Will Crawley at the creation museum.

[Peter Henderson]

BBC Radio Ulster's Sunday sequence host is currently in the US.

This brief report from Ham's nutty museum:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2012/05/d ... ark_1.html

[a_haworthroberts]

Very interesting. Quite restrained in tone.

Can we expect a Ham blog about Crawley's 'mocking'? Or will he desist (assuming he sees the article)?

[Peter Henderson]

Very interesting. Quite restrained in tone.

Can we expect a Ham blog about Crawley's 'mocking'? Or will he desist (assuming he sees the article)?

Yes, I thought so as well Ashley. Not up to Crawley's usual standard, although, maybe he was trying not to upset Mark Looy who appeared to be giving him a guided tour.

[Roger Stanyard]

BBC Radio Ulster's Sunday sequence host is currently in the US.

This brief report from Ham's nutty museum:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2012/05/d ... ark_1.html

Many of the comments on his blog should be posted to Fundies Say the Darndest Things including what appears to be one from Norman Nevin.

[Peter Henderson]

BBC Radio Ulster's Sunday sequence host is currently in the US.

This brief report from Ham's nutty museum:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2012/05/d ... ark_1.html

Many of the comments on his blog should be posted to Fundies Say the Darndest Things including what appears to be one from Norman Nevin.

I missed the Norman Nevin comment Roger.

Pastor Philip has admitted he's on the board of reference for the Caleb Foundation.

I've met Peter Klaver a few times and he's a decent bloke, even if he is a bit of a militent Atheist. Sadly, our little get togethers appear to have fallen by the wayside.

[Roger Stanyard]

BBC Radio Ulster's Sunday sequence host is currently in the US.

This brief report from Ham's nutty museum:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2012/05/d ... ark_1.html

Many of the comments on his blog should be posted to Fundies Say the Darndest Things including what appears to be one from Norman Nevin.

I missed the Norman Nevin comment Roger.

Pastor Philip has admitted he's on the board of reference for the Caleb Foundation.

I've met Peter Klaver a few times and he's a decent bloke, even if he is a bit of a militent Atheist. Sadly, our little get togethers appear to have fallen by the wayside.

I assume this is Nevin:



@logica_sine_vanitate,
Thank you for your posts.I've often found scientists to be as hardheaded & unopen to new ideas as the stereotypical fundamentalist is portrayed by some. Those in medical research can be the worst.Humility would go a long way for us all.
Did you watch "The Tree of Life" film? It was based on the Book of Job.Your quotation reminded me of it.

[Dagsannr]

Is good ol' LSV still posting there?
I gave up when I realised he was dominating every single thread with some drubbins of his own and refused to debate further.

A little like PB and Londoner on Premier but far more eloquent.

[Peter Henderson]

Hadn't realised LSV was Norman Nevin.

[Michael]

Is good ol' LSV still posting there?
I gave up when I realised he was dominating every single thread with some drubbins of his own and refused to debate further.

A little like PB and Londoner on Premier but far more eloquent.

So you are on Premier? Have we crossed swords yet?

[Peter Henderson]

Is good ol' LSV still posting there?
I gave up when I realised he was dominating every single thread with some drubbins of his own and refused to debate further.

A little like PB and Londoner on Premier but far more eloquent.

So you are on Premier? Have we crossed swords yet?

Careful now.

I wouldn't reveal his identity.

[Dagsannr]

Is good ol' LSV still posting there?
I gave up when I realised he was dominating every single thread with some drubbins of his own and refused to debate further.

A little like PB and Londoner on Premier but far more eloquent.

So you are on Premier? Have we crossed swords yet?

Perhaps.

I've revealed my Premier persona on here in a previous thread, but suffice to say, I'm a recent addition not shy of taking on some of the more ignorant on there.

Desperately desiring deeds, doomed down decreasing directions destined dangerously, depressing damnedable dalliance diplomatically, disallowing diplomatic dogma, dragging distempered difficult dullards delinear, derogatory derisory, descriptively dogged, designated dynamic. Decypher distintiveness disingenously, dramatic doubts displaying delightful discovery.

athanku

[cathy]

Desperately desiring deeds, doomed down decreasing directions destined dangerously, depressing damnedable dalliance diplomatically, disallowing diplomatic dogma, dragging distempered difficult dullards delinear, derogatory derisory, descriptively dogged, designated dynamic. Decypher distintiveness disingenously, dramatic doubts displaying delightful discovery.

Roget's theasaurus alternatives for creationist and creationism? words beginning with D?

Have I missed A to C? How many pages before they get to Z and brainwashed Zombies, zoologyphobics?

[a_haworthroberts]

Another reason why Ham might not criticise the Crawley blog in his blogs. His fans might get to read the comments underneath.

[a_haworthroberts]

Does Peter know what on earth is WRONG with the people at the Will Crawley blog? They have accused me FOUR times of 'risking breaching copyright law' (and removed my post).

Below is my FIFTH EDIT of my attempted posting:


Up to five different versions of Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) are due to appear at the Creation Museum by the end of May.

In his daily anti-science blog on 4.2.12 at
http://blogs.answersingenesis/blogs/ken ... ion-museum
Ken Ham stated "Of course, what we believe Lucy to be will be obvious—some sort of chimp". The blog focused on Lucy's FACE.

In January 2011 'Science' reported online: "The transition to full-time terrestrial bipedality is a hallmark of human evolution... These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans and support the hypothesis that this species was a committed terrestrial biped".

It would have been more helpful if I could have posted this Abstract in FULL, but the relevant link is http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract.

Which may explain why a photo of one probable Lucy exhibit, viewable on today's Ken Ham Facebook page, shows a creature on all fours (apparently when on the ground). See
http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham

On 10 February 2011 the BBC News website reported at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2412662
"Human feet are very different from those of other primates. They have two arches, longitudinal and transverse". It also quoted Professor William Kimbel: "Lucy's spine has the double curve that our own spine does. Her hips functioned much as human hips do in providing balance to the body with each step, which in a biped of course means that you're actually standing on only one leg at a time during striding. The knees likewise in Lucy's species are drawn underneath the body such that the thighbone, or femur, angles inwards to the knees from the hip-joints - as in humans. And now we can say that the foot, too, joins these other anatomical regions in pointing towards a fundamentally human-like form of locomotion in this ancient human ancestor".

The Creation Museum appear to have decided, however, that none of this can be true or relevant. Because Lucy had to be 'some sort of chimp'. Because of her probable facial appearance - only. And because of their anti-evolutionary, young Earth, presuppositional agenda.

It's common knowledge that Lucy could walk bipedally, much as we do. AiG in the News to Note feature on 12 February 2011 grudgingly reported on the latest scientific findings whilst trying to downplay them and suggest in rather vague terms that they relied on lots of assumptions.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... e-02122011

The MOST sceptical or cautious sounding note sounded at the time, in the links supplied by AiG, was by William Harcourt-Smith. "It's hard to envisage an animal that had entirely made the leap to full, obligate bipedalism". Suggesting I
think that it also spent time up in the trees.

Yet now, in 2012, the Creation Museum are planning to foist on the
public in the US of A some new models - all depicting Lucy as 'some
sort of chimp'. A knuckle-walking chimp. Again, see the photo on the Ken Ham Facebook
pageat http://www.facebook.com/aigkenham and also his blog of 4 February 2012.

LIARS.

If the creation, God's Creation they assert, contained a now extinct
chimp-like creature that could walk like human beings, WHY ARE THE
CREATION MUSEUM DRESSING IT UP AS A KNUCKLE-WALKING CHIMP-LIKE CREATURE
INSTEAD? No other (serious) museums to my knowledge have depicted Lucy
on all fours.

Rhetorical question.

BECAUSE the creature looked 'transitional' thus hinting at the
possibility of EVOLUTION that's WHY. If God accidentally gave an
impression of evolving creatures, the YEC community must REMOVE any
such impression given by God - in order to defend Genesis against what
they call 'Man's fallible opinions'.

[a_haworthroberts]

Looks like someone with fascist tendencies works at BBC NI:

My reply to them after I was modded AGAIN:

"THIS IS BLATANT CENSORSHIP. I have edited my POST about FIVE times to comply with the House Rules. I have linked to EVERY quote. EVERY single one.

I am highlighting your blatant censorship here:
http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/postin ... f=1&t=2983

I thought we lived in a democracy. Perhaps I thought WRONG".