Bill Nye’s Debate Nightmare

Daily Beast/Yahoo News ^ | February 5, 2014 | Michael Schulson

[celmak]

On many mornings, I wake up and think, “You know what this country needs? More culture war.” As I scramble up a couple eggs, I find myself wishing—fervently wishing—that we could spend more time reducing substantive issues to mere spectacle. Later, as I scrub the pan, I’ll fantasize about how those very spectacles might even funnel money toward some of the country’s most politicized religious groups.

Fortunately, Bill “the Science Guy” Nye has heard my wish—which, really, is the wish of a nation. Why else would he have traveled to Kentucky this week in order to debate Ken Ham, the young-earth creationist founder of Answers in Genesis, about the origins of the world?

Actually, there are two other reasons that Nye might have done so, and I’ve given both possibilities a great deal of thought in the past few days. The first is that Nye, for all his bow-tied charm, is at heart a publicity-hungry cynic, eager to reestablish the national reputation he once had as the host of a PBS show. When his stint on Dancing With the Stars ended quickly, Nye turned to the only other channel that could launch him back to national attention: a sensationalized debate, replete with the media buzz that he craves.

Possibility number two is that Nye is clueless—that, for all his skill as a science communicator, Nye has less political acumen than your average wombat.

After watching the debate, I’m leaning toward that second possibility. Last night, it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.

[FredZarguna]

As opposed to your faith, which is nearly always wrong, but never admits it.

Persisting in error is not a positive, and no argument can make it so. Your God cannot be a God of truth, and then expect you to believe manifest lies.

[kjam22]

You can say it is wrong today because the current scientific theory you believe says it is wrong. What happens if and when this scientific theory is replaced with something different. With who knows what? You discount the word of God based on an unproven theory. Now who’s really crazy?

[bert]

The Bible was written by men.

The Bible doesn’t really say much of anything about Creation except that it happened. There no details, only vague statements.

[BrandtMichaels]

The Bible does not claim the Earth is flat - you need to read it more before you quote it maybe?

Also it is an historic document of the utmost reliability. Some folks think the 2 geneolgies in the NT that don’t agree are a major blunder, but with a little study you will find one is the ancestry of Joseph and the other is of Mary.

It’s things like that that can continue to bolster one’s faith in the word being absolute and true. Ever read up on the dead sea scrolls - another amazing historical find confirming the absolute truth found in the Bible.

[kjam22]

God said "let there be light"... and there was light. That's about as complete of a description as you can get. He spoke it into existence.

[BrandtMichaels]

The most quoted Psalm at funerals is Psalm 23, but right before that in Psalm 22 you will find lots of amazing prophecy written several hundred years before Jesus walked the Earth describing his death. It is prophecy that truly sets the Bible apart from all other books.

[MarDav]

“We know that ‘day’, while generally 24 hours, refers to the time it takes sun to return to the same apparent position in the sky; this is supported by Joshua’s “long day” (Josh 10) being referred to as a ‘day’. (So, one must accept that ‘day’ needn’t refer to a 24 hour period.)”

What the scripture actually says:

Jos 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

The last part of the verse actually indicates that this day WAS a 24 hour day and not, as you suggest, that a day could be more than a 24 hour period.

The use of the Hebrew word “yom” used in scripture indicates the same period of time in virtually every instance it is referenced. Perhaps the question folks need to be asking is what was time like before sin entered the world. What was creation like before sin entered the world. Sin is a terrible thing, don’t you know:

Rom. 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Rom. 8:21-22 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Sin brings forth death, decay, corruption. What science is doing today is measuring that which is subject to these forces. What God made by His original design was not. And I’m willing to bet that science has no way of measuring/accounting for the variable “sin” in its calculations, yet this is THE factor, biblically speaking, when it comes to understanding what brings forth the death of something.

[GunRunner]

Some folks think the 2 geneolgies in the NT that don’t agree are a major blunder, but with a little study you will find one is the ancestry of Joseph and the other is of Mary.

So what about Quirinius and Herod?

[MarDav]

Hey, one person’s “vague” is another person’s profound. ;>}

[kjam22]

Yep....

[FredZarguna]

Nope, my faith rest on the perfect work and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

In which case, you should stick to talking about Jesus Christ, and stop talking about things that you have no comprehension of.

you have a book inspired by God

According to those whole believe it, and no other independent source.

40 godly men, in 66 books covering more than 1,500 years to complete, on 3 different continents,

Many of the Godly men you refer to would have believed that the idea of God having a Son or multiple persons with a single Godhead was a pagan heresy that had no place in Hebrew belief.

number 1 book worldwide, originally in a couple of different languages and now being translated into every language and working fervently to translate into any newly discovered language by simple believers

Because of the historical accident that a Roman citizen transformed the faith into an acceptable Hellenistic one, [that contemporaneous and subsequent Jews regarded with scorn] which was picked up by a Roman Emperor at the right time and place. And ... so what? At one time nearly everyone on Earth believed that diseases were caused by evil spirits. The universality of a belief isn't proof of anything. And if popularity is your appeal, why do nearly ALL of the world's Christians reject Biblical literalism?

who may or may not have the university credentials you think are required in order to posit truth

Don't put words in my mouth.

I've never claimed anyone needed any "credentials," academic or otherwise in order to enter into these questions. What I have claimed is that what you believe about "science" is nonsense; and it is demonstrably so, quite apart from the certification of any degree factory.

[FredZarguna]

There's no proof that it's "The Word of God."

Now who's crazy?

[BrandtMichaels]

I think you need to be more specific but I did find this if it helps.

http://christianthinktank.com/quirinius.html

[FredZarguna]

Please try to keep up.

I said that we have as much evidence that the world is not 6,000 years old as we had that the world is not flat. Therefore [very very small bit of intelligence has to be applied on your part, and I understand that is a great deal to expect, but ...] arguing that the world is 6,000 years old is the same thing as saying it is flat.

It's called an analogy. They're even used in the Bible.

[kjam22]

I don’t need proof. I rest in faith. I stated that from the very beginning, and I don’t apologize for it. You’re the guy who needs proof. Really, just the theory of the day is what you need. Because there is no proof. There is only what science believes until it is disproven by another theory.... another theory waiting to be disproven again. :)

[GunRunner]

That's quite a Rube Goldberg explanation. But it's more likely that Luke was just wrong, as we know for a fact that Quirinius was not Governor during Herod's reign.

We also know that the Roman census would not have required anyone to travel to their ancestral city for a census, since they would be taxed where they lived.

Matthew doesn't even bother with the gymnastics; he just has the family living in Jerusalem in a house.

The point is that it's a story, not history; provably so.

[FredZarguna]

Unfortunately, He said it over "water." Now how there was water when God hadn't yet created photons is a bit of a mystery, but the mystery is cleared up in the next verse, where we learn that the "light" God created wasn't the photons at the start of Big Bang, but was, in fact, "daylight." And even more interestingly, God created daylight without a Sun, but he didn't create Night, he only separated it from daylight.

So, in your simple cosmology, water and night may have preexisted God, and sunlight preexisted the sun.

Very complete.

And very wrong.

[BrandtMichaels]

Asking questions and positing truth are not the same thing.

“According to those whole believe it, and no other independent source.”

This one is kinda strange too. Maybe you could benefit from a guy who was an atheist most of his life, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. He defends the faith like no other in:

The Case for Christ
The Case for Faith
The Case for Creation

Interviews lots of experts and eventually finds faith.

Seek God with all your heart and you will find him.

[FredZarguna]

So, essentially what you are saying is that your "God" is so evil that he gave us a capacity to understand the universe, which understanding would by every indication reveal his "scared texts" were mostly baloney, so we would have to rely on blind faith.

To what purpose? So he could cast all the thinking people into Hell?

No thanks. There is no such God as that, and I wouldn't want to live in his universe for a microsecond.

[BrandtMichaels]

Well don’t you know these ‘experts’ on the Bible have been proven wrong time after time? Just watch and wait if you must but remember no one knows how much longer they’ll live. bad things happen all the time and no one gets out of this world alive.

Two come readily to my mind. Mankind is so complex and beautiful he could not possibly come from dust. Also a few years back another scientist studying longevity concluded mankind can not live much more than about 120 years.