geologic record now my times up Mike your turn thank you sir well we named a few similarities between men and eight but the differences are just astronomical to hair hands feet etc and as far as just picking on one of the cavemen what about Piltdown the other all you see I mean just just been discredited there's just nothing there let's talk about what the evolutionists themselves think of evolution they all prove each other's theories and totally impossible like I call that having not a leg to stand on myself each theory I know approves all the others just totally impossible there's no legislative how about these family trees that we see in our textbooks today those are certainly still in textbooks today well Mary Leakey and she's a very big time evolution it says all those trees of life with their branches of our ancestors that's a lot of nonsense why is that in our textbook if it's a bunch of nonsense stephen jay gould i don't know of too many bigger evolutionist except for the ones i'm going to use some quotes from here said this the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches that means what's a lot of today folks the rest is inference however reasonable not the evidence of fossils these are lies that are being taught as fact and we're not using half-truths they got to deal with what I'm saying today they say these single-cell organisms are simple smaller is much more complex look at the microchip in a computer that's very complex the Paramecium is single cell but it's not simple it's a hundred times more complex than the space shuttle and the space shuttles the most complex thing I know of on the face of the planet see the probability of just one DNA arranging itself by chance has been calculated to be one chance in ten to the 119,000 power that's a big number that's a very big number there's only room in the entire universe for 42 times 10 to the first power electrons I don't think there's much chance of that happening and similar DNA codes can also prove the same design engineer wrote the codes it does not prove evolution there are two sides to look there's two sides to look at here this is what Harrison Matthew said the fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory is this science or a faith evolution is just a very bad religion I know that at least in paleoanthropology data are still so sparse theory heavenly heavily influences interpretations theories have in the past clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data and ideologies and what people want to believe is what's being pushed in our science textbooks today this is dr. Colin Patterson what he says he went on asking can you tell me anything you know about evolution any one thing any one thing that is true he directed this question to the members of the evolutionary morphology seminar University of Chicago the reply one person stood up and said I do know one thing it ought not to be taught in high school and I agree it is not science it is not fat he even went further replying to a letter one day I fully agree with you on your comments are the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book if I knew of any fossil or living I've never seen a living fossil I would certainly included them I will lay it on the line there is not one such fossil how come it's being used at our textbooks today as evidence for evolution why are Christians being made to feel like the minority and it's just ridiculous folks David David Rupp says in the years after Darwin his advocates hope to find predictable progressions in general these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into our textbooks evolutionists are staying this this is not the creationist point of view there are no missing links the whole chain is missing that's not what's being taught in the textbooks right there the whole chain is missing absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages has been a persistent and nagging problem for evolution I'll say so Steven Gould said that big-time evolutionist that's what they're saying folks I myself and convinced that the theory of evolution especially to the extent to which it has been taught applied I'm sorry it will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future I believe we're seeing that now scientists are now distant many scientists are now distancing themselves from evolution scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men folks I'm just reading here quotes from what evolutionists say dr. Arthur Keith evolution is improved and unprovable we believe it only because the only alternative a special creation and that is unthinkable and that is unthinkable to the anthropologist eyes i see i guess it's unthinkable to many of the scholars these days evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups this theory has helped nothing in the progress of science it is useless this has held back signs for hundreds of years it's just what happened to George Washington he was sick they taught the doctrine of humors back in his day if you're sick you've got bad blood they laid him down they laid his wrists open and bled him they realized he was dying so they opened up his other wrist he died they did wrong their assumptions were wrong their science was wrong they were wrong I'm afraid that our textbooks are dying right now they are bleeding to death because there's not enough science in there there's just fantasy it will stop there thank you doctor power fine thanks right let me let me appeal to you again oops to think about when somebody tells you that a fact has been discredited or a theory or part of a theory has been discredited or it's been shown to be nonsense don't take them at their word ask for the source as for the text right and evaluate that yourself and and look none of this is to the point that individual aspects of this or that theory of evolution they keep talking about evolution evolution is nonsense that evolution is set back thinking that evolution is being taught to our kids and it's a moduli no one believes in evolution there I you know or that is to say you cannot just believe in evolution you have to believe in evolution via some mechanism right you have to have a theory of evolution the current theory of evolution not Darwin's but when firmly rested on Darwin's investigations is as confirmed folks as science gets now that is not to say it's proven let's not say that bits and pieces couldn't be false but but that's the nature of science right which would bring me to my point that our why should you believe in a scientific theory scientific theory that apparently threatens some of you in the room I've already told you I don't think you should be threatened right I mean I really don't I think a good course in religious studies or a good course in Terry's department would allow you to make some distance between the claims of science and the claims are very religion right this debate again is um unfortunate but anyway back to why you should believe in this theory then I said you shouldn't believe it because it's true because who knows right truth is um I think you should believe it because it might be true right and hence it doesn't come for free you got to work on it you can't be lazy and accept your preachers word that the final account is already in that we know what you should think that we have the final answer and all the answers and we know why are important and why you aren't now we already know that you are important maybe you're not right being important you don't get that for free you don't get to ascribe yourself as status in your own eyes without doing that critically without engaging in facts and I reasonable inquiry and investigation of the facts and I don't see much of that I'm here today because it might be true there's room for you to make a contribution to this the Bible is long written you know there's theological disputes and they're very interesting and their semantic and hermeneutic tasks to be done but thought the fundamentals are in so if you want to know what to think right then there's an answer right I prefer um am I in theory about the origin of the world right there's a cave and people come out of the cave and everything I prefer that one myself but you're welcome to it but science just might be right this theory might be right and it demands your critical attention and your continued furtherance of that right it's not a done store it's not a done deal and any authority that tells you what you think you see I think you automatically should resist scientists are otherwise if you're not if there's if you're not there something wrong with it look I've already given you another reason to believe it because it is as confirmed as science gets and you know knock science all you want to talk about ideologies creeping into science and call science just another myth if you like I teach a course in philosophy science I present that material my students could tell you that I do a fair job of presenting how ideology and male biases and other kind of political ideals do creep into science but that doesn't don't let that take away from the big picture this theory is confirmed as it could be and the other reason you should believe this theory is because it's bloody hard right science is hard why do you think the universe would be simple or elegant why do you think a creation story as pat and as complete and as coherent as this would deal and be able to continue to deal with the massive complexity that is natural world right the hardness assigns should it be appeal to you you should be in a call a call to you to figure this stuff out right there you go thanks for your time this will be the final segment before the question and answer period this is a rebuttal period a three minute time limit on each speaker Kent three minutes all right thank you so much I'll say first of all I do not feel at all threatened by science Genesis can handle everything science has to go I think the evolutionists are threatened by real science because the theory of evolution will not stand the light of day it has to have exclusive monopoly in the schools that's why they don't want creation taught alongside it because it'll look really silly next to something is obviously true as creation textbooks will say natural selection is how the process of evolution works this is what dr. Pruitt said I appreciate him saying this he said their natural selection and mutations let me just talk about those things evolution is really founded on to faulty assumptions which he admitted here mutations are supposed to make something new nobody's ever observed that and the natural selection is supposed to make it survive and take over the population these are the two cornerstones of evolution and of course with ISO genetic isolation it has to get a new species evolved a little better than the rest and the rest have to die off of course the superior survives the inferior die that's essential for growth of course Hitler certainly believe that and practiced it mutations do happen there's no question every known mutation is harmful or fatal or neutral or if you do get one that's beneficial which nobody's ever proven a beneficial mutation I would love to see one if you back recruit if you know of one please let me know who would that mutation mutated superior one Mary and who would its grandkids Marion great grandkids Mary it's going to be blended back into the population if you're going to stake your whole eternity on this I think you're really on shaky ground mutations happen here's a five-legged ball that's a mutant I want you to notice the ball got an extra leg he did not get a wing a feather or a beak he already had the gene pool took produce legs he just built one in the wrong place that is no new information it is scrambled existing information short-legged sheep same thing this is a mutant but there's no new information it's scrambled information that pre-exists two-headed turtle that's a mutant not ninja but its mutant he's going to freeze first winter nobody makes a double-neck turtleneck sweater mutations are harmful or fatal it's scrambling up information that is preexisting how can you say that's going to create something new even piedra says mutations do not produce any kind of evolution that's a dead end street if you're going to go on mutations to get you ahead you get millions of detrimental ones never a beneficial and then they say natural selection is going to do something for this this textbook says this is used in Pensacola here natural selection causes evolution well that's just a bold-faced lie creationist agree natural selection happens but it's not a creative process to make something new it keeps the species strong that's all it does it can't create anything new they know that natural selection cannot create properties in order to meet adaptation all needs natural selection doesn't change the product to something else and we can go on another hour on this topic but mutations do happen and they have nothing to do with evolution and natural selection happens and that's proof of creation God wants to make sure the weaker ones are weeded out so the whole gene pool doesn't become weak it's got nothing it doesn't change the specie to something else I certainly wouldn't rest my eternity on those two faulty assumptions let's try this is thistle getting so good if you've got 14 hours worth I've got at least that much we should do a course together just think of all the money we could make you know that would be great all right now I'm going to I'm really moved by a couple of things that kid has said and I want to want to play with us for a second Genesis can handle everything and so I'm going to take that premise and I want to look at Genesis 1 briefly I'm going to do it very quick because they only have three minutes here but on the first day we have the creation of light now I'm not going to worry about the water that was there before there's something there before God does the light thing but and that's been handled I think adequately by other people but on both sides light is separated from darkly of day and night and on the second day the firmament is created and we have sky and the waters below and on the third day the waters are divided exposing the land and as a sort of a coda to the third day the plants are created and the and the plants of all of the different kinds then on the fourth day God creates the stars and the Sun and the moon the lights that light the day and the night the things that occupy the day and the night that were created on the first day on the fifth day God creates the birds and the fishes actually it's in the other order the fishes and then the birds the things that occupy the sky in the sea and on the sixth day God creates the animals of all the different kinds and as an after thought because he's not satisfied with what with the qualities of these animals not really an afterthought he creates humans in his own image so that distinction between humans and the animals is certainly there in the creation story and it's one that has been imbued and it's an ideologies has been imbued in our philosophy for a long time my point is God created according to this still worry precisely the large structure of the phylogenetic sequence of the evolution of the various kinds of animals although he considers stars Sun and Moon animate creatures which is kind of an interesting thing now science would tell us today that the universe is billions of light-years across if God created the world 6,000 years ago then most of the light in the universe that we've studied in our lifetimes should not be here yet hello Scott of course created the light already here which is a curious kind of thing for him to thought about doing I'd rather not go through the tortured logic of that I'd rather flesh out the story of creation in Genesis according to God's natural text the earth thank and once again Mike you have three minutes well thank you sir before I kick the projector on here just a second I wanted to speak to that if we talk about contradictions in the Bible or this starlight thing just go to WWD no com we've got a frequently asked questions page there that answers all these questions I think very adequately from a scientific viewpoint and I want to keep the discussion to evolution which is what I was told it was supposed to be I do resent the fact that I'm just making things up i guess is basically what you're saying i gave sources for all my quotes at the bottom of the slides i've got books on my table from which i drew all my material from come check out what i've got i have nothing to hide as far as I guess the philosophy here believing in it just might be true i think that's just ridiculous if you're going to stake your eternity on something perhaps you should stake here something your eternity on something that has at least some backbone to it let's see here can I on blank this thank you sir let's take let's take our eternities on something that has some backbone to it why don't we what about some scripture he that believes on the Sun has everlasting life and he never least not the son shall not see life now there's our salvation in any other believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved I don't think I should get in trouble for that we wandered from the discussion topic already numerous times you see the big thing is if since creation is true from my viewpoint there is a creator but if evolution is true there is no creator and you can't marry evolution with the Bible and climates you believe in the Bible or at least that the Bible is error-free see there's rules of creation is true there's no rules if evolution is true there's a purpose to life if creation is true and there's no purpose at all if you believe in evolution folks it affects every step of your life everything you think say and do how you react if creation is true man is a fallen creature in need of a savior the Bible actually might be right if you want to stake your eternity on something that might be right maybe you should go with something that has not been proven to be wrong people have thrown stones at the Bible for centuries but the Bible still here and people live and die man is evolving with no need of a savior if evolution is true man brought death into the world that the Bible is true if evolution is true death brought man into the world that's the opposite side of the coin you can't marry Satan's live evolution with the Bible's truth of no evolution and special nation it just goes on and on and on it affects everything you do and think and say it affects a government how you rule it affects if you're a racist or not well certainly one species must be better than the other it's okay to be a racist if if if you believe in evolution folks it deals with your it changes how you think about government it changes how you treat your body if evolution is true you're just a random sampling of chemicals if you have a headache you better take an aspirin well the Bible puts it pretty clear you know God told us to eat the fruit and vegetable on the sea and reading the hamburger french fry and coke okay you don't take an aspirin when you when you take an aspirin when you have a headache you're just unplugging I believe that Satan has been using this evolution theory and resulting thinking since the Garden of Eden to lead people astray and I think that's all evolution does is confuse people and lead them astray there's certainly no point to it there's no science behind it there's no facts see it's just crazy I have Tom time up thank you very much right and I don't feel the need to repeat myself but I there was a couple of points made um that I'd like to respond to first of all we shouldn't be begging big questions here about 10 stake who's eternity on what I don't see my eternity up for grabs here right I never had a well-developed sense of my own eternity to begin with so I didn't lose much but again those of you who think your eternity is up for grabs here I think are missing my first point that this isn't just a debate between science and religion it's a debate between science religion and people trying to make signs out of religion right my opponents here I think they're the ones who are threatening if they are at all your eternity look a couple of other things no one has ever observed speciation right newest species arising we keep hearing about dogs making dogs and and bananas making bananas and that's again a sophism right that's just verbal trickery I think I think is I think it's an unfair thing that deserves comment what what our guests here are conceding that changes do occur over generations right there they do agree that we evolve and if they believe that and they're scientists they have to give us a mechanism by which that happens right they have to tell us how is it that we this variation and development over time not evolution i'm not talking about evolution here again that's a buzz word but just change and variation occurs they're going to admit this well once they specify a theory of the mechanisms that could possibly account for that I bet it would look something like evolution by natural selection and a selection being over jeans and things that the genes I level right that's what accounts with the variation in us and once they can see that much then why can't speciation right differences between us emergence two different species like red squirrels and grey squirrels right there happen to be separated by a big body of water and can no longer breathe interbreed right why is that so baffling if you're going to admit microevolution go whole hog you know admit biology evolutionary biology evolutionary theology what the hell geology to take except at all no one's ever observed speciation nobody ever observed a cat coming from a dog or a man coming from it from a monkey that's just bad right I never observed what happened to Nicole Simpson but I'll give you two theories about it only one of them will be reasonable right even though you nobody observed it we could still no reasonable theories from unreasonable ones right and evolution through natural selection is much more reasonable than the hodgepodge creation signs that my opponents are brought here today Thanks alright we have 20 minutes allotted for the question in ansan period and here's here's what we're going to do so that everybody can hear the question I'm going to take the port of a like here and if you have a question for either table if you would come to the bottom of the stairs on either side and just form a single line and I'm going to take the mic to you and we'll take your questions I'm going to ask that a couple of things here first of all that you state your name state whether or not you're a student if you're not a student if you want to give us just a very brief who you are just for the sake of the people that are answering the questions for you and then I'd like to ask you to do this you're going to be tempted when you get the microphone which you're not going to get the microphone I'm keeping it but you want to be tempted to preach a sermon and what we want we've got 20 minutes and we want to give these people a chance to answer your question so if you will state your question succinctly that will help them to have more time to answer more questions okay we got it who is dead up here my name is Joe lemnoc I am a student my question would be primarily to ken's table if you throw out on the basis of it has not been proven and there is no proof for it then how can you support your position as a scientist as there is no proof for any theory the laws of physics or the laws or any of the other laws for that matter have not been proven and they never will be because it is impossible to prove a theory a scientific theory so I would ask how would you defend your position as a scientist how can you call yourself a scientist and yet throw out something because it's not proof okay thank you for the question a scientist the word science means knowledge a more expanded definition means knowledge we have gained by observation or experimentation there is no observation or experimentation to say that dogs are going to produce other than a non dog so I would say the scientific the obvious scientific conclusion is that there's some kind of barrier in there where they're only going to create reproduce after their kind secondly I would point out that you made a good observation since you really cannot prove either creation or evolution you have to kind of you know you're saying if we can disprove evolution how can you prove creation I don't know that I could prove it either but so my point would be neither theory is really provable in the scientific sense so my question back would be why do all the taxpayers have to pay for one religion to be taught in the school system evolutions our religion yeah I think evolution is if it is a religion as the is is a teaching which is consistent with the vast majority of Christians with most of Judaism and with virtually all of the other religious perspectives in the world over generalizations and loaded with a lot of self-serving the logic in my opinion although some were very succinct and cogent I could pick a variety the rock the banana things like that but the one that sticks out my mind most ISM your example of the flat fruit flies when bombarded with massive amounts of x-rays and microwaves and gamma rays and whatnot how they mutated and were thus rendered you know inoperable of you know sustaining life and how that was supposed to reflect a process of in the theory of evolution that spans many millions of years and we're talking about a much more subtle exposure to these types of radiation which in that quantity is extremely harmful if you put me in a microwave I before I to so I'm just wondering in what sensor yeah I mean I'm just curious I'm not sure that I understood what your question was you your statement about our examples being self serving or not accurate again I wish you'd be it should be awfully specific to me that's self-serving by the fact that you neglected to mention the specifics of this trial test the specifics of what this trial putting through flies and they're okay the fruit flies share all that you gestured some type of microwave and bombarding them with x-rays and microwaves many things were done to fruit flies to cause them to have mutations we know that mutations happen because of cosmic radiation x-rays a variety of sources you know things cause that exposure to chemical you know pesticides things like that no question mutations happen my confusion in this matter maybe it's me I'll admit that the way you presented it was that you were you offering it in a direct opposition to the process of evolution which it by all regards a very long slow process not something a lot you know scientists cook up five minutes in a lab okay how is that supposed to substitute okay let me see if I understand what you're saying is the fruit fly experiment they did thanks to cause to try to speed up evolution it was a failure nothing happened so therefore that proves it happened slowly that's what you're implying okay what what evolution do we have what can we see what what examples do we have of evolution regardless of the conditions fast or slow please name your best one years old right and also process of in hindsight by our in hindsight what looks like the development from one within one species and across the different species the record is you know there for you to see but of course theories to inform perceptual judgments and if you're not open to this theory you won't make perceptual judgments by which this which are explained by this theory and we support this theory so again we're talking past each other but the point of logic and it being a bad analogy was a very good question right well I'd like to talk about bad bad logic on bad analogy if you find a fossil in the ground all you know is it died you don't know if it had any kids let alone different kids so the fossil record even that wouldn't hold up two seconds in a court of law the fossil record cannot prove anything these animals died that's all we know if you find one that's got some intermediate features a freshman law student could argue well this was an extinct species it doesn't prove its intermediate between anything I'm telling you they wouldn't hold up two seconds evolution on trial would would lose in the first round well there's no violence for maybe not in a murder court but certainly in a civil trial it would broke a fast that I think I'd like to talk about the probability issue here because this is important this is an old question it was Humes question basically what Hume was working on was a question you know G this resurrection thing that that looks like a miracle now what I want to do is to set out and show that that's possible that's what Hume was trying to do what he gave us out of that process was logical positivism what human created was in Pierre scizzum and the question was the resurrection of Jesus that led him to that into that tactic that and that changed the direction of Western philosophy in many respects and probabilities you know ask yourself the question what is the probability that a living human being who dies is going to get up and walk three days later a corporal being all right now there's a probability to compute I don't know anybody who's try to compute it as a probability that would seem like a sacrilege so why are we talking about the probability of evolution occurring in the same you know I mean that's it's not an unreasonable question but you know the probability of a nuclear bomb going off 20 feet over this building in eight seconds is practically zero unfortunately practically zero not completely zero but the probability that this building will be nuked some day is fairly high you have to explain the context and so I am Elizabeth's turnkey I'm a student here at the University of West Florida and I guess I would like to hear more about DNA we talked around genetics we talked around mutation didn't talk about Mendel at all and there you talk about genetics and microevolution and yet the DNA code the information about that is expanding and we hear new things happening with that every day in fact that the DNA strand may have places on it for all the genetic codes possible and also I i have to say with nick that i agree that i wish this wasn't such a polarizing issue i don't see why we have to say one side is right and one sides run but i would like to hear both sides talk about DNA quick quick word Darwin knew nothing about DNA right David you knew nothing about DNA and they're responsible for the arguments that apparently threatened some folks here are worrisome folks here sorry and so DNA could be left out of the equation but the fact that DNA has given us a mechanism a naturalistic mechanism a way to understand the process by which random mutation right plus you know reproduction and reproducing too many things in your kind and some of them being selected against by their natural environment that that is a crucial element to this process and DNA adds a fundamental building block I mean I would be distrustful of Darwin's theory until I heard a mechanism by which this could happen right selection could happen and variation could happen a mutation could happen but now we have that mechanism and given that it satisfies me naturalistically right and so I like you I think gee we have an alternative explanation here of how the brilliant variety and evolution of species can occur we don't need to appeal to Genesis anymore okay and I think that's the crux of the whole matter some people don't want to appeal to Genesis anything else will do any other theory Darwin speculated move over just a little area that all forms of life have been related this textbook says this speculation has been verified the verification of Darwin's theory is supposed to be about the DNA the DNA better known as chromosome the deoxyribonucleic acid is most complex molecule in the universe average person has about two tablespoons of DNA coming from your 50 trillion + cells but if you stretched out the DNA molecule from one person one person's DNA would reach from earth to the moon and back five million times round trips to the moon the complex code found in one person's DNA that exists in two tablespoons from your body which is more complex than all the computer codes ever written in the history of humanity combined and you can throw in Morse code and semaphore if you'd like the DNA code is unbelievable complex one person's DNA if that code was typed out would fill books that would fill Grand Canyon 40 times if you want to leave that happened by chance you're welcome to believe that but I would say that's not science that is mysticism that's religion that's something have to believe in DNA is incredibly complex it doesn't happen by chance I cover a whole section on this on my website dr. Dino com if you want to look at that or take any questions the DNA code proves an intelligent person intelligent somebody wrote this code any changes to DNA via mutations are negative they're harmful nobody's ever proven about positive one a beneficial one so to argue that DNA proves evolution is just simply to be ignorant of the facts the DNA proves creation not at all for evolution my name is Kevin campanile I'm student here first of all I clarify that not all Christians think like these two gentlemen I'm a Roman Catholic and the Catholic Church is okayed the the idea that that God created in evolutionary a descent of where we come from and the question that I would like to ask to the creation side is if God's timeless then what is six days and what is 6,000 years and you know how can you say that that the earth was created in six days if time is man-made I I think I understand the question you're asking where do we get six-day creation from then why not six gazillion years or mill years or am I correct ins okay the word for day in the Bible is young and it can mean day or time period but when you read the Bible i should say when you study the bible you can get anything out of it you want if you just read it but if you study the bible you'll always find these words are defined by the scripture scripture always defines itself at least in my studies many times i've read the Bible I've always seen where scripture defines its own words and every time I have seen it used yarm means day many references just in Genesis alone where God created everything in six days on the seventh day he rested one of the Ten Commandments is about the Sabbath God rested on the seventh day he did not rest for millions and billions of years he says that we're supposed to rest on the seventh day we're not supposed to rest four seven million or billion years we're supposed to rest for a day after working six days yes the work in mean time period but it always defines itself strictly as day the plane teaching of the Bible is on the first day God created discs on the second day God created that now some people have come up with theories like a gap theory but the gap theory is unscriptural it places death before Adam you have to have death with evolution there's so many things have to die over and over and over again before God finally gets it right or chance finally gets it right and that's what not what the Bible says Adam brought death into the world by sinning you see the gap theory and all these theories that say like the days with the Lord as a thousand years it doesn't say millions or billions of years and it's probably not talking about the time periods of those of the seven day creation all these all these instances it's stating day it's saying day you don't have to have a guru explain the Bible to you you can read the Bible and without a preconceived notion of evolution and come away with just simply day that's what the text is saying that's what the definitions are the words saying the scripture supports itself I think since that's my times up i'm sorry alright that's my answer past 25 years and i've spent a good deal of time in Genesis although it's not not my favorite place anymore i prefer the gospels these days but the I you know I think mike has stated it fairly well the word for day means day but there's a nut there's more why aren't we presuming that God cannot write in metaphors if God wrote the text because in fact if you look at the text there are lots of contingents about who wrote the text so I'm saying is the books written by Moses inspired by God great in a human vehicle but why are we asking God not to write in metaphors in fact it's entirely possible for God to use the word day as a metaphor and you know I believe that if God is responsible for that text that's exactly what he did God if you take the god of Torah is a very elegant God if we believe that the god of Torah created DNA for example what he created was a phosphate and a sugar which bond with adenine guanine cytosine and uracil and or an thymine to create DNA and RNA five substances six substances that recreate with each other to create this immensely complex code about which Kent spoke so eloquently that's the elegant God that speaks in metaphors that tells us of the world in which we live and I you know I think Mike is absolutely correct about the day thing but on the other hand I still think that day is as a thousand years it also says that yes my name is Duane I'm a student at UWF I have a question for the creationism table so what I'm gathering from all this is that God is incapable of working in a subtle natural manner and is incapable of expressing that manner as a metaphoric thing such very much like what dr. Pruitt had just said that's what I'm gathering from your argument thank you oh no I disagree God's capable of doing that he's also capable of doing it in six days and writing a book and telling us how he did it and not making it confusing I think he's capable of doing what he said and saying what he did and you know he's capable of doing anyway wanted and I would point out that for God to use this trickery or subtlety would certainly not be the God that I would want to worship the god of the theistic evolutionist or the god of the limited God which is many people try to put limits on God what really it boils down to its man trying to bring God down to our level nobody likes the idea of an absolute all-powerful unchanging Authority thus saith the Lord people just don't like that and the Bible says in second Peter chapter 3 in the last days scoffers would come who would be ignorant walking after their own lusts who would be ignorant of the creation and ignorant of the flood and I think that's what we have is people who simply they don't want God telling them what to do because the Bible chaps their hide while I recommend you get some Vaseline because you're going to be judged by that book okay I don't think I'll respond to that since you brought into the question since you know I didn't ask for it but you brought it in about the question of going to hell for believing and religion and stuff like that I just have to bring across the point if we're all made with you know deoxyribonucleic acid in other words a chemical and since our bodies are nothing about chemicals responding to chemicals and since those chemicals are just exchanging and energy and we're all and everything about us everything that is happening right now is nothing but a casual exchange of different parts of energy and stuff like that you know I mean this is just one chemical equation that's happening without anybody saying you know maybe God is doing but my question is is how come the one chemical equation that produces the thought of believing in God allows you to get in a town of heaven just because it's that one a chemical equation or a queda belleek way shin so it could be like you know or take say if it was a like a large equation it's a derivative of it to produce at a certain a certain destination so if it is just this certain destination why doesn't a Chris the creation science go into evaluating the actual equation so they'll have the Holy equation thank you very much excellent question I think we do evaluate the whole situation and I think your premise of course is faulty that everything is just chemistry chemistry and energy I think there is more to it I think man has a spirit you have a free will a good analogy might be i'm 61 my wife is 50 if i come home from a trip like i did is in Montana yesterday where was I Oregon yesterday if i come home and grab her by throat and say you tell me you love me well okay I love you it doesn't mean anything God could make us serve him he could have made it all just chemistry we could be robots or tape recorders or parrots walk around praise God praise God praise God but it wouldn't mean anything God chose to give us free will and he chose to give you a free will and he also gave you a mind in an intellect those people who think that their brain is nothing but chemicals that formed by chance over billions of years I often wonder well how do they trust their thoughts and their reasoning process then nothing can be trusted that's the idea that well we're not really here you know I can't trust anything I think there are absolutes one atheist told me in a debate one time he said there are no absolutes I said are you absolutely sure I think we do have a reasonable we have a mind is capable of reason we also have a free will and if you don't want to serve God that's your choice God gave you a way out he provide he came but he loves you so much he came down to earth and died on the cross to take your place he really loves you he wants you to go to heaven if you don't want to that's your business the way is free it's available I decided to take it and you don't have to leave your brain at the door when you study the Bible I love science taught it for years I have yet to see one scientific evidence presented today in favor of macro-evolution I have yet to see one scientific proof against what the bible teaches everything I've seen and I've studied both for a long time says hey look the evidence is overwhelming this place is complicated it must have been designed complex things don't happen by chance they take a designer this building required a designer one cell in your body is more complex than the space shuttle it required a real intelligent designer so I think it's a no to find out who he is anyway he loves you i know i'm personally good good friend yeah I kind of hope we're not just animated me that would be kind of rough but that may be the case that's a theological maybe a theological question it's certainly an interesting question I want to go go sort of back to something Kim said and interpreting the question we have soul or we have we have a soul many of us don't have sold but we have a soul and a spirit if we if we believe that and why do we not believe that other things in the universe also have spirit especially when Genesis says so if you look at the word rule which occurs in that first line is God began creating the heavens in the earth the earth was a formless void and darkness was upon the face of the waters and a wind from God or the spirit wind or the Spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters g spirit when the word is ruach it means spirit it means wind can be interpreted either way they're both equally correct and I think it means both which means that God is inanimate force of nature and when you get then the wind you're in God when you're walking on the ground you're on God the whole universe is God and that's a different theological perspective than the one that my opponents would take is not one that many people would take in this room but I think some wood what helmet what time is it we'll go five more minutes five minutes let's give him five minutes ago my name is Eric King and I'm a graduate from you'll be off I have a master's degree from his fine University but with that I also took Kwon outs Quantico native application that took research methods and before this table here ask where is your sources worries your sources he's made some very dr. Pruitt i believe it is has made some very general statements about christians the majority of Christians say this the majority of Christians say this where is your source first of all I'm a Christian and I haven't seen any sources the other table was kind enough to put the sources on their slides I've heard generalizations about Christians believers believe this have you done the survey did you do a random sample where's it at then with the with the time limit on the six days dr. kent hovind i'm sure you can answer this better but remember God created the plants in one day created the Sun on the next day plants cannot live thousands of thousands year and I've learned this from dr. Holden he hasn't had a chance to say this plants can't live thousands years without sunlight he can expand on that I'm sure thank you actually before the fossil record of course we use lots of things on the question about Christianity I have an extensive background in the study of religion I worked for a number of years not only in scriptural study but in work with various religious groups has preparation for this particular debate I thought I better get caught up because I hadn't read a lot of the literature surrounding this debate and there's a great number of new books the best one that we found and both Nick and I looked at this one a lot i really recommend it for everyone in the room regardless of which side is called the Battle of beginnings it's by Del ratch and it looks at the way evolutionist and creation is tend to talk past one another but it also provides a lot of referencing for what major denominations take as acceptable resolution of this question another element of it is it gives a very nice discussion of some of the foundations of fundamentalism and the fundamentals and the outgrowth of the fundamentals with regard to creation science specifically so that's at least one reference I can provide a lot of other references for my statements on unreligious and theology Nick just answering the one part on that there was a multi-part in question there most Americans don't believe in evolution most Christians don't this is a gallup poll right here three of 95 mobile press-register right next to it I've got here that only four percent in one column at nine percent any other believe in pure evolution no God at all whatsoever perhaps they should go somewhere and start a private slow and how people pay to learn that the majority of American public does not believe this it looks like to me 61 percent here and forty-seven percent on the other side say God created the earth in the last 10,000 years and I am certainly in that part right there many people say well yes most scientists believe in evolution that's true right here we have the statistics fifty-five percent of us natural scientists believe indo-iranian evolution we've also got many other slides from creation scientists showing that these scientists hear they're the ones who determine who gets the grants who gets their papers published I'll I know a few good scientists who started out as evolutionists trying to prove the Bible wrong and they ended up getting saved in became creation scientists many of them wrote these books right here that's not the majority what the majority believes or even thinks it's a minority but the minority I guess is who's in control of our textbooks today and what's being seen on the Discovery Channel and Learning Channel and that's what eats me and there's just no basis for it not everybody believes it there's no evidence for it and that's the only that about to address to it this time the creation side and not evolution that means in turn we have to turn around and throw out everything not only that we have learned in science in our life but all other fields that we have learned in school and any other forms of education as well because not what else are they lying to us about if they're lying to us about this which is the biggest aspect of who we are but then if we believe in evolution we didn't have to turn around and throw out everything we have been taught and raised to believe religious wise and God and then what purpose are we for being here and as a response to the day situation I mean yet the Bible says it today but we really have no clue how many hours were in that day God's day time was different than our daytime I mean if you look at it in biblical times words only 360 days in a year whereas now we had 365 and here's my question here we are fighting and struggling them you must believe this side you must believe that slide why aren't the two sides coming together and working and saying to find one uniform belief or something that everyone can believe in for example if we take the creation of the world why don't we sing well perhaps these gases did cause the big bang theory and perhaps that's how it happened but in the same turn saying okay that's how it happened but perhaps God knowingly put those gases they are knowing that they would form and create the world okay what we'll do here since this is the last question okay well great again I would say God certainly can do anything he wants I think though to do it and then not leave us an owner's manual a book and told us how he did it would be deceitful and silly I don't think God needs evolution God doesn't need any help the god did I worship can make it right first time no mistakes he does he doesn't need any of these processes I think all the evolution we have seen is microevolution variations within the kind now to me that's a smart God who plans ahead because he knows the creatures are going to encounter some various different environments where they might have to adapt to a certain environment they may have to have longer hair or shorter hair bidding it's a cold or warm climate so he puts in their gene pool the ability to produce a variety of offspring that can adapt to these various environments there's still the same kind of animal it's no contradiction to Scripture and to me that's that's really planning ahead it's sort of like General Motors putting a heater and air conditioner in some of their cars you know I don't know it's going to go to warm climate a cold climate that's not dumb even though an air conditioner and heater do the opposite thing that's planning ahead and so I think the God that I worship planned ahead and gave gene pools quite a quite a variety and they're capable of you know a lot of adaptation people can live in Alaska and adapt to you know 20 below or they can live in the desert and adapt to 110 above but there's still people there still enter fertile that's not really evolution so we don't see any of that and as far as doing out the studies you know because evolution is taught in so many courses is not just science it's scattered throughout history throughout philosophy throughout English courses even will have it you know in mathematics courses will have evolution stuff going in I agree we got a lot of work to do we need to rewrite all these books we need to get busy what okay I I think this was a great question and it's one that we all should respond when I teach I do not require my students to believe any particular thing least of all what I believe per se I expect my students to learn about evolution what evolutionists are saying so that they have a correct and and complete understanding of both the processes and the data that are presented in the textbooks and in and by scientists that way they can use their own critical judgments to decide one way or the other I have many students probably a few here today who have come into my classes and said I don't believe in evolution I believe in the Bible and they don't want to be challenged in it in ways that are going to make them feel uncomfortable in class and I do not challenge them in ways that make them feel uncomfortable in class it's my attitude that if a Christian comes into my class they get treated with the same respect as anyone else and then we concern ourselves with the issues in science and if a person leaves the class with one view or another a theistic evolutionary view a non evolutionary view whatever view they have I hope that they have the logical tools to argue their positions and to help us resolve the question and precisely the way in which you've asked us to resolve it thanks for that question watched on TV or seeing the movies you should really decide if it's right or wrong because I think most of what's being pushed is garbage it's not just our science textbooks if you look at our social studies books so when I was in third or fourth grade I was taught that this country was founded on Christianity and the Bible today the kids are being taught it was founded on the freedom of religion that's not what I was taught I think this is affected a lot of fields we've shown how it affects everything you think saying do it's either creation or evolution it's either God or it's not God why not both together because there are total opposites you've got God you've got Satan total opposites you cannot mix God's truth with Satan's lies that might be pretty funny to some of you but I tell you what Satan is the ultimate pervert and what he cannot steal from you he will pervert he'll do a 180 he'll take the Creator and make him part of the environment which is what's been said already it's a Disney religion but God is above and beyond his creation and he still loves us you know he knows our thoughts he still loves us you know Satan is closer to you than you are yourself yet Satan will pervert that and may God seem far and distant like you can't even be a part of this creation or help you out the Bible says that Jesus is the creator and the sustainer yeah you know Satan will take that from you and make you think you know you evolved from a monkey and you're on your own these people just don't want God telling them what to do I think that kids are getting indoctrination and not in education together you cannot lump the truth which there are absolutes and you cannot lump lies together I think anything that I say or Kent says or what you learn here at this school or see on TV you had better use your eyes and all of your brain on because a lot of it's not true you're going to pick and choose your dentist your eternal destiny does where you're going to end up forever it doesn't matter on how you live and what you choose to believe it's that important that's the best I can put it the God of the Bible I'm sorry my time is up I wasn't me what's your name Donna yeah Donna that was a think a very direct and heartfelt question and a deserves a direct answer um I I don't think you ought to be that conflicted fundamentally as for reasons I've already said at most what has happened today right is that we've provided you some grounds to doubt one of the ways by which men have argued for the existence of their Creator right that ways look at the natural world and and see design in it and to see order and harmony and beauty in it and to argue from there to infer from there to an orderly creative and harmonious being right outside of that we've given you some doubts it insofar as that is a line of reasoning that's reputable let's begin with I mean you already poked holes on that way before Darwin right so that's not the best way you can argue for the existence of your Creator anyway and that's the most what's happened today but the kind of compromise that you mentioned at the end you know how come you experts and academic I compositions and writers of textbooks can't come up with a coherent answer to our troubles here that's a profound question but I don't think those guys have the grounds on which they can give you an answer they can't compromise you know they absolutely cannot compromise to hear that he's reviewing high school textbooks horrors me I'm horrified that this guy has a serious job in determining what textbooks high school students use and I use it with all respect to mean I think you're a very charming guy and everything but I'm I think they're incapable of compromising but I think there's other folks out there I mean theistic evolution is one the statement you were talking about that's just a statement of teasing evolution that's one answer and their orders out there I don't think an answer is coming from signed creation science thanks for coming y'all I appreciate your time i wanna i want to thank Chuck Chuck really I want to you know chuck is not used to having to sit and listen quite this much would you would you like to say something okay please come in and meet us enjoy and come meet dr.

Channel: The Bible-smith Project

Views: 10,996

Rating: 4.7919073 out of 5

Keywords: The Bible-smith Project

Id: v6dhd5LVdso

Length: 117min 42sec (7062 seconds)

Published: Sun Nov 20 2016