Creationism museum opens in Alberta

quote:

---

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.

​

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?

---

Great, so you admit it. So, believe what you like.

Well, no I do not ignore his evidence but he ignored mine. Did he show that the creation, or resurrection was false? No. Did he even discuss it? No. Did he listen, when I said that the science forum was biased, selective in evidence it allowed, and too small a place to debate for me, with the tight little rules? No.
That poster seemed to want to get into a debate on his turf where he could not lose.

So far you have offered NO evidence that there is ANY Science at the Creationism Museum or any evidence why an empty tomb has any relevance to "Creationism museum opens in Alberta."You may assert that it is a science museum but unless you can offer some evidence it is simply irrelevant. Furthermore, the picture you posted is not even from the Alberta Museum but rather Ken Hamm's sideshow and carnival.So far you have simply run away from the evidence that the Universe is far older than 6000 years and presented totally irrelevant images from some other Creationist Amusement Park.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK.Let's start here then.Why don't you lay out "all evidences" that "creation" is true and we can get a discussion going.

quote:

---

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.

---

I agree. I think that sums it up real well. Now, what about creation would not be supernatural?? What about the makeup of a man would not include the supernatural??All science is is an admission it cannot deal with more than the natural, so it is a pretty paltry little area of knowledge, in comparison to the big picture.It may not subject all the world, and all the universe, and all the past and all the future, and all of what man experiences to those limits. Nosiree. Not gonna happen.

quote:

---

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.

---

Ah, here you limit yourself to the confines of the natural again! The supernatural cannot be evidenced with only the natural, that is too limited for the job, by it's nature.On the other hand, the earth abounds with evidence for a God, and spirits, and supernatural, though the evidences are not of the paltry science of nature sort.It is high time to put that limited body of understanding firmly in it's little place.

Terrific!
Can you give us an example of this "evidence"?

Hey guys?I know it's tempting to hammer keys on the science thing but it's pretty plain he'll dodge any science questions.How about we press him to provide something other than his bare assertion that "evidence exists for a god"?

quote:

---

No, read again: it has to do with the age of the earth and the global flood parts of the displays.

​

It allows the freedom of truth and reality as opposed to the shackles of ignorance, expecially when willfully donned.

​

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.

---

4.5 years is not that old! (har har)
What you think natural science can detect is interesting. How nice.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, OK, I see that you don't want to discuss the exhibits in the museums, but the concepts of creation/evolution in general. I guess I could do the same, and get into pre big bang stuff, or ask about where life came from, or maybe about the future of man, and etc. Guess the sky is the limit in this thread, and there are no bounds? I had thought that some admin, or some admin under an assumed identity, or someone, explained that threads should have a narrow focus. I simply, then picked an exhibit, and tried to discuss it. Apparently you feel you can call the shots, and expand as you feel inspired to do.

quote:

---

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:

---

Maybe you can address some of the facts of this thread. If we get a green light to go ballistic, and take off the gloves, and go 15 rounds, and have a free for all, why, maybe I can entertain the idea of taking you down a few pegs. Meanwhile, back on topic.

quote:

---

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...

---

List 2 known lies in the museum, so we can see what you mean.Edited by keys, : No reason given.

Only in your last line did you do anything that might move the discussion forward. Your point about narrowness of focus should be remembered however.If a particular alleged lie is put forward by someone it may be best to take it to a thread of it's own to discuss if it is a lie or not.However, you seem to want to avoid discussing actual facts. If that is true then say so and don't waste peoples time.You may also be wise to drop the arrogant attitude. It is getting close enough to warrent a few hours of suspension to see if you can improve your manners.Note that arrogant and ignorant rhyme well.

Hi Keys,I see you're replying to posts in order, and soon you'll be reading my posts commenting about this thread. I hope you and everyone else will take them to heart. I'd hate to have to close this thread or suspend anyone. The goal of EvC Forum is to host discussions that actually make progress, and those who consistently make this goal difficult to achieve quickly gain the notice of moderators.The topic is creationism museums and what is appropriate in them, and closely related topics are probably fine, too.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

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.

---

Objective usually means objects. Supernatural, and spiritual are not objects. No more than the pre big bang singularity was an object in real life.There is nothing at all irrational about not limiting our world view to just what we can pack in a box, put in a test tube, or see with our eyes, or natural instruments. On the contrary, to ignore all else is so irrational, it is ridiculous.

quote:

---

This is why these museums are horrid - they present as fact that which cannot be supported, and that which has in fact been disproven.

---

What exacly is presented there, in what exhibit, that is "disproven"??

You mean "Look! A picture of an empty cave!"? keys.For the third time.Why don't you point to some "evidence" in the "museum" and discuss why you think it's correct?

keys.FYIShifting the burden of proofThe burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.You have asserted that there is evidence of god.
The burden of proof is on you.Perhaps something in the "museum" would prove god's existence, hm?

quote:

---

If a particular alleged lie is put forward by someone it may be best to take it to a thread of it's own to discuss if it is a lie or not.

---

Great, hear that folks? Take it somewhere else! No need to make vague claims of lying here.

quote:

---

Note that arrogant and ignorant rhyme well.

---

I'll take your word for it, thanks for the poetry.Edited by keys, : No reason given.

OK. Jesus rose from the dead, that is evidence, and was witnessed. Another example might be that many have seen ghosts and angels.