1. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    05 May '05 00:16
    What aspect of creationist theory was able to predict the existence of archaebacteria? What new frontiers in microbiology are pioneered by creation scientists?
  2. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    05 May '05 00:31
    One could argue that many have been bitten by the elusive Jesus Bug.
  3. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    05 May '05 00:44
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    What aspect of creationist theory was able to predict the existence of archaebacteria? What new frontiers in microbiology are pioneered by creation scientists?
    Never would have found them if we hadn't predicted them, right?
  4. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    05 May '05 01:001 edit
    Originally posted by Coletti
    Never would have found them if we hadn't predicted them, right?
    Evolutionists found Archaebacteria, not creationists.

    ASFAIK, there are no frontiers of science--applied or theoretical--in which creationists are among the pioneers, unless we call attacks on the theory of evolution a frontier of science.
  5. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    05 May '05 02:40
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    Evolutionists found Archaebacteria, not creationists.

    ASFAIK, there are no frontiers of science--applied or theoretical--in which creationists are among the pioneers, unless we call attacks on the theory of evolution a frontier of science.
    Absurd to think being an evolutionist had anything to do with it. What if an Pantheist found archaerbateria? Would that mean it would not have been found if not for Pantheism? The problem is this dogmatic belief the Evolutionism has lead to anything. Biology yes, physics yes, chemist you bet. Evolutionism, nope. It is useless for discovering anything new. It has no practical scientific value at all. I'm sure there is some more useless "scientific" theory - but I can't think of one.
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    05 May '05 02:55
    Originally posted by Coletti
    Absurd to think being an evolutionist had anything to do with it. What if an Pantheist found archaerbateria? Would that mean it would not have been found if not for Pantheism? The problem is this dogmatic belief the Evolutionism has lead to anything. Biology yes, physics yes, chemist you bet. Evolutionism, nope. It is useless for discovering anything n ...[text shortened]... at all. I'm sure there is some more useless "scientific" theory - but I can't think of one.
    Fox and Woese were studying evolutionary relationships when they discovered the archaebacteria. Of course the theory of evolution led to this discovery. However it did so by assuming the organisms being studied were regular bacteria and then the data showing this assumption was wrong.

    Evolutionism is not a religion. If a pantheist were studying bacteria for some religious reason and this approach led to this discovery, then it might be said pantheism had something to do with it. However pantheists don't generally spend time studying the 16s subunit of ribosomal RNA and comparing the 16s subunit of one organism with that of another in order to explore their pantheism.
  7. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    06 May '05 21:35
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Fox and Woese were studying evolutionary relationships when they discovered the archaebacteria. Of course the theory of evolution led to this discovery. However it did so by assuming the organisms being studied were regular bacteria and then the data showing this assumption was wrong.

    Evolutionism is not a religion. If a pantheist were studying ...[text shortened]... paring the 16s subunit of one organism with that of another in order to explore their pantheism.
    OK - saying it had nothing to do with it was excessive. But subtract out the TOE (at least MacEvolution) and leave the sciences of biology - and science would be fine. We'd still be studying nature, natural processes, genetics, medicine - what does MacEvolution contribute that makes it indispensable - or uniquely helpfully. Would archaebacteria gone undiscovered with MacEvolution?
  8. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    06 May '05 23:49
    Originally posted by Coletti
    OK - saying it had nothing to do with it was excessive. But subtract out the TOE (at least MacEvolution) and leave the sciences of biology - and science would be fine. We'd still be studying nature, natural processes, genetics, medicine - what does MacEvolution contribute that makes it indispensable - or uniquely helpfully. Would archaebacteria gone undiscovered with MacEvolution?
    Subtract out God and leave the the sciences of biology alone - and science would be fine. We'd still be studying nature, natural processes, genetics, medicine- what does God contribute that makes Him indispensable - or uniquely helpfully. Would archaebacteria have led to the discovery of MacEvolution?
  9. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    07 May '05 01:15
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    Subtract out God and leave the the sciences of biology alone - and science would be fine. We'd still be studying nature, natural processes, genetics, medicine- what does God contribute that makes Him indispensable - or uniquely helpfully. Would archaebacteria have led to the discovery of MacEvolution?
    Clearly you are one of many who can not answer the question. Don't worry, you are not alone. Your just avoiding answering.
  10. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    07 May '05 01:51
    Originally posted by Coletti
    Clearly you are one of many who can not answer the question. Don't worry, you are not alone. Your just avoiding answering.
    since your post was a dodge of Wulebgr 's question, I thought it fitting to show you the ramification's of your question.
    And I never worry. nor am I ever alone.
    I do realize my wording was a little non-scientific but I did think you'd understand it. Sorry, my bad.
  11. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    07 May '05 01:551 edit
    Originally posted by Coletti
    Absurd to think being an evolutionist had anything to do with it. What if an Pantheist found archaerbateria? Would that mean it would not have been found if not for Pantheism? The problem is this dogmatic belief the Evolutionism has lead ...[text shortened]... me more useless "scientific" theory - but I can't think of one.
    BTW

    The known is always superior to the speculated " What if....?" !

    I bet somebody had trouble teaching you how to count in sequence if you can't see the value of evolution in biological discoveries.
  12. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    07 May '05 02:47
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    BTW

    The known is always superior to the speculated " What if....?" !

    I bet somebody had trouble teaching you how to count in sequence if you can't see the value of evolution in biological discoveries.
    That's funny considering the MacEv is just that, speculation.
  13. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    07 May '05 03:041 edit
    Originally posted by Coletti
    That's funny considering the MacEv is just that, speculation.
    Nothing in science get raised to the level of Theory thats only speculation,, I repeat Nothing.
    If you dont know that , why do you bother posting about science?

    also don't try listing a bunch on things that are called theory in the vernacular sense , you know evolution is a theory in a formal sciencific method sense.
  14. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    07 May '05 03:17
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    Nothing in science get raised to the level of Theory thats only speculation,, I repeat Nothing.
    If you dont know that , why do you bother posting about science?

    also don't try listing a bunch on things that are called theory in the vernacular sense , you know evolution is a theory in a formal sciencific method sense.
    Really? You know that because that's what your teachers told you - and you don't question authority. So you make an it a universal truth "Nothing in science get raised to the level of Theory thats only speculation." Absolute statements like that are usually the reserve of religious dogma, not the open inquiry that science is supposed to be.

    Do you think all "scientific theories" are sound because someone tells you they are "scientific."

  15. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    07 May '05 03:301 edit
    Originally posted by Coletti
    Really? You know that because that's what your teachers told you - and you don't question authority. So you make an it a universal truth "Nothing in science get raised to the level of Theory thats only speculation." Absolute state ...[text shortened]... are sound because someone tells you they are "scientific."

    the scientific method,,, THEORY is a formal part of the process in between the stages of Conclusion and Law. stop confusing the word with hypothesis..
    Try not to be so ridiculous , its very unbecoming.
Back to Top