I was going to post here a wide circulation email, as just sent. However, there seems to be something WRONG with this website at present and I cannot cut and paste into it.
The email's text can however be read under the recent Sensuous Curmudgeon blog post entitled 'Ken Ham: Aliens are Going to Hell!' (at this moment it awaits moderation to due to its links/length).
EDIT: cut and paste IS now working. My message:
“Ken Ham falsely accuses people of ‘falsely’ accusing him.
When all they did was quote or interpret his words!
And – whether or not he saw my own comments – I am one of those who ‘falsely’ accused him:http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com ... g-to-hell/
I commented here at 7.30 pm local time on 21 July (the second of two comments made in quick succession):
“The Bible does not say that non human life is going to hell. Unless of course you are reading Ken Ham’s Bible, apparently”.
(I also commented here at 21.21 hours on 21 July – how’s that for timing – correcting the comment by another blogger or two that was saying that Ham wants NASA’s space programme halted, something he did not expressly say – though it is fair to say that he did imply it when it comes to searches for exoplanets or possible alien lifeforms.viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1575
So HOW is Ham falsely accusing people (and trying now to imply that he did not write something that he certainly DID write)?
Well, at THIS recent blog he failed to explain clearly what he apparently REALLY believes – and is now blaming others for his failure, and accusing them of ‘falsely accusing’ him (see the Update which has been inserted at the top).http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -20-years/
From this recent blog post it is clear that Ken Ham (like everybody else) does not know whether there is alien life elsewhere in space (the Bible does not say anything about the idea so Ham who bases everything he believes on the Bible cannot know though he says he suspects there isn’t).
But THESE are also his original words:
“Any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation” and “to suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong”.
Note that in their context Ham’s words were referring here to ‘intelligent’ life – not eg plants or worms or whatever. Intelligent life – like us, presumably (unless of course he means intelligent species like chimps or dolphins but who knows since he fails to tell us, and I suspect he thinks these are still ‘dumb animals’ without souls).
He does not state that such aliens would go to hell – but he implies it because he says “they can’t have salvation”.
Yet the Bible does NOT suggest that animals on earth have souls, are liable to go to hell or heaven, and need the gospel to be preached to them. Does it? So how does he know that any intelligent aliens would not be classed like animals on Earth rather than classed in the same way as unsaved human beings?
So what of TODAY’S Ham blog?http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ts-for-us/
What does he have to say?
THIS: “Sometimes I think we should be paying atheists to be our publicists! Sure they often distort, misquote, misrepresent, and tell outright untruths about us. But they can be so creative in their writings, that, as they make up stories about us, they gain a lot of publicity for AiG across the Internet and other media all around the world.”
This in the very same week that the Kremlin are offering the world a lesson in how to blame everybody else they possibly can for their own failures.
He provides only one live link to any specific blogs or media articles, and it seems that he realises that he simply cannot SHOW that anybody wilfully twisted his own recent words. Thus all we get is some indignation and general mudslinging. And the baseless implication that this episode must be doing AiG some good because it is giving them additional ‘publicity’.
The episode shows that AiG are a propaganda machine and that they do not have the slightest respect for the opinions of the many others (including fellow Christians) who disagree with their pseudo-scientific claims and repeated denials of science made in the name of Christianity.
“Ken Ham says ‘mea culpa’.” That will be the day.
It’s always somebody else’s fault.
He seems to like the publicity though. Talking of which:http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview ... ad=8457117
In conclusion, I am not being ‘creative’ in the sense that the mischievous liar Ham is implying. I am simply analysing his own statements. And now his negative ‘spin’ and propaganda against ‘secularists’ and ‘atheists’.
Don’t just take in from me though. If you have the time – check out the links and see whether you agree with me.
Would the copy recipient who has previously falsely accused me of ‘misrepresentation’ of Ken Ham like to have another go? Or will he accept that am not misrepresenting Mr Ham this week (and I have never knowingly misrepresented a young Earth creationist though he has never withdrawn his previous accusations)?
The same challenge goes to Answers in Genesis themselves. Will you refute my message? Will you accept that it is correct?
Or will you simply ‘bin’ this email and never acknowledge it? As you have done for the past four years.
Unless somebody can SHOW otherwise, this episode clearly shows that Ham’s loony and dishonest reputation at least in part comes from HIS own words (and on occasions from his false and bogus claims, when challenged, that the opposition somehow wilfully ‘distorted’ him).
This opponent claims that he did NO such thing. I simply REPORTED the words of Mr Ham and submit that I correctly interpreted them."