Ken Ham #fundie

Ken Ham #fundie facebook.com

Evolutionists ignore other interpretations of the data. Unlike a forensic scientist who tries to look at all different angles for how the crime may have been committed and by whom, evolutionists are committed to their interpretation of the evidence. Few stop to question the assumptions of millions of years or evolution. Biblical creation—even if it provides a far more consistent and better explanation of the evidence—is automatically rejected because it doesn’t match with the starting assumptions of secular scientists.

37 comments

old comment by

Creationists ignore other interpretations of the data. Unlike an evolutionary biologist who looks at all different angles for how the crime may have been committed and by whom, creationists are committed to their interpretation of the evidence, and reject any evidence that doesn't fit with their preconceived beliefs. Few stop to question the assumptions of their bible. Abiogenesis and evolutionas it provides a far more consistent and the better explanation of the evidenceis automatically rejected because it doesn’t match with the starting assumptions of creationists.

Creationists even have a "Statement of Faith" which says, "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

old comment by Darkevilme

Ken.

The forensic scientists are not being close minded. They're looking at the scene and the evidence, and then you stray onto the crime scene wearing a duck on your head and declare "IT WAS THE DRACULA WHO DUN IT"
the forensic scientists aren't close minded for what transpires afterwards which goes something like.

scientist: ....why do you say that..and how did you get in here?

duckmanham: yesterday was a friday, the natural prowling time of the dracula!

scientist: i think you made that up, and we haven't determined the time of death, and you didnt answer how you got in here

duckmanham: and does the victim not have a most ghastly wound on her neck? clearly it could only be the work of the dracula!

scientist: the wound in no way resembles bite marks or puncture wounds, it looks like her throat was slashed open with a knife.

duckmanham: thus proving it was the dracula!

scientist: do you have any evidence vampires are real

duckmanham: I have this book

scientist:....damnit i dont have time for this, security!

duckmanham: you're just persecuting me cause i know the truth! stop being close minded! QUACK! QUACK!

old comment by Yossarian Lives

If you bothered to analyse the scientific literature you'd see research where the scientists behind the peer-reviewed papers synthesise and evaluate the various literature, which may put forth differing hypotheses on the subject involved, whilst they weigh up the evidence they've gathered, interpret it, and assess whether their research fits one of the existing models. Alternatively, they could develop their own if not and make predictions for future scientists to follow up. Creationism does none of these things, and Answers in Genesis, as well as all the other echo chambers that serve the movement, provide meaningless tittle tattle over inane disagreements over the height and weight of Adam and Eve, or something else that is completely worthless.

old comment by OHP

++"Evolutionists ignore other interpretations of the data."

For the same reason we ignore people who try to interpret Latin root words based on similar sounding Greek words -- because they're stupid.

++"Few stop to question the assumptions of millions of years or evolution."

Yeah. Because -- again -- that would be stupid. When you have fossils of ancient life preserved in stone that's millions of years old, you have to be stupid to assume that it was buried there last fucking Tuesday.

++"Biblical creationeven if it provides a far more consistent and better explanation of the evidence"

Which it doesn't.

++"is automatically rejected because it doesn’t match with the starting assumptions of secular scientists."

Wrong again, Ken (not that I was expecting any better of you). We reject it because it doesn't match what see when we investigate the world around us. We didn't start out assuming it was wrong and go looking for another answer. We just went looking for an answer. That your Bible was woefully incapable of holding up in the face of event the simplest scientific scrutiny is not our fault. You'll have to take that one up with god. Ask him how he could have possibly forgotten the order in which solar systems form. Or what he was thinking when he called the moon a light like the sun. Or how he could have managed to have created humans twice and then forgot to create a woman the second time. Or why he was lazy enough to hope that Adam would settle for fucking a goat instead. Or why he suddenly needed a piece of Adam to work with in order to create a second woman when Adam wasn't into bestiality. Or why bestiality was later declared wrong when it was initially his go-to idea, for that matter. Never mind being consistent with science, Ken. Your Bible's god can't even keep a consistent opinion.

Until you can give your Bible the barest shred of internal consistency, you don't get to claim that it's historically & scientifically consistent with the real world.

old comment by Kadorhal

"Evolutionists ignore other interpretations of the data."

They're not ignoring your pre-determined interpretation of the data, dumbass. They're simply not seeing any evidence of it in the data they're examining. Neither are you, come to think of it - you're just ignoring the data outright and going "nope nuh-uh goddidit fuck you" no matter what it says. You could unearth a stone tablet saying "THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER EXISTS" and you'd still say it's proof of Biblical creationism even after actual scientists doing actual work on it determine it's a fake.

"Biblical creationeven if it provides a far more consistent and better explanation of the evidenceis automatically rejected because it doesn’t match with the starting assumptions of secular scientists."

You're really committed to your "everyone hates us simply by virtue of being Christian" persecution fantasy and your "we already know everything, stop doing science" schtick, aren't you?
Biblical creation does not, has not, and probably will never provide a better explanation of the evidence. But if it did, and that's a big if, people would not automatically reject it - no matter how much you project, scientists are not the ones going in with a pre-determined outcome and ignoring all contrary evidence. If they saw working evidence for creation, then that's it, there's actual proof for it now and there's legitimacy to your arguments rather than just being against science for the sake of it. The only issue would be that it'd still have to be scientists doing the arguing in favor of it, given fundie fuckwits like yourself still seem to be incapable of arguing a point by any method other than projection, completely ridiculous strawmen, or ad-hominem comparing your opponents to pedophiles and mass-murderers.

“Evolutionists ignore other interpretations of the data.”
No, pretty sure they’ll listen right up to the point where you appeal to magic. THEN they ignore it.

"Unlike a forensic scientist who tries to look at all different angles for how the crime may have been committed and by whom, evolutionists are committed to their interpretation of the evidence.”
Well, if you tell a forensic investigator that your alternate interpretation came to you in a dream, they’re not going to be terribly open to it.
Also when your alternate depends on facts we’ve prove not possble (blood doesn’t do that), they ignore you.

"Few stop to question the assumptions of millions of years or evolution.”
Because those are conclusions, not assumptions.

“Biblical creation—even if it provides a far more consistent and better explanation of the evidence—is automatically rejected because it doesn’t match with the starting assumptions of secular scientists.”
Where does biblical creation provide a better explanation of ANYTHING? It just attributes things to God and stops.

Ken Ham #fundie facebook.com

37 comments

Confused?