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

Bill Nye was being provocative. he knew quoting the Bible would light a fire.

This 'Creation vs Evolution' debate divides us, it is a deliberate attempt to divide the population as a means of control. Proud people fall into the debate not realizing they are being had.

All of us should remember that respect means coming to an understanding, even if no common ground is to be found, with someone who disagrees with you. Agree to disagree and walk away...

reply to post by Cheerfulnihilist


You cannot agree to disagree on facts. They are either true or they are not.

reply to post by getreadyalready

I see your point, but to me, I also get annoyed when we assume ancient peoples didn't know as much as we know. It is starting to seem they may have known MORE than we know!

I hear what your saying. I was just pointing out how there always seems to be an explanation by going back into the Hebrew or Greek translations. Which is fine with me because a lot of it makes sense too.

Hey, who were those guys who were made to suffer for saying such things as the earth revolved around the sun? This topic is just a modern representation of the same.

reply to post by whaaa


whaaz up my fellow Lubbockxite



was it happiness in your rear view mirror? , as crazy as it sounds to most I gather, that's where my best childhood friend and I had seen the angel/cherub?

was going to post "Lubbock Texas in my rearview mirror" by Mac Davis for a laugh but not a working vid to be found, did find this tidbit intersting though

reply to post by sliceNodice


And the pathetic part about it is the person calling me a sissy was assuming that I am a bible thumper, and taking insult from it because it bill was mocking something I believe in.

I AM NOT. I haven’t even read the bible in the first place.


But…… That doesn’t mean that type of conduct doesn’t irk me.

It’s like going to northern Canada and bringing up an old Inuit saying in a mocking way and saying that they didn’t even know what the difference between a fish or a mammal was.

That is insulting behavior from someone that should know better.

No, the Inuit taking it badly doesn’t mean that they take the saying literally. It means that they take insult from someone mocking their culture and traditions. And rightly so!

…..EDIT……

I personally would have told him to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine when he got to the global warming crap.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Thanks for sharing that. I was unaware.

Apparently this story is five years old?

Before this thread turns into another brother against brother slugfest, between the religious faithful and atheist fellow human brothers, do allow me to share a perspective, an insight.

Have you ever tried explaining science to a 5 year old kid such as the sun, earth and moon?

You would have to go into deeper astronomy such as gravitation, earth's core, etc, in order to tell him the truth. But thing is would he understand?

Perhaps the child will try, and place his toy soldiers on a round ball to see if what you said was true, but those toy soldiers will only fall off, and thus he will no longer trust you nor believe what you said, simply because his mind is not ready to comprehend or grasp such subjects.

Similarly so with our ancestors, whom were created by our common Creator. He knew we are not ready to understand science, more so the poor scribes who had to write down His words. And thus in simplicity were what our ancestors comprehend with their limited 5 senses the issues of planetary sciences, termed by many as 'religion' as it does take a leap of faith to believe.

Today, we this generation had been fortunate enough to progress and evolve, growing and maturing with just enough experiences learnt from our ancestors and forefathers on science, and fully capable of passing more to the next generations they will build upon the knowledge to progress just as we had.

And one day perhaps in the near future, mankind will no longer need to take al leap of faith to believe in religion, for it had been science all along, only that our ancestors mind were that of children and would need time to comprehend, more so given our 5 senses whom many depend on as reality.

This is no new age or old age fad. It is only science.

Thus, we this generation must not be too harsh on our ancestors, nor ridicule them, for without them sharing their experiences, we would not be here today. Mr. Nye's was boo'ed not so much for telling the facts, but was seen only as in insult to our ancestors, the way you would be insulted if someone calls your parents as liars for trying to put into simpler terms to you what the sun and moon was when you were a kid.

reply to post by whaaa


He certainly wouldnt have been in Santa Fe. New Mexico is crawling with scientists, first of all, (Because of Sandia Labs, Los Alamos, the Santa Fe Institute) and because of a strong Catholic population, (the Catholic church for all its flaws has accepted a lot of science, including not denying evolution as long as it was God who used it as a technique) and the high level of New Age sorts in the region.

Tennessee is my first contact with Baptists and I have been to a few sessions with my neighbor out of curiosity, and it is...............interesting. Not a sect that encourages any questioning, thinking, or disagreement of any kind. Its very high not only on "scripture" but on obedience to the preachers version of scripture.

reply to post by jackflap

This kind of thing has been getting to me lately. If someone finds something odd like the moon being called a light source, ...

First, even in English, the Bible doesn't say that the moon is a light source.

People usually do go back into the Hebrew or Greek translations ...p/quote]
The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. Those aren't just some translations that are referred to when people are trying to "skirt" around an issue.

...and inform everyone that the present tense of the given word or words were actually meant to mean that the past tense of the given word is the correct assumption and therefore the word actually means thus and so. Or it usually goes like something along these lines.

Can you example why you seemingly feel that the original languages have no weight and shouldn't be referred to? When translating from one language to another some of the nuance is lost. Yes, the original message can be communicated, but not everything comes out nice and neat in the receptor language.

In this case, the given word has a meaning that gets over looked when one takes the translation at its face value. Why should we not go back to the original word and see what it means?

I don't think they would have realized that the moon actually reflects the sun's light and is not a lesser light source as such.

They may or may not have. That does not at all matter though. Bill Nye (as well as others at other times) was trying to undercut the Bible by saying that it said something that it does not. The Bible does not say that the moon is a light source or that it reflects the sun's light or anything of the sort. It just says that the moon is a luminous object that is in the night sky. That's it.

It is a reflector of a greater light source. They just couldn't grasp that because they seriously didn't know.

Again, they may or may not have known. That is irrelevant though. Genesis isn't trying to prove that the moon is a light source or if it reflects the sun's light. The Creation Account just states that the moon is a luminous object in the sky. Is that not true?

There is another good controversy like this one that I remember too. When the Bible refers to bats being birds. It's a good thing that Billy Nye didn't bring that one up!

Of course, with that controversy, people are forcing modern taxonomic definitions onto a people that lived thousands of years ago.

I really don't see the issue. The moon is a source of light. How does the source, generated or reflected change that? It doesn't. When I go to Kroger's for milk I (usually) don't boo because they have no cows in the back room. The original source is the cow, however my source for milk is Kroger's.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

Not a sect that encourages any questioning, thinking, or disagreement of any kind. Its very high not only on "scripture" but on obedience to the preachers version of scripture.

Without question, you have encountered the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist. There are other Baptists out there that are light-years different than them. If you get the time, you should search for a different Baptist church to scope out. Many would be completely different.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


I might agree with your opinion except for that the problem with the middle eastern religions is not just that it was created by people scientifically naive. Its that it has consistently been violently and murderously intent on REMAINING scientifically naive.

"The ancients" in some regions, (Greece for instance) actually had a pretty good grasp of many scientific principles, including nascent evolutionary and atomic theory, and the religions of the middle east did their utmost best to annihilate them.

Its not innocence on the part of all ancient peoples that led towards religion being the way it is. Religion is the way it is because any more scientific or tolerant religions were deliberately exterminated by the members of the three currently dominant versions of the Abrahamic tradition.

Yes, the ancient intelligentsia did mythologize and over simplify to explain things to the masses, but its not unfair to poke the religions of the middle east specifically when it comes to their hostility to science in general.

reply to post by octotom


I will. I like to go to various churches and try to get some understanding of how they think and interpret the bible and the world. Not simply to gain material to mock them, (although sometimes that is the case, Mormonism is beyond ridiculous imho) but mostly because I want to understand the motivations and reasoning of people. If you know what someones indoctrination is, it gives you enormous insight into what makes someone tick, and, if you are trying to change their opinion on something, it clues you in to possible routes they may be more willing to accept new information through.

Here is the "more to the story" part.

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" was booed in Waco, Texas in 2006 for suggesting the Moon did not generate its own light, but reflected light from the sun.

link

So first off, this story is 5 years old.

Second, the author of that link links to this link (am I gonna owe nintendo royalties for that improper sentence?)

So, finally I set up an interview with the reporter who did that story, and asked interviewed him about what exactly happened that evening in Waco, which is posted here. In short, it's quite a bit different than myself and others made it out to be.

link

Which leads to this link.

How Woods characterized the audience reaction, and others characterized his characterization, would cause blog swarm. And how others characterized the characterizatons of those characterizing his characterizations later (including yours truly) would cause the story to explode again, three years later.

link

I havent finished reading it, but it looks like the jist is basically it was only a few people Nye angered in the audience, but the original reporter and the magic of the interwebs made the story take off.

Well, there ya go

I know this is going to sound absolutely beyond ridiculous but many people really used to think that light emanated out of the human eye until around the year 1000 CE. At the time when the Bible was originally written most people were completely illiterate and could not read or write. This is a world where children went to work not to school. Science did not formally exist then. The moon creating light would be a perfectly reasonable belief back then. Heck people used to think the Sun was a god. Helios which is where the term heliocentric (sun centered solar system) comes from. Selene was the Moon God who later was changed to Artemis. We are not talking about an educated people. They lived most of their lives very fearful of superstition and upsetting their various gods or god.

Bill Nye is just trying to break Texans of this ancient superstitious belief system. I do not blame him. Of all places that could do with less Jesus it is Texas. I mean for the love of Pete they recently wanted to try group prayer to extinguish the wild fires. Not exactly the smartest state in the union. The more Science we can cram into their mind the less room they will have for superstition and magic

reply to post by octotom

Can you example why you seemingly feel that the original languages have no weight and shouldn't be referred to? When translating from one language to another some of the nuance is lost. Yes, the original message can be communicated, but not everything comes out nice and neat in the receptor language. In this case, the given word has a meaning that gets over looked when one takes the translation at its face value. Why should we not go back to the original word and see what it means?

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.

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

The faithful will say that the Holy Spirit teaches us the true meaning of what is being relayed. That's fine with me but we still have divisions and denominations over what is being taught. The faithful would say that all the denominations agree on the most important thing and are unified about that. Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism and Catholicism come directly to mind when I consider that because they are anything but harmonious in their teachings.

So you see, we are divided and who is to say who is right and who is wrong? I certainly cannot make that call. I can go back into all kinds of old texts and try to derive the meanings of certain words but there will be those who cannot agree because they know differently. Would I be right or wrong in my assertion of what is being said?

The Bible does not say that the moon is a light source or that it reflects the sun's light or anything of the sort. It just says that the moon is a luminous object that is in the night sky. That's it.

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?

Genesis 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. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

The Creation Account just states that the moon is a luminous object in the sky. Is that not true?

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

I edited to add the below external content from your post above. Do you see how there are divisions even in the divided denominations? There is no unification on such a profound and important topic as this. Why is the picture we were given so vague?

Without question, you have encountered the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist. There are other Baptists out there that are light-years different than them. If you get the time, you should search for a different Baptist church to scope out. Many would be completely differen

reply to post by ZombieJesus


Good catch! I just checked Bill Nye's website tour list and indeed it has nothing about Waco Texas on it!

www.billnye.com...

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.

reply to post by OhioPariah


Yes. 2006.

Jonathan Turley's take on it from 2009.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
Mr. Nye's was boo'ed not so much for telling the facts, but was seen only as in insult to our ancestors

Interesting post. But from the viewpoint of people such as the quoted woman, it was most likely seen as a direct attack on God. Mr. Nye had already been challenged by fundamentalists over his views re evolution.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Its very high not only on "scripture" but on obedience to the preachers version of scripture.

And a male preacher most likely.
One person's take on a woman place in religion.
What a great religion to use when trying to promote an authoritarian state.

There are some wonderfully non-fundamentalist religious women, but when one wants an authoritarian state based on male supremacy and power (no matter what culture), a religion that matches the state profile would be a blessing.

I can believe it

I was just in Johnsonville Texas,,, at a greasy spoon they preyed 3 times during one meal.
But I got the sense that it all a show, bizarre really.

Bill is doing the works of Satin