Bill Nye critcizes GOP, parents teaching creationism

No

First no one who was a scientist at the time thought the world was flat, hell the Ancient Greeks didn't believe that. The flat earth fallacy shows even more ignorance.

 

Good grief!

Element Abundance
measured relative to silicon

Hydrogen 40,000
Helium 3,100
Oxygen 22
Neon 8.6
Nitrogen 6.6
Carbon 3.5
Silicon 1

Technically, you are correct, but extremely misleading for the casual reader since hydrogen is thousands of times more prevalent than oxygen.

 

Exactly. Water = H[SUP]2[/SUP]O. I should have said that it is only speculation on my part.

 

But that isn't water yet.

 

To be fair, there's quite a lot of water in the universe: Astronomers Find Largest, Most Distant Reservoir of Water

Only it's 12 billion light-years away, so it can't possibly exist according to Young Earth creationism.

 

Why not?

 

What the heck are you talking about? And what does water have to do with the prevalence of hydrogen in the universe?

 

I am a gravitist.

 

RRRrrright. Come on man, we all know that is BS.

 

Read for comprehension. Basically, NB started with a quote from Genesis. Somebody commented about "where did the water come from." NB retorts with hydrogen and oxygen being two of the three most common elements in the universe. the post makes sense if you've been following along.

 

First there was hydrogen then helium. After about a billion years or so, they cooled off a bit, got together and formed stars whence came every other element, but only after those early stars blew apart were they seeded into the expanding universe. NB's posts seem to indicate H and O as existing about the same time. Far from it.

Personally, I don't believe his science knowledge is too sharp.

 

The idea that understanding a given idea prevents understanding of a contrary idea, is just silly. Yeah, I understand the basic idea of Communism - that doesn't preclude me from understanding Capitalism. I under the basic idea of creationism - that doesn't preclude me from understanding evolution.

No, I think you've missed it. The scientific method depends on the senses, but a proper scientific experiment can not be done to test the senses, so in even conducting science you must take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith.

 

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111123192300AAiVXr4
http://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism (look even a creationist site)
http://www.smudailycampus.com/news/the-fallacy-that-the-earth-was-flat

 

On the contrary, I know your mythological story of how the universe began and the science that refutes the myth, and I know the Biblical account and the science that support s a young Earth.

 

As I have asked, over and over and over again, show us the science that supports your young earth myth.

 

Sure, but you weren't indoctrinated into Communism. A child raised in a fundamentalist household is indoctrinated. It should be obvious that the fears people like Nye have about creationism have to do with dogma that conflicts with science.

If it was simply a matter of pointing out that some people believe the world is only 10,000 years old, then there wouldn't be an issue. The problem is when this idea is presented as truth.

If that's your argument, then you might as well live in a cave.

 

..and frolic with dinosaurs.

 

What would you like to read?

 

Give me something, anything to read that shows science supporting the young earth myth. Not some novel that's going to take me hours to sort through, something clear, concise, and to the point.

 

The debate of the shrinking Sun. You can falsely claim the article is invalid because it was published in a Creation magazine, but Here's a tip for you, research the references cited in the article at: The Astrophysical Journal; Nature; Scientific American; peer reviewed papers by Gilliard, 1981; Eddy & Boornazian, 1979 & Stephenson, 1970, 1982.

When you are finished with that, THEN post a reply based on the research of any detractors any why.

I'll wait.

EXCERPT:
Steady long-term decrease

Thus we can conclude that a thorough analysis of all the available evidence clearly suggests a steady long-term decrease of the solar diameter (i.e. the sun is shrinking) at a rate of almost 0.2 second of arc (150 kilometers or 93 miles) per century or approximately 30 centimeters (less than one foot) per hour, superimposed upon a 76–80 year cycle of systematic increase and decrease over a range of 0.8 second of arc (600 km or 373 miles).

SOURCE:

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/sun/is-the-sun-shrinking/

 

I'm sorry for laughing, but when your authoritative source is answersingenesis.org, you've already lost. They, as you, are a joke when it comes to science. Some time back, there was a churchman (I forget the name) who said something like God gave us two books to know Him - one was the Bible which told us how to live our lives, and the other was His creation to know His majesty. For each, he gave us a mind to study both and know the difference. I'm afraid you've never quite gotten that lesson.

 

We've already done this one. The assertion that the sun shrinking means the universe can only be so old has a couple of large flaws.

First, it assumes that just because the sun is shrinking now it always has been. IMHO that's kinda like watching the tide go out and deciding the oceans are shrinking and that water level has been falling at that rate since the earth was made.

It's kinda ridiculous to assume that data from a couple of hundred years necessarily represents any sort of long term trend in a system your link claims could be 5 million years long much less one that conventional wisdom says is 5 Billion years long.

Next, Data from as long ago as 1917 is bound to be less accurate than data from today and your link even discusses that, but kinda glosses over it. It doesn't list any current observations, they just keep massaging the same old data that they freely admit is flawed. In fact the whole premise has kind of a "grasping at straws" feel to it due to the way they whipsaw back and forth over the conclusion.

Current observations suggest that the sun is indeed stable, and not shrinking. The sun goes through a small contraction and expansion cycle as solar activity waxes and wanes but nothing even in the same ballpark as 5 feet a minute.

It is mathematically Provable that the sun is shrinking though not at any sort of large rate. I'm not going to try to explain the process but at the end of its life span (about 5 billion more years) it will have converted 0.044 percent of its current mass to energy. In other word it will still have 99.966% of its current size and weight.

Next?

 

I understand, you choose not to rad any scientific research that contradicts your religious believes. I'll stop trying to convince you the Earth is not flat. Have a great eternity.

 

Wait, isn't uniformatarianism the foundational pillar of milllllions of years and evolution? Steady slow change over time? Layer upon layer? Tree ring after tree ring? Light travels the same now as it always has? Hypocrite.

Here let me fix it for you:

Next, Data from as long ago as 1917 is bound to be less accurate than data from today and your link even discusses that, but kinda glosses over it. It doesn't list any current observations, they just keep massaging the same old data that they freely admit is flawed. In fact the whole premise has kind of a "grasping at straws" feel to it due to the way they whipsaw back and forth over the conclusion.

Current observations suggest that the sun is indeed stable, and not shrinking. The sun goes through a small contraction and expansion cycle as solar activity waxes and wanes but nothing even in the same ballpark as 5 feet a minute.

It is mathematically Provable that the sun is shrinking though not at any sort of large rate. I'm not going to try to explain the process but at the end of its life span (about 5 billion more years) it will have converted 0.044 percent of its current mass to energy. In other word it will still have 99.966% of its current size and weight.

Next?

The Sun does not need to be shrinking at a more than a small rate in a couple hundred years wghen you are claiming 100's of millions of hundred years.

You also are never going to be shaken out of the tree your ancestors climbed down from. Science is not important when you have you bigoted religious beliefs in a flat old Earth.

 

Uniformitarianism (you misspelled that BTW) doesn't apply the way you think it does, witness my example of the tides. They are not always going out, nor are they always coming in. They do both in a cycle, and uniformitarianism applies to that. I noted above that the sun expands and contracts slightly as solar activity waxes and wanes, the same applies to that cycle.

Your link claimed at first that the sun was shrinking at 5 feet a minute or something like that. That's not a small rate.

And I have no idea what the last line is supposed to mean, I'm not the one sporting "religious beliefs".

I asked you for some proof, you gave me this. You asked me to refute, I did.

And now you stutter and stammer like a kid caught looking at dirty magazines.

[/thread]