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 a_haworthroberts » Sat Dec 28, 2013 5:40 pm

As sent, using a contact form, to the church where the Christian Richard Dahlstrom (Ken Ham's latest target) is the senior pastor:



Have you seen this silly article criticising one by Richard Dahlstrom?
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29

Mr Ham claims that the accusations in the article are 'blatantly false' - but they are blatantly true. Ham whines regarding the student who is mentioned: "it’s likely that she was never taught solid Bible-upholding apologetics so she could know how to defend the Christian faith against such compromise". No. Read the ARTICLE Mr Ham: "Years later, after moving to the city, I encountered thoughtful Christ-followers who believed in the risen Jesus—and in evolution. Their reasons for belief were the same in both cases: overwhelming evidence!" And what is more damning is that people like Mr Ham try to CONCEAL this evidence and blatantly LIE to believers that the scientific evidence does not point to evolution and billions of years but instead points to recent 'instant' six-day creation.

He also blatantly lies: "And biblical creationists aren’t trying to make people lie to themselves about our origins. God’s Word is abundantly clear on this issue, and the scientific evidence confirms that the earth is young". A total falsehood by an enemy of science and knowledge.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 Dec 29, 2013 9:04 pm

What's a Christian - who agrees with Ken Ham and co - to do to counter all those unbelievers who want to 'impose' their pro-intellectual and/or liberal minded views on science and on morality upon contemporary culture?

Seek to con Christendom and the wider world with fake science, and encourage all those already thus conned to marginalise Christians who refuse to buy the fake science.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 Dec 30, 2013 9:11 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 Jan 05, 2014 12:08 am

Seen on AiG's Facebook page (in the discussion under this fairy story http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... lelinkedin):

MW:
"Not trying to step on anyone's toes here, but... dendrochronology alone disproves Young Earth creationism. Before someone argues that dendrochronology is wrong because of multiple growth rings in a year, learn about how ages are actually calculated:
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/ans ... erings.php
Dendrochronology can be matched to glaciochronology, which concurs with sediment chronology. This is done by comparing the chemical fingerprint of volcanic ash in the respective records:
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/rese ... _archives/
And all of these methods concur with radiochronology. So:
* Trees alone tell us the Earth is at least 10,000 years old.
* Ice cores agree with the trees, and then take us back to 1.5 million years
* Sediment cores agree with the ice cores and trees, and go back as far as 170 million years.
* Radiometric dating agrees with the sediment, ice, and trees, and can take us back billions of years.
This doesn't even take into account the consilience of every other branch of science that concludes life, Earth, and the Universe are each far far older than 6,000 years. And none of the branches I've listed are concerned with evolution. How did the dinosaurs die? Likely due to the Chicxulub impact event nearly 65 million years ago.
One final thought... I don't know why creationists seem so intent on creating what they believe to be scientifically plausible explanations for biblical events. If you believe God did it, why do you need to validate it with your own brand of science? If you believe science is wrong, then stop trying to prove your point with science. It's truly counterproductive to your cause."

Response by one of the resident science-detesting bigots:
""If you believe science is wrong, then stop trying to prove your point with science. It's truly counterproductive to your cause."
Blatant bias. No real creationist believes science is wrong--just the fallible interpretations of the evidence.
"Before someone argues that dendrochronology is wrong because of multiple growth rings in a year, learn about how ages are actually calculated"
Before you claim victory, learn about the creationists's refutations of evolutionary "evidence.""

MW again (will this get deleted):
"K...., wouldn't the bias be in trying to fit the evidence to one's beliefs, rather than basing conclusions specifically on the evidence? Creationism does the former, science does the latter.
Dendrochronology has nothing to do with evolution. It does however, disprove the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, which by extension disproves Young Earth creationism (but not Old Earth Creationism). I read the answersingenisis.org resources on dendrochronology before posting. It proposed that scientists improperly matched up growth rings from different trees in creating their chronology. The article completely neglects the fact that scientists use the varying radiocarbon levels (not the same as radiometric dating, btw) in the rings due to atmospheric variances in order to ensure the proper rings have been matched. Berylium is also used, as I believe was mentioned in the second link I posted. Here's the answersingenisis.org article, for your review:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... econe-pine
If you've read all the articles, you'll see why they came to the wrong conclusion."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 Jan 05, 2014 12:40 am

Some FOOL has then written:


"So M......, according to the article you cited dendrchonolgy is accurate because it is verified by radiocarbon dating, but the article also states that radiocarbon dating is calibrated by...wait for it...dendrochronology. Seem a bit circular to me just like most of the "scientific evidence" put forth by old earth proponents."

NO NO NO

The first link explains that the overall accuracy of tree ring dating or dendrochronology (including falsification of the notion that trees produced multiple rings several thousand years ago) has been validated via radiocarbon levels found in rings of different trees from different locations. This is NOT radiocarbon dating as alleged - and indeed some of the rings are in still living, or perhaps very recently deceased, trees. It is also the case that the established reliability of tree ring dating does help calibrate relative dates derived via radiocarbon dating as the first link clarifies. Besides all this:
Common chemical signatures can link ash in ice cores with ash in sediments in the same general area of the planet. And beryllium-10 (produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays) can be used to link the same ice cores with tree rings. From the second link: "Linking ice cores and tree-ring chronologies through beryllium-10 and carbon-14 records:
Beryllium-10 records from ice cores (read more about 10Be analysis of ice core samples here) can also be used to link ice cores with tree ring chronologies. The method uses that the atmosphere's Carbon-14 (14C) and Beryllium-10 concentrations share a common signal. The fundamental idea is that the production rates of 14C and 10Be vary in the same way because the two isotopes are produced by similar processes in the atmosphere...".

Thus, no 'circular reasoning' there. But it takes less time for a lying or ignorant YEC to shout 'circular reasoning' than for a pro-science person to debunk that...

YECs have the right to believe something refuted by scientific evidence and reason. But they are either STUPID or - more likely with those who come onto the internet - they arrogantly think they also have the right to declare that any opposing viewpoint derived from science is 'wrong' and 'lies'. THEY DON'T - OR AT LEAST PEOPLE LIKE ME WILL OPPOSE THEM.

This of course 'vindicates' AiG rudely and silently banning me from their Facebook pages. Telling YECs they are WRONG, and SHOWING that they are wrong, is a THREAT. Censorship MUST therefore be applied!
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 Jan 05, 2014 1:14 am

I've just looked at the AiG Facebook page again.

Some bastard has apparently censored all four of the above comments.

I am sending the link to this thread and specifically my last three posts to AiG (via their website as they ignore all emails and may be silently blocking them) AND by email to BILL NYE and others. If he reads it he will know, if he does not know it, that he will be debating a PROFESSIONAL LIAR and SCIENTIFIC CHARLATAN on 4 February. All the more reason to go ahead - and attempt to EXPOSE him I think.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 Jan 05, 2014 1:27 am

As sent to AiG via their website and then to Bill Nye, key AiG staff and various others by email (entitled 'A geek and a lying charlatan to meet for a debate'):



http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... lelinkedin
https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis (see the discussion of your 'How Did Dinosaurs Die' article here)
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=48182#p48182
It is in your interests to read my last four posts at the BCSE community forum link - where I expose your blatant anti-science, your pseudo-scientific fantasies, and your suppression of truth from a polite critic on the AiG Facebook page(see link above). Do you assume you will convert people to YEC beliefs by CENSORING them?
I am also sending this by email, including to BILL NYE.

The above was prefaced by:
"Below is my message as just sent to Answers in Genesis via their website. Note that their leader Ken Ham - who is to debate science enthusiast Bill Nye in February - leads a fundamentalist, anti-knowledge organisation that suppresses on its Facebook page science that proves their so-called 'science' to be utterly wrong. Mr Nye - if you read this, well done for meeting the challenge of confronting the leader of a highly dishonest, religious and pseudo-science organisation in a debate entitled 'Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?'"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 Jan 06, 2014 10:27 pm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... /web-promo

"Our Sun–Not Just Another Star
Ever heard this? Our sun is just a tiny yellow star in a vast collection that could support life. Well, don’t believe it. The minimum requirement of a life-supporting star is missing from all the other stars. Our God-given sun appears to be unique."

Sounds like more YEC fantasy and lies to me.

Do they ever stop?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 Jan 19, 2014 6:09 pm

Message as sent to AiG via their website (I assume they cannot block me even if they may bin the messages):


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

"The scientific evidence confirms the Bible's account, as we have illustrated over and over again in thousands of articles at this AnswersInGenesis.org website." LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR. As this debate should reveal.

"We at AiG are not teaching anything more than what Scripture plainly teaches and what observational science confirms".

Ah yes - catastrophic plate tectonics, much more rapid radioactive decay during Noah's Flood, massive worldwide volcanism during Noah's Flood, the non-random fossil column is 'explained' by Noah's Flood, a rapid post-Flood ice age, the world's climate and geography were 'different' to now before the Flood, speed of light massively faster in the past ...

What a lying hypocrite Christian you are."

EDIT: I forgot about "the Genesis Flood rapidly carved out certain massive canyons seen on Earth such as the Grand Canyon" (this gem results from the desperation of YECs to 'refute' millions of years, so they don't simply say that these canyons were there from 'creation week' itself).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rousers at Answers in Genesis

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Jan 26, 2014 2:41 am

Message as sent to AiG via their website:


More much ado about nothing from AiG.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... and-fossil
"The styloid process has been found on all true human fossils for which the metacarpals have been found—including Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis. Conversely, the styloid process is clearly missing on both modern apes and the various supposed ape-like human ancestors in the human evolutionary lineage. For instance, the australopithecine fossil record (Au. afarensis, Au. africanus, and Au. sediba) has produced no styloid processes. Ape wrists are well-designed for the lifestyle of an ape but not for human pursuits". So the 'Lucy' species must have been an 'ape'? After all, as I gather from a brief online search, metacarpal fossils HAVE been actually found for at least one Australopithecus species.

Mitchell also refers to a past ICR article by Brian Thomas - and that article refers back to a previous Thomas article:
http://www.icr.org/article/lucys-new-fo ... lly-human/
Which article refers (without linking to it properly) to this paper in 'Science':
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract
The Abstract of which stated: "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". So 'Lucy' LACKED a feature found in humans but also HAD a feature found in human beings (but not found in today's ape species)?
The 3 million year old plus foot bone looked so 'human' that Thomas insisted that it must have been misidentified (as being from the 'ape' species Australopithecus afarensis presumably) and instead stamped his foot and insisted 'Lucy's' New Foot Bone Is Actually Human'.

Back to Mitchell:
"Nothing about this metacarpal supports evolution."

NOTHING about this metacarpal and its estimated age UNDERMINES evolutionary theory.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 Jan 27, 2014 10:26 pm

Ken Ham - fibbing AGAIN.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -free-2014
"Evolution and millions of years is by and large presented as fact through the secular media and public schools". That's because ALL evidence confirms billions never mind millions of years and because evolution is the BEST scientific theory about the development of life including our species that there is. But Ken Ham whines that by presenting these the public education system and media (even in the highly religious US) are "indoctrinating" children against the Bible. Thus suggesting that ONLY 'science' which does not go against the Bible's account of origins can possibly be acceptable - except of course that such 'science' has NO theories and probably not even a coherent model (we will find out whether it does in just over a week's time). But if facts cause someone to doubt an ancient book then the problem lies with either the author of that book or with those today who think the book contains 'infallible' history and 'sound' science - NOT with today's scientists.
"They have been censoring information from children that confirms the truth of God’s Word beginning in Genesis". OK, Ken - tell us WHAT information they have 'censored' in your debate with Bill Nye. You have the floor. But I hope you have MORE than "if there really was a worldwide Flood, you would find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth - and we do!"
"For decades now, secularists have been teaching children lies." The solution is clear! Ken Ham's lies must be taught instead. So that reality does not cause children to question parts of the Bible or the whole Bible.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Feb 01, 2014 11:27 am

MOD NOTE: I have moved this post by Ashley from the Free For All Bill Nye thread as being more of a one-sided conversation than anything.
Brian Jordan.


Further AiG lying pre-debate propaganda

Postby a_haworthroberts » 01 Feb 2014 12:51 am
Message as sent to them.



"http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/01/31/feedback-scientists-debate

The debate is between a scientific worldview and a science-denying, extreme religious worldview (namely the lie that is young Earth creationism). If Bill Nye does his job Ken Ham will be exposed as a serial liar next Tuesday.

Mr Nye knows that the FULL title of this debate is 'Is creation a viable model of origins in a modern scientific era?' If the mendacious Ham opines that an 'eye-witness' testimony of creation (purporting to be from God and reporting events BEFORE there were humans - though Genesis 1 is not written in the first person) is both a 'viable model of origins' and is the only model illuminated by reliable knowledge about an unobserved past period of time HE WILL SIMPLY LOSE THE DEBATE. I fear (for your sake's) that he does not understand this. He cannot 'win' a debate with a scientist just by using the tactics he uses when INDOCTRINATING impressionable kids with religiously motivated pseudo-scientific claptrap. Don't say you have not been warned. If you fail to read this or heed it - DON'T say you were not warned.

You may choose to delete this message and pretend you never received it but I am posting it on the BCSE community forum where ANYBODY can read it.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3421&start=105

'Historical' science does not know everything so far but science DOES know that a 6,000 year old Earth is false and that anyone still peddling it is a liar (or mad).

You also lie that the evolutionary model is merely "a framework based on the anti-Bible opinion of particular scientists". It is a theory based on vast amounts of supporting EVIDENCE. That is what science considers - EVIDENCE. The very thing that people like Ken Ham pretend does not exist (unless it can be twisted to 'support' their nonsense claims). Yet he hypocritically claims to 'love' science. Apparently he thinks that hypocrites go to heaven - he may be right about that who knows.

I am ALSO flagging this on Mr Nye's Facebook page. So he can see what entrenched dishonesty he will be faced with next Tuesday (though I'm sure he already appreciates that Answers in Genesis are a bunch of liar extremist Christians who need exposing for what they are - unrepentant LIARS).

I suggest that you peddle endless lies because you are either AFRAID of God or think that God will REWARD you for 'defending' Genesis (and lying - of NECESSITY - about scientific discoveries in order to be able to do so)."


If Answers in Genesis were honest they would call themselves 'Answers not in Reality'.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Feb 14, 2014 8:00 pm

Pat Robertson is 'deceived'.
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/post ... eam_ref=10
He's not deceived by KEN HAM.

Meanwhile today Dr Norman Geisler also gets it in the neck:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/does- ... sm-114464/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... theologian
"Even though Dr. Geisler briefly discussed the meaning of the Hebrew word for day (yôm) and biblical genealogies (e.g., in Genesis 5), I suggest that his column article was really an attempt to justify a particular motivation he holds.
For instance, Dr. Geisler in his Systematic Theology states:
In addition to the biblical evidence for long periods of time, there are scientific arguments that the world has existed for billions of years. The age of the universe is based on
(1) the speed of light and the distance of the stars;
(2) the rate of expansion of the universe;
(3) the fact that early rocks have been radioactively dated in terms of billions of years;
(4) the rate that salt runs into the sea and the amount of salt there, which indicates multimillions of years.
While all of these arguments have certain unprovable presuppositions, nonetheless, they may be true and, hence, point to a universe that is billions rather than thousands of years in age."

SHOCK HORROR - Geisler has been learning some SCIENCE! Mostly observable science at that.

If you are Ken Ham a scientific fact is to be DISMISSED and DENIED because it is 'an authority outside the Bible'.

But Geisler apparently realises that Ham's position is anti-science and anti-knowledge. He would be correct in that.

A position that AUTOMATICALLY makes the Bible reject 'facts' by calling those facts 'lies' is the height of the absurd. But Ham and co are convinced that they are doing the will of God and defending the Bible against the sin of 'compromise'. "Compromising God’s Word is a very serious matter".

Such people will NEVER admit that they could possibly be incorrect about anything.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 Feb 16, 2014 10:54 pm

Someone has posted on the AiG Facebook page:
"Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas. A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons: • Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
• In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci.
• Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea. - That's geology on kindergarden level."

One of those nice Christians there has responded with:
"Nice arguments from ignorance and backhanded ad hominems there, M..... Take your condescending attitude elsewhere."

Clearly a man who does NOT wish to be bothered with facts. Nor does he wish anybody else on the page to be bothered with facts either.

https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 Feb 24, 2014 8:04 pm

Apparently it's time a rabble was once again roused...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... motivation
Broken record.

"Secularists want to lead little ones astray. They want to capture their hearts and minds for their worldview, which will ultimately lead them to the devil!"
He is referring to SCIENCE teaching I believe. Which says it all. Ken has decided that origins science is of the devil.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8948
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 6 guests

cron