Ken Ham’s at it again?

Unsurprisingly, I’m a big fan of PZ Myers’ blog Pharyngula. Scientific smackdown of religion is totally my thing. Also: octopus!

He writes fairly often about this guy named Ken Ham, which is how I initially came to learn of his existence. Ken Ham is a young earth creationist and evolution denier from Australia, who has been in the US to spread the word about the literal truth of Noah’s Ark. He’s even been trying to build a Noah’s Ark theme park for years.

Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off.

Anyway, his newest “facts” involve humans having walked the earth with dinosaurs. Apparently he has “proof”. A fossil. I want to see this fossil. I want this fossil sent to the microanalytical lab on campus for testing. Seriously, we’ve got all your age dating needs! We can probably even find a way to get the analysis done for free! You know, for science




4 thoughts on “Ken Ham’s at it again?

  1. Ken Ham is too much a self-promoter. No wonder Nye prefers to debate him instead of somebody like Kent Hovind, whom the IRS put in jail based on their vague rules, and whom never stiffed them of a penny. They just wanted him to be their tax collector.

    Of course that doesn’t matter to anti-creationists who cackle with glee at the misfortune of people that threaten the Thought Police mandates.

    Ken Ham’s answers to Nye were so lame. But Nye’s points were also lame. Ken Ham: “There is a book”. Nye: “The technology sky is falling!”. Puh-leease.

    The symbolic-language computing system embedded in DNA-RNA-epigenetics, ancient dinosaur carvings in Cambodian temples. Like the pics here:

    Mathematicians told biologists in a joint conference as early as the 1970s that natural selection couldn’t work, the probabilities were in the range that mathematicians call “impossible” for abiogenesis.

    There are thousands of examples.

    And now come well-formed blood cells preserved in the stinking, still rotting killing fields of the dinosaur digs in Montana, there’s more in Alaska.

  2. These probability studies always neglect the fact that the observed regularities in the succession of chemical reactions greatly trim the decision tree. There are eight ways to arrange three items from a pool of two elements, hydrogen and oxygen, but every single time you end up with the H-O-H arrangement. Every time.

    • When we say “stable” we mean that the pattern (genome) persists in the face of environmental factors (including other predatory patterns). So again, the decision tree is greatly trimmed, this time not by chemical forces but by the law of the jungle. That’s why we don’t see a crocoduck.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s