Debunking creationism

Remove all ads!

Warning Replied.

As the post has got corrupted and I don't have it saved anywhere, I guess it's best for me to stop participating in this thread. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to spend another hour or something like that assembling a new one.

If anyone actually feels attacked by me, PMing me is generally encouraged.

 

It has occured to me while I was engaged in a conversation with another board member through PM that part of the reason this very thread seemed to put some off people here is due to a misunderstanding of what creationism itself is.

SOme seem to have equated 'creationism' as I used the term here with general belief that "God created" and therefore titling a thread "Debunking Creationism" seemed like an attack on general "believers".

Allow me to clarify something:

Creationsim, as it is used by deniers of evolution as well as the evolutionists who refute these folks' argument, denotes a very specific position on a matter of science. It IS the equaivalent of "Holocaust denial" and other "lunatic fringe" beliefs and when I purport to "Debunk" such I am NOT trying to debunk someone's belief that God ultimately created everything. I am debunking the claim that evolution can not account for speciation/biodiversity and that it is not well supported by evidence/experiment.

MOST christians are not creationists(let alone theists in general)!

Less than one half of one percent of scientists in general call themselves "creationist". OF scientists whose field is relevent to the subject, less than one TENTH of one percent are creationists.

I am not making an argument ad populi here, i am just trying to illustrate that creationism proper is not a "widely held and accepted belief" which is totally unlike Holocaust denial, which is what one BoA member recently tried to tell me.

In terms of who is believing and how many of them creationism(or "Evolution denial") is no different than the belief that no jews were killed in death camps during WW2.

Note: I am NOT saying that people who believe creationism are MORALLY the equivalent of nazis.

 

@RuneQuester

Someday I truly hope I find something that I agree with you on, but now I still take objection to even your last post.

Creationism is simply the belief that our world was created by a supreme power at some point in time. Creationism is not at odds with elements of evolutionary theory. A creationist knows that even if natural selection, gradism or puntuated equilibrium are observed at work in our world, they are only part of the mechanism put in place by the hand of an undelying Creator. I can follow every theory that human scientist put forth to explain the existence of everything, and trace them back to God. That is the only standard by which Creationist / Not-Creationist can be judged.

You seem to think that all creationists are those members of a specific group, such as the "Scientific Creationists" (actually, I think they now call themselves "The Bible Science Society). These groups, although they do a good job of challenging inaccuracies in current science, tend to discredit themselves by insisting on a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. I'll let Wikipedia do it for me.

Therefore, by this definition,

is not a correct statement.

It is the extreme groups who are the 1/10 of a percent that you speak of.

Whoa, if that's what you think you've been "debunking", you better check back to see if anyone actually claimed that. Take a look at the claims that have been made, and insure that you are addressing people actually involved in this thread.

 

OK, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe all we have is a difference over what is meant by "creationism", in which case this whole debate might boil down to one over what is essentially semantics. But I don't want to put words in RuneQuester's, err, keyboard , so I'll let him speak for himself.

Edit: well, more proof that I'm an idiot. I read HS's post, and didn't see RQ's post above it. So I think RQ has already spoken.

 

@Splunge

I'd say you hit the nail on the head. There are windmills that have had the crap beat out of them.

RQ has stated what he thinks Creationism is, but that is not the belief taken by anyone who has challenged him on the boards.

I realized I left the begining of my snip from Wikipedia off, so let me add it here

There may be people on these boards who hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis...and all the more power to them...God, being God, could do anything, especially confound the arrogance of man (tower of Babel, etc) by making a literal creation seem impossible or unreasonalble, but no one who has posted is a creationist as RQ defines them.

I know that I started this by derailing the "God-man or woman" poll, and I apologize to all members and moderators for bending [breaking?] the rules.

I also apologize to anyone who has felt personally attacked by anything I've said.

I don't know if there is much left to say in this thread.

Hey Splunge...how bout those Canadiens!

 

If you're referring to me being an idiot, then I agree.

Oh yeah, they sucked. But I'm cheering for Calgary anyway.

Anyway, on topic (sort of), part of the problem might have been the number of closely-related topics going on at the same time (including my God/BBQ tread in Whatnots ), so maybe the lines were getting a bit blurred.

I accept your apology.

 

As I have said before many times, words shift meaning with context and usage. In teh context of the creationism vs. evolution debate, creationism can only be as I have described it above.
As Hacken Slash sort of said, people who are not at odds with evolution, in the context of the C vs. E debate, cannot be considered "creationists" in said context. Therefore anyone who did not fall under the grouping of those who deny evolution were not part of the group I was "debunking".
I DO however respect everyone's right to self definition. Just as I am an atheist and I do not enjoy being told that I am someone who "Believes in not believing in the truth of the non-falsehood of God's existence", i respect those(minority or otherwise) who wish to call themselves "creationist" adn yet do not adhere to the tenets of YECism and such.


Now that we have cleared that up...

 

@ takara

It was quite accurate of you to assume that I am not too far along in my schooling. I am a second semester bio-major and loving every class.

But lets get elbow deep...

Why does RNA degenerate so much more readily than DNA? Is it the extra oxygen on the ribose portion? Could that one atom really account for such large differences?

Are you comparing RNA in solution to DNA in solution...or are you comparing RNA in solution to DNA with its accompanying protein complexes (histones, etc..)? In the prebiotic ocean, RNA and DNA would both be in solution and should be compared as such.

Also, if RNA just lysed into its monomers, wouldn't the reducing atmosphere, dissolved at its partial pressure, cause spontaneous bonding? Couldn't this constant shuffling towards equilibrium work almost like a random generator of RNA nucleotide sequences?

As an aside, I think creationists should realize that scientists are not exactly puting too much effort into solving this problem beyond exploratory thought. Well, I shouldn't say they aren't, because I don't rightly know. Speaking for myself however, I do not plan on going through years and years of schooling and then applying for precious grant money to solve a problem that has no immediate practical application. I imagine I am in the main on this issue.

Edit...I just thought of something. I believe I read somewhere that RNA is auto-catalytic. Fancy word for self-replicating. I think this just had to do with nucleotides in solution, however, not the full formation of ribose and phosphodiester (sp?) linkages. I'm gonna end up pouring through my bio book over this one...I'll be back...

 

@late night thinker.
For this thread we are getting way . I, however, am more than willing to continue this discussion. As such, I will PM you my response.

 

Here is a very serious question: What does an Athiest scream when he or she comes?

moaning: chemical chance... chemical chance....

or screaming: BIG BANG!!!

???

 

I'm sorry, Ishmael, but being American, I don't really speak English.

I didn't understand what you just said.

[edit] Nevermind...Ishmael explained via pm.

*Hacken blushes then bursts out laughing*

[ May 09, 2004, 23:12: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]