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 Oct 17, 2013 10:38 pm

AiG on their Facebook page: "Wrong again . . . Bill Nye: "We are made of stardust"".
https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis

Liars again. And arrogant too.

A lot of comments underneath.
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 Peter Henderson » Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:37 am

Forget science.

Buy bibles instead, according to Ham:

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham?hc_location=stream

I know how to save the Government thousands of dollars. Instead of giving grants as outlined in the news article for research answers to questions such as what is the meaning of life--grants that will just waste money--for a few dollars these people conducting this research can buy a Bible and answers to their questions will be found there
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
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 Oct 25, 2013 3:07 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Forget science.

Buy bibles instead, according to Ham:

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham?hc_location=stream

I know how to save the Government thousands of dollars. Instead of giving grants as outlined in the news article for research answers to questions such as what is the meaning of life--grants that will just waste money--for a few dollars these people conducting this research can buy a Bible and answers to their questions will be found there


Biblical Creationist Fundamentalists are anti-science. They have to be. But they also have to pretend to be PRO-science. They are pro 'science' - their science being restricted to anything (mostly made up by them) that either affirms the Bible or else does not in any way question the Bible. Anything else is a 'lie' or a 'hoax' (and probably sent from Satan to test Christians).

Never mind the actual evidence in the natural world and universe. If it cannot be twisted in favour of Genesis literalism (sometimes it can) then it must be cherry picked or simply ignored.
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 Oct 26, 2013 5:31 pm

This is a rather emotional piece but it hits the target:
http://thenews.org/2013/10/25/zingrone- ... igion-too/

Ken Ham has blogged about the article - and, surprise surprise, his science denying YEC fanbase have recently swamped the page with critical comments.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... s-at-work/

It is very very telling that Mr Ham totally ignores the particular scientific issues and topics raised in the article and instead complains at length about the professor's ranting and his intolerance (of science denial and making up 'facts' as practised by Mr Ham and his followers).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:04 pm

Why Dawkins would not debate the likes of Ken Ham (should the latter request such which I think would be unlikely):
http://www.christianpost.com/news/richa ... ts-107196/
Essentially a restatement of his longstanding position.

Dawkins has also just appeared on the Bill Maher programme I gather.
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 Peter Henderson » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:27 pm

Ham's been at this before, but why is he trying to equate the birth of young Earth creationism in the 1960's with the reformation ? If I didn't know any better I'd say he's attempting to turn it into a salvation issue:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ation-day/
Last edited by Peter Henderson on Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
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 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:25 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Ham's been at this before, but why is he trying to equate the birth of young Eart5h creationism in the 1960's ?
Just trying to move the creation of the universe forward a bit towards its true date: the day Ham was born.
"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 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 4:34 pm

Take that Discovery Institute.
Take that Evolution News and Views.
Take that UK Centre for Intelligent Design.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
http://www.answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/design/
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 » Fri Nov 01, 2013 6:33 pm

And, particularly, take that, Little Green Men. NB: only IDproponentsists may apply for tickets.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Ham on Dawkins

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:40 pm

As sent to AiG:

Ken Ham is an enemy of science.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"Dawkins doesn’t seem to realize is that there is a difference between observational (operational) science—which is testable and repeatable—and historical science—which can’t be proven".
Mr Ham's comments about the limits of science are flawed. He is basically saying that scientific investigation of the distant past is not possible. That is untrue. History and science both show that a 6,000 year old universe and Earth are fiction (the Bible writers can be excused since the Bible was not written in 2013). So even if 4.5 bn years of Earth history cannot be proven, just '6,000' years have been disproven time and again.
But lies are part of Mr Ham's particular Christian agenda.
He appears not to realise - or to ignore - that there is difference between falsifiable science such as the modern evolutionary synthesis and unfalsifiable religious notions such as instant 'biblical creation'.
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 Peter Henderson » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:16 pm

Yawn:

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

But what Dawkins doesn’t seem to realize is that there is a difference between observational (operational) science—which is testable and repeatable—and historical science—which can’t be proven. For instance, humans can use measuring tools in the present to measure the width of North America—they can then do it again and again—repeating the measurement in the present. That’s observational science.

But the same humans cannot go and measure the age of the earth in the same sort of way. One has to use a process that changes with time and assume many things about the past (and such assumptions could be very wrong) to try to attempt to age date the rock—that’s historical science
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
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 » Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:46 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Yawn:

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

But what Dawkins doesn’t seem to realize is that there is a difference between observational (operational) science—which is testable and repeatable—and historical science—which can’t be proven. For instance, humans can use measuring tools in the present to measure the width of North America—they can then do it again and again—repeating the measurement in the present. That’s observational science.

But the same humans cannot go and measure the age of the earth in the same sort of way. One has to use a process that changes with time and assume many things about the past (and such assumptions could be very wrong) to try to attempt to age date the rock—that’s historical science



The latter paragraph is a series of unsubstantiated assertions and outright falsehoods.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham gets it rather wrong again re Comet ISON

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:23 am

Posted on his facebook page nearly 24 hours' ago:


"Our Astronomer, Dr. Danny Faulkner, took a photo of the comet ISON that will come very close to the earth (if it doesn't disintegrate first) towards the end of the year. The Creation Museum Planetarium features a new show (Fires in the Sky) written by Dr. Faulkner on comets and this comet in particular. Here is the photo that was taken a couple of days ago: http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/ex ... in-the-sky"

In fact the comet has already passed by Earth (across its orbit anyway), around five days or so ago. It is not as bright as had been hoped or hyped, though it's too early to declare it a 'failure'. The feared break-up is around 28 November, which is perihelion (the date when the comet will come closest to the Sun - within just over 1 million miles from the centre of the Sun). If it does not break up, hopefully it will brighten up instead.

However, it is true that the comet is due to pass closer to Earth on 26 December than recently as it moves away from the Sun - about 40 million miles from Earth that is (which is not exactly 'very close' since when at its closest to Earth the planet Venus is 'just' 25 million miles away; on average the Sun is around 93 million miles from Earth).

And apparently its trajectory is either parabolic or even hyperbolic (with an eccentricity respectively equal to or greater than 1), suggesting that it is a dynamically new comet that will be passing by the Sun for the FIRST (and quite possibly if it does not break up) last time. Which may be why it has been dimmer than predicted (like Kohoutek in 1973). I think we know where that means it is likely to have come from! The place which young Earth creationists insist does not exist (ie not the Kuiper Belt - though some try to deny that too).

And this Fires in the Sky video at the Creation Museum will try to indoctrinate visitors that comets such as ISON "support a young universe". I guess they will say either that a first visit 'shows' a 'young' solar system or they will simply bluster that many comets we still see (though not this one it seems) are short period comets thought to last for 20,000 years at the most.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... on-museum/
http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/ex ... in-the-sky

MEMO to Ken Ham - comets when in the inner solar system don't normally come with the express purpose of viewing Earth. Rather they are gravitationally attracted towards the Sun. Particularly if they are known as SUN-GRAZERS. (I'm not sure which day of creation week they were created on, presumably day four, nor where within or even outside the solar system they were initially placed.)

http://www.cometison2013.co.uk/perihelion-and-distance/
I gather that break-up is more likely when sun-grazers are comparatively small. ISON is said to be 'reasonably' big. Though its closest approach to Earth, assuming it survives its encounter with the Sun, is a full four weeks after perihelion.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9049
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rouser and false accuser Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:55 am

Challenging Ken Ham

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on- ... lloween-2/
""Creation science" is a theology, not a science since it does not use scientific method". True. It formulates conclusions and then tries to justify them whilst ruling out ANYTHING considered to be 'unbiblical' regardless of the evidence. So much so that honest Christians disassociate themselves from it.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-h ... ce-108142/
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/post ... 5521473474
"In a Washington Post article the author (Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite) states “One of the scariest places I have ever been was the Creation Science Museum in Kentucky.”
The author is the former president of Chicago Theological Seminary and is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She wrote an article entitled “Five Christian theologies scarier than Halloween.”
As you read through this, it stands out she is mischaracterizing true Christianity, misquoting (or probably more likely she just doesn’t understand) the Bible’s teaching on various matters. She has no clue about what science is and isn’t!
And she claims this about creationists:
“It is a scary theology because it is used to deny the real science of evolution and undercut the genuine urgency to stop polluting human activities that are causing violent and abrupt climate change.”
Actually the quality of her research is reflected in this statement she makes about the Creation Museum:
“I was greeted by a pineapple eating velociraptor in an animatronic Garden of Eden.”
Actually, there are two animatronic young T-rex dinosaurs near the water-fall in the main hall—but they are not eating anything! And in the Garden of Eden exhibit in the actual Museum walk through, there are no raptors—there is one dinosaur eating a fruit that is not a pineapple! There is an animatronic raptor in corruption valley—but it’s eating another animal. This author's ‘accuracy’ about the Creation Museum, is reflected in the rest of her diatribe.
Basically, this article is just a very ignorant, misleading attack to mischaracterize conservative Christianity—what we are used to from those who just can’t tolerate people who have different beliefs than themselves. She is just throwing ‘mud’ to hope some of it sticks.
I tell you what is scary—that ignorant people like this are actually allowed to write articles to influence people’s thinking! Sad."

Ken Ham is an intolerant and science opposing bigot who opposes freedom of speech - unless you agree with his version of Christianity.

His reply evades the main issue - that what his 'museum' presents is theology and apologetics and NOT science - and instead nitpicks over what the author said she saw when entering the facility. Ham is also a hypocrite complaining about 'mud' throwing. Whilst simultaneously accusing the writer of not understanding what science is (he does not back up this accusation), 'misquoting' the Bible's teaching (she did not obviously do that when she part-quoted from - only - a couple of verses in Psalm 49 and in Matthew 25), and even claiming that she mischaracterised 'true Christianity' in her article - without bothering to explain HOW and WHEN she did this. Ham is hot air, false accusations, division, and no respect for his many thoughtful or kneejerk critics. He deserves what he gets (hopefully an accurate rebuttal though sometimes that is not the case).

Someone living in a moshpit at a muddy music festival should not complain about 'mud' being thrown in his direction.

But Mr Ham is a serial false accuser and a deceiver of (some) Christians.

If you disagree Mr Ham, why not come here and tell me HOW I am wrong. WHAT Bible verse or Bible teaching did the author 'misquote' (even if by 'ignorance')? The only single possibility I can see is the claim that Matthew 25:41 says that hell is "presided over by the Devil" (I think it suggests that the Devil and his angels will be there but that hell is presided over by a 'just' Christian God).

HOW is the author mischaracterising 'true' Christianity, 'misquoting' Bible teaching, and failing to have a 'clue' about what science is?

If you reply here Mr Ham, please make sure you compare and contrast the words of the Washington Post article with YOUR own words on Facebook. As I have done.
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 Nov 06, 2013 1:37 am

Also by Ham on his Facebook page:
"In other words--atheistic evolution is fact--there is nothing to debate.
You know if put Richard Dawkins published research papers (does he have any?) against AiG scientists--he would look like an amateur. And that's what he really is--an amateur scientist who rejects God and is intolerant of Christians and wants to impose his anti-God religion on others.
http://m.christianpost.com/news/richard ... ts-107196/"

IF Dawkins was ever to ask for a one on one debate with Ham, would Ham pretend to accept (but then run away), actually do it, or say "no, you must debate one of my PhD colleagues"?

I am NOT aware that Ham himself has asked to participate in a one on one debate with Dawkins or with anyone else who accepts evolution...
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 4 guests

cron