Creation Muesum

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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.

*emphasis mine*
So it's your position that talking animals don't exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_animal

Research done by Dr. Irene Pepperberg indicates that parrots are capable of speaking in context and with intentional meaning. One of Pepperberg's parrots, Alex, an African grey parrot, demonstrated the ability to assemble words out of letters

Batyr (1969–1993), an elephant from Kazakhstan, was reported to have a vocabulary of more than 20 phrases. Recordings of Batyr saying "Batyr is good", "Batyr is hungry", and words such as "drink" and "give" were played on Kazakh state radio in 1980

Didn't actually watch  that video you posted, did you?

Here's (starting at 0:55) the quote:

The researchers believe the lonesome elephant learned to speak out of a form of social bonding after being separated from two other elephants, rather than understanding the words' actual meaning. [...]In 1983, zoo officials in Kazakhstan claimed their elephant could reproduce Russian, but there was no scientific study.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Also: 

Pepperberg did not claim that Alex could use "language", instead saying that he used a two-way communications code.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parr...plishments

[Huggy Bear]

*emphasis mine*
So it's your position that talking animals don't exist?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_animal

---

---

Didn't actually watch  that video you posted, did you?

Here's (starting at 0:55) the quote:

The researchers believe the lonesome elephant learned to speak out of a form of social bonding after being separated from two other elephants, rather than understanding the words' actual meaning. [...]In 1983, zoo officials in Kazakhstan claimed their elephant could reproduce Russian, but there was no scientific study.

Understanding what one is saying has nothing to do with "talking"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/talk

talk

talk (tôk)
v. talked, talk·ing, talks
v.intr.
1.
a. To exchange thoughts or opinions in spoken or sign language; converse: We talked for hours. See Synonyms at speak.
b. To utter or pronounce words: The baby can talk.
c. To imitate the sounds of human speech: The parrot talks.

[Esquilax]

*emphasis mine*
So it's your position that talking animals don't exist?

Do you ever get tired of pretending that one portion of a thing, taken out of context, represents the whole of the thing? Or that the context of the thing you somehow think you're adequately isolating from the parts of it that show you're wrong, doesn't exist?

Or is scoring cheap rhetorical points so important to you that you don't care that it's blisteringly clear you're missing the point with every smug utterance?

[Esquilax]

Understanding what one is saying has nothing to do with "talking"

So then it's clearly also irrelevant to the fucking point you were responding to, so why bring it up at all?

[Huggy Bear]

*emphasis mine*
So it's your position that talking animals don't exist?

Do you ever get tired of pretending that one portion of a thing, taken out of context, represents the whole of the thing? Or that the context of the thing you somehow think you're adequately isolating from the parts of it that show you're wrong, doesn't exist?

Or is scoring cheap rhetorical points so important to you that you don't care that it's blisteringly clear you're missing the point with every smug utterance?

What are you on about now? What exactly have I taken out of context?

Also I like how I'm perceived as being "smug" whenever I offer a rebuttal.

Are you stupid? Serious question: are you an idiot?

So, I mean, you can either admit that you're an idiot, or you can admit that you have a hell of a lot of work to do here even if I happened to accept your self serving spin game here. Which is it, Huggy? Is your argument stupid, or wildly incomplete?

But I'M the smug one tho....

[Esquilax]

What are you on about now? What exactly have I taken out of context?

There were more things in the point you were responding to than just "talking animals," and contextually it was clear that the example of talking animals under consideration was the magically enabled, truly communicative kind and not literal parroted speech. Instead of addressing the actual point being made though, you honed in on the one point you thought you could win on, redefined it in a way that was clearly not intended when one takes the post in its entirety, and then pretended that you'd responded to the whole of the thing in a way that was both cogent and actually addressed what was being said.

You do this all the time. You don't respond to what people actually mean, you respond to a self servingly literal facsimile. It's like you've mistaken "technically correct," with "actually correct." You're like a teacher being asked "can I go to the bathroom?" responding with "I don't know, can you?" but instead of just correcting the grammar you're seriously acting as though you were being asked if they were physically capable of urinating. Whenever it suits you, you just suddenly lose the ability to apprehend what people actually mean and just go with what their grammar strictly states, no matter the context.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Quit acting like there's only the former.

Also I like how I'm perceived as being "smug" whenever I offer a rebuttal.

Oh, come off it. You didn't fucking offer a rebuttal, you derailed because you had nothing substantial to say but were still desperate to be right.

But I'M the smug one tho.... Rolleyes

I'm sorry, can you offer any other conclusion I could have come to when you attempt to just throw bible verses at me as though it were an actual argument?

Not that a tu coque fallacy is an actual response anyway, but I seriously find it hard to believe that an intelligent, reasonable person would think that what you posted there had any convincing qualities to it. So you're either capable of a reasonable argument but just didn't produce one, or you're incapable of a reasonable argument. Since you apparently don't want to address what I wrote back then- not that you did in your first attempt- then the question still stands: are you aware that your argument only partially succeeds even if we ignore the problems with it? Or are you unaware, and hence, an idiot?

[Huggy Bear]

There were more things in the point you were responding to than just "talking animals," and contextually it was clear that the example of talking animals under consideration was the magically enabled, truly communicative kind and not literal parroted speech. Instead of addressing the actual point being made though, you honed in on the one point you thought you could win on, redefined it in a way that was clearly not intended when one takes the post in its entirety, and then pretended that you'd responded to the whole of the thing in a way that was both cogent and actually addressed what was being said.

You do this all the time. You don't respond to what people actually mean, you respond to a self servingly literal facsimile. It's like you've mistaken "technically correct," with "actually correct." You're like a teacher being asked "can I go to the bathroom?" responding with "I don't know, can you?" but instead of just correcting the grammar you're seriously acting as though you were being asked if they were physically capable of urinating. Whenever it suits you, you just suddenly lose the ability to apprehend what people actually mean and just go with what their grammar strictly states, no matter the context.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Quit acting like there's only the former.

Starvald Demelain stated that these three things did not, and have never existed.

1. ethereal wizards
2. talking animals
3. pure magic

I'm assuming he referring to God in number one, Show me where God has been proven to be non existent.

Number two I already addressed.

As for number three, just because YOU don't understand something, doesn't make it "magic".

It would seem that you're the spokesman for Starvald Demelain and know exactly what he was thinking and in what context when he typed his post.

I'm sorry, can you offer any other conclusion I could have come to when you attempt to just throw bible verses at me as though it were an actual argument?

Not that a tu coque fallacy is an actual response anyway, but I seriously find it hard to believe that an intelligent, reasonable person would think that what you posted there had any convincing qualities to it. So you're either capable of a reasonable argument but just didn't produce one, or you're incapable of a reasonable argument. Since you apparently don't want to address what I wrote back then- not that you did in your first attempt- then the question still stands: are you aware that your argument only partially succeeds even if we ignore the problems with it? Or are you unaware, and hence, an idiot?

The point in referencing the bible verses was to show you concepts that existed in the Bible long before science gave them a definition.

It's like Columbus getting credit for discovering America even though people were already living here.

For example Einstein is credited for developing the theory of relativity, yet when the Bible states that a Day to God is like a thousand years to man, that is clearly acknowledging that time is relative, long before science "discovered" it.

[Esquilax]

Starvald Demelain stated that these three things did not, and have never existed.

You responded to one of those points, in a way that was not only not contextually indicated, but in fact contextually contraindicated, and then called it a day, apparently happy with your response.

I'm assuming he referring to God in number one, Show me where God has been proven to be non existent.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Beyond which, you protested a post ago that you weren't an idiot, but then instantly leap to shifting the burden of proof as though nobody will call you on that?

Number two I already addressed.

You didn't, because since number two was made in reference to your religion there were clearly actual examples being referred to, but the fact that you think you did is just sad.

As for number three, just because YOU don't understand something, doesn't make it "magic".

No, what makes it magic is the part where is supernaturally suspends the established laws of physics. But hey, keep strawmanning; dishonesty is the only thing you're good for, apparently.

It would seem that you're the spokesman for Starvald Demelain and know exactly what he was thinking and in what context when he typed his post.

You don't think that when somebody posts a thing specifically in reference to christianity, their words might have specifically christian concepts in mind? Oh my, there may be no hope for you.

The point in referencing the bible verses was to show you concepts that existed in the Bible long before science gave them a definition.

It's like Columbus getting credit for discovering America even though people were already living here.

For example Einstein is credited for developing the theory of relativity, yet when the Bible states that a Day to God is like a thousand years to man, that is clearly acknowledging that time is relative, long before science "discovered" it.

Nobody is impressed that you can stretch yourself to believe that. The bible's the big book of multiple choice to begin with, people have been spinning the bible to "confirm scientific knowledge," for centuries, it's not a new thing that you've come up with. It's also not convincing, since the language is not clearly in reference to the scientific concepts you claim it is, and without your desperate reaching, nobody would come to that conclusion on their own... which they didn't. No, we discovered relativity through actual science, we didn't get the idea from the bible. Everything you're saying is just post hoc rationalization; you're just scavenging discoveries after the fact like any good parasite would.

[Spooky]

I don't have to see it to know creationism is bullshit.

...Yeah, pretty much.