potentially important ways, and we think as we look at changes in immigration policy that are being considered, changes in tax policy that might be considered, we need to be able to give congress estimates, analysis that is at the cutting edge of what the economics profession can do. we have spent time building up models in that area. we have looked in other areas as well, obviously. we have strengthened our modeling of the health insurance system for people under age 65. we have strengthened our modeling of the health insurance system for people over age 65. part of what we need to do at cbo all the time is to do the analytic work to be ready for the policy proposals when they come. i think we mostly had that target and i'm glad when we do. when we don't, we regret it.

two things. submittedt budget was march 4. how long do you think it will did something back to congress after that date? question is, is you can have a lot of under noticed stuff in november-december saying you stabilize the debt. you need $2 trillion long-term. to reduce the to pre-recession levels. trillion over 10 years. it is very similar to what old simpson was saying in -- bow les-simpson was saying. walk us through the overview of how much progress was made in the budget. on your first question, it

takes about a month to produce estimates of the president's budget. but that time frame varies depending on what the policy proposals are, how from the lawyer or unfamiliar they are to us. and depending on the release of underlying data. so we use a lot of data that comes out with the president's budget separate from his proposals, but data is very important in updating our baseline. we will not make any precise predictions, but in the past it was about a month. i don't -- i can't speak directly to what bowles- simpson were saying a few years ago. certainly there have been changes over the last federal years that have narrow deficits as we project them. for example, in particular the tax on discretionary funding. there have also been changes in policy that have narrowed or widen deficits to spending -- depending on --

the tax cuts worsened to the deficits, but allowing some of those cuts to expire narrowed the deficit relative to what other people referred to as the current policy baseline. it is very hard to keep track. and we have not tried to keep track formally of all the changes in policy over the last few years. i think the most important for commerce to understand is at this point in time, what are the choices and constraints it faces going forward? as you said, we reported and will report on deficit reduction and update that of congress wanted 25 years from now to have a debt to gdp ratio of about where it is now, than it would need to reduce deficits over the next decade by $2 trillion. and continue the deficit reduction in the 10th year at about the same share of gdp beyond that. if it wanted to bring the debt back down to about the same share of gdp at was on average over the past 40 years, then it $4ld have to reduce it by

trillion. that is our best estimate of where things stand now. >> what is your estimate of where those numbers have moved since 2010? were they bigger or smaller, do you think? >> again, i think it depends crucially on what your benchmark is to start with in terms of the tax provision, the expired tax provision. i think of when started from the view that, i am assuming the tax cuts would be extended, then certainly the efforts to reduce deficits since then have narrowed the future fiscal gap. on the other hand, if you started where we had to start then, which was was was with current law, then the extension of most of the expired tax provision has lightened the fiscal gap. >> with that, we want to thank the doctor for doing this. we hope you come back, sir. >> i would love to. thank you all very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

tomorrow night a discussion about nsa leaker edwards snowden and his impact on the journalism profession. panelists include reporters from the new york times, the guardian, and the washington post at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. thursday night, we will talk with two u.s. senators about their personal lives, careers, and some interesting facts about their names. senator heidi hike camp tells us how her name went from mary catherine to heidi. >> i grew up in a very small catholic community, and when i was growing up, the two classes, whether it was first and second or third and fourth, were all in the same classroom. and at that time, of really -- girls,y small group of there were a lot of marys, mary and marymary jo catherine. my parents never called me mary. my name is kathy.

but my best friend's name was cathy. and so she decided in the third grade that she would rename me. ioushe was a vorac reader and had read hundreds of books and heidi was one of her favorite books. she thought it was great alliteration. >> later, we will talk with senator john soon and how his grandfather changed the family name. >> my grandfather came over from norway in 1906. when they got to ellis island, they did not know english with the exception of apple pie and coffee which evidently they learned on the way over, but they were asked by the immigration officials to change their name because they thought it would be too difficult to spell and pronounce for people in this country. and their name and norway was gjelsvik. island,y got to ellis they asked them to change the name. they picked the name of the farm where they lived in norway.

the thune farm. my grandfather was nick thune. they got to ellis island and they got a sponsor in south dakota and they came out to work on the railroads. >> american profile interviews with senators heidi hike camp and john thune, seized a night -- c-span, c-spanon radio and c-span.org. >> the debate continues on her facebook hates. " there is no debate. those of you with an imaginary friend need to stay out of science class>' another says, to believe in evolution one needs a lot more faith than me. i would rather believe in god and die and it not be true than not believe in him and i and it be true." you can join the conversation at .com/cspan.

now bill nye, "the science guy" and ken ham debate evolution and creationism. the debate took place at the creation museum in kentucky. you am pleased to welcome to legacy hall, the creation museum in northern kentucky in the metropolitan area of cincinnati. i am ted foreman from cnn. and i am pleased to be tonight moderator for this evolution versus creation debate. this is an old question -- where did we come from? my answer is from washington this morning by airplane. [laughter] but there is a much more profound, longer answer that people have sought after for a long time. so tonight's question to be debated is the following gas is creation of viable model of origins in today's modern society if it era? -- scientific era?

are welcome to hundreds of people who are watching online. media joined by 70 representatives from many of the world's great news organizations. we are glad to have them here as well and now let's welcome our debaters -- mr. bill nye and mr. ken ham. [applause] >> we had a coin toss earlier to determine who would go first of these two men. the only thing missing was joe namath and a fur coat. but it went very well.

won the coin toss and he opted to speak first. but first, let me tell you little bit about both gentlemen. bill nye's website describes him as a scientist, comedian, author and inventor. he produced a number of tv shows, including the program he became so well known for --bill nye, "the science guy." while working on the show, he won seven national emmy awards for writing, performing, and producing the show. the show won 18 emmys in five years. in between creating the shows, he wrote five kids books about science including his latest titled "bill nye's great big book of tiny germs." bill nye is a host of three television series. his program the 100 greatest discoveries air's on the science channel. frequently appears on interview programs to discuss a variety of science topics. bill nye serves as executive director of the planetary society, the world's largest

space interest group. he is a graduate of cornell and a bachelors of science degree in mechanical engineering. president and the cofounder of answers in genesis, a bible defending organization that upholds the authority of the scriptures from the very first verse. he is the man behind the popular high-tech creation museum. the museum has had 2 million visitors in six years and has attracted much of the worlds media. the answers in genesis website is well trafficked with 2 million visitors last month. he is also a best-selling author. a much in demand speaker and the host of a daily radio feature carried on 700 plus stations. second public debate on evolution and creation. the first was at harvard in the 1990's. australia.a native he earned a bachelor's degree in applied science within an ethicist on environmental biology as well as a diploma of education at the university of queensland in brisbane,

australia. opted to goham, you first, so you'll be first with your five minute opening statement. >> good eveing. ning. i know that not everyone watching this debate will necessarily agree with what i have to say but i am an aussie. and they tell they have have an accident. so it does not matter what i say, some people tell me, we like to hear you saying it. i hope you enjoy me saying it anyway. the debate topic is -- is creation of viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era? when this was first announced on the internet, there were lots of statements like this one -- scientist should not debate creationists. and this one from the discovery.com website, should scientists debate creationists? i think there is a gross misrepresentation in our culture. in beingpeople indoctrinated to believe that

creationists cannot be scientists. i believe it is hijacking the word science. i want you to meet a modern-day scientist who is a physical creationist. >> i'm a professor of engineering design in the uk. [inaudible] i have published over 130 scientific papers on the science and design and engineering of biological systems. i find that scientific evidence -- supports creationism as the best explanation to origins. i will say -- >> here is a biblical creationist who is a scientist and also an inventor. and i want young people to understand that the problem i believe is this -- we need to define the terms correctly. we need to define creation, evolution in regard to origins and we need to define science.

in his opening statement, i want to concentrate on the word science. i believe science has been hijacked by secularists. what is science? the origin of the word comes from the latin which means to know. if you look in the dictionary, it will say science means state of knowing, knowledge. but there are different types of knowledge. there is experimental observational science. that is using the scientific method, observation, measurement, experiment, testing. that is what produces technology -- computers, jet planes, smoke detectors, looking at dna, antibodies, medicines and vaccines. you see, all science is whether creationists or evolutionists actually have the same observational or experimental science. and it does not matter whether you are a creationist or in evolutionists, you can be a great scientist. there is an atheist one of -- one of the scientists who sequence the human genome.

o'er the man who invented the mri. he is a biblical creationist. molecules -- man evolution has nothing to do with developing technology. when we talk about origins, we're talking about the past. we were not there. we cannot observe that, whether it is molecules to man evolution or the creation account. when you talk about the past, we like to call that origins or historical science, knowledge concerning the past. here at the creation museum, we make no apology about the fact that our origins are science based upon the biblical account of origins. now, when you research science textbooks being used in public schools, what we found is this -- by a large, the origins of historical science is based upon man's ideas about the past. for instance, the ideas of darwin. public school textbooks are using the same word science for observational, science and historical science and. they define it science as

naturalism. molecules to man evolution as fact. they are imposing their religion of naturalism on generations of students. science hashe word been hijacked by secularist in teaching evolution to force the religion of naturalism on generations of kids. secular evolution has taught that all life developed by natural processes from some primordial form. that man isn't evolved animal which has great bearing on how we view life and death. for instance, as bill says -- >> it is hard to except for many of us, that when you die it is over. >> the bible gives a different account of origins. the meaning of life. and our future. one man sin entered the world and death through sin. god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. whoever believes in him should not perish and have everlasting life. so it is creation a viable model of oranges -- origins?

conflict between philosophical worldview is based on two different accounts of science believes and creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era. >> and that is time. i have the unenviable job of the new time caper here -- time keeper. debaters one of our runs over on anything, i will stop them in the name of keeping it fair for all. mr. ham, thank you. now it is mr. ny'es's turn. >> is a pleasure to be here. i very much appreciate your including me in your facility. looking around the room, i think i see just one bowtie. is that right? once you try it. yes, two. i started wearing bow ties when i was young and high school. my father showed me -- his father showed him. and and there is a story associated with this, which i find remarkable.

my grandfather was in the r otary and he attended a convention in philadelphia, and even in those days, at the turn of the last centuries, people rented tuxedos. and that tuxedo came with a bowtie, untied bowtie. so we did not know how to tie. he just took a chance. he went to the hotel room next door. knocked on the door, excuse me. can you help me tie my tie and the guy said, sure. bed.own on the so my grandfather wanted to have the tie on, was not sure what he was getting into, so he said to have lain on the bed, and the guy tied a perfect bowtie not. and my grandfather said thank you. why did i have to lie down? the guys said, i'm an undertaker. that story was presented to me as a true story.

it may or may not be. but it gives you something to think about. and it certainly something to remember. so here tonight we're going to have to stories. and we can compare mr. ham's story to the story from what i would call the outside, from mainstream science. the question tonight is, does ken ham's creation model hold up? is it viable? what would you be doing if you were not here tonight? that's right. you would be home watching "csi." "csi petersburg." is that coming? "csi," there is no to station made between historical science and observational science. am.se are constructs mr. h we do not normally have those anywhere in the world. natural laws that applied in the past apply now. that is why they are natural laws. that is why we embrace them.

that is how we made all these discoveries that enabled all this remarkable technology. is fictional but it is based on real people doing real work. when you go to a crime scene and find evidence, you have clues about the past and you trust those clues and you embrace them and you move forward to convict somebody. mr. ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a that somehowod influenced everything that we observe in nature, a 500 foot wooden boat, eight zookeepers, 14,000 individual animals, every land plant in the world underwater for a four-year. i ask us all, is that really reasonable? thewill hear a lot about grand canyon, i imagine, also which is in remarkable place and it has fossils. the fossils in the grand canyon are found in layers. inre is not a single place the grand canyon where the fossils of one type of animal ofssover inoto the fossils

another. when there was a big flood on the earth, you would expect a drowning animals to swim up to a higher level, not any one of them did. not a single one. if you can find evidence of that, my friends, you could change the world. now, i just want to remind us billions of are people in the world who are deeply religious, who get enr iched by the wonderful sense of community from their religion. they worshiped together, they eat together, they live in their communities and enjoy each other's company. billions of people, but the same people do not embrace the extraordinary view that the earth is somehow only 6000 years old. that is unique. here is my concern. the united states ahead, what makes the united states a world leader is our technology, our new ideal is -- new ideas here if we continue to

issue science and issue -the science, weghew will not move forward and make discoveries. we will not invent and innovate and stay ahead. so if you ask me if ken ham's creation model is viable, i say no. it is absolutely not liable. so stay with us over the next period and you can compare my evidence to his. thank you all very much. [applause] >> uh, very nice start by both of our debaters here. now each one will offer a 30 minute illustrated presentation case for user their to consider. jrmr. ham, you are up. >> the debate topic was is

creation of viable model of origins? and i made a statement at the end of my opening statement creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era. and i said what we need to be doing is actually defining our terms. and rigidly three terms -- science, creation, and evolution . now, i discuss the meaning of the word science and what is meant by experimental observational science briefly, and that both creationists and evolutionists can be great scientists. anentioned a biologist, atheist, and he is a great scientist. he was one of the first researchers t sequence the human genome. thato mentioned a doctor invented the m ir scanner. i want you to meet a biblical creationist who is a scientist and inventor. >> hi. earth creation

scientists believe that god created the world in 624-hour days, just as recorded in the book of genesis. prayers grace, and the of my mother-in-law, i invented the mri scanner in 1969. the idea that scientist to believe the earth is 6000 years old cannot do real science is simply wrong. >> he is most adamant about that. actually he revolutionized medicine. he is a biblical creationist. and i encourage children to follow people like that and make them their heroes. that me introduce you to another biblical creation scientist. >> my name is danny faulkner. i received my phd in astronomy from indiana university. for 26.5 years, i was a professor at the university of south carolina lancaster where i hold the rank of distinguished professor emeritus. upon my retirement in in january 2013, i join the research staff at answers in genesis. i am a stellar astronomer. by primary business is stars,

but i am interested in the study of binary stars. and i publish many articles in literature, places such as the astrophysical journal, the astronomical journal, and the observatory. there is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a recent creation. >> i also mentioned the professor of design, engineering design at bristol university in england. he invented a double action worm hinges of ae robotic arm on a very expensive satellite. if that had not worked, if that gear set had not worked, the whole satellite would have been useless. dr. burgess is a biblical creationist. now think about this for a moment. whontist like dr. burgess believe in creation a small minority? let's see what he says about scientist believing in creation. >> many of my colleagues in

creationiste a viewpoint, including biologist. however, they are afraid to speak up because of the criticism they would get in the media. >> i agree. that is a real problem today. we need to have freedom to be able to speak on these topics. i just want to say, by the way, that creation -- christians, non-christians scientists are borrowing from the christian worldview to carry out observational science. think about it. when they are doing observational science using the scientific method, they have to assume the laws of logic and nature. they have to assume the uniformity of nature. if the universe came about by natural processes, where did the laws of logic come from? are we in the stage now where we only have half logic? i have a question for bill nye. how do you account for the laws of logic and laws of nature from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of god? opening statement i

also discussed a different type of science or knowledge -- origins or historical sites. again, there is a confusion, on this understanding. people buy and large have not you taught to look at what believe about the past is different to what you observe in the present. you do not observe the past directly. even when you think about the creation account. we cannot observe god creating. we missed it. we are willing to admit our beliefs about the past. but see, what you see in the present is very different here and even some public school textbooks actually -- they acknowledge the difference between a storable and observational science. here is an earth science textbook. we read this "in contrast to physical geology, the aim of historical geology is to understand earth's long history." historical geology.

it tries to establish a timeline of a vast number of physical and biological changes that have occurred in the past. we study physical geology before historical geology because we first must understand how earthworks before we try to unravel its past. in other words, we observe things in the present and then ok, we are assuming that is always happened in the past. we will try to figure out what is happening. there's a difference between what you observed and what happened in the past. let me illustrate it this way. theill nye and i went to grand canyon, we can agree that that is the sandstone and shale and there is the boundary setting one on top of the other. we can agree on that. theould even analyze minerals and agree on that. but we would disagree and how long it took to get there. but none of us saw the sandstone. there is a 10 million gap there. i do not see gap. that might do different to what bill nye would see. there is the difference between

what you observe directly and then your interpretation in regard to the past. when i was at the goddard met creationists and evolutionists who are working on the hubble telescope. they agreed on how to build it. you know what they disagreed on? they disagreed on how to interpret the data at the telescope obtained in regard to the age of the universe. talknow, we can go and about lots of other similar things. for instance, i heard bill nye for instance, i've heard bill nye -- i totally agree with him on that. we agree how radio activity enables that to work. if you will talk about the age of the earth, you have a problem. we could agree whether you're creationist or evolutionist on,

technology to put the rover on mars, but we will disagree on how to interpret the origin of mars. there are some people believe there was a global site on mars and liquid water on mars. we're going to disagree may be on our interpretation of origin and you can't prove not from an observational science perspective. creationest and evolutionist done work on medicine and vaccine. all scientist have the same experimental or observational science. i have a question for bill nye, can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with the belief in evolution? creationist and evolutionist all have the same evidence. bill nye and i have the same grand canyon. we would have the same fish fossil and the same dinosaur and same animals, same humans and same dna and radio active decay. we have the same universe. actually we all have the same evidences. it's not the evidence that are different, it's a battle over

the same evidence in regard how we interpret the past. it's battle over philosophical world view and starting point and same evidence. i admit my starting point is god is ultimate authority. if someone doesn't accept that, then man has to be the ultimate authority. that's really the difference. i've been emphasizing the difference between historical knowledge about the past when you weren't there. we need to understand, we weren't there. or experimental or observational science using five senses in the present and what you can directly observe, test and repeat. there's a difference between the two. that's why kids aren't being taught to the think critically and correctly about the origin issue. it's also important to understand when talking about creation and evolution, both involve historical science and

observational science. the role of observational science can be used to confirm one's historical science based on one's starting point. when you think about the debate topic and what i affirmed concerning creation, if our origins are historical science based on the bible account of origins is true, then they should be predictions from this that we can test using observational science. there are. for instance, based on the bible, we'd expect to find evidence concerning intelligence confirming intelligence produce life. we'd expect to find evidence concerning the kind. the bible said god made animals after their kind and find each kind produces its own not that one kind changes into another. you expect to find evidence confirming one race of humans because we all go back to adam and eve, that would mean one

race. evidence confirming a young universe. i can't go through all of those. couple of them we'll look at briefly. after their kind, evidence confirming that. in the creation museum, we have featuring replicas darwin finches. we see the different species here. from the specimen darwin obtained, he actually hunts these things and how do you explain this. in his notes, actually, he came up with this diagram here, a tree. he actually said, i think. he was talking about different species and maybe species came from common ancestors. when it comes to finches we would agree that different species came from a common ancestors but a finch.

see, darwin wasn't just think being species. darwin had a much bigger picture in mind. when you look the origin of species and read that book, you'll find he made this statement. from such low and immediate form, both animals and plants might have been developed, we must admit all organic beings maybe descended from one form. he had in mind what we today know as an evolution tree of life. that all life has risen from some form. now when you consider the classification system, we would say as creationist, we have many creationist scientists research this, to say, the kind genesis one is the family of classification. for instance one dog kind, one cat kind. that would mean, by the way, you need anywhere near the number of animals on the arc you would

need. you didn't need all the species of dog, just two. based on the biblical account there in genesis one, they are saying look, there's great variation in the genetics of dogs and finches, over time, particularly after noah's ark, you would expect there are two dogs. you can end up with different species of dogs. you'd expect these different species up here but there's limits. dogs will always be dogs and finches will always be finches. as a creationist, i maintain observational science firm this model based on the bible. for instance, take dogs in january 2014, scientists working at the university of california stated this. we provide several lines of evidence supporting a single

origin of dog and disfavoring alternative models which dogs arrive separate federal geographically distinct population. they put that diagram in the paper. that diagram is similar to this diagram that creationest proposed based upon the creation account in genesis. you have a common dog that give rise to the different species of dogs. that's exactly what we're saying here. in the creation museum, we're showing the finches here. by the way, there's more variation in the dog here than there are in these finches. yet, the dogs that's never used as example of evolution but the finches are. in public school textbook, students are taught see the changes occurring here. here's another problem, not only has the word science been hijacked by secularrest, i believe the word evolution has been hijacked by secularist. the word evolution has been hijacked using what i call a

bait and switch. let me explain to you, the word evolution has been used in public school textbooks it's used for observable changes that we would agree with and use unobservable changes such as molecules to man. let me explain to you what's going on. i was a science teacher in public school and i know what the children were taught. students are taught today, there's all of these different animals plant but they're all part of that big tree of life that goes back to some form. we see changes in finches and dogs. we don't deny the changes. then that put it all together in that evolution tree. that's what you don't observe. that's belief there. that's historical science. i will say it's wrong. what you do observe, you do observe different species of

dogs, different species of finches, but then there are limits. you don't see one kind changing into another. actually, we're told that if you teach creation in the public schools -- i'm going to say wait a minute, actually, the creation model here based upon the bible observational science confirms this. this is what you observe. you don't observe this tree. actually it's a public school textbook that are teaching i believe imposing it on students and they need to be teaching them observational science to understand the reality of what's happening. what we found is that public -- so public school textbooks are rejecting observational science and imposing a naturalistic religion on students. word evolution has been hijacked using a bait and switch to indoctrinate students. let me introduce you to another scientists, richard lenski. he found there was some e. coli

seem so develop. richard lenski, as he mentioned in this book, it's called "evolution in the lab." the ability to grow on -- for instance, jerry coin from university of chicago says, lenski's experiment is another poke in the eye of evolutionist. is it a poke in the eye for anti-evolutionist? is it really seeing on inflict

-- conflict traits evolving? let me introduce you to another biblical creationist who is a scientists. >> my name is dr. andrew fabich. i do research on e. coli. i have published in secular journalist including infection unity. while i was taught nothing but evolution, i don't accept that position. do i my research from a creation perspective. when i look at the evidence, e. coli supposedly evolving over 30 years in the lab. people say it is now able to grow in citrate.

it's not any type of new information. it's just a switch that gets turned on and off. that's what they reported in there. there's nothing new. >> students need to be told what's going on here. certainly there's change but it's not changing necessarily for molecule to man. we can look at other protections. what about everyday confirming one race. let me look at the human population. based upon darwin's idea on human evolution, darwin did teach, there are lower racist and higher racist. would i believe back in the 1900's, one of the biology textbooks used in the public schools in america thought this.

at the present time there exist on earth five races and the highest type of all the caucasians. can you imagine if that was in the public schools today? yet that's what it was taught. but it was based on darwin's ideas that are wrong. you have a wrong foundation. you're going to have a wrong world view. had they started from the bible and from the creation account in the bible, what does it teach? we go through different languages and different people group form. we'd expect, that means it's biologically only race of human. you remember in year 2000, this was headlined news and what we read was this, they had put together a draft of the entire human genome and declared there was only one race, the human race. you see, there we have observational science confirming

the creation account, not confirming at all darwin's ideas. now, there's much more that can be said on each of these topics. obviously you can't do that in a sort time like this. i suggest you visit our website for a lot more information. the debate topic is creation a bible model of origins in today's scientific era. we need to define the term. in particularly the term science and the term evolution and i believe we need to understand how they're being used to impose anti-god religion on generation on students. i keep emphasizing, we do need to understand the difference between experimental and observational science and historical science. the secularist don't like me doing this, they don't want to admit there is a belief aspect what they are saying. let me illustrate.

this is a statement from bill nye. >> you can show the earth is not 10,000 years old. >> i believe agree. you can observe that. you can't observe the and of the earth. you don't see that. you see a gain. there's a big difference between historical science, talk the past and observational science talking about the present. i believe what's happening is this, students are being indoctrinated by the confusion of terms. the hijacking of the word science and evolution in a bait and switch. let me illustrate further with this video clip. here, i assert bill nye is equating observational science with historical science. i also say it's not a mystery when you understand the difference. >> people with these deeply held religious beliefs, they embrace

literal interpretation of the bible. at the same time, they accept aspirin, antibiotic drugs and airplane. this is a mystery. >> i suggest it's not a mystery. what i'm talking about antibiotic, aspirins, smoke detector, jet planes that's observational science slope. i'm an australian. when you talking about creation and thousands of years of the age of earth, that's by historical science. when bill nye is talking about aspirin and smoke detectors, great job of that. that's bill nye observational science guy. when he's talking about evolution a million year, that's bill nye historical science guy. i challenge the evolutionist to admit the belief aspect of their particular world view. at the creation museum, we also teach people the difference between belief and what one can actually observe and experiment with the present.

i believe we're teaching people to criticize critically and think in the right terms about the science. i think it's the creationist that should be educating the kids out there because we're teaching them the right way to think. we admit origins of historical science is based upon the bible. i'm challenging evolutionist to admit the aspects and be up front. i will admit my historical science based on the bible. let me define the term creation as we use it. by creation, we mean here the answer is in genesis, we mean the account based upon the bible. i take genesis as literal history as jesus did. we walk people through that history. we walk them through creation, god made adam and eve and sea creatures and so on. sin and death entered the world. there was no death before sin. then, catastrophe of flood. what do you find? billions buried god gave different languages and he gave different people group.

this is the history as recorded in the bible. this is concerning what happened in the past that explains the present. of course that god son stepped into history, jesus christ died on the cross and raised from the dead and one day there's going ton a new heaven andearth to come. not only is this a understanding of history to connect the presence with the past, it's also a announce for our world view. for instance, in matthew 19 when -- said for this course, shall a man and father be joined with his wife and be one. god invented marriage, by the way, that's what marriage comes

from and to be a man and a woman. not any marriage, every single biblical doctrine of theology is found in genesis. why is there sin in the world, genesis, why is there death, genesis, why did jesus die on the cross, genesis. it's important book. it's foundation of christian doctrine. when we look at seven seas of history, think about how to all connects together. a perfect creation. sin and death entered the world, that's why god's son died on the cross and to conquer death. a reminder that the flood was a judgment because of man's wickedness but at the same time

god salvation. we need to go through a door to be saved. jesus christ said i am the door. we make no apology about the fact in we're on about is this, if you confess with your mouth lord jesus, you will be saved. people say, see, if you allow creation in schools, if you have students hear about it, this is religion. let me illustrate this talking about the recent battle in texas over textbooks in the public schools. newspaper report said this, textbook in classroom have long ranged in texas pitting creationist against academics. notice creationist, academics. creationist can't be academics. it's the way things are worded

out there. it's an indoctrine nation going on. you're talking about what you observe, or you talking about your beliefs about the past. cathy miller is the president of the freedom texas network. she vocally spoken out about this textbook battle there in texas. the mission statement of the organization she's president of, says the texas freedom network advances mainstream agenda of religious freedom. she makes this statement, science education, should be based on mainstream science education not on personal ideological beliefs. they want religious liberty and not personal ideological belief. public school textbooks are using science for observational and historical science.

they define science as naturalism. they are imposing the religion of natural itch on generation of students. they are imposing their ideology on the students. that is a religion. what do you mean by religious liberty, they tolerate their religion. the battle is really about authority. it's more than just science or evolution or creation. it's about who's the authority in this world, man or god? you start with naturalism then what about morals? who decides right and wrong? it's subjective, marriage.

what do you want it to be? get rid of old people, why not. they're costing us a lot of money, abortion, get rid of spare cats and spare kids. god decides right and wrong, marriage, one man and one woman. we are made in the image of god. abortion is killing human being. we do see the collapse of christian morality in our culture and increasing moral relativism. again, i say, creation is the viable model of historical science. i'm a science teacher, i want to see kids -- if we teach them the whole universe is result of natural process and not designed by god, they might be looking in the wrong places or have the wrong idea when they're looking a the creation in regard to how you develop technology. if they're looking at random processes that can totally influence the way they think. if they understand it's a perfect world by sin, that can have great effect how they look for over coming diseases and

problems in the world. i want children to be taught the right foundation that there's a god who created them, who loves them and who died on the cross for them and they are special and made in the image of god. >> thank you mr. ham. [applause] it did occur to me when you had my old friend larry king up there, you could have asked him. he's been around far long time. he's a smart guy. he can probably answer for all of us. [laughter] now, all of attention to mr. nye. >> thank you very much. mr. ham, i learned something. thank you. let's take it back around to the question at hand. does ken ham's creation model hold up? is it viable? for me, of course, take a look. we are here in kentucky on layer upon layer of limestone. i stopped at the sight of the road today and picked up this piece of limestone that has a fossil right there. in these many layers, in this

vicinity of kentucky, there are quarrel animals, fossil. when you look at it closely, you can see they lived their entire lives. they lived typically 20 years, sometimes more than that. we are standing on millions of layers of ancient life. how could those animals have lived their entire life and form these layers in just 4000 years? there isn't enough time since mr. ham's flood for this limestone that we're standing on to have come into existence. my scientific colleagues go to places like greenland, the arctic, they go to antarctica and they drill into the ice with hollow drill bits. it's not that extraordinary.

many of you probably done it yourself to put locks and doors for example. we pull out long cylinders of ice. they are crushed by subsequent layers. they are crushed together tracking little bubbles. the little bubble need to be ancient atmosphere. there's nobody with a needle squirting ancient atmosphere into the bubbles. we find certain of these cylinders to have 680,000 layers. how could it be that just 4000 years ago all of this ice formed? let's just run some numbers. this is some scene from

antarctic. we have 680,000 layers of snow ice and 4000 years since the great flood. that would mean we need 170 winter summer cycles every year for the last 4000 years. wouldn't someone have noticed that? wow. wouldn't someone have noticed there's been winter and summer 170 times one year? if we go to california, we find bristle cone pines. some of them are over 680,000 years old. there's old tjikko over 9550 years old. how can these trees about there if there was a flood just 4000 years ago. you can try this yourself everybody. i don't mean to be mean to

trees. get a sapling and put it under water for a year. it would not survive in general nor would it cede. how could these trees about that old if the earth is only 4000 years old? when we go to the grand canyon which is an astonishing place, i recommend to everybody in the world to visit the grand canyon. you find layer upon layer of ancient rocks. if there was this enormous flood that you speak of, wouldn't there have been churning and bubbling and roiling. how would they settle out. your claim they settle out in a short amount of time is not satisfactory.

in this picture, one type of sediment intruded on another type. if that was uniform, wouldn't you expect it all to be even without intrusion? furthermore you can find places in the grand canyon where you see an ancient river bed on that side and an ancient river bed on that side and the colorado river has cut through it. by the way, if this great flood drained through the grand canyon, wouldn't there have been a grand canyon on every continent? how can we not have grand canyons everywhere if this water drained away in that extraordinary short amount of time, 4000 years. when you look at these layerers carefully, you'll find these beautiful fossils. you find down low, you'll find what you might consider is

rudimentary sea animals. up above you'll find the famous bites and clams and oysters and above that you'll find some mammals. you never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one. you never find a lower one trying to swim its way to a higher. if it all happen such a extraordinary short amount of time, wouldn't we expect to see some turbulence? by the way, anyone here, really, if you can find one example of that, one example of that anywhere in the world, the scientists of the world challenge you. they would embrace you, you would be a hero. you would change the world if you can find one example of that anywhere. people have looked and looked, have not found a single one.

here's an interesting thing. these are fossil skulls that people have found all around the world. it's by no means representative of all the foss sell skulls that have been found but these are all over the place. if you were to look at these, i can assure you not any of them is a gorilla. if as mr. ham and his associates claim, there was just man and then everybody else, there was just humans and all the species, where would you put modern humans among these skulls? how did all of these skulls get all over the earth and these extraordinary fashion, where

would you put us? i can tell you we are on there. i encourage you when you go home to look it up. now, one of the extraordinary claims associated with mr. ham's world view, is that this giant boat, very large wooden ship went aground safely on a mountain in the middle east. places like australia are populated then by animals who somehow managed to get from the middle east all the way to australia in the last 4000 years. now that toe me is an extraordinary claim. we expect them somewhere to find evidence of kangaroos. we expect to find some fossils or bones. somebody would have died along there. furthermore, there's a claim dallas a -- there's a land bridge.

and that land bridge has disappeared in the last 4000 years. no navigator, no diver, no u.s. navy submarine. no one detected any evidence of this. your expectation is not met. it doesn't seem to hold up. there are 4000 years since ken ham's flood. let's say as he said many times there are 7000 times today the very lowest estimate is there are about 8.7 million species but a much more reasonable estimate is 50 million or even a hundred million. when you start counting viruses and bacteria and the beetles in the tropical rain forest we

haven't found. we'll take a number i think is pretty reasonable, 16 million species today. if these came from 7000 times, let's say we have 7000 subtracted from 15 million, that's 15993 we have 365 and a quarter days in a year, we'd expect to find 11 million new species everyday. you go out into your yard, you wouldn't just find a different bird, a new bird. you find a different kind of bird. whole new species a bird everyday. a new species of fish, new species of organs you can't see. this would be enormous news, the last 4000 years. people would have seen these changes among us. the cincinnati inquirer would carrier a column right next to the weather report. we see no evidence of that. there's no evidence of these species. there simply isn't enough time. as you may know i graduated from

engineering school and i got a job at boeing. i worked on 747's. everybody relax, i was very well supervised. everything is fine. there was a tube in the 747 i think of my tube. that aside, i traveled the highways of washington state quite a bit. i was a young guy. he a motorcycle. i used to go mountain climbing in washington state and oregon. you can drive along and find these enormous boulders on top of the ground. enormous rocks, huge sitting on top of the ground.

out there in regular academic pursuits, regular geology, people have discovered that there was -- used to be a lake what is now montana. which we refer to as lake massua. it's not there. the evidence is overwhelming. an ice damn would form. when you drive along the road and there are these rocks. if as is asserted here at this facility, that the heavier rocks would sink to the bottom during a flood event, the big rocks and especially their shape instead of aero dynamic the hydro dynamic, the water changes shape. you expect them to sink to the bottom. here are these enormous rocks right on the surface. if you go driving in washington state and oregon, they are readily available. how could those be there if the earth is just 4000 years old? if this one flood cause that? another remarkable thing i like everybody to consider, along

inherent in this world view is that somehow, noah and his family were able to build a wooden ship that would house 14,000 individuals. there are 7000 kinds and there's a boy and girl for each one of so it's about 14,000 people. these people were unskilled as far as anybody know, they never built a wooden ship. they had to get all of these animals on them and had to feed them. understand mr. ham have some explanations for that, which i frankly find extraordinary. this is the premise of the bit. we can run a test. they built an extremely large ship in wyoming. schoonersix masted

but it had great difficulty. it is not as big as the titanic but it was very long show. it would twist in the sea. and it would twist this way, this way, this way. in all of this twisting, crookedly like crazy. they could not keep the ship dry. and lostt floundered all 14 hands. there were 14 crewmen aboard a built very skilled shipbuilders in new england. they were the best in the world. they could not build them as big have been.claims to is it reasonable? is it possible? the best shipbuilders in the world could not do with a unskilled people were able to do you?

if you envision the national zoo, it is 163 acres. they have 400 species. this picture you're seeing was taken by spacecraft in space orbiting the earth. this place is often deeply concerning for how it treats its animals. the reason that they were able to maintain 14,000 animals and their cells and feed them. aboard a ship that was bigger than anyone has been able to build. what we want in science, science

is practiced on the outside. is an ability to predict. we want to have a natural law that is so obvious and clear, so well understood that we can make predictions about what will happen. we can put a spacecraft in orbit and take a picture of washington, d.c. and predict if we provide this much room for an elephant it will live healthily for certain amount of time. i will give you an example. the explanation provided by traditional science of how we came to be, we find as mr. hamm alluded to -- a sequence of animals in what generally is called the fossil record. you find a sequence of animals, a succession. as one might expect when you're

looking at old records there is some pieces seem to be missing. a gap. scientists got to thinking about this. they are frogs and toes -- toads. people wondered if there was not a fossil or an organism, and animal that had lived who had characteristics of both. people over the years had found in canada there was clearly a fossil marsh. a place that used to be a swamp dried out and they found all sorts of happy swamp fossils there, ferns and animals and fish that were recognized.

people realized with the age of the rocks as computed by traditional scientists this would be a reasonable place to look for in animal, a fossil of an animal that lived there. they found several specimens. they made a prediction this animal would be found and it was found. so far it cannot make predictions and show results. here is an externally one that i find corruptible. there are certain fish that have -- there is an extraordinary one incredible and there are certain fish that have the remarkable ability to have sex with other fish, traditional fish sex and they can have sex with themselves. one of the old questions in life

science, everybody, one of the chin stroker's is why does any organism whether you are and ash tree or ec jelly, a squid, why does anyone have sex? there are more bacteria in your tummy right now than there are humans on earth. bacteria do not bother with that. they can split themselves and half and getter done, let's go. think of all the trouble arose bush goes to to make a flower and thorns, why does anybody bother with all that? the answer seems to be your enemies and your enemies are not

lions and tigers and bears. oh my. no. your enemies are germs and parasites. that is what is going to get you. germs and parasites. my first cousin's son died tragically from essentially the flu. this is not some story i heard of. this apparently the virus had the right genes to attack so when you have sex you have a new set of genes, a new mixture. people studied these top men knows and they found the one to reproduce sexually had fewer parasites than the ones that reproduced on their own. this black spot disease. there is more. any populations with putting and so on when river pound -- ponds get isolated and the river flows again, in between some of these

fish will have sex with other fish sometimes and they will have sex on their own that happens asexually. in this fish the ones that are in between, they have an intermediate number of infections. the explanation provided by evolution made a prediction and the prediction or -- prediction is extraordinary and subtle but there it is. how else would you explain it? and to mr. hamm and his followers this is something that we in science one. want the ability to predict and your assertion that there is some difference between the natural laws they used to observe the world today and the natural laws that existed 4000 ago is extraordinary and unsettling. i travel around and i have a great many family members in danville, virginia. one of the u.s.'s most livable cities, it is lovely. i was starting along and there was a sign in front of a church

from a big bang theory, you got to be kidding me, god. why would someone at the church, pastor put that sign up unless he or she did not believe the big day was a real thing. i want to review briefly with everybody why we except in the outside world, why we except the big bang. and when hubble -- there you go. you got to be kidding me, god. edwin hubble was in pasadena. you can see where the rose parade goes. in the early 1900s, the people who selected the site-excellent site. the clouds and smog are below you and edwin hubble sat there at this very big telescope studying the heavens. he found the stars are moving apart. the stars are moving apart. he was not sure why but it was clear that the stars are moving

further apart all the time. so people talked about it for a couple of decades. and eventually another astronomer almost a couple of decades -- fred hoyle remarked it was like there was a big bang. there was an explosion. this is to say since everything is moving apart it is reasonable that it one time they were altogether. there is a place from whence or whence these things expanded and it was a remarkable insight. people went still questioning it for decades. conventional scientists have been questioning it for decades. these two researchers wanted to listen for radio signals from space. radio astronomy. this is why we have visible light for our eyes and there's a whole other bunch of waves of

light that are much longer. the microwaves in your oven or about that long. the radar at the airport is about that long. your fm radio signal is about like this. am radio signals are the size of several soccer fields. they went out listening and there was this his -- hiss that would not go away. the thought there were some loose connector. they re-screwed it and made it type. they thought it was pigeon droppings that had affected the reception of this horn, it is called. this thing is still hair -- is still there. it is at a national historic site. they had found this cosmic background sound that was predicted by astronomers.

astronomers running the numbers, doing math, predicted that in the cosmos would be left over this echo, this energy from the big bang that would be detectable and they detected it. we built the cosmic observatory for background emissions, the kobe spacecraft and it matched exactly the astronomers' predictions. along that line is some interest in the age of the earth. right now it is generally agreed that the big bang happened their team .7 billion years ago. what we can do on earth, these elements that we all know on the periodic table of chemicals, even ones we do not now were created when stars explode. i attended a lecture by hans beata. the ones that interest me are our good friends rubidium and

strontium. a neutrob becomes a proton and goes up the periodic table. it turns to rock and locks the rubidium and strontium into place so by careful assay, by careful by being diligent, you can tell when the rock froze. you can tell how old the rubidium and strontium are and you can get an age for the earth. when that stuff falls on fossils, you can get a very good idea of how old the fossils are. i encourage you all to go to nebraska on go to ash fall state park and see the astonishing fossils. it looks like a hollywood movie. there are rhinoceroses and three toed horses in nebraska. none of those animals are extant

today and they were buried catastrophically by a volcano in what is now idaho, illest on park. -- yellowstone national park. it is a remarkable thing. i can tell you as a northwestern are from around mount saint helens, i am on the mount saint helens board. when it goes off the gives a great deal of gas. it is toxic and knocks these animals off. the go to a watering hole and then when the ash comes they were all buried. it is an extreme replace. if in the bad old days you had heart problems, they would write away cut you open. now we use a drug based on rubidium to look at the inside of your heart without cutting you open. 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.

this kind of drugs associated with that. i hope you find that troubling. i hope you're concerned about that. you want scientifically literate students in the commonwealth for a better tomorrow for everybody. you can i get this here. he have to go out of state. as far as the distance to stars, understand, this is very well understood. it is february. we look at a star in february and measure and a goal and wait six months, we look at that same star again and we measure that angle. it is the same way that carpenters built this old thing and surveyors survey the land. you can figure out how far away it is, that star and the stars beyond it and the stars beyond that. there are billions of stars. aliens of stars, more than 6000

light years from here. a light year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time. there are billions of stars. how could there be billions of stars more distant than 6000 years if the world is only 6000 years old western market is an extra night claim. there is another astronomer who remarked first about the reasonable man. is it reasonable that we have ice older by a factor of 100 then you claim the earth is? we have trees that have more tree rings in the earth is old. we have rocks with rubidium and strontium and uranian-uranium and potassium argon dating that are far older than you claim the earth is. could anyone have built an ark that would sustain better than any other ark anyone was able to build. so if you are asking me and i got the impression you were, is the creation model viable? i say no.

absolutely not. one last thing. you may not know that in the u.s. constitution and the founding fathers, it 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. you do not want to raise a generation of science students who do not understand how we know our place in the cosmos, our place in space. who do not understand natural law. we need to innovate to keep the u.s. where it is in the world. thank you very much. [applause] >> that is a lot to take in. i hope everyone is holding up well. that is a lot of information. there is a five-minute rebuttal

time for each to address the other one's comments and there will be a five-minute counter rebuttal after that. things will start moving quickly so this point in particular. if you would like to begin with your five-minute rebuttal first. >> i will deal with some of them. you mentioned the age of the earth a couple of times. you cannot observe the age of the earth and i would say that comes under what we call historical origin science. to understand where i'm coming from, we have built our origins with historical science on the bible. i hebrew word was used that

means an ordinary day. when you add up the genealogies, from adam abraham, you have got 2000 years to the resin. that is how we get 6000 years. there is where it comes from just so you know. a lot of people say by the way the earth's ages 4.5 billion years old. we have radioactive decay dating methods that found that. we certainly observe the rate of decay. whether there is uranium or lead or potassium argon. when you talk about the past we have a problem. in australia there were engineers that were trying to search for coal mine.

when dr. andrew spelling said that to a lab in massachusetts, the used potassium argon dating. he also sent the woods to the radiocarbon section and they were dated 40,000 -- 45,000. there is a problem. let me give you another example. there is a lot the dome forming after mount saint helens corrupted. a geologist sampled the rock there. he took all rock encrusted and sent it to the same lab created and got a date of 3.5 million years when he separated the minerals out and used -- he got 2.8 million. all these dating methods give all sorts of different dates.

we can show two different dates. there is a lot of assumptions. the amounts of the parent and are isotopes in the beginning. assumption number two, all daughter atoms measured must have been derived in situ radioactive decay. there is a lot of evidence that is not so. assumption number three, the decay rates remained constant. there is lots of assumptions. there is no dating unit you can use. there is a lot of christians out there who believe in millions of years. i am not saying they are not christian. there is an inconsistency with what the bible teaches. if you believe in millions of years he has got death and bloodshed, suffering, disease because that is what you see in the fossil record.

death is the result of man's sin. the bible makes it clear. there's the sacrifice pointing toward what happened with jesus christ. if you believe in millions of years as a christian in the fossil record there is evidence of animals eating each other. the bible says in the beginning man and animals were vegetarian. the bible says -- there are fossilized torrence in the record. there are fossilized thorns. they cannot be true of the same time. there are hundreds of the thing

d and a half methods on there and all of you. that is from the word of god. that is why it would say the earth is only 6000 years old. there is nothing in geology to contradict a belief in a young age for the earth and the universe. >> thank you very much. let me start with the beginning. -- maybe the rock slid on top. that seems more reasonable then it is impossible. as far as dating goes, the methods are reliable one of the mysteries or interesting things that people in my business, especially at the planetary

society are interested in, is why all the asteroids seemed to be so close to the same date. 4.5 billion years. people expected more of a spread. i understand that you take the bible as written in english, benslated countless times to the more accurate and reasonable assessment of the natural laws that we see around. me is unsettling, troubling. about the disease thing. were the fish sinners? have they done something wrong to get diseases? that is an extraordinary claim that takes me a little past what i am comfortable with you can't

observe the past -- i have to stop you right there. that is what we do in astronomy. by the way, you are looking at the past right now. the speed of light bounces off of me and then gets to your eyes. i'm delighted to see that the people in the back of the room appear that much younger than the people in the front. that you can separate the nap -- natural laws of the past from the natural laws we have now is at the heart of our disagreement. i don't see how we can never agree if we insist laws have changed. it is magical. for a lack of a better word. it is not really what we want in conventional science. that that all the

animals were vegetarian before arc,got any arc -- on the that was remarkable. i can tell they're probably not set up for berkeley. these animals were vegetarians -- that is something i would ask iu to provide more proof for did very well in kindergarten. when we played telephone. wings often go wrong. instead of liens being vegetarians on the arc, liens are liens. are lions.

i want everybody to consider the implications of this. if we accept mr. hamm's point of bible serves as a science text and he and his followers will interpret that for you i want to consider what word orns it means his interpretation of these words to be more respected than what you can in -- observe in nature -- what you can find in kentucky in your back clout -- black -- backyard.

as far as the five races you mentioned. the five races were claimed by people who were of european descent. they said we are the breast. people are much more alike than different. are we supposed to take your word instead of what we can observe in the universe? >> would you like to offer your five-minute counter rebuttal ? >> the wood was inside in the basalt. that is why i was making that point.

i said we had the rules of logic, the uniformity of nature. that makes sense within a biblical worldview anyway. we can go to experimental silent -- science because we assume those laws are true and they will be tomorrow. i do want to say this. you said a few times his -- ken ham's view or model. i had video quotes from some scientists. it is dr. -- there are a lot of creation scientists who agree with what we're saying concerning the bible and the account of creation.

it is not just my model in that sense. there is so much i could say. as i listened to you i believe you are confusing terms and regard to species and times. we are not saying god created species, he created kind. we are not saying species got on the ark, we are saying kind. there is a number of papers on our website with dogs and this one breach with this one and you can look at the papers around the world and connect them and said -- say that represents one kind. they have predicted probably less than 1000 kinds were on noah's ark. under 2000 animals. there was plenty of room on the ark. a lot of what you were saying was illustrating my point. you were talking about tree rings and ice layers and kangaroos getting to australia and all sorts of things.

we are talking about the past. we did not see those tree rings forming. if you assume one layer a year to much it is like the dating method. you are assuming things in regard to the past that are not necessarily true. with regard to lions and teeth. most bears are primarily vegetarian. effort that has sharp teeth. it looks like a savage little creature and it rips and different. just because it has sharp teeth doesn't mean that it is a mediator.

in regard to the --[inaudible] the flood was a catastrophic event. why would you say no i was not skilled? i did not meet him. it is an evolutionary view of origins because you are thinking that people before us are not as good as us. they were civilizations that existed in the past and we cannot understand how they did some of the things they did. who says noah could not build the big boat? some of their research indicates that some of the wooden boats had three layers into locking so they would not twist like that and leak. we have an exhibit where we have rebuilt one percent of the ark to scale and shows three

interlocking layers like that. concerning the speed of light, i am sure you are aware of the horizon problem. that is from a big bang perspective. even the secularists have a problem of getting light and radiation out to the universe to exchange with the rest of the universe. even background radiation. 15 billion years, they can only get it about half way and that is why they have inflation theories which means everyone has a problem concerning the light issue. people do not understand that we have some models on our website to help explain those sorts of things. >> your counter rebuttal. >> i am completely unsatisfied. you did not in my view address fundamental questions. 680,000 years of snow ice layers which require winter-summer cycles for let's say you have 2000 kinds instead of seven,

that makes the problem even more extraordinary. multiplying 11 by 3.5. we get to 35, 40 species every day that we do not see. they are not extent. we are losing species due to mostly human activity and loss of habitat. as far as noah being an extraordinary shipwright, my family spend their whole life learning to make ships. it is very reasonable perhaps to you that noah had superpowers and was able to build this extraordinary craft with seven family members but to me it is not reasonable. by the way: the fundamental thing we disagree on is this 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 expanding universe, when they make assumptions about the rate at which genes change in populations of act. laboratory growth media, they're making assumptions based on previous experience. they are not coming out of whole cloth. next time you have a chance to speak, i encourage you to explain to us why we should accept your word for it that natural law changed 4000 years ago completely and there is no record of it. there are pyramid said her older than that. there are human populations that are far older than that. with traditions that go back farther than that and it is not reasonable that everything changed four thousand years ago. by everything i mean the

species, the surface of the earth, the stars in the sky, and the relationship of all the other living things on earth to humans. it is not reasonable to me that everything changed like that. another thing i would very much appreciate you addressing mode there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious and i respect that. people get tremendous community and comfort and nurture and support from their religious fellows in their communities and faiths and churches. they do not accept your point of view. there are christians who do not accept that the earth could be this extraordinarily young age because of all the evidence around them. what is to become of them? in your view? this thing started as i understand it, based on the old testament. when you bring in i am not a

theologian, when you bring in the new testament, it is and that 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. things that each of us can do akin to what we do. we try to out guess the characters on murder mystery shows or crime scene investigations especially. what is to become of all those people who do not see it your way? for us in the scientific community, i remind you that when we find an idea that is not tenable, it does not work, it does not fly, it does not hold water, whatever it him you would like to embrace, we throw it away. we are delighted. if you can find a fossil that is between the layers, bring it on. if you could show that the

microwave background radiation is not a result of the big bang, come on. writer paper, tear it up. your view that we are supposed to take your word for this book written centuries ago, translated into american english is somehow more important than what i can see with my own eyes is next ordinary claim. 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 u.s. can continue to innovate and be a world reader. we need innovation and that needs science education. thank you. >> thank you both. we are going to get things moving faster. i think they might be quite interesting. questions and answers submitted by our audience.

we handed out these cards to everyone. i shuffled them and the back and i dropped a lot of them and skip them up again and to view summary sorting through them here he was to get a pile for each so we can alternate reasonably between them. the reason i will skip over one if i cannot read it or if it is a question i do not know how to read because it does not seem to have sense. what is going to happen is we will go back and forth between mr. nigh -- nye and mr. ham. the other will have one minute to answer the question. mr. ham, you have been a first. mr. nye, you can stand by. how does creationism account for celestial bodies moving farther

apart and what function does that serve in the grand design? >> when it comes to looking at the universe, we believe that in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth and creationist astronomers say you can observe the unverse expanding. he it says he stretches out the heavens and seems to indicate that there is an expansion of the universe. we would say yeah, you can observe that in that fits with observational science. i cannot answer that question. the bible says god made the heavens for his glory and that is why he made the stars that we see out there. it is to tell us how great he is. one of our programs looks at this when you see how large the

universe is and it shows us how great god is. how big he is and he is and all-powerful god and infinite, all-knowing god who created the universe to show us his power. can you imagine that westmark the thing that is remarkable as it says on the fourth day of creation, he made the stars also. so much like by the way. he is an all powerful god. he made the stars and made them show us how great he is. the more they understand what that means is god is all-powerful, infinite, you realize how small we are and realize he would consider this planet is so significant that he created human beings here.

that is what i would say when i see the universe as it is. >> one minute. and your response? >> there is a question that troubles us all from the time we are 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 have invented life science, we have invented physics. we discovered these natural laws we can learn more about our origin and where we came from. to you, when it says he invented the stars also, that is satisfying. you are done. to me when i look at the night sky i want to know what is out there. i am driven. i want to know what is out there is any part of me and indeed, it is. by the way, i find compelling you are satisfied. and the big thing i want from you mr. ham is can you come up with something that you can

predict. do you have a creation model that predicts something that will happen in nature? >> how did the atoms that created the big bang get there? >> this is a 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, it was presumed that the universe was slowing down. there's the big bang. except it's in outer space, there's no air so...goes out like that and so people presumed that it would slow down. that the universe, the gravity especially will hold everything together and maybe it's going to come back and explode again and people went out and the mathematical expression is is the universe flat. it's a mathematical expression. will the universe slow down, slow down as...without ever stopping?

well in 2004 saul perlmutter and his colleagues went looking for the rate at which the universe was slowing down. we're going to, let's go out and measure it and we do it with these extraordinary system of telescopes around the world, looking at the night sky, looking for supernovae. these are standard brightness that you can infer distances with and the universe isn't slowing down. it's accelerating. the universe is accelerating in its expansion. and you know why? nobody knows why. nobody knows why. and you'll hear the expression nowadays dark energy, dark matter which are mathematical ideas that seem to reckon well with what seems to be the gravitational attraction of clusters of stars, galaxies and their expansion and then isn't it reasonable that whatever's out there causing the universe to expand is here also and we just haven't figured out how to detect it. my friends, suppose a science student from the commonwealth of

kentucky pursues a career in science and finds out the answer to that deep question. where did we come from? what was before the big bang? to us, this is wonderful and charming and compelling. this is what makes us get up and go to work everyday is to try to solve the mysteries of the universe. >> bill, i just want to let you know that there's actually a book out there that actually tells us where matter came from and the very first sentence in that book says "in the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth." and really, that's the only thing that makes sense. it's 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. and where did that come from because matter can never produce information. matter can never produce a language system. language can only come from intelligence.

information only comes from information. the bible tells us that the things we see like in the book of hebrews are made from things that are unseen. an infinite creator god who created universe, created matter, the energy, space, mass, time, universe and created the information for life. it's the only thing that makes logical sense. >> the overall majority of people in the scientific community have presented valid, physical evidence such as carbon dating and fossils to support evolutionary theory. what evidence besides the literal word of the bible supports creationism? >> first of all, you know, i often hear people talking about the majority. i would agree that the majority of scientists would believe in millions of years. the majority would believe in evolution but there's a large group out there that certainly don't. but the first thing i want to say is that it's not the

majority that judge the truth. there have been many times in the past when the majority have got it wrong. the majority of doctors in england once thought that after you cut up bodies, you can go...and wonder why the death rate is high in hospitals until they found out about a disease caused by bacteria and so on. the majority once thought that the appendix was a leftover organ from evolutionary ancestors. when it's okay, rip it out. when it's diseased, rip it out. these days, we know that it's for the immune system and it's very, very important. it's important to understand that just because the majority believes something doesn't mean that it's true. one of the things i was doing was i was making some predictions. i made some predictions. there's a whole list of predictions. and i was saying if the bible is right, there's adam and eve,

there's one race and i talked about that. if the bible is right, god made kinds and i went through and talked about that and so you know really that question comes down to the fact that we're again dealing with the fact that there's aspects about the past that you can't scientifically prove because you weren't there but observational science in the present. bill and i have all the same observational science. we're here in the present. we can see radioactivity but when it comes to talking about the past, you're not going to be scientifically able to prove that. that's what we need to admit. but we can be great scientists in the present as the examples i gave you. dr. damadian , or dr. stuart burgess or dr. fobich and we can be investigating the present. understanding the past is a whole different matter. >> thank you mr. ham. i have to disabuse you of a fundamental idea. if a scientist, if anybody makes a discovery that changes the way people view natural law, scientists embrace him or her.

this person's fantastic. louis pasteur, he made reference to germs. if you find something that changes, that disagrees with common thought, that's the greatest thing going in science. we look forward to that change. we challenge you. tell us why the universe is accelerating. tell us why these mothers were getting sick and we'll find an explanation for it. the idea that the majority has sway in science is true only up to a point and then the other thing i just want to point out, what you may have missed in evolutionary explanations of life is the mechanism by which we add complexity. the earth is getting energy from the sun all the time. and that energy is used to make lifeforms somewhat more complex. >> how did consciousness come from matter? >> i don't know. this is a great mystery. a dear friend of mine is a neurologist.

she studies the nature of consciousness. now i will say i used to embrace a joke about dogs. i love dogs, who doesn't. and you can say this guy remarked "i've never seen a dog paralyzed by self-doubt." actually, i have. furthermore, the thing that we celebrate. there are three sundials on the planet mars that bear an inscription to the future. to those who visit here, we wish you safe journey and the joy of discovery. it's inherently optimistic. that the future of human kind that we will one day walk on mars. but the joy of discovery. that's what drives us. the joy of finding out what's going on. so we don't know where consciousness comes from but we want to find out. furthermore, i tell you it's deep within us. i claim that i've spent time with dogs. that i've had the joy of

discovery. it's way inside us. we have one ancestor as we can figure. and by the way, if you can find what we in science call a second genesis. this is to say did life start another way in the earth? there are researchers, astro-biology researchers supported by nasa, your tax dollars that are looking for an answer to that very question. is it possible that life can start another way? is there some sort of a lifeform akin to science fiction that's crystal instead of membranes. this would be a fantastic discovery that would change the world. the nature of consciousness is a mystery. i challenge the young people here to investigate that very question. and i remind you, taxpayers and voters that might be watching, if we do not embrace the process of science, i mean in the mainstream, we will fall behind economically. this is a point i can't say enough. >> bill, i want to say that

there is a book out there that does document where consciousness came from. and in that book, the one who created us said that he made man in his image and he breathe into man and he became a living being and so the bible does document that. that's where consciousness came from. that god gave it to us. and you know, one thing i want to say is i have a mystery. and that is you talk about the joy of discovery but you also say that when you die it's over and that's the end of you and if when you die it's over, you don't even remember you were here. what's the point of the joy of discovery anyway. i mean it in an ultimate sense. i mean, you know, you don't even know you were here. so what's the point anyway? i love the joy of discovery because this is god's creation and i'm finding more about that to take dominion for man's good and for god's glory.

>> what if anything would ever change your mind? >> well, the answer to that question is "i'm a christian." and as a christian, i can't prove it to you but god has definitely shown me very clearly through his word and shown himself in the person of jesus christ. the bible is the word of god. i admit that that's where i start from. i can challenge people that you can go and test that, you can make predictions based on that, you can check the prophecies in the bible, you can check the statements in genesis, you can check that and i did a little