A326-Hovind.txt

Graham L. Kendall
Modified  6/26/2002
http://www.grahamkendall.net/ 
Email grahamkendall74135@yahoo.com
I am found on IRC Efnet/Undernet/Dalnet as glk

These files have been corrected by Graham Kendall(grahamkendall74135@yahoo.com)
as noted by (corrections).

Columbus sailed 500 years ago.  The entire creation chart of 6,000 years would
be less than 2 millionths of an inch (still invisible) on the evolution chart!
The entire fictitious geologic column of 600 million years would be only 
.18 inch (less than 3/16 inch on the evolution chart at the scale it is drawn
here.

Questions to ask evolutionist (see the list of questions on page A-11)

1. In the big bang, what exploded?  And where did it come from?
(A singularity in the true vacuum is the source of the Big Bang. Read The
Infaltionary Universe by Guth or he Whole Shebang by Ferrisfor details.)

When they admit they don't know, ask, Which is easier to believe: In
the beginning God, or In the beginning Dirt?
(The easiest answer is not necessarily  the most accurate answer. Science
still has many mysteries. When knowledge is lacking,scientists admit they
admit ignorance and investigate the problems involved. The beginning was
the Big Bang. Deity stories have no value in science as they have no
 predictive value and no way to be tested by experiment.)

2. Do you believe in spontaneous generation (life coming from non-living
matter)?
(The early earth was lifeless and continually bombarded by meteors. Look at
the moon for evidence of this time. Within a billion years it had prokaryote
bacteria, 3.85 billion years ago.)

The theory of evolution is something people chooses to believe.  They do not
and cannot know that it is true.  Real science deals with things that are
observable and testable, and neither creation nor evolution are scientifically
provable.  Both views are religious in nature.  Yet, all US taxpayers are
forced to pay for the religion of evolution to be promoted in our school system
a clear violation of the First Amendment.
(All scientific models, including evolution, are the results of centuries of
scientific studies and data. It is not just an arbitrary choice.
Truth is something philosophers and preachers argue over. Science ideas are
all tentative and approximate and are expected to be changedas better
information becomes available.Evolution has been tested worldwide for
centuries and has passed every test for validity so far. It is descent with
variation, or a change in the gene system of a species over time. Animals
without ancestors is mythology. The fossil record shows a sequence of life
forms in each geological period.

Indoctrination in Evolution
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores
Violent Crime Offenses
Unwed Birth Rates
Divorce Rates
Unmarried Couples

Carbon 14 Calibration Curve

Faulty Assumptions Used in all Radiometric Dating Methods.

1.Atmospheric C14 is equilibrium.

This assumption is wrong.  It has been shown that the amount of C14 in the
atmosphere is still increasing.  It has been estimated that the C14 in the
earth's atmosphere would reach equilibrium (the formation rate would be equal
to the decay rate) in about 30,000 years.  Research indicates that the amount
of C14 is still increasing and has not yet reached equilibrium.  This indicates
a young earth (less than 10,000 years).  This also modifies all dates obtained
by C14 decay.  As the earthÌs magnetic field decays, more cosmic radiation is
allowed to penetrate into our atmosphere, 16 clicks (on a Geiger counter) per
minute per gram (16 DPM/Gc) is typical in living objects today.  Plants and
animals that lived on the earth four thousand years ago would have had much
less C14 in their body to start with.  This would make them appear to be
thousands of years older than they really are.
( The rate of C14 production is not constant as it is influenced by changes in
the solar system and the earth's magnetic field, which changes and reverses
periodically every 100,000 years or so. The amount of C-14 at each time is
determined by measuring the amount in tree rings and  other articles of known
date. These changes and take long periods of time and give no information about
the age of the earth.

2.Decay rate remains constant.

This assumption has been shown to be uncertain many times.  Several factors can
effect the rate of C14 decay.  The 11 year solar sun spot cycle is one such
factor.  Since the rate of decay may not be constant, dates obtained by C-14
must be accepted only with caution.
(The decay rate of radioactive atoms is constant to a high degree. Measurements
of atoms produced by supernova 1987A shows that 180,000 years ago, when it
occurred, the decay rates of the elements produced were the same as now. No
normal prrocesses change decay rates of isotopes to any degree.

3.Initial amount of C14 can be known.

This assumption has been demonstrated to be wrong many times.  Different parts
of the same sample often yield different ratios.  Various living samples give
very different ratios.  Some items cannot be tested with carbon dating even
though they contain carbon.

(No living object is carbon dated as nuclear testing has produced C-14)

4.The sample being tested has not been contaminated.

This assumption is very difficult, if not impossible to prove.  Parent of
daughter products may have leached in or out of the sample.  Many lab test
have confirmed that this can happen.
(Careful lab techniques and sample selection can avoid this problem.)
5. The amount of C14 is assumed to be constant.
This assumption is not rational.  The oldest sample of independently known
age is Hemaka, the Egyptian mummy from 2700 - 3100 BC.  To base such an
assumption on such a small section of the curve is not wise.  (Secular
writers of antiquity tend to exaggerate ages so even these dates are suspect.)
(They do not assume this as the amount at each time period can be determined
by tree ting calibration)

6. The geologic column can be used as a base to calibrate the C14 dates.

This assumption is not wise.  The ages applied to the geologic column are based
on the assumption that evolution is true.  This fictitious column (invented in
the 1800s to discredit the Bible) does not exist anywhere in the world except
in textbooks.  Polystrata fossils, missing layers, layers out of order,
misplaced fossils, and layers in reverse order all invalidate the geologic
column.  (More information can be obtained on this subject in chapters four
through six.)  the assumed age of the sample will dictate which dating method
is used since each will give a very different result.
(Carbon dating is useful only to about 50,000 years and never over 100,000
years. Most formations are far older than this.The geological column is a
teaching device as each place on earth has its own unique geological history
and this determines which formations are present or absent.)
Longevity Chart Adam to Joseph
(This is tradition, not validated history.)
Points to Ponder

About the Great Flood and Noah's Ark

II Peter 3:3-8 tells us that people who scoff at the Bible are willingly
ignorant of the Creation and the Flood.  In order to understand science and
the Bible, we must not be ignorant of those two great events in Earth's
history.

1.Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most
have similarities to the Genesis story.

2.Noah's ark was only built to float, not to sail anywhere.  Many ark
scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat"
shape.  This would greatly increase the cargo capacity.

3. Even using the small 18-inch cubit (my height is 6-ft. 1-in. and have a
21-in. cubit) the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals,
people, and food with room to spare.

4. The length-to-width ratio of 6 to 1 is what shipbuilders today often
use.  This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather.  (God thinks
of everything!)

5. The ark may have had a 'moon-pool' (sometimes called moon-pull) in the
center.  The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the
boat with walls extending up into the ship.  There are several reasons for
this feature.

a. It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves.  This
would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships

b. The rising and lowering water acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and
out of the ship.  This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all
the animals on board.

c. The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going
outside.

6. The ark may have had large stones suspended over the sides to keep it more
stable in rough weather.   Many of these stones have been found in the region
where the ark landed.

7. Noah lived 950 years!  Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people
were much larger Than modern man.  Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been
found!  If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been
much larger also.  This would make The ark larger by the same ratio.

8. God told Noah to bring two of each kind, not of each species or variety.
Noah only had two of the dog kind which would include the wolves, coyotes,
foxes, mutts, etc.     The kind grouping is probably closer to our modern
family division in taxonomy.  This would greatly reduce the number of animals
on the ark.  Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4,400
years since the Flood.  This is not anything similar to great claims that the
evolutionists teach.  (They teach that Ïkelp can turn into Kent,Ó given enough
time!)

9. Noah did not have to get the animals.  God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20,
"shall come to theeÓ).

10. Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark
(Gen. 7:15, Ïin which is the breath of life).

11. Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.

12. All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood
according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.

13. The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than
people today.  The longer life-spans, AdamÌs direct contact with God, and the
fact that they could glean the wisdom of many generations that were still
alive would greatly expand their knowledge base.

14. The Bible says that the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of
water. This is half the height of the ark.  The ark was safe from scraping
bottom at all times.

15. The mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood
when Ïthe mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8).

16. There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet
deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.

17. Many claim to have seen the ark in recent times in the area the Bible says
it landed.  There are two primary schools of thought about the actual site of
the ark (see chapter 2 for more on this.)  Much energy and time has been
expended to try to prove each view.  Some believe the ark is on Mt. Ararat,
covered by snow (CBS showed a one-hour special in 1993 about this site).  The
other group believes the ark is 17 miles south of Mt. Ararat in a valley called
"the valley of eight" (8 souls on the ark).  The Bible says the ark landed in
the "mountains" of Ararat, not necessarily on the mountain itself.

18. The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood
(Gen. 10:25).  The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth
by then.

19. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of
sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.

20. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world.  Sedimentary rock is laid 
down in water.

21. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify
to their rapid burial while they were still alive.

22. Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and polystrata fossils are best
explained by a Flood.

23. People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the
judgment of God on sin (II Peter 3:3-8).
==========
(Not a single piece of physical evidence exists to support the tradition of
Noah and the Ark. it is total myth. No modern geology book includes it as a
physical event. There is no source for this water and no mechanism for
removing it. No date fits the story. The polar caps are still intact, with
160,000 yearly ice layers over miles of older ice.The distribution of animals
and plants shows no such event but shows evolution in place. Mountains are
produced by collisions of crust plates and this shoves old ocean beds up to
be mountain ranges with sea shells, like Mt. Everest.)

Questions For People Who Believe In The Theory Of Evolution

The test of any theory is:  does it provide answers to basic questions?  Some
well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to
explain manÌs questions about the universe.  Evolution is not a good theory,
it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.  Below are a few of the
questions that should be answered.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
(The Big bang had space expanding from the singularity.)

2. Where did matter come from?
(The BB made matter, energy, space, and time.)

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
(The origin of the laws is presently a mystery but is being investigated by
Guth, Hawking and others.)

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
(The laws of the universe control matter. What would imperfect matter look
like?)

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
(The Big Bang produced energy)

6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
The first life in the fossil record is 3.95 billion years old. It is made of
chemicals, which were present on the early earlyt earth. Life is complex
chemistry.)

7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
(It was not life until it had a genetic system, which reproduced itself.)

8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
(Single cells can conjugate and give genetic material to other such cells.
This is the basis of more complex systems of sex.)

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since 
this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
( These organisms do not think and plan but only follow the laws of nature
and the programs in their genes)

10 How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new
improved varieties?  (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese
books.)
(A change in a DNA sequence can produce a new protein which may be more
efficient than the older version and may produce new chemical tools for
solving the problems of survival.) A change in a single letter will change
the meaning of the word compl;etely. A change in a DNA codon may have much
or no results, good or bad, and anything in between.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals
prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
(That is theology, not science. There are noncoding sequences called
psuedogenes, which were once active coding genes but now do nothing.
Closely related species have identical psuedogenes, which makes perfect
sense in an evolutionary sequence but no sense at all if you propose a
wise Creator.)

12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available
and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing
complexity in the genetic code?
( New genetic material is produced by sexual recombination of existing genes
and also mutations produce variation in the wild species, available for future
selection as a possibly superior individual for that time an place.

13. When, where, why and how did:

a.   Single-celled plants become multicelled?  (Where are the two-celled and
three-celled intermediates?)
(nobody claimed there was a stepwise number of intermediates)
(The change from totally single cell to multicell organisms occurred in the
late Precambrian 1500-600 million years ago.)
       

b.   Single-celled animals evolve?

     (3500-2800 million years ago.Prokaryotic cell organisms develop)

c.   Fish change to amphibians? 

   ( 350-300 million years ago Rise of the amphibians)

d.   Amphibians change to reptiles?
(   300-200 Rise of the reptiles)

e.   Reptiles change to birds?  (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, 
    heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
    (145 million years Archaeopteryx lives )

f.   How did the intermediate forms live?
    (They lived and survived or they would not be intermediates. They were all
     either intermediates or be came extinct.)

14. When, where, why, how and from what did:

a.   Whales evolve?
(WHALE ANCESTRY
Beginning with a mesonychid mammal the intermediates are Pakicetus,
Ambulocetus, and Rodocetus, leading to a true whale, Basilosaurus. Even
Basilosaurus itself is intermediate. It had hindlimbs, a nose in front, and
teeth like those of its carnivore ancestors, not modern cetaceans.
Whale ancestry.

 Two orders, Acreodea and Cetacea, would overlap in the suborder
Archaeoceti.
Acreodea would consist of the two suborders Mesonychi and Archaeoceti,
overlapping in the family Protocetidae.
_Ambulocetus_ -- _Rodhcetus_ -- _Basilosaurus_  are whale ancestors.
Science 263, 14 Jan 1994, pg. 180 has a nice sketch of some whale
skeletons, both modern and ancient.
Sperm whales still sometimes show vestigal legs
  Mesonychids (terrestrial)
         Pakicetus
         Ambulocetus
         Rodhcetus
         Indocetus, Protocetus
         Basilosaurus
 -- and somewhat later
         Aetiocetus
)

b.   Sea horses evolve?
(They are fish. i do not know if they have a good fossil record.)

c.   Bats evolve?
(The first bat, Icaronycteris index, was very similar to modern
bats, with fully developed wings and sonar.)

e.   Ears evolve?
(Reptiles had ears)

d.   Eyes evolve?
(The  Burgess shale fauna had eyes.   517-515 million years ago. read
Wonderful Life by Gould)
      
e.   Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
(Reptiles,mammals and birds had these items. Only mammals had hair.)

15.	Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
The early fish had skin. 500-450 million years ago.)
            
a.   The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability
to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodyÌs resistance to
it's own digestive juices.
(Digestive systems are Precambrian developments, with multicall life forms)

b.   The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
(This was in the fiirst genetic system, whatever it was.)

c.   The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect
mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?
(Lungs were developed by early Devonian fish)

d.   DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
(RNA can form naturally out of nitrogen bases. No fossil information is
available to mark the origins of these chanical structures as it occurred in
the Precambrain))

e.   The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the
cellulose?
(They were initially independent organism with different life styles)

f.   The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
(Early plants can live and reproduce without insects. Insects can eat many
things, plant derived. Symbiosis came later.)

g.   The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones,
nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
(These are all derived from earlier more primitive structures.)

h.   The immune system or the need for it?
( This is probably a very early development but this is a mystery of the
early Precambrian)

16.	There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an
evolutionary explanation.  Why must we teach students that evolution
is the only explanation for these relationships?

17.	How would evolution explain mimicry?  Did the plants and animals
develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
(Chance variations resulted in more indiuviduals surviving if they had a
more suitable pattern.)

18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings?  Love, mercy, guilt,
etc.,  would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
(Any habit or structure leading to greater biological success of the species
would be selected for. No reference was given by the author to anything which
would prevernt evolution from producing these characteristics. It is his
assertion only))

After you answer the questions above, please look carefully at your answers
and answer these questions.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically
provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have
answered?  (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
(Science deals in claims of varying degrees of probability. Much has been
discovered the author is not aware of and did not search out before he wrote
this paper. Some of these matters are still unclear as fossil evidence is
sometimes not available yet to determine exactly what happened when. how,
and where in evolutionary processes. More is discovered every year to aid in
this process.)

2.	Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says "God
must have designed it?"
(These scientific claims are based on millions of items of data and facts)
Deity stories have only faith to support them).

3. Is it possible that an unseen creator designed this universe?  If God is
excluded at the beginning of the discussion by our definition of science, how
could it be shown that he did create the universe if he did?

( There could be millions of invisible designers and operators at work in the
universe. This approach has no predictive value so it can not be proved or
disproved. that makes it outside of all science.)

4. Is it wise and fair to only show students the theory of evolution and
teach them that it is a fact?

(Evolution is a scientific fact, as determined by the sum of the scientific
community and also decided by many federal Court cases. That makes it wise
and fair to present it in schools. No other scientifc models has appeared yet.
Religious traditions are not useful in these areas and are not supported by the
Constitution.).

5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (Lifestyle, society,
attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
(Evolution is a scientific ideas, fully validated. It says nothing in the realm
of morality. That is the responsibility of others to judge. Evolution was not
invented by Darwin but goes back to Aristotle. Can all social problems since
Aristotle be blamed on evolutionary ideas? The heliocentric model was one a
scandle to the Christian community and was considered a grave danger to the
whole system of faith and all of society.)

6.	Could it be that people accept evolution because of some of these factors:
(Children will believe what they are taught. Later, they will learn the basis
for the ideas taught them. All of biology, geology and paleontology is a
random collection of observation without evolution to show the processes
involved and make a coherent whole of these observations. Biology without
evolution is like astronomy withoput gravity.)

a.   It is all they have been taught?
(It is the duty of the schools to teach what experts have determined to be
highly probable facts and theories. it is not the duty of public schools to
teach ancient religions ideas as modern science.)

b.   They like the freedom from a God?  (No moral absolutes, etc.)

( Deity stories have no place in public schools, except in studies of religions
of the world. Morals have varied greatly over time and place. We no longer buy
and sell slaves in the marketplace or burn witches and heretics.)

c.   They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or
status or grade point averages?
( If you are in school, it is your duty to to learn the material presented.
Students can not be forced to believe anything, even 1+1=2. If you are required
to have certain skills in your job, you use them, no matter your personal
belief system. Flat earth pilots and  young earth petroleum geologists should
act as if the modern view were valid to keep their jobs.

d.   They are too proud to admit they are wrong?
(Science always admits error when it is demonstrated adequately. This process
may taked a long time until the evidence is adequate to show the older ideas
are mistaken or inadequate.)

e.   They know that evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to
justify their political agenda of:

i.     Communism
ii.    Racism
iii.   Abortion
iv.   Nazism
v.    Socialism
vi.   Gay rights
vii.  WomenÌs liberation
viii. Extreme environmentalism
ix.  Euthanasia
x.   Pornography
xi.  Humanism
xii. New Age Movement
(Hitler claimed to be a Christian and Germany was a nation of Catholics and
Protestants. Stalin hated certain scientific ideas and imprisoned those who
supported them, like the Christians did. SScience has shown that no race is
superior. Some individual scientists  have had faulty racist ideas but these 
have ben jhown by scientifc evidence to be faulty. Abortion is legal in the US.
Is socialism inherently evil and derived from evolution? Should gays have
fewer rights than other citizens? Should women have the right to vote and
determine their own life or be kept subservient to others? How much
environmentalism is extreme? We allow animals in hopeless pain to die, with
help. Are people to be denied this reight by some politician oe preacher?
Define pornography. Is DAVID in the Vatican pornographic, or Shakespeare or
many great works of art or literature. Who is to decide for all others?
Humanism is the approch that man is responsible for his destiny, not some
priest or supposed deity?.
 Much of the New Age is as irrational as Christian theology and tradition.

7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or
inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we
don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation theory,
 Archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java Man, Neanderthal Man, etc.)?

( You did not list the material you point to. outdated ideas are exposed
as such by scientists and replaced by more valid data. piltdown man was 
exposed in the 1950s and is not incuded in modern works of human evolution
except as a hoax. Some aspects of the recapapitulation model have proved
to be useful in determining the ancestry of species. Archaeopteryx is still
considered a valid intermediate, having boyth bird and reptile features.
Lucy is a genuine early hominid. it is a matter of disagrement whether it
is a direct human ancestor or Trinil 2, "Java Man", "Pithecanthropus I",
Homo erectus (was Pithecanthropus erectus)Discovered by Eugene Dubois in
1893 near Trinil on the Indonesian island of Java. Its age is uncertain,
but thought to be about 700,000 years. This find consisted of a flat,very
thick skullcap, and was an early hominid.
Neanderthal Man is an earlier species of Homo sapiens, but not our direct
ancestor. There were systematic differences which make them a different
group than modern men. Read Jan 1996 National Geographic or Dec 1979 issue
of Scientific American for details.

8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught in
their school system unless equal time is given to creation?
 They can propose that all modern ideas should be replaced by Bible
traditions but the Constitution prevents them from doing this. They are
free to send their children to a religious school where thery can be taught
all the religion they desire and no science at all. Then they are prepared
to sell shoes or be a mechanic.

9. What are you risking if you are wrong?
(The price of believing false ideas can be VERY high. as history keeps
teaching us.)

10. Aren't you tired of faith in a system that can't be true?  Wouldn't
it be great to know the God who made you and accept his love and forgiveness?

Science and evolution are not a faith system but have validity. Many deities
have been proposed over the ages. Why believe in any of them?

11. If I could show you from the Bible how to have your sins forgiven, would
you be interested?  If so, call me.(This is theology, not science.)

Dr. Kent Hovind 29 Cummings Road Pensacola, FL 32503 (904) 479-898

Flying in the Face of Evolution

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.  This theory has helped nothing in
the progress of science.  It is useless."
Professor Louis Bounoure
Former President, Biological Society of Strasbourg
Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum
(What scientific journal did he publish this in. What evidence did he produce
to support his claims? What did his peers say about his claims?

Scientist who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great
con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.  In
explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.
(Evolution is fully supported by the sum of the scientific community. What
authority does Hovland have to judge this material?)

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian
Atomic Energy Commission, USA
The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still
more scientists than specimens.  The remarkable fact is that all the physical
evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare,
inside a coffin!  (There are thousands of specimenes of hominid fossil
material available. He does not claim these are not genuine, just rare.)

Dr. Lyall Watson The Water People, Science Digest vol. 90 (May 1982) p.44
I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to
which itÌs been applied, will be one of great jokes in the history books of
the future.  Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an
hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.
(What authority does he have to make this claim?) Science Digest is not a
professional science journal but is a popular magazine.

Malcolm Muggeridge World-famous journalist and philosopher
This notion of species as natural kinds fits splendidly with creationist tenets
of pre-Darwinian age.  Louis Agassiz even argued that species are God's
individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His
majesty and His message.  Species, Agassiz wrote, are instituted by Divine
Intelligence as the categories of his mode of thinking.  But how could a
division of the organic world into discrete entities be justified by an
evolutionary theory that proclaimed ceaseless change as the fundamental
fact of nature?
(Muggeridge was not a professional scientist so his assertians are assertions
only.)

Stephen Jay Gould
Professor Geology and Paleontology
Harvard University
ÏThe more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it
just happened by blind chance.  Superficially the obvious alternative to
chance is an intelligent Designer.
( Gould fully accepts evolution and is an atheist. )

Dr. Richard Dawkins Department of Zoology Oxford University
And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most
complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.
(That does not disprove evolution. He accepts evolution as fully scientific.)

Dr. Isaac Asimov Former Professor Boston School of Medicine
The universe we see when we look out to it's furthest horizons contains a
hundred billion galaxies.  Each of these galaxies contains another hundred
billion stars.  The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we
do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.  There's no
lack of ideas, of course; we just can;t substantiate them.
(Since he wrote this, much on the formation of stars has been discovered,
particularly using the Hubble telescope.)

M. Harwit noted astrophysicist
In fact evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips
and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not
the evidence of fossils.
(Fossils are not his area of knowledge. Fossils show steps in the evolutionary
sequence.)

Stephen Jay Gould
Professor of Geology and Paleontology

Harvard University
Contrary to what most scientist write, the fossil record does not support the
Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several)
which we use to interpret the fossil record.  By doing so we are guilty of
circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.

(The Darwin theory, as he proposed it ,was a pioneering attempt to explain
evolution. Much of his theory has been replaced,or modified by later
data, as he said it would. His theory of natural selection still stands as
an important part of modern evolution.)

Ronald P. West, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Paleontology Kansas State
University

As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of single group
of modern plants from it's beginning to the present.
Chester A. Arnold Professor of Botany Curator of Fossil Plants
University of Michigan
(Fossilization is rare and many intermediate steps are not found yet, and may
never be.)

The evolutionary origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction.  There is no
fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile
to bird was achieved.
W. E. Swinton British Museum of Natural History London
(In recent years, many important bird fossils have been found, filling in many
earlier gaps in knowledge.)

In recent years several authors have written popular books on human origins
which were based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and
objectivity.  At the moment science cannot offer a full answer on the origin
of humanity..
Dr. Robert Martin Senior Research Fellow Zoological Society of London
(At present science can not fully answer anything. This man did not say all
books on human evolution were false.))

If the C14 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.
T. Save-Soderbergh and I. U. Olsson
Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively
University of Uppsala, Sweden
(C-14 samples have to be carefully selected.)

The Big Bang is presumed to have produced just hydrogen and helium, 
only 2 of the 92 elements of the earthÌs crust.Ó
Dr. Robert V. Gentry Research Physicist
(That is the case. small amounts of Li  may have been produced too. Heavier
elements are produced in stars.)

Dr. HovindÌs $10,000 Offer
I have a standing offer of $10,000 to anyone which can give empirical
evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.Ð  My $10,000 offer (made in
1990) is still valid to demonstrate that the hypothesis of evolution is
nothing more than a religious belief.
ÐNote:  When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor
variations found in all of the various life forms.  I am referring to the
general theory of evolution which teaches these four major events took
place without ÏGod.Ó
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Matter created life by itself.
3. Early life forms learned to reproduce themselves.
4. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms.  (i.e.,
fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles
changed to birds or mammals).

Webster's New World Dictionary, Second Collage Edition, defines empirical
as relying or based solely on experiment and observation rather than theory.

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true.  While beliefs
are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force onto the students in our
public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayer's expense.  It is
my contention that evolutionism is a religious world-view that is not
supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense.  The
exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in
tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is a clear violation of
the First Amendment.

(No knowledge in science is absolute or certain. It is the duty of
teachers to teach the findings of experts in the field. Hovlind is not a
scientist so his opinions have little or no authority. Common sense says
animals and plants always come from ancestors, not magic tricks by some
deity. The highest Federal Courts have fully supported evolution as valid
science and teaching creationism  in public schools is a purely religious
activity and is contary to the Constitution.)

How to collect the $10,000

Prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the process of evolution (option 3
below) is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into
existence.  Only empirical evidence is acceptable.  Persons wishing to collect 
the $10,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public 
presentation.  As in any fair court of law, the accuser must also rule out any 
other possible explanations.  To the best of my ability, I will be fair and 
honest in my evaluation and judgment as the validity of the evidence presented.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.

2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets
around our star, the sun.  (This process is often referred to as cosmic
evolution.)

3.  Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from the
non-living matter.

4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in
reproducing themselves.

5. Caused that life to spontaneously diversify into different forms of
living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today.
The observed phenomena:

Evolution has been accused of being the only process capable of causing the
observed phenomena.  As with any just court, the burden of proof rests on
the accuser.  Most thinking people will agree:

1.  A highly ordered universe exist.

2.  At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing
variety of life.

3.  Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

The known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being:

1.  The universe was created by God.

2.  The universe always existed.

3.  The universe came into being by itself, by purely natural processes
(known as evolution).  No appeal to the supernatural is needed.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest
that you offer $10,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against
the general theory of evolution.  This might include the following:

1.   The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility
of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
(The geologists disagree.)
2.   No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally
different kind of animal.
(Fundamental change takes millions of years.)
3.   No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from non-living
matter.
(Conditions are not the same now as back then)

4.   Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

(Virtual particles do this all the time.)

My suggestion:  proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit
that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way
they teach.  They should call evolution their faith or religion, and stop
including it in books of science.  Give up faith in the silly religion of
evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this
universe and will be your Judge one day soon)  to forgive you and save you
from the coming judgment on manÌs sin. have a standing offer of $10,000 to
anyone which can give empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution
==
Kent Hovind claims to possess a masters
degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot
University in Colorado. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop
Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot
University is accredited ONLY by the American Accrediting
Association of Theological Institutions, an accreditation
mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge.

Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and
continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32
per credit. The school's catalog contains course
descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or
their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot
University as a degree mill.

   * How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once
     when it did?
   * If a canopy holding the eqivalent to more than 40 feet of water were
     part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure
     accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
   * If the canopy began as vapor, the water from it would be superheated.
     Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit,
     the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the
     temperature past boiling.
   * A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal
     of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the
     Flood.
   * Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet
     light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.

Hydroplate. Walt Brown's model proposes that the Flood waters came from a
layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a
catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and
fell as rain.

   * How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up
     the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to
     the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
   * Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of
     water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy
     of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor
     canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
   * Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides
     of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits.
     These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would
     be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had
     to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would
     be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

Comet. Kent Hovind proposed that the Flood water came from a comet which
broke up and fell on the earth. Again, this has the problem of the heat
from the gravitational potential energy. The water would be steam by the
time it reached the surface of the earth.

Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model,
which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser
than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process
decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accellerated
catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising
magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise
and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it
cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded.
Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by
isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]

   * The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn't work
     without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity
     of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get
     the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also
     necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary
     mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would
     ordinarily take.
   * Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction
     process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In
     addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter
     before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have
     to go somewhere, too.
   * Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils
     from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of
     evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals
     and angiosperms.
   * Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very
==

New ocean basins. Most flood models (including those above, possibly
excepting Hovind's) deal with the water after the flood by proposing that
it became our present oceans. The earth's terrain, according to this model,
was much, much flatter during the Flood, and through cataclysims, the
mountains were pushed up and the ocean basins lowered. (Brown proposes that
the cataclysms were caused by the crust sliding around on a cushion of
water; Whitcomb & Morris don't give a cause.)

   * How could such a change be effected? To change the density and/or
     temperature of at least a quarter of the earth's crust fast enough to
     raise and lower the ocean floor in a matter of months would require
     mechanisms beyond any proposed in any of the flood models.
   * Why are most sediments on high ground? Most sediments are carried
     until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the
     oceans, we should expect more sediments there. Baumgardner's own
     modelling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over
     continents than over ocean basins [Baumgardner, 1994], so sediments
     should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in
     ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick,
     while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6
     km thick. [Poldervaart, 1955]
   * Where's the evidence? The water draining from the continents would
     have produced tremendous torrents. There is evidence of similar
     flooding in the Scablands of Washington state (from the draining of a
     lake after the breaking of an ice dam) and on the far western floor of
     the Mediterranean Sea (from the ocean breaking through the Straits of
     Gibralter). Why is such evidence not found worldwide?
   * How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of
     the earth's topography, compressed into just a few months, would have
     produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth. The aftershocks
     alone would have been devastating for years afterwards.

References

Austin, Steven A., John R. Baumgardner, D. Russell Humphreys, Andrew A.
Snelling, Larry Vardiman, & Kurt P. Wise, 1994. Catastrophic plate
tectonics: a global flood model of earth history. Proceedings of the third
international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp.
609-621.

Brown, Walt, 1997. In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and
the Flood. (www.creationscience.com/onlinebook)

Baumgardner, John R., 1990a. Changes accompanying Noah's Flood. Proceedings
of the second international conference on creationism, vol. II, pp. 35-45.

Baumgardner, John R., 1990b. The imparative of non-stationary natural law
in relation to Noah's Flood. Creation Research Society Quarterly 27(3):
98-100.

Baumgardner, John R., 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the
continents during Noah's Flood. Proceedings of the third international
conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 77-86.

Matsumura, Molleen, 1997. Miracles in, creationism out: "The geophysics of
God". Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(3): 29-32.

Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth's crust. pp. 119-144 In:
Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America
Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.

Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.

6. Implications of a Flood

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't
the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalacians during the Flood?
[Products for Freethinkers] Library: Modern Documents: Dave Matson: Young
Earth: Additional Topics: Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A5. A Couple of Ice Age Problems Dr. Hovind believes that there was only one
ice age which began sometime after Noah's flood ended, that being around
4300 years ago by his reckoning. Thus, the world moved from a warm, tropical
climate to an ice age only a few thousand years ago. There are fatal
problems with that view. First, we now know that there were at least 7 ice
eras lasting on the average some 50 million years apiece. Each ice era was,
itself, composed of numerous ice epochs which lasted about two or three
million years. They, in turn, were composed of iceage cycles which often
lasted around 100,000 years. Thus, there have been numerous fluctuations
between warm and cold climates. (Chorlton, 1984, pp.20-21). The more recent
advances and retreats of the glaciers have resulted in sea level changes
which, in turn, have affected the heights of coral reefs, the oxygen isotope
ratios in sea floor sediments, and shorelines around the world. Several
levels of terraces were carved in the world's shorelines by recent
fluctuations in the ocean level, each lasting many thousands of years. I
don't have the space to explore this issue, but numerous facts fit together
to document the existence of many "ice ages." Regarding one ancient ice era,
we have a remarkable coming together of different facts: The theory of
continental drift led to one of the most remarkable discoveries in ice age
studies. During the 1960s, scientists analyzed the magnetic orientation of
rocks from many parts of the world and concluded that North Africa had been
located over the South Pole during the Ordovician period, about 450 million
years ago. If they were correct, there should be traces of ancient
glaciation in the Sahara. At about the same time, French petroleum
geologists working in southern Algeria stumbled on a series of giant grooves
that appeared to have been cut into the underlying sandstone by glaciers.
The geologists alerted the scientific world and assembled an international
team to examine the evidence. The team saw unmistakable signs of an ice age:
scars created by the friction of pebbles incorporated into the base of
glaciers; erratic rocks that had been transported from sources hundreds of
miles distant; and formations of sand typical of glacial outwash streams.
(Chorlton, 1984, p.141) In some places in the Sahara the grooves made by
glaciers can be traced for hundreds of miles (Chorlton, 1984, p.144). How do
creationists explain glaciers in the Sahara? Second, we have a problem with
permafrost. Chorlton informs us that the building up of a 100foot deep layer
of permafrost takes thousands of years of freezing weather to accomplish.
The bad news for creationists is this: About 20 per cent of the world's land
area remains permanently frozen in some cases to depths of almost a mile.
(Chorlton, 1984, p.30) Thus, we have direct evidence that some of the frozen
parts of our world have been frozen a lot longer than a few thousand years!
Try a few million years! (Forget about supercold snowballs crashing into the
Earth and instantly freezing thousands of feet of earth. They would have
vaporized upon impact.)
==
Hovind Meeting
  I got an introduction last Monday to Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation Science
Evangelism Ministries. A couple of pro creationism letters to the editor
mentioned some seminars April 2 & 3 and I went to the second (not
specifically knowing what it was that I was going to). Anyway, it was the
Dr. Kent Hovind Creation Seminars given, not by Hovind, but by a certain
Mike Schultz (you can find basically the same seminars online at
http://216.248.142.66/SeminarOnline/ --note that the transcripts do not show
all of the slides--, although I have not been able to get a connection
established for the Real Player slide shows).
Part 1, Age of the Earth (which I did not attend), was covered April 2. A
quite condensed version of parts 2, 3 and 4 was given on April 3 (which I
attended). From the itinerary listed on their web site, the rest (or at
least some of it) may have been given somewhere, sometime in Willmar on
April 4.
If it was supposed to be showing scientific evidence for special creation a
la Genesis, the seminar started on the wrong foot, IMNSHO, when the speaker
went on half a dozen minutes explaining how the only good version of the
Bible was the King James Version. It became apparent to me then and later
that the intended audience was the already converted and not a general
audience (by general audience, I mean that same audience that in polls has
trouble figuring out whether the earth orbits around the sun or vice versa).
Of course, I might be overestimating a general audience's thinking abilities
and background knowledge, underestimating the impact of coming into this
after part 1 (which I did not attend) and underestimating the impact of the
shotgun effect (throw enough things at the audience and one or two are
likely to stick).
        The seminar was interesting in the same way watching TBN (Trinity
Broadcasting Network) is interesting (all in all, a little soporific --and
given its length, a bit of an exercise in masochism). I felt a little bit
like a field anthropologist (I suppose, an inept one since I made no attempt
to talk with the natives --or, should I write, the naives). I taped most of
this with an audio tape recorder; but the quality didn't turn out that great
(I didn't know ahead of time that similar transcripts were available on the
WWW). Satan was mentioned more than a couple of times (source of creationist
thought, you know) as was communism, apparently the ideology of many
evilutionists (those that aren't nazis, I suppose).
The subjects covered were relatively wide ranging once he got done with the
Bible talk and with tearing down opposing creationists. He did the Paluxy
tracks (including one, I assume hoaxed, human footprint cast almost 1.5' in
length), Baugh's hammer (and other supposed inclusions in old geological
strata), the polonium halo thing, the claim that all fossil evidence and
geological stratification is the result of hydrologic sorting during the
great flood, some giant human skeletons (Noah was 12' tall, BTW), the claim
that Lucy's knee is the result of an arboreal configuration rather than
indicative of bipedalism. By the way, dinosaur blood was also brought up.
Other things that got covered were the expeditions by Ron Wyatt to find
Noah's ark, Sodom & Gomorrah and the Biblical Mt. Sinai.
Something interesting that he also did is promote unproven uses of
hyperbaric oxygen therapy to treat just about everything (for instance, the
claim was made that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is widely used and accepted in
Germany to treat strokes and that it results in _100%_ recovery rates), and
promote the use of the disproved and potentially dangerous quack cancer
remedy laetrile (vitamin B17, you know). The justification for the first is
that we were designed for much higher atmospheric oxygen levels (35% at 2
atm antediluvian); and the justification for the second is that the Bible
tells us to eat the seeds (laetrile can be synthesized from the pits of
apricots and other fruits). I guess this shows consistency because, unlike
the creationist scientist who may be capable of doing good science when not
wearing his creationist hat, Dr Dino throws science out the window all of
the time (gee, maybe fundamentalism really can stop a thinking brain).
Some of the amusing highlights follow (I amuse easily, so sue me!):
- Dinosaurs are really overgrown lizards --literally!. You give your run of
the mill lizard optimal nutrition, X-ray shielding, 35% oxygen at two
atmospheres and lots of time to grow (which according to Hovind is how
things were, once upon a time, before the great flood) and, bingo, you got
yourself a dinosaur. And this, folks, is before anabolic steroids!
- Ark as petting zoo. Large animals were not a big problem for the ark since
even large animals start out small when younger (see previous item about
dinosaurs).
- The animals in the ark were not much trouble at all (feeding, cleaning,
etc.) since they went into a state of hibernation upon entering the ark as
all animals are likely to do in bad weather (as everyone knows).
- He made a point that lions were not really created as meat eaters --at
least they weren't meat eaters before the fall of man. To make the point, he
pointed to the giant panda and his big pointy teeth that are just like the
lion's (somehow failed to point out their enlarged molars and premolars as
compared to bears), but there it is, eating nothing but bamboo, so teeth
don't mean anything after all.
- Much was made over pre-Inca Ica stones in Peru depicting humans and
dinosaurs together. The first slide clearly shows some fellow riding a llama
or some other South American camelid (but the text claims he's riding a
dinosaur). The next slides do show some stone carvings looking exactly like
your textbook representations of the most popular types of dinosaurs (I can
imagine the locals talking: there's some dumb gringo who'll pay a lot of
money for stones with dinosaur or llama carvings, let's make some).
- He talked about findings that support the Bible --for instance, giant
skeletons (in the 12 foot range). The one problem with them he talked about
is that when one of these pops up, a humanist organization invariably comes
and buys it to suppress the finding. Evil Atheist Conspiracy at work!!!!
- A few of the drawings used to illustrate some points seemed to come from
_Ripley's Believe it or Not_ (the "Ripley's Believe it or Not" text in them
provided a clue as to their source). One wonders if it may have been the
source of more than graphics (like the "facts").
- He seems to have some sort of fixation on crop hybrids being bad. One
comment was about how old varieties of wheat bowed to the lord when ready
for harvest while hybrids stand up in defiance (apparently with terrible
consequences to it's nutritional content). Another case of creationists
making luddites seem forward looking by comparison.
- He set the honey bee's brain computational power at 1 trillion
computations per second (he was comparing it to some Cray model in an
argument by design for a creator). I wonder if you can run linux on that?
Think of the bogomips on that baby! Imagine making a beowulf cluster out of
a bee hive!!
When it was all done, there was a bit of a call for grassroots activism and
that sort of thing. He mentioned how some folks in Kansas did this sort of
thing not too long ago (though I'm guessing the Kansas school board decision
may have been the result more of stealth school board members than from
pressure from grassroots activists). To prevent schools and libraries and
museums and zoos from teaching lies to our children, etc.. To get textbooks
to remove the "false materials" or for warning labels to be put in. He
seemingly even went as far as suggesting that damaging property might be a
thing to do (by gluing offending pages of books shut).
Surprisingly, there was not a moment at the end of the talk when those in
the audience that weren't already saved were specifically asked to accept
Jesus as their Lord and Savior and all that. This made me think the audience
was assumed to be 100% Assemblies of God members and already "saved" rather
than a general audience (perhaps audience composition was different on the
previous day).
==
The problem that I see in America is that we have a lot of Christians with sin
in their heart and in their lives, and they have no intention of fixing it. 
I have an impurity in my elbow, and I have no intention of fixing it.  Its a
whole different story when people regard iniquity in their heart.  The Bible
says if you regard iniquity in your heart the Lord will not hear you
(Psalm 66:18.)  Is your heart clean?  That is the question that I want you to
think about as you see what God was doing with Job as He asked him 84
questions. 

Job was a good, godly, righteous man, but Job had a problem with pride, and
God intended to fix it.  As God was speaking to Job in the forty-first chapter
He said, Canst thou draw out Leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord
which thou lettest down?  Now wait a minute!  A Leviathan?  As I said before,
I believe that Leviathan was a Tyrannosaurus Rex.  Tyrannosauruses are one of
the rarest dinosaurs.  Only twelve or thirteen have been found, and only nine
of them had a scull on them.  If you want to make money, go out and dig around
your yard until you find a Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton.  Museums will pay just
about any price to get one.  They are extremely valuable.

Tyrannosaurus was a fairly large  dinosaur which came in a variety of sizes. 
The biggest one that has been found was twenty-four feet tall.  His head was a
little smaller than a Volkswagen.  He had teeth up to nine inches long.  His
back leg was ten feet high, thats even with the rim on a basketball goal. 
Thats a big lizard!  God said to Job, Canst thou draw out Leviathan with an
hook?  Draw out Leviathan with a hook?  Man, the biggest ones probably weighed
20 to 30 tons.  No!  You can't draw out Leviathan with a hook.  Who uses 30-ton
test line when they go fishing anyway?  Suppose that you did.  You are out
there fishing and snag something heavy; you pull and pull, and up out of the
water comes a 24-foot tall, 50-foot long, 30-ton Tyrannosaurus with a hook in
his lip leading to a string that goes down to your pole; he may seem a little
bit upset.  He slowly walks over to your boat, and says, Hey, is this yours? 
You say, No sir, Mr. Tyrannosaurus!  Ive never seen that hook before in my life.
 I believe that is my brothers hook.  No, you dont draw out a Leviathan with a
hook.

As I stated in chapter 2, the questions that God asked Job were not designed to
get answers.  The questions were designed to change his attitude.  Job is 
getting an attitude adjustment  God said to Job, Can you draw out Leviathan
with a hook, or his tongue with a string which you let down?  

In this passage of Job chapter 41, God describes all sorts of things about
Leviathan.  Lets take a closer look at some of those things.  Job 41:5a states,
Wilt thou play with him as with a bird?  Yea, right!  Whrrrt, whrrrt, whrrrt,
perch right here.  Yea, all 30 tons, right!  You would be road pizza when he
was done with you.  Job 41:5b states, ...or wilt thou bind him for thy
maidens? Hey Job, tie him up and bring him to your daughters to play with at
home.  You had better have a lot of spare daughters.  Job 41:6a says, Shall
the companions make a banquet of him?  In other words, Job have you ever been
invited over for Tyrannosaurus burgers?  Look at the last part of verse 6, 
shall they part him among the merchants?  Now folks, this is proof positive
these critters were hard to kill. 
If anybody would have them for sale, it would be a Jewish merchant.
 Job 41:7-8, Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish
spears? Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.  I love verse
eight.  I think it means, Job, go ahead and grab him; its the last thing that
you'll ever do.  Do no more!  Job 41:9, Behold, the hope of him is in vain:
shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?  Just looking at him would
scare
you to death.  Now verse 10 is the point of the whole passage, None is so fierce
that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?  God says, Job, look
at Leviathan.  Can you draw him out with a hook?  No.  Hes big, hes strong,
he has a big head, big teeth, he is really big!  God says, Job youre afraid of
him, arent you?  Job says, Yes, Im afraid of him.  In verse 10 at the end, God
says, ...who then is able to stand before me? 

You see, God was using Leviathan to get Job thinking about a big ferocious
animal, and then God said, Job, hes big, isnt he?  Yep!  God said, Are you
scared of me Job, like you are of Leviathan?  You see, Job had a problem, and
its the same problem that we have.  We dont have a good fear of God.  In
 America, we simply dont care what God thinks.  It doesnt matter what God
says; we are going to do it our way.  It is illustrated throughout our lives
that we dont have a good fear of God.  

Verse 15 talks about this animal having scales.  Job 41:15-16 states, His
scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near
to another, that no air can come between them.  He had scales!  Now, wait a
minute!  Some Bibles say that it was a whirlpool.  Whirlpools do not have
scales.  Some Bibles say that it was a whale.  Whales also do not have scales.
 A whale is a mammal; it has skin and hair.  Baby whales are born alive under
water.  By the way, they have to nurse under water also.  That makes it pretty
tough to breathe and nurse at the same time, and a baby whale drinks 2,000
pounds of milk every day (thats utterly ridiculous).  Anyway, it was not a
whale; it was an animal with scales.  Verse number 17 says, They are joined
one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.  Now read
verse 18 very carefully.  You are going to think that I am crazy.  I did not
write this; I am just quoting what God has written; so, dont blame me.  Verse
18 says, By his neesings...  Neesings!  What on earth is that?  When the 
translators came across the Hebrew word, ATISH, they said, Fellows, what are
 we going to do with this word?  The word means to blow air out of your nose
-- sneezing.  There was no word to say that, so they made up a brand new word.
 This is the only place that it occurs in the Bible.  It is never mentioned
again.  Its sort of like sneezing, but sneezing is involuntary.  Neesing is
voluntary; so, they decided to make up a brand new word and call it neesing.
 Look at more of verse 18, By his neesings a light doth shine...  What?  When
he sneezes, a light shines?  Do you mean to tell me that when he blows air out
a light shines?  Just keep reading it gets worse, By his neesings a light
doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.  Verse 19,
Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.  Awe no! 
Come on, Mr. Hovind!  Is this a fire-breathing dragon or something?  Just
keep reading; it gets worse.  Verse 20a, Out of his nostrils goeth smoke...
 Now that is no big deal; Ive seen deacons do that on the front step of
churches before.  Lets continue, verse 20 and 21, Out of his nostrils goeth
smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.  His breath kindleth coals, and a
flame goeth out of his mouth.  A flame out of his mouth?  Come on, Mr. Hovind!
 Was this a fire-breathing dragon of some kind?  Surely, you dont believe in
fire-breathing dragons do you?  Well, yes I do.

Before you become excited, let me tell you the four reasons that I believe in
fire-breathing dragons.  My first reason why I believe in fire-breathing
dragons is that the Bible plainly states it as fact.  It says that Leviathan
could breathe fire.  There is no way around reading that passage.  Thats what
it says!  You can try to misinterpret it, but the obvious interpretation is
-- the animal could breathe fire.  Some people say, This has to be some sort
of mythological animal or this is just a type of Satan.  I understand that
Satan is called a dragon.  Wait a minute, it isn't valid to say that Satan is
like Leviathan or the dragon if there was never an animal in existence for
comparison.  The devil is also called a roaring lion, and there really are
roaring lions.  The devil is called a serpent, and there really are serpents.
 So, there really was a dragon.  Now, I understand that this could be a type
of Satan, but there had to be such an animal that really existed to used for
comparison.  So, my first reason is:  the Bible says that Leviathan could
breathe fire.

My second reason is because of all the historical evidence.  There are so many
stories from countries around the world of animals breathing fire.  In every
culture of the world that talked about these animals, there was always a
dragon that breathed fire.  Prince George slew a dragon.  St. John slew a
dragon.  Beowulf slew a dragon.  If they are all just making up stories, if
its just mythology, isnt it coincidental that all the different cultures
relate the same story about fire-breathing dragons?  If they are all making
up an animal, why are they picking the same animal?  Why didnt somebody have
a fire-breathing hamster or something else?  Everybody made it a dragon. 
That seems to be a little more than coincidence to me.  It must have been a
real animal that they were discussing.

My third reason for believing in fire-breathing dragons is: it is possible to
blow fire.  You say, WHAT?  Yep!  Its possible.  There is an insect that lives
in South Florida and in Central America that is called the Bombardier Beetle. 
This is a picture of the Bombardier Beetle (figure 3-3).  It shows this
Bombardier Beetle with a drop of wax on his back.  He was glued with a paper
clip waxed onto a stand so he would cooperate for the photographer.  He could
not move, and it did not hurt him.  He just had wax on his shell.  The
photographer reached up with a pair of tweezers and pinched the beetles leg.
 When that happened the beetle thought, Ah ha!  Its my arch enemy, the ant!
He's biting on my leg again.  That guy never learns.  Back near the beetles
rear end he has a special cannon that he aims at his enemies when they bite
on his legs.  POOF!  He burns his enemies.  He has a flame thrower back
there.  He is sometimes called The Fire-Breathing Beetle, or the Blister Bug.
 The chemicals that come out reach 
212 F, which is the temperature of boiling water.  Well, where does a beetle
get something that is 212 F.?  What does he have back there, a furnace or
something?  Nope!  The way that it works is relatively simple.

The Bombardier Beetle has two chemicals in storage compartments in his rear end.
 The chemicals are hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone.  When these two chemicals
are mixed together, they explode.  BOOM!  Its called an exothermic reaction. 
When they explode, they instantly give off an enormous amount of heat.  The
beetle stores them together in a pouch (figure 3-4) but they dont explode --
which is a good thing.  The beetle doesnt want them to explode in his rear end
because that would be very uncomfortable.  He has a third chemical that is
mixed in there with them.  The third chemical is called the inhibitor.  The
inhibitor prevents the explosion from taking place by neutralizing the first
two chemicals.  Now, he has three chemicals mixed in there, and they do not
do a blooming thing!  He sprays it on his enemies, they lick it off, and
continue chewing his leg off; so, just the three wont work.  He has a fourth
chemical.  The fourth chemical is in the outer chamber.  He squirts it in at
the very last possible second.  The fourth chemical is the neutralizer.  The
neutralizer eliminates the inhibitor so the first two chemicals can explode.
 Is this too complicated?  The beetle has four chemicals.  The first two
explode, the third one makes them not explode, and the fourth takes away the
third one so the first two can explode.  Now, timing is very important to the
beetle!  If he forgets to put the inhibitor in just one time, hes history! 
If he puts the neutralizer in to soon, hes history, and folks, I would like you
to know that it took the beetle billions of years of evolution to figure this
out.  This really is -- complex chemistry.  So, for billions of years, as they
were evolving, you would hear them exploding in the jungle in the middle of the
night as they practiced their chemistry. (BOOM!) They would gather together for
the funeral, and grandma would say, Hey kids, take a look at your uncle Herman.
 Do you want to die like that boys and girls?  Look at him good!  He blew his
whole hind end right off!  No, grandma.  I dont want to die like that.  Well
then, stop goofing off in school, and pay attention to that teacher!  Study
that chemistry because someday we are going to be Fire-Breathing Beetles. 
 We have to keep evolving.  We have to keep working on it.  It took them 
billions of years of slow, gradual evolution, and they finally, miraculously,
made it.  Im not sure which one made it first, but evidently, hes the only one
that had kids because now, all of them can blow fire.  If you believe that
Bombardier Beetles evolved by gradual change you are in serious need of
psychiatric treatment.  

They did not evolve gradually.  The beetle doesnt know anything about chemistry.
 Nothing!  Hes never even been to kindergarten.  His whole body is less than an
inch long.  His brain is even smaller.  All that he knows is if something bites
him on his leg, FLASH, he squirts him, and they will leave -- if they are able.
 It even works on bigger enemies.  Figure 3-5 a picture of a Bombardier Beetle
that is about to be eaten by a toad.  Figure 3-6 shows the beetle in the toads
mouth.  Figure 3-7 shows the beetle is back out; the toads tongue is actually
laying on the floor to cool off, and you can hear him say, Call the cook quick!
 Too many jalape³os on that one!  WOW!  So, my third reason for believing in
fire-breathing dragons is: it is possible for them to produce fire.  

I have a fourth reason for believing in fire-breathing dragons.   Some of these
dinosaurs had weird, hollow, bony things on the back of their heads; for
example, the Parasaurolophus, the Lambiosaur and the Headrosaur.  These weird,
 hollow bony things on the back of their heads were connected to their sinuses
or their nasal passages (figure 3-8).  Scientists have always wondered, What
are those hollow things on the back of their heads?  They were actually
enlargements of the sinuses.  Scientists have always made up stories about
their intended usage..  One textbook states, It is possible that the air
passages magnified the voices of the dinosaurs like the curved tubes of a
trumpet.  Loud voices might be very useful for calling other dinosaurs or
scaring predators away.  Oh yea!  Thats what they had them for, so they could
call louder, Come home for dinner honey!  This could be true but I believe since
many of the dinosaur heads had these cavities (even the head of the
Tyrannosaurus Rex was largely hollow), they could have stored chemicals in
these cavities.  The entire January 1993 issue of Discovery Magazine was
devoted to the Air-Headed Dinosaur.  The head of the Tyrannosaurs Rex was
largely hollow and was connected to air passages -- all going to his sinus
cavities.  Which means, whatever was in the cavity could be sprayed out of
his nose or his mouth at will, or at anybody.  It wouldnt have to be at Will;
it could have been you; he didnt care.  The point is, he could spray whatever
was in the cavity out of his mouth.  I suspect that Leviathan could breathe
fire.  I think that he stored chemicals in the hollow cavity and actually
burned his enemies.  There are many legends that validate this theory.  These
animals were probably one of the first to become extinct after the flood
because those who figured out how to kill one probably became a hero.

Lets look closer at this fire-breathing dragon, Leviathan.  In Job 41:30-31 the
Bible says, Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon
the mire.  He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot
of ointment.  People say, Wait a minute!  The deep, the sea, that animal lives
in the water.  It can't be a Tyrannosaurus Rex.   Wait, wait, wait!  It
certainly could be.  Most of the other references to Leviathan refer to him as
being in the sea.  There are several references to him, (Psalm 74:14,
Psalm 104:26, and Isaiah 27:1) as being in the sea, but since it isn't practical
to breathe fire under water, I believe that the critter could go on land or
water.  There are many species of animals that can stay on land or water,
whichever they choose.

If you were fifty-foot long, had a head a little smaller than a Volkswagen, had
teeth six to nine inches long, had scales that nobody could poke through with a
spear, weighed nearly thirty tons, and on top of that you could breath fire,
 you could go wherever you wanted to go.  So, Leviathan, I believe, was Mr. T.

Verse 32-34, He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to
be hoary.  Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.  He
beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.  Pride!
 Lets continue into chapter 42, Then Job answered the LORD...  Ah ha!  Finally,
Job is going to say something.  It has been four chapters, eighty-four
questions, and two dinosaurs in the last four chapters.  Before we look at
what Job says lets look at the last thing God said.  The last thing God said
was, ...he is a king over all the children of pride.  God then left.  He is
done talking.  I think God left Job thinking about his real problem.  Job
wasn't into vile sin.  He wasnt committing adultery.  He wasnt beating his
wife or kids.  He was a good, godly righteous man, but he had a problem
with pride.  The same problem that all of us have.  Then God said to Job,
Job, hes the king of the children of pride. 

Lets just talk about pride for a minute.  The Bible says that there are four
things that cause pride.  They are listed for us in the book of Ezekiel
chapter 28.  God is talking to the king of Tyrus here which is a type of Satan.
  Starting in verse 2a, ...thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am
a God...  Ohooo, pretty important fellow!  Yep!  ...I sit in the seat of God...
  Ohooo, hes got a pretty important job.  Verse 3, Behold, thou art wiser than
Daniel...  Ohooo, he has wisdom!  Verse 4, With thy wisdom and with thine
understanding thou hast gotten thee riches...  Ohooo, hes got money!  You see;
the four things that cause pride are power, wisdom, money, and beauty.  Beauty
is mentioned in verse 17.

What is it about power?   Have you ever noticed the body builders that have the
budging muscles?
They always walk around as if they picked up the hairspray instead of
the underarm deodorant.  They are very stiff, and can't get their arms back
down.
 They have those big muscles; theyre so proud of them, and they have to make
sure everybody sees them.  I taught high school for fifteen years.  Its
hilarious!  The big football player comes into the class, and he says, (he's
wearing a skin-tight short-sleeve shirt and slowly flexes his biceps as he
mimics raising his hand) Mr. Hovind, Ive got a question.  You dont have a
question, man!  You just want everybody to see you flex your muscles, thats
all.  They always have their sleeves rolled up four or five notches; you can
always tell which ones are proud.  Now, there is nothing wrong with muscles
at all, but there is something wrong with pride.  You see; God hates pride,
not muscles.  God invented muscles.  Its pride that God hates.  When you get
proud, thats when you have trouble.  The Bible says that power causes pride.
==
Dr. Hovind: It only takes one proof of a young earth to decide between
CREATION and EVOLUTION. This magic bullet mentality, the tendency to rely on
a single, isolated argument to win all the chips, has gotten creationists
into more trouble than possibly anything else. Unfortunately, Mother Nature
does not bestow a little, gold ribbon upon each of us to certify the
accuracy of our proofs! Indeed, nothing in science is ever "proven" beyond
all possible doubt; there is no way of knowing, with 100% certainty, that
one's proof is foolproof. One can always dream up possible scenarios that
will contradict even the best scientific models. (The better the model, the
more farfetched the loopholes are.) If you crave the certainty of a real
"proof," the final word as it were, then you had better stick to mathematics
or logic! Those are the only arenas where "proof," in its absolute sense,
plays any serious role. Scientific hypotheses are rated according to their
credibility; as more and more data support (or fail to refute) a scientific
hypothesis the greater our confidence in it. If that hypothesis fits into a
common pattern, successfully interlocking with established theories, then it
gets another big plus. If that hypothesis has no credible competition,
despite much work in the area, then our confidence in it begins to soar. If
that hypothesis also supplies us with numerous insights into nature, which
are confirmed by further observation or testing, then it might attain the
status of a "scientific theory." (Note that a scientific theory ranks very
high in credibility, has been tested repeatedly, and serves as a successful
framework for integrating and explaining a class of diverse, natural
phenomena; it must not be confused with the layman's use of "theory" which
refers to half-baked speculation or guesswork. Consequently, the complaint
that evolution is merely a (scientific) theory is a little like saying that
an athlete is merely a gold-medal winner!) If there is one thread running
through the scientific world, it is an emphasis on the total picture. Great
care is taken to survey all the relevant literature and to arrive at a
balanced judgment of the known facts. Scientists are trained to overcome a
one-shot, "cowboy" mentality. When great scientific ideas do fall, on rare
occasions, they do so of many grievous wounds followed by the rethinking of
the total picture. The idea, seemingly worshiped in creationist circles,
that you can disprove a theory by whipping out some cute, isolated "proof,"
which settles everything at once and for all, is not scientific. Even if
such a "proof" were technically correct, it would likely shoot down only a
weak model of the theory. Deep truths are seldom grasped whole; early models
are often flawed in some of their particulars. Furthermore, isolated data,
even if correct, are often misleading. Consequently, scientists must
evaluate the total picture and avoid being fixated on specific points. Facts
successfully explained do carry weight and cannot be ignored; facts that
don't fit are not necessarily fatal to the central ideas behind a
hypothesis. Good scientific judgment is the art of weighing all these
variables to properly evaluate the big picture. Contrary data and isolated
arguments are important in that they carry the potential for bringing down a
theory or hypothesis. That grand potential is seldom realized in the light
of further investigation. The one thread running through "scientific"
creationism is a fixation on particular arguments or "proofs" to the
exclusion of all else. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the
scientific process by people who should know better. Dr. Hovind, for
example, is blissfully ignorant of the relevant literature surrounding his
"proofs." Consequently, his audience is given no hint of what the
"competition" has to say. Nor does he discuss the weaknesses in his
arguments. (By comparison, Darwin was always mindful to point out potential
problems and acknowledge the strongest opposing arguments.) In short, Dr.
Hovind has made no attempt to grapple with the BIG PICTURE. As a result, his
arguments carry no scientific weight. Not even one of Dr. Hovind's 30
isolated "proofs" holds any water. Meanwhile, an avalanche of burgeoning
data continue to increase our confidence in an ancient Earth and cosmos. I
will demonstrate the former by examining every single "proof" of a young
Earth listed in Dr. Hovind's Seminar Notebook. I will demonstrate the latter
by supplying two or three examples which have no reasonable interpretation
save that Earth is old.
==
Kent Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education
from Patriot University in Colorado. Formerly affiliated with Hilltop 
Baptist Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Patriot  University is accredited
ONLY by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, an
accreditation mill that provides accreditation for a $100 charge.

Patriot University has moved to Alamosa, Colorado and
continues to offer correspondence courses for $15 to $32
per credit. The school's catalog contains course
descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or
their credentials. Name It and Frame It lists Patriot
University as a degree mill

http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html anti Hovind
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_lies.htm
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm
http://www.drdino.com   Hovind 
http://www.nmsr.org/HOVIND.HTM
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/A.html

End of A326-Hovind.txt