The Arrogance of the Ignorant

Have you noticed that when “scientists” encounter something that they do not understand, they tend to label it as “junk” or “vestigial”–rather than simply admitting that they don’t know?

Advertisements

26 comments

  1. synapticcohesion

    “All I’m asking is that we ignore whatever terminology people have decided to use for certain things, and focus on the idea behind them. I would think that this non-ideal use of words occurs in the Bible as well.”

    What? Are you admitting that evolutionism is more like a ideal-based religion and not an exact science based on facts?

    “Isn’t it true that some words in the Bible do not correlate exactly with their modern day meanings?”

    No.

    “Just as it is with the Bible, it’s the idea that’s important…not the literal translation of the words.”

    Once again, you compare evolution (which is supposed to be “science”) with religion. I can’t thank you enough for driving that point for me. Straight out of the evolutionist’s mouth.

  2. EquationForLife

    Did someone miss the first day of college when you learn that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information? Even if I follow along your sources, clicking the “Not to be confused with Noncoding DNA” link leads to a page that says “Much of this DNA has no known biological function and is sometimes referred to as “junk DNA””

    I think the important point of the discussion here is the idea, not the words used to represent it. Sure, the terminology might be off but that does not make it more or less correct. Are we in agreement here that we are talking about DNA that does not code for proteins? If so, what about DNA that is not coding for proteins that trouble you? Do you have a reference for the claim that “It’s also constantly used as “evidence” of evolution by claiming that we have DNA that’s no longer used (hence the term “junk”) as we have evolved away from having to use it anymore.”?

    Also, you constantly mention that these terms are biased. Biased towards what? I have an guess as to what you might mean, but I rather just hear it from you than guess at the meaning of your words.

    • synapticcohesion

      “Did someone miss the first day of college when you learn that Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information? Even if I follow along your sources, clicking the “Not to be confused with Noncoding DNA” link leads to a page that says “Much of this DNA has no known biological function and is sometimes referred to as “junk DNA””

      Yeah, it’s sad that you evolutionists can’t seem to agree on anything–other than the skeptics are definitely wrong.

      “Also, you constantly mention that these terms are biased. Biased towards what?”

      “junk” = useless, without any function–when a more honest, accurate, and humbling term would be “unknown”
      “junk” = without any current function and is this “evidence” that we must have evolved and this now “junk DNA” is what helped us in the process of our evolution (surely you did not need to ask me these asinine questions that I’m sure you already know the answers to?)

      Assuming (no doubt wrongly) that the photo you are using is of yourself, you should be asking questions befitting of an adult; rather than waste my time asking questions that only a child would ask.

      • EquationForLife

        So your point seems to be that because someone 40 years ago decided to refer to non-protein coding DNA with the word “junk”, that scientists have all decided that the “junk DNA” has absolutely no purpose?

        I be happy to discuss this with you in an adult manner, if we get past the terminology used and get to the actual science and whether or not that supports creationism/evolution/other theories. There are so many misnomers used to represent ideas in science, mostly because they are hold overs from a time when we did understand less. However, that does not make the science more or less correct.

        All I’m asking is that we ignore whatever terminology people have decided to use for certain things, and focus on the idea behind them. I would think that this non-ideal use of words occurs in the Bible as well. Isn’t it true that some words in the Bible do not correlate exactly with their modern day meanings? Just as it is with the Bible, it’s the idea that’s important…not the literal translation of the words.

      • EquationForLife

        I don’t see how you are drawing that conclusion from what I am saying. Let me state my point clearly once and for all:

        My point is that it’s not important to dwell on words used to represent an idea, but rather it’s important to discuss the idea itself. I believe this is true whether it is science, religion, politics, philosophy or any other field. Just because an idea is not expressed well, does not make that idea wrong (although it is harder to understand/communicate).

      • EquationForLife

        If you will notice, this whole time I have been inviting discussion on ideas, not just words used to represent these ideas.

        If instead of saying chocolate is the best ice cream flavor, I said the brown colored flavor is the best ice cream flavor… my expression of the idea is poor, but it does not impact whether or not chocolate is the best flavor or not. This is what I’m trying to say: let’s discuss whether or not chocolate is the best ice cream flavor, not if we should call it “chocolate” or “brown colored flavor”.

        I’m just giving a metaphor obviously…I’m not interested in discussing ice cream flavors.

    • EquationForLife

      I think you are missing the point of what a metaphor is. What I have said can only be twisted to support your point of view if you quote me out of context, which seems to be quite a popular thing to do these days. I’m going to end my participation in this discussion here because I don’t think you are willing to be rational and reasonable. Instead of responding to what I am saying, you are making implications out of my statements that are not there. Why do you think I asked you exactly what you were referring to by bias? It’s because I want you to express what you mean, I don’t want to put words into your mouth. I can see now that you are not interested in having a rational conversation, so carry on…it’s not up to me to tell you what to believe or how to live your life.

      I have enough faith (I’m NOT referring to religious faith here) that most people will be rational enough to make the right decision for themselves on what to believe, and how to approach discussions. The outliers such as yourself will always exist, and I will do my best to not let this encounter influence my opinion of other people.

      • synapticcohesion

        That’s the point–your “metaphor” is fundamentally flawed. You can’t compare the two scenarios because one deals with personal opinion and the other with what is (supposed to be according to you) fact. Unless you were trying to say that both are dealing with opinions (to which I have to agree).

      • EquationForLife

        Just for future reference…the point of a metaphor is an analogy for comparing two unrelated things. When Shakespeare writes “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day”, he is not literally saying that a person is the same as a 24 hour day, that would be silly.

        If you want, you can put in heliocentric theory for chocolate, and earth-orbiting-sun theory for brown colored flavor.

      • synapticcohesion

        “A common definition of a metaphor can be described as a comparison that shows how two things that are not alike in most ways are similar in another important way.”

        Similar in another important way. You can’t get any more DIFFERENT than comparing opinion to fact. Hope that helps.

      • synapticcohesion

        “If you want, you can put in heliocentric theory for chocolate, and earth-orbiting-sun theory for brown colored flavor.”

        Thank you. Now you’re only 99.9% irritating. Progress.

      • EquationForLife

        Junk DNA actually refers to DNA whose functions have yet to be unidentified. The term is a misnomer that was invented in the 70s and just stuck around. It’s a colloquial term that is being used less and less in scientific papers in favor of terms like “non-coding DNA”. So just to be clear, no one is proclaiming that the “junk DNA” is useless.

        Vestigal organs are similar in this sense: they resemble structures in other animals but do not function in the same way. The function of some of these organs, such as the appendix, is still not 100 percent clear. The term vestigal however, simply means that it no longer functions in the same way homologous structures do in other organisms.

        Any other examples of arrogance you like to discuss?

      • synapticcohesion

        “Junk DNA (Not to be confused with Noncoding DNA.)–Wikipedia”

        Oh wait…you already did. It’s OK–as I said evolutionists are in constant disagreement and contradiction with each other. Yet, they all know the (confused) tenets of evolution must be true and factual–and don’t you ever argue with them.

        “So just to be clear, no one is proclaiming that the “junk DNA” is useless.”

        That term has a built-in bias. How difficult is that to understand? It’s also constantly used as “evidence” of evolution by claiming that we have DNA that’s no longer used (hence the term “junk”) as we have evolved away from having to use it anymore. A few men labeling DNA that they know too little about as “junk” is as pathetically arrogant and ignorant as someone labeling a language that they do not understand as being “babble.” Well, the words could be meaningless…or maybe they haven’t been deciphered yet–but let’s call it “babble” for now anyway. Pure idiocy and simply more propaganda for political purposes, not scientific ones.

        “The concept of vestigiality applies to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of its ancestral function in a given species.”

        Another term with a built-in bias. Having a coccyx (also known as tail bone; another term with built-in bias made especially to those who are unable to think for themselves) is not indicative of our having evolved from ape-like ancestors that had tails–any critical thinker could tell you that. Rather, it is evidence that it is an essential part of our body to hold the largest muscle in our body and to give our bodies balance (do you realize how heavy your mandible is?). And gorillas, by the way, have an even smaller coccyx than humans do.

        You have to shake your head at what people will believe based on the most base, primitive (no pun intended) levels of thinking.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s