Neil deGrasse Tyson vs. Young Earth Creationism

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+7 more 
posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   



A fan reports that the Creation Museum cites an old, pre-Hubble discrepancy about the age of the oldest stars (18 billion years old) and the age of the universe (15 billion years old) as evidence against science and for the Young Earth Creationism belief that the universe is just thousands of years old. Watch astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson and Eugene Mirman debunk their claim, discussing why creationism shouldn't be considered real science, and also how we can sometimes end up with mistakes in scientific data that lead to blunders like "fast tachyons.





I don’t know why but he is so easy to listen to. He is right though creationism has no place in science.




posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


You're on a roll with these threads lately.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   
One question that has always puzzled me was that if you look in one direction to the end of the universe and then look in the opposite direction do we end up being in the center or is one way further than the other ?



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


The same observation would hold true for every other observer in the Universe, no matter where in the Universe they are located.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Junkheap
 


Ok so if you are at one end and I at the other end and we look away from each other what would we see ? Unless you are suggesting there is no center of the universe but I can't imagine how that could be .



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I went to a lecture from Michio Kaku a few months ago and there was a humanist group there. I filled out some questionare and wound up on their mailing list. I will not post some of the stuff I get sent because its pretty mean.

But thanks for noticing. lol
edit on 18-10-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

I really like tyson, he is a great speaker and an objective thinker. Also, he has the spark of inspiration that I find lacking in many of the public speakers in the sciences. He kind of reminds me of Richard Feynman though not as animated.

I am a little puzzled at why it would be necessary to challenge creationism, I hear this thrown around all the time. I suppose if you go to Liberty University you might find a professor who advocates being open to it but, even there, you are highly unlikely to find true believers, they are a very informed student body. Religion doesn't kill brain cells.

I guess it is just in support of common core, after all why force a uniform curriculum if there isn't an intellectual boogeyman to counter. I suppose it is similar to the police state's justifications.

The simple solution is to abolish public school, then no one will be forced to endure a state sponsored curriculum whatever it might be. Plus, we will begin to see a dramatic improvement in overall education standards.
edit on 18-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 


I don't think it is so much challenging creationism he was saying it simply isn't science. Creationists latched on to some outdated material and never bothered to update it once technological advances provided better data because in their minds it helped prove the creation story.

It is a dishonest tactic or maybe they think science is set in stone and can't be adapted like a bible.

It's fine that they have a museum but from what I understand they don't care in the least about scientific accuracy.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by greencmp
 


I don't think it is so much challenging creationism he was saying it simply isn't science. Creationists latched on to some outdated material and never bothered to update it once technological advances provided better data because in their minds it helped prove the creation story.

It is a dishonest tactic or maybe they think science is set in stone and can't be adapted like a bible.

It's fine that they have a museum but from what I understand they don't care in the least about scientific accuracy.

Agreed, I guess I must be ignorant of the pervasiveness of creationism, it simply isn't on my radar as an actual science at all. I was thinking that actively countering untenable positions tend to lend legitimacy rather than detract from it.

I wouldn't feel the need to disprove the merits of eugenics for the same reason.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Fundamentalist and Young earth creationist miss one important fact from a theological stand point, The creation account and the first books of the bible UP to exodus. Are all a tale told to moses, not a direct account of what happened.

ITs a parable told to a bronze age sheep herder by god, AND THATS using christian theology. It would be like latching onto one of Jesus Parables, say the faith and mustard seed, and Thinking it was a literal accounting that mustard seeds have faith.

ETA proof:

What people did Cain go to after he killed Able? Adam and Eve, is the Account of the Jewish line, Christianity base is Jewish and a proper understanding of Jewish Theology is often forgotten among many Christians (especially fundamentalist) Understanding what the Jewish theology says about the Goyam, Gentiles, will go a long way to appreciating christian theology in general.
edit on 18-10-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   
"in the Beginning, there was Light,,"


QUESTION: how long did it take for that light, traveling at a now ,known speed,, constant,,pure, never failing,light

too reach GOD'S eye?

edit on 10/18/2013 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

greencmp
reply to post by Grimpachi
 

I really like tyson, he is a great speaker and an objective thinker. Also, he has the spark of inspiration that I find lacking in many of the public speakers in the sciences. He kind of reminds me of Richard Feynman though not as animated.

I am a little puzzled at why it would be necessary to challenge creationism, I hear this thrown around all the time. I suppose if you go to Liberty University you might find a professor who advocates being open to it but, even there, you are highly unlikely to find true believers, they are a very informed student body. Religion doesn't kill brain cells.

I guess it is just in support of common core, after all why force a uniform curriculum if there isn't an intellectual boogeyman to counter. I suppose it is similar to the police state's justifications.

The simple solution is to abolish public school, then no one will be forced to endure a state sponsored curriculum whatever it might be. Plus, we will begin to see a dramatic improvement in overall education standards.
edit on 18-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)


I'd say that it is all fair since Creationists like to challenge Evolution almost daily. Put their beliefs up to the same rigorous standard that they put Evolution up to. They don't like that either since their belief requires faith. Faith that evolution is wrong and faith that they are right. It isn't based on any proof whatsoever and they tend to argue with logical fallacies.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by the2ofusr1
 


Think of it like this. Imagine your in a completely dark 20"x20" room with a small underpowered flashlight that can only illuminate about 1" in front of you. You have no idea what part of the room your in. You could be close to the door (one side of the universe), closer to the back wall (other side of the universe) or you maybe in the middle of the room (center of the universe). You have no way of knowing. The universe maybe vastly older and bigger than we thought, we just have no way of knowing this as our technology can only see so far out into the universe.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by RedShirt73
 


Not to be a stickler or anything but you just pulled a Spinal Tap and labeled your dimensions in inches not feet.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


now go too a room the size of our Galaxy,,how fast will that light travel ,,and how long,,?now outside of our Universe,,
its a big room.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by RedShirt73
 


Well now thank you for that ..I guess in the end we just don't know .But we do seem to know that it's bigger than we think it is .Were just not sure how big . I could keep typing this but in the end we just dont know ....peace



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


I'm not sure what point you are trying to prove to me there, I was just saying that the person described a 20 inch by 20 inch room. In other words something that is a foot and a half on each side. Those are silly dimensions.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


unless your standing on a Atom Proton.


or the Head of a Pin.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by BobAthome
 


Well I was reading the analogy under the impression the you in the story is an adult human. An adult human standing in a 20 inch by 20 inch room would only have to lean slightly to the side and touch a wall (that is if their shoulders don't already scrape the sides). Though regardless of that, we are offtopic. I didn't really want to start a full discussion about fitting in a tiny room.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Attacking young earth creationism is just an easy target that makes people feel smart and smug about themselves. There are many other creationism theories but this is the only one that gets attention.





top topics
 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join