|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ken Ham's Creation Museum | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I never said that everything should be left to the professionsals. I did point out that by your own criteria creationists (including Ham) score very poorly. Let us note that your list covers amateurs doing simple jobs (quite outside the the scope of this argument) - and many frauds. Would we be worse off without fakes and frauds iin the health fields ?
quote: Yes we should laugh at your little joke.
quote:Although their return doesn't really fit any of the prophecies - most of which refer to the Babylonian exile anyway. quote: Which is NOT mentioned in the Bible, as you know. LOL indeed !At least you gave up on the idea that UPC bar codes are the Mark of the Beast (somethign that you would have known to be untrue if you really had studied the Bible) quote: Are ANY of these in the Bible ?
quote: Nice try but that prophecy refers to times befor Jesus was even born. If you had really studied the Bible properly, including the historical context you would know about that.
quote:Just more of the same. Thanks for proving me right.
quote: I've debunked several on this group. I doubt that there are any on the list that I can't debunk. Maybe you'll be reduced to arguing that one significiant word choice in a translation means that the translator must buy your strained and twisted interpretation again. Regardless of the fact that even your preferred translations don't allow your reading and the Hebrew text even more clearly rules it out.
quote: Not really.
quote:IN other words it's just an excuse invented to avoid admitting that the Bible is wrong. We know that the Bible ISN'T very credible as a record. We even know that judging the whole of the Bible as historically accurate or not is foolish since the Bible is a collection of works each of which should be assessed on their own merits. quote: In other words you don't have ANY scientific basis at all. In fact it has been debunked by any reasonable standard because there is no scientific evidence it happened and no plausible scientific hypothesis as to how it could happen (it's on a par with "C14 diseases". Both of which you happen to know because you keep running away from any discussion. So your "confidence" is completely unfounded. So what you are really saying is the most important "evidence" is the fact that it's some bullshit made up to defend a belief Buzsaw happens to like. That pretty much guarantees it's true. To you. I think the rest of us can agree that that is not a rational "standard of evidence".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2472 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
Well then, Kalimero, what do you suggest? Should the govt shut down Ham's museum or should it be allowed to remain open for all to see and decide for themselves whether it's credible or not? Ken Ham's "museum" uses deceitful tactics in order to cause people to give them money.The definition of fraud from the Legal Encyclopedia. Also, from the glossary of legal terms (Munley, Munley & Cartwright): Fraud: False and deceptive statement of fact intended to induce another person to rely upon and, in reliance thereof, give up a valuable thing he or she owns or a legal right he or she is entitled to.
The definition of reliance from Law Dictionary:
Reliance
{Sorry for the big cut & paste} Dependence, confidence, trust, repose of mind upon what is deemed sufficient support or authority. detrimental reliance involves reliance by one party on the acts, representations, or promises of another that cause the first party to allow or to effect a change for the worse in his or her position, and is an important element in many legal contexts. If such a detrimental change of position is established, and if the reliance appears to have been justified under the circumstances, it may preclude revocation of an offer or waiver, and may support a promise as a contract even without consideration (see promissory estoppel). Such reliance is also a necessary ingredient in an action to recover upon a claim of fraud. Lets see if Ken Ham and his "museum" really stand up to the criteria for fraud:
IMO, Ken Ham should go the way of Peter Popoff, not necessarily to jail, but surely not running such a "museum". BTW: you still haven't answered my question:
kalimero writes:
One person says one thing, another person says another thing, how do we decide?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4704 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Sure, the science community has credibility deficiencies at time, like the recent human cloning fiasco in South Korea. However, the science community has a built-in means of correcting those deficiencies...other scientists. Even the list on AIG's website of arguments creationists shouldn't use exists because mainstream science has debunked them so soundly that the creationists can't use them without looking silly even to their most ardent supporters. Ken Ham and company did nothing to validate the accuracy of thos arguements. What is the mechanism that creationists use to ferret out the liars from the merely deluded? In fact, what is the means by which they divide fact from wishful thinking?
I just think it's time for you and Jar to stop accusing Ham of deliberately lying and at least allow him equal consideration that you grant to the conventional science community who have their own credibility deficiencies from time to time. My point is that he is not deliberately defrauding or lying to anyone. In America he has the right to present to the public what he sincerely believes to be true as he interprets the evidence which he is observing. Ken Ham can believe what he wants and state what he wants. However, when he tries to tell my grandchildren that his version of the history of life on this earth is the truth, he better have more to back him up than speculation hinged on an old manuscript. The burden of proof must be higher when imparting knowledge to those who will accept it easily. From my point of view, to present yourself as an authority, and then provide to children unsupported conclusions as fact, is fraud. Worse still, it is a form of child abuse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
anglagard writes: Also, as I'm sure has been repeatedly pointed out, Piltdown Man was not accepted by much of the scientific community and was eventually discovered as a fraud by the scientific community. Why do some in the YEC, or YCC community still demand such frauds as the Paluxy River tracks are fact after they have been renounced by both AIG and the research arm of the founders of modern young earth creationism, the Seventh Day Adventist Church? Eventually became 30 years or so. A whole generation world wide was deceived, secular science carrying the ball all the way and it was likely falsifiable all that time. What empirical evidence does AIG and the Adventists have to renounce the river tracks? How much has erosion enlarged the tracks over the milleniums et al? Imo this would be very difficult to empirically renounce and also difficult to fraudulently construct, unlike Piltdown Man. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
LA writes: Ken Ham can believe what he wants and state what he wants. However, when he tries to tell my grandchildren that his version of the history of life on this earth is the truth, he better have more to back him up than speculation hinged on an old manuscript. The burden of proof must be higher when imparting knowledge to those who will accept it easily. From my point of view, to present yourself as an authority, and then provide to children unsupported conclusions as fact, is fraud. Worse still, it is a form of child abuse. Hi LA. He can only tell the grandchildren if you or your children are so careless as to let them go where you don't want them. That's your perrogative as guardian. If the kiddies are abused it's because you or their parents allowed them to be if you feel that strongly about the site. Btw, by the same token, was Piltdown Man 30 years of child abuse, over two generations of kiddies in school being fed the Piltdown deception? We Biblical creationists think it's child abuse to forbid children in school both sides of the origins issues et al, forcing them into belief of evolution and whatever comes up the pike via secularist agendas. Unlike Ham's museum, they don't have a choice and they must endure the abuse throughout their education if they are in the public school system. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
You then need to prove in court that Ken Ham purposefully intends to defraud and that his evidence is fraudulent. LOL!
We all have different viewpoints. Your question is relative to your thinking. We all have our own unique answers to that question but that's another topic which I'm not enclined to engage in. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You then need to prove in court that Ken Ham purposefully intends to defraud and that his evidence is fraudulent. Can't do that Buz. As soon as the Biblical Christian conmen claim the protection afforded by our Constitution they are free to steal and lie, commit fraud and cheat. Biblical Creationism is a great protected fraud, and likely it will remain so since the supply of ignorant Biblical Christians is almost unlimited. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: Are ANY of these in the Bible ? They are all in the Bible in a prophetic context relative to latter day prophecy. I've deliberately chosen those items to which this applies. This has been a lifetime study on my part and I know these prophecies. It's useless to cite them to you. Obviously your biased mind is closed shut to them. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
it was likely falsifiable all that time
Really? what's your background in physical anthropology? Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
do not make a right. As my mother said often.
Therefore Piltdown man is not on topic here. Nor is biblical prophecy. Suspensions will be the reward.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Again these are evidence that your preferred standard of evidence is "what Buzsaw wants to be true".
For instance rather than actually compare UPC barcodes to the actual description of the Mark of the Beast - which would show you that they were different you just proclaimed that they were the same thing. ANd your sole basis was the fact that the guard bars resemble the code for '6' (but aren't the same and aren't read as '6's) and that there are 3 of them interspersed in the code (which means that there isn't even a real '666' in there). If you had known the Biblical description or actually checked it you would know that there is more to the Mark of the Beast than that. So in this case you didn't know the prophecy very well at all. Likewise your whole idea that the flood somehow upset carbon datgn is based solely on the fact that carbon dates contradict your belief. And that is enough to proclaim your explanation "scientifically sound" even though you have absolutley no idea of how it could have happened. It msut have happened because you want it to have happened. Therefore it must be scientifically sound - you don't think that actually need to know anything relevant to that conclusion to make the claim. Which is why you make false claims all the time. I don't realise that if you don't knwo what you are talking about you are very likely to be wrong. And that's a demonstration of real bias and a real closed mind. So I suggest that like you - rather than doing real research or gathering the knowledge needed to do so, Ken Ham just jumps to conclusions he likes. Regardless of whether they could be true. Thus his museum is a worthless collection of misinformation designed solely to bolster Ken Ham's erroneous beliefs. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Are you intending the message as some sort of admin statement? It sure doesn't look like such to me.
If you accidentally post as AdminPaul when you intended PaulK, you can go edit the message and change the attribute ID (if the system is working as it is supposed to be). If you have any adminning type questions, please ask away in the Private Administration Forum. Adminnemooseus Added by edit: Never mind. You did it while I was preparing this message. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
I gave a topic warning.
That post seems to have (80%) ignored it. 10 hour suspension.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Message 40
Your mention of AiG sent me to their site. It's off-topic--but there's very little museum in their new 'Creation Museum.' Have you noticed?
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
looks like it doesn't have any factual information at all ... and the most time consuming part would be
quote: the propoganda film. Now that's worth $20 (each) right? RIIIIIIGHT Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : supposed to preview compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4704 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: Right on target, Buzz. I wholeheartely agree with that sentiment. Parents and extended families in this country tend to abdicate their rights and responsibility to other authorities (gvmt, church, MTV...etc) too readily. Then they wonder why their children don't follow the values that the parents hold so dear. That is why it is so important to ensure the things our children are taught have been through the wringer of scientific inquiry. Things shouldn't be taught based on popularity of belief within the citizenry or political correctness. Factual correctness should prevail in all things imparted to the next generation.
He can only tell the grandchildren if you or your children are so careless as to let them go where you don't want them. That's your perrogative as guardian. If the kiddies are abused it's because you or their parents allowed them to be if you feel that strongly about the site. Btw, by the same token, was Piltdown Man 30 years of child abuse, over two generations of kiddies in school being fed the Piltdown deception? I doubt that young credulous school children were fed that deception in any detail beyond it being an example of a precurser to Homo-sapiens sapiens. I guess you could counter that assertion in another thread with examples from primary/secondary school textbooks of that era...if you so desire.
We Biblical creationists think it's child abuse to forbid children in school both sides of the origins issues et al, forcing them into belief of evolution and whatever comes up the pike via secularist agendas. As has been pointed out by others, all Biblical creationists have to do is provide a preponderance of evidence in support of your version of origins. Otherwise, allowing your version in, as a scientific explanation, at its level of evidentiary support requires letting all other creation stories in as scientific explanations for our origin. Then the rest of science education would have to change. Horoscopes, dowsing, spoon bending, and palm reading would have to be added just to name a few. Don't you think it would be easier on the students if we just left the science topics at the current level of evidentiary validation?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024