Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
601

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :

“Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet named Earth and inhabited by an adult man called Adam.
The whole process took Him six 24-hours days.”

I don’t have any empirical evidence against it either.
[/quote]

To answer this Kamui, I am going to copy what I posted on page 8. I think you will understand it perfectly looking at it this way:

[i]Okay, I am not a ‘creationist’, but I want to play a little devil’s advocate in favor of the creationist side…

Supposedly the oldest human fossil known to date is about 200,000 year’s old. That being the case, there is no evidence of anything intelligent and self aware until about 4 century B.C.

So say for instance, you divide creation into 6 periods. It could actually work.

So Day 1: God created heavens and earth. Ok, so this would be the theory of primordial soup, for instance.
Day 2: Let there be light! = Big ass Bang! - Light from darkness, objects separating the from the illumined and the void or unillumined.

Day 3: God separated the heavens from the watery expanse. The watery earth gets an atmosphere due to the ‘firing up’ of the earths magnetic field, which is what allows us to have an atmosphere and viola. We have an atmosphere! It’s magic!

Day 4: Let the water and the heavens gather in to one place and let dry land appear. - No longer the earth is a steamy place covered by cloulds and oceans. The water cools the crust and tectonics cause land to raise out of the water in places and the earth begins to cool from it’s beginnings.

Day 5: Let the earth sprout vegetation. Life, begins. Algee and simple single cell life begins, unto sea vegitaion, to tree plants and bushes…

Day 6: Let the earth bring forth creatures. Then lastly, man in His image. - Animal life begins and flourishes and evolves…Then at the end, Man to rule it all.

Forget about what you think of the Bible for a minute. And look at the order of the events. Whether you consider Genesis to be true or not, the order of event’s from the perspective of Earth dwelling creatures is correct.

The bible did not specify what a “day” was as indeed, in at least the first 2 ‘days’ there was no such thing as a ‘day’. And then from 3 forward what a day technically was varied quite a bit between then and now, if talking earth day. The bible didn’t specify ‘Earth days’ We just automatically jump to that assumption. And since time a space are a function of each other, what constituted a ‘day’ way back may be fractions of a second if we were to observe it from the outside.
While we may have evidences of early man, we have no evidence it’s sentience was beyond that of a dog. The world as we currently know it, is about 6000 years old. That’s not a fossil record perspective, that is what we know as our world, our history as a sophisticated, conscious, morally apt people is only 6000 years old as we know it and there is zero evidence of that beyond 6000 years old.

I would like to have come up with all this stuff myself, but it was actually an article posted by Jewbacca that got me thinking differently about Genesis and reconciling it with was found scientifically.

Genesis was written for early peoples, they don’t know quantum theory, they don’t know about the big bang or stars as being billions of light years away, they know they are here and there is a reason. [/i][/quote]

What do you mean by our history is only 6000 years old? Is there not evidence of older civilizations? Wouldn’t permanent habitation and agriculture count?
[/quote]

Could they read/ write display organized society and recognize right and wrong.[/quote]

I would think so, have you read about �??atalh�??�??�??�??�??�?�¶y�??�??�??�??�??�?�¼k before?

Edit: Whoa, that word got pretty butchered, its supposed to say Catalhuyuk with some dots and swiggles on some letters.[/quote]

Well, 7500 years isn’t far off the mark. I wasn’t speaking exactly. But my basic point stands, the earth as we know it now to be, is about 6000 years old…About, maybe 7500. That’s not saying the earth itself it 6000 years old, just man as a function of being an intelligent organized functioning society is in that range.
Genesis does NOT claim the earth is 6000 years old, at all. The math comes in from actually from 2 Peter 3:8 that says “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
The mistake people are making is associating 2 Peter, with firstcreation story in Genesis (there are 2).
Theologically speaking, this is a mistake, for Peter by no means meant people to associate that with Genesis, he was making the point that you cannot predict God’s movements by interpretation, because time to God is not the same as time to us. Indeed, time in another part of the universe is not the same as time to us.

The second point, is if you read my post, is that, ‘day’ is really merely a marker. Cause with first 3 “days” in Genesis, there were no Earth days. What I am saying is the term day is being used as an inappropriate association. [/quote]

Isn’t 7500 BC closer to 10,000 years.[/quote]

Then to 6000? No. 7500-6000=1500, 10000-7500=2500
[/quote]

Wouldn’t you add 2012 to 7500 BC to get the total? 7500+2012=9512-1= 9511 years, or am I mistaken?
[/quote]

No, I was mistaking… I was count 7500 backwards from now.
Except for now I am not sure if the 6000 years old thing is counted from 0 AD or now. Peter wrote that some where in the '60’s or '70’s I believe. I am not sure I would have to look.

602

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:
I don’t see any logical inconsistency in this statement :

“Sometime between 5700 and 10 000 years ago, an omnipotent God created a 13 billions years old Universe containing a 4,5 billions years old planet named Earth and inhabited by an adult man called Adam.
The whole process took Him six 24-hours days.”

I don’t have any empirical evidence against it either.
[/quote]

To answer this Kamui, I am going to copy what I posted on page 8. I think you will understand it perfectly looking at it this way:

[i]Okay, I am not a ‘creationist’, but I want to play a little devil’s advocate in favor of the creationist side…

Supposedly the oldest human fossil known to date is about 200,000 year’s old. That being the case, there is no evidence of anything intelligent and self aware until about 4 century B.C.

So say for instance, you divide creation into 6 periods. It could actually work.

So Day 1: God created heavens and earth. Ok, so this would be the theory of primordial soup, for instance.
Day 2: Let there be light! = Big ass Bang! - Light from darkness, objects separating the from the illumined and the void or unillumined.

Day 3: God separated the heavens from the watery expanse. The watery earth gets an atmosphere due to the ‘firing up’ of the earths magnetic field, which is what allows us to have an atmosphere and viola. We have an atmosphere! It’s magic!

Day 4: Let the water and the heavens gather in to one place and let dry land appear. - No longer the earth is a steamy place covered by cloulds and oceans. The water cools the crust and tectonics cause land to raise out of the water in places and the earth begins to cool from it’s beginnings.

Day 5: Let the earth sprout vegetation. Life, begins. Algee and simple single cell life begins, unto sea vegitaion, to tree plants and bushes…

Day 6: Let the earth bring forth creatures. Then lastly, man in His image. - Animal life begins and flourishes and evolves…Then at the end, Man to rule it all.

Forget about what you think of the Bible for a minute. And look at the order of the events. Whether you consider Genesis to be true or not, the order of event’s from the perspective of Earth dwelling creatures is correct.

The bible did not specify what a “day” was as indeed, in at least the first 2 ‘days’ there was no such thing as a ‘day’. And then from 3 forward what a day technically was varied quite a bit between then and now, if talking earth day. The bible didn’t specify ‘Earth days’ We just automatically jump to that assumption. And since time a space are a function of each other, what constituted a ‘day’ way back may be fractions of a second if we were to observe it from the outside.
While we may have evidences of early man, we have no evidence it’s sentience was beyond that of a dog. The world as we currently know it, is about 6000 years old. That’s not a fossil record perspective, that is what we know as our world, our history as a sophisticated, conscious, morally apt people is only 6000 years old as we know it and there is zero evidence of that beyond 6000 years old.

I would like to have come up with all this stuff myself, but it was actually an article posted by Jewbacca that got me thinking differently about Genesis and reconciling it with was found scientifically.

Genesis was written for early peoples, they don’t know quantum theory, they don’t know about the big bang or stars as being billions of light years away, they know they are here and there is a reason. [/i][/quote]

What do you mean by our history is only 6000 years old? Is there not evidence of older civilizations? Wouldn’t permanent habitation and agriculture count?
[/quote]

Could they read/ write display organized society and recognize right and wrong.[/quote]

I would think so, have you read about �??atalh�??�??�??�??�??�?�¶y�??�??�??�??�??�?�¼k before?

Edit: Whoa, that word got pretty butchered, its supposed to say Catalhuyuk with some dots and swiggles on some letters.[/quote]

Well, 7500 years isn’t far off the mark. I wasn’t speaking exactly. But my basic point stands, the earth as we know it now to be, is about 6000 years old…About, maybe 7500. That’s not saying the earth itself it 6000 years old, just man as a function of being an intelligent organized functioning society is in that range.
Genesis does NOT claim the earth is 6000 years old, at all. The math comes in from actually from 2 Peter 3:8 that says “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
The mistake people are making is associating 2 Peter, with firstcreation story in Genesis (there are 2).
Theologically speaking, this is a mistake, for Peter by no means meant people to associate that with Genesis, he was making the point that you cannot predict God’s movements by interpretation, because time to God is not the same as time to us. Indeed, time in another part of the universe is not the same as time to us.

The second point, is if you read my post, is that, ‘day’ is really merely a marker. Cause with first 3 “days” in Genesis, there were no Earth days. What I am saying is the term day is being used as an inappropriate association. [/quote]

Isn’t 7500 BC closer to 10,000 years.

I see what you are saying and obviously no one can give a definite answer but, what is the point? Why create a world in “6 days” that appears to be older. It seems like “creationists” are just trying to find a way to have it their way and as a result are making things confusing and complicated. If God can do what he pleases why take so long? Could it not have been done in the blink of an eye?

What is the purpose except for he whole work 6 days take the 7th off.[/quote]

And why did he need to rest? Gods get tired?[/quote]

Scripturally speaking the day of rest was put in for human kind as Jesus stated in the Gospels. God did not need rest. The day of rest was an example to the people.

605

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
What I was getting at pat is where do the people from Catalhuyuk or any other neolithic people fit in the biblical account? They’re no where to be found, they weren’t Jewish as Judaism didn’t exist at that point. They’re not descendents of Adam because he didn’t exist yet. Does that make them a lost tribe then? Never mind the indigenous peoples of North and South America. The bible doesn’t even account for people on the same continent.
[/quote]
No in the first creation account, God created man. It was Genesis chapter 2 that introduces Adam and Eve as the first man and woman.
So technically they would be accounted for by the first creation account. Now even in the Bible, when Cain killed Able, Cain was afraid for his life at the hands of other people, not mentioned in the Adam and Eve story. So there was other man.

Correct, that’s what I meant. The earth as we know it now, with the presence of man on it. Meaning prior, we don’t know what constituted a day, or an hour as the universe was smaller at in the early times meaning the space-continuum was more compressed 4.5 billion years ago. So with the over lap our knowledge of time with what it was back then, things from our paradigm may be happening much faster than what the record shows. Basically, time is relative. it’s a function of movement relative to space or another object. Since there was technically less over all space, that view may be skewed. Since distances are larger because the universe is bigger, time, relatively speaking is slower.

It brings tears to my eyes the things we have to go through…

606

[quote]pat wrote:
Scripturally speaking the day of rest was put in for human kind as Jesus stated in the Gospels. God did not need rest. The day of rest was an example to the people.
[/quote]

If God knew he’d have to eventually send Jesus, why didn’t he send him in the first place?

607

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

…Or when you tried to show that the differences found between a mastiff and a chihuahua are indicative that they couldn’t have a common ancestor, despite molecular data(DNA) to the contrary?..[/quote]

Comprehension fail.

I was arguing precisely the opposite. Go back and read the post. I will give you a mulligan.[/quote]

Then you shouldn’t have said “new gut structures”? That’s what threw me off.
Apologies for misunderstanding you.

609

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Anger[/quote]

Why must you be such an angry young man when your future looks quite bright to me?

[/quote]

While I appreciate your concern, I wouldn’t say I’m angry, frustrated maybe, but not angry.
Besides, I’m in short supply of hair to pull out of my head, so I try not to get angry.

610

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:
The latter.[/quote]

Why?

This has nothing to do with anything.

If you want to critique the ToE you should at least know what it says and this is what it says.

So, your point that a lizard would have to transmogrify into something else is a critique of the straw man you have erected, not of the ToE itself.

[/quote]

It has everything to do with it. I’m trying to show that the ToE has scant evidence at best. It is accepted as true prior to looking at the evidence and the evidence is interpreted using that assumption. Of course the evidence supports evolution when you start out assuming evolution is the only option!!

There is no strawman. Go look up the evolution of whales. Wikipedia states this “The traditional theory of cetacean evolution was that whales were related to the mesonychids, an extinct order of carnivorous ungulates (hoofed animals)” Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia

Wikipedia further states that “Commonly known examples of ungulates living today are the horse, zebra, donkey, cattle/bison, rhinoceros, camel, hippopotamus, tapir, goat, pig, sheep, giraffe, okapi, moose, elk, deer, antelope, and gazelle.”

I always laugh at you evolution apologists who state (paraphrasing here) “The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, you idiot!” and when asked to provide some of this overwhelming evidence they are unable to.

611

Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?

612

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
And back again to what about the other great religious texts of the world? They have just as much basis as the bible from my perspective.[/quote]

Ok.

Of course Christianity is more likely to be accepted where Christianity is already more prevalent. We know this. That’s why we have missionaries. But it isn’t evidence of a religion being false, either. Christianity is a faith in something. If you’re waiting for me to give you empirical evidence for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…if that’s where you’re wanting to steer me, then I’ll tell you straight up there isn’t any I can offer. I personally am a devout Catholic by decision and study. But ultimately faith bridges the gap. You’re educated enough, I’m sure, to have made a willful rejection of this faith. Indeed, you reject anything you can’t falsify. An inherent right to life. Moral obligations to your fellow human beings. And, God. There’s nothing I can offer you.

613

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
And back again to what about the other great religious texts of the world? They have just as much basis as the bible from my perspective.[/quote]

Ok.

Of course Christianity is more likely to be accepted where Christianity is already more prevalent. We know this. That’s why we have missionaries. But it isn’t evidence of a religion being false, either. Christianity is a faith in something. If you’re waiting for me to give you empirical evidence for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…if that’s where you’re wanting to steer me, then I’ll tell you straight up there isn’t any I can offer. I personally am a devout Catholic by decision and study. But ultimately faith bridges the gap. You’re educated enough, I’m sure, to have made a willful rejection of this faith. Indeed, you reject anything you can’t falsify. An inherent right to life. Moral obligations to your fellow human beings. And, God. There’s nothing I can offer you. [/quote]

A very honest statement you’ve made, and I appreciate that.
I’m glad that we’re able to see “eye-to-eye” on each others stance.

614

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Who’s Bill Nye and why should anybody give a shit what he thinks?[/quote]

Because he has a valid point. America’s cult of creationism makes Americans look backwards, ignorant and unenlightened to the rest of the world. The result of this ignorance is a loss of credibility. [/quote]Is that so? Actually, the further we get away from it the weaker we become. This man http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/08/25/astronaut-neil-armstrong-dies-at-82/ read the creation account from the bible on the moon under our flag on live international television in 1969. How credible do you think we were then?
[/quote]

Are you part of the 6000 year old young earth cult?[/quote]

No, BTW. [/quote]

Yes, I know catholics stand aside from all that insanity. It does seem to be a particular offshoot of hard core protestant fundie American sects. (As far as christianity goes. I’m also aware that certain jewish sects also hold to the same beliefs, and I would think prob muslim sects as well.)
[/quote]

Creationism is in the spectrum of theories acceptable to believe as a Catholic, but it is rather looked down upon. Though there are older theories than creationism that a Catholic can believe (i.e. St. Augustine’s view of the world…only one side of earth is inhabited, &c.)
[/quote]

Are there any catholics that believe in young earth creationism ?[/quote]

I have met a few, and I suspect a rather high profile and genius Catholic theologian is a young earth creationist (or creationist) though I never can get him to admit one way or the other and the silence as confirmation does not work with him.

615

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I’m curious, nothing more. Could be flat earthers for all I care. That’s why I asked in your opinion and not for a full blown survey.
[/quote]

Traditionalist have a rather small tendency to be YC’ers. But, I used to be a traditionalist and I thought about it but could not ignore the over whelming facts that showed it to be rather improbable. That’s why I’m still stuck at undecided, but leaning towards evolution.

616

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]

Matty, you seem like a reasonable guy. Why resort to ad hominem’s? I’m not pissed off about evidence I’m pointing out that it is lacking.

Let me ask you this, how many other scientific theories feel it is necessary to legislate against teaching the alternatives? If the evidence is so overwhelming, and it has been taught as fact in schools for 100 years, why the need to legislate? I don’t see the heliocentrist’s legislating against the teaching of geocentrism.

617

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]

Matty, you seem like a reasonable guy. Why resort to ad hominem’s? I’m not pissed off about evidence I’m pointing out that it is lacking.

Let me ask you this, how many other scientific theories feel it is necessary to legislate against teaching the alternatives? If the evidence is so overwhelming, and it has been taught as fact in schools for 100 years, why the need to legislate? I don’t see the heliocentrist’s legislating against the teaching of geocentrism.[/quote]

Well this is a special case. How many other theories have a particular religion suggesting magic as an opposing theory.

If there were a religion with lots of adherents that claimed magic was an actual alternative to gravity say there might be some legislation there.

Its not that there is less evidence for evolution that makes this case special its that there is a vested interest in maintaining a coherent worldview where either a supernatural force or a force external to the universe was responsible for certain things happening in certain ways.

For whoever argued about why god sends jesus later this brings up a theological argument of whether god is eternal or everlasting…basically subject to time. If such a being is eternal then the telling of a time bound narrative makes no sense. It makes some sense if the being were separate from the universe and either long existing or everlasting.

618

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]

Matty, you seem like a reasonable guy. Why resort to ad hominem’s? I’m not pissed off about evidence I’m pointing out that it is lacking.

Let me ask you this, how many other scientific theories feel it is necessary to legislate against teaching the alternatives? If the evidence is so overwhelming, and it has been taught as fact in schools for 100 years, why the need to legislate? I don’t see the heliocentrist’s legislating against the teaching of geocentrism.[/quote]

Well this is a special case. How many other theories have a particular religion suggesting magic as an opposing theory.

If there were a religion with lots of adherents that claimed magic was an actual alternative to gravity say there might be some legislation there.

Its not that there is less evidence for evolution that makes this case special its that there is a vested interest in maintaining a coherent worldview where either a supernatural force or a force external to the universe was responsible for certain things happening in certain ways.

For whoever argued about why god sends jesus later this brings up a theological argument of whether god is eternal or everlasting…basically subject to time. If such a being is eternal then the telling of a time bound narrative makes no sense. It makes some sense if the being were separate from the universe and either long existing or everlasting.[/quote]

Very insightful groo.

619

[quote]schmichael wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Does anybody else find it humourous that creationists(of all people) are getting, for lack of a better word, “pissed off” about evidence?[/quote]

Matty, you seem like a reasonable guy. Why resort to ad hominem’s? I’m not pissed off about evidence I’m pointing out that it is lacking.[/quote]

And I was pointing it out that it’s funny that you’re pointing out a lack of evidence in support of evolution when your theory is lacking any evidence altogether.
Do you not see that? or do you choose to ignore it?

[quote]
Let me ask you this, how many other scientific theories feel it is necessary to legislate against teaching the alternatives? If the evidence is so overwhelming, and it has been taught as fact in schools for 100 years, why the need to legislate? I don’t see the heliocentrist’s legislating against the teaching of geocentrism.[/quote]

I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to keep saying this. But as far as science class goes, “creation science” is out of it’s element.

620

[quote]orion wrote:<<< In the method, yes.
In the outcomes, no. [/quote]Could I prevail upon you to think carefully about what you just said? please?