Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham - HD (Official)

Let us welcome our debaters, Mr Bill Nye and Mr Ken Ham, we tossed a coin earlier to determine who would go first of these two men. The only thing missing was joe namath in a fur coat, but it turned out very well, mr ham won the toss and chose to speak first, but first let me tell you a little about these two gentlemen. Mr. Nye's website describes him as a scientist, engineer, comedian, author and inventor. Mr. Nye, as you may know, produced several award-winning television programs, including the show. became so well known by

bill

nye the scientist, while working on the science show, mr. nye won seven national emmy awards for writing, performing and producing the show, he won 18 emmy awards in five years, between creating the shows, wrote five children's books about science. including his latest title

bill

nye's big book of little germs bill nye is the host of three television series his show the 100 great inheritors discoveries on the science channel nye's eyes airs on pbs stations across the country appears with Frequently on talk shows to discuss a variety of scientific topics Mr.

Nye serves as executive director of the Planetary Society the world's largest space interest group is a Cornell graduate with a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering Mr. Ken Ham is the president and co-founder of answers at genesis a bible advocacy organization that defends the authority of scripture from the first verse mr. ham is the man behind the popular high-tech creation museum where we hold this debate the museum has had two million of visitors in six years and has attracted much of the world's media. The Genesis Answers website has huge traffic with 2 million visitors last month alone. Mr.

Ham is also a best-selling author, a very In demand and host of a daily radio show broadcast on more than 700 stations. This is his second public debate on evolution and creation. The first was at Harvard in the 1990s. Mr. Hamm is originally from Australia. He earned a bachelor's degree in applied sciences. with an emphasis in environmental biology from the queensland institute of technology, as well as a diploma of education from the university of queensland in brisbane australia and now mr ham you chose to go first so you will be first with your five minute keynote speech well, good evening, I know not everyone watching this debate will necessarily agree with what I have to say but I'm Australian and I live here in America and they tell me I have an accent so it doesn't matter what I say, some people tell me that we just like you to hear it, so I hope you enjoy me saying it anyway.

Well, the point of debate is that this is creation, a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era. You know, when this was first announced on the Internet, there were a lot of statements like this from the Richard Dawkins Foundation. Scientists should not debate the creationist point and this. from one of the discovery.com websites, should scientists debate creationists? Know? I think there is a huge misrepresentation in our culture. We are seeing people indoctrinated to believe that creationists cannot be scientists. I think it's all one part. of secularists who appropriate the word science I want to introduce you to a modern scientist who is a biblical creationist my name is stuart burgess I am a professor of engineering design at the university of bristow in the united kingdom my name is stuart burgess I am a professor of engineering design engineering at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom.

I have published more than 130 scientific articles on design science in engineering and biological systems. From my research work, I discovered that scientific evidence fully supports creationism as the best explanation of origins. I have also designed major parts of the spacecraft launched by issa and here is a biblical creationist who is a scientist who is also an inventor and I want young people to understand that you know the problem, I think it is this, we must define the terms correctly, we need to define the evolution of creation with respect to origins and we need to define science and in this opening statement I want to focus on dealing with the word science.

I think the word science has been hijacked by secularists. Now, what is science? Well, the origin of the word comes from the classical Latin science, which means to know and if you look in a dictionary it will say that science means state of knowledge, but there are different types of knowledge and I think this is where the confusion lies, there is an observational science. experimental, as we call it, which uses the scientific method of observation measurement. experimental tests that's what our technology produces computers spaceships airplanes smoke detectors looking at dna antibiotics medications and vaccines all scientists, whether they are creationists or evolutionists, actually have the same observational or experimental science and it doesn't matter if you are a creationist or an evolutionist You can be a great scientist, for example, here is an atheist who is a great scientist Craig Sell one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome or Dr. raymond damadian is a man who invented the magnetic resonance scanner and revolutionized medicine he is a biblical creationist but I want us to also understand molecules for man evolution believes that it has nothing to do with the development of technology you see when we talk about origins we're talking about the past we're talking about our origins we weren't there you can't see whether it's molecules for the main evolution or whether it's a creation story, when we talk about the past we like to call it origins or historical scientific knowledge about the past here in the creation museum we make no apologies for the fact that our origins or Historical science is actually based on the biblical account of origins.

Now when we investigate the science textbooks used in public schools, what we find is that generally their origins or historical science are based on man's ideas about the past, for example, the ideas of Darwin and Our research has found that public school textbooks use the same word science for observational science and historical science. They arbitrarily define science as naturalism and prohibit the supernatural. They present the molecules to the evolution of man as a fact. I think they impose the religion of naturalism or atheism. generations of students, you see, I affirm that the word science has been hijacked by secularists when teaching evolution to impose the religion of naturalism on generations of children.

Secular evolutionists teach that all life developed through natural processes from some form of primordial spine that man is simply an evolved being. animal that has great influence on how we see life and death, for example, as Bill says, it is very difficult for many of us to accept that when you die it is over, but you see that the Bible gives a totally different explanation of whose origins we are and where we are. It came from the meaning of life and our future that through a man sin entered the world and through sin death but that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son everyone who believes in him must not perish and have eternal life so is creation viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era I say that the debate over the evolution of creation is a conflict between two philosophical worldviews based on two different explanations of origins or scientific beliefs and the creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era.

I was a scientist and that's the time, I have the unenviable job of being the timekeeper here, so I'm like the referee in the football you don't like, but I'll do it periodically, if any of our debaters run over something I'll stop them. on behalf of making it fair to everyone uh mr ham thank you for your comments now it's mr nye's turn for a five minute opening statement mr nye thank you it's a pleasure to be here I really appreciate you including me in your facility here now, looking around the room, I think I see just one bow tie, it's like that, just one, I'll tell you once you try it, oh yeah, two, that's cool.

I started wearing bow ties when I was young in high school, my father showed me how. his father showed it to him and there is a story associated with this that I find remarkable: my grandfather was in the newspaper and he attended a convention in Philadelphia and even in those days at the beginning of the last century people rented tuxedos and the tuxedo came with a bowtie untied the bowtie so he didn't know how to tie it so he wasn't sure what to do but he took a chance. He went to the hotel room next door and knocked on the door.

Excuse me, can you help me tie myself up? tie and the guy said to lie down on the bed so my grandfather we wanted to put on the tie wasn't sure if he was going to put it on so it's said he laid down on the bed and the guy tied a perfect bow tie knot and quite reasonably. My grandfather said thank you huh, why did I have to lie down in bed? You guys said I'm an undertaker, that's really the only way I know how to do it now that 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 is certainly something to remember, so here tonight we are going to have two stories and we can compare Mr. Ham's story with the story of what I will call the outside from conventional science the question tonight is: does Ken Ham's creation model hold up? Its viable? So let me ask you all what you would be doing if you weren't here tonight. That's right, they would be at home watching CSI. CSI Petersburg is that common, I think. It is yet to come and in CSI no distinction is made between historical science and observational science.

These are Mr. Ham's exclusive builds. We don't normally have them anywhere in the world except here. The natural laws that applied in the past apply now, that's why they are. natural laws, that's why we adopted them, that's how we made all these discoveries that enabled all this remarkable technology, so CSI is a fictional show, but it's absolutely based on real people doing real work when you go on the scene of a crime and you find evidence that you have clues about. the past and you trust those clues and you accept them and you move forward to convict someone mr ham and his followers have this extraordinary vision of a global flood that somehow influenced everything we observe in nature a 500 foot wooden boat eight zookeepers for 14,000 individual animals, every land plant in the world underwater for a full year.

I ask us all: is that really reasonable? You'll hear a lot about the Grand Canyon. I imagine it is also an extraordinary place and it has fossils and the fossils in the Grand Canyon are found in layers, there is not a single place in the Grand Canyon where fossils of one type of animal intersect with fossils of another; In other words, when there was a great flood on the land, one would expect the animals to drown. Swim to a higher level, none of them did, not a single one, if you could find evidence of that, my friends, you could change the world now.

I just want to remind us all that there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious. They become rich, they have a wonderful sense of community because of their religion, they worship together, they eat together, they live in their communities and enjoy the company of billions of people, but these same people do not take the extraordinary view that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old. old that is unique and this is my concern: what keeps the united states in the lead, what makes the united states a world leader, is our technology, our new ideas, our innovations, if we continue with clever science while we chew up the process and try to divide science into observational science and historical science we are not going to move forward we are not going to embrace natural laws we are not going to make discoveries we are not going to invent or innovate and we are going to stay ahead of the curve, so if you ask me if Ken's creation model Ham is viable, I say no, it is not viable at all. so stay with us for the next period and you can compare my evidence with yours.

Thank you very much to all. A very good start by our two debaters here and now, each will give a 30 minute illustrated presentation to fully give us their case. To consider Mr. Hamm, okay, the point of discussion was that this creation was a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era and I made this 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 that what we have to do is define our terms and particularly three terms: creation of science and evolution.

Now I briefly discussed the meaning of the wordscience and what is understood by experimental observational science and that both creationists and evolutionists can be great scientists, for example I mentioned Craig Venter, a biologist, he is an atheist and he is a great scientist. He was one of the first researchers to sequence a human genome. I also mentioned Dr. Raymond Damadian, who invented the MRI scanner. I want you to do it. meet a biblical creationist who is a scientist and inventor hi my name is dr raymond damadian i am a young earth creation scientist and i believe that god created the world in six 24 hour days as recorded in the book of genesis by the grace of god and the Devoted prayers of my pious mother-in-law I invented the MRI scanner in 1969.

The idea that scientists who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old cannot do real science is simply wrong. Well, he is very adamant about it and, in fact, he revolutionized medicine. a biblical creationist and i encourage children to follow people like that and make them their heroes let me introduce you to another biblical creation scientist my name is danny faulkner i received my doctorate in astronomy from indiana university for 26 and a half years i was a professor at The University of South Carolina Lancaster, where I hold the rank of Distinguished Professor Emeritus Upon my retirement from the university in January 2013, I joined the Answers Research staff at Genesis.

I am a stellar astronomer, which means my primary interest is stars, but I am particularly interested in the study of eclipsing binary stars and have published many articles in astronomical literature venues such as the astrophysical journal, the astronomical journal, and the observatory there. There is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a recent creation. I also mentioned Dr. Stuart Burgess, professor of design engineering at the University of Bristol in England. He now invented and designed a double-acting helical gear for the three hinges of the robotic arm of a very expensive satellite. and if that hadn't worked, if that set of gears hadn't worked, the entire satellite would have been useless, however, dr. burgess is a biblical creationist who believes just as I believe.

Now think about this for a moment, there are scientists like dr. burgess who believe in creation simply. As I am a small minority in the scientific world, but let's see what it says about scientists who believe in creation, I find that many of my colleagues in academia are sympathetic to the creationist view, including biologists, however they often They are afraid to speak out because of criticism. they would get from the media and the atheist lobby. I agree that it is a real problem today. We need to have freedom to be able to talk about these issues.

You know, I just want to say, by the way, that creations, non-Christian Christian scientists, should say no-. Christian scientists are really borrowing from the Christian worldview anyway to conduct their experimental or observational science. Think about it when you are doing observational science using a scientific method. They have to accept the laws of logic. They have to accept the laws of nature. assume the uniformity of nature, I mean think about it if the universe came into being through natural processes where do the laws of logic come from, did they just come into being? Are we at a stage now where we only have half the logic?

So you see, I have a Question for Bill Nye, how do you explain the laws of logic and the laws of nature from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of God? Now, in my opening statement, I also talked about a different type of science or the origins of knowledge or historical science. a there is a confusion here there is a misunderstanding here people in general have not been taught to look you know what you believe about the past as different from what you are observing in the present you do not deserve them you do not observe the past directly, even you do You know, when you think about the creation account, I mean, we can't observe God's creation, we can't observe the creation of Adam and Eve, admit that we're willing to admit our beliefs about the past, but see. what you see in the present is very different, even some public school textbooks, in fact, recognize the difference between historical and observational science.

Here is an earth science textbook used in public schools and we read this in contrast to physical geology, the goal of Historical Geology is to understand the long history of the Earth and then they make the statement. Historical geology, by which we are talking about historical science, tries to establish a timeline of the large number of physical and biological changes that have occurred in the past. We studied physical geology before history. geology because we must first understand how the earth works before trying to unravel its past; In other words, we look at things in the present and then, okay, we assume that that has always happened in the past and we're going to try to figure it out.

How does this happen? Look, there is a difference between what you observe and what happened in the past. Let me illustrate it this way. If Bill Nye and I went to the Grand Canyon, we might agree that it's a Coconino Sandstone in the Hermit Shale and there's the they're sitting on top of each other, we might agree on that, but you know what we wouldn't agree on? OK? I mean, we could even analyze the minerals and agree on that, but we wouldn't agree on how long it took to get there, but None of us saw the sandstone or shale laid down.

There's supposed to be a 10 million year gap there, but I don't see a gap, but that might be different than what Bill and I would see, but I see there's a difference between what you. actually observe directly and then your interpretation with respect to the past when I was at the Goddard space center several years ago I met creationists and evolutionists who were working on the Hubble telescope and they agreed on how to build a Hubble telescope, you know what? They didn't agree on, well, they didn't agree on how to interpret the data that the telescope got regarding the age of the universe and you know we could go and talk about a lot of other similar things, for example, I've heard Bill Nye talk about how a smoke detector works using the radioactive element amer americium and you know what I totally agree with him that we agree on how it works we agree on how radioactivity allows that to work but if you're then going to use radioactive elements and talk about the age of the Earth, you have a problem because you weren't there, we have to understand the parent elements, the daughter elements, etc., we could agree with your creationist or evolutionist about the technology to put the rover in Mars, but we are going to disagree on how to interpret the origin of Mars.

I mean, there are some people who believe that there was even a global flight on Mars and that there is no liquid water on Mars, but you know we might not agree in our interpretation. origins and it cannot be proven in any way because not from an observational scientific perspective because we only have the current creationists and evolutionists who work on drugs and vaccines, you see, it doesn't matter if you are a creationist or an evolutionist, all scientists. I have the same experimental or observational science, so I have a question for Bill Nye. Can you name a piece of technology that could only have developed from the belief that molecules control evolution?

Here is another important fact. All creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. Nye and I have the same grand canyon, we don't disagree that we will have the same fish fossil, this is one from the creation museum, the same dinosaur skeletons, the same animals, the same humans, the same DNA, the same radioactive decay elements that we see. We have the same universe, in reality we all have the same evidence, it is not the evidence that is different, it is a battle over the same evidence regarding how we interpret the past and you know why, because in reality it is a battle over the visions of the world and the beginning. points is a battle over philosophical worldviews and starting points, but the same evidence now i admit that my starting point is that god is the supreme authority, but if someone does not accept that, then man has to be the supreme authority and that's really the difference when it comes down to it, you see, I've been emphasizing the difference between historical origin science knowledge about the past when you weren't there and we need to understand that we weren't there or experimental or observational science that uses your five senses in the present the scientific method what can be directly observed the repetition of exams there is a big difference between those two and that is not what is taught in our public schools and that is why children are not taught to think critically and correctly about the issue of origins, but you know.

It is also important to understand that when talking about the evolution of creation, both involve historical science and observational science. The role of observational science can be used to confirm or not confirm one's historical science depending on the starting point. Now, when you think about the topic of the debate. and what I stated regarding creation, if our origins or Bible-based historical science, uh, the Bible's account of origins is true, then there should be predictions from this that we can test using observational science. and, for example, there are those based on the Bible that we would make. we would expect to find evidence about an intelligence that confirms that an intelligence produced life we ​​would expect to find evidence that confirms according to its kind the bible says that god made types of animals and plants according to their kind, which implies that each species produces its own, not that one species transforms into another uh what would be expected behind the evidence that confirms a global flood of the day of Noah evidence that confirms a race of humans because we all go back biologically to Adam and Eve, that would mean that there is a race evidence that confirms the terror of Babel that God gave different languages ​​evidence confirming a young universe Now I can't go through them all, but we will look at a couple of them briefly after your kind evidence confirming that at the creation museum we have an exhibit that features replicas of the finches of Darwin.

They are called Darwin's finches. Finches collected by Darwin. from the Galapagos and took them back to England and we see the different species, the different sizes of beaks here and you know from the specimens that Darwin obtained in the Galapagos, he really thought about these things and how this is explained and in his notes really came. up with this diagram here a tree and actually he said: I think so, he was talking about different species and maybe those species came from some common ancestor. In fact, when it comes to finches, we would actually agree as creationists that different species of finches came from a common. ancestor, but they would have to come from a finch, but you see, Darwin wasn't just thinking about species.

Darwin had a much bigger picture in mind when you look at the origin of species and you read that book, you'll find out what he did. this statement from such a low and intermediate form both animals and plants may have been developed and if we admit this we must equally admit that all organic beings that have ever lived on this earth may have descended from some primordial form, so I had in mind what we know today as the evolutionary tree of life that all life has arisen in some primordial form. Now when we consider the classification system kingdom phylum class order family genus species we would say as creationists and we have many creationist scientists who have researched this and for There are many reasons why I would say that the type in Genesis 1 is really more on the level of family classification, for example, there is one type of dog, there is one type of cat, although you have different generally different species, which would mean that, by the way, you don't need any place. close to the number of animals on the ark, since people think that not all species of dogs would be needed, just two, not all species of cats, just two, and you see, based on the biblical account of Genesis 1, the Creationists have drawn up what they believe is a garden of creation, in other words, they are saying, look, there is great variation in the genetics of dogs and finches, and so on over time, particularly after Noah's flood, what would be expected if there were two dogs, for example, you could end up with different species. of dogs has because there is an incredible amount of variability in the genes of any creature and that is why it is to be expected that there are these different species here, but there are limits, dogs will always be dogs, finches will always be finches now as a creationist, I maintain Observational science actually confirms this model based on the Bible, for example, accepting dogs in a scientific article dated January 2014 of this year, theScientists working at the University of California stated that we provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs and disfavoring alternative models. in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations and they put this diagram in the document by the way, that diagram is very similar to this diagram that creationists propose based on the creation account in genesis;

In other words, you have a common dog ancestor. that gives rise to the different species of dogs and that is exactly what we are saying here now in the creation museum, we actually show the finches here and you see the finches with their different beaks next to dog skulls, different species of dogs, by the way, there is more variation in the dog skulls here than in these images, however, dogs well that is never used as an example of evolution, but finches are particularly in public school textbooks that is taught to students. Ah, I see the changes that are happening here and here is another problem that not only has the word science been hijacked by secularists, I think the word evolution has been hijacked by secularists, the word evolution has been hijacked using what I call a bait and switch, let me explain the word evolution is being used in public school textbooks and we see it often in documentaries and such, it is used for observable changes that we would agree with and then it is used to unobservable changes, like man's molecules, let me explain to you what is really happening because I was a science teacher. in the public schools and I know what the students were taught and I checked the public school textbooks anyway to know what they are taught.

Look, today students are taught. Look, there are all these different animals, plants, but they are all part of this big tree. of life that returns to some primordial form and look, we see changes, changes in finches, changes in dogs, etc., now we do not deny the changes, you see you see different species of finches, different species of dogs, but then they put it all. together in this evolutionary tree but that's what you don't observe, you don't observe, that's a belief, that's their historical science, I would say it's wrong, but you know what you observe, you observe different species of dogs, different species of finches, but there are limits and you don't see one type changing to another, in fact, they tell us that if you teach creation in public schools as teachingreligion if you teach evolution that is science and I'm going to say wait a minute actually the creation model here based on the observational science of the Bible confirms this this is what you observe you do not observe this tree it is actually the public school textbooks that are Teaching I think it is imposed on students and they need to be taught observational science to understand the reality of what what is happening now.

What we find is that public school textbooks present the evolutionary tree as a science but reject the garden of creation as a religion, but observational science confirms the garden of creation, so public school textbooks Public schools reject observational science and impose a naturalistic religion on students. The word evolution has been hijacked using a bait and switch to indoctrinate students into accepting evolutionary belief as observational science. Let me introduce you to another scientist, Richard Lenski, Michigan State University. He's a great scientist, known for growing E. coli in the lab, and he discovered that there were some E. coli that actually seemed to develop the ability to grow on a citrate substrate, but in this book Richard Lenski is mentioned and it's called evolution. in the laboratory, so the ability to grow on citrate is said to be evolution and there are those who say, hey, this goes against creationists, for example, jerry coyne of the university of chicago says that the lenski experiment also is another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, what I like most is that it says that you can make these complex traits evolve through a combination of unlikely events, but is it a poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists? ?

Is it really watching complex traits evolve? I mean some of these bacteria can grow on citrate. Let me introduce you to another biblical creationist who is a scientist. Hello, my name is Dr. Andrew Fabich. I earned my PhD in microbiology from the University of Oklahoma. I teach at Liberty University and do research. on E coli in the gut I have published in secular journals of the American Society of Microbiology, including Infection Immunity and Applied Environmental Microbiology, as well as several others, my work has been cited even last year in the Public Library of Medicine natural sciences translational science journal public science library genetics I cited regularly in those journals and although they taught me nothing but evolution, I do not accept that position and do my research from a creation perspective when I look at the evidence that people cite of e coli supposedly evolving over 30 years, over 30,000 generations in the lab and people say it can now grow on citrate.

I don't deny that it grows in citrate, but it's not any kind of new information, it's just that the information is already there, it's just a switch that turns on and off and that's what they reported there, there's nothing new, see, to the Students should be told what is really happening here, there are certainly changes, but it is not a necessary change for the molecules to reach man, now we can see other predictions, what about the evidence that confirms it? Well, a race, when we look at the human population, we see many differences, but based on Darwin's ideas about human evolution as presented in the ancestry of man, I mean, Darwin taught that in the ancestry of man there are races. inferior and superior races, would you believe it? that back in the year 1900 one of the most popular biology textbooks used in public schools in the United States taught this: there are currently five races or varieties of men on earth and finally the highest type of all Caucasians represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America, can you imagine if that was in public schools today and yet that is what was taught but it was based on Darwin's ideas that are wrong?

You have a wrong foundation. Now you would have a wrong view of the world. We start from the Bible and from the creation account in the Bible, what does it teach? Well, we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, we went through the tower of Babel, different languages, so different groups of people formed different characteristics, but we expected that we would have Let's say you know what that means that biologically there is only one race of humans . Well, I mentioned Dr. Venter before and he was a researcher on the human genome project and you remember in 2000 this was front page news and what we read was this that they had posted. together a draft of the complete sequence of the human genome and unanimously declared that there is only one race the human race wow, who would have guessed it, but you see, there we have observational signs that confirm the creation story, they do not confirm the ideas at all Darwin, there is now much more that could be said about each of these topics, obviously, you cannot do that in such a short time as this and much more could be researched.

I suggest you visit our website at answers and genesis for much more information, so the topic of discussion is creation. a viable model of origins in the current scientific era I said that we need to define the terms and particularly the term science and the term evolution and I think we need to understand how they are being used to impose an anti-god religion on generations of unsuspecting Students, you see, I continue emphasizing that we need to understand the difference between experimental or observational science and historical science and you know that secularists don't like me to do this because they don't want to admit that there is a brief aspect to what they are saying and there is and they can't escape that .

Let me illustrate this with a statement by Bill Nye that it can be proven that the Earth is not flat. It can be proven that the Earth is not ten thousand years old. By the way, I agree. You can show that the Earth is not flat. There's a video from the Galileo spacecraft showing the Earth and it accelerating, of course, but by spinning you can see it's a sphere. You can observe that you cannot observe the age of the Earth. look what you see again I emphasize that there is a big difference between historical science talking about the past and observational science talking about the present and I think what is happening is that students are being indoctrinated by the confusion of terms, the hijacking of the word science and the hijacking of the word evolution in a bait and switch, let me illustrate it further with this video clip because here I claim that bill nye is equating observational science with historical science and I also say that it is not a mystery when you understand the difference apparently among people with these depths.

They have religious beliefs, they embrace the entire literal interpretation of the Bible written in English as a worldview and at the same time they accept aspirin, antibiotics, airplanes, but they are able to maintain these two worldviews and this is a mystery, in fact, I suggest . It's not a mystery, you see it when I talk about antibiotics, aspirin, smoke detectors, jet planes, that's what you know, the observational science guy, I'm Australian, we call guys guys, okay, but when you talk of creation in thousands of years or the age of the earth that may surround the historical scientific pause.

I'm willing to admit that now when Bill Nye talks about aspirin, antibiotics, jet planes, smoke detectors, he does a great job at that, I used to enjoy watching him on TV too, that's Bill Nye. the observational scientist, but when you talk about the evolution of millions of years, I challenge you to be bill nye, the historical scientist, and I challenge evolutionists to admit the belief aspects of their particular worldview now into the creation museum. We are very willing to admit our beliefs based on the Bible, but we also teach people the difference between beliefs and what one can actually observe and experience in the present.

I think we are teaching people to think critically and to think. in the correct terms about science, I think it is creationists who should educate children because we are teaching them the correct way to think, you know, we admit that our origins of historical science are based on the Bible, but I am simply I challenge evolutionists to admit the belief aspects of evolution and be honest about the difference here, as I said. I am very willing to admit my Bible-based historical science and let me go ahead and define the term creation. as we use it with creation, we refer here in the answers in Genesis in the creation museum, we refer to the story based on the Bible.

Yes, I take Genesis as a literal story like Jesus did and here at the creation museum we guide people through that story. guide them through creation a perfect creation a god made Adam and Eve types of land animals sea creatures and so on and then sin and death entered the world so there was no death before sin that means how can you have thousands of millions of dead things before man sinned and then the catastrophe of Noah's flood, if there were a global flood one would expect to find billions of dead things buried in layers of rocks deposited by water all over the earth.

I had to say that because a lot of our followers would want me to do it and what do you find billions of dead things buried in layers of rocks lying next to water all over the earth? Confusion. Babel's tower. God gave different languages. So you get different groups of people. This is geological, astronomical, anthropological biological history as recorded in the Bible. it's about what happened in the past that explains the present and then of course that the son of god entered history to be jesus christ the god man to die on the cross, rise from the dead and one day there will be new heavens and a new earth to come and you know that it is not only an understanding of history to explain geology, biology, astronomy, etc., to connect the present with the past, but it is also a basis for our entire vision of the world, for example, in Matthew 19, when Jesus was.

He asked her about marriage, he said, haven't you read? He who made the beginning of him made them male and female and said that for this course the man will be his father's and his mother's and he will be joined to his wife and they will be one flesh. He cited genesis as literal history genesis 1 and 2 god invented marriage by the way that's where marriage comes from and being a man and a woman and not just marriage ultimately every biblical doctrine of theology directly or indirectly is based on genesis by what's upsin in the world Genesis why there is death Genesis why we wear clothes Genesis why Jesus died on a cross Genesis is a very important book it is fundamental to all Christian doctrine and you see when we look at what I call the seven seas of history by Those of us who walk People here in the museum think about how everything is connected, a perfect creation will be perfect again in the future, sin and death ended the world, that is why the son of God died on the cross and to conquer death and offer a free gift for salvation.

The flood of Noah's day is a reminder that the flood was a judgment due to man's evil, but at the same time a message of God's grace and salvation, as Noah and his family had to pass through a door to be saved, so we need to go through a door to be saved Jesus Christ said I am the door for me if any man enters he will be saved and we make no apology for the fact that what we are talking about is this if you confess with your mouth to the lord jesus and believe in your heart god has raised him from the dead you will be saved now as soon as i say that look people say look if you allow creation in schools for example if you allow students to even hear about it Ah, this is religion, you know?

Let me illustrate this by talking about a recent battle in Texas over public school textbooks. A news report said that this textbook and classroom curricular battles have long raged in Texas pitting creationists, those who see God's hand in the creation of the universe, against academics, stop it, right? ? there they realize that academic creationists creationists cannot be academics creationists cannot be scientists see that is the way things are worded out there, there is an indoctrination that is happening to those who are concerned that religious ideology and politics trumps scientific facts, wait a minute, what do I mean by science? are you talking about what you observe or are you talking about your beliefs about the past now kathy miller is the president of the texas freedom network of texas and she has spoken vocally, she has spoken about this textbook battle there in and in texas and The mission statement of the organization that she is president of says that the Texas Freedom Network promotes a general agenda of religious freedom and individual liberties to counter religious right, religious liberty, individual liberties and then she makes this statement, science education, what Do you mean what science should be based on? about mainstream science education, not about personal ideological beliefs of unqualified critics, wait a minute, they want religious freedom and not personal ideological beliefs.

I assert that public school textbooks use the same word science for observational and historical science, arbitrarily define science as naturalism and prohibit the evolution of man as a fact, and are imposing the religion of naturalism on generations. of students are imposing their ideology on the students that everything is explained by natural processes that is a religion what do you mean by religious freedom they tolerate your religion see the battle is really about authority it is more than just science or evolution or creation it is about Whose authority is in this world man or god if you start with naturalism then what about morality who decides right and wrong is subjective marriage? whatever you want it to be get rid of the elderly, I mean why not, I mean they're just animals, they're costing us a lot of money, abortion, get rid of the leftover cats, get rid of the leftover children, we're all animals , but if From the word of God there are moral absolutes. god decides right and wrong marriage a man and a woman sanctity of life we ​​care about all people they made an image of god life begins at fertilization then the abortion is killing a human being we see the collapse of Christian morality in our culture and the increase in moral relativism because generations of children are being taught the religion of naturalism and that the Bible cannot be trusted and that is why I repeat that creation is the only viable model of historical science confirmed by observational science in today's modern scientific era, you know what I am. a science teacher I want to see children being taught science I love science I want to see more dr damadians in the world you know if we teach them the entire universe as a result of natural processes and not designed by a creator god, they could be looking at the places wrong or have the wrong idea when they look at creation regarding how technology develops because if they see it as random processes that could totally influence their way of thinking if they understand that it was a perfect world made by sin that could have a great effect and how they then seek to overcome illnesses and problems in the world I want children to be taught the correct foundation that there is a god who created them, who loves them, who died on the cross for them and that they are special and made for image of god there you go, thank you mr ham we can applaud mr ham's presentation and you know it, it occurred to me when you had my old friend larry king there, you could have done it.

I asked him, he's been here a long time and he's a smart guy who could probably vouch for all of us. Now, let's all pay attention to Mr. Nye as he gives us his 30-minute presentation. Thank you very much and, Mr. Ham, I learned. something, thanks, but let's return to the question at hand: does Ken Ham's creation model hold up? Its viable? So for me, of course, take a look. We are here in Kentucky in layer upon layer upon layer of limestone Today I stopped on the side of the road and picked up this piece of limestone that has a fossil right there now in so many layers in this neighborhood of Kentucky there are zoaxanthelli coral animals fossils and when you look at it closely you can see that they lived their entire lives, they normally lived 20 years, sometimes longer than that and the water conditions are right, so we are standing on millions of layers of ancient life, how could they Have those animals lived their entire lives and formed these? layers in only 4,000 years there is not enough time since Mr.

Ham's flood for this limestone that we are on to have come into existence uh my scientific colleagues go to places like Greenland, the Arctic, they go to Antarctica and drill through the ice with hollow drill bits, it's not that extraordinary, many of you have probably done it yourself by drilling other things, hole saws to put locks on doors for example, and we take out long cylinders of ice, long rods of ice and these are made of snow . and by long tradition it is called snow ice and snow ice is formed during winter as the snowflakes fall and are crushed by subsequent layers, they crush each other and trap the small bubbles and the small bubbles must be an ancient atmosphere, there is no one running with a A hypodermic needle throws ancient atmosphere into the bubbles and we find that some of these cylinders have 680,000 layers 680,000 cycles of snow winter summer How could it be that only 4,000 years ago formed all this ice?

Let's just do some numbers. These are some scenes. of lovely Antarctica, let's say we have 680,000 ice sheets and 4,000 years since the great flood, that would mean we would need 170 cycles of summer, winter, summer every year for the last 4,000 years, I mean, wouldn't anyone have realized that? Well, wouldn't anyone have realized that there has been winter summer winter summer 170 times in one year? If we go to California, we find huge stands of stone pines, some of them are more than six thousand years old, six thousand eight hundred years old, there is a famous tree in Sweden, the old Tico, it is nine thousand five hundred and fifty years old.

How could these trees be there if there was a huge flood just 4,000 years ago? You can try it yourselves. Everyone understand. I mean, I don't want to be mean to trees. but get a sapling and put it under water for a year, it generally won't survive or have seeds, they just won't survive, so how could these trees be so old if the Earth is only 4,000 years old now when we go to the Grand Canyon, which is an amazing place and I recommend everyone to visit the Grand Canyon one day. You'll find layer upon layer of ancient rock, and if there had been this huge flood you talk about, wouldn't there have been upheaval? and bubbling and turbulent, how would these things have been resolved?

Your statement that they were established in an extraordinarily short period of time is not satisfactory to me. You can look at these rocks. You can look at rocks that are younger. You can go to the coasts where there are. sand this is what geologists outside do study what is the speed at which the soil is deposited at the end of the rivers and deltas and we can see that the sediments take a long time to turn into stone also in this image you can see where a type of sediment has invaded another type now, if that were uniform, wouldn't we expect everything to be even without intrusion?

Also, you can find places in the grand canyon where you see an old river bed on that side going to an old river bed on that side and the Colorado River has gone through it and by the way, if this big flood went through the grand canyon, wouldn't there have been a grand canyon on every continent? How could we not have great canyons everywhere if this water was drained in In this extraordinarily short period of time, 4,000 years, when you look closely at these layers, you find these beautiful fossils and when I say beautiful, they inspire me, they are remarkable because we are Looking at the past, you will find it at the bottom. find what you might consider rudimentary marine animals above you will find the famous trilobites above you can find some clams some oysters and above you will find some mammals you will never find a higher animal mixed with a lower one you will never find a lower one trying to swim to the higher one if everything happened in such an extraordinary, short period of time if this water was drained like that, wouldn't we expect to see some turbulence and, by the way, anyone here really if you can find an example of that an 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 could find an example of that anywhere people have looked and looked and look, they haven't found a single one.

Here's something interesting. These are fossil skulls that people have found all over the world. It is by no means representative of all the fossil skulls that have been found, but they are everywhere now. If I saw them, I can assure you that none of them are gorillas, right? If, as Mr. Ham and his associates claim, there was only man and then everyone else, there were only humans and all other species, where would you place modern humans among these? skulls, how did all these skulls get all over the earth in this extraordinary way? Where would you put us?

I can tell you that we are there and I encourage you when you go home to look for it now. One of the extraordinary claims associated with Mr. Hamm's world view is that this giant ship, a very large wooden ship, ran aground safely on a mountain in the middle of what we now call the Middle East and so places like Australia are populated then by animals that somehow managed to get from the Middle East all the way to Australia in the last four thousand years, that to me is an extraordinary statement, we would expect that somewhere between the Middle East and Australia we would expect to find evidence of kangaroos, we would expect to find some fossils, some bones in the last four thousand years someone would have been jumping there and would have died on the way and we would find it and also there is a claim that there was a land bridge that allowed these animals to come from Asia to the continent of Australia and that The land bridge has disappeared Has disappeared in the last four thousand years No navigator No diver No US Navy submarine No one has detected any evidence of this, much less any kangaroo fossils, for What your expectations are not met, does not seem to hold up, so let's go.

Let's see if 4 thousand years have passed since Ken Ham's flood and let's say, as he said many times, that today there are 7,000 types. The lowest estimate is that there are about 8.7 million species, but a much more reasonable estimate is 50 million or even 100 million when you start counting the viruses, bacteria and all the beetles that must be in the rainforest and that we haven't found, so we'll take a number that I think is pretty reasonable: 16 million species today. If these come from seven thousand types, let's say we have seven thousand subtracted from fifteen million, that's fifteen nine ninety-three, we have four thousand years, we have 365 and a quarter days a year, we would expect to find 11 new species every day, so Yes If you went out to your garden you wouldn't just find a different bird, a new bird, you would find a different type of bird, a completely different species.new, a bird every day, a new species of fish, a new species of organism that you can't.

Look, etc., I mean this would be huge news. The last 4,000 years people would have seen these changes among us, so I imagine the Cincinnati researcher would have a column right next to the weather report about today's new species and would list these 11 each day, but we see no evidence of that , there is no evidence of these species, there is just not enough time now, as you may know, I graduated from engineering school and got a job at Boeing, I worked on 747, I'm fine everyone. relax, I was very well supervised, everything is fine, there is a tube on the 747.

I think that's my two, but other than that, I traveled quite a bit on the roads of Washington state. He was a young boy. He had a motorcycle. He used to go mountain climbing. in Washington state, Oregon, and you can drive around and find these huge rocks on top of the ground, huge, huge rocks sitting on top of the ground, now out there, in regular academic pursuits, common geology people have discovered that there used to be a lake. in what is now Montana, which we charmingly refer to as Lake Missoula, is not there now, but the evidence for that, of course, is that if I can is overwhelming, an ice dam would form on Lake Missoula and occasionally from time to time it would be broken and built.

It rose and broke and there were multiple floods in my old state of Washington, but just before I continue, let me say, come on, seahawks, that was very gratifying, very gratifying for me, anyway, you drive down the highway and there's these rocks, so if it is stated here in this facility that heavier rocks would sink to the bottom during a flood. Large rocks and especially their shape rather than streamlined, hydrodynamic, the water changes shape as the water flows, one would expect them to sink to the bottom. but here are these huge rocks right on the surface and there is no shortage of them if you drive in Washington State or Oregon, they are readily available, so how could they be there if the Earth is only 4,000 years old?

How could they be there if this flood caused that? Another extraordinary thing I would like everyone to consider inherent to this worldview is that somehow Noah and his family were able to build a wooden boat that would hold 14,000 people. 7,000 guys and then each one, there's a boy and a girl for each of them, so it's about 14,000 eight people and as far as is known, these people were not qualified, they had never built a wooden boat before Also, they had to get all these There were animals there and they had to feed them and I understand that Mr.

Ham has some explanations for that that frankly I find extraordinary, but this is the premise of the part and then we can do a scientific test that people built at the beginning of the 20th century. An extraordinarily large wooden ship, the Wyoming, was a six-masted schooner, the largest ever built, it had an engine to pull cables and so on, but this ship had great difficulties, it was not as big as the Titanic, but it was very long boat would twist at sea would twist this way and this way and in all that twisting it leaked leaked like crazy the crew couldn't keep the boat dry and in fact it finally sank and sank, losing all 14 hands , so There were 14 crew members aboard a ship built by very, very skilled carpenters in New England.

These guys were the best in the world at building wooden ships and they couldn't build a ship as big as the ark claimed to have been. Is it reasonable? The best shipbuilders in the world may not be able to do what eight unskilled people, men and their wives, were able to do if you go to the National Zoo in Washington DC, it's 163 acres and by the way, they have 400 species. The image you are seeing was taken by a spacecraft in space orbiting the Earth. If you had told my grandfather, much less my father, that we had that ability, they would have been surprised that that ability comes from our fundamental understanding of gravity from materials science, from physics and life sciences. where you go to look for them, this place is often like any zoo is often deeply concerned and criticized for how it treats its animals.

They have 400 species on 163 acres 66 hectares. Is it reasonable that Noah and his colleagues, his family, could support fourteen? thousand animals and themselves and feed them aboard a ship that was bigger than anyone had ever been able to build, now this is what we want in science science as it is practiced abroad is the ability to predict we want to have a We can predict that if we give an elephant that much space, it will live. healthy for a certain period of time, so I will give you an example in the explanation provided by traditional science of how we came to be, we find as mr ham alluded to many times in his recent comments, we find a sequence of animals in what generally It's called the fossil record, this would be saying when we look at the layers that you would find in Kentucky.

Look closely, you will find a sequence of animals, a succession, and as expected, when you look at old records, some pieces seem to be missing a space, so scientists got to thinking about this: they are fish with lungs. that jump out of a pond. Stagnate in Florida and end up in people's swimming pools and they are amphibians, frogs and toads that croak and behave and then people wondered if there wasn't a fossil or a strange organism, an animal that had lived and had characteristics of both people. Over the years they had discovered that in Canada there was clearly a fossil swamp, a place that used to be a swamp had dried up and they found all sorts of happy swamp fossils there, ferns etc. and organisms, animals, fish that were recognized and people realized that if this with the age of the rocks there, as calculated by traditional scientists, with the age of the rock star, this would be a reasonable place to look for an animal, a fossil of an animal that lived there and, in fact, scientists found it, tiktaalik, this type of fish lizard. and they found several specimens there is no this, it was not an individual in other words, they made a prediction that this animal would be found and it was found until now Mr.

Ham and his vision of the world Kenham's creation model does not have this ability it cannot do predictions and show results here is an extraordinary one that I find remarkable, there are certain fish, the best little fish that have the remarkable ability to have sex with other fish, traditional sex with fish and now they can have sex with themselves, one of the old questions in life sciences, everyone, one of the old types of chin strokers is why any organism, whether it's an ash tree, a sea jellyfish, a squid, a groundhog, why does anyone have sex? I mean, there's more bacteria in your stomach right now than there are humans on earth and bacteria that don't care about that man, they just like to split in half, they get new bacteria like, let's finish her off, come on, but why does anyone think about all the trouble a rose bush entails to make a flower and the thorns and the bees would swim flying interacting why does anyone bother with all that and the answer seems to be your enemies and your enemies are not lions or no tigers or bears oh my god no your enemies are germs and parasites that's what's happening To get you germs and parasites, my first cousin's son died tragically essentially from the flu.

This is not a story I heard about my first cousin once removed because apparently the virus had the right genes to attack his genes so when you have sex you have a new set of genes you have a new mix so people studied these superior minnows and found that the ones that reproduced sexually had fewer parasites than the ones that reproduced on their own, this black spot disease, wait, wait, there are more of them in these flooded populations, etc. River ponds become isolated, then dry up and the river flows again in the middle. Some of the fish will have sex with other fish sometimes and have sex on their own, which is called asexually, and those fish are the ones in the middle. sometimes this, sometimes they have an intermediate number of infections, in other words, 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. Ham and his followers I say this. It is something that we in science want, we want the ability to predict, and your claim that there is some difference between the natural laws that I use to observe the world today and the natural laws that existed 4,000 years ago is extraordinary and disturbing. I travel around the whole world. I have a lot of family in Danville, Virginia, one of the most livable cities in the world, it's lovely and I was driving and there was a sign in front of a church. Big Bang Theory. You've got to be kidding me, God.

Y'all, why would anyone in the church, a pastor for example, put up that sign unless he or she didn't believe the big bang was a real thing? I just want to briefly go over with everyone why we accept in the outside world why we accept the big bang uh edwin hubble oh sorry there you go you gotta be kidding god edwin hubble was sitting on mount wilson which is above Pasadena California on a clear day you can look down and see where the rose parade is going, it's so close to civilization, but even in the early 1900's, the people who selected this site for astronomy chose a great site where the clouds and smog are below of you and Edwin Hubble sat there at his big telescope night after night studying the heavens and discovered that the stars are moving apart the stars are moving apart and he wasn't sure why, but it was clear that the stars are getting farther apart more all the time, so people talked about it for a couple of decades and then finally another astronomer almost A couple of decades ago, another astronomer, Fred Hoyle, just commented, well, it was like there was a big explosion , there was an explosion, that is, since everything is separating, it is very reasonable that at one point they were all together and there is a place from where or rather. where these things spread from and it was a notable idea, but people continued to question it for decades.

Science and mainstream scientists questioned it for decades. These two researchers wanted to listen to radio signals from space radio astronomy and this is while we have light visible to our eyes, there are a lot of light waves that are much longer the microwaves in your oven are that length the radar at the airport is of that length your radio signal uh fm is like that uh am the radio signals are kilometers there are a couple several football fields they came out uh listening and there was a hissing sound the whole time that didn't go away and they thought, oh Doug, there's a loose connector, They plugged in the connector, screwed it back in, tightened it. he turned it this way the whistle was still there they heard it that way this is still there they thought it was pigeon droppings that had affected the reception of this horn it's called this thing it's still there it's in basking ridge new jersey it's a place national historic and arno pinzias and robert wilson had found this cosmic background sound that was predicted by astronomers, astronomers doing numbers doing mathematics predicted that this echo would remain in the cosmos, this energy of the big bang that would be detectable and they detected it. built the cosmic observatory for background emissions, the Kobe spacecraft and it coincided exactly with the predictions of astronomers, you have to respect that it is a wonderful thing, now in that sense there is some interest in the age of the Earth at this time, it is generally accepts that the Big Bang occurred. 13.7 billion years ago, what can we do on earth?

These elements that we all know in the periodic table of chemicals, even the ones we don't know, were created when stars explode and I'm not like anyone, but I attended a lecture by Hans Beta, who won a Nobel Prize for discovering the process. through which the stars create all these elements. The one that interests me especially is that of our good friends rubidium and strontium. Rubidium is converted to strontium spontaneously. It's something interesting to me. A neutron turns into a proton and moves up the periodic table. table when lava comes out of the ground, molten lava and freezes, becomes rock when the melt solidifies or crystallizes, locks the rubidium and strontium in place and therefore, by careful testing, carefully and By being diligent, you can tell how when the rock froze. tell how old rubidium and strontium are and you can get the age of the earth when those things fall on the fossils.

You will be able to have a very good idea of ​​the age of thefossils. I encourage you all to go to nebraska, go to ashfall state park and see the amazing fossils it looks like a hollywood movie there are rhinos there are three toed horses in nebraska none of those animals exist today and they were catastrophically buried by a volcano in what now it's idaho it's now yellowstone national park what's called the hot one. The locals call it the super volcano and apparently it's quite something, as I can tell you as a resident of northwest Mount St.

Helens. I am a complete revelation. I'm on the board of Mount St. Helens, uh, when it goes off, it goes. They take out a large amount of gas that is toxic and knock out these animals looking for relief, they go to a watering hole and then when the ash comes, they were all buried. It's an extraordinary place now, if in the old days you had heart problems they would. Right now I'm opening you up, we use a rubidium based medicine to look inside your heart without opening you up now, my Kentucky friends, I want you to consider this right now, there is no place in the Commonwealth of Kentucky to get a degree. in this type of nuclear medicine these types of medications associated with that I hope you find it worrying I hope you find it worrying that you want scientifically literate students in your community for a better tomorrow for everyone, you can't get this here you have to leave the state now as soon as at the distance to the stars you understand this is understood very well it is February we look at a star in February we measure an angle we wait six months we look at that same star again and measure that angle, it is the same way that the carpenters built this building, it is the same way that surveyors surveyed the terrain we are on and therefore by measuring the distance to a star you can determine how far away that star and then the stars are. beyond and stars beyond there are billions of stars billions of stars more than 6,000 light years from here a light year is a unit of distance not a unit of time there are billions of stars mr ham how could Are there billions more stars? more than six thousand years, if the world is only six thousand years old, it is an extraordinary statement.

There is another astronomer, Adolf Cattell, who first commented on the reasonable man: is it reasonable that we have ice a hundred times older than what you claim the Earth is? we have trees that have more rings than the age of the Earth, we have rocks with rubidium, strontium and uranium, uranium and potassium, argon, that are much older than what you claim the Earth is. Could someone have built an ark that supported the best? than any ark that anyone could have built on earth, so if you ask me and I have the impression that Ken Ham's model of creation is viable, I say no, absolutely not, now one last thing that you may not know that in the US constitution the founding fathers is the phrase to promote the progress of science and the useful arts kentucky voters voters who might be watching online in places like texas tennessee oklahoma kansas please don't want to raise a generation from science students who don't understand how to know our place in the cosmos our place and space those who don't understand natural law we need to innovate to keep the United States where it is in the world thank you very much that's a lot to take in I hope everyone is well, It's a lot of information, what we're going to have now is a five minute rebuttal time for each gentleman to address the other's comments and then there will be a five minute counter rebuttal after that, things are going to start moving a little more. fast.

Now, at this particular point, I want to make sure there's no applause or anything to slow you down, so Mr. Ham, if you'd like to start with your five-minute rebuttal first, well, first of all, Bill does. I had to respond to all the points you raised, the moderator would think it was going to last millions of years so I can only address a few of them and you mentioned the age of the Earth a couple of times so let me leave you. I deal with that, as I said in my presentation, you can't observe the age of the Earth and I would say that falls into what we now call historical origin science, just to understand where I'm coming from.

Yes, we admit that we build our origins of historical science in the bible uh, the bible says that god created in six days the hebrew word yom as used in genesis 1 with the number of evening and morning means an ordinary day Adam was made on day six and so when you add up all those genealogies specifically given in the bible yeah, from adam to uh to abraham you have um two thousand years from abraham to christ two thousand from christ to the present two thousand years that's how we have six thousand years uh so that's where it comes from just so you Now I know a lot of people say that, by the way, the age of the Earth is 4.5 billion years and we have radioactive decay dating methods that found that, but you see, we certainly observe radioactive decay, be it rubidium, strontium, be it uranium, lead, potassium, argon, but.

When you talk about the past, we have a problem. I give you a practical example. In Australia, there were engineers trying to find information about a coal mine, they drilled and found a basalt layer lava flow that had woody material. it branches and twigs, etc., and when Dr. Andrew Snelling, our PhD geologist sent it to a laboratory in Massachusetts in 1994, they used potassium argon. The date is 45 million years, well, he also sent the wood to the radiocarbon section from the same lab and that data is 45,000 years old, 45,000 years old, 45,000 year old wood, and 45 million year old rock.

The point is that there is a problem, uh, let me. To give you another example of a problem, there was a lava dome that started forming in the 80's after the Mounts and Helens erupted and in 1994, Dr. Steve Austin, another PhD geologist actually took samples. of the rock there, took whole rock and crushed it, sent it to Actually, I think the same lab got a three five million year data point when they separated the minerals amphibole and pyroxene and used potassium argon dating. You get 0.9 million 2.8 million. What I mean is that all of these dating methods actually give all kinds of different dates. in fact, we can show different dating methods on the same rock that give all kinds of different dates.

There are many assumptions regarding radioactive dating number one, for example the amounts of the parent and daughter isotopes from the beginning when the rock formed. know them, but you weren't there, look, that's historical science, the second assumption that all the daughter atoms measured today must only have been derived in situ, uh, radioactive decay of the parent atoms, in other words, this closed system, but you don't know and there's a There's a lot of evidence that that's not assumption number three that decay rates have remained constant and that's just some of them. There are others too. The point is that there are a lot of assumptions regarding the dating method, so there is no dating method you can. use that, you absolutely can age the date with a rock, there are all kinds of differences and I want to address the part we mentioned about Christians who believe in millions of years, yes there are many Christians who believe in millions of years.

But I would say they have a problem. I am not saying that they are not Christians, but because salvation is conditional on faith in Christ, not on the age of the earth, but there is an inconsistency with what the Bible teaches if you believe in millions of years. You have death and bloodshed, suffering from diseases for millions of years that led to man because that's what you see in the fossil record. The Bible makes it very clear that death is the result of man's sin. In fact, the first death was in the garden when God killed. an animal dressed as Adam and Eve the first blood sacrifice that points towards what would happen to Jesus Christ, who would be the one who would die once and for all now, 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 that originally all animals and men were vegetarians we were not told we could eat meat until after the flood there are diseases that represent the fossil record such as brain tumors but the bible says that when god made everything it was very good god no I don't call brain tumors very good, there are fossilized spines in the fossil record that are said to be hundreds of millions of years old.

The Bible says that the thorns came after the curse, so these two things cannot be true at the same time. You know, there are hundreds of dates. There are hundreds of methods, in fact 90 percent of them contradict billions of years and the point is that all of those dating methods are fallible and I claim that there is only one infallible dating method: it is a witness who was there and Who knows everything he told us and that is from the word of God and that is why I would say that the earth is only six thousand years old and as Dr. said. faulkner there is nothing in astronomy and certainly dr. snellingwood says nothing in geology that contradicts the belief in an early age for the earth and the universe thank you mr ham mr nye your five minute rebuttal please uh thank you very much uh let me start at the beginning if you find a rock 45 million years on top of 45 thousand year old trees maybe maybe the rock slid on top maybe that's all It seems like a much more reasonable explanation than impossible, so as far as dating goes, the methods are actually very reliable.

One of the mysteries or interesting things that interest people in my business, especially in planetary society, is why all asteroids look like they do. being so close to the same date is an age of 4.5 4.6 billion years, it is something remarkable, at first you expected a little more length, so I understand that you take the Bible as it is written in English, translated into innumerable, not innumerable, but in many. many times over the last three millennia to be a more accurate and reasonable assessment of the natural laws that we see around us than what I and everyone here can observe, that to me is disturbing and worrying and then about the disease, uh, They are the fish.

Sinners have done something wrong to contract diseases. That's kind of an extraordinary statement that takes me a little bit further than I'm comfortable with, and then to the extent that you can't look at the past, I just have to stop. You're there, that's what we do in astronomy. All we can do in astronomy is look at the past the way you are looking at the past right now because the speed of light bounces off me and then reaches your eyes. and I'm delighted to see that the people in the back of the room look much younger than the people in the front, so I think this idea that you can separate the natural laws of the past from the natural laws that we have now is in the center of our disagreement, no, I don't see how we're ever going to agree on that, if you insist that natural laws have changed, it's for lack of a better word, it's magical and I've appreciated magic since I was a kid, but it's not really what we want in mainstream science, so your claim that all animals were vegetarians before they got on the ark is really remarkable.

I haven't spent much time with lions, but I can. Say they have teeth that aren't really made for broccoli. That these animals were vegetarians until this flood is something I would ask you to provide me with a little more evidence for. I give you the lion's teeth. uh, verses translated into English for over 30 centuries, so that's not enough evidence for me, if you've ever played telephone, I did. I remember it very well in kindergarten, where you have a secret and you whisper it to the next person. From one person to the next, things often go wrong, so it makes perfect sense to me that instead of the lions being vegetarians, on the ark the lions are lions and the information you use to create your worldview not be consistent with i as what i is reasonable. man would wait, so i want everyone to consider the implications of this if we accept mr hamm's view that, in mr ham's view, the bible being translated into american english serves as a scientific text and that him and his followers I will interpret it for you, I just want you to consider what that means: it means that Mr.

Hamm's word or your interpretation of these other words must be somehow more respected than what you can observe in nature, which that you can literally find in your backyard. Kentucky, it's a troubling and disturbing point of view and it's one that I would very much like you to address when you go back to the five races that you mentioned, it's pretty much the same thing that the five races were claimed by people. who were of European descent and said, hey, we're the best, come visit us and it turns out that if you've ever traveled somewhere or done anything to not be like that, people are much more similar than different, so are we.

I'm supposed to take their word for English words translated over the last 30 centuries rather than what we can observein the universe that surrounds us. Alright, Mr. Hamm, would you like to offer your five-minute counterrebuttal? First of all, Bill, so, I just don't want a misunderstanding here and that is that the 45,000 years would be or supposedly 45,000 were inside the basalt um so it was locked in the basalt uh and that's why I was making that point in particular and I would also say that natural law has not changed as I talked about, you know, I said that we have the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature and that only makes sense within a biblical worldview anyway, of a creator god who He established those laws and that's why we can do it. good experimental science because we assume that those laws are true and they will be true uh tomorrow um, I want to say this that you said a few times, you know Ken Ham is you or the Ken Ham model, it's not just Ken Ham model we have several scientists with Ph.D. our own staff I cited I had video quotes from some scientists it is dr damadian's model it is dr fabish's model it is dr faulkner's model it is dr uh snelling's model it is dr perdum's model and so it goes on in In other words, You go to our website and there are many creation scientists who agree with exactly what we're saying about Bibles and about the biblical account of creation, so it's not just my model in that sense, there are so many.

There is a lot I could say, but as I listen to you I think you are confusing terms regarding species and classes because we are not saying that God created all those species, we are saying that God created the species and we are not saying species. god on the ark we are saying types, in fact we have had researchers working on what a type is, for example, there are several articles published on our website where, for example, they look at dogs and say, well, this one breeds with this one. with this with this there's this this one and you can look at all the articles from around the world and you can connect them all together and say it obviously represents one type, in fact, since they've been doing that research they've probably predicted less than a thousand types, we're on Noah's ark, which means just over two thousand animals and the average size of a land animal is not that big, so you know there was a lot of room on the ark, I also think a lot of what you were saying really illustrated my point, you were talking about tree rings and ice sheets and you were just talking about kangaroos coming to Australia and all kinds of things like that, but look, we're talking about the past when we were.

There we did not see how those tree rings were formed, we did not see how those layers were deposited. You know, in 1942, for example, there were some planes that landed on the Greenland ice and were found, I think 46 years later. It was three miles from the original location with 250 feet of ice buried on top, so ice can build up catastrophically if you assume one layer per year or something, it's like dating methods, you're assuming things regarding the past, That's not necessarily true of lions and bears' teeth, most bears have teeth very similar to those of a lion or tiger, and yet most bears are primarily vegetarians.

The panda, if you look at its teeth, you'd say maybe it should be. a wild carnivore is mainly bamboo a small fruit in Australia it has very sharp teeth it looks like a small wild creature and it tears up the fruit so just because an animal has sharp teeth doesn't mean it's a carnivore it means it has sharp teeth uh and again, It really comes down to our interpretation of these things, I think also with respect to the Missoula uh example that you gave, you know creationists believe that there has been a post-blood catastrophism, uh, Noah's flood certainly was an event. catastrophic, but then there has been post-flight catastrophism, um, since then as well and again with respect to historical science, why would you say that Noah was not qualified?

I mean, I didn't know Noah and neither did you, and you know it's really an evolutionary view of origins. I think because you're thinking in terms of the people who came before us weren't as good as us, hey there are civilizations that existed in the past and we look at that technology and we can't even understand today how they did some of the things they did, do you? Who says Noah couldn't build a big ship? By the way, the Chinese and the Egyptians built ships. In fact, some of our research indicates that some of the wooden boats that were built had three interlocking layers so they wouldn't twist. that's in the league, that's why here at the creation museum we have an exhibit about the arc where we've reconstructed one percent of the arc to scale and we show three interlocking layers like that and one last thing about the speed of light and It's I mean, I'm sure you're aware of the horizon problem and that is, from the perspective of the Big Bang, even secularists have the problem of getting light and radiation out of the universe so they can exchange it with the rest of the universe. they even get the microwave background radiation in their model for 15 billion years so they can only get it halfway and that's why they have inflation theories which means everyone has a problem regarding the issue of light, there are things that people do not understand and we have some models. on our website by some of our scientists to help explain that sort of thing your counter-rebuttal thank you sir ham but I am completely dissatisfied in my opinion you did not address just fundamental questions 680,000 years of ice sheets requiring a winter summer cycle let's say that you have 2,000 types instead of seven, which makes the problem even more extraordinary by multiplying 11 by three and a half, we arrive at 35 40 species every day that we do not see, they are not extinct, in fact, we probably know that we are losing species due primarily to human activity and habitat loss.

So as far as Noaa being a shipwright extraordinaire, I'm very skeptical of the shipwrights, my ancestors, the Knight family in New England, who spent their entire lives learning how to do it. ships I mean it's very Maybe it's reasonable to you that Noah had superpowers and was able to build this extraordinary ship with seven family members, but to me this is just not reasonable. So, by the way, the fundamental thing we disagree on, Mr. Ham, is the nature of what you can prove to yourself. That is, 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 bacteria in laboratory growth media, they are making assumptions based on previous experiences.

It's not something that comes out of nowhere, so next time you have the opportunity to talk I encourage you to explain to us why we should take your word that natural law changed completely just 4,000 years ago and there is no record of it. There are pyramids that are older than that, there are human populations that are much older than that, with traditions that go back further and it just doesn't make sense to me 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 other living things on earth to humans it is just not reasonable to me that everything has changed like this and the other thing I would really appreciate if you addressed is that there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious and I respect that people get tremendous community, comfort, love and support from their fellow religious people in their communities, in their beliefs, in their churches and yet they don't accept their point of view.

Look, there are Christians who don't do it. I don't accept that the Earth can somehow be so extraordinarily young given all the evidence surrounding it and therefore what will become of them in your opinion? And by the way, as I understand it, this started. Ken Ham's creation model is based on the old testament so when you bring I'm not a theologian when you bring the new testament it's not that small uh out of the ordinary I'm looking for explanations of the creation of the world as we know it based on what What I'm going to call science, not historical science, not observational science, science, things that each of us can do in a similar way to what we do, we are trying to guess the characters in murder mystery shows in the investigation of the crime scene, especially what it's like to be one of all those people who don't see it their way for us in the scientific community I remind you that when we find an idea that is not sustainable it doesn't work it doesn't fly it doesn't hold up any language you would like to embrace it, we throw it away, we are delighted, that's why I say if you can find a fossil that has swam between the layers, bring it back, you would change the world if you could prove that somehow microwave background radiation is not. a result of the big brick bang, come on, write your paper, tear it up so that your opinion that we are supposed to take your word for this book written centuries ago and translated into American English is somehow more important than I can see with my own eyes.

It is an extraordinary claim and especially for those watching online, I want to remind you that we need scientists and especially engineers for the future. Engineers use science to solve problems and get things done. We need these people so America can continue to innovate and continue. to be a world leader we need innovation and that needs scientific education thank you okay thank you both uh now let's get to the uh things are moving a little faster and I think they can be quite interesting here it's 40 to 45 minutes maybe a little Plus, we'll actually have a little bit more questions and answers submitted by our audience here at the creation museum.

Before we distributed these cards to everyone. I shuffled them back here and actually dropped a lot of them. and then I picked them up again and if you saw me sorting them here it was to get a bunch for Mr. Nine a bunch for Mr. Ham so we can reasonably switch between them uh other than that, the only reason I'm skipping one is if I can't read it or if it's a question I can't read because it doesn't seem to make any sense, which sometimes happens just because the way people write what's going to happen is that we're we're going to go back and forth between Mr.

Nye. and mr ham, each debater will have two minutes to answer the question that was directed at him and then the other will have one minute to also answer the question even though it was directed at the other man and I was. I removed a card here because I noticed it was for both men, so we may be able to get to that at some point. Mr. Ham, you have jumped first if you jump first this time and Mr. and I can wait. for your answers, two minutes, how does creationism explain that the celestial bodies, the planets, the stars, the moons are increasingly separated and what function does that play in the grand design?

When it comes to looking at the universe, of course, we believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and I think our creationist astronomers would say that yes, you can look at the universe expanding. Why is God doing that? In fact, in the Bible he even says that he stretches out the heavens and seems to indicate that there is an expansion. of the universe and then we would say yes, you can observe that fits with what we call observational science exactly why God made it that way. I can't answer that question, of course, because you know the Bible says that God made. the heavens for His glory and that's why He created the stars that we see out there and it's to tell us how big it is and how big it is and in fact, I think that's the thing about the universe, the universe is so big. , so big, one of our planetarium programs look at this, we go in and we show them how big the universe is and I think it shows us how big god is, how big he is, that he is an almighty god, that he is an infinite god uh a god all-knowing infinite who created the universe to show us his power, I mean, can you imagine that?

And what's notable in the Bible, for example, it says on the fourth day of creation and oh, he made the stars also it's almost like, oh, by the way, I made the stars um and just to show us that he's an almighty god. , he is an infinite god, so I made the stars and he made them to show us how great he is and he is an infinite creator god. and the more you understand what that means, that that god is all powerful and infinite, you step back from everything, you realize how small we are, you realize that god would consider this planet to be so significant that he created human beings here knowing they would. sin and yet he entered history to die for us rise from the dead offer us a free gift for salvation wow what a god and that's what I would say when I see the universe as it is sir nye a minute any answer there is a question which concerns us all from the moment we are absolutely younger and are able to think for the first time and where we come from, where I come from, and this question is so compelling that we have inventedthe science of astronomy, we have invented the life sciences, I have invented physics, we have discovered these natural laws so that we can learn more about our origin and where we come from.

When he says that he invented the stars, that is also satisfying. You're done, oh well, it's fine for me when I look. the night sky I want to know what's out there I'm driven I want to know if what's out there is some part of me and in fact it's the oh by the way it seems convincing to me you're satisfied and the biggest thing I want from you Mr. Ham, what? Can you think of anything you can predict? Do you have a creation model that predicts something that will happen in nature and that's the time?

Mr. Nye, the next question is for you: how did the atoms that created the Big Bang get there? This is the great mystery, you have hit the nail on the head, no, this is so, where did what existed before the big bang come about? This is what drives us This is what we want to know Let's keep looking Let's keep looking When I was young The universe was supposed to be slowing down, it's a big explosion, except it's outer space, there's no air, so it comes out like this and people assumed that it would slow down, that uh, the universe, gravity especially would hold everything together and maybe it's going to come back and explode again and people came out and the mathematical expression is if the universe is flat, this is an expression Math, will the universe slow down, slow down, slow down asymptotically without ever stopping?

Well in 2004, Saul Perlmutter and his colleagues went to find the speed at which the universe was slowing down, we're going to go out and measure it and we do it with this extraordinary system of telescopes around the world looking at the night sky looking for supernovae these are a standard brightness that you can infer distances with and the universe is not slowing down it is accelerating the universe is accelerating and expanding and you know why no one knows why no one knows why and you will hear the expression today dark energy dark matter which They are mathematical ideas that seem to account well for what appears to be the gravitational pull of star clusters, galaxies and their expansion, and so doesn't it stand to reason that whatever is out there causing the universe to expand is here too? and we just haven't figured out how to detect it, my friend?

Suppose a science student from the Commonwealth of Kentucky pursues a career in science and discovers the answer to that profound question where do we come from what was it like before the big bang for us this is wonderful, charming and compelling this is what makes us stand up and going to work every day is to try to solve the mysteries of the universe, that's the time mr ham, an answer, uh, bill, I just want to let you know that there is actually a book that tells us where matter came from and The first sentence of that book says that 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. Look at it, we have information and language systems that build life, not just matter and where did that come from because kill can never produce information. Matter can never produce a system of language. Languages ​​only come from intelligence. Information only comes from information. The Bible tells us that the things we see in the book of Hebrews are made of things that are not seen, an infinite creator god who created the universe, created matter, energy, space, mass, time, the universe and created the information for life, it's the only thing that makes sense.

Sense, okay Mr. Ham, here's a new question. The overwhelming majority of people in the scientific community have presented valid physical evidence, such as carbon dating and fossils, to support the theory of evolution. What evidence, other than the literal word of the Bible, supports creationism? Well, first of all, you know? I often hear people talk about the majority. I agree that most scientists would believe in millions of years. Most would believe in evolution, but there is a large group out there that certainly don't, but the first thing I want to say is. that, it is not the majority that judges the truth, there have been many occasions in the past when the majority was wrong, the majority of doctors in England once thought that after cutting up bodies you could go and give birth to babies and I wonder why the mortality rate was high in hospitals until they discovered diseases caused by bacteria etc., most once thought that the appendix was a leftover organ from our evolutionary ancestry, so you know when it's okay , tear it out when it is a disease. get it out, you know, get it out anyway, but nowadays we know that it's for the immune system and it's very, very important, so first you have to understand that just because a majority believes something doesn't mean it's true. and then I'm sorry I missed the last part of the question there and what was the picture of the correct question here is that comment, so what evidence, besides the literal word of the Bible, one of the things he was doing was it? making predictions I made some predictions there's a whole list of predictions and I was saying if the Bible is correct and we always say it Adam and Eve there is a race and I went over and talked about that uh if the Bible is correct and God made guys that I went by and talked about it, so you really know, that question comes down to the fact that again we're dealing with the fact that there are things about the past that you can't prove scientifically because you weren't there, but through observation. science in the present Bill and I all have the same observation sites, we are here in the present, we can see the radioactivity, but when it comes to them talking about the past, you won't be able to prove it scientifically and that's what we have to admit, but we can be great scientists in the present like the examples I gave you of Dr.

Damadian or Dr. Stuart Burgess or Dr. Fabich and we can be investigating the present. Understanding the past is a completely different matter, Mr. Nye, wait a minute. answer uh thank you sir m uh I have to disabuse you of a fundamental idea if a scientist if someone makes a discovery that changes the way people view natural law scientists embrace it this person's fantastic louis pasteur you made reference to germs no yes If you find something that changes and doesn't agree with common thinking, that's the best thing that happens in science. We wait for that change. We challenge him.

Tell us why the universe is accelerating. Tell us why these mothers were getting sick and we will find a solution. explanation for it and uh but onlyThe idea that the majority has influence in science is true only to a certain extent and then the other thing I want to point out is that what you may have missed in the evolutionary explanations of life is the mechanism by which we add complexity that the Earth is acquiring. energy from the sun all the time and that energy is used to make life forms a little more complex a new question for you mr nye, how did consciousness arise from matter?

Don't know. This is a great mystery. A dear friend of mine is a neurologist. She studies the nature of consciousness now I'll say she used to take a joke about the dogs she loved, I mean who doesn't? and you can say, this guy commented: I've never seen a dog paralyzed by doubt, actually. Also, we have something we celebrate: there are three sundials on the planet Mars that carry an inscription about the future. We wish those who visit here a safe journey and the joy of discovery. It is inherently optimistic about the future of humanity. one day we will walk on Mars but the joy of discovery is what drives us to find out what is happening so we don't know where consciousness comes from but we want to know more, I will tell you it is deep within us.

I claim that I have spent time with dogs who have had the joy of discovering that within us we have an ancestor as close as we can imagine and, by the way, if you can find what in science we call a second genesis, that is, life begins Otherwise, on Earth there are researchers from the Astrobiology Institute, researchers supported by NASA with your tax dollars, who are looking for an answer to that same question: is it possible that life could begin in another way? Is there some kind of science fiction-like life form that is made of glass? instead of membranous, this would be a fantastic, world-changing discovery, the nature of consciousness is a mystery.

I challenge young people here to investigate that very question and remind taxpayers and voters who could be watching if we don't adopt the process. from science i mean in the mainstream we will be left behind economically this is a point i cant say it enough mr ham one minute answer uh bill i mean there is a book that documents where awareness came. and in that book, the one who created us said that he made man in his image and breathed into man and he became a living being and the Bible documents that that is where the consciousness that God gave him came from. .

We and you know, the other thing I want to say is that I'm a little bit, I have a mystery and that is that you talk about the joy of discovery, but you also say that when you die, it's over and it's the end of the year. And if when you die it's over and you don't even remember you were here, what's the point of the joy of discovery? Anyway, I mean, in an ultimate sense, I mean, you know you'll never know that you were ever here and no one else, you'll ever know that they're ever here, so what's the point?

I love the joy of discovery because this is God's creation and I am discovering more about it to take dominion for the good of man and the glory of God, Mr. Ham. question uh, this is a simple question I guess, but one that's actually quite profound for all of us in our lives, what if something ever made you change your mind? Well, the answer to that question is: I am a Christian and as a Christian I can. I won'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's where I start. I can challenge people you can go and try. that you can make predictions based on that you can verify the prophecies in the Bible you can verify the statements in genesis you can verify that and I did a little bit of that tonight and finally I can't prove that to you all I can do is tell someone to look if the bible really is what it says it is, if it really is the word of god and that's what it says then check it out and the bible says that if you come to god believing that he is, he will reveal it. himself for you and you will know as Christians we can say that we know and when it comes to the word of god, no one is going to convince me that the word of god is not true, but I want to make Here is a distinction and, for the Well Bill, we build models based on the Bible and those models are always subject to change.

The fact of Noah's flood is not subject to change. The model of how the fight occurred is subject to change. Because we look at in the world today and we can think of different ways that this could have happened or that could have happened and that is part of that scientific discovery as part of what it is about, so the end result. It's that as a Christian I have the basis, but as a Christian I would ask Bill what would change his mind. I mean, you said that even if you came to faith you would never stop believing in billions of years.

I think I quoted you correctly, you said something like that recently, so that would also be my question for billing time, Mr. Knight, we would just need proof, we would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another, we would need evidence that the universe didn't. is expanding we would need evidence that the stars appear to be very far away but are not we would need evidence that layers of rock can somehow form in just 4,000 years rather than the extraordinary amount we would need evidence that they can somehow form. resetting atomic clocks and preventing neutrons from turning into protons, you cause any of those things and you, uh, if I were to change right away, the question I have for you, though fundamentally, and for everyone watching Mr.

Hamm What can you prove? What has he done tonight? most of the time giving explanations about the past, what can really be predicted? What can really be proven? In a conventional or conventional scientific sense, I have an idea that makes a prediction and it comes out the way I see it. Uh, it's very concerning to me, Mr. Nye, a new question outside of radiometric methods. What scientific evidence supports your view of the age of the Earth? The age of the Earth. Well, the age of the stars. Let's see, the radiometric evidence is quite convincing. Also deposition rates.

It was um, it was uh lyell a geologist who noticed my memory, he came up with the first use of the term deep time when people realized that the Earth had to be much older in related history, there was a mystery as to how it is possible that the Earth is old enough to allow theevolution. How is it possible that the Earth is three billion years old? Lord Kelvin made a calculation if the Sun was made of carbon and burning it could not be more than a hundred thousand or so. years but radioactivity was discovered radioactivity is the reason why the Earth is still so hot it is the reason why the Earth has been able to maintain its internal heat for all these millennia and this discovery is something like this question if without radiometric dating how would you see the To me, the age of the Earth is similar to the expression well, if things were different, things would be different, this means that this is not how the world is radioactive.

Radiometric dating exists, neutrons become protons and that is our current level of understanding of the universe. it is accelerating these are all demonstrable facts that there was a flood four thousand years ago it is not demonstrable in fact the evidence for me, at least as a reasonable man, is overwhelming that it could not have happened there is no evidence of it furthermore, mr ham, you never fully addressed this topic of skulls, there are many steps in what appears to be the creation or emergence of you and me and those with the step theory and that is the moment mr hamm, your response, by the way , and I just want people to Understand also, you know with respect to the age of the Earth being about four and a half billion years, no Earth rocks were dated to get that date.

They dated the meteorites and because they assumed that the meteorites were the same age as the Earth that was left over from the formation of the solar system, where it came from, people believe that they dated rocks on the earth, but the four and a half billion years that It's just not true and the other point I was making and I just put this slide back up because I happen to have it here and that is I said at the end of my first rebuttal that there are hundreds of physical processes that set limits on the age of the Earth.

Here's the point, every dating method involves change over time and there are hundreds of them and if you assume what was there to begin with and you assume something about the rate and you know about the rate, you make a lot of those assumptions, every dating method dating has those assumptions, most dating methods, 90 of them contradict billions of years, there is nothing absolute. age dating method of the scientific method because you cannot scientifically prove that you are young or old and here is a new question that starts with you mr ham can you reconcile the change in the speed at which the continents are moving now how fast they must have traveled in creation six? a thousand years ago eh, sorry, I missed it.

Can you reconcile the speed at which the continents are moving today with the speed at which they would have had to travel 6,000 years ago to get where we are now? I think that's the question. It's okay, I think. I understand the question. Actually, this again illustrates exactly what I'm talking about regarding historical science and observational science. We can look at the continents today and we have scientists who have written articles about this on our website. Definitely not. I don't claim to be an expert in this area, but there are scientists, including Dr. Andrew Snelling, our PhD geologist has also done a lot of research here and there are others on plate tectonics and continental drift and we can certainly see plate movements today and if you look those movements and if you assume the way it moves today, the speed at which it moves, which has always been like this in the past, you see that it is an assumption, that is the problem when it comes to understanding these things, you can observe movement, but then assuming that it's always been that way in the past, that's historical science and in fact we would basically believe in catastrophic plate tectonics that as a result of the flooding at the time of the flooding, there was a catastrophic rupture of the surface of the Earth and what we are seeing now is a kind of remnant of that movement, so we do not deny the movement, we do not deny the plates, what we would deny is that you can use what you see today as a The basis to simply extrapolate to the past it's the same with the flood, you can say that today the layers are only deposited slowly in some places, but if there had been a global flood, that would have changed all that again, it is this emphasis on science historical and observational science.

And I would encourage people to go to our website and respond in Genesis because we have several articles, very technical articles in fact. Dr. John Baumgardner is one of those who has written a very extensive work that deals with this very topic based on the Bible of Of course, to begin with we believe that there is a continent because the waters were gathered in one place, so we believe that the continent has been divided, but particularly the flood had a lot to do with that moment in that answer from uh mr nye uh. It must have been easier for you to explain this a century ago, before the existence of plate tectonics was proven, if you go to a watch store and there are a bunch of watches, not all of them are going to say exactly the same thing, do you think We are all wrong, the reason we recognize the rate at which the continents are moving apart, one of the reasons is that we see what is called the seafloor spreading into the mid-Atlantic, the Earth's magnetic field has reversed along over the millennia and in doing so it leaves a signature in the rocks as the continental plates move apart so you can measure how fast the continents were expanding that's how we do it on the outside like I said it lived in Washington state when Mount St.

Helens exploded, that's the result of a continental plate breaking apart. under another continental plate and the cracking and this water laden rock caused a steam explosion this is how we do it outside and this is a question for you mr nye but I guess I can put it to both of you a one answer answer single word please, favorite. color I will agree with most people and say green and it is an irony that green plants reflect green light most of the light I said one more day most of the sunlight is green but they reflect it is a Well mystery, can I do it?

I have three words and you see, I had 300, you can have three, okay, observational science, blue, okay, um, we come back to you, uh, Mr. Nye, how do you balance the theory of evolution with the second law of thermodynamics and I would like to add? One question here, what is the second law of thermodynamics? Oh, the second law of thermodynamics is fantastic and I call the words of Eddington, who said: if you have a theory that doesn't agree with Isaac Newton, that's a great theory if you have a theory that doesn't agree with relativity. . you've changed the world, that's great, but if your theory doesn't agree with the second law of thermodynamics, I can't offer you any hope, I can't help you and the second law of thermodynamics is basically where you lose energy for heating, This is why car engines are about 30 percent efficient, that's thermodynamically, so you want the hottest explosion you can have in the coldest outside environment.

You have to have a difference between hot and cold and that difference can be evaluated scientifically or mathematically with this word entropy, this disorder of molecules, uh, but the fundamental thing that this questioner has overlooked is that the Earth is not a closed system, so there is energy in abundance here from the sun, if I may, day and night, because the night rains in torrents on the other side and that energy is what drives living beings on earth, especially in our case, plants, by the way, if you're here in Kentucky, about a third and maybe a half of the oxygen you breathe is produced in the ocean by phytoplankton and they get their energy from the sun, so the second law of thermodynamics is kind of wonderful that has allowed us to have everything that you see in this room because our power generation our power generation depends on the robust and extremely precise calculation of how much energy there is in the burning of fuel, whether it is nuclear fuel or fossil fuel or some extraordinary fuel that will be discovered in the future, the second law of thermodynamics will govern any turbine that produces electricity. that we all depend on and allow all these forms to exist any answer sir ham uh let me say two things if I can if a minute goes by so fast uh one is, you know what the point is we need to get it, you can have all the energy you want, except energy or matter will never produce life, the information language system imposed by God and that is how we have life.

Matter alone could never reduce life, no matter how much energy you have and you know this even if you have a dead stick. you can have all the energy in the world and that dead stick will decay and produce no life from a creationist perspective we certainly agree, I mean before man sinned you know there was digestion and so on but because of the fall. Now things are going wrong, God doesn't hold everything together like He did back then, so now that we look at the second law of thermodynamics, we would say that in a sense it's a little bit out of control now compared to with what it was originally and that is why we have a universe in decline and that is time for a new question for you, mr ham, hypothetically, if there was evidence that would make you have to admit that the earth was more than ten thousand years old and that creation did not occur for Six days would you still believe in God and the historical Jesus of Nazareth and that Jesus was the son of God?

Well, I've been emphasizing all night. You can never prove it using, you know, the scientific method in the present. You can't try the. age of the earth so you can never prove it is old so there is no hypothesis because you can't do that now we can certainly use methods in the present and make assumptions I mean creationists use methods that change Over time, as I said, there are hundreds. of physical processes that you can use, but they set limits on the age of the universe, but ultimately you can't prove the age of the Earth, not by not using the scientific method, ultimately, you can't prove the age of the universe.

You can look at the methods and you can see that there are many methods that contradict billions of years, many methods that seem to support thousands of years, as Dr. Faulkner said in the little video clip that I showed, there is nothing in observational astronomy that contradicts a young universe. Now, I've told you before and I admit again that the reason I believe in a young universe is because of the Bible's origins account. I believe that the god who has always been there, the infinite creator god, revealed in his word what he did. for us and when we add those dates together we get thousands of years, but there's nothing in observational science that contradicts that, but as far as the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, even when it comes to the fossil record, that is.

Why do I really challenge Christians? If you are going to believe in millions of years for the fossil record, you have a problem with the Bible and that is that then you have to have death, disease and suffering before sin, so there is It is not hypothetical in that it cannot be scientifically proven the age of the Earth or the universe. Mr. Knight, well, of course, this is where we disagree. You can prove the age of the Earth very robustly by looking at the universe around us. and I have the feeling, Mr. He, that he wants us to take his word for it, that is, his interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago translated into American English is more convincing to you than anything I can observe in the world. around me this is where we are you and I think we are not going to agree you said that you stated that life cannot come from something that is not alive are you sure?

Are you sure enough to say that we shouldn't keep looking for signs? of water and life on Mars that that is a waste, are you sure enough to say that it is an extraordinary claim that we want to investigate once again what is it that you can predict what you provide us that can tell us something about the The future is not about only from his vision of the past. A new question. Mr. Nye, is there a place for God in science? Well, let's remember that there are billions of people around the world who are religious and accept science and embrace it, and especially all the technology that it contains. brings us Is there anyone here who doesn't have a mobile phone with a camera?

Is there anyone here whose family has not benefited from modern medicine? Is there anyone here who doesn't use email? Is there anyone here who doesn't use email? We eat because we use information sent from satellites in space to plant seeds on our farms, that's how we can feed 7.1 billion people where before we could barely feed a billion, so that's what I see, that's what that we have used science or the process, science for me is two things, it is the set of knowledge, the atomic number of rubidium and it is the process, the means by which we make these discoveries, so toTo me that's not really that connected to your belief in a spiritual being or higher power.

If you reconcile those two scientists, the director of the National Institutes of Health is a devout Christian, there are billions of people in the world who are devoutly religious, they have to be compatible because those same people consider science to be the exception. Is that you, Mr. Ham, is that the problem for me? Do you want us to take your word that what is written in this ancient text is more compelling than what we see around us? Evidence of a higher power and spirituality are separate to me. I invite you to do so. take the next minute and address this fossil problem, this ice sheet problem, this ancient tree problem, this ark problem, I mean, really address it and then we can move forward, but right now I don't see any incompatibility between religions and science sir ham an answer yes I actually want to take a minute to address the question and uh let me say this my answer would be God is necessary for science in fact you know you talked about cell phones yes, I have a cell phone that I love. technology, a lot of technology here in answers in genesis and I have emails and I probably had millions of them while I was talking here and satellites and what you said about you know the information that we receive, hey, I agree with everyone who sees.

They are the things that can be done in the present and that is how I showed Dr. Stewart Burgess, who invented that equipment. Satellite creationists may be great scientists, but I say that God is necessary because it must be assumed. the laws of logic you have to assume the laws of nature you have to assume the uniformity of nature and that was a question I had for you, where does that come from if the universe is here by natural processes, and you already know Christianity and science the bible and science go hand in hand we love science but again you have to understand making things up that is very different from talking about our origins two very different things sir ham a new question do you think the entire bible should be taken literally?

For example, if people who touch pigskin, I think it says here, are stoned, can men marry multiple women? Do I think the entire Bible should be taken literally? Well, remember in my opening speech I said we have to define our terms so that when people ask that question. to say literally I have to know what that person meant by literally now I would say this if you say naturally and that's what you mean by literally I would say yes, I take the Bible naturally, what do I mean by that? Well, if it is history, what is the genesis?

It is written as a typical historical narrative, you take it as history, if it is poetry, as we find in the psalms, then you take it as poetry, it does not mean that it does not teach the truth, but it is not a cosmological account in the sense that The Genesis is that there is prophecy in the Bible, um, and there is literature in the Bible that you know about future events, etc., if you take it as naturally written according to the type of literature and let it speak to you that way, that is. How I take the Bible is God's revelation to man.

He used different people and the Bible says that all the Scriptures are inspired by God, so God moved people by his spirit to write his words and also there are many misunderstandings regarding the Scriptures. to the israelites i mean we have laws in our civil government here in america that the government sets well there are certain laws for israel and you know some people take all of that out of context and then try to impose it on us today as christians and say that you should obey those laws it's a misunderstanding of the old testament it's a misunderstanding of the new testament and you know again it's important to take the bible as a whole interpreting the scriptures writing if it's really the word of god uh then it doesn't work There's no contradiction that I say no and, by the way, when men married multiple women there were many problems and the Bible condemns that for what it is and the Bible is very clear.

You know, the Bible is a real book. people who did things that were not in court with the Scriptures and this records it for us, it helps them understand that it is a real book, but the marriage was from a man to a woman. Jesus reiterated that in Matthew 19, as I said in my talk, and those who I married multiple women, it was the wrong time, Mr. Nye answers, so it seems to me that just listening to you for the last two minutes there are certain parts of this document of the Bible that you embrace literally, in other parts you consider poetry, so it seems to me. in those last two minutes you are going to take what you like to interpret literally, in other passages you are going to interpret it as poetic or descriptions of human events, all that aside, I will just say scientifically or as a Reasonable Man, it does not seem possible that all these things that contradict your literal interpretation of those early passages, all those things that contradict that, bother me when you want me to accept the rest as literal now, as I say.

I'm not a theologian, but we started this debate. Is Ken Ham's creation model viable? Does it retain water? Can fly? Does it describe something? And I'm still looking for an answer and time for that. Sir and I, here's a new question. Believe. This was misspelled here because they repeated a word, but I think I know what they were trying to ask. Have you ever believed that evolution was achieved through a higher power? I think that's what they're trying to ask here. is the question about intelligent design, I think if so, why or why not, why couldn't the evolutionary process be achieved this way, okay, I think you may have changed the question a little bit, all okay, the word for word question is, have you ever believed? that evolution participated through the path of evolution uh uh I think I thought let me present these ideas for Mr.

Ham to comment on uh the idea that there is a higher power that has driven the course of events in the universe in the universe and our very existence is one that cannot be proven or disproved and this falls under this expression agnostic, it cannot be known, I will accept it, I grant you that when it comes to intelligent design, if I understand your interpretation of the question, intelligent design has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of nature, that is, the old expression is that if you found a clock in the countryside and picked it up, you would realize that it was created by someone who was thinking about the future, someone with an organizational chart with someone above and ordered screws from screw manufacturers and springs from spring manufacturers and glass crystals from crystal manufacturers, but that's not how nature works.

This is the fundamental idea in the explanation of living beings provided by evolution. Evolution is a process that adds complexity. through natural selection, that is, nature has its mediocre designs devoured by its good designs, so the perception that there is one designer who created all of this is not necessarily true because we have an explanation that is much more convincing and It provides predictions and things are repeatable I'm sure Mr. Ham here at the facility you have an organizational chart I imagine you are at the top and it is a top down structure nature is not like that nature is bottom up this is the discovery the things merge whatever makes it go on whatever doesn't make it go away and this is compelling and wonderful and fills me with joy and it's inconsistent with a top down view and that's the moment, mr ham, it What Bill Nye needs to do for me is show me an example of something, some new function that arose that was not possible before from the genetic information that was there, and I would claim and challenge that there is no such example that I can give, that is.

That's why I mentioned the example in my presentation of Valensky's experiments regarding e coli and there were some that seemed to develop the ability to exist in citrate, but as dr. Favich, looking at his research, discovered that that information was already there, it's just a gene that turns on and off, so there is no example. Because you know information that is in the genetic information of different animals, plants, etc., there is no new feature that can be added, there is certainly a lot of variation within a type and that is what we look at, but you would have to show an example of a new feature that was never possible before there is no example I can give anywhere of the world a new question here mr ham name one institution, company or organization other than a church amusement park or creation museum that is using any aspect of creationism to produce its product, any Christian or non-Christian scientist who is involved in inventing things involved in a scientific method is using creation, they are because they are borrowing from a Christian worldview, they are using the laws of logic that I follow. emphasizing that I want Bill to tell me a vision of the universe as a result of natural processes.

He explains where the laws of logic come from. Why should we trust the laws of nature? I mean, will they be the same tomorrow? as they were yesterday, in fact, some of the greatest scientists who ever lived isaac newton james clark maxwell michael faraday were creationists and as one of them said, you know that he is thinking the thoughts of god after him and that It's really modern science really emerged from that thought that we can do experiments today and we can do the same thing tomorrow we can trust the laws of logic we can trust the laws of nature and if we don't properly teach our children about this they won't be innovative. and they will be I'm not going to be able to come up with inventions to advance our culture, so I think the person was trying to get out, you know, there are a lot of secularists out there working and they don't believe. in creation and they come up with great inventions, yes, but what I mean is that they are borrowing from the Christian worldview to do it and as you saw in the quotes in the video that I gave to people like andrew fabich and also dr. faulkner, have published in secular magazines, there are many.

Of the creationists who publish, people can tell they are creationists because the topic is not specifically about creation versus evolution, but there are a lot of them, if I go to our website, there is a whole list of scientists who are creationists. who are doing great work in this world and helping to advance technology, sir gentleman, there is one reason why I don't accept the Kenham creation model is that it doesn't have any predictive quality like you would mention and something like that. that I've always worried you, it sounds like and next time you can correct me, it sounds like you believe that your worldview, which is a literal interpretation of most of the Bible, is correct, well, what happened to all that people I've never heard of, I've never heard of you, what became of all those people in Asia, what became of all those first nations people in North America, were they convicted and condemned, I mean, I don't know. how much time you spent talking to strangers, but them.

It is not optimistic about it that you tell them that they are inherently lost or wrong, it is very worrying and you say that there are no examples in nature, there are countless examples of how the process of science makes predictions mr nye, since evolution teaches that man is evolving. and becoming more intelligent over time, how can the numerous evidences of man's high intelligence in the past be explained? Wait, there is no evidence that men or humans are getting smarter, no, especially if you ever met my old boss, no, that's what happens in evolution and it's a British word that was used in the mid of the 19th century, it is survival of the fittest and in this usage it does not mean that the most push-ups or the highest scores on standardized tests means that those that best fit our intellect, as such it has allowed us to master the world, I mean um, the evidence of humans is everywhere james cameron just made another trip to the bottom of the ocean, the deepest part of the ocean, for the first time since 1960 and when they made the first trip, i found a can of beer humans are everywhere and that is why it is our ability to reason that has brought us to where we are now if a germ appears as it did, for example, in the first world war, where more people died from the flu than those who died. by the combatants in the First World War, which is a worrying and remarkable fact, if the right germ appears, we will be eliminated, we will be eliminated.

Being smarter is not a necessary consequence of evolution, so far it seems that way. because the remarkable advantage it gives us is that we can control our environment and even change it as we are doing today seemingly by accident, so everyone take a little time and understand this fundamental idea: how you fit in with the nature around you. As the world changes as it did, for example, ancient dinosaurs were wiped out by a ball ofworld fire apparently caused by an impactor, that is the best area we have and we are the result of people of organisms that live that catastrophe, it is not necessarily smarter, it is how you fit into your environment sir ham an answer I remember uh in college one of my professors was very excited to give us some evidence of evolution he said look at this here is an example these fish have developed the ability to not see and he was I'm going to give an example of blind cave fish and he said look in this cave , they are evolving because now those who live there, their ancestors had eyes and now these are blind and I remember speaking first, but wait a minute. now they can't do something they could do before, yes, they could have an advantage in this regard in a dark situation like that, those with eyes could have contracted diseases and died, those who had mutations without eyes are the ones. that survived is not the survival of the fittest it is the survival of those who survive and it is the survival of those who have the information in that circumstance to survive, but it is not that you are not getting new information, you are not getting a new function, no there is no example of that. not at all, so we need to get these things right, okay, we're on to our final question here, which I'll give to both of you and in the interest of fairness because it's a question for both of you. each man two minutes on this, if we can, and also for the sake of you having started first, mr ham, I will have you start first, here is the first word, sir, and I will have the last word, the question is what is the only thing. more than anything else that you base your belief on, it's the only thing that I base my belief on well again to summarize the things that I've been saying and there is a book called the Bible, very unique books, very different from any other. book out there, in fact, I don't know of any other religion that has a book that starts by telling you that there is an infinite god and talks about the origin of the universe and the origin of matter and the origin of light and the origin of darkness and the origin of day and night and the origin of the earth the origin of dry land and the origin of plants the origin of the sun the moon and the stars the origin of sea creatures the origin of flying creatures the origin of the terrestrial creatures the origin of man the origin of woman the origin of death the origin of sin the origin of marriage the origin of different languages ​​the origin of clothing the origin of nations I mean it is a very, very book specific and gives us an account of a global flood situation in history and the tower of babel and if that story is true then what happens to the rest of the book?

Well, that story also says that man is a sinner and it says that man is separated from God and it gives us a message that Call the gospel the message of salvation that the son of God entered history tonight on a cross, He will rise from the dead and offers a free gift of salvation because the story is true, so the message based on the story is true. In fact I went through some predictions and listed others and there is much more that you can see and you can try it for yourself if this book is really true it is so specific it should explain the world it should make sense of what we see the flood yes we have fossils all over the world, the tower of babel, yes, different groups of people, different languages, they have flood legends very similar to the bible, creation legends similar to the bible, there are so many things you can see and prophesy, etc. , and above all, as I told you, the Bible.

It says that if you come to God believing that he is, he will reveal himself to you, you will know that if you seek the truth, you really want God to show you as you search for silver and gold, he will show you, he will reveal himself to you. Mr. Knight, could you repeat the question? The question is what is the one thing you base your beliefs on? As my old professor Carl Sagan said so often. When you are in love you want to tell the world and I base my beliefs on the information and the process we call science.

It fills me with joy to make discoveries every day of things I have never seen before. It fills me with joy to know that we can search for these answers. It is a wonderful thing. and amazing me that we are you and I in some way at least one of the ways the universe knows itself you and I are a product of the universe it's amazing, I admit it, I see your faces, that we have come to be because to the existence of the universe and us. we are driven to pursue that to find out where we come from and the second question we all want to know: are we alone? are we alone in the universe? and these questions are deep within us and drive us to follow the process of science the way we know how. nature is the most compelling to me and I just want to end by reminding everyone what is at stake here if we abandon everything our ancestors have learned, what they learned about nature and our place in it if we abandon the process by which we do it.

We know if we are clever if we let go of everything that people have learned before us if we stop moving forward stop looking for the next answer to the next question we in the United States will be surpassed by other countries economies now that would be fine I guess, but I was born here. I am a patriot, so we have to embrace science education for the voters and taxpayers who are watching, please keep this in mind, we have to keep science education in science and science classes. a little bit of important cleanup for everyone here, the county is now under a level two snow emergency, drive home safely, you'll have a lot to talk about, but drive safely, this debate will be archived on debatelive.org, that's it debatelive.org, one word.

It will be there for several days so you can encourage your friends and family to see it and take ownership of it. Many thanks to mr nye and mr ham for an excellent discussion. I'm Tom Foreman, thank you. Good evening from Petersburg Kentucky and the Creation Museum