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 Roger Stanyard » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:44 pm

cathy wrote:
IIRC Andy "Fingers" McIntosh said some years ago that he was keen on the idea of a big creationist "museum" near Birmingham. Given that he is still a speaker for Answers in Genesis, I suspect that he was hoping that Ken Ham would fund it.

I DON'T THINK SO!!!! We don't want any of that crappy nonsense round here thank you very much. Nor any creationist loons. Let them stay in Edinburgh where hopefully the cold keeps them in for over half the year.


Birmingham would be a good choice for us.

If anything broke in the "museum", the local brummie employees would hit it with a hammer to fix it. If that didn't work, they would go on strike. So either it will be all smashed up or semi-permanently closed to visitors with a picket line outside (or both). ;-)

Whatever you do, don't tell ex-Big Ken Scam or Andy "Fingers" McIntosh about this valuable piece of management consultant's advice.
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 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:59 pm

YEC at the NEC?

Don't think so.
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 13, 2012 12:08 am

Bob Sorensen BANNED a 'Dawkins disciple', according to his 'The Question Evolution Project'. And then posted THIS: http://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... ciple.html

Conclusion? The man is a COWARD.

Sorensen is also annoyed because I have liked some of the Facebook comments challenging his anti-science arguments (those I saw before they got hidden).
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 13, 2012 12:39 am

I've just stalked Bob again - sent a short email flagging his post and then this thread (copied to Mark Edon only).

I do not automatically vote for every post that I see challenging Bob on Facebook - just the vast majority (because he is normally so defensive and accusatory towards them).
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:51 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 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:58 am

Who said this on Facebook a few hours' ago?
"In this electronic age, such attacks ... are on the rise, especially from ... who have no absolute standard of right and wrong ... and who have no qualms about using the web and other means to pass around false and defamatory information."

Yes, CORRECT: http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
The man who has recently made false accusations against the Huffington Post and accuses his critics of either being 'compromisers' or of 'suppressing the truth'. Relying on misleading anti-scientific arguments to make his case and wage war on well-supported scientific knowledge.

He is of course correct that there are SOME abusive and provocative opponents of YEC-ism or Christianity more generally out there. It does appear that one of his books has been misrepresented online and I would not condone that.
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 13, 2012 1:05 am

Oh dear. David Montgomery was not sufficiently brainwashed as a kid or young adult: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
Nor was I. Even after spending 12 years at Westminster Chapel.

In the YEC world, if you oppose or avoid YEC-ism but embrace(d) Christianity you did NOT think for yourself at all - you were simply insufficiently or inadequately indoctrinated (a) against science and (b) towards rigid Bible literalism.

That's what Creation Museums are for. And church talks by Mr Ham. Pure indoctrination in teachings that go WAY beyond what the Bible actually discusses, states or implies.

It's the invention of 'answers' for sceptics.
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 13, 2012 4:44 pm

The dangers of science being used by Atheists to have a go at Christianity , as has happened on the "remove creationism from the Giant's Causeway" Facebook group.

Ham desperately wants this to become an Atheist/Christian debate. Some people within science seem all to ready to oblidge, unfortunatly:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
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 13, 2012 4:49 pm

The dangers of science being used by Atheists to have a go at Christianity , as has happened on the "remove creationism from the Giant's Causeway" Facebook group.

Ham desperately wants this to become an Atheist/Christian debate. Some people within science seem all to ready to oblidge, unfortunatly:


So do the likes of Richard Dawkins. It is folk like him that want it to be a christian/atheist debate rather than folk in science. After all RD hasn't worked in science for a long time and apart from Jerry Coyne I'm not how many of the rest of his merry band of accolytes do either - they all seem to journos and people of no obvious trade. They seem to be more of the waffle about nothing stuff than science . You know the sort of thing - Marc style creation babble but with atheism instead of creationism. Scientists may be anti creationist but very few are anti religion per se or anti religious people.

Thing is RD is also very fond of telling people how they should read Genesis, like Ken Ham etc. But Genesis is something RD thinks is fiction thereby ignoring the obvious paradox that there is no RIGHT way to read something you believe to be fiction. The similarities between the two groups are growing. Creationism is mainly male so is RD atheism. Ham is always right so is RD. Ken Ham lives in the past so does RD. Both revel in wilful ignorance tho of different things.

You're a christian and hate being compared to Ham, I'm an atheist and hate being linked to RD. We all have our crosses to bear it seems.
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 13, 2012 10:18 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:YEC at the NEC?

Don't think so.


Try the ex-British Leyland site in Longbridge; they could get Derek "Red Robbo" Robinson out of retirement and pass him of as a living fossil.
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 13, 2012 10:42 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:The dangers of science being used by Atheists to have a go at Christianity , as has happened on the "remove creationism from the Giant's Causeway" Facebook group.

Ham desperately wants this to become an Atheist/Christian debate. Some people within science seem all to ready to oblidge, unfortunatly:



This is exactly the reason for which I fell out with the "New Atheist" movement.

I suspect, though, that underneath there are cultural reasons. Many Americans (not all, though) tend to go the extreme in their views and opinions. I just didn't wanted to be dragged into it all. I don't have the time or the inclination.
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 13, 2012 11:01 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:The dangers of science being used by Atheists to have a go at Christianity , as has happened on the "remove creationism from the Giant's Causeway" Facebook group.

Ham desperately wants this to become an Atheist/Christian debate. Some people within science seem all to ready to oblidge, unfortunatly:



This is exactly the reason for which I fell out with the "New Atheist" movement.

I suspect, though, that underneath there are cultural reasons. Many Americans (not all, though) tend to go the extreme in their views and opinions. I just didn't wanted to be dragged into it all. I don't have the time or the inclination.


Yes, indeed Roger. If you glance down the recent posts on the Causeway group you'll notice they're all about having a go at Christians (in the broader sense) and pushing Athesim/Humanism etc. in the name of science, which I've no time for. This just gives YECs like the Rev. Ian Brown or Caleb ammunition.

Like you Roger, I simply can't be bothered now. It's a seperate debate which doesn't belong anywhere in the science arena.
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 14, 2012 1:36 am

Peter Henderson wrote:The dangers of science being used by Atheists to have a go at Christianity , as has happened on the "remove creationism from the Giant's Causeway" Facebook group.

Ham desperately wants this to become an Atheist/Christian debate. Some people within science seem all to ready to oblidge, unfortunatly:

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



Atheists aren't very keen on ANY influential religions (though if they were to shoot at Islam too much and too prominently they might get a fatwa).
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 Dec 14, 2012 1:42 am

"ignoring the obvious paradox that there is no RIGHT way to read something you believe to be fiction".

I don't really follow. I thought Dawkins and co were saying that taken literally as apparently its writers intended - as the unpopular fundamentalists do, unlike 'wishy washy liberals' - the Bible has been SHOWN to be wrong historically and scientifically (implying that God is fiction too). And therefore, if you allegorise it or only believe parts of it, it is still wrong (but when you do that you can also be open to modern 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 cathy » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:40 pm

don't really follow. I thought Dawkins and co were saying that taken literally as apparently its writers intended - as the unpopular fundamentalists do, unlike 'wishy washy liberals' - the Bible has been SHOWN to be wrong historically and scientifically (implying that God is fiction too). And therefore, if you allegorise it or only believe parts of it, it is still wrong (but when you do that you can also be open to modern science)."ignoring the obvious paradox that there is no RIGHT way to read something you believe to be fiction".


No I thought what Dawkins was saying was that the fundamentalists had got it right when it came to how to read the bible. He claims they are the ones reading it correctly - that it should be read literally! A point the creationists have leapt upon - ie even arch atheist Dawkins says we have got it right you compromising christian b@@@@@@s.

Which was what my first creationist said to me and pointed to it in Ken Hams book, to which I replied that lots of christians didn't read it literally so why was he (and Ken Ham) taking Dawkins word over theirs? And of course I asked would they be taking their trust in Dawkins to its logical conclusion and agreeing with the rest of his statements about God and becoming atheists? But as I'd already given him some equations for the second law of thermodynamics and asked him to explain how they disproved evolution I think he may have been too angry to take my comments on board.

Of course Dawkins prefers christians who read it that way as it proves the whole thing wrong to any sane person.

However my point is that Dawkins believes it is a work of fiction as there is no god in his opinion. Therefore how can he make any claims about what how the writers intended it to be read?. Nobody can categorically make claims about how Shakespeare should be read or Harry Potter (we all take different things from that I always knew Snape was a goody but the kids read his killing of Dumbledore literally as murder rather than humane euthanasia).

He can only state that it should be read in such and such a way if he thinks it is literally true. He doesn't tho.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:46 pm

Cathy

I take on board your points and sorry if I misunderstood anything originally.

It's just that I think people who aren't fundamentalist Christians vary on how they may approach the Bible as literature to be studied or criticised (as well as on whether they think it is truth, history and reality in any way) and may all feel that their approach is appropriate, possibly even being somewhat dogmatic about it (even if they are 'relativists' and do not insist it is the only logical or possible approach).

Francis Collins and co would say it is (a) truth but (b) should not all be taken as literal, notably the opening chapters of Genesis.
Richard Dawkins and co would say it is (c) mostly falsehoods and myth but (d) should be taken as literal rather than figurative or purely spiritual ie that was the writers' intention and they believed, based on existing knowledge at the time plus 'inspiration from God', that what they set out in the opening chapters of Genesis was an accurate account of the Earth, universe and life first coming into existence at the hand and voice of God.

For Ken Ham and co it's (a) and (d). I suppose some atheists or non-Christians might go for (c) and (b) - or say that they don't know and possibly don't care.

Ashley
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 9 guests

cron