I have evidence in my life, as millions of others do. You can't shift that. If you don't, then be consoled with the fact that most of the world does believe in some supernatural.
That is the kind of evidence I like, real people observing real effects of real things.
Yes, one way to make progress is to understand the ground rules. For example how much of the creation debate related in some way to the museum might we bring in, as Razd seems to want to try and do.
4.5 years is not that old! (har har) What you think natural science can detect is interesting. How nice.
So I dropped billion when I typed it - mea culpa. If this is the best of your argument, however it is a blank.
Well, OK, I see that you don't want to discuss the exhibits in the museums, but the concepts of creation/evolution in general.
False. Read for comprehension.1 I want to discuss the evidence that invalidates, falsifies, renders wrong some of the exibits in the museum. The actual age of the earth is one. Consider this: it is easy to find evidence for a young earth in a very old one (all you have to do is look in the areas of new volcanic rocks etc) but it should be impossible to find evidence for an old earth in a very young one. This evidence exists.
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.
Totally irrelevant. What I want to discuss is the evidence that invalidates, falsifies, renders wrong some of the exibits in the museum. If you want to make it a "great debate" so that it is only the two of us that is okay. The topic will be "Actual Age of the Earth Invalidates Creation Museum Displays on AGE and FLOOD". I'll present the evidence step by step and allow you a chance to refute it or show that it is wrong.
List 2 known lies in the museum, so we can see what you mean.
(1) The age of the earth is 6000 years (2) The world wide flood occurred within that time or any close approximation
You really must be having trouble with comprehension1 as I have listed these before. There are others (the grand canyon was formed by the flood), but these are sufficient for now.
I'll even deal with these together if you care to play.
Enjoy.
1 - in case you have trouble with comprehension of "comprehension:"
If you don't, then be consoled with the fact that most of the world does believe in some supernatural.
keys.
FYI
Argumentum ad populum
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language.
Re: BeingChristian does not mean you must remain ignorant.
Objective usually means objects. Supernatural, and spiritual are not objects.
Which is why we call those things "supernatural." As in, not being part of the natural world, and therefore beyond the purview of science, whose purpose is to study the observable universe.
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.
There is something HIGHLY irrational in believing in something without any evidence present, pr believing in something despite solid evidence to the contrary. There is no objective evidence that the supernatural exists, and it has never, not once, been proven to exist. This suggests that it does not, in fact exist, and that the universe works exclusively though natural processes.
This view is "limiting" only in that it sees only that which is observable in the first place. if some god is observed, science would wholeheartedly accept it, as it must. Am I "limiting" myself by not considering the possibility that an invisible pink unicorn is, in fact, reading over my shoulder? Certainly not, and the very idea is ridiculous. But faith, by definition, is an irrational belief in the existence of something despite a lack of any evidence or even evidence to the contrary.
What exacly is presented there, in what exhibit, that is "disproven"??
A 6000 year old Earth. That Evolution is not the process by which all extant species formed. I could go on, but the truth is that Evolution is an observed fact - the Theory simply describes the observed process in a model that matches the currently known body of evidence. The truth is that the Earth is several billion years old, as evidenced by multiple sources including radiometric dating, observation of geological processes, astronomical observations of other solar systems in various stages of development, and more. To deny either is, quite literally, like saying "water is not wet." Radiometric dating, for instance, relies on exactly the same science that was used to develop nuclear weapons and nuclear power, and the half-life of radioactive isotopes is an observed fact. To say that multiple, agreeing sources such as this are, in fact, wrong, is to deny the most basic of logical principles: If A = B, and B = C, then A must = C.
Scientifically speaking, the ideas presented in this "museum" have gone the way of the flat Earth and Geocentrism - only the zealously religious, by their evidence-ignoring, irrational faith still believe in any of these ideas.
I would ask you, keys, since you are so certain that it's "irrational and ridiculous" to ignore "all else:" what, pray tell, ELSE is there? What convinces you that the supernatural exists? So far you've said nothing more than "something else is there that science is blind to" and posted an irrelevant picture of Jesus' resurrection. By what senses do you propose we reveal the supernatural? How do we sort out genuine, unobservable, supernatural truth from something that was literally made up? I can't tell the difference, so I don't believe in the supernatural. perhaps you could help show me the difference.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
OK. Jesus rose from the dead, that is evidence, and was witnessed.
All of which you "know" solely due to an old collection of books. By this exact same logic, I could "prove" that Nancy Drew did, in fact, exist, and solved a bunch of ridiculous crimes. After all, a collection of books says so, and her friends all saw it.
Perhaps that's not he best example...we need something written from an observer's point of view. Perhaps the Cthulhu mythos? Surely, Great and Terrible Cthulhu dreams in the deep, and will awaken and destroy us all, because there is a series of books written from the perspective of an observer that says so.
See the problem? You can't use a book, or even a series of books, to prove themselves. Books without supporting evidence are not evidence at all - they're fiction.
Another example might be that many have seen ghosts and angels.
And a lot of people have "seen" little green men, flying saucers, vampires, werewolves, and the Wizard of Oz. I myself have been with friends who "saw" ghosts, late one night in a graveyard. They were high, and paranoid to the point of hallucination. "Eyewitness" testimony without supporting evidence is, once again, a bare assertion. Even if the witness is entirely honest, the human mind seeks patterns, and will perceive that which does not exist in exactly the same way you can spot a cow in a cloud. This is why eyewitnesses are not trusted highly without supporting evidence in court. Show us a real picture or video of an actual angel. Or, better yet, get all Old testament on us and make God call down lightning and ignite His own altar. According to the Bible he's done it before.
What you;ve stated, keys, is the farthest thing from evidence I can imagine. You've essentially said "nu uh!" and "because I said so!"
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
quote:So I dropped billion when I typed it - mea culpa. If this is the best of your argument, however it is a blank.
I have not really given some big argument, I simply noted I like the fact creation museums seem to be spreading like weeds. I offered a few exhibits to try and show that more was at issue than just science in these places.
quote: False. Read for comprehension.1 I want to discuss the evidence that invalidates, falsifies, renders wrong some of the exibits in the museum. The actual age of the earth is one. Consider this: it is easy to find evidence for a young earth in a very old one (all you have to do is look in the areas of new volcanic rocks etc) but it should be impossible to find evidence for an old earth in a very young one. This evidence exists.
Well, the exhibits I mentioned you never even addressed, but seem to be flogging some strawman, with a tree. As I said, if we get to picking any old thing in the creation debate in this thread, why, hec, why would I let you chose what they are?
quote: Totally irrelevant. What I want to discuss is the evidence that invalidates, falsifies, renders wrong some of the exibits in the museum. If you want to make it a "great debate" so that it is only the two of us that is okay. The topic will be "Actual Age of the Earth Invalidates Creation Museum Displays on AGE and FLOOD". I'll present the evidence step by step and allow you a chance to refute it or show that it is wrong.
You know, Razd, as much as I actually would like to do that, I am not yet confident of the fairness of the moderators here. If I was, I would take you out behind the woodshed in a heartbeat!
We will have to see how the fairness and even handedness plays out, and is demonstrated here. (Hi Ned, how are you?? Lovely day.)
-Meanwhile what can you do but stay topical??
quote: (1) The age of the earth is 6000 years (2) The world wide flood occurred within that time or any close approximation
You really must be having trouble with comprehension1 as I have listed these before. There are others (the grand canyon was formed by the flood), but these are sufficient for now.
I'll even deal with these together if you care to play.
Well perhaps sorting it out in order might be better. First, deal with the exhibits already raised first by me. Then, if you survive that, you could show us another exhibit or two, and see if that could be looked at. Otherwise we are all over the map here.
This is known as Appealing to the Gallery or Appealing to the People. You commit this fallacy if you attempt to win acceptance of an assertion by appealing to a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language.
That's two logical fallacies.
Care to offer some evidence?
I do not appeal to popularity, but to the evidence written in their lives. Just because there is a lot of evidence does not reduce it to absurdity. To dismiss it because it may not be to you liking, or preferred logic is absurd, unless you have evidence! Do you? Don't try and shift the burden of proof here, if you claim that I do not have evidence in my life, as do millions of other real people.
You know, Razd, as much as I actually would like to do that, I am not yet confident of the fairness of the moderators here. If I was, I would take you out behind the woodshed in a heartbeat!
We will have to see how the fairness and even handedness plays out, and is demonstrated here. (Hi Ned, how are you?? Lovely day.)
Wow...here 4 days and already accusing the mods of bias?
keys, I;ve been to a lot of forums on this topic, and I can say quite honestly that this is the least biased forum I've participated in. Creationist forums tend to quickly ban anyone not among the flock, and diehard Atheist forums can give off so much vitriol and ridicule that debate is never attained.
EVC has some of the best moderators and the best rules to conduct an honest debate. The question really is, keys, will you rise to the challenge and try to debate us with evidence instead of bare assertion, or will you hide behind the smokescreen of "oh noes, the moderators are biased against me!"
The only bias you're likely to come across here is that the Evolutionists tend to outnumber the Creationists...but the continued presence of several long-standing Creationist posters, and also of Theistic non-Creationists, should show you that the site is managed pretty well considering the sensitivity of the topic.
Now...could you kindly return to the topic and actually address what someone posts, rather than dodging questions and appealing to bias?
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
you claim that I do not have evidence in my life, as do millions of other real people.
do not mix. You are flatly asserting that evidence exists because millions of people believe. This IS an appeal to popularity. What is the evidence that causes their belief? Your same logic could be used to explain that the Earth is flat, because "millions of people" have believed it to be true. Obviously, they were wrong.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
Re: BeingChristian does not mean you must remain ignorant.
quote: Which is why we call those things "supernatural." As in, not being part of the natural world, and therefore beyond the purview of science, whose purpose is to study the observable universe.
But that, in my opinion says very little, as the range of science, limited as it is to only things natural, which only makes up part of the universe.
quote:There is something HIGHLY irrational in believing in something without any evidence present, pr believing in something despite solid evidence to the contrary. There is no objective evidence that the supernatural exists, and it has never, not once, been proven to exist. This suggests that it does not, in fact exist, and that the universe works exclusively though natural processes.
So do you believe there is no God? Would that not be highly irrational by your own standards, unless you were able to prove it? What, of course would be irrational is to expect to hold the supernatural to the rules, and limits of the natural.
quote:This view is "limiting" only in that it sees only that which is observable in the first place. if some god is observed, science would wholeheartedly accept it, as it must. Am I "limiting" myself by not considering the possibility that an invisible pink unicorn is, in fact, reading over my shoulder? Certainly not, and the very idea is ridiculous. But faith, by definition, is an irrational belief in the existence of something despite a lack of any evidence or even evidence to the contrary.
But, since the powers of observation are limited to the instruments of only the natural, how is it you would honestly expect to observe something supernatural that way??
quote: A 6000 year old Earth. That Evolution is not the process by which all extant species formed. I could go on, but the truth is that Evolution is an observed fact -
Is there some particular exhibit that claims this? There are threads, no doubt on evolution. I thought that evolution only dealt with things after the fact anyhow?? Do you mean abiogenesis?
quote: Scientifically speaking, the ideas presented in this "museum" have gone the way of the flat Earth and Geocentrism - only the zealously religious, by their evidence-ignoring, irrational faith still believe in any of these ideas.
Are you suggesting that flat Earth and Geocentrism are taught? You need to be more specific, and say what exhibits you mean, if you even looked at any of them.
quote: I would ask you, keys, since you are so certain that it's "irrational and ridiculous" to ignore "all else:" what, pray tell, ELSE is there? What convinces you that the supernatural exists? So far you've said nothing more than "something else is there that science is blind to" and posted an irrelevant picture of Jesus' resurrection. By what senses do you propose we reveal the supernatural? How do we sort out genuine, unobservable, supernatural truth from something that was literally made up? I can't tell the difference, so I don't believe in the supernatural. perhaps you could help show me the difference.
I don't think you can do that, since you seem to admit operating only in the sphere of the natural, in your beliefs. But why discredit others that did venture further than that, when you have no evidence against it?? Would it not be better just to admit you don't know??
First, deal with the exhibits already raised first by me.
I did. They are not only TOTALLY irrelevant to the issue of "Creationism museum opens in Alberta" they are not even from that museum but from a totally different sideshow.
quote:All of which you "know" solely due to an old collection of books. By this exact same logic, I could "prove" that Nancy Drew did, in fact, exist, and solved a bunch of ridiculous crimes. After all, a collection of books says so, and her friends all saw it.
Objection speculative, you don't know how I know all I know
quote:Perhaps that's not he best example...we need something written from an observer's point of view. Perhaps the Cthulhu mythos? Surely, Great and Terrible Cthulhu dreams in the deep, and will awaken and destroy us all, because there is a series of books written from the perspective of an observer that says so.
See the problem? You can't use a book, or even a series of books, to prove themselves. Books without supporting evidence are not evidence at all - they're fiction.
I don't, any more than you do. I think all evidence agrees.
quote:And a lot of people have "seen" little green men, flying saucers, vampires, werewolves, and the Wizard of Oz. I myself have been with friends who "saw" ghosts, late one night in a graveyard. They were high, and paranoid to the point of hallucination. "Eyewitness" testimony without supporting evidence is, once again, a bare assertion. Even if the witness is entirely honest, the human mind seeks patterns, and will perceive that which does not exist in exactly the same way you can spot a cow in a cloud. This is why eyewitnesses are not trusted highly without supporting evidence in court. Show us a real picture or video of an actual angel. Or, better yet, get all Old testament on us and make God call down lightning and ignite His own altar. According to the Bible he's done it before.
Some people have thought that drugs may have opened doors on the spiritual, do you have some evidence, besides personal incredulity that some of the experiences of man are not real?
Re: BeingChristian does not mean you must remain ignorant.
But that, in my opinion says very little, as the range of science, limited as it is to only things natural, which only makes up part of the universe.
Bare assertion. WHAT EXACTLY, other than the observable, natural universe, exists, and more importantly, how do you know it exists?
So do you believe there is no God? Would that not be highly irrational by your own standards, unless you were able to prove it? What, of course would be irrational is to expect to hold the supernatural to the rules, and limits of the natural.
That is correct, I do not believe in any supernatural entity, god or otherwise. This is not irrational - absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. it;s impossible to prove a negative, but in the absence of any and all real evidence, saying "x supernatural entity exists" whether it be Thor, the Christian God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or my invisible pink unicorn, is an irrational position. I accept that there is a possibility that some supernatural entity exists - and I'll believe in it as soon as someone shows me solid evidence of it.
But, since the powers of observation are limited to the instruments of only the natural, how is it you would honestly expect to observe something supernatural that way??
If you have absolutely zero evidence of any specific supernatural entity, what rational reason do you have to believe it exists? More particularly, why would you believe int he Christian deity, and not Thor and every other deity anyone has ever come up with? Why not believe in Santa Claus? What "supernatural instruments" would you have us utilize to give us a reason to believe in the supernatural?
Is there some particular exhibit that claims this? There are threads, no doubt on evolution. I thought that evolution only dealt with things after the fact anyhow?? Do you mean abiogenesis?
You're kidding, right? We're talking about a Creationist museum! The position of Creationism is that the Christian God created the Earth in 6 days, roughly 6000 years ago.
Are you suggesting that flat Earth and Geocentrism are taught? You need to be more specific, and say what exhibits you mean, if you even looked at any of them.
Are you incapable of understanding a comparison?! Jesus. I'm saying that the things in this museum are as accepted by scientists as geocentrism and a flat Earth. As in, they are not accepted by any serious, respected scientist.
I don't think you can do that, since you seem to admit operating only in the sphere of the natural, in your beliefs. But why discredit others that did venture further than that, when you have no evidence against it?? Would it not be better just to admit you don't know??
The same reason I'm really, really freaking sure there's no invisible pink unicorn standing over my shoulder. And the fact that this is a debate forum.
So, since you didn't answer the question, I'll ask again: how can you, keys, tell the difference between something completely made up, like an invisible pink unicorn, and a real but undetectable supernatural entity like the Christian God? What differentiates "supernatural" from "non-existent?"
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
™ Version 4.2