Bill Nye the Science Guy and Creationism

[JackRT]

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

Huh? Are you trying to link longevity to belief?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You can not tell me the exact age of the earth.

It's about 4.5 billion. "exactly", as in "to the second", no. Approximatly? Most definatly: 4.5 billion years.

You can not tell me if God created the Sun or the Moon first.

No deities are necessary for the formation of starts, planets and moons.
And the sun came first.

 

[joshua 1 9]

And the sun came first.

The Sun came first because the Sun is still not a solid. It took a while for the earth to cool enough to become a solid.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The Sun came first because the Sun is still not a solid. It took a while for the earth to cool enough to become a solid.

No, it's because planets (and moons) form out of the debris of the new-born star that they end up orbitting.

 

[Papias]

... Even Theistic Evolution is Creationism. ..... To be against Creationism means you are against Divine Cause not against the YEC Creationism.

While I agree that Theistic Evolution is "creationism" in the sense that God did the creating, the common use of the term "Creationism" is "evolution denial". In other words, when someone says "creationism", they practically always mean "YEC", and may rarely mean "old earth creationism" or OEC.

That's why Theistic Evolution doesn't have "creationism" in its name.

Since there are very few OECs (mostly Jehovah's Witnesses), "Creationism" generally means "YEC". You can see this from the data here:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/ga...roduction/Cms/POLL/mh7klzb21ue_tb0a1h_86q.png

Thus, it's completely appropriate for Bill Nye to say he's against "creationism".

... 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.

It wouldn't work to go through all those qualifiers for the couple people who are calling "theistic evolution" creationism. The fact that others aren't bringing this up shows that Bill Nye is correct in knowing that Theistic Evolution supporters see Bill as on their side (because he is). Bill never says that he knows there is no God, right?

... To be against Creationism means you are against Divine Cause not against the YEC Creationism.

False. As shown above, "creationism", in common usage, means "evolution denial". Being "against creationism" says nothing about whether or not one believes in God.

In Christ-

Papias (A theistic evolution supporter)

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I used to love and respect Bill Nye. But now I have no respect or love for him after some horrible remarks he he made that essentially say christians are weak minded, stupid people who have the brains of apes and believe in an idiotic concept and that we hold back the world g from progressing/advancing. >.< Its fine to agree to disagree with someone who believes different. But to slam them and disrespect them like that is what little kids do, not grown adults.

 

[KWCrazy]

Who among you can explain cosmology using only biology? Who can demonstrate mineralogy using only genealogy? The science of one bears no impact on the other, just as the "science" of the supernatural has no impact on the science of the physical world around you. It's amazing how many people don't have a clue what science is, yet here they are, pontificating their believes and standing as a fool in a corner calling other people idiots. Shameful!

Science, properly understood, is the study of the physical world around us using the scientific method of observation, measurement, and experiment to formulate, test and modify a hypothesis. How does that translate to the supernatural world? It doesn't. Our eyes see reflected light not energy fields so if an angel or demon were standing in front of us we wouldn't know unless they revealed themselves. Our hearing overs a broad spectrum of sound waves but not all waves. Parapsychologists use tools to measure these things but because of their nature what gets recorded are variations in white noise or unexplained energy fields that could have a number of sources. In fact, the very existence of the supernatural world is not provable using the scientific method. Neither, though, can it be discounted. The sheer volume of people even today who experience encounters with the supernatural is enough to raise suspicions in any open mind. Close minds remain closed, and are of little value.

If God exists logic would suggest that he would have some contact with the world He created. We have that. His word would be consistent. It is. Being omniscient He would be able to make predictions which would come true centuries later. We see that. If His creation was in danger he would do what he could to save it. He sent His son Jesus Christ. His word may be disputed or disbelieved, but never proven false. That is the case. Being God, His actions would not be bound by the physical laws of His creation. We see that as well. If the supernatural existed, modern man would see the same unexplainable things as primitive man. That happens. So, then, it is entirely possible that the supernatural exists, and that existence can neither be validated or invalidate by science. A God capable of creating the world in 6 billion years could create it in 6 days or six minutes. What He could NOT do is lie about it, since lying is contrary to His nature.

if you have a poor understanding of science and do not know its limitations, you can claim that science disproves this or science disproves that. You can say that an ax head cannot float, but you cannot say that a supernatural God could make it do so because you cannot disprove the existence of God.

While God cannot be proven in the physical world, He can be known. His presence can be experienced. His peace can be felt. To those who truly seek much will be revealed. It's possible for any of us to discover the supernatural presence of God. Seek Him and you will find Him. Once you accept the Lord on faith the Holy Spirit will reveal His wonders to you and you will come to know an entirely different existence you never knew existed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I used to love and respect Bill Nye. But now I have no respect or love for him after some horrible remarks he he made that essentially say christians are weak minded, stupid people who have the brains of apes and believe in an idiotic concept and that we hold back the world g from progressing/advancing. >.< Its fine to agree to disagree with someone who believes different. But to slam them and disrespect them like that is what little kids do, not grown adults.

Bill never said any such thing.

 

[Jimmy D]

But now I have no respect or love for him after some horrible remarks he he made that essentially say christians are weak minded, stupid people who have the brains of apes and believe in an idiotic concept and that we hold back the world g from progressing/advancing

I must admit to not having seen the debate, did he really say that? Was he talking specifically about YECs?

Edit: Cheers Dogmahunter, answered my question before I asked it.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Like I said he said essentially that. I could look up the video he said it in but I'll just get annoyed hearing him say it again. He sounded so mad when he said it too.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The sheer volume of people even today who experience encounters with the supernatural is enough to raise suspicions in any open mind.

This is remarkable. First, you acknowledge that the supernatural can't be observed and in the next breath you say there are encounters with the supernatural. That is self-contradictory.

The problem is that it is impossible to tell the difference between an encounter with the supernatural (whatever that is) and simply being mistaken or even hallucination.

The fact of the matter is that those who say they had an encounter with the supernatural, are merely claiming it.

A mere claim, that can't be supported as you acknowledge, does not automatically translate to truth.

Close minds remain closed, and are of little value.

In light of the above, not accepting such claims have nothing to do with being "closed minded" and everything with not being justified to accept baseless claims.

If God exists logic would suggest that he would have some contact with the world He created.

Why? I don't see how "logic" suggests that. Why can't a god trigger a big bang and then let it all unfold without manifesting inside that space-time continuum?

We have that.

No, we don't. What we have are claims that we have that. Claims that can't be supported or demonstrated. Claims that can't be differentiated from mistakes or hallucinations.

His word would be consistent. It is. Being omniscient He would be able to make predictions which would come true centuries later. We see that. If His creation was in danger he would do what he could to save it. He sent His son Jesus Christ.

All of this are still mere claims. And in this case, they are mere claims of your religion of choice.

His word may be disputed or disbelieved, but never proven false. That is the case.

Because these claims are unfalsifiable by definition. As you acknowledged in your first paragraphe.

Just because something can't be disproven doesn't mean it's correct.
Here: a 7-headed undetectable dragon is following you everywhere you go. Is this true because you can't disprove it?

Being God, His actions would not be bound by the physical laws of His creation.

In other words: magic.

We see that as well.

No, we don't. As you acknowledged in your first paragraphe. The supernatural isn't observed anywhere in the universe. We don't "see" anything.

If the supernatural existed, modern man would see the same unexplainable things as primitive man. That happens.

Unexplainable things are unexplained. If that is an excuse to point to the supernatural, then it's nothing but an argument from ignorance.

So, then, it is entirely possible that the supernatural exists, and that existence can neither be validated or invalidate by science.

And the same goes for the 7-headed undetectable dragon.

A God capable of creating the world in 6 billion years could create it in 6 days or six minutes. What He could NOT do is lie about it, since lying is contrary to His nature.

Or so it is claimed.

But claims are just that: claims.

if you have a poor understanding of science and do not know its limitations, you can claim that science disproves this or science disproves that. You can say that an ax head cannot float, but you cannot say that a supernatural God could make it do so because you cannot disprove the existence of God.

Which is exactly why the god hypothesis is a meaningless concept.
I can come up with an infinite amount of claims that cannot be disproved.

While God cannot be proven in the physical world, He can be known.

This is again, self-contradictory.

His presence can be experienced. His peace can be felt.

No, because then this manifestation could be demonstrated in some way or another.

To those who truly seek much will be revealed. It's possible for any of us to discover the supernatural presence of God.

You're not making any sense. Either his existence can be shown or it can't. You can't have it both ways.

Seek Him and you will find Him. Once you accept the Lord on faith the Holy Spirit will reveal His wonders to you and you will come to know an entirely different existence you never knew existed.

Translation: you must first believe it in order to be justified to believe it.

Sorry, but logic doesn't work that way.

 

[Jimmy D]

The sheer volume of people even today who experience encounters with the supernatural is enough to raise suspicions in any open mind. Close minds remain closed, and are of little value.

If God exists logic would suggest that he would have some contact with the world He created.

But only if such contact is consistent with your beliefs? I believe there was a middle eastern fellow called Mohammed who had such an encounter, does that count?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Here's an article about this topic: The Great Creation/Evolution Debate

 

[joshua 1 9]

the common use of the term "Creationism" is "evolution denial".

That is the definition that atheists use to try to promote their agenda. They hijacked the dictionary to promote their cause. We do not use the skeptics bible and we should not use the atheists dictionary. Evolutionism should reject atheism and their dictionary because real science is agnostic not atheistic. The real cause that atheism harms is the cause of science when they defile the purity and pollute science with their propaganda and error. They claim this has nothing to do with their lifestyle, but according to the Bible and early church fathers atheism results when people do not want to honor God in the way they live their life. They live a life of rebellion. They usually deny this though. Even they will claim they live a life better then Christians.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

He argued against separate creation of species which argues against all of them.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is the definition that atheists use to try to promote their agenda. They hijacked the dictionary to promote their cause. We do not use the skeptics bible and we should not use the atheists dictionary.

It is the Merriam and Webster dictionary, not the atheist dictionary.

Creationism: the belief that God created all things out of nothing as described in the Bible and that therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Wasn't Nye debating Ken Ham?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Since there are very few OECs

Most everyone is OEC. The vast majority of people in america believe in God as the Divine Cause of the world and the Universe and they believe the earth is as old as Science says it is. I can understand why Bill the science guy is concerned with YEC and why he feels a need to try to show how much the evidence disproves a YEC. Even though as I say Adam and Eve did live 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden. But clearly the earth has been around for a lot longer then that. Just like we know that Noah's Flood was not world wide. From our perspective we would call it a local flood. But if you are the one that is effected by a flood than it is your world that is destoryed. The story of Noah is written from Noah's perspective. Not the perspective of an outsider looking in. It is very important to understand this when you read the Bible. We are use to books that are written from our perspective as a reader. That is not how the Bible is written.

Thus, it's completely appropriate for Bill Nye to say he's against "creationism".

It is not appropriate to argue against YEC and call it Creationism. IT is bate and switch. If he has evidence against OEC then he needs to present his evidence. If he has evidence against dispensationalism then he needs to present his evidence. Like I said Evolutionism is Creationism so Bill Nye is pretty much presenting an argument against himself and science. They want to hijack the dictionary and people need to be made aware of what they are doing and the disservice they are doing to science. This is going to chase young people away from science not draw them in the way they want to draw the young people's interest to science and the good they claim that science can do.

Old Earth Creationism has been around for a long time. From the beginning of when Science began to discover how old the earth really is. I agree with Bill that people need to look at the evidence to see that a Young Earth just is not supported by the evidence. That is why we have old earth creationism.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Wasn't Nye debating Ken Ham?

Yes that is the debate on the internet right now and I think Bill did a good job to present a case against a young earth. I just don't like the way he says all creationism is wrong because there are a lot more old earth creationists then there are young earth creationists. Quite a few are young earth so I can see why he would want to invest in trying to show them that the evidence does not support the earth being young and I agree that the kangaroo is the best evidence for that. How did the kangaroo get from Australia to Noah's Ark before the flood and then back to Australia after the flood. There are 10,000 islands in the Pacific and they all have their own unique biodiversity based on the biodiversity that was established BEFORE the ice melted during the last ice age. There was extensive flooding in Australia around 12,000 years ago when the ice age came to an end and the ocean level raised putting a lot of land underwater. That is why I can defend that a day is 1,000 years because it fits all the scientific evidence. The problem with the day age theory is that the days would have to be half the length of the day that comes before it. Schroeder is a day age creationist and that is what he defends in his books an the articles he writes for the internet. Bill Nye wants to defend the young people and so do I. I want the young people to get an honest presentation of science. One that does not conflict with what they learn and study in their sunday school classes. If there is a conflict they may reject science and that could be a loss for society that could have benefited from their getting a education in science. My son is very advanced in science and he is taking college science classes in High School. So I am willing to sacrifice some of his religious training to get him a good education in science. My other son studied electronic engineering in College so he also has a very good education in science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes that is the debate on the internet right now and I think Bill did a good job to present a case against a young earth. I just don't like the way he says all creationism is wrong because there are a lot more old earth creationists then there are young earth creationists.

Both young and old earth creationists reject universal common ancestry and evolution which Nye also addressed. Did you miss that part?