ken ham on historical science. Sorry for horrible picture, I have never used picture editing softwares before. I don't even know how to effectively work with pa billy nye can ham Jayden Smith history science
Upload
Login or register

ken ham on historical science

 
ken ham on historical science. Sorry for horrible picture, I have never used picture editing softwares before. I don't even know how to effectively work with pa

Sorry for horrible picture, I have never used picture editing softwares before. I don't even know how to effectively work with paint.

The debate was hilarious. A few points I can recall immediately are:
1. He says he believes in modern science. Radiometric dating methods are part of modern science. But then he says he doesn't trust these methods regarding estimates of the past since you weren't there to observe it. What else is there to radiometric dating methods besides using them to date things? Since Ken ham doesn't believe in that.

2. A little bit later he does use dating methods in his argument of a little bit of wood trapped in 45 million year old basalt. Convenient usage of radiometric dating methods. Not to mention the basalt is 45 million years old which he even mentions. But the earth is still 6000 years old amiright? I guess God must have placed it there.

3. At one moment he is showing pictures of million years old fossiles showing fish eating other fish and death and suffering etc. But then he goes on about how all animals were supposed to be vegetarians before the corruption. I understand he was refuting the viewpoint of non-creationist christians but how can he use those fossils in an attempt to show the christians that they're wrong?

4. Then he goes on about how there's no new functions in nature, that no new functions arise in nature. If you just take a look at viruses for one second or mutations in proteins, you'd see that they acquire new functions constantly and everyone knows proteins can deliver macrofunctions to organisms (easy example, fluorescence).
Another point he made, was that no "new" genetic material comes into existence. How about simple gene duplications or even the enzyme telomerase?

5. His argument for no life can result from dead matter was the following: "I can shine all the sunlight or energy I want onto this little stick I have here, it's not coming to life." (something along those lines)

6. He goes on and on about how the bible explains the origins about things. All the bible says, is; And then god created man, stars, plants, light,... and he acts as if it gives us any sort of explanation about how consciousness arose or works.

7. The guy dodges questions constantly and fails to even interpret audience's questions.

as am
h, If I wasn' t THEE! It
...
+12
Views: 1648 Submitted: 02/06/2014