Talk:Ken Ham

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon creationism.svg

This Creationism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png


Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

I feel like there's a lot more we could do with this article; for instance, until a minute ago, it didn't even mention Ham's connection to the Creation Museum. Especially with his planned opening of the Noah's Ark Park/Attraction/whatever, this should be something more. See, for instance, Kent Hovind as an example of a decent-sized article on a creationist. ThunderkatzHo! 22:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to delete the monkey picture as well. Do we really think M. Ham is that smart? ħumanUser talk:Human 09:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops[edit]

Noah's Ark Theme Park Loses $18M In Tax Breaks Unless They Hire Atheists. SophieWilderModerator 08:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Google rank[edit]

At the moment Conservapedia's article ranks higher than ours. Can we get ours higher with a bit of work? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, both ours and Conservapedia's appear on the 4th page of a non-personalized Google search. We've bigger issues than beating CP -- this page is likely never seen from Google at all. FuzzyCatPotato of the Congruent Question marks (talk/stalk) 18:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I see ours as fifth on the first page. Additionally, we are 8th on DuckDuckGo. CP is nowhere in sight. —Kazitor, pending 21:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Nye and Ham have a second debate[edit]

Ken Ham had another debate with Bill Nye AbdulAli (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ken VS Ray[edit]

I wonder who'll be the worst of the two. Clearly this is a contest for the second place, as both Ham and Comfort are at light-years of the Hovinds. --Panzerfaust (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

List of Ken Ham targets[edit]

I have compiled a list of well-known Christian leaders who have been attacked by Ken Ham/AiG with direct links to the AiG website. I call it the Wall of Honor.

It includes virtually everybody who’s anybody.

I do not wish to intrude or violate COI rules since it is on my website and nowhere else.

Anyone care one way or the other?

http://swilling.com/christian-leaders-criticized-by-answers-in-genesis/ Sjwilling (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Article appears based on dislike of subject rather than rational arguments and refuting his ideas logically[edit]

EDIT: I just found a [Saloon Bar | https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Idiot_whines_about_tone] article, which explains everything. My mistake. I'll withdraw and leave you to it.

---

So I'm new and more used to a Wikipedia approach to facts and figures. So forgive me if I don't actually "get" the point of this article.

My first reaction when I saw the crossed-out words in this article was that it was a joke article. Not an article that could be used in any way as a basis for further research. It contains personal attacks, judgements and presumptions. Ironically making the writer as bad as the man being criticised.

This is not rational. It's a personal attack. Fine, don't like the guy, that's an opinion. I don't like him either. The point of the wiki is to be rational. This article is the opposite.

Here's one of Ham's arguments from the page which I'm suggesting is rewritten much more logically:

"I want everyone to understand when you go backwards and say everything happened from natural processes, that's Bill's religion. His religion is that there is no God, the Bible is not true and everything started by natural processes. He has a religion, I have a religion. His is based off blind faith, mine is not because when you start with God's word it makes sense of the world that we see and we can use observational science to confirm it"

This statement contains several logical fallacies:

  • False Equivalence - A religion is a belief system, whereas the argument of natural processes is verifiable by several different methods, including radiocarbon dating of the fossil record, and DNA evidence to name two.
  • Ad Hominem attack - The personal attack comes from the attack on Bill's character, he positions himself as a scientist and supporter of science, yet Ham represents his beliefs as opposing God's writings, the creation story and the conjecture the Earth is 6000 years old. Bill is represented as opposing God's writings.
  • Appeal to Emotion - the argument that Nye's science is "based off blind faith" whilst Ham's is based on the word of God, appeals to the emotion of the crowd, largely christian fundamentalists, attending the Church. It's also, arguably, an Appeal to Authority, where the authority Ham defers to is God.
  • Circular Argument - Ham suggests science can prove the truth of God's word. Except God's word is not verifiable other than being God's word, taken as gospel. You can't prove something that's just written down. There's no way to verify the burning bush or Jesus' resurrection or Angels or Demons with Science or anything else.


Whether or not I've perfectly argued these points, surely this is a better way to make the point that Ham is a sheister of the highest order?

Ljsinclair (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)