www.ditl.org

Ken Ham is in the same league as Ray Comfort. Google "Ray Comfort and the banana". He also has a Twitter and Facebook account. Both of which are quoted by atheist/agnostic sites as a form of entertainment. Another famous quote he once said was the Sun was a ball of concentrated God's love.

It makes sense and it is natural for scientists not agree with each other and be resistant. But it still works. The difference between science and creationism as that is what the debate was about, is that science looks for the answer whereas creationism has the answer and looks for facts.

Unfortunately, a lot of Americans think like Ken Ham.

McAvoy wrote:Unfortunately, a lot of Americans think like Ken Ham.

Are you sure "think" is the right term to use in this context?

Good point.

Yeah I first heard of Ken Ham when I was watching PBS and BBC specials on the "Intelligent Design" debate several years ago. Ken Ham was talking about how people rode on dinosaurs and in Garden of Eden they ate plants, not animals. He says the way rocks are (layered and turned up which shows to real science of the age of fossils) that the Great Flood moistened the rocks so they were soft. Yeah because we all know when we put water on granite and limestone it is as soft as clay.

This Indian businessman, Datta Phuge, had 15 goldsmiths working for 15 days to construct him a shirt made out of solid gold. The shirt is made of 14,000 gold flowerings that have been interwoven with 100,000 spangles sewn into a base of white velvet and features six Swarvoski buttons. It cost $230,888, about a third of his total worth. And he did it for the babes, even though he's married to a politician.

http://www.businessinsider.com/indian-m ... z2sXzCQ39v


It might not be a funny pic but it definitely isn't cool enough to go in the "Cool Pictures" thread.

To be honest, If I was stupidly wealthy, that's the sort of thing I would buy.

I love shit like that...

Captain Seafort wrote:

McAvoy wrote:Unfortunately, a lot of Americans think like Ken Ham.

Are you sure "think" is the right term to use in this context?

BAZINGA!

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Vic wrote:Not all debates turn out to be that, unfortunatly most do. How many ways can I sneer at the other side tell them that they are idiots? Many are chest thumping (in a very academic way of course), and/or condemnation fests. When Bill Nye says that evidence will change his mind he means evidence that he will accept as such. All one has to do is listen to how a scientist reacts to "evidence" to see that one scientists evidence is anothers trash. Hence completely subjective, any pretenses of objectivity are just pipe dreams.

And yet, science works. So you're wrong.

Just because science works does not make anything I have said wrong. By any stretch of the imagination.

Vic wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:

Vic wrote:Not all debates turn out to be that, unfortunatly most do. How many ways can I sneer at the other side tell them that they are idiots? Many are chest thumping (in a very academic way of course), and/or condemnation fests. When Bill Nye says that evidence will change his mind he means evidence that he will accept as such. All one has to do is listen to how a scientist reacts to "evidence" to see that one scientists evidence is anothers trash. Hence completely subjective, any pretenses of objectivity are just pipe dreams.

And yet, science works. So you're wrong.

Just because science works does not make anything I have said wrong. By any stretch of the imagination.

Then what you said isn't what you meant.

If evidence is subjective that means that science wouldn't work? Is that what you mean? All you have to do is pay attention to scientists to see that one scientists evidence is another scientists trash. Usually pointed out in the most condescending way possible or with outright hostility. Just because you choose to be blind to it doesn't mean that I have to.

I don't see hostility or condescension in any of the papers or journals I read. Scientists are trained to be skeptical. If you come forward with new evidence the natural instinct is disbelief. It's important to the process. Evidence isn't subjective but interpretation and understanding is subjective. Therefore by doubting new evidence until it can be verified by independent study it it makes science an objective process that does work.

The non-believers will eventually become condescending. The believers will eventually get to "well, you're just going to burn in Hell for all of eternity!" I think that being condencending is the MUCH friendlier of the two.

http://www.imdb.com/poll/9u3VlUFlwqw/results?ref_=po_sr

Hmm... Betty White in Star Wars. I think that has the potential to be an epic win.