WEBVTT 00:00:00.211 --> 00:05:36.566 (Music) 00:12:43.932 --> 00:12:46.299 Oh, hi kids! I have an incredible message for you! 00:12:46.475 --> 00:12:48.847 Hey, can someone take Thelma back to the petting zoo? 00:12:49.233 --> 00:12:50.867 Wow, that looks like fun! NOTE Paragraph 00:12:51.132 --> 00:12:55.327 Yes, in 2014, kids 12 and under can come free! 00:12:55.697 --> 00:12:58.133 Hey, shouldn't the comets be in the planetarium? 00:12:58.455 --> 00:13:01.164 For the entire year, kids 12 and under come free. 00:13:01.497 --> 00:13:04.166 Hey, T-rex, you better get back to the dinasour den! 00:13:04.365 --> 00:13:06.962 As you can see, it's a very exciting place. 00:13:07.085 --> 00:13:10.226 Now tell your parents, kids 12 and under free in 2014 00:13:10.866 --> 00:13:12.302 when accompanied by a paying adult. 00:13:12.465 --> 00:13:13.100 We hope to see you soon. 00:13:14.599 --> 00:13:17.801 Good evening, I'm please to welcome you to Legacy Hall 00:13:17.967 --> 00:13:20.634 of the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky 00:13:20.842 --> 00:13:23.267 in the Metropolitan area of Cincinnati. 00:13:23.369 --> 00:13:24.902 I'm Tom Forman from CNN. 00:13:25.074 --> 00:13:26.800 And I'm please to be tonight's moderator for 00:13:26.962 --> 00:13:30.366 this Evolution vs. Creation debate. 00:13:30.599 --> 00:13:33.066 This is a very old question, where did we come from? 00:13:33.427 --> 00:13:37.124 My answer is from Washington this morning by airplane. 00:13:37.435 --> 00:13:43.399 (Laughter) But there is a much more profound, longer answer, 00:13:43.566 --> 00:13:45.369 That people have sought after for a long time. 00:13:45.542 --> 00:13:47.933 So, tonight's question to be debated is the following: 00:13:48.131 --> 00:13:55.500 Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern Scientific era? 00:13:55.731 --> 00:13:58.182 Our welcome extends to hundreds of thousands of people 00:13:58.344 --> 00:14:01.930 who are watching on the internet at debatelive.org. 00:14:02.165 --> 00:14:03.065 We're glad you have joined us. 00:14:03.394 --> 00:14:04.995 Of course, your auditorium here, 00:14:05.106 --> 00:14:06.565 all of the folks who've joined us as well. 00:14:06.867 --> 00:14:10.167 We're joined by 70 media representatives from many 00:14:10.326 --> 00:14:11.898 of the world's great news organizations. 00:14:12.101 --> 00:14:13.834 We're glad to have them here as well. 00:14:13.999 --> 00:14:18.267 And now let's welcome our debaters: Mr. Bill Nye and Mr. Ken Ham. 00:14:18.697 --> 00:14:21.899 (audience applauds) 00:14:22.100 --> 00:14:24.203 We had a coin toss earlier to determine 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who would go first of these two men. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The only thing missing was Joe Namath in a fur coat. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But it went very well. Mr. Ham won the coin toss 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and he opted to speak first. But first, let me tell you 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a little bit about both of these gentlemen. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye's website describes him as a scientist, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 engineer, comedian, author, and inventor. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr Nye, as you may know, produced a number of award-winning TV shows, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 including a program he became so well-known for: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill Nye the Science Guy. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 While working on the Science Guy show, Mr. Nye won 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 seven national Emmy awards for writing, performing, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and producing the show. Won 18 Emmys in five years! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In between creating the shows, he wrote five kids books about science, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 including his latest title, Bill Nye's Great Big Book of Tiny Germs. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Billy Nye is the host of three television series: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 his program, "The 100 Greatest Discoveries"-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it airs on the Science Channel. "The Eyes of Nye"-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 airs on PBS stations across the country. He frequenly appears 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on interview programs to discuss a variety of science topics. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye serves as Executive Director of the Planetary Society, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the world's largest space interest group. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He is a graduate of Cornell, with a Bachelors 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Ken Ham is the president and co-founder of Answers in Genesis, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a bible-defending organization that upholds the authority 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of the scriptures from the very first verse. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Ham is the man behind the popular, high-tech 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Creation Museum, where we're holding this debate. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The museum has had 2 million visitors in six years 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and has attracted much of the world's media. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The Answers in Genesis website, as well, trafficked 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 with 2 million visitors alone last month. Mr. Ham is also 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a best-selling author, a much in-demand speaker, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the host of a daily radio feature carried on 700 plus stations. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is his second public debate on Evolution and Creation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The first was at Harvard, in the 1990s. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Ham is a native of Australia. He earned 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a Bachelors degree in Applied Science, with an emphasis in 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Environmental Biology, from the Queensland's Institute of Technology, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as well as a Diploma of Education at the University 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of Queensland in Brisbon, Australia. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And now...Mr. Ham, you opted to go first, so you will 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 be first with your five minute opening statement. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, good evening. I know that not everyone watching 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this debate will necessarily agree with what I have to say, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but I'm an Aussie and live over here in America 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and they tell me I have an accent and so it doesn't matter 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what I say, some people tell me. We just like to hear you saying it. (laughter) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So...um...I hope you enjoy me saying it anyway. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, the debate topic is this: Is Creation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You know, when this was first announced on the internet, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there were lots of statements-- like this one 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from the Richard Dawkins Foundation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Scientists should not debate Creationists. Period." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And this one from one of the Discovery.com websites. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Should Scientists Debate Creationists?" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You know, right here I believe there's a gross misrepresentation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in our culture. We're seeing people being indoctrinated 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to believe that Creationists can't be Scientists. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I believe it's all a part of secularists hi-jacking the word "Science". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I want you to meet a modern-day scientist who's a Biblical Creationist. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 My name is Stuart Burgess. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm a professor of Engineering Design at Bristol University in the U.K. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I have published over 130 scientific papers on 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the science of design in Engineering and Biological systems. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 From my research work, I have found that the scientific evidence 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 fully supports Creationism as the best explanation to origins. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I've also designed major parts of spacecrafts, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 launched by ESA and NASA. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So here's a biblical Creationist, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who's a scientist, who's also an inventor. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I want young people to understand that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You know, the problem, I believe, is this: we need to define terms correctly. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We need to define Creation/Evolution in regard to origins 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and we need to define science. And in this opening statement, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I want to concentrate on dealing with the word "science". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I believe the word "science" has been hijacked by secularists. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, what is science? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, the origin of the word comes from the Classical Latin "scientia", 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which means "to know". And if you look up a dictionary, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it'll say science means "the state of knowing, knowledge". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But there's different types of knowledge and I believe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this is where the confusion lies. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's experimental or observational sciences, as we call it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's using the scientific method, observation, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 measurement, experiment, testing. That's what produces 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 our technology, computers, spacecraft, jet planes, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 smoke detectors, looking at DNA, antibiotics, medicines and vaccines. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You see, all scientists, whether Creationists or Evolutionists, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 actually have the same observational or experimental science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it doesn't matter whether you're a Creationist or an Evolutionist, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you can be a great scientist. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For instance, here's an atheist, who is a great scientist-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Craig Venter, one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Or Dr. Raymond Damadian. He is a man who invented 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the MRI scan and revolutionized medicine. He's a biblical Creationist. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But I want us to also understand molecules-to-man 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 evolution belief has nothing to do with developing technology. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You see, when we're talking about origins, we're talking about the past. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We're talking about our origins. We weren't there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can't observe that, whether it's molecules-to-man evolution, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or whether it's a creation account. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, you're talking about the past. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We'd like to call that Origins or Historical Science, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 knowledge concerning the past. Here at the Creation Museum, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we make no apology about the fact that our Origins or Historical science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 actually is based upon the biblical account of origins. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, when you research science textbooks being used 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in public schools, what we found is this: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by and large, the Origins or Historical Science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is based upon man's ideas about the past--for instance, the ideas of Darwin. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And our research has found that public school textbooks 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are using the same word "science" for Observational Science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and Historical Science. They arbitrarily define science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as naturalism and outlaw the supernatural. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They present molecules-to-man evolution as fact. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They are imposing, I believe, the religion 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of naturalism or atheism on generations of students. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You see, I assert that the word "science" has been hijacked 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by secularists in teaching evolution to force the religion 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of naturalism on generations of kids. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Secular evolutionists teach that all life developed 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by natural processes from some primordial form. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That man is just an evolved animal, which has great bearing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on how we view life and death. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For instance, as Bill states, "It's very hard to accept, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for many of us, that when you die, it's over." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But, you see, the Bible gives a totally different account of origins, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of who we are, where we came from, the meaning of life, and our future. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But that God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Whoever believes in Him should not perish and have everlasting life. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I say the creation/evolution debate is a conflict 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 between two philosophical worldviews based on two different accounts 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of origins or science beliefs and creation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is the only viable model of historical science confirmed 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by observational science in today's modern scientific era. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that is time. I had the unenviable job of being the time-keeper here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So I'm like the referee in football that you don't like, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but I will periodically, if either one of our debaters 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 runs over on anything, I will stop them in the name of keeping it fair for all. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Uh, Mr. Ham, thank you for your comments. Now it's Mr. Nye's 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 turn for a five minute opening statement. Mr. Nye. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I very much appreciate you including me in your, uh, facility here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, looking around the room I think I see just one bow tie. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is that right? Just one. And I'm telling you, once you try it-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 oh, there's yes, two! That's great. I started wearing bow ties 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when I was young, in high school. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 My father showed me how. His father showed him. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And there's a story associated with this, which I find remarkable. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 My grandfather was in the rotary, and he attended 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a convention in Philadelphia, and even in those days, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 at the turn of the last century, people rented tuxedos. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the tuxedo came with a bow tie--untied bow tie. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So he didn't know how to tie it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So...wasn't sure what to do, but he just took a chance. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He went to the hotel room next door, knocked on the door, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Excuse me? Can you help me tie my tie?" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the guy said, "Sure. Lie down on the bed." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So...my grandfather wanted to have the tie on, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 wasn't sure what he was getting into, so he's said 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to have lain on the bed and the guy tied a perfect bow tie knot and, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 quite reasonably, my grandfather said, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Thank you. Why'd I have to lie down on the bed?" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The guy said, "I'm an undertaker." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (audience laughs) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "It's the only way I know how to do it." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now that story was presented to me as a true story. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It may or may not be. But it gives you something to think about. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it's certainly something to remember. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, here tonight, we're gonna have two stories 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and we can compare Mr. Ham's story to the story 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from what I will call the outside, from mainstream science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The question tonight is: Does Ken Ham's Creation Model hold up? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is it "viable"? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So let me ask you all: what would you be doing if you weren't here tonight? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's right, you'd be home watching CSI. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 CSI Petersburg. Is that coming--I think it's coming. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And on CSI, there is no distinction made between 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 historical science and observational science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We don't normally have these anywhere in the world except here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Natural laws that applied in the past apply now. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's why they're natural laws. That's why we embrace them. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's how we made all these discoveries 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that enabled all this remarkable technology. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So CSI is a fictional show, but it's based absolutely 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on real people doing real work. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When you go to a crime scene and find evidence, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you have clues about the past. And you trust those clues 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and you embrace them and you move forward to convict somebody. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Ham and his followers have this remarkable view 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything that we observe in nature. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 A 500 foot wooden boat, eight zookeepers for 14,000 individual animals, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 every land plant in the world underwater for a full year? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I ask us all: is that really reasonable? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You'll hear a lot about the Grand Canyon, I imagine, also, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which is a remarkable place and it has fossils. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the fossils in the Grand Canyon are found in layers. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's not a single place in the Grand Canyon 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 where the fossils of one type of animal cross over 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 into the fossils of another. In other words, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when there was a big flood on the earth, you would expect 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 drowning animals to swim up to a higher level. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Not any one of them did. Not a single one. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you could find evidence of that, my friends, you could change the world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, I just wanna remind us all: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who get enriched, who have a wonderful sense of community from their religion. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They worship together, they eat together, they live 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in their communities and enjoy each others company. Billions of people. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that the earth is somehow only 6,000 years old. That is unique. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And here's my concern: what keeps the United States ahead, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what makes the United States a world leader, is our technology, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 our new ideas, our innovations. If we continue to eschew science, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 eschew the process and try to divide science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 into observational science and historic science, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we are not gonna move forward. We will not embrace natural laws. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We will not make discoveries. We will not invent and innovate and stay ahead. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So if you ask me if Ken Ham's Creation model is viable, I say no. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It is absolutely not viable. So stay with us over the next period 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and you can compare my evidence to his. Thank you all very much. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (audience applauds) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (moderator) All right. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Very nice start by both of our debaters here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And now each of one will offer a thirty minute, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 illustrated presentation to fully offer their case for us to consider. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Ham, you're up. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, the debate topic was "Is creation a viable model 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of origins in today's modern scientific era?" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I made the statement at the end of my opening statement: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 creation is the only viable model of historical science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I said what we need to be doing is actually defining 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 our terms and, particularly three terms: science, creation, and evolution. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, I discussed the meaning of the word "science" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and what is meant by experimental and observational science briefly. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that both Creationists and Evolutionists 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 can be great scientists, for instance. I mentioned Craig Venter, a biologist. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He's an atheist and he's a great scientist. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He was one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I also mentioned Dr. Raymond Damadian, who actually invented the MRI scanner. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I want you to meet a biblical creationist who is a scientist and an inventor. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Hi, my name is Dr. Raymond Damadian. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I am a Young Earth Creation Scientist and believe that God 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 created the world in six 24 hour days, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 just as recorded in the book of Genesis. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 By God's grace and the devoted prayers of my Godly mother-in-law, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I invented the MRI scanner in 1969. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The idea that scientists who believe the earth 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is 6,000 years old cannot do real science is simply wrong. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, he's most adamant about that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, actually, he revolutionized medicine! He's a biblical Creationist. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I encourage children to follow people like that, make them their heroes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let me introduce you to another biblical Creation Scientist. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 My name is Danny Faulkner. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I received my PhD in astronomy from Indiana University. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For 26 and a half years, I was a professor 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 where I hold the rank of distinguished professor emeritus. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Upon my retirement from the university in January of 2013, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I joined the research staff at Answers in Genesis. I'm a stellar astronomer. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That means my primary interests is stars, but I'm particularly 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 interested in the study of eclipsing binary stars. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I've published many articles in the astronomy literature, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 places such as the the Astrophysical Journal, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the Astronomical Journal, and the Observatory. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a recent creation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I also mentioned Dr. Stuart Burgess, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 professor of Engineering Design at Bristol University in England. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now he invented and designed a double-action worm gear set 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for the three hinges of the robotic arm on a very expensive satellite. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And if that had not worked, if that gear set had not worked, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that whole satellite would've been useless. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Yet, Dr. Burgess is a biblical Creationist. He believes, just as I believe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, think about this for a moment. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 A scientist like Dr. Burgess, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who believe in Creation, just as I do, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a small minority in this scientific world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But let's see what he says about scientists believing in Creation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I find that many of my colleagues in academia are sympathetic 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to the creationist viewpoint, including biologists. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 However, there are often afraid to speak out because of the criticisms 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 they would get from the media and atheists lobby. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, I agree. That's a real problem today. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We need to have freedom to be able to speak on these topics. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You know, I just want to say, by the way, that Creationists, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 non-Christian scientists, I should say, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 non-Christian scientists are really borrowing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from the Christian worldview anyway to carry out their experimental, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 observational science. Think about it. When they're doing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 observational science, using the scientific method, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 they have to assume the laws of logic, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 they have to assume the laws of nature, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 they have to assume the uniformity of nature. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, think about it. If the universe came about by natural processes, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 where'd the laws of logic come from? Did they just pop into existence? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Are we in a stage now where we only have half-logic? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, you see, I have a question for Bill Nye. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How do you account for the laws of logic and the laws of nature 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of God? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, in my opening statement I also discussed 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a different type of science or knowledge, origins or historical science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 See again, there's a confusion here. There's a misunderstanding here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 People, by and large, have not been taught to look at 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what you believe about the past as different to what you're observing in the present. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You don't observe the past directly. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Even when you think about the creation account. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, we can't observe God creating. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We can't observe the creation of Adam and Eve. We admit that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We're willing to admit our beliefs about the past. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But, see, what you see in the present is very different. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Even some public school textbooks actually sort of acknowledge 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the difference between historical and observational science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Here is an Earth Science textbook that's used in public schools. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we read this. In contrast to physical geology, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the aim of historical geology is to understand Earth's long history. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Then they make this statement. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Historical geology--so we're talking historical science-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 tries to establish a timeline of the vast number of physical 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and biological changes that have occurred in the past. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We study physical geology before historical geology 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because we first must understand how Earth works before we try to unravel its past. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In other words, we observe things in the present and then, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 okay, we're assuming that that's always happened in the past 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and we're gonna try and figure out how this happened. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 See, there is a difference between what you observe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and what happened in the past. Let me illustrate it this way: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If Bill Nye and I went to the Grand Canyon, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we could agree that that's a Coconino sandstone in the Hermit shale. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's the boundary. They're sitting one on top of the other. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We could agree on that. But you know what we would disagree on? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, we could even analyse the minerals and agree on that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But we would disagree on how long it took to get there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But see, none of us saw the sandstone or the shale being laid down. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's a supposed 10 million year gap there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But I don't see a gap. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But that might be different to what Bill Nye would see. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But there's a difference between what you actually observe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 directly and then your interpretation regarding the past. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When I was at the Goddard Space Center a number of years ago 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I met Creationists and Evolutionists who were 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 both working on the Hubble telescope. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They agreed on how to build the Hubble telescope. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You know what they disagreed on? Well, they disagreed on 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 how to interpret the data the telescope obtained 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in regard to the age of the universe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, you know, we could on and talk about lots 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of other similar sorts of things. For instance, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I've heard Bill Nye talk about how a smoke detector works, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 using the radioactive element Americium. And, you know what? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I totally agree with him on that. We agree how it works. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We agree how radioactivity enables that to work. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But if you're then gonna use radioactive elements 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and talk about the age of the Earth, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you've got a problem cause you weren't there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We gotta understand parent elements, daughter elements and so on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We could agree whether you're Creationist or Evolutionist 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on the technology to put the rover on Mars, but we're gonna 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 disagree on how to interpret the origin of Mars. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, there are some people that believed it 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 was even a global flood on Mars, and there's no liquid water on Mars. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We're gonna disagree maybe on our interpretation of origins 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and you can't prove either way because, not from 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 an observational science perspective, because we've only got the present. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Creationists and Evolutionists both work on medicines and vaccines. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You see? It doesn't matter whether you're a Creationist or an Evolutionist, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 all scientists have the same experimental observational science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So I have a question for Bill Nye: Can you name one piece 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of technology that could only have been developed 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 starting with the belief in molecules-to-man evolution? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, here's another important fact. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Creationists and Evolutionists all have the same evidence. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill Nye and I have the same Grand Canyon. We don't disagree on that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We all have the same fish fossils. This is one from the Creation Museum. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The same dinosaur skeleton, the same animals, the same humans, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the same DNA, the same radioactive decay elements that we see. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We have the same universe...actually, we all have the same evidences. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's not the evidences that are different. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a battle over the same evidence in regard to how we interpret the past. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And you know why that is? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Cause it's really a battle over worldviews and starting points. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a battle over philosophical worldviews 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and starting points, but the same evidence. Now, I admit, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 my starting point is that God is the ultimate authority. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But if someone doesn't accept that, then man has to be the ultimate authority. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's really the difference when it comes down to it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You see, I've been emphasizing the difference 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 between historical origin science, knowledge about 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the past when you weren't there, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and we need to understand that we weren't there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Or experimental observational science, using 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 your five senses in the present, the scientific method, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what you can directly observe, test, repeat. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's a big difference between those two. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's not what's being taught in our public schools 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and that's why kids aren't being taught to think 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 critically and correctly about the origins issue. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But you know, it's also important to understand, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when talking about Creation and Evolution, both involve 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 historical science and observational science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You see, the role of observational science is this: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it can be used to confirm or otherwise 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 one's historical science based on one's starting point. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, when you think about the debate topic and what I have 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 learned concerning creation, if our origins 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or historical science based on the bible, the bible's account 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of origins is true, then there should be predictions 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from this that we can test, using observational science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And there are. For instance, based on the bible, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we'd expect to find evidence concerning an intelligence, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 confirming an intelligence produced life. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We'd expect to find evidence confirming after their kind. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The bible says God made kinds of animals and plants 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 after their kind, implying each kind produces it's own, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 not that one kind changes into another. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You'd expect to find evidence confirming a global flood of Noah's day. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Evidence confirming one race of humans because we 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 all go back to Adam and Eve, biologically, that would mean there's one race. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Evidence confirming the Tower of Babel, that God gave different languages. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Evidence confirming a young universe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, I can't go through all of those, but a couple of them we'll look at briefly. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 After their kind, evidence confirming that-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the Creation Museum, we have a display featuring replicas, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 actually, of Darwin's finches. They're called Darwin's finches. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Darwin collected finches from the Galapagos 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and took them back to England and we see the different species, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the different beak sizes here. And, you know, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from the specimens Darwin obtained in the Galapagos, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 he actually pondered these things and how do you explain this. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And in his notes, actually, he came up with this diagram here, a tree. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And he actually said, "I think." So he was talking about 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 different species and maybe those species came from some common ancestor, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but, actually, when it comes to finches, we actually would agree, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as Creationists, that different finch species came from a common ancestor, but a finch. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's what they would have to come from. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And see, Darwin wasn't just thinking about species. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Darwin had a much bigger picture in mind. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When you look at the Origins of Species and read that book, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you'll find he made this statement: from such low and intermediate form, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 both animals and plants may have been developed; 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and, if we admit this, we must likewise admit that 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 all organic beings which have ever lived on this Earth 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 may be descended from some one primordial form. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So he had in mind what we today know as an evolutionary tree of life, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that all life has arisen from some primordial form. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, when you consider the classifications system, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 kingdom phylum class or the family genus species, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we would say, as Creationists, we have many creation scientists 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that research this and, for lots of reasons, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I would say, the kind in Genesis 1 is really more at 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the family level of classification. For instance, there's one dog kind. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's one cat kind. Even though you have different 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 generative species, that would mean, by the way, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you didn't need anywhere near the number of animals 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on the ark as people think. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You wouldn't need all the species of dogs, just two. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Not all the species of cats--just two. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, you see, based on the biblical account there in Genesis One, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Creationists have drawn up what they believe is a creation origin. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In other words, they're saying, "Look. There's great variation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the genetics of dogs and finches and so on." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so, over time, particularly after Noah's flood, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you'd expect if there were two dogs, for instance, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you could end up with different species of dogs because 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there's an incredible amount of variability in the genes of any creature. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so you'd expect these different species up here, but there's limits. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Dogs will always be dogs, finches will always be finches. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, as a Creationist, I maintain that observational science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 actually confirms this model, based on the bible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For instance, take dogs. Okay? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In a scientific paper dated January 2014--that's this year-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 scientists working at the University of California stated this: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We provide several lines of evidence supporting 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in which dog lineages arise separately 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from geographically distinct wolf populations. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And they put this diagram in the paper. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 By the way, that diagram is very, very similar 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to this diagram that Creationists proposed based upon 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the creation account in Genesis. In other words, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you have a common dog ancestor that gives rise 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to the different species of dogs, and that's exactly 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what we're saying here. Now, in the Creation Museum, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we actually show the finches here and you see the finches 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 with their different beaks, beside dogs skulls, different species of dogs. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 By the way, there's more variation in the dog skeleton 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 here than there are in these finches. Yet, the dogs, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 wow, that's never used as an example of evolution, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but the finches are, particularly in the public school textbooks. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Students are taught, "Ah! See the changes that are occurring here?" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And here's another problem that we've got. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Not only has the word "science" been hijacked by secularists, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I believe the word "evolution" has been hijacked by secularists. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The word "evolution" has been hijacked using what I call a bait and switch. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let me explain to you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The word "evolution" is being used in public school textbooks, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and we often see it in documentaries and so on, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is used for observable changes that we would agree with, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and then used for unobservable changes, such as molecules-to-man. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let me explain to you what's really going on because 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I was a science teacher in the public schools 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and I know what the students were taught and I checked 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the public school textbooks anyway to know what they're taught. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 See, students are taught today, look, there's all 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 these different animals, plants, but they're all part 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of this great, big tree of life that goes back to some primordial form. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, look, we see changes. Changes in finches, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 changes in dogs and so on. Now, we don't deny the changes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You see that. You see different species of finches, different species of dogs. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But then they put it all together in this evolutionary tree-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but that's what you don't observe. You don't observe that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's belief there. That's the historical science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that I would say is wrong. But, you know, what you do observe, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you do observe different species of dogs, different species of finches, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but then there are limits. You don't see one kind changing into another. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Actually, we're told that if you teach creation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the public schools as teaching religion, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if you teach evolution as science, I'm gonna say, "Wait a minute!" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Actually, the creation model here, based upon the Bible, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 observational science confirms this. This is what you're observe! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You don't observe this tree. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Actually, it's the public school textbooks that are teaching a belief, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 imposing it on students, and they need to be teaching them 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 observational science to understand the reality of what's happening. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, what we found is that public school textbooks present 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the evolutionary "tree" as science, but reject the creation "orchard" as religion. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But observational science confirms the creation orchard-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so public school textbooks are rejecting observational science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and imposing a naturalistic religion on students. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The word "evolution" has been hijacked using a bait and switch 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to indoctrinate students to accept evolutionary belief 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as observational science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let me introduce you to another scientist, Richard Lenski, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from Michigan State University. He's a great scientist, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 he's known for culturing e-coli in the lab... 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and he found there was some e-coli that actually seemed 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to develop the ability to grow on cistrate on substrate. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But Richard Lenski is here, mentioned in this book, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and it's called "Evolution in the Lab". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So the ability to grow on citrate is said to be evolution. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And there are those that say, "Hey! This is against the Creationist." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For instance, Jerry Coin from University of Chicago says, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for anti-evolutionists." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He says, "The thing I like most is it says you can get 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But is it a poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is it really seeing complex traits evolving? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What does it mean that some of these bacteria are able to grow on citrate? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let me introduce you to another biblical Creationist, who is a scientist. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Hi, my name's Dr. Andrew Fabich. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I got my PhD from University of Oklahoma in Microbiology. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I teach at Liberty University and I do research on e-coli in the intestine. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I've published it in secular journals from the American Society for Microbiology, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 including infection immunity and applied environmental microbiology 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as well as several others. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 My work has been cited even in the past year in the journals Nature, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Science Translational Medicine, Public Library of Science, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Public Library of Science Genetics. It's cited regularly 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in those journals and while I was taught nothing but evolution, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I don't accept that position. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I do my research from a creation perspective. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When I look at the evidence that people cite as e-coli, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 supposedly, evolving over 30 years, over 30,000 generations in the lab, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and people say that it is now able to grow on citrate, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I don't deny that it grows on citrate, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but it's not any kind of new information. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The information's already there and it's just a switch 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that gets turned on and off and that's what they reported in there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's nothing new. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 See, students need to be told what's really going on here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Certainly there's change, but it's not change necessary for molecules-to-man. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, we could look at other predictions. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What about evidence confirming one race? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, when we look at the human population we see lots of differences. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But based on Darwin's ideas of human evolution, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as presented in The Descent of Man, I mean, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Darwin did teach in The Descent of Man there were 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 lower races and higher races. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Would you believe, that back in the 1900s, one of the most 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 popular biology textbooks used in the public schools in America taught this: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 At the present time there exists upon Earth 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 five races or varieties of man...and finally, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Can you imagine if that was in the public schools today? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, yet, that's what was taught, but it was based on 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Darwin's ideas that are wrong. You have a wrong foundation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You're gonna have a wrong worldview. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, had they started from the Bible, and from 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the creation account in the Bible, what does it teach? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, we're all descendants of Adam and Eve. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We go through the Tower of Babel, different languages, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so different people groups formed distinct characteristics. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But we'd expect, we'd say, you know what, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that means there's biologically only one race of humans. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, I mentioned Dr. Venter before. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And he was a researcher with the human genome project. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And you'll remember, in the year 2000, this was headline news, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and what we read was this: they had put together 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and unanimously declared, there is only one race - the human race. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Wow! Who would have guessed? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But you see there we have observational science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 confirming the Creation account, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 not confirming at all Darwin's ideas. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, there's much more that can be said 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on each of these topics. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Obviously, you can't do that in a short time like this. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And you could do a lot more research. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I suggest you visit our website at Answers in Genesis 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for a lot more information. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, the debate topic: Is creation a viable model 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of origins in today's scientific era? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I said, we need to define the terms, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and particularly, the term science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the term evolution. And I believe we need 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to understand how they are being used to impose 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 an anti-God religion on generations of unsuspecting students. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You see, I keep emphasizing we do need to 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 understand the difference between experimental or 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 observational science and historical science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And you know what? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The secularists don't like me doing this 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because they don't want to admit 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that there's a belief aspect to what they're saying. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And there is. And they can't get away from it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let me illustrate this with a statement from Bill Nye. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "You can show the Earth is not flat. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can show the Earth is not 10,000 years old." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 By the way, I agree. You can show the Earth is not flat. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's a video from the Galileo spacecraft showing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the Earth, and speeded up of course, but spinning. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can see it's a sphere. You can observe that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can't observe the age of the Earth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You don't see that. You see again, I emphasize, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there's a big difference between historical science, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 talking about the past, and observational science, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 talking about the present. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I believe what's happening is this, that students are being 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 indoctrinated by the confusion of terms: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the hijacking of the word science and the hijacking 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of the word evolution in a bait-and-switch. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let me illustrate further with this video clip. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Because here I assert that Bill Nye is equating 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 observational science with historical science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I also say it's not a mystery when you understand the difference. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Howie, people with these deeply held religious beliefs, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 they embrace that whole literal interpretation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of the Bible as written in English, as a worldview. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, at the same time, they accept aspirin, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 antibiotic drugs, airplanes, but they're able 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to hold these two worldviews. And this is a mystery. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Actually, I suggest to you it's not a mystery. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You see, when I'm talking about antibiotics, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 aspirin, smoke detectors, jet planes, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that's Ken Ham the Observational Science Bloke. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm an Australian. We call guy's "blokes", okay? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But when you're talking about creation and thousands of years 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of the age of the Earth, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that's Ken Ham the Historical Science Bloke. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm willing to admit that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, when Bill Nye's talking about aspirin, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 antibiotics, jet planes, smoke detectors, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 he does a great job at that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I used to enjoy watching him on TV too. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's Bill Nye the Observational Science Guy. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But when he's talking about evolution and millions of years, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm challenging him that that's Bill Nye the Historical Science Guy. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I challenge the evolutionist to admit the belief 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 aspects of their particular worldview. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, at the Creation Museum, we're only too willing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to admit our beliefs based upon the Bible, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but we also teach people the difference between 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 beliefs and what one can actually observe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and experiment with in the present. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I believe we're teaching people to think critically 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and to think in the right terms about science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I believe it's the creationists that should be 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 educating the kids out there because we're teaching 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 them the right way to think. You know, we admit it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Our origins of historical science is based upon the Bible, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but I'm just challenging evolutionists to admit 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the belief aspects of evolution 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and be upfront about the difference here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 As I said, I'm only too willing to admit 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 my historical science based on the Bible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And let me further go on to define the term "creation" as we use it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 By creation, we mean, here at Answers in Genesis 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the Creation Museum, we mean the account based on the Bible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Yes, I take Genesis as literal history, as Jesus did. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, here at the Creation Museum, we walk people through that history. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We walk them through creation, the perfect creation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That God made Adam and Eve, land animal kinds, sea-creatures and so on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then sin and death entered the world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There was no death before sin. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That means how can you have billions of dead things before man sinned? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then, the catastrophe of Noah's flood. If there was a global flood, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you'd expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Had to say that because a lot of our supporters would want me to. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And what do you find?--Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Confusion, the tower of Babel. God gave different languages so you get different people groups. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So this is the geological, astronomical, anthropological, biological history as recorded in the Bible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So this is concerning what happened in the past that explains the present. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then, of course, that God's Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the God-Man 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to die on the cross, be raised from the dead. And one day there's going to be 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a new heavens and a new earth to come. And, you know, not only 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is this an understanding of history to explain the 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 geology, biology, astronomy, and so on to connect the present to the past. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But it's also a foundation for our whole world view. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For instance, in Matthew 19, when Jesus was asked about marriage, he said, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Have you not read He who made them at the beginning made them male and female?" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And said, "For this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife. And they'll be one flesh." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He quoted from Genesis as literal history--Genesis 1 and 2. God invented marriage, by the way. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's where marriage comes from. And it's to be a man and a woman. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And not only marriage. Ultimately, every single Biblical doctrine of theology 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 directly or indirectly, is founded in Genesis. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Why is there sin in the world? Genesis. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Why is there death? Genesis. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Why do we wear clothes? Genesis. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Why did Jesus die on the cross? Genesis. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a very important book. It's foundational to all Christian doctrine. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And you see, when we look at that, what I call the seven C's of History 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that we walk people through here at the museum, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 think about how it all connects together--a perfect creation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It'll be perfect again in the future. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Sin and death--end of the world. That's why God's son died on the cross 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to conquer death and offer a free gift of salvation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The flood of Noah's day, a reminder that the flood was a 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 judgement because of man's wickedness but at the same time 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a message of God's grace and salvation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 As Noah and his family had to go through a door to be saved, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so we need to go through a door to be saved. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Jesus Christ said, "I am the door. By me, if any man 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 enter in, he'll be saved. And we make no apology 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 about the fact that what we're on about is this: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 believe in your heart God has raised him from the dead, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you'll be saved. Now, as soon as I said that, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 see if people say, "See, if you allow creation in schools, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for instance, if you'll ask students to even hear about it, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 ah, this is religion." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You know, let me illustrate this, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 talking about a recent battle in Texas over textbooks 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the public school. A newspaper report said this: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Textbook and classroom curriculum battles have long 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 raged in Texas pitting creationists - those who see 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 God's hand in the creation of the universe- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 against academics..." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Stop right there. Notice creationists... academics. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Creationists can't be academics. Creationists can't be scientists. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 See, it's the way things are worded out there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's an indoctrination that's going on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We worry about religious and political ideology 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 trumping scientific fact. Wait a minute. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What do I mean by science? You're talking about 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what you observe, or are you talking about your beliefs about the past? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, Kathy Miller is the president of the Texas Freedom Network and 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 she has vocally spoken out. She's spoken out about this textbook battle there in Texas. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the mission statement of the organization she's president of says, "The Texas Freedom Network 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 advances a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to counter the religious right." Religious freedom... individual liberties. Hmm. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then she makes this statement: "Science education..." What does she mean by science? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "should be based on mainstream science education, not on personal idealogical beliefs 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of unqualified reviewers." Wait a minute. They want religious liberty and not personal 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 ideological beliefs? I assert this: public school textbooks are using the same word "science" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for observational and historical science. They arbitrarily define science as naturalism 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and outlaw the supernatural. They present molecules-to-man evolution as as fact. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And they are imposing the religion of naturalism on generations of students. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They're imposing their ideology on the students 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and everything's explained by natural processes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That is a religion. What do you mean by religious liberty? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They tolerate their religion. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 See, the battle is really about authority. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's more than just science or evolution or creation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's about who is the authority in this world, man or God? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you start with naturalism, then what about morals? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Who decides right and wrong? Well, it's subjective. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Marriage? Well, whatever you want it to be. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Get rid of old people. I mean, why not? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They're just animals, they're costing us a lot of money. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Abortion. Get rid of spare cats, get rid of spare kids. We're all animals. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But if you start from God's word, there are moral absolutes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 God decides right and wrong. Marriage--one man and one woman. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Sanctity of life--we care for old people. They're made in the image of God. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Life begins at fertilization, so abortion is killing a human being. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We do see the collapse of Christian morality 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in our culture and increasing moral relativism 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because generations of kids are being taught the religion 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of naturalism and that the Bible can't be trusted. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so, again, I say creation is the only viable model 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of historical science confirmed by observational science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in today's modern scientific era. You know what? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm a science teacher. I want to see kids taught science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I love science. I want to see more (inaudible) in the world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You know, if we teach them the whole universe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is a result of natural processes and not designed 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by a creative God, they might be looking in the wrong places 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or have the wrong idea when they're looking 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 at the creation in regard to how you develop technology 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because if they look at it as just random processes, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that could totally influence the way they think. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If they understand it was a perfect world marred by sin, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that could have a great affect on how they then look 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for overcoming diseases and problems in the world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I want children to be taught the right foundation, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that there's a God who created them, who loves them, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who died on the cross for them and that they're special. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They're made in the image of God. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (moderator) There you go. Thank you, Mr. Ham. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 -We can applaud Mr. Ham's presentation. -(audience applauds) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, you know, it did occur to me when you had 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 my old friend Larry King up there, you could've just asked him. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He's been around a long time. And he's a smart guy! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He could probably answer for all of us. Now, let's all be 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 attentive to Mr. Nye as he gives us his 30 minute presentation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Thank you very much and, Mr. Ham, I learned something. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Thank you. But let's take it back around to question at hand: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 does Ken Ham's creation model hold up? Is it viable? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, for me, of course...well...take a look. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We're here in Kentucky on layer upon layer upon layer of limestone. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I stopped at the side of the road today and picked up 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 just a piece of limestone. It has a fossil right there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, in these many, many layers, in this vicinity of Kentucky, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there are coral animal--fossils, Zooxanthella-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and when you look at it closely, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you can see that they lived their entire lives. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They lived typically 20 years, sometimes more than that 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when the water conditions are correct. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so we are standing on millions of layers of ancient life. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How could those animals have lived their entire life, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and formed these layers, in just 4,000 years? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There isn't enough time since Mr. Ham's flood 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for this limestone that we're standing on to come into existence. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 My scientific colleagues go to places like Greenland, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the Arctic, they go to Antarctica, and they drill 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 into the ice with hollow drill bits. It's not that extraordinary. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Many of you have probably done it yourselves, drilling other things. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Hole saws to put locks in doors, for example. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we pull out long cylinders of ice, long ice rods. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And these are made of snow and it's called "snow ice". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And snow ice forms over the winter as snowflakes fall 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and are crushed down by subsequent layers. They're crushed together, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 entrapping the little bubbles and the little bubbles must 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 needs be ancient atmosphere. There's nobody running around 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 with a hypodermic needle, squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we find certain of these cylinders to have 680,000 layers. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 680,000 snow/winter/summer cycles. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How could it be that just 4,000 years ago all of this ice formed? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let's just run some numbers. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is some scenes from the lovely Antarctic. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let's say we have 680,000 layers of snow ice 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and 4,000 years since the Great Flood. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That would mean we'd need 170 winter-summer cycles 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 every year, for the last 4,000 years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, wouldn't someone have noticed that? Wow! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Wouldn't someone have noticed that there's been 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 winter-summer-winter-summer 170 times one year? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If we go to California, we find enormous stands of bristlecone pines. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Some of them are over 6,000 years old. 6,800 years old. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's a famous tree in Sweden, Old Tjikko, is 9,550 years old. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How could these trees be there if there was an enormous flood just 4,000 years ago? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can try this yourself, everybody. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Get, I mean, I don't mean to be mean to trees, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but get a sapling and put it under water for a year. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It will not survive in general. Nor will its seeds. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They just won't make it. So how could these trees 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 be that old if the Earth is only 4,000 years old? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, when we go to the Grand Canyon--which is an astonishing place 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and I recommend to everybody in the world to someday visit the Grand Canyon-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you find layer upon layer of ancient rocks. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And if there was this enormous flood that you speak of, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 wouldn't there have been churning and bubbling and roiling? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How would these things have settled out? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Your claim that they settled out in an extraordinary short amount of time 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is for me, not satisfactory. You can look at these rocks. You can look at rocks that are younger. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can go to seashores where there's sand. This is what geologists on the outside do, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 study the rate at which soil is deposited at the end of rivers and deltas. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we can see that it takes a long, long time for sediments to turn to stone. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Also, in this picture you can see where one type of sediment has intruded on another type. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, if that was uniform, wouldn't we expect it all to be even, without intrusion? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Furthermore, you can find places in the Grand Canyon where you see an ancient riverbed on that side 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 going to an ancient riverbed on that side and the Colorado River has cut through it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And by the way, if this great flood drained through the Grand Canyon, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 wouldn't there have been a Grand Canyon on every continent? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How could we not have Grand Canyons everywhere if this water drained away in this extraordinary 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 short amount of time? Four thousand years? Now when you look at these layers carefully, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you find these beautiful fossils. And when I say beautiful, I am inspired by them. They are remarkable 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because we are looking at the past. You find down low. You'll find what you might consider 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is, uh, rudimentary sea animals. Up above you'll find the famous trilobytes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Above that you might find some clams, some oysters. And above that you find some mammals. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one. You never find a lower one 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 trying to swim its way to a higher one. If it all happened in such an extraordinary short amount of time, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if this water drained away just like that, wouldn't we expect to see some turbulence? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And by the way, anyone here, really, if you can find one example of that, one example of that 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 anywhere in the world, the scientists of the world challenge you. They would embrace you. You would be a hero. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You would change the world if you could find one example of that anywhere. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 People have looked, and looked and looked. They have not found a single one. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now here's an interesting thing. These are fossil skulls that people have found all around the world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's by no means representative of all the fossil skulls that have been found, but these are all over the place. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, if you were to look at these, I can assure you, not any of them is a gorilla. Right? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If as Mr. Ham and his associates claim, there was just man and then everybody else, there were just 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 humans and all other species, where would you put modern humans among these skulls? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How did all these skulls get all over the earth in these extraordinary fashion? Where would you put us? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I can tell you we are on there and I encourage you, when you go home, to look it up. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, one of the extraordinary claims associated with Mr. Ham's worldview is that this giant boat 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a very large wooden ship, went aground safely on a mountain in the Middle, what we now call the Middle East. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so places like Australia are populated then by animals who somehow managed to get 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from the Middle East all the way to Australia in the last 4,000 years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now that, to me, is an extraordinary claim. We would expect then, somewhere between the Middle East 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and Australia, we would expect to find evidence of kangaroos. We would expect to find 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 some fossils, some bones in the last 4,000 years. Somebody would have been hopping along there 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and died along the way, and we'd find them. And furthermore, there's a claim 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that there was a land bridge that allowed these animals to get from Asia all the way 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to the continent of Australia. And that land bridge has disappeared, has disappeared in the last 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 4,000 years. No navigator, no diver, no U.S. Navy submarine, no one has ever detected any evidence 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of this, let alone any evidence of fossils of kangaroos. So, your expectation is not met. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It doesn't seem to hold up. So, let's see. If there are 4,000 years since Ken Ham's flood 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and let's say, as he said many times, there are 7,000 kinds, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 today the very, very lowest estimate is that there are about 8.7 million species. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But a much more reasonable estimate is it's 50 million, or even 100 million, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when you start counting the viruses and the bacteria and all the beetles that must be extant 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the tropical rain forests that we haven't found. So we'll take a number which I think is pretty reasonable, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 16 million species today. If these came from 7,000 kinds, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 let's say we have 7,000 subtracted from 15 million, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that's 15,993. If 4,000 years, we have 365.25 days a year, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we would expect to find 11 new species every day. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So you'd go out into your yard, you wouldn't just find a different bird, a new bird 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you'd find a different kind of bird, a whole new species, a bird! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Every day, a new species of fish, a new species of organisms you can't see, and so on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, this would be enormous news. The last 4,000 years people would have seen these changes among us. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So the Cincinnati Enquirer, I imagine, would carry a column right next to the weather report: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Today's New Species, and it would list these 11 every day, but we see no evidence of that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's no evidence of these species. There simply isn't enough time. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now as you may know, I was graduated from engineering school and I was, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I got a job at Boeing. I worked on 747s. I, okay everybody relax, I was very well supervised. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Everything's fine. There's a tube in the 747 I kind of think of that's my tube. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But that aside, I travelled the highways of Washington state quite a bit. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I was a young guy. I had a motorcycle. I used to go mountain climbing in Washington state... Oregon. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And you can drive along and find these enormous boulders on top of the ground, enormous rocks, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 huge, sitting on top of the ground. Now, out there, in regular academic pursuits, regular geology, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 people have discovered that there was, used to be a lake in what is now Montana 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which we charmingly refer to as Lake Missoula. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's not there now but the evidence for it, of course, if I may, overwhelming. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so, an ice dam would form at Lake Missoula and once in a while it would break. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It would build up and break. And there were multiple floods in my old state of Washington state. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, just, before we go on, let me just say, go Seahawks! That was very gratifying, very gratifying for me. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Anyway you drive along the road and there are these rocks. So, if as is asserted here at this facility, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that the heavier rocks would sink to the bottom during a flood event, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the big rocks, and especially their shape, instead of aerodynamic, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the hydrodynamic, the water changing shape, as water flows past, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you'd expect them to sink to the bottom. But here are these enormous rocks right on the surface. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And there's no shortage of them. If you go driving in Washington state or Oregon 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 they are readily available. So how could those be there if the Earth is just 4,000 years old. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How could they be there if this one flood caused that? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Another remarkable thing I'd like everybody to consider, alone inherent in this worldview, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is that somehow Noah and his family were able to build a wooden ship that would house 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 14,000 individuals. There were 7,000 kinds and then, there's a boy and a girl for each one of those, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so there's about 14,000... 8 people. And these people were unskilled. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 As far as anybody knows they had never built a wooden ship before. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Furthermore, they had to get all these animals on there. And they had to feed them. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I understand that Mr. Ham has some explanations for that, which I frankly find extraordinary but 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this is the premise of the bit. And we can then run a test, a scientific test. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 People in the early 1900s built an extraordinary, large wooden ship, the Wyoming. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It was a six-masted schooner, the largest one ever built. It had a motor on it for winching cables and stuff. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But this boat had a great difficulty. It was not as big as the Titanic, but it was a very long ship. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It would twist in the sea. It would twist this way, this way, and this way. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And in all that twisting, it leaked. It leaked like crazy. The crew could not keep the ship dry. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And indeed, it eventually foundered and sank, a loss of all 14 hands. So there were 14 crewmen 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 aboard a ship built by very, very skilled shipwrights in New England. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 These guys were the best in the world at wooden shipbuilding. And they couldn't build 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a boat as big as the Ark is claimed to have been. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is that reasonable? Is that possible that the best shipbuilders in the world couldn't do 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what eight unskilled people, men and their wives, were able to do? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you visit the National Zoo, in Washington D.C., it's 163 acres. And they have 400 species. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 By the way, this picture that you're seeing was taken by spacecraft in space, orbiting the Earth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you told my grandfather, let alone my father, that we had that capability, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 they would have been amazed. That capability comes from our fundamental understanding 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of gravity, of material science, of physics, and life science, where you go looking. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This place is often, as any zoo, is often deeply concerned and criticized for how it treats its animals. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They have 400 species on 163 acres, 66 hectares. Is it reasonable that Noah and his colleagues, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 his family, were able to maintain 14,000 animals and themselves, and feed them, aboard a ship 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that was bigger than anyone's ever been able to build? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, here's the thing, what we want in science, science as practiced on the outside, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is an ability to predict. We want to have a natural law that is so obvious and clear, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so well understood that we can make predictions about what will happen. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We can predict that we can put a spacecraft in orbit and take a picture of Washington D.C. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We can predict that if we provide this much room for an elephant, it will live healthily 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for a certain amount of time. I'll give you an example. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In the explanation provided by traditional science, of how we came to be, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we find as Mr. Ham alluded to many times in his recent remarks, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we find a sequence of animals in what, generally, is called "the fossil record." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This would be to say when we look at the layers, that you would find in Kentucky, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you look at them carefully, you find a sequence of animals, a succession. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And as one might expect, when you are looking at old records 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there's some pieces seem to be missing, a gap. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So scientists got to thinking about this. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are lungfish that jump from pond to pond in Florida 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and end up in people's swimming pools. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And there are amphibians, frogs and toads, croaking and carrying on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so people wondered if there wasn't a fossil or an organism, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 an animal, that had lived, that had characteristics of both. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 People over the years had found that in Canada, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there was clearly a fossil marsh-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a place that used to be a swamp that had dried out. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And they found all kinds of happy swamp fossils there: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 ferns, organisms, animals, fish that were recognized. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And people realized that if this, with the age of the rocks there, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as computed by traditional scientists, with the age of the rocks there, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this would be a reasonable place to look for an animal, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a fossil of an animal that lived there. And, indeed, scientists found it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Tiktaalik, this fish-lizard guy. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And they found several specimens, it wasn't one individual. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In other words, they made a prediction, that this animal 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 would be found and it was found. So far, Mr. Ham and his worldview, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the Ken Ham creation model, does not have this capability. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It cannot make predictions and show results. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Here's an extraordinary one that I find remarkable. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are certain fish, the Topminnows, that have 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the remarkable ability to have sex with other fish, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 traditional fish sex, and they can have sex with themselves. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, one of the old questions in life science, everybody, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 one of the old chin strokers is why does any organism, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 whether you're an ash tree, a sea jelly, a squid, a marmot, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 why does anybody have sex? I mean, there are more bacteria 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in your tummy right now then there are humans on Earth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And bacteria, they don't bother with that, man. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They split themselves in half, they get new bacteria! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Like, let's get her done! Let's go. But why does any-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 think of all the trouble a rose bush goes to make a flower and the thorns 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the bees flying around, interacting--why does anybody bother with all that? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the answer seems to be...your enemies. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And your enemies are not lions and tigers and bears...oh my! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 No, your enemies are germs and parasites. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's what's gonna get you. Germs and parasites. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 My first cousin's son died tragically from essentially the flu. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is not some story I heard about. This is my first cousin, once removed. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Because, apparently, the virus had the right genes to attack his genes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So when you have sex you have a new set of genes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You have a new mixture. So people studied these Topminnows. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And they found that the ones who reproduced sexually 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 had fewer parasites that the ones who reproduced on their own. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This Black Spot disease--wait, wait, there's more. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In these populations, with flooding and so on, when river ponds get isolated, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 then they dry up, then the river flows again. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In between, some of the fish will have sex with other fish, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 sometimes, and they'll have sex on their own, what's called asexually. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And those fish, the ones that are in between, sometimes this, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 sometimes that, they have an intermediate number of infections. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In other words, the explanation provided by evolution made a prediction. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the prediction's extraordinary and subtle, but there it is. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How else would you explain it? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And to Mr. Ham and his followers I say this is something we in science want. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We want the ability to predict. And your assertion 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that there's some difference between the natural laws 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that I use to observe the world today and the natural laws 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that existed 4,000 years ago is extraordinary and unsettling. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I travel around. I have a great many family members 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in Danville, Virginia, one of the U.S's most livable cities. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's lovely. And I was driving along and there was a sign in front of a church: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "Big Bang theory? You got to be kidding me. God." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, everybody, why would someone at the church, a pastor for example, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 put that sign up unless he or she didn't believe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that the big bang was a real thing? I just want to review, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 briefly, with everybody why we accept, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the outside world, why we accept the Big Bang. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Edwin Hubble, sorry, there you go,you gotta be kidding me God. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Edwin Hubble was sitting at Mount Wilson, which is up from Pasadena, California. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 On a clear day you can look down and see where the Rose Parade goes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's that close to civilization. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But even in the early 1900's, the people who selected this site for astronomy 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 picked an excellent site. The clouds and smog are below you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And Edwin Hubble sat there at this very big telescope night after night studying the heavens. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And he found that the stars are moving apart. The stars are moving apart. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And he wasn't sure why. But it was clear that the stars are moving farther and farther apart all the time. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So people talked about it for a couple decades. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then eventually another astronomer, almost a couple decades, another astronomer 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Fred Hoyle just remarked, "Well, it was like there was a big bang. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There was an explosion. This is to say; since everything's moving apart, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it's very reasonable that at one time they were all together. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And there's a place from whence, or rather whence, these things expanded." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it was a remarkable insight. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But people went still questioning it for decades. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Scientists, conventional scientists, questioning it for decades. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 These two researchers wanted to listen for radio signals from space--radio astronomy. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And this is while we have visible light for our eyes, there is a whole other bunch of waves of light 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that are much longer. The microwaves in your oven are about that long. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The radar at the airport is about that long. Your FM radio signals about like this. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 AM radio signals are a kilometer--they're a couple, several soccer fields. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They went out listening. And there was this hiss, this hisssssss, all the time 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that wouldn't go away. And they thought "Oh! Doggone it. There's some loose 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 connector." They plugged in the connector. They rescrewed it. They made it tight. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They turned it this way. The hiss was still there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They turned it that way. It was still there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They thought it was pigeon droppings that had affected the reception of this "horn" it's called. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This thing is still there. It's in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a national historic site. And Arno Pinzius and Robert Wilson had found 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this cosmic background sound that was predicted by astronomers. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Astronomers running the numbers, doing math, predicted 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that in the cosmos would be left over this echo, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this energy, from the Big Bang that would be detectable. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And they detected it. We built the Cosmic Observatory for Background Emissions, the COBE spacecraft, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and it matched exactly, exactly the astronomers predictions. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You gotta respect that. It's a wonderful thing. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, along that line is some interest in the age of the earth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Right now, it's generally agreed that the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What we can do on earth. These elements that we all know on the Periodic Table of Chemicals, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 even ones we don't know, were created when stars explode. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I look like nobody. But I attended a lecture by Hans Betta who won a Nobel 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Prize for discovering the process by which stars create all these elements. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The one that interests me especially is our good friends Rubidium and Strontium. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Rubidium becomes Strontium spontaneously. It's an interesting thing to me. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 A neutron becomes a proton. And it goes up the Periodic Table. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When lava comes out of the ground, molten lava, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and it freezes, turns to rock, when the melt solidifies, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or crystalizes, it locks the Rubidium and Strontium in place. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so by careful assay, by careful, by being diligent, you can tell when the rock froze. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can tell how old the Rubidium and Strontium are. And you can get an age for the earth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When that stuff falls on fossils, you can get a very good idea of how old the fossils are. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I encourage you all to go to Nebraska, go to Ashfall State Park 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and see the astonishing fossils. It looks like a Hollywood movie. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are rhinoceroses. There are three-toed horses in Nebraska. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 None of those animals are extant today. And they are buried, catastrophically, by a 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 volcano in what is now Idaho. Is now Yellowstone National Park. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What is called the hot spot. People call it the super-volcano. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it's the remarkable thing. Apparently, as I can tell you, as a Northwesterner around 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 for Mount St. Helen's. For full disclosure I'm on the Mount St. Helen's Board. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When it (explosive sound), when it goes off it gives out a great deal of gas 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that's toxic and knock these animals out. Looking for relief, they go to a watering 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 hole. And then when the ash comes they were all buried. It's an extraordinary place. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now if in the bad old days, you had heart problems, they would right away cut you open. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, we use a drug based on Rubidium to look at the inside of your heart without cutting you open. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, my Kentucky friends, I want you to consider this. Right now, there is no place 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to get a degree in this kind of nuclear medicine-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this kind of drugs associated with that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I hope you find that troubling. I hope you're concerned about that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You want scientifically literate students in your commonwealth for a better tomorrow for everybody. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can, you can't get this here. You have to go out of state. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now as far as the distance to stars. Understand this is very well understood. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We, it's February. We look at a star in February. We measure an angle to it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We wait six months. We look at that same star again and we measure that angle. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's the same way carpenters built this building. It's the same way surveyors surveyed the land that we're standing on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so by measuring the distance to a star, you can figure out how far away it is, that star, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the stars beyond it, and the stars beyond that. There are billions of stars. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Billions of stars more than six thousand light years from here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 A light year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are billions of stars. Mr. Hamm, how could there be billions of stars more distant 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than six thousand years, if the world's only six thousand years old? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's an extraordinary claim. There's another astronomer, Adolphe Quetele, who remarked first 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 about the reasonable man. Is it reasonable that we have ice older by a factor of a hundred than you claim the earth is? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We have trees that have more tree rings than the earth is old. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We have rocks with Rubidium and Strontium, and Uranium-Uranium, and Potassium-Argon dating 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that are far, far, far older than you claim the earth is. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Could anybody have built an ark that would sustain the better than any ark anybody was able to build on the earth? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, if you're asking me, and I got the impression you were, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is Ken Hamm's creation model viable? I say "No! Absolutely not!" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, one last thing. You may not know that in the US Constitution, from the founding fathers, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is the sentence "to promote the progress of science and useful arts..." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Kentucky voters, voters who might be watching online, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in places like Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas, please 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you don't want to raise a generation of science students 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who don't understand how we know our place in the cosmos, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 our place in space, who don't understand natural law. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We need to innovate to keep the United States where it is in the world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Thank you very much. (applause) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: That's a lot to take in. I hope everybody's holding up well. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's a lot of information. What we're going to have now is a five minute 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 rebuttal time for each gentleman to address the other one's comments. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then there will be a five minute counter rebuttal after that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Things are going to start moving a little more quickly now. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So at this point in particular, I want to make sure we don't have applauding or anything else going on that slows it down. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, Mr. Hamm, if you'd like to begin with your five minute rebuttal first. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Hamm: First of all, Bill, if I was to answer all the points that you brought up, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the moderator would think that I was going on for millions of years. (laughter) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So I can only deal with some of them. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And you mentioned the age of the earth a couple of times, so let me deal with that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 As I said in my presentation, you can't observe the age of the earth. I would say that comes under what we call historical origin science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, just so you understand where I'm coming from. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Yes, we admit we build our origins from historical science on the Bible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The Bible says God created in six days. A Hebrew word "yon" as it's used in Genesis 1 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 with evening/morning number means an ordinary day. Adam was made on day six. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so, when you add up all those geneologies specifically given in the Bible 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from Adam to Abraham you've got 2,000 years; from Abraham to Christ 2,000 years; from Christ to the present 2,000 years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's how we get 6,000 years. So that's where it comes from. Just so you know. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now a lot of people say. Now, by the way, the earth's age is 4.5 billion years old. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we have radioactive decay dating methods that found that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But you see, we certainly observe radioactive decay 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 whether it's rubidium-strontium, whether it's uranium-lead, potassium-argon 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But when you're talking about the past, we have a problem. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'll give you a practical example. In Australia, there were engineers 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that were trying to search out about a coal mine. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so they drilled down and they found a basalt layer, a lava flow that had woody material in it-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 branches and twigs and so on. And when Dr. Andrew Snelling, our PhD geologist, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 sent that to a lab in Massachusetts in 1994, they used potassium-argon 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 dating and dated it at 45 million years old. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, he also sent the wood to the radio-carbon section of the same lab 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and that dated at 45,000 years old. 45,000 year old wood in 45 million year old rock. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The point is there's a problem. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let me give you another example of a problem. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There was a lava dome that started to form in the 80's after Mt. St. Helen's erupted. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And in 1994 Dr. Steve Austin, another PhD geologist, actually sampled the rock there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He took whole rock, crushed it, sent it to the same lab actually, I believe, and got a date of .35 million years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When he separated out the minerals amphibole and pyroxene and used potassium-argon dating, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 he got .9 million and 2.8 million. My point is all these dating methods actually give all sorts of different dates. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, different dating methods on the same rock, we can show, give all sorts of different dates. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 See there's lots of assumptions in regard to radioactive dating. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Number one, for instance, the amounts of the parent and daughter isotopes at the beginning when the rock formed. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We have to know them. But you weren't there. See that's historical science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Assumption 2: that all daughter atoms measured today must have only been derived in situ radioactive decay of parent atoms. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In other words it's a closed system. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But you don't know that. And there's a lot of evidence that that's not so. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Assumption Number 3: that the decay rates have remained a constant. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now they're just some of them. There's others as well. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The point is there's lots of assumptions in regard to the dating methods. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So there's no dating method you can use that you can absolutely age date a rock. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's all sorts of differences out there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I do want to address the bit you brought up about Christians believing in millions of years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Yeah, there's a lot of Christians out there that believe in millions of years, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but I'd say they have a problem. I'm not saying they're not Christians, but 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, not the age of the earth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But there's an inconsistency with what the Bible teaches. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you believe in millions of years, you've got death and bloodshed, suffering, and disease 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 over millions of years leading to man, because that's what you see in the fossil record. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The Bible makes it very clear death is a result of man's sin. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, the first death was in the garden when God killed an animal, clothed Adam and Eve, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 first blood sacrifice pointing towards what would happen with Jesus Christ. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He would be the one who would die once and for all. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now if you believe in millions of years as a Christian, in the fossil record 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there's evidence of animals eating each other, Bible says originally all the animals 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and man were vegetarian. We weren't told we could eat meat until after the flood. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's diseases represented in the fossil record like brain tumors, but the Bible 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 says when God made everything it was very good. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 God doesn't call brain tumors very good. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's fossilized thorns in the fossil record said to be hundreds of millions of years old, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the Bible says thorns came after the curse. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So these two things can't be true at the same time. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You know what? There's hundreds of dating methods out there, hundreds of them. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Actually, 90% of them contradict billions of years. And the point is, all such dating methods are fallible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I claim, there's only one infallible dating method, it's a witness who was there, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who knows everything, who told us. And that's from the word of God. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's why I would say that the earth is only 6,000 years. And, as Dr. Faulkner said, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there's nothing in astronomy, and certainly Dr. Snelling would say, there's nothing in geology 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to contradict a belief in a young age for the earth and the universe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Thank you Mr. Ham. Mr. Nye, your five-minute rebuttal please. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye: Thank you very much. Let me start with the beginning. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you find 45 million year old rock on top of 45 thousand year old trees, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 maybe the rock slid on top. Maybe that's it. That seems much more reasonable explanation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than, "It's impossible." Then as far as dating goes, actually the methods are 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 very reliable. One of the mysteries, or interesting things that people in my business, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 especially at the Planetary Society, are interested in is why all the asteroids seem to be 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so close to the same date in age. It's 4.5, 4.6 billion years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a remarkable thing. People at first expected a little more of a spread. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, I understand that you take the Bible as written in English, translated countless, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 not countless, but many, many times over the last three millenia as to be a more accurate, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 more reasonable assessment of the natural laws we see around us 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than what I and everybody in here can observe. That to me is unsettling, troubling. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then about the disease thing, are the fish sinners? Have they done something wrong to get diseases? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's sort of an extraordinary claim that takes me just a little past what I'm comfortable with. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then, as far as you can't observe the past, I have to stop you right there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's what we do in astronomy. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 All we can do in astronomy is look at the past. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 By the way, you're looking at the past right now. Because the speed of light bounces off of me 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and then gets to your eyes. And I'm delighted to see that the people in the back of the room 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 appear just that much younger than the people in the front. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So this idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws that we have now, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I think is at the heart of our disagreement. I don't see how we're ever going to agree with that 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if you insist that natural laws have changed. It's, for lack of a better word, it's magical. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I have appreciated magic since I was a kid, but it's not really what we want 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in conventional, mainstream science. So, your assertion that all the animals were vegetarians 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 before they got on the ark. That's really remarkable. I have not spent a lot of time with lions, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but I can tell they've got teeth that really aren't set up for broccoli. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That these animals were vegetarians til this flood is something that I would ask you 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to provide a little more proof for. I give you the lion's teeth, you give me verses 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as translated into English over, what, 30 centuries? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, that's not enough evidence for me. If you've ever played telephone, I did, I remember very well 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in kindergarten where you have a secret and you whisper it to the next person, to the next person, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to the next person. Things often go wrong. So it's very reasonable to me that instead of lions being vegetarians on the ark, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 lions are lions, and the information that you used to create your world view is not consistent with 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what I, as a reasonable man, would expect. So, I want everybody to consider the implications of this. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If we accept Mr. Ham's point of view, that the Bible as translated into American English, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 serves as a science text, and that he and his followers will interpret that for you, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Just, I want you to consider what that means. It means that Mr. Ham's word or his interpretation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of these other words, is somehow to be more respected than what you can observe in nature. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Than what you can find literally in your backyard, in Kentucky. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a troubling and unsettling point of view, and it's one I very much like you to address when you come back. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 As far as the five races that you mentioned, it's kind of the same thing. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The five races were claimed by people who were of European descent, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and said, "Hey, we're the best! Check us out!" And that turns out to be, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if you've ever traveled anywhere or done anything, not to be that way. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 People are much more alike than they are different. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, are we supposed to take your word for English words translated over the last 30 centuries, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 instead of what we can observe in the universe around us? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Very good. And Mr. Ham, would you like to offer your five minute counter rebuttal? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: Uh, first of all, Bill, just so, I just don't want a misunderstanding here, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and that is, the 45,000-year-old wood, or supposedly 45,000 was inside the basalt. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Um, so, it was encased in the basalt. Uh, and that's why I was making that particular point. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I would also say that natural law hasn't changed. As I talked about, you know, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I said we had the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature. And that only makes sense 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 within a biblical worldview anyway, of a creator God, who set up those laws, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and that's why we can do good experimental science, because we assume those laws are true, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and they'll be true tomorrow. I do want to say this. that you said a few times, you know, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham's view or model. It's not just Ken Ham's model. We have a number of PhD scientists 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on our own staff. I quoted, had video quotes, from some scientists. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's Dr. Damadian's model. It's Dr. Fabich's model. It's Dr. Faulkner's model. It's Dr. Snelling's model. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's Dr. Purdom's model. And so it goes on, in other words. And you go on our website, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and there are lots of creation scientists who agree with exactly what we're saying concerning 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the Bible's account of creation. So it's not just "my model" in that sense. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There is so much that I can say, but, as I listen to you, I believe you're confusing terms 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in regard to species and kinds. Because we're not saying that God created all those species. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We're saying God created kinds. And we're not saying species got on the ark, we're saying kinds. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, we've had researchers working on what is a kind. For instance, there's a number of papers, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 published on our website, where, for instance, they look at dogs. And they say, well, this one 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 breeds with this one, with this one, with this one. And you can look at all the papers around the world 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and you can connect them all together and say that obviously represents one kind. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, as they have been doing that research, they have predicted probably less than actually a thousand 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 kinds were on Noah's ark, which means just over 2,000 animals. And the average size of a land animal 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is not that big so, you know, there was plenty of room on the ark. I also believe that 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a lot of what you were saying was really illustrating my point. Uh, you were talking about tree rings 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and ice layers and, just talking about kangaroos getting to Australia, and all sorts of things like that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But see, we're talking about the past, when we weren't there. We didn't see those tree rings actually forming. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We didn't see those layers being laid down. You know, in 1942, for instance, there were some planes 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that landed on the ice in Greenland. They found them, what, 46 years later, I think it was, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 three miles away from the original location with 250 feet of ice buried on top of them. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, ice can build up catastrophically. If you assume one layer a year, or something like that, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it's like the dating methods. You are assuming things in regard to the past that aren't necessarily true. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In regard to lions and teeth, bears, most bears have teeth very much like a lion or tiger, and yet, most bears 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are primarily vegetarian. The panda, if you look at its teeth, you'd say, maybe it should be a 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 savage carnivore. It eats mainly bamboo. The little fruit bat in Australia has really sharp teeth, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 looks like a savage little creature, and it rips into fruit. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Uh, so, just cause an animal has sharp teeth doesn't mean it's a meat eater. It means it has sharp teeth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Uh, so again, it really comes down to our interpretation of these things. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I think too, in regard to the Missoula, uh, example that you gave, you know, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 creationists do believe there's been post-flood catastrophism. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Noah's flood, certainly, was a catastrophic event. But then there's been post-flood catastrophism since that time as well. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And again, in regard to historical science, why would you say Noah was unskilled? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, I didn't meet Noah, and neither did you. And you know, really, it's an evolutionary view of origins I believe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 cause you're thinking in terms people before us aren't as good as us. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Hey, there are civilizations that existed in the past, and we look at their technology, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and we can't even understand today how they did some of the things that they did. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Who says Noah couldn't build a big boat? By the way, the Chinese and the Egyptians built boats. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, some of our research indicates that some of the wooden boats that were built 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 had three layers interlocking so they wouldn't twist like that and leak, which is why, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 here at the Creation Museum, we have an exhibit on the ark, where we've rebuilt 1% of the ark to scale 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and shown three interlocking layers like that. And one last thing, concerning the speed of light, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and that is, I'm sure you're aware of the horizon problem. And that is, from a Big Bang perspective, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 even the secularists have a problem of getting light and radiation out to the universe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to be able to exchange with the rest of the universe, to get that even microwave background radiation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 On their model, 15 billion years or so, they can only get it about halfway. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's why they have inflation theories, which means, everyone has a problem concerning the light issue. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's things people don't understand. And we have some models on our website 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by some of our scientists to help explain those sorts of things. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Mr. Nye, your counter rebuttal. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill Nye: Thank you Mr. Ham, but I'm completely unsatisfied. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You did not, in my view, address this fundamental question. 680,000 years of snow ice layers 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which require winter summer cycle. Let's say you have 2,000 kinds instead of seven. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That makes the problem even more extraordinary, multiplying eleven by what's, three and a half? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We get to 35... 40 species every day that we don't see, they're not extant. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, you probably know we're losing species due to mostly human activity and the loss of habitat. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Then, as far as Noah being an extraordinary shipwright, I'm very skeptical. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The shipwrights, my ancestors, the Nye family in New England, took, spent their whole life learning to make ships. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, it's very reasonable, perhaps, to you that Noah had superpowers 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and was able to build this extraordinary craft with seven family members, but to me, it's just not reasonable. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Then, uh, by the way, the fundamental thing we disagree on, Mr. Ham, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is this nature of what you can prove to yourself. This is to say, when people make assumptions 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 based on radiometric data, when they make assumptions about the expanding universe, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in laboratory growth media, they are making assumptions based on previous experience. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They're not coming out of whole cloth. So, next time you have a chance to speak, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I encourage you to explain to us why... why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 just 4,000 years ago, completely. And there's no record of it. You know, there are pyramids that are older than that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are human populations that are far older than that, with traditions that go back farther that that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it's just not reasonable to me that everything changed 4,000 years ago. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 By everything, I mean the species, the surface of the Earth, the stars in the sky, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the relationship of all the other living things on Earth to humans. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's just not reasonable to me that everything changed like that. (Snaps fingers.) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And another thing I would very much appreciate you addressing: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious. And I respect that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 People get tremendous community and comfort and nurture and support from their religious fellows 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in their communities, in their faiths, in their churches. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And yet, they don't accept your point of view. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are Christians who don't accept that the Earth could somehow be this extraordinary young age 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because of all the evidence around them. And so, what is to become of them, in your view? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And by the way, this thing started, as I understand it, Ken Ham's creation model is based on the Old Testament. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So when you bring in, I'm not a theologian, when you bring in the New Testament, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 isn't that little, uh, out of the box? I'm looking for explanations of the creation of the world 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as we know it, uh, based on what I'm gonna call science. Not historical science, not observational science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Science: things that each of us can do akin to what we do, we're trying to outguess the characters 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on murder mystery shows, on crime scene investigation, especially. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What is to become of all those people, who don't see it your way? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For us, in the scientific community, I remind you, that when we find an idea that's not tenable, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that doesn't work, that doesn't fly, doesn't hold water, whatever idiom you'd like to embrace, we throw it away. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We are delighted. That's why I say, if you can find a fossil that has swum between the layers, bring it on! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You would change the world. If you could show that somehow the microwave background radiation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is not a result of the Big Bang, come on! Write your paper. Tear it up! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, your view, that we're supposed to take your word for this book written centuries ago, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 translated into American English, is somehow more important that what I can see with my own eyes, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is an extraordinary claim. And, for those watching online, especially, I want to remind you 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that we need scientists, and especially engineers for the future. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Engineers use science to solve problems and make things. We need these people 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so that the United States can continue to innovate and continue to be a world leader. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We need innovation, and that needs science education. Thank you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: All right. Thank you both. Uh, now we're going to get to the things moving a little bit faster. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I think they might be quite interesting here. It's 40 to 45 minutes, maybe a little bit more, actually. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We'll have a little more. For questions and answers submitted by our audience here in the Creation Museum. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Beforehand, we handed out these cards to everyone. I shuffled them here in the back, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and in fact, I dropped a lot of them, and then I scooped them up again. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And if you saw me sorting through them here, it was to get a pile for Mr. Nye and a pile for Mr. Ham, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so that we can alternate reasonably between them. Other than that, the only reason I will skip over one 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is if I can't read it, or if it's a question that I don't know how to read because it doesn't seem to make any sense, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which sometimes happens just because of the way people write. (Audience laughs.) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What's going to happen is we're gonna go back and forth between Mr. Nye and Mr. Ham. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Each debater will have two minutes to answer the question addressed to him, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and then the other will have one minute to also answer the question, even though it was addressed to the other man. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I did pull one card aside here, because I noticed it was to both men. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So we may be able to get to that at some point. Mr. Ham, you've been up first, if you'll hop up first this time. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And Mr. Nye, you can stand by for your responses. Two minutes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How does creationism account for the celestial bodies: planets, stars, moons moving further and further apart? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And what function does that serve in the grand design? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: Well, when it comes to looking at the universe, of course, we believe, that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I believe our creationist astronomers would say, "Yeah, you can observe the universe expanding." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Why God is doing that? In fact, in Bible it even says He stretches out the heavens. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And seems to indicate that there is an expansion of the universe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so, we would say, yeah, you can observe that. That fits with what we call observational science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Exactly why God did it that way? I can't answer that question, of course, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because, you know, the Bible says that God made the heavens for his glory. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's why he made the stars that we see out there. And it's to tell us how great He is and how big He is. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And in fact, I think that's the thing about the universe. The universe is so large, so big out there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 One of our planetarium programs looks at this. We go in and show you how large the universe is. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I think it shows us how great God is, how big He is, that He's an all-powerful God, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He's an infinite God, an infinite, all-knowing God who created the universe to show us his power. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, can you imagine that, and the thing that's really remarkable in the Bible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For instance, it says on the fourth day of creation, and oh, he made the stars also. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's almost like, "Oh, by the way, I made the stars." Um, and just to show us He's an all-powerful God. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He's an infinite God. So, "I made the stars." And he made them to show us how great He is. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And He is. He's an infinite creator God. And the more that you understand what that means, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that God is all-powerful, infinite, you stand back in awe. You realize how small we are. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You realize, wow, that God would consider this planet, is so significant that he created human beings here, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 knowing they would sin, and yet stepped into history to die for us and be raised from the dead. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Our verse, the free gift of salvation. Wow! What a God! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's what I would say when I see the universe as it is. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Mr. Nye, one minute. And your response? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill Nye: There's a question that troubles us all from the time when we are absolutely youngest and first able to think. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that is, where did we come from? Where did I come from? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And this question is so compelling that we've invented the science of astronomy. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We've invented life science. We've invented physics. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We've discovered these natural laws so that we can learn more about our origin and where we came from. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 To you, when it says, He invented the stars also, that's satisfying. You're done. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Oh, good. Okay. To me, when I look at the night sky, I want to know what's out there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm driven. I want to know if what's out there is any part of me, and indeed, it is. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The "oh, by the way" I find compelling you are satisfied. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the big thing I want from you, Mr. Ham, is can you come up with something that you can predict? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Do you have a creation model that predicts something that will happen in nature? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: And that's time. Mr. Nye, the next question is for you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How did the atoms that created the Big Bang get there? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill Nye: This is the great mystery. You've hit the nail on the head. No, this is so, where did, what was before the Big Bang? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is what drives us. This is what we want to know. Let's keep looking. Let's keep searching. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Uh, when I was young, it was presumed that the universe was slowing down. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a big bang, phrooo! Except it's in outer space, there's no air, so (quietly) it goes out like that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so people presumed that it would slow down, that the universe, the gravity, especially, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 would hold everything together and maybe it's going to come back and explode again. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And people went out. And the mathematical expression is: is the universe flat? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a mathematical expression. Will the universe slow down, slow down, slow down asymptotically without ever stopping? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, in 2004, Saul Perlmutter and his colleagues went looking for the rate at which the universe was slowing down. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let's go out and measure it. And we're doing it with this extraordinary system of telescopes around the world, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 looking at the night sky, looking for supernovae. These are a standard brightness that you can infer distances with. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the universe isn't slowing down. It's accelerating! The universe is accelerating in its expansion. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And do you know why? Nobody knows why! (audience laughs) Nobody knows why. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And you'll hear the expression nowadays, dark energy, dark matter, which are mathematical ideas that seem 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to reckon well with what seems to be the gravitational attraction of clusters of stars, galaxies, and their expansion. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then, isn't it reasonable that whatever's out there, causing the universe to expand, is here also? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we just haven't figured out how to detect it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 My friends, suppose a science student from the commonwealth of Kentucky pursues a career in science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and finds out the answer to that deep question? Where did we come from? What was before the Big Bang? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 To us, this is wonderful and charming and compelling. This is what makes us get up and go to work everyday, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is to try to solve the mysteries of the universe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: And that's time. Mr. Ham, a response? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: Uh, Bill, I just want to let you know that there actually is 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from. (Audience laughs.) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, the very first sentence in that book says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And really, that's the only thing that makes sense. That's the only thing that makes sense of why, not just matter is here, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 where it came from, but why matter, when you look at it, we have information and language systems that build life. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We're not just matter. And where did that come from? Because matter can never produce information. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Matter can never produce a language system. Languages only come from intelligence. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Information only comes from information. The Bible tells us that the things we see, like in the book of Hebrews, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are made from things that are unseen. An infinite creator God who created the universe, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 created matter, the energy, space, mass, time universe, and created the information for life. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's the only thing that makes logical sense. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Alright, Mr. Ham, a new question here. The overwhelming majority of people in the 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 scientific community have presented valid, physical evidence, such as carbon dating and fossils, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to support evolutionary theory. What evidence besides the literal word of the Bible supports creationism? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: Well, first of all, you know, I often hear people talking about "the majority". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I would agree that the majority of scientists would believe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in millions of years and the majority would believe in evolution, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but there's a large group out there that certainly don't. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But, first thing I want to say is, it's not the majority that's the judge of truth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There have been many times in the past when the majority have got it wrong. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The majority of doctors in England once thought after you cut up bodies, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you could go and deliver babies and wondered why 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the death rate was high in hospitals, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 till they found out about diseases caused by bacteria and so on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The majority once thought the appendix was a leftover organ 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from evolutionary ancestry, so, you know, when it's okay, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 rip it out. When it's diseased, rip it out. Rip it out anyway. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But these days we know that it's for the immune system 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and it's very, very important. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, you know, it's important to understand that just because 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the majority believe something doesn't mean that it's true. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then, I'm sorry, I missed the last part of the question there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: What was the--let me make sure I have the right question here-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So what evidence besides the literal word of the bible-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: Okay, one of the things I was doing was making predictions. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I made some predictions. There's a whole list of predictions. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I was saying, if the Bible's right and we're all descendants 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of Adam and Eve, there's one race. And I went through and talked about that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If the Bible's right and God made kinds, I went through 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and talked about that. And, so, really that question comes down 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to the fact that we're again dealing with the fact that there's aspects 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 about the past that you can't scientifically prove because 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you weren't there, but observational science in the present. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill and I all have the same observational science. We're here in the present. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We can see radioactivity, but when it comes to then talking about the past, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you're not going to be scientifically able to prove that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's what we need to admit. We can be great scientists in the present, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as the examples I gave you of Dr. Damadian or Dr. Stuart Burgess 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or Dr. Fabich and we can be investigating the present. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Understanding the past is a whole different matter. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Mr. Nye, one minute response. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Thank you, Mr. Ham. I have to disabuse you of a fundamental idea. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If a scientist, if anybody, makes a discovery that changes 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the way people view natural law, scientists embrace him or her! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This person's fantastic. Louis Pasteur--you made reference to germs. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, if you find something that changes, that disagrees with common thought, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that's the greatest thing going in science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We look forward to that change. We challenge you-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 tell us why the universe is accelerating. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Tell us why these mothers were getting sick. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we found an explanation for it. And the idea that the majority 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 has sway in science is true only up a point. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And then, the other thing I just want to point out, what you may 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 have missed in evolutionary explanations of life 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is it's the mechanism by which we add complexity. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The earth is getting energy from the sun all the time. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that energy is used to make lifeforms somewhat more complex. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: And that's time. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 New question for you, Mr. Nye. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How did consciousness come from matter? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill Nye: Don't know. This is a great mystery. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 A dear friend of mine is a neurologist. She studies the nature of consciousness. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now I will say I used to embrace a joke about dogs. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I love dogs. I mean, who doesn't? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And you can say, this guy remarked, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "I've never seen a dog paralyzed by self-doubt." Actually, I have. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Furthermore, the thing that we celebrate, there are three sundials 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on the planet Mars that bare an inscription to the future: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "To those who visit here, we wish you a safe journey and the joy of discovery." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's inherently optimistic about the future of humankind, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that we will one day walk on Mars. But the joy of discovery... 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that's what drives us. The joy of finding out what's going on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So we don't know where consciousness comes from. But we want to find out. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Furthermore, I'll tell you it's deep within us. I claim that I 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 have spent time with dogs that have had the joy of discovery! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's way inside us! We have one ancestor, as near as we can figure. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, by the way, if you can find what we in science call "a second genesis", 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this is to say, "Did life start another way on the earth?" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are researchers at Astrobiology Institute, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 researchers supported by NASA, your tax dollars, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that are looking for answers to that very question. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is it possible that life could start another way? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is there some sort of life form akin to science fiction 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that's crystal instead of membranous. This would be a fantastic 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 discovery that would change the world! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The nature of consciousness is a mystery. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I challenge the young people here to investigate that very question. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I remind you--taxpayers and voters that might be watching-- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if we do not embrace the process of science, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and I mean in the mainstream, we will fall behind economically. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is a point I can't say enough. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Mr. Ham, a one minute response. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: Bill, I do want to say that there is a book out there... (audience laughs) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that does document where consciousness came from. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And in that book, the one who created us said that he made man in His image, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and He breathed into man, and he became a living being. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so, the Bible does document that. That's where consciousness came from, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that God gave it to us. And, you know, the other thing I want to say is, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm sorta of a little, I have a mystery. That is, you talk about the joy of discovery 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but you also say that when you die, it's over, and that's the end of you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And if when you die, it's over, and you don't even remember you were here, what's the point of the joy of discovery anyway? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, in an ultimate sense? I mean, you know, you won't ever know you were ever here, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and no one who knew you will know they were ever here, ultimately, so what's the point anyway? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I love the joy of discovery because this is God's creation, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and I'm finding more out about that to take dominion for man's good and for God's glory. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: And that's time. Mr. Ham, a new question. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is a simple question, I suppose, but one that actually is fairly profound for all of us, in our lives. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What, if anything, would ever change your mind? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: Hmm. Well, the answer to that question is, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm a Christian, and as a Christian, I can't prove it to you, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but God has definitely, shown me very clearly 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 through His Word, and shown Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The Bible is the Word of God. I admit that that's where I start from. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I can challenge people that you can go and test that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can make predictions based on that. You can check the prophecies in the Bible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can check the statements in Genesis. You can check that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I did a little bit of that tonight. And I can't ultimately prove that to you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 All I can do is to say to someone, "Look, if the Bible really is what it claims to be, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if it really is the Word of God, and that's what it claims, then check it out." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the Bible says, "If you come to God believing that He is, He'll reveal Himself to you." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And you will know. As Christians, we can say we know. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so, as far as the Word of God is concerned, no, no one's ever going to convince me 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that the Word of God is not true. But I do want to make a distinction here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And for Bill's sake. We build models based upon the Bible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And those models are always subject to change. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The fact of Noah's flood is not subject to change. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The model of how the flood occurred is subject to change 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because we observe in the current world, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and we're able to come up with different ways this could have happened or that could have happened. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's part of that scientific discovery. That's part of what it's all about. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, the bottom line is that as a Christian, I have a foundation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That as a Christian, I would ask Bill a question. What would change your mind? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, you said, even if you came to faith, you'd never give up believing in billions of years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I think I quoted you correctly. You said something like that recently. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So that would be also my question to Bill. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Time. Mr. Nye? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill Nye: We would just need one piece of evidence. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We would need evidence that the universe is not expanding. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away, but in fact, they're not. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in just 4,000 years instead of the extraordinary amount. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You bring on any of those things and you would change me immediately. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The question I have for you though, fundamentally, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and for everybody watching. Mr. Ham, what can you prove? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What you have done tonight is spent most of the, all of the time 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 coming up with explanations about the past. What can you really predict? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What can you really prove in a conventional scientific, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or a conventional, "I have an idea that makes a prediction and it comes out the way I see it?" 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is very troubling to me. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Mr. Nye, a new question. Outside of radiometric methods, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what scientific evidence supports your view of the age of the Earth? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill Nye: The age of the earth.. Well, the age of stars. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The... let's see... radiometric evidence is pretty compelling. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Also, the deposition rates. It was, it was, Lillel, a geologist, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who realized, my recollection, he came up with the first use of the term "deep time," 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when people realized that the Earth had to be much, much older. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In a related story, there was a mystery as to how the Earth could be old enough to allow evolution to have taken place. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How could the Earth possibly be three billion years old? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Lord Kelvin did a calculation, if the sun were made of coal, and burning, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it couldn't be more than 100,000 or so years old. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But radioactivity was discovered. Radioactivity is why the Earth is still as warm as it is. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's why the Earth has been able to sustain its internal heat all these millenia. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And this discovery, it's something like, this question, without radiometric dating, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 how would you view the age of the Earth, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to me, it's akin to the expression, "Well, if things were any other way, things would be different." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is to say, that's not how the world is. Radiometric dating DOES exist. Neutrons DO become protons. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's our level of understanding today. The universe is accelerating. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 These are all provable facts. That there was a flood 4.000 years ago, is not provable. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, the evidence for me, at least, as a reasonable man, is overwhelming that it couldn't possibly have happened. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's no evidence for it. Furthermore, Mr. Ham, you never quite addressed this issue of the skulls. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are many, many steps in what appears to be the creation, or the coming into being of you and me. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And those steps, are consistent with evolutionary theory. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: And that is time. Mr. Ham, your response. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: By the way, I just want people to understand, too, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in regard to the age of the Earth being about four and a half billion years, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 no Earth rock was dated to get that date. They dated meteorites, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and because they assumed meteorites were the same age as the Earth, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 leftover from the formation of the solar system, that's where that comes from. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 People think they dated rocks on the Earth to get the four and a half billion years. That's just not true. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the other point that I was making, and I just put this slide back up, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 cause I happened to just have it here. And that is, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I said at the end of my first rebuttal time, that there are hundreds of physical processes 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that set limits on the age of the Earth. Here's the point. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Every dating method involves a change with time. And there are hundreds of them. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, if you assume what was there to start with, and you assume something about the rate, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and you know about the rate, you make lots of those assumptions. Every dating method has those assumptions. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Most of the dating methods, 90% of them, contradict the billions of years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's no absolute age dating method from scientific method because you can't prove scientifically, young or old. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: And, here is a new question. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It starts with you, Mr. Ham. Can you reconcile the change in the rate continents are now drifting, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 versus how quickly they must have traveled at creation, 6,000 years ago? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: Uh, the rate. Sorry I missed that word. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Can you reconcile the speed at which continents are now drifting, today, to the rate 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 they would have had to have travelled 6,000 years ago, to reach where we are now? I think that's the question. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: Okay, I think I understand the question. Um, actually, this again, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 illustrates exactly what I'm talking about in regard to historical science and observational science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We can look at continents today. And we have scientists who have written papers about this on our website. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I am definitely not an expert in this area and don't claim to be. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Uh, but there are scientists, even Dr. Andrew Snelling, our Ph.D. geologist, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 has done a lot of research here, too, as well. There are others out there into plate tectonics and continental drift. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And certainly, we can see movements of plates today. And if you look at those movements, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and if you assume the way it's moving today, the rate it's moving, that it's always been that way in the past, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 see that's an assumption. That's the problem when it comes to understanding these things. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can observe movement, but then to assume that it's always been like that in the past, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that's historical science. And in fact, we would believe basically in catastrophic plate tectonics, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that as a result of the flood, at the time of the flood, there was catastrophic breakup of the Earth's surface. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And what we're seeing now is sort of, if you like, a remnant of that movement. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so, we do not deny the movement. We do not deny the plates. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What we would deny is that you can use what you see today as a basis for just extrapolating into the past. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's the same with the flood. You can say layers today only get laid down slowly in places, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but if there was a global flood, that would have changed all of that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Again, it's this emphasis on historical science and observational science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I would encourage people to go to our website at Answers in Genesis 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because we do have a number of papers, in fact, very technical papers. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Dr. John Baumgardner is one who's written some very extensive work dealing with this very issue. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 On the basis of the Bible, of course, we believe there's one continent to start with, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 cause the waters were gathered here there into one place. So we do believe that the continent has split up. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But particularly, the flood had a lot to do with that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: And time on that. Mr. Nye, a response. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill Nye: It must have been easier for you to explain this a century ago 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 before the existence of tectonic plates was proven. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you go into a clock store and there's a bunch of clocks, they're not all gonna say exactly the same thing. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Do you think that they're all wrong? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The reason that we acknowledge the rate at which continents are drifting apart, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 one of the reasons, is we see what's called sea floor spreading in the Mid-Atlantic. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The earth's magnetic field has reversed over the millennia 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and as it does it leaves a signature in the rocks 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as the continental plates drift apart. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So you can measure how fast the continents were spreading. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's how we do it on the outside. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 As I said, I lived in Washington state when Mount St. Helen's exploded. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's a result of a continental plate going under another continental plate 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and cracking. And this water-laden rock led to a steam explosion. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's how we do it on the outside. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Time. And this is a question for you Mr. Nye. But I guess I could put it to both of you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 One word answer, please. Favorite color? (laughter) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye: I will go along with most people and say green. And it's an irony that green plants reflect green light. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Did I not say one word answer? (laughter) I said one word answer. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye: Most of the light from the sun is green. Yet they reflect it. It's a mystery. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Hamm: Well, can I have three words seeing as he had three hundred? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: You can have three. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Hamm: OK. Observational science. Blue. (laughter) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: All right. We're back to you, Mr. Nye. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How do you balance the theory of evolution with the second law of thermodynamics? And I'd like to add a question here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What is the second law of thermodynamics? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye: Oh, the second law of thermodynamics is fantastic. And I call the words of Eddington who said, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 "If you have a theory that disagrees with Isaac Newton, that's a great theory. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you have a theory that disagrees with relativity, wow, you've changed the world. That's great. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But if your theory disagrees with the second law of thermodynamics, I can offer you no hope. I can't help you." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The second law of thermodynamics basically is where you lose energy to heat. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is why car engines are about 30% efficient. That's it, thermodynamically. That's why you want the hottest explosion 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you can get in the coldest outside environment. You have to have a difference between hot and cold. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that difference can be assessed scientifically or mathematically with this word entropy, this disorder of molecules. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But the fundamental thing that this questioner has missed is the earth is not a closed system. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So there's energy pouring in here from the sun. If I may, day and night. Ha, Ha. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 'Cause the night, it's pouring in on the other side. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so that energy is what drives living things on earth especially for, in our case, plants. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 By the way, if you're here in Kentucky, about a third and maybe a half of the oxygen you breathe is made in the ocean by phytoplankton. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And they get their energy from the sun. So the second law of thermodynamics is a wonderful thing. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It has allowed us to have every thing you see in this room because our power generation depends on the 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 robust and extremely precise computation of how much energy is in burning fuel, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 whether it's nuclear fuel, or fossil fuel, or some extraordinary fuel to be discovered in the future. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The second law of thermodynamics will govern any turbine that makes electricity 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that we all depend on; and allowed all these shapes to exist. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Any response, Mr. Hamm? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Hamm: Let me just say two things if I can. If a minute goes that fast along. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 One is, you know what, here's a point we need to understand. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can have all the energy that you want, but energy or matter will never produce life. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 God imposed information, language system. And that's how we have life. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Matter by itself could never produce life, no matter what energy you have. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, you know, even if you've got a dead stick, you can have all the energy in the world in that dead stick, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it's going to decay, and it's not going to produce life. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 From a creationist perspective, we certainly agree. I mean, before man sinned, you know, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there was digestion, and so on, but because of the Fall, now things are running down. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 God doesn't hold everything together as He did back then. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So now we see, in regard to the second law of thermodynamics, we would say it's sort of, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in a sense, a bit out-of-control now, compared to what it was originally, which is why we have a running-down universe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: And that's time. A new question for you, Mr. Ham. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Hypothetically, if evidence existed that caused you to have to admit that the Earth was older than 10,000 years, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and creation did not occur over six days, would you still believe in God and the historical Jesus of Nazareth 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and that Jesus was the Son of God? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: Well, I've been emphasizing all night. You cannot ever prove using, you know, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the scientific method in the present, you can't prove the age of the Earth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So you can never prove it's old. So there is no hypothetical. (Mr. Nye quietly chuckles.) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Because you can't do that. Now, we can certainly use methods in the present and making assumptions, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, creationists use methods that change over time. As I said, there's hundreds of 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 physical processes that you can use, but they set limits on the age of the universe, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but you can't ultimately prove the age of the Earth, not using the scientific method. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can't ultimately prove the age of the universe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, you can look at methods, and you can see that there are many methods that contradict billions of years, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 many methods that seem to support thousands of years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 As Dr. Faulkner said in the little video clip I showed, there is nothing in observational astronomy 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that contradicts a young universe. Now, I've said to you before, and I admit again, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that the reason I believe in a young universe is because of the Bible's account of origins. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I believe that God, who has always been there, the infinite creator God, revealed in His Word what He did for us. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, when we add up those dates, we get thousands of years. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But there's nothing in observational science that contradicts that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 As far as the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, even when it comes to the fossil record. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's why I really challenge Christians, if you're gonna believe in millions of years for the fossil record, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you've got a problem with the Bible. And that is, then, that you've got to have death and disease and suffering before sin. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, there is no hypothetical in regard to that. You can't prove scientifically, the age of the Earth or the universe, bottom line. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Mr. Nye. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye: Well, of course this is where we disagree. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can prove the age of the earth with great robustness by observing the universe around us. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I get the feeling, Mr. Hamm, that you want us to take your word for it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is to say your interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as translated into American English, is more compelling for you than everything that I can observe in the world around me. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is where you and I, I think, are not going to see eye to eye. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You said you asserted that life cannot come from something that's not alive. Are you sure? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Are you sure enough to say that we should not continue to look for signs of water and life on Mars? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That that's a waste. You're sure enough to claim that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That is an extraordinary claim that we want to investigate. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Once again, what is it you can predict? What do you provide us that can tell us something about the future; not just about your vision of the past? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: A new question, Mr. Nye. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is there room for God in science? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye: Well, we remind us. There are billions of people around the world who are religious and who accept science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and embrace it, and especially all the technology that it brings us. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is there anyone here who doesn't have a mobile phone that has a camera? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is there anyone here whose family members have not benefited from modern medicine? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is there anyone here who doesn't use e-mail? Is there anybody here who doesn't eat? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Because we use information sent from satellites in space to plant seeds on our farms. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's how we're able to feed 7.1 billion people where we used to be barely able to feed a billion. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So that's what I see. That's what we have used science for the process. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Science for me is two things. It's the body of knowledge--the atomic number of rubidium. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it's the process--the means by which we make these discoveries. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So for me that's not really that connected with your belief in a spiritual being or a higher power. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you reconcile those two. Scientists, the head of the National Institutes of Health is a devout Christian. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are billions of people in the world who are devoutly religious. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They have to be compatible because those same people embrace science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The exception is you, Mr. Ham. That's the problem for me. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You want us to take your word for what's written in this ancient text to be more compelling than what we see around us. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The evidence for a higher power and spirituality is, for me, separate. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I encourage you to take the next minute and address this problem of the fossils, this problem of the ice layers, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 this problem of the ancient trees, this problem of the ark. I mean really address it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so then we could move forward. But right now, I see no incompatibility between religions and science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: That's time. Mr. Ham, response? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Ham: Yeah, I actually want to take a minute to address the question. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let me just say this, my answer would be God is necessary for science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, you know you talked about cell phones. Yeah, I have a cell phone. I love technology. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We love technology here at Answers in Genesis. And, I have e-mail, probably had millions of them 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 while I've been speaking up here. And, satellites and what you said about the information we get, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I agree with all that. See, they're the things that can be done in the present. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's just like I showed you. Dr. Stuart Burgess who invented that gear set for the satellite, creationists can be great scientists. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But, see, I say God is necessary because you have to assume the laws of logic. You have to assume the laws of nature. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You have to assume the uniformity in nature. And that is the question I had for you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Where does that come from if the universe is here by natural processes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, Christianity and science, the Bible and science, go hand in hand. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We love science. But again, you've got to understand. Inventing things, that's very different 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than talking about our origins. Two very different things. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Mr. Ham, a new question. Do you believe the entire Bible is to be taken literally? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 For example, should people who touch pigs' skin, I think it says here, be stoned? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Can men marry multiple women? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Ham: Do I believe the entire Bible should be taken literally? Remember in my opening address 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I said we have to define our terms. So, when people ask that question, say literally, I have to know 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what that person meant by literally. Now, I would say this. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you say "naturally" and that's what you mean by "literally", I would say, yes, I take the Bible "naturally". 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What do I mean by that? Well, if it's history, as Genesis is, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it's written as typical historical narrative, you take it as history. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If it's poetry, as we find in the Psalms, then you take it as poetry. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It doesn't mean it doesn't teach truth, but it's not a cosmological account in the sense that Genesis is. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's prophecy in the Bible and there's literature in the Bible concerning future events and so on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, if you take it as written, naturally, according to typal literature, and you let it speak to you 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in that way, that's how I take the Bible. It's God's revelation to man. He used different people. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The Bible says that all scripture's inspired by God. So God moved people by his spirit 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to write his words. And, also, there's a lot of misunderstanding in regard to scripture 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and in regard to the Israelites. I mean we have laws in our civil government here in America 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that the government sets. Well there were certain laws for Israel. And, you know, some people 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 take all that out of context. And then they try to impose it on us today as Christians 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and say, you should be obeying those laws. It's a misunderstanding of the Old Testament. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a misunderstanding of the New Testament. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, you know, again, it's important to take the Bible as a whole. Interpreting scripture as scripture. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If it really is the word of God, there's not going to be any contradiction. Which there's not. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And by the way, when men were married to multiple women, there were lots of problems. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (Laughter) ...and the Bible condemns that for what it is, and the Bible is very clear. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You know the Bible is a real book. There were people who did things that were not in accord with scripture, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and it records this for us. It helps you understand it's a real book. But marriage was one man for 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 one woman. Jesus reiterated that in Matthew 19, as I had in my talk. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so those that did marry multiple women were wrong. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Time there. Mr. Nye, a response? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye: So it sounds to me, just listening to you over the last two minutes, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that there's certain parts of this document of the Bible that you embrace literally 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and other parts you consider poetry. So it sounds to me, in those last two minutes, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 like you're going to take what you like, interpret literally, and other passages you're gonna interpret as poetic or descriptions of human events. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 All that aside, I'll just say scientifically, or as a reasonable man, it doesn't seem possible that 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 all these things that contradict your literal interpretation of those first few passages, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 all those things that contradict that, I find unsettling, when you want me to embrace the rest of it 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as literal. Now, I, as I say, am not a theologian. But we started this debate, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is Ken Ham's creation model viable? Does it hold water? Can it fly? Does it describe anything? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I'm still looking for an answer. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: And time on that. Mr. Nye, here's a new question. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I believe this was miswritten here because they've repeated a word. But I think I know what they were 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 trying to ask. Have you ever believed that evolution was accomplished through way of a higher power? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I think that's what they're trying to ask here. This is the intelligent design question, I think. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If so, why or why not? Why could not the evolutionary process be accomplished in this way? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye: I think you may have changed the question just a little but, no, it's all good. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: The word for word question is, have you ever believed that evolution partook through way of evolution? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (talking at the same time) Mr. Nye: Let me introduce these ideas for Mr. Ham to comment. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The idea that there's a higher power that has driven the course of the events in the universe 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and our own existence, is one that you can not prove or disprove. And this gets into this expression, "agnostic." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You can't know. I'll grant you that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When it comes to intelligent design, which is, if I understand your interpretation of the question, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 intelligent design has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of nature. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is to say, the old expression is if you were to find a watch in the field, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and you pick it up, you would realize that it was created by somebody who was thinking ahead, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 somebody with an organization chart, somebody at the top. And you'd order screws from screw manufacturers 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and springs from spring manufacturers and glass crystals from crystal manufacturers. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But that's not how nature works. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is the fundamental insight in the explanation for living things that is provided by evolution. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Evolution is a process that adds complexity through natural selection, this is to say, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 nature has its mediocre designs eaten by its good designs. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so, the perception that there is a designer that created all this, is not necessarily true, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because we have an explanation that is far more compelling and provides predictions, and things are repeatable. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm sure, Mr. Ham here, at the facility, you have an organization chart. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I imagine you're at the top, and it's a top-down structure. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Nature is not that way. Nature is bottom-up. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is the discovery. Things merge up. Whatever makes it, keeps going. Whatever doesn't make it, falls away. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And this is compelling and wonderful and fills me with joy and is inconsistent with a top-down view. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: And that's time. Mr. Ham. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: What Bill Nye needs to do for me is to show me an example of something, some new function 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that arose that was not previously possible from the genetic information that was there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I would claim, and challenge you, that there is no such example that you can give. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's why I brought up the example in my presentation of Lensky's experiments in regard to e coli. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And there were some that seemed to develop the ability to exist on citrate, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but as Dr. Fabich said, from looking at his research, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 he's found that that information was already there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's just a gene that switched on and off. And so, there is no example, because information that's there, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the genetic information of different animals, plants and so on, there's no new function that can be added. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Certainly, great variation within a kind, and that's what we look at. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But you'd have to show an example of brand-new function that never previously was possible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There is no such example that you can give anywhere in the world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Uh, fresh question here. Mr. Ham, name one institution, business, or organization, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 other than a church, amusement park, or the Creation Museum 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that is using any aspect of creationism to produce its product. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: Any scientist out there, Christian or non-Christian, that is involved in 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 inventing things, involved in scientific method, is using creation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They are, because they are borrowing from a Christian worldview. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 They are using the laws of logic. I keep emphasizing that. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I want Bill to tell me, in a view of the universe, as a result of natural processes, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 explain where the laws of logic came from. Why should we trust the laws of nature? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, are they going to be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, some of the greatest scientists that ever lived: Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday were creationists. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And as one of them said, you know, he's thinking God's thoughts after Him. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And that's really, modern science came out of that thinking, that we can do experiments today, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and we can do the same tomorrow. And we can trust the laws of logic. We can trust the laws of nature. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And if we don't teach our children correctly about this, they're NOT going to be innovative. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And they're not going to be able to come up with inventions to advance in our culture. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And so, I think the person was trying to get out that, see, you know, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there are lots of secularists out there doing work. And they don't believe in creation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And they come up with great inventions, yeah. But my point is, they are borrowing from the Christian worldview to do so. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And as you saw from the video quotes I gave, people like Andrew Fabich 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and also Dr. Faulkner have published in the secular journals. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's lots of creationists out there who publish. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 People mightn't know that they're creationists because the topic doesn't specifically pertain to creation vs. evolution. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But there's lots of them out there. In fact, go to our website. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's a whole list there of scientists who are creationists, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who are out there doing great work in this world and helping to advance technology. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Mr. Nye 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill Nye: There's a reason that I don't accept your Ken Ham model of creation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Is that it has no predictive quality as you had touched on, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and something that I've always found troubling. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It sounds as though and next time around you can correct me. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It sounds as though you believe your world view, which is a literal interpretation of most parts of the Bible, is correct. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, what became of all those people who never heard of it? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Never heard of you? What became of all those people in Asia? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What became of all those first nations people in North America? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Were they condemned and doomed? I mean, I don't know how much time you've spent talking to strangers, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but they're not sanguine about that. To have you tell them that they are inherently lost or misguided. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's very troubling. And you say there are no examples in nature. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There are countless examples of how the process of science makes predictions. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Mr. Nye, since evolution teaches that man is evolving and growing smarter over time, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 how can you explain the numerous evidences of man's high intelligence in the past? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Bill Nye: Hang on, there's no evidence that man or humans are getting smarter. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 No, especially if you ever met my old boss. Heh, heh, heh. (laughter) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 No, it's that what happens in evolution. And there's, it's a British word that was used in the middle 1800's. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's survival of the fittest. And this usage, it doesn't mean the most push-ups or the highest scores on standardized tests. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It means that those that "fit in" the best. Our intellect, such as it is, has enabled us to dominate the world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean, the evidence of humans is everywhere. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 James Cameron just made another trip to the bottom of the ocean, in the deepest part of the ocean, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the first time since 1960. And when they made the first trip, they found a beer can. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Humans are everywhere. And so, it is our capacity to reason that has taken us to where we are now. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If a germ shows up, as it did, for example, in World War I, where more people were killed by the flu 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than were killed by the combatants in World War I. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That is a troubling and remarkable fact. If the right germ shows up, we'll be taken out. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We'll be eliminated. Being smarter is not a necessary consequence of evolution. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So far, it seems to be the way things are going because of the remarkable advantage it gives to us. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 We can control our environment and even change it, as we are doing today, apparently by accident. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, everybody, just take a little while and grasp this fundamental idea. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's how you "fit in" with nature around you. So, as the world changed, as it did, for example, the ancient dinosaurs, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 they were "taken out" by a worldwide fireball, apparently caused by an impacter. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That's the best theory we have. And we are the result of people, of organisms that lived through that catastrophe. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's not necessarily smarter. It's how you "fit in" with your environment. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Mr. Ham, a response? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Ken Ham: I remember at university, one of my professors was very excited to give us some evidence for evolution. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 He said, "Look at this. Here's an example. These fish have evolved the ability not to see." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And, he was going to give an example of blind cave fish. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And he said, "See, in this cave, they're evolving, because now the ones that are living there, their ancestors had eyes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now these ones are blind." And I remember, I was talking to my professor, "But wait a minute! 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now they can't do something that they could do before." Yeah, they might have an advantage in this sense. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In a situation that's dark like that, those with eyes might have got diseases and died out. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Those that had mutations for no eyes are the ones that survived. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's not survival of the fittest. It's survival of those who survive. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it's survival of those that have the information in their circumstance to survive, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but you're not getting new information. You're not getting new function. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's no example of that at all. So, we need to correctly understand these things. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Alright. Um, we're down to our final question here, which I'll give to both of you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And in the interest of fairness here, because it is a question to the both of you, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 let's give each man two minutes on this if we can, please. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And also, in the interest of you having started first, Mr. Ham, I will have you start first here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You'll have the first word. Mr. Nye will have the last word. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The question is: what is the one thing, more than anything else, upon which you base your belief? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Ham: What is the one thing upon anything else which I base my belief? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, again, to summarize the things that I've been saying, there is a book called the Bible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's a very unique book. It's very different to any other book out there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, I don't know of any other religion that has a book that starts off by 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 telling you that there's an infinite God, and talks about the origin of the universe, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the origin of matter, and the origin of light, and the origin of darkness, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the origin of day and night, and the origin of the earth, and the origin of dry land, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the origin of plants, and the origin of the sun, moon and stars, the origin of sea creatures, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the origin of flying creatures, the origin of land creatures, the origin of man, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the origin of woman, the origin of death, the origin of sin, the origin of marriage, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the origin of different languages, the origin of clothing, the origin of nations, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I mean it's a very, very specific book. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it gives us an account of a global flood and the history and the tower of Babel, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and if that history is true, then what about the rest of the book? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, that history also says man is a sinner and it says that man is separated from God. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it gives us a message, that we call the gospel, the message of salvation, that God's son stepped in history 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that God's son stepped in history to die on the cross, to be raised from the dead, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and offers a free gift of salvation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Because the history is true, that's why the message based on history is true. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I actually went through some predictions and listed others, and there's a lot more that you can look at, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and you can go and test it for yourself. If this book really is true, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it is so specific, it should explain the world, it should make sense of what we see. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The flood. Yeah, we have fossils all over the world. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The tower of Babel, yeah, different people groups, different languages, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 they have flood legends very similar to the Bible. Creation legends similar to the Bible. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's so much you can look at, and prophesy and so on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Most of all, as I said to you, the Bible says, if you come to God, believing that he is, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 he'll reveal himself to you. You will know. If you search after truth, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 you really want God to show you, as you would search after silver and gold, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 he will show you. He will reveal himself to you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: Mr. Nye? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye: Would you repeat the question? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: The question is: What is the one thing, more than anything else, upon which you base your belief? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mr. Nye: As my old professor Carl Sagan said so often, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when you're in love, you want to tell the world. And I base my beliefs on the information 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the process that we call science. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It fills me with joy to make discoveries every day of things I'd never seen before. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It fills me with joy to know that we can pursue these answers. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It is a wonderful and astonishing thing to me, that we are, you and I, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are somehow, at least one of the ways that the universe knows itself. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 You and I are a product of the universe. It's astonishing. I admit, I see your faces. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That we have come to be because of the universe's existence. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And we are driven to pursue that. To find out where we came from. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And the second question we all want to know: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Are we alone? Are we alone in the universe? And these questions are deep within us, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and they drive us. So the process of science, the way we know nature is the most compelling thing to me. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And I just want to close by reminding everybody what's at stake here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If we abandon all that we've learned, our ancestors, what they've learned about nature and our place in it, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if we abandon the process by which we know it, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if we eschew, if we let go of everything that people have learned before us, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if we stop driving forward, stop looking for the next answer to the next question, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we, in the United States, will be outcompeted by other countries, other economies. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, that would be okay, I guess, but I was born here. I'm a patriot. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So we have to embrace science education. To the voters and taxpayers that are watching, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 please keep that in mind. We have to keep science education in science and science classes. Thank you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Moderator: One tiny bit of important housekeeping for everyone here, the county is now under a level two snow emergency. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Drive home carefully. You'll have a lot to talk about, but drive carefully. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This debate will be archived at debatelive.org. That's debatelive.org, one word. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It will be found at that site for several days. You can encourage friends and family to watch and take it over. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Thanks so much to Mr. Nye and to Mr. Ham (Loud applause) for an excellent discussion. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I'm Tom Foreman, thank you, good night from Petersburg, Kentucky and the Creation Museum. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (applause) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (orchestral music) 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 ORDER TONIGHT! Here or online 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (silence)