One of them is presenting a pseudo-explanation in the ABSENCE of evidence; the other is presenting a pseudo-explanation in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to evidence. Ken Ham's position is therefore more irrational... but not by much, and it IS rational to him in that it's making him rich.
One of them is presenting a pseudo-explanation in the ABSENCE of evidence; the other is presenting a pseudo-explanation in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to evidence. Ken Ham's position is therefore more irrational... but not by much, and it IS rational to him in that it's making him rich.