User talk:Jonowll

Hi there,

those edits were better, but it is still unnecessarily preachy. Please forgive me if I'm not editing this properly, I'm still reading up on how to talk and edit on Wikipedia with the little time I have -- thanks for your patience.

I think the focus has to be on Ken and what he believes rather than somebody critiquing what he believes. The tone is wrong. It needs to be more factual. For instance if we were to look at Hitler we'd be talking about what he believed, his political influences NOT why his beliefs were right or wrong, or how they differed to Stalin et al. Who cares how his beliefs differed. We're interested in his beliefs and what influenced them.

My suggestions:

Again, the words "His claim...based on HIS interpretation of the bible..." are still inaccurate. His beliefs are historically in line with the teaching of the church for over 1,600 years. While he may believe that it doesn't make it HIS interpretation. That's like saying because somebody believes in gravity that's THEIR interpretation -- that's a false statement.

Also, why is "...is contradicted by evidence for astronomy...4.5 billion years old." even there? The article, with that sentence, is not being factual -- it's somebody trying to belittle him.

What do you think of this?:

Ham advocates Biblical literalism, taking the Book of Genesis as historical fact, a stance that is disputed by many modern scientific theories. His belief that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old is based on the teachings of several church fathers: John Chrysostom (344–407), Ephraim the Syrian (306–372), Basil the Great (329–379) and Ambrose of Milan (339–397).

Yes, he may hold a belief that differs from scientific consensus, this can be mentioned quite simply. There really is no need to inject anything else in there. Let's just keep to the facts. This isn't an essay critiquing Ken and his views, it's meant to be a reference source.
 * Wasn't the age of 6000 years old established by Bishop James Ussher and or the Masoretic Text? Plus, I would suggest "that is disputed by modern science" or "current scientific consensus," as all of the theories that describe the age of the earth are universally accepted.  Having said those, you are right that we should not ascribe his interpretation as "his" simply because he was taught that.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That, and welcome to Wikipedia! I would apply the "welcome template," but I'm not sure how that's done.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)