Email as sent:
LATEST PROOF POSITIVE THAT KEN HAM IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR
US blogger Matt Walsh was upset (in a YouTube video of 16 November) because Ken Ham wrote in his blog of 20 October (without either linking readers to Walsh's previous 18 October YouTube video or quoting any of his words within it) that in his first video Walsh made ''the fundamental point'' that ''he is more willing to rely on man's fallible word than to trust God's infallible word''. And followers of Ham, after reading this, then accused Walsh of not believing in the infallibility of the Bible (which he denies is the case though he certainly rejects young earth creationism).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v08w_P9EIaw&t=5s
This fake news video of 19 November responding to Walsh, planned over the weekend and where comments are apparently not being allowed, is just the latest proof that Ken Ham, President of 'Answers in Genesis', is a pathological liar.
I'll skip over the usual stuff they come out with over it's not 'science says' it's what scientists say so it's just 'man's fallible word', and the largely false distinction between 'observational' and 'historical' science, or that there were pairs of 'kinds' (something at genus or family level) rather than normal species on the ark, or their claims about the 'problems' with radiometric dating, or their evading Walsh's charge that AiG and other YECs adopt an adversarial approach to science much of the time.
For me the KEY part of this self-justifying AiG video is from the 39 minute mark. They play a clip of Walsh citing the Ham sentence of 20 October that I cite above, where Walsh then explains that this sentence apparently led to people assuming (in an upset manner) that he rejects the Bible or doesn't think it infallible. He understandably suggests that his position was mischaracterised. But - certainly in this clip, the one chosen by Ham - Walsh does not say ''Ken Ham wrote that I don't believe in infallibility'' or words to that effect. The closest to that is him saying he believes the sentence (which did not quote him but referred to his 'fundamental point') served to mislead people about his position because of how Ham 'presented' it. This being something Ham is refusing to acknowledge or take responsibility for (all Ham does, just past 6 minutes, is admit - now - that he wasn't saying Walsh doesn't believe in the infallibility of scripture - yet Ham's followers read Ham's words that particular way).
But then Ken Ham lies. Twice. He protests around 41 minutes 30 seconds "where did I say that he said he didn't believe in infallibility?'' Followed around 42 minutes by ''I did not say what Matt said I said''.
But Matt Walsh did NOT say what Ken Ham says Walsh said he said! (Though at just past 40 minutes 30 seconds Walsh apparently misspeaks with ''I never once made the 'fundamental point' that 'we shouldn't trust God's word''' - but he seems to be referring to how Ham's followers interpreted Ham's sentence.)
(Note that Ham's second lie was also made by him just before the clip of Walsh is played. This is deliberate intentional cynical opportunist LYING.)
What arrogant hypocrites these fundamentalist people are. They never ever admit error let alone providing misleading information to their followers. Any problem is always wholly the other person's fault. And they want other Christians to be like them.
By the way I don't agree with everything Walsh has said but I see no evidence of him deliberately lying.
This message also goes to Walsh via his website.
In my personal view, if he takes up that Ham invitation he should confront Ken Ham over the latter's pathological lying on 19 November. He is now owed not one apology for Ham's clumsiness on 20 October (that's the more charitable interpretation) but also the bare-faced LYING on YouTube of 19 November.
I also see that AiG were flagging 1 Peter 3:15 before Monday's broadcast. They didn't pick a Bible verse that speaks against lying.
If you agree, please forward this message to Mr Ham. I believe all emails I sent to his email address (he's copied in) get blocked because apparently they cannot stomach that anyone identifies and highlights their hypocritical lying about people (and science and history).