Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164, 712]

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Peter Grimm said:

That's pretty much what the theory of evolution states, favoring colloquialism over taxonomic nitpicky-ness, of course.

Click to expand...

Where? Show us. What 21st century science books are you using to claim this? Favoring "colloquialism"? You mean completely ignoring the fact that science is not a colloquial matter of interpretation? Give us the hard facts. Where does the theory of evolution state humans evolves from slime on a rock? Remember, you're the one making the false claims here. Not us. So come on. Show us a single biology book that says slime on a rock or anything resembling such a colloquialism.

This is slime on a rock:



This is RNA:



Do you know the difference?

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Hatuey said:

... Uh... that's about as accurate as stating we evolved from monkeys. Can you please tell us what biology books taught you that humans evolved from slime on a rock? Actually, can you show us what biology books teach on the origins of life? Here is one:

The Origins of Life



Hm. No slime on a rock.

Evolutionary Biology/Early History of Life on Planet Earth - Wikibooks, open books for an open world



No slime on a rock there either. Third times the charm, yes?

The RNA World and the Origins of Life - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf



Nope. No slime on a rock either. What slime are you talking about? Which rock?

Click to expand...

LOL ok man, we don't have to call it slime on a rock if you don't want. We can call it soupy, gunky bugger stuff.

Primordial soup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm gonna hold out though, and insist that it was slimy. I'm sure a mass of unformed organic goo would be.

Sorry... I'm disrespecting your ancestors here. That slime on a rock will one day become your aunt Flo. That goo in the pond over there, that's going to become your dog, Roofus.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Hatuey said:

This is slime on a rock:

Click to expand...

Hey! That's our family you're talking about! And they're not wearing any clothes.... how rude.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Peter Grimm said:

LOL ok man, we don't have to call it slime on a rock if you don't want. We can call it soupy, gunky bugger stuff.

Primordial soup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm gonna hold out though, and insist that it was slimy. I'm sure a mass of unformed organic goo would be.

Sorry... I'm disrespecting your ancestors here. That slime on a rock will one day become your aunt Flo. That goo in the pond over there, that's going to become your dog, Roofus.

Click to expand...

Do you... do you... read your own links? Do you understand the importance of simplifying terms? Obviously you do not as the general information they convey do not get to you. There is no literal/colloquial slime or soup.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Hatuey said:

Do you... do you... read your own links? Do you understand the importance of simplifying terms? Obviously you do not as the general information they convey do not get to you. There is no literal/colloquial slime or soup.

Click to expand...

I would think there would be, as the title of the Wiki page is "Primordial SOUP."

Hence, thus, and therefore, I'd be inclined to believe that there is, indeed, a colloquial "soup," as it were.

But clearly we're not seeing eye to eye here. Or is that flipper to flipper?

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Peter Grimm said:

I would think there would be, as the title of the Wiki page is "Primordial SOUP."

Click to expand...

It's a good thing sometimes you have to read more than the titles to understand things. It saves you the trouble of being exposed as ignorant. It's alright though, I had the same problem once. I thought The Hunger Games was a documentary about poor people. Then, I watched it and realized it was pure fiction. Boy, I'm glad I didn't assume anything and learned it wasn't. However, as we can see - your colloquial understanding of evolution is beyond reproach. All we can hope for is that which such gems as "assumptions preclude learning" you never become a teacher of any sort.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Hatuey said:

It's a good thing sometimes you have to read more than the titles to understand things. It saves you the trouble of being exposed as ignorant. It's alright though, I had the same problem once. I thought The Hunger Games was a documentary about poor people. Then, I watched it and realized it was pure fiction. Boy, I'm glad I didn't assume anything and learned it wasn't. However, as we can see - your colloquial understanding of evolution is beyond reproach. All we can hope for is that which such gems as "assumptions preclude learning" you never become a teacher of any sort.

Click to expand...

So the primordial soup is not soup-like after all, says you? And it's not slimy either? Just trying to get the facts straight.

I would never take the pay cut to become a teacher.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Peter Grimm said:

So the primordial soup is not soup-like after all, says you?

Click to expand...

Says.... the actual theory. Did you... did you read the link you posted? You're sounding extremely uninformed right about now.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Peter Grimm said:

So a bunch of atheists peer-review each other's papers, and that makes it fact. Sounds like fascism to me.

I'll go with the American People over what some university pinheads think. In the democratic forum of ideas, the people have spoken: they believe in God and only 32% believe in evolution due to natural processes (2009 Pew Research).

Click to expand...

You mean people with no religious preconceived ideas about evolution reviewed the scientific data and found them to be correct. No religiously biased pseudo scientists have been able to prove that evolution is incorrect or blown any holes into evolutionary evidence.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Hatuey said:

Says.... the actual theory. Did you... did you read the link you posted? You're sounding extremely uninformed right about now.

Click to expand...

Why, oh why do I allow myself to get dragged in to these mind-numbing debates. Why why why. Sigh. OK fine, here's your proof (ie text from "my actual link", now go take a cold shower.

Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows:

- The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.

- This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").

- These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).

- By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Peter Grimm said:

Why, oh why do I allow myself to get dragged in to these mind-numbing debates. Why why why. Sigh. OK fine, here's your proof (ie text from "my actual link", now go take a cold shower.

Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows:

- The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.

- This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").

- These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).

- By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup.

Click to expand...

Do you understand why it's put in quotation marks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Signaling_unusual_usage

Quotation marks are also used to indicate that the writer realizes that a word is not being used in its current commonly accepted sense:

Crystals somehow "know" which shape to grow into.

In addition to conveying a neutral attitude and to call attention to a neologism, or slang, or special terminology (also known as jargon), quoting can also indicate words or phrases that are descriptive but unusual, colloquial, folksy, startling, humorous, metaphoric, or contain a pun: Dawkins's concept of a meme could be described as an "evolving idea".

People also use quotation marks in this way to distance the writer from the terminology in question so as not to be associated with it, for example to indicate that a quoted word is not official terminology, or that a quoted phrase presupposes things that the author does not necessarily agree with; or to indicate special terminology that should be identified for accuracy's sake as someone else's terminology, as when a term (particularly a controversial term) pre-dates the writer or represents the views of someone else, perhaps without judgement (contrast this neutrally-distancing quoting to the negative use of scare quotes).

The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition,[9] acknowledges this type of use but, in section 7.58, cautions against its overuse: "Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense … [T]hey imply 'This is not my term,' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused."

Click to expand...

I can't believe I'm actually explaining this concept. Is there someone near your computer with a basic grasp of science & use of punctuation? This is pretty basic stuff here Grimm and you're looking uninformed again. It's called "a soup" by the author of the wiki article, but he's not literally speaking about a soup in understood sense of the word. It's not even a literal "slime" of any sort. The fact that it's a summarized account of what the theory is about should give you a clue.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Peter King said:

You mean people with no religious preconceived ideas about evolution reviewed the scientific data and found them to be correct. No religiously biased pseudo scientists have been able to prove that evolution is incorrect or blown any holes into evolutionary evidence.

Click to expand...

Yawn.

No, I mean precisely what I said: a bunch of atheists peer-review each others papers.

According to Pew 2009, only 33% of scientists believe in God. Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

According to a 2005 study done by Elaine Ecklund of Rice University, the percentage is lower for biologists than it is for other scientists.

So yes, indeed, the people who are peer-reviewing papers on evolution are, as I've colloquially coined them, a "bunch of atheists" whose beliefs don't track those of the general population.

And before you say "well they're so much better educated than everyone else, that's why they don't believe in a silly thing like God," I'd remind you that the same Pew survey found that 76% of medical doctors in the United States believe in God.... and, as we all know, it takes quite a bit of education to become a doctor.

Dare I say, it takes one or two courses in evolution to get that medical degree as well. Lol.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Hatuey said:

Do you understand why it's put in quotation marks?

Quotation mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I can't believe I'm actually explaining this concept. Is there someone near your computer with a basic grasp of science & use of punctuation? This is pretty basic stuff here Grimm and you're looking uninformed again. It's called "a soup" by the author of the wiki article, but he's not literally speaking about a soup in understood sense of the word. It's not even a literal "slime" of any sort. The fact that it's a summarized account of what the theory is about should give you a clue.

Click to expand...

It's put in quotation marks because it's a colloquialism. Just like I said it was about two pages ago. I'm amused by this.... what kind of soup did you think I meant, Campbell's Chicken Noodle?

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Peter Grimm said:

It's put in quotation marks because it's a colloquialism. Just like I said it was about two pages ago. I'm amused by this.... what kind of soup did you think I meant, Campbell's Chicken Noodle?

Click to expand...

Actually, you called it slime to begin with. Then refined it to mean "a soup". Then you even implied it was a literal soup. Which it isn't. Actually, you've even been wrong about what the initial claim:

The theory of evolution, in simplistic terms, states that you and I evolved from slime on a rock.

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, I count about 23 different possible explanations for the appearance of life. None of which speak of an actual soup of any sort. None of which have been conclusively established as how life originated but certainly have more evidence to support them than a god of the gaps. The primordial "soup" thing? They're simplifying a state in a way you can understand it. It seems they're going to have to simplify it even further in your case.

I think the best part about this entire thing is that you're so caught up in trying to disprove 1 of the currently studied explanation as to how life came to exist that you ignore the other 22. I guess that's the problem with science. It's gotten so complex that the material you're discussing even by your admission has been dumbed down for your understanding. In other words, it's actually so complex that you can't discuss it as anything other than as a layman and in anything other than layman terms. You've even gone so far as to show that the reason you dismiss evolution is because of 1 of the explanations. The one you understand in very basic terms anyways.

I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing but I definitely understand where you're coming from. I mean, if we check your posts, you've been stating that humans literally came from rat looking mammals. In your head, the explanation seems to work as an overnight sort of thing. One day we're rat looking things, the next we're wearing suits. Only that's not really how scientists have mapped out evolution and I think you know it but refuse to acknowledge it. Acknowledging it would mean actually taking the time to explore the mountains of evidence that range from geological finds to genetics to microbiology and there is no time for that in this discussion. You'd much rather play the outraged Mr. Jennings and scream "I ain't come from no monkey!" because anything more complex than that would probably require moving away from your established religious assumptions.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Hatuey said:

Actually, you called it slime to begin with. Then refined it to mean "a soup". Then you even implied it was a literal soup. Which it isn't. Actually, you've even been wrong about what the initial claim:



Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, I count about 23 different possible explanations for the appearance of life. None of which speak of an actual soup of any sort. None of which have been conclusively established as how life originated but certainly have more evidence to support them than a god of the gaps. The primordial "soup" thing? They're simplifying a state in a way you can understand it. It seems they're going to have to simplify it even further in your case.

Click to expand...

Wow.

When I say we evolved from "slime on a rock" it's pretty obvious that I'm sacrificing a bit of taxonomic exactness for the sake of punchiness.

I know some people are just missing the gene that allows them to key in to that stuff.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.....


No...wait...thats silly.

In the beginning there was...nothing...a vast expanse of nothing which can only be described as a nothingness...a vacuum...a complete lack of existence of all matter of any nature. Nothing...less than the size of a pinpoint...less because in fact even the pinpoint didnt exist. There was in every way, shape and form...nothing. Less than nothing. Then...there was this mysterious explosion...or rather implosion...caused by...nothing...which suddenly and in an instant created matter of all nature, planets, elements, and an ever expanding cosmos........

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Peter Grimm said:

Wow.

When I say we evolved from "slime on a rock" it's pretty obvious that I'm sacrificing a bit of taxonomic exactness for the sake of punchiness.

I know some people are just missing the gene that allows them to key in to that stuff.

Click to expand...

Now you're starting to cooperate. However, you're not quite there yet. You still think we evolved from "a soup". Can you tell us what Homo Sapien's most recent ancestor is? While you're researching, can you tell us what it is that frightens you so much about the concept of there being a natural explanation to the existence of life?

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

VanceMack said:

In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.....


No...wait...thats silly.

In the beginning there was...nothing...a vast expanse of nothing which can only be described as a nothingness...a vacuum...a complete lack of existence of all matter of any nature. Nothing...less than the size of a pinpoint...less because in fact even the pinpoint didnt exist. There was in every way, shape and form...nothing. Less than nothing.

Click to expand...

HowStuffWorks "What existed before the big bang?"

According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle.

Click to expand...

Then...there was this mysterious explosion...or rather implosion...caused by...nothing...which suddenly and in an instant created matter of all nature, planets, elements, and an ever expanding cosmos........

Click to expand...

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our Universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space.

Click to expand...

I wish you'd seriously just did some 4 minutes of research on the stuff you're trying to mock. It would save you a lot of embarrassment. Look, if we're going to get into asking questions: Where did a creator come from? Obviously, a creator, whether he is god, allah, whatever - can't come out of thin air, yes? So what created the creator? Who created the creator? What created the creator's creator? If you open that can of worms....

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Hatuey said:

HowStuffWorks "What existed before the big bang?"





Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I wish you'd seriously just did some 4 minutes of research on the stuff you're trying to mock. It would save you a lot of embarrassment.

Click to expand...

Where did all the matter come from? Dont give me 'theory'...give me facts. Science baby. Where did it all come from?

From your cited articles...I'd just point out that they have listed several contradictory theories to the 'big bang...all of course theories that go with the supposition that all of that stuff just existed so lets create a theory from a threory...and it ends with this gem...

What existed before the big bang? It's still an open question. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps another universe or a different version of our own. Perhaps a sea of universes, each with a different set of laws dictating its physical reality.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

VanceMack said:

Where did all the matter come from? Dont give me 'theory'...give me facts. Science baby. Where did it all come from?

Click to expand...

Curious About Astronomy: Where did the matter in the universe come from?

Where did that matter come from? I mean said:

When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. (An antiparticle is the exact opposite of the corresponding particle--for example, a proton has charge +e, so an antiproton has charge -e.) This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). It turns out that the photon is just one of a class of particles, called the bosons, that decay in this manner. Many of the bosons around just after the big bang were so energetic that they could decay into much more massive particles such as protons (remember, E=mc^2, so to make a particle with a large mass m, you need a boson with a high energy E). The mass in the universe came from such decays.

Click to expand...

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Hatuey said:

Curious About Astronomy: Where did the matter in the universe come from?

Click to expand...

Ah...so...is that 'the answer'? Because...the articles you cited seem to believe all that stuff is theory and theory based on theory, theory which still cant account for the original existence of 'something'....

Im sure the scientific community will be excited to learn that it has been finally proven as to what happened, how it all came about, and we can put an end to all those other silly theories that so many cling to in their magical belief system.

Edit...from the cited article...

"In the beginning, there was not yet any matter. However, there was a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons."

OK...so where did the magical discreet packets of light called photons come from that magically came into existence and from which, all form of mass and element appeared? Oh...and I suppose we should also ask where the source of extreme heat came from that converted the baryons into competing matter types. And is this all settled then? No competing scientific theory? We are 'proven'...right? Cuz...you have apparently bought into it full on with no question. And why should YOU question it...you just 'believe'...because someone else says it is so. Or at least....they theorize that it is so.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

SouthernDemocrat said:

I don't know why he would debate a creationist. That debate was settled over 100 years ago. By debating them you give the appearance of legitimacy to their arguments when there is no legitimacy to them. Would you debate someone that claimed the earth was flat? Would you debate someone that claimed the earth was the center of the universe? How about debating someone that believed that mental illness resulted from demonic possession? How about debating someone that rejected the law of gravity and instead asserted that objects fall to the earth due to God's divine force acting upon them?

There are two fundamental laws in Biology:

1. All of the phenomena of biology, the entities and the processes, are ultimately obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry. Not immediately reducible to them, but ultimately consistent and in consilience with them, by a cause and effect explanation.

2. All biological phenomena, these entities and processes that define life itself, have arisen by evolution through natural selection.

The fact that some ignorant fundamentalists don't accept that has does not call those laws into question. It merely demonstrates their ignorance. I am all for scientists doing a better job of communicating the science behind evolution to the masses, but debating some nut and thus giving legitimacy to that nut's position is a bad idea in my opinion.

Click to expand...

dawkins sums it up nicely

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

VanceMack said:

Ah...so...is that 'the answer'? Because...the articles you cited seem to believe all that stuff is theory and theory based on theory, theory which still cant account for the original existence of 'something'....

Click to expand...

... Theory? You do realize that less than 2 years ago the Standard Model was proven to be correct. Yes? Here:

Higgs boson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 4 July 2012, it was announced that a previously unknown particle with a mass between 125 and 127 GeV/c2 (134.2 and 136.3 amu) had been detected; physicists suspected at the time that it was the Higgs boson.[14][9][15] By March 2013, the particle had been proven to behave, interact and decay in many of the ways predicted by the Standard Model, and was also tentatively confirmed to have positive parity and zero spin,[1] two fundamental attributes of a Higgs boson.

Click to expand...

Seriously man, you're way out of your zone here. Particle decay is not "a theory"....

OK...so where did the magical discreet packets of light called photons come from that magically came into existence and from which, all form of mass and element appeared?

Click to expand...

Photons are generated by many natural processes. They are emitted when a charged particle is accelerated. They also can be released when a molecule, atom or nucleus goes from one energy state to another. Finally, photons are released when a particle and its antiparticle are annihilated. This last process may sound unfamiliar. An example of a particle and its antiparticle is an electron (particle) and the positron (antiparticle). When these two subatomic particles encounter each other, both are nullified and often photons are released.

Read more: Where Do Photons Come From? | eHow

Click to expand...

Seriously man...

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Thought people would be interested.



Enjoy.

Cheers,
Fallen.

re: Bill Nye the Science Guy to debate Creation museum founder Ken Ham[W:164]

Hatuey said:

Now you're starting to cooperate. However, you're not quite there yet. You still think we evolved from "a soup". Can you tell us what Homo Sapien's most recent ancestor is? While you're researching, can you tell us what it is that frightens you so much about the concept of there being a natural explanation to the existence of life?

Click to expand...

I don't think we evolved from a "soup," I think evolution is just wrong. Likewise, I'm not frightened by there being a natural explanation to the existence of life, I just think the theory is wrong.

Follow me down this rabbit hole for a second, if you would.

We discovered DNA in 1953. That basically consisted of some fuzzy x-rays and a nice model and predictions by watson and crick that turned out to be pretty good. We didn't begin sequencing genomes until 2003. To date, we still haven't sequenced the majority of earth's species and, even those that we have, all we have is a reference of a few sample donors.

All that said, we still don't know what the vast majority of genes even do. So to sum it up, our knowledge of genetics in 2014 is in its infancy. We have so much more to learn it's unfathomable.

As we learn more about genetics, we will inevitably find a lot of things we didn't expect. There's no question that will happen as genes are incalculably complicated, and we've just begun to scratch the surface when it comes to understanding them. With those new discoveries, new theories about how and why they mutate and how and why different phenotypes occur are a certainty.

It's not a matter of if evolution, at least in its current form, will be turned on its head. It's a matter of when.