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 Michael » Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:56 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:http://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
I see that another Roberts has criticised the use of terminology by creationists in Sorensen's thread about Eric Hovind and the Crocoduck Award (see my separate thread).

And then he tries to take the moral high ground with: ""we are innocent until proven guilty" Most civilized people use that principle".

The man is a total HYPOCRITE. When I contacted him by email about something he had written on Ken Ham's Facebook page he retorted with a totally baseless and evidence-free accusation that I had been banned from Georgia Purdom's Facebook page and had used a fake identity on Facebook (I have never posted any comments on Facebook anywhere).



terminological inexactitude is winston Churchill's term for a lie
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:22 am

cathy wrote:
Whatever you do don't show them the truth

The closest creationists have got to an honest person is Todd Wood and that is because he admits they've got nothing and gets angry with the lie that all scientists are liars and idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There isn't a single other creationist who knows the meaning of the word truth.


A creationist blogger has lost faith in Ken Ham (but not in Kurt Wise or Todd Wood): http://theologica.ning.com/profiles/blo ... e=activity

In defence of Mr Ham - the evidence so POORLY supports your position and so POORLY refutes evolutionism that to be a bold, dogmatic, convincing, charismatic and high-profile YEC 'leader' the avoidance of any lying or knocking down of strawmen is almost impossible.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8630
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:11 pm

So why does Marc think that he is better than all the thinking scientists that have come to the conclusion it is so well suppported it is fact??


Clearly Cathy, Marc hasn't been brainwashed or infected with the disease of millions of years !
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
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 » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:21 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:The ICR have been a bit slow in jumping on this bandwagon. But better late than never.
http://www.icr.org/article/7091/


And another one: http://www.icr.org/article/7093/

"They identified the vertebrate-specific proteins actin and PHEX, as well as DNA in the dinosaur cells." The ICR seem to be leaping ahead of the science in this particular comment - as I understand it preserved DNA has not definitely been found. However the title of the article is accurate: "Did Scientists Find T. Rex DNA?" The answer could be 'yes' though, as mentioned in the second link below, "These data strongly suggest that the DNA is original, but without sequence data, it is impossible to confirm that the DNA is dinosaurian". Should that be the case, it supports the hypothesis of birds being descended from some dinosaurs.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23085295
http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/tpschweitzer-bone/

Of course Mr Thomas FAILS to mention "the antibody to PHEX will only recognize and bind to one specific site only found in mature bone cells from birds" (the fossils examined are certainly not of birds). Instead we get: "However, if it is dinosaur DNA—the most obvious explanation of the data—it cannot be millions of years old" (even if dinosaurs only died out less than 5,000 years' ago, as claimed by YECs because of their doctrine, it certainly could).

As for his fourth footnote, is it correct that the 'half-life' of dinosaur DNA should be of the SAME length as the 'half-life' of moa DNA?

I will now study this to see if my questions are answered: http://eyeonicr.wordpress.com/2012/11/0 ... saur-cell/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8630
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:01 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:Message to CMI about today's Shaun Doyle Flood eisegesis:

"
http://creation.com/termites-lizards-bible

"He didn’t have to. Termites, like other insects, didn’t need to be on the Ark..."
So termites are not 'creeping things of the ground' (Genesis 6:20 ESV)? Call yourself a scientist?

"Another important point is that not every species of animal was brought to the Ark, but every kind of (land-dwelling vertebrate) animal was brought to the Ark".
TOSH. I refer you to Genesis 6:19: "of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark". Why are you twisting what the Bible actually SAYS? It says nothing here suggesting that not all land species needed to be on the ark.
If your comment is NOT tosh, please supply the Bible reference(s) to show this.

"The Bible promotes a fixity of kinds, not a fixity of species in the modern sense". Reference, PLEASE.

"This may sound rather strange to you." Indeed.

YECs like you two indulge in eisegesis. The other day I emailed Answers in Genesis as follows:
"http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/10/kindly-encode-my-junk-dna.html
(For Bob Sorensen's benefit in particular I repeat my previous
comment
that Dr Purdom's Part 2 attacks what evolutionists such as Francis
Collins said BEFORE the recent ENCODE story rather than AFTER it.)
If you wish, please listen to the Purdom video. It's having a go at
Collins - I think this video predates the recent news story relating
to ENCODE.
But I am concerned about how Dr Purdom spins Genesis in the video
that
Mr Sorensen attaches.
She argues 10 minutes in that a reference by Collins to Christians
who
believe that "all species were created ex nihilo" is 'strawman
argument' because creationists don't believe that but believe God
created all 'kinds' ex nihilo because that is - she says - what the
Bible says. But it is NOT what the Bible says.
Not in the NIV anyway: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?
search=Genesis+1&version=NIV
Verse 11: "according to their various kinds";
Verse 12: "according to their kinds";
Verse 21: "according to their kinds", "according to its kind";
Verse 24: ditto;
Verse 25: "according to their kinds" (repeated twice).
It is clear to me that kind means 'variety' - or species - of tree,
bird etc. Not 'family' in the modern biological classification, as
claimed by Purdom.
There is no Biblical indication that these kinds or members of them
would then 'evolve' and speciate into new species after Noah's Flood
-
as YECs are forced to claim for the Bible, because of the vast number
of species alive today (including land-based ones that could not all
fit
onto an ark), not to mention all the thousands of extinct ones.
Partly
by its silence, the Bible implies that no new species/creature
appeared
on Earth after 'creation week'. (Wrong of course - as even YECs
accept.) See Genesis 8:15-17 "Then God said to Noah, "Come out of the
ark, you and your wife and your sons and their wives. Bring out every
kind of living creature that is with you - the birds, the animals,
and
all the creatures that move along the ground - so they can multiply
on
the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it."" No mention
of
adaptation or speciation.
The Bible also implies that every single 'kind' of animal, creeping
creature and bird created in the six days was taken onto the ark - I
am
unclear whether YECs teach this Bible-based conclusion but suspect
not
because they know that all such species could not all fit onto an ark
(so they either say the ark only contained representatives of 'kinds'
or that many new species only appeared after the flood).

Please don't just believe or disbelieve me - check this out for
yourselves!"."

I DO think the Bible implies fixity of species - but of course not even YECs can live with THAT falsehood.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... DNA-ENCODE
"Although the research has been praised by many, some evolutionists have tried to dismiss the findings because they are inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview."
Are they really?

There's little that's new here - all the 'evolutionist' quotes are several years old like previously I think.

Purdom's main arguments appear to be:
(1) "The findings of ENCODE provide the answer as to why junk DNA is there. A good portion of it may be functional";
(2) "The very presence of junk DNA in modern organisms seems inconsistent with an evolutionary worldview."

Thus she is suggesting that it is not junk DNA - which kind of DNA would be inconsistent with an 'evolutionary worldview'. SO WHAT IS THE SUPPOSED PROBLEM FOR EVOLUTION FROM THIS RESEARCH, ACCORDING TO AIG?

The article closes with the fallacious argument: "Evidence will always be interpreted in light of a person’s worldview". Scientists - collectively (most science papers do not have SINGLE author but a team of authors/researchers) - merely seek to interpret evidence ONLY. It is creationists, NOT scientists, who superimpose scripture requirements upon evidence (or quietly shrug off awkward evidence).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8630
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:35 pm

As I mentioned in this thread on 10 September, Georgia Purdom chided the Huffington Post for 'not doing their homework' after they stated in this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0 ... 49375.html
that she "did not comment [in a Bill Nye rebuttal video] on studies that have shown that evolution has been observed in a laboratory setting".
Her claim was ONLY true in that the Huff Post did not do a check of what she might have claimed PREVIOUSLY (back in 2008) on this topic (regarding the Lenski Experiment). As it stood, the comment in the Huff Post was not untrue (regarding the rebuttal video).

There is now a new Purdom blog post, which mentions among other things the Lenski Experiment and the Huffington Post: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... on-or-not/

I am about to comment on this in my thread 'Case of gene duplication and new function' at 'Science only'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8630
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:53 pm

Should we be anticipating another Ken Ham blog post attacking the Huffington Post?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronald-he ... 07129.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8630
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:47 pm

Obama-hater Sorensen is having a 'bit of bother' dealing with a question from AC in the 'Crocoduck' thread... Because naughty AC alleged that someone else (MJ) was attacking a strawman argument about evolution, and Bob appears stumped for an answer, he instead posts comments like "While your fundie devotion to evolutionism is admirable, perhaps YOU should do more than name calling and start looking at information that is not from apologists for your religion. This "No, you're wrong, you don't understand evolution!" is pathetic bleating" and "Why should I address your childish denial? Mike's observation was correct, you don't have to like it. You do not have the truth, you simply throw childish tantrums. I've seen your nastiness on other pages (and you've been reported for that, and your antics here). Move along, and come back when your frontal lobes develop" and ""I made insulting comments on other threads, but not on this one." So, you act like a jerk, and we're supposed to excuse that because you're not quite as insulting here? Scram".
http://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
Read it while you can!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8630
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:51 pm

I'll get to this later tonight. In the likely event that I will have comments I'll post them in the thread at 'Science only': http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8630
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:55 pm

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/11 ... th-dr.html
http://kgov.com/bel/20121102
Splutter.
Back-slapping pseudo-scientific discussion between Jonathan Sarfati and Bob Enyart.
Covers ENCODE vs junk DNA, dinosaur soft tissue and possible DNA, carbon 14 detections in eg diamonds (mocking of contamination because real scientists reject contamination from biofilm for the dino soft tissues), recent YEC 'findings' of two dinosaur species both being less than 40,000 years old, neutron capture ideas, left handed amino acids only...

There seems to be something of a YEC 'science' offensive going on at present, even though evolutionism and old Earthism are not in crisis to my knowledge.

The Enyart programme is called 'Real Science Friday'. (Mr Enyart is NO scientist as he freely admits.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8630
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:11 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlEqseCKI84
What a loudmouth.
Apparently people in America have bad and incorrect beliefs, and attend bad churches, and this leads them to the bad behaviour of voting for Barack Obama.
(He forgot to call him Barack Hussein Obama.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8630
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun Nov 11, 2012 4:04 pm

He's having a go at pet lovers today:

https://www.facebook.com/#!/aigkenham
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
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 Peter Henderson » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:12 pm

When you decide to take on pretty much all of science, the stakes are high !

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/post ... 3654425615

This article from the New York Times in essence sums up the consequences what we at AiG have been saying/warning for a long time:

1. The American culture is becoming less Christian every day
2. 2/3rds of young are walking away from the church by the time they reach college age
3. Increasing numbers of clergy and Christian academics are compromising God’s Word with man’s secular ideas
4. It only takes one generation to lose a culture—and America has gone over that precipice

Why is not the church reaching the culture from a Christian worldview perspective as it did in the past? Because the culture has invaded the church. For nearly 30 years now, in my messages, I have warned that America is going the way of England and the rest of Europe. And why? Because most of the church leadership has allowed the authority of God’s Word to be undermined, beginning in Genesis. Compromise in Genesis is rampant in church (or, which has the same devastating effect, Genesis is ignored). Generations of young people in the church have not been taught apologetics to defend the Christian faith. Now these generations may have been taught to trust in Jesus—but the message of Jesus comes from God’s Word. And if these younger generations doubt God’s Word in the beginning—they will get on a slippery slide of doubt and unbelief. So many church leaders have said Genesis doesn’t matter—as long as you trust Christ. But the point they miss is the message of the gospel comes from God’s Word. And what’s happened in our culture is that generations from the church have NOT been taught to trust God’s Word from the beginning—they have not been equipped to deal with the secular attacks of our day. And 95% of kids from church homes have been sent to public schools. These schools by and large (except for a few missionaries in the system) have thrown God, the Bible and prayer out—they have been teaching kids that the whole of reality is explained by natural process—that is nothing less than ATHEISM. Public schools by and large have become temples of Atheism, with the teachers (other than the minority of Christian teachers) Priests of secular humanism. And so much of the church has supported public schools—yet most kids from church homes do not survive the system. There are exceptions—but they are exceptions!

I believe the teaching of evolution (biological, geological, astronomical and anthropological) and millions of years are a major part of the great ‘delusion’ of our day causing people to believe ‘The Lie’ that God’s Word is not true—thus the gospel based in God’s Word is not true.

“And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,” (2 Thessalonians 2:11)

My prediction—USA will become like England where now church attendance is down to 5% and 2/3rds of teenagers say they don’t believe in God—unless there is a dramatic change in the church and its leaders concerning their attitude to Scripture. And I suggest it is the church’s fault that we are losing the culture from a Christian perspective! Yes we need revival in the culture—but I believe we need a reformation in our churches first before there can be revival. The church needs to repent of compromise and get back to the authority of the Word beginning in Genesis. Without the foundation of God’s infallible Word (from which we get the message of the origin of sin and our need of a Savior), there is really no basis for revival.

I have taken excerpts from the New York Times article for you:

“Christian conservatives, for more than two decades a pivotal force in American politics, are grappling with Election Day results that repudiated their influence and suggested that the cultural tide — especially on gay issues — has shifted against them “It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed,” he said. “An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.” [R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary]…

…The election results are just one indication of larger trends in American religion that Christian conservatives are still digesting, political analysts say. Americans who have no religious affiliation — pollsters call them the “nones” — are now about one-fifth of the population over all, according to a study released last month by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

The younger generation is even less religious: about one-third of Americans ages 18 to 22 say they are either atheists, agnostics or nothing in particular. Americans who are secular are far more likely to vote for liberal candidates and for same-sex marriage…

…The evangelical share of the population is both declining and graying, studies show. Large churches like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God, which have provided an organizing base for the Christian right, are losing members.

…Meanwhile, religious liberals are gradually becoming more visible. Liberal clergy members spoke out in support of same-sex marriage
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
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 cathy » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:43 pm

Because most of the church leadership has allowed the authority of God’s Word to be undermined, beginning in Genesis. Compromise in Genesis is rampant in church (or, which has the same devastating effect, Genesis is ignored). Generations of young people in the church have not been taught apologetics to defend the Christian faith.

Lying hypocritical old b@@@@@@d. It is precisely intolerant, arrogant, dishonest bigots like Ken Ham that are driving people away from the church. Read the blogs!!! And increasingly AiG and their creationist lackeys are doing so here as well!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if these younger generations doubt God’s Word in the beginning—they will get on a slippery slide of doubt and unbelief.
Show me a single christian who has NOT been exposed to creationism but has then been put off by evolution??? I don't know a single one. They just plod along continuing to believe in God shown to them by the evil compromisers and accepting all the atheistic science of the evil atheistic, satanic scientists.

But show me a christian who has been brought up or exposed to creationism and then found out about evolution and then you'll see a different picture. Even with my limited number of creationist acquaintances/students it is most, sorry all of the younger ones. Totally turned off religion. Hardline atheists! The only ones who aren't are old and not particularly bright and most definitely wilfully ignorant.

they have been teaching kids that the whole of reality is explained by natural process—that is nothing less than ATHEISM.
Lying little s@@@

Public schools by and large have become temples of Atheism, with the teachers (other than the minority of Christian teachers) Priests of secular humanism.
OOh our christian teachers will love that comment :evil:

…The evangelical share of the population is both declining and graying, studies show. Large churches like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God, which have provided an organizing base for the Christian right, are losing members.

Does this idiotic man really not understand that religious decline in the US is the fault of people like him?? Are creationists really that lacking in any sense of self awareness?
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:50 pm

Ken Ham seems to think the church can control the culture and scientific knowledge. It can't. Not even in America!

Unless he is advocating a theocracy, and I've never seen him expressly suggest that.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8630
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests