Where in the world is Ken Ham?

Watch that blog. I just saw this: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7736120/ and I predict that the week won't end without Answers In Genesis claiming that it somehow destroys evolution and confirms creationism. Which is their new tactic to use on any discovery.

"The atmosphere - it's designed for radio." Oh man, you just gotta love those guys. You never know whether they're serious or playing a con game.

I think it's Russell's Undecidability Theorem, which states that it is impossible to distinguish between a creationist, and someone satirizing a creationist.

A number of young men came up to me to ask if, as Christians who were going to be teachers, they could be effective in the public schools. I made sure I told them they had to do what the Lord was directing them to do.

One young man told me he had just obtained his degree in science and now he was going to get his Ph.D.---and how he would love to work for AiG one day.

Another young man asked me how he could obtain an internship at AiG (in the Answers Dept. or Museum) so he could learn how to communicate the creation message to others.

One man came down to Dr. Menton at the end---he was an atheist. He was very angry with Dr. Menton. ... Well, this young man came up to Dave shaking and screaming---he was screaming something like "you lie---you lied for an hour and a half---you lied." Dave had talked about death and the resurrection. He then told Dave he wanted to be there when he died so he could do something (which we won't repeat here) on his grave!!

It's interesting that Ham can complain about the display of Ota Benga at a New York zoo, and blame it on "evolution" somehow, forgetting that it was a Christian missionary society that brought the poor guy to America and then refused to send him home.

Talk about projection!

Would anyone be remotely surprised if this 'story' about the rabid atheist was, er, a lie.

Anyway, when the time comes, feel free to form an orderly line behind me at Ham's grave.

You can see his inherent sexism within those as well, noting that he reports the 'young men' who came to the aid of the lord, but women are seemingly unimpressed. Maybe women are more infested with Satan or something.

Joe, womenfolk have such delicate constitutions, it's not right to expect them to fight the devil.

Joseph

You can see his inherent sexism within those as well, noting that he reports the 'young men' who came to the aid of the lord, but women are seemingly unimpressed. Maybe women are more infested with Satan or something.[/quotes]

They're not women. They're "ladies."

Or maybe the ladies just have some common sense.

I also have to agree with SteveF that the screaming atheist is nothing more than a contrivance. Much like the apocryphal Nikolai Bukharin story that gets trotted out every Easter.

re 28137:

Rather than fertilising the site, how about we salt the ground instead?

Rustopher.

Ken Ham only mentions men because it's harder for women to piss on his grave.

My bad

Speaking of Ken Ham, there is an article in today's Rutland Herald about AiG's new "museum" being built in Kentucky --> And man created Museum: New museum will explain science behind Creation

from Ham hand himself:

""This is going to be as good as anyone at Disneyland or Universal Studios could produce," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis. "But this is not a theme park. This is a teaching center."

the hell it ISN'T a theme park. It is the most "themed" park i can imagine!

This post has raised a very interesting question for me.

Are there any prominent female creationists/IDers? I appreciate there wil all was be a few "yes" women, but are there any that are really promoters?

Maybe the concept that they are nothing more than a rib is a bit hard to swallow?

There are some proponents of ID/Creation among women and they are listed at the ICR etc. They aren't the head public figures however, as only men tend to come up as their main leaders, IE Hovind, Dembski, Behe and the like.

In all fairness, in terms of the major evolutionary supporters that you see in the mainstream press, I could only name men as well. Miller, Gould and Dawkins would immediately come to mind.

I think in some respects is that women still are not as well recognised in many top tier aspects of science yet. My initial comment was more deriding Ken Hams (and other creationists) frequent mentions of the 'young men' and other individuals, which they primarily mention as having decided to spread the word of the lord against evilutionist materialism.

"In all fairness, in terms of the major evolutionary supporters that you see in the mainstream press, I could only name men as well. Miller, Gould and Dawkins would immediately come to mind."

uh, your kidding, right?

there was a whole thread about Eugenie Scott here just the other day:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000984.html

What?! Prominent evolutionary women in the national press? Eugenie Scott and Barbara Forrest just to name two. And a few dozen dozen women PhD's just doing science day in and day out.

Woem IDer's: Denyse Oleary, Nancey Pearcey, neither has science credentials.

You can see his inherent sexism within those as well, noting that he reports the 'young men' who came to the aid of the lord, but women are seemingly unimpressed. Maybe women are more infested with Satan or something.

11 A woman should learn in silence with full submission. 12 I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent. 13 For Adam was created first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed. 15 But she will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with good sense.

oh yes, most assuredly.

;)

I stand corrected!

"One young man told me he had just obtained his degree in science"

Are there any colleges that give a Bachelor's degree in "science"?

Are there any colleges that give a Bachelor's degree in "science"?

no, michael.

a BS is a bachelors OF science, not IN.

the person was asking if any college actuall offers a degree in "science"

as:

bachelors of science IN science.

or

bachelors of arts IN science.

comprendo?

STJ,

I was making a joke, but since you insist on being disagreeable...

A 'B.S.' is a bachelor's degree. What do you suppose it means to say of such a degree that it is 'of' science? Could it be that the degree concerns a 'scientific' discipline, that it is in a scientific field, and thus in science. Of course.

Verstehe?

Eek. My German is rusty. That should be 'verstehest'.

I would say: verstanden?

Let's see... A "B.A." is also a Bachelor's degree. A "B.S." can be earned in either the business school or the humanities school of an university as well as other schools. So is a B.S. in Management the same as a B.S. in Biology? In areas of their expertise, yes, in cross-fields, no. A degree is a symbolic award for one who has successfully completed the basics of the dicipline undertaken.

The last time I looked at my Bachelor of Science degree in Information Systems, it said "of", not "in". To quote Rush Limbaugh: "words have meaning."

finley, your thinking in general appears as rusty as your german.

one has to wonder if you even have a degree to begin with.

A new ansurs in genisis blog, and there's no link to it on the main aig page? dumb.

There's a new post up today on Ham's blog:

The aborigines---are they the "missing link?"

How can seven words be so dumb?