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

[chris4243]

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.

It helps me be open-minded, and to not make unfounded leaps of logic. I don't have to know something is true, nor even believe it is true, to make deductions based on the assumption that it is true. There's no reason I need to actually believe Euclid's axioms of geometry, yet I can do Euclidean geometry just as well as if I accepted them. The difference is I'm not going to pretend that the axioms are "justified" because they give nice results -- they're called axioms for a reason.

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.

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."

Actually, there's plenty that science can't explain. It is fairly well-accepted that science will never be able to explain (predict) quantum events. Considering that these events occur millions every second in every small area around you, that's quite a big gap.

 

[Greg1234]

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

There are mentions of sandstone and andesite(some sources also mention Granite). Note that sandstone is measured as 7 on Mohs scale. Natural Sandstone,Sandstone Rock,Sandstone Exporters,Information on Sandstone. Note also that andesite is a form of diorite.

Diorite

Diorite is a medium to coarse-grained intrusive igneous rock that commonly is composed of about two-thirds plagioclase feldspar and one-third dark-colored minerals, such as amphibole and/or biotite. The presence of sodium-rich feldspar, oligoclase or andesine, in contrast to calcium-rich plagioclase, labradorite or bytownite, is the main distinction between diorite and gabbro. The extrusive (volcanic) equivalent of diorite is andesite.
​

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.

You would imagine that civilizations that did not even posses the aptitude to build a wheel should not posses the technological, mathematical and geological ingenuity to construct those monuments.

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.

Of course Darwinists do not understand. The notion is that you can skip over a creation then try to analyze the flood. In Darwinism there were no "perfect lineages", much less for the identification their locale or their accomplishments. There is no way or need to measure something that wasn't there. That's not how it works outside of Darwinism though. For example,

The Possibility of Pre-flood Amalgamation

In the antediluvian world there were many wonderful works of art and science. Fresh from the hand of the Creator, these descendants of Adam possessed capabilities that we do not now see.—Signs of the Times Feb. 1, 1899.


Notwithstanding the wickedness of the antediluvian world, that age was not, as has often been supposed, an era of ignorance and barbarism. . . . They possessed great physical and mental strength, and their advantages for acquiring both religious and scientific knowledge were unrivaled. . . . Their mental powers were early developed. . . . Could illustrious scholars of our time be placed in contrast with men of the same age who lived before the Flood, they would appear as greatly inferior in mental as in physical strength. As the years of man have decreased, and his physical strength has diminished, so his mental capacities have lessened. There are men who now apply themselves to study during a period of from twenty to fifty years, and the world is filled with admiration of their attainments. But how limited are these acquirements in comparison with those of men whose mental and physical powers were developing for centuries!—Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 82, 83.
​

The evolutionist who believes that man is gradually becoming more and more advanced might scoff at the above, but we should remember that Ellen G. White did not believe in evolution. She was a biblicist, and as such believed that the human race is "devolving" rather than evolving. For that reason, she believed that man is getting dumber and dumber, not smarter and smarter.
​

There is a reason why I started with the people rather than the geological and ecological upheavals. You wanted to see evidence for the flood and it is being handed to you. Brush up on Creation.

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.

You alluded to desperation yet the only desperation I see here is attempting to derail into a discussion about Von Daniken and ancient astronauts. Again, try to quell your excitement when you see them and make an attempt to stay focused.

 

[wensdee]

Actually, there's plenty that science can't explain.

Plenty? why don't you say it like it really is? there's tons of things science can't explain but at least scientists are trying, religions on the other hand do nothing but sit still and make hopeless promises they know they can't keep,
meanwhile creation scientists are trying to keep as far away from science as they possibly can.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

There are mentions of sandstone and there is andesite also (some sources also mention Granite). Note that sandstone is measured as 7 on Mohs scale. Natural Sandstone,Sandstone Rock,Sandstone Exporters,Information on Sandstone.

Actually, if you look around you will that sandstones vary in hardness by quartz content and how well consolidated the are. I have found numbers from 5 to 6.5 with 5 being the most common.

Note also that andesite is a form of diorite.

It is considered an extrusive form of diorite. Andesite has a mohs hardness of about 3-5.5 so it is not as hard as intrusive diorite.
Basalt and Andesite (This site says 3-4 but I have seen numbers as high as 5.5) but mohs hardness is really more appriate for individual minerals and even very hard rocks can be worked. Mohs hardness is scratch resistence and fracture strength is not linearly related to scratch resistance.

You would imagine that civilizations that did not even posses the aptitude to build a wheel should not posses the technological, mathematical and geological ingenuity to construct those monuments.

No that is only your imagination and Von Daniken's fastasy.

Of course Darwinists do not understand. The notion is that you can skip over a creation then try to analyze the flood. In Darwinism there were no "perfect lineages", much less for the identification their locale or their accomplishments. There is no way or need to measure something that wasn't there. That's not how it works outside of Darwinism though. For example,

Sorry but the falsifications of the global flood and young earth have nothing to do with Darwinism. The global flood was found to fail as an explanation of the earth's geology before Origin of Species was published.

History of the Collapse of Flood Geology.

You can also ask Answers in Creation about the young earth and global flood.

The Possibility of Pre-flood Amalgamation

In the antediluvian world there were many wonderful works of art and science. Fresh from the hand of the Creator, these descendants of Adam possessed capabilities that we do not now see.—Signs of the Times Feb. 1, 1899.


Notwithstanding the wickedness of the antediluvian world, that age was not, as has often been supposed, an era of ignorance and barbarism. . . . They possessed great physical and mental strength, and their advantages for acquiring both religious and scientific knowledge were unrivaled. . . . Their mental powers were early developed. . . . Could illustrious scholars of our time be placed in contrast with men of the same age who lived before the Flood, they would appear as greatly inferior in mental as in physical strength. As the years of man have decreased, and his physical strength has diminished, so his mental capacities have lessened. There are men who now apply themselves to study during a period of from twenty to fifty years, and the world is filled with admiration of their attainments. But how limited are these acquirements in comparison with those of men whose mental and physical powers were developing for centuries!—Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 82, 83.
​

More fantasy. There was no antidiluvian age because there has never been a global flood.

The evolutionist who believes that man is gradually becoming more and more advanced

Strawman alert! Our science and technology are becoming more advanced. I suspect our basic intellegence potential is about the same as it have been for many thousands of years, though diet and improvement in general health may help more people to realize that potential.

might scoff at the above, but we should remember that Ellen G. White did not believe in evolution. She was a biblicist, and as such believed that the human race is "devolving" rather than evolving. For that reason, she believed that man is getting dumber and dumber, not smarter and smarter.

And this is supposed to be relevant???
​

There is a reason why I started with the people rather than the geological and ecological upheavals. You wanted to see evidence for the flood and it is being handed to you. Brush up on Creation.[

You need to "start with" these fanatasies about people because the earth's geology has no evidence for a global flood and is totally inconsistent with a young earth.

You alluded to desperation yet the only desperation I see here is attempting to derail into a discussion about Von Daniken and ancient astronauts.

I am not the one who posted Von Daniken videos.

Again, try to quell your excitement when you see them and make an attempt to stay focused.

Excitment is not the right word. Amusement is the appropriate reaction to a Von Daniken video.

 

[chris4243]

Plenty? why don't you say it like it really is? there's tons of things science can't explain but at least scientists are trying, religions on the other hand do nothing but sit still and make hopeless promises they know they can't keep,
meanwhile creation scientists are trying to keep as far away from science as they possibly can.

Nope, scientists have declared quantum mechanics to be non-deterministic. You don't try to explain something that you've declared to be non-deterministic. They gave up on explaining it, and even declared that it can't be explained.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You would imagine that civilizations that did not even posses the aptitude to build a wheel should not posses the technological, mathematical and geological ingenuity to construct those monuments.

The evolutionist who believes that man is gradually becoming more and more advanced might scoff at the above, but we should remember that Ellen G. White did not believe in evolution. She was a biblicist, and as such believed that the human race is "devolving" rather than evolving. For that reason, she believed that man is getting dumber and dumber, not smarter and smarter.
​

So you are claiming that ancient people's weren't smart enough to build the monuments and then claiming that "evolutionists" believe that man is gradually becoming more and more advanced. Have you considered the fact that your arguments basically contradict each other?
​

 

[Nostromo]

Notwithstanding the wickedness of the antediluvian world, that age was not, as has often been supposed, an era of ignorance and barbarism. . . . They possessed great physical and mental strength, and their advantages for acquiring both religious and scientific knowledge were unrivaled. . . . Their mental powers were early developed. . . . Could illustrious scholars of our time be placed in contrast with men of the same age who lived before the Flood, they would appear as greatly inferior in mental as in physical strength.

Odd then, or perhaps telling, that they supposedly all denied their Creator and were wiped out as a consequence.

 

[Greg1234]

Actually, if you look around you will that sandstones vary in hardness by quartz content and how well consolidated the are. I have found numbers from 5 to 6.5 with 5 being the most common.
It is considered an extrusive form of diorite. Andesite has a mohs hardness of about 3-5.5 so it is not as hard as intrusive diorite.

You very own link says that it "consists essentially of andesine. Andesine is at least 6-7 Andesine: Definition from Answers.com. Or even higher.

Rocks and Mineral Resources For Students, Teachers, and Kids | TheFreeResource.com

Andesite is a common volcanic rock found in mountains along the Pacific Rim. Andesite is coarse in texture, pink and gray in color and has 7.4 on the Mohs hardness scale.
​

http://ga-inc.am/basalt.html

Basalt and Andesite (This site says 3-4 but I have seen numbers as high as 5.5) but mohs hardness is really more appriate for individual minerals and even very hard rocks can be worked. Mohs hardness is scratch resistence and fracture strength is not linearly related to scratch resistance.

For one, nobody said that it couldn't be worked. I can work diamond by repeatedly hitting it with a hammer. Secondly, Mohs scale is used to measure hardness.

Untitled Document

One type of measurable physical property is mineral hardness. Mohs' Hardness scale defines hardness and is based on the relative hardness of 10 distinct minerals from softest=1 (talc) to hardest=10 (diamond). For example, a quartz crystal (hardness=7) will scratch a graphite crystal (hardness=2), but the quartz crystal will in turn be scratched by a diamond crystal (hardness=10). This is one of the most useful of the observable mineral properties.
​

Sorry but the falsifications of the global flood and young earth have nothing to do with Darwinism.
History of the Collapse of Flood Geology.
You can ask Answers in Creation about that.

The flood event has Creation in consideration. Unfortunately, your affinity to microbe-to-man phenomena leaves you at a disadvantage.

More fantasy. There was no antidiluvian age because there has never been a global flood.

I'm already aware of your beliefs.

Strawman alert! Our science and technology are becoming more advanced. I suspect our basic intellegence[sic (sorry just had to do it , no hard feelings k?)] potential is about the same as it have been for many thousands of years, though diet and improvement in general health may help more people to realize that potential.

Darwinism has man going from beasts to men, getting smarter and smarter. We are dealing with the antidiluvian period in relation to a creation.
​

Excitment is not the right word. Amusement is the appropriate reaction to a Von Daniken video.

How nice. "A Von Daniken video". Like I told you, at least make an attempt to control yourself and focus on the task at hand.

 

[wensdee]

Nope, scientists have declared quantum mechanics to be non-deterministic. You don't try to explain something that you've declared to be non-deterministic. They gave up on explaining it, and even declared that it can't be explained.

Well if the scientists are saying that it must mean that there really is a God after all, I don't know what to say,
unless they mean that although they don't know now, if they keep looking [something creationists would never do] someone will one day?

 

[AV1611VET]

religions on the other hand do nothing but sit still and make hopeless promises they know they can't keep,

One religion kept its promise on 9-11 -- was that good enough for you?

 

[Greg1234]

So you are claiming that ancient people's weren't smart enough to build the monuments and then claiming that "evolutionists" believe that man is gradually becoming more and more advanced. Have you considered the fact that your arguments basically contradict each other?
​

No they don't. I'm saying that one lineage of people were spiritually more advanced as that devolution after the fall was not at a constant universal rate. Man's technology is not all that advances but man himself does also. The faculties inherent in a man like Jesus for example put him light years ahead of his contemporaries and civilizations at that time. This would allow him to breach the status quo of medicine and the technology he would develop would be one that would allow him to manipulate what he is interacting with. Since he possesses the means to sense them, he can therefore watch their effects. His "starting point" would be significantly higher than today where a scalpel and anesthesia are still generally required. Should men like Jesus migrate they will cause a stir or a shock within the people they encounter. Their ways of going about everyday tasks would be unconventional relatively speaking and the faculties they are endowed with would determine their development. When they die out, the structures they erected become irrelevant and a new pattern of advancement follows. Should for example it was discovered that a set of rocks erected in a particular fashion amplifies certain metaphysical properties, then they would be used. When those with the abilities needed to use them die out, then the rocks and their arrangement are deserted, and man proceeds as before. Analyzing the history of man in relation to a creation is not like that done in Darwinian evolution.

 

[Nostromo]

You very own link says that it "consists essentially of andesine. Andesine is at least 6-7 Andesine: Definition from Answers.com. Or even higher.

You seem to be confusing andesine with andesite.

 

[chris4243]

Well if the scientists are saying that it must mean that there really is a God after all, I don't know what to say,

Silly wensdee, that only works for two things that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

unless they mean that although they don't know now, if they keep looking [something creationists would never do] someone will one day?

If that were the case, wouldn't they be saying that they don't know yet, as opposed to saying that it cannot be known? Or don't you know what "non-deterministic" means?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You very own link says that it "consists essentially of andesine.

Here is what it actually says

Composition:
Andesite most commonly is fine-grained, usually porphyritic. In composition, andesites correspond roughly to the intrusive igneous rock diorite and consist essentially of andesine (a plagioclase feldspar) and one or more ferromagnesian minerals, usually amphibole or biotite. The larger crystals of feldspar and ferromagnesian minerals are often visible to the naked eye; they lie in a finer groundmass, usually crystalline, but sometimes glassy. There are three subdivisions of this rock family: the quartz-bearing andesites, or dacites, sometimes considered to be a separate family; the hornblende- and biotite-andesites; and the pyroxene-andesites.

The Mohs hardness of biotite is 2.5-3 amphibole is 5-6 so the the hardness of a specific andesite depends on its composition.

For one, nobody said that it couldn't be worked. I can work diamond by repeatedly hitting it with a hammer. Secondly, Mohs scale is used to measure hardness.

I know what Mohs hardness is. It tells you if one mineral will scratch the surface of another mineral. It is far from the only factor that determines the strength of a rock.

The flood event has Creation in consideration. Unfortunately, your affinity to microbe-to-man phenomena leaves you at a disadvantage.

Nonsense. The falsifications of the global flood and young earth are totally independant of evolutionary theory. Your religious indoctrination puts you at a disadvantage because you don't dare to allow yourself to think logically about it. There are many old earth creationists who don't accept evolution but accept the overwhelming evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and Biblical flood was a local event.

Darwinism has man going from beasts to men, getting smarter and smarter. We are dealing with the antidiluvian period in relation to a creation.

No, you are talking about a mythical antidiluvian period.
​

How nice. "A Von Daniken video".

Which is exactly what they are, Von Daniken fantasies produced to sell books to the gullible.

Like I told you, at least make an attempt to control yourself and focus on the task at hand.

The task at hand was for you to provide actual evidence for a global flood. Not fantasies inspired by Von Daniken. You have failed totally.

 

[Greg1234]

Here is what it actually says

Composition:
Andesite most commonly is fine-grained, usually porphyritic. In composition, andesites correspond roughly to the intrusive igneous rock diorite and consist essentially of andesine (a plagioclase feldspar) and one or more ferromagnesian minerals, usually amphibole or biotite. The larger crystals of feldspar and ferromagnesian minerals are often visible to the naked eye; they lie in a finer groundmass, usually crystalline, but sometimes glassy. There are three subdivisions of this rock family: the quartz-bearing andesites, or dacites, sometimes considered to be a separate family; the hornblende- and biotite-andesites; and the pyroxene-andesites.

The Mohs hardness of biotite is 2.5-3 amphibole is 5-6 so the the hardness of a specific andesite depends on its composition.

That's what I said. And Andesine is harder than biotite at about 6. Andesite's mixture contains feldspar and is classed at 6-8 not 3.

I know what Mohs hardness is. It tells you if one mineral will scratch the surface of another mineral. It is far from the only factor that determines the strength of a rock.

It tells you its hardness. That's why diamond scaled at ten is in fact difficult to carve.

Nonsense. The falsifications of the global flood and young earth are totally independant of evolutionary theory.

The creation of man is linked to the flood.

Your religious indoctrination puts you at a disadvantage because you don't dare to allow yourself to think logically about it.

Youre actually trying to reverse it. Good luck with that.

There are many old earth creationists who don't accept evolution but accept the overwhelming evidence that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and Biblical flood was a local event.

You still haven't grasped the use of the global fire but you'll get it.

No, you are talking about a mythical antidiluvian period.​

Creation is linked with the flood event. The creation of man came before the flood.
​

Which is exactly what they are, Von Daniken fantasies produced to sell books to the gullible.

Irrelevant.

The task at hand was for you to provide actual evidence for a global flood.

Already given. It now appears that you're not equipped to assess the information. Brush up on Creation.

Not fantasies inspired by Von Daniken.

Irrelevant.

You have failed totally.

Nope. I'm actually waiting for your excitement to subside.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That's what I said. And Andesine is harder than biotite at about 6. Andesite's mixture contains feldspar and is classed at 6-8 not 3.

It contains feldspar and biotite or amphibole. It's hardness is dependant on composition.

It tells you its hardness. That's why diamond scaled at ten is in fact difficult to carve.

Mohs hardness tells you if one mineral can scratch another. It does not tell you fracture strength of rocks.

The creation of man is linked to the flood.

Youre actually trying to reverse it. Good luck with that.

You still haven't grasped the use of the global fire but you'll get it.

Are you still going on about that nonsense? I think you must be pretty dense to not be able to tell the difference between the effects of widespread fires around the globe 65 millions ago and a global flood 5000 years ago
120

Creation is linked with the flood event. The creation of man came before the flood.

If you are talking about a global flood I will have to agree in one sense. There has never been such a flood so everything that has happened has come "before the flood"

Posted By FB:Which is exactly what they are, Von Daniken fantasies produced to sell books to the gullible.

Irrelevant.

Thanks for proving that you are among the gullible.

Already given. It now appears that you're not equipped to assess the information. Brush up on Creation.

I can assess the information quite accurately which is why I can see that you have presented no information that is in any way evidence for an event that is falsified by many branches of science

Irrelevant.

Thanks again for classifying yourself as among the gullible.

Nope. I'm actually waiting for your excitement to subside.

As I said I am more amused by your silly Von Daniken videos than exited.

The bottom line is that you have presented NO evidence for a global flood. The fact that we don't know exactly how the monuments at Pumapunka were constructed is in no way evidence for a flood any more than it is evidence for ancient astronauts. Present some actual evidence and we can discuss it. So far you have zip.

Added in Edit: Goofy as it is Von Daniken's Chariots of Gods claim is not nearly as absurd as claiming that Pumapunka was built by some mythical "perfect people" who survived the global flood. At least there is not a huge mass of evidence directly falsifying the ancient astronauts as there is with the global flood.

 

[Greg1234]

It contains feldspar and biotite or amphibole. It's hardness is dependant on composition.

Andesite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Andesite (

/ˈændəsaɪt/) is an extrusive igneous, volcanic rock, of intermediate composition, with aphanitic to porphyritic texture. In a general sense, it is the intermediate type between basalt and dacite. The mineral assemblage is typically dominated by plagioclase plus pyroxene and/or hornblende. Magnetite, zircon, apatite, ilmenite, biotite, and garnet are common accessory minerals(emphasis mine)

​

Plagioclase Mineral Data
Pyroxene, Tourmaline, Garnet
Hornblende: Hornblende mineral information and data.

Mohs hardness tells you if one mineral can scratch another. It does not tell you fracture strength of rocks.

It tells you its hardness. That's why diamond scaled at ten is in fact difficult to carve.

Are you still going on about that nonsense? I think you must be pretty dense to not be able to tell the difference between the effects of widespread fires around the globe 65 millions ago and a global flood 5000 years ago
120

Anyways, moving on.

If you are talking about a global flood I will have to agree in one sense. There has never been such a flood so everything that has happened has come "before the flood"

Yes there has.

Posted By FB:Which is exactly what they are, Von Daniken fantasies produced to sell books to the gullible.
Thanks for proving that you are among the gullible.

Irrelevant

I can assess the information quite accurately

Good.

which is why I can see that you have presented no information that is in any way evidence for an event

It is actually.

that is falsified by many branches of science

It isn't.

Thanks again for classifying yourself as among the gullible.

Irrelevant.

The bottom line is that you have presented NO evidence for a global flood.

You haven't grasped,

1) The use of the global fire in the explanation
2) The link providing an explanation of the survivors
3) The creation of man in relation to the flood
4) The devolution of man
5) Cultural dispersion

Moving on though.

The fact that we don't know exactly how the monuments at Pumapunka were constructed is in no way evidence for a flood any more than it is evidence for ancient astronauts.Present some actual evidence and we can discuss it. So far you have zip.

That's not an argument. Who is "we"? The data has already been given and you seem bankrupt when attempting to assess. Somehow this apparent fact will be drowned out by links to Von Daniken and an ancient astronaut fixation. Anyways, moving on to others.
Noah's Flood

 

[mzungu]

the theocreologists know that all scientists are deluded minions of satan.

so now who is smart?

Satan?

 

[mzungu]

Not ALL universities teach evolution...There are faith based unis out there that teach creation...which form varies, depending on the denomination/faith it is affiliated with.

Which universities would those be and under what field is creationism taught?

 

[mzungu]

No they don't. I'm saying that one lineage of people were spiritually more advanced as that devolution after the fall was not at a constant universal rate. Man's technology is not all that advances but man himself does also. The faculties inherent in a man like Jesus for example put him light years ahead of his contemporaries and civilizations at that time.

So the God who is light years ahead of man in intelligence, authored an instruction manual (bible) that is open to interpretation and thus failed to homogenise Christians into one church? This resulted in the myriads of churches each with its own version of the Bible. This has gone so far as some people claiming that the if the KJV1611 differs from the original Greek and Hebrew texts then the KJV1611 should be considered the correct one. This is not only blasphemous but outright silly.

So much for Intelligent design!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeekypzUWF4