The end of Obamacare?

Post Reply New Topic

The 2cd poll shows 60% of republicans believe man was created "as is" in the past 10,000 years. 38% of Democrats held that view. That would likely be some form of YECism, the most delusional form of creationism.



But, for YECs, that's pretty large portion of science. They doubt biology, genetics, astronomy, geology, physics, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, etc. For them to add climatologists to that list is really not a stretch. They are conditioned to believe that at best scientists are completely incompetent and at worst, engaged in a massive conspiracy to undermine the bible.

Um... YECism actually typically requires belief in a massive anti-Christian conspiracy among the scientific community. How else do they explain the fact that everyone better-informed than them is wrong? Are scientists who spend decades studying this stuff actually more ignorant than someone who barely passed high school chem class?


In one sense it isn't, because both are basically just relying on authorities to give them conclusions. However, it is rational to defer to experts in a field that you are not familiar with. I don't know physics; if a physicist tells me something about their field I will generally trust it to be true. If a pastor tells me something about physics (and I have seen YEC arguments that involve physics) I will generally not trust it. Similarly, I would trust a pastor's claims about theology over an engineer's. It's a matter of finding relevant authorities to trust, since no one can be an expert in everything.


I mean, don't you see a problem with the fact that you rejected evolution based on your own ignorance of the subject.


I call Dunning-Kruger.

I could say the same thing about evolutionists too. There is something known as the periodic table of elements, you should look at it sometime.

The chemical composition and structure of amino acids and DNA is kind of interesting, the chemicals that make it up are not very reactive to each other, there are a number of other elements that they would immediately react to instead of combining with each other. While yeah they can make amino acids in a laboratory environment, that laboratory environment did not exist on early Earth. In fact the idea of life coming into being on its own was if I remember correctly about as good as a tornado ripping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747. I think that was in a A Case for Faith.

The Evolution theory explains a lot, but it completely and utterly breaks down when we get to how life begins.

There was too much "stuff" in laymens terms flying around on Earth (in atmosphere, water, etc.) that would be more reactive to the chemicals in amino acids than they would be to each other. By that very fact they would react with those chemicals not with each other, it is basic chemistry. That's why Cessium has a more violent reaction in water than Sodium (I'm not talking about Sodium Chloride which disolves in water, talking about the element).



There are pastors out there that also have Physics degrees you know. Furthermore, speaking from experience there are times you shouldn't trust an engineer concerning technology and designing something. They seem to not understand the concept of usuablity testing at times.




Well Orwell, there are Creationists that know quite a bit about science and evolutionists that don't know jack squat about anything scientifically oriented.



Just cause something can be produced in a laboratory environment doesn't mean it could likely happen in nature due to the fact it isn't a controlled environment.


Anyways what does this have to do with Obamacare?

Ignore recently-found evidence for arsenic-based life whilst reading the above post. Cause if you don't ignore such evidence, you'll want to yell out loud at the screen and you will look ridiculous doing so.

Yes I know about arsenic based life, that still doesn't address the chemistry issue.

How? That makes no sense whatsoever. Evolutionists don't need to posit a massive conspiracy that attempts to suppress the truth.


I'm well aware of the periodic table. I'm one class away from a chem minor.


And that book is drivel. Anyways, it is currently thought that early life used RNA for its genetic code, and DNA was a later development.


OK. So? Evolution doesn't talk about the beginnings of life. It talks about how life changes. You may as well complain that Newtonian mechanics doesn't explain electromagnetism.


You completely missed the point.


There are not Creationists who understand biology very well, though. And "evolutionist" isn't a meaningful term. Are you a Galileist? A Newtonist? A Copernican?

And you, once again, missed the point. My question was directed specifically at AngelRho, who by his own admission rejects evolution based on his own ignorance of the subject. That actually is a very common thing among creationists, but most of them do not admit to it so readily.


You have no idea what I even said there, do you?

No they just to be obnoxious and can't get it through their heads that their beliefs have weak points.



I thought you said before you were a math minor?



How was the book proven to be bad?

Btw, RNA is different from DNA, but not that different and is supposedly less stable than DNA.

RNA and DNA are both nucleic acids, but differ in three main ways. First, unlike DNA, which is, in general, double-stranded, RNA is a single-stranded molecule in many of its biological roles and has a much shorter chain of nucleotides. Second, while DNA contains deoxyribose, RNA contains ribose (in deoxyribose there is no hydroxyl group attached to the pentose ring in the 2' position). These hydroxyl groups make RNA less stable than DNA because it is more prone to hydrolysis. Third, the complementary base to adenine is not thymine, as it is in DNA, but rather uracil, which is an unmethylated form of thymine.[1]

Like DNA, most biologically active RNAs, including mRNA, tRNA, rRNA, snRNAs, and other non-coding RNAs, contain self-complementary sequences that allow parts of the RNA to fold and pair with itself to form double helices. Structural analysis of these RNAs has revealed that they are highly structured. Unlike DNA, their structures do not consist of long double helices but rather collections of short helices packed together into structures akin to proteins. In this fashion, RNAs can achieve chemical catalysis, like enzymes.[2] For instance, determination of the structure of the ribosome—an enzyme that catalyzes peptide bond formation—revealed that its active site is composed entirely of RNA.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA

Escentially water can pretty much take RNA apart.



Okay, then how did life begin? That's what Creationism is about how life began, not how it potentially changed after it was created.



Actually I didn't, I was saying just because someone has a fancy degree doesn't mean they always know what they are talking about.



Then how is Creationist a meaningful term then, if evolutionist is not a meaningful term. Seriously, stop with the double standard.



I would argue a lot of evolutionists also don't know jack squat, either so what's your point?



I was guessing it was some lab experiment in which either DNA or RNA was created in a lab. I didn't look it up cause I was in a hurry.

Looking now it looks like you were being completely off topic, I had assumed it was something relevent to the conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger

So in other words are you implying people are having Delusions of Grandeur? I would argue that liberal elitists are usually the ones suffering from that effect mentioned in wiki.

Ask any real scientist, and they will admit that there is plenty that is unknown/unexplained. But the current theory is the best approximation to reality possible based on current data and understanding. I highly doubt that you are even close to the level where you understand what the actual problems in biology are.


Math major, thank you very much. Also a biology major, and a history major.


I know what RNA is. And yes, it is significantly less stable than DNA. Early life probably relied heavily on ribozymes (catalytic RNA) which essentially fulfilled the roles that both DNA and proteins combine to fill in modern life.


Separate area of biology. At the moment we don't have anything better than speculation on this point.


I use "Creationism" as shorthand for "Young-Earth Creationism," since that is the form that is relevant in these discussions. Young-Earth Creationism does conflict with evolutionary biology. It also conflicts with chemistry, physics, geology, archeology, and probably several other fields.


However, a person with a degree is more likely to know what they are talking about than a person with no educational background in the field. It is perfectly rational to defer to people who know better than you on a given topic. We all do so on a regular basis whenever we follow a physician's prescription, or allow someone else to repair our cars.


An "evolutionist" is merely one who accepts modern science as valid. "Creationists" are like the Flat-Earthers. I don't call myself a round-Earther, so why do I have to label myself as an "evolutionist?"


Are you referring to laypeople or actual scientists? If the former, so what? If the latter, you're wrong.


Basically, creationists are too ignorant of the science to understand that they are missing a lot of relevant knowledge. It's probably one of the best examples of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You of course are the prime example in every subject you discuss.

If you just mean 'creationist,' as a god-of-the-gaps argument for the origin of life on this planet, but do not dispute the age of the Earth or the evolution that occurred after the origin of life, then I personally have no problem with that - as long as you do not, as theists so often do, say, 'God did it, so you are arrogant to keep on looking for any other explanation and we're going to defund your science.' Keep your beliefs, but stay out of our way while we look for the real answers.

As far as young-earth creationists goes, the common term is 'not even wrong.'

Hold it, Orwell. You're suffering from a slight oxygen overload from too much trombone practice. That is NOT what I said.

I said I "rejected" evolution based on my ignorance. "Rejected," as in past tense.

Based on the evidence for evolution, I do accept evolution as occurring so far as it is seen in nature or demonstrated in the lab. You do see limited speciation and you do see adaptive variations. I do accept that. What I DON'T blindly accept is the whole "humans-from-monkeys" kind of evolution that remains conclusively unproven. We have our best guesses from geology and the fossil record, and something much more groundbreaking than what SOME claim to be would be required for me to wholeheartedly buy into it.

Dunning-Kruger? I don't know. Maybe. For me, it's more about not really being that interested. More of a passing interest. And yeah, I can admit that I'm not really qualified to go at length defending or refuting evolution. I'm more of a creationist than an evolutionist, and where I do see evolution as something that does happen, it does not interfere with special creation. And before you accuse me of being YC, I've said before that I have no idea how old the earth is and that the Bible does not reliably determine the earth's age. There are very few instances where the Bible does keep up with a precise chronology, but for the rest the Bible is unclear and unconcerned. You also have the gaps in Genesis 1 which could account for the passage of thousands or even millions of years.

The main problem as I see it is when evolution is misunderstood by both sides of the argument. Creationists see it as an anti-theistic threat against their beliefs. People who like to shout "Evolution!" as a refutation of special creation don't always seem to me to really represent the scientific community or their ethics, and it seems to me it's really just a justification for their own beliefs (or lack thereof, whichever is the case). In that sense, the kind of evolution they propose, especially if these people are non-scientists, amounts to little more than science fiction. Science treads dangerous grounds when it is used to dictate theological points.

The common descent of all life is quite well supported by the evidence. Certainly common descent of the primate family is very well established.


You do realize the majority of scientists in this country are Christian, right? There is no reason why someone who accepts established scientific fact must be anti-religious.

Someone conversant with modern science, especially physics and chemistry would, most likely, not be a biblical literalist. It is possible to be a believing Christian or Jews without taking the scriptures literally.

ruveyn

"Supported by the evidence" doesn't mean that there aren't other explanations, though. It's not like you can go back in a time machine and observe it to happen, nor can you accelerate the supposed process in a lab setting. You can show things like how mosquitos can become resistant to DDT over time when enough DDT-resistant mosquitos breed out of a general mosquito population. Same thing with bacteria exposed to antibiotics when a course of treatment fails to kill off all bacteria. In the absence of certain environmental factors, such as pesticide or antibiotics, things tend to go right back to normal.

Where evolution as I see it, fails is in the assertion that it DID happen beyond any reasonable doubt or that it is the ONLY explanation for what we see. Evolution on the scale of what some people assert HAD to have happen cannot be tested. If science cannot test something, then it is science fiction.


No, and that is true. But you can't deny that there are those who are anti-religious. I have no idea why, but it seems that those arguments are the ones that seem to get the most attention.

Right here I'm just going to say that you don't know how science works.


It is the only proposed explanation for what we see that fits with the data. And it can, and has, been tested many times.


Most of the scientific community really has no issue with Christianity, or any desire to attack religion. The only major exception to this that I can think of is Richard Dawkins.

The theory of evolution doesnt say anything about the origin of life. You might as well doubt the theory of relativity for the same reason. It also says nothing about the origin of life.

You are attempting to dispute naturalism, a philosophy.



Creationism as described in the polls above is a belief that man was created as is in the recent past. That's what the poll shows. There are variants on this but that's one of the core identifiers. The term comes from the original YEC label, Scientific Creationism. You can have old earth creationists and young earth creationists or a vaguer ID creationist who can fit anywhere on the spectrum. YECs often claim to support ID, as do theistic evolutionists who imagine that god left fingerprints (that have yet to be found).

People who believe that evolution occurred but that god provided the initial spark are theistic evolutionists.



The evidence is not only fossils, its genetic relations. They can see places in related species where they share damaged genes, passed down from a common ancestor. Just as expected. The genetic evidence confirmed the fossil relations and that's called the twin nested hierarchy. It's those genetic links that led Michael Denton, a creationist author, to quit creationism.

And as long as it can be falsified, it's still in the realm of science. There are other fields that rely on a mix of historical reconstruction and observation as well. Astronomy, Cosmology, Geology...

You should look up Francis Collins, an evangelical who formerly ran the human genome project. He thinks that christians who doubt evolution are being deceived and that their views are "just ludicrous".

Last edited by simon_says on 06 Feb 2011, 1:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't understand what we're arguing about. Pretty much everyone here is on the same page regarding the fact that the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years.