Post by An Goldish Jade on Jul 14, 2017 6:25:13 GMT 5
well, every branch of science is linked togther, if they deny one, than even if they say they respect the other parts, it should not be taken seriously, besides did the "creationists" created the "distinction" of historical and observation science?( so they dont look like they are anti-techology)
Post by creature386 on Jul 14, 2017 22:50:05 GMT 5
I'm not sure who has "invented" it, the distinction appears in some non-creationist literature, but not by implying that one is more empirical than the other. It is more used as some arbitrary distinction, like the distinction between, say, life and Earth sciences. That being said, a lot related to technology development is not linked to evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology or anything else YECs are denying.
Post by An Goldish Jade on Jul 16, 2017 10:22:21 GMT 5
well, maybe this group(creationist) only attacks one branch of science( can i ask, how frequent do do non-creationists use the term "historical" and "observation"?) but what type of science would those theists that claim earth is "flat" or claiming that "heaven" exists are opposed to?
Post by An Goldish Jade on Jul 18, 2017 13:42:59 GMT 5
well, sane people would have no way of understanding how there could be such thoughts exist, oh, the link you posted says that there is non-creationists who think the dinstinction make sense but it also says
"Operational science" (not to be confused with Operations researchWikipedia's W.svg) is a term coined by creationists for any science that "deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites.".
The term "Operational science" and the creationist understanding of "Historical science" are not considered valid scientific terminology, and primarily appear in arguments presented by creationists about whether ideas such as abiogenesis, evolution and the Big Bang Theory are really scientific. As Bill Nye pointed out when debating Ken Ham, even Ken Ham admits that the distinction is entirely a creationist invention, and no scientist not on the Answers in Genesis (AiG) payroll agrees with him about it.
so should we say that creationists made it up, and it affected scientists, or creationists just exploited it? i still think it is creationists creation.
Post by creature386 on Jul 22, 2017 13:52:07 GMT 5
Yes. And "historical science" does have practical applications, by the way. Geology is largely a historical science, yet oil companies sometimes hire geologists who use their understanding of processes that take millions of years to tell them where to search for oil. Let's see if flood geologists can do the same.
Post by creature386 on Jul 25, 2017 14:25:08 GMT 5
"A lot of technology", not "nothing in technology at all". Moreover, geology is not so useful for creating new technology per se, but rather for telling people where to find the stuff they need for new technology. While it is not unimportant, it is subordinate in importance to, say, quantum mechanics or electrochemistry which will both be crucial for the future of our civilization and are typically not denied by YECs.
Infinity Blade: I'm not sure. Freshwater plants certainly grow from the underwater sediment upwards, but I don't know if they support the same kinds of diverse ecosystems seagrass meadows do.
Mar 25, 2022 21:40:57 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Is there a freshwater equivalent of seagrass meadows?
Mar 24, 2022 22:17:28 GMT 5
hypezephyr: IN DROWN, WATER WILL CHIMPS
May 27, 2021 22:33:21 GMT 5
kekistani: IN WATER, CHIMPS WILL DROWN.
Mar 18, 2021 11:18:01 GMT 5
roninwolf1981: I wonder why is it that the greater apes would drown if they fell into water from the trees?
Mar 16, 2021 22:25:11 GMT 5
kekistani: The virgin and bluepilled Mokele Mbembe versus the CHAD and REDPILLED Water Elephant
Mar 4, 2021 22:31:57 GMT 5
Ceratodromeus: Considering even the most terrestrially inclined extant crocodilians are also very good swimmers, i see zero reason for sebechids to not be.
Feb 25, 2021 21:09:18 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Virtually every terrestrial animal can swim if it needs to. I don't know about tail flexibility, though.
Feb 21, 2021 22:17:14 GMT 5
jhg: Probably not. Terrestrial crocodiles stayed on land for a good reason.
Feb 21, 2021 11:17:16 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Do you think sebecids and other crocodile-like terrestrial animals were good swimmers and if so, would they have used their tails to swim or would they have been too stiff?
Feb 21, 2021 6:16:35 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Welcome to World of Animals.
Jan 31, 2021 5:06:24 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Any idea how well pterosaurs would have fared in extremely cold climates? I can't help but assume that their wing membranes would be more vunerable to frostbite than a bird's wing.
Jan 23, 2021 9:38:14 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Turns out there is a study: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08812-2 fresh bones provided 63% more energy than dry bones but what I find intresting is that dry bones that are between 3-12 months old is still a viable food source for them.
Jan 4, 2021 9:18:34 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: I think they might get calcium from the bones, but those might be harder to digest as well. For bone marrow, I'd say however long it's around before it completely decays.
Jan 4, 2021 6:23:06 GMT 5
Supercommunist: Question: I know a bearded vulture's diet consists mainly of bone marrow, but are they able to derive nutritional value from old bones or do the bones have to be relatively fresh?
Jan 4, 2021 2:59:21 GMT 5
Infinity Blade: Happy New Year mudda fuggas.
Jan 1, 2021 10:02:06 GMT 5