The End is Nye! - This is genesis week, episode 1, season 2 with ian juby aka wazooloo

Are you tired of those cheap dollar store whisks always breaking on you? We here at McGivern, Perry, Smith and Rockefeller have founded our business on quality, stainless steel whisks that are built for durability and [static] [transmission sounds] [static] Bahahaha! Success! Whatever it was Miracle channel was trying to show is now pre-empted, cause we just hijacked their transmitter for our show! - coming right up: Bill Nye the science guy says the end is Nye for Creationists - and we shouldn't teach our children creation! One person's junk DNA is another person's treasure, engineering a virtual cell, and of course, we dive into our mailbag. This is Genesis Week [Music] And a welcome to this episode of Genesis Week - the weekly program of Creationary commentary on news, views and events pertaining to the origins controversy. Excellence in pirate broadcasting, this week we hacked into the Miracle channel network from our top secret studios in an old abandoned nickle mine at an undisclosed location in eastern Ontario, continuing to bring you the information the anti-creationists don't want you to see or here, and giving glory to our Creator while doing it. God did not say "be ye transformed by the removal of your mind," but rather we here at Genesis Week believe God gave YOU a brain for a reason! Error begs for tolerance, but the truth demands scrutiny, and we here at Genesis Week demand scrutiny as we pursue the truth along with you. Remember if you get lost in cyberspace, just punch in wazooloo.com or GenesisWeek.com you will find us and can subscribe to our YouTube channel and get extras like CrEvo rants, and interviews with our guests. I'm your host, Ian Juby Big Think recently put out a video with Bill Nye, known as the science guy. I guess Bill just couldn't take those creationists anymore and decided to put them in their place with a series of provocative comments. For example, he starts off by saying that Oh come on Bill! You didn't really think you could pull a bait and switch like you did without anyone noticing, did you? Notice that Mr. Bill exchanged the word "evolution" with "science." Science is not interchangeable with evolution Mr. Bill. You're certainly allowed to believe in evolution, and even though I disagree with you, you're certainly allowed to believe evolution is scientific - just please don't interchange the words, because evolution is NOT science. For example, as I'm sure Mr. Bill knows, Evolution has life arising from non-life, in complete defiance of well established scientific and natural laws. Laws like the law of biogenesis which states that life ONLY comes from life. This scientific and natural law is testable, observable, repeatable, and predictable. Violating scientific and natural law means evolution is neither scientific, nor natural - it is, by definition of the word, a SUPERnatural process! You're welcome to believe it, just please - I respectfully request that do you not call it "science." But that's only the start - Mr. Bill makes so many major blunders in his short video, that I felt like a pyromaniac in the world's largest fireworks factory - where do I begin??? Mr. Bill seems to think that "evolution denial is unique to the United States..." Uhhhh....no, it isn't. Canada has consistently shown about the same numbers as the US, South Korea is not far behind, and in fact a 2011 survey of South Korean biology teachers found that 40% of them concluded much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs - and we can hardly call South Korea a stone age technology country! In fact, perhaps the reason for Americans doubting evolution is because of EDUCATION - people in the US, in the spirit of proper scientific enquiry, get to hear the evidence AGAINST evolution and FOR creation. We saw the results of such public education right here in Canada with the opening of Canada's first permanent creation museum, the Big Valley Creation Science Museum in Big Valley, Alberta, in 2007. When BVCSM opened, Angus Reid conducted a poll of Canadian beliefs and found that the belief of Albertans was consistent with the rest of the country: 58% agreed with the evolution statement (which included those who believe God used evolution), 28% agreed with the strict, young-earth creationist position, and 14% weren't sure what they believed. The Big Valley Creation Science Museum opened its doors, presenting profound scientific evidence refuting evolution and affirming that the earth is young and there was a Creator. Anybody could go and see and judge the evidence for themselves. One year later, Angus Reid conducted the same poll right across the country, and the rest of Canada was pretty much exactly the same as it was the year before. Alberta however, having had TWO creation museums open that year, had taken a complete about face with the majority of 40% now believing the young-earth creation statement, 37% believing the evolution statement, and 23% deciding that they just didn't know any more. I discuss the poll results in more detail in my newsletter here. Now, Mr. Bill went on to make numerous ridiculous statements in the Big Think video. Let us reverse his replacement of the word "science" and reiterate what he was REALLY saying: Ya, does it ever. [swoosh] >>Astronaut William Anders For all the people on Earth the crew of Apollo 8 has a message we would like to send you. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. [swoosh] >>Ian Juby For those of you who don't know, that was the first astronauts to land on the moon reading the Bible - the Creation account in the book of Genesis. Clearly such beliefs hold people back. But Mr. Bill follows up with an even more provocative and rather insulting statement, saying: The insinuation of course being that people who believe in Creation aren't scientifically literate and can't do engineering and build stuff. [swoosh] >>Jeff Sooo...you're planning on flying that rocket to the moon? >>Ian Yup. Pretty amazing what you can get through military surplus eh? >>Jeff Um, are you a creationist by any chance? >>Ian Ya, how'd you know? >>Jeff Your rocket is kinda upside down >>Ian Doh! [swoosh] Well, I'm an engineer Mr. Bill! I worked in research and development for the company that made the cool suits for the space shuttle astronauts. My creationist beliefs don't hold back my engineering skills at all! Believing in Creation also didn't seem to hold back other scientists who believed in Creation. Scientists like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, Blaise Pascal, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, or Werner Von Braun. Raymond Damadian somehow managed to invent Magnetic Resonance Imaging, in spite of his strict young-earth creationist beliefs. MRI is a powerful tool in the hands of doctors now. Nuclear physicist Dr. Russel Humphreys built a model of planetary magnetic fields based upon Biblical creation and a young universe. He made multiple predictions, each of which were found to be true while the evolutionary and naturalistic predictions and expectations were dead wrong! It is not my intention to be harsh with my evolutionary friends, but we need to understand that evolutionary theory has HINDERED scientific research over the decades. For example: your appendix is just a useless leftover from your evolutionary ascent, right? That is an evolutionary ASSUMPTION. The creationary position would be "It's there, we were created, therefore it has purpose." Which world view encourages finding out the purpose of the appendix Mr. Bill? Sure enough, purposes for the appendix were discovered. Tonsils are another case - doctors used to be real quick to cut them out because they were just a useless evolutionary left over. Now we know that tonsils were the only part of the body that could produce the antibody for Polio! How many people died or became paralysed because of Evolutionary assumptions and teaching which HINDERED proper scientific research Mr. Nye? "Junk DNA" was another example of an evolutionary assumption - the claim being that huge portions of our DNA was "useless" - had no purpose, was an evolutionary leftover. Again the Creationists predicted it had purpose, and as you're about to see, were right again. Lastly, I should remind Mr. Nye of the 1990 study by Bishop and Anderson of 110 college juniors and seniors in which they concluded that evolution doubters actually scored higher in understanding scientific conceptions. Mr. Bill finished his video with still another provocative, statement: No evidence for it? Really? Mr. Bill needs to watch Genesis Week more often, as that's pretty much all we deal with here on this show is the scientific evidence FOR young earth creation, and refuting evolution. We find evidence for Creation in the fossil record in the form of stasis, the lack of intermediate fossils, and fossils that are "in the wrong place" only according to the evolutionary timeline. Evidence from biology is some of the most powerful evidence for a young earth and young population of life which was recently DESIGNED; evidence like codepency of systems within the cell, irreducible complexity, genetic entropy, and the laws of biogenesis. Evidence from astronomy also shows a young universe, which would preclude the deep time evolution needs, and let us remember again how naturalistic theories of the origin of the Universe have failed every prediction while creation models, such as that put forward by Dr. Humphreys, has nailed the predictions with shocking fulfillment! Even the dinosaurs themselves, which I have personally excavated on multiple occasions, provide powerful evidence of design, the LACK of any change over time, multiple lines of evidence that the dinosaurs were buried within the past few thousand years by a massive, world-wide flood, and evidence from paleontology, archaeology and history shows that people and dinosaurs did in fact live at the same time! I still like you Mr. Nye, but with respect, Just because YOU are ignorant of the evidence does not mean there is no evidence for Creation. Speaking of alleged "junk DNA" - this past week saw a flood of news regarding this curiousity. Only a small portion of our DNA actually provides the coding for the construction of proteins, which are the building blocks of life. The remaining DNA - estimated to be some 98% of the DNA, didn't seem to do anything. It was assumed to be an evolutionary leftover, and given the unglorious label of "Junk DNA." Creation scientists of course objected to this suggestion - we creationary thinkers would assume that because we were created, ALL of the DNA would have purpose - even if we do not know what that purpose is. This past week saw the publication of the results of a five year study of this "Junk DNA" by the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project, better known by the nickname of ENCODE. So - did five years, hundreds of scientists, 185 MILLION US dollars finally demonstrate that indeed, this non-encoding DNA is just useless leftovers from our evolutionary ascent that have no purpose? Well, let's put it this way: This past week saw a tidal wave of THIRTY papers in the science journals Nature, Genome research, and Genome biology spelling out SOME -SOME- of what we now know the "junk DNA" does - and there's still much more left to uncover! As Brendan Maher put it, writing for Nature news: And that's what we know so far - so far. Richard Myers summed up the "junk DNA" concept for the Washington Post: Ewin Birney, data analysis coordinator for the ENCODE project, said in a Nature News interview: The Nature News report summed it up like this: So within a matter of a few short years, we went from only 1% of the DNA actually did something, to at least 80% of the DNA does something - and we're not finished yet. So let's examine this for a second: What we do know so far is that when the non-encoding sections of the DNA fail to do their job, such as regulating gene expression, it causes disease and death. So - which came first, the encoding DNA which is controlled by the non-encoding DNA, or the non-encoding DNA which needs the encoding DNA so it can even exist? You also need to understand: We are talking about information here. Information in the DNA is conveyed by chemicals - you can use a whole variety of mediums to convey information - for example, ink and paper, radio waves, light over fiber optic cable, sand - etc... The information is not in the medium, but the medium only CONVEYS the information. For example, you can convey information using letters. But letters themselves do not contain information, they only convey information. The information comes from an outside source. If you have a book, the book conveys information - the information came from the AUTHOR of the book, not the book itself - the book only conveys the information from the author to the reader. And so it is with the human DNA - just like our letters do not give us information, someone put the information INTO the DNA. Every single scientific test will show you that information only comes from information. You find me a book that wrote itself, In fact you find me a printout formed by nature, containing so much information that it stretched 16 meters high and 30 kilometers long, then we'll talk about whether or not natural processes put that astonishing amount of information into our DNA. Just as if you had picked up a book and started reading the words the author penned, these researchers are reading the handwriting of our Creator - the information had to have come from outside of the natural realm. How do I know? Well let's discuss a related story first: A recent report in the science journal Cell discussed an impressive piece of work by Karr et al. The goal of their research was to build a living virtual cell. The virtual cell is based upon the bacteria Mycoplasma genitalium, which is considered one of the simplest single celled organisms out there. Like the ENCODE project, what the researchers accomplished is truly impressive. Essentially the hope is that one day, they can have a simulated cell "living" on a computer so they could test the reaction to custom designed drugs for example. However, even the "simple cell" is not at all simple, but astonishingly complex. How complex? The researchers built their program Problem was, the virtual cell was TOO complicated, and so they had to generalize some of the functions - make the cell simpler. Because simple cells don't exist! To make matters even more difficult, a number of parameters were unknown - in other words, we still don't know enough about the real-world cell to be able to make a simulated one! The researchers were bold in what they were trying to do, attempting to They attempted this by breaking down the internal workings of the cell into 28 different systems, and then modeling each of those systems, their interaction with each other, and the results on the virtual cell as a whole. But notice that in spite of this truly impressive feat of programming and engineering, the computer model is still very limited, as acknowledged by the researchers: Kudos to them for their efforts, as what they accomplished truly is impressive. Now, let's take a step back, and look at this analytically. As I previously mentioned with regards to Mr. Nye's comments, whether you believe in creation or evolution, you believe in the supernatural. The first life was formed by a process outside of the natural realm, because natural law forbids life arising from non-life. So if both creation and evolution are supernatural processes, and whatever happened was thus outside of the natural realm and beyond scientific study, is it still possible to use science to determine which faith - creation or evolution, is the correct one? Yes! Enter the scientific tool of intelligent design. This virtual cell that was produced on a computer is truly impressive. Once complete, that cell could reproduce, repair itself, do allll kinds of things in its virtual world. It brings whole new meaning to the term "computer virus!" If you knew nothing about the researchers, but discovered this "virtual cell" on your computer, would you conclude that it formed itself, or that someone else created it? Would you conclude that it was the result of a comptuer crash, or the direct intent of a designer? The answer is glaring and obvious: It had a creator. Even though you did not see the creator make it, and you didn't know who the creator was, you still KNOW it was created. You are using the scientific tool of intelligent design. But now what of the actual, real-world cell which is infinitely more complicated than the virtual cell? There is only one conclusion: It too had to have had a creator. Just as it would be outrageous to suggest that the virtual cell formed by natural processes, such as a computer crash, it is even more outrageous to suggest that the real-world cell formed without an intelligent designer. Now the question is: Who is that designer? For multiple reasons, I would suggest that designer was none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, who also created a body to live in in this world, and to sacrifice for you and for me. [swoosh] [scary, dramatic music] Wahoo! Mail for me? [scary, dramatic music] [swoosh] Aaron M. wrote in an excellent but very lengthy email that's too long to include here. I will attempt to include his other questions in other shows as they were really good questions and comments. We'll start off with this one: Thanks for writing in Aaron, and I'm so glad you asked! Let's take a look at some examples of what has transpired in the past. I'm sure many of my viewers will have heard of Piltdown man. Piltdown man was parts of a fossil skull and jaw bone found in a gravel pit near Piltdown in England. For over 40 years that skull was presented as one of our ancient half-ape, half-human ancestors. Then it was discovered that it was a forgery - a hoax. The jaw bone was that of an orangutan, teeth were from the Chimpanzee, and the skull of a human. The bones had actually been deliberately stained, and later examination revealed file-marks on the teeth. What's my point? Well I'll let my good friend, Dr. Gary Parker explain. Dr. Parker was not just an evolutionist teacher, but believed it so emphatically and taught it so aggressively that he had Christian students crying openly in his classes. Later on, he discovered that evolution was the faith that the facts had failed, and creation was the faith that fit the facts. As he put it: So, was that a conspiracy? Over 500 doctoral dissertations - scientific studies and papers written on that skull that earned hundreds of people their doctoral degrees. Were they all conspirators? As I mentioned in previous shows, there was at least six different skeletons found on the Island of Guadeloupe in the 1800's. These were completely modern human skeletons in rocks that were 20 million years old according to evolution - yet humans were not supposed to have evolved until about 200,000 years ago. So why aren't these skeletons on display? One of them was on display for some 50 years at the British Museum of Natural History, until evolutionary theory took hold, and it is now relegated to the basement. Is that conspiracy? Some claimed that the dating was wrong, that the rocks the skeletons came from was actually quite recent, and not 20 million years old. So my good friend and geologist John Mackay went to the island of Guadeloupe, went to the very rocks from which the skeletons were excavated, compared the rocks to the geological maps, and sure enough - the rocks are, according to the evolutionary timescale, 20 million years old. When John brought this information to Chris Stringer, principal scientific officer at the British Museum, John asked Chris "How many human fossils do you know of?" To which Chris replied "Oh, about 30,000" 30,000???? Now think about this for a second - do you realize how many bones that is? If Mr. Stringer knows about them, who else knows about them? How many people were involved in finding, excavating, preparing and documenting these fossils? Why have we not heard anything of these fossils? Is that a conspiracy? You can interpret it any way you like, I'm just pointing out the facts that we know. I'm even steering clear of several bizarre stories I know that do sound like a conspiracy! Personally, I don't view it as conspiracy, but rather quite simply human nature. Scientists are people too, subject to the same drives, competition, fears, and similar reactions to the possibility of God that so many of us feel. But if you want to experience conspiracy, just publically question evolution and watch what happens. Well that's it for this week's show - thanks so much for watching, and please join us again next Genesis Week. Remember you can send in your comments and questions in a number of ways, just remember that by submitting your comments you are giving us permission to use them on the show. You can email us at comments@genesisweek.com, or you can like, follow us on twitter or somethin, or even send us a tweet @genesisweek or you can go to our YouTube channel at genesisweek.com, find the appropriate show and post a comment there - and don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel while you're there to keep up to date on bonus videos. This show will be uploaded the Friday after airing, and just remember that comments on YouTube are moderated and require approval. I'm your host, Ian Juby, reminding you of the words of our Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ who said "I am the way, the truth, and the life -No man comes to the Father but through me." See you next week as we pursue the truth. We need your support to help keep this program on the air. You can help by making a tax-deductible donation to CORE Ottawa. You can also sign up for Ian's newsletter, You can also sign up for Ian's newsletter, detailing current research and news items at www.IanJuby.org [music]