0:00:00.211,0:12:43.676
(Music)

0:12:43.676,0:12:46.339
Oh, hi kids! I have an incredible message for you!

0:12:46.475,0:12:48.847
Hey, can someone take Thelma back to the petting zoo?

0:12:49.233,0:12:50.867
Wow, that looks like fun!

0:12:51.132,0:12:55.327
No where was I? Oh yes, in 2014, kids 12 and under can come free!

0:12:55.697,0:12:58.133
Hey, shouldn't the comets be in the planetarium?

0:12:58.255,0:13:01.164
For the entire year, kids 12 and under come free.

0:13:01.497,0:13:04.166
Hey, T-rex, you better get back to the dinasour den!

0:13:04.365,0:13:06.962
As you can see, it's a very exciting place.

0:13:07.085,0:13:10.136
Now tell your parents, kids 12 and under free in 2014

0:13:10.136,0:13:11.882
when accompanied by a paying adult.

0:13:11.882,0:13:13.587
We hope to see you soon.

0:13:14.519,0:13:17.801
Good evening, I'm please to welcome you to Legacy Hall

0:13:17.801,0:13:20.688
of the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky

0:13:20.688,0:13:23.267
in the Metropolitan area of Cincinnati.

0:13:23.267,0:13:25.030
I'm Tom Forman from CNN.

0:13:25.074,0:13:26.800
And I'm please to be tonight's moderator for

0:13:26.800,0:13:30.274
this Evolution vs. Creation debate.

0:13:30.274,0:13:33.256
This is a very old question, where did we come from?

0:13:34.277,0:13:37.204
My answer is from Washington this morning by airplane.

0:13:37.204,0:13:43.139
(Laughter) But there is a much more profound, longer answer,

0:13:43.139,0:13:45.162
That people have sought after for a long time.

0:13:45.162,0:13:48.023
So, tonight's question to be debated is the following:

0:13:48.521,0:13:55.500
Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern Scientific era?

0:13:55.731,0:13:58.182
Our welcome extends to hundreds of thousands of people

0:13:58.182,0:14:01.795
who are watching on the internet at debatelive.org.

0:14:01.795,0:14:03.165
We're glad you have joined us.

0:14:03.165,0:14:04.966
Of course, your auditorium here,

0:14:04.966,0:14:06.725
all of the folks who've joined us as well.

0:14:06.725,0:14:10.075
We're joined by 70 media representatives from many

0:14:10.075,0:14:12.107
of the world's great news organizations.

0:14:12.107,0:14:13.954
We're glad to have them here as well.

0:14:13.954,0:14:18.222
And now let's welcome our debaters: Mr. Bill Nye and Mr. Ken Ham.

0:14:18.437,0:14:47.679
(audience applauds)

0:14:47.679,0:14:50.103
We had a coin toss earlier to determine

0:14:50.429,0:14:52.264
who would go first of these two men.

0:14:52.605,0:14:54.434
The only thing missing was Joe Namath in a fur coat.

0:14:55.498,0:14:59.136
But it went very well. Mr. Ham won the coin toss

0:15:00.065,0:15:04.393
and he opted to speak first. But first, let me tell you

0:15:04.600,0:15:05.866
a little bit about both of these gentlemen.

0:15:06.068,0:15:07.966
Mr. Nye's website describes him as a scientist,

0:15:08.270,0:15:10.664
engineer, comedian, author, and inventor.

0:15:10.931,0:15:14.300
Mr Nye, as you may know, produced a number of award-winning TV shows,

0:15:14.566,0:15:16.900
including a program he became so well-known for:

0:15:17.297,0:15:19.132
Bill Nye the Science Guy.

0:15:19.796,0:15:21.865
While working on the Science Guy show, Mr. Nye won

0:15:22.067,0:15:24.997
seven national Emmy awards for writing, performing,

0:15:25.334,0:15:28.547
and producing the show. Won 18 Emmys in five years!

0:15:28.969,0:15:32.774
In between creating the shows, he wrote five kids books about science,

0:15:33.069,0:15:36.933
including his latest title, <i>Bill Nye's Great Big Book of Tiny Germs</i>.

0:15:37.663,0:15:40.504
Billy Nye is the host of three television series:

0:15:40.732,0:15:42.866
his program, "The 100 Greatest Discoveries"--

0:15:43.165,0:15:45.131
it airs on the Science Channel. "The Eyes of Nye"--

0:15:45.696,0:15:48.065
airs on PBS stations across the country. He frequenly appears

0:15:48.397,0:15:51.233
on interview programs to discuss a variety of science topics.

0:15:51.665,0:15:55.464
Mr. Nye serves as Executive Director of the Planetary Society,

0:15:55.767,0:15:57.701
the world's largest space interest group.

0:15:58.167,0:16:00.847
He is a graduate of Cornell, with a Bachelors

0:16:00.847,0:16:03.198
of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering.

0:16:03.998,0:16:08.034
Mr. Ken Ham is the president and co-founder of Answers in Genesis,

0:16:08.397,0:16:10.967
a bible-defending organization that upholds the authority

0:16:11.330,0:16:12.964
of the scriptures from the very first verse.

0:16:13.399,0:16:16.965
Mr. Ham is the man behind the popular, high-tech

0:16:17.233,0:16:18.929
Creation Museum, where we're holding this debate.

0:16:19.429,0:16:21.565
The museum has had 2 million visitors in six years

0:16:21.771,0:16:23.367
and has attracted much of the world's media.

0:16:23.867,0:16:26.162
The Answers in Genesis website, as well, trafficked

0:16:26.364,0:16:29.093
with 2 million visitors alone last month. Mr. Ham is also

0:16:29.347,0:16:32.767
a best-selling author, a much in-demand speaker,

0:16:33.033,0:16:37.000
and the host of a daily radio feature carried on 700 plus stations.

0:16:37.300,0:16:41.000
This is his second public debate on Evolution and Creation.

0:16:41.267,0:16:43.768
The first was at Harvard, in the 1990s.

0:16:44.131,0:16:46.597
Mr. Ham is a native of Australia. He earned

0:16:46.764,0:16:49.231
a Bachelors degree in Applied Science, with an emphasis in

0:16:49.443,0:16:52.833
Environmental Biology, from the Queensland's Institute of Technology,

0:16:53.100,0:16:55.995
as well as a Diploma of Education at the University

0:16:56.337,0:16:59.632
of Queensland in Brisbon, Australia.

0:16:59.997,0:17:02.800
And now...Mr. Ham, you opted to go first, so you will

0:17:03.067,0:17:05.900
be first with your five minute opening statement.

0:17:08.364,0:17:10.932
Well, good evening. I know that not everyone watching

0:17:11.360,0:17:14.538
this debate will necessarily agree with what I have to say,

0:17:15.164,0:17:17.770
but I'm an Aussie and live over here in America

0:17:18.103,0:17:20.464
and they tell me I have an accent and so it doesn't matter

0:17:20.765,0:17:24.360
what I say, some people tell me. We just like to hear you saying it. (laughter)

0:17:25.264,0:17:26.969
So...um...I hope you enjoy me saying it anyway.

0:17:27.433,0:17:29.398
Well, the debate topic is this: Is Creation

0:17:29.600,0:17:33.100
a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?

0:17:33.367,0:17:35.734
You know, when this was first announced on the internet,

0:17:36.332,0:17:37.828
there were lots of statements-- like this one

0:17:38.030,0:17:39.459
from the Richard Dawkins Foundation.

0:17:39.962,0:17:42.232
"Scientists should not debate Creationists. Period."

0:17:43.033,0:17:45.663
And this one from one of the Discovery.com websites.

0:17:46.233,0:17:48.068
"Should Scientists Debate Creationists?"

0:17:48.566,0:17:50.932
You know, right here I believe there's a gross misrepresentation

0:17:51.199,0:17:55.265
in our culture. We're seeing people being indoctrinated

0:17:55.536,0:17:57.783
to believe that Creationists can't be Scientists.

0:17:58.305,0:18:01.732
I believe it's all a part of secularists hi-jacking the word "Science".

0:18:02.199,0:18:05.535
I want you to meet a modern-day scientist who's a Biblical Creationist.

0:18:05.800,0:18:07.462
My name is Stuart Burgess.

0:18:07.997,0:18:11.798
I'm a professor of Engineering Design at Bristol University in the U.K.

0:18:13.523,0:18:15.517
My name is Stuart Burgess.

0:18:15.517,0:18:19.957
I'm a professor of Engineering Design at Bristol University in the U.K.

0:18:20.217,0:18:23.309
I have published over 130 scientific papers on

0:18:23.329,0:18:27.866
the science of design in Engineering and Biological systems.

0:18:29.094,0:18:32.267
From my research work, I have found that the scientific evidence

0:18:32.534,0:18:36.037
fully supports Creationism as the best explanation to origins.

0:18:37.290,0:18:39.860
I've also designed major parts of spacecrafts,

0:18:40.232,0:18:41.933
launched by ESA and NASA.

0:18:42.300,0:18:43.862
So here's a biblical Creationist,

0:18:44.138,0:18:46.300
who's a scientist, who's also an inventor.

0:18:46.895,0:18:48.431
And I want young people to understand that.

0:18:49.132,0:18:52.202
You know, the problem, I believe, is this: we need to define terms correctly.

0:18:52.633,0:18:55.864
We need to define Creation/Evolution in regard to origins

0:18:56.272,0:18:59.231
and we need to define science. And in this opening statement,

0:18:59.564,0:19:01.798
I want to concentrate on dealing with the word "science".

0:19:02.295,0:19:05.305
I believe the word "science" has been hijacked by secularists.

0:19:05.771,0:19:06.671
Now, what is science?

0:19:06.935,0:19:09.899
Well, the origin of the word comes from the Classical Latin "scientia",

0:19:09.950,0:19:12.550
which means know;. And if you look up a dictionary,

0:19:12.565,0:19:14.993
it'll say science means "the state of knowing, knowledge".

0:19:15.332,0:19:17.164
But there's different types of knowledge and I believe

0:19:17.400,0:19:18.531
this is where the confusion lies.

0:19:19.166,0:19:21.921
There's experimental or observational sciences, as we call it.

0:19:22.200,0:19:24.432
That's using the scientific method, observation,

0:19:24.734,0:19:27.427
measurement, experiment, testing. That's what produces

0:19:27.764,0:19:30.097
our technology, computers, spacecraft, jet planes,

0:19:30.430,0:19:35.421
smoke detectors, looking at DNA, antibiotics, medicines and vaccines.

0:19:36.199,0:19:39.133
You see, all scientists, whether Creationists or Evolutionists,

0:19:39.537,0:19:43.698
actually have the same observational or experimental science.

0:19:44.297,0:19:46.399
And it doesn't matter whether you're a Creationist or an Evolutionist,

0:19:46.633,0:19:47.628
you can be a great scientist.

0:19:47.846,0:19:49.865
For instance, here's an atheist, who is a great scientist--

0:19:50.098,0:19:52.831
Craig Venter, one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome.

0:19:53.131,0:19:57.497
Or Dr. Raymond Damadian. He is a man who invented

0:19:57.732,0:20:00.728
the MRI scan and revolutionized medicine. He's a biblical Creationist.

0:20:01.067,0:20:03.963
But I want us to also understand molecules-to-man

0:20:04.165,0:20:07.198
evolution belief has nothing to do with developing technology.

0:20:07.698,0:20:11.332
You see, when we're talking about origins, we're talking about the past.

0:20:11.633,0:20:13.866
We're talking about our origins. We weren't there.

0:20:14.333,0:20:16.896
You can't observe that, whether it's molecules-to-man evolution,

0:20:17.135,0:20:18.597
or whether it's a creation account.

0:20:19.232,0:20:20.330
I mean, you're talking about the past.

0:20:20.598,0:20:23.363
We'd like to call that Origins or Historical Science,

0:20:23.665,0:20:25.434
knowledge concerning the past. Here at the Creation Museum,

0:20:25.733,0:20:29.700
we make no apology about the fact that our Origins or Historical science

0:20:29.932,0:20:33.298
actually is based upon the biblical account of origins.

0:20:33.998,0:20:36.728
Now, when you research science textbooks being used

0:20:36.933,0:20:38.833
in public schools, what we found is this:

0:20:39.199,0:20:42.000
by and large, the Origins or Historical Science

0:20:42.299,0:20:46.033
is based upon man's ideas about the past--for instance, the ideas of Darwin.

0:20:46.399,0:20:49.194
And our research has found that public school textbooks

0:20:49.365,0:20:53.434
are using the same word "science" for Observational Science

0:20:53.637,0:20:56.715
and Historical Science. They arbitrarily define science

0:20:56.915,0:20:59.298
as naturalism and outlaw the supernatural.

0:20:59.869,0:21:02.094
They present molecules-to-man evolution as fact.

0:21:02.500,0:21:04.231
They are imposing, I believe, the religion

0:21:04.431,0:21:06.435
of naturalism or atheism on generations of students.

0:21:07.067,0:21:10.165
You see, I assert that the word "science" has been hijacked

0:21:10.333,0:21:13.630
by secularists in teaching evolution to force the religion

0:21:13.630,0:21:15.692
of naturalism on generations of kids.

0:21:16.164,0:21:18.104
Secular evolutionists teach that all life developed

0:21:18.298,0:21:20.568
by natural processes from some primordial form.

0:21:20.862,0:21:24.064
That man is just an evolved animal, which has great bearing

0:21:24.265,0:21:25.366
on how we view life and death.

0:21:25.867,0:21:28.699
For instance, as Bill states, "It's very hard to accept,

0:21:29.200,0:21:31.799
for many of us, that when you die, it's over.";

0:21:32.766,0:21:35.131
But, you see, the Bible gives a totally different account of origins,

0:21:35.299,0:21:38.264
of who we are, where we came from, the meaning of life, and our future.

0:21:38.765,0:21:41.830
That through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin.

0:21:42.168,0:21:45.099
But that God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son.

0:21:45.667,0:21:48.800
Whoever believes in Him should not perish and have everlasting life.

0:21:49.527,0:21:53.561
So is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?

0:21:53.963,0:21:56.009
I say the creation/evolution debate is a conflict

0:21:56.561,0:21:59.665
between two philosophical worldviews based on two different accounts

0:22:00.031,0:22:02.470
of origins or science beliefs and creation

0:22:02.832,0:22:05.900
is the only viable model of historical science confirmed

0:22:06.104,0:22:09.333
by observational science in today's modern scientific era.

0:22:10.933,0:22:14.547
And that is time. I had the unenviable job of being the time-keeper here.

0:22:15.066,0:22:17.267
So I'm like the referee in football that you don't like,

0:22:17.830,0:22:20.400
but I will periodically, if either one of our debaters

0:22:20.698,0:22:24.464
runs over on anything, I will stop them in the name of keeping it fair for all.

0:22:24.864,0:22:27.133
Uh, Mr. Ham, thank you for your comments. Now it's Mr. Nye's

0:22:27.464,0:22:29.533
turn for a five minute opening statement. Mr. Nye.

0:22:30.229,0:22:32.200
Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.

0:22:32.432,0:22:36.200
I very much appreciate you including me in your, uh, facility here.

0:22:36.467,0:22:40.233
Now, looking around the room I think I see just one bow tie.

0:22:40.531,0:22:43.894
Is that right? Just one. And I'm telling you, once you try it--

0:22:44.035,0:22:47.466
oh, there's yes, two! That's great. I started wearing bow ties

0:22:47.799,0:22:50.063
when I was young, in high school.

0:22:50.264,0:22:52.399
My father showed me how. His father showed him.

0:22:53.263,0:22:58.397
And there's a story associated with this, which I find remarkable.

0:22:59.400,0:23:03.834
My grandfather was in the rotary, and he attended

0:23:03.985,0:23:07.095
a convention in Philadelphia, and even in those days,

0:23:07.329,0:23:10.597
at the turn of the last century, people rented tuxedos.

0:23:10.897,0:23:14.532
And the tuxedo came with a bow tie--untied bow tie.

0:23:15.210,0:23:16.656
So he didn't know how to tie it.

0:23:16.867,0:23:20.133
So...wasn't sure what to do, but he just took a chance.

0:23:20.401,0:23:23.762
He went to the hotel room next door, knocked on the door,

0:23:23.999,0:23:26.098
"Excuse me? Can you help me tie my tie?"

0:23:26.365,0:23:29.032
And the guy said, "Sure. Lie down on the bed."

0:23:31.186,0:23:35.353
So...my grandfather wanted to have the tie on,

0:23:35.736,0:23:38.661
wasn't sure what he was getting into, so he's said

0:23:38.832,0:23:42.566
to have lain on the bed and the guy tied a perfect bow tie knot and,

0:23:42.800,0:23:44.466
quite reasonably, my grandfather said,

0:23:44.934,0:23:48.100
"Thank you. Why'd I have to lie down on the bed?"

0:23:48.399,0:23:49.600
The guy said, "I'm an undertaker."

0:23:50.070,0:23:51.600
(audience laughs)

0:23:52.263,0:23:54.233
"It's the only way I know how to do it."

0:23:54.233,0:23:57.829
Now that story was presented to me as a true story.

0:23:58.802,0:24:01.801
It may or may not be. But it gives you something to think about.

0:24:02.133,0:24:04.233
And it's certainly something to remember.

0:24:05.070,0:24:07.265
So, here tonight, we're gonna have two stories

0:24:07.772,0:24:13.100
and we can compare Mr. Ham's story to the story

0:24:13.432,0:24:16.207
from what I will call the outside, from mainstream science.

0:24:16.668,0:24:20.804
The question tonight is: Does Ken Ham's Creation Model hold up?

0:24:21.465,0:24:22.564
Is it "viable"?

0:24:23.464,0:24:26.237
So let me ask you all: what would you be doing if you weren't here tonight?

0:24:27.306,0:24:29.868
That's right, you'd be home watching CSI.

0:24:30.812,0:24:35.382
CSI Petersburg. Is that coming--I think it's coming.

0:24:36.977,0:24:41.065
And on CSI, there is no distinction made between

0:24:41.297,0:24:43.666
historical science and observational science.

0:24:43.932,0:24:46.834
These are constructs unique to Mr. Ham.

0:24:47.199,0:24:50.006
We don't normally have these anywhere in the world except here.

0:24:50.699,0:24:53.833
Natural laws that applied in the past apply now.

0:24:54.199,0:24:56.700
That's why they're natural laws. That's why we embrace them.

0:24:57.133,0:24:59.097
That's how we made all these discoveries

0:24:59.265,0:25:01.095
that enabled all this remarkable technology.

0:25:02.039,0:25:05.365
So CSI is a fictional show, but it's based absolutely

0:25:05.471,0:25:07.066
on real people doing real work.

0:25:07.400,0:25:09.800
When you go to a crime scene and find evidence,

0:25:10.065,0:25:13.264
you have clues about the past. And you trust those clues

0:25:13.534,0:25:16.479
and you embrace them and you move forward to convict somebody.

0:25:16.900,0:25:20.233
Mr. Ham and his followers have this remarkable view

0:25:20.900,0:25:27.024
of a worldwide flood that somehow influenced everything that we observe in nature.

0:25:27.239,0:25:32.628
A 500 foot wooden boat, eight zookeepers for 14,000 individual animals,

0:25:32.866,0:25:37.065
every land plant in the world underwater for a full year?

0:25:37.600,0:25:40.098
I ask us all: is that really reasonable?

0:25:41.003,0:25:43.567
You'll hear a lot about the Grand Canyon, I imagine, also,

0:25:43.783,0:25:46.565
which is a remarkable place and it has fossils.

0:25:47.195,0:25:50.800
And the fossils in the Grand Canyon are found in layers.

0:25:51.498,0:25:54.004
There's not a single place in the Grand Canyon

0:25:54.167,0:25:56.763
where the fossils of one type of animal cross over

0:25:57.131,0:25:59.305
into the fossils of another. In other words,

0:25:59.765,0:26:02.600
when there was a big flood on the earth, you would expect

0:26:02.798,0:26:05.833
drowning animals to swim up to a higher level.

0:26:06.464,0:26:09.399
Not any one of them did. Not a single one.

0:26:09.667,0:26:13.367
If you could find evidence of that, my friends, you could change the world.

0:26:13.934,0:26:16.699
Now, I just wanna remind us all:

0:26:17.862,0:26:22.332
there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious,

0:26:23.098,0:26:27.204
who get enriched, who have a wonderful sense of community from their religion.

0:26:27.731,0:26:31.367
They worship together, they eat together, they live

0:26:31.555,0:26:34.468
in their communities and enjoy each others company. Billions of people.

0:26:34.900,0:26:39.167
But these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view

0:26:39.467,0:26:43.919
that the earth is somehow only 6,000 years old. That is unique.

0:26:44.249,0:26:48.827
And here's my concern: what keeps the United States ahead,

0:26:49.432,0:26:53.335
what makes the United States a world leader, is our technology,

0:26:53.934,0:26:58.799
our new ideas, our innovations. If we continue to eschew science,

0:26:59.000,0:27:02.931
eschew the process and try to divide science

0:27:03.057,0:27:05.831
into observational science and historic science,

0:27:06.466,0:27:09.468
we are not gonna move forward. We will not embrace natural laws.

0:27:09.632,0:27:14.801
We will not make discoveries. We will not invent and innovate and stay ahead.

0:27:15.695,0:27:19.997
So if you ask me if Ken Ham's Creation model is viable, I say no.

0:27:20.595,0:27:24.532
It is absolutely not viable. So stay with us over the next period

0:27:25.098,0:27:28.949
and you can compare my evidence to his. Thank you all very much.

0:27:29.065,0:27:32.409
(audience applauds)

0:27:32.409,0:27:33.245
(moderator) All right.

0:27:33.245,0:27:35.227
Very nice start by both of our debaters here.

0:27:35.227,0:27:38.207
And now each of one will offer a thirty minute,

0:27:38.207,0:27:43.768
illustrated presentation to fully offer their case for us to consider.

0:27:43.768,0:27:44.740
Mr. Ham, you're up.

0:27:57.624,0:28:00.200
Well, the debate topic was "Is creation a viable model

0:28:00.798,0:28:03.100
of origins in today's modern scientific era?"

0:28:03.400,0:28:06.468
And I made the statement at the end of my opening statement:

0:28:07.063,0:28:09.566
creation is the only viable model of historical science

0:28:09.967,0:28:13.335
confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era.

0:28:13.636,0:28:16.968
And I said what we need to be doing is actually defining

0:28:17.204,0:28:22.433
our terms and, particularly three terms: science, creation, and evolution.

0:28:22.999,0:28:25.233
Now, I discussed the meaning of the word "science"

0:28:25.434,0:28:28.700
and what is meant by experimental and observational science briefly.

0:28:29.100,0:28:30.733
And that both Creationists and Evolutionists

0:28:30.900,0:28:35.801
can be great scientists, for instance. I mentioned Craig Venter, a biologist.

0:28:36.102,0:28:37.731
He's an atheist and he's a great scientist.

0:28:38.264,0:28:41.167
He was one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome.

0:28:41.634,0:28:46.832
I also mentioned Dr. Raymond Damadian, who actually invented the MRI scanner.

0:28:47.202,0:28:52.265
I want you to meet a biblical creationist who is a scientist and an inventor.

0:28:52.798,0:28:54.932
Hi, my name is Dr. Raymond Damadian.

0:28:55.399,0:28:58.112
I am a Young Earth Creation Scientist and believe that God

0:28:58.398,0:29:01.105
created the world in six 24 hour days,

0:29:01.466,0:29:03.734
just as recorded in the book of Genesis.

0:29:04.168,0:29:07.607
By God's grace and the devoted prayers of my Godly mother-in-law,

0:29:07.932,0:29:11.065
I invented the MRI scanner in 1969.

0:29:11.496,0:29:14.714
The idea that scientists who believe the earth

0:29:14.714,0:29:18.984
is 6,000 years old cannot do real science is simply wrong.

0:29:20.099,0:29:21.298
Well, he's most adamant about that.

0:29:21.798,0:29:24.676
And, actually, he revolutionized medicine! He's a biblical Creationist.

0:29:24.900,0:29:29.434
And I encourage children to follow people like that, make them their heroes.

0:29:29.700,0:29:33.200
Let me introduce you to another biblical Creation Scientist.

0:29:33.597,0:29:34.997
My name is Danny Faulkner.

0:29:35.433,0:29:38.497
I received my PhD in astronomy from Indiana University.

0:29:39.233,0:29:41.534
For 26 and a half years, I was a professor

0:29:41.766,0:29:43.998
at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster,

0:29:44.296,0:29:47.366
where I hold the rank of distinguished professor emeritus.

0:29:48.100,0:29:51.667
Upon my retirement from the university in January of 2013,

0:29:51.688,0:29:52.657
I joined the research staff at Answers in Genesis. I'm a stellar astronomer.

0:29:55.498,0:30:00.867
That means my primary interests is stars, but I'm particularly

0:30:00.867,0:30:03.305
interested in the study of eclipsing binary stars.

0:30:03.305,0:30:06.174
And I've published many articles in the astronomy literature,

0:30:06.174,0:30:07.898
places such as the the Astrophysical Journal,

0:30:07.898,0:30:11.367
the Astronomical Journal, and the Observatory.

0:30:11.367,0:30:17.500
There is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a recent creation.

0:30:17.500,0:30:20.066
I also mentioned Dr. Stuart Burgess,

0:30:20.066,0:30:24.730
professor of Engineering Design at Bristol University in England.

0:30:24.730,0:30:29.162
Now he invented and designed a double-action worm gear set

0:30:29.162,0:30:33.634
for the three hinges of the robotic arm on a very expensive satellite.

0:30:33.634,0:30:36.367
And if that had not worked, if that gear set had not worked,

0:30:36.367,0:30:38.998
that whole satellite would've been useless.

0:30:38.998,0:30:43.900
Yet, Dr. Burgess is a biblical Creationist. He believes, just as I believe.

0:30:43.900,0:30:46.704
Now, think about this for a moment.

0:30:46.704,0:30:47.734
A scientist like Dr. Burgess,

0:30:47.734,0:30:51.200
who believe in Creation, just as I do,

0:30:51.200,0:30:52.697
a small minority in this scientific world.

0:30:52.697,0:30:55.874
But let's see what he says about scientists believing in Creation.

0:30:55.874,0:30:59.278
I find that many of my colleagues in academia are sympathetic

0:30:59.278,0:31:03.668
to the creationist viewpoint, including biologists.

0:31:03.668,0:31:06.400
However, there are often afraid to speak out because of the criticisms

0:31:06.400,0:31:09.739
they would get from the media and atheists lobby.

0:31:09.739,0:31:11.935
Now, I agree. That's a real problem today.

0:31:11.935,0:31:15.331
We need to have freedom to be able to speak on these topics.

0:31:15.331,0:31:18.598
You know, I just want to say, by the way, that Creationists,

0:31:18.598,0:31:18.848
non-Christian scientists, I should say,

0:31:18.848,0:31:24.065
non-Christian scientists are really borrowing

0:31:24.065,0:31:27.134
from the Christian worldview anyway to carry out their experimental,

0:31:27.134,0:31:30.203
observational science. Think about it. When they're doing

0:31:30.203,0:31:32.930
observational science, using the scientific method,

0:31:32.930,0:31:34.465
they have to assume the laws of logic,

0:31:34.465,0:31:36.201
they have to assume the laws of nature,

0:31:36.201,0:31:38.402
they have to assume the uniformity of nature.

0:31:38.402,0:31:41.333
I mean, think about it. If the universe came about by natural processes,

0:31:41.333,0:31:44.433
where'd the laws of logic come from? Did they just pop into existence?

0:31:44.433,0:31:47.331
Are we in a stage now where we only have half-logic?

0:31:47.331,0:31:50.099
So, you see, I have a question for Bill Nye.

0:31:50.099,0:31:53.200
How do you account for the laws of logic and the laws of nature

0:31:53.200,0:31:58.003
from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of God?

0:31:58.003,0:32:00.967
Now, in my opening statement I also discussed

0:32:00.967,0:32:05.000
a different type of science or knowledge, origins or historical science.

0:32:05.000,0:32:07.497
See again, there's a confusion here. There's a misunderstanding here.

0:32:07.497,0:32:13.566
People, by and large, have not been taught to look at

0:32:13.566,0:32:17.697
what you believe about the past as different to what you're observing in the present.

0:32:17.697,0:32:21.243
You don't observe the past directly.

0:32:21.243,0:32:24.932
Even when you think about the creation account.

0:32:24.932,0:32:26.834
I mean, we can't observe God creating.

0:32:26.834,0:32:29.732
We can't observe the creation of Adam and Eve. We admit that.

0:32:29.732,0:32:32.210
We're willing to admit our beliefs about the past.

0:32:32.210,0:32:35.600
But, see, what you see in the present is very different.

0:32:35.600,0:32:39.300
Even some public school textbooks actually sort of acknowledge

0:32:39.300,0:32:42.397
the difference between historical and observational science.

0:32:42.397,0:32:45.832
Here is an Earth Science textbook that's used in public schools.

0:32:45.832,0:32:50.600
And we read this. In contrast to physical geology,

0:32:50.600,0:32:52.030
the aim of historical geology is to understand Earth's long history.

0:32:53.498,0:32:55.800
Then they make this statement.

0:32:55.800,0:32:57.765
Historical geology--so we're talking historical science--

0:32:57.765,0:33:00.900
tries to establish a timeline of the vast number of physical

0:33:00.900,0:33:03.300
and biological changes that have occurred in the past.

0:33:03.300,0:33:06.867
We study physical geology before historical geology

0:33:06.867,0:33:11.566
because we first must understand how Earth works before we try to unravel its past.

0:33:11.566,0:33:14.467
In other words, we observe things in the present and then,

0:33:14.467,0:33:18.099
okay, we're assuming that that's always happened in the past

0:33:18.099,0:33:20.441
and we're gonna try and figure out how this happened.

0:33:20.441,0:33:22.234
See, there is a difference between what you observe

0:33:22.234,0:33:27.533
and what happened in the past. Let me illustrate it this way:

0:33:27.533,0:33:29.336
If Bill Nye and I went to the Grand Canyon,

0:33:29.336,0:33:32.654
we could agree that that's a Coconino sandstone in the Hermit shale.

0:33:32.654,0:33:35.165
There's the boundary. They're sitting one on top of the other.

0:33:35.165,0:33:38.767
We could agree on that. But you know what we would disagree on?

0:33:38.767,0:33:41.531
I mean, we could even analyse the minerals and agree on that.

0:33:41.531,0:33:44.063
But we would disagree on how long it took to get there.

0:33:44.063,0:33:47.565
But see, none of us saw the sandstone or the shale being laid down.

0:33:47.565,0:33:49.730
There's a supposed 10 million year gap there.

0:33:49.730,0:33:51.000
But I don't see a gap.

0:33:51.000,0:33:53.730
But that might be different to what Bill Nye would see.

0:33:53.730,0:33:57.530
But there's a difference between what you actually observe

0:33:57.530,0:34:00.829
directly and then your interpretation regarding the past.

0:34:00.829,0:34:04.711
When I was at the Goddard Space Center a number of years ago

0:34:04.711,0:34:06.966
I met Creationists and Evolutionists who were

0:34:06.966,0:34:08.533
both working on the Hubble telescope.

0:34:08.533,0:34:10.603
They agreed on how to build the Hubble telescope.

0:34:10.603,0:34:13.333
You know what they disagreed on? Well, they disagreed on

0:34:13.333,0:34:16.171
how to interpret the data the telescope obtained

0:34:16.171,0:34:18.455
in regard to the age of the universe.

0:34:18.455,0:34:21.297
And, you know, we could on and talk about lots

0:34:21.297,0:34:23.140
of other similar sorts of things. For instance,

0:34:23.140,0:34:26.548
I've heard Bill Nye talk about how a smoke detector works,

0:34:26.548,0:34:30.794
using the radioactive element Americium. And, you know what?

0:34:30.794,0:34:32.933
I totally agree with him on that. We agree how it works.

0:34:32.933,0:34:35.933
We agree how radioactivity enables that to work.

0:34:35.933,0:34:37.696
But if you're then gonna use radioactive elements

0:34:37.696,0:34:39.599
and talk about the age of the Earth,

0:34:39.599,0:34:41.564
you've got a problem cause you weren't there.

0:34:41.564,0:34:44.798
We gotta understand parent elements, daughter elements and so on.

0:34:44.798,0:34:47.764
We could agree whether you're Creationist or Evolutionist

0:34:47.764,0:34:50.366
on the technology to put the rover on Mars, but we're gonna

0:34:50.366,0:34:54.602
disagree on how to interpret the origin of Mars.

0:34:54.602,0:34:56.632
I mean, there are some people that believed it

0:34:56.632,0:34:59.130
was even a global flood on Mars, and there's no liquid water on Mars.

0:34:59.130,0:35:03.864
We're gonna disagree maybe on our interpretation of origins

0:35:03.864,0:35:06.962
and you can't prove either way because, not from

0:35:06.962,0:35:11.102
an observational science perspective, because we've only got the present.

0:35:11.102,0:35:16.707
Creationists and Evolutionists both work on medicines and vaccines.

0:35:16.707,0:35:19.365
You see? It doesn't matter whether you're a Creationist or an Evolutionist,

0:35:19.365,0:35:23.170
all scientists have the same experimental observational science.

0:35:23.170,0:35:26.101
So I have a question for Bill Nye: Can you name one piece

0:35:26.101,0:35:28.764
of technology that could only have been developed

0:35:28.764,0:35:32.929
starting with the belief in molecules-to-man evolution?

0:35:32.929,0:35:35.033
Now, here's another important fact.

0:35:35.033,0:35:38.898
Creationists and Evolutionists all have the same evidence.

0:35:38.898,0:35:42.933
Bill Nye and I have the same Grand Canyon. We don't disagree on that.

0:35:42.933,0:35:46.333
We all have the same fish fossils. This is one from the Creation Museum.

0:35:46.333,0:35:50.299
The same dinosaur skeleton, the same animals, the same humans,

0:35:50.299,0:35:54.671
the same DNA, the same radioactive decay elements that we see.

0:35:54.671,0:35:59.933
We have the same universe...actually, we all have the same evidences.

0:35:59.933,0:36:01.866
It's not the evidences that are different.

0:36:01.866,0:36:06.234
It's a battle over the same evidence in regard to how we interpret the past.

0:36:06.234,0:36:07.566
And you know why that is?

0:36:07.566,0:36:10.263
Cause it's really a battle over worldviews and starting points.

0:36:10.263,0:36:12.000
It's a battle over philosophical worldviews

0:36:12.000,0:36:14.862
and starting points, but the same evidence. Now, I admit,

0:36:14.862,0:36:17.798
my starting point is that God is the ultimate authority.

0:36:17.798,0:36:21.731
But if someone doesn't accept that, then man has to be the ultimate authority.

0:36:21.731,0:36:24.399
And that's really the difference when it comes down to it.

0:36:24.399,0:36:26.733
You see, I've been emphasizing the difference

0:36:26.733,0:36:29.537
between historical origin science, knowledge about

0:36:29.537,0:36:30.927
the past when you weren't there,

0:36:30.927,0:36:33.362
and we need to understand that we weren't there.

0:36:33.362,0:36:36.299
Or experimental observational science, using

0:36:36.299,0:36:38.501
your five senses in the present, the scientific method,

0:36:38.501,0:36:41.133
what you can directly observe, test, repeat.

0:36:41.133,0:36:44.328
There's a big difference between those two.

0:36:44.328,0:36:46.797
And that's not what's being taught in our public schools

0:36:46.797,0:36:48.600
and that's why kids aren't being taught to think

0:36:48.600,0:36:52.137
critically and correctly about the origins issue.

0:36:52.137,0:36:54.031
But you know, it's also important to understand,

0:36:54.031,0:36:56.366
when talking about Creation and Evolution, both involve

0:36:56.366,0:36:59.705
historical science and observational science.

0:36:59.705,0:37:02.365
You see, the role of observational science is this:

0:37:02.365,0:37:03.251
it can be used to confirm or otherwise

0:37:04.862,0:37:08.232
one's historical science based on one's starting point.

0:37:08.232,0:37:11.000
Now, when you think about the debate topic and what I have

0:37:11.000,0:37:14.399
learned concerning creation, if our origins

0:37:14.399,0:37:17.999
or historical science based on the bible, the bible's account

0:37:17.999,0:37:19.131
of origins is true, then there should be predictions

0:37:21.432,0:37:25.233
from this that we can test, using observational science.

0:37:25.233,0:37:27.176
And there are. For instance, based on the bible,

0:37:27.176,0:37:30.100
we'd expect to find evidence concerning an intelligence,

0:37:30.100,0:37:32.534
confirming an intelligence produced life.

0:37:32.534,0:37:35.137
We'd expect to find evidence confirming after their kind.

0:37:35.137,0:37:38.139
The bible says God made kinds of animals and plants

0:37:38.139,0:37:41.201
after their kind, implying each kind produces it's own,

0:37:41.201,0:37:43.500
not that one kind changes into another.

0:37:43.500,0:37:47.533
You'd expect to find evidence confirming a global flood of Noah's day.

0:37:47.533,0:37:50.830
Evidence confirming one race of humans because we

0:37:50.830,0:37:53.833
all go back to Adam and Eve, biologically, that would mean there's one race.

0:37:53.833,0:37:56.798
Evidence confirming the Tower of Babel, that God gave different languages.

0:37:56.798,0:38:00.433
Evidence confirming a young universe.

0:38:00.433,0:38:04.074
Now, I can't go through all of those, but a couple of them we'll look at briefly.

0:38:04.074,0:38:07.668
After their kind, evidence confirming that--

0:38:07.668,0:38:12.865
in the Creation Museum, we have a display featuring replicas,

0:38:12.865,0:38:15.931
actually, of Darwin's finches. They're called Darwin's finches.

0:38:15.931,0:38:18.833
Darwin collected finches from the Galapagos

0:38:18.833,0:38:21.863
and took them back to England and we see the different species,

0:38:21.863,0:38:24.133
the different beak sizes here. And, you know,

0:38:24.133,0:38:27.171
from the specimens Darwin obtained in the Galapagos,

0:38:27.171,0:38:31.295
he actually pondered these things and how do you explain this.

0:38:31.295,0:38:36.698
And in his notes, actually, he came up with this diagram here, a tree.

0:38:36.698,0:38:42.298
And he actually said, "I think." So he was talking about

0:38:42.298,0:38:46.566
different species and maybe those species came from some common ancestor,

0:38:46.566,0:38:49.434
but, actually, when it comes to finches, we actually would agree,

0:38:49.434,0:38:54.332
as Creationists, that different finch species came from a common ancestor, but a finch.

0:38:54.332,0:38:57.331
That's what they would have to come from.

0:38:57.331,0:39:01.131
And see, Darwin wasn't just thinking about species.

0:39:01.131,0:39:04.066
Darwin had a much bigger picture in mind.

0:39:04.966,0:39:07.586
When you look at the Origins of Species and read that book,

0:39:07.586,0:39:10.904
you'll find he made this statement: from such low and intermediate form,

0:39:10.904,0:39:13.065
both animals and plants may have been developed;

0:39:13.065,0:39:15.965
and, if we admit this, we must likewise admit that

0:39:15.965,0:39:18.965
all organic beings which have ever lived on this Earth

0:39:18.965,0:39:22.285
may be descended from some one primordial form.

0:39:22.285,0:39:24.367
So he had in mind what we today know as an evolutionary tree of life,

0:39:25.533,0:39:31.852
that all life has arisen from some primordial form.

0:39:31.852,0:39:35.287
Now, when you consider the classifications system,

0:39:35.287,0:39:37.867
kingdom phylum class or the family genus species,

0:39:37.867,0:39:41.698
we would say, as Creationists, we have many creation scientists

0:39:41.698,0:39:43.598
that research this and, for lots of reasons,

0:39:43.598,0:39:47.103
I would say, the kind in Genesis 1 is really more at

0:39:47.103,0:39:50.767
the family level of classification. For instance, there's one dog kind.

0:39:50.767,0:39:53.402
There's one cat kind. Even though you have different

0:39:53.402,0:39:55.686
generative species, that would mean, by the way,

0:39:55.686,0:39:57.800
you didn't need anywhere near the number of animals

0:39:57.800,0:39:59.218
on the ark as people think.

0:39:59.218,0:40:01.033
You wouldn't need all the species of dogs, just two.

0:40:01.033,0:40:02.898
Not all the species of cats--just two.

0:40:02.898,0:40:06.599
And, you see, based on the biblical account there in Genesis One,

0:40:06.599,0:40:10.352
Creationists have drawn up what they believe is a creation origin.

0:40:10.352,0:40:13.218
In other words, they're saying, "Look. There's great variation

0:40:13.218,0:40:16.252
in the genetics of dogs and finches and so on."

0:40:16.252,0:40:19.367
And so, over time, particularly after Noah's flood,

0:40:19.367,0:40:21.598
you'd expect if there were two dogs, for instance,

0:40:21.598,0:40:23.766
you could end up with different species of dogs because

0:40:23.766,0:40:28.949
there's an incredible amount of variability in the genes of any creature.

0:40:28.949,0:40:33.499
And so you'd expect these different species up here, but there's limits.

0:40:33.499,0:40:36.433
Dogs will always be dogs, finches will always be finches.

0:40:36.433,0:40:42.067
Now, as a Creationist, I maintain that observational science

0:40:42.067,0:40:45.983
actually confirms this model, based on the bible.

0:40:45.983,0:40:49.530
For instance, take dogs. Okay?

0:40:49.530,0:40:53.833
In a scientific paper dated January 2014--that's this year--

0:40:53.833,0:40:58.067
scientists working at the University of California stated this:

0:40:58.067,0:41:00.564
We provide several lines of evidence supporting

0:41:00.564,0:41:04.503
a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models

0:41:04.503,0:41:06.833
in which dog lineages arise separately

0:41:06.833,0:41:09.598
from geographically distinct wolf populations.

0:41:09.598,0:41:11.883
And they put this diagram in the paper.

0:41:11.883,0:41:14.300
By the way, that diagram is very, very similar

0:41:14.300,0:41:17.598
to this diagram that Creationists proposed based upon

0:41:17.598,0:41:20.832
the creation account in Genesis. In other words,

0:41:20.832,0:41:22.465
you have a common dog ancestor that gives rise

0:41:22.465,0:41:25.364
to the different species of dogs, and that's exactly

0:41:25.364,0:41:28.129
what we're saying here. Now, in the Creation Museum,

0:41:28.129,0:41:31.300
we actually show the finches here and you see the finches

0:41:31.300,0:41:34.767
with their different beaks, beside dogs skulls, different species of dogs.

0:41:34.767,0:41:37.884
By the way, there's more variation in the dog skeleton

0:41:37.884,0:41:41.063
here than there are in these finches. Yet, the dogs,

0:41:41.063,0:41:42.931
wow, that's never used as an example of evolution,

0:41:42.931,0:41:45.800
but the finches are, particularly in the public school textbooks.

0:41:45.800,0:41:49.099
Students are taught, "Ah! See the changes that are occurring here?"

0:41:49.099,0:41:51.299
And here's another problem that we've got.

0:41:51.299,0:41:55.906
Not only has the word "science" been hijacked by secularists,

0:41:55.906,0:41:59.851
I believe the word "evolution" has been hijacked by secularists.

0:41:59.851,0:42:03.963
The word "evolution" has been hijacked using what I call a bait and switch.

0:42:03.963,0:42:05.950
Let me explain to you.

0:42:05.950,0:42:09.830
The word "evolution" is being used in public school textbooks,

0:42:09.830,0:42:11.833
and we often see it in documentaries and so on,

0:42:11.833,0:42:15.100
is used for observable changes that we would agree with,

0:42:15.100,0:42:19.791
and then used for unobservable changes, such as molecules-to-man.

0:42:19.791,0:42:21.757
Let me explain to you what's really going on because

0:42:21.757,0:42:23.565
I was a science teacher in the public schools

0:42:23.565,0:42:25.965
and I know what the students were taught and I checked

0:42:25.965,0:42:28.600
the public school textbooks anyway to know what they're taught.

0:42:28.600,0:42:31.030
See, students are taught today, look, there's all

0:42:31.030,0:42:34.032
these different animals, plants, but they're all part

0:42:34.032,0:42:37.297
of this great, big tree of life that goes back to some primordial form.

0:42:37.297,0:42:39.470
And, look, we see changes. Changes in finches,

0:42:39.470,0:42:42.655
changes in dogs and so on. Now, we don't deny the changes.

0:42:42.655,0:42:45.499
You see that. You see different species of finches, different species of dogs.

0:42:45.499,0:42:48.200
But then they put it all together in this evolutionary tree--

0:42:48.200,0:42:50.387
but that's what you don't observe. You don't observe that.

0:42:50.387,0:42:53.653
That's belief there. That's the historical science

0:42:53.653,0:42:57.833
that I would say is wrong. But, you know, what you do observe,

0:42:57.833,0:43:03.033
you do observe different species of dogs, different species of finches,

0:43:03.033,0:43:06.563
but then there are limits. You don't see one kind changing into another.

0:43:06.563,0:43:12.050
Actually, we're told that if you teach creation

0:43:12.050,0:43:14.367
in the public schools as teaching religion,

0:43:14.367,0:43:17.281
if you teach evolution as science, I'm gonna say, "Wait a minute!"

0:43:17.281,0:43:21.332
Actually, the creation model here, based upon the Bible,

0:43:21.332,0:43:23.967
observational science confirms this. This is what you're observe!

0:43:24.667,0:43:26.182
You don't observe this tree.

0:43:26.182,0:43:29.430
Actually, it's the public school textbooks that are teaching a belief,

0:43:29.430,0:43:32.134
imposing it on students, and they need to be teaching them

0:43:32.134,0:43:36.466
observational science to understand the reality of what's happening.

0:43:36.466,0:43:40.589
Now, what we found is that public school textbooks present

0:43:40.589,0:43:44.350
the evolutionary as science, but reject the creation as religion.

0:43:45.128,0:43:47.600
But observational science confirms the creation orchard--

0:43:48.130,0:43:50.996
so public school textbooks are rejecting observational science

0:43:50.996,0:43:53.698
and imposing a naturalistic religion on students.

0:43:54.233,0:43:57.229
The word "evolution" has been hijacked using a bait and switch

0:43:57.627,0:44:01.531
to indoctrinate students to accept evolutionary belief

0:44:01.796,0:44:03.097
as observational science.

0:44:03.333,0:44:05.830
Let me introduce you to another scientist, Richard Lenski,

0:44:06.298,0:44:09.096
from Michigan State University. He's a great scientist,

0:44:09.231,0:44:11.365
he's known for culturing e-coli in the lab...

0:44:12.133,0:44:15.568
and he found there was some e-coli that actually seemed

0:44:15.865,0:44:19.033
to develop the ability to grow on cistrate on substrate.

0:44:22.752,0:44:26.969
But Richard Lenski is here, mentioned in this book,

0:44:27.989,0:44:29.967
and it's called "Evolution in the Lab".

0:44:32.701,0:44:36.067
So the ability to grow on citrate is said to be evolution.

0:44:36.067,0:44:39.966
And there are those that say, "Hey! This is against the Creationist."

0:44:40.132,0:44:42.698
For instance, Jerry Coin from University of Chicago says,

0:44:43.295,0:44:45.763
"Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye

0:44:45.970,0:44:47.326
for anti-evolutionists."

0:44:47.832,0:44:51.063
He says, "The thing I like most is it says you can get

0:44:51.063,0:44:53.495
these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events."

0:44:55.031,0:44:58.029
But is it a poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists?

0:44:58.400,0:45:01.366
Is it really seeing complex traits evolving?

0:45:02.029,0:45:06.232
What does it mean that some of these bacteria are able to grow on citrate?

0:45:06.732,0:45:10.687
Let me introduce you to another biblical Creationist, who is a scientist.

0:45:11.566,0:45:12.965
Hi, my name's Dr. Andrew Fabich.

0:45:13.295,0:45:16.166
I got my PhD from University of Oklahoma in Microbiology.

0:45:16.600,0:45:20.133
I teach at Liberty University and I do research on e-coli in the intestine.

0:45:20.563,0:45:25.565
I've published it in secular journals from the American Society for Microbiology,

0:45:26.163,0:45:31.496
including infection immunity and applied environmental microbiology

0:45:31.698,0:45:32.597
as well as several others.

0:45:32.799,0:45:35.400
My work has been cited even in the past year in the journals Nature,

0:45:35.700,0:45:38.067
Science Translational Medicine, Public Library of Science,

0:45:38.334,0:45:41.998
Public Library of Science Genetics. It's cited regularly

0:45:42.167,0:45:46.499
in those journals and while I was taught nothing but evolution,

0:45:46.732,0:45:48.229
I don't accept that position.

0:45:48.499,0:45:50.333
I do my research from a creation perspective.

0:45:50.997,0:45:54.267
When I look at the evidence that people cite as e-coli,

0:45:54.667,0:46:00.830
supposedly, evolving over 30 years, over 30,000 generations in the lab,

0:46:01.362,0:46:04.597
and people say that it is now able to grow on citrate,

0:46:04.766,0:46:06.366
I don't deny that it grows on citrate,

0:46:06.810,0:46:08.493
but it's not any kind of new information.

0:46:09.531,0:46:12.234
The information's already there and it's just a switch

0:46:12.400,0:46:15.763
that gets turned on and off and that's what they reported in there.

0:46:16.362,0:46:17.598
There's nothing new.

0:46:18.067,0:46:20.030
See, students need to be told what's really going on here.

0:46:20.532,0:46:24.831
Certainly there's change, but it's not change necessary for molecules-to-man.

0:46:25.565,0:46:27.234
Now, we could look at other predictions.

0:46:27.698,0:46:29.766
What about evidence confirming one race?

0:46:30.099,0:46:33.233
Well, when we look at the human population we see lots of differences.

0:46:33.345,0:46:35.198
But based on Darwin's ideas of human evolution,

0:46:35.440,0:46:37.971
as presented in The Descent of Man, I mean,

0:46:38.497,0:46:40.267
Darwin did teach in The Descent of Man there were

0:46:40.630,0:46:41.963
lower races and higher races.

0:46:43.832,0:46:44.833
Would you believe, that back in the 1900s, one of the most

0:46:45.229,0:46:49.165
popular biology textbooks used in the public schools in America taught this:

0:46:49.796,0:46:52.165
At the present time there exists upon Earth

0:46:52.566,0:46:54.797
five races or varieties of man...and finally,

0:46:55.129,0:46:58.347
the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented

0:46:58.499,0:47:00.867
by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.

0:47:01.233,0:47:03.197
Can you imagine if that was in the public schools today?

0:47:03.665,0:47:06.380
And, yet, that's what was taught, but it was based on

0:47:06.380,0:47:10.966
Darwin's ideas that are wrong. You have a wrong foundation.

0:47:11.233,0:47:12.460
You're gonna have a wrong worldview.

0:47:12.800,0:47:16.106
Now, had they started from the Bible, and from

0:47:16.532,0:47:18.329
the creation account in the Bible, what does it teach?

0:47:18.590,0:47:20.298
Well, we're all descendants of Adam and Eve.

0:47:20.697,0:47:22.733
We go through the Tower of Babel, different languages,

0:47:23.231,0:47:25.563
so different people groups formed distinct characteristics.

0:47:25.796,0:47:27.800
But we'd expect, we'd say, you know what,

0:47:28.017,0:47:30.963
that means there's biologically only one race of humans.

0:47:31.634,0:47:32.963
Well, I mentioned Dr. Venter before.

0:47:33.400,0:47:36.000
And he was a researcher with the human genome project.

0:47:36.365,0:47:39.175
And you'll remember, in the year 2000, this was headline news,

0:47:39.501,0:47:41.964
and what we read was this: they had put together

0:47:42.264,0:47:44.833
a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome

0:47:45.292,0:47:48.899
and unanimously declared, there is only one race - the human race.

0:47:49.133,0:47:50.535
Wow! Who would have guessed?

0:47:50.799,0:47:52.493
But you see there we have observational science

0:47:52.794,0:47:54.996
confirming the Creation account,

0:47:55.367,0:47:58.665
not confirming at all Darwin's ideas.

0:47:58.932,0:48:00.596
Now, there's much more that can be said

0:48:01.066,0:48:02.297
on each of these topics.

0:48:02.759,0:48:04.696
Obviously, you can't do that in a short time like this.

0:48:04.930,0:48:06.497
And you could do a lot more research.

0:48:06.699,0:48:09.466
I suggest you visit our website at Answers in Genesis

0:48:09.698,0:48:11.265
for a lot more information.

0:48:11.533,0:48:14.633
So, the debate topic: Is creation a viable model

0:48:14.832,0:48:17.464
of origins in today's scientific era?

0:48:17.696,0:48:19.870
I said, we need to define the terms,

0:48:20.163,0:48:21.464
and particularly, the term science

0:48:21.664,0:48:23.766
and the term evolution. And I believe we need

0:48:23.930,0:48:25.601
to understand how they are being used to impose

0:48:25.765,0:48:29.363
an anti-God religion on generations of unsuspecting students.

0:48:29.566,0:48:32.098
You see, I keep emphasizing we do need to

0:48:32.321,0:48:33.955
understand the difference between experimental or

0:48:34.200,0:48:37.362
observational science and historical science.

0:48:37.697,0:48:38.797
And you know what?

0:48:38.933,0:48:40.138
The secularists don't like me doing this

0:48:40.300,0:48:41.832
because they don't want to admit

0:48:41.966,0:48:44.030
that there's a belief aspect to what they're saying.

0:48:44.133,0:48:46.097
And there is. And they can't get away from it.

0:48:46.396,0:48:48.965
Let me illustrate this with a statement from Bill Nye.

0:48:49.398,0:48:51.464
"You can show the Earth is not flat.

0:48:51.632,0:48:53.265
You can show the Earth is not 10,000 years old."

0:48:53.499,0:48:55.666
By the way, I agree. You can show the Earth is not flat.

0:48:55.867,0:48:58.533
There's a video from the Galileo spacecraft showing

0:48:58.723,0:49:00.999
the Earth, and speeded up of course, but spinning.

0:49:01.267,0:49:03.094
You can see it's a sphere. You can observe that.

0:49:03.398,0:49:05.735
You can't observe the age of the Earth.

0:49:05.900,0:49:08.130
You don't see that. You see again, I emphasize,

0:49:08.298,0:49:10.732
there's a big difference between historical science,

0:49:10.883,0:49:13.333
talking about the past, and observational science,

0:49:13.519,0:49:15.299
talking about the present.

0:49:15.565,0:49:19.730
And I believe what's happening is this, that students are being

0:49:19.933,0:49:21.901
indoctrinated by the confusion of terms:

0:49:21.999,0:49:23.430
the hijacking of the word science and the hijacking

0:49:23.633,0:49:26.267
of the word evolution in a bait-and-switch.

0:49:26.664,0:49:28.667
Let me illustrate further with this video clip.

0:49:29.232,0:49:31.899
Because here I assert that Bill Nye is equating

0:49:32.133,0:49:34.534
observational science with historical science.

0:49:34.800,0:49:38.500
And I also say it's not a mystery when you understand the difference.

0:49:38.865,0:49:42.065
Howie, people with these deeply held religious beliefs,

0:49:42.729,0:49:45.766
they embrace that whole literal interpretation

0:49:46.064,0:49:49.732
of the Bible as written in English, as a worldview.

0:49:50.032,0:49:54.234
And, at the same time, they accept aspirin,

0:49:54.533,0:49:58.869
antibiotic drugs, airplanes, but they're able

0:49:59.098,0:50:01.567
to hold these two worldviews. And this is a mystery.

0:50:02.694,0:50:04.564
Actually, I suggest to you it's not a mystery.

0:50:05.128,0:50:06.863
You see, when I'm talking about antibiotics,

0:50:07.097,0:50:09.466
aspirin, smoke detectors, jet planes,

0:50:09.866,0:50:12.597
that's Ken Ham the Observational Science Bloke.

0:50:13.300,0:50:15.497
I'm an Australian. We call guy's "blokes", okay?

0:50:16.087,0:50:18.299
But when you're talking about creation and thousands of years

0:50:18.767,0:50:19.969
of the age of the Earth,

0:50:20.465,0:50:21.693
that's Ken Ham the Historical Science Bloke.

0:50:22.098,0:50:23.094
I'm willing to admit that.

0:50:23.094,0:50:24.131
Now, when Bill Nye's talking about aspirin,

0:50:24.930,0:50:26.435
antibiotics, jet planes, smoke detectors,

0:50:26.700,0:50:27.931
he does a great job at that.

0:50:28.168,0:50:29.798
I used to enjoy watching him on TV too.

0:50:30.695,0:50:32.667
That's Bill Nye the Observational Science Guy.

0:50:33.129,0:50:35.031
But when he's talking about evolution and millions of years,

0:50:35.466,0:50:38.898
I'm challenging him that that's Bill Nye the Historical Science Guy.

0:50:39.294,0:50:42.534
And I challenge the evolutionist to admit the belief

0:50:42.999,0:50:46.075
aspects of their particular worldview.

0:50:46.866,0:50:49.966
Now, at the Creation Museum, we're only too willing

0:50:50.200,0:50:51.412
to admit our beliefs based upon the Bible,

0:50:51.900,0:50:53.628
but we also teach people the difference between

0:50:53.964,0:50:55.966
beliefs and what one can actually observe

0:50:56.156,0:50:57.333
and experiment with in the present.

0:50:57.550,0:50:59.832
I believe we're teaching people to think critically

0:51:00.135,0:51:02.695
and to think in the right terms about science.

0:51:03.397,0:51:04.896
I believe it's the creationists that should be

0:51:05.129,0:51:08.462
educating the kids out there because we're teaching

0:51:08.664,0:51:10.605
them the right way to think. You know, we admit it.

0:51:10.634,0:51:12.767
Our origins of historical science is based upon the Bible,

0:51:13.899,0:51:15.899
but I'm just challenging evolutionists to admit

0:51:16.166,0:51:17.595
the belief aspects of evolution

0:51:17.799,0:51:19.931
and be upfront about the difference here.

0:51:20.329,0:51:22.332
As I said, I'm only too willing to admit

0:51:22.599,0:51:24.530
my historical science based on the Bible.

0:51:25.192,0:51:28.967
And let me further go on to define the term "creation" as we use it.

0:51:29.266,0:51:34.033
By creation, we mean, here at Answers in Genesis

0:51:34.332,0:51:37.664
and the Creation Museum, we mean the account based on the Bible.

0:51:37.899,0:51:40.831
Yes, I take Genesis as literal history, as Jesus did.

0:51:41.499,0:51:44.631
And, here at the Creation Museum, we walk people through that history.

0:51:45.133,0:51:47.362
We walk them through creation, the perfect creation.

0:51:47.865,0:51:51.730
That God made Adam and Eve, land animal kinds, sea-creatures and so on.

0:51:52.061,0:51:54.332
And then sin and death entered the world.

0:51:54.565,0:51:56.667
There was no death before sin.

0:51:57.433,0:52:00.733
That means how can you have billions of dead things before man sinned?

0:52:01.298,0:52:05.631
And then, the catastrophe of Noah's flood. If there was a global flood,

0:52:05.865,0:52:09.715
you'd expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.

0:52:10.134,0:52:13.500
Had to say that because a lot of our supporters would want me to.

0:52:13.687,0:52:18.001
And what do you find?--Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.

0:52:18.332,0:52:22.964
Confusion, the tower of Babel. God gave different languages so you get different people groups.

0:52:23.135,0:52:28.367
So this is the geological, astronomical, anthropological, biological history as recorded in the Bible.

0:52:28.664,0:52:31.632
So this is concerning what happened in the past that explains the present.

0:52:32.099,0:52:36.531
And then, of course, that God's Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the God-Man

0:52:36.735,0:52:39.498
to die on the cross, be raised from the dead. And one day there's going to be

0:52:39.699,0:52:43.132
a new heavens and a new earth to come. And, you know, not only

0:52:44.126,0:52:47.629
is this an understanding of history to explain the

0:52:47.766,0:52:51.461
geology, biology, astronomy, and so on to connect the present to the past.

0:52:51.932,0:52:54.298
But it's also a foundation for our whole world view.

0:52:54.533,0:52:58.567
For instance, in Matthew 19, when Jesus was asked about marriage, he said,

0:52:58.804,0:53:02.334
&amp;quot;Have you not read He who made them at the beginning made them male and female?&amp;quot;

0:53:02.666,0:53:06.898
And said, &amp;quot;For this cause shall a man leave his mother and father and be joined to his wife. And they'll be one flesh.&amp;quot;

0:53:07.266,0:53:12.431
He quoted from Genesis as literal history--Genesis 1 and 2. God invented marriage, by the way.

0:53:12.798,0:53:15.500
That's where marriage comes from. And it's to be a man and a woman.

0:53:16.198,0:53:20.067
And not only marriage. Ultimately, every single Biblical doctrine of theology

0:53:20.600,0:53:22.531
directly or indirectly, is founded in Genesis.

0:53:22.797,0:53:24.665
Why is there sin in the world? Genesis.

0:53:25.698,0:53:26.533
Why is there death? Genesis.

0:53:26.967,0:53:28.264
Why do we wear clothes? Genesis.

0:53:28.532,0:53:29.533
Why did Jesus die on the cross? Genesis.

0:53:29.966,0:53:33.064
It's a very important book. It's foundational to all Christian doctrine.

0:53:33.386,0:53:36.700
And you see, when we look at that, what I call the seven C's of History

0:53:37.064,0:53:38.566
that we walk people through here at the museum,

0:53:39.066,0:53:41.499
think about how it all connects together--a perfect creation.

0:53:41.766,0:53:43.713
It'll be perfect again in the future.

0:53:43.932,0:53:47.293
Sin and death--end of the world. That's why God's son died on the cross

0:53:47.599,0:53:50.194
to conquer death and offer a free gift of salvation.

0:53:50.465,0:53:53.632
The flood of Noah's day, a reminder that the flood was a

0:53:53.963,0:53:56.333
judgement because of man's wickedness but at the same time

0:53:56.566,0:53:58.464
a message of God's grace and salvation.

0:53:58.800,0:54:01.066
As Noah and his family had to go through a door to be saved,

0:54:01.399,0:54:03.268
so we need to go through a door to be saved.

0:54:03.466,0:54:05.465
Jesus Christ said, "I am the door. By me, if any man

0:54:06.100,0:54:08.895
enter in, he'll be saved. And we make no apology

0:54:09.600,0:54:11.132
about the fact that what we're on about is this:

0:54:11.663,0:54:13.831
"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and

0:54:14.164,0:54:15.730
believe in your heart God has raised him from the dead,

0:54:16.096,0:54:17.898
you'll be saved. Now, as soon as I said that,

0:54:18.085,0:54:20.498
see if people say, "See, if you allow creation in schools,

0:54:20.764,0:54:22.764
for instance, if you'll ask students to even hear about it,

0:54:22.999,0:54:24.298
ah, this is religion."

0:54:24.832,0:54:26.399
You know, let me illustrate this,

0:54:26.732,0:54:31.096
talking about a recent battle in Texas over textbooks

0:54:31.225,0:54:35.232
in the public school. A newspaper report said this:

0:54:35.567,0:54:37.530
&amp;quot;Textbook and classroom curriculum battles have long

0:54:37.731,0:54:39.967
raged in Texas pitting creationists - those who see

0:54:40.330,0:54:41.866
God's hand in the creation of the universe-

0:54:42.076,0:54:43.006
against academics..."

0:54:43.331,0:54:45.799
Stop right there. Notice creationists... academics.

0:54:46.032,0:54:48.764
Creationists can't be academics. Creationists can't be scientists.

0:54:48.998,0:54:51.633
See, it's the way things are worded out there.

0:54:52.030,0:54:53.800
It's an indoctrination that's going on.

0:54:54.197,0:54:56.130
We worry about religious and political ideology

0:54:56.433,0:54:57.899
trumping scientific fact. Wait a minute.

0:54:58.164,0:54:59.330
What do I mean by science? You're talking about

0:54:59.600,0:55:02.167
what you observe, or are you talking about your beliefs about the past?

0:55:02.434,0:55:07.032
Now, Kathy Miller is the president of the Texas Freedom Network and

0:55:07.365,0:55:15.097
she has vocally spoken out. She's spoken out about this textbook battle there in Texas.

0:55:17.601,0:55:21.664
And the mission statement of the organization she's president of says, "The Texas Freedom Network

0:55:21.992,0:55:24.833
advances a mainstream agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties

0:55:25.265,0:55:29.867
to counter the religious right." Religious freedom... individual liberties. Hmm.

0:55:30.329,0:55:34.297
And then she makes this statement: "Science education..." What does she mean by science?

0:55:34.662,0:55:38.665
"should be based on mainstream science education, not on personal idealogical beliefs

0:55:39.000,0:55:43.233
of unqualified reviewers." Wait a minute. They want religious liberty and not personal

0:55:43.668,0:55:48.730
ideological beliefs? I assert this: public school textbooks are using the same word "science"

0:55:48.904,0:55:53.266
for observational and historical science. They arbitrarily define science as naturalism

0:55:53.629,0:55:57.168
and outlaw the supernatural. They present molecules-to-man evolution as as fact.

0:55:57.402,0:56:00.499
And they are imposing the religion of naturalism on generations of students.

0:56:00.733,0:56:03.100
They're imposing their ideology on the students

0:56:03.400,0:56:05.098
and everything's explained by natural processes.

0:56:05.363,0:56:07.600
That is a religion. What do you mean by religious liberty?

0:56:07.762,0:56:09.597
They tolerate their religion.

0:56:10.529,0:56:12.463
See, the battle is really about authority.

0:56:12.833,0:56:15.096
It's more than just science or evolution or creation.

0:56:15.233,0:56:18.363
It's about who is the authority in this world, man or God?

0:56:18.667,0:56:22.733
If you start with naturalism, then what about morals?

0:56:22.966,0:56:25.333
Who decides right and wrong? Well, it's subjective.

0:56:25.544,0:56:26.929
Marriage? Well, whatever you want it to be.

0:56:27.429,0:56:29.661
Get rid of old people. I mean, why not?

0:56:29.766,0:56:31.763
They're just animals, they're costing us a lot of money.

0:56:32.097,0:56:35.098
Abortion. Get rid of spare cats, get rid of spare kids. We're all animals.

0:56:35.629,0:56:38.232
But if you start from God's word, there are moral absolutes.

0:56:38.497,0:56:40.931
God decides right and wrong. Marriage--one man and one woman.

0:56:41.100,0:56:44.174
Sanctity of life--we care for old people. They're made in the image of God.

0:56:44.468,0:56:47.898
Life begins at fertilization, so abortion is killing a human being.

0:56:48.260,0:56:50.567
We do see the collapse of Christian morality

0:56:50.831,0:56:53.395
in our culture and increasing moral relativism

0:56:53.503,0:56:56.327
because generations of kids are being taught the religion

0:56:56.498,0:56:59.132
of naturalism and that the Bible can't be trusted.

0:56:59.561,0:57:03.100
And so, again, I say creation is the only viable model

0:57:03.297,0:57:06.799
of historical science confirmed by observational science

0:57:06.799,0:57:07.865
in today's modern scientific era. You know what?

0:57:08.833,0:57:10.897
I'm a science teacher. I want to see kids taught science.

0:57:11.333,0:57:14.299
I love science. I want to see more (inaudible) in the world.

0:57:14.467,0:57:16.330
You know, if we teach them the whole universe

0:57:16.497,0:57:19.467
is a result of natural processes and not designed

0:57:19.600,0:57:22.496
by a creative God, they might be looking in the wrong places

0:57:22.599,0:57:24.329
or have the wrong idea when they're looking

0:57:24.499,0:57:27.628
at the creation in regard to how you develop technology

0:57:27.933,0:57:30.733
because if they look at it as just random processes,

0:57:30.898,0:57:33.433
that could totally influence the way they think.

0:57:33.590,0:57:36.132
If they understand it was a perfect world marred by sin,

0:57:36.366,0:57:39.066
that could have a great affect on how they then look

0:57:39.267,0:57:41.966
for overcoming diseases and problems in the world.

0:57:42.200,0:57:45.667
I want children to be taught the right foundation,

0:57:46.032,0:57:47.866
that there's a God who created them, who loves them,

0:57:48.163,0:57:52.199
who died on the cross for them and that they're special.

0:57:52.400,0:57:53.798
They're made in the image of God.

0:57:56.399,0:57:58.467
(moderator) There you go. Thank you, Mr. Ham.

0:57:58.661,0:58:01.433
-We can applaud Mr. Ham's presentation.[br]-(audience applauds)

0:58:12.433,0:58:14.100
And, you know, it did occur to me when you had

0:58:14.266,0:58:16.765
my old friend Larry King up there, you could've just asked him.

0:58:16.966,0:58:20.466
He's been around a long time. And he's a smart guy!

0:58:20.829,0:58:25.095
He could probably answer for all of us. Now, let's all be

0:58:25.266,0:58:28.434
attentive to Mr. Nye as he gives us his 30 minute presentation.

0:58:28.828,0:58:31.752
Thank you very much and, Mr. Ham, I learned something.

0:58:31.965,0:58:37.266
Thank you. But let's take it back around to question at hand:

0:58:37.767,0:58:41.462
does Ken Ham's creation model hold up? Is it viable?

0:58:42.900,0:58:46.699
So, for me, of course...well...take a look.

0:58:47.199,0:58:53.366
We're here in Kentucky on layer upon layer upon layer of limestone.

0:58:53.833,0:58:56.200
I stopped at the side of the road today and picked up

0:58:56.531,0:59:00.267
just a piece of limestone. It has a fossil right there.

0:59:00.633,0:59:05.133
Now, in these many, many layers, in this vicinity of Kentucky,

0:59:05.697,0:59:10.400
there are coral animal--fossils, Zooxanthella--

0:59:10.733,0:59:11.931
and when you look at it closely,

0:59:12.333,0:59:14.432
you can see that they lived their entire lives.

0:59:14.900,0:59:18.199
They lived typically 20 years, sometimes more than that

0:59:18.567,0:59:20.500
when the water conditions are correct.

0:59:21.100,0:59:26.034
And so we are standing on millions of layers of ancient life.

0:59:27.465,0:59:30.172
How could those animals have lived their entire life,

0:59:30.899,0:59:33.833
and formed these layers, in just 4,000 years?

0:59:34.600,0:59:38.567
There isn't enough time since Mr. Ham's flood

0:59:38.965,0:59:43.466
for this limestone that we're standing on to come into existence.

0:59:46.267,0:59:48.833
My scientific colleagues go to places like Greenland,

0:59:49.399,0:59:52.237
the Arctic, they go to Antarctica, and they drill

0:59:52.662,0:59:57.733
into the ice with hollow drill bits. It's not that extraordinary.

0:59:58.031,1:00:00.100
Many of you have probably done it yourselves, drilling other things.

1:00:00.366,1:00:02.999
Hole saws to put locks in doors, for example.

1:00:03.801,1:00:09.433
And we pull out long cylinders of ice, long ice rods.

1:00:09.900,1:00:14.298
And these are made of snow and it's called "snow ice".

1:00:15.165,1:00:19.867
And snow ice forms over the winter as snowflakes fall

1:00:20.075,1:00:23.033
and are crushed down by subsequent layers. They're crushed together,

1:00:23.274,1:00:26.298
entrapping the little bubbles and the little bubbles must

1:00:26.563,1:00:30.905
needs be ancient atmosphere. There's nobody running around

1:00:31.098,1:00:34.196
with a hypodermic needle, squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles.

1:00:34.599,1:00:41.200
And we find certain of these cylinders to have 680,000 layers.

1:00:41.467,1:00:46.533
680,000 snow/winter/summer cycles.

1:00:47.669,1:00:53.433
How could it be that just 4,000 years ago all of this ice formed?

1:00:53.801,1:00:56.332
Let's just run some numbers.

1:00:56.634,1:01:00.899
This is some scenes from the lovely Antarctic.

1:01:01.798,1:01:05.399
Let's say we have 680,000 layers of snow ice

1:01:05.698,1:01:08.033
and 4,000 years since the Great Flood.

1:01:08.702,1:01:13.400
That would mean we'd need 170 winter-summer cycles

1:01:13.868,1:01:17.231
every year, for the last 4,000 years.

1:01:17.633,1:01:21.133
I mean, wouldn't someone have noticed that? Wow!

1:01:21.563,1:01:23.232
Wouldn't someone have noticed that there's been

1:01:23.399,1:01:25.832
winter-summer-winter-summer 170 times one year?

1:01:26.964,1:01:33.132
If we go to California, we find enormous stands of bristlecone pines.

1:01:34.239,1:01:38.511
Some of them are over 6,000 years old. 6,800 years old.

1:01:38.798,1:01:45.009
There's a famous tree in Sweden, Old Tjikko, is 9,550 years old.

1:01:45.700,1:01:53.200
How could these trees be there if there was an enormous flood just 4,000 years ago?

1:01:53.700,1:01:55.964
You can try this yourself, everybody.

1:01:56.265,1:01:58.631
Get, I mean, I don't mean to be mean to trees,

1:01:58.863,1:02:02.733
but get a sapling and put it under water for a year.

1:02:03.261,1:02:07.163
It will not survive in general. Nor will its seeds.

1:02:07.332,1:02:10.731
They just won't make it. So how could these trees

1:02:11.066,1:02:15.201
be that old if the Earth is only 4,000 years old?

1:02:15.513,1:02:18.600
Now, when we go to the Grand Canyon--which is an astonishing place

1:02:18.867,1:02:22.243
and I recommend to everybody in the world to someday visit the Grand Canyon--

1:02:22.566,1:02:25.965
you find layer upon layer of ancient rocks.

1:02:26.766,1:02:31.200
And if there was this enormous flood that you speak of,

1:02:31.663,1:02:35.299
wouldn't there have been churning and bubbling and roiling?

1:02:35.863,1:02:38.466
How would these things have settled out?

1:02:38.766,1:02:42.700
Your claim that they settled out in an extraordinary short amount of time

1:02:43.430,1:02:47.901
is for me, not satisfactory. You can look at these rocks. You can look at rocks that are younger.

1:02:48.168,1:02:53.564
You can go to seashores where there's sand. This is what geologists on the outside do,

1:02:54.065,1:02:58.598
study the rate at which soil is deposited at the end of rivers and deltas.

1:02:58.996,1:03:06.066
And we can see that it takes a long, long time for sediments to turn to stone.

1:03:06.591,1:03:11.833
Also, in this picture you can see where one type of sediment has intruded on another type.

1:03:12.231,1:03:17.223
Now, if that was uniform, wouldn't we expect it all to be even, without intrusion?

1:03:18.833,1:03:23.033
Furthermore, you can find places in the Grand Canyon where you see an ancient riverbed on that side

1:03:23.536,1:03:27.966
going to an ancient riverbed on that side and the Colorado River has cut through it.

1:03:28.566,1:03:34.730
And by the way, if this great flood drained through the Grand Canyon,

1:03:34.936,1:03:38.164
wouldn't there have been a Grand Canyon on every continent?

1:03:38.565,1:03:43.193
How could we not have Grand Canyons everywhere if this water drained away in this extraordinary

1:03:43.597,1:03:49.667
short amount of time? Four thousand years? Now when you look at these layers carefully,

1:03:50.500,1:03:56.696
you find these beautiful fossils. And when I say beautiful, I am inspired by them. They are remarkable

1:03:56.898,1:04:03.599
because we are looking at the past. You find down low. You'll find what you might consider

1:04:03.799,1:04:09.296
is, uh, rudimentary sea animals. Up above you'll find the famous trilobytes.

1:04:09.598,1:04:15.030
Above that you might find some clams, some oysters. And above that you find some mammals.

1:04:15.764,1:04:22.501
You never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one. You never find a lower one

1:04:22.698,1:04:28.331
trying to swim its way to a higher one. If it all happened in such an extraordinary short amount of time,

1:04:28.563,1:04:33.695
if this water drained away just like that, wouldn't we expect to see some turbulence?

1:04:33.898,1:04:40.365
And by the way, anyone here, really, if you can find one example of that, one example of that

1:04:40.767,1:04:48.366
anywhere in the world, the scientists of the world challenge you. They would embrace you. You would be a hero.

1:04:48.696,1:04:52.000
You would change the world if you could find one example of that anywhere.

1:04:52.366,1:04:57.100
People have looked, and looked and looked. They have not found a single one.

1:04:59.234,1:05:07.032
Now here's an interesting thing. These are fossil skulls that people have found all around the world.

1:05:07.495,1:05:13.468
It's by no means representative of all the fossil skulls that have been found, but these are all over the place.

1:05:14.331,1:05:24.331
Now, if you were to look at these, I can assure you, not any of them is a gorilla. Right?

1:05:25.267,1:05:33.530
If as Mr. Ham and his associates claim, there was just man and then everybody else, there were just

1:05:33.733,1:05:39.633
humans and all other species, where would you put modern humans among these skulls?

1:05:40.764,1:05:46.397
How did all these skulls get all over the earth in these extraordinary fashion? Where would you put us?

1:05:47.867,1:05:52.566
I can tell you we are on there and I encourage you, when you go home, to look it up.

1:05:54.698,1:06:04.529
Now, one of the extraordinary claims associated with Mr. Ham's worldview is that this giant boat

1:06:04.977,1:06:11.967
a very large wooden ship, went aground safely on a mountain in the Middle, what we now call the Middle East.

1:06:12.330,1:06:19.930
And so places like Australia are populated then by animals who somehow managed to get

1:06:23.630,1:06:26.400
from the Middle East all the way to Australia in the last 4,000 years.

1:06:26.667,1:06:32.831
Now that, to me, is an extraordinary claim. We would expect then, somewhere between the Middle East

1:06:32.964,1:06:36.733
and Australia, we would expect to find evidence of kangaroos. We would expect to find

1:06:37.002,1:06:41.064
some fossils, some bones in the last 4,000 years. Somebody would have been hopping along there

1:06:43.299,1:06:46.597
and died along the way, and we'd find them. And furthermore, there's a claim

1:06:48.599,1:06:52.198
that there was a land bridge that allowed these animals to get from Asia all the way

1:06:52.534,1:06:57.800
to the continent of Australia. And that land bridge has disappeared, has disappeared in the last

1:06:58.064,1:07:05.400
4,000 years. No navigator, no diver, no U.S. Navy submarine, no one has ever detected any evidence

1:07:06.467,1:07:12.134
of this, let alone any evidence of fossils of kangaroos. So, your expectation is not met.

1:07:12.597,1:07:21.200
It doesn't seem to hold up. So, let's see. If there are 4,000 years since Ken Ham's flood

1:07:21.630,1:07:27.532
and let's say, as he said many times, there are 7,000 kinds,

1:07:28.163,1:07:35.267
today the very, very lowest estimate is that there are about 8.7 million species.

1:07:35.733,1:07:39.865
But a much more reasonable estimate is it's 50 million, or even 100 million,

1:07:40.099,1:07:45.366
when you start counting the viruses and the bacteria and all the beetles that must be extant

1:07:45.733,1:07:51.866
in the tropical rain forests that we haven't found. So we'll take a number which I think is pretty reasonable,

1:07:52.100,1:07:59.965
16 million species today. If these came from 7,000 kinds,

1:08:00.329,1:08:03.533
let's say we have 7,000 subtracted from 15 million,

1:08:03.732,1:08:09.565
that's 15,993. If 4,000 years, we have 365.25 days a year,

1:08:10.735,1:08:15.254
we would expect to find 11 new species every day.

1:08:15.763,1:08:22.265
So you'd go out into your yard, you wouldn't just find a different bird, a new bird

1:08:22.731,1:08:26.666
you'd find a different kind of bird, a whole new species, a bird!

1:08:27.130,1:08:31.966
Every day, a new species of fish, a new species of organisms you can't see, and so on.

1:08:32.187,1:08:38.633
I mean, this would be enormous news. The last 4,000 years people would have seen these changes among us.

1:08:39.363,1:08:43.133
So the Cincinnati Enquirer, I imagine, would carry a column right next to the weather report:

1:08:44.699,1:08:50.331
Today's New Species, and it would list these 11 every day, but we see no evidence of that.

1:08:50.631,1:08:54.266
There's no evidence of these species. There simply isn't enough time.

1:08:54.833,1:08:58.731
Now as you may know, I was graduated from engineering school and I was,

1:08:59.093,1:09:07.298
I got a job at Boeing. I worked on 747s. I, okay everybody relax, I was very well supervised.

1:09:08.000,1:09:13.901
Everything's fine. There's a tube in the 747 I kind of think of that's my tube.

1:09:14.166,1:09:18.332
But that aside, I travelled the highways of Washington state quite a bit.

1:09:18.566,1:09:23.631
I was a young guy. I had a motorcycle. I used to go mountain climbing in Washington state... Oregon.

1:09:23.631,1:09:32.266
And you can drive along and find these enormous boulders on top of the ground, enormous rocks,

1:09:32.765,1:09:40.965
huge, sitting on top of the ground. Now, out there, in regular academic pursuits, regular geology,

1:09:41.863,1:09:46.899
people have discovered that there was, used to be a lake in what is now Montana

1:09:47.332,1:09:50.497
which we charmingly refer to as Lake Missoula.

1:09:50.866,1:09:54.698
It's not there now but the evidence for it, of course, if I may, overwhelming.

1:09:55.132,1:10:01.331
And so, an ice dam would form at Lake Missoula and once in a while it would break.

1:10:01.699,1:10:06.598
It would build up and break. And there were multiple floods in my old state of Washington state.

1:10:06.764,1:10:12.869
And, just, before we go on, let me just say, go Seahawks! That was very gratifying, very gratifying for me.

1:10:14.167,1:10:20.698
Anyway you drive along the road and there are these rocks. So, if as is asserted here at this facility,

1:10:21.200,1:10:25.233
that the heavier rocks would sink to the bottom during a flood event,

1:10:25.666,1:10:29.655
the big rocks, and especially their shape, instead of aerodynamic,

1:10:30.166,1:10:34.367
the hydrodynamic, the water changing shape, as water flows past,

1:10:34.600,1:10:38.867
you'd expect them to sink to the bottom. But here are these enormous rocks right on the surface.

1:10:39.199,1:10:42.797
And there's no shortage of them. If you go driving in Washington state or Oregon

1:10:42.999,1:10:49.900
they are readily available. So how could those be there if the Earth is just 4,000 years old.

1:10:50.133,1:10:53.432
How could they be there if this one flood caused that?

1:10:54.063,1:11:01.167
Another remarkable thing I'd like everybody to consider, alone inherent in this worldview,

1:11:01.900,1:11:10.266
is that somehow Noah and his family were able to build a wooden ship that would house

1:11:11.033,1:11:18.031
14,000 individuals. There were 7,000 kinds and then, there's a boy and a girl for each one of those,

1:11:18.427,1:11:22.963
so there's about 14,000... 8 people. And these people were unskilled.

1:11:23.465,1:11:27.166
As far as anybody knows they had never built a wooden ship before.

1:11:27.629,1:11:31.667
Furthermore, they had to get all these animals on there. And they had to feed them.

1:11:32.466,1:11:37.466
And I understand that Mr. Ham has some explanations for that, which I frankly find extraordinary but

1:11:38.233,1:11:45.966
this is the premise of the bit. And we can then run a test, a scientific test.

1:11:46.465,1:11:52.333
People in the early 1900s built an extraordinary, large wooden ship, the Wyoming.

1:11:52.832,1:12:00.464
It was a six-masted schooner, the largest one ever built. It had a motor on it for winching cables and stuff.

1:12:00.966,1:12:07.631
But this boat had a great difficulty. It was not as big as the Titanic, but it was a very long ship.

1:12:08.030,1:12:16.400
It would twist in the sea. It would twist this way, this way, and this way.

1:12:16.666,1:12:23.066
And in all that twisting, it leaked. It leaked like crazy. The crew could not keep the ship dry.

1:12:23.464,1:12:30.767
And indeed, it eventually foundered and sank, a loss of all 14 hands. So there were 14 crewmen

1:12:31.366,1:12:35.532
aboard a ship built by very, very skilled shipwrights in New England.

1:12:35.833,1:12:39.997
These guys were the best in the world at wooden shipbuilding. And they couldn't build

1:12:40.863,1:12:44.499
a boat as big as the Ark is claimed to have been.

1:12:47.197,1:12:51.466
Is that reasonable? Is that possible that the best shipbuilders in the world couldn't do

1:12:51.667,1:12:57.163
what eight unskilled people, men and their wives, were able to do?

1:12:57.833,1:13:06.566
If you visit the National Zoo, in Washington D.C., it's 163 acres. And they have 400 species.

1:13:06.767,1:13:12.066
By the way, this picture that you're seeing was taken by spacecraft in space, orbiting the Earth.

1:13:12.567,1:13:17.764
If you told my grandfather, let alone my father, that we had that capability,

1:13:17.965,1:13:21.732
they would have been amazed. That capability comes from our fundamental understanding

1:13:22.163,1:13:29.200
of gravity, of material science, of physics, and life science, where you go looking.

1:13:29.499,1:13:35.567
This place is often, as any zoo, is often deeply concerned and criticized for how it treats its animals.

1:13:36.630,1:13:44.498
They have 400 species on 163 acres, 66 hectares. Is it reasonable that Noah and his colleagues,

1:13:45.031,1:13:51.229
his family, were able to maintain 14,000 animals and themselves, and feed them, aboard a ship

1:13:51.560,1:13:54.366
that was bigger than anyone's ever been able to build?

1:13:55.165,1:14:02.479
Now, here's the thing, what we want in science, science as practiced on the outside,

1:14:02.900,1:14:10.900
is an ability to predict. We want to have a natural law that is so obvious and clear,

1:14:11.532,1:14:14.932
so well understood that we can make predictions about what will happen.

1:14:15.433,1:14:20.367
We can predict that we can put a spacecraft in orbit and take a picture of Washington D.C.

1:14:20.729,1:14:25.765
We can predict that if we provide this much room for an elephant, it will live healthily

1:14:26.032,1:14:30.563
for a certain amount of time. I'll give you an example.

1:14:32.858,1:14:38.765
In the explanation provided by traditional science, of how we came to be,

1:14:39.555,1:14:43.548
we find as Mr. Ham alluded to many times in his recent remarks,

1:14:44.164,1:14:49.433
we find a sequence of animals in what, generally, is called "the fossil record."

1:14:49.829,1:14:53.500
This would be to say when we look at the layers, that you would find in Kentucky,

1:14:53.798,1:14:58.267
you look at them carefully, you find a sequence of animals, a succession.

1:14:58.568,1:15:02.465
And as one might expect, when you are looking at old records

1:15:02.630,1:15:05.198
there's some pieces seem to be missing, a gap.

1:15:05.396,1:15:09.033
So scientists got to thinking about this.

1:15:09.500,1:15:14.199
There are lungfish that jump from pond to pond in Florida

1:15:14.466,1:15:15.898
and end up in people's swimming pools.

1:15:16.398,1:15:19.867
And there are amphibians, frogs and toads, croaking and carrying on.

1:15:20.267,1:15:25.665
And so people wondered if there wasn't a fossil or an organism,

1:15:25.998,1:15:29.165
an animal, that had lived, that had characteristics of both.

1:15:29.998,1:15:33.896
People over the years had found that in Canada,

1:15:34.200,1:15:36.666
there was clearly a fossil marsh--

1:15:37.100,1:15:39.365
a place that used to be a swamp that had dried out.

1:15:39.832,1:15:44.332
And they found all kinds of happy swamp fossils there:

1:15:44.763,1:15:48.666
ferns, organisms, animals, fish that were recognized.

1:15:49.733,1:15:52.394
And people realized that if this, with the age of the rocks there,

1:15:53.099,1:15:58.500
as computed by traditional scientists, with the age of the rocks there,

1:15:58.701,1:16:02.168
this would be a reasonable place to look for an animal,

1:16:02.530,1:16:07.697
a fossil of an animal that lived there. And, indeed, scientists found it.

1:16:08.132,1:16:10.864
Tiktaalik, this fish-lizard guy.

1:16:11.868,1:16:16.665
And they found several specimens, it wasn't one individual.

1:16:17.098,1:16:19.398
In other words, they made a prediction, that this animal

1:16:20.897,1:16:26.131
would be found and it was found. So far, Mr. Ham and his worldview,

1:16:26.397,1:16:30.266
the Ken Ham creation model, does not have this capability.

1:16:30.496,1:16:34.000
It cannot make predictions and show results.

1:16:34.464,1:16:38.497
Here's an extraordinary one that I find remarkable.

1:16:39.065,1:16:45.700
There are certain fish, the Topminnows, that have

1:16:46.035,1:16:50.898
the remarkable ability to have sex with other fish,

1:16:51.898,1:16:56.133
traditional fish sex, and they can have sex with themselves.

1:16:56.433,1:16:59.966
Now, one of the old questions in life science, everybody,

1:17:00.333,1:17:04.601
one of the old chin strokers is why does any organism,

1:17:05.100,1:17:12.765
whether you're an ash tree, a sea jelly, a squid, a marmot,

1:17:13.031,1:17:17.936
why does anybody have sex? I mean, there are more bacteria

1:17:18.179,1:17:21.998
in your tummy right now then there are humans on Earth.

1:17:22.365,1:17:23.764
And bacteria, they don't bother with that, man.

1:17:23.764,1:17:26.230
They split themselves in half, they get new bacteria!

1:17:26.431,1:17:29.566
Like, let's get her done! Let's go. But why does any--

1:17:31.866,1:17:34.666
think of all the trouble a rose bush goes to make a flower and the thorns

1:17:34.998,1:17:41.199
and the bees flying around, interacting--why does anybody bother with all that?

1:17:41.900,1:17:45.797
And the answer seems to be...your enemies.

1:17:46.031,1:17:51.998
And your enemies are not lions and tigers and bears...oh my!

1:17:52.329,1:17:55.895
No, your enemies are germs and parasites.

1:17:56.429,1:17:59.200
That's what's gonna get you. Germs and parasites.

1:18:00.299,1:18:06.065
My first cousin's son died tragically from essentially the flu.

1:18:06.233,1:18:09.295
This is not some story I heard about. This is my first cousin, once removed.

1:18:09.499,1:18:13.562
Because, apparently, the virus had the right genes to attack his genes.

1:18:13.799,1:18:16.831
So when you have sex you have a new set of genes.

1:18:17.266,1:18:21.095
You have a new mixture. So people studied these Topminnows.

1:18:21.434,1:18:24.830
And they found that the ones who reproduced sexually

1:18:25.097,1:18:30.130
had fewer parasites that the ones who reproduced on their own.

1:18:30.431,1:18:34.793
This Black Spot disease--wait, wait, there's more.

1:18:34.793,1:18:37.965
In these populations, with flooding and so on, when river ponds get isolated,

1:18:38.231,1:18:40.532
then they dry up, then the river flows again.

1:18:40.735,1:18:45.167
In between, some of the fish will have sex with other fish,

1:18:45.365,1:18:49.299
sometimes, and they'll have sex on their own, what's called asexually.

1:18:50.400,1:18:52.932
And those fish, the ones that are in between, sometimes this,

1:18:53.135,1:18:57.196
sometimes that, they have an intermediate number of infections.

1:18:57.933,1:19:02.799
In other words, the explanation provided by evolution made a prediction.

1:19:03.695,1:19:06.499
And the prediction's extraordinary and subtle, but there it is.

1:19:07.397,1:19:09.265
How else would you explain it?

1:19:09.765,1:19:14.567
And to Mr. Ham and his followers I say this is something we in science want.

1:19:14.832,1:19:18.428
We want the ability to predict. And your assertion

1:19:18.600,1:19:21.621
that there's some difference between the natural laws

1:19:21.965,1:19:24.800
that I use to observe the world today and the natural laws

1:19:25.066,1:19:30.062
that existed 4,000 years ago is extraordinary and unsettling.

1:19:31.733,1:19:35.032
I travel around. I have a great many family members

1:19:35.366,1:19:40.135
in Danville, Virginia, one of the U.S's most livable cities.

1:19:40.566,1:19:46.408
It's lovely. And I was driving along and there was a sign in front of a church:

1:19:47.996,1:19:50.833
"Big Bang theory? You got to be kidding me. God."

1:19:51.667,1:19:56.073
Now, everybody, why would someone at the church, a pastor for example,

1:19:56.433,1:20:03.297
put that sign up unless he or she didn't believe

1:20:03.699,1:20:07.033
that the big bang was a real thing? I just want to review,

1:20:07.133,1:20:09.500
briefly, with everybody why we accept,

1:20:09.866,1:20:13.931
in the outside world, why we accept the Big Bang.

1:20:14.967,1:20:23.169
Edwin Hubble, sorry, there you go,you gotta be kidding me God.

1:20:23.700,1:20:28.499
Edwin Hubble was sitting at Mount Wilson, which is up from Pasadena, California.

1:20:29.260,1:20:33.167
On a clear day you can look down and see where the Rose Parade goes.

1:20:33.464,1:20:35.131
It's that close to civilization.

1:20:35.500,1:20:39.999
But even in the early 1900's, the people who selected this site for astronomy

1:20:40.598,1:20:45.133
picked an excellent site. The clouds and smog are below you.

1:20:45.801,1:20:51.069
And Edwin Hubble sat there at this very big telescope night after night studying the heavens.

1:20:52.099,1:20:58.365
And he found that the stars are moving apart. The stars are moving apart.

1:20:59.100,1:21:07.210
And he wasn't sure why. But it was clear that the stars are moving farther and farther apart all the time.

1:21:08.031,1:21:11.199
So people talked about it for a couple decades.

1:21:11.666,1:21:15.900
And then eventually another astronomer, almost a couple decades, another astronomer

1:21:16.132,1:21:20.664
Fred Hoyle just remarked, "Well, it was like there was a big bang.

1:21:20.865,1:21:24.797
There was an explosion. This is to say; since everything's moving apart,

1:21:25.164,1:21:28.233
it's very reasonable that at one time they were all together.

1:21:28.665,1:21:32.536
And there's a place from whence, or rather whence, these things expanded."

1:21:32.901,1:21:35.235
And it was a remarkable insight.

1:21:35.533,1:21:38.799
But people went still questioning it for decades.

1:21:39.063,1:21:43.429
Scientists, conventional scientists, questioning it for decades.

1:21:44.266,1:21:51.699
These two researchers wanted to listen for radio signals from space--radio astronomy.

1:21:51.964,1:21:57.899
And this is while we have visible light for our eyes, there is a whole other bunch of waves of light

1:21:58.066,1:22:01.867
that are much longer. The microwaves in your oven are about that long.

1:22:02.134,1:22:07.799
The radar at the airport is about that long. Your FM radio signals about like this.

1:22:08.001,1:22:13.966
AM radio signals are a kilometer--they're a couple, several soccer fields.

1:22:14.861,1:22:21.701
They went out listening. And there was this hiss, this hisssssss, all the time

1:22:21.931,1:22:25.232
that wouldn't go away. And they thought "Oh! Doggone it. There's some loose

1:22:25.433,1:22:29.400
connector." They plugged in the connector. They rescrewed it. They made it tight.

1:22:30.232,1:22:31.974
They turned it this way. The hiss was still there.

1:22:32.297,1:22:33.664
They turned it that way. It was still there.

1:22:33.899,1:22:41.299
They thought it was pigeon droppings that had affected the reception of this "horn" it's called.

1:22:41.299,1:22:43.567
This thing is still there. It's in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.

1:22:43.567,1:22:49.699
It's a national historic site. And Arno Pinzius and Robert Wilson had found

1:22:49.699,1:22:55.833
this cosmic background sound that was predicted by astronomers.

1:22:55.833,1:22:59.033
Astronomers running the numbers, doing math, predicted

1:22:59.033,1:23:02.575
that in the cosmos would be left over this echo,

1:23:02.575,1:23:06.899
this energy, from the Big Bang that would be detectable.

1:23:06.899,1:23:13.799
And they detected it. We built the Cosmic Observatory for Background Emissions, the COBE spacecraft,

1:23:13.799,1:23:17.834
and it matched exactly, exactly the astronomers predictions.

1:23:19.032,1:23:22.011
You gotta respect that. It's a wonderful thing.

1:23:23.166,1:23:29.400
Now, along that line is some interest in the age of the earth.

1:23:29.833,1:23:35.400
Right now, it's generally agreed that the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago.

1:23:36.000,1:23:41.366
What we can do on earth. These elements that we all know on the Periodic Table of Chemicals,

1:23:41.656,1:23:46.530
even ones we don't know, were created when stars explode.

1:23:46.530,1:23:51.432
And I look like nobody. But I attended a lecture by Hans Betta who won a Nobel

1:23:51.432,1:23:55.432
Prize for discovering the process by which stars create all these elements.

1:23:56.533,1:24:02.263
The one that interests me especially is our good friends Rubidium and Strontium.

1:24:02.731,1:24:06.530
Rubidium becomes Strontium spontaneously. It's an interesting thing to me.

1:24:06.733,1:24:11.263
A neutron becomes a proton. And it goes up the Periodic Table.

1:24:11.757,1:24:15.098
When lava comes out of the ground, molten lava,

1:24:15.567,1:24:19.231
and it freezes, turns to rock, when the melt solidifies,

1:24:19.231,1:24:23.041
or crystalizes, it locks the Rubidium and Strontium in place.

1:24:23.564,1:24:30.334
And so by careful assay, by careful, by being diligent, you can tell when the rock froze.

1:24:30.867,1:24:35.833
You can tell how old the Rubidium and Strontium are. And you can get an age for the earth.

1:24:36.396,1:24:42.366
When that stuff falls on fossils, you can get a very good idea of how old the fossils are.

1:24:42.633,1:24:47.634
I encourage you all to go to Nebraska, go to Ashfall State Park

1:24:48.131,1:24:51.832
and see the astonishing fossils. It looks like a Hollywood movie.

1:24:51.832,1:24:57.266
There are rhinoceroses. There are three-toed horses in Nebraska.

1:24:57.266,1:25:02.665
None of those animals are extant today. And they are buried, catastrophically, by a

1:25:02.665,1:25:05.697
volcano in what is now Idaho. Is now Yellowstone National Park.

1:25:05.697,1:25:08.200
What is called the hot spot. People call it the super-volcano.

1:25:08.200,1:25:12.500
And it's the remarkable thing. Apparently, as I can tell you, as a Northwesterner around

1:25:12.500,1:25:17.266
for Mount St. Helen's. For full disclosure I'm on the Mount St. Helen's Board.

1:25:17.266,1:25:20.532
When it (explosive sound), when it goes off it gives out a great deal of gas

1:25:20.532,1:25:24.866
that's toxic and knock these animals out. Looking for relief, they go to a watering

1:25:24.866,1:25:29.166
hole. And then when the ash comes they were all buried. It's an extraordinary place.

1:25:30.231,1:25:36.196
Now if in the bad old days, you had heart problems, they would right away cut you open.

1:25:37.199,1:25:43.167
Now, we use a drug based on Rubidium to look at the inside of your heart without cutting you open.

1:25:44.297,1:25:52.133
Now, my Kentucky friends, I want you to consider this. Right now, there is no place

1:25:52.133,1:25:57.533
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to get a degree in this kind of nuclear medicine--

1:25:57.533,1:25:59.433
this kind of drugs associated with that.

1:26:00.299,1:26:04.333
I hope you find that troubling. I hope you're concerned about that.

1:26:05.561,1:26:10.566
You want scientifically literate students in your commonwealth for a better tomorrow for everybody.

1:26:11.696,1:26:15.465
You can, you can't get this here. You have to go out of state.

1:26:16.500,1:26:22.300
Now as far as the distance to stars. Understand this is very well understood.

1:26:22.300,1:26:27.031
We, it's February. We look at a star in February. We measure an angle to it.

1:26:27.031,1:26:31.701
We wait six months. We look at that same star again and we measure that angle.

1:26:31.701,1:26:37.667
It's the same way carpenters built this building. It's the same way surveyors surveyed the land that we're standing on.

1:26:37.667,1:26:42.232
And so by measuring the distance to a star, you can figure out how far away it is, that star,

1:26:42.232,1:26:46.630
and the stars beyond it, and the stars beyond that. There are billions of stars.

1:26:46.630,1:26:50.397
Billions of stars more than six thousand light years from here.

1:26:50.868,1:26:54.334
A light year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time.

1:26:55.199,1:27:01.100
There are billions of stars. Mr. Hamm, how could there be billions of stars more distant

1:27:01.100,1:27:05.333
than six thousand years, if the world's only six thousand years old?

1:27:05.598,1:27:12.234
It's an extraordinary claim. There's another astronomer, Adolphe Quetele, who remarked first

1:27:12.234,1:27:23.663
about the reasonable man. Is it reasonable that we have ice older by a factor of a hundred than you claim the earth is?

1:27:24.097,1:27:27.130
We have trees that have more tree rings than the earth is old.

1:27:27.130,1:27:33.200
We have rocks with Rubidium and Strontium, and Uranium-Uranium, and Potassium-Argon dating

1:27:33.200,1:27:37.063
that are far, far, far older than you claim the earth is.

1:27:37.063,1:27:44.362
Could anybody have built an ark that would sustain the better than any ark anybody was able to build on the earth?

1:27:44.362,1:27:49.200
So, if you're asking me, and I got the impression you were,

1:27:49.200,1:27:55.212
is Ken Hamm's creation model viable? I say "No! Absolutely not!"

1:27:56.367,1:28:01.566
Now, one last thing. You may not know that in the US Constitution, from the founding fathers,

1:28:01.799,1:28:05.733
is the sentence "to promote the progress of science and useful arts..."

1:28:06.832,1:28:12.032
Kentucky voters, voters who might be watching online,

1:28:12.299,1:28:16.733
in places like Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas, please

1:28:17.000,1:28:20.064
you don't want to raise a generation of science students

1:28:20.064,1:28:23.914
who don't understand how we know our place in the cosmos,

1:28:23.914,1:28:26.667
our place in space, who don't understand natural law.

1:28:26.667,1:28:30.770
We need to innovate to keep the United States where it is in the world.

1:28:30.770,1:28:33.997
Thank you very much. (applause)

1:28:48.767,1:28:52.097
Moderator: That's a lot to take in. I hope everybody's holding up well.

1:28:52.097,1:28:55.700
That's a lot of information. What we're going to have now is a five minute

1:28:55.700,1:28:59.342
rebuttal time for each gentleman to address the other one's comments.

1:28:59.342,1:29:03.929
And then there will be a five minute counter rebuttal after that.

1:29:03.929,1:29:06.532
Things are going to start moving a little more quickly now.

1:29:06.532,1:29:10.967
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.

1:29:10.967,1:29:15.497
So, Mr. Hamm, if you'd like to begin with your five minute rebuttal first.

1:29:25.600,1:29:30.096
Mr. Hamm: First of all, Bill, if I was to answer all the points that you brought up,

1:29:30.400,1:29:34.167
the moderator would think that I was going on for millions of years. (laughter)

1:29:34.498,1:29:36.000
So I can only deal with some of them.

1:29:36.335,1:29:39.699
And you mentioned the age of the earth a couple of times, so let me deal with that.

1:29:40.066,1:29:48.972
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.

1:29:48.972,1:29:52.400
Now, just so you understand where I'm coming from.

1:29:52.400,1:29:57.168
Yes, we admit we build our origins from historical science on the Bible.

1:29:57.168,1:30:02.800
The Bible says God created in six days. A Hebrew word "yon" as it's used in Genesis 1

1:30:02.800,1:30:06.533
with evening/morning number means an ordinary day. Adam was made on day six.

1:30:06.533,1:30:10.099
And so, when you add up all those geneologies specifically given in the Bible

1:30:10.099,1:30:20.200
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.

1:30:20.200,1:30:24.204
That's how we get 6,000 years. So that's where it comes from. Just so you know.

1:30:24.204,1:30:30.237
Now a lot of people say. Now, by the way, the earth's age is 4.5 billion years old.

1:30:30.237,1:30:35.767
And we have radioactive decay dating methods that found that.

1:30:35.767,1:30:39.001
But you see, we certainly observe radioactive decay

1:30:39.001,1:30:42.999
whether it's rubidium-strontium, whether it's uranium-lead, potassium-argon

1:30:42.999,1:30:46.199
But when you're talking about the past, we have a problem.

1:30:46.199,1:30:50.334
I'll give you a practical example. In Australia, there were engineers

1:30:50.334,1:30:53.365
that were trying to search out about a coal mine.

1:30:53.365,1:30:58.398
And so they drilled down and they found a basalt layer, a lava flow that had woody material in it--

1:30:58.398,1:31:04.299
branches and twigs and so on. And when Dr. Andrew Snelling, our PhD geologist,

1:31:05.322,1:31:08.500
sent that to a lab in Massachusetts in 1994, they used potassium-argon

1:31:08.516,1:31:11.326
dating and dated it at 45 million years old.

1:31:11.700,1:31:14.499
Well, he also sent the wood to the radio-carbon section of the same lab

1:31:16.230,1:31:20.332
and that dated at 45,000 years old. 45,000 year old wood in 45 million year old rock.

1:31:20.332,1:31:22.896
The point is there's a problem.

1:31:22.896,1:31:25.900
Let me give you another example of a problem.

1:31:25.900,1:31:29.732
There was a lava dome that started to form in the 80's after Mt. St. Helen's erupted.

1:31:29.732,1:31:37.363
And in 1994 Dr. Steve Austin, another PhD geologist, actually sampled the rock there.

1:31:37.363,1:31:45.466
He took whole rock, crushed it, sent it to the same lab actually, I believe, and got a date of .35 million years.

1:31:45.466,1:31:50.466
When he separated out the minerals amphibole and pyroxene and used potassium-argon dating,

1:31:50.466,1:31:56.904
he got .9 million and 2.8 million. My point is all these dating methods actually give all sorts of different dates.

1:31:56.904,1:32:02.132
In fact, different dating methods on the same rock, we can show, give all sorts of different dates.

1:32:02.132,1:32:05.099
See there's lots of assumptions in regard to radioactive dating.

1:32:05.099,1:32:09.666
Number one, for instance, the amounts of the parent and daughter isotopes at the beginning when the rock formed.

1:32:09.666,1:32:12.565
We have to know them. But you weren't there. See that's historical science.

1:32:12.565,1:32:20.766
Assumption 2: that all daughter atoms measured today must have only been derived in situ radioactive decay of parent atoms.

1:32:20.766,1:32:22.133
In other words it's a closed system.

1:32:22.133,1:32:25.933
But you don't know that. And there's a lot of evidence that that's not so.

1:32:25.933,1:32:28.807
Assumption Number 3: that the decay rates have remained a constant.

1:32:28.807,1:32:31.133
Now they're just some of them. There's others as well.

1:32:31.133,1:32:33.966
The point is there's lots of assumptions in regard to the dating methods.

1:32:33.966,1:32:39.132
So there's no dating method you can use that you can absolutely age date a rock.

1:32:41.200,1:32:43.132
There's all sorts of differences out there.

1:32:43.132,1:32:46.232
And I do want to address the bit you brought up about Christians believing in millions of years.

1:32:46.232,1:32:48.580
Yeah, there's a lot of Christians out there that believe in millions of years,

1:32:48.580,1:32:52.300
but I'd say they have a problem. I'm not saying they're not Christians, but

1:32:52.300,1:32:56.068
because salvation is conditioned upon faith in Christ, not the age of the earth.

1:32:56.068,1:32:58.899
But there's an inconsistency with what the Bible teaches.

1:32:58.899,1:33:03.663
If you believe in millions of years, you've got death and bloodshed, suffering, and disease

1:33:03.663,1:33:08.134
over millions of years leading to man, because that's what you see in the fossil record.

1:33:08.134,1:33:11.433
The Bible makes it very clear death is a result of man's sin.

1:33:11.433,1:33:16.069
In fact, the first death was in the garden when God killed an animal, clothed Adam and Eve,

1:33:16.069,1:33:20.366
first blood sacrifice pointing towards what would happen with Jesus Christ.

1:33:20.366,1:33:24.032
He would be the one who would die once and for all.

1:33:24.032,1:33:27.596
Now if you believe in millions of years as a Christian, in the fossil record

1:33:27.596,1:33:30.863
there's evidence of animals eating each other, Bible says originally all the animals

1:33:30.863,1:33:35.366
and man were vegetarian. We weren't told we could eat meat until after the flood.

1:33:35.366,1:33:40.067
There's diseases represented in the fossil record like brain tumors, but the Bible

1:33:40.067,1:33:42.300
says when God made everything it was very good.

1:33:42.300,1:33:44.234
God doesn't call brain tumors very good.

1:33:44.234,1:33:48.143
There's fossilized thorns in the fossil record said to be hundreds of millions of years old,

1:33:48.143,1:33:50.972
the Bible says thorns came after the curse.

1:33:50.972,1:33:53.763
So these two things can't be true at the same time.

1:33:53.763,1:33:57.231
You know what? There's hundreds of dating methods out there, hundreds of them.

1:33:57.231,1:34:03.965
Actually, 90% of them contradict billions of years. And the point is, all such dating methods are fallible.

1:34:03.965,1:34:08.267
And I claim, there's only one infallible dating method, it's a witness who was there,

1:34:08.267,1:34:11.533
who knows everything, who told us. And that's from the word of God.

1:34:11.533,1:34:16.500
And that's why I would say that the earth is only 6,000 years. And, as Dr. Faulkner said,

1:34:16.500,1:34:20.429
there's nothing in astronomy, and certainly Dr. Snelling would say, there's nothing in geology

1:34:20.429,1:34:25.264
to contradict a belief in a young age for the earth and the universe.

1:34:26.433,1:34:29.065
Moderator: Thank you Mr. Ham. Mr. Nye, your five-minute rebuttal please.

1:34:29.366,1:34:32.200
Mr. Nye: Thank you very much. Let me start with the beginning.

1:34:32.663,1:34:37.233
If you find 45 million year old rock on top of 45 thousand year old trees,

1:34:37.233,1:34:42.467
maybe the rock slid on top. Maybe that's it. That seems much more reasonable explanation

1:34:42.467,1:34:49.332
than, "It's impossible." Then as far as dating goes, actually the methods are

1:34:49.332,1:34:55.033
very reliable. One of the mysteries, or interesting things that people in my business,

1:34:55.033,1:35:00.363
especially at the Planetary Society, are interested in is why all the asteroids seem to be

1:35:00.363,1:35:06.900
so close to the same date in age. It's 4.5, 4.6 billion years.

1:35:06.900,1:35:11.367
It's a remarkable thing. People at first expected a little more of a spread.

1:35:11.367,1:35:20.498
So, I understand that you take the Bible as written in English, translated countless,

1:35:20.498,1:35:26.100
not countless, but many, many times over the last three millenia as to be a more accurate,

1:35:26.100,1:35:29.033
more reasonable assessment of the natural laws we see around us

1:35:29.033,1:35:37.732
than what I and everybody in here can observe. That to me is unsettling, troubling.

1:35:37.732,1:35:47.535
And then about the disease thing, are the fish sinners? Have they done something wrong to get diseases?

1:35:47.535,1:35:55.133
That's sort of an extraordinary claim that takes me just a little past what I'm comfortable with.

1:35:55.133,1:36:00.863
And then, as far as you can't observe the past, I have to stop you right there.

1:36:00.863,1:36:02.702
That's what we do in astronomy.

1:36:02.702,1:36:06.131
All we can do in astronomy is look at the past.

1:36:06.131,1:36:13.600
By the way, you're looking at the past right now. Because the speed of light bounces off of me

1:36:13.600,1:36:18.764
and then gets to your eyes. And I'm delighted to see that the people in the back of the room

1:36:18.764,1:36:23.532
appear just that much younger than the people in the front.

1:36:23.532,1:36:32.099
So this idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws that we have now,

1:36:32.099,1:36:37.732
I think is at the heart of our disagreement. [br]I don't see how we're ever going to agree with that

1:36:37.732,1:36:44.167
if you insist that natural laws have changed. It's, for lack of a better word, it's magical.

1:36:45.063,1:36:50.500
And I have appreciated magic since I was a kid, but it's not really what we want

1:36:50.500,1:37:02.266
in conventional, mainstream science. So, your assertion that all the animals were vegetarians

1:37:03.100,1:37:10.568
before they got on the ark. That's really remarkable. I have not spent a lot of time with lions,

1:37:10.568,1:37:14.733
but I can tell they've got teeth that really aren't set up for broccoli.

1:37:14.733,1:37:22.194
That these animals were vegetarians til this flood is something that I would ask you

1:37:22.194,1:37:28.961
to provide a little more proof for. I give you the lion's teeth, you give me verses

1:37:28.961,1:37:34.499
as translated into English over, what, 30 centuries?

1:37:34.499,1:37:40.132
So, that's not enough evidence for me. If you've ever played telephone, I did, I remember very well

1:37:40.132,1:37:43.163
in kindergarten where you have a secret and you whisper it to the next person, to the next person,

1:37:43.163,1:37:50.800
to the next person. Things often go wrong. So it's very reasonable to me that instead of lions being vegetarians on the ark,

1:37:50.800,1:38:01.797
lions are lions, and the information that you used to create your world view is not consistent with

1:38:01.797,1:38:11.399
what I, as a reasonable man, would expect. So, I want everybody to consider the implications of this.

1:38:12.631,1:38:23.667
If we accept Mr. Ham's point of view, that the Bible as translated into American English,

1:38:23.667,1:38:31.700
serves as a science text, and that he and his followers will interpret that for you,

1:38:31.700,1:38:39.965
Just, I want you to consider what that means. It means that Mr. Ham's word or his interpretation

1:38:39.965,1:38:48.427
of these other words, is somehow to be more respected than what you can observe in nature.

1:38:48.427,1:38:50.600
Than what you can find literally in your backyard, in Kentucky.

1:38:51.177,1:38:58.497
It's a troubling and unsettling point of view, and it's one I very much like you to address when you come back.

1:38:59.332,1:39:04.262
As far as the five races that you mentioned, it's kind of the same thing.

1:39:04.262,1:39:08.374
The five races were claimed by people who were of European descent,

1:39:08.374,1:39:12.431
and said, "Hey, we're the best! Check us out!" And that turns out to be,

1:39:12.431,1:39:17.130
if you've ever traveled anywhere or done anything, not to be that way.

1:39:17.130,1:39:20.297
People are much more alike than they are different.

1:39:20.297,1:39:26.067
So, are we supposed to take your word for English words translated over the last 30 centuries,

1:39:26.067,1:39:29.897
instead of what we can observe in the universe around us?

1:39:30.999,1:39:33.735
Moderator: Very good. And Mr. Ham, would you like to offer your five minute counter rebuttal?

1:39:37.968,1:39:41.534
Ken Ham: Uh, first of all, Bill, just so, I just don't want a misunderstanding here,

1:39:41.534,1:39:47.767
and that is, the 45,000-year-old wood, or supposedly 45,000 was inside the basalt.

1:39:47.767,1:39:54.300
Um, so, it was encased in the basalt. Uh, and that's why I was making that particular point.

1:39:54.300,1:39:59.367
And I would also say that natural law hasn't changed. As I talked about, you know,

1:39:59.367,1:40:03.728
I said we had the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature. And that only makes sense

1:40:03.728,1:40:07.668
within a biblical worldview anyway, of a creator God, who set up those laws,

1:40:07.668,1:40:11.200
and that's why we can do good experimental science, because we assume those laws are true,

1:40:11.200,1:40:20.764
and they'll be true tomorrow. I do want to say this. that you said a few times, you know,

1:40:20.764,1:40:26.034
Ken Ham's view or model. It's not just Ken Ham's model. We have a number of PhD scientists

1:40:26.034,1:40:31.433
on our own staff. I quoted, had video quotes, from some scientists.

1:40:31.433,1:40:40.301
It's Dr. Damadian's model. It's Dr. Fabich's model. It's Dr. Faulkner's model. It's Dr. Snelling's model.

1:40:40.301,1:40:44.658
It's Dr. Purdom's model. And so it goes on, in other words. And you go on our website,

1:40:44.658,1:40:50.861
and there are lots of creation scientists who agree with exactly what we're saying concerning

1:40:50.861,1:40:57.201
the Bible's account of creation. So it's not just "my model" in that sense.

1:40:57.201,1:41:05.168
There is so much that I can say, but, as I listen to you, I believe you're confusing terms

1:41:05.168,1:41:11.134
in regard to species and kinds. Because we're not saying that God created all those species.

1:41:11.134,1:41:16.100
We're saying God created kinds. And we're not saying species got on the ark, we're saying kinds.

1:41:16.100,1:41:19.799
In fact, we've had researchers working on what is a kind. For instance, there's a number of papers,

1:41:19.799,1:41:24.066
published on our website, where, for instance, they look at dogs. And they say, well, this one

1:41:24.066,1:41:28.600
breeds with this one, with this one, with this one. And you can look at all the papers around the world

1:41:28.600,1:41:31.835
and you can connect them all together and say that obviously represents one kind.

1:41:31.835,1:41:36.433
In fact, as they have been doing that research, they have predicted probably less than actually a thousand

1:41:36.433,1:41:41.966
kinds were on Noah's ark, which means just over 2,000 animals. And the average size of a land animal

1:41:41.966,1:41:48.367
is not that big so, you know, there was plenty of room on the ark. I also believe that

1:41:48.367,1:41:52.932
a lot of what you were saying was really illustrating my point. Uh, you were talking about tree rings

1:41:52.932,1:41:58.333
and ice layers and, just talking about kangaroos getting to Australia, and all sorts of things like that.

1:41:58.333,1:42:03.497
But see, we're talking about the past, when we weren't there. We didn't see those tree rings actually forming.

1:42:03.497,1:42:10.156
We didn't see those layers being laid down. You know, in 1942, for instance, there were some planes

1:42:10.156,1:42:15.033
that landed on the ice in Greenland. They found them, what, 46 years later, I think it was,

1:42:15.033,1:42:20.233
three miles away from the original location with 250 feet of ice buried on top of them.

1:42:20.233,1:42:24.496
So, ice can build up catastrophically. If you assume one layer a year, or something like that,

1:42:24.496,1:42:30.000
it's like the dating methods. You are assuming things in regard to the past that aren't necessarily true.

1:42:30.000,1:42:39.100
In regard to lions and teeth, bears, most bears have teeth very much like a lion or tiger, and yet, most bears

1:42:39.100,1:42:42.967
are primarily vegetarian. The panda, if you look at its teeth, you'd say, maybe it should be a

1:42:42.967,1:42:48.468
savage carnivore. It eats mainly bamboo. The little fruit bat in Australia has really sharp teeth,

1:42:48.468,1:42:51.900
looks like a savage little creature, and it rips into fruit.

1:42:51.900,1:42:56.600
Uh, so, just cause an animal has sharp teeth doesn't mean it's a meat eater. It means it has sharp teeth.

1:42:56.600,1:43:03.333
Uh, so again, it really comes down to our interpretation of these things.

1:43:03.333,1:43:07.443
I think too, in regard to the Missoula, uh, example that you gave, you know,

1:43:07.443,1:43:10.505
creationists do believe there's been post-flood catastrophism.

1:43:10.505,1:43:17.772
Noah's flood, certainly, was a catastrophic event. But then there's been post-flood catastrophism since that time as well.

1:43:17.772,1:43:22.134
And again, in regard to historical science, why would you say Noah was unskilled?

1:43:22.134,1:43:28.833
I mean, I didn't meet Noah, and neither did you. And you know, really, it's an evolutionary view of origins I believe

1:43:28.833,1:43:32.200
cause you're thinking in terms people before us aren't as good as us.

1:43:32.200,1:43:36.867
Hey, there are civilizations that existed in the past, and we look at their technology,

1:43:36.867,1:43:41.400
and we can't even understand today how they did some of the things that they did.

1:43:41.400,1:43:44.936
Who says Noah couldn't build a big boat? By the way, the Chinese and the Egyptians built boats.

1:43:44.936,1:43:49.134
In fact, some of our research indicates that some of the wooden boats that were built

1:43:49.134,1:43:52.739
had three layers interlocking so they wouldn't twist like that and leak, which is why,

1:43:52.739,1:43:58.866
here at the Creation Museum, we have an exhibit on the ark, where we've rebuilt 1% of the ark to scale

1:43:58.866,1:44:03.868
and shown three interlocking layers like that. And one last thing, concerning the speed of light,

1:44:03.868,1:44:09.667
and that is, I'm sure you're aware of the horizon problem. And that is, from a Big Bang perspective,

1:44:09.667,1:44:15.532
even the secularists have a problem of getting light and radiation out to the universe

1:44:15.532,1:44:20.700
to be able to exchange with the rest of the universe, to get that even microwave background radiation.

1:44:20.700,1:44:27.133
On their model, 15 billion years or so, they can only get it about halfway.

1:44:27.133,1:44:32.134
And that's why they have inflation theories, which means, everyone has a problem concerning the light issue.

1:44:32.134,1:44:36.000
There's things people don't understand. And we have some models on our website

1:44:36.000,1:44:40.463
by some of our scientists to help explain those sorts of things.

1:44:40.463,1:44:42.967
Moderator: Mr. Nye, your counter rebuttal.

1:44:42.967,1:44:46.100
Bill Nye: Thank you Mr. Ham, but I'm completely unsatisfied.

1:44:46.100,1:44:53.600
You did not, in my view, address this fundamental question. 680,000 years of snow ice layers

1:44:53.600,1:44:59.748
which require winter summer cycle. Let's say you have 2,000 kinds instead of seven.

1:44:59.748,1:45:05.734
That makes the problem even more extraordinary, multiplying eleven by what's, three and a half?

1:45:05.734,1:45:14.265
We get to 35... 40 species every day that we don't see, they're not extant.

1:45:14.265,1:45:20.166
In fact, you probably know we're losing species due to mostly human activity and the loss of habitat.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Then, as far as Noah being an extraordinary shipwright, I'm very skeptical.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The shipwrights, my ancestors, the Nye family in New England, took, spent their whole life learning to make ships.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I mean, it's very reasonable, perhaps, to you that Noah had superpowers

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and was able to build this extraordinary craft with seven family members, but to me, it's just not reasonable.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Then, uh, by the way, the fundamental thing we disagree on, Mr. Ham,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is this nature of what you can prove to yourself. This is to say, when people make assumptions

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
based on radiometric data, when they make assumptions about the expanding universe,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of bacteria

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
in laboratory growth media, they are making assumptions based on previous experience.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
They're not coming out of whole cloth. So, next time you have a chance to speak,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I encourage you to explain to us why... why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
just 4,000 years ago, completely. And there's no record of it. You know, there are pyramids that are older than that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There are human populations that are far older than that, with traditions that go back farther that that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And it's just not reasonable to me that everything changed 4,000 years ago.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
By everything, I mean the species, the surface of the Earth, the stars in the sky,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and the relationship of all the other living things on Earth to humans.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's just not reasonable to me that everything changed like that. (Snaps fingers.)

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And another thing I would very much appreciate you addressing:

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious. And I respect that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
People get tremendous community and comfort and nurture and support from their religious fellows

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
in their communities, in their faiths, in their churches.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And yet, they don't accept your point of view.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There are Christians who don't accept that the Earth could somehow be this extraordinary young age

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
because of all the evidence around them. And so, what is to become of them, in your view?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And by the way, this thing started, as I understand it, Ken Ham's creation model is based on the Old Testament.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So when you bring in, I'm not a theologian, when you bring in the New Testament,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
isn't that little, uh, out of the box? I'm looking for explanations of the creation of the world

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
as we know it, uh, based on what I'm gonna call science. Not historical science, not observational science.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Science: things that each of us can do akin to what we do, we're trying to outguess the characters

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
on murder mystery shows, on crime scene investigation, especially.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What is to become of all those people, who don't see it your way?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
For us, in the scientific community, I remind you, that when we find an idea that's not tenable,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that doesn't work, that doesn't fly, doesn't hold water, whatever idiom you'd like to embrace, we throw it away.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We are delighted. That's why I say, if you can find a fossil that has swum between the layers, bring it on!

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You would change the world. If you could show that somehow the microwave background radiation

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is not a result of the Big Bang, come on! Write your paper. Tear it up!

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So, your view, that we're supposed to take your word for this book written centuries ago,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
translated into American English, is somehow more important that what I can see with my own eyes,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is an extraordinary claim. And, for those watching online, especially, I want to remind you

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that we need scientists, and especially engineers for the future.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Engineers use science to solve problems and make things. We need these people

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
so that the United States can continue to innovate and continue to be a world leader.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We need innovation, and that needs science education. Thank you.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: All right. Thank you both. Uh, now we're going to get to the things moving a little bit faster.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I think they might be quite interesting here. It's 40 to 45 minutes, maybe a little bit more, actually.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We'll have a little more. For questions and answers submitted by our audience here in the Creation Museum.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Beforehand, we handed out these cards to everyone. I shuffled them here in the back,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and in fact, I dropped a lot of them, and then I scooped them up again.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And if you saw me sorting through them here, it was to get a pile for Mr. Nye and a pile for Mr. Ham,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
so that we can alternate reasonably between them. Other than that, the only reason I will skip over one

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
which sometimes happens just because of the way people write. (Audience laughs.)

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What's going to happen is we're gonna go back and forth between Mr. Nye and Mr. Ham.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Each debater will have two minutes to answer the question addressed to him,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and then the other will have one minute to also answer the question, even though it was addressed to the other man.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And I did pull one card aside here, because I noticed it was to both men.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And Mr. Nye, you can stand by for your responses. Two minutes.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
How does creationism account for the celestial bodies: planets, stars, moons moving further and further apart?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And what function does that serve in the grand design?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And I believe our creationist astronomers would say, "Yeah, you can observe the universe expanding."

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Why God is doing that? In fact, in Bible it even says He stretches out the heavens.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And seems to indicate that there is an expansion of the universe.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And so, we would say, yeah, you can observe that. That fits with what we call observational science.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Exactly why God did it that way? I can't answer that question, of course,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
because, you know, the Bible says that God made the heavens for his glory.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And in fact, I think that's the thing about the universe. The universe is so large, so big out there.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
One of our planetarium programs looks at this. We go in and show you how large the universe is.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And I think it shows us how great God is, how big He is, that He's an all-powerful God,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
He's an infinite God, an infinite, all-knowing God who created the universe to show us his power.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I mean, can you imagine that, and the thing that's really remarkable in the Bible.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
For instance, it says on the fourth day of creation, and oh, he made the stars also.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's almost like, "Oh, by the way, I made the stars." Um, and just to show us He's an all-powerful God.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
He's an infinite God. So, "I made the stars." And he made them to show us how great He is.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And He is. He's an infinite creator God. And the more that you understand what that means,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that God is all-powerful, infinite, you stand back in awe. You realize how small we are.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You realize, wow, that God would consider this planet, is so significant that he created human beings here,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
knowing they would sin, and yet stepped into history to die for us and be raised from the dead.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Our verse, the free gift of salvation. Wow! What a God!

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And that's what I would say when I see the universe as it is.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Mr. Nye, one minute. And your response?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Bill Nye: There's a question that troubles us all from the time when we are absolutely youngest and first able to think.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And that is, where did we come from? Where did I come from?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And this question is so compelling that we've invented the science of astronomy.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We've invented life science. We've invented physics.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We've discovered these natural laws so that we can learn more about our origin and where we came from.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
To you, when it says, He invented the stars also, that's satisfying. You're done.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Oh, good. Okay. To me, when I look at the night sky, I want to know what's out there.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I'm driven. I want to know if what's out there is any part of me, and indeed, it is.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The "oh, by the way" I find compelling you are satisfied.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And the big thing I want from you, Mr. Ham, is can you come up with something that you can predict?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Do you have a creation model that predicts something that will happen in nature?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: And that's time. Mr. Nye, the next question is for you.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
How did the atoms that created the Big Bang get there?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is what drives us. This is what we want to know. Let's keep looking. Let's keep searching.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Uh, when I was young, it was presumed that the universe was slowing down.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's a big bang, phrooo! Except it's in outer space, there's no air, so (quietly) it goes out like that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And so people presumed that it would slow down, that the universe, the gravity, especially,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
would hold everything together and maybe it's going to come back and explode again.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And people went out. And the mathematical expression is: is the universe flat?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's a mathematical expression. Will the universe slow down, slow down, slow down asymptotically without ever stopping?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Well, in 2004, Saul Perlmutter and his colleagues went looking for the rate at which the universe was slowing down.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Let's go out and measure it. And we're doing it with this extraordinary system of telescopes around the world,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
looking at the night sky, looking for supernovae. These are a standard brightness that you can infer distances with.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And the universe isn't slowing down. It's accelerating! The universe is accelerating in its expansion.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And do you know why? Nobody knows why! (audience laughs) Nobody knows why.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And you'll hear the expression nowadays, dark energy, dark matter, which are mathematical ideas that seem

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
to reckon well with what seems to be the gravitational attraction of clusters of stars, galaxies, and their expansion.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And then, isn't it reasonable that whatever's out there, causing the universe to expand, is here also?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And we just haven't figured out how to detect it.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
My friends, suppose a science student from the commonwealth of Kentucky pursues a career in science

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and finds out the answer to that deep question? Where did we come from? What was before the Big Bang?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
To us, this is wonderful and charming and compelling. This is what makes us get up and go to work everyday,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is to try to solve the mysteries of the universe.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: And that's time. Mr. Ham, a response?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: Uh, Bill, I just want to let you know that there actually is

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from. (Audience laughs.)

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And, the very first sentence in that book says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
where it came from, but why matter, when you look at it, we have information and language systems that build life.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We're not just matter. And where did that come from? Because matter can never produce information.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Matter can never produce a language system. Languages only come from intelligence.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Information only comes from information. The Bible tells us that the things we see, like in the book of Hebrews,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
are made from things that are unseen. An infinite creator God who created the universe,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
created matter, the energy, space, mass, time universe, and created the information for life.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's the only thing that makes logical sense.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Alright, Mr. Ham, a new question here. The overwhelming majority of people in the

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
scientific community have presented valid, physical evidence, such as carbon dating and fossils,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
to support evolutionary theory. What evidence besides the literal word of the Bible supports creationism?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: Well, first of all, you know, I often hear people talking about "the majority".

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I would agree that the majority of scientists would believe

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
in millions of years and the majority would believe in evolution,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but there's a large group out there that certainly don't.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But, first thing I want to say is, it's not the majority that's the judge of truth.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There have been many times in the past when the majority have got it wrong.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The majority of doctors in England once thought after you cut up bodies,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
you could go and deliver babies and wondered why

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
the death rate was high in hospitals,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
till they found out about diseases caused by bacteria and so on.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The majority once thought the appendix was a leftover organ

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
from evolutionary ancestry, so, you know, when it's okay,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
rip it out. When it's diseased, rip it out. Rip it out anyway.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But these days we know that it's for the immune system

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and it's very, very important.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So, you know, it's important to understand that just because

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
the majority believe something doesn't mean that it's true.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And then, I'm sorry, I missed the last part of the question there.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: What was the--let me make sure I have the right question here--

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So what evidence besides the literal word of the bible--

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: Okay, one of the things I was doing was making predictions.[br]

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I made some predictions. There's a whole list of predictions.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And I was saying, if the Bible's right and we're all descendants

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
of Adam and Eve, there's one race. And I went through and talked about that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If the Bible's right and God made kinds, I went through

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and talked about that. And, so, really that question comes down

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
to the fact that we're again dealing with the fact that there's aspects

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
about the past that you can't scientifically prove because

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
you weren't there, but observational science in the present.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Bill and I all have the same observational science. We're here in the present.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We can see radioactivity, but when it comes to then talking about the past,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
you're not going to be scientifically able to prove that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And that's what we need to admit. We can be great scientists in the present,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
as the examples I gave you of Dr. Damadian or Dr. Stuart Burgess

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
or Dr. Fabich and we can be investigating the present.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Understanding the past is a whole different matter.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Mr. Nye, one minute response.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Thank you, Mr. Ham. I have to disabuse you of a fundamental idea.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If a scientist, if anybody, makes a discovery that changes

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
the way people view natural law, scientists embrace him or her!

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This person's fantastic. Louis Pasteur--you made reference to germs.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Now, if you find something that changes, that disagrees with common thought,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that's the greatest thing going in science.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We look forward to that change. We challenge you--

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
tell us why the universe is accelerating.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Tell us why these mothers were getting sick.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And we found an explanation for it. And the idea that the majority

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
has sway in science is true only up a point.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And then, the other thing I just want to point out, what you may

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
have missed in evolutionary explanations of life

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is it's the mechanism by which we add complexity.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The earth is getting energy from the sun all the time.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And that energy is used to make lifeforms somewhat more complex.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: And that's time.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
New question for you, Mr. Nye.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
How did consciousness come from matter?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Bill Nye: Don't know. This is a great mystery.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
A dear friend of mine is a neurologist. She studies the nature of consciousness.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Now I will say I used to embrace a joke about dogs.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I love dogs. I mean, who doesn't?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And you can say, this guy remarked,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
"I've never seen a dog paralyzed by self-doubt." Actually, I have.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Furthermore, the thing that we celebrate, there are three sundials

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
on the planet Mars that bare an inscription to the future:

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
"To those who visit here, we wish you a safe journey and the joy of discovery."

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's inherently optimistic about the future of humankind,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that we will one day walk on Mars. But the joy of discovery...

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that's what drives us. The joy of finding out what's going on.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So we don't know where consciousness comes from. But we want to find out.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Furthermore, I'll tell you it's deep within us. I claim that I

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
have spent time with dogs that have had the joy of discovery!

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's way inside us! We have one ancestor, as near as we can figure.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And, by the way, if you can find what we in science call "a second genesis",

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
this is to say, "Did life start another way on the earth?"

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There are researchers at Astrobiology Institute,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
researchers supported by NASA, your tax dollars,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that are looking for answers to that very question.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Is it possible that life could start another way?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Is there some sort of life form akin to science fiction

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that's crystal instead of membranous. This would be a fantastic

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
discovery that would change the world!

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The nature of consciousness is a mystery.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I challenge the young people here to investigate that very question.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And I remind you--taxpayers and voters that might be watching--

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
if we do not embrace the process of science,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and I mean in the mainstream, we will fall behind economically.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is a point I can't say enough.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Mr. Ham, a one minute response.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: Bill, I do want to say that there is a book out there... (audience laughs)

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that does document where consciousness came from.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And in that book, the one who created us said that he made man in His image,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and He breathed into man, and he became a living being.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And so, the Bible does document that. That's where consciousness came from,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that God gave it to us. And, you know, the other thing I want to say is,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I'm sorta of a little, I have a mystery. That is, you talk about the joy of discovery

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but you also say that when you die, it's over, and that's the end of you.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I mean, in an ultimate sense? I mean, you know, you won't ever know you were ever here,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and no one who knew you will know they were ever here, ultimately, so what's the point anyway?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I love the joy of discovery because this is God's creation,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and I'm finding more out about that to take dominion for man's good and for God's glory.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: And that's time. Mr. Ham, a new question.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is a simple question, I suppose, but one that actually is fairly profound for all of us, in our lives.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What, if anything, would ever change your mind?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: Hmm. Well, the answer to that question is,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I'm a Christian, and as a Christian, I can't prove it to you,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but God has definitely, shown me very clearly

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
through His Word, and shown Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The Bible is the Word of God. I admit that that's where I start from.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I can challenge people that you can go and test that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You can make predictions based on that. You can check the prophecies in the Bible.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You can check the statements in Genesis. You can check that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I did a little bit of that tonight. And I can't ultimately prove that to you.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
All I can do is to say to someone, "Look, if the Bible really is what it claims to be,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
if it really is the Word of God, and that's what it claims, then check it out."

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And the Bible says, "If you come to God believing that He is, He'll reveal Himself to you."

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And you will know. As Christians, we can say we know.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And so, as far as the Word of God is concerned, no, no one's ever going to convince me

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that the Word of God is not true. But I do want to make a distinction here.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And for Bill's sake. We build models based upon the Bible.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And those models are always subject to change.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The fact of Noah's flood is not subject to change.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The model of how the flood occurred is subject to change

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
because we observe in the current world,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and we're able to come up with different ways this could have happened or that could have happened.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And that's part of that scientific discovery. That's part of what it's all about.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So, the bottom line is that as a Christian, I have a foundation.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That as a Christian, I would ask Bill a question. What would change your mind?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I mean, you said, even if you came to faith, you'd never give up believing in billions of years.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I think I quoted you correctly. You said something like that recently.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So that would be also my question to Bill.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Time. Mr. Nye?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Bill Nye: We would just need one piece of evidence.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We would need evidence that the universe is not expanding.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away, but in fact, they're not.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
in just 4,000 years instead of the extraordinary amount.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You bring on any of those things and you would change me immediately.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The question I have for you though, fundamentally,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and for everybody watching. Mr. Ham, what can you prove?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What you have done tonight is spent most of the, all of the time

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
coming up with explanations about the past. What can you really predict?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What can you really prove in a conventional scientific,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
or a conventional, "I have an idea that makes a prediction and it comes out the way I see it?"

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is very troubling to me.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Mr. Nye, a new question. Outside of radiometric methods,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
what scientific evidence supports your view of the age of the Earth?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Bill Nye: The age of the earth.. Well, the age of stars.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The... let's see... radiometric evidence is pretty compelling.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Also, the deposition rates. It was, it was, Lillel, a geologist,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
who realized, my recollection, he came up with the first use of the term "deep time,"

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
when people realized that the Earth had to be much, much older.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
In a related story, there was a mystery as to how the Earth could be old enough to allow evolution to have taken place.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
How could the Earth possibly be three billion years old?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Lord Kelvin did a calculation, if the sun were made of coal, and burning,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
it couldn't be more than 100,000 or so years old.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But radioactivity was discovered. Radioactivity is why the Earth is still as warm as it is.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's why the Earth has been able to sustain its internal heat all these millenia.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And this discovery, it's something like, this question, without radiometric dating,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
how would you view the age of the Earth,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
to me, it's akin to the expression, "Well, if things were any other way, things would be different."

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is to say, that's not how the world is. Radiometric dating DOES exist. Neutrons DO become protons.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And that's our level of understanding today. The universe is accelerating.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
These are all provable facts. That there was a flood 4.000 years ago, is not provable.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
In fact, the evidence for me, at least, as a reasonable man, is overwhelming that it couldn't possibly have happened.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There's no evidence for it. Furthermore, Mr. Ham, you never quite addressed this issue of the skulls.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There are many, many steps in what appears to be the creation, or the coming into being of you and me.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And those steps, are consistent with evolutionary theory.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: And that is time. Mr. Ham, your response.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: By the way, I just want people to understand, too,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
in regard to the age of the Earth being about four and a half billion years,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
no Earth rock was dated to get that date. They dated meteorites,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and because they assumed meteorites were the same age as the Earth,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
leftover from the formation of the solar system, that's where that comes from.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
People think they dated rocks on the Earth to get the four and a half billion years. That's just not true.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And the other point that I was making, and I just put this slide back up,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
cause I happened to just have it here. And that is,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I said at the end of my first rebuttal time, that there are hundreds of physical processes

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that set limits on the age of the Earth. Here's the point.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Every dating method involves a change with time. And there are hundreds of them.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And, if you assume what was there to start with, and you assume something about the rate,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and you know about the rate, you make lots of those assumptions. Every dating method has those assumptions.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Most of the dating methods, 90% of them, contradict the billions of years.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There's no absolute age dating method from scientific method because you can't prove scientifically, young or old.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: And, here is a new question.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It starts with you, Mr. Ham. Can you reconcile the change in the rate continents are now drifting,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
versus how quickly they must have traveled at creation, 6,000 years ago?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: Uh, the rate. Sorry I missed that word.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Can you reconcile the speed at which continents are now drifting, today, to the rate

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
they would have had to have travelled 6,000 years ago, to reach where we are now? I think that's the question.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: Okay, I think I understand the question. Um, actually, this again,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
illustrates exactly what I'm talking about in regard to historical science and observational science.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We can look at continents today. And we have scientists who have written papers about this on our website.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I am definitely not an expert in this area and don't claim to be.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Uh, but there are scientists, even Dr. Andrew Snelling, our Ph.D. geologist,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
has done a lot of research here, too, as well. There are others out there into plate tectonics and continental drift.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And certainly, we can see movements of plates today. And if you look at those movements,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
see that's an assumption. That's the problem when it comes to understanding these things.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You can observe movement, but then to assume that it's always been like that in the past,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that's historical science. And in fact, we would believe basically in catastrophic plate tectonics,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that as a result of the flood, at the time of the flood, there was catastrophic breakup of the Earth's surface.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And what we're seeing now is sort of, if you like, a remnant of that movement.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And so, we do not deny the movement. We do not deny the plates.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What we would deny is that you can use what you see today as a basis for just extrapolating into the past.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's the same with the flood. You can say layers today only get laid down slowly in places,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but if there was a global flood, that would have changed all of that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Again, it's this emphasis on historical science and observational science.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And I would encourage people to go to our website at Answers in Genesis

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
because we do have a number of papers, in fact, very technical papers.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Dr. John Baumgardner is one who's written some very extensive work dealing with this very issue.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
On the basis of the Bible, of course, we believe there's one continent to start with,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
cause the waters were gathered here there into one place. So we do believe that the continent has split up.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But particularly, the flood had a lot to do with that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: And time on that. Mr. Nye, a response.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Bill Nye: It must have been easier for you to explain this a century ago

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
before the existence of tectonic plates was proven.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If you go into a clock store and there's a bunch of clocks, they're not all gonna say exactly the same thing.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Do you think that they're all wrong?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The reason that we acknowledge the rate at which continents are drifting apart,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
one of the reasons, is we see what's called sea floor spreading in the Mid-Atlantic.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The earth's magnetic field has reversed over the millennia

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and as it does it leaves a signature in the rocks

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
as the continental plates drift apart.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So you can measure how fast the continents were spreading.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That's how we do it on the outside.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
As I said, I lived in Washington state when Mount St. Helen's exploded.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That's a result of a continental plate going under another continental plate

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and cracking. And this water-laden rock led to a steam explosion.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That's how we do it on the outside.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Time. And this is a question for you Mr. Nye. But I guess I could put it to both of you.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
One word answer, please. Favorite color? (laughter)

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Nye: I will go along with most people and say green. And it's an irony that green plants reflect green light.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Did I not say one word answer? (laughter) I said one word answer.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Nye: Most of the light from the sun is green. Yet they reflect it. It's a mystery.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Hamm: Well, can I have three words seeing as he had three hundred?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: You can have three.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Hamm: OK. Observational science. Blue. (laughter)

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: All right. We're back to you, Mr. Nye.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
How do you balance the theory of evolution with the second law of thermodynamics? And I'd like to add a question here.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What is the second law of thermodynamics?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Nye: Oh, the second law of thermodynamics is fantastic. And I call the words of Eddington who said,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
"If you have a theory that disagrees with Isaac Newton, that's a great theory.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If you have a theory that disagrees with relativity, wow, you've changed the world. That's great.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But if your theory disagrees with the second law of thermodynamics, I can offer you no hope. I can't help you."

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The second law of thermodynamics basically is where you lose energy to heat.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is why car engines are about 30% efficient. That's it, thermodynamically. That's why you want the hottest explosion

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
you can get in the coldest outside environment. You have to have a difference between hot and cold.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And that difference can be assessed scientifically or mathematically with this word entropy, this disorder of molecules.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But the fundamental thing that this questioner has missed is the earth is not a closed system.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So there's energy pouring in here from the sun. If I may, day and night. Ha, Ha.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
'Cause the night, it's pouring in on the other side.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And so that energy is what drives living things on earth especially for, in our case, plants.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And they get their energy from the sun. So the second law of thermodynamics is a wonderful thing.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It has allowed us to have every thing you see in this room because our power generation depends on the

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
robust and extremely precise computation of how much energy is in burning fuel,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
whether it's nuclear fuel, or fossil fuel, or some extraordinary fuel to be discovered in the future.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The second law of thermodynamics will govern any turbine that makes electricity

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that we all depend on; and allowed all these shapes to exist.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Any response, Mr. Hamm?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Hamm: Let me just say two things if I can. If a minute goes that fast along.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
One is, you know what, here's a point we need to understand.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You can have all the energy that you want, but energy or matter will never produce life.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
God imposed information, language system. And that's how we have life.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Matter by itself could never produce life, no matter what energy you have.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And, you know, even if you've got a dead stick, you can have all the energy in the world in that dead stick,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
it's going to decay, and it's not going to produce life.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
From a creationist perspective, we certainly agree. I mean, before man sinned, you know,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
there was digestion, and so on, but because of the Fall, now things are running down.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
God doesn't hold everything together as He did back then.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So now we see, in regard to the second law of thermodynamics, we would say it's sort of,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
in a sense, a bit out-of-control now, compared to what it was originally, which is why we have a running-down universe.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: And that's time. A new question for you, Mr. Ham.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Hypothetically, if evidence existed that caused you to have to admit that the Earth was older than 10,000 years,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and creation did not occur over six days, would you still believe in God and the historical Jesus of Nazareth

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and that Jesus was the Son of God?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: Well, I've been emphasizing all night. You cannot ever prove using, you know,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
the scientific method in the present, you can't prove the age of the Earth.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So you can never prove it's old. So there is no hypothetical. (Mr. Nye quietly chuckles.)

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Because you can't do that. Now, we can certainly use methods in the present and making assumptions,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I mean, creationists use methods that change over time. As I said, there's hundreds of

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
physical processes that you can use, but they set limits on the age of the universe,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but you can't ultimately prove the age of the Earth, not using the scientific method.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You can't ultimately prove the age of the universe.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Now, you can look at methods, and you can see that there are many methods that contradict billions of years,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
many methods that seem to support thousands of years.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
As Dr. Faulkner said in the little video clip I showed, there is nothing in observational astronomy

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that contradicts a young universe. Now, I've said to you before, and I admit again,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that the reason I believe in a young universe is because of the Bible's account of origins.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I believe that God, who has always been there, the infinite creator God, revealed in His Word what He did for us.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And, when we add up those dates, we get thousands of years.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But there's nothing in observational science that contradicts that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
As far as the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, even when it comes to the fossil record.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That's why I really challenge Christians, if you're gonna believe in millions of years for the fossil record,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So, there is no hypothetical in regard to that. You can't prove scientifically, the age of the Earth or the universe, bottom line.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Mr. Nye.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Nye: Well, of course this is where we disagree.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You can prove the age of the earth with great robustness by observing the universe around us.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And I get the feeling, Mr. Hamm, that you want us to take your word for it.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is to say your interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
as translated into American English, is more compelling for you than everything that I can observe in the world around me.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is where you and I, I think, are not going to see eye to eye.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You said you asserted that life cannot come from something that's not alive. Are you sure?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Are you sure enough to say that we should not continue to look for signs of water and life on Mars?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That that's a waste. You're sure enough to claim that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That is an extraordinary claim that we want to investigate.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: A new question, Mr. Nye.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Is there room for God in science?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Nye: Well, we remind us. There are billions of people around the world who are religious and who accept science

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and embrace it, and especially all the technology that it brings us.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Is there anyone here who doesn't have a mobile phone that has a camera?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Is there anyone here whose family members have not benefited from modern medicine?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Is there anyone here who doesn't use e-mail? Is there anybody here who doesn't eat?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Because we use information sent from satellites in space to plant seeds on our farms.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That's how we're able to feed 7.1 billion people where we used to be barely able to feed a billion.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So that's what I see. That's what we have used science for the process.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Science for me is two things. It's the body of knowledge--the atomic number of rubidium.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And it's the process--the means by which we make these discoveries.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So for me that's not really that connected with your belief in a spiritual being or a higher power.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If you reconcile those two. Scientists, the head of the National Institutes of Health is a devout Christian.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There are billions of people in the world who are devoutly religious.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
They have to be compatible because those same people embrace science.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The exception is you, Mr. Ham. That's the problem for me.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The evidence for a higher power and spirituality is, for me, separate.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I encourage you to take the next minute and address this problem of the fossils, this problem of the ice layers,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
this problem of the ancient trees, this problem of the ark. I mean really address it.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And so then we could move forward. But right now, I see no incompatibility between religions and science.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: That's time. Mr. Ham, response?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Ham: Yeah, I actually want to take a minute to address the question.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Let me just say this, my answer would be God is necessary for science.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
In fact, you know you talked about cell phones. Yeah, I have a cell phone. I love technology.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We love technology here at Answers in Genesis. And, I have e-mail, probably had millions of them

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
while I've been speaking up here. And, satellites and what you said about the information we get,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I agree with all that. See, they're the things that can be done in the present.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And that's just like I showed you. Dr. Stuart Burgess who invented that gear set for the satellite, creationists can be great scientists.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But, see, I say God is necessary because you have to assume the laws of logic. You have to assume the laws of nature.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You have to assume the uniformity in nature. And that is the question I had for you.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Where does that come from if the universe is here by natural processes.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And, Christianity and science, the Bible and science, go hand in hand.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We love science. But again, you've got to understand. Inventing things, that's very different

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
than talking about our origins. Two very different things.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Mr. Ham, a new question. Do you believe the entire Bible is to be taken literally?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
For example, should people who touch pigs' skin, I think it says here, be stoned?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Can men marry multiple women?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Ham: Do I believe the entire Bible should be taken literally? Remember in my opening address

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I said we have to define our terms. So, when people ask that question, say literally, I have to know

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
what that person meant by literally. Now, I would say this.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If you say "naturally" and that's what you mean by "literally", I would say, yes, I take the Bible "naturally".

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What do I mean by that? Well, if it's history, as Genesis is,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
it's written as typical historical narrative, you take it as history.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If it's poetry, as we find in the Psalms, then you take it as poetry.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It doesn't mean it doesn't teach truth, but it's not a cosmological account in the sense that Genesis is.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There's prophecy in the Bible and there's literature in the Bible concerning future events and so on.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So, if you take it as written, naturally, according to typal literature, and you let it speak to you

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
in that way, that's how I take the Bible. It's God's revelation to man. He used different people.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The Bible says that all scripture's inspired by God. So God moved people by his spirit

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
to write his words. And, also, there's a lot of misunderstanding in regard to scripture

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and in regard to the Israelites. I mean we have laws in our civil government here in America

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that the government sets. Well there were certain laws for Israel. And, you know, some people

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
take all that out of context. And then they try to impose it on us today as Christians

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and say, you should be obeying those laws. It's a misunderstanding of the Old Testament.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's a misunderstanding of the New Testament.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And, you know, again, it's important to take the Bible as a whole. Interpreting scripture as scripture.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If it really is the word of God, there's not going to be any contradiction. Which there's not.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And by the way, when men were married to multiple women, there were lots of problems.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
(Laughter) ...and the Bible condemns that for what it is, and the Bible is very clear.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You know the Bible is a real book. There were people who did things that were not in accord with scripture,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and it records this for us. It helps you understand it's a real book. But marriage was one man for

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
one woman. Jesus reiterated that in Matthew 19, as I had in my talk.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And so those that did marry multiple women were wrong.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Time there. Mr. Nye, a response?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Nye: So it sounds to me, just listening to you over the last two minutes,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that there's certain parts of this document of the Bible that you embrace literally

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and other parts you consider poetry. So it sounds to me, in those last two minutes,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
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.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
All that aside, I'll just say scientifically, or as a reasonable man, it doesn't seem possible that

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
all these things that contradict your literal interpretation of those first few passages,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
all those things that contradict that, I find unsettling, when you want me to embrace the rest of it

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
as literal. Now, I, as I say, am not a theologian. But we started this debate,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Is Ken Ham's creation model viable? Does it hold water? Can it fly? Does it describe anything?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And I'm still looking for an answer.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: And time on that. Mr. Nye, here's a new question.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I believe this was miswritten here because they've repeated a word. But I think I know what they were

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
trying to ask. Have you ever believed that evolution was accomplished through way of a higher power?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I think that's what they're trying to ask here. This is the intelligent design question, I think.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If so, why or why not? Why could not the evolutionary process be accomplished in this way?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Nye: I think you may have changed the question just a little but, no, it's all good.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: The word for word question is, have you ever believed that evolution partook through way of evolution?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
(talking at the same time) Mr. Nye: Let me introduce these ideas for Mr. Ham to comment.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The idea that there's a higher power that has driven the course of the events in the universe

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and our own existence, is one that you can not prove or disprove. And this gets into this expression, "agnostic."

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You can't know. I'll grant you that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
When it comes to intelligent design, which is, if I understand your interpretation of the question,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
intelligent design has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of nature.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is to say, the old expression is if you were to find a watch in the field,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and you pick it up, you would realize that it was created by somebody who was thinking ahead,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
somebody with an organization chart, somebody at the top. And you'd order screws from screw manufacturers

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and springs from spring manufacturers and glass crystals from crystal manufacturers.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But that's not how nature works.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is the fundamental insight in the explanation for living things that is provided by evolution.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Evolution is a process that adds complexity through natural selection, this is to say,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
nature has its mediocre designs eaten by its good designs.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And so, the perception that there is a designer that created all this, is not necessarily true,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
because we have an explanation that is far more compelling and provides predictions, and things are repeatable.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I'm sure, Mr. Ham here, at the facility, you have an organization chart.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I imagine you're at the top, and it's a top-down structure.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Nature is not that way. Nature is bottom-up.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is the discovery. Things merge up. Whatever makes it, keeps going. Whatever doesn't make it, falls away.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And this is compelling and wonderful and fills me with joy and is inconsistent with a top-down view.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: And that's time. Mr. Ham.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: What Bill Nye needs to do for me is to show me an example of something, some new function

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that arose that was not previously possible from the genetic information that was there.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And I would claim, and challenge you, that there is no such example that you can give.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That's why I brought up the example in my presentation of Lensky's experiments in regard to e coli.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And there were some that seemed to develop the ability to exist on citrate,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but as Dr. Fabich said, from looking at his research,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
he's found that that information was already there.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's just a gene that switched on and off. And so, there is no example, because information that's there,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and the genetic information of different animals, plants and so on, there's no new function that can be added.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Certainly, great variation within a kind, and that's what we look at.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But you'd have to show an example of brand-new function that never previously was possible.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There is no such example that you can give anywhere in the world.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Uh, fresh question here. Mr. Ham, name one institution, business, or organization,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
other than a church, amusement park, or the Creation Museum

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that is using any aspect of creationism to produce its product.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: Any scientist out there, Christian or non-Christian, that is involved in

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
inventing things, involved in scientific method, is using creation.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
They are, because they are borrowing from a Christian worldview.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
They are using the laws of logic. I keep emphasizing that.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I want Bill to tell me, in a view of the universe, as a result of natural processes,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
explain where the laws of logic came from. Why should we trust the laws of nature?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I mean, are they going to be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
In fact, some of the greatest scientists that ever lived: Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday were creationists.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And as one of them said, you know, he's thinking God's thoughts after Him.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And that's really, modern science came out of that thinking, that we can do experiments today,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and we can do the same tomorrow. And we can trust the laws of logic. We can trust the laws of nature.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And if we don't teach our children correctly about this, they're NOT going to be innovative.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And they're not going to be able to come up with inventions to advance in our culture.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And so, I think the person was trying to get out that, see, you know,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
there are lots of secularists out there doing work. And they don't believe in creation.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And they come up with great inventions, yeah. But my point is, they are borrowing from the Christian worldview to do so.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And as you saw from the video quotes I gave, people like Andrew Fabich

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and also Dr. Faulkner have published in the secular journals.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There's lots of creationists out there who publish.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
People mightn't know that they're creationists because the topic doesn't specifically pertain to creation vs. evolution.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But there's lots of them out there. In fact, go to our website.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There's a whole list there of scientists who are creationists,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
who are out there doing great work in this world and helping to advance technology.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Mr. Nye

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Bill Nye: There's a reason that I don't accept your Ken Ham model of creation.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Is that it has no predictive quality as you had touched on,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and something that I've always found troubling.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It sounds as though and next time around you can correct me.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It sounds as though you believe your world view, which is a literal interpretation of most parts of the Bible, is correct.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Well, what became of all those people who never heard of it?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Never heard of you? What became of all those people in Asia?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What became of all those first nations people in North America?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Were they condemned and doomed? I mean, I don't know how much time you've spent talking to strangers,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but they're not sanguine about that. To have you tell them that they are inherently lost or misguided.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's very troubling. And you say there are no examples in nature.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There are countless examples of how the process of science makes predictions.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Mr. Nye, since evolution teaches that man is evolving and growing smarter over time,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
how can you explain the numerous evidences of man's high intelligence in the past?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Bill Nye: Hang on, there's no evidence that man or humans are getting smarter.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
No, especially if you ever met my old boss. Heh, heh, heh. (laughter)

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
No, it's that what happens in evolution. And there's, it's a British word that was used in the middle 1800's.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's survival of the fittest. And this usage, it doesn't mean the most push-ups or the highest scores on standardized tests.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It means that those that "fit in" the best. Our intellect, such as it is, has enabled us to dominate the world.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I mean, the evidence of humans is everywhere.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
James Cameron just made another trip to the bottom of the ocean, in the deepest part of the ocean,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
the first time since 1960. And when they made the first trip, they found a beer can.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Humans are everywhere. And so, it is our capacity to reason that has taken us to where we are now.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If a germ shows up, as it did, for example, in World War I, where more people were killed by the flu

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
than were killed by the combatants in World War I.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That is a troubling and remarkable fact. If the right germ shows up, we'll be taken out.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We'll be eliminated. Being smarter is not a necessary consequence of evolution.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So far, it seems to be the way things are going because of the remarkable advantage it gives to us.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
We can control our environment and even change it, as we are doing today, apparently by accident.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So, everybody, just take a little while and grasp this fundamental idea.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's how you "fit in" with nature around you. So, as the world changed, as it did, for example, the ancient dinosaurs,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
they were "taken out" by a worldwide fireball, apparently caused by an impacter.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That's the best theory we have. And we are the result of people, of organisms that lived through that catastrophe.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's not necessarily smarter. It's how you "fit in" with your environment.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Mr. Ham, a response?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Ken Ham: I remember at university, one of my professors was very excited to give us some evidence for evolution.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
He said, "Look at this. Here's an example. These fish have evolved the ability not to see."

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And, he was going to give an example of blind cave fish.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And he said, "See, in this cave, they're evolving, because now the ones that are living there, their ancestors had eyes.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Now these ones are blind." And I remember, I was talking to my professor, "But wait a minute!

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Now they can't do something that they could do before." Yeah, they might have an advantage in this sense.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
In a situation that's dark like that, those with eyes might have got diseases and died out.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Those that had mutations for no eyes are the ones that survived.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's not survival of the fittest. It's survival of those who survive.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And it's survival of those that have the information in their circumstance to survive,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but you're not getting new information. You're not getting new function.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There's no example of that at all. So, we need to correctly understand these things.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Alright. Um, we're down to our final question here, which I'll give to both of you.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And in the interest of fairness here, because it is a question to the both of you,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
let's give each man two minutes on this if we can, please.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And also, in the interest of you having started first, Mr. Ham, I will have you start first here.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You'll have the first word. Mr. Nye will have the last word.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The question is: what is the one thing, more than anything else, upon which you base your belief?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Ham: What is the one thing upon anything else which I base my belief?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Well, again, to summarize the things that I've been saying, there is a book called the Bible.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's a very unique book. It's very different to any other book out there.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
In fact, I don't know of any other religion that has a book that starts off by

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
telling you that there's an infinite God, and talks about the origin of the universe,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and the origin of matter, and the origin of light, and the origin of darkness,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and the origin of day and night, and the origin of the earth, and the origin of dry land,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and the origin of plants, and the origin of the sun, moon and stars, the origin of sea creatures,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
the origin of flying creatures, the origin of land creatures, the origin of man,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
the origin of woman, the origin of death, the origin of sin, the origin of marriage,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
the origin of different languages, the origin of clothing, the origin of nations,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I mean it's a very, very specific book.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And it gives us an account of a global flood and the history and the tower of Babel,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and if that history is true, then what about the rest of the book?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Well, that history also says man is a sinner and it says that man is separated from God.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And it gives us a message, that we call the gospel, the message of salvation, that God's son stepped in history

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that God's son stepped in history to die on the cross, to be raised from the dead,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and offers a free gift of salvation.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Because the history is true, that's why the message based on history is true.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I actually went through some predictions and listed others, and there's a lot more that you can look at,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and you can go and test it for yourself. If this book really is true,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
it is so specific, it should explain the world, it should make sense of what we see.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The flood. Yeah, we have fossils all over the world.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The tower of Babel, yeah, different people groups, different languages,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
they have flood legends very similar to the Bible. Creation legends similar to the Bible.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There's so much you can look at, and prophesy and so on.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Most of all, as I said to you, the Bible says, if you come to God, believing that he is,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
he'll reveal himself to you. You will know. If you search after truth,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
you really want God to show you, as you would search after silver and gold,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
he will show you. He will reveal himself to you.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: Mr. Nye?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Nye: Would you repeat the question?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: The question is: What is the one thing, more than anything else, upon which you base your belief?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mr. Nye: As my old professor Carl Sagan said so often,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
when you're in love, you want to tell the world. And I base my beliefs on the information

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and the process that we call science.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It fills me with joy to make discoveries every day of things I'd never seen before.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It fills me with joy to know that we can pursue these answers.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It is a wonderful and astonishing thing to me, that we are, you and I,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
are somehow, at least one of the ways that the universe knows itself.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
You and I are a product of the universe. It's astonishing. I admit, I see your faces.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That we have come to be because of the universe's existence.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And we are driven to pursue that. To find out where we came from.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And the second question we all want to know:

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Are we alone? Are we alone in the universe? And these questions are deep within us,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and they drive us. So the process of science, the way we know nature is the most compelling thing to me.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And I just want to close by reminding everybody what's at stake here.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If we abandon all that we've learned, our ancestors, what they've learned about nature and our place in it,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
if we abandon the process by which we know it,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
if we eschew, if we let go of everything that people have learned before us,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
if we stop driving forward, stop looking for the next answer to the next question,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
we, in the United States, will be outcompeted by other countries, other economies.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Now, that would be okay, I guess, but I was born here. I'm a patriot.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So we have to embrace science education. To the voters and taxpayers that are watching,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
please keep that in mind. We have to keep science education in science and science classes. Thank you.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Moderator: One tiny bit of important housekeeping for everyone here, the county is now under a level two snow emergency.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Drive home carefully. You'll have a lot to talk about, but drive carefully.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This debate will be archived at debatelive.org. That's debatelive.org, one word.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It will be found at that site for several days. You can encourage friends and family to watch and take it over.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Thanks so much to Mr. Nye and to Mr. Ham (Loud applause) for an excellent discussion.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I'm Tom Foreman, thank you, good night from Petersburg, Kentucky and the Creation Museum.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
(applause)

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
(orchestral music)

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
ORDER TONIGHT! Here or online

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
(silence)