All Episodes
Previous Next
March 18, 1999 - Bill Cooper
01:02:31
Evolution vs. Creation
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Light up the world with the power of the dark.
The lights of the world will be lit with your blood and blood, so will your blood.
Oh, what a job!
You're listening to the Hour of the Time.
I'm William Cooper.
I couldn't remember if Doyle had his keys or not, so I had to run out and check the door and make sure that it was unlocked.
And Doyle had just driven up, so... Well, I don't know if he has his keys or not.
I'm kind of out of breath because I had to make that real quick there and real back.
And it's not right in front of my nose, folks, so...
Welcome once again to the Hour of the Time.
I was very surprised at the reception of last night's broadcast.
You see, when I opened the phones, I really expected some raving lunatics to just really not have understood the whole purpose for the thing and just really go off the deep end.
And it didn't happen.
I was also expecting today some phone calls taking me to task for last night's broadcast, and that did not happen either.
Instead, I got about 40 calls today, all congratulating me on last night's broadcast and thanking me for having done it.
Not because they believed any of the things that were put forth, Because it really made them think, and that was the whole purpose of the whole thing.
Was to inspire the audience to stop blindly believing what they're told.
Not just about religion, but about anything.
And start checking it out.
My goodness!
I had Christians call me today who thought they were Christians all their life.
And who had just blindly been believing, and then taking what they heard from the pulpit, and reading their Bible, and where what they heard conflicted with the Bible, they would, in some way, rationalize the Bible to come out to say what the preacher had said, instead of understanding or believing what was written in the Bible.
So, anyway, it worked out really well, and I was very pleased with it.
Tonight we're going to do something along those same lines, only it's going to be sort of a debate.
And the debate is going to take place between the members of the listening audience.
I'm going to feign ignorance tonight.
And so we're going to listen to something for a little bit, then I'm going to open the phones, and then the members of the audience will debate the subject.
And any of you who want to call in about anything else, forget it.
The minute you bring up any other subject than the subject that is on the agenda tonight, I'm going to have to hang up on you.
So, be prepared to listen carefully, understand what the subject of tonight's broadcast is, because that is the only subject that I will allow to be discussed, period.
Want to discuss something else?
You're going to save it for another night.
Or go discuss it with somebody down the block.
Okay?
We're going to talk about the theory of evolution tonight.
The Big Bang Theory.
The theory of evolution.
Darwinism.
As aligned against Creationism, or as the religionists, if there are such a thing, propose, God created the heavens and the earth, mankind, all of the animals, the stars, the oceans, everything, in seven days.
So, you, the listening audience, are going to take part in this debate.
I am going to be the moderator.
And I am going to ask questions when I believe that questions need to be asked of whoever is calling to participate in the debate so that we can pull out the truth from all of this.
Whatever the truth may be, and we may not even get close to it.
But it's going to be fun trying.
I think it's going to be a lot of fun.
And I want Everyone in the listening audience who participates in this debate to stick as close to science, to facts, to things that can be proven as is humanly possible.
And I know some of you will get a little emotional, you'll try to go off on some tangent somewhere, and I will try to gently pull you back.
As long as you allow yourself to be gently pulled back into the realm of fact and science, I will let you continue.
If you absolutely refuse, we'll go on to another caller.
Okay?
Now, this is a very important subject because it divides the world.
And it is, I believe, important in relationship to what is planned for the world.
So, I want you all to understand the terms of tonight's broadcast. If you call about anything else, I
will just very simply hang up on you just as quickly as I discover what tangent it is
that you want to go off on.
Because it's not going to be allowed. Okay? And...
There's somebody calling already. Let's see what tangent this is going to be about.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Yeah.
Yes.
The line dropped.
The line dropped?
Yes.
How did that happen?
I have no idea.
I went to pot you up at the top of the hour and it was dial tone.
Well, let's do it again then.
Maybe it doesn't like this phone line.
I guess not.
Nothing happened here.
I seized it as I always do.
It's just that it dropped.
Did you make any kind of announcement?
You better tell the listening audience.
No problem.
I'm playing music now.
Okay.
Okay, let me call you again.
Okay.
Okay.
Well, we're calling in again to link up with the...
Okay.
Give you 30 seconds.
Okay.
I'm going to give you 30 seconds.
I'm going to seize the line right now, though.
Okay.
Anytime.
Okay.
Well, now we're supposed to count to 30, and then we should be on the air at WBCQ.
I hope.
So, we'll find out exactly what's going on as the second hand ticks around.
And I think what I'm going to do is just start us over again here, just as if nothing happened.
For those of you listening in the Round Valley, just, you know, Pretend like you didn't hear anything, okay?
And we'll just start this all over again, right now.
Light of the hour.
The hour of the time.
Light of the universe.
You are a son of a gun.
You're listening to the Hour of the Time.
I'm William Cooper.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't ask me what happened.
I don't know, and WBCQ doesn't know.
We were linked, and then we weren't.
And so we're getting a ten-minute late start.
I've already explained the parameters of tonight's broadcast.
And those listening here in Arizona already know it, so you guys can go get a snack and something to drink and some pen and paper while I explain it to our international audience around the world.
Tonight's broadcast, folks, is going to be on the theory of evolution aligned against creationism.
There's going to be a debate which will take place between the members of the listening audience.
I will feign ignorance tonight.
And, uh, who knows? I might be.
I might learn an awful lot tonight.
Now, it doesn't matter if either side proves or disproves anything.
What matters is that we have a debate, and that the debate is based upon fact, keeping it as close to real science as is humanly possible.
You can either support your position, or you can't.
And you can either support it with science, or you cannot.
And for those of you who believe that you can't support creationism with science, you're wrong.
It not only can be done, but that's your best argument.
For those of you who believe you have all the scientific fact in the world on your side
because you believe in the theory of evolution, you may find that you're wrong.
So and the reason I'm saying this is because that is the opinion of most people is that
the theory of evolution is scientific fact.
Is it?
And the theory of most people, or the belief of most people is that creationism cannot be supported by scientific fact.
Is that true?
We're going to find out tonight.
I am going to be the moderator.
And I'm going to play a short tape I'm not going to play the whole tape, because this guy goes into some realms that I just don't like to go to.
I don't believe in it, for one thing.
But he starts off with a pretty convincing argument.
And I want you to hear that portion, his argument, and then we'll go for them.
If you believe in the theory of evolution, we want to hear from you.
We want you to argue why you believe it with scientific fact.
If you believe in creationism, We want to hear from you, and we want you to argue your side of this debate with scientific fact.
Don't call up and say what the Bible says.
That's not scientific fact.
If the Bible is true, and if the laws of nature are God's laws, you should be able to prove your point by arguing scientific fact.
Now, bear in mind that not all things that are accepted as fact in science are really fact at all.
And if that's true, you should be able to prove that also.
And you're going to hear a little bit of that.
Because what you're going to hear now is extremely interesting.
And I'm not going to tell you whether it's true or false.
I'm not going to tell you anything tonight.
I am going to be the moderator.
I will attempt to keep the debate on track.
If you begin to go off into flights of fancy or emotionalism or begin to get all upset or something, then I'm going to try to gently pull you back, and if I can, I'll let you continue.
If not, then we'll have to go to the next caller.
Okay?
And bear in mind that it should be interesting.
Open up realms of thought that have not occurred to many of us before, and it should be challenging.
One thing that may occur is that you may find that you believe either in the theory of evolution or creationism, and you don't know why, and you have absolutely no facts to argue Your side of the debate, pro or con.
And if that occurs with a great majority of the audience, we may find ourselves without a broadcast.
And if that's what happens, ladies and gentlemen, then everybody listening to this broadcast, I'm going to have to say, is building a house on sand.
If you can't support your belief, with fact, with scientific fact in this case, because both sides of this can be argued with scientific fact and nothing else.
And that's the truth.
If you cannot call up and present an argument based upon scientific Then it means you built your house on sand, and you'd better re-examine your entire structure of belief regarding this subject, no matter which side you are on.
Okay?
So the purpose of this broadcast is not to disprove the theory of evolution.
It's not to disprove creationism.
It is to challenge the listening audience to back up your case with facts.
Scientific fact.
See if you can make your point.
See if you can prove your side of the debate.
It's going to be extremely interesting, I think.
And so, all of you running around, you may want to jot some things down because some of the callers may come up with some points that just may surprise, just may surprise everybody.
And I hope that happens.
I really hope it happens.
And I think it will.
If I know this audience.
And I think I do.
So I'm going to play some music now.
You all run around and get you something to drink and something to snack on.
And make sure you have pen and paper.
And when I come back, after this music, we're going to play a portion of a tape and then we're going to open the phone.
I'd like you all to make your points as quickly as possible because I want to get as many calls in as possible for this debate.
And we're already 10 minutes behind schedule.
And oh, by the way, I want to thank all of you who enjoyed last night's broadcast.
We had about 40 or 50 calls today, all thanking me and telling me what a wonderful broadcast it was.
And it surprised me because I thought that I would be really attacked over that broadcast rather than have it, uh, um, have been appreciated as it, as it
apparently was.
So thank you very much.
Uh, be prepared when you come back to listen very carefully to the tape that I'm going
to play and that will start our debate.
Thank you.
Willow, wait for me.
Plant your precious green along the stream that runs the sea.
Welcome to my dreams.
Bring in some willow and weep for me.
Gone are my lovers dreams, lovely summer's dreams.
Gone and left me here to weep my tears into the stream.
Sad as I can be, Give me your love and wait for me.
Whisper to the wind and say that love attends.
Leave my heart a-breaking and lay it alone.
Okay, that's enough of that weeping willow tree stuff.
and crying all alone.
Weeping willow tree, weeping sympathy.
Okay, that's enough of that weeping willow tree stuff.
I just can't get into that weeping willow tree.
As we've been doing lately, I'm just letting the shuffle come up
out of the 200 CDs that we have loaded into this CD carrier here.
Okay, folks, sit back, relax, and listen.
And I mean listen very, very carefully.
Now, I don't know whether what you're going to hear is right or wrong, but it's going to lay a foundation of thought that may spark The rest of the evening's debate.
And remember, it's you, the members of the listening audience, who are going to participate in this debate, not me.
I am going to moderate it, ask pertinent questions when I believe it's necessary, and try to keep it on track, on fact, and not flights of emotion or religious, what do you call it?
Which is where some people like to go, and we're not going to allow that.
So when it happens, I'll try to pull you back gently, and if you refuse, then we'll go into the next column.
Okay?
So let's keep it friendly, and let's keep it fun if we can, and let's try to learn something tonight, and let's try to spark intellectual thinking, which is the whole reason for this broadcast has been from day one.
I was on the airplane years ago, flying from Dallas to San Francisco, the land of the fruits and the flakes.
And I happened to sit next... Actually, I wasn't flying.
The plane was flying.
I was just sitting.
I happened to sit next to a professor from Berkeley University.
I don't know if you've ever heard of Berkeley University, but Berkeley is not a Bible college, by any stretch of the imagination.
And this professor and I were sitting next to each other for four hours as we flew from Dallas to San Francisco.
And we got talking, inevitably, about evolution and creation.
He said he believed in evolution.
I said, yes, sir, I'm sure of that.
You have to, to teach at Berkeley.
That's one of the prerequisites.
I said, tell me, how did the world get here?
He said, well, Mr. Holden, about 20 billion years ago, all the dust in space started drawing together into this little tiny dot.
And it was spinning real fast, and it exploded.
It's the Big Bang Theory.
That's the way it's taught in textbooks.
Look at this.
Here's Prentice Hall, General Science, 1992.
Notice what it says.
You've got to read this carefully.
This blew my mind when I saw this.
I had to photograph the page to show you.
Eighteen to twenty billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page.
I thought, now wait a minute.
All the matter in the universe, all the stars, all the planets, the sun, the earth, all the people, was squeezed into a dot smaller than a period on the page?
Folks, that's one crowded dot.
That was jam-packed in there.
I'm telling you what, you couldn't have got that thing any more packed.
That's what they're teaching the kids these days.
And the professor, well, he told me that.
He's a professor at Berkeley.
He believes it.
He said it was spinning faster and faster, just like it does here.
That's all general science.
It spun faster and faster.
Finally, it exploded.
Boom!
The big bang.
And the professor said, that's the way we got here.
I said, sir, could I ask you a couple questions, please?
He said, sure, go ahead.
We got enough of the time.
Four hours sitting on the airplane.
I said, question number one, where did matter come from?
He said, well, what do you mean?
I said, you told me that all this dust in space started growing together.
Where did the dust come from?
Who made the dust?
He said, well, that's a good question, and we don't know that one for sure.
I said, OK, no problem.
Maybe you know this one.
You said all this dust started getting together.
What made it get together?
He said, gravity.
All particles have an attraction for each other.
I said, sir, I understand that.
I teach physics.
I know about the inverse square law, particle attraction, acceleration due to gravity.
That's the stuff I teach.
But that doesn't explain the basic fundamental question.
Where did gravity come from?
Who made gravity?
Who made the dust?
Who made the laws of gravity, centrifugal force, inertia, the laws that govern this universe?
Who wrote the law book?
He said, I don't know.
I said, okay, no problem, no problem.
He said it was all drawing together, squeezing into this little bitty dot, spinning real fast, and it exploded.
I said, sir, doesn't it require energy to make something move?
He said, well, of course.
I said, well, where did the energy come from for all this dust to move and to spin and to explode?
Who bought the gas to run this machine, anyway?
Where did the energy come from?
He said, well, that's a good question.
He said, I don't know.
I said, OK, no problem, no problem.
You're 0 for 3 so far, but let's try one more.
You said it was all spinning around and it exploded, and the pieces that flew off cooled down to become the sun, galaxies, moons, stars, et cetera.
Is that right?
He said, that's it.
You got it.
I said, can I ask you another question, sir?
He was getting a little reluctant to take questions by this time, but he said, sure, go ahead.
I said, does Berkeley University, where you teach, have a merry-go-round?
You kids know what a merry-go-round is, don't you?
You go round and round and round till you puke.
You've never won a vote before?
He said, no, we don't have a merry-go-round at Berkeley.
I said, well, that's unfortunate, because you can learn some neat things about science from a merry-go-round.
For instance, if you put six fourth-graders on the merry-go-round, how many fourth-graders do we have here?
Are they in here?
Fourth grade.
Hey, I spent the best six years of my life in fourth grade.
I loved it.
We'll use fourth graders for this experiment because they're pretty tough and they're brave and they're expendable.
So, we're going to put six fourth graders on the merry-go-round.
Make sure that at least one of them does not know what's going on.
And if you're using fourth graders, most of them qualify.
Alright?
But, we're going to make sure at least one does not know what's going on.
Five of them are going to have a secret code word.
They're going to get on the merry-go-round.
We're going to get it spinning pretty fast.
And one of the five is going to say, Oh boy, isn't this fun!
And as soon as he says fun, those five run to the middle of the merry-go-round.
So all you gotta do, pull yourself in and stand in the middle.
As soon as you do that, the merry-go-round will start going about four or five times faster.
All by itself, with nobody else touching it.
You concentrate the mass in the middle, and it'll spin faster.
Leaving the sixth kid with a problem.
I was in Longview, north to north of Longview, Texas, about a year ago, I guess, and I was speaking at this church and I told that story.
And that night, a little girl came in, about eight years old, you know.
She came into church and she had band-aids all over her elbows and all over her knees.
I said, what happened?
She said, I was on the merry-go-round and it started going real fast all by itself.
And I fell off.
I said, oh, I wonder how that happened.
But, uh, I told the birthday professor, I said, if you put six kids on the merry-go-round and get the high school football team out there to get it spinning as fast as it'll go, Now, we're going to spin the merry-go-round clockwise for this experiment.
Now, if you have a digital watch, you may not know what clockwise means.
You'll see me afterwards.
I'll explain that to you.
But we're going to spin the merry-go-round clockwise.
It does not mean blink, blink, blink.
No.
Anyway, we're going to spin it around clockwise, with the football team pushing it as fast as they can get it going.
They're going to start off, and the kids are going to go through four very distinct phases every time.
It works.
The fourth graders will be on there.
They'll be screaming and yelling, oh boy, let's go.
Faster, faster.
You win.
And you get up around 20 or 30 miles an hour.
They enter phase 2.
Phase 2 is the silent stage where they stop screaming and they just concentrate on trying to hang on for dear life.
Keep going, faster and faster and faster.
You get up around 40 or 50 miles an hour, they're going to enter phase 3.
Phase 3 is where they start screaming again.
But now they're screaming, stop, stop, slow down!
Don't stop, keep going, faster and faster.
Somewhere between 80 and 100 miles an hour, they will enter phase 4.
Phase 4 is where the kids begin to fly off the merry-go-round.
Now, you need to watch carefully and videotape this and play it back frame by frame.
You'll notice an interesting phenomena of science.
If the merry-go-round is going clockwise, when the kid flies off, well, he will be spinning clockwise.
Until he encounters a little resistance, like a tree, or a pole, or the parking lot.
He will be going the same direction as the merry-go-round.
It always happens.
It's called, in science, the law of the conservation of angular momentum.
Which means, if a spinning object explodes, the pieces that fly off spin the same direction.
And the Berkeley professor said, oh yes, Mr. Hogan, I'm familiar with the conservation of angular momentum principle.
I said, well good, if you're familiar with that, if the whole universe started from a Big Bang, would you explain something to me?
Would you explain why all nine of our planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, all nine planets go around the Sun counterclockwise.
All nine of them travel counterclockwise viewed from the North Star, and yet the Sun spins clockwise.
The Sun spins backwards.
Would you explain that to me with your Big Bang theory, please?
He said, well, that's interesting.
I said, sir, that's a whole lot more than interesting.
That's devastating.
It couldn't have come from a big bang.
The sun is spinning backwards.
He said, well, I don't know how it started then.
I said, okay, no problem.
Maybe you could explain this.
These planets, these planets are not only going around the sun, they're also spinning around themselves.
Some turning faster than others, but they're all spinning.
However, seven of the planets, like Earth, spin counterclockwise due from their north pole.
Two of them, Venus and Uranus, spin backwards.
I said, sir, how did two planets get going backwards?
Maybe even Pluto's spinning backwards, I'm not sure.
I said, how did that happen?
He said, well, that's interesting.
He said, I don't know.
I said, OK, no problem, no problem.
I said, maybe you could explain this.
Some of the planets have moons going around them.
There are 60 known moons in the solar system now.
Mercury doesn't have any.
Venus doesn't have any.
Earth only has one.
Does anybody know the name of ours?
Moon.
OK?
It's called Moon.
That's a smart crowd you got here, brother.
Brother, out of the 60 known moons in our solar system, at least 11 of them are spinning backwards.
Four of them are traveling backwards around their planet.
They're going opposite ways.
I said to the Berkeley professor, sir, how did it happen?
I would like a logical, rational, non-emotional, scientific, non-religious answer.
How did it happen?
He said, I don't have a good answer.
He said, how do you think it happened?
I said, it's very simple to me.
And so that is the kick-off to the debate.
Now, like I told you before, ladies and gentlemen, I don't know whether all of that was right or wrong, or at least I'm going to pretend that I don't.
And so you, the members of the audience, are now challenged to participate in a great debate.
And you are to call in, state which side of this debate you are on, and then give the scientific facts to support your side of the debate.
We should have, you know, according to statistics nowadays, we should end up with more callers from people who believe in the theory of evolution than people who believe in creationism, if you believe the polls and the statistics that abound.
And after all of the years that the theory of evolution has been taught in schools, and all of the years that creationism has been banned from schools, it should come out about that way.
But no matter which side of the debate you are on, we want to hear from you.
I'm going to moderate the debate.
I'm going to keep it on track.
I'm going to ask questions when I believe that the questions are called for, and you're going to Support your side of the debate.
If after a reasonable period of time we find that neither side can support their contention with any scientific facts whatsoever, or very few, then guess what that means, folks?
You draw a full of crap is what it means.
So get it together and if you believe one way or the other, call in.
The number is 520-333-4578.
Remember I'm the moderator.
I'm not going to take sides in this.
And I don't care which side you're on.
You got nothing to fear from me.
All I'm going to do is keep the debate on track, keep it from going off into emotional
and strange areas and keep it to fact and science, if we can possibly do that.
as close as humanly possible.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Well, good evening, Bill.
How am I coming through?
Good.
My name is Jeff, and I'd like to help define the term.
You keep referring to it as the theory of evolution, and you're jumping a couple of steps.
In the search for scientific knowledge, you begin with an idea.
You elevate that to a hypothesis, then a theory, and you eventually end up with a fact.
I would prefer that it's called a hypothesis of evolution, so that we don't accidentally assume facts that aren't in evidence.
Well, we're not admitting that there are any facts in evidence.
In fact, I agree with what you say.
The hypothesis is based upon the idea.
The theory always must be based upon some fact, and the people who believe in the theory of evolution claim that it is based upon scientific fact, therefore it is called and accepted in academic circles as the theory of evolution.
It has never been claimed as fact, however.
Well, yes, but one important step is being missed.
Somebody starts with an idea, a hypothesis is an educated guess.
It's not supported by any factual evidence whatsoever.
That's true.
And then, once factual evidence is accumulated, then we start attributing it to being a theory.
So, you want to start the debate assuming that both sides are no more than the hypothesis?
Exactly.
We're all people right from the beginning.
Okay, then let's do that.
No.
Are you on one side or the other?
Well, I definitely believe in evolution.
I mean, excuse me.
Whoa!
Excuse me, Bill.
No.
Once you look at African lungfish, once you explore an anglerfish, once you examine the mysteries of the human eye, there's no conceivable way evolution can explain away any of that.
Okay.
Do you have any scientific fact upon which you can base your side of the argument?
Well, give us one or two or three or something, but give us something here to start this debate on.
Alright, so let's talk about the cones and the dots of the human eyeball, and how come objects become visible to us.
If evolution was to create the human eye, but with an adjustable focusing lens, the optic nerve, everything else that's there, it's ridiculous to assume that Excuse me, I'm going to ramble on, and I should, and I know you're going to get a lot of callers.
I just wanted to get my two cents first.
Well, I could barely hear you, and we'll go on to the next caller.
Thank you, Bill.
Thank you for calling.
And we'll accept your definition.
We'll start as both sides being a hypothesis.
And you, in the listening audience, are going to establish whether there is any fact to
impel either side of the argument into the realm of theory, which must be based upon
fact.
And so, if you support creationism or the theory of evolution, both of them starting
off tonight as hypotheses, then that's fine.
And by the way, your argument was not based upon any fact.
It was based upon your belief that the cones in the eyes and the focusing ability of the human eye could not possibly result from evolution, but your contention is not based upon any science whatsoever.
That's strictly your opinion or your belief.
520-333-4578 is the number.
Good evening.
03334578 is the number.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Hi Bill, it's Alan.
Hello Alan.
The single biggest smoking gun piece of evidence for a Big Bang Theory of the creation of our
observable universe, at least in this dimensional plane, is something known as the microwave
background radiation.
It's kind of like the aftermath, the burning glow, the afterglow of that event that might have happened 10 to 15 billion years ago.
It's measurable.
It was discovered in the late 50s by a group of Bell Telephone researchers in Homdale, New Jersey.
They were using this huge horn antenna, and wherever they pointed it in the sky, they detected this very, very, very faint microwave background radiation.
And there was a theoretical prediction that if the universe was created so many billions of years ago in one big fat flash, that as it cooled down and matter condensed and formed galaxies and star systems and planets and us, that as it cooled, that radiation, and as it expanded, it would cool.
That radiation would, by 15 billion years or so, instead of being 2 or 3 million degrees, it would be only 3 degrees, which puts it in the microwave band.
So that's my piece of scientific fact so far as a universe, one theory that at least our observable universe, starting with OK, does that argument support evolution or creationism?
Or do you know?
Or could it support both?
You know, it's interesting because, I mean, science has always been my thing.
And, you know, the thing about evolution is that we as humans and we as people kind of get off the beaten path with is we look at everything around us and we kind of base it in the timescale of lifetimes.
If you take a group of molecules that kind of have an affinity to getting together and forming complex amino acids and eventually complex tissues and single-celled organisms and things like that, It's easy to say that there's a divine presence responsible for that, but the thing is, given enough time, it's possible.
I mean, it's theoretically possible.
Because we're talking about timescales not in human lifetime, we're talking about timescales in millions and millions to billions of years.
Most of us can just think of maybe 10 or 20 years, Third by the time 30 years gets by, we're all getting a little foggy.
You could say that again.
I said you could say that again.
Right.
To conceive of things happening within like a period of a million years is almost impossible for the human mind to conceive.
And then multiply that by a thousand, and you've got a billion.
And you're getting into inconceivable numbers.
I think evolution makes sense.
Also, I can hold the argument that if you look at the observable universe in itself as something that is not only supporting our life on this planet Earth, but might have other forms of life teeming within it, And then of course, you know, if you get into a spiritual thing and a spirituality thing and an inter-dimensional thing where, you know, thought of existence can go beyond the biological state, beyond just the biological engine.
Yeah, I mean, I think it would be close-minded for even the most advanced scientific mind to say, well, It's really possible that there is some divine influence or central nucleus of thought or consciousness governing the way life progresses, not only on our little planet Earth, but in the universe as a whole.
Of course, that jumps into UFOs, that jumps into other evolutionary life forms that could All kinds of things that we don't even want to touch tonight.
Right, right.
The thing is, Bill, though, if you accept evolution, even if you accept evolution with divine providence, you've got to look at it with a possibility that, you know, take the evolution of this planet, you know, take the supposedly most advanced life form on this planet, which are human beings, supposedly, add a million years To our evolution, and what will you get?
I don't know.
I don't know either.
The supreme jellyfish, maybe.
I think that's true.
Floating in space.
Evolution seems to follow an arrow that goes in one direction.
If it's true.
You know, if it's true.
So, I generally try to... I look at it both ways, because My consciousness as a person has a hard time even visualizing, you know, if the universe started as a singularity, how many biological evolutionary steps were necessary to create
Let's go back to the tape for just a second, and then we want to go on to the next caller.
What do you have to say about the argument that he put forth that if there was, in fact, the beginning of the universe and everything that is, was a Big Bang, that the orbits and the direction of the orbits and the spinning of the planets In one way or another, and the moons around the planets, and the moons on their axis, absolutely contradicts the way that science said that it would have to happen if, in fact, it began with the Big Bang.
Everything in the universe would have to be spinning in the same direction.
Well, yes, the thing is, that, I don't think that's a problem, because the theory is that When the Big Bang happened, there were anomalies in it.
In other words, the observable universe is not a perfectly smooth place.
It's kind of like when you wade in water and spin things around.
You might get water swirls going one way, water swirls going the other way.
Oh, can't happen.
Can't happen.
Pardon me?
Can't happen.
If you get swirls in the Northern Hemisphere, they're going to go in one direction.
If you get them in the Southern Hemisphere, they're going to go in another direction, in the opposite direction.
No matter how you try to create those swirls because of the Coriolis force of the spinning of the Earth.
Coriolis force is not as strong as, say, your hand moving the water and making it go in one direction.
In other words, you're putting energy into that system.
Not the energy of the Earth's rotation.
I know we're talking about the Coriolis effect.
But in other words, you're getting in the water and you're moving your hand in one direction and you're creating little swirls in the water.
And you're putting energy into that system.
Now, when a planetary system condenses, there are probably—now, again, this is theory—but there are probably all different kinds of eddies and motions and anomalies, because, you know, even the solar system isn't a perfect geometric system.
I mean, the orbits are inclined, they're elliptical.
There was a time when scientists and men of wisdom thought it was, but it's not.
It's not perfect.
But it does, when examined according to what we know in the law of physics, conform to those laws perfectly.
But how did it get that way, is the question.
If the laws of physics say that if there was a Big Bang, they all have to fly out of that Big Bang, spinning in the same direction that the original matter was spinning, in the object that exploded.
Because the theory of the Big Bang has modified within the last decade.
The theory now is that there was a Big Bang, but it was not a perfectly symmetrical one.
Meaning that there were anomalies in it.
It was not perfect.
Do you think that this is an attempt to actually explain why things are the way they are, or an attempt to explain No, I think it's to explain the way things are.
Actually, as more information from, from, there are, there are satellites that have
been put up to measure the microwave background radiation and they found anomalies in it.
Okay.
That it's not completely perfectly uniform everywhere you point a radio telescope in
the sky.
Yeah.
Meaning, meaning that the Big Bang was not a perfectly symmetrical thing.
There's a theory that states if the Big Bang was perfectly symmetrical and perfect in every
way and energy just went out and dissipated, there might not be a universe that we see.
In other words, there might have not been a condensation of, of space into matter as
we know it today.
It just might have radiated out and dissipated and that's the end of it.
No matter, no people, no nothing.
That one theory holds that the Big Bang happened, but because it was not perfect, because there were lumps in it, it was lumpy, because of that... Like my gravy.
Right.
It condensed into matter.
Matter condensed upon itself, fell upon itself into gravity.
You know, the first theoretical particles were not even, you know, atoms as we know it.
They were just quarks and just little packets of energy that finally got together to form, like, the first protons and neutrons and things like that.
Yeah, and now we're getting in the realms that exist only in the minds of mathematicians.
And... Well, protons and neutrons and electrons I was specifically referring to quarks.
Quarks can only be proven mathematically on a blackboard and have never been physically proven to exist like a proton and neutron can be.
This I have it on good authority.
It's a theoretical makeup of the fundamental particles that we know, which are protons
and neutrons and electrons, which if you smash them and break them up, they break down into
smaller bits of packets of energy.
At least that's the theory.
And some of it's observable.
When they put them in linear accelerators and cyclotrons and bash them into each other,
they break down into constituent parts.
But what I'm saying is that, yes, the idea of the quantum mechanics of the universe is
that the quantum mechanics of the universe is a very complex and complex thing.
And it's a very complex thing.
The more they observe and get information, like from the Hubble Space Telescope, the more they see that the universe is not a perfect place, that there are irregularities in it.
And, you know, some theorists and cosmologists trace it back to when the theoretical creation from a singularity when there wasn't any space.
You see, it's all relative.
When there's no space, for something to theoretically occupy, then you can't
really... there's nothing to compare it to in size. So, you think of a singularity as something as
small as the head of a pen where all matter was created. But when there's no space for it to
really occupy...
Or matter to create from, or energy.
As it expands, it creates space. And as space condenses, it creates matter. It gets...
It gets very difficult to understand.
Yeah, it does. You know, as Einstein once said, God doesn't play dice with the universe. But then he
subtracted that, and God sometimes does play dice with the universe.
Yeah, okay.
Well, thank you, Alan, and I appreciate your call.
Thank you.
And the reason I let Alan go on so much is because I know that he has a good mind and that he would at least give us some scientific or some currently accepted theories upon Which debase some of this discussion.
Understand, though, that when they say that in the beginning there was dust that came together and started spinning and all of a sudden exploded, it's like you said, where'd the dust come from?
How did it get together?
What brought it there?
If there was no dust, and if there was no space, and if there was no matter, and if there was no energy, if in the beginning there was nothing, what happened?
Good evening, you're on the air.
Oh, chicken plucker!
That's what we call a chicken plucker around here.
That's somebody who had the impetus to call, but not the courage to speak.
520-333-4578.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Hi Bill, this is Frank from Pennsylvania.
Hi Frank, you've got to talk a lot louder.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Can you hear me now?
That's better.
Okay.
I was just sitting here listening.
I just tuned in.
Not too long ago I hear you talk about this debate.
Mm-hmm.
About the debate.
Yes.
Okay, not against.
We're not adversaries here.
We're all trying to provoke thought and sort of, you know, at least try to look for the
truth even if we don't find it.
He has some very good points.
One of his bases is on evolution, with the Big Bang.
But I'm going to sit here and, first of all, Matthew, what about the second law of thermodynamics?
I'm going to sit here and, first of all, Matthew, what about the second law of thermodynamics?
What about?
Why don't you tell us what that is?
Okay, the second law of thermodynamics is that everything is in a state of decay.
Uh-huh.
And if, he was saying, I know he was saying about there are anomalies and such that have been discovered, you know, in the Earth's rotation and all this, and, you know, the different things within the universe that they have found.
I mean, this is my belief.
I believe that if that is possible, that if they feel that things are not as perfect as they say they should be, that perhaps the second law of thermodynamics has something to do with that, being that everything is an experiment.
It may have a lot to do with it.
If you can project that out into things that are happening, that are observable, and show that to us, then maybe we can see what you're talking about.
What you're saying is things tend toward chaos, not toward order.
Well, what I'm saying is, I'm putting my opinion upon the basis of my belief in Jesus Christ and His creation.
Yeah, but tonight we're basing this argument upon fact.
Upon fact, right.
Yeah, no matter which side you take, you should be able to prove it in fact, because if you take the creationist side, you're not without fact.
If God created the laws of the universe, the laws of the universe should support creationism, shouldn't they?
True.
Bet you never thought of that, did you?
You see, a lot of Christians start off with a handicap.
They don't believe their own bullshit.
Know what I'm talking about?
Okay.
If you believe it, you can find the facts to support it.
Right, but even from a scientific standpoint, the second law of thermodynamics, you know, you hear the evolutionists say they have scientific facts to back up their theory of evolution, but they are contradicting themselves when they say that for the simple fact that the second law of thermodynamics has been proven that everything is in a state of decay.
So how does that prove creationism and tend to disprove... What I'm saying is that it doesn't give very much clout to evolution.
How?
Explain that.
Explain what you mean by that.
Well, what I mean is... You see, I know exactly what you mean, but you need to be able to explain it.
Okay, well... So give it a good shot.
I'm here to help you.
I'm not trying to put you down or anything.
I'm trying to get you to explain your argument, or else people out there will say you don't have one.
Right.
Well, I mean, I don't know how to explain it, but all that I know... Let me give you a clue.
If everything tends toward decay, or if everything tends from order toward chaos, how did we get from an amoeba to a human being?
Does that make sense?
How come you can't say that?
Well, I mean, that's true.
I don't know.
What I'm saying is, I see, they try to say about the mutant evolution, like the peppermoth, for instance.
Like, Darwin used the peppermoth as one of his bases for evolution over in Europe, where there were factories that were stewing soot and different types of particles into the air, and, you know, There is black moths and white moths, and they disappeared, and eventually they came up as pepper moths, which they say was based upon evolution.
It was a product of evolution.
But in reality, it was just a species that was mutated.
It mutated itself to be able to exist within that environment.
But you just made a point for evolution, because the whole theory of evolution is based upon the fact that organisms mutate into something else depending upon their need to survive in their environment.
They've mutated, but it is not a higher-grade species.
A mutation cannot be something that has jumped up the ladder in intelligence.
That's a step forward, isn't it?
It would be, yeah.
Now bear in mind, I'm not arguing either point.
I'm trying to clarify what you're saying.
So that's a step forward, isn't it?
Now, bear in mind, I'm not arguing either point.
I'm trying to clarify what you're saying.
I'm not arguing either point either.
I'm just trying to, you know, understand some things, too.
I'm just, you know, I figure, I was just thinking about the second law of thermodynamics, and
I was like, well...
It's just that you're not putting forth your argument very well.
It is an excellent argument.
If I were participating in this debate, I could take the second law of thermodynamics
and almost destroy the theory of evolution.
Right, but see, I'm like I said, I'm no scientist.
I'm just an average, ordinary person, you know, with, you know, good at the work and
stuff like that.
I read a lot, so...
Don't, don't, don't, don't...
I'm just a plain-sitter and already a point.
Yeah, don't degrade yourself.
You can't degrade yourself.
You can do that.
You have the same brain as anybody else and I think that you can do anything that you want to do.
My thing is law.
I've studied law.
That's what I do.
And that's my expertise as of today, as of this time.
Well, you made a good point, and I thank you very much.
Thank you, Bill.
You're welcome.
Bye.
520-333-4578.
It's time for you.
Yes, I'm pointing to you right through this microphone, right through the airwaves, actually through the phone lines, all the way to WBCQ in Maine, and then out all over the world to you.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hello?
Another chicken plucker.
520-333-457.
Don't be a chicken plucker.
I'm not gonna scalp you.
I'm not gonna reach out there and smack you upside the head.
Either you have an argument to put forth or you don't.
You're amongst friends.
We're trying to explore a subject here.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
This is Chicken Plucker the First.
Chicken Plucker the First.
Yeah, I had to go and get the door.
Oh, okay.
So you weren't a chicken plucker.
You really had a legitimate excuse.
Well, you're just merely being provocative earlier, that's all.
Well, I have to be provocative.
That's what radio's all about.
If it's not provocative, you wouldn't be listening.
First, I'd like to get rid of a lot of the mysticisms that comes out of both the theological and the scientific camps, and just go ahead and say, why can't you accept what you see with your eyes and you can feel with your hands?
Wait a minute.
You're not debating me, so don't make it against me.
Well, this is to everybody else, but I'm addressing to the radio audience.
Okay.
Then tell it to the radio audience.
Okay.
To the radio audience.
Defined as, why can't you?
Now, you're going to have to... The team at Cell Sciences is doing like in the Middle Ages of discussing how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin.
Only, they're not only fairies, there are quarks and these abstract things that Only exist in a tool called mathematics.
If it's creationism, then you have a system where you have a superimposed life by an authority, whether it be from an organized church or a shaman.
I can't see either end of it.
I'm lost.
I don't know what you drive.
I don't know what the audience is driving.
Well, what we're trying to do is explore.
We're not driving anything.
We're trying to provoke thought, so that if the audience as a whole doesn't reach an answer tonight, maybe some of the individuals out there will.
Okay, then, if your mythology says one thing, except that if your science... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Because I can have any kind of mythology.
I can invent a mythology today, and it doesn't apply to anything.
No, it's not.
You can either support it with facts or you can't.
That's exactly what the argument between creationism...
No, it's not.
You can either support it with fact or you can't.
If you can't, you don't have a leg to stand on.
There are people who profess that the theory, that evolution is fact.
If it's fact, then they should be able to prove it.
There are other people who profess that creationism is fact.
If it's fact, and if the entire laws of the universe were created by God as they say, they should be able to prove it with the scientific laws that God put in place that we can observe all around us.
If they can't, they don't have a leg to stand on!
Both sides would have to use flippery in order to come across with a legitimate... Well, I don't care.
What I'm trying to do tonight is to get people to call who support one side or the other and present the facts to support their argument.
Then we'll find out if all they can use is flippery or whatever you want to call it.
So far, there's been a couple of good arguments here tonight.
You're welcome.
5-2-0-3-3-3-4-5-7-8.
Folks, if you're lost, I can't help you.
The purpose of tonight's broadcast is try to get at some facts so that maybe we won't be lost.
You know, maybe we're all lost.
Maybe we're all full of crap.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Hi Bill.
Hi.
I'd like to lead off by saying you're the guy that got me convinced that I should give Well, good, thank you.
Anyway, I'm a creation believer, and I've done a little investigating in Glen Rose, Texas.
They have fossils of footprints, human right alongside and right within.
Dinosaur prints, and I think that's pretty conclusive that they existed at the same time.
▲
Export Selection