Answers in Genesis - lies, hypocrisy, cover-ups

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Answers in Genesis - lies, hypocrisy, cover-ups

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:48 pm

In the early hours of this morning UK time I made the following two - necessary - posts on the Answers in Genesis Facebook page:

"Ken Ham has posted nonsense on his own Facebook page - which none of
his supporters appear even to have noticed - and then failed to
correct himself when the nonsense was pointed out twice to Answers in Genesis
direct. See viewtopic.php... Mr Ham
flagged this article but then misrepresented it either through
incompetence or through lying:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/ ... z2fTNiTh9v
He appeared to INVENT a fictional 'error margin' among scientists'
predictions of a size that absolutely does not exist. If you actually
read the article it says "They calculated that Earth's habitable-zone
lifetime is as long as 7.79 billion years. (Earth is estimated to be
about 4.5 billion years old)". Thus it is clear from the article that
the maximum time Earth might remain habitable is around 3.29 bn
years.
As the 'Fox News' article states at the start (extremely clumsily as
Earth's orbit will probably not change) "Somewhere between 1.75
billion and 3.25 billion years from now, Earth will travel out of the solar
system's habitable zone and into the "hot zone"". 7.79 billion years
only exists in Ken Ham's head!
I have taken an on-screen photo of this posting. If you have any
interest in accuracy and truth you will not censor it. If you don't
you will."

"The word of Ken Ham over the weekend: "You know—scientists often can’t
predict the weather tomorrow—but they know what will happen 1.75
billion years from now (but it could be as long as 7.79 billion— or it
could be 3.25 billion years--just a little error margin). I’m sure they
would be able to present this in public school and call it ‘science.’""
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Answers in Genesis - lies, hypocrisy, cover-ups

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:51 pm

I have just sent the following email to AiG and others.


"Answers in Genesis - FRAUDS and LIARS who attack science and censor truth.

Please see the attached photos. This is how the Answers in Genesis
Facebook page appeared in the early hours of Tuesday morning UK time.
[the photos show the two posts quoted above shortly after they were made]

Please then click on this link, as below, to see what the page looks
like early on Tuesday evening UK time. My comments are no longer
visible. Not rebutted - simply abruptly censored without any mention of
this fact either to myself or to other contributors. (See the thread
beginning: It's Here - Another 'Wow' Resource from AiG!
http://ow.ly/p8giv.)
https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis

Answers in Genesis have silently deleted my comments (there was a
later exchange with a Tommy Scott as well) and silently stopped me from
making any further comment on their Facebook page. Whilst Ken Ham's
false claim on his own Facebook page remains uncorrected. They cannot
pretend not to know that Mr Ham posted nonsense in his quest to attack
scientists.

This shows that Answers in Genesis either want to deceive people or
that they are afraid ever to admit a stupid mistake by Ken Ham. Or
both.

Any rational and honest person should be disturbed that professing
Christians behave like this. To the atheist and unbeliever it confirms
that Christianity must be nonsense and that fundamentalist Christians
must either be brainwashed or else they are deliberate hypocrites who
refuse to accept correction (not challenge, correction).

Anybody seeking to defend this conduct will I am afraid be defending
deliberate deception done in the name of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

Answers in Genesis are part of the edifice of Young Earth Creationism.
In my abundant online experience of them, almost all members of this
cultlike group of Christians lie, libel and try to evade scrutiny on an
industrial scale. I politely suggest that they should take a look at
themselves.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts"
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Answers in Genesis - lies, hypocrisy, cover-ups

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:57 pm

So many lies, so much refusal to engage (YECs block my emails so they won't read them), so many cover-ups and hiding of errors whenever possible from the faithful.

I suspect AiG know they are lying and conning but have calculated that to come clean would cause more damage to Christianity than does carrying on lying and deceiving. After all, most of their ardent supporters appear brainwashed - and probably assume that any challenge, even a factual and/or scientifically accurate one, is from 'Satan' and thus 'lies' and an 'attack'. Little effort is necessary to keep such biased zealots 'on side'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Answers in Genesis - lies, hypocrisy, cover-ups

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:24 pm

This is the 'Policy' of the AiG Facebook page (which I've annotated three times in square brackets):


"AiG’s Facebook pages are not debate forums such as those you might see
in the comments section of a newspaper’s website. The primary purpose of our pages is to
communicate with you better. As such, it is not intended to be a
place for people to debate back and forth. [My comment did NOT attempt to 'debate', rather
it pointed out a factual ERROR by Ken Ham which nobody else had noticed and which
AiG had totally failed to correct, despite two messages to them pointing out that
what he wrote was utterly false.] Of course, we encourage people
to post reasoned and polite opinions, but ongoing arguments
will not be allowed. Other forums outside AiG are available for that
purpose, but our Facebook pages were never designed to serve as debate
forums. AiG uses Facebook for “conversation,” not for arguments,
counter-arguments, etc.

Furthermore, since people sign up because they “like” AiG, the
Creation Museum, etc., they should be largely in agreement with our
beliefs anyway. If you don’t “like” us, why be here in the first
place?

Ironically, many secular humanists come to our Facebook pages with the
intent to debate, yet prominent leaders in academia tell evolutionists
not to debate creationists in public debates.

Note: Please be aware that there is limited space for a staff member
to go into detail in the page’s status update, so it can be easy for
some people to read between the lines and see something that is
member to go into detail in the page’s status update, so it can be easy for
some people to read between the lines and see something that is simply
not there and jump to wrong conclusions. In addition, we endeavor to
remove all comments that go against the above policy. However, because
such moderation is very time-consuming, it is possible that we will
miss some argumentative postings that should be pulled. [Thus AiG seek
to label anyone who corrects a MISTAKE by AiG, as well as anyone disagreeing
with their claims, as 'debating back and forth' and being 'argumentative' - and thus
deserving of censorship and instant bans. A typically arrogant YEC attitude.]

We reserve the right to determine what crosses the line into
argumentation or bad conduct on our Facebook pages. Please extend
grace towards us as we exercise that judgment (sometimes dealing with
highly subjective matters). Also, we encourage Christians (and
non-Christians) who might have a gripe about the AiG ministry to
please contact us in private rather than attempt to post something for
the world to see. [I did contact AiG in private, twice, but they paid no attention
whatsoever. Thus highlighting this on the AiG Facebook page was not 'bad' behaviour.]

Thank you."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Answers in Genesis - lies, hypocrisy, cover-ups

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:02 am

They calculated that Earth's habitable-zone lifetime is as long as 7.79 billion years


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the sun will last that long (Helium burning will start long before 7.79 billion years).

Answers in Genesis have silently deleted my comments (there was a later exchange with a Tommy Scott as well) and silently stopped me from
making any further comment on their Facebook page. Whilst Ken Ham's false claim on his own Facebook page remains uncorrected.


Ham stopped me from commenting on his Facebook page when I asked him on what basis are we saved after he had a go at Peter Enns, claiming he was a "supposed" evangelical Christian, which sounded to me as if he was questioning whether or not Enns was saved.

CMI did something similar.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Answers in Genesis - lies, hypocrisy, cover-ups

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:51 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:
They calculated that Earth's habitable-zone lifetime is as long as 7.79 billion years


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the sun will last that long (Helium burning will start long before 7.79 billion years).

Answers in Genesis have silently deleted my comments (there was a later exchange with a Tommy Scott as well) and silently stopped me from
making any further comment on their Facebook page. Whilst Ken Ham's false claim on his own Facebook page remains uncorrected.


Ham stopped me from commenting on his Facebook page when I asked him on what basis are we saved after he had a go at Peter Enns, claiming he was a "supposed" evangelical Christian, which sounded to me as if he was questioning whether or not Enns was saved.

CMI did something similar.



I'm afraid that like Ham you appear to have misunderstood the article, Peter. It's 7.79 bn years in total, not ANOTHER 7.79 bn years from now.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Answers in Genesis - lies, hypocrisy, cover-ups

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:58 pm

Answers in Genesis can be contacted via the following form.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/feedbac ... =inquiries (given as a link in 'Policy' at the top of their Facebook page)

I would be VERY interested to hear the outcome of any enquiry sent to them via this form, sent by either an opponent of young Earth creationism or another young earth creationist, briefly asking WHY the false statement by Ken Ham on his Facebook page was never corrected despite me pointing it out to AiG by email, via the website form for notifying 'news' (the only form that I had found at that time) and then via a (later censored) posting on the AiG Facebook page. Does AiG have a policy of never correcting errors by Ken Ham or refusing to accept that such errors even occurred?

My guess is that one of the following would occur:
- AiG would say that correcting the '7.79 bn years' error was unimportant because the post was a few days old and the discussion underneath had come to an end;
- AiG would seek to justify what Ken Ham wrote in some way;
- AiG would label me a troublemaker and either claim that I was 'nitpicking' or try to make out that my (censored) post had not been closely examined and they simply decided I had broken the rules because I said that Ken Ham had posted 'nonsense' on his page;
- AiG would refuse to respond at all.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8838
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Answers in Genesis - lies, hypocrisy, cover-ups

Postby jon_12091 » Thu Sep 26, 2013 9:35 pm

Peter Henderson wrote:Ham stopped me from commenting on his Facebook page when I asked him on what basis are we saved after he had a go at Peter Enns, claiming he was a "supposed" evangelical Christian, which sounded to me as if he was questioning whether or not Enns was saved.

CMI did something similar.


And there sitteth the elephant in the room for creationism. Cast aspersions on their 'Christianity' and they'll smack you down with the appropriate bits of Peter and Paul quicker than they think the Grand Canyon formed, but because you don't interpret Scripture as they do then you're a 'compromiser'. The term is of course code for something more, but Ham or indeed any of the other 'faces' probably daren't call a spade a spade because sooner or later their double standards will start to show to the detriment of their bottom line. I also suspect they dislike ecumenicalism, but need it to reach across denominational lines.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

cron