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 » Thu Aug 15, 2013 10:23 pm

Something else for Ham to blog about?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... purposeful
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... troversial
The New York Times appear not to have consulted any creationists.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
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 Aug 15, 2013 10:58 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtkhNRb-SM
Bigot Ham has no interest in scientific evidence for or even against evolution it would seem. "We have solid proof in our hands that evolution is a lie - the Bible". Science does not normally do 'solid proof' - and if it did arguing that the Bible somehow 'refutes' the theory of evolution would be a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 'solid proof'. Propagandists and fundamentalists are the ones doing 'solid proof'. And guess what - no scientific evidence is currently available for them to be able to make a proper case against evolution - so they either bluster about science or else as here ignore the science completely and instead Bible bash against evolution (or try to make evolutionists look silly as in Comfort's video).
I don't have solid proof that Ken Ham hates science - just reams and reams of strong evidence for it. His words.
He claims evolutionists have 'no' excuse for doubting the Bible.
Well creationists have excuses for their practice of condemning evolution whilst simultaneously not being able remotely to disprove it via science despite decades of trying to. "We have solid proof in our hands that evolution is a lie - the Bible." Yeah, right.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
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 Aug 16, 2013 6:21 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
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 Aug 17, 2013 8:38 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtkhNRb-SM
Bigot Ham has no interest in scientific evidence for or even against evolution it would seem. "We have solid proof in our hands that evolution is a lie - the Bible". Science does not normally do 'solid proof' - and if it did arguing that the Bible somehow 'refutes' the theory of evolution would be a 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 'solid proof'. Propagandists and fundamentalists are the ones doing 'solid proof'. And guess what - no scientific evidence is currently available for them to be able to make a proper case against evolution - so they either bluster about science or else as here ignore the science completely and instead Bible bash against evolution (or try to make evolutionists look silly as in Comfort's video).
I don't have solid proof that Ken Ham hates science - just reams and reams of strong evidence for it. His words.
He claims evolutionists have 'no' excuse for doubting the Bible.
Well creationists have excuses for their practice of condemning evolution whilst simultaneously not being able remotely to disprove it via science despite decades of trying to. "We have solid proof in our hands that evolution is a lie - the Bible." Yeah, right.


Pl also see my comment here just now: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3317&p=46771#p46771
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:29 pm

Steven Novella has blogged about these same Ham remarks. I have added a comment under his post. See my latest posting here for the details (if you wish):
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3317&p=46785#p46785
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:45 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:55 am

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-was-eden
"Not only this, but underneath the region where the present Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are located there exists hundreds of feet of sedimentary strata—a significant amount of which is fossiliferous. Such fossil-bearing strata had to be laid down at the time of the Flood.
Therefore, no one can logically suggest that the area where the present Tigris and Euphrates Rivers are today is the location of the Garden of Eden, for this area is sitting on Flood strata containing billions of dead things (fossils). The perfect Garden of Eden can’t be sitting on billions of dead things before sin entered the world!

I don't have a clue why Ken Ham is saying the Garden of Eden (assuming it is not fictional) cannot be in the Euphrates-Tigris region. IF the fossil layers were formed during the Flood, surely the Garden should be underneath those layers (though any trace of it 'ruined' by the Flood) NOT above them somewhere?!

See also: http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... /#comments
(The blogger seems not to have noticed what I consider Ham's lack of logic, so I am flagging this post there.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
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 Aug 21, 2013 10:20 pm

Is God angry with the creation museum, or is he angry because they installed zip lines ?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... g-incident
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4185
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 Aug 21, 2013 10:31 pm

Shades of York Minster and the then Bishop of Durham, back in 1984?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby InfernalTank » Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:42 am

Something from another forum I go to, relevant to the topic:

http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/8072/mwc3.jpg
InfernalTank
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 1:51 am

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 22, 2013 4:57 pm

Email as just sent:




https://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaPurdom
"I realize this article may be a bit technical for most but I wanted to link to it because it shows the importance of solid creation research.
Evolutionists make the claim that at some point after humans and chimps split into 2 separate lines from a common ape-like ancestor that a chromosome fusion occurred in the human line. This is why chimps have 48 chromosomes and humans have 46 chromosomes (or 24 and 23 pairs, respectively).
Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins of the Institute for Creation Research shows there is a functioning pseudogene right at the point where this supposed fusion of 2 chromosomes occurred (on human chromosome 2). Since there is a crucial "pseudogene" at the point, it strongly points against human chromosome 2 having been formed as a result of the fusion of 2 chromosomes. Great research!"
This is the Tomkins article in question:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... seudogenes

I don't claim to be a geneticist, but a quick search online suggests that the HBBP1 pseudogene is to be found on human chromosome 11 NOT 2 - as indeed is stated in Dr Tomkins' lengthy article.

I have attempted to add the following comment on Dr Purdom's Facebook page:
"It appears that this pseudogene is to be found on human chromosome 11 and not 2."

Ashley Haworth-Roberts
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Georgia Purdom DECEIT

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:07 pm

Further email as just sent:


This is how a YEC corrects false information on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaPurdom
HIDE MY COMMENT
SILENTLY BAN ME FROM MAKING ANY FURTHER COMMENT ON HER PAGE EVEN THOUGH WHAT I POSTED WAS POLITE AND 100% FACTUAL
PRETEND THAT IT WAS SHE WHO DISCOVERED THE MISTAKE, RATHER THAN ME, WITH A NEW APOLOGETIC POSTING TO HER IGNORANT FOLLOWERS.
"I made a mistake in my post yesterday- the functional pseudogene that Tomkins found is on chromosome 11, not 2. I was thinking about some other conversations we had that related to chromosome 2. Sorry for the confusion."

Young Earth creationism is pseudo-science and rather arrogant attacks on mainstream science dressed up as science, devoid of any intellectual backing, and frequently defended by those who practise it with utter deceit and a lack of respect for the many people who strongly disagree with them about science.

I shall shortly be contacting AiG separately (not by email) about this piece of nonsense which I'm still going through: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -age-cycle

As with the above, I will post the details on the British Centre for Science Education community forum - here: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1410

A place where people DON'T get banned simply for politely correcting somebody.

Young Earth creationists make mistakes! And pretend that God rather than their opponents point them out.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rouser Ken Ham and science-denier staff

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:33 pm

As sent to the anti-scientific think tank known as AiG:



http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -age-cycle
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 134127.htm
YEC attacks science - and ends up refuting YEC nonsense instead.

Thank you for publicising the new scientific findings regarding ice ages - accompanied by some religiously-motivated anti-scientific nonsense.

"The earth’s orbit around the sun varies ever so slightly...". Well, that MAY be true if you think Earth has only existed for 6,000 years.

"A persistently cold temperature would have decreased precipitation, as cold air cannot contain great amounts of water vapour". Thus the YEC claims about how a 'single' and 'rapid' ice age started - 'hot' oceans, then volcanic dust, cooling, and 'more' snowfall - are shown to be FALSE (eg http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ed-ice-age).

"The model acquired its current popularity because the ice ages proposed by Milankovitch appear to coincide with data from marine sediment and ice cores, yet those very interpretations are worldview-dependent and ignore other explanations. And because each method used to clock the ice ages assumes that the earth is billions of years old, the results appear to reinforce each other." Garbage.

"Yet earth’s geology only shows definitive evidence for one Ice Age. The occurrence of multiple ice ages, like the idea that the earth is billions of years old, is a worldview-based interpretation, not a demonstrable fact." Lies. Lies. Lies.

"Cold continental masses and air containing an enormous amount of water vapor is the necessary combination to produce the amount of snow required to rapidly build up the ice sheets of the Ice Age." How could 'hot' oceans and 'cold' land masses both occur at the same time? And where is your evidence for such anyhow?

"Because uniformitarian ideas about geology preclude the possibility of a recent catastrophic global Flood and one single Ice Age triggered by it, secular geologists propose multiple ice ages occurred." NO. There's no evidence for the worldwide recent hill-covering 'Genesis' flood. And there IS evidence for multiple ice ages - eg from marine sediments and ice cores. Remember?


PS
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1410
(Georgia Purdom deceit.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Georgia Purdom DECEIT

Postby Brian Jordan » Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:41 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:
Purdom wrote:"I made a mistake in my post yesterday- the functional pseudogene that Tomkins found is on chromosome 11, not 2. I was thinking about some other conversations we had that related to chromosome 2. Sorry for the confusion."
Well done, Ashley.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 3919
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:05 am

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... entations/
"people (Christian and non-Christian) who deliberately misrepresent the Creation Museum in their attempts to undermine its Bible-upholding teachings".

If you are a critic of young Earth creationism, you will be labelled a 'liar' by online YECs - often without any supporting evidence of dishonesty. Look at all the hysterical comments that appear on Ken Ham's and AiG's Facebook pages or indeed by those who run or frequent 'The Question Evolution Project' Facebook page (not ALL the comments are hysterical but some certainly are; these closed-minded or indoctrinated people have decided that THEY are not the liars about science even if they hold very much minority views - so it must be the wicked evolutionists who are the liars instead).

And if an example of misrepresentation of young Earth creationists/creationism is given - as in this recent instance - the YECs always assume that any misrepresentation was deliberate and that their words or beliefs were never unclear or in any way ambiguous.

It seems the devil recently tempted Ken Ham to be honest about science - but Ken managed to resist. Now he's back on form again (recovered from jet lag presumably). "Actually, as I say time and time again, science confirms the Bible." Ah yes, planet Earth exists - just as the Bible claims.

Go Ken Go.

"If you have no absolute authority in your life and you believe that we live in in a purposeless and meaningless world, I guess you can believe it’s OK to make up things." So why do Answers in Genesis make up things? Tis a mystery.

This is the Myers blog post that Ham alludes to (I missed it the other day):
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... nist-cant/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7066
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