Bill Nye: Bible doesn't tell Earth's true history
© AP / Bill Nye
Bill Nye: Bible doesn't tell Earth's true history
Feb. 5, 2014, 8:34 AM EST
By DYLAN LOVAN , Associated Press
PETERSBURG, Ky. (AP) — True to his passionate and animated TV persona, "Science Guy" Bill Nye tapped on the podium, threw up his hands and noted that science shows the Earth is "billions and billions" of years old in a debate at a Kentucky museum known for teaching that the planet's age is only 6,000.
Nye was debating Creation Museum founder Ken Ham and promoting science in the snappy way that made him a pop culture staple as host of "Bill Nye The Science Guy" in the 1990s.
The event was meant to explore the age old question, "How did we get here?" from the perspectives of faith and science.
Ham, an Australian native who has built a thriving ministry in Kentucky, said he trusts the story of creation presented by the Bible.
"The Bible is the word of God," Ham said. "I admit that's where I start from."
Nye delivered a passionate speech on science and challenged the museum's teachings on the age of the earth and the Bible's flood story. Like most scientists, Nye believes there is no credible evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old.
"If we accept Mr. Ham's point of view ... that the Bible serves as a science text and he and his followers will interpret that for you, I want you to consider what that means," Nye said. "It means that Mr. Ham's word is to be more respected than what you can observe in nature, what you can find in your backyard in Kentucky."
The event drew dozens of national media outlets and about 800 tickets sold out in minutes. Ham said ahead of the debate that the Creation Museum was having a peak day on its social media sites.
"I think it shows you that the majority of people out there, they're interested in this topic, they want to know about this, they don't want debate shut down," Ham said before the debate.
At times, the debate had the feel of a university lecture, with slides and long-form presentations.
Responding to an audience question about where atoms and matter come from, Nye said scientists are continuing to find out.
Ham said he already knows the answer.
"Bill, I want to tell you, there is a book that tells where atoms come from, and its starts out, 'In the beginning ...,'" Ham said.
Nye said there are plenty of religious people around the world who don't question evolution science.
"I just want to remind us all there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious, who get enriched by the wonderful sense of community by their religion," said Nye, who wore his trademark bow tie. "But these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old."
The debate drew a few Nye disciples in the audience, including Aaron Swomley, who wore a red bowtie and white lab coat. Swomley said he was impressed by Ham's presentation and the debate's respectful tone.
"I think they did a good job outlining their own arguments without getting too heated, as these debates tend to get," he said.
Some scientists had been critical of Nye for agreeing to debate the head of a Christian ministry that is dismissive of evolution.
Jerry Coyne, an evolution professor at the University of Chicago, wrote on his blog that "Nye's appearance will be giving money to organizations who try to subvert the mission Nye has had all his life: science education, particularly of kids." Coyne pointed out that the Creation Museum will be selling DVDs of the event.
The debate was hatched after Nye appeared in an online video in 2012 that urged parents not to pass their religious-based doubts about evolution on to their children. Ham rebutted Nye's statements with his own online video and the two later agreed to share a stage.
___
Previous comments... You are currently on page 10.
Yes, I knew the man, at least his mind.
No, the Bible is not the absolute "word of God." It is the word as inspired by God, conceptualized and transcribed by humans, and compiled and edited by other humans - some of which, having human failings, have not been faithful to the original word. Thus, while there are some factions of faiths (including my own Catholic) that espouse the one true version of God, it is illogical to accept that.
It's like trying to put a bell on a pig. You wind up wrestling around in the mud, the bell gets full of mud, and you soon realize the pigs having a lot more fun that you are.
Not only is the current Christian faith "incomplete" from missing knowledge that exists, but is excluded, but it is intentionally skewed by a church seeking to maintain a status quo power structure that is completely man-made.
Now, is it more logical to acknowledge that there was some entity that "created" the universe, or that it emerged out of nothingness on its own from its own volition?
We have "seen" what we understand of God that has intersected in our "2D" understanding of the world. But God exists in a much higher dimension than we can comprehend.
Just as the ant has no conceptualization of a human, neither does a human have a true understanding of God. Because we are sentient, we try to explain with reason that which we are incapable of understanding - just like the ant.
One must first be humble enough to accept that they cannot understand that which cannot be understood.
We'll all know soon enough, one way or another.
Nye asserts that carbon dating is an accurate method of assessing the dates of certain objects. Ham challenges that assertion by noting that carbon dating's effectiveness is predicated on two factors: the steady half-life of carbon isotopes AND the ratio of the isotopes in the sample to ratios found in present-day carbon sources. Both of these must be true in order for carbon-dating to be regarded as reliable.
Is it more likely than not that the half-life of the applicable carbon isotopes remains constant - even through millenia? I would argue yes. The number of variables under consideration is very limited and predicated on highly predictable scientific observations. So we will conclude that this assumption is more likely than not to be valid - and with a high degree of certainty.
Is it more likely than not that the ratios of radioactive carbon in organisms of today are similar to those of ages past? That is the assumption where there is significant room for question, as we can only use educated guesses to evaluate the past - not direct observation. I would still argue that the level of variance can and is mathematically compensated for and thus that the assumption is more likely than not to be valid, but I would definitely place a high degree of uncertainty on this assumption relative to to the assumption regarding half-life.
Without specific proof one way or the other regarding the ratios, it is impossible to fully confirm our hypothesis, thus while we can reasonably conclude that carbon dating is a valid practice, we must also recognize that there may be a small possibility of error.
I guess for some atheists they just state there is no God without examining any evidence. I guess that could be considered a belief. But not a philosophy. Please understand, there are plenty of atheists who are irrational and do not apply reason and logic in their lives to a great degree. Atheism is not the objective standard.
I think your second statement on it is the answer to the first. I have met people that hold as fact god exists. They do not see it as a belief, but fact. I have also met people that “believe” there is no god, not due to any rationality on their part. I offer most any atheist progressive as evidence of that. YOU form your stance of atheism off the examination of the evidence. That does not mean all or even most have done so.
> At the very core of a Christian's philosophical understanding of the world, is the belief in God. A Deist doesn't need to have alot follow that-but it is still at the core of their philosophy. They may then say but the existence of God does not affect the rest of my philosophy. For a Christian, there is a philosophy of life if you are practicing Christianity. If I am not following you, let me know.
Yes, this is what I mean. Keep in mind I speak only for myself, and I am not saying that A does not equal A. I am saying a person can examine their lives, the physical evidence, their own observations, and come up with a completely different answer to a question than someone else.
Load more comments...