Bill Nye: Bible doesn't tell Earth's true history

Posted by jrberts5 11 years, 2 months ago to Science
303 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag



© 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.
___


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 9.
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not at all. I like the debate.
    It's just that atheists have a fundamental premise different from those who believe in a deity. I accept that there are things unknowable, atheists do not.
    My way provides comfort and solace. I don't see that yours provides the same.
    To each his (or her) own.
    As I said, soon enough we will all have an answer. If I'm right, then I hope to enter eternal bliss. If you're right, no harm, no foul - we're both food for earthworms.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not at all. I don't understand quantum physics, but I don't consider that "God."
    However, what I do consider God is not fully comprehensible to man. There's a big difference.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Just calling it as I sees it. Do you truly believe that Rozar has full and complete knowledge of the universe? Otherwise the response is a falsehood.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Best theory is that somewhere along the line moon cycles and yearly cycles were mixed up. If that were the case, then Methuselah would have been merely 80 yrs old. Not unbelievable at all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So if God isn't an exception that means he is subject to the same laws as everything else in nature. Including the fact that he has to have matter to have consciousness. Again how do you know there are things we will never understand? And I'm sure you've heard of the God of the gaps theory.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A human is a destructible rational animal, and his power is limited within the law of identity so he cannot perform miracles (i.e., violate the law of identity).

    Is this god you envision indestructible and is it an all powerful supernatural being? I look forward to understanding your perspective.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What only explains that we humans cannot explain god, the book?

    If god is incomprehensible and unexplainable, as you say, then what is it that you believe in? It sounds like you don't and can't know. If so, and you are honest with yourself, then that should place you in the agnostic's camp -- which is a branch of atheism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "You can disprove a proclaimed belief if it is in contradiction to what is known and necessarily true."

    I would agree, but how does that prove God does not exist? As I mentioned before, man is horribly ignorant. To proclaim that we can without doubt rule out the possibility of intelligent life that supercedes our own seems to me to be a rather arrogant posture, don't you agree?

    "Most descriptions of god are self contradictory -- e.g., a supernatural being is a contradiction in terms; an omnipotent being is a contradiction in terms."

    No idea how one logically reaches either of those conclusions. Our limited cognition may not be able to comprehend HOW such a thing could happen, but I fail to see this as justification that it is impossible. More accurate to say that as of yet is not explained. Major difference.

    I'll give you an example. Dark matter applies to most of the terms you just cited. We know it exists, not because we can measure or study it but because of its influence on other astrophysical objects. We don't have a clue how dark matter works, how it is derived, what purpose it serves, or even how to really define it. Even the term relates not to the substance itself, but to our inability to interact with or study it in any meaningful way.

    I do not mean to make a parallel of dark matter to God. I merely use this as an illustration of a source of complete bewilderment on the part of mankind. It is a legitimate phenomena, but one which is completely indecipherable at the present time. To say that other such forces, beings, entities, substances do not exist just because we do not have the proper tools with which to interact or measure them is to deny science itself in spite of the evidence in front of our own noses.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WillH 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Respectfully this sounds like a mystic copout, even though I am a religious person. It’s a default statement to say we cannot understand something because it is too far above us.

    I am not saying we can fully understand everything, but given enough time we may understand a lot.

    Take the Big Bang for example. It surprises me that very few people ever think that just maybe we have identified god’s method of creation. The only thing I know that the bible says I cannot understand is the idea of infinity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Can you do me a favor and describe what a human is to you? I can't explain to you how I see things without a common reference point.

    Suffice to say that I am not like other Christians who believe in a formless, unidentifiable God. To me, that's an absurd concept. If worship is veneration or seeking to become like something, how can I imitate what I can't identify? If that is the same quandary you face, I am in total agreement. It is neither logical nor reasonable.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    then we are kindred spirits. (and I consider him one of our greatest authors, despite his being a Navy man).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not "convenient" at all. In fact, excrutiatingly frustrating.

    And why would that be a "failing" of religion? In fact, my religion fills in the "incomprehensible" part quite nicely.

    There may be a day when all knowledge is known, though I have grave doubts. But I think that you would agree that that time is nowhere near, and certainly not within our life times. So, given that, what is the alternative? My answer is more logical to me than yours. That's not to say that I seek to impose my answer on you, just as I don't expect you to impose yours on me.

    As I've said before, soon enough we will all have the answer. I'm personally rooting for the ending from "Stranger in a Strange Land."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Who said that God had to be an "exception?" I just don't think that we have a complete conceptualization of all of what you call "the laws of physics." Nor do I think that we ever will. There are some aspects of physics that we will never be able to understand - that is what I call God.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo