fish sex, and they can have sex with themselves. one of the old questions in life science, everybody, one of the old sort of chin stroke was is why does any organism, whether you're an ash tree, ac gently, a squid, why does anybody have sex? ..

stern's parasites. that is what is going to get you. germs and parasites. my first cousins son died tragic day from essential the flu. this is my first cousin once removed. apparently, the virus had the right genes to attack his jeans. when you have sex, you have a new site team, a new mixture. so people studied these top notes and they found that the ones who reproduce sexually than the ones who reproduce on their own. wait, there's more. and these populations with flooding and so on, river ponds get isolated and dry up in the river flows again, in between, some of the fish will have sex with other fish sometimes they will have sex on their own, asexually. those face, the ones in between,

sometimes days, sometimes that have an intermediate number of infections. in other words, the explanation provided by evolution made a prediction in the prediction is extraordinary and sato, but there it is. how else would you explain it? to mr. ham and his followers, this is something we want. we want the ability to predict. some difference between the natural lot to observe the world today and the laws that existed 4000 years ago is extraordinary and unsettling. i have a great many family members in danville, virginia, one of the u.s. knows livable cities. i was driving along and there is a sign in front of the church. big bang theory, you've got to be kidding me guy.

now, everybody, why would someone at the church, a pastor for example, put that sign up unless he or she didn't believe that the big bang was the real thing. i just want to review briefly with everybody why we accept, in the outside world, why we accept the big bang. edward hubble was sitting at mount wilson up from pasadena,, california. in a clear day come you can look to see where where the rose parade goes. it is that close to civilization. in the early 1900s, the people who selected the site for astronomy picked an excellent site. the clouds and smog are below you. edwin hubble said they are -- that they are studying the

heavens and he found the stars are moving apart. it is clear the stars are moving further and further apart all the time. they talk about it for a couple decades is not another astronomer, fred loyal just remarked, well, it was like there was a big bang. it was an explosion. since everything is moving apart, it is reasonable at one time they were altogether. there is a place once these things expanded. it was a remarkable insight. people went still questioning for decades. science -- conventional scientists questioning it for decades. these two researchers wanted to listen for radio signals there

is a whole another batch of ways that are much longer. a microwave dinner i've been at that line. the radar in the airport is about that long. your fm radio signals about like this. there are several soccer fields. they were not listening and there was this has all the time that wouldn't go away. they plugged in the connector. they made it type. they turned it this way. they thought it was pigeon droppings that had effect at the reception of this horrid. the thing is still fair. vincent basking ridge, new jersey, and his story say. robert wilson had found this cosmic background sound that was

predicted by astronomers. astronomers running the numbers, doing that, predicted that in the cosmos would be left over this echo, and this energy debate made that would be detectable. they detected it. both the cosmic observatory for background missions, the kobe spacecraft and matched exactly the astronomer's predictions. you got to respect that. it is a wonderful thing. along that line is some interest in the age of the earth. right now it is generally agreed that the big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. what we can do on earth some of these elements we all know on the periodic table of chemical and even the ones we don't know where created when stars explode. and i look like nobody, but i attended a lecture by hans bader

who won a nobel prize for discovering the process by which stars create all these elements. the one that interests me especially as our good friend rubidium and strontium. rubidium becomes strontium spontaneously. an interesting thing to me. a neutron becomes a proton ago set the periodic table. when mama comes out of the ground, molten mall for any freezes, turns to rock, when the most politicized across the life is, it? the rubidium and strontium in place. by careful -- they've been diligent, you can tell when there are pros. you can tell how will the rubidium and strontium are and you'll get an age for the earth. when that stuff falls on fossils coming u.k. kit is very good idea of how old the fossils are. go to asheville state park and see the astonishing fossils. it looks like a hollywood movie.

there are rhinoceroses commit three toed horses. in nebraska, none of those animals are extinct today and they were buried catastrophically by a volcano and what is not idaho, now yellowstone national park. other hotspot, super volcanoes remarkable thing. as i can and northwestern around st. helens, full disclosure in the mount saint helens board when it goes off a cassette agree to a cast that's toxic and not these animals that appear looking for relief they go to a watering hole. on the ash comes, it is an extraordinary place. now in the battle case you had her problems, they went right away cut you open. now we use a drug based on rubidium to look at the inside of your heart without cutting you up in. now my kentucky friends, i want you to consider this. right now, there is no place in

the commonwealth of kentucky to get a degree in this kind of nuclear medicine, the kind of drugs associated with that. i hope you find that troubling. i hope you are concerned about that. you are scientifically literate students in your commonwealth for a better tomorrow for everybody. you can't get this here. you have to try to stay. as far as distance to stars, understand this is very well to. it is february. we look at a third of february, measured angle to it. wait six and measure the angle. assisted by carpenters built the building. family surveyors built the land readers and may not. they measured the distance to restart coming you configure how far away it was in the stars beyond and mysteries beyond that. there are billions of stars, more than 6000 light-years from

here. a light year is the intended distance, not a unit of time. there are billions of stars. mr. hamm, how could there be elegance of stars more distant than six dozen years of the world is only 6000 years old? it's an extraordinary claim. another astronomer remark to first about the reasonable man. is it reasonable that we have space, older by a factor of 100. we have trees that have more tree rings than the earth is old. we have rocks with rubidium and strontium and uranium and potassium argon that are far, far older than you claim the earth is. could anybody have built an ark that would sustain better than any are, anybody who is able to build on the earthquakes if you're asking me and i got the impression you were, is

transcendence creation model viable? i say no. absolutely not. one last thing. he may not know in the u.s. constitution from the founding fathers, is the sentence to promote the progress of science and useful arts? kentucky voters. voters who might be watching online in places like texas, tennessee, oklahoma, kansas. please come you don't want to raise a generation of science students who don't understand how we know our place in the cosmos, our place in space who don't understand natural law. we need to innovate to keep the united states where it is in the world. thank you very much. [applause] >> that's a lot to take in.

i hope everybody is holding up well. what we have now is a five and a rebuttal time for each gentleman to address the other one's comments and then there will be a five minute counter rebuttal after that. things are going to start moving a little more quickly now. make sure we don't have a plotting or anything going on that slows it down. if you take to begin with your five-minute rebuttal first. >> first of all, how want to answer all the points you brought up. the moderator would think is going on for millions of years. so i can only kill some of them. [laughter] you mention the agf a couple times. sluggy to it that. as i said in a presentation come you can observe the age of age of the earth and that comes under what we call historical origin scientists. to understand why i'm coming

from, yes, we admit the historical science on the bible. bible says god created 60s. it is used in genesis one, ordinary day. adam was made on day six. when you add up all those genealogies in the bible, from adam to abraham, 852,002 the present two dozen years. that's how they got six dozen years. a lot of people say now, by the way it's $4.5 billion. the dating methods that found that. we certainly observe radioactive decay, whether it's her brittany and, strontium, potassium, are gone, but when you're talking about the past, we have a problem. i'll give you practic example. in australia there were engineers trying to search out a

coal mine, so they trailed down and found a lava flow that had material in it. branches into it since no one. when dr. andrew snelling, phd geologist sent back on these potassium argon dating dating to 45 million years old. the company also said the wit to the radiocarbon in the same opportunity to 45,000 years old. the point is there's a problem. let me give you another example. the lava started to form in the 80s after mount saint helens erupted. in 1994, dr. steve austin, and other phd geologist sampled the rock there. he took coal wrought, crushed it come isanti to the same lamp i believe in god .35 million years when he set traded out the minerals and use potassium argon dating.

2.8 million. all these dating methods give all sorts of different faiths. different dating methods on the same rock we can give all sorts of different faiths. there's lots of assumptions in regard to radioactive dating. number one, the isotopes in iraq for and you have to that's historical science. assumption two, all items today this has radioactive decay of parent items. you don't know. a lot of evidence that is not so. assumption number three is decay rates have remained constant. there's others as well. the point is there's lots of assumptions in regard to the dating method. there is no team that big. there's all sorts of differences here. i do want to address what you product about christians believe the millions of years. they have a problem. i'm not saying they're not

christians, but because the salvation is based upon price, not the age of earth, but inconsistency with what the bible teaches. if you believe in millions of years, you've got that, suffering, disease of her millions of years because that is what you see in the record. the bible makes a quick death as a result of man's sin. the first death was in the garden of god killed an animal, first pointing towards what would happen with jesus christ. he would be the one who would die once and for all. if you believe millions of years as a christian, evidence of animals eating each other. bible says originally all the animals and men were vegetarian. we were told we could eat meat until after the flood. diseases, brain tumors, but the bible says that god made everything come he doesn't called brain tumors very good. the fossil record hundreds of millions of years old.

these two things with hundreds of dating methods. 90% of them contradict billions of years. the point it's all such dating methods are fallible and i clean there's only one dating method, the witnesses who was there until death do not spread the word of god and that is why i was at the earth is only 6000 years and certainly dr. snelling would save in geology to contradict a young age for the year to the universe. >> thank you very much. let me start at the beginning. if you find 45000000-year-old rock on top of 40 federal pleasantries, maybe the rock is on top. that seems much a reasonable explanation then it's impossible. as far as dating goes, but methods are very reliable.

one of the interesting things people in my business, especially at the planetary society are interested in despite the asteroid seem to be so close to the same date. an h., 4.5, 4.6 billion years. people are first expected a little bit more they spread. i understand that you take the bible is written in bush, translated countless -- not countless, but many, many times over the last three millennia as to be a more accurate, more reasonable assessment of the loss we see around us and what i and everybody in here can observe. that to me is unsettling, troubling. about the disease they, are the fish centers? had they done since enron to get diseases? that is sort of an extraordinary

claim that takes me a little past what i am comfortable with. as far as you can't observe the past, i have to stop you right there. that's what we do in astronomy. all we can do in astronomy is look at the past. either way, you are looking at the past right now because the speed of light bounces off of me and then gets to your eyes and i am delighted to see that the people in the back of the room appear that much younger than the people in the front. so this idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws that we have now to think of that part heart of our disagreement. i don't see how a lesser degree if the natural laws has changed. for lack of a better word, it magical. it's not really what we want in

conventional means science. so, your assertion that all the animals are vegetarian before the economy hour, that's really remarkable. i have not spent a lot of time with line and, but i can tell they've got teeth that are set up for broccoli, and that these animals were vegetarians to this site is something i ask you to provide a little more proof for. i give you the lions teeth. you could reverse this is translated in english over 30 centuries. so that is not enough evidence for me. if you've ever played telephone, and cannot cart near the secret of whisper to the next person, next person, to next person. it is reasonable to me that instead of lines being vegetarians on the ark, lions

are lions in the information that you use to create your worldview is not consistent with the reasonable man would expect. i want everybody to consider the implications of this. if we accept mr. ham's point of view that the bible is translated into american english serves as a science text and he and his followers will interpret that for you, i want you to consider what that means. it means that his word or interpretation of these other words is somehow to be more respected and what you can observe in nature, what you can find literally in your backyard kentucky.

it's a troubling and unsettling point of view and is one i very much like you to address when you come back. as far as the five races that you mentioned, it is kind of the same thing. the five races were claimed by people who were of european descent. they said we are the best, check us out. that turns out to be if you've ever traveled anywhere or done anything not to be that way. people are much more alike than they are different. so, are we supposed to take your word for the english word translated over the last 30 centuries instead of what we can observe around us? >> would you like to offer your five-minute counter rebuttal? >> that is the 45,000 year old was inside but that's all.

it was encased in the bath salt. that is why our snake in that particular point. i would also say as i type about, you know, we have the laws and uniformity of nature and not only makes sense within a biblical world anyway to set up those laws. we assume those laws are true and that would be true tomorrow. >> i do want to save face, that ken ham's view our ham's model. it's not just ken ham. i had quotes from some scientists. it is dr. faulkner's model, dr. snelling's model. and so it goes on. there are lots of creation scientists who agree with what we're saying.

it's not just my model in that sense. i believe you are confusing and god created all those species. we are not saying species. we are same kinds. there's a number of papers published on our website. this one brisas on with this one. because i get papers around the world can connect them all together. as they've been doing the research, they have predicted less than a thousand times, which means over 2000 animals. it was really illustrating my

point. you are talking about tree rings and talking about kangaroos getting to australia and all sorts of things like that. we're talking about the past whenever it there. we didn't see those tree rings for me. it's the ice in greenland and 46 years later three miles away from the original location with 200 on top of them. if you assume one layer here is something that back, you are assuming things in regard to the past but are necessarily true. lines and teeth, most heirs have teeth. the panda if you look at its teeth maybe you should be a savage authority, namely bamboo. australia looks like a savage creature in the center for.

just because an animal has sharp teeth doesn't mean. i think in regard to the missoula, dixie and by the u.k., if we imposed by catastrophic them. but it's %them. but it's been since that time as well. it can in regard to historical science, why would you say it was unskilled? from evolutionary view of origins. people before us aren't as good. there's a civilization that existed in the past and we look at the technology and we can't even understand today how we did some of the things he did. either they come at chinese and egyptians build those. some of the research indicates that some of the wooden posts belted three layers interlocking

said they would trysts like that. we have an exhibit with 1% of the ark to scale -- one thing with the speed of light, you're where the horizon problem from the big thing to. you have a problem of getting my radiation after the universe that even the background radiation on their model 15 billion years first though can only get it about halfway. everyone has a problem. people don't understand. we have our scientists to help explain the source of the. >> mr. nye, your counter rebuttal. >> thank you, mr. ham, but i'm completely unsatisfied.

680,000 years which require winter summer cycle. let's say you have 2000 times and set aside in. that makes the problem even works for kerry. multiplying 11 by three and a half week at 235, 40 species every day that we don't see. in fact, you probably know we are losing species due to the safety minute dignity and loss of habitat. then commissars know i've that would've been an extraordinary ship rate, i am very skeptical to shipwrights, my ancestors in new england spent their whole life learning to make ships. i mean, it is very least will perhaps see you that now i have superpowers and was able to build this extraordinary craft with seven family members. to me, it was just not reasonable. either way, the fundamental

thing we disagree on, mr. ham, is the nature of what you can prove to yourself. this is to say when people make assumptions based on radiometric data, when they make assumptions about the ending universe, when didn't make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of the area and laboratory growth media, they are making assumptions based on previous experience. they are not coming out of whole cloth. so next time you have a chance to speak, i encourage you to ask thing to us why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed. what does an years ago completely and there is no record of it. there appear than is older than that. there are human populations far older than that with traditions that go that further than that and it's just not reasonable to

me that everything changed for thousand years ago. by everything i need pcs, the surface of the earth, stars in the sky and the relationship about the other living things on earth to humans. it is not reasonable to me that everything changed a. another thing i would appreciate you addressing, there are billions of people in the world who are deep the religious and i respect that. and support from the religious fellas and communities and their faiths, and their churches and yet they don't accept your point of view. there are christians who don't accept that the era could somehow be just extraordinarily young age because of all the evidence around it. and so, what is to be, then in your view? by the way, this thing started,

as sanders and eight, transcendence creation model is based on the old testament. i am not a theologian. when you bring in the new test that, if not a little out of the box? i am looking for explanations of the creation of the world as we know it based on what i am going to call science. not historical science, not observational science. science. ask each of us can do, the kid to what we can do trying to outpace the characters on murder mystery shows, crime scene investigations especially. what is to become above those people who don't eat your way? for us in the scientific community, i remind you that when they find an idea that is not tenable, to the software, doesn't fly, doesn't hold water, whatever it emu would like to embrace, we threw it away. if you can find a fossil that is

one between the layers, bring it on. you would change the world. if you could show that somehow the microwave back on radiation is not a result of the big bang, come on. write your paper. terry to. so your view that we are supposed to take your word for this book, written centuries ago, translated into american english is not how more and portend then what i can see with my own eyes is an extra reclaim. for those watching online especially, i want to remind you that we need scientists and especially engineers for the future. engineers use science to solve problems and make things. we need these people so the united states can continue to innovate and continue to be a world leader. we need innovation and that means i education. >> on. thank you the. now we are going to get things moving a little faster.

they may be quite interest in. 40 to 45 minutes. maybe more for questions and answers submitted by the creation museum. before hand i had that these cars are to everyone. i shuffled in the back. in fact i dropped them. if you saw me sorting through them here, it was to get a pile for mr. nye and for mr. ham. other than that, the only reason i was up over 16 i can't read it or if it is a question i don't know how to read because it doesn't make any sense, were sometimes happen because the way people write. we will go back and forth between mr. nye and mr. ham. each will have two minutes and then the other will have one minute to answer the question even that was addressed to the other man. i did a one card aside because it was to both men. mr. ham, you hop up first this time.

mr. nye, standby for responses. how does creationism is count for the stars commandments, moving further and further part in the function is that there integrated design? >> well, when it comes to looking at the tunnel we believe god created the heavens and earth and i believe astronomers say you can see the universe expanding. in the bible, even says he stretches out to have been to indicate there is an expansion of the universe. and so, we would say you cannot serve god. that physical because observational science, like i did it that way. i try and answer that question of course is the bible says god made the heavens for his glory. that is why he made his stars that we see out there. it is to tell us how great he is and how big he is. that is the thing about the universe. the universe is the lurch.

the planetarium program looks at us. they tell us how large the universe is. i think it shows us how great god is. all-knowing god who created the universe to show us his power. can you imagine that? nothing remarkable in the bible on the fourth day of creation and he made the stars also. he's an all powerful god. he made them to show us how great he is. he's an infinite creator. the more you understand what that means, that god is all-powerful, infinite, you realize how small we are. you realize that god consider this planet is so significant that he created human needs here and stepped into history to die for us to be raised from the

dead and the salvation, wow, what a guy. that is what i would say when i see the universe as it is. >> mr. nye, any response? >> is a question that troubles assault from the time of your youngest and first able to think. that is, where did we come from? where did i come from? this question is so compelling that we have invented the science of astronomy. we've invented by science. we've invented physics. we discovered these naturalized or we can learn more about her origin of where we came from. to you, when it says he invented the stars also, that is satisfying. you're done. good, okay. to me when i look at the night sky, i have driven. i want to know what is out there is any part of me. zero by the way i find

compelling you are satisfied. can you come up with some and you can predict. do you have a creation model that predicts an inhabitants in nature. >> and that it's time. mr. nye, how did the items that created the big bang get their? >> this is the great mystery. you hit the nail on the head. what was before the big bang? this is what drives us. this is what we want to know. let's keep looking. let's keep searching. when i was young, he was pursued the universe was slowing down. so it goes out like that. so people presumed that it would slow down, that the universe, the gravity especially would hold everything together and maybe it's going to come back and explode again.

the mathematical expression is in the universe flat? will the universe slowed down, slow down? well, 2004 they look at the rate at which the universe is flowing down. we do with the extraordinary telescopes around the world, looking at the next guy, supernovae and standard brightness you can distances with. the universe isn't slowing down. it is accelerating. the universe is accelerating and its expansion. do you know why? nobody knows why. and you hear the expression nowadays, dark energy, dark matter, which are mathematical ideas that seem to record well with what seems to be the gravitational reaction of stars, galaxies expansion. isn't it reasonable that whatever is out there is here

also and we just haven't detected a. suppose the science student from the commonwealth of kentucky pursues a career in science and finds out the answer to that question. where did we come from? what was before the big bang? to this this is wonderful and charming and compelling. this is what makes us go to work everyday to solve the mysteries of the universe. >> at this time. mr. ham, response. >> well, i want to let you know that there is a book out there that tells us where it came from. [laughter] the very first sentence in the book set in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth did not the only thing that makes sense of why not just matter is here, where it came from, but why matter when you look at it we have information and language systems that build life, not just matter.

where does that come from? matter could never produce information. languages only come from intelligence. information only comes from information. the bible tells us the things we see in the book of hebrew are made from things unseen. an intranet god who created the universe, created matter of the energy and information is the only thing that makes logical sense. mr. ham, new question. overwhelming number of people of kreider ballad evidence such as carbon creegan apostles to support evolutionary theory. but evidence besides the literal word of the bible stories creations? >> first of all, have to hear people talking the maturity. i would agree that the majority of scientists with believe in millions of years. the majority would believe in evolution. there's a large group out there this i don't.

first they have to say is it's not. there have been many times in the past when the majority have got it wrong. the majority of doctors in england once that if you cut out ibc could deliver babies and wondered why the death rate was high in hospitals until they found out about diseases caused by bacteria and so on. they once thought the appendix with a left over oregon from evolutionary ancestries. it's okay to rip it out. one is deceased, but could help you rip it out anyway. these days we note that the immune system and is very, very important. it's important to understand because the majority believes some thing doesn't mean that it's true. >> what was -- the right question here. but evidence besides the literal word of the bible? >> i was making predictions. i'm made some predictions and i

would say that the bible is right, we talked about that. if the bible is right, talk about that. that question comes down to the fact that we are again dealing with the fact that there's aspects about the past but you can't scientifically prove. there lanai i'll have the same observation of science. we can see radioactivity. you're not going to be scientifically able to prove that. that's what we need to it. we can be great scientists of the present. the examples i gave it after her minions for dr. stuart are just can be investigating the president. understanding the past is a whole different matter. >> mr. nye, one minute response. >> thank you, mr. ham you have to disabuse you of fundamental

idea. it's a scientist makes a discovery that changes the way people view natural, scientists embrace him or her. goodpaster you made reference to germs. if you find something that changes and disagrees with the common thought, that is the greatest thing going in finance. we look forward to that change. tell us why the universe is accelerating. tell us why these mothers were getting sick. we found an explanation for it. the idea that the majority has weighed in science is true only up to a point. what you may have missed an evolutionary explanation is that is the mechanism by which we add complexity. the earth is getting energy from the sun all the time and the energy is used to make life work somewhat more complex. >> new question for you, mr. nye. had a consciousness come from

matter? >> don't know. this is a great mystery. a dear friend of mine is a urologist. she studies the nature of consciousness. i will say i use to embrace the joke about dogs. i mean, who doesn't. you can't say i've never seen a dog care less by self-doubt. actually, i have. furthermore, the thing we celebrate our three sundials on the planet mars that berna scripture into the future to those who visit here we wish you safe journey and the joy of discovery. it is inherently optimistic about the future of humankind that we will one day walk on ours. the discovery, that's what drives us. the joy of finding out what's going on. we don't know where consciousness comes from. but we want to find out.

furthermore it is deep within us. i have spent time with dogs that have had the joy of discovery. we have one ancestor as near as we can figure. recall a second genesis. this is to say goodbye to start another way on the earthquakes there are researchers at astrobiology institute by nasa, your tax dollars looking to answer that very question. as a possible life can start another way? sort of a light for my kid that is crystal considered membranous. this to be a fantastic discovery that to change the world. the nature of consciousness is a mystery. i challenge the young people here to investigate that very question. our 90 taxpayers and voters that might be watching if we do not embrace the process in the mainstream, we will fall behind

economically. >> one minute response. >> i do want to say there's a book out there that documents are consciousness came from. not to, the one who created city made man in his image and he breathed into man and became a living being. the bible does document that. that is when consciousness came from that god gave it to us. the other thing i want to say is i have a mystery. it is you talk about the joy of discovery, but you also say that when you die, it is over. when you die do so so very neat donated remember you are here. what is the point of joy of discovery in a way? no one knew you were ever here ultimately. i love the joy of discovery because this is god's creation

and i'm finding more out about that to take dominion for man's good and god's glory. >> time. mr. ham, new question. one that is actually fairly profound for all of us in their lives. what if anything whatever change your mind? [laughter] >> well, the answer to that question is i am a christian and as a christian, i can't prove it to you that god has definitely showed he very clearly through his word and showed himself in the person of jesus christ the bible is the word of god. i admit that is very start from. i can challenge people that you can go and test that. you can make predictions based on that. you can check the statements in

genesis. i did a little bit of that tonight. i can ultimately prove that to you. all i can do is say to someone, look, if the pipe is what it claims to be, if it is the word of god and that's what it claims, then check it out. if you come to god believing he is, he'll reveal himself to you. you would notice crescenzi can can say we know. so as far as the word of god is concerned, no one is ever going to convince me that the word of god is not true. i do want to make a distinction here. we build models based upon the bible and models are always subject to change. the model of how the fight occurred is subject to change because we observe in the current world and were able to come up with different ways this could attack attack attack.

is hardly scientific discovery, part of what it thought out. the bottom line is as a christian, i am the foundation as a christian i would ask the question, what would change your mind? i made, you said even if you came to see, you never gave up and billions of years. that will be also my question to bill. >> mr. nye. >> which is the one piece of evidence. the fossil that's where one way or the other. we need evidence the universe is not expanding. the stars appear to be far away, but they're not. we would need evidence that rock layers can somehow form in just 4000 years. we need evidence somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep shots from coming protons. bring on any of those things and you achieved me immediately.

the question i have for you though fundamentally -- the explanations about the past, what can you really predict quakes what can you really proven that conventional scientific, conventional i have an idea that makes a prediction that comes out the way ici. this is very troubling to me. >> mr. nye, new question. outside of radiometric evidence, what supports your view of each of the earthquakes beneath the age of the earth. well, the age of stars. let's see, radiometric evidence is pretty compelling. also, the deposition rates. it was a geologist who realized he came up at the first-term of

deep time when people realized that the earth had to be much, much older. in a related story, there is a mystery as to how the earth could be a month to allow evolution to have taken place. how could the earth possibly be 3 billion years old? coming to a calculation of the summer made of cool and burning couldn't be more than 100,000 or so years old. radioactivity was discovery. radioactivity is where the earth is still as warm as is. it is by the earth has been able to sustain its internal heat all these millennia. this discovery, this question without radiometric dating, how would you view the age of the earthquakes that is akin to the expression if things were any other way, things to be different. this is to say that it's not how the world is. radiometric dating does exist. neutrons to become protons that

is their level of understanding today. the universe is accelerating. these are all provable facts that there was a flat 4000 years ago is not provable. the evidence for me at least is a reasonable man is overwhelming that it couldn't possibly have happened. there is no evidence for it. furthermore, mr. ham, you never quite addressed this issue with the schools. there are many, many in what appears to be the creation or the coming into being of you and me and those steps -- >> by this time. >> i just want people to understand, the age of the year thing about four and a half years coming to earth rock was dated. dedicated media rights and because they assumed meteorites, this image of the earth and the formation of the solar system.

people think they did rock semiarid cover earth of a foreign half billion years. that's just not true. the other point i was and i put the site back up because i have it here. i said at the end of my first rebel time there's hundreds of physical processes. here's the point. every dating method involves a change with time. there hundreds of them. if you assume what was there to start with and you assume something about the rate in the know about the rate come you make lots of assumptions. every day 90% of them contradict the billions of years. there's no absolute absolute age dating method from scientific method because you can't prove scientifically young or old. >> and here is a new question that starts with you, mr. ham. can you reconcile the change in the rate continents now drifting versus how quickly they must travel at creation 6000 years ago? can you reconcile the speed at

which continents are now drifting today to the rate they would've had to have traveled 6000 years ago to reach where we are now? >> okay, i think i understand the question. actually come again illustrates exactly what i'm talking about in regard to historical find an observational science. we can look at continents today and scientists have written papers about this on her website. i'm definitely not an expert in this area and don't claim to be. their scientists. even dr. ever spelling appears to be a geologist hereto as well. there are others out there into play to comics and continental drift. because the movements of plates today. if you look at those movements and if you assume that weights moving today, the rate it's moving that it's always been that way in the past. b., that's an assumption.

that's a problem when it comes to understanding these things. to assume it's always been like that in the past, but historical science. we would believe basically in catastrophic rate comics but as a result of the time of the flood, there was a catastrophic breakup of the earth's surface. what we see now is if you like a remnant of that movement and so we do not deny the movement. we do not find the plate. use what you see today as the basis for extrapolating the past. same with the flood. you can say today gets laid down slowly in places. the flood would've changed all of that. again, emphasis on historical science and i would encourage people to go to the website because we do have a number of papers. in fact, technical papers. dr. john barker has written a very extensive work, dealing with this very issue on the

basis of the bible of course we believe in one place we do believe the continent has sped up in the flood had a lot to do with that. >> mr. nye, response. >> it must've been easier for you to explain this a century ago, before the existence of tectonic plates was proven. if you go into a cloth store there's a bunch of cops, they are not going to say exactly the same thing. do you think that they are all wrong? the reason we acknowledge the rate at which continents are drifting apart, one of the reasons is the evil it is called the seafloor spreading in the mid-atlantic. over the millennia. as it does, visa signature in the rocks as the continental plates drift apart. so, you can measure how fast the continent were spreading.

that is how we do it on the outside. i lived in washington state when mount saint helens exploded. that's the result of a continental plate going under another continental plate and cracking in this water laden rock lead to a steam explosion. that is how we do it on the outside. >> this is a question for you, the one-word answer. please, favorite color. >> i will go along with most people and see green. and it is an irony that green plants reflect green light. >> did i not say one word answer? [inaudible] >> -- it's a mystery. >> and i have three words? since he had 300? [laughter] observational science. blue. [laughter] >> all right. we are back to you, mr. nye.

have you balance evolution with the law thermodynamic. what is the second law of thermodynamics? >> it is fantastic and i called the words of eddington who said if you have a theory that disagrees with isaac newton, that is a great theory. if you have a theory that agrees with disability that's great. but if your theory disagrees with the second lot of thermodynamics, i can offer you no hope. i can't help you. it basically is where you lose energy to heat. this is like car engines are about 30% efficient. that's it thermodynamically. that is why you want the hottest explosion you can get in the coldest outside environment. that can be assessed with the word entropy. the fundamental thing that this questioner has missed is the earth is not a closed system. so there's energy pouring in

here on this underside made samnite because the night is pouring in on on the other side. so that energy is what drives living things on earth, especially on our earth plans. by the way, if you are here in kentucky, about a third and maybe a half of the oxygen you breathe is made in the ocean and they get their energy from the sun. the second law of thermodynamics is a wonderful thing that has allowed us to have everything you see in this room because our power generation, our power generation depends on the robust and extremely precise computation of how much energy is then burning fuel. whether it is nuclear fuel or fossil fuel or some extraordinary fuel discovered in the future. the second law of thermodynamics will govern any thermodynamics

that allows all the shapes to access. >> your response, mr. ham quite >> to me just say two things at the minute goes so far long. one is, you know what, here is the point we need to understand. you can have all the energy you want, that energy and matter will never produce life. god imposed information, language system and that is how we have life. matter by itself could never produce life to matter what energy you have. if you've got a dead stick, it is going to decay and it's not going to produce light. from a creationist is, we certainly agree. before men stand, there is suggestion that now things are running down. it does that hold everything together as he did back then. but now we see in regard to the

centerline of thermodynamics is in a sense that out-of-control now compared to what it was originally, which is why we have a running down universe. >> and that it's time. a new question for you, mr. ham. hypothetically, if evidence of this or that cause you to admit that the earth was older than 10,000 years and creation did not occur for six days, would you still believe in god and the historical jesus of nazareth and that jesus was the son of god? ..

dura many methods that contradict millions of years, many methods that seem to support thousands of years as the video showed. there is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a young universe. i said to you before and i'll admit again the reason i believe in a young universe is because of the bibles origins. i believe god has been the infinite creator god revealing his word and what he did for us. out of those dates we get thousands of years but there's nothing in observational science that contradicts that. as far as the age of the earth in the age of the universe when it comes to the possible record and that is why i challenge christians. you have a problem with the

bible and that is that you have to have death and disease and suffering before sin so there is no hypothetical. you can't prove scientifically the age of the earth or for the universe bottom line. >> mr. nye. >> of course this is where we disagree. you can prove the age of the earth with grades robustness by observing the universe around us and i get the feeling mr. ham but you want us to take your word for it. this is to say your interpretation of the book written thousands of years ago as translated into american english is more compelling for you then everything i can observe in the world around me. this is where you and i cannot see eye-to-eye. you asserted that life cannot calm from something that is not a life. are you sure? are you sure enough to say that we should not continue to look for signs of water and life on mars? you are sure enough to claim

that? that is an extraordinary claim that we want to invest in. once again what is it you can predict? what do you provide us back and tell us something about the future not just about your vision of the past? >> a new question mr. nye is there room. in science? >> well there are billions of people around the world who are religious and to accept science and embrace it and especially all the technology that brings it brings us. is there anyone here who doesn't have a mobile phone that has a camera? is there anyone here whose family members have not outfitted from modern medicine? is there anyone here who doesn't use e-mail? is there anybody here who does not eat because we use information sent from satellite

to space to plant seeds on our farms and that is how we are able to feed 7.1 billion people when we used to be able to only feed a billion. that is what i see. we have used science in the process and sciences to things. it's the body of knowledge and it's the process, the means by which we make these discoveries. so for me that is not really that connected with your belief in a spiritual being or a higher power. if you reconcile those two the scientists, the head of the national institutes of health is a devout christian. there are billions of people in the world who are devoutly religious. they have to be compatible because they are the same people that embrace science. the exception is you mr. ham. that's the problem for me. you want us to take your word for what is written in this ancient text to be more compelling than what we see

around us. the evidence for a higher power and spirituality is for me separate. i encourage you to take the met met -- and next minute and address this problem of the fossils this problem of the ice layers in this problem of ancient trees. the problem of the art, i mean really address it and then we can look forward that right now i see see no incompatibility -- and compel ability between religion and science. >> i want to take a minute to address the question. let me say this. my answer would be god is necessary to science. you tell us about cell phones. i have a cell phone. we have technology and i have had millions of them while i've in speaking appearance satellites and what you said about the information, i agree with all of that. they are the things that can be done in the present and that's just like i showed you. dr. stewart embedded that you're

set for the satellite. creationist scientists but god is necessary because you have to assume the lord's logic and assume the uniformity of nature and that's a question i have for you. where does that come from by natural processes? christianity and science, the bible and science go hand-in-hand. we love science beginning up to understand inventing things is different than talking about our origins. two different things. >> mr. ham and egg question. you believe the entire bible is to be taken literally? ken pigs be stoned and can men marry multiple women? >> he in my opening dress i said we have to define the term so when people are asked that question literally i have to know what that person meant by literally. if you say naturally and that is what you mean by literally i

would say yes i take the eyeball naturally. what do i mean by that? it's written as historical narrative and if it's poetry then you take it as -- it doesn't mean it doesn't teach truth but it's not cosmetology gold in the sense that there's prophecy in the bible. concerning future events and so on. if you let it speak to you in that way that's how i take the bible. the bible says there are scriptures inspired by god so god move people by spirit and there's a lot of misunderstanding in regard to the israelites. we have laws in our civil government in america that the government sets. there were certain -- certain laws for israel.

they try to impose it upon us as christians. it's a misunderstanding of the old testament and the misunderstanding of the new testament and again it's important to take the bible as a whole. it's a really the word of god then there's not going to be any convolution that says it's not in by the way when men were married to multiple women there were lots of problems in the bible condemns that for what it is in the bible is very clear. the bible is a real look. they're people that did things that were not in scripture. it's a real book but marriage marriage is one man one woman and jesus reiterated that in matthew 1:19. >> mr. nye a response? >> it sounds to me listening to you over the last two minutes that they're certain parts of this document of the bible that you embrace literally and other parts you consider poetry so it sounds to me in these last two minutes like you are going to take what you like and interpret

literally passages. you are going to interpret as poetic descriptions of human events. all that aside i will just say scientifically or as a reasonable man it doesn't seem possible that all these things that contradict your literal interpretation of his first few passages, all those things that contradict that i find unsettling when you want me to embrace the rest of it as literal. as i say i'm not a theologian but ken ham's creationist model viable, it does it describe anything and i'm still looking for an answer. >> mr. nye here's a new question. i believe this is ms. written here but i think i know what they were trying to ask. have you ever believed that

evolution was accomplish through way of a higher power? this is the intelligent design question i think. if so, why or why not? why could not the evolutionevolution ary process be compost in this way? >> i think you may have changed the question just a little. it's all good. >> have you ever believe that evolution partook through way of evolution? >> let me introduce these ideas for mr. ham. the idea that there is a higher power that has driven the course of the events in the universe and our own existence is one that you cannot prove or disprove. this gets into this expression agnostic. you can't know. i will grant you that. when it comes to intelligent design which is if i understand your interpretation and question, intelligent design has a fundamental misunderstanding

of the nature of nature. this is to say the old expression is if you were to find a watch in the field and you pick it up you would realize that it was created by somebody who was thinking ahead, somebody with an organizational chart was someone at the top. the screws and the screw manufacturers in the glass for the glass manufacturers but that is not how nature works. this is the fundamental insight in the explanation provided by evolution. evolution is a process that adds complexity through natural selection. this is to say nature has its mediocre designs eaten by its good designs so the perception that there is a designer that created all of this is not necessarily true because we have an explanation that is far more compelling and provides predictions and things are repeatable.

i'm sure mr. ham in your facility you have an organization chart and i imagine you are at the top and at the top down structure. nature is not that way. nature is bottom-up. this is discovery. things merge up and whatever makes keeps going and whatever doesn't falls away and this is compelling and wonderful and fills me with joy and is inconsistent with the top down view. >> mr. ham. >> what bill nye needs to do for me is to show me an example of something, some new function that a rose that was not previously possible from the genetic information that was there and i would plainly challenge you that there is knows that chick sample the can give. that is why i wrote up the example of my presentation of the experiments with regard to e. coli and there were some that seem to develop the ability to exist on citrate but from

looking at research that information was already there. the gene was switched on and off so there is no example because the information that is there and the genetic information of different animals, plants and so on is no new function that can be added. there is great variation and that is what we look at but you have to show up ran a function that was never previously possible. there is no such example that you can give anywhere in the world. >> the first question to mr. ham. name on institution business or organization other than the church park or museum that is using any aspect of creationism to produce its prop. >> and a scientist out there christian or non-christian that is involved in inventing things, involved in scientific method is using creation. they are because they borrowed

from a christian worldview. i keep emphasizing that. i want built to tell me in a universe that has resulted in natural processes explain where the laws have largely come from. why should we trust the laws of nature? are they going to be the same tomorrow as they were yesterday and in fact some of the greatest scientist that ever lived isaac newton michael faraday were creationist and is one of them said in thinking god's thoughts after him. modern science really came out of that thinking that we can do experiments today and do the same tomorrow and trust the laws of logic and trust the laws of nature. if we don't teach our children correctly about this they are not going to be innovative and they're not going to be able to come up with inventions to advance in our culture. so i think the person was trying to get at there are lots of

secularists out there doing work in the belief in creation and come up with great inventions, yeah but by point is they borrowed from the christian worldview to do so and as you saw from the video clips i gave people like dr. faulkner have published in the journals. people might know that they are creationist because the topic doesn't specifically attain to creation versus evolution. there are lots of them out there and in fact the web site has a whole list of scientists who are creationist who are out there doing great work in this world and helping to advance technology. >> mr. nye. >> there's a reason that i don't accept your model of creation. it has no predictive quality as you touched on. something that i've always found troubling, it sounds as though next time around you can correct me but it sounds as though you

believe your worldview which is the literal interpretation of most parts of the bible is correct. what became of all those people who never heard of it, never heard a few? what became of all those people in asia? what became of all those first nations people in north america? were they condemned and doomed? i don't know how much time you spent talking to strangers but they are not sanguine about that. to have you tell them they are inherently lost or misguided. it's very troubling and you say there are no examples in nature. there are countless examples of how the process of science makes predictions. >> mr. nye since evolution says ban is balding and growing over time how to explain the numerous evidences demands high intelligence in the past? >> there's no evidence that humans are getting smarter.

especially if you have ever met my old boss. [laughter] what happens in evolution, it's a british word that was used in the middle 1800's. it's survival of the fittest and in this usage it doesn't mean the most push-ups are the highest scores on standardized tests. it means that those who think in the best. our intellects such as it is has enabled us to dominate the world the evidence of humans is everywhere. james cameron just made another trip to the bottom of the ocean, the deepest part of the ocean the first time since 1960 and when they made the first trip they found a beer can. humans are everywhere and so it is in our capacity to reason that it has taken us where we are now. as a germ showed up as it did in world war i were more people were killed by the flu than were

killed by combatants in world war i that is a troubling remarkable facts. if the right germ shows up we will be taken out. we will be eliminated. being smarter is not a necessary consequence of evolution. so far it seems to be the way things are going because of the remarkable advantage it gives to us. we can control environment and change it by accident. everybody take a little while and grasp this fundamental idea. it's how you fit in with the nature around you. as the world changed as it did for example in the age of the dinosaurs they were taken out by a worldwide fireball apparently caused by impact is the best theory we have and we are the results of organisms that lived through that catastrophe. it's not necessarily smarter. it's how you fit in with your environment and. >> mr. ham a response?

>> one of my professors are excited about evolution. this example, these fish who have evolved and that don't have the ability to see. in this cave they are a balding because the ones that are living their their ancestors -- ancestors had eyes and these are blind. wait a minute they can do something that they could do before. they might have an advantage in this sense in a situation that is dark and they may have gotten diseases and died out but the ones with mutations survive. it's not survival of the fittest. it's survival of those that have survived and those that have the information in their circumstance to survive but it's not getting new information and new function. there is no sample of that and also we need to correctly understand these things. >> we are down to our final question and this goes to both

of you. in the interest of fairness because it's a question for both of you with give each man two minutes on this if we can please and also in the interest of you having gone first mr. ham you have the first word in mr. nye will have the last word you the question is what is the one thing more than anything else upon which a belief? >> the one thing on anything else in which i base my belief? again to summarize the things that i've been saying there is a book called the bible that is a very unique book and any dif -- different than any book out there and in fact i don't know of any other religion that has a book that starts by telling you there's an infinite god and talks about the origin of the universe and the origin of matter and the origin of light and darkness and day and night and the origin of the earth, the origin of dry land and the origin of plants, the sun moon and the stars, the origin of sea

creatures, the origin of land creatures, the origin of man, the origin of woman, the origin of marriage, the origin of different languages and the origin of nations nations. it's a very specific book and it gives us an account of the flood and the tower of babil and if that history is true what about the rest of the book lacks that history says man is a sinner and man is separated from god and gives us the message that we call the gospel message of salvation. offers a free gift of salvation because of history is true that is why the message of history is true. i went through some predictions enlisted out and they're a lot more if you look at it and you can test it for yourself create this book really is true and it's so specific it should make sense and what we see. we have fossils all over the world and different people have different languages.

there's there is so much you can look at. prophecy and so on in and most of all as i said if you come to god believing who he is he will reveal himself to you. if you search after the church and you want god to show you, he will reveal himself to you. >> mr. nye. >> would you repeat the question? >> the question is what is the one thing more than anything else on which ubu -- upon which you base your belief's? >> my old professor of carl sagan said so often when you're in love you want to tell the world. i base my beliefs on the information that the process that we call science, it fills me with joy to make discoveries every day of things i had never seen before. it fills me with joy to know that we can pursue these answers. it is a wonderful and astonishing thing to me that we

are, you and i, are somehow at least one of the ways that the universe knows itself. you and i are a product of the universe. it's astonishing. i see your faces. we have come to be because of the universes existence and we are driven to pursue that, to find out where we came from. the second question we all want to know, are we alone? are we alone in the universe and these questions are deep within us and they drive us so the process of science, the way we know nature is the most compelling thing. i just want to close by reminding everybody what is at stake here. if we abandon all that we have learned our ancestors and what they have learned about nature and our place in it if we abandon the process by which we know it, if we let go of

anything that people have learned before us, if we stop driving forward and stop looking for the next answer to the next question we in the united states will be outcompeted by other countries, other economies. that would be okay i guess but i was born here. i'm a patriot so we have to embrace science education to the voters and taxpayers that are watching please keep that in mind. we have to keep science education in science, science classes. >> a tiny bit of important housekeeping for everybody here. the county is under a level 2 snow emergency. drive home carefully. you'll have a lot to talk about the drive carefully. this debate will be archived at debate live.org and that's debate live.org one word. it will be on that site for several days and you can encourage friends and family to watch. thanks so much to mr. nye and

mr. ham. [applause] a great discussion. >> i'm tom foreman. thank you and goodnight. [applause] need to me what has to happen in this country is there has to be a much greater appreciation for producers generally and for those who feed us. every single person in this audience who is not a farmer has the luxury not to be a farmer in this country. and the reason we have that luxury is that we don't have to produce the food for our families. we don't have to grow it.

we have transferred that responsibility to somebody else and we are happy to do that he could as we have the most productive farmers in the world. but we don't appreciate that. we don't know and we don't appreciate the fact that i could be a lawyer or someone could be a doctor or someone could run a seed company or someone could start an entrepreneur or activity because we don't have to spend the time and the effort to raise the food as our forefathers and four mothers used to. and so i think the dialogue in order for messages to be received appropriately has got to be couched in a way that it's not a criticism. it is indeed simply an educational opportunity and the one thing i want to note about this panel is this panel had taken place five years ago or 10 years ago or 20 years ago you wouldn't see the diversity on this panel that you see today. you just wouldn't.

that is something that agriculture needs to understand and embrace, that diversity whether it's in crop production and land use or in producers is not a threat. it's something to be celebrated. it's something to be encouraged especially if we are going to convince people to get into this business.

let's go we are back with two authors on a book on hillary clinton madeline becker at a correspondent of the hill and jonathan allen who is not limburg news white house correspondent for them co-authors of hrc. let me begin with you. what story are you trying to tell in this book about hillary clinton? >> guest: one is her comeback story. she had been through a lot during the 2008 campaign. i know if that were me how would i come back? i found that really fascinating and i think anyone i matter their party affiliation would find that fascinating that the only -- the other thing is how she would govern. this is her biggest management job. how did she manage to 70,000 person bureaucracy? iowa she govern? what decisions would she make, who do she surrounds with so all these things are important. >> host: jonathan allen if you are trying to find all kind of president she makes it she runs

what do you think you need to say about her? >> guest: i think you need to figure out how did she makes decisions and what she puts an emphasis on and what our priorities are and who the people around her are. obviously she has had a lot of experience inside washington and nobody campaigned successfully at least in the recent past as the ultimate washington insider. they might get bigger with frank underwood on television but not necessarily for presidential candidates. the truth is we have seen an inability to maneuver in washington and an inability to work with congress or lack of understanding of how agencies or the private and public sector work and interact and we wanted to get an idea of her views on those things. one of the things we found in talking to people is that she has a bias for action wanted to do things and be willing to take risks, calculated risks but some risks in order to try to achieve something.

most politicians are risk-averse. >> host: what did you learn about her and her i guess personality, her decision-making process? >> guest: one of the big things is this -- and that is clear throughout the book. we also learned that she is quite a retail politician in her own way. we often think of though clinton or husband is this gregarious guy but she does it too. we tell the story for instance about when she left the state department she sent 16,000 thank you notes to people, 5000 of them handwritten which is quite a task. we thought that was interesting and also how she kept tabs on politics. she was away and she traveled to 112 countries but she always had her pull some was happening back home. >> host: think that matters to for? >> guest: in terms of politics and running for president perhaps in 2016 we detail how she kept the operation growing

and continue to reach out to the business community and to supporters and donors and how her husband settled scores on the campaign trail how -- helped president obama with re-election all the sets her up for 2016. going back to the original campaign thanking people. a lot of time in president to campaign so worked up canada's just end cometh the end of the road for her but obviously she was thinking ahead and kept up with all these folks. now it is helped in terms of trying to win an election later but it also helps when you're trained to move them on public policy issues. it's classic politics and the kind of thing old-school city mayors would do so i think it's one of hillard engines ways of trying to reach out to all. her husband of course has that great charisma both mass charisma and personal charisma. she has to work a little bit harder at it very at.

>> host: reading this book is interesting that there is a lot in here about bill clinton and what he is doing at the same time that she is the secretary of state. why did you include that in the look? why do you think that matters? >> guest: because they are interwoven. i tell the story all the time i see her as her own person. she has developed her own brand but he is so much a part of her life that it's hard to separate the two. her story is his story in his story is her story. >> host: what her aides agree with that or like it i should say. >> guest: i'm not sure that they necessarily like it. i know for a fact that they don't like all the things in this book but there are these sort of a hillary land and the bill world and together they make the clinton universe. when you have got two principles so to speak with their own interests, sometimes that lineup perfectly and sometimes they line up less than perfectly certainly they have their own strategies for getting things done.

>> host: did you hear from the former secretary of state? >> guest: we are not really talking about who we spoke to but we were happy with the access we got. >> host: and the reaction to it? >> guest: we have heard mixed reviews. some clintonites are not happy with us and some are happy or content with the book. >> guest: i think that is a good way to say it. one of the headlines from the book was this hit list that hillary clinton's aides capped after the 2008 primary to track the people that had been not treating her particularly well and bill clinton went on the campaign trail and knocked a lot of them out. >> host: that made the news that there was one part in here where you talk about claire mccaskill, senator claire mccaskill and how much she is disliked by the clinton camp. why is that? >> guest: to this day

actually. she is one of the people who has come out early to endorse hillary clinton should she run in 2016 but it dates back to 2006. the clintons had campaigned for her and fund-raiser for her. she was on "meet the press" and she was asked about president clinton. she said something to the effect of he has been a great leader but i wouldn't want my daughter near him. that really angered a lot of clintonites and so following that she said she made a point to a friend where she said i wouldn't want to be stuck in an elevator with her which was an interesting moment. >> guest: senator mccaskill not only endorsed senator, then senator obama but there's a fresh endorsement every day on television. people were basically cursing their tv sets when they saw her on morning joe or "washington journal" whichever show she would be on.

now you are seeing this go full circle where claire mccaskill is back in clinton's good graces and hillary clinton herself and built clinton will be gracious and magnanimous but when you talk to the aids they still hate claire mccaskill. >> host: want to go back to her decision-making process and personality. this is one partnering with both she has something more driving her than just power. she has a strong moral compass and this is a quote from a longtime friend that she leads into. she doesn't wear religion on her sleeve but i think if you had any length of conversation with her as a methodist and talk to her about her faith she would be very insightful. what do you make of the role of faith? >> guest: it's interesting, something she has talked about a times before but not generally reticent about. clearly it's important and ran one of things we found that issue shows some --

shares an e-mail chain with a set of old friends mark strider who was her faith advisor and a longtime clinton aide who was with jesse jackson before them where they discuss religious teachings and things like that. it's something where she doesn't mention in public because she worries about disturbing other people's ability to worship because of the fanfare that comes along with when she sweeps into secret service or state department. her faith as the wesleyan branch of methodism which has a strong component of public service in it and i think she sees it as her role to do things for the better good. not everyone agrees with her view on how that should happen or what is the better good but i think it's something that's driving within her. >> host: you write that played a role in her decision to accept president obama's many pleas for

her to join his administration and takeover the state department. >> guest: she dodged him a few times. she went to chicago as it's been reported. he said will you do this and she said no, and he said will think about it. sleep on it and then she dodged his calls a few times and eventually what happened was he offered it to her and then she said okay let's talk so she called him back one morning. the way she explains it is that if she had been president-elect and she had asked president or senator obama than to serve for her she would have expected him him to do it. she has a call for public service. she's a politician but this is something she really believes them. >> host: there are more details to delve than from the new book hrc what her role was, what her responsibilities were and what she took credit for, what she did the state department that we will get into

here. howard is up versed in pennsylvania democratic caller. hi howard. >> caller: good morning. i would like to say that i think the middle class and i consider myself part of the middle class whether republican or independent or democrat we are looking for someone to address the problem of our jobs going to china and india, bringing them back to america and they think obama made a big mistake to emphasizing health care. i think the economy is number one and that's all i have to say. >> host: jonathan allen you bite about the role that hillary clinton would play. >> guest: secretary clinton as secretary of state was attempting to stay out of domestic politics.

it's generally not the job of the secretary of state in addition because she had been involved in health care in the early 1990s. there was a level of toxicity she may have had for obamacare has had she been publicly involved but behind the scenes she was offering at eyes to rahm emanuel and jim messina to president obama's top aides sort of her history with health care trying to fight in the early 90s and her insights. she ended up talking to lawmakers at the white house and we write about a scene in a cabinet meeting in 2009 right after the tea party summer as it were in september 2009. basically all the cabinet members were starting to get upset. there was a lot of frustration with the white house agenda being completely subsumed by health care and the health care would end up bringing down the party party. hillary clinton made a passionate plea for the cabinet members to get behind president obama.

there is an opportunity like this that comes up very often and we are better set up under the clinton administration. let's get this done now and folks in the administration told us that they felt that was an underappreciated moment because it was in the public one at but a pretty pivotal moment where she was bringing the force of her political weight behind president obama in front of all these democrats. >> host: you have in the book this picture of president obama receiving a congratulatory hug from hillary clinton the day after the house passed the affordable care act. she supported obama's assist -- insistence and spoke on the president's behalf as you are describing here. let's go to up in illinois independent caller. >> caller: good morning. i look forward to reading your book. i have two questions. you told us we shouldn't talk about the -- i'm wondering if you would rank

her congressman says secretary of state. would it be slowing down iran's involvement was the nuclear bomb syria iran and number two we saw the photo of when osama bin laden was taken down in the white house situation room. as far as we know hillary clinton and the president were in washington when it happened. did you ever see a photo of the situation room that day? >> host: a couple of things here. let's first talk about her competence at the state department. go ahead amie parnes. >> guest: one of the biggest things issued a support the president she was a big advocate on things like libya and the afghan the raid on -- but i think the reset button is a big moment for her and there were other moments that i think john can talk about.

>> guest: i think generally speaking we are seeing better around the world after the first term of the obama and administration when she was a chief advocate of broad. relationships with partners improved in some relationships in the arab world and prove. i think that was an important thing that she attributed to an she also elevated development and diplomacy as part of foreign policy for so long and the immediate post-9/11 world. american foreign policy was all combat and military so that elevation of diplomacy as part of foreign policy i think was also an important call bush meant and it would have been harder for some folks who had less influence to do it as fast. >> host: what about weighing in on the big controversial issues that the secretary of state has to take on, the middle east peace process and those sort of issues?

>> guest: obviously there is no middle east peace. she didn't get the israelis and the palestinians to sit down nor has anyone else in a long time. and i think the white house wants to control those together issues. she had a special envoy for the middle east and became frustrated the white house wasn't letting him do his job and ended up quitting. i would say with regard to the middle east the last time there was an outbreak of violence in that area particularly israel and the palestinians it was hillary clinton who went in and did the shuttle diplomacy between the israelis and the palestinians and the egyptians to get a cease-fire. this was in late 2012. we detail it in the look and she was skeptical of how long that would hold that it has held for a year and a half so far.

no long-term peace deal but at least they're not shooting at each other. >> guest: one thing before we continue that is interesting because leon panetta was head of the cia and came to her one day in the situation room and said i really want to talk to you about something. they planned a secret meeting where he came for lunch to the state department. no one knew about it and it wasn't on her schedule. her aides just thought she disappeared for a little while and he actually wanted her i in for bin laden. we think that is a pivotal moment because he saw that she had the so-called bias for action that we talk about. he really wanted her support on this and it was important to him and i think that as a strong moment for her. >> host: she disagrees at the time was defense secretary gates. >> guest: this was someone she really aligned with and they shared lots of opinions that this was where they disagreed. >> guest: vice president biden as well. it's generally veteran of democratic party to be the dove but she was the hawk and

national security and biden was the dove. president obama ended up taking a more hawkish position certainly more than more democrats thought he would. >> host: to answer the viewer's question you do think it's right that both she and president obama were in washington the day of the raid? >> guest: there was a really funny moment in the correspondents' dinner where there was a whole situation like what happens and what do we do this whole thing interferes with white house correspondents dinner and she used profanity and she said who cares about the white house correspondents' dinner. >> guest: i have no reason to believe that the photo was fake. . >> host: you write about how president obama had to change his jokes because he knew, obviously he knew what was about to happen that evening at a lot of this aid student including a speechwriter. >> guest: who wrote the jokes and they thought it was an

interesting moment like why are we changing this at the last-minute? >> guest: you are talking about opposition that barack obama right face into thousand 12 and they didn't know mitt romney was the nominee. they went through a series of leaders and gave them nicknames like terrorists in some cases. tim pawlenty i believe was supposed to be osama bin pawlenty or whatever and they had to change it to coast they knew the raid was going down so i think they changed it to mubarak or hose me. that is one of the fun stories in the book. >> host: lets get some students involved as well. our c-span bus has been touring the country as part of a conference tour and today is that iowa state university. we have six political science and history tourists on board -- students on board. let's begin with kristen. you're up first. >> caller: good morning. with such an extensive history of the public spotlight it seems

remarkable that hillary clinton has been able to maintain such a positive image for most americans. i am curious what reasons you thought there were for that? >> guest: i think part of his resilience. this is somebody who has been up and down and when she gets knocked down she is not stay down. her enemies i think some of them at least respect the fight in her. for those that are inclined to like are they sort of see her as an inspiration in terms of coming back time and again. amie at one point wanted to call the book the fetus because she felt hillary clinton was rising from the ashes one more time. we saw in 2008 she wasn't very popular when she ran in as the front-runner but as an underdog when barack obama was beating her suddenly she seemed to gain more popularity and she seemed to be more comfortable and not world. it was certainly an interesting thing but i think a lot of

people identify with that story. we think that's one of the reasons the book hopefully is readable and enjoyable whether people agree or disagree. >> host: she also had high numbers washers at the state department and largely she was told by one of her friends because you're not in politics anymore. >> guest: we are seeing that already. her numbers are ready coming down and her friend advised her one day in a car ride to the general assembly ellen tauscher. they were talking about numbers and she said when she come back into politics just watch out. your numbers are high now and i think the clintons are where this sort of thing. >> host: gerald is an hope north carolina democratic caller. hi gerald. >> caller: how are you all on this beautiful morning? >> host: what is your question? >> caller: please bear with me.

i'm a disabled vietnam veteran and i have a couple of items. one reason the clintons keep toensing back is most americans don't -- scandal which is with proof versus accusations which is without proof. we don't confuse that. the second night item raquette is benghazi. somebody brought it up this morning. i understand that's a tragedy that most people seem to leave out the bipartisan senate report that just came out. the bottom of page 20 and the top of page 20 -- 21 refused security to times from december, august 16 until september 11 when the commander offered it to her and one last item here. the situation in syria russia keeps intervening? why don't we offer them the report. the only one that they have. why don't we just say it the way

that britain did in hong kong for 50 years. >> lets begin with scandal versus accusations. amie parnes. >> guest: this is interesting because of the recent papers that it come out. we have heard the name monica lewinsky coming up in the clintons in the 90s. i think they obviously want to move past this. there is obviously disagreement in the republican party about how to handle it and you have reince priebus saying everything is fair game and karl rove say not so much. why are we dredging up the past? they have to decide how to handle that. i don't think you will hear from the clintons on this right now. >> host: here's a tweet from a viewer who says ghazi disqualifies hillary has commander-in-chief. in her words, get over it. >> guest: interesting. i think the book has probably the most serious concise

independent nonpartisan and unbiased -- i am biased on this, description of what happened and benghazi and what the imperatives were there in the decision to go to libya putting that coalition together to go after gadhafi to knock them out of power. the effort that was put in there to normalize relations with the new government. the tick tock of benghazi not only in the ground but in washington as well. and the aftermath in classified briefings on capitol hill and that famous moment in the senate hearing where she says what difference at this point doesn't make? as far as benghazi goes she has said it's her biggest regret. there is no evidence that the request for more security in tripoli which is a long distance from benghazi ever made it to her desk are anywhere near her desk. she says she is responsible. the question for blame of course

lies with the terrorists first and foremost and then there's a sort of secondary rushton does anybody else bear the blame? the caller mentioned the senate report and other reporting we have heard since we finished the book is basically suggesting chris stevens wanted to be out there in these dangers places them on to be talking to the libyans and wanted to try to sell america's best as possible. whether that should be decision that an investor makes on his own or a lower-level state department makes on their own is a reasonable question. i would recommend that readers particularly on benghazi look at it as seriously and fair-minded as possible. >> host: the c-span bus we have students from iowa state university. morgan todd is next. >> caller: good morning.

thank you for having me. i was curious when it came together in research for your book what was the biggest obstacle that you faced? >> guest: it was a long and complicated process. we started a couple of years ago in 2012 around the convention season and i think the research was really particularly difficult but it was also hard to get access. this is a very insular world and john and i both had sources on the hill at the state department and at the white house and i think what we try to do was cobbled together our source list and talk to as many people as possible. we talked to more than 200 people for this look so people who like her or don't like her. >> guest: finishing project in its unusual for two reporters to have completely different source list. there is very little overlap between the people that amie talked to and that i talked to at the state department on the

hill. that was very helpful but another thing that i found difficult and challenging is the state department some rarely rejected a lot of freedom of information request that seems simple. we had a researcher helping us with that and we had to frame these things pretty carefully. i was surprised that the types of things that came back as rejection letters and it just makes me want to spend more time constructing foia requests. >> host: nancy and overton texas, independent caller. >> caller: yes maam, good morning. i have two points of view and what we need in the white house we do not need all these politicians and old blood. we need new blood and we need leaders. >> host: got your point nancy. amie parnes. >> guest: is a tricky one for the clintons. they bring back this old baggagy scandal in the 90s but i should point out that president clinton's approval ratings

hillary clinton's approval ratings back then were just as high. i think they actually fared quite well. >> guest: it's interesting to see karl rove and other republicans leaders say it's not fertile ground. if it didn't hurt bill clinton politically it's probably not going to hurt hillary clinton politically who is i guess more than a bystander but not much more than bystander. >> host: at tweet nearly all democrats i know want hillary as president. >> guest: i'm sure there are some democrats out there that don't want hillary clinton to be president of the united states but i think it's a small minority. >> host: i want to show our viewers from her concession speech in 2008. i want to show our viewers one line that she put in their and talk about the back story of that.

>> although we weren't able to shatter that highest hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you it's got about 18 million? in it. [applause] and the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time. >> host: amie parnes next time. >> guest: it was arguably her best speech on the campaign. a former aide of hers came up with the 18 million? line which we discovered in the book but it will be interesting to see what she does. i think she's going to embrace it a little more this time. she was reluctant to do that during this particular speech. there was a little back-and-forth with one of her aides about how much do i address the fact that i'm a woman candidate and i don't think she's going to have that

same hesitance next time around. >> guest: there is a rhetorical refrain where she got those the abolitionists were suffrages from the 1850s. sojourner truth was famous for saying in that speech hillary clinton said it wasn't about being a woman. i wasn't running as a woman per se but at the end of that she goes but i am a woman. and linking through sojourner truth the women's movement and the blacks all rights movement as a way of getting her supporters to see obama as somebody who is making history. that same logic could be applied should she be running for president or the first one president to talk to african-americans and hispanics and others who have seen glass ceilings and want to see this

come down. it's interesting to see those seeds planted in that speech and later in the convention speech she uses harriet tubman an african-american woman morgan abolitionist bennett suffragette still using that arc of unifying in one person the hopes of folks who want to see the first african-american president and the first woman president. >> host: let's go back to our bus in ames iowa at iowa state university. madeline becker. go ahead. >> caller: thank you for having me. in your book you describe hillary clinton as a woman of action and her masculine traits to success in the political round. do you think she has inspired other officeholders to defy the traditional gender --

that may put them back and they political round? >> guest: throughout her campaign she got advice from people who said don't embrace the fact that you are woman candidate. people know how strong you are. i think that was one of the things, she had a series of postmortem sessions after she lost and she learned she should have done more. i think it does signal to other women you can be this powerful woman and embrace the fact that you are strong female candidate. >> guest: i want to as the students at the iowa state crowd whether they think they can bring hillary clinton into the -- so if we have any more students i would love to get their read on that. >> host: we can have them think about that next. dana says whited hillary resigned from secretary of state >> guest: it was never her and intention to stay longer