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 7.
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Robbie: >>"prevents you from the reality that not all is knowable and understandable"<<

    Damn, I guess we ought to just give up, then. What absurdity. The human race is on the very verge of separating itself from natural evolution, extending a normal lifetime beyond 100 years and more, and even creating life and lifeforms beyond those of nature,
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Robbie: Why would you assume that anything is incomprehensible to humans? It may not be known at this instant in time. That in no way implies incomprehension.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Robbie, I was actually trying to bring you back from the edge of the debate. Your point about inconceivable was true, but they are right if it is inconceivable to humans how do we understand? We understand because we considered the possibility. There are many things in science where someone had to imagine something never seen, ( a theory.) Do they always have proof of the theory? no. Does it come later ? Some do some don't. Does someone know all the answers? Just God. There is something called string theory where the physicists calculated everything back to the point when time began and energy was there before mass was created. They theorize that there are many dimensions there. Did they ever go there and see them? No. Do they exist, possibly. Could they believe it without seeing it yes? They ran the numbers on a calculator. What if that energy was God or put there by God? Would they consider that a possibility? Not according to Ayn Rand. So then could Ayn be wrong or a little narrow on this? Possibly., but I am not an expert on Ayn Rand. I have read about how she arrives at logic. I have read her theories about knowledge. What a world we would live in if all we did was what felt good to us? Do we even touch other people's lives? You betcha. Politically she is very right. There is a limit where everything becomes so extreme it no longer places any value on humans. Do I think the libs are right? Nope, way off as a matter of fact. There is no logic in putting all that power in the hands of a very few, because they will wheel and deal to serve themselves,. Corporations bankers and Wall Street are doing that with globalism it is great for the rich but making everyone else so poor you become a slave to the few. . We are both here because she raised some interesting points. I would like to learn more but would we just say she is right on everything? No, she was merely mortal capable of mistakes, and corruptible by her own self serving interests. Oh yes they would say that about religion. Ok well I rather follow the word of God, he had excellent advise on being good to one another. Did he say it was ok to free load? Nope.The only way I see out of this mess is to make sock and trade them for some potatoes or a bag of rice. Either way we will be ok, too bad if they don't want to come along. We tried to invite them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't think he called you an arrogant fool. It was directed at people that won't have a rational discussion. I don't know if that is you or not. I do think there are closed systems in Chemistry you can cook in a reactor and use entropy to calculate reaction rates and percent products etc. In biology entropy is used to calculate reactions in a cell. There are modifications of course.

    Reply | Permalink  
    • m082844 replied 11 years, 2 months ago
  • Comment deleted.
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm sorry, what was I lieing about? Can you explain to me what I don't know about the universe?

    Sorry, I meant to say what do I not understand about the universe?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    the agnostic belief is technically an atheist belief. A-theism is without a belief in god. You may lack belief in a god or believe god doesn't exist to be an atheist.
    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.
    Sorry, but you too have progressed to the point of extreme arrogance. No, I cannot know what God is. That does not prevent me from belief. Your arrogance in believing that you can understand all prevents you from the reality that not all is knowable and understandable. Just because I cannot conceptualize the fullness of something does not prevent me from knowing that it exists. I cannot fully comprehend, nor will ever fully know with certainty, what a black hole is. That does not prevent me from knowing that it exists and is real.
    And before you respond that you have evidence that black holes exist, I challenge you to prove it. You cannot, as all "proof" is theory of what black holes are. And are no more tangible than what I have called God.
    The interchange has been stimulating, but since you refuse to accept that there are things that you cannot know, we cannot continue to have a reasonable interchange.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Suit yourself, but you cannot claim to hold a rational position.

    I will only accept things as knowledge that I comprehend, otherwise I will say (by necessity of being honest) that I don't know. I don't know where you're getting your information. There are many things I don't know. On top of that I know that I will never know everything.

    I'm being fairly open minded here. I am asking you to help me understand faith. could you at least define it?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    1) I don't believe that I said humans attained consciousness somehow. I thought you were asking about how the first conscious being came into existence. But since we're on the topic of human consciousness, their conscious faculty is created during fetal development. The parts that make the brain are assembled with the DNA functioning as the blueprints.

    There is a major difference between the term somehow that I use and the one theists use when describing what god does -- the former is within the laws of nature and the other is (generally) outside the laws of nature. Neither is an explanation, but at least mine leaves the possibility of an explanation.

    2. You may look again if you'd like; it's on wiki. They use the term isolated systems instead of closed (which means something else there). I've never said there was such a thing that exists as a closed system; I said entropy only applies to a closed system. And to add some of my own assessment to the issue of a cooling universe. This assumes that the universe continues to spread out, but not if the universe contracts again. A contracting universe would eventually reenergize and possibly spread out again.
    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.
    No. This is my last communique with you. You believe that you are capable of knowing everything. That is the pinnacle of arrogance. Since you will never accept that you cannot know everything, and that you will only accept what you do comprehend, it is a meaningless exercise to have any discussion of faith with you.
    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.
    1) If you agree that humans attained consciousness "somehow", then my postulate that it was bestowed upon us by God is as good an explanation as any that you have provided.
    2) There is no such thing as a "closed system." All systems exist in the universe. And physicists apply entropy to the universe in general. If all systems proceed towards disorder, and the universe is infinite in time, then the universe must have proceeded to ultimate disorder - but since it hasn't, then the universe cannot be infinite in time and must have had a beginning. Since the universe must have had a beginning, there must have been a creator. A equals A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Help me understand. Could you define faith for me? How does this new (to me) method of knowledge work? Can you give me an example of how you know something from faith but not from reason?
    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.
    OK, that wasn't the most precise response. But, in essence, yes. I don't believe that God is fully understandable, and there are aspects of physics that will never be understood and therefore are indistinguishable from God.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    1) no, why?
    2) entropy applies to a closed system only not to the universe as a whole. Also it's a statistical probability applied to a closed system, so entropy could decrease without contradicting the law. You've misapplied the 2nd law of thermo dynamics to an inappropriate context.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    True here is what you said "There are some aspects of physics that we will never be able to understand - that is what I call God." So God is everything we do not know about physics. Is that your definition?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What is god? It's a simple question. All of physics or mathematics is not known, but that does not mean that it does not have a definition
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo