Latest pile of manure from Answers 'in' Genesis

[a_haworthroberts]

As sent:


http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... two-people
http://www.economist.com/news/united-st ... about-adam

"In a challenge to creationists, a quarter of young adults told Barna’s study that their churches were “anti-science”." (From the second link.)

Yet YOU write: "While falsely accusing Bible-believing Christians of denying science, the article...".

Why are you accusing the Economist of lying? They were in fact citing the conclusion of OTHERS.

Do you think most of your readers are either stupid or are liars like you? Yes.

Nobody else is fooled by your lies and your false accusations. You ARE anti-science. The Economist IS correct. You are lying and throwing mud - a tactic perfected by Rabble Rouser Ken Ham.

You KNOW you are speaking falsehoods and you KNOW you are anti-science but you will not admit it. That is why Ken Ham runs away from debates, that is why you refuse to engage with educated critics like myself, that is why you instantly ban people like myself from your Facebook pages, that is why you publish virtually no criticisms of your science denial/pseudo-science articles, that is why you do not permit on your website any discussion forums of your dubious extra-biblical materials. I could go on.

"The reasoning is entirely circular and therefore invalid." PROVE IT.

"The actual observations of science are not in conflict with the biblical history of the age of the earth, the global Flood, or the origin of mankind from two specially created humans about 6,000 years ago." OH YES THEY ARE AND YOU ARE LYING LYING LYING. SOMETHING THE BIBLE CONDEMNS.

"In fact, far from being in dispute with the Bible, modern genetic discoveries actually support biblical history!" LIAR LIAR LIAR.

"Many places in which the human genome varies occur in only two “versions”". I cannot open your link. What the hell are you talking about here? We all have two PARENTS, do we not? Or - if you mean alleles - there are MORE than two such variations of many genes.

"Christians should also be confidently able to share the Gospel of salvation by beginning with the truth that the Bible is not anti-science." The Bible is scientifically WRONG because it is PRE-science. Young Earth creationists by contrast are LIARS because they are POST-science and thus ANTI-science because science refutes their ancient claims. (And ironically they use modern technology to spread their narrow-minded misinformation, fantasies and false accusations to the gullible and to the ignorant.)

"The wonders of modern genetics, far from unhitching humanity from Adam, is actually completely consistent with God’s eyewitness Genesis account of His special creation of two humans—Adam and Eve...". LIAR LIAR LIAR

YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO A RELIGION THAT CLAIMS TO SPEAK THE 'TRUTH'. (WHICH IS WHY ATHEISTS SAY KEN HAM HELPS CREATE MORE ATHEISTS.) IN FACT YOU ARE A DISGRACE FULL STOP.

I will of course expose your endlessly mendacious and judgmental behaviour at the BCSE community forum (which is open to all - but YECs mostly shun it because they have NO scientific argument just stupidity and a hatred of the scientific method).

This is one of the WORST pieces of YEC dishonesty I have read for .. well a few months anyway.

I politely suggest that you grow up and accept reality.

[a_haworthroberts]

Meanwhile, under this piece of stinking ordure, someone has commented at the AiG Facebook page:
"Scientists don't know anything. If it's not in the bible, it's not true."

Such breathtaking arrogance. OK, perhaps it's just blind faith rather than a deliberate lie borne of hatred and hostility - he may be both brainwashed and totally ignorant of how real scientists actually work.

But that is no excuse.

[Brian Jordan]

Ashley, if the creationists want to read copies of your messages to the, please at least make it easy for them to find them in the Conversations with Creationists forum.
Moving 1...2...3...

[a_haworthroberts]

I don't really understand what you are on about, Brian.

It was just as easy for anyone - whether creationist or evolutionist - to find the thread at the Free for All. And it is not a 'conversation' because the YECs at AiG never converse with me.

However, if you think the thread should be listed under 'Conversations', fine. I don't really care either way.

[a_haworthroberts]

In fact I see that the thread appears in both places, so I'm doubly happy

Even if it later disappears from the Free for All.

[Brian Jordan]

In fact I see that the thread appears in both places, so I'm doubly happy

Even if it later disappears from the Free for All.

If a thread is moved to another forum, it's possible to leave behind a link so that people who have been following can track it to the new place. The vestige then slowly drifts down the page.
As for "Conversations", it was always expected that they would usually be one-sided because the creationists rarely feel able to respond. However, the resulting monologues also rarely become discussions suitable for the other forums.

[Peter Henderson]

whether creationist or evolutionist

Wot's an "evolutionist" Ashley ?

[a_haworthroberts]

A non-creationist?

[Peter Henderson]

A non-creationist?

The term isn't used in science Ashley, only by creationists when referring to scientists.

[a_haworthroberts]

I use it because other people use it and it therefore means something to some people...

[Brian Jordan]

I use it because other people use it and it therefore means something to some people...

It only encourages them though.