If creationism is true, then why is it useless?

[Thedictator]

T. roseae

So what it is unproven.

 

[Dale]

Morris left that position in 1970 to found the Institute for Creation Research, which has never done any biological research. He has been dead for eleven years.

You hit the nail right on the head, Speedwell!

 

[pitabread]

And that has nothing to do with evolution.

Yeah, it does. There are direct applications of datasets derived from phylogenetic relationships (i.e. the common descent part) utilized in algorithms for performing genomic sequence comparison.

Google "phylogenetic shadowing" and "phylogenetic footprinting" if you don't believe me.

Now, where are the applications of creationism?

 

[Thedictator]

He should let the geologists know, because I don't think they're aware.

He did and some agree.

 

[Speedwell]

He did and some agree.

Not very many. Practicing Geologists--those who make a living by finding oil and minerals--don't use creationist theory because it doesn't work.

 

[HitchSlap]

He did and some agree.

No serious geologist believes there was a global-wide flood some 6,000 years ago.

 

[sfs]

And that has nothing to do with evolution.

Common descent is part of evolution. It's what we use.

Other examples:
Using common descent to infer the ancestral genetic state, which in turn helps us identify place in the genome where positive natural selection has been acting recently, which are biologically important.

Using common descent to estimate the local mutation rate in parts of the genome, again useful for a variety of biomedical applications.

 

[HitchSlap]

So what it is unproven.

Huh?

T. roseae is a prime example of ToE in action (application).

 

[pitabread]

There are several institutes of Creation science that do all kinds of biological applications with creationism.

Still waiting for some examples...

 

[HitchSlap]

Still waiting for some examples...

Well, so far, we have a civil engineer convincing a couple of geologists there was a global flood (I'm guessing they were Christians).

 

[Ophiolite]

I just read a book that he wrote and the back cover gave that information.

Let me know when you have read a book that addresses the question you have consistently failed to answer so far in this thread.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, so far, we have a civil engineer convincing a couple of geologists there was a global flood (I'm guessing they were Christians).

Or possibly microbiologists. They are quite small minded.

 

[HitchSlap]

Or possibly microbiologists. They are quite small minded.

 

[pitabread]

Let me know when you have read a book that addresses the question you have consistently failed to answer so far in this thread.

I suspect this thread will go how it usually goes:

1) Creationists fail to present any examples (let's be honest, there aren't any; it's an impossible task);
2) Creationists claim evolution has no applications and/or ask for examples of applied evolution;
3) Creationists dismiss any examples of applied evolution given;
4) Repeat.

 

[HitchSlap]

I suspect this thread will go how it usually goes:

1) Creationists fail to present any examples (let's be honest, there aren't any; it's an impossible task);
2) Creationists claim evolution has no applications and/or ask for examples of applied evolution;
3) Creationists dismiss any examples of applied evolution given;
4) Repeat.

Right on que.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I've been struggling to figure out the applications for creationism. Besides theme parks and merchandising, there doesn't appear to be anything else.

Bishop Ussher wrote the book on Creationism, first published in 1658. There is no conflict between his book and modern day science. His book has survived the test of time. The reason is his book begins 6,000 years ago with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Is Genesis history?

Yes, as history Genesis is extremely accurate.

 

[USincognito]

They have. There have been numerous documentaries on the science of creationism, and many Christian University teach and do research into creationism. There are several institutes of Creation science that do all kinds of biological applications with creationism. Just saying there is not any does not make it true.

Why allude when you can name names?

 

[USincognito]

Life's origin doesn't really have any implications, anyway. You can get through life just fine believing whatever you want on the subject with virtually zero issues. The only thing creationism handicaps you on is your competence in an evolutionary profession.

What is an "evolutionary profession"?

 

[USincognito]

So what it is unproven.