Creation Muesum

[Esquilax]

The fact that the universe is in the process of expanding is evidence that it had a starting point, otherwise it would remain constant.

Ha ha, let's add expansion models of the universe to the list of things you don't- or won't- understand: universal expansion indicates a starting point to the expansion, which is an uncontroversial statement, since that point was the big bang. Was there something before that point? Yeah, there was the singularity, and beyond that actual cosmologists state we'd need a whole new suite of terms and physics to describe things.

So the people with training enough to know what they're talking about say we're not equipped to deal with this yet. But hey, Huggy must know, because he hasn't bothered to learn and is holding on real tight to his fallacy of composition.

[SteelCurtain]

Huggy: expert in the theory of Conflation.

[Ravenshire]

On the Creation Museum, they use science to prove their view.

No, they don't. They misuse and misrepresent science in support of Ken Ham's fantasy.

[Ravenshire]

Strawman you say? Not according to Lawrence Krauss, who stats that (around 40:40 of the video)

So, Huggies. Since you're so much smarter than Krauss, why don't you get your PhD, prove him wrong and collect your fucking Nobel Prize?!?

[Ravenshire]

Isn't Christmas Eve the WORST time to have that open? All the Christers will be home with their babies and the holiday celebrations (or taking their kids to the movies so they don't go nuts). The only people who have free time to jaunt down on vacation to the Creation Museum would be atheists and other heathens.

Con men know how to draw a mark. Turn a slow business day into a marketing advantage.

[Ravenshire]

And for the record, there were no talking snakes in the Bible.

Care to show us an example of a serpent that isn't commonly called a snake?

[Edwardo Piet]

A serpent is not a snake. In fact, it's probably a bird.  

You mean like a bat?

Fucking hell the Bible is shit on every subject imaginable but fuckmothering turd-shite the zoology in that book SUCKS.

[Jackalope]

Events occur in a temporal framework, there is literally no possible way they could not.

Pretty much definitionally, they do. I suppose you could try to weasel out of it by denying our understating of causality, but it seems to me that you'd have to abandon any objection to infinite regress and reliance on prime mover arguments (given that both of those concepts are tightly coupled to our notions of causality). The entire idea of a timeless agent is utterly incoherent otherwise.

Not that that will actually prevent anyone from attempting exactly that - but frankly, if someone's willing to do that without concern for the implications of that position, well, let's just say I'm not having that discussion.

[Bob Kelso]

So one has to have the actual answer to know that yours is utter tripe? Bullshit, Huggy.

To "know" something implies you have evidence to show that my position is utter tripe... care to present it?

Sure, we take everything that we currently know about reality and compare it to the claims of the Christian creation story and it's hilariously void bank of evidence. 

Honestly, Hugster, it doesn't take an immense amount of common sense to call bullshit on ethereal wizards, talking animals and pure magic. None of those things exist now, nor have they ever been known to exist outside of tales of fiction.

[robvalue]

Every time a Christian is about to say to us, "The bible says that..." in an attempt to demonstrate some sort of fact, imagine that you're instead going to say, "It says in Lord of the Rings that..."

Essentially, there is no difference between those two justifications. Just because millions of people have been conned into the oral myth that the bible is somehow magically true, that doesn't mean it actually is. That's the appeal to popularity fallacy, and obviously fails due to the existence of other religions.

The problem stems from the underlying assumption that bible must make sense, and must be true. The reader then bends the text, whenever it starts being wrong, in order to pretend it is right. This is entirely backwards for anyone who cares about actual truth. You should read what it actually says, and then consider if what it says makes any damn sense.

Doing the above is like me marking the maths homework of someone I assume is brilliant at maths and never gets anything wrong, and just marking it all right because they can't have meant what they wrote any time they gave a wrong answer.