Creationists Criticize Neil deGrasse Tyson’s ‘Cosmos,’ Want More Airtime For Religion

[Khalid X]

The bible never gives a timetable of when God created the universe, nor does it state how (the exact process).

It's very vague in that regard, and I really don't see how science contradicts the first few chapters of genesis.

The purpose of the bible isn't to explain the natural world (that's what science is for), rather it simply meant as a book of salvation/worship.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

The bible never gives a timetable of when God created the universe, nor does it state how (the exact process).

It's very vague in that regard, and I really don't see how science contradicts the first few chapters of genesis.

The purpose of the bible isn't to explain the natural world (that's what science is for), rather it simply meant as a book of salvation/worship.

Well literalists take the entire line of every man in the Bible and come to somewhere between 6,500 - 10,000 years old for the entire world.

Science definitely contradicts the Bible and the two are diametrically opposed. When the Bible describes creation in the way it does, in the order it does, we know that's simply not true.

Now you can take the stance that it's not to be taken literal, but then you need to disregard scriptures that claim it to be the infallible word of god. So there's a bit of a dilemma there for believers.

[deliveryman]

The bible never gives a timetable of when

Uh... yes it does. God created the universe is 6 days, Adam on the 6th. The Bible then gives Jesus' (a known date of existence) geneology all the way to Adam. When you calculate this, it comes to roughly 4000 years between Adam and Jesus. Plus the 2000 years since Jesus means the universe is 6000 years old (some put it as high as 10,000).

God created the universe, nor does it state how (the exact process.)

Again... yes it does. God literally spoke and conjured things into existence. Poof. Like Magic.

For example:

"And God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light."

-- Seems pretty clear cut to me.

It's very vague in that regard, and I really don't see how science contradicts the first few chapters of genesis.

It's funny you should say that considering the Genesis order of creation is completely contradicted by our scientific understanding.

For example:

God created light before stars - WRONG
God created the stars after the earth - WRONG
God created grass and flowers (herb yielding seed) first - WRONG
God created whales and birds before land animals - WRONG

And I could go on...

The purpose of the bible isn't to explain the natural world (that's what science is for), rather it simply meant as a book of salvation/worship.

Well it's awfully convenient for you to say that considering almost everything that the Bible says about the natural world is completely erroneous.

[rorymac]

Uh... yes it does. God created the universe is 6 days, Adam on the 6th. The Bible then gives Jesus' (a known date of existence) geneology all the way to Adam. When you calculate this, it comes to roughly 4000 years between Adam and Jesus. Plus the 2000 years since Jesus means the universe is 6000 years old (some put it as high as 10,000).



Again... yes it does. God literally spoke and conjured things into existence. Poof. Like Magic.

For example:

"And God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light."

-- Seems pretty clear cut to me.



It's funny you should say that considering the Genesis order of creation is completely contradicted by our scientific understanding.

For example:

God created light before stars - WRONG
God created the stars after the earth - WRONG
God created grass and flowers (herb yielding seed) first - WRONG
God created whales and birds before land animals - WRONG

And I could go on...



Well it's awfully convenient for you to say that considering almost everything that the Bible says about the natural world is completely erroneous.

Great stuff

[I Love Jesus!]

Those would be the ones.

Looking for the debate I stumbled across this hilarious summary of the Carrol vs Craig debate.

Sean Carroll lost indisputably. He kept insisting that the universe didn't "pop into existence" yet tried to subtly sneak the universe into existence. Yet no matter which way he tried, he couldn't get the universe existing without a beginning. And a beginning does make it much more plausible that there was a cause. A First Cause is most definitely the most plausible explanation for the existence of the universe. Sean Carroll is admittedly very "science fictiony" and I recently saw him on another video asserting that in the future many different exact copies of himself would be produced by the universe complete with all of his memories and each exact version of Sean Carroll thinking he was the real Sean Carroll. What happened to empirical evidence in science? He also admitted that nobody knows what any conditions of life were before the Big Bang. It is the consensus that there was nothing - meaning no thing and if there were photons or dark energy, where is the evidence for this? We have none, but we do have evidence of a beginning and because there is a beginning, it is still more plausible that there was a Transcendent First Cause. Just because Sean Carroll talks confidently, doesn't mean he is right. ***65279;

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

Sean Carroll lost indisputably. He kept insisting that the universe didn't "pop into existence" yet tried to subtly sneak the universe into existence. Yet no matter which way he tried, he couldn't get the universe existing without a beginning. And a beginning does make it much more plausible that there was a cause. A First Cause is most definitely the most plausible explanation for the existence of the universe. Sean Carroll is admittedly very "science fictiony" and I recently saw him on another video asserting that in the future many different exact copies of himself would be produced by the universe complete with all of his memories and each exact version of Sean Carroll thinking he was the real Sean Carroll. What happened to empirical evidence in science? He also admitted that nobody knows what any conditions of life were before the Big Bang. It is the consensus that there was nothing - meaning no thing and if there were photons or dark energy, where is the evidence for this? We have none, but we do have evidence of a beginning and because there is a beginning, it is still more plausible that there was a Transcendent First Cause. Just because Sean Carroll talks confidently, doesn't mean he is right. ***65279;

Copy and paste much...

Nothing of what you posted proves a god or even cause to a universe. What you fail to understand, or just refusing to understand, is that science doesn't have the answers you want.

Science is ok with saying it doesn't know, and when you talk about the multi verse, it's a hypothesis, it's not fact. We don't know what happened before the big bang, we may never know but to make a leap of logic that some magical man in the sky blinked it into existence is even more absurd.

Craig was annihilated, that was a brutal debate to watch. You can see when he was answering his own reference, and had nothing to say but "maybe he believes this to be true" you almost felt bad for the guy.

It was almost as fun as watching Sam Harris scold Deepak Chopra like a child when they debated.

Bottom line is, you believe in magic, and we don't.

[deliveryman]

Sean Carroll lost indisputably. He kept insisting that the universe didn't "pop into existence" yet tried to subtly sneak the universe into existence. Yet no matter which way he tried, he couldn't get the universe existing without a beginning. And a beginning does make it much more plausible that there was a cause. A First Cause is most definitely the most plausible explanation for the existence of the universe. Sean Carroll is admittedly very "science fictiony" and I recently saw him on another video asserting that in the future many different exact copies of himself would be produced by the universe complete with all of his memories and each exact version of Sean Carroll thinking he was the real Sean Carroll. What happened to empirical evidence in science? He also admitted that nobody knows what any conditions of life were before the Big Bang. It is the consensus that there was nothing - meaning no thing and if there were photons or dark energy, where is the evidence for this? We have none, but we do have evidence of a beginning and because there is a beginning, it is still more plausible that there was a Transcendent First Cause. Just because Sean Carroll talks confidently, doesn't mean he is right. ***65279;

This troll didn't even watch the debate.

[Khalid X]

Uh... yes it does. God created the universe is 6 days, Adam on the 6th.

I really don't know where to begin with this, but:
1.Those weren't 24 hour days.
2. Genesis begins with an earth, already in existence, that is an inhabitable waste. If earth is in existence, then the universe has to be as well. When was this created.....the closest your gonna find is "the beginning". When was that.....It could be billions of years ago as the bible doesn't say.
3. I agree that Adam was created on the 6th day.

The Bible then gives Jesus' (a known date of existence) geneology all the way to Adam. When you calculate this, it comes to roughly 4000 years between Adam and Jesus.

It has been show, when comparing the lineages, that there were different ways of counting lineages (which is why the different books by the apostles, show different lineages to jesus). This is why creationist think man has been on earth for 6k years, but any knowledgeable person who does research can see that this is not the case.

Plus the 2000 years since Jesus means the universe is 6000 years old (some put it as high as 10,000).

Again, no length of time was given as to how long each creative day was. I know most athiest play dumb when this is brought up, but If someone say "the Dawn of the dinosaurs".....only a fool would think that time period is in reference to the few hours before sunrise. So just because it says "day", does not mean that it was a literal 24 hour period.

Again... yes it does. God literally spoke and conjured things into existence. Poof. Like Magic.

For example:

"And God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light."

-- Seems pretty clear cut to me.

It says that God is the created and caused things to be. That is no way, shape or form the complete process. The bible simply doesn't touch on the method of how God created things, it just simply states that he did.

[QUOTE=deliveryman;14390374]
It's funny you should say that considering the Genesis order of creation is completely contradicted by our scientific understanding.

For example:

God created light before stars - WRONG
God created the stars after the earth - WRONG
God created grass and flowers (herb yielding seed) first - WRONG

God created whales and birds before land animals - WRONG

And I could go on...

I really don't know were to begin with this nonsense...

Well it's awfully convenient for you to say that considering almost everything that the Bible says about the natural world is completely erroneous.

Like what???

[Khalid X]

Well literalists take the entire line of every man in the Bible and come to somewhere between 6,500 - 10,000 years old for the entire world.

Science definitely contradicts the Bible and the two are diametrically opposed. When the Bible describes creation in the way it does, in the order it does, we know that's simply not true.

Now you can take the stance that it's not to be taken literal, but then you need to disregard scriptures that claim it to be the infallible word of god. So there's a bit of a dilemma there for believers.

Lets pretend for a second that the bible does say that man has only been on earth for 6k years. If you have no time frame of how long each creative day was, then it is impossible to predict the age of the earth using the scriptures.


Anyone who claims that, or tries to say that the earth is only 6k years old is completely ignorant of what the scriptures are saying and those individuals should not be taken serious.

[Khalid X]

I will say this; In no way, shape or form do I want to criticize atheist (whether on this board, or guys in the mainstream).

Creationist, literalist, or whatever they call themselves are solely responsible for the embarrassing believes that have. Not just that, but instead of reflecting on their believes, they refuse to consider alternatives or even re-examine what it is they believe in or what the bible actually states.

With that said, I love DeGrasse Tyson and he is a personal role model. I can't figure out why he even waste his time with these creationist. The only thing I can think of is that maybe they are so annoying and try so hard to interfere with his work that he has no choice but to address them.