You can watch the Ken Ham & Bill Nye debate HERE and Now. Click ahead on the video to about 13 minutes to watch the debate.
Tell your friends to watch too. Leave a comment and join in the discussion.
In a YouTube discussion an evolutionist asserted that 99.9% of all animals are extinct. I challenged the person to provide empirical evidence for this assertion. The reply came back to me with some journal articles. I replied again that the author was not providing empirical evidence, just cascade events and ideas for rapid extinctions but it was all based on the assumption that evolution is true.
Next, another person got into the discussion and claimed that we Christians discount established science and Christians are inconsistent about what we believe. The following is my reply to the second person:
Forgive me for not being willing to bow down at the altar of atheistic evolution and all its assumptions. Creationists embrace mainstream science. We love every field of science because it reveals the greatness of God’s creation! We love empirical science. But creationists are skeptical of the evolutionary mumbo jumbo. It is these fringe areas you call science, built on evolutionary assumptions, that I and other creationists do not embrace.
For me DNA, its messaging, coding and extreme complexity puts evolution to rest. Even aside from the origin of RNA and DNA conundrum. Just think of the code needed to produce just one novel organelle. Like in this thread every code or paragraph of information consists of five levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, action / application and purpose. They are all in this thread and they are all in DNA which natural causes are impotent for producing or understanding. For example, DNA consists of codons, three bases code for an amino acid. Codons are never two, or four or seven, only three — it is a rule built into DNA. Genes begin and end with beginning and ending codons — this is another example of syntax in DNA. This is similar to English sentences starting with a capital letter and ending with a period. This is syntax, rules of grammar which are in every usable code. Evolution has no ability to create, use or understand syntax but it exists in DNA.
But as long as you suppress the truth in unrighteousness, no amount of evidence will break through your walls.
In a YouTube discussion someone asked me, “What exactly are you proposing to add [to public education]?”
The main problem as I see it is the issue of evolution in the public square is fraught with emotion instead of objective science. Unfortunately jobs and reputations are at stake, so people are not as objective as they are with other science topics.
1. I would like to see educators be honest about what is known and what is not known.
2. Concerning the unknown, be honest about it instead of just hand waving and claiming that evolution did it. “Evolution in the Gaps”
3. Let people, encourage scientists and researchers to follow the data and evidence to either natural causes or design causes. Then let the chips fall where they may.
Design does not have to be religious. For example, did the pile of rocks in the shape of an arrow on the dirt road appear there by design or was it more likely to have formed by natural causes? It’s an objective question rather than assuming a natural cause or a design cause.
Yes, design arguments do lead to other questions. Fine, that is what learning is supposed to do. And if it leads to debates, better yet, learning is taking place. It is far better than suppressing thought, discussion and debate. Evolutionists have the upper hand in the public square and they have become the big bullies. They ridicule instead of ask serious questions. What is behind that is not empirical science. I believe it is emotion, bias and in some cases they are protecting their jobs.
The fact is human design is everywhere: computers, phones, buildings, books and so on. Another fact is biological organisms are many times more complex than humans have ever devised — you can’t dispute that. So why are biological organisms assumed to be formed naturally? To think and teach in that monolithic mode is dogmatism not education.
So some will respond, “Oh, but we know evolution is a fact”. No, we know that organisms change and adapt. That is it. The rest — descent with modification — has no empirical evidence. Correct me if I am wrong about that.
Meanwhile the predictions of evolution are being found wrong over and over.
1. Eternal universe; no, it had a beginning.
2. The simple cell; no, it is anything but simple.
3. 98.5% of the human genome is junk; no, it is just far more complex than we had imagined. This caused delays in medical research in the “junk” areas.
4. Mitochondrial Eve tells the age of humans; no, raw data shows 6,000 years not 200,000 years. Evolution assumptions were wrongly affecting court cases and the mitochondrial clock was discredited.
5. 1% difference between humans and chimps; no, the data was radically skewed to favor the similarities.
This is just the beginning but it illustrates why this debate between Ham and Nye is important. People need to start learning more about modern science related to evolution and design.
The world is quickly changing in favor of creation and design. Science and technology is on our side not on the side of evolution.
To support this claim consider the predictions of evolution. The theory predicts that life began as a primitive “simple” cell and evolved into more complex organisms on up to humans. Darwin called it descent with modification. Evolutionists do not have a coherent explanation for the chemical origin of life. On the other side, the law of biogenesis states that life only comes from life, for example, puppies come from dogs – we see this everyday. It is interesting to note that biogenesis is a law but it is seldom discussed in text books while abiogenesis is speculative and is frequently discussed in basic biology text books.
Another prediction of evolution was that the universe was eternal, it was always there. Then Edwin Hubble messed things up using a telescope he revealed red shift. Even Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicted that the universe had a beginning. Einstein himself did not want to believe it because the universe with a beginning is a very big problem for naturalists. Where did the universe or singularity come from? Physics tells us every cause must have an effect.
The universe having a beginning is exactly what the Bible says in Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” So again reality did not conform to evolutionary ideas while it fits perfectly with the prediction of creation. God being eternal and all powerful is outside of time and space. He created the laws of the universe so He is not bound by the laws. God created it all.
Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. If you were a biologist living in the age of Charles Darwin you would have believed that the simple cell was indeed “simple”. That is what chemical evolution predicts — it is the notion that chemicals in nature have the capability to combine naturally to form life. But with better scientific instruments the simple cell idea is now extinct. So there is another prediction of evolution that has failed and is again a massive problem for evolutionists. How do you get the first proteins made (by natural causes) when numerous protein machines are required in order to make proteins? It appears that life does not just look designed — it was designed.
Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. For decades evolutionists touted the human genome was made up of 98.5% junk. Why was it there according to evolutionists? It was the evolutionary leftovers from evolutions’ trial and error. DNA is the best evidence for evolution, evolutionists claimed. Richard Dawkins wrote about Junk DNA in his best-selling book, The selfish Gene. But in recent years through the ENCODE project it was revealed to the world that Junk DNA is not junk but treasure troves of codes yet to be understood. But the damage from evolutionary thinking was done. As written in Scientific American Feb. 12, 2007 What is Junk DNA and What is it Worth? “Although very catchy, the term “junk DNA” repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years.” Here is an example where the evolution prediction is not only wrong it prevented important medical research.
Is there more evidence for creation? Yes. But this article is getting too long. I would like to discuss the topic of Mitochondrial Eve using mitochondrial DNA and how it too was wrong. I would like to discuss the so-called 1% difference between humans and chimps. Not only have the results been wrong the means for getting their results are ultra-extremely biased for finding similarity. I would like to discuss the hyper complexity of the DNA structure. I would like to discuss the nature of the code within DNA which is expressed in five ever more complex levels.
As I stated in the beginning, the evidence for creation and design is growing and is very exciting for those who believe in God.