Thursday, March 8, 2018

Do we Creationists reject scientific principles we still use in everyday technologies? No.

What are some everyday technologies that depend on scientific principles that Creationists reject?

giving those not by me on which I gave comments, and the one of Jean Dieudonné and one which he commented on. He upvoted some of my comments, btw. And so did Roger Pearlman.

Last giving my own summing up of their position as very lame debaters.

Prithvi Shiv
works at Social Media Marketing
Answered Dec 4, 2012
The field of medicine is most directly affected by evolution. The growing resistance to antibiotics is testimony to the fact microrganisms are evolving. Current pharmacuetical research is centered around trying to address this growing immunity to drug based treatments.

These are not technologies, strictly speaking, but phenomenon which we need to address because they have a direct impact on us:

  • Drug resistant pests
  • Cultivars
  • Animal breeds

Amongst many others.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nov 21
“The growing resistance to antibiotics is testimony to the fact microrganisms are evolving.”

A Creationist considers that an E. coli evolving to an E. coli somewhat closer to Salmonella bacterium (gaining ability to feed on citric acid) is no where near an E. coli or an Amoeba or sth evolving to Man.

I don’t know any Creationist who says E. coli did not mutate to profit from citric acid in the Lenski experiment.

In other words, you are extremely inaccurate about what Creationists reject.

Mathijs Booden,
PhD in earth science.
Answered Dec 4, 2012
Anything that tracks time by radioactive decay.

Anything that uses fossil fuels.

Anything that contains metals.

To name a few glaring examples.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nov 21
“Anything that tracks time by radioactive decay.”

Anything other than C14, yes, I do reject Ka-Ar dating or U-Pb or Th-Pb.

It is not an every day technology either.

You can test C14 as such and also a recently equal carbon level by dating historically datable objects once over again by C14.

You cannot date Hekla’s lava (latest eruption) … (The most recent eruption was relatively short; it started at 18:18 on 26 February 2000 and lasted until 8 March., thanks, wiki!) to 17 years ago by Ka-Ar so as to test it.

Even worse, you have even countertested it by Mount St Helen’s “recent” not even being within the given margin of error of tests giving very other values.

So, why exactly would Ka-Ar count as an “everyday technology”?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nov 21
“Anything that uses fossil fuels.”

No, simply a disagreement on when it was formed.

Some might of course boycott petrol if suspecting it came from human débris, but it seems it comes mainly from aquatic biota.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nov 21
“Anything that contains metals.”

I find the connection to the subject glaringly lacking.

Tor Bruce
Dec 5, 2012
Could you elaborate on the "contains metals" one?

Mathijs Booden
Dec 5, 2012
Metals are mined from ore deposits. There are many different types of ore deposits, formed over a wide range of ages and tectonic settings. Exploration for deposits is inextricably linked to an understanding of when, where and how different deposits formed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nov 21
“Exploration for deposits is inextricably linked to an understanding of when, where and how different deposits formed.”

Meaning, I suppose, an evolutionist understanding of it.

Conventionally, yes. Inextricably, no.

Dima Korolev
Head of Machine Learning at FriendlyData (2017-present)
Answered Jan 14, 2014
None, given how adaptive creationists are nowadays.

Jean Dieudonné
Nov 11
Ah that is an interesting new excuse you came up with. Did it ever occur to you that you might be wrong?

RA Gillmann
in the center
Answered Nov 10
There are none because creationists accept what can be demonstrated in laboratory science. For example, creationists accept adaptation and support modern medicine.

What they object to are statements about the distant past that cannot be demonstrated. Universal common descent, for example, cannot be demonstrated and does not produce any technology.

Jean Dieudonné
Future scientist and young earth creationist
Answered Nov 11
Simple answer: None.

Creationists believe in certain aspects of evolution, namely those which are factual, testable, repeatable and observable. Since natural selection and genetic variation is one of those aspects, we dont have any problem with Antibiotika evolving because of those two facts. That is why we dont have a problem with modern medicine.

Now show me where in science we need the common descent of man, abiogenesis or other things that simply dont have that kind of scientific backup and which technology that relies on them we reject. Please.

Cheers from Germany

Vinnie Veramente
Psych student
Answered Dec 4, 2012
The banana.

Peter Denyer
Mar 26, 2016
Nice example (particularly as ironically it was famously, and inanely, used as an argument for design) but you might like to expand on that answer for those who don't know why.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nov 21
I second Peter Denyer.

“you might like to expand on that answer for those who don't know why.”

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "". Debating evolutionists for 15 years +.
Answered just now
I commented on more than one answer, refuting the points.

And for some reason, the ones who answered and on which I commented seemed to feel no need to refute my comments.

Perhaps they especially felt no need to expose their lack of refutations.

There are no everyday technologies that depend on scientific principles we reject.

No comments: