Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JaeIsGod · 08-14-2003, 01:49 PM

I believe I have seen this Ham fellow on tv once in a program about evolution & education. It was a big , scary man with a square head , dark hair and a scary beard. Looked a bit like a monkey.

Heathen Dawn · 08-14-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaeIsGod
I believe I have seen this Ham fellow on tv once in a program about evolution & education. It was a big , scary man with a square head , dark hair and a scary beard. Looked a bit like a monkey.

Ken Ham looks like this:

As people have already said here - "a bit unevolved" ...

Duvenoy · 08-14-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaeIsGod
I believe I have seen this Ham fellow on tv once in a program about evolution & education. It was a big , scary man with a square head , dark hair and a scary beard. Looked a bit like a monkey.

Yeah, that's him. He was briefly on the PBS evolution series; the Evolution and God segment, if I remember right.

I understand that he's building a big theme park on AiG property. Maybe someday, I'll get good and drunk, and go visit it.

doov

Albion · 08-16-2003, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Yeah, that's him. He was briefly on the PBS evolution series; the Evolution and God segment, if I remember right.

Yep, you remember right. He was there in a church hall giving a talk about how evolution is all wrong and leading the faithful in a little song:

"I don't believe in evolution,
I know creation's true
I believe that God above created me and you
so praise His name for what He made,
give credit where it's due
I don't believe in evolution,
I know creation's true."

The faithful included children, toddlers, and babes in arms. And the creationists are getting bitter and twisted because evolutionists get their mitts on the innocent little dears at age 15 or so.

Donnmathan · 08-16-2003, 05:33 AM

A tad off topic, but I found a major hole in their 'new theory' for explaining how light from objects over 10,000 light-years away can be reaching earth.

"How can we see distant stars in a young universe?"

A short quote:

Quote:

If the universe is not much bigger than we can observe, and if it was only 50 times smaller in the past than it is now, then scientific deduction based on GR means it has to have expanded out of a previous state in which it was surrounded by an event horizon (a condition known technically as a �white hole��a black hole running in reverse, something permitted by the equations of GR).
As matter passed out of this event horizon, the horizon itself had to shrink�eventually to nothing. Therefore, at one point this earth (relative to a point far away from it) would have been virtually frozen. An observer on earth would not in any way �feel different.� �Billions of years� would be available (in the frame of reference within which it is traveling in deep space) for light to reach the earth, for stars to age, etc.�while less than one ordinary day is passing on earth. This massive gravitational time dilation would seem to be a scientific inevitability if a bounded universe expanded significantly.

Umm...last time I checked, the following problems arise from this arguement:

1) The 'white hole' object that GR allows for has never been proven to exist; just because the theory allows for it, doesn't mean it has to be there...

2) The 'event horizon' is the farthest point at which the gravity of an object would not permit light to escape...how did matter manage to cross it?

3) The tidal forces at such a gravitational boundry would rip matter into atoms - how did the Earth manage to cross it intact?

4) The above being true, I don't believe GR predicts an event horizon for a 'white hole' that has begun expelling matter. (Assuming, for the moment, that such an object existed.)

Seems like they are ignoring things again....

GunnerJ · 08-16-2003, 05:53 AM

You left out the best lyric, though, Albion!

"My ancestor was Adam
and not a chimpanzee!"

Heathen Dawn · 08-16-2003, 07:06 AM

Hey, that's from the PBS Evolution series. In the "What about God" chapter. You can still hear it on RealAudio on the PBS website.

wdog · 08-16-2003, 07:10 AM

a good point about why a creationist would even bother with evidence was made above. I would like to say that they bother also becuase with an ignorant public, just the veneer of sounding scientific is good enough to win them over. joe sixpack (or in my neighborhood, johnny twelvepack) can't tell the difference and is predisposed to being a believer.

Albion · 08-16-2003, 01:48 PM

Quote:

You left out the best lyric, though, Albion!

"My ancestor was Adam
and not a chimpanzee!"

Well, you know, there's only so much a person can take without going into meltdown.

Heathen Dawn · 08-17-2003, 07:46 AM

This just in, and relevant to the discussion...

I've been to No Answers in Genesis, and John Stear has a new article that talks just about that subject of Ken Ham's "different interpretations" ruse:

Ham and the "Facts"

This one is also interesting:

Ham's Biblical "Blinkers"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2003, 01:49 PM	#11
JaeIsGod Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 760	I believe I have seen this Ham fellow on tv once in a program about evolution & education. It was a big , scary man with a square head , dark hair and a scary beard. Looked a bit like a monkey.

08-16-2003, 05:53 AM	#16
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	You left out the best lyric, though, Albion! "My ancestor was Adam and not a chimpanzee!"

08-16-2003, 07:06 AM	#17
Heathen Dawn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,656	Hey, that's from the PBS Evolution series. In the "What about God" chapter. You can still hear it on RealAudio on the PBS website.

08-16-2003, 07:10 AM	#18
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	a good point about why a creationist would even bother with evidence was made above. I would like to say that they bother also becuase with an ignorant public, just the veneer of sounding scientific is good enough to win them over. joe sixpack (or in my neighborhood, johnny twelvepack) can't tell the difference and is predisposed to being a believer.

08-17-2003, 07:46 AM	#20
Heathen Dawn Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 4,656	This just in, and relevant to the discussion... I've been to No Answers in Genesis, and John Stear has a new article that talks just about that subject of Ken Ham's "different interpretations" ruse: Ham and the "Facts" This one is also interesting: Ham's Biblical "Blinkers"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.