Creationism museum opens in Alberta

quote:

---

We? Surely you weren't there.

---

We were there. We recorded the testimony. We believe it.

quote:

---

OK, so you admit your ability to give facts is limited. I agree.

​

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 missed the point. You can't offer evidence against an alien abduction. Nor can you offer evidence (or are unwilling to offer evidence) against god.

quote:

---

You didn't answer the question.

---

I thought I did. maybe we are not on the same page?

quote:

---

How do YOU tell the difference between that which is well founded and that which is not?

---

We look at the foundation.

quote:

---

Do you? And witches too (per your holy book)?

---

What about witches? Yes there are some. So?

quote:

---

You didn't answer the question.

---

Many have spiritual experiences, not just Christians.

quote:

---

Do you believe that LDS and Voudou are legitimate? That is to say, just as legit as ...

---

No, but they may be real spiritual.

quote:

---

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?

---

Of course He is the way the truth and the light, and no man cometh unto the father, but by Him. But what I do not judge is the fact the many other beliefs have real spiritual experiences. There are oodles of spirits. Many are bad. Why would I doubt simple spirit encounters?

quote:

---

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.

---

Prove it.

quote:

---

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.

---

So? They will get a whole new body, why freak? Just because modern records don't list that puppy doesn't mean it is a big deal. God has traits, and a usual way of operating. But that can be changed.

quote:

---

I gotta go with Iceage on this one. Petty sort, that god of yours.

---

OK. Go with Iceage.Edited by AdminPD, : Quote Box RepairEdited by AdminPD, : Quote Box Repair

Let's see I have no facts to back up the claim that the facts in the Creation museum are not facts, so consequently they are facts (per your unusual definition that if you don't have facts that something is not a fact it is therefore a fact)Similarly you do not have facts that disprove Zeus so therefore you must accept it as a fact, and that is a fact.

Oh come on this is now getting absurd! Since you were not there, did not record it, you cannot include yourself in We. If you are going to fluidly (and disingenuously) redefine words like: fact, observation, we and evidence to your liking, it is worthless and a waste of time to discuss anything with you. Good day - keep your eyes wide shut and beware of the demon under the bed.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Assuming someone is honest is not what I asked. I asked if telling deliberate half truths is dishonest. I'm surprised that anyone thinks that omitting evidence they know puts their spin about the natural world into question can be construed as honest. Still, if it really is a case that you are determined to believe they are honest, you aren't going to listen to me are you? That could be even worse - imagine if the most outspoken name in Flood Geology has not checked his geology against that which geologists think - wouldn't that be the most dishonest thing you could think of? He'd be just making this crap up and calling it science. Anyway - nobody is forcing you to believe that Ken Ham, the head of Answers in Genesis, has been exposed to the many rebuttals to his pseudoscience. If you don't believe it - and you don't want to investigate it further then you are free to draw whatever conclusions you like from a man that doesn't check his conclusions with other experts.You know mine. The Grand Canyon doesn't explain how the flood happened (hopefully!). Someone pointed out that the age of the earth couldn't be 6,000 years old because that wouldn't give the Colorado river enough time to cut through and form the Grand Canyon. Ever since YECs have been saying that the flood caused the Canyon.Either way - the Bible is silent on the issue so why do they need to talk about it with pseudo-science? And picking and choosing which things are explained naturally and which are not - depending on whether it agrees with your conclusion is intellectually dishonest. Teaching others to do so is teaching sloppy thinking. Confirmation bias is not good investigation technique, and I thought you had agreed with this? So you think its OK to tell half truths for God? What about lies for the Holy Spirit? Murder for Mary? Theft for Jesus? If it furthers the cultural wars in your favour, you would celebrate it? Excuse me if I don't hold a high opinion of such crassness. ALL the evidence don't forget. The kind of thing these creation museums don't do - they suppress certain evidences as I pointed out earlier. Right - which is insane. Why spend time defending a supernatural myth with dishonest applications of methodological naturalism? It is foggy thinking at best. I am describing those very problems. You agreed that the science behind flood geology etc is questionable. I was using 'you' as second person plural. Why can't they simply believe that the flood happened on this earth only thousands of years ago? But why bother? It isn't necessary. Non-scientists using science sounding stuff to try and show that scientists have got science wrong??? Why not just say 'We don't accept the conclusions reached by natural science?' - trying to show that those conclusions are invalid within the framework of science by ignoring the majority of the physical evidence is not explaining how they feel that science is wrong - it is trying to convince others to distrust the authority that is science in favour of the authority that is them.Choose a knowledge gaining method and stick with it. Don't try and use a little bit of naturalistic methodology as it suits one (ie when the conclusions can be made to sound like they agree with one's supernatural myth of choice) since that is sloppy thinking and learning. When they do it knowing they are ignoring important evidence, that they are providing inconsistent thinking styles, and teaching misleading information...we should not be celebrating.One thing that confused me was that you said you disagreed with flood geology - but then you say that if it brainwashes wins hearts and minds then you celebrate it. Personally I find that reprehensible and hope to convince you eventually that this is so. If they want to spread that they believe the earth is only 6,000 years old then so be it - that's their belief. They shouldn't hijack the trust in scientific authority to gain a footing in the cultural battle unless they believe there is a NEED for underhand tactics.Perhaps there is a need for these tactics - but it doesn't stop them from being intellectually lazy, dishonest and intellectually dangerous.Hey - if they won't come to Jesus through the Truth, how about we mangle some other epistimology to help them come to Jesus? Completely justified. And if that doesn't work - we'll tell you that the other epistimology shouldn't be trusted anyway. And if that doesn't work, we'll appeal to consequences such as abortion, murder and gay marriage.And even if we don't change any hearts and minds - perhaps we can make some good money off of people who agreed with our conclusions before seeing the museum, and those who don't want to speak out about the dishonesty because we are at {cultural} war (such as yourself).Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yup. I'm tired of you too.Ciao bella.

Showing that the world is older than 6000 years is easy. You seem to have an extraordinary fear of moderation, which I don't think is fair to the moderators here: they have been fairly lenient only getting involved when things get out of hand. Look at your own experience on this thread for example: how much has moderation affected what is posted? All they ask is that you stay on topic and answer the questions -- what's wrong with that? I don't participate on other forums, and consider it rude to the other people that follow these debates to take them elsewhere. Either you have real ammunition or you don't. Personally it sounds like bluff and bluster, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."So pony up and play or sit and shout pretense. Your call. Do you have the cojones to confront the evidence or not? You can start any time, the mods have agreed to step back, you've got your wishes and the first bit of evidence is not that controversial. Creation Museum Age of the Earth is False (Simple and RAZD)(Simple and RAZD)[/color]See you there or see you scared. I'm betting you'll hide behind your woodshed rather than play.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added linkEdited by RAZD, : pop

---

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.

Ok,
but it is still hard for me to decide which is more "out of place", Ur artifacts or reptile behavior not made properly with animotronics.Seeing the Ur (out of place artifacts) in a picture next to the owner and yet another horseshoecrab at the museum showed me that what did not exist as a child for me is now fully entrenched. Both sides seem to me be culcapable in this instance.

molbiogirl and keys:Just a note to be watchful of making sure that the reader can clearly discern who you are quoting.When you are pulling a quote from a post other than the one you are responding to, it is wise to note who wrote the quote.Example (You can use the peek button to see how I did this) The other tactic is to refer to the message number. (Again use peek to see how it is done.)Example: I gotta go with what Iceage said in Message 280. Petty sort, that god of yours.Then quote what Iceage said.These little details can help avoid misunderstandings.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

This thread is nearing the 300-post limit. Those that are so inclined, please get your summations in now. I'm going to suggest to my fellow moderators that we let the thread go past 300 posts as long as the messages being posted are summations, and to close the thread at some predefined time, say 8 PM ET tonight.I encourage participants to refrain from responding to summations. If further discussion breaks out at this point so late in the thread then I'd be inclined just to close the thread immediately.Naturally, any member may propose a follow-on thread at [forum=-25].

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I certainly asked the other mods for "gentle moderation" in Message 2 of the debate thread, keys. I don't see the need to mail you an affadavit signed in my own blood.And the woodshed gag is wearing thin. Just sayin'.....AbE: intended to be in my Admin mask here.....Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

Here we have a perfect example of how the culture wars are fought on the ground level. Keys does not agree with flood geology is against the ideas of confirmation bias and ignoring evidence. However - if it either succeeds in convincing the ignorant or increasing the conviction of the gullible then it is to be supported. As keys put it in Message 284: As long as the goal is to undermine naturalism, materialism, atheism or any other -ism that they are opposed to they will celebrate it - even if they don't condone or agree with everything that is said or the methodology of the undermining. Sure - some creationists might not celebrate it, but enough do to allow these places to be viable businesses.Since the creationists are fixed on the idea of undercutting the philosophies that came out of the enlightenment and the age of reason they will engage in their own confirmation bias. They will take from these museums not the parts they deep down think might be dishonest, but the parts which confirmed what they already believed.Perhaps it is simply that genesis should be literal, perhaps it is to confirm their distrust in the authority of science to tell us how the world was formed, or perhaps it is to confirm their fears (the moral decline of society). It all plays well into the persecution complex that some people crave and find in creationism.They start with the view that genesis is true. They have to contend with the simple fact that science has succeeded in demonstrating many phenomena that were once ascribed supernatural causes as actually having material causes. And they believe their creation story is the last battle that must be won. If they lose this battle materialism wins and therefore atheism wins and therefore morality declines. The solution is to use pseudo-science to convince those that respect the authority of the 'institution' of science that their respect is ill placed. It is a great tactic because even non-creationists can be quick to remind anyone that brings up a scientific fact that once science told us that {whatever turned out to be false}.These museums prey on the confirmation bias that is inherent in all people. People want to have their beliefs confirmed so they only look at that evidence which seems to confirm this belief and ignore that evidence which seems to falsify it. They profit from this piece of simple piece of psychology.The worst trick is to use scientific looking methodology to sew doubt about the conclusions of scientific methodology. It seems inane to some people, but the confirmation bias can go a long way towards helping overlooking this madness. These people don't want to think that not all of the evidence is being presented here, because that would be equivalent to questioning their faith - and these museums are perfect places to display a small amount of evidence, each time concluding it demonstrates the flood or a young earth or what have you, and then finishing with the implication that there is lots of evidence for the flood or young earth.And these are the most honest cases. Certain museums will present evidence that isn't even evidence, Baugh comes to mind here: Modern artefacts cemented into old layers proves the young earth. There are others like the claimed evidence for human/dinosaur interaction.The non-presentation of vital evidence isn't a problem to those that generally attend - they come to the museums to reaffirm their faith not to examine all of the evidence or even to learn particularly. Sometimes they come to learn, to learn how to refute those pesky atheists or pagans or moderates. Sometimes it is to teach their kids that their cultural creation myth really is true.We shouldn't therefore be surprised when someone celebrates the opening of these places, even if they do peddle half truths. They get the job done as it were, and getting the job done is the important thing here - not communicating truths.Plenty of people of course would not celebrate, they would even decry it and creationists should not be surprised at this. Many people actually believe we should not use pseudo-science to prop up ancient myths...even if those myths are true. That we should not spread information through deceit and mind tricks - that is propaganda and it can be dangerous.The only defence is to make refutations of their nonsense as public and as prolific as possible. We should make our refutations as rationally as possible but we should be passionate. It must be something that people read, so that the information can spread and hopefully...one day perhaps...we can help make propaganda palaces an unviable business. Creation museums should be as celebrated as Moon Landing hoax museums or Holocaust Denial museums.

Just FYI. You mention: The specific museum mentioned in the title of the thread includes much of the material from Baugh including the foot in boot, dino/man tracks and what is worse, what is displayed are not even the originals but rather reproductions of them.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This "museum":

• which are no better than what one can find in plays or reenactments in various churches and the like
• which add nothing to understanding Christianity
• which are designed to draw the gullible and the ignorant who otherwise might not visit for just the other displays
  ​
  These other displays depict false information about the world and the history of life on earth:
• they falsely portray the earth as 6000 years old
• they falsely portray a world wide flood as having occurred
• they falsely portray dinosaurs as living with humans
• they falsely portray certain geology as being formed by the world wide flood *
• they include known fraud of footprints and fast fossil and portray them as true*
• they are intended to deceive the gullible and misinform the ignorant, and as such they are a malicious fraud being perpetuated on such visitors

And that's the kind version.Enjoy.* revisedEdited by RAZD, : *Edited by RAZD, : revised

---

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.

Creatortionistas take the "e" off shame.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : revised

---

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.

One should give keys an opportunity to pop back here and make his summary.

---

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.