Questions.
Everybody seems to have a question that they need answered in life.
Hi, my name is Eric.
In this next seminar, Dr. Hoven takes a large variety of questions that he's been
asked on a regular basis and combines them and gives his best explanation for what's
happening.
He covers a variety of topics such as the Red Sea Crossing, primitive man,
what about radiocarbon dating?
Hey, are there really contradictions in the Bible?
Find out for yourself in this seminar entitled, Questions and Answers.
Welcome to our very informal question and answer session where we deal with
questions that are not covered in our seminar on creation and evolution.
For those just getting this material, my name is Kent Hovind.
I taught high school science for 15 years and now do seminars on creation and
evolution since early 1989.
I've been doing this.
The Bible tells us in the book of Ecclesiastes, chapter 7, he said,
I applied my heart to know and to seek and to search and to seek out wisdom and the
reason of things.
First Peter, chapter 3 tells us that we should be ready always to give an answer
to every man that asketh us a reason of the hope that's in us.
I think it's good for Christians to study the truth so that they can give an answer
to those that are not Christians.
And it's good for those of you that are not Christians to study the truth so that
you can become Christians.
When you get to the top of the mountain of truth, you'll find the Christians were
sitting there all along.
God's word is truth.
In 2 Timothy, chapter 2, the Bible tells us we should study to show ourselves
approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the
word of truth.
So in this session, we're going to deal with quite a few miscellaneous questions.
If you have questions that are not covered here or elsewhere in the seminar,
feel free to send them in.
We'll try to deal with them as time permits on our website, drdino.com or on
our radio program or possibly in a future edition of our question and answer tapes.
One question I often get when I say I believe in creation, they're going to say,
wait a minute, all scientists believe in evolution.
Well, that's simply not true.
The vast majority of scientists may believe in evolution, but it depends on
what you mean by evolution.
But all scientists do not believe in evolution.
And even if they did, that's not how you determine truth.
It is possible for the majority to be wrong.
History shows us there are many times when the majority is wrong.
The majority of scientists used to teach that all planets go around the earth.
That is wrong, as far as we know.
By the way, there are still some folks who believe in the geocentric theory.
I don't fight them.
I disagree with them.
But there are really some surprising number of folks who believe in the
geocentric theory.
But for years, many people thought, the majority of people thought,
that the heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects.
That was taught for 2,000 years, and it's wrong.
It's not true.
For many years, it was taught if you're sick, you have bad blood.
Take out your blood, and you'll get better.
That is simply wrong.
It's not true.
There were places all over the country to get your blood taken out.
They had little white poles out front with a red stripe around it.
The barber was the blood letter.
So even if a majority of scientists do believe something, that doesn't make it
true.
Let me give you an example here from the book of John, chapter 7.
The people, therefore, they were arguing about Christ.
And they said, when they heard this saying, said of a truth, this is the
prophet.
Others said, this is the Christ.
But some said, shall Christ come out of Galilee?
Hath not the scripture said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, out of the
town of Bethlehem, where David was?
Here's a translation.
They're arguing about the wrong subject.
They were arguing, should Christ come out of Bethlehem or Galilee?
And they thought Jesus came from Galilee, so he can't be the Christ.
They didn't realize he came from Bethlehem.
So he was the Christ, obviously.
He did come from Bethlehem, but he was raised in Galilee.
In John, chapter 7, it says, there was a division among the people because of him.
And some of them would have taken him, but no man laid hold on him.
What I get from this verse is, if you don't like somebody, if you don't
like their message, kill the messenger.
And this you see a lot in the creation evolution arguments.
If you watch some of my debates, I've had over 80 debates now at
universities.
Oftentimes they get so angry at me because of what I'm saying.
I'm just delivering a message.
I'm just telling you what the truth is from science and what God's Word says.
Don't get angry at me.
There are folks, there are over 500 anti-Hovind websites.
They really don't like me.
And they all want to get me into an email debate.
And then they say, I won't debate them.
I won't get an email debate them, but I'll debate them publicly anytime,
anywhere.
I don't have time for an email debate.
I type 12 words a minute with 19 mistakes.
I simply don't have time.
We have to run a real busy ship around here.
The next verse says, Then came the officers to the chief priests and
Pharisees, and they said unto him, Why have you not brought him?
Now get the picture here.
The Pharisees sent the officers off to get Jesus.
And then they came back without him and they said, Why didn't you get him?
And the officers said, Never man spake like this man.
Here's the Hovind translation.
The professors sent their students off to ask the heretic questions, but the
professors didn't go themselves.
I get this a lot.
I'll speak at universities.
The professor doesn't show up to ask questions, but he sends his students with
a list of questions.
And you'll see the students pull out a list of questions, and they're going to
trip up Hovind on something.
So they ask me their questions and I answer all of them.
And then they go back and tell their professor, Well, he answered all my
questions.
And the professor says, Well, you should have asked him this and this and this.
Well, you're a coward.
You should have come yourself, professor.
Don't send your students off to do your dirty work.
If you got a question, give me a call.
What I also get from this verse is that Pharisees decided they're going to use the
law.
They're going to legally try to stop this guy from sharing this message.
They wanted to shut Jesus up.
And there are people who will use legal tactics to try to shut up the Christians.
They try to exclude Christianity from public schools.
They can't handle the message, so they shut down the message so people
don't get a chance to hear it.
And that's what I see in John chapter 7.
Then answered them, the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?
The Pharisees are saying, Are you stupid?
Then they said, Have any of the rulers of the Pharisees believed on him?
Notice this.
Their evidence that Jesus could not be the Messiah was because they didn't believe He
was the Messiah.
Therefore, He can't be because we don't believe He is.
You get the same kind of logic with some of these professors in colleges.
They'll say, Well, all scientists believe in evolution.
Therefore, it must be true.
That's ridiculous.
They don't all believe in it.
And even if they did, that doesn't make it true.
You can see the same parallel 2,000 years ago in the book of John.
Then the Pharisees said, This people who know not the law are cursed.
Here's the Hovind translation of this verse.
We have knowledge, you don't.
We don't approve of your degree.
You're ignorant if you don't believe in evolution.
And you'll see this a lot in the creation evolution argument.
They'll say, We're smart, everybody else is dumb.
I get this a lot when I do debates.
They'll say, Well, the average person in the audience probably doesn't understand
the complexity of this topic.
And I'll say, Folks, what he's trying to tell you is, You're dumb, he's smart.
And that's precisely what they're trying to say in a subtle way.
The next verse, verse 50 says, Nicodemus saith unto them, He that came to
Jesus by night, Doth our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he
doeth?
They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee?
Search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
And every man went to his own house.
Even some of the non-believers were smart enough to realize this guy is telling the
truth.
And we get people by the thousands that write our ministry or call us and say,
Look, I was not a believer but I saw your material on creation and I'm convinced
creation is true.
And that's what we're trying to do.
We want to convince you that God's word is true.
The whole argument here in John 7 started with a false assumption that Jesus came
out of Galilee.
They're arguing about the wrong topic.
The Pharisees didn't believe in Him.
So they said, That's proof He can't be the Christ because we don't believe Him.
If He was, we would believe in Him.
That's silly.
That's the same thing you use today.
Skeptics will say, Has Hovind or any of these creationists published in science
journals?
And when they say no, they'll say, See, that proves He can't be right.
That's their logic.
It doesn't take a few seconds to think how dumb that is.
First place, creationist material is routinely excluded from science journals
because they started with the definition that science cannot include the
supernatural.
Therefore, if your explanation isn't 100% natural, it's not science.
Therefore, creation is by definition not science.
That's their thinking.
They don't realize evolution is not science.
Evolution is based purely on the assumption that things happen.
It's never observed or tested or demonstrated in the laboratory.
It's purely religious.
The majority can often be wrong.
The majority followed Aaron in Rebellion in Exodus 32.
The majority voted not to go into the Promised Land in Numbers 32.
The majority followed false gods many times throughout the Old Testament.
Read through it and you'll see the majority was wrong.
The majority of religious leaders hated Jesus.
The majority of the world hates Christians.
So, it is not true that all scientists believe in evolution.
If it were, it wouldn't matter.
And you don't determine truth that way.
But let me share with you a few Christians who are scientists, who are strong
believers in creation, and who are also very brilliant scientists.
Robert Gentry, a friend of mine from Tennessee, is a brilliant scientist when
it comes to radioactive material and the disposal of radioactive waste.
He worked at Oak Ridge Laboratories.
He published this book here, Creation's Tiny Mysteries.
Excellent book about radio polonium halos.
You can get it through our ministry in our bookstore or on our website.
Robert Gentry was doing tremendous work.
It was published in many major science journals about radio polonium halos being
found in granites all over the world.
I went and met with Robert Gentry, saw the polonium halos through the
microscope in his laboratory.
Everybody was fine until they realized, wow, his research proves the Big Bang
Theory is not true.
And boy, they shut off his funding and his grant money in a hurry.
He finally said, well, we don't have a job for you anymore, just because his research
was supporting creation.
Talk to Robert Gentry up at www.halos.com and see for yourself.
Roger DeHart was a science teacher near Seattle, Washington.
He was told he could not inform his students of errors in the textbooks.
Here they've got textbooks with mistakes in them, but he couldn't tell the students
about the mistakes because those mistakes were used to support the evolution theory.
They said, you can't even pass out current science journals to inform students of
mistakes in the textbooks.
That's not science.
That's that burn the heretic attitude that some people get, or go burn the witch.
Talk about a witch hunt.
The evolutionists are on a witch hunt against the creationists in the public
schools.
They will try desperately to get them fired from their job.
Kevin Haley was a biology teacher at Central Oregon Community College in Bend,
Oregon.
He lost his job simply because he was exposing errors in the textbooks.
He'd say, kids, information on page 87 has been proven wrong.
Disregard that.
That won't be on the test.
And he's right.
It was proven wrong.
I debated one professor one time, and I gave out like 20 or 30 lies in the
textbooks.
And he got up and said, now, folks, Hovind's right.
All these things are not true.
But he said, Hovind, I've got a question.
What are you going to replace all this with?
In other words, we can't take the lies out of the books until I find a replacement.
In other words, I've got to provide evidence for his theory, or else we can't
take the lies out of the books.
Talk about dumb.
That's not the way science works.
You teach the kids the truth.
Just teach the truth.
And if all you have are lies to back up your theory, then get a new theory.
In Texas, Baylor University fired William Dembski just because he advocated that
there might be an intelligent designer.
That's heresy.
There could be a designer.
You're out of here.
You're fired.
Forrest Mimms was a science writer for 20 years.
He published in National Geographic, Science Digest, American Journal of
Physics, over 60 magazines and newspapers.
He was denied a job as science writer for Scientific American simply because he was
a creationist.
They didn't want to have a creationist on their staff.
Teacher Rod LeVake was told he could not share information that might help students
doubt Darwin's theory.
See, Darwin's theory is sacred.
You don't question it without losing your job in many school systems.
The same thing happened in Russia 10-15 years ago.
If a teacher got up in their class and said, kids, I don't believe communism
works, he'd be out of a job and maybe out of the country.
Or out of this life, they'd kill him or send him off to Siberia.
You get the same kind of academic Siberia people sent off to academic Siberia if
they don't support the evolution theory right here in America, the land of the fee
and the home of the slave.
Mr. Eller told his teacher Dan Clark in Lafayette, Indiana, Mr. Eller was the
superintendent, that he could not introduce creationism to his class.
So Dan Clark resigned.
He quit.
Many good teachers are dropping out of the public school system because they're not
allowed to teach kids the truth.
The problem is not the law.
The law says you can teach creation.
Not a problem to teach creation legally.
The courts have ruled it's okay to teach creation, but the boss says don't do it.
The ACLU, which is the American Communist Lawyers Union, they learned years ago,
all they have to do is threaten to sue and the school will back down.
Even though the ACLU knows they will lose the suit, it doesn't matter.
The threat of a suit is enough to make the teachers get fired.
Just the threat of a suit.
And so that's what's happening.
We're losing by default and not even putting up a good fight.
Dean Kenyon was a professor at San Francisco State University in San
Francisco.
He wrote many books about evolution.
He was the poster boy for the evolutionists.
He was a strong believer in the theory.
And one day he got converted and began to believe in creation.
And they fired him.
He sued.
They put him back in as a lab assistant, you know, washing test tubes, which the
students do normally.
And here's a guy, 20 year, I believe, tenured professor.
Finally after a long battle he was reinstated with his job.
But if he hadn't been tenured he wouldn't have kept his job.
That's what happened to Dean Kenyon.
He wrote the book Of Pandas and People, which you can get through our ministry.
Dr. Dinney at Texas Tech University had on his website for years that if you wanted
to get recommended for medical school, he's from Lubbock, Texas, that you had to
confess to believing in evolution.
If you don't believe in evolution, he's not going to recommend you for
medical school.
When I spoke in Lubbock, Texas in the fall of 2002, the students there got together
and offered Dinney $900 if he would debate me.
He refused.
He wouldn't debate for two hours for $900.
I don't know how much he makes an hour, but I suspect it's not quite that much.
So, Mr. Dinney, I'll come anytime anywhere and take you on intellectually in a debate
on creation and evolution.
Evolution is one of the dumbest ideas in the history of humanity, and the devil is
laughing at you for believing in that silly theory.
And if you don't trust Christ, you're going to go to hell.
I'm not your enemy.
I'm your friend.
I don't want to see you go to hell.
I'd like to see you get converted.
But what you're doing is unfair and certainly unwise and, I think,
un-American.
To require a student to believe a certain religion, and all you have is a religious
worldview of evolution, and you require students to believe that before you give
them a recommendation letter.
Come on, grow up.
Let kids learn the truth.
We can go on and on about how people are discriminated against because of their
belief in creation.
Patrick Henry College was notified they were going to deny their recommendation to
be accredited simply because they didn't believe in evolution.
We'll have lots of information on our website about how students or universities
or teachers are discriminated against because of their belief in creation.
Now, it wasn't always this way.
If you go back in the past 100 years ago, 200 years ago, all the scientists believed
in creation.
Here's a list of quite a few scientists.
Francis Bacon, Johann Kepler, Blaise Pascal, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton.
These guys were the founders of major branches of science, Carolus Linnaeus,
and they were creationists.
George Cuvier.
On and on the list goes of hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of very famous
scientists who were creationists.
Not always young earth creationists, but certainly creationists.
And many were young earth creationists.
Richard Owen, Luis Agassi, James Jewell.
All you've got to do is notice, folks, nearly all branches of science are
started by people who believed in creation, not people who believed in
evolution.
The evolutionists don't come up with anything.
They don't create anything.
They come in and take over an institution that's already going.
And many Christian colleges have been taken over by evolutionists.
Harvard, Princeton, Yale started off as Christian schools.
And now they've been taken over by those who believe in evolution.
The evolutionists don't go start something.
They just take over like a leech, you know, or a tick, or a parasite,
what somebody else has already created.
Wernher von Braun, a space scientist, was a strong believer in creation.
There are many books out.
There's a good book, In Six Days, Why 50 Scientists Chose to Believe in
Creation.
There are quite a few books on this topic.
You can see our website, drdiener.com, and get more.
Okay, next question.
What about separation of church and state?
Is it okay to discuss creation in public schools?
Well, first place, the phrase, separation of church and state,
is not found in the Constitution.
Don't let somebody tell you that the law says there has to be a separation of
church and state.
That's baloney.
That phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter that he wrote to some pastors
in the Danbury Association, a Baptist association in Connecticut.
He's the one that said, the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation
between church and state.
Thomas Jefferson said that.
It's not in the Constitution.
And by the way, if there's a wall between the two, it's a one-dimensional wall.
It keeps the government out of the church.
It was not designed to keep the church out of the government.
So, there's no such thing as separation of church and state found in the
Constitution.
The fact of the matter is the Founding Fathers, when they gave the First
Amendment, Article 1, the same day, I believe, voted to give, I think,
$7,000 or $10,000 or $15,000 or something to a mission in St. Louis to help a
Catholic mission reach the Indians there with what they thought was the gospel.
So, just go to wallbuilders.com, David Barton's excellent website,
and get some of his material.
And you can see how that the Founding Fathers were certainly strong believers in
creation and had no intention of the government getting involved in the church,
but they had every intention of the church getting involved in the government.
And the idea of no Christianity in public schools would have been anathema to the
Founding Fathers.
They would have sent those guys off on a ship to some other country.
Okay, next question.
How do we see stars that are billions of light years away?
I get this question every seminar I do, I believe.
There's no question there's an awful lot of stars out there.
The Bible says in Nehemiah chapter 9, Thou, even thou art Lord alone.
Thou hast made the heaven and the heaven of heavens.
God created all the stars and there's an awful lot of stars out there.
It's interesting, stars blow up every once in a while.
They run out of fuel or whatever happens and they implode and then explode.
It's called a nova, or if it's a big one it's called a supernova.
It seems that about every 30 years a star explodes.
Well, after searching the heavens they've only found 300 supernova rings.
So the question would be, if the universe is millions of years old, why aren't there
more supernova rings, the remnants of these blown up stars?
That indicates only a few thousand years.
Of course the Bible says God made everything 6,000 years ago and the
textbooks say it's billions of years old.
I think the textbooks have a problem because there should be a lot more
supernova rings.
Plus, obviously you have a problem.
Stars being born should equal stars dying or else you're going to have a real
serious problem.
There are plenty of stars out there, but we've never seen one star forming.
We see stars blow up every 25 or 30 years.
We've never proven the formation of one new star.
One atheist I would debate, he said, oh, Holman, there's this new star forming
right now in Crab Nebula and some of the different clouds out there in space.
You see stars forming.
No you don't.
You see spots getting brighter.
You are assuming a star is forming, but actually all you're seeing is a spot
getting brighter.
It could be there's a dust cloud clearing and there was already a star behind it.
Any fourth grader would know that.
So nobody's ever proven the formation of one star.
In Science Magazine in 1986, they said, the silent embarrassment of modern
astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed
to form.
The situation is no better now.
Nobody can prove any star formed by natural processes.
If dust tries to get together, as it increases in density, it increases
the temperature, which increases the movement, and it drives it back away.
It's called Boyle's gas laws.
You cannot compress dust into solid matter without creating a real serious physical
science problem of overcoming the gas laws.
The pressure increases, the temperature increases, which drives them out again.
It's not going to happen.
One professor said, oh, Hovind, we figured if 20 stars explode near each
other, they'll produce enough energy to squeeze the gas and make a new star.
I said, well, sir, that's just brilliant.
You know, you're saying if you lose 20, you can gain one.
Man, you ought to run for Congress and help those guys borrow their way out of
debt.
That's a dumb idea.
We've never seen it happen.
It's purely theoretical that 20 stars could do that, but that is a losing
proposition, not gaining.
There are lots of stars.
The Bible says God created the stars in Genesis 1.16.
He created them to be lights on the earth.
Psalm 147 says He counts the number of the stars and gives names to all of them.
The Bible says He layeth the beams of His chambers in the waters, who maketh the
clouds His cherry to walketh upon the wings of the wind.
It is possible that Psalm 104 ties in with Psalm 148 that there is still water above
the heavens.
Nobody knows what's beyond the stars, if there's an end at all.
But it could be that this verse and the verse in Revelation where the Lord sits on
many waters is talking about the fact that there was a layer of water above the earth
and there may be another layer of water beyond the stars.
Don't know, just a theory, something to chew on.
There's no way we can tell anyway.
Okay, there's a lot of stars out there.
It's been estimated that everybody on earth could own two trillion stars to
yourself.
That's a lot.
Million, billion, trillion.
The stars are really far away.
Hubble telescope focused in on a dot.
They thought they found a black spot in space about the size of a grain of sand
held at arm's length.
They looked at that spot for ten days and in that one spot there were so many stars
they'd never seen before that they couldn't even count them.
That's just one spot the size of a grain of sand.
New stars just discovered.
There's a lot of stars.
Stephen Hawking, who hates Christians and creationists, said, and won't debate me by
the way, Steve, I'll take you on any time.
He said, stars are so far away they appear to us to be just pinpoints of light.
He said, there's only one feature we can observe, that is the color of their light.
So when you look at a star you cannot see the size or shape of the star,
all you see is what color it is.
We assume that stars are like the sun and the sun is like stars, but that is purely
an assumption.
We don't know that.
Some people say, oh yeah, we can tell by the elements that it's burning.
It gives a color characteristic, you know, the signature.
You can tell the elements.
Evolutionists never talk about this, but they are of course assuming that even
the molecules evolved in other places just like they evolved on earth.
They're assuming the same 92 elements we have here would be the same found
throughout the universe.
They've never talked about that, but you have a real serious problem if you
just assume that the same molecular arrangement evolved because molecules
would have to evolve too by your theory, which I think is a dumb idea.
Okay.
I taught high school trig for many years as one of the subjects I taught.
If you want to find the distance to an object you can't possibly touch,
like a star, you have to measure it with what's called parallax trigonometry.
You have to know two sides and one angle or two angles and one side in order to
calculate the distance to this unknown point or to this unknown distance to this
point with simple sine cosine tangent.
The problem is earth is only 8,000 miles in diameter, which is basically nothing
compared to star distance.
So to find the distance to a star you have to get your observers further apart to
make a triangle that's a decent angle.
Well they look at the star in January, then they look at the star in June and
they get a much bigger base on their triangle.
This is earth's orbit around the sun.
Well it's 93 million miles to the sun, which is a long ways, but it takes light 8
minutes to get here from the sun.
It's called one astronomical unit, that is the distance from the sun to the
earth is an AU, an astronomical unit.
So we are 8 light minutes from the sun, which means the diameter of our orbit is
16 light minutes.
That would be the diameter of earth's orbit around the sun.
This diagram here shows a little yellow dot on the far left, that would represent
earth's orbit.
16 light minutes.
A year has 525,000 minutes in it.
That's a real skinny triangle if you did it to scale.
It's like having two surveyors with telescopes 16 inches apart looking at a
dot 525,000 inches away, which is 8 and a third miles.
You set that up and draw it out on a piece of graph paper, you find you got a real
skinny triangle.
It works out to be an angle of .017 degrees at the apex.
I think you are going to have a hard time measuring something like that.
If you want to measure 100 light years, by the way that was just to measure one
light year.
If you wanted to measure 100 light years, you are keeping your surveyors 16 inches
apart.
That's like having two guys on my roof here in Pensacola, Florida looking at a
dot in Chicago.
If the guys are 16 inches apart and they are focusing on a dot in Chicago,
that's a real skinny triangle.
Figuring 15 billion light years is clearly impossible.
It just can't be done.
And I don't think you can tell exactly where you were 6 months ago on opposite
sides of earth's orbit.
That would be a stretch also.
Okay, this textbook says parallax trigonometry can be used to measure
distances less than 100 light years.
I agree, much less.
I think you would have a hard time measuring 20 light years, but I'll give
them 100, I'll give them 500 for the sake of the argument.
The fact is you can't measure a billion.
I'm not saying the stars aren't that far away.
They probably are.
I'm just pointing out we have no way of measuring it.
We don't know how far away they are.
If somebody tells you that star is 7.9 billion light years away, you say,
how did you measure it?
Was it a Stanley, a Lefkin, or a Craftsman?
And who held the other end of that tape measure?
Because I want to meet this guy.
It just can't be done.
So number one, we cannot measure the distance to the stars.
Number two, we don't know what light is.
Is it a wave?
Is it a photon?
Is it a particle?
I mean it behaves sometimes like waves, sometimes like energy.
Nobody knows for sure what light is.
We know what it does and we use it all the time obviously, but nobody has ever
defined what light is very clearly.
So the entire principle or concept behind a black hole is the idea that light can be
attracted by gravity.
Well if light can be attracted by gravity, if black holes exist, which nobody has
proven that either, but then the speed of light can't be a constant.
At Harvard University in 99 they slowed light down to 38 miles an hour.
The next year they slowed it down to one mile an hour in the year 2000.
The next year they brought it to a dead stop.
They took light and absolutely stopped it.
This was done at Harvard, it was done at Smithsonian, and it was done at Cambridge.
And by the way, that's how science works.
An experiment should be demonstrable, repeatable, testable.
Evolution is none of those.
Nobody has ever demonstrated or tested or proven any of it.
It's all in the mind.
They think it happened.
It's not science.
Okay, at Princeton University in the year 2000 they speeded light up to 300 times
the speed of light.
Why would the speed of light be an unbreakable barrier?
Barry Sutterfield, an Australian astronomer, did a lot of work on the speed
of light question.
He says the speed of light has decreased.
He said in the last 300 years at least 164 measurements of the speed of light have
been published, 16 different ways it was measured.
He said the speed of light has apparently decreased so rapidly that experimental
error cannot explain it.
Here's a chart showing that the speed of light has declined in the last 150 years.
About 1960, the chart seems to level off and everybody since about 1960 has gotten
the same number.
If you measure the speed of light today, you're probably going to get 186,282 point
something miles per second.
Okay, that could be because in the late 50s and early 60s they began using the
atomic clock to measure the speed of light.
And the atomic clock uses the wavelength of a cesium-133 atom, which means you're
using light to measure light.
You have a rubber ruler.
Of course you're not going to see it if it's declining.
It may be we're on the tail end of a logarithmic digression or it simply may be
we're using a rubber ruler by using an atomic clock to measure it.
Here's a couple of articles showing about how the speed of light was apparently
exceeded by a factor of as much as 100.
Clear back in 88 and 95 there were articles published about this.
The speed of light is not a constant.
The Radiophysical Research Institute in Russia, the cosmologist there,
said the speed of light was 10 billion times faster at time zero.
Astrophysics and Space Science Magazine 1987.
According to the Big Bang theory the speed of light had to be much faster initially.
Here's an article from 2001 Science News saying about the speed of light may have
changed over history, the study says.
Imperial College in London, the man wrote an article and said, a shocking
possibility is that the speed of light might change in time during the life of
the universe.
At Rutgers News Service put an article from Sydney about a team from Australia
that said the speed of light may not be a constant in August of 2002.
It says the speed of light can change.
The speed limit of the cosmos is being questioned.
September 2002.
So there's a book out called Faster Than the Speed of Light.
And I'm sure this fellow who wrote this book would be persecuted for daring to
suggest such heresy as this.
Discover Magazine ran an article about was Einstein wrong about the speed of light?
A recent article saying Einstein was wrong.
The speed of light is not a constant.
So I don't think we can prove what light is and I don't think we can prove lights
always travel the same speed.
Number 3.
The creation was finished when God made it.
It's interesting, Jesus made wine out of grapes that never existed.
Turned water straight to wine.
Where's the grape stage?
He can make a full grown man out of the dirt and then make a woman out of his rib
and make animals out of the dirt.
He can make the earth out of nothing.
Jesus made enough to feed 5,000 people out of a little boy's sack lunch.
We're always trying to limit God.
I get real worried about folks that try to put human limitations on God.
God didn't make two babies and put them in the Garden of Eden and hand them a package
of seeds and say, here plant these quick, you're going to need supper.
He made a full grown man and a full grown woman in a full grown garden.
That's the only way it's going to work.
Number 4.
A light year is a distance.
It's not a time, it's a distance.
It's the distance light can travel in a year at today's speed.
A light year could be done in one second if you speeded the light up.
It's simply a distance.
It's like so many gazillion miles.
Think of 6 trillion miles is a light year.
Okay, number 5.
Since the speed of light is not proven to be consistent, why would star distance
have anything to do with age of the universe?
Some people say, oh, wait a minute now.
I know we can't measure the distance with triangulation, parallax, trigonometry.
What about measuring with Cepheid variables or redshift?
That's the other way they try to do it and also loaded with flaws in the theory
there.
The redshift is the idea that when light goes from a star, the red is shifted over.
They look at the light through a spectroscope and you'll see black lines on
there and the black lines are shifted toward the red end of the spectrum.
You get the normal spectrum red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo,
violet.
But the black lines are shifted red and they'll say, wow, this is proof the star
is receding.
It's running.
It's moving away from us.
That could be.
I don't know.
But there might be other ways to answer this.
This is called the Doppler effect.
If a train is coming toward you, it squeezes the sound waves in as the
train makes noise and you hear it.
It drops pitch as it goes past you.
It's called the Doppler effect.
If you're going past the sound source or the sound source is going past you,
either way, it works the same.
Sound is called compressed coming in and refracted or stretched going out.
Well, they thought possibly if the star is coming in, it would squeeze the light
waves, whatever light waves are, and make a blue shift.
If the star is leaving, it would make a red shift.
And so when the red shift was discovered years ago, they looked around the heavens
and found most of the stars are giving a red shift.
And they said, wow, this proves they're leaving.
No, it doesn't.
But that was the assumption.
And then they said, if all the stars are moving away, that proves there was a Big
Bang.
That was the evidence for the Big Bang theory, the red shift.
Talk about a lack of logic, but that's what they said.
Okay.
This fellow says, there was an early sign that red shifts reliably indicate the
distance of galaxies.
For quasars, however, the diagram shows a wide scatter and apparent brightness at
every red shift.
He said, in fact, there is little correlation of brightness to red shift at
all.
Either quasars come in an extremely wide range of intrinsic luminosities,
as most people believe, or the red shifts do not indicate distance.
Sky and Telescope, December 1994.
The same magazine said, thus for the only conclusion that can be drawn is that at
least some quasars are relatively nearby and a large fraction of their red shift is
due to something other than expansion of the universe.
So if somebody tells you we know the distance to stars because of red shifts,
say, I'm sorry, that is simply not correct.
We don't know the distance because of red shift.
Get the book, The Evolution Cruncher, from our ministry.
It's $5 for a 900-page book.
Excellent book, loaded with stuff on creation and evolution.
He's got a whole section about the Doppler effect and the expanding universe.
Science News 95 said, another set of observations indicates that the universe
appears to be 8.4 to 10.6 billion years old.
The new work relied on the Hubble Space Telescope to obtain distance to faraway
galaxies.
A team led by Tanver at the University of England used a two-step method to estimate
the Hubble constant.
I always get a kick out of that.
Here they've got an equation which involves a number that you're going to
multiply, like an algebraic equation, and they can change that number.
They call it a constant, but they change it all the time.
I taught algebra for years.
I'm telling you, you change one letter in an equation or one value in an equation,
you change the outcome.
That's why they're always getting wild numbers for the age of the universe,
because the Hubble constant is not a constant at all.
Okay, let's go on here.
He said, first they observed a type of standard candle, stars known as Cepheid
variables, to find the distance to the spiral galaxy M96.
He said, you have to be very careful about drawing conclusions because of the Hubble
constant, because measurements have huge systematic errors.
Astronomers believed the Veil, one of the best-studied supernova
remnants, was 2,500 light-years away and 18,000 years old.
They were quite wrong.
In fact, the Veil is only 1,500 light-years away and 5,000 years old,
from Discover Magazine, January of 2001.
An article about Rip Van Winkle showing stars are much younger than they thought.
The article University Around Us at Cambridge University said, even the
nearest Cepheids are so remote, it's difficult to determine their absolute
distance with any accuracy, any great accuracy.
All large distances in astronomical literature are subject to an error of
perhaps 10% from this cause alone.
He said, we know that faintness, how bright the star is, arises from two
causes, distance and absorbing matter in space, and it's generally not possible to
apportion it between the two.
Get the book The Evolution Cruncher and find out what happened to Halton Harp,
who dared to question the redshift theory.
Good way to lose your job.
There's discrimination against those because they're looking for anything to
hang on to this dumb Big Bang Theory is the problem.
Big Bang Theory is a dud.
Fred Hoyle said that 30 years ago, or 20 years ago.
Okay, Isaiah 40 tells us the Lord sits on the circle of the earth and it says He
stretched out the heavens like a curtain.
Isaiah 42 talks about the stretching of the heavens.
Isaiah 45 says He stretched out the heavens.
Jeremiah 10 says He stretched out the heavens.
There's several theories of what's causing the redshift.
One theory is the stretching from the creation.
This is a normal thing you would expect because He stretched out the heavens like
a curtain, just like the Bible told us.
Maybe that's the only reason we have a redshift.
Second theory is the light's getting tired traveling great distance.
Third theory is as it travels through whatever space is made up, maybe space is
nothing, maybe space is something, we don't know what space is, but as the
light travels, that may automatically be a phenomenon that causes the redshift.
It could be the Doppler Effect.
The star could be moving away.
I don't know and nobody knows.
Okay?
It could be the light is being speeded up or slowed down as it goes past a dense
gravitational mass in space.
We simply don't know what's causing the redshift.
Next question, I get asked this question quite frequently actually, is the sun
shrinking?
The sun is obviously burning.
You can step outside and look at it in the daytime.
The sun is losing about 5 million tons of mass every second.
The sun is obviously burning and losing an enormous amount of fuel.
So, if you go backwards in time and add 5 million tons per second to the sun,
you start to create a problem at some point.
I don't know what the number is and I wouldn't give a number because as soon as
I give a number and say x number a million years ago this would have happened,
the atheist or the skeptic will pick on the number and miss the concept.
The fact is the sun is burning.
If the sun were larger it would begin to suck Mercury and Venus in first of all.
Mercury first and then Venus and then slowly affect Earth.
The Bulletin of American Astronomical Society in 1979 said since 1836 more than
100 direct observers, different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the
U.S.
Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements that suggest the sun's
diameter is shrinking at the rate of about a tenth of a percent each century,
which works out to be 5 feet per hour.
Now, whether the number is right, I don't know.
But the fact is it's pretty obvious the sun is burning and the sun, for 100 years
of measurements, they said it's shrinking about 5 feet an hour.
Of course now the sun is gigantic, about 880,000 miles in diameter,
so it's not a problem.
We're not sure.
Indirect techniques also confirm the sun is shrinking, although these inferred
collapse are only about one-seventh as much.
By that thinking the sun would have been touching the Earth 158 million years ago.
And again, that's not my number.
Somebody else came up with that as a possible calculation that the sun would
have been touching the Earth.
The fact is the sun is shrinking.
This chart shows the measurements of not only the polar diameter but the equatorial
diameter.
The sun has north and south pole like the Earth does.
Both measurements are diminishing in the last 160 years.
It's been observed the sun is shrinking.
Now the sun oscillates.
It swells and shrinks and swells and shrinks, but the overall trend is quite
obviously toward shrinking.
The sun is burning.
That creates a problem.
If you go backwards in time, the sun would be bigger and more massive, which is going
to upset the gravitational pull.
So I don't think it's logical to say the Earth's been going around the sun for
billions of years while the sun is constantly losing this mass and losing its
gravitational pull.
To me, that invokes the miracle.
It's much simpler to say the system is not billions of years old like they're telling
us.
God created everything about 6,000 years ago exactly like the Bible says.
Okay, what about carbon dating?
Every seminar I do somebody will say, wait a minute, carbon dating proves the
Earth is millions of years old.
Oh no, it doesn't.
The fossils are actually dated by their position in the geologic column.
We cover that in seminar part four.
And the geologic column does not exist any place in the world.
Radiometric dating would not even be possible if the geologic column had not
been erected first.
An article in American Journal of Science Magazine talked about this.
Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and
still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks
in which they occur.
Apart from very modern examples, which really are archaeology, this guy
said I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date
fossils.
So they don't date fossils by carbon dating or potassium-argon dating.
This is a mammoth tooth.
They date them by the geologic column.
They pick a spot and say, wow, that era was so many thousand years ago
and so this must be that old.
Fossils are not dated by carbon dating.
Let me explain how carbon dating works.
The Earth's atmosphere is about a hundred miles thick.
On this globe it doesn't even show up.
I mean it's the thickness of the paint basically.
A hundred miles is not much.
The space shuttle whizzes around just above the atmosphere.
It still cuts down on drag and they can get no friction up there.
Still get lousy gas mileage though.
The air a hundred miles thick is mostly nitrogen.
78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .06% carbon dioxide and that's what plants breathe,
CO2.
Some people say .09 or .03.
I don't know.
It varies I'm sure.
Location is location.
But there's not a lot of CO2 in the air.
If you increase CO2, plants grow faster, which is a frustration for the
environmentalist wackos when they burn forests, you know.
All the CO2 is released and the trees next door grow faster.
So it doesn't create an environmental crisis like they want you to believe.
There's extremely small quantities of radioactive carbon-14.
The way this works, radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere, super high-speed
energy comes down, bangs into the nitrogen and changes it to carbon-14.
Just a quick, simple chemistry lesson here.
Carbon and nitrogen are right next to each other on the periodic table.
Nitrogen is number 14.
Carbon is number 12.
But if the nitrogen gets blasted by radiation, it turns into carbon-14.
Normal carbon is called carbon-12.
Here we have some what's called radioactive carbon, carbon-14.
It's very rare and it doesn't stay stable because it's always breaking apart.
You can hear it with a Geiger counter, you know, in the movies they've got the
Geiger counter getting by the uranium and going click, click, click, click.
Well, the same thing with carbon-14.
It breaks apart.
It's falling apart.
And it's turning back into nitrogen and disappearing, which is a gas that
disappears into the air.
Carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere by the sun.
It breaks down at the rate of about half of it will break down every 5,730 years.
This is called the half-life.
So if I gave you a pile of carbon-14 and you waited 5,730 years, half of it would
turn back to nitrogen and you'd end up with half a pile.
If you wait another 5,700 years, half of that is going to turn to nitrogen.
You end up with a fourth of a pile.
In theory, it never goes to zero.
It goes from half to fourth to eighth to sixteenth, etc.
But plants are always breathing in carbon-14 in the photosynthesis process.
They're breathing in carbon.
Some of it's carbon-14.
Most of it's normal carbon-12.
Animals eat the plants and make it part of their body.
Probably during your lifetime, you've either eaten plants or you've eaten
animals that have eaten plants.
That's about all there is to eat out there.
And so you're absorbing radioactive carbon into you, just like I am into me,
because we're getting it through the food chain.
The plants got it from the air.
The air got it from the sun.
This carbon-14 got into the plants.
Then it got into you or into the animals and then into you.
But either way, we all contain some radioactive carbon.
When the plant or animal dies, it's not going to get any more,
obviously.
So, several assumptions are involved in carbon dating.
First of all, they assume that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, the ratio,
which is a very small number, is the same found in the plants and animals.
For instance, the atmosphere contains .0000765% radioactive carbon-14.
It is assumed that I have the same.
I've never been tested for C-14 and I've never met anybody who has but I would say
that's a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption.
Okay.
When the plant or animal dies, it doesn't get any more C-14, so whatever
it had begins to decay.
It was decaying while it was alive, but you never noticed it because it's
being replenished, so the balance would stay.
But as soon as it dies, it begins to go out of balance.
So basically, carbon dating is measuring the amount of carbon in the object with
the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and getting a balance.
If the atmosphere is .0000765% and the object you're dating is only half as much,
they would assume it's been dead for one half-life.
If it's only one-fourth as much, it's been dead for two half-lives.
Two times 5,730.
And then it goes to a fourth, to an eighth, to a sixteenth.
So they're comparing the amount in the object with the amount in the atmosphere.
This is how carbon dating works.
Sounds good.
Certainly sounds scientific.
But it's based on some serious assumptions that mess up everything.
It doesn't work.
If I told you to fill a barrel with water, but I have drilled holes in the barrel,
while you're putting water in, it begins to leak out.
So you have a process of filling and a process of leaking at the same time.
You have adding and subtracting going on simultaneously.
At some point, you're going to reach a stage called equilibrium.
You'll never fill the barrel past that point, unless you speed up the input or
decrease the outgo, one or the other.
Well, Earth's atmosphere is constantly taking in carbon-14 from the sun,
and it's constantly losing it to decay.
So you have the same thing as the barrel.
The question would be, how long would it take the Earth's atmosphere to reach
equilibrium?
Well, when carbon dating was first discovered, or invented in the early 1950s
or late 1940s, actually, Willard Libby did this, University of Chicago, he said,
you know, I wonder how long it would take the Earth's atmosphere to reach
equilibrium, because he knew about the equilibrium problem.
They said, after doing some studies, it would take about 30,000 years.
Basically, if you made a brand new planet Earth, poof, create one, cover it with
air, start it spinning around itself and spinning around the sun, the sun is going
to strike the oxygen, strike the atmosphere and produce carbon-14,
and it's going to start decaying.
And they said, within 30,000 years, the atmosphere would be equalized.
You'd reach this point called equilibrium.
You're never going to get more C-14, and you shouldn't get any less,
unless something changes in the system.
Well, sounds good.
I don't know if the number is right, but the concept is.
Within 30,000 years, the Earth's atmosphere would reach equilibrium.
The problem is, we still haven't reached equilibrium.
There's more C-14 now than there was 20 years ago.
Actually, radiocarbon is forming 28 to 37 percent faster than its decay.
So, if we still haven't reached equilibrium, then the Earth is less than
30,000 years old, which is what the Christians have been saying all along.
A friend of mine has a website, archey.org, you can get information there
about Earth's atmosphere has still not reached equilibrium.
There's been a lot of people doing research on this, and it's just we're not
there yet.
This chart indicates how carbon-14 is supposed to work, in theory.
An object that is still alive should be in balance with the atmosphere, which would
give you 16, I'm going to simplify this a little bit, give you 16 clicks per minute
per gram on your Geiger counter.
If you're listening to a, you know, dating a, testing a sample, it'll go click
every four seconds, you know, click, click.
If it's only giving you eight clicks per minute, then you're getting, you're
assuming it's 5,700 years old.
It's been through one half-life.
If you're only getting four clicks per minute, it's been through two half-lives.
If you're getting two clicks per minute, it's been through three half-lives,
it's 11,000 years old.
This is how carbon dating is done.
If you test a sample and you find out you're getting, you know, two and a half
clicks per minute or 2.9 or something like that, you look at the chart and read over
and find the age by the simple calibration curve, they call it.
Sounds good, doesn't work.
If you walked into a room and found a candle burning on a table, and I asked you
the very simple question, when was it lit?
You say, I don't know, it was burning when I got here.
Okay, let's do what's called empirical science, things we can test and
demonstrate and weigh and prove, okay?
We're going to measure the candle.
We measure the height of the candle.
We find out the candle is seven inches tall.
Okay, when was it lit?
You say, I don't know.
Okay, let's do some more science.
Let's measure how fast it burns.
Suppose we get an Olympic stopwatch and we measure this thing very carefully and find
out the candle is burning one inch every hour.
Now we've got two hard science empirical facts.
The candle is seven inches tall.
It is burning an inch an hour.
When was it lit?
You still can't tell me unless you make some assumptions.
How tall was it?
And has it always burned at the same rate?
Neither of those assumptions can be proven.
They are purely assumptions, okay?
If you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know is it died.
You don't even know where it died.
You just know where it ended up buried.
That's all.
Now the amount of carbon-14 could be measured very precisely and the rate of
decay could be determined.
But when did it live?
I have no idea and nobody does.
Because you'd have to know how much was in it when it was alive, which that would
depend on the assumption.
The aetheric atmosphere has reached equilibrium and we haven't.
And you'd have to know that it's always decayed at the same rate.
Now if the Bible is right and the earth had a canopy of water overhead like the
Bible, I think, clearly teaches in 2 Peter 3 and in Genesis 1, 6 and 7, this canopy
of water would filter out quite a bit of radiation and they probably had a lot less
carbon-14 in the original creation than we do today.
So if you dig up a fossil from an animal that drowned in the flood, and I don't
know if any of these are or not, but if you find a fossil and say,
wow, I believe this one, this ammonite may have drowned in the flood.
It probably did.
And we want to find out if it's got carbon.
It probably doesn't.
It's been totally replaced by minerals, but let's assume it has organic material.
And so we carbon date it.
They would assume that it lived in an atmosphere just like we have today.
Faulty assumption.
Not a good idea.
There's some examples of how carbon dating doesn't work.
We'll go in chronological order here.
Back in 1949, an article came out in Natural History magazine that said the
lower leg of a mammoth dated 15,000 years old, but the skin dated 21,000 years old.
It didn't work in 1949.
1963, a living mollusc shell carbon dated at 2,300 years old.
Well, here we are 14 years later, carbon dating is still not working.
1970, this article came out and they said if a carbon date supports our theories,
we put it in the main text.
If it's not entirely contradicting, we put it in a footnote.
If it's completely out of date, we just drop it.
1971, a freshly killed seal carbon dated at 1,300 years old.
Still not working folks.
1975, a baby mammoth was found frozen.
Part of it dated 40,000 years old, another part was 26,000 years old,
and the wood next to it is 9,000 years old.
Still not working in 1975.
1981, they tried it again.
This guy said no matter how useful it is, the radiocarbon method is still not
capable of yielding accurate and reliable results.
There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative,
and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.
This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy.
It all depends upon which funny paper you read.
Still not working.
1984, shells from living snails were carbon dated at 27,000 years old.
Still not working.
1985, they took 11 human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the
western hemisphere, and they were carbon dated or dated by accelerator mass
spectrometer, all 11 dated 5,000 radiocarbon years or less.
Here these things are supposed to be a quarter million years old or something.
It's not working in 1985.
1992, two Colorado Creek mammoths side by side, buried frozen mammoths, were dated.
One was 22,000 years old, the other is 16,000 years old.
Still not working in 1992.
In 1996, at Berkeley University, they've got the geochronology center,
Carl Swisher used the most advanced techniques to date human fossils.
This article said last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in
Java by testing the sediment found with them.
A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapien, erectus was
thought to have vanished a quarter million years ago.
Even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same
startling find.
The bones were 53,000 at most and possibly no more than 27,000.
Well, I would like to point out, your honor, that is a 96% error.
So it's not working in 1996 either.
It's not logical to say carbon dating works.
It's not working in 1996.
One part of a mammoth dated 29,000 years old, another part was 44,000 years old.
This article said in the last two years an absolute date has been obtained for the
Gandong beds.
It has the very interesting value of 300,000 years, plus or minus 300,000
years.
So it doesn't work.
We have in our library the geological survey professional paper 862.
Some skeptics on the web have argued that I didn't understand what the paper was
saying.
I think I do.
It shows the charts here of the different carbon dates they got from different
animals and different organic material found all over Alaska, the geological
survey paper.
Sample number 454, carbon dated at 17,210 years old.
Sample 455 gave a carbon date of 24,000 years old.
People say, see, what's the big deal?
Well, look at it.
This is the same sample as 454.
455 and 454 are the same creature.
They're getting different ages.
Sample 299 was dated at less than 20,000 years old.
Sample 137X was dated at greater than 28,000.
But read it carefully.
That's the same sample as 299.
They gave it a different number in a different laboratory, but it's the same
sample.
Two different numbers, same sample.
Living penguins date 8,000 years old.
Material from dinosaur bone layers were found and dated at 34,000 years old.
They find organic material with dinosaurs, sometimes frozen dinosaur bones,
sometimes unfossilized dinosaur bones are found.
Two Russian scientists dated dinosaur bones at less than 30,000 years old.
Hugh Miller in Columbus, Ohio had four dinosaur bone samples, carbon dated.
They told him they were 20,000 years old.
He didn't tell them they were dinosaur bones.
If he would have said, this is a dinosaur bone and I want you to carbon date it,
they would have said, oh, we can't date that because it's too old.
This is a dinosaur bone, by the way.
It's been replaced by minerals.
They start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago.
If I took this to a laboratory and said, would you please date this, they would
say, oh, well, we'd have to use something other than carbon dating because this is
too old for carbon dating.
They've already decided what range it fits in.
That's not how science ought to work.
You ought to be able to say, well, let's just be open-minded about this.
They can date the same sample 10 ways and get 10 different numbers.
Here's the things to consider about carbon dating.
If you date a sample of known age, I mean, you know how old it is,
like a tree ring.
Carbon dating doesn't work.
If you date a sample of unknown age, it's assumed to work.
It's not science.
That's not common sense.
As elements decay, they produce helium.
One of the byproducts of carbon decay or radioactive decay of any kind is it
produces helium gas, which, you know, unless you're in the ground where it can
be trapped in a cave, it's going to escape into the atmosphere.
The helium in the atmosphere indicates the earth is not billions of years old,
actually less than 2 million years old, just based on the helium content in the
atmosphere.
If radioactive decay has been going on for millions of years, there should be a lot
more helium.
Taking all factors into account, the helium escape mechanisms and
everything, it's not more than 2 million years old.
It's an excellent book.
If you want to get more in the go-down-deep stuff on carbon dating,
you can get it through our bookstore if you want or call icr.org.
They have the book there.
This guy said, the rocks date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more
accurately.
I'll tell you what, folks, the cheese done fell out of his sandwich.
He said, circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.
They use circular reasoning.
Specimen 10017 from the moon was divided into six pieces and dated many times.
The ages ranged from 2.5 to 4.6 billion.
Notice, that's nearly a 500% error.
It doesn't work.
I talked to a J.P.
Dawson in Oklahoma.
He was the chief of engineering and operations for the Lunar and Earth Science
Division at NASA in Houston.
He said, they worked on the lunar samples, including the Genesis rock.
He told me they found ages from 10,000 years to several billion years in the same
rock.
So basically you can kind of pick what you want.
There's an excellent chapter in this book called Bones of Contention.
The last chapter deals with what's called the dating game.
It's hilarious to see how they change the dates to make them fit.
You know, if any new evidence comes in, we'll just change the date and make it fit
the theory.
All right, we'll take a little break here, come back and talk about the other dating
methods, potassium-argon, some of the other ones, and then go on to more of your
questions.
Okay, let's take a few more questions and answers.
People often ask me about the age of the Earth and say, doesn't potassium-argon
dating prove the Earth is millions or billions of years old?
Well, potassium is one of the elements in the periodic table.
It slowly decays and turns to argon, which is a gas.
So the theory is that when a volcano erupts, it melts the rock and turns to
lava and comes out and spreads down the hillside.
And the gas would escape because it is now a liquid.
And so as potassium slowly decays to argon, which is a gas, if it melts the
rock, it should reset the clock to zero.
And so they think we can tell how old lava flows are or ash flows, ash beds,
because there should be no argon in them.
It should reset the clock.
It should be just potassium.
Well, it sounds good in theory, but in practice, when you actually test
it, it doesn't work.
Okay?
It's true that potassium decays to argon.
It has a half-life of about 1.3 billion years.
It very, very slowly decays.
Of course, nobody watched it for 1.3 billion years.
They watched it for three or four days in the laboratory and estimated how long it
would take for half of it to disappear.
But let's assume the half-life is right, and that would be quite an assumption,
but I don't argue that much with them.
The fact is, when you actually test it, like the lava flows that were tested from
New Zealand, this chart shows from a radioactive dating failure here article,
about potassium-argon dates were given for a 1975 eruption at the very bottom of the
list here, February 19th, and yet it was way off.
It was 1 to 2, a quarter of a million years old, and yet it was only 1975.
1949, a lava flow, they knew it erupted in 1949, yet it gave an age of a little less
than a quarter million years old.
So it just simply doesn't work.
As much as 80% of the potassium in a small sample in an iron meteorite can be removed
and distilled water in four and a half hours, so we don't know that it actually
resets the clock.
This Canadian Journal of Earth Science article said, in conventional dating for
potassium-argon, it's common to discard ages which are substantially too high or
too low compared with the rest of the group, or with other available data such
as the geologic time scale.
Oh, now here the truth comes out.
Things are really dated by the geologic chart, not by just potassium-argon dating.
We've been through that before.
In Nature magazine back in April of 1970, they had given another example where they
had dated a layer of ash called the KBS Tuff, named after K.
Brenzenmeier.
This layer of ash was dated at between 212 and 230 million years old.
I mean, for years, everybody had dated this layer of ash and everybody agreed
it's over 200 million years old.
What they'll do is, if you look at the picture here, they will have different
layers of ash that they will assign dates to.
These are from volcanic eruptions, lava flows, or ash layers.
If you find a fossil between two layers, you can guess how old it was based upon
the potassium-argon date of the one above and the date of the one below.
Sounds good, doesn't work.
They bracket the sample by the, it's called an event horizon is the term
they use for it.
They'll say, well, there's a volcanic eruption that made this layer of ash over
the whole countryside.
Any fossils found below that layer have to be older.
Any fossils found above this layer have to be younger.
Sounds good.
And until Richard Leakey found a skull called the KNMER, they give all these
numbers, KNMER 1470, this skull was found under the KBS Tuff.
Now here, everybody had been saying the KBS Tuff was over 200 million years old
and they find a normal human skull under it.
Ooh, now you got a problem.
So they redated the ash layers, the KBS Tuff.
They would never have redated it if it hadn't found that skull.
They redated the ash layers and took 10 samples and got numbers from .5 million to
2.64 million.
Well, first I'd like to point out that's way down from 212 and still that's a 500%
error.
It doesn't work.
I mean a 500% error, they'd laugh at you if you put this in a court of law.
It's interesting to look at the inflation of the age of the earth.
Back in 1770, George Buffon said the earth is 70,000 years old.
In 1905, the textbooks would say the earth is 2 billion years old.
In 1969, when they went to the moon, they said the moon and the earth are 3.5
billion years old.
And this number was arrived at by potassium-argon dating, like this article
says here.
Today the students are taught it's 4.6 billion years old.
It's interesting.
Do you know the earth is getting older at the rate of 21 million years per year?
That's 40 years per minute.
We're aging rapidly, folks, so it's silly.
Here's the things to consider about potassium-argon or any dating method for
that matter.
Number one, wild dates are frequently obtained.
They're not always consistent.
They get all kinds of numbers.
They pick the ones that they want based on the preconceived idea, which is based on
the geologic column, which is dumb.
Secondly, dates that don't fit the theory are routinely rejected.
That's not how science ought to work.
I mean, if it works, it ought to work every time.
It ought to be testable or demonstrable.
Number three, it's obvious any dating method is based on the assumptions that
the original content can be known, that the decay rate never changes,
that the sample's never been contaminated.
And the fourth observation somebody needs to point out to these guys is all of these
decay rates are based on a decline downhill slide, not uphill.
Potassium decays to argon.
Carbon-14 decays.
Everything is decaying.
This is the opposite of evolution.
They need something that's improving.
This will go back to the concept we talk about on Seminar Part 4 of the six
different meanings of the word evolution.
You have to have chemical evolution where the chemicals go higher on the periodic
table, not lower.
All of these are examples of them going lower.
Mount St. Helens erupted.
Many volcanoes erupt.
For instance, Mount Etna erupted in Sicily back in 122 B.C.
It was a dated eruption.
They had historical evidence for it.
When the potassium argon dated it, it was a quarter million years old.
The 1801 Hawaiian lava flow gave a potassium argon age of 1.6 million.
It didn't work.
Another Hawaiian lava flow from 1959 gave an age of 8.5 million years old.
Mount Etna from Sicily erupted again in 1964.
It dated, and everybody watched it happen.
And when they dated it with potassium argon dating, it was 700,000 years old.
In 1972, it erupted again, and now the dates came 3,500,000 years old.
The lava from Mount St. Helens was tested right after it erupted in 1980.
Brand new lava dome.
They knew the age of it.
And yet it gave numbers from different dating methods ranging from 350,000 to 2.8
million.
This is coming from the same rocks from the lava flow that they knew was 20 years
old.
So again, when you date a sample of known age, it doesn't work.
When you date a sample of unknown age, it is assumed to work.
That's not common sense.
And again, wild dates are picked.
They find them all the time.
They pick the numbers they want.
They reject anything they don't like.
It's based on many assumptions, just like any other dating method is.
Get the book, The Evolution Cruncher, if you want a whole lot more on the other
dating methods about uranium-235, uranium-238.
There's much information there or on the website icr.org, which is an institute for
creation research.
Next question.
Have fresh dinosaur bones been found?
Absolutely, yes.
Quite a few, actually.
Some frozen dinosaur bones were found in the book here, The Great Alaskan Dinosaur
Adventure, from Master Books in Arkansas.
You can read about growing up and finding frozen dinosaur bones.
In 1993, the Journal of Science, December 24th, Christmas Eve, they
reported an amazing preservation of the bones of a young duck-billed dinosaur
found in Montana.
Under the microscope, the fine structure of the bones was seen to have been
preserved to such an extent that the cell characteristics could be compared with
cells of chicken bone.
1961, in northwest Alaska, they found a bed of dinosaur bones that were
unpermineralized.
That means not fossilized.
That is from Journal of Paleontology, 1986-87.
In Omni Magazine, January of 1990, they talk about on the banks of the river
in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, frozen dinosaur bones were found that are as light as
balsa wood and look as fresh as yesterday's dog bones.
The structure was porous and the fossils were not mineralized.
On Bilott Island, 1987, they found the lower jaw of a duck-billed dinosaur that
was in fresh condition.
Joe Taylor, who does a lot of digging for dinosaurs in Texas, in Crosbyton,
Texas, outside of Lubbock, has discovered many times, he said he finds dinosaur
bones that are not fossilized.
So the idea that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago is silly.
So, next question.
If there really was a flood, where are all the human bones?
People say, oh, if the world was totally destroyed, you ought to find millions of
human fossils.
Well, about 4,000 human remains have been found, according to Marvin Lubin now,
who is one of the smartest guys I know on the topic of human ancestors.
You know, his book, Bones of Contention, is excellent from a Christian perspective
on all the so-called cavemen that they're finding.
Many of the human remains, even those are very fragmentary, just one bone or just a
few bones.
But let's assume 4,000 human remains have been found, just to pick a number.
I think when God made the earth 6,000 years ago, it was full of plants,
full of animals, and only two people.
4,400 years later when the flood came, or 1,600 years later when the flood came,
the world is still full of plants and still full of animals and still not full
of people.
I'm not sure what the population was.
I would pick a number clear out of the clear blue sky and say, let's assume there
was a billion people at the time of the flood.
It may have been a lot more.
If they had 100 kids per family, populations grow quickly like that.
But let's say it was a population of a billion.
It may have been 10 billion.
I don't think there is any way to tell.
The problem is they all died except for Noah and his family.
So 1,600 years and 1,650 years after the creation, you still don't have the world
full of people yet.
The purpose of the flood was to destroy man off the earth, Genesis chapter 6 and
verse 7.
The Bible also says there were giants in the earth in those days, men of renown,
mighty men, big people.
Here is a picture we use on seminar part 2 about the human thumb bone on top compared
with a giant human thumb bone underneath found right near Mount Everett.
Here are the reasons I would give why so few human fossils have been found.
Number one, there were less people to be killed than there were animals.
So you are more likely to find animal bones than human bones simply because
there were more of them.
God only made two people but he made a world full of animals.
Secondly, people are smarter than animals, well some people anyway.
And so they would tend to avoid drowning until last and they end up on top.
So they end up rotting instead of being buried.
In order to fossilize, the animal has to be buried.
So I think you are more likely to find animal fossils than human fossils for this
reason also.
Thirdly, if humans were bigger the bones might not be recognized as human.
Because many people go into this study with the preconceived idea that evolution
is true and man used to be small and we are getting bigger and better and stronger
and smarter and probably exactly the opposite is true.
If people were eight or nine or ten feet tall before the flood and you found human
bones from somebody eight or nine or ten feet tall, like this thigh bone here over
my head which is from a human, it would have been nearly thirteen feet
tall.
We cover that on video number two about the giant people.
That would have been a thirteen foot human.
Well, if just a fragment of that bone was found, nobody would dream it came from a
human, if they believed in evolution, because they have got stuck in their head
that man used to be like a chimpanzee, three feet tall, and now we are six feet
tall.
And so they would assign it to something else.
They would call it a cave bear or a giant sloth or something.
It can't be human, that they would know for sure.
So I think many bones are misidentified for that reason because of the
preconceived evolutionary concept which is a great hindrance to scientific research.
Next question, where did Noah get pitch?
In my debate number seven with an atheist that was a former preacher, a Church of
Christ preacher turned atheist, he said Noah couldn't make pitch because
pitch is made from oil and oil formed during the flood.
Well, there is a problem with that, several problems with that.
Genesis chapter six, God said to Noah to make the ark with gopher wood and pitch it
with pitch within and without.
Obviously he is going to pitch it before the flood comes, so he is not going to
make it out of oil that are made from creatures that drowned in the flood.
Exodus 2 talks about Pharaoh's daughter drawing Moses from a basket that was
daubed with pitch.
They covered it with pitch.
Well, what is pitch anyway?
Isaiah 34 talks about pitch.
It says burning pitch and it puts off a smoke.
Here we learn a few things about pitch.
If you get a dictionary from 1828, Webster's Dictionary 1828, you will notice
you can look up the word pitch.
By the way, 1828 is before oil was used commercially.
In fact, the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania about 1830s or 1840s,
I don't remember the date.
But certainly there were no oil wells that we know of before that, so they weren't
drilling into the ground to get oil and yet they were making pitch in 1828.
It is in the dictionary.
It says, pitch is a thick tenacious substance, the juice of a species of pine
or fir.
It is made from pine trees.
It is the sap of a tree.
The second definition says it is the resin of pine or turpentine.
It is used in caulking ships and paying the sides and bottom.
That is to waterproof the boats.
So they were pitch industries.
They were whole factories.
They produced pitch.
They put it in barrels and they would sell it to ship making companies.
It is basically like a tar substance, but it is made from the sap of trees.
So no, don't tell me the Bible is wrong because it says they used pitch before the
flood.
The Bible is absolutely correct and the skeptics are wrong.
Okay, next question.
Was ancient man primitive?
Some people get this false idea that modern man is smart and everybody in the
past was dumb.
That is ridiculous.
There is a lot of indication ancient man was extremely smart.
There is an excellent book we sell called The Puzzle of Ancient Man by Don Chittick.
I highly recommend this one.
It is about $10 showing some of the incredible achievements of ancient man.
Before the flood came, the Bible says the people lived to be over 900 years old.
You could learn a lot in 900 years, plus when you consider a couple of other
factors, they lived in a perfect environment.
They would have had much higher IQs, much less to do as far as just daily
things you have to do just to live.
Most of those things are taken care of in the Garden of Eden.
You don't need a house, you have perfect weather, so they can devote all their time
to study or learning things.
Plus Adam came pre-programmed from the hand of God, probably had an incredibly
high IQ, and he got to walk and talk with God for a while until he sinned,
maybe 100 years, we don't know.
But he got to walk and talk with God.
The other factor to consider is Adam lived long enough to know his
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson.
Noah's daddy could have known Adam for 56 years.
So you get not only a much higher starting point, they already knew a lot because God
pre-programmed it into Adam, plus they lived a long time and could learn a lot
more, plus they lived long enough to pass this on to many generations.
Today an awful lot of knowledge goes to the grave.
About the time you know it all, you die.
By the time you know a bunch of stuff, you die.
Imagine if guys like Einstein could live 800 or 900 years, how much knowledge could
they accumulate in a brain like that?
So I think before the Flood they were much smarter, much smarter than we are today.
And some of this knowledge was passed down and as lifespans got shorter, it began to
be lost.
And a lot of societies were arranged to try to, secret societies, to preserve this
knowledge through different cultures and things like that.
But they opened up a grave in South America.
The grave was probably made about a thousand years ago and found this little
gold artifact in there.
You can see it next to the dime for scale.
It looks like an airplane about this big.
The Smithsonian has it and they have it labeled as a stylized insect.
Because they got this preconceived idea, ancient man was dumb, modern man is smart,
they could not possibly have known about airplanes a thousand years ago.
And yet, here they've got one.
That's not a stylized insect.
I'm sorry, they knew about flight.
An Egyptian tomb was opened that's 2,100 years old and it also had an airplane in
it, a little model glider.
How did they know about airplanes over 2,000 years ago?
This iron pot found in a lump of coal indicates a high level of technology
before coal formed.
I believe coal formed in the Flood in the days of Noah, so an iron pot is not a
problem.
The Bible says Tubalcain was an artificer in brass and iron.
Some of the walls that are found in Peru, of these giant stone walls, have these
massive blocks of stone that are cut and they fit together perfectly.
One of the stones in one of these walls weighs 20,000 tons.
Well, the biggest crane on earth today can only lift 3,000 tons.
How on earth were they lifting a stone 20,000 tons?
We simply don't know how they did it.
Actually, in the book Secret of the Lost Races, the author said, what's truly
impossible about the block is that it's the size of a five-story house and weighs
an estimated 20,000 tons.
He said, we have no combination of machinery today that could dislodge such a
weight, let alone move it any distance.
It shows their mastery of a technology that we, as yet, have not attained.
Somebody in the past knew something we can't even do today, and I think that's
the case with a lot of things.
This brass bell type thing was found inside a lump of coal.
Mr. Newton Anderson has it sitting on his desk.
I've talked to him many times about it, and I think you ought to donate it to our
museum here, Mr. Anderson.
We'd keep it safe for you, I'm sure.
But kids could come by and see it here.
We'd love to have that.
By the way, if you have any artifacts for our museum, we'd love to get anything.
We want to influence people for the Lord.
So if it's sitting in your closet gathering dust, you can put it on loan or
give it to us or buy it off you if we can afford it.
So that's the kind of things we have here.
We want to get the gospel out.
This vase found in solid rock, supposed to be 600,000 years old.
Ancient man was not primitive.
They found a sunken ship in the Aegean Sea, which is near Greece in the
Mediterranean, and there was encrusted on there what appeared to be an analog
computing device.
The more they analyzed this thing, it's now in the National Science
Foundation Museum, I believe.
I don't remember where that one's at, but I read about it a little bit.
This looks like an analog computer.
This is 2,100 years ago.
This hammer was found in rock supposed to be 400 million years old by a lady in
Texas.
Battelle Laboratory said it's 96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine, 0.74% sulfur.
No carbon.
And yet it is stainless steel.
It won't rust.
Carl Baugh's got it in his museum down in Lenrose, Texas.
Apparently they knew about electricity a long time ago because this battery was
found in Iraq from about 2,000 years ago.
The Egyptians must have known about electricity.
This hieroglyphic shows what appears to be wires and a generator or something hooked
up to these two snakes.
Either the snakes are producing electricity or they're putting electricity
into the snakes.
I don't know, but they must have known about electricity a long time ago.
They certainly knew about tampering with the skull, about brain surgery.
Some of the skulls are found with holes that actually healed up.
They did brain surgery and the people lived.
One of the icca stones from Peru shows a man doing brain surgery.
There are only about 25 of these stones in America.
We have three here in our museum.
This is one of the actual icca stones from Peru showing a man and dinosaur together.
Some of the stones show amputations, people's legs being amputated and
artificial limbs being attached.
They show heart surgery.
Here are some of the tools that they used for the surgery, for the brain surgery.
Dennis Swift has spent a fortune and a lot of time studying all about the icca
stones.
They knew about reshaping the skulls.
Here are some strange shaped skulls that they used to, for whatever reason,
they would shape the skulls.
Ancient man was not primitive.
He knew an awful lot, probably more than we do today in many areas.
Here is a stone from Icca, Peru showing what appears to be heart surgery.
They're taking the person's heart out.
Now whether that's the soul leaving and the guy died or I don't know, but they
knew about open heart.
Here's one showing an artificial limb, thus amputation.
This little thing appears to be designed to be a steam engine.
Dennis Swift has a lot of information about that.
They knew about the wheel a long time ago.
This is from the icca civilization, many, many thousand, several thousand
years ago.
This little spider, in real life, is only an eighth of an inch long,
but this is one of the drawings called the Nazca Lines.
Notice the leg on the right, the bottom right, has one leg that's much longer than
the rest.
It looks like, oops, they made a mistake.
It was just discovered recently that this little tiny spider, which you cannot see
without a magnifying glass, during mating season, just for a few seconds,
that leg grows longer, it mates off the sperm and eggs on the tip of that leg,
and then the leg shrinks back in.
How could they have known that without magnification?
These metallic spheres found in South Africa have parallel lines going around
them, obviously man-made, and yet they're in rock, supposed to be pre-Cambrian.
The textbook said it's 2.8 billion years old.
That's baloney.
We'll have a whole bunch about this on our website.
You can get it from Michael Cremo's books.
And of course he believes it's 2.8 billion.
He's wrong about that, but he's right.
It's a man-made artifact.
This mortar and pestle were found underneath deposits of rock, supposed to
be 33 to 55 million years old, under Table Mountain in California.
These little nano-artifacts were found, extremely tiny, little coils, some down to
1 ten-thousandth of an inch.
How did they carve something like that?
How could they see something like that?
I suspect they had much better vision, down to extremely fine vision,
to be able to see real tiny things, or they certainly knew about magnification
techniques.
These nano-artifacts follow what's called the golden mean ratio.
We're going to do a whole videotape on the golden mean ratio.
That is absolutely amazing how the Greeks discovered that, that the thing that's
pleasing to the eye is rectangles that are 1 to 1.61 in ratio.
That's what the pentagram is all about.
Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse did a cartoon, Walt Disney did a cartoon about
the golden mean ratio called Math Magic Land, I think is the name of it.
That's amazing, showing how the golden mean ratio is found in all sorts of
things.
It's found in the chambered nautilus.
The way that it grows, the length to width of the chambered nautilus follows the
golden mean ratio.
If you take one and cut it in half, I've got one here, you can see the
chambers inside as it grows.
The ram's horn does the same thing, a sunflower does the same thing.
Even the scales on a pine cone follow the golden mean ratio.
We'll do a whole videotape on that someday, that's amazing.
Okay, next topic.
What about the Great Pyramid?
The Great Pyramid is amazing.
It is the largest building by far on the surface of the planet.
Nobody knows for sure when it was built.
There's a lot of theories about it.
It's much larger in volume than the Sears Tower.
There are four theories about the Great Pyramid.
Two theories say it's built before the Flood.
Two theories say it's built after the Flood.
And then they divide it up into two theories say it's built by heathen people,
it's just a heathen structure, no big deal.
Other people think, no, it's a godly structure and it has symbolism in there
for Christianity, or at least for the Lord.
I don't know, it doesn't matter to me.
I'll just share the four theories with you.
The Great Pyramid is a massive building.
It is built in Egypt.
It may be a fulfillment of this prophecy in Isaiah chapter 19.
It says, "...in that day there would be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land
of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof.
And it shall be a sign and a witness for the Lord." Many people have preached on
this.
Whether it's true or not, I don't know.
But Egypt, they say, this pyramid is on the border where the kingdoms split and
there were two kingdoms feuding.
So it's at the border of Egypt, but it's also in the midst thereof once
the kingdoms got back together.
Don't know, couldn't prove that.
The Great Pyramid, here's a schematic drawing of it, showing if you walk in the
entrance on the right where the letter A is, you can take the broad way that leads
down to the pit or you can go to the narrow way which leads you into the king's
chamber.
So here you have the symbolism of the broad way and the narrow way.
If you go up the narrow way you end up into a large section called the Great
Grand Gallery.
And there are markings along the wall that some people think are actually based on
pyramid inches which actually tell some kind of history of the world.
You know, it's got events that correspond to major events in world history.
It's the largest building by far.
It contains enough stone to build a brick wall 10 feet high completely around Texas.
Some of the stones in the Great Pyramid weigh 70 tons.
The top is 450 feet high.
The capstone was never installed.
The entrance goes down the broad way or you can turn around and change your
direction and go up the narrow way to the king's chamber.
In the king's chamber there's an empty tomb.
Apparently the tests have revealed there's never been a person buried in there.
Again, it may be Christian symbolism.
I don't know.
The pyramid probably was originally covered with 144,000 casing stones that
fit together so tightly that you couldn't even find the seams in many cases and you
definitely couldn't put a piece of paper between them.
The capstone was never found.
Revelation 7 tells us there's going to be 144,000 of the children of Israel that are
sealed in the book of Revelation.
Interesting.
144,000 sealed stones encased the Great Pyramid.
So this may be something Christian symbolism.
I don't know.
Ephesians talks about the whole body being fitly joined together.
Matthew tells about the stone that the builders rejected became the head of the
corner.
Same thing in Mark chapter 12.
The stone which the builders rejected, Luke 20, the stone the builders rejected
has become the head of the corner.
It could be that the pyramid, if it is a Christian symbol, has the capstone,
the chief cornerstone, not installed because God is telling us He's not done
doing His work here yet.
I don't know.
Preachers good may be true.
I wouldn't be dogmatic on it.
But the book of Daniel talks about the stone cut out of the mountain without
hands that smote the image on the feet and it became a great kingdom.
Some people think that the New Jerusalem which is 1500 by 1500 by 1500 is actually
a pyramid because that's the only building that has one cornerstone as opposed to
normal buildings which would have four cornerstones.
A pyramid would have one and if Jesus is the light of the world He could be the
cornerstone that hasn't been installed yet and He's going to be the ruler of the
world coming soon to a city near you.
Of course Satan has abused this and used the Great Pyramid as the symbol on the
back of the one dollar bill.
It's a symbol for the New World Order.
Notice on the one dollar bill they show the left eye which is often used in Satan
worship.
And they have a gap between the eye and the pyramid.
This is supposed to be symbolic of the idea that Lucifer has not been installed
as the world ruler yet.
They're hoping of course to get Lucifer installed.
And in front it says, Norvus Ordo Seclorum, New World Order, New Order of
the Ages.
This is the symbol for the New World Order, has been on our dollar bill since
1935.
In front there are things growing.
In the back it's desert and how they're going to bring in their New World Order.
The 13 lines of stone on the Great Pyramid here apparently represent the 13 degrees
of the Masonic Lodge.
And that's all ties in.
We cover more on that on video number 5.
Okay, next question.
Was the earth ever a hot molten mass?
Textbooks will say, As the earth formed, the surface was similar to the moon.
Craters like in the picture and large plains of volcanic basalt may have marked
its surface.
But unlike the moon, the earth's surface was hot and there were large pools of
bubbling lava.
That's what the books are teaching the kids in school.
The question is, is it true?
Well, Genesis 1 tells us, God moved upon the face of the waters.
When God made the earth it was under water, which means it was not a hot molten
mass.
Somebody is wrong.
So the question is, was the earth hot or was it not hot?
Well, let's look at the scientific evidence.
Robert Gentry from Knoxville, or Powell, Tennessee, near Knoxville, has done great
research on radiopolonium halos.
His website is halos.com, if you want to get a hold of Robert Gentry.
I've been to his house and seen his laboratory.
It's amazing the stuff he did on radiopolonium halos.
He discovered in granites all over the world there are little tiny rings.
You can't see them without a good microscope.
But these rings are sort of like, the best analogy would be, if a hand
grenade exploded in Jell-O, all the fragments would fly out and be stuck in
the Jell-O, if you had a big block of Jell-O.
It would make a halo.
Well, as polonium decays, it's radioactive, as it decays it sends off
these little particles and they all go a certain distance.
So you end up, just similar to the hand grenade, you end up with a ring of these
little particles.
If this happens in hot molten rock, it's going to decay and make this little
halo and the halo is going to melt.
It's going to disappear.
Just like when fireworks go off, it makes a beautiful circle in the sky and
then it doesn't stay there, of course, it falls down.
Polonium has a very short half-life, and so if it made its little halo as the
polonium decayed, and made its little halo in the rock, if the rock was hot,
the halo would disappear.
If the rock were already cold, it would leave a ring behind.
And these rings are found in rock all over the world.
And Robert Gentry did a lot of research on this and said, folks, these rocks were
never hot molten mass because this is polonium that is original, it's not a
daughter product of something else, and it's leaving a ring behind.
This rock was never hot.
And as soon as his research, people began to realize his research was against the
Big Bang Theory, he lost his funding, of course.
Okay, next question.
What about global warming?
Is it true the Earth is heating up and we've got to save the environment,
save Mother Earth and kill all the babies and save all the whales?
Well, there's a good book, several good books, about global warming.
I think there's a whole lot more to this story than we realize.
There's no question man has abused the environment, okay, but I don't think the
government's the one to fix it.
There's a book called Facts Not Fear, you can get through Derry Brownfield's
ministry in Missouri.
R12, which is what's used in refrigerants for air conditioners, it sinks,
it doesn't rise.
Try it.
If you can get some R12 and poke a little hole in the can and put a match under it,
it'll put the match out as it flows over it.
It's not going up.
A volcano can produce thousands of times more ozone-destroying material than man
has produced in the history of our modern world, okay, since R12's been used for
refrigerants.
What's happened now, we've got a different one, I think it's R132, used in air
conditioners, and the cost has gone way up.
This is part of the plan to bankrupt the world, I think, get everybody in debt to
the New World Order folks.
So no, it's silly what's happened with air conditioning and environmental scares that
are going around.
I think the real purpose of the environmental movement is to abolish
private property, which is Karl Marx's first plank on the Communist Manifesto.
They want you to have to get a permit to cut down a tree on your own property.
And that's another long, interesting question about permits.
We cover that a lot more on our college class, CSE 104, I believe, of our college
classes we offer here through our ministry.
Next question.
Doesn't the Green River Formation prove the Earth is millions of years old?
No, it doesn't.
The Green River in northwestern United States has a lot of layers of rock around
it.
This is called the Green River Formation.
If you take two pieces of glass with different colored sand in between,
like you can buy at the mall, and you flip it over, it automatically sorts into many
different layers.
If you only have two densities of sand in there, the black and the white are two
different densities, why does it make hundreds of layers?
Well, you can take rock from the Green River Formation, which has millions of
layers, grind it up to powder, sprinkle it in moving water, and it'll
sort into hundreds of layers again.
Here you have only two densities, and yet it makes hundreds of layers.
So, it's not proof these layers are annual deposits or anything else.
It's proof that it was moving water.
Actually, when they drilled into this rock in the Green River Formation, they find
what's called an event horizon, a layer of ash.
Sometimes, between two event horizons, they find a number of layers, and they go
over and drill again, and they find up to 30% difference, 35% different number of
layers.
It can't be annual layers.
Okay, the Green River does not prove the earth is millions of years old.
Next question, what about the Mars rock?
This article says, are we really Martians?
Can't believe they cut down a tree to print that in a newspaper.
Anyway, the Mars lander landed on untested Martian soil.
The sophisticated equipment did not even find a trace of a germ, according to NASA.
This is the rock that became the big news article years ago.
This rock was in a closet NASA had found.
Somebody had found it near the South Pole, and they said it might be a meteor from
Mars.
This little bitty line right there was what this stir was all about.
They said, wow, this might prove there was bacteria or life on Mars.
Well, the problem is, Mars is a long ways from the earth, okay?
The closest it ever gets is about 50 million miles.
That's the closest it gets.
If you shrank the earth and Mars down and made up a couple of tomatoes to get the
right scale here, Earth would be a four-inch tomato and Mars would be a
two-inch tomato.
The closest they get at that scale is about a third of a mile apart,
going around the sun.
The idea that something hit Mars and knocked a chunk off and it flew all the
way to Earth and landed is silly.
Chances of that is real close to zero, okay?
Here's some facts to consider about the Mars rock.
Number one, they claim it came from Mars.
We don't know that.
Number two, they claim it broke off 16 million years ago and landed 13,000 years
ago.
What did this bacteria eat?
How did it survive the impact?
How did it survive the vacuum of space?
How did it survive the entry, the reentry?
Well, it would have certainly burned.
The freezing for 13,000 years.
A NASA-funded team did the research and the NASA grant money was stalled in
Congress at the time this was going on.
NASA had to find something to make themselves look useful and so they called
up this Mars rock and the grant money was immediately released as soon as the Mars
rock finding was announced.
And then shortly thereafter they said, oops, it's not really a bacteria.
This is a normal carbonate crystal that forms.
It's a simple geologic process.
It's not a life at all.
But they kept the grant money, of course.
So that was the real purpose of it.
The Bible says Eve is the mother of all living.
I do not think there's life on any other planets except Earth.
I couldn't prove that, but anybody who thinks there is is arguing from the
negative position.
Nobody has seen any life anywhere else.
We know of eight other planets here in our solar system.
There's no life on those.
So I think we're it, folks.
This is it.
God did this just for us.
Next question.
What about theistic evolution?
Couldn't God use evolution to get us here?
I was in a debate one time and afterwards this man came up to me and he said,
boy, you don't give much room to us folks who believe God used evolution,
do you?
I said, no, sir.
I don't give you any room at all.
I think you've got a retarded God.
So if somebody says, could God use evolution?
I say, well, that depends on what you mean by God.
It's certainly not the God of the Bible.
The God that would use evolution or need to use evolution is cruel, he's wasteful,
he's stupid, and he's deceitful.
He's not the God of the Bible.
It's not the character of God to use misfits and blind chance and death.
My God gets it right first time.
Jacques Monod, a Nobel Prize winner, said, natural selection is the blindest,
most cruel way of evolving new species and more and more complex and refined
organisms.
He said, the struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible
process against which our whole modern ethics revolts.
An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected,
which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law.
He said, I'm surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the
process which God more or less set up to have evolution.
I agree, Jacques.
Christians ought to be ashamed of themselves if they're saying God used
evolution to get us here.
That's a cruel God.
David Hall says, whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of
natural history may be, he is not the Protestant God of waste not want not.
He's also not a loving God who cares about his productions.
He's not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job.
The God of Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical.
He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.
I agree, it's not the God of the Bible.
Darwin's philosophy of evolution is summed up here in his book.
He said, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted
object we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of higher animals,
directly follows.
Darwin thought that war, suffering, famine, and death was a wonderful process
because that's how we get evolution.
Well, Darwin's right.
If his theory was right, that's how it would work.
If he's wrong, it didn't happen.
And that's not the way God would do it.
My Bible says God's work is perfect.
He does it right.
The God that would use this evolution is wasteful.
He's deceitful.
The clear evidence shows there was a creation, a very wise creator designed
this place.
So, I would say this is not the God of the Bible.
It's not the kind of God you'd want to worship.
God makes things perfect.
He said He told it by His Word.
He made it in six days, Exodus chapter 20.
And He rested on the seventh day.
The Bible clearly teaches six day creation, one day of rest.
And Hebrews tell us His work was finished from the foundation of the world.
He was done.
He's not letting things evolve.
Slowly He finished it in six days and He rested on the seventh day, Hebrews chapter
4.
It says He ended His work in Genesis chapter 2.
He ended His work on the seventh day.
It's over with.
It's done.
It's not ongoing.
There is no evolution happening today at all.
Romans chapter 5 tells us that death came because of man's sin.
1 Corinthians 15 says man brought death into the world.
Genesis 1 says God made man in His image.
Any other teaching besides that is heresy.
So if someone wants to teach that God used evolution, they're heretic according to
Scripture.
They're not teaching what the Scripture clearly teaches.
Lastly, that's a retarded God.
If He has to use evolution, it means He doesn't know what He wants.
He's just playing around blind chance.
It's not the God of the Bible.
And that would nullify the need for the death of Christ.
And there is no evidence for evolution anyway.
So why would we take a perfectly good Bible, which has never been proven wrong,
and try to compromise it with a dumb theory that's never been proven right?
There is no evidence for evolution.
So stick with the Bible.
The Bible is absolutely correct as it's written.
Some people say, doesn't evolution theory match what the Bible teaches?
It's exactly the opposite.
The Bible says man brought death into the world.
Evolution says death brought man into the world.
The Bible has the earth coming before the sun.
Evolution has the sun coming before the earth.
The Bible has oceans developing before the land.
Yet evolution has the land coming before the oceans.
The Bible has light before the sun.
Evolution has sun before the light.
The Bible has land plants first.
Evolution has marine life first.
The Bible has fruit trees coming before the fish.
Evolution has fish coming before fruit trees.
The Bible has fish before insects.
Evolution is backwards.
The Bible has plants before the sun.
Evolution is Evolution is backwards.
The Bible has marine mammals before land mammals.
Evolution is backwards.
The Bible has birds before reptiles.
Atmosphere between two layers of water.
And evolution has atmosphere above the water.
No, I'm sorry.
The Bible does not match evolution.
They are polar opposites.
Somebody is wrong and I happen to know who it is.
The Bible is right.
In 1828, Webster's Dictionary defined heresy as something that is an error of
opinion respecting some fundamental doctrine.
The standard of Scripture was the standard of faith.
Any opinion that is repugnant to its doctrines is heresy.
And the Bible clearly teaches God made the world in six days.
Anything other than that is heresy according to Scripture.
Someone who is a heretic is a person who teaches a heresy.
And so those people teaching this in my humble unbiased opinion are heretics.
Alright, here we have a picture of ham, ribs, chicken, and turkey.
All of these have several things in common.
All of them have some good meat and each of them has bones.
You have to learn early in life to eat the meat and spit out the bones or you're
going to choke on something.
So just because somebody is a heretic in one area doesn't mean you can't learn
something from their material anyway.
I read stuff by people I disagree with on some things.
I think they're wrong, but hey, they've got good things in some areas.
I think Hugh Ross, what he teaches is he's got some good material in some areas,
but I think he's a heretic in some other areas.
He's teaching things that I think are clearly heresy.
We have a debate with Hugh Ross on videotape.
You can get our whole series if you'd like to get that.
Next question, what about these other religions out there?
How do we know who's right?
Well, this would take hours.
We're not going to produce a whole videotape on that yet, but someday we
will.
Which religion is right?
The Bible warned us to be careful about being carried about with every wind of
doctrine.
And he that cometh first in his own cause seemeth just.
The first person that comes along says, well, he's got a good answer there.
But his neighbor cometh and searcheth him out, it says in Proverbs 18.
So some ideas, some religious ideas sound great the first time you hear them.
But then you've got to really search it out, study the scriptures like the Bereans
and say, oh, wait a minute, that's not correct.
Genesis 27 shows how Jacob told his father, he said, I am Esau.
And he brought him some venison.
It wasn't venison, it was lamb meat that he brought him.
But Jacob was tricked.
I'm sorry, his father Isaac was tricked.
He couldn't see, he was blind, but he felt the wool on the back of his
hands and the back of his neck.
He got the wool pulled over his eyes is where the expression comes from.
He was tricked precisely because he went by the feelings instead of by the written,
by the word, by the voice.
And I think a lot of churches today, people get tricked because they go by
feelings instead of by the word.
They'll say, well, I just feel like God is in this.
Well, now what's the Bible say?
Oh, I don't know what the Bible says, but I just feel like He's in this.
Just be real cautious if you're in a church that emphasizes feelings above the
word of God.
You can feel great by taking drugs, they tell me.
I don't know, I've never done it.
But that doesn't mean it's right, okay?
It doesn't mean it's of God.
Don't trust feelings.
Airplane pilots will tell you, you can fly into a cloud and you'll feel
like you're going straight when actually you're falling and don't even know it
because you can lose all sense of direction in a cloud.
I've experienced that myself, flying into clouds.
So don't go by feelings, you go by the word.
Genesis 27 is a good chapter to see how he was tricked by the feeling instead of
going by the word.
Next question.
They'll say, well, didn't the Pope accept evolution?
Yes, he did.
Many times they've admitted that evolution is the way God did it.
That's what the Catholic official doctrine is.
This article from 96 says, Pope accepts evolution and creates furor.
This Catholic nun and scientist and educator says that spirituality and
science mesh.
She said, the people who believe in this creation myth, which is unscientific and
not in the Bible, despite what they say, haven't really studied theology and don't
know that the Bible is not a scientific work.
This is heresy.
She needs to get saved or get right with God.
And it's not true that the Bible and science have a conflict.
It's true that the Bible and evolution have a conflict, but evolution isn't
science.
Basically, now I love the Catholics and want to win them to the Lord, but the
Catholic Church has a long history of teaching things that are just simply
silly.
Back under Pope John XXII, back in the 1200s and 1300s, they had a list of things
you could pay in order to sin ahead of time as an indulgence.
For $2.25 you could rob a church.
For $2.75 you could burn a house.
If you killed a layman it cost you $1.75.
If you did forgery and lying it cost $2.00.
If you eat meat and lent it cost you $2.75.
If you ravish a virgin that cost you $2.00.
If you strike a priest that's $2.75.
Now robbery is $3.00.
A priest keeping a mistress cost $2.25.
Procuring an abortion was $1.50.
Murdering of parents or wife is $2.50.
You could be absolved of all crimes for $12.00.
Augustine declared prostitution was a necessary evil.
And soon thereafter the church had 100,000 prostitutes employed by the Catholic
Church.
I love Catholics.
I hate what they teach in many areas.
They need to get right with God.
Here's a picture of a Pope kissing the Koran.
We could spend hours talking about the Islam and the other religions.
We have a great book we sell in our bookstore called The Prophet by Jack
Chick's Ministry.
You can get it about the history of how the Catholic Church was involved in the
creation of Islam in order to try to get the Holy Land back.
It backfired on them and now we have these two religions, Islam and Catholicism.
But actually Catholicism started the Church of Islam.
We could spend hours on that one.
Next question.
What do Muslims believe?
People say, isn't Allah the same as the God of the Bible?
No, absolutely not.
Allah is a false god and is not the God of the Bible.
Again, get the book The Prophet if you want to get more on that.
Muslims knew Muhammad was a prophet because he had a mole on his back.
That was the sign he was a prophet.
He had a mole.
Holy moly!
Where do we get something like that anyway?
The Koran says, when he, this man, I can't pronounce his name, reached the
setting of the sun, he found that it set in a pond of murky water.
The Koran teaches the sun goes down and sets in a pond of water.
This is scientifically inaccurate.
That's not what happens.
The Koran is loaded with things that are scientifically and spiritually false.
Inaccurate.
They're wrong.
The Koran commands, Allah said, any person who leaves Islam or encourages
others to do so should be seized and slain.
Allah told Muhammad that all those who opposed his message should be killed or
they should be nailed to a tree or their hands and legs should be cut off.
The Koran teaches when you meet or fight those who disbelieve, strike at their
necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them.
You're supposed to kill the heretics if they don't believe in the Koran and Allah.
There's a great book called, Who is this Allah?
by Moshe.
We sell it in our bookstore.
They say, the Koran says, the last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the
Jews and the Muslims kill them.
The Prophet said, Allah created Adam making him 60 cubits tall.
That's 90 feet.
The third surah, verse 105 and 106 says, in the great and final day of redemption
only white faces will be saved, all blackened faces will be condemned.
This is what they teach.
They say, men marry as many women as you like, one, two, three or four.
Under Islam you can have up to four wives at a time.
And if you have temporary marriages you can get married for 15 minutes.
That's pornography is what it is.
It's perverted.
The Hadith here teaches that Satan stays in the upper part of the nose all night.
That's the booger man.
He said, you have to perform ablution.
You have to wash out your nose three times in the morning with water because the
devil spends the night in the interior of the nose.
That's what they teach.
One apostle said, people should avoid lifting their eyes toward the sky while
supplicating in prayer.
Otherwise their eyes would be snatched away.
One guy reported that Allah's messenger told him that the non-Muslim eats in seven
intestines while the Muslim has one.
So if you're not a Muslim you have seven intestines.
This is silly.
It's not true.
Don Boyce has an excellent book called America's Trojan Horse about Islam and
what a dangerous religion this is.
Now look, I'm not anti-Muslim for the people.
I'm anti-what they teach.
I'm for truth.
I'm against error.
Even if it's my own mother.
If she's 99% right and 1% wrong, I'll praise her for the 99% and say,
Mom, you're wrong on the 1%.
So I'm not anti-anybody.
I'm anti-error.
And what they teach is error.
It's not true.
Remember it was the Muslims that bombed Pan Am Flight 103.
It was the Muslims that bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.
It was the Muslims that bombed the Marine Barracks in Lebanon.
They bombed military barracks in Saudi Arabia.
They bombed the American Embassy in Africa.
They bombed the USS Cole.
They bombed the Twin Towers, 9-11.
This is a danger.
You cannot be a good Muslim without wanting to kill everybody else who's not a
Muslim.
That's what the Koran commands.
So get out of that religion and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior.
Okay, next question.
Are there contradictions in the Bible?
As a young Christian, I just got saved February 1969, and my parents sent me to
the Methodist church camp.
I'd started going to a little independent temperamental Baptist church and was
really getting on fire and radical for the Lord.
And they wanted to calm me down a little bit, so I went to this Methodist church
camp.
And the counselor there sat us guys down in the cabin.
He said, Okay, guys, I'm your counselor for the week.
He said, I want you to know I go to Illinois State University.
And he said, I'm a humanist.
Well, I didn't know what a humanist was, so I said, does that mean you believe in
humans?
He said, well, I do believe in humans, but no, that's not what that means.
I said, well, do you believe the Bible?
He said, no.
He said, the Bible's a good book, but it contains contradictions.
I'd only been saved a couple of months, but my preacher said, if somebody tells
you that, hand them your Bible and say, show me one.
So I handed him my Bible and said, show me one.
He said, I'd be glad to.
He said, turn to Genesis chapter 1.
Here's what he showed me.
I'd been a Christian a couple of months.
He said, Genesis 1 tells us on verse 12 that God made the trees, the grass,
the plants on the third day.
Is that right?
I said, yep, that's right.
Plants, grass, trees on day 3.
He said, now look at verse 20.
Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,
and fowl that may fly above the earth.
He said, Kent, on day 5 God made the birds out of the water.
Is that correct?
I said, yep, that's correct.
Remember He made Adam out of the dirt.
He made Eve out of a rib.
He made the birds out of the water.
That's what it says.
Verse 24, God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature.
So the animals are made out of the dirt.
Birds are made out of the water.
And then He made man in verse 26.
So he said, Kent, is this right?
Trees made on day 3.
Birds made out of the water on day 5.
Then animals made.
And then man was created last.
Is that correct?
I said, yes sir, that's correct.
He said, now look at chapter 2.
Genesis chapter 2 verse 7.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.
And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden.
And there He put the man whom He had formed.
And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree.
He said, Kent, stop right there.
You have a contradiction.
Chapter 1 has trees made before man.
Chapter 2 has man made and then the trees.
He said, look down at verse 18.
The Lord God said, it's not good that the man should be alone.
I will make him and help meet for him and out of the ground the Lord God formed
every beast of the field and every fowl of the air and brought them to Adam to see
what He would call them.
He said, here we have another contradiction.
Now the birds are made out of the ground and they are made after man, not before
man.
You have two contradictions here.
Here are the supposed contradictions.
Chapter 1 has plants, grass, trees made on day 3.
Chapter 2 has plants, grass, trees made on day 6.
Chapter 1 has birds made out of the water on day 5.
Chapter 2 has birds made out of the ground on day 6.
Chapter 1 has animals made before man.
Chapter 2 has animals made after man.
He said, Kent, the Bible is a good book.
I'm glad you like it, but it has contradictions.
I was a brand new Christian.
I did not know how to answer him and I felt I just lost this argument.
I don't know if you've ever been there before, but I thought, man, I lost.
I'm done.
I was frustrated.
I was ready to give up on Christianity.
I wish I could find that guy now.
If you get this tape, listen to this.
There is no contradiction there.
Here is the sequence of events.
On day 3 God made the plants.
On day 5 He made the birds out of the water.
On day 6 He made the animals and then He made man.
And then He put man in the garden.
And now all of chapter 2 is describing what happened in the garden.
Not describing the whole world, just in the garden.
In the garden He made trees that are good for food only.
Not all the trees, just the ones good for food.
The Bible says that specifically in chapter 2.
He made one more of each animal so Adam could name them and select a wife.
So Adam is in the garden.
He's standing there and God makes the trees grow.
And then He makes one more of each animal and Adam says, Hippopotamus, no thanks.
Giraffe, no thanks.
Elephant, no thanks.
One by one God made another animal.
Adam named him and said, I don't want to marry it.
And then God said, Adam, you go to sleep son.
I got a surprise for you when you wake up.
And He put Adam to sleep, took out his rib and made Eve.
So it is not a contradiction.
Chapter 2 is describing what happened in the garden and it is all on day 6.
There are no contradictions in Scripture.
I remember as a young Christian, I was majoring in math and science and
ended up teaching math and science for 15 years.
I came across 2 Chronicles 4.
It said Solomon made a molten sea, a big brass bowl, 10 cubits from brim to
brim, round in compass and 5 cubits the height thereof and a line of 30 cubits did
compass it about.
I read that verse and said, hold on a minute, we've got a contradiction here.
A cubit is elbow to fingertip.
And it says this thing was 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around.
Well, hey, I was going to teach math.
I knew certainly, you know, you take pi times the diameter and pi is 3.14159265.
You know, some Japanese guy figured it to 700 decimal places.
I don't know why they do that.
It is not just 3.
So it should not have been 30 cubits around.
It should have been 31.41 cubits around.
So I set my Bible down on my bed and I said, Lord, if there is a contradiction
here, I quit.
Here I am, a new Christian, public high school.
The kids are making fun of me.
I'm getting persecuted.
Your book better be right.
I'm quitting if it's not.
It just bothered me.
Maybe it doesn't bother you about the value of pi, but it bothered me.
I read the story over and over and finally it jumped out at me.
Verse 5 says the thickness of it was a hand breadth.
This thick.
That's a lot of brass.
I thought, wait a minute.
I wonder how a hand breadth compares to a cubit.
So I went around and did a survey of a bunch of folks.
I said, excuse me, can I measure your cubit?
You know, put your elbow on the table and measure their cubit and measure their hand
breadth.
And I found out if you take two hand breadths away from ten cubits,
you can calculate pi to 3.14159.
It could be that they were measuring the diameter of this bowl, the outside
dimensions, including the thickness of the brass, and the circumference was around
the inside.
That's one theory.
It certainly works fine.
The second theory is that it had a lip on it and it was ten cubits to the outside
diameter of the lip, but thirty cubits around the basic part of the bowl.
Either one of those would solve the problem.
It's not a problem.
There's no contradictions in the Bible.
Some people say, what about in 1 Kings, it says, Solomon had a molten sea that
held two thousand baths.
It's about eight gallons each for a bath.
And yet 2 Chronicles says it held three thousand baths.
Well, just because it could hold three thousand doesn't mean it always did.
1 Kings says it contained two thousand baths.
But 2 Chronicles says it received and held three thousand baths.
They probably filled it up and emptied it many times, okay?
Capable of holding three thousand, they normally put two thousand,
and it's not a contradiction.
It held three thousand baths, but it contained two thousand baths.
Either one.
All right, let's cover a few more contradictions after a short break.
Okay, let's talk about a few more of the supposed contradictions in the Bible and
then get into a few more questions that frequently come up in our seminars.
Some people say there's a contradiction in the book of 1 Kings compared to 2
Chronicles.
In 1 Kings chapter 4, it says Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots
and 12,000 horsemen.
When you read the same parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 9, it says Solomon had 4,000
stalls for horses and chariots and 12,000 horsemen.
And people say, see, there's a contradiction.
Was it 40,000 or 4,000?
Even Henry Morris, whom I love dearly and highly respect his work, and we sell his
Bible called the Defender's Bible, and I recommend it, but we put a
disclaimer with it because he says right here at the bottom of these verses that
there is an apparent contradiction because there's a copyist error.
He says the people that were copying the Scriptures made an error and they missed a
zero.
Now, I love Henry Morris and ICR and all their work.
I don't want to hurt him in any way, but he's simply wrong about this one.
There's not a copyist error.
Both verses are perfectly fine.
There's no contradiction.
Read it very carefully.
It says Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots.
The Chronicles passage says Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots.
They had 10 horses per chariot.
If he had 40,000 stalls of horses for the chariots, he would need 4,000 stalls for
the chariots and horses.
He had 10 horses per chariot.
The New International Version, NIV, got it wrong.
They messed it up.
The New American Standard got it right.
The New Revised Standard got it wrong.
Different versions have messed it up.
It's perfectly fine like it is.
How many men did David kill?
When you compare 2 Samuel with 1 Chronicles, 2 Samuel says, the Syrians
fled before Israel and David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians.
When you read the passage in 1 Chronicles, it says the Syrians fled before Israel and
David slew of the Syrians 7,000 men which fought in chariots.
And people say, oh, there's a contradiction here.
Was it 700 or 7,000?
Both passages are perfectly fine.
They had 10 men per chariot.
They had 10 men and 10 horses because, you know, you have to have 10 horses in
case you get a flat tire.
The chariot horses are more likely to get shot than anything else.
They are the biggest creature out there.
And so the chariots are not going to get tired.
The men and horses get tired.
So they go out and fight for a while, come back, swap men, swap horses,
go out and fight again.
Not a contradiction at all.
So if he slew the men of 700 chariots, he would slay 7,000 men which fought in
chariots.
It's perfectly fine just like it is.
NIV got it wrong.
They said David killed 700 of their charioteers.
And in Chronicles it says David killed 7,000 of their charioteers.
This is a clear contradiction.
I would not want to defend any version of the Bible in a debate other than the King
James.
NIV standard got it wrong.
Genesis 10 says these are the sons of Shem after their families, after their tongues
in their lands, after their nations.
So it says in chapter 10 that the earth was divided up into the different nations
and languages.
When you come to chapter 11 it says the whole earth was of one language and of one
speech.
One atheist I debated said, see there's a contradiction here.
It's not a contradiction.
Chapter 10 describes all the table of nations.
Chapter 11 goes back and is giving a recap of everything.
It's no different than a newspaper or a news media man saying, you know,
30 people killed in a bus crash in, you know, the Pocono Mountains or
something.
And then they start telling the story and it says the bus was traveling down the
highway.
You say, wait a minute, the headline says the people were killed in a crash.
Now it says the bus was traveling down the highway.
Well, they are retelling the story.
Duh!
That's common in journalism or writing of any kind.
And chapter 11 is just retelling the story, giving a recap of what happened.
Okay.
Numbers chapter 25 says, those that died in the plague were 20 and 4,000.
I did a debate just a few months ago and one of the professors that I debated said
the Bible has got contradictions and this is one he brought up.
It says those that died in the plague were 20 and 4,000.
When you read the story in 1 Corinthians it says, and there fell in one day 3 and
20,000.
And he said, see there's a contradiction here.
Is it 24,000 or 23,000?
No, it's not a contradiction.
Read it carefully.
Numbers 25 says, those that died in the plague were 24,000.
1 Corinthians tells us, those that died in one day were 3 and 20,000.
Well, 1,000 died the next day or a few days later.
24,000 died in the plague but 23,000 died in one day.
It's not a contradiction.
We could spend hours talking about supposed contradictions in the Bible.
There's a great article about do rabbits chew the cud?
And skeptics have said, no the rabbit doesn't chew the cud and yet the Bible
says it does.
Well, the chew the cud phrase means to re-eat that which was eaten.
They chew it, swallow it, cough it up again and chew it again.
Many animals do that.
Rabbits eat their food, go to the bathroom and then eat their doo-doo the next day or
later.
They re-chew the same food.
So, they do indeed chew the cud.
Another supposed contradiction.
How much gold did Solomon get from Ophir?
Was it 450 or 420?
In 1 Kings 9 it says, Solomon made a navy of ships and they went to Ophir and they
got 420 talents of gold.
When you read 2 Chronicles it says, Hiram sent him ships and they went to
Ophir and got 450 talents of gold.
And the skeptics will say, see you've got two problems here.
Was it Hiram's navy or Solomon's navy and is it 420 or 450?
It's not a contradiction at all.
It says in 1 Kings, the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish with the navy of Hiram.
They both had navies.
And they went to Tarshish and they brought gold and silver and ivory and apes and
peacocks.
It says there were 3,000 talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, used in this house.
Apparently they went to Ophir many times if they got 400 or 500 talents at a time.
Not a contradiction at all.
We could spend hours, we'll produce a whole tape one of these days on supposed
contradictions in the Bible.
There aren't any contradictions in the Scripture.
And you can trust God's Word.
One last one.
People say, shouldn't Easter be translated as Passover?
King James is the only version of the Bible that calls it Easter in Acts chapter
12 and verse number 4.
Every other version says it was Passover.
And people say this is wrong, King James is wrong about this.
Well, now hold on a minute.
Let's read the passage here.
Acts chapter 12 verse 1.
About that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the
church.
And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter
also.
Then were the days of unleavened bread.
And when he had apprehended him and put him in prison, he delivered him to four
quaternions of soldiers to keep him, intending after Easter to bring him forth
to the people.
And this is the phrase everybody gets bent out of shape about.
They'll say this is a contradiction, it shouldn't be Easter, it should be
Pascha, should be translated Passover.
Okay, let's just go back and look at the Passover.
Exodus chapter 12.
And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt.
This said, This month shall be to you the beginning of months.
This is April by the way.
It is the first month of the year to you.
Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, and say, In the tenth day of this
month they shall take to them a lamb according to the house, a lamb for their
house.
And verse 6, Ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day.
And then you killed it, and you put the blood on the two side posts and on the top
of your door.
And then you eat the flesh that night.
So on April fourteenth they eat the lamb.
And it tells all about the Passover here.
It's the Lord's Passover, Exodus chapter 12.
Verse 14 says, This day shall be unto you a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast
to the Lord throughout your generations.
Ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread.
Even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of the house.
And it goes on to describe the whole story here.
And it says in verse 18, In the first month on the fourteenth day of the month
at even, in the evening, ye shall eat unleavened bread until the one and
twentieth day of the month at even.
So the feast of unleavened bread was seven days right after the Passover when they
killed and ate the lamb.
Numbers 28 tells us the fourteenth day of the first month is the Passover.
The fifteenth day is the feast.
Seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
So here's the sequence.
The Passover was at night on April 14th, always.
The seven days of unleavened bread followed the Passover.
The pagan festival of Astar or Istar was always held late in April to commemorate
the earth regenerating itself.
Which is why Playboy uses the rabbit as their symbol and we have Easter eggs and
Easter bunnies.
These are all fertility symbols.
Easter is a pagan holiday.
No question about it.
So the feast days are never called Passover anywhere in Scripture.
The feast days followed the Passover.
The Bible says Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread.
The Passover was already done.
Herod wanted to keep Peter and kill him during his own pagan festival of Istar
which was coming up in a few days.
The King James is the only version to get it right.
Look at it carefully here.
It says, then were the days of unleavened bread and Herod wanted to bring him forth
after Istar to kill him.
So if it says Passover, I'm sorry, it's wrong.
It should be Easter which was the pagan holiday.
The guy who invented the word Passover was the guy who ought to decide when it ought
to be used and that was William Tyndale.
He created the word Passover.
He said in Acts 12, 4, it was Easter.
This guy created the word Passover.
He should know and Tyndale version uses the word Easter.
So he didn't use Passover in his own translation even though he's the one who
made up the word.
He certainly would have known how to use it there.
Okay, how much did David pay for the land?
Was it 600 shekels of gold or 50 shekels of silver?
People say there's a contradiction here.
If you read 2 Samuel chapter 24, and the king said to Arunah, nay,
but I will surely buy it of thee at a price.
Neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that which doth cost me
nothing.
So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for 50 shekels of silver.
But when you read 1 Chronicles it says David gave to Ornan for the place 600
shekels of gold by weight.
Well was it 50 shekels of silver or 600 shekels of gold?
People say there's a contradiction here.
Oh, it's not a contradiction.
50 shekels of silver is a pretty small price to pay for a site that was later to
become the temple mount.
He paid 600 shekels of gold for the site and he paid 50 shekels of silver for the
oxen.
1 Chronicles seemed to indicate the initial discussion was about the property.
Then Ornan offered to sell David the oxen also.
It says in 2 Samuel, David said, I will buy it of thee at a price.
He said, so David bought the threshing floor, that was the 600 shekels of silver,
and the oxen for 50 shekels of silver.
It's not a contradiction.
He's continuing on there.
Was Jonah swallowed by a fish or a whale?
Well, Jonah chapter 1 says the great fish swallowed up Jonah.
Jonah chapter 2 says he was in the fish's belly.
Matthew 12 says Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the whale's belly.
People say, oh, see there's a contradiction.
Was it a fish or a whale?
Not a contradiction at all.
A whale is a fish in biblical classification system.
If it swims in the water, it's a fish.
Just because modern man has decided that whales and dolphins are mammals and
therefore not classified as fish, that doesn't mean it's the same as the
biblical classification.
It's not a problem at all.
Many other supposed contradictions in the Bible, we'll have to do a whole videotape
on those someday.
Next question.
Why do you use the King James Version of the Bible?
Why not other versions?
Well, I've been a Christian since 1969.
I was raised in all kinds of different churches and when after I got saved,
my parents started giving me just about every kind of Bible version there was.
And I have a collection of quite a few different Bible versions.
I'm not afraid of them.
But let me give you a quick history of the different Bible versions and maybe this
will put it in perspective.
I have slowly over 30 some years come to the position of the King James.
Now I don't fight Christians to use other versions.
Use whatever you want, okay?
But I think if you're really going to be a Bible student, you're going to have to get
a King James.
Here's the story.
New Testament books were written shortly after the time of Christ.
They had to make copies.
It takes about 10 months to write out a copy of the Bible.
So they had to write out the whole copy of the Bible by hand.
They had no Gazetner, no printing press, no Gutenberg hadn't been born yet.
So it took a long time to make a copy of the Bible.
They make their copies, they either both books and scrolls, both were in use all
through Scripture.
And they make a copy and then they check it very carefully.
If they find a mistake, you're going to burn it.
So they were very careful to get it right.
They had a checking system that was really pretty goof-proof.
They made all these copies and they spread out around the world because this was a
time of great persecution.
Christians are getting persecuted so they spread out to different countries and they
bring their copies of Bibles with them.
So you got somebody in India who's copying the Bible and somebody in France who's
copying the Bible and pretty soon the copy wears out.
Let's just pick a few numbers here.
This is a book from the early 1900s.
It's a very beautiful book and it's beginning to get worn out.
If this book was in active use, if I opened it and closed it and read from
it every single day, it would shorten the life of it.
If it just simply sits on the shelf, of course it lasts longer.
But a book in active use is going to quickly fall apart as this one has already
begun to fall apart and it's not in active use, believe me.
The scrolls that are in active use are not going to last more than maybe 200 years.
Let's be generous here.
Let's say a book lasts 200 years if you use it every day.
So they use these scrolls or Bibles and they're copying from it every day.
At the end of the day they roll it up and they put it away.
Within 200 years it's worn out.
It's rags, you throw it away.
But it doesn't matter because by then you have 50 copies you've made off of this
thing or maybe 100 copies.
They've made copy after copy after copy of these scrolls or books.
So you have exact copies of the original.
The original is junk by now so you throw it away.
It doesn't matter.
You take those 50 copies and you begin making copies off of those.
And again, very careful copying process, but after a few hundred years they are
junk so you throw them away.
This goes on several generations and now you're on the fourth or fifth or sixth
generation from the original.
And now you have thousands of exact copies of the original which is long gone.
It's been thrown away years and years ago.
About the early 1500s they decided to put the Bible into English.
And so Erasmus and Luther and Tyndale and the Geneva Bible and all this was made in
the early 1500s.
And throughout the 1500s they're making copies of the Bible and translating it to
English.
They went around and gathered up old scrolls that they could find and copies of
the Bible and they found about 5,000 copies of Scripture from countries all
over the world.
This group of manuscripts became known as the Texas Receptus, the Received Text.
They looked at all these scrolls and could find no differences except the spelling of
people's names and the spelling of cities, you know, like Peter and Pedro and stuff
like that.
So they made English translations and finally the King James in 1611 was made
from what's called the Majority Text.
Meanwhile, down in Egypt, there was a group of folks called the Alexandrians
down in Alexandria, Egypt, which was at that time a major city.
A major library was there, which later burned, but a major city in Alexandria,
Egypt.
There was a cult down there called the Alexandrians.
They were sort of like Jehovah's Witnesses.
They wanted everybody to think they were Christian, but they believed a lot of
strange things.
So they made their own version of the Bible.
They left out a lot of verses they didn't like.
They changed little things here and there.
It was a careful counterfeit, but a counterfeit nonetheless.
They have this Alexandrian Bible and some copies were made.
The primary guy in this cult was a guy named Origen, who lived about 240 AD.
In 350 AD, two copies of the Alexandrian Bible were made and those copies are
called the Sinaiticus because it was found in the Sinai Desert in a monastery and
Vaticanus because it was found in the Vatican library in the basement,
I believe.
Those two copies from 350 AD are still around today.
You know, 1,600 years old copies of the Scriptures, well, of the Alexandrian
Bible.
The Latin Vulgate was made from those manuscripts in 380 AD.
It was translated to Latin.
Then in 1582, the Catholic Church ordered the translation of the Latin Vulgate into
English.
And that's where the Douay confraternity and the Douay-Rheims version come in.
The Douay versions were made from the Latin, which was a good translation of the
wrong manuscript.
They're translating the Alexandrian.
So they got the bad manuscript, the corrupt, you know, cult manuscript
being translated into English, which became the official Catholic version
in use today, the Douay version of the Bible.
Two guys named Westcott and Hort came along in 1875 and they took these
Alexandrian manuscripts, of which I think about 15 or 17 of them were found,
I don't know, and they said, these are old manuscripts, therefore they're better.
Well, now hold on a minute.
Yes, they're older, but that doesn't mean they're better.
They're older because they're worse.
The people didn't use them.
They didn't wear them out.
But they made a modern Greek version of the Bible from this ancient one.
They put it on new paper, new ink, and made a new Greek edition in 1875.
This was then translated into English, at least the New Testament in Greek.
And so the English translations of the Westcott and Hort text include the Revised
Version done in 1881, the American Standard Version done in 1901,
the Revised Standard done in 1946, and that's the Bible I got saved from,
the New World Translation Jehovah's Witness Bible made in 1950, the New
American Standard Bible made in 1960, the Good News Bible, the Amplified Bible,
the Living Bible, and the NIV.
All of those are good translations of the wrong manuscript.
So, I don't fault the translators.
I think they're probably sincere men, probably intelligent men, but they're
translating the wrong book.
They need to get the right Bible.
The first mention of Alexandria is in Acts chapter 9 when they were disputing with
Stephen, arguing with the Christians.
And we've still got the same thing today with these different versions of the Bible
arguing with the real Bible.
My Jehovah's Witness Bible on my shelf will probably never get worn out.
It doesn't mean it's better, it just means I'm not going to use it.
I have one, I have a Mormon Bible, I'm just not going to use it.
So, that's the story.
There are more manuscripts of the Bible than any other book ever written in
ancient times.
Homer's Iliad, for instance, there are only 643 manuscripts known today.
By 1946 they had discovered 24,000 manuscripts of the Bible.
Then when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947, they now have 40,000 new
manuscripts to work from.
So, the Dead Sea Scrolls made it up to the total now of 64,000 manuscripts of
Scripture.
The Isaiah Scroll is 1,000 years older than any known manuscript anywhere in the
world.
And it matches exactly the Texas Receptus, the King James.
I recommend you get the book New Age Bible Versions.
You can order it from my ministry or go to avpublications.com if this topic interests
you about studying different Bible versions.
And we could spend hours about that one, but that's enough.
Next question, what is God like?
Anyway, man is a three-dimensional person.
What's God like?
Well, a friend of mine came to me one day when I spoke in Mobile, Alabama.
He said, hey, Brother Hovind, let's go get some ice cream at McDonald's or something
after you're done.
I said, that would be great, Brother.
We went to McDonald's, we're sitting here at the table, and he took two pieces of
paper out and he wrote on one Mr. Flat and on the other one he wrote Mrs. Flat.
He said, Kent, let me show you something interesting here.
He said, you taught geometry, right?
I said, yes, sir.
He said, I want you to imagine we've got two people here, Mr. Flat and Mrs. Flat,
and they live in Flatland.
They live in a plane, a two-dimensional world.
They have no concept whatsoever of the third dimension.
They're totally flat.
I said, okay.
I said, now, suppose you as a three-dimensional person would like to get
them to know you, but they have no concept of you because you live in a third
dimension.
I said, okay, I got you.
He said, now, you can't put a three-dimensional being into two
dimensions.
It just simply won't work.
Mr. Flat actually sees Mrs. Flat as a straight line.
He only sees one dimension.
He perceives the second dimension.
He can walk around and figure out she's a rectangle, but he actually only sees a
straight line when he sees her.
I said, okay, I got you.
He said, now, you and I can see two dimensions.
We see the width and the height, but we perceive the depth.
You can't really see depth.
You can understand depth because you have two eyes looking at this thing,
and you get what's called depth perception.
I said, I got it.
But actually, you could take a photograph of what you're looking at, and it would
still look the same.
You would perceive the depth because of our common experience, but you can't
really see depth.
I said, I got it.
He said, now, suppose you want to introduce yourself to Mr. Flat and Mrs.
Flat.
So you stick your finger through the table, and Mr. Flat comes over and looks
at it and says, oh, I see a circle, the cross section of your finger.
Over here you stick three fingers through the table, and Mrs. Flat comes and looks
at him and says, oh, honey, I've seen Kent Hovind.
He's three circles.
Mr. Flat says, no, honey, he's one circle.
And they're going to fight for a while and argue, and finally they're going to split
the church and start the church of the three circles and the church of the one
circles.
But the fact is, neither one of them has a clue what I'm like.
You simply can't put a three-dimensional being into two dimensions.
They're not going to ever get it.
Well, if you read Ephesians chapter 3, it says that we may be able to comprehend
with all saints what is the length and depth and breadth and height.
The length and depth and breadth and height, there's four dimensions.
I think there's an awful lot more to God than we can possibly comprehend in our
little three-dimensional world.
Just like Mr. Flat and Mrs. Flat are not going to get it about a three-dimensional
person, I don't think we three-dimensional persons are ever going to get it to
understand God.
But when we get to heaven, we shall see Him, we shall be like Him, we shall see
Him as He is.
Then we're going to say, oh, now I understand.
And there are these guys going around saying God has ten dimensions.
I think that's heresy.
God is infinite.
He's not limited by anything whatsoever.
He is absolutely God.
By definition, it would have to be not limited by time, space, or matter.
Next question.
What about the races?
Where do they come from?
Well, there's no question there's a lot of different looking people on this planet.
Black ones and white ones and yellow ones and tall ones and little ones,
etc.
But there really aren't any races.
There are skin colors.
There's only one race.
It's called the human race.
Would you say these are different races of cows?
No, they're just different skin colors.
And I can assure you they all look the same in the meat locker and they all taste
the same on the hamburger.
They're just different skin colors, that's all.
There are four theories of where the races come from.
I don't know which is true.
I suspect I do, but I'll just give the four theories and tell you what I believe.
One theory says Adam and Eve are medium brown and they produced all the races,
all the colors in their own children.
Could be true.
Here's an albino.
Three albino children born to a black couple.
Just an interesting bit of trivia here.
The second theory, which I do not believe, it says the Lord put a mark on Cain in
Genesis chapter 4, lest any finding him should kill him.
And they say Cain became a black person.
I don't buy this for one second, but a lot of churches do.
The Mormon church teaches that the Negroes are not equal with other races.
This is what the Mormon church teaches in their doctrine book here in 1966.
They say it's the Lord's doing.
It's based on His eternal laws of justice and grows out of a lack of spiritual
valiance of those concerned in their first estate.
Lack of spiritual valiance.
What do they mean here?
Well, I had a couple of Mormon missionaries knock on my door one time and
they said, Mr. Hovind, we'd like to talk to you about the Lord.
I said, that'd be great, fellas.
Which Lord would you like to talk about?
Yours or mine?
They said, oh, we serve the same God.
I said, no, fellas, I'm sorry.
We serve a different God.
I said, let me show you here.
Does your God have a body like mine?
They said, yep, we believe He does.
I said, okay, my Bible says God's a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him
in spirit and in truth.
I said, does your God live on the planet Kolob?
They said, yeah, we believe He does.
I said, well, my Bible says God is all places.
The eyes of the Lord are everywhere.
He's not living on a planet.
He's every place at the same time.
That's God.
I said, does your God have thousands of wives?
They said, yeah, we believe He does.
I said, does your God have normal physical relations with those wives and produce
spirit children up in heaven?
They said, yeah, we believe He does.
I said, now, does your God produce the spirit in heaven and the human couple on
earth only produces the body?
Is that what you guys teach?
They said, yeah, that's correct.
I said, now, if the spirit baby in heaven is a valiant spirit baby, if it's a good
spirit baby, when it comes to earth it gets a white-skinned body.
But if it's a bad spirit baby, it gets a black-skinned body.
Is that what you believe?
They said, well, you're not supposed to know that, but yeah, that is what we
teach.
I said, fellas, I know you got the little tag on that says elder, even though you're
17.
I said, I've been married, now it's been nearly 30 years.
I said, I've got three children, grown, got grandchildren.
I said, I taught biology and anatomy.
I used to raise hamsters.
I said, did you know there are two babies born on earth every second, 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, nonstop?
And your God supplies a spirit for each one.
I said, when does he get time to answer your prayers?
Of course, they knocked the dust off their feet and they never came back.
I don't know what happened to them.
But the Mormon Church teaches that the Negroes are a result of a lack of
spiritual valiance in the first estate.
That is stupid.
That's not true.
They say, Cain, Ham, and the whole Negro race were cursed with a black skin,
the mark of Cain.
Peterson said, a Mormon apostle, if there is one drop of Negro blood in my
children, they have received the curse.
Brigham Young said, shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race?
If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of
Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot.
This will always be so.
There is a good book you ought to get called, The Secret History of the Mormon
Church, to see what's happened.
How many people were killed trying to leave the Mormon Church?
I mean, it was a serious thing in the early days.
I don't know if it still is.
I hope not, but it certainly was.
Read the book about secret history.
The third theory about the races says that Noah put a curse on Canaan, his grandson
Canaan.
Genesis 9 says, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servant shall he be.
Genesis 9.26, Canaan shall be a servant.
Canaan is a servant.
Some people think that Canaan became the first black man and that black people are
supposed to be servants.
I think that's silly.
That's slavery during the Civil War here in America.
That's not where the races came from.
Canaan was not the first black man.
The fourth and I think the most reasonable theory is that the skin colors came as a
result of the Tower of Babel.
After the flood, God told them to spread out, have lots of kids and move around the
world.
Well, they didn't.
They disobeyed God.
They stayed in one place and they tried to build this big tower.
Genesis 10.5 says, By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands,
everyone after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
I think what happened at the Tower of Babel, they broke up into languages and
people had to travel off and those that spoke French went together and those that
spoke German went together.
And they ended up, you got to marry into this little group.
So you have close inbreeding.
And if you marry cousins or sisters or nieces for a few generations, you're going
to have a redneck after a while.
Very unusual traits will become pronounced.
This is what happened to the Habsburg dynasty.
They had to marry royalty.
But pretty soon they started looking really strange.
Long nose, weird looking face, great big chins, six fingers, sometimes
hemophiliacs.
I mean a lot of serious problems in the Habsburg dynasty.
But Genesis 10.32 said, The families of Noah is what created the nations and also
the languages.
There is a good book by Bill Cooper you can get called, After the Flood,
which deals with this topic in great detail.
One of Noah's sons, Japheth, in Genesis chapter 10, had about 14 kids or
grandkids.
It's kind of tough to count.
If you go through Genesis you'll see.
It's called the table of nations.
Very interesting story.
But Ham had 31.
Roughly 31 kids or grandkids.
And one of those was Canaan.
It's only one of his 31 kids and grandkids.
The Bible teaches us that Egypt is the land of Ham.
It says so in Psalm 105.
Egypt is the land of Ham.
And in Psalm 106 it says, The wondrous works in the land of Ham, which is Egypt.
There's not a whole lot of question among most Bible scholars that Africa is the
land of Ham, the Hamites.
So Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Ham settled this direction down in Africa.
And the black people predominantly originated from Africa.
The Japhethites, the descendants of Japheth, became the Europeans.
They traveled over this way.
And the Shemites became the Orientals.
They traveled, you know, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
Shem had about 29 kids or grandkids.
Makes up a total of roughly 75 original languages.
So I think the original, after the Tower of Babel, broke up into maybe 60,
70, 80, or 100 different language groups.
I think it's pretty obvious that probably English, German, and Danish had an
original root language that was the same.
I think probably they have originated from the same language.
This is English, for instance, from 1,500 years ago.
Now, I can't read but one word on the page.
I said, duh, the first one.
So, English has changed radically in the last 1,500 years.
And Spanish, Italian, French, and Latin probably had a common root language.
Nobody argues about that.
I think a lot of the original languages contain the gospel story.
For instance, in Chinese, you see the symbol for boat in the upper right-hand
corner here is a combination of the symbol for a vessel, eight, and mouse.
Eight mouse in one vessel, that's Noah's Ark.
So a boat is the symbol for eight mouse in a vessel.
The symbol for garden is dust plus breath plus two people in an enclosure,
the Garden of Eden.
Two people made from the dust of the ground.
There are some great, great books on the Chinese language and how it contains the
gospel story.
Another book called God's Promise to the Chinese.
You can get either one of these through our ministry here.
I think God made everybody of one blood according to Acts chapter 17.
So you are not superior because of the color of your skin.
Malachi said, have we not all one father?
We all came from Noah, folks, and nobody is superior because of the color of their
skin.
They've been searching for the Adam and Eve according to Science Magazine here,
Newsweek Magazine.
They say we had a common ancestor, one woman who lived 200,000 years ago,
Mitochondrial Eve.
Then later they did research and said, wow, maybe it was only 6,000 years ago
because they found that mitochondria changes quicker than they thought.
And then they said, oops, we know that can't be right, so we are going to keep
searching.
The fact of the matter is the Bible is right.
About 4,400 years ago, we all came from Noah and his descendants.
Noah's three sons, of course, may have been married to sisters or may have been
married to somebody else from before the Flood.
I'm not sure what the diversity was before the Flood back then.
Okay, next question.
What about cloning?
Well, I think cloning is an interesting genetic trick, but it's not producing
anything new.
They're taking a DNA code that already exists and transplanting it.
And the DNA code is incredibly complex.
We cover this on Seminar Part 4, how complex the code is.
What happened with the sheep Dali?
They took a four-year-old sheep and they tried to take a cell and take a nucleus
out of the cell and put it into a different cell and implant it so it would
develop into a new sheep.
They had 277 failures.
It cost them $50,000 to make that one sheep.
And then Dali ended up aging much faster than normal and died very early.
Didn't live near as long as a normal sheep does.
So basically, there was a failure.
$50,000 for one sheep.
I said, fellas, hey, the sheep can do this a whole lot quicker and cheaper.
Leave them alone.
They're doing fine.
Okay?
Next question.
Why did God make poisonous snakes in a perfect world?
I don't know the answer to this one for sure, but I have a theory that might help
shed some light on this.
Dr. Guderian in western Ecuador has treated 300 cases of snake bite with
electric shock.
They use a stun gun.
If you get bit by a poisonous snake, if they get you within the first,
you know, 30 minutes, they will take a stun gun and shock the side of the injury
where you got bit.
They shock the other side of the limb, and if it's been more than 30 minutes,
they go halfway to the heart and shock you again.
The electric shock going through your body neutralizes the poison.
A lot of people in jungle areas now are carrying little stun guns, and if you get
bit by a poisonous snake or a poisonous spider, you spark it, and go back to work.
So, many theories abound on why there were poisonous snakes.
Maybe they weren't poisonous.
You can contact Carl Baugh, Glen Rose, Texas, about the hyperbaric chamber he has
there, where he raised poisonous snakes, I believe it was copperheads, under
hyperbaric conditions, high pressure oxygen, and increased electromagnetic
field, which probably the earth had before the flood, stronger magnetic field.
After two weeks, his snakes were not poisonous.
They were still snakes, of course, but the poison was not harmful to the
human body.
So, a 50 milliamp spark at 60 hertz is a safe medical limit.
Many stun guns are 3 milliamp, so it's not a problem at all.
They say you should shock the bite as soon as possible.
Straddle the bite with the probes and shock twice in an X pattern.
If more than 30 minutes has passed, connect a wire to one probe and shock
through the limb.
This is how they are doing it in missionary schools, teaching them how to
handle snake bites with stun guns.
Or if you can't get that, get a spark plug off of a lawnmower or a chainsaw or a car
or something and shock it.
It will help neutralize the poison.
What about the Ark of the Covenant?
Well, in Jeremiah chapter 52, it tells us that they took away the cups, the spoons,
the bowls.
I mean, it mentions all kinds of little detail things out of the temple.
In Ezra, it tells us about the stuff they brought back.
And it says Nebuchadnezzar brought back stuff to the temple.
Nebuchadnezzar took away the things and Ezra brought them back here.
It mentions the knives, the gold and silver basins, the cups, everything.
Little tiny stuff is all mentioned, but the Ark of the Covenant is never
mentioned.
What happened to the Ark of the Covenant?
Well, in 2 Chronicles 26, it tells us Uzziah prepared cutting engines and
machines to cast great stones.
They made basically catapults.
He put these on the walls of the city of Jerusalem to fling these massive stones
out there to protect the city.
Nebuchadnezzar came along and said, I would like to take over your city.
I'd like all your gold.
I want to kill all of you folks.
So they, you know, had a big siege.
Nebuchadnezzar apparently built a siege wall outside the range of the catapults.
And he's just going to starve them out.
In between the regular wall and the siege wall is no man's land.
So apparently, Jeremiah, who was in the city, knew they were going to lose.
God told him, you're going to lose.
Tell the king to surrender.
The king didn't want to surrender, so they ended up losing.
But Jeremiah took the temple furniture outside the city wall and inside the siege
wall, probably at night, and he hid the Ark of the Covenant, the table of
showbread, the candlestick.
A lot of these things were taken outside the city wall, but inside the siege wall
and hidden in a cave system.
If you look at the city of Jerusalem here, and pretend it's a clock, right about 10 o
'clock you'll see Golgotha.
Right there where Golgotha is, is apparently where this cave system was
that Jeremiah hid it.
If you read Jeremiah 27, it says, "...the nation and kingdom that will not
serve the same Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, that nation will I punish."
Jeremiah knew full well they were supposed to surrender to Nebuchadnezzar.
The king didn't want to do it, and they didn't do it, so they ended up
being killed, most of them, taken captive.
So, Jeremiah took the temple furniture, apparently, outside the city wall in a
cave system, a tunnel system, out to underneath where today is Golgotha,
where Jesus was crucified.
Ron Wyatt was a good friend of mine.
He died in 99, but he did a lot of research over there.
He says that he actually saw the Ark of the Covenant.
I get people that criticize me for even mentioning Ron Wyatt.
Well, I think he did good work and you ought to read what he's done.
Read his research.
He says the Ark of the Covenant was there in a box made of a big stone case and it
was sealed up in a room.
They found a big sponge over there.
This cave system is pretty spread out.
And he saw the Ark of the Covenant.
He said all it had was the Ten Commandments in it, nothing else.
I talked to Ron in 1982.
In January 1982, Ron claims he found the Ark.
I spent several hours talking to Ron.
I said, Ron, do you realize how far-fetched this sounds?
He said, Brother Hovind, if you were telling me I wouldn't believe you.
He said, but it happened.
I'll tell you.
He said, I brought the Jewish authorities.
I told them what I found.
They haven't touched it.
They're afraid to touch it.
They learned from a guy named Uzzah years ago in 1 Chronicles when Uzzah touched the
Ark and God killed him.
So they haven't touched it but they do know it's there and they're going to bring
it out as soon as they're ready.
You can see the wyattmuseum.com website if you want to get more on the Ark of the
Covenant.
Next question.
What about Bigfoot?
Well, I have talked to 10 people now who have told me face-to-face they have seen a
Bigfoot.
Todd Jurassic, a friend of mine from Oklahoma, has done incredible research on
Bigfoot.
You can get a hold of Todd.
He's writing a book about the creature.
He's interviewed many folks who claim they've seen one.
It appears that the Patterson film may be a fake.
I don't know.
They said somebody confessed that they were dressed up in an ape suit and all
that stuff.
I don't know.
But there have been an awful lot of sightings that are pretty hard to explain
that appear to be something like a Bigfoot.
I don't know what it is, but here are the theories.
Some people say they're all hoaxes or misidentified.
That certainly could be true.
I don't know.
There are many stories that simply can't be explained.
I don't think it's hoaxes or misidentified.
There seem to be pretty reliable sightings with hard to explain things like deep
footprints that a person couldn't make unless he weighed 600 pounds.
By the way, who in their right mind would run around the woods in an ape suit?
Do you realize how many rednecks would love to shoot one of those things and
bring it and hang it on their wall?
I mean, that's just not smart, okay?
I don't think they're all just hoaxes or frauds, though some probably are.
The second theory says they're an unidentified species of ape.
The third theory says they're some of the hippies from the 60s that haven't come in
yet.
They're hairy and they stink.
The fourth theory says they're aliens from another world.
I doubt that one.
So, the bottom line is I don't know who they are.
There may not even be any, but if there's a Bigfoot, I think it would be interesting
to find one and put it in my museum.
We'd take good care of it, you know, feed it and all that stuff.
Next question, who were the Nephilim in Genesis chapter 6?
Genesis 6 says, "...men began to multiply in the face of the earth, and daughters
were born unto them.
And the sons of God," mentioned 11 times in the Bible, "...saw the daughters of
men, that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose." And
then it says, "...God said, My Spirit will not always strive with man.
His day shall be a hundred and twenty years." Some people think that 120 is
until the flood comes.
Some people think nobody is going to live past 120.
That can't be true, because after this was given, many people lived past 120.
Shem lived past, he lived to 600.
So, I don't think this is talking about lifespans.
I think it's talking about, you know, until the flood comes, you've got 120
years warning.
Okay.
Verse 4 though says, "...there were giants in the earth in those days, and also after
that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, they bare children to
them.
The same became men of renown, men of old, men which were of renown." I
think maybe the phrase and after that might separate this into two totally
unrelated thoughts.
I don't know, but the men of renown may not be the giants.
It may be totally unrelated.
But it's the only verses on the topic.
There's just not much to go on.
Apparently God doesn't want us to know about all this, or doesn't want us to
dwell on this for some reason.
But it says in verse 5, "...God saw the wickedness of man.
It was great in the earth, and his thoughts were evil continually." There are
several theories about what this passage means.
One theory says, "...the sons of God were fallen angels that followed Satan." That's
a very reasonable theory, and I think probably the correct one.
But the problems with that are angels don't marry.
But those passages say angels don't marry in heaven.
Maybe they were allowed to marry on earth.
I don't know.
Of course, this idea that the third of the angels followed Satan comes from the
Revelation 12 passage where it says a third of the stars were drawn down by his
tail.
That's in Revelation.
I don't know how this could apply to the creation 6,000 years earlier, but it may
indeed be that a third of the angels followed Lucifer in his rebellion.
It seems to be the best answer anybody has come up with.
The second theory says, "...the sons of God are the line of Seth marrying the line
of Cain." I don't believe this one for a second, but a lot of people do.
The reason being ungodly people marry God to people all the time.
That doesn't produce giant children or any physical anomaly.
I think it's unwise for Christians to marry non-Christians, but it certainly
doesn't produce children that are deformed or something like that.
Not physically, anyway.
And there's no evidence that Seth's line were godly.
I mean, they drowned in the flood too.
So people say Seth's line was godly and Cain's was ungodly.
Everybody was ungodly.
You know, read the Scripture.
There's a good tape series about the Nephilim by Chuck Missler from
1-800-K-HOUSE-1 or his website khouse.org.
Get Chuck Missler's article about the return of the Nephilim.
I suspect though that before the flood came, these people, if it's demons
marrying daughters of men, probably that's true.
And they're producing some kind of half-demon, half-human children.
And they were unusual, unusual physical traits.
You know, able to fly, maybe, or giant people or super strong or something.
Whatever happened, they all drowned in the flood.
And probably Noah's kids, after the flood, would tell the stories to their kids about
the guy that used to live down the street.
And they'd tell their kids, you know, hey, you should see the guy that lived
down the street from us before the flood came.
He had wings on his feet and could fly or something.
And this developed into the Greek and Babylonian legends of the gods and Zeus
and Olympus and Mercury and Thor and all this kind of stuff.
That's just one theory.
Okay, next question.
What about UFOs?
Don't know.
There are several theories about UFOs.
I'll give you a couple of books you can read about that.
I don't have an answer to the question.
New Leaf Press has a good book called UFO End Time Delusion by David Allen Lewis.
There's a shortened version of the same book, a Reader's Digest version,
UFO 666.
Alien Encounters by Chuck Missler, again, covers a lot on UFOs.
The Cosmic Conspiracy by Stan Dale is a good one for UFOs.
Basically, UFO sightings may fit into the following categories.
They might be just simply misidentified natural objects like weather balloons,
swamp gas, etc.
They could be top secret or private experiments.
There's Popular Mechanics from November 2000 showing an experiment with the U.S.
government planning to build what would sure look like a UFO to somebody if they
saw it.
It may be satanic or demonic.
Satan can only be one place at a time.
God is all places at all times.
And most of the authors I shared with you earlier fall into the category of saying
that there are two kinds of UFOs, top secret government stuff and demonic.
Best I can do on that one.
Next question.
How long were they in the Garden of Eden before they sinned?
Well, the Bible says Adam lived 130 years and had a son named Seth.
Of course, now before that they had Cain and Abel, but no dates are given.
They could have been in the Garden for 100 years before they sinned.
We know on day 7 God looked at everything and it was very good.
Satan hadn't fallen yet.
Adam hadn't sinned yet after the first week.
We cover more on this on videotape number 2.
But probably they were in the Garden maybe 100 years.
Certainly Satan didn't fall before that.
And the Bible says God drove him out after they sinned out of the Garden of Eden and
put the flaming sword there and the cherubims and all that stuff.
And Eve is the mother of all living.
So there are no other life forms on this planet.
Next question.
People say, aren't created and made different words?
Well, they are used interchangeably all through Scripture.
Here is a list here and we will have these on our website about how the heavens and
earth are made and the heavens and earth are created.
The firmament was made in Genesis 1 but it was created in Psalm 148.
There are many scriptures that show, Genesis 2, 4 for instance.
These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created in
the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
Here the words are clearly used interchangeably.
Bible says He made the heavens, He made the trees, He created the trees,
He made the animals, He created the animals.
He made animals on land and He created animals on land.
He made man, He created man.
There are dozens of verses for this.
So no, the words are not different.
It is just a matter of saying the same thing in two different ways.
We do the same thing in English.
We will say the guy was huge, he was big, he was gigantic.
We do it for emphasis.
It says, He created the old Jacob and formed the old Israel.
So words created and made are used interchangeably all through Scripture.
Don't let somebody tell you that this is proof for the gap theory or something else
because it is not.
Another question.
People say, where can I get more information on creation?
Well, there are many good sources.
We have a lot of links on our web page, DrDino.com.
We offer four college courses through our ministry CSE 101, 102, 103, and 104.
In those courses we have taken our seminar and I didn't skip a thing.
We just chased every rabbit and kicked every dog and went through everything we
could find on creation and evolution.
It turned out to be 60 hours of teaching on the subject.
You are welcome to get that.
Landmark Freedom Baptist Curriculum is really good if you want stuff on creation
for school ministries.
Many people produce curriculum on creation and we will be glad to steer you to some
of those.
We link a lot of these on our website, DrDino.com.
Next question.
People say, do you really have a Ph.D.?
Boy, you would be amazed how many folks in debates say, you don't have a real Ph.D.
Well, I think you have the right to face your accusers obviously.
If somebody is saying, I don't have a Ph .D., then I want you to come face me face
to face and let's talk about it.
Give me a chance to defend myself.
I'm always ready to answer questions and no questions are, I'm not afraid of
anything.
I'm not hiding a thing.
But when somebody starts asking, criticizing somebody's degree or the
person personally, it's pretty obvious they're losing the argument on the merit
of the arguments and they're trying to find, shoot the messenger instead of deal
with the message.
So, Ph.D.
in the dictionary is Doctor of Philosophy.
That's all it means.
A Doctor of Philosophy.
Here's a photograph or a picture of my Ph .D.
from Patriot University in Colorado.
Patriot University was part of Hilltop Baptist Church for many years.
That's where they were when I got my degree from there.
Then they have now become independent and they moved out to Alamosa, Colorado,
about 40-50 miles away from Colorado Springs.
They are an independent Baptist Church that started a seminary to help people get
degrees that were in full-time Christian service, which was me.
It took me nine years to finish mine.
I worked very hard for mine.
I don't know if people worked for theirs or not, but I worked hard for mine.
And I got a Ph.D.
If you don't like it, then call me Bubba or Kent or Hey You and let's get back to
the topic.
You don't have to call me Doctor if you don't like it.
Patriot University was established in 1980.
It's an extension of Hilltop Baptist Church and it offered a Ph.D.
in Education.
I spent many years working for my degree and I learned a lot and I got a Ph.D.
in 1991.
They then moved to College Heights Baptist Church in Alamosa, Colorado, where it
continues to operate today.
Some people put a picture of the church parsonage on their website and said,
this is where Hovind got his Ph.D.
Well, the church parsonage has the same address as the church.
And how that applies to me, I don't know.
I mean, it was a Hilltop Baptist when I got mine and now it's in Alamosa.
This really shows they're desperate and dumb, in my opinion.
Some people have ridiculed the size of the school.
Well, there's about three Ph.D.s per year and about 25 graduates a year out of
Patriot University.
It's a small Christian college, no question.
It would be interesting if you could see the look on these guys' faces if they knew
the size of the school that many of our early presidents or congressmen or
military leaders graduated from.
If Harvard offers a Ph.D.
degree program and only has three students in it, which is often the case,
by the way, in many schools, one or two students many times in a Ph.D.
program, what does that mean?
It means they're not accredited.
It means they're no good because they've only got one student or two students.
I mean, come on.
Use your head.
It doesn't mean a thing.
They say, is it a diploma mill?
You know, they're just cranking out these diplomas and selling them.
You can buy it for a hundred bucks.
Well, that's not the case at all.
Okay?
I worked hard for mine.
If you don't like it, don't call me that.
Do whatever you want.
Patriot has 25 graduates each year.
Three to five are getting doctorate degrees.
My 30-year study on creation led me to start this ministry.
Full-time, 1981.
Started 1989, but full-time, 1991.
I speak a little over 800 times a year now on this subject.
I've had over 80 debates.
I've been a guest on 5,000 radio, TV, call, and talk shows.
My itinerary is available on my website.
If any evolutionist is interested in a public debate, they're welcome to contact
me to arrange a time when I'm in their area and I'll have a debate in a public
place like a university.
If they don't think I have a doctor's degree, then call me Bubba and let's just
discuss the topic of creation.
So we've been offering a quarter million dollars for those that have real evidence
for evolution.
And I think it's one of the dumbest theories in the history of the world.
Darwin's only degree was in theology, but he's called a scientist in the
textbooks.
That's interesting.
Who determines who a scientist is anyway?
Who's making this call?
A person who studies science is a scientist.
Why don't they call him Reverend Darwin?
That was his degree.
Dr. Morris pointed out, it's worth noting that almost none of the leaders of this
evolutionary revival have been trained as scientists in the modern sense.
None were educated as physicians, as physicists or chemists or biologists or
geologists or astronomers or other natural scientists.
Charles Darwin was an apostate divinity student whose only degree was in theology.
Charles Lyell was a lawyer.
William Smith was a surveyor.
James Hutton was an agriculturist.
John Playfair, a mathematician.
Robert Chambers, a journalist.
Alfred Wallace had little education at all and a brief apprenticeship in surveying.
Thomas Huxley had a very indifferent education in medicine.
Spencer received practically no formal education except in railroad engineering.
Thomas Malthus was a theologian and economist.
Erasmus Darwin was a medical doctor and a poet.
Yet all of these guys are the founders of the evolution theory.
Only Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in France and Ernst Haeckel in Germany seemed to have a
bona fide education in a branch of science.
And they all had their particular anti-Christian agenda.
Haeckel and Lamarck were wildly wrong and they used simple lies to promote the
evolution theory.
So, summary.
I earned a Ph.D.
from a non-accredited Christian university.
Thousands of major world leaders throughout history had no degrees of any
kind.
Thousands of major universities today offer distance learning, website learning,
internet site.
You don't have to go to the school to get your degree in many cases.
There's nothing wrong with that.
Thousands of people who attend classes at universities cheat, lie, or bribe their
way to get a degree.
Getting a degree from an accredited university does not guarantee any level of
intelligence or accuracy of beliefs.
Science has a long history of teaching things that are wrong.
If you don't like my degree, call me Kent and let's get back to the topic.
So, if I was dumb and desperate, I would start attacking the person's
degree instead of attacking the subject, which is exactly what's going on.
Help them to grow up, get a life, and let's get back to the topic.
Next question.
People ask me, what about the Red Sea crossing?
I mean, if a whole army crossed the Red Sea, there ought to be some evidence to
this.
Wouldn't you find evidence for the Bible being true?
Well, in Exodus 14, it says they're going to encamp by the sea where God commanded
them to.
Exodus 14 tells us that when they went across, the waters, they went on dry
ground and the water was a wall on the right hand and on the left hand.
So, they're not wading across shallow water.
There's actually a miracle.
They're down in the sea with the water as a wall on both sides.
Interesting.
It says, God took off the chariot wheels of the Egyptians.
That's what the Bible says in Exodus 14.
And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen.
Alright.
Well, if you look at the country of Egypt, to the right side is the Red Sea.
It has two branches to it.
The left branch is the Gulf of Suez.
The right branch is the Gulf of Aqaba.
In between is what is often called the Sinai Peninsula.
A Phoenician princess pointed at a mountain one day and said, I think that's
Mount Sinai.
She had no clue where Mount Sinai was, but she said that's Mount Sinai.
Everybody calls it Mount Sinai even today, but it's not Mount Sinai.
It can't be as we'll see in a minute.
Apparently, the children of Israel followed this red line out of Egypt all
the way across what is now called the Sinai Peninsula and crossed over at the
Gulf of Aqaba.
I got this information from Ron Wyatt and Richard Reeves who spent years over there
researching this.
There's a dry riverbed where that red line is that flows right up and ends up at the
Gulf of Aqaba.
Here you see it, the Gulf of Aqaba in the distance there.
And there's actually a pathway between the mountains, very rugged terrain.
It ends up on this beach right there where the arrow is pointing.
This is a satellite view kind of from the north.
And that is actually a giant beach able to hold several million people.
No way to flee north or south because once you get out there you are flat stuck.
There's mountains all around, a little valley that you just came through,
and no place to get out.
Apparently the children of Israel got trapped there with Pharaoh's army closing
in the gap behind them.
At the south end of this beach many years ago, Ron and his sons found a pillar.
And they dragged it out and scrubbed it off.
And they could only read a few words on it, mostly pretty eroded.
But they found another pillar just like it on the other side in Arabia, in Saudi
Arabia.
And the pillar said, this was erected by King Solomon to commemorate the crossing
of the Red Sea.
The maps of the depth of the water there are interesting.
There's called the Eilat Deep.
I went swimming and went down to visit Eilat, Israel where it comes down and
touches the Red Sea here.
It's about 5,000 feet deep in here, in the Gulf of Aqaba, except for this one
spot where it's only 900 feet deep.
There's a natural underwater land bridge.
It's about 8 miles wide and only 900 feet deep.
A friend of mine, Aaron, went over there and said, look folks, this is absolutely
correct.
The Israeli bathymetric chart says this is only 900 feet deep here.
And some people are criticizing Ron Wyatt saying it's not true.
There's not a bridge there.
Yes, there is an underwater land bridge.
So Ron and his sons went out there scuba diving out as deep as they could go,
150 feet or so, and found chariot wheels with no chariots attached and chariots
with no wheels attached.
They found rib cages of humans, rib cages and hooves of animals that are
fossilized, not fossilized but covered with coral.
You can go to the museum in Cornersville, Tennessee south of Nashville, about 50
miles.
And I think it's exit 27 and there's a converted gas station right there which is
the Wyatt Museum and see these things for yourself.
See the horse hoof all dried up and dehydrated.
The 18th Dynasty in Egypt is the only one to use the 8 spoke, 6 spoke and 4 spoke
chariot wheels and all of those are found at the bottom.
On the right side over here you see a mountain called Jebel al-Lawz which means
Mountain of Laws and that is Mount Sinai.
The Bible says in Galatians 4 Sinai is in Arabia.
Why are they looking for it in the Sinai Peninsula?
It's not even there.
It can't be.
Apparently this is Mount Sinai, black on top.
Whether that's from the burning or not I don't know but it could be that it
actually burned and melted the rocks on top.
At the bottom of this mountain there's a bunch of rocks with a, this one has a calf
drawn on it.
They think probably this is the altar they built with the calf.
Exodus 20, God told them to smite the rock and water would come out for the people to
drink.
Most Bible pictures show a little stream of water coming out.
They had several million people plus their animals.
They're not going to feed them with a stream of water like that.
It's not going to work.
It had to be water gushing out of there.
Actually it had to be a river.
There's this big boulder you can see here in the background.
This is as big as a 5 story building.
It is split right in half, completely in half and on both sides there are erosion
marks.
This may be the rock that Moses smote and the water came gushing out of both sides.
A river flowed out and watered everybody.
Okay, people say, what about Sodom and Gomorrah?
Where is that at?
Well, the Lord said in Genesis 19 He would rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone.
Brimstone is burning sulfur.
If you look at this map of the Dead Sea you can see there are five spots Zoboam,
Admah, Gomorrah, Sodom, and Zoar.
These apparently are where the cities were of those five cities that were burned.
When I was on top of Masada in March of 2002 I went over to Israel.
You can look down from the top of Masada and see a square which is apparently where
Sodom was.
The city is all burned.
You don't even tell it is a city until you get very far away from it.
It is mentioned in Deuteronomy chapter 29.
It is mentioned in Genesis chapter 14 about the kings of Sodom, Gomorrah,
Admah, and Zoboam.
These guys got in trouble and basically the Lord had to judge their cities here.
So apparently those are the five cities that burned.
If you get up real close to this thing you realize actually if you look at the walls
it looks like just ash cliffs.
But the closer you get the more you realize that is a city that was burned.
And the bricks have actually turned to ash.
Peppered in that ash there are thousands, actually millions, of sulfur balls.
I've got some right here on the table.
These are actually pieces of 99% sulfur.
The outside is kind of a white color but if you break it open it is a little more
yellow inside.
Apparently it burned itself out.
Golf ball size, variety of size, it literally rained sulfur on that city.
In the ash, which is apparently burned brick, there are little indentations where
the sulfur balls are.
One fell out of here.
There is one piece of one over here.
This is a piece of ash from that area.
And many folks, including myself, think this is the actual Sodom and
Gomorrah and we have the physical evidence for it.
It literally burned the cities to ash.
This may be what is called a ziggurat or something to guard the opening at the
city.
And Ron Wyatt and Richard Reeve spent a lot of time over there and are very
convinced, as am I, that this is Sodom and Gomorrah.
Next question.
People say, don't wisdom teeth prove evolution?
No.
It is true that about 60% of the population has trouble with their wisdom
teeth.
They have to get them removed or they become infected or impacted or something
like that because their jaw is not big enough to grow in.
The fact of the matter is this is not evidence for evolution.
This is evidence that man used to be bigger and live longer and develop more
slowly in the past.
If before the flood people lived to be 900 and they developed slowly and you are a
kid until you are 40 and you are a teenager until you are 60 and you get
married when you are 80, life was just slower and more relaxed.
They would be bigger.
By the time you are 20, it is time for that last tooth to come in to fill in your
jaw which is still growing.
Jack Kawazo, the dentist from New Jersey, has an excellent book dealing with this
topic a little bit.
It is called Buried Alive, showing how the human face never stops growing and people
living to be 200-300 would need this wisdom tooth because they would be so much
bigger.
So, the Neanderthals actually used their wisdom teeth.
They show signs of wear on them.
The Neanderthals probably were people living to be 200 years old.
Get the book Buried Alive if you want more on that.
Next question.
People say, Brother Hovind, in your seminar and in your debates, sometimes you
are sarcastic with the atheists.
I know and I am sorry.
That is just a personality quirk I guess.
I am working on it.
But, in my over 30 years of ministry, I have seen thousands of lives changed by
the teachings on creation, including many scoffers who have come to Christ.
I am not trying to drive them off.
I am trying to bring them to the Lord.
Trust me on this one.
But, the Bible says, Beware lest any man spoil you with your philosophy and vain
deceit.
I get a little upset, I guess, when I see these people with their evil
philosophies spoiling children that come to their class.
So, professors that teach evolution, I just don't have a lot of patience with
them.
I am sorry.
I think if I was going to rescue some people who were being killed by Hitler's
guards, I would have a hard time being nice to the guards.
I would want to kill the guards and rescue the people.
So, it is not that you are mad at them necessarily.
You are mad at what they are doing.
I am mad at what the professors are doing.
The Bible says, If you smite the scorner, the simple will beware.
So, I guess I am a little hard on the atheists because their philosophy is
destroying others and you have to stop them somehow.
If you really give them a hard time intellectually and prove that they are
wrong, make a fool of them, other people are going to listen and say, Oh,
wow, I better not believe in evolution.
So, it is kind of a tactic to help do that.
The Bible says, When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise.
Proverbs chapter 21.
The Bible says, Cast out the scorner and contention shall go out.
So, if you look at the way they did it in the Bible, you will see in the book of 1
Kings, Elijah made fun of the prophets of Baal.
They were crying, Oh, Baal, hear us.
Come on, Baal, light my fire.
And Elijah mocked them.
He said, Cry aloud.
He is a god.
He is talking or he is pursuing or he is on a journey.
He is sleeping.
Maybe he must be awakened.
So, he mocked the false prophets.
Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, whited sepulchers,
full of dead men's bones.
He said, Oh, generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath
to come?
How can ye being evil speak good things?
He called them evil.
He called them snakes and vipers and whited sepulchers.
All you have to do is read through Scripture.
Jesus said, Herod was a fox.
He said, Go tell that fox that I am going to cast out devils.
If he doesn't like it, that is basically tough.
He said, Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart.
Oh, full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all
righteousness.
Wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of God, of the Lord?
Boy, he perverts things.
All throughout Scripture, the Bible calls people fools, brutish, simple,
perverse, scorners, wicked.
I am just trying to be like my Heavenly Father.
So, that is why I use sarcasm with the scoffers.
People often ask me the question, Brother Hovind, why don't you answer all
the scoffers on the anti-Hovind websites?
There are now over 500 anti-Hovind websites.
People that absolutely hate me.
One guy said, Dr. Hovind, do you realize you are the most hated man in our chat
room?
I can't believe how many people out there talk about you.
Apparently you have struck a nerve.
Keep up the great work.
That was an email I got.
Well, here are some things to consider about my answer to this one.
Number one, I will gladly answer any questions about my seminar or anything I
believe.
I do this, I have live question and answer sessions just every single week when I go
out and speak.
I have these question and answer sessions everywhere.
I have been in 49 states and 30 countries.
I take all the questions that time permits off until midnight.
We will stay and answer questions.
Number three, I have a long-standing offer to debate anybody on creation and
evolution.
I debate any number of evolutionists.
If there are ten of them and one of me, that is perfectly fine.
Ten against one is not a problem if I get half the time.
And we talk about one topic at a time.
I will pay a professor, not some high school kid, but I will pay a college
professor a hundred bucks if he will debate me and a quarter million if they
can prove evolution.
I have had over 3,000 people refuse to debate so far.
I just started recently putting a list on our website of some of the professors who
refused to debate me.
I speak about 800 times a year now.
I answer many thousands of calls, letters and emails.
There are many millions who want to hear, so why waste time on those who don't want
to hear?
If I wasted hours answering all their silly questions, which most are already
answered in my seminar, they would only ask more questions and try to tie up my
time.
They are trying to waste my time is what they are trying to do.
The Bible says, give not that which is holy unto dogs neither cast ye your pearls
before swine.
So I simply don't have time to answer the skeptics on the website.
If I was going to plant a garden to feed my family and half my yard was good soil
and half was hard rock, I would plant the good soil first.
Make sure I get a crop started.
If I got time, I will go work on the rock.
If I don't have time, oh well.
I guess I feel that way.
I've only got 24 hours in a day and I'm going to invest my time and energy where
it might produce some fruit.
You could spend hours and hours talking to an atheist on the internet and waste a lot
of time.
If he doesn't want to hear, you are wasting your time.
Some are very sincere, open and they really are seeking.
Well, go for them.
But you've got to decide what you want to put your time into, where is going to bear
the most fruit.
I talk to those who want to hear.
Skeptics are always welcome to call me, but if they email me and try to get me
into an email debate, I simply won't do it.
I'm sorry, I don't have time.
That's my reason for not doing that.
So, I hope this has been helpful.
We have all sorts of questions answered, even more, on our Creation Science 104
Science College class, if you want to get that one.
We offer many materials through our ministry, lots of debates on videotape,
lots of other materials on homeschooling.
We want to be a blessing.