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 a_haworthroberts » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:53 am

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 » Sun Dec 23, 2012 1:57 am

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-12222012 (item 2)
I agree that this is NOT Noah's Flood.

NOR is THIS:
"Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth...".
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2012 1:38 pm

He's having a go at Peter Enns, yet again today:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/ ... are-wrong/

I thought it would be good to show you a specific example of what happens to the gospel, when someone rejects a literal Adam, literal Eve and literal Fall. I have seen a number of academics in Christian Institutions enamored by the heretical writings of Peter Enns--and sadly I've seen more examples of students being influenced by his book 'The Evolution of Adam.'

Read for yourself this article by Peter Enns. i don't need to comment except to share these verses of Scripture:

“...but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:7–9)


and he hasn't like the comments I posted on nhis wall either (since he's removed them).

Basically, Ham is redefining what it actually means to be a Christian
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:50 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:and he hasn't like the comments I posted on nhis wall either (since he's removed them).

Basically, Ham is redefining what it actually means to be a Christian


And the internal debate within Answers in Genesis on what constitutes a proper Christian? None. Ex-Big Ken Scam decides.
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:45 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:He's having a go at Peter Enns, yet again today:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/ ... are-wrong/

I thought it would be good to show you a specific example of what happens to the gospel, when someone rejects a literal Adam, literal Eve and literal Fall. I have seen a number of academics in Christian Institutions enamored by the heretical writings of Peter Enns--and sadly I've seen more examples of students being influenced by his book 'The Evolution of Adam.'

Read for yourself this article by Peter Enns. i don't need to comment except to share these verses of Scripture:

“...but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:7–9)


and he hasn't like the comments I posted on nhis wall either (since he's removed them).

Basically, Ham is redefining what it actually means to be a Christian


Is Enns preaching salvation by a means other than trusting Christ and repentance? I rather doubt it. Thus it is NOT a 'different gospel' simply, arguably, an 'incomplete' version of the gospel of Christ (though that too is apparently regarded by Paul as a reason for cursing). From looking at the context, I'm not sure what particular example Paul had in mind - though I note that Galatians 2: 15-16 read "We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified" (NIV).
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 » Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:43 am

I asked Ham on what basis are we saved and pointed out that Paul states "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and though shalt be saved". Paul didn't say "believe on a literal Adam, Eve, or fall" in order to be saved. I then asked if he was redefining what it means to be a Christian. Obviously this was enough to get me banned from posting comments, which I suppose isn't surprising.

I think Ham is getting very close to the point were he wants to say that Christians who reject YECism aren't really Christians at all, but can't quite bring himself to say it. His anamosity towards Enns does of course go back to him being expelled from a home schooling conference because he had a go at Enns. He's been constantly sniping at Enns ever since, and I don't think he even regards him as being saved.

As I say, Ham (and his followers) are redefining what it actually means to be a Christian, of that I have no doubt.

The olympic outreach nonsense during the summer was a farce, and I'm disappointed the likes of the Evangelical Alliance didn't object to evengelical Christianity in the UK being so closely associated with young Earth creationism.
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 » Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:44 am

Peter Henderson wrote:The olympic outreach nonsense during the summer was a farce, and I'm disappointed the likes of the Evangelical Alliance didn't object to evengelical Christianity in the UK being so closely associated with young Earth creationism.



Ex-Big Ken was bragging about it at one stage but the world's press assembled in London at the time seem to have utterly and entirely ignored him and his pals. Moreover, the idea of bringing the Dutch "Noah's Ark" replica to London also proved to be fantasy hot air, as I long pointed out it would be.
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 » Thu Dec 27, 2012 1:47 am

Evolution is apparently pseudoscience, so says a software engineer:

http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience

and "secular humainsts" are targeting the youth:

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

Then again, anyone who rejects young Earth creationism is a secularist, including Pat Robertson it would seem.
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 Peter Henderson » Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:24 pm

He's linked to this article today:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... e-creation

Creationists begin with answers and work to prove that those answers are right. This is antithetical to the scientific process. Scientists who formed the idea of human evolution did not invent the idea and go looking for fossils. Well before Charles Darwin published his treatise in 1859 and well before workers in a limestone quarry in 1856 found strange bones that would later be called Neandertal, scientists struggled to explain what they saw in the natural world and in the fossil record. The theory of evolution was the product of that analysis. That is how science works.


Of course, the teacher doesn't understand the difference between "observational science and "historical science"

This teacher, like most sadly, doesn't understand the difference between observational science (that we all agree on) and historical science (beliefs about the past). This teacher certainly misrepresents the message of the Creation Museum and one can see it is just another attempt to discredit a place that has a message that the secularists don't want the public to know about. But, at least Scientific American has taken notice of us!!


Here is a segment from an article I wrote for Answers magazine on this topic:

"To help sort out the confusion, there needs to be an understanding that we can divide science into two categories:

1. Operational (or Observational) Science. This refers to knowledge gained by direct observation (using the five senses) and based on repeatable testing. Such “science” (knowledge) has enabled scientists to build our modern technology like airplanes and rocket ships. Whether one is a creationist or evolutionist, we all use the same operational science. Thus, both evolutionists and creationists can be honored for their observational science.

2. Historical Science. This refers to knowledge about the past—in essence, history. This type of science cannot be observed directly or based on repeated testing, so we need other ways of finding knowledge. The Genesis account of origins gives us knowledge about the past, revealed by an infallible witness—God. Those who believe in Darwinian evolution claim to have knowledge concerning the past, too, but it is based upon the beliefs of fallible humans who did not witness the supposed evolutionary history. Genesis is the true account of historical science, whereas evolution is really a fictional historical science.

Thus, the battle between creation and evolution (the Genesis account versus man’s account of origins) is really a battle over historical science. The role of operational (or observational science) is that it can be used to confirm or refute one’s historical science."

You can read my entire article at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ence-bible


No doubt forensic science falls into the catagory of "historical science" which cannot be directly "observed" ?????????????

Why so many people listen to this buffoon is beyond me.
Last edited by Peter Henderson on Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 Peter Henderson » Thu Dec 27, 2012 12:34 pm

CMI are no better:

From the "geologist" who's not a "geologist"

http://creation.com/whale-explodes-fossil-theory

Some Interesting comments:

Matthew Gehring So is this article saying every fossil that has ever existed was created by the global flood?


Matthew Gehring And how does this explain how entire ecosystems are found in certain sediments, while others are found in sediments above or below


Which prompted a reply from this idiot:

Renee Raven Allen I would say Matthew Gehring that almost all fossils were created by the flood except those that occured in events after the flood (large local flooding events like Mt St Helens) which shows how fossilisation occurs and those made through experiments or some form of rapid burial.
You'd get a better and more accurate answer from the staff at CMI as they are the scientists and the rest of us are just amatuers that read a lot!!!! :)


I'm tempted to say that Tas Walker isn't, nor never has been a geologist but it'll only get me banned so I'll probably not.

This is good though:

Wart Hog "The whole saga vividly demonstrates that dead animals don’t immediately sink to the bottom of the ocean—they generally float on the surface. Anyone who has kept an aquarium would know that. It’s only after other marine creatures have substantially scavenged the corpse that it will sink." This is the core concept of the article and it is wrong. In fact, anyone who has kept an aquarium can tell you that dead fish sometimes sink and sometimes float. It's only after the body starts decomposing that it will necessarily float and a lot can happen down in that time to trap it. Remember that most animals will never be fossilised - it is the exceptions we see, not the rule. How many whale corpses sank in the same year that one floating one was found ?
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 Dec 27, 2012 2:57 pm

I think Ham is getting very close to the point were he wants to say that Christians who reject YECism aren't really Christians at all, but can't quite bring himself to say it.

I think CMI have now firmly crossed that bridge. They are saying outright somewhere that christians who aren't YECs are not all saved because they've been deceived. Tho they now seem to be getting the ocassional comments slipping thru from people who seem to be non YEC christians. Which is bizarre. If some are getting thru how many aren't given Ashleys experiences?
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 » Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:16 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:and "secular humainsts" are targeting the youth:

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

It's just another variation of paranoid conspiracy theory. Scam gets away with it because Answers in Genesis is a US organisation and there is a deep culture of paranoia and conspiracy theory there. This is what, elsewhere, I have described as the climate:

"There's a lot of money and power to be made in the USA from pushing the woo of conspiracy theory and it is almost always a product of the hard political right and fundamentalists. Cockup theory is a much better explanation when it comes to politics.

The conspiracy theories of the political right are largely no different at all to the fantasy Nazi view that there is a conspiracy of Jews running the world. Just another method of blaming everything on some mythical group of "plotters". It's always evidence free.

If you asks the nutters actually how these groups of "plotters" are actually organised, who, personally, is involved and what structures do they have in place to, er, take over the world, you won't get any sense out of them whatsoever.

The nutters also can't make up their minds which "group" is "conspiring". It ranges across the Illuminati, the Bilderberger group, the United Nations, the European Union, Communists, Jews, gays, feminists, liberals, foreigners, Muslims, the Roman Catholic Church, secularists, scientists, NASA, academia, the "mainstream media", socialists, the anti-Christ, Palestinians, Barak Obama, the Pope and the head of the European Union, teachers, the "yellow peril", aliens from outer space, welfare scroungers....well, just about everyone who isn't an American wingnut.

The conspiracy theorists are also nearly all religious fundamentalists with a martyrdom complex a mile high.

Scratch the surface, though, and you will usually find what they really hate are black people and foreigners.

The conspiracy theorists, of course, also all hate each others' guts.

It's all just a form of neo-fascist narcissism."
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 » Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:36 pm

cathy wrote:
I think Ham is getting very close to the point were he wants to say that Christians who reject YECism aren't really Christians at all, but can't quite bring himself to say it.

I think CMI have now firmly crossed that bridge. They are saying outright somewhere that christians who aren't YECs are not all saved because they've been deceived.


Good. All the more reason for the rest of the world to recognise that the fundamentalists are just another brand of very nasty sectarian bigots. It just organised blasphemy given that God decides who goes to heaven, not a handful of self-appointed people at CMI.
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 cathy » Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:04 pm

paranoia and conspiracy theory there. This is what, elsewhere, I have described as the climate:


Americans never fail to amaze me. We have Dunblane and instantly tighten up already tight gun laws ignoring the few people that like to shoot things. They murder a load of five and six year olds and some unarmed teachers with a big gun and they go mad screaming that what they really need are more guns (yeah lets arm those toddlers get em young), it isn't guns its the loss of god from the world (god the gunslinger - don't remember that in the bible) and start a petition to deport Piers Morgan for stating they should have less guns. There are many reasons to deport piers but actually saying something utterly sensible for a change isn't one of them.

Don't forget we have UKIP here. And mystic Marcs looney tunes church which is on the up according to his up his own a@@@e pastor, CMI, C4ID and TiS. So we can't get too smug.

Guess I'm just suffering from post xmas misery blues and the fact Next looked like it had been plagued by a herd of bargain eating locusts by the time I got out to bargain forage as per my evolutionary past. :( Must stop checking out the CMI site it is such a depressing reminder of the dark side of human nature. But I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the only people with brains between their ears are here.
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 Dec 27, 2012 9:00 pm

Piers Morgan has pissed him off now !

Piers Morgan (like a number of other TV hosts) think they can impose their anti-God philosophy on the culture and attack Christianity as much as they want. I've reported on Piers Morgan before and his attack on the biblical creation position.

Of course he believes the Bible is flawed because he is in rebellion against the absolute authority of the Word of God--he is one who wants to do what is right in his own eyes.

The sad thing is that the secular media is over run by such ant-God religious zealots as Piers Morgan.

But this should just fire Christians up even more to proclaim the truth of God's Word in this increasingly secularized culture.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to ... lawed.html
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: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests

cron