Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Sep 23, 2012 10:00 pm

Michael wrote:He has no braincells but has swallowed the YEC line as he thinks it is honest
You have one parishioner who is a YEC, and he makes his opinion felt. Yet Peter tells us of congregations with loads of non-YECs who put up with the preaching of creationism without a murmur :( . Why is this? Is it because the YECs follow MacKay and Ham in threatening damnation?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:18 am

Well this chap shook his head as I said there was no science in Genesis and it is baqsically a poem to God as creator. He shook his head (possibly empty) again when I slipped out humans had neen around 200000 years and tackled me afterwards.

He has no braincells but has swallowed the YEC line as he thinks it is honest


Did he not remind you of Mt. St Helens Michael ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4208
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:12 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:An 'interesting' article (dishing the dirt on Hugh Ross) with several 'interesting' comments underneath: http://creationrevolution.com/2012/09/h ... o-believe/
Of course Ham and Ross participated in a FOUR-WAY US TV debate earlier this year... (YECs and OECs)
Also saw this one - no idea who this Herman Cummings is. From his tone, he's not helping his chances of securing a debate with Ham or Ross (or evolutionists/atheists)! http://www.opednews.com/Diary/The-Truth ... 2-562.html


Fundamentalists all hate each others' guts. What do you expect?

Hugh Ross is particularly hated and Jonathan Sarfati has written an entire book attacking him. Herman Cummings seems to suffer from delusions of grandeur in claiming the Pope refuses to debate with him.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6018
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby marcsurtees » Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:43 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:You know, I just wonder. If Bill Nye became a Christian but still rejected young Earth creationism, would Answers in Genesis (and CMI) be rejoicing that a sinner had been saved ? Somehow, I rather think not (both Marc and Paul Garner have skirted around this question).


Just to put the record straight... yet again! I have not skirted around this question, I have been very clear.
Yes, I would rejoice that a sinner had been saved, without reservation.

As for Answers in Genesis, I think that a brief look at the following (edit: which I believe is the debate referred to earlier in this thread) shows Ham's attitude to Christians who are OEC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM
You only have to watch the first 10 minutes or so to see the way Ham relates to Ross et al.
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby cathy » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:26 pm

Yes, I would rejoice that a sinner had been saved, without reservation.

Thats very easy to achieve. Start being an honest creationist, stop lying about science, correct ALL the errors you've made on all the creationist sites, state clearly and unambigously that you reject science for religious reasons only cos you feel your faith requires (but accept that is your choice), publicly denounce the talks given by the likes of Steve Lloyd that push the creationist line to those who feel it more 'christian' to not push it lest it drive people away and lo and behold I'll be a saved person!!! Take your pals a CMI to task for the derision they pour on non creationist christians almost daily. And their hate filled bile and lies.

Otherwise they are just empty words from you - and empty words are very easy to write. Is 'atheist science' still on your website?

Ashley is right, until your actions back you up, until you stop pushing creationism, you ARE skirting round the issue and unsaving people by the day!! While you keep pushing the creationist line you ARE implicitly saying YECism is necessary to be a fully fledged christian! Well YECism is dishonest and plain wrong (morally and - er - generally) and no thinking person can accept that. So until you start stating very loudly that it has no real relevance at all to christianity you are being a hypocrite.

All you need is to obey in full the ninth commandment and you can rejoice away without reservation. Cos I'll have seen a miracle ha ha. An miraculous vision of an honest creationist - oops, a squadron of pigs has flown over and hell is getting very cold indeed.
Last edited by cathy on Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
cathy
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Brian Jordan » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:27 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:You know, I just wonder. If Bill Nye became a Christian but still rejected young Earth creationism, would Answers in Genesis (and CMI) be rejoicing that a sinner had been saved ? Somehow, I rather think not (both Marc and Paul Garner have skirted around this question).


Just to put the record straight... yet again! I have not skirted around this question, I have been very clear.
Yes, I would rejoice that a sinner had been saved, without reservation.
What sin has Bill Nye committed, Marc?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby cathy » Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:36 pm

What sin has Bill Nye committed, Marc?

The heinous mortal sin of honesty obviously. All he says is true and truth to creationists is like Quirrell trying to touch Harry Potter in the Philosophers Stone. In burns them
cathy
 
Posts: 3585
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:32 pm

As for Answers in Genesis, I think that a brief look at the following (edit: which I believe is the debate referred to earlier in this thread) shows Ham's attitude to Christians who are OEC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM
You only have to watch the first 10 minutes or so to see the way Ham relates to Ross et al.


It's not the impression I get, especially when Ham refers to those who promote science as "secularists", or those Christians who accept either the age of the Earth or evolution (i.e. science) as compromisers.

I rather suspect that if Nye became a Christian but still rejected creationism, AiG's reaction would be somewhat muted, that is, if they even accepted him as a christian at all.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4208
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 24, 2012 6:16 pm

At first I thought Mr Nye had made some new comments, but I think NBC News may just be catching up with the recent comments: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49151216/ns ... e-science/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Michael » Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:46 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:You know, I just wonder. If Bill Nye became a Christian but still rejected young Earth creationism, would Answers in Genesis (and CMI) be rejoicing that a sinner had been saved ? Somehow, I rather think not (both Marc and Paul Garner have skirted around this question).


Just to put the record straight... yet again! I have not skirted around this question, I have been very clear.
Yes, I would rejoice that a sinner had been saved, without reservation.

As for Answers in Genesis, I think that a brief look at the following (edit: which I believe is the debate referred to earlier in this thread) shows Ham's attitude to Christians who are OEC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM
You only have to watch the first 10 minutes or so to see the way Ham relates to Ross et al.


I don't need to watch the video, I have personally experienced his venom
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:00 pm

Michael wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:You know, I just wonder. If Bill Nye became a Christian but still rejected young Earth creationism, would Answers in Genesis (and CMI) be rejoicing that a sinner had been saved ? Somehow, I rather think not (both Marc and Paul Garner have skirted around this question).


Just to put the record straight... yet again! I have not skirted around this question, I have been very clear.
Yes, I would rejoice that a sinner had been saved, without reservation.

As for Answers in Genesis, I think that a brief look at the following (edit: which I believe is the debate referred to earlier in this thread) shows Ham's attitude to Christians who are OEC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgueGotRqbM
You only have to watch the first 10 minutes or so to see the way Ham relates to Ross et al.


I don't need to watch the video, I have personally experienced his venom


Yer, he just can't accept that other people are quite capable of reaching their own conclusions about religion.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6018
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:35 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:At first I thought Mr Nye had made some new comments, but I think NBC News may just be catching up with the recent comments: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49151216/ns ... e-science/


This same article has appeared elsewhere eg in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html. As I mentioned, it wasn't clear that Nye had made new statements in public - though Georgia Purdom has prefaced the link on her Facebook page by writing: "Not surprised but it doesn't look like Bill Nye is going to debate". (When Mr Ham first reported the debate challenge - in his daily blog post on 8 September - he wrote: "I would think that someone as polished and charismatic as Mr. Nye would relish the opportunity to debate a creationist".)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:22 am

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Michael wrote:Good article on Ken Scam

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/ ... -strategy/


I recommend that this article is a must read. It sums up what I've been saying about Ken Ham for a long, long time. He cannot accept that other people have different opinions to him and is a bully boy.

Sadly, many like the simple, hardline message he sends out. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong."



Roger - Ken Ham is quoting part of your comment!
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29

For Mr Ham's information - this is not a 'secular site'. Of course, you don't provide a link - thus your fans will assume that it is a 'secular site'!

Mr Ham misses the point when he refers to 'literal Genesis' alongside belief in a Virgin Birth or Resurrection. In advocating the first of these three AiG are forced to advocate and disseminate active SCIENCE DENIAL - in order to avoid 'Bible compromise'.

To take an example, if the evidence supported a c6,000 year old Earth, even non-Christians and pro-science Christians would affirm this. But it does not.

Keep reading, Mr Ham.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:02 am

PS By not a 'secular site' I mean that a number of Christians post at this community forum.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7185
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Michael » Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:19 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:PS By not a 'secular site' I mean that a number of Christians post at this community forum.



Ham uses secularist to make his acolytes regard any normal Christians as non-christian and secularist. It is simply dishonest
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests