Ken Ham's answers...

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes I did listen to his nonsense, but was unable to make sense of it.

No offense, but you have no idea how much that explains.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes I did listen to his nonsense, but was unable to make sense of it.

that's because you have willfully made yourself stupid

Originally posted by C Hess
...beautifully stomped on.

Ken Ham: A Thousand Lies To Defend A "Truth": http://youtu.be/ce_CWxdxrC4

What do you think, RJHinds?

Listened to it, not sure what you think. For me it was just someone
belittling some body they didn't agree with, and stating their beliefs were
so factual they cannot be questioned.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
No offense, but you have no idea how much that explains.

I don't understand what you want me to explain. I do not know Ken Ham or all his teachings enough to explain his speculations, and I know nothing about this commentator other than how arrogant he seems to present himself.

The commentator seems to think that since we don't have the original clay or stone tablets that have been signed and dated by Moses that nobody should believe that Moses had anything to do with writing Genesis. Yet he claims to know all about when writing began without being there. And he has no problem believing what some evolution scientist speculate, as if it is fact, such as the camel originated in North America.

The commntator has a disagreement with Ken Ham on a couple definitions. This is not unusual between creationists and evolutions. The evolutionists are noted for changing definitions when it deals with evolution.

The commentator is correct that a lot of fossils have been collected, however, he is wrong in saying it supports evolution because most of it is evidence against evolution. The Cambrian explosion is just one example, if one remembers to discard the false dating.

DNA is evidence of an intelligent creator that has provided a program and mechanism for variation in species with the intent to prevent mutations that might cause a change in kind. So the commentator is either willingly ignorant of this or he is intentinally lying.

The commentator does not seem to know that there was just one big continent on earth before it's dividing sometime after the worldwide flood. Even most evolution scientist agree that there was once one super continent, they just disagree on how long ago it was.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The commentator does not seem to know that there was just one big continent on earth before it's dividing sometime after the worldwide flood. Even most evolution scientist agree that there was once one super continent, they just disagree on how long ago it was.

Let's just follow up on this one point at a time.

A point where we all seem to agree is that there was once a super-continent, called Gondwanaland, that joined Africa, South America, India and Australia. Geologists and Paleontologists put it at about 180 to 450 million years ago, YECs at 3000 to 5000 BC (give or take). But let's leave the time there.

The point which the commentator makes, and which is not answered by Ken Ham, or you, or even the answersingenesis.org website, is:

1. Accepting that there was one pair of camels on the ark, which on disembarking re-populated the post-deluvian world, how did this one pair manage to produce all the camel-like species, what you call "kinds", that are currently found only in South America? And did this happen during the past say 5000 years?

2. How did this completely formed and adapted (or specialized, as per the Answers articl) camel manage to cross vastly different climate and ecozones (or is it postulated that entire Gondwanaland was one unified ecosystem?)

Originally posted by RJHinds
The commentator seems to think that since we don't have the original clay or stone tablets that have been signed and dated by Moses that nobody should believe that Moses had anything to do with writing Genesis

Quoted from the video:

Of course none of this means that Moses did not write the Pentateuch in some pre Phoenician language which is lost and that the clear meaning of his words was then faithfully reproduced and then translated through the centuries.

But it does mean that no one on earth can make the claim that:

"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs"

Originally posted by RJHinds
The commentator has a disagreement with Ken Ham on a couple definitions. This is not unusual between creationists and evolutions. The evolutionists are noted for changing definitions when it deals with evolution.

The commentator is correct that a lot of fossils have been collected, however, he is wrong in saying it supports evolution because most of it i ...[text shortened]... ution. The Cambrian explosion is just one example, if one remembers to discard the false dating.

Even if you don't accept the dating of it (which raises whole new problems) the cambrian explosion, and fossil evidence in general support evolution. We've been through this a few months ago.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The commentator does not seem to know that there was just one big continent on earth before it's dividing sometime after the worldwide flood. Even most evolution scientist agree that there was once one super continent, they just disagree on how long ago it was.

So that's your explanation to the real problem he points out? In less than a few thousand
years, all this happened:

1. There was a world-wide flood drowning all camel and llama-like creatures except two.
An event kindly documented by Moses.
2. The two remaining camel-llamas reproduced furiously, evolving within its kind into very
different kinds of camel-llamas, and only occupying a specific portion of the landmass
each.
3. Then a cataclysmic event split the landmass up, and sent one part of it hurling to half
across the globe, the part which was only occupied by the south american variant of
llamas, as it happens. Apparently this dividing and rearrangement of landmass was not
worth documenting by anyone, anywhere.
4. Then everything was just calm long enough for all of humanity to forget the landmass
splitup, but not the flood.
5. And here we are.

Well, I'm glad we sorted this out. It raises no follow-up questions at all, does it? None at
all. No follow-ups. Nope. Can't think of a single question in response to that. Not one.

Originally posted by C Hess
So that's your explanation to the real problem he points out? In less than a few thousand
years, all this happened:

1. There was a world-wide flood drowning all camel and llama-like creatures except two.
An event kindly documented by Moses.
2. The two remaining camel-llamas reproduced furiously, evolving within its kind into very
different k ...[text shortened]... ne at
all. No follow-ups. Nope. Can't think of a single question in response to that. Not one.

1. The Holy bible says god tells Noah the following:

You shall take with you of every clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female;

This must mean seven pairs of clean animals, and could also mean two pairs. I can not say for sure if all llama-like animals would be considered the same kind by Noah or not.

2. Since Camels were domesticated there could have been selective breeding to produce variation within the species, but no evolving. When the common language was confused by God in order to spread out the people. Any of the people that had domesticated animals would have taken them with them.

3. The scientist still say that the continents are still moving very slowly apart to day. The rate of movement must have been much faster at one time and has gradually slowed to what it is today. So I doubt that the landmasses were hurled across the globe, but just moved faster than they do today.

4. I don't believe that everyone forgot the splitup of the land, because I remember somewhere recorded in the Holy Bible that it was in the days of Peleg that the world was divided or something like that. Here we go:

And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
(1 Chronicles 1:19)

It says the "earth" was divided. Some believe this just means that the people was divided because of the tower of Babel incident, but it says "earth" not people.

5. That is about it.

Originally posted by CalJust
Let's just follow up on this one point at a time.

A point where we all seem to agree is that there was once a super-continent, called Gondwanaland, that joined Africa, South America, India and Australia. Geologists and Paleontologists put it at about 180 to 450 million years ago, YECs at 3000 to 5000 BC (give or take). But let's leave the time there.

T ...[text shortened]... t climate and ecozones (or is it postulated that entire Gondwanaland was one unified ecosystem?)

A point I remind you of no matter whose side you are speaking about both
are talking about creatures that may or may not have been real thousands
years ago, or millions of years ago. Both could be wrong, one may be
right the only thing we do without being there ourselves is that if God did
create the universe in the time frame Ken Ham suggests, simply looking
at it will not tell us how old it is. If it is billions or years ago or whatever
simply looking at small pieces of it will not tell us exactly how any creature
really did show up, for all we know both are completely wrong about the
creatures in question.

If someone wants to suggest their thoughts on the matter cannot be wrong
or even questioned, that is dogma not science, and may not be good
theology either.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
Quoted from the video:

Of course none of this means that Moses did not write the Pentateuch in some pre Phoenician language which is lost and that the clear meaning of his words was then faithfully reproduced and then translated through the centuries.

But it does mean that no one on earth can make the claim that:

"The 66 books of the Bible ar ...[text shortened]... d inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs"

I take it the word faith is meaningless here? If it was a factual that we did
have the exact writings there would still be questions on if it were real or
not. Having a copy of something that old without God working to preserve
it I doubt would ever happen, men would without a doubt alter to suit their
own ends. We do tend to corrupt almost everything we touch for power and
money.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
Even if you don't accept the dating of it (which raises whole new problems) the cambrian explosion, and fossil evidence in general support evolution. We've been through this a few months ago.

The fossils are just fossils they neither support or deny anything! When we
connect the dots and assign dates we can make them mean whatever we
want.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
So that's your explanation to the real problem he points out? In less than a few thousand
years, all this happened:

1. There was a world-wide flood drowning all camel and llama-like creatures except two.
An event kindly documented by Moses.
2. The two remaining camel-llamas reproduced furiously, evolving within its kind into very
different k ...[text shortened]... ne at
all. No follow-ups. Nope. Can't think of a single question in response to that. Not one.

The answer is if there was a flood and all the animals came off, then they
came off. If the camel and lamas were both on the Ark or not is a question
we can only guess at.
Kelly

Originally posted by C Hess
So that's your explanation to the real problem he points out? In less than a few thousand
years, all this happened:

1. There was a world-wide flood drowning all camel and llama-like creatures except two.
An event kindly documented by Moses.
2. The two remaining camel-llamas reproduced furiously, evolving within its kind into very
different k ...[text shortened]... ne at
all. No follow-ups. Nope. Can't think of a single question in response to that. Not one.

After the flood there is some beliefs that the land masses were one then
parted later after an earth quake, so they would not have to cross an ocean
to get to another place. Our problems are we tend to look at things now
and just project that is always looked this way from how high mountains
are, now to them being as high back then, and that the bodies of land were
just as we see them today. We project that specific animals were once this
or that, just because we see fossils today, we really don't know, but make
claims we do. People can be right about what they believe, but we cannot
prove or disprove we can only make claims.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
This must mean seven pairs of clean animals, and could also mean two pairs. I can not say for sure if all llama-like animals would be considered the same kind by Noah or not.

The video address this very issue. If Noah had not considered llamas and camels to be the
same species, then seeing as they are so similar, he would have to consider every cat-like
animal unique, every dog-like animal unique, and so forth, until he would have to build an
ark that could house literally millions of animals. Ken's organisation solved this problem
by stating that there's only one cat-kind, one dog-kind and so on. Therefore, there can be
only one llama-kind on the ark.