The New Answers Book - Ken Ham

[StormanNorman]

I'll have to take your word on that, CabVet.

If that is true, then I apologize; but for the record, I don't think they are lying.

I think that they are playing a game to garner as much support for their ministries, organizations, etc. as they can. There are those who need to believe the things that they say ... and they know it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'll have to take your word on that, CabVet.

You wouldn't have to if you did your own research and saw for yourself what lying creationist weasels they are.

Of course, Ham and Hovind are betting you won't.

 

[CabVet]

I'll have to take your word on that, CabVet.

If that is true, then I apologize; but for the record, I don't think they are lying.

Thanks for the apology, and I can certainly understand why you don't think they are lying. I will go a step further here and say that they might actually believe in what they are saying, and therefore were not lying, but this is not an excuse. If they truly believe what they are saying, they know very little about science, and my point is that they should try to learn more.

What they do would be the equivalent to a scientist trying to preach theology out here without having ever read the Bible; they might think that they were being honest, but in fact they were not if they haven't studied the subject before trying to say something about it.

Again, and for the record, I have nothing against you rejecting 100% of science based on your faith, that is your choice. But there is a big difference between rejecting science and saying that science supports a 6,000 years old earth. What I really don't like are the fabrications made up by Ham, Hovind and others.

 

[EveryTime]

If that is true, then I apologize; but for the record, I don't think they are lying.

You don't think they are lying because you want and need what they say to be true.

If you did the lottery and I told you that you had won would you just take my word for it? would you not take out your lottery ticket and check the numbers to see that I hadn't made a mistake? then why don't you check the things Ham and Hovind say against what the people who study the subjects say? why should you check? because you are living your life based on what people like them are telling you, you owe it to yourself.

You and I [I think every one knows] that Kent Hovind has a store bought science degree, we can both go out and buy one tomorrow and start to call each other Doctor, we can then stand on a stage and spout all the rubbish we want knowing that the gullable will believe everything we say without question, why would you even think of going along with something like that?

 

[AV1611VET]

You wouldn't have to if you did your own research and saw for yourself what lying creationist weasels they are.

It would take extensive research to ascertain if one is lying or not.

This is because one must show an intent to deceive.

If someone says Jesus walked on water, is he lying?

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't think they are lying because you want and need what they say to be true.

No, I don't.

QV please:

In any event, I'm not here to debate Ken Ham and AiG. What they believe is their business.

Christians, IMO, need to get out of the "evidence producing" business, and let God handle the convictions.

Christians look silly when they try using evidence (other than their faith) to prove God, and Atheists look silly when they deny the singularities that occurred in the first 4000 years of Earth's history.

Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are YECs ... I am not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It would take extensive research to ascertain if one is lying or not.

This is because one must show an intent to deceive.

One can infer such an intent if it turns out that they are so incredibly wrong that the only other option is that they must be utter morons to sincerely believe it.

If someone says Jesus walked on water, is he lying?

They're believing what they read without looking into it.

 

[JustMeSee]

No, I don't.

QV please:

Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are YECs ... I am not.

Splitting hairs, yet you defend them.

YEC == The universe has existed less than 10,000 years.
Embedded Age == The universe has existed less than 10,000 years, but was created with 4 billion years of non-history.

Not much difference. One denies numerous fields of science, the other tries to squeeze theology into a science recognized shoe.

 

[Strathos]

You are correct, he is mixing them up. But I fail to see hatred there. What I do see is frustration due to the fact that both of them (Ken and Kent) keep repeating lies and misinformation about geology and evolution. I do wonder how you would react if someone started publishing book after book with lies and misinformation about the Bible. Not even the hated (and that is really hatred) Richard Dawkins does that.

Well it's easier to lie about evolution since you can just open the Bible and check the relevant passage(s) to see if something someone said about it is correct, but all scientific research on evolution isn't collected in one easily-navigable book.

I'll have to take your word on that, CabVet.

If that is true, then I apologize; but for the record, I don't think they are lying.

Yet you obviously don't have much faith in their arguments, because if you did you would be defending them here instead of resorting to "Science can take a hike" and "Neptune".

 

[CabVet]

Splitting hairs, yet you defend them.

YEC == The universe has existed less than 10,000 years.
Embedded Age == The universe has existed less than 10,000 years, but was created with 4 billion years of non-history.

Not much difference. One denies numerous fields of science, the other tries to squeeze theology into a science recognized shoe.

Exactly, and of the two I think the truly "science can take a hike" one is the YEC philosophy because it doesn't even try shoe horn their view into scientific knowledge.

 

[CabVet]

It would take extensive research to ascertain if one is lying or not.

This is because one must show an intent to deceive.

Oh, it is extremely easy. If someone tells me that scientific evidence supports the scientific hypothesis that the earth existed for 6,000 years, I will show them undeniable evidence that this is not the case. If they keep repeating that after I show them the evidence, they are lying.

Let's do a Bible analogy again. So, imagine that I never read the Bible (much like Ken and Kent never opened an evolutionary biology book). One day I come to you and say that, according to the Bible, Jesus was really a Muslim and worshipped together with the prophet Mohammed (much like Ken and Kent say that a cat giving birth to a dog would prove evolution). You then proceed to show me every verse of the Bible and tell me that I am absolutely wrong (much like what was done repeatedly to Ken and Kent). So, if I keep repeating that according to the Bible, Jesus was really a Muslim and worshipped together with the prophet Mohammed, would you say that I am lying or not?

 

[Split Rock]

Just wondering if anyone has read this book?

Is it any good? What weaknesses do you think were contained in there?

It seems, he's a YEC who thinks a literal approach to Genesis should be employed.

Why is Ken Ham writing a book about evolution in the first place?

 

[Split Rock]

It would take extensive research to ascertain if one is lying or not.

This is because one must show an intent to deceive.

How much "extensive research" did you undertake to conclude that the theroy of evolution is a lie?

 

[AV1611VET]

How much "extensive research" did you undertake to conclude that the theroy of evolution is a lie?

66 books worth.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

How many did you read?

 

[CabVet]

66 books worth.

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

How many did you read?

I read all 66 of them as well, and I found it interesting how not a single of them referred to evolution, or internal combustion engines, or airplanes, or space travel, or internet forums.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Is every man who says he knows that he has the exclusive, true way of interpreting scripture a liar?

I think so.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I read all 66 of them as well, and I found it interesting how not a single of them referred to evolution, or internal combustion engines, or airplanes, or space travel, or internet forums.

Obviously all those things can take a hike.

 

[CabVet]

Obviously all those things can take a hike.

Nothing wrong with that, but those things taking a hike is a far cry from refuting them using those 66 books.

 

[AV1611VET]

I read all 66 of them as well, and I found it interesting how not a single of them referred to evolution, or internal combustion engines, or airplanes, or space travel, or internet forums.

Did you see any referrals to:

Hydrologic Cycle
Evaporation
Condensation Nuclei
Condensation
Precipitation
Run-off
Oceanic Reservoir
Snow
Hydrologic Balance
Springs in the Sea
Principle of Isostasy
Shape of the Earth
Rotation of Earth
Gravitation
Rock Erosion
Glacial Period
Dinosaurs
Size of the Universe
Number of Stars
Uniqueness of Each Star
Precision of Orbits
Circulation of Atmosphere
Protective Effect of Atmosphere
Oceanic Origin of Rain
Relation of Electricity to Rain
Fluid Dynamics
Blood Circulation
Psychotherapy
Biogenesis and Stability
Uniqueness of Man
Chemical Nature of Flesh
Cave-men
Mass-Energy Equivalence
Source of Energy for Earth
Atomic Disintegration
Electrical Transmission of Information
Television
Rapid Transportation

That list came from that guy who has a Ph.D. in Hydraulics Engineering.

Unlike Mr. Darwin, who wrote about favoured races, and had a Ph.D in Nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is every man who says he knows that he has the exclusive, true way of interpreting scripture a liar?

I think so.

I don't think even Mr. Dawkins would agree with you on that.

But you're certainly entitled to your opinion.