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 » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:04 pm

These people embrace ludicrous beliefs - whether from the cradle or as young people/adults - and then rationalise them to themselves as 'scientific'. Thus anybody who disagrees with their nonsensical far-fetched claims is branded as a suppressor of 'truth' or someone who is in denial of 'facts'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Sep 28, 2013 7:38 pm

Ken Ham on Facebook today (a post which has generated a vast response from the fans):

"This is the very reason we don't allow for comments under our articles on the web or on our videos on Youtube. The trolls (and those who oppose AiG) usually attack viciously, use vile language, blasphemy, personal attacks, etc., etc--so we can't allow comments. The atheists express anger at us for not allowing comments because they want to gang up on the articles when they come out--most are not interested in carefully considering the content.
Incidentally, one of the comments to this article about 'Popular Science' is laughable. The comment states:
"so I'd imagine they're constantly under attack from Ken Ham and his acolytes." This person can't imagine it's their their own people that cause the problems!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023726290"

This comment from Ham is just an EXCUSE for censorship/stifling of debate of course (AiG are well-funded so they could run a pre-moderated forum). (CMI TAKE comments on specific web articles but censor ones they don't like - AiG do not even TAKE comments in private and if you contact them via the Contact/News pages they ignore you.)

And Ham's comments do NOT explain why gross scientific errors of FACT (not controversial YEC claims but errors of fact) by Ken Ham or his supporters on Facebook are, it seems, NEVER ever corrected even when expressly pointed out to AiG. Instead those pointing out ERRORS are BANNED.

However, I fear there is also some truth in what Ham says. I have seen people use vile language and personal attacks - whether against creationists or in other contexts - INSTEAD of carefully considering the content of YEC articles they dislike. Which spoils things for me and others and helps Ham in his efforts to lump all/almost all his critics together as being 'trolls'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Oct 02, 2013 2:01 am

Ken Ham has got a new book out (again):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/p ... u=10-2-440
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:28 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Ken Ham has got a new book out (again):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/p ... u=10-2-440
Funny, it flashes up the book title and then the page goes blank.
Oh, I see, he's after putting dinosaur cookies on my machine. He can clear off! Still, his title suggests he does indeed realise the harm his nonsense is doing: causing the decline of the church. :twisted:
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:33 pm

This is what Brian was missing:
"Today, most Bible colleges, seminaries, Christian schools, and now even parts of the homeschool movement do not accept God's account of Creation and the Flood as literal history. They try to replace the days of Genesis with billions of years, and many teach evolution as fact. Our churches are largely following suit.
Discover how compromise starting in Genesis has filtered down from Christian seminaries and colleges to pastors - and finally to parents and their children. This erosive legacy is seen in generations of young people leaving the church - two thirds of them. Get the facts, discover God's truth, and help bring a new reformation to churches and families by helping to call them back to the authority of God's Word."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

More AiG sleight of hand and cherry picking

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:46 am

Comment by one of the brainwashed bigots who inhabit the Answers in Genesis Facebook page:
"We were in Ethiopia on an adoption journey and went to this museum and saw 'Lucy'.I was fuming!It's a monkey!!I'm so tired of the lies!! I have a fit every time we go visit the library.Almost every book has a thread of evolution.LIES,LIES ,LIES! I made a scene and said to anyone listening,"I'm going upstairs,I can't stand these lies!"

She was reacting to this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... lelinkedin
http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology ... velte-look

The new 'dangerously deceptive message' (by who?) AiG article FINALLY acknowledges the findings reported here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract
Though of course they do NOT supply a readily accessible link to this Abstract.

Mitchell waffles and asks how can scientists be sure that the fourth metatarsal belonged to Australopithecus afarensis. Has she seen this I wonder:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22995931

"Australopithecus afarensis is extinct. Its bones suggest it was not identical to living apes, but it did have much in common with them...". So will Ken Ham STOP suggesting it was a 'gorilla'?

"Its wrist bones also suggest it was a knuckle-walker". That is an OUT OF DATE claim, over a decade old. Whereas the Abstract of the 2011 paper in Science - FINALLY mentioned in an AiG article a year after they depicted a 'gorilla' in their 'Creation Museum' - stated "These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans and support the hypothesis that this species was a committed terrestrial biped".

Thus AiG are forced to question in public that the metatarsal belonged to the 'Lucy' species, as they have decide that A. afarensis was an 'ape' and 'knuckle-walker'. After all, as Mitchell admits: "The fourth metatarsal rescued from a pile of over 370 miscellaneous bones looks remarkably human, as presented in the comparative photos from Ward et al.’s 2011 article in Science".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ham can't get biblical "Kinds" straightened out

Postby theignored » Tue Oct 08, 2013 5:08 am

First, he has problems with how he defines "kinds" compared to how the bible defines it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QqrvxHJEHs

As part of the evangelistic Ark Encounter project, AiG has engaged scholars to research how many actual animal kinds would have been needed on Noah’s Ark. It is important to understand that the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... any-kinds/



http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... in-genesis
So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”

Which matches what a "species" is, but at the beginning of that article they say:
Often, people are confused into thinking that a “species” is a “kind.” But this isn’t necessarily so. A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not!

Uh, no. Only if one is a creationist, from what I can see.

They go on to say:
As an example, dogs can easily breed with one another, whether wolves, dingoes, coyotes, or domestic dogs. When dogs breed together, you get dogs; so there is a dog kind. It works the same with chickens. There are several breeds of chickens, but chickens breed with each other and you still get chickens. So there is a chicken kind. The concept is fairly easy to understand.


Problem?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... nds-on-ark
In there, Ham talks about different frog kinds. Huh?

In the case of Anurans, there is considerable variation within families and there will be an attempt to balance between lumping and splitting taxa. There will be times when I identify the kind at the family or above and other times where I will defer to the genus because the reasons for variation or abilities to survive Flood waters are unknown.

Italics mine

From another forum post, for the most part.
theignored
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 7:13 am

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 08, 2013 6:12 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QqrvxHJEHs
Yes, YECs misrepresent science AND scripture eg Genesis or Leviticus or Job (those other Christians they condemn, and some non-believers too, merely do the latter).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

THOSE AiG posters

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:37 am

http://www.christianpost.com/news/creat ... ds-106212/
I didn't find the AiG posters offensive.

However, having thought further, there's a 'but'. First, AiG do NOT treat individual atheists and other sceptics who question their dogmatic pronouncements on scientific matters with ANY respect. Second, if someone looks up the AiG website as a result of seeing the posters, they are in effect directed to this page.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... g-campaign

Within the page there is a four minute video in which Ken Ham continually attacks the views of atheists (including implying that all atheists are the same as Richard Dawkins). Atheists attack Christianity - "why do they care"? Because they allegedly 'know' it is true but are in 'rebellion' against God. Ham: "Go jump off a cliff now and get it over and done with" (male LAUGHTER from within the audience.) No 'purpose' in your life. Mr Ham seems unaware that people MAY listen to him who have attempted or contemplated suicide during a low point in their lives; anxiety can sometimes mean the person is searching for a faith.

Ham also criticises scientists trying to 're-create' early life. They are simply 'copying' what God has already done. These scientists have all become 'fools' and they are 'without excuse'. Yes - insults and stereo-typing are OK when they are biblical insults and biblical stereo-typing.

The clip is ALL negative. It's obvious to Ken Ham that there is a God - because atheists and scientists are all fools.

Thus I can now understand why a number of Christians aren't that happy. Though I can understand why AiG would want to have some billboards given that atheists have done the same thing.

What do others think?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Oct 10, 2013 10:29 pm

Well, here's what the Daily Mail thinks:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nists.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Oct 13, 2013 1:39 am

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"The Answers in Genesis billboard is a marketing campaign designed to drive people to the www.answersingenesis.org website where visitors will see a banner that connects with the billboard statement. People are directed to an article and video related to the campaign to reach atheists, with access to thousands of articles on our website. It is our prayer that visitors to the website will be challenged concerning the truth of God’s Word and the gospel".

That would be the video where Ham addresses an audience of Christians and says of atheists "Go jump off a cliff now and get it over and done with!"

Presumably the atheists should either embrace the truth of God's Word before jumping or embrace it because they might then decide not to jump? What about the atheists who actually DON'T want to jump?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Oct 13, 2013 2:00 am

I've commented further here, just now, on the AiG billboards and the material about them that is aiming to challenge atheists on the AiG website:
http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2013/ ... mment-6126

In effect Ken Ham wants Christians to deny virtually all of science because accepting ANY science about the past leaves a door open to compromise and compromise leads to the destruction of 'biblical' Christianity.

What a mess God (or Nature plus the founders of Christianity) has left for today's Biblical Christians...

Not sure but perhaps Kevin/GeoChristian is either insufficiently informed about Ken Ham, a bit naïve, or else turning a 'blind eye' because (for understandable reasons perhaps) he's more on the side of Ham than the side of eg Dawkins.

This post was added after I posted at GeoChristian.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Oct 17, 2013 1:59 am

http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-and- ... y-thus-far
A creationist Christian abandoned the creationism but managed to hold on to his faith.

Clearly he didn't read enough creationist and anti-evolution resources that would have helped him use spurious and fallacious arguments to defend the authority of the Bible "from the very first verse" (as other Christians had previously used on him, but which he later discovered were erroneous and wrong).

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
Ken Ham has blogged on this testimony. Having said my piece (above) let's see what Mr Ham has to say ...

... Well, he doesn't make a claim that "if only Mr Hamlin had had Answers in Genesis resources at his disposal then he would have been encouraged and would not have had his crisis of faith and would still be rejecting evolution and upholding the plain teaching of Genesis 1-11". Perhaps he knows that many reasonably scientifically literate and intelligent people, including those who are already Christians, are un-persuadable of YEC claims?

Rather he criticises Hamlin's views on scripture.

Not very exciting...

To me anyway.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 Oct 17, 2013 6:03 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:I've commented further here, just now, on the AiG billboards and the material about them that is aiming to challenge atheists on the AiG website:
http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2013/ ... mment-6126

In effect Ken Ham wants Christians to deny virtually all of science because accepting ANY science about the past leaves a door open to compromise and compromise leads to the destruction of 'biblical' Christianity.

What a mess God (or Nature plus the founders of Christianity) has left for today's Biblical Christians...

Not sure but perhaps Kevin/GeoChristian is either insufficiently informed about Ken Ham, a bit naïve, or else turning a 'blind eye' because (for understandable reasons perhaps) he's more on the side of Ham than the side of eg Dawkins.

This post was added after I posted at GeoChristian.



Kevin has made a further comment at his blog, reacting to my earlier post:
http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2013/ ... mment-6143
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

AiG and the ICR on genetics

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 17, 2013 6:25 am

https://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaPurdom
Georgia Purdom is urging her trained geneticist Facebook page readers to check this out (it's 'awesome science'):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ome-fusion
Two of them seem to like it already!

Unfortunately that's all my brain could manage ie I have not attempted to actually read the article just check it out (it does not even have a succinct conclusion/summary).

(1) How many papers do you see in mainstream peer-reviewed science journals that have just one sole author?
(2) Without studying the article to see if it explains this, I'm not quite sure how he reached his conclusion (particularly as he is not a professional working scientist but rather in 2009 he joined the Institute for Creation Research as Research Associate);
(3) But if Tomkins has made a momentous discovery regarding human chromosome 2, let him nevertheless submit it to an appropriate mainstream peer-reviewed science journal.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
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 3 guests

cron