[zug_zug]

I doubt it has anything to do with data-quality, I'd be surprised if even 10% of climate denialists have studied the numbers. Remember >20% of US citizens are still creationists, a lot of people aren't emotionally ready to believe scary things, and maybe they never will be.

[vscode-rest]

I take it you have data against creationism?

Or that it is somehow less “scary”?

[Windchaser]

Indeed, there is quite a lot of data against (Biblical/young-earth) creationism.

Everything from "humans' chromosome 2 is a fusion of two other chromosomes, and we see those two other chromosomes still present in chimpanzees and gorillas and bonobos", which argues for common descent, to "when zircon crystals form, they accept radioactive uranium but violently reject the lead that it decays to, and modern zircon crystals have lead-uranium ratios indicating that they formed billions of years ago", arguing for an old age of the universe. And many, many, many, many other pieces of evidence.

[vscode-rest]

Chromosomal similarity argues for solid engineering principles just as much as it does common decent. Do you have any data to suggest that the almighty did not take a working chromosome 2 (made in their own image, perhaps), and reuse it in these other animals you reference?

[saalweachter]

Nothing about the human body argues for solid engineering principles.

[vscode-rest]

Presumably you have some data to back that up? A product designed by the worlds top biological engineers that is more effective?

[Windchaser]

> Do you have any data to suggest that the almighty did not take a working chromosome 2 (made in their own image, perhaps), and reuse it in these other animals you reference?

Why would an almighty god leave markers in our Chromosome 2 that look like they are from chromosomes 2a/2b in other apes?

It's not just that there's a huge genetic similarities between the chromosomes. Which there are! Chromosome 2 also has an extra, deactivated centromere, which was used in the copying of the previous chromosome 2b, before the fusion. And, remember that chromosomes typically have telomeres at their ends to keep them from fraying apart. In a fusion event you'd expect some telomeres from the end of the ingredient chromosomes to end up in the middle of the resulting fused chromosome. And this is what we see.

Of course God could have created our chromosome in such a way that it looks very much like the fusion of 2 chromosomes from our shared ancestor with chimpanzees, down to the addition of an extra centromere and telomere region. But why would he?

But, I've also got to say, man, please don't be surprised if I don't respond much. I have no offense intended towards you, but from my perspective, arguing with a young earth creationist is about as productive as arguing with a flat earther. There are about 6 orders of magnitude of difference in age between an Earth that's about 6k years old and 4 billion, and those differences should be readily apparent all over the natural world. And they are! We see an incredible wealth of evidence for an old universe.

But... well, horse and water and all that. I can't expect to change your mind any more than I'd expect to change a flat-earther's mind.

[vscode-rest]

I get that you don’t understand why a creator might do things they way they might have done. I don’t either. But surely you admit your own lack of understanding is not a scientific proof point?

If I said “I don’t understand why the big bang happened”, would that be evidence it didn’t?

[Windchaser]

Are you familiar with the idea of Last Thursdayism?

[wat10000]

There's a buttload of data against creationism. There are living trees older than the typical date given for the creation.

[vscode-rest]

Oldest tree I see is reported as 5,000 years. Common creation date is held to be roughly 6000 years ago.

Not that I think the age estimates folks have has much basis is reality. But this is a particularly empty nothing-burger.

[wat10000]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees

I’m sure you’ll say the older ones are wrong, of course.

[vscode-rest]

https://www.conservation.org/news/methuselah-still-the-world...

Why do these disagree? Are the metrics perhaps under some debate, even amongst the Scientists?

[wat10000]

That one isn’t counting clonal trees.

[rob_c]

And believing the world ending as in "the day after tomorrow" was the "still mask wearing" of the 2010s. Fear.

[nonameiguess]

Jesus Christ, dude. That was a disaster movie by the same guy that brought us Independence Day and 2012, based on a book by a radio host best known for possibly facilitating the Heaven's Gate mass suicide by feeding rumors a UFO was following the Hale-Bopp comet, and a writer who has peddled personal tales of alien abductions for 40 years. Not exactly a reliable central tendency measure of what real people feared.

This has to be one of the stupidest false equivalences I've ever seen.

[rob_c]

You. Wow.... You clearly aren't paying attention to how that movie was widely mid portrayed and presented within the education sector as fact

[zug_zug]

Feels like a really weak bad-faith take.

I guess you're trying to draw a false-equivalency between taking a problem extra seriously and denying/perpetuating it? However taking a problem too seriously doesn't harm people, if you want to wear a mask out of an abundance of caution you won't kill anybody else.

Also nobody believed the world was going to end in two days, that feels like a disingenuous talking point. If somebody literally believed the world would end in < 10 years they'd likely quit their job, spend all their savings, etc.

If your point is that you've met ~15 individuals in your life who were obnoxious/self-righteous/unlikeable about their attempts to make the world better -- congrats every movement has that. But it can't distract from the fact that one thing is true and the other is false, and anybody who tries to focus more on the stereotypes of the individuals in a movement than whether it's true or not is only creating noise.

[rob_c]

No I'm talking about proper healthy science not blind trust. Please don't confuse discussion with argument it's disingenuous and best I can say is look inwards.