Creationism museum opens in Alberta

quote:

---

From the start of this thread you have asked to provide evidence for your denial of the scientific evidence that shows your belief in creation science is incorrect.

---

I asked for evidence of my denial? I have no denial. Not of evidence, maybe of your opinion on what it means.

quote:

---

You where asked what evidence you have for your belief - and you asnwered as such. This is not an unrealted thought and I am pretending nothing.

---

There is plenty of evidence, and it seems unrelated to your thoughts, which seem to exclude God and the supernatural. [quote]I believe in a timespan that is supported by evidence. You may not have been asked to prove the flood directly, but since you support YEC and a direct interpetation of the bible I think it can be safe to assume there are many here who want you to show the evidence. The "evidence" you have to support your belief is spiritual and you think this somehow trumps physical evidence? Please explain.[quote] If there is also the spiritual at work, then why would physical evidence alone in the way you interpret it matter?

quote:

---

You dont address anything either. Do you deny the Earth is older than YEC claims? Do you deny that this museum is attempting to convince the public the Earth is 6000 years old?

---

Why would I deny that?? The thing is, how to relate this to the thread. I think an exhibit might help you there. I used one. Try it.

quote:

---

Show me where I said that. I said nothing of the sort.

---

Let's be clear here, do you believe in God, and a spiritual or not?? Don't keep us guessing.

quote:

---

You must not have been reading. Each and every person who has posted has a problem that you have apparently not seen. The issue with the museum is not about faith in God, Jesus, or spirituality - the issue is combining these elements of faith with a denial of evidence. The "flood" is a major problem; it left no evidence.

---

With faith in God what need is there to deny evidence?? I certainly don't do that. What kind of evidence would you like the flood to have left?? Sand? water covering the earth still? or...what? Where is it that the museums have messed up in your opinion?

quote:

---

You seem to want to avoid discussing actual facts. If that is true then say so and don't waste peoples time

---

Don't waste my time,if you think you have facts let's see them.

quote:

---

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.

​

This conversation isn't making progress.

---

Speak for yourself. I think some progress is made in seeing how you have nothing to say.

quote:

---

To make things easier for you, I offer you a list of "evidences" you have yet to provide:

​

Jesus rose from the dead, that is evidence

​

Another example might be that many have seen ghosts and angels.

​

I have evidence in my life

​

I do use the bible for some things, yes ... That is evidence.

​

Millions of people have had miracles

​

The flood itself I believe, and millions of other as well, really happened.

---

Yes, miracles, and evidences in lives, and the bible and resurrection etc are evidence. So??? Your ability to realize that is all that is a problem.

quote:

---

Now, may I remind you, on more than one occasion you have [willfully?] chosen to contradict yourself:

---

You can try.

quote:

---

Example #1

​

I don't recall someone asking me to prove the flood here

---

Ok,so, what, you think I need to prove a flood now?

quote:

---

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

​

(2) The world wide flood occurred within that time or any close approximation

---

If it is a lie, prove it. Don't just say it. I say it is not a lie. Why would I think it is a lie??

quote:

---

Example #2

​

I never said there was evidence for you.

​

On the other hand, the earth abounds with evidence for a God

---

That contradicts YOU, not me. There is evidence, You can't access it.

quote:

---

So. As you compose your answer, consider this:

​

You have offered nothing beyond the 6 bare assertions listed above. You are blocking the progress of this discussion. In order to move forward, I suggest you pick one or two of the "evidences" from that list and elaborate.

---

OK, I pick Jesus rising. We saw it. We believe it. We documented it. We find He is alive and well. So?? This is not a science area, and we need no science to have evidences of the spiritual in our lives. I suggest you get some evidence against this or grow a point.

quote:

---

Over the past couple of days, several people have pointed this out to you, but I think it bears repeating: Just because I said so is NOT evidence.

---

The bible says so, and so do millions of people that tested it. That is all you get. Learn to live with it. Just because you say it is not so does not make it not so. That is how the world of the supernatural works, there is no evidence of the kind unspiritual people want. Welcome to faith and belief.{quoteTo use Rahvin's analogy, just because I say there's a pink unicorn on my shoulder doesn't make it so.[/quote]or not so....so??

quote:

---

That's just bizarre coming from you, Keys. "You just can't see it." What hubris!

---

Well, part of my facts are faith and belief, which includes testimony of people and bible. Part of the facts in the creation museum are that Jesus rose from the dead, created the earth, made the different kind of animals, made the stars, and etc.I get the feeling that some people are so used to being in the science only part of this forum, that they may have lost sight of what evidence really is?Evidence for God includes prophesy, miracles, and inner workings of a spiritual nature that men realize are from something beyond them.The WAY these things are evidenced is within the believer, not in a test tube for all to look at and hold.If we talk about creation, the foundational belief of these museums, that are springing up, we must include the Goddidit stuff. If we can't what use is a faith and belief forum?? We believe it, and have faith, because.... so and so, and so. Very few if any of those so and sos will be science.

I never said I wouldn't reply to posts. I said that I didn't want some big scruff up with some local wiz, unless I thought that there was even handedness. Have you looked at Ned's posts here? That strikes me more as obsessive stalking than moderation so far.

Oh, yes, I would. Thanks for doing the homework here. My comment is that I do not agree with the science that is used, for the most part, in these museums! For example, I do not agree with flood geology.Having said that, I reiterate, that I wish one of these museums would pop up in every city on earth!There are more important things than science of man! I also do not agree with a lot that you may think is science. Big topic, really. But I agree that the earth was created and, when the bible says. So, even though they don't quite have it right, they are right, in my opinion, about the basic things they teach.

quote:

---

here.

​

Its title is 'Evidences of the Flood in Grand Canyon'.

---

As I said in last post, I do not agree with flood geology.

quote:

---

In other words - confirmation bias. It only presents pieces of evidence which alone are consistent with the preselected conclusion. It doesn't even do the patrons the honour of presenting all the evidence and discussing why certain pieces of evidence don't lead to the obvious conclusions.

---

Well, they are selling their beliefs the best way they know how. They know deep down they are right, and I agree, and so does the bible, they are very very right! But, where they mess up is with the science business. They have been part of a massive attempt to correlate the evidence with the truth of the bible, under the laws of the natural universe. I think they should have included more of the supernatural, really, cause using just the natural, these people do fail in many ways.

quote:

---

I went to a natural history museum and I remember the discussion about whether dinosaurs where warm blooded or not. The evidence or argumentation for the two positions were put forward and that was it. I saw plenty of 'some scientists think that this is because of...however others point to {evidence} and suggest another possibility....' - and we simply don't get that wealth of information at these kinds of museums.

---

Right. If I wanted science, that isn't really the first place I would start.

quote:

---

We can see through the charade at the top of this post because we have experience in how to determine if someone has died and how they died.

---

Hey, if the resurrection that is actually in the museum is 'off topic' by special mod decree, I guess your dead man tales are too.

quote:

---

How can we trust these museums? Their livelihood relies on confirming the biblical account - if they don't do that, they are nothing.

---

Trust them how? Trust that their use of natural science to explain creation is right? No, no more than we can trust your use of natural only science to try and explain it away!

quote:

---

The subjects they talk about are not topics that the average layperson has any knowledge of at all - geology is not something humans have any grasp of. It is not covered in much detail at school - and the patrons of a creation museum are likely to be creationists, which means they are generally less educated (as education level increases, so does the tendency towards not being a creationist).

---

The reverence for the natural only increases as people immerse in it, and omit all else. The mistakes of the mueum pale in copmparison to the mistakes of the supernatural omitters.

quote:

---

Another issue I have with these kinds of things is that in one exhibit they'll present things as a human reason (or science) versus God's Word issue, then they'll attempt to use reason (or science) to demonstrate that God's Word is true. It's like they are covering all their bases. Don't believe in human reason, believe in God - but if that doesn't convince you let look at this evidence and apply reason to it to form conclusions.

---

You know, many creationists have different idea, and theories, and models, and maybe some mix and matching, etc. I doubt that people swallow evything as gospel there. I don't.

quote:

---

Whether or not the flood happened, regardless of the existence of the Abrahamic deity, and without consideration to the age of the earth...we should not be celebrating museums or schools or anything that encourages doublethink and evidence denial (through ignorance) at the level we see at these museums.

---

You know, in a way, you do have a point, and I cringe a bit at the weak science they use. But, see you seem to miss the all important point in the whole thing here. That is that the evidences of a non science kind are even more important, whether unbelievers see them or not! It is this evidence denial, by reason of spiritual awareness deprivation, and inability to avail oneself of all the evidences, therefore, that is the far far far far far greater crime against humanity.

quote:

---

Errr... faith is not a fact.

---

It is a fact that many have faith. It is a fact that you cannot give facts that say we should not have faith as well.

quote:

---

Faith, belief and testimony are unreliable. I know of people that will provide all sorts of testimony that include aliens, angels and ghosts.

---

Some is less than well based, that is true. But the general belief in the spirits is well based.

quote:

---

Recently a church in my local area was promoting gemstones falling heaven.

---

Well, I wouldn't expect that to be provable by science. No more than Jesus paying taxes with gold from a mouth of a fish. But, science has nothing to say about it.

quote:

---

The bible is a man made product and hence is unreliable. It reflects the mores and understanding at the time when the text was written - not anymore.

---

I disagree. It is a Godmade product that used men as labor. You have no science that says that God was not behind it.

quote:

---

Subjective, prone to confirmation bias and proven unreliable.

---

No, not proven. The nature of the faith beast is that some have faith, others lie. Finding liars does not mean all are liars.

quote:

---

Prophecy - the bible is chucked full of unfulfilled doom and destruction prophesy. I have been to "meetings" where modern day prophets issue prophecies that are far from the mark as north is from south - not any different than astrology.

---

I disagree. It has fulfilled prophesy, and yet to be fulfilled prophesy. The sequence is such, that we expect some things to be yet unfulfilled, until the other things first happen.

quote:

---

Miracles - what type of miracles are you talking about. The gemstones mentioned above are heralded as a miracle! I know people associated with this church and they have miracles on a monthly basis - I suspect they will live forever. If you believe in miracles can you explain why God heals somethings but never restores a missing limb?

---

Any kind that people feel are real, and that science really has nothing to say about.

quote:

---

Inner workings - I have many friends, family and associates that are Christians of all strips. To be honest I have never witness any of these inner workings you talk and others about. Truly the only difference is that they view life from a superstitious perspective and every nuance and happening has "spiritual significance".

---

Well, I have heard many talk of changes in their lives they felt were due to supernatural help. Who are we to question that??

quote:

---

What is evidenced within the believer? Can you build a cure for a disease with this evidence?

---

Depends on the believer. Millions of things, that include healings. If death was cured, who need worry about sickness?The evidences are in the lives of people. Science is outside the lives of people.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter. Even if there was a viable and consistent flood geology out there - what they are teaching the client base is bad thinking skills (if you think badly you will be rewarded, if you think like this, you can help save humanity from teen pregnancy, drugs and hell).

---

I didn't see the pregnancy and hell exhibit.

quote:

---

Right - which is why these creation museums are bad. If you want to have a museum of creationist belief, that's fine. If you want to have an amusement arcade with dioramas of scenes from genesis that's fine. If you want to confuse people with pseudoscience and nonsense - that is not fine and an opening of a business that makes money from peddling dishonesty is not to be celebrated.

​

'Selling their beliefs' is no defence for immoral or reprehensible behaviour as you should well know. Let us look to the Islamic propagandists for an obvious and extreme example.

---

To be dishonest, they would need to not believe what they say. I think they do. So, they are honestly mistaken in some areas of science, but right in the big picture, as supported by the bible. They have enough besides mere science going for them to warrant them being basically right in the general claims of the bible. You have enough going against you, besides mere science, to warrant you being wrong in your basic claims, as I see it. I vote for them.

quote:

---

The topic is about the celebration of the opening of creation museums and the hope that more will open. I used an analogy to explain easily why I do not think there is cause to celebrate when propaganda and confirmation bias is peddled for cash - even if one happens to agree with the conclusions of the propaganda in question.

---

Ok. But if the other dead man example is used, there is cause to celebrate.

quote:

---

One cannot appeal to the natural world for evidence of one's chosen supernatural mythology and at the same time, reject evidence in the natural world that suggest contrary conclusions. By all means discuss the supernatural be it vampires and dragons, to ghosts, djinn and deities and do so in a museum - but playing on people's trust of 'science sounding stuff' to either convince them or deepen their convictions is inconsistent and dishonest.

---

Well, neither can one appeal, then to the natural world for evidence against one's chosen supernatural mythology and at the same time, reject evidence in the supernatural world that suggest contrary conclusions.

quote:

---

I once went to a museum of the paranormal, and walked out shortly afterwards because they were clearly only showing one side of the story and presenting supposed physical evidence of paranormal activity. I decry that museum just like I decry the creation museum.

---

By the same token, if one believes that the creation also involved the supernatural, only showing one side of the story and presenting supposed physical evidence only for creation needs to be decryed. And so I do.

quote:

---

Whether it is a mistake or not to omit the supernatural is irrelevant. Natural history museums are about natural history and proclaim that quite clearly, they don't appeal to certain elements of supernatural lore whilst selectively ignoring other elements of supernatural lore (imagine if they took a Bible quote out of context to disprove the bible and strengthen belief in evolution for example) anymore than a supernatural history museum should be taking physical and natural evidence out of context of other physical and natural evidence.

---

On the contrary, it is all important, if it was part of the creation picture! If all one wanted was nature as it now is, why, one coulld seek out a natural ONLY museum. Some of us know there is more. [quote] I wouldn't celebrate the opening of a creation museum that did not discuss science at all (and just discussed the supernatural beliefs), but I wouldn't have a problem with it either.[quote] Well, the natural they feel was involved, so they have to try and include it somehow. After all, Adam lived on this earth.

quote:

---

So you should not celebrate these base museums then. You should decry their idolatry and dishonesty, even if the result is good - the means do not necessarily justify it. You should encourage people to go to church, and for other large places of congregation to discuss or display the supernatural beliefs about creation to be built rather than Mamon serving monstrosities such as these museums.

---

Nevertheless, the truth is preached, even if it be via faulty wisdom of men. Creation believers ought to get out the word to as many as possible, not sit around in churches all the time playing with each other.

At this juncture, I would only agree to a debate with you under the following terms, until I gained more trust of the fairness here.1) No interruptions, till the thread reaches at least 301 post, without a bunch of space wasting mod comments taking up 50 posts, or whatnot.2) No suspensions, or bans, etc for the entire thread allowed.3) An honest attempt to debate.Since the topic would be broad, no need to limit it to museums. More of an age of the earth, and limits of science type thing.Aside from that, I think I made my points for the thread here, more or less.

quote:

---

Obviously and so. But that is not what you originally said. You said that faith and belief constitute part of your facts as if you were positioning faith and belief on par with evidence and observable facts.p

---

I observe facts all the time, as others do, that constitute evidence. Evidence as good as science to us. Better. We observed Jesus getting up from the dead. We have evidence. You do not, apparently, but that changes nothing.

quote:

---

Sure and I cannot give you facts why you should not believe in trolls, leperchons and alien abductions.

---

OK, so you admit your ability to give facts is limited. I agree.

quote:

---

Ah ha. But how does one tell what is well based and what is not? This is precisely why faith, belief and testimony are unreliable is because there is nothing to base it on in the real observable world.

---

One really can't tell, can one, about things of the spirit, if one is dead to the spiritual? Being born again of the spirit allows us, I believe, to begin to tell. Until then, one might be limited to science, and such.

quote:

---

This is why a Christian can claim a miracle and a Voodoo priest can claim a miracle and neither have any means to dispute the other.

---

Why dispute it? I might simply attribute it to spirits that may not be all that good in my books.

quote:

---

The LDS church and Islam are also based on faith, belief and testimony. Should we believe because it has all the essential ingredient's and we have nothing to prove it did not happen.

---

Why would I care what people believe, or dispute the spiritual happening they think they encounter?? I do sipute those that are unaware of such things that try to poopou them all as not real, for no real reason.

quote:

---

If that is your criteria then the Gemstones mentioned above are a true miracle, since the church and others feel it is *very real* and science has nothing to say about it (although you can buy similar looking stones on ebay).

---

How would I know. If I judged that, I would speak, as you do, from ignorance. Why would I do that? I prefer to know what I am talking about.

quote:

---

Actually you are wrong in one way, as science has proven the inefficiency of prayer. Several scientific studies have recently looked into the efficiency of prayer in relationship to healing and have found in most cases no effect is statistically significant.

---

They stabbed in the dark, and I would no more take their word for the spiritual goings on than I would take a tour from a blind man.

quote:

---

Further if one religious outlook yielded success in pray for say healing that group would stand out in mass statistical aggregation. For example, if praying to Christian God yielded occasional healing than Christian countries would fair better than say secular societies like the Japanese or societies that are counter religious to your view such as India.

---

Believers do fare pretty good, but healing is not guaranteed. It is a bonus, and there needs to be several factors in place. That is one reason a random sample is useless.

quote:

---

And why never a restored limb? Is God powerless to effect such a change?

---

That is nothing. I think He did some of that, and will do more in the coming days. It does seem a little unusual, but God specializes in that sort of thing if need be.

My goodness, you seem raring to go. Guess you feel you are well prepared for that sort of thing.I guess the mods never really said they would back off, so I am a little hesitant. I think I would prefer a plan B, in case some get the itch, and hear you a wailin in the woodshed, and decide to step in to save you.Possibly some neutral site, where the thread would be finished if stopped here.(http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showforum=24??)-Do we have a go here, then, or would you prefer some other site for plan B?Edited by keys, : No reason given.Edited by keys, : No reason given.Edited by keys, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Your big problem here is that your claims about science aren't actually true, and almost everyone posting on this thread knows that; which somewhat vitiates your argument.

---

What claims?

quote:

---

A quic question for you: if science supported YEC, wouldn't scientists have noticed? What with them being the people who do science, an' all? You talk about the "big picture". How much of the "big picture" have you seen compared to the hundreds of thousands of people whose job it is to study it?

---

Who might those be? People that ignore all but the natural? They can't study squat that way. Sorry. I don't care if there are a billion of them.

quote:

---

Maybe next time. I can find a few examples at Ken Ham's museum:

---

OK, so apparently the museum does dabble in morals that it apparently think are good.

quote:

---

The hell thing is more or less blatant hither and thither. At Ken Ham's museum he pits reason versus God's word, with the implication that relying on reason and evidence is going against God's word and we all know what happens to those that go against God's word.

---

Well, now you're stretching.

quote:

---

Actually, not so. Omitting data to the extent I described is dishonest. Are you suggesting half truths aren't dishonest?

---

We disagree. I assume they are honest.

quote:

---

They are not mistaken in science - the science has been explained to them many many times and they choose to ignore what scientists say about the science and the thousands of refutations that have poured out in recent decades. They are ignoring the evidence that refutes them because it refutes them - they are not unaware of that evidence.

---

I don't believe you.

quote:

---

They might be right in the basic claims of the Bible and I am not questioning that. Then again - when did the Bible make claims about the Grand Canyon?

---

The claims I refer to are the young earth. The Grand Canyon would be their take on how it 'must' have happened.

quote:

---

My only claims are that they are making selective appeals to nature, as it suits them, then hiding behind the supernatural when it it suits them. It is intellectually dishonest behaviour, and we shouldn't be encouraging the kind of muddled chimerical (and inconsistent) thinking they are encouraging. I wonder what is going against my basic claims?

---

Since more than the natural was at work, it is only natural to use more than the natural. You, naturally, would be of the nature to disagree.

quote:

---

You can agree with their message - but also agree that they shouldn't be dishonest when spreading that message. There is no need to have a 'either with them or against them' mentality.

---

You see no need. Others see a war of the spirit of good versus evil, the forces of hell, and the forces of heaven, battling for the hearts and minds of men.

quote:

---

Agreed. One shouldn't reject ANY evidence in the supernatural world be it Allah, or Vishnu, Brahma, Ghouls, Domovoi or Thantifaxath. Nor should we reject ANY evidence for myths. However we'd be dishonest if we attempted to prove the tunnels of set using the structure of sodium crystals or the truth of the Egyptian creation story by pointing to the fertility of the Nile's banks

---

One should use wisdom in the viewing of the evidences, natural and supernatural.

quote:

---

Why? Naturalism might be wrong, but it is not intellectually dishonest if one is consistent with the way you apply the rules of knowledge collection. I can understand why you would openly state you think that a natural history museum is wrong - but why decry it? I decry attempts to use natural science to disprove the conclusions of science - because it is as inane as it sounds, yet the uneducated, the trusty, the gullible fall for it and I decry profiteering from doing it.

---

They use what has been used against the truth of the bible, the best way they know how.

quote:

---

It is this inconsistency that I am talking about - the denial of the conclusions of science on the one hand, but the using a masquerade of the methodology of science to lend credibility to one's claims. They call it pseudo-science for a reason.

---

They deny the conclusions, and try to arrive at different conclusions using the same science, basic assumptions, laws, and evidence.

quote:

---

Obviously when one is using supernatural explanations to explain prehistorical natural earth, you're going to run into problems.

---

I don't.

quote:

---

However there is a solution that would not cause too much issue. Simply believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago - that there was a global flood and accept that the physical evidence cannot confirm this belief and don't try because you end up having to ignore certain physical evidence with no justification for doing so (other than the circular/special pleading reasons often put forward).

---

They can't do that. The flood happened on this earth only thousands of years ago.

quote:

---

If all you want to do is say 'I believe X', then I might think you foolish, and I might argue against you (it becomes a matter of competing philosophies) - but it is a thousand miles away from lying to people about what the evidence in the Grand Canyon suggests.

---

They feel that science is wrong, and explain it as best they can. I do not think there is a sinister conspiracy.

quote:

---

Admit what? the obvious that you cannot give "facts" to prove a negative? When did I say that one could?

---

Did I say you did say you could prove any such thing? No. I said you admit you can't!

quote:

---

However I don't use the term facts loosely like you do.

---

That's what you think.

quote:

---

Faith and belief are not facts.

---

To many they are. Not to you apparently. So we will say you have an opinion.

quote:

---

Keys, those are not facts either, maybe a hypothesis, belief or desire, but not facts.

---

You have no facts to back up that claim, and that is a fact.

quote:

---

We? Surely you weren't there.

---

We were there. We recorded the testimony. We believe it.

quote:

---

OK, so you admit your ability to give facts is limited. I agree.

​

You missed the point. You can't offer evidence of an alien abduction. Nor can you offer evidence (or are unwilling to offer evidence) of god.

---

You missed the point. You can't offer evidence against an alien abduction. Nor can you offer evidence (or are unwilling to offer evidence) against god.

quote:

---

You didn't answer the question.

---

I thought I did. maybe we are not on the same page?

quote:

---

How do YOU tell the difference between that which is well founded and that which is not?

---

We look at the foundation.

quote:

---

Do you? And witches too (per your holy book)?

---

What about witches? Yes there are some. So?

quote:

---

You didn't answer the question.

---

Many have spiritual experiences, not just Christians.

quote:

---

Do you believe that LDS and Voudou are legitimate? That is to say, just as legit as ...

---

No, but they may be real spiritual.

quote:

---

So, am I to understand you have no opinion on the spiritual beliefs of 67% of humanity? You do not think that jebus is the one and only true way?

---

Of course He is the way the truth and the light, and no man cometh unto the father, but by Him. But what I do not judge is the fact the many other beliefs have real spiritual experiences. There are oodles of spirits. Many are bad. Why would I doubt simple spirit encounters?

quote:

---

Restoring a limb is nothing? Hmmmm. So while your God goes around answering Christian prayers for all sorts he just never got around to restoring a limb yet because he has not specialized in that.

---

Prove it.

quote:

---

The evangelicals, Jeff Jansen and Patricia King of Global Fire ministries who promote the Gemstone miracles, also claim people being healed with new set of lungs and eyes and gold crowned teeth - but sadly for the amputees, no new limbs.

---

So? They will get a whole new body, why freak? Just because modern records don't list that puppy doesn't mean it is a big deal. God has traits, and a usual way of operating. But that can be changed.

quote:

---

I gotta go with Iceage on this one. Petty sort, that god of yours.

---

OK. Go with Iceage.Edited by AdminPD, : Quote Box RepairEdited by AdminPD, : Quote Box Repair