Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

[a_haworthroberts]

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ro ... -pressure/
"So where did jade come from? Astonishingly, the biblical Flood cataclysm provided just the right kind of rare, stressful conditions necessary to produce this beautiful gemstone." That's not in the Bible. Although it hints at a big earthquake at the start of the flood in Genesis 7:11 - resulting in waters rising from below - the Genesis flood account says ZILCH about plate tectonics or subduction nor anything specifically about intense heat or pressure. And the flood is supposed to have been worldwide yet jade is only found in certain locations - mostly near some of today's crustal plate boundaries.

"This catastrophic bursting forth of hot waters and upwelling molten rock would have caused massive rifts in the seafloor (“the great deep”). Such rifting would have rapidly spread around the globe—including across the supercontinent, tearing the earth’s crust apart into oceanic crust and continental plates.
The plates, in turn, moved and collided, causing the heat, extreme pressures, and hot saline fluids that produced jadeite and nephrite deposits."
Nice story. But NOT found in the Bible. And continents breaking apart and then colliding again weeks or months later (did they encircle the globe in the meantime or just go into reverse) is just daft (and desperate).

[a_haworthroberts]

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0202807
https://www.livescience.com/63500-ancie ... anean.html
Science. History.

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeolog ... ic-europe/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j84BAH07amo&t=6s (starting at 6 minutes 30 seconds)
The unjustified attacks against science and history for reasons of religious dogma.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://answersingenesis.org/sunday-sch ... witch-abc/
This is the Word of Man about the Word of God, and an apologetics cult - no wonder churches, even in America, are hesitant and sometimes downright suspicious of them (they may also have heard about all the pseudo-science and anti-science peddled by Answers in Genesis including their anti AGW/ACC tirades that have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Bible or Christianity).

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis/
''"America is on a path to national suicide and moral insanity. All of this is a result of the Church's and the culture's rejection of the truth and authority of the Word of God." Dr. Terry Mortenson.''

Mortenson made those comments in a tub-thumping book published in October 2016.

They seem to think it's STILL true on 6 October 2018.Well, having just listened to the international news (including a speech by Chuck Schumer about that superficial FBI investigation prior to the Supreme Court vote on whether to confirm Kavanaugh - who may or may not be guilty of past sexual misconduct) I would agree with them. On 8 November 2016, with the help of many evangelical Christians, a known pathological liar and egotist filled with malice to all apart from his voting base (and one of two undemocratic despots around the world such as Putin, Assad and Kim) was elected to the position of President of the United States.

Meanwhile an email received from AiG is flagging THIS:
https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fo ... us-fossils 'Disharmonious Fossils.'
According to the email: ''Evolutionists love to tout the fossil record as evidence for their theory. No less an authority for evolution than Richard Dawkins has said, “All the fossils that we have ever found have always been found in the appropriate place in the time sequence. There are no fossils in the wrong place.” Dawkins’s statement is emphatic and confident. However, Dawkins is wrong.'' (Dawkins was speaking in 2009: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-book ... 2120091005)

Having read the new AiG article by this Harry F Sanders III, I see that whilst it quotes Dawkins it fails to address fully what Dawkins stated (and clearly meant) in that Reuters article. He made the point, in response to a question, that ''no fossils have been found in the wrong place'' (for the theory of evolution). Sanders' response is that ''Fossils are often found where they are not expected, and these finds cause evolutionists to frequently revise their timelines.'' Which they have been able to do WITHOUT needing to ditch the theory - ie in the grand scheme of things the occasional revisions required to timelines have not led to the falsification of the theory.

That is the case with this example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788615/ (Angiosperms appeared in the fossil record after Gymnosperms.)

On the next example, which concerns Confuciusornis remains found within the stomach of a dinosaur, Sanders states ''Yet this largely modern-looking bird was found inside a dinosaur fossil over 100 million years old. An essentially modern bird should not have been found there, according to the evolutionary timeline.'' So one small portion of the evolutionary timeline to be revised? Not a problem. (Like the dinosaur, the bird in question is now - unbiblically - extinct.)

The next example simply shows that (back in 2005) scientists learnt more about the mammals (now mostly or totally extinct) that were alive in the Mesozoic era. The creationist tries to claim that evolutionists were 'upset'.

The next example flags this paper (also from 2005), one which has been discussed previously by the likes of AiG and Naturalis Historia: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03150
Sanders reports that in their abstract the paper's authors suggested ''at least duck, chicken and ratite bird relatives were coextant with non-avian dinosaurs'' (initially this was controversial among biologists). Sanders then argues: ''Modern birds thus existed with the dinosaurs they are supposed to have evolved from''. But Sanders does not tell us what dinosaur(s) eg Vegavis iaai is believed to have been descended from (assuming scientists have found evidence that has led them to propose a relevant hypothesis). Of course we now know that SOME birds (most of which are now extinct) co-existed with SOME (maybe most) later species of dinosaur. Not a problem for evolutionary timescales in general.

Sanders then references this paper from 2018: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03295-9
Sanders suggests that Enantiornithes was like a modern bird (and was thus not ancient or primitive) because it was flightless upon hatching and also lacked teeth - like modern (by that I mean non extinct which is not the case with Enantiornithes) birds. However, having checked, Enantiornithes in general did have teeth and also claws on their wings, and are thought to have died out at the same time as the dinosaurs. As for that Nature paper, it mostly focused on bone development in a juvenile Enantiornithine. I could not see any mention in the Discussion section of whether this bird had, or would have later developed, teeth. I did spot this sentence: ''the largely cartilaginous sternum of MPCM-LH-26189 hints at functional limitations in terms of flying ability, which should not be taken as evidence of altriciality given that semiprecocial and many precocial species are able to walk at an early age, but are unable to fly until almost fully grown''.

The article lists other examples of 'disharmony' that I don't have the time to investigate further.

Sanders complains ''The evolutionary story is like elastic: it is constantly stretched to fit new finds''. Well - creationists do that too. Or else they 'ignore' evidence - as Sanders accuses evolutionists of sometimes doing.

And then the LYING starts:
''The major problem with evolutionists’ handling of the fossil record comes from their worldview. Instead of questioning their belief when a fossil is found in an unexpected place, they impose their worldview on the record and then make adjustments to their “just-so stories.” Thus, no piece of fossil evidence, no matter how damaging to the evolutionary tale cannot be explained'' and ''True science makes testable predictions, part of the scientific method referred to as falsifiability. In order for something to be scientific, there has to be a way for it to be disproved. If the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record can accommodate any discovery, then their evolutionary fable is never falsifiable''. It has accommodated any discovery (and refuted creationist accusations) SO FAR.

''Evolutionists will only change their minds when they change their worldview.'' Yes - only if they have a RELIGIOUS conversion of some sort. After that they MIGHT (some don't) change their worldview (essentially have a second religious conversion) when it comes to the topics of BIOLOGY and EARTH HISTORY. They might join the ranks of those who falsely claim: ''Evolutionists use their worldview to interpret the fossil record to support their worldview in a dizzying round of circular reasoning.'' I do not know whether Sanders was ever an evolutionist - but some creationists who use to be evolutionists, but then had in essence TWO conversions (or one if they were already a theistic evolutionist), use this sort of wild argumentation against their former self (even if they sincerely accepted evolution perhaps). As for circular reasoning - creationists do that MORE than evolutionists. 'True science by definition is biblical - and this particular science confirms the Bible.'

[a_haworthroberts]

CORRECTION to my preceding post. NOT Assad!

[a_haworthroberts]

AiG being the people who REFUSE to explain WHY Ken Ham and co rail against man-made climate change.

So presumably the bigots will ignore THIS too and carry on making snide comments and muddying the waters regarding climate past and present.


Since you people say you 'love' science, it's time for you to finally get on board with this (millions of Christians accept that man-made climate change is a reality happening now that needs to be combated, and accepting this is in no way unbiblical):
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/relea ... 1.5-report

[a_haworthroberts]

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rocks-and-minerals/jade-beauty-under-pressure/
"So where did jade come from? Astonishingly, the biblical Flood cataclysm provided just the right kind of rare, stressful conditions necessary to produce this beautiful gemstone." That's not in the Bible. Although it hints at a big earthquake at the start of the flood in Genesis 7:11 - resulting in waters rising from below - the Genesis flood account says ZILCH about plate tectonics or subduction nor anything specifically about intense heat or pressure. And the flood is supposed to have been worldwide yet jade is only found in certain locations - mostly near some of today's crustal plate boundaries.

"This catastrophic bursting forth of hot waters and upwelling molten rock would have caused massive rifts in the seafloor (“the great deep”). Such rifting would have rapidly spread around the globe—including across the supercontinent, tearing the earth’s crust apart into oceanic crust and continental plates.
The plates, in turn, moved and collided, causing the heat, extreme pressures, and hot saline fluids that produced jadeite and nephrite deposits."
Nice story. But NOT found in the Bible. And continents breaking apart and then colliding again weeks or months later (did they encircle the globe in the meantime or just go into reverse) is just daft (and desperate).

https://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2018/1 ... ormed.html
''Bonus for those who want to see appallingly bad reasoning from an angry, uneducated atheist about this article, click here.''

It was perfectly sound reasoning.

Which is why the pathological liar Sorensen will NOT respond to my (widely copied) challenge to him to ''tell us all HOW my reasoning was 'appallingly bad' - or WITHDRAW the accusation. If you do neither you will PROVE - yet again - that you are a hate-filled and irrational hater of truth and lover of lies.'' His accusation IS simply lies and bigotry. So - he will ignore my challenge (and carry on lying and hating as before).

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MTUtvM62-g
Lying again about a past 'global flood' on Mars. No. It was an ocean (probably over a large proportion of the planet) not a global flood (there for many millennia not 12 months). Lies again that if the Bible spoke of a past 'global flood' on Mars scientists would deny it. Pretends that there's no difference between Earth and its history and Mars and its history - and therefore if scientists think there was a 'global flood' on Mars they ought to think there was on Earth (and recently too). But they refuse because they want to deny the Bible. Mars lost an atmosphere. Earth didn't.

And Oumuamua remains an (interstellar) comet. (It's not an alien light sail.) It's left us - but it's the death knell for a '6,000 year old' universe.

Purdom refers to the AiG article on Oumuamua (by Danny Faulkner) in late 2017. Which falsely claimed ''While we creationists may not have explicitly predicted such a thing, the discovery of 1I ‘Oumuamua is consistent with what we know about creation'' (meaning what those who insist the universe is just 6,000 years old claim to know about creation). But Faulkner also admitted (as was assumed at the time) that it was an asteroid that was 'interstellar'. Meaning it took geological expanses of time to reach our solar system. That is what interstellar means.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/nov-17- ... ZzaZ799c1o
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... .e-letters
They mentioned evolution - so the research 'needs' to be attacked by Mr Ham:
''Another ridiculous assertion such differences that reflect genetic diversity are the result of evolution! This has zero to do with evolution (in the molecules to man/ape-like creature to man sense) but reflects genetic diversity within the human kind.''
PROVE it.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/did-a-m ... glKAQqhBfo
https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-con ... 18-002.pdf
That 'needs' to be attacked too. Even though, despite what it says about 'religious commentators', the Fox News article is slanted in a pro-Bible direction. Using pseudo-science (previously Ham tried to spin this research - which only covers the species that are extant today and not all the extinct ones - in his favour):
''Old news (May 2018) getting media attention again. If only these scientists would accept the truth that speciation happens very quickly (see Replacing Darwin - AnswersBookstore.com/replacingdarwin) they'd be even closer to knowing that the Genesis account of creation is true.
To find out the truth about speciation and how observational science confirms the Bible's account of created kinds as per the biblical timeline, people need to read some up-to-date research that devastates the millions of years/evolutionary account: https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/a ... d-years/''

Notice how he is in denial that ''human evolution can proceed quite rapidly in 10 to 20,000 years'' yet at the same time is claiming - against available evidence and referring to a fictional 6,000 year old Earth timescale - that ''speciation happens very quickly''.

Ken Ham is ANTI science.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis/
''As we look at the bitterly cold desert on Mars today, the thought of flowing water seems laughable. Yet evidence is growing that the planet was once wet . . . and this possibility fits nicely in the creation model.''

What model might that be? Well, they flag this article:
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... ue-planet/
''Where did the water originally come from? Perhaps the first volcanoes on Mars erupted and spewed out water during Creation Week or at the Fall ...''. Which goes WAY beyond Genesis 1: 16b.

And AiG have got a new video about the fictional 'recent' 'post-flood' ice age - that THEY invented because they had to squeeze real past ice age glaciations into a biblical timescale:
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/vide ... 916724857/
I had a listen - they are just advertising a tour to Alaska.

[a_haworthroberts]

It's funny that this is one of Ken Ham's favourite LIES - when it has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with Christianity or 'defending the Bible' (but everything to do with Ham's attacks against science he doesn't like):
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... e-ice-age/

''But it’s not a mystery when we start with the history found in God’s Word''. Oh yes it is.

''Indeed, that history actually explains how an ice age is even possible ...''. Oh no it doesn't.

''Now, you may be wondering what the Bible says about the ice age. Well, the Bible doesn’t specifically tell us there was an ice age, but we can observe today that there was indeed an ice age.'' Indeed so.

''But the Bible gives us the history we need to understand this event.'' How?

''In order to produce an ice age, three basic things are needed:
Warm oceans. Warm water evaporates faster than cooler water. Warmer oceans would produce excess evaporation...'' Untrue. And not in the Bible either.

''Cooler land masses. Cooler continents would cause this precipitation to fall as snow, rather than rain.
Cool summers. If the summers are cooler, this snow would not melt as easily, allowing it to quickly pile up and form glaciers.'' True. But still not in the Bible.

''What could give us all three of these conditions? Well, the global flood of Noah’s day and its aftermath would!'' Oh no it would not.

''Volcanic and other geological activity during and after the year-long flood would warm the oceans.'' Volcanic activity during and after the flood, and other geological activity after the flood, is NOT in the Bible.

''We know from the geologic record that during and after the flood, the world saw intense volcanic activity.'' Oh not we do not. The geologic record 'knows' of NO 'recent' worldwide flood nor that even if there was one intense volcanic activity was seen during it.

'The flood of Noah’s day (about 4,300 years ago) and its aftermath formed the perfect conditions for an ice age to encapsulate much of the globe in ice and snow.'' Oh no it did not. Ken Ham is a LIAR. Who also ignores the quoted words of God himself at Genesis 8:22. ''As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.''

''Want to share the real history of the ice age with your children or grandchildren?'' Then DON'T read any of the pseudo-science put out by 'Answers in Genesis'. Don't waste your hard-earned cash on their DVDs.

The explanation for ice ages is ASTRONOMICAL and NOT biblical.

This same fraud denies man-caused climate change on the grounds that it is somehow 'unbiblical' (when making that claim he does not mind mentioning Genesis 8:22) plus the fact that climate change has previously happened naturally and will probably happen in tandem with the ongoing unnatural global warming.

[a_haworthroberts]

Sunday 9 December.

'Website Down for Intelligent Design. This won't take millions of years — or even six days. This website is undergoing maintenance and will be back soon.''

[a_haworthroberts]

''Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) atheists (like many liberals in politics) bully and threaten to impose their religion on the culture. Their anti-Christian zealotry results in grossly twisting the First Amendment to scare people with a total misinterpretation of the First Amendment.

FFRF is a small group of religious bigots. If people don't have the courage to stand up to their bullying, we'll continue to lose the free exercise of religion (especially Christianity) in this nation. Stand up to these anti-Christian religious zealots!

If groups (like those in the article) are organized to come to the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum in an objective fashion, to show people the world-class exhibits and one group's interpretation regarding the origin of earth history, the trip is fine as an exceptional and voluntary educational/cultural experience. (This group in the article was also going to visit secular attractions too).
https://www.christianpost.com/news/illi ... 7mMTWMlQ''



No bigotry there. No, sir. It's only people who oppose young earth creationist claims who are bigoted. Definitely not ever the creationists, such as those at AiG, themselves.

[a_haworthroberts]

Message as sent to AiG after their 'Answers News' broadcast today flagged a story about reptile footprints at the Grand Canyon:
''
https://www.livescience.com/64097-oldes ... anyon.html
Still no dinosaur fossils or footprints being found in Grand Canyon rocks. Something young earth 'flood geologists' try hard to explain away (or ignore if they can). Scientists can explain it easily. The exposed rocks are way too old - too old even for dinosaurs. So I expect today's Answers News broadcast will probably not even mention this difficulty for Mr Ham and co.''

So did AiG mention this difficulty today?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvw9FWmVWqM&t=7s
Check it out from five minutes and 30 seconds in ... where you will be informed that the creature(s) were running towards higher ground to escape 'floodwaters'. Yes, that's right (guess WHICH flood they have in mind). And if you propose a 'secular' explanation AiG will presumably start challenging you with 'were you there?' The Live Science article - which refers to an as yet unpublished peer reviewed science paper - makes NO mention whatsoever of 'floodwaters', just a coastal sand dune near a shallow sea (near the equator). And Ken Ham's AiG colleagues took the opportunity to push again a book that criticises their nemesis Bill Nye ...



Meanwhile fellow YEC 'Cowboy Bob' is flagging this piece re current climate change. A piece by Conrad Black which is full of falsehoods. Such as this total lie:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad ... over-again
''It is the third result that has occurred: unchanged world temperatures since 2000, apart from 2015-2016; then the temperature rose slightly after a heavy El Nino, and then receded again although world carbon emissions have increased moderately.''
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42736397
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46374141
PS I see that Conrad Black has spent time in prison. Because of FRAUD charges.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
''The ice age, a time of wooly mammoths, saber-toothed cats, and glaciers, may seem like a great mystery. But it’s not a mystery when we start with the history found in God’s Word.''

If there had not really been an ice age (lots of them) NO Christians, after reading the Bible, would be coming out with the utter tosh that Ken Ham keeps on coming out with. God, if he wrote/inspired the Bible, NEVER EVER mentioned or even hinted at an ice age. What he really said (post-flood) - which Ken Ham conveniently ignores - is quoted at Genesis 8:22:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV