This is the hour of the time, and I'm William Cooper. We're participating in a debate amongst the members of the listening audience tonight, creationism versus evolution. Sorry for the interruption, I had to do that. Go ahead, continue. Okay, aside from that, that's about a Glen Rose text, as people can see that for themselves. So there's footprints, human footprints, alongside dinosaur footprints, is what you're saying? Also, yeah. And what side does that support? Well, that would just prove evolution, because they say there's six million years between the so-called dinosaurs and us, you know. Okay, how can you be sure that it's a human footprint? Well, they've done extensive tests on that, and the stress areas are identical. It's been confirmed by scientists. Identical with what? With human foot feet. Which human feet? I mean, there's people who say there were humans six million years ago. Are you talking about those humans? This human? Tilted down man? Neanderthal man? Which human are you talking about? They're saying human like us. So they're saying that the footprint is an exact footprint, just like a modern human man or woman would make if they were walking. Right. The stress is in the areas that we would duplicate today. Okay. The mold that was dissected and analyzed, and it's pretty conclusive that it's a human such as we are. Yeah. And also, the so-called weight between apes and humans, they've never found it, and everyone they thought they'd found has been scientifically disproven. Yeah. Now, what is your basis for that? Well, the one was a pig's tooth that was found, and it was created out of various animal bones. Mm-hmm. It was supposed to have been susie, I believe. I don't know. Lucy, you mean? There's been about five or six of them that were supposed to have links between apes and humans, and they've disproven. Every one of them is either frauds or mistakes. Well, you're absolutely right about that. That's the truth. All of the so-called missing links have been, and I'm not saying this lightly, it's the truth, have been proven to either be mistakes or hoaxes or, in some instances, outright criminal con jobs perpetrated by people who wanted to make money off of them. And another thing I can think of offhand is the amount of dust that scientists have supposedly proven scientifically that should accumulate on our moon was disproven when they went there and found less. I'm sorry, my friend, but I can pretty well conclusively prove that they never went there, at least in the Apollo space program. At least in that, yeah. Yeah. And that's what you're basing that on. Yeah. Yeah. Neil Armstrong's full of crap. Yeah. And there's just so many things they've found. Yeah. They were expecting him to sink up over his head in dust, and when he jumped off the proverbial ladder after saying his historic thing, the next thing he said was, it's solid. Yeah. About a quarter inch of dust or something. About three-quarter inch. They clean. It's, uh, it's, uh, and another thing, it's hard to think of everything, but, uh, one other thing that I've found is that they're finding, uh, sea fossils of living creatures from the oceans in places and mountains all around the world, everywhere. Northern hemisphere, northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere, mountains, next to the beach, as far inland as you can get. Uh, uh, uh, now, but we could say that it's theory that there was a great flood, but there had to be something to bring all those creatures over all the square footage we have on this planet. You know, so it's pretty good evidence that there must have been a catastrophic flood or something of that sort to create that situation where we find them today. Right. Well, as far as I can determine, there's no scientific evidence that there was a flood everywhere in the earth at the same time. Oh. There is scientific evidence that different parts of the earth were underwater at different times in history unless they're just totally off on all of their ability to determine the age of, of certain events. Right. But these fossils are found everywhere. That's a scientific fact. Well, that's true. How did it got there, you know? It wasn't true. That's all people. It hasn't been a catastrophic event of some sort. And the footprints you're talking about, I think, uh, Carl E. Boggs is the head of that. Well, that doesn't destroy the theory of evolution. It just destroys their time frame. Yeah, right. But, uh, true. That's a lot of it. Yeah. Uh, there's quite a bit of evidence that just totally destroys their, what do they call it, evolution column or whatever it is. And people want to see a lot of evidence of disproving their time tables and whatnot. Uh, that creation evidence is using in, uh, Glen Rose, Texas has, has got quite a bit of evidence. Okay. Supposedly we have a fossilized finger that has been cut off and, uh, scientifically checked out. And it's in a layer of, uh, earth that is along the dinosaur trail that they've uncovered the footprints in. Uh-huh. And, uh, that's more proof of human beings as we are. It's a major fault. You know. Okay. Thank you for your call. You're welcome. Bye. 520-333-4578. And, uh, folks, in my comments about the moon, I was not, uh, trying to enter into the debate. What I was trying to do is, is, is tell him that his argument, um, about the dust on the moon does not support either side. And doesn't hurt either side because, uh, if he's using what they say from the Apollo space program, it didn't happen. Good evening. You're on the air. And that's another argument, by the way. Hello, Bill. Hello. Um, well, I'm no scientist, but, uh... I'm not either. Welcome to the club. Yeah. Neither is Alan. When I look at our, uh, solar system, it's quite amazing to me that the Earth just happens to fall in a place where, uh, it's relatively, uh, well, we can, uh, survive as a physical world as we understand it. But was it always that way? Well, yeah, I don't know. Um, I do, I do recall reading that if our axis was even different, uh, things could be terribly different. Our axis couldn't be different. Yeah. It can't be different. Once it starts spinning, it becomes a gyroscope. All this, all this nonsense that the Earth flipped on its axis so many, uh, millions of years ago or thousands of years ago, that's complete, total, utter bullshit. Well, I... Could never have happened, and it's not going to flip on its axis today. Well, I'm... Any object spinning in space, orbiting around another object, is, in fact, a gyroscope. Can't happen. That makes, that makes sense to me. And, uh, well, I live up here where we have a, I think, a six, oh, about a six-month winter, you know, and, uh, seems to me that part of that is just, uh, rest. Now, I know you're in a desert condition, and, uh, you'd have totally different... No, no, no, no. Your concept of Arizona is, is really way off. Oh. I live up in the most beautiful mountains you've ever seen in your life. Oh, wow. That's amazing. At 7,500 feet, and, uh, we can set out to find a cactus, uh, but I haven't found any yet, not around here. Really? Really. We always just assume everything's, uh... Beautiful pine trees and oaks and aspens and, uh, all, you know, willows and just, it's beautiful. Great herds of elk and antelope and skunks and everything else. Perfect. Well, uh, well, I guess my point is, it seems to me that, uh, well, we, we, at least if I'm going to believe what I've, I've seen, uh, from NASA. Venus is just, uh, uh, well, it's terrible. It's like, uh, uh, multid, uh, lava and things, and I'm sure Mercury would even be worse. Mars seems to be too cold, really, to sustain. So, so you're saying, but, but that's not scientific evidence for creationism or evolution. It's just merely your belief that, hey, you know, it's kind of funny that we're here, right here, where it would support life, and I kind of believe that that supports creationism, right? Yeah. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. But that's based upon belief, not science. Well, yeah, that is belief, isn't it? Yeah. We need science. You've got to support your argument with science during this debate. Well, that's all I say. So I'm sorry it wasn't any help to anyone, but thank you for, uh, That's okay. Thank you. Thank you for calling. Okay. Nice. 520-333-4578 is the name. Remember, folks, we need fact. We need science. I'm amazed that nobody's picked up on that second. Well, I'm not going to give it away, because that's really got a lot to do with it. Good evening. You're on the air. Hi, Bill. Steve calling. Um, how you doing? I'm doing fine. That's great. It's a great show. Um, I don't want to really, uh, debate. It's a debate, right? You said? Yeah. What side are you on? Okay. Um, who side am I on? Not whose side are you on. What side are you going to take in the support with scientific facts? Well, actually, I'm, um, not going to really take a fight. I'm going to throw a question out there if I could, if that's possible. What's the question? The question, uh, mainly is aimed towards the people who are strict creationists. Um, just going through the Bible, which I know isn't scientific facts. But my question is... Sorry, I laid the groundwork at the beginning of the broadcast, folks. No tangents. You've got to come in. You need to take a side. And you need to support your side with scientific facts. Okay? You've got to do that. That's what this is all about. And if you can't, if you have a side, for instance, if you support evolution, and you cannot promote any scientific fact to, to back up what you support, then you're no better than the people who believe in creationism simply because it says so in the Bible. And if you believe in creationism, and if God created the universe and all of the laws of physics in it, if you can't use God's own laws to support your position, you don't have a position. You're full of crap. Good evening. You're on the air. Good evening. Uh, I'm listening to your show. Real interesting. Uh, a couple of points I'd like to make. Okay. Uh, the one caller before me with the dust on the moon, that's a good one. But what that proves is a shortness of time. It doesn't prove evolution or... It just proves that the, uh, universe hasn't been around for 10 billion years. Pick a number. Also, the amount of salt in the ocean is a likewise proof for the shortness of the amount of time. These are scientific facts. You can determine how much salt is leaped into the ocean on a yearly basis. If the Earth was, uh, take another number, 12 billion years old, it would have a lot more salt in it. Uh, thus, by those two facts, you can determine that the age of 10 million or 20 million years is, or billion years, is not, uh, scientifically credible. Thus, you'd have to determine how many steps of evolution it would take to get, say, from an amoeba to a man. Uh, let's say 10 million steps. In 10 million steps of evolution in 6,000 years, we should be seeing people evolving left and right. Every month, somebody should evolve into something different. Now, that is just a man. But with, with how many species there are on the planet, uh, say a quarter of a million species, I think that's a fairly accurate number, we should be seeing lots of evolution here and there in all these species. I mean, there's just millions, had to be millions and millions and millions. But there has never been a, uh, scientifically accredited, uh, example of evolution. And it's always been de-evolution with the, the fruit fries with the crinkly wings and, and that sort of thing. It's never been something better. So that's, that's one point. Okay. But that's... What's the point being? What, what you're arguing is the second law of thermodynamics that you picked up on it. That's... Okay. So that's, that's valid. There's another, the third, uh, fact is that there's, there's, there's something called irreducible simplicity. And something can become simpler and simpler until it just, does, serves no function anymore. The easy way to point this out is a mousetrap. You can't really take any parts of it away where it would serve any purpose at all. Uh, likewise, uh, say for instance, a woodpecker with its incredible prong that goes all the way around to the back of its head. How something like this would evolve. Well, there's a fellow that before that talked about the eye, how the eye would evolve. Yeah, but you're getting, you started off with good scientific fact and now you're getting away from it. Okay. Well, I was talking about the irreducible simplicity. When you look at, back in Darwin's day, they used to think that a single cell was kind of like a, a blob, kind of like jelly. Now that they've looked at these things with, uh, super microscopes and such, they know that they're so incredibly complex inside there that where did it go before it was a single cell? It's just, it's just an incredible, uh, it can't be reduced any farther before it is a non-functional entity. That's what I'm saying. Okay. Okay. One more thing, or maybe two more. Uh, the amount of nickel that's in the earth's surface, we're, it's a scientifically measurable, uh, event that you can see how many meteorites are hitting the earth. You know, here and there, they come in, they can be measured. If the earth has been around for 5 billion years, it should be pretty much covered with nickel. It's not. There's just not enough nickel to support the amount of time and the amount of meteorites that should have been hitting the earth. Uh, and in fact, we're going back to this, there's just not enough time for all those millions and billions of, uh, events of evolution to take place. Another one is there are no transitional fossils, no transitional forms between any of the species. Mm-hmm. There's no half, uh, half reptile, half a chicken, half fish, half reptile. Yeah, no mermaids have ever been really careful. We hear about the cows that walked into the ocean and became whales. Their flow holders, their noses. Actually, evolution supports the opposite. They say that all life started in the ocean and walked up on the land, is what they say. Well, yeah, but you may say that, but there's a lot of talk about there. They say fossils, they look at some, uh, fossils and skeletons. Of whales, and they say, look, here's a, uh, a little bit less of a hip here. Well, the pectoral fins of whales not only have, uh, joints like, like, you know, arm, but, uh, finger bones. Yeah, and some of that stuff is kind of real hard to believe. And one of my, another one of my favorites is he's got the comets that have been whipping around the, uh, the, oh, let's get back to the other guy that was talking about the, uh, the, the dock exploding, the, uh, thing. Mm-hmm. And he's saying, okay, this thing's spinning around, throwing off stuff. Why is it not all going in the same direction? Well, he says, well, it didn't all blow off at once. It kind of changed direction. It blew off in different directions. You can almost buy that until you look at our solar system, which has objects that are rotating in different directions. And, uh, it's like a small, uh, universal, universe size-wise, a small, a thing is our solar system. Why would there be different directions? The size of a, uh... According to the laws of physics, there shouldn't be. It shouldn't be, right. Now, if, if you think about all of these planets, planets kind of compressed from something... Now, let, let me say that according to the laws of physics as we know them. Okay. Because we could be wrong, you know, we find out that our science is wrong all the time. Well, science is supposed to be things that you observe, not things that maybe this is different. I mean, I start to hear stories about, yeah, I think there's a comet factory somewhere that's getting out these comets, and that's why these comets can still be here after 12 billion years, even though they're zipping around the sun and their tails are getting eaten up every time they make an orbit. There's still plenty of comets around, and it's just, and you've got the Jupiter and the sun are being giant vacuum cleaners, because the solar system should be clean as a pin, but there's still plenty of junk floating around in it, which doesn't indicate to me it's been there for 12, 9 years. But that's about all I've got to say. I just had to get those points in. Okay. Besides that, you got a phone call. Thank you. Good night. And thank you for calling. He started off on a roll and disintegrated. Why he didn't stick to his original argument, I don't know. There's got to be somebody out there who can pick up on some of these real scientific points that you can just devastate both sides with, really. Good evening. You're on the air. Hi, Bill. How are you tonight? Good. Well, I definitely believe in creation for several reasons. Go for it. Don't wait for me. Okay. Well, one of them is, besides the things like the salt in the ocean and the second law of thermodynamics, I'm sorry, is things like the mere complexity of life and the DNA, you know, the two notes. Now, how can you prove that that devastates the other side with scientific fact? Well, in one... See, that's just a personal belief that it couldn't happen because it's so complicated. Okay. That's a good point. Although I don't know the figures off the top of my head, I have heard people explain it and say that even the most simplest life forms, you know, like protozoa, etc., that the odds of the DNA in them, which make up the program, which determines the, you know, the life form, and what it does is the odds of that happening by chance would be like 1 in 10 to the 40th power. That's something statistically that's virtually impossible. Okay. That's one thing. There's a lot of other things, like the dust on the moon. Of course, I tend to agree with you that that may not necessarily mean something. Yeah. Well, it might mean something if they really went there. Right. I can pretty conclusively prove that in the Paul Space Program, they never stepped foot on the moon. They never left an Earth orbit if they went anywhere. I need you to speak up a lot louder if you can. Okay. I'm sorry. I did hear that broadcast that night that you were talking about. Oh, I've made a bunch of broadcasts on that subject. But that's another subject. Let's stick to this one. But maybe it's the basis of it. I wish I had known about this beforehand. I would have got some of the actual technical figures and references out. But one thing that always got me and got me initially interested in the subject and the debate between creation and evolution was the mere fact that if you think about the universe, okay, whether it was imperfect or it was formed with an irregular bang or whatever, that the universe is made of something. It's made of math. It's made of particles. And those are real things. And they have to take up real space somewhere. You know, the universe isn't the lack of space or it isn't a bunch of nothingness. It is actually something that takes up volume that has to be located somewhere. And that somewhere, you know, has to be a step outside and above what we see. And, you know, that's something that almost makes you think that, you know, and even scientifically there may not be a law for me to quote that would classify that in some way. But the fact is, it has to take up volume somewhere and something has to be beyond that that is much greater. Well, you're very close to something that's very relevant. But according to scientists, space is not nothing. Space is something that can be bent, that can be warped, that can be all kinds of things. Exactly. And I know when I was a young kid, my friends and I started talking about that. And that was one of the things that at first made us wonder, you know, who is it or what is it or what are we? And we are something. We aren't an imagination like, you know, some people would believe this is all just in someone's head. We are real. We are made of something. We have to be somewhere. And you can extend that clear out. You mean you're not a creation of my conscious mind? No. I can't be. You mean the universe doesn't revolve around me? I'm not dreaming in my bed and created... I haven't created all of this? No, because if it was just in your head, Bill, then one of the days that you maybe were having a bad day, you would step off your bed and thought of it to nothing. Yeah, I'd make it better than what it is, I've got to tell you right now. That's right. The floor in your house has nothing to do with your basement. It's there until it rots. Yeah. In other words, those are some of the things, and hopefully in the future, if you do this again, I'll try to get some of these facts that I've heard and put eloquently by people's science, mind fields, electronics, so I don't memorize these type of things. But it's been a really wonderful show, and that's pretty much all I think I can add to it. Okay, well, thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Appreciate your call. 520-333-4578. Don't call for a couple of minutes, because I've got to go get some water, and I'm going to play some music. I will be back right after this, and then we'll get back on the phone. I'll be back right after this, and then we'll be back right after this, and then we'll be back on the trail. I tell you folks, it's heaven to be riding down the trail when the desert sun goes down. When evening chores are over at our rain house on the plain, and all I've got to do is lay around, I saddle up my pony, and I ride off down the trail. To watch the desert sun go down. To watch the desert sun go down. Riding down the canyon to watch the sun go down. A picture that no art in there could change. White-faced cattle always on the mountainside. I hear a child whining for its may. Catch-up plants are blooming, they stretch everywhere. Granite fires are standing all around. I tell you folks, it's heaven to be riding down the trail when the desert sun goes down. I see, bog certain, and so things be a巡лад, in the desert sun go down. Oops, there's a bottle. Cactus plants are blooming, they brush everywhere. Granite spires are standing all around. I tell you folks, it's heaven to be riding down the trail when the desert sun goes down. Okay, I'm back. Good evening, you're on the air. Hi, Mr. Cooper, it's Marshall in Houston. Hello, Marshall. Good to do it. Good. Well, I'm glad I kind of set that little spark the other night for the show that you did yesterday evening. I recorded it, but I had talked to a couple of people and asked them to listen to it. In fact, I got feedback from about six people that listened to it. Almost every one of them thinks that you ought to be crucified. Why? Because I asked them who was telling the truth? Yeah, you turned all of their malarkey upside down. Well, then maybe that's where it ought to be. All I did was read what Jesus said and asked the audience, did Jesus tell the truth or is your preacher telling the truth? That's all I did. But anyway, you know, in the evolutionary thing, the problem with evolution is that, you know, according to the laws of physics, your protons and your neutrons have a specific weight. And those are electrical charges that can only be manipulated in a certain way. And in carbon life forms, that even becomes more specific. And if we just follow the laws of statistical mathematics, statistics, the probabilities of evolution are impossible. We're talking like trillions and trillions to one of even the remotest possibility of anything arriving out of this chance configuration. And, you know, we see the whole reason why they postulate and have been selling this garbage to the public of evolution is because it is the basis for humanism. And, you know, it puts you in the mode that you're just a fluke of the universe, and it also takes away your relationship with the creator and also accountability. Yeah, but now you're getting away from scientific fact and back into the realm of belief. We want to stick with science. Well, I am. Let me ask you this, because you're on to something there. If back in the early days of the earth when there was no life of any kind, there was some kind of a primordial soup brewing in some volcano somewhere, and lightning hit, and just the right molecules happened to be there, that received a burst of energy from this lightning strike, and a one-celled animal was created, for instance. If that could actually happen, let me ask you this. I'm not taking either side. I just want to ask you this and see what you've got to say about it. Yes. What would happen if lightning struck a sewage plant today? Well, it might stop working. It might stop working, but if that's the basis of the evolutionist proposition of the way that life began on this earth, there is no better primordial soup brewing anywhere than all of the biological material that you can find in a sewer plant. Well, the problem with that argument is that the sewer plant was created by the affluent, the waste products of human beings. And there's already living organisms from the gut and everything else that are swimming around in the sewer. So how come something new hasn't swum out of that? Exactly. That's what I wanted to ask you. How come? How come? If it could happen in the primordial soup of the dim history of this planet, how come it hasn't happened in the sewers of the cities of the world today? Because... Or some garbage dumps. I guess the laws of physics dictate that chaos can never take precedence in the structure of things because there are constant laws that are manipulating the universe. Oh, but that's not true. Scientifically, the second law of thermodynamics is a fact. Everything tends toward decay or from order toward chaos. That's just a fact. Yeah. I'm not real up on that one. But I understand this from my own... It's one of the very best arguments against evolution that there is. It's not the only argument. And it's not devastating. But it really, you know, holds a lot of water. Well, you know, it's no accident that we're floating through space and we have our distance from the sun is very well calculated. We have a moon. But according to the Big Bang theory, it is absolutely an accident. It's not the only thing that we're going to do is we're going to do it. But it's no accident is what I said. Well, it's no accident if creationism is a fact, but you're not putting forward any scientific fact to back it up. Yeah. And, you know, if you're going to take a side, either one of these sides, and you can't back it up with scientific fact, you have to sit down and ask yourself, why do I believe this? Right. There's a book that I got, and I haven't finished reading it, and it's called In the Beginning. And there's a gentleman who wrote the book. I don't know if you're familiar with it. But he gathers the knowledge of a lot of mathematicians and physicists and biologists. And a lot of these people have bought into the evolutionary concept. And even guys in the quantum physics have bought into it. And as they got deeper and deeper into their study of these atomic structures, they realized that the possibilities of evolution were impossible, and primarily because of the aspects of quantum physics starts telling you that all of these parts are indivisible. There's no end to them. You know what amazes me is when people like Stephen Hawking, who all his life has denied the existence of God based upon what he knows about science, all of a sudden starts telling us that there might be a God after all. You know what I mean? You see, Stephen Hawking has gotten his book contracts, and he's gotten his tenure at the college, and he's prostituted himself like all the other so-called priests of science today that work in the universities, because that's been the general agenda out there. Oh, I don't think so. Not when you're talking about Stephen Hawking. Stephen Hawking has gone against the established beliefs of science so many times in his life that he has actually risked being ridiculed and expelled. And he has changed his mind several times on some of the things that he himself has come up with. I think he's a very honest person who's really trying honestly to find the truth. Yeah, that I don't know about Mr. Hawking, and I apologize for making that statement about him, but I think from the majority of the men that I've been acquainted with, and women in the professions of the sciences, they prostitute themselves for their mortgages, their tenure, their retirement, and they will, some of them off the record will say, man, I really don't believe all this garbage, but this is how I have to make a living. You're absolutely correct. Absolutely correct. And the reason for that is a system has been set up in the scientific community whereby if you do not toe the mark, and if you don't toe the mark, if you don't say the accepted things, if you refrain from making waves, then you're okay. But if you deviate from what is accepted, then you don't get any grants anymore. And the whole scientific community depends upon grants. Right. From states, from governments, from foundations, from all of these different organizations and things and governments. And so if they step out of line, then they find that their grants get disapproved, their tenure is no longer there for them, and they fall into disrepute, and then they can't make a decent living anymore. Right. So that's how they're controlled. Yeah, and that's why we are in the shape we are today. Yeah, and if they all had the guts to stand up and say, this is crap, you know, this is what's really true, then the system would have to support them because the system would have no more scientists working on their side. Yeah. You know, when I look at the Earth and I see this, what they claim to be the source of evolution, these fossils and stuff like that, it's quite evident to me, and this is my opinion, that the Earth has been used many different times and possibly been put together from other portions. Now you're getting off into the realm of out of fact, and I'm, you know, as moderator, I've got to draw you back in. I just wanted to throw that in. You've got to submit fact or allow somebody else to come on and talk. Yeah, the guys in quantum physics, from what I'm starting to get from these guys, is that they are finding that the atom is indivisible, and that comes back to this question of, you know, the circle and pi. Pi is indivisible, and some people see that as the image of God. He is indivisibility. He is infinite, and this infinite aspect is what makes this concept of evolution impossible. And it can actually be supported, not actually, but is supported by, you know, quantum physics. And even from the standpoint of genetic biology studies, they are coming to a lot of conclusions that, hey, you know, how can this stuff have gotten to this point? Well, maybe that's why so many scientists now are reversing themselves and saying, you know, all my life, based upon all the science that I know, I didn't believe in God, and now I'm starting to think that maybe there is one. Yeah. But, you know, that's neither here nor there. Thanks for your call. Sure. Appreciate it. Thank you. 520-333-4578 is the number. Why don't you jump in here and put your two cents in, or your five cents, or your ten cents, or, you know, you could even have a deficit if you want to. Good evening. You're on the air. Hi. Good evening. I remember you talking about your incredulity at the Tao, and its sharp rise since the fallback. What's this got to do with evolution or creationism? Oh, I'm sorry. You know, I just copied it. I just started on it. Buenas noches, senor. We put out the parameters of tonight's broadcast in the beginning. I have stated it several times again during the broadcast. The subject is a debate amongst the members of the audience, creationism versus evolution, and that's what you've got to stay on. Please don't take it personally that I cut you off the air. That's what I said I would do to anybody who tried to go off on any other tangent. Good evening. You're on the air. Yes, Bill. Yes, David in Georgia. Hi, David. I wanted to, anytime I think you enter into a debate, you have to ask maybe one ground rule. What would you say your definition of fact is? Fact is something that can be at least accepted as being true by most people in the world. Right. I would agree with that. Of course, Westers, 1828, they said the same thing. Fact is a fact. So witnesses that are introduced to the credulity of an event. Yes. And I guess from my side of that, I would debate from the point of creationism in that it gets kind of simple for me. I'm not a real and relatable thinker. I'm not a real and relatable thinker. So I just got to get down to being done with the rock thinking from there. But if a fact is based on witnesses, then my witness would be, if there's only been one man that walked on the earth, that there were witnesses that were willing to die for the fact that he supported creationism. And, of course, that would be Jesus Christ. Right. Okay. Okay. But where is the basis of our ground rules of debate tonight are that you must introduce scientific facts? Right. And the fact is that I have these witnesses that are credible to the point of giving their life, and other people have been giving them the credibility. I'm sorry, but your attempt to introduce religious belief into the debate won't work. Because that's what it is. It's not fact. It's religious belief. You believe that because you have chosen to believe it, but it does not support either side of the debate, either evolution or creationism. All right. What about this perspective? You've been talking of the scientists, and their testimony, and their witness of fact. No, no. Excuse me. Excuse me. If you believe in creationism, who created the universe? Who created the earth? Who created the whole universe? If you believe in creationism, who created the universe? Yes, the one true God. Who created the laws of physics? The one true God. Then if the one true God created the universe and created the laws of physics, why can't you support your argument with the laws of physics? because I can't prove what you tell me the laws of physics are any more than I can prove based on the witnesses that I call forth you're calling forth the witness of scientists no I'm calling no no no no science is based upon the observation of how things interact together in the universe based upon the laws that God put into place that makes the planet orbit around the sun that makes us stay on the earth instead of spinning out into space because of centrifugal force and all of these other things if you profess that God created the universe and God created the laws of physics yet you cannot put forth one physical law to support your argument then your whole religious belief is based upon nothing no I disagree I understand what you're saying I'm not intellectually I haven't intellectually studied the subject to support it and my basis for that is is that I cannot prove much of the theory of science any more than I can prove the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ oh but if God did the thing I can base that on is the same thing that most intellectual thinkers everybody that's quoting tonight is quoting the witness of other men and their theories of science no it's not the witness of other men I can prove that gravity exists I can prove centritical of force I can prove that the planets orbit around the sun even though if there were no gravity coming from the sun to keep them in this orbit they would spin out into space instead of continually circle you see I can do all this from my own observation I don't need the witness of anybody else to tell me that and when I study science what I did as a child is I started out with certain premises or hypotheses and built upon those where I could see that they work or they don't work and then I reach a point where if it's not my specialty then I either have to depend upon the witness or testimony of other people or I have to make it a specialty but the basic laws of physics can be understood and observed by all people my argument is this as the moderator if you believe in either side of this argument and you can't put forth any scientific acceptable facts that would be accepted by most people your belief is based upon nothing but simple faith and that can't be argued my friend ok I agree I agree with that premise and there's nothing wrong with faith it's your religion that's fine but you can't argue it to other people it's something that exists only and solely within you ok and I guess maybe my clarification there will be again to get back to the central point of fact and that is much of the discussion and debate tonight has been based on what is supposed to be fact but it is in fact just a witness of other men you see my point well I understand your point maybe you don't see some of these facts that are being put forth I can see most of them and it's not from witness of other men it's from my own observation and study of science I can see it I can feel it I know that it's true yeah it's true again that's just a witness of other men no that's not the witness of other men it is absolute fact that rain falling upon land will dissolve the salts in the earth and run into the ocean and the salt content of the ocean does increase every single year by a certain amount but we can't take other variables and set a definitive point on the other variables that can change the other variables compared with all the rain falling on the earth and running out of the rivers into the ocean are minute not relevant at this time in history well we're getting off here my most important point is for people that really can get drawn in to the discussion of the intellectual and I understand your premise but you get drawn into that so that in fact it becomes accepted because a majority has said it and I think that's the danger we have to be on guard for that's really what I wanted to inject in the debate well thank you very much thank you we appreciate your call thank you 520-333-4578 is the number good evening you're on the air hello Bill hello I just turned my radio down I'm sorry okay Bill you can have your cake and eat it too okay show it out I had an ad once and it's not my cake I'm the moderator tonight I have no no side in this debate I think your premise is flawed which wait a minute I don't have any premise I've opened the phones so that the listening audience can debate if you go to St. Paul's Cathedral in London which was built by Christopher Wren wait a minute let's go back to the beginning let's stick to the ground rules which side of this debate do you support I'm on both you can't be on both goodnight absolutely impossible to be on both you either support evolution or you support creationism or you don't support either one but you cannot support both and if you try to call me and bullshit me you are smooth you're standing in a deep hole with a lot of water in it won't work good evening you're on the air hi Mr. Cooper this is Chris from Wisconsin hi Chris can you put the phone in front of your mouth and talk a lot louder please sure that's much better okay good something that I'm for creationism by the way okay and something I thought of that was basic is chromosomes okay and male and female okay they both have different chromosomes and God said that he made male and female he made male and female maytee them in the scriptures yeah so to me that was basic I'm not a scientist or anything but well that's a good point I mean if if evolution is true how do we get two of the same species of different sex I mean how does that happen that's the question you're asking is that correct well I'm just saying that science basically proves that they done studies where they can separate the chromosomes right yes they can and they found out that males have certain chromosomes and females do yes but they're still the same species of what they call in science an animal right how does it happen how do we evolve different creatures of the same species of different sex that's a really interesting question I can understand how an amoeba can be both sexes and divide itself and reproduce and all that kind of stuff but how one species evolves into two different creatures of opposite sexes is just absolutely wild amen that's wild that is way beyond my understanding mine too and I've asked some very prominent scientists to explain that to me over the years and guess what they haven't a clue they don't have a clue because you see both of the different sexes somewhere it had to split from the species into two sexes and then the two different sexes had to evolve independently from that point on now this isn't something I've made up some of the greatest minds in the world have told me that quietly on the side with the promise that I would never reveal their name so I can't do that because I always protect my sources but that is extremely interesting you brought up a very good point well that's all I wanted to say ok thank you very much I appreciate you thanks for your call bye bye 520-333-4578 is the number we've got time for 2, 3, maybe 4 more calls good evening you're on the air hi Bill hello hi I'm listening to you up here in Michigan a good show thank you I've come down on the side of the evolutionist now ok mainly um geez where do you start biology you know it just occurred to me that if Mark Bell is listening to this show he's probably eating his heart out wishing that he thought of this subject to begin with yeah right he can always copy it um biology I mean we're so close to uh the other primates our closest living relatives how do you explain well first place what do you mean by close uh our DNA the similarity we're like 98% with a chimpanzee 98% compatible are we really yes uh what what about the compatibility with a pig we're not as compatible we have some compatibility we're both mammals uh from what I understand now I could be wrong but I have read some papers that say that we're closer to a pig than we are to a chimpanzee um if you're going by the paper that was written by Dr. Dwayne Gish from the Institute of Creation Research here it's faulty death that's another problem well I I don't really remember which paper it was but I remember reading this paper in in a in a very prominent scientific journal which I will not name okay but uh um uh we we might be 60% with a pig um okay no I don't have but go ahead I didn't mean to interrupt your your presentation go ahead what I was trying to get in earlier uh your phone's pretty busy uh the second law thermodynamics is a theoretical statement it deals with closed systems the earth is not a closed system the earth gets its energy from the sun uh billions of kilowatts of energy a day that's what drives uh plants uh if you accept uh a creationist definition of a closed system where nothing ever uh takes energy from the whole and momentarily develops progresses that would uh you wouldn't have thunderstorms you wouldn't have uh whirlpools and eddies and a stream you wouldn't have uh anything like that they deal mostly the earth is not a static system but let me ask you this I I know where you're going with this but you also understand that the sun is in a constant process of dying and in fact every year is shrinking in diameter uh the sun shrinks and expands on an 80 year cycle and oscillates what do you mean shrinks and expands it oscillates it shrinks it's roughly 80 year span there's uh let's see the last time was from 76 to 80 it actually uh expanded slightly expanded slightly but doesn't make up the shrinking over all of these years also the earth is is uh slowing down in its rotation yeah it's also uh uh deteriorating in its orbit so the second law of thermodynamics as far as I can see now correct me if I'm wrong and if I'm wrong please prove it to me but the second law of thermodynamics is pretty much true for for all things that can be observed in the universe for instance galaxies are shrinking as a whole is a closed system as far as we know no I'm not talking about a closed system the universe is not a closed system we can look at galaxies and see that these galaxies are shrinking in upon themselves but they're all within the universe what I'm saying is that there's a the law of thermodynamics eventually wins out but here on earth ah so it does eventually yes have validity yes ok all I wanted to hear you say is it has some validity because I know that it does and your original premise is that was that it does not and it does as a closed system as it applies to the earth the earth is not a closed system when you say closed system that sounds to me like you're talking about some experiment in a laboratory inside of a bell jar yes nothing is a theoretical statement based upon what's observed in the universe yes and on the earth and everywhere else but what I'm saying is it's not from a closed system now you're asking me the earth is not a closed system no it's not and the second law of thermodynamics is not based upon a closed system I think if you looked up the definition it would state that but anyway okay go ahead I'm sorry transitional fossils there's plenty of transitional fossils like what all birds from my understanding have claws on their wings some do some there's a hoaxon that lives in South America has claws in a juvenile stage no bird in its now I'm not talking about claws sticking out but inside the wing in the bone structure there is what you could call a claw oh yeah it's all fused together now yes yeah but it's not functional anymore like this was well how do we know that it ever was but according to the science that I read dinosaurs didn't need insulation because they lived in hot humid climates well there's different theories about dinosaurs some claim they're warm blooded now don't get me wrong I'm not being oppositional or antagonistic what I'm trying to do is function as moderator where I see something that needs to be explained I'm trying to draw that out but you know what I wasn't watching the clock we've got to get out of here like right now we'll continue this on some other night thank you very much sorry folks I wasn't watching the clock we've got to get out of here right now good night god bless each and every single one of you hope you enjoyed it I'll see you Monday night at words poetic I'm so pathetic that I always have found it best instead of getting them off my chairs to let them rest honest rest I hate parading my serenading for I'll probably miss the love you but if this city is not so pretty at least it'll tell you how great you are you're the top you're my hat my gandy you're the top you're Napoleon brandy you're the purple light of a summer night in Spain you're the national gallery you're double gallery you're still a plane you're sublime you're a turkey dinner you're the time of the derby winner I'm a toy balloon that's made it soon to pop but a baby at the bottom you're the crown up and and and well and well well well Thank you. Thank you.