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 Roger Stanyard » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:48 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
cathy wrote:
If the child persisted it should be put into detention or equivalent

The parents should bE!!!


I think you all rather missed my point.
Stick to teaching facts and there would be no problem.
As I have said on many occassions most of science is correct.
So if teachers were given the job of teaching well established science rather that promoting evolutionism, then there would be very little problem for any child from any religion or none.


In other words, those bits of science that Marc Surtees doesn't accept because they conflict with his personal religious opinions should be challenged in the school.


Fine, so everything that someone who disagrees with because of their religious opinions should be challenged in schools.

Except it couldn't work.

(Teachers would have a hard joib discussing "evolutionism" as it doesn't exist. It's just a derogatory term dreamed up by fundamentalists.}
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:50 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
cathy wrote:
If the child persisted it should be put into detention or equivalent

The parents should bE!!!


I think you all rather missed my point.
Stick to teaching facts and there would be no problem.
As I have said on many occassions most of science is correct.
So if teachers were given the job of teaching well established science rather that promoting evolutionism, then there would be very little problem for any child from any religion or none.


Fatuous is a serious understatement. Creationism isn't fact. It's a religious position.

We've not missed the point at all.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Roger Stanyard » Mon Oct 29, 2012 5:53 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:
Stick to teaching facts and there would be no problem.


The fact is Marc, neither the Earth nor universe are 6,000 years old, no matter how much you repeat false yound Earth creationist claims.

I take it you'd be happy with that ?

From the point of view of biology it doen't matter how old the earth is. Microbes do not become microbiologists... even in a billion years.


The Marc Surtees position: Microbiologists are descended from a lump of mud 6,000 years ago.

Shrug.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Brian Jordan » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:06 pm

marcsurtees wrote:From the point of view of biology it doen't matter how old the earth is. Microbes do not become microbiologists... even in a billion years.
Well, they certainly don't in 6000 years! You can only get evolution from a vegetarian cat kind to carnivorous lions in that time, it's claimed. However, are we to assume that you allow 1 billion years but not 4? Or is an Old Earth just a surrogate for evolution?
"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 Roger Stanyard » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:51 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
marcsurtees wrote:From the point of view of biology it doen't matter how old the earth is. Microbes do not become microbiologists... even in a billion years.
Well, they certainly don't in 6000 years! You can only get evolution from a vegetarian cat kind to carnivorous lions in that time, it's claimed. However, are we to assume that you allow 1 billion years but not 4? Or is an Old Earth just a surrogate for evolution?


Humphhh! Typical evilutionist! Don't be silly. Lions are a species so must have evolved from a kind on the Ark so the species can only be 4,400 years old or less, not 6,000 years. Dunno, though, when they gave up fiercely hunting for dandelions and frightening the crap out of various other weeds. Perhaps they ate turnips?

Do pay attention to Mystic Marc, dear boy.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:28 am

Ken Ham has been playing with words on his Facebook in order to try and mislead people, again:
"Here is an example illustrating how students are brainwashed with a total misunderstanding of science in the majority of educational Institutions. This is from a sociology, anthropology and religious studies senior at Oklahoma State University. He claims:
"While there are a great many people of faith and scientists that see no major conflict between their own faith and science, unfortunately they are not often seen or heard in the media. Instead, we get extremists on both ends of the issue: people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris who say that science necessitates non-belief on one side, and others like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind on the other end who reject mainstream science in the belief that it goes against their interpretations of the Bible."
I do not reject mainstream science! Observational science is NOT in conflict with the Bible. You would think a senior at a University would know better--but this student does NOT understand the difference between observational science (that builds our technology/medical advances etc) and historical science (beliefs about the past that determine how we interpret evidence of the present in relation to the past--to history). The word 'science' means knowledge. This student doesn't even define what he means by this word! I teach elementary kids to understand 'science' more than this senior at a University understands it.
Such students do not think for themselves--they just have accepted the indoctrination from Professors who have not taught what science is and what it isn't. This is why so much of the public misunderstands the whole creation/evolution and age of earth issues!
The student misrepresents (basically maligns) me--but I wonder how many articles he has read on the AiG website? He certainly didn't speak with me--but he seems to know what I believe--but he is totally incorrect in what he claims about me and others who hold the historical science position of a literal Genesis. But as the Bible says, men 'loved darkness rather than light.'
You can read this so typical article at this link if you want waste some time: http://www.ocolly.com/opinion/columns/a ... 0f31a.html"

KEN HAM MOST ASSUREDLY DOES REJECT MAINSTREAM SCIENCE. Fact.

NOBODY UPON THIS EARTH HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL SCIENCE AND EDIT OUT INCONVENIENT FACTS.

LEAST OF ALL SLIPPERY, DOGMATIC, SCIENCE-SUBVERTING YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISTS - WHO THINK THAT 'SCIENCE' IS MERELY KNOWLEDGE (BY WHICH THEY MEAN FANTASIES DERIVED FROM THE BOOK OF GENESIS).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 Oct 31, 2012 12:00 am

'The Question Evolution Project' on his Facebook page:
"Had to ban someone for attacking Ian [Juby]. Funny how people think they can prove their intellectual superiority by being abusive. It has the opposite effect."
So Bob banned the person because of the person's intellectual inferiority?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Cowboy Bob misrepresents Bill Nye?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:36 am

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/10 ... sible.html
"At last count, over 4.8 million people have watched him make a number of misrepresentations about the creationist position... ".
NO, THEY HAVE NOT. He made claims about evolution-denial that some might want to dispute but he did NOT 'misrepresent' the creationist position AT ALL. Most of them pointedly deny that ancient fossils, radioactivity and very distant stars point to evolution and to millions of years of time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

If I send Bob an email about this he will accuse me of 'stalking'. So I post it HERE instead.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham misrepresents Bill Nye

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:38 am

APOLOGIES, BOB.

JUST REALISED THAT YOU ARE QUOTING KEN HAM.

SO I WILL SEND AN EMAIL FLAGGING THIS.

Edit: the 'rebuttal' of Nye at the start of the Juby video flagged by Bob is almost entirely mere empty assertions about eg 'the law of biogenesis', 'genetic entropy', 'lack of transitional fossils' and so on - and nitpicking. (The fast-talking Juby is a jovial witty man I'll give him that. I stopped listening after 12 minutes as he appeared to be moving away from the Bill Nye video.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Irony of ironies: Mr Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:49 am

Email as sent:

"
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... 5/will-he-
debate/
"At last count, over 4.8 million people have watched him make a number
of misrepresentations about the creationist position."
UNTRUE. They watched no such thing.

Please see my comments here at 12.36 am and 12.38 am on 31 October,
GMT:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2967&p=42255#p42255

Whilst some have disputed some of his slightly clumsy claims about
evolution-denial, Mr Nye did not 'misrepresent' what young Earth
creationists believe AT ALL.

Unless Mr Ham can show otherwise?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

So will Mr Nye debate a man, or a colleague of a man, who wrongly
accuses him of 'misrepresentation' ie misrepresents HIM? (Not before 6
November he won't!)

Of course, if this is mere clumsiness and incompetence by Mr Ham,
perhaps Mr Nye will think more seriously about a debate?

These pesky details appear to have escaped the attention of YEC
blogger Mr Bob Sorensen (they also escaped mine until tonight - when I
listened to Nye's video once again). http://www.piltdownsuperman.
com/2012/10/nye-unto-impossible.html"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Irony of ironies: Mr Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:51 am

Actually, I should have been clearer in my message. I MEANT "his slightly clumsy claims about the effects of evolution-denial" (eg the implication that it holds back ALL science).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby cathy » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:59 am

Stick to teaching facts and there would be no problem.

And as I've said on many ocassions we do!!! KS3, KS4 and KS5 are not cutting edge science, they are to prepare children to understand what we currently KNOW based on the BEST evidence and to teach them HOW science arrives at those conclusions ie it is an ACCUMULATION of evidence building on previous knowledge that starts to point one way.

Hence when they start to learn about Darwin (and Wegener) we teach that those ideas were accepted very slowly at first by scientists! And do you know the reason we give for those ideas being accepted slowly and only coming to prominence more recently??? Shall I tell you? We tell them cos early on there was insufficient accumulated knowledge and evidence! Cos that is how science works - facts build up!

Now you have produced NO facts other than the book of genesis! Which you yourself have pointed out in the original hebrew contains glaring contradictions that any scientist would have to deal with straight away!. Nor have you produced anything to throw the slightest smidgeon of doubt on evolution as a whole. The best you can come uup with are some quibles about when tetrapods first appear on land.

And every criticism you come up with for some piece of evolution or other is usually contradicted by one of your other criticisms. Hence they are always presented in isolation. I'm afraid you need a lot more than that to overthrow what we have and move to a new theory.

And guess what if a new theory does replace evolution children will be taught that instead!! And guess what - it still WON'T be godidit as per the book of genesis cos that is not the default scientific position unless you can come up with the goods. AND YOU CAN'T!

Did you teach your children about the contradictions in genesis btw? Did you encourage them to question the veracity of genesis due to those contradictions? I bet you don't answer that. Oh and who were the sons of god who married the daughters of men? Did you teach your children about the sons (plural) of god and explain who they were?

So science teaches them about science as we know it and how we got to where we are. So they learn about Newlands when they learn a bit about the history of the periodic table cos it helps them understand why Mendeleev was right. Where something is new and less well supported they are taught that - as in 'we think this becuase'.

And where something is as of yet unknown, we tell them that. So despite all the lies you and your friends push, we tell them that we still don't know how life began but that there are several lines of research!! Have you got that simple fact?

So if teachers were given the job of teaching well established science rather that promoting evolutionism, then there would be very little problem for any child from any religion or none.
Established science! Now Marc here is a very simple question - where do we get our established science from?

Would it be from:
a) religious zealots with an agenda, ego and desire to control - who state that any evidence contradicting the book of genesis must be wrong no matter how compelling
or
b) scientists who have to prove and argue the validity of every single thing they find with other equally argumentative sicentists in an evidence based arena where any mistakes are pounced on and ripped to shreds by their peers - where the conclusion are based on, and change due to, evidence?

And does established science have to

a) be totally inconsistent, work with just single issue at a time, eg footprints, and then when it moves to another single issue eg whale fossilisation, can be completely contradictory of the claims made for the first single issue, AND start with a foregone conclusion drawn from a religious text?
or
b)Does it have to take evidence from lots of sources - which have to give a consistent picture, that have to dictate the conclusions (as big bangs evidence dictated that steady state was wrong).

I think if you answered mostly bs you understand the concept of established science. And established science sees evolution as so well supported it is as good as fact! So there you go Marc. We stick firmly to established science. Satisfied!

As for promoting evolution!!! I wish. You really are living on another planet! It is a tiny part of the gcse and a slightly bigger part of A level. We don't bring in the dancing rabbits, fluffy kittens and free mars bars when we teach it.

Evolution is part of the biology syllabus because it is the only logical explanation of the mountains of evidence we have. You have CONSISTENTLY failed to give an alternative explanation in terms of your creationist theory despite being asked on numerous ocassions. What for example is the creationist explanation for thrinaxadon? You haven't explained why in creationist terms we see apparent transitions. Evolution both predicts and finds transitions. Your prediction SHOULD be that they should NEVER be found, so what are these apparent transitions.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby cathy » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:25 am

then there would be very little problem for any child from any religion or none.

This is where I get very angry with Marc and his pals.

He totally demeans people with faith and their God when he claims teaching established science will be a problem for them. I may not have any beliefs but I did once and I know plenty of decent people who do! The wonders of real science are as much a source of inspiration for them as for their non religious peers.

Children from real religion should not and do not have a problem with ALL science Marc!!! It is only your very narrow and ridiculous definition that does.

Basically you want to rob religious children of that sense of wonder in science and present them with a stark choice - science OR belief.

Can your children watch things like Brian Cox or Jim Al Khalili or Dr Alice Roberts, who've inspired lots of kids without mentioning or threatening religion, and not have their faith challenged by the garbage you've fed them. Or are those interesting programmes not for them at all!!! Cos there is a lot of science you've forgotten - like radioactive decay - that you'd also have to get rid of.

And he sets child against child. The children who want or need to learn to get on being hampered by his narrow definition of religious child. And that does not make teachers lives easier.

And he wants to destroy religious children and turn them to the kind of wilful ignorance he has adopted. And wilful ignorance is almost criminal. When you see less able children struggling so hard to understand something and finally getting it due to perseverance, someone actively encouraging wilful ignorance based on their ego just seems very wrong.

Marc wants the wonders to science to be the preserve of atheists leaving the children from religious backgrounds with the uninspiring drivel produced by sobbing sylv and her accolytes!!!

He wants to control the science taught to ALL children. He wishes everything to be checked against the book of genesis before it is allowed into classrooms. Control is a dangerous thing. Why not let the holocaust deniers have the holocaust removed from history lesson so their children aren't upset? Why not Marc?

What Marc doesn't realise however is that he only survives because creationists are ignored. If he got his wishes and science was censored to protect religious sensibilitie, it would filter out into the world and we would move back to the dark ages within a generation.

So Marc you and your pals can play at your pretend science all you like. You can write in your silly little journals that nobody cares about and have your inane conferences where you pretend to do creation science and come up with nothing of note at all. I don't care. You can sit around with your inane belief that all science is engaged in a massive conspiracy to get rid of religions - which is the only thing you have at all. BUT leave children out of it! Do not damage them with your stupid games.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby cathy » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:31 am

From the point of view of biology it doen't matter how old the earth is. Microbes do not become microbiologists... even in a billion years.

However evidence shows that microbiologists can clearly devolop the brains of microbes in a short lifetime tho.

Biology is the study of life. Life has existed for billions of years and we see evidence all over the place. Biology doesn't play a part in looking at the fossils? Did you watch the prehistoric autopsys Marc?
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 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 5:56 pm

Ken Ham has now elevated the issue of creation with in the church to a par of that of the reformation.

MARC: PLEASE TAKE NOTE:

From his Facebook page today:

Happy Reformation Day!

On October 31, 1517, Marin Luther "wrote theses on indulgences and posted them on the church of All Saints...", an event now seen as the start of the Protestant Reformation. Yes, I know Luther like all of us was a fallible human being (we all have feet of clay)--and we may not agree with all his positions (but you have to also understand the culture of that day)--but he is one of my heroes of the faith!I believe we need a new 'Reformation Day'--a new reformation! As Luther nailed the theses to the door of the church--in a sense, we need to be nailing Genesis 1-11 on the doors of churches and Christian Colleges and Seminaries and Bible Colleges across the nation--as so many have compromised Genesis with secular ideas of evolution and millions of years. We need a new reformation to call churches and colleges back to the authority of the Word of God--and give up the compromise that has led to a catastrophic undermining of the authority of the Word of God. I see the teaching of evolution and millions of years has been used to really undo what the Reformation did. The Reformation was to call God's people back to the Word of God--the teaching of evolution and millions of years has been used to get people away from God's Word and to trust in man's fallible word.

At Answers in Genesis, we see part of our mission is to call the church back to the authority of the Word of God. So in whatever ways we can, we need to symbolically 'nail' Genesis 1-11 on the doors of churches and Christian Institutions and be a part of this new reformation.

This is one of my favorite quotes from Martin Luther:

"The “Days” of Creation Were Ordinary Days in Length. We must understand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the holy fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from authority of Scripture for their sake."


Is he that stupid not to realise that Luther simply repeated the science of the day ????????

I would also suggest to Marc that Ham is now making this a salvation issue i.e. if you reject a 6,000 year old Earth and 6/24hr creation you cannot be saved.

He's said as much today.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron