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 May 14, 2012 4:43 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:
I may try and get to the talk at the Metropolitan Tabernacle as it's a Friday night and there may be an oppurtunity to ask questions afterwards.


Whatever you do, don't take your wallet along, Peter. Big Ken's short of dosh for his Ark Encounter crapola and, not doubt, he will be attempting to relieve you (and others) of the considerable burden of money.



Somehow Roger, I don't think I'll be tempted.

This appeared on CMI's Facebook page today:

http://creation.com/albert-mohler-interview

Albert Mohler appears to be a nasty piece of work, and probably one of the major driving forces in the rise of YECism in the evangelical church over the last couple of decades:

The good news is that most evangelical Christians—for that matter, most Americans—reject the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has not captured the hearts and minds of the vast mainstream of American Christians. But that’s only good news for a short time.

The bad news is that Christians who reject the theory of evolution are often unable to explain why, much less to provide any adequate understanding of the Bible’s message of creation and redemption. We have not only a failure to connect the dots; in too many churches we have a failure to teach the basic truths that will be dots we might want to connect. A failure of biblical preaching here has been catastrophic, and Christians have failed to know and study God’s Word. Doctrinal illiteracy has infected much of evangelicalism, where experience seems to rule over knowledge, and intuition seems to dominate over true intellectual engagement. This bad news gets worse, because generation by generation there will be a greater acceptance of naturalism and evolution simply because the younger generation is so steeped in the educational process and in a secular culture where that’s taken for granted.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
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 Peter Henderson » Mon May 14, 2012 4:59 pm

Another article on CMI's Facebook page, this time on the age of the Earth:

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

I assume most of these have been debunked thoroughly on Talkorigins and elsewhere ?

Still, this is the sort of thing ploughboy and the other cretinists read, digest, and regurgitate on Premier's forum
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
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 » Mon May 14, 2012 6:21 pm

AiG have not put their new 'Big Ben-time' tract onto their website. This is the one they are planning to hand out - free of charge I assume - during the Olympics. I imagine any leftover tracts will be available at the talks at churches during August.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8504
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 May 14, 2012 6:24 pm

It would appear that Mohler is opposed to education (as normally defined).

It's easier to be a convinced and unwavering YEC fundamentalist Bible preacher when one knows less about other areas of knowledge.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8504
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Tue May 15, 2012 9:24 pm

I notice CMI have posted the infamous "Dawkins couldn't answer a simple question on evolution" (which Marc has repeated elsewhere) video clip on their Facebook page.........yet again. How many times have they posted that one recently ?

They really must be getting desperate.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
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 Peter Henderson » Thu May 17, 2012 3:04 pm

Tas Walker telling lies about James Hutton, Hadrain's wall, and Siccar point.

CMI's Facebook fans lap this kind of thing up.


http://creation.com/james-hutton-mythol ... rians-wall

The mythology surrounding James Hutton and Hadrian’s Wall

Wikipedia: Velella

Hadrian’s wall just east of Greenhead Lough, Northumberland in October 2005.

by Tas Walker

Published: 17 May 2012(GMT+10)

There is a certain mythology that has grown up in geological circles around James Hutton (1726–1797), the Scottish physician widely regarded as the father of modern geology. The legend that passes along the corridors of academia makes a good story for geology students looking for a hero. You can find versions of the legend on the web by Googling “James Hutton Hadrian’s Wall”.

According to the story, James Hutton, using his keen observation skills, discovered that the earth was unimaginably old—much older than the 5,800 years he learned during his early Presbyterian upbringing.

His seminal moment came, so the story goes, after returning from Hadrian’s Wall, which was built in Britain by the Romans in AD 122. Hutton observed that, in more than 1500 years, the wall was hardly touched by erosion. Yet the volcanos in the area had been much eroded. And when he visited Siccar Point on the coast east of Edinburgh, he found evidence of ‘former continents’ that had been entirely worn away. Thus, by his careful observation and by logical deduction he discovered geological time.

He was comparing things that are not comparable.

But the reality is quite different.

First, James Hutton’s logic was flawed. He ignored the history of this planet as recorded in the Bible and did not consider the geological effects of Noah’s Flood. If he had, he would have found that the biblical age of the earth is consistent with biblical history. The catastrophic movement of water during the Flood explains how the erosion that Hutton observed at Siccar Point actually occurred in a short time. Hutton should have realized that Hadrian’s Wall was built after Noah’s Flood. When he compared the erosion on Hadrian’s Wall with the erosion on volcanos in the area, and with the erosion at Siccar Point, it was an invalid comparison. He was comparing things that are not comparable.

Second, he allowed his preconceived ideas to affect his observations. Because he imagined slow-and-gradual geological processes in the past he missed the obvious evidence for geological catastrophe at Siccar Point. To be fair, he was not aware of turbidites, catastrophic sedimentary processes only discovered following the Grand Banks earthquake off the coast of Newfoundland in 1929.

It’s a nice story but it’s not accurate. Visit Siccar Point today and you can see for yourself the abundant evidence for catastrophe, consistent with the biblical Flood. For details of this evidence see Unmasking a long-age icon.


If ever there was evidence against a global flood it's Siccar point !
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
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 » Thu May 17, 2012 9:10 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Ken Ham in his blog of 12 May:
"The “Reformation” we are calling the church to is not (as some critics have been recently claiming) to get people to believe in a young earth— it’s having them accept the full reliability of the Bible. Believing in a young earth is a consequence of accepting God at His Word in Genesis".

So AiG think people (new Christians and existing Christians) should commit to a belief in the Bible being fully 'reliable'. And THEN find out all the things that it actually says (and DOESN'T say - thus it 'rejects' such things). The creationist surrenders the ability to think their own thoughts, even about topics they may not previously have considered - and always to say instead "the Bible says". "I will reject millions of years because this is not in the Bible and incompatible with it."


In essence, for Christians attending 'Bible-believing' evangelical churches, YEC speakers (or the church's own minister) come along and say something like: "As a Christian you believe in the infallibility of scripture, and doubting God is sin! The human ideas of evolution and millions of years both contradict and undermine the message of the Bible - and are eagerly embraced by those who hate God or say they don't believe in Him. Christians cannot sit on the fence. Either scripture is the only truth or it isn't. You must choose. Will you believe God or Man?"

Thus some people become YECs in order to defend scripture and to do what they believe God and fellow Christians expect. NOT because they discover major flaws in scientific theories. But they may then hunt around for YEC 'resources' that explain and confirm that their decision has scientific merit also.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8504
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 May 17, 2012 9:24 pm

Ham posted something on his Facebook page yesterday (which I can't now find) about media reports outlining poor science scores achieved by US students, and about how colleges - most of which teach evolution and sideline creationism, even in the US apparently - FAIL to teach the DISTINCTION between observational and historical science.

Which of course is that the former and the latter both assume naturalism and ignore supernatural ideas, and they both use the same methodology. But the latter must always be completely and utterly false, however convincing it may seem, because it ignores all the infallible history found in the Bible.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8504
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 May 17, 2012 9:25 pm

In reply to Peter, I've posted today about Siccar Point at the Set in Stone thread.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8504
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 May 17, 2012 9:57 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Ham posted something on his Facebook page yesterday (which I can't now find) about media reports outlining poor science scores achieved by US students, and about how colleges - most of which teach evolution and sideline creationism, even in the US apparently - FAIL to teach the DISTINCTION between observational and historical science.

Which of course is that the former and the latter both assume naturalism and ignore supernatural ideas, and they both use the same methodology. But the latter must always be completely and utterly false, however convincing it may seem, because it ignores all the infallible history found in the Bible.



Yep, noticed that Ashley. I can't seem to find it either.

He was also complaining about "millions of years" at Seaworld in California today as well. 135 comments supporting his stance from totally ignorant people. `Even Professor Chris Shaw (when I spoke to him a few months ago ) stated the age of the Earth wasn't science as he understood it. He muttered something about no half life being greater than 250,000 years, which was a new one on me.

I dunno.

Why so many people have problems with geological time in this day and age is beyond me.

Ham is a delusional idiot.

Why anyone pays any attention to him is constantly puzzling.

I'm definitely going to go along to his talk on Monday 13th August at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, more out of curiosity.

The church is quite near me and I should have no problems getting parked. Probably the closest thing Belfast has to a maga church.

Wonder if COM will be there with their curious Earth display ?

By the way Ashley, are you one of my friends on Facebook ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4348
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 May 17, 2012 10:27 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Even Professor Chris Shaw (when I spoke to him a few months ago ) stated the age of the Earth wasn't science as he understood it. He muttered something about no half life being greater than 250,000 years, which was a new one on me.
Why is he worried about a 250,000year beam if he can't cope with a mote any bigger than 10,000years?
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4208
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu May 17, 2012 10:58 pm

"By the way Ashley, are you one of my friends on Facebook ?"

Sorry, I've never used Facebook.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8504
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his (not so gullible)Facebook

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 19, 2012 1:11 am

I think Ken Ham has been speaking 'out of his rear end' on Facebook:

"This is one of my favorite photos I took at the San Diego Zoo yesterday. A mother hippo and one of its young were able to be viewed under water. It was fascinating to watch how they will just lift their head up so their nostrils will be out of water to enable them to take a breath every five minutes or so. Well, (and I think some people around me thought I was weird!) I spent a lot of time to take many photos of the rear ends of the Hippos! Now why would I do that? Well in my Dinosaur talk I give to kids, I discuss Job 40 where God describes the large animal called Behemoth to Job. It is described as having a tail like a Cedar (a Cedar Tree--think of the Cedars of Lebanon for instance). Some Bible commentaries claim it was an elephant or a Hippo. Well a Hippo's tail does not fit the description of being like a Cedar --so here is my photo of the day (it was difficult to take as I had to take it through thick glass and then the Hippo was under water)--Behold, Behemoth---NOT!!!".

"We suggest that the description of Behemoth fits something like a Sauropod Dinosaur".

"I find Christians who believe in millions of years will do all sorts of gymnastics with the description in Job 40 to reject the possibility this could be something like a Sauropod Dinosaur. The various items described are big, strong etc--and the tail is no exception (consider the context). Also the words are translated as 'moves' or 'sways' like a Cedar--a small stiff erect tree does not fit this description--but a large tree swaying in the wind does fit".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8504
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 May 19, 2012 1:15 am

From a post of mine on this forum on 12.2.12:

"It is the tail's MOVEMENT which is compared to a cedar - NOT its size.
Though I would agree that there is a question mark regarding the range of the hippopotamus a few thousand years' ago (it's thought to have included the Nile Delta if not other parts of the Middle East) the description given of the creature and its habitat seems to me to match this animal quite well (rather than something else that only went extinct within the last 6,000 years). Hippos vigorously shake their small tails from side to side when spraying faeces into the water and this action might have been, with some imagination and perhaps also a wish to sanitise, compared to branches of a cedar of Lebanon swaying in high winds.
I think the wish to portray this chapter of the Bible as describing a dinosaur is wishful thinking (the choice of dinosaur over another long-extinct animal is surely attention-grabbing). Sauropod dinosaurs - mentioned in two of the links - were often huge, but the chapter says NOTHING behemoth being huge - merely that it was powerful. In fact, it could hide amongst reeds, being shaded by lotuses. Also, it seems that few dinosaurs spent time in freshwater".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8504
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby marcsurtees » Sat May 19, 2012 12:40 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:"It is the tail's MOVEMENT which is compared to a cedar - NOT its size.

Oh please... like anyone would write, "The mouse was swinging its tail like a cedar"!
You can believe what you like, but descibing a tail as moving like a cedar gives an impression of size and power, which is exactly the point of God's rebuke to Job...
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 8 guests

cron