Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Commercial products of Literal Creationism Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post obvious child Posted at 11:30 pm on Sep. 17, 2008 Can anyone think of anything other then publishing that is a commercial product of literal creationist 'science?' Example, has creationism help create a new hybrid fruit? How about play a role in finding the organisms that were turned into oil and gas? Has it helped understand the necessary modifications and additions of genes to plants to produce new strains of grains? Does it help engineers understand the replenish rates of water tables?

Replies telomere13 Posted at 10:02 am on Sep. 23, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 2:00 am on Sep. 23, 2008 The sad thing is, you often can't tell. I've seen that particular phenomenon referred to as Poe's law.   obvious child Posted at 12:00 am on Sep. 23, 2008 Quote: from Nimzo at 6:05 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Oh right, for a while there i thought he was some sort of bizarre creationist caricature. The sad thing is, you often can't tell. Nimzo Posted at 9:05 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 3:43 am on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from Nimzo at 11:38 pm on Sep. 21, 2008 yankeefan. Are you actually a creationist of some sort or are you just going through the motions for the sake of it? because that would explain your failure to actually answer the question. He's actually a creationist. Yankeefan has such a history of avoiding questions and being perpetually wrong that I hope you sense it and are able to muster a giggle when he accuses OC of lying and such. Oh right, for a while there i thought he was some sort of bizarre creationist caricature. exceedinglyrare Posted at 8:13 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 The big bold letters are pretty much just as bad as the big bold red letters. In case you were wondering. yankeefan Posted at 7:55 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 10:52 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:46 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 I've asked a question repeatedly and all you can say is "you're wrong".   If the belief that all life evolved from a common ancestor never existed, what products would not have been produced besides publication?   And to answer your question, without the TOE, there wouldn't be mankind to invent stuff.   I already answered your question. Therefore you are a liar since you said I only said "you're wrong." Which by the way I haven't said yet.   I've already given you numerous products. Where is yours? According to you, if you don't believe in something, IT AUTOMATICALLY NEVER HAPPENED!!!! According to you, mankind wouldn't exist if Darwin didn't pioneer this wacky theory.   try again when you pass grade school thanks. obvious child Posted at 7:52 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:46 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 I've asked a question repeatedly and all you can say is "you're wrong". If the belief that all life evolved from a common ancestor never existed, what products would not have been produced besides publication? And to answer your question, without the TOE, there wouldn't be mankind to invent stuff.   I already answered your question. Therefore you are a liar since you said I only said "you're wrong." Which by the way I haven't said yet. I've already given you numerous products. Where is yours? yankeefan Posted at 7:46 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 I've asked a question repeatedly and all you can say is "you're wrong". If the belief that all life evolved from a common ancestor never existed, what products would not have been produced besides publication? obvious child Posted at 7:44 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:39 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 that's not the same as the theory of evolution; those products would have existed regardless if anybody believes that all life evolved from a common ancestor You can keep pretending that they aren't, but you'll be pretending. It's clear you have no product. If you did, you could have easily cited it. Instead you are relying on the known dishonest tactic of changing the subject. Creationism can never be argued on its own merits. Thus is relies on a false dichotomy that if evolution is wrong, it is right. By that logic, if the sky is not orange, it must be pink. Prove that biological evolution is not the same as the TOE. And "I say so" is not proof. It's idiocy. yankeefan Posted at 7:39 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 that's not the same as the theory of evolution; those products would have existed regardless if anybody believes that all life evolved from a common ancestor so once again: If the belief that all life evolved from a common ancestor never existed, what products would not have been produced besides publication? obvious child Posted at 7:36 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:30 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 lol. So where is your product that is derived from evolutionary science? Direct Applications: Genetic algorithm Custom Enzyme Production Currently in the works are stem cells.   Evolution's part in Stem Cell Research Population genetic, heavily used in agriculture.   Indirectly, TOE's timeframe of billions of years on Earth helps explain an indirect applications. 1) Radioactivity and its relation to nuclear power plants and weapons 2) Water tables and their replenish rates. The link between the current understanding of subsurface hydrology and evolution concerns the age of the water at a given point in a confined aquifer. The water in some confined aquifers is in the order of millions of years old, which is known due to the fact that gravity can only pull so much water from the exposed part of the formation for a given length through rocks of varying transmissivity. This means that technically any fossils in such a rock with water at a given age must be older than the water in the rock, which would provide a minimum age for the fossil. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=508&m=1 3) Geology, specifically regarding the location of where the algae and other plant life in the past died and was compressed into oil. Big Fossil geologists consult evolutionary biologists and archelogists for where large concentrations of these organisms were and start looking there. One of the key things they look for in rock samples is the presence of fossils of these diatoms.   I'm not holding my breath for any non-publishing Creationist commercial product. No problem. I already provided that to you twice. Where is your product from creationism? Or is that you have nothing and can't keep the discussion honest? If you were honest and if you were trying to be a good christian, you wouldn't be engaging in such massive dishonesty.     your argument was implied from the beginning theory of evolution =/= biological evolution and yet you've repeatedly said that it was Why aren't they the same? Or is that you have nothing but "I say so?" I see you dropped the quote. About time. yankeefan Posted at 7:30 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 10:27 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 lol. So where is your product that is derived from creationism science? lol. So where is your product that is derived from evolutionary science? How is it a lie? The quote you stated doesn't even address that! And you JUST stated what I've been stating about the quote all along. So now instead of a quote that is irrelevant and you trying to pass it of as relevant, all you have now is "I say so."   Not that I'm surprised.... your argument was implied from the beginning theory of evolution =/= biological evolution and yet you've repeatedly said that it was obvious child Posted at 7:27 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:25 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 without creationism, there wouldn't be mankind to invent stuff. lol. So where is your product that is derived from creationism science?   Your argument has been clear from the beginning, you have always implied that the theory of evolution and biological evolution are synonymous, the SAME. That is a completely lie and I'm glad you have FINALLY dropped that argument. How is it a lie? The quote you stated doesn't even address that! And you JUST stated what I've been stating about the quote all along. So now instead of a quote that is irrelevant and you trying to pass it of as relevant, all you have now is "I say so." Not that I'm surprised.... yankeefan Posted at 7:25 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 10:23 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Not going to own up to your lies? You just stated that the quote you quoted said the same thing I've been saying it said all along. And now you drop that quote.   Amusing.   And to answer your question, without the TOE, there wouldn't be mankind to invent stuff.   I'm still waiting for your imaginary product. without creationism, there wouldn't be mankind to invent stuff. Your argument has been clear from the beginning, you have always implied that the theory of evolution and biological evolution are synonymous, the SAME.  That is a completely lie and I'm glad you have FINALLY dropped that argument. obvious child Posted at 7:23 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Not going to own up to your lies? You just stated that the quote you quoted said the same thing I've been saying it said all along. And now you drop that quote. Amusing. And to answer your question, without the TOE, there wouldn't be mankind to invent stuff. I'm still waiting for your imaginary product. yankeefan Posted at 7:14 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 your argument is that the two are synonymous; that's clearly no the case and you failed to answer the question If the belief that all life evolved from a common ancestor never existed, what products would not have been produced besides publication? Most recent 15 of 63 previous replies displayed.