Bill Nye is a godless liberal

#76
#76
govols09 said:
Birds: I have seen where evolution says that birds evolved from reptiles. Reptiles use an in out breathing mechanism like humans have. Birds have a flow through mechanism to breath. Can you imagine how that breathing system just evolved through time? How would that work?
Click to expand...

Environmental change and selective pressure. Their flow through respiratory mechanism enables them to fly. Without such a respiratory mechanism, birds would not have evolved into what they are today. It increases the ability to control their center of gravity, lessen the overall weight of the bird to fly, and increase the amount of oxygen the bird can burn for flight.

govols09 said:
Asexual Reproduction This form of reproduction is far more efficient than sexual reproduction. Some species already do this. If evolution creates more complex and efficient being over time, why don't all species reproduce asexually?
Click to expand...

Efficiency is not the name of the game. Increased fitness is the ultimate goal of all organisms. Efficiency tends to be a useful characteristic in achieving the ultimate goal of overall maximum fitness. As you astutely alluded to, asexual reproduction is far more efficient than sexual reproduction. Furthermore, asexual reproduction has a two-fold advantage in the number of offspring it can beget with respect to sexual reproduction.

However, the ultimate goal is to increase fitness. The downside of asexual reproduction is the lack efficiency of DNA repair. In most asexual reproduction organisms, there is just a single plasmid of DNA. Thus, there is not a second DNA plasmid or strand to “check” the original plasmid against for mistakes. This mechanism failure results in many more mistakes being permanently incorporated into the single plasmid. Hence the reason why asexually reproducing organisms evolve way faster than sexually reproducing organisms. Sexually reproduction drastically reduces this problem. Additionally, during sexual reproduction, homologous recombination of sister chromatids occurs during Prophase I of meiosis. This genetic phenomenon greatly increases the genetic diversity of the population. The combination of these two advantages (the masking of mutations and increasing genetic diversity among the population) greatly increase the overall fitness of the species.

There are multiple theories about how sexual reproduction evolved from asexual reproduction. One of them states that a haploid organism obtained the DNA of another similar organism (either similar or same species) and used the new DNA to check its original plasmid for mutations. Another prominent theory revolves around a plasmid transfer mechanism similar to bacterial conjugation. Such a theory is supported by selfish gene theorists. I fall into that camp.

govols09 said:
Fossil Records There is a complete lack of evidence between transitional life forms. I am not talking about smaller humans or larger animals of the same species, I am talking about transitional life forms. If that is how we truly evolved from bacteria, to fish, to fish that could walk etc. there would be much more fossil records to show this. If things get perfected and more complex over time why do we still have "bad" bacteria at all? Why wouldn't sickness just devolve out of existence?
Click to expand...

First, to address your claim about fossil records, it is completely false and unfounded. It is so ridiculous I am not going to spend any time refuting it. I will just advise you visit any prominent natural science museum for all the proof you should ever need.

The second claim about how evolution ought to have evolved into perfection is misguided. Evolution never stops. There is no such thing as perfection. Everything has flaws. The “bad” bacteria are often useful or harmless to other organisms. Evolution is divergent. Therefore, once a branch happens, there is no connection between those branches. The fact that two species share a similar ancestor in no way reflects the fact that they are no longer competitors in the game of life.

govols09 said:
Probability When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible.
Click to expand...

Given the proper and necessary conditions for life, the probability of abiogenesis approaches one given enough time.

govols09 said:
Human existence You said earlier the "missing link" between ape and human had been found. Why are there no links walking the earth today? If we really did mutate from some form of primate species wouldn't there still be some ancestors of this alive today. Humans are more complex and intelligent than primates. Why would all of the primates not have mutated? Why only a select few?
Click to expand...

When we branched off from Neanderthals (we have common ancestor with them) we became different species. A little bit of luck and the fact that we have superior fitness allowed us to survive to the present day. Had it been reversed, the Neanderthals would be the dominate species on Earth.

govols09 said:
Matter Can you explain how things like energy at a molecular level began? Where did this energy come from? Was it always there? What was the universe like before this decided to happen? Was it a vacuum? How would a universe without scientific laws operate? How does it become able to support life.
Click to expand...

To start this off, I will direct you to the 1952 Miller–Urey experiment. It proved that ammonia, hydrogen, water, and methane plus heat and electricity (lightening) could produce amino acids. That is huge. Obviously, amino acids are the building blocks of all life.

I am unsure about the rest of your questions. Them seem more along the lines of rambling. I am not sure if they are abiogenesis in nature or theoretical physics in nature so I will refrain from commenting on them.

Btw orangesparkles, I attended a southern public school from kindergarten through high school.
 
#77
#77
KentheOrange said:
I quit reading after this flawed logic. Even if the earth was only 6,000 years old we could still see objects more than 6,000 light years away if they were older than 6,000 years.
Click to expand...

I think he was alluding to Young Earthers believing that the Earth was created first 6000 years ago and then the rest of the universe. Ergo any stars further than 6000 light years away would not be visible.
 
#78
#78
emainvol said:
that somewhere in a massive universe over the course of billions of years a planet would exhibit the proper conditions to support life and then over billions of years life would form there? No, I think the odds are pretty good
Click to expand...

No the observed odds of that are exactly zero. Life has never at any point been created in a lab despite countless tries involving every type of energy added...electricity, radiation etc. Never. Never will. Only God can give life. Who created mass? Space? Energy? Good luck with that. This argument is endless but the core question is whether you believe eveything came from something (creator) or everything came from nothing ( ?)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#79
#79
KentheOrange said:
I quit reading after this flawed logic. Even if the earth was only 6,000 years old we could still see objects more than 6,000 light years away if they were older than 6,000 years.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know how many people who believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old believe that other stars were created before Earth.

After all, the Bible says that God created the world first, then the stars.
 
#81
#81
PKT_VOL said:
Environmental change and selective pressure. Their flow through respiratory mechanism enables them to fly. Without such a respiratory mechanism, birds would not have evolved into what they are today. It increases the ability to control their center of gravity, lessen the overall weight of the bird to fly, and increase the amount of oxygen the bird can burn for flight.



Efficiency is not the name of the game. Increased fitness is the ultimate goal of all organisms. Efficiency tends to be a useful characteristic in achieving the ultimate goal of overall maximum fitness. As you astutely alluded to, asexual reproduction is far more efficient than sexual reproduction. Furthermore, asexual reproduction has a two-fold advantage in the number of offspring it can beget with respect to sexual reproduction.

However, the ultimate goal is to increase fitness. The downside of asexual reproduction is the lack efficiency of DNA repair. In most asexual reproduction organisms, there is just a single plasmid of DNA. Thus, there is not a second DNA plasmid or strand to “check” the original plasmid against for mistakes. This mechanism failure results in many more mistakes being permanently incorporated into the single plasmid. Hence the reason why asexually reproducing organisms evolve way faster than sexually reproducing organisms. Sexually reproduction drastically reduces this problem. Additionally, during sexual reproduction, homologous recombination of sister chromatids occurs during Prophase I of meiosis. This genetic phenomenon greatly increases the genetic diversity of the population. The combination of these two advantages (the masking of mutations and increasing genetic diversity among the population) greatly increase the overall fitness of the species.

There are multiple theories about how sexual reproduction evolved from asexual reproduction. One of them states that a haploid organism obtained the DNA of another similar organism (either similar or same species) and used the new DNA to check its original plasmid for mutations. Another prominent theory revolves around a plasmid transfer mechanism similar to bacterial conjugation. Such a theory is supported by selfish gene theorists. I fall into that camp.



First, to address your claim about fossil records, it is completely false and unfounded. It is so ridiculous I am not going to spend any time refuting it. I will just advise you visit any prominent natural science museum for all the proof you should ever need.

The second claim about how evolution ought to have evolved into perfection is misguided. Evolution never stops. There is no such thing as perfection. Everything has flaws. The “bad” bacteria are often useful or harmless to other organisms. Evolution is divergent. Therefore, once a branch happens, there is no connection between those branches. The fact that two species share a similar ancestor in no way reflects the fact that they are no longer competitors in the game of life.



Given the proper and necessary conditions for life, the probability of abiogenesis approaches one given enough time.



When we branched off from Neanderthals (we have common ancestor with them) we became different species. A little bit of luck and the fact that we have superior fitness allowed us to survive to the present day. Had it been reversed, the Neanderthals would be the dominate species on Earth.



To start this off, I will direct you to the 1952 Miller–Urey experiment. It proved that ammonia, hydrogen, water, and methane plus heat and electricity (lightening) could produce amino acids. That is huge. Obviously, amino acids are the building blocks of all life.

I am unsure about the rest of your questions. Them seem more along the lines of rambling. I am not sure if they are abiogenesis in nature or theoretical physics in nature so I will refrain from commenting on them.

Btw orangesparkles, I attended a southern public school from kindergarten through high school.
Click to expand...

It was mostly rambling. Like I said I just quickly wrote down arguments in my head I have heard that made some sense to me over the years. Did not mean I believe all of them
 
#82
#82
marcusluvsvols said:
No the observed odds of that are exactly zero. Life has never at any point been created in a lab despite countless tries involving every type of energy added...electricity, radiation etc. Never. Never will. Only God can give life. Who created mass? Space? Energy? Good luck with that. This argument is endless but the core question is whether you believe eveything came from something (creator) or everything came from nothing ( ?)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be "who"?

And assuming mass, space, energy, whatever...had to be "created" in the first place is ridiculous. Everything we know as reality, including time, in all liklihood doesn't even work they way we percieve it. Everything could exist in a closed manifold, with no beginning or end.

Saying it had to be a "God" is putting the cart before the horse. Saying it was a specific God who sent his son to be a first century palestinian carpenter on a random planet orbiting a star on the outskirts of a random galaxy is doubling down on stupid.
 
#83
#83
marcusluvsvols said:
No the observed odds of that are exactly zero. Life has never at any point been created in a lab despite countless tries involving every type of energy added...electricity, radiation etc. Never. Never will. Only God can give life. Who created mass? Space? Energy? Good luck with that. This argument is endless but the core question is whether you believe eveything came from something (creator) or everything came from nothing ( ?)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Actually, at the sub-atomic level, something can quite literally come from nothing.

And I believe someone stated this earlier, but replicating the conditions of the early Earth, they have been able to manufacture amino acids, which is the very basis for life itself.
 
#84
#84
KingNick865 said:
Actually, at the sub-atomic level, something can quite literally come from nothing.

And I believe someone stated this earlier, but replicating the conditions of the early Earth, they have been able to manufacture amino acids, which is the very basis for life itself.
Click to expand...

Even subatomic particles have mass right? So newtons laws of conservation of mass and energy don't apply to subatomic particles? I think you're mistaken. Unless you beleve it is created, something never comes from nothing. Also, an amino acid is not a living thing. You can combine as many amino acids as you'd like, add any artificial or natural catalyst in the universe...and you will have amino acids. Life has never and will never be created by man.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#85
#85
marcusluvsvols said:
Even subatomic particles have mass right? So newtons laws of conservation of mass and energy don't apply to subatomic particles? I think you're mistaken. Unless you beleve it is created, something never comes from nothing. Also, an amino acid is not a living thing. You can combine as many amino acids as you'd like, add any artificial or natural catalyst in the universe...and you will have amino acids. Life has never and will never be created by man.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Actually...not really.

An amino acid is not a living thing, but it forms proteins, which can form single-celled organisms over billions of years.
 
#86
#86
marcusluvsvols said:
No the observed odds of that are exactly zero. Life has never at any point been created in a lab despite countless tries involving every type of energy added...electricity, radiation etc. Never. Never will. Only God can give life. Who created mass? Space? Energy? Good luck with that. This argument is endless but the core question is whether you believe eveything came from something (creator) or everything came from nothing ( ?)
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Where did God come from? And did he/she/it not create everything from nothing? Why did he/she/it need one of Adam's ribs to create Eve?
 
#87
#87
marcusluvsvols said:
Even subatomic particles have mass right? So newtons laws of conservation of mass and energy don't apply to subatomic particles? I think you're mistaken. Unless you beleve it is created, something never comes from nothing. Also, an amino acid is not a living thing. You can combine as many amino acids as you'd like, add any artificial or natural catalyst in the universe...and you will have amino acids. Life has never and will never be created by man.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? Is this one of the "holes" you are poking in evolutionary theory? Seriously, your argument is that since man can't recreate in a short amount of time what took billions of years to occur in nature, that means that evolutionary theory as a whole is false. Think about that for a minute.
 
#88
#88
burntorangeVOLffle said:
Where did God come from? And did he/she/it not create everything from nothing? Why did he/she/it need one of Adam's ribs to create Eve?
Click to expand...

The Mormons are the only religion that I am aware of that teaches where God comes from. There may be others I am not aware of. I have been studying the Mormon since Romney is a devout Mormon and possibly the next POTUS.

The Mormons teach that God the father used to be a man on another planet, that he became a God by following the laws and ordinances of that God on that planet and came to this world with his wife (she became a goddess), and that they produce a spirit offspring in heaven.* These spirit offspring, which includes Jesus, the devil, and you and me,* are all brothers and sisters born in the preexistence.* The preexistence spirits come down and inhabit babies at the time of birth and their memories of the preexistence are lost at the time.* Furthermore, faithful Mormons, who pay a full 10% tithe of their income to the Mormon church through Mormon temples, have the potential of becoming gods of their own planets and are then able to start the procedure over again.
 
#90
#90
Gramps said:
The Mormons are the only religion that I am aware of that teaches where God comes from. There may be others I am not aware of. I have been studying the Mormon since Romney is a devout Mormon and possibly the next POTUS.

The Mormons teach that God the father used to be a man on another planet, that he became a God by following the laws and ordinances of that God on that planet and came to this world with his wife (she became a goddess), and that they produce a spirit offspring in heaven.* These spirit offspring, which includes Jesus, the devil, and you and me,* are all brothers and sisters born in the preexistence.* The preexistence spirits come down and inhabit babies at the time of birth and their memories of the preexistence are lost at the time.* Furthermore, faithful Mormons, who pay a full 10% tithe of their income to the Mormon church through Mormon temples, have the potential of becoming gods of their own planets and are then able to start the procedure over again.
Click to expand...

Wow... Did L Ron Hubbard base Scientology off mormonism?
 
#94
#94
VolByBirth said:
While I don't care that Romney is Mormon, I'd recommend reading Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer. Its a surprisingly easy read on the history of Mormonism.
Click to expand...

I've heard of that book. Maybe one day I'll get to it but Mormons are pretty low on my interests scale.
 
#95
#95
govols09 said:
It was mostly rambling. Like I said I just quickly wrote down arguments in my head I have heard that made some sense to me over the years. Did not mean I believe all of them
Click to expand...

Yeah but there are others that do. It was worth presenting the other side of the coin.
 
#96
#96
Gramps said:
The Mormons are the only religion that I am aware of that teaches where God comes from. There may be others I am not aware of. I have been studying the Mormon since Romney is a devout Mormon and possibly the next POTUS.

The Mormons teach that God the father used to be a man on another planet, that he became a God by following the laws and ordinances of that God on that planet and came to this world with his wife (she became a goddess), and that they produce a spirit offspring in heaven.* These spirit offspring, which includes Jesus, the devil, and you and me,* are all brothers and sisters born in the preexistence.* The preexistence spirits come down and inhabit babies at the time of birth and their memories of the preexistence are lost at the time.* Furthermore, faithful Mormons, who pay a full 10% tithe of their income to the Mormon church through Mormon temples, have the potential of becoming gods of their own planets and are then able to start the procedure over again.
Click to expand...

Their beliefs get more bizarre the more you know about their religion. The hardest thing I have ever had to do was listen to the Mormon I was dating to in high school reveal her beliefs and not laugh in her face. I'm insanely attracted to intelligent girls and she was very bright and down to Earth. However, when it came to her religion all rationality went out of the window. It was truly baffling how a person can be so rational and logical about everything in life but believe such ridiculousness at the same time.
 
#97
#97
Well, I wasn't speaking with you but... top-flight New England boarding school education. I think I've got this.[/QUOTE]


Get off your parent's computer!
 
#98
#98
burntorangeVOLffle said:
Really? Space Aliens that created humans and paying your way to god hood?
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.
After your post I did some research.
I did not realize the similarities, my apologies .

Here is a sample of what I found.

""""" "Similarities:"

"1. Pre-existence of humanity:"
"LDS: All humans pre-existed in the spirit world before being born on earth."

"Scientology: People were thetans in past lives + belief in reincarnation."

"2. Unlimited potential for humans:"
"LDS: Heavenly Father (God) is an exalted man and LDS men may become gods with omnipotence and omniscience.

Scientology: People may become thetans again, regaining their freedom from matter, energy, space, and time (MEST)."

"3. “Salvation” only through their Church:"
"LDS: Exaltation and godhood only through the LDS Church."

"Scientology: Recovering one’s thetanhood only possible through Church of Scientology."

Source:*LDS (Mormonism) and Scientology: A Brief Theological Comparison"""""
 
#99
#99
hog88 said:
The whole debate has (IMHO) been perverted by both sides so much so that it's impossible to have an intellegent debate.

No one can convince me that we "evolved" from the apes, if so when and why did it stop? Not to mention there is ZERO eveidence for this.

What I believe is God put us, or versions of us (and animals) on Earth and from the original species we have evolved.
Click to expand...

Evolution happens everyday. Look at the HIV and AIDS virus. The cure for aids is to cocktail a bunch of different drugs on different days. The virus gets an evolved immunity, then after that pill gets out of the system, the immunity is gone. With evolution, there is devolution. I think as a human race, we're going different directions with a physical capabilities, to survive and try to be superior of course. I'll debate more with this in a different thread
 
#100
#100
KingNick865 said:
Actually...not really.

An amino acid is not a living thing, but it forms proteins, which can form single-celled organisms over billions of years.
Click to expand...

Actually...no. proteins are formed by amino acids. If they are arranged properly. Proteins however do not spring to life. Nothing does. There is exactly zero evidence that life has ever come from an inanimate collection of proteins..which would be ok if it were the crux of a religion. Religions require faith. The problem is that this assumption of something occurring which is mathematically so impossible is part of your scientific belief. Science is conducted using the scientific methhod and doesn't lean on faith. Unless you are talking about evolution as the source of life....in which case you throw the rule book out the window. Then procede to imply or outright say that anyone who doesn't do the same is intellectually inferior....brilliant.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top