05 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiEvolutionists found Archaebacteria, not creationists.
Never would have found them if we hadn't predicted them, right?
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.
05 May 05
Originally posted by WulebgrAbsurd 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.
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.
05 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiFox 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.
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.
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.
06 May 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOK - 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?
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.
06 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiSubtract 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?
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?
07 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompClearly you are one of many who can not answer the question. Don't worry, you are not alone. Your just avoiding answering.
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?
07 May 05
Originally posted by Colettisince your post was a dodge of Wulebgr 's question, I thought it fitting to show you the ramification's of your question.
Clearly you are one of many who can not answer the question. Don't worry, you are not alone. Your just avoiding answering.
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.
07 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiBTW
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.
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.
07 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompThat's funny considering the MacEv is just that, speculation.
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.
07 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiNothing in science get raised to the level of Theory thats only speculation,, I repeat Nothing.
That's funny considering the MacEv is just that, speculation.
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.
07 May 05
Originally posted by frogstompReally? 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.
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.
Do you think all "scientific theories" are sound because someone tells you they are "scientific."
07 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Colettithe scientific method,,, THEORY is a formal part of the process in between the stages of Conclusion and Law. stop confusing the word with hypothesis..
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."
Try not to be so ridiculous , its very unbecoming.