Saturday, September 14, 2013

Bill Nye Reaffirms the Bible Is Wrong About the Creation Story; the Moon Does Not Produce Light As the Book of Genesis Proclaims

The moon does not produce light. It reflects the light of the sun. This one fact alone proves that the Bible is unequivocally, 100% false

by Larry Simons
September 14, 2013

Last night on Real Time with Bill Maher, science educator Bill Nye was on to discuss the importance of science and innovation when it comes to boosting America's economy. Nye told Maher that in order to achieve this, the United States needs more scientifically literate students.

Nye mentioned that the reason why this would be such a struggle to achieve is because of the fact that some Americans [particularly in Texas] want creationism taught in textbooks. Nye told Maher he has no problems with anyone's particular religion, but he does have problems with people claiming the Earth is only 5,000 years old. Maher told Nye that the problem is "facts themselves have become subject to debate".

Maher recalled the time when Nye was in Waco, Texas giving a presentation and [Nye] mentioned a passage in Genesis that says "God created two lights [referring to the sun and the moon]..". Nye told the Waco crowd that the moon is not a light at all, but a reflector [it only reflects the sun's light]. At this point, people got angry and stormed out. Nye said to Maher that one woman grabbed her kids by the wrists and walked out.

Maher was referring to the McLennan Community College's Distinguished Lecture Series that Nye attended in Waco in 2009 in which he gave two lectures. The passage that mentions the sun and the moon as "two great lights" is Genesis 1:16 which states:

"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"

This single verse is a huge problem for Bible scholars and Christians alike who believe that the Bible is the holy and infallible word of God. In fact, it creates several problems:

1.  The moon is, in fact, not a light, but a reflector of light. If this is true, and science says it is, the book of Genesis was written by a human being who was not inspired by God. In the case of Genesis, the book was written [supposedly] by Moses. Either Moses was making shit up and the god he speaks of does not exist or he is admitting that the god he speaks of is 1. Not omniscient [all-knowing]...because this god has no idea his creation [the moon] does not generate light, and 2. Not omnipotent [all powerful]...because this god does not possess the power to intervene and prevent his servant [Moses] from writing this complete bullshit down for millions of would-be followers to accept as truth.

2.  Genesis describes the moon as "the lesser light", indicating that the writer of this passage is a primitive man with limited or no scientific knowledge [because he does not know the moon is not a light]. True, there is no way that Moses could have possessed high levels of scientific knowledge 5,000-6,000 years ago [the time period Christians believe Moses lived], but he would have needed no scientific knowledge at all if he was simply just God's messenger [since God is supposed to know everything].

3.  The Genesis 1:16 passage is obviously written within the framework of limited human understanding, not anything divine. The passage describes the sun as the "greater" light and the moon as the "lesser" light and then the creation of the stars as an unimportant afterthought, as if God just said "what the hell, I'll throw in some stars" like sprinkles on an ice cream cone.

In reality, we know through science that the sun is also a star, just like the rest of the smaller stars we see in the sky at night. The only difference is size. There are big stars and little stars. In other words, the smaller stars are a smaller equivalent of the sun. Primitive man, with no scientific knowledge, did not know this. But God, if he exists and knows everything, would know this. But science is omitted from the Genesis passage [in fact, from the entire Bible].

This Genesis passage is clearly written with only a primitive and limited human understanding of complex scientific facts that only a god would know if those very complex scientific facts were included in the passage. The sequence of "created" elements [sun, moon and stars] are structured according to what appears more and less important to us here on Earth. Within human understanding, we see a big sun, a small moon and even smaller stars, and the Genesis passage reflects that same hierarchy of "more" important to "less" important elements [sun, moon, stars], when in reality, the sun is also a star [equivalent to the smaller stars, just bigger in size] and the moon is not a light at all, but a reflector of light.

This single fact alone [God calling the moon a "light"] should be enough to prove the Bible is completely false. How the Bible can still be defended after this is more astonishing than science itself. I will also go out on a limb and suggest this is the very reason why people get angry and storm off [like the woman in Waco] when this subject matter is presented within the context of science. Because when people embrace faith and ignore science, science will always win because science is incapable of lying. The Bible on the other hand.....

Nye also mentioned the very important fact that the moon is also visible in the daytime, implying that if the moon was created for illumination purposes, why is the moon very hard to see in the daytime? Shouldn't it still be able to produce light as the sun still does in the daytime?

I am sure that even if Christians attempted to defend Genesis 1:16, they would most likely say "Well, God didn't quite mean that the moon produced light. He just meant that it would serve as a light source". Fine. But, this is not what the passage says. It says God made "two great lights", a greater light and a lesser light. For Christians who insist on defending the indefensible, it would be like defending someone who said a reflector on a bicycle is a light. It's not a light. It's reflector of light.

In other words, it would be the equivalent of Christians claiming that if God was describing a bike reflector, he would call it a light. Would that be considered an all-knowing God?

watch the clip

Friday, September 13, 2013

New 9/11 Film "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor" by Massimo Mazzucco

September 13, 2013
by Larry Simons

Italian filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco has made possibly the best film about 9/11 to date, "September 11: The New Pearl Harbor", a 5-hour documentary which covers 12 years of debate from all sides. It can be viewed free of charge on YouTube or it can be purchased [as a donation] through the website of the film or at



0.01:02 - 12 parallels between Pearl Harbor and September 11
0.14:10 - The debate: main issues


0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors?
0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory" (radars, transponders)
0.22:00 - The military drills
0.29:40 - Specific warnings
0.33:08 - The chain of command
0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments
0.39:50 - The Mineta case
0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken"
0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary


0.57:15 - "Piss-poor student pilots"
0.59:38 - Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175)
1.01:52 - Ziad Jarrah (UA93)
1.03:06 - Hani Hanjour (AA77)
1.04:00 - The debunkers' positions
1.06:00 -  2 simulations of the Pentagon attack
1.13:10 - Someone knew?
1.16:40 - Airport security cameras
1.20.15 - The missing black boxes


1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones?
1.28:20 - Impossible speeds
1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?
1.38:35 - The cellphone calls
1.48:30 - The debunkers' position
1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where?



0.02:35 - Downed light poles
0.03:30 - The missing plane
0.04:30 - The official version
0.05:24 - Problems with the official version (wing, ailerons, tail, engines)
0.13:09 - The mystery hole
0.14:10 - The debunkers' explanations
0.16:20 - Conclusions on damage analysis
0.17:00 - The missing tapes
0.18:30 - Security video analysis
0.23.40 - Pentagon summary


0.24.15 - The empty hole
0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations
0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion?
0.34:50 - The debris field
0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis
0.38:50 - The small white plane
0.41:40 - "Let's roll"
0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93


0.45:10 - Introduction
0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret
0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein
0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers
0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?
1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1
1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2
1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation
1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation
1.18:50 - Law of physics violated
1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall
1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E


(Twin Towers continued)

0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions
0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives"
0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses)
0.15:00 - "Fuel in elevators shafts" theory
0.23:25 - Debunkers: "Explosions not recorded by tv cameras"
0.30:26 - Squibs
0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage)
0.35:00 - Ejecta
0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts
0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses?
0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures
0.45:30 - Debunkers' explanations
0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams
0.47:40 - Molten steel
0.51:05 - Molten concrete
0.53:50 - Pulverization
0.57:40 - Victims vaporized
1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers


1.05:10 - Introduction
1.06:35 - Official version by NIST
1.09:36 - Collapse computer simulation
1.11:00 - Fire computer simulation
1.12:20 - Debunkers: "Building 7 weaker"
1.14:25 - Preknowledge
1.19:00 - Symmetry
1.20:00 - Freefall


1.22:30 - John McCain
1.24:35 - The last word