Bill Nye The Science Guy Says Creationism Is Wrong.

[bippy123]

You know? I'd really like to see Bill Nye go at it with Hugh Ross, or some other prominent old-earth creationist, in a debate. Imagine his surprise when he discovers they exist!

Stuygian I think Nye will be pleasantly surprised when he discovers what we allready know, that there are some great scientific minds that are in fact old earth creationists. I for one would pay to see that one as Hugh Ross is one of my favorite OEC's.

[bippy123]

As progressive creationist and astrophycist Hugh Ross notes: "Before 543 million years ago, Earth's zoo featured nothing more complex than cryptogamic colonies and some primitive sponges and jellyfish. Then, in a time window narrower than 2 to 3 million years (possibly much briefer), some 40 or more phyla of COMPLEX animals appeared, including 24 or 25 of the 30 animal phyla that remain on earth today ... Not only did complex animal phyla show up virtually all at once, but so did complex ecologies. Predator-prey relationships, for example, did not develop gradually. They were optimized right from the start of the Cambrian Explosion. Furthermore, the most advanced phylum ever to appear on earth, the chordates, (including such vertebrates as jawless fish),shows up at the very base of the Cambrian Explosion fossil record."

"Contrary to what might be expected from a naturalistic evolutionary perspective, which would anticipate the ongoing appearance of new phyla at a relatively high rate, only five or six new phyla have appeared during the past 540 million years, and about 15 phyla have DISAPPEARED. Evolution has proceeded in the opposite direction of what naturalistic models would expect."

Seriously, a 2 to 3 million year window simply isn't nearly enough time to explain the fossil record of the Cambrian, nor the establishment of necessary behaviors, complex interactions and interdependencies, and changes within so many species. And THEN, WHO - or what - dumb, blind mechanism slammed on the brakes of this creative burst? But people don't realize these things, as they are still thinking in terms of virtually unlimited amounts of time, for evolution to have blindly, if spectacularly, arrived at such magnificence and diversity. These things would have taken tremendous amounts of time - but it's time that the evolutionist doesn't have to explain things.

Interesting and how have evolutionists answered this issue?

Paul in a nutshell, they cant give an adequate answer. This is probably why Gould introduced punctuated equilibrium to say that evolution just suddenly speeded up at certain instances. I call this the macroevolution of the gaps

[Proinsias]

Interesting and how have evolutionists answered this issue?

Last I head it was summed up by the phrase "we don't know'.

[PaulSacramento]

As progressive creationist and astrophycist Hugh Ross notes: "Before 543 million years ago, Earth's zoo featured nothing more complex than cryptogamic colonies and some primitive sponges and jellyfish. Then, in a time window narrower than 2 to 3 million years (possibly much briefer), some 40 or more phyla of COMPLEX animals appeared, including 24 or 25 of the 30 animal phyla that remain on earth today ... Not only did complex animal phyla show up virtually all at once, but so did complex ecologies. Predator-prey relationships, for example, did not develop gradually. They were optimized right from the start of the Cambrian Explosion. Furthermore, the most advanced phylum ever to appear on earth, the chordates, (including such vertebrates as jawless fish),shows up at the very base of the Cambrian Explosion fossil record."

"Contrary to what might be expected from a naturalistic evolutionary perspective, which would anticipate the ongoing appearance of new phyla at a relatively high rate, only five or six new phyla have appeared during the past 540 million years, and about 15 phyla have DISAPPEARED. Evolution has proceeded in the opposite direction of what naturalistic models would expect."

Seriously, a 2 to 3 million year window simply isn't nearly enough time to explain the fossil record of the Cambrian, nor the establishment of necessary behaviors, complex interactions and interdependencies, and changes within so many species. And THEN, WHO - or what - dumb, blind mechanism slammed on the brakes of this creative burst? But people don't realize these things, as they are still thinking in terms of virtually unlimited amounts of time, for evolution to have blindly, if spectacularly, arrived at such magnificence and diversity. These things would have taken tremendous amounts of time - but it's time that the evolutionist doesn't have to explain things.

Interesting and how have evolutionists answered this issue?

Paul in a nutshell, they cant give an adequate answer. This is probably why Gould introduced punctuated equilibrium to say that evolution just suddenly speeded up at certain instances. I call this the macroevolution of the gaps

Very interesting but where is the evidence that:
2-3 million is too brief?
THat:

Not only did complex animal phyla show up virtually all at once, but so did complex ecologies. Predator-prey relationships, for example, did not develop gradually. They were optimized right from the start of the Cambrian Explosion. Furthermore, the most advanced phylum ever to appear on earth, the chordates, (including such vertebrates as jawless fish),shows up at the very base of the Cambrian Explosion fossil record."

[KBCid]

Very interesting but where is the evidence that: 2-3 million is too brief?

Probably in the same place where there is evidence that it can actually happen at all in any time period. It's all in the imagination in a place where science can't go.

[Philip]

Very interesting but where is the evidence that:
2-3 million is too brief?

If it took 540 million years for just simple organisms, sponges and jellyfish to develop, and then, KABLAM! Just 3 million more years for the enormous number of all the rest ... well, you do the math! Perhaps this is why the, er, theories are contantly ... well, you know, that E word.

[bippy123]

Very interesting but where is the evidence that:
2-3 million is too brief?

If it took 540 million years for just simple organisms, sponges and jellyfish to develop, and then, KABLAM! Just 3 million more years for the enormous number of all the rest ... well, you do the math! Perhaps this is why the, er, theories are contantly ... well, you know, that E word.

We ask them where are the transitionals, they answer "they are there, they are there!!, can't you see them??"
At this point all we can say is "take a bottle of these and come back in 30 days "

[PaulSacramento]

Very interesting but where is the evidence that:
2-3 million is too brief?

If it took 540 million years for just simple organisms, sponges and jellyfish to develop, and then, KABLAM! Just 3 million more years for the enormous number of all the rest ... well, you do the math! Perhaps this is why the, er, theories are contantly ... well, you know, that E word.

Fair enough.
Is it possible that external influences caused a greater rate of "evolution" during that specific period?
I mean, even now we can see how environmental factors accelerate or decelerate change on a "day-to-day basis" right?
Could it be that during that period the conditions were ideal for that "explosion" of life?

[Proinsias]

2-3 million years does seem surprisingly fast, I had a quick google and most of what I can find suggests periods from 10-100 million years. Do you have a reference for Ross' claim to the 2-3 million year explosion?

[RickD]

here's a quick response to Bill Nye, by Jeff Zweerink at Reasons.org:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg_w1Uk2 ... e=youtu.be

[RickD]

2-3 million years does seem surprisingly fast, I had a quick google and most of what I can find suggests periods from 10-100 million years. Do you have a reference for Ross' claim to the 2-3 million year explosion?

Proinsias, here's what I could find at Reasons.org:http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-gre ... on-account

[PaulSacramento]

2-3 million years does seem surprisingly fast, I had a quick google and most of what I can find suggests periods from 10-100 million years. Do you have a reference for Ross' claim to the 2-3 million year explosion?

Proinsias, here's what I could find at Reasons.org:http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-gre ... on-account

PERHAPS can be a big word:
From that link:(perhaps as narrow as 2 to 3 million years).
Some have suggest 5 million some even more.
The "cambian explosion" may have been caused by a creator or by the ideal conditions for such an even, we don't know and while it may seem to be at odds with some views on how long evolution MAY take, we don't know what effects the environment had on the plant and animal life during that period.
Just because soemthing may be "a typical" doesn't make it impossible or even improbable.

[Ivellious]

Ivellious an appeal to authority isnt scientific is it? I would think not.

I never made an appeal to authority. I asked whether you thought nearly all biologists, geologists, and astronomers were not "really" doing science. Answer the question, because based on your reason for evolution being unscientific, so to is astronomy and geology. Now, please answer the question and stop following KBC's lead and totally avoiding this question.

The fossil evidence itself as we have discussed here a few times is actually against macroevolution, and it keeps getting worse.

Is this about the whale? Because honestly that's the only fossil evidence anyone has brought up against evolution on here, and if you go back I gave a logical explanation for that singular instance. But please, provide all this fossil evidence that you think contradicts evolution. I've certainly never seen it, and neither have, well, evolutionary biologists or paleontologists.

I'm sure there are scientists in all fields that accept unscientific things as true but does that make it a scientific fact? Again it' does not, and I'm sure the formations of mountains have much more evidence than macroevolution.

It's pretty bold to just presume those dastardly geologists aren't just lying about everything, like biologists do, isn't it?

It reminds me of the time in our history in which almost all scientists thought the world was flat.

For the record, most peasants and uneducated people thought the world was flat, as well as several large religious institutions. Many scientists knew the world was round for a long time. The Greeks/Egyptians measured the circumference of the Earth before Jesus was born using astronomy and geometry.

[PaulSacramento]

Many ancient peoples, scientists if you wanna call them that, BELIEVED the world was round BUT until it was proven, all they had was faith in their belief.
The issue with the world revolving around the sun was that all evidence pointed to the sun revolving around the Earth.
There were those that BELIEVED it was the other way around but there was no proof and more evidence to the contrary.
Fact is that until that "obvious" is proven incorrect, all you have is a belief.

[Beanybag]

Many ancient peoples, scientists if you wanna call them that

I wouldn't want to call them that.