Re: BeingChristian does not mean you must remain ignorant.
quote: The burden of proof is not on me, but you, my friend and all the others who put forward the idea of a supernatural entity (for which we have NO evidence).
On the contrary, I have no need to prove what is well known. The reason you have no evidence is because you ignore it, and set up a belief system that ignores it, and a knowledge system that ignores all but the material. Why ignore this?
quote:OTOH, my position is well evidenced. The burden again falls upon you to falsify the evidence, although doing so does not automatically make your belief correct, of course.
What position? That there is no God??? I thought you just said there was no evidence? Make up your mind.
quote: Oh, and I would thank you kindly if you left my brain alone...it goes through all doors with me.
Not this one. You must check it at the door, and admit that there is more dealt with in the museum than your brain can deal with.
Re: BeingChristian does not mean you must remain ignorant.
What position? That there is no God??? I thought you just said there was no evidence? Make up your mind.
The position that accepts the evidence for evolution as discovered through human reason. I thought that was the obvious position as we were discussing the museum display and its message.
On the contrary, I have no need to prove what is well known. The reason you have no evidence is because you ignore it, and set up a belief system that ignores it, and a knowledge system that ignores all but the material. Why ignore this?
Because there is no evidence for it. I admit that I cannot disprove the existence of God, but neither can you disprove the existence of Krishna or Zeus or Mara or Amun (all pretty well known either now or in their time). Does that make you believe in them or do you pretty much ignore them?
Not this one. You must check it at the door, and admit that there is more dealt with in the museum than your brain can deal with.
Yeah, I do have to kind of take it all in in spurts. Laughing so much makes my cheeks hurt.
Re: BeingChristian does not mean you must remain ignorant.
On the contrary, I have no need to prove what is well known.
Does this mean you refuse to present the evidence you promised?
The reason you have no evidence is because you ignore it.
Ahh, but when RAZD provided a piece of evidence you chose to ignore it. You also have refused to take part in any other thread and provide evidence to back up your claims.
What position? That there is no God??? I thought you just said there was no evidence? Make up your mind.
Re: BeingChristian does not mean you must remain ignorant.
So, unless you had some science here to prove that there was no God, don't mind if some of us check your brain at the door.
Hi Keys.
I don't believe science or the scientific method is used to measure or support those things which may be defined as "supernatural". It is based and resides in the "natural", which a God or any other supernatural entity is clearly not.
In addition, the fact that there is no evidence to prove or support the belief that a God doesn't exist isn't proof that a God does exist. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense: lack of proof is not proof.
So you admit this tree is not really related to the museum. OK.
No, read again: it has to do with the age of the earth and the global flood parts of the displays.
I don't want to engage you in your claims on a science forum here, because it allows no freedom, and is biased.
It allows the freedom of truth and reality as opposed to the shackles of ignorance, expecially when willfully donned.
The ability of science to detect anything is limited by what it's abilities to detect anything are.
You like tautologies? Science increases it's ability to detect reality every year, as the walls of ignorance crumble. It is certainly able to detect that the earth is old, very old, at least 4.55 years old. Ability to detect the age of the earth older than that is limited by the limitations of evidence: this does not mean that what it can detect is not valid.
Actually that is very very easy to do, but not in the science forums here. That would be like playing with a stacked deck, and only half of it at that.
Another unfounded bald assertion, sounds like a bluff to me.
It seems you are the one that is demonstrating an inability to do just that. The fact is, I am not going to debate science under your kangaroo court setup here. The fact also is that the exhibit I talked about, you have not addressed.
Yet I am the only one of the two of us that has posted a single fact to substantiate their argument. I present evidence and you reject and deny it, so in that aspect it is a kangaroo court, just that you are the kangaroo jumping anywhere but where the evidence leads.
quote:Dendrochronology or tree-ring dating is the method of scientific dating based on the analysis of tree-ring growth patterns. This technique was invented and developed during the 20th century originally by A. E. Douglass, the founder of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona. The technique can date wood to exact calendar years.
To eliminate individual variations in tree ring growth, dendrochronologists take the smoothed average of the tree ring widths of multiple tree samples to build up a ring history. This process is termed replication. A tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching either the beginning or the end section against the end sections of another chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known.
A fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).
quote:Dendroclimatology is the science of determining past climates from trees (primarily tree rings). Tree rings are wider when conditions favor growth, narrower when times are hard. Using tree rings, scientists have estimated many local climates for hundreds to thousands of years previous. By combining multiple tree-ring studies (sometimes with other climate proxy records), scientists have estimated past regional and global climates (e.g. MBH98, Moberg05).
From the two trees previously mentioned plus remnant pieces of dead wood surrounding them the chronology of the Bristle Cone Pines in the Sierra Nevada show an overall age of the earth of over 8500 years with no global flood possible in that time as all the sample overlapped periods of time when they were living. These trees also provide climate data in the rings, climate data that ensures the overlapped specimen are correctly alligned.
Bottom line: a 6,000 year old earth that experienced a global flood within those 6,000 years is a falsified concept, invalidated by the evidence of one species of tree, one part of gods creation. Thus the claims of the museum are false the displays of age and global flood are lies.
And we are again at the point where you either acknowledge the reality of the facts or you reject them in favor of denial, preferring delusions:
It's your choice: reality or delusion.
{abe} I see you have your wish to move to Faith & Belief. Good. Now how about you doing more in participation debate wise than just repetitious bald assertions.
If you insist on posting the same thing over and over there is no point in responding to a single post of yours. If that is what you want your thread to be, go ahead.
If you are only interested in discussing the museum in the context of the bible then gosh: it shows what the bible says. Whoopeee. You could also talk about going to Church.
I'm interested in discussing how you think this is anything valid when there are KNOWN LIES included as well. If you don't want to address that issue there is nothing for anyone to say to you that is not from the club of gullible easily deluded ignorant folk that will willingly part with their cash for any scam like this.
I think you'll find it lonely your way. I see no reason to be a sounding board for someone who acts like a spoiled child.{/abe}
Maybe address the topic here. I posted an example exhibit from the museum. It was of Jesus risen from the dead.
Message 129
Very nice. So, what about the exhibit again?
Message 133
If you have something to say about the resurrection exhibit, let us know.
Message 136
Like the exhibit picture I included earlier from the museum of the resurrected Christ. That was not limited by science.
Messge 141
The exhibits in the museum, including the one at the core of the matter, the resurrection of Jesus, is relevant. Nothing is more relevant.
Message 147
while you ignore the exhibit I mentioned.
Message 150
The fact also is that the exhibit I talked about, you have not addressed.
Let me see if I've got this straight. RAZD: Comment. keys: Oh yeah? I posted a picture of Jesus. jar: Comment. keys: Oh yeah? What about my picture of Jesus? Jaderis: Comment. keys: Oh yeah? You didn't comment on my picture of Jesus.
Though this is a reply to you, much of this is intended for everyone.
First, I agree with you that Jar should not engage in name calling, such as his Christian Cult of Ignorance. I see little difference between calling someone's beliefs ignorant and calling the person himself ignorant.
Second, I would prefer that no one refer to someone else's position as a lie. Call it unsupported by evidence or unsubstantiated or made up, but do not call it a lie. The intention is to discourage inflammatory language that gets in the way of meaningful dialogue.
Third, about this:
keys writes:
It's my thread, I set the rules.
Nowhere in the Forum Guidelines will you find it stated that the thread's originator defines the rules in his thread, and this is because thread originators have no such privilege. Thread originators propose their topic, and if approved and promoted then discussion takes place under the same set Forum Guidelines that apply to all threads.
Fourth, if your position is actually that the Ken Ham museum and the Alberta museum are not actually science museums but Bible museums, and that you think the opening of more Bible museums should be encouraged, then I can move this thread to [forum=-6].
I am gradually reading my way through the incredible number of messages posted to this thread last night, and I've decided to respond to each message that deserves administrative comment as I encounter it, rather than respond in a single message when I'm done reading.
This is a debate site where the intention is that people makes points, other people rebut them, and then other people rebut the rebuttals, and so forth. The single word sentence, "Nonsense" is not rebuttal. I've already quoted the Forum Guidelines to you once, and here is the relevant guideline again:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Please help the discussion become a substantive exchange of ideas and information.
Re: BeingChristian does not mean you must remain ignorant.
jar writes:
Even from a theological perspective Biblical Creationism is terrible theology based on an insignificant and evil little goddlet who is incompetent and and a liar and trickster.
This kind of language is more likely to inflame than to prompt measured and thoughtful responses. Please conduct the discussion in a manner conducive to the productive exchange of ideas and information.
Meaningful discussion is built upon reliable information and evidence. Much of what I've seen from Keys in this thread is a strong reluctance to discuss information and evidence, and he has several times said he doesn't want a science discussion. He seems to want to discuss the presentation of Bible stories in a museum format.
Since Keys participates at a time when I am asleep, rather than waiting 24 hours for an exchange of messages I will now transfer this thread to [forum=-6] where there is no requirement to keep discussion scientific or even based upon actual real-world evidence.
Re: BeingChristian does not mean you must remain ignorant.
jar writes:
Biblical Creationism is based on artifice, bamboozlement, bamboozling, cheating, chicanery, conning, deceiving, double-dealing, dupery, duping, duplicity, faking the evidence, pulling a fast one, fast shuffling, flimflam, fourberie, fraudulence, graft, guile, hanky-panky, hoaxing gullible Christians, hocus-pocus, hoodwinking, hustling, imposture, misrepresentation, racket, scam, sham, sharp practice, skunking, smoke & mirrors, spuriousness, swindling, treachery and trickery.
I think constructive dialogue is more likely to occur if inflammatory accusations were avoided and the focus were kept more narrowly on the topic. I confess to uncertainty what that topic is, but Keys was very clear that he doesn't want to discuss science. I'll continue monitoring this thread to be sure that Keys homes in on a valid topic of discussion related to the creationism museum in Alberta.
Re: BeingChristian does not mean you must remain ignorant.
quote:Even if you had, what relevance does a picture of Jesus resurrection have with a Creation Museum in Alberta?
Yes, I found a site, that I gave a link in the thread here for, and one of the exhibits was a picture of the empty tomb.
This is actually central to the museum, and the creation debate. It goes to show that, yes, science, and material things are a part of the picture (i.e. a dead body) but, also, things spiritual, because there is more than just the flesh, or physical at work here.
These museums are science museums, but more importantly, as museums that reflect the added spiritual content. Not limited just to science.
We could apply this concept across the board. This is why it is better not to be limited to the narrow scope and range of the science forums. See, there, they seem to pretend that there is nothing more than the things of the current knowledge of man.
Re: BeingChristian does not mean you must remain ignorant.
WE could apply this concept across the board. This is why it is better not to be limited to the narrow scope and range of the science forums. See, there, they seem to pretend that there is nothing more than the things of the current knowledge of man.
Not so. The science forums simply require objective evidence to support claims - something that faith, by its very definition, cannot produce. This is, of course, why many have no faith, and will not accept any argument based solely upon it. It is, at its heart, irrational.
This is why these museums are horrid - they present as fact that which cannot be supported, and that which has in fact been disproven.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
™ Version 4.2