That is not a response with critical thinking against Ken Ham’s post, that is simply being nit picky. You can’t refute him so you attack unrelated and minute points. The only one who looks foolish is you.
Hey kinship, thanks for reading and for your thoughts! As to the points you made, I’m not sure how much refutation is really needed for scientific ideas that were disproved well more than 100 years ago. And I’d further argue that expecting a man who is challenging someone on supposedly academic grounds to be able to count to three is not nitpicky. Just my two cents, though. Thanks again for the comment! Looking forward to hearing more from you around the site.
Yes it is nitpicky because you do not read his mind and do not know if he simply was thinking of one thing and wrote another. What scientific ideas? Your generalizations do not meet the expectations you place upon Ham or creationists. Expecting a man who runs an international educational ministry to NOT make some mistakes is unrealistic and shows you will use anything to trash the other person’s ideas and comments. You are not fair, honest, or just in your appraisal and let your bias influence your analysis of other people’s words and work. So much for the supposed scientific idea of objectivity.
Since when does Ken Ham do any “critical thinking”??? His so-called points in this post have absolutely no bearing on the debate between YEC’s and evolutionists. Throwing out bible verses is meaningless and juvenile. He cannot even defend his position and then he complains about the evolutionists being unfair to him and even lying. How do you respond with “critical thinking” to a position that is basically saying “I’m right because God is on my side. And I get to decide that God is on my side. So there!”
Site by Glass Box Creative