Ken Ham ducks a debate

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:06 pm

http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2013 ... -schooler/
Apparently some US parents home-school in order to make sure that their kids DO get a full science education.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... the-nones/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:12 pm

'Preaching atheism' need not happen if there is any debate (IF).

The proposed topic is 'Evolution vs. Creationism, and which should be taught to students as science'. They would need a decent moderator to prevent discussion wandering onto atheism or 'worldviews'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Jun 04, 2013 6:16 pm

cathy wrote:
Moreover, demographics are moving against the fundamentalist movement, which is seen as white, aging, male dominated

Not unlike the new atheist movement.


Yer, the "New Atheists" look to me to be an anachronism from another age. Alas, I am at the stage in life when I know deep in my heart that my generation (which includes the the leaders of the New Atheists) is no longer an agent of change. We're equipped to fight yesterday's battles with yesterday's thinking and yesterday's tools. We can help a younger generation but they must now be in charge.We ran out of puff a decade or so back.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Jun 05, 2013 12:24 am

Steve Jones appears to be having a go at Christians in general in his new book:

http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesw ... e/9345130/

Good point made on the CIS forum:

http://www.cis.org.uk/forum/discussion/ ... o-4#Item_2

Almost drove my car off the road in annoyance with Steve Jones on radio 4 this morning promoting his new book "The Serpent's Promise" where he supposedly "side-steps the science and faith issue". Of course he does nothing of the sort.

Perhaps most annoying was when he said something along the lines of: "Many UK Christians admit the flood, six-day creation, mental illness being caused by demons etc. are metaphors, however when I ask them where the metaphors end they get stuck... because if everything is a metaphor there is no point in believing". He obviously thought himself very clever to come up with this argument, indeed so clever that he didn't seem to realise how he has just shown himself completely ignorant of every subject outside of biology. Has he ever read any anthropology, philosophy, theology or even literary criticism? In this regard he is almost as ignorant as the YEC's and ID'ers he likes bashing.

The best analogy I can think of is that if I were to utter the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs", the YEC's would insist that cats and dogs were actually falling from the sky, whilst Steve Jones and his ilk would claim that because cats and dogs were not "actually" falling from the sky my utterance must be considered wrong/ignorant/evil etc. Both positions somewhat miss the point.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby cathy » Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:51 am

Alas, I am at the stage in life when I know deep in my heart that my generation (which includes the the leaders of the New Atheists) is no longer an agent of change. We're equipped to fight yesterday's battles with yesterday's thinking and yesterday's tools. We can help a younger generation but they must now be in charge.We ran out of puff a decade or so back.

That's not strictly correct as you've all been and still are agents for change here. It isn't an age/gender thing at all, its a mind set thing - anyone can attempt to be an agent for change as long as they recognise when changes happen and adapt what they are fighting for to fit. You fought creationism getting into schools in 2006 when it was TiS, state schools, Emmanuel academies and complete ignorance of creationists thinking in most places. You're still fighting it successfully now its CST and free schools. A completely new set of circumstances. You've realised the landscape has changed and adapted.

Plus bcse listens and takes on board facts. The problem is the new atheists are still fighting for something that no longer exists because they seem to be immune to things like - well facts. Like creationists are stuck in a world that no longer exists so is Dawkins and the new atheists and they will resist anything that doesn't fit their mind set which was probably correct years ago but is way wide of the mark now. They are now as stuck in the past as the creationists, its just a slightly newer past but you do get the impression that haven't picked up a newspaper since 1973 and haven't interacted verbally with anyone female ever.

But the problem for anti creationists is, for some reason way beyond my comprehension, they still influence people who aren't like them. For example, what Peter has just said about Steve Jones. I recall him on the Big Question programme on evolution. He was superb. He even said he couldn't understand why believers didn't use more science to back up their beliefs as he would if he were a believer (and I would have done to). Now he's moved to the Dawkins mantra of challenging just for the sake of it. When most of us don't care. And the problem with that is it creates divisions in people in the fights against all extremists and it ends up with moderates defending themselves on both sides. Leaving the extremists laughing.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:17 pm

Back to 'brave' Ken Ham - who insists that mainstream science education involves 'brainwashing' but who then deliberately indoctrinates large audiences of home-schooled kids in religiously-motivated pseudo-science, but who is afraid to participate in a one on one debate with an adult challenger on 'Evolution vs. Creationism, and which should be taught to students as science' (we know why) has now resorted to type. He has taken forward an ongoing You Tube propaganda offensive (MUCH easier than losing a public debate and thus losing credibility eh Ken?) - admittedly he is reacting to part of some kind of new video by the 'Nones', which I have not seen:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/05/c ... ot-an-ape/

I don't find the hastily-produced Ham short video compelling. It doesn't even cite the YEC 'explanation' refuting the evolutionists' claim regarding wisdom teeth.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jun 05, 2013 10:19 pm

Ham speaks like an ideologue - Lilandra "accuses" him of being an ape (as if she was saying that only creationists are apes or something).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham and AiG are charlatans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:31 pm

And they evade scrutiny, run away from debates, and indoctrinate kids with pseudo-science to 'support' and 'defend' the Bible.

I found the TEXT under today's video - the video came up in a Google search but I did not get a specific URL.

"Published on 5 Jun 2013
The atheist group called "The n0nes" held a second web chat on June 4 about Ken Ham's upcoming speaking engagement at the Texas Homeschool Convention (THSC Southwest Convention & Family Conference) August 1-3 (http://thsc.org/events/convention/). They are extremely upset that Ken Ham is addressing this conference and are organizing a protest. This is a short clip from the June 4 web chat where Ken Ham is called an "ape" by one of the atheist group members. Ken said he had a strong desire to eat a banana after watching this clip! The comment about wisdom teeth once again illustrates the ignorance of atheists concerning the origins issue. Losing something is the opposite of molecules-to-man evolution, which requires new information being added into the genome to produce a characteristic not previously possible. It's sad that so many children today are taught they are just animals, as this atheist believes. If they are just animals and the Bible's account of creation is not true, then there is no basis for moral absolutes—everyone could do whatever is right in his own eyes (which is happening more and more today). But man is not just animals, as God's Word states: "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:26--27).

Dr. David DeWitt, Director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University, explains the wisdom teeth issue in an article on the Answers in Genesis website:

The last vestigial organ on the list of "Five Things that Humans Don't Need" are the wisdom teeth. This is a third set of molars that erupt last. Because of crowding, the wisdom teeth often become impacted and must be removed to avoid complications. Nonetheless there are many people whose wisdom teeth erupt without incident. For those who must have the wisdom teeth pulled, there is little loss. The New Scientist article notes that ~35% of people do not develop wisdom teeth. If this is correct, it is an example of a loss of information, the opposite of what molecules-to-man evolution requires. It does not provide evidence that wisdom teeth are not beneficial.

Much has been written about wisdom teeth from a creation perspective. Wisdom teeth are not vestigial and are functional in those individuals that have them and the jaw to accommodate them. They provide another example of deterioration and loss of information. One of the reasons that they are problematic is the decreased jaw size of many people today which may be related to diet. Interestingly, fossils of Neanderthal and other human fossils demonstrate that in the past, there were few problems with wisdom teeth compared to today. ("Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs," Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/artic...)".

And guess what - COMMENTS ARE DISABLED FOR THIS VIDEO.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:56 am

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:56 pm

I raised this point with a YEC minister "are humans primates or not ?". "Yes" he replied "biologically speaking". I've no idea what that means.

In Philip Kitcher's book "abusing science, the case against creationism" Kitcher also raises the point point that there are over 400 species of bat which creationists classify as being the one "kind". Yet, there are anly a handful of ape species (includiing humans) all of which are classified as seperate "kinds" by YECs. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Again it comes back to the YEC meaning of the word "kind". Somebody really should ask Ham to define what he means by "kind".
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:41 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:I raised this point with a YEC minister "are humans primates or not ?". "Yes" he replied "biologically speaking". I've no idea what that means.

In Philip Kitcher's book "abusing science, the case against creationism" Kitcher also raises the point point that there are over 400 species of bat which creationists classify as being the one "kind". Yet, there are anly a handful of ape species (includiing humans) all of which are classified as seperate "kinds" by YECs. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Again it comes back to the YEC meaning of the word "kind". Somebody really should ask Ham to define what he means by "kind".



Presumably the YEC minister was not an Anglican or from the Church of Ireland :) Edit - or indeed from the Roman Catholic Church.

I assume he meant that we are not primates 'spiritually'. But I could be wrong.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8879
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:53 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:I raised this point with a YEC minister "are humans primates or not ?". "Yes" he replied "biologically speaking". I've no idea what that means.

In Philip Kitcher's book "abusing science, the case against creationism" Kitcher also raises the point point that there are over 400 species of bat which creationists classify as being the one "kind". Yet, there are anly a handful of ape species (includiing humans) all of which are classified as seperate "kinds" by YECs. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Again it comes back to the YEC meaning of the word "kind". Somebody really should ask Ham to define what he means by "kind".



Presumably the YEC minister was not an Anglican or from the Church of Ireland :) Edit - or indeed from the Roman Catholic Church.

I assume he meant that we are not primates 'spiritually'. But I could be wrong.


Prebyterian Ashley.

I think his point was that Humans are something more than "just a higher form of animal" (presumably this is in relation to the soul), but these are philosophical issues, not scientific ones. To all intents and purposes humans are simply another species of ape or, if you like, a species within the ape "kind".

There is a school of thought that suggests humans can interbreed with chimpanzees and there have been various rumours and urban myths about humanzees floating about for years. I'm not sure if this is biologically possible or not.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:38 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Again it comes back to the YEC meaning of the word "kind". Somebody really should ask Ham to define what he means by "kind".
He won't because he can't. I can't remember whether we've taken this back to the Hebrew, but it's quite obvious that "kind" is just literary usage. Genesis could easily have said "according to their nature" or "with their kin" or any other more or less literary phrase. Not many of which could have been hijacked as a proxy for "group of species".

Talking of biblical language, we've just watched a BBC2 programme by Melvyn Bragg on Tyndale and the Bible. Towards the end, Bragg said that it's recently been determined that about three quarters of the King James version was an uncredited pinch from Tyndale. I wonder how that will go down with those American fundamentalists who think the KJV is the "original"?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu Jun 06, 2013 10:07 pm

He won't because he can't.


I raised this point with Paul Garner over and over again. If lions and tigers are the same "kind" then why not humans and chimpanzees ? I may have used the term primate rather than ape which is probably too broad a "kind", but he ducked and dived and kept referring me back to Todd Wood who he seemed to regard as something of an expert on baraminology, and who was doing real research on the subject (for what purpose I haven't a clue) while we were merely sniping from the sidelines. I don't think he ever did specifically define the word "kind".

Must watch that BBC2 programme on the bible if it's on the iplayer Brian. Sounds interesting.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Ken Ham ducks a debate

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:57 pm

"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron