Bill Nye blabbers the same religious dogmas on John Stossel’s show

John Stossel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

HEY BILL NYE!

“Observable and repeatable”?

How about scientist Russ Humphrey’s bull’s eye accurate prediction of the magnetic field strength of planets Neptune and Uranus before the satellite sent back the measurements, and the NASA guys getting it orders of magnitude wrong?

Bill Nye holds his evolutionary beliefs with very religious tenacity.

John Stossel should host a debate between Bill Nye “the science guy” and one of the foremost Creation scientists that have done it, like a great many associated with The Institute of Creation Research, or The CRS Research Journal.

Nye says you can’t disprove evolution and that you cannot prove the Earth is 6,000 or 10,000 years old. Not that he’s ever tried to think about how you could.

Macro-evolution is NOT “observable and repeatable” the way they talk about. What they do talk about are the same observable and repeatable things that the Young Earth Creationists emphatically agree are facts, and Creationist scientists say are most definitely evidence for a young Earth. 

Stossel did ask the question that Nye says is “unknowable”, a good copout but that’s one of their own gaps. Their gap theory is that they don’t have to know how it may have happened, they just know it did.

In fact, they apply the same basic leaps of logic in their thinking about how a molecule may be the ancient ancestor of man. It could have happened this way, could have happened that way, all by itself unguided, but their best actual “observable and repeatable” examples are what Creation scientists agree with.

The difference is that Creationists precisely stay with what is observable and repeatable. The wild canine species all descended from the same original wolf-like ancestry, cats trace their lineage back to some kind of cat, and all this is obvious from observation and deduction. A net loss of information ensues.

Finches to finches, and a blind fish that even still has the gene for eyesight that lived in caves. You try it. Take some fish that can see and put them in a tank with zero light for a few generations and watch what happens.

Bill Nye believes in his long-ages unguided process that produces an information processing machine complete with a digital processing language and complete feedback mechanisms, better than any self-maintaining set of robots that any of today’s best IT engineers can do.

 

Related articles

• Answers in Genesis Rebukes Pat Robertson (sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com)

Mercury’s Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model – Again!

 

 

The magnetic field of Uranus as observed by Voyager 2 in 1986. S and N are magnetic south and north poles. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

http://www.icr.org/article/6424/

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8412

 

 

 

Send This

 

Mercury’s Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model

 

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

 

Planets, including the earth, generate magnetic fields that encompass the space around them. Observations have shown that, like earth’s, the planet Mercury’s magnetic field is rapidly breaking down, and NASA’s Messenger spacecraft confirmed that again earlier this year.

 

If the planets in the solar system are billions of years old, why do these magnetic fields still exist?

 

In 1974 and 1975, the Mariner 10 spacecraft measured Mercury’s magnetic field strength with its onboard magnetometer and sent the data to earth. The astronomers analyzing the data at the time found that the average magnetic moment was 4.8 x 1022 gauss cm3, which yields a field strength “about 1% that of the Earth.”1

 

A decade later, creation physicist D. Russell Humphreys published a magnetic field model based on clues from the Bible. He reasoned that earth and the planets all shared a watery beginning, in accord with Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3:5.2 He calculated what the magnetic field strength would have been at the creation by using a mass of aligned water molecules equal to the masses of each planet.

 

Then, he plotted the rate at which the magnetic fields would have diminished over the roughly 6,000 years since. Humphreys wrote, “Electrical resistance in a planet’s core will decrease the electrical current causing the magnetic field, just as friction slows down a flywheel.”3 The resulting model accurately predicted the magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, as well as the declining strength of Mercury’s field.4

 

… read on…

 

http://www.icr.org/article/6424/

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8412

 

Related articles

• Creation scientist Russ Humphreys predicted magnetic field strength for Uranus, Neptune, Mercury; NASA way off (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• Scientists Discover New Super-Magnetic Star (newswatch.nationalgeographic.com)
• Spinning Carbon Nanotubes Open Pores In Cancer Cells (cen.acs.org)
• Climate Models Are Crap (stevengoddard.wordpress.com)

 

Creation scientist Russ Humphreys predicted magnetic field strength for Uranus, Neptune, Mercury; NASA way off

The magnetic field of Uranus as observed by Voyager 2 in 1986. S and N are magnetic south and north poles. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The planet Mercury is proving to be a big problem for the big brains at NASA that try to fit it into billions-of-years ages:

http://creation.com/mercury-magnetized-crust

NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft (figure 1) is continuing to produce surprising new evidence that Mercury’s magnetic field is as young as the Bible says. Since March 2011 the spacecraft has been in a near-polar orbit around Mercury. By now it has orbited the planet nearly a thousand times, repeatedly passing over the entire surface. Swooping low over the northern volcanic plains, the spacecraft discovered that the planet’s outer crust in that region is strongly magnetized.¹ The strongest magnetization coincides with a broad topographic rise near the center of those plains. That leads the analyzing team to believe that the magnetization comes from basalt solidified from lava flowing up out of the deeper crust throughout the plain…..

…

This adds to the string of surprises Mercury’s magnetic field has given uniformitarian⁴ space scientists. Before Mariner 10 zoomed by the planet in 1974 and 1975, experts had expected the planet to have zero field. Instead, those flybys showed that Mercury has a significant magnetic field, about 1% of Earth’s. Since then, theorists have tried many versions of the ‘dynamo’ theory (which imagines a planet’s core acting like an electric generator) to explain how Mercury could have a field and sustain it for eons. In the last few years, they have been trying to understand why the field is so low compared to Earth’s.

The data sent back from the Mercury probe validates two predictions from Creation science, as explained by physicist Russ Humphreys in an article written in 1984:

#1. That Mercury would have a significant magnetic field, though weaker than Earth’s, because of the young age of Mercury (thousands). NASA scientists expected it to have zero strength. They found it has 1% of Earth’s.

#2. That the strength of the magnetic field would be fading fast. Measurements made in 2011 show the field is 8% weaker than in 1975, an astonishingly fast decrease. This calculates into a “fast rate of decay (half-life of 350 years)”. The conclusion is that the crust was magnetized only thousands of years ago.

In 1984, Humphreys also predicted a range for the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.

http://www.icr.org/article/329/

Voyager Tests the Theory

Two years later, on January 20, 1986, Voyager II passed by Uranus. It showed that Uranus has a magnetic moment of 3.0 x 10²⁴ A m², well within the bounds of my prediction. In contrast, many evolutionists had predicted that Uranus would have a much smaller field, or none at all.⁷ This prediction grew directly out of their “dynamo” theories, which assume that the fluid interior of a planet is like an electrical generator (dynamo) maintaining the magnetic field forever. The generator mechanism would be driven by heat in the interior, which would manifest itself by a significant heat outflow from the planet’s surface. However, astronomic measurements had shown that Uranus has very little heat outflow. Hence, by their theories, Uranus should not have a strong magnetic field. But it does!

On August 25, 1989, Voyager II passed by Neptune and found that it has a magnetic moment of 1.5 x 10²⁴ A m², again about in the middle of my prediction. Neptune has a significant heat outflow, so dynamo theorists expected it to have a field as strong as the one I predicted. Thus for Neptune, the creationist and evolutionist theories did equally well, as far as predicting the strength of the field is concerned. However, in other aspects of the magnetic field, Neptune gave the dynamo theorists a rude surprise.

Humphreys extrapolated his predictions based on the creation narratives in Genesis, taken in straightforward fashion.

You can catch up on Dr. Russ Humphrey’s bio and credentials here:

http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

Related articles

• Why Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Wonky (sott.net)
• Mercury’s Magnetic Field Measured by MESSENGER Orbiter (spacedaily.com)
• Finnish engineers use earth’s magnetic field for indoor map navigation (venturebeat.com)
• Researchers find cells that move in response to Earth’s magnetic field (phys.org)
• Likely Source of Animals’ Magnetic Sense Identified (livescience.com)
• All retrogrades are not created equal… (return2thesource.wordpress.com)