Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[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.

[/quote]

I agree the earth has changed a lot during her existence. I still don’t see why single celled organisms aren’t appearing though.

222

[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]

What makes a person “good”?

223

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[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[/quote]

I’m watching this now. It is neat that’s for sure.

Edit: It’s a neat video. It’s way over my head. I think it’s an exciting development. I’d like to see where it takes us in the next few decades.

One thing the video does highlight is that one error out of I think they said like a million sequences, pairing, or whatever cause the whole thing not to work. To me that just shows how hard it is for life to exist and reaffirms (for me) that it didn’t just occur, but that God created it.

I also am of the belief that God did make us in his image and that there is not reason we can’t develop to the point where we to can create life.

224

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I agree the earth has changed a lot during her existence. I still don’t see why single celled organisms aren’t appearing though. [/quote]

The environment and other prerequisites that are needed for this to happen are no longer present.

225

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I agree the earth has changed a lot during her existence. I still don’t see why single celled organisms aren’t appearing though. [/quote]

The environment and other prerequisites that are needed for this to happen are no longer present.[/quote]

…but how do you know that? Shouldn’t other reactions that lead to life occur then?

226

[quote]pat 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]

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?[/quote]

You seem to know more about it than me, so why don’t you tell me, because I’m taking it at face value.

227

[quote]pat wrote:

[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]

What makes a person “good”?[/quote]

Not doing unnecessary harm to others comes to mind.

228

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I agree the earth has changed a lot during her existence. I still don’t see why single celled organisms aren’t appearing though. [/quote]

The environment and other prerequisites that are needed for this to happen are no longer present.[/quote]

…but how do you know that? Shouldn’t other reactions that lead to life occur then? [/quote]

I don’t know it for sure, I’m giving you the best answer that I can come up with.
If the right prerequisites aren’t present then you won’t be able to get the end product. If life is as rare as is believed and observed, it would seem that there are limited pathways for this to be able to occur.

229

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

Not doing unnecessary harm to others comes to mind.
[/quote]

I think he’s referring to the fact that good and evil, right and wrong (as far as moral behavior), are just as unfalsifiable as God. At least when it comes to saying something is inherently evil, or good.

230

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

Not doing unnecessary harm to others comes to mind.
[/quote]

I think he’s referring to the fact that good and evil, right and wrong (as far as moral behavior), are just as unfalsifiable as God. At least when it comes to saying something is inherently evil, or good.[/quote]

Okay, thank you for an expanded explanation.

231

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I agree the earth has changed a lot during her existence. I still don’t see why single celled organisms aren’t appearing though. [/quote]

The environment and other prerequisites that are needed for this to happen are no longer present.[/quote]

…but how do you know that? Shouldn’t other reactions that lead to life occur then? [/quote]

I don’t know it for sure, I’m giving you the best answer that I can come up with.
If the right prerequisites aren’t present then you won’t be able to get the end product. If life is as rare as is believed and observed, it would seem that there are limited pathways for this to be able to occur.

[/quote]

That’s an answer I can accept and that’s fine if you beleive that.

I believe the end product of life is rare because I believe God creates it. The question is can you accept that that’s what some people beleive?

232

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That’s an answer I can accept and that’s fine if you beleive that.

I believe the end product of life is rare because I believe God creates it. The question is can you accept that that’s what some people beleive? [/quote]

You understand that you’re jumping to that being the conclusion without proper evidence, correct?

I may have stated this earlier, but to me, the default position should be “I don’t know”, and then you follow the evidence from there. I think we may just have a disagreement on what is acceptable as evidence.

233

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That’s an answer I can accept and that’s fine if you beleive that.

I believe the end product of life is rare because I believe God creates it. The question is can you accept that that’s what some people beleive? [/quote]

You understand that you’re jumping to that being the conclusion without proper evidence, correct?

I may have stated this earlier, but to me, the default position should be “I don’t know”, and then you follow the evidence from there. I think we may just have a disagreement on what is acceptable as evidence.[/quote]

My guess is we do disagree on what’s evidence and that’s fine. I think the fact that my body is performing thousands of functions while I type this is evidence of God. I think the very existence of millions of different life forms all with equally extensive internal workings is evidence of God, but you don’t and that’s perfectly fine.

The biggest difference is I have faith in God so my “default” position is that God created life. If evidence ever proves otherwise then we’ll see.

The only reason I ever responded directly to you or at all is because having faith is not the same as being ignorant. we both are looking at the same glass and we both see the lsame thing in it. You say you don’t know where life come from and you’d like to find out. Until then my answer is I don’t know. I say life comes from God, because of my own experiences and observations, and until evidence appears to the contrary that’s my stance. It doesn’t make me ignorant or an idiot and it doens’t make you wrong. I, like many, just have a different view of the world.

234

[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?

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.[/quote]

Oxygen was poisonous to most early lifeforms.

235

[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]

You are assuming that the first thing was a “cell” which is virtually impossible.

All you need to start some kind of evolution is a molecule capable of replicating.

236

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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? [/quote]

Strawman.

237

[quote]orion 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]

You are assuming that the first thing was a “cell” which is virtually impossible.

All you need to start some kind of evolution is a molecule capable of replicating. [/quote]

Okay, then why did/do molecules need to evolve (what was the catalyst) and why don’t similiar reactions take place today?

238

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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? [/quote]

Strawman. [/quote]

This is my favorite PWI response by the way.

I talk about the foundation of chemistry, which is kinda important for this discussion and I ask someone to explain the loop hole in the argument. I ask for an explanation and that’s a strawman?

Thank you for that insight.

239

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]orion 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]

You are assuming that the first thing was a “cell” which is virtually impossible.

All you need to start some kind of evolution is a molecule capable of replicating. [/quote]

Okay, then why did/do molecules need to evolve (what was the catalyst) and why don’t similiar reactions take place today? [/quote]

Who knows and who says they dont.

It would be very unlikely though that they would stand any chance, we have learned a trick or two in the last couple of hundred million years.

240

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]orion 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]

You are assuming that the first thing was a “cell” which is virtually impossible.

All you need to start some kind of evolution is a molecule capable of replicating. [/quote]

Okay, then why did/do molecules need to evolve (what was the catalyst) and why don’t similiar reactions take place today? [/quote]

Who knows and who says they dont.

It would be very unlikely though that they would stand any chance, we have learned a trick or two in the last couple of hundred million years. [/quote]

Well I would think if scientist are in search of the truth about the origins of life they would want to find out, don’t you? I think it’s a valid question.