Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 26, 2002 - Art Bell

02:28:58

Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Dr. Kent Hovind - Dispelling the Myth of Evolution. Nick Begich - Weather Manipulation

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	♪ From the high desert and the great American southwest,
	I bid you all good evening, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you may be in all of Earth's 24 time zones.
	I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
	And I've got a shocker coming up for you here in a moment, I do believe.
	But let us review The happenings in the world, such as they are at first.
	Briefly, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon told an EU envoy on Tuesday that he's willing to meet with Saudi officials, either publicly or behind the scenes.
	The Saudis have made some overtures and it involves Israel pulling out everything they had before the war.
	And it involves the Arabs recognizing the rights, the true right place of Israel, and Israel, you know, be allowed to remain unmolested where it is, original borders before the war.
	Now, whether that's a practical offer or not, you know, on the part of the Saudis, I don't know if they can make that offer, really.
	On the part of all the Arab nations.
	But it's interesting.
	We'll see.
	A former Enron chief executive insisted today he didn't know a thing about the manipulation of company books and denied misleading Congress, as some lawmakers and Enron officials have alleged.
	Said he, I have not lied to Congress or anyone else.
	They questioned him extensively about the What was it?
	$66 million worth of company stock that he sold prior to a disaster day for Enron.
	The U.S.
	ambassador on Tuesday said she is, quote, not disappointed, end quote, with the Pakistan president's response to American requests to hand over the key suspect in the murder of the Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl.
	I don't know why she wouldn't be disappointed.
	You would think she would be.
	And we would want him handed over, wouldn't you?
	A Democratic plan to use a proposed identification requirement for first-time voters threatens to, oh, oh gosh, what a surprise, threatens to unravel an agreement between Senate Democrats and Republicans to overhaul election procedures.
	Now, didn't you just know they were going to find something wrong with that somewhere?
	That was inevitable.
	They're not going to pass that.
	Andrea Yates reportedly suffered from schizophrenia and did no right from wrong when she drowned her five children in a bathtub in June, according to a psychologist who testified today.
	In that trial, while she considered several other ways of murdering them and passed on those, And decided on drowning.
	It was the quickest, and according to her, not as messy as other options.
	I don't know if this kind of defense is going to work or not.
	We'll find out.
	I mean, on the one hand, it's a sensible thing to say that anybody who plans, even if you plan, you know, as in premeditation, the murder of your children, you're crazy as hell.
	Absolutely crazy.
	There's hardly any way around that by, you know, normal rational thinking, but I don't know.
	Depends on how the public feels.
	I know they're really enraged about all of this and would like to just no doubt see her executed, convicted and executed.
	But, you know, you've got to be crazy one way or the other to do that sort of thing, I would think so.
	I don't know.
	Stay where you are.
	In a moment, I have a surprise for you and Dr. Nick Begich.
	Dr. Nick Begich wrote Angels Don't Play This Harp, and he's been researching the harp project for some time, and I got some private, shocking news earlier today, and I'm going to tell him and you at the same time, and I just brought him on at the last moment to get his reaction to it, so stay right where you are.
	Poor man has no idea what's going to go on. I got hold of him like about two minutes before airtime or something and
	said look I want to put you on hold and I want to hit you with
	something on the air and Everybody else at the same time
	He's dr. Nick baggage up in Anchorage, Alaska that's where harp is and
	So I'm going to spring this on him and all of you at the same time
	Dr. Biggich.
	Hello, how are you doing?
	I'm okay, boy, thanks for coming on, you know, last minute here.
	Doctor, I happened upon some information today.
	We've been discussing HAARP quite a bit lately because of the weather changes that are going on.
	Some pretty severe, weird Weather changes going on all over the globe, actually, right now.
	And so there's been a lot of discussion about HAARP and what kind of status is it in.
	Doctor, is it true?
	There's word on the internet that HAARP has gone to full power.
	What do you know?
	That is not entirely correct, because I know that the contracts for doing that actually were in negotiations in the fall, and it was reported in a MSNBC story that ran the very end of November in connection with the war in Afghanistan, because they were talking about using earth-penetrating tomography, one of the uses of HAARP in that instance.
	Probably, you could say it's probably been tested at full power for how it's currently configured.
	But it's only a fraction of its designed full power capacity.
	And this summer, we understand that the next phase of construction is to begin, but the negotiations for that actually were taking place in the fall between the contractor and the government.
	It would be a good guess on your part that because of the war in Afghanistan, what may follow in Iraq or God knows where, That they are going to sort of put the pedal to the metal in the development of HAARP and taking it to full power, right?
	Yeah, and even right now, at the power that it's at, if it's modulated in a correct way, you can create these secondaries by manipulating the energy in the ionosphere, this area above the Earth's surface beginning about 30 miles.
	And that's essentially what the whole thing is designed to do.
	So even though it is not full power in terms of its eventual design specification,
	it does have quite a bit of power now because one of the things that's known is you can
	create a number of effects with the existing system that certainly take it a long way
	to creating either weather effects or other communication interference or even tomography
	effects, the kinds of things that MSNBC was actually talking about.
	Have they done studies, Dr. Aron, how they think HAARP might or might not affect the
	weather, what the guesses are?
	Yeah, actually, Bernard Eastland, the inventor, was contracted after his work on HAARP by
	the European Space Agency and delivered a paper for them in October of, it was either
	98 or 99, and it was at a major space expo in Europe.
	And essentially what...
	What that paper said was using these kinds of instruments, for instance in very localized weather, for increasing the strength or decreasing the strength of tornadoes.
	Such a device could be used by heating, because the effect of tornadoes is essentially a warm front hitting a cold area and creating updrafts and downdrafts and getting the whirling motion.
	Right.
	So if you can create more extremes in terms of temperature differentials, you can generate more energy and disperse more energy.
	So using HAARP instruments for either dampening or, God forbid, increasing the energy in the wrong way, This is one of the things that he demonstrated for the European Space Agency.
	And after that, NASA and FEMA actually contracted with him for studies on tornadoes using satellite space technology to accomplish similar things, capturing energy from outer space and essentially manipulating it.
	In that case, probably using something like high-powered lasers of some kind.
	But the concepts, the other concepts with HAARP in its current configuration, you can actually create a hole in the ionosphere about 30 miles in diameter and that's beginning about 30 miles above the Earth's surface and you can push a column out as far as 200 kilometers.
	What that does is the lower atmosphere then moves in to fill that space, altering pressure systems below, which can have profound effects on weather, not just in the region, that region in particular, but downstream effects.
	If you go to The April, May 1999, excuse me, 2000 issue of Scientific America, there's actually an article on the whole issues devoted to weather, but there's shows on
	In Alaska, the jet stream that flows across Alaska in this particular image, there was a slight dogleg above the area where HAARP happens to be located.
	But that slight dogleg of about 50 or 60 miles pushing the jet stream out of its normal flow caused storm fronts in Louisiana and East Texas to move into central Florida and deposit tornadoes a couple years ago.
	When in an area that's not known, of course, for tornadoes.
	But it was just a very small change in a far remote place, creating a big change elsewhere.
	And that's the nature of weather modification as a technology.
	Small things create big outcomes.
	Small things, big outcomes.
	Let me ask you this.
	You're aware, of course, of the chemtrail controversy raging forth everywhere.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Now, is there any reason to imagine, if we were to speculate about this, Doctor, that
	if there were something being dispersed by aircraft, for some reason, imagine what you
	will, some sort of weather modification or God knows what, I just don't know.
	Yeah, I've heard a lot of it.
	Is there any reason to speculate that HAARP might attempt an interaction with chemicals
	in the atmosphere?
	Yes.
	Okay, you can speculate on that, and many have, and the unfortunate thing is, you know, I can tell you the reporting on that subject is very sloppy from my perspective in terms of how accurate a lot of the reports are and what they really say.
	There's very little documentation.
	Yeah, I probably agree with that, but the number of... But is it possible?
	And the answer is, yeah, it's possible because in the original Hart patents, Chemical interactions in the upper atmosphere are one of the features of the system.
	Oh, is that so?
	Yeah.
	In fact, what it goes to is a couple of effects.
	One is for increasing ozone as a potential effect by creating the necessary chemical reactions to do that in the upper atmosphere.
	And the other is to neutralize pollutants in the upper atmosphere by creating chemical reactions that accomplish that.
	And by manipulating the resonant frequencies and frequencies and energy densities coming off of this transmitter, You could accomplish chemical changes with whatever constituents were available that you'd want to manipulate.
	Isn't that interesting?
	Yeah, I mean actually it's probably one of the few effects that is worth taking a look at in terms of if global warming is truly related to ozone depletion as a central source, it would make sense to pursue that line.
	No kidding.
	And it hasn't been pursued at all and yet it's well known by those in this research.
	Alright.
	On those occasions, when you've had any sort of discourse with anybody at The Heart Project, have you ever asked them how sure they are of the effect that they're going to have on things, whether it be the weather, radio communications, whatever, hunting for caves and bunkers?
	In other words, are they pretty sure of their technical specifications?
	I think they are.
	In fact, we're getting ready to write some additional material on this project because what's actually advanced is a couple of things.
	One is the size of the transmitters has been greatly reduced in terms of being able to produce a power that once was thought by Bernard Easton to take 20 kilometer by 20 kilometer fields of antennas.
	Now can be accomplished in one kilometer by one kilometer.
	And we already know there's one on the drawing boards that keeps coming up in numbers of conferences dealing with this area of research.
	And the actual location's not been disclosed, but we find it interesting that apparently significant work's been done on the kilometer by kilometer ionosphere keter.
	And once you get into that size, there's a whole lot of versatility that comes into play.
	And the only likely locations Are in the high northern latitudes because of the nature of the way they operate.
	And that really limits it if you look on a globe to Greenland, which is being a little bit adversarial with the U.S.
	wanting to station missile defense technologies there.
	And they're also looking at Alaska, of course, because of the fuel source and fuel supplies.
	But, you know, these are remote regions.
	So, you know, where that ends up will be interesting to see.
	And eventually it will be built.
	The thing about earth-penetrating tomography as a concept, as it was already proven.
	In fact, the Papadopoulos with the Heart Project early on was actually interviewed by a program called Horizons on BBC TV, where he acknowledged that the earth-penetrating tomography works well beyond expectations, being able to locate something as small as a mine shaft in central Alaska with absolute precision.
	But, alright, speaking of absolute precision, then in order to do that or affect the weather or whatever, The beam width they send out, the pattern of that gigantic antenna, or group of antennas, taking up miles, that has to be very precise, doesn't it?
	Yeah, it's all, what it is, is they have to fire them in a certain sequence to create what's called cyclotron resonance, and this can be visually viewed as like a corkscrewing of energy up into the ionosphere, this very far distance, and that sort of pushing the energy together, or keeping it compact, Is really one of the unique tricks of all of this, because that's something that wasn't thought to be possible with radio frequency, you know, not too many decades ago.
	But the same was thought about lasers before then.
	Can you go to the people at HAARP, Doctor, if I give you some information?
	Well, I can try.
	They don't talk to me very much.
	These days we've made their lives a little uncomfortable, I think, over the years.
	Did we?
	It's pretty difficult.
	We've gotten a few email responses, but they're fairly cryptic and short.
	But perhaps, since I have you on the air here, and no doubt they can hear the fact that I'm asking you to ask a simple question... Sure, I'd be happy to.
	See, I'm... Or at least try.
	If I were to tell you that the HAARP antennas are producing a totally unknown antenna pattern or one that
	is incorrect.
	Would that worry you?
	Say that again.
	Well, if I were to tell you that the antenna farm they have is producing a beam width and a pattern that they didn't
	expect.
	Oh.
	Would that surprise and possibly even worry you?
	It would worry me, but not surprise me.
	Because when they originally started this project, they couldn't get the thing to configure right.
	And you know what it boiled down to?
	They failed to put Loctite on the components that they were steering from the computer, so they weren't steering them correctly.
	Really?
	And it created all kinds of problems.
	And in fact, it created arcing so powerful Let me tell you what I know.
	inch thick uh... and uh... lightning arrester was vaporized and i mean just
	gone and it was because the thing was configured uh...
	incorrectly it was often in given my knowledge of government of projects of this
	magnitude uh... the idea that being repeated is pretty likely okay so
	i mean it would surprise me let me tell you what i know
	i have a friend also uh... in alaska uh... who works at a uh... rocket range
	there.
	Yeah, that would either be Poker Flats or Kodiak, depending on... Well, I wouldn't want to specify.
	Anyway, I have, I have a friend there.
	And he tells me that HAARP, uh, the people at HAARP, and this is anonymous for obvious reasons.
	Yeah.
	It's, it's goodbye job.
	Uh, the people at HAARP have been approaching them desperately.
	Uh, seeking to get high altitude launches of, I forget what he said, barium or some cocktail mixture, something that will... Yeah, barium laden, so they can map the magnetic lines.
	So they can actually map the, uh, uh, the, uh, signal as being produced by that antenna farm.
	That's absolutely correct, they could do that.
	Yeah, and the reason they want to do that is because They don't know what the pattern is and apparently what they calculated to be is not what it is.
	So...
	I was thinking a lot about that, and if it's not what they expected, then when they blast at the ionosphere, it's really likely that they're going to get the results they don't expect.
	Yes, and this worries me in the sense that they know what they can create, but they are not allowing for the failure factor, which in this case is dealing with the whole environmental stuff.
	But hold on now.
	Oh, and you can hear me, darling, can you hear me?
	It's sunny.
	Top of the morning, everybody.
	Dr. Nick Vigage is here with Planet of the Heart.
	You know, the Heart Project is designed to be a big, broad antenna array on the ground and do the opposite of what all other radio transmitters do.
	It starts out as a very broad beam on the bottom and then meets up with the ionosphere as a tight little beam in order to project a very great deal of power in a very small amount of space in the ionosphere, virtually capable of burning a hole in it.
	And we're bouncing the energy back to ground to find tunnels and bunkers.
	Uh, and or perhaps even affect the weather.
	Now, going after the ionosphere in that manner is rather like going, uh, under the conditions that I see here if this is true, that they don't understand what the radiation pattern is.
	If they don't understand what the radiation pattern is, then it's like Going in after the ionosphere the way a brain surgeon would open up your head, let's say, and go after your brain with a butcher knife, you know, or maybe a steak knife, if you follow me.
	That's my, uh, that's my concern.
	All right, once again, here's Dr. Nick Biggage.
	Uh, so, Dr. Biggage, uh, uh, I understand about, uh, radiation patterns, and, uh, A radiation pattern should be able to be reasonably easily calculated with a computer model.
	Yes.
	However, it may be that there are some factors that were not modeled into the computer that are affecting the Uh, the radiation pattern.
	Now, who knows?
	It could be, uh, about 60 degree temperature, uh, below, you know, 120 degree temperature swings in that region of the state, you know, in terms of highs and lows, right?
	Uh, yeah, there could be a magnetic, um, anomaly associated with the pattern.
	There could be any number of things.
	But, see, my point is that all you need to do is ask them one question for me.
	Do they or do they not?
	Understand and have verified the antenna pattern.
	And if the answer is not, then I would say the way we're rolling the dice with what we're doing is just nothing short of absolutely stupid until we understand what we're doing.
	Well, here's the thing, is even if they understand it at some level, the understanding of all of the mechanics of the planet is not well modeled.
	And that's the whole purpose of all of this experimentation, is to try and figure out how to better manipulate Yes, I know, but the control of the experiment, Doctor, depends on understanding the radiation pattern.
	And the thing about the whole technology and the way they've developed it is you ought to be able to model it, and under most conditions I think you can, but mechanically operating this device when just the metal and plastics and just the shrinkage and what happens mechanically in those kind of temperature extremes When you try and operate anything, you're subject to a certain amount of risk in terms of failure.
	So that builds in something that has resulted in all kinds of problems at Harp since its inception.
	They've been blamed on engineering tests and failures of the system, or overriding their authorized frequencies, or the side lobes having some characteristic that wasn't expected.
	There's been lots of things that have happened on the site.
	And at the same time, the whole purpose is to create resonance effects in the ionosphere, many of which we really don't know how to predict.
	We're always surprised.
	One of them was in VLF range when they fired very low frequency VLF, not from Hart, but at much lower power into the upper ionosphere, and they found that it actually increased in power by a thousand fold.
	And that was unexpected.
	It triggered something that was already there, energy in place, but caused it to be released In a very unexpected way.
	And that is, and therein lies the risk with this kind of a system in and of itself.
	Yeah, but you can argue there's a great controversy about the advocacy of HAARP even if they understand what they're doing.
	If they have it all together and really understand what they're doing and what they're producing, then it's still controversial.
	But if you add into the mix That they might not know what they're doing at all because the pattern is not what it's supposed to be.
	Then you run all sorts of out-of-line risks.
	Absolutely, and part of this is you're interacting with magnetic fields, natural magnetic fields, that are at the closest intersection points on the poles, which is part of it.
	That interaction is controlled by the energy inputs that come into it, and that's the sun.
	That's the driver of most of that energy, and that varies, as we all know, based on cycles and energy concentrations and releases.
	You know, can you absolutely model such a thing?
	I don't think so.
	At least, I don't think we're capable of it right now.
	I think it's... But if we have hard information that their radiation pattern is not as expected, then it's even worse.
	It's just magnified by 10.
	Because now we don't even... they don't even control... Well, the risk factor magnifies by 10 easily.
	Maybe a lot more.
	Maybe more.
	Who knows?
	Yeah.
	So, do you think you could get to them?
	Do you think they would give you a response to that question?
	Well, they might.
	I'll take an attempt and see what we can get from them, because it would be interesting to hear how they explain.
	Just a simple question is, are you getting the patterns that have been predicted by your front-end researcher?
	If the honest answer is, we have no idea, that's why we want to do these upper atmosphere tests, then I don't know.
	It just seems to me that You know, as I said, it's like doing brain surgery with a
	steak knife or something.
	If we go back to some of our original work on the subject, one of the things that we
	pointed out in one of their planning documents that was publicly released in the very beginning
	was the idea that they would stimulate runaway effects in the ionosphere to look at where
	the next stabilizing levels would fall out.
	And you know, you go back to that whole idea, and the way they characterized it was a plasma
	lab in the sky.
	We get to play with this thing on this grand scale of aurora and energy interactions from
	the sun.
	I mean, it's a scary thought.
	It's like kindergartners with hand grenades.
	A runaway effect.
	Exactly.
	That's exactly how they describe it.
	And you know, when you think about it, you know, it's a very, very scary thing.
	And I think that's what they're trying to do.
	You know, what the heck is that about?
	I mean, that's the same thing that Oppenheimer feared during the early atomic tests.
	You know, that we were going to create some effect that ran away and ripped the atmosphere off.
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, you know, these are concepts, you know, that who knows?
	I mean, we're playing in areas that we really don't understand.
	And the amount of energy that, you know, this is tremendous amounts of energy.
	Although, you know, it normally reaches the earth and the way it reaches the earth, you know,
	creates a system that works.
	But when you start interacting with that, then all kinds of things unexpected can happen.
	And that's what we keep finding.
	And even discovering, you know, upper atmospheric effects, you know,
	sprites, you know, were discovered just what, a few years ago, as an effect that shoots off
	of storm fronts up into the ionosphere rather than coming to the ground.
	They really look neat.
	Sprites are really neat.
	Yeah, but the whole idea is there's a lot of mechanisms that we haven't even discovered yet, much less modeled or understood.
	Well, it may well be that one of these things that we're talking about right now is affecting their pattern.
	Yes.
	I don't know, I still say it again, whether they wanted to set off runaway effects or whatever, that if they don't have the pattern down, then all of their work is Is useless.
	So it would indicate to me if they're wanting these rocket launches that they don't have their pattern down.
	They don't really know what it is.
	Either that or suspect it is not what they wish it to be.
	Well, could it be also they want to look at the interactions in terms of the magnetic lines of force?
	Because one of those shielding effects is to create that cyclotron resonance or quark screwing where the magnetic line acts as the waveguide.
	So you get this quark screwing motion from the North Pole to the South Pole.
	A lot of things could be.
	So that's why I thought the question should be simply, just a simple one.
	Do they or do they not understand their antenna pattern?
	Do they know what it is?
	I'll ask them.
	I'd appreciate that.
	And while we're at it, how have you been doing?
	I've been doing great.
	I've been doing great.
	I'm glad to hear you back on the air these days.
	It's good to be back.
	Nice to be hearing your voice.
	Alright, your book, what is your latest?
	Earth Rising the Revolution, which actually has a chapter that takes off on missile defense and some of the other attributes apart But it has quite a bit more in it in terms of technologies.
	And we're getting ready to put out another one that will essentially take the same subjects
	and the new undersea sonars and some other topics that we're integrating into that writing
	in the SNCC.
	All right then, Doctor.
	I hope lots of people go out and get it.
	And we'll be in touch soon.
	See if you can get through to the publicity people.
	I will indeed.
	Take care, my friend.
	Thank you so much.
	Take care.
	All right.
	A little time left in this hour.
	I'm getting so many emails about this that I don't know what to do with it, this rash
	thing.
	I want to read you one from a man in Oklahoma, okay?
	Dean Reitzhart, I'm writing you this email after hearing you talk about the mystery rash that's popping up across the nation.
	I heard of it on the coastal areas in the east and west, but my rash began about a week ago here in Oklahoma.
	Started with itching in my armpits and on my upper thigh area.
	Small red bumps or whelp-like marks showed up within the day.
	Later that day, I noticed the same whelps and bumps on my neck and upper chest area.
	Bumps, some of them start showing.
	Let's see.
	Let me start again.
	Let's see.
	Later that day, I noticed the same whelps slash bumps on my neck and upper chest area.
	The bumps, some after showing up, will start to fill in into all the skin in the areas of very bright red color.
	This redness with the whelps slash bumps progressed very rapidly, very aggressively, until my entire body was covered from head to toe.
	It's extremely painful.
	I ran a low-grade fever.
	All the while feeling like a severe sunburn.
	After five to seven days, my skin began to peel away in the worst way in huge patches of skin, faking off at times.
	As the picture I have attached, this is most of the redness that I left.
	There was something odd, small red spots are showing up even after the skin is peeled.
	I'm not sure if it might be coming back.
	I had a doctor look at the rash, but no determination of any sort has been made yet.
	Now, I am getting a gigantic magnitude of these.
	Not all describing it exactly as he has.
	This sounds pretty horrific to me.
	But the number of emails that I'm getting about this rash is Troubling, and they're coming from areas not officially being reported as involved yet.
	More than not.
	Now, that might say that we've got something much bigger going on here.
	I don't know.
	West of the Rockies, you are on the air.
	Hello.
	Hello, Art.
	Yes, hello.
	Hey, Chris here in Monmouth, Oregon.
	Good to have you.
	Alright, how's it going?
	It's going.
	What's up?
	Hey, chemtrails.
	Yes.
	You've been having tons of them up here.
	I mean, I talked to some of my friends, know nothing about them, and they're like, well, they're like skywriting going on up there or what?
	Even at night, now I've been noticing them in the moonlight.
	I know.
	And we're going to be covering that with William Thomas tomorrow night.
	We're going to be talking all about chemtrails.
	But I know in the Northwest, particularly in Seattle, you know, which is famous for its nice blue skies, it's been ridiculous.
	So I know it's going on everywhere.
	Last night, I think the guy from Seattle, it's been like that.
	Anyway, I'll listen tomorrow night.
	Thanks.
	All right.
	Take care.
	Yeah, we'll cover that as extensively and update you as best we can.
	William Thomas is doing more of the real research than anybody else I know, both on the investigative and scientific side.
	We'll get some information tomorrow night.
	A wild card line, you're on the air.
	Hello.
	Yes, I was thinking we ought to have a call in line for meteorologists that are fed up with lying about this high clouds, partially cloudy sky today, when obviously these aren't high clouds.
	They were just unbelievable today up in Northern California, just all day long, day in, day out, from the early morning and then on to the late night.
	They're still, at night time, they're up there right now, coming up across the sky, covering the sky.
	What's your guess?
	What do you think they're doing?
	You know, I mentioned before, I actually was wondering if there was a connect in there, if those are conductive particles, if there's aluminum up there, and this is really off the wall.
	Here's one thing.
	Do you think it's related to the weather?
	Not necessarily.
	Yes, Malachi Martin on, you know, how are you to know it's the end times?
	And this is out there.
	It's probably wrong, but he said you'd see it up in the sky.
	And ever since then, I've been looking up in the sky.
	I also connected it to right after the Phoenix sighting in that first experiment.
	Then we had these things.
	and then I started thinking, well if you wanted to use some kind of a plasma space weapon
	and then get close to a spaceship and not be able to hit it like those videos from the
	space shuttle where they missed it, if you shot something right next to one and there
	was metallic particles you could screw up the whole magnetic theory of how those things,
	you know, how those spaceships float around.
	So it could be part of Star Wars.
	It's probably part of weather.
	It's probably not anything more significant than that.
	I'm not sure.
	I mean, I don't know.
	But I'm not sure.
	It's anybody's guess these days what it is.
	Anybody's guess.
	It could be, as he points out, it could be something to do with Star Wars technology.
	It could be chemical for reasons of vaccination.
	It could be weather related.
	Could it be our imaginations?
	You know, there are people who believe that.
	There are people who believe that the whole chemtrail issue is nothing but our imagination.
	So that's worth some examination.
	Whether you believe all of this could be a mass hallucinatory type of thing where we all become convinced that what we're seeing in our skies today is not like what we used to see.
	That allegation is being made.
	I mean that it's some sort of mass hysterical paranoid delusion that some people are having that chemtrails are not Any different than contrails, that it's all product of an overactive imagination.
	I want to think about that.
	West of the Rockies, uh, you are on the air.
	Good morning.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Turn your radio off, please.
	Hold on.
	I will.
	Hold on.
	Have it closed so you can turn it off right away, folks, when you're on the air, because we have a delay and it's very confusing.
	Okay.
	Oh.
	Good.
	Uh, I listened to you and Dr. Baggage and, uh, I'm an old ham anyway.
	Anyway, he was talking about something about Loctite not being used on walking.
	That's probably bolts, okay?
	And he was talking about arcing.
	Well, you being an old transmitter man, you know that arcing usually occurs because you don't have a match between your final and your antenna.
	That's right.
	And you just don't know that until you do it.
	And I thought that'd be kind of interesting.
	Well, you can know, though, at very low power levels that your SWR stinks.
	If it stinks, you shouldn't be bringing it up.
	Those are 10 kilowatt curves.
	But isn't it interesting, though, that they might not understand their antenna pattern?
	That almost has to be because they're rushing to this company trying to give these high-altitude barium things so they can actually see what the pattern is.
	That means that They don't know what it is.
	They don't know.
	That's pretty scary what you found out from Matt.
	Yeah, I think so.
	And the thing is, we already know.
	I'll tell you something that was really weird.
	I live on the Oregon coast here at Coos Bay.
	It'll be two weeks this coming Thursday.
	We had some winds out here and a little rain and all that.
	And all of a sudden, I live about three miles out of town, all of a sudden I hear this woom, woom, woom.
	I've got some 110, 120 foot trees out in the front.
	and they were bending like I've never seen them bend.
	And the Coast Guard was plotting the draft coming from the ocean at 125 miles an hour.
	And I had about a five foot tree.
	I heard this from a couple of people and I found it really hard to believe.
	Well, you know what?
	The thing is, I haven't gotten to the answer yet, but somebody damn well knows the answer.
	Now, the site that I'm going on now, trying to look through, is called NOAA.
	Okay?
	Yeah, National Oceanic... Yeah, NOAA.
	And I'm trying to find out, because it was like a wind shear.
	In other words, it's like one storm came together with another storm, and it happened right where I live.
	Actually, what I heard was, it was a jet stream touching down.
	Really?
	That's what I heard.
	I've had many reports like yours, so I believe you.
	125 mile an hour winds.
	I heard that from a whole bunch of people.
	I've never heard this around here.
	I'll tell you what, the thing is it laid a 5 foot tree across the high voltage lines.
	And I sat here, I thought I have a generator, because, you know, I got a lot of refrigeration stuff, and for that to... So you lost power?
	Well, I lost power for three days.
	It took them three days before they could get to it.
	There was that much.
	There was areas up in the hills... Alright, listen, I got no choice.
	I've got to go, sir.
	I appreciate it.
	It will be hot on the tail of this story.
	You can depend on it.
	I thought you all just might want to know out there.
	We'll see.
	Have you ever seen R&C?
	Ah, you bet.
	You bet.
	Good morning, everybody.
	Coming up should be interesting and educational and wild.
	I'm sure Dr. Ken Holman is coming up.
	He's considered by many to be one of the leading authorities on science and the Bible.
	You know, we're going to be talking about creation versus evolution.
	He's a 15-year veteran high school science teacher.
	His love for science sparked his interest in creation versus evolution.
	He saw the tremendous need for exposing evolution as a, listen to this, dangerous religious worldview.
	And for arming Christians with scientific evidence that there are no contradictions between true science and the Bible.
	In response to those needs, shortly after finishing his PhD in education, he began the full-time ministry of creation science evangelism.
	Since its beginning in 1989, his ministry continues to grow as Dr. Hovind speaks to over 700 groups each year in public and private schools, churches, university debates, and on radio and television broadcasts.
	700 times a year, huh?
	His seminars, so he does it very well, his seminars provide documented evidence against the scientific theory of evolution.
	The information presented concerning dinosaurs in the Bible, and the few that are still alive today, reflects his extensive study in the field of cryptozoology.
	Dr. Hovind offers two... This is your night, folks.
	You say you didn't hit your state lottery?
	Well, tonight's your night.
	Dr. Hovind offers a cool quarter million dollars, $250,000, To anyone out there with real scientific evidence for evolution, that's a lot of money.
	That is a lot of money.
	All you need is real scientific evidence for evolution.
	That that's the way it happened and he will give you a quarter million dollars.
	That's really some offer.
	Anyway, that's all coming up next.
	Dr. Ken Hovind, welcome back to the program.
	Well, thank you, sir.
	It's good to be with you.
	Oh, gosh, it's great to have you back.
	I've been really looking forward to this.
	And so, in a way, we're going to sort of start all over again.
	I'm sure we're going to repeat, you know, some of the material that we did when you were... How long ago was it you were on the show?
	I would say four or five years ago.
	At least that long, right.
	It's hard to know where to begin, but I'm going to begin here.
	The way I've heard it, My grandpa told me, and my science teacher, that the dinosaurs bit the big one back 65 million years ago when an asteroid came crashing into the planet and just ruined their home.
	Now, that was 65 million years ago, and you think that that's all wrong, don't you?
	Oh yes, that's totally wrong.
	Why?
	Well, first place, the Earth and the whole universe is not even that old, for one thing.
	Secondly, to ask the question, what made the dinosaurs go extinct, is to automatically assume that they're extinct.
	I think there's overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs have always lived with humans on this planet.
	They just had a different name.
	They called them dragons in most countries.
	The word dinosaur was just made up in 1841.
	And there's possibly a few still alive.
	There's certainly been 11,000 people now that swear they've seen the Loch Ness Monster, just as one of about 200 different examples around the world where people are still reporting these creatures alive.
	You think the Loch Ness Monster is a dinosaur?
	Well, I've never seen it.
	I don't know, but I've listened to the testimonies of hundreds of people who claim they've seen it, and we've got quite a few pictures.
	Surely you will admit that...
	Aside from some evidence that is not full.
	I mean, we don't have a dinosaur in a zoo yet where we can go and look at it or anything like that.
	Well, there's some pictures on my website of some recent ones in this century.
	I've interviewed 80 people personally who claim they've seen... Dinosaurs are smaller.
	I guess to put it in perspective, if you go to my website, Dr. Dino... Smaller than they used to be?
	Right.
	The Bible teaches that people used to live to be 900 years old.
	Right.
	Before the flood.
	Right.
	And then after the flood, lifespans dropped off.
	And so.
	Right.
	Giant animals of just about every species are found in the fossil record.
	I think University of Nebraska has an 18 foot tall rhinoceros.
	Well, rhinoceros don't get 18 feet tall anymore.
	No.
	They find fossil cockroaches that are 18 inches long.
	Oh, that's a big cockroach.
	Foot and a half.
	Oh.
	We've got some here.
	We raised it up for our museum that are You know, Madagascar African hissing cockroaches.
	They're maybe two and a half inches.
	You have those there?
	You raise them?
	Well, yes.
	They're pretty interesting.
	They're harmless little critters.
	Why do you raise cockroaches?
	We have hundreds, actually thousands of kids that come to visit our science center and our museum at Dinosaur Adventure Land.
	And we... Especially to hear the girls squeal, I guess.
	Oh, gross, cockroaches.
	You know, it's just, that's worth it all.
	But I mean, it's an attempt at demonstration Of dinosaurs, of a sword, or that... Why?
	What we do at our science... Just about every science center and museum in the world teaches evolution.
	You know, all the ones that I've been to.
	I've been to hundreds and hundreds of them.
	We felt there needed to be one that glorified God and taught kids that all the evidence from science points towards God's Word being true, as opposed to the evolution theory which says we all came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago.
	Well, how do you conclude in the Bible that the earth and man and the dinosaurs were all created 6,000 years ago?
	That is what you believe, correct?
	Oh, yeah, absolutely.
	I believe that.
	How do you conclude that?
	In the book of Exodus, chapter 20, in the Ten Commandments, God told Moses, and God wrote this on a rock with his own finger.
	He said, among the Ten Commandments, in verse 11, he said, I want you to honor the Sabbath, because in six days the Lord made heaven, the earth, The sea and all that in them is.
	Well, that includes it all.
	But it doesn't date it.
	Well, it does say there was no death until Adam sinned.
	The reason we have death and suffering in this world, according to Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, is because of Adam's disobedience.
	Adam was then no different than any of the rest of us.
	Oh yeah, I'd have blown it too.
	Uh, but then the Bible says, uh, Adam was the first man.
	First Corinthians, uh, 1545 tells us that.
	And it says Adam was 130 when his son was born.
	Right.
	That's in Genesis 5.
	Right.
	And that boy was 105 when his son was born.
	And you just go through the Bible and pick out the dates and you get about 6,000 years.
	Huh.
	I don't see any signs.
	So then in Genesis it didn't actually David, you've got to conclude that by looking at lineage.
	That's correct.
	Yeah, you look at the lineage and you come, I mean a lot of people have done this, and you come up with about 6,000, 4,000 BC roughly.
	But how does that rule out the lineage going to the point where you can't trace it because now it's crawling on fours instead of twos or something like that?
	It's what happened to the lineage.
	In other words, you say you trace back lineage.
	What Stops you from imagining that at the point you can no longer trace it, it's because the lineage goes to something that was going on all fours or, you know, was less than modern.
	On all fours, okay.
	Well, that didn't happen.
	We never see any animal produce a different kind of animal.
	You know, dogs produce dogs.
	You may get a big one or a little one, but you're always going to get a dog.
	Some people like to.
	Pretty much, I said.
	I hope we don't have an echo here.
	I only said pretty much.
	That's true.
	Sure.
	And if somebody wants to believe that humans came from something on four legs or from something ape-like, they can certainly believe that.
	I don't care what they believe.
	But that's not science.
	That's their religion.
	Evolution is the only tax-funded religion we've got in America.
	It's absolutely ridiculous for us taxpayers to pay for their religion to be taught in the school system.
	There's no scientific evidence that any animal ever produced a different kind of animal.
	Well, is it fair to call it a religion?
	Well, something they believe in.
	Well, then in that context, many things that people believe strongly in could be called religious conviction, right?
	Yeah, I guess they believe it totally in the absence of evidence.
	See, evolution is given the same qualities that the Christians would give to God.
	Evolution, in their mind, is given the ability to create life.
	It's given the ability to create matter and time and space and the whole universe was created by this process which we never observed.
	If it weren't for the fact that you believe that it was all initiated and created about 6,000 years ago, then maybe you wouldn't be in much conflict at all with the evolutionaries, would you?
	Well, I taught science 15 years, and it's always confusing to me, I guess.
	Here we are teaching kids something for which we don't ever see what we're claiming happened.
	And then, of course, it's obvious that absolutely no fossil could possibly count as evidence for evolution in a court of law, because you couldn't prove that bone had any kids.
	You certainly couldn't prove it had kids that were different.
	Why on earth would we think a bone we found in the dirt could do something that animals today cannot do?
	Which has produced something, you know, radically different.
	The Bible says they bring forth after their kind, not after their species.
	You know, a dog, a wolf, and a coyote are the same kind of creature.
	Oh, by the way, maybe you can clear something up for me.
	Somebody told me the other night that somewhere in the Bible it says something about a God telling Adam and Eve to replenish the earth.
	You used the word replenish.
	Yes, sir.
	Genesis 128.
	So that is probably right, huh?
	Okay, here's the thinking on that.
	How can you go to replenish something that has not been previously plenished?
	Oh, I understand.
	Here's the problem.
	Well, if you understand then explain to me.
	Sure.
	The word replenish back in the 1600s meant fill.
	That's all it meant.
	But replenish would mean to refill.
	That's what the word means today.
	But if you can get a dictionary from the early 1600s you'll find the word replenish just means fill.
	So the King James translators took the word replenish and put it in there because that was the proper word to fill.
	Now today it means fill again.
	There are a lot of words that have changed since the 1611 King James Version.
	For instance, Paul said in Romans 1.13, he said, I would have come to you, but I was let hitherto.
	Well, if there's that much change in meaning in things, then how can you know that the version that you believe is accurate based on your interpretation is accurate?
	You mean the version of the creation or the version of the Bible?
	Well, the version that you believe, creation obviously.
	I didn't say there were any flaws.
	What's happened is the English language has changed.
	meaning then versus the meaning now then wouldn't those same errors apply to
	probably what you believe? Well I didn't I didn't say there's any flaws what's
	happened the English English language has changed when I was a kid the word
	cool meant not hot. Well but that's a flaw by today's standards
	In other words, we have so misinterpreted that replenish didn't really mean replenish.
	So, if that's true, that's a pretty big difference between then and now.
	Well, no, it's not misinterpreting.
	It's a matter of understanding the text, the time the text was written.
	When you read Shakespeare, you have to get a dictionary and look up what the word meant.
	A lot of times.
	There's no difference.
	See, God promised to preserve his word.
	He did not promise to preserve our language.
	That's true.
	The word let has changed meanings.
	When I was a kid, the word gay meant happy.
	I mean, you go to school, how are you feeling?
	I'm feeling gay, you know.
	You don't want to say that today.
	You never say that today.
	And so, there's even in the Bible, I forget the verse now, but it says, Paul said, you know, he was chiding some church.
	He said, somebody comes into your church in gay clothing, you know, and you make a big deal over it.
	It's just a matter of 1611 language changing so that that would not affect at all the Bible.
	It's just Our language has degenerated or has changed anyway.
	So the word replenish used to mean fill and in about 1650 is the first reference anybody can find in writings or dictionaries where the word replenish meant fill again.
	So to take that word and make a whole doctrine out of it that he had to fill the world again I think would not be good.
	All right, well, because that would mean obviously it had been occupied at some prior time.
	By today's definition of that word, yes.
	Now, there is a lot of evidence, the same kind of evidence you're going to cite for creation, beginning to pop up all over the world, Doctor, of underwater sites that are virtual cities and Well, I think you're right on the first part and wrong on the second.
	There certainly is a lot of evidence of underwater cities in the Black Sea and in the Mediterranean.
	They found some in the Mediterranean under 30, 40 feet of water.
	There's a highway on the Yucatan Peninsula, I believe it is, or someplace in Gulf of Mexico.
	Well, listen, there's a big city off the coast of Cuba, 2,200 feet down.
	That one's really going to take some serious explaining that they found, and I don't know if you've heard about that or not.
	The one 2,200 feet down I haven't heard about, but I'll give you the Hovind theory of what I think happened.
	I think during the flood, and shortly after the flood, I guess, in the days of Noah, The world was totally covered with water, of course, and then the Bible says in Psalm 104, the mountains arose and the valleys sank down and the water rushed off.
	So places of the earth's crust, and the earth's crust is certainly cracked up like an eggshell, would be twisting and tilting, and some places lift up, other places go down, and the water rushes off into the new ocean basins.
	And today there's enough water in the oceans to cover the earth about a mile and a half deep, if you smooth it out.
	Mm-hmm.
	And for the first few hundred years after the flood, there were massive ice caps.
	Ice age, clear down to Kansas City, Missouri.
	Mm-hmm.
	Well, if you take out a few zillion gallons of water out of the oceans and freeze it and stick it on the North and South Pole, this is going to radically lower the ocean level.
	Yes.
	And so there probably was no Mediterranean Sea or Black Sea.
	They were just a valley like, you know, south of San Francisco there.
	You know, Fresno area.
	So then as the ice would melt back over the next few hundred years, the water would slowly come up and probably the Straits of Gibraltar, the water went rushing backwards and from the Atlantic as the ocean level got up to a certain point, it backfilled the Mediterranean and then it went backwards over by Sicily and got the Eastern Mediterranean and then slowly backfilled the Black Sea.
	Well then, you know, as I listen to you, you know, there's not A lot of difference between you and I suppose what you might call evolutionary geologists, except for the timeline.
	That's where you guys are having the big argument in the timeline, but not so much in what happened.
	Correct.
	Tell them to call in.
	I'll straighten them out on the timeline.
	That will not be a problem.
	Well, is there any margin in your own mind for the possibility that you could be wrong about the timeline?
	Oh, certainly, yeah.
	I mean, any scientist has to keep his eyes open and say, you know, maybe I'm wrong, and it's a theory.
	So far, it's been 30-some years for me studying this avidly, and I see nothing in science to contradict the clear, obvious teaching of Scripture that the Earth is 6,000 or 7,000 years old, and there was a flood about 4,500 years ago, and totally wiped out the world, except for Noah and his family.
	If you look at the population today, we have, you know, a little over 6 billion people on the planet.
	And yet in 1985, there were five billion.
	In 1800, there was only one billion on the whole planet.
	Yeah, that's true.
	At the time of Christ, there was only a fourth of a billion.
	Well, plot those numbers on a piece of graph paper, and you'll find out it points to the population of man starting 4,400 years ago.
	It's a natural logarithmic, you know, hockey stick progression that you get with, you know... 4,400 years.
	That'd be about 2,400 B.C.
	What you'd get is Noah and his family getting off the ark about 4,400 years ago.
	You have highly intelligent people living 400 years for the first few generations, so the accumulated knowledge would not be lost so quickly like it is today, you know.
	By the way, Doctor, have they found the ark?
	Is it that thing on Ararat?
	Is the ark found?
	Well, there's quite a controversy about where it is, and even among creationists and Christians, there are two competing theories.
	What is your view?
	I think it's down in the valley about 17 miles away from Mount Ararat, but I don't know.
	I know a lot of people who think it's up on Mount Ararat.
	I'm good friends with the folks at the Institute for Creation Research.
	I've seen the photographs.
	They're fairly compelling, aren't they?
	Yes, and I'm going over to Turkey next week, actually, and maybe I'll get to see it.
	It doesn't matter to me.
	I'm not sure anything would be left of a wooden boat 4,400 years old.
	No, but it sure looks like a wooden boat up there on Dr. Holman's standby.
	So, you know, we're going to be going to the lines pretty early in this program.
	And it should be pretty interesting, I would say.
	All right, once again, Dr. Ken Hovind.
	And, Doctor, what about this one?
	I take it that your view would be that dinosaurs have always been around, are still around, and that they've... Well, you know, I've seen Sue, you know, the Tyrannosaurus Rex?
	Yes, sir.
	Sue, a great, big, giant Well, I think the Bible teaches that before the flood came, the people were living to be 900, and I think we're probably getting bigger.
	Well, I think the Bible teaches that before the flood came, the people were living to
	be 900 and I think we are probably getting bigger.
	There is an awful lot of evidence of man being much larger from skeletons that have been
	found and we cover that on one of our video tapes of our seminar series.
	Reptiles never stop growing.
	It's just a biological fact that even today reptiles will never stop growing.
	So, before the flood came, the reptiles would grow to be, you know, well the biggest, the tallest one found in Oklahoma here a couple years ago was 60 feet to the top of the head type of brachiosaur.
	Right.
	So they really got, yeah, they got big.
	But the Bible says in Genesis chapter 1 verse 29 and 30 that everything was vegetarian before At least before the fall and probably before the flood.
	So these big T-Rex would not be harmful to people.
	There's been quite a few studies on T-Rex that indicate the bones of his face are kind of thin.
	Right, but what I'm asking is how they got from that big to today's little smolets?
	Well, I don't know.
	I'm sure quite a few of the species are totally extinct.
	They're gone.
	I think people killed many.
	The climate changes after the flood would have wiped out quite a few also.
	All through history, they're known as dragons.
	And there are many reported slayings of dragons, even in the last few hundred years.
	Oh, yes.
	And there have been a lot of sightings.
	If you go to drdino.com, my website, you can see, just to abbreviate Dr.
	D.R., you can see pictures like the one that washed up on the beach in California in 1925.
	It had a neck 20 feet long.
	The people that examined it said, man, this is a plesiosaurus.
	There's a missionary friend of mine who's been in the Congo Swamp for 42 years.
	It's the largest swamp in the world.
	It's bigger than the whole state of, about the same size as Illinois.
	That's big.
	55,000 square miles.
	And he said, oh yeah, I have two pygmies in my church that killed one and ate it.
	They're just small, 20 foot long.
	He called it a type of an apatosaurus with a long neck and four feet.
	The footprints are somewhat similar to an elephant's footprints, but they have claws on them.
	They're roughly the same size as an elephant.
	The natives claim that these animals are vegetarian, but they're extremely territorial, and even the hippos and crocodiles are afraid of them.
	I'm on your website now.
	Where do I go?
	Kid Stuff?
	I don't have it up in front of me.
	I wanted to see the picture of what washed up on the beach.
	Okay.
	I think it's under Articles.
	Under Articles.
	Okay.
	Hmm.
	You've got a lot of stuff on your website.
	Okay, I see articles.
	I'm on my way to articles.
	And I have arrived at articles.
	I believe that's where it is.
	Pictures of living dinosaurs.
	Pictures of dinosaurs in the 20th century?
	There you go.
	That's the one?
	Sure.
	Click on that.
	All right.
	Clicking.
	We'll see. Now as we do this course, you know, five million people are doing it along with me here, so it's now...
	This always happens. It's now causing your website to go into brain lock.
	Okay, we have a T1 line and it takes quite a few calls at a time, but there is a limit to everything.
	Yeah, well, I just found it. I'll get there eventually.
	I've got the hourglass.
	We'll probably be there for a while.
	Okay.
	I should have done this privately.
	Oh, wait a minute!
	Here it is, finally!
	It came up.
	I've got a T1 here, too.
	I'll be damned.
	What the hell is that?
	Well, the people who examined it, it happened... See, there were reports for decades.
	What the hell is that?
	What is that?
	Well, the people who examined it said it was a plesiosaurus, which is a swimming-type marine reptile, which typically is in a book of dinosaurs.
	Oh my God, how big is this thing?
	I see the people in the background.
	So you've got a reference.
	My God, this thing is gigantic.
	Yeah, and the head is shaped sort of like a light bulb, I guess, for lack of a better description.
	Mr. Wallace, there was a big article, a four-page article about it in Skin Diver magazine, November 89, where a guy, Mr. Roberts, went and got pictures from Berkeley archives at the university there of this creature.
	Okay, that's pretty impressive, you know.
	That's pretty impressive, more than the other pictures.
	I've seen the Nessie picture before and some of the rest of this damn thing.
	Holy mackerel!
	It was a local legend.
	This is just south of San Francisco in Monterey Bay is where this happened.
	But for years, people have been talking, the fishermen would talk about the old man of the sea, they called it.
	This thing would swim around with its head sticking up like a periscope.
	Of course, this is the 1910s, 1920s, you know.
	One day a bunch of seals went out there and were fighting with this thing is what a couple of fishermen from the Monterey Monterey sardine fleet said and apparently they killed it because a couple days later it washed up on the beach and well looking at its head here my immediate reaction is it looks kind of stupid I don't know.
	Those things hit you when you look at it.
	I don't mean stupid in its fake sense or anything like that.
	I mean, it's just got kind of a stupid expression on its face.
	Real small eyes.
	You know, that's exactly, though, what the one that... In Pensacola Harbor here, where I live, in Pensacola, Florida, there were five teenagers, whether 18 or 19 years old, that went scuba diving in 1962.
	And they said they got caught in a storm.
	They were in a raft going out to the sunken ship that's out here in the harbor.
	And the storm dragged them out to sea and when the storm cleared they could hear this strange sound.
	They were in the fog and they saw this thing look like a telephone pole with a bulb shape on top.
	Just exactly like that.
	They were scared to death and they took off, put their fins on their scuba divers and started swimming back for shore.
	I don't blame them.
	Four of them were eaten by this thing.
	There's one survivor who refuses to talk about it, but at the time he wrote a letter.
	That's too bad because I would really, really, really like to interview that person.
	He still lives today.
	Yeah, and get with me after the show because if I give out his name and phone number and stuff now... No, no, no.
	Yeah, I won't do that.
	I tell the whole story on my videotape number three of my series.
	Do you think there's a chance he would come on?
	He would not talk to me.
	He handed the phone to his wife and his wife said, Mr. Oven, this was 30, 40 years ago, and he became a drug addict and alcoholic after this happened.
	And right now he's a recovering drug addict.
	He does not want to talk about it.
	But I was speaking at a church in Fort Walton, Florida, and a lady came to me and she said, Mr. Oven, my son was one of the kids who was eaten by this creature.
	She said this story you are telling is exactly correct.
	First time callers, area code 7.
	No, I don't want you to give out her name on the air.
	I'm going to exorcise that he gave her name.
	I will get together with you privately and I will inquire about her and the survivor of this.
	God, this thing really does look like Yeah, it's definitely dinosaur size.
	There is a basic world view.
	Some people have decided the earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs lived millions
	of years ago.
	The whole concept of some still being alive is foreign to their brain.
	Well, that's a little foreign to my brain.
	I've got to admit, dinosaurs once were and that there could be modern vestiges left,
	yeah, maybe I can buy that one.
	But it seems pretty conclusive that they, you know, all the fossil records and everything.
	What about carbon dating?
	Okay.
	What you need, I don't know, did my PR guy here send you my little brainwashed book, we call it, have you been brainwashed by your science book?
	No.
	We give those out free if people call.
	You do?
	Um, what's your number?
	We have a toll-free number.
	Okay, good.
	Yeah, it's 877-479-dino, like a dinosaur.
	Yeah, I know.
	877-479-3466.
	In there we deal with a variety of topics that kids have to, kids basically get lied to in their textbooks.
	You know, they're told there's evidence for evolution and everything that's used as evidence for evolution has been proven wrong many years ago.
	Now, you've offered In fact, you have offered a quarter million dollar reward for anybody with evidence of evolution, and I'm wondering what the bar is.
	In other words, you must set some sort of bar of required proof to get your quarter mil, right?
	Yes, that's on my website.
	What's the bar?
	Well, we want some scientific, empirical evidence, something you can test and demonstrate, not just theoretical.
	Evolution has six different levels or flavors or meanings to the word.
	First you'd have to have what's called cosmic evolution.
	That would be the origin of time, space and matter, typically referred to as the Big Bang.
	Well, there's no evidence for that whatsoever.
	Nothing that could be attested scientifically.
	After that, if the Big Bang theory is true, the chemicals would have to evolve, because according to their theory, you know, the Big Bang produced hydrogen.
	But they say they can still hear the echoes of the Big Bang.
	That's what the scientists say.
	Well, not all scientists, for one thing, okay?
	They can see a background radiation of 3 degrees Kelvin that they are assuming is evidence for the Big Bang.
	Right.
	Well, let's say that's where you just went from science to assumption.
	One of the other stages of evolution would have to be organic evolution, the origin of life.
	Nobody has a clue how life could get started from non-living material.
	Well, they have clues.
	In fact, they have performed some experiments, I think, with kind of a soup of the basic building blocks of life, and then lightning.
	That was the Miller-Urey experiment.
	Right.
	What happened with the Miller-Urey experiment, what he made was 98% poisonous to life.
	2% amino acids. Amino acids are a far cry from life. It's like a letter of the alphabet
	would be to Webster's dictionary. An amino acid is a building block that is necessary
	for life, just like letters are necessary to build dictionaries.
	But the dictionary is more than just ink on paper. It's intelligence and
	thoughts. It's designed. Miller and Harold Urey, what they made was basically two amino acids out of
	the 20 that are necessary.
	And half of them were right-handed, half were left-handed.
	So really, they don't talk about this a lot, but it was, it was really fatal to the evolution of life idea.
	It just cannot possibly have evolved, uh, from, at least not without some kind of awesome intelligent input.
	I was in a debate one time at university and he said, ìWhat are you going to say if scientists
	do make life in the lab?î I said, ìFirst youíll have to admit there are long ways
	from it.î He said, ìYeah, youíre right.î I said, ìSecondly, if a whole bunch of intelligent
	scientists can create life in the lab, that would prove it takes intelligence to create
	life.
	It wouldnít prove it happened by chance.î I was willing to buy that.
	Although you could also argue it takes intelligence to duplicate a relative freak of nature, a
	Very unusual combination.
	The 100 monkeys theory that eventually given enough soup lying around of various sorts and enough electrical activity from above, eventually, according to the 100 monkey theory, it was going to happen.
	The right lightning bolt was going to hit the right place and away you go.
	Well, the flaw there would be somebody has to keep supplying these monkeys with energy themselves and keep supplying them with It's a typewriter story, you know?
	But you know what I've always wondered is, why can't people like yourself, creationists, perhaps embrace the theory that the right lightning bolt did hit the exact right place, and that that lightning bolt was thrown by the hand of God?
	Well, why should we take a perfectly good Bible, which has never been proven wrong, and compromise it with a dumb theory that has never been proven right?
	Nobody's ever seen, you know, any of this happen.
	We don't ever see lightning bolts create anything except a mess.
	I mean, here in Pensacola, we get lightning bolts all the time.
	Well, yes.
	There's theories about clouds in space of water with material for life in it that constantly bombard the Earth.
	There's all kinds of theories for how life could have originated on Earth.
	Many other people believe that it's been here Many times, and a century has been blown up one way or the other.
	You know, whether it be floods, or certainly there was a flood, we all know that, as the weather has changed.
	And that man could have been here long ago, before the present, you know, set of occupants, ourselves.
	Well, see, these are purely theoretical.
	This is certainly not what the Scriptures teach.
	Now, if someone doesn't want to believe the Bible, that's their business.
	I don't care what they believe.
	But a person who would want to blend the Bible with the evolutionary theory is making a tragic mistake, both scripturally and scientifically.
	Because there simply is no scientific evidence for any of the five of the six stages of evolution.
	So if you're going to believe the Bible, from your point of view, you've got to believe it literally.
	You've got to buy it hook, line, and sinker.
	Well, the Bible claims to be perfect.
	It claims to be the word of God.
	Now, so that means either it is or it isn't.
	If it is, then we better believe it.
	If it isn't, you can't say it's a good book because it's lying.
	It's claiming to be something it's not.
	So it's not even a good book.
	It would be a bad book if it's not true.
	Yes, it's a bad book if it's not true because it's making claims that are simply lies.
	So I have studied it for 30 some years and have not seen any reason to doubt it scientifically.
	And I've done 67 debates at universities and would be glad to come do any more.
	I just can't find any opponents.
	Really?
	Oh, it's very difficult.
	I had one last week in Pennsylvania, two to three days ago, and that's the last one on the books.
	So if you get any professors that are brave enough to defend their religion... Well, see, you know they wouldn't say it's a religion.
	You know that.
	I'll explain to them that it is.
	It's something they believe in.
	Well, alright then, as I said earlier, then any strong belief in something based on what you consider to be evidence, I'm trying to be as careful as I can, could be called religion.
	Right?
	Well, I guess if you look at the definition of religion, it's a belief in a power or powers that created the universe, is one typical dictionary definition.
	Well, evolution certainly fits that quality.
	It's a supposed power that they think, you know, created the universe.
	You asked about carbon dating.
	I just got my computer crashed too.
	I'll give you just a couple quick examples of how it doesn't work.
	Science Magazine, volume 141, living mollusk shells, carbon dated, 2300 years old.
	They're still alive.
	Antarctic Journal, volume 6, page 211, a freshly killed seal was carbon dated 1300 years old.
	They just killed it.
	Science Magazine, volume 224.
	A shell from living snails, carbon dated 27,000 years old.
	I mean, I can give you a list as long as my leg of examples where it just doesn't work.
	Here's a quote from proceedings from the 12th Nobel Symposium.
	He said, if a carbon 14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text.
	If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote.
	If it is completely out of date, we just drop it.
	They pick the dates they want.
	Here's the Anthropological Journal of Canada, volume 19.
	This guy said, no matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results.
	There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.
	The whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends on which funny paper you read.
	I agree.
	So nothing less is at stake here than whether the Bible is a good book or a bad book.
	Well, see, the creation evolution question... If you're right, it's a good book.
	If they're right, it's a bad book.
	Yeah, and this is really the foundation of a whole lot of other things, because if there's a God, then we better find out what he wants and do what he says, because after all, he owns this place.
	If there is no God, Then we are in trouble because we're hurtling through space at 66,000 miles an hour and nobody's in charge.
	Well, there's some evidence for that in the way we proceed down here.
	Well, yes, I would agree.
	There's not much anybody in charge, or at least effectively in charge.
	Makes you wonder sometimes.
	Yes, it does.
	So there's a very great deal at stake here because, of course, if the Bible is absolutely true and the God you spoke of exactly as you spoke of Him, then we're in a lot of trouble right now in the way we're behaving.
	Well, you're right.
	The Bible teaches that God made this world in six days for a very specific purpose.
	You know, he wants man to bring glory to him, and man chose to rebel and go his own way, which is... Of course, it kind of has to be that way.
	God has to give man freedom of choice, or else we're just robots, you know?
	Yeah, but that choice has to be the right one, or else, right?
	Well, my gorgeous wife is standing here next to me, and we've been married 28 years, and she's 5 feet tall, and I'm 6'1".
	You believe in love, right?
	Oh, yeah.
	Okay, well, see, that's kind of like a religion.
	Hold on, Doctor, and we'll be back shortly.
	Believe me, this is going to be very interesting.
	One of you out there may get a quarter million dollars.
	That's a lot of money.
	All you've got to do is prove evolution is some hard scientific fact.
	$250,000 could be yours.
	Now, of course, I cannot bar creationists from calling, because you're welcome to, because that'd be, you know, religious discrimination.
	I don't want to do that.
	So you're certainly allowed to call, but I would hope we'd get a bunch of evolutionaries calling, because the evolutionaries are the ones that are liable to run away with a quarter million dollars tonight.
	You know, at least you're the ones that have the chance.
	So, we'll see.
	We'll be right back with Dr. Hovind.
	Lean on it.
	Oh, God.
	You've really got to see... I'm going to call this guy Stupid Soros.
	You've got to see Stupid Soros here.
	I must admit, this one sets me back a little bit.
	Washed up on a beach.
	You know, and... I don't know.
	My God, what can you say?
	Here is the photograph.
	It's...
	It's a photograph of this gigantic creature's head, mostly.
	And it's monstrous.
	You can put it in proportion by the man standing way behind or in the second shot of many men standing way behind on Dr. Holmes' web page.
	And I call this little guy a big guy, actually.
	Stupidsaurus because of the expression on its dinosaur-like face.
	It's kind of stupid.
	But there's no question, I mean, it is gigantous.
	Absolutely dinosaur gigantus.
	Flesh is there.
	You know, it's new.
	It hasn't been dead very long, obviously.
	How do you explain this?
	Anyway, what we're going to do is open phone lines for Dr. Hosen, and it's again on his site, drdino.com, and we've got a link on my site.
	The minute I mentioned it, it got slow, but you'll get in eventually.
	He's got a T1, so you'll eventually make it in.
	Stupid source.
	Alright, Dr. Hovind, welcome back.
	Hey, thank you, sir.
	Okay, I would like to subject you to some callers and see where that takes us.
	No problem.
	Alright, here we go.
	Let's rock.
	First time caller line, you're on the air with Dr. Kent Hovind.
	Hi.
	How you doing?
	I'm doing alright, sir.
	Good.
	How's life up in Nevada?
	Dry.
	I'm from Phoenix.
	I would like to ask your guest if he has ever used some of the examples in Josephus to corroborate other writings that point to the fact that the Earth was extremely different not long, long ago, but fairly recently.
	Yes, sir.
	Josephus mentioned, I believe he's the one that mentioned what the Greeks used to call the Golden Age, and he mentioned it again.
	He said there was a time when people used to live to be almost a thousand years old.
	Quite a few of the ancient writers, the Sumerians, the Babylonians, record this.
	The Bible says 969 is the oldest anybody got.
	That was Methuselah.
	And there's some common sense reasons for how they could have done that.
	We cover that on our videotape number 2 of our seminar series, which is 14 hours long.
	Wow!
	Well, the Bible says, if you read Genesis chapter 1, verse 6 and 7, that when God created the world, there was water above the firmament.
	And then later in verse 20, it tells us the firmament is where the birds fly, so obviously that's the atmosphere.
	A canopy of water or ice or vapor of some kind, I don't know, it's all gone now.
	That fell down at the time of the flood.
	But that used to be above the atmosphere.
	If I had to pick a number, I'd put it 10 or 20 miles up.
	Yes.
	Possibly ice suspended by the magnetic field because super cold ice is magnetic at say 400 below zero Fahrenheit.
	And it's what's called the Meissner effect.
	You're saying there was a dome of ice around the entire world.
	Well, how would that affect the way people's age?
	Well, this would filter out UV light for one thing.
	Yes.
	It would also increase air pressure.
	Uh, hyperbaric chambers are being used now in quite a few hospitals around the country to help people heal up from just about every disease there is.
	That's true.
	Uh, high pressure oxygen therapy just really, really works.
	It really, really does.
	Yes.
	So, um, high pressure, I think the whole world was designed for man, uh, to be a higher pressure.
	Yeah.
	To, to be perfect.
	I mean, they had not only a perfect place to live, but they had a perfect diet.
	Uh, all the food was also growing under these conditions.
	So they would, had they not disobeyed God, they probably would have never died.
	Well then, if a child were born, Dr. Hogan, in a hyperbaric chamber, and kept there through the early years of life, could we observe a substantial difference in the way that child was aging, or would we have to wait longer to find out, or would that even work?
	I don't know, because there's also a genetic difference now.
	We're pretty much genetic defects compared to Adam and Eve, I would say.
	We're degenerate anyway.
	Well, but that's a kind of evolution, though.
	Well, that's backwards.
	That's losing information.
	Well, it's still a kind of evolution, right?
	In other words, it's changed because of environmental conditions.
	Well, see, the word evolution means unrolling or change.
	Well, even if it's de-evolution, it's still the process.
	Yeah, but it's not the kind they need to make their theory come true that we came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago.
	So you're not denying evolution, you're just denying their kind of evolution.
	Yes, sir.
	What would happen?
	There was a family in Canada back in the 50s or 60s that had six children and they The apartment owner would only allow a maximum of three, so they didn't tell about the other three.
	And they kept them in an attic.
	They only took the kids out at night.
	And so the kids never saw the sunlight.
	And they developed very slowly.
	When they're 18 years old, they still look like they're 9 or 10.
	Otherwise, extremely intelligent, just very slow maturation.
	Somebody just sent me the book here a couple weeks ago, and I read through it.
	It's amazing.
	They're called the Attic Children from Toronto area.
	I suspect before the flood came, this canopy of ice or water or whatever was up there would cause them to mature much more slowly.
	That's why if you read through the scriptures, they didn't even have kids until they were 100.
	Jack Coazzo, the dentist in New Jersey, has spent 30 years studying the growth of the human face.
	He says your face bones never stop growing.
	People before the flood or even shortly after the flood were still living to be 400.
	That's probably where the Neanderthals come in.
	These are people who are living to be 400 years old and the eyebrow ridge grows continually.
	People really do get thick-headed in old age and they would They have these huge eye sockets, eyebrow ridges.
	Their brains are the same size.
	Actually Neanderthals brains are bigger than ours.
	13% bigger on average.
	You're right about the bones in the face continuing to grow.
	They do seem to do that.
	You're right.
	Try a hat that you had when you were 20 years old.
	See if you can get it on.
	You'll find it won't fit.
	No, no, no.
	So the wisdom teeth that we now...
	That's not even taking into account ego inflation.
	Correct.
	Yeah, that's a big factor.
	Wisdom teeth typically have to be removed.
	I think 60% of the people now because our jaws simply aren't big enough to handle it.
	Whereas, I think God designed it where people were probably bigger.
	If I had to pick a number, I'd say 8 or 10 feet tall on the average.
	That's why a modern man has to take out his wisdom teeth.
	You get to be a certain age, you've got to take them out.
	We're just, we're genetically smaller than they were originally in the creation.
	So then there is de-evolution going on.
	Yeah, that's degeneration not improving.
	So then we're slowly sinking into the muck then.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Ken Hovind, hi.
	Hi, it's great to speak with the both of you.
	Thank you.
	I hope you can hear me okay.
	Yup, you're okay.
	I'm hoping to win the $250,000 questionnaire.
	Okay, oh good.
	So you're going after the money?
	I am, I am.
	It's a bit of pressure.
	Okay.
	But the question was, Um, if you can remind me just for a moment.
	You mean to win the $250,000?
	Hello?
	Hello?
	You know, that guy bailed out on us.
	Oh.
	Well, just tell him he needs some evidence for evolution.
	I want to see it.
	Well, yeah, but he claimed it.
	He just claimed that he... Actually, he forgot the question.
	Now, see, he's gone entirely.
	He forgot the question, I think, and so he hung up.
	Hmm.
	Oh, well.
	Um, yeah, that's disappointing.
	Um, too bad for him.
	East of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Ken Holman.
	Hi.
	Hi, Art.
	Hello.
	How are you?
	I'm okay.
	This is Larry from Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
	Yes, Larry.
	WXTK 95.1 FM.
	Yes, sir.
	95.1?
	95.1 FM.
	95.1?
	FM.
	Yes, sir.
	We listen to you just about every night, always on these kinds of topics.
	Okay, okay.
	Fire away.
	Hello, Mr. Dr. Hogan, I should say.
	Yes, sir.
	Hello.
	How are you doing?
	You're a graduate, and I'm going to school.
	Very great.
	Will you let me mention the school's name?
	Yeah, you will.
	Okay.
	It would be Patriot University.
	Oh, great.
	Same place, Dr.
	I really enjoyed it.
	Alright, so obviously you're a comrade in arms here.
	Yes, I am.
	I love the way he ties the Bible into it.
	I studied, of course I wish I could do it as good as he does, Henry Morris' book on evolution and how he debunks it.
	But I like to just go back to the Bible.
	It says in Genesis chapter 2 and verse 7, and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the earth, the dust of the ground.
	Well, I agree.
	I think the subject of origins should probably not even be addressed in public schools.
	You can offend somebody no matter which way you talk about it, creation or evolution.
	people like Dr. Hovind is very simply this, why do we teach theory as a fact and not even
	fact as a theory?
	Okay, Dr.?
	Well I agree, I think the subject of origins should probably not even be addressed in public
	schools.
	You can offend somebody no matter which way you talk about it, creation or evolution.
	The bigger question would be should we have public schools?
	You read your constitution, the 10th amendment would prohibit the federal government from
	being involved in anything having to do with schools.
	I mean, this is something for the states or for the parents.
	But, yeah, it's really tragic that we've gotten to this point where we have a tax-funded belief system that is totally without any evidence.
	Well, is there any evolutionary group that you're aware of that claims tax exemption based on religion?
	Every university is tax-exempt.
	No, no, I know, but I mean... They would not claim it for religious purposes.
	Uh-huh.
	I was just wondering if there was.
	I mean, if they officially called themselves ever a religion, and the way you would know that is they would claim a tax exemption.
	Well, if you look at the original, like the Humanist Manifesto, 1933, that John Dewey and all these guys, you know, who is the father of our modern education system, our current education system, Throughout the document continually called themselves religious humanists.
	You know, they admitted clearly that humanism was a religion.
	You had to believe that there was no God.
	You certainly cannot prove there is no God.
	You have to believe there is no God.
	Then why not go after the tax deduction?
	Because creationists certainly do it all the time.
	Go after the tax deduction for?
	Absolutely, I mean churches and institutions that Uh, teach religion, uh, they go after it all the time.
	Oh, yeah, and I'm sure the humanists, uh, well, even the satanic churches, you know, they're tax-exempt.
	Uh, well, that's a point.
	LeVay or whatever his name was.
	Anton LeVay.
	Yeah, yeah, was tax-exempt.
	Okay, uh, West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Ken Hovind.
	Hi.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Good morning to both of you.
	Thank you.
	This is Bud from Abandoned by the Sea, the windswept coast of Oregon.
	Yes, sir.
	I have sort of the middle-of-the-road view on almost everything in life, and what I can agree with is that God had a hand in the creation.
	What I really have trouble with, and this is right out of Genesis 1, is the timeline.
	Yeah, the timeline.
	Right, and constantly through the first chapter, which deals with the first six days, It constantly refers to, and that was the evening and the morning of the first day, that was the evening and the morning of the second day.
	But when you get to day four, you find that that was the day that the sun and the earth, it's in chapter six, or verse sixteen, that the God made the two great lights.
	One to rule the day and one to rule the night.
	The greater for the day, the lesser for the night.
	And that this, It was the time that set the seasons and set the, for months, it was meant for keeping time as we know it.
	Now it's in earth human time, 24 hour time for a day.
	And they're still talking about the morning and the evening, the evening and the morning of the fourth day, the morning and the evening.
	So how long were those days?
	And that's the question.
	Those days in God's time.
	We're not necessarily, in my view, the way this is written, equal to the day in man's time.
	Alright, let's see what Dr. Hovind has to say about this now.
	He's right.
	Prior to the setting up of the planets and everything revolving around as we know it, why would God's reference have been to the time that he created for us?
	That's a very good question.
	Well, for one thing, Exodus 20 there in Ten Commandments, God writes on a rock with his own finger that in six days he's telling Moses, I want you to honor the Sabbath because in six days I made the heaven and earth and rested on the seventh.
	So obviously here God is putting them all together as if they're the same.
	I think, I just suspect God made the sun later in the creation week as opposed to first because so many cultures around the world worship the sun.
	And God wanted to make sure his kids knew, hey, look, the son's important, you need it for life, but you don't worship it, okay?
	Right, and yet so many did and do.
	Anyway, that issue aside, the issue is whether God's day was the same as our day.
	He may have been referencing, you were arguing with me earlier that we should go back and understand what was meant at the time, and so maybe at the time, Uh, God was referring to his days and they could have been millions and millions of, you know, years for one of our days.
	Well, the problem with that would be on the third day, he made the plants.
	Yeah.
	If those days are millions of years, they're gonna die waiting for that sun to come up on the fourth day.
	And the insects are made on day five, and they pollinate plants.
	Okay.
	One more.
	This is Kevin in Boise, Idaho, who asked kind of an interesting question.
	If Earth is so young, Doctor, then how come we can see stars a million light years away?
	Sure, good question.
	In that little book we give out, there's an answer to that, or on my website under frequently asked questions about the starlight.
	I'll give you the shortened version here now.
	Okay.
	You cannot measure the distance to a star beyond about 100 light years with parallax trigonometry, and I taught trig in science for years.
	The stars probably are billions of light years away, there's no question.
	Okay?
	But we just can't measure it.
	And I love, you know, out there where you live in the desert, especially looking up at the stars in the dark night.
	Oh, you bet.
	Incredible.
	Yes.
	But we don't know the distance to the stars, number one.
	Number two, nobody knows what light is.
	We don't, you know, we don't know, is it a package of energy or, you know, is it a photon or wave or particle?
	We don't know what it is. We know what it does and we use it obviously, but we don't know the fundamental, you know,
	give me a jar of it and paint it red kind of stuff, you know, we don't know what it is.
	Thirdly, I think it's been demonstrated all through history that, uh, especially in the last few hundred years,
	the speed of light is not proven to be a constant all through time or space or history.
	At Harvard University over the last couple years, they've slowed light down finally to zero.
	Back in 99, they slowed it down to 30.
	Well, let's pickle on that point when we get back.
	We're at the bottom of the hour.
	There's some great argument about that, that they really didn't slow it or stop it.
	That they sort of did a parlor trick that had that effect, but it didn't really happen.
	It kept going.
	Basically, the speed of light.
	Not quite at the speed of light.
	We will return.
	Well, I wish I still had the article here so I could talk to Dr. Holden about it, but it doesn't matter.
	A very prestigious scientist doctor in Great Britain believes now that in the western part of the world, here in the west, that evolution has stopped.
	Now, he believes this because the Western world has virtually stopped the process of natural selection.
	Now, if you're an evolutionist, you certainly believe in natural selection.
	You know that that went on and that contributed certainly to the process of evolution.
	But here in the West, We save people who otherwise never would be saved.
	We eradicate diseases.
	We make people safer with seatbelts and do a million different things that add up to perverting the process of natural selection.
	And so he's saying that evolution has ground to a halt here in the West.
	It'd be interesting to hear what you have to say about that.
	Well, I would say it never happened.
	What do you mean?
	It stopped.
	It never happened.
	And when you look at other countries where they're not doing this, like countries such as India, for instance, that, you know, if you're sick or, you know, you do bad karma, you know, it's your own fault.
	You did something wrong in your last life.
	They don't try to save these, you know, and you still don't see any human evolution happening there.
	So I think his logic is flawed, you know, for those two reasons.
	Number one, he's assuming evolution happened at all, and it didn't.
	Number two, we have, you know, You can look at other countries and there's no effect there.
	I thought you might at least consider this a small step in your direction, in a way.
	I mean, even though he's saying, look, evolution really did happen, it's not happening now.
	I mean, that is indeed a little step in your direction from what most would say.
	It is.
	I do a lot of debates and I'll ask him, you know, why don't we see evolution happening?
	Well, because it happened so slowly.
	And I'll say, well, why don't we see it in the fossil record?
	Oh, they'll say because it happened so quickly.
	Like Stephen Gould of Harvard University, you know.
	All right.
	Well, listen back to the phone lines here.
	West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Dr. Hovind.
	Where are you, please?
	Good morning.
	I'm in Malibu.
	Malibu.
	All right.
	Good morning, Doctor.
	Good morning.
	I had two questions maybe you can go ahead and help answer here.
	Joshua 1013, I believe, there was a statement where the sun stood still and the moon stayed still.
	And the second major question would be, there's another reference... Wait a minute, how is that a question?
	Well, the question being as far as how does the sun stay still, how does the moon stay still?
	Alright, pause.
	Doctor?
	Well, I think from an earthbound observer's perspective, that's what happens.
	I mean, the weatherman says sunrise at 7.15.
	Well, is it sunrise or is it earth turn?
	You know, it's just... If a policeman stops you and says you're going 70 miles an hour, you could argue, oh no, officer, I'm at, you know, 30 degrees north latitude and it's turning 812 miles an hour.
	Plus, actually, we're going around the sun at 66,000 miles an hour.
	I mean, you could... Wait a minute.
	It was simple.
	The sun stopped, right?
	Right.
	Well, as far as the people standing on earth are concerned, yes, the sun stood still.
	Okay, he's asking, how did that occur?
	I see nothing other than a miracle that caused that to happen.
	Okay, there's your answer.
	It's a miracle.
	You're going to have to settle for a miracle.
	That's the best I can do.
	The second one is, how did the earth become the center of the universe, and the sun and everything else revolved around the earth, and we've had people like Corpinicus and Da Vinci gone ahead and hung by the church because of their belief and proof otherwise?
	Well, first, the church that did that is a far cry different from the church that I would belong to.
	And the people who have questioned established dogma have often encountered pretty harsh resistance.
	Same thing today.
	When you question evolution, which is the current established dogma, you lose your job, you lose your government grants, you lose your teaching position.
	It's pretty incredible the persecution in America against those who dare to question this evolution mentality.
	As far as the Earth being the center, I taught Earth science for 15 years as one of the sciences I taught, and there's no question we're the third planet out, you know.
	The Sun is the center of our little solar system.
	I don't think anybody knows exactly where the center of the universe is.
	Of course, from our perspective, we see stars about the same all directions, so maybe we are the center.
	I don't know.
	Okay, well, my point being, sir, is that you made a statement that the book is either going to be a good book or it's going to be a bad book.
	Right.
	And here I've brought up two definite readings here in the Bible that are just, I cannot, there's no way that science can explain it, and there's no way you apparently can explain it either.
	Well, you can say miracle, though.
	He said miracle.
	Well, as far as the sun standing still, I mean, if God can create everything, certainly He can stop it from spinning.
	And if Jesus can walk on the water and walk through the door, you know, I don't see any problem with Him making the sun standing still.
	My God is not limited.
	I'd like to know where the Bible says the Earth is the center of the universe.
	Do you believe that, Doctor?
	I don't believe the Bible says that anywhere.
	Well, no, I was just wondering if you believe that, that the Earth is the center, or do you not believe it?
	I don't think it's the center of our solar system, but that wouldn't mean that... Nobody knows where the center of the universe is.
	We don't know where the edge of it is.
	You have to know that before you can determine the center.
	Well, actually, we've seen... Should we be referring here to our universe, our galaxy, certainly, and we're nowhere near Uh, Senator, that we're more or less on the outskirts, actually.
	Right, apparently we're on the outskirts, which, again, would not be part of the question.
	Well, I know, but it's an interesting area to explore.
	In fact, scientists are now saying they believe that everything is actually moving farther apart, so that ultimately we'll be alone.
	Very much alone.
	And all of these stars are getting farther away from us.
	Everything is moving outward from what they refer to as, you know, the Big Bang.
	Well, the only evidence for the moving outward is what's called the red shift.
	There are all kinds of questions of what's actually causing the red shift.
	Some stars appear to give a red shift one day and a blue shift the next day.
	We don't know.
	One theory is that the red shift is from the stars, you know, receding, the Doppler effect on light.
	And it certainly couldn't be true, I don't know.
	I just, I think we've really I've gotten too carried away on this one idea that redshift indicates movement away when it may not.
	Radical Theory takes a test from Science Magazine, volume 291, in 2001, just last year.
	He said, some redshifts are not due to the Doppler effect of an expanding universe.
	There's a whole article about trying to figure out what's causing these redshifts.
	In Sky and Telescope Magazine of 94, December edition, they said, For some, quasars are relatively nearby, and that a large fraction of their redshift is due to something other than the expansion of the universe.
	I mean, we could talk about this for a long time, but I think that we don't know that the universe is expanding.
	Some people think that it is.
	You know, there's a really interesting thing that you might want to glom on to and find out about.
	One of our deep space probes, actually one of our first deep space probes, you know, one that has broken loose and is really out there now, Uh-huh.
	It's suddenly, according to scientists, encountering something that, you know, like you were attached to a rubber band and you were getting out there toward the limits.
	It's slowing this spacecraft down in a way that science totally cannot account for.
	They have no idea what's suddenly beginning to slow this little guy down.
	Well, our idea of deep space is Pluto, five light hours from the sun.
	That's like a kid walking out the front door and saying, well, I've explored the world.
	When the kid is two years old, two-year-old deep space is out in the front yard.
	There's a whole big world out there. I don't think we've come close.
	The nearest star, Alpha Centauri and Proxima Centauri, four and a third light years away, that's the nearest one.
	To say we're exploring deep space, I think that NASA is a little bit of a stretch.
	Even getting just past the immediate environments of our little area,
	this spacecraft is beginning to be slowed by some really strange, unexplainable force.
	Very interesting.
	I'd love to read about that.
	I thought you might want to get on with that.
	It's a true statement.
	First time caller on the line.
	You're on the air with Dr. Kent Hovind.
	Hello.
	Hello.
	Coming from Peg City, Winnipeg.
	Yes, sir.
	Hey, what are you guys doing?
	Chilling?
	Uh, yes.
	I've been to Winnipeg.
	Beautiful place.
	Thank you.
	I got a point for the doctor.
	It can pretty much prove his point.
	I also want to mention about last night's program as well.
	Well, not last night's.
	We'll just deal with this show.
	You don't mind, please?
	Okay.
	Well, my point for the evolution of going backwards?
	Yes.
	Look at America.
	You guys have twice the population, and we still got gold.
	Thank you.
	Booyah, Canada!
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm a Canadian.
	Um, right.
	Um, well, I'm going to go ahead and end this.
	I'm going to go ahead and end this.
	I'm going to go ahead and end this.
	Well, onward.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Ken Hovind.
	Hello.
	Yes, good evening, Art.
	Good evening, Doctor.
	Good evening.
	First of all, I have a scientific explanation for the gentleman that called about Joshua.
	It's called a pole shift, speaking of shifting, which can certainly cause the sun to appear to be standing still in the sky.
	And incidentally, on the other side of the world, the New World, the animals of their history, talk about a night that never ended or that lasted a long time.
	A pole shift might do that, yes?
	Yes.
	Actually, the land masses would be moving.
	Right, but not relative to the sun, or it might cause the day to last longer and the night to last longer.
	It would, yes.
	Sir, I agree with you very much that evolution is a miserable way to explain the origin of species on this earth.
	Certainly, the fossil record does not include any transitional fossils.
	Even the very example that Darwin used to come up with the origin of species, the finches on the Galapagos Islands, Diversified, that is, micro-evolved into various niches, bigger beaks, smaller size, what have you, but they remain finches.
	Nature knows no methodology by which one species can turn into another.
	However, that doesn't mean that I run into your arms and I kind of resent the notion that you have to be one or the other and all of the bumper stickers that say Darwin, little fish with the feet on it, or what have you.
	It seems like your explanation and answer to these questions is as full of holes as the scientific one is.
	That's quite an accusation.
	I'd like you to be specific.
	Give me one of those.
	Sure.
	Well, a little while ago you talked about the Neanderthal man as being someone that's old and therefore his bone structure's grown.
	You mean to tell me that you don't recognize the difference in speciation between Neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, that the lack of an occipital bun, the frontal lobe, The round night vision eyes, the robust frame and structure,
	you are saying this is the same species as Homo sapiens?
	You lost me there.
	I think we can find people in the world today that have many of those features.
	You can walk downtown.
	Some, some perhaps, but not all.
	And it's a very, very drastically different person than Homo sapiens.
	We are actually weaklings and very different in comparison.
	But it's not a different species.
	Oh yes.
	Well, that's your opinion.
	It's shared by many, many educated people who have studied you.
	Well, it's not shared by many educated people though.
	Jack Coaszo is probably one of the world's experts on the Neanderthals.
	He went to Europe and actually hauled an x-ray machine with him.
	He's the dentist from New Jersey.
	Actually, X-Rayed the original Neanderthal bones.
	He didn't get just castings like most people see when they study it in America here.
	He saw the originals.
	He found numerous mistakes.
	He's got a tremendous book.
	It's called the, I think, my brain went blank, but it's on my website under the caveman issue.
	Just go to Dr. Dino, D-R-D-I-N-O.
	By the way, Culler, if you really were there, then I'll bet you saw a stupid saurus, right?
	I did, yeah.
	How would you make of that?
	I think it's exactly what you think it is.
	I think that certainly...
	Whatever event it was, some called the KT event that wiped out the dinosaurs, I see no reason why aquatic dinosaurs would have been included in that die-off.
	I think they stood the best chance of surviving.
	So it may be exactly what it looks like.
	Yeah, I do.
	Okay.
	You've got a couple assumptions.
	The book is Buried Alive.
	If you call our toll-free number, we'll send you a catalog.
	Also, we're offering, just for the Art Bell listeners, a special on our video series.
	You can get them a lot cheaper tonight if you call.
	I think if you'll watch that, it'll Get you converted over to the idea that Neanderthal was just a fully formed human who was probably living to greater age.
	Jack Coazzo could answer the question in the book Buried Alive about the occiputal bond and the other differences.
	Different bones resorb.
	I know the TM joint changes radically as a person grows.
	The bone thins out at the jaw.
	The skull thickens.
	He's documented that very thoroughly.
	Would you lose your forehead and your frontal lobe?
	I can show you people today, you don't lose a frontal lobe.
	I can show you people today that have very little forehead.
	As a hairline, but not as a skull structure.
	As a skull structure.
	There's tremendous variation in modern Homo sapiens.
	I believe that Homo neanderthalensis is doing a few laps in our gene pool, which is not shared by certain such as Trinkaus and others who have written books on Neanderthals.
	But I think there's a pretty radical difference between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens.
	And that's just one example, you know, I would cite that.
	I just, I can't see your basis for saying that.
	It just sounds very, very... Okay, well, yeah, I think you're mistaken, though, to say that it's a different species.
	I think that if you had not found, for instance, if we only found fossils of a butterfly and a caterpillar, absolutely nobody would think that it's the same animal.
	But it is in different stages of life.
	And I think that if people that used to live to be 400, like the Bible says they did right after the flood, There might be some radical changes that would cause them to look very different from people that only live 70 or 80 today.
	So what?
	They're still human.
	They're fully recognizable as human.
	Well, I don't deny their humanity.
	But they're very different than we are.
	Well, I think they're just very old.
	As far as the KT event, it didn't happen.
	You assume the dinosaurs went extinct except for the aquatic ones.
	I would argue they didn't go extinct.
	Well, with regard to the KT event that didn't happen, what about the geologic records that would seem to substantiate the KT event?
	That didn't happen either.
	If you look on my website, there's quite a few pictures of petrified trees that are standing up, running through multiple layers.
	Here we are teaching the kids in school, and I taught Earth Science for years, you know, we're teaching them that the geologic column is a record of the Earth's history.
	When it's not, all of those layers had to be deposited very quickly, within a few months or maybe a year of each other, because you have petrified trees that are connecting them.
	There's no such thing as a Jurassic period.
	It didn't happen.
	You can take a jar of dirt and put some water in it and shake it up.
	It'll settle into layers for you in a few seconds in your hand.
	The layers form rapidly with hydrologic sorting.
	The geologic column is a hoax invented by Charles Lyell.
	God, that means that Jurassic Park is a hoax, then.
	Well, a lot of things about Jurassic Park.
	It's a good movie, special effects, but yes, it didn't happen.
	One final statement, basically, yes.
	There's an emerging science that is leaving the established paradigms in the dust.
	It has to do with the age of man being far older than we thought, civilizations being older than we thought.
	You've had guests such as Michael Cremo.
	I've read his books.
	There's a lot of very anomalous evidence that established science has carefully swept under the rug.
	But all I'm saying is that I don't think your explanation of everything is any better.
	And when you study the history of the Bible and the history of religious writings, You look at, for example, the character Noah.
	Well, he was Utnapishtim to the Babylonians, and he was Ziusudra to the Sumerians.
	I made it backwards.
	But these writings are very old, much older, and the Hebrew writings are monotheized versions of the same thing.
	You have to look at the origins of these documents and realize that any serious biblical scholar can look beyond the envelope that you have encased yourself in.
	Just to sum up, there are many explanations and some of them are newer other than just the polarity of I'm an evolutionist or I'm a creationist.
	And that is where science is going.
	And true science is something to ask the question.
	He accuses you of being locked in an envelope, and you are pretty much as locked as a lot of the evolutionists.
	You would probably agree with that, wouldn't you?
	Yeah, I would agree.
	I would say he's locked in an envelope believing in what he's been taught in school.
	As far as Michael Cremo's excellent book, I've talked to Michael Cremo on the phone and read his book and recommend it to folks, but he comes to the totally wrong conclusion.
	They're finding out-of-place artifacts.
	Why do you recommend that to people if you feel they came to a totally wrong conclusion?
	Well, it's like Roy Mackle from the University of Chicago.
	He went to the African swamp in the Congo.
	Went there twice.
	Second expedition, he spent a quarter million dollars.
	Interviewed people in the swamp.
	He came back and said, folks, there are dinosaurs still alive.
	He wrote a book called, Mokele Mbembe, A Living Dinosaur.
	And then he said, it's amazing they survived for 70 million years.
	This is an example of good research and wrong conclusion.
	Alright, hold tight right there.
	there when we come back we'll pick up exactly on this point.
	We were talking about Dr. Michael Cremo and all the evidence he has for prior civilizations
	and of course these days he's not alone.
	I mean, there has been story after story after story recently that, uh, actually is challenging the current scientific paradigm that Dr. Hovind disagrees with anyway, that indicates that, uh, man has been here far, far longer than, uh, than we imagine, and that civilizations have risen Well, I think there's an assumption you're missing here.
	What's that?
	And the evidence is challenging mainstream science going that way, while of course Dr.
	Hovind remains enveloped in the other direction.
	Right, Doctor?
	Well, I think there's an assumption you're missing here.
	When they found the coelacanths, the big fish in the Indian Ocean, you know, that they had
	said had been dead for 70 million years, they found some.
	They've got quite a few species have been found, or specimens have been found.
	They looked at the coelacanths and said, wow, look at this, it survived for 70 million years.
	It never dawned on them to consider that possibly their whole world view is wrong.
	And even what you just said, you know, Michael Cremo has a picture of the bell found in the
	lump of coal, or the iron pot found in a lump of coal.
	I've got his book in front of me, page 113, The Gold Chain.
	People broke open a lump of coal and there's a gold chain inside.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Now, this is called out-of-place artifacts and lots of these are being found.
	This is the emerging science that your former caller called in about.
	Yeah, more and more of these things are being found.
	But you're still missing the fact that you have an assumption that because they found this in a lump of coal and the textbook tells us coal formed during the Carboniferous period 225 million years ago, therefore man's been here 225 million years.
	That's where the problem is.
	But see, a lot of people are arguing that their, as of yet, anecdotal evidence is probably as good as your, or what they would consider anecdotal evidence.
	The two arguments are both compelling.
	Well, let me give you a more logical scenario.
	The gold chain is in the coal because coal formed during the flood in the days of Noah 4,400 years ago.
	Coal can be made in a couple of days.
	Actually, a couple of hours.
	There's lots of examples where coal has been made very quickly.
	Same thing with oil.
	In 1996 they opened up a plant in Australia where they take sewage sludge and convert it to oil and make gasoline out of it in about 30 minutes.
	So I think the oil and coal we find in the ground today and natural gas is from the flood of the days of Noah.
	And both you and your previous caller, at least he was for certain locked in this envelope that the geologic column is a fact and now we have to make everything fit.
	So if there is oop art found that doesn't prove that man's been here for millions of years, it might prove our millions of years theory is crazy and all this stuff formed from the flood of the days of Noah, and there was a civilization that was extremely intelligent.
	Like the Koso Artifact found down there in Southern California.
	All right.
	Let us continue.
	Wes to the Rockies.
	You're on the air with Dr. Ken Hovind.
	Hi.
	Hi.
	Is this my call?
	It's your call.
	I really appreciate the program, Art.
	Thanks.
	I listen whenever I can.
	You bet.
	For Dr. Hoban, I want the phone number and the website, unless you're going to give that later.
	If you do, I'll just send him my question.
	I'm happy to give that, and we'll do it right after your call.
	Okay, good.
	I follow more on the... I don't really see this as a two-sided thing.
	However, for the purposes of the show, I guess I'd have to side more on the side of science, or what's normally called science in the West.
	Yeah, in this context.
	And I was wondering what Dr. Hoban's position is on, or opinion on, the fact that with the flood, was it a worldwide flood?
	A Noah's Flood at the time Noah?
	Oh yes sir, a completely global flood.
	Okay, if that's the case, and there was one creation, I guess it's special creation is the terminology, why do we have salt and freshwater fish at this time?
	Well the oceans are gaining salt every day, this normal evaporation cycle, you know.
	As water runs off the ground, it picks up mineral salts, and about 30% of the rainwater ends up in the ocean.
	The rest either evaporates back or gets soaked into the aquifers.
	This 30% of the water that goes into the ocean carries salts with it, and then evaporation takes out only the water.
	The oceans are gaining salt every day, and there's quite a few different salts in the ocean, but all of the salinity of the ocean today, which is 3.6%, could have been formed in less than 5,000 years.
	No, that's not quite what I mean, or perhaps you did answer and I didn't understand your answer.
	I'm getting to the answer.
	My point is, the oceans are gaining salt every day, and I think during the flood it was all freshwater, or largely freshwater, except for maybe saltwater plumes or salt domes, you know, being eroded in quickly, like there's salt domes all over the world with massive amounts of pure salt down on the ground.
	And so animals have had to adapt to saltwater.
	And today we have saltwater crocs and freshwater crocs.
	Oh, so it's an adaptation.
	Oh yeah, adaptation.
	I did have a comment after that.
	I do appreciate your answer, by the way.
	You see, going from a freshwater croc to a saltwater croc is a very minor change compared to the evolution theory, which says they went from a rock to a croc.
	I did have a comment, if that's okay, alright?
	Sure.
	Yes, yes.
	Yeah, I have a problem with the attitude of certainty that I find on pretty much almost every area of human life, and especially in this kind of a I guess is a good enough term for it.
	There seems to be a lot of certainty on both sides that things are a certain way.
	And I just don't buy any of it.
	Which is one of the reasons I like Karima's book so much.
	Although I haven't read it thoroughly yet.
	The two authors pointing out that there's a lot of stuff in the history of science or the history of Darwinism specifically that punches a lot of holes in it in terms of it being the one true only theory.
	And I agree with the lot of creationists that say they teach a theory as fact.
	That does seem to be the position a lot of scientists take.
	Sure.
	And I don't agree with that anymore than I agree with the creationists.
	It's the idea that, as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong about this, maybe this is one of the basic misunderstandings that I have about creationists, that there seems to be, it seems to be a religious point of view, clothed in terminology and some of the artifacts of science, I don't have a problem with a religious point of view.
	I have a problem with it appearing to masquerade as science and attempting to take over, basically.
	That's really my position.
	The main reason I always have a problem with that is that it seems to be a kind of a mixture of taking in the information and artifacts of science and a kind of a fundamentalist attitude.
	And what I suspect would be in, if let's say that the creationists quote won, close quote, that they would really want to run society from the Old Testament.
	And, uh, you know, I don't have much to base that on except the attitude I picked up from a lot of creationists.
	And, you know, the Old Testament has people being stoned for lots of things, for instance.
	And I just don't, I just don't buy that as a way of, uh, running a society.
	Actually for women, it'd be kind of like Afghanistan everywhere.
	Yeah.
	What about that, Doctor?
	Well, you've got about five points on the table here.
	But the last one is fairly compelling.
	If the book is good, then the book should be followed verbatim and literally.
	And if that was done, consider the position of women today.
	It would be just like Afghanistan.
	Pretty close.
	Well, I'm not against women.
	My own mother was a woman.
	Well, no, my point is, though, they'd go out and they'd have an affair and they'd get stoned to death.
	Well, suppose we did, um, have strict, um, I mean, how many people now are worried about crime?
	Many.
	Many.
	Everybody.
	I mean, how many people get robbed and raped and murdered and stuff like that?
	I visit prisons all the time.
	Many.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	There's no question, the way we're doing it now in our society is not working.
	Okay?
	I don't know exactly what I would do if I were in charge, nor do I want to be in charge.
	But, uh, I think that the Old Testament laws were given Because they knew what's in the heart of man, that man is basically bent toward evil and he needs this constraint to keep him in line.
	You know, you commit certain crimes and you get killed.
	I don't see the penitentiary system any place in scripture.
	I think for certain crimes you pay back four times.
	You know, you steal a sheep, you pay back for four sheep.
	Now if you commit a murder, then you're executed.
	Well, and if a woman is unfaithful, stone to death.
	I mean, come on now.
	Really, if the book is good and we followed it to the letter, that's where we'd be, right?
	As far as the Old Testament, when you look at what Jesus did with the woman taking an adultery in the New Testament, he said, he that is without sin cast the first stone.
	So no stones, you're saying, could be cast?
	Well, not from our Congress, anyway.
	You must admit, though, it would be a A fundamentally different world we'd be living in, certainly.
	Well, I think it certainly would generate more security and safety in many ways, as far as you know what's going to happen, you know.
	If you steal something, instead of, you know, everybody has to pay $100,000 a year per person to keep these guys locked up.
	Well, he should have just paid back four times, or if he had committed, say, certain crimes, He should be executed.
	I visit prisons frequently.
	We donate thousands of dollars worth of materials to prisons.
	I put my money where my mouth is here.
	Why?
	Why do you donate?
	I really want to help because I think they're working on the wrong end of the problem.
	I want to help our society.
	I have three grown children that are married and grandkids coming here soon.
	I want them to have a society they can grow up in.
	I don't want them to get killed or raped or murdered here someday.
	So, I'm trying to help, I guess, our society, and I think that to put a guy in prison for 20 years is not the right solution.
	You get a change in the heart, and only God can do that.
	Well, would cutting off his arm for stealing be better?
	I don't see that in scripture either.
	I see that in Muslim law, where they cut somebody's hand off.
	That's not in the Bible.
	Yes, but in the Bible there would be some very severe punishments for things now that only draw relatively short prison sentences, yes?
	Well, yeah, look how many people, you know, three strikes and you're out.
	They gotta murder three people before anything happens.
	Think of all the hurt families.
	Well, I think that's three major felonies, actually.
	Yeah, we're not thinking of the victims here at all, you know.
	All right, anyway, to the phones.
	First time on our line, you're on the air with Dr. Ken Hoban.
	Hello.
	Oh, all right.
	How you doing?
	Pretty spiffy, sir.
	I am so excited to get this money.
	The quarter million?
	Oh, yeah.
	Hey, sounds good.
	You should be writing the check as this call begins.
	I'd like to get a money order on that, if I could.
	All right, well, anyway, let's hear it.
	All right, well, talking, there's been a lot of talk about Noah's Ark tonight.
	That's right.
	Uh, the idea that all life was wiped out on the Earth save that which was stored in a 450 foot boat.
	Yeah, the nephilim all gurgled and... Exactly.
	Okay, so?
	Uh, well, my question is related to that, uh, the number of species on the planet today is, uh, unbelievably large.
	There's, uh, 750 species alone of insects, which means he would have had to collect 1.5 million insects alone and be able to tell the difference between male and female, which is quite difficult to do even for experts in some species.
	Let's stop right there.
	I mean, that's really good.
	Two of each were taken aboard the Ark.
	There are millions and millions of species, uh, Dr. Hogan.
	What, what about that?
	Where, where did they, did they appear afterwards, or was Noah a better collector than we think?
	Well, he's got a couple of flaws in his logic here.
	First of all, Noah did not dig insects at all.
	The Bible says God told Noah to bring into the ark all those on land in whose nostrils was the breath of life.
	Genesis chapter 7.
	I'm looking at Genesis 620.
	It says take every kind of creature that moves along the ground.
	Keep reading.
	Genesis chapter 7.
	He says all those in whose nostrils is the breath of life.
	Insects don't have nostrils.
	Insects breathe through their skin.
	And insects can survive a flood just fine, floating on log mats or dead carcasses.
	Your quarter million is now in danger, sir.
	Well, I mean... Not really.
	Okay, well, what about birds?
	There's 10,000 species of birds which have nostrils.
	They can fly, though.
	And a spiracle on an insect is basically a nostril.
	That's the way they breathe.
	Well, it's not a nostril, but... Well, it's a spiracle.
	It's a nostril function.
	There are 4,000 species of mammals.
	6,000 reptiles?
	Who was this Noah?
	You have a fundamental flaw in your logic.
	No, I don't.
	I'm talking about thousands and thousands of species.
	It takes an expert to be able to tell the difference between male and female.
	Hold it, you two.
	How many nostril beasties do we have, roughly?
	Anybody know?
	Well, there's 6,000 reptile species.
	There are 9,000 bird species.
	reptile species there are 9,000 bird species 4,000 mammal and let's just stay
	with the mammals for a second Okay, a major point.
	4,000.
	All right, we'll get to that.
	4,000 mammals.
	Let's just restrict it to the real nostrils here, all right?
	Okay, but sir, just for the sake of this argument, you're winning, I think.
	4,000 nostrils and mammals.
	Now, that's a big collection for Noah.
	And just how big could the Ark have been?
	What are we missing, Doctor?
	Well, he's counting species.
	The Bible says nothing about species.
	The Bible says bring the basic kinds.
	A dog, a wolf, and a coyote are different species.
	But they're obviously the same kind of animal.
	And they're still interfertile.
	A species cannot breed with another species.
	Species, by definition, are... You're mistaken, okay?
	No, that's a fact.
	A dog and a wolf can breed, and they are a different species.
	Look it up.
	I'm telling you, the fact that modern science has listed X number of zillion species... Well, he is right.
	A dog and a wolf can breed.
	Which does not mean they're the different kinds.
	That's one example.
	Okay, a horse and a zebra can breed.
	That's two examples.
	You've got two.
	I'm talking about thousands of things.
	Okay, let me just put it like this.
	There are about 8,000 different kinds of animals in the world that would have to go onto the ark.
	No, there's more than that.
	What about your thinking?
	Well, no, I'm saying creatures that move along the ground, birds in the air.
	There are 9,000 species of birds.
	There you go with your species again.
	Here's the whole problem.
	Birds are mentioned specifically.
	There are 9,000 species.
	Even if we confirmed it to what the doctor is talking about, 8,000 species, we could do a quick calculation on the art size and...
	It's 450 feet long boat.
	Yeah, I just... 450 feet is based on the Israeli or the Jewish cubit.
	Well, it's in your good book, brother.
	But 8,000 species in that size, that just doesn't work.
	That's getting tight, plus all the food.
	You've got to bring all the food to keep them alive.
	No, no, just go by the pure mass and size.
	I mean... I understand.
	Okay, this is assuming numerous different things, okay?
	Taking today's number of species, Of course, if you look at the evolutionist, he'll say every species in the world came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago.
	You can't get new species without evolution.
	Well, Noah brought basic kinds of animals.
	And then they evolved.
	That's pretty good.
	I want my cash.
	There's variations within these kinds that are still the same kind of animal.
	God makes a perfect animal.
	So then there's a variation in a new species?
	I'm not clear, Doctor, on how 8,000 could have Well, Noah, being 600 years old when he built this boat, was certainly smart enough to figure out you bring babies, you don't bring giant ones.
	And the skeptics will always, you know, figure out two giant elephants and two giant giraffes, etc., etc., which is patently absurd.
	I mean, it's not common sense.
	You bring babies for all sorts of reasons.
	They eat less, they sleep less.
	Babies, okay.
	Sure, babies.
	How is he going to feed a baby?
	That's a certain kind of food you need the mother.
	Well, it was a dizzy arc.
	Let's get one who just got weaned, okay?
	Oh, just got weaned.
	This guy's looking for any excuse to be skeptical of God's work.
	This guy is so bogus!
	Alright, well listen, hold on.
	We're at the bottom of the air.
	Both of you, hold on.
	Even with babies, you know, it really seems that 8,000 of those big nostril guys Even his babies.
	That would have been some chore for Noah, even though he lived to be 900.
	As the punter points out, all that feeding and care during all that time on the ark.
	That ark that just couldn't have held that many.
	How could it hold that many?
	Anyway, we'll be back.
	All right.
	Unfortunately, our nostril guy is lost.
	I don't know what happened to him during the break, but... Dr. Kevin, on his behalf, Peter in San Diego simply asks... And that boat was how long again?
	Well, it was 300 cubits.
	That depends on how long a cubit is.
	Somewhere around 500 feet.
	500 feet.
	All right.
	So, Peter would like to know, how in the world could Noah shovel all that poop overboard by himself?
	Well, that's a good question.
	We need a bigger picture we need to look at here.
	Uh, questions about Noah's Ark does not constitute proof for evolution that we all came from a rock.
	And the burden of proof is not on me to prove the flood story happened.
	I'm not asking for this to be taught at taxpayer expense in the school system.
	The burden of proof is on those who want their evolution theory taught at taxpayer expense.
	You know, I cannot prove... Well, so then are you sort of stepping back from the whole Noah... No, no, no.
	I believe it's true.
	I'm just pointing out we need to keep this in perspective.
	That if somebody raises a question about Noah's Ark, they kind of walk away thinking, oh, wow, well, you can't answer that question, therefore that proves we came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago.
	Well, you're the guy with the $250,000 up in the air there.
	Well, my offer, my $250,000 is for evidence for evolution, which he's not offering.
	He's offering questions about Noah's Ark.
	Right.
	That's quite the opposite.
	There are 270 surviving flood legends today.
	Cultures all over the world talk about a family saved in a boat full of animals.
	Why so many flood legends?
	As far as all the details, I don't know.
	I'm going to ask the Lord when I get to heaven to see the video, you know, of how this happened.
	But if you get a boat 500 feet long and you take babies, and you only have 8,000 basic kinds of animals, after the flood, maybe babies is the wrong word, take young ones.
	Do I think God will have a video?
	Probably a DVD.
	Yeah, at least.
	Yeah, okay.
	And so, since the flood, there's been a lot of variations within the kinds of animals, you know, long hair, short hair, you know, adapting to hot weather and cold weather, etc.
	But it's still the same kind.
	So I would like to meet the guy who's deciding when we have a new species.
	Who makes this call?
	I had a scientist in Indiana, I was in a debate, and he said, we've created a new species of soybean plant in the laboratory that's resistant to frost.
	I said, well, that'll be handy, but what did you start with?
	He said, well, we started with a soybean plant.
	I said, what do you have now?
	He said, we have a soybean plant, but it's resistant to frost, a new species.
	OK, it's the same kind of plant.
	What about this and just as a kind of a general comment from somebody with your belief system I'm very curious what you think about where we're headed very quickly now which of course is to cloning very soon a human being if not already but from cloning we would move to genetic manipulation of human beings and superhumans and we would then become by science the architects of our own evolution.
	Well, yes.
	I don't think, as far as becoming superhuman, that's going to happen.
	I think cloning certainly has been done, and I suspect with humans.
	With Dolly, for instance, it took him 277 failures to get one to work.
	It cost him $50,000.
	I told him, man, the sheep can do this much quicker and cheaper than you guys are doing it.
	I know, but first efforts are always very expensive.
	The point is, though, we've done the genome thing already, and we're going to get to the point where we can manipulate genetics, and then we can indeed modify the human creature.
	Well, the telomeres at the end of the DNA are unwinding continually throughout your life, part of the aging process.
	That's correct, yeah.
	Kind of like split ends.
	Yep.
	And so, Dolly, they started with a four-year-old chromosome pool, a bundle from the center of the cell.
	Oh, I know what went wrong with Dolly, but that doesn't invalidate where it's going to go anyway.
	Well, Dolly is aging faster than normal.
	I know.
	I think they're going to find with this cloning that they're not going to get a lot, not a lot of bang for the buck.
	I'm not against genetic research at all.
	I taught biology and love the subject, but I think that it's more smoke than fire right now.
	If intelligent scientists are able to do gene splicing and stuff like that, I'm a little nervous that we don't know near enough about this to know what we're talking about.
	Like you were talking about with these guys with the heart technology.
	We might be creating a much bigger problem than we can handle.
	I don't dispute that at all.
	I see it as something we're going to pursue, and we apparently are going to get there, and we may create monsters.
	I don't deny that for a second.
	I'm sure we'll get a lot of monsters for every improvement, but eventually man may be able to control his own evolution, and I wonder how that strikes you as possible or just simply not going to ever happen.
	Well, as far as becoming a superhuman, I don't, first of all, There has been no evolution of humans other than downward.
	We've not seen any improvement.
	We've seen dietary and sanitary improvements in the last 500 years that have caused people to live longer and grow bigger, but there's no genetic change.
	You know, a big Great Dane is still a dog.
	Yes, but I'm saying that by our own hand, we may get to that genetic change.
	Well, that's all hypothetical, and even then, that would be with intelligent input.
	That's not happening by itself in nature.
	Oh, well, that's true, but it still could be an entire evolutionary leap.
	It would be by our own intelligence, yes, but it would be an evolutionary leap.
	Well, I think you've got the wrong definition of evolution.
	If you look at, for instance, cows, there's been enormous research in genetic work with cattle to get bigger cows or more milk or more beef or whatever, you know?
	Yes.
	But any farmer will tell you, the more you get of one particular trait, the more problems you get in other areas.
	You start to lose with disease resistance and It's the same thing with Dolly.
	They didn't gain much.
	It costs a lot of money.
	You're saying you think ultimately this research may well be a dead end.
	That there will be more downside to it than up.
	Right.
	I don't think they're going to improve the human... There won't be any genetic changes that are inheritable as far as... Boy, you should hear some of these scientists.
	They're looking for government funding, that's why they make these big claims.
	They are looking for it.
	They got their hand out, that's why.
	Absolutely do.
	Wild Card Line, you're on the air with Dr. Kent Hovind, hello.
	Hi Art and Dr. Hovind, this is Matt from L.A.
	I'm listening on KFI AM 640.
	Monster down there, yes.
	Dr. Hovind, I wanted to talk to you about the idea that I think is what comes from the Bible, that your God is all good and all knowing and all powerful.
	Okay.
	Is that something the Bible says?
	I think that would be true.
	God is good, but our understanding of what may be good, what may be bad, may be different.
	A lot of times God gets blamed for things that he didn't do.
	If you get drunk and go home and beat your wife, that's not God's fault.
	Right.
	There's a lot of suffering in the world that God gets blamed for, or Satan gets blamed for, and neither one did it.
	The people did it.
	I'm not too schooled in the Bible, but I Somehow that thing stuck in my head, those three things, all good, all knowing, and all powerful.
	I'll agree that God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful.
	It does not preclude, though, Him giving man a free choice and letting man mess up any more than with my three kids as I was raising them, you know.
	I would have to allow them to make mistakes and fall down when they learn to ride the bike, you know.
	You have to go for that.
	But nevertheless, you more or less don't contest the all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing.
	Yeah, well... Alright, alright, so caller, yes?
	So then I wonder about, you know, what comes up all the time, why are there earthquakes and rape and murder?
	Or people say, well, God can't control everything, which means He's not all-powerful.
	Or maybe God's wrath, He was punishing us for something, well then He's not all-good.
	Right, yeah, this has been an age-old question, you know, for... Right.
	People have debated this for hundreds of years.
	As far as earthquakes and stuff like that, I think they're just natural phenomena.
	Jesus got tired.
	He fell asleep.
	He got hungry.
	There are a lot of different reasons for suffering in the world, which is kind of off the creation and evolution topic, but people suffer just because of natural suffering.
	It's just part of the aging process.
	We're all in a degenerating world, which ought to make us long for the final home in heaven, which is where I'm going.
	I don't know if you are or not.
	I don't deserve it, but I'm going.
	I think as far as the flood that destroyed this world probably left a lot of scars that are still, the earth is still shifting and moving around.
	The Bible says the fountains of the deep broke open.
	I take that to be when the plates broke up.
	The earth has cracks all over it now and the plates are still moving some.
	You folks in California know about that probably as good as anybody.
	Sure do.
	I lived out there for three years.
	So I think what we're seeing now is remnants from the devastating flood.
	The fact that continents are moving and the plates are twisting does not prove it has
	been happening for millions of years.
	This could have just started a few thousand years ago at the Flood.
	It's just natural.
	You live on planet Earth, gravity affects you and other people's actions affect you.
	I think you are trying to blame God for things.
	If someone gets raped, it's not God's fault, it's the guy who did it.
	How do you know you are going to heaven?
	Well, 33 years ago I asked the Lord to forgive my sin and the Bible says,
	Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
	I have God's promise that I'm forgiven, and I've seen a radical change in my life, as have millions of people over the history of the world have seen just a radical change when they accept Christ as their Savior.
	So you don't expect any surprises, like somebody standing at the gate saying, look, Queen never told you to take this also literally?
	No, I don't expect any surprises.
	If I'm If God's word is true, then certainly I am going because of his goodness, not because of my goodness.
	It's not at all what I've done that's going to take me to heaven.
	It's Jesus' death on the cross and his substitution for me.
	That's the only reason anybody goes to heaven.
	Okay.
	Alright.
	Ease to the Rockies. You're on the air with Dr. Ken Hovind.
	Hello.
	Maybe you'll think I've got a pretty good hunch why our creator, who I believe is also our ancestor,
	would have started a new species of hominid with a male instead of a female
	if he was going to start with a single individual.
	Okay.
	I don't know if I follow the question.
	Why would he start a new hominid species with, if he's going to use a single individual in a two gender system like in this planet among hominids, why would he start with a male instead of a female?
	Well, he took, he made man from the dust and then he made E from his rib.
	So he started with two.
	I don't understand that.
	Okay.
	Start with a male.
	Well, no, there was, there was, E was there first, right?
	I mean, Adam was there first.
	Males have XY.
	Uh-huh.
	Females only have XX.
	Right.
	In each chromosome.
	I mean, in each cell.
	That one set of chromosomes is XX.
	Right.
	You can take an X from two cells of the male, two X's and come up with your female if you
	want to call it a kind of a clone, but you can't go the other way.
	So you have to start with a male.
	You can't take two female cells and come up with the XY to get your guy.
	So you have to start with a male.
	So God knew what he was doing.
	Yeah, if you wanted to start with a single individual and see how it turns out and have
	that as a, well, maybe I want to go with this.
	Well, some women say God made the first one and then he said, I can do better than that.
	Another interesting thing about the rib, since you mentioned it, a lot of singers, I mean models, actresses, dancers, especially ballet dancers, have ribs removed to create an aesthetic line.
	So it's obvious that we have some redundancy there.
	And so it's a spare part that can be used, obviously.
	And I've heard that some of the latest research they are using They are scraping ribs for the genetic material that they're using.
	Because the lower rib is the only bone in the human body that'll grow back if it's removed.
	Very interesting point, isn't it?
	Yeah, very interesting.
	I don't think our creator was our ancestor, though.
	That sounds like Mormon doctrine that they teach, but I would disagree strongly with that.
	But yeah, I do believe in our creator, and I think he did make man first.
	I love spare ribs.
	Welcome to the Rockies.
	You're on the air with Dr. Ken Holman.
	Hi.
	Good morning.
	Yes.
	Bill, I'm calling you from Anchorage, listening to you on KENI.
	Anchorage, Alaska.
	Yes.
	Beautiful place.
	Been up there three times.
	Love it.
	It is definitely the place to come to.
	Okay, you've got a weird echo on your phone, sir, but go ahead.
	Yeah, you're kind of breaking up too.
	Listen, I wanted to go back to what he was talking about on the ark, or what he refused to talk about.
	Okay, back to the ark.
	Yeah, back to the ark.
	God, I got so many questions.
	I love debating.
	Pick your best one.
	Okay.
	How long did he get to build the ark?
	I can't remember.
	It's been a long time since I've read the Bible or heard this.
	The Bible doesn't say, but Noah was 600 when the flood started.
	Some people have said when God said their days shall be 120 years, that that was the warning that you have 120 years until the flood comes.
	The Bible simply doesn't say clearly, but I suspect he probably took 100 years to build it or so.
	So my question, one of my questions is, if he was given this warning that he needed to do this, how did he get all the way around the world and pick up all of these species like polar bears that are only in the north, and penguins that are only in the south, and bring them all together, and then after the flood put them all back to where they were supposed to be?
	That is a lot of work for one man.
	Doctor?
	Well, you're assuming, of course, that the world before the flood is looking like it is today, all broken up into continents, and today the Earth is 70% underwater.
	Well, you know, it is interesting that if you look at all the continents, it's obvious they all, at one point, did fit together.
	Well, no, that's not true.
	In order to make the Pangea map... Look at them.
	You look at the... Oh, I know.
	I've taught her science.
	When you look at the Pangea map, you know, they put all the continents together and it looks really cute.
	The problem is they had to shrink Africa about 35% to make them fit.
	They took out all of Mexico, all of Central America.
	They twisted Africa one way, twisted Europe the other way.
	And people ask me all the time, do you think the continents were ever connected?
	I say, what do you mean, were they?
	They still are.
	There's never been a time when they weren't.
	You know, the low places are full of water, that's all.
	It doesn't mean it's hollow down there.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	Alright, first time caller on the line.
	Time is close to up, but you're on the air with Dr. Ken Hogan.
	Hi.
	Hello?
	Hello, Art, how are you doing?
	Okay, sir, where are you?
	I am in San Diego.
	Okay, far away.
	Okay, we're talking about evolution tonight, correct?
	Huh?
	Yeah.
	Okay, um, and we're discussing, uh, Noah's Ark.
	I want to go back to what the gentleman said about the 8,000 species, or... Okay, all right.
	I kind of find that hard to buy, I really do.
	Oh, I do, too.
	I mean, that's a lot of nostrils.
	Yes, sir, it is.
	I mean, and then you... On one boat.
	Yeah, it is a problem.
	And Dr. Hovind has said that he doesn't have an answer for all of this, but that doesn't mean that... But let me ask him a question, though, Art.
	If you find it hard to believe, do you believe in evolution?
	Yes, sir, I do.
	You don't find it hard to believe they all came from a rock, but you do find it hard to believe... No, sir, I do not believe they came from a rock.
	Where do we come from?
	I can't answer that, sir, just by the same way I can't answer that your theory came from.
	I can assure you, the textbooks teach the kids, we came from the oceans, from prebiotic soup, where it rained on the rocks for millions of years, and it all started by their theory, 4.6 billion years ago when the earth cooled down, developed a rocky crust, It rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned them into soup, and the soup came alive.
	So we came from a rock.
	That is precisely what evolution teaches, but they don't like it put so simply because then people realize how stupid the whole idea is.
	Those would be the same rocks that create salt that goes down into the ocean, adding to the salinity factor, right?
	Well, mineral salts of all types exist on the planet, right?
	Which came from rocks, right?
	The ocean salt came from rocks, yes.
	I don't think people came from rocks.
	Well, I mean, but there is a theory that the salinity and the other factors, along with
	the bolt of lightning we discussed earlier, you know.
	Well, that's a theory that ought to be taught in a private school, a textbook.
	Okay, sure.
	You may very well be correct.
	We have, and we may be creative, but let's go back to that, you spoke about that gentleman
	about the soybean, you know, he said he had two different types of soybeans, but yet,
	you know, he still gave him a soybean.
	Right.
	That, in my opinion, is evolution.
	You know, evolving from one... Bean to another.
	One bean to another.
	All right, we'll have to hold it there.
	He's saying that is evolution.
	Right.
	That's where you've got a wrong definition of evolution.
	See, evolution, microevolution, I think is a lousy word, but some people use that to indicate small changes within the same kind.
	Darwin's finches, for instance.
	Macroevolution is changing from one kind to another, which would mean a horse and a banana have a common ancestor.
	That we've never observed.
	We see variations that some people call microevolution.
	I think that's a misnomer, but that's where it stops.
	Listen, Doctor, it's been a pleasure.
	Absolute pleasure having you on as always.
	Incredibly lively debate, very enjoyable intellectually.
	The phone number again, folks, and what is it you'll send, Doctor?
	Well, we have a free little booklet called Are You Being Brainwashed by Your Science Book, and some of your callers definitely need that.
	Oh, they'll love that.
	The telephone number is 1-877.
	4-7-9-DINO.
	That's 1-8-7-7-4-7-9-D-I-N-O.
	And then your website?
	Yeah, now if you're in Canada, the 8-7-7 won't work.
	It's just 8-5-0 is the area code here.
	But then the rest of the number is the same.
	All right.
	Outside the U.S., 8-5-0.
	Website is drdino.com.
	D-R-D-I-N-O.
	Dot com.
	Good enough.
	Listen, my friend, thank you so much for being here.
	All right.
	Have a good night.
	We'll do it again.
	All right.
	Bye-bye.
	Take care.
	He sounds every bit as lively as he did years ago.
	Maybe even a little more so.
	Been a pleasure.
	It really has.
	Tomorrow night, William Thomas.
	Contrails.
	For now, I'm Art Bell from the high desert.
	Ta-ta.
	In my little town, I grew up believing God keeps his eye on us all.

▲