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 » Tue May 20, 2014 12:12 am

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ist-books/ (no comments permitted)
"I had to smile at one section in the book with the heading, “Teaching Critical Thinking Skills.” It states, “This is something one would hope students learn to do in their classes, but atheist groups are especially adept at getting students to examine some of their most cherished beliefs, to question authority when its [sic] warranted, and to demand evidence when someone makes an unrealistic claim.” What a hypocritical statement! When it comes to origins, atheists try to use legislation and the courts to stop students being taught critical thinking skills, as they don’t want them to question evolution in any way—and they don’t want them taught about creation so they can critically analyze the issue of origins. Atheist activists are out to impose their anti-God religion on students."
Unfortunately this is simply an unsupported and extremist opinion - from somebody who CERTAINLY does not remotely encourage 'critical thinking skills' or scientific free enquiry when it comes to impressionable kids from religious homes.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... -kentucky/ (already nearly 200 comments)
The response for what it is worth. (I too have not read Hemant Mehta's book though parts of it at least can be downloaded here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AB0 ... endlyat-20)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble Rouser Ken Ham and Dr Millard Erickson

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 21, 2014 6:56 pm

This bloke - who I confess I had not heard of despite having attended an evangelical church in the past - sounds like a staunch Bible-affirming evangelical Christian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millard_Erickson

Alas, he is not extreme enough for the theological bullies (and science deniers) at Answers in Genesis:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -creation/
"Dr. Erickson needs to do his homework in creationist literature, repent of his erroneous teachings on creation and the age of the earth and his ignoring of creationist writings, and then he needs to do a fourth edition to his theology text to affirm faith in the literal truth of Genesis. Join me in praying that he will do so."

They can pray whatever they like but I think Mortenson and Ham are behaving inappropriately by also urging the YEC Rabble to 'pray' that Dr Erickson (aged 81, almost 82) will spend time writing a new edition of a theology text just to please THEM and their anti-scientific (deaf dumb and blind) theological position.

NASTY BIGOTED Christians.

That much is obvious, even though I have no real idea what Erickson has specifically written that has annoyed AiG.

How about Ken Ham rewrites The Lie and admits that 'billions of years' is supported scientifically but Christians must adopt an anti-scientific position nevertheless because it cannot easily be reconciled with the book of Genesis. In otherwise that Ham is honest about reality instead of being extreme and bigoted.

Pigs might Fly.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
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 Jun 01, 2014 5:05 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"Sadly, Thielen has resorted to the misleading argument that there’s a division between science and Christianity. There isn’t."
Oh yes there is and Ham is a science denier when it comes to past events on this Earth. People know this - but he makes out they are stupid.

He lost the 4 February debate because he has no viable or valid model of origins for the modern scientific era. He just has objections, 'rebuttals', and lots of ad hoc special pleading. And hypocritical claims that Christians who disagree with him about Genesis have been somehow 'indoctrinated'. Even though some of them have as much of a science background as him if not more.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
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 Jun 02, 2014 11:41 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/05/ ... nce-fair-0

If one of these exhibitors was a young earth creationist Bible student who totally rejected evolutionary theory, I am sure that Mr Ham would be telling the world and especially trying to attract the attention of Mr Nye. But he isn't.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
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 Jun 08, 2014 5:55 am

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

"Our goal at Answers in Genesis ... is to equip people to think critically ...".
If you believe that you will believe anything.

"We want them to be able to identify those problems and give biblical and scientific answers to them...". That being the 'problem' that science has revealed that the Earth's history is totally at odds with the book of Genesis thus Ken's 'answer' is to proclaim over and over that 'historical science' is a waste of time and should not be trusted because of all the gasp reasonable assumptions thus the 'critical thinking' needed is to reject such science outright and rely entirely on ancient Bible verses instead.

"That’s what I did during my debate with Bill Nye". Yes - you went negative on the question of origins (the actual topic of the debate) and generally avoided the real issues - which may be why even some fellow YECs have declared that you lost (as well as every single non-YEC that I am aware of).
,
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Pseudo-science and whining on the rabble rouser's website

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:52 am

I think that more and more young people in America will be unpersuaded by the hot air, unsubstantiated claims, contradictions and largely content-free indignation in reactive and negative articles such as these:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-v ... lelinkedin
"But from the title onward the article misrepresents us and our position. Arel claims we are “science-denying evangelicals,” but we have said numerous times that we do not deny science...". LOL
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... t-science/
"Dr. Mitchell and Jeremy Ham have written a web article today about the criticism from Salon.com about AiG’s Cosmos review. As you read the Salon essay, you will see how we are engaged in a spiritual battle and why it is so important to “put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (Ephesians 6:11). And it starts with making sure your foundation is based on the solid truth of God’s Word."
Yes, and the said AiG article does NOT appear to handle or address the real substance of the Salon article I don't think (http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/13_ways ... d_partner/ ...)
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... lelinkedin
In essence he seems to be arguing that other sun-like stars or solar analogues must be variable at least some of the time (during 6,000 years since that's all YECs claim to believe in) thus making life impossible on any orbiting rocky planets. Why? Because the Bible supposedly says that our Sun is 'unique' in some way.
And there's not a single reference supporting all of Faulkner's 'if' type claims.
Wikipedia page for what it's worth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_analog
"While the sun has many characteristics similar to stars, the Bible never refers to it as a star." Yes - and I think I know WHY. The writers did not understand what stars are. They thought they were something that appeared at night - when there was no Sun.
(What about the faint young Sun issue Dr Faulkner? When within the last 6,000 years did that happen?
Talking of which: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/ ... n-paradox/
Ooh I see that there's a problem for evolutionists but never for the creationist science deniers - who deny they are deniers - at AiG! There's a lack of evidence in the geologic record for a faint young Sun ergo the 'evolutionists' are proven wrong, Deep Time is fiction, and the Sun was young only very recently ie it is still 'young'! Solved.)

Sending this to AiG. For their A H-R Questions we Dare not Try to Answer File. (I added to this post five minutes after sending the link to AiG - it is now finalised.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rouser Ken Ham and this week's UK creationism news

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:47 pm

Something for Ham to whinge about when he is here in September (to save people from 'evolutionism')?:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... d-schools/
Liar Ham calls evolution a 'minority viewpoint'.

Another report here (which flags an article by the Creation Science Movement dated January 2014):
http://global.christianpost.com/news/uk ... ls-121897/

Edit: Sorensen or some other liar at The Question Evolution Project has written at Mr Ham's facebook page (under the link to Ham's blog post on this topic):
"They don't get it. Not only are they writing in huge letters across the sky, "Evolution cannot withstand honest scrutiny", but they are also suppressing true scientific inquiry through this blatant brainwashing."
He does not know the difference between science investigating the past and teachers educating young kids about what scientific investigations have discovered. He is displaying his bigoted ignorance (again).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re those Ken Ham Lies

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:58 am

Message as sent to 'Answers in Genesis':

"
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... d-schools/
The Bible suggests that liars will be thrown into a lake of fire.
Ken Ham is a serial liar. I think he should repent of his career of telling lies for Jesus if he really believes scripture.
Evolution is not a 'minority viewpoint'. The claim that it is not a real science theory is totally false. And his suggestion that, when it comes to the science curriculum, discussing "“the theory of evolution” vs. “creationism”" is inappropriate language is typical bigoted whinging by a science-denying zealot. 'Creationism' is not the same thing as 'creation'. Is it? (Mr Ham is also a hypocrite in having claimed to dislike 'indoctrination' since he does it himself - to young kids.)
"The UK government is now essentially declaring that the state religion is atheism". Utter lies. Non-essentially Mr Ham
is LYING. Again. David Cameron - not an atheist nor a hater of religion (which the atheists Clegg and Miliband are not either) - would I am sure dispute this blatant piece of rabble rousing.
"Directly contrary to what the documents state, observational science consistently confirms the Bible". NO. Science does NOT. Mr Ham means something totally different. 'Observational science' is his weasel words. Despite providing a link to a past article, Mr Ham does NOT back up his grandiose claim - but in essence he is cherry picking whilst ignoring ALL evidence from science that disproves Genesis, read literally, as real and complete history of Earth and the universe. I can elaborate should AiG ask me to.
Ham is LYING for Jesus."
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

More Answers in Genesis attacks on UK Gov't

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:46 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/public-sch ... n-science/
"While we at Answers in Genesis have never suggested creation science be required teaching in government schools of any country...". That is because it is NOT science but religious dogma. Thus all they can hope to get away with is to complain that UK teachers in state schools are not being permitted to try and persuade students that evolution is a 'lie'. And this from people whose article lies about the scientific method in a bid to assert that 'creation science' does after all follow that method and the Department for Education have got things wrong and are simply being beastly to creationists.

It is the theory of evolution and NOT creation science which "accurately and consistently employ the scientific method". And AiG claims and protestations that THEY (and not proper scientists) are people advocating 'critical thinking' about the scientific method are bogus and merely a smokescreen to distract from how actually they simply defer to SCRIPTURE - and IGNORE or TWIST evidence (such as the fossil record which they absurdly attribute to 'Noah's Flood') that clearly refutes literal Genesis.
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jun 25, 2014 6:44 pm

Message as sent to AiG via their website:

"It’s important to recognize that the secularists who oppose the God of the Bible actually do have a religious position—they believe with a blind faith that the universe and life arose by natural processes. They put their trust in the belief of molecules-to-man evolution (over millions of years). In essence, evolution is their religion to explain life without God; it’s actually a religion that worships man—a religion that started in Genesis 3 with the temptation of Eve. They want to be their own god ...".
(Ken Ham on facebook today.)

This is further confirmation that Ken Ham is ANTI-science. Science CAN discover things about the past. Including what did not happen and what could not have happened. Mr Ham hates that.
Yet he hypocritically claims to be 'pro-science'. Even when people like me point out that he is NOT - as his own words demonstrate.
He is a liar.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
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 Jul 03, 2014 11:09 pm

Email as just sent (I've corrected a couple of typos that I failed to pick up before clicking on 'send'):


"Ken Ham - anti-science bigot and divisive unrepentant Christian liar (who ignores Revelation 21:8)

And he is attacking fellow Christians again.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29

So how many lies did I count in this short blog article? Six.

And they are whoppers:
- "they're indoctrinating children";
- "the so-called evidence they've produced for their idea doesn't support it at all";
- 'evolutionists' simply 'create' ape-men (Ham is accusing fellow Christians, among others, of scientific fraud - on the grounds that anything contradicting Genesis 'must' be fraudulent);
- "there is no evidence for human evolution";
- this is because the Bible tells us humans were created therefore "there cannot be any evidence in eg fossils pointing to human evolution and non-creationists have simply imagined it all or resorted to lies and fraud";
- "evolutionary interpretations are superimposed upon them" - prove it and prove that creationist interpretations are 'not' be superimposed upon them.

I have informed the author of Mr Ham's attack via his blog pages, although he may already be aware of it. This is the author:
http://biologos.org/blog/author/james-kidder
(this is his blog:
http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.co.u ... t-iii.html)

Liars never repent it would seem. Instead they become more extreme in their lying and denials.

Although I have only skimmed the first Kidder article I can immediately tell in this case that the liar and CEO of Answers in Genesis has failed even to address ANY of the points in the article.
http://biologos.org/blog/the-origin-of- ... nce-part-1 (it is the first of three articles about fossil evidence for human evolution)

Much simpler to adopt the lies of fellow young Earth creationist Ray Comfort: "You see, there is no evidence for human evolution."

Er, I think there IS - and THIS young Earth creationist KNOWS it:
http://toddcwood.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09 ... ution.html

A very stupid article by Mr Ham, which I think more intelligent YECs like Jonathan Sarfati (also dishonest but cleverer) might find a tad embarrassing.

It may backfire on Mr Ham.

Perhaps he should consider handing over the reins to someone younger?

If I was still an active evangelical Christian I would find Mr Ham and similar YECs' behaviour to be disgusting and a big threat to the church's reputation (deserved or otherwise) for 'truthfulness' and thus a cause of concern.

As indeed I do in my current situation (if you think I must be rejoicing at lying by Christians I am not - although the likelihood of Christianity being true with reality-denying liars like this also being the most Bible-defending of Christians is pretty small, unless God is evil/stupid/dishonest/wanting all people to perish through inability to believe his 'Word').

A H-R"


EDIT:
Based on this, you could just about argue that Biologos 'indoctrinate' on evolution ie students are not encouraged to question it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
But evolution is not taught as dogma by Biologos or anybody else.
Contrast this with how Ken Ham brainwashes audiences of kids about Noah's Flood, 'design', dinosaurs and so forth. He is in NO position to complain about 'indoctrination' (by 'compromisers' or 'secularists') and young people not being encouraged to 'question' things they are being taught regarding origins.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby ProfessorTertius » Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:31 am

Ham is a pompous science-illiterate who is in no position to tell professors of systematic theology that they need to "repent" and adopt his positions immediately. He doesn't even do it humbly or politely. The guy is just full of himself to where I'm amazed that his followers don't get embarrassed.

Does he really think that Dr. E. and Dr. Wayne Grudem have never studied the Hebrew text and the church fathers and centuries of theological debates about Genesis 1 & 2? I know both men and am very familiar with their scholarship. Wayne Grudem is a friend from way back. Both men could rip Ham to shreds on any Bible topic.

Sadly, most of Ham's followers will never be exposed to the real scholarship of Biblical studies professors of their stature. (And Ham will insist that to do so would be listening to "compromising Christians".) Ham's insulting diabtribe against them are the ravings of a spoiled child. Ham reinforces daily the "Lying for Jesus" theme. I thought of Todd Wood also. Ham will probably never mention him because Ham represents the type of embarrassing YEC which Dr. Wood so tactfully deplores. Dr. Wood tells YECs that they can hold their position without having to lie and play strawman games with The Theory of Evolution.

I'm angry. Ham annoys me regularly but the fact that he thinks himself qualified to rebuke scholars who make him look and sound like the idiot he is enough to make me cease posting for the day.
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby ProfessorTertius » Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:18 am

>"Our goal at Answers in Genesis ... is to equip people to think critically ..."

Ha! Ken Ham wouldn't recognize thinking critically if it introduced itself and handed him a business card.

Hamites are the equivalents of "the terrible twos" of parenting stories. They don't think. They just say, "No!" Even in the Nye debate, Ham never replied with evidence. He just said, "I have a book."
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby ProfessorTertius » Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:32 am

Ashley:

I was reading that AiG page you recommended and I thought the following excuse/whine from Ken Ham was priceless:

"Notice the wording on the UK website. It frames the issue as “the theory of evolution” vs. “creationism.” Why do they not present it as evolution vs. creation? Because that would make creation sound more legitimate. As we have consistently stated, evolution does not even qualify as a valid scientific theory. Furthermore, secularists will gladly use the term creationism, indicating that it is a belief system and is not scientific, but they avoid the term evolutionism. Is there even such a word? Dr. David Menton has written an insightful article on the word evolutionism.

The use of the word creationism and avoidance of the word evolutionism is intentional: the secularists want you to believe that evolution (the belief that life arose by natural processes; also called naturalism or atheism) is fact, and creation (the belief that life is designed by the Creator God) is an outdated idea that should be extinct."
_________________

Yes, he finds sinister plots everywhere! Right down to the -ism.
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby ProfessorTertius » Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:35 am

I can't handle much Ken Ham in a single dose. My blood pressure goes high whenever I read his rubbish.
ProfessorTertius
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron