What happens when you apply Bill Nye’s worldview? Episode 1320

This entry was posted in Daily Clips and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to What happens when you apply Bill Nye’s worldview? Episode 1320

  1. Rob Pickett says:

    Is this video for real, or is it a joke? I don’t mean to sound snide, but I am honestly unsure if he means what he says, because it’s somewhat “off the wall”.

    For example, he doesn’t seem to understand how science works — or the possible falsifiable hypotheses that could be presented vis a vis the ladybug that could be tested via experiment or empirical observation.

    He also doesn’t seem to know that C14 is a very well tested tool, within 3% accuracy when corroborated using dendrochronology.

    • Tom says:

      explain how Nye can prove his story about his grandfather is true…it isn’t by observable science

    • jasonjshaw says:

      Rob, he’s serious. Or is he actively ignorant? Or maybe even lying? There is money to be made in feeding the narrow-view creationists.

      I’d personally suggest that he should start watching the television show “Bones”. The lead characters are a forensic anthropologist whose viewpoint comes from science, and an FBI agent who is religious and able to pick up on nuances intuitively. The show also demonstrates “historical science” in action. Chances are they could come up with a good idea of how that ladybug arrived at its destination.

      • Wi-Pirate says:

        Don’t the actors and advisers for the show get paid? But the narrow-minded viewpoint of the creationist money-grubbing Christian is the basis for your argument. Seems a little hypocritical to me…, just saying. They do call it “entertainment” for a reason. Also.., writers, advisers, producers, actors, distributing companies make money by selling a product that is entertaining not the basis for scientific fact; which would definitively presents a major conflict of interest in a court of law. So without using a fictional TV show explain the origin of matter & energy. Where did the elements that form the video camera that recorded the shows “historical science” come from?

        I’ve met lots of ‘religious’ people…, they are part of the problem. Faith and religion like historical and observable science are two different thing. As a matter of fact Jesus warned His believers to weigh the words and deeds of religious people with more precise measure. Like science has acceptable tolerance(-/+) as a way to communicate the degree of consistency in testing, verifying, measuring…, so to does the Bible. Just like water can’t exist without hydrogen(2) or oxygen; a believers faith can’t exist without the breath of life (oxygen) and action (hydrogen- an amazing energy source, lookup: proton exchange membranes PEM fuel cells, renewable energy).

        God’s most incredible description of His Word being ‘living water’ speaks volumes considering science confirms that 1) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) is essential for the existence of life, 2) it can be used as an electrical energy source (life sustaining), and can ‘rejuvenate’ the spirit of those who believe in a Creator.

        So by your definition I can explain my faith in Creationism & establish the model for the Holy Trinity via 2 base element; just as easily as an evolutionists can prove the Big Bang theory and/or the origin of energy and matter. Although it doesn’t help ones case anymore to use science as their basis for theory or fact….., cause who can argue against Bones and CSI.

      • jasonjshaw says:

        I’m sure there are exaggerations in such shows for dramatic effect, but there needs to be enough suspension of disbelief using realistic approaches in order to captivate the audience. It’s probably not much unlike how the Bible captivates, as it too is steeped in plenty of truth in order to generate a suspension of disbelief.

        I wonder how such a large body of scientists who study based on evidence and connecting evidence outside of a belief system would come up with such a large-scale fabrication such as evolution. That’s sounding to me more like a more extreme conspiracy theory.

        And there is still a place for God within the notion of evolution. While there is evidence that the Big Bang happened, there is no evidence as to how the Big Bang originated. Maybe it was intelligently detonated?

        But essentially, Bones and CSI are pop culture connections to the scientific work that is being done in understanding what occurred in the past. While not necessarily entirely accurate, they provide insight into the types of methods that science exploring the past utilizes.

  2. Pingback: Wretched: What happens when you apply Bill Nye’s worldview? | Truth2Freedom's Blog

  3. jasonjshaw says:

    As I recall, Bill Nye alluded to that story not being true. It’s what is typically known as a “joke”.

    It seems rather convenient that those who believe in a young earth have a difficult time understanding how “historical science” works. You mean all of the studying being done is all just a cover-up for evolution not existing? All of that work has no real value? Creationists would be better served to help the rest of us understand what the results in “historical science” really mean rather than plugging their ears and acting as if it’s all pointless.

  4. Brian Jonson says:

    Ok, so using this “historical” science argument anyone who concludes Pompeii was destroyed by a volcanic eruption is false because that would not be “observational” science. This is nonsense.

    • Wi-Pirate says:

      How does Pompeii explain the origin of matter and energy? Pompeii is a historical example of something that happened and observable because it exists; but where did the matter, & the energy need to displace that matter originate from?

      • Brian Jonson says:

        Pompeii has never been used to explain the origin of matter. Todd is arguing that any science utilizing clues from the past, when no one was present to observe, is “historical” and therefore not valid. That is nonsense.

        He is creating false categories because the actual evidence does not support a young earth.

  5. Amanda says:

    I figured this one would get a few comments.

    Some people need to check their facts. Old Tjikko was not dated at 9,550 years using dendrochonology at all. If the trunk itself were that old, it would be approx. 65 yards in diameter. No, but it was dead and fossilized pieces of root that were C14 dated. A wide range of dates were returned, with 9,550 being the oldest. The actual trunk of the tree is only a couple hundred years old, most likely formed by a method of propagation called air-layering.

    3% accuracy for C14 dating? Seriously? Secular science also admits that these dates are only estimates due to the possibility of contamination or environmental factors such as weathering.

    I thought it humorous that Bill Nye opened his high school quality Powerpoint presentation with comparison of the scientific method to the TV show CSI, a hollywood drama. CSI has long been criticized as inaccurately portraying and glamorizing forensic science. Law enforcement officers will tell you that the processes of investigation depicted on there are far from the truth of how a real crime scene is investigated, as if real crime scenes are so easily cherry-picked for clues. Purely entertainment and imagination. Perhaps the analogy does fit then.

    Anyway, some folks apparently watch too much TV! LOL

  6. DG says:

    Carbon 14 does not have an accuracy of 3% or anywhere near that. Science only uses that data when they think it supports a particular claim. When it doesnr agree, they simply tight it off as an ‘anomaly’! Convenient eh. You can test the tissues if a siberian wooly mammoth by taking 3 seperate samples from the same cadaver, and get three completely different C14 ages. Each one out by thousands of years. Same true of three samples taken from the same coalified stick.Huge Discrepencies found between the sample from one end, the other end and the middle. Anyone stating Carbon 14 has an accuracy of 97% or anything near that, is using very ild, unreliable scholarship. Ps Citations can be provided.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s