Bill Nye the Science Guy and Creationism

[joshua 1 9]

Bill Nye is point blank anti Creationism. Yet when you listen to what he says, he admits he is against his understanding of Creationism. If you try to discern his understanding then it turns out that he is against Young Earth Creationism. He is against the idea that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. If you look up the meaning: "Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation." So there is a difference between Creationism and Young Earth Creationism. This is why Ken Ham accuses Bill Nye of using bait and switch. He talks against Creationism but he argues against young earth creationism. He appears to be a honest sincere person but what Bill Nye is doing is misleading and dishonest. If he were a business man and not a scientist it would be against the law. The government demands truth in advertising, so they should demand truth in Science. IF Bill Nye wants to maintain his integrity then he should qualify that he is not against Creationism, he is against Young Earth Creationism. Or he should present his evidence to show that Creation could not have been a Divine Act.

 

[Loudmouth]

Bill Nye is point blank anti Creationism. Yet when you listen to what he says, he admits he is against his understanding of Creationism. If you try to discern his understanding then it turns out that he is against Young Earth Creationism. He is against the idea that the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

He is also against the falsified claim that species were created separately, as any reading of the transcripts of the debate between him and Ken Ham will show:

http://www.youngearth.org/index.php...m/21-transcript-of-ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debate

This would pit Nye against all forms of creationism.

Or he should present his evidence to show that Creation could not have been a Divine Act.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens

 

[joshua 1 9]

He is also against the falsified claim that species were created separately, as any reading of the transcripts of the debate between him and Ken Ham will show:

I watched the whole debate. That is why I say he seems sincere and honest. He is not ready to throw science to the lions. It is as if science is the cause that he supports. Although that attitude gets him a lot of free publicity so he can sell his books. So we have to be careful that he really does have a zeal for science and not alternative motives.

 

[Loudmouth]

I watched the whole debate. That is why I say he seems sincere and honest. He is not ready to throw science to the lions. It is as if science is the cause that he supports. Although that attitude gets him a lot of free publicity so he can sell his books. So we have to be careful that he really does have a zeal for science and not alternative motives.

You didn't address what I wrote.

You accused Nye of focusing just on YEC instead of creationism in general. He did address creationism in general when he disputed the claim that species were created separately. Also, he was debating Ken Ham who is a YEC.

So are you going to withdraw your false accusation that Nye focuses just on YEC?

 

[And-U-Say]

Bill Nye is point blank anti Creationism.

No. Bill Nye is agains psuedo science. He is against dishonesty. He is against dogma. And if you are against these things, well, you are going to be "against" creationism.

Yet when you listen to what he says, he admits he is against his understanding of Creationism. If you try to discern his understanding then it turns out that he is against Young Earth Creationism.

Outside of your ability to properly form a coherent thought, yes, there are a variety of creationisms out there. Old earth, young earth. Even the deistic form of creationism where god starts the big bang and then doesn't interact with the physical universe ever again. But I think everyone, and I mean everyone, understood that he was talking about YEC. Your point here really doesn't follow.

He is against the idea that the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

Yup. So we all should be.

If you look up the meaning: "Creationism is the religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation." So there is a difference between Creationism and Young Earth Creationism.

Yes, but I think pretty much everyone knew that Bill Nye was targeting the YECs. Heck, was it not obvious in that this was a debate against Ken Ham, the poster child for YEC? What is your point here?

This is why Ken Ham accuses Bill Nye of using bait and switch.

No. Ken Ham accused Bill Nye of bait and switch because Ken Ham does not understand the term "bait and switch" and is desperate for negative things to say about Nye.

He talks against Creationism but he argues against young earth creationism. He appears to be a honest sincere person but what Bill Nye is doing is misleading and dishonest.

The only dishonest folks involved with this were the creationists. And you, too, perhaps. Again, everyone knew what this debate was about. The premise was "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?". The term "creation" in this context was well understood to mean YEC. Keep in mind that Ham never disputed the use of the term. And frankly, you should be taking your cues from him in this matter.

If he were a business man and not a scientist it would be against the law. The government demands truth in advertising, so they should demand truth in Science.

There is an awful lot you don't understand here.

IF Bill Nye wants to maintain his integrity then he should qualify that he is not against Creationism, he is against Young Earth Creationism. Or he should present his evidence to show that Creation could not have been a Divine Act.

Your rant here only puts your integrity at risk. And by the way, the burden of proof is in your camp.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No. Bill Nye is agains psuedo science. He is against dishonesty. He is against dogma. And if you are against these things, well, you are going to be "against" creationism.

There are all kinds of Creationisms which he is not trained or equipped to argue against. Even Theistic Evolution is Creationism. So if Bill is point blank against Creationism that would make him an Anti Evolutionist. These are the sort of inconsistency that should cause him to be more careful to qualify what he says sense so much of his audience is Creationist. That is the vast majority of people that would be buying his books believe in a Divine Cause. To be against Creationism means you are against Divine Cause not against the YEC Creationism. Gould was a anti creationist and he died a early death. His side kick Eldridge reminded agnostic and he is still alive today.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yup. So we all should be.

Not so fast. Remember YEC is supported by Arch Bishop Ussher and we are still talking about his amazing book today. Do you think we will be having a conversation about Bill Nye the science guy 500 years from now? I do not think so. He is pretty much a clown and he has a lot of amusement value but he does not have his act together as well as the good Bishop did. Yes there are a huge amount of people that do not understand YEC, and some of the rants against them are well justifed. Esp sense they have yet to address the many issues with the kangaroo. The whole point of Darwin's Islands is the biodiversity that exists on every one of those islands. AS Bil Nye points out it would be impossible for Noah to have saved all of the known world. That does not make the Bible any less true. It just makes Bible interpretation more difficult. We need a new understanding of the Bible that is consistent with the new evidence and discoveries that Science is providing for us. Every generation has to discover the Bible new for their generation. WE can not allow previous generations to do our work for us. We can not use their understanding of the Bible. It is our job to apply the Bible new and fresh to our time with our current level of understanding of the world that we live in.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Outside of your ability to properly form a coherent thought, yes, there are a variety of creationisms out there.

Let me quote Theophilus of Antioch in his opening letter to To Autolycus. "the lover of truth does not give heed to ornamented speeches, but examines the real matter of the speech". You have to discover truth for youself. No one can do that for you. They can not feed you truth with a silver spoon. You have to learn how to feed yourself. You may enjoy having your ears tickled but now it is time to get down to really apply yourself toward the pursuit of what is good and right and proper and true.

"A fluent tongue and an elegant style afford pleasure and such praise as vainglory delights in, to wretched men who have been corrupted in mind; the lover of truth does not give heed to ornamented speeches, but examines the real matter of the speech, what it is, and what kind it is. Since, then, my friend, you have assailed me with empty words, boasting of your gods of wood and stone, hammered and cast, carved and graven, which neither see nor hear, for they are idols, and the works of men's hands; and since, besides, you call me a Christian, as if this were a damning name to bear, I, for my part, avow that I am a Christian, and bear this name beloved of God, hoping to be serviceable to God. For it is not the case, as you suppose, that the name of God is hard to bear; but possibly you entertain this opinion of God, because you are yourself yet unserviceable to Him."

 

[USincognito]

John's Gap, if you guys remember.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Again, everyone knew what this debate was about.

The debate is about what the debate has always been about. The confusion that students have going back and forth between their religious class and their science class. Atheists make the issue more difficult then it really is. Science is NOT atheistic, Science is Agnostic or neutral. To claim that science is atheistic is a misrepresentation because science can clearly show many benefits to religion. There is very testable evidence that can testify to the benefits of religious faith. Mostly based on being a member of a local community church. As well as benefits people receive from the temperance that goes along with religion. The Christian church esp is very peaceful and that also leads to long life and multiple health benefits. To be atheist or anti religion is to be anti science and in many ways that can be tested and verified they are also anti evolution. Because science does not support atheism in any way, shape or form. At least not true science. Science can not life without religion and religion can not live without science. God does not abandon anyone. The way of life is open to whosoever is willing to come to God and receive what He has for them. People abandon God but God does not reject or abandon them.

 

[joshua 1 9]

No. Bill Nye the burden of proof is in your camp.

Bill Nye the science guy is doing just fine. We all learn along the way and he seems to be very interested in getting it right and fine tuning what he believes. If you want to talk about "proof" then we all have the exact same evidence to work with. Creationism and Evolutionism has all the same proof and evidence to work with to formulate their theories and opinions.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not so fast. Remember YEC is supported by Arch Bishop Ussher and we are still talking about his amazing book today. Do you think we will be having a conversation about Bill Nye the science guy 500 years from now?

A Bishop worked out a time frame for the bible 500 years ago, what has this got to do with Bill Nye? He might have been quite a scholar but he was wrong, the Earth was not created 6000 years ago.

Yes there are a huge amount of people that do not understand YEC, and some of the rants against them are well justifed.

YEC is wrong, all rants against it are justified, there is no debate. We tend to discuss it a lot on this forum but don't be mistaken, it doesn't stand up to even a cursory examination. I'm surprised Bill Nye even agreed to this debate, I suppose he hoped to demonstrate to any creationists watching just how foolish their ideas are. I doubt he succeeded though, we've all seen on these pages how creationists react to evidence and reason.

AS Bil Nye points out it would be impossible for Noah to have saved all of the known world. That does not make the Bible any less true. It just makes Bible interpretation more difficult. We need a new understanding of the Bible that is consistent with the new evidence and discoveries that Science is providing for us.

We know the worldwide flood didn't happen, that leaves us with the option of taking Genesis as allegory, it's not difficult. Anything else is denial and willful ignorance.

WE can not allow previous generations to do our work for us. We can not use their understanding of the Bible. It is our job to apply the Bible new and fresh to our time with our current level of understanding of the world that we live in.

So why are you bringing up Ussher? And why don't you practise what you preach, don't you argue against established scientific theories?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is why Ken Ham accuses Bill Nye of using bait and switch. He talks against Creationism but he argues against young earth creationism.

Errr..... isn't Ken Ham an YEC?

Or he should present his evidence to show that Creation could not have been a Divine Act.

No. Bill is not required to take over the burden of proof of creationists.
Those who claim that there WAS a divine act have the responsability to support that claim.

Bill only needs to point out that they can't do that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are all kinds of Creationisms which he is not trained or equipped to argue against.

Strange sentence.

Bill is trained to be an engineer.

Only creationists are trained to argue against something.

Even Theistic Evolution is Creationism. So if Bill is point blank against Creationism that would make him an Anti Evolutionist.

Gould was a anti creationist and he died a early death. His side kick Eldridge reminded agnostic and he is still alive today.

What's your point here?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Strange sentence.

Bill is trained to be an engineer.

Only creationists are trained to argue against something.







What's your point here?

The whole point is the debate between Bill and Ken Ham. In a evolution vs creationism debate. Only I get the feeling that the vast majority of people do not see any conflict between creationism meaning Divine Cause and Evolution. It all has to do with how you define your words. After all Evolution is nothing but a lot of words and Creationism, even the Bible is just a lot of words. So we have to determine what those words mean. Maybe Ken Ham is the exception but just about everyone accepts evolutionary theory. At least what they call micro evolution. Or some refer to it as 101 evolution which are the basic theorys that are usually universally accepted. Founder effect, bottleneck and so on.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Errr..... isn't Ken Ham an YEC?

Yes Ken Ham was trying to show that the earth is only 6,000 years old. It is rather redundant for Bill Nye to debate him in the first place except apparently there is a group of people that do accept the premise that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

[joshua 1 9]

YEC is wrong, all rants against it are justified, there is no debate.

You can not tell me the exact age of the earth. You can not tell me if God created the Sun or the Moon first. WE do know that the Sun, Moon & the Earth have been around a lot longer then 6,000 years. This has to do with the very first chapter in the Bible. The second Chapter in the Bible does begin 6,000 years ago. So the entire rest of the Bible is written recorded history for the last 6,000 years. In this regard Bishop Usshers book is a history of the Hebrew people for the last 6,000 years.

Genesis chapter one is an amazing book. Every word has profound and multiple meaning. Still words are symbols and the words need to be defined and understood. Timothy was encouraged to: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth". So we need to learn how to correctly handle the words of truth that we find in our Bible. We can begin by learning how to correctly define the words that we find in our Bible. So we can understand what those words mean.

 

[Jimmy D]

You can not tell me the exact age of the earth. You can not tell me if God created the Sun or the Moon first. WE do know that the Sun, Moon & the Earth have been around a lot longer then 6,000 years. This has to do with the very first chapter in the Bible. The second Chapter in the Bible does begin 6,000 years ago. So the entire rest of the Bible is written recorded history for the last 6,000 years. In this regard Bishop Usshers book is a history of the Hebrew people for the last 6,000 years.

I was arguing against YECism, it seems we agree the Earth is not 6000 years old. I don't agree that the rest of the bible is, as you say, an accurate history however, it's fantasy to suggest the lifespans of the early Hebrews was as it says. I don't doubt that there are some kernals of accurate history in there but mostly it's myth.

Genesis chapter one is an amazing book. Every word has profound and multiple meaning. Still words are symbols and the words need to be defined and understood. Timothy was encouraged to: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth". So we need to learn how to correctly handle the words of truth that we find in our Bible. We can begin by learning how to correctly define the words that we find in our Bible. So we can understand what those words mean.

I agree.

Doctors are the third leading cause of death in this country. So you better be careful not to trust Science in the way you seem to advocate. Anyone that can get themselves to the hospital does not need to be there.

This does not sound factual at all, can you show any stats to back this up?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes Ken Ham was trying to show that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Then why on earth are you complaining about the fact that Bill was focussing on YECism in this "debate"???

He was engaging Ken Ham here... obviously he's going to argue againsty what Ken Ham believes.... duuuh.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The whole point is the debate between Bill and Ken Ham. In a evolution vs creationism debate.

No, that was not the topic of the debate at all!!!

The topic was "Is Creation A Viable Model of Origins?".
Bill didn't have to argue for anything. All he had to do is show how the "creation model" proposed by Ken is not a viable model of origins.

Only I get the feeling that the vast majority of people do not see any conflict between creationism meaning Divine Cause and Evolution.

But Bill wasn't "debating" with the "vast majority of people". He was "debating" Ken Ham! A YEC! And the topic was about if Ken's model was a viable model.

It all has to do with how you define your words.

No, it has to do with the topic of the "debate" and the model that Ken Ham was trying to defend. It was about Ken Ham's model. It was not about "any and all" creationistic models.

After all Evolution is nothing but a lot of words and Creationism

This "debate" was not about evolution. It was about the viability of Ken's creation model.

, even the Bible is just a lot of words.

That, I agree with

So we have to determine what those words mean. Maybe Ken Ham is the exception but just about everyone accepts evolutionary theory.

Which is irrelevant, because Bill was engaging Ken Ham.

At least what they call micro evolution. Or some refer to it as 101 evolution which are the basic theorys that are usually universally accepted. Founder effect, bottleneck and so on.

All of which was irrelevant to the topic of the "debate".