Bill Nye the foolish guy

[SolaSaint]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bill-nye-creationism-20120924,0,2550168.story

I think we need a new moniker for Billy boy. I immediately thought of 1 Cor 3:19 "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." This is a classic case of man's intellect blinding them from the truth. We need to pray for Bill.

 

[shodan]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bill-nye-creationism-20120924,0,2550168.story
... This is a classic case of man's intellect blinding them from the truth. We need to pray for Bill.

And a lesson from which many Christians could learn. Sadly, "creationism" has become equated with belief in a 6,000 year old planet rather than belief in creation.

http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/in-the-beginning/

 

[SolaSaint]

I think you are right and liberals will use that to their benefit. Eventhough I'm a YEC, I wouldn't get upset if it were proved that the Earth is millions or billions of years old. Nye is trying to make Creationists sound silly as most Atheists do.

 

[billwald]

"The museum’s Purdom also says Nye mistakes “observational science with historical science,” saying that evolution is the latter."

How do you all define "historical science?" It is new term, to me.

 

[ccdnt]

"The museum’s Purdom also says Nye mistakes “observational science with historical science,” saying that evolution is the latter."

How do you all define "historical science?" It is new term, to me.

This article explains the difference between historical science and operational science:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

The following is a small part taken from that article:

"Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves."

"Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view."

 

[Revmitchell]

This article explains the difference between historical science and operational science:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

The following is a small part taken from that article:

"Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves."

"Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view."

Evolutionists most often conflate or confuse the two.

 

[billwald]

>Evolutionists most often conflate or confuse the two.

NOT more often than creationists. When the kiddies of a species divides into two genetic lines so that distant cousins can't sexually reproduce with each other then a new species has branched off the old. This has been observed in the lab and in the wild. When a local environment changes and a critter evolves in reaction to the new environment and thrives but a transplant of the critter from the old environment is killed by the new environment, a new species has evolved. This has been observed in the wild.

 

[SolaSaint]

Bill,

Please explain "when the kiddies of a species divides"

 

[Walguy]

>Evolutionists most often conflate or confuse the two.

NOT more often than creationists. When the kiddies of a species divides into two genetic lines so that distant cousins can't sexually reproduce with each other then a new species has branched off the old. This has been observed in the lab and in the wild. When a local environment changes and a critter evolves in reaction to the new environment and thrives but a transplant of the critter from the old environment is killed by the new environment, a new species has evolved. This has been observed in the wild.

What you describe is MICRO-evolution, which is a part of both the creation and evolution models. In the creation model it is God having programmed into His creations the ability to adapt. BUT, in the examples we see now, it is only minor variations within the same kind of animal or plant. In fact, in most cases it is not speciation, but variation within a species. When it does qualify as speciation, it happens as the result of specialization, which is the LOSS of genetic information. Macro-evolution, the theoretical evolving of one animal or plant into a completely different kind (i.e. reptile to mammal) requires the ADDITION of much new information. This is NEVER observed, and is only inferred from fragmentary evidence that can also be interpreted other ways by those not pre-committed to evolution.
As for the question of distant starlight, Dr. Russell Humphreys and Dr. Larry Vardiman explain a recent creation cosmology concept in a series of articles at icr.org. Follow the link below to part 1, and prepare to be amazed again at the scientific genius of our awesome Creator.

http://www.icr.org/article/new-creationist-cosmology-no-time-at/

 

[Revmitchell]

Evolutionists also often conflate or confuse micro and macro evolution.

 

[billwald]

If the only dogs a Creationist ever saw were the fossil remains of a teacup poodle and a mastiff would he conclude one or two species?