All Episodes
Previous Next
March 18, 1999 - Bill Cooper
56:25
Evolution vs. Creation
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is the Hour of the Time, and I'm William Cooper.
We're participating in a debate amongst the members of the listening audience tonight, Creationism vs. Evolution.
Sorry for the interruption, I had to do that.
Go ahead, continue.
And what side does that support?
Well, that would just prove evolution, because they say there's six million years between so-called dinosaurs and us, you know.
Okay, how can you be sure that it's a human footprint?
Well, they've done extensive tests on that.
The stress areas are identical, it's been confirmed by scientists.
Identical with what?
Which human feet?
I mean, there's people who say they were human six million years ago.
Are you talking about those human?
This human?
Tilt-down man?
Neanderthal man?
Which human are you talking about?
They're saying human like us.
So they're saying that the footprint is the exact footprint just like a modern human man or woman would make if they were walking.
Right.
That's in the areas that we would duplicate today.
Okay.
The mold that was dissected and analyzed and It's pretty conclusive that it's a human, such as we are.
Yeah.
And also, the so-called link between apes and humans, they've never found it, and everyone they thought they'd find has been scientifically disproven.
Yeah.
Now, what is your basis for that?
Well, the one was a pig's tooth that was found, and it was created out of various animal bones.
Lucy, you mean?
Well, you're absolutely right about that.
That's the truth.
All of the so-called missing links have been, and I'm not saying this lightly, it's the truth, have been proven to either be mistakes or hoaxes or, in some instances, outright criminal con jobs Uh, but, uh, perpetrated by people who wanted to make money off of it.
And another thing I can think of offhand is, uh, the amount of dust that scientists have supposedly proven, proven scientifically, that should accumulate on our moon was disproven when they went there and found less.
Uh, I'm sorry my friend, but, uh, I can pretty well conclusively prove that they never went there, at least in the Apollo space program.
Yeah, and that's what you're basing that on.
Neil Armstrong's full of crap.
Yeah, they were expecting him to sink up over his head in dust and when he jumped off the
proverbial ladder after saying his historic thing, the next thing he said was,
it's solid. About three quarter inch. They claimed.
There was a great flood, but there had to be something to bring all those creatures over all the square footage we
have on this planet. You know, so it's pretty good evidence that there must have been a catastrophic flood or something
of that sort to create that situation where we find these people.
where we find them today.
Well, as far as I can determine, there's no scientific evidence that there was a flood everywhere in the earth at the same time.
There is scientific evidence that different parts of the earth were underwater at different times in history, unless they're just totally off on all of their ability to determine the age of certain events.
Well, that's true.
It wasn't true at all, you see. It hasn't been a catastrophe.
It's been of some sort. And those footprints that you were talking about, I think Carl E. Bobbs is the head of that.
Well, that doesn't destroy the theory of evolution. It just destroys their time frame.
Yeah, right. But, uh, true.
That's done a lot of it.
Yeah.
There's quite a bit of evidence that just totally destroys their, what do you call it, evolution column, or whatever it is.
And people want to see a lot of evidence that's disproving their time table and whatnot.
That creation evidence in the museum in Glen Rose, Texas has got quite a bit of evidence.
and scientifically check that, and it's a layer of Earth that is along the dinosaur
trail that they've uncovered with footprints in. And that's more proof of human beings
as we are, not as beings of Paul.
OK, thank you for your call.
You're welcome.
520-333-4578. And folks, in my comments about the moon, I was not trying to enter into the
What I was trying to do is tell him that his argument about the dust on the moon does not support either side and doesn't hurt either side because if he's using what they say from the Apollo space program, it didn't happen.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
And that's another argument, by the way.
Hello, Bill.
Hello.
Well, I'm no scientist, but... I'm not either.
Welcome to the club.
Neither is Alan.
When I look at our solar system, it's quite amazing to me that the Earth just happens to fall at a place where it's relatively... well, we can survive as a physical world as we understand it.
Well, was it always that way?
Yeah, I don't know.
I do recall reading that if our axis was even different, things could be terribly different.
Our axis couldn't be different?
It can't be different.
Once it starts spinning, it becomes a gyroscope.
All this nonsense that the Earth flipped on its axis so many millions of years ago or thousands of years ago, that's complete, total, utter bullshit.
It could never have happened, and it's not going to flip on its axis today.
Any object spinning in space, orbiting around another object, is in fact a gyroscope.
It can't happen.
That makes sense to me.
And why the... up here where we have a...
Hi bud.
Six.
No, no, no.
Your concept of Arizona is really way off.
So that is just rest.
Now I know you are in a desert condition and you have totally different...
No, no, no, no.
Your concept of Arizona is really way off.
I live up in the most beautiful mountains you have ever seen in your life.
Oh wow, that's nice.
At 7,500 feet and we can set out to find a cactus but I haven't found any yet, not around
Really?
Really.
We always just assume everything's... Beautiful pine trees, and oaks, and aspens, and, you know, willows, and just, it's beautiful.
Great herds of elk, and antelope, and skunks, and everything else.
Well, I guess my point is, it seems to me that, At least if I'm going to believe what I've seen from NASA.
Venus is just, well, it's terrible.
It's like molted lava and things, and I'm sure Mercury would even be worse.
Mars seems to be too cold, really, to sustain.
So you're saying, but that's not scientific.
Yeah, but that's based upon belief, not science.
Yeah, but we need science.
It's just merely your belief that, hey, you know, it's kind of funny that we're here right
here where it was support life and I kind of believe that that supports creationism,
right?
Yeah.
Is that what you're saying?
Yeah.
But that's based upon belief, not science.
Well, yeah, of course, that is belief, isn't it?
Yeah.
We need science.
You've got to support your argument with science during this debate.
Well, that's all I'd say.
So sorry I wasn't of any help to anyone, but thank you for...
That's okay.
Thank you for calling.
Okay.
52036.
520-333-4578.
Remember, folks, we need facts.
We need science.
I'm amazed that nobody's picked up on that second.
Well, I'm not going to give it away because that's really got a lot to do with it.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hi, Bill.
Steve calling.
How are you doing?
I'm doing fine.
That's great.
Great show.
I don't want to really... It's a debate, right?
Yeah.
What side are you on?
Whose side am I on?
I'm not sure.
Not whose side are you on.
What side are you going to take and support with scientific fact?
Well, actually, I'm not going to really take a side.
I'm going to throw a question out there if I could, if that's possible.
What's the question?
The question mainly is aimed towards the people who are strict creationists.
Just going through the Bible, which I know is a scientific fact.
Sorry, I laid the groundwork at the beginning of the broadcast, folks.
No tangents.
You gotta come in, you need to take a side, and you need to support your side with scientific fact.
Okay?
You gotta do that.
That's what this is all about.
And if you can't, if you have a side, for instance, if you support evolution, and you cannot promote any scientific fact to back up what you support, Then you're no better than the people who believe in creationism simply because it says so in the Bible.
And if you believe in creationism, and if God created the universe, and all of the laws of physics in it, if you can't use God's own laws to support your position, you don't have a position.
You're full of crap.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Good evening.
I'm listening to your show, real interesting.
A couple of points I'd like to make.
Okay.
That's a good one, but what that proves is a shortness of time.
It doesn't prove evolution, it just proves that the universe hasn't been around for 10 billion years.
Pick a number.
Also, the amount of salt in the ocean is a likewise proof for the shortness of the amount of time.
These are scientific facts.
You can determine how much salt is leached into the ocean on a yearly basis.
If the earth was, take another number, 12 billion years old, it would have a lot more salt in it.
Thus, by those two facts, you can determine that the age of 10 million or 20 million years, or billion years, is not scientifically credible.
Thus, you'd have to determine how many steps of evolution it would take to get, say, from an amoeba to a man.
Let's say 10 million steps.
In 10 million steps of evolution, in 6,000 years, we should be seeing people evolving Left and right, every month somebody should evolve into something different.
Now that is just a man, but with how many species there are on the planet, say a quarter of a million species, I think that's a fairly accurate number, we should be seeing lots of evolution here and there in all these species.
I mean, there's just millions, had to be millions and millions and millions, but there has never been a scientifically accredited example of evolution.
It's always been de-evolution, with the fruit flies, with the crinkly wings, and that sort of thing.
It's never been something better.
So that's one point.
Okay, but that's... What's the point being?
What you're arguing is it's not going to allow thermodynamics.
You picked up on it.
Okay.
So that's valid.
There's another fact.
There's something called irreducible simplicity.
And something can become simpler and simpler until it just It serves no function anymore.
The easy way to point to this is a mousetrap.
You can't really take any parts of it away where it would serve any purpose at all.
Likewise, say for instance, a woodpecker with its incredible tongue that goes all the way around the back of its head.
How something like this would evolve, or the fellow that before that talked about the eye, how the eye would evolve Yeah, but you're getting, you started off with good scientific fact and now you're getting away from it.
Okay, well I was talking about the irreducible simplicity.
When you look at, back in Darwin's day, they used to think that a single cell was kind of like a blob, kind of like jelly.
Now that they've looked at these things with super microscopes and such, they've noticed that it's so incredibly complex inside there, that where did it go before it was a single cell?
It's just an incredible... It can't be reduced any farther before it is a non-functional entity.
That's what I'm saying.
Okay.
Okay, one more thing.
Or maybe two more.
The amount of nickel that's in the Earth's surface... It's a scientifically measurable event that you can see how many meteorites are hitting the Earth.
Here and there.
They come in.
They can be measured.
If the Earth has been around for five billion years, It should be pretty much covered with nickel.
It's not.
There's just not enough nickel to support the amount of time and the amount of meteorites that should have been hitting the Earth.
In fact, we're going back to this, there's just not enough time for all those millions and billions of events of evolution to take place.
Another one is there are no transitional fossils, no transitional forms between any of the species.
There's no half reptile, half a chicken, half fish, half reptile.
Yeah, no mermaids have ever been really found.
Well, you hear about the cows that walked into the ocean and became whales.
Actually, evolution supports the opposite.
They say that all life started in the ocean and walked up on the land, is what they say.
Well, yeah, but you may say that, but there's a lot of talk about, they say, fossils.
They look at some fossils and skeletons of whales, and they say, look, here's a little Well, the pectoral fins of whales not only have joints like in an arm, but finger bones.
Yeah, and some of that stuff is kind of real hard to believe.
And another one of my favorites is he's got the comets that have been whipping around the... Oh, let's get back to the other guy that was talking about the dock exploding, the thing.
And he's saying, okay, this thing's spinning around, throwing off stuff.
Why is it not all going in the same direction?
Well, he says, well, it didn't all blow off at once.
It kind of changed direction.
It blew off in different directions.
You can almost buy that until you look at our solar system, which has objects that are
rotating in different directions.
And on such a small, universal, universe-size-wise, a small thing as our solar system, why would
there be different directions?
The size of a...
According to the laws of physics, there shouldn't be.
It shouldn't be, right.
Now, if you think, well, all these planets kind of compressed from something...
Let me say that, according to the laws of physics as we know them.
Because we could be wrong, you know.
We find out that our science is wrong all the time.
Well, science is supposed to be the things that you observe, not things that maybe this
I mean, I start to hear stories about, yeah, I think there's a comet factory somewhere that's building out these comets, and that's why these comets can still be here after 12 billion years, even though they're zipping around the sun and their tails are getting eaten up every time they make an orbit.
There's still plenty of comets around, and you've got the Jupiter in the summer being giant vacuum cleaners.
The sewer system should be clean as a pit, but there's still plenty of junk floating
around in it, which doesn't indicate to me it's been there for 12 million years.
But that's about all I've got to say.
I just had to get those points in.
Okay.
So I bet you got a phone call.
Thank you.
Good night.
And thank you for calling.
He started off on a roll and disintegrated.
disintegrate.
Why he didn't stick to his original argument, I don't know.
There's got to be somebody out there who can pick up on some of these real scientific points that you can just devastate both sides with, really.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hi, Bill.
How are you tonight?
Good.
Well, I definitely believe in creation for several reasons.
Go for it.
Don't wait for me.
Okay.
Well, one of them is, besides the things like the salt in the ocean and the second law of thermodynamics, I'm sorry, is things like the mere complexity of life and the DNA.
Now, how can you prove that that devastates the other side with scientific facts?
That's just a personal belief that it couldn't happen because it's so complicated.
Okay, that's a good point.
Although I don't know the figures off the top of my head, I have heard people explain it and say that even the most simplest life forms, like protozoa, etc., that the odds of the DNA in them, which make up the program which determines the life form and what it does, And the odds of that happening by chance would be like one
in ten to the fortieth of an hour.
That's something statistically that's virtually impossible.
Okay, that's one thing.
There's a lot of other things like the dust on the moon, of course.
I tend to agree with you that that may not necessarily mean something.
Yeah, well, it might mean something if they really went there.
Right.
I can pretty conclusively prove that in the Apollo space program, they never stepped foot
They never left an Earth orbit, if they went anywhere.
I need you to speak up a lot louder if you can.
Okay, I'm sorry.
I did hear that broadcast that night that you were talking about.
Oh, I've made a bunch of broadcasts on that subject, but that's another subject.
Let's stick to this one.
Yeah, but maybe it's the basis of it.
I wish I had known about this beforehand.
I would have gotten some of the actual technical figures and references out.
But one thing that always got me, and got me initially interested in the subject and the debate between creation and evolution, was the mere fact that if you think about the universe, okay, whether it was imperfect or it was formed with an irregular bang or whatever, that the universe is made of something.
It's made of mass, it's made of particles, and those are real things.
And they have to take up real space somewhere.
You know, the universe isn't the lack of space, or it isn't a bunch of nothingness.
It is actually something that takes up volume that has to be located somewhere.
And that somewhere, you know, has to be a step outside and above what we see.
And, you know, that's something that almost makes you think that, you know, and even scientifically, there may not be a law for me to quote that would classify that in some way, but the fact is, It has to take a volume somewhere, and something has to be beyond that that is much greater.
Well, you're very close to something that's very relevant.
According to scientists, space is not nothing.
Space is something that can be bent, that can be warped, that can be all kinds of things.
Exactly.
And I know when I was a young kid, my friends and I started talking about that, and that was one of the things that at first made us wonder, you know, who is it, or what is it, or what are we?
You mean you're not a creation of my conscious mind?
No, I can't be.
You mean the universe doesn't revolve around me?
I'm not dreaming in my bed?
We have to be somewhere and you can extend that clear out.
You mean you're not a creation of my conscious mind?
No, I can't be.
You mean the universe doesn't revolve around me?
I'm not dreaming in my bed and created...
I haven't created all of this?
No, because if it was just in your head Bill, that one of the days that you maybe were having
a bad day, you would step off your bedside and up...
Yeah, I'd make it better than what it is I've got to tell you right now.
That's right.
The floor of your house is a bed.
You're not going to be able to sleep.
It's better than what it is, I got to tell you right now.
It's been a really wonderful show and that's pretty much all I think I can add to it.
Okay, well thank you very much.
Okay, thank you.
Appreciate your call.
520-333-4578.
Don't call for a couple of minutes because I've got to go get some water and I'm going to play some music.
I will be back right after this and then we'll get back on the phone.
A picture that no art in there could paint.
White-faced cattle lowing on the mountainside.
I hear the coyote whining for its mate.
Cactus plants are blooming, great brush everywhere.
Granny's spires are standing all around.
I tell you folks, it's heaven to be riding down the trail when the desert sun goes down.
When the evening chores are over at our ranch house on the plain, and all I've got to do is lay around.
I saddle up my pony and I ride off down the trail to watch the desert sun go down.
Riding down the canyon to watch the sun go down, a picture that no artist there could paint.
Watch these cattle lowing on the mountainside.
I hear a coyote whining for its mate.
Cactus plants are blooming.
They stretch everywhere.
Furnished fires are standing all around.
I tell you folks, it happens to be riding down the train when the desert sun goes down.
Thank you for listening.
No, that's okay.
Thank you for listening.
No, that's okay.
Thank you, Dave.
Oops, blew up the bottle.
I'm sorry.
I love you, mom.
I love you, too.
Cactus plants are blooming.
They spread everywhere.
Granny spires are standing all around.
I tell you folks, it's heaven to be riding down the trail when the desert sun goes down.
Okay, I'm back, and good evening, you're on the air.
Hi, Mr. Cooper.
Marshall in Houston.
Hello, Marshall.
How you doing?
Good.
Well, I'm glad I kind of set that little spark the other night for the show that you did yesterday evening.
I recorded it, but I had talked to a couple of people and asked them to listen to it.
In fact, I got feedback from about six people that listened to it, and almost every one of them thinks that you ought Why?
Because I asked them who was telling the truth?
Yeah, you turned all of their malarkey upside down.
Well, then maybe that's where it ought to be.
All I did was read what Jesus said and ask the audience, did Jesus tell the truth?
Or is your preacher telling the truth?
That's all I did.
But anyway, you know, on the evolutionary thing, the problem with evolution is that,
you know, according to the laws of physics, your protons and your neutrons have specific
weight.
And those are electrical charges that can only be manipulated in a certain way.
And in carbon life forms, that even becomes more specific.
And if we just follow the laws of statistical mathematics, statistics, the probabilities
of evolution are impossible.
We're talking like trillions and trillions to one of even the remotest possibility of
anything arriving out of this chance configuration.
And, you know, we see the whole reason why they postulate and have been selling this garbage to the public of evolution is because it is the basis for humanism.
And, you know, it puts you in the mode that you're just a fluke of the universe and it also takes away your relationship with the Creator Yeah, but now you're getting away from scientific fact and back into the realm of belief.
We want to stick with science.
Let me ask you this, because you're onto something there.
If, back in the early days of the Earth, when there was no life of any kind, there was some kind of a primordial soup brewing in some volcano somewhere, and lightning hit, and just the right molecules happened to be there, that received a burst of energy from this lightning strike, and a one-celled animal was created, for instance, If that could actually happen, let me ask you this.
I'm not taking either side, I just want to ask you this and see what you've got to say about it.
Yes.
What would happen if lightning struck a sewage plant today?
Well, it might stop working.
It might stop working, but if that's the basis of the evolutionist proposition of the way that life began on this earth, There is no better primordial soup brewing anywhere than all of the biological material that you can find in a sewer plant.
Well, the problem with that argument is that the sewer plant was created by the affluent, the waste products of human beings, and there's already living organisms from the gut and So how come something new hasn't swum out of that?
Exactly.
That's what I wanted to ask you.
How come?
If it could happen in the primordial soup of the dim history of this planet, how come it hasn't happened in the sewers of the cities of the world today?
Because... Or some garbage dump.
I guess the laws of physics dictate that chaos can never take precedence In the structure of things, because there are constant laws that are manipulating the universe.
Ah, but that's not true.
Scientifically, the second law of thermodynamics is a fact.
Everything tends toward decay or, from order, toward chaos.
That's just a fact.
Yeah.
I'm not real up on that one, but I understand just from my It's one of the very best arguments against evolution that there is.
It's not the only argument.
And it's not devastating, but it really, you know, holds a lot of water.
Well, you know, it's no accident that we're floating through space and we have our distance from the sun is very well calculated.
We have a moon.
But according to the Big Bang Theory, it is absolutely an accident.
But it's no accident is what I said.
Well, it's no accident if creationism is a fact, but you're not putting forward any scientific fact to back it up.
Yeah.
And if you're going to take a side, either one of these sides, and you can't back it
up with scientific fact, you have to sit down and ask yourself, why do I believe this?
Right.
There's a book that I got, and I haven't finished reading it, and it's called In the Beginning.
And there's a gentleman who wrote the book.
I don't know if you're familiar with it, but he gathers the knowledge of a lot of mathematicians
and physicists and biologists.
And a lot of these people have bought into the evolutionary concept, and even guys in
the quantum physics have bought into it.
And as they got deeper and deeper into their study of these atomic structures, they realized
that the possibilities of evolution were impossible, and primarily because of the aspects of quantum
physics starts telling you that all of these parts are indivisible.
They're so into them!
You know what amazes me, is when people like Stephen Hawking You know what I mean?
You see, Stephen Hawkins has gotten his book contract and he's gotten his tenure at the college and he's prostituted himself like all the other so-called priests of science today that work in the universities because that's been the Oh, I don't think so.
Not when you're talking about Stephen Hawking.
Stephen Hawking has gone against the established beliefs of science so many times in his life that he has actually risked Being ridiculed and expelled.
And he has changed his mind several times on some of the things that he himself has come up with.
I think he's a very honest person who's really trying, honestly, to find the truth.
That I don't know about Mr. Hawkins, and I apologize for making that statement about him, but I think from the majority of the men that I've been acquainted with, and women, you know, in the professions of the sciences, They prostitute themselves for their mortgages, their tenure, their retirement, and some of them, off the record, will say, man, I really don't believe all this garbage, but this is how I have to make a living.
You're absolutely correct, and the reason for that is a system has been set up in the scientific community whereby if you do not toe the mark, and if you don't toe the mark, If you don't say the accepted things, if you refrain from making waves, then you're okay.
But if you deviate from what is accepted, then you don't get any grants anymore.
And the whole scientific community depends upon grants.
From states, from governments, from foundations, from all of these different organizations and things, and governments.
And so if they step out of line, then they find that their grants get disapproved, their tenure is no longer there for them, and they fall into disrepute, and then they can't make a decent living anymore.
Right.
So that's how they're controlled.
Yeah, and if they all had the guts to stand up and say, this is crap, you know, this is what's really true, then the system would have to support them because the system would have no more scientists working on their side.
Yeah, you know, when I look at the Earth and I see what they claim to be the source of
evolution, these fossils and stuff like that, it's quite evident to me, and this is my opinion,
that the Earth has been used many different times and possibly been put together from
other portions.
Now you're getting off into the realm of out of fact, and as moderator I've got to draw
you back in.
I just wanted to throw that in.
You've got to submit fact or allow somebody else to come on and talk.
Yeah, the guys in quantum physics, from what I'm starting to get from these guys, is that
they are finding that the atom is indivisible, and that comes back to this question of, you
know, the circle and pi.
Pi is indivisible, and some people see that as the image of God.
He is indivisibility.
He is infinite.
And this infinite aspect is what makes this concept of evolution impossible.
And it can actually be supported, not actually, but is supported by, you know, quantum physics
And even from the standpoint of genetic biology studies, they are coming to a lot of conclusions that, hey, you know, how can this stuff have gotten to this point?
Well, maybe that's why so many scientists now are reversing themselves and saying, you know, all my life, based upon all the science that I know, I didn't believe in God and now I'm starting to think that maybe there is one.
Yeah.
But, you know, that's neither here nor there.
Thanks for your call.
Sure.
5-2-0-3-3-3-4-5-7-8 is the number.
Why don't you jump in here and put your two cents in, or your five cents, or your ten cents.
Or, you know, you could even have a deficit, if you want to.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Hi, good evening.
I remember you talking about your incredulity at the Tao, and its sharp rise since the far back.
What's this got to do with evolution or creationism?
Oh, I'm sorry, you know, I just caught it, I just started on it.
Buenas noches, señor.
We let out, we put out the parameters of tonight's broadcast in the beginning.
I have stated it several times again during the broadcast.
The subject is a debate amongst the members of the audience, creationism versus evolution, and that's what you've got to stay on.
Please don't take it personally that I cut you off the air.
That's what I said I would do to anybody who tried to go off on any other tangent.
Good evening, you're on the air.
Hi David.
Anytime I think you enter into a debate, you have to ask someone in the ground room, what would you say your definition of fact is?
A fact is something that can be at least accepted as being true by most people in the world.
Right, and I would agree with that because 1828 basically says the same thing.
Yes.
And I guess from my side of that I would debate from the point of creationism in that it gets kind of simple for me.
I'm not a real intellectual speaker so I just kind of get down to being done with the raw speech from there.
But if a fact is based on witnesses then my witness would be if there's only been one man that walked on the earth that there were witnesses that were willing to die for the fact Okay, but where is the basis of our ground rules of debate tonight, or that you must introduce scientific facts?
Right, and the fact is that I have these witnesses that are credible to the point of giving their life, and other people have been I'm sorry, but your attempt to introduce religious belief into the debate won't work, because that's what it is.
It's not fact, it's religious belief.
You believe that because you have chosen to believe it, but it does not support either side of the debate, either evolution or creationism.
All right, what about this perspective?
You've been talking of the scientists and their testimony and their witness of facts No, no, excuse me.
Excuse me.
If you believe in creationism, who created the universe?
Who created the whole universe?
If you believe in creationism, who created the universe?
Who created the laws of physics?
Then if the one true God created the universe and created the laws of physics, why can't you support your argument with the laws of physics?
Because I can't prove what you tell me the laws of physics are any more than I can prove based on the witnesses that I'm calling forth.
You're calling forth the witnesses of scientists?
No, I'm calling... No, no, no, no.
Science is based upon the observation of how things interact together in the universe.
Based upon the laws that God put into place that makes the planet orbit around the sun, that makes us stay on the earth instead of spinning out into space because of some centrifugal force and all of these other things.
If you profess that God created the universe and God created the laws of physics, yet you cannot put forth one physical law to support your argument, then your whole religious belief is based upon nothing.
No, I disagree.
I understand what you're saying.
I'm a friend.
I intellectually studied the subject to support it.
And my basis for that is, is that I cannot prove much of the theory of science any more than I can prove the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
All I can base that on is the same thing that most intellectual thinkers, everybody that's quoting tonight, is quoting the witness of other men and their theories of No, it's not the witness of other men.
I can prove that gravity exists.
I can prove centripetal of force.
I can prove that the planets orbit around the sun even though if there were no gravity coming from the sun to keep them in this orbit, they would spin out into space instead of continually circle.
You see, I can do all this from my own observation.
I don't need the witness of anybody else to tell me that.
And when I study science, what I did as a child is I started out with certain premises or hypotheses and built upon those where I could see that they work or they don't work.
And then I reach a point where if it's not my specialty, Then I either have to depend upon the witness or testimony of other people, or I have to make it a specialty.
But the basic laws of physics can be understood and observed by all people.
My argument is this, as the moderator, If you believe in either side of this argument, and you can't put forth any scientific acceptable facts that would be accepted by most people, your belief is based upon nothing but simple faith.
And that can't be argued, my friend.
And there's nothing wrong with faith.
It's your religion, that's fine, but you can't argue it to other people.
It's something that exists only and solely within you.
Okay, and I guess maybe my clarification there would be, again, to get back to the central point of fact, and that is much of the discussion and debate tonight has been based on what is supposed to be fact, but it is, in fact, just a witness of other men.
You see my point?
Well, I understand your point.
Maybe you don't see some of these facts that are being put forth.
I can see most of them.
And it's not from witness of other men.
It's from my own observation and study of science.
I can see it.
I can feel it.
I know that it's true.
It was supposedly the false progression.
Yeah, it's true.
Again, that's just a witness of other men.
No, that's not the witness of other men.
It's the witness of other men.
It is absolute fact that rain falling upon land will dissolve the salts in the earth and run into the ocean, and the salt content of the ocean does increase every single year by a certain amount.
But we can't take other variables and set a definitive point on the other variables that can change.
The other variables, compared with all the rain falling on the earth and running out of the rivers into the ocean, are minute.
Not relevant.
At this time in history.
Well, we're getting off here.
My most important point is for people that really can get drawn in to the discussion of the intellectual, and I understand your premise, but can get drawn into that so that then fact becomes accepted because a majority has said it.
And I think that's the danger we have to be on guard for.
That's really what I wanted to inject into the debate.
Well, thank you very much.
I appreciate your call.
Thank you.
520-333-4578 is the number.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hello Bill.
Hello.
I just turned my radio down.
I'm sorry.
OK.
Bill, you can have your cake and eat it too.
OK.
Show us how.
I had an ant once.
And it's not my cake.
I'm the moderator tonight.
I have no side in this debate.
I think your premise is flawed.
Wait a minute.
I don't have any premise.
I've opened the phones so that the listening audience can debate.
Wait a minute.
Let's go back to the beginning.
Let's stick to the ground rules.
Which side of this debate do you support?
You can't be on both.
Good night.
It's absolutely impossible to be on both.
You either support evolution, or you support creationism, or you don't support either one, but you cannot support both.
And if you try to call me and bullshit me, you are... You're standing in a deep hole with a lot of water in it.
It won't work.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hi Chris, can you put the phone in front of your mouth and talk a lot louder please?
Sure.
That's much better.
Okay, good.
Something that, I'm for creationism by the way.
Okay.
And something I thought of that was basic is chromosomes.
Okay.
And male and female.
Okay.
They both have different chromosomes.
And God said that He made male and female, He made male and female make events.
Yeah.
So, to me, that was basic.
I'm not a scientist or anything, but... Well, that's a good point.
I mean, if evolution is true, how do we get two of the same species of different sex?
I mean, how does that happen?
That's the question you're asking, is that correct?
Well, I'm just saying that science basically proves that they've done studies where they Yes, they can.
Yes, but they're still the same species of what they call in science an animal.
How does that happen?
How do we evolve different creatures of the same species of different sex?
That's a really interesting question.
I can understand how an amoeba can be both sexes and divide itself and reproduce and all that kind of stuff, but how one species evolves into two different creatures of opposite sexes is just absolutely wild.
Amen.
That's wild.
That is way beyond my understanding.
Mine too.
And I've asked some very prominent scientists to explain that to me over the years and guess They haven't a clue.
They don't have a clue.
Because you see, both of the different sexes, somewhere, it had to split from the species into two sexes, and then the two different sexes had to evolve independently from that point on.
Right.
Now, this isn't something I've made up.
Some of the greatest minds in the world have told me that quietly on the side, With the promise that I would never reveal their name.
So I can't do that because I always protect my sources.
But that is extremely interesting.
You brought up a very good point.
Well, that's all I wanted to say.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
I appreciate you.
Thanks for your call.
Bye-bye.
520-333-4578 is the number.
We've got time for two, three, maybe four more calls.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hi Bill.
Hello.
Hi.
I'm listening to Beard, Michigan.
Good show.
Thank you.
You know, it just occurred to me that if Mark Bell's listening to this show, he's probably
eating his heart out, wishing that he thought of this subject to begin with.
Yeah, right.
He can always count on you.
Oh, no.
I mean, we're so close to the other primates, our closest living relatives.
How do you explain...
Well, in the first place, what do you mean by close?
Our DNA.
The similarity.
We're like 98% with a chimpanzee.
98% compatible.
Are we really?
Yes.
What about the compatibility with a pig?
We're not as compatible.
We have some compatibility.
We're both mammals.
From what I understand, now I could be wrong, but I have read some papers that say that we're closer to a pig than we are to a chimpanzee.
I don't really remember which paper it was, but I remember reading this paper in a very
prominent scientific journal, which I will not name.
But...
We might be 60% with it, too.
But go ahead.
I didn't mean to interrupt your presentation.
Go ahead.
Well, I was trying to get in earlier.
My phone was pretty busy.
The second law of thermodynamics is a theoretical statement.
It deals with closed systems.
The Earth is not a closed system.
The Earth gets its energy from the Sun.
Billions of kilowatts of energy a day.
That's what drives plants.
If you accept a creationist definition of a closed system, But let me ask you this.
takes energy from the whole and momentarily develops, progresses.
That would, you wouldn't have thunderstorms, you wouldn't have whirlpools and eddies and a stream, you wouldn't have
anything like that.
They deal, the Earth is not a static system.
But let me ask you this.
I know where you're going with this.
But you also understand that the sun is in a constant process of dying.
And in fact, every year is shrinking in diameter.
Thank you.
The sun shrinks and expands on an 80-year cycle and oscillates.
What do you mean, shrinks and expands?
It oscillates, it shrinks, and it's roughly 80 years thin.
Let's see, the last time was from age 76 to 80.
It actually expanded slightly.
Expanded slightly, but doesn't make up the shrinking over all of these years.
Also, the Earth is slowing down in its rotation.
It's also deteriorating in its orbit.
The second law of thermodynamics, as far as I can see, now correct me if I'm wrong, and if I'm wrong, please prove it to me, but the second law of thermodynamics is pretty much true for all things that can be observed in the universe.
For instance, galaxies are shrinking.
The universe as a whole is a closed system, as far as we know.
No, I'm not talking about a closed system.
The universe is not a closed system.
We can look at galaxies and see that these galaxies are shrinking in upon themselves.
But they're all within the universe.
What I'm saying is that the law of thermodynamics eventually wins out, but here on Earth... Ah, so it does.
Eventually, yes.
Have validity.
Yes.
Okay.
All I wanted to hear you say is that it has some validity, because I know that it does, and your original premise is that it does not, and it does.
I'm saying that it has a closed system, as it applies to the Earth.
The Earth is not a closed system.
Well, when you say closed system, that sounds to me like you're talking about some experiment in a laboratory inside of a bell jar.
Yes.
Nothing is a theoretical statement.
Based upon what's observed in the universe.
Yes.
And on the Earth and everywhere else.
But what I'm saying is... It's not from a closed system.
Now you're asking.
No, it's not.
And the second law of thermodynamics is not based upon a closed system.
I think if you looked up the definition it would state that.
But, anyway.
Okay, go ahead.
I'm sorry.
Transitional fossils.
There's plenty of transitional fossils.
Like what?
Archaeopteryx is a bird reptile.
It came from a dinosaur stack.
That's where birds evolve from.
It has reptilian features.
It has avian features.
All birds, from my understanding, have claws on their wings.
There's an unfused long tail, plus feathers.
All birds, from my understanding, have claws on their wings.
Some do.
Some...
There's a hoax in that, listen, South America has claws in its juvenile stage.
No bird in its...
Now, I'm not talking about claws sticking out, but inside the wing, in the bone structure,
there is what you could call a claw.
Oh yeah, it's all fused together now, yes.
Yeah.
But it's not functional anymore like this was.
But how do we know that it ever was?
Because of the fossils that show it was before.
These fossils, and then there's fossils now they're finding in China, which are even better, slightly older, of basically feathered dinosaurs that they couldn't fly.
Their wings weren't, their feathers weren't asymmetrical.
They were symmetrical.
They were useless for flight, but good for installation.
That's where feathers But according to the science that I read, dinosaurs didn't need insulation because they lived in hot, humid climates.
Well, there's different theories about dinosaurs.
Some claim they were warm-blooded.
Now, don't get me wrong.
I'm not being oppositional or antagonistic.
What I'm trying to do is function as a moderator, and where I see something that needs to be explained, I'm trying to draw that out.
But you know what?
I wasn't watching the clock.
We've got to get out of here like right now.
Oh, I'm sorry.
We'll continue this on some other night.
Okay, great show.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Sorry, folks.
I wasn't watching the clock.
We've got to get out of here right now.
Good night.
God bless each and every single one of you.
I hope you enjoyed it.
I'll see you Monday night.
At words poetic, I'm so pathetic, that I always have found it best, instead of getting them off my chest, to let them rest, unexpressed.
You're the top.
You're Mahatma Gandhi.
For I'll probably miss the war But if this city is not so pretty
At least it'll tell you how great you are You're the top
You're Mahatma Gandhi You're the top
You're Napoleon Brandi You're the purple light of a summer night in Spain.
You're the National Gallery.
You're Gobble's Gallery.
You're still a pain!
You're sublime.
You're a turkey dinner.
You're the time of the Derby winner.
I'm a toy balloon that's fated soon to pop.
But a baby and a bottle, you're the crown!
▲
Export Selection