Pages: 1 2 3  Next -- Posted by obvious child 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? -- Posted by the real anti christ at 12:08 am on Sep. 18, 2008 Miracle Water. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 9:57 am on Sep. 18, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 2:30 am on Sep. 18, 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? Does Kirk Cameron count as publishing? -- Posted by yankeefan at 8:55 am on Sep. 19, 2008 what has the theory of evolution created in terms of commercial products besides publication? -- Posted by obvious child at 1:26 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 5:55 am on Sep. 19, 2008 what has the theory of evolution created in terms of commercial products besides publication? 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. -- Posted by yankeefan at 6:23 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 there's a distinction between the theory of evolution and biological evolution biological evolution pretty much means change in populations the theory of evolution says that all life evolved from a common ancestor what has the theory of evolution specifically produced in terms of commercial products? what products would not have been produced if the belief that man evolved from a common ancestor never existed? -- Posted by obvious child at 6:50 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 3:23 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 there's a distinction between the theory of evolution and biological evolution No there isn't. Biological evolution is TOE. biological evolution pretty much means change in populations   the theory of evolution says that all life evolved from a common ancestor Which is the same thing. Good job. Biological evolution is the evolution of biological organisms which is defined by the TOE. The rest of your post is invalid as biological evolution = TOE. And this thread is about the Commercial Products of Creationism. Stop trying to turn into a discussion on evolution. Your false dichotomy is soon to be reported. -- Posted by yankeefan at 6:54 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 the theory of evolution makes statements BASED on biological evolution, it is not biological evolution, not by a long shot biological evolution isn't the issue here, it's the theory of evolution that's controversial so, what has the theory of evolution, the belief that all life evolved from common ancestor produced? you know there isn't anything and yet you don't want to admit it -- Posted by obvious child at 7:08 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 3:54 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 the theory of evolution makes statements BASED on biological evolution, it is not biological evolution, not by a long shot biological evolution isn't the issue here, it's the theory of evolution that's controversial Incorrect. Again, biological evolution IS the theory of evolution. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution so, what has the theory of evolution, the belief that all life evolved from common ancestor produced? you know there isn't anything and yet you don't want to admit it Pretending that biological evolution is different the the theory of evolution is dishonest. Where is your product from Creationism? Stop trying to change the subject. -- Posted by yankeefan at 7:44 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 that's not true at all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact Evolution is both theory and fact. This statement, or something similar, is frequently seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][4][6][7] The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, from the "theory of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about. -- Posted by obvious child at 7:47 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Uh, all that says is that the theory of evolution has parts unproven, but that there are facts of evolution.   That doesn't in any ways prove your claim that biological evolution is not TOE. In fact that quote proves that evolution does have facts. Thanks for citing it for me. I'll bring that up next time you declare evolution to be false. Where is your product from Creationism? -- Posted by yankeefan at 7:59 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 10:47 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Uh, all that says is that the theory of evolution has parts unproven, but that there are facts of evolution. That doesn't in any ways prove your claim that biological evolution is not TOE. In fact that quote proves that evolution does have facts. Thanks for citing it for me. I'll bring that up next time you declare evolution to be false.   Where is your product from Creationism? not true at all, the fact and theory part are clearly distinguished the observed changes in populations is not the issue here the issue is the theory of evolution, which states that all life has a common ancestor there's a clear distinction By saying there's not, you're making a bold-faced lie. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 7:59 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 OC, you really might want to abstain here...he does bad things to your blood pressure.   -- Posted by obvious child at 8:02 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:59 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 not true at all, the fact and theory part are clearly distinguished Such as? Because you said so?   the observed changes in populations is not the issue here That is the defining feature of evolution, change in allele frequencies over time. You haven't learned a single thing about evolution yet. the issue is the theory of evolution, which states that all life has a common ancestor And which you have yet to prove is different from biological evolution. Your own quote doesn't help you. there's a clear distinction Because you said so? Where is the evidence? By saying there's not, you're making a bold-faced lie. Where lie means anything you do not like. Name me a single product. And you again being dishonest. This is about commercial products of Creationism. I see you can't even name one non-publishing one. -- Posted by obvious child at 8:04 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 4:59 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 OC, you really might want to abstain here...he does bad things to your blood pressure. Nah, I have a plan. It's called Get Yankee fan BANNED FOREVER. -- Posted by yankeefan at 8:07 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 11:02 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:59 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 not true at all, the fact and theory part are clearly distinguished Such as? Because you said so?   the observed changes in populations is not the issue here That is the defining feature of evolution, change in allele frequencies over time. You haven't learned a single thing about evolution yet. the issue is the theory of evolution, which states that all life has a common ancestor And which you have yet to prove is different from biological evolution. Your own quote doesn't help you. there's a clear distinction Because you said so? Where is the evidence? By saying there's not, you're making a bold-faced lie. Where lie means anything you do not like.  Name me a single product. Evolution is both theory and fact. This statement, or something similar, is frequently seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][4][6][7]   The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, from the "theory of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about. I've presented you the evidence and yet you've plead ignorance and refuse to acknowledge it; you are a liar, plain and simple -- Posted by obvious child at 8:11 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Come again? How does that prove that biological evolution is different from the TOE? All that quote says is that their are facts of evolution and there is the overarching TOE. It does not state that biological evolution is not the same thing. WHERE IS YOUR CREATIONIST COMMERCIAL PRODUCT? This thread is about the commercial products of Creationism. I have provided numerous products and services that are derived from Evolution. Where is the stuff from creationism? STOP WITH THE MASSIVE DISHONESTY. -- Posted by yankeefan at 8:21 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 11:11 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Come again? How does that prove that biological evolution is different from the TOE? All that quote says is that their are facts of evolution and there is the overarching TOE. It does not state that biological evolution is not the same thing.   WHERE IS YOUR CREATIONIST COMMERCIAL PRODUCT? This thread is about the commercial products of Creationism. I have provided numerous products and services that are derived from Evolution. Where is the stuff from creationism? STOP WITH THE MASSIVE DISHONESTY. you've come up with commercial products which are dervied from biological evolution, evolution as a fact, observable evolution, different from the theory of evolution which is the controversial topic all the debate is centered on Evolution is both theory and fact. This statement, or something similar, is frequently seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][4][6][7]   The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, from the "theory of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about. the fact that you can't admit you're wrong after I show you clear evidence is proof that you're nothing but a liar the text couldn't be more clearer theory of evolution is distinct from observed changes in a population -- Posted by obvious child at 8:24 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Your entire argument is "I say so." For the last time, all that statement says is that there are facts and there is the theory. It does not even mention the term biological evolution. How does that prove that biological evolution is different from the TOE when it doesn't even cite biological evolution? And I take your constant failure to provide any product that Creationism HAS NO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS. -- Posted by yankeefan at 8:27 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 11:24 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Your entire argument is "I say so." For the last time, all that statement says is that there are facts and there is the theory. It does not even mention the term biological evolution. How does that prove that biological evolution is different from the TOE when it doesn't even cite biological evolution?   And I take your constant failure to provide any product that Creationism HAS NO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS. is evolution not biological?  Hello?  I mean COME ON, do better. the theory of evolution has no products.  period. -- Posted by obvious child at 8:30 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 5:27 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 is evolution not biological? Hello? I mean COME ON, do better. Thanks. Biological evolution is the TOE. Thanks for playing.   the theory of evolution has no products. period. Incorrect as usual. 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.   Ignoring whatever you want just shows how weak your arguments are. -- Posted by obvious child at 8:35 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Alright Yank, Here's the deal. We stop this bitching over evolution/creationism and take it to a dedicated forum. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dBoard.cgi?sst=true Register there. You'll find my screen name easily with over 500 posts. -- Posted by yankeefan at 5:58 am on Sep. 20, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 11:30 pm on Sep. 19, 2008 Thanks. Biological evolution is the TOE. Thanks for playing. [size =3]The theory of evolution is distinct from biological evolution.  Your failure to acknowledge it proves that you're a liar. Incorrect as usual.   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. Ignoring whatever you want just shows how weak your arguments are. Wrong as usual.  The theory of evolution does not come into play.  If the belief that all life evolved from a common ancestor is eliminated those products would still be here. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 8:11 am on Sep. 20, 2008 More red letters, guys. I don't think you're making your posts eye-bleedy enough. -- Posted by obvious child at 2:00 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Yank's just up to his typical "I say so." He's afraid to go to a forum of real, practicing scientists.   -- Posted by yankeefan at 2:13 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 5:00 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Yank's just up to his typical "I say so." He's afraid to go to a forum of real, practicing scientists. Lying again.  I specifically provided evidence which states that the theory is clearly distinct. This is a classic example of another one of your lies and your refusal to face facts. -- Posted by obvious child at 2:47 pm on Sep. 20, 2008 Incorrect. You did not even respond well to my dissection. All the quote states it there are facts of evolution and there is the overarching theory. But we may have to give you a pass given your inability to read. -- Posted by exceedinglyrare at 4:17 pm on Sep. 21, 2008 Thank you for getting rid of the red letters. -- Posted by jonlester31 at 7:09 pm on Sep. 21, 2008 Just for starters, Christopher Columbus decided to sail west to reach the east when he read in the bible where it says that "God puts his foot on the sphere of the Earth."  SO I'd say that was a major product from religion. -- Posted by yankeefan at 7:31 pm on Sep. 21, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact Evolution is both theory and fact. This statement, or something similar, is frequently seen in biological literature.[1][2][3][4][5][4][6][7]  The point of this statement is to differentiate the concept of the "fact of evolution", namely the observed changes in populations of organisms over time, from the "theory of evolution", namely the current scientific explanation of how those changes came about. again, not my fault you're a liar who refuses to acknowledge facts Pages: 1 2 3  Next