Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ken Ham's Creation Museum
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 77 of 129 (400075)
05-10-2007 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Buzsaw
05-10-2007 12:44 AM


Re: Standard Of Evidence
quote:
If we all left it all up to the professionals we'd be a whole lot worse off than we are, physically, mentally, financially and politically. I'm into alternative wholistic health for me and my family after having nearly lost my life due to the ineptness of the professional medical community who pretty much reject any treatment which does not involve big $$$. The same goes with auto repair, religion, politics and just about every other profession. Imo, Ham's place has it's faults but so do the secularist museums.
I never said that everything should be left to the professionsals. I did point out that by your own criteria creationists (including Ham) score very poorly. Let us note that your list covers amateurs doing simple jobs (quite outside the the scope of this argument) - and many frauds. Would we be worse off without fakes and frauds iin the health fields ?
quote:
LOL!
Yes we should laugh at your little joke.
quote:
The Jews are back in Israel
Although their return doesn't really fit any of the prophecies - most of which refer to the Babylonian exile anyway.
quote:
the world is emerging into a cashless monetary system,
Which is NOT mentioned in the Bible, as you know. LOL indeed !
At least you gave up on the idea that UPC bar codes are the Mark of the Beast (somethign that you would have known to be untrue if you really had studied the Bible)
quote:
the weather is on the rampage, homosexuality is on the increase, Islam is emerging as the dominant global threat,, Biblical apostacy is the norm,
Are ANY of these in the Bible ?
quote:
travel is ever on the increase and at faster speed,
Nice try but that prophecy refers to times befor Jesus was even born. If you had really studied the Bible properly, including the historical context you would know about that.
quote:
the nations are being drawn into the Mid-East, , fires on the increase, knowledge on the increase, hatred of Christianity and Bible significant, Israel surrounded with hostile nations, et al et al et al.
Just more of the same.
Thanks for proving me right.
quote:
Which of these profoundly proposed providential apocalyptic prophetic predictions, me friend, can you or have you and your secularist friends debunk/debunked lately? Hmmm?
I've debunked several on this group. I doubt that there are any on the list that I can't debunk. Maybe you'll be reduced to arguing that one significiant word choice in a translation means that the translator must buy your strained and twisted interpretation again. Regardless of the fact that even your preferred translations don't allow your reading and the Hebrew text even more clearly rules it out.
quote:
I have so presented my reasons for why I go with this hypothesis.
Not really.
quote:
I go with the corroborating evidence of the credibility of the Biblical record and apply that to what I've proposed in my arguments over the years in the forums
IN other words it's just an excuse invented to avoid admitting that the Bible is wrong. We know that the Bible ISN'T very credible as a record. We even know that judging the whole of the Bible as historically accurate or not is foolish since the Bible is a collection of works each of which should be assessed on their own merits.
quote:
Until it's empirically debunked or until I see something making more sense overall, factoring in the corroborating evidence, I hold to it, completely confident that it's the most plausible hypothesis scientifically and otherwise.
In other words you don't have ANY scientific basis at all. In fact it has been debunked by any reasonable standard because there is no scientific evidence it happened and no plausible scientific hypothesis as to how it could happen (it's on a par with "C14 diseases". Both of which you happen to know because you keep running away from any discussion. So your "confidence" is completely unfounded.
So what you are really saying is the most important "evidence" is the fact that it's some bullshit made up to defend a belief Buzsaw happens to like. That pretty much guarantees it's true. To you. I think the rest of us can agree that that is not a rational "standard of evidence".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2007 12:44 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2007 10:24 PM PaulK has replied

  
kalimero
Member (Idle past 2444 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 78 of 129 (400080)
05-10-2007 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Buzsaw
05-10-2007 12:07 AM


Re: Standard Of Evidence
Well then, Kalimero, what do you suggest? Should the govt shut down Ham's museum or should it be allowed to remain open for all to see and decide for themselves whether it's credible or not?
Ken Ham's "museum" uses deceitful tactics in order to cause people to give them money.
The definition of fraud from the Legal Encyclopedia.
Also, from the glossary of legal terms (Munley, Munley & Cartwright):
Fraud: False and deceptive statement of fact intended to induce another person to rely upon and, in reliance thereof, give up a valuable thing he or she owns or a legal right he or she is entitled to.
The definition of reliance from Law Dictionary:
Reliance
Dependence, confidence, trust, repose of mind upon what is deemed sufficient support or authority.
detrimental reliance involves reliance by one party on the acts, representations, or promises of another that cause the first party to allow or to effect a change for the worse in his or her position, and is an important element in many legal contexts. If such a detrimental change of position is established, and if the reliance appears to have been justified under the circumstances, it may preclude revocation of an offer or waiver, and may support a promise as a contract even without consideration (see promissory estoppel). Such reliance is also a necessary ingredient in an action to recover upon a claim of fraud.
{Sorry for the big cut & paste}
Lets see if Ken Ham and his "museum" really stand up to the criteria for fraud:
  • (1) a false statement of a material fact
    From the Legal Encyclopedia :
    A material fact is an occurrence, event, or information that is sufficiently significant to influence an individual into acting in a certain way, such as entering into a contract.
    I would say that telling people that the earth is 10000 years old, despite being told otherwise from actual scientists, is "a false statement of a material fact".
  • (2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue
    His Statement of Accountability says:
    The AiG ministry has always relied on the advice, wisdom and review of the very best international scientists available, including leading geologists, geneticists, astronomers, paleontologists and theologians. The majority of these professionals have no official association with AiG, except a common desire to develop the most excellent information and materials possible, to honor Christ, to advance the church and to further the growing community spirit of Christian scientists who love God’s Word.
    {my bold}
    I think he knows.
  • (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim
    His Mission Statement says it all.
  • (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement
    Ken Ham obviously uses religious rhetoric to base his statements and get money from people, the religious convictions of the "museum" visitors would constitute a reliance on his statements.
  • (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.
    Besides the educational injury there is the financial injury.
IMO, Ken Ham should go the way of Peter Popoff, not necessarily to jail, but surely not running such a "museum".
BTW: you still haven't answered my question:
kalimero writes:
One person says one thing, another person says another thing, how do we decide?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2007 12:07 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2007 10:13 PM kalimero has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 79 of 129 (400091)
05-10-2007 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
05-09-2007 11:58 PM


Re: Standard Of Evidence
Buzsaw writes:
I just think it's time for you and Jar to stop accusing Ham of deliberately lying and at least allow him equal consideration that you grant to the conventional science community who have their own credibility deficiencies from time to time.
Sure, the science community has credibility deficiencies at time, like the recent human cloning fiasco in South Korea. However, the science community has a built-in means of correcting those deficiencies...other scientists. Even the list on AIG's website of arguments creationists shouldn't use exists because mainstream science has debunked them so soundly that the creationists can't use them without looking silly even to their most ardent supporters. Ken Ham and company did nothing to validate the accuracy of thos arguements. What is the mechanism that creationists use to ferret out the liars from the merely deluded? In fact, what is the means by which they divide fact from wishful thinking?
My point is that he is not deliberately defrauding or lying to anyone. 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.
Ken Ham can believe what he wants and state what he wants. However, when he tries to tell my grandchildren that his version of the history of life on this earth is the truth, he better have more to back him up than speculation hinged on an old manuscript. The burden of proof must be higher when imparting knowledge to those who will accept it easily. From my point of view, to present yourself as an authority, and then provide to children unsupported conclusions as fact, is fraud. Worse still, it is a form of child abuse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 05-09-2007 11:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2007 10:04 PM LinearAq has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 129 (400169)
05-10-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by anglagard
05-10-2007 1:01 AM


Re: Standard Of Evidence
anglagard writes:
Also, as I'm sure has been repeatedly pointed out, Piltdown Man was not accepted by much of the scientific community and was eventually discovered as a fraud by the scientific community. Why do some in the YEC, or YCC community still demand such frauds as the Paluxy River tracks are fact after they have been renounced by both AIG and the research arm of the founders of modern young earth creationism, the Seventh Day Adventist Church?
Eventually became 30 years or so. A whole generation world wide was deceived, secular science carrying the ball all the way and it was likely falsifiable all that time.
What empirical evidence does AIG and the Adventists have to renounce the river tracks? How much has erosion enlarged the tracks over the milleniums et al? Imo this would be very difficult to empirically renounce and also difficult to fraudulently construct, unlike Piltdown Man.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by anglagard, posted 05-10-2007 1:01 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by DrJones*, posted 05-10-2007 10:27 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 129 (400171)
05-10-2007 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by LinearAq
05-10-2007 9:02 AM


Re: Standard Of Evidence
LA writes:
Ken Ham can believe what he wants and state what he wants. However, when he tries to tell my grandchildren that his version of the history of life on this earth is the truth, he better have more to back him up than speculation hinged on an old manuscript. The burden of proof must be higher when imparting knowledge to those who will accept it easily. From my point of view, to present yourself as an authority, and then provide to children unsupported conclusions as fact, is fraud. Worse still, it is a form of child abuse.
Hi LA. He can only tell the grandchildren if you or your children are so careless as to let them go where you don't want them. That's your perrogative as guardian. If the kiddies are abused it's because you or their parents allowed them to be if you feel that strongly about the site.
Btw, by the same token, was Piltdown Man 30 years of child abuse, over two generations of kiddies in school being fed the Piltdown deception? We Biblical creationists think it's child abuse to forbid children in school both sides of the origins issues et al, forcing them into belief of evolution and whatever comes up the pike via secularist agendas. Unlike Ham's museum, they don't have a choice and they must endure the abuse throughout their education if they are in the public school system.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by LinearAq, posted 05-10-2007 9:02 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by LinearAq, posted 05-11-2007 9:11 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 129 (400172)
05-10-2007 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by kalimero
05-10-2007 5:41 AM


Re: Standard Of Evidence
You then need to prove in court that Ken Ham purposefully intends to defraud and that his evidence is fraudulent. LOL!
We all have different viewpoints. Your question is relative to your thinking. We all have our own unique answers to that question but that's another topic which I'm not enclined to engage in.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by kalimero, posted 05-10-2007 5:41 AM kalimero has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 05-10-2007 10:20 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 83 of 129 (400173)
05-10-2007 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Buzsaw
05-10-2007 10:13 PM


But it is legal for Biblical Christians to commit fraud.
You then need to prove in court that Ken Ham purposefully intends to defraud and that his evidence is fraudulent.
Can't do that Buz. As soon as the Biblical Christian conmen claim the protection afforded by our Constitution they are free to steal and lie, commit fraud and cheat.
Biblical Creationism is a great protected fraud, and likely it will remain so since the supply of ignorant Biblical Christians is almost unlimited.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2007 10:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 129 (400174)
05-10-2007 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by PaulK
05-10-2007 2:22 AM


Re: Standard Of Evidence
PaulK writes:
Are ANY of these in the Bible ?
They are all in the Bible in a prophetic context relative to latter day prophecy. I've deliberately chosen those items to which this applies. This has been a lifetime study on my part and I know these prophecies. It's useless to cite them to you. Obviously your biased mind is closed shut to them.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2007 2:22 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2007 2:45 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 85 of 129 (400175)
05-10-2007 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Buzsaw
05-10-2007 9:46 PM


Re: Standard Of Evidence
it was likely falsifiable all that time
Really? what's your background in physical anthropology?

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2007 9:46 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 86 of 129 (400185)
05-10-2007 11:51 PM


Two Wrongs....
do not make a right. As my mother said often.
Therefore Piltdown man is not on topic here. Nor is biblical prophecy.
Suspensions will be the reward.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 88 of 129 (400192)
05-11-2007 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Buzsaw
05-10-2007 10:24 PM


Re: Standard Of Evidence
Again these are evidence that your preferred standard of evidence is "what Buzsaw wants to be true".
For instance rather than actually compare UPC barcodes to the actual description of the Mark of the Beast - which would show you that they were different you just proclaimed that they were the same thing. ANd your sole basis was the fact that the guard bars resemble the code for '6' (but aren't the same and aren't read as '6's) and that there are 3 of them interspersed in the code (which means that there isn't even a real '666' in there). If you had known the Biblical description or actually checked it you would know that there is more to the Mark of the Beast than that. So in this case you didn't know the prophecy very well at all.
Likewise your whole idea that the flood somehow upset carbon datgn is based solely on the fact that carbon dates contradict your belief. And that is enough to proclaim your explanation "scientifically sound" even though you have absolutley no idea of how it could have happened. It msut have happened because you want it to have happened. Therefore it must be scientifically sound - you don't think that actually need to know anything relevant to that conclusion to make the claim. Which is why you make false claims all the time. I don't realise that if you don't knwo what you are talking about you are very likely to be wrong. And that's a demonstration of real bias and a real closed mind.
So I suggest that like you - rather than doing real research or gathering the knowledge needed to do so, Ken Ham just jumps to conclusions he likes. Regardless of whether they could be true. Thus his museum is a worthless collection of misinformation designed solely to bolster Ken Ham's erroneous beliefs.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2007 10:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-11-2007 2:53 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 90 by AdminNosy, posted 05-11-2007 7:56 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 89 of 129 (400193)
05-11-2007 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by PaulK
05-11-2007 2:45 AM


the "admin mode"
Are you intending the message as some sort of admin statement? It sure doesn't look like such to me.
If you accidentally post as AdminPaul when you intended PaulK, you can go edit the message and change the attribute ID (if the system is working as it is supposed to be).
If you have any adminning type questions, please ask away in the Private Administration Forum.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: Never mind. You did it while I was preparing this message.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2007 2:45 AM PaulK has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 90 of 129 (400213)
05-11-2007 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by PaulK
05-11-2007 2:45 AM


Topic
I gave a topic warning.
That post seems to have (80%) ignored it. 10 hour suspension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 05-11-2007 2:45 AM PaulK has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 129 (400218)
05-11-2007 8:29 AM


What is a museum anyway?
Message 40
Your mention of AiG sent me to their site. It's off-topic--but there's very little museum in their new 'Creation Museum.' Have you noticed?
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
looks like it doesn't have any factual information at all ... and the most time consuming part would be
quote:
SFX Theater
Hold onto your seat! Take a journey through time that you’ve never experienced before! Biblical history comes alive, as God’s Word”beginning in Genesis”explains the universe we see today.
the propoganda film.
Now that's worth $20 (each) right? RIIIIIIGHT
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : supposed to preview

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.

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 92 of 129 (400225)
05-11-2007 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Buzsaw
05-10-2007 10:04 PM


Parental Guidence
Buzsaw writes:
He can only tell the grandchildren if you or your children are so careless as to let them go where you don't want them. That's your perrogative as guardian. If the kiddies are abused it's because you or their parents allowed them to be if you feel that strongly about the site.
Right on target, Buzz. I wholeheartely agree with that sentiment. Parents and extended families in this country tend to abdicate their rights and responsibility to other authorities (gvmt, church, MTV...etc) too readily. Then they wonder why their children don't follow the values that the parents hold so dear. That is why it is so important to ensure the things our children are taught have been through the wringer of scientific inquiry. Things shouldn't be taught based on popularity of belief within the citizenry or political correctness. Factual correctness should prevail in all things imparted to the next generation.
Btw, by the same token, was Piltdown Man 30 years of child abuse, over two generations of kiddies in school being fed the Piltdown deception?
I doubt that young credulous school children were fed that deception in any detail beyond it being an example of a precurser to Homo-sapiens sapiens. I guess you could counter that assertion in another thread with examples from primary/secondary school textbooks of that era...if you so desire.
We Biblical creationists think it's child abuse to forbid children in school both sides of the origins issues et al, forcing them into belief of evolution and whatever comes up the pike via secularist agendas.
As has been pointed out by others, all Biblical creationists have to do is provide a preponderance of evidence in support of your version of origins. Otherwise, allowing your version in, as a scientific explanation, at its level of evidentiary support requires letting all other creation stories in as scientific explanations for our origin. Then the rest of science education would have to change. Horoscopes, dowsing, spoon bending, and palm reading would have to be added just to name a few. Don't you think it would be easier on the students if we just left the science topics at the current level of evidentiary validation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2007 10:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024