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

[Split Rock]

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.

Science rejects the use of non-repeatable, subjective evidence because it is unreliable and impossible to test. This is nothing more than a practical matter, and you have not demonstrated how such evidence could be used effectively by science.

 

[chris4243]

Science rejects the use of non-repeatable, subjective evidence because it is unreliable and impossible to test. This is nothing more than a practical matter, and you have not demonstrated how such evidence could be used effectively by science.

It seems you agree word for word with what I said.

 

[sandwiches]

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.

Are you saying we should accept indemonstrable, unverifiable claims as statements of truth?

 

[Greg1234]

Are you saying we should accept indemonstrable, unverifiable claims as statements of truth?

You already do

 

[MoonLancer]

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.

Pitty points for you

What was this all about?

I'm not sure. Your the one who seems to have random outbursts when you have been maneuvered into a corner

 

[Split Rock]

It seems you agree word for word with what I said.

Well... OK. If that was your point all along, then I agree with you. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that science should make use of such evidence.

 

[Nostromo]

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.

If the evidence is subjective and thus unverifiable then how could you ever be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that it actually was evidence for or against whatever claim is being made?

 

[Inan3]

Why does EVERY university in every country IN THE WORLD teach evolution as a fact?

That's what I want to know!!

what do they know that the people who are teaching you creationism don't?

The more important question is WHO do creationists KNOW that the universities do NOT know? If a university or a student of that university or if all the students and universities in the world use science or the study of nature to prove that there is no God or conclude that there is no God, they are wrong. The fact that millions of people already KNOW God demonstrates that it is too late to begin to conclude that there is NO God. It is not the science that creationists disagree with it is the atheistic conclusion that is perpetrated by their studies and teachings.

Creationists please remember this, if the people teaching you are creationists they only know as much about science and evolution as you do which is nothing, I say that with confidence because I know that if you or they knew ANYTHING about evolution you would not argue against it, the only way anyone would know about evolution and still argue against it would be if they had been indoctrinated in creationism before they were educated.

wensdee, please remember this, if the people teaching you have been taught wrong, they only know as much about what they are teaching as you which is wrong, also. I say that with confidence because I know that if you or they knew ANYTHING about God you would not argue against Him, the only way anyone would argue about God and against Him would be if they had been indoctrinated in atheisim or never met God in the first place before they were educated in evolutionary atheism or atheistic evolution, however, you want to say it.

 

[Nostromo]

The more important question is WHO do creationists KNOW that the universities do NOT know? If a university or a student of that university or if all the students and universities in the world use science or the study of nature to prove that there is no God or conclude that there is no God, they are wrong.

Evolution is taught because it the foundation of biology, the issue of God does not (usually) come up in undergraduate biology courses as it really has no bearing on the topic.

 

[wensdee]

Creationists know that the best form of defense is attack which means they are always on the attack because they have no defense.

They must be shown how to fool themselves into believing in creationism right from the beginning, by answering a question with a question they fool themselves into believing they have answered the question, to be a creationists the ability to lie to oneself is paramount, that's why a lack of education is considered to be an aid to creationism.

I can not be sure but I am willing to put money on this, where ever there is an impoverished area or bad schools in the US you will find creationists, am I right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists know that the best form of defense is attack which means they are always on the attack because they have no defense.

A properly-trained creationist knows the difference between offense (the Bible) and defense (the shield of faith).

 

[wensdee]

A properly-trained creationist knows the difference between offense (the Bible) and defense (the shield of faith).

Oh yes, I forgot to mention the ever present, always used, absolutely necessary semantics, used to keep the truth at bay and problems out of mind.

 

[chris4243]

Well... OK. If that was your point all along, then I agree with you. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that science should make use of such evidence.

As you said, science will reject any such evidence, that is not repeatable and objective. I don't have a problem with that, and in fact that is probably the greatest strength of science. However, it is also unjustifiable. Science will never be able to accept evidence for the world having a subjective, non-repeatable aspect to it, even if that were in fact true -- as there would be no way to test it via the scientific method.

But you can't then turn around and say it is justified. This is (from a logical/philosophical perspective) no different than when a Christian tells you that Christianity is true because the Bible says so, and if you want to know the truth you have to go by what is in the Bible and any evidence that would seem to contradict the Bible is not valid evidence.

 

[chris4243]

Are you saying we should accept indemonstrable, unverifiable claims as statements of truth?

I'm saying they're outside the realm of science. They are assumed to be irrelevant.

 

[Split Rock]

As you said, science will reject any such evidence, that is not repeatable and objective. I don't have a problem with that, and in fact that is probably the greatest strength of science. However, it is also unjustifiable.

I really don't get what you are saying here. You say you don't have a problem with it, and that it is the greatest strength of science. Then you claimi it is not "justifiable." What??

Science will never be able to accept evidence for the world having a subjective, non-repeatable aspect to it, even if that were in fact true -- as there would be no way to test it via the scientific method.

This would simply mean that science would not be able to explain such an aspect. Just like geology does not explain auto-mechanics, or engineering does not explain how to interpret poetry. Thing is, this has (so far) never happened with science.

But you can't then turn around and say it is justified. This is (from a logical/philosophical perspective) no different than when a Christian tells you that Christianity is true because the Bible says so, and if you want to know the truth you have to go by what is in the Bible and any evidence that would seem to contradict the Bible is not valid evidence.

It is justified because it works. Period.

 

[chris4243]

I really don't get what you are saying here. You say you don't have a problem with it, and that it is the greatest strength of science. Then you claimi it is not "justifiable." What??

Think of it like this: I'm an agnostic, about everything. I don't know the world is round or that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is all deduction (or induction) from things that, with no justification, I accept as true. If you study formal logic or axiomatic mathematics, you will realize that this is necessarily the case. Just because scientists (or Christians) don't formally list their axioms as such doesn't mean they don't have any. All it means is they're being sloppy in the sense of formal logic.

This would simply mean that science would not be able to explain such an aspect. Just like geology does not explain auto-mechanics, or engineering does not explain how to interpret poetry. Thing is, this has (so far) never happened with science.

And if there were, in fact, some event that was subjective and non-repeatable, you're saying that somehow science would know about it (since you're citing a lack of such as evidence), despite you having shown it cannot?

It is justified because it works. Period.

No, it is self-consistent because it works. Each axiom system judges itself by its own axioms. Christianity works too. Euclidean geometry works too, and so does non-Euclidean geometry. But funny thing is, non-Euclidean geometry does not work by the standards of Euclidean geometry, some flavors of Christianity might not work by the standards of science, science might not work by the standards of some flavors of Christianity.

 

[wensdee]

If something is not there for science to see what would you have science do about it? you can use or even make up as many fancy words as you like but if something is not there it's not there, unlike science we have our imaginations which is where we originally conjured up the Gods of this world along with spirits, angels, ghosts, demons, dragons and countless other mythical imaginings like superman, King Arthur, Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes.

Go to the far east or India and see the things they have imagined, they have been doing it for a lot longer than we have.

 

[Greg1234]

If something is not there for science to see what would you have science do about it?

Physical science rules out all metaphysical phenomena before any investigation. This automatically rules out any means which would be devised. In other words, a telescopic astronomer knows that there are no microscopic substances and also that there is something wrong with the microscope. If there wasn't something wrong with the microscope, then the entire operation is defeated. It's not about "detecting", it's just materialism.

you can use or even make up as many fancy words as you like but if something is not there it's not there, unlike science we have our imaginations which is where we originally conjured up the Gods of this world along with spirits, angels, ghosts, demons, dragons and countless other mythical imaginings like superman, King Arthur, Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes.

you can use or even make up as many fancy words as you like but if something is not there [to adherents of a particular branch] it's not there, unlike [one branch of] science we have [other branches of science equipped with alternate means] which is where we originally [interacted with] God.

dragons and countless other mythical imaginings like superman, King Arthur, Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes [are all irrelevant as intelligent design can be ascertained through man.]

​

Go to the far east or India and see the things they have imagined,

If you've entered into debasing men in the middle east for Darwinian evolution, you may have to expand. Though DNA has been discovered in one country, it persists in all countries through experience despite any country's imaginings. The civil war having occurred in the United states is not invalidated by the Chinese through an attempt to point out "what they imagined". The Great Pyramid is intelligently designed both in Egypt and in the United States,

they have been doing it for a lot longer than we have.

The change in man over the eons also occurred in India as (upon last analysis) the men in India are also men. The far East in relation to the rest of the Earth was recognized as a "strategic" location in distant times though not hte pinnacle. Lastly, where you find a man you will most likely find religion. If you enter a room filled with microscopes, you will most likely hear about micro biology. If you enter an arena with a large telescope, there is a high chance that you will hear about outer space. Man is both the people and the church, the worshipers and the temple. Although Darwinian evolution has reduced its status to a "replicator" when you decide to analyze metaphysics, its history and its correspondences, try to leave that at the door.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The rock given was diorite which has a hardness of 6.5-7 on Mohs scale. [snip]

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 now have this paper. It only mentions granite in reference to Cerro Sechin in Peru. It only mentions sandstone at Pumapunka.

One of the papers by Vranich referenced on the Wikipedia page,
Vranich, Alexei,The Construction and Reconstruction of Ritual Space atTiwanaku Bolivia (A.D. 500-1000) Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 31y 2006 121-136, makes many references to sandstone and has many picture of sandstone blocks and also says there are andesite blocks at the Pumapunka site but there is no mention of diorite or granite.

If either mythical flood survivors or ancient astronauts had either done this construction or taught the people there how to do it one might think they would have also taught them how to use the wheel. The whole idea is absurd and does not in any way provide any evidence for a global flood. What you have provided is a demonstration of how far some creationists stretch in their desperate and failed attempts to provide evidence for this alleged global flood. That you would give any credence to a fantasy writer/con man like Erich Von Daniken really tells us all we need to know about the credibility of your claims.

 

[Split Rock]

Think of it like this: I'm an agnostic, about everything. I don't know the world is round or that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is all deduction (or induction) from things that, with no justification, I accept as true. If you study formal logic or axiomatic mathematics, you will realize that this is necessarily the case. Just because scientists (or Christians) don't formally list their axioms as such doesn't mean they don't have any. All it means is they're being sloppy in the sense of formal logic.

So how does this formal logic help us? You seem to ignore it in your day to day life because you accept all kinds of things that are "unjustified" according to formal logic.

And if there were, in fact, some event that was subjective and non-repeatable, you're saying that somehow science would know about it (since you're citing a lack of such as evidence), despite you having shown it cannot?

Not really. What I am saying is that if there was some natural phenomona that science couldn't explain, that we would simply never come up with an explanation for it via science. It would represent a "hole" in our understanding of the physical universe that would never be filled. For example, it may be that science will never be able to explain where our universe came from.

No, it is self-consistent because it works. Each axiom system judges itself by its own axioms. Christianity works too. Euclidean geometry works too, and so does non-Euclidean geometry. But funny thing is, non-Euclidean geometry does not work by the standards of Euclidean geometry, some flavors of Christianity might not work by the standards of science, science might not work by the standards of some flavors of Christianity.

There are certainly things that science cannot explain. My point is we have yet to come up with a natural phenomena that science cannot explain. Science works in explanating the natural world. For me, that is "justification" enough. I guess I don't understand how you are using the term "justified," or what a form of understanding would look like if it was "justified."