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 cathy » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:04 pm

Interesting that Revelation TV have mentioned the Rev. Nicky Gumbel's appearence on the one show last night on their Facebook page today.

As far as I'm aware, Gumbel rejects young Earth creationism and would be labelled a Christian compromiser by Ham and MacKay.

Who is ~Rev. Nicky Gumbel?
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:17 pm

cathy wrote:
Interesting that Revelation TV have mentioned the Rev. Nicky Gumbel's appearence on the one show last night on their Facebook page today.

As far as I'm aware, Gumbel rejects young Earth creationism and would be labelled a Christian compromiser by Ham and MacKay.

Who is ~Rev. Nicky Gumbel?


He's an Anglican minister who developed the Alpha Course. Based in West London. Pretty prominent amongst the clergy.
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 Peter Henderson » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:39 pm

Ken Ham pontificating on the Sandy Hook tragedy:

http://m.blogs.christianpost.com/bookst ... oss-13731/

When we accept Genesis as it was meant to be taken—as literal history—then we understand that death, disease, and violence are intrusions into this world, and that they occurred after Adam was created. Paul tells us in Romans 8:19–23 that the whole of the creation is groaning because of sin.

So, it’s not God’s fault that there is death and violence in the world—it’s humanity’s fault, because we rebelled against our Creator. Certainly, the shooter has to answer for his own sin. However, we still have to recognize that we now live in a fallen world where we have just a taste of what we really asked for in Adam, when the head of the human race disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. In a real sense, we are all responsible for the death and suffering we see around us. So the evil we experience is really our fault because of our sin in Adam—which is one of the reasons we should be so burdened to help others

So, it’s not God’s fault that there is death and violence in the world—it’s humanity’s fault, because we rebelled against our Creator. Certainly, the shooter has to answer for his own sin. However, we still have to recognize that we now live in a fallen world where we have just a taste of what we really asked for in Adam, when the head of the human race disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. In a real sense, we are all responsible for the death and suffering we see around us. So the evil we experience is really our fault because of our sin in Adam—which is one of the reasons we should be so burdened to help others.


Which is complete and utter rubbish. Was Paul speaking literally or fuguratively ? In order to explain death and suffering is it right for Christians to reject virtually all of established science ? Come on Ken who are you trying to kid ?

YECs don't understand death and suffering any more than anyone else.

I'm glad I wasn't one of those parents reading this.
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 Roger Stanyard » Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:03 am

Peter Henderson wrote:Ken Ham pontificating on the Sandy Hook tragedy:

http://m.blogs.christianpost.com/bookst ... oss-13731/

When we accept Genesis as it was meant to be taken—as literal history—then we understand that death, disease, and violence are intrusions into this world, and that they occurred after Adam was created. Paul tells us in Romans 8:19–23 that the whole of the creation is groaning because of sin.

So, it’s not God’s fault that there is death and violence in the world—it’s humanity’s fault, because we rebelled against our Creator. Certainly, the shooter has to answer for his own sin. However, we still have to recognize that we now live in a fallen world where we have just a taste of what we really asked for in Adam, when the head of the human race disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. In a real sense, we are all responsible for the death and suffering we see around us. So the evil we experience is really our fault because of our sin in Adam—which is one of the reasons we should be so burdened to help others

So, it’s not God’s fault that there is death and violence in the world—it’s humanity’s fault, because we rebelled against our Creator. Certainly, the shooter has to answer for his own sin. However, we still have to recognize that we now live in a fallen world where we have just a taste of what we really asked for in Adam, when the head of the human race disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. In a real sense, we are all responsible for the death and suffering we see around us. So the evil we experience is really our fault because of our sin in Adam—which is one of the reasons we should be so burdened to help others.


[/quote]

And, of course, on what grounds are Ken Ham's personal opinions on religion are any better than any one else's?
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 Dec 20, 2012 2:14 am

Peter Henderson wrote:Ken Ham pontificating on the Sandy Hook tragedy:

http://m.blogs.christianpost.com/bookst ... oss-13731/

When we accept Genesis as it was meant to be taken—as literal history—then we understand that death, disease, and violence are intrusions into this world, and that they occurred after Adam was created. Paul tells us in Romans 8:19–23 that the whole of the creation is groaning because of sin.

So, it’s not God’s fault that there is death and violence in the world—it’s humanity’s fault, because we rebelled against our Creator. Certainly, the shooter has to answer for his own sin. However, we still have to recognize that we now live in a fallen world where we have just a taste of what we really asked for in Adam, when the head of the human race disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. In a real sense, we are all responsible for the death and suffering we see around us. So the evil we experience is really our fault because of our sin in Adam—which is one of the reasons we should be so burdened to help others

So, it’s not God’s fault that there is death and violence in the world—it’s humanity’s fault, because we rebelled against our Creator. Certainly, the shooter has to answer for his own sin. However, we still have to recognize that we now live in a fallen world where we have just a taste of what we really asked for in Adam, when the head of the human race disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. In a real sense, we are all responsible for the death and suffering we see around us. So the evil we experience is really our fault because of our sin in Adam—which is one of the reasons we should be so burdened to help others.


Which is complete and utter rubbish. Was Paul speaking literally or fuguratively ? In order to explain death and suffering is it right for Christians to reject virtually all of established science ? Come on Ken who are you trying to kid ?

YECs don't understand death and suffering any more than anyone else.

I'm glad I wasn't one of those parents reading this.



This is the result of putting common sense totally to one side (assuming you have some) when you read and interpret the Bible. For YECs this is something to be proud of. It is an example of being 'faithful to Jesus' by thinking 'God's thoughts' only. And of course the whole GOSPEL - though based on New Testament 'historical accounts' - is largely a matter of (individual) faith rather than any verification, sight or proof.

But science deals with physical realities and laws - which are very unlikely to have been markedly different, if at all different, 6,000 years' ago. And it CANNOT accept, on a whim, any ancient (or modern) 'divine revelations' about origins if those revelations CONTRADICT the evidence or any rational interpretations based upon it.

'Creation science' has a dogmatic belief that literal Genesis never can be falsified by the scientific method. A belief which persists even though this HAPPENED in a previous century or centuries. They should admit that their YEC view is a faith or obedience position, not factual. (See very recent comments, on Tuesday I think, by Canadian YEC Joe Boudreault here: http://www.amazon.com/review/RXGCCMAHH7 ... hisHelpful)
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 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:57 am

Peter Henderson wrote:Ken Ham pontificating on the Sandy Hook tragedy:

http://m.blogs.christianpost.com/bookst ... oss-13731/

When we accept Genesis as it was meant to be taken—as literal history—then we understand that death, disease, and violence are intrusions into this world, and that they occurred after Adam was created. Paul tells us in Romans 8:19–23 that the whole of the creation is groaning because of sin.

So, it’s not God’s fault that there is death and violence in the world—it’s humanity’s fault, because we rebelled against our Creator. Certainly, the shooter has to answer for his own sin. However, we still have to recognize that we now live in a fallen world where we have just a taste of what we really asked for in Adam, when the head of the human race disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. In a real sense, we are all responsible for the death and suffering we see around us. So the evil we experience is really our fault because of our sin in Adam—which is one of the reasons we should be so burdened to help others

So, it’s not God’s fault that there is death and violence in the world—it’s humanity’s fault, because we rebelled against our Creator. Certainly, the shooter has to answer for his own sin. However, we still have to recognize that we now live in a fallen world where we have just a taste of what we really asked for in Adam, when the head of the human race disobeyed God’s instruction not to eat the fruit of one particular tree. In a real sense, we are all responsible for the death and suffering we see around us. So the evil we experience is really our fault because of our sin in Adam—which is one of the reasons we should be so burdened to help others.


Which is complete and utter rubbish. Was Paul speaking literally or fuguratively ? In order to explain death and suffering is it right for Christians to reject virtually all of established science ? Come on Ken who are you trying to kid ?

YECs don't understand death and suffering any more than anyone else.

I'm glad I wasn't one of those parents reading this.



Just had a - quick - closer look at the article. I didn't know Ken Ham had a brother who died of natural causes in his forties.
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 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:04 am

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29

Does it never/no longer occur to YECs that it could be that Genesis is scientifically inaccurate, and that the Bible genealogies are misleading or wrong and Earth actually existed for ages long before humanity did, but that the message of Jesus in the New Testament might nevertheless be true and God real?

I'm assuming NOT.

EDIT: looks like this post was written FOR Ham rather than BY 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 Dec 20, 2012 4:14 pm

I know the guys are already aware of this, but here's Dribley pontificating about recent UK legislation on teaching creationism in UK schools:

http://creation.com/Outlawing-creation

Some rather nasty comments towards "compromising Christians" who accept science from the fans:

Patrick C., France, 19 December 2012

So, I wonder whether the compromising theistic evolutionists and the progressive creationists will heed the warning signs? Or will they continue serenely marching into the dark world of Humanism where, ultimately, all opposition will be permanently silenced? And what of those fellow believers who think that the Bible can be interpreted according to the dominant cultural view of this generation? It's time to wake up from the delusion. Do not be fooled; Humanists are no respecters of the human rights of Christians – the two world views cannot peacefully co-exist – it's one or the other.


Evan B., Australia, 20 December 2012

I heard about this a week or two ago. It makes me sick. I hear atheists babbling on about how great evolution is and how unproven it is. Little do they realize how incredibly biased they are and completely ignore the facts, ironically what they claim Creationists to do. I have been going to a Christian school for the past few years, and until the past few weeks agreed with my science teacher on "However God made the world doesn't matter". But then I realized that it made all the difference in the world. Things like evolution do not comply with the Bible, at all. And it leads people away from God. We should have expected this. The world wants Christianity eliminated, because it is "corrupting and brainwashing". Little do they realize they are just fulfilling the prophecy...


Mike M., United Kingdom, 20 December 2012

I don't expect atheists to take any notice of what I have to say but I hope that theistic evolutionists do take notice. I was an atheist for most of my life. My belief in evolution was at the core of my atheism. Indoctrinating children with belief in evolution is going to drive them further away from God not closer. To theistic evolutionists I say this; is it God that you fear or is it the opinions of men? Are you concerned about looking foolish in the eyes of the world? The eternal destiny of these children is at stake. Jesus said that it would be better for a person to have a millstone tied round their neck and thrown into the sea than to cause one of these little ones to sin
.

Keiron A., United Kingdom, 20 December 2012

I am not worried anymore because this has been coming for a long time. The great thing about being with the Lord is that he provides visions and ideas on how we can counter this. There is a lot more information about creation and why it is truthful as there are so many sites about it. Creation is becoming informative in the UK and it will not be long before we put the theory of evolution to bed forever. Secularists maybe winning battles but they will lose the war for hearts and minds and that war is a winner takes all war. Just keep praying and pressurising.


What a load of rubbish and a good demonstration of the damage the likes of CMI have done to the Christian cause in the UK

Bell has also responded to some comments from Christians and others who accept evolution:

John B., United Kingdom, 20 December 2012

Please can we get away from the idea that those who espouse evolution are secular humanists. Thousands, actually probably millions, of us are active Christians, walking in the ways of Jesus. Young-earth creationism is not THE Christian view, although some Christians espouse it. It is a blatant untruth to suggest that scientist-Christians such as I am are secular humanists.

Secondly can we knock on the head the idea that Darwin himsself was a secular humanist. He was not, as anyone who who has investigated his life properly will know. He thought it absurd to think that evolution and Christian faith were incompatible (even though his rather dim faith in the existence of God was short of the Christian position


Philip Bell responds
This article does not state (neither does the writer or CMI believe) that all "those who espouse evolution are secular humanists." Rather, in the first paragraph, it is made clear that the activities of bodies such as the BHA and NSS are in view, peopled by humanists. Therefore you appear to be fighting a straw man, for articles on CMI's website do not say or infer that theistic evolutionists are secular humanists. As to Darwin, agnosticism described his state of mind for most of his life (e.g. see here), by his own profession.

However, you certainly overstate things in saying that Darwin "thought it absurd to think that evolution and Christian faith were incompatible." Much could be said on Darwin's attitude to theistic evolution, but suffice to say, “In Darwin’s view the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. … For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all” (Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 248-249, Penguin, London, 1991).


Graham D., Australia, 20 December 2012

I have two problems with the following statement:

"atheists do not show respect for the beliefs of Christian students and parents"

Point 1 - In no way shape or form would I ever consider respecting your beliefs, but I will defend your right to do so.

Point 2 - The majority of the world's Christians believe evolution to be the unifying theory of biology. They see it as it does not necessarily jeopardize their salvation.

Creationism/Intelligent Design, has absolutely no place in any nation's curriculum. It is NOT science, and has been declared so in the court of law many times. I.D has about as much as a welcome in science classrooms as astrology and alchemy


Philip Bell responds:
Conflating your point 1 with your last sentence, it is clear that you can live with the fact that certain people disagree with you about origins, as long as they hold their beliefs privately. In practice, this may merely be the thin end of the wedge, with the thick end being what Jerry Coyne was quoted to have said in this article, regarding parents who wish to teach those things to their own children.

Point 2 does not marry up with the results of surveys conducted in recent years. For instance, in October 2009, The Guardian newspaper (UK) ran an article with the self-explanatory title: “Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons”—and this related to school science lessons! (see here, accessed 18 January 2012.) Note that this was a cross section of the British public in general, not even of Christians.


Huh ?

The majority of the British public are pig ignorant about science in any shape or form Philip. Since much of the general public in the UK read their horrorscopes would you be happy with astrology being taught as science ?
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 Roger Stanyard » Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:50 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:I know the guys are already aware of this, but here's Dribley pontificating about recent UK legislation on teaching creationism in UK schools:

http://creation.com/Outlawing-creation



Ask Dribley how his Genesis Expo "museum" is going! (snigger)

Genesis Expo can't attract visitors even though entrance is free and it is slap in the middle of a major British tourist centre. Having failed miserably with Genesis Expo, Dribley now wants taxpayers money and teachers to push his crapola in schools.

So we basically have CMI, an Australian organisation with one employee in the UK, Philip Bell, and a backer of a failed creationist "museum" deciding what should be taught in British schools.

Impressive, isn't it!
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 Peter Henderson » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:06 am

I know Roger.

I just wonder if those comments from the fans are from people with a background in science ? In order to agree with CMI, I would have to reject virtually all the geollogy i learned at school, up to A level. Everything I learned at the OU in S 268, S281, and S283. I'm sorry, but that seems far to tall an order for any rational person. For some reason, and I heard this countless times from ploughboy on Premier, they think science is just an opinion (i.e. the opinions of men !)

As for so called critical thinking, how is thsi "critical thinking" ??????????????

http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.


I keep asking Marc this. I keep asking Garner the same thing. I bring it up with every YEC every time they raise so called "critical thinking" and they simply ignore it.

Crititical thinking it certainly is not.
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:15 am

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"Ever since I first started giving talks on the creation/evolution controversy and biblical authority, I’ve said that if our foundation in the church isn’t the Bible, from the very first verse, we’ll end up losing the culture. Well, the church (and certainly most of the leaders and academics) has (sadly) embraced evolution and millions of years more and more. And I would argue that the message of the gospel in those churches has been harmed as a result, as God’s Word has been undermined—and this has had a devastating effect on the culture as well."

Which is WHY AiG have NO scruples about misrepresenting or omitting scientific evidence - eg that Australopithecus afarensis walked bipedally or that some dinosaurs possessed primitive feathers - at their propaganda museum in Kentucky. It's a culture war.
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 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:06 pm

and what does a 6,000 year old universe mean for scientific laws ?

Philip Bell responds
Scientific laws continue to be discussed within the curriculum but there is no certainly mention of how these things pose significant problems for theories like the Big Bang, abiogenesis and molecules-to-man evolution generally. This is why it is important to educate the educators, and pointing them to specific articles on CMI's website is an excellent way of doing so.


His best reason for teaching creationism in schools ?

For instance, in October 2009, The Guardian newspaper (UK) ran an article with the self-explanatory title: “Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons”—and this related to school science lessons! (see here, accessed 18 January 2012.) Note that this was a cross section of the British public in general, not even of Christians.
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 Roger Stanyard » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:39 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:I know Roger.

I just wonder if those comments from the fans are from people with a background in science ? In order to agree with CMI, I would have to reject virtually all the geollogy i learned at school, up to A level. Everything I learned at the OU in S 268, S281, and S283. I'm sorry, but that seems far to tall an order for any rational person. For some reason, and I heard this countless times from ploughboy on Premier, they think science is just an opinion (i.e. the opinions of men !)



Well to accept creationism I would have to reject the scientific method - something that permeates all disciplines, not just the natural sciences. Nothing at all would then make any sense.
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 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 3:51 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
For instance, in October 2009, The Guardian newspaper (UK) ran an article with the self-explanatory title: “Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons”—and this related to school science lessons! (see here, accessed 18 January 2012.) Note that this was a cross section of the British public in general, not even of Christians.


Public opinion doesn't determine sound science.
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 » Sat Dec 22, 2012 11:42 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:
For instance, in October 2009, The Guardian newspaper (UK) ran an article with the self-explanatory title: “Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons”—and this related to school science lessons! (see here, accessed 18 January 2012.) Note that this was a cross section of the British public in general, not even of Christians.


Public opinion doesn't determine sound science.


Nor does Christian or more broadly religious public opinion!
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 4 guests

cron