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 Brian Jordan » Sat May 19, 2012 1:22 pm

You've missed the critical point, Ashley. Notice that the hippo surfaces to breathe only every five minutes. Now you must have seen the TV (BBC 1 or 2, I think) intro where a number of hippos swim round in a vertically aligned circle. So just think: by taking it in turn to surface and gasp, each of the seven unclean creatures would be able to survive even though the Ark was stuck on an underwater promontory. You must admit, this is a clear sign that the behomoth was a hippo. As proven by television. So wrong again, Ken.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Dagsannr » Sat May 19, 2012 2:01 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
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...


I've said this before, I'll say it again. It's not the tail, it's a euphamism for its penis.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat May 19, 2012 2:48 pm

Natman wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:
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...


I've said this before, I'll say it again. It's not the tail, it's a euphamism for its penis.


On the other hand, the creature could simply be mythical, like the unicorn, and nothing more.

For goodness sake Marc, how a well educated person such as yourself can fall for for this nonsense is beyond me.

I've heard Ham at this over and over again. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. I have absolutely no doubt Job did not see a dino.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
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 cathy » Sat May 19, 2012 5:52 pm

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 Jo
]
Don't be ridiculous - movement referas to movement. No matter how large and powerful the tree the swaying movement is a swaying movement - so yes even a mouse could swing its tree like a ceder. Though a far better example would be a cat!

That is the sum total of YEC evidence? That and Puff the magic dragon? It isn't a dinosaur Marc. A seven year old could tell you that!!!!!!! Maybe its a gruffalo.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 19, 2012 7:50 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
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...


Ken Ham was still misquoting scripture.

Why was that necessary?

Presumably because a sauropod's tail might have been almost the size of a cedar tree, and Ken Ham - like you - has a particular apologetics AGENDA.

I was pointing out what the scripture ACTUALLY says (in English). Is that not 'cricket'?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby cathy » Sun May 20, 2012 8:50 am

Presumably because a sauropod's tail might have been almost the size of a cedar tree, and Ken Ham - like you - has a particular apologetics AGENDA.

The bible I've got says "It makes it tail stiff like a cedar" suggesting Natman is right, also the referring only to the tails movements bits are right and Marcs idea of like a cedar in appearance is wrong. Moving like a cedar does not mean looking like a cedar, nor does it say anything about size.

It also says "Under lotus plants is lies, in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh....the willows of the wadi surround it....Even if the river is turbulent it is not frightened, it is confident though Jordan rushes against its mouth."

I can't help thinking that using that as evidence that the author had seen a sauropod or any sort of dino smacks of stupidity borne out of desperation!!! I'd have thought some mention of its long neck and size would have been far more noteworthy and suggestive of a sauropod than its attitudes to choppy currents and prediliction for lounging in wadis and reeds (aren't wadis streams - how big were streams and reeds in those days)? Or do creationists cherry pick from their bible as well. Don't they ever read anything in full.

And just before you get to the whole job chapter there is a little paragraph saying the next bits are the poetical and wisdom books?

Anyway my plan to read the whole bible has stalled a bit, cos I keep finding other things to read, so I'm still on genesis. However I can't say I'm sure it is really a book to base the whole of your faith on as Ken and co say! Have the creationists bothered to read it beyond the flood? The heroes would fill the Daily Mails righteous indignation editorials for the next 20 years with their numerous offspring by loads of different women.

As far as I can see whenever they want to get married they pop home to marry a half sister (or two sometimes)! Honest! I reckon inbreeding was the reason Joseph had weird dreams. And then they keep lying about being married to their half sisters whenever they go anywhere so other men can sleep with their wives without beating them up! Very heroic Indeed - wimps. And whenever one wife can't have kids, presumably cos of the intermarrying, they send them out to sleep with their maids tho whether the maids are happy with this and consenting doesn't seem to be recorded.

I guess thats why it proves so popular in Kentucky?

As for the behomoth. The river Jordan, I'd guess, is a site of much archeological interest. If dinos really were wandering around its banks, and the bible really is, as Marc says, a source of evidence, then some dino traces should appear on one of those digs :evil: . Perhaps Marc or Garner can get a grant from the discovery institute to go dig for dono farmong/hunting among the ruined temples on the banks of the Jordan? After all thats where the only bit of biblical evidence they can claim seems to be leading and I'm sure ICR can afford buckets and spades.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Sun May 20, 2012 10:57 am

Why does the King James version describe bohemoth as have a navel ??????????

If a navel doesn't really mean navel, then surely a day can mean something other than 24 hrs. Likewise, "all of the Earth" need not literally mean the whole world.

As a qualified zoologist Marc, you should know why animals with navels don't lay eggs and why bohemoth cannot possibly be a dino.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
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 » Sun May 20, 2012 1:41 pm

Russell Grigg needs to learn some basic cosmilogy/astronomy before writing about it:

http://creation.com/before-the-big-bang

e.g. the big bang has Sun appearing long before Earth


Wrong.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun May 20, 2012 3:31 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Russell Grigg needs to learn some basic cosmilogy/astronomy before writing about it:

http://creation.com/before-the-big-bang

e.g. the big bang has Sun appearing long before Earth


Wrong.



Peter - could you possibly explain? (I didn't read Grigg's article.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8452
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 May 20, 2012 3:46 pm

Peter - could you possibly explain? (I didn't read Grigg's article.)


(1) The formation of the solar system is irrelevant to big bang cosmology

(2) The Sun and the Earth formed at approximately the same time from a solar nebula i.e. the sun and the Earth are roughly the same age, 4.55 billion years.

(3) Big bang cosmology does not teach that the sun formed LONG BEFORE the Earth.

In any case, the Genesis account of the formation of the solar system is not confirmed by what astronomers observe today.

Grigg claims:

Christians who have tried to write the big bang into Genesis have problems. First, of course, it contradicts the Bible (e.g. the big bang has Sun appearing long before Earth; Genesis has Earth created before Sun). Second, all this rethinking and, frankly, confusion, makes one thing quite obvious. Namely, that building a theology of origins on an allegedly ‘assured’ and ‘scientific’ foundation such as the ‘big bang’ idea is in reality building it on shifting sand.

How much better to take Genesis at its face value (as indeed Jesus Christ Himself always did) and build one’s scientific models on the rock of Scripture.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
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 May 20, 2012 8:32 pm

Peter

Thanks. I was thinking that Earth did not really become a 'planet' until some time after the Sun was a star (still the reverse of Genesis even if only around 'three days' apart).

Scientific theories built on the book of Genesis have EVERY chance of being mere make-believe, which sometimes ignores observable reality and common sense, and thus UNSCIENTIFIC.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8452
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 May 25, 2012 2:59 pm

Does a degree in "gemology" and a career as the store manager of a national jewellary store chain qualify you to write articles on geology ?

This appeared on CMI's Facce4book page today:

http://creation.com/joanna-f-woolley

Joanna F. Woolley
Biography
Joanna Woolley has a Graduate Gemology (GG) degree from the Gemological Institute of America (GIA). Her research into the Carboniferous System, including its characteristics and history is an outgrowth of some of her home school high school science projects. Joanna has an avid interest in gemstones, minerals, and fossils. She is a store manager for a national jewellery store chain.

Articles
The origin of the Carboniferous coal measures—part 1: Lessons from history
The origin of the Carboniferous coal measures—part 2: The logic of lycopod root structure
The origin of the Carboniferous coal measures—part 3: A mathematical test of lycopod root structure


I had to Google "gemology" !
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4346
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 May 25, 2012 6:50 pm

A Woolley article about coal is on the CMI website today.

My comment? TL;DR.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby jon_12091 » Fri May 25, 2012 8:00 pm

Woolley by name and by nature. She quotes extensively from Otto Kuntze the 19th century coal geologist/botanist, and points out the flaws in his thinking regarding deposition. But she clearly has something in common with Kuntze - not knowing about cyclothems and sequence stratigraphy.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri May 25, 2012 8:10 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Does a degree in "gemology" and a career as the store manager of a national jewellary store chain qualify you to write articles on geology ?

This appeared on CMI's Facce4book page today:

http://creation.com/joanna-f-woolley

Joanna F. Woolley
Biography
Joanna Woolley has a Graduate Gemology (GG) degree from the Gemological Institute of America (GIA). Her research into the Carboniferous System, including its characteristics and history is an outgrowth of some of her home school high school science projects. Joanna has an avid interest in gemstones, minerals, and fossils. She is a store manager for a national jewellery store chain.

Articles
The origin of the Carboniferous coal measures—part 1: Lessons from history
The origin of the Carboniferous coal measures—part 2: The logic of lycopod root structure
The origin of the Carboniferous coal measures—part 3: A mathematical test of lycopod root structure


I had to Google "gemology" !



CMI must be desperate for "scientific support" to have to resort to a home schooled American jeweler from obscurity to undermine science. Heck it's claiming that little more than GCSEs qualify her to be scientific authority of repute.

A bunch of complete and utter pillochs and jerks.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests