Razd, me friend, you and Jar sure do like to use that nasty word, "lie," when it comes to debate. It appears that since your arguments are weak, you think this handy little nasty meanspirited word will somehow lend credence to your weak arguments.
No, I like to use the word "lie" when it is a fact in the matter. Calling a spade a spade. Don Batten lies about dendrochronology and Ken Ham lies about the age of the earth. If my argument is weak how come you can't refute it? There is no way to sugar coat it: the earth is old and telling people it is young is a lie. Collecting money to tell them in a manner that would lead gullible people to think there was some validity to the claim is fraud.
The standard of evidence is this:
multiple different methods all point to the earth being old.
multiple different methods date specific parts of the earth to the same ages.
multiple methods validate the ages derived.
the ages correlate with the layers of sediment and
there can be evidence of young parts of the earth in an old earth reality, but there cannot be evidence of old parts of the earth in a young earth reality.
The evidence that Ken Ham presents is incomplete, misrepresentative and misleading and it does not deal with the overwhelming mountains of evidence for an old earth. It can't deal with it, so it must ignore it, and this is the lie of omission.
Like Don Batten not telling how he determined that up to 6 false rings occurred in one sample of one kind of tree, in order to claim that dendrochronology is unreliable because it cannot determine (with a microscope) when false tree rings exist. Notice the Catch-22 of his lie: either he is lying about not being able to determine false tree rings or he is lying about the false tree rings in his sample. This is one way to know someone is lying -- when they contradict themselves.
Now when it comes to Ken Ham, we have the standard "Dawkins possibilities" for bearing false witness:
I think we can rule out stupidity and uneducated ignorance, the idea that he has never encountered the concept of an old earth or the evidence for it, and that if told would say "I did not know that" -- so that leaves us either maliciousness or insanity.
Willfull ignorance is insanity, being at least the level of delusion:
Malicious would include the charges of lying and fraud. It is possible to be both malicious and insane. Personally I think the "Cult of Ignorance" (to use Jar's favorite phrase) induces a level of insanity, just as any cult does on it's members, by forcing them to chose between reality and the mythos of the cult beliefs.
kalimero Message 78 covers the facts of the issue regarding fraud pretty well. The intent of the museum is to separate gullible people from their money while coddling to their belief structures and giving false reassurances based on falsehoods.
Ken Ham lies about the age of the earth, he lies about evolution, and he lies about the co-existence of man and dinosaurs. He sells these lies to gullible people in order to make a profit. That there are a lot of gullible people in America makes it easy for him to do so, but it does not make it right.
So, Buz, old friend: when is a good time to stop telling lies to children?
Science stopped using "Piltdown Man" as soon as the fraud was uncovered -- uncovered by doubting scientist, the accumulating evidence that contradicted it, and the eventual confessions of the perpetrators. When will creationists stop using their frauds?
The evidence is that man of all cultures has had a religious bent since records have been kept. Imo, that is idicative that there is a spiritual dimension in the universe and that venues of observing alternatives to secularism are good for study and observation of what exists.
This argument is usually phrased as "Thirst is evidence of water". However one could as easily say:
The evidence is that man of all cultures has had a *musical* bent since records have been kept. Imo, that is indicative that there is a *musical* dimension in the universe
Probably not. Musical ability and appreciation is purely a human trait, as is the desire to "worship" a god being. The more primitive impulses anthromorphize this god being and the worship includes some form of sacrifice.
alternatives to secularism
Alternatives to "secularism" is superstition and ignorance. Study primitive cultures or the workings of theocracies, if you want to understand the full negative aspects of the opposite of "secularism" - religionism.
Likely there is some things in Ham's place that will allow for folks to observe where Ham's kind come from and why they interpret the evidence differently than secularists.
"Creation Science" does provide good working examples of logical fallacies. Further "Creation Science" is an interesting study on just how stubborn and how far people can purposefully misinterpret readily observable data, in order to support preconceived belief systems.
quote:In America he has the right to present to the public what he sincerely believes to be true as he interprets the evidence which he is observing.
I agree, as long as he or she takes no government funding for their museum.
I mean, if the Nation of Islam or the Fair Education Foundation (a Geocentrist/still Earth society) or the Institute for Historical Review (a major Holocaust denial organization) wish to have a museum, even if the entire contents of all of those museums contradict much of the mainstream, well-supported science and history they deal with, they should be allowed just as Ken Ham's Creationist museum should be allowed.
You would support all of those museums, wouldn't you Buz?
This is Ken Ham versus Lawrence Krauss (physics professor at Case Western, former head of their physics department, and author of The Physics of Star Trek). Nothing settled, of course, but worth watching since it's only 5 minutes long.
I think it will be polarizing. People who are strong in their willfull ignorance will remain as such and will be strengthened by it. The fence sitters who see it will fall on either side. Those of us who have always imagined that the creationist movement was actually one big financial scam know now for sure that it is the case.
Ham and co are preying upon ignorance. It is the oldest scam in the book. The one fact you can always count on is that suckers will always exist.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
Re: Several postings at Panda's Thumb / Also youtube video
The video format fails achieve as wide a "seperation" as has been achieved on EvC.
The seperation was attempted by the host AFTER the term "semblence of science" was raised counter to Ham. But this host failed to recognize that the adjective was the "mystery" and thus the "fair and balanced" was supposed to be that the host also reads the Bible.
Creation and Evolution was not something that could be scripted in advance.
====== Also the link by Nightrrain above showing the human vs the chimp/Lucy Kind is were the disucssion needs to be targeted at. I am still not certain how I am to read that diagram of the past.