Dr. Kent Hovind--Seminar #7A--Questions & Answers - English Questions! Everybody seems to have a question that they need answered in life. Hi! My name is Eric. In this next seminar, Dr. Hovind takes a large variety of questions that he's been asked on a regular basis, combines them, and gives his best explanation for what's happening. He covers a variety of topics, such as: The Red Sea Crossing, Primitive Man, What about Radio-Carbon Dating? Hey, Are there Really Contradictions in the Bible? Find out for yourself in this creation seminar entitled, "Questions and Answers." Seminar #7A - "Questions & Answers" - in English Thank you for joining us. My name is Kent Hovind. I taught high school science for 15 years, and this is going to be Seminar Part 7, Question & Answer Time. If you've gotten this far, hopefully you've seen the first 6 seminars. Because we'll be covering new information this time. I taught science 15 years, and I cover information on the subject of creation, evolution, and dinosaurs. I take the position that the Bible is literally true, scientifically accurate in all details. And the evolution theory being taught in our schools is the dumbest and most dangerous religion in the history of Planet Earth. We're going to be covering a wide variety of questions that I get during my Q & A time. Everywhere I go, I try to teach for an hour or so, then have a question and answer time. I have heard most of the questions that generally come up in the last 17 years that I have been doing this. We'll be covering a wide range of things, like: How do we see stars billions of light years away? Have there any fresh dinosaur bones been found, not even fossilized yet? Why are there so few human bones found?What about the Bible codes? Why do you use the King James Version? Are there contradictions in the Bible? What about other religions - could they be right? What about global warming? Where did the races come from? And a lot of this information we're going to be covering as quickly as we can. The Bible says in Ecclesiastes 7:25, "I applied mine heart to know, and search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things." I think it's wise for Christians to do that. Try to (I Peter 3:15b) "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason." I think that we could be more effective soul winners and more effective for God's kingdom, if we knew more and could give an answer. That is the goal of the seminars that we produce. We want to equip people that can give an answer to know the Truth. I Peter 3:15 says, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you the reason for the hope that is in you." And we hope that this training you'll get here will give you the answers you need. II Timothy 2:15 says, "Study to show thyself approved unto God." We should study and learn, not just so we can give an answer to others, but so God is pleased with us. That is the goal of study "God, are you happy?" One of the questions I often get as I speak at universities is, "Hey, Hovind? Are you the only one that believes in Creation? Don't all scientists believe in evolution?!" Absolutely not! I don't know how that question comes up. No, not all scientists believe in evolution, number one. Thousands and thousands and thousands of scientists are Creation Scientists. For instance, Dr. Russell Humphreys worked for years at the Sandia National Laboratories. There's a good article about him on the www.answersingenesis.org website. They've got a whole list of 180-200 scientists today, who are young earth, Bible believing six-day Creationsts. Dr. Humphreys said, "Using a simple statistical approach, I would conservatively estimate that in the United States alone, there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists who openly believe in six-day, recent creation." So first, it's not true that all scientists believe in evolution. Secondly, even if they did, that's not how you establish truth. It doesn't matter what the majority believe. The majority has a long history of being wrong. They used to teach that all the planets go around the Earth. The majority was wrong. Though, believe it or not, there still are some scientists who are geo-centrists, who teach the Earth is in the center and that everything goes around the earth. I've got the books in the library. You can read those, if you want to. I've looked at the subject - I just can't buy it. I think they're wrong; I think the Sun is in the center. There was a time when they used to teach that big rocks fall faster than little rocks. It was taught for 2,000 years, and it's wrong. So the majority can be wrong. They used to teach the doctrine of humors. If you're sick, you have bad blood. Take out your blood and you get better. That's how George Washington died. They were wrong, and in that case, they were dead wrong. In John 7:40-42, "Many of the people therefore when they heard this, said, 'Of a truth this is the Prophet'. Others said, 'This is the Christ.' But some said, 'Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem?'" Notice what happened here in John, chapter 7. The people were arguing about "Was Jesus really the Christ?" Some of them said, "Christ doesn't come out of Galilee, but Jesus came from Galilee." The problem is, they had a misconception. They thought Jesus came from Galilee. Where was Jesus actually born? Bethlehem. So they had the whole wrong problem. They are arguing about the wrong subject. John 7:43 says, "So there was a division among the people because of him. And some of them would have taken him." They would have tried to kill the messenger. Because they had a wrong impression, they thought, "This Jesus is out there preaching, and we've got to shut him up." They got the wrong impression to start with. And that is what happens, people get the wrong idea. They think that Creationists like me are doing damage to the education system. No, we're the right people. We're trying to fix the problem. We are trying to resolve it. Continuing, John 7:45-46 says, "Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?" Now this is classic- notice the chief priests sent their hoodlums to go get Jesus. Jesus answered their questions. They came back and said, "Wow, never a man spake like this man." And then the Pharisees said,"Well, you should have asked him this." I get this every time, including 3 days ago, at Northern Michigan University. They advertise that Kent Hovind is coming to the university. 100 or so professors in Milwaukee refused to debate me. 80 professors in Northern Michigan University refused to debate me. I've had close now to 4,000 professors that have refused to debate on evolution. And they don't even come when I speak. Professors send their students, and tell them, "Here, ask him this; ask him this; ask him this." The student comes back and says, "Teacher, he answered all my questions." And then the teacher says, "You idiot, you should have asked him that and that and that." Well, teacher, you coward, why didn't you come? Why didn't you ask the questions? Professors today do just like the Pharisees did. The professors send their students to try to trap the Creationists. They won't come themselves, and then when that doesn't work, they try to use the law to silence them. Let's just pass a law that says you can't teach creation science. Or if anybody does try to teach Creation, we're going to get them fired. Send them out of here. Continuing, John 7:47-48, "Then answered them the Pharisees, 'Are ye also deceived?'" (Hovind translation) "Are you stupid? Has this guy deceived you too?" Then this is the classic one they always use, "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" (Translation)None of the other scientists believe this creation stuff; therefore, evolution must be true. Now think about that logic- the majority believes this, therefore it's true. I mean, that's silly!In the first place it's not true that the majority believes this. Secondly, that's not how you determine truth. And then they said, "But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." (Hovind translation) We have knowledge; you don't. We have a degree; you don't. We don't approve of your degree - it's from a non-accredited Christian school. Therefore, we're smart; you're dumb. That's a common tactic used by professors today including the 99 professors I've debated. It happens all the time. But Nicodemus wisely said, (John 7:50-53) "Doth our law judge any man, before a hearing?" Nicodemus at least had the common sense to say, "Hey, before we judge this guy, Jesus, and say he's wrong, he's stupid; let's listen to what He's saying." And I would encourage college students and professors and anybody, listen to the Creation side. Just listen. Really honestly listen and hear it, and then make your decision. When I spoke in Soviet Union a couple of years ago, at a university in Ukraine, they shut down the university and sent 30 professors to hear me speak for 2 hours on creation. I was a big celebrity, you know. Dr. Hovind, all the way from Florida. The further away I travel, the more famous I am. Anyway, they shut down the university, and even 30 professors came. After about an hour of speaking on creation, one of the professors was crying. I asked the translator, Olga, "What's he crying about?" She said, "He's never heard the creation story. He didn't know there was one." And I think there are a lot of people in America, a lot of students that I see in America, who have never really, honestly heard the creation story. So, if somebody says everybody believes in evolution, therefore you should too, number one, that's not a good argument and it's not true. And just listen to the creation side; understand it. Last week I sat by someone on the airplane who believed in evolution. I said, "Well, let me just explain the creation side." I took 3 minutes and explained the creation view very simply. And he said, "Wow, that makes a lot of sense." Okay, they started with the false assumption: that Jesus was from Galilee. He wasn't. He was actually born in Bethlehem. Some of the Pharisees had not believed in Him, so therefore, that's "proof" that he's not right. You get the same thing today. Some scientists don't believe in creation therefore, Creation is not true. That is absolutely stupid logic. And they'll say, "Has he published in science journals?" As if, well, you don't see creation articles in National Geographic. Therefore, that proves it's not right. Well, you didn't see many capitalist articles in communist journals, 10 years ago either, by the way. It doesn't prove anything is right or wrong. The majority can be wrong - the majority followed Aaron into rebellion (Exodus 32). The majority voted not to go into the Promised Land (Numbers 32). The majority followed false gods many times in the Old Testament. The majority of the leaders hated Jesus. The majority of the world hates Christians. The majority voted in Bill Clinton twice, for heaven's sake. I mean, the majority can be wrong, they can be dead wrong. But it's not true that all scientists believe in creation. There is a book here by Dr. Robert Gentry, a good friend of mine from Tennessee. He's a very famous scientist who did work on the disposal of radioactive waste. What do you do with this product, nuclear waste? He has done advanced research on the granites from around the world. He discovered that as you look at granites under a microscope, you find that they've got little tiny halos in them - radio-palonium halos. We'll get into more of that later. Robert Gentry was a very famous published scientist until they found out that his research was proving evolution is not true. Because he really proves the earth was never a hot molten mass. He never mentioned creation or God. It was purely scientific research. They published him in all the major journals, until somebody said, "Wow guys, Dr. Gentry's work is proving the Big Bang Theory wrong." They took away his funding and shut off him off like a spigot. They persecuted somebody just because his work was not supporting the sacred cow of evolution. Roger DeHart was a science teacher at Burlington-Edison High School near Seattle. One day they told him that he could no longer tell his students about errors in the textbooks. All he was doing was comparing the textbooks to current science journals. For instance, their textbook said the baby has gill slits like we covered in my Seminar #4. DeHart would bring in a science journal and say, "Guys, I'm sorry but it says in the textbook on this page that the baby has gills. That's not true. Here's a current science journal. "He showed them the evidence. He never mentioned God. He never mentioned the Bible. He never mentioned creation. He just said this textbook's not accurate. And they told him he couldn't do that. You can't inform your students that the book is out of date? That's the kind of persecution that anybody gets, when they try to go against this evolution theory. Evolution is a carefully protected state religion. Just like Communism was a carefully protected state religion if you grew up over there. You don't dare question it. Kevin Haley was a biology teacher in Oregon. He lost his job simply for exposing errors in the textbooks. He told them, "This book's not right. There's a mistake here." They said, "You're fired!" You can't teach here if you there say there are errors in our books. Baylor University in Waco, Texas fired William Dembski in April 2000, simply because he told his students there might be an intelligent designer. They said, "Oh, you're not allowed to say that. So they fired him." This is Baylor that used to be a Christian college. Forrest Mims was a science writer for years. He wrote for many major journals: "National Geographic"," Science Digest", and "American Physics." He wrote all kinds of articles for magazines. But when he applied for a job at Scientific American, he was denied it. They said, "You can't work here, because you are a creationist." Even though what he was writing on had nothing to do with the subject of creation or evolution, they told him, "We don't want you on our staff, because it would look bad if we hired a creationist." That's the type of persecution you get. Rod LaVake told his students, "I kind of doubt that this Darwin theory is true." So they took him away from teaching biology and gave him another job. They said, "We don't want you teaching biology, because you might make our students doubt Darwin's theory." That's how it's protected. It's a religion. There was a teacher in Indiana by the name of Dan Clark. His superintendent, Ed Eller, called him in and said he couldn't introduce creation to his class. Now there's no law against teaching creation at all. There are no court cases saying you can't teach creation. Courts have only ruled that it can't be mandatory. Teachers have the right to teach creation. Here's the problem. The law says you can teach it. The courts say you can teach it. But your boss now says you can't. So he quit his job finally over that. He stood firm. He said, "Look, I'm not going to bow to this one." Dean Kenyon wrote the book, "Of Pandas and People." He was a science teacher at San Francisco State University. He wrote this biology textbook that says, "Hey, there must be some kind of designer. This is so complicated. This is amazing. There must have been a designer." It doesn't try to get them saved; to be converted; to get them to be a Baptist or a Buddhist or a Catholic. It just says, " Look, there must be a designer." He was a tenured biology professor at San Francisco State University. He had written all kinds of books about evolution in the past when he had believed in it. Then he got converted and said, "You know, I really doubt that this theory is true. It doesn't work." And so they fired him. But he was tenured, so he sued them and got his job back. They put him in as a lab assistant washing test tubes - stuff that the students do. He had to sue them again to get his real job back. Just because he said, "There might be a Creator to this universe." That's the type of persecution you get. I spoke in Lubock, Texas, where they told me about a professor named Deni who teaches biology. He told his students, "If you don't believe in evolution, don't come to me for a recommendation to go off to medical school, because I won't give you one." This was on his website for years. "If you don't believe in evolution, you'll never get a recommendation from me." Well, when I went to speak there in Lubock, Texas, the students offered Dr. Deni $1,000 dollars to debate me for 2 hours. And he refused. A thousand bucks for two hours? That's pretty good money. How would you like to make a thousand bucks for two hours? He said, "No, he wouldn't do it." The persecution that happens against Christians and against Creationists in the secular school system is mind-boggling. What are they afraid of? So I say, it is not true that all scientists believe in evolution. But many scientists that do believe in creation are afraid to say anything, because they know the kind of persecution they're going to get. How many teachers were there in Ukraine that did not believe in communism, but didn't dare say anything about it? Anybody that didn't even smile right at Stalin, could get killed. You'd end up in the Siberian gulag or someplace. That's the kind of thing that now happens in America, believe it or not. If a person doesn't support the evolution theory vocally and actively, They will be banished to "academic Siberia." They will lose their grant money. They will lose their job. Sad. Patrick Henry College was told back in November of 2003, I believe, that they weren't going to get accreditation, because they didn't teach enough evolution in their college. There's an article in the Agape Press here, with one such story. A university professor says that she was asked to resign for introducing elite students to flaws in Darwinian thought at the Mississippi University for Women. I spoke just north of there a few weeks after this happened. I spoke to some of the people involved. This lady was told she had to resign her job, because her teaching might make students doubt Darwinism. What are they going to school for: education or indoctrination? You are going to get an education, I thought. And it used to be that way, but not anymore. It's pretty sad. And this lady said that the professor who wanted to fire her hadn't even heard her speech. But she was raising doubts about Darwinism. All kinds of scientists, thousands of them, down through history were creationists. All the branches of science were started by creationists. Just go to: www.answersingenesis.org website and type in: "scientists who believe creation." It will bring up all kinds of articles, and you can read about all these scientists through history who have been creationists. Very famous scientists. I have often asked evolutionists, "Can you name me one advancement in modern science we have because of the evolution theory?" Is that why we have computers? Is that why we have telephones? Radios? Is that why we went to the moon? What advancements can be named that came about because of this evolution theory? They've never given me an answer. There is nothing. The theory is useless. But all major sciences, every branch of science in the last 400 years, was started by creationists. Now they weren't all young earth creationists like me, and they certainly weren't independent, temperamental, fundamental right wing radical Baptists like me. But they were all creationists. Wernher von Braun, the former head of our space program, was a creationist. A. E. Wildersmith, William Ramsey, the Wright brothers. They studied birds. They said, "We wanted to see how the designer, the Creator, how God, made the birds and then we'd learn how to make an airplane." The man who invented the MRI, magnetic resonance imagining machine, is a young earth creationist. There are creationists today. There are a couple of good books in our library or for sale on our website. "in six days" by Ashton is one book, and "on the seventh day" is another book. This one shows 50 scientists who believe in creation. Here are 40 more scientists who believe in creation. You can get these. There are thousands of scientists who do believe in creation. They do not believe in evolution. Karl Popper, a famous leading philosopher of science said, "Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn't even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It is a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science." Evolution is a religion, and they get so angry when I tell them that. Which is probably why I tell them that every few minutes, because I enjoy pushing the right buttons. Julian Huxley, whose grandfather, Thomas Huxley, was the one who really pushed Darwin when his book came out, said, "I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores." We don't want God telling us what to do. That's why they accepted evolution. Michael Ruse said, "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than a mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology; a secular religion. It is a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality." He said, "I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint. And Dr. Duane Gish (of ICR) is but one of many to make it. The Biblical literalists are right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." "Evolution is a religion in every sense of the word. Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." So it's not true that all the scientists believe in evolution. Nearly all branches of science were started by creationists. Evolution has added nothing to science. When students or professors fear expressing their real, honest thoughts, the students are not getting educated, they're getting indoctrinated. Students get flunked for not supporting the evolution theory. Every week when I go to speak, someone will come to meand say, "When I was in biology class, I wrote a paper and the teacher gave me an F, because it didn't support evolution, or because I dared to go against the evolution theory." I get calls like that. Students say, "What do I do? My teacher gave me an F, because my paper went against evolution." It's sad. It's discrimination. All the advancements in modern technology have nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a hindrance to science, not a help at all. Okay, next question. What about separation of church and state? First of all, there's no such phrase in the US Constitution. You can get the entire Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence for $1.00 in the "Citizen's Rule Book." Everybody ought to read this one. It's got a great story in it about jurors. It is amazing the power that jurors have. One juror can decide that he doesn't like the law. If they pass a law in your city that you can't spit on the sidewalk, and somebody does it and they videotape it. They've got the whole thing on tape. He broke the law. They take him to court. It's proven; he broke the law. But you as a juror say, "I don't like that law - I don't think it's fair to say, 'You can't spit on the sidewalk.'" The judge is going to threaten all the jurors, "You have to rule according to the law. You have to listen to my instructions." You don't have to listen to anything that judge says. He's blowing smoke. Smile, nod your head, and when you get in that room, vote "not guilty." The rest of the jurors are going to think you're nuts. They'll say, "What do you mean not guilty? You saw the tape, you saw" I know, but the law's no good. Jury nullification is a powerful, powerful story in here. The Constitution does not mention separation of church and state. You should get the Federalist Papers. Those were all the papers the Founding Fathers wrote as they were defending the new US Constitution. And you can see their thinking processes. The same day that they voted for the First Amendment, ... (which people often think says separation of church and state, which is not what it says. It says the government shall make not make a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.) But that same day, congress voted to send $25,000 to help a Catholic missionary start a mission to help the Indians in Saint Louis. They were not trying to separate church and state. They wanted to keep the state out of the church but not keep the church out of the government. There is no phrase in the US Constitution about separation of church and state. And it's perfectly legal for Christian teachers to do all kinds of Christian things in their school. My brother taught 34 years in a public school. He had a picture of Jesus right by his desk all 34 years. Many teachers keep a Bible right on their desk. Now they may give you a hard time; the principal might say you can't do that. I'm not saying you won't get persecution. But as far as it being legal, it is. If you have trouble, you can contact www.lc.org- libertycounsel.org - Matt Staver's organization. He handles cases like that. Also David Gibbs' organization in Orlando, Florida also takes care of things like that. So if you have trouble, see one of those folks. But what happened is that Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to some Baptist pastors, and he's the one who mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state" (in the personal letter). Now the atheists are using it to say you can't have Christian things in government. What a dumb idea! Our country was founded to be a Christian country. They all said that. Go to www.wallbuilders.com, David Barton's great website. He's got lots of stuff. There's no such thing as separation of church and state, so don't fall for that. And we cover more on that in our college class. Here's what's happened though. The Constitution of the United States, Article One, Section 10 says, you have the right to make a contract. If somebody says, "Brother Hovind, I'm going to pay you $10.00 an hour for the rest of my life." He signs a contract. And then he does not keep the contract. And then I sue him. He says, "Well, I've got a constitutional right to keep my money." Yes you do, but you also have a constitutional right to make a contract. You made a contract. The judge is just going to uphold contract law. A question I very frequently get asked, I would say every single week I go speak, which is 52 weeks now a year for 16 years. Every single week somebody will say, "Now Hovind, how do we see stars billions of years away? You say the earth is only 6,000 years old. How do we see the stars?" Yesterday on the radio program on the website www.drdino.com, somebody called in and said, "Now Hovind, I did some studies and in a 6,000 year light year radius, we'd only have so many cubic miles and all the stars wouldn't fit." I said, "Wait, who said anything about a 6,000 light year radius?" He said, "Well, you're the one who said the earth is only 6,000 years old." Yes, I did, but I never said all the stars are in a 6,000 light year radius. That would be ludicrous. But, how do we see the stars billions of light years away if the universe is only six thousand years old? And I believe the Bible clearly teaches it's only 6,000 years old. And God made everything. Actually, He made the Earth first (Genesis 1), and then (Genesis 1:14), He made the stars also. Evolution says the stars evolved first, and then the Earth. Well, there certainly are a lot of stars out there. Nehemiah 9:6 says, "Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou has made heaven, the heaven of heavens." God is claiming that He made them. So either He did or He didn't. Well, what about the stars? How do they fit in? Well, astronomers can see a star blow up approximately once every 30 years. It's not like it's on a time table. It might happen again after 5 years or then in 50 years, but on an average, a star explodes once every 30 years. And they're looking out there with their telescopes, "Oh wow, there's a new one." A star exploded. It's called a: nova; or if it's a big one, they call it a: super nova. No-va in Spanish means, "No go," and by the way, the Chevy Nova car didn't sell very well in Mexico, for that reason. Stars blow up every 30 years. They've searched the heavens with their telescopes, looking for how many super nova rings there are. They call these dead stars. They can find in total less than 300. Now if there are less than 300 super nova rings. And one happens every 30 years; you can do the math. That's about 9,000 years worth. If the universe is supposed to be billions of years old, there ought to be a whole lot more super nova rings out there. Why are there less than 300 super nova rings? Ah, because the universe is less than 10,000 years old? Boy, they don't like that answer, at all. But that's the logical conclusion. If there were one star blowing up every 30 years, we would have to have at least one star born every 30 years just to keep the balance. Countries that have a problem because they are getting less births than deaths, like Germany today, you know that's eventually going to create a problem. Stars should have to be born. No one has ever seen a star born (or form) - not one. We see them blow up all the time, but we've never seen a star form. And I'll cover that in a second. The latest estimate by the Hubble telescope is that there are 70 sextillion stars. 70 sextillion. They say the universe is 20 billion years old. Well, you can do the math. That means 6 and ½ million stars would have to form every minute. We'd have to have 6 ½ million stars forming every minute for 20 billion years to make the stars that we know about. That doesn't count the stars we don't know about, because we can't see them yet. Who knows how many stars there are out there? Sometimes the textbooks will say, "There are new stars being constantly born in clouds of gas and dust." This is so stupid. How a physics textbook can teach this, I don't know! Anybody that knows freshman physics knows that when you try to squeeze gases together, pressure builds up, temperature builds up, and it drives them back apart. It's called Boyles' Gas Law. No one has ever seen dust collapsing into a solid. It would take such incredible pressure to do that. I was in a debate, and I said, "How do you get dust to collapse into a solid? Explain that to me." He said, "Well, we calculated that if 20 stars explode near each other, it will produce enough pressure to make a brand new star." I said, "Now that's brilliant! You've got to lose 20 to gain one. You ought to run for Congress. You could help those guys borrow their way out of debt." It's not going to get a universe full of stars if you've got to lose 20, to gain 1. And even that is theoretical. It's never been observed. I was at Alamogordo, New Mexico. They have a science center down there, and they showed these pictures of "star babies." They said this is a new star forming. No sir, it's a bright spot. One guy in "Science Magazine" admitted, "The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form." Nobody knows how stars can form from dust clouds. "No one has unambiguously observed material falling into an embryonic star, which should be happening if the star is truly still forming. And no one has caught a molecular cloud in the act of collapsing." "Precisely how a section of an interstellar cloud collapses gravitationally into a star - a double or multiple star, or a solar system - is still a challenging theoretical problem. "Astronomers have yet to find an interstellar cloud in the actual process of collapse." "The Origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics." This guy says, "No one really understands how star formation proceeds. It's really remarkable." Nobody knows how this happened. So if they tell you new stars are forming, you tell them Kent Hovind says they're confused or they're lying, because nobody knows how it happens. There's not even a good theory about how you could squeeze dust into a star and there's certainly no evidence. Here's what happens. They see bright spots appear in the dust clouds in space. They look at the Crab Nebulae or Eagle Nebulae. They're staring at it, and all of a sudden one day the spot gets a little brighter. Immediately they conclude a star is being born. Maybe the dust in front of it is clearing, and the star was already there. Maybe it's a star blowing up. Maybe it's another super nova. That's what happens, they get really bright. They don't know that a star is forming. Don't let them tell you that we've seen stars form. Nobody has seen such a thing. All we do is see is them blow up, which is the opposite of what evolutionists need. The Bible says in Genesis 1:16, "Let them be for signs and seasons, and for days, and years" And He made the stars also:" Here God is claiming that He made the stars. And it says in Psalms, "He counts the number of the stars." Not only the number of the total, but each one has its own number. So God will say, "Oh, this is star number 42 trillion, you know, 718 billion. He knows the number of each one. And it says, "Praise Him, ye waters that be above the heavens" in Psalm 148:4. This is the only verse that says anything like this: "waters that be above the heavens." Now in Genesis one, verses six and seven, it talks about water that were above the heavens. I believe that when God first made the world, it was very, very different from what we see. It was mostly land instead of the huge oceans that we now have. Most of that water was in the crust of the earth. We cover that in Seminar 2. But there was earth and there was "heaven" singular. King James is the only Bible I'm aware of, that gets it right in Genesis1:1 where it says, "In the Beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." All the rest of them say "heavens." That's a mistake. There was heaven, which means expanded place. There was earth, and then from here, on out. Then later He divides "heaven" into three slices: first heaven, second heaven, third heaven. The first heavens is where the birds fly. Genesis 1, verses 20, 21 talk about that. Then there was water above the firmament. Now some creationists do not believe in the canopy theory. I understand. I've read their stuff and I think they're wrong. I have read the research about it and I disagree with it. I believe there was a layer of air for Adam to breathe, a layer of water above to protect them, and then a layer of stars, then more water. The only verse I have to back that up is right here, Psalm 148:4. "Praise Him ye waters that be above the heavens." That is present tense. Is there still water above the heavens? Psalm 104:3 says, "Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind." Could it be that there is another layer of water beyond all of outer space? Maybe everything that we see as this universe, that's looks to us so huge, is inside water, a crystal, and God is outside of that- the third heaven (II Corinthians, chapter 12). Could there be a third layer where God lives? Of course, God doesn't need a place to live. He just is. "I am." Psalm 9 says, "The voice of the LORD is upon waters; the LORD is upon many waters." Maybe everything that we see when we step out at night and say, "Wow, look at all these stars!" Maybe the whole thing is a little snow globe on God's dresser that He picks up and shakes once in a while. You know like, "How are you doing in there?" But Psalm 148:4, "The waters that be above the heavens." People have often asked, "Hey, where is the last star? And once we have found it, what's on the other side?" I don't know the answers, but just a possibility is, that according to the Bible, there still may be water above the heavens. There are a lot of stars out there. The last Hubble-based estimate was 11 trillion stars per person. That is 70 sextillion divided by six billion people. Every one of you gets eleven trillion stars. What happened was they told the Hubble telescope to focus in on a dark dot. See the picture of it there. They found a small dark area above the Big Dipper, about the size of a grain of sand if held at arm's length, and it was black. They didn't think there were any stars there. They decided to focus in on that spot and see what we could find. They took a continuous image for 10 days straight, focusing in only on that dot. After 10 days, they found more stars than they could count! Brand new stars never seen before. They called it: Hubble Deep Field. Something they had never before known about. An assumption would be that it's that way all through space. Truly the stars cannot be numbered (by man). That's what the Bible says, that they cannot be numbered. How do you tell the distance to the stars, and how can the earth be 6,000 years old and the stars so far away? Fair question. Scientist Stephen Hawking said, "Stars are so far away, that they appear to us to be just pinpoints of light. We cannot see their size or shape. How do we tell different types of stars apart? For the vast majority, there is only one thing we can see and that is the color of their light." If you get the largest telescope on earth and look at the closest star, which is Alpha Centauri, four and a half light years away, all you are going to see is a dot. If I focus a telescope on the Sun, it'll get bigger and bigger. And you can actually see flames leaping off, you can see spicules, you can see color changes. And you can actually see features of the sun. When you look at a distant star, you can never see that. Nobody has ever seen a star's features. You get the biggest telescope on Earth. The star is going to be nothing, but a dot on your scope. All you can tell is the color. That's a red one, a yellow one, or a blue one. That's all you can see. So anything we think about the stars, we have to surmise based on assumptions, just from the color. But how do you tell the distance to the star? Well, I taught high school trigonometry for years. And if you have had trigonometry then you will know how it works. If you have two observation points, you can calculate the third distance. It's like solving a triangle. Trigonometry deals with angles and measurements. You use the sine, cosine, and tangent. If you know one distance and two angles or two distances and one angle, you can calculate the rest of the triangle using the sine, cosine, and the tangent. Here's the problem. The earth is only 8,000 miles (13,000 km) in diameter, which compared to the star distance is almost zero. It's nothing. So if I'm looking at a star, and somebody over in China is looking at a star, we are only 8,000 miles (13,000 km) away from each other, using a straight line through the earth. That would be almost nothing, distance-wise. They do something else to enlarge the distance between those looking at the star, besides just being on opposite sides of the earth. Remember, the earth is also going around the sun in this great big huge circle. We're going 66,000 miles (100,000 km) an hour, and it takes us a year to go around, like a great big racetrack. Well, the distance from the Earth to the Sun is 93 million miles (150 million km), which is a lot. But at the speed of light, it's not much. At the speed of light, it's 8 minutes away. It takes the sunlight 8 minutes to get to the Earth. So if we're 8 light minutes away from the sun, the diameter of our orbit going around the Sun is 16 light minutes. So what we're going to do is we're going to look at a star in January, and then we're going to look at it in June, and we have now gone half way around this monster circle. And we're going to get two observation points to try to enlarge the base of our triangle, and it sounds huge. Man, that's 186 million miles (300 million km). Well, it's still not much. A year has 525,000 minutes in it. If this picture here showing the little yellow dot was the scale. It represented earth's orbit - not the Earth's diameter - the orbit of the Earth (around the Sun). It's way too big for the picture. What we're going to do is show you the math involved. If I had two surveyors setting up with their transits and their telescopes, and they are 16 inches (40 cm) away from each other, and they're both looking at a dot 525,000 inches (1.3 million cm) away, which is eight and a third miles (13 km). Would you agree, that would make a rather skinny triangle? Let's go out on the parking lot and draw a triangle with Point A and Point B 16 inches (40 cm) apart, and Point C 8 1/3 miles (413 km) away. That would make a real skinny triangle. That is exactly the triangle you get when two people on opposite sides of the Earth's orbit around the Sun try to measure one light year - one. And I'm not sure if you could tell exactly where you were in space 6 months ago. I think that it might take some stretch of the imagination. You can't know exactly where you were six months ago, but the angle you get with that is 0.017 degrees. Now just imagine this. I want you to get two guys to set up their surveying transits. They are 16 inches (40 cm) apart, and I'm going to put a dot 8 1/3 miles (413 km) away, but they don't know how far away it is. They are both focusing in on the dot, and they see this dot out there. Here's the only information they have: the measurement between themselves, 16 inches, and the angle out of parallel. I say, "Guys, I want you to calculate how far away that dot is based on that little angle change you get." I think that would be difficult to measure for only one light year. Certainly there would be some guesswork involved. Now if you want to measure 100 light years, you have a much worse problem. Now you have to move your dot 830 miles (1,300 km) away. If we had two guys on the roof of this building here in Pensacola, Florida, 16 inches apart and they're both focusing in on a dot in Chicago which is 830 miles (1,300 km) away, but they don't know how far away it is. They are going to tell me how far away it is, based only on the angle of their telescope out of parallel. I would say that's impossible, impossible to measure. 15 billion light years - no question, that's impossible. I don't think you can measure 100 light years, not with real measurements. This textbook says Parallax trigonometry can measure up to a hundred light years. Okay, I doubt, but I'll give them 100. I'll even give them 1,000, if they'll quit crying, The fact is you can't measure a billion - simple fact. So here are some things to consider about starlight. They said in 2004 that with the new SIM technology, Space Iterferometry Mission, they hope to improve the accuracy of measuring the distance to the stars. They say "This accuracy will enable SIM to determine stellar distances to 10% accuracy out to a distance of 482,000 million, million miles. "That's 82,000 light years." Then it says, "This is an improvement of several hundred times over what is possible today." Well, now wait a minute, if they are going to improve it several hundred times, and it ends up being 82,000. 82,000 divided by several hundred turns out to be several hundred. It looks like they are admitting they can only measure several hundred light years. I would agree. I mean, I would say that is even a stretch, but I would give them several hundred. The point is, they can't measure billions. So when you students in school get taught that that star is 14.629 billion light years away, say, "I don't believe you." It might be, but you can't prove that. They are making up a story. With SIM technology, they hope to finally be able to get out to where they can measure most of the way across our galaxy, and we're in it. We can't even measure across our own galaxy, let alone these distances to other galaxies. So I think we should look at the stars and say, "Wow, what a mighty God we serve," instead of going out there and saying, "We know how far away that is. We know it evolved." It's that egotistical attitude that some of these atheists get that makes you want to slap them in the face. Why don't you serve God? Look at what He made. Here are the things to consider about starlight: First of all, one, we can't measure these great distances. It just cannot be done. Number 2. Nobody knows what light is. We call it a wave or a photon or a particle. We know what it does. We use it all the time. But actually, give me a jar of it and paint it red. Nobody knows the substance of light. What is light? And we sure don't know that it always travels at the same speed all through time or space. The entire theory behind the black hole is that light can be attracted by gravity. Well, if light can be attracted by gravity, then you cannot say that the speed of light is a constant. At Harvard University back in1999, they slowed light down to 38 miles (60 km) an hour. The next year, they slowed it down to 1 mile an hour. And the next year brought it down to a dead stop. Light usually goes pretty quickly, at 186,000 miles (300,000 km) per second. They slowed it down. It was done at Harvard. It was done at the Smithsonian. It was done at Cambridge University. It involved a repeatable, demonstrable experiment. Now that is science. If you do an experiment and get a result, then somebody else follows your data, does the same experiment, and gets the same result - that's science. They slowed light down. On Fox News Channel they said, "We have succeeded in holding a light pulse still." They brought the speed of light to zero. They brought it to a dead stop. Meanwhile, back in 2,000 at Princeton University, they sped light up to 300 times the speed of light. So when somebody says, "That star is 10 billion light years away (which I doubt they can measure}, therefore we can prove the universe is 10 billion years old." They have several problems in their logic right away - that they probably don't see. That is why we do these seminars, so we can help people understand. 300 times the current speed of light. Incredible! Astronomer Barry Setterfield, an Australian government astronomer said, "During the last 300 years, 164 measurements of the speed of light have been published using 16 different measurement techniques. The speed of light has apparently decreased so rapidly experimental error cannot explain it." This is a chart showing a decline in the speed of light from the published numbers in the last 150 years. You notice the decline in the chart. The speed of light is getting slower until about 1960. For the last 40 years, anybody that's measured the speed of light has been getting the same number: 186,282.4, I think, miles (300 km) per second. Well, it could be that it leveled off in 1960 for 2 or 3 possible reasons. Our way of measuring is getting better, instruments are getting better; we're smarter. Everybody in the past was dumb. We're smart. We got it right. Could be, that's what they'll tell you. Second option is we're at the tail end of a logarithmic curve, and you're much less likely to see any decline. As you get further out on the logarithmic curve, it pretty much levels out. But a third reason is: in 1956 is when they invented the atomic clock, and they started using that as their clock to measure the speed of light. Now the atomic clock is based on the wave length of a Cesium 133 atom. So the clock is based on the speed of light. Now, if you have a clock based on the speed of light, and you're measuring the speed of light with it, and the speed of light changes, you're never going to catch it with that clock. It's like watching two twins grow right next to each other. Wow, neither one's growing. You've got a (stretching) "rubber ruler" problem. Clear back in 1987, some researchers said, "The speed of light was ten billion times faster at time zero." There must have been a faster speed of light. There have been articles in the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's saying the speed of light is not a constant. They said, "No physical law prevents anything from exceeding the speed of light. In two published experiments, the speed of light was apparently exceeded by as much as a factor of 100!" The Big Bang Theory requires a much faster speed of light. Dr. Magueijo says, "A shocking possibility is that the speed of light might change in time during the life of the universe." Could it be that the speed of light was faster? Here's an article from the newspaper, "Speed of light may have changed over history, study says." Winnipeg Free Press - "Nothing's reliable - not even the speed of light." "We have shown how a time varying speed of light could provide a resolution to the well known cosmological puzzles." "One of the mysteries that a decaying speed of light seems to be able to explain is why opposite extremes of the cosmos that are too far apart to have ever been in contact with the other, appear to obey the same rules of physics and are even about the same temperatures. It would only be possible for light to cross from one side to the other, if it traveled much faster than today moments after the universe was created." Is the speed of light really a constant? There are articles here in Reuter's News Service: "The speed of light may not be a constant." I have dozens of articles like these in the last 15 years. And we'll give much more detail in the CSE college classes about the speed of light. So don't let somebody tell you that the speed of light is a constant. We don't know that. A big article came out in "Discover Magazine," "Was Einstein wrong about the speed of light?" back in 2000, said, "Yes, Einstein was wrong. The speed of light is not a constant." There's a book by a European scientist that says, "The speed of light is not a constant." And there have been many articles published like this. You can read them for yourself. The third thing to consider is that the creation was finished and mature, when God made it. Not only can we not measure those distances, not only is the speed of life not necessarily a constant, the creation was done. You see, Jesus made wine out of grapes that never existed. It missed all that time. Instead of going from the water in the ground through the plant into the grape, then somebody squeezing it and making the wine, Jesus turned the water straight to wine. I ask people the question, "How old was Adam on Day Six?" Anybody know? Zero. Did he look zero? No, he may have looked 52, or 53 years old. He was in perfect physical condition. God didn't make two babies, put them in the Garden of Eden, hand them a package of seeds, and say, "Here, plant these, quick. You're going to need supper." He made them a full-grown man, a full-grown woman and a full-grown garden. They have to have supper tonight. There had better be something hanging on the tree ready to eat. Even if you plant a tree, it's going to take 4 or 5 years to get fruit off it. So the creation had to be mature. A fourth thing to consider about the speed of light distance is that it is not a time. It's a distance. And since the speed of light is not proven to be consistent, why would star distance have anything to do with the age of the universe? Now, I am not saying and have never said, "All of the stars are inside of a 6,000 mile radius of the earth." That's not what I say, and I don't know any creationist that teaches that. So when they say that, they're setting up a straw man and knocking it down. They're lying. The stars probably are billions of light years away. We just can't measure them, that's all. So how do scientists measure the ages of stars? "We can also find absolute ages by comparing a star's color and brightness with those in stellar evolution models." What? We can tell how old it is by how old we think it is. That's exactly what they're saying, right there. Now I think everybody is asking the totally wrong question. They are saying, how did the light get from the star to the Earth? They're asking the wrong question. 17 times in the Bible, it says that God "stretched out the heavens." Well, if He stretched out the heavens, you're asking the wrong question. It's not how did the light get from the star to here? But how did the star get from here to there. That's the question we need to be asking. The Bible says pretty clearly that He made the Earth first. And then He made the stars also. Suppose that He made the Earth and then stretched out the stars from here. Adam would see the stars on day sixand day seven and day eight. As the star is being stretched out into place, it's going to leave behind a trail of light. So the stars could be billions of light years away today and still have been created in the six days from 6,000 years ago. Dr. Russell Humphreys has a book, which I read, and I just have to say I didn't understand it, all of it. He's really, really smart, but it's a good one: "Starlight and Time" if you really want to get more on that. I don't know that I agree with his premise. I think he starts with the assumption that the speed of light is a constant. And he tries to explain that. And they get into this warped space and bent space stuff. I think it's much simpler. The speed of light is not a constant. God made things, and stretched them out into place. So, if that stretching took place, maybe that explains why we have a "red shift". And we'll cover the red shift question in just a minute after the break. Let's go on to the question about the red-shift. Doesn't that prove that the universe is expanding? Or doesn't that prove that the universe is billions of years old? Let me explain what they are talking about. If light shines through a prism, it breaks it up into the rainbow colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. Now if you take starlight and shine it into a prism, by putting a prism onto the back of your telescope, the light shines through and it gets broken up into the same colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. And you can kind of tell what's burning, because different things burn different colors, like copper burns green. And each element produces a distinctive color and they can kind of tell what's in the star and what it's burning by what color of light it produces. You can learn a lot about the stars from the light. However, as they look at this spectroscope, the colors it produces, there are little black lines in starlight indicating a particular element is burning, but they are shifted toward the red. You notice the center picture up there, the black lines are shifted toward the red side; and that's called the redshift. So the question is, what would be causing this? Why would some of these stars have the black line shifted over toward the red? Well, there are several theories about what is causing it. The most commonly accepted theory, and probably the only one that students are ever taught in school, is that the redshift is caused by what is known as the Doppler effect. If you have ever been waiting at the train tracks when the train is coming, as the train comes toward you, it is squeezing the sound waves, so the pitch goes up. As it leaves you, it is stretching the sound waves, and so the pitch drops. That's called the Doppler effect. Well, this happens whether the sound is moving past you or you are moving past the sound. It doesn't matter, you still get this Doppler effect; the change in pitch. Well, the theory is that if a star was moving toward us, it would squeeze the light waves, giving it a blue-shift and if it is leaving us, it would give a redshift, because it would stretch the light out. That's the theory. What really causes it, I don't think anybody knows for sure. This guy said, "This was an early sign that redshifts reliably indicate the distances to quasars. However, the diagram shows a wide scatter in apparent brightness at every red shift." "In fact, there is little correlation of brightness to redshift at all! Either quasars come in an extremely wide range of intrinsic luminosities, as most people believe, or their redshifts do not indicate distance." I don't think anybody knows for sure what causes a redshift, but you certainly can't tell the distance to a star based on the redshift. But that's exactly what they try to do. They look at stars, and they say, "That is red-shifted more. It must be 10 ½ billion light years away, instead of 10.2 or something. They make a whole lot out of just a little bit of science, in my opinion. This guy said in "Sky and Telescope" magazine, "Thus for us the only conclusion is that at least some quasars are relatively nearby, and that a large fraction of their redshift is due to something other than the expansion of the universe." Basically he's saying that we're not sure what is causing the redshift. It may be that they are nearby. There's a good book I highly recommend called, "The Evolution Cruncher." It's a 900 page book, and it sells for only $5.00. He's got a whole section in here on page 52 about the redshift and the Doppler effect and what causes it. He's got some real good stuff. And these you could give out to every high school kid you know. He has good information about the redshift and what's causing it. This article says, "A quasar with an enormous redshift was found embedded in a nearby spiral galaxy with a far lower redshift." Now how can one star be inside another star, and they're giving you two different redshifts, if this indicates distance? If a quasar is inside a galaxy, they should both give you the same redshift; both being the same distance away. But they admitted that they found this quasar inside a galaxy that had different redshifts, but yet they were obviously the same distance away. So they said, "According to the standard Big Bang view of the universe, the objects we call quasars are generally supposed to be at the very edge of the visible universe. They are supposed to be super-luminous black holes with a million or 100 million times more mass than our sun, surrounded by a disk of material. Some of the material falls into the black hole, causing the emission of huge amounts of energy." There's a big article when they discovered this, "Discovery Poses Cosmic Puzzle: Can a 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within a Nearby Galaxy?" This really created a problem. How on earth can we have these two objects that are different distances - at the same location? Well, it's not a problem if you realize that you can't trust the redshift to measure the distance. But they are so anxious to say that the universe is billions of light years across, and it probably is, and use that as evidence to say therefore, that it's billions of years old. That's why this all becomes a problem for them. If they would just accept the Bible, then it wouldn't be a problem for them at all. This article says, "Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift: unsolvable riddle for Big Bang astronomy." I agree. If you believe the Big Bang theory - that is an unsolvable problem. "Science News" ran an article that said, "another set of observations indicates that the universe 'appears to be' 8.4 to 10.6 billion years old. The new work relied on the Hubble Space Telescope to obtain the distance to far away galaxies." "A team led by Tanvir of the University of Cambridge in England used a two-step method to estimate the Hubble constant." You stop and think about that. How many of you have had algebra? You have variables in your equation. You multiply the variable times the constant. If one constant changes, that is going to change your whole answer. So most of this distance stuff they are doing with stars is based on what they call the Hubble constant, but they don't even know what that is. The Hubble constant is estimated. That's going to radically affect the outcome of your equation. So is the universe 8.4 billion years old or is it 10.6? When I debated Hugh Ross, of "Reasons to Believe," he said it's 17.42 billion years old. 17.42, how do you know that? Some textbooks say 18; some say 20; some say 12. The numbers range all over the scale. The fact is they don't know. They're making up numbers, purely making them up. The article goes on to say, "You have to be very careful about [drawing conclusions] because all of the [Hubble constant] measurements have huge systematic errors." I like this article which came out in "Discover" magazine a couple years ago, "Astronomers believed the Veil, one of the best studied supernova remnants, was 2,500 Light Years away and 18,00 years old. They were quite wrong. In fact, the Veil is only 1,500 LY away and 5,000 years old." See, just four years ago, they were discovering they had radically wrong numbers. How do you know any of the numbers they are telling us are right? I think we should say, "Look, until somebody's proven the Bible wrong, I'm going to believe it." Instead of "Well, scientists are saying it's wrong. Therefore we must believe the scientists." Don't go along with that. "Even the nearest Cepheids are so remote that it is difficult to determine their absolute distances with any great accuracy. All large distances in astronomical literature are subject to an error of perhaps 10 percent, from this cause alone." There are a lot of different things that can cause errors in these measurements. We talked earlier about the triangulation, measuring with trigonometry. You've got incredible errors built into that. The numbers are just so big, the distances are so large, you can't do it. They say, "We now know that faintness arises from two causes [distance and absorbing matter in space], This is what is happening. They look at a star and say, "Wow, we know that one is, you know, 4 billion light years away, and look at that one over there, that one is only half as bright, so it must be 8 billion light years away." They used the inverse square law, and that's all logical if there's not something in between absorbing the light or scattering the light. Just because a star is dimmer doesn't mean its farther. It might mean something is in between, like a dust cloud. Outer space is fulll of all kinds of stuff. This researcher admits, "It is not generally possible to apportion it accurately between the two." There's more about Halton Arp and the persecution that happened to him, because he dared to question the redshift. All he did was expose the problems with it. "Guys, that redshift has problems.""Well, then, you're fired. You get out of here and don't you ever come back, until you repent."because you just don't question some things. They are sacred. The Bible says in Isaiah 42:5 God stretched out the heavens. (Isaiah 45) He "stretched out the heavens" (Jeremiah 10:12) He "stretched out the heavens." 17 times in the Bible, it says God stretched out the heavens. Now what does that mean? Well, I would guess that He stretched out the heavens. I don't know that anybody knows, but here may be a couple of options about what may be causing this redshift. Keep in mind that the redshift is probably the only bit of scientific data that is used to support the Big Bang theory. They look at the stars and say redshift, redshift, redshift, redshift. All these stars are moving away. What does that mean? Oh, that means they used to be all in one spot. So the evidence for the Big Bang is the redshift. And the Big Bang has to be one of the dumbest theories in the history of humanity. Here are some things that might be causing the redshift. It could be the stretching from the creation. If the stars are moving away because they are being stretched out or were stretched out, that would cause the redshift. It could be the light's getting tired. I get tired. I don't know if light does or not. We know that light going through a prism bends because different wave lengths are different energy levels. That's why it makes the rainbow. Maybe it's just the effect of traveling through space. Is space really nothing, or is there something in space? Is light going through anything when it goes through space? I don't know. Maybe it is the Doppler effect. Could be. Maybe it's light being sped up or slowed down by going through a black hole. Robert Gentry's got a great article in his website, www.halos.com if you want to read more about the redshift and the problems with it, get all the technical stuff. But when you talk about the stars, there's a good book by Brian Young called, "The Stars: God's Word in the Sky." You can get it from our ministry for $10.00. It's a great book on the stars. Christians shouldn't be afraid of astronomy. Now, astrology is different. God created everything. Here's another book, "Astronomy and the Bible" by Donald B. DeYoung. It is an awesome book. I think we should study astronomy, study what God has made. This book is a little controversial. Dr. D. James Kennedy, of Coral Ridge Ministries, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale,Florida talks about what he believes is the real meaning of the zodiac. He goes through the 12 zodiac symbols and says probably these originally had a gospel story to them, which has now been perverted into the horoscope. So go to www.coralridge.org to get the book, which is about $6.00 or $8.00. But the Bible does talk about the star constellations. It talks about Pleiades and Orion in Job 38:31. And Mazzaroth and Arcturus in Job 38:32-33. There are constellations mentioned in the Bible. Now what does this mean? Now I don't know, and I don't know anybody who knows for sure, but here's what some Christians think. That when God originally made the world, Adam didn't have a Bible, it hadn't been written yet. So God gave Adam the Gospel story in the stars. The twelve different constellations told the story of the redemption, the coming of Jesus Christ. And one theory suggests that the Sphinx by the pyramid in Egypt was built to tell us how to read the Zodiac, because it starts with the face of a woman, and ends with the body of a lion. So you start reading the zodiac, instead of in January, like we do, you should start with Virgo, the virgin, and you go all the way through to Leo the lion. I don't know. I know today the horoscope is all perverted, and Satan always takes what God does and twists it, perverts it, and changes it. But if you want to study real astronomy, that's fine. There appears to be something to that though, that there really is something to this Gospel in the stars. Dr. Carl Baugh has a real good theory, that each of the constellations are producing different radio waves. Stars produce radio waves. He thinks the canopy of ice that used to be above the earth could actually change those radio frequencies into audible waves, like a crystal radio does; it would actually vibrate. And Adam and Eve would be able to hear the music of the stars mentioned in Job chapter 38. Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but it sure preaches good that the whole Gospel story was being sung to them continually as they traveled around every year. Who knows? Well, next question, Is the Sun shrinking? There has been some controversy among creationist groups the last 10 years over this question. The sun is shrinking. There is not much question about that. But does that prove it's not billions of years old? Well, I think so. The sun is burning obviously. You can step outside and look at it. It's losing about 5 million tons every second; quite a weight loss program. Well, that means of course, that it used to be bigger. You don't need to be too much of a genius to figure that out. The "Bulletin of American Astronomical Society" ran an article back in 1979, which some people have argued about the legitimacy of. But they said, "Since 1836, more than one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory [that's in England] and the U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct, visual measurements that suggest that the sun's diameter is shrinking at a rate of about 0.1% each century or about 5 feet (1.8 m) per hour." Let's assume that this is correct for the moment. If the sun is burning, and it's losing 5 feet an hour - that would be the diameter that is shrinking. So the radius would be losing 2 1/2 feet (75 cm). It's 93 million miles (150 million km) to the earth. You divide that by 2 1/2 feet per hour, and you are going to find out it cannot possibly be billions of years old. That of course would assume several things. has the rate always been the same? Has the rate of burn always been the same? I know there are a lot of assumptions built in. But I think we could all agree - the sun is burning. I think we could all agree it's getting smaller. "Several other indirect techniques also confirm that the sun is shrinking, although these other methods inferred a collapse of only about 1/7 as much." This is from "Science" magazine. Here's the chart showing the graph of what has been observed, written down. They look at the sun. They measure the sun using trigonometry, and it's close enough to work that way. They measure the numbers and say, "Wow, the sun's diameter, polar and equatorial is shrinking." Now I know the sun oscillates. It swells and contracts, and swells and contracts. It's burning, like a marshmallow. But generally, you can see that from the graph size. Well, if you go back billions of years, you would assume this would make a problem. If the sun were bigger, it would pretty soon absorb Mercury and Venus and then Earth. I don't know how far back you'd have to go and I think Christians would be wise to not put a number on it. Don't say, well, you know, 18.6 million years ago, this or that would happen. Because what happens then, is that the atheists argue about the number, and miss the whole point. They miss the concept. The fact is, guys, that it is burning. It used to be bigger. This creates a problem for their theory. A bigger problem, though, than just the size of the sun, is the mass. Gravity is directly proportional to how heavy the objects are, i.e. the mass of the object. If the sun were more massive, gravity would be stronger. And that is going to start sucking planets in, drawing them out of their orbits. So yes the sun is shrinking, and I think it creates a problem for those who want to believe that the universe is billions of years old. I wouldn't put a number on it, but it certainly makes a problem somewhere. But Danny Faulkner is an astronomer at the University of South Carolina. He's a good friend, and he's been down here to do some taping with us when I debated Hugh Ross. He's got a great article on his website. It's kind of long, but: "The young faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system" by Danny Faulkner is very interesting. "Because the sun, if you go back in time, would have been dimmer, this creates a problem. How could plants have survived with the changing brightness of the sun also? Evolutionists maintain that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Since then the Sun would have brightened about 25%. Well, if the sun is 25% brighter now than it was then, how could plants have evolved?" He goes through some good legitimate points here. The "young faint sun paradox" is a problem for those who believe in evolution. He says, the logical conclusion he comes to is, it's not billions of years old. Of course, the other astronomers say that's not possible. Of course it's billions of years old. Of course it is. They don't like that idea. What about carbon dating? I get asked this all the time. Jonathon spent $70.00 to get this book, and the new one is out, and it's $80.00 now? $80.00. "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth." (From ICR, the Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org) The RATE Project: RATE. I am sure not the world's expert on carbon dating. But I think I can explain things. I am a teacher. I can explain it as best as I can. That's what a teacher is supposed to do. Take the complex and explain it so that the average person can get it. Since I operate at about fourth grade level, I've got to understand it myself first, so I can explain it. Let me explain how carbon dating is supposed to work. And then tell you the serious problems with it. Carbon dating was not invented until 1949, in the last 60-70 years. So when they started telling the kids the earth is billions of years old, back in 1830, they didn't tell them it was that way, because of carbon dating. They'd never thought of carbon dating. It had never been heard of. Why were they teaching the earth was billions of years old 160 years ago? Well, because they needed billions of years to make their theory look good. That's why. I mean, if I told you a frog would turn into a prince if you kissed it, you would say that's a fairy tale. But if I told you, "Hey kids, the frog can turn into a prince if you wait billions of years." Oh wow, now it becomes believable. No, it's still a fairy tale. It's a stupid idea. But the geologic column is where it all started. We covered that in Seminar #4, and some more in Seminar #6 about the geologic column. The earth was divided up into layers: Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, etc. Each layer was an assigned a name, an age, and an index fossil. We covered that on video four. Then they said, "Now we have to prove that these layers are old." So they picked the numbers out of the clear blue sky and any dating technique that comes along, like carbon dating or any other, has to match the geologic column, or it's rejected. Only because the geologic column has been taught 180 years now, so surely it's true. No, just because it's been taught for 180 years doesn't make it true. But that's the logic that the scientists will have. "Well, we know the geologic column is established, therefore any carbon dates we get should match that." If they don't, we'll throw them out. And we'll keep testing until we do match it. They may have to test a sample 5 or 6 times until they get the number they want. Well, how do you know any of them are right then, if you are getting a different number every time? How would you know that any of them are right? "Radiometric dating would not have been feasible, if the geologic column had not been erected first." "Ever since William Smith at the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method of dating and correlating the rock in which they occur." "Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." They don't date fossils by carbon dating. They date them by their geologic position. That's how it's done. But here is how it happens. The earth's atmosphere is about 100 miles thick. The space shuttle, in order to get free from friction, has to get up about 100 miles outside the air. And straight up, a hundred miles is not that far. It's only 100 miles from here halfway to Tallahassee. But if you look at the atmosphere, it has very distinct layers to it, which is kind of interesting. It has a heat sink, where it gets very, very cold, up about seven or eight miles up. There it is about 80 or 90 or a 100 degrees below zero. But the earth's atmosphere contains mostly nitrogen: 78 % nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and a little bit of CO2 for plants to breathe. Well, plants breathe in carbon dioxide, and there's a very little bit of radio-active Carbon-14 - 0.0000765%. This radio-active Carbon-14 is different from regular carbon. It's produced by radiation striking the atmosphere. Sunlight strikes the atmosphere, slaps the nitrogen around and turns it into Carbon-14. So it all starts by the Sun's rays hitting the atmosphere, just to give you the procedure here. About 21 pounds (9 kg) of Carbon-14 is produced every year, and that is spread out all over the world. If I told you there are 21 pounds (9 kg) of gold, but it's spread out equally, all over the world, forget it, you're not even going to go look for it. You're not going to find it. Real tiny amounts. If you look at the periodic table of elements, carbon and nitrogen are right next to each other. Nitrogen has an atomic weight of 14. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12. But if the sunlight slaps the nitrogen around, it'll knock a few things off of it, and it can become carbon 14. So it still weighs as much as the nitrogen, but now it is considered a carbon. It's called radio-active, which does not mean it listens to the radio. It is unstable, and it is going to break apart. It's like three guys dating the same girl, that relationship is not going to last. Something will go wrong. Carbon 14 is unstable. It does not like being carbon 14. It wants to get out of this situation, so it breaks down. About half of it will break down on a statistical average, about half of it is going to fall apart every 5,700 years. Now, it is doing this on a purely random procedure. You've got a pile of molecules. You never know which one is going to fall apart. But statistics tell us, about half of them will fall apart every 5,700 years. Roughly. Now while it is carbon 14, it is floating around in the atmosphere. Like the rest of the carbon and it latches onto oxygen, like carbon often does and becomes carbon dioxide. And they hook and they are happily floating around the atmosphere. And the plants are breathing in CO2. Animals come along and eat the plants. So the only way Carbon-14 gets into the living world is this way. It is produced by the sun, striking the atmosphere, plants breathe it in, animals eat the plants. Probably during your lifetime, you've either eaten plants or you've eaten animals that have eaten plants. How many of you have ever done that before? Like today, at lunch. Everything we eat is from one of those sources, either plants or animals that have eaten plants. Plants are absorbing CO2. Some of it is radioactive. So if the atmosphere contains .0000765%, it is assumed that the plants also have .0000765%. Probably a reasonable assumption, and I wouldn't argue with them. But I would just point out that this is one of dozens of assumptions, that can enter in to mess up things like carbon dating. So probably, you have .0000765% carbon in you, because you've been eating these plants or you have been eating these animals, which have been eating these plants. Probably it's all balanced in nature. When the plant or animal dies, it stops taking in more C14. It stops breathing. Now whatever it had is going to decay. It was decaying while it was alive. But now there is nothing to replace it. So what they do is to compare the amount of C14 in the fossil with the amount in the atmosphere today and say, "Wow, this fossil has only got half as much, therefore, it has been dead for one half life." 5,700 years, because it continues to decay after it died, but now it can't be replaced. So while it was alive, it should have had 0.0000765%. If it only has 0.00003825% it's been dead for one half life. Or two half-lives or three half-lives, etc. In theory it never goes to zero. But for practical purposes, you can't measure beyond a certain amount. You're going to run out of stuff to measure. It goes from a ½ to a ¼ to a 1/8 to a 1/16 to ... not enough to measure. A great article came out from the: Institute for Creation Research (ICR). They are the ones who did the rate project. www.icr.org. They said, "With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of Carbon-14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon-14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980's, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds." Think what that means. The textbooks will tell you coal formed 250 million years ago in the Carboniferous Era. And yet when they test coal, it still has carbon14. How is that possible? If all the carbon 14 atoms would have disappeared in say 40 or 50 some thousand years, why would there still be carbon 14 atoms in coal? I have an idea, it's not a quarter million years old? Oh boy, they don't like that answer. They'll keep searching until they find another answer. They don't like that one, for sure. And diamonds, which they say formed millions and millions of years ago, still have carbon 14 in them and it's not possible to contaminate one of those things. I mean, it's the hardest substance we have. So how do you get carbon 14 in diamonds? And when did diamonds form? I'm not sure when diamonds formed. I know Superman makes them in a few minutes. You know, he takes a piece of coal, squeezes it to give to his girlfriend Lois Lane. But they learned today, just in the last 20 years, how to make laboratory diamonds that are completely indistinguishable from natural diamonds. They use high pressure. They've been making artificial diamonds for years, but they couldn't make them very big. Now, just in 2005, they were able to make big diamonds with the synthetic process. Just recently they are advertising this. Take your dead pet; burn the body; cremate it down to carbon; then pressure it into a diamond. You can wear your dog for the rest of your life. We were talking about that on the radio yesterday. Anyway, this guy says even these diamonds have carbon 14. He says they "cannot be contaminated. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions of years old." Now the Rate project book (from ICR) is difficult reading, heavy reading. Jonathon, you're awfully smart. How far did you make it through the book? About half way and it's taken you almost a year? Yes, it is heavy reading. If you want the simplified, don't go down quite so deep version, this book is excellent by Donald B. DeYoung, "Thousands, NotBillions." It kind of summarizes in real English what they said - different ways to show the earth is not billions of years old. But the carbon dating assumptions need to be pointed out. They'll say, "Well, we know carbon decays at a certain rate and we know if it's only got half as much, we know it's this old." There are some assumptions that mess up everything. I'll show you how it works. If I said, "We're going to fill a barrel up with water", and hand someone the hose. And say, "Lea, fill it with water." What you don't know is I have drilled holes in the barrel. While, you're putting water in, water is leaking out. It's kind of like your checkbook. You keep putting it in and it keeps leaking out someplace. Well, the earth's atmosphere is kind of like this barrel. It's always getting brand new carbon 14. 21 pounds of it every year being put in, and it's always leaking out through decay. So the question would be, how long would it take to reach a stage called equilibrium? Now with a barrel, you can actually do the math and calculate, if I put in a certain amount per minute and a certain amount per minute leaks out, when will it reach equilibrium, with a little bit of math. So with the atmosphere, they asked, "When will the atmosphere reach equilibrium?" So, the researchers who first invented carbon dating in the 1940's wondered about the Earth's atmosphere reaching equilibrium. They did a bunch of studies on that, and said, "If we took a brand new planet earth, created it from scratch, and got it going around the sun, how long would it take for it to reach this equilibrium point in the atmosphere where the production rate and the destruction rate would be the same?" And they determined it would take about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium. I'm not sure how they figured all that out. You could see some RATE scientist and figure it out. But then they made two mistakes, in my totally unbiased opinion. They said, "Number one, we know the earth is millions of years old."So that is mistake number one. "Number two, we can ignore the equilibrium problem, because we would have passed that point 30,000 years ago." And do you know, they have discovered that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. "Radiocarbon is still forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying." Now think about that, if radiocarbon is still forming faster than it is decaying, that means the earth is less than 30,000 years old, number one; and number two, you can't carbon date anything, because you would have to know when it lived, so you could calculate when it lived. You have to know when it lived to know how much Carbon-14 it was breathing at that time. It doesn't work. There's a website, www.arky.org, that has more info explaining that the earth has not reached equilibrium, articles by Ron Cooper. But this is a calibration curve. If an animal is still alive, it should give you about 16 clicks on your Geiger counter per minute per gram. If you're only getting eight, you say it's been through one half-life or four clicks, two half-lives, etc. This is called the calibration curve. In theory it sounds like it should work. But there are several real obvious assumptions. I don't know how they don't see it. Suppose you walked into a room, and I say, "There's this candle burning on a table. I want you to tell me when was it lit." You find out it was seven inches tall. You say, "Well, that won't tell me anything." Now we've got to find out how fast it was burning. We measure the candle for awhile. We get an Olympic stopwatch, and we get it down to the nearest 40th bazillionth of a second. And we all agree the candle is burning an inch an hour. Here are our two facts: the candle is seven inches tall. It's burning an inch (2.5 cm) an hour. When was it lit? Nobody can figure it out, unless you make some assumptions. Assumption number one - how tall was the candle? An assumption number two - has it always burned at the same rate? Neither of those can be known. If you sfind a fossil in the dirt, the amount of carbon can be measured, and the rate of decay can be measured. We don't argue with either of those. How much was in it when it lived? I don't know. Has it always decayed at the same rate? I don't know. Has it been contaminated sitting in the ground all these millions of years? There's no way to know those things. If the earth had a canopy of water above the atmosphere, or a canopy of ice as we cover in Seminar #2, that would have blocked out a lot of radiation from the Sun which would have prevented most of the carbon 14 from even forming. So animals that lived before the flood would have lived in a world with much less carbon 14 to begin with, maybe none, but certainly less. When we dig up the fossil that's been buried for 4,400 years, let's say it started with a count of four, whereas today we start with 16. We dig it up from 4,400 years after the flood and say, "Wow, here's a mammoth that got buried, and it's carbon dated." Well, we're assuming it started with 16. When we test it and see it's got two. We think it's been through four half-lives, when it's actually only been through one half-life. Which is why it never works. When they first invented carbon dating in 1949, William Libby did some testing and said, "the lower leg of a mammoth was 15,000 years old, but its skin was 21,000." How could two parts of the same animal be different ages? Quite obviously, we know one of the numbers is wrong. So how would you know either of them is right? And if either one is right, how would you know which one? I see no way to tell. Well, let's see if it is getting better. Fourteen years later they tested a living mollusk, a clam, and it was 2,300 years old. It was still alive. In 1970, at the Nobel Symposium, "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." You mean they can pick and choose any numbers they want? Exactly correct. If the number doesn't fit what they expected, they throw it out. In 1971, a freshly killed seal was 1,300 years old when they carbon dated it. "The troubles of radiocarbon dating are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged and warnings are out that radiocarbon dating my soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then that fully half the dates are rejected." Did you follow that? Out of thousands of times that they have carbon dated things, half of the numbers are thrown out. How do they know which ones are wrong? And also how would you know the other half is right? If half your test results have to be thrown out, it ought to raise red flags in somebody's brain, "Wait a minute, this is stupid. What are we doing? We're wasting our time here." And the article goes on to say, "The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half have come to be accepted." "No matter how 'useful' it is, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies. The chronology is uneven, relative and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th Century alchemy." I agree. That's from back in 1981. I've got all these in chronological order. It never gets better. 1984, living snails carbon dated 27,000 years old. 1992, two mammoths found side by side. They carbon date them. One is 22,000. The other is 16,000. Which one's right? Or are both of them wrong? Or are both of them right? There is no possible way to tell. In 1996, Carl Swisher at Berkeley University used the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930's. He was testing the sediment found with them. The species was supposed to be extinct for a 1/4 of a million years. Even though Swisher used two different dating methods, he kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000. I'd like to point out two things here. He's looking for 1/4 million as his answer. But he keeps getting 53 to 27 thousand, which is one fifth of what he wants. But he's still getting a 96% error. Is it 27,000 or 53,000? This is not an exact science! So when they publish an article in the paper and say, "We found a dinosaur bone or mammoth bone, and it was 17,221 years old and 6 months and 3 days," you can say, "Right, they don't know. They're making up this stuff." Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten in February of 2005 resigned as a professor because he had been lying about carbon dating for years. His frauds were exposed in February of 2005. He had dated the "Bischof-Speyer" skeleton at 21,300 years old, but when they tested it at Oxford, they said it was only 3,300 years old. 700% error. Professor Protsch said he had found the oldest German to ever move to Germany: 27,400 years old. They tested it at Oxford and said this was an old man who died in 1750. He's 250 years old. This professor had been lying about this stuff for decades, and so he finally resigned in disgrace. Well, he should. "One part of a mammoth dated 29,500 years old and another part was 44,000." You talk about a slow birth. That would be it. I like this article obtained from Rand McNally. "The last two years an absolute date was obtained for (the Ngandong beds, above the Trinil beds), and it has the very interesting value of 300,000 years plus or minus 300,000 years." Boy, they nailed that right on the head, plus or minus - 100% error. In the geological survey professional paper 862, (and I get some flack over this, but I've got paper in the library somewhere. We couldn't find here.) There are all kinds of articles about carbon dating of things in Alaska. I just want to show you a few things here. They carbon dated sample #SI454. See that on the chart there and said it was 17,210 years plus or minus 500. Then they tested sample#SI455 and said, "It's 24,140 years old." Well, 17,000, or 24,000, you say that's looking good until you find out that's the same sample as 454. Very same sample tested again. So is it 17,000 or 24,000? Sample # 299 was less than 20,00 years old. That little carat means less than. Sample #L136 is greater than 28,000. You say, "Well, that's working well." This sample is less than 20,000 and that sample is more than 28,000, until you find out it's the same sample. How can a sample be less than 20 and more than 28 at the same time? I taught algebra for a long time, and I don't think you can do such a thing. That's not too good. "Living penguins were dated as 8,000 years old." "Material from layers where dinosaur bones were found were carbon dated at 34,000 years old." I was in a debate one time, and the professor was getting so upset. Finally, he said, "How can you use "Reader's Digest" as a resource?" I said, "Sir, I used the "Reader's Digest" just for the picture of the dinosaur bone. It's not the resource for the fact. He was reassured, and we went on with the debate. But dinosaurs ought to date at least 70 million years old. A Russian scientist dated dinosaur bones at less than 30,000 years old. Hugh Miller from Columbus, Ohio took in four dinosaur bone samples and said, "Will you carbon date these?" And they charge like $600.00 to carbon date something. They carbon dated them and said they were less than 20,000 years old. He said, "Oh, by the way, these are dinosaur bones." They said, "Oh, then they're not 20,000. We've got to test them again." Why can't they be 20,000? "Well, we know dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago, so if you had told us that, we never would have carbon dated them." One friend of mine died here several years ago, but he was doing a lot of archaeological work. He dug down in this well and found layers of burned wood, which is good to carbon date, because it obviously had carbon in it. He put it in a plastic bag, labeled it Sample A from such and such a layer and however many feet down. He dug down ten or 20 more feet (3 to 6 m), found another layer of burned wood. (A city had been destroyed.) He labeled that one Sample B, etc., and took them in to have them dated. He paid them $600.00. They said Sample A was, I forget, 3,000 years old and sample B was 4,000 years. He waited 6 months, switched the labels, took them back into the same laboratory, and asked them to carbon date these samples. Now, sample B is in the bag with the label for Sample A and vice versa. They gave him the same dates they had last time for Sample A and Sample B. Carbon dating doesn't work. It's never worked. Here are some things to consider about carbon dating. When you date a sample of known age - it doesn't work. If you date a sample of unknown age - it is assumed to work. That's not science. As things decay, they produce helium. The amount of helium in the atmosphere is only enough to account for less than 2 million years, not billions of years. There's a book called "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" by ICR, if you want to read up on that. They do a lot of testing on this. They are probably the experts on this in the creation community. This guy said, "The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." That's ludicrous and it's based on circular reasoning. They have known that for centuries. We cover more of that in Seminar #4. I talked to James P. Dawson. He's going to be calling in on our radio program tonight. James Dawson was one of the guys working on dating the moon rocks. They brought back moon rocks, gave them to laboratories, and asked how old are the moon rocks? He took one rock (specimen 10017), divided it into six pieces and tested it many, many times. How old is it? They got numbers ranging from 2.5 billion to 4.6 billion years for the same rock. That's a 100% error. I talked to him back in 1999. He's in Oklahoma, and there is his phone number. He was the Chief of Engineering and Operations for the Lunar and Earth Science Division at the Manned Spacecraft Center for NASA in Houston, Texas. He worked on Lunar samples including the Genesis rock. He told me they found ages from 10,000 years to several billion years in the same rock. His website is: www.jpdawson.com. How can one rock be 10,000 years old and also several billion years old at the same time? Something is wrong. The book, "Bones of Contention" has a great chapter at the end called, "The Dating Game" showing how that they will just change the dates whenever necessary. If it doesn't fit the theory, let's just test it again, until it fits the theory. See the theory is important. The facts are not. The theory of evolution, as I have said many times, is a carefully protected state religion. And that's all it is. What about potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating? Does that work? Actually, the numbers are bigger, but the problems and assumptions are exactly the same. And you can demonstrate it doesn't work. Potassium decays very slowly. This chart shows the different elements and their respective half-lives. Carbon has a half-life of around 5,700 years, but potassium takes 1.3 billion years for half of that to disappear. It very slowly decays. By the way, I would like to point out, Your Honor, just for appeal, that all the dating methods are based on the decay of an element. Uranium decays to lead. Potassium decays to argon. They are all moving down the Periodic Table; never up. They're all moving down. Just keep that in mind. "80% of the potassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours." Well, if you can take out 80% of it in 4.5 hours, how can you trust any of the dates you're going to obtain by that method? The "Canadian Journal of Earth Science" says, "In conventional interpretation of Potassium-Argon age, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale." There it is. If you test a sample, and the number is too high or too low or it doesn't match the geologic column, it gets thrown out. Well, then why are you wasting your time and money testing it? You already know how old you'd like it to be, so give it a number. Pick a number. It's dumb. The KBS Tuff (A "tuff" is a layer of ash or lava, generally ash that has been packed and turned into rock) Kay Behrensmeyer had been dating these samples with potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating. So here's the theory, when a volcano erupts, the rocks, etc. coming out are really hot and any gases in it should be able to escape. Well, potassium (K - a mineral) slowly turns into argon (Ar), and argon is a gas. They use it for welding over at the shop - argon welding. Argon is a gas. So since potassium turns to argon. When the rock gets melted and shot out of a volcano, all the gas escapes. So the theory says, The clock is now reset as far as this new layer is concerned. It is now zero years old. Even though when it was in the earth, (it was, you know, four billion years old), now all the argon it accumulated for 3 or 4 billion years is all gone, because it was melted. All the gas is gone, so we can argon date this lava or ash or any volcanic material. Well, they had been dating this layer of ash, named after Kay Behrensmeyer, because she did research on it. They said it's 212 to 230 million years old. All the scientists agreed that layer of ash is around 200 million years old. Until Richard Leakey comes around in 1972. He's digging around under the KBS Tuff, and he finds a perfectly normal human skull. Everybody panics and says, "How can you have a normal human skull under 200 million year old rock, when man didn't even evolve until around 3 million years ago? That's not possible. And so they looked for things like, was this a burial site, did someone dig through and bury this person here? Was there an earthquake? Is there a fault line here someplace? No. All they could conclude is there was a normal human skull under 200 million year old rock. So what do you conclude? One group studied this and said, "Well, that proves aliens came here 200 million years ago." Would you just consider that maybe the rock is not 200 million years old? After they found out that it could not be an intrusion, or a burial or anything else, i.e. that it was there legitimately under this ash layer, they took 10 more samples of the KBS Tuff and dated them again. Keep in mind they had already dated them a bunch of times, and everybody agreed it was 212 million years old. But now they take ten more samples and checked them again and say, "Oh, no, it's only 0.5 to 2.6 million. Well, that's way down from 212. They dropped the number way down, but they're still getting over a 500% error, between the 0.5 to 2.6. This is not an exact science. See, in 1770 they taught the earth was 70,000 years old. In 1905 they said it's 2 billion years old. By 1969, when I was a kid and they went to the moon, they brought back moon rocks and said, "Oh, they're 3.5 billion years old." That was the official age - 3.5 billion. By the way, they did it with potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating. You can see the article here from the newspaper. Today they tell the students it's 4.6 billion years old. Do you realize the earth is getting older at the rate of 21 million years per year? That's 40 years per minute. Wild dates are always obtained with carbon dating or potassium argon dating. Dates that don't fit the theory are rejected. Only the (supposedly) "correct dates" ever get published. Well then, why are you wasting anybody's time? It's not science. The original mineral content can't possibly be known. You can't know that there's been no contamination. You can't know that the decay rate has always remained the same. You can't know those things. I'll give you a couple examples of potassium-argon dating problems. Basalt from Mt. Etna in Sicily (by the way I climbed Mt. Etna when I was over there in Sicily). They knew it erupted in 122 BC. There were written records. Well, they potassium argon dated it and said it is 250,000 years old. Excuse me, it should be like 2,000. Then they tested lava from the Hawaiian volcano. They knew it erupted in 1801. The people watched it happen. That's the lava that covered our village. It gave an age of 1.6 million years old. That was in 1968. Let's see if it gets better. Basalt from a volcano in Hawaii that erupted in 1959, when they tested it, it gave an age of 8 1/2 million years old. Another volcano on Mt. Etna from a 1964 eruption gave an age of 700,000. The 1972 eruption gave an age of 350,000. It was erupting when I was over there in 2002, I believe. Lava from Mt. St. Helens was tested. (My sister lives just 60 miles from there, near Seattle.) They tested the brand new lava coming out of the volcano. Just grab a sample. They tested it five different ways and got five different numbers - all the way from 350,000 to 2.8 million year old. Notice that all five numbers are different; number one. All five numbers are wrong; number two. They're all wrong. It doesn't work. So again, when you test a sample of known age - it doesn't work. When you test a sample of unknown age - it is assumed to work. So it just doesn't work. I'm tired of them using our tax dollars to call that science. That isn't science. That's pure imagination. There are a whole lot more examples in the book "The Evolution Cruncher" if you want more of that. Or in the RATE project book, "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth" or there's a whole lot of good stuff in Dr. Walt Brown's book, "In the Beginning." He's a PhD in physics, an air force academy professor for years in Colorado. He has great stuff in here. I differ with him on a couple of little things. Of course I differ with probably everybody on a couple things. The only one right about everything is of course me. But we'll try to get them converted. If dinosaurs drowned in the flood, have we found fresh (unfossilized) dinosaur bones? Or if they are all fossilized, it takes millions of years, doesn't it? First of all, it doesn't take millions of years for things to fossilize. We covered that in Seminar #6. But yes, some fresh dinosaur bones have been found. Now there's a great book called: "The Great Alaska Dinosaur Adventure." It is about 4 men who went up to northern Alaska and in the river banks of the Coleville River, on the north slope of Alaska found frozen unfossilized dinosaur bones. I talked to Les Zerbe, my friend who has been a missionary up there for years in Alaska. I was just up there a few months ago with him. He said, "He was there, and he could fly his plane right to the spot, land there and dig up some fresh frozen dinosaur bones if we'd like." But yes, they have been found. "The journal 'Science' magazine in December of 1993, reported that the amazing preservation of the bones of a young duckbill dinosaur found in Montana. Under a microscope, the fine structure of the bones was seen to have been preserved to such an extent that cell characteristics could be compared with cells of chicken bone." Anybody that teaches that dinosaurs died off millions of years ago has not studied the real evidence. In northwestern Alaska in 1961 a geologist found a bed of dinosaur bones in unpermineralized (i.e. unfossilized) condition." This is possibly the same bed that Les Zerbe goes to. He offered to take me the last time I was there, but the weather wouldn't permit it. We were going to fly up there and see this stuff. I'll go next time I get up there. In Prudhoe Bay, Alaska which is way on the north slope by Barrow, Alaska they found frozen (unfossilized) dinosaur bones that are "as light as balsa wood and look as fresh as yesterday's dog bones." "Their structure was porous and the fossils were not mineralized." not fossilized. A young Canadian Eskimo in 1987 on Bylot Island up in northern Canada found part of a lower jaw of a duckbill dinosaur. It was in fresh condition. Joe Taylor, our friend from Crosbyton, Texas (his website is www.mtblanco.com) has dug up dinosaurs that are not fossilized. He has dug up dinosaurs all over the world. In the summer of 2005 they found fresh dinosaur tissue inside a T-Rex leg bone and the dinosaur tissue was still soft. Now the scientists, like John Horner from Montana, are trying to figure out how could they stay soft for 70 million years? The thought will never cross his mind that maybe they are not 70 million years old. He's already committed to that and to say, maybe they are only 6,000 years old or 4,400 years old from the flood would absolutely be anathema to them. They'll never consider that. So now they'll probably get a government grant, To try to figure out how did they stay soft for 70 million years? They are asking the totally wrong question. The question is when they formed, not how they formed. Here's a picture from a magazine showing they found a fossilized dinosaur that still had, what they thought and I believe was confirmed, the heart, soft tissue, fossilized inside. Up in Alaska they find dinosaurs. Well, Alaska is cold. Reptiles don't do well in cold weather. But dinosaurs in Alaska? Not many, but a few have been found, and it's true some have been found that are not fossilized. You can do more research on your own, and we'll cover more in our college class. People ask: if there really was a Great Flood why don't we find more human bones? There should be millions of human bones buried. We find lots of clams and lots of other animals. And it's true, of all the fossils formed, I think about 90% of the fossils formed are marine organisms. Have you read something like that? I hear 90 or 98%. These are animals that live in the water. Very few mammal fossils are found and very few human fossils are found. Marvin Lubenow in his book "Bones of Contention," is the best one I've read on the topic. He's a creationist, but he spent years and years and years, like 25 years studying all the human remains. He says about 4,000 human remains have been found. This is compared to clams of which we find billions of those or fish, which we also find in abundance. Why only 4,000? Well, there are things to consider why so few human bones are found. And by the way, they are all 100% human. Actually, the Neanderthals had thicker bones than we have. They were in much better condition. They say the average Neanderthal could pick up a football player and fling them over the goal post. They were in just incredible condition. Their muscular structure must have been great. But when God made the world 6,000 years ago, there were two people. But it was full of plants and it was full of animals. 4,400 years later, it was still full of plants and full of animals and still not full of people. I have no idea what the population was at the time of the flood. This is just a pure guess, probably a billion people. If you figure they are living 900 years and having 70 or 80 kids per family, It would be a large population in a hurry. Let's just pick a number, say a billion. But why are so few found as fossils? Well, the purpose of the flood according to Genesis was to destroy man off the earth. That's why God had the flood. The Bible says there were giants in the earth in those days, and there were mighty men of old. So I don't know what that might mean, but I suspect it might mean that people were actually bigger before the flood came. We've covered in video two about the giant fossil skeletons that have been found. There were people (3 to 3.7 m) 9 feet tall, 10 feet tall, 12 feet tall. I don't know if everybody was that big or not. But it appears, certainly that some of them were. So there are several theories of why so few human bones have been found. Number one - perhaps there were less people to be killed. There aren't as many people available so you're not going to find as many bones of them. You're going to find more animals, more fish and plants and stuff like that. Secondly, people are smarter than animals, well, some people. They would tend to avoid drowning until the last possible minute. Whereas animals would get surprised and covered up and buried, people would figure out some way to avoid this. Plus it probably took about six months to kill everybody. The flood covered the world, but this doesn't mean it covered the whole world instantly. It rained forty days and forty nights and probably what we see today- the continental shapes and everything, which are obviously pure coincidence based on the water level, and everything being flexing up and down during the flood. We cover this on video six, so the earth was a totally different configuration unrecognizable by today's globe. But as the crust of the earth was flexing up and down, the water is slowing coming up from the fountains of the deep that were broken open. The rain was 40 days but the water kept coming up for 150 days (per Genesis 7:24). So if we start with the assumption that during the flood, there was high ground above water, that may have lasted for six months. The high ground kept getting smaller and smaller. People would run to high ground. And you would also have the tide. The moon is causing the tide. The moon doesn't know or care that there is a flood on the earth. It's just pulling the water up. So the tide may go up and cover an area and then go down, and people and animals would run over to the newly exposed island. "Ah, there's some high ground. Let's get over there." So we find footprints in these mud layers that then would get covered up withthe next tide. I mean every six hours the tide changes. From high tide to low tide in 6 hours and 25 minutes on average. So as these mud layers are full of footprints, they then bake in the sun just for a couple of hours, enough to get a skin on them. Then a new mud layer washes in on top from the next tide. It is highly probable that during this flood, during theses first few months of the flood, you would get thousands of layers deposited for multiple reasons we cover in Seminar #6, and you may have footprints somewhere within each of these layers. We had a man who called in to the radio program yesterday, he is from Sweden and he calls in every once in a while, an evolutionist. He said we find layers of rock and footprints between the layers. That proves each layer was exposed for thousands of years. No, that proves it was exposed for maybe 30 minutes. It doesn't prove it was exposed for thousands of years. Yes, it's possible to get footprints, especially if you look at the footprints, nearly all of them are running in the same direction. What would that mean? They are trying to avoid something. They are all going the same way, probably avoiding the floodwater. In Psalm 104, it says, "The mountains arose, the valleys sank down," so during the flood the crust of the earth was all broken up into plates. And they were much more flexible and moveable than they are today. Today they are kind of locked into position, as most of the water is gone that was underneath that was lubricating this movement. So they would run to high ground and a couple of days later, that may not be high ground. Something else becomes high ground as the plates twist around. So second reason, people are smarter and probably would avoid drowning. If they end up on top, they rot; they don't fossilize. How many buffalo got killed out west in the last 200 years? Millions. None of them fossilized. See things only fossilize if they are buried. See, you could have a lot of humans get killed toward the end of the flood or toward the middle of the flood, I guess, and not be fossilized at all. Thirdly, if humans were a lot bigger, then their bones would not be recognized as human. I mean if you find a 5 foot (1.6 m) thigh bone, you're not going to recognize it as a human. You would say, Oh it must be from a dinosaur or cave bear or something. So those are the reasons so few human fossils have been found and identified. Fourthly, I'm not sure who is doing the counting when they say 4,000 have been found. Marvin Lubenow says that is all he can find in the published record. But how many things have been found that are human fossilized, but in certain layers, but it doesn't match the established paradigm of the day, so they say we'd better not report this, because you are not allowed to find humans with dinosaurs, or else you are going to lose your job. You can't go against evolution theory. It's a carefully protected state religion. I point out that no human and chicken bones have been found fossilized together in the same rock strata - anywhere where in the world. So that proves that humans and chickens did not live at the same time. You know that's not good logic. We don't have to find the bones together to prove they lived together. We don't have to find the footprints together to prove anything either. No human and chicken footprints have been found together. No coelacanth fish fossils were found for 65 million years after their assigned place in the geologic column. They've got their geologic column, and they say the coelacanth lived 65 million years ago. Well, how do you know? Well, that's the last fossil we found of them. And then they find them still alive. What does that prove? For 65 million years by their thinking, either no coelacanths lived or no coelacanths fossilized? Obviously they would say it just happened that none fossilized. Well it could be that not many of the humans fossilized either that were killed in the Flood. They weren't buried deep enough, or they just haven't found them yet. There are all kinds of reasons for that. I was in a debate with a former preacher who turned atheist one time. It was a debate over Noah's Ark. One of his arguments was that Noah couldn't have built the ark like the Bible says because the Bible says Noah covered the Ark with pitch. He said, "Hovind, don't you know that pitch is made from oil and oil is a post-flood product according to your theory. The flood buried this world. All of these animals got buried and squished and turned to oil. So if oil came as a result of the flood, then how could Noah have had pitch to cover the ark?" Well, that's based on a common misunderstanding. In Genesis 6:14, it says, "Noah covered the ark with pitch, within and without." Make it with pitch (Exodus 2:3). Moses was put in a little basket covered with pitch. So, what is pitch? The Bible says in Isaiah chapter 34:9-10, "And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust to brimstone, and the land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever." Pitch, according to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary is made from tree sap. There used to be huge industries taking pine trees, baking them down, getting all the sap out, and making pitch just for waterproofing ships, kind of like varnish today or spar varnish or linseed oil. There are many oils made from things, that don't have to rely on something from the flood. Pitch, according to the dictionary, is the resin of pine or turpentine. There were giant factories all over America producing barrels and barrels of pitch to sell to shipyards in the 1700's and 1800's. It was common. You bring a few barrels of pitch with you. If you get a leak in your ship, you tar the wooden hull. So it does not have to be from flood-related deposits. I'm holding in my hand. I don't know if you guys can focus in that or not, This is a piece of shale. There are probably 60 layers to it, real thin layers, and you can see oil oozing out the side. But right there on the surface is a fish. It's true that animals under pressure turn to oil. It's a fact. This fish was squeezed between these layers, and you can see the actual impression of the fish. There's no question that at least some of the oil in the ground comes from organisms, living organisms: fish, people, animals, whatever that was squeezed. But that doesn't mean that Noah had to have this particular kind of oil to waterproof the Ark. This is in our creation dinosaur museum, if you want to come down here and see it. Next question. I often get asked the question: Is modern man smart, and ancient man stupid? Was he stupid or was ancient man really smart? There's a good book called "The Puzzle of Ancient Man" by Donald E. Chittick. Excellent book. I believe they've had a hard time to keeping it in print. We sell a lot of them, I know. It's really, really good. It goes through all kinds of interesting artifacts that are found made by humans. They were amazing machines and artifacts that would have to be really, really old. Well the Bible teaches that before the flood came, the people lived to be 900 years old. Adam came pre-programmed right from God. He could walk, talk, name the animals, and get married the first day. He probably knew incredible amounts of information that was pre-programmed in or after spending a hundred years walking and talking with God, he just knew a lot of stuff that God told him. God would say, Adam, you see this tree right here. Watch this. You pull off the bark, scrape the inside, and you chew on that. Oh, wow. Yes, that has vitamins. You need that, Adam. Probably a lot of the ancient medicines that cultures have are remnants of things left over from knowledge passed down by the ancients. How did the first guy know that you could take a willow tree, scrape the bark off and make vitamin C out of the tea? How did they know that? Who's the first guy to start chewing on a tree? You've got to wonder. Somebody must have told them. So, if they are living 900 years and having huge families and learning an incredible amount, I don't know how far advanced they got before the flood came, but I suspect that they were possibly even more advanced than we are today. And somebody says, "Well, why don't we dig up their cities? The problem is we are looking at what we need today and assuming that they needed them before the flood. Suppose they lived in a world with perfect weather. You don't need a house. Just go sleep on the grass. Suppose you lived in a world where none of the animals would harm you? All the animals were friendly. Everything is vegetarian (Genesis 1:29). Again, you don't need a house. Why don't we find their cars? Man, if you're 9,10, or 12 feet tall, and can run 50 miles an hour, everything is growing in your yard, and you don't need to go anywhere anyway, why do you need a highway system, why do you need a car? You don't need airplanes; you don't need trains. So if you can think in terms of Garden of Eden conditions, the things that they needed would not be the same things that we need. After the flood the people were still living to be 400 years old. So a lot of this information would still be retained at first. Now today, about the time you know everything, you're 80 years old and you die. Now you can't pass it on to anybody else. But if you could live to be 400, you could pass on your knowledge to your great, great, great, great grandchild. So it would just be a real different world back then. So a lot of this knowledge I think went to the grave. But in the old days, you could go talk to your great, great, great, great grandfather and get advice, and he'd give you some really good advice about how to do certain things. Many civilizations after the flood would arise very quickly. If you got a bunch of smart people (Noah's sons having 15 or 20 children per family or whatever) and they are going to go off to this area and going to build this civilization. Well, it wouldn't take them long as long as they have high IQ. They might not have all the technology, they might have to make stone tools at first, until they can dig a hole to find the iron to melt it down to make the steel tools. They would know how to do it. It's kind of a Giligan's Island situation. But within 50 years, you could build a civilization. You look at Robinson Crusoe. He lands on an island. After 20 years, he's got a farm; he's got a house; he's got a fort. He did it all himself. If you get smart people in situations like that, you can build a civilization in a hurry. It's interesting that if you study history, all of the great ancient civilizations, the Babylonians, the Sumerians, the Greeks, and Chinese - they just arose out of nowhere. Poof, there's a civilization. There's no evidence for what they teach in school, of them going from hunters and gatherers and grunts and groans. The cave man stuff, slowly becoming civilized and building cities. There's no evidence of that. The farther back you go poof, the beginning of the Egyptian civilization, poof, the beginning of the Chinese civilization like they moved in and built it in less than a hundred years. So, some strange things have been found in the fossils record indicating that man used to be really smart. This little airplane, for instance, is in the Smithsonian. It was found in a grave in Columbia. It's about a 1,000 years old. But it's an airplane quite obviously, with all the features of an airplane. But it can't be an airplane according to the evolutionists. So therefore they have it labeled in the Smithsonian as a "stylized insect." Now tell me, does that look like a stylized insect to you? See they can't admit that ancient man knew about airplanes, because that would go against the theory. The theory says modern man is smart. Ancient man was stupid. He was a chimpanzee walking on all four most of the time. He slowly came up, and here we are today the gods of the universe. That's the thinking in their minds most of the time. Actually, the evidence shows the opposite of that. Here's an airplane found in an Egyptian tomb this time, 2,100 years old. Pre-Christ. How did they know about airplanes? A little model airplane. They knew about flight. This iron pot, we've got a model of it here, was found inside a lump of coal. This is a replica which you can get from Dr. Carl Baugh. They're breaking open a lump of coal, and there is an iron pot inside. They examine the coal that comes out, and it's molded right to the pot on both sides. The coal formed around the iron pot. What would you conclude? That a coal miner dropped it? No, because the coal then would not be conformed to the pot. I would conclude that they had iron and were making iron vessels before the flood. During the flood, they got buried in a forest of trees, squished and turned the coal. Of course it was not going to affect the iron any. How do you get an iron pot in a lump of coal? Ancient man must have been smart, not primitive. In Peru they have giant stonewalls, like the ones in the picture here. The stonewalls are phenomenal. Some of the rocks in there are so huge, we lack the equipment to even move them today. There's more in "The Puzzle of Ancient Man" on that topic, if you want to read more. One of the stones down in Peru weighs 20,000 tons. Now to give you an idea of how heavy that is the largest crane on earth today can lift 3 thousand tons. I think they just built one in Japan for unloading ships. I just heard about it in 2003 or 2004. It can lift, I believe, 6,000 tons. But still you have got stones up here that weigh 20,000 tons. How did they move that? Who did it and how did they do it? I don't think it is logical to say that ancient man was primitive. They must have known something we don't know today. "What is truly impossible about the block is that it is the size of a five-story house and weighs 20,000 tons. We have no combination of machinery today that could dislodge such a weight, let alone move it." We can't even break it loose from the ground, let alone move it. We can't do it. This bell was found inside a lump of coal in West Virginia. The guy who had it on his desk for years later moved to central Florida (he's an old man now) and I've not been able to get a hold of him lately. So if you get his address, let me know, because I think he needs to have it on display in a museum in Pensacola, Florida. This bell was analyzed and they said, "This is some kind of strange old Buddhist type god on the top here." But how could you find a brass bell inside coal? Ancient man knew how to work with all the metals. The Bible says "Tubalcain was an artificer in brass and iron." That's Adam's grandson. They were already working with brass and iron. This little zinc and silver vessel was found inside rock that was supposed to be "600 million years old." Well I disagree with the 600 million years part, but they knew about things. There's a great article in "The Puzzle of Ancient Man" about the little device found in a ship that was sunk about 100 BC in the Aegean Sea, which is right next to Greece. It had an analog computer on board. How on earth did they know about analog computers in 100 BC? It's called the: Antikythera Mechanism. The History Channel, in March 2005 had an amazing hour-long program on a this ancient device found in Greece. They actually built a working model of it. They said that this thing by turning the crank would be able to predict where the planets or the sun would be. It would be like an amazing computer for a ship's navigation. From 100 BC. No, ancient man was not primitive. You can get copies of this ancient hammer from our museum. Dr. Carl Baugh has the original in his museum. He's let us make replicas of it. This was found in 1934 in New London, Texas. When they first found this, the hammer was petrified, what was left of it. They looked at the hammer and said, "How can it be in a rock?" And the rock was supposed to be 400 million years old. It was in solid rock. Guys who believe in evolution would just say that proves that aliens visited the planet 400 million years ago, and one of them dropped his hammer. That's the kind of logic they use, instead of thinking maybe our whole time scale's wrong. They will never consider that. They cut a little notch in the hammer with a file in 1934 to see what kind of metal it was. That notch is still not rusted. It's a type of stainless steel. Batelle Laboratories analyzed it, said it was 96% iron, 2.6% chlorine and ¾ % sulfur. And they said we don't think you can get those elements to combine, unless you do it under a much stronger magnetic field. Probably the pre-flood Earth had a magnetic field 8 or 10 times stronger than what we have today. This little battery was found in Iraq. Quite a few of these were found. They knew about electricity 2,000 years ago. The Egyptians also apparently knew about electricity. Here's a hieroglyphic showing snakes in some kind of chamber, hooked up with a wire going to a little generator of some kind. There are two theories: one is they are using electricity to mummify or do something to the snake, or they are using electric eels to produce electricity. I don't know which way the electricity is going, or even if it's electricity. But I think we've got the wrong idea, to say that modern man is smart, but ancient man was stupid. I think ancient man knew a lot. They knew about brain surgery. Quite a few skulls are found like this. This process is called trepanning. They would actually cut into somebody's head. And many are found with the hole healed over, which indicates that the patient lived. Cutting the hole is no big deal, but some of the ancient Ica Stones from Peru show what appears to be brain surgery. Dr. Dennis Swift that spoke at our boot camp in 2004, has some of the hardened copper instruments that they would use for brain surgery or for surgery period. Ancient man knew how to do all kinds of things with people's heads, besides cut them open and let them heal. They made strange shapes to the heads. They apparently did heart surgery, from some of the carvings on the Ica stones. There's a guy with an artificial limb attached, so they knew about that. This would have been 2,000 years ago. This little machine appears to be some kind of steam engine. They might have known about some kind of power like that 2,000 years ago. They certainly knew about the wheel. This little cat was found on wheels. Some little kid's toy, apparently. Items like this were found in some of the Inca Indian tombs. They were certainly smart as far as biology goes. This spider 150 feet (45 m) tall is one of the Nasca Line images in Peru. We cover some of that in Seminar #2. They knew to make this spider, with no eyes, because it's blind. This kind of spider is extremely rare. It is only 1/8 inch (1 cm) long and it lives in caves in the dark, in the Amazon, 1,000 miles (1,600 km) away from where the drawing is. So they really knew their biology. They even knew to make the one leg longer. It is the correct leg too. Third leg down on the right on the right side. That leg for 15 seconds during the mating season grows longer and exchanges DNA off the tip of that leg and they knew that. So they were not stupid. This Piri Reis map of 1513 shows Antarctica with no ice on it. First of all, how did they find Antarctica? How did they know to map it with no ice? Something was different. This metallic sphere was found in South Africa. It has three parallel grooves around the equator. But it was found in what they said was Pre-Cambrian material of 2.8 billion years old. Well, of course I disagree with the 2.8 billion years. That's a human artifact, quite obviously, found in rock supposed to be 2.8 billion years old. But see rather than question - maybe it's not 2 billion years old? Guys like Michael Cremo who wrote a great book on stuff like this, what is called:OopArts, out-of-place artifacts, OopArts, has a different answer. He studies all kinds of these things. Now he's a Hindu. Michael Cremo has the book "The Hidden History of the Human Race." He says this proves aliens came and visited the Earth 2.8 billion years ago. Rather than question maybe the whole geologic column is wrong. I don't know why. They just aren't allowed to question that. It's in our library in Pensacola if you want to read that. Here's a mortar and pestle that you used to grind wheat and corn into flour. The problem is that is was found in rock that is supposed to be 33 to 55 million years old - way before man got here. So what do you conclude? Again, aliens came and visited the planet. These little spirals were found, and the amazing thing about them is that they were made of tungsten, a very difficult metal to work with, and a very difficult metal to refine. And these spirals are 1/10,000th of an inch, .003 of a millimeter in diameter and follows the perfect Golden Mean ratio - the same thing used in the Fibonacci Sequence of: 1 to1.618. How did they know about that? A lot of these are found in Russia. I sure would like some of these amazing little spirals for the museum. There is all kind of information on the Internet about this if you want to read it. Well, what about the pyramid? Who built the Great Pyramid? If we are thinking that ancient man was dumb, how did they build the Great Pyramid? There are 66 copies of the original, apparently. There appear to be 67 of these giant stone pyramids around the world. Who built them and why? Well, there's not much question on the copies. It was the Egyptians or the South American Mayan Indians, etc. But who built the original one? The original pyramid is often called: the Great Pyramid. It is by far the largest of the pyramids. And it very different in that, there are no inscriptions found in it, other a few marks the builders apparently made. You know, put this rock on top of this one. But all the rest of the pyramids have all kinds of hieroglyphics, for instance proclaiming the greatness of pharaohs. Not the Great Pyramid, the biggest building on earth by far, has no inscriptions. Who built it? Why was it built? Well, there are four theories about the Great Pyramid, and they fall in two categories. One theory say it was built before the flood by some godly people, i.e. Adam or Enoch maybe. I don't know, and the purpose of it was to preserve some ancient knowledge. There are some amazing mathematic formulas in the pyramid: like twice the height divided by the base is the value of pi, etc. There are all kinds of amazing mathematics built in the Great Pyramid. So one theory says, it was built by godly people before the flood. Second theory says, it was built by heathen before the flood. It was just a heathen structure, some kind of temple worship or something. The third theory says it was built by godly people after the flood. And the fourth theory says it was built by heathen people after the flood. Probably it was not built during the flood. I think we can all agree on that. That was not a good time to build a pyramid. I kind of lean toward theory number one, but I wouldn't be dogmatic about it. I think someone godly, probably Enoch, built the Great Pyramid to preserve the Gospel story. Of course, Adam did not have a Bible. So, perhaps God gave him the Gospel story in the stars. This is what many people think, and I kind of lean that way, but I'm willing to discuss it. Noah also did not have a Bible, and if the canopy was gone that used to protect them, and that probably amplified the light, so they could see the stars better before the flood, You know, 20 or 30 inches (50 or 75 cm) of ice compacted, in a super-frozen canopy like we talked about on video two, would have actually made it easier to see the stars, and they could actually hear the music of the stars - the zodiac. That's one of the theories. But Noah didn't have a Bible - he had a couple of chapters because Adam actually wrote part of Genesis. And we cover that in the toledoth discussion coming up soon. So God gave them the Gospel in stone. This preaches good. I don't know if it's true or not. There used to be the Gospel in stars, then the Gospel in stone, and today we have the Gospel in Scripture. Now let's assume that there may be some truth to that, and go from there. If it's not, I won't lose any sleep over it. But the Great Pyramid is an amazing structure. It is, by far, the largest building on the planet today, still. It is the largest building in the world. It is built bigger than anything ever built by man since. Some people think Isaiah 19:19 is talking about the pyramid. "In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD. And it shall be for a sign and a witness." There are quite a few folk who think that the Great Pyramid is it. Because the teaching goes, Egypt split into two kingdoms, the northern and southern kingdom, and they were fighting, Civil War kind of stuff. And this pyramid is right on the border. And then when they were united, it was now in the midst thereof. So it is both at the border and in the midst. Otherwise how could a building be that way? Now of course the Jehovah's Witnesses have gone crazy with the pyramid. There are all kinds of books by Jehovah's Witnesses saying, "Oh, this prophesies everything, and proves Jehovah Witnesses are right." And they take it to real wild extremes. And there are many books available on the pyramid, some of which are absolutely loony. But it's very interesting reading. The pyramid is a huge building. It goes up four sides to the top and the top stone was never installed. If you look at the diagram here, there's only one door into the pyramid, and nobody could find it until 800 AD. That pyramid sat there for thousands of years, and nobody could find their way in. Finally in 800 AD, some Arabs got a hammer and chisel and started pounding a hole and chiseled their way into the pyramid. They chiseled and chiseled for months. The guy kept telling his workers, "Oh there's going to be lots of gold in here. You are all going to be rich." Well, finally after months and months of chiseling, everybody was getting tired of digging a hole in the rock, because it was solid rock. They were close to giving up, and they heard the noise of a rock falling. They said, "It came from over that way. Let's chisel there." They chiseled there, and they hit one of the passages in the middle and then had to work their way backwards to find the door. Had they known where it was, they could have just walked up and pushed it right open. But nobody could find this door for centuries. Well, once they entered the pyramid and mapped it out, you see that it's got the entrance where the A is. There is only one entrance to go in. That immediately takes you on the broad road down to the pit. At Letter C, you can make a choice to take a turn and go up channel E up a narrow road, which goes up to the king's chamber. So your choice is the broad road that leads to the pit, or the narrow way that leads to the king's chamber. Now that'll preach. It sounds like there is a little of the Gospel in there. If you get to the king's chamber, you find yourself in an empty tomb where nobody ever decomposed, and it's on the 50th row of stones. There's a grand gallery, that has marks along the way. Some believe that in those marks if you go by pyramid inches, which are a little bigger than our inch, each one marks a year. They say major events like World War I and World War II are indicated. the broad way, the narrow way, the king's chamber, the pit, the empty tomb, etc. I haven't checked it out, but I've been told that this empty tomb has the same volume as the ark of the covenant. You take the length times the width, times the height, and it equals the volume of the ark of the covenant. Maybe someone could check that out and let me know. But originally the pyramid was covered by 144,000 smooth polished casing stones. Each one weighed about, I believe they said, 10 tons. They fit together so tightly that in many cases you could not even find the seam. And in all cases I've been told, you cannot even get a piece of paper between them. Can you imagine 10 ton stones fitting so tightly together that you cannot even get a piece of paper between them. No mortar. Now today, we build brick walls and put mortar between them, and you can look at the brick on the house here, and some of them are straight and some of them are not so straight. The brick layers get in a little bit of a hurry. The stones of the Great Pyramid are massive. They didn't even use mortar, and they fit together flawlessly. Now the top stone was never installed. And the people who teach there are Christian principles in the pyramid say this refers to the 144,000 in Rev. chapter 7. The Bible also talks about the whole body fitly joined together (Ephesians 4). This is possibly more evidence that it has some Christian symbolism. Matthew 21:42 talks about the chief cornerstone that the builders rejected. Now the Great Pyramid never did have a chief cornerstone. Imagine the largest, neatest building on the planet, but with no cornerstone. Why did they stop one rock short? Why didn't they finish the job? There are a couple of theories about that, but in Mark 12:10 it talks about the stone that the builders rejected. Luke 20:17 says the stone that the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner. This is obviously referring to Jesus Christ. In Daniel, it tells about the stone that was cut out of the mountain without hands and smote the image on his feet. Could this stone be Jesus Christ who is going to make His own kingdom in the world? Revelation 21:2 talks about the New Jerusalem coming down from God out of heaven. There are those who teach that the New Jerusalem the city will be clear as crystal, four square and 12,000 furlongs. That's 1,379 miles (2,000 km). So there's going to be a city (2,000 km) 1400 miles by 1400 miles by 1400 miles. And everyone assumes it's going to be a cube. Maybe so, I don't know. But maybe it's a pyramid. Because that's a structure that could also have those dimensions and would lie four square. If it is a pyramid, pyramid's only have one cornerstone, right on top, whereas other structures would have four. So there are those who teach that the New Jerusalem is going to be in the shape of the Great Pyramid. Jesus is the Chief Cornerstone, and he is the light of the world. And if the whole thing is clear as crystal, translucent, the light goes right through. So He is the light thereof. The first 13 verses in the Bible starts with the fact that the earth has light, but it has no sun . The last 26 verses in the Bible tells us the world again has light, but it has no sun. He is the light thereof. And so maybe the Great Pyramid is symbolic of that. I have a good book on that if you want to read it. And if any of this is true, it's obvious Satan would pervert it for his use, and the pyramid on the back of your dollar bill is a Masonic Lodge symbol, which as thirteen rows of stones representing the 13 degrees in the Blue Lodge. The chief cornerstone is not yet in place, and many people say this represents Lucifer. He's going to come down and establish his kingdom. When actually God is going to establish His kingdom in the end. Which one is right? I kind of lean toward theory number one (godly person(s) made it), but I wouldn't be dogmatic. The Bible isn't clear. Next question, the textbooks often teach that the world was a hot, molten mass. This earth science book says, "As the earth formed, it was hot and there were large pools of bubbling lava." Well now the Bible says in Genesis, chapter 1, that "the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." So was the world a hot molten mass, and it slowly cooled down over billions of years? Or was it created under water, which of course means it has to be less than 212 degrees (100 C). It's not a hot molten mass. Somebody is wrong. Either the Bible is wrong, or the textbooks are wrong. So what is the truth about the subject? One of the neatest books on this topic is the one we referred to earlier by Robert Gentry, called "Creation's Tiny Mystery." He spent years studying radio polonium halos, which are little tiny rings, only visible with a microscope. Every type of granite all over the world contains these little radio polonium halos, little tiny circles in the rock. Well, what are they? Well, as polonium, one of the elements on the periodic table, decays, becoming radioactive dropping to a lower level, it's sends off little fragments kind of like a tiny hand grenade. The problem is polonium has a really, really short half-life- like 0.164 of a second, so if this was taking place in hot molten rock, the polonium would decay, make its little halo, and the rock is liquid, so it would disappear, it would flow away. Just like the fireworks from the Fourth of July don't stay there in the sky all year. A firework goes up, poof, makes a little ring and then falls down. But if you could explode a hand grenade in a giant block of jello, the fragments would go out and stick and be preserved. The only way you could preserve a ring, a halo, would be to do it in something that is like in a giant block of jello or in something that is already solid. The way to get all these little polonium halos preserved, which are found all over the world, is to do it while the rock is already solid. Robert Gentry was writing all kind of articles about these radio polonium halos, saying, "Look this is indicates the world was never a hot, molten mass." Granite is an interesting rock. I don't think anyone knows how granite was formed. If you melt granite, and then let it cool down, it does not turn back into granite. It turns to rhyolite. You see a picture of rhyolite here. So all the granites have these polonium halos. What does that mean? Apparently granite was the original created foundation stone. That was the original created rock. That is the only way to get these little halos that I know. You can talk to Robert Gentry; his website is: www.halos.com and get much more the technical information on this. So I think the evidence would point to the fact that the earth was never a hot, molten rock. In a Nova TV program, they ran an article in the summer of 2005, in which they said, "Oxygen 18 found in 4.4 billion year old Zircons show it had contact with large quantities of water." Why don't they get it? If these little Zircon crystals, which are extremely tiny, show us that they had contact with large quantities of water from 4.4 billion years old, which I don't buy that for a second. But their own evidence ought to show them the earth was never a hot molten mass - never. Often in seminars I get asked about global warming? Is the earth really getting hotter? Well, I don't know. I've lived on it for 53 years now. To me it seems about the same as it has always been. Of course, that's a short time frame compared to the big picture. According to I Corinthians 10:26, "The earth is the Lord's." God owns the world. Psalms 8:5 says, "When I consider the heavens, ..." God made the heavens, and He made man to have dominion over them. Our job is to be the tenant. God's the owner. God is the landlord. We're the tenant. Our job is take care of His earth. It doesn't belong to us, but we're supposed to take care of it. It belongs to Him. Now Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, gave ten ways to destroy a capitalist country and turn it into a communist country. Number one, was abolish private property. That was essential to destroy capitalism. Nobody was allowed to have private property. Well, if you read the Bible In Leviticus 25:10, it talks about in the 50th year they have the Year of Jubilee. They proclaim liberty throughout the land, and everybody returns to his possession. There's a good link here between liberty and having your own possessions. See, if you own it, you control it. So if God created the world, He owns it. He controls it. And He is letting man use it for His glory. And there are those who don't like that idea. Guys like Karl Marx and communists think, no, the world belongs to us. And we control it. There is no God. But in I Kings 4:25, it talks about having your own vine, your own fig tree. Proverbs 5:15 "Drink water out of your cistern, running waters out of your own well." Private property is essential to liberty. And Peter Berle says, "We reject the idea of private property." Kids in school today are having pledges like this. Talk about stupid, stuff like this are on the walls of many public schools. "I pledge allegiance to the earth which I do love and depend on and to all life on land, air and sea which is as much a part of the earth as me." This one says, "I pledge allegiance to the world to care for earth. sea, and air to honor every living thing with peace and justice everywhere!" Jacob Bredsten told me that when he was in 3rd grade at Johnsville Elementary School in Blaine, MN his teacher, Ms. Klophockhy, took down the American flag and made the kids pledge to the earth instead. Can you imagine? Boys and girls, we're going to pledge to the world today. Half the cartoons on Saturday morning TV are that way you know. Destroy the mean old capitalists that are destroying the world and save the planet. Captain Planet. There are all kinds of cartoons that are designed to getting the world thinking that we have to save the earth. Well, I am against pollution, and I am against destroying things unnecessarily. But the real purpose of this environmental movement and this big scare about global warming is not to save the earth. The purpose is to establish Communist plank # 1: Abolish private property. They want you to have to get a permit to cut down a tree on your own property. One guy in California had a tree that was growing into his house, and it was crushing the front porch. The house was a100 and some years old. The tree had been planted, and it was caving in the front porch. He went to get a permit to cut down the tree. They said you can't cut down the tree, because the trees are protected. He said, "Then I need to get a permit to remodel my porch." They said, "No, the house is 100 years old. That's a historic building. You can't remodel the porch." But there's a good book on the global warming question, if you want to read more. It's called "Facts not Fear." I'm sure it's available lots of places, but Marilyn Quail, Dan Quail's wife, the former Vice President, wrote the forward to it. What is the real evidence about global warming? You can take a look through that if you like. It's in our library or order your own, if you like. They said in a magazine, that "Man-made rain forest baffles scientists." They said, "A Man-Made rain forest that should have taken millennia to evolve has baffled scientists by springing up in just 150 years." This business of our destroying the planet and destroying these ancient rain forests, oh, we're going to ruin the world and the sky is falling is, I think, baloney. There are a lot of environmentalists who are sincere and very intelligent and very wrong. And they're fighting the wrong battle. Now it's true, some people abuse the environment, and when somebody is dumping chemicals upstream from my house, I'm going to sue them and say don't dump that in my water supply. That's fine. But if there is an environmental problem, is the government the one to fix it? Show me anything they've fixed. If they fixed it, it'll cost 10 times more than it should and it probably still won't be right. I do believe in global warming though. The Bible says in Revelation 16, "The fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire." There's going to be global warming. It hasn't happened yet. Coming soon to a city near you. For more information Creation Science Evangelism, P.O. Box 37338, Pensacola, FL. 32526 USA Or, call us at 1-850-479-3466. Or visit us online at www.drdino.com. That's www.drdino.com. END of Seminar 7A - Dr. Kent Hovind - www.drdino.com - [Ed.13.5]