The Danger of Creationism

[SkyWriting]

It's all out there if you actually look for it.

Oh, Ill take you word for it.
Something Bill Cosby recorded I bet.
Or George Carlin. Mebe Carl Sagan.

 

[andreha]

Some readers may be confused by your usage of words from your native South African language. For their information, and according to my South African to English Dictionary, ROTFLOLSMCAOTK is originally a Zulu term meaning:

"The lion sleeps tonight"​

but normally translated into English as

"You're kidding"
​

OB

That Zulu translator is broken, badly broken. And I wasn't laughing at you, but with you. Because that statement would have caused me to spit my coffee all over the keyboard.

 

[pitabread]

Belief in creation has nothing to do with the pandemic or vaccines.
For sure some creationist will be anti vaccine.
I am also sure some atheists and truck drivers are too.

Just because someone belongs to group A does not automatically make them a part of group B.

True a person who rejects biological evolution isn't necessarily going to reject vaccines. However, the thesis of the video is there is a general overlap with training people to reject science and scientific institutions. The consequence of fostering anti-science views in society is that it allows things like anti-vaccine movements to flourish.

 

[tas8831]

Have creationists been able to re-create Genesis?

Guess not. Thus, creation-science = pseudoscience.

 

[tas8831]

Hi there is a documentary called the report from Iron Mountain or perhaps the Iron Mountain report which was made in the early 80's based on a 1960's summit that came together to strategize a plan of how to implement a global government. The findings of this summit determined governments exist to protect people from a common threat. The theorized that the weather and environment were the best places to create real or imagined common threats that would rationalize a global government effort against the common threat.


Now climate models over long periods of time show ice ages over the earth and also great green times when the whole world was a green lush climate. These histories show extreme shifts in global weather apart from man made emissions are normal and part of earths history.


I can look to others who warned about what the coming global agenda is who have accurately predicted many things. Look up the 45 goals of teh communist party and see when they were published and look at the list and you can see most of the objectives are now achieved and at the time written no one believed the threat. So the same projections now made by the likes of the World Economic Forum and teh UN are tipping their hands and these guys are not benevolent. This will be the worst period of human suffering in human history. when the US dollar goes into hyperinflation what do you think comes next? The reset is coming and it is predicted in the Bible you can believe the experts in the white suites or listen to Jesus who said do not be deceived.


These same scientist who are trying to use their version of the facts are also on board with the LGTBQ agenda which is completely contradictory to science as Male and Female are distinct in their biology. Now this is the spiritual foundation of the science you want to follow and lets not talk about the chemtrailing of the planet which can be proven by well water samples and soils samples to prove that aluminum barium and struatium and other metallic compounds have been released intentionally into the atmosphere and then into the soil and water. These factors are not investigated by the media and I have seen the spike in the samples and the patent applications that note chemtrails can be used as weapons systems and climate control. So is it the carbon we need to shut down or perhaps look into what those planes are spraying in the sky all over the planet.

Conspiracy nonsense is... nonsense. But I guess this explains why you never reply with anything worthy of consideration.

 

[tas8831]

I fail to see your point. Who is claiming that what works for one thing necessarily will work for another?

The people advocating a drug for parasitic infections works on Covid. The people who defended Trump when he claimed that we should look into ingesting bleach and isopropanol - even after he claimed he was just being sarcastic (which he wasn't).
I see now that Trumpers are now gargling with betadine because someone claiming to be an ER doctor said to use it... Despite not spelling betadine correctly.

And despite Trump getting vaccinated.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Now we are progressing. You imagine that Life is the result of the sun shining on chemicals.

So the sun shines on chemicals all over the Cosmos.

Just try to focus on what I have said rather than what you imagine I said. At least two major branches of abiogenesis research are not dependent on sunshine at all.

What is the value of life forming from chemicals compared to the rest of the Cosmos where life does not form.

That's not a particularly meaningful question. Firstly, we don't even know whether or not there is life on our nearest planet, let alone the rest of the solar system, or the galaxy, or the greater cosmos.

Secondly, value is a subjective human judgement - what you consider to be the value of life here or elsewhere in the cosmos is up to you.

Why is life a chemical result of sunshine?

It may well not be the result of sunshine (as above). But, given suitable conditions and free energy (e.g. sunshine), complex chemical reactions occur, dissipating the energy most effectively. Roughly, the larger the energy gradient (up to a point), the greater the reaction barriers that can be overcome and the more reactions are possible. Life is a persistent complex chain of organic reactions, an organised and structured form of combustion.

How do the chemicals benefit from evolving into lifeforms?

Again, benefit is a subjective human judgement - does a pebble benefit from being on a beach? does rain drop benefit from falling in a puddle? what do you mean by 'benefit' in respect of chemicals?

What physical property is life fulfilling?

In physical terms, life tends to maximise the overall increase in entropy by being an extremely efficient way of dissipating energy.

If you want more specific or detailed answers you need to ask more specific or detailed questions.

 

[tas8831]

Why is life a chemical result of sunshine?

Why is life the result of a tribal deity breathing on dust?

 

[Astrophile]

Why does the sun shine.

Because its core is hot enough and under high enough pressure for protons to fuse into helium nuclei, with the release of energy.

Why is frozen water hard?

Probably something to do with electrostatic repulsion between electrons in water molecules and electrons in external objects.

Why does water evaporate?

Water molecules near to the surface of a body of water have enough kinetic energy for some of them to escape from the electrostatic attraction of the water body.

And why does life form from non-living matter?

I don't know; I'm not a biologist.

 

[J_B_]

He ends the video by calling on professional scientists to take more responsibility in debunking anti-science and pseudoscientific views no matter what they are. And that by not doing so, scientists are allowing general mistrust of science and science professionals to foster.

I'm not convinced this is a burden that should be placed on scientists. Scientists are now our moral watchdogs?

 

[Astrid]

I'm not convinced this is a burden that should be placed on scientists. Scientists are now our moral watchdogs?

Moral watchdog?

Isn't that the traditional role of religionists?

 

[Occams Barber]

I'm not convinced this is a burden that should be placed on scientists. Scientists are now our moral watchdogs?

If you go back and actually read what @pitabread wrote you'll see he made no mention of scientists as "moral watchdogs".

The suggestion is that scientists be a little more proactive in combatting views misrepresenting science.

Since scientists are the people in the best position to recognise pseudoscience, the suggestion appears to be entirely reasonable.

OB

 

[J_B_]

If you go back and actually read what @pitabread wrote you'll see he made no mention of scientists as "moral watchdogs".

The suggestion is that scientists be a little more proactive in combatting views misrepresenting science.

Since scientists are the people in the best position to recognise pseudoscience, the suggestion appears to be entirely reasonable.

The post went beyond asking them to watch for pseudoscience for its own sake. It was speculating about possible life-threatening consequences. If the original video wasn't trying to shame negligent scientists with a little peer pressure, then I've really lost my touch for rhetoric.

If the message wasn't about "combatting views misrepresenting science" for the well-being of our fellow man, then what was it that was supposed to motivate scientists to do this? And while experts in any field are obviously the best equipped to identify error, how does that make them the best communicators? The best to deal with the body politic?

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't know; I'm not a biologist.

That's a pretty big deal. Somebody has taken your education much too lightly.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why is life the result of a tribal deity breathing on dust?

I have no such ideas. But the passage refers to being "Formed from dust" which refers to man being matter. Then "the breath of life" is added, which refers to man becoming aware of his impact on other people and how they are like himself.

 

[SkyWriting]

Have creationists been able to re-create Genesis?

No. They have a worldview based on a particular faith oriented worldview.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Moral watchdog?

Isn't that the traditional role of religionists?

I posit humanity can do better than that.

 

[tas8831]

Oh, Ill take you word for it.
Something Bill Cosby recorded I bet.
Or George Carlin. Mebe Carl Sagan.

Or we could just plagiarize stuff to make it look like we know more than we do. You know, like I caught you doing a few times. Or the 11 other YECs I've caught on here doing. Its a thing, I guess.

 

[SkyWriting]

Or we could just plagiarize stuff to make it look like we know more than we do. You know, like I caught you doing a few times. Or the 11 other YECs I've caught on here doing. Its a thing, I guess.

I'm not a YEC.
And I get complaints if I cite my sources and when I don't.

I'll be happy to provide citations for any postings.

 

[pitabread]

A follow-up has been posted: