Creationists, what do the worlds universities know that creationists don't?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

As expected, Here you go, take a crash course.
YouTube - Great Pyramids vs Puma Punku

Erich Von Daniken! Now there's a credible source, NOT!

 

[wensdee]

OK so let's all agree that there are aliens out there who visited the earth a long time ago, what now?
where did they come from? we don't know,
how did they get here? we don't know,
why did they come here? we don't know,
why didn't they leave better and more obvious signs that they were here? we don't know,
how are we going to answer these questions? we can't,
where do we go from here? where would you like to go?

And back to square one.

 

[chris4243]

I don't know what more you want to "prove" that the world is objective and repeatable. All our science and the technology based on that science demonstrate this.

But what does that actually show? That formulas derived to explain objective, repeatable data can frequently predict objective, repeatable data? I'll grant that it does prove that the universe is at least in large part objective and experiments repeatable, but it in no way constitutes proof.

Science is not a tool for determining "truth" in the absolute sense. Science rejects subjective, non-repeatable data as useless to science (i.e. to the study of the physical world), not necessarily as false.

Sure, but if that data is part of a well-defined experiment that is later conclusively shown to have different results, you can bet the data will be considered false. But you're right, it could be considered irrelevant instead, if that were acceptable.

That is why we do not claim knowledge of "absolute truth." We leave that to creationists.

Fair enough.

 

[Split Rock]

But what does that actually show? That formulas derived to explain objective, repeatable data can frequently predict objective, repeatable data? I'll grant that it does prove that the universe is at least in large part objective and experiments repeatable, but it in no way constitutes proof.

It shows that experiements involving physical phenomena are repeatable and that physical phenomena are explainable by physical laws.

Sure, but if that data is part of a well-defined experiment that is later conclusively shown to have different results, you can bet the data will be considered false. But you're right, it could be considered irrelevant instead, if that were acceptable.

Data are not false. Hypotheses can be falsified as well as theories. If predictions made by a theory are found to be correct and no experiment has falsified the theory, then we tentatively view the theory as correct. After many years and repeated tests of the predictions of a theory still do not falsify it, then it is generally accepted as "fact." Evolution falls into this category.

 

[chris4243]

It shows that experiements involving physical phenomena are repeatable and that physical phenomena are explainable by physical laws.

Just to clarify: are you saying that numerous experiements involving physical phenomena are repeatable and that therefore all physical phenomena are always explainable by physical laws? For the universe to be objective, it has to be all objective, does it not?

Data are not false.

Scientists disagree, and will occasionally discard data that is seen as clearly in error (eg 10 standard deviations away from the mean and no reason for that to happen). In any case, mostly you don't have the data but instead have only claims of others to have certain data. And then there are hoaxes.

 

[Nostromo]

This is merely one out of dozens "ideas" about how the GP was built none of which adequately explains it nor the various other mega-structures lke those at Puma Punku,.

So the logic here is that because we don't know how they did it, then aliens/God/pixies/Batman must have done it?

I wasn't aware that "I don't know, therefore magic" was valid reasoning.

I wish someone had told me that at school, would have saved me a lot of work.

 

[keith99]

Of course there are religious universities out there teaching all kinds of rubbish, I could even set up the UFSM that tells students the FSM is the one true God, it might have university in the title but it would be anything but a university.
I am talking about UNIVERSITIES not myth schools and diploma mills.

I once heard a theology degree likened to a degree in 'Books by Charles Dickens'.

So all Universities teach evolution, and any one that does not is not a real University.

Nice circular definition.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So all Universities teach evolution, and any one that does not is not a real University.

Nice circular definition.

Actually it is a version of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

 

[Split Rock]

Just to clarify: are you saying that numerous experiements involving physical phenomena are repeatable and that therefore all physical phenomena are always explainable by physical laws? For the universe to be objective, it has to be all objective, does it not?

What I am saying is, if you can show that there are any physical phenomena that are not explainable by physical laws, then you will be the first.

Scientists disagree, and will occasionally discard data that is seen as clearly in error (eg 10 standard deviations away from the mean and no reason for that to happen). In any case, mostly you don't have the data but instead have only claims of others to have certain data. And then there are hoaxes.

Are you arguing that most data in the sceintfic literature is faked? Such data are not repeatable, and non-repeatable data are not used to formulate theories accepted by the scientific community. In other words, we have a safeguard for false data.

 

[MoonLancer]

Lets just stick to schools that are accredited, and discount schools that would disqualify one from getting a job in the field of biology. (There are maybe 1 or 2 that i know of that are still somehow accredited)

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

So the logic here is that because we don't know how they did it, then aliens/God/pixies/Batman must have done it?

I wasn't aware that "I don't know, therefore magic" was valid reasoning.

I wish someone had told me that at school, would have saved me a lot of work.

I should point out that the video Greg linked has some things in it that are directly false. Dolomite is far from the hardnest mineral known with a mohs hardness of around 3.5 - 4 (for instance flint has a hardness of 7) and it certainly doesn't need to be worked with diamond tipped tools. Dolomite is brittle and cleaves easily along rhombodia planes. People have been making things from Dolomite and Diorite for many thousands of years. It is a mistake to conflate hardness with difficulty of cleaving.

Granite, while also a hard rock, is not that difficult to work. The structures at Machu Picchu are granite. There was a show on one of the science channels last night about their construction and the guy was demonstrating how to work granite blocks with ordinary rocks. It is a slow and tedious process but there is nothing mysterious or impossible about it. These "ancient astronaut" things are just underestimating the cleverness and persistence of ancient humans. Interestingly Wikepedia says the stones at Puma Punku are sandstone but it doesn't really matter if they are sandstone, dolomite or granite. I suppose if they really are sandstone it would just be more evidence of how bogus Von Daniken is.

I am also puzzling about why anyone would think a youtube video claiming the structures at Puma Punka were made by ancient astronauts could be considered evidence for a global flood. Talk about a stretch.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I should point out that the video Greg linked has some things in it that are directly false. Dolomite is far from the hardnest mineral known with a mohs hardness of around 3.5 - 4 (for instance flint has a hardness of 7) and it certainly doesn't need to be worked with diamond tipped tools. Dolomite is brittle and cleaves easily along rhombodia planes. People have been making thing from Dolomite and Diorite for many thousands of years. It is a mistake to conflate hardness with difficulty of cleaving.

Granite, while also a hard rock, is not that difficult to work. The structures at Machu Picchu are granite. There was a show on one of the science channels last night about their construction and the guy was demonstrating how to work granite blocks with ordinary rocks. It is a slow and tedious process but there is nothing mysterious or impossible about it. These "ancient astronaut" things are just underestimating the cleverness and persistence of ancient humans. Interestingly Wikepedia says the stones at Puma Punku are sandstone but it doesn't really matter if they are sandstone, dolomite or granite. I suppose if they really are sandstone it would just be more evidence of how bogus Von Daniken is.

I am also puzzling about why anyone would think a youtube video claiming the structures at Puma Punka were made by ancient astronauts could be considered evidence for a global flood. Talk about a stretch.

Well, without stretching, there wouldn't be anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lets just stick to schools that are accredited, and discount schools that would disqualify one from getting a job in the field of biology.

I don't know where you're from -- but in this Christian nation, it is against the law to refuse one a job based on whether or not he is a creationist.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't know where you're from -- but in this Christian nation, it is against the law to refuse one a job based on whether or not he is a creationist.

True. My daughter's high school biology teacher (a public school) is YEC. He did teach evolution but always qualifed it with (If you believe that stuff)

 

[AV1611VET]

True. My daughter's high school biology teacher (a public school) is YEC. He did teach evolution but always qualifed it with (If you believe that stuff)

I would think teaching against one's convictions would generate a fair amount of cognitive dissonance -- (or Spiritual conviction) -- wouldn't you?

 

[chris4243]

What I am saying is, if you can show that there are any physical phenomena that are not explainable by physical laws, then you will be the first.

Just to clarify again: is what you are asking for, repeatable, objective evidence that the universe is non-repeatable or subjective, before you will accept that there might be non-repeatable, subjective aspects to the universe? Or would non-repeatable, subjective evidence be OK?

Are you arguing that most data in the sceintfic literature is faked? Such data are not repeatable, and non-repeatable data are not used to formulate theories accepted by the scientific community. In other words, we have a safeguard for false data.

And your safeguard against false or inaccurate data will necessarily eliminate from consideration any data that is subjective and non-repeatable.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I would think teaching against one's convictions would generate a fair amount of cognitive dissonance -- (or Spiritual conviction) -- wouldn't you?

Maybe, he seemed to take it in stride and my daughter actually thought he was a pretty good teacher. I suppose it helped that he is a very likeable guy.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I would think teaching against one's convictions would generate a fair amount of cognitive dissonance -- (or Spiritual conviction) -- wouldn't you?

As long as the person doesn't believe it's a "salvation issue", I don't see what the big deal is. You don't believe that Christians who accept evolution would go to hell for that reason, do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I suppose it helped that he is a very likeable guy.

Most people who compromise their faith are -- especially here, where they're welcome to post w/o retribution from the non-believers.

 

[AV1611VET]

As long as the person doesn't believe it's a "salvation issue", I don't see what the big deal is.

How about "grieving the Hol..." -- nevermind, it's a long story.

Suffice it to say, it may just be brought up as "wood, hay, stu..." -- skip that too.

He may suffer rewards in Heaven for it.

You don't believe that Christians who accept evolution would go to hell for that reason, do you?

No