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 MisterGordons » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:52 pm

The meat machine known as Ken Ham wrote a blog post. It was not a scientific article nor did Ham pretend that it was so. The meat machine known as Ashley Haworth-Roberts fallaciously criticized it and used a generalization against Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. Let Ashley Haworth-Roberts criticize and show where the science is erroneous in this article since he pretends to be an expert in so many fields. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/mi ... d-eukarya/
MisterGordons
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:20 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:59 pm

MisterGordons wrote:The meat machine known as Ken Ham wrote a blog post. It was not a scientific article nor did Ham pretend that it was so. The meat machine known as Ashley Haworth-Roberts fallaciously criticized it and used a generalization against Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis. Let Ashley Haworth-Roberts criticize and show where the science is erroneous in this article since he pretends to be an expert in so many fields. https://answersingenesis.org/biology/mi ... d-eukarya/


Ham was discussing scientific topics. "Let Ashley Haworth-Roberts criticize and show where the science is erroneous in this article". I already did with respect to Ham's blog post, troll. Why are you now moving the goalposts. If you want to discuss another AiG article I never mentioned - go ahead. You have the floor.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby MisterGordons » Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:01 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:Ham was discussing scientific topics. "Let Ashley Haworth-Roberts criticize and show where the science is erroneous in this article". I already did, troll.


Ashley Haworth-Roberts did not discuss the article I linked.
MisterGordons
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:20 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:03 pm

MisterGordons wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:Ham was discussing scientific topics. "Let Ashley Haworth-Roberts criticize and show where the science is erroneous in this article". I already did, troll.


Ashley Haworth-Roberts did not discuss the article I linked.



Nor did you, time-waster.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:26 am

Answers in Genesis exposing themselves as LIARS, HYPOCRITES and FANATICS:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3866
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his confused colleagues

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:10 am

Ken Ham's twisted worldview when it comes to science (he should stick to morality issues):
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
"Genesis is not only true history, but is the foundation for all Christian doctrine--for a truly Christian worldview. Genesis also teaches on gender (sex can't be changed), marriage (one man for one woman), and climate change (it won't destroy the world)."
Genesis teaches NOTHING about whether humans can unintentionally or deliberately alter the climate. Ken Ham is being untruthful about a so-called Genesis doctrine (any climate change doctrine there is at Genesis 8:22). And scientists are NOT claiming that current climate change will 'destroy the world'. But - if the cause of climate change/global warming (which does not stop some bitter early 2018 cold in large parts of the northern hemisphere) - is not tackled this verse could potentially be somewhat falsified if heatwaves and/or intense droughts destroy crops. Ken Ham's 'logic' - if it isn't destroying the world then it's either 'no problem' or 'fictional'.
And stupid Christians (not sensible ones) follow this man.
He also flags this article by a fellow YEC:
https://www.christianpost.com/voice/a-c ... nesis.html
It makes the same foolish and simplistic claim (YECs also insist there was an 'ice age' after the Genesis flood even though that is totally NOT in the Bible and would have made harvests very difficult in much of the world):
"Or consider climate change/global warming: if God told Noah after the Flood He would never destroy the earth again with water, and that the seasons (i.e., the climate) would remain the same for seedtime and harvest, then there's no need to fear any future climate catastrophe."
How does he know that this means humans should do NOTHING to halt recent climate change (or that the climate change is 'natural')?

I have hardly ever, if at all, previously seen Ken Ham quote or allude to Genesis 8:22. Probably because he is pushing a 'recent' 'post-flood' (and fictional and unbiblical) 'ice age'.

Yet when he wants to deny the real problem of current man-made climate change he is happy to make the claim (echoing another YEC) that current climate change won't (unlike a global flood) 'destroy the earth' - because God promised (at Genesis 8:21) not to destroy the earth again.

I found two AiG website articles that quote Genesis 8:22. BOTH of them contradict themselves:
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ca ... 9174698421
"We are only beginning to learn about some of the mechanisms that drive minor climate change, but the Lord promised in Genesis 9:15 that He will not again judge the world by a global Flood. He also said in Genesis 8:22, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease.” That means we shouldn’t be worried about run-away global warming or another Ice Age."

Yet AiG - and this includes Vardiman himself - falsely claim that the Genesis flood WAS followed by an 'ice age' even after God made his promise at Genesis 8:21-22. So the verse is true NOW but was PREVIOUSLY false, Dr Vardiman?

https://answersingenesis.org/environmen ... te-change/
"After the Flood, God even promised Noah that the climate would remain within acceptable ranges:
While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease. (Genesis 8:22)"
Yet earlier in the SAME article she falsely claims: "...However, this climate was radically changed when the surface of Earth was destroyed, reshaped, and rearranged by the global Flood of Noah’s day around 4,300 years ago. As the earth was settling from the Flood, there was a transitional climate which included an Ice Age that covered 30% of the earth’s surface in ice. This transitional climate slowly gave way to the present climate as the earth evened out from the after effects of the Flood. Therefore, starting with a biblical model for Earth’s history, we should expect variations in climate and temperature."

AiG know nothing. I thought apologetics was meant to make the Bible look MORE believable.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
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 Feb 23, 2018 1:24 am

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
"Just another example of the evolving story of evolution. Almost daily evolutionists are changing their ideas--after all, it's just a made-up story about the past so they can change it whenever they want--and they do--and they call it science!
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-colonized ... rlier.html"

What an appalling pathologically lying cultist science hating bigot this man is. Makes me feel sick in the stomach - if I was still a Christian I am sure I would feel exactly the same.

Details of a wide-ranging theory get altered following further investigations. Which is what happens sometimes with science.

Besides this lying bigot frequently tries to have it both ways:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... -religion/
"I urge Christians to become more vocal regarding calling evolution and millions of years what they really are (and to undo secularist brainwashing). Evolution and millions of years—concepts held to with ardor and blind faith—are a religion—and this religion is being imposed on kids. Secularist propaganda has brainwashed millions of kids in evolution, but it's an anti-God religion to justify people being their own gods!"
No the person with the unchanging inflexible dogmatic RELIGION is Ken Ham. The theory of evolution is NOT an unchanging inflexible dogmatic 'religion'. A typical dictionary definition of religion being "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" or "a particular system of faith and worship".

He's an appalling hypocrite. "I love science!" No - you hate science. You FALSELY call it a 'religion' - and then FALSELY allege that it is being significantly changed 'almost daily'. Ken Ham is a LIAR.

And he is not Christianity's spokesperson.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
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 Feb 23, 2018 1:44 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
"Just another example of the evolving story of evolution. Almost daily evolutionists are changing their ideas--after all, it's just a made-up story about the past so they can change it whenever they want--and they do--and they call it science!
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-colonized ... rlier.html"

What an appalling pathologically lying cultist science hating bigot this man is. Makes me feel sick in the stomach - if I was still a Christian I am sure I would feel exactly the same.

Details of a wide-ranging theory get altered following further investigations. Which is what happens sometimes with science.

Besides this lying bigot frequently tries to have it both ways:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... -religion/
"I urge Christians to become more vocal regarding calling evolution and millions of years what they really are (and to undo secularist brainwashing). Evolution and millions of years—concepts held to with ardor and blind faith—are a religion—and this religion is being imposed on kids. Secularist propaganda has brainwashed millions of kids in evolution, but it's an anti-God religion to justify people being their own gods!"

No the person with the unchanging inflexible dogmatic RELIGION is Ken Ham. The theory of evolution is NOT an unchanging inflexible dogmatic 'religion'. A typical dictionary definition of religion being "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods" or "a particular system of faith and worship".

He's an appalling hypocrite. "I love science!" No - you hate science. You FALSELY call it a 'religion' - and then FALSELY allege that it is being significantly changed 'almost daily'. Ken Ham is a LIAR.

And he is not Christianity's spokesperson.



And YECs cannot get THEIR story straight - LOL:
https://stormbringer005.blogspot.co.uk/ ... tself.html
'Science does not correct itself.' OK - sometimes it has been slow to do so. Other times not.

The fascist really means that science does not always agree with his religious beliefs and carries on falsifying a 'young' universe.

(I saw this piece of bigotry - see the comments about climate change, he knows better than almost all the meteorologists and climatologists on the planet - just after flagging the previous post by email.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

AiG pick and choose with the Bible

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:08 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-a ... h-is-flat/
"Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22). The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn’t the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat)...".

Those verses (likewise Proverbs 8:27) contain no science - and the Isaiah verse implies a flat circular Earth rather than necessarily a three dimensional globe.
And there are other Bible verses which imply that Earth is flat. Verses not mentioned in this article - such as Matthew 4:8. And it's easier to perceive a flat circular disk having 'four corners' than it is to perceive a three dimensional globe having such.

And there is a growing 'Flat Earth' movement in 2018 - and some of the believers are Christians who also fervently believe the Bible (though probably most fundamentalist Christians aren't flat earthers):
http://www.philipstallings.com/2015/06/ ... -from.html (Stallings is a creationist.)
"The number of verses that teach the earth is a round spinning ball orbiting the sun? 0."

But AiG carry on in their new article:
"another verse that indicates the spherical nature of our planet is Job 26:10". No it doesn't liar Lisle (who is being quoted in the new article and used to work for AiG). In the version you link to it reads: "He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness". This could easily be referring to a TWO dimensional circle. And Lisle's claim "Job 26:10 suggests a “God’s eye” view of the earth" is nonsensical - God would not see a circle on waters where the sun was rising/setting on Earth's surface. He would see waters on a 'circle' (or a semi-circle if looking at one 'side' of Earth only from far enough away that the planet appears as a globe).

Though I accept Lisle's argument: "This biblical passage would be nonsense if the earth were flat, since there would be no true terminator" (the Job 26 verse does imply a terminator on Earth's surface). However: "there is no line to “step over” that separates the day from night on a flat surface". Why not? That is not addressed. Perhaps the Sun goes 'underneath' a flat Earth during night?

"It [evolution] cannot be tested by the scientific method. Therefore, those who doubt it are not anti-science." Yes they are - and AiG are pro-religion and anti-science. Evolution could be falsified. It hasn't been. But I agree that evolution requires more 'faith' than a globe Earth.

btw How many 'religions' does a theistic evolutionist believe in AiG?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Typical Ken Ham wilful nonsense

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:56 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:https://sciencetrends.com/vegaviidae-group-modern-birds-survived-dinosaur-extinction/
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... st-a-duck/
"A recent article highlighted the discovery of a “duck-relative” (otherwise known as a duck) [no], which they call a “modern bird,” [yes ie it was not toothed unlike most from the Cretaceous era] from the supposed “Age of Dinosaurs,” [no 'supposed' just actual] according to the evolutionary timeline.
"This duck group supposedly survived the dinosaur extinction event some 65 million years ago and is allegedly “the first documented case of a group of birds surviving such extinction.”" [That's what the evidence shows.] "But how could dinosaurs have evolved into birds if we have examples of modern birds in the very same layers as dinosaurs?" [Easily since there were hundreds of species of dinosaurs - though not all of them contemporaneous with each other - through an era lasting more than 150 million years, and (as AiG accept) some birds, species that are now long extinct, were already around too towards the end of that era.] Ham's bold type sentence is wilful misdirection.
This article also repeats Ken Ham 'information' from earlier this month that has recently been mostly debunked by a Christian palaeontologist blogger. Namely: "And, contrary to what the article states, these ducks are certainly not the only example [that article never said they were it said neornithes were "very scarce and patchy" and then suggested that Vegaviidae was "the first group of modern birds from the Mesozoic" (to survive the extinction event - and note the word 'group')] of modern birds buried with dinosaurs. We find fossilized parrots, albatrosses, loons, owls, flamingos, penguins, sandpipers, and more buried in the same layers as dinosaurs. And one evolutionary researcher claimed that such evidence supports the idea that “most or all of the major modern bird groups were present in the Cretaceous” (a so-called “dinosaur layer”). While these fossils are rarely displayed in museums, they exist and are a serious challenge to the evolutionary timeline."
See: https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... just-bird/
"But the author of the article calls these birds “bird-like dinosaurs” because of the supposed evolutionary connection between dinosaurs and birds (even though modern and now-extinct birds lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, including parrots, loons, owls, flamingos, and more)."
And then: https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2018/02 ... sil-birds/
"But this claim is just wrong and it is wrong in multiple ways. First, for most of the birds mentioned, no such fossils exist. Second, the term “modern” is undefined but 99% of AiG’s readers will take this to mean that a “modern” parrot from the era of dinosaurs is a parrot similar to one alive today but whose bones are found mixed with dinosaur-bearing rocks.
So, are there fossils of “modern” parrots, loons, owls and flamingos found in dinosaur-era rocks? The short answer – NO! But are there fossils in dinosaur-bearing rocks of ancestral parrots and flamingos that are recognizable as belonging to those families or “kinds” as Ken Ham might want to call them or may be thinking in his “modern” term? The answer is still NO! There aren’t even any fossils that can be definitely identified as belonging to these families that are found with dinosaurs." [However Ken Ham does appear to have shown in his latest blog post that there were some ancestral parrots around in the Cretaceous.]
A "serious challenge to the evolutionary timeline" is not the same thing as a serious challenge to the theory of evolution.
And Ham hasn't finished:
"The layers don’t represent eons of evolutionary time—they most likely represent ecosystems successively buried by rising floodwaters." Total garbage. How could more than one ecosystem be found in a single location in the space of one year (a 'flood year' indeed)? Total nonsense. Real science - and real deep time - does explain what is observed.
"To learn more about fossils of so-called “modern” animals, check out Living Fossils, an excellent book by Dr. Carl Werner. You’ll be shocked by what’s found in the fossil record that you never knew about!
Oh, and ducks have always been—well—ducks!"
Said the Ayatollah of Misinformation.

Actually these Vegaviidae birds may have been more loons than ducks. Remind you of anyone? From the article Ham tries to ridicule:
"Records of Modern birds (Neornithes) from the Age of Dinosaurs or Mesozoic Era, are very scarce and patchy. Most specimens are represented by isolated bones or strongly incomplete skeletons. This contrast with toothed birds, which are widely represented and known by abundant skeletons." Toothed birds, which appeared earlier in Earth history, having now gone extinct. We are left with 'modern' birds (even if some of them had ancient origins).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegaviidae

Ken Ham is anti-science. His articles are often breath-takingly simplistic and stupid.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28988276


PS at 12.44 am
That parrot fossil has now been mentioned in comments at the Naturalis Historia blog.




PPS: https://thenaturalhistorian.com/2018/02 ... /#comments
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:36 pm

Ham has been talking out of his rear end again.

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
"Well, you certainly know such fossils weren't formed slowly over millions of years! Whatever preserved such fossils was catastrophic--consistent with what we'd expect from a catastrophic global Flood."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... years-ago/"

This fossil arthropod was found within the Chengjiang fauna in China - which is part of the Maotianshan Shale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuxianhuia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maotianshan_Shales
Shales are normally laid down in SLOW moving water:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale#Formation

Ham is an anti-science pathologically lying fanatic who does not care that Christians are fed lies so long as they 'accept the authority of the whole Bible from the very first verse'.

I would post the link to this response at Ham's Facebook page. Except that someone working for this fraud has cravenly blocked me from posting there (so I will email the post to them via their website).

The rabble who follow Ham are even worse than he is. Look at all the bigoted idiotic and arrogant comments made under his latest Facebook lie.

AiG - no science. Just propaganda, attacks upon scientists, pseudo-science and industrial scale brainwashing of the fundamentalist Christian community.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
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 Mar 11, 2018 11:06 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-e ... gods-word/
Ken Ham is fighting against material reality - whereas those other 'compromising' evangelical Christians aren't (but Ham thinks Bible verses, even those that are not direct teaching, are the ultimate 'reality' - from God).
"Terry, Andrew, and typically an Old Testament professor show them the overwhelming geological evidence for the Flood and a young earth." There isn't any such thing. That is why so many Christians and others are suspicious of Ken Ham. He is a bigot.
Why do you suppose there are three other views of 'creation' amongst Christians Mr Ham? Are all these people deluded, divisive and insane and being used by the devil to destroy the Bible and Christianity?
https://www.zondervan.com/four-views-on ... ent-design

One reviewer of that 2017 book states: "Ken Ham then goes on to state that “The scientific evidence confirming the literal truth [i.e., his interpretation] of Genesis 1-11 is overwhelming and increasing with time as a result of the research of both evolutionists and creationists” (p. 31). That statement is blatantly false and totally opposite of reality."

Another reviewer, referring to YEC, states that Ham's claim is that "it is not a salvation issue, but that it IS a gospel issue, in fairly strong language, accusing those who deny YEC of undermining the foundation of the gospel".

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bmN ... ts&f=false

PS
Whenever I try to view CMI's home page this evening I get a privacy error message beginning "Your connection is not private ...".
PPS
But I can get to the homepage, and then the latest article, by accessing the site via an old CMI article as flagged on their Facebook page:
https://creation.com/darwin-pigeons (Yet another attack on Darwin which uses pseudo-science to make its argument eg "Darwin’s work actually demonstrates how the intense selection pressures after the Flood could have acted on gene pools rich in variety to allow rapid speciation/adaptive radiation from the restricted number of land-dwelling kinds represented on the Ark. The variability built into each created kind thus allowed post-Flood populations to respond to changing environmental pressures (adapt) and thus conserve the kinds".)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:35 pm

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... publicity/
"... According to the state of knowledge at the time, the genetic analysis did suggest that Cheddar Man’s skin was dark. But science progresses, and since the analysis was done last year, many more genes affecting skin colour have been discovered. Understandably, the new science did not make it into the documentary.
To add insult to injury, the story has now been seized upon by alt-right activists on social media...".

And Ken Ham - who ignored the original story - has seized upon this article too:
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/vide ... 709394510/
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... or-was-he/

So what have AiG got to say about 'Cheddar Man'? Not much on 'Answers News' - other than complaining about scientists publishing stuff in a press release prior to peer reviewing it (and then back-pedalling slightly). Of course creationists would not publish stuff on their websites that has not been peer reviewed and accepted by the scientific community - would they?
In the blog post, Ham says: "But it’s a reminder that we need to be careful about believing what we read, especially if it contradicts God’s Word (such as the 10,000-year age assigned to “Cheddar Man”—sadly much of the media has been brainwashing the public in many false ideas about origins, especially when it comes to the dates!). We can be confident that research, when done right and interpreted correctly, will always confirm God’s Word." Of course he does NOT want Christians to be 'careful' in the same way about believing the stuff that appears on the Answers in Genesis website (and research 'always' confirming God's Word is a sham not science).

Or indeed the stuff by Ham within this book 'Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design' - where Ham's sciencey claims appear alongside those by other Christians who strongly disagree with young earth creationism:
https://read.amazon.co.uk/?asin=B06XFN3TW6
Ken Ham colliding with scientific reality.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:40 pm

PS In that book, theistic evolutionist/evolutionary creationist Deborah Haarsma wrote about the pattern of the (ancient) fossil record:"The species are not mixed together as expected from the violence of a global flood. Rather, rock formations like the Grand Canyon show discrete layers ...". But in his rejoinder the fanatic Ham simply repeated yet again his false claim: "Noah's Flood produced most of the geological evidence that evolutionists attribute to millions of years". (Apparently Haarsma 'must' be wrong because she doesn't believe there was a 'global' flood. Probably because of eg what is seen at the Grand Canyon liar Ken Ham - fossils, including of long-extinct creatures, in distinct layers. With very old dates.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
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 Mar 16, 2018 10:46 pm

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
"No, it has NOT "been established as scientific fact that birds evolved from a group of dinosaurs"--that's a lie. Archaeopteryx was fully bird! But, some evolutionists falsely claims it's a transitional form and then say dinosaurs flew! It's a fairy tale presented as fact:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/03/ ... gests.html"

The science opposing bigot tells his cult members that it was 'fully bird' and not a dinosaur (which is how real scientists with no axe to grind now classify it) - and even though a dinosaur that could fly is certainly in no way 'unbiblical'.

The person doing the LYING is Kenneth Alfred Ham, the President of 'Answers in Genesis'.

And the bigoted extremists who follow Ham (some other people also follow him) just love it and round upon any critics of the bigot. For instance:
"They don’t because they are cowards" (replying to: "No self respecting scientist believes this");
"SO, you demand the research, the research is offered to you and without viewing what you demanded, you disdainfully push it away. Either you have political motivations or you are a afraid God exists. A coward indeed."

The real cowards are the Bible fanatics and science haters at AiG. They censor people who 'rock the boat'. People like me.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 9 guests

cron