Rebutting Bill Nye - Round 2
Bill Nye continues to promote his particular belief in particles-to-people evolution. In an interview with Gayle King on CBS This Morning, Bill defended his claim from a previous interview that creation is not appropriate for children. Let’s make a few general observations before we look at Mr. Nye’s specific comments.
First, we note that Mr. Nye (as in his first interview) fails to give any particular argument for evolution. He may think that he is doing that when he speaks of fossils, or deep time. But the creation worldview includes the global flood of Genesis 6-8, which would naturally make sense of fossils. And “deep time” is a belief, not evidence. Not once does Bill give an actual argument for why people should believe that evolution (in the Darwinian sense of common descent) is actually true. This is strangely inconsistent for a person who claims to believe in science. In science, a theory is supposed to have supporting evidence. Why then has Mr. Nye been unable or unwilling to provide a single example?
Second, we note that Bill does make an argument for science. By his examples, he refers primarily to operational science – the kind of testable, repeatable, observable science that has resulted in technology, such as the ability to land spacecraft on Mars. Yes Bill, we do believe in science. Science is only meaningful within the Christian worldview; we expect the universe to behave rationally, and to be understandable by the human mind because God created the universe and the mind, and upholds creation in a consistent way. If the universe really were chance, and if our brains were simply the result of countless mistakes (mutations) that were not eliminated, then there would be no reason to think that the mind could understand the universe.
From a rational perspective, Bill Nye’s main point is totally irrelevant to the claim at issue. He wants to persuade people of his belief in evolution by giving examples of science – something that is contrary to the principles of evolution! It is a very strange (and self-refuting) form of a bait-and-switch fallacy. It’s a bit like someone arguing that numbers do not exist, and thinking that he could support that claim by pointing to the success of mathematics! For math to be successful, numbers must exist. Likewise, for science to be successful, biblical creation must be true. Let’s look at some specific comments:
Nye: “Well, I feel passionate about it for the betterment of the United States, the United States economy, and our future.”
YOM: As Christians, we certainly care about the people of this nation (and others) and thus the economy and future. This is reasonable since people are created in God’s image, and we are commanded to love them. But if evolution was true and people were just accidental products of chemistry, why care about others? Bill’s statement shows that in his heart-of-hearts he really does know that God created people.
Nye: “What makes the United States great, the reason people wanted to live in the United States, move here still, is because of our ability to innovate. This goes back to Ben Franklin, Thomas Alva Edison, and George Washington Carver.”
YOM: Interestingly, the three people that Bill cites as great innovators were not evolutionists.
Nye: “Let alone landing on the moon, Neil Armstrong. All these people believed in science.”
YOM: Yes, and many of them rejected evolution (including Werner Von Braun who led the development of the Saturn V rocket which was used to get astronauts to the moon.) Without actually saying so, Bill seems to be suggesting that you cannot do science without embracing evolution. But, all the examples he gives refute this claim.
Nye: “This morning, everybody's talking about Hurricane Isaac, and we're watching satellite maps made with spacecraft orbiting the earth, and this all comes from science.”
YOM: No doubt. We like science. But what does any of this have to do with believing in evolution? Operational science is testable and repeatable in the present. But evolution is an unrepeatable, unverifiable belief about the past.
Nye: “If you have this idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old, you are denying, if you will, everything that you can touch and see. You're not paying attention to what's happening in the universe around you.”
YOM: Exactly what things that we “can touch and see” must we deny to believe in 6000 years? The conviction that the Earth is about 6000 years old is simply the logical outcome of embracing recorded history. It’s ironic that Bill appeals to what we “can touch and see” because in the evolutionary view our senses are just the result of chance mutations. There is no reason to expect them to be reliable/truthful in that worldview.
Nye: “As I say, this is bad for kids.”
YOM: We are glad that Mr. Nye is concerned for kids – so are we. But we must point out that such concern makes no sense given Bill’s professed outlook on life. Evolution implies that kids are just chemical accidents, the eventual outcome of mindless chemistry acting over deep time.
Nye: “Oh, well, as they say, you can believe what you want religiously. Religion is one thing, but science, provable science is something else.”
YOM: Since Mr. Nye has failed to give any evidence at all for his belief in evolution, it would seem to fall under his classification of a religious belief. Bill’s confidence in science is inconsistent with his belief in evolution. Evolution would undermine science, as we showed previously.
Nye: “My concern is you don't want people growing up not believing in radioactivity, not believing in geology and deep time.”
YOM: We creationists certainly believe in radioactivity, and have conducted extensive original research on the topic (e.g. the RATE project). And we love the science of geology and research that as well. But “deep time” is not in the same category as operational science; deep time is not testable or observable in a laboratory. Notice that Mr. Nye has listed two items from science, and then slips in his evolutionary belief as the third item. Perhaps he hoped we would associate it with the other two, and be persuaded that deep time is somehow “scientific.” Nice try Bill. But we’re not fooled.
Nye: “You want people to believe in science…”
YOM: We certainly agree. But how will telling people that the universe is just an uncaused accident lead them to want to study it? How would telling kids that they are a non-designed accident of nature lead them to think that they are even capable of rationally analyzing the universe? If you want to motivate people to pursue science, giving them the truth about origins will be far more productive than Bill’s evolutionary tale.
Nye: “And I really want to emphasize, I'm not attacking anybody's religion, but science – if you go to a museum and you see fossil dinosaur bones, they came from somewhere…”
YOM: Yes, and the soft tissue in many such fossils is consistent with the fact that they are not millions of years old. Such evidence is inconsistent with Bill’s beliefs.
Nye: “…and we have by diligent investigation have determined that the earth is 4.54 billion years old…”
YOM: Many evolutionists believe that the earth is indeed 4.54 billion years old. But this certainly wasn’t determined “by diligent investigation.” It is believed due to arbitrary philosophical preferences: assumptions of uniformitarianism and naturalism, and failure to consider contrary evidence (such as high quantities of helium in rocks which should have leaked away if they were billions of years old). Bill may strongly believe in billions of years, but he hasn’t provided any actual support for that belief.
Nye: “This is fantastic discoveries that fill me with reverence, make me excited.”
YOM: This is a very revealing comment. Why would anyone feel a deep respect (reverence) to an accident? Yes, science does provoke a sense of awe in those of us who recognize the majesty of our Creator. Doing science is like “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” And that should indeed fill us with excitement. But if the universe is just a chance explosion, and life is just an accident, then such feelings make no sense. Nye’s comment is a confirmation of Romans 1:18-21. This passage of Scripture explains that everyone has some knowledge of God, and that evidence of God’s creation is abundantly obvious. But people suppress that truth. They deny what they know to be true in an effort to distance themselves from God.
Bill Nye made a number of other comments about the virtues of science; we certainly agree with these. This is why it is so important to teach people the truth about the origin of the universe. It is because God created and upholds the universe consistently and rationally that we have a good reason to have a high degree of confidence in the tools of science. Mr. Nye’s belief in evolution is inconsistent with such an outlook. And so if he really is concerned about science education then he should join us in believing the biblical worldview and become a consistent Christian. Then all of his comments about the virtues of science will actually make sense!
22 Responses
Join the ConversationIsaac says:
Hey, I'm sure Bill Nye feels that there are some people who want to deny science by falling back on religion. If some people want to deny the scientific reason of the rainbow's occurrence (refraction of particles) and replacing that notion with "Its the reminder that God sent to Noah that he will not flood the Earth again" (Genesis). This here to me is a problem. For the majority of Americans, who can piece together religious and scientific components of certain scenarios, great! I think some people find that difficult and that is why Bill Nye is upset.
Rod says:
I am glad Jeff pointed to the Wikipedia article for age of the earth. Yes indeed meteorites are used in the measurement. Jeff, the problem Wikipedia did not disclose is that the meteorites also come with another set of clocks that are billions of years younger than the radiometric dates published. Cosmic ray exposure ages are much younger than radiometric years. 80% of meteorite inventory is stony; these on average are < 100 million years old. Concerning scientific testing, one can make the argument that the vast majority of meteorites found, never orbited the Sun for 4.54 billion years because they have young surface ages. The old radiometric ages assigned are grossly inflated and do not equate to orbital time. So Jeff, the assumption used in all old radiometric ages is that the ages = earth orbital history or revolutions in the gravity field of the Sun when dating geologic deep time. What scientific test established this assumption? Remember science is about testing.
Rod says:
I am glad Jeff pointed to the Wikipedia article for age of the earth. Yes indeed meteorites are used in the measurement. Jeff, the problem Wikipedia did not disclose is that the meteorites also come with another set of clocks that are billions of years younger than the radiometric dates published. Cosmic ray exposure ages are much younger than radiometric years. 80% of meteorite inventory is stony; these on average are < 100 million years old. Concerning scientific testing, one can make the argument that the vast majority of meteorites found, never orbited the Sun for 4.54 billion years because they have young surface ages. The old radiometric ages assigned are grossly inflated and do not equate to orbital time. So Jeff, the assumption used in all old radiometric ages is that the ages = earth orbital history or revolutions in the gravity field of the Sun when dating geologic deep time. What scientific test established this assumption? Remember science is about testing.
Andy says:
Robert,
I thought I mentioned "Nature, vol 465", which happens to be the best evolutionary biologyjournal in professional literature. You don't have to take my claim without any evidence. However, you do have to do your homework. Study the theories of "abiogenesis" and "universal common decent" (aka universal common ancestry). Combine the two theories and compare it with what creationists describe as "particles to people" or "molecules to man". The concept is there in the literature, creationists just aren't afraid to call a duck a duck.
Grace & Peace
Jeff says:
Rod: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Stephen, ASC presents a solution, but it comes from an approach of offering a solution to a problem we don't have. Science does *not* seek to prove theories. It seeks to *disprove* them. Science is about inquisition and skepticism. It's about testing. It's about firm foundations. Furthermore, reputable science is not a matter of 'seeking solutions'. Engineers do that. Science only seek information... it accepts any data that presents itself, and does not try to reinforce outdated theories that are wholly incompatible with modern observations. It is either given up as obsolete, or undergoes rehabilitation.
- - - I ask this. Give this serious consideration. If creationism is a theory that is founded on the existence of a God, and if God is all-powerful, infinite, and completely beyond our comprehension... how could we possibly test such a thing? How can we *measure* God? How do we *test* God? How do we reliably *repeat* anything God does? It's obvious we can't, as the Bible is so very, very clear on. So that, by definition, is unscientific, and perhaps in your own terms "historical science". So it would follow that all things, all theories, that rely on the existence of a creator, would be void.
Stephen says:
Jeff, I suggest that you read the full article about ASC on the following website:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention
Rod says:
What does Jeff say is the age of the earth using the radiometric methods with much longer half-lives than C-14 and what rock(s) were used to establish this age?
Jeff says:
I appreciate the time you took to respond fully, even though I admit I hadn't given you the same treatment in kind.
I'd like to try to maintain brevity this time, though.
I don't like being told what my beliefs are, and I'm sure you don't either.
Science has a specific definition, and it does allow for the theory of evolution. Historical and operational science are nonsensical and superfluous terms.
Evolution *is* verifiable. Again, refer to microorganisms.
Evolution and natural selection are not opposites. Natural selection, through genetic mutation and variation, which you declined to mention, increases genetic information.
Refer to above.
Strictly true. You mention Einstein in a moment, so I'm sure you're aware of significance of the "speed limit" set by light. Things may indeed accelerate past light in certain circumstances, but they cannot exceed, nor reach, that limit.
Refer to above. Light speed *is* a constant. Individual photons may be slowed to sub-lightspeed, but the limit is still constant.
Did we just agree on something? lol
-confetti-
Einstein's theory is not about motion, but 'relativity' (hence the name?). Everything is relative to a frame of reference, as you later describe. While light's reference frame is instant (and everything around it is "still"), we aren't light. We still experience the full 8 minutes and 19 seconds. Though light may experience all "time" instantly, that still does not change the fact that we don't.
It's *because* of relativity that we are able to argue the age of the universe and the distance of stars.
I admit to being mistaken about carbon dating. Incentive to double-check my sources next time. :)
The mechanics remain the same, but we focus on other elements.
Many radioactive isotopes have half-lives much greater than that of carbon, and provide a much more accurate reference for the age of our planet. Still though, carbon is accurate up to 60,000 years. Though not suitable for this purpose, it's more than sufficient to debunk the idea of a 'young' Earth.
Rod says:
YOM, I urge you to stay the course with the term, "particles-to-people" for describing modern evolutionary doctrine. We must remember that all the universe according to the big bang originated in a singularity and evolved out of this state. During the time period 1E-44 second to 1 second after the big bang, a plethora of particles appear and from that time forward, slowly evolve into people on earth, nearly 14 billion years later.
"When the standard big-bang model is extended to these earlier times, various problems arise. First, it becomes clear that the model requires a number of stringent, unexplained assumptions about the initial conditions of the universe. In addition most of the new theories of elementary particles imply that the standard model would lead to a tremendous overproduction of the exotic particles called magnetic monopoles (each of which corresponds to an isolated north or south magnetic pole). The inflationary universe was invented to overcome these problems." - Guth, A. H. and Steinhardt, P. J., The Inflationary Universe, Scientific American, June 1984, p. 116.
YOM says:
Robert says that “the arguments from AiG and ICR are not
scientific in nature … To imply that they actually perform serious science is
to manifest a serious misunderstanding of the true purpose of these
organizations, and the nature of science in general."
Here Robert is presenting an unsubstantiated and false
premise. Obviously Robert is completely
unaware of the scientific research done by ICR in the fields of biology,
geology, physics, astronomy and other fields.
Furthermore, Robert seems to be ignorant of the caliber of scientists
that ICR has on staff – all with doctorates from secular universities. That information is readily available on the
ICR website for anyone that would like to check up on their credentials. So by making such broad and sweeping
generalizations, Robert shows that he hasn’t really done his homework.
Robert continues by making a faulty appeal to authority; “I
note your failure to cite any of the professional biology literature to support
your claim,” as if “professional biology literature” is infallible.
From his very first post, Robert has been deeply troubled by
our use of the term “particle-to-people” evolution.
Hopefully some recent quotes by some leading evolutionists will offer
some relief.
"The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star
that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a
different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know
about physics: You are all stardust.
You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t
exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all
the things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of
time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body
is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here
today." (Krauss, Lawrence. 2012.
A Universe From Nothing. Free Press.) – Emphasis
ours.
Lawrence Maxwell Krauss is a Canadian-American theoretical
physicist who is a professor of physics, Foundation Professor of the School of
Earth and Space Exploration, and director of the Origins Project at Arizona
State University. That sounds pretty
much like “particle-to-people.”
Here is a quote from a college text book published way back
in 2011 touching on planet creation and the origin of life:
“… of elements into solid, rocky planets; of those same
elements into the molecular building blocks of life; of those molecules into
life itself; and of advanced life forms into intelligence, culture, and technological civilization.” (Chaisson
& McMillian, 2011 Astronomy Today, Addison-Wesley) – Emphasis ours.
So, from rocks to “intelligence” – that sounds a lot like
“particles-to-people” unless by “intelligence, culture, and technological
civilization” the author was attributing those characteristics to rocks.
A brilliant physicist from Ashton University in England said
the following:
It is now becoming clear that
everything can – and probably did – come from nothing.” (Robert A. J. Matthews,
physicist, Ashton University, England)
Now, before Robert gets all excited and says, “See,
creationists say the same thing” we need to make this clear. Creationist DO NOT believe that everything came from nothing. The Bible teaches that before there was
anything, there was God, and GOD created out of nothing. That is totally different than what Matthews
believes.
At the Institute for Creation
Research, we have scores of similar quotations from evolutionists. If Robert dislikes the term
“particles-to-people” perhaps he would prefer the term “molecules-to-man.” The fact remains that this is what
evolutionists believe and teach. They CANNOT explain the origins of life
except through the accidental random accumulation of inert elements. Presenting any further “evidence” would be a
fruitless exercise for one who is willingly ignorant (Romans 1:20-22).
YOM says:
Jeff: I was enjoying this until I began seeing claims that simply are not true.
YOM: Actually, our claims are true, as we will show below. However, the fact that Jeff is concerned about truth shows that he really does believe in God as Creator, even if he won’t admit it to himself or others. If evolution is true, then why would truth matter? Why not lie if it benefits our survival? It’s in the Christian worldview, where God created human beings in His own image and holds us accountable for our actions, that lying is wrong. It is contrary to the nature of God. But if we are just evolved animals, then Jeff’s objection makes no sense at all.
Jeff: "Operational science" is a term coined by creationists with the intent of, it seems, separating "verifiable science" from "unverifiable science".
YOM: Rational people will take care to define their terms and use such terms in a consistent way. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are often not as careful. They often equivocate on words like “evolution” and “science.” Does “science” just mean “knowledge” in a general sense? Does it mean the repeatable procedure (i.e. the scientific method) by which we test certain truth claims? Does it refer to a specific model? Does it refer to using scientific tools and procedures to help answer a claim that is itself non-provable? All of these can mean “science.” We often use prefixes so that people will understand which definition of “science” is under discussion. This is called a “precising definition.”
Jeff: It deserves to be said that terms for these things already exist: scientific and unscientific.
YOM: Apparently, Jeff wants to limit “science” to the “operational” kind – or, to use his word, “verifiable.” That’s okay with us. But under this definition, evolution cannot be classified as science at all because it has never been verified. So we were being very generous by allowing evolution to be classified as a particular view of “historical science.” By Jeff’s definition, evolution is simply unscientific.
Jeff: And it's been well established that evolutionary theory falls in the realm of 'science'.
YOM: Not by Jeff’s definition. Evolution (i.e. common descent) has never, ever been verified in a laboratory. No one has ever observed life coming from non-life. No one has ever documented even one example of one kind of organism becoming another kind. All we find are variations within a kind – which is what creationists expect. What’s more, even if we did observe one kind changing into another kind today, that would not “verify” that it happened that way in the past. (It would only prove that it can happen, not that it did happen). Past events can never be verified scientifically because they can never be repeated.
Jeff: Evolution is the long term result of natural selection, which is the selective passage of traits to future generations based on their value in promoting the survival of an organism.
YOM: Evolution is actually the opposite of natural selection. Natural selection is the name sometimes used for the fact that organisms with traits less conducive to survival in an environment are less likely to survive and pass on their traits. So, genes which produce unhelpful traits tend to be eliminated. Natural selection is therefore a reducing process: it eliminates genetic codes. Evolution, on the other hand, is supposed to turn simpler single-celled organisms into people (and all other life) – which must involve adding new instructions to the genome. So evolution is about increasing the information in the genome, and natural selection can only reduce the information in the genome. They are opposites.
Jeff: In a generational lineage, superior and inferior traits can be directly observed behaving according to evolutionary theory, in real-time.
YOM: No, we do not observe brand new information being added to the genome (what evolution would require). Instead, we observe variation within a kind, and loss of genetic information (as creationists expect).
Jeff: First, as we know, nothing travels faster than light. If you want proof, I'll give it, but please google it yourself first; it's not a short explanation.
YOM: Not strictly true. Radio phase waves in plasma can move faster than light. But we get Jeff’s point.
Jeff: Second, we use light to measure vast distances in space, usually measured in "light-years". It's the amount of distance light travels in 1 year. We do so because light's speed is both conveniently constant and extraordinarily fast.
YOM: The round-trip speed of light in a vacuum is constant. The one-way speed is dependent on synchrony-convention.
Jeff: -Third, light is necessary for sight. Only when light is leaving an object and is picked up by our eyes, do we "see" that object.
YOM: Yes. That’s correct.
Jeff: For instance, it takes 8 minutes and 19 seconds (8 light-minutes and 19 light-seconds) for light leaving the Sun to reach your eye here on Earth. If the Sun were a full light-year away, we know it would take 1 year for it to reach us.
YOM: Jeff has correctly stated the simplified view (the “children’s version” if you will) of light travel times. The reality is more complicated. According to the physics that Einstein discovered, measurements of time and space are affected by motion. It follows that synchronization is also observer-dependent. And this leads to some interesting consequences. For example, from the light’s point of view, it takes no time at all to travel from the sun to the earth. That’s also true for distant stars. Their light reaches earth instantaneously from their reference frame. This can also be accomplished in Earth’s reference frame when the right synchrony convention is used.
Jeff: it follows that light reaching us from objects outside of our solar system must travels for great periods of time, over great distances, before we can "see" them.
YOM: If Jeff had studied this topic, he would have found that vast times are not necessary. Under the ASC system, light takes no time at all to travel from distant stars to the Earth. The speed of light on a one-way trip can be infinitely high, so long as the round-trip speed is still c. There is even a reasonably accurate Wikipedia article on the one-way speed of light.
Jeff: Any objects further than 6,000 light-years would be physically impossible to see. There's no getting around it.
YOM: That turns out not to be true. In the ASC system, we can see light from the most distant galaxies without having to wait for billions of years. This is shown in the following research paper: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention
Jeff: In fact, we're able to locate deep space objects that are over *13,000,000,000* light-years away, which lines up pretty well with our observations of cosmic microwave background radiation.
YOM: In reality, the vast distance is no problem at all for 6000 years. We would have to reject Einstein’s discoveries in physics to argue that distant starlight supports billions of years. As to the cosmic microwave background, this is actually a problem for the big bang model. The temperature fluctuations are far smaller than predicted – an issue sometimes called the “horizon problem.” This was the reason that “inflation” was invented, though inflation has problems of its own.
Jeff: Indeed, we estimate it is somewhere over 14.5 billion years old.
YOM: Many people believe that. But there is no tangible support for this, as we said previously. There is nothing that we can see or touch or experience in our present world that requires such a belief.
Jeff: BUT! If you're just worried about the age of the Earth, that's even easier. Carbon dating reveals this.
YOM: Actually, carbon dating is one of the most powerful lines of evidence against the idea of millions of years. Carbon dating uses c-14 (an unstable isotope of carbon with two extra neutrons) in substances to estimate their ages. Although (like all dating methods) some assumptions are involved which make it impossible to know the age with certainty, carbon dating is always very consistent with a “young” earth. The reason is this: c-14 has a half-life of only 5700 years. It cannot last millions (and therefore certainly not billions) of years. Yet we find c-14 deep down in coal beds associated with rocks that evolutionists would like to believe are millions of years old. But carbon dating shows that they cannot be that old. Yes, carbon dating certainly confirms that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
Jeff: Evidence is dripping over evidence, and I'm really tired of hearing there isn't. I mean, I guess there's no evidence for anything if I close my eyes and ignore everything around me. I assure you, though, the evidence is very much present.
YOM: Yes, the evidence is everywhere; but it is evidence for creation. In the evolutionary worldview, there would be no reason to expect the universe to be understandable, or for our senses to be reliable. The notion of “scientific evidence” would be meaningless in an evolutionary view. And so whenever we consider the success of science, or the scientific evidence all around us, we are experiencing first-hand the fact that creation is true. The Bible tells us in Romans 1:20 that the evidence of God from the creation of the world is clearly seen! It has been understood by what God has made – even His eternal power. Those who reject that God created have absolutely no excuse.
Robert says:
Andy, I note your failure to cite any of the professional biology literature to support your claim. Such failure on your part supports my claim: "particles-to-people" is a Creationist invention, that appears nowhere in the professional biology by name or in concept.
You're essentially asking me to accept your claim without evidence. Will you grant me the same privilege, or do you have one set of standards for yourself and another set for others?
Robert says:
Nora, the arguments from AiG and ICR are not scientific in nature. They rarely, if ever, present their multitude of specifically Creationist arguments at mainstream science conferences. Organizations such as AiG and ICR exist only to re-assure other Creationists, and to perform a "Christian ministry" of attempted conversion by Creationist apologetics. To imply that they actually perform serious science is to manifest a serious misunderstanding of the true purpose of these organizations, and the nature of science in general.
Andy says:
Robert,
Have you ever heard of the evolutionary concept of the last universal common ancestor? In the abstract of an article in the prestigious journal Nature, vol 465 (2010), it states "Universal common ancestry (UCA) is a central pillar of modern evolutionary theory". That in concept has appeared in literature. Have you ever heard of abiogenesis? That's in biology textbooks as well as universal common ancestry. Those two concepts combined form the "particles to people" concept. I'm sorry, but your claim that the particles to people concept not existing in professional biology literature is simply not true.
Rod says:
I am glad to see some comments challenging creationists. The argument that a 6,000 years old earth has trouble explaining why we see remote star light from billions of light years away, okay there is a light-travel time problem in this model. However, I must ask, does the big bang model also have a light-travel time problem? Answer yes, it is the horizon problem. Inflation was invented to solve the light travel time problem but others have argued over the years for a variable speed of light or VSL theory to explain and avoid the horizon problem in cosmology. Another problem that plagues the big bang is continued observations of galaxies, near and far that show populations of young objects that cannot be billions of years old. A new example here is this report - WISE Detects Blazing Black Holes, http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/WISE-Detects-Blazing-Black-Holes-167984646.html. My observation - again we see short-lived activity in remote galaxies that is considered to last perhaps 1 million years vs. the big bang age for the universe of 13.7 billion years old. Data like this is growing in quantity reported concerning galaxies near the earth and galaxies remote showing evidence of young objects populating the galaxies. A simple point can be made here. Such observations and growing numbers reported indicate that no one has measured the age of the universe back 13.7 billion years old. This is cosmic story telling in my opinion.
Nora says:
Jeff: You need to read the book Starlight and Time by Russell Humphries. As for carbon dating, the ICR website will give you plenty of articles that point out the problems with carbon dating. Also Answers in Genesis had several books and DVD's on the subject.
Robert says:
The phrase "particles-to-people evolution" is a Creationist invention. Nowhere in the professional biology literature does this appear, in phrasing or in concept.
Jeff says:
I was enjoying this until I began seeing claims that simply are not true.
- YOM: No doubt. We like science. But what does any of this have to do with believing in evolution? Operational science is testable and repeatable in the present. But evolution is an unrepeatable, unverifiable belief about the past.
"Operational science" is a term coined by creationists with the intent of, it seems, separating "verifiable science" from "unverifiable science". It deserves to be said that terms for these things already exist: scientific and unscientific. And it's been well established that evolutionary theory falls in the realm of 'science'. Evolution is the long term result of natural selection, which is the selective passage of traits to future generations based on their value in promoting the survival of an organism. In a generational lineage, superior and inferior traits can be directly observed behaving according to evolutionary theory, in real-time.
http://bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Evolution/evolution-in-bacteria.html
YOM: Exactly what things that we “can touch and see” must we deny to believe in 6000 years? The conviction that the Earth is about 6000 years old is simply the logical outcome of embracing recorded history. It’s ironic that Bill appeals to what we “can touch and see” because in the evolutionary view our senses are just the result of chance mutations. There is no reason to expect them to be reliable/truthful in that worldview.
Again, as with evolution, tangible evidence indeed exists for the age of our Earth, and the universe. A very simple thought experiment and a rudimentary understanding of physics is all that's needed.
- First, as we know, nothing travels faster than light. If you want proof, I'll give it, but please google it yourself first; it's not a short explanation.
- Second, we use light to measure vast distances in space, usually measured in "lightyears". It's the amount of distance light travels in 1 year. We do so because light's speed is both conveniently constant and extraordinarily fast.
-Third, light is necessary for sight. Only when light is leaving an object and is picked up by our eyes, do we "see" that object. For instance, it takes 8 minutes and 19 seconds (8 lightminutes and 19 lightseconds) for light leaving the Sun to reach your eye here on Earth.
If the Sun were a full lightyear away, we know it would take 1 year for it to reach us.
- Third, since nothing is faster than light, and light is necessary for sight, it follows that light reaching us from objects outside of our solar system must travels for great periods of time, over great distances, before we can "see" them. According to google, Proxima Centauri, the closest star other than our Sun, is 4.243 light years away, which we've established means light has traveled for 4.243 years from there, and so we can now see it.
-Finally, we can measure the distance of an object in space, though of course only objects that we can see (anything we can't see means its light hasn't reached us, yet), by measuring how many light years away it is. It's a very straightforward process, but again I ask that you google it before asking for an explanation.
SO! Here we are. If all of creation, if the universe, were only 6,000 years old, then it logically follows that the farthest object that can be seen in space would be 6,000 lightyears away, simply because we haven't even EXISTED long enough for any object beyond that, let's say 7,000 lightyears, to reach us. Any objects further than 6,000 lightyears would be physically impossible to see. There's no getting around it.
But that's not the case. In fact, we're able to locate deep space objects that are over *13,000,000,000* lightyears away, which lines up pretty well with our observations of cosmic microwave background radiation. Indeed, we estimate it is somewhere over 14.5 billion years old.
In summary, none of this could be possible if the universe were only 6,000 years old. BUT! If you're just worried about the age of the Earth, that's even easier. Carbon dating reveals this.
Evidence is dripping over evidence, and I'm really tired of hearing there isn't. I mean, I guess there's no evidence for anything if I close my eyes and ignore everything around me.I assure you, though, the evidence is very much present.
c norman says:
I totally agree with YOM on this one. Bill Nye completely tripped himself up almost with every sentence. Way to go YOM!! I am excited that finally someone is sticking up for the Christian faith.
Nora says:
What bothers me the most about Bill Nye and people like him, is that they want to decide what our children should be taught, and what they
should not be taught. These people are so arrogant that they think only they know what is best for our children. They have swallowed Satan's age-old lie "Ye shall be as gods". They do not want anybody tell them what to do, but they want to tell everybody else what to do and even what to believe. Evolution is not science, it is a religion that has removed God and made man god instead. Bill may teach his children (if he has any) whatever he wants. He will give an account to God one day. Our children belong to us, or rather, as do Bill's children, belong to God, and are given to us to raise for His glory. As parents, we will therefore decide what is best for them and what they will be taught.
Chris says:
Without belief in evolution we never could have discovered planetary motion laws or gas laws, developed vaccines, invented calculus, advanced the field of pediatric neurosurgery, or . . . wait a second, those things were all done by creationists.
Rod says:
Okay, Bill Nye et al poke fun at creationists who accept a 6,000 years old earth. My question, do folks really believe evolutionists measured the age of the universe in the big bang model? Here is something to ponder when accepting “deep time” interpretation. This brief summary of long-age dating for the universe shows the history of problems in determining the answer. Even as late as 1999 there were conflicts between the age of the universe and ages determined by H-R diagram methods for dating globular cluster stars. There are problems today like the lifetime of giant molecular clouds (GMC), interstellar medium (ISM) molecule lifetimes (UV photo evaporation), OB stars and OB associations and their lifetimes, spiral galaxy arms and their lifetimes (winding-up problem), and supernova remnants (SNRs), their lifetimes as well as young SNR ages observed.
The Hubble time measures the age of the universe since the big bang, using the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant is generally expressed as km/second/megaparsec (1 megaparsec = 3.26 million light-years). The larger the Hubble constant, the less time that has elapsed since the big bang and the younger the universe must be. How old is the universe according to evolutionists based upon the Hubble constant? What does the history of investigation show?
Quick review: (A.) Edwin Hubble is credited with discovering the expanding universe from galaxy red shifts in the 1920s. The result was the Hubble constant which attempts to measure the rate of expansion of the universe. (B.) In the 1930s, the Hubble constant pointed to a universe that started its expansion about 1 billion years ago. This contradicted what astronomy was teaching about "the development of individual stars and systems of stars takes considerably longer. It is in no way known how this incongruity is to be overcome." Ref: Relativity, The Special and The General Theory, Albert Einstein, Crown Publishers Inc., 1961, p. 134. (C.) In the 1940s and early '50s, not much better, about 1.8 billion years old universe. Problem with this situation was that radiometric dated rocks were at least 3 billion years old and in 1955, the age of the earth was established at 4.56 billion years old by Clair Patterson. An error was discovered in measuring galaxy distances based upon Cepheid variables (galaxies much farther away than previously thought). The age of the universe increased to at least 5 billion years old. Ref: "The Evolutionary Universe" by George Gamow, Scientific American, September 1956, reprinted in New Frontiers in Astronomy, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1975, p. 320. (D.) Today the Hubble constant points to a universe in the range of 8 to 16 billion years old. This would be the Hubble time. Based upon my readings, the most popular value for the Hubble time today is 13.7 billion years old. The age of the Milky Way galaxy is considered at least 10 to 11 billion years old. Given the historical revisions to the age of the universe since the 1920s, in my opinion, evolutionists using the big bang model have not dated the age of the universe. The age of the universe remains elusive. Many objects observed in astronomy like I mentioned at the start point to this conclusion. So if we are concerned about teaching science, why not tell the truth concerning how the age is determined and the conflicts behind the calculations?