|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism museum opens in Alberta | |||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Sorry!
I might have misunderstood the admin director's suggestion:
The topic is creationism museums and what is appropriate in them, and closely related topics are probably fine, too. Perhaps defining "closely related topics" would be helpful. Or perhaps, as you say, we should refrain until keys comes up with some real substance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3680 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
On the other hand, the earth abounds with evidence for a God, and spirits, and supernatural, though the evidences are not of the paltry science of nature sort. So, do you believe in fairies, sprites, nymphs, ghosts, etc?
I agree. I think that sums it up real well. Now, what about creation would not be supernatural?? What about the makeup of a man would not include the supernatural?? What do "creation" and "man" have to do with each other?
All science is is an admission it cannot deal with more than the natural, so it is a pretty paltry little area of knowledge, in comparison to the big picture What big picture? The big picture of Hindus? The Ancient Aztecs? The Muslims? The Protestants? The Catholics? The Animists? The Buddhists? The Neo-Pagans? The frauds on TV who tell us they speak for our dead loved ones? Of course, science cannot deal with subjective experiences. That is why it can never falsify your experience with "God. That is yours and yours alone. It cannot be repeated.
Ah, here you limit yourself to the confines of the natural again! The supernatural cannot be evidenced with only the natural, that is too limited for the job, by it's nature. On the other hand, the earth abounds with evidence for a God, and spirits, and supernatural, though the evidences are not of the paltry science of nature sort. It is high time to put that limited body of understanding firmly in it's little place. The funny thing is that science does not discount the supernatural...it just cannot quantify it, yet. However, a purely literalist belief in the Bible automatically disqualifies any kind of "human reason." So, what is the "paltry" point of view here?
Ah, here you limit yourself to the confines of the natural again! The supernatural cannot be evidenced with only the natural, that is too limited for the job, by it's nature. On the other hand, the earth abounds with evidence for a God, and spirits, and supernatural, though the evidences are not of the paltry science of nature sort. It is high time to put that limited body of understanding firmly in it's little place. Can you provide us with any non-anecdotal evidence for this? Or, better yet, can you provide us with an example of a theologian who has advanced human civilization in the past 200 years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3680 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
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. Did you? Did you actually read any other religious texts? Did you actually read any other philosophical texts? Did you read any of them in groups besides your own church friends? Did you read anything in the context of your own mind? It amazes me how many people just accept a particular religion/moral/philosophical construct without actually understanding a different way of thinking other than the one which dominates their culture. Do you really think you would have avoided the influence of the Qu'ran if you had lived in Saudi Arabia? Or Iran? Or Jakarta? The answer depends on an "open mind." Doesn't it? Or does your "open mind" begin and end with "evidence" provided by one text? We all have post hoc evidences we like to fall back on, but that does not make any of them true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You know, Razd, as much as I actually would like to do that, I am not yet confident of the fairness of the moderators here. If I was, I would take you out behind the woodshed in a heartbeat! This is in Faith & Belief forum, so you have the most lax level of criteria for providing substantiation and validation for your position.
Well perhaps sorting it out in order might be better. First, deal with the exhibits already raised first by me. I think the exhibits you mentioned probably did a good job of representing to stories as written in the bible, and I have no quibble with those, just as I have no real quibble with christianity in general. These exhibits would be good for non-YEC's as much as they are for YEC's. THus I'll give them a pass and move on to the ones that deal with YEC information -- ie the age of the earth and a literal flood concept -- which are not necessarily endorsed by all christians: fair enough? We can take it in easy steps. With breaks for you to reply and rebut on any of this evidence. What we'll be looking at is methods of counting annual layers in different systems, building up the age as we go. First up is the "Methusula Tree" Methuselah (tree) - Wikipedia
quote: Thus by this one tree alone the minimum age of the earth is 4839 years and during that time there was no WW Flood. This age is determined by counting the tree rings from bored core samples taken by Schulman in 1957. Any Comment so far? {ABE} The format we can use is like that of a trial: as "prosecutor" I present "witnessed" evidence, one by one, with time for you to "cross-examine" each one before going on to the next, then when I am done you can provide evidence in defense one by one, while I "cross-examine" followed by closing arguments. {/ABE} Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : pyot Edited by RAZD, : subtitle Edited by RAZD, : abe 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3680 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Since it is part of an exhibit IN a real creation museum, how could it be anything BUT relevant? Think about it. What does an animatronic depiction of some people looking into a cave have to do with creation? It's not like you have the actual people looking into an actual cave. Or any proof that anybody found an "empty" tomb. How does one prove a tomb was empty anyway?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3680 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
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! So, God needs to use Ken Ham to spread His word instead of presenting Himself to the unbelieving Atheist Scientists? Funny, that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3680 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
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? Where does the bible say that there are ghosts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3960 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I've perused this thread and I'm beginning to wonder if keys thinks that the museum has the actual cave that the body of Jesus was put in, and the fact that it is now empty "proves" the resurrection? I also wonder if he thinks that all the exhibits in Creationist museums are real artefacts which have been unearthed.
Does keys realise that the exhibits have been created specifically for the museums rather than discovered "in situ" and then transported there?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Good luck, RAZD, Jaderis.
I will eat my hat if keys answers your question, RAZD.In all seriousness. I will eat my hat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Hi Keys,
As I think I've said at least a couple times now, the goal of EvC Forum is to have discussions that actually get somewhere, so responses like this make me very concerned that you're not only not embracing this goal, you're working against it:
keys writes: You know, Razd, as much as I actually would like to do that, I am not yet confident of the fairness of the moderators here. If I was, I would take you out behind the woodshed in a heartbeat! We will have to see how the fairness and even handedness plays out, and is demonstrated here.(Hi Ned, how are you?? Lovely day.) If you're not going to reply to people's points until you've decided whether the moderation here is to you're liking, then please stop posting. Just sit back and lurk and read threads. In case it saves you some time in making up your mind, let me assure you that we're very hard on argumentation styles based upon unsupported assertion rather than evidence. Let me repeat the bottom line just to be sure there's no confusion. Either begin engaging the points being made to you, or stop posting. I've only read as far as Message 188 so far, perhaps you begin engaging points further on, but that's pretty much the same thing I said to myself yesterday.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Okay, I've read the thread up to my previous post, this is what I think.
While it can be a little hard to discern, I think a few "sort of related" topics are emerging in this thread:
This thread is one against many, so I ask the many to take that into consideration. Despite multiple advisements from multiple moderators, Keys has persisted in pretty much the same style from the beginning, so I don't think it is reasonable to expect a change at this point. Since this thread is nearing the 300-post limit and will close soon, sometime tonight if the current rate of posting continues, there's little point in moderators making further concerted efforts to improve discussion here. But kudos to all, including Keys, for keeping discussion fairly civil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Don't waste my time,if you think you have facts let's see them. Said Pot to Kettle. That's just bizarre coming from you, Keys. "You just can't see it." What hubris!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2896 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
bvcsm – My WordPress Blog
I assert the following: The "evidence" offered in the 5 exhibits listed below is flawed and/or fictitious. 1. In this display we deal with the geological column, the fossil sequence and profound evidence for a past, global flood such as the Quartzite boulders of the Cypress Hills in Alberta and Saskatchewan. 2. The fantastic "Fossils and the Flood" display contains only genuine, museum quality fossils and a giant model of Noah's ark. Come find out why these fossils present profound evidence for the flood of Noah. 3. The "Dinosaurs and Humans" display shows considerable evidence that not only did dinosaurs exist recently, but that humans existed with them. 4. The interactive bacterial flagellum and DNA displays both provide compelling evidence for creation and refute any unguided, 'natural' processes such as evolution. 5. The "Evidence From Geneaology" display, donated by Edgar Nurnberg, is one of the more favourite displays of our visitors. These scrolls from the Lambeth Palace in England trace the geneaology of King Henry the 6th back to Adam and Eve. Furthermore, I assert the following: The "evidence" offered in the 2 videos listed below is flawed and/or fictitious. Click here (Page not found – bvcsm) to view the multimedia video on the flagellum or click here (Page not found – bvcsm) to view the multimedia video on DNA and information. As with RAZD and the flood (Message 244), I too will take it in easy steps ... with breaks for you to reply and rebut any of the evidence. Let's start with Item #1. The geologic column. The YEC POV From CHINAPISSING偷窥女WC,白俄罗斯18VIDEOS极品,精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区,日本JAPANESE熟睡人妻 and http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp "The geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence." Wrong. The entire geologic column is found in 25 basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are: * The Ghadames Basin in Libya* The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco * The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia * The Oman Interior Basin in Oman * The Western Desert Basin in Egypt * The Adana Basin in Turkey * The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey * The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria * The Carpathian Basin in Poland * The Baltic Basin in the USSR * The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR * The Farah Basin in Afghanistan * The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan * The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran * The Manhai-Subei Basin in China * The Jiuxi Basin China * The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China * The Tarim Basin China * The Szechwan Basin China * The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska * The Williston Basin in North Dakota * The Tampico Embayment Mexico * The Bogata Basin Colombia * The Bonaparte Basin, Australia * The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn Care to comment, keys?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
These scrolls from the Lambeth Palace in England trace the geneaology of King Henry the 6th back to Adam and Eve. ROFL. [/off-topic aside]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 239 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
"This man was clearly poisoned!", says the creationist detective.
"How did you come to that conclusion?", says the coroner. "People who are poisoned die, and this person is dead. People who are poisoned turn blue, and he has turned blue. The evidence points to poisoning." "What about the gunshot wound to the head?" "Seems to be some kind of very unique poison that causes bone damage" "And the lack of any traces of poison?" "Once again, a unique poisoning event, perhaps ordained by God." The problem is these museums teach that confirmation bias is acceptable and to be encouraged. Let us look to Ken Ham's museum, one exhibit in particular can be found here. Its title is 'Evidences of the Flood in Grand Canyon'. The first piece of evidence is that we find marine fossils in the top layer. This is classic confirmation bias. An abundance of Marine fossils are evidence that marine life once lived in this area, or were brought here after death. It is not evidence of a dry area being flooded since we'd expect to see flood debris and land fossils mixed into it. Which we don't. We find a certain grouping of marine fossils, not all marine life is in there - only certain marine life that coincides with other fossil deposits that science has dated to about 250 million years ago. The next bit is about the Redwall limestone which also has lots of marine fossils. This is classic dishonesty since we see how conveniently they skipped a bit. Between the top layer and the Redwall layer is another layer - which suddenly has no marine fossils at all! They abruptly stop and are replaced by no fossils, but lots of other interesting things. Like raindrop indentations, spider and insect trails and so on. Even if the top layer was flood depositary, and if the layer below it is flood depositary, they cannot be the same flood. The marine fossils are of a different variety (read: era), and they are separated by what appears to be an extended period of desert like environment. It is easy to go on: It mentions the Great Unconformity as evidence of massive erosion which we'd expect to see if lots of water were to be around. Yet it once again neglects to mention the land only artefacts that are sandwiched between marine only artefacts. It neglects that there isn't a single fish fossil until several layers of deposition above the Great Unconformity and even then the fresh fish are separated from the marine fish fossils. The fact that marine life might be on the eastern side of the layer and amphibians and land plants on another. 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. 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. 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. We can apply common sense in some cases without the need for specialised training - but we don't rely on common sense, if 5 experts all state that the man above was poisoned and then shot after he died, we'd accept that - because we trust that they have presented the evidence for this conclusion and the reasoning and it has not been refuted by their peers. These museums betray that trust in the name of God. We know that if a detectives reasoning is as poor as the detective above there is a problem since to us it is obvious that we need more evidence to be sure that the man was poisoned - especially in light of the bullet wound. If a detective says to the press that a man was poisoned we believe him, because he is going to be held accountable for lying if he does - he'll lose his job. We rely on the methods for determining death and trust the experts who declare conclusions because their reputation and livelihood is on the line. How can we trust these museums? Their livelihood relies on confirming the biblical account - if they don't do that, they are nothing. 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). So we take a group of people with a generally lower education level, who believe in the literal bible, and we feed them and their children a carefully selected burkha vision of evidence, gently spin it away from old earth and towards a young earth with a global flood (a spin which will be missed by those with little or no training in geology) - warn of the consequences of not believing (both life and afterlife consequences) - and we have ourselves a nice little propaganda machine. 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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024