WEBVTT

00:33.150 --> 00:38.610
Tonight we're going to be talking about
what is creation science and I think that

00:38.610 --> 00:42.110
needs to be done because it has been
grossly misrepresented.

00:44.390 --> 00:50.030
I think one of the best places to start is
with a statement by Chief Justice

00:50.030 --> 00:52.250
Rehnquist and Justice Scalia.

00:53.470 --> 00:57.770
As they were considering the issue in the
Edwards versus Seguillard case,

00:58.010 --> 01:04.150
the Balanced Treatment Act from Louisiana,
this was an act that was ruled

01:04.150 --> 01:05.110
unconstitutional.

01:05.390 --> 01:08.150
Really, really bad things they wanted to
do in Louisiana.

01:08.370 --> 01:13.950
They wanted to have balanced treatment on
this issue and they decided they didn't

01:13.950 --> 01:14.390
need that.

01:14.490 --> 01:15.670
We'll talk more about it in a moment.

01:16.590 --> 01:21.330
But in the process, Rehnquist and Scalia
says, we have no basis on the record to

01:21.330 --> 01:26.230
conclude that creation science need be
anything other than a collection of

01:26.230 --> 01:31.210
scientific data supporting the theory that
life abruptly appeared on the earth.

01:32.470 --> 01:33.690
And I agree with them.

01:33.890 --> 01:37.310
That's what we're talking about,
the scientific evidence.

01:39.130 --> 01:44.750
As illustrated on the slide, we're talking
about what we can see and touch and taste,

01:44.810 --> 01:45.730
the empirical evidence.

01:45.850 --> 01:51.450
Well now, how is that going to tell us
whether things were created or just

01:51.450 --> 01:52.890
naturally occurred?

01:53.390 --> 01:58.630
Can you distinguish between natural
origins and created intelligent design

01:58.630 --> 02:01.630
origins by looking at the physical?

02:02.610 --> 02:03.450
Well, let me illustrate.

02:04.870 --> 02:06.050
We look at this rock.

02:07.170 --> 02:08.390
Tell me about the origin.

02:09.530 --> 02:12.750
Did this happen naturally or did someone
design it?

02:12.990 --> 02:14.710
Well, you've got a pretty good idea.

02:14.910 --> 02:16.530
This probably happens naturally.

02:17.810 --> 02:24.390
On the other hand, we see this rock and I
don't think that happened naturally.

02:25.310 --> 02:30.490
I think created design is the best
explanation and I think most would agree.

02:31.750 --> 02:36.330
But now then, we have entered into the
area that has to be relegated to the

02:36.330 --> 02:37.310
Sunday school classroom.

02:37.470 --> 02:40.170
You can't have that in the school room.

02:40.610 --> 02:41.930
Does that make sense to you?

02:43.510 --> 02:47.650
You can, by looking at the empirical
evidence, see whether this happened

02:47.650 --> 02:52.750
naturally or whether it was designed and
know this is not necessarily religion at

02:52.750 --> 02:53.050
all.

02:54.950 --> 02:59.130
Another very obvious illustration,
I believe, is seen when you walk down the

02:59.130 --> 03:05.630
beach and you see the lines, the
lineations here that parallel the waves.

03:07.010 --> 03:10.570
Now, was this natural or was this
designed?

03:12.210 --> 03:14.830
Well, you say that probably the waves did
this.

03:14.930 --> 03:15.970
It parallels the waves.

03:16.070 --> 03:19.030
You can see them producing this kind of
effect.

03:20.230 --> 03:24.730
Some order, yes, but probably still of
natural origin.

03:25.250 --> 03:29.270
But you walk a little further and you see
on the beach, John loves Mary.

03:31.010 --> 03:32.790
Waves probably did that, you think.

03:34.050 --> 03:38.670
But if you conclude that it must be
intelligent design, now then you've got to

03:38.670 --> 03:39.710
be in the Sunday school classroom.

03:39.850 --> 03:41.030
You can't be in the school room.

03:42.170 --> 03:46.970
I think that's just utter nonsense,
but demonstrates that from the empirical

03:46.970 --> 03:52.450
evidence you can see clear indications to
distinguish between the natural and the

03:52.450 --> 03:52.790
design.

03:53.510 --> 03:59.450
And when we look at the universe around
us, we see abundant evidence, I believe,

03:59.570 --> 04:03.870
of design and that's going to be our theme
actually throughout the week.

04:04.410 --> 04:08.410
But when we look, for example,
at this bacterial flagellum, a little tail

04:08.410 --> 04:12.810
on the end of the bacteria that helps it
propel, this is astounding.

04:14.210 --> 04:19.810
When Darwin looked at the quote,
simple cell, he saw what was called a

04:19.810 --> 04:20.490
black box.

04:20.530 --> 04:21.710
That's all he could tell.

04:21.870 --> 04:27.830
Well, as we learn more about it,
it's like a city with factories and just

04:27.830 --> 04:29.650
mind-boggling complexity.

04:30.450 --> 04:36.870
This particular machine, and that's the
only way to describe it, is an electrical

04:36.870 --> 04:37.290
motor.

04:38.030 --> 04:44.590
It has rotors, it has stators,
it has o-rings, bushings and u-joints,

04:44.670 --> 04:46.110
it has drive shafts.

04:46.570 --> 04:52.030
All of this is coordinated in 30
functioning coordinated parts,

04:52.450 --> 04:57.450
such that if any one of the 30 parts is
missing, it doesn't work.

04:58.550 --> 05:02.410
There's no way to get the first five and
then work for a little while and then

05:02.410 --> 05:03.430
gradually get another one.

05:04.130 --> 05:06.550
If you're missing any of them,
it stops.

05:07.290 --> 05:09.430
You've got to have all of them at once.

05:10.790 --> 05:14.090
And I don't think there's any way to
explain that in terms of a gradual

05:14.090 --> 05:15.190
evolutionary process.

05:15.710 --> 05:17.930
And the design is absolutely astounding.

05:18.070 --> 05:23.810
It turns at up to 100,000 revolutions per
minute and can reverse directions in a

05:23.810 --> 05:24.290
quarter turn.

05:26.190 --> 05:28.270
Our engineers today can't build that.

05:29.190 --> 05:35.390
We don't have anything that our engineers
can design that works that efficiently or

05:35.390 --> 05:36.230
that works that well.

05:37.370 --> 05:44.790
Now, if you see intelligent design in John
loves Mary, what do you see when you see

05:44.790 --> 05:48.730
an electric motor with better design than
anything we've been able to come up with?

05:50.350 --> 05:52.290
I don't think that's a hard question.

05:53.330 --> 05:56.290
In fact, evolutionists understand that.

05:56.870 --> 06:03.610
Richard Dawkins is one of the more
prolific writers against creation for

06:03.610 --> 06:05.110
evolution in our time.

06:05.310 --> 06:06.010
He's from Oxford.

06:06.550 --> 06:10.330
And he reminds people in his book,
The Blind Watchmaker, right at the

06:10.330 --> 06:15.810
beginning on page one, that biology is the
study of complicated things that give the

06:15.810 --> 06:17.310
appearance of having been designed.

06:17.570 --> 06:19.870
That's the way he studies it, the way he
defines biology.

06:20.790 --> 06:24.350
Now, he doesn't believe it was designed,
but it's an illusion.

06:25.670 --> 06:29.470
Yeah, it looks that way and he admits it,
but it's not so.

06:30.650 --> 06:36.710
Francis Crick, Nobel laureate,
co-discoverer, describer of DNA,

06:36.970 --> 06:42.070
makes a similar statement when he says
biologists must constantly keep in mind

06:42.070 --> 06:45.810
that what they see was not designed,
because obviously it looks that way and

06:45.810 --> 06:50.010
you've got to really work at this or
you'll get the wrong idea, because you

06:50.010 --> 06:53.290
have to constantly keep in mind that what
they see was not designed.

06:54.610 --> 06:58.930
And you've got to work at that,
but rather evolve.

06:59.410 --> 07:01.270
He has faith, of course, in that.

07:01.270 --> 07:07.430
Well, I think maybe it's more reasonable
to just believe that what it looks like is

07:07.430 --> 07:12.590
what it is, but I think it's their
philosophy that drives them in the

07:12.590 --> 07:14.390
opposite direction in spite of how it
looks.

07:15.330 --> 07:19.550
We need to understand that as we're
talking about origins, there are two

07:19.550 --> 07:24.490
possibilities, and only two, and that's
important for several reasons.

07:25.070 --> 07:30.930
Notice the statement by Douglas Futuma,
again a very prolific writer against

07:30.930 --> 07:33.710
creation, but a well-known scientist.

07:34.130 --> 07:38.570
He says, creation and evolution between
them exhaust the possible explanations for

07:38.570 --> 07:40.370
the origin of living things.

07:41.270 --> 07:45.230
Organisms either appeared on earth fully
developed or they did not.

07:45.710 --> 07:49.370
If they did not, they must have developed
from pre-existing species from some

07:49.370 --> 07:56.990
process of modifications, naturally or
suddenly, not natural.

07:58.130 --> 08:03.410
And there are variations of each,
but if we understand there are only two,

08:03.510 --> 08:06.850
now sometimes we get the objection,
well, you're only talking against

08:06.850 --> 08:09.150
evolution and no evidence for creation.

08:10.110 --> 08:15.230
And we're going to be dealing a lot with
the evidence for evolution and showing

08:15.230 --> 08:18.410
that it's not valid this evening,
but if you'll be here for the rest of the

08:18.410 --> 08:21.150
week, you'll see that charge is absolutely
false.

08:21.990 --> 08:30.570
But, if there's only A or B, and you show
it's not A, you have given positive

08:30.570 --> 08:32.610
argument for the other, haven't you?

08:33.310 --> 08:36.470
But we're only allowed to have one of
these views in the classroom.

08:37.370 --> 08:42.230
You can only teach evolution because,
after all, that's science and creation is

08:42.230 --> 08:44.770
religion and never the twain shall meet.

08:44.890 --> 08:49.430
I think that's naive to the point of being
absurd.

08:51.730 --> 08:56.250
Both evolution and creation can be
investigated scientifically and I believe

08:56.250 --> 09:00.190
we demonstrated that very simply and very
easily and it will be more obvious as we

09:00.190 --> 09:00.590
proceed.

09:02.230 --> 09:06.650
And both evolution and creation have
profound religious implications.

09:08.350 --> 09:11.850
You mean evolution has religious
implications?

09:12.730 --> 09:16.230
Well, if you're not aware of that,
you hadn't thought about it very much.

09:17.530 --> 09:20.490
Let's look at some of the statements by
some of the leading evolutionists in the

09:20.490 --> 09:24.370
country, beginning with Edward Erickson,
writing in the Humanist just a few years

09:24.370 --> 09:24.590
ago.

09:24.670 --> 09:28.610
He said the core of the humanistic
philosophy is naturalism and this

09:28.610 --> 09:30.270
naturalism is his religion.

09:31.310 --> 09:35.090
That's the proposition that the natural
world proceeds according to its own

09:35.090 --> 09:40.950
dynamics without divine or supernatural
control or guidance and that we humans

09:40.950 --> 09:44.170
beings are creations of that process.

09:46.170 --> 09:48.870
Obvious religious implications.

09:49.950 --> 09:53.070
Richard Lewontin makes the point even
stronger.

09:53.610 --> 09:56.110
Again, one of the leading evolutionists in
the country from Harvard.

09:56.990 --> 10:02.050
He says it's not the methods and
institutions of science that somehow

10:02.050 --> 10:06.530
compel us to accept a material explanation
of the phenomenal world.

10:07.110 --> 10:11.010
Now, a lot of people think scientists
wouldn't look at it that way.

10:11.090 --> 10:13.890
No, it's not science that says you have to
look at it naturally.

10:14.010 --> 10:20.650
On the contrary, he says, we're forced by
our a priori adherence to material causes

10:20.650 --> 10:26.490
to create an apparatus of investigation,
a set of concepts that produce material

10:26.490 --> 10:27.350
explanations.

10:28.050 --> 10:30.650
We have made up our mind we're going to
see it naturally.

10:31.370 --> 10:38.110
We adhere to that materialistic philosophy
and we're going to set up all of the

10:38.110 --> 10:41.850
investigations so that it produces that
answer no matter how counterintuitive,

10:42.210 --> 10:43.550
no matter how mystifying.

10:44.370 --> 10:48.130
In other words, it may look crazy,
but that's the way we're going to do it.

10:48.470 --> 10:54.310
Moreover, that materialism is absolute for
we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.

10:54.630 --> 11:02.350
Now, this is the the philosophy that
dominates in science and to say there's no

11:02.350 --> 11:06.090
religion here is just extremely naive.

11:07.610 --> 11:10.930
Notice the statement by Steven Pinker of
MIT.

11:11.830 --> 11:16.270
He said, no evidence would be sufficient
to create a change in mind.

11:17.350 --> 11:19.350
That it is not a commitment to the
evidence.

11:20.810 --> 11:22.170
Can you believe this?

11:22.610 --> 11:24.010
This is a scientist speaking.

11:25.630 --> 11:32.430
We're not committed to evidence in terms
of this issue of materialism as opposed to

11:32.430 --> 11:36.750
the divine, but it is a commitment to
naturalism.

11:36.970 --> 11:41.790
That's the thing that controls and
nothing's going to change our mind.

11:42.650 --> 11:46.510
They've made up their mind and that's
where they are because there are no

11:46.510 --> 11:49.410
alternatives, that is, except God and
they're not going there.

11:50.850 --> 11:55.170
We would almost have to accept natural
selection as the explanation of life on

11:55.170 --> 11:57.690
the planet even if there were no evidence
for it.

11:58.490 --> 12:03.330
Because then you are faced with God and
they're not going to do it.

12:03.450 --> 12:06.410
They have committed themselves to
naturalism.

12:08.310 --> 12:16.190
And so to say one is pure science and the
other is religion is very naive and just

12:16.190 --> 12:16.730
not so.

12:17.370 --> 12:21.510
Isaac Isimov, perhaps the most prolific
writer, written over 600 books,

12:22.610 --> 12:28.830
recently deceased, an atheist,
nevertheless says, I have faith and

12:28.830 --> 12:33.090
believe myself, I believe nothing beyond
those natural laws is needed.

12:33.890 --> 12:34.590
That's his faith.

12:35.350 --> 12:39.470
I have no evidence for this, it is simply
what I have faith in and what I believe.

12:40.570 --> 12:41.590
It's a blind faith.

12:41.690 --> 12:47.550
He has decided to be, in his religion,
a naturalist and he's committed to that.

12:48.210 --> 12:54.170
He believes that because he wants to
believe that, not because of the evidence.

12:54.290 --> 12:57.330
And it's not because of science,
it's because of a commitment to a

12:57.330 --> 12:58.330
religious philosophy.

13:00.630 --> 13:06.850
In fact, when you look at the philosophy
of the unbeliever, they have to believe

13:06.850 --> 13:10.230
just all kinds of nonsense to be an
unbeliever.

13:11.510 --> 13:13.310
Unbelievers are great believers.

13:14.330 --> 13:19.870
They have to believe that an explosion
produced all of the order that we see in

13:19.870 --> 13:20.430
this universe.

13:22.490 --> 13:23.910
That takes a lot of faith.

13:24.730 --> 13:30.090
They believe that molecules somehow came
into existence on their own and then

13:30.090 --> 13:33.630
bounce around for tens of billions of
years and become living cells all by

13:33.630 --> 13:34.050
themselves.

13:34.870 --> 13:35.890
And they believe that.

13:37.070 --> 13:42.610
They believe that errors in the complex
genetic system of that cell can produce

13:42.610 --> 13:43.610
greater complexity.

13:46.720 --> 13:49.100
I have not seen such faith in all Israel.

13:50.780 --> 13:55.280
It's just unbelievable what an unbeliever
has to believe to be an unbeliever.

13:56.820 --> 14:01.300
But they say, we're going to be scientists
and you're religious and you have one in

14:01.300 --> 14:02.660
the classroom and you can't have the
other.

14:05.380 --> 14:10.380
Interestingly, late last year,
a court decision rendered the conclusion

14:10.380 --> 14:12.180
that atheism is religion.

14:14.100 --> 14:18.580
And some folks up at the Wisconsin State
Penitentiary got in trouble because they

14:18.580 --> 14:21.280
didn't honor the religion of one of their
cellmates there.

14:21.620 --> 14:24.360
One of the people there and one of the
inmates.

14:24.700 --> 14:27.460
Federal Court of Appeals ruled yesterday
atheism is religion.

14:29.400 --> 14:34.680
And so people say that's not so well you
got court decisions on the matter.

14:35.300 --> 14:37.680
Michael Ruse is one of the leading
philosophers in the country.

14:37.920 --> 14:43.500
I attended a debate where he was defending
his position last week in Los Angeles.

14:44.480 --> 14:50.380
And he acknowledges evolution is promoted
by its practitioners as more than mere

14:50.380 --> 14:50.800
science.

14:52.180 --> 14:56.720
He says evolution is promulgated as an
ideology, a secular religion, a

14:56.720 --> 15:00.940
full-fledged alternative to Christianity
with its meaning and morality.

15:01.380 --> 15:02.820
Evolution is religion.

15:02.960 --> 15:07.700
So the leading philosopher of science in
the country says this is religious.

15:08.540 --> 15:09.840
It's the alternative.

15:10.860 --> 15:12.880
And they're committed to it devoutly.

15:14.520 --> 15:18.200
But that's the religion that is
established in our country.

15:18.320 --> 15:24.600
Now our Constitution says you can't have a
state religion established by the state,

15:24.720 --> 15:25.800
supported by the state.

15:26.940 --> 15:28.360
But we do.

15:29.800 --> 15:37.460
And it is the religion of naturalism that
is defined by the courts as a religion

15:37.460 --> 15:43.120
that is promoted in our schools to the
exclusion of all else, all other

15:43.120 --> 15:45.900
religions, as propaganda.

15:46.560 --> 15:49.540
And our tax dollars supported by the
billions.

15:50.740 --> 15:54.780
One very obvious example, the Chicago
Field Museum of Natural History,

15:55.220 --> 15:59.640
according to the Chicago Tribune just last
year, said the whole core, and this is

15:59.640 --> 16:02.780
from the president, the core of the museum
is evolution.

16:03.900 --> 16:06.960
And of course our tax dollars are
supporting it.

16:07.760 --> 16:11.740
Recent years it has dedicated a lot of
resources to educate visitors about

16:11.740 --> 16:12.120
evolution.

16:12.280 --> 16:15.600
That includes spending seventeen million
dollars in two years to recast its

16:15.600 --> 16:16.840
permanent exhibit on evolution.

16:18.360 --> 16:19.960
And we're paying for that.

16:21.000 --> 16:23.400
That's the establishment of religion in
our country.

16:23.520 --> 16:30.940
Our schools pontificate humanistic
naturalism without allowing any

16:30.940 --> 16:36.360
alternative or allowing anyone to point
out the weaknesses, typically.

16:37.900 --> 16:44.440
For an example, Prentice Hall's biology
textbook puts it this way, and this is a

16:44.440 --> 16:48.620
standard high school biology text,
there's no doubt that if you jump up in

16:48.620 --> 16:49.980
the air you'll end up on the ground.

16:50.440 --> 16:53.200
Makes no difference whether you understand
or even believe in gravity.

16:54.240 --> 16:59.020
Just as definitely life on earth evolved
and is continuing to evolve all around us

16:59.020 --> 16:59.640
all the time.

17:00.660 --> 17:02.100
Supported by our tax dollars.

17:02.280 --> 17:03.940
Just pontificating.

17:04.040 --> 17:05.900
This is the way it is.

17:07.280 --> 17:12.020
Yes, it is definitely religious and we
have the establishment of religion.

17:12.020 --> 17:17.620
But some would say, I understand the
problem, but isn't it illegal to do

17:17.620 --> 17:18.440
anything else?

17:18.700 --> 17:22.320
And the answer is absolutely no,
though the press would leave that

17:22.320 --> 17:24.880
impression, and they do regularly.

17:25.540 --> 17:29.400
And I can say that because I have Supreme
Court authority to say that.

17:29.440 --> 17:32.020
Again, referring to the Edwards versus
Seguiliard case.

17:32.100 --> 17:36.920
This time the majority, written by
Brennan, tells us this.

17:37.480 --> 17:43.380
The terribly unjust act that says you
ought to have balanced treatment of these

17:43.380 --> 17:43.720
issues.

17:45.020 --> 17:49.480
This act does not grant teachers a
flexibility they did not already possess.

17:50.000 --> 17:51.420
In other words, you don't need this act.

17:52.200 --> 17:57.780
You already have this flexibility to
supplant the present science curriculum

17:57.780 --> 18:02.340
with the presentation of theories besides
evolution about the origin of life.

18:02.360 --> 18:03.820
You already have that right, he says.

18:04.340 --> 18:09.600
Teaching a variety of scientific theories
about origins and as we've documented,

18:09.740 --> 18:10.400
there's only two.

18:11.500 --> 18:12.960
But you can do that.

18:13.000 --> 18:16.860
It might be validly done with the clear
secular intent of enhancing the

18:16.860 --> 18:18.360
effectiveness of science education.

18:18.500 --> 18:23.820
You can't do it to promote belief in the
Bible or a particular religion.

18:24.260 --> 18:32.160
But as science, you can validly teach a
variety of origins as we looked at the

18:32.160 --> 18:34.500
arrowhead as opposed to the natural rock.

18:34.660 --> 18:37.800
We look at varieties of explanations of
origins.

18:39.340 --> 18:40.760
And yes, it is legal.

18:41.300 --> 18:47.380
In fact, when this act was overturned,
many in the press said, well, they've

18:47.380 --> 18:48.600
outlawed creation science.

18:50.060 --> 18:51.020
They said that.

18:51.700 --> 18:53.440
They were lying, but they said it.

18:54.060 --> 18:58.080
Stephen Gould was interviewed about that
time and asked this question.

18:58.180 --> 19:01.380
He's one of the more famous evolutionists
of our time.

19:01.880 --> 19:05.560
And he said, no statute exists in any
state to bar instruction in creation

19:05.560 --> 19:05.980
science.

19:06.060 --> 19:11.040
It could be taught before, it could be
taught now, which is certainly the case.

19:11.960 --> 19:17.260
And most of the people in our country
believe that we should look at all the

19:17.260 --> 19:20.300
scientific evidence, all the scientific
alternatives.

19:21.500 --> 19:27.180
In Texas, just a few years ago,
Zogby took a poll testing this concept

19:27.180 --> 19:31.920
under the proposition, teach only Darwin's
theory of evolution.

19:32.040 --> 19:33.080
Sixteen percent agree.

19:34.540 --> 19:36.540
And I don't believe it's that different
across the country.

19:37.700 --> 19:40.980
Regarding the proposition also,
I mean, teach Darwin's theory,

19:41.160 --> 19:43.240
also teach the scientific evidence against
it.

19:43.300 --> 19:48.460
Seventy-five percent agree, but the
sixteen percent dominate.

19:48.780 --> 19:51.720
And you can't do it in the classroom,
or at least they don't do it.

19:51.760 --> 19:52.680
It's not in the textbooks.

19:54.640 --> 20:00.800
A more recent poll here by CBS
Broadcasting was reported with the

20:00.800 --> 20:03.240
headlines, creationism trumps evolution.

20:04.640 --> 20:08.140
Now, to be fair, it should be creationism
trumps evolutionism.

20:08.560 --> 20:10.920
They kind of prejudiced it with their
wording.

20:11.960 --> 20:16.840
But testing the idea, or at least here
leading the thought, Americans do not

20:16.840 --> 20:18.440
believe that humans evolved.

20:18.940 --> 20:23.040
The proposition was God created humans in
present form.

20:23.120 --> 20:25.160
All Americans, fifty-five percent agreed.

20:26.700 --> 20:27.780
Humans evolved.

20:27.900 --> 20:29.240
God did not guide the process.

20:29.360 --> 20:34.580
Thirteen percent agreed, but the thirteen
percent prevail.

20:35.680 --> 20:38.700
And that's all that's taught in the
classroom.

20:39.860 --> 20:46.220
In spite of this propaganda in the
classroom, a great deal of progress is

20:46.220 --> 20:52.020
being made and a number of prominent
scientists with tremendous opposition and

20:52.020 --> 20:55.540
with great danger to their careers have
taken a courageous stand.

20:56.460 --> 21:02.020
And this was in 2001 in New Republic with
the headlines, a hundred scientists take a

21:02.020 --> 21:02.700
courageous stand.

21:02.760 --> 21:06.920
And these were scientists in major
scientific institutions across the country

21:06.920 --> 21:10.660
like the Smithsonian, the American Museum
of Natural History, some of the leading

21:10.660 --> 21:11.500
universities.

21:12.260 --> 21:14.600
And they say, we dissent from Darwinism.

21:15.160 --> 21:19.480
We don't believe Darwinism can explain
what we see in this world.

21:19.840 --> 21:25.320
And a hundred of them signed the
proposition and put their name and their

21:25.320 --> 21:26.160
position there.

21:26.500 --> 21:33.340
And since then, the momentum has grown and
now over 700 have signed that proposition,

21:33.560 --> 21:38.020
all with doctorates in the natural
sciences, including scientists from the U

21:38.020 --> 21:38.180
.S.

21:38.240 --> 21:41.400
National Academy of Sciences, from the
Russian, Polish, and Czech National

21:41.400 --> 21:48.840
Academies, from universities such as Yale
and Princeton and Harvard and Stanford and

21:48.840 --> 21:52.680
MIT and Columbia and Purdue and Berkeley
and UCLA and Duke and Cambridge and

21:52.680 --> 21:52.980
Oxford.

21:54.020 --> 21:58.980
Professors at these major institutions
have said, we don't agree that Darwinism

21:58.980 --> 22:00.900
explains origins.

22:01.900 --> 22:06.460
And if you're wondering about Texas
institutions, yes, 25 from A&M,

22:06.680 --> 22:12.580
16 from University of Texas, 5 from Texas
Tech are signatories to this particular

22:12.580 --> 22:13.120
proposition.

22:14.320 --> 22:18.460
And from my experience in speaking on
those campuses, there are a whole lot more

22:18.460 --> 22:19.220
that believe that.

22:19.300 --> 22:22.900
They come up to me after I speak and say,
I agree with you, Dr. Patton, I just,

22:23.600 --> 22:26.120
I can't let it be known, but keep up the
good work.

22:29.780 --> 22:36.580
These are brave men, and I can tell all
kinds of stories that would just give you

22:36.580 --> 22:41.160
shivers about some of the things they
endured because of the stand.

22:41.780 --> 22:49.320
But in spite of this, leading scientists
taking a stand against Darwinism,

22:49.500 --> 22:56.480
we have men like Ernst Mayr saying,
no educated person any longer questions

22:56.480 --> 23:00.160
the validity of the so-called theory of
evolution, which we know to be a simple

23:00.160 --> 23:00.540
fact.

23:02.720 --> 23:05.720
And we know him to be a simple liar.

23:07.320 --> 23:08.380
He knows better.

23:09.140 --> 23:10.280
I know he knows better.

23:12.020 --> 23:16.280
But he says this anyway, in spite of the
fact that there are many educated people,

23:16.420 --> 23:17.100
as we've demonstrated.

23:18.860 --> 23:22.680
Carl Sagan certainly knew better and
acknowledged in his book, The Demon

23:22.680 --> 23:27.800
Haunted World, only 9% of Americans accept
that human beings, other species,

23:28.000 --> 23:29.760
have slowly evolved by natural processes.

23:32.240 --> 23:38.160
13 to 9% is what the polls reflect,
depending on who asked and how it's asked.

23:39.140 --> 23:43.660
But that's what dominates in the
classroom, and I think that's a crying

23:43.660 --> 23:44.220
shame.

23:45.900 --> 23:49.920
And why is it that way?

23:51.260 --> 23:52.800
I get asked that all the time.

23:53.760 --> 23:55.580
And there's a simple answer to that.

23:55.900 --> 24:00.440
It's because you and I have allowed it to
happen.

24:02.960 --> 24:04.200
And we need to think about that.

24:05.340 --> 24:12.680
We are making progress in spite of the
great disadvantages that we have in the

24:12.680 --> 24:13.100
classroom.

24:14.640 --> 24:18.900
Debates across the country have been held,
and while they have slowed down and

24:18.900 --> 24:19.780
virtually stopped,

24:23.540 --> 24:30.760
we are enjoying... well, the evolutionists
have given up because they're losing.

24:31.460 --> 24:32.200
And they quit.

24:33.100 --> 24:37.940
I had a debate scheduled several months
ago at LSU with the head of the geology

24:37.940 --> 24:38.380
department.

24:38.520 --> 24:40.040
It had been scheduled for about six
months.

24:41.720 --> 24:47.140
I showed up, as did enough students to
fill the auditorium, over 400 students,

24:47.900 --> 24:50.020
but the professor didn't show.

24:52.460 --> 24:53.480
And so I won.

24:55.240 --> 24:58.800
We spoke for about an hour, had another
hour of Q&A.

24:59.680 --> 25:00.820
Some of them stayed till midnight.

25:02.340 --> 25:07.040
The organization that put it on did a
survey when they first came in the door,

25:07.180 --> 25:08.980
gave out cards, and then collected them.

25:09.040 --> 25:11.280
Fifty-four percent believed in creation.

25:11.880 --> 25:15.820
When they arrived, that means,
I think, creationists have a

25:15.820 --> 25:19.940
disproportionate number that want to know
about the evidence and are interested in

25:19.940 --> 25:20.300
the facts.

25:22.540 --> 25:27.100
They did a follow-up two weeks later,
and ninety-one percent of those then

25:27.100 --> 25:28.780
believed in creation.

25:30.020 --> 25:31.720
It didn't help him not show up.

25:32.820 --> 25:37.400
Niles Eldridge talks about these debates,
and he has debated a number of times.

25:37.500 --> 25:39.380
I debated him in Orlando, Florida.

25:40.240 --> 25:45.880
He is curator of the American Museum of
Natural History, professor at Columbia,

25:46.200 --> 25:51.980
and he says creationists today,
at least the majority of their spokesmen,

25:52.040 --> 25:53.660
are highly educated, intelligent people.

25:53.780 --> 25:59.140
Skilled debaters, they have always done
their homework, and they nearly always

25:59.140 --> 26:03.540
seem better informed than their opponents,
who are reduced too often to a bewildered

26:03.540 --> 26:04.600
state of incoherence.

26:08.620 --> 26:10.720
I'm sorry, that's the way it is.

26:11.760 --> 26:15.840
He says creationists travel all over the
United States, visiting college campuses,

26:16.100 --> 26:19.020
staging debates with biologists and
geologists and anthropologists.

26:19.340 --> 26:23.780
The creationists nearly always win,
and he's right.

26:25.440 --> 26:26.900
He was a pushover.

26:27.200 --> 26:31.620
He had so much in print that he was just
in serious trouble when he started.

26:34.880 --> 26:39.620
When the press interviews evolutionists,
they always have to interview Eugenia

26:39.620 --> 26:44.300
Scott, who is president of the National
Center for Science Education.

26:44.460 --> 26:47.520
Sounds like a very prestigious
organization.

26:47.840 --> 26:50.960
It's just a watchdog group that hates
creationists.

26:51.040 --> 26:53.380
It's one she formed by herself.

26:54.940 --> 26:59.240
And she says scientists should refuse
formal debates because they do more harm

26:59.240 --> 27:01.060
than good, and they're doing that now.

27:01.180 --> 27:03.120
That's the standard procedure.

27:04.340 --> 27:07.900
And they do do more harm than good for the
evolutionists.

27:08.840 --> 27:12.820
I was recently up in New York,
some of you know Keith Sharp, and we were

27:12.820 --> 27:17.480
lecturing there near Syracuse University,
and he was trying to get a debate going,

27:17.580 --> 27:23.200
and he challenged a hundred geologists
within a hundred mile area, in my name,

27:23.540 --> 27:24.540
to debate.

27:25.900 --> 27:32.040
And they all refused, and so with his
advertisements on the back he put,

27:32.320 --> 27:35.640
here are the geologists who refused to
debate Dr. Patton.

27:36.760 --> 27:41.200
And it's not just me, I mean they have
refused to debate creationists around the

27:41.200 --> 27:41.440
world.

27:41.720 --> 27:45.880
However, she goes on to say, but
scientists still need to counter the

27:45.880 --> 27:46.240
creationists.

27:46.260 --> 27:49.920
In other words, let's talk about this,
but make sure you do it when they're not

27:49.920 --> 27:50.160
there.

27:52.740 --> 27:53.800
Now, is that good science?

27:54.920 --> 28:00.240
I think it's just nonsense, and I think we
ought to ridicule it and make fun of it.

28:01.400 --> 28:06.120
It's certainly very different from
Darwin's view, who had a much more

28:06.120 --> 28:09.640
reasonable perspective in Origin of the
Species.

28:09.860 --> 28:15.120
He says a fair result can be obtained only
by fully stating and balancing the facts

28:15.120 --> 28:16.900
and arguments on both sides of each
question.

28:18.140 --> 28:19.140
Does that make sense?

28:20.000 --> 28:21.060
That's what I believe.

28:22.100 --> 28:26.420
Of course, when you do that, the
creationists nearly always win,

28:26.540 --> 28:30.040
as even the evolutionists acknowledge,
and so they've stopped.

28:45.200 --> 28:49.640
We're concentrating this evening on what
is creation science.

28:50.460 --> 28:56.200
We talked in general about what it is,
and some of the controversies,

28:56.920 --> 29:03.720
and the misrepresentations and why we're
having difficulty in the classroom in the

29:03.720 --> 29:04.180
first session.

29:05.020 --> 29:08.720
But in order to clearly understand what
we're talking about with creation science,

29:08.820 --> 29:14.380
we have to define our terms, and this is
seldom done, and results in a great deal

29:14.380 --> 29:15.480
of misunderstanding.

29:17.120 --> 29:21.600
And I'll allow the evolutionists to define
terms, and I'd like to emphasize a

29:21.600 --> 29:23.240
distinction that's made by G.A.

29:23.380 --> 29:26.640
Kirkut in his book Implications of
Evolution.

29:26.820 --> 29:31.860
He was chosen to write this book,
one of a series of international

29:31.860 --> 29:36.620
monographs on evolution, and he says
there's a theory which states that many

29:36.620 --> 29:40.840
living animals can be observed over the
course of time to undergo changes so that

29:40.840 --> 29:42.500
new species are formed.

29:43.760 --> 29:47.440
And in the context here, he's talking
about variation, what I'd call horizontal

29:47.440 --> 29:48.000
variation.

29:48.680 --> 29:54.240
A cow gets a longer horn, longer horns or
shorter horns, maybe becomes spotted,

29:54.520 --> 29:55.800
but still a cow.

29:57.380 --> 30:01.720
And sometimes those variations are called
new species.

30:01.960 --> 30:03.300
That's a very nebulous term.

30:04.280 --> 30:09.140
If I'm resistant to penicillin and Ricky
is not resistant to penicillin,

30:09.500 --> 30:10.800
we're not different species.

30:12.160 --> 30:17.700
But if bacteria becomes resistant to
penicillin, or is, we'll talk more about

30:17.700 --> 30:18.260
that in a moment.

30:19.000 --> 30:20.480
And another one is not.

30:20.600 --> 30:24.080
They're not, I mean, they're different
species and it's just a very arbitrary

30:24.080 --> 30:25.340
term.

30:25.500 --> 30:31.260
But yes, there are things, changes,
variations that we can see that are called

30:31.260 --> 30:31.860
new species.

30:32.100 --> 30:36.920
This can be called the special theory of
evolution and can be demonstrated in

30:36.920 --> 30:38.200
certain cases by experiments.

30:38.320 --> 30:43.320
I would agree with that and illustrate it
with the variation that we see in dogs

30:43.320 --> 30:50.180
that can be bred within a few tens of
years from a single source, all

30:50.180 --> 30:56.600
interbreed, not different species,
but variation within the kind,

30:56.740 --> 30:57.540
as we would put it.

30:58.220 --> 31:00.680
That's what he calls the special theory.

31:02.060 --> 31:07.000
But he makes a distinction here between
that and another concept.

31:07.160 --> 31:10.920
On the other hand, he says there is a
theory that all the living forms in the

31:10.920 --> 31:13.300
world have arisen from a single source.

31:13.860 --> 31:21.400
Now, that is a different idea and which
itself came from an inorganic form.

31:21.800 --> 31:24.320
This can be called the general theory of
evolution.

31:25.660 --> 31:32.600
This is the issue, not the special theory,
which we can see and is not really an

31:32.600 --> 31:32.780
issue.

31:33.380 --> 31:37.640
But the idea that all came from a single
source and it from an inorganic form,

31:37.700 --> 31:40.920
illustrated here in this tree of life in
the typical textbook.

31:41.540 --> 31:44.540
This is the general theory and that's the
issue.

31:44.660 --> 31:48.720
And if we don't distinguish those
concepts, we get a lot of

31:48.720 --> 31:49.180
misunderstanding.

31:50.240 --> 31:53.860
What we're talking about then,
in terms of what we disagree with,

31:53.880 --> 31:59.460
is a change from one kind to another kind,
not variation within the kind.

32:00.680 --> 32:04.940
We have all kinds of communication
problems when we don't make that

32:04.940 --> 32:05.420
distinction.

32:06.140 --> 32:09.800
One fellow says, I see evolution in the
lab every day and the other fellow says

32:09.800 --> 32:11.080
evolution is not observable.

32:12.420 --> 32:15.720
And they're both right, but they're
talking about different things.

32:16.560 --> 32:23.800
One says, I see these changes,
a little extra bump that bacteria gets and

32:23.800 --> 32:26.620
then changes back under certain
circumstances.

32:26.800 --> 32:30.760
The other one is talking about the change
from the ape to man.

32:31.600 --> 32:33.380
Well, that's not observable.

32:33.500 --> 32:35.140
You can't repeat that in the classroom.

32:35.240 --> 32:38.140
One speaking of special evolution,
one speaking of general evolution.

32:38.680 --> 32:43.860
And many times in argumentation,
you see the change in definition from the

32:43.860 --> 32:48.200
beginning of the argument to the end,
which leads to any kind of conclusion you

32:48.200 --> 32:48.480
want.

32:49.760 --> 32:55.200
I've been in the classroom where professor
would say, well, Mr. Patton, evolution is

32:55.200 --> 32:55.880
just change.

32:56.020 --> 32:57.240
Don't you believe in change?

32:58.220 --> 33:00.140
And I say, sure I believe in change.

33:00.180 --> 33:03.960
I've got some in my pocket, but I think we
need to define our terms if we're going to

33:03.960 --> 33:05.680
have a good conversation.

33:08.580 --> 33:16.060
I've sent kids to college, as many of you
have, and we could understand the person

33:16.060 --> 33:20.640
saying it's a real nuisance to have to pay
all that money to send the kid to college.

33:21.680 --> 33:26.300
But then you look on the legal textbooks
and the public nuisance is a crime.

33:27.380 --> 33:29.080
And you can send people to jail for it.

33:29.140 --> 33:34.100
And so if you switch those definitions in
the process, you can say it's a nuisance

33:34.100 --> 33:37.120
and it's a crime to send a kid to college.

33:38.600 --> 33:40.640
We see the fallacy of that.

33:41.020 --> 33:47.260
People begin to argue with these small
variations and reach conclusions with

33:47.260 --> 33:51.040
regard to the general theory that says all
came from a common source.

33:51.220 --> 33:55.080
And the fact that you see small variations
doesn't prove all came from a single

33:55.080 --> 33:58.940
source or that they all came from an
inorganic source.

34:01.040 --> 34:09.980
But that kind of switching of terms
underlies just a ridiculous conversation

34:09.980 --> 34:10.600
sometimes.

34:11.060 --> 34:15.240
I think that's what's the explanation for
Richard Dawkins' statement.

34:16.100 --> 34:19.740
It's absolutely safe to say that if you
meet someone who claims not to believe in

34:19.740 --> 34:23.480
evolution, that person is ignorant,
stupid, or insane, or wicked.

34:25.640 --> 34:31.240
Now he's seeing some variations and you
can see that.

34:31.560 --> 34:32.160
Well, yes.

34:32.680 --> 34:36.720
Therefore you have to believe all came
from an inorganic source.

34:37.520 --> 34:40.240
Well, no, that doesn't follow.

34:40.580 --> 34:43.080
Well, but I can see this variation,
yes.

34:44.140 --> 34:48.280
But you see how the switch confuses.

34:49.660 --> 34:53.900
Stephen Gould made a very reasonable
statement when he says no myth deserves a

34:53.900 --> 34:58.560
more emphatic death than the idea that
science is an inherently impartial and

34:58.560 --> 34:59.460
objective enterprise.

35:00.880 --> 35:01.900
That's a myth.

35:02.360 --> 35:06.220
Yet it continues to thrive among working
scientists because it serves us so well.

35:07.580 --> 35:13.080
That's no more true with scientists than
it is with preachers or any other group

35:13.080 --> 35:18.760
where you see ambition and careers at
stake and people wanting to feed their

35:18.760 --> 35:22.920
kids and they come up with conclusions
that serve their purposes and that's true

35:22.920 --> 35:25.060
in every field and certainly in science.

35:26.200 --> 35:31.520
Maxwell Planet, who is a Nobel laureate,
says a scientific truth does not triumph

35:31.520 --> 35:34.160
by convincing its opponents and making
them see the light.

35:35.080 --> 35:37.800
Now we're told that and we maybe think
that.

35:38.540 --> 35:41.280
Now here's a fellow who knows,
a Nobel laureate.

35:41.720 --> 35:45.960
No, that's not how you get people to
change their minds, he says, but rather

35:45.960 --> 35:50.380
because opponents eventually die and a new
generation grows up that's familiar with.

35:51.060 --> 35:53.760
You've got to have some funerals to have
progress in science.

35:55.740 --> 36:00.400
That's a rather negative statement and
maybe overstated but it's not completely

36:00.400 --> 36:00.880
untrue.

36:01.900 --> 36:03.620
How should science work?

36:03.800 --> 36:08.120
When we say things are proved
scientifically we've got to have some way

36:08.120 --> 36:09.800
to determine whether it is or isn't.

36:10.160 --> 36:13.080
It's not just who hollers the loudest or
shouldn't be.

36:13.600 --> 36:18.800
When we're talking about absolute proof,
scientific proof, we're talking about at

36:18.800 --> 36:19.980
least four criteria.

36:20.700 --> 36:23.480
First, that it is an observable
phenomenon.

36:23.560 --> 36:26.760
If we can't observe it then there's no way
to prove it scientifically.

36:27.500 --> 36:33.060
It's got to be repeatable so that you see
it and somebody else can see the same

36:33.060 --> 36:33.460
thing.

36:34.240 --> 36:39.960
It should be experimental so that you can
perform tests to see if it's verified or

36:39.960 --> 36:43.100
falsified and it must be at least
potentially falsifiable.

36:43.820 --> 36:48.220
It must be some kind of a test so that if
this happens it's not so and if you can't

36:48.220 --> 36:53.240
come up with a test like that it's not
testable or falsifiable.

36:54.920 --> 36:59.700
Well how do these apply then to the
creation evolution controversy?

37:00.960 --> 37:07.500
Is evolution in the general sense,
not the special sense, in the general

37:07.500 --> 37:08.360
sense observable?

37:08.440 --> 37:10.140
Can we see this in the living world?

37:10.240 --> 37:13.500
And we've asked this question and it's
interesting to see the variation in

37:13.500 --> 37:13.900
answers.

37:14.720 --> 37:14.820
G.

37:14.860 --> 37:18.040
Leonard Stebbins of Harvard, one of the
leading evolutionists in the country,

37:18.120 --> 37:22.580
says the reason the major steps of
evolution, and he's talking here about the

37:22.580 --> 37:29.500
general theory, you see, have never been
observed is that they require millions of

37:29.500 --> 37:29.960
years.

37:30.840 --> 37:34.720
And of course that's the concept but still
you don't observe them.

37:35.560 --> 37:38.720
It's historical, you see, and so he
acknowledges that.

37:38.900 --> 37:42.520
Again, Jeffrey Swartz, professor of
anthropology at the University of

37:42.520 --> 37:46.620
Pittsburgh, a famous evolutionist,
says it was and still is the case that

37:46.620 --> 37:50.260
with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim
about a new species of fruit fly,

37:51.420 --> 37:58.040
one that got an extra bump and then lost
it, but anyway, he says this fruit fly is

37:58.040 --> 37:58.720
the exception.

37:58.920 --> 38:02.700
But the formation of a new species by any
mechanism has never been observed.

38:03.940 --> 38:05.880
Some would make the statement even
stronger than that.

38:05.940 --> 38:07.500
We don't see it in the living world.

38:07.580 --> 38:12.180
But of course you look at the fossil
record and you record what has happened

38:12.180 --> 38:14.880
over the millions of years, you should be
able to see it.

38:15.800 --> 38:19.760
So maybe not in the living world because
it takes too long, but what about the

38:19.760 --> 38:20.280
fossil record?

38:21.080 --> 38:24.940
Again, Stephen Gould, one of the leading
authorities writing in natural history,

38:25.000 --> 38:29.660
says the extreme rarity of the
transitional forms, and how would you see

38:29.660 --> 38:30.820
evolution in the fossil record?

38:30.940 --> 38:33.300
Well, you see the transitional forms.

38:33.400 --> 38:36.760
The only way you could see it,
the extreme rarity in the fossil record,

38:36.840 --> 38:39.680
persists as the trade secret of
paleontologists.

38:40.060 --> 38:44.320
We view our data is so bad we never see
the very process we profess to study.

38:47.160 --> 38:47.540
D.B.

38:47.600 --> 38:50.340
Kitsch, University of Oklahoma,
made a similar statement, maybe even

38:50.340 --> 38:55.100
stronger, when he says despite the promise
that paleontology, that's the study of

38:55.100 --> 39:00.660
fossils, provides a means of seeing
evolution, it has presented some nasty

39:00.660 --> 39:01.340
difficulties.

39:01.740 --> 39:05.800
You don't see it in the fossil record or
in the living world.

39:05.940 --> 39:07.740
It's not observable.

39:07.880 --> 39:12.600
What about numbers two and three,
repeatability, experimentation?

39:13.940 --> 39:19.580
Theodosius Dobzhansky of Columbia,
perhaps the most representative authority

39:19.580 --> 39:25.140
in defining the present view of evolution,
says these evolutionary happenings are

39:25.140 --> 39:28.740
unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible.

39:28.780 --> 39:32.920
And he's talking about things like the
change from Australopithecus up to Homo

39:32.920 --> 39:36.100
sapien, the ape man to the modern man.

39:36.320 --> 39:37.680
You don't repeat that.

39:38.280 --> 39:39.220
It's irreversible.

39:40.060 --> 39:43.540
The applicability of the experimental
method to the study of such unique

39:43.540 --> 39:48.500
historical processes is severely
restricted before all else by the time

39:48.500 --> 39:52.820
intervals involved, which far exceed the
lifetime of any human experimenter.

39:53.300 --> 39:57.420
And so it's not repeatable and it's not
subject to experimentation.

39:59.280 --> 40:01.540
Well, there goes one, two, and three.

40:01.720 --> 40:04.620
What about number four, falsifiability,
the testability?

40:05.580 --> 40:10.000
Colman Patterson was curator of the
largest fossil museum in the world,

40:10.320 --> 40:14.380
British Museum of Natural History,
and he makes similar statements.

40:14.480 --> 40:18.840
He says it is, he's talking about the
general theory, unique and unrepeatable

40:18.840 --> 40:19.860
like the history of England.

40:20.960 --> 40:26.800
This part of the theory, in parentheses,
that evolution has occurred is therefore a

40:26.800 --> 40:32.320
historical theory about unique events,
and unique events are by definition not a

40:32.320 --> 40:36.000
part of science, for they are unrepeatable
and not subject to test.

40:36.100 --> 40:38.960
But that's the essence of falsifiability.

40:39.600 --> 40:45.320
All four of these criteria are not met
when you're looking at the general theory

40:45.320 --> 40:45.880
of evolution.

40:46.220 --> 40:50.020
Takes too long, you can't repeat it,
it's not subject to experimentation,

40:50.520 --> 40:53.840
it's like a history, you can't test it.

40:55.840 --> 41:00.260
And so why say this is scientifically
proved?

41:02.060 --> 41:07.280
Well, either you don't know what
scientific proof is, or you're not telling

41:07.280 --> 41:07.820
the truth.

41:08.800 --> 41:12.420
Maybe there's a third alternative,
I'll be glad to listen, but it looks to me

41:12.420 --> 41:16.680
like if somebody just jumps up and down
and says, I know this is proved

41:16.680 --> 41:19.160
scientifically, one of those two is so.

41:19.780 --> 41:22.240
Not telling the truth, or he doesn't know
what proof is.

41:23.040 --> 41:29.760
Now, the same objections can be made about
creation, you can't observe that,

41:29.880 --> 41:35.900
you can't repeat it, it's not subject to
experimentation, it'd be very difficult to

41:35.900 --> 41:36.260
falsify.

41:36.380 --> 41:40.420
And actually on the point of
falsifiability, both creation and

41:40.420 --> 41:46.080
evolution have some falsifiability
connected with it, and we'll talk more

41:46.080 --> 41:46.480
about that.

41:46.580 --> 41:51.140
But generally, certainly when you're
talking about the major arguments for

41:51.140 --> 41:58.040
evolution, like survival of the fittest,
okay, what is the fittest?

41:58.400 --> 42:00.540
Well, it's those that survive.

42:01.260 --> 42:03.700
You're talking about the survival of those
that survive.

42:04.040 --> 42:05.060
How do you test that?

42:05.160 --> 42:06.380
It's not testable.

42:06.960 --> 42:13.300
But generally speaking, neither creation
or evolution are subject to absolute

42:13.300 --> 42:14.640
scientific proof.

42:14.920 --> 42:19.200
It doesn't meet the criteria of this
empirical proof.

42:19.700 --> 42:26.220
However, both of them can be investigated
scientifically, as we illustrated in the

42:26.220 --> 42:31.420
beginning of the presentation this
evening, not reaching a conclusion that

42:31.420 --> 42:38.640
says proof, it is absolutely certain,
proved scientifically, but reaching a

42:38.640 --> 42:47.100
probabilistic conclusion, this is more
likely, this is more scientific than the

42:47.100 --> 42:47.300
other.

42:47.840 --> 42:49.960
This is under the heading of model
comparison.

42:50.120 --> 42:55.800
We look at the evidence that we can see,
and we propose models.

42:55.960 --> 42:59.900
Here's an idea, here's another idea,
which one fits the facts best?

43:00.680 --> 43:06.680
And that's the proper approach with these
two models, neither of which can be

43:06.680 --> 43:08.160
observed directly.

43:08.720 --> 43:14.660
We don't see the ape evolve into the man,
we don't see the man created, but we can

43:14.660 --> 43:19.900
see a lot of evidence that tells us a lot
about the possibilities, and we can

43:19.900 --> 43:23.100
compare that evidence to see which model
works best.

43:23.200 --> 43:27.260
This is sometimes called the principle of
Occam's razor, or the principle of

43:27.260 --> 43:27.820
parsimony.

43:28.580 --> 43:34.180
It simply says which view fits best,
directly and simply.

43:34.560 --> 43:39.300
Now, you can make any model fit with
enough secondary, or tertiary,

43:39.480 --> 43:40.540
or quaternary assumptions.

43:41.460 --> 43:48.360
This works except for this, but if you
assume that, okay, and then it fits except

43:48.360 --> 43:52.260
over here, and then you make this
assumption, and the more assumptions you

43:52.260 --> 43:55.100
have to make, the poorer the model is.

43:55.140 --> 43:58.740
The one that fits directly and simply,
with the fewest secondary assumptions,

43:58.880 --> 43:59.860
is the best model.

44:00.300 --> 44:04.420
And that is a scientific approach,
and the way we will proceed.

44:05.220 --> 44:10.860
Let's think about, from that perspective
then, which model, creation or evolution,

44:11.720 --> 44:14.160
is served best when we look at what Darwin
saw.

44:14.520 --> 44:19.680
Let's just back up and see what convinced
him that evolution was the best

44:19.680 --> 44:20.720
explanation of origins.

44:20.820 --> 44:26.340
He sailed around the world as the ship's
naturalist on the Beatle, and he saw a lot

44:26.340 --> 44:31.040
of strange-looking animals, especially in
the Galapagos Islands, different from the

44:31.040 --> 44:32.200
ones that he had seen in England.

44:32.680 --> 44:37.620
And he talked a good deal about the
finches, not initially, but later on he

44:37.620 --> 44:38.600
developed this idea.

44:39.200 --> 44:45.040
And he saw different finches on different
islands, the islands without trees.

44:46.720 --> 44:50.940
There you see the finches with the big
heavy beaks, because they're making a

44:50.940 --> 44:53.420
living eating the seeds that they have to
break with their beaks.

44:53.560 --> 44:57.720
But on the islands with trees,
you have the finches with little pointy

44:57.720 --> 45:00.700
beaks that can reach in the bark and get
the insects.

45:01.600 --> 45:03.900
And so they make a living better over
here.

45:04.660 --> 45:06.100
And that was the argument.

45:06.280 --> 45:07.380
Look, it has evolved.

45:07.520 --> 45:11.400
Natural selection has selected this type
here, and selected this type here.

45:12.500 --> 45:14.220
Now, how did they originate?

45:14.440 --> 45:17.500
Were there the two types to start with,
or did they develop?

45:17.640 --> 45:21.720
Well, you can't really tell from... but
you do see a variety of finches.

45:22.620 --> 45:24.720
Beak shapes were different on different
islands.

45:25.480 --> 45:30.280
Now, are we seeing proof that all came
from a common origin, and all came from

45:30.280 --> 45:31.560
inorganic form?

45:32.820 --> 45:35.980
At best, we're seeing evidence for special
evolution.

45:36.120 --> 45:40.220
And what we've learned about it since
Darwin was there, is that all of these

45:40.220 --> 45:41.380
finches interbreed.

45:42.340 --> 45:45.660
Now, that's not in your textbook,
but it is in the technical journals.

45:47.200 --> 45:50.780
They're one species, according to that
definition of species.

45:51.440 --> 45:57.560
This is really not a great illustration of
horizontal variation, or of special

45:57.560 --> 45:57.980
evolution.

45:58.120 --> 45:59.180
But that's all that it is.

45:59.860 --> 46:02.560
He saw no evidence for general evolution.

46:02.700 --> 46:04.140
But this is not the way it's presented.

46:05.080 --> 46:08.020
Let me give you an example of the way this
kind of evidence is presented.

46:08.180 --> 46:10.380
And here, this made the headline just last
year.

46:10.560 --> 46:13.320
Darwin's finches evolved before
scientists' eyes.

46:13.420 --> 46:16.880
Now, Darwin saw the variations,
but now then, here are people who are

46:16.880 --> 46:20.920
studying it in great detail, and they see
what happens to these finches when there

46:20.920 --> 46:22.880
was a drought in the area for two years.

46:23.760 --> 46:27.120
And then, of course, it changed when the
drought was over.

46:27.520 --> 46:32.340
But they saw the finches evolve right
before your eyes.

46:32.920 --> 46:37.480
For the first time, scientists have
observed in real time evolutionary changes

46:37.480 --> 46:40.480
in one species driven by competition for
resources.

46:41.660 --> 46:46.320
This drought caused this competition,
and they saw evolution.

46:47.360 --> 46:48.880
Sounds impressive, doesn't it?

46:49.340 --> 46:50.340
What actually happened?

46:51.080 --> 46:57.180
Well, this shrinkage of the beak that they
observed during the drought first was less

46:57.180 --> 46:57.960
than one millimeter.

46:58.900 --> 47:00.120
That's not a whole lot.

47:00.200 --> 47:01.260
You've got to look real close.

47:02.060 --> 47:06.960
And this shrunken size was not something
that developed that wasn't there before.

47:07.080 --> 47:07.760
It's not new.

47:07.760 --> 47:08.900
It was there before.

47:09.020 --> 47:10.080
There are just more of them now.

47:12.280 --> 47:14.880
Only the relative numbers changed.

47:15.780 --> 47:20.780
There was the big and small, one
millimeter difference before and after.

47:21.820 --> 47:26.320
But during the drought, they could see
that there were a few more with the

47:26.320 --> 47:27.380
smaller size.

47:27.540 --> 47:29.140
And then after the drought, it went right
back.

47:30.280 --> 47:31.400
So nothing accumulated.

47:31.980 --> 47:33.360
But how do they report it?

47:33.500 --> 47:36.080
Finches evolved before scientists' eyes.

47:38.660 --> 47:40.380
They ought to be ashamed.

47:40.580 --> 47:46.360
I mean, that's just disgusting when all
they're seeing is a change in relative

47:46.360 --> 47:52.660
numbers, and you have to wonder even about
that when you see the small amount that

47:52.660 --> 47:53.420
they're talking about.

47:54.720 --> 48:00.020
And why do they... why do they present
this kind of evidence?

48:01.600 --> 48:03.040
Because they don't have any better.

48:04.260 --> 48:07.120
Like the old argument, why does the stork
stand on one leg?

48:07.940 --> 48:09.480
If he lifted it up, he'd fall down.

48:09.600 --> 48:12.160
If you don't have another one,
you're in trouble.

48:14.400 --> 48:16.700
But this is the best they can do.

48:16.780 --> 48:19.560
And this is the kind of argument that's
touted as proof.

48:19.680 --> 48:23.460
And when you look and see what all the
facts are, it's just nonsense.

48:26.080 --> 48:30.440
Variation less than a millimeter in the
numbers, not in the size.

48:30.840 --> 48:32.800
The size changes were there all along.

48:33.980 --> 48:37.220
Different finches like different cows.

48:40.880 --> 48:44.260
I think we should think about what Darwin
did not observe.

48:45.360 --> 48:46.720
We see variation.

48:46.880 --> 48:48.120
That doesn't really surprise us.

48:48.180 --> 48:49.820
We see it in a litter of cats.

48:49.960 --> 48:52.880
We see... we see it... I mean,
we expect that.

48:54.140 --> 48:59.720
But when we think about what birds would
look like if evolution were true,

48:59.800 --> 49:09.600
maybe we would see a cowbird or a bird
dog, an elephant bird.

49:10.440 --> 49:12.000
These are strange birds.

49:15.500 --> 49:16.700
Maybe a baboon.

49:19.280 --> 49:22.720
And why do we laugh at this?

49:24.020 --> 49:27.200
We know this is nonsense, right?

49:27.340 --> 49:28.740
I mean, there's no question.

49:28.860 --> 49:29.460
This is crazy.

49:30.480 --> 49:33.800
Darwin didn't see anything like this,
and he's not going to see anything like

49:33.800 --> 49:34.040
this.

49:34.400 --> 49:36.660
What he did see, we expect.

49:36.800 --> 49:37.540
It's not funny.

49:39.020 --> 49:43.140
But the kind of thing that would be
evidence of evolution would just shock the

49:43.140 --> 49:44.240
daylights out of everybody.

49:44.600 --> 49:51.100
And what is seen is at best horizontal
variation, and in this case not a very

49:51.100 --> 49:53.620
good example of that since they're all one
species.

49:54.180 --> 49:59.460
We see it in the dogs to a greater extent
than we see in the finches, and we know

49:59.460 --> 50:02.000
they interbreed, and we know it's the same
species.

50:04.420 --> 50:08.480
One of the arguments that was made in
Darwin's time, or shortly after he wrote

50:08.480 --> 50:13.380
the book, was regarding the pepper moths,
and this is in every biology textbook in

50:13.380 --> 50:13.740
the country.

50:14.920 --> 50:17.260
Here's proof of evolution.

50:18.000 --> 50:20.180
Now, here's what Darwin saw.

50:20.320 --> 50:23.140
Let's compare the models and see which one
fits best.

50:24.420 --> 50:27.100
This is the way it looked before the
Industrial Revolution.

50:27.260 --> 50:31.600
The light colored trees hadn't been
stained by the soot, and the lighter

50:31.600 --> 50:34.760
colored pepper moths were somewhat
camouflaged.

50:34.840 --> 50:35.980
The dark ones stood out.

50:36.860 --> 50:42.000
And so we're told that the birds flying
around had black ones for lunch more often

50:42.000 --> 50:45.840
than light ones, and so the numbers
changed.

50:45.900 --> 50:51.660
But when the Industrial Revolution took
place and stained the trees dark,

50:51.780 --> 50:55.500
then the dark ones were camouflaged,
and the light ones stuck out, and now then

50:55.500 --> 50:56.300
there's more light ones.

50:56.400 --> 51:00.900
Now, you've got light and dark before,
and you've got light and dark after.

51:01.200 --> 51:05.580
Again, all the change that they're
pointing to is a change in the relative

51:05.580 --> 51:06.080
numbers.

51:07.040 --> 51:11.460
But here is what's in the textbook as
proof of evolution.

51:14.020 --> 51:17.480
And even that has been grossly
misrepresented.

51:17.980 --> 51:23.700
But notice the statement by Matthews,
who was honored as one of the greatest

51:23.700 --> 51:29.380
biologists in Europe, chosen to write the
introduction to the centennial edition of

51:29.380 --> 51:30.140
Origin of the Species.

51:31.920 --> 51:35.920
He's an evolutionist, and chosen by his
peers to have this honor.

51:36.640 --> 51:41.700
And in that introduction he said,
the peppered moth, Bischgen Bechelera,

51:41.800 --> 51:45.960
which is the species, experiments
beautifully demonstrate natural selection,

51:46.940 --> 51:50.260
which has since come to be questioned,
as we'll see.

51:50.380 --> 51:52.400
But, or survival of the fittest,
in action.

51:52.560 --> 51:54.720
But they do not show evolution in
progress.

51:56.000 --> 52:01.040
For however the population may alter,
all the moths remain from beginning to

52:01.040 --> 52:01.760
end, Bischgen Bechelera.

52:01.860 --> 52:03.300
It's the same species.

52:03.880 --> 52:06.180
Bischgen Bechelera is still Bischgen
Bechelera.

52:06.280 --> 52:08.380
You've got light ones and dark ones before
and after.

52:11.080 --> 52:14.400
But you look in the textbooks,
and boy, this is the proof.

52:16.300 --> 52:20.600
In fact, in International Wildlife
Encyclopedia, we see the statement,

52:20.800 --> 52:24.420
this is the most striking evolutionary
change ever witnessed by man.

52:25.480 --> 52:26.740
I think they're right.

52:27.300 --> 52:30.620
I think that's the best you got.

52:31.340 --> 52:34.800
But this is not general evolution by any
means.

52:35.480 --> 52:36.620
Not even close.

52:37.020 --> 52:43.020
And since then it has been thoroughly
discredited, though not in the textbooks.

52:43.800 --> 52:49.120
In Nature, one of the more respected,
perhaps the most respected scientific

52:49.120 --> 52:53.600
journal, back in 1998, this is not really
new stuff.

52:53.740 --> 52:55.560
It's had plenty of time to get into the
textbooks.

52:56.640 --> 53:00.500
Majerus notes that the most serious
problem in that Bischgen Bechelera

53:00.500 --> 53:02.700
probably does not rest on tree trunks.

53:04.080 --> 53:06.980
That's the only place I've ever seen in
the textbook.

53:08.500 --> 53:12.240
Exactly two moths have been seen in such a
position in more than 40 years of

53:12.240 --> 53:13.020
intensive research.

53:14.180 --> 53:16.720
The natural resting spots are in fact a
mystery.

53:17.180 --> 53:20.780
This alone invalidates Kidwell's
release-recapture experiments as the moths

53:20.780 --> 53:23.780
were released by placing them directly
onto the tree trunks where they're highly

53:23.780 --> 53:24.960
visible to bird predators.

53:25.900 --> 53:28.000
And by placing he means glued.

53:31.270 --> 53:35.110
So you could take the picture,
which he goes on to note.

53:35.310 --> 53:37.950
Finally, the results of Kidwell's
behavioral experiments were not

53:37.950 --> 53:41.150
replicated, which you're supposed to do to
have good science.

53:42.010 --> 53:46.450
In later studies, the moths have no
tendency to choose matching backgrounds,

53:46.750 --> 53:49.490
which is what's told in the textbook.

53:49.590 --> 53:53.910
This illustrates at best horizontal
variation and it's not a real good

53:53.910 --> 53:54.830
illustration of that.

53:54.970 --> 53:59.430
It's been doctored and glued and
misrepresented.

54:01.150 --> 54:03.510
Why do they present this in the textbooks?

54:04.970 --> 54:07.390
Just remember, that's the best they've
got.

54:08.570 --> 54:09.130
That's why.

54:11.950 --> 54:16.650
We do have an additional argument that's
been added fairly recently that's not what

54:16.650 --> 54:20.510
Darwin saw, but we'll treat it here
because it's a similar type argument.

54:21.210 --> 54:25.170
It's the little bitty changes that he
imagines will add up to the big ones.

54:25.530 --> 54:29.170
And we've all heard, well, you don't want
to take too many antibiotics.

54:29.390 --> 54:36.210
This will evolve this resistant form and
here's proof of evolution and that's in

54:36.210 --> 54:38.630
the textbooks now alongside the pepper
moths.

54:39.270 --> 54:44.170
Just recently, in the last week,
Hillary Rodham Clinton was quoted in the

54:44.170 --> 54:46.010
New York Times saying, I believe in
evolution.

54:47.270 --> 54:52.210
Antibiotic resistant bacteria is evidence
evolution is going on as we speak.

54:53.750 --> 54:55.750
And she can see that in the textbook.

54:56.070 --> 54:58.890
Now, what are we dealing with?

54:58.890 --> 55:01.650
Do we see evolving bacteria?

55:01.870 --> 55:03.030
They become resistant.

55:03.210 --> 55:04.970
Again, if I'm resistant, you're not.

55:05.070 --> 55:09.110
That doesn't mean we're different species
or we've evolved, but with bacteria it

55:09.110 --> 55:09.350
does.

55:10.010 --> 55:15.470
But that's not really what's going on and
it's really hindering what we need to be

55:15.470 --> 55:18.610
doing in science in helping us deal with
the problem.

55:19.490 --> 55:23.610
We can see that demonstrated very
graphically in several instances.

55:23.610 --> 55:32.090
One more most obvious is in a expedition
in 1845 where that went awry up in the

55:32.090 --> 55:32.290
Arctic.

55:32.470 --> 55:33.330
They were frozen.

55:33.910 --> 55:36.270
Frozen in Time is the book that describes
it.

55:36.970 --> 55:39.830
Here reported in the Medical Tribune back
in 88.

55:40.210 --> 55:41.750
Again, not new evidence.

55:43.130 --> 55:46.730
It may be time to rethink our thoughts
about the mechanisms for antibiotic

55:46.730 --> 55:47.990
resistance patterns.

55:48.730 --> 55:53.530
Bacteria from the bowels of three members
of an 1845 Arctic expedition have survived

55:53.530 --> 55:54.550
140 years.

55:56.510 --> 55:58.190
Now, the bacteria is still there.

55:58.630 --> 55:59.390
140 years.

55:59.610 --> 56:04.410
But now, no antibiotics back then,
but we've got the bacteria and they are

56:04.410 --> 56:06.850
showing resistance patterns to modern
antibiotics.

56:07.210 --> 56:09.330
It wasn't exposure to antibiotics that
produced this.

56:09.390 --> 56:10.170
They were there already.

56:12.070 --> 56:16.610
Current theory suggests that antibiotic
resistance is linked to long-term exposure

56:16.610 --> 56:17.470
to antibiotics.

56:18.450 --> 56:21.850
Needless to say, antibiotics were not
developed until long after these 19th

56:21.850 --> 56:24.470
century bacteria and their host were
buried in the Arctic permafrost.

56:25.290 --> 56:28.630
It's not exposure to antibiotics that
causes this.

56:28.850 --> 56:29.970
They're there already.

56:30.110 --> 56:36.510
They're the recessive form, but you kill
off the normal form and what's left?

56:37.190 --> 56:38.250
They take over.

56:39.050 --> 56:41.790
And so you're actually losing information.

56:42.510 --> 56:47.050
Reported in Nature in 99, more recently,
our results show that resistance to

56:47.050 --> 56:51.190
antibiotics is widespread at least in some
wild populations.

56:51.370 --> 56:55.310
The resistant forms in wild populations,
even though they have never to our

56:55.310 --> 56:56.670
knowledge been exposed to antibiotics.

56:58.050 --> 57:03.730
And so what we're looking at here is the
normal bacteria that dominates.

57:04.130 --> 57:07.930
There are resistant forms, but they're
recessive.

57:08.290 --> 57:11.870
But then here comes the antibiotics and it
kills the normal form.

57:11.970 --> 57:13.630
They disappear and then what happens?

57:13.730 --> 57:15.330
Well, the resistant form takes over.

57:15.690 --> 57:17.150
And what has evolved?

57:18.490 --> 57:21.530
Has the information content gone up or
down?

57:22.890 --> 57:25.370
I mean, we've lost the major form.

57:25.510 --> 57:31.230
It's gone and a small portion of the
information now is taken over,

57:31.510 --> 57:33.450
if you approach it from the standpoint of
information.

57:33.810 --> 57:35.530
But we've not evolved anything new.

57:38.370 --> 57:41.190
Now, this is a problem that we need to
understand.

57:41.350 --> 57:46.330
Now, in both views, we need to be careful
about how we use antibiotics.

57:46.550 --> 57:50.070
But if we don't understand what's going
on, we're not going to be doing a very

57:50.070 --> 57:51.030
good job of dealing with it.

57:51.390 --> 57:54.330
And it's just propaganda for the textbooks
in many instances.

57:56.030 --> 58:01.110
One way to evaluate models is to look at
benefits.

58:01.750 --> 58:03.410
Here's a scientific theory.

58:03.690 --> 58:07.070
Has it produced any help, any benefit from
it?

58:07.070 --> 58:11.850
And many people will say, well,
our evolutionary concepts have caused

58:11.850 --> 58:14.570
science to go forward and you can't have
science without it.

58:15.530 --> 58:19.610
I'll notice the comments by Jerry Call,
who is professor of evolutionary biology

58:19.610 --> 58:20.910
at the University of Chicago.

58:22.290 --> 58:25.910
And, I mean, this is a fella, if there's
benefits there, he should know about it.

58:26.010 --> 58:29.530
He's professor of evolutionary biology,
a devout evolutionist.

58:30.530 --> 58:34.490
Truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded
many practical or commercial benefits.

58:35.450 --> 58:37.810
Yes, bacteria evolved drug resistance.

58:38.610 --> 58:39.890
Isn't that interesting?

58:40.790 --> 58:48.430
I'm trying to find a benefit here and it's
this antibiotic resistance, which is not

58:48.430 --> 58:51.410
true, that he refers to as an example.

58:52.490 --> 58:53.950
But that's the best he can do.

58:54.930 --> 58:58.890
But hasn't evolution, he continues,
helped guide animal plant breeding?

58:59.650 --> 59:00.450
Not very much.

59:01.030 --> 59:05.590
Most improvements in crop plants,
animals, occurred long before we knew

59:05.590 --> 59:10.050
anything about evolution and came about by
people following the genetic principle of

59:10.050 --> 59:11.290
like begets like.

59:12.250 --> 59:16.430
All this plant breeding, we learned all we
know about it basically from the

59:16.430 --> 59:18.550
creationists before we knew about
evolution.

59:19.850 --> 59:20.870
Where is the benefit?

59:22.110 --> 59:23.950
He doesn't know of any.

59:24.310 --> 59:26.510
The one he points to is not a benefit at
all.

59:26.610 --> 59:30.890
Crick, Nobel laureate, co-discovered the
structure of DNA, says it might be

59:30.890 --> 59:33.910
thought, therefore, that evolutionary
arguments would play a large part in

59:33.910 --> 59:35.490
guiding biological research.

59:36.670 --> 59:38.370
This is far from the case.

59:39.450 --> 59:43.210
It's difficult enough to study what's
happening now to figure out exactly what

59:43.210 --> 59:43.430
happened.

59:43.670 --> 59:45.050
Evolution is even more difficult.

59:45.290 --> 59:48.110
It doesn't help us in our research.

59:49.470 --> 59:50.430
Where's the benefit?

59:51.450 --> 59:58.750
Well, I'll tell you the lack of benefits,
it's butchered generations of people as we

59:58.750 --> 01:00:03.850
cut out adenoids and we cut out tonsils
and we cut out appendix because we're told

01:00:03.850 --> 01:00:06.570
this is an evolutionary vestigial organ.

01:00:07.250 --> 01:00:11.990
Not knowing that these did produce
antibodies and helped us fight infection.

01:00:13.190 --> 01:00:17.190
In fact, there was a law in Wisconsin on
the books for 40 years that anytime the

01:00:17.190 --> 01:00:19.150
abdomen was open you had to remove the
appendix.

01:00:20.390 --> 01:00:20.790
Why?

01:00:20.910 --> 01:00:22.690
Because this evolutionary propaganda.

01:00:23.630 --> 01:00:24.270
This is useless.

01:00:25.450 --> 01:00:31.750
And now we know better and we just look
back and we see butchered people that are

01:00:31.750 --> 01:00:36.010
having problems with allergies and all
kinds of difficulties in overcoming

01:00:36.010 --> 01:00:36.670
infections.

01:00:37.370 --> 01:00:40.530
And a lot of it is because they've been
butchered by evolutionary theory.

01:00:43.270 --> 01:00:47.450
I think there are benefits to creation
which has produced the plant breeding

01:00:47.450 --> 01:00:48.770
concepts as he pointed out.

01:00:49.410 --> 01:00:54.350
Darwin observed, and let's summarize this
way, small changes.

01:00:54.830 --> 01:00:59.730
And we can see some small changes,
not as many as we're pointed to often,

01:01:01.250 --> 01:01:07.050
but these small changes we're told will,
with great faith, add up to the big

01:01:07.050 --> 01:01:07.430
changes.

01:01:07.550 --> 01:01:09.490
We don't see it but we believe it.

01:01:10.730 --> 01:01:16.710
And we exaggerate what we do see and often
misrepresent it, but it's going to add up

01:01:16.710 --> 01:01:17.170
to the big one.

01:01:17.250 --> 01:01:17.950
Now how do we know?

01:01:18.010 --> 01:01:19.290
Well, we have assumed that.

01:01:19.790 --> 01:01:20.670
It's not proved.

01:01:22.070 --> 01:01:23.390
It's simply assumed.

01:01:23.550 --> 01:01:26.090
Well, I think the assumption has been
tested.

01:01:26.250 --> 01:01:29.310
Well, no, you can't test it because it
takes millions of years.

01:01:29.590 --> 01:01:31.410
Well, not always.

01:01:32.290 --> 01:01:38.190
I think it has been tested and falsified
by experiments with organisms that

01:01:38.190 --> 01:01:43.230
reproduce very, very rapidly so that you
can observe literally, in some cases,

01:01:43.470 --> 01:01:47.470
billions of generations in a lifetime.

01:01:48.070 --> 01:01:53.670
The fruit fly reproduces every,
can reproduce every 20 minutes.

01:01:54.370 --> 01:01:55.170
A new generation.

01:01:55.330 --> 01:02:00.170
You start multiplying every 20 minutes,
you get a lot of generations.

01:02:00.690 --> 01:02:02.970
Bacteria sometimes every 20 minutes.

01:02:03.170 --> 01:02:04.190
A new generation.

01:02:04.670 --> 01:02:10.010
And so, well, the ape to man, you can
calculate how many generations ought to

01:02:10.010 --> 01:02:15.790
have been involved there and you have
many, many, many more times generations

01:02:15.790 --> 01:02:19.690
that you can observe with bacteria and
with the fruit flies than is even

01:02:19.690 --> 01:02:21.110
theorized between ape and man.

01:02:22.410 --> 01:02:24.790
And they haven't changed.

01:02:26.070 --> 01:02:28.590
They've done some terrible things,
these little fruit flies.

01:02:30.290 --> 01:02:36.770
I wonder that PETA hadn't gotten after all
the scientific experiments where they

01:02:36.770 --> 01:02:40.910
torture these poor little things with
chemical, mutagenic chemicals and

01:02:40.910 --> 01:02:46.450
radiation and they have the highest
mutation rate of virtually any organism

01:02:46.450 --> 01:02:50.810
and you can make them look pretty weird
with big bulging eyes and different

01:02:50.810 --> 01:02:53.850
colored eyes and curly wings and straight
wings and no wings.

01:02:54.450 --> 01:02:56.170
But they're still fruit flies.

01:02:56.290 --> 01:02:58.230
It doesn't accumulate or add up to
anything.

01:02:58.950 --> 01:03:03.030
Michael DeSalle, University of Lyons
writing encyclopedia of life sciences,

01:03:03.190 --> 01:03:07.470
says, if mutation were a variation of
value to the species, then the evolution

01:03:07.470 --> 01:03:11.330
of Drosophila should have proceeded with
extreme rapidity.

01:03:12.610 --> 01:03:18.450
It mutates more than anything and
reproduces every two weeks.

01:03:19.570 --> 01:03:25.210
Yet the facts entirely contradict the
validity of this theoretical deduction.

01:03:25.530 --> 01:03:28.650
For we've seen the Drosophila type has
been known since the beginning of the

01:03:28.650 --> 01:03:30.810
tertiary period, that is about 50 million
years.

01:03:31.890 --> 01:03:35.030
You know I don't buy the years,
but let's play the game their way and see

01:03:35.030 --> 01:03:35.750
how it comes out.

01:03:35.810 --> 01:03:40.350
If this is true, they've got a very
serious problem, or even just in the

01:03:40.350 --> 01:03:41.250
period of observation.

01:03:41.790 --> 01:03:46.210
It has not been modified in any way,
they say, for 50 million years and

01:03:46.210 --> 01:03:51.610
certainly not in the hundred years we've
been watching them tortured in the college

01:03:51.610 --> 01:03:52.150
classrooms.

01:03:54.010 --> 01:03:55.570
It ought to add up.

01:03:56.310 --> 01:04:01.390
We see the change, these mutations,
all kinds of them, but they don't.

01:04:01.970 --> 01:04:02.910
We can test it.

01:04:02.970 --> 01:04:04.170
Likewise with bacteria.

01:04:04.790 --> 01:04:08.490
Wernher Braun, one of the leading experts,
probably the leading expert in bacterial

01:04:08.490 --> 01:04:13.790
genetics in the US, in his book Bacterial
Genetics, says the rapid rate of

01:04:13.790 --> 01:04:19.510
propagation, in other words they reproduce
every 20 minutes, the enormous size of

01:04:19.510 --> 01:04:23.450
attainable populations changes within
initially homogeneous bacterial

01:04:23.450 --> 01:04:29.370
populations apparently do not progress
beyond certain boundaries.

01:04:31.510 --> 01:04:34.750
Yes, we see variation, but we see
boundaries.

01:04:35.650 --> 01:04:40.570
You hear the textbooks talking about
variations, you hear the textbook talking

01:04:40.570 --> 01:04:41.530
about boundaries?

01:04:43.310 --> 01:04:44.250
No way.

01:04:45.210 --> 01:04:49.770
It's there, it's just as obvious,
and especially with bacteria.

01:04:50.530 --> 01:04:54.910
It was just really emphasized in this
article from Science News just a few years

01:04:54.910 --> 01:05:00.890
ago, as they compared fossil bacteria with
live bacteria, virtually identical,

01:05:02.290 --> 01:05:05.170
except the fossil bacteria is a little
bigger.

01:05:08.760 --> 01:05:12.720
What intrigues William Shrupp,
paleobiologist, University of California,

01:05:12.820 --> 01:05:16.860
LA, most, is a lack of change.

01:05:17.940 --> 01:05:20.540
One billion year old fossil blue-green
bacteria.

01:05:21.600 --> 01:05:24.220
A billion years, every 20 minutes,
in a while it will close.

01:05:26.100 --> 01:05:29.800
They surprisingly looked exactly like
modern species.

01:05:31.540 --> 01:05:37.300
Well, you see, you can't observe the
changes because it takes millions of

01:05:37.300 --> 01:05:37.460
years.

01:05:37.620 --> 01:05:42.620
Well, here's millions of years of
something that reproduces up to every 20

01:05:42.620 --> 01:05:45.640
minutes, and there's nothing.

01:05:46.740 --> 01:05:52.680
Not only like modern kinds, as we'd call
it, which I think is broader, but exactly

01:05:52.680 --> 01:05:53.640
like modern species.

01:05:53.960 --> 01:05:57.980
When we look at the finches, when we look
at the fruit flies and the bacteria,

01:05:57.980 --> 01:06:02.600
perhaps even more definitively,
we see variation.

01:06:02.960 --> 01:06:07.620
What I would call horizontal variation,
not the kind of variation, by the way,

01:06:08.300 --> 01:06:10.120
that the evolutionist expects to see.

01:06:10.560 --> 01:06:14.720
All of them are harmful or neutral in the
normal environment.

01:06:15.800 --> 01:06:19.980
There are few that are considered useful
in limited environments.

01:06:20.740 --> 01:06:25.260
You press the biologist to give you an
example of a beneficial mutation,

01:06:26.040 --> 01:06:28.560
and he'll say, well, here's sickle cell
anemia.

01:06:29.360 --> 01:06:31.180
You don't get malaria with it.

01:06:32.120 --> 01:06:32.880
Of course, you die.

01:06:34.860 --> 01:06:41.180
If you have the two people that both have
the form, it's going to produce death,

01:06:41.220 --> 01:06:44.520
and we're spending millions of dollars to
try to eradicate it.

01:06:45.560 --> 01:06:51.460
And the hemoglobin in the blood doesn't
absorb oxygen well, and there's all kinds

01:06:51.460 --> 01:06:55.000
of problems with it, but you have a little
bit of resistance to bacteria,

01:06:55.500 --> 01:06:56.540
I mean to malaria.

01:06:58.640 --> 01:07:00.260
But that's a beneficial mutation.

01:07:01.340 --> 01:07:03.240
All of them degrade complexity.

01:07:05.180 --> 01:07:06.420
Some are cyclic.

01:07:06.640 --> 01:07:11.980
The environment changes, and then it
changes back, and it doesn't accumulate.

01:07:12.900 --> 01:07:15.580
None are unlimited in cumulative effect.

01:07:15.940 --> 01:07:18.180
None are able to lead to new organs.

01:07:18.300 --> 01:07:23.540
Just a mistake in replication doesn't
produce a new organ.

01:07:25.760 --> 01:07:30.160
So the variation is not the kind the
evolutionist is looking for, but that's

01:07:30.160 --> 01:07:30.840
not all we see.

01:07:31.980 --> 01:07:38.180
In addition, we see boundaries to that
variation, and we can give them just

01:07:38.180 --> 01:07:39.440
dozens of examples.

01:07:39.680 --> 01:07:45.080
I mean, you see little horses that are
bred up to big horses, but then they don't

01:07:45.080 --> 01:07:48.320
get continuing, you know, 20 feet tall.

01:07:50.060 --> 01:07:54.940
You can go down, and you get to a certain
level, and then they don't get as small as

01:07:54.940 --> 01:07:55.240
rats.

01:07:55.400 --> 01:07:59.300
They hit a boundary, and we can see that
dramatically and quickly.

01:08:02.500 --> 01:08:10.460
This was reported and examined and
acknowledged in a very important meeting

01:08:10.460 --> 01:08:13.740
in Chicago several years ago, reported in
Science.

01:08:15.160 --> 01:08:19.040
A historic conference is the way the
report began, and again, this is 1980.

01:08:19.560 --> 01:08:22.700
This is information that should be in the
textbooks.

01:08:23.820 --> 01:08:28.460
The central question of the Chicago
conference was whether or not the

01:08:28.460 --> 01:08:34.440
mechanisms underlying microevolution,
the little bitty changes, can be

01:08:34.440 --> 01:08:38.880
extrapolated or extended forward to
explain the phenomenon of macroevolution,

01:08:39.020 --> 01:08:39.780
the big changes.

01:08:40.420 --> 01:08:42.040
Do the little ones add up to the big ones?

01:08:42.060 --> 01:08:42.720
That's the question.

01:08:43.460 --> 01:08:47.340
That's what's in every textbook,
biology textbook in the country.

01:08:48.260 --> 01:08:50.320
But here's the central question of the
conference.

01:08:50.440 --> 01:08:53.220
The answer can be given as a clear no.

01:08:54.520 --> 01:08:58.840
And then they refer to Francisco Elia,
major figure in propounding the modern

01:08:58.840 --> 01:08:59.300
synthesis.

01:08:59.600 --> 01:09:06.300
That's the modern theory of evolution,
synthesizing Darwinian survival of the

01:09:06.300 --> 01:09:08.100
fittest with Mendelian genetics.

01:09:09.100 --> 01:09:12.220
The modern theory of evolution,
he's the one that came up with it,

01:09:12.380 --> 01:09:13.580
one of the major figures.

01:09:14.680 --> 01:09:16.260
Small changes do not accumulate.

01:09:18.160 --> 01:09:23.760
We can demonstrate that in the lab and in
the fossil record.

01:09:24.500 --> 01:09:24.620
S.

01:09:24.620 --> 01:09:24.760
M.

01:09:24.840 --> 01:09:27.940
Stanley of Johns Hopkins makes a very
reasonable conclusion from that.

01:09:28.060 --> 01:09:29.960
He's one of the leading authorities in
this field.

01:09:30.100 --> 01:09:34.880
He says natural selection, of course
that's what's supposed to work on these

01:09:34.880 --> 01:09:41.000
small changes that add up to the big ones
and that's why they add up, but they don't

01:09:41.000 --> 01:09:41.480
add up.

01:09:43.060 --> 01:09:45.620
And so what's natural selection got to do
with it?

01:09:45.640 --> 01:09:49.780
He says this has long been viewed as the
process guiding evolutionary change,

01:09:49.820 --> 01:09:53.980
but it cannot play a significant role in
determining the overall course of

01:09:53.980 --> 01:09:54.380
evolution.

01:09:54.920 --> 01:09:57.860
Micro evolution is decoupled from macro
evolution.

01:09:58.680 --> 01:10:02.660
And if the little ones don't add up,
what's natural selection got to do with

01:10:02.660 --> 01:10:02.840
it?

01:10:05.080 --> 01:10:08.840
Stephen Gould of Harvard says,
I have been watching it slowly unravel,

01:10:09.100 --> 01:10:11.980
and he's talking about this theory that
the little ones add up to the big ones,

01:10:12.120 --> 01:10:14.420
the mutations are selected by natural
selection.

01:10:16.140 --> 01:10:19.940
I've been watching it slowly unravel as a
universal description of evolution.

01:10:20.500 --> 01:10:23.900
I've been reluctant to admit it since
beguiling is often forever, but that

01:10:23.900 --> 01:10:29.600
theory as a general proposition is
effectively dead despite its persistence

01:10:29.600 --> 01:10:31.140
as textbook orthodoxy.

01:10:31.260 --> 01:10:32.620
It's still in the textbooks.

01:10:34.100 --> 01:10:37.060
That's how they explain evolution.

01:10:37.300 --> 01:10:41.520
The little changes, mutations add up to
the big ones acted on by natural

01:10:41.520 --> 01:10:41.960
selection.

01:10:43.160 --> 01:10:46.900
That's dead, according to the leading
authorities.

01:10:47.000 --> 01:10:51.500
We know better, both from what we see in
the laboratory and what we see in the

01:10:51.500 --> 01:10:52.080
fossil record.

01:10:54.080 --> 01:10:58.420
Now, there really, as we pointed out in
the beginning, only two horses in this

01:10:58.420 --> 01:10:58.760
race.

01:10:59.840 --> 01:11:01.000
And one of them just dropped dead.

01:11:02.860 --> 01:11:04.000
Who do you think is going to win?

01:11:06.620 --> 01:11:12.640
When we look at the two models,
creation evolution, we see the creation

01:11:12.640 --> 01:11:16.800
model, just from the standpoint of what
we've just looked at, explains both

01:11:16.800 --> 01:11:19.040
variation and boundaries.

01:11:19.220 --> 01:11:23.820
We would predict the creator would put
within each biotype the capacity to vary,

01:11:23.940 --> 01:11:25.400
to adapt to different circumstances.

01:11:25.620 --> 01:11:29.540
And these brown rabbits in Texas are not
going to fare too well up in the Arctic.

01:11:29.900 --> 01:11:34.240
And sometimes they're white ones,
and they get to where they do pretty well

01:11:34.240 --> 01:11:34.560
up there.

01:11:34.600 --> 01:11:37.600
And so you've got white ones, and if you
bring them down here, it's going to

01:11:37.600 --> 01:11:37.860
change.

01:11:38.240 --> 01:11:44.400
You see some variations that's going to
help them stay rabbits and succeed.

01:11:45.680 --> 01:11:48.020
And we would predict boundaries.

01:11:49.120 --> 01:11:50.280
We explain both.

01:11:51.400 --> 01:11:53.340
The evolution model explains half.

01:11:53.940 --> 01:11:58.300
And the variations that we do see are not
the kind of variations they expect to see

01:11:58.300 --> 01:12:03.160
that would accumulate, or give benefit,
or increase information.

01:12:04.140 --> 01:12:10.400
And the idea of them adding up is dead,
because we know better.

01:12:12.920 --> 01:12:15.120
Can you tell which model works best?

01:12:16.800 --> 01:12:18.420
I mean, is that a hard question?

01:12:20.580 --> 01:12:22.740
This is the proper scientific approach.

01:12:23.360 --> 01:12:28.480
Let's compare what we see, and see which
model explains the facts best,

01:12:28.520 --> 01:12:30.020
with the fewest secondary assumptions.

01:12:30.140 --> 01:12:33.040
And you can make all kinds of extra
assumptions, and make this look a little

01:12:33.040 --> 01:12:34.480
better over here on the evolution side.

01:12:35.040 --> 01:12:39.460
It fits directly, and simply, and
obviously best on the creation side.

01:12:40.900 --> 01:12:44.440
And therefore, I think that's the best
scientific explanation of origins.

01:13:31.830 --> 01:13:35.470
We're talking this evening about the laws
of science.

01:13:36.730 --> 01:13:40.910
And I think there's some clear
implications relating to the

01:13:40.910 --> 01:13:45.550
creation-evolution controversy,
just from the fact that there are laws

01:13:45.550 --> 01:13:46.750
that govern the universe.

01:13:48.670 --> 01:13:54.510
There are laws that we experiment,
we see, we experience here in Texas,

01:13:54.730 --> 01:14:01.170
and they operate the same way in China,
and as far as we can tell throughout the

01:14:01.170 --> 01:14:01.570
universe.

01:14:03.090 --> 01:14:07.050
And in what I would consider the golden
age of science, when Sir Isaac Newton,

01:14:07.210 --> 01:14:12.910
and Kepler, and like this, studied and
taught science, made incredible

01:14:12.910 --> 01:14:15.690
discoveries and progress from their day.

01:14:15.830 --> 01:14:21.370
They considered the laws of science
emanating from God, that they were

01:14:21.370 --> 01:14:23.630
thinking God's thoughts after him.

01:14:25.410 --> 01:14:27.310
That bothers a lot of people today.

01:14:27.410 --> 01:14:30.270
Of course, there's still a lot of
scientists who think exactly that way.

01:14:31.950 --> 01:14:36.950
But men like James Sheehan have difficulty
with that concept.

01:14:37.550 --> 01:14:41.810
He's editor of the Journal of Geological
Education, and he says the concept is

01:14:41.810 --> 01:14:42.590
anachronistic.

01:14:43.050 --> 01:14:49.890
This concept of laws of science,
this is old-fashioned, it's belonging to a

01:14:49.890 --> 01:14:55.790
past era, in that it originated at a time
when the Almighty was thought to have

01:14:55.790 --> 01:14:59.630
established the laws of nature,
and to have decreed that nature must obey

01:14:59.630 --> 01:14:59.850
them.

01:15:01.410 --> 01:15:06.070
And then this fellow who's a scientist
says, it is a great pity for the

01:15:06.070 --> 01:15:09.330
philosophy of science that the word law
was ever introduced.

01:15:10.310 --> 01:15:15.230
And that just absolutely amazes me,
that someone who considers himself a

01:15:15.230 --> 01:15:16.290
scientist thinks that way.

01:15:17.570 --> 01:15:23.930
The truth of the matter is, science was
born from the concept of believing that

01:15:23.930 --> 01:15:25.950
there were laws that we could discover.

01:15:26.670 --> 01:15:30.830
There were laws that had been laid down by
a Creator that we could repeat and

01:15:30.830 --> 01:15:36.630
experiment with and come to know from
repeated use.

01:15:37.050 --> 01:15:42.510
Prior to that time, it was all magic and
demons and mystery, and you couldn't

01:15:42.510 --> 01:15:45.130
repeat things, you couldn't explain
things.

01:15:46.110 --> 01:15:50.170
But once they understood that there were
laws that governed the universe that we

01:15:50.170 --> 01:15:53.990
could study and discover and repeat,
then we can have science.

01:15:55.430 --> 01:15:57.230
That's where science came from.

01:15:58.530 --> 01:16:03.550
But now then he's recalling from that,
because of the implications, if there is

01:16:03.550 --> 01:16:11.190
that kind of law of science, maybe there's
a law giver, and that doesn't fit his

01:16:11.190 --> 01:16:11.690
philosophy.

01:16:13.090 --> 01:16:16.650
Albert Einstein would certainly be
considered one of the great men of

01:16:16.650 --> 01:16:21.330
science, and he certainly believed that
there were laws, that it wasn't a pity

01:16:21.330 --> 01:16:23.390
that we thought about it in terms of laws.

01:16:24.470 --> 01:16:28.010
And he's speaking here about
thermodynamics, and we'll talk some about

01:16:28.010 --> 01:16:28.770
that this evening.

01:16:28.850 --> 01:16:34.270
Don't let the word scare you, this is a
concept that I assure you you understand,

01:16:34.370 --> 01:16:35.950
though you may not use that terminology.

01:16:37.530 --> 01:16:41.550
And he says, this is the only physical
theory of universal content concerning

01:16:41.550 --> 01:16:46.510
which I am convinced that within the
framework of the applicability of its

01:16:46.510 --> 01:16:48.710
concepts, it will never be overthrown.

01:16:49.510 --> 01:16:53.410
Here are laws that we can depend on.

01:16:53.490 --> 01:16:58.810
We talked about what it took last night to
become a law and to be proved

01:16:58.810 --> 01:16:59.510
scientifically.

01:16:59.750 --> 01:17:03.710
This fits all of those criteria perfectly.

01:17:05.250 --> 01:17:07.650
There are a number of laws of
thermodynamics.

01:17:08.610 --> 01:17:14.330
The first one we'll look at basically says
you can't create something from nothing.

01:17:15.650 --> 01:17:16.670
You didn't know that, did you?

01:17:17.190 --> 01:17:20.570
Just out of nothing you don't get
anything, do you?

01:17:21.450 --> 01:17:23.470
It's sometimes called the law of
conservation.

01:17:24.490 --> 01:17:29.410
Matter, energy can be interchanged,
but neither can be created or ultimately

01:17:29.410 --> 01:17:30.030
destroyed.

01:17:30.290 --> 01:17:35.390
You burn something up, but it just changes
its form to vapor and smoke and so forth.

01:17:36.390 --> 01:17:39.570
Isaac Isimov is an atheist, recently
deceased.

01:17:40.270 --> 01:17:43.830
Someone said he's probably written more
books than he's read.

01:17:44.250 --> 01:17:46.030
I think that's an overstatement.

01:17:46.230 --> 01:17:51.970
Over 600 books, science fiction as well as
mainline science.

01:17:52.430 --> 01:17:57.850
But one of the leaders in the field,
and he's speaking about this concept and

01:17:57.850 --> 01:18:00.990
says the law is considered the most
powerful, most fundamental generalization

01:18:00.990 --> 01:18:04.450
about the universe that scientists have
ever been able to make.

01:18:06.590 --> 01:18:10.850
This is the one that we have more
confidence in.

01:18:11.570 --> 01:18:16.530
He says this law is one that no one knows
why.

01:18:17.950 --> 01:18:23.330
And it is a mystery and it's interesting
to talk to scientists when they begin to

01:18:23.330 --> 01:18:28.550
speculate about why energy is conserved
and they can't break this law.

01:18:31.010 --> 01:18:34.750
But he says no one knows why it's
conserved.

01:18:34.850 --> 01:18:38.950
All that anyone can say is that in over a
century and a quarter of careful

01:18:38.950 --> 01:18:43.170
measurement, scientists have never been
able to point to a definite violation of

01:18:43.170 --> 01:18:44.050
energy conservation.

01:18:45.530 --> 01:18:48.630
Now that's again what it takes to become a
law.

01:18:49.390 --> 01:18:55.090
This is true either in the familiar
everyday surroundings about us or in the

01:18:55.090 --> 01:18:58.070
heavens above or in the atoms within.

01:18:58.390 --> 01:19:03.010
Now that's a very broad scope and
sometimes people will say well yes but it

01:19:03.010 --> 01:19:07.790
doesn't apply to atoms or it doesn't apply
to the heavens and even the atheist

01:19:07.790 --> 01:19:09.470
acknowledges that it certainly does.

01:19:10.530 --> 01:19:13.850
You can't get something out of nothing.

01:19:13.950 --> 01:19:15.670
Well how did we get something?

01:19:17.470 --> 01:19:23.850
The present concepts of naturalism say
that all things came into existence out of

01:19:23.850 --> 01:19:29.910
present laws but this most powerful
generalization about the universe says you

01:19:29.910 --> 01:19:35.490
can't get anything out of nothing and we
know from the second law that it's not

01:19:35.490 --> 01:19:35.910
eternal.

01:19:36.130 --> 01:19:37.330
It all degenerates.

01:19:38.030 --> 01:19:39.650
This is the principle of uniformity.

01:19:39.790 --> 01:19:43.950
We explain everything in terms of what we
see now and yet how can you do that?

01:19:44.590 --> 01:19:46.090
That of course is a theory.

01:19:46.550 --> 01:19:52.770
We don't know that from a fact and Isimov
is wrestling with this conflict.

01:19:53.010 --> 01:19:58.070
How do you explain what we have which we
know can't be eternal when you can't get

01:19:58.070 --> 01:20:01.930
something from nothing if you don't have
the supernatural?

01:20:02.670 --> 01:20:04.750
Natural law says that won't work.

01:20:05.510 --> 01:20:09.470
Well he's wrestling with that when he says
perhaps in an infinite sea of

01:20:09.470 --> 01:20:10.430
nothingness...

01:20:10.430 --> 01:20:12.210
you can imagine that.

01:20:12.370 --> 01:20:14.510
It sounds like there's something doesn't
it?

01:20:15.950 --> 01:20:20.670
Globs of positive and negative energy in
equal size pairs are constantly forming.

01:20:21.010 --> 01:20:24.510
I think he's already gotten off track from
his nothingness there.

01:20:26.130 --> 01:20:30.770
After passing through evolutionary changes
combining once more and vanishing.

01:20:31.450 --> 01:20:35.330
And we are in one of these blobs in the
period of time between nothing and nothing

01:20:35.330 --> 01:20:36.370
and wondering about it.

01:20:37.950 --> 01:20:43.630
And this is supposed to be science when
the most fundamental generalization about

01:20:43.630 --> 01:20:46.290
the universe is that you cannot do that.

01:20:47.770 --> 01:20:52.170
And so here we have this principle of
uniformity which he's trying to sustain

01:20:52.170 --> 01:20:57.190
that says everything came into existence
as a result of present laws and then that

01:20:57.190 --> 01:21:00.430
fundamental generalization that says you
can't do it.

01:21:01.130 --> 01:21:02.270
The principle of conservation.

01:21:03.130 --> 01:21:09.670
The second law is just as much actually
more confrontational to the concepts of

01:21:09.670 --> 01:21:10.650
natural origins.

01:21:11.470 --> 01:21:14.310
And the second law basically says things
go downhill.

01:21:15.330 --> 01:21:16.810
You didn't know that either did you?

01:21:17.470 --> 01:21:19.490
We all understand that very well.

01:21:19.570 --> 01:21:21.790
It's called the principle of entropy
increase.

01:21:21.950 --> 01:21:26.710
And scientists like to say things just to
make you work at it a little bit.

01:21:27.110 --> 01:21:33.990
Entropy is the measure of disorder and so
it says basically the system runs down or

01:21:33.990 --> 01:21:37.950
wears out and tends toward disorganization
which we all understand.

01:21:38.110 --> 01:21:43.370
Entropy is the measure of that disorder
and so the disorder increases.

01:21:43.650 --> 01:21:48.130
That's a backwards way to look at it but
that's the concept.

01:21:49.270 --> 01:21:53.690
Isimov again is describing this when he
says another way of stating the second law

01:21:53.690 --> 01:21:57.790
then is the universe is constantly getting
more disorderly.

01:21:58.250 --> 01:22:01.150
Viewed that way we can see the second law
all about us.

01:22:02.190 --> 01:22:04.410
We have to work hard to straighten a room.

01:22:04.790 --> 01:22:07.850
Left to itself it becomes a mess again
very quickly, very easily.

01:22:08.790 --> 01:22:11.570
Even if we never enter it, it becomes
dusty and musty.

01:22:11.970 --> 01:22:15.310
And how difficult to maintain our houses
and machinery and our own bodies in

01:22:15.310 --> 01:22:18.670
working order and how easy to let them
deteriorate.

01:22:20.090 --> 01:22:21.570
Is this news to anybody?

01:22:24.320 --> 01:22:31.140
We don't call it the second law usually of
thermodynamics but what we do when we

01:22:31.140 --> 01:22:36.240
think of it in that context and we measure
it precisely is prove that there are no

01:22:36.240 --> 01:22:37.220
exceptions to this.

01:22:38.220 --> 01:22:40.320
That this is always the way it works.

01:22:41.100 --> 01:22:45.720
He continues describing it saying in fact
all we have to do is nothing and

01:22:45.720 --> 01:22:51.320
everything deteriorates, collapses,
breaks down, wears out all by itself and

01:22:51.320 --> 01:22:53.360
this is what the second law is all about.

01:22:56.360 --> 01:23:03.160
We buy a new house and over the years it
gets brighter and shinier and adds new

01:23:03.160 --> 01:23:04.580
rooms and gets more ordered.

01:23:05.420 --> 01:23:07.420
No, it goes the other way doesn't it?

01:23:08.080 --> 01:23:09.980
And sometimes winds up looking like this.

01:23:10.500 --> 01:23:14.200
This is what we observe if we watch long
enough, isn't it?

01:23:15.120 --> 01:23:20.420
But the concept of natural origin says
it's going the other way.

01:23:22.140 --> 01:23:28.140
It's defined evolution by the Dejonski as
a directional process that gives rise to

01:23:28.140 --> 01:23:29.040
increase.

01:23:29.880 --> 01:23:31.260
Precisely the opposite.

01:23:32.180 --> 01:23:37.080
In the book Cosmic Evolution, notice the
subtitle, The Rise of Complexity in

01:23:37.080 --> 01:23:37.340
Nature.

01:23:37.460 --> 01:23:40.780
This is the naturalist description of
what's going on.

01:23:41.280 --> 01:23:44.560
Eric Chison of Harvard is quoted here on
the book cover.

01:23:44.620 --> 01:23:50.080
Along an era of time starting at the Big
Bang, Chison depicts cosmic evolution in a

01:23:50.080 --> 01:23:51.240
wide range of systems.

01:23:52.040 --> 01:23:56.160
Particulate, galactic, stellar,
planetary, chemical, biological,

01:23:56.500 --> 01:23:56.840
cultural.

01:23:58.560 --> 01:24:03.080
Over time all these systems be they
manifest in worms, human brains,

01:24:03.160 --> 01:24:07.820
or microchips become both more complex and
more ordered.

01:24:08.800 --> 01:24:11.080
Everything in the universe is going
uphill.

01:24:13.300 --> 01:24:20.860
But the second law that we observe and
have tested and have proven says it goes

01:24:20.860 --> 01:24:21.500
the other way.

01:24:22.220 --> 01:24:28.180
And so we have the theory which says it
goes uphill and we have the law that says

01:24:28.180 --> 01:24:29.140
it goes downhill.

01:24:30.260 --> 01:24:35.240
And they're very much in conflict with
each other and which one ought to prevail.

01:24:37.020 --> 01:24:42.400
I think that's a fairly easy question
unless you have philosophy dominating your

01:24:42.400 --> 01:24:42.820
science.

01:24:44.160 --> 01:24:48.980
Well when we present this, there's an
obvious problem that people see,

01:24:49.100 --> 01:24:54.880
but there's an answer that we inevitably
get on the college campuses that is

01:24:54.880 --> 01:24:56.660
supposed to answer this dilemma.

01:24:57.940 --> 01:25:04.840
And that is that the earth is open to the
energy of the Sun and we have all of this

01:25:04.840 --> 01:25:10.920
energy bathing the earth and with that
extra energy you can overpower this

01:25:10.920 --> 01:25:12.620
tendency to degeneration.

01:25:12.940 --> 01:25:17.420
And of course you can make things go
uphill, you make water run uphill with a

01:25:17.420 --> 01:25:24.280
pump, engineer energy, you can have the
acorn that grows up to the oak tree,

01:25:24.460 --> 01:25:28.840
of course it eventually dies and
deteriorates, but it is bathed in the

01:25:28.840 --> 01:25:34.820
energy of the Sun and you can see that
overpowering the tendency to degeneration.

01:25:35.220 --> 01:25:38.900
And so the idea is that as long as you
have energy then you just forget the law.

01:25:41.040 --> 01:25:47.040
Actually there's some that think that and
have taught that and it's nonsense.

01:25:47.900 --> 01:25:51.960
John Ross of Harvard in chemical
engineering news addressed that point

01:25:51.960 --> 01:25:56.520
directly when he says ordinarily the
second law is stated for isolated systems.

01:25:57.280 --> 01:26:01.100
That's the way it's defined, that's the
way you have to make the equations

01:26:01.100 --> 01:26:07.100
balanced, you have to deal with it in
terms of the closed system, something else

01:26:07.100 --> 01:26:08.260
is going to mess up the equation.

01:26:08.760 --> 01:26:12.300
But the second law applies equally well to
open systems.

01:26:12.500 --> 01:26:15.460
I mean the fact you've got the Sun shining
on you doesn't mean you're not going to

01:26:15.460 --> 01:26:17.460
get old and deteriorate, does it?

01:26:18.080 --> 01:26:22.040
Or is that, we know that's not the case
with buildings.

01:26:22.560 --> 01:26:26.180
Arnold Summerfield, who wrote the book
Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics,

01:26:26.220 --> 01:26:32.860
says the quantity of entropy generated
locally cannot be negative irrespective of

01:26:32.860 --> 01:26:34.540
whether the system is isolated or not.

01:26:36.200 --> 01:26:38.620
Entropy, the measure of disorder,
has to be positive.

01:26:39.040 --> 01:26:42.860
Disorder increases, again that backwards
approach.

01:26:43.920 --> 01:26:48.660
George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard makes,
I think, a very common-sense statement in

01:26:48.660 --> 01:26:54.520
his introduction to biology when he says
the simple expenditure of energy is not

01:26:54.520 --> 01:26:57.480
sufficient to develop and maintain order.

01:26:58.600 --> 01:27:03.080
Now if you're going to develop and
maintain order, make something go uphill,

01:27:03.380 --> 01:27:09.840
yes, you have to have energy, but that's a
necessary requirement, not a sufficient

01:27:09.840 --> 01:27:10.760
requirement, though.

01:27:10.960 --> 01:27:12.300
You have to have more than that.

01:27:12.740 --> 01:27:18.520
He says a bull in a china shop performs
work, but he neither creates nor maintains

01:27:18.520 --> 01:27:19.140
organization.

01:27:20.400 --> 01:27:21.500
Does that make sense?

01:27:23.040 --> 01:27:25.720
The work needed is particular work.

01:27:25.840 --> 01:27:27.580
It must follow specifications.

01:27:27.980 --> 01:27:32.040
It requires information on how to proceed.

01:27:32.240 --> 01:27:39.240
And so not only do you need energy in
order to overpower this deterioration,

01:27:39.420 --> 01:27:40.760
you need information.

01:27:41.500 --> 01:27:47.180
You need particular energy specifying how
things proceed.

01:27:48.140 --> 01:27:51.160
And that's very obvious when you look at
the simple cell.

01:27:51.340 --> 01:27:53.900
That's what we're talking about in terms
of origins here.

01:27:55.220 --> 01:27:59.640
Carl Sagan, certainly not a friend of the
creationists, acknowledges that the

01:27:59.640 --> 01:28:04.370
information content of the simple cell has
been estimated around 10 to the 12th bits.

01:28:05.870 --> 01:28:06.810
How much is that?

01:28:07.870 --> 01:28:11.470
Comparable to about a hundred million
pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

01:28:12.810 --> 01:28:14.690
Now that's a lot of information.

01:28:16.250 --> 01:28:17.530
Where did it come from?

01:28:19.190 --> 01:28:22.770
It didn't come from the energy of the sun
shining down on the earth.

01:28:23.030 --> 01:28:25.850
That doesn't produce a hundred million
pages of information.

01:28:28.790 --> 01:28:33.270
Information itself, like physical systems,
deteriorate and go downhill.

01:28:34.670 --> 01:28:40.330
And every exchange that we know anything
about is going downhill.

01:28:40.870 --> 01:28:45.630
With extra information that you add to the
system, together with energy, you can make

01:28:45.630 --> 01:28:46.070
it go up.

01:28:46.150 --> 01:28:51.270
But you can't make it go up if you don't
have both energy and information.

01:28:53.270 --> 01:28:57.190
We can illustrate that, for example,
with mutations, which ironically is

01:28:57.190 --> 01:29:00.410
supposed to be the raw material for the
upward process of evolution.

01:29:02.170 --> 01:29:04.950
But actually it's a degeneration of the
information.

01:29:05.790 --> 01:29:11.150
As the cell replicates, something gets
messed up and all of this hundred million

01:29:11.150 --> 01:29:15.310
pages worth of information in the simple
cell, something in there is not replicated

01:29:15.310 --> 01:29:17.130
perfectly and something goes wrong.

01:29:18.050 --> 01:29:21.470
One illustration of that is the Texas
blind salamander.

01:29:22.690 --> 01:29:28.310
Now it doesn't hurt it that bad since it
can't see anyway down in the cave to have

01:29:28.310 --> 01:29:29.350
lost its eyes.

01:29:29.910 --> 01:29:34.130
But this mutation is not really an upward
process, is it?

01:29:34.150 --> 01:29:36.370
It's downhill, it's losing information.

01:29:36.530 --> 01:29:42.130
I was testifying before the textbook
committee in Austin a couple of years ago,

01:29:42.230 --> 01:29:45.430
along with Dr. Bishop, who was head of the
biology department at the University of

01:29:45.430 --> 01:29:45.690
Texas.

01:29:46.850 --> 01:29:50.710
And the two of us were speaking to the
school board and one of the school board

01:29:50.710 --> 01:29:56.190
members asked Dr. Bishop, is there an
example of evolution that we can see in

01:29:56.190 --> 01:29:56.930
the world today?

01:29:57.050 --> 01:30:00.190
You say this is proved, it's a fact,
we ought to be able to see it.

01:30:00.210 --> 01:30:03.710
He said, well, yes, the blind salamander
in Texas.

01:30:03.830 --> 01:30:06.050
I said, Dr. Patton, what do you have to
say about that?

01:30:06.110 --> 01:30:10.850
I said, well, yes, it's changed,
but it's lost its eyes.

01:30:12.130 --> 01:30:17.990
There's a tremendous amount of genetic
information in an eye and he lost it.

01:30:19.070 --> 01:30:21.690
This is downhill, not uphill.

01:30:21.770 --> 01:30:24.770
Now, if he comes up with headlights down
there, then he's evolving.

01:30:27.430 --> 01:30:31.550
And so one of the school board members
said, well, Dr. Bishop, can you think of a

01:30:31.550 --> 01:30:33.750
better example than that salamander that
went blind?

01:30:34.930 --> 01:30:36.530
And he got mad and got up and lit.

01:30:40.350 --> 01:30:43.770
But all of the changes that they point to
are like this.

01:30:44.970 --> 01:30:45.370
Degenerative.

01:30:45.950 --> 01:30:48.670
And they say, well, look, he's adapted.

01:30:49.110 --> 01:30:52.350
Well, yeah, but it's a downhill process.

01:30:52.990 --> 01:30:55.170
Mutations decrease information.

01:30:56.070 --> 01:31:01.330
Richard Dawkins was presented with this
dilemma recently and he was asked,

01:31:01.450 --> 01:31:06.230
can you think of any kind of a change that
is not a decrease in information?

01:31:07.050 --> 01:31:08.730
Illustration of this second law.

01:31:09.910 --> 01:31:12.130
And it was focused on information.

01:31:13.190 --> 01:31:14.490
Would you like to know what he said?

01:31:15.990 --> 01:31:22.030
Give me an example of an increase,
any kind of a mutation or evolutionary

01:31:22.030 --> 01:31:23.890
change that increases information.

01:31:24.130 --> 01:31:28.350
But I'd like for you, instead of me just
telling you what he said, let me let you

01:31:28.350 --> 01:31:28.870
listen.

01:31:29.130 --> 01:31:31.930
And we'll listen to the interviewer asking
him the question.

01:31:33.330 --> 01:31:38.330
Professor Dawkins, can you give an example
of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary

01:31:38.330 --> 01:31:42.290
process which can be seen to increase the
information in the genome?

01:31:53.620 --> 01:32:00.460
There's a popular misunderstanding of
evolution which says that fish turned into

01:32:00.460 --> 01:32:05.460
reptiles and reptiles turned into mammals
and so somehow we ought to be able to look

01:32:05.460 --> 01:32:07.640
around the world today and look at our
ancestors.

01:32:07.800 --> 01:32:11.500
We ought to be able to see the
intermediates between fish and reptiles

01:32:11.500 --> 01:32:12.680
and between reptiles and mammals.

01:32:12.760 --> 01:32:17.840
We ought to be able to see fish kind of on
the way to becoming reptiles.

01:32:18.040 --> 01:32:19.540
But of course that's not the way it is at
all.

01:32:19.540 --> 01:32:21.520
Fish are modern animals.

01:32:21.620 --> 01:32:22.820
They're just as modern as we are.

01:32:23.100 --> 01:32:27.400
They're descended from ancestors,
which we're descended from.

01:32:28.440 --> 01:32:31.440
Way back 300 million years ago,
there would have been an ancestor,

01:32:31.820 --> 01:32:37.560
which was the ancestor of modern fish and
the ancestor of modern humans.

01:32:37.560 --> 01:32:42.040
And that ancestor, if you could have been
there then, you could have seen the first

01:32:42.040 --> 01:32:50.560
steps towards a fish, say, coming out onto
the land and becoming something like an

01:32:50.560 --> 01:32:51.060
amphibian.

01:32:51.260 --> 01:32:52.560
But that was a long time ago.

01:32:52.640 --> 01:32:54.120
You wouldn't expect to see that today.

01:32:57.300 --> 01:32:58.200
Isn't that brilliant?

01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:05.040
I mean, you really got a good example of
something that increases information.

01:33:07.260 --> 01:33:12.060
I guarantee you he wishes he had a better
answer, but that's the best he can do.

01:33:13.400 --> 01:33:17.520
He's, of course, had a lot to do with,
along with Carl Sagan, the SETI program

01:33:17.520 --> 01:33:21.260
here in the United States, which I think
very well illustrates the problem.

01:33:23.680 --> 01:33:27.040
Billions of dollars being spent looking up
into the sky for what?

01:33:28.020 --> 01:33:29.520
Some kind of information.

01:33:30.240 --> 01:33:33.920
Some kind of a dot, dot, dash,
dash that would indicate there's

01:33:33.920 --> 01:33:34.880
intelligence out there.

01:33:34.940 --> 01:33:40.100
And if we saw this information,
that would indicate intelligence in outer

01:33:40.100 --> 01:33:40.580
space.

01:33:41.940 --> 01:33:43.340
We haven't found it.

01:33:44.160 --> 01:33:44.900
Still trying.

01:33:46.560 --> 01:33:51.700
But why don't instead we just look down
the microscope, as many have, and

01:33:51.700 --> 01:33:53.200
recognize what's there.

01:33:55.040 --> 01:33:59.720
As he tells us, Sagan tells us,
there's a hundred million pages of the

01:33:59.720 --> 01:34:00.760
Encyclopedia Britannica.

01:34:00.880 --> 01:34:02.900
That's a whole lot more than just a few
dots and dashes.

01:34:05.060 --> 01:34:09.240
If you walk along the beach, as we pointed
out, and you see John loves Mary,

01:34:09.360 --> 01:34:12.020
that's enough information to say this is
from intelligence.

01:34:12.020 --> 01:34:18.720
But they see a hundred million pages of
information and, no, that just happened.

01:34:18.800 --> 01:34:19.820
That's not intelligence.

01:34:20.020 --> 01:34:23.360
But if we saw a few dots and dashes,
that would prove intelligent life in outer

01:34:23.360 --> 01:34:23.680
space.

01:34:23.680 --> 01:34:25.100
Does that make sense to you?

01:34:26.640 --> 01:34:34.160
It just shows the power of the prejudice
against something besides natural origins.

01:34:35.980 --> 01:34:42.120
So, when we talk about this degenerative
law, the second law of thermodynamics,

01:34:42.260 --> 01:34:48.060
that pervades the universe, the simple
explanation, well, it's open to energy of

01:34:48.060 --> 01:34:53.500
the sun, provides a necessary requirement
to overcome the degenerative process,

01:34:53.600 --> 01:34:54.580
but it's not sufficient.

01:34:54.580 --> 01:34:57.400
You also need information.

01:34:57.840 --> 01:35:02.360
And in that simplest cell, you need an
explanation for a hundred million pages

01:35:02.360 --> 01:35:03.180
worth of information.

01:35:03.200 --> 01:35:04.940
In the simplest cell, we know anything
about.

01:35:06.820 --> 01:35:09.880
Okay, you got part of the answer,
the energy.

01:35:11.160 --> 01:35:13.280
Where's the other part of the answer?

01:35:13.920 --> 01:35:16.200
Where did the information come from?

01:35:17.240 --> 01:35:21.100
I've asked that question on college
campuses all over the country,

01:35:21.220 --> 01:35:24.680
over and over again, and you know what
they say?

01:35:27.020 --> 01:35:28.440
You just heard the answer.

01:35:29.420 --> 01:35:31.100
They don't have one.

01:35:32.360 --> 01:35:36.420
Oh, we got energy from the sun,
yes, but that's not really the answer,

01:35:36.560 --> 01:35:36.820
is it?

01:35:37.760 --> 01:35:39.300
That won't do the trick.

01:35:40.260 --> 01:35:45.980
Not only do we see this in the world
around us, I think we see evidence of this

01:35:45.980 --> 01:35:49.440
degenerative process everywhere we look.

01:35:50.120 --> 01:35:53.900
One place the evolutionists wouldn't
expect to see it is in the life of the

01:35:53.900 --> 01:35:57.180
past, and we'll talk more about that when
we speak of the fossil record Friday

01:35:57.180 --> 01:35:57.500
evening.

01:35:57.500 --> 01:36:02.560
But it is a degenerative process,
and while we have all of these little

01:36:02.560 --> 01:36:07.140
books that show upward increase of the
animals and little horse charts and the

01:36:07.140 --> 01:36:13.300
graduated man charts, that's not what you
see in the fossil record.

01:36:14.240 --> 01:36:19.040
Even Stephen Gould acknowledges this when
he says the sweep of anatomical diversity,

01:36:20.640 --> 01:36:28.020
all the different forms of anatomy,
you've got a maximum right after the

01:36:28.020 --> 01:36:30.300
initial diversification of multicellular
animals.

01:36:30.420 --> 01:36:33.240
In other words, when it starts,
that's the way it is.

01:36:33.260 --> 01:36:35.020
It's more diverse than it is now.

01:36:35.020 --> 01:36:40.020
The later history of life preceded by
elimination, not expansion.

01:36:41.000 --> 01:36:42.580
It's going downhill.

01:36:43.560 --> 01:36:48.560
And it was larger in the past,
and we have degenerated.

01:36:49.560 --> 01:36:51.500
Now you've read that in your textbook,
right?

01:36:52.720 --> 01:36:53.960
Don't think so.

01:36:53.960 --> 01:37:00.020
But this textbook acknowledges,
in this geology text, that mammalian life

01:37:00.020 --> 01:37:04.500
was richer in kinds of larger sizes and
had a more abundant expression in the

01:37:04.500 --> 01:37:06.320
Pliocene than in later times.

01:37:06.360 --> 01:37:09.180
And you can find expressions like that in
all of the periods.

01:37:10.460 --> 01:37:13.700
Let's just look at a few examples that
would help demonstrate this point,

01:37:13.820 --> 01:37:18.600
beginning with Louis Leakey, who's
supposed to be one of the icons of

01:37:18.600 --> 01:37:18.960
evolution.

01:37:18.960 --> 01:37:24.320
If you saw Gorillas in the Mist,
he's the hero of evolution, who really

01:37:24.320 --> 01:37:26.940
wasn't, and we'll talk more about that
later.

01:37:27.980 --> 01:37:32.680
But Time Magazine, a number of years ago,
says he was scouring the gorge since 1931.

01:37:32.860 --> 01:37:36.220
Over the years, he's unearthed the bones
of an ancient pig as big as a rhino.

01:37:37.560 --> 01:37:38.840
You've all seen pigs like that?

01:37:40.440 --> 01:37:48.140
A six foot tall sheep, flat top skull of a
nutcracker man, I think that was a big

01:37:48.140 --> 01:37:48.420
ape.

01:37:49.760 --> 01:37:55.380
A pig as big as a rhino, or you could make
a killing in the bacon business.

01:37:55.640 --> 01:37:59.280
This is a picture of one of those pigs
from the Dakota School of Mines,

01:37:59.480 --> 01:38:03.260
the one on the right is the fossil pig.

01:38:05.260 --> 01:38:09.960
And if pigs were this big, how big were
the rhinos?

01:38:10.680 --> 01:38:15.240
Here's one from India, 20 feet tall.

01:38:17.360 --> 01:38:23.000
Back to Louis Leakey's finds, illustrated
here in Time Magazine, we see the fossil

01:38:23.000 --> 01:38:27.040
ram that was found there in Africa,
compared with the modern ram in the

01:38:27.040 --> 01:38:27.400
background.

01:38:29.200 --> 01:38:33.040
You can see what's happening here,
it's going downhill, isn't it?

01:38:34.260 --> 01:38:38.900
But of course, man has gotten larger over
the years, and we know in the last 50

01:38:38.900 --> 01:38:42.220
years that there has been a pretty
dramatic increase.

01:38:42.420 --> 01:38:46.420
Most biologists would say this is because
of our knowledge of nutrition and

01:38:46.420 --> 01:38:46.800
vitamins.

01:38:48.580 --> 01:38:51.220
We have more to eat and better food to
eat.

01:38:51.980 --> 01:38:56.380
It's not the kind of change that they're
looking for to explain evolution.

01:38:57.000 --> 01:39:03.620
There's been about a 6 inch increase on
average in the past, well, less than 100

01:39:03.620 --> 01:39:04.360
years, actually.

01:39:05.160 --> 01:39:12.520
But if you increase 6 inches in 100 years,
in 200 years a foot, and in 400 years,

01:39:12.580 --> 01:39:16.660
2 feet, and a couple of thousand years
ago, we were below zero.

01:39:17.980 --> 01:39:21.780
This is much too fast and not the kind of
thing they're looking for.

01:39:21.780 --> 01:39:26.720
Plus, when we look at the fossil record,
we see evidence of large people,

01:39:27.320 --> 01:39:29.040
which they don't always tell you about.

01:39:29.160 --> 01:39:32.600
This is Turkana boy, found by Lewis's son,
Richard.

01:39:33.240 --> 01:39:40.460
He was 5'6", but the interesting thing is
he was 9 years old, as I can tell from the

01:39:40.460 --> 01:39:40.760
teeth.

01:39:42.020 --> 01:39:47.780
We probably have some 9 year olds here,
but I strongly suspect they're not 5'6".

01:39:47.780 --> 01:39:53.120
We have, well, Cro-Magnon man averaged 6'6
in height.

01:39:54.520 --> 01:39:59.580
Several, two fossils in Italy found a
couple of years ago, over 8 feet.

01:40:00.680 --> 01:40:05.420
They were big in the past, not all,
but many of them were.

01:40:06.080 --> 01:40:14.160
We excavated this donkey from Yerlubbock,
Texas, several years ago, 9 feet tall at

01:40:14.160 --> 01:40:14.620
the shoulder.

01:40:16.420 --> 01:40:18.980
That kind of messes up the little horse
charts, doesn't it?

01:40:19.680 --> 01:40:22.280
That's not going to work too well,
so they leave him out.

01:40:23.300 --> 01:40:29.960
In the same area, we excavated a bison
with a 12 foot horn span that stood about

01:40:29.960 --> 01:40:31.840
11 feet tall at the hump.

01:40:32.140 --> 01:40:33.500
You've all seen bisons that tall?

01:40:34.420 --> 01:40:34.680
No.

01:40:35.940 --> 01:40:37.960
But that's the way it was in the fossil
record.

01:40:38.440 --> 01:40:40.580
And we see the little armadillos running
around.

01:40:40.580 --> 01:40:44.560
You can see the normal size one in the
foreground here in this page from a

01:40:44.560 --> 01:40:45.340
geology textbook.

01:40:45.920 --> 01:40:48.880
But notice the writing at the bottom.

01:40:49.020 --> 01:40:52.560
This was nine times larger than present
day armadillos.

01:40:55.860 --> 01:41:00.000
Now, when you see these little graduated
horse charts and you see the graduated man

01:41:00.000 --> 01:41:03.880
chart that is supposed to give the
illusion, everything is getting bigger.

01:41:05.900 --> 01:41:08.020
Let me tell you something, you are being
lied to.

01:41:08.720 --> 01:41:13.060
Because every paleontologist knows the
very opposite is true.

01:41:14.880 --> 01:41:20.420
Just a few years ago at the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology, which I'll be at

01:41:20.420 --> 01:41:25.040
next week down in Houston, by the way,
their annual meeting, they were talking

01:41:25.040 --> 01:41:26.940
about an armadillo that they found.

01:41:28.440 --> 01:41:30.060
It was the size of an elephant.

01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:33.500
That's the way it was described.

01:41:34.500 --> 01:41:41.620
In fact, in 2004, this news release came
from the BBC.

01:41:41.940 --> 01:41:43.680
Here's a Stone Age elephant twice.

01:41:44.280 --> 01:41:46.100
Now, elephants are big today.

01:41:46.920 --> 01:41:51.940
But here were elephants twice as big as
the largest modern African elephant,

01:41:52.040 --> 01:41:54.120
bones of other large animals, rhinoceros.

01:41:55.140 --> 01:41:56.700
All of them were bigger.

01:41:57.300 --> 01:42:04.200
And here we see at the inset the huge tusk
for these elephants that were twice as

01:42:04.200 --> 01:42:06.220
large as modern day elephants.

01:42:07.620 --> 01:42:12.500
We're looking here at a fossil turtle that
looks for all the world like modern

01:42:12.500 --> 01:42:16.040
turtles, except this one was 14 feet from
one side to the other.

01:42:17.540 --> 01:42:19.720
You see many 14 foot turtles running
around.

01:42:20.640 --> 01:42:25.340
Here compared with a 7 foot basketball
player, he is dwarfed.

01:42:25.900 --> 01:42:30.740
From down Big Ben, and it's not because
it's from Texas, but there is a big

01:42:30.740 --> 01:42:34.280
crocodile compared with a modern crocodile
here, 50 to 20 feet.

01:42:35.120 --> 01:42:39.480
National Geographic had a special that
dealt with the large crocodiles that were

01:42:39.480 --> 01:42:42.560
seen in the fossil record just a couple of
years ago.

01:42:43.400 --> 01:42:46.800
And this is typical when you look at the
fossil record.

01:42:47.500 --> 01:42:51.220
We're looking here in the center at a 14
foot shark jaw.

01:42:51.220 --> 01:42:57.220
That's a good size shark, but wow,
look at that thing from the fossil record.

01:42:58.240 --> 01:43:00.800
Jaws is dwarfed by such.

01:43:00.900 --> 01:43:04.060
We see the great white illustrated,
that's a pretty good size shark,

01:43:04.820 --> 01:43:09.120
but nothing like the fossil sharks.

01:43:09.400 --> 01:43:14.420
We have one of the teeth from the large
fossil shark back in our artifact room.

01:43:15.240 --> 01:43:17.400
Most of us are familiar with our little
beavers.

01:43:17.980 --> 01:43:25.080
They can be pretty aggravating as they go
around chewing on branches, but think how

01:43:25.080 --> 01:43:29.740
aggravating it would be if they were 10
feet long, as is the case in the fossil

01:43:29.740 --> 01:43:30.100
record.

01:43:30.240 --> 01:43:32.200
Again, a page from a geology textbook.

01:43:33.000 --> 01:43:37.480
Here we see a picture from the Field
Museum of Natural History in Chicago of

01:43:37.480 --> 01:43:39.020
the 10 foot beaver.

01:43:40.720 --> 01:43:45.740
Science reported just a few years ago,
a real mighty mouse.

01:43:46.240 --> 01:43:51.680
Eight million years ago, the buffalo size
rodents roamed in Venezuela.

01:43:51.860 --> 01:43:54.700
In fact, Science News reported him as
Ratzilla.

01:43:57.440 --> 01:43:58.880
Glad they're not around.

01:44:00.940 --> 01:44:07.920
This from 2005 in Syria, a camel foot that
indicated a camel, according to the BBC,

01:44:07.920 --> 01:44:10.080
double the size.

01:44:10.340 --> 01:44:11.100
Do you get the point?

01:44:11.200 --> 01:44:13.340
I mean, this just goes on and on and on.

01:44:14.260 --> 01:44:16.480
This is the way it was.

01:44:17.160 --> 01:44:23.020
One of my favorites, here described in
Wikipedia, is the demon duck of doom.

01:44:26.250 --> 01:44:29.890
Eight feet tall, 500 pounds, carnivorous.

01:44:31.950 --> 01:44:33.710
Don't want one of those things after you.

01:44:34.570 --> 01:44:37.910
Kind of reminiscent of a movie scene.

01:44:46.630 --> 01:44:49.250
That would alarm us, I think.

01:44:53.970 --> 01:44:59.630
From Australia, killer kangaroos once
roamed Australia.

01:45:00.010 --> 01:45:05.790
Science News says they had teeth that
crunched through bones, sliced off flesh.

01:45:05.790 --> 01:45:06.850
They were enormous.

01:45:07.790 --> 01:45:10.170
Why haven't you been told this in your
textbooks?

01:45:11.350 --> 01:45:13.590
Because it doesn't look like evolution,
does it?

01:45:13.770 --> 01:45:16.830
It looks like devolution, devolving.

01:45:17.630 --> 01:45:18.950
And so they don't tell you about it.

01:45:18.990 --> 01:45:24.130
The ground sloths we have today,
five or six feet long, but 20 feet long.

01:45:24.330 --> 01:45:25.930
And this is what the textbook says.

01:45:25.970 --> 01:45:27.950
I've seen them twice that size.

01:45:28.050 --> 01:45:31.510
This one is from the Price Museum of
Natural History in Utah.

01:45:31.510 --> 01:45:33.650
I measured the hand portion.

01:45:33.830 --> 01:45:34.630
It was 18 inches.

01:45:34.730 --> 01:45:37.590
They just found one down in Argentina.

01:45:37.890 --> 01:45:42.810
The hand was twice that size, which would
indicate someone twice as big as this one.

01:45:44.170 --> 01:45:47.250
One of the more common fossils,
especially with dinosaurs, are the

01:45:47.250 --> 01:45:47.770
cattails.

01:45:47.910 --> 01:45:49.610
We see those in Texas quite often.

01:45:51.230 --> 01:45:52.370
How tall are cattails?

01:45:53.370 --> 01:45:56.650
I see them in Texas, pretty good size,
eight, maybe ten feet.

01:45:58.370 --> 01:46:01.730
120 feet tall is not unusual in the fossil
record.

01:46:01.830 --> 01:46:03.810
You can see the little man for scale here.

01:46:05.990 --> 01:46:11.510
You don't see that today, but it's typical
in the fossil record.

01:46:11.850 --> 01:46:16.710
We're looking here at a modern cycad,
a type of fern, here in the Dakota School

01:46:16.710 --> 01:46:17.210
of Mines.

01:46:17.330 --> 01:46:18.790
I put the quarter up here for scale.

01:46:18.930 --> 01:46:19.750
This is their sign.

01:46:20.930 --> 01:46:26.630
But we look in the fossil record and hear
from the book Fossil Cycads, true cycads

01:46:26.630 --> 01:46:27.810
were apparently quite large.

01:46:27.930 --> 01:46:31.230
One fossil from Japan is a stem over four
feet in diameter.

01:46:32.330 --> 01:46:36.170
Today it's like a little maximum 18-inch
fern.

01:46:38.290 --> 01:46:39.470
Bugs were big.

01:46:41.050 --> 01:46:42.890
All the bugs were big.

01:46:43.830 --> 01:46:46.710
Most of them are found in the
Pennsylvania, and I think that's because

01:46:46.710 --> 01:46:47.870
it's not a time era.

01:46:47.990 --> 01:46:50.850
It is a swamp area where you find a lot of
bugs.

01:46:51.690 --> 01:46:57.450
But notice, not a few of them,
not some of them, all of them.

01:46:57.530 --> 01:47:03.530
This is a beautiful fossil of a dragonfly,
27 inches in wingspan.

01:47:04.990 --> 01:47:06.090
Do you get the point?

01:47:07.550 --> 01:47:09.270
Just on and on and on.

01:47:09.350 --> 01:47:15.650
I excavated a cockroach from near Oblong,
Illinois, several years ago, a foot and a

01:47:15.650 --> 01:47:16.290
half long.

01:47:17.990 --> 01:47:19.850
My wife wouldn't let me bring it in the
house.

01:47:21.350 --> 01:47:23.890
It's a rock, not a cockroach.

01:47:28.590 --> 01:47:32.550
When we look back in the fossil record,
obviously we see big things.

01:47:32.630 --> 01:47:34.910
When we look at dinosaurs, and these were
enormous.

01:47:35.110 --> 01:47:37.790
They're seismosaurus, maybe 150 feet long.

01:47:40.530 --> 01:47:46.750
There are, well, there is one
representative of the beatneck family

01:47:46.750 --> 01:47:51.690
that's still around that remains from this
group of animals.

01:47:51.690 --> 01:47:57.990
Maybe killed off by people that understood
what we see when we look at Jurassic Park.

01:47:58.190 --> 01:48:00.130
We'd rather not have those things around.

01:48:02.510 --> 01:48:06.970
The only representative today is the
tuatara from New Zealand.

01:48:07.430 --> 01:48:10.610
Same family, he's about eight inches long.

01:48:12.510 --> 01:48:13.650
Hadn't evolved a whole lot.

01:48:14.430 --> 01:48:22.010
What we see in this whole world around us
is not an upward process, but a downhill

01:48:22.010 --> 01:48:24.210
process everywhere.

01:48:24.830 --> 01:48:26.230
Even in the fossil record.

01:48:26.370 --> 01:48:30.090
Now, animals going downhill, is that
because of the second law of

01:48:30.090 --> 01:48:30.630
thermodynamics?

01:48:30.870 --> 01:48:34.610
I'm not sure I can prove that,
but it sure smells like it.

01:48:35.130 --> 01:48:40.230
Everything else is going downhill,
and we certainly see that indicated in the

01:48:40.230 --> 01:48:40.830
fossil record.

01:48:42.270 --> 01:48:47.070
At least it gives me a chance to combat
the picture, the lie that's presented with

01:48:47.070 --> 01:48:50.590
these little graduated horse charts,
leaving out my nine foot donkey,

01:48:51.590 --> 01:48:56.210
and the graduated man chart, leaving out
the Turkana boy, and all of the fossils

01:48:56.210 --> 01:48:58.030
that are inevitably bigger in the past.

01:48:58.450 --> 01:48:59.930
It's all going downhill.

01:49:00.630 --> 01:49:02.410
I think it fits a consistent picture.

01:49:16.320 --> 01:49:22.740
As we're thinking about laws, we want to
concentrate and have on the ones that are

01:49:22.740 --> 01:49:24.520
unquestionably laws.

01:49:25.920 --> 01:49:30.920
Unlike those things that can't be observed
or repeated, that are claimed to be laws

01:49:30.920 --> 01:49:31.400
and aren't.

01:49:33.420 --> 01:49:36.100
And the point we've tried to make is you
see it everywhere.

01:49:36.320 --> 01:49:39.580
Certainly in the world around us,
we have this from our own experience,

01:49:39.580 --> 01:49:44.400
and we see it even in the fossil record,
or certainly we see a downhill process.

01:49:46.340 --> 01:49:50.020
I think we see it very obviously in the
earth itself.

01:49:50.620 --> 01:49:55.420
As we look around us rather dramatically,
we see erosion taking place.

01:49:56.040 --> 01:49:57.440
Is this going uphill or downhill?

01:50:00.300 --> 01:50:02.680
It's much more downhill than we realize.

01:50:02.860 --> 01:50:06.920
In fact, we spend a good bit of time
measuring how much sediment is being

01:50:06.920 --> 01:50:08.660
transported by the rivers to the oceans.

01:50:08.660 --> 01:50:12.720
You put the little measuring devices in
the mouths of the rivers and multiply

01:50:12.720 --> 01:50:15.500
times the flow, and you get an idea of how
much sediment is being delivered.

01:50:17.900 --> 01:50:25.380
27.5 billion tons is being delivered to
the ocean by the rivers every year.

01:50:26.680 --> 01:50:29.600
Now that number doesn't mean a whole lot,
but let's put it this way.

01:50:29.840 --> 01:50:33.780
That's enough to fill a freight train that
would reach all the way to the moon and

01:50:33.780 --> 01:50:34.420
halfway back.

01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:38.540
Every year, dumped in the ocean.

01:50:38.680 --> 01:50:41.360
Now that's not an uphill process,
is it?

01:50:41.540 --> 01:50:44.000
It's dumping the continents in the ocean.

01:50:45.180 --> 01:50:48.920
Now, there's a lot of mass in the
continents, and you can do some pretty

01:50:48.920 --> 01:50:52.440
quick, simple calculations to see how long
this could go on, and we wouldn't have

01:50:52.440 --> 01:50:54.100
continents, and it's not very long.

01:50:55.140 --> 01:51:00.600
The earth has been here supposedly 4.5
billion years, and you couldn't do it at

01:51:00.600 --> 01:51:03.240
this rate, more than about 14 million.

01:51:04.120 --> 01:51:06.020
But, of course, we've still got big
continents.

01:51:07.200 --> 01:51:10.060
But it couldn't have been going on
anything like the age of the earth.

01:51:10.180 --> 01:51:14.140
Well, of course, if you move it over here,
we're told about the principle of isosity,

01:51:14.300 --> 01:51:16.760
and you push down here, and it pumps up
over here.

01:51:16.860 --> 01:51:20.620
But you can do those calculations and
check those simple explanations,

01:51:20.840 --> 01:51:21.580
and they don't work.

01:51:23.960 --> 01:51:28.900
Sometimes they try to explain it in terms
of seafloor spreading, and it accounts for

01:51:28.900 --> 01:51:31.840
about one-eighth of the total problem.

01:51:33.600 --> 01:51:36.760
It's going downhill, just like everything
else.

01:51:37.180 --> 01:51:42.520
When we look in the heavens, I think we
see one of the most dramatic examples of

01:51:42.520 --> 01:51:43.260
this process.

01:51:43.460 --> 01:51:49.260
While the evolutionist says everything in
the world is going uphill, everything in

01:51:49.260 --> 01:51:52.060
the world and the universe around us is
doing just the opposite.

01:51:52.880 --> 01:51:57.920
You see astronomers, they talk about
stellar evolution and galactic evolution,

01:51:57.920 --> 01:52:04.440
and everything they talk about is going
uphill, when the fact is it's opposite.

01:52:05.360 --> 01:52:10.940
You go out on an average night,
a good observer can observe about a

01:52:10.940 --> 01:52:13.880
hundred of these little shooting stars,
we call them.

01:52:14.600 --> 01:52:19.740
Little bits of matter that are burning
themselves up as they crash into the

01:52:19.740 --> 01:52:20.120
atmosphere.

01:52:20.740 --> 01:52:26.560
Here is probably something that's come
apart in the universe, and now is coming

01:52:26.560 --> 01:52:28.440
into the atmosphere and burning itself up.

01:52:28.520 --> 01:52:30.920
This is dramatically downhill.

01:52:31.100 --> 01:52:34.060
Some of them are very dramatic,
as we see them in meteor showers.

01:52:34.100 --> 01:52:35.540
This is a linoid meteor shower.

01:52:35.960 --> 01:52:39.840
This is one that approached the sun
several years ago and came back around

01:52:39.840 --> 01:52:48.300
this way, coming apart and then crashing
off and into a heavenly body.

01:52:48.300 --> 01:52:54.120
Here, like the moon, on our side,
on the back side, unprotected from the

01:52:54.120 --> 01:52:58.160
earth and its atmosphere, it's just been
beat to a pulp.

01:52:59.560 --> 01:53:01.740
Again, this is not an uphill process.

01:53:02.000 --> 01:53:05.860
Something's come apart, something's
crashed in, it no longer is in existence

01:53:05.860 --> 01:53:09.920
and we see this on Mercury and we see it
on Mars.

01:53:10.700 --> 01:53:16.940
We see huge craters and this is evidence
of downhill, everywhere we look.

01:53:16.940 --> 01:53:20.820
We look up into the sky and we see the
beautiful comets.

01:53:21.000 --> 01:53:26.340
And here's one, the Hale-Bopp comet,
that is coming apart, which is what we see

01:53:26.340 --> 01:53:27.040
comets do.

01:53:27.520 --> 01:53:31.440
This is the Achaia-Seca comet from a
number of years ago, similar to the

01:53:31.440 --> 01:53:33.440
SOHO-6, one of the sun grazers.

01:53:34.420 --> 01:53:35.760
Notice NASA's description.

01:53:36.540 --> 01:53:42.000
A family of comets created by successive
break-ups from a single large parent

01:53:42.000 --> 01:53:44.800
comet, which passed very near the sun in
the 12th century.

01:53:45.320 --> 01:53:48.280
This comet, known as SOHO-6, did not
survive.

01:53:50.540 --> 01:53:52.040
Doesn't sound uphill to me.

01:53:53.700 --> 01:53:57.260
Fred Whipple of the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory, one of the

01:53:57.260 --> 01:54:00.640
leading experts on comets in the world,
in his book, Mystery of Comets,

01:54:00.640 --> 01:54:06.220
says comets tend to split in pieces,
particularly when they're near the sun or

01:54:06.220 --> 01:54:08.980
Jupiter, but also when they're quite
undisturbed in space.

01:54:09.760 --> 01:54:12.480
Some comets seem to tire out and die.

01:54:14.360 --> 01:54:15.380
Isn't that a surprise?

01:54:18.580 --> 01:54:25.080
Here's a picture of one that tired out,
died, split into many pieces.

01:54:25.300 --> 01:54:27.920
This is the Shoemaker-Levy comet of 94.

01:54:28.420 --> 01:54:31.540
NASA provided us a dramatization of what
happened.

01:54:31.640 --> 01:54:39.520
It crashed into Jupiter, each piece with
the force of many megatons of an atomic

01:54:39.520 --> 01:54:43.760
bomb, just boom, with huge force,
crashing in.

01:54:43.840 --> 01:54:49.980
Again, the thing that came apart went
downhill and then crashed into the

01:54:49.980 --> 01:54:50.260
surface.

01:54:50.480 --> 01:54:54.560
Here on Jupiter's moon, Ganymede,
we can see this string of craters,

01:54:55.280 --> 01:54:59.900
which indicate something came apart and
then boom, boom, boom, boom, the parts

01:54:59.900 --> 01:55:02.860
crashed one after the other, 13 fragments.

01:55:03.420 --> 01:55:05.260
We see this on the moon.

01:55:05.760 --> 01:55:09.460
Here is the streak here that indicates
this string.

01:55:09.460 --> 01:55:11.360
Why are the craters lined up?

01:55:11.460 --> 01:55:15.420
Because something has come apart and then
the parts crashed.

01:55:16.700 --> 01:55:20.100
And it fits the picture that we see
everywhere we look in the heavens.

01:55:21.500 --> 01:55:25.920
The thing that we see most obviously when
we look at the sky is the sun.

01:55:27.200 --> 01:55:33.260
We're told that it's dissipating 4.5
million tons per minute in thermonuclear

01:55:33.260 --> 01:55:33.820
reactions.

01:55:33.820 --> 01:55:41.340
We do know it's, figuratively,
burning up, dissipating energy out through

01:55:41.340 --> 01:55:41.940
space.

01:55:42.400 --> 01:55:47.160
Not only through the normal stellar
processes, but through the prominences and

01:55:47.160 --> 01:55:49.860
flares that you see blasting out on the
side.

01:55:49.960 --> 01:55:54.820
Here is a huge one, blasted out,
compared in mass to the earth.

01:55:56.520 --> 01:55:57.040
Huge!

01:55:58.920 --> 01:56:04.940
4.5 million tons per minute and then boom,
other things like this.

01:56:05.040 --> 01:56:09.820
In addition to that, the solar wind
dissipates another million tons per

01:56:09.820 --> 01:56:10.040
minute.

01:56:10.980 --> 01:56:14.860
And so we've got at least 5.5 million tons
per minute.

01:56:16.100 --> 01:56:17.640
That's not helping it a whole lot.

01:56:18.700 --> 01:56:21.880
Now there's a lot of mass there and it's
not going to go out tomorrow.

01:56:21.880 --> 01:56:26.340
But it's a downhill process and pretty
dramatically downhill.

01:56:26.880 --> 01:56:32.740
Now then, multiply that times what you see
when you look out in the sky.

01:56:32.900 --> 01:56:35.780
Most of what you're seeing out there is
stars.

01:56:36.420 --> 01:56:43.240
Billions and billions of stars that are
dissipating millions of tons per minute.

01:56:43.320 --> 01:56:44.420
What's going on in the universe?

01:56:47.180 --> 01:56:49.400
It's dramatically going downhill.

01:56:50.170 --> 01:56:53.220
And that's with just the normal stellar
processes.

01:56:54.380 --> 01:57:01.300
When we look at things like the planetary
nebula, beautiful fireworks in the sky.

01:57:01.540 --> 01:57:07.780
Here's a star that just blew up 10-30% of
its mass, blasted into an outer shell.

01:57:08.340 --> 01:57:13.540
From a dying sun-like star producing the
planetary nebula known as the helix.

01:57:13.580 --> 01:57:16.140
Here's another beautiful planetary nebula.

01:57:16.140 --> 01:57:16.780
Boom!

01:57:17.120 --> 01:57:19.040
Like God's fireworks.

01:57:19.940 --> 01:57:25.040
But it's not an uphill process when
something blows up and leaves this spray

01:57:25.040 --> 01:57:25.740
of sparks.

01:57:26.480 --> 01:57:28.100
Is that uphill or downhill?

01:57:29.440 --> 01:57:35.560
Some of them are just spectacular and even
symmetrical as they blast themselves out

01:57:35.560 --> 01:57:36.080
of existence.

01:57:36.300 --> 01:57:39.040
This dying star throws off shells of
glowing gas.

01:57:39.660 --> 01:57:45.320
Here the radiation floods out in the
surrounding gas causing it to fluoresce.

01:57:45.320 --> 01:57:50.740
And when we see these glowing gases,
sometimes we're told, well look,

01:57:50.800 --> 01:57:52.340
it's heating up and condensing.

01:57:52.580 --> 01:57:53.240
Now what's happening?

01:57:53.700 --> 01:58:01.440
It's blasted out and the shock of the
blast excites the particles like we see in

01:58:01.440 --> 01:58:04.760
the fluorescent lights here and causes
them to fluoresce.

01:58:05.900 --> 01:58:08.580
It's an indication of an explosion.

01:58:08.580 --> 01:58:14.540
And here NASA says this radiation floods
out in the surrounding gas causing it to

01:58:14.540 --> 01:58:14.860
fluoresce.

01:58:14.960 --> 01:58:19.240
Over the next several thousand years the
nebula will gradually disperse into space

01:58:19.240 --> 01:58:21.740
and the star will cool and fade away.

01:58:22.860 --> 01:58:24.380
That's what we see.

01:58:25.420 --> 01:58:30.820
But the planetary nebula are just kind of
pitiful compared to the novas and the

01:58:30.820 --> 01:58:31.560
supernovas.

01:58:31.560 --> 01:58:38.300
Which not just blasting 30% of the mass
but completely blast themselves out of

01:58:38.300 --> 01:58:38.700
existence.

01:58:38.840 --> 01:58:42.280
This is one of the last ones that we saw
in 1987.

01:58:44.260 --> 01:58:49.820
And we see in the inset the way the star
looked one night and then beside it the

01:58:49.820 --> 01:58:50.900
way it looked the next night.

01:58:51.460 --> 01:58:55.520
Tens of thousands of times brighter
overnight.

01:58:56.420 --> 01:59:04.820
Now that, I mean, the normal star is like
the Sun, 4.5, 5 million tons per minute.

01:59:06.300 --> 01:59:11.660
And then 10,000 times more than that as it
blasts itself out of existence.

01:59:12.120 --> 01:59:16.300
We see the remnants of some of those
explosions here in one of them in the Crab

01:59:16.300 --> 01:59:16.640
Nebula.

01:59:17.400 --> 01:59:20.920
As NASA said, this is the mess that's left
when a star explodes.

01:59:21.380 --> 01:59:22.260
It's beautiful.

01:59:22.860 --> 01:59:24.940
This one happened to be observed.

01:59:26.480 --> 01:59:31.860
A number of cultures observed and recorded
this explosion that took place in 1054.

01:59:32.520 --> 01:59:36.900
And we know of the Chinese and the Arabs,
the Native Americans, possibly two others.

01:59:37.060 --> 01:59:41.280
But these recorded it and saw it.

01:59:41.300 --> 01:59:42.720
So we know what's going on here.

01:59:43.400 --> 01:59:44.760
And we've got glowing gases.

01:59:45.480 --> 01:59:46.680
Maybe it's coming together?

01:59:46.780 --> 01:59:47.020
No.

01:59:48.400 --> 01:59:49.880
It's blowing up.

01:59:49.880 --> 01:59:54.020
A number of these supernova remnants are
seen.

01:59:54.440 --> 01:59:56.540
This is a spectacular one.

01:59:56.620 --> 02:00:02.190
Blinding flash, which the concentrated
power equals that of 10 quadrillion suns.

02:00:02.560 --> 02:00:05.280
I mean, the Sun is deteriorative,
degenerative.

02:00:05.860 --> 02:00:08.220
10 quadrillion suns.

02:00:10.220 --> 02:00:15.600
How do you get an uphill process when
everything you see is just not only

02:00:15.600 --> 02:00:20.300
degenerative, but dramatically
degenerative?

02:00:21.540 --> 02:00:23.520
Here's the description of NASA.

02:00:23.740 --> 02:00:26.160
This is N49's cosmic blast.

02:00:26.400 --> 02:00:31.220
Scattered debris from a cosmic supernova,
an explosion, lights up the sky just like

02:00:31.220 --> 02:00:31.680
fireworks.

02:00:32.320 --> 02:00:37.240
We can get some predictions and maybe some
ideas about how long this has been going

02:00:37.240 --> 02:00:43.040
on from the fact that these supernova
remnants appear about once every 25 years

02:00:43.040 --> 02:00:43.720
in our galaxy.

02:00:43.720 --> 02:00:46.640
And we're not sure why, but it's pretty
regular.

02:00:47.560 --> 02:00:50.100
And over the past 100 years, we've seen
this happen.

02:00:51.140 --> 02:00:55.480
Actually, further back than that,
of course, 1054 gives us a pretty good

02:00:55.480 --> 02:00:56.360
range of observation.

02:00:56.560 --> 02:00:59.400
This is the conclusion, and I don't know
of anyone that argues with it.

02:00:59.440 --> 02:01:00.960
That's what is indicated.

02:01:02.260 --> 02:01:08.140
Well, if it's one per 25 years,
we can see immediately how many we ought

02:01:08.140 --> 02:01:12.600
to be able to observe if it's this old or
if it's that old.

02:01:12.600 --> 02:01:16.760
We can make some predictions, which is the
way science tests models.

02:01:17.580 --> 02:01:22.020
If we're looking at a million years,
then we ought to be able to see 40,000 of

02:01:22.020 --> 02:01:23.860
these things, one every 25 years.

02:01:24.060 --> 02:01:24.740
Pretty simple.

02:01:24.880 --> 02:01:30.700
Well, no, because some of them are behind
gas clouds and some of them are nearer.

02:01:30.760 --> 02:01:33.320
Novas that get dissipated when it blows
up.

02:01:33.520 --> 02:01:38.600
So we grant every possible exception and
even exaggerate it a little bit.

02:01:38.600 --> 02:01:43.060
And they'll say, well, you still,
maybe not 40,000, you ought to be able to

02:01:43.060 --> 02:01:44.580
see over 7,000.

02:01:46.020 --> 02:01:46.380
Okay.

02:01:46.980 --> 02:01:50.440
But what if we're looking at only 7,000
years?

02:01:51.020 --> 02:01:52.380
Well, that's a very different picture.

02:01:52.540 --> 02:01:57.940
We would predict one every 25 years,
280, maybe some of them we couldn't find

02:01:57.940 --> 02:01:59.920
behind gas clouds, something like 270.

02:02:01.260 --> 02:02:02.640
Very different predictions.

02:02:03.460 --> 02:02:05.640
7,000, less than 300.

02:02:06.240 --> 02:02:09.480
Which one fits the facts best?

02:02:09.600 --> 02:02:12.560
What do we actually observe, which is what
science is about?

02:02:13.700 --> 02:02:16.140
So far, we've been able to find 260.

02:02:18.340 --> 02:02:19.420
Isn't that interesting?

02:02:21.880 --> 02:02:26.920
But we see when we look at the news and we
look at the propaganda that we're

02:02:26.920 --> 02:02:29.760
inundated with, articles like this.

02:02:29.780 --> 02:02:30.820
This is from USA Today.

02:02:30.920 --> 02:02:33.900
Hubble telescope captures the birth of a
star.

02:02:33.900 --> 02:02:34.560
Boom!

02:02:34.800 --> 02:02:35.540
Here came a star.

02:02:37.460 --> 02:02:41.980
Well, you read the article and say,
well, it actually takes well over 100,000

02:02:41.980 --> 02:02:42.940
years for this to happen.

02:02:43.600 --> 02:02:46.100
And, okay, well, nobody saw it last night.

02:02:46.380 --> 02:02:48.700
Which is the impression you get when you
look at the headline.

02:02:49.720 --> 02:02:52.320
And we're not seeing it happen.

02:02:52.520 --> 02:02:56.980
We're seeing things that they say infer
that it's happening.

02:02:58.040 --> 02:03:00.100
Or at least that's the impression they
like to leave you.

02:03:00.140 --> 02:03:01.640
The experts will tell a different story.

02:03:01.640 --> 02:03:06.360
Here from Science Magazine, 1990,
we have yet to directly observe the

02:03:06.360 --> 02:03:07.800
process of stellar formation.

02:03:08.420 --> 02:03:12.240
Nobody has seen that, in spite of these
misleading headlines.

02:03:12.640 --> 02:03:15.880
But we're pointed here in Discover
Magazine to the stellar nurseries.

02:03:18.700 --> 02:03:21.600
Like, every night we see new stars popping
out.

02:03:21.660 --> 02:03:22.460
And, of course, we should.

02:03:22.900 --> 02:03:26.400
You calculate how many are out there,
you ought to be able to see them forming.

02:03:26.500 --> 02:03:29.520
Because they're just a mind-boggling
amount.

02:03:31.820 --> 02:03:33.820
We're pointed to the Orion Nebula.

02:03:34.480 --> 02:03:35.040
Spectacular.

02:03:35.420 --> 02:03:36.200
Glowing gases.

02:03:36.940 --> 02:03:38.260
Shocked from an explosion.

02:03:38.540 --> 02:03:40.780
But here's a nursery.

02:03:40.960 --> 02:03:43.040
Here's where they're just popping into
existence.

02:03:43.220 --> 02:03:43.780
Or should be.

02:03:44.320 --> 02:03:47.220
We hadn't observed it, but this is where
it's happening.

02:03:47.340 --> 02:03:48.020
Just trust us.

02:03:48.660 --> 02:03:51.080
Here's what NASA calls a star factory.

02:03:52.560 --> 02:03:53.120
Why?

02:03:53.280 --> 02:03:54.540
Well, we've got glowing gases.

02:03:55.980 --> 02:03:56.420
Oh.

02:03:57.280 --> 02:03:59.600
Well, here we've got glowing gases.

02:03:59.720 --> 02:04:01.760
Yeah, but now we saw this explode in 1054.

02:04:02.320 --> 02:04:03.760
We know what this is.

02:04:04.320 --> 02:04:06.540
And so when we see this, that can't be...

02:04:07.540 --> 02:04:09.160
We've got to explain it somehow.

02:04:10.340 --> 02:04:11.860
And all we can see is glowing gases.

02:04:12.020 --> 02:04:15.620
And when we know how the glowing gases got
there, we know it's not star formation.

02:04:15.800 --> 02:04:17.060
It's blowing up of a star.

02:04:19.040 --> 02:04:19.540
J.C.

02:04:19.600 --> 02:04:22.400
Brandet addresses the problem in his book,
Sun and Stars.

02:04:22.400 --> 02:04:25.960
He says, contemporary opinion on star
formation holds that objects called

02:04:25.960 --> 02:04:30.100
protostars are formed as condensations
from stellar gases.

02:04:31.980 --> 02:04:38.600
Okay, you turn loose gas from an aerosol
can in this room and the gas just comes

02:04:38.600 --> 02:04:40.500
together in a little ball up here,
doesn't it?

02:04:41.020 --> 02:04:41.520
Or does it?

02:04:41.920 --> 02:04:42.600
What happens?

02:04:43.460 --> 02:04:45.240
It doesn't condense.

02:04:45.440 --> 02:04:46.620
It spreads out.

02:04:46.700 --> 02:04:47.560
I mean, we know that.

02:04:47.860 --> 02:04:51.560
You see the smoke from the campfire come
up and it doesn't gather together in a

02:04:51.560 --> 02:04:51.980
little ball.

02:04:51.980 --> 02:04:53.660
It spreads out and dissipates.

02:04:54.480 --> 02:04:58.200
But here they are imagining that it
condenses.

02:04:59.000 --> 02:05:02.100
Well, the second law says things are going
to get more disordered.

02:05:02.200 --> 02:05:04.620
It's not going to get more ordered.

02:05:05.460 --> 02:05:09.320
He goes on to say this condensation
process is very difficult theoretically.

02:05:10.160 --> 02:05:12.180
In other words, we can't make it work on
paper.

02:05:13.200 --> 02:05:16.120
No essential theoretical understanding can
be claimed.

02:05:17.400 --> 02:05:21.440
In fact, some theoretical evidence argues
strongly against the possibility of star

02:05:21.440 --> 02:05:21.920
formation.

02:05:22.080 --> 02:05:23.260
And, of course, it's not theoretical.

02:05:23.340 --> 02:05:26.320
It's the second law of thermodynamics that
says it ain't going to happen.

02:05:27.500 --> 02:05:29.860
Oh, but you've got gravity that attracts.

02:05:30.460 --> 02:05:34.460
Yes, and you start compressing gases and
what happens?

02:05:34.500 --> 02:05:36.740
It heats up and it pushes back,
doesn't it?

02:05:36.740 --> 02:05:42.680
You've got expansive forces as well as the
attractive forces and you can measure both

02:05:42.680 --> 02:05:43.080
of them.

02:05:43.080 --> 02:05:47.360
The expansive forces are 60 times greater.

02:05:48.980 --> 02:05:50.560
And so it's going to come together.

02:05:52.140 --> 02:05:55.100
Not when the expansive forces are 60 times
greater.

02:05:56.600 --> 02:06:00.680
Yeah, well, I know gravity works and
there's an attraction, but measure the two

02:06:00.680 --> 02:06:02.100
and see which one's going to win.

02:06:03.900 --> 02:06:08.480
Very powerful evidence argues against
this.

02:06:09.460 --> 02:06:13.360
And while it'll tell you in your earth
science textbooks, we know exactly how

02:06:13.360 --> 02:06:15.620
this happens, the authorities know better.

02:06:16.160 --> 02:06:20.800
Here, Abraham Loeb for the Harvard Center
of Astrophysics, the truth is we don't

02:06:20.800 --> 02:06:24.240
understand star formation at a fundamental
level.

02:06:26.360 --> 02:06:32.940
Now, if you're an earth science teacher in
high school, you can tell folks we know.

02:06:34.540 --> 02:06:38.580
But if you're head of the Harvard Center
for Astrophysics, you have to admit,

02:06:38.680 --> 02:06:39.600
no, we don't have a clue.

02:06:41.060 --> 02:06:43.600
And I think we know which one is more
dependable.

02:06:43.740 --> 02:06:47.060
Here's another reference from Science
2002.

02:06:47.440 --> 02:06:50.340
Stars are among the most fundamental
building blocks in the universe and yet

02:06:50.340 --> 02:06:54.160
the processes by which they're formed are
not understood.

02:06:56.660 --> 02:06:59.140
So don't let the teachers fool you.

02:06:59.900 --> 02:07:04.340
How do you get gas which spreads out to
come together?

02:07:04.740 --> 02:07:06.020
And they don't know.

02:07:06.680 --> 02:07:12.360
Godfrey Burnbridge, a more frank,
very leading authority in our nation on

02:07:12.360 --> 02:07:17.320
astronomy, says, he's director of the Kitt
Peak National Observatory, if stars did

02:07:17.320 --> 02:07:21.060
not exist, it'd be very easy to prove this
is what we expect.

02:07:24.040 --> 02:07:29.040
They're burning up, they're burning up in
quotes, they're dissipating energy,

02:07:29.780 --> 02:07:35.440
it's all going downhill and it's been
going on billions of years, there ought

02:07:35.440 --> 02:07:36.080
not to be any.

02:07:37.080 --> 02:07:38.760
How do you get them together?

02:07:38.920 --> 02:07:43.300
Well, you can't in terms of what we know
today.

02:07:45.800 --> 02:07:50.280
All of the authorities that I'm quoting
are atheists, they're naturalists.

02:07:50.920 --> 02:07:57.840
I want to make an exception and refer you
to the statement by Dr. George Mulfinger.

02:07:57.840 --> 02:08:04.820
He recently deceased, but had a PhD in
astronomy from Syracuse, but was a

02:08:04.820 --> 02:08:07.100
creationist, and I want to make that
distinction.

02:08:09.440 --> 02:08:13.560
And of course, he referred to the fact
that one of the problems is that it's

02:08:13.560 --> 02:08:14.060
unscriptural.

02:08:14.160 --> 02:08:21.080
Genesis 2.1 says, all the hosts were
finished, all the stars and the host of

02:08:21.080 --> 02:08:23.080
them were finished when God created.

02:08:23.080 --> 02:08:30.460
Really, there are only three problems,
he says, regarding star formation.

02:08:31.200 --> 02:08:35.200
The first is it's unscriptural,
and the second is it's never been

02:08:35.200 --> 02:08:37.800
observed, and the third is it's
theoretically impossible.

02:08:38.000 --> 02:08:40.560
But aside from those three problems,
he says, it's a real winner.

02:08:43.200 --> 02:08:45.020
Which I think is a pretty good analysis.

02:08:45.900 --> 02:08:49.500
But even those who are atheists say very
similar things.

02:08:50.960 --> 02:08:52.860
We've been talking about stars.

02:08:54.060 --> 02:09:00.100
Let's multiply the problems in forming
stars by hundreds of billions of times,

02:09:00.260 --> 02:09:02.180
and we see the problem we have explaining
galaxies.

02:09:03.400 --> 02:09:08.080
Which not only have the problem of forming
the stars in them, but forming the

02:09:08.080 --> 02:09:11.440
organization, the collectivity of stars.

02:09:11.560 --> 02:09:13.120
How did they get together?

02:09:13.720 --> 02:09:16.440
When the second law says everything goes
the other way.

02:09:17.360 --> 02:09:21.340
Martin Rees, astrophysicist, writing in
the Dallas Morning News a few years ago,

02:09:21.400 --> 02:09:25.100
says, the most basic questions about
galaxies are still not understood.

02:09:25.720 --> 02:09:28.860
If galaxies didn't exist, we'd have no
problem explaining that fact.

02:09:29.940 --> 02:09:31.040
That sound familiar?

02:09:31.940 --> 02:09:33.120
And like a refrain.

02:09:33.480 --> 02:09:36.360
It's not supposed to be coming together,
not naturally.

02:09:37.140 --> 02:09:43.200
And we see beautiful formations up here,
these pinwheel spirals, like M51.

02:09:45.000 --> 02:09:49.280
This forms when the center part turns
faster than the outer part.

02:09:49.400 --> 02:09:54.480
Like the ice skater pulls in their arms
and spins faster and slows down when the

02:09:54.480 --> 02:09:59.060
arms of these galaxies act like that.

02:09:59.440 --> 02:10:03.820
The spiral-shaped wave patterns from the
galaxy's center whirl around the core

02:10:03.820 --> 02:10:09.060
three times as often as those 6,000 light
years out, says the team.

02:10:09.060 --> 02:10:13.120
All but guarantees the galaxy's bright
inner pinwheel is destined to wind itself

02:10:13.120 --> 02:10:13.340
up.

02:10:13.440 --> 02:10:19.380
And it doesn't take many turns to just
completely wind itself up into this

02:10:19.380 --> 02:10:20.760
amorphous disk.

02:10:20.800 --> 02:10:23.080
Not like the spiral arm disk.

02:10:23.680 --> 02:10:26.000
Well, how fast is it winding itself up?

02:10:26.760 --> 02:10:28.000
Well, it's pretty fast.

02:10:28.020 --> 02:10:29.540
Just a few hundred thousand years.

02:10:29.660 --> 02:10:34.060
Not the 20 billion or 15 or 13 billion
that they propose for the age of the

02:10:34.060 --> 02:10:34.340
universe.

02:10:36.240 --> 02:10:39.480
It looks like it hadn't turned more than
once or twice.

02:10:39.860 --> 02:10:42.680
Just a few hundred thousand years is the
most you can get for this.

02:10:44.500 --> 02:10:49.220
And what really gets difficult is when you
look at what's called the barge spiral.

02:10:50.080 --> 02:10:53.420
And here's this straight bar right across
the middle.

02:10:54.360 --> 02:10:57.180
And it hasn't twisted at all.

02:10:58.480 --> 02:11:01.080
Just half a turn and that'd be messed up.

02:11:02.200 --> 02:11:05.740
And that would take just thousands of
years.

02:11:06.300 --> 02:11:07.740
And there it is.

02:11:09.140 --> 02:11:14.800
And why in the world do we have bars in
the middle of these spirals like this?

02:11:15.760 --> 02:11:18.860
I think it may be that the Lord is just
looking down and saying,

02:11:19.260 --> 02:11:20.240
na-na-na-na-na-na.

02:11:22.120 --> 02:11:23.960
You can't explain this.

02:11:25.740 --> 02:11:28.940
Because just in a short period of time it
would be destroyed.

02:11:28.940 --> 02:11:29.960
But it wouldn't be like that.

02:11:31.060 --> 02:11:36.980
When we have seen more through the Hubble
telescope, it's been anticipated.

02:11:37.240 --> 02:11:39.040
Now we're going to explain natural
origins.

02:11:39.280 --> 02:11:41.460
But the further we look, the more
difficult it's gotten.

02:11:42.060 --> 02:11:46.400
Here reported in the Dallas Morning News,
astronomers at the Space Telescope Science

02:11:46.400 --> 02:11:49.440
Institute released the deepest ever view
of the universe.

02:11:49.580 --> 02:11:54.300
Long duration exposure reached out to a
point just a few million years from the

02:11:54.300 --> 02:11:54.720
Big Bang.

02:11:54.720 --> 02:11:56.940
Look way out to just right.

02:11:57.320 --> 02:11:59.240
We can almost see the beginning out there.

02:11:59.840 --> 02:12:00.620
And what do we see?

02:12:01.520 --> 02:12:03.260
A wide range of galaxies.

02:12:03.440 --> 02:12:04.540
We don't see baby galaxies.

02:12:04.760 --> 02:12:06.100
We don't see forming galaxies.

02:12:06.340 --> 02:12:10.420
We see completely mature sizes,
shapes, and colors.

02:12:10.600 --> 02:12:12.040
Everything that you see everywhere else.

02:12:13.120 --> 02:12:17.020
Looking back to the beginning,
you should see it gradually forming.

02:12:17.520 --> 02:12:20.180
Not at all what we see.

02:12:21.100 --> 02:12:26.420
This was reported by Gemini Observatory
showing how this should have developed

02:12:26.420 --> 02:12:30.900
theoretically from the little baby
galaxies, the little seeds, finally to the

02:12:30.900 --> 02:12:35.840
more mature galaxies that we see with the
spiral arms and pointed out that,

02:12:36.260 --> 02:12:37.780
well, here's the headlines.

02:12:37.960 --> 02:12:40.200
The faintest spectra ever raised glaring
questions.

02:12:40.300 --> 02:12:43.020
Why do galaxies in the universe appear so
mature?

02:12:44.220 --> 02:12:48.140
It's massive and mature right back to what
they call the beginning.

02:12:49.020 --> 02:12:52.760
Richard Cowan, University of California,
Davis, comments on this.

02:12:52.760 --> 02:12:55.400
He says galaxy formation theory is in
peril.

02:12:56.420 --> 02:13:00.520
Over the past 18 months, several teams
have found so many massive galaxies from

02:13:00.520 --> 02:13:04.240
this early epoch that the theory is being
stretched to the breaking point,

02:13:04.440 --> 02:13:05.640
several astronomers say.

02:13:06.520 --> 02:13:09.260
In other words, we can't explain this.

02:13:09.340 --> 02:13:11.520
It just flies in the face of what we
predict.

02:13:12.320 --> 02:13:15.700
Notice the comments of James Treffle,
who is a professor of physics at George

02:13:15.700 --> 02:13:18.280
Mason University, one of the more famous
astronomers in the country.

02:13:19.080 --> 02:13:24.200
He says, it seems the more we learn about
the basic laws of nature, and he's not

02:13:24.200 --> 02:13:29.340
talking here about Sunday school
literature, it's the basic laws of nature,

02:13:29.720 --> 02:13:34.520
what we're talking about tonight,
the more those laws seem to tell us the

02:13:34.520 --> 02:13:37.820
visible matter, the stuff we see,
shouldn't be arranged the way it is.

02:13:38.600 --> 02:13:40.020
That is, if it's old.

02:13:42.020 --> 02:13:44.580
That is, if you're trying to do it
naturally.

02:13:45.800 --> 02:13:47.340
You can't do it that way.

02:13:47.460 --> 02:13:48.260
It doesn't work.

02:13:49.100 --> 02:13:52.380
The stuff we can see shouldn't be arranged
the way it is.

02:13:52.460 --> 02:13:54.780
There shouldn't be galaxies out there at
all.

02:13:54.980 --> 02:13:57.200
There shouldn't be stars out there in the
galaxy.

02:13:57.860 --> 02:14:03.240
On top of that, if there are galaxies,
they shouldn't be grouped together.

02:14:04.160 --> 02:14:05.180
Stars are a problem.

02:14:06.260 --> 02:14:08.420
Groups of stars and galaxies are a
problem.

02:14:08.480 --> 02:14:10.160
Now we've got groups of galaxies.

02:14:11.320 --> 02:14:13.300
Just multiply the multiplication.

02:14:14.260 --> 02:14:19.300
Galaxy clusters, the Hercules cluster of
galaxies, organized.

02:14:21.880 --> 02:14:27.640
It just multiplies beyond our imagination,
the problem of trying to explain it

02:14:27.640 --> 02:14:28.040
naturally.

02:14:29.000 --> 02:14:32.940
We hear a lot about this solar system,
and especially in the earth science

02:14:32.940 --> 02:14:36.660
textbooks, they say it's all condensed
from the nebular cloud.

02:14:37.180 --> 02:14:43.560
Here's the dust, and it's spun around,
and it is condensed into these planets

02:14:43.560 --> 02:14:44.580
with the sun in the middle.

02:14:46.880 --> 02:14:51.300
Not a very good fairy tale, which is about
the best you can say about it.

02:14:52.580 --> 02:14:53.760
All kinds of problems.

02:14:53.900 --> 02:14:58.360
First, the sun has 99% of the mass,
where the planets have 99% of the angular

02:14:58.360 --> 02:14:58.800
momentum.

02:14:59.060 --> 02:15:01.320
Now if you're a physicist, you understand.

02:15:01.840 --> 02:15:06.240
This is all condensing out of the same
cloud, and here's the mass, and it's not

02:15:06.240 --> 02:15:10.120
moving very fast, but these things out
here that have virtually none of the mass

02:15:10.120 --> 02:15:12.800
are just going up a storm relative to the
sun.

02:15:13.160 --> 02:15:18.980
How did they get going so fast,
when the great mass is just plodding

02:15:18.980 --> 02:15:19.420
along?

02:15:19.920 --> 02:15:21.200
That's not going to work.

02:15:22.640 --> 02:15:24.460
This has a slow spin.

02:15:25.420 --> 02:15:34.080
The planets have rapid orbital motion,
which is not going to condense naturally

02:15:34.080 --> 02:15:35.160
out of a cloud.

02:15:35.160 --> 02:15:39.260
Sir Jeffreys of Cambridge says,
I think all the suggested accounts of the

02:15:39.260 --> 02:15:41.840
origin of the solar system are subject to
serious objections.

02:15:43.080 --> 02:15:46.600
The conclusion in the present state of the
subject would be the system cannot exist.

02:15:48.040 --> 02:15:49.200
That is, naturally.

02:15:49.920 --> 02:15:51.580
If it's been there for a long time.

02:15:52.980 --> 02:15:55.360
And again, there's another refrain.

02:15:56.160 --> 02:16:01.340
More recently, 2007, just a couple of
months ago, this is fairly up to date.

02:16:01.980 --> 02:16:04.640
And they're talking about planet formation
theories.

02:16:05.440 --> 02:16:10.200
And what they find when they put this on
the computers is, okay, you get some

02:16:10.200 --> 02:16:11.340
boulders and some rocks here.

02:16:11.420 --> 02:16:12.880
They're supposed to come together to form
a planet.

02:16:12.920 --> 02:16:13.460
And what happens?

02:16:13.540 --> 02:16:15.220
The boulder goes right to the sun.

02:16:17.080 --> 02:16:21.720
This planet formation theory has been a
stumbling block for 30 years.

02:16:21.720 --> 02:16:24.640
Which, of course, you've read about in
your earth science textbook.

02:16:25.600 --> 02:16:26.080
No.

02:16:27.120 --> 02:16:32.260
The reason is that boulders tend to fall
into the star in a celestial blink of an

02:16:32.260 --> 02:16:32.520
eye.

02:16:34.220 --> 02:16:39.120
There are enough uncertainties that planet
formation is not going to be an open and

02:16:39.120 --> 02:16:40.300
shut case any time soon.

02:16:40.400 --> 02:16:44.700
He said, we don't know how that collapse
into a planet actually occurs.

02:16:45.360 --> 02:16:48.940
In spite of the fact your earth science
textbook tells you just that happened.

02:16:49.760 --> 02:16:51.520
It just condensed out of the cloud.

02:16:52.740 --> 02:16:53.960
No, we don't know.

02:16:54.100 --> 02:16:56.740
And when we try to explain it,
we fall flat on our face.

02:16:57.360 --> 02:16:58.800
Same thing is true with the moon.

02:16:58.940 --> 02:17:01.820
And we could spend a whole evening talking
about the problems there.

02:17:01.920 --> 02:17:05.880
But here, from nature, many models have
been proposed for the formation of the

02:17:05.880 --> 02:17:06.000
moon.

02:17:06.100 --> 02:17:10.720
No one has succeeded in showing how the
formation had formed successfully.

02:17:11.520 --> 02:17:15.740
Jack Lissiter, with the NASA space
program, says, all in all, developing a

02:17:15.740 --> 02:17:19.440
theory of lunar origins that makes sense
of the data proved very difficult.

02:17:20.140 --> 02:17:22.600
The best explanation was observational
error.

02:17:22.700 --> 02:17:23.820
The moon did not exist.

02:17:28.280 --> 02:17:33.260
One of the ways to test a model is to see
how the predictions take place.

02:17:33.360 --> 02:17:35.620
If stars didn't exist, that's what we'd
expect.

02:17:35.980 --> 02:17:37.120
There shouldn't be galaxies.

02:17:37.300 --> 02:17:38.600
They shouldn't be grouped together.

02:17:38.920 --> 02:17:40.420
The solar system shouldn't exist.

02:17:40.520 --> 02:17:42.200
The best explanation is the moon didn't
exist.

02:17:43.220 --> 02:17:46.700
But you read the textbook and it's like,
we can explain it all.

02:17:48.400 --> 02:17:50.040
What can they explain?

02:17:51.200 --> 02:17:54.320
It all flies in the face of their
naturalistic explanation.

02:17:54.320 --> 02:17:58.580
The basic laws of nature say it will not
work.

02:18:00.520 --> 02:18:05.960
And so when we back off and look at the
two models, and we see the obvious

02:18:05.960 --> 02:18:14.100
prediction of degeneration and decay by
the creationists as defined by what we

02:18:14.100 --> 02:18:14.800
read in Genesis.

02:18:15.320 --> 02:18:18.700
Degeneration, decay, imposed as a
consequence of sin.

02:18:18.880 --> 02:18:23.400
All right, let's test that against what we
see and see what fits.

02:18:23.400 --> 02:18:24.300
That's what we see.

02:18:25.860 --> 02:18:28.180
The evolution model says things are going
to go uphill.

02:18:28.800 --> 02:18:33.620
And they have great faith in everything
from microchips to brains.

02:18:33.820 --> 02:18:34.700
It's all going uphill.

02:18:35.880 --> 02:18:38.140
But what do we see in the world we live
in?

02:18:39.520 --> 02:18:42.780
Your own experience with your houses and
your cars and bodies.

02:18:44.980 --> 02:18:46.300
Is it going uphill or downhill?

02:18:46.520 --> 02:18:47.740
Well, we know that.

02:18:48.660 --> 02:18:54.360
When we look at the life of the past,
we see dramatically things were bigger and

02:18:54.360 --> 02:18:57.920
now then they have gone downhill,
which they don't like to admit.

02:18:59.260 --> 02:19:01.320
But it's just as obvious as it can be.

02:19:01.640 --> 02:19:06.380
When we look at the universe around us,
when we look at the sky, we see everything

02:19:06.380 --> 02:19:15.440
from stars to the face of the planets to
the comets to the planetary nebula,

02:19:16.780 --> 02:19:20.040
the stars blowing themselves out of
existence, galaxies.

02:19:20.040 --> 02:19:22.420
Everything is going downhill.

02:19:24.260 --> 02:19:26.320
That's not what they predict.

02:19:27.080 --> 02:19:28.820
Now, just be honest.

02:19:30.500 --> 02:19:35.900
Which model explains what we see best?

02:19:38.120 --> 02:19:41.500
I don't think it's a hard question if the
person is honest.

02:19:42.480 --> 02:19:46.720
Let's think before we conclude about some
implications of this and allow Isaac

02:19:46.720 --> 02:19:50.740
Asimov to acknowledge what he sees as a
real problem.

02:19:50.820 --> 02:19:55.000
He says, as far as we know, all changes
are in the direction of increasing

02:19:55.000 --> 02:19:58.940
entropy, increasing disorder, or
increasing running down, randomness.

02:19:59.540 --> 02:20:04.160
Yet, the universe was once in a position
from which it could run down.

02:20:05.700 --> 02:20:09.380
Now, the natural processes, everything we
see, say it goes downhill.

02:20:11.400 --> 02:20:12.480
How did it get up?

02:20:13.940 --> 02:20:21.440
It had to be up from which it could run
down, but natural processes say you don't

02:20:21.440 --> 02:20:23.240
go that way, it goes this way.

02:20:25.060 --> 02:20:27.480
How did it get into that position?

02:20:28.840 --> 02:20:33.440
You see, the second law of thermodynamics
says there had to have been something

02:20:33.440 --> 02:20:37.640
besides the natural processes we see to
explain what we're looking at.

02:20:38.280 --> 02:20:39.680
And there's no way around that.

02:20:40.960 --> 02:20:41.740
H.J.

02:20:41.840 --> 02:20:48.720
Lipsom is an atheist, writing in Physics
Bulletin, but faces the issue squarely.

02:20:48.780 --> 02:20:52.540
He says, I think, however, we should go
further than this and admit the only

02:20:52.540 --> 02:20:54.140
accepted explanation is creation.

02:20:54.740 --> 02:20:59.960
I know this is anathema to physicists,
as it is to me, but we must not reject a

02:20:59.960 --> 02:21:04.800
theory we do not like if the experimental
evidence supports it.

02:21:05.600 --> 02:21:08.240
And it's not, again, the Sunday school
lesson that's telling...

02:21:08.240 --> 02:21:15.600
This is the laws of science that govern
this universe, and it says you can't do it

02:21:15.600 --> 02:21:20.280
naturally, it doesn't work, you can't
explain anything that you see in the

02:21:20.280 --> 02:21:21.180
universe around us.

02:21:21.460 --> 02:21:23.820
And it certainly doesn't fit the picture
that we see on this earth.

02:21:25.700 --> 02:21:32.340
The experimental evidence says,
obviously, the creation model works

02:21:32.340 --> 02:21:32.640
better.

02:21:32.640 --> 02:21:37.100
I want to conclude with a statement by two
very brave men.

02:21:38.520 --> 02:21:43.360
They are creationists, but they're the
authors of the textbook that's used in

02:21:43.360 --> 02:21:46.760
virtually every undergraduate of dynamics
in the country.

02:21:47.040 --> 02:21:52.620
Every university in the state of Texas
that I've been able to check, and that's

02:21:52.620 --> 02:21:56.100
most of them, use their textbook.

02:21:56.920 --> 02:22:02.320
Now, people will say, maybe you're a
hard-rotten geologist, archaeologist,

02:22:02.400 --> 02:22:03.960
what do you know about thermodynamics?

02:22:04.180 --> 02:22:07.700
Well, I may not know a whole lot,
but these fellows do.

02:22:09.120 --> 02:22:10.260
They wrote the book.

02:22:11.120 --> 02:22:15.240
We see the second law of thermodynamics as
a description of the prior and continuing

02:22:15.240 --> 02:22:16.220
work of a creator.

02:22:17.980 --> 02:22:25.180
Naturally, you cannot get it here where it
can then be seen to be going down as we do

02:22:25.180 --> 02:22:25.400
now.

02:22:25.700 --> 02:22:26.640
You can't.

02:22:27.480 --> 02:22:31.080
And so that second law that says
everything goes down says natural law is

02:22:31.080 --> 02:22:32.120
not going to account for this.

02:22:33.140 --> 02:22:37.920
You've got to have something beyond the
natural in order to see what we're seeing

02:22:37.920 --> 02:22:39.300
and see things go downhill.

02:22:40.160 --> 02:22:43.440
It also holds the answer to our future
destiny and that of the universe.

02:22:44.140 --> 02:22:45.880
It's going down to destruction.

02:22:47.320 --> 02:22:52.700
And that's clearly implied from the laws
of nature, from these fellows who really

02:22:52.700 --> 02:22:53.620
know what they're talking about.

02:22:55.220 --> 02:23:00.260
I think that is a powerful bit of evidence
and should be obvious to people who are

02:23:00.260 --> 02:23:00.820
willing to look.

02:24:01.930 --> 02:24:06.950
I'm convinced that the subject of the age
of the earth is one of the most critical

02:24:06.950 --> 02:24:09.310
issues in the creation-evolution
controversy.

02:24:10.690 --> 02:24:14.990
I'm a little disturbed with some of my
brethren who say it doesn't make any

02:24:14.990 --> 02:24:15.390
difference.

02:24:16.210 --> 02:24:18.850
I think that's rather naive.

02:24:19.970 --> 02:24:26.490
I think we can show both from scripture
and from science that the best and most

02:24:26.490 --> 02:24:31.210
reasonable explanation is that the earth
is young in spite of the propaganda that

02:24:31.210 --> 02:24:33.690
we hear continually from the media.

02:24:34.610 --> 02:24:38.750
I believe science indicates that the earth
is not old.

02:24:39.670 --> 02:24:43.190
But of course there are a great many
scientists who believe that the earth is

02:24:43.190 --> 02:24:47.030
billions of years old, certainly not all
scientists by any means.

02:24:47.170 --> 02:24:51.610
And there are a significant number who
believe the scientific evidence is against

02:24:51.610 --> 02:24:52.450
this conclusion.

02:24:53.530 --> 02:24:59.450
But to get an idea of the role that this
issue plays in the minds of the

02:24:59.450 --> 02:25:04.970
naturalist, notice the statement by Loris
Badash, professor of history of science,

02:25:05.610 --> 02:25:07.150
University of California, Santa Barbara.

02:25:08.050 --> 02:25:12.210
And he refers to the general conclusion of
many.

02:25:12.210 --> 02:25:18.570
4.5 billion years ago, the primal earth
emerged from a spinning turbulent cloud of

02:25:18.570 --> 02:25:21.870
gas, dust, planetoids that surrounded the
new star.

02:25:22.510 --> 02:25:28.130
On these figures for the age of the earth
rests all of geology and evolution.

02:25:29.170 --> 02:25:30.670
This is the foundation.

02:25:32.230 --> 02:25:37.190
Well, I think it's a pretty shaky
foundation and perhaps before we finish

02:25:37.190 --> 02:25:39.650
this evening you can see why I believe
that.

02:25:40.690 --> 02:25:48.030
But it's absolutely critical, obviously,
to the evolutionists that the earth be

02:25:48.030 --> 02:25:48.970
billions of years old.

02:25:49.070 --> 02:25:51.370
If it isn't, then we can all go home.

02:25:51.470 --> 02:25:54.030
There's no time for evolution.

02:25:54.950 --> 02:25:58.990
But it's more than just necessary for
evolution.

02:25:59.230 --> 02:26:02.630
It is necessary to solve all of his
problems.

02:26:02.730 --> 02:26:04.870
And this is basically the way he looks at
time.

02:26:05.850 --> 02:26:08.630
It's the solution to any and every problem
that comes up.

02:26:09.690 --> 02:26:14.770
Consider the statement by George Wall,
who is a Nobel laureate from Harvard.

02:26:16.470 --> 02:26:18.770
He's talking about the origin of life.

02:26:19.430 --> 02:26:26.010
And as he sees the complexity that we've
learned about, it just boggles his mind

02:26:26.010 --> 02:26:30.790
and says, we can't imagine how this could
happen naturally.

02:26:32.330 --> 02:26:38.350
And that's a necessary conclusion and one
that many naturalists will agree with.

02:26:38.910 --> 02:26:42.850
He says one only has to contemplate the
magnitude of this task, that is,

02:26:43.550 --> 02:26:49.290
getting the cell to start all by itself,
to concede that the spontaneous generation

02:26:49.290 --> 02:26:51.310
of a living organism is impossible.

02:26:53.830 --> 02:26:55.270
Well, how does he solve that problem?

02:26:57.430 --> 02:27:00.410
Yet, here we are, as a result,
I believe, a spontaneous generation.

02:27:01.070 --> 02:27:06.590
It's impossible, but he believes it,
because he's got time.

02:27:06.590 --> 02:27:12.030
However improbable we regard this event,
or any of the steps which it involves,

02:27:12.170 --> 02:27:16.210
given enough time, it will almost
certainly happen at least once.

02:27:17.890 --> 02:27:23.770
Now, as we looked last night at the
implications of time, things tend to go

02:27:23.770 --> 02:27:24.890
uphill or downhill.

02:27:26.150 --> 02:27:31.950
Time doesn't help in trying to get things
organized and more complex.

02:27:32.170 --> 02:27:35.010
Time does the opposite, in our experience.

02:27:36.310 --> 02:27:39.790
But the faith of the evolutionist says
it'll solve all the problems.

02:27:39.970 --> 02:27:42.970
Time is, in fact, the hero of the plot.

02:27:43.950 --> 02:27:47.370
Given so much time, the impossible becomes
possible.

02:27:48.790 --> 02:27:54.210
The possible probable, the probable
virtually certain, one has only to wait,

02:27:54.390 --> 02:27:56.810
and time itself performs the miracles.

02:27:58.290 --> 02:28:00.510
Now, here's the Holy Spirit of the
evolutionist.

02:28:00.510 --> 02:28:07.490
You just wave the magic wand and all the
problems disappear, because of time,

02:28:07.590 --> 02:28:11.330
in spite of what we learned last night,
about time causing things to go downhill.

02:28:13.450 --> 02:28:18.630
We're reminded of the fairy tale,
of the princess that kisses the frog,

02:28:18.710 --> 02:28:24.590
and then turns into a prince, and of
course that's a fairy tale, we understand,

02:28:24.790 --> 02:28:30.230
unless you add the magic kiss of time,
and then it's science.

02:28:32.450 --> 02:28:35.290
Over billions of years, this is exactly
what happens.

02:28:36.250 --> 02:28:39.770
And that's what our universities are
spending billions of dollars to teach,

02:28:39.930 --> 02:28:44.870
that yes, the frog turns into the prince,
the only difference between it and the

02:28:44.870 --> 02:28:46.750
fairy tale, is time.

02:28:46.890 --> 02:28:52.050
And I don't think time has that property,
that power, that miracle working

02:28:52.050 --> 02:28:52.710
capability.

02:28:54.930 --> 02:29:01.030
I think one of the best ways to approach
issues in science, is to ask why

02:29:01.030 --> 02:29:03.610
questions, and I think that's especially
appropriate here.

02:29:03.690 --> 02:29:08.970
People are just absolutely inundated with
affirmation after affirmation,

02:29:09.050 --> 02:29:15.110
like a mantra that the earth is billions
of years old, well, why do you believe

02:29:15.110 --> 02:29:15.450
that?

02:29:16.250 --> 02:29:17.590
I think is a good question.

02:29:19.650 --> 02:29:23.430
And of course it is a matter of faith,
nobody was there at the beginning.

02:29:24.890 --> 02:29:27.830
They believe that the earth is old,
and my question is why?

02:29:28.270 --> 02:29:34.190
Well, usually the first response that we
get to that question, involves radiometric

02:29:34.190 --> 02:29:38.130
dating, because they've dated the rock,
the rock is a million, it's a billion,

02:29:38.290 --> 02:29:42.090
or two billion, four billion years old,
they don't date them that old,

02:29:42.390 --> 02:29:44.610
but three billion sometimes.

02:29:46.790 --> 02:29:51.230
And obviously the earth has to be at least
that old, and of course we all understand

02:29:51.230 --> 02:29:57.290
exactly how this radiometric system works,
so that we can evaluate the validity.

02:29:58.910 --> 02:30:01.290
No, we don't have a clue how it works,
do we?

02:30:01.930 --> 02:30:04.450
And most of the scientists don't,
believe it or not.

02:30:05.670 --> 02:30:08.530
We just have faith, because they tell us
it works.

02:30:08.590 --> 02:30:14.230
We announced the subject of radioactive
dating, not too long ago, for some

02:30:14.230 --> 02:30:16.670
teenagers, and I think they got the wrong
impression.

02:30:18.230 --> 02:30:24.110
Generally radioactive material is material
that emits particles from the nucleus of

02:30:24.110 --> 02:30:29.590
the atom, it's not stable, and through the
loss of alpha and beta particles decays

02:30:29.590 --> 02:30:34.850
into different elements, and finally winds
up as a stable element, and this decay

02:30:34.850 --> 02:30:39.930
process is supposed to allow us to tell
time, something like an hourglass.

02:30:40.210 --> 02:30:45.370
You begin with an hour's worth of material
at the top, it decays down in an hour's

02:30:45.370 --> 02:30:50.190
time to what's at the bottom, and so this
is the way you can tell time.

02:30:51.170 --> 02:30:57.850
Now, as you look at uranium, it loses some
of its 238 particles, becoming other

02:30:57.850 --> 02:31:01.670
minerals, coming finally to be lead,
which is stable.

02:31:02.210 --> 02:31:07.590
There's natural lead and radiogenic lead,
but this is what's produced as a result of

02:31:07.590 --> 02:31:12.350
the decay process, and then you use the
equation that you see here to reach the

02:31:12.350 --> 02:31:13.870
conclusion about the number of years.

02:31:16.030 --> 02:31:18.270
What could go wrong with this kind of a
process?

02:31:18.390 --> 02:31:23.390
Well, let's first look at the hourglass
and just say how much time has transpired

02:31:23.390 --> 02:31:28.170
here, ignoring the uranium and lead for a
second, if we're looking at a regular

02:31:28.170 --> 02:31:28.890
hourglass.

02:31:30.010 --> 02:31:30.990
How much time?

02:31:32.190 --> 02:31:39.070
Well, we can look at that and we can say
maybe 15 minutes, maybe 20 minutes,

02:31:39.430 --> 02:31:44.250
and if we could count the grains of sand,
we could come up with a very accurate

02:31:44.250 --> 02:31:47.750
conclusion about how much time had
transpired, assuming that the rate is

02:31:47.750 --> 02:31:48.130
constant.

02:31:49.190 --> 02:31:50.390
But what would go wrong?

02:31:50.450 --> 02:31:52.610
What could possibly be wrong with that
conclusion?

02:31:54.030 --> 02:31:59.210
Suppose just before you looked at the
hourglass, somebody raised the top and

02:31:59.210 --> 02:32:02.430
dumped in a lot of extra sand,
and virtually all of the hour's worth of

02:32:02.430 --> 02:32:03.650
sand had already run to the bottom.

02:32:03.650 --> 02:32:10.190
Now it looks like it hasn't, and it's been
going for 58 minutes, but now it looks

02:32:10.190 --> 02:32:11.390
like that's not the case.

02:32:12.230 --> 02:32:17.110
Or suppose someone lowered the lid and let
out most of what had already run down.

02:32:19.710 --> 02:32:27.110
Or suppose it were basically like this,
laying on its side, and it had been going

02:32:27.110 --> 02:32:30.230
two seconds, when somebody set it up and
now said, look at it.

02:32:32.980 --> 02:32:37.480
You have to know the beginning conditions,
and you have to know that it's a closed

02:32:37.480 --> 02:32:42.200
system, that nothing leaked in or leaked
out, or you're not really telling time.

02:32:42.340 --> 02:32:46.460
And these are the basic problems by
analogy.

02:32:46.600 --> 02:32:50.080
Now it's a rather crude analogy,
but gives us an idea of what we're talking

02:32:50.080 --> 02:32:50.300
about.

02:32:50.380 --> 02:32:54.540
Notice Henry Fall's statement,
one of the leading authorities in this

02:32:54.540 --> 02:32:54.800
field.

02:32:54.900 --> 02:32:58.880
He says, two important assumptions are
implicit in this equation, the one we

02:32:58.880 --> 02:32:59.980
looked at just a moment ago.

02:33:00.900 --> 02:33:03.220
First, that we're dealing with a closed
system.

02:33:04.440 --> 02:33:06.040
Nothing leaked in, nothing leaked out.

02:33:06.600 --> 02:33:10.820
Second, that no atoms of the daughter,
that's what's produced at the bottom,

02:33:11.620 --> 02:33:13.880
were present in the system when it formed.

02:33:14.360 --> 02:33:17.500
And non-radiogenic lead occurs throughout
nature.

02:33:18.880 --> 02:33:23.740
These assumptions furnish the most serious
limitations on the accumulation clock.

02:33:24.780 --> 02:33:28.200
Now this is not the creationist,
this is the evolutionist saying this is a

02:33:28.200 --> 02:33:28.960
serious problem.

02:33:29.600 --> 02:33:35.420
He continues saying rigorously closed
systems probably do not exist in nature.

02:33:36.920 --> 02:33:41.580
But surprisingly many rocks and minerals
satisfy the requirements well enough to be

02:33:41.580 --> 02:33:44.120
useful for nuclear age determination.

02:33:44.480 --> 02:33:47.680
The problem is one of judicious geologic
selection.

02:33:49.660 --> 02:33:51.840
And so this is not an objective process.

02:33:52.120 --> 02:33:54.280
You date the rock and you get an age.

02:33:54.280 --> 02:34:00.280
You know most rocks really don't fit the
purpose and you just judiciously select

02:34:00.280 --> 02:34:01.620
the one that's going to work for you.

02:34:03.880 --> 02:34:04.720
J.D.

02:34:04.760 --> 02:34:10.100
McDougall is writing in Scientific
American saying that this process involves

02:34:10.100 --> 02:34:14.500
rocks where you have minerals leaking in
constantly.

02:34:14.660 --> 02:34:18.740
Groundwater percolation can leach away the
proportion of uranium present in the rock

02:34:18.740 --> 02:34:19.100
crystals.

02:34:20.060 --> 02:34:24.400
And the mobility of the uranium is such
that as one part of the rock is being

02:34:24.400 --> 02:34:28.500
impoverished, another part can become
abnormally enriched at relatively low

02:34:28.500 --> 02:34:29.000
temperatures.

02:34:30.920 --> 02:34:37.260
And when this is going on you're adding
sand to the hourglass or you're taking

02:34:37.260 --> 02:34:42.540
away sand from the hourglass and what does
that do to the time telling mechanism?

02:34:43.440 --> 02:34:45.540
It's just really messing it up.

02:34:45.640 --> 02:34:47.340
You can't tell time that way.

02:34:48.600 --> 02:34:56.100
We see things that become fossilized,
that become petrified.

02:34:56.180 --> 02:34:57.080
How does this happen?

02:34:57.740 --> 02:35:01.420
Water percolates down through the rocks
and it leaches out some material,

02:35:01.520 --> 02:35:04.860
it replaces it with other material and
this is not that unusual.

02:35:06.100 --> 02:35:11.520
And that's going on in rocks all the time,
especially if you're looking at billions

02:35:12.340 --> 02:35:14.800
or millions or thousands of years.

02:35:17.740 --> 02:35:23.080
Miger of East Carolina University really
gets down to how it works writing in

02:35:23.080 --> 02:35:27.680
Contributions to Geology when he says in
general, dates in the correct ballpark are

02:35:27.680 --> 02:35:29.800
assumed to be correct and are published.

02:35:30.480 --> 02:35:32.020
If it comes out, quote, right.

02:35:32.780 --> 02:35:39.240
And by the way, if you send in a sample to
a lab, they're not going to date it unless

02:35:39.240 --> 02:35:42.000
you tell them where it came from,
how old it's supposed to be.

02:35:43.700 --> 02:35:46.440
They don't take the test unless you give
them the answer.

02:35:46.860 --> 02:35:50.260
And that's not the way I used to take
tests.

02:35:51.820 --> 02:35:58.120
All you have to do is log on the websites,
look at the form where you submit the

02:35:58.120 --> 02:36:00.680
samples and see this is what you have to
tell them.

02:36:01.320 --> 02:36:03.140
And I guarantee you they don't do it.

02:36:03.200 --> 02:36:07.600
There may be one or two, but they're not
the reputable labs.

02:36:09.220 --> 02:36:11.780
Continuing, he says those in disagreement.

02:36:12.040 --> 02:36:13.580
If they're in agreement, they're
published.

02:36:13.760 --> 02:36:17.220
If they're in disagreement with the other
data, they're seldom published,

02:36:17.340 --> 02:36:19.800
nor are the discrepancies fully explained.

02:36:19.880 --> 02:36:20.580
They don't even try.

02:36:20.700 --> 02:36:21.480
They just chuck it.

02:36:22.960 --> 02:36:29.840
Now that sounds rather cynical and surely
scientific people can't do it that way.

02:36:29.940 --> 02:36:35.600
Well, let's allow the evolutionist himself
to describe exactly what's happened.

02:36:35.700 --> 02:36:40.540
One of the more famous examples of dating
involves the 1470 skull by Richard Leakey

02:36:40.540 --> 02:36:46.580
and Roger Lewin is editor of Research News
and Science, one of, if not the most

02:36:46.580 --> 02:36:48.980
prestigious science journal in the United
States.

02:36:50.280 --> 02:36:53.520
He is a good friend of Richard Leakey's.

02:36:53.540 --> 02:36:54.840
They've written a couple of books
together.

02:36:56.300 --> 02:36:59.680
And he's describing how the dating of this
took place.

02:36:59.780 --> 02:37:02.720
And really there's a couple of chapters in
his book, Bones of Contention,

02:37:03.380 --> 02:37:05.200
which is a pretty interesting book.

02:37:05.400 --> 02:37:09.400
He, of course, believes in the billions of
years and is a devout evolutionist.

02:37:09.540 --> 02:37:13.500
But historically you've got a pretty good
record of what happened in the search for

02:37:13.500 --> 02:37:14.140
fossil man.

02:37:15.300 --> 02:37:21.980
The calculated age was quickly refined to
be 2.61 plus or minus 0.26 million years.

02:37:23.860 --> 02:37:25.400
Okay, 1470 skull.

02:37:26.260 --> 02:37:29.560
2.61 plus or minus 0.26 million years.

02:37:29.940 --> 02:37:33.920
Which to the anthropologist unfamiliar
with the procedures of radiometric dating

02:37:33.920 --> 02:37:37.520
has a ring of comforting precision about
it.

02:37:38.260 --> 02:37:42.680
Even the anthropologists, I mean you don't
feel bad, they don't really understand how

02:37:42.680 --> 02:37:43.380
it works either.

02:37:44.380 --> 02:37:47.400
And this sounds very comforting.

02:37:50.020 --> 02:37:51.920
But, let's look at the rest of the story.

02:37:52.840 --> 02:38:02.260
There were 41 separate age determinations
which varied between 223 million and less

02:38:02.260 --> 02:38:03.040
than 1 million.

02:38:03.920 --> 02:38:07.360
Now that's a huge range.

02:38:08.000 --> 02:38:11.780
41 different tests and it's all over the
place.

02:38:13.340 --> 02:38:18.240
And they never, after the first
determination, never again obtained 2.61

02:38:18.240 --> 02:38:18.880
from their experience.

02:38:18.940 --> 02:38:21.100
They got it 1 out of 41.

02:38:21.100 --> 02:38:23.840
And chucked the 40 and kept the 1.

02:38:26.400 --> 02:38:28.120
Now, that's not my description.

02:38:29.460 --> 02:38:32.080
This is Leakey's best friend.

02:38:33.380 --> 02:38:35.120
Editor of Research News and Science.

02:38:35.200 --> 02:38:36.300
This is the way it works.

02:38:36.380 --> 02:38:38.780
You just keep chucking until you get what
you want.

02:38:40.400 --> 02:38:42.400
Now, how scientific is that?

02:38:42.440 --> 02:38:46.760
This is a game that's played to verify
what you already believe.

02:38:47.640 --> 02:38:50.240
If it doesn't, you chuck it and you keep
playing.

02:38:52.660 --> 02:38:55.640
Let me give you some more illustrations.

02:38:55.900 --> 02:38:57.600
This is a cross-section of the Grand
Canyon.

02:38:57.720 --> 02:38:59.040
We've done some research here.

02:38:59.620 --> 02:39:01.840
I say we, myself, with several others.

02:39:02.880 --> 02:39:05.340
Mainly others in this area, but we work
together.

02:39:08.880 --> 02:39:15.880
As we look at this cross-section of the
canyon, we can determine that some rocks

02:39:15.880 --> 02:39:17.080
ought to be older.

02:39:17.160 --> 02:39:21.060
Certainly, if the evolutionary picture is
correct, the ones down at the bottom ought

02:39:21.060 --> 02:39:22.620
to be older than the ones up at the top.

02:39:23.860 --> 02:39:24.660
The U.N.

02:39:24.740 --> 02:39:30.140
Carrot Basalt has come out of what appear
to be modern volcanoes.

02:39:30.540 --> 02:39:34.080
Some have suggested the American Indians
saw these eruptions take place.

02:39:34.180 --> 02:39:38.800
They float over the edge of the canyon,
down into and damming up some of the

02:39:38.800 --> 02:39:39.960
lowest parts of the canyon.

02:39:40.920 --> 02:39:42.820
This would be the youngest rock there.

02:39:44.220 --> 02:39:48.740
Interestingly, the same type of rock is
found down in the inner gorge,

02:39:48.880 --> 02:39:54.760
underneath the sedimentary layers,
down in the igneous rock in the inner part

02:39:54.760 --> 02:39:55.340
of the gorge.

02:39:55.500 --> 02:39:58.760
But it's the same kind of rock,
Cardenas Basalt, which ought to be older.

02:39:59.160 --> 02:40:01.740
Well, it's obvious which should be older.

02:40:02.980 --> 02:40:06.760
Let's send these rocks to the lab and see
how this works out.

02:40:08.700 --> 02:40:13.780
There are about 20 different radiometric
methods, but some of them would be more

02:40:13.780 --> 02:40:15.460
appropriate for this type of rock.

02:40:15.560 --> 02:40:18.200
Here we use several different methods to
date the U.N.

02:40:18.280 --> 02:40:19.020
Carrot Basalt.

02:40:19.880 --> 02:40:23.500
Six potassium-argon model ages were run.

02:40:24.300 --> 02:40:29.300
And the range was from .01 all the way to
17 million, which is a pretty good range

02:40:29.300 --> 02:40:30.960
in itself in this one lab.

02:40:32.260 --> 02:40:36.680
The rubidium strontium came out 1270 to
1390.

02:40:37.780 --> 02:40:43.740
The lead-lead isochron, supposed to be the
most accurate, came out better than two

02:40:43.740 --> 02:40:49.100
and a half billion, which is a whole lot
more than the 17 million, which was the

02:40:49.100 --> 02:40:51.200
oldest potassium-argon age.

02:40:52.060 --> 02:40:54.600
Now this is the same rock.

02:40:56.260 --> 02:40:58.680
Different methods on the same rock.

02:40:58.680 --> 02:41:05.620
Now you're told over and over again that
we test and the different ages come out

02:41:05.620 --> 02:41:10.880
and they are concordant and they verify
one another and this is the way we check

02:41:10.880 --> 02:41:12.760
and we know it's right because they all
agree.

02:41:14.900 --> 02:41:19.340
If you chuck 40 and pick the one and then
you're able to do that with the others,

02:41:21.380 --> 02:41:25.340
maybe you can come out with something that
looks concordant, but this is the real

02:41:25.340 --> 02:41:29.740
experience that we had with the Cardenas
basalts.

02:41:29.860 --> 02:41:31.060
Let's see how that came out.

02:41:31.670 --> 02:41:39.820
Similar methods used and again that's all
over the place from 853 million to a

02:41:39.820 --> 02:41:40.160
billion.

02:41:41.820 --> 02:41:42.760
Huge range.

02:41:42.840 --> 02:41:45.580
Again, all from the same rock,
just using different methods.

02:41:46.700 --> 02:41:52.460
But we compare the oldest rock from the
Ewing Carriot Plateau that flowed over the

02:41:52.460 --> 02:41:57.080
edge and dammed up the lowest part of the
canyon and it's two and a half billion

02:41:57.080 --> 02:42:02.860
whereas the oldest age for the oldest rock
is just barely a billion.

02:42:03.320 --> 02:42:07.480
It's less than half as old as what flowed
over the top of the canyon.

02:42:09.080 --> 02:42:13.500
Now, how is it that you got the lower
younger?

02:42:14.240 --> 02:42:16.240
It ought to be much...

02:42:16.700 --> 02:42:21.860
Sometimes when you can test and know at
least relatively speaking what ought to be

02:42:21.860 --> 02:42:29.720
and when you do, I'm sorry, it doesn't
work unless you do a lot of checking which

02:42:29.720 --> 02:42:33.120
is done as we have demonstrated from the
evolutionist himself.

02:42:33.660 --> 02:42:36.200
We decided to do some work at Mount St.
Helens.

02:42:36.300 --> 02:42:37.820
This is a picture of the caldera.

02:42:38.460 --> 02:42:43.140
The center portion is of known age.

02:42:43.300 --> 02:42:45.280
This is from 1986.

02:42:45.740 --> 02:42:50.880
The eruption was 1980 but six years later
is where most of this was extruded.

02:42:51.760 --> 02:43:00.260
We took five samples from the caldera,
different parts of it and sent it to the

02:43:00.260 --> 02:43:00.500
lab.

02:43:01.180 --> 02:43:01.960
Here's the rot.

02:43:02.100 --> 02:43:02.600
You date it.

02:43:02.700 --> 02:43:03.460
Tell me the age.

02:43:04.860 --> 02:43:10.120
Well, the answer came back looking like
this in millions of years.

02:43:11.340 --> 02:43:13.360
And the rot was actually 11 years old.

02:43:13.360 --> 02:43:23.120
And people would say, well, ok it was not
dating when the rot formed but rot that

02:43:23.120 --> 02:43:27.500
was already mixed together as lava and
that's of course exactly right.

02:43:28.180 --> 02:43:33.680
The assumption of the potassium-argon
dating which was being used here is that

02:43:33.680 --> 02:43:39.240
when it flows as lava all of the argon
escapes and when it then congeals into

02:43:39.240 --> 02:43:41.340
rock that's when the clock starts.

02:43:42.060 --> 02:43:46.180
And you're dating the time when it became
hard as rock.

02:43:48.580 --> 02:43:50.820
Sorry, it doesn't all escape.

02:43:50.960 --> 02:43:52.440
There's still plenty of argon there.

02:43:52.940 --> 02:43:56.960
It doesn't work and gives absolutely
absurd results.

02:43:57.480 --> 02:43:59.040
This is not unusual.

02:44:00.520 --> 02:44:04.780
And if you're checking 40 out of 41 then I
think you get the picture.

02:44:05.920 --> 02:44:08.900
Radiocarbon dating is the one that we hear
a good deal about.

02:44:09.880 --> 02:44:13.520
It's not nearly as significant for
evolution because it covers a much shorter

02:44:13.520 --> 02:44:16.060
period of time and works somewhat
differently.

02:44:16.640 --> 02:44:22.980
It covers a period of less than 100,000
years probably more like 60 to 70,000

02:44:22.980 --> 02:44:27.260
which I think is significant when we're
talking about the age of the earth from

02:44:27.260 --> 02:44:32.420
the biblical perspective but not the
billions necessary for evolution.

02:44:33.100 --> 02:44:39.100
Robert Lee is commenting on, I think,
rather objectively, the problems that have

02:44:39.100 --> 02:44:40.700
become obvious in recent years.

02:44:41.140 --> 02:44:45.380
He said the troubles of the radiocarbon
dating method are undeniably deep and

02:44:45.380 --> 02:44:45.880
serious.

02:44:46.820 --> 02:44:51.320
Despite 35 years of technological
refinement and better understanding the

02:44:51.320 --> 02:44:54.680
underlying assumptions have been strongly
challenged.

02:44:55.900 --> 02:44:59.200
Now this is not just something leaks in or
leaks out.

02:44:59.300 --> 02:45:00.500
This is not just contamination.

02:45:00.880 --> 02:45:04.740
The underlying assumptions have been
challenged.

02:45:05.040 --> 02:45:06.440
It forms in the upper atmosphere.

02:45:06.680 --> 02:45:12.360
The assumption is that there is the same
amount relative to carbon-12 that there

02:45:12.360 --> 02:45:15.900
has been for thousands of years for the
time that it's being tested.

02:45:16.020 --> 02:45:17.700
We have found that's not the case.

02:45:19.220 --> 02:45:21.580
It is, that is, the carbon-14 is
increasing.

02:45:21.800 --> 02:45:23.000
It's not staying the same.

02:45:24.080 --> 02:45:28.100
Libby in his original work said it would
only take 30,000 years to reach this state

02:45:28.100 --> 02:45:31.880
of equilibrium and it's not there which is
interesting.

02:45:32.700 --> 02:45:36.460
But he continues saying it should be no
surprise then that fully half of the dates

02:45:36.460 --> 02:45:36.980
are rejected.

02:45:39.760 --> 02:45:43.000
That's, I think, overstating his case.

02:45:43.120 --> 02:45:46.060
He is, of course, a believer in this and
uses it.

02:45:47.380 --> 02:45:52.840
I have a friend who runs the carbon dating
lab at Ball State University.

02:45:54.180 --> 02:45:55.040
He's a brother.

02:45:55.480 --> 02:45:57.860
We differ on the age of the earth.

02:45:59.560 --> 02:46:02.800
And we were discussing this, I think,
in a brotherly way.

02:46:03.840 --> 02:46:10.400
And I was visiting him there at the lab
and he was dating a peat bog with the

02:46:10.400 --> 02:46:16.380
carbon-14 lab that he had and he had
checked the first 19.

02:46:16.520 --> 02:46:17.860
He was on the 20th date.

02:46:18.060 --> 02:46:20.180
He knew it was 20,000 years old.

02:46:20.180 --> 02:46:22.540
Most of them had come out 4,000 and 5,000.

02:46:23.000 --> 02:46:27.180
Therefore, it proved that it was
contaminated with recent material,

02:46:27.420 --> 02:46:29.420
so he's going to get a good one yet.

02:46:29.880 --> 02:46:32.800
But he's checked everything he's gotten so
far.

02:46:33.240 --> 02:46:34.400
19 out of 19.

02:46:35.900 --> 02:46:42.080
And so when he says half the dates are
rejected I think he's understating the

02:46:42.080 --> 02:46:42.500
situation.

02:46:43.060 --> 02:46:47.400
He continues to say there are gross
discrepancies, the chronology is uneven

02:46:47.400 --> 02:46:52.460
and relative, and the accepted dates are
actually selected dates.

02:46:53.920 --> 02:46:56.060
Now, I submit to you this is not science.

02:46:57.580 --> 02:47:04.420
This is a game that's being played in
order to make people look like they know

02:47:04.420 --> 02:47:04.920
what they're doing.

02:47:05.860 --> 02:47:08.540
To verify prior conclusions.

02:47:09.540 --> 02:47:10.320
Even W.E.B.

02:47:10.380 --> 02:47:15.280
Stanfield who is a vicious
anti-creationist writing in his book

02:47:15.280 --> 02:47:19.580
Science of Evolution it is obvious,
and this is after we had presented some of

02:47:19.580 --> 02:47:24.400
this material, that the radiometric
technique may not be the absolute dating

02:47:24.400 --> 02:47:25.460
methods they claim to be.

02:47:26.660 --> 02:47:29.420
And I think that's for obvious reasons.

02:47:29.740 --> 02:47:34.400
I think one of the best ways to approach
this is to look at what might be called

02:47:34.400 --> 02:47:35.900
the proof of the pudding type arguments.

02:47:36.480 --> 02:47:41.660
Let's look at situations where we should
be able to tell, at least relatively,

02:47:41.840 --> 02:47:44.120
Grand Canyon would fit into that category.

02:47:45.400 --> 02:47:50.960
This is from the Glen Rose Limestone not
too far from here.

02:47:51.440 --> 02:47:54.320
This is supposed to be 110 million,
middle Cretaceous.

02:47:54.800 --> 02:48:02.400
Well, a friend of mine, an associate sent
this to the UCLA Carbon Dating Lab without

02:48:02.400 --> 02:48:05.340
being completely straightforward about
where it came from.

02:48:06.240 --> 02:48:11.500
It came back dated 890 years old,
from 110 million year old limestone.

02:48:14.360 --> 02:48:23.280
About 50 yards away there was a carbonized
stick in the same layer, and so he sent

02:48:23.280 --> 02:48:24.440
some of this to the same lab.

02:48:24.760 --> 02:48:30.940
It came back dated 12,800, which is
considerably more than 800 years old,

02:48:31.080 --> 02:48:34.560
but all considerably less than the 110
million.

02:48:36.380 --> 02:48:43.180
Now, if you kept sending, you might get
one that they would accept, because the

02:48:43.180 --> 02:48:45.300
response would be, well, you're crazy.

02:48:45.420 --> 02:48:51.680
You don't send material for radiocarbon
dating from 110 million year old

02:48:51.680 --> 02:48:52.080
limestone.

02:48:52.240 --> 02:48:55.040
It's all gone within 50-60,000 years.

02:48:55.800 --> 02:48:59.440
It should be, but guess what?

02:48:59.520 --> 02:49:00.000
It's not.

02:49:01.260 --> 02:49:05.380
We have dated over 100 dinosaur bones now
with radiocarbon dating.

02:49:05.880 --> 02:49:09.180
This is the ileum bone there from
Glenrose.

02:49:09.440 --> 02:49:11.420
It's supposed to be 110 million years old.

02:49:11.480 --> 02:49:13.840
It came back dated 19,000.

02:49:14.640 --> 02:49:16.720
That's a long way from 110 million.

02:49:17.080 --> 02:49:20.980
And in 65 million years, since the
dinosaur is supposed to have been extinct,

02:49:21.200 --> 02:49:24.960
all of the carbon-14 would be gone,
like in 50-60,000 years.

02:49:25.520 --> 02:49:29.900
And so you're crazy for even trying to
date dinosaur bones.

02:49:30.720 --> 02:49:35.100
If you think it's 110 million years,
yes, but I don't.

02:49:35.880 --> 02:49:39.940
And we've dated over 100 every single one
of them.

02:49:40.560 --> 02:49:45.320
100 out of 100 had significant radiocarbon
in it.

02:49:47.810 --> 02:49:50.050
Therefore, I think they're playing games.

02:49:50.470 --> 02:49:53.290
And it's not 110 million years old.

02:49:54.010 --> 02:49:58.930
There are some obvious assumptions that
you're not always told about.

02:49:59.390 --> 02:50:00.130
They dated it.

02:50:00.210 --> 02:50:01.110
This is how old it is.

02:50:02.350 --> 02:50:06.230
First, you have to know you're dealing
with a closed system and there virtually

02:50:06.230 --> 02:50:07.070
is no such thing.

02:50:08.030 --> 02:50:09.350
Things leak in and leak out.

02:50:10.290 --> 02:50:11.950
You have to know the beginning conditions.

02:50:12.150 --> 02:50:16.170
It's simply a matter of guessing how much
lead is radiogenic and how much lead is

02:50:16.170 --> 02:50:18.870
produced naturally or is there naturally.

02:50:20.430 --> 02:50:24.870
There are some reasons for some of the
assumptions, but it's a guess.

02:50:25.930 --> 02:50:30.170
And then you have to assume that the rate
is constant and there are some very

02:50:30.170 --> 02:50:36.010
serious challenges to that and that may be
even more productive than the ones we've

02:50:36.010 --> 02:50:36.790
looked at this evening.

02:50:37.130 --> 02:50:43.250
But when you see these assumptions that
you don't know and can't know and then you

02:50:43.250 --> 02:50:49.610
see that known relationships contradict
like with Mount St. Helens and the Grand

02:50:49.610 --> 02:50:56.930
Canyon and then you see why Stanfield says
there may not be good radiological clocks.

02:50:57.710 --> 02:51:01.470
He goes on to explain his statements and
age estimates on a given geological

02:51:01.470 --> 02:51:05.430
stratum by different radiometric methods
are often quite different sometimes by

02:51:05.430 --> 02:51:08.210
hundreds of millions of years as we've
shown.

02:51:09.070 --> 02:51:14.270
And so he says there is no absolutely
reliable long-term radiological clock.

02:51:16.050 --> 02:51:22.050
Now, he still uses them and believes the
Earth is billions of years old but I think

02:51:22.050 --> 02:51:25.410
he's right and I think that for I think
good reasons.

02:51:27.410 --> 02:51:29.670
Now, why do you think the Earth is old?

02:51:32.270 --> 02:51:36.890
Radiometric dating is really not a very
good reason when you learn the facts.

02:51:38.250 --> 02:51:43.670
The second answer that we get typically
involves geologic phenomenon.

02:51:44.550 --> 02:51:48.790
Everybody knows it takes a long time to
fossilize things and to petrify things and

02:51:48.790 --> 02:51:53.090
to have all these layers that we see in
the Grand Canyon takes millions and

02:51:53.090 --> 02:51:56.010
millions of years and look at all the
sedimentary rock and it takes millions of

02:51:56.010 --> 02:51:56.630
years to form that.

02:51:58.030 --> 02:52:03.730
And we look in the textbooks of
stratigraphy tell us about the

02:52:03.730 --> 02:52:09.190
sedimentation rates this is by Schuster
and it's still in all the textbooks and

02:52:09.190 --> 02:52:13.850
this is the standard conclusion about how
long it takes to form one foot of

02:52:13.850 --> 02:52:15.790
Paleozoic limestone.

02:52:15.790 --> 02:52:16.710
2700 years.

02:52:18.210 --> 02:52:19.810
That's the majority of it.

02:52:19.990 --> 02:52:22.290
Different rates for different portions,
we're told.

02:52:22.710 --> 02:52:23.590
According to Schuster.

02:52:23.770 --> 02:52:25.470
Now, some would have it much, much older.

02:52:25.590 --> 02:52:27.410
This is actually a very conservative
estimate.

02:52:29.530 --> 02:52:35.190
In 96, this book was published making the
statement the rate of one centimeter per

02:52:35.190 --> 02:52:36.690
thousand years is typical.

02:52:37.930 --> 02:52:40.650
Now, that's over 30,000 years per foot.

02:52:41.590 --> 02:52:46.070
Most would say that's rather extreme
though these people from Yale and

02:52:46.070 --> 02:52:48.330
Dartmouth are very representative
authorities.

02:52:50.090 --> 02:52:57.910
30,000 years or even 3,000 years a foot is
how this sediment accumulates and how the

02:52:57.910 --> 02:52:58.590
rocks form.

02:52:59.070 --> 02:53:03.550
It kind of reminds me of the family circus
cartoon the little boy says, how big does

02:53:03.550 --> 02:53:05.810
a stone have to grow before it becomes a
rock?

02:53:07.210 --> 02:53:08.890
It's growing real slow.

02:53:10.510 --> 02:53:11.750
Do rocks grow?

02:53:12.610 --> 02:53:13.510
Have you seen?

02:53:14.770 --> 02:53:15.890
Or do they deteriorate?

02:53:17.010 --> 02:53:21.870
If they grew even at the slow rate,
you know, you just wait long enough and

02:53:21.870 --> 02:53:25.470
you've got a rock house, you could have an
extra bedroom and you din.

02:53:27.710 --> 02:53:29.370
No, rocks don't do that.

02:53:29.470 --> 02:53:32.950
They deteriorate and we should understand
that.

02:53:33.050 --> 02:53:36.110
But that's not the propaganda that's put
out.

02:53:36.670 --> 02:53:44.950
Notice the picture here of the beautiful
fossil spider, wolf spider, fluorescent

02:53:44.950 --> 02:53:49.030
fossil beds and there's a sign there at
this national monument that says remember,

02:53:49.190 --> 02:53:50.990
two inches equals one million years.

02:53:52.130 --> 02:53:59.630
Now that's slower than Officer and Page
but still on the order of what you

02:53:59.630 --> 02:54:00.350
typically hear.

02:54:00.350 --> 02:54:02.230
This is what we're paying for with our tax
dollars.

02:54:02.370 --> 02:54:03.950
Now just think about this for a minute.

02:54:05.370 --> 02:54:07.410
This is the width of a human hair.

02:54:08.430 --> 02:54:13.870
How long is it going to take to cover that
hair at two inches per million years?

02:54:15.290 --> 02:54:21.910
At Schuster's rate, that's the one that's
faster than the others, 2500 years would

02:54:21.910 --> 02:54:23.990
be required to cover one hair.

02:54:24.030 --> 02:54:26.790
What's going to happen to the spider as
it's being covered at that rate?

02:54:27.970 --> 02:54:29.430
Is it still going to be there?

02:54:29.610 --> 02:54:33.550
Is it going to sit there and hold still
for 2500 years while the rot grows around

02:54:33.550 --> 02:54:33.810
it?

02:54:35.230 --> 02:54:38.030
That's the kind of thing you see in the
textbooks.

02:54:41.430 --> 02:54:43.150
That doesn't even make good nonsense.

02:54:43.610 --> 02:54:44.530
If you just think.

02:54:44.950 --> 02:54:46.590
It doesn't hurt.

02:54:48.270 --> 02:54:49.310
Think about it.

02:54:50.110 --> 02:54:52.590
There's no way that that's going to
happen.

02:54:53.570 --> 02:54:58.090
Dunbar and Rogers in their Principles of
Stratigraphy talked about this problem as

02:54:58.090 --> 02:54:58.550
a dilemma.

02:54:59.770 --> 02:55:03.530
When you look at the rocks and you see the
fossils and try to imagine how this could

02:55:03.530 --> 02:55:05.210
happen slowly, you've got a problem.

02:55:05.310 --> 02:55:09.230
He says to some thoughtful stratigraphers,
this amazing discovery, billions of years,

02:55:09.330 --> 02:55:10.310
presented a dilemma.

02:55:11.070 --> 02:55:14.530
For if the known stratified rocks have
been accumulating throughout this vast

02:55:14.530 --> 02:55:17.990
span of time, the average rate of
deposition must have been extremely slow.

02:55:19.030 --> 02:55:21.170
3,000 years to form a foot.

02:55:21.730 --> 02:55:23.830
The faster rate instead of 30,000.

02:55:25.790 --> 02:55:32.550
Yet there is very good evidence that
individual beds accumulated rapidly.

02:55:34.370 --> 02:55:36.130
Very good evidence.

02:55:36.190 --> 02:55:41.470
Now where's the evidence, good or
otherwise, that it happened slowly?

02:55:42.810 --> 02:55:44.570
No, the evidence is the opposite.

02:55:44.650 --> 02:55:45.490
What's he talking about?

02:55:45.490 --> 02:55:52.370
Well, we look at this shrimp, which is
really not accurate.

02:55:53.010 --> 02:55:53.950
This is not a shrimp.

02:55:55.790 --> 02:55:56.890
This is a rock.

02:55:58.290 --> 02:56:02.390
And my question is, how long did it take
that rock to form?

02:56:04.070 --> 02:56:05.050
Now just think about that.

02:56:05.830 --> 02:56:08.810
You know the shrimp is going to lay out
there on the beach after it dies for

02:56:08.810 --> 02:56:12.590
years, days.

02:56:13.250 --> 02:56:13.930
How long?

02:56:15.370 --> 02:56:18.530
You ladies know you can put the shrimp in
the refrigerator and it will just stay

02:56:18.530 --> 02:56:20.030
there for years and years and years.

02:56:22.350 --> 02:56:28.410
How long is this shrimp going to look like
this before it's solidified into rock?

02:56:30.150 --> 02:56:34.530
Well, if that rock is not formed within
days, this picture you can't see.

02:56:34.850 --> 02:56:35.990
I mean it just doesn't happen.

02:56:37.830 --> 02:56:41.390
These are some fish from Ennis County,
not too far from where I live.

02:56:42.130 --> 02:56:47.930
Big, fat, juicy, plump fish that you lay
out there in your backyard and it will

02:56:47.930 --> 02:56:49.670
stay that way for years and years and
years.

02:56:53.690 --> 02:56:55.550
How long are these fish going to stay this
way?

02:56:55.730 --> 02:56:59.530
They became rock while they were still
looking like this.

02:57:01.070 --> 02:57:02.790
How long did it take that rock to form?

02:57:05.170 --> 02:57:08.190
We're looking here at a picture of a fish
eating his supper.

02:57:10.450 --> 02:57:14.470
A heron and a perch, which are very
similar to modern ones, supposed to be 135

02:57:14.470 --> 02:57:15.410
million years old.

02:57:17.890 --> 02:57:19.810
The big one here is about three feet long.

02:57:20.990 --> 02:57:26.610
I enjoy eating with my brethren from time
to time and some of them, we kid about

02:57:26.610 --> 02:57:30.210
being kind of slow in their eating
processes.

02:57:32.550 --> 02:57:35.690
But thousands of years is kind of not...

02:57:35.690 --> 02:57:39.510
How long did it take this fish to become a
rock?

02:57:39.810 --> 02:57:41.370
He got caught eating his supper.

02:57:43.190 --> 02:57:46.530
He got caught in the concrete,
if you please.

02:57:47.270 --> 02:57:49.130
Fast forming concrete.

02:57:50.530 --> 02:57:57.830
We're looking here at a fern, but this
fern has not had time to wilt and it

02:57:57.830 --> 02:57:58.530
became a rock.

02:57:59.450 --> 02:58:04.550
This one is bent over as is the live fern
that we see below it.

02:58:06.410 --> 02:58:09.350
Obviously before it wilted, how long does
it take a fern to wilt?

02:58:10.710 --> 02:58:12.070
Ladies know something about that.

02:58:12.790 --> 02:58:15.030
Just a few minutes sometimes.

02:58:16.370 --> 02:58:20.090
But this one looks beautiful and it's a
rock.

02:58:22.650 --> 02:58:29.630
Now if we just think, we ought to know
that this 30,000 years a foot,

02:58:29.630 --> 02:58:35.710
2,500 years to cover a hair, propaganda in
the textbooks and in our national

02:58:35.710 --> 02:58:38.490
monuments is just not even good hogwash.

02:58:40.670 --> 02:58:45.590
We're looking here at about a 43 foot
fossil tree trunk.

02:58:46.970 --> 02:58:51.850
The bottom portion of it is protruding
into a coal seam.

02:58:52.750 --> 02:58:56.110
And the top of it is protruding into a
coal seam.

02:58:57.030 --> 02:59:01.250
And in between you have hundreds of layers
of sandstone.

02:59:04.150 --> 02:59:07.550
The coal seam obviously took hundreds of
thousands of years to form.

02:59:08.050 --> 02:59:09.210
I mean we all heard that.

02:59:10.170 --> 02:59:15.050
What's going to happen to the top of the
tree while that's happening?

02:59:18.510 --> 02:59:20.150
Obviously this is one event.

02:59:21.230 --> 02:59:24.370
This is not hundreds of thousands of
years.

02:59:25.250 --> 02:59:27.570
What would it take to do something like
this?

02:59:30.710 --> 02:59:35.090
Dunbar and Rogers again comment,
a thousand years more or less would have

02:59:35.090 --> 02:59:37.710
been required to bury a shell five inches
in diameter.

02:59:37.890 --> 02:59:39.670
This is at the rapid Schuster rate.

02:59:40.730 --> 02:59:45.210
With very local exceptions, fossil shells
show no evidence of such long exposure.

02:59:47.130 --> 02:59:50.970
As he said, there's very good evidence
that they formed rapidly.

02:59:51.090 --> 02:59:53.010
I want to know where the evidence is that
it happened slowly.

02:59:54.010 --> 02:59:58.270
You look at the seashell, this is one from
Dallas, a beautiful ammonite that's still

02:59:58.270 --> 02:59:58.850
iridescent.

02:59:59.670 --> 03:00:02.730
Some of the live shells that are
iridescent you can lay out in the sunshine

03:00:02.730 --> 03:00:04.110
and it's gone in an afternoon.

03:00:05.550 --> 03:00:07.710
It's supposed to have been there for 35
million years.

03:00:09.170 --> 03:00:10.970
I think it was fossilized very quickly.

03:00:12.410 --> 03:00:15.010
Some of you will recognize the jellyfish.

03:00:17.190 --> 03:00:22.190
That little girl defining this for us the
other night, she said it's just a bunch of

03:00:22.190 --> 03:00:22.550
snot.

03:00:24.650 --> 03:00:26.090
Pretty good description.

03:00:27.130 --> 03:00:31.170
It's not much, it's not very stable.

03:00:32.570 --> 03:00:35.770
It lays out on the beach for how long
after it dies?

03:00:36.630 --> 03:00:38.550
Long enough to be fossilized.

03:00:40.170 --> 03:00:45.690
Here are fossils of jellyfish together
with the ripple marks which likewise don't

03:00:45.690 --> 03:00:46.390
last very long.

03:00:46.490 --> 03:00:50.590
A close-up shows even the mouth parts
preserved of the jellyfish.

03:00:50.690 --> 03:00:55.150
Now you think, is it possible to do that
slowly?

03:00:57.590 --> 03:01:00.550
This is an ichthyosaur that looks like a
fish.

03:01:00.970 --> 03:01:01.330
It isn't.

03:01:01.510 --> 03:01:02.650
It's a reptile.

03:01:02.750 --> 03:01:04.170
It's about 28 feet long.

03:01:05.330 --> 03:01:09.250
Frozen in the limestone, Sollenhofen
limestone in Bavaria.

03:01:12.010 --> 03:01:14.870
Even some of the soft parts are
beautifully preserved.

03:01:15.130 --> 03:01:17.210
We see the adipose tissue up here on the
head.

03:01:18.370 --> 03:01:19.130
Fatty tissue.

03:01:20.690 --> 03:01:25.710
And then we look closely at the interior
and we see this is a missus ichthyosaur.

03:01:27.350 --> 03:01:29.350
The embryo is seen.

03:01:30.350 --> 03:01:35.430
And a number of these obviously were
caught in very catastrophic circumstances.

03:01:35.430 --> 03:01:36.870
And buried.

03:01:37.670 --> 03:01:43.830
And it really upset the missus
ichthyosaurs because numbers of them are

03:01:43.830 --> 03:01:47.690
involved in premature birth in this one
area.

03:01:48.670 --> 03:01:53.250
They got caught in a big storm and got
buried by the sediment and it really upset

03:01:53.250 --> 03:01:53.490
them.

03:01:53.890 --> 03:01:55.830
And here they are giving live birth.

03:01:58.210 --> 03:02:02.310
And I can sympathize with some of the
ladies that think, well this is going to

03:02:02.310 --> 03:02:04.430
take a hundred thousand years to get over.

03:02:05.430 --> 03:02:08.310
But it really doesn't.

03:02:08.410 --> 03:02:10.330
Nor did it with missus ichthyosaur.

03:02:10.950 --> 03:02:13.870
There is no way to do that.

03:02:13.990 --> 03:02:19.030
When you look at the rocks, the geologic
phenomenon it says rapid everywhere you

03:02:19.030 --> 03:02:19.470
look.

03:02:38.270 --> 03:02:42.860
We talked about evidence for the young
earth.

03:02:43.020 --> 03:02:46.360
Well, also the evidence why they believe
that it's old.

03:02:46.520 --> 03:02:48.500
Radiometric dating, well that's not too
good.

03:02:51.840 --> 03:02:54.680
The geologic phenomenon is what I really
like to talk about.

03:02:55.520 --> 03:02:59.700
And from that, I think we can see good
evidence.

03:03:00.560 --> 03:03:06.540
As even many of the paleontologists today,
perhaps most, would acknowledge.

03:03:06.820 --> 03:03:08.900
The individual rocks happened rapidly.

03:03:09.680 --> 03:03:13.900
Dunbar and Rogers as we saw a moment ago
says there's very good evidence that the

03:03:13.900 --> 03:03:15.860
individual beds accumulated rapidly.

03:03:16.040 --> 03:03:18.440
And he's not saying that because it's fun
to say for him.

03:03:19.560 --> 03:03:23.420
But because of the kind of evidence that
we were looking at.

03:03:25.980 --> 03:03:27.560
But you ain't seen nothing yet.

03:03:30.960 --> 03:03:32.100
Let's look at willow.

03:03:32.960 --> 03:03:41.600
This is an amazingly preserved dinosaur
North Carolina State University with heart

03:03:41.600 --> 03:03:42.260
intact.

03:03:43.300 --> 03:03:48.020
And we see some of these programs where
they're trying to transplant the heart and

03:03:48.020 --> 03:03:52.420
they get in the helicopter and they put
the thing on dry ice and they run across

03:03:52.420 --> 03:03:57.680
the roof of the hospital and dash into...
because why?

03:03:57.880 --> 03:03:59.160
It deteriorates quickly.

03:04:00.820 --> 03:04:04.540
But this became a rot before the heart
deteriorated.

03:04:06.280 --> 03:04:10.660
Here in the museum sign, what are the odds
of finding a fossilized dinosaur heart?

03:04:11.060 --> 03:04:14.760
The seemingly impossible has occurred
within the 66 million year old skeleton,

03:04:14.940 --> 03:04:16.360
which they have no doubt about,
of course.

03:04:18.480 --> 03:04:24.820
Here we see the picture of the thorax,
the chest, with the heart intact.

03:04:25.780 --> 03:04:30.200
And they've done CAT scans and all kinds
of examination.

03:04:30.500 --> 03:04:35.500
This shows the clavicle, the collarbone,
the neck bone here.

03:04:35.940 --> 03:04:38.500
But right here in the center is the heart.

03:04:39.340 --> 03:04:45.820
And there's the right ventricle and the
left ventricle of the dinosaur heart.

03:04:48.080 --> 03:04:51.160
And in the center, the interventricular
septum.

03:04:51.900 --> 03:04:53.400
All beautifully preserved.

03:04:53.620 --> 03:04:54.960
Now how long did it take this?

03:04:55.060 --> 03:04:56.880
Now this is not a heart, this is a rock.

03:04:58.120 --> 03:04:59.840
And how long did it take to form?

03:05:01.480 --> 03:05:05.680
At the rate of 2,500 years, it would cover
a hair.

03:05:07.000 --> 03:05:08.840
I mean, this is idiocy.

03:05:10.800 --> 03:05:14.980
You just don't have words strong enough to
describe the nonsense here.

03:05:15.980 --> 03:05:21.540
From National Geographic a few years ago,
here's a mummified duck-billed dinosaur.

03:05:22.760 --> 03:05:25.420
90% covered in soft tissue.

03:05:26.460 --> 03:05:30.500
Stomach content so well preserved,
researchers can tell what he had for his

03:05:30.500 --> 03:05:30.960
last supper.

03:05:32.440 --> 03:05:37.660
But, of course, he was covered at the rate
of 2,500 years to cover a hair,

03:05:38.240 --> 03:05:40.380
30,000 years a foot.

03:05:43.640 --> 03:05:44.860
But it gets worse.

03:05:46.290 --> 03:05:51.840
We're looking here at dinosaur blood cells
from a T-Rex.

03:05:53.340 --> 03:05:55.400
Blood cells, of course, last millions of
years.

03:05:56.780 --> 03:05:58.400
Had to be 65 million.

03:05:59.340 --> 03:06:04.360
And this was what was written in science
research news back in 93.

03:06:05.560 --> 03:06:10.100
Round, tiny, nucleated, they were threaded
to the bone like red blood cells in blood

03:06:10.100 --> 03:06:10.420
vessels.

03:06:10.520 --> 03:06:14.660
But blood cells in a dinosaur should have
disappeared eons ago.

03:06:15.080 --> 03:06:17.620
It was exactly like looking at a slice of
modern bone.

03:06:18.640 --> 03:06:21.280
The bones are, after all, 65 million years
old.

03:06:21.360 --> 03:06:23.260
How could blood cells survive that long?

03:06:24.160 --> 03:06:27.240
And, of course, the author is just asking
the question.

03:06:27.440 --> 03:06:28.540
But there was a furor.

03:06:30.140 --> 03:06:32.660
The lady that wrote this lost her job.

03:06:32.960 --> 03:06:33.860
Got in serious trouble.

03:06:34.880 --> 03:06:37.460
But she decided to do more work.

03:06:37.740 --> 03:06:40.940
And she persevered and got her doctorate.

03:06:41.160 --> 03:06:44.560
She is now Dr. Mary Switzer at North
Carolina State University.

03:06:45.260 --> 03:06:47.920
And has continued this investigation.

03:06:48.360 --> 03:06:51.680
And has found some amazing things
published just fairly recently.

03:06:52.460 --> 03:06:55.000
Now, her colleagues will say this is
impossible.

03:06:55.220 --> 03:06:56.580
But she says, here it is.

03:06:57.000 --> 03:07:01.540
This is the squishy, gushy, soft tissue
from a T-Rex.

03:07:02.740 --> 03:07:05.580
Now, I was writing her about this
particular specimen.

03:07:06.300 --> 03:07:10.680
And she acknowledged, our current theories
do not account for soft tissue and

03:07:10.680 --> 03:07:11.840
cellular preservation.

03:07:12.480 --> 03:07:15.820
Never in my wildest dreams would I have
predicted what we found.

03:07:16.860 --> 03:07:22.120
It is certainly not anything like what you
see in the textbooks or according to the

03:07:22.120 --> 03:07:22.420
theories.

03:07:22.580 --> 03:07:25.900
It was reported in Discover in April of
06.

03:07:26.740 --> 03:07:28.220
And she was interviewed.

03:07:28.860 --> 03:07:32.620
She said, I had one reviewer tell me that
he didn't care what the data said.

03:07:32.680 --> 03:07:35.360
He knew that what I was finding wasn't
possible.

03:07:37.720 --> 03:07:39.180
And it is not.

03:07:39.860 --> 03:07:43.360
If it is 65 million years old,
he is absolutely right.

03:07:44.220 --> 03:07:47.400
I wrote back and said, well, what data
would convince you?

03:07:47.560 --> 03:07:48.920
And he said, none.

03:07:50.440 --> 03:07:51.500
Very scientific.

03:07:52.700 --> 03:07:54.840
And he is telling the truth.

03:07:55.120 --> 03:07:55.860
Believe me.

03:07:56.900 --> 03:07:58.240
The evidence doesn't matter.

03:07:58.380 --> 03:08:03.860
Since then, she has just found a wealth of
material in the Tyrannosaurus Rex bones.

03:08:03.860 --> 03:08:08.640
The gushy, stretchy, soft tissue,
blood cells, blood vessels.

03:08:09.620 --> 03:08:15.000
And it is not possible for it to be 65
million years old.

03:08:15.280 --> 03:08:18.540
The conclusion is these dinosaur fossils
cannot be old.

03:08:18.660 --> 03:08:19.280
It is impossible.

03:08:20.540 --> 03:08:22.220
And, of course, the evolutionist knows
that.

03:08:23.860 --> 03:08:25.720
Now, let's think about that for a moment.

03:08:27.780 --> 03:08:29.060
I mean, it won't hurt.

03:08:29.380 --> 03:08:30.280
Let's try it.

03:08:32.440 --> 03:08:39.340
If the fossils in the layers are formed
rapidly, and from the things we have

03:08:39.340 --> 03:08:44.500
looked at, the jellyfish, the little
stretchy, gushy blood vessels,

03:08:45.300 --> 03:08:50.980
if the fossils in the layers are formed
rapidly, wouldn't it necessarily follow

03:08:50.980 --> 03:08:54.620
that the layers that the fossils are in
followed rapidly?

03:08:57.350 --> 03:09:00.050
I think you have to reach that conclusion.

03:09:00.590 --> 03:09:05.650
And so when we are looking at all of these
layers, all of which have the kinds of

03:09:05.650 --> 03:09:09.630
fossils we are talking about in them,
then we are talking about something that

03:09:09.630 --> 03:09:10.810
did not take millions of years.

03:09:10.910 --> 03:09:12.250
Well, then where is the time?

03:09:12.350 --> 03:09:15.850
And even the geologists today are saying,
well, yes, we know the individual layers

03:09:15.850 --> 03:09:16.530
formed rapidly.

03:09:17.850 --> 03:09:20.670
If you know that, where is all this time?

03:09:21.450 --> 03:09:22.950
And they have an answer today.

03:09:23.530 --> 03:09:26.130
They say it is in between the layers.

03:09:29.090 --> 03:09:31.170
And I say, you mean where there is no
evidence?

03:09:32.790 --> 03:09:34.530
And that kind of slows them down a little.

03:09:34.770 --> 03:09:38.050
But it is worse than that because there is
evidence in between, as we will see.

03:09:39.350 --> 03:09:41.790
But let's let them say this for us.

03:09:41.870 --> 03:09:46.390
At the time, the president of the British
Geological Association in his book,

03:09:46.670 --> 03:09:52.710
New Catastrophism, the president of the
British Geological Association said,

03:09:52.770 --> 03:09:57.370
we cannot escape the conclusion that
sedimentation was at times very rapid.

03:09:58.930 --> 03:10:03.030
You look at the trees, he referred
specifically to the polystrate trees.

03:10:03.970 --> 03:10:09.290
But at other times, he says, there were
long breaks in the sedimentation.

03:10:10.770 --> 03:10:13.250
Now, what is the evidence for the long
breaks?

03:10:13.610 --> 03:10:17.690
Well, that is where there is none,
but he is confident that it is there,

03:10:19.130 --> 03:10:23.450
admitting it looks uniform and continuous,
but we know.

03:10:24.110 --> 03:10:28.970
I mean, after all, we know dinosaurs were
65 million years ago and so there have to

03:10:28.970 --> 03:10:29.610
be breaks.

03:10:30.910 --> 03:10:34.450
It does not look like it, but we know
there had to be.

03:10:34.610 --> 03:10:37.930
And when you look at the rocks,
yes, it looks uniform and continuous.

03:10:40.710 --> 03:10:43.130
And you can tell when it is not.

03:10:44.730 --> 03:10:48.170
You have what we call bioturbidation.

03:10:48.170 --> 03:10:55.190
If a surface is exposed for any period of
time, for less than a year, you have got

03:10:55.190 --> 03:10:59.010
clams burrowing, you have got worms
burrowing, you have got plants sending

03:10:59.010 --> 03:11:01.950
down roots and they just plow up the
surface and they do not leave these

03:11:01.950 --> 03:11:04.390
smooth, straight lines.

03:11:06.030 --> 03:11:10.490
They are eroded and they are plowed under
or over or within.

03:11:11.530 --> 03:11:15.910
But what we are looking at here is
straight and level and smooth with the

03:11:15.910 --> 03:11:17.770
interface is perfect in many instances.

03:11:19.130 --> 03:11:21.250
But he is sure it is there, somewhere.

03:11:21.950 --> 03:11:26.150
He says, the geological record is
constantly lying to us.

03:11:28.410 --> 03:11:30.590
You do not listen to it.

03:11:31.610 --> 03:11:35.030
It pretends to tell us the whole truth
when it is only telling us a very small

03:11:35.030 --> 03:11:35.570
part of it.

03:11:36.450 --> 03:11:38.870
Nowhere in the world is the record or even
part of it complete.

03:11:38.970 --> 03:11:42.570
He imagines something much more than is
there.

03:11:44.470 --> 03:11:50.390
It may seem paradoxical to me,
but the gaps probably cover most of

03:11:50.390 --> 03:11:50.870
Earth's history.

03:11:51.810 --> 03:11:55.670
And so he is basing his conclusions mostly
on what is not there.

03:11:56.850 --> 03:12:00.050
I think you ought to base your conclusions
on what is there.

03:12:00.590 --> 03:12:02.730
Is that better science?

03:12:04.190 --> 03:12:07.870
It was during the breaks that most of the
events probably occurred.

03:12:08.010 --> 03:12:09.110
He has faith in that.

03:12:09.170 --> 03:12:13.990
It is not because of the evidence,
but it is the lack that he depends on.

03:12:14.430 --> 03:12:16.190
It is the gaps that really matter.

03:12:17.590 --> 03:12:20.930
Now that just boggles my mind that a
scientist could say, it is not the

03:12:20.930 --> 03:12:23.590
evidence that matters, it is where there
is not evidence.

03:12:23.670 --> 03:12:24.430
That is what matters.

03:12:25.210 --> 03:12:26.870
And that is where I am going to tell my
story.

03:12:27.010 --> 03:12:28.510
And that is where most of it took place.

03:12:31.150 --> 03:12:33.730
The individual rocks, yes, they happened
rapidly.

03:12:33.870 --> 03:12:35.770
Well, we have got to get time in there
somewhere.

03:12:35.950 --> 03:12:36.770
It is in the gaps.

03:12:36.830 --> 03:12:38.070
That is where most of it happened.

03:12:39.470 --> 03:12:42.070
Well, let us look at some of the gaps.

03:12:42.270 --> 03:12:46.610
Here is the Coconino Sandstone and the
Hermit Shale down toward the base of the

03:12:46.610 --> 03:12:47.250
Grand Canyon.

03:12:49.290 --> 03:12:50.870
And here is the interface.

03:12:51.150 --> 03:12:57.670
Now, this is... it looks uniform and
continuous, but according to their dating

03:12:57.670 --> 03:13:03.270
of these rocks, there is at least 110
million years in between these two layers.

03:13:05.170 --> 03:13:07.230
That is what the geologic column says.

03:13:07.910 --> 03:13:13.930
Well, there was erosion for 110 million
years, which left this straight perfectly

03:13:13.930 --> 03:13:15.390
conforming line.

03:13:15.690 --> 03:13:18.850
Flat, smooth surface, not bioturbidated,
not eroded.

03:13:20.790 --> 03:13:22.690
That takes a lot of faith, doesn't it?

03:13:22.870 --> 03:13:24.750
That is certainly not what it looks like.

03:13:25.110 --> 03:13:28.770
And when we look at the canyon,
that is the way it looks from one end to

03:13:28.770 --> 03:13:29.110
the other.

03:13:29.230 --> 03:13:33.430
It looks smooth and straight at the
contact lines, not like there was

03:13:33.430 --> 03:13:35.370
bioturbidation, not like there was
erosion.

03:13:36.610 --> 03:13:39.870
It looks like one continuous deposition.

03:13:40.210 --> 03:13:43.770
A year-long series of catastrophes,
I think, would do an excellent job of

03:13:43.770 --> 03:13:44.650
explaining this.

03:13:47.030 --> 03:13:50.650
Consider the contact lines where there is
no evidence.

03:13:50.810 --> 03:13:54.270
Well, no, there is evidence at the contact
lines.

03:13:54.350 --> 03:13:56.850
Here is one of them and we are looking at
little bird tracks.

03:13:58.530 --> 03:14:04.130
And the little bird walks along in the mud
and that is going to stay there for 110

03:14:04.130 --> 03:14:07.230
million years before the next cover comes
over.

03:14:10.090 --> 03:14:16.110
Even if you did form it rapidly and you
got the track in the rock like in the

03:14:16.110 --> 03:14:19.690
concrete, then what is going to happen in
the tens of years if this is exposed?

03:14:20.750 --> 03:14:22.510
You got to have it covered quickly.

03:14:22.610 --> 03:14:23.870
The next one has to come quick.

03:14:24.990 --> 03:14:28.050
This is not merely a lack of evidence.

03:14:29.090 --> 03:14:32.030
But there is evidence at the interface.

03:14:32.370 --> 03:14:37.270
The most common feature in between the
layers are the ripple marks.

03:14:38.390 --> 03:14:42.030
And it has been said that if you follow
any bedding plane far enough, you will

03:14:42.030 --> 03:14:43.310
find ripple marks there.

03:14:43.390 --> 03:14:44.050
That is common.

03:14:44.870 --> 03:14:50.550
Schrock in his rock book, as we called it,
Schrock's Rock Book, because they were one

03:14:50.550 --> 03:14:53.610
of the commonest, most widespread of
original sedimentary features,

03:14:53.610 --> 03:14:57.530
ripple marks are preserved in
conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones,

03:14:57.650 --> 03:14:59.290
plastic limestones, dole stones.

03:15:00.830 --> 03:15:04.570
Yet there are no rocks that don't have
ripple marks.

03:15:06.250 --> 03:15:09.830
Many examples have been described from
rocks of all ages, I would say

03:15:09.830 --> 03:15:13.030
environments rather than ages.

03:15:13.190 --> 03:15:18.070
But all kinds of rocks all over the world
have got ripple marks.

03:15:18.170 --> 03:15:22.230
This is from down at Glen Rose with the
dinosaur tracks, which by the way are not

03:15:22.230 --> 03:15:24.890
going to stay there for millions of years.

03:15:25.810 --> 03:15:29.210
Any tracks are going to be eroded quickly,
usually with the next rain.

03:15:29.690 --> 03:15:31.870
But ripple marks here are beautifully
preserved.

03:15:32.730 --> 03:15:39.650
Now the host layer that forms these ripple
marks had to be formed rapidly in order to

03:15:39.650 --> 03:15:40.150
preserve them.

03:15:40.210 --> 03:15:46.130
These little ripple marks move from minute
to minute as the water runs over the

03:15:46.130 --> 03:15:47.410
sediment, the bottom of the stream.

03:15:47.410 --> 03:15:50.330
But this is frozen in the rock.

03:15:51.730 --> 03:15:57.090
Then, once it's frozen in the rock,
if it's not covered, it'll be eroded

03:15:57.090 --> 03:16:01.470
within tens of years if that surface is
left exposed.

03:16:01.690 --> 03:16:06.630
And so the next layer had to be rapid to
prevent erosion.

03:16:07.790 --> 03:16:12.250
And so the host rock has to be quick,
and the one on top of it had to be quick,

03:16:12.930 --> 03:16:15.350
and the one on top has ripple marks on top
of it.

03:16:15.730 --> 03:16:18.930
So it had to be quick, and the one on top
of it had to be quick to preserve it.

03:16:19.710 --> 03:16:21.790
And so on we go up the column.

03:16:23.070 --> 03:16:29.610
Virtually all layers have ripple marks at
the bedding plane, which says virtually

03:16:29.610 --> 03:16:37.570
all of these layers have to be rapid one
after the other to form and to preserve.

03:16:38.270 --> 03:16:42.310
What's at the interface where there is
good evidence?

03:16:42.410 --> 03:16:44.710
It's not just a lack of evidence,
which is bad enough.

03:16:45.130 --> 03:16:49.110
There is evidence, and it's very negative
when you look at the interface.

03:16:50.070 --> 03:16:52.250
But let me show you something that's a
real killer.

03:16:52.570 --> 03:16:53.770
Now you've got to think a little bit.

03:16:55.530 --> 03:17:03.170
But this refutes, I think, conclusively,
the picture that we're typically presented

03:17:03.170 --> 03:17:04.150
in the geologic column.

03:17:04.250 --> 03:17:08.330
Here's the Red Wall Mississippian,
the most dramatic layer that you see when

03:17:08.330 --> 03:17:09.090
you go to the Canyon.

03:17:09.210 --> 03:17:12.650
The Mississippian is almost halfway up the
geologic column.

03:17:13.090 --> 03:17:16.630
The lowest layer in the column is the
Cambrian.

03:17:16.890 --> 03:17:19.230
And the Muave limestone here is Cambrian.

03:17:19.270 --> 03:17:22.230
So here's the lowest layer, Cambrian.

03:17:22.370 --> 03:17:26.850
You skip the Ordovician, the Silurian,
the Devonian, and get up to the

03:17:26.850 --> 03:17:27.490
Mississippian.

03:17:28.090 --> 03:17:33.170
There's almost 200 million years that are
missing between the Red Wall and the

03:17:33.170 --> 03:17:33.370
Muave.

03:17:34.270 --> 03:17:36.890
Now how do you skip 200 million years?

03:17:38.010 --> 03:17:42.030
Well, if you've got deposition in one
place, you've got to have erosion

03:17:42.030 --> 03:17:42.790
somewhere else.

03:17:42.930 --> 03:17:47.550
And so there was erosion here during that
period, which left these straight level

03:17:47.550 --> 03:17:51.530
lines that you can trace for 300 miles up
the Canyon.

03:17:52.950 --> 03:17:57.370
But that's not the only challenge,
just the fact that it's missing with a

03:17:57.370 --> 03:17:58.230
straight line in between.

03:17:59.250 --> 03:18:06.430
As you look above the Muave, you see this
thin piece of Red Wall, but then above the

03:18:06.430 --> 03:18:08.430
Red Wall, you see more Muave.

03:18:10.110 --> 03:18:16.250
Now you skip forward 200 million years,
and then you come back 200 million years

03:18:16.250 --> 03:18:19.790
in order to get some more Muave,
and then you go forward, and then you go

03:18:19.790 --> 03:18:22.530
backward, and then you go forward,
and then you're back and forth,

03:18:22.630 --> 03:18:26.250
skipping 200 million years, backwards and
forwards, and backwards and forwards,

03:18:26.370 --> 03:18:27.010
eight times.

03:18:29.070 --> 03:18:30.250
Ain't no way.

03:18:31.510 --> 03:18:36.770
It's interbedded, and the fundamental
rules of stratigraphy indicate if it's

03:18:36.770 --> 03:18:40.830
interbedded, it must be contemporaneous,
even though the geologic column says it's

03:18:40.830 --> 03:18:41.850
200 million years apart.

03:18:42.570 --> 03:18:43.790
It can't be.

03:18:44.270 --> 03:18:46.490
It is absolutely impossible.

03:18:46.710 --> 03:18:50.630
It looks continuous without the
bioturbidation.

03:18:51.290 --> 03:18:52.770
It is continuous.

03:18:53.070 --> 03:18:57.850
It cannot possibly be millions,
these two cannot possibly be 200 million

03:18:57.850 --> 03:18:58.370
years apart.

03:18:58.530 --> 03:18:59.350
They are interbedded.

03:19:01.690 --> 03:19:02.870
And so geology fails.

03:19:03.170 --> 03:19:09.690
When you study the rocks, you know this
story is a tale that does not fit the

03:19:09.690 --> 03:19:10.070
facts.

03:19:11.070 --> 03:19:15.710
But how can you really envision forming
all of these layers quickly?

03:19:15.850 --> 03:19:17.310
Well, let's look at it happening.

03:19:18.950 --> 03:19:22.830
Mount St. Helens is a demonstration of
what happened.

03:19:23.110 --> 03:19:29.690
1980, it blew its top and the pyroclastic
cloud went across the countryside at

03:19:29.690 --> 03:19:38.070
almost 200 miles an hour and laid down
sediment here, forming Spirit Lake,

03:19:38.730 --> 03:19:40.050
the trees across the top.

03:19:40.610 --> 03:19:45.910
And then when Spirit Lake broke through
the temporary dam, it eroded down through

03:19:45.910 --> 03:19:51.930
the newly laid sediment, leaving this huge
canyon up to 600 feet thick.

03:19:53.110 --> 03:19:54.330
That is deep.

03:19:54.910 --> 03:19:56.170
Here is another picture.

03:19:57.030 --> 03:19:59.070
600 foot cliff over here.

03:19:59.690 --> 03:20:00.830
And this is rock now.

03:20:02.390 --> 03:20:05.810
And this little trickle down at the bottom
is what cut this big canyon.

03:20:07.830 --> 03:20:08.610
You think?

03:20:09.930 --> 03:20:11.030
I don't think so.

03:20:12.170 --> 03:20:15.910
It was a whole lot more water that eroded
that canyon.

03:20:16.870 --> 03:20:19.290
And that reminds us of another story that
is being told.

03:20:19.410 --> 03:20:22.810
But we look at the walls of this canyon
and you see these finely graduated,

03:20:23.010 --> 03:20:30.190
laminated layers that happened one
afternoon at almost 200 miles an hour.

03:20:33.030 --> 03:20:37.050
We were told in class, you count these
little layers, it is at least a year per

03:20:37.050 --> 03:20:37.370
layer.

03:20:38.050 --> 03:20:38.830
Probably more.

03:20:39.350 --> 03:20:43.270
And so you had the job of going out and
counting the layers and seeing how many

03:20:43.270 --> 03:20:44.970
thousands of years were represented here.

03:20:46.090 --> 03:20:50.390
600 feet of this happened in less than
three months.

03:20:50.570 --> 03:20:51.650
Most of it in one afternoon.

03:20:52.890 --> 03:20:57.770
And then with the erosion through that you
have a canyon that looks for all the world

03:20:57.770 --> 03:20:58.790
like the Grand Canyon.

03:20:59.550 --> 03:21:04.050
A 40th scale Grand Canyon, the same size
slumping canyons, the same geomorphology.

03:21:04.750 --> 03:21:08.190
It reminds me of the cartoon that a friend
of mine drew.

03:21:08.330 --> 03:21:11.950
This million year old canyon was formed by
Mount St. Helens in 1980.

03:21:13.450 --> 03:21:15.050
Yeah, that's the story.

03:21:15.870 --> 03:21:20.110
But it's also the demonstration of what I
believe happened.

03:21:21.530 --> 03:21:23.870
And we can see that.

03:21:24.590 --> 03:21:26.630
Did you see it forming slowly?

03:21:26.870 --> 03:21:27.270
No.

03:21:28.530 --> 03:21:31.510
You saw it forming rapidly, which is
better science?

03:21:32.810 --> 03:21:39.270
We've all seen the speleotherms in the
caves, the stalactites and the stalagmites

03:21:39.270 --> 03:21:42.590
and heard the spiel, these are hundreds of
thousands of years old.

03:21:42.670 --> 03:21:50.090
I was taught in my textbook at Indiana
University it takes at least 100,000 years

03:21:50.090 --> 03:21:51.930
to form one cubic inch.

03:21:54.190 --> 03:21:58.470
And at that rate it would take a long time
to form these tall speleotherms.

03:21:58.530 --> 03:21:59.750
This one from North Alabama.

03:22:00.770 --> 03:22:04.110
The previous one from near Bedford,
Indiana.

03:22:04.790 --> 03:22:07.250
Which is not too far from where this
picture was taken.

03:22:07.250 --> 03:22:12.110
This is the George Rogers Clark Memorial
near Vincennes, Indiana on the banks of

03:22:12.110 --> 03:22:12.850
the Wabash River.

03:22:13.070 --> 03:22:14.050
A clay bank here.

03:22:15.090 --> 03:22:22.430
Limestone here was quarried from within
just about three miles of where that slide

03:22:22.430 --> 03:22:23.590
before last was taken.

03:22:25.130 --> 03:22:30.590
Same limestone, water percolates down
through the cracks in the rocks and in the

03:22:30.590 --> 03:22:33.710
basement we have speleotherms just like we
do in the caves.

03:22:33.710 --> 03:22:37.770
The building when these pictures were
taken was 40 years old.

03:22:40.010 --> 03:22:44.350
It's a very interesting story how these
pictures were taken because they would not

03:22:44.350 --> 03:22:47.410
allow anyone in even the National
Speleological Society.

03:22:47.590 --> 03:22:53.630
We had to threaten to cut their funding
off through the legislature which they

03:22:53.630 --> 03:22:54.570
then responded to.

03:22:57.350 --> 03:23:00.530
I think I could have had one of those
columns when I finally showed up.

03:23:01.250 --> 03:23:07.950
I did get in and there were five of these
columns and they just didn't want people

03:23:07.950 --> 03:23:09.210
to know what was going on.

03:23:11.050 --> 03:23:15.510
In New Zealand, a friend of mine sent me
this picture of the zinc mine.

03:23:15.630 --> 03:23:18.230
Notice the people over here in the lower
right hand corner.

03:23:18.730 --> 03:23:22.830
This was a 30 year old tunnel with a
concrete bunker there across the middle.

03:23:24.870 --> 03:23:27.110
Obviously it takes hundreds of thousands
of years.

03:23:28.390 --> 03:23:35.770
I have an associate who is referred to
here in Arizona highways Jerry Trout and a

03:23:35.770 --> 03:23:42.110
good friend who works with Jerry Trout
down in South Texas, Sonora Caverns.

03:23:44.610 --> 03:23:48.610
And here they report while some believe
beautiful icicle looking stalactites take

03:23:48.610 --> 03:23:51.570
years to form, Jerry Trout, cave
specialist with the Forest Service,

03:23:52.750 --> 03:23:57.090
says that through photo monitoring he has
watched a stalactite grow several inches

03:23:57.090 --> 03:23:57.880
in a matter of days.

03:23:59.570 --> 03:24:03.850
And his associate told me of being there
when they set up the camera on time-lapse

03:24:03.850 --> 03:24:09.210
photography and the thing grew past the
lens and out of the frame in a month and

03:24:09.210 --> 03:24:10.670
so they had to back up and do it quicker.

03:24:12.950 --> 03:24:17.150
It's just not so that it takes millions of
years.

03:24:18.210 --> 03:24:20.190
Here is a scene from Carlsbad Cavern.

03:24:20.350 --> 03:24:24.990
Of course there are a lot of bats flying
around there and one of them got trapped

03:24:24.990 --> 03:24:27.330
in a stalactite.

03:24:29.890 --> 03:24:31.350
Real slow bat.

03:24:38.080 --> 03:24:41.400
We're looking here at a boot.

03:24:42.520 --> 03:24:44.200
We're familiar with that here in Texas.

03:24:44.320 --> 03:24:45.480
This is from out in West Texas.

03:24:45.860 --> 03:24:53.880
Inside of it is a petrified cowboy leg
with flesh including bones that are

03:24:53.880 --> 03:24:54.560
fossilized.

03:24:55.540 --> 03:24:57.060
Some bad things happened to him.

03:24:57.320 --> 03:24:59.000
The bottom of his foot is crushed.

03:24:59.440 --> 03:25:00.120
We found the boot.

03:25:00.180 --> 03:25:04.480
Actually this is part of his femur down
there slammed into the boot.

03:25:05.120 --> 03:25:06.640
This is all we know about him.

03:25:07.500 --> 03:25:12.220
But when we look closely at these bones,
in fact we've taken them to a hospital

03:25:12.220 --> 03:25:15.700
here in Dallas to be CAT scanned.

03:25:17.980 --> 03:25:24.020
They tell us this is actually a part of
the festered part of the wound that is now

03:25:24.020 --> 03:25:29.320
rock that is preserved in the cowboy boot
which was made out of T-Rex skin.

03:25:30.820 --> 03:25:31.600
You think?

03:25:32.420 --> 03:25:34.200
It was actually made by the J.

03:25:34.340 --> 03:25:39.700
Leddy Boot Company and it was made in the
50's.

03:25:39.820 --> 03:25:42.480
We have identified it from the stitch
pattern.

03:25:44.740 --> 03:25:48.300
When the CAT scan came back they had to
have a name on it.

03:25:49.140 --> 03:25:50.820
It said, Unfortunate Cowboy.

03:25:52.740 --> 03:25:55.440
We prefer to call him the Limestone
Cowboy.

03:26:00.680 --> 03:26:03.240
One of my favorite fossils was from New
Zealand.

03:26:03.420 --> 03:26:05.780
This is not a hat.

03:26:05.980 --> 03:26:08.140
This is a rock now.

03:26:09.800 --> 03:26:11.740
But obviously it doesn't take a long time.

03:26:11.840 --> 03:26:16.620
Some of you have seen the teddy bear that
is petrified in the artifact room.

03:26:16.620 --> 03:26:22.420
When you look at the rapid and continuous
nature of the fossil record from the

03:26:22.420 --> 03:26:28.200
polystrate, that is through many layers
and the very detailed fossils like the

03:26:28.200 --> 03:26:32.220
shrimp and the jellyfish and the ferns and
the tall trees, you know these things

03:26:32.220 --> 03:26:33.380
don't happen slowly.

03:26:34.060 --> 03:26:41.180
You see the continuous and sequential
layers clearly indicated by what's at the

03:26:41.180 --> 03:26:45.620
interface, the ripple marks, the little
ephemeral bird tracks, and then Mount St.

03:26:45.720 --> 03:26:47.980
Helens demonstrating this very phenomenon.

03:26:49.000 --> 03:26:54.580
We see coal having to form rapidly with
the tree extending through two coal seams

03:26:54.580 --> 03:26:55.880
with many layers in between.

03:26:56.560 --> 03:26:59.260
All, by the way, we can make in six hours.

03:27:00.240 --> 03:27:02.060
Cave formations don't take a long time.

03:27:02.240 --> 03:27:03.200
Petrification doesn't.

03:27:03.260 --> 03:27:06.680
What is there about the geologic
phenomenon that takes a long time?

03:27:10.670 --> 03:27:12.430
I love to talk about it.

03:27:12.430 --> 03:27:16.090
I won't talk about fossils and rocks in
terms of the age of the Earth.

03:27:16.170 --> 03:27:17.490
That's my bar patch.

03:27:17.570 --> 03:27:18.490
That's where I want to go.

03:27:18.770 --> 03:27:20.030
I love to talk about it.

03:27:20.550 --> 03:27:21.530
It's all rapid.

03:27:23.430 --> 03:27:25.690
Now then, why do you think the Earth is
old?

03:27:25.850 --> 03:27:27.190
It's not radiometric dating.

03:27:27.310 --> 03:27:28.230
That's not too good.

03:27:29.390 --> 03:27:31.330
It's certainly not the geologic
phenomenon.

03:27:31.430 --> 03:27:32.490
That says the opposite.

03:27:34.070 --> 03:27:39.890
And all we've been talking about so far is
the evidence for the old age of the Earth.

03:27:39.970 --> 03:27:41.470
And it really turns out to be the
opposite.

03:27:42.510 --> 03:27:47.490
Let's think for just a minute about some
of the young Earth evidence, which we

03:27:47.490 --> 03:27:53.430
haven't really dealt with, as described by
anti-creationist W.D.

03:27:53.470 --> 03:27:53.850
Stanfield.

03:27:55.010 --> 03:27:56.770
Now, he hates the creationists.

03:27:57.030 --> 03:28:03.610
Written several books, but he says,
there are some indicators of a young

03:28:03.610 --> 03:28:07.410
Earth, which you haven't heard about
probably in the textbooks.

03:28:07.770 --> 03:28:10.970
He refers to water from volcanoes and lava
from volcanoes.

03:28:12.630 --> 03:28:16.850
And when we learn how much is coming out
and how many volcanoes we have,

03:28:16.930 --> 03:28:18.910
there's some very interesting information
there.

03:28:18.930 --> 03:28:21.830
We've got about 600 active volcanoes in
the world today.

03:28:22.710 --> 03:28:27.770
About 10,000 inactive, which I think is
primarily from the time of the flood.

03:28:28.170 --> 03:28:30.730
But 600 that are now active.

03:28:30.830 --> 03:28:36.170
If we take Pericotin, which is probably
the most studied volcano in the world from

03:28:36.170 --> 03:28:36.810
down in Mexico.

03:28:37.090 --> 03:28:43.270
We know how it formed and how much gas
is... and most of the gas coming out is

03:28:43.270 --> 03:28:48.230
the H2O forming water for the first time,
juvenile water.

03:28:48.910 --> 03:28:51.550
Most of it is water coming out.

03:28:52.290 --> 03:28:53.790
And then, of course, the lava.

03:28:54.690 --> 03:28:58.130
But there's enough water coming out that
would fill the oceans.

03:28:58.890 --> 03:29:05.090
70 of the volcanoes like this would fill
the oceans in a billion years.

03:29:05.590 --> 03:29:07.870
It's supposed to have been 4.5 billion.

03:29:09.590 --> 03:29:13.030
And 600 of them would fill the ocean eight
times.

03:29:13.750 --> 03:29:17.150
And that's what we have active today,
not counting the 10,000 inactive.

03:29:18.470 --> 03:29:20.090
What are you going to do with all the
extra water?

03:29:21.150 --> 03:29:23.610
And, of course, nobody thinks all the
water came from volcanoes.

03:29:24.630 --> 03:29:30.230
Four of them, with the output of lava that
we see at Pericotin, would account for the

03:29:30.230 --> 03:29:32.350
entire crust of the Earth in a billion
years.

03:29:33.710 --> 03:29:37.050
And, of course, a very small portion of
the crust of the Earth is from volcanoes.

03:29:38.410 --> 03:29:44.270
This says it's not that old, which
Stanfield acknowledges.

03:29:44.570 --> 03:29:48.390
When you look at the pressure in oil
reserves, we dig down and drill down and

03:29:48.390 --> 03:29:53.190
we tap some of these gas wells and it will
blow the rig way up into the sky.

03:29:53.910 --> 03:29:55.910
You've seen probably movies of that.

03:29:56.610 --> 03:30:01.350
How does this rock maintain the pressure
as long as they say it's been there?

03:30:01.690 --> 03:30:04.870
You can measure the porosity of the rock,
which you have to know in order to

03:30:04.870 --> 03:30:09.830
discover oil, know if the rock can hold
the oil.

03:30:10.750 --> 03:30:14.850
And it's a fairly simple calculation when
you know the porosity to see how long the

03:30:14.850 --> 03:30:15.970
pressures could be maintained.

03:30:16.770 --> 03:30:21.030
There's no way these pressures could last
more than just a few tens of thousands of

03:30:21.030 --> 03:30:25.450
years, but they're supposed to have been
there for 4.5 billion or at least billions

03:30:25.450 --> 03:30:25.870
of years.

03:30:26.850 --> 03:30:31.170
We can measure very accurately the uranium
accumulation in the ocean.

03:30:31.830 --> 03:30:35.630
Geiger counters, we can really... and we
know how much is being delivered to the

03:30:35.630 --> 03:30:39.910
ocean each year and how much is there.

03:30:40.210 --> 03:30:46.410
Well, just a minuscule fraction of what
ought to be there if it's been going on

03:30:46.410 --> 03:30:46.930
very long.

03:30:47.530 --> 03:30:50.530
Same thing with radiocarbon in the
atmosphere that we mentioned a moment ago.

03:30:50.630 --> 03:30:54.590
It would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years
according to Libby, who got the Nobel

03:30:54.590 --> 03:30:56.830
Prize for the radiocarbon system.

03:30:59.390 --> 03:31:00.210
It's not.

03:31:00.290 --> 03:31:02.050
It's about 20% short of equilibrium.

03:31:02.810 --> 03:31:06.130
Hasn't accumulated to that point and slows
down as it approaches.

03:31:07.690 --> 03:31:15.150
According to Stanfield, the helium in the
atmosphere ought to be at least 50,000

03:31:15.150 --> 03:31:16.790
times greater than what it is.

03:31:18.110 --> 03:31:22.050
Now, since he wrote this, there have been
some mechanisms proposed that could

03:31:22.050 --> 03:31:25.270
possibly explain that, but that's at least
questionable.

03:31:26.050 --> 03:31:27.070
But that's his argument.

03:31:27.710 --> 03:31:33.390
He says there's the meteoric dust in the
strata would likewise indicate a young

03:31:33.390 --> 03:31:36.110
earth and there are no meteorites in the
strata.

03:31:37.370 --> 03:31:39.170
Some craters, maybe.

03:31:40.350 --> 03:31:42.370
Obviously, in some places on the surface.

03:31:43.290 --> 03:31:49.550
But here is this geologic column which
records 500 million years of time.

03:31:50.690 --> 03:31:51.950
Where are the meteorites?

03:31:52.090 --> 03:31:54.630
It ought to collect them all the time,
shouldn't it?

03:31:55.750 --> 03:32:00.010
But if it's a year-long series of
catastrophes and just happen quickly,

03:32:00.170 --> 03:32:02.230
then we can understand there being very
few.

03:32:03.330 --> 03:32:06.410
And we possibly have found a few,
but there are virtually none.

03:32:06.410 --> 03:32:07.790
He says none.

03:32:08.550 --> 03:32:11.230
Population dynamics certainly argues for a
young earth.

03:32:11.290 --> 03:32:16.270
When you look at two people at the present
population growth rate from the time of

03:32:16.270 --> 03:32:22.070
the flood, time of the creation of the
flood, you've got 6 billion people at

03:32:22.070 --> 03:32:24.570
actually less than the present population
growth rate.

03:32:25.810 --> 03:32:27.330
2,500 years.

03:32:27.830 --> 03:32:32.170
What happens in 25,000 years?

03:32:35.210 --> 03:32:37.950
It fits our view, it does not fit their
view.

03:32:38.030 --> 03:32:41.390
And these are the arguments of the
anti-creationists.

03:32:41.430 --> 03:32:46.010
He says this is good evidence,
and it is in each instance.

03:32:49.050 --> 03:32:50.010
And those...

03:32:50.010 --> 03:32:51.670
there's quite a few of them.

03:32:53.030 --> 03:32:57.850
When you look at the evidence for the
young earth, there's a lot of good

03:32:57.850 --> 03:33:00.150
evidence, even according to the
anti-creationists.

03:33:00.930 --> 03:33:04.410
When you look at the evidence for the old
earth, they're okay.

03:33:04.810 --> 03:33:10.850
Your radiometric dating and your geologic
phenomena, that's not really very good

03:33:10.850 --> 03:33:13.130
evidence when you look at it carefully.

03:33:13.330 --> 03:33:18.570
We have more and better on one side of the
scales, we have fewer and not so good

03:33:18.570 --> 03:33:20.230
evidence on the other side of the scales.

03:33:22.830 --> 03:33:24.890
Now, which is the better model?

03:33:27.750 --> 03:33:33.470
I think very obviously the best scientific
conclusion is that the earth is young.

03:33:34.650 --> 03:33:36.870
That's what the scientific evidence.

03:33:38.010 --> 03:33:41.430
If you just go by the science,
without the philosophy and the religion,

03:33:41.610 --> 03:33:43.450
just go by the science, it fits better.

03:33:44.210 --> 03:33:46.870
We have more and we have better evidence.

03:33:47.630 --> 03:33:48.830
It fits the facts best.

03:33:49.830 --> 03:33:50.390
Music

03:33:58.110 --> 03:34:09.960
Music Music Music

03:34:51.380 --> 03:34:55.500
Music We're speaking this evening about
the record of the rocks.

03:34:56.620 --> 03:35:00.660
As someone told me, for a fellow who has
rocks in his head, this is a very

03:35:00.660 --> 03:35:01.640
appropriate subject.

03:35:03.280 --> 03:35:05.420
I plead guilty to that.

03:35:06.260 --> 03:35:08.020
I enjoy talking about the rocks.

03:35:09.700 --> 03:35:14.720
They do provide a challenge at least in
terms of the way they're typically

03:35:14.720 --> 03:35:15.260
presented.

03:35:16.860 --> 03:35:23.260
If you watch the education channels,
public TV, you look in the earth science

03:35:23.260 --> 03:35:29.680
textbooks, you'll see evidence from the
rocks representing that which flatly

03:35:29.680 --> 03:35:32.520
contradicts what we read in the Bible.

03:35:34.060 --> 03:35:39.340
When we look at the rocks, we're talking
about not just all rocks, but the record

03:35:39.340 --> 03:35:43.960
that we have reference to involves the
sedimentary rocks.

03:35:44.680 --> 03:35:46.800
That's rocks laid down by water.

03:35:48.160 --> 03:35:53.600
And if you have studied earth science,
know just a little bit about geology,

03:35:53.780 --> 03:35:59.500
you'll understand that there is an average
of about a mile and a half of sedimentary

03:35:59.500 --> 03:36:01.360
rot that covers the continents.

03:36:03.540 --> 03:36:05.300
That's rocks laid down by water.

03:36:05.420 --> 03:36:10.920
Now in those rocks, there are billions and
billions of dead things that are fossils.

03:36:12.200 --> 03:36:16.480
Now when you have billions and billions of
dead things and rocks laid down by water

03:36:16.480 --> 03:36:23.380
all over the world, I think you've got a
pretty strong argument for catastrophic

03:36:23.380 --> 03:36:23.880
judgment.

03:36:25.320 --> 03:36:29.980
But of course the evolutionist tells us
this was accomplished by slow gradual

03:36:29.980 --> 03:36:32.000
buildup over millions of years.

03:36:33.460 --> 03:36:40.180
And as we saw last night, I think it's
accomplished by a rapid year-long series

03:36:40.180 --> 03:36:47.340
of catastrophes that it could not be slow
and the evidence for slow is not there.

03:36:48.380 --> 03:36:54.080
But the evolutionary representation of
this record of the rocks looks like this.

03:36:54.300 --> 03:36:57.680
This is in all the biology textbooks,
all the earth science textbooks.

03:36:58.760 --> 03:37:03.040
And we are told that as you go further
down in the rocks, you find these simple

03:37:03.040 --> 03:37:08.820
animals and as you come up near the top
they get more complex and then the modern

03:37:08.820 --> 03:37:11.820
animals near the top which shows an
evolutionary progression.

03:37:13.820 --> 03:37:19.400
And the record of the rocks has recorded
like a tape recorder the evolution of life

03:37:19.400 --> 03:37:20.040
through time.

03:37:21.060 --> 03:37:23.460
That's their interpretation of what we are
seeing.

03:37:24.840 --> 03:37:31.500
The biggest problem with this
representation is rather obvious and that

03:37:31.500 --> 03:37:37.440
is that you can't go out and look in the
rocks and find it anywhere.

03:37:38.440 --> 03:37:44.460
It exists in the textbooks but it does not
exist anywhere on the face of the earth.

03:37:44.600 --> 03:37:48.300
That is in the complete form that you see
in the textbooks.

03:37:49.620 --> 03:37:53.080
Now that sounds like a rather brash
statement.

03:37:53.260 --> 03:37:59.840
Notice the quote from Leight and Judson
one of the typical textbooks used as a

03:37:59.840 --> 03:38:01.420
geology text in our universities.

03:38:02.400 --> 03:38:07.420
Because we cannot find sedimentary rock
representing all of earth time neatly in

03:38:07.420 --> 03:38:12.660
one convenient area we must piece together
the rock sequence from locality to

03:38:12.660 --> 03:38:13.200
locality.

03:38:14.220 --> 03:38:19.320
This process of tying one rock sequence in
one place to another in some other place

03:38:19.320 --> 03:38:20.340
is known as correlation.

03:38:22.240 --> 03:38:26.260
And so instead of digging down and finding
it in any one place you find some over

03:38:26.260 --> 03:38:32.240
here and find some over there and you tie
it together and correlate it, co-relate

03:38:32.900 --> 03:38:36.880
the layers not based on what you see in
any one place.

03:38:37.000 --> 03:38:42.540
As the Encyclopedia Britannica says,
the end product of correlation is a mental

03:38:42.540 --> 03:38:46.280
abstraction called the geologic column.

03:38:46.400 --> 03:38:51.260
Now you don't get that impression in the
undergraduate earth science textbooks.

03:38:52.760 --> 03:38:53.880
That's a shame.

03:38:54.720 --> 03:38:57.800
But this is not concrete if you please.

03:38:59.100 --> 03:39:02.780
It is a mental abstraction that is built
together.

03:39:02.900 --> 03:39:04.100
Well how do you build it?

03:39:04.660 --> 03:39:09.980
How do you know when you correlate whether
this rock goes down or up?

03:39:11.280 --> 03:39:15.380
Well if you're an evolutionist and you
have rocks with simple animals,

03:39:15.520 --> 03:39:16.240
where do they go?

03:39:16.480 --> 03:39:17.560
They go on the bottom.

03:39:18.840 --> 03:39:22.980
I'm somewhat oversimplifying but that's a
general picture of what's happening.

03:39:23.660 --> 03:39:24.000
R.H.

03:39:24.080 --> 03:39:29.140
Rastel in the Encyclopedia Britannica puts
it this way It cannot be denied that

03:39:29.140 --> 03:39:31.480
geologists are here arguing in a circle.

03:39:32.580 --> 03:39:36.680
The succession of organisms has been
determined by study of their remains

03:39:36.680 --> 03:39:41.420
embedded in the rocks and the relative
ages of the rocks are determined by the

03:39:41.420 --> 03:39:42.460
organisms they contain.

03:39:44.280 --> 03:39:51.400
Now let me illustrate and simplify
somewhat oversimplifying but still not

03:39:51.400 --> 03:39:51.920
misrepresenting.

03:39:53.520 --> 03:39:56.760
A person says we have a primitive fossil
here.

03:39:57.260 --> 03:39:58.240
Okay, how do you know?

03:39:58.380 --> 03:40:00.120
And of course that would go on the bottom
of the column.

03:40:00.860 --> 03:40:02.680
But how do you know that's a primitive
fossil?

03:40:03.960 --> 03:40:05.940
Well, it's found in an old rock.

03:40:07.000 --> 03:40:08.340
Alright, that would make sense.

03:40:09.340 --> 03:40:13.220
If you've got an old rock, it'd be a
primitive fossil but now how do you know

03:40:13.220 --> 03:40:15.180
that this is an old rock?

03:40:15.360 --> 03:40:17.160
Well, it's got a primitive fossil in it.

03:40:19.680 --> 03:40:22.440
And this is obviously not proving
anything.

03:40:23.480 --> 03:40:28.300
But that is how this column in its
complete form is built.

03:40:29.720 --> 03:40:36.420
You don't determine the kind of rock it is
by the kind of rock it is but by the

03:40:36.420 --> 03:40:42.420
critters that you find in it, the dead
things in the rock and how primitive you

03:40:42.420 --> 03:40:43.100
think they are.

03:40:43.700 --> 03:40:45.960
There are a number of other problems with
it as well.

03:40:46.120 --> 03:40:50.900
For one thing, as we look at this column
we see mostly animals with backbones or

03:40:50.900 --> 03:40:51.580
the vertebrates.

03:40:54.080 --> 03:40:59.340
Relatively speaking they just virtually
don't exist in the fossil record.

03:40:59.500 --> 03:41:05.980
It's mainly clams clams and more clams at
least proportionately.

03:41:06.420 --> 03:41:13.720
It's skewed obviously to the more
impressive larger animals whereas at least

03:41:13.720 --> 03:41:19.680
95% of the entire fossil record is
composed of marine invertebrates.

03:41:20.840 --> 03:41:24.960
But you virtually see none of those in the
geologic column.

03:41:25.220 --> 03:41:29.380
Of the 5% that's left, 4.5% are plants and
algae.

03:41:29.520 --> 03:41:33.740
We haven't gotten to the vertebrates yet
which are mostly what you see represented

03:41:33.740 --> 03:41:34.320
in the column.

03:41:35.100 --> 03:41:39.080
The vertebrates are about 1,100th of 1%.

03:41:40.740 --> 03:41:42.100
Not 1%.

03:41:43.200 --> 03:41:45.820
1,100th of a percent.

03:41:45.820 --> 03:41:48.140
That's just virtually not there.

03:41:49.480 --> 03:41:50.040
Most have it.

03:41:50.140 --> 03:41:53.460
Why don't you then represent it with
marine invertebrates?

03:41:53.560 --> 03:42:00.120
Somebody might get the impression this is
a marine deposit or maybe a flood deposit

03:42:01.380 --> 03:42:05.680
which was the impression of the founders
of the discipline of geology.

03:42:05.860 --> 03:42:09.360
They all thought that because I think
that's what it clearly indicates for

03:42:09.360 --> 03:42:10.600
reasons we'll be looking at.

03:42:11.720 --> 03:42:16.600
The father of modern stratigraphy,
Nicholas Steno, is touted as a hero today

03:42:16.600 --> 03:42:18.040
in all the geology textbooks.

03:42:19.240 --> 03:42:22.820
Dotton Batten's Evolution of the Earth
says besides correctly interpreting

03:42:22.820 --> 03:42:27.660
fossils, the result was the formulation of
the most basic principles for analysis of

03:42:27.660 --> 03:42:28.160
Earth history.

03:42:29.000 --> 03:42:33.220
Steno showed great insight and he's the
one that started it.

03:42:33.340 --> 03:42:36.760
His rules are the ones you have to
memorize in order to pass stratigraphy

03:42:36.760 --> 03:42:37.040
today.

03:42:38.540 --> 03:42:43.860
Steno's axioms provide the ultimate basis
of practically all interpretation of Earth

03:42:43.860 --> 03:42:44.200
history.

03:42:44.920 --> 03:42:48.060
So their importance can hardly be
overemphasized.

03:42:48.480 --> 03:42:53.020
I had one geology professor interrupt a
presentation I was making down at Lamar

03:42:53.020 --> 03:42:53.480
University.

03:42:53.620 --> 03:42:55.320
We know all about Nicholas Steno.

03:42:55.720 --> 03:43:00.220
We have to memorize his 12 axioms and she
had to rattle them off right in the middle

03:43:00.220 --> 03:43:00.900
of the presentation.

03:43:01.500 --> 03:43:08.420
I'm glad that you know about him and
understand Nicholas Steno but do you know

03:43:08.420 --> 03:43:10.800
how he thought this record came to be?

03:43:10.980 --> 03:43:12.700
Well, yes, he was an evolutionist.

03:43:12.980 --> 03:43:16.100
Well, that's just not the case.

03:43:17.680 --> 03:43:24.500
His book was on display in Cambridge where
I was doing work there at Trinity College

03:43:24.500 --> 03:43:30.120
and this is a picture of that book and
it's in the fly piece stating it's

03:43:30.120 --> 03:43:33.320
dedicated to the proof of the Noahic
Indulge.

03:43:34.300 --> 03:43:36.060
This is where he was coming from.

03:43:36.140 --> 03:43:43.620
In fact, it was revealed and it's just
pretty much a revelation last year in

03:43:43.620 --> 03:43:47.360
geology that Steno believed in a universal
flood throughout his life.

03:43:47.620 --> 03:43:55.400
This is how he explained it and he
understood it well enough to write the

03:43:55.400 --> 03:43:58.180
rules that you still have to memorize if
you are going to pass stratigraphy.

03:43:59.040 --> 03:44:02.300
Now people will say well, this flood
geology is a bunch of foolishness.

03:44:02.440 --> 03:44:04.840
It won't really explain what we see in
geology.

03:44:06.100 --> 03:44:06.920
Is that so?

03:44:08.000 --> 03:44:09.720
Nicholas Steno refutes that.

03:44:10.180 --> 03:44:17.760
This was his concept and he was a pioneer
who was a genius and if you don't

03:44:17.760 --> 03:44:21.980
understand what he understands,
you can't do geology today.

03:44:22.540 --> 03:44:29.560
Building on his work men like Whitcomb and
Morris wrote the Genesis flood compiling

03:44:29.560 --> 03:44:34.560
the evidence from geology together with
what we know in Genesis and showing that

03:44:34.560 --> 03:44:38.940
this is the best explanation for what we
see in the rock record.

03:44:41.320 --> 03:44:42.440
Interestingly, John C.

03:44:42.580 --> 03:44:44.680
McCampbell agreed to write the forward to
this book.

03:44:44.800 --> 03:44:48.500
He is an evolutionist, professor and head
of the Department of Geology at the

03:44:48.500 --> 03:44:53.580
University of Southeastern Louisiana and
he says in that forward that the facts of

03:44:53.580 --> 03:45:01.960
geology do fit this explanation and that
the authors make a very strong case for

03:45:01.960 --> 03:45:06.260
this explanation and present a serious
challenge to the evolutionary

03:45:06.260 --> 03:45:07.020
interpretation.

03:45:08.740 --> 03:45:15.580
Now, he didn't say their view fits,
our view doesn't, but he came pretty close

03:45:15.580 --> 03:45:17.960
even though he is an evolutionist.

03:45:18.100 --> 03:45:24.280
It does fit and so when people say well
it's just no way that a flood can explain

03:45:24.280 --> 03:45:25.260
what we see in geology.

03:45:25.420 --> 03:45:27.640
Well, they just don't know what they are
talking about.

03:45:28.820 --> 03:45:31.740
But if you had a flood, wouldn't it just
mix everything up?

03:45:31.800 --> 03:45:32.560
Not necessarily.

03:45:32.880 --> 03:45:38.860
You have floods that bury things basically
where they are, transporting sometimes,

03:45:39.040 --> 03:45:44.140
but the general rule is things get buried
where they live and not everything lives

03:45:44.140 --> 03:45:44.980
at the same place.

03:45:45.840 --> 03:45:49.300
Things that live at the bottom of the
ocean would be buried in different places

03:45:49.300 --> 03:45:51.780
from things that live up here in Texas.

03:45:53.180 --> 03:45:56.260
And you see gradations even in the ocean.

03:45:57.220 --> 03:46:02.580
The Cambrian, the bottom lowest layer as
defined by the evolutionist is ocean

03:46:02.580 --> 03:46:02.960
bottom.

03:46:03.700 --> 03:46:06.860
Critters that lived on the bottom there,
some of them very complex as we will see.

03:46:07.580 --> 03:46:12.240
And the Ordovician lived a little higher,
the Devonian still higher with some

03:46:12.240 --> 03:46:18.300
amphibians and the worldwide flood would
bury organisms where they lived.

03:46:18.440 --> 03:46:21.020
And I think we see that at least in a
general way.

03:46:21.540 --> 03:46:25.440
And I underscore that because there is
going to be some mixing.

03:46:26.140 --> 03:46:28.500
But in a general way that would be
reflected.

03:46:29.280 --> 03:46:34.580
And as we see and imagine the water rising
we would see different environments being

03:46:34.580 --> 03:46:34.900
buried.

03:46:35.040 --> 03:46:37.080
Now they are not all together in one
place.

03:46:37.300 --> 03:46:41.680
And you may have two or three of these in
one place, but seldom more than that.

03:46:41.680 --> 03:46:46.540
But here putting them together it would
leave a picture like this.

03:46:47.120 --> 03:46:52.840
And then when buried we can see that it
would leave a deposit that would have some

03:46:52.840 --> 03:46:54.340
kind of an order.

03:46:54.740 --> 03:47:01.640
Here we see the kind of deposit that would
segregate and separate the groups of

03:47:01.640 --> 03:47:06.100
animals and they would be buried
separately not because they are separated

03:47:06.100 --> 03:47:07.460
by millions of years.

03:47:08.240 --> 03:47:11.300
But because they live in different places
and that is where they would be buried.

03:47:11.900 --> 03:47:16.200
Now you don't have this kind of an ordered
sequence.

03:47:16.400 --> 03:47:22.600
This is an arranged, skewed
misrepresentation of what is actually

03:47:22.600 --> 03:47:22.920
there.

03:47:23.040 --> 03:47:27.940
It is a conceptual correlation that is
useless as proof of evolution because it

03:47:27.940 --> 03:47:29.340
is based on the circular logic.

03:47:29.820 --> 03:47:35.540
But you do see a general order I think
that reflects the ecology that we can

03:47:35.540 --> 03:47:36.280
observe today.

03:47:36.860 --> 03:47:42.360
I do think this representation however is
useful as a model.

03:47:43.400 --> 03:47:47.860
As a representation of what ought to be if
evolution is true.

03:47:48.460 --> 03:47:52.600
Now we don't assume the thing to be true
build an illustration of it and say see it

03:47:52.600 --> 03:47:53.020
is proved.

03:47:54.100 --> 03:47:55.480
That is the circular logic.

03:47:55.660 --> 03:47:56.420
It is not proof.

03:47:56.960 --> 03:47:58.200
But it is a good model.

03:47:58.340 --> 03:48:03.040
It is an illustration of what ought to be
if evolution is true.

03:48:03.220 --> 03:48:07.940
We have an alternative model and then we
compare that with the real world,

03:48:08.060 --> 03:48:09.780
with the facts and that is how we test.

03:48:09.900 --> 03:48:14.040
We don't just holler and see who can say
it is proved loudest.

03:48:14.320 --> 03:48:18.300
We look at the evidence and we see which
fits the facts best.

03:48:18.380 --> 03:48:22.200
How do you test this model against the
facts?

03:48:22.680 --> 03:48:28.080
I think Stephen Stanley does a good job of
describing how that test should proceed

03:48:28.080 --> 03:48:29.500
from Johns Hopkins University.

03:48:29.500 --> 03:48:36.760
He is a very famous geologist and he says
topsy-turvy fossils would test it.

03:48:36.840 --> 03:48:40.280
We will look at a fuller description of
that before we conclude tonight.

03:48:40.460 --> 03:48:44.260
But this idea of things that are supposed
to be at the bottom on top or things

03:48:44.260 --> 03:48:48.820
supposed to be on the top on bottom,
topsy-turvy fossils would disprove

03:48:48.820 --> 03:48:49.440
evolution.

03:48:50.800 --> 03:48:55.120
Any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would
force us to rethink our theory.

03:48:56.060 --> 03:48:59.940
And so if you are finding things that are
supposed to be on the bottom up at the

03:48:59.940 --> 03:49:01.680
top, then you have got a problem.

03:49:02.080 --> 03:49:03.660
Well, you should have.

03:49:05.940 --> 03:49:09.760
The problem for the evolutionist is we
find that kind of thing all the time.

03:49:09.920 --> 03:49:11.380
That is really not that unusual.

03:49:11.580 --> 03:49:12.860
They are called living fossils.

03:49:13.760 --> 03:49:16.080
Niles Eldridge wrote a book about that.

03:49:16.200 --> 03:49:20.700
He is the curator of the American Museum
of Natural History and professor at

03:49:20.700 --> 03:49:20.980
Columbia.

03:49:21.780 --> 03:49:26.860
He says there seems to have been almost no
change in any part we can compare that is

03:49:26.860 --> 03:49:32.000
of these ancient fossils supposed to be
down at the bottom that are found alive

03:49:32.000 --> 03:49:32.440
today.

03:49:32.780 --> 03:49:36.240
We have not completely solved the riddle
of living fossils.

03:49:37.180 --> 03:49:42.360
That would be a topsy-turvy fossil,
but there are so many and it is so common

03:49:42.360 --> 03:49:44.540
they really just do not pay a whole lot of
attention to it.

03:49:44.620 --> 03:49:47.920
They really want the other kind of
contradiction as we will see.

03:49:48.500 --> 03:49:51.420
But to give an illustration of what he is
talking about with living fossils,

03:49:51.540 --> 03:49:53.720
maybe the most famous one is the
coelacanth.

03:49:54.680 --> 03:50:00.540
A beautiful fossil here of a rather
strange looking fish, but one that we find

03:50:00.540 --> 03:50:02.140
rather commonly in the fossil record.

03:50:02.780 --> 03:50:07.020
Described here by Keith Thompson,
who is president of the Academy of Natural

03:50:07.020 --> 03:50:10.080
Sciences, as a living fossil.

03:50:11.100 --> 03:50:16.980
He says in his book, a fish thought to be
extinct for 70 million years, which is

03:50:16.980 --> 03:50:18.940
about the time the dinosaurs had been
extinct.

03:50:19.880 --> 03:50:23.560
The fish was a coelacanth, an animal that
thrived concurrently with the dinosaurs.

03:50:23.800 --> 03:50:27.720
But from the point where they are supposed
to have gone extinct, all the way up the

03:50:27.720 --> 03:50:33.540
column you find no coelacanths and
virtually no dinosaurs.

03:50:34.540 --> 03:50:36.840
They look quite like the what?

03:50:38.440 --> 03:50:41.520
The modern forms, yes we have found them.

03:50:42.000 --> 03:50:46.540
Now he says we have no fossil coelacanths
younger than the late Cretaceous.

03:50:46.620 --> 03:50:48.800
That is where the dinosaurs are supposed
to have gone extinct.

03:50:48.980 --> 03:50:51.320
And so we have got plenty up to that
point.

03:50:51.540 --> 03:50:53.560
From that point forward, nothing.

03:50:55.420 --> 03:51:02.320
But so far we have caught about 600 of
them out in the ocean since 1937 when we

03:51:02.320 --> 03:51:03.220
found the first one.

03:51:04.320 --> 03:51:07.880
But they were extinct at the same time,
well because we don't have them in the

03:51:07.880 --> 03:51:08.200
column.

03:51:09.500 --> 03:51:13.580
If they stop in the column and you don't
have them above, I think that just means

03:51:13.580 --> 03:51:15.560
they didn't live at these places.

03:51:15.720 --> 03:51:17.180
They lived at these places.

03:51:17.800 --> 03:51:23.360
And the fact you don't find them up here
doesn't mean that they are not still

03:51:23.360 --> 03:51:24.180
around somewhere.

03:51:26.800 --> 03:51:29.840
That's the topsy fossils.

03:51:30.200 --> 03:51:33.200
The thing supposed to be at the bottom
that you find at the top.

03:51:33.560 --> 03:51:37.800
Alan Turner refers to that and especially
the implications regarding extinction

03:51:39.240 --> 03:51:41.300
just, what, in September of this year.

03:51:42.300 --> 03:51:44.340
Paleontologists really don't know the
answer to that.

03:51:44.460 --> 03:51:48.280
You think some of these quotations are
maybe from five or six years ago.

03:51:48.400 --> 03:51:50.440
Well, surely they have learned something
since then.

03:51:50.540 --> 03:51:54.840
Well, this is pretty much up to date I
think, September 6, 2007.

03:51:55.560 --> 03:51:56.900
We don't know the answer to that.

03:51:56.980 --> 03:51:59.940
Why some animals survive extinction and
others don't is one of the most difficult

03:51:59.940 --> 03:52:05.040
questions in paleontology and why you see
this thing that is obviously extinct

03:52:05.040 --> 03:52:09.880
according to the column but swimming
around they don't know.

03:52:10.480 --> 03:52:16.080
It does falsify the idea that because you
don't find it above a certain point,

03:52:16.280 --> 03:52:16.820
it's extinct.

03:52:18.360 --> 03:52:22.940
And you have literally hundreds of
examples of that.

03:52:23.360 --> 03:52:29.460
But the thing that really is a test in the
mind of the evolutionist is the other kind

03:52:29.460 --> 03:52:29.980
of contradiction.

03:52:30.160 --> 03:52:35.140
What's supposed to be up found down or
what we'll call the turvy fossils.

03:52:36.540 --> 03:52:43.120
Because if the mammals had not got there
yet and you find them down here at the

03:52:43.120 --> 03:52:46.820
bottom then obviously you got a real
challenge.

03:52:47.820 --> 03:52:50.060
Richard Dawkins describes the
implications.

03:52:51.600 --> 03:52:54.360
We've spoken about him several times this
week.

03:52:55.260 --> 03:52:58.900
We should be very surprised, for example,
to find humans appearing in the record

03:52:58.900 --> 03:53:01.080
before mammals are supposed to evolve.

03:53:01.740 --> 03:53:05.780
If a single well verified mammal skull
were to turn up in 500 million year old

03:53:05.780 --> 03:53:09.360
rocks, our whole modern theory of
evolution would be utterly destroyed.

03:53:10.720 --> 03:53:13.100
So he's got his chin out pretty far here.

03:53:13.260 --> 03:53:14.980
You can't find this.

03:53:15.980 --> 03:53:20.860
And he's rather confident because if you
do find it then he's got answers for that

03:53:20.860 --> 03:53:21.080
too.

03:53:21.680 --> 03:53:25.080
For example, we have found that kind of
thing rather commonly.

03:53:25.080 --> 03:53:31.580
One very obvious and dramatic example is
near LaSalle, Utah where perfectly modern

03:53:31.580 --> 03:53:38.040
human skeletons replaced with malachite
are found in a layer that's also found at

03:53:38.040 --> 03:53:39.180
Dinosaur National Monument.

03:53:39.320 --> 03:53:42.820
One that is known for its dinosaurs in the
Dakota Sandstone.

03:53:44.120 --> 03:53:51.220
So the key phrase in his statement is if a
well verified mammal skull were to show

03:53:51.220 --> 03:53:51.340
up.

03:53:51.420 --> 03:53:53.500
And when you find it, it's not going to be
verified.

03:53:53.720 --> 03:53:55.100
It must have fallen down a crack.

03:53:55.240 --> 03:53:56.560
They crawled back in a cave.

03:53:57.040 --> 03:54:01.100
This is a mine collapse or any kind of
explanation.

03:54:01.860 --> 03:54:03.140
You don't have to have evidence for it.

03:54:03.220 --> 03:54:05.320
You know dinosaurs didn't live with
humans.

03:54:06.080 --> 03:54:09.160
They were 100 million years apart,
most of them.

03:54:10.380 --> 03:54:13.620
And so if you find them together,
something bad happens.

03:54:13.900 --> 03:54:15.420
Something got messed up.

03:54:16.280 --> 03:54:20.200
Well, we went back to the site to see if
we could well verify.

03:54:21.360 --> 03:54:26.560
And it's a part of an open pit copper mine
just about 20 miles south of Moab.

03:54:27.060 --> 03:54:31.260
And where you see the back hole here is
where the skeletons were found.

03:54:31.420 --> 03:54:34.320
Here's one of them still in the rock.

03:54:34.820 --> 03:54:38.140
This is 50 feet down in the Dakota
Sandstone.

03:54:39.000 --> 03:54:43.380
And you see in the lower right hand corner
the pelvis, the knee up near the top,

03:54:44.020 --> 03:54:45.480
the foot over in the lower left.

03:54:45.560 --> 03:54:49.000
This one is articulated or together as in
life.

03:54:50.200 --> 03:54:54.800
Most of them are just bones piled together
as is the case here.

03:54:54.880 --> 03:54:56.340
Some of these look like they go together.

03:54:56.440 --> 03:54:57.000
They really don't.

03:54:57.100 --> 03:54:58.180
They're just piled together.

03:54:59.120 --> 03:55:03.280
This is one that had been out of the rock
for about 5 minutes when we washed it off

03:55:03.280 --> 03:55:05.960
there with a canteen and held it up for
the picture.

03:55:06.940 --> 03:55:11.100
It's replaced with malachite, which
obviously shows it's not a recent burial.

03:55:11.660 --> 03:55:13.060
It contains no collagen.

03:55:13.640 --> 03:55:18.460
That typically takes about a thousand
years to dissipate.

03:55:18.640 --> 03:55:21.080
And so this is an excellent, turvy fossil.

03:55:21.300 --> 03:55:25.000
I think there's as much verification as
you could ever find.

03:55:25.060 --> 03:55:30.240
We talked to the fellow who actually
uncovered it with the bulldozer.

03:55:30.460 --> 03:55:34.720
Ironically, his father drove the bulldozer
at this spot numbers of years ago.

03:55:35.220 --> 03:55:36.140
This is Dave Fuller.

03:55:37.300 --> 03:55:39.900
And he's pointing to the spot where this
was found.

03:55:40.040 --> 03:55:42.060
He says there were no broken layers.

03:55:42.280 --> 03:55:45.160
There were no caves, no mine.

03:55:45.280 --> 03:55:50.120
Looking at a side view, we see the mining
operation of the 30's where his father

03:55:50.120 --> 03:55:51.160
drove the bulldozer.

03:55:51.320 --> 03:55:54.320
And they hit rock so hard that they were
tearing up the bulldozers.

03:55:55.340 --> 03:55:57.200
And so it stopped and went out of
business.

03:55:57.360 --> 03:55:59.280
And didn't start again until the 70's.

03:55:59.800 --> 03:56:04.500
And then they went on down to this level
where the skeletons were found.

03:56:04.680 --> 03:56:09.480
Again, a diagram here shows the mining
operation of the 30's and then the 70's.

03:56:09.780 --> 03:56:12.020
Here the road cut was done in 1930.

03:56:12.480 --> 03:56:15.960
And prior to the road cut, this was
completely continuous.

03:56:16.500 --> 03:56:18.360
The skeletons were found here.

03:56:19.060 --> 03:56:23.040
Again, 50 feet down in the Dakota
Sandstone.

03:56:23.160 --> 03:56:28.440
There is zero evidence for the intrusional
burial of these skeletons.

03:56:28.640 --> 03:56:31.360
In fact, just overwhelming evidence
against it.

03:56:32.180 --> 03:56:34.880
If they're before 1930, this is the way it
looked.

03:56:36.300 --> 03:56:42.400
And remember then what Dawkins says,
if you can well verify it, his conclusion

03:56:42.400 --> 03:56:44.240
is evolution would be utterly destroyed.

03:56:44.560 --> 03:56:46.380
I think that's exactly what's happened.

03:56:47.760 --> 03:56:51.460
But anytime you find bones, they're going
to be intrusionally buried.

03:56:51.860 --> 03:56:53.540
That's just the assumption.

03:56:54.580 --> 03:57:01.180
But he goes on in this discussion of what
would test and falsify evolution saying,

03:57:01.760 --> 03:57:06.840
ironically, it's also the reason why
creationists are so keen on the fake human

03:57:06.840 --> 03:57:10.980
footprints which were carved during the
Depression to fool tourists in the

03:57:10.980 --> 03:57:11.980
dinosaur beds of Texas.

03:57:13.060 --> 03:57:16.920
So he's heard about our work down at Glen
Rose all the way from Oxford.

03:57:17.600 --> 03:57:18.880
He refuses to come look.

03:57:19.540 --> 03:57:20.920
But he's sure that they're fake.

03:57:21.500 --> 03:57:27.320
But understands that if they were real,
this would falsify and utterly destroy.

03:57:27.320 --> 03:57:31.980
And of course one of the main reasons for
the interest is that you can't

03:57:31.980 --> 03:57:33.800
intrusionally bury footprints,
can you?

03:57:34.620 --> 03:57:36.280
They are where they are.

03:57:36.420 --> 03:57:40.220
You can't erode them and redeposit and
they don't fall down cracks.

03:57:40.820 --> 03:57:45.040
And so this is really better evidence than
the bones, which he understands.

03:57:46.360 --> 03:57:51.460
Several of you here have traveled with us
down to Dinosaur Valley State Park and

03:57:51.460 --> 03:57:52.820
seen the footprints there.

03:57:52.920 --> 03:57:58.600
This is where the Paluxy River runs
through the park and there are just all

03:57:58.600 --> 03:58:01.140
kinds of dinosaur tracks all over the
place down there.

03:58:01.700 --> 03:58:04.560
They were made famous back in the 40's by
Roland T.

03:58:04.640 --> 03:58:10.020
Bird who published a number of articles
and we can see the big sauropod-like

03:58:10.020 --> 03:58:13.120
elephant tracks almost and then the
three-toed theropods.

03:58:14.100 --> 03:58:17.360
Here's one of those three-toed tracks
which is rather unusual.

03:58:17.560 --> 03:58:21.780
It's raised which caused us to do some
head scratching here.

03:58:21.920 --> 03:58:24.380
The tracks should be depressed,
shouldn't they?

03:58:24.460 --> 03:58:28.260
Well, yes, but what happened here,
the dinosaur stepped sunk down,

03:58:28.420 --> 03:58:34.680
left the depressed track, other material
washed over, filled it in and what filled

03:58:34.680 --> 03:58:41.720
it in became harder when it became rock so
that when it's later uncovered and erosion

03:58:41.720 --> 03:58:48.280
now affects it, the center, the infill is
resistant, more resistant to erosion than

03:58:48.280 --> 03:58:50.460
what's around it and so it winds up being
raised.

03:58:50.600 --> 03:58:52.240
This is the raised infill.

03:58:52.340 --> 03:58:54.640
That's significant for some points we'll
make again in a moment.

03:58:56.500 --> 03:59:01.820
But in addition to tracks like this,
we also have tracks that look like this.

03:59:03.220 --> 03:59:04.400
Wonder what that could be?

03:59:05.580 --> 03:59:07.000
Well, it couldn't be a human track.

03:59:07.160 --> 03:59:10.780
They were 100 million years apart from the
dinosaurs according to the evolutionists.

03:59:11.180 --> 03:59:15.280
If they're together, it would utterly
destroy and so it...

03:59:15.280 --> 03:59:18.640
Well, this one has to be carved and this
is Dawkins' conclusion.

03:59:19.540 --> 03:59:20.860
We'll come back to that in a moment.

03:59:21.180 --> 03:59:25.540
I was somewhat intimidated by the
objection because it was just almost too

03:59:25.540 --> 03:59:31.220
good to be true and so we looked around
for some that weren't quite so good and

03:59:31.220 --> 03:59:32.620
found some as well.

03:59:32.740 --> 03:59:36.540
Here's one in the lower right hand corner
that was identified by the Dallas Crime

03:59:36.540 --> 03:59:41.300
Lab as a human footprint of the same
criteria that identify footprints at a

03:59:41.300 --> 03:59:46.560
crime scene along with dinosaur tracks
that had just been excavated and some of

03:59:46.560 --> 03:59:49.400
the tracks that we found were very very
human-like.

03:59:50.300 --> 03:59:57.080
But the explanation was either that this
is erosion or they were carved.

03:59:57.300 --> 03:59:58.600
It has to be one or the other.

03:59:58.640 --> 04:00:03.340
So we got a new set of objections instead
of falling down a crack or intrusionally

04:00:03.340 --> 04:00:03.600
buried.

04:00:03.700 --> 04:00:05.660
Now then, it's erosion or carved.

04:00:05.820 --> 04:00:10.120
Well, Stan Taylor decided to test some of
these ideas back in the early 70s,

04:00:10.680 --> 04:00:16.880
taking a bulldozer backhoe and following a
trail of two tracks that were seen there

04:00:16.880 --> 04:00:18.660
in the river that came out of the
riverbank.

04:00:18.840 --> 04:00:23.820
Well, there are alternating layers of clay
and limestone and clay and limestone,

04:00:23.920 --> 04:00:25.160
about six feet of them there.

04:00:25.560 --> 04:00:29.360
And if he removes that and these tracks
continue back up under the bank,

04:00:29.480 --> 04:00:31.940
what would that say about the idea they'd
been carved?

04:00:33.580 --> 04:00:35.160
Pretty well rip it, wouldn't it?

04:00:36.120 --> 04:00:42.940
He did and, yes, found nine more tracks,
for a total of eleven, in a right-left

04:00:42.940 --> 04:00:43.340
pattern.

04:00:43.740 --> 04:00:48.820
Some of them very clear and obvious with
the mud push-up around it that you can see

04:00:48.820 --> 04:00:52.120
here, again arguing against the erosion
factor.

04:00:52.280 --> 04:00:56.000
That doesn't leave a ring around the
shape.

04:00:56.720 --> 04:00:58.940
And so a lot of people got excited about
this.

04:00:59.000 --> 04:01:00.220
It looked like very good evidence.

04:01:00.400 --> 04:01:03.360
And then Glenn Kuban came up with an
explanation.

04:01:03.660 --> 04:01:06.480
And he got Humanist of the Year for this
explanation.

04:01:07.960 --> 04:01:12.680
He says, are these kind of duck-looking
tracks, and there are several of those in

04:01:12.680 --> 04:01:17.300
the area, erode to look like the one on
the right, but the elongate tracks,

04:01:17.400 --> 04:01:22.460
like you see here at B, erode over a
period of time to finally wind up looking

04:01:22.460 --> 04:01:25.000
like the one down at the lower right-hand
corner.

04:01:25.860 --> 04:01:27.140
And that's kind of human-like.

04:01:27.280 --> 04:01:29.720
And so these are just eroded dinosaur
tracks.

04:01:31.060 --> 04:01:33.460
And now then we don't have to worry about
that anymore.

04:01:34.140 --> 04:01:38.460
However, when you go back and look at
these tracks, here are some of the

04:01:38.460 --> 04:01:42.220
dinosaur tracks with that infill that was
harder.

04:01:42.380 --> 04:01:44.000
And what happens with erosion here?

04:01:44.580 --> 04:01:48.520
It gets sharper and clearer because the
infill is harder.

04:01:49.220 --> 04:01:53.200
And when you look at a side view,
the three-dimensional aspect of this shows

04:01:53.200 --> 04:01:58.420
the center being raised, and that's not
going to erode to look like a human track.

04:01:59.080 --> 04:02:02.920
It looks more like a dinosaur track with
more erosion.

04:02:04.400 --> 04:02:08.920
And some of the casts that were made by
Stan Taylor were so detailed.

04:02:09.220 --> 04:02:12.900
Does this look like an eroded dinosaur
track?

04:02:14.140 --> 04:02:18.340
There's just too much detail for that to
be a credible thought.

04:02:18.440 --> 04:02:20.520
You put a human foot in it and it fits
perfectly.

04:02:21.720 --> 04:02:24.820
The one that really persuaded me,
and I was trying to play the devil's

04:02:24.820 --> 04:02:29.240
advocate, is there some way that this
could be explained, was this track.

04:02:29.360 --> 04:02:34.460
And we extended that 11-track series to
14.

04:02:34.680 --> 04:02:36.020
This was one in the extension.

04:02:36.640 --> 04:02:38.640
You have to look at this a minute to
really see it.

04:02:39.020 --> 04:02:43.320
As we highlight this area, you can see the
dinosaur portion of it.

04:02:43.340 --> 04:02:49.660
It's about 25 inches long, but look what
is in the middle of it.

04:02:49.660 --> 04:02:53.060
All five toes and instep and heel.

04:02:54.120 --> 04:02:55.180
But this one is perfect.

04:02:55.360 --> 04:02:57.080
Several were saying, well, maybe it's
erosion.

04:02:57.220 --> 04:02:58.740
Others were saying maybe it's carved.

04:02:59.120 --> 04:03:04.400
When you get both, you know it's right in
the middle and is exactly as good as it

04:03:04.400 --> 04:03:04.860
can get.

04:03:05.640 --> 04:03:09.560
We made a presentation of this at a
national science meeting up in Tennessee.

04:03:10.280 --> 04:03:13.540
Glenn Kuban was there, who won Humanist of
the Year for explaining these away.

04:03:13.640 --> 04:03:18.400
He was on the plane the next morning and
in the river that afternoon with a long

04:03:18.400 --> 04:03:19.440
iron pole.

04:03:20.760 --> 04:03:24.960
And we got several calls saying he's out
there with an iron pole and got out there

04:03:24.960 --> 04:03:26.960
and by the time we got there it looked
like this.

04:03:27.740 --> 04:03:29.820
It had just been beaten to pieces.

04:03:30.700 --> 04:03:36.560
Of course, we had excellent cast and
stereo photographs and hundreds of

04:03:36.560 --> 04:03:42.000
photographic documentations, but he was
evidently pretty impressed with the

04:03:42.000 --> 04:03:42.240
footprint.

04:03:42.920 --> 04:03:46.900
As you go further up the trail,
this is several tracks ahead, you see

04:03:46.900 --> 04:03:47.300
another.

04:03:47.420 --> 04:03:53.420
Now there are 134 dinosaur tracks on this
platform and 14 human tracks going through

04:03:53.420 --> 04:03:53.740
the middle.

04:03:53.880 --> 04:03:58.980
And sometimes they are beside and across
and just outside, sometimes within.

04:03:59.100 --> 04:04:00.040
Here again within.

04:04:00.620 --> 04:04:05.320
Notice the three-toed dinosaur track up in
the anterior forward portion of the track

04:04:05.320 --> 04:04:12.020
but in the back portion it looks like that
depressed area is where somebody stepped

04:04:12.020 --> 04:04:12.320
on it.

04:04:12.360 --> 04:04:16.660
Again, from a side view of that same
track, you see the three toes to the right

04:04:17.260 --> 04:04:22.440
almost flush and perhaps will be raised
with further erosion, but the depressed

04:04:22.440 --> 04:04:26.760
portion fits the human foot just
perfectly.

04:04:26.880 --> 04:04:29.260
When you put your foot in it, it's like a
glove.

04:04:30.520 --> 04:04:31.880
Now, this one is a right.

04:04:33.120 --> 04:04:34.620
What should we have ahead of it?

04:04:35.440 --> 04:04:37.280
We should have a left.

04:04:37.280 --> 04:04:43.000
Here's the next one and it's right-left
for 14.

04:04:43.760 --> 04:04:49.720
Looking at a side view of this track,
you can see that the dinosaur track is

04:04:49.720 --> 04:04:54.420
beside it and of course the sandbag is in
the back, it's in the bottom of the river,

04:04:54.600 --> 04:04:56.600
it's a lot of work to get to do that.

04:04:57.280 --> 04:05:05.880
It's consistently 11 1⁄2 inches and this
is an overview of the entire 14 track

04:05:05.880 --> 04:05:06.580
trail.

04:05:07.640 --> 04:05:14.400
Now, when you get 14 in a right-left
pattern consistent in length, you're not

04:05:14.400 --> 04:05:15.120
looking at erosion.

04:05:16.420 --> 04:05:19.600
And of course it was excavated,
most of it, from under the overburden

04:05:19.600 --> 04:05:21.440
which eliminates the carving.

04:05:23.080 --> 04:05:30.360
Now, you can see some strange things in
the rocks that look like wow, maybe it

04:05:30.360 --> 04:05:33.200
looks like an Indian head when you go to
the cave.

04:05:34.660 --> 04:05:38.420
You look up in the clouds and you see wow,
that looks like a bird.

04:05:38.800 --> 04:05:41.600
Maybe some of these tracks just happen to
look like a human foot.

04:05:42.800 --> 04:05:45.900
This was a sign I saw up in Oklahoma not
long ago.

04:05:46.080 --> 04:05:49.880
You look at that and you see well,
maybe that's a funny looking cloud but

04:05:49.880 --> 04:05:56.180
when you see the rest of it you think
somebody's messing with the clouds here.

04:05:56.940 --> 04:05:59.760
Because you've got more than one and
that's not going to happen.

04:06:00.020 --> 04:06:02.520
You look at the old man in the mountain.

04:06:03.640 --> 04:06:05.640
That may be erosion, right?

04:06:06.400 --> 04:06:08.560
But how do you know that this is not
erosion?

04:06:09.620 --> 04:06:14.260
Well, if you see four old men in the
mountain you've got a pretty good idea,

04:06:14.360 --> 04:06:14.660
don't you?

04:06:15.220 --> 04:06:20.840
Well, here you've got 14 in a right-left
pattern that says hey, I'm sorry,

04:06:20.940 --> 04:06:22.220
this is not erosion.

04:06:23.100 --> 04:06:24.580
And it's not carved.

04:06:24.580 --> 04:06:28.280
This becomes the perfect turvy fossil.

04:06:29.240 --> 04:06:31.720
We did the measurements and the analysis.

04:06:32.060 --> 04:06:36.940
All of them look at least like a general
human footprint consistent in length,

04:06:37.080 --> 04:06:39.960
more so than the dinosaur tracks some of
which are still being revealed.

04:06:40.460 --> 04:06:41.700
Seven of them have toes.

04:06:41.900 --> 04:06:43.820
Of course, we've shown you the most
dramatic ones.

04:06:44.360 --> 04:06:46.540
That's very unusual with fossil
footprints.

04:06:46.700 --> 04:06:50.820
Mary Leakey's tracks over in Africa,
several spreads in National Geographic,

04:06:50.940 --> 04:06:52.100
none of them have toes.

04:06:52.100 --> 04:06:55.340
Well, you can see the great toe in some,
but none individual toes.

04:06:56.140 --> 04:06:59.760
You can distinguish right from left in 12
of the 14.

04:07:00.960 --> 04:07:03.160
Two of them are just kind of oblong.

04:07:03.320 --> 04:07:07.140
And when Glenn Kuban lectures on this
subject, guess which two he shows you?

04:07:08.660 --> 04:07:12.860
We did a double-blind test at Kansas State
University with the psych department

04:07:12.860 --> 04:07:14.200
showing pictures.

04:07:14.600 --> 04:07:15.920
First, what are these?

04:07:16.300 --> 04:07:20.600
And 97% said they're human footprints.

04:07:21.840 --> 04:07:25.160
Then we got real rough on the college
students.

04:07:25.760 --> 04:07:27.940
Tell us if they're rights or lefts.

04:07:29.360 --> 04:07:33.000
And 87% got exactly what we predicted.

04:07:33.860 --> 04:07:38.920
12 out of 14, that's just about precisely
what we expected.

04:07:39.300 --> 04:07:43.820
And none of them were consistently
different so that you can say it is

04:07:43.820 --> 04:07:46.960
consistently rights and lefts where they
ought to be.

04:07:47.560 --> 04:07:49.580
Now, this is the way you do science.

04:07:50.420 --> 04:07:53.800
Dawkins sits behind his desk at Oxford and
says, no way.

04:07:54.260 --> 04:07:54.760
It's impossible.

04:07:55.860 --> 04:07:58.040
And we get out and do the work.

04:07:58.760 --> 04:08:00.480
And I think you can see the difference.

04:08:01.080 --> 04:08:03.520
This, I think, is the perfect turvy
fossil.

04:08:03.780 --> 04:08:07.760
You can't fall down a crack, intrusionally
bury them.

04:08:08.140 --> 04:08:09.360
They can't be carved.

04:08:09.520 --> 04:08:11.440
They were excavated from under the
overburden.

04:08:11.840 --> 04:08:12.780
It's not erosion.

04:08:12.980 --> 04:08:14.840
You've got 14 in a right-left pattern.

04:08:15.740 --> 04:08:19.740
And I just really enjoy presenting this on
the college campus and then sitting back

04:08:19.740 --> 04:08:21.840
and saying, okay, now, what's your
explanation?

04:08:22.900 --> 04:08:29.100
I was at a university up in Tennessee
several years ago speaking to a group of

04:08:29.100 --> 04:08:34.660
about 50 senior geology students and they
turned around after I finished to the head

04:08:34.660 --> 04:08:37.040
of the department, okay, what do you have
to say?

04:08:38.740 --> 04:08:44.000
And he said, of course, we don't know that
there weren't dinosaurs back there with

04:08:44.000 --> 04:08:44.580
human feet.

04:08:49.790 --> 04:08:52.710
And I thought a minute and I said,
well, I guess that's right.

04:08:53.590 --> 04:08:54.670
It could have been.

04:08:54.830 --> 04:08:59.310
I also don't know that there weren't
humans back there with dinosaur feet.

04:08:59.510 --> 04:09:00.830
Wouldn't that make about as much sense?

04:09:03.610 --> 04:09:08.810
I said, wouldn't it be more reasonable to
think these things look like dinosaur feet

04:09:08.810 --> 04:09:11.610
and were made by dinosaurs and these
things look like human feet and were made

04:09:11.610 --> 04:09:12.090
by humans?

04:09:12.250 --> 04:09:13.170
No, he wouldn't agree.

04:09:14.110 --> 04:09:17.470
And I said, well, if they were made by
humans would they look any different?

04:09:19.170 --> 04:09:20.670
And he just got up and left.

04:09:23.290 --> 04:09:27.410
And about half of that, well, a
significant portion of that group became

04:09:27.410 --> 04:09:28.050
creationists.

04:09:29.670 --> 04:09:33.630
But dinosaurs with human feet is their
explanation.

04:09:33.890 --> 04:09:39.330
Dr. Chuck Finsley, who was curator of the
Dallas Museum of Natural History for some

04:09:39.330 --> 04:09:43.950
30 years, came down to Glen Rose and
looked at it.

04:09:44.030 --> 04:09:46.310
He wanted to display some of the dinosaurs
we had excavated.

04:09:47.290 --> 04:09:48.630
And we made him look at the tracks.

04:09:49.030 --> 04:09:50.530
And he got a little upset and left.

04:09:50.670 --> 04:09:53.910
Came back about a month later and got
upset and left.

04:09:54.910 --> 04:09:58.890
Third time down, he said, Dr. Patton,
I think I've got an explanation for you.

04:09:58.950 --> 04:10:02.010
I can tell you what made these
human-looking footprints.

04:10:03.290 --> 04:10:05.430
He says, I think they were made by aliens.

04:10:09.290 --> 04:10:10.170
Very serious.

04:10:11.290 --> 04:10:13.890
And I kind of snickered and he got
aggravated.

04:10:14.410 --> 04:10:18.530
I said, well, Chuck, if they're made by
aliens, I guess they came from a galaxy

04:10:18.530 --> 04:10:19.550
far, far away.

04:10:20.030 --> 04:10:21.730
They'd be more advanced than we are.

04:10:21.950 --> 04:10:23.630
What are they doing running around
barefooted?

04:10:28.030 --> 04:10:28.810
He left.

04:10:30.810 --> 04:10:33.650
But this is the best they can do.

04:10:33.650 --> 04:10:40.610
I said, I think you just ought to take the
evidence for what it is instead of

04:10:40.610 --> 04:10:42.250
desperately trying to explain it away.

04:10:42.870 --> 04:10:46.590
It kind of reminds me of the Far Side
cartoon by Gary Larson.

04:10:46.750 --> 04:10:50.010
Here's Professor Farrington and his
controversial theory that dinosaurs were

04:10:50.010 --> 04:10:54.010
actually the discarded chicken bones of
giant alien picnickers.

04:10:56.230 --> 04:10:58.290
That sounds pretty far out to me.

04:10:59.230 --> 04:11:04.150
If you want to draw a cartoon,
I think the reality would be more like

04:11:04.150 --> 04:11:04.510
this.

04:11:04.710 --> 04:11:10.090
In the throes of a catastrophic flood,
as they were trying to escape,

04:11:10.270 --> 04:11:13.930
they were running and these were the ones
that missed the boat.

04:11:28.600 --> 04:11:35.620
When we exposed this material,
and I think solved the riddle of several

04:11:35.620 --> 04:11:40.720
of the questions that had been asked,
found extra tracks, documented the

04:11:40.720 --> 04:11:47.840
right-left pattern, the length and
consistency of the trail, many were

04:11:47.840 --> 04:11:49.920
pressed with coming up with an answer.

04:11:49.980 --> 04:11:50.480
What do you say?

04:11:50.560 --> 04:11:55.120
Well, the typical thing they say,
just predict it.

04:11:56.320 --> 04:11:57.940
Well, you need more evidence.

04:11:59.000 --> 04:12:00.320
You can always say that.

04:12:00.440 --> 04:12:01.460
You need more evidence.

04:12:01.520 --> 04:12:01.940
And they do.

04:12:02.560 --> 04:12:09.740
And so in 2000, with the drought in this
area, we noticed that this trail that's

04:12:09.740 --> 04:12:13.160
coming across what's called the Patton...

04:12:14.300 --> 04:12:18.660
the trail that's going across it here,
we could see more of it because the water

04:12:18.660 --> 04:12:19.360
had gone down.

04:12:20.540 --> 04:12:22.860
And so we decided to pump the river dry.

04:12:23.860 --> 04:12:29.600
And so we got quite a few pumps and 30-40
people down there pretty regularly for

04:12:29.600 --> 04:12:30.680
over a three-month period.

04:12:31.820 --> 04:12:37.500
And with a lot of work, a lot of shovels,
a lot of movement of dirt and watering a

04:12:37.500 --> 04:12:41.880
lot of farmers' fields on either side of
the river, we pumped it dry and followed

04:12:41.880 --> 04:12:46.060
that trail and exposed the longest
consecutive dinosaur trail on the American

04:12:46.060 --> 04:12:46.420
continent.

04:12:48.500 --> 04:12:54.400
154 dinosaur tracks over 500 feet long and
they're not only the longest trail,

04:12:54.900 --> 04:12:58.140
but they may be the clearest and most
spectacular trail.

04:12:58.220 --> 04:13:00.760
The sharp detail is just awesome.

04:13:02.640 --> 04:13:07.440
Now, it really infuriated the fella at the
state park who had gotten his Ph.D.

04:13:07.520 --> 04:13:11.600
studying these tracks that a creationist
made such a find right under his nose.

04:13:12.580 --> 04:13:18.140
But we know what dinosaur tracks look like
and excavated the longest trail on the

04:13:18.140 --> 04:13:18.680
American continent.

04:13:19.380 --> 04:13:22.020
Only one other in the world longer in
Turkmenistan.

04:13:23.360 --> 04:13:27.660
There's nothing here that looks like
dinosaur tracks at all but when you go up

04:13:27.660 --> 04:13:33.620
ahead it crosses this trail of human
tracks that are very consistent in length,

04:13:33.680 --> 04:13:36.380
right, left pattern, all five toes,
instep and heel.

04:13:38.180 --> 04:13:41.540
Then we presented that and guess what they
said then?

04:13:42.000 --> 04:13:43.140
Well, you need more evidence.

04:13:44.720 --> 04:13:52.040
And okay, let's try the platform up ahead
this time and we moved ahead and this

04:13:52.040 --> 04:13:56.940
platform we had to go down three or four
layers until we got to the print layer and

04:13:56.940 --> 04:14:03.180
sure enough there's about 100 dinosaur
tracks on this platform with 15 human

04:14:03.180 --> 04:14:05.300
tracks going right through the middle of
it.

04:14:05.700 --> 04:14:10.860
Different individual, this one was
consistently about 10 inches but the

04:14:10.860 --> 04:14:16.220
right-left pattern is obvious and we look
at a close-up here of the center and we

04:14:16.220 --> 04:14:25.620
see two tracks that are slightly raised
like the dinosaur footprints but you can

04:14:25.620 --> 04:14:30.160
see that they match on either side but the
one on the right looks like something

04:14:30.160 --> 04:14:32.360
stepped in the back of it, doesn't it?

04:14:32.980 --> 04:14:39.440
And it's depressed, it's not raised it
came along after the infill had filled in

04:14:39.440 --> 04:14:40.040
the other tracks.

04:14:40.140 --> 04:14:47.020
Looking at a close-up of the one on the
right we'll see there is that duck-shaped

04:14:47.020 --> 04:14:51.560
dinosaur track that matches the one next
to it perfectly but again the depressed

04:14:51.560 --> 04:14:56.980
track within it is just perfect and if we
had enough dark you could actually count

04:14:56.980 --> 04:15:01.940
the knuckles and the toes here and that's
in a sequence of 15 in a right-left

04:15:01.940 --> 04:15:02.320
pattern.

04:15:03.780 --> 04:15:05.100
OK, want some more evidence?

04:15:06.540 --> 04:15:10.740
It just keeps piling up and they keep
evading.

04:15:11.880 --> 04:15:18.060
I think we have just very exciting
evidence to confront the evolutionary

04:15:18.060 --> 04:15:18.840
theories here.

04:15:19.620 --> 04:15:21.380
We went back to the Burdick track.

04:15:21.460 --> 04:15:26.260
This one was one that had to be carved,
it was too good to be true because well,

04:15:26.700 --> 04:15:33.260
it just looked awfully good so I said is
there some way we can tell if this is

04:15:33.260 --> 04:15:33.900
carved or not?

04:15:34.000 --> 04:15:37.940
Well, when you section across it sometimes
as indicated in the question a moment ago

04:15:37.940 --> 04:15:44.380
you can see disturbed material underneath
the surface and so we sectioned as you can

04:15:44.380 --> 04:15:45.680
see several places.

04:15:45.840 --> 04:15:52.960
Here is a section at the heel and in the
center you can see the displaced disturbed

04:15:52.960 --> 04:15:54.160
material.

04:15:55.860 --> 04:15:57.840
Is this a carved track?

04:15:59.560 --> 04:16:05.400
This is original impression carving would
cut across rather than corresponding with

04:16:05.400 --> 04:16:07.640
the disturbed material.

04:16:07.640 --> 04:16:12.680
We presented this at a science meeting in
Dallas and it got rather quiet and then

04:16:12.680 --> 04:16:17.840
finally one person said well this is
obviously a real track but it must be a

04:16:17.840 --> 04:16:19.840
dinosaur track that somebody carved toes
on.

04:16:22.360 --> 04:16:27.280
And I am glad he did that because then we
proceeded to section across the toes as

04:16:27.280 --> 04:16:31.260
you can see here and this is a real reach
because sometimes you section a dinosaur

04:16:31.260 --> 04:16:32.560
track and you see nothing.

04:16:34.620 --> 04:16:39.180
But we were lucky with the fine grain
limestone preserved a lot of detail.

04:16:39.440 --> 04:16:43.620
Here is a section across the toes and
especially there at the great toe you can

04:16:43.620 --> 04:16:47.600
see the following contours rather than
cutting across them.

04:16:48.100 --> 04:16:51.900
Looking at a close up here and actually
there are structures under each of the

04:16:51.900 --> 04:17:00.620
toes but very dramatic at the great toe
and so we verify even at the toes that

04:17:00.620 --> 04:17:03.240
this is not a carved track.

04:17:03.920 --> 04:17:05.620
Then we get a new set of objections.

04:17:05.860 --> 04:17:09.700
They say well but it's too broad at the
front, it's too narrow at the heel and

04:17:09.700 --> 04:17:11.200
look at the center, it's raised.

04:17:11.460 --> 04:17:13.180
Tracks are not supposed to be raised in
the middle.

04:17:15.100 --> 04:17:18.440
And of course they had no idea what tracks
are supposed to look like and we didn't

04:17:18.440 --> 04:17:21.340
either and so we went out and did some
science.

04:17:21.540 --> 04:17:27.320
We got some junior high kids to make some
tracks in the concrete and we found out

04:17:27.320 --> 04:17:33.640
that standing tracks and walking tracks
and running tracks are pretty easy to

04:17:33.640 --> 04:17:34.020
distinguish.

04:17:34.200 --> 04:17:35.120
They all look different.

04:17:36.120 --> 04:17:38.040
And what we are looking at here is a
running track.

04:17:38.140 --> 04:17:44.160
Here is a little twelve year old girl that
made these tracks running both toward and

04:17:44.160 --> 04:17:45.900
away from us.

04:17:46.280 --> 04:17:55.480
Looking at two here going in opposite
directions we can see the broad front here

04:17:55.480 --> 04:17:59.120
and the toes that are spread out,
the narrow heel and look at the raised

04:17:59.120 --> 04:17:59.380
center.

04:18:00.280 --> 04:18:05.080
When you are running you push off with
your toes and so you have a broader front

04:18:05.080 --> 04:18:08.340
and you rock over the center and leave
the...

04:18:08.340 --> 04:18:13.380
We didn't know that but what we learned
indicated that if it were different it

04:18:13.380 --> 04:18:13.980
would be wrong.

04:18:15.120 --> 04:18:18.420
The Burdick track is a very good running
track.

04:18:19.740 --> 04:18:23.660
Difficult even to make one that good today
but the same general configuration.

04:18:24.580 --> 04:18:27.100
Also in the area we had a large cat track.

04:18:27.260 --> 04:18:28.780
There were seven of these.

04:18:29.980 --> 04:18:36.260
Dawkins said a large mammal skull I think
a large mammal foot would fit the bill as

04:18:36.260 --> 04:18:36.540
well.

04:18:37.400 --> 04:18:38.500
This one is large.

04:18:38.600 --> 04:18:40.360
We talked about large animals the other
evening.

04:18:40.480 --> 04:18:42.460
This one is nine inches across.

04:18:43.780 --> 04:18:44.320
Big cat.

04:18:46.220 --> 04:18:49.960
And that would utterly destroy according
to Dawkins criteria.

04:18:50.180 --> 04:18:52.800
We sectioned here across this which they
would have to say was carved.

04:18:53.500 --> 04:18:58.220
And again you see the following contours
across the pad of the cat track showing

04:18:58.220 --> 04:18:59.800
that this is not carved either.

04:19:00.300 --> 04:19:01.900
This is a turvy fossil.

04:19:03.260 --> 04:19:05.160
All of this of course around Glen Rose.

04:19:05.320 --> 04:19:06.980
Let's go down to Sonora, Texas.

04:19:07.320 --> 04:19:09.240
Here is a sequence of three tracks.

04:19:09.780 --> 04:19:15.220
One of them you can see very clearly is
not just erosion in a rock but very much

04:19:15.220 --> 04:19:15.980
like a human track.

04:19:16.200 --> 04:19:20.760
There are nine of them in a right-left
pattern that can be followed there at

04:19:20.760 --> 04:19:21.100
Sonora.

04:19:21.540 --> 04:19:26.180
Up in the panhandle at Stennett,
Texas there has been on display for about

04:19:26.180 --> 04:19:33.500
30 years a rock slab there in the center
of the courthouse that obviously looks

04:19:33.500 --> 04:19:36.100
like a human foot in the Permian rock.

04:19:36.240 --> 04:19:39.260
This is supposedly 100 million years older
than the ones at Glen Rose.

04:19:40.240 --> 04:19:41.680
Well this has to be carved.

04:19:41.680 --> 04:19:43.240
It's just too clear.

04:19:43.380 --> 04:19:45.160
The little small foot and then the big
one.

04:19:45.640 --> 04:19:52.080
But look at the thin layer that's revealed
here by the broken section and compare it

04:19:52.080 --> 04:19:57.840
with the depth of the track looking
sideways and you can see that the depth is

04:19:57.840 --> 04:20:00.220
considerably deeper than that little thin
layer.

04:20:00.340 --> 04:20:02.940
And if it were carved, what would happen
to that little thin layer?

04:20:03.060 --> 04:20:04.960
It would penetrate, wouldn't it?

04:20:04.980 --> 04:20:05.560
And it didn't.

04:20:06.420 --> 04:20:11.620
So we can see good indication this is not
a carved track.

04:20:12.320 --> 04:20:16.800
We have found out where this came from,
the area.

04:20:17.040 --> 04:20:18.280
We've done a lot of research.

04:20:18.540 --> 04:20:25.300
We're doing an excavation beginning in two
weeks there at Stennett and hope to find

04:20:25.300 --> 04:20:26.500
some more in place.

04:20:27.540 --> 04:20:32.620
But we don't find them just at Glen Rose
by any means.

04:20:33.140 --> 04:20:38.880
This one is in New Mexico, again in the
Permian, even worse for the evolutionists

04:20:38.880 --> 04:20:40.480
than the situation at Glen Rose.

04:20:40.940 --> 04:20:47.460
The photograph is a little bit deceitful
in that you wouldn't see that picture if

04:20:47.460 --> 04:20:48.260
you walked up on it.

04:20:49.160 --> 04:20:54.400
It's an extremely shallow track and you
have to have it wet and the sun angle just

04:20:54.400 --> 04:20:56.580
right in order to get the pretty picture
like this.

04:20:57.000 --> 04:21:01.300
But when you do, you can see this very
obviously is a clear track.

04:21:01.380 --> 04:21:05.880
But it's one that is like the kind of
footprints you'd leave when you're walking

04:21:05.880 --> 04:21:07.640
with a wet foot on a tile floor.

04:21:07.760 --> 04:21:10.120
You're not sinking down that much.

04:21:10.200 --> 04:21:13.180
You get the hourglass shape with the
little dots at the end.

04:21:14.080 --> 04:21:16.020
But we recognize that shape, don't we?

04:21:16.760 --> 04:21:19.500
And that's obviously a turvy fossil.

04:21:20.500 --> 04:21:24.660
In Turkmenistan, that we mentioned
earlier, there are a lot of dinosaur

04:21:24.660 --> 04:21:25.120
tracks.

04:21:25.900 --> 04:21:31.640
This is from Pravda, under the headline
Human Footprints Found on Dinosaurs

04:21:31.640 --> 04:21:32.380
Plateau.

04:21:32.780 --> 04:21:36.320
Turkmenian Plateau contains more than
3,000 footprints but among the most

04:21:36.320 --> 04:21:40.600
mysterious fact is that among the
footprints of dinosaurs, footprints of

04:21:40.600 --> 04:21:42.120
bare human feet are found.

04:21:42.980 --> 04:21:46.100
We've contacted a number of Russian
scientists.

04:21:46.520 --> 04:21:47.680
They don't like to talk about it.

04:21:47.740 --> 04:21:48.460
Not all of them.

04:21:48.540 --> 04:21:54.520
Some of them actually do and have gotten
in trouble as a result of it.

04:21:55.660 --> 04:22:03.340
We had this fellow who had published
Science and USSR agreed to carry us there.

04:22:03.440 --> 04:22:06.640
He was head of the geology department at
the University of Turkmenistan.

04:22:08.260 --> 04:22:09.520
I got the visa.

04:22:10.160 --> 04:22:10.900
It wasn't cheap.

04:22:11.400 --> 04:22:15.480
Ready to go and they fired him and he had
to leave the country.

04:22:16.260 --> 04:22:19.480
When we applied for the permits,
they found out we were coming.

04:22:20.000 --> 04:22:22.460
They don't like that to be known.

04:22:22.460 --> 04:22:27.780
But in this journal, he says if we speak
about the human footprint and notice he's

04:22:27.780 --> 04:22:29.980
still just a little bit equivocating here.

04:22:30.700 --> 04:22:32.480
It was made by a human-like animal.

04:22:33.600 --> 04:22:37.720
He's not really sticking his neck out
there but obviously so.

04:22:38.060 --> 04:22:41.860
Incredibly the footprint is on the same
plateau where there are dinosaur tracks.

04:22:42.860 --> 04:22:45.260
He's led three expeditions there to
investigate.

04:22:45.480 --> 04:22:50.980
He has offered to carry us sneaking across
the border from Kazakhstan where he is

04:22:50.980 --> 04:22:51.260
now.

04:22:52.100 --> 04:22:57.800
It's about six miles from Afghanistan and
we decided that we're going to wait a

04:22:57.800 --> 04:22:58.140
little while.

04:23:00.700 --> 04:23:03.780
This amazing fossil is from the Glen Rose
area.

04:23:05.400 --> 04:23:07.320
This is my daughter's finger underneath.

04:23:08.560 --> 04:23:14.680
We recognize what that looks like but
there are lots of rocks that just happen

04:23:14.680 --> 04:23:17.660
to look like things accidentally.

04:23:18.500 --> 04:23:21.220
And so we wanted to see if there's any
interior structure.

04:23:21.340 --> 04:23:24.900
Sometimes you find that in fossils
sometimes you don't.

04:23:25.040 --> 04:23:30.980
And so we sectioned here at a severe angle
to get more information to see if there's

04:23:30.980 --> 04:23:32.860
any interior structure there.

04:23:33.060 --> 04:23:36.920
And sure enough, right at the
intersection, right where it's supposed to

04:23:36.920 --> 04:23:42.160
be, we see the bone material in the center
of this fossil finger.

04:23:42.980 --> 04:23:46.440
This is Dr. Dale Peterson of Oklahoma
City.

04:23:48.080 --> 04:23:52.060
The last time I heard him lecture on this
it was an hour and a half lecture and you

04:23:52.060 --> 04:23:55.960
don't want to know all about that but he
did the CAT scans and traced ligaments

04:23:55.960 --> 04:23:57.020
from one end to the other.

04:23:57.920 --> 04:24:02.860
And he has absolutely no doubt as a
professional anatomist that this is a

04:24:02.860 --> 04:24:03.400
human finger.

04:24:04.580 --> 04:24:10.380
A little further south, a hundred miles
south of Glen Rose, we go near London,

04:24:10.560 --> 04:24:14.920
Texas down toward Junction, Fredericksburg
in that vicinity.

04:24:15.740 --> 04:24:21.420
And in this picturesque spot, a number of
years ago a gentleman was fishing and

04:24:21.420 --> 04:24:24.960
looked at a rock and saw something
sticking out of it and picked it up and

04:24:24.960 --> 04:24:27.900
hit it and lo and behold, it's got a
hammer in it.

04:24:28.900 --> 04:24:32.780
And the rock from this area, you look on
all the geologic maps this is lower

04:24:32.780 --> 04:24:36.720
Cretaceous, the same formation at Glen
Rose but lowered down in the formation,

04:24:36.880 --> 04:24:39.120
supposed to be 140 million.

04:24:39.660 --> 04:24:42.980
But this is steel with an iron hammer.

04:24:43.620 --> 04:24:49.780
It's not hammer steel, it's a different
type no hammer is sold today made of this.

04:24:50.440 --> 04:24:55.800
The wooden handle is partially coalified
with quartz and calcite crystals in it

04:24:55.800 --> 04:24:59.680
encased in the Cretaceous sandstone.

04:25:01.780 --> 04:25:08.260
I don't think the dinosaurs made that but
it's found in the rocks with the

04:25:08.260 --> 04:25:08.700
dinosaurs.

04:25:09.740 --> 04:25:15.320
Up in Oklahoma, we found this iron pot
which was in the coal that's supposedly

04:25:15.320 --> 04:25:16.620
300 million years old.

04:25:17.180 --> 04:25:20.540
According to the evolution it's been
around maybe a million, two million

04:25:20.540 --> 04:25:21.820
depending on how you define it.

04:25:23.060 --> 04:25:26.380
But 295 million, you've got an iron pot.

04:25:26.600 --> 04:25:31.240
And this is the affidavit of the fellow
who was working in the utility department

04:25:31.240 --> 04:25:36.940
there stoking the big furnace and took a
sledgehammer and broke the coal open and

04:25:36.940 --> 04:25:41.000
out fell the pot with the cast and the
mold on either side.

04:25:42.260 --> 04:25:43.700
Not supposed to be there.

04:25:44.120 --> 04:25:51.000
Similar situation here with this bell that
was found in North Carolina a number of

04:25:51.000 --> 04:25:56.200
years ago encased in coal again with the
cast and mold on either side.

04:25:57.520 --> 04:26:03.560
A close up shows that this is not like
things that we know about today but it's

04:26:04.160 --> 04:26:06.380
it was encased in the coal.

04:26:06.740 --> 04:26:11.400
We have not only an affidavit from him but
he passed a lie detector test with flying

04:26:11.400 --> 04:26:14.060
colors that his story was true.

04:26:15.220 --> 04:26:18.580
And so the evidence just accumulates.

04:26:19.740 --> 04:26:21.100
Travel with me to Utah.

04:26:21.320 --> 04:26:27.360
This is near the Four Corners area near
Blanding, Utah under the arches at Natural

04:26:27.360 --> 04:26:28.620
Bridges National Monument.

04:26:29.520 --> 04:26:34.360
And here Dr. Swift down there who was
working with me is pointing up where the

04:26:34.360 --> 04:26:41.400
area is to a protected area where the
Anasazi Indians did their petroglyphs

04:26:41.400 --> 04:26:44.060
about a thousand years ago according to
the park rangers.

04:26:44.860 --> 04:26:48.740
And you climb up there on that little
ledge and look at that and you see a

04:26:48.740 --> 04:26:50.660
number of the petroglyphs.

04:26:50.660 --> 04:26:56.040
It's covered with heavy desert varnish so
that it's difficult to photograph but

04:26:56.040 --> 04:26:59.900
right over my head you see the Anasazi
warrior and then the snakes.

04:27:00.600 --> 04:27:07.360
But then right beside me if we highlight
the significant area you can see the

04:27:07.360 --> 04:27:12.480
dinosaur which even the secular
archaeologists have acknowledged sure

04:27:12.480 --> 04:27:17.700
looks like a dinosaur and covered with the
varnish so that the antiquity is really

04:27:17.700 --> 04:27:18.540
not questioned.

04:27:19.360 --> 04:27:25.440
We go not too far from there but over into
Colorado we see the three horned dinosaur

04:27:25.440 --> 04:27:26.880
with the frill on its back.

04:27:26.980 --> 04:27:29.680
It looks more like a triceratops than the
people.

04:27:30.380 --> 04:27:31.120
They look like people.

04:27:31.280 --> 04:27:35.860
This is done by the Fremont Indians who
were contemporary with the Anasazi.

04:27:36.580 --> 04:27:38.720
And then we go to the Grand Canyon.

04:27:39.000 --> 04:27:43.340
We see what appears to be in the shape of
maybe an Allosaurus.

04:27:44.500 --> 04:27:49.440
Someone shot him in the tail which shows
you what it looks like if you break

04:27:49.440 --> 04:27:53.140
through that heavy desert varnish which
indicates its antiquity.

04:27:53.740 --> 04:27:58.860
There was a write up by a representative
for the American Museum of Natural History

04:27:58.860 --> 04:28:07.220
in 1924 of this site describing Indians
drawing dinosaurs though they wouldn't do

04:28:07.220 --> 04:28:07.820
that today.

04:28:08.680 --> 04:28:11.480
Not because the evidence is not there they
just wouldn't do it.

04:28:12.120 --> 04:28:17.760
We travel down to Peru and this is Dr.
Javier Cabrera who was 20 years head of

04:28:17.760 --> 04:28:21.060
the Department of Medicine at the
University of Lima retired to be cultural

04:28:21.060 --> 04:28:22.280
anthropologist in Inca.

04:28:23.080 --> 04:28:24.620
Ancestor of the Conquistadors.

04:28:25.080 --> 04:28:31.480
Has a big 300 year old castle there on the
town square and has a collection of Inca

04:28:31.480 --> 04:28:35.940
burial stones that begun to be made by his
father back in the 30's.

04:28:36.540 --> 04:28:37.900
He's continued that collection.

04:28:38.500 --> 04:28:44.780
These are stones that are buried in the
tombs with the Incas and they have scenes

04:28:44.780 --> 04:28:46.280
carved over them, most of them.

04:28:46.660 --> 04:28:52.460
He has a collection now of over 11,000 of
these burial stones.

04:28:53.240 --> 04:28:57.420
About a third of them are the most
disgusting pornography you've ever seen.

04:28:58.200 --> 04:29:00.260
But about a third of them have dinosaurs
on them.

04:29:00.960 --> 04:29:04.860
Here is one in place in the tomb.

04:29:05.580 --> 04:29:11.320
But looking at a close up of these stones
you can see the rather artistic rendition

04:29:11.320 --> 04:29:12.620
of the dinosaur.

04:29:12.800 --> 04:29:17.900
Interestingly this one has the dermal
frills on its back when Mr. Sinclair did

04:29:17.900 --> 04:29:19.520
his sign with the dinosaur.

04:29:19.680 --> 04:29:24.100
He didn't know that it had frills on its
back but they did it right.

04:29:24.240 --> 04:29:28.840
This was written up in Geology Magazine in
1992 for the first time when we found them

04:29:28.840 --> 04:29:29.520
well preserved.

04:29:30.360 --> 04:29:32.780
But there are thousands of these stones.

04:29:32.940 --> 04:29:34.880
This is one of the larger ones.

04:29:35.780 --> 04:29:38.280
Again rather artistically rendered.

04:29:38.580 --> 04:29:42.560
Looking at a close up you can see the
dinosaur in the upper right hand corner

04:29:42.560 --> 04:29:44.180
with the man foot in his mouth.

04:29:45.180 --> 04:29:53.560
All shapes and sizes and types of stones
and styles of rendering certainly not done

04:29:53.560 --> 04:29:54.800
by the same individual.

04:29:55.720 --> 04:30:00.500
Some of them are almost oriental looking
and some of them rather literal looking.

04:30:01.060 --> 04:30:04.400
Here is one with a number of different
species on it.

04:30:04.660 --> 04:30:05.960
But thousands of them.

04:30:06.860 --> 04:30:09.680
We have a number of others who have
collected as well.

04:30:10.160 --> 04:30:13.200
We have a collection at the Aeronautical
Museum in Lima.

04:30:14.020 --> 04:30:15.760
There were hundreds here.

04:30:15.940 --> 04:30:17.340
There are 40 that are left.

04:30:17.440 --> 04:30:18.420
They have been raided.

04:30:19.280 --> 04:30:22.300
I think sold maybe illegally.

04:30:22.920 --> 04:30:27.280
But you can still see the stones some of
the ones that are not as elaborate and

04:30:27.280 --> 04:30:32.120
beautiful as in the Cabrera collection but
obviously recognizable.

04:30:32.520 --> 04:30:37.060
Still in the National Aeronautical Museum
there is also a display in the Naval

04:30:37.060 --> 04:30:41.660
Museum and at least two other museums that
I know of in Peru.

04:30:42.080 --> 04:30:44.740
Some of them are still being excavated.

04:30:44.860 --> 04:30:50.260
This was one that was excavated in 2006
that is in the artifact room.

04:30:50.760 --> 04:30:52.640
It has two dinosaurs on it.

04:30:52.800 --> 04:30:55.520
Slightly different type stone from
Cabrera's.

04:30:55.940 --> 04:31:00.500
Raised instead of incised but still the
same general picture.

04:31:01.060 --> 04:31:07.100
Also in the tombs you find burial cloths
with the same kind of motif there.

04:31:08.120 --> 04:31:11.720
Obviously the big claws and the teeth
representing dinosaurs.

04:31:11.920 --> 04:31:13.140
You see it on their pottery.

04:31:14.300 --> 04:31:16.160
That is relatively easy to date.

04:31:16.340 --> 04:31:18.540
These are dated about 2500 years ago.

04:31:19.640 --> 04:31:21.160
These are the Moshi pots.

04:31:21.160 --> 04:31:27.020
The style is well known and documented and
represented in the National Museum.

04:31:27.260 --> 04:31:29.120
This one is in the National Museum in
Lima.

04:31:29.720 --> 04:31:31.840
It says circa 2500 years ago.

04:31:32.700 --> 04:31:37.540
Up in northern Peru you have a good deal
of gold in some of the ruins and tombs.

04:31:37.700 --> 04:31:40.680
This is a death mask but look on either
side of the face.

04:31:41.860 --> 04:31:44.160
Again the dermal frills across the back.

04:31:44.780 --> 04:31:47.360
The tail curling up over and the huge
teeth.

04:31:47.360 --> 04:31:54.400
These people were seeing dinosaurs 2000,
3000 years ago.

04:31:55.540 --> 04:32:00.880
Now we are told that we have known what
dinosaurs looked like for maybe well the

04:32:00.880 --> 04:32:04.000
first ones found in 1820 we did not know
what they looked like very well.

04:32:04.120 --> 04:32:06.880
The restorations were silly.

04:32:07.840 --> 04:32:13.720
After the turn of the century,
early 1900s we got a fair idea and really

04:32:13.720 --> 04:32:14.920
not an excellent idea.

04:32:16.100 --> 04:32:20.780
Well, 1992 we learned the dinosaur's type
had frills on its back.

04:32:22.700 --> 04:32:25.020
These people did not show a great asian in
learning.

04:32:25.120 --> 04:32:26.680
They got it right, right from the start.

04:32:27.960 --> 04:32:29.020
Likewise in Mexico.

04:32:29.400 --> 04:32:34.960
We made a number of trips there in central
highlands near Acombro in the state of

04:32:34.960 --> 04:32:35.500
Guanajuato.

04:32:36.220 --> 04:32:39.900
Dr. Swift and I have been down there a
number of times investigating.

04:32:40.500 --> 04:32:43.240
It took that many times to get through all
the bureaucracy.

04:32:43.520 --> 04:32:46.300
When we got there, they were being hidden
in the back of the police department.

04:32:46.960 --> 04:32:53.940
But it was a collection made by Waldemar
Juhlsrud back in the early 1900s of some

04:32:53.940 --> 04:32:59.480
30,000 ceramic figurines about 10% of
which are of dinosaurs.

04:33:00.160 --> 04:33:03.320
But a wide range of animals and creatures.

04:33:04.800 --> 04:33:07.940
Some of the brontosaurus type were
standing up.

04:33:08.080 --> 04:33:09.720
We didn't know that until recently.

04:33:10.340 --> 04:33:15.400
Bacher's book Dinosaur Heresies published
in 1986 was really the first one who

04:33:15.400 --> 04:33:16.200
suggested that.

04:33:17.180 --> 04:33:19.640
And then of course Spielberg convinced us
all they stood up.

04:33:20.260 --> 04:33:25.400
But this is exactly the way they are
rendered by the artist.

04:33:25.680 --> 04:33:31.160
And these date to well before the time of
Christ from several sources.

04:33:32.840 --> 04:33:38.060
Again, there are thousands of them and the
styles indicate far more than one artist.

04:33:38.420 --> 04:33:42.740
One of the professors from the University
of Texas at Arlington who is an art

04:33:42.740 --> 04:33:47.540
professor said there were at least 100
different artists represented in the

04:33:47.540 --> 04:33:47.900
collection.

04:33:48.560 --> 04:33:49.800
That would be his estimate.

04:33:50.400 --> 04:33:51.800
This is my wife's favorite.

04:33:53.980 --> 04:33:57.180
Obviously if you've got one that looks
like a dinosaur a man did it.

04:33:57.340 --> 04:34:00.260
But sewing them together is interesting.

04:34:00.400 --> 04:34:02.140
Man and dinosaur obviously live together.

04:34:03.420 --> 04:34:06.920
You pick up any of the dinosaur books
today and how does it start out?

04:34:06.980 --> 04:34:08.480
Millions and millions of years ago.

04:34:08.600 --> 04:34:11.020
And then the second paragraph says no man
ever saw a dinosaur.

04:34:11.200 --> 04:34:14.640
And that's just like you can't write a
dinosaur book unless you start that way.

04:34:15.940 --> 04:34:16.860
It ain't so.

04:34:17.860 --> 04:34:22.400
The year before last we traveled to
Cambodia following evidence that had been

04:34:22.400 --> 04:34:26.340
forwarded to us by one of the tour guides
there who had seen our website.

04:34:27.160 --> 04:34:31.040
And we had done some research and
confirmed a good bit of what he was

04:34:31.040 --> 04:34:31.460
telling us.

04:34:31.580 --> 04:34:37.760
In the upper part of Cambodia we see the
ancient Khmer Empire had built just

04:34:37.760 --> 04:34:39.040
spectacular temples.

04:34:39.100 --> 04:34:41.280
Maybe the largest and most beautiful in
the world.

04:34:42.200 --> 04:34:45.980
And one of the greatest monument builders
was Jayavarman VII.

04:34:46.780 --> 04:34:48.160
He is almost idolized.

04:34:48.240 --> 04:34:54.440
This is a picture that I took there in
Phnom Penh of the Buddha-like pose.

04:34:55.000 --> 04:35:02.480
He began to rule in 1181 and built to prom
and dedicated it in 1186.

04:35:02.960 --> 04:35:04.340
This was dedicated to his mother.

04:35:04.580 --> 04:35:06.260
It was a Buddhist monastery.

04:35:07.720 --> 04:35:10.900
And so we know who and when and all the
specifics.

04:35:11.120 --> 04:35:18.820
Well, on the stone in this temple a very
beautiful picturesque place, you see

04:35:18.820 --> 04:35:23.780
carvings and there are stone carvings that
cover just about every square inch of it.

04:35:23.780 --> 04:35:30.560
But just inside the front entrance in the
corner here that the arrow points to you

04:35:30.560 --> 04:35:33.880
can see a series of animals from the
jungle.

04:35:35.040 --> 04:35:44.720
And notice in the series there is a
perfect Stegosaurus in a temple from over

04:35:44.720 --> 04:35:45.780
800 years ago.

04:35:46.180 --> 04:35:49.540
And we are supposed to have known what
dinosaurs looked like for about 150 and

04:35:49.540 --> 04:35:50.940
then have been gone 65 million.

04:35:50.940 --> 04:35:54.180
I believe there is something wrong with
that story.

04:35:55.500 --> 04:36:00.040
I don't want any comments about two
fossils here or two dinosaurs.

04:36:00.980 --> 04:36:02.300
There is just one.

04:36:03.360 --> 04:36:09.040
But it is more proof of the co-occurrence
of humans and dinosaurs.

04:36:09.200 --> 04:36:14.140
Let's think about some significance here
of this acknowledged by the evolutionists

04:36:14.140 --> 04:36:14.940
before we conclude.

04:36:15.600 --> 04:36:20.460
Louis Jacobs from SMU is president of the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.

04:36:20.660 --> 04:36:24.820
One of the most representative,
respected paleontologists in the country.

04:36:25.580 --> 04:36:30.620
And in his book, Quest for the African
Dinosaur, he brings up the subject of the

04:36:30.620 --> 04:36:32.580
co-occurrence of men and dinosaurs.

04:36:32.720 --> 04:36:37.620
He said, such an association would dispel
an earth with vast antiquity.

04:36:38.120 --> 04:36:42.080
The entire history of creation including
the Day of Rest could be accommodated in

04:36:42.080 --> 04:36:44.880
the seven biblical days of the Genesis
myth.

04:36:46.940 --> 04:36:48.800
Evolution would be vanquished.

04:36:49.440 --> 04:36:54.000
Here is the implication, the significance
if you were to document this.

04:36:55.620 --> 04:36:56.880
And of course, I think he is right.

04:36:58.160 --> 04:37:01.580
We go back to the statement by Stephen
Stanley that we referred to earlier,

04:37:01.920 --> 04:37:03.560
the topsy-turvy fossil man.

04:37:04.300 --> 04:37:06.760
And look at a fuller context of his quote.

04:37:06.840 --> 04:37:11.960
He said, there is an infinite variety of
ways in which since 1859 the general

04:37:11.960 --> 04:37:14.080
concept of evolution might have been
demolished.

04:37:15.500 --> 04:37:18.440
Consider the fossil record, little known
resource in Darwin's day.

04:37:19.060 --> 04:37:22.860
The unequivocal discovery of a fossil
population of horses in Precambrian rocks

04:37:22.860 --> 04:37:25.560
would disprove evolution.

04:37:26.980 --> 04:37:31.120
More generally, any topsy-turvy sequence
of fossils would force us to rethink our

04:37:31.120 --> 04:37:36.460
theory and yet not a single one has come
to light as Darwin recognized a single

04:37:36.460 --> 04:37:40.360
geographic inconsistency would have nearly
the same power of destruction.

04:37:41.900 --> 04:37:46.920
But these are his terms, destruction,
destroy, disprove.

04:37:47.780 --> 04:37:53.520
That is the implication if you find humans
and dinosaurs together specifically.

04:37:53.920 --> 04:37:56.740
A single geographic inconsistency.

04:37:58.320 --> 04:38:02.760
It is interesting to listen to what the
evolutionists themselves say about what

04:38:02.760 --> 04:38:03.620
this would mean.

04:38:04.540 --> 04:38:06.760
Stanley says it would disprove evolution.

04:38:07.360 --> 04:38:11.480
Dawkins, referring to another find,
says evolution would be utterly destroyed.

04:38:11.940 --> 04:38:14.720
And then Jacob says evolution would be
vanquished.

04:38:16.100 --> 04:38:17.860
Now that is not my analysis.

04:38:18.120 --> 04:38:21.140
That is the leading evolutionist across
the country.

04:38:21.240 --> 04:38:24.080
That is what they say such evidence means.

04:38:24.160 --> 04:38:28.120
If you got a single geographic
inconsistency, well I believe we have

04:38:28.120 --> 04:38:30.780
shown more than a single geographic
inconsistency.

04:38:32.220 --> 04:38:37.560
The Malachite man with the ten perfectly
modern human skeletons in the same

04:38:37.560 --> 04:38:42.320
formation as Dinosaur National Monument,
fossil footprints in Texas and New Mexico

04:38:42.320 --> 04:38:45.280
and Turkmenistan, three different places
in Texas.

04:38:45.820 --> 04:38:50.880
The dinosaur petroglyphs, Peruvian Mexican
dinosaur artifacts, the burial stones,

04:38:51.020 --> 04:38:52.160
the cat track and hammer.

04:38:52.960 --> 04:38:56.640
That is a whole lot more than a single
geographic inconsistency.

04:38:56.800 --> 04:38:59.380
And I think the implication is just as
they suggested.

04:38:59.500 --> 04:39:00.180
It demolishes.

04:39:01.340 --> 04:39:08.220
It is... the column itself is an
abstraction that is put together based on

04:39:08.220 --> 04:39:09.140
the assumption of evolution.

04:39:09.260 --> 04:39:16.500
Useful as a model that we can test against
the real world and when we do we find it

04:39:16.500 --> 04:39:16.880
fails.

04:39:17.820 --> 04:39:18.920
It is contradicted.

04:39:20.120 --> 04:39:21.340
It is not proof.

04:39:21.560 --> 04:39:25.040
It is demonstration of what ought to be
that isn't.

04:39:26.400 --> 04:39:31.180
And let's conclude with a statement by
Nova who came to Glen Rose, looked at the

04:39:31.180 --> 04:39:32.860
same pictures that you looked at.

04:39:33.020 --> 04:39:35.740
The people that photographed it and
interviewed us were excited.

04:39:35.900 --> 04:39:39.180
They thought they had some earth shaking
news and went back and their editor

04:39:39.180 --> 04:39:40.380
wouldn't allow them to publish it.

04:39:41.220 --> 04:39:47.280
They did publish a brief presentation
called God, Darwin and the Dinosaurs and

04:39:47.280 --> 04:39:49.980
mentioned dinosaur footprints side by side
with humans.

04:39:50.140 --> 04:39:54.700
Finding them would counter evidence,
they said, that humans evolved long after

04:39:54.700 --> 04:39:58.600
the dinosaurs became extinct, which is of
course what is taught in the textbooks.

04:39:58.740 --> 04:40:04.860
It would counter that and back up the
claim that all species including man were

04:40:04.860 --> 04:40:05.760
created at one time.

04:40:07.640 --> 04:40:09.260
Nova knows what that means.

04:40:10.680 --> 04:40:13.960
And therefore they said in this blurb,
there is nothing at Glen Rose that looks

04:40:13.960 --> 04:40:16.240
anything like a footprint, a human
footprint.

04:40:17.500 --> 04:40:19.700
Now you can decide for yourself whether
that is true.

04:40:21.060 --> 04:40:24.880
If there is something there that does look
like and we have shown that there are

04:40:24.880 --> 04:40:28.320
human footprints there and that is the
most reasonable conclusion, then this is

04:40:28.320 --> 04:40:31.660
what it means according to the
evolutionists themselves.

04:40:53.790 --> 04:40:54.310
The

04:41:24.570 --> 04:41:26.970
world is intrigued by fossils.

04:41:28.130 --> 04:41:33.190
I have always enjoyed the fossil digs,
carrying the young people with me and

04:41:33.190 --> 04:41:37.270
watching their eyes light up as they find
something really significant.

04:41:38.070 --> 04:41:44.970
Watch them imagine these creatures as they
lived in the not too distant past,

04:41:45.090 --> 04:41:45.510
I believe.

04:41:46.690 --> 04:41:51.810
The fossil record, many have been
convinced, says evolution and many

04:41:51.810 --> 04:41:53.950
Christians are intimidated by that.

04:41:55.350 --> 04:41:58.610
I think the actual record says exactly the
opposite.

04:41:59.790 --> 04:42:03.710
I think when you look at billions and
billions of dead things and rocks laid

04:42:03.710 --> 04:42:07.870
down by water all over the world,
you are seeing a record of judgment rather

04:42:07.870 --> 04:42:08.970
than a record of evolution.

04:42:09.630 --> 04:42:11.030
This is the alternative view.

04:42:11.810 --> 04:42:14.990
But we want to look at the evidence from
the fossil record today.

04:42:15.650 --> 04:42:21.610
If there is evidence of evolution then
this would be where you would find it in

04:42:21.610 --> 04:42:22.490
the fossil record.

04:42:22.870 --> 04:42:27.470
And we are told over and over again that
the fossil record actually proves

04:42:27.470 --> 04:42:27.950
evolution.

04:42:29.170 --> 04:42:30.770
It is the critical evidence.

04:42:31.570 --> 04:42:31.850
S.M.

04:42:31.970 --> 04:42:37.390
Stanley from Johns Hopkins University says
it's doubtful whether in the absence of

04:42:37.390 --> 04:42:42.030
fossils, the idea of evolution would
represent anything more than an outrageous

04:42:42.030 --> 04:42:42.850
hypothesis.

04:42:43.830 --> 04:42:49.210
He says the fossil record and only the
fossil record provides direct evidence of

04:42:49.210 --> 04:42:51.850
major sequential changes in the Earth's
biota.

04:42:53.250 --> 04:42:56.030
This is where it's at if you please.

04:42:56.710 --> 04:42:58.990
If there is proof it would have to be
here.

04:42:59.130 --> 04:43:01.610
And I hope you remember that statement.

04:43:01.810 --> 04:43:06.590
We'll refer to it later when we begin to
see that that evidence does not favor

04:43:06.590 --> 04:43:11.630
evolution and that they are without the
fossil evidence as far as support for

04:43:11.630 --> 04:43:12.030
evolution.

04:43:13.270 --> 04:43:17.110
Let's also remember a point that's made by
John Horner.

04:43:17.250 --> 04:43:23.130
He's the paleontologist whose life was
reflected in the Jurassic Park.

04:43:23.270 --> 04:43:27.550
He was the real life character represented
as digging up fossils in Montana.

04:43:28.170 --> 04:43:31.950
He says paleontology is a historical
science.

04:43:32.390 --> 04:43:37.370
A science based on circumstantial evidence
after the fact.

04:43:37.910 --> 04:43:41.310
We can never reach hard and fast
conclusions.

04:43:42.450 --> 04:43:51.750
These days it's easy to go through school
for a that some sciences are historical or

04:43:51.750 --> 04:43:54.190
are by nature inconclusive.

04:43:55.530 --> 04:43:57.950
Science involves what you can repeat.

04:43:58.690 --> 04:44:04.990
That is when you reach scientific proof
conclusions in science it's as a result of

04:44:04.990 --> 04:44:07.830
experimentation, observation
repeatability.

04:44:08.310 --> 04:44:13.910
You can't do that when you're evolving
from an ape to a man for example.

04:44:14.350 --> 04:44:16.090
That's not repeated in the laboratory.

04:44:16.610 --> 04:44:18.930
And so this is historical.

04:44:20.130 --> 04:44:25.630
The evidence, the only evidence,
the only conclusive evidence is not going

04:44:25.630 --> 04:44:27.590
to provide conclusive proof.

04:44:28.630 --> 04:44:32.290
However, we do make predictions and we can
learn a great deal.

04:44:32.590 --> 04:44:36.450
And it is a scientific investigation when
we look at the evidence and compare the

04:44:36.450 --> 04:44:36.770
models.

04:44:37.470 --> 04:44:41.990
And one of the ways to compare models is
to look at the predictions that are made

04:44:41.990 --> 04:44:42.990
by the two models.

04:44:43.310 --> 04:44:49.870
When we consider the fossil record there
are very obvious opposite predictions that

04:44:49.870 --> 04:44:51.310
are made by the two models.

04:44:51.890 --> 04:44:57.390
If you are an evolutionist you would
predict a simple beginning, a gradual

04:44:57.390 --> 04:45:01.630
progression upward linked through things
that are kin.

04:45:02.970 --> 04:45:09.330
This predicts the nature of the record in
the beginning and then the creation model

04:45:09.330 --> 04:45:12.770
would predict the opposite, the complex
abrupt beginning.

04:45:13.270 --> 04:45:17.850
They would be diverse from the start and
we should be able to look at the fossil

04:45:17.850 --> 04:45:19.950
record and tell the difference.

04:45:20.570 --> 04:45:22.430
It should be relatively simple.

04:45:22.530 --> 04:45:28.110
As we look at the continuing record there
would be predictions of similarities by

04:45:28.110 --> 04:45:33.870
the evolutionist, indicating kinship but
they would be branching similarities as

04:45:33.870 --> 04:45:38.810
kinship would necessarily imply and an
allied continuum.

04:45:39.430 --> 04:45:43.230
While on the other hand the creationist
would expect that there would be

04:45:43.230 --> 04:45:48.550
similarities but they would be
similarities not branching but of a mosaic

04:45:48.550 --> 04:45:53.790
pattern where the artist would use a blue
tile here and then a blue tile there where

04:45:53.790 --> 04:45:58.290
he needs it similar but not connected as a
designer would do.

04:45:59.350 --> 04:46:05.130
Again there would be similarities but they
would be separate and distinct and stasis

04:46:05.130 --> 04:46:08.630
would be the order of the day rather than
continuing change.

04:46:08.790 --> 04:46:11.330
Stasis status quo stays the same.

04:46:11.510 --> 04:46:15.510
Fancy word used by evolutionists and by
many scientists.

04:46:16.330 --> 04:46:24.710
Now as we look at the two models and as we
see the different predictions and I tell

04:46:24.710 --> 04:46:28.910
you what the fossil record is you might
say well you're prejudiced.

04:46:28.990 --> 04:46:34.170
I would tell you that it favors the
predictions of the evolutionist but we're

04:46:34.170 --> 04:46:37.490
going to allow the evolutionist to
describe the evidence for us.

04:46:37.750 --> 04:46:42.390
The quotes that we'll be using will be
from the antagonistic witness and some

04:46:42.390 --> 04:46:44.210
people misunderstand this concept.

04:46:44.330 --> 04:46:45.570
They say well you're not being fair.

04:46:45.670 --> 04:46:49.490
You're using people that disagree with you
but that's the point.

04:46:50.370 --> 04:46:53.410
That provides even stronger better
evidence.

04:46:53.650 --> 04:46:58.490
For example when you're in court and you
have a friendly witness who testifies on

04:46:58.490 --> 04:47:05.710
your behalf and he says the accused is
honest and he has no reasonable motive to

04:47:05.710 --> 04:47:07.190
lie that'll help.

04:47:07.590 --> 04:47:12.330
But if on the other hand you have an
antagonistic witness who makes these

04:47:12.330 --> 04:47:18.310
points then the evidence is much stronger
when he says the accused is honest there's

04:47:18.310 --> 04:47:19.770
no reasonable motive to lie.

04:47:20.450 --> 04:47:25.010
In other words when you have friendly
testimony that helps but if you have

04:47:25.010 --> 04:47:30.690
acknowledgements contrary to interest you
have much greater weight given to the

04:47:30.690 --> 04:47:31.090
testimony.

04:47:32.150 --> 04:47:35.970
And the evidence that we're going to be
giving then would be those who are

04:47:35.970 --> 04:47:38.030
testifying contrary to their interest.

04:47:38.290 --> 04:47:40.890
They're quotes from antagonistic
witnesses.

04:47:41.710 --> 04:47:45.370
We want you to understand they're from
devout believers but they're believers in

04:47:45.370 --> 04:47:45.750
evolution.

04:47:46.550 --> 04:47:50.850
They are men of great faith but they're
men of faith in evolution.

04:47:51.490 --> 04:47:57.670
We'll begin with Richard Dawkins who would
certainly qualify as an evolutionist a

04:47:57.670 --> 04:48:02.430
creation hater I think is a fair statement
and we'll see statements from him that

04:48:02.430 --> 04:48:03.270
justify that.

04:48:04.250 --> 04:48:05.130
He's from Cambridge.

04:48:05.250 --> 04:48:07.110
He wrote the book The Blind Watchmaker.

04:48:07.930 --> 04:48:10.430
In it he describes the beginning of the
fossil record.

04:48:11.570 --> 04:48:17.050
He says and we find many of them already
in an advanced state of evolution the very

04:48:17.050 --> 04:48:18.330
first time they appear.

04:48:18.950 --> 04:48:24.650
It is as though they were just planted
there without any evolutionary history.

04:48:26.130 --> 04:48:31.130
Needless to say this appearance of sudden
planting has delighted the creationist.

04:48:31.270 --> 04:48:33.870
Yes, well I would plead guilty there.

04:48:34.970 --> 04:48:40.710
They begin he has faith that it's an
evolutionary appearance but it's not

04:48:40.710 --> 04:48:42.350
because of an evolutionary record.

04:48:42.710 --> 04:48:43.950
That's not there.

04:48:44.830 --> 04:48:46.810
It appears without that record.

04:48:47.250 --> 04:48:49.090
Without any evolutionary history.

04:48:50.950 --> 04:48:53.890
And that's of course exactly what we would
predict.

04:48:54.450 --> 04:49:02.010
Notice the depiction by National
Geographic in this page, Explosion of

04:49:02.010 --> 04:49:06.690
Life, describing the lowest, the beginning
layer of the fossil record that is where

04:49:06.690 --> 04:49:11.170
the fossils began in abundance in the
Cambrian the bottom of the geologic

04:49:11.170 --> 04:49:11.550
column.

04:49:11.550 --> 04:49:14.570
This is an explosion of life.

04:49:14.610 --> 04:49:17.410
And that's a term that's typical in
describing that.

04:49:17.530 --> 04:49:19.950
We'll see more about why that's justified
in a moment.

04:49:20.490 --> 04:49:23.710
One of the more typical fossils found
there would be the trilobite.

04:49:24.350 --> 04:49:27.490
Probably more trilobites than anything
else there in the Cambrian.

04:49:28.190 --> 04:49:34.130
Way back in 1974 here we see a description
of trilobite eyes.

04:49:34.310 --> 04:49:36.290
You typically don't see this in the
textbooks.

04:49:37.110 --> 04:49:41.570
But here in Science News they may have
been superior to current living animals

04:49:41.570 --> 04:49:42.550
that is in their eyes.

04:49:42.650 --> 04:49:44.690
They had in principle perfect vision.

04:49:45.470 --> 04:49:51.010
They possessed the most sophisticated eyes
ever produced by nature.

04:49:51.750 --> 04:49:54.490
They looked like they were designed by a
physicist.

04:49:55.690 --> 04:49:59.530
Now, again I didn't write this,
but if I had written it I couldn't have

04:49:59.530 --> 04:50:00.030
done better.

04:50:00.630 --> 04:50:06.070
This is the most typical fossil in the
lowest part of the geologic column,

04:50:06.530 --> 04:50:08.110
the beginning of the fossil record.

04:50:09.330 --> 04:50:17.430
And we see as sophisticated a part of our
anatomy as you can find and it's superior.

04:50:18.350 --> 04:50:23.510
Notice the description by Stephen Gould of
Harvard, one of the more famous

04:50:23.510 --> 04:50:25.670
evolutionists of our time, recently
deceased.

04:50:26.390 --> 04:50:33.130
He says the Cambrian explosion occurred at
a geological moment and we have reasons to

04:50:33.130 --> 04:50:37.290
think that all major anatomical designs
may have made their evolutionary

04:50:37.290 --> 04:50:38.550
appearance at that time.

04:50:39.270 --> 04:50:47.770
Now, it was an evolutionary appearance but
all of the anatomy designs of anatomy he

04:50:47.770 --> 04:50:52.670
would use that term, appeared right from
the beginning.

04:50:52.990 --> 04:50:54.090
That's at the start.

04:50:54.890 --> 04:50:59.930
Not only the phylum Chordata itself,
but all of its major divisions.

04:50:59.930 --> 04:51:04.710
Chordata, that's the division that we're
in, the animals with backbones,

04:51:04.950 --> 04:51:06.970
and all of the major divisions.

04:51:07.150 --> 04:51:08.110
And where is that?

04:51:08.190 --> 04:51:09.550
That's at the beginning.

04:51:10.630 --> 04:51:13.310
Now, I couldn't have written the story
better myself.

04:51:14.310 --> 04:51:20.170
Continuing, he says, since the so-called
Cambrian explosion no new phyla of animals

04:51:20.170 --> 04:51:21.310
have entered the fossil record.

04:51:21.710 --> 04:51:27.150
So you have them all right at the
beginning and no new ones since.

04:51:27.150 --> 04:51:29.710
Now, what does that sound like,
honestly?

04:51:31.510 --> 04:51:35.410
As you look at the different predictions
made by the creationists and the

04:51:35.410 --> 04:51:38.070
evolutionists, which one is served best by
the evidence?

04:51:38.810 --> 04:51:43.890
Here's a summary of statements that the
evolutionists make regarding the beginning

04:51:43.890 --> 04:51:44.810
of the fossil record.

04:51:45.370 --> 04:51:48.890
It's complex, it's sudden, right at the
start.

04:51:49.110 --> 04:51:53.150
Advanced, as if they were planted there,
according to Dawkins.

04:51:54.050 --> 04:51:57.610
Land plants, we have 60 genera of land
plants.

04:51:57.770 --> 04:52:00.910
Many books will say that in the Cambrian
there's nothing but shallow seas

04:52:00.910 --> 04:52:01.370
everywhere.

04:52:02.010 --> 04:52:04.730
We have fossils of land plants,
that's obviously not accurate.

04:52:04.890 --> 04:52:08.950
Vascular plants, six different groups of
the woody type plants.

04:52:09.650 --> 04:52:14.610
And then all the major anatomical designs,
the Chordata, all of its major divisions.

04:52:14.870 --> 04:52:18.630
We have vertebrates from a number of
states across the country, and the article

04:52:18.630 --> 04:52:21.550
documenting that was published in 78.

04:52:21.730 --> 04:52:23.350
This is not new news.

04:52:23.850 --> 04:52:27.770
Vertebrates, animals with backbones from
all of these places across the country,

04:52:28.410 --> 04:52:31.990
since the Cambrian explosion, no new
phyla.

04:52:32.210 --> 04:52:32.810
I'm sorry.

04:52:33.030 --> 04:52:37.410
I think it's obvious which model is served
best, and this is not my description.

04:52:37.650 --> 04:52:41.890
This is the description of the
evolutionists, the antagonistic witness

04:52:41.890 --> 04:52:46.070
about the most critical part of the fossil
record, the beginning of that record.

04:52:46.770 --> 04:52:52.910
And furthermore, not only do we find
complex animals right from the start,

04:52:53.150 --> 04:52:56.790
animals that would live at the bottom of
the ocean, I think it's the beginning of a

04:52:56.790 --> 04:53:01.370
flood deposit, but we find that those
animals are distinct and separate right

04:53:01.370 --> 04:53:02.010
from the start.

04:53:02.290 --> 04:53:07.310
Quoting here from Discover magazine,
demonstrates that the large animal phyla

04:53:07.310 --> 04:53:12.070
of today were already present in the early
Cambrian and that they were distinct from

04:53:12.070 --> 04:53:13.910
each other as they are today.

04:53:14.090 --> 04:53:19.410
Menagerie of clam cousins, sponges,
segmented worms, other invertebrates that

04:53:19.410 --> 04:53:21.370
would be vaguely familiar to any scuba
diver.

04:53:21.490 --> 04:53:24.550
If you go down to the bottom of the ocean,
that's what you find in the Cambrian.

04:53:25.050 --> 04:53:31.510
But it's there today, and they're distinct
and separate then as today.

04:53:32.130 --> 04:53:36.250
But in the textbooks, you see a very
different representation.

04:53:36.730 --> 04:53:39.850
It's always illustrated with the simple
things at the bottom.

04:53:39.850 --> 04:53:44.910
The complex things are not until you get
to the top and they're all graduated and

04:53:44.910 --> 04:53:47.030
connected in this branching pattern.

04:53:47.310 --> 04:53:50.470
That's not what the fossils say.

04:53:50.810 --> 04:53:54.030
And if you're interested in the
implications of the fossil record,

04:53:54.150 --> 04:53:55.430
you can just X this out.

04:53:55.970 --> 04:53:57.790
This is not the record of the fossils.

04:53:58.810 --> 04:54:01.030
Stephen Gould says this very plainly.

04:54:01.110 --> 04:54:06.870
He says, the evolutionary trees that adorn
our textbooks have data only at the tips

04:54:06.870 --> 04:54:12.130
and nodes of their branches, not the
evidence of the fossils.

04:54:12.330 --> 04:54:16.090
The rest is inference, he says,
however reasonable.

04:54:16.430 --> 04:54:23.670
But it is not from the fossils that you
find these textbook type trees that show

04:54:23.670 --> 04:54:24.830
the graduated progression.

04:54:25.650 --> 04:54:30.890
In fact, if you turn the tree upside down,
you have a closer representation.

04:54:31.590 --> 04:54:34.650
He says it starts broad and goes downhill.

04:54:35.370 --> 04:54:41.570
This sweep of anatomical diversity is
reached a maximum right after the initial

04:54:41.570 --> 04:54:44.310
diversification of multicellular animals.

04:54:44.490 --> 04:54:49.090
A fancy way of saying we had more diverse
anatomy from the start.

04:54:49.690 --> 04:54:56.290
He goes on to say, the later history
preceded by elimination, not expansion.

04:54:56.950 --> 04:55:02.250
It's a downhill process from a more
complex and broad and diverse beginning.

04:55:03.530 --> 04:55:09.810
If you look at what Gould calls the cone
of diversity, you see what's predicted in

04:55:09.810 --> 04:55:13.970
the fossil record, gradually starting from
a simple beginning and getting more

04:55:13.970 --> 04:55:17.270
diverse and complex as you proceed through
time.

04:55:17.470 --> 04:55:21.430
The actual truth, and these are diagrams
that you'll find in Gould's book,

04:55:22.010 --> 04:55:23.290
is like this.

04:55:23.350 --> 04:55:27.850
We had more in the past, it's gone
downhill to the point where we are now.

04:55:27.850 --> 04:55:31.790
But compare that again with what we see in
the textbook.

04:55:31.970 --> 04:55:36.470
This gradual upward progression,
which is the very thing that he says is

04:55:36.470 --> 04:55:37.890
not in the fossil record.

04:55:38.090 --> 04:55:40.950
Well, if this is not in the fossil record,
where did it come from?

04:55:41.030 --> 04:55:43.350
What's the source of this kind of
representation?

04:55:43.890 --> 04:55:47.490
Again, let's allow the evolutionist to
describe that for us.

04:55:47.730 --> 04:55:52.510
Here in Dotton Batten's book, Evolution of
the Earth, that I was taught from at two

04:55:52.510 --> 04:55:57.870
different major state universities,
we have arranged the groups in a

04:55:57.870 --> 04:56:00.090
traditional way with the simplest forms
first.

04:56:01.030 --> 04:56:02.510
How did they get that way?

04:56:02.590 --> 04:56:06.950
Well, we arranged them that way with the
progressively more complex groups

04:56:06.950 --> 04:56:07.450
following.

04:56:08.130 --> 04:56:12.150
The particular arrangement is arbitrary
and depends on what definition of

04:56:12.150 --> 04:56:13.850
complexity you wish to choose.

04:56:14.990 --> 04:56:22.070
Now, this may be somewhat oversimplifying
and we don't want to misrepresent.

04:56:22.810 --> 04:56:28.370
This is their statement, but they go on on
the same page to describe really the basis

04:56:28.370 --> 04:56:29.330
for this.

04:56:29.470 --> 04:56:30.690
It's not the fossil record.

04:56:30.970 --> 04:56:31.910
It's arbitrary.

04:56:32.130 --> 04:56:37.690
It's something that they arranged,
but the arrangement does have logic to it.

04:56:38.450 --> 04:56:42.330
He says things are alike because they are
related.

04:56:42.550 --> 04:56:46.050
The less they look alike, the further
removed they are from the common ancestor.

04:56:46.250 --> 04:56:52.170
And so this similarity allows them to
arrange this into the family tree.

04:56:53.450 --> 04:56:58.030
Well, it's not that simple because it's
certain similarities excluding other

04:56:58.030 --> 04:57:04.630
similarities and then, well, there's a lot
of ignoring of evidence that goes on in

04:57:04.630 --> 04:57:07.730
that process, but this is the way it's
represented.

04:57:07.970 --> 04:57:12.270
And I've been in class where I've been
scolded.

04:57:12.470 --> 04:57:18.450
Don't you know that kin, cousins,
brothers and sisters look alike?

04:57:18.590 --> 04:57:20.330
And, well, yes, we understand that.

04:57:20.490 --> 04:57:22.790
We see that as a possible explanation.

04:57:22.950 --> 04:57:29.090
And when we look at apes and men,
for example, can there be any denial that

04:57:29.090 --> 04:57:31.710
there is a very dramatic similarity here?

04:57:31.850 --> 04:57:32.890
This is obvious.

04:57:32.990 --> 04:57:37.850
We can see dissimilarities, but honestly,
the similarities are much more dramatic.

04:57:38.210 --> 04:57:39.310
The question is why?

04:57:39.430 --> 04:57:41.830
Well, the evolutionist seldom asks that
question.

04:57:41.990 --> 04:57:45.710
He just knows that it's because of common
ancestors.

04:57:46.610 --> 04:57:49.150
But that's not necessarily the only
explanation.

04:57:49.350 --> 04:57:52.110
In fact, I believe there's a better
explanation when we look at all the

04:57:52.110 --> 04:57:52.490
similarities.

04:57:53.190 --> 04:57:59.070
You drive down the street and you see
houses that appear similar because they're

04:57:59.070 --> 04:57:59.450
cousins.

04:57:59.970 --> 04:58:00.150
Right.

04:58:00.270 --> 04:58:02.510
Well, no, that's not the case.

04:58:02.590 --> 04:58:04.230
They had a common designer.

04:58:04.390 --> 04:58:05.930
That's a much better explanation.

04:58:06.530 --> 04:58:15.110
And when we look at the record of anatomy,
when we look at animals in the animal

04:58:15.110 --> 04:58:17.150
kingdom, we see similarities.

04:58:18.010 --> 04:58:21.950
We're often referred to the pendactyl form
of the vertebrate hand.

04:58:22.730 --> 04:58:24.390
And yes, that's obvious.

04:58:24.770 --> 04:58:26.350
But again, why?

04:58:26.770 --> 04:58:31.630
You can explain it in terms of common
ancestry or in terms of common designer.

04:58:32.190 --> 04:58:34.410
Actually, common designer doesn't work.

04:58:34.810 --> 04:58:36.370
That is, it works much better here.

04:58:36.890 --> 04:58:41.470
Common genetics doesn't work because if
they were from common genetics,

04:58:41.670 --> 04:58:43.750
they would come from the same parts of the
embryo.

04:58:44.430 --> 04:58:50.110
The embryo would develop this way as the
beginnings of the hand would develop and

04:58:50.110 --> 04:58:54.230
it would be the same in the rabbit as in
the pigeon and in the frog.

04:58:54.350 --> 04:58:55.970
And we see the results being similar.

04:58:56.110 --> 04:58:59.670
But if it's from common genetics,
it ought to be from common beginnings in

04:58:59.670 --> 04:59:00.150
the embryo.

04:59:00.190 --> 04:59:01.150
And that's not the case.

04:59:01.750 --> 04:59:03.990
In the newt, it's from segments two
through five.

04:59:03.990 --> 04:59:08.090
In the man, it's from segments 13 through
18.

04:59:08.210 --> 04:59:11.370
That is, that segment in the embryo
produces the hand.

04:59:11.470 --> 04:59:15.950
It's a different segment in the embryo
that produces the hand in the newt.

04:59:16.050 --> 04:59:18.150
And from the lizard, it's six through
nine.

04:59:18.290 --> 04:59:20.930
It doesn't appear to be from common
genetics.

04:59:21.270 --> 04:59:25.570
Common designer seems to work better and
there are other reasons for that as well.

04:59:25.710 --> 04:59:28.450
The argument from similarity we want to
spend some time in.

04:59:28.490 --> 04:59:34.370
We're talking about the fossil record,
but the only way that fossils mean

04:59:34.370 --> 04:59:40.710
anything in terms of creation or evolution
is if you infer something and for the

04:59:40.710 --> 04:59:42.810
evolutionist, it's being inferred from
similarity.

04:59:42.990 --> 04:59:46.530
And this principle of similarity is what
is the ballgame.

04:59:46.610 --> 04:59:50.330
That's what makes them say something
besides dead things in rocks.

04:59:52.030 --> 04:59:55.530
Similarities, though, lead us astray in
many instances.

04:59:56.170 --> 04:59:59.370
There were arguments made in the past,
for example, from chromosomes.

05:00:00.330 --> 05:00:02.570
We look at the order that's indicated
here.

05:00:02.690 --> 05:00:03.890
Humans have forty-six.

05:00:04.430 --> 05:00:05.590
Penicillium, two.

05:00:06.230 --> 05:00:07.570
The opossum, twenty-two.

05:00:08.090 --> 05:00:10.630
Okay, it looks like an evolutionary
progression here.

05:00:11.430 --> 05:00:16.710
See, the similarity in the order shows a
progression upward toward man.

05:00:16.830 --> 05:00:22.410
Until we look at the rest of the story and
now then this argument is while it's still

05:00:22.410 --> 05:00:26.930
in a few textbooks, it's generally been
dropped because we find, yes, human has

05:00:26.930 --> 05:00:28.730
forty-six but the chimp has more.

05:00:29.890 --> 05:00:30.590
Forty-six.

05:00:31.270 --> 05:00:33.050
The fern has four hundred and eighty.

05:00:34.110 --> 05:00:36.410
The turkey has eighty-two.

05:00:37.310 --> 05:00:41.850
Well, that doesn't look quite like the
evolutionist would predict and so

05:00:41.850 --> 05:00:46.630
typically that's when you look at the
whole picture, it begins to look a little

05:00:46.630 --> 05:00:47.010
different.

05:00:47.870 --> 05:00:53.450
Sometimes we're told we need to look at
the amount of DNA and that would show an

05:00:53.450 --> 05:00:54.490
evolutionary progression.

05:00:55.110 --> 05:01:01.210
Compared with humans, we see the euglena
has about the same amount of DNA as we do.

05:01:02.010 --> 05:01:06.830
The liverwort, a moss-like plant,
has eighteen times as much and here's a

05:01:06.830 --> 05:01:09.830
salamander that has twenty-six times as
much.

05:01:09.990 --> 05:01:15.130
Well, that didn't help a whole lot either
in terms of supporting evolution.

05:01:15.950 --> 05:01:21.350
This argument from similarity has been
used since the beginning and back shortly

05:01:21.350 --> 05:01:26.130
after Darwin's time, Haeckel came up with
this famous argument that's been in

05:01:26.130 --> 05:01:32.670
thousands of textbooks and it touts the
similarity of embryos in the beginning of

05:01:32.670 --> 05:01:37.970
their development and we see up at the top
of the chart that these embryos are drawn

05:01:37.970 --> 05:01:44.070
to look very, very similar but they
develop into very different organisms,

05:01:44.270 --> 05:01:47.050
the pig and the fish and the salamander
and the man.

05:01:48.410 --> 05:01:52.590
And that's been shown in textbooks and
I've had people say, well, this

05:01:52.590 --> 05:01:58.670
development from embryo, they came from
the same kind of embryo, shows an

05:01:58.670 --> 05:01:59.630
evolutionary progression.

05:02:01.050 --> 05:02:06.890
I don't think it necessarily follows,
even if this were true, but it isn't.

05:02:08.170 --> 05:02:10.150
You've been lied to, unfortunately.

05:02:10.850 --> 05:02:16.250
This is the statement that we see
emphasized here in the Times in London,

05:02:16.970 --> 05:02:19.950
the headlines just a few years ago,
embryonic liar.

05:02:20.770 --> 05:02:25.790
It shows the embryos up at the top as
drawn by Haeckel, very similar back in

05:02:25.790 --> 05:02:26.370
Darwin's time.

05:02:26.430 --> 05:02:29.310
And in fact, Darwin referred to this
argument and said he thought it was one of

05:02:29.310 --> 05:02:31.490
the best that he knew of.

05:02:32.050 --> 05:02:36.670
But compared with what's at the bottom,
we see the actual pictures of these

05:02:36.670 --> 05:02:40.110
embryos that are supposed to be
represented in the drawings and they don't

05:02:40.110 --> 05:02:41.070
look similar at all.

05:02:41.910 --> 05:02:44.990
And so the Times just says the fellow is
lying about this.

05:02:45.690 --> 05:02:49.870
We look in New Scientist, who reported the
same kind of thing.

05:02:49.990 --> 05:02:51.870
Here is fraud rediscovered.

05:02:52.030 --> 05:02:56.750
And we see the drawings down below and the
actual embryos up at the top.

05:02:57.710 --> 05:03:02.710
This is fraud and that's the only way to
describe it.

05:03:03.190 --> 05:03:06.170
Notice the quotation from New Scientist.

05:03:06.170 --> 05:03:09.990
Although Haeckel confessed and was
convicted of fraud.

05:03:10.050 --> 05:03:13.310
Now this is not my assessment.

05:03:13.890 --> 05:03:16.070
This is what we read in New Scientist.

05:03:16.570 --> 05:03:19.030
He was convicted of fraud at the
University of Jena.

05:03:19.590 --> 05:03:20.770
The drawings persist.

05:03:21.370 --> 05:03:23.570
That's the real mystery, Richardson said.

05:03:23.590 --> 05:03:25.670
And he's complaining about this in New
Scientist.

05:03:25.730 --> 05:03:27.050
And certainly they do persist.

05:03:27.810 --> 05:03:31.890
Here is one of the more common biology
textbooks that's used in our schools

05:03:31.890 --> 05:03:32.330
today.

05:03:32.470 --> 05:03:39.370
And sure enough, right there with their
bare face hanging out is the same drawings

05:03:39.370 --> 05:03:42.670
that Haeckel used 100 years ago to
deceive.

05:03:43.730 --> 05:03:45.670
These similarities don't exist.

05:03:45.830 --> 05:03:46.970
Of course, there are similarities.

05:03:47.150 --> 05:03:47.770
Those don't.

05:03:48.330 --> 05:03:52.530
We're often referred to the similarity
between apes and men with the DNA.

05:03:52.750 --> 05:03:57.430
And we're told the genome of ape and man
is 99% similar.

05:03:57.670 --> 05:04:00.990
And this is supposed to prove that we came
from a common ancestor.

05:04:01.590 --> 05:04:06.890
Well, this has been grossly exaggerated
and corrected, though not in headlines.

05:04:07.770 --> 05:04:17.010
Here back in 2004 in Nature, they said
they found 83% differences in the 231

05:04:17.010 --> 05:04:21.170
genes that they compared between ape and
men when they're looking at the amino acid

05:04:21.170 --> 05:04:22.770
sequence of the proteins.

05:04:23.390 --> 05:04:27.430
And then said 20% showed significant
structural changes.

05:04:27.430 --> 05:04:30.610
Well, that's obviously considerably more
than 1%.

05:04:30.610 --> 05:04:35.870
And as they pointed out, we've seen a much
higher percentage of change than people

05:04:35.870 --> 05:04:36.490
speculated.

05:04:37.110 --> 05:04:38.770
And so this has been misrepresented.

05:04:39.030 --> 05:04:42.190
But let's just assume that that were true.

05:04:42.270 --> 05:04:43.910
And we often hear it repeated.

05:04:44.130 --> 05:04:45.530
It isn't, as we've seen.

05:04:45.970 --> 05:04:52.970
But we're told specifically there's 1.6%
difference in the genome of the ape and

05:04:52.970 --> 05:04:53.230
man.

05:04:53.330 --> 05:04:54.650
But think about that for a moment.

05:04:54.650 --> 05:04:58.870
There are 3 billion nucleotides in the
genome.

05:04:59.230 --> 05:05:00.970
3 billion bits of information.

05:05:01.810 --> 05:05:07.810
That's 48 million nucleotides when we're
talking about 1.6%.

05:05:07.810 --> 05:05:12.550
Now how much difference would 48 million
nucleotides make?

05:05:13.430 --> 05:05:18.230
Well, think about that in terms of cystic
fibrosis, a terrible disease that is

05:05:18.230 --> 05:05:19.350
relentlessly fatal.

05:05:20.070 --> 05:05:26.490
That involves not 1% or 1.6%, but 1
billionth of 1% of the genome.

05:05:26.730 --> 05:05:29.350
That's 3 nucleotides not 48 million.

05:05:30.430 --> 05:05:36.450
With sickle cell anemia, we're looking at
1 third of a billionth of 1%.

05:05:36.450 --> 05:05:38.410
That's 1 nucleotide.

05:05:39.150 --> 05:05:41.870
And yet we're told that it's only 1.6%.

05:05:41.870 --> 05:05:50.830
Of course, that's 48 million nucleotides
when one produces a fatal disease,

05:05:51.030 --> 05:05:53.930
sickle cell anemia, and 3 produces cystic
fibrosis.

05:05:54.030 --> 05:05:56.110
You're going to change 48 million and it
doesn't matter.

05:05:56.290 --> 05:05:57.230
It's not much difference.

05:05:57.530 --> 05:06:02.410
You randomly change 48 million nucleotides
and you have obvious disaster.

05:06:03.710 --> 05:06:05.290
There are dramatic similarities.

05:06:05.810 --> 05:06:07.770
And when we look, for example,
at sheep.

05:06:08.070 --> 05:06:12.270
Here is from a news report back in 2000.

05:06:12.430 --> 05:06:16.230
Sue Galloway, University of Ontago and
University of Finland.

05:06:16.510 --> 05:06:20.890
Sheep are 98% the same.

05:06:21.110 --> 05:06:22.810
Our genes are the same, we're told.

05:06:22.930 --> 05:06:27.430
And then mice here is reported in the
National Human Genome Research Project.

05:06:28.010 --> 05:06:32.190
Overall, mice and humans share virtually
the same set of genes.

05:06:32.870 --> 05:06:34.150
This was in 2006.

05:06:35.030 --> 05:06:42.410
On the average, and speaking of an average
here, coding regions, the genomes are 85%

05:06:42.410 --> 05:06:42.830
identical.

05:06:43.130 --> 05:06:45.750
Some are 99% identical with mice.

05:06:45.910 --> 05:06:51.090
Well, we're proving more than the
evolutionist is intending to prove here

05:06:51.090 --> 05:06:52.330
when we're looking at similarities.

05:06:52.630 --> 05:06:54.650
I think common design does a better job.

05:06:55.090 --> 05:06:58.590
Thinking about the implications,
the logic involved here, what does

05:06:58.590 --> 05:06:59.430
similarity prove?

05:06:59.970 --> 05:07:02.910
You look at these two fish, they appear
similar.

05:07:04.010 --> 05:07:04.850
What does it prove?

05:07:04.970 --> 05:07:06.850
Well, actually, neither one of them are
fish.

05:07:07.390 --> 05:07:12.110
This one is a reptile and then this one is
a mammal, the one at the bottom.

05:07:12.610 --> 05:07:13.730
Neither one of them are fish.

05:07:13.810 --> 05:07:15.370
Both of them are similar to fish.

05:07:16.590 --> 05:07:20.890
None of the, neither the reptile,
the mammal, or the fish are kin,

05:07:21.070 --> 05:07:27.990
but they look very similar, proving well,
we just leave those out when it comes to

05:07:27.990 --> 05:07:28.890
lining up the tree.

05:07:29.290 --> 05:07:32.670
And then we look at the poor critter
represented here, the platypus,

05:07:32.730 --> 05:07:36.570
who's kin to almost everybody,
according to this interpretation.

05:07:36.570 --> 05:07:43.290
We see that he has, he's like a bird,
he's like mammals, he's like a paddlefish,

05:07:43.870 --> 05:07:48.350
a mammal, and just all kinds of
similarities.

05:07:48.350 --> 05:07:54.910
The duck and fur like a beaver,
he's kin to everybody.

05:07:56.090 --> 05:08:01.330
The old adage, that which proves too much
proves nothing, is, I think, very apropos

05:08:01.330 --> 05:08:01.910
at this point.

05:08:02.850 --> 05:08:07.070
When we find similarities that don't
count, that you don't look at,

05:08:07.150 --> 05:08:10.730
that you ignore, then that's called
parallelisms.

05:08:11.130 --> 05:08:15.010
And that's not giving a solution to the
problem, that's just naming the problem.

05:08:15.730 --> 05:08:16.770
And that's typical.

05:08:17.350 --> 05:08:21.390
Notice the statement here by Dr. Young,
professor at Oxford.

05:08:22.010 --> 05:08:27.070
He refers to the fact there are similar
features and they appear in distinct

05:08:27.070 --> 05:08:29.690
lines, and it's so common, it's almost a
rule.

05:08:30.770 --> 05:08:37.850
Any detailed study of any group,
this is going to confuse when you try to

05:08:37.850 --> 05:08:42.790
line them up because you've got to
eliminate those that are kin, that is,

05:08:42.970 --> 05:08:44.590
those that aren't kin, but are very
similar.

05:08:45.290 --> 05:08:50.210
And you're unable to distinguish,
he says, those that are parallel and those

05:08:50.210 --> 05:08:50.890
that are descended.

05:08:51.790 --> 05:08:58.170
Well, what it amounts to is, if it fits
the scenario of evolution, then they'll

05:08:58.170 --> 05:08:59.090
use the similarities.

05:08:59.410 --> 05:09:02.310
If it doesn't fit, then it's parallel and
you don't use it.

05:09:02.730 --> 05:09:04.110
And that's not science.

05:09:04.790 --> 05:09:08.470
When you look at all of the picture,
we saw the chromosomes a moment ago.

05:09:08.550 --> 05:09:13.210
When you just look at part of the picture,
then you can tell just about any tail you

05:09:13.210 --> 05:09:13.550
want.

05:09:14.170 --> 05:09:16.890
But when you look at the whole picture,
it's very different.

05:09:17.030 --> 05:09:20.330
We're often referred to the blood serum of
the chimpanzee, and yes, it's very

05:09:20.330 --> 05:09:20.670
similar.

05:09:21.390 --> 05:09:28.550
And if the right antiserum is used,
yes, you can actually interchange and use

05:09:28.550 --> 05:09:30.370
this as a human being.

05:09:30.610 --> 05:09:35.730
But, when you look at milk chemistry,
we see a significant difference with the

05:09:35.730 --> 05:09:36.310
chimpanzee.

05:09:36.590 --> 05:09:42.090
Our closest kin there turns out to be the
donkey, which again doesn't fit the

05:09:42.090 --> 05:09:43.750
scenario the evolutionist would predict.

05:09:43.850 --> 05:09:48.530
In terms of cholesterol that we're all
interested in, well, the garter snake has

05:09:48.530 --> 05:09:50.550
cholesterol just like we do.

05:09:51.830 --> 05:09:56.230
In terms of foot structure, we're
interested in that in our efforts down at

05:09:56.230 --> 05:09:56.730
Glen Rose.

05:09:56.830 --> 05:10:00.570
As we look at the fossil footprints,
we're looking for animals that might have

05:10:00.570 --> 05:10:01.070
made this.

05:10:01.230 --> 05:10:03.230
Sometimes we're told maybe an ape made
them.

05:10:04.070 --> 05:10:07.090
Well, an ape has a hand for a foot.

05:10:08.110 --> 05:10:12.790
He doesn't have a foot like ours,
but the glacial bear has a foot almost

05:10:12.790 --> 05:10:13.330
identical.

05:10:13.530 --> 05:10:20.250
If you put it as a mirror image,
the thumb's big toe is on the outside

05:10:20.250 --> 05:10:21.430
instead of the inside.

05:10:21.650 --> 05:10:23.530
And, of course, he has claws and he's a
quadruped.

05:10:23.690 --> 05:10:27.610
But, if you remove the claws and put it in
a mirror and remove the flesh,

05:10:27.790 --> 05:10:31.590
wow, it's just virtually identical,
unlike the ape.

05:10:32.530 --> 05:10:38.750
In terms of tear enzyme, lo and behold,
the chicken has a very complex enzyme,

05:10:39.190 --> 05:10:40.510
lidosome, just like we do.

05:10:40.630 --> 05:10:43.530
Designed, I think, to attack the bacteria.

05:10:44.050 --> 05:10:45.510
We need it in our eyes.

05:10:45.570 --> 05:10:47.030
The chicken needs it in the egg.

05:10:47.550 --> 05:10:52.510
And here's that mosaic pattern where the
designer uses the blue tile here where he

05:10:52.510 --> 05:10:54.550
wants it and the blue tile there where he
wants it.

05:10:54.650 --> 05:10:57.490
Yes, similarities, but not in a branching
pattern.

05:10:58.630 --> 05:11:04.610
When you look at all of the picture,
you see that branching pattern does not

05:11:04.610 --> 05:11:07.550
describe the similarities that we're
looking at.

05:11:08.010 --> 05:11:14.250
In terms of blood antigen A, lo and
behold, the butterbean has blood antigen A

05:11:14.250 --> 05:11:22.150
like we do and wow, brain hormone,
the cockroach has a brain hormone just

05:11:22.150 --> 05:11:22.770
like we do.

05:11:22.870 --> 05:11:27.710
Here's a statement from Discover magazine
saying, don't squash that roach,

05:11:27.810 --> 05:11:28.850
he may be your cousin.

05:11:29.790 --> 05:11:35.750
We're told the roach has a brain hormone
just like ours, identical, it is the same.

05:11:36.790 --> 05:11:42.330
Now, they don't really put that in this
tree and use that to line up the

05:11:42.330 --> 05:11:42.850
similarities.

05:11:43.150 --> 05:11:49.070
They leave out significant similarities to
paint whatever picture they want.

05:11:49.510 --> 05:11:53.350
There was a cartoon back in Darwin's time
that I think clearly illustrates this

05:11:53.350 --> 05:11:53.610
point.

05:11:53.710 --> 05:11:59.490
You begin with a pig and change that pig
just gradually and you can finally wind up

05:11:59.490 --> 05:12:01.230
looking like a bull.

05:12:01.610 --> 05:12:06.850
And that bull continues to change just a
little bit and it's obvious then that man

05:12:06.850 --> 05:12:09.870
evolved from the pig by way of the bull.

05:12:10.350 --> 05:12:11.750
And here's the proof.

05:12:12.130 --> 05:12:13.590
It's scientifically proved.

05:12:13.710 --> 05:12:14.330
See the diagram?

05:12:15.150 --> 05:12:21.190
It's the same kind of diagram that you see
in the textbooks that's supposed to prove,

05:12:21.490 --> 05:12:22.930
supposed to be scientific evidence.

05:12:23.010 --> 05:12:24.170
You just line them up.

05:12:24.270 --> 05:12:25.270
See how they line up?

05:12:26.230 --> 05:12:27.450
What have you proved?

05:12:27.850 --> 05:12:32.750
Well, you're looking at similarities,
ignoring other similarities and lining

05:12:32.750 --> 05:12:34.270
them up according to the scenario.

05:12:34.970 --> 05:12:39.290
Now, this may make an interesting model
that you can then test, but it's not

05:12:39.290 --> 05:12:40.030
proof.

05:12:40.710 --> 05:12:44.650
And don't look at it as proof when you see
that in the textbooks.

05:12:45.690 --> 05:12:50.310
Summarizing then in our first session on
the fossils, this is the evidence.

05:12:51.390 --> 05:12:55.810
Without it, it's just an outrageous
hypothesis as Stanley says.

05:12:56.510 --> 05:13:00.750
But when we look at the critical beginning
of the fossil record, it's complex,

05:13:00.750 --> 05:13:03.010
it is abrupt, it is diverse.

05:13:04.010 --> 05:13:06.750
We have all of the major phyla right at
the beginning.

05:13:06.910 --> 05:13:08.190
There have been none new since.

05:13:08.950 --> 05:13:13.790
The trees of life in the textbooks are
from selected similarities.

05:13:14.630 --> 05:13:15.710
They're not from the fossils.

05:13:16.210 --> 05:13:17.430
They're not from embryology.

05:13:17.850 --> 05:13:18.890
They're not from genetics.

05:13:19.490 --> 05:13:25.390
And the similarities that are used to
build the trees reveal a mosaic pattern,

05:13:25.810 --> 05:13:27.170
not a branching pattern.

05:13:27.170 --> 05:13:33.150
Now when we look at that picture,
the critical evidence is much more in

05:13:33.150 --> 05:13:36.570
favor of the creation model than the
evolution model.

05:13:37.330 --> 05:13:42.490
It fits the facts best as described by the
antagonistic witness.

05:13:43.390 --> 05:13:45.750
And so you can see why I like to talk
about the fossils.

05:13:46.430 --> 05:13:52.090
I think they speak very clearly of a
sudden complex beginning, not gradual

05:13:52.090 --> 05:13:53.530
progression over millions of years.

05:14:41.840 --> 05:14:49.000
The fossil record provides positive
evidence for a sudden complex beginning,

05:14:49.320 --> 05:14:53.520
as opposed to a gradual sequence
developing over millions of years.

05:14:54.240 --> 05:14:59.340
I think the creationist can delight in
what the fossils tell us.

05:15:00.480 --> 05:15:05.420
The evolutionists sometimes try to
intimidate and tell us that's in favor of

05:15:05.420 --> 05:15:08.740
evolution, but when you look at what the
experts have to say about the matter,

05:15:09.640 --> 05:15:11.880
you find that's really not the case at
all.

05:15:12.740 --> 05:15:16.380
In the first session, we showed the nature
of the beginning of the fossil record,

05:15:16.480 --> 05:15:22.380
the sudden complex beginning, the distinct
separate types right from the start.

05:15:24.440 --> 05:15:30.260
Arranged similarities tell us of a tree,
but they do not come from the fossil

05:15:30.260 --> 05:15:30.680
record.

05:15:30.980 --> 05:15:32.640
They're in spite of the fossil record.

05:15:33.180 --> 05:15:38.040
But if we look at the fossil record in
general, after we get past the beginning,

05:15:38.240 --> 05:15:44.540
just ignoring that problem, how do we see
evolution as we look at the fossils that

05:15:44.540 --> 05:15:45.080
we dig up?

05:15:45.820 --> 05:15:50.560
Well, we would need to be able to see
transitional forms in order to see

05:15:50.560 --> 05:15:51.020
evolution.

05:15:51.900 --> 05:15:57.700
Things changing from one to the other,
and that would be in the form of the

05:15:57.700 --> 05:15:58.260
transitions.

05:15:59.280 --> 05:16:04.320
What we see actually is described as
stasis according to Stephen Gould,

05:16:04.720 --> 05:16:08.460
again one of the leading experts in
evolution in our country from Harvard.

05:16:08.840 --> 05:16:14.320
He says every paleontologist knows that
most species don't change.

05:16:14.620 --> 05:16:19.400
Now, of course, evolution is change,
but most species don't do that,

05:16:19.460 --> 05:16:19.920
he says.

05:16:20.660 --> 05:16:24.500
That's bothersome, of course, to the
evolutionist.

05:16:24.620 --> 05:16:26.720
That brings terrible distress.

05:16:28.520 --> 05:16:32.960
I regard the failure, he says,
writing in Natural History, to find a

05:16:32.960 --> 05:16:39.020
clear vector of progress in life's history
as one of the most puzzling facts of the

05:16:39.020 --> 05:16:39.640
fossil record.

05:16:40.480 --> 05:16:45.220
Well, of course, that's puzzling to him,
and it's a failure for the evolutionary

05:16:45.220 --> 05:16:45.820
prediction.

05:16:46.760 --> 05:16:52.260
It is just the opposite for the
creationist, who is delighted by such

05:16:52.260 --> 05:16:54.480
evidence, as he describes.

05:16:55.220 --> 05:17:01.580
He continues saying, we have sought to
impose a pattern that we hope to find on a

05:17:01.580 --> 05:17:04.060
world that does not really display it.

05:17:04.240 --> 05:17:06.400
The pattern, of course, being evolutionary
progression.

05:17:07.260 --> 05:17:10.140
He's puzzled by the failure to find that.

05:17:10.760 --> 05:17:13.940
Now, again, that's his description of what
we see there.

05:17:14.040 --> 05:17:16.640
It's the opposite of change that would be
predicted.

05:17:17.700 --> 05:17:23.560
He says, in Natural History, we can tell
tales of improvement for some groups,

05:17:24.260 --> 05:17:30.020
but in honest moments, we must admit that
the history of complex life is more a

05:17:30.020 --> 05:17:37.180
story of multifarious variations about a
set of basic designs than a saga of

05:17:37.180 --> 05:17:38.460
accumulating excellence.

05:17:39.280 --> 05:17:44.700
Now, he uses the word design, though,
to be fair to him, he doesn't believe they

05:17:44.700 --> 05:17:45.260
were designed.

05:17:45.640 --> 05:17:46.920
That's what they look like.

05:17:47.440 --> 05:17:48.760
He chose that term.

05:17:49.460 --> 05:17:54.720
But they're telling tales when they tell
of this tree of life that progresses

05:17:54.720 --> 05:17:57.100
upward that's not from the fossils.

05:17:58.000 --> 05:18:03.380
What you really see is just variation
about a set of basic designs.

05:18:03.820 --> 05:18:05.360
And this is not new knowledge.

05:18:06.100 --> 05:18:07.580
Darwin understood this.

05:18:08.200 --> 05:18:12.500
Back in Origin of the Species,
he says, innumerable transitional forms

05:18:12.500 --> 05:18:18.460
must have existed, but why do we not find
them embedded in countless numbers in the

05:18:18.460 --> 05:18:19.320
crust of the earth?

05:18:20.120 --> 05:18:25.400
Why is not every geological formation and
every stratum full of such intermediate

05:18:25.400 --> 05:18:25.960
links?

05:18:26.580 --> 05:18:31.200
And of course, if his view of the fossil
record is true, then that's exactly what

05:18:31.200 --> 05:18:31.920
should be found.

05:18:32.740 --> 05:18:36.380
And he understands, yes, that's what we
should see.

05:18:36.480 --> 05:18:39.920
That's the only way we can see change or
evolution in the fossil record,

05:18:40.000 --> 05:18:41.260
these transitional forms.

05:18:41.420 --> 05:18:46.640
And there should be more transitional
forms since they were leading to the

05:18:46.640 --> 05:18:50.200
others constantly, but that's not the
case.

05:18:51.280 --> 05:18:57.940
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such
finally graduated organic chain.

05:18:58.060 --> 05:19:02.500
And this is perhaps the greatest objection
which can be urged against my theory.

05:19:02.820 --> 05:19:06.900
Now, many people think Darwin looked at
the fossil record and said, here's proof.

05:19:07.140 --> 05:19:11.720
But no, he saw this as his biggest problem
and it's gotten worse.

05:19:12.600 --> 05:19:16.060
Many times people will say, well,
it has gotten better.

05:19:16.060 --> 05:19:17.820
Darwin recognized the problem.

05:19:18.040 --> 05:19:22.620
But notice the statement by David Rapp of
the Chicago Field Museum of Natural

05:19:22.620 --> 05:19:22.960
History.

05:19:23.100 --> 05:19:28.240
He's curator of the largest fossil museum
in the United States.

05:19:28.660 --> 05:19:32.180
And he says Darwin was completely aware of
this.

05:19:32.800 --> 05:19:36.620
He was embarrassed by the fossil record
because it didn't look the way he

05:19:36.620 --> 05:19:37.500
predicted it would.

05:19:38.520 --> 05:19:44.220
He continues saying, well, we're now about
120 years after Darwin and knowledge of

05:19:44.220 --> 05:19:46.780
the fossil record has been greatly
expanded.

05:19:47.060 --> 05:19:52.440
We now have a quarter of a million fossil
species, but the situation hasn't changed

05:19:52.440 --> 05:19:52.860
much.

05:19:53.540 --> 05:19:58.960
He says, ironically, we have even fewer
examples of evolutionary transitions than

05:19:58.960 --> 05:20:00.140
we had in Darwin's time.

05:20:02.220 --> 05:20:09.240
He says, by this I mean that the classic
cases of Darwinian change in the fossil

05:20:09.240 --> 05:20:13.380
record, such as the evolution of the horse
in North America, have had to be discarded

05:20:13.380 --> 05:20:16.820
or modified as the result of more detailed
information.

05:20:17.680 --> 05:20:20.920
The classic cases we've lost.

05:20:21.580 --> 05:20:25.900
Now, that bit of knowledge hasn't made it
to most of the textbooks.

05:20:26.180 --> 05:20:31.580
They still have the evolution of the horse
as one of their star classic cases,

05:20:32.280 --> 05:20:35.680
but one by one they've dropped out,
including this one.

05:20:36.400 --> 05:20:40.860
We've all seen the representation in the
textbooks of the little horse that

05:20:40.860 --> 05:20:43.160
graduates up to the big one.

05:20:43.920 --> 05:20:49.660
Again, they leave out significant facts
that these animals are found side-by-side

05:20:49.660 --> 05:20:51.440
up in Kansas in the same stratum.

05:20:52.280 --> 05:20:56.880
We excavated a nine-foot donkey from the
fossil record out near Lubbock,

05:20:57.000 --> 05:20:57.260
Texas.

05:20:58.220 --> 05:21:02.240
That kind of messes up the little
graduated horse chart, but basically

05:21:02.240 --> 05:21:05.040
you're looking at small horses leading to
big horses.

05:21:06.060 --> 05:21:10.620
Notice the description of this by Colin
Patterson, and he's curator of the largest

05:21:10.620 --> 05:21:12.800
fossil museum in the world, recently
deceased.

05:21:13.200 --> 05:21:16.220
Senior paleontologist, though,
at the British Museum of Natural History

05:21:16.220 --> 05:21:18.360
for many, many years.

05:21:18.880 --> 05:21:23.320
He said there have been an awful lot of
stories, some more imaginative than

05:21:23.320 --> 05:21:23.660
others.

05:21:24.920 --> 05:21:29.600
The more famous example, now he's being
interviewed, by the way, by Harper's

05:21:29.600 --> 05:21:29.920
Magazine.

05:21:30.080 --> 05:21:35.000
He's in the United States and he's in the
American Museum of Natural History in New

05:21:35.000 --> 05:21:36.700
York being interviewed now by Harper's.

05:21:37.960 --> 05:21:41.920
The most famous example, still an exhibit
downstairs, is the exhibit on horse

05:21:41.920 --> 05:21:44.380
evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago.

05:21:45.320 --> 05:21:48.760
That has been presented as the literal
truth in textbook after textbook.

05:21:49.060 --> 05:21:52.860
And if you're familiar at all with the
biology textbooks, earth science

05:21:52.860 --> 05:21:56.500
textbooks, you've certainly seen that
representation.

05:21:57.160 --> 05:22:00.720
He says, I think that's lamentable,
that is, that it's been in all of these

05:22:00.720 --> 05:22:01.220
textbooks.

05:22:01.860 --> 05:22:07.900
Particularly when the people who show
those kinds of stories may themselves be

05:22:07.900 --> 05:22:10.580
aware of the speculative nature of some of
that stuff.

05:22:11.400 --> 05:22:16.240
He knows that this is not fact,
that they have lined them up the way they

05:22:16.240 --> 05:22:21.540
want them to, even though they find them
in the same layers, and that you don't

05:22:21.540 --> 05:22:23.520
know that one led to the other.

05:22:24.460 --> 05:22:26.840
It's just the way they tell the story.

05:22:28.140 --> 05:22:34.960
George Gaylord Simpson is probably the
most authoritative source of information

05:22:34.960 --> 05:22:35.840
on horse evolution.

05:22:35.980 --> 05:22:38.160
He's the one that came up with this
argument.

05:22:38.760 --> 05:22:39.880
He wrote the book on it.

05:22:40.400 --> 05:22:43.820
And in his book, Life of the Past,
he says, the uniform, continuous

05:22:44.440 --> 05:22:48.400
transition of hydrocatherium into aqueous,
that's what's pictured in the textbooks,

05:22:48.780 --> 05:22:54.640
so dear to the hearts of generations of
textbook writers, never happened in

05:22:54.640 --> 05:22:54.980
nature.

05:22:56.160 --> 05:23:00.700
Here's the author of the story,
and he says the way it's told in the

05:23:00.700 --> 05:23:02.280
textbooks never happened.

05:23:02.400 --> 05:23:08.080
It's lined up as the evolutionist wants it
to be lined up, but what does the lineup

05:23:08.080 --> 05:23:08.840
prove?

05:23:09.240 --> 05:23:13.480
No more than lining up the pig to the bull
to the man.

05:23:14.460 --> 05:23:18.080
Derrick Egger, when this statement was
made, was president of the British

05:23:18.080 --> 05:23:19.320
Geological Association.

05:23:20.520 --> 05:23:25.620
He says, it must be significant that
nearly all the evolutionary stories I

05:23:25.620 --> 05:23:28.280
learned as a student have now been
debunked.

05:23:28.760 --> 05:23:34.160
And he refers to the horse story and to
several others, but he does think that

05:23:34.160 --> 05:23:38.340
many of them are, not many, that's not
true, he thinks that a few of them,

05:23:38.400 --> 05:23:42.660
and that's the way he would describe it,
are still valid, though most of them that

05:23:42.660 --> 05:23:45.980
he was taught as a student have been
debunked.

05:23:46.680 --> 05:23:51.800
He refers to Archaeopteryx as perhaps the
best example, and we see this in all the

05:23:51.800 --> 05:23:52.140
textbooks.

05:23:52.320 --> 05:23:56.180
Here's the half fossil, half a reptile,
half bird.

05:23:56.740 --> 05:24:02.320
This is proof that the reptiles evolved
into the birds, and we see this beautiful

05:24:02.320 --> 05:24:07.560
fossil specimen showing the feathers,
I think, of an excellent bird.

05:24:08.360 --> 05:24:14.460
Some of the beautiful fossils of the
feathers testify to that, and we see the

05:24:14.460 --> 05:24:20.340
wing here of a powered flyer, but we're
told, look on the edge of its wings,

05:24:20.460 --> 05:24:21.320
it has claws.

05:24:21.940 --> 05:24:23.180
This proves it's primitive.

05:24:23.620 --> 05:24:29.640
Well, many birds in the fossil record had
claws that lost them, and losing things

05:24:29.640 --> 05:24:34.240
they did have is not an evolutionary
progression upward.

05:24:34.540 --> 05:24:37.880
That involves getting new things,
not losing old things.

05:24:38.360 --> 05:24:40.580
But we do have many birds today.

05:24:41.400 --> 05:24:48.140
For instance, the Hoatzen maybe is the
closest example down in South America that

05:24:48.140 --> 05:24:52.260
has claws on its wings in the juvenile
form, and all of the examples of

05:24:52.260 --> 05:24:54.080
Archaeopteryx have been the juvenile form.

05:24:56.320 --> 05:25:03.320
The Cassoway, the ostrich, have claws on
their wings, and so this is not unique,

05:25:03.840 --> 05:25:07.840
and is something birds, the tern for
example, does, and has lost them,

05:25:08.220 --> 05:25:09.760
that is, had them in the fossil record.

05:25:10.380 --> 05:25:11.960
But we're told, look at the teeth.

05:25:12.360 --> 05:25:17.580
This primitive bird has teeth,
and the teeth prove he's primitive.

05:25:18.200 --> 05:25:22.400
Well, again, he's lost something,
and when people lose their teeth,

05:25:22.660 --> 05:25:24.940
most don't think that's an evolutionary
progression.

05:25:25.900 --> 05:25:31.040
Teeth are amazing structures, and when you
study the formation of the teeth,

05:25:31.140 --> 05:25:37.120
and the way the deciduous makes way for
the permanent teeth, it's just

05:25:37.120 --> 05:25:41.340
mind-boggling to see, I think,
the design involved in the structure.

05:25:42.500 --> 05:25:45.040
And birds have lost them.

05:25:45.220 --> 05:25:48.960
The tern, again, has beautiful teeth in
the fossil record, many of them do,

05:25:49.020 --> 05:25:49.700
and don't do.

05:25:49.740 --> 05:25:55.680
They're beautiful, powered flyers today,
but they've lost something, and that's not

05:25:55.680 --> 05:25:56.160
evolution.

05:25:56.420 --> 05:25:59.440
Many people look at that, I think,
inside out.

05:25:59.580 --> 05:26:04.440
There are modern birds that have teeth
today, and so it's not a completely unique

05:26:04.440 --> 05:26:04.980
situation.

05:26:05.720 --> 05:26:10.480
But I think the real answer to
Archaeopteryx comes from the evolutionary

05:26:11.420 --> 05:26:12.920
perspective of time.

05:26:13.100 --> 05:26:18.740
I disagree with their views of time,
but let's play the game their way and see

05:26:18.740 --> 05:26:19.560
how it comes out.

05:26:20.380 --> 05:26:24.960
If their view of the dating of these
fossils is correct, there's a serious

05:26:24.960 --> 05:26:29.320
problem with the find that was made a
number of years ago, here reported in

05:26:29.320 --> 05:26:30.840
Nature, 1986.

05:26:31.660 --> 05:26:35.180
The headlines, Fossil Bird Shakes
Evolutionary Hypothesis.

05:26:35.820 --> 05:26:41.020
And here's a bird 75 million years older
than Archaeopteryx.

05:26:41.060 --> 05:26:45.740
That's half again as old as Archaeopteryx
was, and it's a bird.

05:26:46.060 --> 05:26:47.180
It's an excellent bird.

05:26:47.340 --> 05:26:52.740
Here it refers to the paleontologist at
Texas Tech University, Dr. Chatterjee.

05:26:52.820 --> 05:26:55.060
He and I have worked together a couple of
times.

05:26:55.580 --> 05:26:59.120
They have advanced avian features.

05:27:00.480 --> 05:27:07.000
This is a good bird that got there before
Archaeopteryx did.

05:27:07.080 --> 05:27:13.660
Well, how can Archaeopteryx lead to the
birds if the birds got there first?

05:27:13.720 --> 05:27:16.420
You can't have the kids older than the
parents, you know.

05:27:16.940 --> 05:27:19.180
It just blows the theory entirely.

05:27:19.780 --> 05:27:23.020
And actually, this is not the only example
of that being found.

05:27:23.180 --> 05:27:27.800
Birds have been found in a number of
instances before, according to their

05:27:27.800 --> 05:27:28.460
interpretation.

05:27:29.160 --> 05:27:31.480
The things they've led to have appeared.

05:27:32.400 --> 05:27:32.580
W.

05:27:32.620 --> 05:27:35.400
Swenson, I think, sums it up very
honestly.

05:27:35.780 --> 05:27:36.660
He's from Cambridge.

05:27:37.060 --> 05:27:40.640
In his book, Biology and Comparative
Physiology of Birds, he says, the origin

05:27:40.640 --> 05:27:42.640
of birds is largely a matter of deduction.

05:27:43.760 --> 05:27:49.080
There is no fossil evidence for the stages
through which the remarkable change from

05:27:49.080 --> 05:27:50.340
reptile to bird was achieved.

05:27:50.660 --> 05:27:58.380
Now, as we think of the tremendous
difference between us and something that's

05:27:58.380 --> 05:28:03.760
up flapping its wings and flying,
what would it take to get us or to get a

05:28:03.760 --> 05:28:05.120
reptile up and flying?

05:28:05.220 --> 05:28:08.040
Well, the birds have hollow bones.

05:28:08.320 --> 05:28:11.280
They have a completely different
respiratory system and completely

05:28:11.280 --> 05:28:16.940
different circulatory system that's
necessary to sustain the high rate of

05:28:16.940 --> 05:28:22.020
breathing and the heartbeat and
respiration, the high metabolism.

05:28:22.380 --> 05:28:28.480
It just takes a tremendous amount of
change and there's no evidence of the

05:28:28.480 --> 05:28:30.200
remarkable change.

05:28:30.380 --> 05:28:35.620
Now that certainly doesn't speak well for
an evolutionist trying to document change.

05:28:36.180 --> 05:28:36.440
D.B.

05:28:36.540 --> 05:28:41.400
Kitts, University of Oklahoma,
says the fact that discontinuities,

05:28:42.260 --> 05:28:46.760
not continuities which would show
progression, discontinuities are almost

05:28:46.760 --> 05:28:52.840
always and systematically present at the
origin of really big categories.

05:28:54.000 --> 05:28:59.320
Now, you would see dissimilarities,
you would see gaps in the fossil record

05:28:59.320 --> 05:29:06.220
due to random sampling and incomplete
sampling if it's just random and spaced

05:29:06.220 --> 05:29:06.840
accidentally.

05:29:07.240 --> 05:29:13.440
But this is systematic and regular at the
origin of really big categories.

05:29:13.680 --> 05:29:16.200
It's an item of genuinely historical
knowledge.

05:29:16.380 --> 05:29:16.640
Now, D.B.

05:29:16.740 --> 05:29:18.220
Kitts is a devout evolutionist.

05:29:18.220 --> 05:29:24.100
He's writing in the journal Evolution and
says this is systematic.

05:29:24.420 --> 05:29:28.500
Anytime you get something that's really
different then you have a gap.

05:29:29.120 --> 05:29:34.820
And we all know this, though we don't tell
it to you in the textbooks typically.

05:29:35.540 --> 05:29:40.020
Evolution, he says, requires intermediate
forms between species and paleontology

05:29:40.020 --> 05:29:41.640
does not provide them.

05:29:42.100 --> 05:29:47.580
Now, if you listen to your earth science
teacher, she may tell you that it does.

05:29:48.380 --> 05:29:51.840
But here is one of the leading authorities
in the world, writing in the journal

05:29:51.840 --> 05:29:55.840
Evolution, saying you don't see that in
the fossil record.

05:29:56.980 --> 05:30:01.040
David Swift, who is professor of
paleontology at the University of Hawaii,

05:30:01.580 --> 05:30:08.020
writing again in his book Evolution under
the microscope, no phylum can be traced

05:30:08.020 --> 05:30:10.080
from a preceding one in the fossil record.

05:30:10.700 --> 05:30:14.680
We cannot account for the origin of a
single phylum.

05:30:15.620 --> 05:30:17.540
They all appear abruptly.

05:30:17.860 --> 05:30:24.840
Now, he devoutly believes that they did
evolve, but in terms of the fossil record,

05:30:25.020 --> 05:30:26.840
that's not the picture you see.

05:30:27.580 --> 05:30:34.080
This is also true of taxonomic groups such
as classes, orders, possibly lower still.

05:30:34.660 --> 05:30:40.220
In other words, you got a major group,
it's sudden and probably true with its

05:30:40.220 --> 05:30:43.060
classes, orders, and even lower.

05:30:43.900 --> 05:30:45.860
You got something different, you got a
gap.

05:30:46.600 --> 05:30:48.620
It doesn't lead from one to the other.

05:30:49.760 --> 05:30:52.860
Again, this is not the creationist telling
you that.

05:30:53.500 --> 05:30:53.820
S.M.

05:30:53.920 --> 05:30:58.120
Stanley, a very famous paleontologist from
Johns Hopkins, says there's not one.

05:30:59.580 --> 05:31:03.680
In fact, the fossil record does not
convincingly document a single

05:31:03.680 --> 05:31:06.960
transitional form from one species to
another.

05:31:08.320 --> 05:31:08.640
A.C.

05:31:08.760 --> 05:31:13.920
Stewart expresses the fact that he is
confident that this is reality,

05:31:14.100 --> 05:31:16.960
that is, that it did happen, it did
evolve.

05:31:17.720 --> 05:31:21.580
He says, the theoretically primitive type
though eludes our grasp.

05:31:22.240 --> 05:31:27.580
Our faith postulates its existence,
but the type fails to materialize.

05:31:28.200 --> 05:31:29.880
These are men of faith.

05:31:30.820 --> 05:31:35.980
I think they're men of great faith,
but it's not based on the evidence.

05:31:36.200 --> 05:31:38.240
It's in spite of the lack of evidence.

05:31:39.200 --> 05:31:44.740
In fact, as one individual says for the
evolutionist, their faith is the substance

05:31:44.740 --> 05:31:49.220
of fossils hoped for, the evidence of
links unseen.

05:31:49.800 --> 05:31:54.220
You're familiar with the quotation from
Hebrews applied here to the evolutionist.

05:31:54.360 --> 05:31:56.980
Theirs is not based on evidence.

05:31:57.200 --> 05:32:01.620
It's a blind faith, which I don't think is
good faith, either religiously or

05:32:01.620 --> 05:32:02.240
scientifically.

05:32:03.560 --> 05:32:08.160
Niles Eldridge explains his justification
for my statement.

05:32:08.300 --> 05:32:14.040
He says, it has been the paleontologists,
my own breed, who have been responsible

05:32:14.040 --> 05:32:17.100
for letting ideas dominate reality.

05:32:18.120 --> 05:32:23.700
We paleontologists have said that the
history of life supports that

05:32:23.700 --> 05:32:27.320
interpretation of gradual change,
which is what he's talking about,

05:32:27.400 --> 05:32:29.620
all the while knowing that it does not.

05:32:30.460 --> 05:32:35.080
Now, that's what's required to show
evolution, and so we told the story.

05:32:35.600 --> 05:32:41.220
As Google says, we can tell stories about
this, but in honest moments we have to

05:32:41.220 --> 05:32:44.000
admit it's just variation about basic
designs.

05:32:44.160 --> 05:32:51.100
And here Niles Eldridge acknowledges that
this is just not what we find in the

05:32:51.100 --> 05:32:51.640
fossil record.

05:32:51.740 --> 05:32:54.520
We know better, but we keep on telling the
story.

05:32:55.360 --> 05:32:58.020
I don't think that's honest.

05:32:58.540 --> 05:33:00.120
I don't think it's good science.

05:33:00.780 --> 05:33:04.760
And when we look at the fossil record,
we see why they're squirming and having

05:33:04.760 --> 05:33:07.980
trouble, because it's not saying what they
wanted to say.

05:33:08.180 --> 05:33:14.680
However, one of the reasons Stephen Gould
is willing to admit some of these things

05:33:14.680 --> 05:33:21.560
and acknowledge that this is not really
what I would like to see, is that he

05:33:21.560 --> 05:33:23.140
thinks he now has an answer.

05:33:23.960 --> 05:33:28.220
He thinks he has a solution to the problem
that you see a sudden complex beginning,

05:33:28.440 --> 05:33:33.680
and you see fossils that don't change,
and you see gaps between all of the

05:33:33.680 --> 05:33:34.060
fossils.

05:33:34.060 --> 05:33:39.780
They're separate and distinct from the
beginning, and they stay separate in the

05:33:39.780 --> 05:33:41.320
fossil record as in the living world.

05:33:42.340 --> 05:33:46.700
But he can answer that, and so he didn't
really admit that before.

05:33:46.780 --> 05:33:50.440
But now then he's got an answer in
punctuated equilibrium.

05:33:52.540 --> 05:33:55.260
Sounds very impressive, doesn't it?

05:33:56.160 --> 05:34:00.840
Actually, it's very similar to an idea
that wasn't received quite so favorably

05:34:00.840 --> 05:34:02.480
back in the 30s.

05:34:02.580 --> 05:34:07.080
Goldsmith talked about the hopeful monster
mechanism, and it was basically,

05:34:07.800 --> 05:34:09.300
well it was a very similar idea.

05:34:10.580 --> 05:34:14.960
And Gould refers to him and says it's
similar, and says he thinks Goldsmith

05:34:14.960 --> 05:34:16.080
would be vindicated.

05:34:16.860 --> 05:34:20.320
But Goldsmith essentially said when you
look at the fossil record and you see the

05:34:20.320 --> 05:34:25.380
sudden transition of one form to the
other, then there must have been a reptile

05:34:25.380 --> 05:34:29.740
that somewhere laid an egg and a bird
hatched out.

05:34:31.500 --> 05:34:33.000
And that's the way he said it.

05:34:33.560 --> 05:34:37.040
Well, the geneticist, and that was his
field, laughed at him.

05:34:38.200 --> 05:34:41.120
They preferred to think that he's the one
that laid the egg.

05:34:42.200 --> 05:34:47.220
Hopeful monsters didn't sound very
scientific, but he says, well that's what

05:34:47.220 --> 05:34:48.460
the fossil record looks like.

05:34:48.600 --> 05:34:52.540
And so Gould building on that said,
yes that's basically what happened.

05:34:53.560 --> 05:34:55.620
He thinks Goldsmith would be vindicated.

05:34:56.680 --> 05:34:58.700
But he doesn't call it hopeful monsters.

05:34:58.900 --> 05:35:03.740
It's punctuated equilibrium, and that of
course sounds much more sophisticated.

05:35:04.960 --> 05:35:10.100
Gould and Eldredge wrote a very famous
paper several years ago describing this.

05:35:10.200 --> 05:35:15.460
And in it they say, in fact most published
commentary on punctuated equilibria has

05:35:15.460 --> 05:35:16.500
been favorable.

05:35:17.060 --> 05:35:22.180
He says we're especially pleased that
several paleontologists now state with

05:35:22.180 --> 05:35:29.400
pride and with biological confidence a
conclusion that had previously been simply

05:35:29.400 --> 05:35:30.020
embarrassing.

05:35:30.800 --> 05:35:35.560
All right, now what is it that they can
now have pride in that used to be

05:35:35.560 --> 05:35:36.020
embarrassing?

05:35:36.560 --> 05:35:41.060
He says all these years of work and I
haven't found any evolution.

05:35:41.880 --> 05:35:45.460
Well if you're an evolutionist,
that would be embarrassing.

05:35:45.980 --> 05:35:48.180
But they don't have to be embarrassed by
that now.

05:35:48.940 --> 05:35:53.860
Not because he now finds the fossils that
would solve the problem, but because he

05:35:53.860 --> 05:35:56.200
has an explanation for why they don't find
it.

05:35:56.880 --> 05:36:02.160
He says, and we'll let Stephen Stanley,
who is one who has written papers with

05:36:02.160 --> 05:36:06.360
them on this subject, describe the nature
of what they believe.

05:36:06.480 --> 05:36:12.300
The record now reveals that species
typically reveal, and when they say the

05:36:12.300 --> 05:36:16.140
record reveals, they're talking about
something they've been forced to by the

05:36:16.140 --> 05:36:21.460
evidence and by very, very detailed
studies with thousands of fossils

05:36:21.460 --> 05:36:22.700
documenting this point.

05:36:23.160 --> 05:36:27.220
The record now reveals that species
typically survive for a hundred thousand

05:36:27.220 --> 05:36:30.080
generations, even a million or more,
without evolving very much.

05:36:30.620 --> 05:36:33.580
Of course, this is combined with their
view of the time.

05:36:33.920 --> 05:36:39.040
But this is what we see, even assuming the
time, that they survive without evolving

05:36:39.040 --> 05:36:39.540
very much.

05:36:39.600 --> 05:36:40.400
Now what does that mean?

05:36:40.880 --> 05:36:45.100
We seem forced to conclude that most
evolution takes place rapidly.

05:36:46.140 --> 05:36:49.380
You might think that you're forced in a
different direction.

05:36:50.700 --> 05:36:54.520
You look at the fossil record and you
don't see change.

05:36:55.240 --> 05:37:00.120
You see over thousands of generations,
they don't change.

05:37:00.520 --> 05:37:01.680
What does that prove?

05:37:01.860 --> 05:37:02.940
That things don't change?

05:37:03.040 --> 05:37:03.800
No, no, no.

05:37:03.980 --> 05:37:05.220
They don't challenge that.

05:37:05.840 --> 05:37:07.120
That's sacrosanct.

05:37:07.380 --> 05:37:08.980
Nobody is going to challenge that.

05:37:09.260 --> 05:37:15.700
We know that it happened, but we don't see
change in the... well, then the solution

05:37:15.700 --> 05:37:17.380
is it must have happened rapidly.

05:37:18.220 --> 05:37:19.440
Never doubt that it happened.

05:37:20.460 --> 05:37:22.000
It just happened rapidly.

05:37:22.200 --> 05:37:23.820
And that's what they believe.

05:37:23.940 --> 05:37:25.520
Notice as he goes on to describe it.

05:37:25.780 --> 05:37:29.880
A punctuational model of evolution,
operated by a natural mechanism.

05:37:30.040 --> 05:37:32.280
And notice he has to emphasize this is
natural.

05:37:32.380 --> 05:37:34.200
It may sound supernatural, but no,
no.

05:37:34.520 --> 05:37:39.240
Now he doesn't understand the mechanism,
which he'll acknowledge, that made this

05:37:39.240 --> 05:37:40.860
dramatic change very quickly.

05:37:41.420 --> 05:37:47.800
But it's natural whose major effects are
wrought exactly where we're least able to

05:37:47.800 --> 05:37:48.320
study them.

05:37:48.900 --> 05:37:51.480
In small, isolated, transitory
populations.

05:37:52.860 --> 05:37:54.480
So, you don't see this.

05:37:55.040 --> 05:37:59.880
You can't see this, but we have faith that
it happened there in these places where

05:37:59.880 --> 05:38:00.580
you can't look.

05:38:01.420 --> 05:38:06.020
The point is that if the transition was
typically rapid in the population,

05:38:06.200 --> 05:38:10.820
small, localized, fossil evidence of the
event would never be found.

05:38:11.900 --> 05:38:17.280
And so they conclude you don't have to be
embarrassed anymore, because you don't

05:38:17.280 --> 05:38:19.520
expect to find the transitional forms.

05:38:20.600 --> 05:38:28.400
It happened so quick in these small,
isolated areas that we don't even try to

05:38:28.400 --> 05:38:28.620
find.

05:38:29.080 --> 05:38:32.820
Used to be embarrassing, but we're not
embarrassed by that fact anymore,

05:38:32.860 --> 05:38:34.940
because now we have an explanation.

05:38:36.380 --> 05:38:42.340
And so we're looking here at a story that
explains why you don't have the fossils to

05:38:42.340 --> 05:38:44.640
support this transition from one to the
other.

05:38:45.500 --> 05:38:51.340
And they have faced the fact they don't
have a mechanism to make this dramatic

05:38:51.340 --> 05:38:55.000
change from one to the other, because the
mechanism that's proposed in the textbooks

05:38:55.000 --> 05:38:58.800
is this gradual change, mutations being
selected over millions of years.

05:38:59.880 --> 05:39:05.640
Google addresses that when he says a
mutation doesn't produce major new raw

05:39:05.640 --> 05:39:06.100
material.

05:39:07.100 --> 05:39:09.700
You don't make a new species by mutating
the species.

05:39:10.340 --> 05:39:15.380
That's an idea people have, that evolution
is due to random mutation.

05:39:15.880 --> 05:39:17.620
A mutation is not the cause.

05:39:18.540 --> 05:39:24.820
It can't produce this dramatic change that
he's looking for, and so he's given up on

05:39:24.820 --> 05:39:24.880
it.

05:39:24.880 --> 05:39:27.340
In fact, he just says, look, this is
deleterious.

05:39:27.540 --> 05:39:34.740
It is a change in a very complex system,
random, accidental, like throwing a rock

05:39:34.740 --> 05:39:35.800
at your TV set.

05:39:36.080 --> 05:39:37.840
It's not likely to change it.

05:39:38.380 --> 05:39:42.740
And so this random... no, it's not going
to produce a new mechanism.

05:39:42.900 --> 05:39:44.200
And so that's not it.

05:39:45.040 --> 05:39:47.240
So we don't have fossils, we don't have a
mechanism.

05:39:48.320 --> 05:39:59.060
How valid is that kind of a concept of
scientific change in terms of evaluating

05:39:59.060 --> 05:40:01.440
this by the scientific method?

05:40:01.840 --> 05:40:06.920
On the one hand, you've got fossils that
you can observe and don't expect to

05:40:06.920 --> 05:40:11.360
observe, and a mechanism that you don't
know anything about and haven't seen.

05:40:12.200 --> 05:40:18.840
And on the other hand, you have observed
fossils, thousands of them, that show

05:40:18.840 --> 05:40:23.900
distinct separate kinds, that show sudden
complex beginning, that show they stay the

05:40:23.900 --> 05:40:25.160
same, they don't change.

05:40:25.860 --> 05:40:31.020
And mechanisms that we observe every day
where kind produces kind produces kind.

05:40:32.980 --> 05:40:38.160
On the one hand, we have billions of
fossils that we base our conclusions on,

05:40:38.600 --> 05:40:41.100
and we have mechanisms that we observe
every day.

05:40:41.820 --> 05:40:46.220
On the other hand, you have mechanisms
that you speculate about and haven't

05:40:46.220 --> 05:40:49.200
observed, and you have fossils that you
don't expect to find.

05:40:50.340 --> 05:40:55.640
Now, just answer the question honestly,
which is better science?

05:40:58.560 --> 05:41:03.980
Scientists should go by the evidence,
they should be compelled by the best

05:41:03.980 --> 05:41:06.320
explanation of the evidence, and that's
not happening here.

05:41:06.520 --> 05:41:09.280
Philosophy is obviously dominating the
ideas.

05:41:10.680 --> 05:41:17.200
Colman Patterson shows his understanding
of this solution, his opinion of it,

05:41:17.220 --> 05:41:20.900
when he says, well, it seems to me they
have accepted that the fossil record

05:41:20.900 --> 05:41:25.480
doesn't give them the support they would
value, so they searched around to find

05:41:25.480 --> 05:41:27.680
another model and found one.

05:41:29.520 --> 05:41:33.540
When you haven't got the evidence,
you make up a story that will fit the lack

05:41:33.540 --> 05:41:34.000
of evidence.

05:41:35.460 --> 05:41:41.040
Now, that may sound rather jaded,
but that's his view, and I think he's

05:41:41.040 --> 05:41:45.520
right on, again, the curator of the
largest fossil museum in the world.

05:41:46.640 --> 05:41:49.660
When you don't have the evidence,
you just make up a story.

05:41:50.440 --> 05:41:54.200
And when you talk about punctuated
equilibrium, that's what you've got.

05:41:54.280 --> 05:41:57.080
You've got a story about why you don't
find the evidence.

05:41:58.000 --> 05:42:01.220
It is not based on the evidence,
but the lack of it.

05:42:02.140 --> 05:42:02.900
Notice D.B.

05:42:03.000 --> 05:42:03.900
Kitt's statement again.

05:42:04.240 --> 05:42:10.000
The claim is made that paleontology
provides a direct way to get at the major

05:42:10.000 --> 05:42:13.680
events of organic history, and that
furthermore, it provides a means of

05:42:13.680 --> 05:42:15.060
testing evolutionary theories.

05:42:15.960 --> 05:42:21.560
The paleontologist can provide us with
knowledge that cannot be provided by

05:42:21.560 --> 05:42:26.000
biological principles alone, but he cannot
provide us with evolution.

05:42:26.880 --> 05:42:31.540
If you're honest about the fossil record,
this evolutionist, writing in the journal

05:42:31.540 --> 05:42:35.460
Evolution, makes a very honest statement.

05:42:35.460 --> 05:42:38.600
You don't see evolution in the fossil
record.

05:42:38.760 --> 05:42:40.400
You didn't see it in Darwin's time.

05:42:40.580 --> 05:42:45.120
That was the biggest problem he had,
as he acknowledged, and it's gotten worse

05:42:45.120 --> 05:42:50.120
since then, as even the cases that he
would point to have fallen to the wayside,

05:42:50.220 --> 05:42:50.920
one by one.

05:42:52.100 --> 05:42:56.000
You can't see it in the fossil record,
and you make up stories about why it's not

05:42:56.000 --> 05:42:58.260
there, which is what's being done.

05:42:59.120 --> 05:43:03.640
And some... well, let's look at one more
attack that's taken by Mark Ridley of

05:43:03.640 --> 05:43:03.980
Oxford.

05:43:06.240 --> 05:43:07.700
Totally different approach.

05:43:08.660 --> 05:43:13.580
He says, a lot of people just do not know
what evidence the theory of evolution

05:43:13.580 --> 05:43:14.260
stands upon.

05:43:14.840 --> 05:43:18.520
They think the main evidence is the
gradual descent of one species from

05:43:18.520 --> 05:43:19.500
another in the fossil record.

05:43:21.560 --> 05:43:27.120
Yes, this is exactly what we're told,
and without the fossils that show

05:43:27.120 --> 05:43:32.580
progression proving evolution,
it would just be an outrageous hypothesis.

05:43:33.540 --> 05:43:37.560
I think if you're going to prove it,
that's where you have to go, even though

05:43:37.560 --> 05:43:42.100
it's circumstantial and historical,
but nevertheless, that's the evidence.

05:43:42.200 --> 05:43:44.600
And we're told if there's proof,
that's where it'd have to be.

05:43:44.700 --> 05:43:48.040
Well, he says, that's what you think,
but you just don't understand it.

05:43:48.380 --> 05:43:52.160
He says, in any case, no real
evolutionist, whether gradualist or

05:43:52.640 --> 05:43:57.440
punctuationalist, uses the fossil record
as evidence in favor of the theory of

05:43:57.440 --> 05:43:59.160
evolution, as opposed to special creation.

05:44:00.420 --> 05:44:02.220
No evolutionist thinks this way.

05:44:02.360 --> 05:44:07.640
Well, obviously they do, but he's tried,
and he's tried, and he's tried.

05:44:08.600 --> 05:44:14.440
It reminds me of the story of the fox in
Aesop's Fable, who's tried to reach up and

05:44:14.440 --> 05:44:18.140
get the grapes, and he desperately tried,
and over and over again failed,

05:44:18.260 --> 05:44:23.120
and just finds out he can't do it,
and walks off saying, those grapes are

05:44:23.120 --> 05:44:24.060
sour, I didn't want them anyway.

05:44:26.000 --> 05:44:30.400
You try for hundreds of years to document
evolution from the fossil record,

05:44:30.540 --> 05:44:34.480
and you finally find out, with more
evidence, that it's just not possible.

05:44:35.720 --> 05:44:38.020
Well, nobody wants those fossils.

05:44:38.960 --> 05:44:40.280
We don't use fossils.

05:44:40.400 --> 05:44:41.600
Nobody uses those fossils.

05:44:42.880 --> 05:44:44.560
I think it's rather comical.

05:44:44.900 --> 05:44:49.500
It's interesting, but it is true that you
can't use the fossils to do it.

05:44:49.540 --> 05:44:49.940
As E.J.

05:44:50.000 --> 05:44:50.220
H.

05:44:50.300 --> 05:44:54.840
Corner of Cambridge acknowledges,
much evidence can be adduced in favor of

05:44:54.840 --> 05:44:59.120
the theory of evolution from biology,
biogeography, paleontology, but I still

05:44:59.120 --> 05:45:03.480
think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil
record of the plants is in favor of

05:45:03.480 --> 05:45:04.220
special creation.

05:45:05.000 --> 05:45:06.400
And why would he say that?

05:45:06.880 --> 05:45:11.080
It's in favor of special creation because
he sees the sudden complex beginning,

05:45:11.240 --> 05:45:16.040
he sees distinct separate types from the
start, he doesn't see change from one

05:45:16.040 --> 05:45:18.940
group to another group, he sees stasis as
the rule.

05:45:20.900 --> 05:45:25.360
That's exactly what we predict,
and that's exactly what you find and if

05:45:25.360 --> 05:45:29.540
you're going to base your conclusions on
the facts, that's where you'll have to

05:45:29.540 --> 05:45:29.920
rest.

05:45:31.160 --> 05:45:38.820
The evidence, the only way you could
document evolution documents, I think,

05:45:38.860 --> 05:45:39.380
the opposite.

05:45:39.860 --> 05:45:44.060
When you look at the critical beginning,
the sudden complex diverse beginning

05:45:44.260 --> 05:45:50.300
showing all phyla and no new sense,
including the major divisions and classes

05:45:50.300 --> 05:45:52.900
and orders, distinct and separate.

05:45:52.900 --> 05:45:57.840
Yes, trees of life are in the textbook,
but they're from very selected

05:45:57.840 --> 05:46:03.760
similarities, ignoring others,
and those are not based on the arrangement

05:46:03.760 --> 05:46:07.800
found in the fossil record, they're not
from embryology, and they're not from

05:46:07.800 --> 05:46:08.320
genetics.

05:46:09.240 --> 05:46:13.420
When you look at similarities,
yes, you can see them, but they're in a

05:46:13.420 --> 05:46:16.060
mosaic pattern, they're not in a branching
pattern.

05:46:16.180 --> 05:46:20.060
Now that's the evidence of the fossils as
we've seen.

05:46:20.900 --> 05:46:26.600
Noting the creationist comments,
they delight the creationist, they

05:46:26.600 --> 05:46:30.760
embarrass the evolutionist, these are
their terms, and yes, it is embarrassing.

05:46:30.840 --> 05:46:34.780
It was embarrassing to Darwin,
it's more embarrassing now, it's

05:46:34.780 --> 05:46:38.220
delightful, as Dawkins says to the
creationist.

05:46:38.700 --> 05:46:44.840
And then he says that it was Darwin's
biggest problem, now then it's worse,

05:46:45.480 --> 05:46:50.160
according to Rapp, the links that we were
taught in graduate school have been

05:46:50.160 --> 05:46:51.680
debunked one after another.

05:46:52.480 --> 05:46:57.240
It's blind faith, as they describe it,
that says evolution.

05:46:57.440 --> 05:47:01.400
We believe it, we make up stories to
explain why there's a lack of evidence,

05:47:01.900 --> 05:47:07.160
and we have devout faith, but when you
just base your conclusions on the facts,

05:47:07.220 --> 05:47:09.900
you have to say the fossils favor
creation.

05:47:10.820 --> 05:47:18.040
It's a much better explanation of the
facts, and that's why I teach,

05:47:18.180 --> 05:47:23.120
I believe, and demonstrate when we go out
and dig up the fossils, and when we look

05:47:23.120 --> 05:47:28.060
at all that have been dug up, that the
fossil record is very strongly in favor of

05:47:28.060 --> 05:47:28.480
creation.

05:47:28.600 --> 05:47:32.340
Many times people say, well creationists
just object to evolution, they don't have

05:47:32.340 --> 05:47:33.260
any positive evidence.

05:47:34.060 --> 05:47:40.740
We have hundreds of thousands of fossils
in the museum today, which provide

05:47:40.740 --> 05:47:47.700
positive evidence for a sudden complex
beginning, and against a gradual slow

05:47:47.700 --> 05:47:49.320
development over millions of years.

05:47:50.500 --> 05:47:58.140
I love the fossil record, and I think it
is one of the most delightful things that

05:47:58.140 --> 05:48:00.820
I know about, and certainly in favor of
creation.

05:49:04.800 --> 05:49:10.060
If fossils are to show evolution,
then we have to be able to see a change

05:49:10.060 --> 05:49:12.320
from one type to another type.

05:49:13.040 --> 05:49:16.960
And as we looked at the fossil record in
general, we saw that was not the case

05:49:16.960 --> 05:49:18.940
according to the evolutionists themselves.

05:49:19.320 --> 05:49:25.280
There are distinct and separate types,
there are gaps, discontinuities between

05:49:25.280 --> 05:49:26.520
all of the major kinds.

05:49:27.840 --> 05:49:32.920
And we see that's very definitely the
truth as well when we get to the gap

05:49:32.920 --> 05:49:34.440
between apes and men.

05:49:34.560 --> 05:49:39.680
Though certainly there has been a great
deal of effort put to try to show a

05:49:39.680 --> 05:49:44.440
progression from one to the other here,
and that's what would have to be done.

05:49:44.580 --> 05:49:49.520
And we're often referred to the little
gradual progressions of the little man up

05:49:49.520 --> 05:49:53.440
to the big man in the charts in the
textbooks.

05:49:53.860 --> 05:49:58.240
We want to look at that evidence and see
if there is such a progression,

05:49:58.560 --> 05:50:04.060
but before we do, let's look at what I'll
refer to as the gap before the main gap,

05:50:04.500 --> 05:50:07.460
and that's the one leading up to the apes.

05:50:07.980 --> 05:50:13.520
Notice the statement by Donald Johanson,
the discoverer of Lucy, one of the more

05:50:13.520 --> 05:50:16.000
famous ape men so-called.

05:50:16.740 --> 05:50:21.640
He says, at any rate, modern gorillas and
orangs and chimpanzees spring out of

05:50:21.640 --> 05:50:22.840
nowhere, as it were.

05:50:23.420 --> 05:50:25.380
They're here today, they have no
yesterday.

05:50:27.060 --> 05:50:33.280
He says, this is not a situation where you
show something leading up to the apes,

05:50:33.940 --> 05:50:39.480
but instead you see the gap before you get
to it, and that's typical.

05:50:40.820 --> 05:50:45.760
Often we're told that when we talk about
this, that we misrepresent when we say

05:50:45.760 --> 05:50:50.560
that evolutionists believe that we came
from the apes, because evolutionists don't

05:50:50.560 --> 05:50:55.360
believe that, that they believe they came
from a common ancestor, not an ape.

05:50:56.080 --> 05:51:00.920
And here we see an example of that kind of
statement made by Bill Allen, who was

05:51:00.920 --> 05:51:08.120
editor of National Geographic just in
2004, when he says humans are not

05:51:08.120 --> 05:51:12.380
descended from apes, but then Charles
Darwin never claimed that we are.

05:51:12.580 --> 05:51:17.620
Now this, this is absolutely amazing to me
that somebody like Bill Allen would say

05:51:17.620 --> 05:51:20.100
Darwin never claimed that we came from
apes.

05:51:20.140 --> 05:51:26.120
It's just simply not so, and it is a
quibble that distorts the position.

05:51:26.800 --> 05:51:33.360
As Darwin says, a naturalist would
undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a

05:51:33.360 --> 05:51:36.420
monkey, however much the conclusion may
revolt our pride.

05:51:37.100 --> 05:51:41.520
Our early progenitors would have been
properly designated.

05:51:42.320 --> 05:51:46.920
So we came from apes, according to Charles
Darwin.

05:51:48.840 --> 05:51:50.500
It's a quibble to say that we don't.

05:51:50.600 --> 05:51:54.900
Now of course it wasn't a modern ape,
but he was definitely an ape, according to

05:51:54.900 --> 05:51:55.480
the evolutionists.

05:51:56.280 --> 05:52:02.240
Stephen, I'm sorry, Ernest Houghton,
Ernst Houghton of Harvard, wrote the book

05:52:02.240 --> 05:52:03.120
Up from the Ape.

05:52:03.200 --> 05:52:06.480
He was head of the Anthropology Department
at Harvard, and from that title,

05:52:07.300 --> 05:52:10.520
you get a pretty good idea of what he
thought on the subject.

05:52:10.780 --> 05:52:11.720
But notice his comments.

05:52:11.920 --> 05:52:16.900
If we are descended from apes,
our remote ancestors ought to look their

05:52:16.900 --> 05:52:17.220
part.

05:52:18.000 --> 05:52:22.080
You may not be willing to admit that you
resemble an ape, but as you trace back the

05:52:22.080 --> 05:52:26.120
genealogical lines, you will have to admit
that somewhere in your family tree,

05:52:26.340 --> 05:52:27.160
there squats an ape.

05:52:29.200 --> 05:52:31.560
Here's head of the Anthropology Department
at Harvard.

05:52:31.780 --> 05:52:36.200
I think he believes we came from apes,
and he's not unique.

05:52:36.980 --> 05:52:44.300
And editor of National Geographic,
notwithstanding, this is certainly what he

05:52:44.300 --> 05:52:44.740
has taught.

05:52:45.220 --> 05:52:50.920
But this individual who believes that an
ape squats in your family tree goes on to

05:52:50.920 --> 05:52:53.300
make a very interesting statement.

05:52:53.720 --> 05:52:59.400
He says, to attempt to restore the soft
parts, as in contrast to the hard parts,

05:52:59.480 --> 05:53:01.340
which he's been talking about,
difficult enough.

05:53:01.780 --> 05:53:05.500
To attempt to restore the soft parts is
even more hazardous undertaking.

05:53:05.740 --> 05:53:10.840
The lips, the eyes, the nasal tip leave no
clues on the underlying bony parts.

05:53:11.980 --> 05:53:16.640
Now, if you watch some of the TV programs,
they can just take a glance at the bones

05:53:16.640 --> 05:53:18.540
and they know exactly what the person
looked like.

05:53:19.060 --> 05:53:23.840
Well, you can learn a lot from the bones,
but you can't learn what the lips and the

05:53:23.840 --> 05:53:29.120
eyes and the ears and the nasal tip look
like from the bones, and that is what

05:53:29.120 --> 05:53:30.520
leaves the major impression.

05:53:30.840 --> 05:53:35.380
And certainly, when you are restoring
these so-called ape men, you can make them

05:53:35.380 --> 05:53:39.280
look very ape-ish if you change the lips,
the eyes, the ears, the nasal tip,

05:53:39.380 --> 05:53:43.300
and so forth, which is certainly what is
done, and we'll document that.

05:53:43.800 --> 05:53:49.060
He says, you can with equal facility model
on a Neanderthal skull the features of a

05:53:49.060 --> 05:53:51.280
chimpanzee or the alignments of a
philosopher.

05:53:52.420 --> 05:53:55.780
Now, most philosophers that I know,
some of them look a little strange,

05:53:55.860 --> 05:53:58.420
but I think you can tell the difference
between them and a chimpanzee.

05:53:58.460 --> 05:54:03.960
But you can model the same thing,
either of the two, from the same skull.

05:54:05.520 --> 05:54:10.480
A very important point is made by Roger
Lehman, who is editor of Research News

05:54:10.480 --> 05:54:15.180
Science Magazine, certainly a devout
evolutionist and a close friend and

05:54:15.180 --> 05:54:17.720
co-author with Richard Leakey.

05:54:19.760 --> 05:54:24.460
He says, and this is maybe the most
critical point that we'll make regarding

05:54:24.460 --> 05:54:31.460
fossil men, and he makes it for me,
the key issue is the ability to correctly

05:54:31.460 --> 05:54:38.200
infer a genetic relationship between two
species on the basis of a similarity in

05:54:38.200 --> 05:54:38.720
appearance.

05:54:39.460 --> 05:54:43.260
Now, we talked about similarities when we
talked about the fossil record,

05:54:43.540 --> 05:54:49.100
and the only way you can tell that the
fossil means anything is it's similar to

05:54:49.100 --> 05:54:50.460
this one, and you interpret that.

05:54:51.760 --> 05:54:54.480
But that is obviously misleading.

05:54:54.660 --> 05:55:02.300
He goes on to say it's deceptive and gives
a specific example because similarity

05:55:02.300 --> 05:55:05.920
structure, he says, does not imply an
identical genetic heritage.

05:55:06.100 --> 05:55:10.360
A shark, which is a fish, a porpoise,
which is a mammal, looks similar.

05:55:11.380 --> 05:55:16.880
But this is the ballgame when it comes to
paleoanthropology.

05:55:17.440 --> 05:55:21.420
You look at this bone, and you look at
that bone, and you say, well, it looks

05:55:21.420 --> 05:55:26.480
similar, or it doesn't look similar,
and that's the way you tell ancestors.

05:55:27.380 --> 05:55:32.100
But it's a deceptive basis, and even the
evolutionists acknowledge this.

05:55:33.140 --> 05:55:40.580
Roger Lewinton, the whiteness,
actually bending over backwards to be fair

05:55:40.580 --> 05:55:40.840
here.

05:55:40.960 --> 05:55:44.460
He'd been caught in a rather intemperate
statement being interviewed by Harper's,

05:55:44.520 --> 05:55:47.860
and he's backtracking a little,
and I want to be fair to him.

05:55:49.080 --> 05:55:53.980
But he acknowledges we don't know anything
about the ancestors of the human species.

05:55:54.200 --> 05:55:57.580
Now, to be fair, we emphasize the word
know.

05:55:57.920 --> 05:56:03.460
Now, he believes devoutly that we came
from the apes, and he thinks he knows how.

05:56:03.560 --> 05:56:07.860
But in terms of knowing, absolute knowing,
we don't.

05:56:08.360 --> 05:56:12.640
All the fossils which have been dug up and
are claimed to be ancestors, we haven't

05:56:12.640 --> 05:56:14.440
the faintest idea whether they're
ancestors.

05:56:14.720 --> 05:56:22.240
Now, I'm embarrassed to use that
statement, because I know he wouldn't make

05:56:22.240 --> 05:56:27.240
that under normal circumstances,
because he certainly has a faint idea.

05:56:27.320 --> 05:56:28.320
He has more than that.

05:56:28.460 --> 05:56:32.060
He has a deep conviction, and I don't want
to misrepresent that.

05:56:32.600 --> 05:56:36.440
But in terms of knowledge, in terms of
absolutely knowing, no.

05:56:37.200 --> 05:56:41.140
You can't know that this bone is kin to
that bone.

05:56:41.260 --> 05:56:42.840
You dig up the bones, he says.

05:56:43.380 --> 05:56:45.900
It's up to you to draw the lines.

05:56:47.320 --> 05:56:50.460
And he says, there are no lines when you
dig the bones up.

05:56:50.560 --> 05:56:55.320
You draw them, and of course, that's based
on similarity, which is deceptive.

05:56:56.080 --> 05:57:00.600
But if you understand that he's talking
about absolute knowledge, he's saying,

05:57:00.760 --> 05:57:01.540
no, we don't know.

05:57:02.360 --> 05:57:07.240
But we see lineups like this in the
textbooks, and that, in the minds of a lot

05:57:07.240 --> 05:57:08.140
of people, is proof.

05:57:08.240 --> 05:57:09.740
See, there's scientific evidence.

05:57:09.900 --> 05:57:10.820
It's been demonstrated.

05:57:11.600 --> 05:57:18.060
Here's the homo erectus that leads to the
Neanderthal and to modern men.

05:57:18.640 --> 05:57:22.300
Well, this is the typical lineup,
as it's represented in most textbooks.

05:57:22.480 --> 05:57:28.860
It's not really typical, as you study
paleoanthropology, but we'll summarize it

05:57:28.860 --> 05:57:34.400
and use it as an outline for our session
in this brief consideration of

05:57:34.400 --> 05:57:35.240
paleoanthropology.

05:57:35.800 --> 05:57:39.300
It actually looks about like this when you
see it in the textbooks.

05:57:39.840 --> 05:57:45.220
The star of the show, and where we'll
spend most of our time in this first

05:57:45.220 --> 05:57:50.640
session, is with Australopithecus,
South African ape man, that led to homo

05:57:50.640 --> 05:57:54.100
erectus, that led to Neanderthal,
and finally up to moderns.

05:57:56.420 --> 05:58:02.440
Australopithecus is featured as the major
proof in the minds of a lot of people.

05:58:02.540 --> 05:58:08.620
When I talk to people about why they
believe in evolution, many times they'll

05:58:08.620 --> 05:58:13.000
refer to the ape man, and here are the
pictures that they see in the books,

05:58:13.080 --> 05:58:16.680
and here's the work that the Leakeys did
over in South Africa.

05:58:17.620 --> 05:58:20.240
And this provides proof.

05:58:20.360 --> 05:58:22.400
Well, let's see what the evidence is.

05:58:23.000 --> 05:58:27.620
This is a representation by time-life of
this ape man, Australopithecus,

05:58:27.680 --> 05:58:34.200
and actually was made famous by Louis
Leakey a number of years ago with his

05:58:34.200 --> 05:58:39.540
movie Dr. Leakey and the Dawn of Man,
and this was shown in thousands of

05:58:39.540 --> 05:58:43.680
classrooms across the country,
and he's shown going step by step down the

05:58:43.680 --> 05:58:49.360
Avoir Gorge over in Africa, where he found
this South African ape man.

05:58:49.420 --> 05:58:55.780
The, I think, was an ape, but actually his
wife was the one who found it.

05:58:55.880 --> 05:59:01.400
I've wondered why some of the women's lib
movements haven't really capitalized on

05:59:01.400 --> 05:59:01.660
this.

05:59:02.020 --> 05:59:03.480
She's the one that made the discovery.

05:59:03.600 --> 05:59:04.620
He got the credit for it.

05:59:05.120 --> 05:59:07.780
But notice the statement by Roger Lewin.

05:59:08.680 --> 05:59:10.420
Again, editor of Research News.

05:59:10.580 --> 05:59:11.900
He knows these people well.

05:59:12.040 --> 05:59:12.740
They're good friends.

05:59:12.840 --> 05:59:16.080
They've written books together,
and he can represent them accurately.

05:59:16.960 --> 05:59:20.880
He says, Richard and his parents,
Louis and Mary, have held to a view of

05:59:20.880 --> 05:59:27.180
human origins for nearly half a century
now, that the line of true man has a

05:59:27.180 --> 05:59:30.520
separate ancestry that goes back millions
and millions of years.

05:59:31.260 --> 05:59:34.760
He doesn't believe one led from the other.

05:59:35.040 --> 05:59:39.660
They are separate as far back as he's been
able to see, and he sees no connection as

05:59:39.660 --> 05:59:41.480
far back as he's been able to look.

05:59:42.080 --> 05:59:48.060
He says, Australopithecus, the ape man
Australopithecus, has nothing to do with

05:59:48.060 --> 05:59:48.860
human ancestry.

05:59:50.040 --> 05:59:54.020
And of course you've seen this in National
Geographic or in your Earth Science

05:59:54.020 --> 05:59:54.700
textbook.

05:59:56.500 --> 05:59:57.940
Don't hold your breath.

05:59:58.660 --> 06:00:04.220
But here is one who knows these people
well, and he says, they didn't believe

06:00:04.220 --> 06:00:06.340
that Australopithecus led to man.

06:00:06.520 --> 06:00:10.360
They were separate as far back as they see
them in the fossil record, and they had

06:00:10.360 --> 06:00:12.440
nothing to do with the human ancestry.

06:00:14.840 --> 06:00:20.860
Louis Leakey, for example, is touted as
the hero of the evolutionist in the movie

06:00:20.860 --> 06:00:29.280
Gorillas of the Mist, and he is one who's
the leader, the icon of evolution.

06:00:30.460 --> 06:00:37.080
They'll not tell you that he actually gave
up on Darwinism, and is quoted in this

06:00:37.080 --> 06:00:41.060
manner in the Chicago American actually
months before he passed away.

06:00:41.900 --> 06:00:45.840
Dr. Leakey, and this was after he had
lectured there the night before,

06:00:45.980 --> 06:00:51.760
Dr. Leakey bases his repudiation of Darwin
on the results of his long search in East

06:00:51.760 --> 06:00:53.820
Africa for the remains of the original
man.

06:00:54.920 --> 06:01:01.820
He's often touted as proof of evolution,
but never is it acknowledged in any of the

06:01:01.820 --> 06:01:05.640
textbooks that he actually reached a
different conclusion based on the

06:01:05.640 --> 06:01:10.420
evidence, and decided Darwinism was not a
good explanation for what he saw.

06:01:11.640 --> 06:01:15.400
When we look at Australopithecus,
we can see why.

06:01:16.520 --> 06:01:19.300
Charles Oxnard is one of the leading
authorities in the world.

06:01:19.480 --> 06:01:24.640
He is Dean, or was at the time this was
written, of the Graduate School and

06:01:24.640 --> 06:01:29.360
Professor of Biology and Anatomy at
University of Southern California.

06:01:31.000 --> 06:01:36.080
Writing an American biology teacher as an
acknowledged leader in the field,

06:01:36.940 --> 06:01:41.160
one of the leading experts, he says,
referring to Australopithecus,

06:01:41.260 --> 06:01:46.160
it's reminiscent of the orangutan,
and not that much like humans.

06:01:47.060 --> 06:01:51.080
Now, I'll assure you, you'll never find a
statement like that in your textbooks.

06:01:51.560 --> 06:01:53.060
It looks like an orangutan.

06:01:53.340 --> 06:01:55.320
It doesn't look that much like a human.

06:01:56.080 --> 06:02:00.720
May well have been bipeds, that is,
walked on two legs, but if so was not in

06:02:00.720 --> 06:02:04.820
the human manner, he didn't walk on two
legs as we did.

06:02:05.820 --> 06:02:11.920
They may have been quite capable climbers
as much at home in the trees as on the

06:02:11.920 --> 06:02:12.320
ground.

06:02:13.140 --> 06:02:19.360
And so this was an ape, much more like an
ape than like a human.

06:02:19.660 --> 06:02:23.600
Maybe two legs, but a knuckle walker at
home in the trees.

06:02:24.880 --> 06:02:28.420
Again, not the picture that you see
represented in the textbooks.

06:02:29.600 --> 06:02:34.880
Lord Sully Zuckerman is perhaps the
leading expert in England, and certainly

06:02:34.880 --> 06:02:36.240
has been for a number of years.

06:02:36.960 --> 06:02:44.180
He's quoted by Lewin in his book Bones of
Contention, referring to Zuckerman

06:02:44.180 --> 06:02:50.100
dismissal of the australopithecines as
having anything at all to do with human

06:02:50.100 --> 06:02:50.520
evolution.

06:02:50.880 --> 06:02:54.920
They're just bloody apes, he's reputed to
have observed examining australopithecine

06:02:54.920 --> 06:02:56.680
remains in South Africa.

06:02:57.600 --> 06:03:00.320
They are just apes.

06:03:00.620 --> 06:03:05.420
He dismissed them as having anything to
do, and is perhaps the leading authority

06:03:05.420 --> 06:03:08.860
in Europe in paleoanthropology.

06:03:09.880 --> 06:03:17.060
He says in his book, Beyond the Ivory
Tower, australopithecine skull is in fact

06:03:17.060 --> 06:03:20.460
so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to
human.

06:03:20.940 --> 06:03:23.460
And then he refers to figure 5,
which we'll look at in a moment.

06:03:24.880 --> 06:03:28.680
Overwhelmingly ape-like, simian,
as opposed to human, that the contrary

06:03:28.680 --> 06:03:32.480
proposition could be equated to an
assertion that black is white.

06:03:33.720 --> 06:03:38.580
I seldom get scientists to make that
flat-footed a statement, but it's very

06:03:38.580 --> 06:03:42.340
obvious he is persuaded that these are
apes.

06:03:42.460 --> 06:03:47.640
They are not humans, and it's just like
calling white, black, black, white to say

06:03:47.640 --> 06:03:48.200
the opposite.

06:03:48.880 --> 06:03:50.980
And then he shows why in figure 5.

06:03:51.520 --> 06:03:56.600
He's looking here at illustrations of the
chimpanzee skull on the left and the

06:03:56.600 --> 06:03:58.360
australopithecine skull on the right.

06:03:58.980 --> 06:04:04.020
And as you look at these pictures,
you see, wow, they sure do look like each

06:04:04.020 --> 06:04:04.680
other, don't they?

06:04:05.160 --> 06:04:07.300
The top view, yeah, that looks pretty
close.

06:04:07.380 --> 06:04:10.300
Much closer to each other than to humans.

06:04:11.020 --> 06:04:14.920
And then you look at the bottom and you
say, well, yeah, that's closer to each

06:04:14.920 --> 06:04:19.880
other, the chimpanzee to the
australopithecine, than they are to

06:04:19.880 --> 06:04:20.260
humans.

06:04:21.280 --> 06:04:26.780
Now, we're told, well, yes, that's true,
except you do see a difference.

06:04:27.460 --> 06:04:31.220
And in the bottom picture you can see that
the teeth are different.

06:04:31.220 --> 06:04:36.860
You see the large canine tooth with the
chimpanzee, the diastema, the gap that it

06:04:36.860 --> 06:04:41.080
fits into, which is not the case with the
australopithecine.

06:04:41.180 --> 06:04:44.740
It's more like the human U-shaped dental
archaic.

06:04:44.980 --> 06:04:47.060
So that makes the man.

06:04:47.340 --> 06:04:48.760
The fact that his teeth are different.

06:04:48.860 --> 06:04:55.660
What they do leave out is that the Galata
baboon, which is 100% ape, has teeth just

06:04:55.660 --> 06:04:56.260
like this.

06:04:56.960 --> 06:05:00.000
And so it's not unique to humans.

06:05:00.740 --> 06:05:03.200
Some apes have teeth like this.

06:05:03.460 --> 06:05:05.880
Australopithecus did, so did the Galata
baboon.

06:05:07.300 --> 06:05:15.220
Perhaps the most famous example of the
australopithecine type, the Afarensis,

06:05:15.860 --> 06:05:18.760
was found by Donald Johanson, called Lucy.

06:05:19.460 --> 06:05:24.200
And a lot of notoriety and always in the
textbooks.

06:05:24.760 --> 06:05:30.400
In fact, big news recently in Houston,
where it's going to be on display for a

06:05:30.400 --> 06:05:30.620
while.

06:05:31.640 --> 06:05:34.240
And I've had people say, well,
look at Lucy.

06:05:34.320 --> 06:05:35.720
This is proof of evolution.

06:05:38.260 --> 06:05:43.180
This is really frustrating, because the
information has been distorted.

06:05:44.300 --> 06:05:48.240
And the most obvious interpretation is
this was an ape.

06:05:49.600 --> 06:05:55.860
I'd like to introduce and show a brief
clip of Dr. David Menton.

06:05:56.380 --> 06:05:57.900
He's a professor of anatomy.

06:05:58.640 --> 06:06:02.780
He's taught in St. Louis at the American
University there for 20 years.

06:06:03.600 --> 06:06:05.340
And he's commenting on it.

06:06:05.460 --> 06:06:10.020
Now, most of the... all of the people that
I quote, unless we tell you otherwise,

06:06:10.160 --> 06:06:11.140
are devout evolutionists.

06:06:11.260 --> 06:06:15.640
Dr. Menton is a creationist, but a highly
qualified creationist.

06:06:15.800 --> 06:06:18.000
And he's describing what actually
happened.

06:06:18.060 --> 06:06:24.000
And actually, he'll introduce Dr. Lovejoy,
who acknowledges what has happened.

06:06:24.660 --> 06:06:25.420
So, you get the picture?

06:06:26.380 --> 06:06:31.100
The creatures like Lucy have the ape
orientation of the iliac blades.

06:06:31.380 --> 06:06:33.440
Now, what are the evolutionists going to
do about that?

06:06:34.700 --> 06:06:36.240
You're not going to believe this.

06:06:38.620 --> 06:06:39.140
NOVA?

06:06:39.360 --> 06:06:40.220
Have you heard NOVA?

06:06:41.420 --> 06:06:47.040
There was a PBS NOVA series in which Dr.
Owen Lovejoy, a very distinguished,

06:06:47.240 --> 06:06:49.400
famous paleoanthropologist, was involved.

06:06:50.320 --> 06:06:55.380
And he's looking at Lucy's skeleton here,
and he's lamenting the fact that the hips

06:06:55.380 --> 06:06:56.240
are all wrong.

06:06:57.460 --> 06:07:01.280
They're supposed to be human-like hips,
so you can walk the way the Laetoli

06:07:01.280 --> 06:07:07.080
footprints showed she walked, but they
don't look like human hips, they look like

06:07:07.080 --> 06:07:07.500
ape hips.

06:07:07.600 --> 06:07:08.640
What to do about this?

06:07:08.760 --> 06:07:09.200
Watch it.

06:07:09.320 --> 06:07:10.820
You'll get a big kick out of this.

06:07:12.960 --> 06:07:14.360
The ape that stood up?

06:07:14.540 --> 06:07:16.620
It was a revolutionary idea.

06:07:22.440 --> 06:07:27.340
We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again,
because the evidence wasn't quite adding

06:07:27.340 --> 06:07:27.620
up.

06:07:28.040 --> 06:07:30.800
The knee looked human, but the shape of
her hip didn't.

06:07:34.240 --> 06:07:38.260
Superficially, her hip resembled a
chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy

06:07:38.260 --> 06:07:40.580
couldn't possibly have walked like a
modern human.

06:07:42.600 --> 06:07:46.760
But Lovejoy noticed something odd about
the way the bones have been fossilized.

06:07:48.080 --> 06:07:52.580
When I put the two parts of the pelvis
together that we had, this part of the

06:07:52.580 --> 06:07:57.780
pelvis has pressed so hard and so
completely into this one, that it caused

06:07:57.780 --> 06:08:01.980
it to be broken into a series of
individual pieces, which were then fused

06:08:01.980 --> 06:08:03.600
together in later fossils.

06:08:04.340 --> 06:08:08.840
So you see, they were broken and they
don't fit together properly.

06:08:09.400 --> 06:08:14.680
They did speculate in the program as to
exactly who was responsible for breaking

06:08:14.680 --> 06:08:20.440
the hip, and current scientific evidence
suggests perhaps a deer stepped on it.

06:08:21.240 --> 06:08:24.560
Here you can see a deer foot stepping on
the bone.

06:08:24.680 --> 06:08:25.480
Isn't that a bummer?

06:08:26.180 --> 06:08:28.360
Let's see where it goes from here.

06:08:30.220 --> 06:08:34.560
This has caused the two bones,
in fact, to fit together so well that

06:08:34.560 --> 06:08:36.920
they're in an anatomically impossible
position.

06:08:38.020 --> 06:08:43.380
The perfect fit was an illusion that made
Lucy's hip bones seem to flare out like a

06:08:43.380 --> 06:08:43.880
chimp's.

06:08:44.700 --> 06:08:46.260
But all was not lost.

06:08:48.160 --> 06:08:49.940
This is a power saw, friends.

06:08:51.460 --> 06:08:53.420
You may want to put your goggles on.

06:08:54.340 --> 06:08:57.960
Lovejoy decided he could restore the
pelvis to its natural shape.

06:09:02.040 --> 06:09:05.720
He didn't want to tamper with the
original, so he made a copy in plaster.

06:09:05.960 --> 06:09:08.320
Notice he's removing whole parts,
not just cutting.

06:09:08.540 --> 06:09:13.080
He cut the damaged pieces out and put them
back together the way they were before

06:09:13.080 --> 06:09:13.780
Lucy died.

06:09:16.440 --> 06:09:21.480
It was a tricky job, but after taking the
kink out of the pelvis, it all fit

06:09:21.480 --> 06:09:24.600
together perfectly, like a
three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle.

06:09:24.600 --> 06:09:25.340
Look how perfect.

06:09:26.260 --> 06:09:28.200
You can read a newspaper through the hole.

06:09:28.360 --> 06:09:32.540
As a result, the angle of the hip looks
nothing like a chimp's, but a lot like

06:09:32.540 --> 06:09:32.900
ours.

06:09:36.120 --> 06:09:39.200
You know, this is what we call science.

06:09:39.300 --> 06:09:43.640
You can teach this in the public schools,
but you can't criticize it, because if you

06:09:43.640 --> 06:09:45.060
do, that would be religious.

06:09:45.780 --> 06:09:52.100
Unfortunately for the evolutionists,
dozens of other examples of the afarensis

06:09:52.100 --> 06:09:53.520
form have been found.

06:09:54.180 --> 06:09:58.440
Lucy is not the only example, and they
wouldn't try to change all of the hips.

06:09:59.600 --> 06:10:05.260
Arlene Ziltman of the University of
California is commenting on, more

06:10:05.520 --> 06:10:09.040
recently, on what we have learned about
the whole picture.

06:10:09.840 --> 06:10:15.320
She says they're like, and this is quoted
in Science News, Ziltman compares the

06:10:15.320 --> 06:10:20.400
pygmy chimpanzee to Lucy, one of the
oldest known hominid fossils, and finds

06:10:20.400 --> 06:10:22.040
the similarities striking.

06:10:23.300 --> 06:10:28.340
She says they're almost identical in body
size, in stature, in brain size.

06:10:28.560 --> 06:10:35.400
Ziltman argues they indicate that the
chimps use their limbs in much the same

06:10:35.400 --> 06:10:36.240
way Lucy did.

06:10:37.340 --> 06:10:42.780
And when, in other words, she was a
knuckle walker, like the other apes,

06:10:42.960 --> 06:10:44.920
and they're just virtually identical.

06:10:45.180 --> 06:10:46.400
She was an ape.

06:10:46.520 --> 06:10:47.140
She was a chimp.

06:10:47.260 --> 06:10:51.720
And this is what the leading authorities
have acknowledged, in spite of Lovejoy and

06:10:51.720 --> 06:10:53.580
Johansson's shenanigans.

06:10:54.760 --> 06:10:59.940
The main effort has been to cause them to
be human because they stand upright.

06:11:00.240 --> 06:11:01.440
Here's the argument.

06:11:01.560 --> 06:11:03.900
If they stand upright, then obviously
they're human.

06:11:04.040 --> 06:11:07.300
Well, I know lizards that walk upright.

06:11:07.540 --> 06:11:08.940
What does this prove?

06:11:09.040 --> 06:11:11.140
The fact that an ape decides to walk
upright?

06:11:11.400 --> 06:11:19.400
Well, actually, we have an example of that
happening that's referred to here from CBC

06:11:19.400 --> 06:11:20.840
Health and Science News.

06:11:21.400 --> 06:11:26.460
Just a few years ago, there were some
apes, macaw monkeys, that got sick and

06:11:26.460 --> 06:11:27.340
almost died.

06:11:27.500 --> 06:11:32.820
And one of them, after it almost died,
recovered and walked just, they called it,

06:11:32.960 --> 06:11:35.060
ramrod straight from that point forward.

06:11:35.880 --> 06:11:41.200
The zoo workers say she started,
when she got sick, walking upright

06:11:41.200 --> 06:11:42.380
exclusively.

06:11:43.640 --> 06:11:47.660
A zoo veterinarian says he's not sure why
she's altered her behavior.

06:11:47.820 --> 06:11:51.380
But here is a change from walking like an
ape to walking upright.

06:11:51.640 --> 06:11:52.740
Why did she do that?

06:11:53.400 --> 06:11:58.440
Well, the zoo worker went on to speculate
that the illness could have caused brain

06:11:58.440 --> 06:11:58.860
damage.

06:12:00.220 --> 06:12:02.940
And so maybe that's why we walk upright.

06:12:04.120 --> 06:12:06.320
This is maybe why the ape did.

06:12:08.040 --> 06:12:12.680
It's strictly an interpretation,
again based on similarities, many

06:12:12.680 --> 06:12:13.920
similarities imagined.

06:12:15.120 --> 06:12:19.660
Notice the distorted kind of
interpretation to which we're subjected.

06:12:20.400 --> 06:12:24.640
That was in National Geographic,
the latter part of 2006.

06:12:25.440 --> 06:12:29.780
The human ancestor, here is the front
page, and of course this is an orangutan,

06:12:30.520 --> 06:12:32.440
blurred the lines between ape and human.

06:12:33.540 --> 06:12:39.040
Here's a new find and here is the real
solution to all of the problems.

06:12:39.220 --> 06:12:42.220
For example, her femur from knee to hip is
close to that of a modern human,

06:12:42.460 --> 06:12:44.860
implying she walked efficiently on two
legs.

06:12:47.200 --> 06:12:49.540
I'm sorry, that's just not true.

06:12:49.760 --> 06:12:52.860
But that's what's touted in National
Geographic.

06:12:53.560 --> 06:12:59.020
We go to a much more respected scientific
journal, Nature, to get the actual

06:12:59.020 --> 06:12:59.420
evidence.

06:12:59.540 --> 06:13:05.280
In fact, numbers of science journals have
reported and bewailed what had been

06:13:05.280 --> 06:13:07.060
presented there by National Geographic.

06:13:08.440 --> 06:13:12.640
Here's the description in Nature by the
authors who found it and who described it.

06:13:12.760 --> 06:13:16.980
Incisors are larger, their overall
morphology is similar to that of juvenile

06:13:16.980 --> 06:13:17.540
apes.

06:13:18.380 --> 06:13:22.720
The gorilla-like scapula and long,
curved manual phalanges, that's the

06:13:22.720 --> 06:13:27.180
fingers, the scapula is the collarbone,
raise new questions.

06:13:27.380 --> 06:13:30.880
And the collarbone is especially
significant because it bears the weight

06:13:30.880 --> 06:13:31.820
for knuckle walkers.

06:13:32.560 --> 06:13:38.580
The shape of the scapula resembles the
scapula of juvenile and adult gorillas.

06:13:39.400 --> 06:13:44.380
Now that the scapula of the species can be
examined in full for the first time,

06:13:45.240 --> 06:13:49.460
it's unexpected to find the strongest
similarities with the gorilla.

06:13:50.520 --> 06:13:55.700
The similarities are not with humans,
they're with the gorillas, especially the

06:13:55.700 --> 06:13:58.560
areas that are diagnostic of the way they
walked.

06:13:59.580 --> 06:14:05.480
Weight-bearing and terrestrial knuckle
walking is what's implied by the strong

06:14:05.480 --> 06:14:06.920
similarities that are found.

06:14:07.600 --> 06:14:09.760
And then it goes on to make an amazing
statement.

06:14:10.720 --> 06:14:14.840
These osteolipid specimens can be
accommodated within the range of

06:14:14.840 --> 06:14:17.940
intraspecific variation of African apes.

06:14:18.560 --> 06:14:24.880
Yes, the apes vary, you see different
types, but what we see here is within the

06:14:24.880 --> 06:14:27.460
range of the variation of apes.

06:14:27.620 --> 06:14:31.040
Now that's not the way it was presented in
National Geographic.

06:14:31.680 --> 06:14:35.320
You need to be aware that evidence is
often severely manipulated.

06:14:35.480 --> 06:14:41.360
There are similarities, but the
representation of the similarity is often

06:14:41.360 --> 06:14:43.700
just distorted.

06:14:44.860 --> 06:14:50.960
We are told that a good example of these
osteolipithecine footprints were found by

06:14:50.960 --> 06:14:52.400
Mary Leakey in Africa.

06:14:52.620 --> 06:14:57.840
They were from the same quote time period
as they assessed the time, and there were

06:14:57.840 --> 06:15:01.080
beautiful footprints, but they were human
footprints.

06:15:01.360 --> 06:15:02.520
They were very human.

06:15:02.620 --> 06:15:07.500
The ape, of course, has a hand for a foot,
and here are human footprints.

06:15:07.740 --> 06:15:13.220
Now if Lucy made these, this is pretty
good evidence that she walked upright in

06:15:13.220 --> 06:15:15.500
spite of the anatomy that we have now
found.

06:15:16.520 --> 06:15:20.180
Notice the description of Mary Leakey
herself who found them.

06:15:20.880 --> 06:15:27.100
They belong to the genus Homo,
or true man, rather than to man-apes like

06:15:27.100 --> 06:15:30.040
osteolipithecus, who was once thought to
be a forerunner of man.

06:15:30.100 --> 06:15:31.580
Now this is Mary Leakey's statement.

06:15:31.800 --> 06:15:34.140
They once thought that, but she doesn't.

06:15:34.800 --> 06:15:35.880
It refers to the dates.

06:15:36.280 --> 06:15:40.040
I disagree, but let's play the game their
way and see how it comes out.

06:15:40.460 --> 06:15:42.400
We'll talk about dates in another session.

06:15:43.600 --> 06:15:48.080
Here is a time period right in the middle
of the osteolipithecines.

06:15:48.200 --> 06:15:50.640
In fact, this is ancient.

06:15:51.000 --> 06:15:54.540
This is at the beginning of the
osteolipithecine time period.

06:15:55.040 --> 06:15:59.400
But they would be, in Mary Leakey's words,
people not unlike ourselves.

06:16:00.640 --> 06:16:02.820
And I believe they were made by people.

06:16:03.600 --> 06:16:05.900
There's no evidence that were made by
anything else.

06:16:06.400 --> 06:16:11.200
But what's really ripped it for the idea
that Lucy made them is that unlike with

06:16:11.200 --> 06:16:16.220
the early specimens, which had no feet,
now we've found a number of specimens that

06:16:16.220 --> 06:16:19.400
had good feet, and they were ape feet.

06:16:20.120 --> 06:16:25.980
Referring to osteolipithecine aparensis,
that's Lucy's type, the recent

06:16:25.980 --> 06:16:31.100
descriptions of four articulating foot
bones from the three to 3.5 million year

06:16:31.100 --> 06:16:35.160
old deposits in South African cave site
stir font and support this.

06:16:35.820 --> 06:16:40.480
The divergent big toe, and that's what
distinguishes the ape foot from our foot,

06:16:41.200 --> 06:16:43.740
indicates some degree of prehensile
grasping.

06:16:43.880 --> 06:16:47.700
They grasp, they wrap around a limb as in
apes.

06:16:48.280 --> 06:16:52.560
And we see here the human foot form and
the ape foot form.

06:16:52.740 --> 06:16:59.440
And Lucy had a foot, clearly indicated
from the portion that was found in the

06:16:59.440 --> 06:17:01.780
more recent skeletons, like an ape.

06:17:02.300 --> 06:17:04.240
Lucy didn't make these footprints.

06:17:05.440 --> 06:17:12.280
Humans made these footprints at the same
time we're told that osteolipithecus was

06:17:12.280 --> 06:17:12.540
around.

06:17:12.680 --> 06:17:16.660
And so like the Leakey say, you've got
evidence of man and apes,

06:17:17.500 --> 06:17:22.440
osteolipithecines, as far back as you go,
together, not one leading to the other.

06:17:23.720 --> 06:17:27.620
William Howells, who at the time this
statement was made, was head of the

06:17:27.620 --> 06:17:30.820
Department of Anthropology at Harvard
University.

06:17:31.640 --> 06:17:35.880
And he refers to the work of Russell
Tuttle, who he says is the leading expert

06:17:35.880 --> 06:17:39.460
in the world on gates and limbs and fossil
footprints.

06:17:40.180 --> 06:17:46.040
He finds that all aspects of the
footprints, especially, are remarkably

06:17:46.040 --> 06:17:49.780
like modern feet, modern human feet.

06:17:50.080 --> 06:17:55.020
And that the afar prints, that's Lucy's
feet, are significantly different than

06:17:55.020 --> 06:17:55.400
humans.

06:17:56.300 --> 06:17:59.100
And so you do have human footprints back
there.

06:17:59.960 --> 06:18:02.100
That's not helping the evolutionist.

06:18:02.420 --> 06:18:07.100
These critters are supposed to have led to
man, but you've got human footprints back

06:18:07.100 --> 06:18:07.760
there with them.

06:18:08.560 --> 06:18:12.040
And then their feet were significantly
different.

06:18:12.660 --> 06:18:18.020
Howells goes on to say, the pelvis was by
no means modern, in spite of Lovejoy's

06:18:18.020 --> 06:18:22.380
jerry rigging with the power saw,
nor were the feet.

06:18:24.020 --> 06:18:29.680
He says the toes were more curved than
ours, for wrapping around limbs.

06:18:30.100 --> 06:18:33.460
The heel bones lacked our stabilizing
tubercles.

06:18:34.580 --> 06:18:39.280
A couple of small ligaments that in us
tighten the arch from underneath were

06:18:39.280 --> 06:18:40.360
apparently not present.

06:18:40.440 --> 06:18:44.460
In other words, if you're going to walk
like we do, you need an arch that can

06:18:44.460 --> 06:18:45.240
contract.

06:18:46.100 --> 06:18:53.820
And the finger bones were curved,
again, just like you see in the apes,

06:18:54.400 --> 06:18:57.940
as they are in tree climbing apes.

06:18:58.820 --> 06:19:01.200
Now, what is he describing here?

06:19:01.660 --> 06:19:06.000
You don't have to be an expert to
understand that he's talking about apes,

06:19:06.520 --> 06:19:09.040
but the experts do acknowledge this.

06:19:09.180 --> 06:19:14.960
And we're looking here at the three
probably most authoritative experts in the

06:19:14.960 --> 06:19:15.260
field.

06:19:15.260 --> 06:19:20.440
David Pilbeam of Yale, Glenn Isaac of
Harvard, Matt Cartmill of Duke.

06:19:20.500 --> 06:19:22.820
And we'll say more about their credentials
in a moment.

06:19:23.460 --> 06:19:27.260
But they say the status of Lucy has
significantly shriveled.

06:19:28.320 --> 06:19:32.400
The australopithecines, and this was not
recent, this was 86.

06:19:33.000 --> 06:19:35.820
This ought to be in the textbooks,
but it isn't.

06:19:36.900 --> 06:19:40.520
Australopithecines are rapidly shrinking
back to the status of peculiarly

06:19:41.700 --> 06:19:42.820
specialized apes.

06:19:43.420 --> 06:19:44.660
Why would they say that?

06:19:44.760 --> 06:19:48.260
Well, of course, that's what you see when
you look at the bones.

06:19:48.880 --> 06:19:50.280
They look like ape bones.

06:19:50.940 --> 06:19:56.340
And more recently, if you want a recent
quote, here from 2007, April 10,

06:19:56.520 --> 06:20:00.440
in the Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, edited by David Pilbeam.

06:20:01.060 --> 06:20:05.540
Morphology on a recently discovered
specimen of Australopithecus afarensis,

06:20:05.720 --> 06:20:14.780
that's Lucy's category, closely matches
that of gorillas and casts doubt on the

06:20:14.780 --> 06:20:18.560
role of Australopithecus afarensis as a
modern human ancestor.

06:20:19.500 --> 06:20:25.220
Now the authorities know better,
and the authorities have said better in

06:20:25.220 --> 06:20:27.000
the leading journals.

06:20:28.060 --> 06:20:32.560
We need to change the textbooks,
but they don't really have anything to put

06:20:32.560 --> 06:20:36.120
in its place, and so they haven't,
and it's not likely to happen.

06:20:37.140 --> 06:20:43.320
Summarizing, then, with Australopithecus,
we find that the shoulder bones,

06:20:43.540 --> 06:20:47.680
the collar bone that bears the weight of
knuckle walkers, was like an ape,

06:20:48.140 --> 06:20:52.240
and so walked like an ape, and had a brain
certainly the size of an ape, and teeth

06:20:52.240 --> 06:20:53.940
like the Galata baboon, an ape.

06:20:54.520 --> 06:20:59.060
Arms like an ape, that would reach down
and allow them, as one author said,

06:20:59.120 --> 06:21:01.340
to scratch their ankles when they stood
upright.

06:21:02.680 --> 06:21:07.340
Hands like an ape, and legs like an ape,
and feet like an ape, and toes like an

06:21:07.340 --> 06:21:08.860
ape, according to the leading authorities.

06:21:08.860 --> 06:21:10.740
What do you think this was?

06:21:12.620 --> 06:21:13.640
Must have been a duck.

06:21:14.820 --> 06:21:20.980
No, I think when we look at this first
example that is on the bottom rung of the

06:21:20.980 --> 06:21:23.840
ladder that's supposed to lead to man,
we have apes.

06:21:24.520 --> 06:21:28.260
Now, the next one is Homo erectus,
that we will consider in the next session.

06:21:28.960 --> 06:21:33.020
But the first one that gets most of the
attention today, lends no support to

06:21:33.020 --> 06:21:33.440
evolution.

06:21:34.100 --> 06:21:37.120
You look in the zoo today, you see a
variety of apes.

06:21:37.200 --> 06:21:40.600
There were more in the past, this was one
of them, that has become extinct,

06:21:40.820 --> 06:21:42.400
but it was definitely an ape.

06:22:45.000 --> 06:22:50.060
In our first session on fossil man,
we looked at the evidence regarding

06:22:50.060 --> 06:22:51.100
Australopithecus.

06:22:51.680 --> 06:22:57.140
This is the first in the rung of the
ladder that leads up to modern men,

06:22:57.280 --> 06:23:02.000
on this ladder of graduated fossil men,
that's supposed to be a demonstration of

06:23:02.000 --> 06:23:02.380
evolution.

06:23:03.120 --> 06:23:08.820
But as we look at this first rung of the
ladder, including Lucy, one of them,

06:23:09.500 --> 06:23:11.820
we see that these were apes.

06:23:12.000 --> 06:23:16.200
This is not a conclusion that we reach
because of our Sunday school lessons,

06:23:16.360 --> 06:23:17.920
but because of paleoanthropology.

06:23:18.820 --> 06:23:23.400
And because of the statements of the
leading authorities about the nature of

06:23:23.400 --> 06:23:25.180
these specimens.

06:23:26.260 --> 06:23:32.840
There obviously are those who will say
this is an ancestor of man, but often

06:23:32.840 --> 06:23:36.860
they're the ones that found them,
or as we say down in Texas, they have a

06:23:36.860 --> 06:23:37.600
dog in the fight.

06:23:38.120 --> 06:23:41.920
But they have others who are leading
authorities in the field who point out

06:23:41.920 --> 06:23:44.820
with good reason that this is not the
case.

06:23:45.020 --> 06:23:50.740
Many times the evidence is gerrymandered,
and we saw demonstrations of that.

06:23:51.560 --> 06:23:56.980
The next one on the rung of the ladder is
Homo erectus, that's supposed to lead on

06:23:56.980 --> 06:23:58.400
up eventually to man.

06:23:58.480 --> 06:24:04.560
And here we go back in history to look at
the beginning of the evidence for Homo

06:24:04.560 --> 06:24:05.060
erectus.

06:24:05.620 --> 06:24:09.420
Historically, this is where the search for
fossil man begins.

06:24:10.260 --> 06:24:16.740
In this famous picture, we see the leading
paleoanthropologist of the time actually

06:24:16.740 --> 06:24:22.340
there at Cambridge, and we see Black and
Dawson and Oakley and those who were

06:24:22.340 --> 06:24:30.740
convinced that the Piltdown Man was an
excellent fossil specimen that was leading

06:24:30.740 --> 06:24:31.140
the man.

06:24:31.280 --> 06:24:35.600
This was an ancestor of man, and of course
it was a fraud.

06:24:35.780 --> 06:24:40.920
It was in the textbooks for over 40 years
before it was finally exposed as fraud,

06:24:41.000 --> 06:24:42.960
and the men of science eventually did.

06:24:45.860 --> 06:24:47.700
It should have been done much earlier.

06:24:48.400 --> 06:24:51.580
It was very crudely stained and filed.

06:24:52.960 --> 06:24:56.040
The evidence was excluded from the leading
authorities.

06:24:57.240 --> 06:25:01.860
Louis Leakey complained bitterly that
while he was a student there at Cambridge,

06:25:02.080 --> 06:25:07.760
the bones were there, and he was not
allowed to examine them like these famous

06:25:07.760 --> 06:25:12.180
men did, who were willing to line up and
agree that this was a fossil man.

06:25:12.680 --> 06:25:18.320
But when they finally did allow them to be
examined, it was acknowledged to be a

06:25:18.320 --> 06:25:18.580
fraud.

06:25:18.820 --> 06:25:24.000
A very interesting statement is made about
that by Roger Lewin, again, editor of

06:25:24.000 --> 06:25:26.340
Research News, in his book Bones of
Contention.

06:25:26.440 --> 06:25:31.800
And by the way, the book Bones of
Contention, while affirming great ages,

06:25:32.180 --> 06:25:38.460
and certainly written by a devout believer
in evolution, nevertheless is pretty

06:25:38.740 --> 06:25:44.160
historically accurate, and is an
interesting book, and tells the story of

06:25:44.160 --> 06:25:48.380
exactly how these things were found,
and the conclusions that were reached,

06:25:48.460 --> 06:25:48.880
and why.

06:25:50.140 --> 06:25:54.520
But he, regarding the Piltdown Man,
and this picture that we looked at just a

06:25:54.520 --> 06:25:59.980
moment ago, how is it that trained men,
the greatest experts of their day,

06:26:00.100 --> 06:26:06.800
could look at a set of modern human bones,
the cranial fragments, and see a clear

06:26:06.800 --> 06:26:08.240
Simeon signature in them.

06:26:08.860 --> 06:26:11.060
Now, they saw this.

06:26:11.760 --> 06:26:20.620
They saw ape, Simeon, signature in what
was actually a modern human bone,

06:26:20.740 --> 06:26:26.540
and then see in an ape's jaw the
unmistakable signs of humanity.

06:26:27.440 --> 06:26:30.740
Now, it was from an ape, but they saw
humanity in it.

06:26:30.840 --> 06:26:34.040
Now, how is it that the greatest experts
of their day could do that?

06:26:34.120 --> 06:26:36.020
We think experts know these things.

06:26:37.160 --> 06:26:42.040
He says, the answers inevitably have to do
with the scientists' expectations,

06:26:43.140 --> 06:26:46.200
and their effects on the interpretation of
the data.

06:26:47.360 --> 06:26:51.360
As he pointed out earlier, they have to
interpret.

06:26:52.000 --> 06:26:57.820
The key issue is inferring a genetic
relationship based on similarities that

06:26:57.820 --> 06:26:58.300
they see.

06:27:00.080 --> 06:27:06.780
Well, they expect to see certain
similarities, and they see what they tell

06:27:06.780 --> 06:27:07.220
us about it.

06:27:07.260 --> 06:27:13.100
Someone says, if I hadn't have believed
it, I wouldn't have seen it, is probably a

06:27:13.100 --> 06:27:17.960
better depiction of what we see in this
case, as acknowledged by Roger Leland.

06:27:19.660 --> 06:27:26.660
We go back in time, and after the Piltdown
Man, we found that Henry Osborne of the

06:27:26.660 --> 06:27:31.280
American Museum of Natural History decided
that we needed a fossil man over in

06:27:31.280 --> 06:27:31.640
America.

06:27:32.620 --> 06:27:37.420
Maybe he thought the people in Nebraska
looked primitive, and so he went to

06:27:37.420 --> 06:27:43.000
Nebraska and found a tooth that he says
looked like this in real life.

06:27:43.560 --> 06:27:46.380
This is Hesperopithecus haraldkukai.

06:27:47.540 --> 06:27:53.580
Harald Kuk was the one who actually found
the bone and brought it to Dr. Osborne.

06:27:54.260 --> 06:27:58.520
But he restored it, and this made the
front page of the New York Times.

06:27:59.240 --> 06:28:01.560
It said he walked erect and had a tail.

06:28:03.440 --> 06:28:09.300
Anyway, this was America's answer to the
Piltdown Man, the fossil man from America,

06:28:09.420 --> 06:28:11.300
Hesperopithecus haraldkukai.

06:28:11.400 --> 06:28:16.640
Well, he allowed the experts to examine
this, and they began to look at more

06:28:16.640 --> 06:28:16.920
evidence.

06:28:17.120 --> 06:28:18.480
Several were very, very skeptical.

06:28:19.860 --> 06:28:24.720
And then the next year, they found a
complete jawbone with several teeth like

06:28:24.720 --> 06:28:29.220
this in it, and it turned out to be an
extinct peccary or a type of pig.

06:28:30.220 --> 06:28:36.820
As one person, that's one case where a pig
made a monkey out of a man, and some of

06:28:36.820 --> 06:28:43.080
them suggested that maybe they should have
called it Hesperopigdun phulumkuku.

06:28:43.080 --> 06:28:47.060
He took a lot of flack, and I think
appropriately.

06:28:47.640 --> 06:28:51.880
But this is the nature of the history of
the early stages of fossil man,

06:28:52.000 --> 06:28:54.920
and it begins in this category of Homo
erectus.

06:28:55.740 --> 06:28:57.760
Another example is the Java Man.

06:28:58.320 --> 06:28:59.980
This was found by Eugene Dubois.

06:29:00.140 --> 06:29:03.800
He read, according to his own
acknowledgement, Darwin's statement,

06:29:03.960 --> 06:29:08.780
somewhere there's an ape more human-like
or a human more ape-like, and this will be

06:29:08.780 --> 06:29:10.000
the evidence that will be found.

06:29:10.100 --> 06:29:12.440
So he went out to find it, and he traveled
to Java.

06:29:13.240 --> 06:29:15.340
He thought the people in Java looked
primitive.

06:29:15.780 --> 06:29:21.880
This was a part of his racist concept,
and so he looked for primitive man there

06:29:21.880 --> 06:29:22.980
on the island of Java.

06:29:23.640 --> 06:29:26.240
He found a very human-like leg bone.

06:29:26.520 --> 06:29:33.620
He found a very ape-like head bone about
75 yards apart in different layers.

06:29:34.320 --> 06:29:40.460
A few teeth were found later, but that's
the total of what he found.

06:29:41.120 --> 06:29:45.800
More evidence has been found subsequently,
which did not fit with his conclusions.

06:29:46.020 --> 06:29:55.020
But this ape skull and human leg makes an
ape-man and put them together and restored

06:29:55.020 --> 06:29:58.100
them to look very, very ape-man-ish.

06:29:59.380 --> 06:30:03.980
He did find other evidence that he didn't
tell people about, and you don't learn

06:30:03.980 --> 06:30:06.840
about this usually, certainly not in your
undergraduate work.

06:30:07.640 --> 06:30:15.640
This is Wajak 1 as he's restored by Kuhns,
a very large brain, much larger than our

06:30:15.640 --> 06:30:16.600
average today.

06:30:17.040 --> 06:30:24.160
This was almost 1700 cc's compared to our
average 1440, was found in the same area,

06:30:24.740 --> 06:30:27.760
in the same layer, but he hid it.

06:30:27.960 --> 06:30:33.380
He put it under his dining room floor and
nailed the boards over it, and it wasn't

06:30:33.380 --> 06:30:40.180
for 40 years, 40 years later that they
finally found out about Wajak 1 that was

06:30:40.180 --> 06:30:44.360
found with this partial cranium and
partial leg bone.

06:30:44.360 --> 06:30:50.940
But that's all faded, though not from all
the textbooks, some of them, by more

06:30:50.940 --> 06:30:56.600
recent finds of excellent examples,
and they weren't nearly as old as they

06:30:56.600 --> 06:31:02.480
thought, and now that they realize that
there were very modern-looking skeletons

06:31:02.480 --> 06:31:04.980
forms there found with them.

06:31:05.640 --> 06:31:09.080
And here we find one of the leading
authorities here reporting in Science

06:31:09.080 --> 06:31:15.160
News, Milford Wolperth of the University
of Michigan, he argues that Homo erectus

06:31:15.160 --> 06:31:21.720
fossils actually belong to an anatomically
diverse form of Homo sapien, that's us.

06:31:22.840 --> 06:31:28.380
And so we see Eskimos that are a little
different, and Australian Aboriginals that

06:31:28.380 --> 06:31:31.980
are a little different, and we see the
Bushmen that are a little different from

06:31:31.980 --> 06:31:37.240
the Ubangis, and we see variations of good
men, and this was a variation,

06:31:37.900 --> 06:31:39.300
but it was a Homo sapien.

06:31:39.420 --> 06:31:43.160
This was a man, and Java man doesn't
belong in the lineup anymore, he was

06:31:43.160 --> 06:31:46.260
already Homo sapien according to the
leading authorities.

06:31:47.260 --> 06:31:52.180
He's in the textbooks many times,
though acknowledging that many of them

06:31:52.180 --> 06:31:53.020
have been removed.

06:31:54.660 --> 06:32:04.360
1470 skull, new Kenya National Museum,
found by Richard Leakey, is one of the

06:32:04.360 --> 06:32:06.660
leading representatives today of Homo
erectus.

06:32:08.000 --> 06:32:11.540
Originally it caused a lot of problem,
they had to do some redating and some

06:32:11.540 --> 06:32:16.660
gerrymandering in order to get this to fit
into the tree, but here is a very human

06:32:16.660 --> 06:32:23.060
looking skull that's supposed to have been
found back at the time actually of

06:32:23.900 --> 06:32:29.320
Australopithecus, but it's very human
looking, so they put it in Homo erectus.

06:32:31.180 --> 06:32:36.840
But notice the description that we find in
National Geographic regarding Leakey's

06:32:36.840 --> 06:32:37.060
find.

06:32:37.200 --> 06:32:41.380
Either we toss out this skull,
or we toss out our theories of early man,

06:32:41.500 --> 06:32:47.120
asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey,
of this 2.8 million year old fossil,

06:32:47.640 --> 06:32:50.880
which he has tentatively identified as
belonging to our own genus.

06:32:53.100 --> 06:32:57.720
Now 2.8 million, that puts it right in the
middle of Australopithecus.

06:32:57.780 --> 06:33:01.100
You've got to do something about that,
so they took it to California and had it

06:33:01.100 --> 06:33:04.560
redated, and it's now 1.9 we're told.

06:33:04.960 --> 06:33:07.240
But it's still very, very human-like.

06:33:08.580 --> 06:33:10.420
It simply fits no theories.

06:33:10.760 --> 06:33:11.500
Notice the description.

06:33:12.640 --> 06:33:15.380
No previous models of human beginnings.

06:33:15.520 --> 06:33:17.660
The skull is surprisingly a large brain
case.

06:33:17.960 --> 06:33:24.080
It's all compared to ours, but certainly
within the range of humans today.

06:33:24.740 --> 06:33:29.660
It leaves in ruins the notion that all
early fossils can be arranged in an

06:33:29.660 --> 06:33:32.100
orderly sequence of evolutionary change.

06:33:32.880 --> 06:33:38.080
Now a large brain case with this no brow
ridges, vaulted skull.

06:33:38.920 --> 06:33:40.660
Now brow ridges is supposed to be
primitive.

06:33:40.860 --> 06:33:46.320
I get a little bit sensitive about brow
ridges indicating that people are

06:33:46.320 --> 06:33:46.600
primitive.

06:33:47.660 --> 06:33:51.840
But this one didn't have that,
and so it was supposed to be non-primitive

06:33:51.840 --> 06:33:53.260
and a large brain case.

06:33:54.240 --> 06:33:57.240
But it's back at the time of
Australopithecus.

06:33:57.520 --> 06:34:01.760
We learned more about the brain case when
we looked at the endocasts.

06:34:01.880 --> 06:34:07.700
These are casts that fill the cavity of
the brain, and then the bone peels away,

06:34:07.860 --> 06:34:10.000
and we see exactly what the brain looked
like.

06:34:10.780 --> 06:34:17.440
Here are some pictures of those endocasts
that tell us excellent, give excellent

06:34:17.440 --> 06:34:19.520
evidence for exactly what the brain looked
like.

06:34:19.660 --> 06:34:25.140
Dean Falk is one of the experts in
studying this, and he says this is not

06:34:25.140 --> 06:34:26.020
Homo habilis.

06:34:26.340 --> 06:34:28.680
Homo habilis is very ape-like.

06:34:28.840 --> 06:34:35.200
That used to be touted as leading to man,
but when they found the more complete

06:34:35.200 --> 06:34:43.740
specimen with the huge arms, actually much
longer arms than most apes have,

06:34:43.820 --> 06:34:48.820
and very small brain case, they have
relegated this to the category of apes at

06:34:48.820 --> 06:34:49.220
this point.

06:34:49.680 --> 06:34:51.620
But it's different, he says.

06:34:51.860 --> 06:34:59.680
This is similar to the African progeny
that is Homo erectus, but the 1470 skull

06:34:59.680 --> 06:35:04.620
is shaped like that of a modern human.

06:35:06.040 --> 06:35:09.840
Now they don't tell you that in the
textbooks, but this brain was like a

06:35:09.840 --> 06:35:10.520
modern human.

06:35:11.240 --> 06:35:14.740
We're also referred to another example of
Homo erectus.

06:35:14.860 --> 06:35:17.860
This is found by Richard Leakey,
and this is the boy from Turkana,

06:35:18.060 --> 06:35:18.740
Turkana boy.

06:35:19.480 --> 06:35:23.960
Now they thought it was 11 years old
initially, and then found out it was even

06:35:23.960 --> 06:35:27.020
younger than that, which makes for a
significant problem.

06:35:28.060 --> 06:35:31.540
Notice again from National Geographic,
the boy from Turkana was surprisingly

06:35:31.540 --> 06:35:35.920
large compared with modern boys his age,
could well have grown to six feet.

06:35:38.060 --> 06:35:44.640
Leakey says the boy would be unnoticed in
a crowd today, and then continues with

06:35:44.640 --> 06:35:45.600
this amazing statement.

06:35:46.020 --> 06:35:49.320
This combines with the previous
discoveries of Homo erectus to contradict

06:35:49.320 --> 06:35:54.420
a long-held idea that humans have grown
larger over the millennia.

06:35:56.120 --> 06:35:59.040
Have you heard that idea, and that it's
been contradicted?

06:36:00.260 --> 06:36:10.060
Well, if you've got a boy that is five,
six, and is nine years old, it doesn't

06:36:10.060 --> 06:36:11.420
sound very small to me.

06:36:12.060 --> 06:36:15.460
In fact, that's larger than the boys that
we have today.

06:36:16.180 --> 06:36:19.960
And this is documented in Origin of
Humankind by Richard Leakey.

06:36:20.140 --> 06:36:24.960
We now know that it was nine years old,
not eleven, and it was five, six,

06:36:25.060 --> 06:36:31.500
here shown with Dr. White, who illustrates
just how large this nine-year-old was.

06:36:31.980 --> 06:36:35.420
Other problems have been found with Homo
erectus.

06:36:35.740 --> 06:36:41.200
Specimen Howells goes on to say with a
date of about 4.4 million, and he's

06:36:41.200 --> 06:36:49.640
talking here about another specimen that
sometimes called 271, Canopy Man,

06:36:50.060 --> 06:36:53.540
and it's from the area of Canopy,
4.1 million.

06:36:53.640 --> 06:36:58.820
Well, now that gets us back earlier than
virtually all of the australopithecine

06:36:58.820 --> 06:37:03.840
specimens, but it could not be
distinguished from Homo sapien.

06:37:05.300 --> 06:37:10.260
Morphologically, that's by the shape,
outward shape, or by multivariate analysis

06:37:10.260 --> 06:37:15.860
by Patterson and myself in 67,
or by much more searching analysis by

06:37:15.860 --> 06:37:16.580
others since then.

06:37:17.080 --> 06:37:19.260
Now this has been around a while,
they've known about it.

06:37:19.820 --> 06:37:24.160
It couldn't be distinguished from Homo
sapien, but it was older than those things

06:37:24.160 --> 06:37:26.400
that are supposed to have led to Homo
sapien.

06:37:26.480 --> 06:37:27.320
So what do they do with it?

06:37:27.440 --> 06:37:28.760
They call it a Homo erectus.

06:37:30.020 --> 06:37:32.040
I don't think that solves the problem.

06:37:32.220 --> 06:37:36.440
Now multivariate analysis is a very
thorough comparison.

06:37:36.760 --> 06:37:39.240
We talked about the eyeballing.

06:37:39.440 --> 06:37:40.700
This is similar to that.

06:37:40.840 --> 06:37:44.440
Well, with multivariate analysis,
you measure a bone about a thousand

06:37:44.440 --> 06:37:48.140
different ways, and you measure the bone
you're comparing it with exactly the same

06:37:48.140 --> 06:37:50.680
way about a thousand different ways,
and then you put it in the computer.

06:37:51.500 --> 06:37:55.820
And the computer gives you a statistical
readout of just how similar they are.

06:37:56.640 --> 06:38:01.420
But by using that method, as well as
morphologically and even more searching

06:38:01.420 --> 06:38:06.820
analysis, according to Howells,
it couldn't be distinguished from Homo

06:38:06.820 --> 06:38:07.200
sapien.

06:38:08.100 --> 06:38:10.080
And it's older than anything supposed to
have led to it.

06:38:11.360 --> 06:38:13.920
Homo erectus then is summarized this way.

06:38:14.020 --> 06:38:20.920
Java man no longer really in the lineup by
most assessments belonging to Homo sapien.

06:38:21.900 --> 06:38:26.280
Turkana boy is certainly there,
but he's large and unnoticed in a crowd,

06:38:26.440 --> 06:38:28.020
larger than our boys today.

06:38:29.200 --> 06:38:34.120
1470, according to Mary Richard Leakey,
like modern humans.

06:38:34.900 --> 06:38:37.440
And then the brains were like modern
humans.

06:38:37.540 --> 06:38:41.940
Little toy footprints are put in the
category of Homo erectus, but they are

06:38:41.940 --> 06:38:44.640
people, according to Mary Leakey,
not unlike ourselves.

06:38:44.880 --> 06:38:45.720
She discovered them.

06:38:46.180 --> 06:38:48.880
And then you have Kanopy man at 4.4
million.

06:38:48.980 --> 06:38:51.040
That's indistinguishable from Homo sapien.

06:38:51.680 --> 06:38:52.780
What are we looking at here?

06:38:54.240 --> 06:38:56.500
Is there any question about what we're
looking at here?

06:38:57.220 --> 06:38:58.480
These are people.

06:38:59.200 --> 06:39:00.060
These are men.

06:39:01.020 --> 06:39:04.420
Some of them may have lived in the jungle.

06:39:04.580 --> 06:39:06.080
Some of them may have lived in caves.

06:39:06.180 --> 06:39:07.600
We have people doing that today.

06:39:08.080 --> 06:39:10.520
But these were people.

06:39:10.740 --> 06:39:11.800
These were good men.

06:39:12.000 --> 06:39:14.280
And that's not based on wishful thinking.

06:39:14.420 --> 06:39:17.560
When you look at the actual evidence and
the statements by the leading authorities,

06:39:18.140 --> 06:39:19.760
that's what you have to say.

06:39:19.840 --> 06:39:21.880
It's not really honest to say it
otherwise.

06:39:23.200 --> 06:39:26.420
That brings us then to the next rung of
the ladder, Neanderthal.

06:39:26.520 --> 06:39:29.320
Well, we've all seen the Neanderthal
reconstructions.

06:39:29.440 --> 06:39:32.200
We know this certainly looks like an ape
man.

06:39:32.940 --> 06:39:35.000
And yes, the reconstructions certainly do.

06:39:35.120 --> 06:39:38.640
And if we found those in the back alley,
it would scare the living daylights out of

06:39:38.640 --> 06:39:38.760
us.

06:39:39.980 --> 06:39:43.860
This is a type that was first found in the
Neander Valley, hence the name

06:39:43.860 --> 06:39:46.600
Neanderthal, in Germany.

06:39:47.100 --> 06:39:51.500
And restored very quickly to look like
this by Marcellin Buell.

06:39:52.480 --> 06:39:58.780
And he had, of course, read Darwin,
and he has... he believed devoutly there

06:39:58.780 --> 06:40:02.160
was an ape man somewhere, and so he
restored it to look like that.

06:40:02.880 --> 06:40:07.140
Remember Houghton's statements,
you can model on a Neanderthal skull the

06:40:07.140 --> 06:40:09.780
features of a chimpanzee, the allotments
of a philosopher.

06:40:10.520 --> 06:40:18.540
Well, he did a lot of that modeling and
did so very poorly, as leading authorities

06:40:18.540 --> 06:40:19.360
acknowledged today.

06:40:19.460 --> 06:40:26.540
This is Marcellin Buell, devout believer
who was responsible for this misleading

06:40:26.540 --> 06:40:27.220
representation.

06:40:28.180 --> 06:40:31.420
Let's set the record straight with Ian
Tattersall.

06:40:31.960 --> 06:40:33.040
Now, this is no lightweight.

06:40:33.240 --> 06:40:36.220
He is head of the Department of
Anthropology at the American Museum of

06:40:36.220 --> 06:40:36.800
Natural History.

06:40:39.040 --> 06:40:42.740
Again, this is not a creationist,
this is not my idea.

06:40:43.680 --> 06:40:47.300
Head of the Department of Anthropology at
the American Museum of Natural History.

06:40:47.700 --> 06:40:50.560
This fellow knows a lot about
anthropology.

06:40:51.140 --> 06:40:56.680
He says, quite as important as new
Neanderthal finds in the 50s, and this

06:40:56.680 --> 06:41:02.600
helped us change our view of Neanderthals,
we found some new specimens, was the

06:41:02.600 --> 06:41:07.740
recognition finally that the
stoop-shouldered, bent-kneed stereotype of

06:41:07.740 --> 06:41:12.720
these humans created by Marcellin Buell
was totally false.

06:41:13.700 --> 06:41:16.100
Now, that's his assessment.

06:41:16.740 --> 06:41:20.300
The head of the Department of Anthropology
at the American Museum of Natural History

06:41:20.300 --> 06:41:22.480
said, this is false.

06:41:23.340 --> 06:41:25.740
But guess where you find it?

06:41:26.060 --> 06:41:28.360
In the museums and in the textbooks.

06:41:29.360 --> 06:41:30.760
This is not the way it looked.

06:41:31.940 --> 06:41:33.600
Richard Leakey comments on this.

06:41:33.700 --> 06:41:37.460
He says, to refer to someone as a
Neanderthal was, and still is to some

06:41:37.460 --> 06:41:39.280
extent, an intended insult.

06:41:40.440 --> 06:41:46.240
But then he says, the rehabilitation,
however, began in the mid-50s when two

06:41:46.240 --> 06:41:49.720
anatomists, William Strauss, A.J.E.

06:41:49.880 --> 06:41:53.040
Cave, undertook a second reconstruction.

06:41:53.940 --> 06:42:00.740
A body which, though somewhat stocky,
was essentially like modern man's.

06:42:01.300 --> 06:42:04.400
And essentially, meaning he doesn't see
any difference.

06:42:05.060 --> 06:42:09.640
And says they would be unnoticed in a
crowd, again, put him in a Brooks Brothers

06:42:09.640 --> 06:42:12.520
suit and you'd never know that he was
different.

06:42:12.660 --> 06:42:16.000
He's been rehabilitated, according to
Richard Leakey.

06:42:16.540 --> 06:42:20.380
He goes on to say that the brain is
slightly larger than modern humans,

06:42:21.040 --> 06:42:24.480
averaging about 1600 cc's, again,
compared to our 1440.

06:42:25.900 --> 06:42:31.160
The Neanderthal's average height was 1.67
meters, that's 5'8".

06:42:31.160 --> 06:42:33.660
That's not considered unusual.

06:42:34.280 --> 06:42:37.320
The average oriental is just a little bit
shorter than that.

06:42:37.960 --> 06:42:42.060
And so, well within the range of variation
that we see today, not unique,

06:42:42.620 --> 06:42:48.140
and is unquestionably, Richard Leakey is a
Neanderthal sapient.

06:42:48.240 --> 06:42:50.820
That's us, that's modern man.

06:42:51.420 --> 06:42:55.960
Interesting that Kuhn's attempted two
different restorations from the same

06:42:55.960 --> 06:43:00.260
Neanderthal skull, neither one looking
like the typical Neanderthal skull.

06:43:00.920 --> 06:43:05.460
But here we see a rather philosophical
looking face on the left, and then maybe

06:43:05.460 --> 06:43:08.560
somebody that belongs on Mad Magazine on
the right.

06:43:08.760 --> 06:43:11.540
But both of them from the same Neanderthal
skull.

06:43:12.960 --> 06:43:17.460
Matt Cartmill, that we introduced earlier,
claiming he was a leading authority.

06:43:17.720 --> 06:43:21.500
He is president of the American
Association of Physical Anthropology.

06:43:22.560 --> 06:43:24.420
Again, these are not lightweight.

06:43:25.240 --> 06:43:29.520
I tend to think they, the Neanderthals,
had fully human language.

06:43:30.140 --> 06:43:33.760
After all, they had larger brains than
those of most modern humans.

06:43:33.880 --> 06:43:35.720
They made elegant stone tools.

06:43:35.960 --> 06:43:36.980
They knew how to use them.

06:43:39.340 --> 06:43:45.440
These were people making tools very much
like the American Indians made tools.

06:43:46.000 --> 06:43:51.580
This is an example of some of their
handiwork, a flute that was reported on in

06:43:51.580 --> 06:43:56.140
Science and Scientific American that has
exactly the same scale that we do.

06:43:56.840 --> 06:44:00.640
The Do-Re-Mi scale that we have today,
they were musical.

06:44:01.420 --> 06:44:04.540
And they were religious, according to
Richard Leakey.

06:44:04.600 --> 06:44:09.780
He speaks of the tomb that they found that
was buried with flowers and with specific

06:44:09.780 --> 06:44:14.100
arrangements indicating a kind of burial
ceremony.

06:44:14.760 --> 06:44:17.100
He says the arrangement of flowers was not
random.

06:44:17.300 --> 06:44:21.940
They were carefully placed around the
body, a concern for the fate of the humans

06:44:21.940 --> 06:44:24.580
and the ritual burial.

06:44:25.140 --> 06:44:29.980
They speak of a deep feeling for the
spiritual quality of life.

06:44:31.500 --> 06:44:35.840
This doesn't sound like the Neanderthal
that I was taught about.

06:44:37.560 --> 06:44:39.840
Again, problems after problems.

06:44:39.960 --> 06:44:45.340
Another one showed up in Israel,
and here's Bar Yosef of the Peabody Museum

06:44:45.340 --> 06:44:50.460
at Harvard who found a number of
Neanderthal skulls in caves up on Mount

06:44:50.460 --> 06:44:51.380
Carmel in Israel.

06:44:52.080 --> 06:44:58.500
But the problem was the modern preceded
the Homo sapien in Neanderthals at Mount

06:44:58.500 --> 06:44:58.900
Carmel.

06:44:58.980 --> 06:45:02.460
The results have shaken the traditional
evolutionary scenario, producing more

06:45:02.460 --> 06:45:03.360
questions than answers.

06:45:03.520 --> 06:45:09.600
Well, if you find Neanderthals in a higher
stratum that's covered by travertine,

06:45:09.740 --> 06:45:11.400
the moderns were lower.

06:45:13.720 --> 06:45:16.120
Yes, more questions than answers.

06:45:16.160 --> 06:45:18.640
Certainly doesn't fit the view we're
taught in the textbook.

06:45:19.860 --> 06:45:24.560
Many have reported that the DNA has been
analyzed and they were very different

06:45:24.560 --> 06:45:25.480
according to the DNA.

06:45:25.820 --> 06:45:28.040
And some of the press did report it that
way.

06:45:28.880 --> 06:45:32.940
I hear from Scientific American,
some of the researchers believe the data

06:45:32.940 --> 06:45:34.100
can be interpreted differently.

06:45:34.740 --> 06:45:38.720
The amount of diversity between
Neanderthals and living humans is not

06:45:38.720 --> 06:45:39.280
exceptional.

06:45:39.540 --> 06:45:43.640
We see more diversity in a number of
species and in humans.

06:45:43.800 --> 06:45:48.220
And they point out some of the diverse
types that have sometimes been found.

06:45:48.280 --> 06:45:51.340
It's within the range of variation that we
can see today.

06:45:51.800 --> 06:45:56.660
More recently, very interesting and
perhaps more definitive, is the protein

06:45:56.660 --> 06:45:58.900
from Neanderthals has been sequenced.

06:45:59.600 --> 06:46:01.660
And this was from Iraq.

06:46:02.340 --> 06:46:10.740
And the team found the Neanderthal
sequence was the same as modern humans.

06:46:10.840 --> 06:46:12.160
Guess what these things were?

06:46:13.580 --> 06:46:15.080
These were people.

06:46:15.900 --> 06:46:20.840
According to Richard Leakey, he was
unquestionably homo sapien.

06:46:21.800 --> 06:46:24.680
There was a ridiculous reconstruction.

06:46:24.960 --> 06:46:30.040
In fact, Howell says that Gusellan got the
ankle bones on backwards.

06:46:30.240 --> 06:46:32.800
By all laws of physics, he should have
fallen on his face.

06:46:34.500 --> 06:46:39.200
Fully human language, the DNA overlaps
with humans.

06:46:39.620 --> 06:46:42.520
And the proteins were identical.

06:46:42.780 --> 06:46:43.800
The moderns were earlier.

06:46:43.940 --> 06:46:45.000
The brain was larger.

06:46:46.060 --> 06:46:50.000
They were religious and were musical.

06:46:51.160 --> 06:46:53.900
These were not only people, they were good
people.

06:46:54.160 --> 06:46:58.660
And according to the way they made their
flutes and some of the tools, they were

06:46:58.660 --> 06:47:00.420
ahead of me, certainly in that department.

06:47:01.240 --> 06:47:05.240
They've been grossly slandered by
ridiculous reconstruction.

06:47:06.440 --> 06:47:08.620
But these are people.

06:47:09.760 --> 06:47:12.580
Richard Leakey says unquestionably homo
sapien.

06:47:13.180 --> 06:47:16.980
Now, this is not a Sunday school class
conclusion.

06:47:17.260 --> 06:47:19.700
This is what the leading authorities
document.

06:47:19.920 --> 06:47:21.840
Now, we've got apes and we've got men.

06:47:22.540 --> 06:47:28.440
And where's the evidence that moderns
evolved from ancestors?

06:47:29.960 --> 06:47:35.980
Well, you can draw lines and you can line
them up like the pig to the bull to the

06:47:35.980 --> 06:47:36.240
man.

06:47:36.680 --> 06:47:38.120
But that's not science.

06:47:38.680 --> 06:47:40.280
That's not good evidence.

06:47:40.900 --> 06:47:44.440
Mary Leakey made an interesting
observation about some of these trees that

06:47:44.440 --> 06:47:48.000
people line up more recently, quoted by
Associated Press.

06:47:48.720 --> 06:47:52.020
Since scientists can never prove,
and this is what Leakey was saying,

06:47:52.280 --> 06:47:59.580
you just infer based on similarities,
you can never prove a particular scenario

06:47:59.580 --> 06:48:00.460
of human evolution.

06:48:00.680 --> 06:48:05.360
Because of that, he said, all these trees
of life with their branches of our

06:48:05.360 --> 06:48:08.220
ancestors, she says, that's a lot of
nonsense.

06:48:09.240 --> 06:48:12.760
Well, there's good reason for her saying
that.

06:48:12.940 --> 06:48:19.000
Now, she remains an evolutionist,
unlike her husband who gave up on Darwin.

06:48:19.660 --> 06:48:24.100
In fact, she commented on that saying he
was a little tetched before he died.

06:48:25.120 --> 06:48:27.980
Not exactly an objective analysis of what
he was saying.

06:48:29.140 --> 06:48:35.220
But she does say these trees that are in
the textbook that show this kind of human

06:48:35.220 --> 06:48:38.400
evolution in this direction or by another
authority.

06:48:38.620 --> 06:48:40.180
It's just a lot of nonsense.

06:48:41.100 --> 06:48:45.120
It's people drawing lines and there are no
lines on the bones.

06:48:45.640 --> 06:48:49.540
We can summarize the evidence then for the
proposed ancestors of man this way.

06:48:49.580 --> 06:48:53.840
You go to the zoo and you can see a
variety of apes.

06:48:54.120 --> 06:48:55.540
They don't all look the same.

06:48:56.080 --> 06:49:01.980
You can see a significant variety,
all kinds, and there used to be more in

06:49:01.980 --> 06:49:02.580
the past.

06:49:03.060 --> 06:49:09.760
As we saw from the documented experts,
there were greater numbers of phyla,

06:49:09.880 --> 06:49:12.140
greater diversity in the past.

06:49:14.060 --> 06:49:15.600
We have fewer today.

06:49:15.780 --> 06:49:19.400
Some of them are extinct and you can go
back and find some of those that are

06:49:19.400 --> 06:49:21.880
extinct today, but they're apes.

06:49:22.060 --> 06:49:26.040
They're a part of the variety of apes that
have existed greater in the past.

06:49:26.660 --> 06:49:32.320
And we look at the fossil record of humans
and likewise we see a variety and

06:49:32.320 --> 06:49:39.740
sometimes you can see what looks different
to us, to our eye, not different to their

06:49:39.740 --> 06:49:40.100
eyes.

06:49:40.680 --> 06:49:44.640
And you could say some of them just look
rather peculiar.

06:49:45.420 --> 06:49:50.060
I understand people thinking that,
but they're humans and they're excellent

06:49:50.060 --> 06:49:53.000
humans and we need to understand that.

06:49:53.700 --> 06:49:56.980
And that's what we see in the fossil
record.

06:49:57.140 --> 06:49:59.080
We see apes, a variety.

06:49:59.800 --> 06:50:02.540
We see humans, some variety.

06:50:03.480 --> 06:50:08.580
Now they've desperately tried to shoehorn
things in between and at that point I

06:50:08.580 --> 06:50:10.460
think they just wound up looking foolish.

06:50:10.940 --> 06:50:17.140
But what you find is either apes or
humans, or as Dwayne Gish used to say,

06:50:17.220 --> 06:50:21.680
you take a little Incas opus and a little
Hocus Pocus and you come up with Pithecan

06:50:21.680 --> 06:50:22.180
spoofus.

06:50:22.620 --> 06:50:25.880
And that's what's been shoehorned in the
middle.

06:50:26.320 --> 06:50:30.060
That's a picture of the actual evidence
for fossil man.

06:50:30.480 --> 06:50:34.520
The record supports just exactly what the
creationists would expect.

06:50:34.640 --> 06:50:38.040
A distinct, separate kind for each.

06:50:38.760 --> 06:50:43.420
A gap before the apes, a gap after the
apes before you get to man.

06:50:44.300 --> 06:50:46.820
This is what we found in the fossil record
earlier.

06:50:47.580 --> 06:50:51.720
The fossil record of men favors creation
because of that.

06:50:52.360 --> 06:50:56.920
And it is against the idea of evolutionary
progression.

06:50:57.560 --> 06:51:01.660
I want to make one more point before we
conclude, referring back to some of the

06:51:01.660 --> 06:51:05.100
implications of evolution of man doctrine.

06:51:05.940 --> 06:51:10.560
If we look at origin of the species,
that's really not the title.

06:51:10.560 --> 06:51:15.840
Many people are unaware that it was
actually origin of the species and

06:51:16.320 --> 06:51:18.720
preservation of favored races.

06:51:19.500 --> 06:51:29.260
This is a photo of the actual original
edition and you see the term favored races

06:51:29.260 --> 06:51:31.280
about two-thirds of the way up.

06:51:31.860 --> 06:51:37.980
This would never fly today and so they
edited it and took that out.

06:51:38.460 --> 06:51:44.620
But Darwin was a very devout racist as
were most of the people who were following

06:51:44.620 --> 06:51:45.220
his thinking.

06:51:46.340 --> 06:51:48.620
In Descent of Man, he makes this
statement.

06:51:49.420 --> 06:51:55.720
At some future period, not very distant as
measured by centuries, the civilized races

06:51:55.720 --> 06:52:01.760
of man will almost certainly exterminate
and replace the savage races.

06:52:01.980 --> 06:52:06.440
You've got savage races and you've got
civilized races, you see.

06:52:07.360 --> 06:52:09.280
One's going to exterminate the other.

06:52:10.080 --> 06:52:11.140
Throughout the world.

06:52:11.340 --> 06:52:15.120
At that time, the anthropomorphous apes
will no doubt be exterminated.

06:52:16.120 --> 06:52:20.400
He says the break between man and his
nearest allies will then be wider,

06:52:20.860 --> 06:52:25.660
for it will intervene between man in a
more civilized state, as we may hope,

06:52:25.760 --> 06:52:31.920
than the Caucasian and some ape today,
as low as the Babylonians, instead of the

06:52:31.920 --> 06:52:34.680
now Negro or Australian and gorilla.

06:52:35.320 --> 06:52:40.760
Now, if that doesn't make your flesh
crawl, it's amazing.

06:52:42.080 --> 06:52:47.660
Obviously, he's a hero in the minds of
many, but if any so-called hero were to

06:52:47.660 --> 06:52:50.780
make that kind of a statement today,
he wouldn't be a hero anymore.

06:52:51.920 --> 06:52:55.060
I think he needs to be exposed for what he
is.

06:52:55.560 --> 06:52:59.720
Stephen Gould has acknowledged what
happened as a result of his teaching.

06:53:00.500 --> 06:53:05.540
He says biological arguments for racism
may have been common before 1850,

06:53:06.360 --> 06:53:11.000
but they increased by orders of magnitude
following the acceptance of evolutionary

06:53:11.000 --> 06:53:11.580
theory.

06:53:14.460 --> 06:53:16.740
Increased by orders of magnitude.

06:53:17.060 --> 06:53:19.140
That's the fruit of the tree.

06:53:19.840 --> 06:53:24.160
And then he goes on to say the pervasive
racism of the white scientist.

06:53:25.000 --> 06:53:26.860
This is typical.

06:53:27.460 --> 06:53:32.660
Following Darwin's book, Origin of the
Species, they look to the activities of

06:53:32.660 --> 06:53:36.940
their own children for comparison with
normal adult behaviors in lower races.

06:53:37.100 --> 06:53:39.160
Now, Stephen Gould is not saying this.

06:53:39.180 --> 06:53:44.040
This doesn't represent Stephen Gould,
but he's talking about the typical white

06:53:44.040 --> 06:53:49.260
scientist following Darwin's introduction
of Origin of the Species, and as a

06:53:49.260 --> 06:53:50.260
consequence of it.

06:53:51.080 --> 06:53:55.540
He gives an example of this kind of
thinking from Henry Fairfield Osborne,

06:53:56.160 --> 06:53:59.620
who was curator of the American Museum of
Natural History, referred to earlier.

06:53:59.700 --> 06:54:00.360
What did he say?

06:54:00.440 --> 06:54:03.980
Now, it's not Darwin saying it,
but he's quoting the head of the American

06:54:03.980 --> 06:54:05.140
Museum of Natural History.

06:54:06.080 --> 06:54:11.580
The standard intelligence of the average
adult Negro is similar to that of the

06:54:11.580 --> 06:54:13.740
11-year-old of the species Homo sapien.

06:54:14.380 --> 06:54:16.980
Negroes are not even in the same species,
according to him.

06:54:17.020 --> 06:54:19.220
That's just thoroughly disgusting.

06:54:19.920 --> 06:54:22.600
But that's the fruit of the tree,
even according to Stephen Gould.

06:54:23.500 --> 06:54:29.720
When we look at the world around us,
we see differences in facial structure,

06:54:30.360 --> 06:54:37.480
in skin color, in brow ridges,
in eye color, in hair color, in straight

06:54:37.480 --> 06:54:43.380
hair and curly hair, and sometimes there
are suites of these variances that

06:54:43.380 --> 06:54:50.700
collect, and you get dark skin and kinky
hair, though you do have people with white

06:54:50.700 --> 06:54:52.220
skin that have kinky hair.

06:54:53.360 --> 06:54:58.960
In Ireland, you've got a lot of people
with red hair and blue eyes and freckles,

06:54:58.960 --> 06:55:02.580
and usually there's not a lot of prejudice
associated with that collection,

06:55:02.800 --> 06:55:07.160
but it does get associated with other
collections, foolishly.

06:55:07.800 --> 06:55:10.460
You look at these people, do you see a
primitive man there?

06:55:11.440 --> 06:55:14.620
Many people will look at the fellow in the
lower left-hand corner and say he looks

06:55:14.620 --> 06:55:14.960
primitive.

06:55:15.940 --> 06:55:17.540
This is Dr. Goulogong.

06:55:18.220 --> 06:55:20.220
He has a doctorate from Oxford.

06:55:21.420 --> 06:55:26.900
Now, I went to Cambridge, we talk about
people from Oxford, but I assure you,

06:55:26.980 --> 06:55:28.900
this is a good man.

06:55:30.300 --> 06:55:35.860
He has excellent, well, he has an IQ
higher than 90% of our audience.

06:55:36.000 --> 06:55:37.360
He's a brilliant individual.

06:55:37.560 --> 06:55:38.840
You thought he was primitive?

06:55:40.180 --> 06:55:40.860
Shame on you.

06:55:41.560 --> 06:55:45.100
It's really been interesting to see the
results of our National Genome Project,

06:55:45.240 --> 06:55:49.400
a monumental scientific project that has
demonstrated that when we look

06:55:49.400 --> 06:55:52.500
biologically, when we look at the genome,
you can't find race.

06:55:53.120 --> 06:55:57.860
Here's a headline from the Union Tribune
in San Diego, no trace of race.

06:55:57.960 --> 06:56:03.640
Genome Project proves that nothing
biological separates peoples.

06:56:04.600 --> 06:56:05.600
It's not there.

06:56:05.700 --> 06:56:09.220
Often you can find greater difference
between a brother and a sister than you

06:56:09.220 --> 06:56:12.720
can between what's called today a black
man and a white man.

06:56:13.740 --> 06:56:19.300
Scientific American has explored the
matter at length and found it doesn't

06:56:19.300 --> 06:56:21.040
exist in answer to that question.

06:56:22.520 --> 06:56:25.260
We've been looking at scientific evidence
at this point.

06:56:25.360 --> 06:56:30.360
Let's just compare the models and the
implication and use a passage of Scripture

06:56:30.360 --> 06:56:35.780
that will help define the position very
much in contrast to that of the

06:56:35.780 --> 06:56:36.380
evolutionist.

06:56:36.480 --> 06:56:37.720
And we'll conclude with this.

06:56:38.220 --> 06:56:44.920
Genesis 3, Adam called his wife's name Eve
because she was the mother of all living.

06:56:46.300 --> 06:56:48.020
And I think that makes us all brothers.

06:56:49.420 --> 06:56:53.260
Sometimes I chide some of my black
friends, you know, they talk about the

06:56:53.260 --> 06:56:53.620
brothers.

06:56:54.760 --> 06:56:56.340
I want to know why they're leaving me out.

06:56:57.580 --> 06:57:03.060
I think we're all children of the same
mother and father and that we need to act

06:57:03.060 --> 06:57:04.380
as if we're brethren.

06:57:04.660 --> 06:57:06.920
And that's what creation produces.

06:57:07.400 --> 06:57:10.100
When you have that concept, that's where
it leads.

06:57:10.200 --> 06:57:13.140
Not that all people go where it leads,
but they should.

06:57:14.280 --> 06:57:15.960
Evolution leads in a different direction.