Creationism museum opens in Alberta

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.

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 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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

and 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.

Bare assertion. WHAT EXACTLY, other than the observable, natural universe, exists, and more importantly, how do you know it exists? 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. 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? 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 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. 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.

My apologies - I've been forced to speculate that you are a Bible-believing Christian based solely on the fact that you posted a picture of Jesus resurrection and have accepted that as a fact, because you've refused to give us anything else. I'll ask, yet again: what is YOUR evidence, keys? If not the Bible, then what? You're right, the evidence DOES all agree. On an Earth billions of years old. On Evolution. NOT on the things this "museum" teaches. You're the one asserting that something supernatural exists. Do you have any evidence, besides irrational gullibility, that these "Experiences" were anything more than chemically induced hallucinations based on nothing supernatural whatsoever? I can't prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. What's YOUR evidence?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Exactly how many more times are you going to refuse to answer questions? "The way we know...is not by your limited science." So how DO you know? What is the evidence that caused your belief? I've asked at least three times now. Stop dodging.And if you honestly think that not being able to conclusively prove something is nonexistent means it is at all likely to exist, you need to do some serious thinking. You cannot absolutely prove that the invisible pink unicorn isn't standing over my shoulder. What is the difference between that statement, and your statement that I cannot prove the supernatural does not exist? You are the only one claiming anything spiritual exists. If I cannot detect it in any way, shape, or form, then why would I believe it? If you believe things without detecting any evidence of their existence, why do you not believe in the invisible pink unicorn? Stop trying to shift the burden of proof. You've done this repeatedly, and it;s not an honest debate tactic. You have claimed that the supernatural exists. I have repeatedly asked for the reason you believe it exists. Any further response without answering this very simple question will be accepted as your concession. So, what...you're saying that the "faithful" have magic glasses that let them see the supernatural, and that a bunch of them just happened to take what they saw completely differently?I don;t care how many people believe in the supernatural, keys. I want to hear why they believe. What is your reason If there is no reason, no evidence, then your argument is hollow. ...it's a topic about a Creationist museum. Your dodging of questions is dishonest. Stop it. You know as well as I do that the museum, being Creationist, supports a 600 year old Earth, etc. You seriously don;t understand the concept of a comparison, do you. How's this. I'm really freaking sure there is no invisible ghost looking over my shoulder. I'm really freaking sure the CIA is not beaming thoughts into my head. Without any evidence, there is no reason to believe in any claim. Your claim of the supernatural is no different. You;ve been asked for the evidence, just the barest reason, no matter how personal, and you've repeatedly, dishonestly avoided answering. So, your answer is that the Bible is how you tell the difference? Why that specific collection of old books? Why not the Quoran? Why not the writings of the ancient Greeks or Romans? Why not the Egyptian Book of the Dead?Why not Nancy Drew? Why not Dianetics?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Just because you're in a faith and belief forum doesn't mean you get a free pass by invoking the Bible. We debate Faith and Belief here - which includes questioning it, and demanding reasoning. Asking why you believe in the Bible and not some other holy text is a perfectly legitimate question here.A book CANNOT be evidence of itself. That's idiotic. Refer to my Nancy Drew comparison. If the Nancy Drew series says x mystery was solved by Nancy, does that mean Nancy ever existed? Are all books non-fiction? Because that's what it means when books are evidence of their own contents.Many Christians, perhaps even most, do NOT accept the Bible as literal truth. Why do you? Jesus christ. You assert that the supernatural exists. I responded that I don't believe it does, and asked for your evidence, your reason for believing that it does, since you have already agreed that it's undetectable. The burden of proof lies with you, because you claim something exists. How many times must this be said?And I'm well aware of the definition of the word "evidence," thank you. I'd really appreciate it if you would provide some.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Another appeal to popularity. A lot of people thinking an idea is right doesnt make it right. Since you refuse to post any of the evidence used by these millions, I accept your concession. You didn;t answer the question. Concession accepted. Another appeal to popularity. Concession accepted. Yes, you can have faith. But you're still required to give your reasons for that faith when challenged. If you expect us all to simply validate your faith and say "good for you," why are you in a DEBATE forum? Been there. Done that. Have the t-shirt. I was raised as a near-fundamentalist Christian. I know why I used to believe, and it;s part of the reason I don't any more. But I can;t address your reasons, or at least the reasons you refer to by bringing up "millions of people," if I don't know them, now can I? Oh look, you've spotted another typo! How clever you are! I don;t see any evidence of the ghost. If you contend one exists, please provide it. If you cannot, I'll assume it doesnt exist, just like anything else with no evidence. By your logic, I should live in deathly fear that some night a vampire will come and attack me, because I cant prove they don't exist. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Your opinion is irrelevant, and I used to be a Christian who prayed to God quite often. I never received any evidence for his existence or the existence of any other supernatural entity. Thank you for finally answering a question. Now, onto the next: why literalism? Why Creationism? A very significant portion of those "millions and millions" are like our friend Jar - Christian, but not Creationists or Literalists. What support do you have for your interpretation in face of observable evidence to the contrary? So...your entire argument is based on the idea that it's highly unpleasant to consider the fact that you are the descendent of primitive apes? Seriously, keys, that's just ridiculous. That's an Appeal to Emotion fallacy. It's highly unpleasant to think I might get cancer, but it's still entirely true.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Pssst! I don't think our friend keys understands what a logical fallacy is, or why it's bad to be making them!

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

...fits fine with his imaginary friend, and his imaginary evidence!

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I'm done with this. keys, every post you have made is a pile of logical fallacies and repetition. You haven't made or supported a single point. You've engaged in dishonest debate tactics and refused to answer demands for evidence. You have no concept of the meaning of a logical fallacy, and why making them invalidates any argument that springs from them.This is no longer a debate, it's like arguing with a child who says "nuh uh," and "I know you are but what am I."

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.