Bill Nye critcizes GOP, parents teaching creationism

This is a Cut & Paste of a previous post....so I will repeat what I previously responded to this

Sir Isaac Newton also believed in astrology.

Lord Kelvin believed that X-rays would be proven a hoax.


Additionally, the MRI was invented by Paul Lauterbur.

 

Which is as I stated earlier, no scientific facts/discoveries have proved the Biblical accounts in Genesis to be inaccurate.

 

There is the term "Poe's Law"--- "named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the idea that, without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism"--wikipedia

Another way of thinking about it would be if Stephen Colbert was more serious and less "winking at the audience" in his parody of the Bill O'Reilly/Sean Hannity rightwing talk host.

- - - Updated - - -

If the Bible account in Genesis indicates the Universe is 6000 years old.....basic astronomy proves it to be inaccurate.

 

Lack of faith, IMHO. Genesis is true, just not literally so. The Noah story is false factually, however, the point of the story is that humans sin, and will keep sinning, and that God keeps giving us another chance (that and the flood is a precursor to baptism). The thing is Genesis is not history or science. It is a story of our relationship with God (which is much more important than history or science). It also helps to illustrate human nature. It doesn't matter to me that it's not literally true, I know it is figuratively true. We know that God likes to teach in parables (after all, He did that quite a bit while He was on earth). I don't think He started teaching us in parables during the 1st century.

The other major thing is that if God created the creatures on earth the way they are on purpose, He's horrible. There is a species of mite that impregnates it's sisters in the egg sac. Sometimes that same species of mite rapes it's brother as the brother is raping their sister. I cant' believe that the God I worship would intentionally create such a horrible thing. The other thing is, why would God create the octopus with a better eye (almost the same structure as ours, but without the blind spot) than ours intentionally? Using evolution as His creation method, this makes sense. Using His own design, the idea is strange.

The other major thing is biogeography. The way plants and animals are dispersed in the world are nothing like we would expect a worldwide flood to produce. They do match the idea of plate tectonics, and the approximate time we think plates split match the time periods we think different creatures evolved. The thing is, there are so many different interlocking theories that all point to the idea of an old earth (5+ billion years old), that changed via plate tectonics, and that living things evolved.

 

Well, if read literally, they do. Scientific facts clearly show the earth to be more than 6000 years old. We have enough tree ring data to go back more than 10,000 years. If not read literally, of course you are correct.

 

Hmmm. I thought Christianity was based on the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Am I wrong?

 

No it doesn't. It verifies it in some situations, but in all situations as I have been saying, the data is open to interpretation/misinterpretation. The fact is Sun is about 865,000 miles in diameter and is shrinking at about 5 feet per hour. (BTW, at that rate the Sun has shrunk about 43,000,000,000,000 miles in the pas 1 million years)

 

Of course he was. Darwin began the voyage of the Beagle (1831) as a creationist. he ended it in 1836 as a creationist. In the 1850s, based on his notes from the Beagle, and several different studies of different creatures (such as earthworms), he came out with the theory of evolution.

Two things from this: 1) Kelvin (the "creationist") thought the earth was 20-50 million years old. 2) he based his work on the evidence at the time, which did not include knowledge of radioactivity, and of temperatures in the earth, etc. Regardless, Kelvin discounts young earth creationism.

 

If Genesis is questionable....why not the Gospels?

 

Source?

Yes, I'm sounding like a broken record, but I'm trying to make you a better debator.

This source contradicts that:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html

Honestly, I get disgusted by lying creationists. I hope there is a special ring in hell for them. I don't think you invented the lie about the contraction of the sun, but you are repeating the lie without verification or even doing any calculations on your own. The above calculations of the change in sun's size are based on 74 cm a year, or 29 inches a year (2 feet 5 inches), not the totally bogus 5 feet per hour your source made up. 5 feet per hour is 1,335,938.4 cm per year or 13 km per year. We aren't observing any change in the size of the sun since we first started measuring it.

 

You realize that psychology is a pseudo science. No wonder you like it.

 

None of that refutes the speed of light and astronomical measurement.

There are galaxies millions even BILLIONS of lightyears away...which means the light from those galaxies would take millions or even billions of years to reach us.....if so, then the Universe could NOT have been "created" 6000 years ago.

There is no interpretation that refutes that.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, a moment of suspicion of "Poe's Law".

Why would NaturalBorn cite Lord Kelvin as scientific authority...when Kelvin believed the Earth was millions of years old.....where as NB is a Young Earth Creationist who believes it is only 6000 years old?

He's citing a person as authority.... who REFUTES his own beliefs?!?!?

- - - Updated - - -

So you don't believe in mental illness...paranoia, schizophrenia, etc.?

 

Tree ring data has been proved to NOT show growth at 1 ring per annum as once thought. Ice layers counted from ice core samples do not show annual snowfall, radiometric dating calculations have shown living snail shell to be over 5 million (?) years old and volcanic rock form weeks old lava flow to be 10's of millions of years old, fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs together, Pilttdown Man included the tooth of a pig as evidence, Haechel's embryo chart was proved a hoax 150+ years ago and is still used as evidence for evolution in current textbooks, etc. Notice None of that is an opinion, but a fact you can look up. I am certain if you do look this up, there will be opinions on what it means. Ignore the man's opinion behind the curtain and ask yourself IF it could apply to more than one model.

 

How about, instead of a Stanford man-behind-the-curtain's opinion, think. Science seems to understand the source of the energy of the Sun, and the Sun is subject to the 2nd LoT like and other radiator of energy. The source of the energy MUST be consumed to produce the energy. So far so good?

If you burn a log that produces heat and energy, isn't the log consumed. Why would the Sun not be consumed as well?

 

What scientists think they know about the speed of light is what they can measure it at today within the limited conditions scientists can create. No one knows if the conditions of the universe was different in the past.

Why couldn't God, when He create light, created it then placed the stars afterwards?

 

One last time, posting dozens of links to some guy's opinion is not a fact and you refuse to write anything other than, "Here is a link to...".

 

Please show a source to your information about tree ring data.

I addressed the snail shell data many posts ago. It is known that radiocarbon dating has been messed up for everything since the first atomic bomb. In addition, the equation used to derive age from calcium carbonate carbon is different, since the uptake of C14 is different in carbonates than in other tissues. Not sure what you are talking about with volcanic rock, so show me the source. The whole dinosaur footprint/human footprint thing has been shown to be an outright lie. Piltdown was debunked by science, not creationism. Which of Haeckel's embryo charts are used in current textbooks? Name the textbook. I've only seen it in textbooks as an example of old-fashioned thinking, not as evidence for evolutions.

Regardless, you have already shown us false information--the sun shrinking. I think that means you are reading suspect stuff, so show us your sources or shut up.

 

Do you not understand fusion? The sun isn't burning. It's not being consumed at nearly the rate that burning does. In fact, the sun is slightly bigger in diameter than it was 4.5 billion years ago (although smaller in mass). It has about half the mass The eventual end of the sun will that it will become a red giant, and will be take up the space to just past the earth's orbit (but that's about 5 billion years away, no worry). This is all based on measurements and calculations.

I can see why creationism has you fooled. You don't have the background in science to tell what's real and what's an outright lie.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sun.htm

 

What do you understand abut the presence of measurable amounts of C14 contained within diamonds that were to have been formed miiiiiiilions of years ago.

Before I track down my sources for you, are there any sources you will never accept or ones that you will only accept?

 

Do you truly believe he doesn't understand creationism? If this is what you believe then you are beyond the reach of reason. We can only hope your children can make a breakthrough, the world simply cannot afford to have many more creationists in the future.

 

So God created the LIGHT from the Andromeda Galaxy...and then later created the Andromeda Galaxy?

 

I'm not of the creationist camp, but wasn't it science that said the world was flat and made brilliant proclamations that "bleeding" was a great treatment for dysentery (Poor George Washington)?

 

Question all you want. Still the foundation of Christianity is the birth, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.