Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

[a_haworthroberts]

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... evolution/
"In several places the rock layers in Grand Canyon have been folded, some even at a 90 degree angle. This had to have happened while the rocks were still wet and pliable; otherwise they would have cracked, not folded. If these rock layers were laid down slowly over millions of years, then how did they remain soft for such a long time? They couldn’t have! The layers had to have been soft when the folding occurred. This means the layers weren’t laid down millions of years after one another."

Scientists think the folding happened gradually, when the rocks in question were still below the Earth's surface prior to later uplift and/or erosion, due to great heat and pressure. Not when the rocks were 'wet' and 'soft'.

Ken Ham insists historical science is impossible without an 'eye witness account' but he clearly has NO problem with historical ANTI-science.

Of course he needs to remember to put on his anti-science and anti-bible-contradicting, sorry allegedly 'biblical' glasses first.

[a_haworthroberts]

And his LYING relative Bodie Hodge (second link).

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... the-point/
"Without the saving work of Jesus Christ, we are “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). Life is devoid of purpose without Christ because we are made in the image of God and thus designed to fulfill our original purpose in Christ. We need to pray that these secular families—which are quickly on the rise in America—will come to realize their need of Christ and will repent and turn to Him. We also need to be salt and light in a dying culture, standing on the authority of God’s Word from the very beginning and pointing people to the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ."
Oh I see. If you are not secular but don't have the same religion as Ken Ham you too have meaningless and sinful values that are totally devoid of any purpose (well as far as jihadists and suicide bombers are concerned I would agree). Ken Ham attacking ALL other religious folk as well as the secular.

https://answersingenesis.org/countering ... se-debate/
'Did Ken Ham Lose the Debate?'
'Fraid so Bodie. Though Bill Nye also won it ie it was not totally Ken Ham's fault - even though he did not address the debate topic adequately despite having every opportunity to do so.
"Mr. Nye never addressed the debate topic".
You are a disgusting stinking LIAR Mr Hodge.
"Mr. Nye immediately changed the topic to address something else: “Does Ken Ham’s creation model hold up? Is it viable?”"
NO. LIAR. That WAS the topic. Despite your lying spin.
If Nye accidentally misrepresented Ham's so-called 'model' (which is unbiblical in part as you well know) why did not Ham set him straight? (ALL Ham did was say that OTHER Christians ie other YECs hold to a similar origins model thus it was not simply 'Ken Ham's model'.)
"Mr. Nye used the “skeptical method” by the way, which is to throw out numerous arguments, true or false, and hope to deceive people into thinking he won." LIAR.
"First, Mr. Nye didn’t win because he never addressed the debate topic." LIAR.

AiG are getting increasingly desperate in their lies - to other CHRISTIANS - as the first anniversary of the 'debate of the decade' looms.

I can confidently say that the old earth creationist if he reads this tripe from Hodge will be strengthened in his belief that young earth creationists are DISHONEST as well as ANTI-SCIENCE.

[a_haworthroberts]

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... day-a-hit/

"I imagine many of them sitting at their computer just waiting for our next post to appear so they can have some sort of “purpose” and “meaning” in their lives by then doing their best to suppress the truth (as the book of Romans clearly teaches they do)." There is much purpose and meaning for myself in exposing your anti-science lying, Mr Ham. I do not wish to suppress or hide anything. Just speak the truth. Which is why you and your organisation try to IGNORE me and rarely if EVER refer to this community forum (or blogs by Christians who detest YEC-ism).

And you are deceiving people with your claims about so-called 'observational science'. No scientific observations have refuted the theory of evolution - and besides science does not solely rely on 'direct' observation, fraud.

"Avery also pointed out that there is no mechanism for biological evolution either. All that we see when we study the world shows us that information only comes from other information and yet evolution requires an addition of brand-new information. But there is no known mechanism that can add brand new information into DNA needed for molecules-to-man evolution! And without it, evolution can’t go anywhere." Those are Lies. I can back up my statement. Would you like me to do so, Mr Ham?

Better to be sincerely incorrect or incomplete about certain aspects of a new scientific theory in the 19th century than to spend 365 days a year insincerely lying and smearing against science and scientists in the 21st century, Mr Ham. I do hope that lake of fire mentioned in Revelation isn't real.

I can only speak for myself, but I do not suppress anything in my posts here and/or sent direct to Answer in Genesis. Nothing. Rather I expose - with detailed arguments and explanations - that Mr Ham is an anti-science fraud who pretends to 'love' science whilst in reality he behaves as its sworn enemy.

Someone - like you Mr Ham - who pronounces people he has not met as 'guilty' whatever they might write that in some way disagrees with or challenges you, solely on the basis of a Bible verse, believes in a theocracy rather than a democracy. And somewhere where one is automatically guilty, rather than innocent until proven guilty.

I DARE MR HAM TO REFUTE THIS POST - THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS POST - IN ONE OF HIS BLOGS.


PS This post has been sent to AiG via their website. I received the acknowledgement "Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis. Your message has been sent to the appropriate person. If your message requires a response, we will reply as soon as possible." My message requires a response. Not direct to me necessarily. But a response, nevertheless. If it is ignored that will be because AiG do not know how to refute me - as with many previous messages they have never acknowledged and never dealt with. Much easier to mock a blogger who imaginatively writes about Ken Ham chewing on a carpet! I am not an attention seeker. AiG's response does NOT need to NAME me. Just quote me and refute me - IF THEY CAN.

[a_haworthroberts]

Should Ham happen to see this (whoops I'm making that more likely) he will not like what he reads:
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... wrong-day/

[a_haworthroberts]

E mail as sent:

"
Stupid desperate young earth creationists trying to spread utter misinformation and undermine science: the Bible refutes their lies.

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"When we start with the Bible we know that we live on a young Earth that was radically reshaped by a massive catastrophe, the global Flood. The Flood and its aftermath explain many of the geologic features we see today...
... The global Flood of Noah’s day and its aftermath formed the perfect conditions for many of the geological features that we see around us today. There is no need to appeal to millions of years to explain features such as this waterfall and canyon in Iceland or the Grand Canyon or any other geologic feature...".

http://crev.info/2015/02/a-niagara-clas ... l-in-days/
"We hope the slow and gradual accumulation of evidence for catastrophism will continue to build up till the dam breaks, sending a torrent of new thinking into the halls of secular science."

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2015/02 ... ology.html (linking to CREV)
"Evolution's True Believers circle the wagons when someone shows flaws in their "the present is the key to the past" paradigm, and insist that long-term gradual processes are true. This happens despite observed evidence. not because of it ...". (A classic strawman attack on real geology - by a serial hypocritical liar who is today spewing this on Georgia Purdom's Facebook page: "Naturally, anti-creationists will use straw man arguments to say that creationists are anti-science. This is based on the fallacy of equivocation, and when they've been shown their fallacy and contrary evidence, they resort to blatant untruths to support their bigotry. Imagine, telling a scientist who is a creationist that s/he is "anti-science". What do they think you're doing, reading tea leaves?" Sorensen MAY be pretending to refute my post HERE though he dare not link to it if so because he obviously cannot refute it at all but he wishes to convince foolish or dishonest people that he can 'always' refute anybody he disagrees with: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3625)

https://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaPurdom
Ham's colleague Purdom links to this article and gushes:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 161429.htm
"I love this quote from the article: "We think of natural environments as being formed over thousands of years, but sometimes they are shaped very suddenly. This insight into one of Iceland's magnificent landscapes helps us better understand these processes, and illustrates their legacy." Yes, exactly! A lot of water can cause a lot of change in a short period of time. Like we see all over the world as a result of Noah's Flood."

So WHAT are all these cherry picking YEC anti-science ideologues getting so excited about (or faking excitement about for the benefit of their clueless and indoctrinated followers - if they are not quite as stupid as they appear)?

Just THIS:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/ ... 3112.short
'Erosion during extreme flood events dominates Holocene canyon evolution in northeast Iceland.'
"... The erosive signature of these events is maintained within a dynamic landscape over millennial timescales, emphasizing the importance of episodic extreme events in shaping landscapes."(See 'Significance'.)

WHICH ONE OF THESE EPISODIC EXTREME EVENTS WAS DURING 'NOAH'S FLOOD', HAM, PURDOM, COPPEDGE, SORENSEN?

SILENCE. NO ANSWER.

(I think YEC-types 'like' Iceland. It's 'young'. Well compared to most of the rest of the planet's land surfaces, anyway.
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2014/09/th ... eland.html)

A H-R


PS OOPS IV'E JUST READ TODAY'S SMALL PRINT FROM THE LIARS AT ANSWERS IN GENESIS, WITHIN THE HAM BLOG, HOT OFF THE PRESS FROM THAT PURVEYOR OF PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC CLAPTRAP ANDREW SNELLING. AND GUESS WHAT - THIS ICELANDIC CANYON WAS NOT, I REPEAT NOT, FORMED BY NOAH'S FLOOD AFTER ALL! WHAT A BOMBSHELL. WELL ON THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE.

THEY HAVE FINALLY REALISED - DESPITE THE LOOSE WORDS OF PURDOM ON 11 FEBRUARY - THAT THIS SCIENTIFIC PAPER PROVIDES NOT THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE AT ALL FOR 'NOAH'S FLOOD'. BECAUSE, AS I POINTED OUT WHEN I FIRST SAW IT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE EXACTLY WHICH 'EXTREME EVENT' CAUSED BY NOAH'S FLOOD ACTUALLY FORMED THE ICELANDIC CANYON:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=50182&hilit=purdom&sid=8ff6248c8e30682ac526ed0f94d55b60#p50182 (my post on 15 February)

THUS SNELLING AND HAM ARE NOW LYING: "THIS CANYON AND WATERFALL IN ICELAND WERE CARVED AFTER THE ICE AGE, THE ONE SHORT ICE AGE THAT OCCURRED AFTER THE GENESIS FLOOD."

NO. THESE PEOPLE'S UTTER GARBAGE IS REFUTED BY THE BIBLE ITSELF!. APART FROM THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THERE WAS NEVER ANY 'ICE AGE' WITHIN THE PAST 4,500 YEARS. BUT GENESIS REFUTES ALL NOTIONS OF SUCH AN EPISODE. LOOK AT GENESIS CHAPTER 8 VERSE 22. ITS CONTENTS 'CONDEMN' THESE LIARS AS PEOPLE WHO TWIST OR IGNORE SCRIPTURE IN A DESPERATE BID TO MAKE SCRIPTURE 'REFUTE' WHAT THEY THINK IS 'BAD SCIENCE' (ESSENTIALLY ONLY 'BAD' BECAUSE IT DESTROYS THEIR BIBLE THEOLOGY).

IF GOD WAS GOING TO SEND AN ICE AGE AFTER THE FLOOD, WHY DID HE NOT WARN THAT SUCH AN EPISODE WOULD FOLLOW THE COLOSSAL 'JUDGEMENT' OF THE FLOOD. INSTEAD OF PROMISING THAT "SEEDTIME AND HARVEST, COLD AND HEAT" ETC WOULD 'NEVER' CEASE?

THESE PEOPLE ARE LYING CULTISTS WHO ABSOLUTELY HATE SCIENCE BECAUSE IT PROVES THEIR DELUSIONS WRONG - AND THEY LOVE THEIR DELUSIONS REGARDLESS. AND WANT TO SIMILARLY INDOCTRINATE ALL OTHER CHRISTIANS. IF THEY WERE HONEST THEY WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REAL 'ICE AGES' DID TAKE PLACE LONG BEFORE THE HYPOTHETICAL RECENT DATE OF NOAH'S FLOOD. BUT THEY ARE NOT AND THEY WON'T - EVEN THOUGH THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE EASILY SHREDDED (THOUGH THEY WILL NEVER EVER ADMIT THIS BECAUSE THEY LOVE THEIR 'YOUNG EARTH' DELUSION - OOPS I'VE ALREADY SAID THAT). .

ICE AGES ARE NOT CAUSED BY BIBLICAL 'WORLDWIDE FLOODING', NOR BY UNBIBLICAL MASSIVE UNDERSEA VOLCANISM DURING SUCH A 'WORLDWIDE FLOOD'. THEY HAVE BEEN LONG-LASTING AND DURING THE PAST 3 MILLION YEARS OR SO HIGHLY CYCLICAL. UNLIKE THE SAID 'WORLDWIDE FLOOD' WHICH DID NOT REPEAT ITSELF (NOR OCCUR EVEN ONCE AT THE TIME THE YECS CLAIM).

SO. EVEN MORE SILENCE FROM THESE HYPOCRITICAL DECEITFUL FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS.

WHO WILL THEN REPEAT THEIR LIES LATER ON AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO REAL TRUTH BEHIND THEIR SCIENCEY CLAIMS. ABSOLUTELY NONE. SO THE LIES FOR THE 'TRUTH' WILL HAVE TO DO.

IF HAM AND PURDOM TRULY 'LOVED' SCIENCE AS THEY PROTEST THAT THEY DO THEY WOULD BE TEACHABLE AND OPEN-MINDED IN THE FACE OF THE EVIDENCE. BUT ...

KEN HAM - DOESN'T DO WHAT IT SAYS ON THE TIN. CLAIMS TO BE A 'LOVER' OF SCIENCE. BUT IN REALITY HE IS ANTI-SCIENCE. AND PROUD."


(Two or three mostly minor typos now corrected. Also - around 2.10 am, around 30 minutes after sending the email - I moved the comment to a more appropriate thread, the one I originally intended to add it to.)

[a_haworthroberts]

A Christian I know (not a YEC) commented, and I have just replied as follows (copied more widely though not to all the YECs originally copied in):

"In fact I've now had a closer look at the PNAS paper (the 'Significance' and the 'Abstract' text) and the coverage by Science Daily and also the BBC News website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31356229.

Science Daily states: "Researchers connected major shifts in the landscape to a series of extreme floods, which took place 9,000, 5,000 and 2,000 years ago". There was no 'ice age' at those times (though Iceland is a cold location for much of the year). The paper itself referred to "extreme flood events, during which the flow depth exceeds the threshold for erosion through plucking rather than abrasion". Science Daily also states: "They used geochemical analysis to determine how long rocks on the canyon walls had been exposed to the elements" and "The floods were caused by volcanic activity under glaciers, and each was powerful enough to tear up bedrock" (something a bit similar happened in Iceland in 1996 though that did not form a new canyon as far as I know). The BBC report referred to key flooding events "separated by millennia of relative stability". Dramatic but localised extreme flooding and massive erosion - caused not by precipitation, nor by ice dams suddenly giving way during an 'ice age', but by periodic large volcanic eruptions under a semi-permanent glaciers in a high latitude location.

I find the cavalier response of Snelling and Ham quite breathtaking. They totally ignore the above. Instead they insist, without the SLIGHTEST supporting evidence, "This canyon and waterfall ... were carved after the Ice Age, the one short Ice Age that occurred after the Genesis Flood. And rather than floods being thousands of years apart, they would have been only years to decades apart".

I did slightly misread Snelling last night and thought he was saying these three extreme floods happened 'during' an 'ice age'. Rather than 'after' one. Snelling and co insist there must have been an 'ice age' (lasting several hundred years at the most) which ended around 4,000 years ago or so. But this fictional event is total red herring in this case (even if it had really happened)! And they 'dispute' the timescales (and the identified gaps between the several big flooding events) - presumably because if you are a YEC you are left with very little time to 'play with'. Thus the garbage that the scientists 'must' be 'wrong' and the floods were separated by only 'years or decades' not millennia. Major eruptions of specific volcanoes, big enough to trigger these events, tend not to occur only 'decades' apart (though some eruptions tend to be prolonged and/or intermittent). Though I also realise that we are talking about a large glacier or ice cap and there are several different live volcanoes in the vicinity. I would assume that there is some evidence pointing to when major eruptions of some or all of these volcanoes took place during the past 10,000 years or so.

Snelling's comments ignore the scientific evidence and they 'explain' nothing. They just cast doubt on the explanations offered by Edinburgh University - for ideological,and theological rather than scientific reasons. It's so that Ken Ham can falsely claim (in a 'universe' that is 6,000 years old and where the whole planet we live on was underwater around 4,500 years ago): "Geological features do not take millions of years to form!" They often DO. Including the Antarctic ice sheet. And the Grand Canyon. To name but two.

I would be less angry with Answers in Genesis and other YECs if they admitted that they are anti-science. But of course they would rightly lose their undeserved 'credibility' in the eyes of some/many of their followers if they did that.

Besides these people are meant to reject so-called 'historical science'! Remember how Mr Ham spent time preaching this (instead of defending his preferred 'creation model') last February? But they cannot even follow their own advice. Which of course is really meant to apply to 'secularists' or Christians like yourself who are open to evidence-based scientific conclusions about the past wherever they might happen to lead.

Among others who are generally pro-science, I salute the copy recipients who were originally YECs but moved position (but did not lose their Christian faith solely because they discovered that YEC-ism is based on falsehoods, fabrications and attacks upon 'naturalistic' science). (My loss of faith was largely for other reasons though I cannot say that I know now for certain that there is 'no' God or that Christianity is another 'false' religion.)"

[a_haworthroberts]

Online research suggests that the three main volcanoes under the massive Vatnajokull glacier have had major eruptions (around Volcanic Explosivity Index 4 or higher) as follows:

Grimsvotn: 1783-84 AD (caused havoc in western Europe) and around 8200 BC;
Bardarbunga: 1477 AD and around 6600 BC;
Oraefajokull: 1728 AD and 1362 AD.

The more recent events are inevitably better known/identified than some earlier ones may have been.

So do these dates tie in with the dates of 9000, 5000 and 2000 years ago as identified by the new scientific research? 6600 BC for Bardarbunga might be the cause of the flooding event 9000 years ago. Otherwise the tie-up is not that obvious.

But if AiG have ANY evidence that the canyon and waterfall in question were partly created by deep violent flooding from melting glacier ice in say 1784 or 1362 THEY SHOULD PRODUCE IT.


PS at 22.33 pm on 21 Feb:
http://scienceandcreation.blogspot.co.u ... m-and.html
(a new blog post taking aim at the vacuous claims made by AiG re this Icelandic canyon - am currently reading it and making a comment, which may not appear immediately due to pre-moderation at the site)

PPS at 22.53 pm:
My attempted comment reads as follows:
"The 'theorising' of Snelling (or so I have assumed - since sending my last email on this topic - was the case).

It can't have been 'pre-flood' because the flood and (unbiblical) associated volcanism would have destroyed the canyon;
It can't have been during the flood because there is evidence of three separate extreme flooding events caused by melted ice;
It can't have been during the alleged 'post-flood ice age' because the glacier ice would have bee too extensive for any eruption to melt it and cause any extreme flood event;
So it must have been three extreme flood events within the past 4,000 years or so - 'post ice age'.

I think Snelling accepts the scientific explanation that three devastating extreme short-lived floods, caused by massive volcanic eruptions melting the Vatnajokull glacier, formed this Icelandic canyon and the waterfall. As the PNAS paper - see 'Significance' - stated there were extreme flood events "during which the flow depth exceeds the threshold for erosion through plucking rather than abrasion":
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/ ... 2.abstract

So - although it is difficult to know the mind of a hardened YEC - I don't think Snelling is proposing some 'alternative' model along the lines you describe (for THIS event at least which he admits was NOT caused during Noah's flood). Though he needs one for a flood/receding flood-generated Grand Canyon.

I'll also flag this blog here: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1620

Pity Snelling has no evidence for his conjectures. Not that that ever stops Answers in Genesis.

I seem to recall a previous instance where the YECs were forced to admit that a catastrophically formed canyon (I believe in Hawaii) 'could not' have been formed during the 'Genesis flood' and therefore 'must' be more recent than that. (Incidentally GeoChristian also flagged this story on his new Facebook page last week: https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-GeoC ... 3031042432)

[Peter Henderson]

In a response to Richard Dawkins Ham claims evolution is an anti God religion and cautions Christians who compromise on evolution and "millions of years":

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/k ... /48392.htm

"Dawkins' comments should stand as a warning to those who compromise with man's ideas of evolution and millions of years. They are opening the door to compromising with the rest of God's Word. After all, if you can't trust God's Word in the very beginning, then where do you stop doubting? If we can't trust God's words in Genesis, then why should we trust God's Word in the Gospels?"

Ham urges his reads to pray for Dawkins, adding that: "Really, billions of years and evolution are an anti-God religion, and we must recognize them as such.

"Satan is very clever and is using the same attack he used on Eve, the Genesis 3 attack of "did God really say?" to make people question God's clear Word. Ultimately, he wants to lead people to reject God entirely, like Dawkins does. This is why it is so important to stand on the authority of God's Word from the very beginning, give solid answers, and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to a dying world."

Yet another desperate attempt by Ham to turn this into an "evolution vs God" debate.

[a_haworthroberts]

More rather arrogant self-justification by Ham on his facebook page and in his daily blog (from which former page he or one of his henchmen banned me, and they ignore everything I ask them by email or via their website):

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... Ken+Ham%29
"Does Everyone Really Want Answers?
One of the things we have learned from monitoring my Facebook page is that many people who ask questions don’t necessarily want answers. Because of the volume of responses (particularly the thousands of comments that get posted), we just can’t get to everyone. However, we do try to answer each of those who make a separate post and ask questions.
Now (depending on how something is asked), we usually give people the benefit of the doubt when they ask a question. However, we have found that many people, when they receive an answer, will come back with an attacking question or some mocking statement. So when they illustrate that they really do not want an answer, they are removed.
Actually, we have to monitor this page carefully, and we do hide comments, delete comments, and ban people daily. Some attack personally, use expletives, make threats, post pornography, make blasphemous statements—and the list goes on.
This Facebook page was never meant to be a forum (see our policy statement)—though because of the volume of responses, we do allow some discussion and contrary arguments provided it remains civil. And we do appreciate those people who sincerely are seeking answers.
I also want to remind everyone that by far the majority of questions people ask are already answered on our website AnswersInGenesis.org. My Facebook is used more like a newspaper to give news on the church and culture and some teaching—but AnswersInGenesis.org is the main information site for people.
As we interact with people on my Facebook, I keep these instructive verses of Scripture in mind:
"A scoffer seeks wisdom in vain, but knowledge is easy for a man of understanding. Leave the presence of a fool, for there you do not meet words of knowledge" (Proverbs 14:6–7).
"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion" (Proverbs 18:2).
"A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back" (Proverbs 29:11)."

How arrogant to assume that if anybody questions further or outright rejects an 'answer' provided by AiG they are simply 'rejecting truth' and really did not want the answer in the first place! Perhaps the 'answer' provided is utter nonsense.

Just a thought.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham
"We need to understand that there are no such things as brute facts—all facts are interpreted. The next time evolutionists use what seem to be convincing facts for evolution, try to determine the presuppositions they have used to interpret these facts. Then, beginning with the big picture of history from the Bible, look at the same facts through these biblical glasses and interpret them differently. Next, using the real science of the present that an evolutionist also uses, see if that science, when properly understood, confirms (by being consistent with) the interpretation based on the Bible. You will find over and over again that the Bible is confirmed by real science. http://goo.gl/pWcheA"

Ken Ham spouts the most appalling gobbledygook. Fact.

[a_haworthroberts]

Message as sent to AiG:


https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... pocalypse/
What about an asteroid or comet that might destroy some human life on Earth Mr Ham? 'Just' a few million people perhaps?
You are anti-science.

[a_haworthroberts]

That Ken Ham will take EVERY opportunity to spout misleading rubbish and try and bias (fundamentalist) Christians against science.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... cessorize/
"It seems like every time Neanderthals are in the news lately, it’s because researchers are confirming a biblical creation prediction and are helping to reject the view that the Neanderthals were some primitive sub-humans. And the latest news reports about Neanderthals are no exception. Reportedly, researchers took a “fresh examination of prehistoric eagle talons discovered more than 100 years ago,” and they reveal “that our ancient relatives made and wore their own jewelry”;
"Research is increasingly emerging that confirms what biblical creationists have been saying for years—Neanderthals were completely human! We now know that they used fire, buried their dead with rituals, and made art—all human characteristics. Evolutionists originally depicted Neanderthals as sub-human, unintelligent brutes. Biblical creationists, however, recognized that Neanderthals had all the hallmarks of being human and, therefore, they must have been descendants of Adam and Eve, made in God’s image, just like us."

Ah yes. If Neanderthals behaved in a similar way to how (definite) early members of our species behaved, that PROVES that they were the same species as us (though they were not the same anatomically and even the liars at AiG have to call them 'archaic'* humans as I have recently flagged on this community forum). They wore jewelry!! So they 'must' be just the same as us!! And never mind those pesky DNA differences, eh? (Or how long ago they went extinct.)

^
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evol ... sing-link/
"The Ledi jaw’s bid to be Homo or an early transition to Homo rests largely on the fact that its assigned dates place it in the desired gap between the ape Lucy and archaic varieties of humans".
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evol ... e-cavemen/ (flagged at the preceding article)
"With all the similarities, however, Neanderthals weren’t exactly like us—their physical characteristics (such as larger brows in adults and wide nasal cavities) would certainly make them stand out today."

What a complete charlatan this man (member of our species) is.

PS
http://www.evoanth.net/2015/03/27/does- ... te-270315/

[a_haworthroberts]

Ham's true colours shining through:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... and-pepsi/

[Roger Stanyard]

Ham's true colours shining through:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... and-pepsi/

It all sounds like ex-Big Ken is a worried man who is fire fighting problems with his Ark Encounter crapola.

[a_haworthroberts]

I have been asking AiG for ANSWERS - if they HAVE them which it appears they do not - for years (eg about why ALL dinosaurs went unbiblically extinct). They REFUSE to answer. I know AiG follow this community forum. Their ideas are nonsense because they cannot or will not (for fear of deserved ridicule) answer BASIC questions arising from their absurd pseudo-scientific claims and denials.

Yet now we have this sort of arrogance on their website:
https://answersingenesis.org/apologetic ... t-answers/ 'Skeptics often don't want the Answers.'
"... in our experience no matter how much scientific evidence is presented for a young earth, the evolutionist will continue to suggest ideas to employ as a rescuing device to defend his own worldview". That's funny, Bill Nye presented abundant evidence against the YEC 'young Earth' at the great debate and Ken Ham would not listen, whinged about not having enough time to 'answer', and tried to change the subject (and thus lost the debate as Nye realised would happen).
"You must settle in your heart that the Bible is our final authority and basis for all correct thinking." Most of the 'thinking' done by AiG - when they DO offer 'answers' - is way BEYOND what the Bible actually states. They make stuff up and pretend it is a 'biblical answer' when it is merely slightly more 'biblical' than robust conventional science. For example, AiG's claims about dinosaurs. If the Bible truly described the creation of dinosaurs in Genesis 1 it would have referred to giant creatures. It did NOT - because nobody knew about such when the Bible was written because nobody had ever seen one. And the Bible specifically has God promising recolonisation and multiplication in number of land-based animals post-Flood - NOT imminent (and mysterious) extinction of HUNDREDS of dinosaur species or indeed anything else.

I actually DO want answers. IF the answers are not NONSENSE of course. Perhaps AiG should PROVIDE them to me and let me make up my own mind (and other readers of this forum as well)?

If a YEC asked AiG the SAME questions as I have done about eg dinosaur extinctions, would AiG IGNORE THEM too?

And Ken Ham wants to attack these articles (especially the second one) but apparently hopes that his followers won't actually read them:
http://aattp.org/whats-it-like-teaching ... ur-future/
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ingle.html
This is the attack:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... Ken+Ham%29

In his blog Ham repeats much of his previous denialist nonsense, and lies: "However, evolutionary ideas do not explain the evidence well, and they fail to make accurate predictions ... " (conveniently ignoring eg the prediction of a fossil like Tiktaalik before it was discovered). And lies again: "Ultimately, evolution really doesn’t even deserve to be called a theory". And lies again: "Evolution doesn’t explain what we see in the world and it doesn’t make successful predictions ...". And lies AGAIN: "For one kind to change into another requires an addition of brand-new information into the genome—this is what evolution absolutely requires. And yet there is no known mechanism that can add this type of information into the genome!"

I think the amount of blatant lying by anti-evolutionists makes evolutionary theory all the more plausible - even honest Christians accept it and do not try to use the Bible as a WEAPON against it (since the Bible warns of false religious/philosophical teaching NOT false science).

Why doesn't Ham ask God why he planted all the 'misleading' evidence that points to evolution? (Or perhaps he did and received no answers.)