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 8.
  • 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.
    Yes, I do know. It is called faith. It is a concept that you atheists are seemingly incapable of understanding.
    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.
    I never said that God is everything that is not knowable. I have said that God is not fully knowable. Again, big difference.
    And if you are going to insist that we discuss only what we can concretely define and agree to, then we can have no discussion regarding faith.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    According to your earlier statement he (it) is everything that is not knowable. Do you stand by that definition? If you refuse to define what god is, it is impossible to have a discussion with you, because we do not know what we are talking about.
    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) So you agree that God exists?
    2) If true, and entropy is valid, then this cannot be true, thus A does not equal A.
    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.
    You seem to refuse to accept the answer provided. No, I do not call all that I do not know "God." However, God is not fully knowable. 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.
    Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
    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.
    Oh, I enjoy the debate with khalling and some others. At least they are honest atheists. Most, however, insist that they must be able to comprehend otherwise it cannot be. They are arrogant fools.
    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.
    I never claimed to be able to do so. You're the one that insinuated that you could predict the future (by claiming that creationists can only "predict" the past).
    As for pointing out the missed apostrophe (via the inclusion of the sic ref), that's just juvenile.
    "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
    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.
    Your failing is in seeking "proof." You either believe (in my case that some 2000 yrs ago a certain being was born and later killed) or you don't. That is called faith. There was a member of his following, by the name of Thomas, who also had doubts. "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You might enjoy the book "atheism: the case against god". It will make your convictions bulletproof.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What other perspective should I use? May I also ask, how is it that you've come to know something that is by definition unknowable to you?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by m082844 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Does it really make sense that one acquires knowledge through ignorance?

    I never said there can't be a more intelligent beings than myself. I know of many. My wife is one.

    As far as my examples go, let's suppose an omnipotent being that can do anything. Can it create an object that is so heavy that it can't lift. If yes, then its power is limited since there is something it cannot do -- it can't lift the object. If not, then its power is limited since there is something it can not do -- it can't create the object. In either case it's limited; therefore, it cannot be omnipotent or it would be a contradiction in terms.

    A supernatural being is a contradiction in terms, because it is a being that doesn't exist as anything in particular because otherwise it would have limits; and yet at the same time to be is to be something, and to be something is to be something specific.

    The book does a better job walking you through each of these (and more) logically.

    Everything is incomprehensible at first due to our nature -- tabula rasa. Dark matter isn't claimed, however, to be supernatural. (If the scientists aren't wrong about the existence of dark matter) We may come to learn more about it, and yet the stuff we already know about it is comprehensible. God by definition will never be comprehensible.
    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.
    Don't bother they will never consider understanding it or just reject everything that they can't see unless it fits their mantras. They think they know everything and have all the answers, leave them to it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment deleted.

  • Comment hidden. Undo