Creation Museum

They're presenting it as truth in a museum purposely intending to get more people to believe something they have no basis for claiming.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How is this any different than an alien museum in Roswell or a Bigfoot museum?

The people who already believe it go there, everyone else goes there for entertainment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's no proof against either of those things. There is plenty against what they're claiming the age of the Earth is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and you don't think our schools are doing anything even remotely similar?

 

LOL. And there is no proof FOR them either.

 

I do. I didn't say I thought that was right either.

 

Hmmm.... so from what I read here and there, this museum is mostly just to bring the bible into the halls, correct?

I do support the notion of "why the fuss?" in this matter.... best consider it a bible visual show than an actual scientific museum (although the founder dubbing it a museum is quite a wrong thing to do indeed). Although bringing dinos while I don't specifically remember if they are even mentioned in bible sounds pretty stupid, I admit.....

 

Not the ones who stick to science in the science classes.

 

There are "photos" that claim to depict UFOs and Bigfoot. What they are actually of is up to the viewer. What would they fill a museum with? Theories with no evidence at all? And you're right curiocity, it should not be called a museum.

 

Look, unless you believe in mystical nonsense or that some supreme alien intelligence is behind life, the universe, and everything, then abiogenesis clearly happened.

leopold99 seems to be saying that there is no proof of abiogenesis from purely natural means, and that is a fact.

I am highly certain that natural abiogenesis happened. But has it been proven? No. Leo is simply stating a fact.

Abiogenesis has zero to do with evolution by natural selection (which is well proven).

 

Again, private businesses have absolutely no responsibility or obligation to educate the public.

If this were a government-funded museum, I might have a problem. But this is a private business, and they should have the right to claim whatever they want to. It's up to the consumer (museum-goer) to make the decision of what's fact and what's not.

 

You would fill it with all the crap that is currently in the museum. And in the creationist museum you can actually saw its gvmt sanctioned teaching (Kansas was it??) where these other museums can't say that.

 

Leopold is saying somewhat more than that. He is drawing conclusions, from the lack of "proof", about what should and should not be taught in science classrooms, and the legitimacy of excluding certain other hypotheses from these classrooms.

If that's all he were doing, the fact would be irrelevant here. There is no "proof " of anything, in science, let alone events of the distant past.

But the opposite direction - evolution by selected variation has a great deal to do with abiogenesis - supplies at least one possible mechanism for the creation of reproductive complexity from simpler precursors. Without such a mechanism, abiogenesis would have a different kind of mystery at its theoretical foundation.

That doesn't mean it is the correct mechanism - the one actually involved. It just provides something necessary for the practical consideration of abiogenesis, and in doing so suggests routes of inquiry - the hallmark of a fruitful hypothesis.

Otherwise, the common assertion that we have only two (and not realistically distinguishable) choices - wildly improbable random event, designed intervention - would carry more weight.

 

Alright then. I can't really argue with that, since I agree with it. I've had this debate long ago with leo.

 

Those themes are not perceived as religion. An important characteristic of religion is that you 'spread the word', in other words as a religious person it's your duty to win souls.
Not so with UFO and Bigfoot believers.

 

I really like that.

 

i have not drawn any conclusions. every thing i have posted in this thread is a fact. if you doubt any of it then read the links i provided or supply evidence to support your side of the argument.

a lie of omission is still a lie.

 

So ?

I mean, that isn't true - some of your posted links, at least, contained counterfactual assertions (I highlighted a couple above). and this

is directly false, as explained above also,

but even if it were, so what?

I think msot of us agree that these people have the right to put up a creationist "museum". And the rest of us have the right to say perfectly true and if possible funny things about it, them, and their apparent delusions - and warn the unwary.

 

i am not going to argue this point with you any longer.
i've made my claims and backed them up.
you have made your counter claims but have failed to provide any links.
see ya later.