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

[Lion Hearted Man]

No

Then it shouldn't matter. The majority of people who accept evolution are Christians anyway.

 

[MoonLancer]

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.

Its not against the law to refuse people with poor education from schools that lie to them.

I don't mean economically poor btw i mean intellectually poor

 

[AV1611VET]

Its not against the law to refuse people with poor education from schools that lie to them.

That's not what I said.

I said it is against the law to refuse employment based on creationism.

I don't care if a 14-year-old with severe autism and total blindness applies for a job as a pilot.

 

[Split Rock]

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?

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

Can you tell us how to test "non-repeatable, subjective evidence?" If so, we will be glad to accept it. If not, it is useless.

 

[MoonLancer]

I said it is against the law to refuse employment based on creationism.

If creationism hinders the ability to learn about biology (yes even evolution) then the employer can refuse them employment (assuming the company is one that directly deals with biology and evolution).

Just like if a person believes the earth is flat, they are likely NOT going to be a rocket scientist dealing with verticals and trajectories. savy?

If i apply to work on a movie in Hollywood and state in the interview that i don't think movies exist and that tvs and local theaters are magic windows that show reality... yeah they don't need to hire me. In fact they can not hire me based off that.

Just like a creationist is not going to get a job as a biologist because their belief rejects biology and science.

 

[chris4243]

Can you tell us how to test "non-repeatable, subjective evidence?" If so, we will be glad to accept it. If not, it is useless.

Simple. Ask the person in question. He'll tell you about his subjective, non-repeatable evidence. I'm sure you realize that by demanding objective, repeatable evidence for all claims you categorically yet unjustifiably reject all subjective, non-repeatable evidence. So because you reject A, you reject A. Consistent yes, but also circular.

 

[chris4243]

Just like a creationist is not going to get a job as a biologist because their belief rejects biology and science.

Belief is irrelevant to science. A better example is quantum mechanics. Everyone with the proper math skills can do the equations, and get the right answers per the theory. They might believe in quantum mechanics, or not. They get the same answer either way.

 

[MoonLancer]

Belief is irrelevant to science. A better example is quantum mechanics. Everyone with the proper math skills can do the equations, and get the right answers per the theory. They might believe in quantum mechanics, or not. They get the same answer either way.

All that's required is knowledge of science and being able to apply that knowledge and the scientific method. Yet some beliefs like creationism hinders this.

So far I have not seen a single creationist display proper knowledge of evolution. They refuse to understand it. If they understood it though, they probably would stop being a creationist.

So to go back to the point, some schools are accredited but have poor biology departments and might even have some creation thrown. Its very likely people will not have the qualifications to be biologists attending one of those schools

 

[Greg1234]

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

The rock given was diorite which has a hardness of 6.5-7 on Mohs scale. Additionally, though it would be wrong to say that the only rock harder than diorite which is the most likely candidate for replicating the work done, is diamond. You would have to digress from the superficiality of mohs scale delve deeper.For example,

The principle advocate for fixed cutting points is Petrie, who stated in 1883 that 'The material of these cutting points is yet undetermined; but only five substances are possible beryl topaz, chrysoberyl, corundum or sapphire and diamond. The character of the work would certainly seem to point to diamond as the cutting jewel; and only the considerations of its rarity in general, and its absence from Egypt interfere with this conclusion and render the tough uncrystallized corundum the more likely material.' In 1925 however, Petrie wrote 'the cutting of Granite was done by means of a jeweled saws. . . and jeweled tubular drills. What cutting points were used is unknown, but it seems impossible for corundum to do such cutting through quartz.' In 1937, Petrie stated that a slicing tool was used, set with fixed emery points. . .'

The hardest rock that the ancient Egyptians cut was quartz, either as quartzite (which is wholly quartz) or as quart crystals in Granite and other rocks. The hardness of quartz on the Mohs scale is 7. The five stones mentioned by Petrie as alone being possible to use for cutting the Egyptian rocks, all have a hardness greater than that of quartz, beryl being 7.5-8, topaz 8; chrysoberyl 8.5; the gem forms of corundum (ruby sapphire) 9, and diamond the hardest of all stones, 10.

Although Beryl was known in Egypt, there is no evidence that it was known before the Greek epoch and the strongest improbability that it was ever obtained in the large quantity that would have been required had it been used for cutting hard stones...(A Lucus, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, p.86-87)
​

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.

Hardness is directly tied with manipulation. See 0:49:00-0:49:50
YouTube - Ancient Aliens: The Evidence (Season 1: Episode 1/5)

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.

Nobody is underestimating anything here but you. In fact there are tests which are being conducted (ex- 0:58:53- 1:03:20).

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.

Actually there are granite rocks also. Interestingly enough, the citation given for red sandstone within Wikipedia cannot be followed. Other sources like "Who taught the Inca Stonemasons their skills" also state that the rocks used vary between of granite and sandstone (with no mention of "red sandstone")

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.

Oooh aliens. . . Mystery Planets..When?. . .Von Daniken. . .What?. . SpaceShips. . .Who? What? Where? I'm so confused. . .What were we talking about again?

In preparation for your little adventure up there, the relevance of the data was already given,

As http://www.christianforums.com/t7556048-12/#post57403948

As a result of such a shock or influx, some have attributed this solely to aliens forgetting about that "perfect race". That it is evidence for the flood event, is fact, provided that one knows what he is looking at.

​

Yes it has aliens and Von Daniken in the video. You ok now? Do try to stay focused chief. Besides, we've only just begun.

 

[AV1611VET]

If creationism hinders the ability to learn about biology (yes even evolution) then the employer can refuse them employment (assuming the company is one that directly deals with biology and evolution).

Creationism will no more hinder the ability to learn about biology & evolution than Buddhism will hinder a man to pay child support.

 

[MoonLancer]

Creationism will no more hinder the ability to learn about biology & evolution than Buddhism will hinder a man to pay child support.

Then show me av ;p are you going to offer yourself up as an example?

And for someone who get upset and thinks people attack him for what he is, its kind of funny when you randomly attack an icon in my profile and I have yet spoken a single sentience on the subject. Judge me on words, not a few pixels on my profile as i have done.

 

[wensdee]

I find it fascinating how some people can talk themselves into disregarding 'the facts of life'.

'The facts of life' are with us whether we like them or not and any amount of self delusion will not alter that, but then again if people can get themselves to believe in astrology and faith healing 'the facts of life' for them must mean less than nothing.

Creationists spend their lives trying to circumvent 'the facts of life' with crap logic,
fact: the sun is hot, creationist logic: not if you stand in the shade.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then show me av ;p are you going to offer yourself up as an example?

When God calls me into the scientific venue, I'll go -- until then, I feel I'm blessed with the ability to see life from a faith-only perspective.

And for someone who get upset and thinks people attack him for what he is, its kind of funny when you randomly attack an icon in my profile and I have yet spoken a single sentience on the subject. Judge me on words, not a few pixels on my profile as i have done.

What was this all about?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The rock given was diorite which has a hardness of 6.5-7 on Mohs scale. Additionally, though it would be wrong to say that the only rock harder than diorite which is the most likely candidate for replicating the work done, is diamond. You would have to digress from the superficiality of mohs scale delve deeper.For example,

The principle advocate for fixed cutting points is Petrie, who stated in 1883 that 'The material of these cutting points is yet undetermined; but only five substances are possible beryl topaz, chrysoberyl, corundum or sapphire and diamond. The character of the work would certainly seem to point to diamond as the cutting jewel; and only the considerations of its rarity in general, and its absence from Egypt interfere with this conclusion and render the tough uncrystallized corundum the more likely material.' In 1925 however, Petrie wrote 'the cutting of Granite was done by means of a jeweled saws. . . and jeweled tubular drills. What cutting points were used is unknown, but it seems impossible for corundum to do such cutting through quartz.' In 1937, Petrie stated that a slicing tool was used, set with fixed emery points. . .'

The hardest rock that the ancient Egyptians cut was quartz, either as quartzite (which is wholly quartz) or as quart crystals in Granite and other rocks. The hardness of quartz on the Mohs scale is 7. The five stones mentioned by Petrie as alone being possible to use for cutting the Egyptian rocks, all have a hardness greater than that of quartz, beryl being 7.5-8, topaz 8; chrysoberyl 8.5; the gem forms of corundum (ruby sapphire) 9, and diamond the hardest of all stones, 10.

Although Beryl was known in Egypt, there is no evidence that it was known before the Greek epoch and the strongest improbability that it was ever obtained in the large quantity that would have been required had it been used for cutting hard stones...(A Lucus, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, p.86-87)
​

You are right, he does say diorite. Mohs hardness tells you if one mineral will scratch the surface of another. Diorite is composed plagioclase feldspar, amphibole and/or pyroxene and possibly quartz or biotite. These minerals range in hardness from 2.5 to 7 so the hardness of a sample will depend on its exact composition and where you measure it. But mohs hardness does not tell you if a stone can be cleaved and worked. Granite is hard but was widely used for construction by many ancient peoples including Incas and Mayas as I pointed out.

But ancient peoples could work diorite. Below is picture of a diorite vase produced by the Naqada II culture of ancient Egypt about 3,600 BCE.


and of course a famous is example is the Code of Hammurabi which is inscribed in a pillar of black diorite.

Hardness is directly tied with manipulation. See 0:49:00-0:49:50
YouTube - Ancient Aliens: The Evidence (Season 1: Episode 1/5)

Nobody is underestimating anything here but you. In fact there are tests which are being conducted (ex- 0:58:53- 1:03:20).

The skill of Inca and Mayan stone masons was remarkable but it does not require one to invoke either ancient astronauts or some mythical "flood survivors".

Actually there are granite rocks also.

So which blocks are granite and which are diorite?

Interestingly enough, the citation given for red sandstone within Wikipedia cannot be followed. Other sources like "Who taught the Inca Stonemasons their skills" also state that the rocks used vary between of granite and sandstone (with no mention of "red sandstone")

Actually the Wiki site says andesite and sandstone. But I suspect the blocks are mostly granite from what I can see of them in the videos.

Oooh aliens. . . Mystery Planets..When?. . .Von Daniken. . .What?. . SpaceShips. . .Who? What? Where? I'm so confused. . .What were we talking about again?

We were talking about how you somehow think a wack-job like Von Daniken has credibility because of a Youtube video.

In preparation for your little adventure up there, the relevance of the data was already given,

As http://www.christianforums.com/t7556048-12/#post57403948

As a result of such a shock or influx, some have attributed this solely to aliens forgetting about that "perfect race". That it is evidence for the flood event, is fact, provided that one knows what he is looking at.
​

So the only "evidence" that this site, probably built between 500 and 1000 AD provides for your flood myth is that you think it was built under the influence of cultural shock from contact with a "prefect race" of flood survivors. What a crock!
​

 

[Greg1234]

You are right, he does say diorite. Mohs hardness tells you if one mineral will scratch the surface of another. Diorite is composed plagioclase feldspar, amphibole and/or pyroxene and possibly quartz or biotite. These minerals range in hardness from 2.5 to 7 so the hardness of a sample will depend on its exact composition and where you measure it.

The mineral composition determines where they are placed on Mohs scale.

But mohs hardness does not tell you if a stone can be cleaved and worked.

Nobody said it couldn't be cleaved or worked. But you were shown that the ways in which it was cleaved or worked to produce a given set of results were in fact tested. A professional opinion was also garnered.

Granite is hard but was widely used for construction by many ancient peoples including Incas and Mayas as I pointed out.

Of course it was used. If it wasn't, then I would not have presented it.

But ancient peoples could work diorite.

Yes they could.

The skill of Inca and Mayan stone masons was remarkable but it does not require one to invoke either ancient astronauts or some mythical "flood survivors".

Doesn't really say anything.

So which blocks are granite and which are diorite? Actually the Wiki site says andesite and sandstone. But I suspect the blocks are mostly granite from what I can see of them in the videos.

They vary. Note the resounding irrelevance of this as granite is also a 6.5 to a 7 on Mohs scale and is actually characterized as including more quartz than diorite.

We were talking about how you somehow think a wack-job like Von Daniken has credibility because of a Youtube video.

Irrelevant.

So the only "evidence" that this site, probably built between 500 and 1000 AD provides for your flood myth is that you think it was built under the influence of cultural shock from contact with a "prefect race" of flood survivors. What a crock!
​

And again, irrelevant. I really don't know who you're performing for but let's get things done. And like I told you, we've just begun.

 

[Hespera]

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)

Scam in California involves setting up a college-they dont seem to check if there really is a college-and then bringing in third world 'students" at so much per head,. The "students" of course, seem to overstay their student visas.

 

[Split Rock]

Simple. Ask the person in question. He'll tell you about his subjective, non-repeatable evidence. I'm sure you realize that by demanding objective, repeatable evidence for all claims you categorically yet unjustifiably reject all subjective, non-repeatable evidence. So because you reject A, you reject A. Consistent yes, but also circular.

So, if I ask a bunch of people who claim to have been taken up in flying saucers by "Reptilians" and "Alien Greys" who impregnated them with alien babies and took samples of their brain tissue, that makes alien abductions true?

 

[chris4243]

So, if I ask a bunch of people who claim to have been taken up in flying saucers by "Reptilians" and "Alien Greys" who impregnated them with alien babies and took samples of their brain tissue, that makes alien abductions true?

That wasn't what I asked. I said you would reject subjective evidence, because it does not fit your pre-conceived ideas of what evidence ought to be. That's your choice, but you can't then turn around and claim the result as proof that the subjective evidence was false.

 

[Jazer]

fact: the sun is hot, creationist logic: not if you stand in the shade.

You don't know to come in out of the sun?

 

[wensdee]

You don't know to come in out of the sun?

Where ignorance is bliss tis folly to be wise.