Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

orion · August 31, 2012, 5:48pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You did not ask about the foundation of chemistry, you are asking about abiogenesis, which would roughly be life from anorganic matter.

That however is not part of the theory of evolution, which presupposes a functioning organic replicator and goes on from there.

Sloth · August 31, 2012, 5:54pm

[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]

Need isn’t the correct word. Because of the chemical properties of that macromolecule (RNA most likely). That’s it. Such as the properties of water you’re no doubt familiar with. Properties simply emerge when a hydrogen and two oxygen (both which have their own properties) bond.

anon50325502 · August 31, 2012, 5:53pm

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You did not ask about the foundation of chemistry, you are asking about abiogenesis, which would roughly be life from anorganic matter.

That however is not part of the theory of evolution, which presupposes a functioning organic replicator and goes on from there. [/quote]

So you are telling me that the cell theory has nothing to do with evolution and that in fact cells were created from nothing (not nothing, but you understand what I’m saying), but after they come into existenance they only replicate from previously exisiting cells?

And you’re right I didn’t ask about the foundation of chemistry I asked where the first cell came from, which is a mysteery unless there has been a scientific break through I’m not aware of?

MattyG35 · August 31, 2012, 5:54pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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. [/quote]

K, sounds good. You’re okay in my books, and I have friends with similar views to yours. I rather enjoy the discussion.
(puts hand out to be shaken)

MattyG35 · August 31, 2012, 5:55pm

[quote]Fletch1986 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?

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. [/quote]

My guess would be that this is because they were incapable of performing photosynthesis at that point.

MattyG35 · August 31, 2012, 5:56pm

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You did not ask about the foundation of chemistry, you are asking about abiogenesis, which would roughly be life from anorganic matter.

That however is not part of the theory of evolution, which presupposes a functioning organic replicator and goes on from there. [/quote]

Yeah, evolution is able to stand on it’s own, and the origin of life is a separate issue.

groo · August 31, 2012, 5:57pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You did not ask about the foundation of chemistry, you are asking about abiogenesis, which would roughly be life from anorganic matter.

That however is not part of the theory of evolution, which presupposes a functioning organic replicator and goes on from there. [/quote]

So you are telling me that the cell theory has nothing to do with evolution and that in fact cells were created from nothing (not nothing, but you understand what I’m saying), but after they come into existenance they only replicate from previously exisiting cells?

And you’re right I didn’t ask about the foundation of chemistry I asked where the first cell came from, which is a mysteery unless there has been a scientific break through I’m not aware of? [/quote]

Purely out of curiousness, what college level science have you taken in biology or chemistry?

anon50325502 · August 31, 2012, 5:57pm

[quote]Sloth 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]

Need isn’t the correct word. Because of the chemical properties of that macromolecule (RNA most likely). That’s it. Such as the properties of water you’re no doubt familiar with. Properties simply emerge when a hydrogen and two oxygen (both which have their own properties) bond.
[/quote]

Let get past how the first cell came to be. My question is, once the first cell came into existence why would it change? Why would a cell split and, for example, one evolve into an apex predator and one into a minnow? If survival is key it makes no sense that the offspring for lack of a better term of the same cell would develop into such drastically different organisms.

groo · August 31, 2012, 5:58pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Sloth 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]

Need isn’t the correct word. Because of the chemical properties of that macromolecule (RNA most likely). That’s it. Such as the properties of water you’re no doubt familiar with. Properties simply emerge when a hydrogen and two oxygen (both which have their own properties) bond.
[/quote]

Let get past how the first cell came to be. My question is, once the first cell came into existence why would it change? Why would a cell split and, for example, one evolve into an apex predator and one into a minnow? If survival is key it makes no sense that the offspring for lack of a better term of the same cell would develop into such drastically different organisms.[/quote]

Would all conditions all over the world be exactly the same?

orion · August 31, 2012, 5:59pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You did not ask about the foundation of chemistry, you are asking about abiogenesis, which would roughly be life from anorganic matter.

That however is not part of the theory of evolution, which presupposes a functioning organic replicator and goes on from there. [/quote]

So you are telling me that the cell theory has nothing to do with evolution and that in fact cells were created from nothing (not nothing, but you understand what I’m saying), but after they come into existenance they only replicate from previously exisiting cells?

And you’re right I didn’t ask about the foundation of chemistry I asked where the first cell came from, which is a mysteery unless there has been a scientific break through I’m not aware of? [/quote]

Yeah well you can ask that question but it really has no weight when it comes to the validity of the theory of evolution.

Personally, I think that at some point anorganic matter crossed the threshold of complexity so that we would call it organic.

Barring some supernatural intervention there is little else left than the stuff that was already there.

anon50325502 · August 31, 2012, 5:59pm

[quote]MattyG35 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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. [/quote]

K, sounds good. You’re okay in my books, and I have friends with similar views to yours. I rather enjoy the discussion.
(puts hand out to be shaken)[/quote]

e-hand shake accepted

orion · August 31, 2012, 6:01pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Sloth 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]

Need isn’t the correct word. Because of the chemical properties of that macromolecule (RNA most likely). That’s it. Such as the properties of water you’re no doubt familiar with. Properties simply emerge when a hydrogen and two oxygen (both which have their own properties) bond.
[/quote]

Let get past how the first cell came to be. My question is, once the first cell came into existence why would it change? Why would a cell split and, for example, one evolve into an apex predator and one into a minnow? If survival is key it makes no sense that the offspring for lack of a better term of the same cell would develop into such drastically different organisms.[/quote]

Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?

anon50325502 · August 31, 2012, 6:01pm

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You did not ask about the foundation of chemistry, you are asking about abiogenesis, which would roughly be life from anorganic matter.

That however is not part of the theory of evolution, which presupposes a functioning organic replicator and goes on from there. [/quote]

So you are telling me that the cell theory has nothing to do with evolution and that in fact cells were created from nothing (not nothing, but you understand what I’m saying), but after they come into existenance they only replicate from previously exisiting cells?

And you’re right I didn’t ask about the foundation of chemistry I asked where the first cell came from, which is a mysteery unless there has been a scientific break through I’m not aware of? [/quote]

Purely out of curiousness, what college level science have you taken in biology or chemistry?[/quote]

Only the basics. Which is why my posts have more ?'s than statements.

I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know or even understand most of biology/chemistry except at a basic level.

anon50325502 · August 31, 2012, 6:05pm

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Sloth 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]

Need isn’t the correct word. Because of the chemical properties of that macromolecule (RNA most likely). That’s it. Such as the properties of water you’re no doubt familiar with. Properties simply emerge when a hydrogen and two oxygen (both which have their own properties) bond.
[/quote]

Let get past how the first cell came to be. My question is, once the first cell came into existence why would it change? Why would a cell split and, for example, one evolve into an apex predator and one into a minnow? If survival is key it makes no sense that the offspring for lack of a better term of the same cell would develop into such drastically different organisms.[/quote]

Well if the copying mechanism is not perfect and there a gazillion of cells, some are bound to be off to some degree?[/quote]

That’s fine and that’s why you’ll notice I use a lot of question marks. That being said, why wouldn’t natural selection have wiped those anomalies out rather quickly? I would think the fittest of the mutation would destroy everything else rather quickly.

groo · August 31, 2012, 6:05pm

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[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. [/quote]

You did not ask about the foundation of chemistry, you are asking about abiogenesis, which would roughly be life from anorganic matter.

That however is not part of the theory of evolution, which presupposes a functioning organic replicator and goes on from there. [/quote]

So you are telling me that the cell theory has nothing to do with evolution and that in fact cells were created from nothing (not nothing, but you understand what I’m saying), but after they come into existenance they only replicate from previously exisiting cells?

And you’re right I didn’t ask about the foundation of chemistry I asked where the first cell came from, which is a mysteery unless there has been a scientific break through I’m not aware of? [/quote]

Purely out of curiousness, what college level science have you taken in biology or chemistry?[/quote]

Only the basics. Which is why my posts have more ?'s than statements.

I’ll be the first to admit I don’t know or even understand most of biology/chemistry except at a basic level.[/quote]

The thing is a lot of science is going to both be law and theory. You will get a lot of agreement in science that there was and is evolution, but the specific method is going to have several different theories with varying levels of acceptance.

You don’t even have to reject evolution if you don’t like organic matter arising from inorganic. You could conceivably hold a view that some force started the whole shebang by creating life in a basic form here and perhaps in several other places and then let evolution go.

anon50325502 · August 31, 2012, 6:08pm

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Sloth 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]

Need isn’t the correct word. Because of the chemical properties of that macromolecule (RNA most likely). That’s it. Such as the properties of water you’re no doubt familiar with. Properties simply emerge when a hydrogen and two oxygen (both which have their own properties) bond.
[/quote]

Let get past how the first cell came to be. My question is, once the first cell came into existence why would it change? Why would a cell split and, for example, one evolve into an apex predator and one into a minnow? If survival is key it makes no sense that the offspring for lack of a better term of the same cell would develop into such drastically different organisms.[/quote]

Would all conditions all over the world be exactly the same?
[/quote]

Obviously I don’t know the answer maybe it was (I doubt it). The thing is, did cells just all of a sudden start appearing all of the world at once or did one cell lead all cells? I always thought the generally consensus was was that one cell started it all, is that not the case?

anon50325502 · August 31, 2012, 6:09pm