Ken Ham's Opening Day at the Ark. #FAIL only 4000 show up. (genesis, Baptist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I have a degree in Physical Geography with a minor in Geology. Ham is dishonest about how he portrays sedimentation resulting from his so called flood. I have taken sedimentology, paleontology, fluvial geomorphology etc which are probably courses that Ham would not take in his program. So you should believe me more than Ham on this. 😊
As far as Tyson making stuff up he is not here to defend himself. You on the other hand claimed that Nye claims to be a scientist but is only an engineer. He has various times declared himself as an engineer who loves science. You have made false yestimony against Nye and twisted meanings of words in an attempt to back up your dishonesty.
My apologies. I misspoke. Nye doesn't call himself a "scientist", but he claims to be the "Science Guy". He has a degree in engineering, not a natural sciences or biology degree, as Ham does.
My apologies. I misspoke. Nye doesn't call himself a "scientist", but he claims to be the "Science Guy". He has a degree in engineering, not a natural sciences or biology degree, as Ham does.
Thank you. Nye is a fan of science, reads lots, talks to scientists and has the skill set to take that information and present it in an educational and interesting matter. That is his only claim in science and he does a great job at it. Wouldn't an engineer know more about design than an environmental biologist? Wouldn't the thousands of scientists trained and working with radiometric dating be more knowledgeable about that than a person who most likely never took even a single undergraduate course on the subject?
As an aside, one of my former classmate has his PhD , teaches at a university and runs a lab doing dendrochronology . They regularly find trees that date back through the period if the flood and find zero evidence for it. Would he not be more credible than someone not trained in dating processes? You have chosen to believe one scientist with an undergraduate degree in an unrelated field, not over Bill Nye with his degree in Engineering, but over the degrees of thousands or tens of thousands of regular scientists with undergraduate , graduate and post doc degrees in their areas of expertise. Therefore it doesn't even matter than Nye has not got a science degree.
Thank you. Nye is a fan of science, reads lots, talks to scientists and has the skill set to take that information and present it in an educational and interesting matter. That is his only claim in science and he does a great job at it. Wouldn't an engineer know more about design than an environmental biologist? Wouldn't the thousands of scientists trained and working with radiometric dating be more knowledgeable about that than a person who most likely never took even a single undergraduate course on the subject?
But he does not have the degree, and is less educated on the topic than Ham.
Quote:
As an aside, one of my former classmate has his PhD , teaches at a university and runs a lab doing dendrochronology . They regularly find trees that date back through the period if the flood and find zero evidence for it. Would he not be more credible than someone not trained in dating processes? You have chosen to believe one scientist with an undergraduate degree in an unrelated field, not over Bill Nye with his degree in Engineering, but over the degrees of thousands or tens of thousands of regular scientists with undergraduate , graduate and post doc degrees in their areas of expertise. Therefore it doesn't even matter than Nye has not got a science degree.
In my opinion, the information presented by Ham is interesting, and there is reason to take it seriously. As you point out, one does not need a formal education to look at information and choose to believe or not believe it.
But he does not have the degree, and is less educated on the topic than Ham.
In my opinion, the information presented by Ham is interesting, and there is reason to take it seriously. As you point out, one does not need a formal education to look at information and choose to believe or not believe it.
Also, Ken is just the main the face of Answers in Genesis. There are quite a few well educated contributors to the organization and website. Of course, it would seem according to the posters here, these people with doctorate degrees are void of intelligence.
Also, Ken is just the main the face of Answers in Genesis. There are quite a few well educated contributors to the organization and website. Of course, it would seem according to the posters here, these people with doctorate degrees are void of intelligence.
My apologies. I misspoke. Nye doesn't call himself a "scientist", but he claims to be the "Science Guy". He has a degree in engineering, not a natural sciences or biology degree, as Ham does.
Engineering requires an extensive scientific base. Fluid transport, mass transfer, thermodynamics, etc are all essential to engineering. I have undergrad degrees in both engineering and a natural sciences field, and I learned much more about the scientific method and experimentation in my engineering classes than the chemistry ones. A degree in applied sciences with an emphasis in environmental biology really doesn't hold a candle to any engineering degree. Not that this will convince anyone that actually believes in a young earth or creationism though (don't know if you do, just speaking generally).
Getting real, anybody that denies evolution or believes in a young earth has zero clue about science and no credibility.
But he does not have the degree, and is less educated on the topic than Ham.
In my opinion, the information presented by Ham is interesting, and there is reason to take it seriously. As you point out, one does not need a formal education to look at information and choose to believe or not believe it.
No you have not presented any evidence that Ham has any education in evolution, geology or radiometric dating. Just having a degree in environmental biology does not mean he has any education in the fields involved in creationism. Most biologist for example do not take geology therefore their degrees do not give them education on geology.
You find it interesting but that does not make it plausible or even possible. Looking at the geology in my area, the only way that a global flood created it is if gravity was suspended, all geological processes acted totally different, atomic decay changed and the fossils were planted in place. In other words, just a bit of knowledge about sedimentology and geomorphology requires God to have used his power to use an entirely different set of natural laws during the flood. And how can that be science if the premise would be that the natural laws must of been different, we don't know what they were but it must mean that the Bible was correct? Sorry but this is religion not science.
I have much more respect for those who choose to belief in a young earth, the flood and no evolution because that is how they read the Bible than those who claim that science actually backs that belief. In fact I have no respect for the latter as they are comprised mostly of those unwilling to learn the actual science being lead by those who take advantage of the willful ignorance of science by those believers.
As I have mentioned in the past I have read a fair number of creationists/intelligent design books, papers and websites and found them wanting and often outright dishonest. Most of the fundamentalists that support intelligent design will not bother to even read a single proper book on evolution or on showing the flaws on flood geology. It is nit that I choose not to belief Ham but that from my readings, studies, field work and observations he does not make a plausible case for anything. The formal education does give you the tools to use in deciding what is plausible, possible or most likely. In science it is not choosing to belief, that is religion. In religion it is not looking at all the evidence and coming up with the best explanation to cover all the known facts, that is science. Ham's creationism is religion not science. You might also note that I am not saying that creationism is wrong but that it is not science. I will leave the belief for you to decide on your own.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
