Jump to content

Talk:Ken Ham

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hyrcanus776 (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 5 February 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Degree

User:1990'sguy . about this and this. The issue is not WP:PRIMARY the issue is SPS. Both of kinds of sources, in any case, are irrelevant to issues of WP:WEIGHT. We determine WEIGHT based on independent, secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not so hard, was it. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints. There are not multiple viewpoints at play here. Ham received an honorary degree. This is a fact about which there is no controversy. Honorary degrees are pretty standard fare in biographical articles. I've written a bunch of them, several good or featured. Honorary degrees are essentially an award presented by a notable entity (a college or university). Nor is this an exceptional claim, requiring exceptional sourcing. A primary source should have been fine. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ham's supposed qualifications:-

Please note that QLD Institute of Technology was not granted university status until 1988. When Ham (allegedly) went there it was NOT qualified to teach to Bachelors' level, not accredited to do so, and did not. It was a technical college. In other words, the most he could possibly have earned from QIT in the early 70s, was a Diploma (the Australian then-equivalent of the US's 2-year Associates Degree -- at most). This is a technical-level qualification, NOT an academic-level qualification. QIT simply did not have a Bachelors of Applied Science in the early '70s, in Environmental Biology or otherwise, and a diploma would only qualify him to be the most junior of lab-technicians ~ testing soil- or water-samples or similar for his superiors. It should also be noted that in Queensland, school-teachers required no accreditation or registration until the late '70s, nor tertiary education beyond this same technical, non-academic, level. His teaching 'diploma' would not have been recognised in any other state of Australia, even at the time, but especially not to teach Science.180.181.93.58 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you're completely wrong. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wording change from "shows" to "estimates"

The final word isn't in on the exact age of the universe and saying in the opening paragraph that the scientific evidence "shows" which is a definitive wording as opposed to "suggests" or "estimates". Reveals bias. Gfego1 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is overwhelmingly supported as the scientific consensus. Wikipedia reflects that consensus. To cast doubt on that would be biased in favor of a WP:FRINGE perspective, which is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recent edits concerning popularity

After two attempts at censorship, Zsnell443 decided to make it about popularity.

@Zsnell443: science is not about popularity. Some unscientific mistake is "popular" among each country. Should we state that maybe lazers work by focusing sound waves because 84% of Malaysians and 76% of Russians don't know how lazers work? Should we state that Earth's core might not be very hot because 44% of Chinese people and 43% of Indians don't seem to think so? Should we state that maybe Galileo was wrong and that the sun goes around the Earth because 34% of Europeans are wrong about the observed structure of the solar system?

The source you cite seems to forget that there are other countries besides the United States of America, and doesn't seem to understand that 42% is not a majority.

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian.thomson, I think you are taking this edit out of proportion. I know from experience that it is worthless discussing any of it here, so I won't comment further. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it shouldn't be necessary to start a discussion when a user edit wars against the established basis of all modern biology. I mean, we don't have to go through all this when someone edit wars against comparably established medicinal science. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson: But you see, there is a difference. There is certainly considerable evidence for creationism, and all I was trying to do was make it more unbiased. I was hoping you would be objective, but apparently, as most Darwinists are, you are close minded and not only an atheist, but anti-theology. Zsnell443 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

h:@Zsnell443: Present professionally-published mainstream academic sources that support your claim that there's evidence for creationism. I'm talking about peer-reviewed mainstream academic journals or books from university presses -- the publishers in either instance noted by non-creationists for their scientific rigor. You're not going to find any. You're going to want to see Non-overlapping magisteria and Theistic evolution for how most scientists who are religious view the relationship between creation and evolution.
I am not an atheist. That you assume I am shows just how ignorant you are of the relationship between science and religion. Like most Christians throughout the world, I believe God created the world using evolution as a tool. I also know that it was not Young Earth Creationism that was crucified for humanity's sake, but I likewise don't regard my or other's cosmological views as defining who is or is not Christian. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian.thomson: I apologise, I was out of line. But, I was just trying to make a simple edit, which had no bias whatsoever. It was just stating that Evolution is not the only answer, and that Ken Ham is not incorrect in his theory. Just as creationism is a theory, as is evolution. Although evolution is the more widely accepted theory, it is still a theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsnell443 (talk • contribs)
Creating artificial balance is a type of bias. Assuming that one's own belief system must be valid and so should be given at least equal treatment with professional consensus on a topic is the definition of bias. Creationism, broadly construed, is the religious belief that God created existence, which may be compatible with science by not overlapping with it. 'Young Earth Creationism is the rejecting of the findings of geology, physics, and biology that the world is more than 6,000 years old. Old Earth Creationism accepts the findings of at least geology and physics, potentially even that of biology. Creationism is not a theory, it is a doctrine. Evolution is a "theory" in the senses that gravity is. The theory describes something describes a facet of nature that has been documented. When you say "still a theory," you demonstrate that you don't fully understand what a Scientific theory is. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I refused to comment further -- commenting here is essentially like commenting on "RationalWiki." Only come here if you want to be called a "denier" or the like by atheists and theistic evolutionists. There is more name-calling than rational explanations why YEC is not true -- and even those attacks against YEC have been dishonest, distorting YEC views and using five-year-old blogs over YEC scientific papers in their own journals as sources. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rational explanations you say? To start with, there are these. Please show examples of YEC scientific papers which you think would survive scientific scrutiny. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Ian.Thomson is merely pointing out that Zsnell443 doesn't understand the scientific concept of what a "theory" is - which they clearly don't. That's not name-calling, it's a simple statement of fact. Similarly, pointing out the inherent fallacy of the YEC concept isn't an attack on religion or anything else, it's merely pointing out that that particular belief is flawed. We don't give equal footing to YEC for the same reason that we don't do it for - mainly non-religious - ideas such as Flat Earth theory, Geocentrism or any other pseudoscience. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just plain Bill, Answers Research Journal -- all their issues and articles are free to view. You want specific articles? Please read these two recent ones: [1][2] --1990'sguy (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, they had to publish it on their own site instead of submitting it to any of the established journals out there that are religiously neutral. It's almost as if they don't want to find out if their writings would survive scientific scrutiny...
One thing about science is that it is provable to anyone regardless of their religion (if they don't stick their head in the sand, that is). The only individuals advocating YEC are followers of the very closely related Abrahamic religions (and the Jewish and Muslim membership would realistically be described as "token"). No atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, agnostics, or anyone else supports YEC. If the world was observably only 6000 years old, then you'd have Buddhist and Hindu YECers who would claim that YEC proves that our world is an illusion, Shintoists fitting the Japanese creation myth and Taoists fitting Chinese creation myths within that time frame with no difficulty, UFO religions arguing that that's when Ancient astronauts created an old looking earth wholesale 6000 years ago -- but it's mostly Fundamentalist Christians and a few token Jews and Muslims who argue that the world is only 6000 years old. Atheists who accept evolution would be balanced out by YECer deists and even atheists who regard The World as Will and Representation.
The reason that non-Abrahamic religionists reject YEC is not religious bias, it's the same reason that many followers of Abrahamic religions accept evolution... Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Answers in Genesis is not even "remotely a reliable source." As Ian.thomson has noted here, its unlikelihood of surviving scientific scrutiny is a salient point. Just plain Bill (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, if any creationist submits a paper like the ones I linked, they will be automatically rejected because they contradict evolution. Remember the time when many people in the mainstream scientific community demanded that a scientific paper be retracted because it mentioned the word "creator" due to a translation error? This was a translation error for crying out loud -- think of what would happen if someone tried to publish one of the papers I linked? (I'm guessing that neither of you actually read them and lookd at the substance, and you just proceeded to criticize them anyway -- I've seen this a lot)
The fact that few people other than most theologically orthodox Christians (I've actually heard that many Muslims don't believe in evolution, as seen in what Turkey recently decided) believe in YEC does not concern me or other creationists. That Jesus is the only way to heaven (Matthew 7:13; John 14:6; Acts 4:12) and that salvation (justification) is through faith alone and not of works (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9) are also things that theologically orthodox Christians believe. YEC delves into science, sure, but there are many scientists and engineers who believe in YEC (of course, not nearly as much that don't, but it still quite a bit). As their interpretation of the evidence is abhorred and marginalized by most others, they separate and form their own publications. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize there's a difference between science and theology, right? That would be kinda basic knowledge required to adequately edit articles in either field. Is "well I believe in Jesus" a valid excuse for Faith healing to the exclusion of modern medicine? How about Geocentrism? Flat Eartherism?
If it's entirely possible for pagans and atheists to believe even just that the world is only 6000 years old without compromising their own belief systems, why is it that none of them do? "Because they don't know Jesus" has as much scientific bearing as rejecting reincarnation "because you don't know Vishnu." In fact, if you were to say that to such a user's face, it'd be an ad hominem attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming victimhood is a poor strategy in reasoned discourse, more so when the topic is not related to sociology. The example of sloppy translation (and, by extension, poor editing) is another distraction, not relevant to the credibility of AIG. I admit that I stopped reading the piece on Homo naledi when I saw the word "holobaramin;" baraminology is pseudoscience. Good luck getting that kind of stuff published in a serious peer-reviewed journal.

In the linked piece on radiometric dating, Andrew Snelling argues for a variation of five orders of magnitude in radioactive decay rate between five or six thousand years ago and the present day. Try selling that idea to a competent geologist; the layers of rock have a different story to tell. For example, flood geology and five million years' worth of magnetostratigraphy do not line up together very well, to put it politely. We may not have been around to observe it directly, but multiple consistent lines of evidence indicate that the world, and the universe it swims in, are older than most people's intuition can grasp.

Just plain Bill (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First section irrelevant information

I disagree with the use of "Scientific evidence shows the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe is about 13.8 billion years old.[2][3]" in the first section. It is irrelevant to Ken Ham's beliefs, and gives away author bias. It is a broad statement with an insufficient source. It would be more appropiate to put "a majority of specialized scientists disagree with Ham's Young-Earth Creationism", or something like that, but in another section.

Jstewart7339 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Jstewart7339[reply]

Correct Wikipedia is biased towards science. The age of the earth is a fact and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not science. This is what Darwinian Evolutionists have branded as science, and deceived society thereby. ¨Science is ¨the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.¨. In laymen´s terms, true science is observational and repeatable. You were not present in the nascent universe (unless you claim to be God). You do not know for a fact the age of the Earth. As C.H. Spurgeon once wrote, ¨Science is the method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance.¨. Your ¨science¨ is carbon dating, which is completely based upon a uniformitarean system which history has proved inaccurate. Even now we record great fluctuations in the C12 to C14 Ratio in the atmosphere, which is destructive to the foundations of radiocarbon dating. Man has influenced this enormously in the past one-hundred years, with nuclear bombs among other things. It is impossible to get an accurate reading above approximately 60,000 years, and extremely difficult to get an accurate reading above 20,000 years. Many other tests have proved faults in carbon dating. Look at the RATE Group. C14 Dating cannot be taken as absolute. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. (the last one from Ken Ham´s organization. This article would do well to better reveal to the audience Ham´s counterarguaments). The same goes for radiometric dating in general. [6]. 

       I have listed here quite a few independent, reliable sources. That does not mean that what they say is a fact. That does not mean their antagonists are correct. It means that historical science is discovered through origins science, which is EXTREMELY subjective. Both sides take the same evidence, but interprete it through different philosophical standpoints. Evolutionists through Humanistic Naturalism, (just as much a religion as Christianity), and Creationists through the Bible. The method by which you decide to interprete the evidence is up to you, but it is not fair or accurate to call it ¨science¨, or to deceive others into thinking so. 
       So, in short, the age of the Universe is not a fact, and this ¨Encyclopedia¨ is biased. Not towards science, but towards the religion of Naturalism. You have unfairly classified sources as ¨unreliable¨ because they contradict Darwinian Evolution. Michael Ruse, eminent Darwinian Athiest and scientific philosopher even states ¨Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity... Evolution is a religion.¨ (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a religion_b_904828.html). The only difference between Evolutionists and Creationists is that the former is hypocritical in denying the role their presumptions play in the outcomes of their studies, and the latters embraces it. So, Throadislong, please be fair. Present both sides equally. Especially considering this is a biography of one of the greatest Creationists of our day. This is not a place to insert naturalist bias. Philosophical presentation should be equal, and in another section or article. Each model should be presented objectively. I plead with you, for the sake of the ideology of the Media, to present the facts fairly and in an unbias manner, by changing this page.

Thank you, Hyrcanus776 (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus776[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.scmp.com/tech/science-research/article/1856329/many-global-warming-studies-may-be-wrong-carbon-dating-found
  2. ^ https://carm.org/carbon-dating
  3. ^ http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-carbon_dating_radiometric_decay_rates
  4. ^ https://www.icr.org/article/293
  5. ^ https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/
  6. ^ http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
You have unfairly classified sources as ¨unreliable¨ because they contradict Darwinian Evolution. Did you even read what I wrote, or did you automatically ignore it because I referenced Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis? Hyrcanus776 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus 776[reply]
Nonsense. I read WP:RS which tells me that according to policy, all your sources are crap. Admittedly, the policy doesn't say crap, but nevertheless. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So org, Edu sites, News sites, etc. mean nothing. Sure, I can your see your claim in regards to ICR and AIG. I referenced them because they are great containers for information. They are great, because they are in opposition to the humanistic, naturalistic bias that most ¨science¨ sites will present you. But look at all the others, too. I didn´t reference ICR and AIG alone. [1], [2] [3] etc. etc. I´d be glad to reference more, if you´d like. Multiple tests on objects with known dates giving completely inaccurate results.Hyrcanus776 (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus776[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1312877/Carbon-dating-might-be-wrong-by-10000-years.html
  2. ^ https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
  3. ^ http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-6a.htm
[edit conflict]Nonsense indeed. The Institute for Creation Research has been evaluated at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which said "As a reliable source for scientific issues, obviously not..." Similarly, Answers in Genesis is "never a reliable source for any scientific topic..." and the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry "appears to fall under WP:SELFPUB, so it is only a reliable source for information about CARM..."
The South China Morning Post article has nothing to do with evolution, creationism, or the age of the Earth. It does manage to spin the well-known fact that carbon dating is unreliable beyond several tens of thousands of years into a screed on climate change "skepticism."
The other sources look just as sketchy, but anyone can take them to the board for evaluation by the Wikipedia community. I have some idea how well that is likely to go, but feel free all the same. Science is not religion; it is science. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting beyond the point of the matter. It is not a fact that the age of the Earth is approximately ¨4.5 billion years¨ and the Universe ¨13.8 billion years¨ old. I need cite no source on that. Sure, Darwinian Evolutionists and other pantheists have speculated about an extraordinarily long age of the Earth to fit in with their theology, and have used an unabsolute dating system as support, but that does not make it fact. You´re welcome to say (for example), the speed of light and the amount of light years away star xyz (who we can see) is from Earth prove it is more than 10,000 years old. This may line up with Evolutionary theology, but it ignores the concept of Time Dilation, as proposed by Albert Einstein (not a Christian, mind you). There are 1000 other supposed ¨proofs¨ for Evolution, which Creationists take as ¨proofs" for Creation, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is not science. We are indirectly studying events in the past, which are unrepeatable, and unobservable. That is often called origins science, which is drastically separate from true empirical science. Origins Science depends heavily on philosophical assumptions and subjective interpretations. As I said before, same evidence, different conclusions. 

       The conclusion showed in the introduction to Ken Ham is that of the naturalist, which (once again), has no place in the introduction for a unbias biography. One could easily and unbiasly state that Ken Ham´s proposition runs contrary to a majority of specialized scientists. That is true. Scientists tend to have a strong philosophical opinion as well, normally leaning towards Darwinian Evolution. Not in part due to supposedly ¨unbias¨ sources like wikipedia presenting Darwinian Evolution as a fact has society been deceived into believing that it is. Thank goodness for fundamentalism, or we might have the Theistic-Atheistic Evolution controversy instead of the Creation-Evolution Controversy. Anyways, I digress.

Scientific evidence shows the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe is about 13.8 billion years old.[2][3] does not belong in the introduction. I don´t even care if you put it in another section, maybe ¨criticism¨, but seriously? I read it now and it looks completely out of place. If I´m reading about Ken Ham, I don´t really what Evolutionists think the age of the Earth is. Oh wait a second, it´s already in another section, where it actually applies! Hyrcanus776 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus776[reply]

    • I think the take home point you should, um, take home from this discussion, is that if you don't want to read a reality based article about Ken, you should go elsewhere. we will continue to represent the mainstream accepted view, as we are required to do by policy here. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is already represented in another section. I just don´t understand why it is necessary in the introduction. Hyrcanus776 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus776[reply]

    • The lead is a summary of the main and most important points of the rest of the article. That's how all articles here are required to be written. It gives a brief summary of what is to follow, the meat of the article. In this case, what Ken believes is contrasted by reality, and we are required to make that clear. It is one of the most important things about him, i.e. he is clearly wrong. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I´m going to have to disagree with you on that, but there´s no use in wasting any more of my time arguing. I don´t know how you cannot see how bias you are in this. He is not clearly wrong. What Ken believes is contrasted by what Evolutionists BELIEVE. Hyrcanus776 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus776[reply]

Evolution is not a matter of opinion, or something one chooses to believe in or not, like a religious proposition. Evolution is a fact, you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but the fact remains. This is also NOT a forum. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’-Michael Ruse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyrcanus776 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same Michael Ruse who said that evolution as studied by professionals "is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry."
In that same paragraph, he says, "If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time." I offer that as a broad hint... Just plain Bill (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just recycle some text I recently used on another Talk page and adapt it slightly:
We regularly get pretty much the same contribution in every Talk page to other pseudosciences: "the article is biased", "people with degrees disagree", and so on. It has never worked because that is not how Wikipedia works. We reflect what the reliable sources say.
So, you are attacking your problem from the wrong side. You should, first, do solid research on the subject. Then, when the results confirm your opinion, publish your research in peer-reviewed publications. Then wait until the consensus has shifted and your work is quoted in reliable secondary sources as the last word on the subject. Then, with time, all the Wikipedia articles on your favorite pseudoscience (what was it? oh yes, evolution and the age of the Earth) will change over time and finally reflect your opinion.
This may sound a bit slow to you, but it is the right way to tackle your problem. The shortcut you are using now does not work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Ham&oldid=824201899"