The Creation Museum Responds to Bill Nye the Science Guy

We can’t see evolution happening in front of our eyes either. In fact both take faith, as events that made the Earth and organisms that inhabit occurred billions of years ago so neither side can be completely sure. I would say it is a good point that we can see evidence of a created universe. The preciseness of the great accident that is evolution: The perfect placement of earth and millions of other factors that if changed would eliminate the chance of life ever existing, the complexity of the living body and the many systems that coincide to keep it running that if one were to have occurred differently the body would fail, and the many other reasons that bring to the plate that their is a hunch to believing their is a greater reason to our world than an accident.

I don’t think you understand what “intermediary species” means. All species that have previously existed are technically “intermediary species” from the first single celled organisms, to the current species in existence. There was never a time when one species gave birth to another, it is the constant build up of these “microevolutions” as you call it, that cause “macroevolution.” It is very similar to how Latin became French and Spanish. Was there ever a time when a Latin speaker gave birth to a Spanish or French speaker? Or was there one generation that spoke an “intermediary” language? This questions are of course redundant because those languages, just like species, changed over long periods of time with many small changes added up to a larger change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvDQCa7rleI

Because we observe insects and bugs only reproducing as insects and bugs. You never observe an insect giving birth to cats or dogs. It is always bugs. Science is based on what we observe, and because this is all we observe, then we can say bugs are only bugs, always will be bugs, and nothing more.

Actually, they call it adaptation, which does occur. But (no matter what your family pet thinks), cats did not evolve from dogs, so this is no basis for thinking cats are superior.

The problem is that true science requires observation of these events. If it cannot be observed, then it is not scientific. One is able to invent fairy tales all day long, because no one is alive, or ever lived who could disprove it. Hence the rescue tactic of time. You just have to accept it happened, even though no one can show you where, not to mention how.

That question is more readily answered by you having a complete grasp on what evolution is first.

That is blatantly false; science often works with observations of past events, working from current models and drawing inferences based on the available data. And we have the mechanisms at play in evolution and have seen them at work.

Yet they teach that evolution myth. If one is not allowed to question science, is it science at all? Sounds more like indoctrinating someone into a belief system than science.

1. There is no definition of “myth” that applies to evolution.
2. Evolution is questioned on a regular basis.
3. That is not the purpose of the science classroom, which is to accurately define the methodology and existing knowledge of the discipline.

Hence commercials about natural museums that say the same thing?

Creationism does not tell children how to think; it tells them to trust this ancient text that everything was created just the way it is and that they must make all of their answers conform to this conclusion. Evolution can be explained through a variety of scientific subdisciplines and is one of the most well-attested scientific theories in existence. There is no equivalence here.

The idea of teaching both is to present opposition to evolution, which stimulates discussion and debate. This teaches children how to think, and how to use logic. I guess you went to a school that didn’t teach one how to think, just to tote the line? All the scientific evidence is assumption and interpretation. It doesn’t hold water, hence opposition. Is it science to avoid anything that questions a theory? I thought science was all about debate? Apparently not.

1. It is based on assumption and interpretation, as mythology is. (Hmm. Lightning. It had to come from somewhere. Perhaps a god. That would explain why it is so dangerous, strikes people and objects. The gods are angry. An interpretation and assumption.
2. That is news to me. There is plenty of ad hominem launched at those who question…
3. Since evolution (The natural selection common ancestor stuff) is not observable, it is not a proper way to teach science, which is about observation and experimentation. It doesn’t eve teach a proper method of thought, for just because one believes a pattern is present, or something has to like to something else, does not mean it does. The way science was taught to us did not teach evolution, or creation. It just taught the scientific method and how to observe the world to expand knowledge. Any of these could give you a rocket scientist, a computer scientist, or any “operational science” scientist. (Such as Bill Nye using his only earned degree (BS in Mechanical Engineering) to invent things and patent them. Evolutionary type science does nothing in such an arena. (Where intelligence is required to make or invent things.)

True. I should remember the adage that says not to argue with a fool, or they will drag you down to their level. I kind of responded with the timbre of the whole comment section, which is basically ad hominem, with little useful data.

The funny part is that if I did what you want me to – to produce a dog from a cat (which is nonsensical given how evolution works) – you would accuse me of artificial selection and say it wasn’t evolution.

It’s also amusing that you deny global warming as well. Crank magnetism at its best worst.

Mythology does not mean “a claim based on assumption and interpretation.” More importantly, evolution has made a large number of testable claims that have been verified using genomics, morphology, etc. Myths are unfalsifiable and unverifiable. Ergo, not the same thing.

Since evolution (The natural selection common ancestor stuff) is not observable, it is not a proper way to teach science, which is about observation and experimentation.

No matter how many times you pull out this card, it will not simply become true.

It doesn’t eve teach a proper method of thought, for just because one believes a pattern is present, or something has to like to something else, does not mean it does.

Evolution does not simply mean “there is a pattern of change”; evolutionary theory has discovered a variety of different mechanisms (natural selection, sex selection, genetic drift, etc.) that explain and predict the changes we have seen. There’s a reason that discoveries like Tiktaalik were so monumental – they had been predicted. What accurate predictions has creationism made as a competing theory? None.

“Little useful data” should be your handle. As I’ve said in repeated comments, you haven’t given a valid objection to evolution yet because you lack even a basic understanding of it (and seem to think that you don’t even need to understand it to criticize it, which is a bizarre and entirely dishonest way to approach any intellectual subject).

I don’t say that abiogenesis = evolution, but the life has to come from somewhere. Without abiogenesis you cannot have evolution. If one fails, so fails the other, for then you have to have intelligent design…

Actually, evolution is unfalsifiable, and because it cannot be directly observed in nature, unverifiable. Mythology right? Adaptation is completely acceptable, cats to dogs (it is an exaggeration of one kind becoming another. Quick and dirty, no waste of millions of years for this argument.) You see cats are smarter then dogs, so in the world of pets, cats must have come after dogs…
Okay, I accept that it is true that observation is alien to the world of science. Observation is not a requirement to call anything science. (I stopped pulling out my untrue card that says that observation is required to have science…are you happy now. Or do you realize that you have your own strawman? I was taught that science is about observation, assumption, hypothesis, experimentation, and evaluation. I understand now that this is not the case, for if such were the case, then it would be falsifiable. My apologies for the mistake.
As for your question about accurate predictions by creationism…there are some so you are being disingenuous. (Or is that dogmatic?)

As I’m sure you’re well aware, and as TCC has explained anyway, no evolutionary biologist expects an insect to give birth to a cat, or an orangutan to a human. If all you’ve got is that ridiculously stupid strawman, I don’t have time for it. Carry on spewing your ignorant version of evolution which has nothing to do with reality. This is an old thread, so it doesn’t really matter.

I did not say that logic is unnecessary, I said it is required for intellectual discussion. You seem to believe that logic is not necessary for an intellectual discussion, though reason (hence logic) is what makes a discussion intellectual.

evolution is unfalsifiable

Not true at all. If you found a Precambrian rabbit, that would be pretty strong evidence against evolutionary theory. There are a large number of other possibilities for how evolution could be falsified, in fact.

because it cannot be directly observed in nature, unverifiable

Do you remember what I said about predictions? That is verification.

Adaptation is completely acceptable, cats to dogs

What you fail to grasp is while it might be possible for a felid to evolve into a canid, not every evolutionary path is inevitable, and we don’t see that kind of leap in evidence. If we did, it would mean some shaking up within our understanding of evolution.

I was taught that science is about observation, assumption

Assumption? But above, you said that was a mark of mythology! Sounds like you must have your wires crossed.

As for your question about accurate predictions by creationism…there are some so you are being disingenuous. (Or is that dogmatic?)

Go on, then, give us just one. This should be fun to see.

First of all, the global warming craze is all about control and money. There is an over $3 trillion dollar market for global warming. That is if it can be proven that carbon causes global warming and is a dangerous toxin that needs to be controlled, or better yet, eliminated completely from the atmosphere. The carbon tax market is over $3 trillion, and is based in…well, Chicago. You will notice that global warming is completely unfalsifiable. If it is hot, it is because of global warming and proves global warming. If it is cold, that is just part of the global warming process and proves global warming. Even this 17+ year stalling of climate change does not disprove global warming. (Even though they said at first if the temperature doesn’t change for 10 years then global warming is false. Then it became 12 years, then 15 years, and then 17 years. (I have read quite a bit on the subject.) Even the IPCC has had to say there has been no increase.
Perhaps if you recall those hackers who hacked the college systems and pulled up the emails written by global warming advocates who basically said they were using bad data in the models. Everyone seems to have forgotten the huge repository of email the hackers pulled that said that global warming was a hoax.) They also tore into the program for one of the models and found out that no matter what data they input, they got garbage out. They then found out that there was data already embedded in the code that changed the inputs. When the additional data was removed, one saw a completely different graph that did not match the one’s scientists put out. The code that was changed to give proper output falsified all the data put into the model. How is that for ethics in academia?

Wait, I never…NEVER said “Why won’t you teach both sides and let the kids decide?” That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. The idea of teaching both is to present opposition to evolution. I shortened what I meant believing you would understand. The point is not the teaching of religion, but of the points that oppose evolution. If you are afraid that evolution would be defeated to easily, then perhaps we should not present any opposition. It would be a shame to not perpetuate a lie, and teach such lies to students. The idea is to teach students HOW to think (logic, thinking for themselves) instead of indoctrinating them like a cult leader. I understand if you do not support this and would rather have a robot then a rational thinking person. (Okay…no I don’t…)

You get hammered here and elsewhere because….

1) You make statements about how evolution works that do not accurately, or even closely, reflect how evolution works (but they are pushed heavily by people like Ken Ham), and…

2) We get tired of answering the same questions, over and over and over. This country (USA) is somewhere around 80% Christian, and some 40% are staunch creationists. Most of us have put up with your sorts of ‘questions’ for years upon years.

I’m going to help you out a bit here, and I hope you read these things.

http://biologos.org/blog/speciation-and-macroevolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VBDefiningSpeciation.shtml

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/evolutionary-ideas-species-and-speciation.html

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

I believe they happen to coincide. Adaptation is exactly the same thing, and does not have anything to do with common ancestry or the development of life. Bacteria are still bacteria, viruses are still viruses, there is no change from one kind to another. No Darwinian change that has resulted in one cell organisms developing into everything that is here today. (Through multiple paths of common ancestry…) Evolutionary thought (outside of adaptation or the so coined “micro evolution”) is not required and does not benefit such studies. An understanding of adaptation, however, does. Also an understanding of genetics. Most of the things created through a believed understanding of evolution is slowly killing us. (Genetically modified foods.) apparently a greater intelligence then our own is necessary to get it right? (Not to mention medications that have death as a side effect.)

So, what about the fig wasp that apparently existed over 65 million years before figs? These wasps require figs in order to reproduce. How does one reconcile that evolution for the longest time has taught that figs and fig wasps evolved together? All I have seen in what I have read are safety devices. Nothing that can actually be observed, therefore this is what must have happened. You cannot disprove it because there is no evidence that a substitute for figs did not exist at the time. This had to be what happened to explain how the wasps existed in modern form, 65 million years before figs.
They predicted strongly the possibility that radioactive dating is not accurate. As a result, they were right, and the form of dating that showed the greatest disparity is no longer used. If no one said anything, this absolutely inaccurate test would still be used and accepted as correct.

By correcting some misconceptions that you appear to be stricken with, brother. Read, and learn! 🙂

Start here :http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Then here: http://www.talkorigins.org/
& http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
and check out this playlist here http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLboyD-hmLjsGtRo-0WAPHdx1e-r_Twut_

So, what about the fig wasp that apparently existed over 65 million years before figs?

Even if you forget all of the other possible explanations (e.g. convergent evolution), all that the find can conclusively tell us is 1) a member of Chalcidoidea lived 115 million years ago and 2) it has an ovipositor that resembles those in modern members of the superfamily. It isn’t at all like the Precambrian rabbit example I gave; at worst, it might mean that the coevolution of fig trees and fig wasps is wrong. That’s not a smashing blow to evolution (which explains why I had to dig to find it at all).

They predicted strongly the possibility that radioactive dating is not accurate.

1. Who?
2. Saying that radiometric dating is not accurate is false. If one form was inaccurate and no longer used, that doesn’t mean that radiometric dating as a whole is inaccurate.
3. Radiometric dating is not the only measure used.
4. That’s not a prediction of creationism, unless you only mean creationism to denote anti-evolutionism. That doesn’t put it on equal footing with evolution, which is what I suspect you want.

There is no competing scientific theory to evolution – you yourself have admitted that creationism is not science. So what is the “other side” to teach? It can’t merely be anti-evolutionism; that isn’t a competing theory at all. What you don’t seem to understand is that evolutionary theory has been rigorously tested and confirmed by various scientific subdisciplines, and to introduce “opposition” would be to inject non-science into the science classroom and to confuse the issues entirely. This nonsense of “indoctrination” is mere projection, nothing more.

FFS, reading comprehension, please. I asked you to show me where I denied the necessity of logic; you then took that as a claim that you said that (I never said any such thing) and then repeated your lie about me saying (although now you’ve backed off to merely implying) that logic is not necessary. In fact, I said (well, implied) that an understanding of a subject is a useful part of an intellectual discussion, since you seem to be under the impression that it’s perfectly acceptable to criticize a complex scientific theory with virtually no real knowledge of it. Logic is of course a requisite part of the discussion, which unfortunately you seem to be quite deficient in as well.