Creationist Ken Ham Offers Absurd Explanation for What’s Causing Climate Change

god-talking-to-ken-hamEven though I’m a Christian, I absolutely do not subscribe at all to the ridiculous belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old or the story of Noah’s ark. In fact, when it comes to creationists, I typically view them as insane people. In my opinion, someone would have to be mentally unhinged to honestly believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs once roamed the planet alongside humans. If you believe that then you might as well believe that unicorns were once the magical creatures used by leprechauns to reach their pots of gold that once rested at the end of every rainbow.


Well, possibly the most famous creationist, Ken Ham, recently wrote a blog post where he actually admits that climate change is real – but that’s where his sanity stops. Because, of course, he doesn’t believe climate change is caused by the ignorance of humans who believe that we can keep pumping poisonous gases into our atmosphere, destroying our environment and overpopulating the planet without it having dire consequences on our planet.

Ham believes that climate change is “things settling down” following “the flood.”

“Starting from the Bible, we know that there was a global Flood a few thousand years ago that completely changed Earth’s surface and climate, and that the earth is still settling down from this catastrophe,” Ham wrote. “So we should expect there to be some variations in climate change, but this is not alarming and is not the direct result of modern human activity.”

Yes, that’s Ken Ham saying that climate change is real – but it’s a result of the Earth settling down after “flood that washed away the sins of man.”

But he wasn’t done. Ham went on to write, “And yes—because of the effects of sin, the curse and the Flood—we will continue to witness climate change until the Lord comes!” 

And it’s nonsense like that which is so dangerous. To people like Ham, if our planet turns into an overheated, dry, uninhabitable planet, that’s just “all part of God’s plan.” To people like him, the end of the world is something they’re looking forward to. 

His comments reminded me of an article I wrote a few months ago explaining why it’s essentially pointless to try to have scientific debates with religious radicals.


What always amuses me about Ken Ham is that he often talks about “observational science” (as in what we can see with our own eyes) while simultaneously using the Bible as his only source of reference for his ideological beliefs. Yet he has absolutely zero observable evidence proving who wrote the Bible, when exactly it was written or proof of this man Noah who supposedly lived for around 900 years – or just about one-sixth of the supposed existence of the planet.

You mean to tell me that a human being lived for nearly one-sixth of the supposed existence of this planet (according to creationists), yet there’s absolutely no evidence him…anywhere?

It’s always comical to see Ham dismiss scientific experts presenting countless hours and decades of scientific research by simply asking, “Were you there? Did you see it? So how do you know?” Meanwhile, when he’s asked to prove his asinine theories, most of the time he simply says, “Well, there’s this book…”

As for me, when it comes to climate change, I think I’ll continue to side with the vast majority of the world’s scientists who say that it’s being caused by humans as opposed to someone who believes that a story about a man who rounded up every animal on Earth (including dinosaurs) onto a giant ark to avoid a massive flood is some kind of factual historical documentary.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Dan_ND

    Crazy as his comments may be, I see room for common ground and reason in his comments albeit a very small amount if room. He directly acknowledges that climate change is tied to the effects of sin. However, he fails to specifically define what of which sins that is. Let’s assume that he believes, due to the good book that God made us stewards of earth and all its creatures. If that’s the case, then wouldn’t defying God’s plan by willfully, recklessly, or negligently destroying the earth and its creatures be a grave sin? And then, since we should strive to not sin, shouldn’t it be he case that we should strive not to harm the earth and to correct the harms we’ve caused? Of course, I’m sure Ken won’t see it this way. He’d probably say that it is not our place to question God’s plan and that climate change being part of that plan, it would be sinful to interfere with God’s plan and compare that act to “you shall not tempt God”. Even so, I like that there is a way to reconcile his position with reality even if doing so is pointless.

    • Dave Taylor

      I’m printing this out and showing it to every climate change denier I run into, i agree that it is probably pointless but I want to see their faces when they read an intelligent answer to Ken Ham’s lunacy, that is if I can get them to read it.

    • JanMutcher

      Following that logic which is good by the way, he and like minded individuals shouldn’t be looking forward to the Lord’s return, they should be afraid, very afraid.

    • ShibumiMC

      The notion of “sin” is a religious construct. It has no place in a modern, civilized society. If it ever did.

      • This is nonsense. Merriam-Webster: Definition of SIN. 1. a: an offense against religious or moral law . b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible

        Hence, violating the moral law of a modern, civilized society is sin. So, the notion of sin most definitely has a place in a modern, civilized society, despite your bald, unsubstantiated (and, hence, worthless) assertion to the contrary.

        By the way, “If it ever did.” is not a sentence, moron.

      • ShibumiMC

        Let’s be very clear. Religion and superstition have no place in a modern society. And morality is socially based, not religion-based. We have no need today of spooks, fairies and gods and all such things. Thank you.

      • You’re backpeddling. I was refuting your statement about sin. It’s false. Don’t try to change the subject.

        Furthermore, you are quite big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Since you do this, you are obviously not intelligent enough to know that doing this is a complete waste of time for everyone reading these assertions, including yourself. All such assertions are illegitimate and excluded from any intelligent conversations. Why is that? Because, if we include such assertions, then anyone can assert anything, which inevitably leads to moronic conversations, the kind of conversations which you obviously prefer.

  • Everyone knows that we didn’t have rainbows until *after* the flood.

    • Dave Taylor

      So were there no Leprechauns either or just no place for them to hide their gold ?

      • The Leprechauns didn’t need to hide their gold until they were flushed out of their hidey-holes by the flood.
        The wetness left by the flood also allowed ‘toadstools’ to become more abundant.
        As for the Unicorns, according to a popular song, they were playing in the rain and didn’t board the boat in time.

  • Robert Carlson

    Dear Mr .Ham, don’t cha know that the Earth, everyone one on it who is or ever was including all the evidence of 6,000 years existence (including the Bible itself) was created on Monday as 4:18 PM. Happy birthday Mr. Ham.

    • Your argument is a straw man, Robert Carlson. You are not God. So, your word about when everything was created does not have the authority of God behind it. Indeed, we know that your word is a lie, because God does not lie. You, on the other hand, obviously do,

      • Gary Menten

        “That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not.”

        Thomas Paine

        Chew on that for a while, why don’t you?

      • This is a straw man. The fact that priests can lie is totally irrelevant to my argument. The fact that you obviously think that it is relevant demonstrates that you have an abysmal hold upon logic. I have no doubt that you quoting Paine out of context. I highly doubt that he would have made so egregious of a logical error as yours. As for the Bible, the Bible cannot lie because the Bible is the Word of God and God cannot lie. If the Bible lied, it would be God who was lying, since the Bible is His Word. This shows that Paine was wrong about whether the fact that God cannot lie is a proof that the Bible does not lie. It is hard to imagine how Paine could have missed so obvious of a proof of this fact as that which I gave above.

      • Gary Menten

        I am only making a straw man argument if I misrepresent your position. Since your position is that Huckabee is a former preacher preaching the Bible , he can do no wrong, then my statement is perfectly valid since:

        A. The bible is revealed religion. There is no evidence whatsoever that it was authored my God, and certainly Thomas Paine didn’t think it was.

        B. The Bible is filled with errors and stories that cannot be validated by scientific method and for which we have only the word of the author as proof.

        C. Many priests have been caught telling lies and many more will likely be.

        “Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course. But we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time. It is therefore at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie. ”

        Thomas Paine.

      • Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never said a word about Huckabee. But even if I had, it would be irrelevant to my statement about God not lying. Since that is the statement you criticized, your criticism is a straw man.

        It doesn’t matter a hill of beans how many people don’t believe that the Bible is the Word of God. All men are responsible for knowing that it is the Word of God and have all that they need to confirm this fact.

        I can most certainly offer evidence that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible is all the evidence I need. Just as a proof proves that it is a proof, the Word of God proves that it is the Word of God. The former is not circular reasoning, neither is the latter. If you claim that either is circular reasoning, then you demonstrate that you have not got a clue about logic.

        You’re big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Such assertions amount to nothing. So, you’re wasting your time making them.

        Thomas Paine is quite silly. Whether something is true or false has absolutely nothing to do with probability.

      • Gary Menten

        My mistake about the Huckabee remark. I do very much appear to have confused you with someone else I answered to and I apologize for this. I should have paid closer attention.

        Now then to you. The bible is no evidence. It is a book of uncertain authorship that has as much plausibility as a Harry Potter novel. It is revelation, no more no less. Revelation is by it’s nature limited to the first communication. After that, I have nothing more than the word of someone who took another’s word who took another’s and so on for three thousand years. This might work for you, but science will not accept your circular arguments, and neither will I. It is you who is making circular arguments here.

        The Thomas Paine Quote is bang on. Look up the laws of probability sometime. But first, stop making circular arguments, and tell me then how is it you know that the Bible is indeed the work of God? What evidence do you have?

        No circular arguments please.

      • As I said, if you claim that my argument is circular, then you demonstrate that you have not got a clue about logic. My argument is not circular by any stretch of the imagination. As I pointed out, it is no more circular than pointing out that a proof proves that it is a proof, which is a perfectly valid non-circular logical argument. You’re full of crap to say that my argument is circular. You don’t know about what the hell you are talking. I know about what I am talking. I am an expert on logic with a thirty year career of publishing original proofs of my original mathematical theorems in some of the best mathematical journals in the world. I certainly know a circular argument when I see one. My argument is not circular despite your bald, unsubstantiated assertion to the contrary, which assertion is worth nothing.

        You’re full of crap. I have made no circular arguments. You are just mindlessly asserting that I have. You apparently are not aware of the fact that bald, unsubstantiated assertions amount to nothing.
        The Thomas Paine Quote is nonsense. The truth or falsehood of a statement has nothing to do with probability. You don’t decide the truth or falsehood of a statement by taking a poll. That is an irrefutable fact, despite Thomas Paine’s nonsense.

        All men, reading the Word of God, know that it is the Word of God. They are made in the image of God and, as part of that image, they have knowledge of God. This includes the recognition of God’s handiwork. All men share this. But some men suppress this truth in unrighteousness. Knowing God, they refuse to honor Him or to give Him thanks. This is why sin is so sinful. It is thoroughly inexcusable. Men can not claim ignorance. If they are blind, it is a culpable blindness, a blindness for which they can offer no excuse.

      • Gary Menten

        Let’s take your own words here.

        “As for the Bible, the Bible cannot lie because the Bible is the Word of God and God cannot lie.”

        How do you know that God cannot lie? Because the bible says so? If that’s the case, then you have made a circular argument.

        Because priests say so? Well, priests lie.

        How do we know by the way that the Bible is the word of God? Because God says so? How do we know God is telling the truth? Because the Bible says so?

        Circular arguments.

        “All men, reading the Word of God, know that it is the Word of God.”

        Please offer your evidence.

        “The laws of probability do not imply that truth and falsehood are matters of probability. Your suggesting that they do demonstrates that you are either a moron or a pathological liar.”

        Get your money back on your math degree. If you have zero miracles on the one hand, (nature going out of it’s course) and millions of lies being told on the other, what is the probability note that I do not say “certainty,”) that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie?
        When push comes to shove, you have a whole lot of name calling and ad-hominem attacks, unverifiable claims and nothing else. What you assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence.

        Dis-Missed!

      • You’re very big on raising straw men. You set up several straw men and knocked them down. Congratulations, you just showed how moronic you are, engaging in a thoroughly moronic activity, raising straw men and knocking them down.

      • Gary Menten

        Dear, dear James,

        It’s your unfounded claims and mistakes I’ve knocked down, nothing else. And I did it without calling you names.

        In the immortal words of Col. Klink…..

        Dis-Missed!

      • You’re hopelessly deluded. You’ve accomplished absolutely nothing. You cannot accomplish anything by raising straw men and making bald, unsubstantiated assertions. Both activities are moronic activities, accomplishing absolutely nothing. So, no, you didn’t knock down anything I proved. You just knocked down your straw men. That’s an irrefutable fact, since you never once substantiated any assertion which you made.

      • Gary Menten

        Poor James, it is you that is making straw man arguments, not me. It is you that accuses me of saying (through Paine) that probability is the same thing as certainty, whereas I wrote no such thing. What Paine is saying is simply that when odds are millions to one that who reports a miracle tells a lie, we should be very careful not to take this person at his word; not to give him our life savings etc. Check his evidence. Practice tough methods of thought.

        If I tell you I met God (literally) in the subway today and he told me that his real name is Phil, and that he wants government to legalize marijuana growing, would you take me at my word? If I told you I saw the face of Christ in a potato , wouldn’t you insist on examining that potato yourself? And what if you thought that potato looked more like St-Thomas Aquinas? Or Don Rickles? Is there still a miracle?

      • I have not raised a single straw man. You, on the other hand, have raised a number of straw men. I have pointed this out when you did it. This is not up for debate. It is an established fact, established by your posts.

        You’re a pathological liar. I never accused you “of saying (through Paine) that probability is the same thing as certainty,”. You make up your crap as you go along. This makes you a thoroughly untrustworthy person.

        What you now introduce from Paine is irrelevant. I was criticizing your original quote from Paine. And, my criticism of that is irrefutable. It’s nonsense.

        Your last paragraph is mental diarrhea. You really should see a physician about that problem. That volume of diarrhea is definitely indicative of serious health problems.

        If you told me any of those things, I would not trust you at all. In fact, I would know that you were lying. I would not be surprised at this in the least, since you are a pathological liar, as I previously demonstrated.

      • Gary Menten

        Pfftt.

      • You’re embarrassingly childish and hopelessly self deluded. My arguments have completely refuted all of your banal crap. You have scored no points, since you have substantiated none of your assertions. I, on the other hand, have scored several points, proving all of my assertions. Yet, you act as if you’re on top of this debate. It is quite a pathetic thing to watch a complete and utter loser tell himself, “I won.”.

      • Gary Menten

        Once again…..pffft.

      • You’re hopelessly self deluded. You have scored zero points in this debate, since you have not substantiated any of your assertions. I have scored several points in this debate, proving all of my assertions. Yet, you act as if you have the upper hand in this debate. It is quite painful to watch a complete and utter loser, yourself, tell himself: “I won.”.

      • You’re pathetically childish and fully self deluded. My arguments have refuted all of your banal and juvenile posts. Yet you act as if you are on top of this debate. It is quite pathetic to watch a complete loser tell himself: “I won.”.

      • You’re quite childish and quite self deluded. You’ve scored no points in this debate, since you substantiated none of your assertions. I, on the other hand, have scored many points in this debate, proving all of my assertions. Yet, you act as if you are on top of this debate. It is truly a pathetic thing to watch a complete loser (yourself) say to himself: “I won.”.

      • You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic.

        You’re a pathological liar. I never accused you “of saying (through Paine) that probability is the same thing as certainty,”.

        Your new quote from Paine is a straw man. I criticized your original quote from Paine. My criticism of that quote is undeniable. It’s nonsense.

        Your last paragraph is mental diarrhea. I really recommend that you see a doctor. Producing that volume of diarrhea is definitely an indication of serious health issues.

        If you told me those things, then I would not trust you. Indeed, I would know that you are lying. I would not be surprised. After all, as I have previously shown, you are a pathological liar.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.0000

      • You have not substantiated a single assertion which you have made. I, on the other hand, have substantiated all of my assertions. So, you’re the pathetic figure here, not me.

      • Stephen Barlow

        how long did all those responses take you you frigg nidiot?

      • I have no idea. I am no friggin’ idiot. I am an internationally renowned highly recognized mathematician. Idiots don’t achieve that level of recognition. Your assertion to the contrary is sheer mental diarrhea, bald, unsubstantiated assertion, which only a moron would make, since it is a complete waste of time to make such an assertion, as it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Do you entertain yourself by doing nothing? If you do, then I’m not surprised. After all, you’re a moron.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You are to deluded to be anything BUT a Frignidiot.

      • You’re quite the moron. The fact that there may be a probability that something is true or false in no way, shape or form implies that truth or falsehood is a matter or probability. You are being quite incorrigible when you don’t concede the obvious fact that whether something is true or false is not a matter of probability, that one does not determine truth or falsehood by a poll. It doesn’t matter if a billion people believe a falsehood and no one believes its false. It’s still false. It doesn’t matter if the probability that a true statement is 1/4. It’s still true. These assertions are fully obvious. So, the truth or falsehood of a statement is not a matter of probability. If you cannot concede that, then you are a pathetic individual indeed.

      • Gary Menten

        Here we go…name calling again. Probabilities, not certainties, this is what I’m talking about. Speaking of methods for determining the truth? What are yours? It doesn’t seem you have any beyond saying that the Bible is the word of God, God cannot lie, and anyone who has read the Bible knows it is the word of God.

        By the way, do you have any miracles to report?

      • You are a pathetically moronic partisan bigot. You’re mocking me accomplishes absolutely nothing. It is just another way of your displaying how moronic you are.

      • Gary Menten

        I am a bigot? Oh really? And on what evidence do you base that? That I reject your religious beliefs as being unfounded? Maybe you also need to get a refund on your high school diploma as you don’t really have a good grasp on English either.

      • I have a fine grasp on the English language. You are most definitely a partisan bigot. Indeed, you are a textbook case of a bigot. Your posts in this thread establish that in an irrefutable manner.

      • Gary Menten

        Double -pfft. Come back when when you have anything you can demonstrate, other than with empty arguments and name calling. This is not the way science works, nor any other discipline.

      • You’re quite moronic. I have not at all engaged in the childish game of name calling. I have proven that your a moron and then appealed to this established fact. This is not name calling. If it is, then a judge is involved in name calling when he says that a convicted murderer is a murderer. That shows how moronic is your understanding of what constitutes the childish game of name calling.

        None of my arguments are empty. They are all decisive irrefutable arguments, as any competent logician will readily confirm.

        You’ve got absolutely nothing. You have not substantiated anything which you have asserted. Hence, you have yet to begin to contribute to this discussion.

      • Gary Menten

        Who is John D. McCarthy again?

      • I assume that he is the same John D. McCarthy that he was before.

      • Your hopelessly self-deluded. I have no empty arguments and, as I explained previously, I have not ever been involved in the childish game of name calling. Only your moronic understanding of what constitutes the childish game of name calling could regard me as having been involved in the childish game of name calling. It’s not surprising that you have that understanding. After all, you’re a moron.

      • You’re hopelessly self deluded. I have not made any empty arguments. All of my arguments have been substantial, completely refuting your banal and juvenile posts. I have already explained that I have not been involved in the childish game of name calling. Only on the basis of your moronic understanding of what constitutes the childish game of name calling could one conclude that I involved myself in the childish name of game calling.

      • I have a fine grasp on English. You are definitely a partisan bigot. This is not up for debate. Your participation in this thread demonstrates this beyond any attempt at refutation.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.00000

      • You have not substantiated a single assertion which you have made. I, on the other hand, have substantiated all of my assertions. You’re quite a pathetic individual. Giving such a pathetic performance, you attempt to make me look like I am inept. You’re so hopelessly self deluded, it’s painful to behold you.

      • My participation in this thread, if you had been paying attention to it, demonstrates that I have much more methods available to me for determining the truth than those you state. The primary method I have used here is proof. This is what I make a living at, proving statements. I’m quite good at it, as is proved by my publication record. You, on the other hand, have not got a clue as to how to prove something.

      • Gary Menten

        Arguments from authority mean nothing.

      • This is a straw man. I made no argument from authority. But, even if I had, it would hold weight, despite your bald, unsubstantiated assertion to the contrary. Try telling what you said to a physicist who has a choice to listen to Stephen Hawking or some physicist at Michigan State University. I’m sure that he recognizes quite keenly the value of authority.

      • Gary Menten

        No-one in science gives much weight to arguments from authority. This is one of the dead giveaways that your are a fake. Everyone, even Stephen Hawking has to “show his math.”

      • Your full of crap. I have worked in science for thirty years. Scientists give much weight to authority. You don’t have a clue about what you are talking. You are just making up your crap as you go along.

      • This is a straw man. I have made no arguments from authority. But, even if I had, they would bear weight. Try telling a physicist who has a choice between listening to Stephen Hawking or a physicist from Michigan State University that authority has no meaning. That’s complete nonsense.

      • This is another one of your moronic straw men. I have made no arguments from authority.

      • You obviously don’t know what is the ad hominem fallacy. As my son would say, the ad hominem fallacy is not saying that your opponent is a moron. The ad hominem fallacy is saying that your opponent is a moron and, hence, his argument is false. The former is merely an observation or a false statement. The latter is a logical fallacy. More specifically, it is a nonsequitur; its premise does not imply its conclusion. There is absolutely nothing illogical about calling my opponent a moron, so long as that accusation is substantiated. It is most definitely not the ad hominem fallacy as you moronically suggest. It is also something that can be quite helpful. Why would an audience want to waste their time listening to a moron? The quicker they learn that one of the parties in the debate is a moron, the quicker they can go about doing something more productive with their time than listening to a moron.

      • Gary Menten

        2nd rate evasion….no third rate. Answer the question

        How do you know that God cannot lie? Because the bible says so?

      • I have already answered this question. My answer is not the one you made up to raise a straw man and knock it down, like a moron.

      • Gary Menten

        No, you haven’t.

        BTW, would Christ approve of you calling people morons for disagreeing with you, and challenging your statements, or is it just that you are a lousy Christian?

        Which is it?

      • I most definitely have. If you are too stupid to follow my argument, that is not my problem, it’s yours, moron.

        You’re big on raising straw men. I did not call you a moron because you disagreed with me or because you challenged my statements. I called you a moron because I proved that you are a moron. Hence, that you are a moron is an established fact, which I am free to use as I please.

      • Gary Menten

        You’ve proved nothing other than you are a very angry and rude person, who is completely incapable of making an argument that is not circular and worthless, AND that you make baseless accusations. But you have done a very good job of that; I’ll grant you that.

      • You’re hopelessly self deluded. None of my arguments have been circular. None of them have been worthless. You are just mindlessly asserting that they have been circular and worthless. You are obviously too stupid to know that making such moronic statements is futile. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. I am not angry and I am not rude. I am perfectly calm. There is nothing to get angry about. It is so easy to refute all the banal and juvenile crap that you spew forth from that sewer you call a mouth (crap flows out of a sewer). Your position is totally bankrupt. If you claim that my arguments are not valid, then just try to refute one of them. When you try, then we will see what we have already seen; namely, your position is totally bankrupt. You lost this debate a long time ago. You just are not a decent person, a person who would concede defeat. Instead, you start your slimeball tactic of muckraking to make me look bad. You are truly a scumbag.

      • You are hopelessly self deluded. I am not an angry person. I am not a rude person. There is nothing for me to be angry about in this thread. You have made it much to easy for me to refute your banal and juvenile posts. Calling a moron a moron is not rude. Morons deserve to be called morons. I’m just giving you what you deserve. There is nothing rude about that.

        I have made no baseless accusations. I have established all of my accusations. They are all firmly grounded in fact.

      • I most certainly have. If you are too stupid to follow my arguments, that is your problem, not mine.

        You raise another one of your moronic straw men. You seem to be quite infatuated with that moronic activity. I did not call you a moron because you disagreed with me or because you challenged my statements. I called you a moron because I proved that you are a moron, which then left me free to say that you are a moron, using a substantiated assertion.

      • I most certainly have.

        You are quite big on raising straw men, another moronic activity. I did not call you a moron because you disagreed with me or because you challenges my statements. I called you a moron because I proved that you are a moron and, hence, was free to say that your were a moron, appealing to a substantiated assertion.

      • I have not evaded anything. I have faced your challenges head on and refuted them. It is quite easy to do this, since your challenges are so banal and juvenile. You haven’t got a clue about how to construct a valid logical argument. I know what I’m talking about. If you were one of my students presenting your arguments as proofs, then I would flunk you. That’s a fact.

        I’ve already explained how you and I both know about God. Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

      • Gary Menten

        My comprehension it seems is much better than yours and much better than your alleged methods.

      • Your comprehension is abysmal. Indeed, it appears that you are operating without a functional brain. My methods are those of classical logic, the same sort of logic that has been used by the greatest minds since at least as far back as ancient Greece. You are full of crap up to the top of your head.

      • Gary Menten

        Your method of logic is to make circular arguments and call people moronic when it’s challenged.

      • Your hopelessly addicted to word magic. Bald assertions, without substantiation, are inadmissible in a logical argument. Apparently, you don’t know that, since you continually make bald, unsubstantiated assertions. I have not made a single circular argument. I have not called anyone moronic because my argument was challenged. I’ve called people moronic because I proved that they were morons and they did something moronic, such as making a bald, unsubstantiated assertion or a straw man. Your characterization of my methods is that of a pathological liar.

      • Your comprehension is atrocious. Indeed, it appears that you are working without a functioning brain. My methods are those of classical logic, the logic which has been used by the greatest mind since at least as far back as the ancient Greeks. So, you are full of crap up to the top of your head.

      • I have not been involved in any evasion. You have absolutely nothing. I won this debate a long time ago. You have been soundly skunked, earning zero points, since you substantiated none of your assertions. So, there really is nothing more to say. Just concede defeat like a decent person. Oh, I’m sorry, you’re not a decent person, you’re a total scumbag.

      • I have not evaded anything. i have faced every single one of your banal and juvenile posts and refuted them completely. You’ve got nothing. For that is what bald, unsubstantiated assertions amount to, nothing.

        I have already explained how you and I both know about God’s attributes. Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

      • Gary Menten

        Yawn

      • You tried to say that I was being evasive. You are the one who has been constantly evasive in our interchange. Whenever I refute one of your banal and juvenile assertions, rather than conceding that I have done that, like any decent person would do, like a slimy snake you change the subject. You’ve done this constantly throughout our interchange. You’re a slimeball.

      • Gary Menten

        Yawn

      • You’ve got absolutely nothing. Your position is thoroughly bankrupt. That is why you have been so evasive. Whenever I refute you, you run to another place, like the sniveling coward that you are.

      • Gary Menten

        Zzzzzz

      • You’re hopelessly childish. You have absolutely nothing to refute my refutation of you. Hence, like the slimeball that you are, you resort to childish mocking of me. Scripturally speaking, the mocker is one of the most vile persons on earth. That fits you quite well, moron.

      • Gary Menten

        Zzzzzzzz

      • Like I said, you’re hopelessly childish. When is your mother picking you up from day care, you sniveling coward and despicable partisan bigot? You are no intellectual. You’re a fraudulent blowhard. You go around pretending that you know things that you have not got a clue about. You’ve made that abundantly clear in this thread where you state one falsehood after another about just about any topic you raised.

      • Gary Menten

        Boring

      • Given that you’re a moron, it’s not surprising that you would find that boring. As my mother would say, some people’s taste is all in their mouth. Why are you so intent upon proving that you are a moron? Have you no self respect?

      • Gary Menten

        I’m living rent-free inside your head.

      • There you go again, spouting a falsehood. You’re a pathological liar, it’s a way of life for you. You should be put away for life.

      • Gary Menten

        Zzzzzz

      • There you go again, acting like a spoiled brat. You might as well have given me a raspberry. You’re totally pathetic. I don’t believe that I’ve come across anyone quite as stupid as you.

      • You have the social development of a redneck.

      • You and Ted Nugent would get along just fine.

      • You’ve got nothing, nothing at all. Your position is altogether bankrupt. That is why you never substantiate your assertions. You just mindlessly assert them. It
        is you that needs to grow up. Like a child, you expect people to accept what you say because you said it.

      • You’ve got nothing, nothing at all. Your position is fully
        bankrupt. That is why you never substantiate your assertions. You just
        mindlessly assert them. It
        is you that needs to grow up. Like a child, you expect people to accept what you say because you said it.

      • You’ve got nothing, nothing at all. Your position is completely
        bankrupt. That is why you never substantiate your assertions. You just
        mindlessly assert them. It
        is you that needs to grow up. Like a child, you expect people to accept what you say because you said it.

      • Gary Menten

        someone throw out the broken record player.

      • You’ve got absolutely nothing. That’s why you never substantiate any of your posts.

      • You’ve got absolutely nothing. That is why you never substantiate your posts.

      • Men are made in the image of God. This includes knowledge of God, knowledge of God’s attributes. In particular, we are created with the knowledge that God is perfectly true, with no darkness in him whatsoever. This implies that God cannot lie, since lying is contrary to being true.

        I already answered your question about how we know that the Bible is the Word of God. Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

        If I have a logical argument that all men reading the Word of God know that it is the Word of God, then I need no evidence to prove this. The logical argument proves it. And I gave this argument earlier. It appears to have gone in one of your ears and out the other. You’re a pathetic excuse for a student.

        I dispense with your nonsense about probability below.

        I need not get back my money for my math degree. My logic is perfectly sound. Yours, on the other hand, is pathetically moronic.

      • Gary Menten

        “If I have a logical argument that all men reading the Word of God know that it is the Word of God, then I need no evidence to prove this. ”

        The problem is Dear James, that you have neither a logical argument, nor evidence.

        yawn

      • You’re quite big on making moronic, bald, unsubstantiated assertions. I most definitely have a logical argument as any competent logician will confirm. You are just mindlessly asserting that I don’t, like a mindless moron.

      • Gary Menten

        Repetition and arguments from authority don’t amount to much of an argument.

      • If I repeated myself, then it was only for emphasis, as a review of my posts will confirm. I never made an argument from authority. You make up your crap as you go along. My arguments involve much more than repetition and arguments from authority. That you try to represent them in a negative light demonstrates that you are a pathological liar.

      • Gary Menten

        When you claim to be a mathematician and have published many books as if that were either true or as if it mattered, you making exactly that.

      • Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I was explaining how I know that my arguments are correct. That is a perfectly valid thing to do. My experience with proofs allows me to know that you are a bullshit artist.

      • Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I never wrote that I published many books. You’re learning disabled, aren’t you?

        I have already dispensed with your nonsense that authority does not mean anything. That’s complete and utter hogwash.

      • Gary Menten

        Oh, one last thing. Who’s John D. McCarthy? Is that the real life academic you’re pretending to be? No real-life academic would use language like yours or make such poor, completely circular arguments as you have, or spend as much time on the internet trying to sow discord. You are a fraud sir, and you have been exposed.

      • You’re hopelessly self deluded. I have not made any poor arguments or any circular arguments. You just continue to mindlessly assert that I have. You’ve got nothing. You obviously think that you have something. But, bald, unsubstantiated assertions are nothing. You have not proven that I am a fraud. I am not. And you have not exposed me. There is nothing negative about me to expose. You are just mindlessly asserting that there is. This is your modus operandi, making empty moronic assertions (i.e. bald, unsubstantiated assertions).

      • Gary Menten

        Once again,

        Who is John. D. McCarthy?

      • Stop trying to derail the issue at hand. I’ve completely destroyed all of your banal crap.

      • Your quite big on making bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which is a moronic activity, fit for morons, like you.

        I have made no poor arguments. I have made no circular arguments. Any competent logician will readily confirm these facts.

        I am not trying to sow discord. I’m set upon proving that you are what you are, a fraudulent blowhard, trying to appear as if you know things that you don’t. I’ve made that abundantly clear, but a little more support for that proposition can’t hurt.

        You have not shown that I am a fraud. You have not exposed anything negative about me. All that you have done is to moronically make a bald, unsubstantiated assertion that I am these things. Apparently, you are to moronic to know that making such an assertion is worthless, accomplishing nothing.

      • If I repeated myself, it was for the sake of emphasis, as a review of my posts will readily confirm. I never made an argument from authority. My arguments have involved much more than repetition and arguments from authority. Your attempt to characterize them as less than what they are is the attempt of a thoroughly despicable sleezeball

      • If I repeated myself, then it was for the sake of emphasis, as a review of my posts will confirm. I made no arguments from authority.

        My arguments have used much more than repetition and arguments from authority. Your trying to characterize them as less than what they are is the action of a thoroughly despicable pathological liar and partisan bigot.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.000000

      • You have not substantiated any of your assertions. I, on the other hand, have substantiated all of my assertions.

      • Gary Menten

        The guy’s a troll, Stephen, and I’m beginning to suspect I know his previous identity, though I could be wrong. His contribution to the discussion is to throw it off topic and I confess that I’ve been feeding this troll too long. Time to ignore him.

      • You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic, to the idea that you can establish an assertion by just asserting it. Anyone who believes that, as you do, since that is precisely what you do, assert something and act as if you established it, is a moron and certifiably insane. I have not thrown the discussion off topic. I have responded directly to posts in this thread. I am certainly no troll. Your assertion to the contrary is worthless, being unsubstantiated.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Must be typing onehanded, naked, in a mirrored closet!

        if you “follow them” you can hammer ever yon of their posts. It dills up their Discus box and immobilizes them for most convos for days. Just copy one of their long rants, and add a character each time you ‘reply’ as you go down their lost. Did about 75 in 6 minutes one buttmonkey.

        Hitthem when you are bored and they will have t make new accounts.

      • You have not substantiated any of your assertions. I, on the other hand, have substantiated all of my assertions. Yet, you believe that you are on top of this debate. It is quite pathetic to watch a complete loser (i.e. yourself) tell himself: “I won.”.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.0 0 0

      • You have not substantiated a single one of the assertions which you have made. I, on
        the other hand, have substantiated all of my assertions. So, you’re the
        pathetic figure here, not me.

      • Stephen Barlow

        00 You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.

      • You have not substantiated a single one of the assertions which you have made. I, on
        the other hand, have substantiated all of my assertions. So, you’re the
        pathetic person here, not me.

      • Stephen Barlow

        111Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.

      • You’re quite moronic. If several people make exactly the same mistake, then it is exercising thrift of my time, to post the same response to them, pointing out their moronic mistake. Can you fathom that, moron?

        You have not substantiated a single one of the assertions which you have made. I, on
        the other hand, have substantiated all of my assertions. So, you’re the
        pathetic person here, not me.

  • Mike Sloothaak

    I really get tired of people labeling their adversaries or critics as “insane.” This absolutely doesn’t apply to creation scientists or the like. That’s a cop-out for those of us who are committed to understanding the world around us.
    The arguments of creation science are typically non-sense to the vast majority of professionals in the appropriate fields: they can be easily explained away or shot down. But creation science ‘arguments’ don’t die after being shot down. That’s because their intended audience isn’t other scientists. It is lay people. Creation science is intended for the consumption of Christians without science training. These are the folks who are unable to apply critical thinking to the specialized arguments, find them consistent with their faith-based understanding of the world, and then decide to financially and emotionally support the “oppressed” creation scientists. Creation scientists are far from insane. Often they have not been successful as professional scientists, and have found through promoting creation science an alternative means to income and prestige.
    To dismiss creation scientists as “insane” is to let them off the eithical hook. These are quite clever, yet sinister, charlatans taking advantage of their sibling Christians; and doing a pretty good job of it.

    • Mike Sloothaak, you should not venture into logic. You obviously have not got a clue about logic. As my son would say, the ad hominem fallacy is not calling your opponent insane. The ad hominem fallacy is saying that your opponent is insane and, hence, his argument is wrong. The former is either a mere observation or a false statement. The latter is a logical fallacy. More precisely, it is a nonsequitur; its premise does not imply its conclusion. Just as I can get up and relieve myself during an argument, I can say that my opponent is insane during an argument. There is absolutely nothing illogical about doing that. It is not the ad hominem fallacy. Your suggestion that it is demonstrates how abysmal is your hold on logic.

      • Mike Sloothaak

        I can say that my opponent is insane during an argument. There is absolutely nothing illogical about doing that. It is not the ad hominem fallacy. Your suggestion that it is demonstrates how abysmal is your hold on logic.

      • You’re obviously obstinately incorrigible. What you give as a supposed example of committing the ad hominem fallacy is not such an example. You are clearly still operating under a misconception regarding the ad hominem fallacy.

        If all that you are saying is that the person criticized his opponent, then so what? There is nothing wrong with criticizing one’s opponent, even if one goes so far as to say that he is insane, so long as that statement is substantiated.

        Saying that it is my opinion that one would have to be insane to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy. I am free to have and to state any opinion I want to have and to state.

        The ad hominem fallacy would be to state that someone is insane and, therefore, his belief that the world is 6,000 years old is wrong. What you stated is not at all logically equivalent to this statement. In fact, what you stated did not even say that the belief that the world is 6,000 years old is wrong.

        Your logic is abysmal. You write: “Or: the earth is not 6,000 years old because only an insane person (no sane person) could believe this.” You offer this as a statement which is supposed to be logically equivalent to your quote. Well, it is not at all logically equivalent to your quote. I recommend that you not venture into logic. You have not got a clue about logic.

        I need no help from my son with logic. I am an expert on logic, having a thirty year career of publishing my original proofs of my original mathematical theorems in some of the best mathematical journals in the world.

        You, on the other hand, need all the help you can get with logic, since you have not got a clue about logic.

      • Mike Sloothaak

        Apparently you have nothing to say on the subject at hand.

      • You’re hopelessly self deluded. I had plenty to say about the subject at hand. And, what I said totally refuted your previous statements. You’ve got absolutely nothing. Your position is bankrupt. I proved this. If you don’t follow the proof, just ask me some questions. I’ll try to get through your thick skull.

      • Stephen Barlow

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.0 0 0 0

      • You have not substantiated any of your assertions in this thread. I, on the other hand, have substantiated all of my assertions in this thread. Yet, your of the opinion that you have the upper hand in this debate. You’re a truly pathetic individual.

      • Stephen Barlow

        Hey Rubber stamp Fitzgerald!! You type the same garbage to EVERYBODY!!!

        You’ve obviously got nothing. Post after post, you give a string of bald, unsubstantiated assertions, which amount to nothing. Such assertions are inadmissible, since you did not substantiate them. So, you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion.1

      • If several people make the same mistake, then it is thrifty use of my time to use the same message pointing out their mistake. Can you fathom that, moron?

        You have not substantiated any of your posts. I, on the other hand, have substantiated all of my posts. Hence, you are the pathetic person, here, not me.

  • Gary Menten

    Ham’s arguments, like all of his other arguments are made without valid scientific evidence, and what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Yes, the world is getting warmer; massive amounts of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere as I write this is the culprit, not a mythical flood alleged to have taken place thousands of years ago.

    But Ken, as the world is getting warmer and oceans are likely to rise as a result, maybe you should stop building that fake ark and start trying to think of ways to build a real one. It may come in handy of Koch Bros. have their way.

    • You equivocated, which is a moronic thing to do. You started off talking about “valid scientific evidence” and, by logical prestidigitation, switched to talking about “evidence”. You should not have started with “valid scientific evidence”, since there is absolutely no requirement for a valid proof to be grounded upon valid scientific evidence. That is a requirement that you made up all by yourself, having no basis in the rules of logical arguments.

      • Gary Menten

        I have no criticisms to answer for to a fake mathematician.

      • You’re hopelessly addicted to word magic, to the idea that you can substantiate an assertion by just asserting it. The fact that you believe in word magic demonstrates that you are both a moron and certifiably insane. I am no fake mathematician and fraud. I can prove my eminent credentials if you want me to do this. I’ve published in some of the best mathematical journals in the world. You are quite a sleezeball to make a totally unfounded charge that I am a fake mathematician and a fraud. You are a despicable partisan bigot. This is not up for debate. It is fully established by your despicable behavior in this thread. You’re a scumbag.

      • Gary Menten

        No, John D. McCarthy has been. That’s not you now, is it?

      • John D. McCarthy has been what? Note that “No, John D. McCarthy has been.” is not a sentence, moron.

      • I am no fake mathematician or fraud. My credentials are established beyond dispute. You are quite a despicable partisan bigot to try to besmirch my reputation. You’re an utter sleezeball.

  • madlone

    What surprises me is that the author starts out by saying, “Even though I’m a Christian,…..” then goes on to mock the Bible. May I ask what kind of a Christian you are sir?