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

Professional liars doing what they do best

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Apr 25, 2015 1:17 am

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... Ken+Ham%29
'It's not a battle of science versus religion.'

Oh yes it is. But Ken Ham will keep repeating the same lies over and over again - because he is an unrepentant professional liar.

"In an updated version of his popular talk, AiG speaker Dr. Terry Mortenson explains where the idea of millions of years came from. He reveals that it didn’t come from the scientific evidence—it arose out of an anti-biblical interpretation of the observable evidence."
That would be because biblical interpretations of the observable evidence in question result in nonsensical pseudo-science - of the kind churned out by Answers in Genesis on a regular basis. Such as the idea that radiometric dating and the observations of very very distant light made by the Hubble telescope cannot disprove a '6,000 year old universe' because too many 'assumptions' are involved, or the idea that the geologic and fossil record and patterns of biogeography seen around the world can all be 'explained' a by a 'recent' and literally 'worldwide' flood and what Genesis claims happened after Noah and the menagerie of land creatures disembarked from their ark and recolonized Earth (well apart from all those unbiblical extinctions to the poor dinosaurs and mammoths).

These charlatans respond to REAL scientific explanations dismissively - simply alleging that they are wrong because those who believe them hold to a wrong 'worldview'. Not a scientific refutation - just religiously motivated dogmatic and inflexible denialism. "I have a book." Said the man who hypocritically proclaims how he 'loves' science. Well he loves science in the way that I love religious liars who hate what science has revealed - I love EXPOSING their lies.

Ken Ham and his gang of PhD experts are enemies of science par excellence.

In case anybody is wondering, although I've watched the clip provided, I am not buying Mortenson's probably trashy DVD.

Science is not an alternative religion. But 2 Corinthians 10: 5 - quoted by Mortenson - shows perfectly just WHY AiG are ANTI-SCIENCE. They gleefully take science 'captive' and try to destroy hard-won scientific knowledge, replacing it with pseudo-science (or the mantra 'were you there?'). They want ALL other Christians to do the SAME (but probably don't want Muslims following the same approach starting with the Koran).
Posts: 9075
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 Apr 29, 2015 1:46 am

Message sent to AiG via their website:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... s-ice-age/
According to what the Bible REALLY says (in Revelation), liars - such as Ken Ham in this untruthful propaganda blog - will be thrown into a lake of fire.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

The cynicism of Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun May 03, 2015 1:05 am

This blog and the comments underneath speak for themselves:
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... /#comments
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Wide circulation email addressed to AiG

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 04, 2015 12:10 pm

Question for Answers in Genesis (please will they READ this).

I have learnt in a discussion at the Worldview Warriors blog (in a discussion under a blog written by a young Earth creationist*) that no fossils of any extinct great apes (kinds of gorilla, chimpanzee etc) have been discovered since the probable last common ancestor species of great apes and the various human species was still alive. Thus whilst on the human lineage species such as Australopithecus afarensis (including the fossil known as 'Lucy'), as well a various extinct Homo species, have been found by contrast the great ape lineage has apparently not yielded any fossils to date (I went to Wikipedia and looked at the pages on gorillas, chimps and bonobos).

In a - selective with the available evidence and typically science denialist - blog post by Ken Ham that I attach, the CEO of Answers in Genesis expressed the opinion that the 'Lucy' species was "simply an ape, probably resembling a small gorilla".
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... h-duh-duh/

The exhibit at the Creation Museum dubbed 'Lucy' certainly resembles a modern gorilla (not a chimpanzee):
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/creat ... on-museum/

Please will Answers in Genesis tell us WHAT species they are seeking to depict, and whether they are proposing that 'Lucy' IS in fact an extinct great ape on the lineage leading to today's gorillas? And whether or not the display boards at their Creation Museum inform visitors what exactly species they believe 'Lucy' was?

Are AiG insisting that this exhibit is purporting to display Australopithecus afarensis (but saying that they don't know exactly how it would have appeared because the fossil is not complete)? If so then the Creation Museum is being fraudulent - since the most recently uncovered evidence does NOT suggest following detailed study by experts that the creature was a habitual knuckle-walker as depicted by AiG, but rather was almost certainly bipedal most or all of the time. The second link I've attached above implies that AiG are informing visitors that this exhibit IS of Australopithecus afarensis.

A normal, 'secular', museum would doubtless inform its visitors WHAT species they are attempting, based on the available evidence - which people could double check the accuracy of online or in books - to depict.

But this is not a normal museum. Much of it is targeted at young people and at people who are suspicious of/uninformed about science and scientific evidence (especially people who are already young earth creationist Christian in 'worldview') I suspect.

If by chance the Creation Museum are depicting one of today's extant gorilla species, please will they confirm this. And explain HOW the bones of 'Lucy' do not match the bones of modern gorillas (since the scientists would surely not mistake gorilla bones - these bones were found in Ethiopia where gorillas do not occur today - for something extinct and with some different features).

If - as is normal - AiG REFUSE to respond or even acknowledge this message (because they may be either blocking all my emails, or deleting them unread on receipt, or reading them but then refusing to reply because it is ME) perhaps somebody else reading this might wish to ask them this same question and raise any other relevant points?


* http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... ality.html
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: More dishonest whining from the science haters at AiG

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon May 18, 2015 10:38 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote: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.)

With reference to the first paragraph quoted here, Ken Ham has been lying on his Facebook page today (OK I realise that this is not really news):
"Dinosaurs are awe-inspiring creatures, but they are not a mystery. The Bible makes sense of dinosaurs and the evidence that humans encountered them. It also tells us why we no longer see them today."

His first four words are truthful. The remaining words are PURE LIES. I'm sure you don't need me to explain how - though I would gladly do so if requested.

And - if you are wondering - YEC Tim Gilleand recently informed me by email (after I once again publically challenged AiG to answer BASIC questions about their claims): "I've been informed from people who are friends with staff at AiG that they have automatically blocked your messages for a long time." Which suggests to me that my questions were a problem for them in the past.

Presumably because their position is pseudo-scientific, science denialist, fundamentalist and not even fully biblical, Ham and AiG only offer 'answers' to silly or bigoted people who already swallow previous AiG LIES and who won't 'rock the boat'. People who will not ask awkward questions in return - or challenge the lying propaganda that Ken Ham, in order to maintain the charade and the associated personality cult, clearly has a irresistible need and compulsion to keep posting in his blogs and on Facebook.

Do AiG staff dare to view this community forum?

They CANNOT answer questions about eg 'recent' dinosaur extinction and how that conflicts with Genesis 8:17, about their dishonest portrayal of 'Lucy' at the Creation Museum, about how India and Asia could break apart and then collide again 'during Noah's Flood' - and doubtless other matters arising from their YEC 'creation science' that I and others will have highlighted previously on THIS forum.

That presents them with a dilemma. Should they check out this forum on the quiet but then pretend that they have not? Or should they not even dare to look at it so they can remain 'ignorant' of refutations of the extra-biblical nonsense they post onto the internet?

Some of their supporters (YECs in general) DO come here. They cannot plead ignorance.

Perhaps AiG should change their name - since they either don't have real 'answers' or if they sometimes do their answers conflict with Genesis.
Posts: 9075
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 May 20, 2015 10:15 pm

The frauds have a conference on 'Answering the Skeptics'. Except that AiG frequently REFUSE to 'answer skeptics' - because they are simply unable to do so if probing questions are asked. All they do is instruct other Christians on how they think they should 'answer skeptics'.

Oh, and they take every opportunity on offer to rouse an irrational rabble:
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the ... n=20150519
This response shows how Bible dogma stifles thinking - and yes, YECs do refuse to look at evidence they don't like, wave it away, and drone on about 'worldviews', 'unprovable assumptions' and 'presuppositions' instead. They are indeed anti-science. Their own words prove it. Again and again. People like Ken Ham (and the nun Dawkins met as discussed in one of his books) are in rebellion against science, so they cannot allow even a suggestion that the universe could be millions or indeed billions of years old. They CANNOT. So they ignore evidence. Real scientists don't. If they ignore anything it is BIBLE VERSES and NOT material evidence. That is why, and how, Ken Ham is pushing anti-science. Science is one almighty threat to HIS religion. That is behind his attempts to make Christianity an anti-science crusade. And his lies. Such as that if you believe in billions of years you have been 'intimidated'. No - PERSUADED. By the facts. Facts that this hypocritical fraud - who refuses to give answers if those answers would INCRIMINATE him - repeatedly claims are 'lies'.

I despise YECs too. Mainly because of their hypocritical behaviour and their dogmatism in pushing pseudo-science in place of the real deal. It would take me more than 140 characters to explain this more fully (but I have done so previously here).

The Bible worldview espoused by fundamentalists like Ham is rather desperate. That explains their desperate behaviour. The god they defend appears to be an egotistical, schizophrenic (manifesting confused thinking ie in both loving and hating people that fails to take full account of reality eg that people and their experiences are very different indeed unique) and casual sadist prepared to punish and banish for 'ever'.

I'm not attacking this other pro-YEC blogger but notice how he is FORCED by his religious commitment to write: "But God is not evil." That is, such a thought is not totally irrational.
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk ... we-go.html
That's after speculating: "Only a good God would sacrifice himself by suffering for the sins of the unrighteous and take upon their punishment. This is only possible if death was a byproduct of sin. It would not be possible if God created death as a part of his good creation. I would contest that a God who created death into his world is not really a good God after all, and that people would be right in opposing such a being." But a world with NO death is a total impossibility.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham repeating the same old pseudo-science

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue May 26, 2015 9:06 pm

And here's ANOTHER question Ken Ham will REFUSE to answer.
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... and-flood/
If the fossil record is a record of a recent global flood (possibly accompanied by massive volcanism though Genesis does not say anything about accompanying volcanism and only mentions fountains of the deep being broken up or bursting open which suggests water not magma/lava) would we not expect to find at least SOME fossils within igneous rocks?

http://ageofrocks.org/2015/04/20/horizo ... ahs-flood/
Care to address this Ken Ham (or one of your PhD experts)?

And the fossil and geological record shows a time progression not from one place to another place (low-lying coastal places to high ground/continental interiors as if animals were fleeing floodwaters as claimed by YEC ideologues) but, in every place, a very lengthy TIME progression with the lowest layers containing fossils of creatures that lived and died earlier (including various extinct sea creatures and dinosaurs), and the upper layers containing fossils of animals that lived more recently - including various hominids.

PS At around 23.45 pm.
When I looked earlier there were one or two posts here (where the Ham blog was flagged) expressing doubts that a global flood ever happened.
But I see that the Ken Ham Facebook Anti Thought Police have been along and silently 'cleaned up' the thread. Nothing has been refuted. The criticisms and questioning comments (they were not rude unless you think the phrase 'smell the coffee' is rude) have been simply CENSORED. That's how to 'Answer' sceptics! Ignore them if you can. And censor them if you can't.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Breaking News: shrill but very poor article on AiG website

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 30, 2015 11:17 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... -feathers/
"But the supposed evidence for feathered dinosaurs is scanty and speculative...". No it is not:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/451 (the paper an earlier AiG article sought to pooh pooh - without posting an accessible link to the Abstract in question)
The Abstract states:
"A Jurassic ornithischian dinosaur from Siberia with both feathers and scales.
Middle Jurassic to Early Cretaceous deposits from northeastern China have yielded varied theropod dinosaurs bearing feathers. Filamentous integumentary structures have also been described in ornithischian dinosaurs, but whether these filaments can be regarded as part of the evolutionary lineage toward feathers remains controversial. Here we describe a new basal neornithischian dinosaur from the Jurassic of Siberia with small scales around the distal hindlimb, larger imbricated scales around the tail, monofilaments around the head and the thorax, and more complex featherlike structures around the humerus, the femur, and the tibia. The discovery of these branched integumentary structures outside theropods suggests that featherlike structures coexisted with scales and were potentially widespread among the entire dinosaur clade; feathers may thus have been present in the earliest dinosaurs."

In the new article the AiG zealot Avery Foley (whose credentials to pronounce on these matters are very unclear even after searching on the AiG website) seeks to dismiss this claim of 'featherlike structures' possibly being feathers by discussing 'fibrous filaments with bristles'.

But that misses the point. Birds are NOT considered to be descended from ornithischian dinosaurs but from certain saurischian dinosaurs such as theropods - and this Abstract clearly states that theropod dinosaur fossils bearing feathers (or their remains) HAVE been uncovered. (Perhaps ironically, birds actually belong to the 'lizard-hipped' group of dinosaurs or saurischians, which includes theropods such as Velociraptor and T. rex, rather than the 'bird-hipped' group the ornithischians.) As far as I can make out, AiG have been rather shy of directly addressing what is claimed here:

"Many evolutionary scientists eagerly jumped on the feathery dinos bandwagon despite the lack of evidence! Really, it is an evolutionary worldview that drives this acceptance and continued promotion of the idea." Garbage.

Dinosaurs "were likely cold-blooded". The suggestion that most genuine scientists today (whatever the zealots at AiG might think) believe that dinosaurs were cold-blooded is PLAIN FALSE.

"Modern birds like parrots are found in the fossil record alongside dinosaurs! How could birds have evolved from dinosaurs when they are found alongside them?"
Unbelievably stupid. The answer is 'easily. Though of course this bigot for Ham ignores the fact that dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years and that most of today's bird species were not alive when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. (This is how to persuade someone to remain or even become a YEC - feed them false 'facts', strawman arguments about what scientists insist on believing 'against' or 'despite' evidence/common sense/Bible 'facts', general incredulity and also sheer propaganda eg using that word beloved by YEC zealots 'supposed'/'supposedly' or going on about 'worldviews'.)

"Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. They—like dinosaurs—were specially created by God in the beginning to reproduce according to their kind." That is an assumption. The Bible does not use the phrase "reproduce according to their kind" as far as I know.

PS Today's other AiG propaganda, from Ham (with assistance from his research team) is being discussed HERE:
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... /#comments
This being the said blog:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... evolution/
The blog contains choice YEC MISINFORMATION re blue stars, and new 'information'. And then this liar has the gall to lecture his readers (including perhaps these NASA astronauts that he wishes to put in their place) about 'fallible man's ideas'.

PPS Slight additions/corrections made after sending this to AiG; the post is now FINAL.
Posts: 9075
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 03, 2015 12:33 am

Ken Ham thinks it is perfectly fine and obviously needful to LIE in order to defend the Bible. Which tells me a lot about both Ken Ham AND the much of the message of the Bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axSkYsN ... e=youtu.be

If Christianity IS true, some people might end up in hell because of dismissing the false claims of liars like Ham who associate themselves so closely with - the Bible.

His 'science' is Ad hoc nonsense that forces evidence to 'match' and 'confirm' something that the Bible does not even explicitly state.

No wonder they disable comments. But they cannot disable their many online critics.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

The desperate lying of Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jun 04, 2015 10:23 pm

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... evolution/

"In historical science, the evidence must be interpreted on the basis of one’s worldview". No, it must NOT (unless of course you are a Biblical creationist). Evidence is interpreted according to what has been learnt from previous evidence, and 'worldview' has nothing to do with it.

"the facts don’t “speak for themselves” (e.g., fossils don’t speak and don’t come with labels)". No scientist says fossils come with labels. But science HAS discovered facts about the past. Which often contradict a 'plain' reading of Genesis as 'literal infallible history'.

"This distinction between the two types of science shows that it’s not ultimately a battle over the evidence (as we all have the same evidence)". It IS a battle over evidence and what a reasonable interpretation of it can reveal about the past. YECs not only consider the Bible as 'evidence' for the purpose of doing 'science' but they insist (by their words or by their actions when associated words would embarrass them) that anything in Genesis trumps awkward evidence. That is, evidence must be FORCED to confirm Genesis whenever there is scope for attempting that (and thus not confirm or in any way support plausible and detailed scientific theories that contradict Genesis). Or else any troublesome evidence must be quietly ignored.

"it’s not a battle between science and faith." Oh yes it IS. AiG have a Statement of Faith which reads:
"•The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
•The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
•The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect."
Only YECs start doing 'science' ie considering natural evidence with such inflexible PRESUPPOSITIONS. (There are other sorts of pseudo-scientists.)

"Evolutionists start with man’s ideas about the past and interpret the evidence through that lens." Ideas gained from doing science previously. How ELSE can what is done in the name of science NOW legitimately be called science? Simply because an idea, based upon evidence, cannot be identified as being 'biblical' does not prove it 'false'. But in Ken Ham's worldview it is automatically 'false' and a 'lie'. He is an extremist and an enemy of science.

"Forensics doesn’t prove evolution." So what? It certainly does not support young earth creationism. Which relies upon the Bible being used to trump parsimonious interpretations of the abundant available evidence, plus ad hoc so-called 'explanations' (various forms of 'just right', but utterly unfeasible, catastrophism) that are deployed in a desperate attempt to 'refute' real science which reasonably and logically assumes in the absence of any obvious evidence to the contrary that eg rates of radioactive decay directly observed in the present also applied throughout the solar system's past (even if a 'worldwide flood' once occurred).

Would Ken Ham care to tell us why my interpretations of HIS facts/factoids are wrong?

Thought not. (The urge to prove me wrong in my prediction will be outweighed by the risks of attempting such, not because I am 'brilliant' but because Ken Ham's arguments are so easy to dissect.)

Ken Ham is not unintelligent. Thus he is clearly lying in an attempt to confuse those who read his blogs. Desperately. He started his creationist career with lies - and the way to protect oneself from exposure becomes the imperative to lie and misdirect MORE and MORE. Repeatedly.

Deliberately lying. As incidentally is 'The Question Evolution Project' on Facebook in the past couple of days:
At 'Atheism on the Slide', see https://www.facebook.com/atheismontheslide (the discussion re 'God or Absurdity') :
"It seems that most atheopaths, who claim that Christians lack reason, are unable to use reason and resort to mocking. Then they wonder why they are not respected by intelligent people." I use reason. But Sorensen lies that I do 'not' or 'cannot'. And if he is an 'intelligent' person, this kind of response is NOT error on his part but deliberate lying.
On Ken Ham's Facebook page (where this garbage is under discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axSkYsN ... =youtu.be*)
"Some people who cannot refute the evidence resort to calling creationists "liars", which indicates that they confuse "lying" with "disagreement as to interpretations of evidence." When I call Sorensen and his page 'liars' I SHOW it. He pretends otherwise.

* Ham's words in that appalling 60 second video:
"When radioactive elements decay, certain particles are released, and that includes helium. Now helium escapes from rock crystals so if radioactive decay really takes millions or billions of years then most of the helium should be gone from rock crystals long ago. But the creation model teaches that radioactive decay greatly sped up during Noah's flood so there should be lots of helium in rock crystals. When this question was tested, large amounts of helium were indeed found. The evidence confirmed the biblical model and directly opposed the old earth model".
That is not science. It is a blatant abuse of the scientific method.
He also sounds rather confused about what 'argument' he really trying to make. I thought the YEC main 'argument' was that there is 'more' helium than expected found in rocks, which has not yet diffused, because radioactive decay has only been occurring for thousands of years and not millions or more? But apparently that alleged argument is WEAK. Because they are also making up another ridiculous claim about much more rapid past radioactive decay (during 'Noah's flood') - which, if it happened, would have led to more radiogenic helium being found in rocks today than conventional scientists would expect. Another bad argument - to try and 'shore up' a previous bad argument (but the new 'argument' unintentionally UNDERMINES the previous 'time' argument ie you don't NEED any less time if the helium amounts were caused by MORE decay in the 'recent' past).

PS I edited ie added to this post shortly after sending it to AiG. It's now FINAL (23.50 pm).
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

More garbage courtesy of AiG

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:47 pm

How extremist YECs spout unbiblical garbage - because they hate science so much.

"Yet another "theory" about why the dinosaurs became extinct- not an asteroid, not by their own gaseous "releases," but rather volcanic activity. The speculating will NEVER stop because they refuse to believe the true history about the past. Noah's flood resulted in the death of many dinosaurs and the formation of many dinosaur fossils that we dig up today: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2 ... wrong.html"

What about Genesis 8:17, Georgia?* Didn't the dinosaurs that YOU people insist the Bible speaks of multiply in number as they were apparently told to do by recoloniz[ing] the Earth post-flood? Are you REALLY insisting that most dinosaur fossils were victims of 'Noah's Flood' and that they went extinct 'recently' because only a very tiny number survived the said 'flood'? Really? Is that now official AiG dogma? Really?

You people post blogs spouting anti-scientific and unbiblical (ie deliberately ignoring of awkward verses in Genesis) garbage:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... eationist/
"The Bible tells us that God commanded Noah to take animals aboard the Ark “to keep them alive with [Noah]” (Genesis 6:19). There is nothing about God promising to preserve them after the Flood, and since Scripture is silent on the issue we must make speculations based on what we know of His character. Actually, lots of animals—not just dinosaurs—have died out since the Flood."
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... -humanity/
"Also, according to the biblical worldview, dinosaurs were not wiped out by an asteroid impact 65 million years ago. They were created on Day Six along with Adam and Eve. But many of them were buried in the global Flood of Noah’s day around 4,300 years ago. After the Flood, dinosaurs died out for the same reasons that many species go extinct each year such as competition for resources, changing climates, or human hunting."

Thus Ham arbitrarily rules out an asteroid impact OR massive volcanism as causing the extinction of EVERY species of dinosaur that was still alive 65 million years ago. Even though he has NO evidence WHATSOEVER (never mind NO biblical support EITHER) that:
- they were ALL outcompeted for resources at some unspecified 'recent' time; or
- despite the never ceasing of seedtime and harvest promised by God at Genesis 8:22, some unspecified recent post-flood 'changing climate' did for them all; or
- somehow human beings 'recently' encountered already extinct dinosaurs and even 'hunted' them and thus helped cause their total eradication from the planet.

How about Answers in Genesis instead get their heads together and finally ANSWER this question, which I first asked of them MONTHS ago, instead of pretending that it does not exist? Or else tell the world (or at least tell ME privately) that "we have no real answer and perhaps our claims about dinosaurs could be all wrong":

"WHY HAS NOT A SINGLE DINOSAUR SPECIES SURVIVED, KEN? AND WHY ARE YOU IGNORING GENESIS 7 2-3 AND GENESIS 8 16-17? WHY DID YOU MISLEADINGLY CLAIM IN YOUR BLOG DATED 29.11.14 THAT: "The Bible tells us that God commanded Noah to take animals aboard the Ark “to keep them alive with [Noah]” (Genesis 6:19). There is nothing about God promising to preserve them after the Flood, and since Scripture is silent on the issue we must make speculations based on what we know of His character." Scripture is NOT 'silent' and speaks of animals 'multiplying' and 'filling the Earth'. (Though I do agree that it NEVER mention the concept of species/kind extinction.)
Why is Ham so conspicuously silent on the question of WHY (according to his Bible-based 'worldview' and claims) all dinosaurs ie EVERY SINGLE ONE of HUNDREDS of species has apparently gone 'extinct' within the past 4,500 or less years (post 'Flood')? Despite no major asteroid or comet catastrophe on Earth during that period. And whilst many mammals and many birds have NOT gone extinct in the same time period - which is what one might expect to be the case if the culprits were competition for resources, climate change or human hunting and predation.
Science can explain the likely reasons WHY (and approximately WHEN) most dinosaurs went extinct.
YEC-ism does not and seemingly CANNOT. It clearly does not have a clue.
Surely Christian/Bible apologetics should be based on truth and not on extra-biblical dogma? (Or is there a shortage of appropriate truth?)
But Answers in Genesis LACK answers.
Exactly WHY have ALL dinosaurs - hundreds of species - 'recently' become extinct (after their 'kind' or 'kinds' survived a 'global flood', which the Bible calls destructive but NEVER portrays as an extinction event for ANY kind of animal)? What was the point of animal 'kinds' leaving an ark upon which they were saved from destruction and then spreading out, multiplying in number and apparently diversifying too as they recolonised most of planet Earth. If, that is, many of them (in particular animal categories but not others and including some so-called 'archaic' humans apparently) were then all go mysteriously, and unbiblically, EXTINCT?"

Even if you apologists and ideologues at AiG REFUSE, any fool can see that the idea of God allowing ANY species to go extinct (and AFTER the flood judgment) is utterly ALIEN to the book of Genesis.

Of course they NEVER will address this question. Unless perhaps one of their SUPPORTERS demands an answer to it (they [must] be hoping this will never happen).

AiG are HOPELESSLY wrong about the history of this planet. That is why they block people who ask awkward questions, the 'answers' to which would clearly reveal the scientific BANKRUPTCY of ALL their claims about the past.

WHAT kind of god would send people to everlasting hell for not believing the garbage put out by YECs like those at 'Answers in Genesis'?

(I have been told AiG block my emails. But whenever I send questions to them via their website I receive an automated acknowledgement 'thanking' me. My questions to AiG also appear at the BCSE community forum.)

End of rant.

Ashley Haworth-Roberts

* ""Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you—the birds, the animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground—so they can multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it"" (NIV).
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble Rouser Ham, his merry band, and their Creation Museum

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jun 12, 2015 11:29 pm

Ken Ham and his So Silly Crew are deliberate LIARS in their strident but futile attempts to 'disprove' the possibility of evolution (whereas Bill Nye sometimes makes weak arguments - I know which is the BIGGER 'sin'):
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... evolution/
LIAR? Yes - lying, evading, missing the point, and deliberately misleading his readers:
"And evolution is not “the most fundamental idea in biology,” as Nye says it is. As I pointed out in a blog post earlier this year, evolution is a way of explaining the origin of the universe and life naturalistically (atheistically). It is one framework through which to interpret the observational evidence. And far from being the foundation of biology, evolutionary ideas have done nothing to further our understanding of biology.
Actually, evolution contradicts what we know from observational biology. Life only ever comes from other life (that’s the law of biogenesis) and yet evolutionists assume that life came from non-life. But we observe that one kind of creature only produces the same kind, and yet evolution assumes that one kind turns into another kind, although this has never been observed. Indeed, there is no known mechanism that could add the massive amounts of brand-new genetic information that would be needed to turn an amoeba into an astronaut over time. Everything we observe confirms that information only comes from other information. Ultimately, that information traces its source back to God, the author of life. No. Evolution is not the foundation of biology."

Here's ANOTHER more specific Bill Nye interview link re the big debate that Ken Ham would apparently rather his blinkered followers did not get to read:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/bill- ... le-139334/

Also worth reading:
http://thenaturalhistorian.com/2015/06/ ... ment-63310

Ham is also a hypocrite since he claims to detest any lying (about HIM and his Creation Museum buddies) by the media:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... ood-cells/

And despite the lack of feathery dinosaurs on display, Ham and his merry band of fellow science denier Christian cultists don't much like 'Jurassic World':
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... -for-kids/
https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/mo ... sic-world/

As I have not seen the movie, I couldn't possibly comment further. Other than to say that the violence complained about, dinos chomping on humans apparently, is all completely fictional.

Oh and Ken Ham says in his blog:
"Instead, I recommend you take your children to a wholesome family place where the truth is told about dinosaurs and where they can have an exciting time with family and friends". That would be your local natural history museum?

http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog ... eationism/
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Liar and rabble rouser Ken Ham

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Jun 29, 2015 1:10 am


His fraudulent outfit refuses to answer my question dated 10 June. Because they know that they cannot (without exposing themselves as false teachers leading people astray). Yet they carry on their merry way as if NOTHING happened and as if NOBODY has ever shown them to be professional liars. Carry on trying to manipulate Christians with (over-long) articles like this one:
https://answersingenesis.org/bible/bibl ... k-genesis/

"Here’s the point: you use the Bible to explain dinosaurs." You CAN'T you Fraud. The Bible suggests at Genesis 8:17 that God's plan for any creature coming off the Ark was NOT extinction. But rather that they should "multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it". That is true of any animal that Genesis claims was on board.


I'm beginning to think your biblical glasses not only deliberately distort reality but also deliberately distort the Bible in favour of anti-scientific religious claptrap. Well, actually I'm well past the stage of beginning to think that.

"What, then, is the mystery? It’s only a mystery if you take man’s fallible interpretation of the evidence in the present and somehow try to fit it in to the Bible." LIAR. It's also a complete mystery if you make up the total nonsense Ken Ham makes up about 'recent' (total) dinosaur species extinction (which varies from blog post to blog post ie he usually alleges that humans 'hunted' them) which is both UNBIBLICAL and is NO explanation scientifically either.

Stuff science, Christians! Just listen to Uncle Ken. He has the Answers!

Except when people like me ask the WRONG questions.

And expose how the way in which Answers in Genesis interpret the Bible (and make it supposedly address topics that it NEVER addresses ie the reality of species extinction) fails to match with non-deniable reality.

PS This goes onto the BCSE community forum - here: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1635
(So would any answers from 'Answers in Genesis'.)
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Liar Ken Ham (still obsessed with Nye)

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Jul 01, 2015 12:48 am

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... nge-emoji/
Some of Ken Ham's favourite LIES. NO post-flood ice age EVER occurred (not even in the Bible).
And unlike water vapour, levels of carbon dioxide AND methane are increasing all the time. Due to Man.

PS The above was sent to AiG via their website. As a postscript re water vapour:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/water- ... se-gas.htm
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Liar Ken Ham Lying Again

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:51 am

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... om-church/
"Many Christians who compromise with millions of years and/or evolution accuse me and Answers in Genesis of driving young people away from the church. They say that our supposedly “anti-science” (really anti-naturalism and anti-atheist assumptions smuggled into science!) stance harms the church by making generations think that Christianity is anti-intellectual and not relevant to the current generation. They also claim that we are lying to kids and that, when these children get older and realize they’ve been lied to, they will reject all of Christianity because we’ve told them that if they can’t believe Genesis, then why can they believe the gospels? But is this really true?" It IS true for some - because you DO lie to people and you ARE anti-science. Other people believe your lies and assume that real scientists 'must' be lying. "Science Confirms God’s Word." There's another lie. It does NOT. That is WHY you churn out your 'apologetics' day in day out. To arm-twist Christians who realise that the Bible is unscientific and pre-scientific. This blog is just the latest example of Ken Ham telling a PACK of LIES. The fossil record is confirmation that ... animals and plants died. That is all.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests