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

Wilful dogmatic idiocy from AiG

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:34 pm

They didn't like this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... acts-fail/ (it emphasises how some people have a 'worldview' that causes them to reject any evidence that undermines the worldview in question)

So they wrote this arrogant piece of gobbledygook:
"It's not facts that fail -- it’s the interpretation of facts that fail when secularists have wrong presuppositions.
Most secularists don’t understand science and interpretation of facts, and they blindly follow those who misinterpret facts regarding origins. Creationists don’t ignore facts -- they correctly interpret facts because they have the right presuppositions.
Most secularists won’t acknowledge or will refuse to acknowledge the presuppositions they use when interpreting evidence regarding origins."

AiG's newest British recruit is being dogmatic because another committed Christian - a British pastor - had the gall to criticise the 'Ark Encounter' and the 'young earth' pseudo-science that is pushed there in the name of the Bible and the gospel:
http://www.affinity.org.uk/foundations- ... -dogmatism
https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/ar ... dogmatism/

John James remarks in his opening comments, referring to people like Ken Ham, that "the forceful insistence on six literal solar days is a relatively recent phenomenon in response to the atheistic outworking of Darwinian evolution".
He only considers Genesis 1 (see a quote from Young and Stearley that is presented) - and not also genealogies found in the Bible - but concludes: "The dogmatic claims of young-earth creationism, so forcefully expressed by Ken Ham, are a relatively recent phenomenon, driven not by the unequivocal clarity of Scripture on this matter, but by a desire to argue against the contemporary claims of scientific naturalism."

The response from AiG's Simon Turpin asks: "To accuse fellow Christians of participating in “pseudo-science” is a serious charge. Does this mean that the many PhD scientists in the fields of geology, paleontology, astronomy, biology, and so on who affirm belief in a young-earth creation (YEC) are “pseudo-scientists”?"

Basically, yes they are I would contend. Nothing in Turpin's lengthy piece convinces me otherwise. He also - for a second time - misuses a quote by Mark Harrison of UCLA (please see here:

Turpin also makes absurd claims:
"James relies heavily upon old earth creationists Davis A. Young and Ralph F. Stearley’s work The Bible, Rocks and Time. These old-earth geological arguments, however, have long been refuted. Moreover, uniformitarianism has nothing to do with observation or the evidence, but scoffers believe it to avoid interpreting geological evidence in light of the catastrophic processes during and as a result of Noah’s Flood (2 Peter 3:3–6)."

He also claims that James makes 'astonishing' claims (regarding how historical or modern today's YEC movement is). He further claims that James has failed "to read and interact meaningfully with what YEC actually believe". And then he seeks to push for more pastors to come to AiG conferences (in order to be indoctrinated that because a young earth is 'biblical' and an old earth raises theological issues, therefore they should embrace a 'young earth' - and lo and behold AiG have besides 'refuted' an old earth, so a young earth must be true after all despite any and all the evidence suggesting otherwise): "I would encourage pastors and lay people alike to consider attending our 2017 Mega Conference so that they can be equipped to deal with the issues of evolution and millions of years."
(How many of these people are - like Turpin - from a humanities or arts rather than a scientific background?)

And Ken Ham has been protesting yet again:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... t-science/
If you don't agree with Ken Ham (and unlike him care about evidence more than 'worldview') then you possess a 'faulty belief' about science. What utter hubris. From a child indoctrinator who spends his life railing against science 'brainwashing' in public education.
Here again is one of Ham's favourite fictitious pleas (probably targeted at his fanbase not Joe Public):
"But we aren’t against science. We’re against an evolutionary, naturalistic interpretation of the evidence that contradicts God’s Word."
Until you can come up with some alternative science to the evolutionary consensus (which other Christians buy into too), you ARE against science Mr Ham.
All Ham exposes here is the arrogance of his position (instead of preaching the gospel he is demanding that 'secularists' - against their conscience in many cases - 'admit their faulty beliefs'). Why? Because HE and Answers in Genesis say so.

This thread sets out all the many scientific questions, arising from THEIR claims, that Ham and co REFUSE to address:

[Message as sent to AiG via their website.]
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 Jan 27, 2017 10:25 pm

" ... 90% of dating methods contradict billions of years ...".

Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rouser Ken Ham's son in law

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:50 pm

And Ham's son in law is lying lying too:
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/fe ... i-science/
"Why species? This is an equivocation fallacy. The Bible says “kinds,” which includes a variety of modern-day defined species ...".
No, LIAR. THIS is what the Bible says (New International Version):
"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive." (Genesis 6: 19-20.)
ALL (land-based) living creatures. Which appears to suggest all species (even if the concept of species post-dates when Genesis was written). Not the 'variety of defined species' nonsense AiG typically come out with - in order to try and ensure that the Noah's Ark story (ie the wooden boat being large enough to accommodate all the necessary creatures) appears to be literal history and scientifically possible, rather than mythical (a lesson for sinful humanity) and mere pseudo-science.
How ironic since Hodge is wailing about other people lying ...
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham: what an arrogant bigot

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 01, 2017 11:50 pm

Now proclaiming on his facebook page:
"Evolutionists fear when I speak to students because kids then get exposed to creation apologetics teaching regarding the truth of Genesis and the lie of evolution. Secularists fear when Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and Ark Encounter overcome censorship of media and education and expose school kids to evidence for creation and the truth of God's Word, and against evolution. Indeed, secularists throw tantrums when AiG scientists expose the lie of evolution and millions years to the world and teach truth of creation."

To which someone responded (will the post remain visible):
"It's astounding that this ridiculous person goes from church to church calling scientists who don't believe in his personal brand of religion liars, as well as anybody who agrees with the preponderance of evidence for evolution and an ancient earth and universe. Science and the science classroom, on the other hand, have nothing to say about religion. Why? Because it studies the natural world. Religion plays no part in the natural world. The only time that you or really any other person of religion tries to disprove a scientific theory is when it conflicts with the Bible. AiG scientists have never shown evolution to be a lie. If they did they would be receiving endless awards including a nobel prize for their discovery.
Great plug for all of your overpriced attractions by the way. I wonder why the text is bold? Selling snake oil? You didn't put the word God in bold...wouldn't that trump any other word (including your money making schemes)?
No one fears you. No one is afraid of your teachings. We know your game, pontificating to people who already believe the nonsense you preach. We (as atheists, secularists, and evolution advocates alike) don't care that you teach a belief in God and the Bible. We do care that you are spreading lies and misinformation about widely accepted scientific theories. Your teachings are harmful to the development of children's capacity to distinguish between fact and fiction.
Just as an aside, why will you only debate Bill Nye? Why not debate Matt Dillahunty? Or Aronra? Or Sam Harris? Or any number of people who are skilled in the debate format and not just a science teacher."

Followed by lots more comments.

But I would not put it past Ham to quote-mine the response and write a blog post attacking the response and the character of the person making it.

The people with the fear when it comes to so-called 'historical' science is the 'biblical creationists' at AiG. Who (apart from that debate with Bill Nye which almost everybody has concluded was lost by Ken Ham) REFUSE all honest and open interactions with sceptics and critics about their far-fetched 'teaching' (much of which is not even found in the Bible) and REFUSE to answers awkward questions that arise from their failed attempt to show that the opening chapters of Genesis are real 'science'.

Still waiting for Ken Ham to address (any one of) my such questions in this thread.

Much easier to indoctrinate (not preach the gospel but indoctrinate - I have listened online) impressionable kids.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham right wing extremist

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:17 pm

Exactly how does this pack of lies advance the cause of Jesus Christ I wonder ...

of course this divisive hubristic self-justifying right wing lying bigot and peddler of pseudo-science fails to offer a single example of so-called false accusations, lies and misinformation by the 'secular media' against the Trump administration (whilst ignoring ALL the false accusations, lies and misinformation against the 'secular media' BY the Trump administration). And he does not come across as remotely 'tolerant'.

"The left wing secular media is doing to Trump what they've done to Answers in Genesis for years--false accusations, lies, misinformation, censorship, and more.
And the left wing protestors are involved in what secularists did to the Ark Encounter--false accusations, ad hominem attacks, lies, and more.
Notice how the left that's falsely accused Christians of intolerance for years are some of the most intolerant people on the planet. Left wing media and protestors want free speech as long it's their own speech and their own views--they want to censor real free speech."
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Answers in Genesis' twisted logic

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:13 am

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... evolution/ (2016)
So. The findings of science about the past are just anti-Bible idolatry, a 'lens' through which we view a naturalistic 'religion', and sinful thinking and practice on a par with ancient Israelites.

Liar Ken Ham should stop falsely claiming "I love science!"

But if he did his cult - that presumes to tell Christians what to think by insisting they must always start with scripture ie Genesis rather than observable reality - would lose credibility amongst its hardcore American and non-American followers. This 'high priest' who is still alive does not want that to happen. So the lying will continue. "I love science!"

As here:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... ium=social (2017)

And he's been shouting on his Facebook page:
"Regarding the talk about FAKE NEWS, remember: the two greatest FAKE NEWS items permeating the culture are molecules-to-man evolution and millions of years.
The claim that the universe and life arose by natural processes is one of those FAKE NEWS items that permeates education and the culture.
The ministry of Answers in Genesis, Creation Museum, and Ark Encounter exist to help overcome the FAKE NEWS and disseminate the truth of creation and the gospel message. “Have you not known? Have you not heard?The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 40:28)."

So - with Ham you don't get the 'Good News'. Instead you get all this, extra, special pleading (and deliberate misinformation too) first.

Including all this special pleading and pseudo-science - by the organisation whose president routinely declares real scientific theories and discoveries to be 'FAKE NEWS':
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/ca ... mic-event/
And he can't even get the Bible right. How could Noah's Flood be a 'mass extinction'? That would have been Noah's Flood without Noah's Ark.
"The charts do provide accurate summaries of the fossil sequence. There is a definite order, from bacteria and sea creatures at the bottom to modern humans at the top";
"From a biblical perspective, the order probably reflects the order in which different environments were buried during the Flood."

How could lots of 'different environments' be in one locality in just a few months or years?! Total and utter garbage. Funny how when you start with the Bible instead of the material evidence (including what we observe in real time today) you end up with such nonsensical garbage. But perhaps if they post the garbage on the birthday of that appalling high priest Darwin the YEC fans of Ham and all his works will lap it up as 'science'...

And he carries on, still trying to appear 'scientific'. Though instead of fully describing his own half-baked 'hypothesis' (lest his readers might see it for the nonsense that it is) he instead starts attacking real science (again).

"The third and largest “extinction” (Permian–Triassic) is right where we would expect the biggest transition in the types of creatures buried: when the destructive waters rose from the ocean floor to begin engulfing the land!
What appears to be a big extinction is just a transition in the height of the Floodwaters, which buried different flora and fauna below and above this level. No wonder we don’t find certain sea creatures after this point—because their environments were completely buried before any land creatures were swept up by the rising water."

Total lies. From so-called Christians. What about all the marine creatures eg ammonites which went extinct, sometimes leaving fossils, either during the Cretaceous or at the K-T/K-Pg boundary following the asteroid/comet impact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceou ... tion_event
(The liar at AiG mentions trilobites - which went extinct much much earlier - but fails to mention ammonites.)

And the liar indulges in yet more deliberate Bible eisegesis - as a 'rescuing device' for his pseudo-scientific 'hypothesis':
"Clearly, powerful ocean floodwaters were at work to lay down these megasequences. But why are there five?

The Floodwaters reached a zenith during each of these depositional cycles, likely getting higher and higher and higher until the whole earth was flooded as described in Genesis. Between each megasequence cycle, the waters began to retreat. As they again moved rapidly, in some places they eroded some of the sediments they had just deposited and moved them elsewhere. Between each rise and fall cycle, large portions of the continent were above water again. Any animals struggling to swim could have left footprints on the exposed wet surfaces that then hardened. The next brief wave of sediment-laden water would cover and fossilize those footprints."
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Rabble rousing Answers in Genesis

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:38 am

Some trilobites lived in open water and swam around reefs. Most ammonites lived in shallow seas. Thus AiG cannot explain why 'Noah's Flood' killed the former sooner than the latter. Science can. The science AiG claim to 'love'. But their talk of trilobites (but not ammonites which they fail to mention) having their environment 'completely buried' during the 'Permian extinction' stage of 'Noah's Flood' is complete tosh and I suspect they know it. Snelling states: "the fossil record represents different environments full of creatures that lived at the same time but were buried in the order of the Flood’s destruction". But he would like his readers to assume that ammonites lived in a different 'environment' to trilobites. Which is not the case. So he's talking nonsense. But the full quote is "According to the Flood perspective, in contrast, the fossil record represents different environments full of creatures that lived at the same time but were buried in the order of the Flood’s destruction. The Flood buried the last of the trilobites before it reached the dinosaurs on land. The trilobites’ pre-Flood habitats were destroyed and disappeared under rapidly accumulating Flood sediments before dinosaurs and other land animals got buried." Looks like the Flood perspective is total nonsense then. But AiG - and the liar Sorensen and certain other YECs - will carry on banging on that it explains things much better than 'evolutionary' 'science' ...

PS at 3.15 am. The preceding message reproduced an email sent around three hours ago. But I then noticed that I misread a Snelling sentence "No wonder we don’t find certain sea creatures after this point" and thought he was saying "No wonder we don’t find sea creatures after this point". Thus I wrote "total lies" (and the fact is that most sea creatures that fossilise were still alive and well, or yet to evolve, after the Permian extinction). But I would now re-word my comment as "total misdirection". For reasons explained above in the discussion of marine survivors of the Permian extinction such as eg ammonites.
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 Feb 22, 2017 5:01 am

This speaks for itself and is a very interesting read:
http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/sure- ... t-followed

He's not wrong about AiG's extremely highly speculative pre-flood amphitheatre:
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... -textbook/
"The items below are for a coliseum diorama to be installed in 2017."
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 Mar 10, 2017 10:00 pm

Yet more self-justifying garbage from a fanatic who hates evidence (despite mentioning it) and demands that 'science' be re-defined - to suit a young earth creationist religious agenda (which would not be necessary IF an exercise to "compare the evolutionary and biblical creation interpretations of the evidence to see which better supports the evidence" actually would lead to the answer being 'biblical creation' ie if the fossil record would DISPROVE evolution and point to a violent recent flood instead):
https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... ington-dc/

"Creationists love science!" Sickening hypocrisy. Judge Ham's cheap, self-justifying words by the OTHER words he and his staff speak (and the words and sometimes actions of other young earth creationists).

They WON'T be joining the march! They side with the Republicans not science.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby ProfessorTertius » Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:55 pm

Ham's first sentence about March for Science is the ridiculous:

This highlights a fundamental problem—they don’t recognize the difference between observational and historical science.

Makes me want to scream. I'm so sick of their false dichotomies and false definitions.

Even worse is Ham's definition of "science": "It means KNOWLEDGE." So a person knowledgeable of witchcraft and the occult is a scientist.
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 5:26 pm

Re: Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:02 pm

Message as sent to Answers in Genesis:

"Secularists use dinosaurs to try to convince children of millions of years and evolution, but I am teaching kids today the truth about dinosaurs - they are no mystery when understood in terms of biblical history -- dinosaurs are only a mystery when people believe the lie of evolution."

TOSH. Ken Ham cannot remotely explain when why or how dinosaurs went extinct. But he is not a scientist. He's a bigot. Indoctrinating kids with falsehoods about nature.
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 » Sat Mar 25, 2017 8:34 pm

Message as sent to AiG via their website:

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... -creation/
"When I announce on Facebook that I’ll be doing a session for children or teens, many of the atheists who follow me get upset."

That's because your apologetics are (man-made) lies. You are the people who are utterly insecure regarding scientific reality. And young earth creationists don't think for themselves, rather most of them follow opportunistic ideologues like you. "When you ask a secularist to list their evidence that the laws of nature arose by natural processes, they have no answer!" Provide an actual example of your propagandist accusation. Unless of course you are making stuff up. Like your false claim last November that Bill Nye 'could not' answer why humans wear clothes when you posed that question to him at the 'Ark Encounter' last July. He gave answers but you rejected them. "Do you notice how irrational, illogical, inconsistent, and emotional many secularists get on social media when confronted with God’s infallible Word?" I notice your hate.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Email as sent just now

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:30 pm

Somebody is imposing religion on scientific evidence.

I wonder who.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... evolution/
"Atheists, with their belief in naturalism, aren’t somehow religiously neutral by token of being scientists—they have a religion, and they impose that religion on the evidence."

But it couldn't be this bloke; after all this bloke 'loves' science:
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... -allow-it/
"if there really was a global Flood, you would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth".

So if deceased life on an earthly scale is discovered one day on a distant extrasolar planet we will know that there was once, 'recently', a literally global hill-covering flood of H2O on the planet in question.

However real scientists might prefer to observe that if there really was life on Earth in the unseen past, much of which is now extinct, you would find billions of dead things buried in sedimentary rock layers that have been laid down slowly (as happens today) under the oceans, or on land through wind, ice, severe local flooding events or landslides - all over Earth. And we do.
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Ham - trying to brainwash against science

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:24 pm

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/69 ... erview.htm

Meanwhile some good (or 'good') comments relating to the detailed AiG attempted brainwashing and pre-emptive fact denial are visible here:
"Funny how "historical science" is cool with you when you can find some way to warp it into the "creation model" that isn't a model at all as it offers absolutely no valid predictive capabilities.. The evolutionary model actually works and has been refined over almost two centuries to provide demonstrably correct predictive capability, the creation "model" does no such thing. The kind of evidence we should expect to see if the creation "model" was correct simply does not exist. There is no fossil record of super turbo evolution happening in the last 4,000 years due to a massive flood, there is no dendrochronological evidence of said massive flood, there is no radiometric evidence the Earth is older than all the stars and the cosmic background demonstrates the exact opposite to be true.. The list goes on and on with creationist claims and the subsequent evidence we should expect to find if said claims were true. This stuff just doesn't compute folks. It never did. This movement is a backlash against the culture, it's political, science never had anything to do with it." (Anthony Blair.)
"I love how science contradicts itself. First it says Mars and Venus used to have a Earth like climate but for Venus it has run away global warming were Mars is in a perpetual ice age then it says to have a Earth like climate it must be a certain distance from its star or as they call it the Goldilocks zone, too close too hot, too far too cold, in the middle just right. So when did Mars or Venus occupy the same orbit as Earth???" (Roger Riggle.)
"The Goldilocks zone is one AU which is 150 million Kilometers or 93 million miles. just 2 degrees outside or inside of this and your out of the zone." (Riggle parading his dogmatic ignorance once again. Wikipedia reports that estimates for the habitable zone within the Solar System range from 0.5 to 3.0 astronomical units".)
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Ken Jong-un and his lying and fact-rejecting facebook pages

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Apr 19, 2017 10:21 pm

I sent two limited circulation emails this evening, as below:

(1) Latest unbiblical c**p from Ken Ham on his facebook.
"Job chapter 40 describes the largest land animal God made--it couldn't be elephant or hippo as their tails are not like a cedar tree. The description sounds more like a sauropod (a dinosaur!)."
Meanwhile Job 40 ACTUALLY reads as shown here (New International Version):
I think the writer of Job 40 is more likely to have seen and attempted to describe a hippo than an extinct dinosaur.

Today the AiG fascists have silently blocked me from the Ark Encounter facebook page. I was going to query why the 'Bible literalist' and 'Biblical creationist' was MISREPRESENTING Job 40 here (as many people not blocked from that page are pointing out):

And I see that I have also been silently blocked from the Creation Museum facebook page - after making just ONE post there (a few days ago).

Young earth creationists (most of them) stink.

PS at 11.40 pm:
ALL my comments at the thread 'Ever wondered how long the Ice Age lasted?' have now been removed.
However, a number of AiG fans DID read and comment back upon my comments BEFORE the Ark Encounter people chose to delete them. I stated that glaciations lasted tens of thousands of years and referred the anti-science people there to epica ice cores.
I have a suspicion that some other people who were disagreeing with AiG claims on this page have also had their comments REMOVED (I recall that I was NOT a lone voice disagreeing with the Ark Encounter people, Jaeschke and Mountford - despite what the remaining 'conversation' at the link NOW implies, which is that 'nobody' has disagreed with AiG or shown them to be factually in error).

PPS at 11.46 pm:
I just sent this to AiG via their website:
I think AiG are basically fascist bigots who don't give a monkeys about facts. Cowardly too. You take the easy way out - silent censorship of any informed online dissent.
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