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 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:29 pm

Peter Henderson wrote: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:

Ken Canute wrote: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.
New reformation, eh? Get all those backsliders back on message, redeem them from the Roman Church. Is that it, Ken? Are you just trying to nail the Pope?
"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 » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:24 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:New reformation, eh? Get all those backsliders back on message, redeem them from the Roman Church. Is that it, Ken? Are you just trying to nail the Pope?


It's no different from the Edinburgh Creation Group's aim to rid Edinburgh of evolution. The fundamentalists simple cannot accept that others hold views different to them and that pluralism is a good thing, not a bad thing.
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 » Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:27 am

Peter Henderson wrote: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.



The Bible makes people behave in irrational, untruthful, and propagandist ways - if they take it as 100% infallible and then contemplate what rational, unbiased, scientific, people have to say.

Here's Ham on his daily propaganda blog:
"What we note is that these name callers and false accusers don’t give any logical arguments—they don’t give scientific arguments—because they can’t!"

Mr Ham - who has been known to read this discussion forum, where I have posted all the many science and logic based criticisms of their online pseudo-science that I have sent to them from within their website or by email over the past two years - is lying through his teeth.

Any rude or illogical atheists who condemn the likes of AiG are much more 'helpful' to Mr Ham.

How is it that Mr Ham is lying in his latest blog post? Because AiG have totally ignored EVERY SINGLE ONE of my messages sent to them since late 2010 - precisely because they did contain scientific and logical rebuttals. I am left with the impression that they were unable to deal with my points, so they simply deleted my messages - possibly without even reading them (that possibility will not of course stop me from sending further messages as they have NOT told me that my messages are not being read - and some of them are also being copied to the people that they malign so I suggest that it will be in their interests to read them even if they want me to assume they are being ignored).

What say you, Mr Ham?
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 Peter Henderson » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:06 pm

The reformation had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with geological time, or Genesis 1-11 Ashley. It was about the nature of salvation, and the rejection of salvation through works.

What on Earth is Ham on about ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
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 » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:02 pm

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?

Answers in Genesis have kindly now provided a list of the mammal kinds on the ark :lol: :lol: :lol:

It would appear there are 350 kinds if you include extinct creatures. I got very bored part way down, particularly as they had trouble with rodentia where they seemed to have to split into a lot of kinds as compared with carnivores where they were happier lumping together all of cat kind, canine kind, elephant kind etc. And of course tasmanian wolf kind was separate from dog kind on account of its DNA. It had to come under marsupials. :lol: :lol:

God was very generous to possums as they get to fill three distinct kinds as opposed to poor old cats who only get one kind.

What a complete and utter waste of time. And given it was one of their supposedly technically articles the first thing they had to do was explain the meaning of extant :lol: :lol: :lol: Says a lot about the intended audience for technical articles doesn't it.
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 » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:45 pm

More crap from CMI today:

http://creation.com/answering-grandma-mildred

How many lies, misrepresentations, and downright dishonesty can you spot in the article ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
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 Nov 01, 2012 8:09 pm

Flagged on the BCSE blog today (not read - nor did I read the enormous Catchpoole article, hope I didn't miss something good!):
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... transcript
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

CMI worried about the young thinking scientifically

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:25 pm

I've now gone through the links.

One of the worst untruths by this former atheist who STILL claims to believe in science: "Baumgardner’s catastrophic plate tectonics global Flood model for Earth history is able to explain more geological data than the conventional plate tectonics model with its many millions of years".

YECs have no interest in science. They want it destroyed and replaced by pseudo-science.

"Hence Christians should ‘be ready always to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason of the hope in you’ (1 Peter 3:15), when sceptics claim that the Bible conflicts with known ‘scientific facts’." Apparently a deceitful answer - given in 'faith' - will do...
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: 'The Creation Answers Book'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:36 pm

And guess who are the authors of this tome: http://creation.com/the-creation-answers-book-index
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

One of Ken Ham's biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:14 pm

First there was this (I've only skimmed it): http://www.tilsonfunds.com/VotingObamaAgain.pdf (the piece is aimed at undecided US voters, and it only mentions evolution very briefly)
Then there was THIS: http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.uk/2012/ ... s-why.html (the blogger complains about a 'diatribe' but immediately conflates evolution with 'spontaneous creation' presumably the Big Bang theory or possibly abiogenesis)
THEN there was THIS: http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/11 ... logic.html (by the way Mr Sorensen is a Republican supporter; I wonder when he will fix the cat 'typo')
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 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:44 pm

Psst ... want to read an expose of the 'storm troopers' at Talk Origins? Look no further than here: http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2012/11 ... e-you.html

"Some people do not want to allow free speech or contrary viewpoints; they would rather protect their belief system with fundamentalist fanaticism rather than allow scientific discourse".

Well, you should know Mr Sorensen.

I'm putting on record that I definitely do not wish to 'eliminate' Mr Sorensen. I can't be sure that there's nobody out there who feels less sure about this, though.
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 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:51 pm

And I see that science has been 'overwehelmed' by a detailed theory for which there is compelling evidence from lots of varied disciplines and sources. Shock, HORROR. It's about time that science remembered that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR NATURALISM TO LEARN ABOUT PAST EVENTS, MUCH LESS TO RULE OUT STORIES THAT THE ZEALOUSLY RELIGIOUS CONSIDER VITAL TO THEIR ONGOING FAITH.
http://www.basfeijen.nl/evolution/talko ... origin.htm
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:15 pm

Apparently, the reason why the author of the Dutch website thinks Talk Origins is 'extremely biased' and is not objective regarding science is that it thinks creationism is not any part of science.

What would the human race be like if everybody in the world thought that creationism (the right creationism mind) was real science and indeed the ONLY real 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 a_haworthroberts » Mon Nov 05, 2012 5:46 pm

The ICR have been a bit slow in jumping on this bandwagon. But better late than never.
http://www.icr.org/article/7091/
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 » Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:51 pm

More than your money's worth of hypocritical, hysterical behaviour from far right wing blogger Cowboy Bob Sorensen today - against someone with the initials ARJF (not the UK anti-creationist with a similar name): http://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman (under the post "This makes me think of intellectual cowards who believe that character attacks are an acceptable means of logical discourse. I've seen a lot of this behavior the past few months, what about you?")
If I contacted Bob direct about his accusatory behaviour online I would be accused of 'stalking'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
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 11 guests

cron