SCIENCE: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

  1. #16
    URPG! GliscorMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Johto
    Posts
    2,970
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    I'm going to preface this by saying that my intention is to educate, not to offend.

    There are genetic components which effectively debunk Ken Ham's "family" argument. The homeobox genes.

    Homeobox (HOX) genes refer to a set of ~235 genes present in every single animal species. These genes follow similar patterns within all species, and have the exact same pieces of genetic code preceding them. These highly conserved genetics refer to body parts in a similar way to how a person would code in HTML. A head section, a body section, leg sections, arm sections, etc. It's only the content after these pieces (like after a <header> tag) that differ among species. There have been experiments in which biologists removed the highly-conserved "tag" parts of the HOX gene in a fruit fly embryo and replaced them with the equivalent HOX gene extracted from a human cell. The fly developed and grew completely normally.

    Source

    This might seem confusing to non-biologists, which is why it isn't taught in your average course. But the connotations are clear; the genetics in all animal species shares a common ancestor.

    Also, directed to the people above who believe that the origins of life is a hole in the evolutionist argument, I give you the Miller-Urey experiment.

    Two scientists, way back in the 50's simulated the early-Earth atmosphere environment in a sealed, closed-system, and added heat radiation and electrical sparks (simulating lightning). This combination of chemicals, electricity, and heat actually created over 20 amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of proteins. In addition, this experiment was adjusted in 2007-2008 to include an extra proportion of certain chemicals that are released by volcanic eruptions, because there is geological evidence of such eruptions having occurred. They managed to produce an even wider variety of amino acids.

    Source

    There was also a study which determined that RNA could have easily started reproducing itself by accident, given stable conditions. In addition, it is common knowledge in biology that fatty acids (such as phospholipids) naturally form bubbles similar to the cellular membranes found across all forms of life. I don't have links to these, though, because I don't remember the names of the studies.

    Now, a common argument for Creationism in general is that it's technically possible. Well yes. But it's also possible that the world was created yesterday, under the same argument. Possible, but not at all probable. Similar to the chance of the molecules in my hand aligning just right with the molecules in my keyboard so that my hand falls into the keyboard, molecularly, and gets stuck. Technically possible, but statistically impossible.

    Credit to HikaruIzumi for the awesome avatar!

  2. #17
    Mißingnåen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    No.
    Posts
    15,155
    Trophies
    Blog Entries
    415

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Pschitt View Post
    This debate is just another reminder to me that people really don't like saying "I don't know".
    Did you actually listen to the debate? Bill Nye said "I don't know" several times. Scientists are proud to say they don't know when there is something that science has not yet been able to answer.
    Fyrirgefðu

  3. #18
    Hψ=Eψ H-con's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    63°25′50″N10°23′42″E
    Posts
    4,676
    Blog Entries
    52
    Follow H-con On Twitter Add H-con on Facebook Add H-con on Google+ Add H-con on MySpace
    Add H-con on Linkedin Follow H-con on Tumblr Follow H-con on Flickr Visit H-con's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Pikachu View Post
    From an creationist stance, how is this not explainable by a creationist stance?
    What are you trying to say here? In any case, a creationist view, these bacteria should surely remain stagnant. Why should they develop features that adapt to their surroundings? And why should they develop different traits seeing how they came from the same source?

    There could be two animals in the canidae family that were created, and those canidae would breed and create an large variety of dogs.
    There is really no evidence of this as far as I know. Why just two? Why not several? It really doesn't hold up very well if you ask me.

  4. #19
    Gone 5ever Jolene's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,303
    Blog Entries
    49

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    I really like how Ken Ham brought up that many scientists are actually religious, such as the guy invented MRI scanners. Most people are under the impression that Religion and Science are like water and oil. That they could never mix. A person can be a scientist and still believe in a higher power. Some act as if a person believes in "the imaginary guy in the sky" and "the book of fairy tales" that their scientific contributions cannot be taken seriously.

    Them MRI Scanners are quite useful if you ask me.

    Y > X

  5. #20
    URPG! GliscorMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Johto
    Posts
    2,970
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    @Jolene; I have no qualms with people believing in a higher power. I believe in a higher power. But when people tell other people what to believe, insisting that their view is the only one that can possibly be true (and is, in fact, true), when they force their beliefs to be taught exclusively side-by-side carefully reasoned observations of the natural world, when they delude themselves from what is proven to be true in favor of what cannot in any way be proven, that's when I have a problem.

    Religion is meant to fill in the cracks of what science cannot prove. When people couldn't explain lightning, they turned to religion. When people couldn't explain the tides, gravity, evolution, they turned to religion. Now we can explain these things. Using creationism to explain evolution in a way contrary to science is exactly like arguing that lightning is caused by Thor smiting a giant with his hammer.

    There are only a few major questions which we are currently unable to answer, and probably will not be able to answer. What caused the singularity which produced the Big Bang? Where does our sense of morals come from? How do we define consciousness, and why are we self-conscious? What is my purpose in life? These are the questions that religion is here to answer, why religion exists to this day.

    Credit to HikaruIzumi for the awesome avatar!

  6. #21
    "The Purest Excitement" AbareKiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Gender
    Uncertain
    Location
    The Afterlife
    Posts
    475
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    Quote Originally Posted by GliscorMan View Post
    @Jolene;

    There are only a few major questions which we are currently unable to answer, and probably will not be able to answer. What caused the singularity which produced the Big Bang? Where does our sense of morals come from? How do we define consciousness, and why are we self-conscious? What is my purpose in life? These are the questions that religion is here to answer, why religion exists to this day.
    Which is why religion or belief in some higher power or "God" along the lines of Deism or Letsism will most likely exist for as long as there are humans around.

  7. #22

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    Quote Originally Posted by H-con View Post

    What are you trying to say here? In any case, a creationist view, these bacteria should surely remain stagnant. Why should they develop features that adapt to their surroundings? And why should they develop different traits seeing how they came from the same source?

    There could be two animals in the canidae family that were created, and those canidae would breed and create an large variety of dogs.
    There is really no evidence of this as far as I know. Why just two? Why not several? It really doesn't hold up very well if you ask me.
    In response to the first bolded section, where in the creationist view does it say the bolded cannot happen?

  8. #23
    URPG! GliscorMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Johto
    Posts
    2,970
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    @The_Pikachu; I direct you to my post where I state specific things which the new-earth creationist contradicts.

    Credit to HikaruIzumi for the awesome avatar!

  9. #24

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    Quote Originally Posted by GliscorMan View Post
    I'm going to preface this by saying that my intention is to educate, not to offend.

    There are genetic components which effectively debunk Ken Ham's "family" argument. The homeobox genes.

    Homeobox (HOX) genes refer to a set of ~235 genes present in every single animal species. These genes follow similar patterns within all species, and have the exact same pieces of genetic code preceding them. These highly conserved genetics refer to body parts in a similar way to how a person would code in HTML. A head section, a body section, leg sections, arm sections, etc. It's only the content after these pieces (like after a <header> tag) that differ among species. There have been experiments in which biologists removed the highly-conserved "tag" parts of the HOX gene in a fruit fly embryo and replaced them with the equivalent HOX gene extracted from a human cell. The fly developed and grew completely normally.

    Source

    This might seem confusing to non-biologists, which is why it isn't taught in your average course. But the connotations are clear; the genetics in all animal species shares a common ancestor.

    Also, directed to the people above who believe that the origins of life is a hole in the evolutionist argument, I give you the Miller-Urey experiment.

    Two scientists, way back in the 50's simulated the early-Earth atmosphere environment in a sealed, closed-system, and added heat radiation and electrical sparks (simulating lightning). This combination of chemicals, electricity, and heat actually created over 20 amino acids, which are the basic building blocks of proteins. In addition, this experiment was adjusted in 2007-2008 to include an extra proportion of certain chemicals that are released by volcanic eruptions, because there is geological evidence of such eruptions having occurred. They managed to produce an even wider variety of amino acids.

    Source

    There was also a study which determined that RNA could have easily started reproducing itself by accident, given stable conditions. In addition, it is common knowledge in biology that fatty acids (such as phospholipids) naturally form bubbles similar to the cellular membranes found across all forms of life. I don't have links to these, though, because I don't remember the names of the studies.

    Now, a common argument for Creationism in general is that it's technically possible. Well yes. But it's also possible that the world was created yesterday, under the same argument. Possible, but not at all probable. Similar to the chance of the molecules in my hand aligning just right with the molecules in my keyboard so that my hand falls into the keyboard, molecularly, and gets stuck. Technically possible, but statistically impossible.
    Um, what's his family argument?

  10. #25
    URPG! GliscorMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Johto
    Posts
    2,970
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Pikachu View Post

    Um, what's his family argument?
    The one which states that species evolved within "families", such as a canine family, a feline family, etc.

    Credit to HikaruIzumi for the awesome avatar!

  11. #26

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    Quote Originally Posted by GliscorMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Pikachu View Post

    Um, what's his family argument?
    The one which states that species evolved within "families", such as a canine family, a feline family, etc.
    Ok, so what you're saying is that all life forms are similar to each other. This doesn't however mean that there is the ability for one family to evolve into another family. In fact, one could say that having similar life forms points toward the fact that there was an creator, by simply saying that one "God" created it, and use this to say since one thing created it, his creations are similar.

  12. #27
    URPG! GliscorMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Johto
    Posts
    2,970
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Pikachu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GliscorMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Pikachu View Post

    Um, what's his family argument?
    The one which states that species evolved within "families", such as a canine family, a feline family, etc.
    Ok, so what you're saying is that all life forms are similar to each other. This doesn't however mean that there is the ability for one family to evolve into another family. In fact, one could say that having similar life forms points toward the fact that there was an creator, by simply saying that one "God" created it, and use this to say since one thing created it, his creations are similar.
    I think you mistake what his theory is. It isn't evolution from families into each other, it's the evolution of that entire family from a single member of that family, all within the individual family. And no, you'd expect that humans (supposedly being modeled after God) would have little to nothing in common with other creatures.

    Credit to HikaruIzumi for the awesome avatar!

  13. #28

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    Quote Originally Posted by GliscorMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Pikachu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GliscorMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Pikachu View Post

    Um, what's his family argument?
    The one which states that species evolved within "families", such as a canine family, a feline family, etc.
    Ok, so what you're saying is that all life forms are similar to each other. This doesn't however mean that there is the ability for one family to evolve into another family. In fact, one could say that having similar life forms points toward the fact that there was an creator, by simply saying that one "God" created it, and use this to say since one thing created it, his creations are similar.
    I think you mistake what his theory is. It isn't evolution from families into each other, it's the evolution of that entire family from a single member of that family, all within the individual family. And no, you'd expect that humans (supposedly being modeled after God) would have little to nothing in common with other creatures.
    I don't remember him saying his family theory. Could you show me him explaining it so I can understand his theory? Also, even though something is in the image of something, it doesn't mean that it has nothing in common with other things. For example, you can mold clay into the image of an ball, but the clay ball will still have the same components as regular clay.

  14. #29
    Hψ=Eψ H-con's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    63°25′50″N10°23′42″E
    Posts
    4,676
    Blog Entries
    52
    Follow H-con On Twitter Add H-con on Facebook Add H-con on Google+ Add H-con on MySpace
    Add H-con on Linkedin Follow H-con on Tumblr Follow H-con on Flickr Visit H-con's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Pikachu View Post
    In response to the first bolded section, where in the creationist view does it say the bolded cannot happen?
    First of, why should it? In a strict creationist view, why should life evolve at all? After all, that's implied. In an intelligent design point of view (which is just rebranded creationism), it doesn't really make much sense for only one colony to be favored over all the other when they came from the same source and had the same prerequisites. It really doesn't add up if you ask me.

    Of course, it somewhat depends on what you define as creationism (however, by far a more literal definition is what a lot of people use, and it's what I'm arguing against here). However, seeing how abiogenesis and evolution are somewhat different things, and no doubt there's probably a fair bunch of people that god (or whatever you want to believe in) created life originally and then let evolution do it's thing. I guess we could theoretically prove abiogenesis possible by simulating it ourselves (emphasis on the theoretical bit, as the time scales involved are probably pretty large and replicating exact environments is realistically not going to happen any time soon, although some experiments have been made with somewhat positive results, as posted earlier.), but people would still argue whether or not it actually happened, not just if it can.

  15. #30
    URPG! GliscorMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Johto
    Posts
    2,970
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default Re: Bill Nye debates creationism with Ken Ham

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Pikachu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GliscorMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Pikachu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GliscorMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Pikachu View Post

    Um, what's his family argument?
    The one which states that species evolved within "families", such as a canine family, a feline family, etc.
    Ok, so what you're saying is that all life forms are similar to each other. This doesn't however mean that there is the ability for one family to evolve into another family. In fact, one could say that having similar life forms points toward the fact that there was an creator, by simply saying that one "God" created it, and use this to say since one thing created it, his creations are similar.
    I think you mistake what his theory is. It isn't evolution from families into each other, it's the evolution of that entire family from a single member of that family, all within the individual family. And no, you'd expect that humans (supposedly being modeled after God) would have little to nothing in common with other creatures.
    I don't remember him saying his family theory. Could you show me him explaining it so I can understand his theory? Also, even though something is in the image of something, it doesn't mean that it has nothing in common with other things. For example, you can mold clay into the image of an ball, but the clay ball will still have the same components as regular clay.
    The closest I can find is this summary:

    Finches come from a common finch, Ham argues, not another common animal. That’s why Noah only needed one species of dog on the ark. "Dogs will always be dogs, finches will always be finches."

    This is roughly 26 minutes into the debate, if you find an online version and care to skim around. It heavily implies that these species have nothing in common, when the HOX genes disprove this. You can take HOX genes from any animal and substitute them into any other animal with no abnormal effects.

    Credit to HikaruIzumi for the awesome avatar!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •