Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

AIG answers Bill Nye - Bill Nye's Crusade for Your Kids

Posted by   + Show Post
“Bill Nye the Science Guy”® of PBS-TV fame1 is crusading to capture your children’s minds for evolution. His recent YouTube video “Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children”—viewed over 2.3 million times during its first week online—has revealed his strong evolutionary bias and his own blind spot. Nye pleads with adults to keep their creationism to themselves. “Bill Nye the Science Guy® wants to make sure your kids believe evolution as fact,” explains Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham. “Be warned—he is out to get your kids for evolution. Watching this short video, you will see that he shows no understanding of the difference between historical science and observational science. He really should be called ‘Bill Nye—the evolution guy.’” And if you (like Nye) are a little fuzzy on the difference between these two approaches to scientific inquiry, please keep reading!

In this second YouTube video, Ken Ham responds to intolerant Bill Nye defenders who did not like that our YouTube videos had the comments disabled (3:26 minutes).
Nye’s programs seen on PBS-TV and elsewhere have for years done a marvelous job of explaining experimental (operational, or observational) science to children. Parents and teachers have been delighted to see youngsters who watch them get excited about science. Experimental science is the kind of science that invents new technology, figures out how things work, and finds cures for disease. However, some of Nye’s programs have ventured into historical (or origins) science—the kind of science that draws conclusions about the untestable, unrepeatable, unobservable past. And his conclusions about our origins are based on his worldview, a secular (humanistic) worldview2 with a prior commitment to reject the eyewitness account God provided in the Bible. For instance, I recall watching his program about dinosaurs with my children. In it he and his assistant repeatedly declared that dinosaurs did not live at the same time as people.3 Yet God reported in Genesis that He created all kinds of land animals on the same day He created Adam and Eve, and dinosaurs are land animals. Who are we to believe, Bill Nye (who wasn’t there, knows next to nothing when compared with all there is to know, and makes mistakes) or God (who was there and knows all things, and never makes mistakes)?
Nye indicates that today’s children must believe in evolution if our country is to remain tomorrow’s leader in technology. Curiously, after saying that “denial of evolution is unique to the United States” (an erroneous statement, by the way, as we show in our video response to Nye) he went on to say the United States has the world’s most advanced technology due to “the general understanding of science,” equating understanding science with believing in evolution. Then he added, “When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.” But Nye fails to address how our country, held back by a contingent of evolution-denying people, could ever have risen to such a glorious technological height in the first place.
Next, Nye—who holds a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, which is in the realm of operational, not historical, science—made another erroneous statement. He said, “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.” This is of course reminiscent of the popular but mythical Darwinian aphorism, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”4 The most fundamental law that is observable in biology, the law of biogenesis, indicates that life only arises from living things. Yet evolutionists like Nye claim life randomly created itself from non-living elements. Despite this blatant contradiction between Nye’s statement and this incontrovertible law of observational biological science and the fact that scientists have never observed life coming from non-life, Nye considers evolution the most fundamental of biological laws.

Bill Nye did make a brief (two minute) trip to the Creation Museum property in January 2011 while in the area for a speaking engagement. Sadly, he did not choose to tour the Museum or even to come inside. Since the lobby of the museum features animatronic children and dinosaurs together—a strict violation of a principle taught on a Nye television program—he would have doubtless not found it to his taste. Had he toured, however, and perhaps spent some time speaking with any of Answers in Genesis scientists holding earned doctoral degrees in geology, astronomy, medicine, cell biology, molecular genetics and the history of geology, perhaps he would have respected, if not the biblical basis for creation, at least the scientific basis for the positions creation scientists take. Or perhaps not. At any rate, Nye did not avail himself of that opportunity but only drove onto the museum property, snapped a photo, and left. So much for honest, intellectual (really, scientific) investigation before drawing conclusions!
In a follow-up interview with CBS, Nye said, “Religion is one thing, but science, provable science is something else.”5 Indeed, science and religion—or biblical Christianity in this instance—are not the same, yet if both reveal truth, they will not conflict. Nye went on to further demonstrate his lack of discernment concerning the difference between experimental science and historical science as he elaborated on what he considers “provable science.” He said, “My concern is you don’t want people growing up not believing in radioactivity, not believing in geology and deep time. You don’t want people in the United Sates growing up without the expectation that we can land spacecraft on Mars. You want people to believe in science, this process, this great idea that humans had to discover more about the universe and our place in it, our place in space.”5 As a tour of the Creation Museum or a serious reading of articles and books featured on the Answers in Genesis website and bookstore will reveal, however, creation scientists do “believe in” geology and radioactivity and space exploration. What we as biblical creationists do not accept are interpretations of geological, biological, anthropological, genetic, astronomical, and radiometric data that are based on unverifiable assumptions about the past and deny God’s eyewitness account of events (e.g., Creation Week, the Fall of man, Noah’s Flood, the Tower of Babel).
“Provable science” is performed in the present. Historical science involves interpreting scientific data through the filter of what you already believe about the unobservable past. Nye reminds us in his video that Carl Sagan was one of his college professors. Nye’s worldview accords with Sagan’s, who believes, “The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”6 Sagan and Nye were not present during “deep time,” nor was any other scientist. “Deep time” cannot therefore be subject to “provable science.” Their declarations about “deep time” (their interpretations of scientific data) are based on their prior commitment to believe that there could be no Creator and that the Bible is untrue, a commitment nicely summarized by another famous evolutionist, Richard Lewontin. Lewontin wrote the following:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.7
And what in the Bible’s account does Nye find so difficult to accept? He provided an example in another interview, saying, “The bible, as translated into English, claims that the Sun lights the day, and the Moon lights the night. . . . To my ear, it doesn’t seem as though the author realized that the Moon’s light is reflected sunlight.”5 Yet biblical creationists do not think the moon produces its own light, the biblical text does not state or even imply that, and Bible-believing Christians do not teach their children that. Nye is imposing a nonsensical meaning to the words of Scripture and to the beliefs of creation scientists (whether concerning the nature of the moon or the possibilities of space exploration) and then mocking them. So much for careful, accurate, intellectual debate.

Bill Nye, the charismatic “Science Guy” of PBS-TV fame, keeps busy these days crusading for science literacy. Nye is pictured here delivering a May 2012 lecture at Ohio State University (where Answers in Genesis speaker and researcher Georgia Purdom earned her PhD in molecular genetics). The previous year he dropped by the Creation Museum property but opted not to enter or speak with the staff. Unfortunately, he erroneously equates science literacy with believing evolutionary dogma. Image courtesy of Doobie Jefferson.8
Nye said in his video, “Your world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution. . . . The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us.” Evolutionary belief, however, is a worldview that attempts without any corroborating eyewitness account to explain the origin of life and all things without a Creator. This “deep time” is extrapolated from, as Nye said in the video, “ancient dinosaur bones or fossils . . . radioactivity . . . [and] distant stars,” but it is an interpretation of observed data based entirely on anti-biblical and unverifiable assumptions about the past.
Time, for evolutionists, is “the hero of the plot.”9 Time—“billions of years” Nye claims—“explains so much.” Actually, time doesn’t explain anything. Evolutionary beliefs represent an attempt to explain the origin of life by assuming that given enough time anything can randomly create itself. Yet evolutionary beliefs cannot explain the origin of life from non-living elements through undirected natural processes. This is because evolutionary beliefs—those beliefs Nye asserts our children must accept—offer no natural observable process that can explain the origin of genetic information (stored in the DNA molecule of every plant, animal, and human) through random natural processes. Furthermore, evolutionary scientists have not been able to produce any undisputed transitional fossil forms to substantiate their contention that organisms evolved from simpler kinds, much less explain how the first living cell could arise in the first place.10
Time doesn’t solve these problems; in fact, time is an enemy of evolution, because the more time you have, the more mutations there are, which destroy functional genetic information. But evolutionists continue to assure us that their conclusions about the unobservable past are factual. Since we exist, they believe we must have gotten here through evolution. How? Because, they think, over “billions of years” anything—even things we never observe in the present—could happen.
And where do Nye and fellow evolutionists find those billions of years? “Here is radioactivity. Here are distant stars,” Nye says. Yet a close look at “distant stars” reveals a variety of stars but not how they got there. Big bang cosmology suffers from significant scientific problems of its own.11 Likewise, radiometric dating methods are based on a series of demonstrably faulty assumptions and often produce unreliable and inconsistent results. (See Radiometric Dating: Back to Basics, Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions, and Radiometric Dating: Making Sense of the Patterns to learn more.) And Nye’s “ancient dinosaur bones or fossils” are dated based on the radiometric dates of nearby rock layers. And evolutionists seem unwilling to use the dating methods that could expose the myth of millions of years for the age of those dinosaurs bones.12 Even molecular dating in genetics is based on presumed mutation rates, the untenable belief that mutations can create new genetic information, and the evolutionary dates already assigned to fossils. Evolution appears to “explain so much” because evolutionary reasoning is circular.
On the other hand, God’s Word provides an eyewitness account of our origins and of events—such as the global Flood—that make sense of the world around us. Animals and plants reproduce after their kinds, just as Genesis describes. They produce incredible variety within each kind, but one kind doesn’t change into a different kind. And the geologic column makes sense as a record of the catastrophic burial of countless organisms during the cataclysmic destruction of habitats all over the world by Noah’s Flood. (Read more in Chapter 31: Doesn’t the Order of Fossils in the Rock Record Favor Long Ages?)
Nye’s belief that “billions . . . explains so much” is based on circular reasoning and unverifiable assumptions. God’s Word, however, explains our origins, what we see in the world, and even why we are the intelligent yet sinful creatures we are—all on the authority of the God who has always been here and always tells the truth. Nye claims, “There is no evidence for it”—God’s explanation for what we see. But he is wrong. The evidence affirming God’s explanation is all around us and even beneath our feet in the fossil record (Romans 1:18–20). And it’s also in our conscience (Romans 2:14–16).
Nye predicts gloom and doom for our country if we don’t train up our children to accept evolution. He claims acceptance of evolutionary beliefs is essential if they are to be “scientifically literate voters and taxpayers . . . engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.” Yet engineers build technological solutions for today’s problems and physicians discover the causes and cures for diseases and deformities by “doing science” in the present world—making observations, developing and testing hypotheses, trying out their ideas repeatedly in controlled circumstances. It is irrational and unscientific to think that the technology was made by intelligent engineers, but the bodies of the engineers and all other living creatures were made by a blind, purposeless, directionless process called evolution.
Furthermore, scientific progress does not rely on acceptance of evolution. (In fact, as retired internist and creationist Dr. Tommy Mitchell discusses in “Evolution and Medicine,” evolutionary beliefs can actually hinder medical progress. The remarkable accomplishments of eminent Johns Hopkins physician and creationist Dr. Benjamin Carson is a recent testimony to the fact that acceptance of molecules-to-man evolution is unnecessary for medical progress, even in an area where evolutionists claim to have great insight—development defects. (Read about the controversy surrounding Dr. Carson’s statements about both science and the logical basis for morality in News to Note, May 26, 2012.)
Nye’s mission is to “foster a scientifically literate society, to help people everywhere understand and appreciate the science that makes our world work.”13 Science literacy includes the ability to discern the difference between experimental science that draws conclusions based on observable, testable, controllable, repeatable investigations—“the science that makes our world work”—and historical, or origins, science which tries to reconstruct the unobserved past. Our world is already here. We cannot go back and test or observe its origins. And accepting the worldview of those who reject the eyewitness account of the Creator of the universe does not improve anyone’s ability to build things that work, only their ability to spin more just-so mythological stories about the past.
Be sure to catch Ken Ham’s comments in yesterday’s blog post, “Time is Nye for rebuttal.” There Ken reminds readers why we care what children are taught about God their Creator. Ken wrote the folowing:
We teach children and adults the truth concerning who they are in the Creator’s eyes—and where they came from. And we tell people that they do have purpose and meaning in life, and that they were created for a purpose. Our Creator loves us, even while we are sinners (for we have all sinned in Adam). Christ paid the penalty for our sin and offers a free gift of salvation. No, we are not just evolved animals as Nye believes; we are all made in the image of God.”
We’ve heard in Nye’s video why he says he cares what children believe. Nye’s worldview rejects the Creator’s Word revealed in the Bible as the ultimate basis for determining right and wrong, good and bad. In Nye’s worldview, therefore, each individual determines what is good and desirable, what is a disservice to children and to the country, and even what sort of things he should care about. By claiming to represent what is “best” for kids and to tell parents what is the “right” thing to do, Nye is really borrowing from a “biblical” worldview. (See Morality and the Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview for more about this distinction.)
But let’s listen to what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by whom all things were created (Colossians 1:16–17), says about how the way we view God’s testimony in Genesis (recorded by Moses) affects the way we view Him, our Savior. Jesus said the following:
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My word? (John 5:46–47)
And let’s listen to what He said about children.
At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me. But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:1–6)
Woe to Christian or non-Christian evolutionists who destroy children’s faith in Christ and His Word.
What we teach children does make a difference. That’s why God’s Word in Proverbs 22:6 commands us to “train up a child in the way he should go.” In fact, biblically sound instruction is not to be reserved for Sunday morning alone. God told the Israelites in Deuteronomy 6:6–9 that His Word should be a part of every aspect of their children’s lives, diligently taught. And Paul commended Timothy’s mother and grandmother when he remarked, “From childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15). Therefore, on the ground of biblical authority, Christian parents today who heed Nye’s advice, encourage their children to accept evolution, and keep their biblical beliefs to themselves are abdicating their God-given responsibility, robbing their children of God’s best, and endangering their eternal well-being.
Don’t miss watching and sharing the Answers in Genesis video “Bill Nye, Creationism is Highly Appropriate for our Children” rebutting Nye on YouTube. It features Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom. Dr. Purdom has a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University and was a biology professor at Mount Vernon Nazarene University. Dr. Menton has a PhD in cell biology from Brown University. He is an Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine where he trained medical students for 34 years before retiring to come work for Answers in Genesis. They are clearly qualified to share their insights on creation science and science education, being experienced professionals at the highest levels of their fields. Watch their video and please share it with others who might be deceived by the charismatic Science Guy’s “smoke and mirrors” reasoning.

Listen to veteran educators Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom share their insights about Bill Nye’s claims on this YouTube video prepared especially to respond to Nye’s crusade to capture kids for evolution.
For more information about some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation see Creation scientists and other biographies of interest. Scientists like those on staff at Answers in Genesis, those on this list, Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Benjamin Carson (mentioned above), and many others stand on the shoulders of some of the “greats” in the history of science—like Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, and James Clerk Maxwell. These men believed in a Creator God and expected to find His orderly handiwork in the world of science. Despite Bill Nye’s assertions, a worldview that honors God as Creator of the universe and the physical laws in it did not hold these scientists back at all but rather was the very foundation on which they built their scientific understanding.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/08/30/bill-nye-crusade-for-your-kids
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
by on Oct. 6, 2012 at 5:04 PM
Replies (151-160):
MyJaidonreturns
by Bronze Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 11:53 AM
1 mom liked this
Ok, katz, allow me to extend an olive branch. That rude comment was a result of my frustration with all the bible thumping and intolerance that I see with (not you in particular) Christians. While what I said about religion as a whole is my truth, I do not believe that people of faith are stupid, because I once was a devoutly religious person. I gave up Catholicism and I have recieved much hate from my once friends and family, its a really isolating and frustrating feeling. You didnt deserve that though. No, I am not always a jerk.



Quoting katzmeow726:

it wasn't a contest to begin with.  And I wasn't looking for your empathy.  Yes, hun, calling someone's beliefs "crap" is being a jerk.  I'm sure you aren't always this way, but yes you're acting like a jerk.  And yes, I'm aware you said "many christians."  Again, that lovely tone of yours made it seem as if you included me in those "many christians."

You can keep your empathy, and victory.  I don't need them.  

Quoting MyJaidonreturns:

Lol. Im far from new. I didnt assume anything. I said "Many Christians" not "You". You constantly calling me a jerk and throwing little insults isnt helping me empathize with you either. But I will stop quoting you now, so you can be happy with yourself in thinking you won this argument.

Quoting katzmeow726:

You must be new here.

I regularly get accused by the fundies of being a bad christian for defending Islam, paganism, Buddhism, and yes...even Atheism.  And yes, tone, you don't need a voice to have tone. Ever take a literature class...I'm sure you have.  One of the elements of a novel is tone, is it not?  Tone can come through clearly in words as it can in voice. 

  I'm not saying you can't hold your own beliefs.  I'm saying you don't have to be a jerk when expressing them.  It's not the beliefs I have an issue with, it's the attitude. 


But you're welcome to keep assuming I don't respect other faiths (or lack of faith).  

Quoting MyJaidonreturns:

Tone? I thought we were typing, not talking. Of course you have a right to call me out because you dont like what I said. Lol. Many Christians feel God gives them the right to express their strong opinions about what things, even if they are rude. Let someone say religion is stupid, referring to Christianity, not other beliefs, mind you, then its an issue.





Quoting katzmeow726:

You certainly did misjudge me.  It's obvious you think you found someone who has as much a distaste for religion as you do, as evidenced buy the massive change in tone in how you are responding to me on here.  

I think there is a fine line between expressing belief, and being an outright jerk.  In your case, it sounds like you can't see the line.  

Opinion/belief: Christian beliefs have no evidence, and I can not accept them.

Being a jerk : Religion is crap.


Although to be fair, I think you're right, religion has a lot of issues.  Faith and spirituality, on the other hand, is different.  YOu are within your right to not believe.  Heck, you're even entitled to be a jerk about it.  But that also means I have a right to call out your rude behavior.

Quoting MyJaidonreturns:

I wasnt misjudging, I really dont care what your faith is. You can defend your faith all you want. I wont chang my mind nor will I apologize. You have your right to be Christian, as I have my right to say religion is crap.








Quoting katzmeow726:

Don't misjudge me.  While I do believe in Evolution, I am also a christian, and I do not appreciate my faith being described as fables and fairy tales.  I lean on the side of intelligent design.  I agree with Nye, that science is important, and will make sure my kids understand that.

Quoting MyJaidonreturns:

The words "evolutionary" and "bias" put together is whats really cracking me the hell up. This creationism vs. evolution isnt even a huge issue in many other countries. You dont want your kid learning about science, put them in a fundamentalist schools. Other parents, like myself, am all for my kids learning about science and logic, instead of fables and fairy tales. People have no clue how far we can go as a species if we start putting an emphasis on critical thinking and stop dancing for rain.




Quoting katzmeow726:

"His recent youtube video...has revealed his strong evolutionary bias"


This made me laugh...he has never hidden his support for evolution.  The man has been a massive name in science since I can remember, how is that we need it to be revealed that he supports evolution?  I mean heck, he has been quoted numerous times recently that he feels evolution is a vitally important subject in education. It didn't reveal jack squat...it just confirmed what people knew.  He's a scientist, and supports science explicitly.  How is this a surprise to people? 



















Posted on CafeMom Mobile
cammibear
by Gold Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM
What physical law naturally and spontaneously generates life?

What physical law invented language or biological codes (information)?

I have no idea what you are looking for in the way of a definition of information. What I'm not looking for is diversification or variation within gene pools of the same kind. That only supports microevolution and that natural selection and adaption preserve gene pools (ain't God neat? ;).

It doesn't, however, provide any evidence for macroevolution, or the information needed to change one kind into another. That would take new information, not just an adaption to the information already there.


Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting cammibear:

Actually, it's the physical laws that are in contradiction with evolution. 

You have yet to answer the questions waiting for you in other threads, asking you to back up that assertion.

I am, I believe, still waiting for you to provide a usable definition of information that gives a number for the amount of information in a particular gene pool.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 12:38 PM
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:

Actually, it's the physical laws that are in contradiction with evolution. 
What physical law naturally and spontaneously generates life?

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

MyJaidonreturns
by Bronze Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Im gonna stop making myself to look like an ass by trying to be the bigger person since obviously being catty is much more interesting.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:

I am, I believe, still waiting for you to provide a usable definition of information that gives a number for the amount of information in a particular gene pool.

I have no idea what you are looking for in the way of a definition of information.

There are several possible definitions.   One standard academic one would be via consideration of the Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity of the data, and the number of bits needed to encode a minimum message length compressed version of it.

If you're happy with that, we can progress.

(if you're not familiar with information theory, you might want to browse:

)


Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Quoting MyJaidonreturns:

 being catty is much more interesting.

Um, no, not really.  Personal insults tend to get threads locked, which would be a pity.   Why not take the spat to a new thread, or even private messaging?

romalove
by Roma on Oct. 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM

 

Quoting MyJaidonreturns:

Im gonna stop making myself to look like an ass by trying to be the bigger person since obviously being catty is much more interesting.

 I don't know what prompted this response but I liked your olive branch.  :-)

romalove
by Roma on Oct. 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting cammibear:

What physical law naturally and spontaneously generates life?

What physical law invented language or biological codes (information)?

I have no idea what you are looking for in the way of a definition of information. What I'm not looking for is diversification or variation within gene pools of the same kind. That only supports microevolution and that natural selection and adaption preserve gene pools (ain't God neat? ;).

It doesn't, however, provide any evidence for macroevolution, or the information needed to change one kind into another. That would take new information, not just an adaption to the information already there.


Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting cammibear:

Actually, it's the physical laws that are in contradiction with evolution. 

You have yet to answer the questions waiting for you in other threads, asking you to back up that assertion.

I am, I believe, still waiting for you to provide a usable definition of information that gives a number for the amount of information in a particular gene pool.


 Funny story:  when I first saw this title, I thought "why would an insurance company be answering Bill Nye".  LOL

Anywhoo, AIG is "ANSWERS in Genesis", and that means it has answers, and apparently it has all the answers.  We don't, as a species, have all the answers.  Just because we might not have an answer to a question that's asked, it doesn't mean we have to accept whatever answer is in Genesis as "truth".  I think that's part of where we have a communication breakdown.  You seem to think there are answers to everything, and I know that so far there aren't. 

Science says "keep looking" and religion says "look only here".

12hellokitty
by Platinum Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM

 

Curious as to what you see as incompatible with the bible regarding what Clairwil is proposing? 


 

Quoting cammibear:

What physical law naturally and spontaneously generates life?

What physical law invented language or biological codes (information)?

I have no idea what you are looking for in the way of a definition of information. What I'm not looking for is diversification or variation within gene pools of the same kind. That only supports microevolution and that natural selection and adaption preserve gene pools (ain't God neat? ;).

It doesn't, however, provide any evidence for macroevolution, or the information needed to change one kind into another. That would take new information, not just an adaption to the information already there.


Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting cammibear:

Actually, it's the physical laws that are in contradiction with evolution. 

You have yet to answer the questions waiting for you in other threads, asking you to back up that assertion.

I am, I believe, still waiting for you to provide a usable definition of information that gives a number for the amount of information in a particular gene pool.



cammibear
by Gold Member on Oct. 8, 2012 at 1:07 PM
I'm not asking you to agree with it. I'm asking you to understand it, so we can discuss it. That's all. :)



Quoting 12hellokitty:

Sorry I strongly disagree with dispensationalism.




Quoting cammibear:

Instead of trying to explain the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic approach to interpreting scripture, if you don't mind, I'll just point you to a person I think explains it very well.


http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/25/25.pdf





There seems to be some misunderstanding on what is meant by a literal approach.





And no, Jesus was obviously not speaking literally when he said to "eat of my flesh". ;) lol















Quoting 12hellokitty:

Ham holds his entire belief on interpreting genesis 1 in a literalist way. In other words he does not take into consideration the authors intended use of the word day. Ham beleives the use of the word day can mean nothing other then 24 hours.

If you agree with Ham I would ask do you also believe in a literalist way John 53-58?




Quoting cammibear:

You are actually one I would love to discuss this topic with. I don't claim I know all the answers, but I do believe if the Bible is what it claims to be, Gods revelation of Himself to man, then it is written in a way that is understandable to man, or what's the point?

Would you agree with that?



Ham would say that the Bible is the only authority. It interprets itself. And it is written so that we might know the truth.






Quoting 12hellokitty:

I'm not sure of what Nye's beliefs on evolution are, but evolution doesn't contradict the bible, just Hams interpretation of bible, which are are a literalist interpretation. Unless Ham can show where in the bible he is given authority to interpret scripture, his views are just that his views, and since he is not God he needs to acknowledge his interpretation of scripture is not infallible.



Quoting cammibear:

AIG rips Bill Nye to shreds, in a nice way of course.



They have even challenged him to debate, which won't happen, because he wouldn't stand a chance.



You people go on believing in evolution and trying to justify there is no God. You know deep down He exists. ;)



Christians, I suggest you inform yourselves on what Creationists believe and why. Even evolutionists understand the problems that arise when trying to say you believe the bible and believe in molecule to man evolution at the same time. What's the point, if you don't believe every word of the Bible is true? Either it is 100% reliable, or you have no idea what to believe when pertaining to life and truth.

















Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)