YouTube – Excellent/Short Analysis of Ken Ham’s False “Observational vs Historical Science” Dichotomy

Comments

1. lady gaga nude says:

   February 14, 2014 at :

   Awesome! Its in fact remarkable post, I have got much clear idea about from this article.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. john zande says:

   February 14, 2014 at :

   I tried to explain to a woman the other day that there is no such thing as “observation science” and “historical science.” She refused to accept it.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • (Matt) Brisancian says:

     February 14, 2014 at :

     That’s why I really like the short YouTube videos that are out there. 2-5 minutes to get a single point across. Most people can handle that. Bits and pieces, good visuals, counter-examples. I’ve been using them on my FB discussions with folks too, and it makes a difference. They can often hear from those sources, even when I just typed the same thing and it didn’t register.

     LikeLike

     Reply
3. Mariah Windrider says:

   February 14, 2014 at :

   I’m glad that someone is doing retorts and responses such as these, I’ve tried and I fear there’s a tad too many years in my biography, I seem to get distracted much too easily nowadays. And thank you, sir, for bringing these to our attention! True, I tend to avoid Creationists kind of like the plague since my patience went the way of my memory! I do have a blind faith, that’s a belief that (if we’re lucky) these dinosaurs also will die out leaving the rest of us to live and learn in peace. I think it’s in the Little Engine That Could belief system, I think, I think, I think…

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • (Matt) Brisancian says:

     February 14, 2014 at :

     Well, glad you like it… but all the credit here goes to Potholer – he really makes some excellent videos. Check out some of his others. 🙂

     LikeLike

     Reply