Ardent defenders of the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State

..........................................................................

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

AIG Uses "Historical" Science to Prove His Version of How Craters on the Moon were Formed!



Confused?  You should be.  What in the actual fuck is wrong with these people?

So, here we go.  I open the AIG to see Ken Ham's blog boxing at shadows concerning Richard Dawkins' use of 'Historical' science and how wrong it is.

It’s clear that Dawkins doesn’t understand what the Bible teaches or the differences between operational (observational) and historical (origins) science. Frankly, he is quite ignorant of the issues of science and origins.
And:
Now, Dawkins also claims there’s a “mountain of evidence” against biblical creation. But this is a clear confusion of operational and historical science. Operational science is repeatable, observable, and testable. It’s the kind of science that allows us to make advances in medicine, technology, and so on. Historical science, on the other hand, deals with the origin of the universe. But, clearly, no humans were there to witness this event, and it can’t be tested or repeated.
OK, nothing new there.  Ham has used this non-existent difference in types of science for a long time now and nobody outside his circle of loony pseudo-scientists give it any heed whatsoever.  It is a strawman argument.

To clearly show that Ham is full of manure, on the very next page on the very same day, Ham's hired science distortionist, Danny Faulkner discusses "Ghost Craters-Evidence of a Young Moon."
He states:
The moon’s impact basins and ghost craters are excellent “time markers,” helping us to decipher how much time passed between the various cratering events in the moon’s history. When properly understood, they give powerful evidence that the moon is very young: since its creation, it was battered by lots of impacts over a very short time.

Whoooooaaaaaaaaa!  I'm calling total bullshit.  Using Ham's own strawman, were you there?  Did you see those craters being formed?  How do you determine this time frame?  Oh you extrapolated?  What?

Never mind.  In the interest of brevity, Ham does this all the time.  He can use 'Historical' evidence to prove his point but nobody else is allowed to because why?  You tell me.  Read the article and it is very plain that Ham wants to have his cake and eat it too and he is a preposterous, delusional, hypocrite that will say anything to try to influence his hapless minions.

He comes up with all these lame brained evidences for a young earth and the flood by mimicking the scientific method while loading it with absurd presuppositions.  This is some weapons grade crazy going on right here folks.

Froggie.
 



6 comments:

zilch said...

You have some very harsh words for our friend froggie.

Harold Finch said...

Boy, you just keep proving your stupidity don't you?

If you actually read AIG's website, you would know that they say historical science is based on one's world view.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/10/feedback-historical-observational-science

Harold Finch said...

Boy, you just keep proving your stupidity don't you?

If you actually read AIG's website, you would know that they say historical science is based on one's world view.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/10/feedback-historical-observational-science

Froggie said...

No, Ham says you cannot use historical evidence. "Were you there?" Then he uses historical evidence all the time. I'm sure there is nothing in the bible relating o when the craters on the moon were formed. Was he there?

Stay off my site.

Harold Finch said...

He doesn't say you can't use historical evidence. He says historical evidence is not like emperical evidence. It is unreliable and based on one's world view. His use of historical evidence for moon craters is just as reliable as an evolutionist's use of the geologic column.

I'll gladly stay off this site, what a joke.

Reynold said...

Too bad you chased him off: I could have told him that if AIG's worldview on science were accurate, they'd not have needed their statement of faith where they say that no evidence can be valid if it contradicts the biblical record.