• kinship

    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.

    • tylerjfrancke

      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.

      • kinship

        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.

    • mroge

      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!”

  • This is pretty immature on both sides to be honest.

    • That’s your opinion, but thanks for sharing!

    • FolkTheologian

      I agree. As representatives of Christ to the world, attacking each other like this is immature and just downright childlike. I am an educator as well and would never promote my students to speak to one another like this. This is not an attack but a friendly rebuke. Be better then the world.

      • Thanks for your opinion. I’ll respectfully remind you that Jesus did not take any crap from, nor did he pull any punches with, false teachers such as the Pharisees. The Apostle Paul, among other church fathers and authors of the New Testament, also had plenty of strong and even sarcastic words for their critics. And I think those guys probably had a pretty good bead on how Christians should behave.

        • No. It’s not about being Christ-like or modeling the deportment of his apostles, it’s that your response is simply childish and immature. It’s not clever, witty, original or any of the other adjectives that make something memorable. We are not commenting on *what* you did, we are responding to *how* you did it. That I might take a pass on Dane Cook does not mean I dislike comedy.

          • Hey Daniel. Thanks for offering your opinion again. Here’s mine: It’s a snarky put-down of a Facebook post that was stupid, petty and poorly written to begin with. I’m not saying it’s the greatest thing I’ve ever done or anything, but if you were expecting Shakespeare, that’s not really my fault.

          • Yep, not expecting Shakespeare, though I’ll be careful not to set the bar too high in the future. While we’re on the topic of Jesus, though, he also took criticism particularly well. Might be something to keep in mind.

          • Hey Daniel. Thanks, but I don’t have any problem accepting valid criticism.

          • Lol..

  • Ahem Shammy, God is not for sale. It’s safe to say that Ken Ham is a snake oil salesman who preaches a museum of nothing.