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 Peter Henderson » Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:52 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."


He'll not last long.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 07, 2014 1:05 am

Ham on his Facebook page today (Thursday).

"Need I say more?
"The team found feathered dinosaurs that were extremely birdlike, though not any actual birds. At the moment when birds and dinosaurs split from each other, as expected, "you can barely tell them apart," Hone said."
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/03/ ... p=features"

HAD I NOT BEEN SILENTLY BANNED FROM HIS PAGE BY HIMSELF OR ONE OF HIS HEAVIES FOR HAVING OPINIONS AND POSTING FACTS THERE I would ask him WHY God created dinosaurs that could be mistaken for birds since the Bible implies that birds and land animals are two very different kinds of creature and indeed they were separately created on consecutive days.

But I can't because Ken Ham loves one-sided propaganda and hates facts and hates informed criticism.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:45 pm

As sent to AiG:


Answers in Genesis - Lies, Lies and MORE Lies FOR JESUS
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... lelinkedin

You FALSELY claim that Ham outlined successful Bible-based predictions in his recent debate with Nye. Ham asserted that he had made 'predictions' earlier in the debate eg that there should be one human race today because the Bible indicates one race or that there should be 'kinds' of life today because Genesis 1 refers to kinds. What drivel. The Bible predicted NOTHING with respect to the (single) human race at the time it was written nor with respect to 'kinds' of living creatures then or now - it simply referred to the blindingly obvious that could be observed at the time ie people all appear to be the same and distinct from other animals, and other forms of life vary considerably and there are 'kinds' of birds or sea creatures and so forth.
Ham first referred to intelligence, 'kinds', the flood, the human 'race', a 'young' universe and the tower of Babel during his main presentation - beginning at around 37 minutes. And - although I did not jot this down in my notes because the point made no sense to me - Ham in effect claimed that his creation model 'based' on the Bible made various 'predictions' that can be tested by 'observational' science (ONLY by 'observational' science not the other kind that Ham rejects).
- that we should find evidence confirming that an intelligence produced life (I agree that mainstream science cannot disprove that the complexity of life was the result of 'intelligent design' though that does not rule out evolution of the said life from 'simpler' forms);
- that we should find evidence today confirming reproduction 'after their kind' (well what else could possibly happen - and evolutionary theory does NOT say that a dinosaur gave birth overnight to a bird; he also cited a 2014 scientific paper pointing to a single origin for dogs - which of course humans bred from wolves by ARTIFICIAL selection ie domestic dogs are NOT part of whatever God created on 'day six' according to 'kinds');
- that we should find evidence today 'confirming' Noah's global flood (apparently the fact that there is a fossil record - who would have thought it, not the writer of Genesis though - is this 'confirmation');
- that we should find evidence confirming 'one race' of humans (well we find one race TODAY as in biblical times quelle surprise - but also fossils of OTHER hominids which lived much earlier on, so that 'prediction' fails at least with respect to what we have discovered about the PAST);
- that we should find evidence 'confirming' the tower of Babel (the evidence being that - hold the front page - in biblical times and indeed today different languages are spoken by humanity);
- that we should find evidence of a 'young' universe (but we DON'T).
Thus, in order, these 'predictions' are:
- questionable;
- not a prediction at all;
- a failure since how could there NOT be a fossil record;
- mostly not a prediction at all (unless you are predicting using the Bible that the single extant human species when it was written would not change in the next few thousand years) and partly a failed prediction (with respect to certain fossils we have found which date to pre-biblical times);
- a failure (or if the prediction is that there will be many languages that is not a prediction but merely an observation);
- an utter failure.
"History shows that Darwin was wrong" (about fossils). It does NOT. You LIE.
David DeWitt's refusal to accept a prevailing evolutionary view of Neanderthals (which was later overturned as more data became available) is not so much a 'prediction' as a lucky guess (that Neanderthals were more genetically similar to us than previously thought) and simply shows that science is never perfect and there is always more to learn before theories can be confirmed. Besides neither our species nor Neanderthals are/were descended from a literal Adam and Eve since no such 'first couple' really existed. So any 'prediction' by DeWitt is largely falsified by genetics and history. And did DeWitt specifically predict that our species interbred with Neanderthals? (Probably not since I suspect he insists they were 'fully human' anyway.)
As for junk DNA, the issue is NOT clear-cut: http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/e ... l.pdf+html
The nonsense of Snelling re radiocarbon 'in' fossils has not been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, has it?
Thus you are left with a couple of - respectively - lucky and common sense guesses/hunches by Russell Humphreys and Alan Gillen (who also appear to both be YEC ideologues/apologists).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8951
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 22, 2014 3:37 am

Ken Ham is LYING about people who disagree with him again:

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

"the authors of the curriculum assume that the terms science and evolution mean the same thing". No, they DON'T.

"Students are told outright that if they accept Genesis as literal history, they have rejected “science”! No, once again we need to emphasize (as I did in my debate with Bill Nye “the Science Guy” last month) that there are two different types of science—observational science that is based on empiricism and the repeatable test (the science that builds our technology), and historical science that concerns one’s belief about the past."

The 'argument' that science cannot discover anything about the past - which Mr Nye does not remotely accept - is utter GARBAGE.

And you would not be making it IF 'historical science' really confirmed Genesis.

Cult leader Ham speaketh b******t.

If he REALLY had an argument AiG would RESPOND to my messages. Instead of ignoring them.

"But even Jesus in Matthew 19 quoted from Genesis concerning the first man and woman, acknowledging that the woman came from the man (“one flesh”)—she did not come from an “ape-woman.”" The Bible doesn't mention fossils either - but that does not stop Ken Ham spouting lies about the fossil record. The Bible does not mention electricity or exo-planets...

I'm no theistic evolutionist and do not believe you can reconcile science with Genesis nonsense - but this goes to Biologos for information.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:21 am

Ken's ripping mad about the new Noah movie:

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham

Friends, I just arrived home after seeing the Hollywood (Paramount) movie NOAH tonight. It is MUCH much worse than I thought it would be. Much worse.

The Director of the movie, Darren Aronofsky has been quoted in the media as saying NOAH is 'the least biblical biblical film ever made', I agree wholeheartedly with him.

I am disgusted. I am going to come right out and say it--it is disgusting and evil--paganism! Do you really want your family to see a pagan movie the has Noah as some psychopath who says if his daughter-in-law's baby is a girl, he will kill it as soon as it's born. And then when two girls are born, bloodstained Noah (the man the Bible calls righteous Noah--Genesis 7:1), brings a knife down to one of the baby's heads to kill it and at the last minute doesn't do it--and then a bit later says he failed because he didn't kill the babies. How can we recommend this movie and then speak against abortion! Psychopathic Noah sees humans as a blight on the planet and wants to rid the world of people.

I feel dirty--as if I have to somehow wash the evil off me.

I cannot believe there are Christian leaders who have recommended people see this movie.

It's as if someone heard the name Noah, that there was a Flood and and Ark and then made a pagan movie up about it. I don't think there is anything else that really has to do with the Bible's account except some names of people! Methuselah is some sort of witchdoctor who can do magical things.

There is so much more I could say about it--so much more. And what's with the bizarre fallen angels being living rocks helping Noah??

I suggest you join us tomorrow night for our live stream at 8 pm EST. A number of AiG researches watched the movie tonight and four of us will be on the live stream to explain what we saw and heard.

I am SO GLAD my wife did not come with me to see this--she would have been terribly upset.

I feel violated as a Christian.

Regardless of what others say--I just had to come right out and say this.

Oh--it is also a boring movie--yes boring! Worst movie I think I've ever seen.

That's my personal take--join us tomorrow night for our discussion of NOAH.

The movie begins with (and has the same statement later on):

'In there beginning there was nothing'

The Bible states 'In the beginning God.'

That really sums up the difference!
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:33 am

Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Mar 29, 2014 10:57 pm

Are Ken Ham and Tas Walker involving in some kind of Bad Cop-Good Cop routine?
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/aronofs ... l-geology/

"If there was a global Flood as the Bible describes, then what geological effects would it leave behind." UNFORTUNATELY MR WALKER FAILS TO TELL US.

"Geology is a problem because, for over a century, geologists have presented their data assuming Noah’s Flood never occurred. The current geological paradigm, which is what mainstream geologist work within, is giving everyone a false lead. It’s an old paradigm that became popular in the early 1800s, and it assumes Noah’s Flood never happened. That assumption has led to unfortunate outcomes, which some have described as brainwashing, and others as buying ‘snake oil’." Others have described it as SCIENCE.

"In discarding the Noachic catastrophe geologists have needed to invoked eons of time to explain the rocks they see. Consequently, because uniformitarian geologists have assigned dates of hundreds of millions of years, they are not able to see the evidence of the Flood." Total LIES. Nobody 'needs' rocks older than 6,000 or 4,500 years. But Tas Walker needs rocks younger than 10,000 years very much.

"If we want to find the evidence for Noah’s Flood in geology, we have to first assume that it happened." Thanks Tas for admitting that young Earth creationism is purely RELIGION and NOT remotely science.

I've only skimmed the ranting of the 'bad cop' but the 'good cop' is totally deluded and is attempting to persuade Christians that science based upon observation and measurement is vastly INFERIOR to deciding to BELIEVE something happened and then miraculously spotting 'evidence' that it happened and also accounts for the 'false impression' of millions of years of time.

Utter Codswallop. Unless Tas thinks God is a DECEIVER...

I've also posted the same comment here:
http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/03/26/house-of-cards/

Comment as submitted to Tas Walker (which may get either censored or simply not moderated; incidentally I also submitted a comment under Michael Roberts' blog post about Creationism and the C of E and 24 hours later IT is still awaiting moderation - I said that a comment by 'Darwin Dissenters' invoked [correction, I mean 'evoked'] in me the word 'Gosh'):
"“If we want to find the evidence for Noah’s Flood in geology, we have to first assume that it happened.” Not science. Not in a million years."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:33 am

Further comment submitted to Tas Walker under his 'Noah' blog post:

"Since you are censoring me, Dr Walker, you may wish to be aware that my brief attempted comment (and MORE) can be read elsewhere:
http://www.skepticblog.org/2014/03/26/house-of-cards/
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1545"

Meanwhile the delusional Sorensen has blogged that "Noah's Flood geology gives better answers for what we observe than uniformitarian evolutionary geology".

No amount of facts - including facts from pro-science Christians or explained by people on the BCSE community forum - will convince people like him otherwise.

They are beyond reason.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham: another mendacious minute

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:56 am

A short Ham 'young earth' propaganda audio on "Sea Floor Sediment: Ten Evidences of a Young Earth, Part 1" has been posted on the AiG facebook page.

As has THIS rebuttal:
"AiG's argument here is based on two very fundamental flaws in geological understanding. In the video, Ham states: "If sediments have really been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, these layers should be miles deep." The first problem is that there are no ocean basins that are three billion years old. Because the earth's tectonic plates are in motion, new oceanic crust is regularly created at mid-ocean ridges while old oceanic crust is destroyed at plate margins and recycled into the mantle via the process of subduction. The oldest known oceanic crust is found in the Eastern Mediterranean basin, and dates to only 270 million years. The oceanic crust underlying the larger ocean basins in the Western Pacific and Northwestern Atlantic only dates to about 180 million years. As a consequence, complaining that there aren't "three billion years worth of sediments" in 200 million-year old ocean basins is a fallacious argument. Secondly, there are numerous examples of sedimentary basins in the oceans where the sedimentary column is known to be "miles deep". The region around the Mississippi Delta, for example, has a sedimentary column approaching 20,000 feet thick (almost four miles). Any drilling rig hand who works in the Gulf Coast can attest to this, as offshore wells there are routinely 15,000 feet deep, and often deeper."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Tue Apr 01, 2014 3:17 pm

Meanwhile the delusional Sorensen has blogged that "Noah's Flood geology gives better answers for what we observe than uniformitarian evolutionary geology".


Bob really should read a few geology text books.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Ken Ham using Facebook to LIE (again)

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:56 pm

"British philosopher A. C. Grayling, at the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies convention in London last month, stated this about the Creation Museum: (go to 19:07 in the video link provided—watch from19:07 to 19:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LyTc7V ... e=youtu.be )
“The really dismaying thing about it was the troops and troops and troops of small schoolchildren being taken through and presented with all this as fact. That seems to me to be a human rights crime,”
Increasingly I see the secularists opposing the Creation Museum and ministry of Answers in Genesis, NOT with scientific arguments (because they can’t), but with attacks using terms like “child abuse,” or now “human rights crime.” This illustrates the increasing antagonism and intolerance by today’s secularists against the Christian message.
This is because they want to impose their anti-God religion of atheism on children.
In this video clip, this professor states:
“On my travels around the states last year I visited the Creation Museum in Oklahoma, I kid you not. My gast was flabbered the minute I set my foot across the threshold of that place. They have these sort of electronic vegetarian Tyrannosaurus rex playing with the children of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.”
As you know, the Creation Museum is in Northern Kentucky—but Oklahoma is in the USA, so that's close I guess.
Not sure what he means by “troops and troops and troops of small schoolchildren?” Public schools don’t bring children to the Creation Museum. Certainly lots of families (mainly Christian families) do bring their children. Also, some Christian schools do bring children from time to time.
But don’t forget---Kids come free to the Creation Museum this year. So I wanted to use this shocking intolerant statement by Grayling to remind you to get as many children to the Creation Museum. Go to this link for details:
http://creationmuseum.org/tickets/kids- ... ee-in-2014
Watch A.C. Grayling at the video link provided from 19:07 to 19:50: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LyTc7V ... e=youtu.be"

'Secularists' CAN and frequently DO oppose the Creation Museum with strong scientific arguments, you fraudulent charlatan. But people who are not trained scientists have legitimate educational concerns about kids being indoctrinated with religiously-motivated pseudo-science pieced together by young earth creationists and other science deniers.

It is a typical YEC propaganda tactic to pretend that if someone does not spell out a specific scientific or logical argument ergo the person has 'no' argument and is just trying to 'preach atheism' or 'brainwash kids against Bible literalism'.

PS
He's also peeved about something else:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... em-attack/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8951
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 Apr 11, 2014 7:02 pm

Anti-science bigotry: http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... nbelievers
I doubt I would agree with everything in this movie but that is not the point. Ham and Purdom pretend to 'know' that it is all rubbish.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu May 01, 2014 9:06 pm

(1) Anti-creationist criticises wrong and scientifically illiterate views from Ken Ham, who insists that dinosaurs ate coconuts just 6,000 years' ago (latter part of the interview):
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/13 ... -video.htm

(2) Outraged Ham rouses a rabble on his Facebook page:
"Bill Nye "the Science Guy" speaks in a mocking tone about me on the NBC TV's "Late Night with Seth Myers"--April 29, 2014 at the 5:00 mark in the video clip I linked to.
Also, he again makes the same old false accusation that if generations of children are taught creation, it will undermine science—in fact, he tries to make a ridiculous connection between the internet, computers, facebooking, tweeting, etc. and not believing in creation!
That’s why at my debate with Bill Nye in February, and a number of times in my articles (such as the recent one I wrote for the AiG website) I challenged Bill Nye—and I publicly challenge him once again to answer these questions:
1. How do you account for the laws of logic and laws of nature from a naturalistic worldview that excludes the existence of God?
2. Can you name one piece of technology that could only have been developed starting with a belief in molecules-to-man evolution?
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... t-accounts )
I continue to await Nye's answers.
Go to the 5:00 mark in this video clip to view what Bill Nye says about me and creationists in general:
http://www.nbc.com/late-night-with-seth ... ew/2777991"

(3) A sizeable rabble dutifully spew their comments against Nye:
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
https://www.facebook.com/AnswersInGenesis
SOME of the comments are especially hateful and especially full of lies:
"Atheists hate God, and liberals don't give answers. He will continue to spew his lies and hatred against the Truth - and minions will follow the party line."
"He's an arrogant and wicked man."
"I am so sick of this guy and his new found crusade. I am actually very interested in his upcoming book. I am certain it will be filled with lies and half-truth, and other flat out false information, because that is all evolution is built on. I can't wait to call him on it."
"I do hope Bill gets his chance to go into space. I just hope it's a one way trip."
"Bill Nye the idiot guy!"
"We all know ken nailed that debate."
"Bill nye is an fool. Decieved and decieving others. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God"".
"Bill Nye - intellectually dishonest. He never did debate a creationist; just played a game pretending he was debating, while using the debate as a platform to confuse the issue."
"You can't fix stupid...you're casting pearls before swine!"
"Never argue with a fool... They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience everytime. Bill is a fool."
"Bill Nye is just another coward using his secular ego stroking friends in the media to reaffirm his belief in.... nothing."
"He looks creepy."
"Bill Nye not only used pre-refuted "evidence", but lied." [From that Cesspit of Lying, The Question Evolution Project.]
"Bye Nye is plastic, a fool !"
"I grew up watching him and loving him but lately he just comes off as such a jerk, he makes me sick."
"Bill Nye is an atheist and a moron."
"Sore loser."
"He is an incredibly egotistical man."
"Bill Nye just doesn't know how to give up does he now? Lol a crying shame."
"Bill Nye is a fool."
"Bill Nye is an arrogant, selfish and prideful man who likes to be in the spotlight no matter the cost."

I noted that Nye only started talking about the debate when then interviewer raised the topic.

Whereas AiG have been obsessively providing website and podcast 'answers' to Nye ever since the debate finished (as some of those commenting have pointed out).

But it must be a pretty EVIL god that makes people like this (or their own prejudice). But I expect these people were nasty before they got saved as well. Now they are scared of a nasty god as well.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble Rouser Ken Ham and the FUTURE

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 07, 2014 12:35 am

For a second I thought I was reading "He alone, who owns the youth, gains the fuhrer":
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
But the reference to the Fuhrer appears later in the article.

Is this piece recommending the indoctrination techniques used by Ham ie getting large groups of young kids to repeat stuff uncritically, after an adult they look up to has said it to them, by rote?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 4046805070
No, I don't THINK so (I am open to the possibility of correction should I be assuming too much).

"If evolution has really occurred then we...
If the universe was really billions of years old then we...STOP!!".

As for Ken Ham I see that he TOO is being UNBIBLICAL:
"Sadly, some Christian books and curricula aid the secularists in this regard because some of them teach children that God made the animals just as we see today. But God made the original animals—the animals today are descendants of the original ones God made."
Ham is ADDING TO THE PLAIN MEANING OF SCRIPTURE.
He is also pretending that some animals alive today (and presumably some of the extinct ones) must be VERY different to what the Bible says God created - which he insists all happened just 6,000 years' ago. NOT possible (as well as found NOWHERE in the Bible if by 'descendants' the Rabble Rouser is meaning new species rather than simply later generations). The idea of speciation is FOREIGN to the writer(s) of Genesis.
Because the Bible was written by men who lived in a pre-scientifoc era and knew nothing about the true history of planet Earth and its life.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu May 15, 2014 12:13 am

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-h ... nd-119731/

I've got NEWS for the Rabble Rouser. I think for myself AND I check out creationist sites like the Answers in Genesis website.

Unlike some ideologue Christian fundamentalists and Bible bashers, having done both of these over a period of years I can see the AiG website for what it is. A source of religiously motivated pseudo-science, false accusations about how real science is done and about how reliable its conclusions are, and excuses for bigotry.

PS http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... -way-down/
Ken will pretend not to see this blog and carry on accusing people like Robertson of making atheists 'love' some Christians by watering down scripture - which apparently is doing the work of SATAN. (And makes YECs appear to be bigoted frauds as well.)

PPS (at 1.30 am)
Though it's possible Ham will quote-mine (without identifying the blog author or supplying the link) the sentence: "every single Christian on the planet is a heretic, except for Ken Ham". After all, he made a similar point against Bill Nye recently - there are in fact possibly millions of other Christians (orthodox Bible-based Christians) who believe the same anti-scientific nonsense that Ken Ham believes and tries to disseminate far and wide. It's NOT just Ken Ham (he's not the leader of a minority weird fringe cult).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8951
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests