Archive

Archive for Saturday May 24, 2008

The Argument From Douche-Baggery [Ken Ham Is An Idiot]

Saturday May 24, 2008 41 comments

The Lie

For anyone who’s read my previous post concerning Ken Ham, you’ll have gotten a pretty good idea of how ignorant he is. Well, he’s either ignorant, or he’s a liar. I’ll let you decide.

In any case, in keeping with the scientific method – providing evidence to support one’s claims, I have more nail-in-the-coffin evidence that Ken Ham is either (a) ignorant, or (b) lying concerning evolution.

On his Answers In Genesis website, he has a “Media” section with audio, video and pictures of creationist propaganda in easy-to-access, easy-to-use, ignorant form. Of course, it’s all nonsense, lies and misrepresentations of actual science and reality. But, one of these especially caught my attention.

The title of this segment is called “Neptune’s wonders… “proof” of creation?” Here is the segment in question, for your listening pleasure.

The first quote from this work of genius is priceless…

You know, even though the incredible planet of Neptune can’t be explained by evolution, at the same time it really is strong evidence for a young universe. You know why? Well, you see, Neptune is a planet that can’t be explained by long ages of time.

Wow, Ken Ham! Your complete lack of understanding of what evolution is… it’s awe inspiring. I’ve never known someone to so brazenly take their own ignorance of a topic and recklessly use it against people who spend their entire lives studying that particular field. Is tithe money running low?

According to Ham, Neptune “can’t be explained by evolution.”

The Truth

This just kills me. Okay, let’s take a look at what Ham’s statement actually means.

How about, to elucidate on just how ignorant this quote is, we substitute the word evolution for evolution’s definition. Evolution can be defined as change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

Now, let’s put this quote into context.

You know, even though the incredible planet of Neptune can’t be explained by changes in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next, at the same time it really is strong evidence for a young universe. You know why? Well, you see, Neptune is a planet that can’t be explained by long ages of time.

Ken Ham, you are an idiot. Neptune can’t be explained by changes in alleles within a gene pool?

I suppose next you’re going to say that calculus doesn’t explain elephants, and that this is “proof of creation.”

Now let’s look at some facts, which Ham has completely left out of the picture, and for good reason. Facts don’t support creation. Random nonsense, on the other hand, does.

  1. First of all, as far as we know, Neptune does not have volcanoes.
  2. Secondly, Neptune does not actually generate heat. It’s surface temperature is -218° Celsius. Pretty cold, if you ask me. (Neptune’s core is around 7,000° Celsius, which is similar to most planets in our solar system.)
  3. Thirdly, it is actually Neptune’s moon, Triton that has the volcanoes on it. And volcanoes on Triton are perfectly explainable by the gravitational effects of Neptune on Triton’s core. And these are not ordinary volcanoes. They aren’t spewing lava, or molten rock. It’s actually liquid nitrogen, dust and methane compounds.

Hey, Ken Ham. Maybe you should try doing some research on your topics before going off on some kind of nonsense tangent. I get tired of having to interrupt your nonsense with real, verifiable facts.

Now, Neptune may not be explainable by changes in alleles within a gene pool, but it sure can be explained by astronomy, geology and physics.

Ken, how about you try explaining things with regard to the field that they are actually involved with?

The Logical Fallacy

Technically speaking, Ken Ham’s argument, in this case, would be considered a straw man argument. You take a position A (evolution), construct a weaker position B (the “straw man”), and attack that position, instead of position A.

But Ham commits this offense so often, that I have now renamed this fallacy – naming it after Ham. It is now, officially, referred to as the argument from douche-baggery.

Ken Ham is a douche bag.

Read a book.

Advertisements