The Creation Museum

[ThaG]

You NEVER asked me a question, Al.

same old tactic...

What about Mr. I-Never-Say-What-I-Believe-In-So-People-Never-Understand-What-An-Idiot-I-Am finally telling us whether he believes this whole Young-Earth Creationism nonsense (in which case he will only confirm how dumb and anti-science he is) or not (in which case he will leave us wonder why he supports something he doesn't believe in (I call this hypocrisy))

....

I'm waiting

 

[HERESY]

same old tactic...

Same old tactic? That proving people such as yourself are idiots? All the science lingo you bore the board with won't be able to save you on this one and I'll prove it:

What about Mr. I-Never-Say-What-I-Believe-In-So-People-Never-Understand-What-An-Idiot-I-Am finally telling us whether he believes this whole Young-Earth Creationism nonsense (in which case he will only confirm how dumb and anti-science he is) or not (in which case he will leave us wonder why he supports something he doesn't believe in (I call this hypocrisy))

HOW THE FUCK IS THIS A QUESTION? :dead:

 

[HERESY]

It is a threat

The majority of people already reject scientific explanations of the world and I am not sure if you understand the tactics behind the "Teach the controversy" campaign

The idea is to misinform the public that there is an ongoing scientific debate over evolution and because the public is not at all familiar with the subject, it will usually accept the view of the side that seems more trustworthy. In a society where anti-intellectualism has always been strong and scientists are viewed as evil lunatics, truth will never win

Even a single museum is enough to fool the public. The plan is to make people think there are alternative views equally supported by the evidence. This is a lie but the average person does not have the intellectual potential to understand it and if you get sufficient media exposure of your ideas, you can make people believe the Earth is 6000 years old. You rarely see scientists on TV while creationism is openly promoted. BTW it will not be a single museum, another three will be opened soon.

The scientific community is infuriated by the very fact the word science is being associated with Ken Ham's "museum". We have no problem with the museum, just don't call it a scientific museum and don't claim it represents a legitimate view about Earth history. Call it "Jesusland", "Biblepark" or whatever else you like, just don't use the word science. That's exactly what those frauds want though - to fool and mislead the ignorant and uninformed masses about what science is

I wonder if the guys on this board who always talk about Cobra Commander and tin foil have a reply to this....

 

[ThaG]

Same old tactic? That proving people such as yourself are idiots? All the science lingo you bore the board with won't be able to save you on this one and I'll prove it:



HOW THE FUCK IS THIS A QUESTION? :dead:

do you need a question mark in a sentence to see the question in it?

 

[ParkBoyz]

Oh I didn't even see the FAITH thing. :dead:

Not only are they worried about something they don't consider to be a real threat, they are worried about something they don't even believe is real OR possible.

LMAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOO!

Haha, which is something that really baffles the mind. I mean, c'mon, that's like the country's leading skeptics getting their panties in a bunch because a few documentaries air on the discovery channel presenting evidence for UFOs and aliens, and Roswell being a cover-up..

It is a threat

The majority of people already reject scientific explanations of the world and I am not sure if you understand the tactics behind the "Teach the controversy" campaign

What tactics and by whom G? Are you suggesting that these people don't genuinely believe in a creator and only continue on with their "Teach the controversy campaign" simply for the benefit of annoying an Atheist or two? These are baseless conspiracy theories G, how paranoid of you..

The idea is to misinform the public that there is an ongoing scientific debate over evolution and because the public is not at all familiar with the subject, it will usually accept the view of the side that seems more trustworthy. In a society where anti-intellectualism has always been strong and scientists are viewed as evil lunatics, truth will never win

The details to your personal conspiracy theory most likely doesn't reflect the variability of opinion on this matter, and in fact undermines it in a dogmatic and dismissive way, which is why I'm still having trouble coming to grips with why you'd entertain something so silly as "creation" and a "creation museum".(?).

Even a single museum is enough to fool the public. The plan is to make people think there are alternative views equally supported by the evidence. This is a lie but the average person does not have the intellectual potential to understand it and if you get sufficient media exposure of your ideas, you can make people believe the Earth is 6000 years old. You rarely see scientists on TV while creationism is openly promoted. BTW it will not be a single museum, another three will be opened soon.

You underestimate the potential for human beings to think for themselves, especially given the fact that this stuff isn't a part of their primary education, yet they are forced fed evolution everyday but can still come to terms with a creator. Same applies the other way around, and if almost 200 days a year in school won't brain wash certain kids in taking evolution at face value, what makes you think they'd take this one museum at face value?

The scientific community is infuriated by the very fact the word science is being associated with Ken Ham's "museum". We have no problem with the museum, just don't call it a scientific museum and don't claim it represents a legitimate view about Earth history. Call it "Jesusland", "Biblepark" or whatever else you like, just don't use the word science. That's exactly what those frauds want though - to fool and mislead the ignorant and uninformed masses about what science is

Well creationists should be infuriated whenever scientists use "God" as a metaphor to describe nature(which is something that they do often). This is an inane technicality and even with that, it is subjective since they may truly believe that science and the Bible go hand and hand. This is nit picking G, and if all scientists feel this way about every little museum that pops up, then yes, that is very insecure..

 

[HERESY]

do you need a question mark in a sentence to see the question in it?

In most cases yes. But considering the fact that you "poisoned the well" and even tip toed in the arena known as "begging the question", why would ANY sane person take your statement to be rhetorical OR an actual question deserving of an answer? Do you see where I am going here Richard, or have the fumes from your chemistry set slaughtered your brain cells? :dead:

"Wishful thinking"

LOL!

 

[ParkBoyz]

Well creationists should be infuriated whenever scientists use "God" as a metaphor to describe nature(which is something that they do often). This is an inane technicality and even with that, it is subjective since they may truly believe that science and the Bible go hand and hand. This is nit picking G, and if all scientists feel this way about every little museum that pops up, then yes, that is very insecure..

Excuse me, substitute the word "scientist/s", with "Atheist", since all scientists (probably not even the vast majority) aren't Atheist..

 

[ThaG]

In most cases yes. But considering the fact that you "poisoned the well" and even tip toed in the arena known as "begging the question", why would ANY sane person take your statement to be rhetorical OR an actual question deserving of an answer? Do you see where I am going here Richard, or have the fumes from your chemistry set slaughtered your brain cells? :dead:

"Wishful thinking"

LOL!

OK, are you going to tell me whether you believe in YEC or not?

I can't tell it more directly than that

 

[ThaG]

Creationist' Tactics

Sooner or later, if you have any interest in science, or in education, you will encounter a Creationist Argument. Creationists are always trying to sneak Biblical Creationism into the curriculum by any means possible. To this effect, they will try to convince parents, teachers and school boards that they are presenting real science.

When presenting their arguments to any except the converted, these people are too canny to advocate anything that too strongly resembles the Biblical account of Genesis as their "theory." Instead, their beliefs masquerade under such aliases "Scientific Creationism", "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design Theory". Any time someone claims to have a theory that will overturn what the "establishment" is teaching in the schools, you have reasonable cause to be skeptical. The use of any of the terms quoted above should be considered a red flag.

Since "Creation Science" is not science, Creationists cannot use scientific arguments to support their cases. By "scientific argument", I mean an argument in favor of creationism based on the evidence.

Scientific theories win acceptance because the bulk of the evidence provides support for them, and because no evidence proves the theories to be false. Creationist ideas are backed up by isolated bits of data which were usually refuted not too long after they were published. By citing an article published in some scientific journal, the Creationist hopes to convince the public that there may be something of substance to his claims.

The majority of Creationist arguments are intended to discredit evolution in various ways. Since they can't make a case for creationism, they attempt to dismantle the case for evolution. This fallacious argument assumes that there are only two possible explanations of creation and evolution.

Here is a sampling of the techniques used in Creationist arguments. You will often see a large number of these techniques used in one presentation. A really gifted Creationist can often combine two or three of these techniques in a single paragraph.

1) INTERPRET ANY UNCERTAINTY ANYWHERE IN SCIENCE AS IMPLYING TOTAL UNCERTAINTY EVERYWHERE IN SCIENCE.

Science is by nature tentative. Anything on the cutting edge is going to have considerable uncertainty attached to it. Anything science is certain about now will be found to have had considerable uncertainty attached to it at some point in history. As soon as any evidence of any uncertainty is found, present it and claim that scientists therefore don't know what they are talking about.

2) TRUMPET ANY MISTAKES MADE BY ANY SCIENTIST, AND IGNORE THE FACT THAT THESE MISTAKES ARE CORRECTED.

Most people in your audience will not be well versed in the history of science. You can flood an audience with accounts of mistakes in science, and accounts of things scientists thought that are now known not to be true. With enough such accounts, you can build a superficially compelling picture of "Science Always Getting It Wrong". Even experts in the history of science will not be able to directly address all the examples you bring up. Anything left unaddressed can be waved in front of the audience as "not refuted". You can then use the fact that something has been left unrefuted to claim that everything has been left unrefuted.

3) SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO YOUR CRITICS ANY WAY YOU CAN.

Remember, your position is indefensible. The only way you can present anything like a compelling argument is to make your opponents look ignorant. Force them to prove everything they say. If they refuse to accept the burden of proof, force them to prove they don't have to prove what they say.

4) ANY FACTS OR EXPLANATIONS NOT IMMEDIATELY AT HAND MAY BE REGARDED AS NONEXISTENT.

If a critic makes a statement about science and doesn't present all the evidence to prove it from the fundamental level on up, you can seize upon any missing step and declare the entire statement as "unproven" or "a wild guess". If a critic manages to refute any of your statements, ignore the refutation. As soon as the refutation is no longer being actively presented, re-assert your claim. After all, the refutation's not right out there any more.

5) BURY YOUR OPPONENT IN QUOTES.

Nobody is an expert in everything. The more quotes you pull up, the greater the chance that your opponents will not have the knowledge or data to refute at least one of them. You can then emphasize the quotes not dealt with and announce that "science has no response to them". (Note that this will not work unless you have managed to shed the burden of proof, as advised in step 2.)

6) USE "CAFETERIA SCIENCE"

If you look around diligently enough, some scientist somewhere will say something that will bolster your case. Even at the rate of one oddball case in a million, you can accumulate literally thousands of quotes if you mine a long enough time period. In true cafeteria style, you can seize upon these quotes and ignore the science that refutes these quotes.

7) FIND AN INSTANCE OF A SCIENTIST BEHAVING BADLY, AND USE IT TO MAKE THE CLAIM THAT ALL SCIENTISTS WILL DO THE SAME.

Ideally, all scientists would base arguments against bad science on the science. Fortunately, scientists are human. Sometimes they will engage in personal attacks, censorship and other unsavory techniques. Use this fact to tar all scientists with the same brush, and also to make the claim that no crank scientists have been "refuted", but rather censored.

8) SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND THEORIES NEED HAVE NO EFFECTS EXCEPT WHERE CONVENIENT.

Whenever some bit of cafeteria science has implications you don't want to deal with, you are free to ignore them. For example, if you like the possibility that neutron radiation might have changed the ratios of radioactive elements and their decay products, ignore the fact that neutrons have observable effects elsewhere in nature.

9) WHEN CORNERED, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Always have material from several different subjects ready to present. When you find yourself out of your depth in one, be ready to duck into another. Chances are, your opponent will not be an expert in that other subject. This is particularly true if you choose subjects that are distantly related, such as cellular biology and astrophysics. Ideally, you will have set this dodge up while you have been burying your opponent in quotes.

10) WHEN REALLY CORNERED, CALL NAMES.

With sufficient imagination, any of society's ills may be attributed to the beliefs of "evolutionists". Ignore the fact that most, if not all, of these ills existed long before Darwin ever drew breath. Asserting links between evolution and such movements as Marxism, Communism and Nazism is a popular form of mud slinging. If you have been making use of technique #7, accuse your opponent of being as bad as the people you've been citing.

This is even more effective if you can manage to goad your opponent into a display of impatience, disdain or temper using any of these techniques.

11) WHEN AN EXPLANATION SHOWS YOU TO BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG, IGNORE THE EXPLANATION AND REASSERT THE ORIGINAL CLAIM.

This works on the principle that "Any Lie Repeated Often Enough Will Be Believed". It's also a very good way of goading your opponents into bouts of ill temper.

....

 

[HERESY]

OK, are you going to tell me whether you believe in YEC or not?

I can't tell it more directly than that

I don't jump through loops and hoops.

 

[HERESY]

Creationist' Tactics



....

Yet if you look at the debates between you and myself (especially the one in regards to dinosaurs and birds), you'll see that I didn't do ANY of the ones you listed. In fact, YOU did ALL of them. Dig it up pal, and you'll see that you did EVERY SINGLE ONE! LMAO!

 

[ThaG]

What tactics and by whom G? Are you suggesting that these people don't genuinely believe in a creator and only continue on with their "Teach the controversy campaign" simply for the benefit of annoying an Atheist or two? These are baseless conspiracy theories G, how paranoid of you..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_creation-evolution_controversy

I don't have the time to type a long answer, but in short this is an ongoing battle between science and rationalism on one side and supernaturalism and superstition on the other

If you don't understand the importance and the global implications of the outcome, so much worse for you

The details to your personal conspiracy theory most likely doesn't reflect the variability of opinion on this matter, and in fact undermines it in a dogmatic and dismissive way, which is why I'm still having trouble coming to grips with why you'd entertain something so silly as "creation" and a "creation museum".(?).

I would be happy if it was "my personal conspiracy theory"

I will ask you to answer who has $27 million to spend on a museum designed to promote pseudoscience and lies? Ken Ham is not that rich. Do you think you can get 27 million for any silly idea you can think of? I don't think so

You underestimate the potential for human beings to think for themselves, especially given the fact that this stuff isn't a part of their primary education, yet they are forced fed evolution everyday but can still come to terms with a creator. Same applies the other way around, and if almost 200 days a year in school won't brain wash certain kids in taking evolution at face value, what makes you think they'd take this one museum at face value?

You either don't understand or you're lying

http://siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=238700

These are ideas implanted in children's minds long before they hear about evolution in class. The function of school is to reverse the damage already done. It is a lie that children "make up their own mind" after they hear both sides, they have already gotten their mind made up by their parents and the environment they are raised in

Well creationists should be infuriated whenever scientists use "God" as a metaphor to describe nature(which is something that they do often). This is an inane technicality and even with that, it is subjective since they may truly believe that science and the Bible go hand and hand. This is nit picking G, and if all scientists feel this way about every little museum that pops up, then yes, that is very insecure..

I am firmly against the use of the word "God" by scientists

 

[ThaG]

Yet if you look at the debates between you and myself (especially the one in regards to dinosaurs and birds), you'll see that I didn't do ANY of the ones you listed. In fact, YOU did ALL of them. Dig it up pal, and you'll see that you did EVERY SINGLE ONE! LMAO!

Right now you are guilty in number 9, although not in exactly the same form described there

You were asked a question and you are still evading answering it 11 posts after that...

 

[ParkBoyz]

Creationist' Tactics



....

The flaws in this are vast but the first is that it uses a blanket term like "creationist" to undermine the variability of opinion and different approaches to an argument. It tries to deceptively cover every aspect of a potential argument, and downplay it, attributing it to a specific group and this group being anyone who disagrees with evolution, we can lump them all into a single entity labeled "creationist". It's also as heresy accused you of doing, "begging the question" and/or consists of circular arguments. It assumes/implies that the only way for a creationist to offer a seemingly decent argument is to present these fallacies, alluding to the belief that before you even get started, just keep in mind that your opponent is wrong no matter what and if he/she sounds logical, they must be using one of these fallacies, lol! As far as the example of astrophysics and cellular biology being distantly related (as it concerns evolution) is absurd since scientists use a multidisciplinary approach when confirming results. For example, if we can find out that the universe was created, then Cellular Biology is useless in explaining the origins of life on this planet since our planet fits neatly inside of the universe.

 

[JLMACN]

I dont understand why educated folks such as Heresy and Parkboyz do not see the problem with something like this. Exclude the fact that it may allign or not allign with your personal beliefs, this is a bigger problem that just religion. The fact this meseum is based off of beliefs and neither fact or research, let alone factual proof is a problem to me.

So what happens if some people get together and make a privately owned meseum stating Hispanics evolved from Donkeys, or Black people only evolved from monkeys, or even that asians evolved from fish? This is their belief so they have the right to what? push it on others with no evidence or proof? Heresy I know even you a "believer" or some sort can see the foul-up something like this can cause. You are the one that marches around this board asking for researched proof, or facts, or some sort of evidence stating claims, yet, when myself, ThaG, or any other non-believer comes to ridicule something of this stupidity we are told to "suck it up". haha...

come on duke.

5000

 

[ParkBoyz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_creation-evolution_controversy

I don't have the time to type a long answer, but in short this is an ongoing battle between science and rationalism on one side and supernaturalism and superstition on the other

If you don't understand the importance and the global implications of the outcome, so much worse for you

All this does is give an overview of the controversy, which I'm quite sure everyone is aware of. However, it says nothing of your your conspiracy theories that you use to cast a label on any and every opponent who questions the validity of evolution.

I would be happy if it was "my personal conspiracy theory"

I will ask you to answer who has $27 million to spend on a museum designed to promote pseudoscience and lies? Ken Ham is not that rich. Do you think you can get 27 million for any silly idea you can think of? I don't think so

Of course not, but you're in a bad position to assume bad faith simply due to your conflict of interest being a stark opponent of the content taught at the museum. Your judgment may be clouded and good intentions may seem bad in your illusion to discredit anything remotely resembling creationism, by any means..

You either don't understand or you're lying

http://siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=238700

These are ideas implanted in children's minds long before they hear about evolution in class. The function of school is to reverse the damage already done. It is a lie that children "make up their own mind" after they hear both sides, they have already gotten their mind made up by their parents and the environment they are raised in

Hmm, that was an interesting link, I'm actually forced to at least concede to your point here and admit to my obliviousness concerning this research and acknowledge the hastiness of my conclusion.. I have no rebuttals for that link..

I am firmly against the use of the word "God" by scientists

^Good to know.. But let's please remain politically correct here, this was my mistake since all scientists aren't atheist.

 

[HERESY]

Right now you are guilty in number 9, although not in exactly the same form described there

You were asked a question and you are still evading answering it 11 posts after that...

First of all, I am not guilty of nine or ANY of the things you listed. If I ask you to explain your wacky claim you'll simply fuck this thread off even more and waste our time. I have no time for that buddy.

Second of all, your "question" did NOT warrant a response. If you are going to ask a question, ask a damn question. You relied on THREE fallicies, and even after I told you what they were, you are STILL drowing in your own stupidity and clinging to your "11 posts" lunacy as if it were a life preserver.

Son, take a critical reading and writing course. I don't have time to go in depth and explain why your post wasn't a question, how and why you poisoned the well, and why if I DID "answer" your FUCKED OFF gibberish the outcome would STILL be the same...

You are an adult, not a child, so act like you have some damn sense.

 

[HERESY]

I dont understand why educated folks such as Heresy and Parkboyz do not see the problem with something like this. Exclude the fact that it may allign or not allign with your personal beliefs, this is a bigger problem that just religion.

Although I can't speak 100% for Parkboyz, you should stop trying to appeal to the intellect of others to save face and solidify your position. No, this is NOT a bigger problem than just religion, because the underlying concept behind the museum and the complaints you guys are making are derived from religion.

The fact this meseum is based off of beliefs and neither fact or research, let alone factual proof is a problem to me.

With this single sentence you have LOST your " this is bigger problem" claim. If you were starving and needed some food, or had a bullet wound in your neck, that would be a problem of yours I would be concerned about. However, you finding a problem with the world, God, religion and some wack jobs because they wanted to make a museum is a bit over the top.

QUESTION: DO YOU BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

So what happens if some people get together and make a privately owned meseum stating Hispanics evolved from Donkeys, or Black people only evolved from monkeys, or even that asians evolved from fish?

If their speech or beliefs did not INCITE TO RIOT/VIOLENCE I would have no problem with it. Do you realize that EVERY SINGLE SECOND of the day someone is coming with some WACKY belief, theory, hypothesis or conclusion?

This is their belief so they have the right to what? push it on others with no evidence or proof?

1. They have "evidence" or "proof" the question is, "Is it reliable evidence or proof?"

2. They have the RIGHT to promote their beliefs in accordance with THE LAW OF THIS COUNTRY.

3. This is the most important one. HOW THE FUCK ARE THEY FORCING ANYTHING DOWN YOUR THROAT WHEN THEY ARE CHARGING PEOPLE TO COME AND THEIR TARGET AUDIENCE/DEMOGRAPHIC ARE CHILDREN AND CHRISTIANS?

Make sure you answer #3.

Heresy I know even you a "believer" or some sort can see the foul-up something like this can cause.

Stop trying to appeal to my intellect, and stop wasting time with flattery. I don't see a foul up when there are 159 "science" museums in this country alone. Unlike you and your side kick, I think these people are wasting their time and honestly believe the money would be better off spent by feeding the poor and helping children. As I previously stated, THAT would be a more "christian" thing to do than to build a fucked off museum, but of course people such as yourself don't actually ponder this because you have a problem with comprehension. Do I need to tell you what the exact problem is? If so I will.

You are the one that marches around this board asking for researched proof, or facts, or some sort of evidence stating claims, yet, when myself, ThaG, or any other non-believer comes to ridicule something of this stupidity we are told to "suck it up". haha...

You are a liar. I couldn't care less about ANYONE ridiculing it. Go back and R-E-A-D what I said about the damn museum. I RIDICULED IT. What, YOU, thaG, 206, Hutch and SEVERAL others do is teach the board hypocrisy 101. What I am simply pointing out is you guys are getting your "my first panties" all knotted up over something trivial.

And IF you guys are ridiculing it, you PROVED my claim that this thread was created solely for the intent to ridicule another persons beliefs to be 100% accurate. In addition, you fully validate my claim that NAZI MODDING is a common occurance in this forum. :dead:

Yes, you guys DO need to suck it up, because all I am reading is some crazy conspiracy theory by thaG and a wacky rant by you and others who find this "disturbing" or "troubling".

 

[HERESY]

The money didn't come from the government. The money came from "9,000 charter members and international contributors", or did you miss that part? Is it your money? No. Did you contribute a penny to the building? No. Why is it a concern to you?

:dead:

 

[|GOD|||ZILLA|]

yeah.. who cares.. it's nothin' compared to the jesus camp.