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 » Wed May 30, 2012 4:37 am

I would be most interested to know whether Jonathan Sarfati agrees with Ken Ham that Lucy was "some sort of gorilla".

Unfortunately I cannot ask him by email because CMI are now blocking any emails I send to them at @creation.info eg with j.sarfati as prefix.

Someone else reading this might care to ask? There was certainly NO mention of 'gorilla' (or 'chimp') when Dr Sarfati discussed Lucy in 'The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution' (published before the June PNAS paper mentioned above). He merely sought to claim that Lucy 'knuckle-walked'.
a_haworthroberts
 
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 30, 2012 12:04 pm

"I’ve seen emotional secular blogs blasting the exhibit and what it teaches, but we do something that I don’t usually see at secular museums. We actually include the documentation of articles written about Lucy with the signs—and the articles documented are from secular sources!" (from Ken Ham's blog of 28 May)

My message to AiG enquiring why they did not do THIS in their 'News Release' has predictably been IGNORED.

I am also curious as to know whether the claimed documentation includes links to peer-reviewed science papers from scientists (those in the majority) who believe that, apart from when it was in the trees, the Lucy species walked bipedally rather than on both its back legs and its front leg/arm knuckles.

Apparently Georgia Purdom is to blog on 31 May about a visit to a 'secular' museum followed by a visit to the ('updated') Creation Museum. It would be helpful if she described the Lucy 'documentation' for all those, whether YECs or not, who are not ever able to visit the AiG's facility.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby cathy » Wed May 30, 2012 2:56 pm

Maybe GENUINE is the key to understanding them. Yet they have the gall to regard such as me as not genuine
Maybe it is? Making the whole of the bible merely a vehicle for their creationist beliefs does seem to ignore Christianitys themes. I no longer regard them as very genuine christians but that is just my opinion.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed May 30, 2012 3:10 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:I would be most interested to know whether Jonathan Sarfati agrees with Ken Ham that Lucy was "some sort of gorilla".



Don't be daft Ashley. The creationists all hate each others' guts, especially AiG and CMI.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Wed May 30, 2012 3:42 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:I would be most interested to know whether Jonathan Sarfati agrees with Ken Ham that Lucy was "some sort of gorilla".



Don't be daft Ashley. The creationists all hate each others' guts, especially AiG and CMI.


There seems to have been some sort of fall out over at AiG US.

Carl Kerby and Jason Lisle have both left.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu May 31, 2012 12:15 am

Message sent FAO Mr Ham (from the website):

NEWS for Mr Ham. Who wrote on Facebook: "Well, the atheists continue their attempts to mock Christianity in their ongoing billboard campaigns. One of the latest billboards supposedly discredits the worldwide Flood of Noah's Day. The atheists don't even realize the fallible assumptions behind their attempted mockery. For instance, they are assuming that the mountains today existed like this before the Flood. Actually, if one smoothed out the Mountains and ocean basins, there is already enough water to cover the entire earth with about 2 miles of water! The reason there are fossils on the tops of mountains (like Mt. Everest) is because such mountains were raised up at the end of the Flood. The mountains before the Flood were different to those today--and obviously not as high etc. Even secularists have mountains being raised up--but they have it happening slowly over supposed millions of years".

The secularist explanation fully makes scientific sense.
Whereas Ham theorises that the mountains were covered by floodwaters for less than a year, whilst still 'hills', and then raised to their present levels almost instantly less than 5,000 years' ago.
ONE question for Mr Ham. DO MARINE SHELLS FLOAT? How did they end up on the (normally dry) hilltops in the first place?
Real science says they died and sank to the bottom of the past (higher) oceans and then the land slowly rose up above sea level eg at subduction zones, transporting the dead shells with them.
If I am missing something here, PLEASE tell me.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Jun 01, 2012 12:39 am

For Prayer please. Because of the mission statement of AiG that includes helping to bring Reformation to the Church--we often end up in circumstances that aren't necessarily comfortable. I was asked to appear on a TBN TV program tonight to talk about origins. Later on I found out that Ray Comfort would be on the program (he is a good ministry friend)--and then I found out Hugh Ross (who promote...s billions of years, Big Bang, local Flood, soul-less humans before Adam and Eve etc) would also be on the program.

Interestingly, Ray Comfort is referred to as a "ministry friend". However, Hugh Ross, even though he also is an evangelical Christian is.........????????? Sounds to me as if Ham regards Ross as anything but a brother in Christ.

:evil: :evil: :evil:

The Lord will surely only bless young Earth creationists like Ham.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:17 am

Peter Henderson wrote:
For Prayer please. Because of the mission statement of AiG that includes helping to bring Reformation to the Church--we often end up in circumstances that aren't necessarily comfortable. I was asked to appear on a TBN TV program tonight to talk about origins. Later on I found out that Ray Comfort would be on the program (he is a good ministry friend)--and then I found out Hugh Ross (who promote...s billions of years, Big Bang, local Flood, soul-less humans before Adam and Eve etc) would also be on the program.

Interestingly, Ray Comfort is referred to as a "ministry friend". However, Hugh Ross, even though he also is an evangelical Christian is.........????????? Sounds to me as if Ham regards Ross as anything but a brother in Christ.

:evil: :evil: :evil:

The Lord will surely only bless young Earth creationists like Ham.



I would have thought that Ham would be champing at the bit ready to refute Old Earth Creationism on live TV.

But it seems that instead he thinks ONLY Young Earth Creationism should be on US TV.
a_haworthroberts
 
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 » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:58 am

After THIS - balanced - article appeared in the Christian Post: http://www.christianpost.com/news/creat ... bit-75782/

I sent them the following email (I was unable to log in to post a comment as they demanded I supply a jpg photo of myself):



The 'Lucy' exhibit - depicting a knuckle-walking gorilla - is a FRAUD.
Please see:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract
"These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans and support the hypothesis that this species was a committed terrestrial biped".
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract
"These characteristics further establish that bipedality in Australopithecus was highly evolved and that thoracic form differed substantially from that of either extant African ape".
a_haworthroberts
 
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 » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:10 am

LATEST email to AiG:

As I have already demonstrated, the new 'Lucy' exhibit at the Creation
Museum - depicting a knuckle-walking 'gorilla' (as admitted by Ken Ham
online) - is a FRAUD. A fraud even to CREATIONISTS.

Please see:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/750.abstract
"These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like
that of modern humans and support the hypothesis that this species was
a committed terrestrial biped".
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract
"These characteristics further establish that bipedality in
Australopithecus was highly evolved and that thoracic form differed
substantially from that of either extant African ape".

I have already referred to the deliberately misleading Creation Museum
News Release of 28 May, which including the following piece of quote-
mining and misrepresentation: "In addition, Israeli scientists reported
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that it may not
be our ancestor, for its lower jaw bone resembles a gorilla's." (Apart
from anything else, a creature does not have to be our direct ancestor
in order for evolution to be true or possible.)

I have matched this dishonest quotemine with THIS ScienceNow article,
reporting on a 2010 PNAS paper on one of the Lucy fossils: http://www.
news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/06/oldest-skeleton-of-lucys-species.
html The article includes the sentence - suitably 'edited' by AiG in
order to MISLEAD their fans and the media - "The shoulder blade looks
more like that of a gorilla and a modern human than that of a
chimpanzee". The sentence in the News Release - as quoted above - does
NOT provide secular DOCUMENTATION. NOR does it quote secular
researchers ACCURATELY and FULLY.

In his blog on 28 May (the SAME day as the deceitful News Release) Ken
Ham boasted: "I've seen emotional secular blogs blasting the exhibit
and what it teaches, but we do something that I don't usually see at
secular museums. We actually include the documentation of articles
written about Lucy with the signs, and the articles documented are from
secular sources!"

So WHAT happened to my message to AiG - sent from within their website
(I received automatic confirmation of receipt) - enquiring WHY they did
not also do THIS in the News Release? It was IGNORED.

In a blog earlier this week AiG's Georgia Purdom wrote: "Be sure to
come back on Thursday when I'll discuss my experiences at a natural
history museum in Atlanta and compare it to our new Lucy exhibit at the
Creation Museum". THAT blog - if it is still going ahead - has NOT yet
appeared. It would be most helpful if it could answer the question
"whether the claimed documentation with the 'Lucy' exhibit includes
links to peer-reviewed science papers from scientists (those in the
majority) who believe that, apart from when it was in the trees, the
Lucy species walked BIPEDALLY rather than on both its back legs and its
front leg/arm knuckles".

If such documentation is in fact missing at the Creation Museum WHY is
it missing? And why does Mr Ham imply that it is not missing?

Ashley Haworth-Roberts
PS I have also seen this piece of MISDIRECTION and HALF-TRUTH from
AiG's Dr David Menton in the Christian Post (so far apparently the ONLY
media attention given to the Creation Museum since last weekend):
"As this exhibit conclusively shows, the Lucy fossils belong to a
knuckle-walking, ape-like creature. We can see that Lucy's V-shaped
mandible was very ape-like, nothing like that of a human". YECs
frequently inform us that museum exhibits are not 'real' animals. And
what about its rear feet, Dr Menton? What have you got to say about
those?
a_haworthroberts
 
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 » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:38 am

One of the more NOTEWORTHY Facebook comments about Ham in discussion with Ross et al on TV:

"Watching now and wondering how someone outside the faith would see this. If the Bible is the authority then where is grace in this discussion? Dr. Ross is trying to find common ground even though he's being treated as if he's not a believer. I respect Mr. Ham but if we cannot disagree and remain loving, then what Bible are we reading? What is more important? Being right? Or being loving?".
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby marcsurtees » Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:51 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:One of the more NOTEWORTHY Facebook comments about Ham in discussion with Ross et al on TV:

"Watching now and wondering how someone outside the faith would see this. If the Bible is the authority then where is grace in this discussion? Dr. Ross is trying to find common ground even though he's being treated as if he's not a believer. I respect Mr. Ham but if we cannot disagree and remain loving, then what Bible are we reading? What is more important? Being right? Or being loving?".


Yeap! I always feel the love from members of this forum....
Marc
_______________________________________________________
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing
— they believe in anything." (commonly attributed to) G.K. Chesterton
marcsurtees
 
Posts: 1180
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:37 am

marcsurtees wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:One of the more NOTEWORTHY Facebook comments about Ham in discussion with Ross et al on TV:

"Watching now and wondering how someone outside the faith would see this. If the Bible is the authority then where is grace in this discussion? Dr. Ross is trying to find common ground even though he's being treated as if he's not a believer. I respect Mr. Ham but if we cannot disagree and remain loving, then what Bible are we reading? What is more important? Being right? Or being loving?".


Yeap! I always feel the love from members of this forum....



Marc: Even though I profoundly disagree with you, I still see you as a fellow brother in Christ (I don't think I've ever been abusive toward you on this forum).

That's not what Ham thinks about Hugh Ross. Why should any Christian feel awkward about appearing with a fellow Christian on a TV programme ?

Why does Ham see the age of the Earth as such an important factor in the Christian faith ?

If proof were needed thast Ham really thinks YECism is essential to salvation, then statements like this about fellow Christians really proves the point.

I don't think God favours YECs over any other Christian.

Oh, and by the way, you are treated with far more respect by the Atheists/Agnistics on this forum, than many of us are who post on Premier, and that's from supposed fellow Christians.
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby Peter Henderson » Fri Jun 01, 2012 1:27 pm

Matt Crouch hosts Ken Ham, Dr. Hugh Ross, Ray Comfort, Dr. John A. Bloom, Sean McDowell, Eric Hovind and music by Christian Ebner


http://www.itbn.org/index/detail/lib/Ne ... MNzxHCg2Kk

Hardly a debate. 1 (2 ?) OECs against 4 YECs ?
Peter Henderson
 
Posts: 4353
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:07 pm
Location: Jordanstown, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby cathy » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:28 pm

Yeap! I always feel the love from members of this forum....
As far as I can see, creationists FALSELY accuse ALL non creationists of all manner of behaviours. From being not true christians, compromisers on the word of god thru to rape, murder, racism, genocide and so on. None of which are remotely true of 'evolutionists' as a group.

Everything you have been accused of on this forum from dishonesty to refusal to condemn unacceptable behaviour of your peers and friends has been true. They are the results of you being a creationist rather than anything inherent in your personality I would hope.

But they are justified accusations. You have never been falsely accused of any of the things us evolutionists have on your peers websites. It doesn't take much of a trawl thru CMI for me to find myself accused of all of the stuff in the first paragraph. And as for love of your fellow man? When have you ever stood up for any of us in that respect or do you think it is all fair?

There is a difference. And as I've yet to find an honest creationist I can only assume the accusation applies to all.

To my knowledge nobody here contacts the police about you, or tries to ruin your reputation with your employers or searches for personal non creationist details about you. Nobody writes negative things about you beyond your behaviour as a creationist!

Creationism is a morally bankrupt cult. Leave it, or accept the fact that a hell of a lot of people will see your behaviour as a leading creationist as plain wrong.

And the fact you cannot see anything wrong with being a creationist is yet further evidence of the damage it does to anyone sucked into it. You will just have ot recognise that most people see what you do as wrong, and that is because creationism is wrong on every single level you can possibly think of!
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

PreviousNext

Return to Conversations with Creationists

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron