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 » Mon Jul 07, 2014 3:54 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -the-lord/
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
Contrary to the accusation made by Mr Ham early in the February debate, the people who have attempted to hijack the word 'science' (just look at the facebook comments on Ham's article) are the young earth creationist zealots.
But they will not succeed in hijacking genuine international science however much they steal the word 'science' whilst quietly redefining the word so as to mean "direct observations only which are then interpreted according to infallible Bible scriptures".
Just because Ham lost the debate does not mean that some people might not become Christians for the first or second time because they listened to it. (Others might either question YEC dogma or even question the Bible itself because of the debate.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:53 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"As states in America continue to teach kids in public schools the religion of secular humanism (which includes the naturalistic beliefs in big bang, millions of years, and evolution) and pretend it is not religious, then people will continue to be deceived into thinking those beliefs are okay."

Ah yes the Ken Ham anti-science strategy. Falsely claim that teaching the evidence for a big bang, millions (plus) years of Earth pre-history and evolution is RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION and thus ANTI-CHRISTIANITY. In the hope that kids will rise up in schools and colleges and reject science.

The delusional Ham is acting like there is in the USA a CHURCH of big bang, millions of years, and evolution.

And he's plugging his latest 'bestselling' book as well.

Meanwhile there's AiG distaste for the AoG:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... tion-camp/
Some Christians in the US dare to accept the scientific consensus. That isn't allowed!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
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 Jul 20, 2014 5:59 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rouser Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Jul 21, 2014 8:21 pm

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/21/c ... ll-anyway/

EDIT at 23.15 pm.
I've now had a chance to read the Ham blog that Raw Story links to. Sadly Raw Story has Ham saying things that he did not actually say - only imply. (I have tried to make a post under the Raw Story article pointing this out.) Ham does not specifically call for an end to the space programme. But he does condemn expenditure thus far on searches for extra-terrestrial life.

However, that aside, Ham's blog is further proof positive that the man is ANTI-SCIENCE. If there is life, intelligent or otherwise, on other (exo) planets - Ham does not want mankind ever to know.

Of course nobody will pay any serious attention to him.

He also attacks Bill Nye. Sulking perhaps?

He also tries to flog some merchandise.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

More dishonest mudslinging by Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:13 pm

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."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
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 Jul 24, 2014 12:52 am

PS A Christian friend has pointed out to me that fallen angels will also go to hell, in addition to some/most humans. He was not trying to argue that Ken Ham's blog was discussing possible alien angels in other solar systems (I assume Ham would rule out the existence of such, and more definitely than physical aliens elsewhere in our galaxy or beyond).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
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 Jul 24, 2014 4:23 pm

Further to my email, reproduced in the last but one post, I have just discovered that (although the title of the blog offers not the slightest clue that that is the case) this other blog relates to how Ken Ham claims his recent words about NASA and possible if doubtful intelligent aliens were 'distorted' by bloggers.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... e-fiction/

However, I see nothing here that would cause me to alter anything I wrote in my email. All Ham does is claim that the Huffington Post distorted his blog, quote at length from their article, quote at length from his own blog, and throw mud at the Huffington Post and an unnamed blogger whose words they might have repeated, saying "there does not
seem to be much intelligent life left here on earth".

Ham has NOT shown that anybody wilfully 'distorted' his words. They merely interpreted them. As any reasonably intelligent life on Earth can easily see.


PS As this article plausibly suggests (something I did not quite notice from Ham's second blog about atheists making 'great publicists') Ham appears NOT to be arguing that "they can't have salvation" did not mean that any intelligent alien would go to hell rather than die like an animal - but INSTEAD that he made clear in Sunday's blog that he does not believe in intelligent aliens therefore such will not be going to hell (and those dreadful bloggers 'distorted' his words).

Well THESE were his words - where he talked at some length about the fate of any intelligent aliens that might happen, against his personal or Bible-motivated belief, to exist (whether or not mankind ever discovers their existence):
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -20-years/
"And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Liar Ken Ham lies again

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:37 pm

Liar Ken Ham is lying even more than usual today.
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... n=facebook

These people paraphrased what HE wrote. "Can't have salvation" strongly implies being sent to hell (given that the hypothetical aliens Ham was mentioning were 'intelligent'). But Ham is calling them liars for not understanding his rant sufficiently precisely.

Ham's response IGNORES my comments above yet I know YECs view this community forum.

A lying kind of evangelism. Where you accuse the targeted person, falsely, of "outright untruths" - and then pray for them to be saved.

This post post-dates an email copied to Answers in Genesis earlier this evening (before I read the new Ham blog very closely).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PS

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:27 am

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -20-years/
The problem is how Ken Ham uses the Bible (not any sort of material evidence or statistical probability) to make predictions about the unknown wider universe, in this case that alien 'intelligent' life (intelligent like humans) must not exist because the gospel was for earthbound humanity only. Whereas his critics don't (and discoveries have been made that you would not have predicted from reading the Bible alone eg ice age glaciations or plate tectonics - YECs then pretend that such either were in the Bible all along or can be easily appended to it to 'explain' scientific evidence observed today or in the recent past.

That's what this argument is about. Ham refuses to acknowledge that some people are convinced there ARE 'intelligent' (intelligent like us) aliens elsewhere in a vast universe (even if we never make contact or discover their previous existence) and thus they take his words that they "can't have salvation" as meaning that they will inevitably go to hell (rather than die like animals and cease to exist).

Ham's original article does not state "space aliens are going to hell". But he should understand that some or all of those who thought he was indeed implying that - since he cannot prove that there are no intelligent aliens anywhere - sincerely understood his blog that way. The writers he criticises "seemed to actually believe this nonsense about aliens in hell". As indeed he recognises here.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... e-fiction/
Though he then, instead of admitting that his words were open to interpretation or misinterpretation, insists that the bloggers' conclusion resulted from a lack of concern on their part about accuracy and a strong wish simply to attack AiG (because they have 'no basis in absolute truth').

The writers and bloggers did not all maliciously make up some eye-catching stuff and then pretend falsely that Ken Ham was suggesting it in his blog dated 20 July. They assumed that that - potential intelligent aliens being lost when they died because they "can't have salvation" because they are not descended from Adam - is what he was suggesting, should intelligent aliens be found to exist one day.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
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 Jul 30, 2014 5:58 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"Laws of logic and rationality only makes sense if God, who is logical, created them and made us in His image so that we can understand them! Laws of logic shouldn’t exist in a completely random materialistic universe that the atheists believe in—and yet they do!"

So Mr Ham is suggesting that atheists should believe in a universe devoid of any logic or laws of logic, ie one unlike the one we in fact live in, since the existence of laws of logic (though unknown to wild beasts) proves that there is a God.

But on what basis can he claim know that laws of logic could not exist, and could not perhaps be gradually discovered by evolved intelligent beings, in a godless universe? As far as I know he does not even have a scripture verse saying that. (And of course he cannot prove that laws of logic exist because it is the Christian god who exists, and not some other claimed supernatural creator of humanity and the universe such as Allah.)

EDIT: just seen this blog, about to read it and the comments underneath:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... atheisttv/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ray Comfort's love-in with Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:50 pm

I've posted this on Comfort's facebook page at -
https://www.facebook.com/official.Ray.Comfort (he normally does not censor but just in case):
"
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... on-aliens/
Precisely WHY did Ray Comfort NOT question the dishonest Ken Ham about WHY people thought he was claiming that any intelligent aliens would go to hell? It was because of Ken Ham's ACTUAL words here:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -20-years/
"Any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation"; "To suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong". Clearly Ray Comfort prefers a Ken Ham love-in to the truth of what Ken Ham really wrote. Ken Ham does not know there are no intelligent aliens anywhere. But he is saying that if they actually exist, then they cannot be saved. No secularist imagined that. They simply read Ham's blog of 20 July."

Whilst Ham did say in his blog of 20 July "I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel" he did also rule out - based on Bible verses - the possibility that any such beings could potentially be saved by the same God who Ham thinks wrote the Bible.

It appears that:
- Ray Comfort (and his accomplices) on The Comfort Zone never even read Ham's blog of 20 July;
- he did read it and should therefore know that Ham was being deliberately selective, in his references to what he said and what he 'didn't' say, but Comfort is deliberately not questioning Ham further but simply accepting all his protestations;
- Comfort is a bit starry-eyed and a bit stupid (and assumes, like Ham, that all secularists are evil spreaders of deliberate untruths about YEC Christians).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Yet another challenge that liar Sorensen will IGNORE

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Aug 01, 2014 6:18 pm

That cowardly author of misleading pro-YEC propaganda, and proven Liar, Bob Sorensen has linked to my post above at 2.27 am on 30 July, and accused me and people like me of "using convoluted "reasoning" to defend their dishonesty".
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/08 ... rials.html

If Bob thinks I have been 'dishonest' in some way, let him explain how on his blog!

People do not get put into prison (in a free society) just because someone shouts "he's a criminal". It has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Something Sorensen conveniently forgets.

FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS CHALLENGE WILL BE TAKEN AS AN ADMISSION THAT HE ONCE AGAIN IS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH.

Ken Ham wrote a blog saying that any intelligent aliens "can't have salvation". Then he whines and accuses when his critics say that he meant that any such beings will go to hell. Someone with the initials BC has even written on the AiG facebook page: "Why is Ken Ham back pedaling so hard? He definitely said that Jesus died for the sons of Adam which would not apply to aliens. The only way I can logically understand that is (1) if aliens existed, they would not be saved, (2) god wouldn't do that, therefore there aren't aliens." Ken Ham does not know there are no intelligent aliens anywhere. But he rules out the possibility of their 'salvation'.

Back to Sorensen. You can always tell when people are lying and falsely accusing their opponents of lying. They avoid specifics, throw mud and generally muddy the waters. And duck challenges.

These are the things that Sorensen does every single week of the year.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Evil Liar and Hypocrite Bob Sorensen (and YEC Christian)

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:35 pm

Bob Sorensen has kindly confirmed that he was indeed Lying Through his Teeth about me being 'dishonest'. His response to my challenge?

https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
"Remember the article about arguing from silence? One of the guys who gave me an excellent example was kind enough to give me another:
"FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS CHALLENGE WILL BE TAKEN AS AN ADMISSION THAT HE ONCE AGAIN IS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH."
Sure, Skippy.
Here's the article if you missed it or want to see it again, and a link to the "I'm so mad I could spit" rant, showing the lack of thought from hate-filled atheopaths: http://stormbringer005.blogspot.com/201 ... lence.html
and the vituperative rant:
http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewto ... 575#p49454"

He does not show how I was 'dishonest'as he claimed - because he CANNOT. Thus he throws mud and plays to the gallery instead.

Sorensen would love being in a police state where you could shout "he's a criminal" and that would be enough to get someone thrown into jail.

The man is an unrepentant compulsive Liar. For Jesus.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
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 Aug 06, 2014 6:53 pm

I expect Ken Ham is a bit annoyed about this too:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28659783
http://blogs.channel4.com/tom-clarke-on ... -time/1182
Unless of course the eventual, hoped-for, results of 'mining' this object suggest that comets did NOT bring building blocks for primitive life to the 'early' Earth.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Another disgusting article by the rabble rouser

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Aug 09, 2014 10:42 pm

Message as sent to AiG:

https://answersingenesis.org/culture/aw ... on-genesis
"First of all, Noah had to only take two of each kind—not species." THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT.
"Gungor is declaring that he knows better than what the Bible writer clearly states". The only people who don't know better than what the opening chapters of Genesis state are fools and liars like Ken Ham - determined to keep their followers in ignorance and in suspicion towards everybody else (even though salvation does not required Genesis literalism or hatred of so-called historical science).
"There is no evidence to confirm molecules-to-man evolution or long ages." LIAR.
"We do not dig up fossils with tags on them telling us how old they are". Scientists are not the fools that liars like Ham wish to portray them as.
"What’s more, the layers in the fossil record appear to have been deposited by the Flood waters in a certain order". The order has precisely NOTHING to do with 'Flood waters'.
"For instance, the Human Genome Project (2000) found that all humans belong to one race." So what?
"But historical or origins science cannot be tested...". LIAR. It could be ruled out by new evidence.
"Now if Genesis is myth, then the gospel is also myth". Some Christians - who not extremist bigots - might beg to differ. Whereas atheists will be reconfirmed in their unbelief because they know that Genesis chapters 1-11 are mostly or entirely mythical.
"... where did sin come from?" Self-interest?
"Michael Gungor’s statements could very well lead them to doubt or disbelieve the Bible altogether ...". So could Ken Ham's (though not all his most absurd statements even are 'biblical').
"I would say that Gungor’s blog post* comes across as an emotional, angry, and arrogant outburst, without any hint of wanting a respectful dialogue." Ah yes - that must be the 'respectful dialogue' where Ken Ham falsely claimed that science has been 'hijacked by secularists' and has been sniping intermittently at Bill Nye ever since he lost the February debate.
"Frankly, he should be held to account for his harsh tone in his blog. One church recently canceled an event with Gungor, and I think more churches will cancel his events once they realize the way in which they could lead young people astray by undermining the authority of God’s Word." The nastiness.
"You can read Gungor’s mocking rant at this link—and maybe you will consider posting a firm but respectful comment about his teachings and his tone." This from a cultist and author of blatant misinformation who forbids all comments under his aggressive blogs.
I will INDEED comment under the Gungor blog.

*
http://gungormusic.com/2014/08/im-with-you/"


PS I don't plan to revisit the Gungor blog much as there are already HUNDREDS of comments underneath it (he may already know about the underhand attack by Ham dated 8 August).
PPS Ken Ham will be rejoicing:
http://christiannews.net/2014/08/09/bap ... s-literal/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7151
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

cron