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 a_haworthroberts » Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:58 pm

What is the likelihood that the lying propaganda merchant Ken Ham - condemned by his own past words and actions to lie about science for the rest of his life in order not to risk losing face - has not even read this book? I expect he or one of his ignorant researchers quickly leafed through a copy or perhaps viewed parts of it online. In 2010 Ham slammed a new Stephen Hawking book before it had even been published in the US.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... naccurate/

I don't suppose Nye will read the new AiG propaganda book either.

PS At 0.40 am - two early reviews (it sounds like the reviewers may have had an advance copy of the book):
http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolut ... 1250007135
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

More Ham propaganda

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:39 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/environmen ... l-nye-lie/

"Unfortunately, though, many websites and news outlets are repeating the lie that creationist researchers deny climate change—and many news outlets are making that claim because of Nye’s insistence that we deny climate change ...".
Ham is deliberately trying to confuse. He is clearly in denial that recent climate warming is largely or wholly caused by man-caused additional emissions of greenhouse gases.

"Where have we ever claimed a “great victory”? Actually, I do answer the question of who won the debate in the recently released book Inside the Nye Ham Debate—but even there I did not claim a “great victory.”" So what DID Ham say in the book then? But I agree that there has been no AiG claim that Ham won a 'great victory' as the article below in the Sydney Morning Herald claimed. His performance was too abysmal for any such claim to be plausible - he did not address the scientific arguments put forward by Nye.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/educatio ... 1glpj.html

"I find it curious that Nye and other secularists usually do not provide the link to the actual debate recording in their writing, much less encourage people to watch it. Why not? Is there something they are concerned about?"
It must be a conspiracy! So 'evolutionists' reading this will be dismayed that I am posting the link to the debate (which most people who take an interest in young earth creationist claims will already have watched):
https://answersingenesis.org/countering ... s-ken-ham/
https://answersingenesis.org/store/prod ... u=30-9-476

"Is it because during the debate I taught people how to think correctly and critically about science and origins, and now the secularists really do not want people to watch the revealing debate?" No and No. But AiG only want people to watch the debate if they also look at AiG links such as the ones above - and buy that recent AiG book 'Inside the Nye-Ham debate'.
https://answersingenesis.org/store/prod ... u=10-2-451
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:31 pm

I have sent the following comment to blogger Fred Clark at Patheos:

"
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivis ... f/#respond
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... star-trek/

One of these blog posts is full of lies and bluster. I'll leave you to guess which. But Mr Ham cannot explain why uranium-thorium dating does NOT give the 'correct' age."


PS
https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/bo ... -creation/
I counted around a dozen lies here. Saying Answers in Genesis are not anti-science is a bit similar to Hitler saying "I have no problem with Jews". Their words and their actions show their claims to be incredibly false and hypocritical. But of course when a YEC uses the word 'science' he or she does not MEAN science, they mean Bible-based dogma and apologetics.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
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 Dec 06, 2014 9:26 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"What might have happened to Templeton’s shipwrecked faith if, instead of being told that he could compromise God’s words with man’s, he had been encouraged with real answers to stand on the authority of God’s Word from the beginning?"
Ken Ham is claiming that his organisation provides "real answers". My foot. I debunk many of their 'answers' (it's not difficult though sometimes it's time-consuming) - and they have NOTHING to say in response.

How come every species of dinosaur has allegedly gone extinct within the last 5,000 years, Ken?
What was that you were saying in your blog on 29 Nov about the Bible allegedly being 'silent' about God preserving land animals after the Flood, Ken?
What's that you sometimes say about Job 40:17 stating that "the tail of behemoth is compared to the large cedar tree", and thus it was probably a massive dinosaur such as a sauropod, Ken?
See
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... 3dinosaurs
Job 40:17a, NKJV, reads: "It moves its tail like a cedar". This describes the tail's movement more than its size - which from the context of the surrounding verses at 15-24 cannot really have been large enough to be from a massive dinosaur such as a sauropod. The creature lay under lotus trees, and these are not particularly tall or wide. Yet Ham misleadingly claims: "the tail of behemoth is compared to the large cedar tree" (he implies this is due largely to its size). Ham also claims - for reasons that are unclear - that verse 19a "He is the first of the ways of God" means that this was the biggest land creature ever created and quite possibly (based on knowledge in 2007) a brachiosaurus.
Is it correct that you disapprove of eisegesis, Ken?





Silence.
No Answers.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his unthinking fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Dec 17, 2014 9:32 pm

This plausible fraud - who has written on his facebook page today "It is vital to teach young people that science has confirmed the truth of God’s Word in Genesis", yet who clearly still CANNOT answer my questions at this other thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3589
- is speculating wildly yet again about asteroids and about dinosaurs (and having a go at Nye, Dawkins, and Hawking because they are or appear to be atheists):
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -humanity/
"After the Flood, dinosaurs died out for the same reasons that many species go extinct each year such as competition for resources, changing climates, or human hunting."
WHY HAS NOT A SINGLE DINOSAUR SURVIVED, KEN? AND WHY ARE YOU IGNORING GENESIS 7 2-3* AND GENESIS 8 16-17**? WHY DID YOU RECENTLY MISLEADINGLY CLAIM IN YOUR BLOG THAT: "The Bible tells us that God commanded Noah to take animals aboard the Ark “to keep them alive with [Noah]” (Genesis 6:19). There is nothing about God promising to preserve them after the Flood, and since Scripture is silent on the issue we must make speculations based on what we know of His character." Scripture is NOT 'silent'. (Though I do agree that it NEVER mention the concept of species/kind extinction.)

If you are a YEC Christian/anti-evolutionist who is reading this post, does Ham's conspicuous silence on the topic of WHY it would appear (based on his Bible-prompted claims) that ALL dinosaurs have gone 'extinct' within the past 4,500 or less years (post 'Flood') not bother you? This despite no major asteroid or comet catastrophe on Earth during that period (yet many mammals and birds have NOT gone extinct in the same period of time - which is what one would expect to be the case).

Science can explain WHY (and WHEN) dinosaurs went extinct.

YEC-ism does not and seemingly CANNOT.

Surely Christian/Bible apologetics should be based on truth not extra-biblical dogma? (Or is there a shortage of appropriate truth?)

I am sending this link to AiG via their website.

But Answers in Genesis LACK answers and they will not deal with my perfectly reasonable question. Exactly WHY have ALL dinosaurs - hundreds of species - 'recently' become extinct (after their 'kind' or 'kinds' survived a 'global flood' and then apparently diversified and recolonised much of the planet)?


* ""Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."" Ham says this included dinosaurs.
** ""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"". Ham says this included dinosaurs.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
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 Dec 19, 2014 4:43 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ant-think/
Ken Ham - who has no plausible scientific answers to anything as far as I can see - passionately wants to indoctrinate kids (and adults) against science - and keep them thus indoctrinated (even if they could still be convinced Christians whilst accepting the scientific consensus). Why? Because he is anti-science and his agenda is pushing pseudo-science instead as 'apologetics'.
Ham's implied assertion that there are always 'two' sides to a 'debate' in science is simply false.
"For example, naturalistic biological evolution breaks the Law of Biogenesis (i.e., life only comes from other life, not simple chemical elements)." There is no such law. And Genesis 2:7 says God created Man from dust not 'life' ie sperms and eggs. God broke his own 'law' (except that it is Ken Ham and co's 'law').
"But there is absolutely no known process that can add new information (that previously did not exist) into the DNA to make these types of changes." Ken Ham is absolutely LYING.
"nor are most kids presented with the strong arguments in favor of the biblical view of origins". There are NO scientific arguments in favour of Ken Ham's view of the biblical view of origins. (That is not to say that science proves atheism or proves that everything has happened by sheer chance eg a universe 'fine-tuned' for life on a 'privileged' planet; honest Christians use such arguments, however bigoted fundamentalist liars like Ken Ham use pseudo-science and unjustly attack the science they detest.)
Newton, Kepler and Bacon were not indoctrinated with the rubbish put out by Answers in Genesis. They lived too soon. They believed in a creator ie they were Christian theists at a time in history when science was really in its infancy. But Ken Ham does NOT live in that period.
Nye knows that people have ALREADY watched February's debate. And decided who had the better scientific arguments.
If Ken Ham truly teaches people to think, why do so many people make such uninformed and ignorant closed-minded comments against science on the AiG facebook page (and why are scientific objections to their bigoted or nonsensical claims so often censored or simply ignored by the qualified 'experts' at AiG)?
Why does Ken Ham believe in ice age? That is part of the historical science that (like evolution) is a 'belief' and according to him not directly testable. And it is not even biblical.
He is inconsistent because what he and his ilk are doing is NOT science. It is Bible propaganda and a subversion of science.

How will Answers in Genesis address these points?

Silence.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Dec 23, 2014 11:41 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:How will Answers in Genesis address these points?

Silence.


I strongly suspect that Answers in Genesis has "peaked". If, as we suspect, The Ark Encounter project fails, it will decline into obscurity and utter irrelevence - a bit like the Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute. The fundamentalist flocks that back creationism are ageing and dying off.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Ken Ham nonsense

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Dec 23, 2014 11:39 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ant-think/
Ken Ham - who has no plausible scientific answers to anything as far as I can see - passionately wants to indoctrinate kids (and adults) against science - and keep them thus indoctrinated (even if they could still be convinced Christians whilst accepting the scientific consensus). Why? Because he is anti-science and his agenda is pushing pseudo-science instead as 'apologetics'.
Ham's implied assertion that there are always 'two' sides to a 'debate' in science is simply false.
"For example, naturalistic biological evolution breaks the Law of Biogenesis (i.e., life only comes from other life, not simple chemical elements)." There is no such law. And Genesis 2:7 says God created Man from dust not 'life' ie sperms and eggs. God broke his own 'law' (except that it is Ken Ham and co's 'law').
"But there is absolutely no known process that can add new information (that previously did not exist) into the DNA to make these types of changes." Ken Ham is absolutely LYING.
"nor are most kids presented with the strong arguments in favor of the biblical view of origins". There are NO scientific arguments in favour of Ken Ham's view of the biblical view of origins. (That is not to say that science proves atheism or proves that everything has happened by sheer chance eg a universe 'fine-tuned' for life on a 'privileged' planet; honest Christians use such arguments, however bigoted fundamentalist liars like Ken Ham use pseudo-science and unjustly attack the science they detest.)
Newton, Kepler and Bacon were not indoctrinated with the rubbish put out by Answers in Genesis. They lived too soon. They believed in a creator ie they were Christian theists at a time in history when science was really in its infancy. But Ken Ham does NOT live in that period.
Nye knows that people have ALREADY watched February's debate. And decided who had the better scientific arguments.
If Ken Ham truly teaches people to think, why do so many people make such uninformed and ignorant closed-minded comments against science on the AiG facebook page (and why are scientific objections to their bigoted or nonsensical claims so often censored or simply ignored by the qualified 'experts' at AiG)?
Why does Ken Ham believe in ice age? That is part of the historical science that (like evolution) is a 'belief' and according to him not directly testable. And it is not even biblical.
He is inconsistent because what he and his ilk are doing is NOT science. It is Bible propaganda and a subversion of science.

How will Answers in Genesis address these points?

Silence.


(This is my post from last week; I accidentally pressed 'Edit' instead of 'Quote' so had to reinstate my original words again - since somebody is lying about what I wrote.)


PPS - in fact the original post IS still visible above. Duh.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Wed Dec 24, 2014 4:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Sorensen always lies about anti-YECs; he is evil

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Dec 23, 2014 11:46 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/12/19/whos-really-raising-kids-who-cant-think/
Ken Ham - who has no plausible scientific answers to anything as far as I can see - passionately wants to indoctrinate kids (and adults) against science - and keep them thus indoctrinated (even if they could still be convinced Christians whilst accepting the scientific consensus). Why? Because he is anti-science and his agenda is pushing pseudo-science instead as 'apologetics'.
Ham's implied assertion that there are always 'two' sides to a 'debate' in science is simply false.
"For example, naturalistic biological evolution breaks the Law of Biogenesis (i.e., life only comes from other life, not simple chemical elements)." There is no such law. And Genesis 2:7 says God created Man from dust not 'life' ie sperms and eggs. God broke his own 'law' (except that it is Ken Ham and co's 'law').
"But there is absolutely no known process that can add new information (that previously did not exist) into the DNA to make these types of changes." Ken Ham is absolutely LYING.
"nor are most kids presented with the strong arguments in favor of the biblical view of origins". There are NO scientific arguments in favour of Ken Ham's view of the biblical view of origins. (That is not to say that science proves atheism or proves that everything has happened by sheer chance eg a universe 'fine-tuned' for life on a 'privileged' planet; honest Christians use such arguments, however bigoted fundamentalist liars like Ken Ham use pseudo-science and unjustly attack the science they detest.)
Newton, Kepler and Bacon were not indoctrinated with the rubbish put out by Answers in Genesis. They lived too soon. They believed in a creator ie they were Christian theists at a time in history when science was really in its infancy. But Ken Ham does NOT live in that period.



https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman ('Cowboy' Bob Sorensen on 19 December but I've only just seen it.)
"From the Irony Board: Nothing like being called a liar by a liar who is defending a liar. In this case, Ken Ham wrote an article (recommended, linked below). An obstreperous anti-creationist critic vented his hatred of Ham and biblical creationists by using ad hominems, blatant misrepresentation, and even attempts at his "brilliant" theology. (Funny when someone like that tries to do theology, isn't it?) Some people don't know the difference between a lie (which requires evidence of the lie) and disagreeing with what has been said. I won't link to the hateful rant where he shows himself a fool (Psalm 14.1), unable to use science, and cannot think logically because he craves attention. I brought up the rant in the first place because it's typical of their ilk.
Anyway, here's the article that hurts people because of the truth:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ant-think/"

LIAR
EVIL
HYPOCRITE
ARROGANT
SELF-IMPORTANT

ALL CHRISTIANS SHOULD SHUN THIS NASTY HATE-FILLED TOTALLY HYPOCRITICAL LIAR. UNLESS HE REPENTS OF DOING HIS UNENDING EVIL.

Happy Christmas to those who decide to do so - and everyone else who reads this.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Indoctrination?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Dec 24, 2014 4:22 pm

One of these people is indoctrinating.

"Multiple scientific studies have revealed that Earth and the universe cannot possibly be just 6,000 years old. Those who claim otherwise are in denial."

"You see there are two kinds of science. Science based on observations is fine. But so-called historical science is built upon numerous worldview-based and purely naturalistic assumptions and it can never discover the truth because none of us was there. Rather historical science is a set of false beliefs and indeed a false religion embraced by those who reject God's clear account of our origins in the book of Genesis in the Bible."


EDIT: just caught up with this real-life example of - well judge for yourselves:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ation-ban/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Uninformed blogger criticises ...

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:59 pm

The blogger criticises 'evolutionists'.
And Ken Ham!
http://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.co ... -update-3/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham 'loves' lying!

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:29 am

My opinion of THIS:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... y-science/
'Creationists don't deny science!'

Has just been submitted HERE (I see Sensuous Curmudgeon has also reacted):
http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.co.u ... ge-of.html

Ham's twisted logic is that 'historical science' is 'naturalism' and therefore it is a 'religion' and therefore it is 'not' science. Utter Codswallop.

Er - I thought 'observational science' was based upon naturalism too?

I've sent a link to this thread to Biologos - so Giberson might see Ham's belated dishonest propagandist 'response' to Giberson's charge that Ham is indeed anti-science.

'Oh Yes They Do.'
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham the propaganda merchant

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:57 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/countering ... ropaganda/
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
Ham is falsely claiming that 'atheists' lie in how they use particular words.
According to his facebook page: "Did you notice how so many atheists on my public Facebook page were very upset last night? It was because I called atheism what it is—a religion! So many of these people showed their intolerance for Christianity. We had to ban many of them for various reasons—name calling, foul language, etc. For too long secularists have been intimidating Christians in this culture."
One word describes Ham best and it begins with the letter 'l'.
I am sure that no 'atheist' will find his arguments at all persuasive and nor will many Christians. But this is propaganda for the YEC rabble to keep them onside and get them more fired up about telling other Christians what they should do and think (in a war against atheists, secularists, evolutionists, scientists, compromisers ...).


PS at 23.59 pm
More here - I've commented on the background (Ham's wide-ranging rant follows a campaign to remove a statue of a praying soldier and 'atheist' annoyance after Ham made provocative comments about 'atheists' on his facebook page):
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... ment-85618
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

More AiG anti Bill Nye propaganda

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:38 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... evolution/
(Blog propaganda article also being flagged by Ham today on his facebook page today.)
"He believes that modern dogs are the result of human-wolf interactions in the past. Then he concludes by saying, “It’s really quite an insight and it’s a result of evolution.” -
Newsflash, Bill—this isn’t evolution!"

It sure is NOT biblical Georgia and Ken. The domestic dog is one of a number of subspecies of the grey wolf - and a result of human actions over probably a longer timescale than just the last 4,500 years.

Your comment "Although the title of Nye’s new book is Undeniable, referring to evolution, what is really undeniable is speciation and an affirmation of the biblical account of creation." AND. Speciation - a reality YECs do not attempt to deny (indeed it's requited to try and account for the millions of species alive today, and the extinct ones, alongside the Noah's Ark fable in Genesis) - is NOT part of any biblical accounts.

(I added to this post - it's now final.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Does Ken Ham REALLY believe his own c**p?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jan 24, 2015 11:53 pm

Message as sent to AiG:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"When you start with the Bible, the ice cores that are generally interpreted by secularists as a record of Earth’s climate over thousands of years were laid down quickly during the post-Flood Ice Age."

When Ken Ham starts with the Bible and attempts alternative 'science' he abandons the scientific method. AND the Bible.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8634
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 11 guests