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 » Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:10 am

In his blog (the first of two parts) singer Michael Gungor made some good points about how, if I recall correctly (and I paraphrase), YEC fundies like Ham and all the other people in the US who refuse to answer reasonable questions I ask of them about their claims, don't just believe that miracles have occurred but that the whole natural history of the planet has been a bizarre Bible-confirming series of events which also 'refute' the whole of our confirmed understanding of what actually has occurred in nature and its broad timescale.

I have been trying to have another look at his comments (Ham did not address this point and it is clear to me why not ie he wishes not to ever accept that a non-YEC could ever make a valid point, preferring instead to rouse a band of biased followers against non-YEC or anti-YEC believers).

However, I cannot do so. For more than 24 hours now this message has flashed up onto my screen:
"Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later."
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 Aug 20, 2014 10:20 pm

Today Ham is claiming in a 60 second audio that the book of Genesis tells us that God created everything, including Earth's atmosphere (he refers expressly to nitrogen and oxygen here - not to water vapour which is unsurprising since the former gases are much more abundant despite much mention of water in Genesis 1).

No it DOESN'T Ken. That is simply your ASSUMPTION, after the text was written.

Just like there is no mention there of bacteria or viruses in Genesis.

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham - another minute lying his head off

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:31 pm

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153173673524899 (facebook comments possible though I appear to be barred)

Science is not based on 'blind faith'.
Which was very clear from Nye's presentations at the debate.
Ham is in classic denial.
And I don't recall Ham saying at the debate that what Nye claims about the past is based on 'blind faith'.

AiG have also finally tried to rebut another attack on Ham's far-out beliefs and far-out denials (about to take a closer look):
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-v ... are-crazy/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

LYING AiG cannot even get their story straight

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Sep 05, 2014 10:15 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-v ... lelinkedin
"He used slide after slide covering many different topics to try to intimidate people into believing his worldview ...".

Oh? I thought Nye was exercising "blind faith". According to liar Ham - who clearly now regrets challenging Nye to a high profile debate.

Besides, what Nye presented was scientific realities ie facts. Kind of unsurprising when you are holding a public debate about origins. All we got from Ham was a lie that science has been 'hijacked' by 'secularists', attempts to rubbish any 'historical' science, and the claim that he has a 'book' - which he has decided contains infallible ie scientifically valid and 'complete' Earth history (even though the Bible makes no such claims for itself).

But we all know that YECs hate facts. This latest rant is further proof of that.

What a bunch of ****ers. Again.
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 » Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:42 pm

A load of desperate people have been provided with 'answers'. Not answers about the gospel but pseudo-scientific nonsense. And I can guarantee this even though I did not attend.
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... convicted/
https://answersingenesis.org/outreach/event/ukmega/
The 'Truth' in question (ie the YEC version of the 'Truth') can only be bolstered, defended, and made to appear plausible by outright scientific falsehoods and denialism. But YECs apparently never ask God why he has left them in the lurch - and made it so easy for skeptics and moderate Christians to outmanoeuvre fundie Christians on origins merely by telling the truth about observed reality.

Meanwhile:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringo ... onism.html
http://christiannews.net/2014/09/08/eve ... y-beliefs/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Sep 16, 2014 11:21 pm

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 » Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:49 pm

I think either Ken Ham is going senile or a bigoted/uneducated fool is writing his propaganda blogs these days:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"In The Uniqueness of Man DVD, Dr. Burgess emphasizes the beauty of God’s design in the human body and clearly demonstrates that mankind is 100 percent different from the apes—and could not possibly have evolved from a common ancestor with them."

I do not have the slightest intention of listening to the Burgess DVD (he's another young earth creationist as readers probably know) to see whether it really contains such a ludicrous reality-denying claim. But I somehow doubt it.
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 Oct 05, 2014 10:55 pm

Wide-circulation email as just sent:


"Joseph Goebbels and Ken Ham.

More US-based Christian extremism in action over the internet!

But WHY am I mentioning these two individuals in the same email?

Because both of them apparently kept or keep repeating lies over and over again in the hope that they will be believed, and in addition both of them spent or spend a fair amount of their time hanging out with right wing racists and extremists:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ss-of-man/
"... mankind is 100 percent different from the apes ..."
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
"Mankind is 100 percent different from the apes!"

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"Please take a moment to watch this short video from Michael Peroutka, cofounder of the Institution on the Constitution".
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthro ... onference/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peroutka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_ ... nstitution
http://www.theamericanview.com/events/
http://www.theamericanview.com/about-pa ... d-whitney/

Ashley Haworth-Roberts


PS Liar young earth creationist Cowboy Bob Sorensen has lied AGAIN (without naming me) about myself on his facebook page - where all those challenging his pronouncements get banned. I KNOW he is referring to me. (And the sun has set in the UK this evening.) Please see:
https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman
"A Nye fan called me a liar, despite the abundant evidence that I provided for my claims."
NO. I SHOWED in my recent emails - which you all received but which this hypocrite chooses to ignore because he simply cannot deal with them - that Bob Sorensen was LYING. He attempted - but failed - to show that Bill Nye used ANY "bad science" in his debate with Ken Ham. There was NO peer reviewed science in Sorensen's previous blog post. None. Just YEC special pleading and standard YEC denialism. The person who is lying about what has happened is Mr Cowboy Sorensen. Once again. And not me.
(Sorensen has also recently been griping here as has a creature named Remo Wilson:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogI ... 4080209620)
As for THIS new link supplied by Sorensen regarding comments by Bill Nye, I have NOT studied it in detail. However, I note that it FAILS to quote anything Nye actually said at the debate with Ken Ham VERBATIM:
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/fact-c ... sil-layers"



Addendum at 0.20 am on 6 Oct:
I've just seen comments by Professor T regarding that final link above (article by Michael Snyder about the Nye-Ham debate as flagged by Sorensen):
"I read Bob's rubbish and then the Truth page or whatever he quoted from. That guy is like another Bob! And the comment section below it is a hoot! People rightly shred his belief in a myth (the belief that all mammals came along AFTER the dinosaurs died out).
Nye did do a poor job and made absolutist statements....and common sense says that "never" and "always" are very unlikely to be correct.............but if Nye "lied" for exaggerating, then Ham melted from lie overload. Cowboy Bob can manage to find nuts just as nutty as himself.
No doubt Bob really does think he won every debate and he can go home & brag to the other pigeons about his chess skills."

Further Addendum at 1.01 am:
My previous emails to/about Bob Sorensen that I refer to above (and which he deliberately ignores on his facebook page) can be read in full at the Bill Nye thread, at the 'Free For All' on this website.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Man

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 07, 2014 10:00 pm

Email as sent to Professor Stuart Burgess overnight:
"Professor Burgess
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ss-of-man/
"In The Uniqueness of Man DVD, Dr. Burgess emphasizes the beauty of God’s design in the human body and clearly demonstrates that mankind is 100 percent different from the apes ...".
100 percent different?!
Either Ken Ham is telling a whopper about what you actually have claimed in your DVD. Or else you really did tell such a massive whopper.
I suspect the former."

First reply from Burgess:
"Hi Ashley
The best thing to do is to buy the DVD and watch it.
I am sure you will enjoy it even if you are skeptical about creation.
Stuart"

Second reply from Burgess:
"Ashley
If you do watch the DVD you will say how man is 100% different in several particular ways:
(1) bipedal design
(2) arched foot design
(3) hand-motor cortex design
(4) facial expressions
(5) language
(6) mind
(7) spiritual design
etc.
Hope that helps
Stuart"

My reply (it was to the three copy recipients but I have since forwarded it to Dr Burgess too):
"I am not going to buy this DVD!
Also now copied to the BCSE committee for the first time, as I've had (prompt) responses from Stuart Burgess (the first of which was also copied to the bible.and.science.forum and the other two copy recipients I included).
I still suspect that Burgess' position in the DVD is more nuanced than as in Ken Ham's blog and does not amount to the blatant LIE as told by Ham (or whoever wrote his blog for him).
A H-R"


(I have sent a brief acknowledgement reply to Prof Burgess and indicated that I am posting the exchange here as the replies do not appear to contain anything confidential.)
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 Oct 08, 2014 7:46 pm

(1) I have just noticed that the Ken Ham LIE has been very quietly changed:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ss-of-man/
"In The Uniqueness of Man DVD, Dr. Burgess emphasizes the beauty of God’s design in the human body and clearly demonstrates that humans have several aspects of design that are 100 percent different from the apes ..." (which MAY be factually correct, though whether it is deliberate 'design' is open to question).
Why or Why do AiG not admit their errors (or deliberate lies if that's what they were attempting), 'fess up, and admit to their uninformed and ignorant fanbase that the offending material has been revised? Because they are FRAUDS and because they do not care if their supporters go away having been told by this influential (among fundamentalists) apologetics ministry that "In The Uniqueness of Man DVD, Dr. Burgess emphasizes the beauty of God’s design in the human body and clearly demonstrates that mankind is 100 percent different from the apes ...". And I suppose they want to foster an ongoing personality cult that Ken Ham is never wrong and it is always his critics who are wrong. Anyway, they should sack their research team if they carry on making colossal mistakes like this. I assume that Professor Burgess requested the change.

(2) I was planning on making the rather obvious point that the DVD is apparently highlighting an alleged uniqueness that applies only to OUR species and does NOT encompass in its considerations extinct hominins (which they also try to pass off as being simply Homo sapiens). Of course the older a fossil of an extinct species, in general the more ape-like hominins/hominids were and the less like extant great apes the apes of the past appear to have been. Although the DVD appears to be four years' old, I cannot find any reviews of it at eg Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk.


PS Minor additions/changes were made to this post. Now COMPLETED (at 21.08 BST).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Latest reactive/reactionary garbage from Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Oct 09, 2014 10:22 pm

Some of the evidence for evolution is things which have been directly observed. Bill Nye knows this. Ken Ham pretends not to know this:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
Note also how Ham ignores most of the article but simply homes in on one sentence and tries to rubbish it with his misleading and largely irrelevant 'historical science' spiel "you can’t “prove” evolution because you weren’t there in the past to observe it" - ergo it must be a wicked lie and hoax.

Ham repeats the usual 'no new information' lies. What else can a science denier posing as a science supporter do?

"Accepting biological evolution absolutely requires faith—blind faith." LIAR. It is informed faith.

"...observational science in genetics (as well as in other fields, like geology and astronomy) overwhelmingly confirms the Bible’s account of history". No, it does NOT. Not remotely. We are not descended from just two/eight humans. There have been other species of hominin. A literally global flood is not possible under current climate and geological conditions (which applied at the time Ham insists the claimed event must have happened) and the idea has been comprehensively disproven - big local floods yes, global flood absolutely no. Geology and chemistry clearly reveal an earth that is billions of years old - contrary to the book of Genesis and Bible genealogies. Astronomical observations and mathematics show the universe itself to be much much older. Mr Ham's statement is false. Overwhelmingly false. It is PROPAGANDA. The statement is only in some way true if you do not take the Bible as containing 'accurate science' and start with the evidence and not with inflexible Bible dogma - and seek to harmonise the findings of science with the Bible and make the Christian god the initiator of past 'natural' events.

Ken Ham is an ENEMY of SCIENCE. Pretending to be a friend. There's a word for such people, beginning with 'h'.

Ken Ham is one of the most biblical people on the planet, possibly. And certainly one of the planet's biggest (mostly benign) LIARS.

And people like Ham say we can't observe 'evolutionary' change in the present because eg observed speciation involves a new kind of bird or bacterium etc. A bit like saying that he looks the same facially as he did yesterday. But he used to look like this and we know it is the same man who has slowly changed in appearance (like me):
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Dir ... cast/15628
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 » Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:44 pm

Comment by Sorensen at the AiG Facebook page in the discussion about a false assertion* made by Ken Ham within his recent blog post seeking to rubbish evolution (see the preceding post in this thread):
"I've seen atheopaths angry at Ken's comment. Truth hurts."
If he means me, he already knows that what I detest is LYING.

* "Accepting biological evolution absolutely requires faith—blind faith."


PS Latest rant from Bob the Cowboy Builder :) should you wish to know.
http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/10 ... abels.html
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rouser Ken Ham knows it all

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:01 pm

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... -biologos/

Well Jesus ate with sinners, apparently (Mark 2). And Biologos recently indicated that they want to sit down and eat with Mr Ken Ham (and also Mr Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe with whom they also have some differences regarding our origins).
But Ham has immediately said no - because he's afraid he might learn something and discover (in the presence of Christians who do not agree with him about Genesis and who are not anti-science) that his 'scientific' teachings are plainly FALSE.

Of course he does not admit his real concerns. Why should he be honest? His rabble of followers would be very dismayed.
Mr Ham has nothing to learn - it's those awful compromisers and secularists who have everything to 'learn'. From 'Answers in Genesis' and the 'Creation Museum' of course.

So how does Ham explain his point-blank refusal to listen to any Christians who disagree with him? People like Biologos are engaging in 'double-speak'! "People like Dr. Haarsma make it sound like they have such a high view of the Bible, whereas in reality, she has a low view of Scripture and a high view of man’s fallible beliefs about origins!"
Though of course - to help ram home the message - he's also managed to find a verse in Nehemiah that apparently backs up his refusal to even speak to Dr Haarsma.

Ham's own oft repeated claim to 'love science' is of course staggering DISHONESTY and HYPOCRISY. But of course he only judges those who disagree with him and apparently never judges himself.

The first time I EVER saw Mr Ham in action (in a video shown at the Christian Union at work around 1988 or 1989 and in which he was preaching and raving about 'The Genesis Solution') alarm bells started ringing loudly in my head. Something felt 'wrong'. Those alarm bells have only grown louder in the past 25 years.

It is clear to me from Ham's blog dated 14 October, from what he does NOT say, that he views Dr Deborah Haarsma and her organisation with utter contempt.

She should in my view now stop wasting her time with approaches to the unteachable bigot Mr Ken Ham and his colleagues who have concluded for themselves that "we are doing a great work for God". These extremists CANNOT dialogue because they possess the 'truth' (the whole 'truth' and nothing but the 'truth') already. Lucky them.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble Rouser Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Oct 14, 2014 11:22 pm

PS
Message as just sent to Biologos via their website:


"
http://biologos.org/blog/ken-ham-we-nee ... ver-dinner
I tried to make a comment under Deborah Haarsma's article of 13 October but gave up after experiencing problems with your website.

I merely wanted to flag my comments made just now at a UK discussion forum - made after reading Ken Ham's blog of 14 October refusing to meet Dr Haarsma.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1590

I should add that I am a former evangelical Christian turned agnostic, partly because of the creationism issue. Any Christian god appears to be something of a sadist who wants serious Christians to squabble over origins because physical reality does NOT agree with Genesis 'history', 'science' and frankly dogma. I am not a theistic evolutionist though have no particular quarrel with those who are and agree that a god and evolution COULD be BOTH true."
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 Oct 16, 2014 10:42 pm

I expect Ham and other YECs will either ignore this or perhaps wait several days and then allude to a small part of it without supplying the relevant links:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... one-thing/
http://www.theplaydoughpoem.com/2014/09 ... ite-memes/
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8942
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 5 guests

cron