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.

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.

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.

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"??

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.

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.

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.Edited by keys, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

​

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.

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??

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?

Different than the ones mentioned in the OP?"First we had the one in the US. Now, another one in Canada. I would not be surprised if many in different states and countries opened up over the next decade or so.
I think this is a good thing. A great thing. Long overdue."Don't think so, it was from the US one.

quote:

---

Wow...here 4 days and already accusing the mods of bias?

---

You think saying, 'I will wait to see how it plays out, whether there is evenhandedness or not' is accusing anyone of anything?? Maybe you should work on your english.

quote:

---

Now...could you kindly return to the topic and actually address what someone posts, rather than dodging questions and appealing to bias?

---

All depends on what they post, if it is topical, and whether I perceive manners.Edited by keys, : No reason given.