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 Peter Henderson » Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:22 pm

CMI having a go at forensic science. Presumably, "eye witness" accounts carry more weight:

http://creation.com/lindy-chamberlain-c ... -interview
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
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 28, 2013 10:06 pm

Someone named Daniel on the AiG Facebook page:
"It is very simple... If you believe in the literal story of creation as depicted in genesis you MUST fall into one of the following three categories:
1. You are lazy and have not bothered to look at the evidence against Genesis at all. Forgivable, I suppose but don't then have the gaul to have an opinion about the matter.
2. You have looked at the evidence but are not capable of understanding that it categorically destroys the Genesis creation story. This is again forgivable, yet I doubt many people on here are incapable of understanding the evidence. It's basic school science and geology we're talking about here.
3. You have looked at the evidence and understood it and have still come to the impossible conclusion that Genesis account is correct when every shread of evidence on the matter shows that it is completely and utterly false. To be in this category you HAVE to be clinically insane. Believing something as crazy as this that was non-religious would have a person put into counselling for madness. But because it happens to be in the bible (which is loaded with contradiction and has no scientific credibility whatsoever) milions of people believe it as faith.
You do know that the world's major Christian organisations, most notably the Carholic Church) accept evolution and NOT the Genesis creation story, don't you? So it is REALLY REALLY important to take a stand on the age pf the Earth. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geography, Geology and Palientology all agree that it is approximately 5 billion years old and the Universe ot sits in approximately 13 billion years old. Your Genesis account thinks the Earth began later than the beginnings of the domestication of the dog. Please go and read some proper books and try to actually learn something."

To which one Kevin Moritz responds thus:
"The obvious 4th possibility is that you're and idiot and refuse to acknowledge the evidence that the earth IS young. You can pretend there are only three options all you want, but none of us are going to respond, "Oh, I guess I have to pick one of the stupid options rather than the 4th, reasonable one." And, again, the usual, moronic, trite, and false implied criticism, "If you don't agree with me, you obviously don't understand science...or evolution...or the evidence...," etc. Don't waste my time.";
"The rest of your diatribe (after a quick glance) didn't warrant an actual reading.".

I have voted for the 'diatribe'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham

Postby jon_12091 » Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:56 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/where-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.)


The following article includes some comments on the location of Eden as well as savaging creationist theories about the Grand Canyon
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Carol%202.pdf
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:44 am

That article published in the journal of the American Scientific Affiliation is quite thorough.
http://network.asa3.org/

Hmm - young Earth creationists like Ken Ham claim to 'love' science.

But I assume that is ONLY when science appears to agree with THEM. By 'science' I mean where you start with your CONCLUSION and then interpret the evidence in such a way as to try to JUSTIFY it.

(By contrast, Hill and Moshier start with the evidence.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 30, 2013 6:30 pm

Rabble rouser Ken Ham is lying about evolutionary ideas - apparently they are believed with 'blind faith' and they depend almost entirely on 'chance' alone.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... more-faith
He is becoming more like Ray Comfort.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Comment by Dr Elizabeth Mitchell

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Aug 31, 2013 11:36 pm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... star-birth
"What we actually observe in space (Psalm 19:1) does not contradict this historical account in Scripture, though evolutionary and naturalistic interpretations do. The true interpretation of the things we see, however, will never contradict the truth in God’s Word."

It's called viewing things through a Biblical 'lens' - and rejecting science because science contradicts non-scientific Genesis (which AiG want to claim is science). Oh, and the 'truth in God's Word' is frequently not set out beforehand but is deployed against science as and when a new or reinforced scientific claim makes the news and is one that - again - threatens the YEC paradigm that is placed by its adherents upon the 2,000+ year old Bible.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 Sep 05, 2013 6:44 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 Sep 06, 2013 10:56 pm

As posted by Ken Ham on his Facebook page on 6 September:
"Australians go to the poles tomorrow (Saturday 7th September)".

:)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:25 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:As posted by Ken Ham on his Facebook page on 6 September:
"Australians go to the poles tomorrow (Saturday 7th September)".

:)


No doubt Ken will be pleased with the outcome.

Abbott is anti gay marriage and a climate change sceptic.

Prayers answered.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Ken Ham misrepresents a blogger (yes really)

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:40 pm

The blogger was describing how a visit to the Creation Museum made them feel.

https://plus.google.com/app/basic/strea ... mxfoalyg0k
"I felt I was at a funeral for someone I loved and everyone else wanted dead"

Ken Ham on his Facebook page on 8 September:
""I felt I was at a funeral for someone I loved..." Yep--it was a 'funeral' for evolution and millions of years--that's what this person really experienced, and they didn't like it!".

Firstly Ham is trying to tell us what the blogger 'really' thought or meant. Secondly, he is admitting in effect that YECs' whole reason for living is to try and kill off scientific ideas and evidence that they intensely dislike, by any means possible (OK now I'm suggesting what he 'really' meant).

Further brief comment here:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-h ... mp-104122/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:13 pm

Ken Ham, unsurprisingly, was unimpressed by this on his Facebook page:
http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Ke ... _paper.pdf (I only skimmed parts of the article, but the section on pages 4 and 5 that mentions Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is interesting - since the Sun drives Earth's weather and thus rainfall or mist, how could newly created plants grow on day 3 before the Sun was created on day 4 or perhaps they did not grow for the first 24 hours or so - or maybe Genesis 1 is nonsense and Genesis 2 is somewhat more accurate though it also mentions streams watering the ground apparently before the first rain)

I suspect from his comments that Ken Ham only skimmed the article as well.

Here is an example of how he tries to respond: "He uses horrible reasoning and very vague vocabulary (e.g., science, believe in God, evolution, etc)...". What nonsense. But of course YECs are very slippery whenever THEY use the word 'science'. And they falsely accuse evolutionists of using the word 'evolution' when what is truly meant is simply 'natural selection' or 'genetic change over time' or 'adaptation' or 'speciation within kinds'. Nobody else when discussing science or belief in God or evolution is being 'very vague'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 Sep 10, 2013 11:50 pm

While I can do so, I've added another, necessary, post at the Ken Ham Facebook page (see the 'Creationist cult' thread at News and Links for details of the first one) in the thread about the Sunday Times poster:
"Catherine Cook (and others) Please check your facts: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract"

I was responding to the following emotional nonsense (which the writer may believe is true if she only consults Answers in Genesis for scientific 'information'):
"That's the stupidest bunch of lies I ever heard of! Deliberate deceitful ness! Look how they point to the feet, when no ape fossils have been found with human feet bones!! The second skull was found in many little pieces, so they glued it back together to look the way they wanted! Same with Lucy's hip bone! Lucy wasn't found with feet! A bunch of liars. This is why they don't want real scientific study in the classrooms..(creation and intelligent design)".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 Sep 11, 2013 10:49 pm

How odd - I no longer appear allowed to make a comment on Ken Ham's facebook page.

What a bunch of dishonest, censoring ****ers.

Ken Ham thinks more ice in the Arctic in summer 2013 compared to summer 2012 signifies 'global cooling'.

I think he is off his rocker.

And all my comments of yesterday have been silently removed - even the one answering Ken Ham's request: "Yes I read about this--but could not find what books were handed out or much about the church--if you have any other information could you post for me". (See the 'Creationist Cult' thread at News and Links.)

I will expose this arrogant behaviour by email shortly.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 Sep 11, 2013 11:25 pm

Wide circulation email as just sent:


HOW YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST CHRISTIANS HYPOCRITICALLY SUPPRESS TRUTH

Who? The people moderating Ken Ham's Facebook page that's who.

Please see attached a couple of photos of the page, taken around 24
hours apart.

Now you see it (last night, one of several posts I made): [it's the post "It is NOT a Christian school (any more than other UK non-denominational state schools not affiliated to - in the case of Scotland which is different to England - the Roman Catholic Church): http://www.kirktonholme-pri.s-lanark.sch.uk/
Meanwhile Ken Ham wanted this info: http://bcseweb.blogspot.co.uk/"]

Now you don't:

And I have apparently been silently barred from making any further
comment.

What are they afraid of?

Truth, that's what.

Is the Christian God a liar too? Or merely fiction?

Young Earth Creationism - fighting truth, fighting all critics,
fighting scientific realities. For Jesus.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1425

Why are Ken's Facebook fans being prevented from reading this?
http://bcseweb.blogspot.co.uk/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 Sep 11, 2013 11:42 pm

This arrogant and despicable behaviour by professing Christians also means that users of the Facebook page are potentially left with FALSE information viz that Kirktonholme Primary is a 'religious' ie 'Christian' school and that this science paper does not exist http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract and that "Lucy [fossils of the species Australopithecus afarensis] wasn't found with feet!"

That's what Ken Ham wants - IGNORANCE. Faith-building ignorance.

He presides over an empire of lies.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests

cron