Bill Nye Booed In Texas For Saying The Moon Reflects The Sun

reply to post by whaaa


Psh Lubbock isnt that bad There are a few, but we have such a college population here that I hope we would be a bit tolerant.

You know its getting better especially since we finally got sale of alcohol within city limits.

reply to post by Janky Red

Oh no!!! They prayed! And 3 times too. That is aweful! Why does this bother people so much?

I have been to some Diners where praying over the food isn't such a bad idea.

This whole thing is someones angle on a story to make a group of people look ignorant. Nothing more.

reply to post by idonotcollectstamps

I feel like a dorkus for accepting this story without researching it myself, but ATS and ZombieJesus was there to put me in check and to make sure that I continue to Deny Ignorance. Thanks for pointing this out when it seems all to common to just accept whatever is heard without fact checking.

ZombieJesus is always here for you lol

Thats why I love this site, most of the time the wheat gets separated from chaff rather quickly.

Cheers

reply to post by Daz3d-n-Confus3d


I am a christian, and also a Texan, but judging from the article's content, and the source, I have to say it was probably taken HIGHLY out of proportion. If there was a video of some sort showing the reaction then I would be more inclined to believe what they are saying.

Now that I think about it though, the reaction sounds as if it could have come from his comments basically saying, "You know in the bible "your god" tells you he created two lights a sun and a moon, well thats wrong, the moon isnt a light."

To me that seems just a tad bit condescending, and if he got booed it wasnt because they thought the moon doesnt reflect the sun's light, but more so because of how he was trying to discredit the words of the bible by bringing religion into a scientific lesson.

reply to post by ZombieJesus


Hey, great detective work!
From a couple other articles I read, they used this phrase, " 'visibly angered by what some perceived as irreverence,' according to the Waco Tribune." No mention of booing.


Even in a crowd of that size, one would notice several who would be in disagreement, and certainly notice several walking out in disagreement. So I guess it boils down to, yes, this happened, but, no, not to the extent portrayed.

WOW I'm embarrassed...that's the college I attend right now, although I didn't go to the lecture. Luckily I'm transferring outta here next semester...

reply to post by jackflap


Actually it’s even funnier than that

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Four days later

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


So bible god makes >day< and then sometime later does he gets around to making the sun

Waco TX should be re-named Wack-O TX. bunch-a un-educated fools
2nd line

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Bill Nye Booed In Texas For Saying The Moon Reflects The Sun

www.thinkatheist.com

Nye was in town to participate in McLennan Community College's Distinguished Lecture Series. He gave two lectures on such unfunny and adult topics as global warming, Mars exploration, and energy consumption. But nothing got people as riled as when he brought up Genesis 1:16, which reads: "God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

The lesser light, he pointed out, is not a light at all, but only a reflector

(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow that is so strange. Where and why exactly were they booing. I understand the reason stated but I really can't understand how a simple passage of enlightenment(taken from the bible) would be considered as heresy. Is this apart of some new type of getting back to the basics reform. Are all Christians now taking everything that is written in the bible as literal and not to be questioned words of God?
What was true and law long ago is not exactly true now.

reply to post by racasan

So bible god makes >day< and then sometime later does he gets around to making the sun

The sun was created on day one. "The heavens and the Earth" is a figure of speech meaning essentially everything. The verb used in Genesis 1:16 doesn't mean make in the sense of "create". Instead, it means more along the lines of "to fashion". So, on day four God didn't create the sun ex nihilo. There was no need to as it already existed. God fashioned the sun for the purpose that it would serve on that day.

Originally posted by gunshooter
Waco TX should be re-named Wack-O TX. bunch-a un-educated fools

2nd line

I challenge you to any intelligence quiz of your choosing

reply to post by jackflap

If I gave you a picture and wouldn't tell you what it is and the image is distorted to a degree so that its original appearance is vague, you would tend to interpret what the image actually is. Now if I seriously wanted that picture to relay its original appearance because it would have great implications if it were misinterpreted, I would throw it out and take another picture. I would be sure to make it in focus, clear and sharp so that there were no mistakes as to what it is.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that the biblical texts are somehow distorted? The think the consistency among the extant manuscripts would beg to differ.

Why would we have to go back into supposed languages that were the first to record these things?

As I said, the main message is communicated well in the translations. When one wants the fuller meaning of any particular word, phrase, or what have you going back to the original texts is needed because there is always a bit of nuance lost in translation. There is just no way around it. For example, there are some six words in biblical Hebrew for "to cut". They each are used in different situations. But that is lost in English because we just have the one word—cut.

As we go along in the texts, there are things that get even more vague. Some things are clear but some things seem to be up for interpretation.

Is that surprising to you? You act as if needing to interpret is a bad thing.

Just look at all of the denominations that have arisen out of trying to figure out what is being relayed in the texts. Was this by design? Or was this something that could not be foreseen and whoever put these texts all together thought that everyone would be harmonious over them?

Due to human fallibility, some people are just going to be wrong. If you go across virtually any Christian denomination though, you will find that the main message of Christianity, the Gospel is the same. It's minor points that led to the creation of the various denominations. (Of course, it wasn't the points in and of themselves that did, but rather fallible, sinful human beings.)

That's fine with me but we still have divisions and denominations over what is being taught.

Orf course though, the differences arise with minor issues. It should also be noted that many churches today work across denominational lines; which is a good thing.

The faithful would say that all the denominations agree on the most important thing and are unified about that.

That's not incorrect though, is it?

Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism and Catholicism come directly to mind when I consider that because they are anything but harmonious in their teachings.

The JWs and Mormons are a topic for another day.

Below is the King James version. We see what is being relayed here now. Two great lights. Two separate lights. Should I go back into the original Hebrew or Greek or CaveMan to see what two actually means here? Or should I consider the word light as being misinterpreted?

The word light is being translated, not interpreted in the sense that we think of. The only interpretation being done while translating is which word in the receptor language best carries the meaning of what is being got at in the receptor language. That doesn't mean that the chosen word is the best word though. That is why going back to the original languages to try and see the nuances/alternate word choices is important.

I'm not sure about that but I do know there were two lights created from what I can gather at this point.

Well, yeah, of course that's what is saying. There were two things created in the sky. But, as I've said, light in this case doesn't mean light in the sense of something that gives off light. Rather, just a luminous object in the sky.

There is no unification on such a profound and important topic as this. Why is the picture we were given so vague?

There are some things that you need to keep in mind. In the great scheme of things, the Bible is not a science book. The main concern of the Bible is spiritual things, not every minute detail of creation. That is why there is division on this topic. And you can bet your bottom dollar that if the creation of everything was on the high list of priorities Christians would be unified in it. Face is, it's not. Even in the issue of creation though, where not all Christians agree, one will find that they is virtually unanimous agreement in the overarching issue about creation. That being: that God created the universe in a finite period in the past ex nihilo.

why the hell is it wrong to talk about religion if they are clearly WRONG? seriously, we shouldn't have to appease to morons simply because they will get angry...

reply to post by yourmaker

why the hell is it wrong to talk about religion if they are clearly WRONG? seriously, we shouldn't have to appease to morons simply because they will get angry...

You must remember that the dagger you are thrusting here is mirroring one that goes in the exact opposite direction at the very same time.

why the hell is it wrong to discredit science when they are clearly WRONG? seriously, we shouldn't have to appease morons simply because they will get angry...

This is like entering a sand packing contest alright. I cannot go any further because there is no way to convince someone to believe nor is there any way to make someone disbelieve.

I've almost got all my sand packed!

if the moon gave off light, the earth wouldn't be able to cast a shadow on it. that's why there are quarter moons, half moons, full moons etc.

Look, this is an old article from YEARS ago, why bring it up now? This is an irrelevant piece of information that does not belong on ATS forums. We're here to use DISCERNMENT, and you all flip out over a reaction of a few rednecks who have problems understanding intelligent people. Way to go ATS, you are making some amazing strides for TRUTH here.

reply to post by CrimsonNova

We're here to use DISCERNMENT, and you all flip out over a reaction of a few rednecks who have problems understanding intelligent people.

I can discern that you use racial slurs thus making you susceptible to being a...never mind that. You assume that these people that you so eloquently refer to as rednecks cannot understand another class of people that you refer to as intelligent. I can see that you are classifying yourself as being in the intelligent group which leads me to ponder superiority complex issues that...never mind that either. Go intelligent people!

Maybe its because I am uneducated beyond high-school but I has always been taught that the moon reflects sun light.

If people are having issues about something this small the I can't even imagine if full disclosure comes and prove that religion doesn't really even exist.

The picture in my head tells this story. With the moon being as close as it is, if it WAS a self sustaining light source, I think we'd all be blinded at "night". Though if the word night did exist, it would have a totally different meaning. Is that too deep?! Lol.

You guys should try your arguements on this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Cause I give up!

People are going to believe what they want to believe.