Art Bell hosts Dr. Kent Hovind, a creationist, who argues Earth is 6,000–7,000 years old and dismisses evolution as unproven, offering $250K for evidence while citing biblical timelines, eyewitness "dinosaur" accounts (e.g., Congo Swamp’s 20-foot reptile), and flaws in carbon dating. Hovind insists on literal scripture, rejecting Noah’s ark carrying millions of species or Pangea, instead proposing crustal shifts during the flood reshaped continents. Earlier, Dr. Nick Begich discussed HAARP’s weather manipulation claims—fall negotiations for expanded power, ionospheric heating to alter tornadoes, and potential risks like unintended energy amplification—while callers debated chemtrails and jet stream anomalies. The episode blends fringe science, conspiracy theories, and biblical literalism, questioning mainstream explanations of history, biology, and climate control. [Automatically generated summary]
Good evening, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you may be in all of Earth's 24 times.
I'm telling this is close to post a.m.
I've got a chalker coming up for you here in a moment, I do believe.
Let us review the happenings of the world, such as they are.
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 right, the true right place of Israel, and Israel be allowed to remain unmolested where it is original borders before the war.
Now, whether that's a practical offer or not, 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 $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?
Andrea Yates reportedly suffered from schizophrenia and didn't know right from wrong when she drowned her five children in a bathtub in June, according to a psychologist who testified today in that trial.
Well, 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.
It 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.
Now, this 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 Begich 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.
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.
So 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 harp and taking it to full power, right?
unidentified
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, Doctor, on how they think HAARP might or might not affect the weather, what the guesses are?
unidentified
Yeah, actually Bernard Eaveslin, the inventor, was contracted after his work on HAARP by the European Space Agency and delivered a paper for them in October.
It was either 98 or 99, and it was at a major space expo in Europe.
And essentially 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, you know, because the effect of tornadoes is essentially a warm front hitting a cold area and creating updrafts and downdrafts that give you the whirling motion.
So if you can create more extremes in terms of temperature differentials, you can generate more energy and disperse more energy.
So using harp 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 HARP 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 issue devoted to weather, but there shows in Alaska, the jet stream that flows across Alaska in this particular image,
there was a slight dog leg above the area where HARP happens to be located, but that slight dog leg 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 of years ago 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 is small things create big outcomes.
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.
Is there any reason to speculate that HAARP might attempt an interaction with chemicals in the atmosphere?
Yes.
unidentified
Well, it's okay.
You can speculate on that, and many have.
And the unfortunate thing is that, 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.
Yeah, I probably agree with that, but the number of...
unidentified
And the answer is, yeah, it's possible because in the original HAARP patents, chemical interactions in the upper atmosphere were one of the features of the system.
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.
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 of.
On those occasions when you've had any sort of discourse with anybody at the HARP 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?
unidentified
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 Easlom 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 is 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 has been done on a kilometer by kilometer ionospheric heater.
And once you get into that size, there is 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 these are remote regions, so where that ends up will be interesting to see.
And eventually that will be built.
The thing about earth-penetrating tomography as a concept is it was already proven.
In fact, Papadopoulos with the Hart 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.
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?
unidentified
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 not too many decades ago.
But the same was thought about lasers before then.
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, would that surprise and possibly even worry you?
unidentified
It would worry me, but not surprise me.
Because when they originally started this project, you 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.
And he tells me that HAARP, the people at HAARP, and this is anonymous for obvious reasons.
It's goodbye job.
The people at HARP have been approaching them desperately, seeking to get high-altitude launches of, I forget what he said, barium or some cocktail mixture, something that will so they can actually map the signal as being produced by that antenna farm.
Yeah, and the reason they want to do that is because they don't know what the pattern is, and apparently what they calculated it 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.
unidentified
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 system.
Dr. Nick Beggett just here with plenty of that heart.
You know, the HUD 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 or bouncing the energy back to ground to find tunnels and bunkers and or perhaps even affect the weather.
Now, going after the ionosphere in that manner is rather like going 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 concern.
All right, once again, here's Dr. Nick Bigich.
So, Dr. Bigich, I understand about radiation patterns, and 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 radiation pattern.
Now, who knows?
It could be...
There could be a magnetic 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.
unidentified
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 natural systems to serve some thought to be beneficial purposes.
I know, but the control of the experiment, Doctor, depends on understanding the radiation patterns.
unidentified
Yeah, 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 HARPS since its inception that have 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.
I mean, 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.
So one of them was in VLF range when they fired very low frequency VLF, not from heart, 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 in the, 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.
unidentified
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.
And that interaction, 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.
And so 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.
Then it's even worse.
It's just magnified by 10.
Because now they're not even controlling the radio.
Do you think they would give you a response to that question?
unidentified
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 research?
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, as I said, it's like doing brain surgery with a steak knife or something.
unidentified
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, that, you know, you go back to that whole idea, it was in 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.
And, you know, when you think about it, 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's, you know, this is tremendous amounts of energy.
Although, you know, what normally reaches the Earth and the way it reaches the Earth 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 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.
Well, it may well be that one of these things that we're talking about right now is affecting their pattern.
And 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 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.
unidentified
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 corkscrewing where the magnetic line acts as the waveguide.
So you get this corkscrewing motion from the North Pole to the South Pole of energy circulating around that magnetic line.
Earth Rising the Revolution, which actually has a chapter that takes off on missile defense and some of the other attributes of HARP, 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 these same subjects and the new undersea sonars and some other topics that we're integrating into that writing in this next.
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 until all the skin in the area is a 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, and 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 have a doctor, had a doctor look at the rash, but no determination of any sort has been made yet.
And 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.
Yeah, 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 and 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.
And they're still at nighttime.
They're up there right now coming up across the sky, covering the sky.
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?
You can ask Father Molokai Martin.
Not necessarily.
You asked Malachi Martin on, you know, how are you going 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 and 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 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 mean, 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 imagination?
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.
Isn't it interesting, though, that they might not understand their antenna pattern?
You see, that almost has to be because they're rushing to this company, trying to give these high-altitude baryon things so they can actually see what the pattern is.
That means that they don't know what it is.
unidentified
They don't know.
That's pretty scary what you found out from that restaurant.
Thought you all just might want to know out there.
We'll see.
Ah, you bet.
You bet.
Good morning, everybody.
Coming up should be interesting and educational and wild.
I'm sure Dr. Ken Homan is coming up.
He's considered by many to be one of the leading authorities on science and the Bible.
We're going to be talking about creation versus evolution.
He's a 15-year veterinary 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 Ph.D. 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.
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 not only, you think that that's all wrong, don't you?
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, well, there have 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.
Certainly 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.
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 of 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.
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, 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 in the Garden of Eden.
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?
In other words, you say you trace back the 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 was less than modern.
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 there's we seem 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.
You know, and why on earth would we think a bone we found in the dirt can do something that animals today cannot do, which is produce 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.
If there's that much change in meaning and things, then how can you know that the version that you believe is accurate based on your interpretation is accurate?
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 really much older than could be allowed for in your theory of creation.
Well, 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.
And for the first few hundred years after the flood, there were massive ice caps, ice age, clear down to Kansas City and Missouri.
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.
And so there probably was no Mediterranean Sea or Black Sea.
They were just a valley like south of San Francisco, the 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 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 again, 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.
I mean, any scientist has to keep his eyes open and say, well, 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 a little over 6 billion people on the planet.
And yet in 1985, there were 5 billion.
In 1800, there was only 1 billion on the whole planet.
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.
There's an awful lot of evidence of man being much larger from skeletons that have been found.
And we cover that on one of our videotapes of our seminar series.
So 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, a type of brachiosaur.
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.
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 abbreviate Dr. DR, 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 plasiosaurus.
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.
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 Skindiver Magazine, November 89, where a guy, Mr. Roberts, went and got pictures from Berkeley Archives at the University there of this creature.
You know, that's exactly, though, what the one that in Pensacola Harbor here where I live, in Pensacola, Florida, there were five teenagers, well, they're 18 or 19 years old, that went scuba diving in 1962.
And they said they got caught in a storm.
They're 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 the 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.
It scared them half to death.
And they took off, put their fins on their scuba divers, and started swimming back for shore.
He handed the phone to his wife, and his wife said, Mr. Hovind, 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, and 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. Hovind, my son was one of the kids who was eaten by this creature.
She said, this story you are telling is exactly correct.
In there we deal with a variety of topics that kids have to They're told there's evidence for evolution, and everything that's used as evidence for evolution has been proven wrong many years ago.
Well, we want some scientific, empirical evidence, something you can test and demonstrate, not just theoretical.
See, 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.
Although you could also argue it takes intelligence to duplicate a relative freak of nature, a very unusual combination, the Hundred Monkeys theory that eventually, given enough soup lying around of various sorts and enough electrical activity from above, eventually, according to the Hundred 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 if 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 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.
There's theories about clouds and 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 essentially has been blown up one way or the other, 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 set of occupants ourselves.
Well, all right, 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.
Well, I guess if you look at the definition of religion, it says belief in a power or powers that created the universe is one typical dictionary definition.
Well, that's certain.
Evolution certainly fits that quality.
It's a supposed power that they think 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 2,300 years old.
They're still alive.
Antarctic Journal, volume 6, page 211, a freshly killed seal was carbon dated 1,300 years old.
They just killed it.
Science Magazine, volume 224, shells 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.
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.
So there's a very great deal at stake here because, of course, if the Bible is absolutely true in the God you spoke of exactly as you spoke of him, and then we're in a lot of trouble right now in the way we're behaving.
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 to some hard scientific fact.
$250,000 could be yours.
You know, 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.
But I would like to ask your guest if anybody's ever or 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.
Yeah, 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?
As far as what would happen, there was a family in Canada back in the 50s or 60s that had six children, and the apartment owner would only allow 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.
So 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.
And that's why, if you read through the scriptures, they didn't even have kids until they're, you know, they're 100.
Jack Cawazo, the dentist in New Jersey, has spent 30 years studying the growth of the human face.
He says your face bones never stop growing.
And the people before the flood, or even shortly after the flood, we're 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 have these huge eye sockets or eyebrow ridges.
Although their brains are the same size as, actually, Neanderthals' brains are bigger than ours, 13% bigger on average.
All right, so obviously you're a comrade in arms here.
unidentified
Yes, I am.
I love the way he ties the Bible into it.
I studied, of course, I wish I could do as good as he does, Henry Boris' book on evolution and how he debunks it.
But I want you 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, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
And man became a living soul.
Now, my question for the evolution people like Dr. Hogan is very simply this.
Why do we teach theory as a fact and not even fact as a theory?
I think, you know, the subject of origins should probably not even be addressed in public schools.
You're going to offend somebody no matter which way you talk about it, creation or evolution.
The bigger question would be, should we have public schools?
You know, you read your Constitution, the Tenth 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, 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, they, throughout the document, continually called themselves religious humanists.
You know, they admitted clearly that humanism was a religion.
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, that's in chapter 6, verse 16, that 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 nights.
And that this was the time that set the seasons and set 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 were not necessarily, in my view, the way this is written, equal to the day in man's time.
All right, 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?
Well, for one thing, if you look in Exodus 20, there in the 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 sun's important, you need it for life, but you don't worship it, okay?
But we don't know the distance to the stars, number one.
Number two, nobody knows what light is.
Is it a package of energy or is it a photon or a 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, 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 of years, they've slowed light down finally to zero.
Oh, I wish I still had the article here so I could talk to Dr. Hovind 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 seat belts 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.
And would he 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 just have 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 for those two reasons.
Number one, he's assuming evolution happened at all, and it didn't.
Number two, we have, you know, you look at other countries, and there's no effect there.
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 at 812 miles an hour.
Plus, actually, we're going around the sun at 66,000 miles an hour.
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.
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.
unidentified
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.
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, 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 redshift one day and a blue shift the next day.
We don't know.
One theory is that the red shift is from the stars receding, the Doppler effect on light.
And it certainly could be true.
I don't know.
I think we've really gotten too carried away on this one idea that redshift indicates movement away when it may not.
Here's 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.
You know, there's a really interesting thing that you might want to go 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, 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, you know, is Pluto five light hours from the sun.
But that's like a kid walking out the front door and saying, well, I've explored the world, you know, when the kid's two years old, you know, two or two year old, you know, deep space is out in the front yard, you know, where there's a whole big world out there.
I don't think we've come close.
The nearest star, Alpha Centauri, and Proxima Centauri, you know, four and a third light years away, that's the nearest one.
To say we're exploring deep space, I think that's a little bit of a stretch.
Even getting just past the immediate environs of our little area, this spacecraft is beginning to be slowed by some really strange, unexplainable force.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Dr. Kenhoven.
Hello.
Yes.
unidentified
Good evening, Art.
Good evening, Doctor.
Good evening.
First of all, I have a scientific explanation for the gentleman that called it out, 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 annals of their history talk about a night that never ended or that lasted a long time.
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 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, you know, 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.
Well, a little while ago you talked about Neanderthal man as being someone that's old and therefore his bone structure has grown.
Do 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're saying this is the same species at Homo sapiens?
By the way, Caller, if you really were there, then I'll bet you saw Stupid Saurus, right?
I did, yeah.
What do you make of that?
unidentified
I think it's exactly what he thinks 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.
And if you call our toll-free number, we'll send you a catalog.
And 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.
And 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 Cawazzo could answer the question in the book Buried Alive about the occipital bun 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.
unidentified
So would you lose your forehead and your frontal lobe?
There's tremendous variation in the amount of Homo sapiens.
And I believe that Homo neandothalensis is doing a few laps in our gene pool, which is not shared by certain, such as Trinkhaus and others who have written books on Neanderthals.
But I think there's a pretty radical difference between Homo neandothalensis 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.
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 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.
As far as the, 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 her 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 Lyle.
It's a good movie, Special Effects, but yeah, it didn't happen.
unidentified
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 Zayasudra to the Sumerians.
I may have it backwards.
But these writings are very old, much older, and the Hebrew writings were 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.
And 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 that asks a question.
It doesn't say, I believe in this or I believe in that.
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.
Yeah, well, we're 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 actually is challenging the current scientific paradigm that Dr. Hovind disagrees with anyway, that indicates that man has been here far, far longer than we imagine, and that civilizations have risen and fallen for perhaps even millions of years.
And the evidence is challenging mainstream science going that way, while, of course, Dr. Hovind remains enveloped in the other direction.
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.
Well, 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 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 days, actually a couple 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 in natural gas is from the flood of the days of Noah.
And both you and your previous caller are, 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 upart 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, that there was a civilization that was extremely intelligent.
Like the coastal artifact found down there in Southern California.
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?
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.
That's not quite what I mean, or perhaps you did answer, and I didn't 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 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 crocks.
See, going from a freshwater crock to a saltwater crock is a very minor change compared to the evolution theory, which says they went from a rock to a crock.
unidentified
I did have a comment, if that's okay, all right?
Sure.
Yes, 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 debate, 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 Crimea's book so much, although I haven't read it thoroughly yet, that, you know, 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 a lot of creationists that say they teach a theory as fact.
That does seem to be the position a lot of scientists take.
And I don't agree with that any more than I agree with the creationists.
unidentified
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 a religious point of view clothed in the terminology and some of the artifacts of science.
And, you know, the reason, 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, if let's say that the creationists, quote, one, close quote, that they would really want to run society from the Old Testament.
unidentified
And, you know, I don't have much to base that on except the attitude I picked up from a lot of creationists.
The way we're doing it now in our society is not working.
I don't know exactly what I would do if I were in charge, nor do I want to be in charge.
But 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 anyplace in Scripture.
I think for certain crimes, you pay back four times.
You know, you steal a sheep, you pay back for four sheep.
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 casts the first stone.
Well, my question is, related to that, the number of species on the planet today is unbelievably large.
There's 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 fields.
Even with babies, you know, it really seems that 8,000 of those big-nostril guys, even as babies, that would have been some chore for Noah, even though he lived to be 900.
As LeConner points out, all that feeding and care during all that time on the Ark.
That Ark that just couldn't have showed that many people.
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, my offer, Mike's 250 grand is for evidence for evolution, which he's not offering.
He's offering questions about Noah's Ark.
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 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.
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, et cetera.
But it's still the same kinds.
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?
And just as 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.
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.
I think they're going to find with this cloning that they're not going to get a lot for the, 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 that we can handle.
Well, as far as becoming a superhuman, first of all, there has been no evolution of humans other than downwards.
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.
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.
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.
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 learned to ride the bike.
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.
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.
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?
I mean, in each cell, that one set of chromosomes is XX.
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.
Some women say God made the first one, and then he said, I can do better than that.
unidentified
Another interesting thing about the rib, since you mentioned it, a lot of singer, 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.
So the Bible doesn't say, but Noah was 600 when the flood started.
And some people have said when God said their days shall be 120 years, that that was the warning, but you have 120 years till the flood comes.
The Bible simply doesn't say clearly, but I suspect he probably took 100 years to build it or so.
unidentified
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.
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.