Creationism museum opens in Alberta

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.

Errr... faith is not a fact.Faith, belief and testimony are unreliable. I know of people that will provide all sorts of testimony that include aliens, angels and ghosts.Recently a church in my local area was promoting gemstones falling heaven. You can find my writeup here.Gems for Heaven in IdahoI have exchanged numerous emails with church members who swear this is all true based on faith, belief and *Testimony*.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. Subjective, prone to confirmation bias and proven unreliable.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.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?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". What is evidenced within the believer? Can you build a cure for a disease with this evidence?

If they are wrong about the things that can be tested scientifically, why should we believe them about those things that cannot be so tested?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Errr... faith is not a fact.Faith, belief and testimony are unreliable. I know of people that will provide all sorts of testimony that include aliens, angels and ghosts.Recently a church in my local area was promoting gemstones falling heaven. You can find my writeup here.Gems for Heaven in IdahoI have exchanged numerous emails with church members who swear this is all true based on faith, belief and *Testimony*.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. Subjective, prone to confirmation bias and proven unreliable.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.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?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". What is evidenced within the believer? Can you build a cure for a disease with this evidence?

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). 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. 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. 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.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.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. Of course many creationists have different ideas. There are thousands of creation mythologies and enough vagaries in most (if not all) that a thousand permutations of each one can be thought up whilst remaining true to the original mythology. That is not relevant to the complaint that they mix and match their epistemology, or that they seem to be 'covering their bases' with regards to convincing people of the truth of things. Don't use reason - use god's word is fine, but then to say 'if we use reason we can confirm god's word' is blatantly inconsistent. It is essentially promoting doublethink - believing two contradictory things at the same time without even realising it. I agree - the only evidences that should count in a museum with a religious bias is faith and the documentation of prophets and holymen (and perhaps the living proclamations of certain holymen etc etc). We should not celebrate the opening of pseudo-scientific untruths - we should fight against such nonsense for reasons I hope we can agree on. 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. People do believe in creation, and if they want to congregate, display their beliefs and discuss it and even charge for the privilege. Go for it as far as I am concerned - enjoy yourself. There are plenty of churches with this purpose already. 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.

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.

Keys,This thread is nearing the point where it will be cut off (around 300 post limit to all threads) so I have proposed a new topic on just this element.If you want to keep it out of the science threads (you were pretty firm on the existing thread that it not be science forum) we can do a Great Debate on this or put it in Faith and Belief (with the original thread). Great Debate means just you and me on the thread, so there wouldn't be a lot of other people piling up on you.The purpose of the thread for me will to present evidence for the case that the age of the earth as portrayed in the museum is false and that a global flood could not have occurred withing that time (or any reasonable approximation), and for you to defend the age and flood occurrence as portrayed.The Proposed Creation Museum Age of the Earth is False will need to be promoted, so state your preference and we can get started.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : flood. subtitleEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : piling

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

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.

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. Sure and I cannot give you facts why you should not believe in trolls, leperchons and alien abductions. 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.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.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. 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).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.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. And why never a restored limb? Is God powerless to effect such a change?

I think we could agree to that under the great debate guidelines (moderation is usually a minimum there and there would be no other posters wasting space) with the caveat that one or the other of us could be suspended for behavior on another thread (I have been and likely will again ... ) - this will be mostly a quid pro quo posting so we'd have to wait for the other to respond anyway.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I think I could agree to promote with this addition to keys's stipulations.