Creation Museum

I don't suggest (as you did) that magic=religion. The two things are clearly not the same by definition.

The very nature of creationism is an assumption of magic. How can it be otherwise?

Perhaps one of them will show up here and speak for themselves on whether they consider acts of God (like creation) to be magic.

Chumly wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

My reference to cohesive and elegant relates to the patterns we see in nature, evolution being a major cohesive and elegant process as an example.

Part of my point, evolution does not have to take place in a cohesive and elegant manner and can in fact be isolated and erratic

I was talking about the patterns we see in nature which connect the various aspects of science, namely the correlation between geologic evidence and fossil evidence and timeframes for the Earth in particular.

Ah, but how can you be sure that is really a pattern and not just the human mind attempting to process information? In its attempts to process sensory information, the human mind groups data and that grouping leads to patterns.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Yes. It was just puzzling to see you arguing with Chumly over the definition of a Creationist.

One of Clarke's three laws could shed a bit of entertaining light

Quote:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

ros, I saw that you two were not so much arguing as talking past each other. I agree that , maybe Creationists would rather not have their "mechanism" termed magic, but I dont think theyre necessarily the ones in charge of the terminology that we use.

rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:

I would imagine that the" Creation museum" would be full of posters, directionals, and computer graphic displays. I cant recall any field evidence that even remotely support Creationism

Actually, everything supports creationism; poof there's a planet, poof there's a fish, poof there's a frog. You can explain everything with magic. The problem is that magic doesn't *explain* anything.

The challenge for creationists is to explain why the evidence shows clear signs of evolution and no signs of magic. The problem is not to explain particular species or events, but all the patterns. Nature is cohesive and elegant, not isolated and erratic.

How are genetic mutations by random high energy particles "cohesive and elegant" and not "isolated and erratic"?

How would a massive meteor strike wiping out mankind be "cohesive and elegant" and not "isolated and erratic"?

Since you say "everything supports creationism" how does the red shift support creationism?

Since you claim that "The challenge for creationists is to explain why the evidence shows clear signs of evolution and no signs of magic" and since the creationists claim the underlying impetus is the literal interpretation of the Bible in a religious sense how do you reconcile your assertion?

Do creationists realize they believe in magic?

Of course, as we just finished discussing, a large portion of the scientific community believes that natural processes alone cannot account for the origin of man, etc. Ditto many of the great scientists of history.

Of course, as we just finished discussing, a large portion of the scientific community believes that natural processes alone cannot account for the origin of man, etc. Ditto many of the great scientists of history.

Hi Ros,

I know you like using the term 'magic' because of it's derisive connotation.

Yes, of course creationists believe that not everything is the result of natural processes. By definition, the action of God would be supernatural, no?

That's why you want to pooh-pooh it. Go ahead.

Of course, as we just finished discussing, a large portion of the scientific community believes that natural processes alone cannot account for the origin of man, etc. Ditto many of the great scientists of history.

Of course, as we just finished discussing, a large portion of the scientific community believes that natural processes alone cannot account for the origin of man, etc.

You keep trotting out these canards.