So I initiated a discussion on light recently and noted the wrong creationist as being in jail. I was made aware of a request to correct the matter. The contact was made in a very professional manner. As soon as I was aware, I took care of it and the person making contact was happy. The noting of the person being in jail was material to the story and not a matter of trying to disparage anyone. However, noting someone is in jail that isn't, isn't fair so correcting it is the right thing to do. I take no issue with the initial contact. There was a secondary contact rubbed me wrong as it was overly dramatic by a different individual who described the mistake as "horrible." So I thought that I'd take on some of Ken Ham's horrible mistakes and see if he's willing to correct any of them.

Biblical Inerrancy

Answers in Genesis supports education based on an inerrant Bible. The whole position hinges on this inerrant Bible. Ken Ham has repeatedly argued that the Bible is inerrant and the science of the Bible must also be fact as the words are God breathed. Example This example is great to use when discussing inerrancy and the Bible. He chose John 3:12 where Nicodemus and Jesus discuss being born again then continues on to say this, "If those things in the Bible are not true, if the science in the Bible is not true, that’s a part of the history that leads to Jesus Christ, how can any of it…" You can fill in the last word. I'm imagining it was the word "true".

The reason this is a great example is because the conversation between Nicodemus and Jesus never
happened. Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The New Testament was written in Greek. Being born again and the phrase from Greek to Aramaic would not translate into Aramaic as a double entendre. As a result, no confusion or explanation would have occurred. It's proof positive of an err in God's words, if that's how you see the Bible. Here Bart Erhman explains it in detail.

What other obvious errors might affect Mr. Ham's position on science? "His tail swept away one-third of the stars in the sky, and he threw them to the earth." Revelations 12:4 Mr. Ham, is it your contention that dragons fly and their tails are long enough to reach the stars and fling 1/3rd of the trillions of them to the surface of the earth? What are these said tails made of? Where are they stored?

How about the age of the Earth versus the position of the stars? Is it your contention that the stars were created after the Earth as laid out in Genesis 1:14? What do you do about their distance from us as measured using the Parallax which puts them millions of light years away or the Doppler Effect and Red Shift? Do you simply discount the methods due to the age of the Earth and God's word?

The Bible is full of errors and there is no denying it. The earliest Gospels don't even talk about Jesus as god in the flesh but John goes on and on about it. From small to big problems, there are hundreds of them. The Reason Project did a good job of assembling some of them for you.



You can either take Ken Ham's word for it or verify the veracity of his claims against the graph and it's 439 claims of errors which includes the errors cross referenced over multiple books. This doesn't even address the 100's of 1000's of errors caused by scribes.

Generally Silly Claims Made

The Flood is a constant issue for Ken. Example The rest of the world has laughed it off. My Christian friends generally don't accept that the world flooded. They avoid the subject intentionally because it's hard to deal with. Ken simply ignores the largess of scientists and barrels on through. Here he ignores modern science and facts that refute him and says that the Grand Canyon was created by the flood. The dead Animals in the layers "prove" that the animals died after sin. Sir, the Plateau was once the ocean floor and that's why there are fossils strewn throughout.

The Grand Canyon is 6000 feet deep. A single flood carved it all out of granite in a narrow path (narrow is relative when comparing a world wide flood and the waters receding.) Are you aware that there were some great floods just north of the Grand Canyon that did not produce anything like the GC? And it happened multiple times. The claim of the Grand Canyon being formed by a great flood is silly and terribly ignorant. If you believe it, I've written about it here as well from a completely laymen perspective. I don't know why anyone would consider Ham's claims. Here is another video debunking the claims. I love that it's Kent Hovind making the claims similar to Ken Ham. Works well with this discussion. Additionally in the Ham video he talks about Evolutionary Geologists. Ahem... rocks don't evolve. I'm not trying to be obtuse, it's an important distinction. Creationists like to paint with a wide brush. Questions for Ham and his fans. And with the uplift causing the end of the flood, over what period of time did this happen? Why do we have young mountain ranges and old mountain ranges then? Do you not believe in Plate Tectonics? What causes Earthquakes... God? What separates you from the Westboro Baptists then? Do you hate Gays? Think that cripples are the sons of Arron the Priest and should not approach the alter? Why do we have layering in the Grand Canyon if it was all just cut out in a short period of time?

This video shows Ken trying to woo the children. It's a complete corruption of science and reality. It's a get them while they are young attitude, much like religion. The best part is he knows that they run away as they become adults. He tries to explain it away, but the reality is that religion is dying out and we are simply a few generations from the total collapse of Christianity. Today's youth are 30 to 40% non-believers. We are open and don't allow the silliness to permeate in our generation like it does in the Baby Boomers. Bring evidence or it didn't happen is our mantra. It's that way from the plethora of lies the Baby Boomers and older generations always told us. ie, wear a hat or you'll catch a cold.

In Evolution he claims that species can change over time within a "kind". The best part of this is the age of the Earth. If the Earth is only 6000 years old, and we are here 4000 years after the flood killed everything but pairs of animals, then you have shortened the time for diversity to occur. Think about that. There are 400+ species of sharks. All evolved in 4000 years? If they are appearing at that rate given they started with one species, shouldn't we be seeing a couple of new species of sharks every year by now? You have destroyed your own claims of biodiversity occurring by shortening the time allowed with the flood and age of Earth claims. It's not a well thought out claim.

In using an inerrant Bible they (Answers in Genesis) are forced to deal with incest and how the Adam and Eve children must have had sex with each other. Link The best part of this is a graph that shows Adam and Eve having children at 130 years old. I guess menopause and male virility were not issues then. How about the lack of birth control and their abject ignorance... how did they prevent pregnancy before then but go on to have 30+ children after 130? That's pretty good too. Care to defend that line of thinking? What a horribly ill-conceived story.

I wonder if Ham is aware that the Catholic Church accepts modern science and even Evolution? [GASP!] This video has a audio track that is off but it shows a Vatican Astronomer, George Coyne, accepting science and mocking those that don't.

Conclusion

Creationists make claims that are silly in order to keep their faith. There is big money in doing so too. Support from wealthy religionists, churches, etc. will bolster these groups. You can see that religion is being defeated with no money. All that we need to do is sit back and let the creationists do the work for us and make assailable claims. Your very existence is a detriment to your religion. It's terribly ironic because you claim to exist to bolster the religion and the inerrancy of the Bible. Look, it's a childish and uneducated claim. Stop already. You only damage the potential for any future religion. Picking and choosing science when it fits your preconceived notion is not a way to gain knowledge. The ethical way to act is to address your errors and always seek the best explanation. Any ethical creationists out there?

Views: 194

Tags: Creationist, Debunk, Inerrant Bible, Ken Ham

Comment by Gaytor on August 2, 2010 at 10:36am
Thank you gentlemen.
Comment by Kristi on August 8, 2010 at 11:08am
Rock. On. Thanks for the Bart Ehrman link--I loved his book Misquoting Jesus and I am sure I will enjoy the video as soon as I get a chance to watch it!

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

Atheist Sites

Blog Posts

In Avoidance of Anger

Posted by Pope Beanie on November 27, 2014 at 4:59pm 0 Comments

The plane that never crashed

Posted by Brazillian atheist on November 27, 2014 at 12:17pm 1 Comment

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service