They didn't like this:https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... acts-fail/
(it emphasises how some people have a 'worldview' that causes them to reject any evidence that undermines the worldview in question)
So they wrote this arrogant piece of gobbledygook:https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
"It's not facts that fail -- it’s the interpretation of facts that fail when secularists have wrong presuppositions.
Most secularists don’t understand science and interpretation of facts, and they blindly follow those who misinterpret facts regarding origins. Creationists don’t ignore facts -- they correctly interpret facts because they have the right presuppositions.
Most secularists won’t acknowledge or will refuse to acknowledge the presuppositions they use when interpreting evidence regarding origins."
AiG's newest British recruit is being dogmatic because another committed Christian - a British pastor - had the gall to criticise the 'Ark Encounter' and the 'young earth' pseudo-science that is pushed there in the name of the Bible and the gospel:http://www.affinity.org.uk/foundations- ... -dogmatismhttps://answersingenesis.org/reviews/ar ... dogmatism/
John James remarks in his opening comments, referring to people like Ken Ham, that "the forceful insistence on six literal solar days is a relatively recent phenomenon in response to the atheistic outworking of Darwinian evolution".
He only considers Genesis 1 (see a quote from Young and Stearley that is presented) - and not also genealogies found in the Bible - but concludes: "The dogmatic claims of young-earth creationism, so forcefully expressed by Ken Ham, are a relatively recent phenomenon, driven not by the unequivocal clarity of Scripture on this matter, but by a desire to argue against the contemporary claims of scientific naturalism."
The response from AiG's Simon Turpin asks: "To accuse fellow Christians of participating in “pseudo-science” is a serious charge. Does this mean that the many PhD scientists in the fields of geology, paleontology, astronomy, biology, and so on who affirm belief in a young-earth creation (YEC) are “pseudo-scientists”?"
Basically, yes they are I would contend. Nothing in Turpin's lengthy piece convinces me otherwise. He also - for a second time - misuses a quote by Mark Harrison of UCLA (please see here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3793&p=51151&hilit=harrison#p51151
Turpin also makes absurd claims:
"James relies heavily upon old earth creationists Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley’s work The Bible, Rocks and Time. These old-earth geological arguments, however, have long been refuted. Moreover, uniformitarianism has nothing to do with observation or the evidence, but scoffers believe it to avoid interpreting geological evidence in light of the catastrophic processes during and as a result of Noah’s Flood (2 Peter 3:3–6)."
He also claims that James makes 'astonishing' claims (regarding how historical or modern today's YEC movement is). He further claims that James has failed "to read and interact meaningfully with what YEC actually believe". And then he seeks to push for more pastors to come to AiG conferences (in order to be indoctrinated that because a young earth is 'biblical' and an old earth raises theological issues, therefore they should embrace a 'young earth' - and lo and behold AiG have besides 'refuted' an old earth, so a young earth must be true after all despite any and all the evidence suggesting otherwise): "I would encourage pastors and lay people alike to consider attending our 2017 Mega Conference so that they can be equipped to deal with the issues of evolution and millions of years."
(How many of these people are - like Turpin - from a humanities or arts rather than a scientific background?)
And Ken Ham has been protesting yet again:https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... t-science/
If you don't agree with Ken Ham (and unlike him care about evidence more than 'worldview') then you possess a 'faulty belief' about science. What utter hubris. From a child indoctrinator who spends his life railing against science 'brainwashing' in public education.
Here again is one of Ham's favourite fictitious pleas (probably targeted at his fanbase not Joe Public):
"But we aren’t against science. We’re against an evolutionary, naturalistic interpretation of the evidence that contradicts God’s Word."
Until you can come up with some alternative science to the evolutionary consensus (which other Christians buy into too), you ARE against science Mr Ham.
All Ham exposes here is the arrogance of his position (instead of preaching the gospel he is demanding that 'secularists' - against their conscience in many cases - 'admit their faulty beliefs'). Why? Because HE and Answers in Genesis say so.
This thread sets out all the many scientific questions, arising from THEIR claims, that Ham and co REFUSE to address:viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1680
[Message as sent to AiG via their website.]