thank you, mr. murphy, for that. as we end our project here, i will turn to each of the three of you and ask, as we look across this long history of first ladies, who are the ones in changing the role as we know it today? let's wrap that way. richard, can you think of how you would answer that? >> i would just point out the obvious. if martha washington had not been as successful in the garden of eden in which she found herself, defining what a presidency and the first lady was, distinguishing it from the monarchy against which we had rebelled, finding the right mix of democracy and authority, if she had not succeeded, we might not be having this series.

>> abigail adams is one, of course, that fits that mold as well. i think our founding mothers really made it possible for us to be sitting here talking about the influence that these women could have on our country, absolutely. >> i would say later on in our history, edith roosevelt, who i think structured the modern first lady's role for the 20th century, and certainly eleanor roosevelt, who is without compare, as you can see from the poll that we had tonight. >> thanks to all three of you for being here tonight. 45 women, 35 shows over the past year. we really couldn't have done it without you and all the others at the table. richard, thank you for being with us from kansas tonight. >> and thanks to the white house's association for showing

a much needed light on first lady scholarship. >> it has been an important partnership. we will not erase it, it will be there for generations to come, for those who want to research the role of first ladies and for the short term, the twitter feed will continue. those who are talking to one another about first lady's history, have at it, keep the conversation going. thanks to all our viewers, does your project as well, because you have been involved along the way. we will let you listen to modern first lady's in their own words. >> the opening on thanksgiving day of the 22nd annual sale, the proceeds go to the work that is being done in the united states of america.

>> it may become the international magna carta of all men everywhere. policywant to talk about and specific or general? no, not either category. ike how good ild thought he was everyday. your ego has to be fed.

>> i think everything in the white house should be the best. the entertainment that is giving here. you canican company help, i like to do that. as long as it is the best. >> her dress was stained with blood. one light was almost entirely covered with it. glove -- her right glove was caked. >> i stay in the wings and don't come out so this is quite unusual for me but i do want to thank all of you for your friendship and your loyalty. >> the equal rights amendment when ratified will not be an instant solution to women's problems. it will not alter the fabric of the constitution or force women away from their families. it will help knock down those

restrictions that have locked women in. >> this morning in venezuela, in myesident told me visit to latin america had in americanaths relations and set of the paternalism that is characterized in the past. went up andtennas told me when somebody had their own agenda and not ronnie's. i would tell him. >> the difference between being a vice president's wife and the president's wife is huge because the vice president's wife could say anything. nobody cares. the minute you say one thing as the president wife, you have made the news. >> the expectations and the demands have changed. i am trying to find my way through it and trying to figure

out how best to be true to myself and had to for fill my responsibilities to my husband and my daughter and the country. >> i am married to the president of the united states. here is our typical evening. 9:00, mr. excitement here is sound asleep. [laughter] i am watching "desperate housewives." >> it is always changing. the change given the state of the issues of the country and you never know what those are going to be from one day to the next. you have to be flexible and fluid and open to evolve. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> we are offering a special edition of the book, first ladies of the united states of america, presenting a biography and a portrait of each first lady and comments from noted historians. it is available for the $12.95.ted price of our website has more about the first ladies, including a

special section "welcome to the white house." it chronicles life in the executive mansion during the tenure of each of the first ladies. you go watch all of our first ladies programs for martha washington to michelle obama. find out more at c-span.org/firstladies. >> the all new c-span.org website is now mobile friendly. that means you can access our comprehensive coverage of politics, nonfiction books, and american history where you want, when you want, and how you want. our new sites responsive design scales to fit any of your screens from the monitor of your desktop computer to your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, whether you are at home, at the office, or on the go come he can watches c-span's live coverage of washington, check our schedules, or search our extensive video

library whenever and wherever you want. easyew c-span.org makes it for you to keep an eye on what is happening in washington. >> tonight on c-span, a debate over the origins of life on earth. followed by a look on how religion is covered by today's media. earlier this month, the creation museum in petersburg, kentucky, hosted a debate on evolution versus creation. ken ham debated bill nye the science guy. a halfent is two and hours. >> good evening, i am pleased to welcome you to the creation museum in northern kentucky. i am tom foreman from cnn. i am pleased to be tonight's moderator.

this is a very old question, where did we come from? my answer is from washington this morning by airplane. [laughter] profounda much more longer answer that people have sought after for a long time so tonight's question to be debated is the following -- it's creation of viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era? since -- are welcome to the hundreds of thousands of people who are watching us on the internet. to our auditorium here, all the folks that have joined us as well. we are joined by 70 media presented its -- representatives. we are glad to have them in here. 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. the only thing missing was joe namath and upper code but it went very well -- and a for code. ur coat. ken ham one and opted to speak first. mr. nye's website describes him as a scientist, engineer, and inventor. awardduced a number of winning tv shows including the program he became so well known for "don't nye the science guy ." he won seven national emmy awards for the show in 118 emmys in five years.

he wrote five kids books including his latest title. bill nye is the host of three television series. the eyes of nye airs on pbs stations across the country. he frequently appears on programs to describe a variety of scientific topics. mr. nye serves as executive director of the planetary society. he is a graduate of cornell, bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering. mr. ken ham is the president and cofounder of answers and genesis . behind the popular high-tech creation museum where we are holding this debate. the museum has had 2 million visitors and attracted much of the world media. the website is what traffic.

he is also a best-selling author , speaker, and a host of adelie beatty -- daily radio feature carried on 700 stations. this is the second public debate . mr. hamm is a native of australia. now, mr. ham, you offered to go first. you will be first with your five minute opening statement. >> good evening. i know that not everyone watching this debate necessarily agree with what i have to say. i'm an aussie and they tell me i have an accent. it doesn't matter what i say some people tell me, we like to hear you saying it. the main topic is this, is

creation a model of origin. when this was first announced on the internet, there were lot of states like this one, scientists should not debate creationist period. this one from the one discovery.com website, should scientists debate creationist. i believe there's a gross misrepresentation in their culture. we think being indoctrinated to believe that creationist can't be scientists. i want you to meet a modern day scientist who is a biblical creationist. >> i am a professor of engineering in the u.k.. i have published over one 130 scientific papers on design and engineering. work, i foundh

civet -- scientific evidence that creationist to have the best expedition to origins. >> here's biblical creationest, he's a scientists and an inventor. i want people it understand that. the problem i believe, we need to define terms correctly. we need to define creation and evolution in regards to origin. i want to concentrate on dealing with the word science. i believe the word science has been hijacked by seculars. it means to know. if you look up a dictionary, science means the state of knowing and knowledge. this is where the confusion alies. there's experimental observational science. that's what produces our technology, computer,

spacecraft, jet planes, spoke detectors and looking at dna, medicines and vaccines. all scientists were the creationist or evolutionist is the same experimental science. doesn't matter if you're a creationist or evolutionist, you can be a great scientists. or dr. raymond, he is a man who invented the mri scanner and revolutionized medicine. i want to understand, man evolution believes has nothing to do with developing technology. when we're talking about origin, we're talking about the path with origins. you weren't there, you can't observe there. when you're talking about the past, we like to call that origins or historical science. knowledge concerning the past. here at the creationist museum,

origin is the creation of science. now, when you research science textbooks being used in public schools what we found is this. there are origins of historical science is based upon man's idea about the past. for example see ideas of darwin. public school textbooks using the same word science for observational science and historical science. they arbitrarily define science as naturalism. they are imposing -- the word science has been hijacked by secularists in teaching evolution to force of the religion of naturalism on the generation of kids. for instance, as bill states, --

>> very hard to accept for many of us to die it's over. >> the bible gives a different kind of origin of who we are and where we came from our future. god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. so, it is creation of bible modern of origin in today's modern scientific era. creation is the only bible model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era. >> that is time. i have the job of being the time keeper here. unlike the referee in football you don't like. i will stop them in the name of keeping it fair. mr. ham, thank you for your

now it's mr. nye's turn. >> looking around the room, i see just one bow tie. i'm telling you, there's two, that's great. i started wearing bow ties when i was young in high school. his father showed him and there's a story associated with this which i find remarkable. my grandfather was in the rotary and he attended a convention in philadelphia and even in those days at the turn of the last century, people rented tuxedos. the tuxedo came with an untied bowtie. he didn't know how to tie it. he took a chance, he went to the hotel room next door, knocked on the door, excuse me, can you help me tie my tie. the guy said sure, lie down on the bed.

so, my grandfather wanted to have the tie on. he said to have laying on the bed, the guy tied a perfect bowtie knot. my grandfather said thank you. why did i have to lie down on the bed. guy said i'm an undertaker. that story was presented to me as a true story. it may or may not be. it gives you something to think about and certainly something to remember. here tonight, we're going to have two stories. we can compare mr. ham's story to story from what i would call, the outside. the question tonight is does ken ham's creation model hold up. is it viable? let me ask you all, what would you be doing if you weren't here tonight? that's right, you'd be home watching c.s.i.

c.s.i. petersburg. on c.s.i., there is no distinction made between historical science and observational science. these are constructs unique to mr. ham. we don't normally have these anywhere in the world except here. natural law apply in the past apply now. that's why they are natural law. that's how we made these discoveries that enable all of this remarkable technology. c.s.i. is a fictional show and it's based on real people doing real work. when you go to a crime scene and find evidence, you have clues about the past. mr. ham and his followers have this remarkable view of a worldwide flood that somehow influence that we observe in nature.

500 foot wooden boat, eight zookeeper for animal, every land plant in the world under water for a full year. i ask us all is that reasonable. you'll hear a lot about the grand canyon which is a remarkable place. it has fossils. the fossils in the grand canyon are found in layers. there's not a single place in the grand canyon where the fossils of one type of animal cross over to another. in other words, when there was a big flood on the earth, you would expect drowning animals to swim up to a higher level. not any one of them did. if you can find evidence of that, you can change the world. now, i just want to remind us all. there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious. who get enriched, who have a wonderful sense of community from their religion. they worship together. they eat together.

they live in their communities and enjoy other company. but these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view that the earth is somehow only 6000 years old. that is unique. here's my concern. what keeps the united states ahead, what makes the united states a world leader is our technology, our new ideas, our innovations. if we continue to choose science, and try to divide science into an observational science, historic science, we are not going to move forward. we will not embrace natural law, we will not make discoveries and we will not invent and stay ahead. if you ask me if ken ham's creation model is viable, i would say no. it is not viable. stay with us over the next period and you can compare my evidence to his. thank you all very much.

[applause] >> very nice start by both of our debaters here. each one will offer 30 minute illustrated presentation to fully offer their case for us to consider. mr. ham, you're up. >> was this creation a bible model of origins. i made the statement at the end of my opening statement, creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science. i said what we need to be doing is actually defining our terms. particularly terms, science, creation and evolution. i discussed the meaning of the word science. that both creationist and

evolutionists can be create scientists. i mentioned craig, a biologist, he's an atheist and a great scientist. i want you to meet a biblical creationist who is a scientist and inventor. >> my family is dr. ray -- name is dr. raymond. i believe that god created the world in six 24 hour days just as recorded in the book of genesis. by god's grace and devoted prayers of my godly mother-in-law, i invented the scanner in 1969. the idea that scientists believe that the earth is 6000 years cannot do science is simply wrong >> he's most adamant about that. he revolutionized medicine, he's a biblical creationist. i encourage people like that. let me introduce you to another

biblical creation scientists. >> i received my ph.d. from indiana university. upon my retirement from the university in january of 2013, i joined the research staff. i'm a stellar astronomer. that means by primary i'm interested in stars. i published many materials in the astronomy literature, such as the astronomical journal. there is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a recent creation. >> i mentioned dr. stewart in england. he invented, designed double action gear set of robotic arm

on a very expensive satellite. in that had not worked, the whole satellite would be useless. yet dr. burgess is a biblical creationist. -- let's see what he says about scientists believing in creation. >> that's a real problem today. we need to have freedom to be able to speak on these topics. i want to say by the way, nonchristian scientists, are really borrowing from the christian world view to carry out their art.

when they're doing observational science they have to assume the laws of logic, they have to assume the laws of nature. they have to assume the uniformity of nature. if the universe came about natural process, where did the logic come from. did they pop into existence. i have a question for bill nye how do you account for the laws of logic and nature from the naturalistic world view that excludes the existence of god? in my opening statement, i also discussed a different type of science and norge, origin or historical science. there's a confusion here. there's a misunderstanding here. people by in large have not been taught to look at what you believe about the past is different what you observing in the present. you don't observe the past directly. when you think about the

creation account, we can't observe god creating. we myth that. what you see in the present is very different. even some public school textbook, they sort of acknowledge the difference between historical and observational science. here is an earth science textbook used. in contrast to physical geology, historic algaology is to understand earth's long history. then they make the statement, historic algaology, tried to establish a time line of about a number of changes that have occurred in the past. we studied physical geology before historical geology because we first must understand how earth works. we observe things in the present and then we're assuming that's always happened in the past. try to figure out how this happened. there is a difference between what you observe and what happened in the past. let me illustrate it this way. if bill nye and went to the a grand canyon, we can agree that's the grand stone and

there's the boundary. we can agree on that. you know what we will disagree on, we can analyze the minerals, we would disagree on how long it took to get there. there's a supposed ten million gap there. but i don't see a gap. there's a difference between what you actually observe directly and your interpretation. when i was at the space center a number of years, i met creationist and evolutionist -- you know what they disagreed on, -- we can talk about lots of other similar things. 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, 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 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 -- 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. 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. 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 sill len dar -- 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 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? 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 to 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 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. -- 11 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 carry 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 had 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. there's no shortage of them. 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 those. 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. i understand mr. ham have some explanations for that, which i frankly find extraordinary. this is the premise of the bit. it would twist this way in this way. it leaked. the crew did not keep the ship tried.

-- dry. weres built, and these skilled guys. they could not build a boat as big as the ark would have been. bestat possible that the ? menholders could not do and their wives were able to do. if you visit 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. it reasonable that they were able to maintain 14,000 animals and their cells and feed themselves 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 an 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 extraordinary one that i find remarkable. 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, apartment, 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 a rose 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. 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 minnows 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 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 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 driving 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 bang was a real thing? i want to review briefly with everybody why we except in the outside world, why we except the big bang.

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 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 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 13.7 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. strontium.comes

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. 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

place. if inary 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

now. 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. 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. we can put a spacecraft in orbit and take a picture of washington, d.c. and predict if

>> if i was to answer all the points you brought up the moderator would think i was going on for millions of years. presentation you cannot observe the age of the earth. so you understand where i am , the bible says god created in six days. adam was made on day six. that is how we get 6000 years. say the urge is

-- earth is billions of years old. decay.rve radioactive but when you're talking 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 45,000. there is a problem. let me give you another example. there is a lot the dome forming after mount saint helens

erupted. a geologist sampled the rock there. he took all rock crushed it 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