EvoAnth, I started reading their rebuttal to you and I have to say, you really ought not give them the fodder they crave. By insulting the museum which you've never actually visited you gave them means by which to attempt to discredit everything else you wrote. -Don't get me wrong, you're likely right about how you described the museum but perhaps a lesson was learned. Stick to the science, the facts and leave the non first hand opinions of them aside. I'm sure their pseudo science says enough. Allow the reader to form their opinion based on that. But my question is, why attempt to have a dialog with them when there can be absolutely no swaying their opinion? The entire foundation of their "science," is that they have the only eyewitness account of creation on their side. -It's mad, they're mad. It's a deal-breaker.
Yeah, discussing the museum itself was a mistake and one I've avoided in all subsequent posts on the subject. In the future I promise to focus on what I can see! As for why bother discussing it in the first place, you have to remember Answers in Genesis isn't the only party involved. There are countless people on both sides of the debate trying to learn more about these topics and by putting the information out there hopefully I can inform them and maybe even persuade some of the less dogmatic ones. Of the people I've encountered through posts like this, many times I've changed their mind on something; sometimes even turned them away altogether. The trick is not to think of it as an attempt to convince AiG; but to use the debate as an excuse to put resources out there which may be useful to others interested in AiG
The trick is not to think of it as an attempt to convince AiG; but to use the debate as an excuse to put resources out there which may be useful to others interested in AiG
Fair enough, you are a more patient person than I am.