Ken Ham’s Dog Slide

Oops. This is the disadvantage for charlatans in the technological era. Someone can stop the video and zoom in, and track down the source of the image you used. And in this case, Ken Ham’s slide about dogs evolving after coming off the ark actually shows dogs diverging from 400,000 years ago.

  • Just Sayin’

    And yet fence-sitters like Mike Gantt defend this charlatan!

  • Peter Kirby

    Also, no surprise, but the chart on the left does not imply what the chart on the right does: that a couple dogs magicked into existence or surviving the flood (TWO BY TWO) gave rise to the rest of the dogs. At every stage there were ancestors, and at every stage there was more genetic variety than could be found in two dogs.

  • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

    Sit, Ubu, sit!

  • Brian P.

    For me, this post gets to a much more interesting aspect of the debate. First, I’ve read way too much in this space. The monologues were both quite familiar. The rhetorical content of the trench warfare of the “debate” is rather static. It can seem as scripted as the lines of a play. Perhaps I’m a good enough understudy that I could play the opposing role for the on-stage actor to practice his lines. Watching the debate, often at times had difficulty keeping my interest in what was being said beyond trying to anticipate where the speaker might go next. What did though catch my interest was the Powerpoint artistry. No, I really should say workmanship. Debate is an ancient form with established formats and conventions. I don’t think I’ve ever seen Powerpoint so central. Anyone in the corporate first world knows about being “Powerpointed to death.” Powerpointing to death meets trench warfare in a stale culture war with a losing side perhaps starting to wonder if they long ago were duped into picking the wrong battle while yet some shall hold out until the last man. Anyhow, a few things about the Powerpointing skills, perhaps the only thing significantly net-new to a really old thing. First, I found the styles of images quite different. Specifically, I don’t think Bill Nye had as many images flannelgraph ready to refer to certain pedagogical aids of childhood. Second, overall I found the artistry of both rather uninspiring. I didn’t see all the debate; I fell asleep, I believe soon into the second 30-minute artillery barrage of bullet points. Over the centuries, some have said that truth has some relationship with art and inspiration. Alas. War is an ugly thing.

    • Peter Kirby

      Time for a new subject, maybe. Burn out is a real thing. (Although I also didn’t make it through the whole debate and quit around the same point in time as you did…)

  • LAvenderElephant

    Probably already mentioned, but: 1). He was trying to show that all canidea came from 1 breading pair, but the study itself says nothing of the sort. It talks about genetic studies to determine from which breeding stocks early man drew to begin the process of domestication. Also 2). Did anyone else notice that the graphic he put up is both upside down and inverted? It’s almost like he didn’t want anyone to be able to read that text of the graphic. Oh yeah, and he had to do that to make it resemble his made-up “evolution of ‘kinds’” graph. So, as usual, creationist quote mining and out-right lying in the name of his god.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X