Bill Nye critcizes GOP, parents teaching creationism

What about teaching both from a scientific point of view, or would you prefer teaching neither?

 

Dr. Faulkner is Associate Professor of Astronomy and Physics at the University of South Carolina at Lancaster.

OBSERVATIONS​

​

​

Does the size of the sun change over the years? Recently, "John A. Eddy (Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A.Boornazian (a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century…corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour."1 The diameter of the sun is close to one million miles, so that this shrinkage of the sun goes unnoticed over hundreds or even thousands of years. There is no cause for alarm for us or for any of our descendants for centuries to come because the sun shrinks so slowly. Yet the sun does actually appear to shrink. The data Eddy and Boornazian examined spanned a 400-year period of solar observation, so that this shrinkage of the sun, though small, is apparently continual.​

​

​

INTERPRETATION​

​

​

What does the shrinkage of the sun have to do with creation and evolution? The sun was larger in the past than it is now by 0.1% per century. A creationist, who may believe that the world was created approximately 6 thousand years ago, has very little to worry about. The sun would have been only 6% larger at creation than it is now. However, if the rate of change of the solar radius remained constant, 100 thousand years ago the sun would be twice the size it is now. One could hardly imagine that any life could exist under such altered conditions. Yet 100 thousand years is a minute amount of time when dealing with evolutionary time scales.2​

​

​

How far back in the past must one go to have a sun so large that its surface touches the surface of the earth? The solar radius changes at 2.5 feet per hour, half the 5 feet per hour change of the solar diameter. The distance from the sun to the earth is 93 million miles, and there are 5,280 feet in one mile. Assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to​

​

​

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]t = [/TD]
[TD="width: 216"] (93,000,000 miles) (5,280 ft/mile) [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD] (2.5 ft/hr) (24 hr/da) (365 day/yr) [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

​

​

or approximately 20 million B.C. However, the time scales required for organic evolution range from 500 million years to 2,000 million years.3It is amazing that all of this evolutionary development, except the last 20 million years, took place on a planet that was inside the sun. By 20 million B.C., all of evolution had occurred except the final stage, the evolution of the primate into man.​

​

​

One must remember that the 20 million year B.C. date is the extreme limit on the time scale for the earth's existence. The timeat which the earth first emerged from the shrinking sun is 20 million B.C. A more reasonable limit is the 100 thousand year B.C. limit set by the time at which the size of the sun should have been double its present size.​

​

​

A further word of explanation is needed about the assumption that the rate of shrinkage of the sun is constant over 100 thousand years or over 20 million years. The shrinkage rate centuries ago would be determined by the balance of solar forces. Since the potential energy of a homogeneous spherical sun varies inversely with the solar radius, the rate of shrinkage would have been greater in the past than it is now. The time at which the sun was twice its present size is less than 100 thousand B.C. The time at which the surface of the sun would touch the earth is much less than 20 million B.C. Therefore, the assumption of a constant shrinkage rate is a conservative assumption.

 

Uuuuh....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

 

Why no link? What creationist site did you get this from?

 

Creationism is not science. It cannot be taught scientifically.

- - - Updated - - -

Creationism is not science. It cannot be taught scientifically.

 

How convenient, it only applies to a closed system and there is no such thing as a closed system. Then in that case the "2nd Law" can not be a scientific law.

Show us an example of a closed system otherwise that is only a some person's opinion, not a scientific theory.

 

It is anti science though; it does't follow the scientific method in the way it works. Everything it harbors must be explained in the bible. That leaves it stuck in a box. If you could figure out something in real science that goes against the laws of physics, and prove it multiple times, then you would be heralded as a revolutionary. In Creationism if you find something that goes against the grain (like there being no evidence early humans hung out with dinosaurs) you are dismissed completely and bombarded with BS pseudoscience and outright lies on the way out.

 

So just to be clear, you are denying the existence of closed systems, yes?

 

Creationists don't even understand creationism. Ever tried to debate one? They'll try all day to "shoot holes" in evolution...

but either

A. won't tell you THEIR version of the formation of the Earth, the rise of life, etc. (It's a secret, I guess)

B. will say "Nobody knows" (another lie...they have an idea, but can't defend it.)

 

Hardly. And not so long as people keep trying to slide it into public school curriculums in one way or another, or even in state laws to either teach it directly or put assorted "disclaimers" in any textbook that talks about evolution.

Well, that article is about Texas schools who've been a serious thorn in the side of a decent public education for decades. I know. They tried their crap in my school district years ago and we ran them out.

 

How would you teach Biblical Creationism as "science"....when the Genesis account indicates that plants were created on the Third Day.....but the Sun wasn't created until the FOURTH Day....

and thus all plant life on Earth would have frozen and died in the -200 Celsius surface temperature of the Earth's surface?

 

The scientific facts can be taught and the hypothesis and speculation can be left out of the curriculum.

- - - Updated - - -

I have asked more than once for you to show us a closed system. Without a closed system the opinion can not be show false and therefore is unscientific.

Can you show us an example of a closed system or not?

 

As I stated, I don't see science in creationism, so for me personally, there is nothing left to debate, therefore, I prefer to not engage in the repetitive arguments.

 

Considering science does not operate on speculation, it already is.

Hypotheses have a very specific meaning in science and leaving them out would mean not teaching science.

But you are entirely scientifically illiterate and are only parroting what you've read on creationist websites/what you have been told by other creationists, so I wouldn't expect you to know the scientific definition of terms.

 

What do you want to know, really? What exploded to form the universe? No one can answer that.

- - - Updated - - -

Or that the whole universe began by an explosion of something no larger that the dot at the end of this sentence. Is that okay with you to teach children?

 

Why won't you admit that you are denying that closed systems exist?

Is it because you figure that I have spent the last few minutes acquiring a smorgasbord of links of examples of closed systems and you don't want to look like an idiot?

Either commit and deny that closed systems exist (then I will post evidence that makes you look stupid) or acknowledge that closed systems exist and form the basis for a law that you falsely claimed was evidence against evolution.

- - - Updated - - -

That is not what the Big Bang Theory states.

 

You still have not answered any of my question. Illiterate or not, you haven'y shown much knowledge the subject.

 

Well, that's what I mean. But, like Republicans everywhere, they expect you to willingly and merrily dumb yourself down to the Bible and the Constitution.

 

Can you or can you not show us an example of a closed system. YOU are the one who interjected the closed system meme into the discussion. It is up to you to explain what that is and show an example to prove your point.

I'll wait.

 

What's wrong with that? Evolution is a well supported theory, but it's not proven. Calling it a fact doesn't make it one.

People have the ability to decide for themselves which side (creationism, evolution) has more evidence on its side.

Right, and the Texas schools being filled with non-English speaking students from a 3rd world country is coincidental. It's no different than whatever white liberal suburb you're from.

 

Nye is an idiot and anyone that thinks his idea is founded is just as bad. Our failed education system has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Those beliefs were stronger when we had a better educated country.

 

As soon as you admit that you are denying the existence of closed systems, I will post a whole gaggle of links to prove you wrong. If you are not denying their existence, then why should I post prove for a thing we both acknowledge exists?

 

But one of your high priests says it is how it started:
The scientific community is ecstatic. Physicist Joel Primack of the University of California, Santa Cruz says, "It's one of the major discoveries of science." Physicist Michael Turner of the University of Chicago said the discovery is "unbelievably important!" The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the holy grail of cosmology. . . If it is, indeed, correct, this certainly would have to be considered for a Nobel Prize." The researchers "are confident" in the accuracy of their measurements.The "Big Bang" is designated as "one of the most difficult physics concepts for layman to accept." Now I want you to notice this statement carefully: "Its chief assumption is that 15 billion years ago all matter in the universe was compressed into an unimaginably dense sphere smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. The ball exploded at a temperature of trillions of degrees, launching all the matter on the expansionary course it continues to follow today. Within the first millionth of a second after the explosion, quarks and other exotic particles combined to form protons and neutrons, most of which were just as rapidly annihilated by collisions with antiprotons and antincutrons, releasing their energy in the form of light waves." Did you get all of that?

- - - Updated - - -

Prove you point or admit you lied.
I'll wait.

 

Just like how most people should decide for themselves if germs cause disease or if it is caused by evil spirits and gypsy curses because the Germ Theory of Disease is "just a theory" and hasn't been proven yes, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Why should I post proof of something if we both acknowledge it exists? Are you denying the existence of closed systems?

 

You are correct in that regard. I just consider it a belief itself, but it does seem to coincide with anti-science beliefs.