Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

[a_haworthroberts]

PS I recommend this blog by Joel Anderson which discusses the same Ham blog post:
http://www.joeledmundanderson.com/?p=826

[a_haworthroberts]

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... ul-church/
Ken Ham is in effect saying that accepting that Earth appears to be billions of years old is 'sinful'. That IS bigoted.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... ants-adam/
So Neanderthals could read and write then, Mr Ham (since you insist they were fully human and descended from Adam). Where is the evidence of Neanderthals, who probably did have rudimentary language unlike apes, writing down their thoughts and other Neanderthals reading them?
Or perhaps Ken Ham does not 'do' legitimate questions arising from his intransigent extravagant claims. Perhaps his real purpose is merely to convince hardline and gullible Christians that 'scientists are stupid and wilfully ignorant and should not be listened to'. And that he should be listened to - uncritically.

[a_haworthroberts]

Anti-science hypocrite advertising indoctrination camps for kids:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... iblically/

[a_haworthroberts]

I sent the following email at 4.31 pm GMT:

"
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... build-ark/
"Sometimes I just shake my head when I read some of the comments people make concerning the life-size Ark that Answers in Genesis is constructing in Northern Kentucky, to open July 7 this year."
"You shouldn’t have used any metal in the Ark as Noah didn’t use metal. But where in the Bible does it say Noah didn’t use metal? In fact, in Genesis 4:22, just a few generations after Adam, we read, “And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron.” So if they were using bronze and iron then, by the time of Noah people may have developed all sorts of sophisticated uses of metals. Noah may have used more metal than we do!"

Ham also rounds on the critics - who have dared question the use by Answers in Genesis of STEEL in constructing their 'replica' ark - by accusing them of the 'Contrary to the Fact/Conditional Error Fallacy'.

For someone who says he cares about biblical truth and also about facts, I find it strange that in his - very - speculative response to these pesky critics Ken Ham totally ignores Genesis 6: 14 "So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out" (New International Version).

Human history does NOT suggest that bronze or iron (let alone steel) was ever employed in shipbuilding around 2,500 BC. Has Ham not heard of the Industrial Revolution? And I rather suspect that Noah would have found it harder to get his hands on iron or steel than on cypress (or gopher) wood and pitch.

I also recall that the ark of Genesis was discussed at the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate two years ago. Nye related the tale of the 19th century schooner named the Wyoming and remarked "There were 14 crewmen aboard a ship built by very skilled shipwrights in New England. These guys were the best in the world at wooden shipbuilding, and they could not build a boat as big as the Ark is claimed to be to have been".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner) (the ship was built - but it proved not to be properly seaworthy and eventually sank when encountering heavy seas)
http://www.youngearth.org/index.php/arc ... nye-debate

At the debate Ham briefly tried to rebut Nye's ark claims during his counter-rebuttal remarks. However, he said nothing whatsoever about metal allegedly also being used in the ark's construction.

AiG DID attempt - three weeks later - to rubbish what much of Nye said about Noah building his ark:
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/ ... noahs-ark/
Again, they made NO mention of Noah possibly using metal as well as wood. Perhaps because the idea is scarcely biblical (let alone historically realistic).

So what is the agenda of Answers 'in' Genesis that I refer to? To insist that humanity has 'always' been clever and skilled. Because humanity is unique among all the species on Earth and created 'in God's image', unlike any extant or extinct great ape (or other 'intelligent' species such as dolphins).

But it would appear that sometimes Ken Ham is LESS biblical than SOME of his critics.

A H-R
PS I admit that I too have something of an agenda. Questioning how some fundamentalist Christians use parts of the Bible, or speculations loosely based upon it, as a means of rewriting history and 'refuting' scientists."


I then sent the following email at 6.39 pm:
"
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
Just seen. Career Liar and publicity hungry Fraud Ken Ham on his Facebook page 8 hours ago, encouraging followers to read his article mentioned above:
"People need to stop having a false evolutionary view of history and understand people like Noah were highly intelligent and no doubt skilled."
Who is telling the truth? The writer of Genesis? Or Ken Ham? Or neither?"

I have just contacted AiG about the above via their website.

They will of course act as though I did not and totally ignore my message. They are not open to reason - even when their claims are not even biblical.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... and-teens/
"I teach kids the truth about dinosaurs and the Bible". There is no such 'truth'. There is Ken Ham's science denial, pseudo-science, and misuse of the Bible to attack science and brainwash youngsters.
"They learned that atheists have a blind faith but that the Christian faith and God’s Word are confirmed by observational science." No - evolution (not solely believed by evil atheists) has much supporting observable scientific evidence (as well as theories and interpretations regarding past events that humans could not witness). Observational science - whilst not ruling out the possibility of a God - does NOT however support the dogma put about by Ken Ham. No amount of lying that it does will change that. For instance a large but not totally chaotic fossil record does NOT confirm a 'recent worldwide hill-covering flood' a la Genesis (which is fiction anyway). Yet this pathological liar informs kids that it 'does'.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... evolution/
"Games and books that teach evolution to kids are growing increasingly popular. This is largely because of the declining scientific literacy here in America." That's a non sequitur if there ever was one.
I am sure that much (not all) of the blame for the scientific illiteracy in America lies at the door of child indoctrinator Ken Ham. Who openly ADMITS (see previous link): "Evolutionists have been leading generations of kids astray with the lie of evolution. That’s why it’s so important to teach kids the truth about creation from God’s Word, beginning at a young age". (Ken Ham can't reach ALL kids because not all kids attend church - and not all churches will tolerate his indoctrination of their youngsters either.)
"And the fossil record isn’t the record of life’s slow evolution. Most of it is the result of the global Flood of Noah’s day, so we should expect to see fully formed and complex animals from the very bottom of the record. The evidence confirms God’s Word, not evolutionary ideas about the past." (And humans are at the TOP of the fossil record.)
KEN HAM IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND A HATER OF SCIENCE AND REASON.
"At AiG we love science ...".
KEN HAM IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND A COMPLETE HYPOCRITE.
"we love science!" No. They love brainwashing and lying.
KEN HAM IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND A COMPLETE HYPOCRITE.


Go on Ken Ham. ANSWER MY QUESTION. Did neanderthals have written language? YES or NO?
A refusal to answer proves that you are a LYING FRAUD.
(But if he says 'yes' he has NO supporting evidence and is making up 'facts' and if he says 'no' then his false claims in one of his recent blogs about neanderthals supposedly emerging within the last 4,000 years post-Babel completely fall apart.)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3756
Oh and Ken Ham is too proud to take the easy way out and say "I don't know".

So the dishonest disrespectful evasive SILENCE from the so-called 'science lovers' of the false prophets at 'Answers' 'in' Genesis will continue. Along with Ham's campaigns of anti-scientific and cult-like indoctrination of tomorrow's potential Christians and church-goers.


PS AT 9.08 PM - THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN SENT TO AIG VIA THEIR OWN WEBSITE.

[a_haworthroberts]

PS
In fact my neanderthal questioning was in a recent email sent to AiG (and anti-YECs too):

"
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... build-ark/
"Sometimes I just shake my head when I read some of the comments people make concerning the life-size Ark that Answers in Genesis is constructing in Northern Kentucky, to open July 7 this year."
"You shouldn’t have used any metal in the Ark as Noah didn’t use metal. But where in the Bible does it say Noah didn’t use metal? In fact, in Genesis 4:22, just a few generations after Adam, we read, “And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron.” So if they were using bronze and iron then, by the time of Noah people may have developed all sorts of sophisticated uses of metals. Noah may have used more metal than we do!"

Ham also rounds on the critics - who have dared question the use by Answers in Genesis of STEEL in constructing their 'replica' ark - by accusing them of the 'Contrary to the Fact/Conditional Error Fallacy'.

For someone who says he cares about biblical truth and also about facts, I find it strange that in his - very - speculative response to these pesky critics Ken Ham totally ignores Genesis 6: 14 "So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out" (New International Version).

Human history does NOT suggest that bronze or iron (let alone steel) was ever employed in shipbuilding around 2,500 BC. Has Ham not heard of the Industrial Revolution? And I rather suspect that Noah would have found it harder to get his hands on iron or steel than on cypress (or gopher) wood and pitch.

I also recall that the ark of Genesis was discussed at the Ken Ham-Bill Nye debate two years ago. Nye related the tale of the 19th century schooner named the Wyoming and remarked "There were 14 crewmen aboard a ship built by very skilled shipwrights in New England. These guys were the best in the world at wooden shipbuilding, and they could not build a boat as big as the Ark is claimed to be to have been".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner) (the ship was built - but it proved not to be properly seaworthy and eventually sank when encountering heavy seas)
http://www.youngearth.org/index.php/arc ... nye-debate

At the debate Ham briefly tried to rebut Nye's ark claims during his counter-rebuttal remarks. However, he said nothing whatsoever about metal allegedly also being used in the ark's construction.

AiG DID attempt - three weeks later - to rubbish what much of Nye said about Noah building his ark:
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/ ... noahs-ark/
Again, they made NO mention of Noah possibly using metal as well as wood. Perhaps because the idea is scarcely biblical (let alone historically realistic).

So what is the agenda of Answers 'in' Genesis that I refer to? To insist that humanity has 'always' been clever and skilled. Because humanity is unique among all the species on Earth and created 'in God's image', unlike any extant or extinct great ape (or other 'intelligent' species such as dolphins).

But it would appear that sometimes Ken Ham is LESS biblical than SOME of his critics.


https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
Just seen. Career Liar and publicity hungry Fraud Ken Ham on his Facebook page 8 hours ago, encouraging followers to read his article mentioned above:
"People need to stop having a false evolutionary view of history and understand people like Noah were highly intelligent and no doubt skilled."
Who is telling the truth? The writer of Genesis? Or Ken Ham? Or neither?"

[a_haworthroberts]

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simo ... n=20160323
"The global Flood is key to understanding the age of the earth. The idea of the great age of the earth came from the belief that the fossil record was laid down over millions of years. However, either the fossil record is the evidence of millions of years, or it is largely the evidence of Noah’s Flood—it cannot be both. We cannot logically believe in millions of years and a global Flood. For this reason, many old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists believe that the Flood mentioned in Genesis 6–8 was either a local flood or a myth."

Turpin should read my comments above* and DEAL WITH THEIR CONTENTS. Instead of pushing lies and false dichotomies. TE's and OECs reject a recent global flood because it is FICTION - not because it somehow 'nullifies' billions of years of time.

[* And my comments dated 20 March HERE:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3756]

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-v ... evolution/ (I didn't read every single sentence)
"What’s really interesting here is that there’s a general order to the fossils. At the bottom, you’ll find mostly single-celled microorganisms, then sea creatures in abundance, such as sponges, clams, and squids. Move up, and you’ll find amphibians, then dinosaurs, and finally birds and large mammals ... You could take a look at that stack of fossils and assume that those layers mean billions of years of creatures evolving from sea to land. But the fossil picture can take on a completely different look if you think of it another way—through the lens of Noah's trip on the ark ... you can see that the fossil order isn’t about time, but about location, order of burial, and other aspects. Also, fossilization requires special conditions. When most things die, scavengers and bacteria quickly do away with them. But we have billions (that’s with a b) of fossils all over the earth—a smorgasbord of all kinds of amazing creatures. Rapid burial of creatures during one global yearlong Flood explains why".

Yet another smug YEC ideologue lying to himself that his hardline beliefs come directly from scripture (the writer of Genesis had surely never heard of fossils or fossilisation) and are equally 'scientific' and 'valid' as the conclusions of real scientists (including other Christians and theists).

"The chasm between evolutionists and creationists isn’t what many people think it is. We both study the universe and agree on the basic nature of the data coming in. We can shake hands about the fundamental laws of how things work. We both love science." LIAR.

I am once again sending this thread to AiG VIA THEIR WEBSITE. And also emailing it to Upchurch's Pinelake Church.

Of course they will NEVER EVER acknowledge my arguments. Because they are frauds and bigots.

[a_haworthroberts]

Ken Ham's pathological hatred of science (and love of dogma) on his facebook page:

"Genesis 1-11 is a true account of the geological, biological, astronomical, and anthropological history that explains the universe we live in.
And evolutionary biology, geology, astronomy, and anthropology are nothing less than man’s pagan religion to try to explain life without God."
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham


PS
On and there is more hatred of science and common sense here:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... -for-life/
"If our planet is the only planet supporting life, then the idea of evolution is called into question." Rubbish. It just means that life only started in one place. (I already commented on the Faulkner piece that Ham is advertising.)

[a_haworthroberts]

"Have you noticed how Christians aren't afraid to take their children to secular museums and distinguish between belief (evolution) and fact, but secularists are fearful for children to go to the Creation Museum because they don't want them taught how to think correctly about origins?" (Ken Ham on his Facebook page overnight.)

No, Ken I haven't. However I have noticed how many Christians aren't afraid to take their children to secular museums but 'secularists' are fearful for children to go to the Creation Museum because the secularists don't want their children taught lies about science but the Christians recognise that evolution is a genuine scientific theory and are willing for their children to learn what the biologists and geologists think happened in Earth's past.

[a_haworthroberts]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/c ... /83801.htm
'Creationist Ken Ham says atheists aren't 'fighting for the truth but suppressing it'.'
The article refers to this:
https://answersingenesis.org/world-reli ... ists-care/

Sometimes atheists falsely attack Christianity out of ignorance of what exactly it teaches. Ken Ham of course claims to speak for biblical Christianity - though he leads a specific apologetics ministry dedicated to "providing answers to questions about the Bible—particularly the book of Genesis—regarding key issues such as creation, evolution, science, and the age of the earth".

So is Ham suggesting that he has carte blanche to lie (not just preach Bible messages but actively lie about science and lie about his critics in order to dismiss what they say) and if people point out this behaviour out then they are 'not' fighting for truth instead but suppressing truth? What nonsense.

Those tactics won't stop people pointing out genuine lying (making statements as facts when they clearly aren't facts but simply dogma or faith-based assumptions or indeed deliberate deceptions) by Ham.

Of course, should atheists or other critics lie about Ham (some may well do at times) then he would have a genuine grievance.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/phot ... =3&theater
"Here's a photo of the giraffe KIND for the Ark Encounter -- one of the land animal KINDS to go on the life-size Ark, opening July 7."

Garbage.

[a_haworthroberts]

More anti-science garbage from AiG:
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of- ... -question/ (Danny Faulkner.)
"abiogenesis has been scientifically disproved." Oh no, it has not.
"the origin of life is not a scientific question". Only if you are a religious fundamentalist who rejects swathes of science.
"Every attempt to explain life contradicts science." Rubbish.

PS and this YEC idiot (in the UK) does not know the difference between a monkey and an ape:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simo ... -us-human/

[a_haworthroberts]

Recently Ham gave unscrupulous and highly critical Australian TV station Channel 7 a rather easy time (because they gave him and his current big evangelistic/apologist business venture the oxygen of massive publicity) whilst at the same time Bill Nye (who appeared in their TV programme) got it in the neck (though Mr Ham then graciously extended Nye the courtesy of an invitation to tour the 'Ark Encounter' when it opens).

Now THIS has appeared (and I see that Ham has responded to it on his daily blog). So is he annoyed or delighted (NB the writer appears unaware that not all Christians and religious folk are quite like Ken Ham and AiG):
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion ... /85032820/

I will now read what Ham has to say - and try and answer my own question.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... istianity/

He's annoyed!

And he's gone into LYING mode almost straightaway. "The student makes a number of unfounded, false statements about what we as Christians believe". That's funny - I saw NO such false statements. And Ham FAILS to identify any.

He continues: "the reason we can develop technology, gain engineering skills, and do math is because we accept the laws of nature, the uniformity of nature, and laws of logic that just cannot be explained by natural processes".

Yet the same Ken Ham insists that we cannot learn anything about Earth's past from 'historical' science (which shows literal Genesis and its implied timescales to be utterly wrong which is why he dislikes it) and that an 'eye-witness' account (that would be the opening 11 chapters of Genesis) is required instead to inform us what really happened scientifically and historically. Which is not exactly in harmony with his 'laws of nature' and 'uniformity of nature' that he otherwise accepts (when it's an apologetics tool to 'rebut' pure materialism and plead for theism and for intelligent design in the universe and in Earth's life).

"Is he also making similar claims about Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Orthodox Jews (and the list could go on)? Or is he only fighting against Bible-believing Christians?" Good question. The student does mention 'religion'. But he is discussing the activities - in the Cincinnati area - of KEN HAM. Who is rather good at distraction techniques.

Ham refers to the US Constitution and First Amendment. Does this freedom of religion extend to preaching "false information threatening our understanding of the natural world" including in what is in one case called a 'museum' rather than eg a 'church' (presumably it DOES)? And be assured - the Ark Encounter WILL be preaching reams of FALSE information - on 'kinds' of life, on a recent worldwide hill-covering flood, on dinosaurs co-existing with humans, on innumerable 'recent' extinctions, on climate change (or a lack thereof), on a recent 'rapid' ice age caused by the said flood and 'worldwide' volcanism.

And Ham's parting shot is to accuse the student of 'hypocrisy'. Where? How?