Creationism museum opens in Alberta

quote:

---

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

---

Well more importantly, how do you know it doesn't exist? The way we know it does exist, is not by your limited science, I think I can safely say. So why would science be able to say it did not??

quote:

---

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.

---

That is fine, but why would others that feel they have experienced and observed things supernatural limit their belief to yours for no apparent reason, other than your inability to get beyond your limited range of perceptions? The only thing your absence of natural evidence for a supernatural exhibits, is being absent from your natural range. That would be expected for things not natural would it not? Or do you think you can also detect things spiritual now?

quote:

---

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?

---

People of different beliefs in things supernatural have different reasons for that, none of which you can dispose of by science, or by wishful thinking. You don't need to worry about instruments other than natural, cause that is all you believe in. Neither should you worry about those that do detect evidence of it, just because you can't. Stick to your little forte.

quote:

---

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.

---

That is also my position. But I don't remember anyone referencing an exhibit about that.

quote:

---

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.

---

But no one claims any unicorn, or that this forum does not exist, so how can that be the freakin proof for your position of personal incredulity?

quote:

---

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?"

---

That depends on who is the observer. If it is a non believer, then the answer is NOTHING! They have no clue. If you are talking about a bible believer, why, one would assume that the bible would help set the guidelines there. So, if you claim some pink entity is hovering over me, I would ask where there was such a thing in the bible. If you were serious, I would simply say I couldn't care less, let it hover, why would I care? I likely would not claim that I knew there was not really something there, since I would be ignorant of it.

The topic was in the OP, not just the title. It mentioned the US as well. The exhibit I posted was from the US museum, deal with it.

quote:

---

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?

---

For the resurrection?? Or, for 'all I know', as you put it? I do use the bible for some things, yes. One thing it does do is record the resurrection. It talks about the witnessed event. Times, places, circumstances etc. That is evidence. Like it or not, and evidence it will stay. Not in the science forum of this site, no. But who cares about that?

quote:

---

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?

---

You assert it does not exist, where is your evidence? Millions of people have had miracles, and other manifestations of things spiritual. That is evidence! The fact you haven't seen it does not change that. It may not be the kind of evidence you might want in science of the natural, but, too bad!ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

quote:

---

You still need to show how it is relevant to the topic of "Creation Museums".

---

Since it is part of an exhibit IN a real creation museum, how could it be anything BUT relevant? Think about it.

quote:

---

If the goal is to teach folk about Jesus and the concept that GOD created all that is, seen and unseen, why include material that is totally refuted and false like a 6000 year old universe or the Great Wetting that Never Happened?

---

Well, apparently they do not think it is refuted. Apparently you do. The flood itself I believe, and millions of other as well, really happened. Now, some of the science may be off, and even wrong in the mainstream of creationism, I will grant that. But I will grant the same for things you might believe in 'science'. Ever notice science has changed somewhat since, say, the 1940ies?Keep in mind that what these things were supposedly refuted with, is just natural science. If there is more, then, that is meaningless. And, after all, you cannot say whether there is more, or not. Now can you? I offer YOU as my evidence!!!You claimed to be a Christian, that means you must believe in the resurrection, and God!!! Why?

quote:

---

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.

---

The topic is not me, it is museums. I know for reasons in my life, as millions of others do. I don't need to get personal here. The fact is we, the millions and millions of believers do have reasons in our lives, many times it is even miracles. We know by experience. Observations. Miracles, and a million other ways. That is how we know. And all these things we know, unbelievers cannot know, unless they become believers. Otherwise how could you know, since science can't help??

quote:

---

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 could say the singularity is whispering in your ear if you like, and Ned is in drag. That is not my business. If you claimed that was science, why, then we might ask you to give more than a claim.

quote:

---

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.

---

Actually, most of the world agrees with me. More correctly, by numbers you are the only one claiming it doesn't, and offer no evidence but you lack of ability to see!See, in a faith forum, one can have faith. One does not need to pretend it is science. But, on the other hand, if one claims that science precludes all things supernatural, why, one must back that up, mustn't one?

quote:

---

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.

---

You 'want' to hear why they believe. Well, what can I do for you here? Perhaps have a nice long walk about, and really chat it up with a lot of people of faith, and see what you come up with??

quote:

---

...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.

---

No, it supports an earth about 10 times older than that! (har har)

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, I contest you are not freakin sure there is no ghost peeking over your shoulder. Prove it. Otherwise stick to what you are sure of.You can have no evidence of the supernatural unless you come to God and ask for it, in my opinion. Having a pass to Livermore just won't do it.

quote:

---

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?

---

Because we are all entitled to our beliefs, and the belief that I found most historical, evidenced, and present and observed, and working was the God of the bible, and His son.Many of the people that start these museums feel much the same way. We do not like being called animals, and having you claim that we started off as a singularity. We do not like you pretending there are no angels, and God, and supernatural, when you speak from only ignorance. You can't know that, and should have the decency to admit it!

quote:

---

LOL. It's there for the same reason the carny had a bearded lady and the sword swallower. It helps bring in the rubes.

​

No, that does not answer the question of how it is relevant.

​

So one more time, "How is some display of an empty tomb relevant to the issue of Biblical Creation Museums?"

---

It is an exhibit in one!! I think I also said already that the resurrection shows that there is more than natural science at work. The One that rose from that tomb is the creator of the universe, in case you somehow missed that??
That is why, rather than a sword swallower, or evolution swallower, He made it into a creation museum!

quote:

---

Of course the conclusions change as we learn more and more. But that has nothing to do with the FACT that both a Young Universe and The Great Wetting have been completely refuted.

​

Those are not subject to opinions, they are facts.

---

Beware of strong delusion. Sonds like you stand at the brink here, from the claims that you throw out as if they had some meaning.

quote:

---

Nonesense. Even if there is a GOD that created the universe, it does not refute the physical evidence.

---

No need to.

quote:

---

Look up at the skies at night. The stars are there. The Galaxies are there.

---

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handiwork. So??

quote:

---

But also stop and consider the theological implications of what you are saying. If either the Universe really were Young or the Great Wetting actually happened, the the person responsible, ie:God, later left false clues that all show that neither are true. In other words, if the Universe is Young or there was a world-wide flood, then God is a liar and trickster.

---

Unless maybe it is merely you that is a misunderstander?

quote:

---

You can find my reasoning all over EvC. Start in Columnists Corner.

---

No need to all Christians must believe in God, and the resurrection. You remain my witness.

quote:

---

whether or not I believe in GOD and the resurrection is irrelevant to the issue. Neither of those have anything to do with how old the Universe is or if there ever was a world-wide flood.

---

That is debatable.

quote:

---

Are you referring to this?

---

Yes. A part of an exhibit in the museum.

quote:

---

You noticed an exhibit?
That's your evidence?

​

Offer some evidence! Any evidence!

---

You can research it if you want to. Apparently this really is in the museum. I did give a link in the same post as the pics, I think.

quote:

---

And then, on top of everything else, you throw down the gauntlet

​

List 2 known lies in the museum, so we can see what you mean.

​

and when both RAZD and Rahvin rise to the bait, you dodge with this?

---

They listed something in the museum, some lies that were exhibited or posted there?? What they said struck me as general creation/evolution points, not specific to the museums?

quote:

---

as I actually would like to do that, I am not yet confident of the fairness of the moderators here

​

You just added two fallacies to your list!

​

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust). The fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. Of course, it is not fallacious to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repetition alone to substitute for real arguments.

---

On the list of your 'imaginary crimes list'. OK. Does that mean I should be very confident of moderation already??

quote:

---

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). The fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false.

---

Do you assume God is either true or false?? Prove it either way, then! Or are you just engaging in a little Argumentum ad ignorantiam? People that live in glass houses...

quote:

---

You have asserted that there is evidence of god.
The burden of proof is on you.

---

It is also in me! And it won't be in you unless and until you come to God. Until then, you can likely have no evidence of Him. In other words, you will have to continue speaking from a point of ignorance. I never said there was evidence for you. Only for the millions of believers that tapped into the power you shun.

quote:

---

You have made the bare assertion that Jesus rose from the dead.
The burden of proof is on you.

---

This IS a faith and belief forum, remember. One of the greatest faith documents in the world is the bible, and that IS evidence. You can like that or lump that. In matters of faith the bible we count as evidence. In the natural little realm of science, they cannot count anything out of their little cult of the selected natural only sphere as evidence!

quote:

---

I'm beginning to think you don't want to discuss anything.

​

Prove me wrong, keys. I'm begging you. Prove me wrong.

​

Don't want to discuss those icky science questions?

---

IN the context of faith and belief, that includes, like the creation museums include, the supernatural that you can't see!

Sorry that was news. But, yes, to get access to the things that are spiritual, we need to get spiritual first, and only Jesus can get us spiritual, in any big way that I am aware of.Of course there are other things spiritual as well, like demons, occult, etc etc. But, whatever way you want to experience the spiritual, it sure ain't gonna be in the sphere of science.Besides, I never said I would take you out to the woodshed. You haven't really struck me as a worthy opponent. No offense.Edited by keys, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

Guess it must be tough, having to lose so much you need to resort to accepting imaginary concessions! See, I never said it was because of people thinking. It is because of real effects in their lives. -Evidences.

quote:

---

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?

---

I don't need it validated, God does that. You must accept that people have faith for whatever reasons they say, if any. I have indicated personal experiences and the bible. That is plenty of reasons to believe, and needs no stamp from y'all.

quote:

---

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?

---

No, you can't. If you had known them, maybe you would not have backslid. We need to know real reasons, however. Maybe that is why God lest you walk about.

quote:

---

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.

---

Bottom line, you don't believe in spirits. Great, so can you bring us science to prove there are none??
Do you have any solid reasons ghosts do not exist? Why would I take your opinion over the bible?

quote:

---

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.

---

No, my opinion is scriptural. He is a rewarder of them the diligently seek Him. Maybe He didn't want to scare you, you seem somewhat hung up on ghosts.

quote:

---

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?

---

Well, that is a big topic. Let's just accept that many believe this way.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, it is not ridiculous. I am not a descendant of any monkey or ape. That is insulting. But I don't think it is topical.

Who was that again that keeps talking about pink unicorns, and ghosts on his shoulder??? Oh yes, that would be you.Edited by keys, : No reason given.

Evidence for....what?

That doesn't prove we are children of monkeys. No matter how much you prefer to think of that as logical, I don't believe it without evidence.You may go now. I think we saw what you had by now. Nothing.

quote:

---

ts no wonder then that when you claim that the Earth is 6000 years old and there was a global flood we ask you to give more than a claim.

​

But then the best you can offer is this:
I know for reasons in my life, as millions of others do.

---

No idea why you slap unrelated thoughts together, pretending they form a point.
I believe a certain timespan, and you believe a certain one. I don't recall someone asking me to prove the flood here? If they did, again that is a big topic.
The evidence in my life, and others mentioned was for a spiritual, and a God. One needs not do better than that.

quote:

---

Faith in God should not demand a denial of evidence. Millions of denials do not make it right.

---

I deny nothing, it seems you deny that we realize there is a spiritual.

quote:

---

Does majority opinion make truth? You keep asserting this as if you truly believe it.

---

Repeatabilty, well observed, time tested, evidence in real lives is not opinion. It is experiment, and results.

quote:

---

Not any museum however, or you would not have so many people attempting to debate the issue while you dodge. The museum in question is trying to tell the public that the Earth is only 6000 years old and there was a global flood. You can post a picture of an empty cave and suddenly its about "faith". As you can see so far in this thread the major issue that many of us have is not about an empty cave.

---

No, I don't see that. If one saw that these museums included more than just the natural, whay would the flood be a problem?

There is evidence in millions of lives. You are apparently not one of them, and so you can't see it in the lives of others. It is invisible. You need to learn your little limits.You can not be shown that which you can not see, and you cannot experience that that does not live in your life. But that does not change the fact that most of the world still believes in a spiritual. Or the fact that it is tested, tried, proven, repeated, observed, and a well known part of reality. Being out of that loop does not mean you can define reality by the limits of your beliefs!

I do have it, as do millions. You can't unless you are born of the spirit, or find some other experience that get you more than a natural experience. You are not in a position to question miracles, answered prayers, gifts, inner peace, angelic help, wisdom from God, or etc etc.The evidence is all around, but not all can detect it. It is not science, where all natural men can see the tests!The evidence of Jesus is in the lives of millions as well. He is alive and made Himself known. The bible documents witnesses of the resurrection. Do not think that just because you can't see it it isn't here.