Evidence for God from Science

Adam_777 wrote:

zoegirl wrote:

canuck wrote:Forgive me too for asking this (I can't resist) but if you're going to appeal to Ken Ham and periods of time, how long a period of time do you think it may be before he makes parole?

Do you have any information about Ham being in jail? This is news to me. I know Hovind is in jail but let me remind you that Ad Hominem attacks are weak and lack substance. Maybe we should reject the ministry of the Apostle Paul flippantly too... he was in jail a time or two.

Technically, that was a genetic fallacy, not an ad hominem . . . in any case, invalid is invalid . . .

Carry on.

Seriously, when did Ken Ham go to jail?

Jac3510 wrote:Technically, that was a genetic fallacy, not an ad hominem . . . in any case, invalid is invalid . . .

Yup that, too. Genetic Fallacy on its way to Ad Homs.

Adam_777 wrote:Seriously, when did Ken Ham go to jail?

I was just trying to find out if he was out of prison or not - it is not easy to find out about it! He had been convicted a while back for not paying his taxes on employees or something . . .

cslewislover wrote:

Adam_777 wrote:Seriously, when did Ken Ham go to jail?

I was just trying to find out if he was out of prison or not - it is not easy to find out about it! He had been convicted a while back for not paying his taxes on employees or something . . .

No you guys are mixing up Ken Ham and Kent Hovind I'm pretty certain. Easy to do but I think canuck may owe us a retraction.

Well, personally, I think their (HOvind and Hamm) arguments stink as well, but since we have already discussed that...

It does speak to their respectability as a representative. *Especially* since they *do* present themselves as so high and mighty (we are the only ones to hold to truth, *we* are the ones that are trustworthy *they* are the ones that are attacking the foundations of our faith are Hovind's and Hamm's panic driven emotion laden appeal to the masses,[all the while Hovind and Hamm are generally creating panic and schisms in the church moreso than any OEC])

So yeah, I would say that they are a poor representation of the intellectual integrity of the church and do far more damage to church than any OEC has done.

I can hardly speak for Canuckster, but certainly he has more in his arsenal than simple ad hominem attacks....as he said in his response he couldn't resist [a little zing] in your direction.

I don't know if he was in prison but he certainly was in trouble for his taxes.

Zoegirl, you come off a little high and mighty too when you talk that way.

zoegirl wrote:I don't know if he was in prison but he certainly was in trouble for his taxes.

If you know please substantiate this or I'll consider this to reflect how you make conclusions about science too.

Here ya go

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderSe ... &x=19&y=12

"Since November 2006 Hovind has been serving a ten-year term in the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina, [4] after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including twelve tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents and forty-five counts of structuring cash transactions."

Yes, it is Hovind and not Hamm....

(they use many of the same arguments and thus tend to be switched a lot)

And glad to know you are willing to make such swift judgements about people

(COnsidering that it took YEC camps over 30 years to finally retract moon dust as evidence for young earth....pot calling the kettle black....seems your criteria needs to be applied on your own side! )

So you laugh dismissively after the confusion. Ham/Hovind... Tomato/Tamato

I think that's rather telling how much care is taken in making sure that proper information is being used. Why should your science be any more trust worthy if you don't care about a fellow Christian being slandered and mistaken for someone else just because you disagree with them?

zoegirl wrote:(COnsidering that it took YEC camps over 30 years to finally retract moon dust as evidence for young earth....pot calling the kettle black....seems your criteria needs to be applied on your own side! )

So two wrongs make a right now? I believe AiG was the group that made head way in receiving the new evidence. The moon dust theory was a good analysis until the calculations were known to be questionable.

What's your point, anyway? Is this how you discuss evidence? Unless people are perfect their arguments can't be considered. Well, I guess that takes both of us out of the discussion as well. Zoegirl, you may want to reconsider your approach. You know all those Psalms... better reject them... they were written by an adulterous lying murder.

Yeah, and as I've already pointed out, it took the YEC camps over 30 years!!! 30 years!! to admit that they used faulty calculations in moon dust, and that;s just one example....(and yes, I will gladly provide links if you need them)

Whereas you are getting all riled up over a little zinger and mild confusion!! They *are* mixed up often. They use very similar styles of arguments and the actual arguments themselves.

I wish you were as rabid about your own camp's misuse of information as you were in the last 20 minutes!

By the way there were disputes between them

The U.S arm of AiG, led by Ken Ham had an acrimonious split with its Australian parent in 2005. The Australian organization then split itself entirely off, now styling themselves as Creation Ministries International. Material critical of Hovind was no longer available on the U.S Answers In Genesis website, whereas the Australian CMI website still chose to retain the critical material.[62] The CMI article written by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati stated that the claims made by Hovind are "fraudulent" and contain "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good."[63][59] CMI also criticized Hovind for using "fraudulent claims" made by Ron Wyatt in his claims.[59]. CMI and others have concluded that in dampening their criticism of Hovind, AiG have endorsed Hovind and his ministry.

adam wrote:What's your point, anyway? Is this how you discuss evidence? Unless people are perfect their arguments can't be considered.

Nope, when someone questions my evidence and statments, however, I go to pains to back them up. YOu asked (well....accused is a more accurate term) my to back my statement up...within 5 minutes I did.

adam wrote: Well, I guess that takes both of us out of the discussion as well.

Ummm...doesn't tak me out....you asked....*I delivered*

adam wrote: Zoegirl, you may want to reconsider your approach. You know all those Psalms... better reject them... they were written by an adulterous lying murder.

And you might want to read my responses better. To be honest, their taxes could be perfect, their lives could be great and I would still think their arguments stink....


No, two wrongs don't make it right....it does, however, make your criticism far less powerful....As soon as you demanded it, I clarified it.

Hmmm....wish that would happen with more alacrity!

zoegirl wrote:I wish you were as rabid about your own camp's misuse of information as you were in the last 20 minutes!

Who says I'm not? I just don't see you looking at the issues objectively. I see you straining at gnats. I haven't insulted you but you've dismissively and unapologetically been insulting.

I'm not finding it humorous that people who are ministering to people's needs and are to be good stewards of information can disregard a large mistake like that. I can understand the mix up but I'm a little baffled at the following flippant dismissal with hands in the air "Well, if you know one YEC you know them all."

It's just disheartening, the disregard.

I freely admit, I confused Hovind with Ham and I apologize for the confusion. I did preface the comment recognizing the fallacy even if the confusion were not there but I can understand and accept the correction and laugh at myself for it along with everyone else.

Mea Culpa. Sorry.

Now how about the 95% of what I had to say surrounding that with regard to the substance of your comments. Maybe we could pick back up there.

blessings,

bart