Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

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

Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:08 pm

Anyone who challenges the pronouncements of YECs like Ken Ham 'does not understand science correctly'. 'Science' is, of course, undertaking the pursuit of knowledge AFTER first stating that the whole of the (ancient) BIBLE is infallible truth and anything contrary to the Bible, read in a plain and literalistic manner, is automatically false and must therefore be condemned by all means possible (even if you don't have evidence for it being false). Every Christian knows that - don't they?

I hope you enjoy the following:
http://christiannews.net/2013/09/16/rel ... -creation/
The Maher-Nye conversation referred to, 7 minutes' worth, can be listened to here; Maher is a loudmouth btw though I didn't notice the 'profanity' that the link warns of. I've added the following comment in the Facebook discussion underneath:
"What Nye said about the moon is true, Bob. It provides light to Earth some nights - but it is not a light source like the Sun is even though Genesis suggests that it is. And where has he 'misrepresented' Christians, creationism or science? And you cannot censor my comments here Cowboy Bob as this is not YOUR Facebook page."
(I have just re-posted this comment as the second time I looked I could not find it.)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/17/c ... correctly/
The Myers quote hits the nail on head although he does not have appeared to have blogged on this new row so far. Myers stated that the Ken Ham approach to science has "got that delightful combination of arrogant pretense in which the Bible-walloper gets to pretend he understands better than scientists, and simultaneously allows them to deny every scientific observation, ever". (In fact the Raw Story article links to an earlier Myers blog post of 27.07.13.)
http://www.christianpost.com/news/bill- ... ck-104738/
This article, written after Ken Ham posted new comments on his Facebook page, points out that Nye has not publicly declared himself to be an 'atheist'.
http://facebook.com/aigkenham
"Two atheists attack Christianity--surprise surprise! Bill Nye and Bill Maher continue their attack on creationists. Bill Nye still doesn't understand the difference between historical science and observational science--so he may be known as 'Bill Nye the science guy'--but he doesn't understand science correctly. Bill Nye also falsely thinks origins beliefs build technology! What a load of nonsense. These two mock the Bible and totally distort the Bible's account of the creation of the sun and the moon. Of course, AiG (and probably many others) have answered their false arguments--but Maher and Nye aren't interested in answers that defend Christianity--they've heard so many answers before (I gave many to Maher in an interview--but he didn't want answers)--they they don't want the truth--they continue to 'suppress the truth' as the Bible states in Romans 1 about such people in rebellion against God. By the way, here is the answer to the sun and the moon issue on the AiG website. http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... f-the-moon"
This moon business is a bit of a storm in a teacup - what Nye said is true but Ham's Bible literalism, like that of Hovind and Taylor, forces him to deny this. Nye did not 'totally distort' anything about what Genesis says about the moon. Ken Ham is a liar. The AiG article he links to merely shows that Genesis 1 isn't scientific - as I told YEC Jason Petersen only to be censored yet again for speaking the truth - because it confirms that it is written from an 'Earth-centric' position and the moon does (sometimes) light the Earth at night. But who - except somebody making a wrong assumption in good faith as appears to be the case with the writer(s) of Genesis 1 - would call something a 'light' if it does not emit any light of its own (unlike the sun which is also mentioned in the same verse)? The Upchurch article does not refute the criticism of those who insist Genesis 1 is scientifically accurate - it simply wriggles and tries to deny the obvious.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:49 pm

Oddly, some of the exact same Facebook comments under the Christian News article also appear here:
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman

I was beginning to think that Cowboy Bob was censor in chief at the Christian News Facebook page too...

... In fact there's a comment underneath the posts stating "this comment will also be posted to christiannews.net.".

WHY HAS PART OF THE FACEBOOK PAGE OF A RANTING ANTI-SCIENCE BLOGGER LIKE SORENSEN TRANSPORTED ITSELF TO THE 'CHRISTIAN NEWS' WEBSITE, AND DO 'CHRISTIAN NEWS' APPROVE OF THIS ESPECIALLY AS IT APPEARS TO BE CHRISTIAN NEWS' OWN FACEBOOK PAGE?

THIS PAGE IMPLIES THAT THE ANSWER MAY BE 'YES':
http://christiannews.net/about/
"Christian News Network provides up-to-date news and information affecting the body of Christ worldwide from an uncompromising Biblical worldview.
Our objective is to present the news with the word of God as our lens, and to bring to light what is hid in the darkness. Our reporters ask the tough questions and inquire from a Scriptural perspective...".

BUT I AM ABOUT TO CONTACT THEM TO QUERY THIS - VIA THEIR FACEBOOK PAGE.

This is the bona fide Facebook page for Christian News. I note that the discussion there of the Maher-Nye conversation is DIFFERENT. It was NOT begun by 'The Question Evolution Project.'
https://www.facebook.com/christiannews.net

I also have a photo of my reply to Cowboy Bob - in case it disappears again.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:02 am

Comment as posted on the Christian News Facebook page:
"I would be grateful for a response from Christian News to the issue I raise in the second post of the attached thread. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3345&p=47213#p47213 Why has part of the Facebook page 'The Question Evolution Project' run by young earth creationist 'Cowboy' Bob Sorensen been transported to appear under an article on the Christian News website reporting this same Maher-Nye conversation?"

As the page appears filled with anti-science/anti-scientist bigotry, I've taken a photo of that post too. One can't be too careful.

I've also found that I can contact Christian News from within their website (not by email apparently), so have done so - again flagging this thread.

I'm assuming that Bob Sorensen and Jason Petersen are both avid readers of Christian News.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:15 am

Have just added another comment here:
http://christiannews.net/2013/09/16/rel ... -creation/

"Or IS this the Facebook page of 'The Question Evolution Project' masquerading as that of 'Christian News'? https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman Under the SAME discussion here I read: "This comment will also be posted to christiannews.net". Why? How? Is the message referring to each individual post or the thread in general? I have contacted Christian News in search of an explanation. Any query sent to TQEP would be ignored because they do not allow me to post on their page because I disagree with them."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:21 am

Have added and photographed this new comment at TQEP Facebook page:
"That's funny I thought Sorensen had banned me from TQEP for disagreeing? But can he ban me at 'Christian News' too? And why is this discussion appearing there too? Tis a mystery. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3345"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:33 am

They both got it wrong. The Earth isn't 10,000 years old. Nor is it 5,000 years old. It's 6,000 years old. So there.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4337
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:36 am

Should anyone wish to, a 'running commentary' on what TQEP are censoring can (at present at least) be read here:
http://christiannews.net/2013/09/16/rel ... -creation/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:58 am

I think I am now illuminated about how Answers in Genesis lie about their critics and even lie about scripture.

A summary report of Bill Nye's 2009 comments on the moon and Genesis 1 (as referred to on the Maher TV programme): "Nothing got people as riled as when he brought up Genesis 1:16, which reads: "God made two great lights -- the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." The lesser light, he pointed out, is not a light at all, but only a reflector".
http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/bl ... st%3A44493

Ken Ham on Facebook: Maher and Nye (I don't know what the former may have said) "totally distort the Bible's account of the creation of the sun and the moon" and present 'false arguments'. NO - BILL NYE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT GENESIS 1:16 (AND BY IMPLICATION HOW A 'PLAIN' READING OF GENESIS 1 SUGGESTS THAT - LIKE THE SUN - THE MOON EMITS LIGHT ONTO THE EARTH AT NIGHT BECAUSE IT IS, LIKE THE SUN IS, A 'LIGHT').

AiG in 2010 as cited by Ham as giving the 'answer' to sceptics:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... f-the-moon
The article fails even to directly quote Genesis 1:16 which in the NKJV reads: "then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also" (the writer does quote Genesis 1:15 - as the 'relevant' verse - which reads "let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so"). The 2010 article then argues that: "The Hebrew word used for emit/give light in this verse ('owr) can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up”". Although the latter meaning covers 'becoming illuminated' (as the moon does), it does not really convey the scientific concept of REFLECTING light onto the Earth. For the rather obvious reason that Genesis 1 is not scientific and the author either did not know that the moon reflects sunlight or, possibly, didn't care because he was not trying to be scientific and precise. Mysteriously the 2010 AiG article FAILS to consider the Hebrew with respect to the NOUN 'light' in verses 15 and 16.

People who deliberately ignore this are not suppressing 'the truth' as alleged by Ken Ham - they are merely ignoring BAD Christian apologetics.

Have now flagged this thread to AiG from within their website. And emailed the link to Bill Nye.

The Bible (in English translations) says that the moon IS a 'light', Ken Ham! Your touted 'answer' to the 'false arguments' of Bill Nye TOTALLY IGNORES THE NOUN AND MERELY FOCUSSES ON THE VERB. Why is that? I think I can GUESS.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:05 am

Reply from Christian News Network at their Facebook page:
"Thank you for your inquiry. When people use their Facebook accounts to comment on websites, Facebook also posts their comments on their page."

My response:
"Thanks. I've never come across this before. Do you thus approve of discussion from Mr Sorensen's Facebook page appearing under your article - instead of your own Facebook page?"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:21 am

I found the first three minutes of this interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyu71k8QbaE
Edit - I prefer this version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uaz9Ks338c4
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 18, 2013 4:28 am

In fact I see there's a separate comment box available to respond to Christian News direct under their Maher-Nye article. I've just submitted the following comment - which apparently needs to be moderated before it may appear:
"The Facebook discussion above comes NOT from the Facebook page of Christian News but from the Facebook page ‘The Question Evolution Project’ – though that is not made obvious to readers.
I think that situation is utterly bizarre."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:15 am

Just added at The Question Evolution Project:

"As posted by me here earlier:
http://christiannews.net/2013/09/16/rel ... -creation/

"What Nye said about the moon is true, Bob. It provides light to Earth some nights - but it is not a light source like the Sun is even though Genesis suggests that it is. And where has he 'misrepresented' Christians, creationism or science? And you cannot censor my comments here Cowboy Bob as this is not YOUR Facebook page". See also: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3345
I dare you to read this - warning, it expose(s) Ken Ham making false accusations and providing hollow 'answers' - again."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:18 am

MODERATOR NOTE
You mention running commentaries, Ashley. I think this one qualifies as a conversation so I'll move it to Conversations With Creationists.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4169
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 18, 2013 9:44 pm

Two new comments just added here - provoked by Christian News ignoring my second question to them and by them failing to moderate an attempted post responding to their article regarding Maher and Nye. https://www.facebook.com/christiannews.net

I hope.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Ham, Maher, Nye and Myers - and a new row over 'science'

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:05 pm

I did copy emails about this to the Christian and critic of YEC-ism 'Dr Tertius', pointing out how the AiG rebuttal of what Bill Nye said in 2009 ignored Genesis 1:16 (where the noun 'light' appears in English Bible translations) and sought to focus mainly on the previous verse and on meanings of the Hebrew word used for emit/give light in verse 15 ('owr). Dr Tertius - who thinks Bill Nye (who ignores emails from me) got things wrong - tells me "I've studied Genesis for decades (a lifetime actually) in multiple languages (including Latin) and NOT ONE suggests in any way a "producer/emitter of light"". His argument seems to be that Genesis 1:15-16 is not scientifically wrong (about the moon which reflects sunlight) but rather that it is not scientific (and merely refers to how things 'appear'). Assuming AiG would agree that these verses merely say that the moon lights the Earth but do not claim that it is a light source because it has itself been 'lit up' by the sun, despite the fact that the sun which is a light source is described using the same noun, then one wonders how YECs can be certain that every verse of the Bible is infallible and none are scientifically inaccurate.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 7909
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Next

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron