How would
you answer critics who have written bad things about you?
Answer:
Amid the
hundreds of letters and e-mails we receive each week here at CSE, we
occasionally receive one from an atheist, skeptic, critic, scoffer, or even an
idiot or two. Several have posted web sites about me. I keep so busy with my
hectic travel schedule that I normally do not take time to respond to them in
writing more than once. There are so many people who want to hear the truths
about creation that it is a waste of time to get distracted answering the
scoffers. They will ask hundreds of questions or make hundreds of accusations.
I am convinced that most of them don't really want an answer anyway, they want
to tie up all my time and prevent the gospel from getting out. If I took the
time to answer them all they would only ask a hundred more. We do offer a great
book called Creation Scientists Answer their Critics by Dr. Duane Gish that
answers many commonly asked questions. I have also produced an audio tape with
answers to some of the scoffers' questions and objections. The tape is $3 and
can be returned for a full refund. We will add to the tape as time permits. I
have a standing offer to face any number of evolutionists at a time in front of
their own university, and Dr. Walt Brown has a standing offer to engage
qualified scientists in an email debate.
I will be the first to say that I
have learned much from my critics and have changed things in my seminars over
the years because of their legitimate gripes, corrections and suggestions.
"Iron sharpeneth iron." (Prov. 27:17) These critics can be a man's
best friend, if they don't distract you from the main job. God knows that I
want to be accurate and would never purposely tell a lie to promote my point. I
may not always be right, but if I am saying it in my seminar then I don't know
it to be false. I work hard and research a lot to try to be right. I am
certainly willing to be corrected by friend or foe. Even if it is proven that I
am teaching something that is not correct, don't be fooled into thinking that
one incorrect statement means everything else I say is wrong. Any third grader
should know that.
Evolutionists often try to divert
attention from the legitimate points I bring up about their religion. They know
their "theory" won’t stand close scrutiny so they try to focus
people’s attention on something else. They will point out a five-second mistake
in my 15-hour seminar and assume the entire thing is false. The problems the
creationists cannot explain or the unintentional errors in their books or
speeches are very minor compared to the mountainous problems the evolutionist
is overlooking or ignoring in his own religion. I ask quite a few questions in
my seminar notebook and bring up points in my seminar that they seem to
conveniently avoid. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see why they do this.
I confess that I have very little
patience with the scoffers after a few exchanges. Maybe it is the Elijah
personality in me that wants to mock them as in I Kings 18:27. I am working on
trying to be more Christ-like in my dealings with them. I always offer to talk
with any skeptic by phone or to debate them publicly but not in a long drawn
out e-mail exchange. They nearly always refuse. Many remain anonymous for some
strange reason. I see no reason for this cowardice except maybe Proverbs 28:1
"The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a
lion." They do not need to fear me. I will not hurt them. I feel sorry for
those whom the Devil has deceived into believing his lies. I will gladly
discuss any topic or question with anyone, friend or foe. If I am wrong, I will
admit it and change whatever I need to change to make it right. I don’t claim
to be perfect, and never have, but I serve a God who is and love His Bible,
which is perfect.
It is both humorous and sad to
see the evolutionists strain so hard at the gnats in the creation theory and
then turn around and swallow the camel of evolution. I have read carefully the
criticisms of each of these scoffers. Rest assured that my offer to publicly debate
any evolutionist (even two or three at a time against just me if that will
help) is always open. I do the debates not so much to convert the evolutionist
(though I would like to) but because it helps so many in the audience. Most
people who have attended or watched my seminar or who have common sense will be
able to see through the silly questions the skeptics ask or the ridiculous
non-answers they give to my questions. However, if you read the so-called
"How Good are those Young Earth Arguments" by Matson or "300
Creationist Lies" by the cowardly anonymous "Budikka," or any
other of my critics on the web, and something they say raises a question in
your mind, please give me a call. I can defend my position or I will be glad to
change. It is a great American tradition that the accused gets to face his
accuser. Anonymous critics get little or none of my attention. I travel a lot
but we have a very capable staff working at CSE who will answer your questions
or leave a message for me with several good times to call you back.
I went through Dave Matson’s book
and circled every time he used the words "might have," "could
have," "scientists believe," etc. His great faith in evolution
shows through clearly as his religion, not science. It surprised me how many non-answers
they give to the points I raised in my seminar. For example, when answering the
problem about the short period comets, Matson said they are being replenished
from the Oort Cloud or the Kuiper Belt! No one has ever seen this happen, of
course, but he believes it to be so. That is an answer based not on
science but faith, and he should admit it. The entire answer is filled with
typical evolutionist hallucinations. He is always using words like
"computer simulations," and "theoretical calculations,"
"would likely," "statistical calculations," "some
astronomers estimate," etc. His intention is to show it "could
have" happened. Well, I "could have been" President of General
Motors, but I’m not! He needs to read, Raymond Littleton, "The
Non-existence of the Oort Cometary Shell," Astrophysics and Space
Science, Vol. 31 pp. 385-401. There is no Oort cloud.
He concludes his non-answer to
the comet question by trying to put the burden on the creationist! He says,
"The creationist must prove that there are no reasonable sources for
replenishing comets" (p.13). And I say, "No, Dave, if you expect all
taxpayers to fund your religion in the public school system, parks, museums,
etc., the burden of proof is on you! You may spend your money any way you want.
You are welcome to believe anything you want and you may teach your children
anything you want them to believe; but before you spend my money to teach my
children and grandchildren something I don't want them to believe, the burden
of proof is on you!" Shifting the burden of proof is a common tactic to
keep an enemy busy. If I said watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut
the skin, I have shifted the burden on proof on you. Prove me wrong! That is
what most scoffers try to do with their criticisms of creationists. Don't be
fooled!
After reading through one
scoffer’s article called "300 lies of creation scientists" it was
hard not to laugh. They sure are getting desperate these days. I told him I
don’t deal with anonymous cowards, but, if he would give me his real name and
number, I would be glad to show him when his logic is wrong. He has refused and
now is upset because I won’t correspond with him any more. I don’t waste a lot
of time on scoffers because there are so many sincere people who want and need
the truth that it is unfair to divert much energy to those who do not want to
hear. During the war for states’ rights, President Lincoln was getting lots of
critical letters. One of his aids asked him if he intended to answer them.
Lincoln replied that if he answered all his critics that would absorb all his
time and he had a war to win. Nehemiah did the same thing when his enemies
wanted him to stop the work and come down to talk about the wall he was
building. His answer was classic. Nehemiah 6:3-4 "And I sent messengers
unto them (his critics), saying, I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come
down: why should the work cease, whilst I leave it, and come down to you? Yet they
sent unto me four times after this sort; and I answered them after the same
manner." Nearly every day a skeptic or scoffer will try to engage me in a
letter writing battle via e-mail or standard mail over the creation subject. I
have a standing offer of $250,000 for proof for evolution and I stand ready to
debate any 2 or 3 evolutionists at a time in a public setting, but I won’t
waste the time to slowly hunt and peck out endless answers when they don’t
really want one. That would be casting my pearls before swine. See Matthew 7:6.
If they are so sure they are right, they should be delighted with the
opportunity to debate me publicly. I will even draw the crowd for them!
Atheists seem to have nothing
else to do. They know they can’t get a crowd together for an atheist’s meeting,
so they ride on the coattails of the creationists. For example, I recently was
invited by the free-thought club on the Ohio State University campus to debate
the editor of the American Atheist Magazine. They told me they normally had about
30 people come to their meetings (in a university of 58,000) but they had
nearly 90 come when this man spoke the month before. They were proud to tell me
about this great attendance! The night of the debate there were hundreds there
(several people said there were over 700) to hear the debate. I speak to crowds
of over 1000 many weeks out of the year. The atheists of course have a ‘smarter
than thou’ attitude about it all. They say their crowds are small because there
are not very many smart people (meaning themselves of course) in the world.
What an ego!
If these critics would devote
even 5% of their error-detecting attention to the evolution theory like they do
to the creation theory, they would see the lies, wild exaggerations and
distortions used to support the silly idea that we all came from a rock over
the last 4.6 billion years! Converted evolutionists make great creationists.
Christians and creationists need to work to be accurate, of course, at the same
time we need to realize the evolutionists are not the enemy, Satan is the
enemy. It may be hard at times, but we need to love the sinner while we hate
the sin. God is not willing that any should perish but that all come to the
knowledge of the truth.
Several web sites and debate
opponents have accused me of all sorts of things that are not true. For
example: one professor I debated recently said I had posted on my web site that
dinosaur fossils were found in the act of eating a human. He laughed saying I
had been taken in by an April fool's joke. The truth is; someone emailed me
about the site. That night during my seminar I mentioned that I had just heard
of this new find but had not had time to look at it yet nor to confirm the
accuracy of the story. At no time was it on my web site and when I researched
the subject the next day and found it to not be true I never mentioned it
again. However, there are still several web sites about me that accuse me of
believing and teaching that.
This same professor accused me of
preaching that the new world order was coming on May 5, 2000 and that the
earth's population would be reduced to ½ billion by then. The truth is; I
showed a book by a new age author called "5-5-2000" and said
"Many in the "New Age" movement say their "spirit
guides" have told them they must reduce the population of the world to ½
billion by May 5, 2000 when we enter the "Age of Aquarius" so man can
evolve in the spiritual area. May 5, 1818 was Karl Marx's birthday. Some people
in the new age movement would like to have the earth's population reduced to ½
billion by this date so we can enter what they call "The Age of
Aquarius". I never predicted anything would happen.
I won’t take the time or energy
to answer the scoffers but if you come across any points that particularly
bother you, give me a call and I will be glad to help you see the flaws in
their logic. I travel a lot, but I try to be in the office most Thursdays and
Fridays from 8-4:30 CST. Don’t hesitate to call me at (850) 479-3466.
The Hovind-Till Debate
Dr. Karen Bartelt
This article came out after I debated
Ferrell Till (debate #7 on my web site). It is reprinted below with
comments added in bold by Dr. Hovind
On September
11, 1993, Kent Hovind, a "creation-scientist" evangelist from
Pensacola, Florida, and TSR editor Farrell Till met in public debate at the
Faith Baptist Church in Pekin, Illinois. Although the topic of the debate was
"The Genesis story of the flood is scientifically accurate in all
details," Hovind distributed to the audience a handout that was a generalized
attack on evolution. The paper warned the audience to watch for "desperate
measures" and "illogical ideas" that the evolutionist side could
be expected to use during the debate. Among other things, the paper listed ad
hominem arguments, ridicule and scorn, citation of majority opinion, and
various appeals to scholarship.
The debate was supposed to be comprised of a 30-minute opening statement each,
20 minutes of rebuttal each, and a question-and-answer period (questions sent
in by the audience), but Hovind's opening statement was nothing but his
well-travelled (and poor quality, I might add) [How can a person who spends
taxpayer dollars for her teaching supplies at the small college where she
teaches be upset about my non-taxpayer funded visuals? BTW watch my
debate #9 where I debate her live and see my visuals vs. hers now] slide
show. He opened by stating that all evolutionists believe anyone who is a
Bible-believing Christian is ignorant. Some other highlights: an 11-foot
skeleton has been found in a coal mine in West Virginia, proof positive that
preflood humans were bigger (so where is this skeleton now, Kent?);[I could
ask where lots of things are for the evolution theory she believes in and
forces on her students- in my video tape #2 I show several of the giant
skeletal remains that have been found] the geologic column doesn't exist
anywhere in the world; Noah's ark contained only babies and only single
"kinds." And a relatively new twist: the 23.5 degree tilt of the
earth happened during the flood. A giant "ice meteor" that, because
of its low temperature was magnetic, banged into the north pole and dropped
mammoths in their tracks, the vapor canopy collapsed, and the earth was flooded
to a depth of 12,000 feet.[I said there is enough water in the oceans now to
cover the earth 8,000 feet deep everywhere if the surface were smoothed out.
Which is true by the way—the oceans currently average 12,000 feet deep.]
As Dave Barry says, "I am not making this up." The presentation was
rapid fire, leaving no time for the audience to digest a topic before the next
slide was flashed. [Most of the audience was able to keep up just fine
Karen. This is a backhanded way of saying the audience was dumb.
Feel free to watch my tapes and hit pause when you need time to digest
something I say.] Indeed, for someone who does the show 700 times a year,
the presentation was unpolished, [she means unanswerable from her evolution
perspective] and the slides were of poor quality. [Again? She needs to see the
presentation now!]
Farrell Till defined science as being outside the realm of the supernatural. [this
is precisely why evolution is not part of science-the origin of matter, laws,
energy, and life are just a few things the evolutionist takes on faith] He
spoke of the polystrate Specimen Ridge trees [I have been to this ridge in
Yellowstone. The entire forest had to be deposited rapidly in the flood of
Noah. ICR has done much work on this subject and has lots of great info.
Call 619-448-0900 or see their web site www.icr.org for more.] and attacked
the seaworthiness of the ark. The audience was asked to consider how probable
it was for a lone man or small group to build a huge ark sans modern tools. [Typical
straw man here. Noah was not a “lone man” he had his wife, three sons and their
wives to help. Also, why could not Noah hire help? How does Till know what type
of tools or technology they had? The people were living over 900 years and
could talk to their great, great, great, great grandfather for advice! You
could learn a lot in 900 years. Till here shows his proud attitude that modern
man is smart and all those before are dumb or superstitious.] All wooden
ships have a maximum length far below the purported length of the ark, [These
are ships designed to sail not just to float like the ark. Noah had no place to
go. The masts on sailing ships (which Noah did not have) provide leverage
against the hull. Also there is evidence that the Chinese built huge
wooden boats that sailed just fine. ] and the audience was encouraged
to search the references Till provided concerning shipbuilding. Till asked if
such a ship did manage to stay afloat, how did the cargo survive the rough seas
described by other creationists? [How does Till know what the flood was
like? The world is big you know. There can be (and are) storms in one part of
the world while other parts are quite calm.]Finally, if, as Hovind
asserted, only a few "kinds" were present on the ark, then Hovind
must also admit that all forms of bovids, from bison to cattle to deer, evolved
rapidly after the flood—[Another straw man- he may believe all bovids are
the same kind but this may not be the way God classifies animals.]
something no evolutionist would ever state. [They believes they came from a
rock 4.6 billion years ago! Slowly of course-or quickly if you are from
Harvard!]
Hovind's rebuttal was to put God in the same bracket as electrons and
gravity--natural forces/particles that cannot be seen either! He stated,
without proof, that humans "back then" were not only bigger and
longer-lived but had higher IQ's. Thus they could build the pyramids, a feat we
humans of today could never accomplish. (Something just occurred to me here:
the pyramids had to be postflood; they date roughly from the time of Moses...
another boo boo.) [I’m glad things do occur to her-I said the great pyramid
not the other pyramids. Modern man could not build the great pyramid
today. BTW the great pyramid does not have to be post flood. It
could be a structure that went through the flood.] He stated that the
Specimen Ridge trees have no roots (flatly false by my geology books). [The
root systems are short indicating they were ripped out of the ground and
re-deposited there. The same thing happened at Mt. St. Helens in 1980.]
God brought the animals to Noah and took care of all the little incidentals
(like tons of manure).
Hovind encouraged the audience to be polite to Till, because, after all,
"He is not the enemy; he just works for him." Hovind admitted he
couldn't prove most of his assertions but that Till could not prove his either.
Refer to the topic of the debate!!!!
Till pressed the issue that since there were seven pairs of each type of clean
animal on the ark, [the Bible does not say seven pairs but seven of each
clean animal.] that meant 14 giraffes slopping about the ark on stormy
seas, like it or not. [Another straw man. He is assuming stormy seas and
adult animals. There are many common sense reasons to bring babies of
most or all kinds of animals. Just be sure to get a pink one and a blue
one! Plus there are storms in parts of the world now that do not affect the
entire planet.] How did they survive? He pointed out that the largest
pyramids are in the Americas, not Egypt. He closed by pointing out that
Hovind's assumptions--a vapor canopy, a level antediluvian earth, smarter
people--were not supported by evidence.
About half a dozen questions followed. I wrote two of the ones that were chosen
by the moderator/minister. Briefly....
Concerning a question on missing links, Hovind stated that Lucy was a chimp and
was assembled from bones found at sites miles apart. He said, "I wish I
could have seen the train that hit that chimp." Of course, it is well
known that Lucy was recovered over about 50 square meters of ground. [She
was a chimp and the famous knee that was shown in the National Geographic was
found 1 ½ miles from the Lucy skeleton yet it was labeled as being the knee
from Lucy. Donald Johanson carefully words his speeches to leave the impression
it is from the same find but he never says this outright.]
I asked what the anteaters ate the day the ark landed. Hovind said that they
were vegetarians, preflood and immediately post flood, and that special diets
were not necessary then or now. [She is straining at a gnat and
swallowing a camel here. She believes the anteaters came from a rock! Over
billions of years of course! It is also worth considering weather plants
and insects are considered “alive” in the biblical sense. The two requirements
seem to be breath of life and blood. It may be that they are just a
complex self replicating food source. More on this on video #7]"
Pandas don't just eat bamboo today; they love meat. [They love it but can
live without it just fine. It may be the Panda is in the shallow end of
an originally more robust gene pool and many fear it is headed toward
extinction. There may not have been modern type Pandas on the ark.]
Ask any zoo keeper." Perhaps that is why pandas are doing so well in the
wild right now! Till replied that you can't have generalist animals on the one
hand, and then, on the other hand, argue that the pronuba moth and yucca plant
were obviously created for each other. [Just how did symbiosis evolve
Ferril?]
Till pointed out that it was a creationist anachronism that the ark would have
been sealed with pitch, because this is obviously a coal (postflood)
by-product. Hovind stated the word pitch could have meant any oil--corn oil,
for instance. I will have to pass this new use for corn oil on to the
Illinois Department of Agriculture. Let's grease up those boat
bottoms. Till stood by the translation of the Hebrew word; it had to be a
petroleum product. [ICR.ORG has more on this question. Varnishes and
scores of other products are made from pine tree sap. Before the days of oil
wells the Webster’s 1828 dictionary listed pitch as, “The resin of pine, or
turpentine, inspissated; used in caulking ships and paying the sides and
bottom. Who is Till to say Noah did not know how to produce pitch with
materials readily available. Also, this question is still minor compared to the
evolution fairy tale that we all came from a rock.]
Hovind was taken aback by my question (derived from the Soroka and Nelson
article) on the amount of heat that would have been released by 40 days and 40
nights of rain. He talked about craters as evidence for an "ice
meteor" and said that this was all on faith. As I see it, 40 days/nights
of rain still releases beaucoup de joules. He simply failed to address it, [Not
true. I said that an ice meteor is a likely candidate for the cause of the
flood. See my video tape #6 for lots more on this. She is assuming the water
for the flood all came from rain and had to cover the current Everest.
Both of these are straw men. Most of the water came from inside the earth
(Gen. 7) and the mountains did not arise till the last part of the flood.
See Ps. 104. The heat is not a problem.] but Till, who had the article in
hand, expanded the problem and made the reference available to the audience.
Was anyone swayed? Unlikely. The bulk of the audience was clearly unable to
understand how science differs from the supernatural. [This is her way of
saying she is smart and anyone who does not agree with her is dumb! I have
found in my 70+ debates that when the evolution side loses they blame it on the
audience for not being smart enough to understand science. Also, she clearly
does not understand that evolution is supernatural and not based on science.]
They became defensive and irritated whenever Till said, "... but it's just
not science." They were for the most part quiet, although a few choruses
of "Amens" resounded when they felt Hovind had made a point. The
moderator/minister is to be complimented. He was polite to both parties and clearly
kept a lid on what could have been a volatile situation. [It would never
have become volatile because of me. I stay calm and actually love debates on
this topic. It’s easy to win because God is right and they are wrong.]
(Dr. Bartelt is an assistant professor of chemistry at Eureka College. Her
address is 22740 Grosenbach, Washington, IL 61571.)
Print
this page
