I can assure you that Ham doesn't understand evolutionary biology, nor does he understand how science works. Ham and his ilk are not willing to follow the evidence where it leads, and to change his position as a result. He knows the conclusion he wants to come to, and works backwards from there.
I think you are right, but bobbied is right too. Ham knows his own arguments and how to present them in a way that may sound good and deceive the uninformed. He has lots of experience and practice doing it. Complicated truths are often hard to defend in a short space of time allowed for in a debate, but simplistic attacks that may require involved responses are easy to make. Ken Ham's bat-sh-t crazy ideas won't necessarily preclude him from coming off better looking in the debate.
Yes, that is what peta,org used to be: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney.
It seems to me that you have labeled this as a fallacy known as "appeal to belief" incorrectly. The 97% are not just anybody, but are papers from peer reviewed journals. These are authorities. The argument in this case is an appeal to authority, but it is not a fallacious appeal because in this case, the ones claiming to be authorities in fact are so qualified.
The study is just another case in point demonstrating the strong consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real.
had she opted to put this in a glass bottle and screw the metal cap back on like a real deviant some people could have been hurt, that hurls glass out at a pretty good clip and could easily slice some people up. She's a terrorist.
I remember doing similar ridiculous experiments with the "science club" during Junior High. I was an irresponsible jerk, but not a "terrorist". It was a different era so nothing happened to me. This girl was just goofing around in an otherwise very good way -- no intent to harm anyone and no one was harmed. She should get a figurative slap on the hand and move on. The school and the police are being ridiculous.
2 pints = 1 Cavort