Ken Ham (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

craig_cheatum -> Ken Ham (9/15/2008 3:18:44 PM)

I would like to know your opinions about Ken Ham if any of you know about him or who he is and can he be trusted in what he teaches. I am not sure since I have just been introduced to him through my father-in-law in a discussion we were having yesterday, it doesn't really matter if you are for Ken Ham or not I want both sides of the deabate if possible thanks.
Your brother in Christ
Craig



Jhud -> RE: Ken Ham (9/15/2008 3:21:09 PM)

quote:

I would like to know your opinions about Ken Ham if any of you know about him or who he is and can he be trusted in what he teaches. I am not sure since I have just been introduced to him through my father-in-law in a discussion we were having yesterday, it doesn't really matter if you are for Ken Ham or not I want both sides of the deabate if possible thanks.


I beleive he is currently in jail due to certain tax related charges; I am not sure what more one would need to know.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Ken Ham (9/15/2008 4:21:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I would like to know your opinions about Ken Ham if any of you know about him or who he is and can he be trusted in what he teaches. I am not sure since I have just been introduced to him through my father-in-law in a discussion we were having yesterday, it doesn't really matter if you are for Ken Ham or not I want both sides of the deabate if possible thanks.


I beleive he is currently in jail due to certain tax related charges; I am not sure what more one would need to know.


Right initials, wrong creationist; it's Kent Hovind who's in jail for tax fraud.

Ken Ham is only being sued by the former Australian branch of AiG.

They are both young earth creationists, so they both get failing grades in science.



cow451 -> RE: Ken Ham (9/15/2008 6:05:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I would like to know your opinions about Ken Ham if any of you know about him or who he is and can he be trusted in what he teaches. I am not sure since I have just been introduced to him through my father-in-law in a discussion we were having yesterday, it doesn't really matter if you are for Ken Ham or not I want both sides of the deabate if possible thanks.


I beleive he is currently in jail due to certain tax related charges; I am not sure what more one would need to know.


Right initials, wrong creationist; it's Kent Hovind who's in jail for tax fraud.

Ken Ham is only being sued by the former Australian branch of AiG.

They are both young earth creationists, so they both get failing grades in science.

Ken Ham built the creationism "museum" in Kentucky. Sort of a YEC version of Disney World (apologies to the Disney people).[8D]



Nothingman -> RE: Ken Ham (9/15/2008 6:55:49 PM)

Maybe this is why the Bible repeatedly stresses that the world shall know us by our love, and not by our scientific theories...phew!



drmark -> RE: Ken Ham (9/15/2008 9:38:54 PM)

Ken Ham is a fine Christian apologist who has founded an organization dedicated to upholding the basic truths of God's word. His teachings should be examined by the Berean method just as any high-profile Christian leader should be. I personally have never seen any doctrine promoted by Ham or AiG to be in conflict with esssential Christian doctrine. I would welcome specific examples of alleged doctrinal errors for discussion, if you would allow that on your thread, craig_c.



Jhud -> RE: Ken Ham (9/16/2008 12:50:04 AM)

Ye, my apologies for confusing the two - Ken Ham is a great fellow as far as I can tell, Ken Hovind, not so much.



DanJames -> RE: Ken Ham (9/16/2008 2:15:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Ye, my apologies for confusing the two - Ken Ham is a great fellow as far as I can tell, Ken Hovind, not so much.


Heh, well KENT HOVIND is someone that you either think speaks the very blessings of God or... well some people have nothing nice to say about him at all. I have yet to meet anybody that falls in between. KEN HAM on the other hand, I think is someone you can't help but like. He's done a great job at establishing a ministry that peer reviews material before it's published (my understanding is that this is a very grueling process, not for the faint of heart). He supports healthy family values, publishing a whole video series on raising godly children, equipped to face a world that will be unilaterally opposed to a Christian value system. He has a heart for making Christ known first, even questioning the value of the secular nature of the Intelligent Design movement. He is trustworthy, in my opinion, and eloquent. He's also very fun to listen to, if for nothing other than his aussie accent.



craig_cheatum -> RE: Ken Ham (9/16/2008 2:28:41 PM)

I am thankful for all of your insights on Ken Ham not the other guy (lol).
Craig



cow451 -> RE: Ken Ham (9/16/2008 2:32:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Ken Ham is a fine Christian apologist who has founded an organization dedicated to upholding the basic truths of God's word. His teachings should be examined by the Berean method just as any high-profile Christian leader should be. I personally have never seen any doctrine promoted by Ham or AiG to be in conflict with esssential Christian doctrine. I would welcome specific examples of alleged doctrinal errors for discussion, if you would allow that on your thread, craig_c.

Great guy, lousy scientist.



drmark -> RE: Ken Ham (9/16/2008 2:37:06 PM)

Although Ham has a Bachelor's degree in science, he does not generally call himself a scientist. Rather, Ham has assembled an amazing cadre of hard science PhDs in his organization that do the dirty work of reviewing articles, researching new findings, and presenting the YEC position on scientific evidence.



DanJames -> RE: Ken Ham (9/16/2008 2:38:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Ken Ham is a fine Christian apologist who has founded an organization dedicated to upholding the basic truths of God's word. His teachings should be examined by the Berean method just as any high-profile Christian leader should be. I personally have never seen any doctrine promoted by Ham or AiG to be in conflict with esssential Christian doctrine. I would welcome specific examples of alleged doctrinal errors for discussion, if you would allow that on your thread, craig_c.

Great guy, lousy scientist.

Hey great jab! He's a teacher and a CEO who understands how the scientific community works. He employs scientists and solicits volunteers who review material. It is not his own material, but that of the scientific community.



DanJames -> RE: Ken Ham (9/16/2008 2:39:31 PM)

Jinx, Dr Mark, you owe me a Coke



cow451 -> RE: Ken Ham (9/16/2008 2:49:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Although Ham has a Bachelor's degree in science, he does not generally call himself a scientist. Rather, Ham has assembled an amazing cadre of hard science PhDs in his organization that do the dirty work of reviewing articles, researching new findings, and presenting the YEC position on scientific evidence.


Great guy, intelligent, too. He employs lousy scientists.



iluvatar -> RE: Ken Ham (9/16/2008 10:29:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
He's done a great job at establishing a ministry that peer reviews material before it's published (my understanding is that this is a very grueling process, not for the faint of heart).


Peer review by other people committed to shoehorning the evidence into the same pre-concluded theory... Some peer review process that is.

As cow said, great guy, lousy scientist(s).

-Dan.



drmark -> RE: Ken Ham (9/17/2008 9:02:04 AM)

quote:

Peer review by other people committed to shoehorning the evidence into the same pre-concluded theory... Some peer review process that is.
My, my, Dan. Sounds exactly like peer review of evolutionists by other evolutionists to shoehorn the evidence into the same pre-concluded theory! Some peer review process that is! Evolutionists - sometimes nice, always lousy scientists.

Gotcha [;)]



cow451 -> RE: Ken Ham (9/17/2008 9:41:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Peer review by other people committed to shoehorning the evidence into the same pre-concluded theory... Some peer review process that is.
My, my, Dan. Sounds exactly like peer review of evolutionists by other evolutionists to shoehorn the evidence into the same pre-concluded theory! Some peer review process that is! Evolutionists - sometimes nice, always lousy scientists.

Gotcha [;)]

The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that the creation "scientists" are, in fact, inadequate scientists.



upNORTder -> RE: Ken Ham (9/17/2008 11:46:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Peer review by other people committed to shoehorning the evidence into the same pre-concluded theory... Some peer review process that is.
My, my, Dan. Sounds exactly like peer review of evolutionists by other evolutionists to shoehorn the evidence into the same pre-concluded theory! Some peer review process that is! Evolutionists - sometimes nice, always lousy scientists.

Gotcha [;)]

The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that the creation "scientists" are, in fact, inadequate scientists.



Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?




Is the evidence that they don't agree with evolution?



quote:

Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?

Gott im Himmel!



drmark -> RE: Ken Ham (9/17/2008 11:56:15 AM)

quote:

The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that the creation "scientists" are, in fact, inadequate scientists.
Is that how they received their PhDs from prestigious universities? By being inadequate scientists?



cow451 -> RE: Ken Ham (9/17/2008 12:52:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that the creation "scientists" are, in fact, inadequate scientists.
Is that how they received their PhDs from prestigious universities? By being inadequate scientists?


It is certainly a head-scratcher. I'd say, speaking statistically, they could be called "outliers".



cow451 -> RE: Ken Ham (9/17/2008 12:57:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: upNORTder

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Peer review by other people committed to shoehorning the evidence into the same pre-concluded theory... Some peer review process that is.
My, my, Dan. Sounds exactly like peer review of evolutionists by other evolutionists to shoehorn the evidence into the same pre-concluded theory! Some peer review process that is! Evolutionists - sometimes nice, always lousy scientists.

Gotcha [;)]

The evidence clearly points to the conclusion that the creation "scientists" are, in fact, inadequate scientists.



Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?




Is the evidence that they don't agree with evolution?



quote:

Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?

Gott im Himmel!

Sehr wahr!
The evidence is that they don't agree with most of what we consider basic aspects of evolution. But evolution covers species development. The YEC's also disagree with geology, physics, astronomy as well.



DanJames -> RE: Ken Ham (9/17/2008 7:47:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

The evidence is that they don't agree with most of what we consider basic aspects of evolution. But evolution covers species development. The YEC's also disagree with geology, physics, astronomy as well.

You don't pick your words very carefully do you? If I disagree with the idea that a rose evolved from blue-green algae, I disagree with science. If I disagree with the theory that a stack of layers that looks like a stack of pancakes formed from millions of years of sedimentation, I disagree with geology. Uniformitarians do not have the kung-fu death grip you think they do on the fields of science.



RobertByers -> RE: Ken Ham (9/17/2008 10:19:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: craig_cheatum

I would like to know your opinions about Ken Ham if any of you know about him or who he is and can he be trusted in what he teaches. I am not sure since I have just been introduced to him through my father-in-law in a discussion we were having yesterday, it doesn't really matter if you are for Ken Ham or not I want both sides of the deabate if possible thanks.
Your brother in Christ
Craig


Ken Ham has become one of the most significent advocates for science and its impact on the origins of many important things.
Since he defends the bible on origins therefore he is higher then those who get paid to do origin "science".
He is australian and has become such a agent of influence in creationist /evolutionist contentions that even Presidential hopefuls must answer about creationism because of him to a great extent. I.D. also stirred things up.
Ken ham has been a true leader with results beyond the energy of creationism's natural energy and impact. God has provided someone to really take it to the bad guys.
The museum idea, which i thought was wrong, turned out to be a great idea. Ideas are good but so is bricks and mortar.
Ken Han has made AIG a dynamic and threatening organization, along with ICR, against the stupid ideas of evolution or incomplete ideas of science.
This is a basic outline of why he is a important teacher leader for truth in origin subjects.



cow451 -> RE: Ken Ham (9/18/2008 10:51:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

The evidence is that they don't agree with most of what we consider basic aspects of evolution. But evolution covers species development. The YEC's also disagree with geology, physics, astronomy as well.

You don't pick your words very carefully do you? If I disagree with the idea that a rose evolved from blue-green algae, I disagree with science. If I disagree with the theory that a stack of layers that looks like a stack of pancakes formed from millions of years of sedimentation, I disagree with geology. Uniformitarians do not have the kung-fu death grip you think they do on the fields of science.


YEC is inconsistent with modern scientific knowledge period. Take different areas of science or any one aare and the result is the same. Paradigm shifts that occurred do not change that simple fact. YEC is inconsistent with science in the 21st century. Unless or until the evidence demonstrates otherwise, I'll go with scientists to explain science and theologeons to explain religion. YEC is a religious doctrine.



drmark -> RE: Ken Ham (9/18/2008 11:12:58 AM)

quote:

YEC is inconsistent with modern scientific knowledge period.
You really don't get it, do you cow. I can make the same bald assertion that GTE is inconsistent with modern scientific knowledge, period, and be just as "scientific" as you! Because origins science is by its very nature totally dependent on faith-based assumptions and preconceived worldview biases. And that's the simple truth.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI