Ken Ham is still trying to warp facts around an already held conclusion
Creation Museum Fossil Claimed as Proof of Noah’s Flood.
Hard to know what to say. Ham--an Australian immigrant, more about that later--continues to make not only unsubstantiated claims, but claims that run contrary to all the evidence from science. I should note here that 'the sciences' do not operate independently, but are a series of overlapping disciplines that make predictions. Yes, even paleontology makes predictions as to where to look for new forms. See Tiktaalik for one of the most recent examples.
Ham is no scientist. The Bible isn't a science book. The Bible is an artifact of the knowledge base of the (presumably) men of their time. A time in which there was no science. Mere observation is not science.
Why do people still believe in the literal truth of the Bible when the Bible itself is not logically internally consistent? The answers to this puzzling anachronism are not in this humble blogger's purview. Evolutionary anthropologists, and psychologists can--and indeed have--given the topics a thorough treatment.
Ham has zero evidence to back up his claim. One has to wonder if Ham believes what he states. His interests are entirely tied up in the literal truth of Biblical scripture, although I missed the parts about humans interacting with carnosaurs.
The case here is that there is no case. Ham makes stuff up to keep people tithing at the gate.Does he believe this nonsense? I am doubtful.
There is zero evidence to support Ham's claims, and mountains of evidence that support the science side of things. Everything from radiometric dating to modern geology's understanding of the age of the earth to cosmology's age of the universe are independently derived--and quantifiable refututions--of the literal truth of the Bible. That all of these disciplines are in agreement doesn't prove anything. They only represent among the greatest acheivements of the human mind to date.
Now I said something about Ham's Aussie roots. There is another high profile immigrant from Oz that doesn't hide behind antiquated, and perhaps justly revered books, as a method of concealment. Yes, Rubert Murdoch of Fox media at least formerly would go into his news outlets and tell copy staffers what the truth was for the day.
Why aren't these two gents peddling their ideologies in their native Australia? Perhaps these ex-pats could not feed their tripe to the less propagandized Aussie populace? That's not even conjecture. I am simply really curious about why here? I think it's fair to state that US citizens are the most highly propagandized population on the planet. It is not a matter of KNOWING that we are so; it is the insidiousness of advertising from cradle to grave that instills in many a sense that we know what's really going on. The data on everything from the thrill some achieve from shopping as form of therapy, to belief of everything single-sourced without attributions point towards a well entertained, but shallow thinking country. The PR industry has won all the rounds to this point.
Let us take back our brains.
Hard to know what to say. Ham--an Australian immigrant, more about that later--continues to make not only unsubstantiated claims, but claims that run contrary to all the evidence from science. I should note here that 'the sciences' do not operate independently, but are a series of overlapping disciplines that make predictions. Yes, even paleontology makes predictions as to where to look for new forms. See Tiktaalik for one of the most recent examples.
Ham is no scientist. The Bible isn't a science book. The Bible is an artifact of the knowledge base of the (presumably) men of their time. A time in which there was no science. Mere observation is not science.
Why do people still believe in the literal truth of the Bible when the Bible itself is not logically internally consistent? The answers to this puzzling anachronism are not in this humble blogger's purview. Evolutionary anthropologists, and psychologists can--and indeed have--given the topics a thorough treatment.
Ham has zero evidence to back up his claim. One has to wonder if Ham believes what he states. His interests are entirely tied up in the literal truth of Biblical scripture, although I missed the parts about humans interacting with carnosaurs.
The case here is that there is no case. Ham makes stuff up to keep people tithing at the gate.Does he believe this nonsense? I am doubtful.
There is zero evidence to support Ham's claims, and mountains of evidence that support the science side of things. Everything from radiometric dating to modern geology's understanding of the age of the earth to cosmology's age of the universe are independently derived--and quantifiable refututions--of the literal truth of the Bible. That all of these disciplines are in agreement doesn't prove anything. They only represent among the greatest acheivements of the human mind to date.
Now I said something about Ham's Aussie roots. There is another high profile immigrant from Oz that doesn't hide behind antiquated, and perhaps justly revered books, as a method of concealment. Yes, Rubert Murdoch of Fox media at least formerly would go into his news outlets and tell copy staffers what the truth was for the day.
Why aren't these two gents peddling their ideologies in their native Australia? Perhaps these ex-pats could not feed their tripe to the less propagandized Aussie populace? That's not even conjecture. I am simply really curious about why here? I think it's fair to state that US citizens are the most highly propagandized population on the planet. It is not a matter of KNOWING that we are so; it is the insidiousness of advertising from cradle to grave that instills in many a sense that we know what's really going on. The data on everything from the thrill some achieve from shopping as form of therapy, to belief of everything single-sourced without attributions point towards a well entertained, but shallow thinking country. The PR industry has won all the rounds to this point.
Let us take back our brains.