Alright, you asked for it, so you got it.

I'm not going to argue against Bill Nye and try to discredit the evidence of radiometric dating. Instead, I will present some compelling evidence for a young Earth/Universe. I'll start off with this one:

1. Supernovas

When stars explode they leave behind SNRs, or 'supernova remnants'. The remnant is a radially expanding cloud of gas and debris, and based on the average expansion speed, we can determine based on that speed how long it would take for an SNR to reach certain expansion diameters.

In 30 years it is predicted the cloud would be about 13 light years across. In 125,000 years it would be 250 light years and in 6 million years it would be 1500 light years across. 6 million years of expansion is about the limit our current instrumentation will allow us to observe; after that it would be too diluted to observe.

Looking around the galaxy, we should be seeing SNRs of many different sizes, from 6 million years of expansion to 5 million to 1 million to a few hundred thousand years, down to recent times of the supernovas we have observed in our recent history. We should be seeing a whole spectrum of sizes, but we don't. In fact, there is no SNR that we have observed which exceeds around 7 thousand years of expansion. Occams razor again demands that we use the simplest explanation, which is that these stars went supernova very recently and are not billions of years old.

Further, we should be observing a certain quantity of SNRs in the galaxy. Based on the average of around 4 per year, in only a billion years we should expect to see around 7200 of them. On the other side, if it has only been 7000 years we should expect to see 125 of them. What we actually observe is around 200 SNRs which is a lot closer to 7000 years than 1 billion.. Occams razor says the simplest explanation is that the galaxy is young.

Talking Head: "Do you believe that teaching kids that the world is anything but 4.5 billion years old is the same as teaching them that it's flat?"

Nye: "Well... The word 'same'... It's a pretty good analogy."

Meanwhile, before he even finished saying that much, the talking points ticker at the bottom pops up with "Bill Nye on creationism: it's like teaching the Earth is flat".

Thanks CNN. Thanks so much for reducing a complex and thought out response to a blurb that even a bite-sized, 24-hour news cycle brain can manage. God forbid you give the expert that you've invited onto your show a full 60 seconds of uninterrupted time to speak, without putting words into his mouth for him before he even says them. What if he runs long and cuts into celebrity breakup gossip hour? I tell you what, everybody sees the fall of print journalism coming but with stuff like this televised "news" can't be far behind.

Bill Nye is probably the smartest man on TV. Wait I know let's have him and Neil DeGrasse Tyson star in a sitcom it will be like "Big Bang Theory" only you know actually smart.

Pat Cashman added so much to this show. As a Seattle native I always get very giddy whenever I see Bill Nye!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lottery, Bill Nye, packing peanuts, bad odds, pat cashman, almost live' to 'lottery, Bill Nye, packing peanuts, bad odds, pat cashman' - edited by brycewi19

Tags for this video have been changed from 'lottery, Bill Nye, packing peanuts, bad odds' to 'lottery, Bill Nye, packing peanuts, bad odds, pat cashman, almost live' - edited by brycewi19

>> ^Buck:

she's so hot.


Yeah, even those two guys are hitting on her.

I wonder what the guys say about the series.

>> ^Murgy:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.

Having read through Metamorphoses, I can honestly say I found far less basic ethical transgressions present than in the Christian Bible. Modern day societal value inconsistencies were about equal between the two books, assuming one accounts for the differences in length.
Now don't get me wrong here, I don't consider myself a literary historian, but when spending a day sick in bed one will find Wikipedia taking them in strange directions.


I agree 100% about the nonequivalence in moral transgressions. My point of comparison between the two was more how they both are cultural milestones whose influence permeate much of human artistic production and in that sense are an important part of adult cultural baggage, but not childhood teaching tools (Ovid perhaps more for the wtf-ishness).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^PostalBlowfish:
In the sense that Creationism is basically a fairy tale, it is appropriate for children. Unfortunately, it's not treated like that. It becomes part of an indoctrination that discourages critical thinking, and there is no question to me that such indoctrination is abuse.

I would not want my kids to be read the kinds of "fairy tales" found in the Bible. The Grimm tales are dark enough, without adding incest, genocide and mass genital mutilation to the mix. The Bible is more like Ovid's Metamorphoses; an important piece of literature you don't put into small children's hands.


Having read through Metamorphoses, I can honestly say I found far less basic ethical transgressions present than in the Christian Bible. Modern day societal value inconsistencies were about equal between the two books, assuming one accounts for the differences in length.

Now don't get me wrong here, I don't consider myself a literary historian, but when spending a day sick in bed one will find Wikipedia taking them in strange directions.

But Bill Nye didn't say anything. Was he too chicken?

Upvote for anti-jokes, imaginary chickens and Bill Nye =o)

It's like living in bizzaro world knowing this guy isn't just ranting on a street corner, annoying tourists. He could probably run for public office in the U.S.

Long live Bill Nye The Science (based on evidence, not some ancient book of fairy tales) Guy!

>> ^charliem:

We apologise for unleashing this blight on the world - Sincerely, Australians everywhere.


Talk is cheap. Send the SAS after him and we'll talk.

I think this is offensive to cunts. No self-respecting cunt (or dick or asshole, for that matter) would want to be compared with this scumbag.
>> ^enoch:

what an absolute cunt

I really don't understand why you bother. Shiny has proven time and time again that he's either incapable of understanding anything outside of his magic book, or he's nothing but a troll. I vote for the second, but the net effect is the same. You're wasting your time.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^shinyblurry:
"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it."
Steven Pinker,
Professor of Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA., "How the Mind Works," [1997]
You love this quote, don't you? I searched for it on google and fuck me if the first page or two isn't almost all you regurgitating this at every opportunity.
Now, here's the thing. You haven't read this book. Because if you had, you would have seen the next line.
"Because there are no alternatives, we would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on this planet even if there were no evidence for it. Thankfully, the evidence is overwhelming. I don't just mean evidence that life evolved (which is way beyond reasonable doubt, creationists notwithstanding), but that it evolved by natural selection."
But hey, let's ignore that bit. Let's live in shinys fantasy delusional that there isn't an almost overwhelming preponderance of data backing up evolution. Pinker would still be right. Why? Because there are no valid competing scientific theories. Literally. That's it. It's the only game in town. No-one has come even remotely close to explaining the diversity of life on this planet without evolution.
Intelligent design is not a theory. It fails almost every criteria.
So seriously, enough with the bullshit.