Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]

How do you know there wasn’t any predators or other environmental stressors? Different types of cells could have formed in different areas.

202

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]

I think the real question is, what made it “alive”? Organic material alone, does not account for why it’s alive. But I do believe in evolution, but I don’t believe the ‘life force’ is merely a function of collected organic material. You can assemble all the organic material you want, you cannot make it live.[/quote]

To this I would look to chemistry/biochemistry and the reactions that take place.
To me the default position until something is reliably proven is “I don’t know yet”, not “God did it”. That’s a big leap to take, and I won’t do it.

203

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]

Errors. Errors that proved beneficial. Transcription errors, for example. You have to be careful in thinking that the environment somehow makes an organism adapt to it. It’s more like the environment failed to wipe out a trait or traits. Natural selection is more like a brainless editing process than a process actively seeking ways to make organisms ‘better.’ Nature is potentially capable of killing every organism on this planet. And it wouldn’t give a hoot if it did.

Environment changes in a geographic region. Individuals that happened to have adaptive traits thrive. Maybe where once a trait was a waste of resources (extra nutrient usage to maintain, etc.). Maybe those with the trait were eclipsed by those without. Yet, now with a change in the environment, the benefits outweigh the costs. And now this adaption gives a reproductive advantage.

Even when there isn’t a marked change in environment, a mutation or could bring a ‘better way of getting things done’ in the same environment. Again, reproductive advantage.

But more often than not, these errors are either not expressed, or are counterproductive.

Remember also, we’re talking about primitive prokaryotes. The rate of fission…the amount of daughter cells…the proliferation of daughter cells…Lots and lots and lots of room for errors.

204

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MattyG35, I hate to break this to you…originally thought again look to God for guidance.[/quote]
There is nothing that is taught in the bible that can’t be taught without the bible, it’s become vestigial.

Actually that does have to do with the God they claim to represent. It discredits them fully and they shouldn’t be listened to because of this.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I know that’s the old testament but it’s still in your bible and you choose to not follow it. God really mellowed out when he sent his son to be brutally murdered.
[/quote]

  1. That’s your opinion not fact.

  2. Those that use religion to control should be discredited. Still has nothing to do with the God they claim to represent. Again, that’s your opinion. I can type that the president is from China and probably convince thousands it’s true, but it doesn’t mean he’s Chinese.

  3. A new covenant was formed through Jesus. That is why the old testament doesn’t mean a whole lot to those that are not Jewish. I don’t expect you to understand because of the perspective you are coming from.

I see Jesus’ death as a sacrifice for others. You see it as brutal murder. Who did the murdering? It wasn’t God.

205

You are pure entertainment Matty. (one one hand and pure tragedy on the other) Ya really oughta calm dowmn though. You’re too young for all this stress over fairy tails. Try these before you wind up on your face begging Jesus to save you from your insolence. I’ve got stuff to do for most of the day it looks like and then I have to shine my unicorn saddle. I’ll be back when I can.

206

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Where does science claim to have ‘all the answers’?[/quote]

I think there are a lot of arrogant scientist that claim science has all the answers. Just like there are a lot of religious individuals that claim to have all the answes. In both cases they are arrogant and full of BS.

Edit:

For example in MattyG’s statement he says science has humility and is looking for answers, but at the same time says God does not exist. Science hasn’t proven God doesn’t exist so isn’t that an arrogant statement and in a way acting as if scinece can explain all.

[/quote]

If any scientist claimed they or science ‘had all the answers’, they would by definition be out of work. So this sounds like one of those broad brush allegations that has no foundation in any fact. Please show me an instance of this.
Science is by its very nature the search to uncover and explain that which is not known. In the physical and observable world.

‘Science’ has no need to prove god doesn’t exist. I don’t know why that tired line keeps being trotted out.
[/quote]

You’re right it is a broad statement. I purposely made it a broad statement because MattyG, the person I was addressing, painted those that believe with a broad brush. It was to point out the hypocrisy.

I also doubt I can find a YouTube video or quote of a well-known scientist saying, “Science has all the answer.” That doesn’t mean the sentiment doesn’t exist. I think when guys like Bill Nye use their influence to say God doesn’t exist, which he has, he is implicitly saying that science has all the answer. That’s what I read into it and it very well might not be what he or others mean, but that’s how they come across to me. [/quote]

You’re over-interpreting what I write. See my above post about evidence and existence.

Ok, your God is more important to you than science. You get appendicitis, do you go to a hospital or gather your friends in prayer?

[/quote]

I believe God gave us (man) the ability to learn and think, which allows us to achieve great things like curing diseases and such. I would go to the hospital and thank God he created men that through science can help me.

207

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]

How do you know there wasn’t any predators or other environmental stressors? Different types of cells could have formed in different areas.[/quote]

I was taught in Chemistry all life can be traced back to a single celled organism so by definition no other cells existed thus no predators. I don’t understand how enviromental stresseers led to a sinlge celled organism splitting and one side evolving into a mouse and the other a Nile Croc. I’m open to an explanation because I have honestly always wondered.

208

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]

I think the real question is, what made it “alive”? Organic material alone, does not account for why it’s alive. But I do believe in evolution, but I don’t believe the ‘life force’ is merely a function of collected organic material. You can assemble all the organic material you want, you cannot make it live.[/quote]

To this I would look to chemistry/biochemistry and the reactions that take place.
To me the default position until something is reliably proven is “I don’t know yet”, not “God did it”. That’s a big leap to take, and I won’t do it.[/quote]

Why don’t those reaction occur today? We have all the ingrediants for life right so why hasn’t life spontaneously occurred?

It takes billions of years I assume will be the answer, but it’s been billions of years so why aren’t new cells forming still?

209

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]

Errors. Errors that proved beneficial. Transcription errors, for example. You have to be careful in thinking that the environment somehow makes an organism adapt to it. It’s more like the environment failed to wipe out a trait or traits. Natural selection is more like a brainless editing process than a process actively seeking ways to make organisms ‘better.’ Nature is potentially capable of killing every organism on this planet. And it wouldn’t give a hoot if it did.

Environment changes in a geographic region. Individuals that happened to have adaptive traits thrive. Maybe where once a trait was a waste of resources (extra nutrient usage to maintain, etc.). Maybe those with the trait were eclipsed by those without. Yet, now with a change in the environment, the benefits outweigh the costs. And now this adaption gives a reproductive advantage.

Even when there isn’t a marked change in environment, a mutation or could bring a ‘better way of getting things done’ in the same environment. Again, reproductive advantage.

But more often than not, these errors are either not expressed, or are counterproductive.

Remember also, we’re talking about primitive prokaryotes. The rate of fission…the amount of daughter cells…the proliferation of daughter cells…Lots and lots and lots of room for errors.[/quote]

I think we are on the same page. I don’t claim to be a scientist, but I understand what you’re saying.

210

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MattyG35, I hate to break this to you…originally thought again look to God for guidance.[/quote]
There is nothing that is taught in the bible that can’t be taught without the bible, it’s become vestigial.

Actually that does have to do with the God they claim to represent. It discredits them fully and they shouldn’t be listened to because of this.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I know that’s the old testament but it’s still in your bible and you choose to not follow it. God really mellowed out when he sent his son to be brutally murdered.
[/quote]

  1. That’s your opinion not fact. [/quote]

No, that is a fact. You have plenty of good people in the world that don’t follow the bible.

211

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]

I think the real question is, what made it “alive”? Organic material alone, does not account for why it’s alive. But I do believe in evolution, but I don’t believe the ‘life force’ is merely a function of collected organic material. You can assemble all the organic material you want, you cannot make it live.[/quote]

To this I would look to chemistry/biochemistry and the reactions that take place.
To me the default position until something is reliably proven is “I don’t know yet”, not “God did it”. That’s a big leap to take, and I won’t do it.[/quote]

Why don’t those reaction occur today? We have all the ingrediants for life right so why hasn’t life spontaneously occurred?

It takes billions of years I assume will be the answer, but it’s been billions of years so why aren’t new cells forming still?
[/quote]

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that those reactions aren’t occurring?

Edit: To answer your question, I would say that the environmental requirements aren’t present as when the first cells appeared, there was no oxygen or limited oxygen in the atmosphere.

212

Also one of the tenants of the cell theory is that all cells form from previously existing cells. So where did the first cell come from? I could never get over this enormous hole in the theory that scientist take as fact (as close to fact as a theory can get anyway) and that is the basis for all of chemistry/biology.

It’s funny, those that belive in God would call this faith. What do scientist call it?

213

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MattyG35, I hate to break this to you…originally thought again look to God for guidance.[/quote]
There is nothing that is taught in the bible that can’t be taught without the bible, it’s become vestigial.

Actually that does have to do with the God they claim to represent. It discredits them fully and they shouldn’t be listened to because of this.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I know that’s the old testament but it’s still in your bible and you choose to not follow it. God really mellowed out when he sent his son to be brutally murdered.
[/quote]

  1. That’s your opinion not fact. [/quote]

No, that is a fact. You have plenty of good people in the world that don’t follow the bible.
[/quote]

There are plenty of good people in this world that do not follow the bible is definitly a fact.

What is not a fact is waht you said, “There is nothing that is taught in the bible that can’t be taught without the bible.” That is an opinion, yours.

214

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]

I think the real question is, what made it “alive”? Organic material alone, does not account for why it’s alive. But I do believe in evolution, but I don’t believe the ‘life force’ is merely a function of collected organic material. You can assemble all the organic material you want, you cannot make it live.[/quote]

To this I would look to chemistry/biochemistry and the reactions that take place.
To me the default position until something is reliably proven is “I don’t know yet”, not “God did it”. That’s a big leap to take, and I won’t do it.[/quote]

Why don’t those reaction occur today? We have all the ingrediants for life right so why hasn’t life spontaneously occurred?

It takes billions of years I assume will be the answer, but it’s been billions of years so why aren’t new cells forming still?
[/quote]

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that those reactions aren’t occurring?[/quote]

Can you give me an example of those reactions occurring? I’m not like a lot of the posters on this website, I like to learn and broaden my world view. If can show me where or how I’m wrong I’ll thank you for it, not insult you like some would.

Scientist have tried for years to create life, why haven’t they been able to? I don’t believe cloning counts since it’s more of a copy than a creation.

215

MattyG-

I would think if single celled organisms were spontaneously forming that would be taught in basic science course as part of the cell theory.

216

511×799 84.8 KB

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]

I think the real question is, what made it “alive”? Organic material alone, does not account for why it’s alive. But I do believe in evolution, but I don’t believe the ‘life force’ is merely a function of collected organic material. You can assemble all the organic material you want, you cannot make it live.[/quote]

To this I would look to chemistry/biochemistry and the reactions that take place.
To me the default position until something is reliably proven is “I don’t know yet”, not “God did it”. That’s a big leap to take, and I won’t do it.[/quote]

Why don’t those reaction occur today? We have all the ingrediants for life right so why hasn’t life spontaneously occurred?

It takes billions of years I assume will be the answer, but it’s been billions of years so why aren’t new cells forming still?
[/quote]

Why are you jumping to the conclusion that those reactions aren’t occurring?[/quote]

Can you give me an example of those reactions occurring? I’m not like a lot of the posters on this website, I like to learn and broaden my world view. If can show me where or how I’m wrong I’ll thank you for it, not insult you like some would.

Scientist have tried for years to create life, why haven’t they been able to? I don’t believe cloning counts since it’s more of a copy than a creation.
[/quote]

I added to my original post, something like this
To answer your question, I would say that the environment of the Earth has changed since when the first cells came about. See attached picture from Reece Biology.

217

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MattyG35, I hate to break this to you…originally thought again look to God for guidance.[/quote]
There is nothing that is taught in the bible that can’t be taught without the bible, it’s become vestigial.

Actually that does have to do with the God they claim to represent. It discredits them fully and they shouldn’t be listened to because of this.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21. I know that’s the old testament but it’s still in your bible and you choose to not follow it. God really mellowed out when he sent his son to be brutally murdered.
[/quote]

I love it when people pull all these bible quotes from these atheist websites to make a case against. So tell me since you are a scholar on the matter, what is the purpose, history, audience and context of this passage as it relates to the rest of Deuteronomy? The Pentateuch and then the greater Bible as a whole?
Do you know why that’s in there? Do you know what purpose it was trying to serve?

218

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
MattyG-

I would think if single celled organisms were spontaneously forming that would be taught in basic science course as part of the cell theory. [/quote]

Not spontaneous, but interesting nonetheless
http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life.html

219

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Why are you jumping to the conclusion that those reactions aren’t occurring?[/quote]

Can you give me an example of those reactions occurring? I’m not like a lot of the posters on this website, I like to learn and broaden my world view. If can show me where or how I’m wrong I’ll thank you for it, not insult you like some would. [/quote]
I can’t give you an example of those reactions, it’s beyond my knowledge, so at this point my answer is, I don’t know.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Scientist have tried for years to create life, why haven’t they been able to? I don’t believe cloning counts since it’s more of a copy than a creation.
[/quote]
[url]http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life.html[/url]
You can expect this to grow exponentially.

220

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question for those that believe in evolution. Why did the original cell that supposedly started it all need to evolve? I believe evolution via natural selection exists as a part of Gods design. The issue I have is that when natural selection occurs there is always a catalyst for the change. What could have made the first cell or cells evolve? They had no predators so why the need to change? [/quote]

I think the real question is, what made it “alive”? Organic material alone, does not account for why it’s alive. But I do believe in evolution, but I don’t believe the ‘life force’ is merely a function of collected organic material. You can assemble all the organic material you want, you cannot make it live.[/quote]

To this I would look to chemistry/biochemistry and the reactions that take place.
To me the default position until something is reliably proven is “I don’t know yet”, not “God did it”. That’s a big leap to take, and I won’t do it.[/quote]

We already know this shit. We can clone fucking sheep for crying out loud, they can put it together, but they cannot make it live. They can assemble the parts, but are totally helpless when it comes to giving life.

You’re treating science like the hammer and life itself as a nail(nod to orion). There’s huge problem, though. Before you can figure out how something works, you have to know what it is first. So what is life?