Creationism museum opens in Alberta

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.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?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Maybe next time. I can find a few examples at Ken Ham's museum: here we talk about abstinence, the pill and abortion. And here we have homosexual issues put up right next to murders. Reports confirm the teen pregnancy angle. 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. Actually, not so. Omitting data to the extent I described is dishonest. Are you suggesting half truths aren't dishonest? 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.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?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?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. 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 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.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. Obviously when one is using supernatural explanations to explain prehistorical natural earth, you're going to run into problems. 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).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.Edited by Modulous, : finishing a sentence

Wow, Mod. Great job!You know, I've been reading all the really long threads on EvC over the past few weeks and I've gotta say ... I've never seen this approach before.Excellent!

molbiogirl,Some concerns on your posting style. I know you have read the guidelines, but your posts are primarily chat style and cut and pastes. Our threads only last for 300 posts, so we like the posts in the debate threads to move the discussion forward and make each post count.There is a chat area and a thread to let others online know that you wish to chat with someone specific.
Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC.In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.Welcome and fruitful debating.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

Ready to go then see Message 270Sure we can keep going once the age in the museum has been shown to be a false representation and that no flood occurred in that time frame or what is reasonably similar.See you there.

---

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.

lets do it than.

Okay, we are up and running: Creation Museum Age of the Earth is False (Simple and RAZD)(Simple and RAZD)[/color]. Take note of [msge]I've started out with a fairly non-controversial example of the kind of evidence I will use. It doesn't challenge the age issue (yet) and only slightly affects the supposed date of the flood. Think of this as establishing common ground first.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : finished

---

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:

---

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.

What are you observations and what evidence do you have? I would have no trouble finding two individuals that fully and sincerely believe they are born again and "spiritually alive" but will be diametrically opposed on many issues. So how do you reconcile this? I do not speak from ignorance. I have done due diligence. The gemstones are most probably Zircon from China, they are available on Ebay. Members of the church are taking it on faith and *testimony* these are true miracles.I would prefer to see the specific gravity. I suspect you have spent no time reading the studies. They are carefully controlled double blind experiments. I also suspect you put more faith, than you are letting on, in the scientific process. Every time you rely on modern medical treatment you are putting confidence in the process that led to the development of that treatment - or don't you trust that either and prefer you demon filled world for healing. Ah the Japanese have a life expectancy of over 5 years more than Americans, yet the majority claim they are not religious and the rest are mostly Buddhists or Shintoists. If Christians prayers are effective then maybe they are negatively correlated.BTW, random samples are not useless if you have a statistic significant sampling. 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.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.You choice of words such as "Specialized" is odd. The creator of the universe needs to "specialize" in this sort of thing? Wow your vision of god is smaller than I thought.

Admit what? the obvious that you cannot give "facts" to prove a negative? When did I say that one could?However I don't use the term facts loosely like you do. Faith and belief are not facts. Keys, those are not facts either, maybe a hypothesis, belief or desire, but not facts.

We? Surely you weren't there. 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 didn't answer the question.How do YOU tell the difference between that which is well founded and that which is not? Do you? And witches too (per your holy book)? You didn't answer the question.Do you believe that LDS and Voudou are legitimate? That is to say, just as legit as xianity. 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? I gotta go with Iceage on this one. Petty sort, that god of yours.

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.