About 25% of Americans Don't Know the Earth Revolves Around the Sun

[Jake0fTrades]

The article on Phys.org?

1: The article is uncredited.
2: There are no listed links or sources.
3: Nearly every recommended article on-screen is bashing another nation.

I'm gonna go ahead and call this one BS.

 

[Petromir]

That "Sun revolving around the Earth" is the only one I can't offer any defense for. Although I would like to point out that Copernicus also gets the Darwin treatment, i.e. the common narrative presenting him as Completely Correct and his opponents as ignorant religious zealots, while in fact the Copernican model wasn't much simpler than Ptolemaean (and it was mostly contested on scientific grounds, not religious) and it took Kepler and Galileo to develop it into the heliocentric model we ascribe to Copernicus.

The Galileo affair is not the simple science vs religion affair it is portrayed either.

At the the time of writing the book, Galileo working with the pope's support and the pope knew he as working on the heliocentric model (indeed prior to being made pope as cardinal he had defended Galileo). The pope was even the source of the idea of framing it as a conversation/argument between two people, each supporting one of the models, and that his views be presented in the book. Now remember that the pope at the time was in many ways a head of state whose power, rank and even life depended on keeping a vast array of people happy, so being made out to be a fool was not something that could be tolerated even if he wasn't also the head of a religion.

The book was published with the approval of the Inquisition (who vetted such things for heresy etc) and Pope. However the Popes wasn't all that secure in his post, and this lead to the problems with the tone of the book becoming important.

Now it must be said while it is likely that Galileo may well have deliberately ignored the Popes request to be balanced in his portrayal of the two models, he likely didn't consciously intend the character arguing the popes views to be that connected to the pope or be a figure of ridicule. However the character Simplicio who argued for the Ptolemean, was sometimes confused in his argument, and name was similar to the Italian for simpleton. This perceived ridicule of the pope was more to do with this arrest and trial of Galileo and long term banning of his work and book than the actual idea. Its probable that many of Urban VIIIs contemporary heads of state, the kings, Princes etc of the time would not have treated such ridicule kindly.


The relationship of the Christian church and Science has been fraught, but its not as purely confrontational as portrayed. Much scientific research was done by members of the church, often with the idea of the more you understand of God's creation the more you learn of him. Mendel, often viewed as the founder of modern genetics was a Friar.

Sciences relationship with itself is hardly blemish free, with new ideas (that later become the mainstream theory) sometimes struggling as they can seem ridiculous.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

The relationship of the Christian church and Science has been fraught, but its not as purely confrontational as portrayed. Much scientific research was done by members of the church, often with the idea of the more you understand of God's creation the more you learn of him. Mendel, often viewed as the founder of modern genetics was a Friar.

I would go even further, and say that in most cases reasons for censorship or banning of scientific material (which were actually very rare) were personal or political rather than religious. The only strictly "medieval Church vs science" religiously-motivated case I can think of off the top of my head would be that of Nicholas of Autrecourt, who proposed atomism and was ordered to burn his books and recant, since atomism was against the Church doctrine of transsubstantiation.

And even then, it should be pointed out that (a) Atomism at the time was pure speculation, as there was no technology to even provide empirical support for it and (b) Nicholas specifically attacked transsubstantiation in his text, so he did kinda throw the first punch in that match.

Sciences relationship with itself is hardly blemish free, with new ideas (that later become the mainstream theory) sometimes struggling as they can seem ridiculous.

Medical science before Pasteur had continuously suffered from the physicians' aversion to any new ideas. Scientists like to be in their comfort zone as much as anyone else. I've already pointed out in my previous comment that the Copernican model and Darwin's theory of evolution were contested by fellow scientists (or natural philosophers in Copernicus's case) much more than by religious people. Conflict hypothesis needs to die, as it does more bad than good.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Weeeelll, let's be perfectly accurate about this. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, in the sense that *nothing* in science can be 100% proved to be true but nevertheless evolution is such an obvious fact to anyone who is not both dogma bound and an idiot that we might as well call it true.

Evolution is still a theory because we can't actually observe it happen - we can observe mutation and changes in allele frequencies, but we can't observe speciation because it takes too long. Creationism is still *theoretically possible* - it's just overwhelmingly unlikely based on the evidence, and is inconsistent with the concept of a just and loving God.

Oh - and just to be clear, Natural Selection is *less* 'just a theory' than evolution because we *can* observe it happening!

The only genuine question is whether the evolution of life on this planet was *principally or entirely* due to natural selection, or whether other processes had a part to play as well. (Eg self-organising principles, the intervention of aliens, quantum evolution etc) So far there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume that anything other than natural selection (including sexual selection and, of course, artificial selection by humans in recent history) was necessary for the evolution of life, but it's not as certain as the facts of evolution and of natural selection themselves.

To further clarify, because it seems there is still a misunderstanding of the message i was trying to convey: 'Evolution' was NEVER EVER EVER EVER a theory. NEVER. Never has been, never will be. It most certainly is not 'both a fact and a theory' either. To assert that as you are now is to contribute to the whole misconception, giving 'anti-evolution' debaters a strawman which they've been running with for years, because 'we' have been falsely validating them. :X

To address another point there, 'Evolution' has been actively observed, in many instances. (One particular instances was the peppered moth, it's the one most people tend to bring up.)

The thing actually being referred to(whether the one talking actually knows enough to realise it or not) when people say 'the theory of evolution', is just an abbreviation, slang. A fuller name would be 'darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection', but because that's a mouthful everyone just shortened it, and then ignorant people waltz around saying evolution itself was the theory instead of natural selection, and then slightly less misinformed people (but still not really knowing fully what the deal is) start arguing about the definition of a 'theory' instead of taking it back that extra step and pointing out the real flaw in the deniers argument, which is that evolution itself is not and never was a theory.

Evolution is the what, natural selection is the how... and if you want to get philosophical you could argue religion/god is the why

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE.

lolwikisnip

Theories are used to explain phenomena. Boom! Theories are the most rigorous, reliable and comprehensive forms of knowledge in science. Boom!

If you go to the article there's also a bit about the misconception of theories getting "upgraded" as the evidence builds up. It's a myth. A theory is basically the best thing you can get. Even a hypothesis needs a lot of ground to stand on before it will be presented as a scientific hypothesis rather than just an experimental hypothesis. Evolution is pretty much undeniable, but that's what a theory means in the world of science.

I would kindly direct you back to the part of my post that you excluded from your quote box, where I already explained exactly what you posted right there. More importantly(and I mean absolutely no offence to you when I say this, merely hoping to explain), you don't appear to quite grasp what you yourself so aptly repeated:

Theories are used to explain phenomena.

the theory (natural selection) is used to explain the phenomenon (evolution).

Does that clarify it?(it is what the rest of my post went on to explain) - And do you see how people mixing up the terms(as you've done here, despite your best intentions) has been so damaging? Worst of all because the very people 'supporting' evolution it are the ones 'arguing' the wrong thing in the first place, giving credence to the false assertion that evolution itself was the theory, which it is not.

 

[Flatfrog]

To address another point there, 'Evolution' has been actively observed, in many instances. (One particular instances was the peppered moth, it's the one most people tend to bring up.)

I didn't say evolution hasn't been observed, I said speciation hasn't been observed. That is to say - we can easily observe instances of changes in allele frequency (especially under human intervention), but as far as I know we've never yet managed to create two individuals that are actually from different species and can't interbreed (perhaps the nearest we've got to it is dogs of such vastly different sizes that they would be physically incapable of breeding despite their genetic compatibility). That isn't to say speciation can't occur, naturally it can, but it happens on too long a timescale to be practically observed.

So 'evolution' in the sense most people understand it is still a theory - a theory that is clearly true because there are huge numbers of supporting facts, but a theory nevertheless. To state it precisely, 'evolution' is the theory that the reason all life on Earth falls into a pattern of species, phyla, kingdoms etc is that all species have evolved from a common ancestor. As I say - theory *and* fact. And one of the reasons I hate the peppered moth example is because actually it's a terrible example of why we know evolution to be correct. We know evolution to be correct because of DNA analysis, morphology and fossil evidence, not because we can breed slightly differently coloured bugs under controlled conditions.

And I'd also say that evolution *itself* is the thing most anti-evolutionists dispute. Not the theory of Natural Selection, which explains how this evolution most likely occurred, but common ancestry. Which is why it's so frustrating, because while there are good reasons to argue about whether other mechanisms than natural selection could have been the principal driving forces of evolution, evolution itself should surely be beyond doubt.

 

[Yopaz]

Snip

Meh, let's just drop this. Evolution is a thing, let's not waste time on the semantics. We agree on the important parts.

 

[Brownie80]

We don't use the vast majority of these "Fun Facts" and so you're brain kicks them out for more important things in life like money management, the proper way to cook chicken so you don't all die, and how to juggle chainsaws.

Yeah, but who cares about all of that when you can make another "lolMurrica" joke, right?

Besides, the Big Bang? "Explosion"? Talk about simplification. While I don't doubt they caught people who simply believe God did it, it's equally plausible there were just skeptics or people who do keep up with modern science.

Oh yes, what are PLANET orbits around (which provides us with light and energy and without it no vegetation or water would be possible) is a small thing. Surely money is better than knowing the fact that IT CAN EXPLODE INTO A SUPERNOVA AND DESTROY THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN GALAXY, WHICH IS WHAT FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM ABOUT 5-10 BILLION YEARS AGO. If the sun EXPLODES, money and food would be the least of your worries, I can guarantee that!

 

[Brownie80]

We Americans also vote republican too. Yet another reason to be ashamed of my country.

Classy. Letting your distaste for a party (and not the one running the country during one of our biggest economic crises) bias you to believe a bogus poll, and one that in fact still has the US beating out Europe as a whole on correct answers. Please do think before you hate, it is always a shame to see it crop up.

This poll is far from perfect but is also far from bogus. I also can understand him hating the party G.W. belonged to.

 

[rutger5000]

I'd hate to describe the Big Bang as an explosion. An explosion is a rapid increase of volume of a substance. "Rapid", "volume" and "substance" are all very confusing terms around the event of the Big Bang. Also for many the question has a very heavy religious load. Their answer is wrong, but the question was poorly phrased. Same goes for the evolution question. And I'm not surprised regarding the antibiotics question. That requires a fair amount of medical knowledge to get it right.

 

[geldonyetich]

Times like this, I wonder if maybe we gave up on eugenics too soon.

 

[rutger5000]

Uhm arguing against evolution is like arguing against 2>1. The evidence is so overwhelming and it comes from so many different areas its almost embarrassing, between the fossil records, the DNA records and heck the very physiology of the human body not to mention the fact we see proof of it in every other living thing around us every day.

It's only considered a theory because the results of it can't be properly predicted. I.e Laws are a case of where X then Y. All evolution says is that given time.. change will occur, that's pretty much a law of the universe so it doesn't really count. but beyond stating that change will occur... you can't predict what that change will be or when it will happen.

Evolution isn't speculation...it's fact.

No it's not. 2>1 is a fact. Evolution is a theory which means there is still at least some doubt in it be factually correct. It doesn't matter whether that doubt is 20%, 1% or even 0.0000000001%. It's still there. And while it's still there there is always a chance that a new and better theory could come up and replace it.

That's not to say I don't believe in it because I do. It's just that it gets on my nerves when people still go around treating theories as facts. They've been proven wrong in the past, there's nothing stopping that happening again, hence why they are called theories rather than facts.

OT: Some of those questions are pretty stupid. Namely the ones on evolution and the big bang. They're reported on as though they are both facts but they are instead still theories. And with the big bang one especially, the "correct" answer according to them is the wrong answer. If it had of said "the universe as we know it" then it'd sit next the evolution one. But it didn't, it just said "the universe". And the thing is, something had to of been before the big bang for it to even happen. Don't get me wrong though, they're solid theories and I believe in both of them they just aren't facts. Not yet at least.

A theory is the best available description of reality as we can perceive and test it. It should be considered fact, unless one can point out a significant flaw in it and come with an equal or superior alternative to it. Also we've observed evolution far beyond any reasonable doubt. This makes evolution (though not necessarily evolution theory) a fact. Also and I can't stress this enough. DO NOT BELIEVE IN SCIENCE ! To believe something is to take something on faith. You're not supposed to do that in science. You make assumptions, yes, but those assumptions should always be based on observations and reason. Never on faith.

 

[Brownie80]

Also, how does one "kill viruses" anyway? Virus is a single organic molecule, it's not even an organism of any description. It isn't even alive.

Not correct. A virus is actually several organic molecules. DNA (or RNA) and several protein subunits which are assembled to create a protective capsid and docking equipment to associate with the cell membrane of its target cells.

2) some biological mechanisms are to hard to explain with evolution (as far as I know flagella fall under this categorie. Random mutation is a bit hard to believe to explain this one for the moment). This indicates intelligent design.

I long for the day when people stop confusing random mutation with evolution. It's an extremely minor part of evolution in the big picture. EXTREMELY minor. It's one of the mechanisms that give rise to variation. I can understand that people don't believe in evolution because people who are certain that they understand it but don't explain it wrong and make it sound illogical. I have studied evolutionary biology at a university level. That was when it dawned upon me that I never have understood evolution and I probably never will because it's infinitely more complicated than I imagined.

DNA is two strands of RNA. It makes the double helix. Neither of those are alive. A protein is a nutrient. It is not living. That's like saying a rock is living because it contains iron and iron is made up of molecules. Also, a virus does not have inner organelles like a single-cellars organism like bacteria or multi-celled organisms like an animal or plants. Viruses are not made of cells, which is the smallest, most basic unit of life. So, technically they are nonliving. Also, saying something is organic does not mean it is living. Silicon is organic but it is not alive, like any element on the P.T.o.E.

 

[Brownie80]

You know, this both baffles, and infuriates me.

What baffles me is the amount of people who didn't realize when they were asked this survey that the Earth revolves around our sun in, roughly, one years time. Not exactly a year of course, otherwise we wouldn't have Leap Years. Now, due to the way the Earth itself rotates, forming the 24 hour day cycle, it may APPEAR that the sun revolves around the Earth in a day, but that's looking at it from the wrong perspective.

That's... not what the question was. You are confusing it with another survey mentioned in the thread. This one didn't ask about time.

What infuriates me is that they are treating evolution and the big bang as ironclad fact, instead of what they are, theories that, while they may have quite a bit of substantial evidence behind them, have been far from proven without a shadow of a doubt. The fact is, there's a lot about the universe we don't know, such as its creation, or where humanity came from. And religious beliefs that explain those origins are hardly incorrect or ignorant in and of themselves. They're simply different beliefs.

Because they are? Well, okay, the Big Bang theory is not so much, as it is a bit hard to create factually unquestionable models for an early universe where there was no time, therefore no cause and effect and therefore mostly unmodelable. But evolution?

Hell, evolution is the single most well-understood and proven scientific theory because it has been prodded over and over by religious zealots over 150 years for holes, and there aren't any. It is also repeatedly proven right by genetics, medicine, paleontology, archeology and many other disciplines. Saying that "it's just a theory" is just ignorant.

Let me put it this way: "evolution" is a fact. The "theory of evolution" is what describes said fact, just like how "gravity" is a fact and the theories relating to it (be it Newtonian or relativistic) are only its descriptions. Yes, I know this evolution/gravity comparison is like beating a dead horse, but if you happen to be bothered by it, then why the hell did you bring up the whole "theory" bullshit on the first place?

The fact that, even reading the first page of responses, so many people seem to equate religious beliefs to be the same as ignorance and stupidity, amazes me, particularly since it's wrong. It's thinking that that's ignorant, not to mention intolerant. The U.S. was founded on freedom of beliefs, people.

Two things here: Right, religious belief doesn't automatically mean ignorance. The religious have a higher chance of being ignorant thanks to upbringing, religious education and whatnot, but it is not an ironclad rule. One can be religious and intelligent just as one can be an atheist or agnostic and be stupid as a rock (I'm looking at you, new-age hippies.)
However, there is a good reason why scientific-minded people dislike the religious, and that is because the most ignorant ones have a record of trying to force their ignorance on others. I presume you have heard of the Intelligent Design debacle? When creationists tried to weasel their religious dogma into the school curriculum?

Scientist (and skeptics or other rational people) don't dislike the religious because of what they choose to believe in. We dislike them because they are trying to force their beliefs onto science, where it doesn't belong. I mean, I presume you would be outraged if people tried to force the clergy to teach the controversy in the church and preach about the big bang and evolution, right?
...
Well, that is not a good comparison, now that I think about it. I mean, that way you would at least get well-rounded and scientifically sound arguments. What the religious apologists have to offer most of the time are nothing more than fallacies and faulty logic.

So, in short: One can believe whatever they want and it is not an indication of their intelligence or ignorance. The problems begin when said beliefs are used to reject proven, working scientific facts on no ground or when belief tries to override science with unscientific dogma, which does lead to ignorance.

You are the hero of this thread, sir. I salute you.

 

[lacktheknack]

Oh yes, what are PLANET orbits around (which provides us with light and energy and without it no vegetation or water would be possible) is a small thing. Surely money is better than knowing the fact that IT CAN EXPLODE INTO A SUPERNOVA AND DESTROY THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN GALAXY, WHICH IS WHAT FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM ABOUT 5-10 BILLION YEARS AGO. If the sun EXPLODES, money and food would be the least of your worries, I can guarantee that!

destroy the galaxy
>implying the sun is large enough to even be noticed galactically if it explodes
>acting as if it's going to explode in less that three billion years from now
>as if the sun won't expand and destroy the planet anyhow well before it blows
>implying money and food is less important than the knowledge of something that will never happen in the human race's existence

Why are you doing this to me? ;______;

 

[Brownie80]

Oh yes, what are PLANET orbits around (which provides us with light and energy and without it no vegetation or water would be possible) is a small thing. Surely money is better than knowing the fact that IT CAN EXPLODE INTO A SUPERNOVA AND DESTROY THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN GALAXY, WHICH IS WHAT FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM ABOUT 5-10 BILLION YEARS AGO. If the sun EXPLODES, money and food would be the least of your worries, I can guarantee that!

destroy the galaxy
>implying the sun is large enough to even be noticed galactically if it explodes
>acting as if it's going to explode in less that three billion years from now
>as if the sun won't expand and destroy the planet anyhow well before it blows
>implying money and food is less important than the knowledge of something that will never happen in the human race's existence

Why are you doing this to me? ;______;

It is destiny. Sometimes destiny sucks. And the sun is big. That's obvious. And I know the sun won't explode soon...or will it? BUM BUM BUUUUUM

 

[Yopaz]

DNA is two strands of RNA. It makes the double helix. Neither of those are alive. A protein is a nutrient. It is not living. That's like saying a rock is living because it contains iron and iron is made up of molecules. Also, a virus does not have inner organelles like a single-cellars organism like bacteria or multi-celled organisms like an animal or plants. Viruses are not made of cells, which is the smallest, most basic unit of life. So, technically they are nonliving. Also, saying something is organic does not mean it is living. Silicon is organic but it is not alive, like any element on the P.T.o.E.

RNA got Uracil, DNA got thymine. RNA is made up by ribose DNA is made up by deoxyribose. So you too are incorrect.

I never said a virus is alive. I said he was incorrect about a virus being a single molecule. Now I am saying you are incorrect because you say DNA is two molecules of RNA. It's true that you're incorrect about that. Yet you are correct about a virus not being alive by the most common definitions of life.

Please in the future read the posts you're quoting and do a little fact check before you make claims on things you don't know and I won't correct you where you say something wrong. Just because I say something is wrong in someone's post it doesn't mean I am saying his entire post is wrong. Just a tiny detail. Unlike in your case. In your case it was actually a major detail that was wrong. Single stranded DNA is a thing and it doesn't magically turn into RNA just because the strands separate.

Do you want me to go an and emphasize how wrong or do you want to admit it yourself?

 

[lacktheknack]

Oh yes, what are PLANET orbits around (which provides us with light and energy and without it no vegetation or water would be possible) is a small thing. Surely money is better than knowing the fact that IT CAN EXPLODE INTO A SUPERNOVA AND DESTROY THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN GALAXY, WHICH IS WHAT FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM ABOUT 5-10 BILLION YEARS AGO. If the sun EXPLODES, money and food would be the least of your worries, I can guarantee that!

destroy the galaxy
>implying the sun is large enough to even be noticed galactically if it explodes
>acting as if it's going to explode in less that three billion years from now
>as if the sun won't expand and destroy the planet anyhow well before it blows
>implying money and food is less important than the knowledge of something that will never happen in the human race's existence

Why are you doing this to me? ;______;

It is destiny. Sometimes destiny sucks. And the sun is big. That's obvious. And I know the sun won't explode soon...or will it? BUM BUM BUUUUUM

But in this case, destiny is irrelevant.

And the sun is big, but not galaxy-wrecking big, not even close.

If the sun was the size of a grain of sand:

http://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/a/83/sand_hyper.png

 

[Brownie80]

Oh yes, what are PLANET orbits around (which provides us with light and energy and without it no vegetation or water would be possible) is a small thing. Surely money is better than knowing the fact that IT CAN EXPLODE INTO A SUPERNOVA AND DESTROY THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN GALAXY, WHICH IS WHAT FORMED THE SOLAR SYSTEM ABOUT 5-10 BILLION YEARS AGO. If the sun EXPLODES, money and food would be the least of your worries, I can guarantee that!

destroy the galaxy
>implying the sun is large enough to even be noticed galactically if it explodes
>acting as if it's going to explode in less that three billion years from now
>as if the sun won't expand and destroy the planet anyhow well before it blows
>implying money and food is less important than the knowledge of something that will never happen in the human race's existence

Why are you doing this to me? ;______;

It is destiny. Sometimes destiny sucks. And the sun is big. That's obvious. And I know the sun won't explode soon...or will it? BUM BUM BUUUUUM

But in this case, destiny is irrelevant.

And the sun is big, but not galaxy-wrecking big, not even close.

If the sun was the size of a grain of sand:

http://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/a/83/sand_hyper.png

I know that. The sun IS a grain of sand compared to other stars. However, we can't live without it. Even if the human race survived a supernova, it wouldn't live very long afterwards. I was kidding about destiny.

 

[Brownie80]

DNA is two strands of RNA. It makes the double helix. Neither of those are alive. A protein is a nutrient. It is not living. That's like saying a rock is living because it contains iron and iron is made up of molecules. Also, a virus does not have inner organelles like a single-cellars organism like bacteria or multi-celled organisms like an animal or plants. Viruses are not made of cells, which is the smallest, most basic unit of life. So, technically they are nonliving. Also, saying something is organic does not mean it is living. Silicon is organic but it is not alive, like any element on the P.T.o.E.

RNA got Uracil, DNA got thymine. RNA is made up by ribose DNA is made up by deoxyribose. So you too are incorrect.

I never said a virus is alive. I said he was incorrect about a virus being a single molecule. Now I am saying you are incorrect because you say DNA is two molecules of RNA. It's true that you're incorrect about that. Yet you are correct about a virus not being alive by the most common definitions of life.

Please in the future read the posts you're quoting and do a little fact check before you make claims on things you don't know and I won't correct you where you say something wrong. Just because I say something is wrong in someone's post it doesn't mean I am saying his entire post is wrong. Just a tiny detail. Unlike in your case. In your case it was actually a major detail that was wrong. Single stranded DNA is a thing and it doesn't magically turn into RNA just because the strands separate.

Do you want me to go an and emphasize how wrong or do you want to admit it yourself?

I will admit I did get my facts wrong. You got me there and that is entirely on me. I was just trying to say that RNA AND DNA are nonliving things. I just got confused on what you said he was incorrect about. However, that fact I will admit I did get wrong.

 

[Yopaz]

DNA is two strands of RNA. It makes the double helix. Neither of those are alive. A protein is a nutrient. It is not living. That's like saying a rock is living because it contains iron and iron is made up of molecules. Also, a virus does not have inner organelles like a single-cellars organism like bacteria or multi-celled organisms like an animal or plants. Viruses are not made of cells, which is the smallest, most basic unit of life. So, technically they are nonliving. Also, saying something is organic does not mean it is living. Silicon is organic but it is not alive, like any element on the P.T.o.E.

RNA got Uracil, DNA got thymine. RNA is made up by ribose DNA is made up by deoxyribose. So you too are incorrect.

I never said a virus is alive. I said he was incorrect about a virus being a single molecule. Now I am saying you are incorrect because you say DNA is two molecules of RNA. It's true that you're incorrect about that. Yet you are correct about a virus not being alive by the most common definitions of life.

Please in the future read the posts you're quoting and do a little fact check before you make claims on things you don't know and I won't correct you where you say something wrong. Just because I say something is wrong in someone's post it doesn't mean I am saying his entire post is wrong. Just a tiny detail. Unlike in your case. In your case it was actually a major detail that was wrong. Single stranded DNA is a thing and it doesn't magically turn into RNA just because the strands separate.

Do you want me to go an and emphasize how wrong or do you want to admit it yourself?

I will admit I did get my facts wrong. You got me there and that is entirely on me. I was just trying to say that RNA AND DNA are nonliving things. I just got confused on what you said he was incorrect about. However, that fact I will admit I did get wrong.

Thanks for the mature response. Also I have to apologize for being immature about my response there. I really should have just pointed out the misunderstanding and the fact that I agree with the core point you (and the first guy) made.