How Valid is Ham’s Argument for Biblical Literacy?

When looking at Ham’s argument one of the things that is seen, is the lack of evidence. Now that does not mean it is not true, it just means it is lacking credibility. There are many things in the real world that lacked credibility at one time, and then were proven true later. But Ham bases his theory on God’s time is the same as man’s time. The thing here is that man’s time is structured and measured, while a God would have no reasons for that.

In the book of Genesis, it says that God created each step of development in one day, so the Earth is 6000 years old. (Tyler O'Neil) How long is a day to God? Being that a God would have no reason for a structured and measured time, it could be one of man’s days, to one quintillion days, not to say the Earth is or is not that old, but an example. Mr. Ham’s argument to counter evolution is that “we were not there”. There are other alternatives to carbon testing, but they all rely on on how the radioactive material naturally found degrades. This is because radioactive material degrades at a specific rate giving the Scientist a tool to measure by.

Mr. Ham reasons that according to the Bible, Man and Dinosaur lived side by side. Mr. Ham uses Dragon mythology as a way to prove this. In “Every culture had its dragons, but where and why Dragons?” (Pierre Richards) there are good explanations that match the Mr. Ham’s; but have solid facts backing them up. The Bible has Behemoths, Leviathans, and Unicorns; we know what the unicorn was. The other two could be anything having nothing to do with dinosaurs.

Then bring in “Intelligent design”, a process that is caused by an intelligent force. Yet everything in our universe is set up against life, and life is set up against life; how intelligent is that? And yet this is an empirical truth of nature.

So in conclusion, Ham’s theory is based totally on conjecture of superficial evidence, with no empirical evidence. Evolution, which has been around since 345 B.C. Aristotle wrote with reference to it in his treatise “Scala Naturae”. And Evolution does not counter Creationism, but in fact supports it with a non-magical system.