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 » Sun May 12, 2013 11:29 pm

And if a YEC reading this thread disagrees - why not pluck up the courage and say why? (You would have to behave a lot worse than the person that Ham's merry band of intolerant followers are getting almost hysterical about before being banned - sorry if that disappoints.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7118
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Mon May 13, 2013 1:15 pm

Personally, I think Ken Ham is simply lying here:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29

Of course, the big bang is not operational science (i.e., testable, observable, or repeatable) but historical science (i.e., assumptions about the unobservable past). The big bang is really a religion that is used by most astronomers to explain away God.


I thought that was exactly what cosmologists did do i.e. "observe" the past ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4196
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 May 13, 2013 6:03 pm

More examples of kids being brainwashed, this time from CMI:

Powerful forces are working to ‘suppress the truth’ (Romans 1:18) about origins/creation in schools. But Christians using creation resources are fighting back.


http://creation.com/fighting-suppression

Grandson Jacob’s teacher gave the ‘party line’ on origins yesterday. “Two massive clouds of cosmic gasses collided and as a result our sun emerged … ”

Jacob raised his hand and interrupted, “I don’t believe that!”

“I beg your pardon, Jacob? Why not?” she asked.

“Because there was nothing but GOD and He just spoke and that’s where our sun came from” was the simple faith of this 8-year-old.

The teacher responded: “You know, Jacob, you are right. I don’t believe it [evolution] either. It happened just like you said but I’m not allowed to say it [creation] as a teacher. Thank you for saying it for me.”


Thankfully, students are raising these issues, like Jacob above. Another example was after Creation magazine’s children’s pages told of dating tests on rock formed in 1949, 1954 and 1975 from lava flows at New Zealand’s Mt Ngauruhoe. The lab results ‘dated’ these rocks at up to 3.5 million years old!6

Feedback showed that the kids certainly understood the take-home message: If radiometric ‘dating’ is wrong on rocks of known age, why should we presume it’s right on rocks of unknown age? An excited mother told us,

“Johnny’s teacher telephoned me to ask, ‘Where did your son get this information?’ I replied, ‘From Creation magazine’!”


Preaching ignorance to the ignorant.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4196
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 Brian Jordan » Mon May 13, 2013 7:45 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:More examples of kids being brainwashed, this time from CMI:<snip>
Preaching ignorance to the ignorant.
By the willfully ignorant.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 3936
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby cathy » Tue May 14, 2013 4:53 pm

Why the hell these teachers aren't sacked is beyond me!!!! They are paid to teach not un teach, to give children opportunities not rob them of the ability to understand. They are a disgrace :evil: :evil: :evil:
cathy
 
Posts: 3569
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby cathy » Tue May 14, 2013 4:57 pm

Ooh I've just noticed Conversations with Creationists section on the board index. Is it new or have I just been too dozy to notice it before? I don't know whats on there as I don't have permission to look. :D
cathy
 
Posts: 3569
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Brian Jordan » Tue May 14, 2013 5:48 pm

cathy wrote:Ooh I've just noticed Conversations with Creationists section on the board index. Is it new or have I just been too dozy to notice it before? I don't know whats on there as I don't have permission to look. :D
Just provisional at the moment so there's nothing there. I evidently need to do something about setting permissions - it's meant be open. Or rather, I didn't intend to restrict it.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 3936
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue May 14, 2013 6:28 pm

My hypothetical 'formal debate' with Jason Petersen, or my failed attempts to communicate with Cowboy Bob about his rather wild blog assertions (he replies to me and about me behind my back on Facebook rather than directly because he has labelled me a 'spammer' and a 'troll'), could both appear there.

:)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7118
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Thu May 16, 2013 6:42 pm

Now Ken is stating that rejection of young Earth creationism is heresy :

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ly-heresy/

He's getting very close indeed to saying that unless a Christian accepts young Earth creationism they cannot be saved.

I think he's crossed the line here.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4196
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 » Thu May 16, 2013 7:05 pm

I think the question is whether YEC Christians preach a young Earth when they preach Christianity and evangelise. The hearer might then regard 'deep time' as real and a 'young Earth' as a stumbling block. Thus they would be well advised NOT to preach against deep time when preaching the gospel - and to raise the issue AFTER the person is converted. Of course, if the person refuses to embrace YEC-ism, the YEC might feel he or she should say "you are doubting that parts of God's word are literal truth". But they should NOT say "all true Christians embrace YEC-ism once they encounter and understand it" or "if you refuse to embrace YEC-ism you probably never truly became a Christian". I am not aware that they say these things (a small minority of YECs MIGHT say them).

But there is a danger that truly saved Christians (as well as others in the church) will misunderstand what YECs believe about this whole issue if YECs do not make themselves clear. Whilst some Christians arguably take away from scripture or 'water it down', to many YECs ADD to scripture - both in terms of history and in terms of how they might define a 'Christian'.

EDIT: I wrote the above before reading Ham's blog - I normally read it last thing.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7118
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri May 17, 2013 1:05 pm

Nope Ken, young Earth creationism isn't "God's word" as you put it:

Here is the Christian Post article on the Christian School in South Carolina (Blue Ridge Christian Academy) that has been--and continues to be--viciously attacked by atheists because they are teaching God's Word as truth and as a part of that teaching students the truth about Dinosaurs and creation (using AiG materials). I encourage you to read this article.

As AiG's gift to this school and to encourage them, I have just arranged for a large quantity of creation apologetics books and DVD's and creation based curricula to be sent to their library as a gift.

As the atheists have so attacked them for teaching biblical creation, I'm making sure the school has a large collection of the best resources for their library on creation based science and biblical creation that they could possibly have. Actually I thank the atheists for bringing this school to the world's media attention and for providing the circumstances to help this school financially and so they will be even more fervent in teaching kids the truth of creation--and equipping them to be able to answer the skeptical questions of our day in regard to God's Word--and to be able to come against the anti-God religion of evolution/millions of years. Yes what men menat for evil, God meant for good.

http://global.christianpost.com/news/ch ... ons-96063/
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4196
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 » Fri May 17, 2013 10:11 pm

An hors d'oeuvre before I get to the main course:
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... e-secular/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7118
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Bodie Hodge - clumsy liar for Jesus

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 18, 2013 12:26 am

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ce-secular

"Even in modern times, the inventor of the MRI scanning machine, Dr. Raymond Damadian, is a Christian working with Christian principles. The founder of catastrophic plate tectonics, Dr. John Baumgardner,is also a devout Christian."
Only a young Earth creationist ideologue would try to equate an invention used in medicine with a fantasy dreamed up by fellow ideologues.

"Only the God described in the Bible can account for a logical and orderly universe." Mathematics and physical laws do not require a God in order to exist (well the former certainly does not anyway).

"Because God upholds the universe in a consistent manner, we have a valid reason to expect that we can study the world we live in and describe the laws that God uses to sustain the universe." So why do YECs show by their statements that they are ANTI-science? (Clue - because the findings of science have already refuted their beliefs about how or indeed whether God created what we see in the natural order today.)

"Though many non-Christians do science, like inventing new technologies or improving medical science, they are doing it in a manner that is inconsistent with their professed worldview." But - unlike YEC ideologues - they accept and expect that we can study the world we live in and describe the natural/physical laws that determine how it behaves. Yet - when it comes to past events - YECs make special pleading that the natural/physical laws of today are NO guide to even the 'recent' past. That is ANTI-scientific dogma - and a rescue device that they have urgent need of in order to persuade biased or poorly educated Christians that their beliefs about the past have 'scientific' merit. They don't.

"On what basis should we expect a universe that came from nothing and for no reason to act in a predictable and consistent manner? Hodge has NOT shown that we should not - we don't live in an utterly chaotic universe after all but nobody can 'see' a God.

"So, the debate is not “science versus religion.” It is really “religion versus religion.” Sadly, science is caught up in the middle." LIAR. The debate is science versus biblical creationism. And biblical creationism ADDS to the Bible thus is a bit like a Christian cult.

"It is a battle over two different religions." No it is not. According to people like you (and the Bible itself) religion is NOT allowed to change its mind because of new information or evidence. LIAR.

"However, evolution (whether chemical, biological, astronomical, or geological) is far from scientific." You are WRONGLY defining science - as ONLY including as knowledge things which can be and have been directly observed. Besides chemical evolution/abiogenesis is a subset within evolutionary theory - there is evidence for evolutionary change in lifeforms which CAN be observed (obviously it needs to be interpreted and sometimes real scientists disagree).

"Christians also believe in the natural realm...". Yes - those who aren't dogmatic YECs. But you reject or misinterpret evidence you do not like.

"That is, people who are consistent in their naturalistic worldview shouldn’t care about true science or the world, since nothing ultimately matters in that worldview." Unfortunately for YOU, many many people (including some who are Christians but many who are not) who understand science and know that YEC dogmatists LIE about it and try to redefine it, DO care about your behaviour. Specifically your attempts to spread ignorance and confusion about nature in the name of Jesus.

Many sincere Christians who are scientists profoundly disagree, after examining its claims in detail, with young Earth creationist/biblical/creation science.

They find Dawkins more plausible than Ham when it comes to science. They are right to do so.

You are on the wrong side of the scientific argument, Mr Hodge.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7118
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

More unpleasantness from Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 18, 2013 11:47 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29

"... propaganda, the typical misrepresentations, the usual negative comments, the typical mocking, the usual inaccuracies and usual lies, etc...". What, pray, were these? Oh I see - the atheist bloggers made an incorrect statement about there being just two full-time AiG staff with doctorates (PhDs) from secular schools (universities). Big deal.

Does Mr Ham provide a link to the atheist blog containing all the misrepresentations, inaccuracies and lies that he whinges about? Do turkeys vote for Christmas?
HERE it is: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... /#comments

Georgia Purdom wrote a much more charitable response:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... t-success/


I have just posted a message based on the above comments at the Patheos blog post in question.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7118
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun May 19, 2013 9:11 pm

A new blog post which I'm about to read: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... onference/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7118
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 1 guest