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 5.
As far as values are concerned, He doesn't live by values, He sets them and yes, they are impossible to meet as the Jews found out. That's why we need Christ's redemption; something we can't do for ourselves.
The law of identity requires that everything that exists has limits due to its correlates -- law of excluded middle and law of non-contradiction. It is or it isn't; it cannot be both. So a limitless being is and isn't, which is the root of the problem regarding comprehension. Reason dictates a contradiction cannot exist. Faith says it can. We need to resolve which is valid before I think we can make progress.
Some want to say that human sentience is a mere mutation that occurred randomly. I counter that over the eons of earth's existence, with uncountable species, some of which are more than 99% genetically similar to humans, only once has sentience occurred. Statistical probability stacks up strongly against such a one off occurrence (although I will grant you that it is possible, however slight the chance).
There are also those who say either that the universe has always existed, in which case I point to entropy and that if the universe has always existed why hasn't it devolved into constituent atomic particles. And others that will insist that to overcome that issue it clearly had a starting point - then if so, how did that occur and from what did it emanate. There are no theories that provide a better answer than "God."
One thing is for sure, god doesn't require values to live like we do. Are we really expected to be like it, when the game is rigged beyond possibility for us? What may be good for it? Nothing can harm it. The material values that are good for us are not good for it.
So other than it looking human and needing nothing we don't know much. I can picture a human like being, but that's it.
Are you able to derive for me how you know that such a being exists?
Only if you insist on framing existence in what you can comprehend. I postulate that there is existence beyond human comprehension. That is where you and I will part ways. You want to play word games based on your postulate that only what is directly observable exists. I suffer no such delusions.
If one gets a little help along the way, all the better. ;)
Some will extend this to say that faith underlies the drive of the entrepreneur to take risks in the hope of a profit, or the drive of the inventor to create something. There is no guarantee they will be successful, but they persevere in the hopes that it could happen.
In religious circles, faith is used to identify the reason for actions taken that to someone else may appear irrational.
Hope that helps.
What I understand by your comment is that you are defining comprehensible to be a complete understanding of a being superior to humankind in power, in understanding, and in knowledge. In that respect, I agree, but because our limited functions aren't capable of such. However, can we identify attributes of God? Absolutely. Just, merciful, loving, and fatherly to name a few. The attempt to know God is the heart of religion in the first place, but not because we irrationally believe we can comprehend all God did or does, but in order to find our place. By understanding our relationship to Him, we DO grow to know Him. I never recognized the wisdom of my father until I had children of my own. Now I can identify with and understand my own father in ways I never could before and I have grown to love him in ways I never did before.
In my belief, life here is no different. We are learning through experience so that we can better understand God.
Further, I would question your definition or use of omnipotence. Omnipotence doesn't mean capricious exercise of power (such as creating an object one can not lift). I cite Socrates' criticism of such a concept:
The Greek Pantheon (Zeus, Athena, Apollo, Hades, etc.) were attributed to be all-powerful to the Greeks. Socrates contended that because of the capricious nature exhibited by the Greek gods (according to their traditions and legends) that this was inherently a contradiction: that for beings of such power that did not govern their actions strictly (which the Greek gods were not known for), their own power would be their undoing. I would agree with this line of reasoning to posit not that an all-powerful being can not exist, only that such a being would have to elicit extraordinary self-control in order to wield such power! Socrates goes on to argue for a limited, monotheistic view. This was what ultimately condemned Socrates to death - his reasoned heresy for the self-governed use of power.
Similarly, as a fan of "Star Trek: The Next Generation", I found the episodes with Q to be particularly entertaining and insightful. Q regularly posed moral quandaries to the intrepid explorers on the Enterprise, but did so out of antipathy and caprice. Q was ultra-powerful. He could alter the gravitational constant of the universe, but also got kicked out of the Continuum for bad behavior that fell outside of the rules - capriciousness!
Did the Enterprise crew comprehend Q? No. Did he exist? Yes.
One more thought. If your reasoning falls along the lines that the incomprehensible can not exist, I would also invite you to reason on the origin of invention. Is it also unreasonable to imagine something which could be, but which I can not at this point define the machinations of? If such were the case, would not all human advancement have ceased long ago?
In 1 Corinthians 1:27-28 NIV it says: But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are.
yes, but allowing for possibilities starts from the premise of plausibility. Just because humans have always been more tribal/mystical in explaining phenomena until they gain more knowledge, does not mean individuals can't stop at some point to acknowledge a change needs to occur. Most of us are raised with some religious doctrine and traditions ingrained in us since we are very small. As we gain more knowledge, most of us question very early on the God concept. It is such a liklihood, organized religions have built into their very rituals confrontations of faith and belief. Rituals to practice often as a test of faith. My opinion is that's because of the enormous evidence (tests) in the face of that belief. In Christianity the concept God is Love is untestable. after all we know love is an emotion which may or may not be backed by reason. One can test the power of love but cannot test that God is it. We must believe a book. That is the source of much religion. A sacred book. Can you at least agree this is a tough sell to atheists? You are not required to take a single book's perspective for any other knowledge, scientific or otherwise. There is no source material that cannot be tested and vetted by experts in any field and over time. Religious scholars can and do argue over say Deuteronomy, historical evidence of people living in a certain time, etc. and that is testable to a point. But there is no testing of miracles-these are just to be accepted by the Christian-the holy trinity (for example) which is the most obtuse and illogical concept I can think of in almost any religion-purposely designed to confuse and force the mystic into a state of faith in trying to unravel the illogical.
..
In order to explain, I kind of have to start at the beginning and go into the three basic questions of humanity: "where did we come from", "why are we here", and "where are we going". These are questions religion is uniquely suited to answer.
I believe that we existed prior to this life and that we will continue to exist afterward. We currently consist of two parts: a physical, mortal shell and a spirit or intellect. That spirit is rational, reasoning, etc. Before this earth, we lived with God as His children, but we were a little different. He still looked like us (or rather we look like him), but He possessed a perfect physical body we did not and possessed power we did not. In order for us to develop/advance, He created this sphere/planet to give us the opportunity to obtain a physical body. There was also one more purpose: to see if we would live up to higher laws that He obeys. So as not to bias the outcome (God grants us the ability to choose our destiny), when we come to inhabit a physical body here, our memories are erased.
Now you are probably saying: if God has an immortal body, why didn't create us with one of those? Valid question. Part of choosing our own destinies means choosing between "good" and "evil". When we choose "evil", we sin. Sin is imperfection or a failure to live up to the standards of perfection. Christians believe God is merciful and loving - beyond that of any other parent - and foresaw this, so He created this life and this earth to be temporary so we could get our lives straightened around even after we made mistakes. But this life is all we have. After this life, our spirits/essences will be given permanent, immortal bodies again in a process called resurrection. That joining will be permanent and we will continue to exist, but our choices here will determine our future there. (Also, no I don't believe in the common perception of a permanent Hell presided over by a red-skinned guy holding a trident. I could explain where this ridiculous notion comes from, but this forum isn't an appropriate place.)
We envision God as all-powerful because we can not comprehend the mechanisms or knowledge required to construct a world, a solar system, galaxy, etc. which we believe He did - and all for our benefit. We believe that God still speaks to men who are really interested in such, and that some of these then become His spokesmen to mankind - aka prophets. I believe that those who seek God can communicate with him personally and know He is real.
I know that this forum isn't a great place to talk religion and please understand that I've tried to condense down into a few short paragraphs what we could literally spend hours on, but I appreciate your attention nonetheless. I find nothing more enjoyable that a reasonable discussion where the truth is the end goal.
Load more comments...