Ken Ham uses young earth arguments debunked over 20 years ago in Bill Nye debate

CreationistPsudosciencee

Typically young earth creationists don’t use previously debunked arguments. They’ll simply invent new ones and hope there’s some kind of shelf life before they too start to smell funny when unwrapped. The creationists who have at least a tiny bit of integrity will do this, Ken Ham apparently has none.

In his debate with Bill Nye, in the typical young earth creationist Gish Gallop fashion, Ken Ham presented a graphic of numerous “scientific processes” which he said demonstrated an earth less than a billion years old. Even in the desperate cherry picking of pseudoscience, poor Ken Ham still can’t get close to 6,000 years. What makes it even worse is he presents “processes” that were debunked over 20 years ago.

A prime example of this was “meteor dust” which is in reference to the amount of dust on the moon. Not only was this argument debunked as an accurate measurement of age, it was debunked on Answers in Genesis’s own website in 1993.

"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense meteorite and meteoritic dust bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists’ multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v7/n1/moondust

Another example is “Earth’s magnetic field” which refers to the slight decrease of what is measurable and a claim that the field would be too strong 8,000 years ago. This argument ignores fluctuations and evidence that the magnetic field reverses itself. The question of “flipping” was published by a creationist back in 1988.
Humphreys, D. Russell, 1988. "Has the Earth's magnetic field ever flipped?" in Creation Research Society Quarterly 25, No. 3, pp. 130-137.

The “amount of helium,” “amount of sediment in the sea” and other “amount” arguments have also been debunked because the young earth creationists only take into account the factors that add certain substances and then ignore the processes that remove these substances and the point of which equilibrium is met.

Through measuring the amount of trash in your house, we can conclude that your home is no more than a week old. We can reach that conclusion by factoring the trash that comes into your residence every day and by completely ignoring the weekly trash pickup or any other consideration. Using half of equations in conjunction with “we don’t know something therefore god did it” is how young earth creationist arguments work.

At first these arguments may seem reasonable to someone who hasn’t given the matter much thought, but don’t be duped. Do your research. You don’t need to be a scientist in order to intelligently discuss evolution. All you need is the ability to read and the willingness to learn. Be objective and use evidence and reason as far as they will take you without any other consideration. Few things can be disproved, but what is the most likely scenario? When it comes to young earth creationist arguments, Google it. Chances are you’ll find a reliable source that points out the flaws.

A great source that I’ve used is from the Talk Origins Archive. Check out “The Age of the Earth” by Chris Stassen. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#humphreys

Here’s a recent article on how evolution is more than “turning on/off a switch” by Dr. Zachary Blount. http://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/zachary-blount-on-ham-on-nye-debate-follow-up-3/
“Regular E. coli cells have no existing genetic regulatory circuitry that “flips a switch” to allow them to start growing on citrate in the presence of oxygen.”

Another great source for countering pseudoscience is Rational Wiki.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

Here’s a great post Nye vs Ham video

Have some coffee with Claire as she explains additional dishonesty by Ken Ham's partners in fraud.

A book that filled many of my own gaps of evolutionary knowledge was Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

When someone shamelessly uses arguments that were debunked over 20 years ago, what does that tell us about their integrity? What does that tell us about their position?

Good luck to all the warriors in the battle of reason over superstition and may logic and reason be with you!

-James Kirk Wall

Please like my Facebook page at:
James Kirk Wall

To subscribe to this author, type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. This list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

Leave a comment