Why does the Atomic Theory NOT account for the propagation of diseases by micro-organisms?

That's like putting the cart before the horse.

How did microbes and disease appear here in the first place? by magic? Pls Explain.

Can you expand, huxley?

Pathogenic bacteria are micro-organisms and they invade other organisms and cause diseases. They're not to be confused with a virus, which is not a living entity and therefore not classed as a micro-organism.
That's basic biology and I can't see how that is contradicted by Atomic Theory.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogenic_microbes

Bastage:

Can you expand, huxley?

Pathogenic bacteria are micro-organisms and they invade other organisms and cause diseases. They're not to be confused with a virus, which is not a living entity and therefore not classed as a micro-organism.
That's basic biology and I can't see how that is contradicted by Atomic Theory.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogenic_microbes

Sorry if that was a bit cryptic. Let me put it another way:

Why does the Theory of Plate Tectonic NOT explain diversity of life on the planet?

huxley:

Sorry if that was a bit cryptic. Let me put it another way:

Why does the Theory of Plate Tectonic NOT explain diversity of life on the planet?

again cart before the horse.

How does the theory of plate tactonics explain the APPEARANCE of life on the planet? Before diversity there must have been creation no?

Why does the Theory of Plate Tectonic NOT explain diversity of life on the planet?

I'm still not getting you. In what way?

Continental drift by way of Plate Tectonic movement has resulted in diversity and in some cases, uniqueness of life. Take for example, Australia with egg laying mammals that can't be found anywhere else on Earth.

If what you're leading up to is the Pangaea theory then I'm with you on that. The continents fit together like jigsaws and I see it as undeniable proof that gives Creationism another kick up the backside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

But like I said, you need to be more specific for me to understand what you're trying to say here.

Bastage:

I'm still not getting you. In what way?

Continental drift by way of Plate Tectonic movement has resulted in diversity and in some cases, uniqueness of life. Take for example, Australia with egg laying mammals that can't be found anywhere else on Earth.

If what you're leading up to is the Pangaea theory then I'm with you on that. The continents fit together like jigsaws and I see it as undeniable proof that gives Creationism another kick up the backside.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

But like I said, you need to be more specific for me to understand what you're trying to say here.

Pardon me for not having provided some context to the question, but I would have thought these would be easy questions for anyone with some scientific background to address. Looks like you have bee focusing too closely on the details of each of these theories without taking a panoramic view of what scientific theory address.


Now, let me give a bit of context. In other post on this forum, it has become customary for the pseudo-scientific members, notably Davidylan, to bastardise and misrepresent science. Take a look at how he does it here, which I present below;

Quote from: davidylan on Yesterday at 01:25:56 AM
the problem is KAG comes here spewing a lot of jargon and so the dumb here keep crying about how good she is with what are largely the theories of those with nothing to do with their time but dream up conjecture.

And? How have these theories proven anything about the central question?
How did earth appear here?

It is a desperately flawed theory that is only held by those who wish to negate the creation story. How did this big bang occur? when and through what?
What produced the big bang? Can science re-create life with a big bang?

bla bla bla . . . all this is big grammar that does little to educate us on the central question . . . how did we get on this planet?

Based on more of your flawed scientific theories? Where you there when the earth was created? Who created it? The big bang?
why is the earth the ONLY planet that supports life?

In other words . . . these scientists don't have a clue how we arrived here so they grasp at any straws to explain it away. when you probe deeper they hide under the banner of "we are still searching".
Now you mention "available evidence" . . . what evidence?

If we evolved from other species why have we suddenly stopped evolving? Which species did we evolve from and HOW?
Abiogenesis? Funny enough abiogenenesis DOES NOT occur in real life because amino acids cannot stably form peptides in the natural environment. We already know Miller's experiment was one huge manipulative failure.

Planetry formation? How? why have they stopped forming? Why havent we seen any new huge planets since?

Solar system? Why only one sun for the last million years? Why hasnt this sun died out yet?

don't worry, your praise singers will be here to cheer you on again.

davidylan:

A theory cannot be the basis of another theory. We don't know the big bang occured.

the correct answer is we don't know. You can only define space in the context of something else . . . in this case earth. Since earth didnt exist millions of years ago, what was in existence then?

Straw man alert. Does science have an answer for how we came to arrive on planet earth?

These are just two of the most recent misrepresentation of science (and to think he works in the scientific field).

Basically, Davidylan expect the Big Bang Theory of Cosmic expansion to also provide the explanatory mechanism for the start of life on the planet. If that were true, I would also expect the Atomic Theory to also explain the spread of disease via micro-organism and Plate Tectonic to explain the diversity of lifeform.

When I put this to him, he cowardly evaded. I know many delisional theists have the mindset of Davidylan, so I thought to address this bastardisation of science specifically, I would start a separate thread to deal with just this issue.

That is the context. I hope that helps.

Another cowardly Huxley rant . . .

How did earth appear? Start from there instead of crying about "misrepresentation of science".

Pardon me for not having provided some context to the question, but I would have thought these would be easy questions for anyone with some scientific background to address.

LOL. Now you've given it in context I understand.

But I think you're missing the picture here. This isn't a question to theists. Theists are able to use logical science and adapt it to their beliefs without contradicting what the rational would call "scientific fact" . You're addressing religious theists. They tend to be constrained by dogmatic ideals that there's no workaround for.

For example, I'm a Big Bouncer. I believe that the Big Bang is just a long line of eternal bangs and crunches. It explains the question of how something is created from nothing. Maybe taking the easy way out but at least it has a basis in rational science.

Bastage:

LOL. Now you've given it in context I understand.

But I think you're missing the picture here. This isn't a question to theists. Theists are able to use logical science and adapt it to their beliefs without contradicting what the rational would call "scientific fact" . You're addressing religious theists. They tend to be constrained by dogmatic ideals that there's no workaround for.

For example, I'm a Big Bouncer. I believe that the Big Bang is just a long line of eternal bangs and crunches. It explains the question of how something is created from nothing. Maybe taking the easy way out but at least it has a basis in rational science.

Interesting! Are you a non-religious theist? What does this mean?