https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/"Oh the lies atheists tell! But then again, they're atheists, so 'truth' is whatever they make up -- so the end justifies the means! The only reason I link to this piece of made-up trash is to remind us how insecure these people are and to pray for them!
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/creati ... t-workers/"
That's rich. Coming from a 'liar' Christian who claims to 'love' science whilst systematically indoctrinating young kids that "if there really was a worldwide Flood, you would find billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth".
Revelation 21:8.
On Ham's angry claim against Raw Story, THIS is the original source of what that article was saying:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... trictions/Please see the 15 minute video that is linked to - this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOrHT4ZU0UkThe writer at Patheos refers to what Ham says at 5 minutes 45 seconds (repeated in part at the end of the video). Ham says:
"We are a Christian organization, and as a Christian organization, we employ people who are Christians. We actually, for the seasonals, we actually have a more abridged Statement of Faith, the fundamentals of Christianity, not our detailed one for all of our full-time managers and others. So for seasonals, I know there’s a lot of young people who still aren’t necessarily mature in all their thinking in lots of areas, but if they can sign the tenets of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, they can… work here".
The writer suggests - in his title - that 'Ken Ham Can’t Find Enough Creationist Employees, So He’s Loosening Restrictions'. The first part of that is true - see this earlier posting which Mehta links to:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... -clue-why/ (links to a video where Ham says publicly "we actually have a lot of jobs that we can’t fill here at the Creation Museum").
However in the 10 April post Mehta states: "In a Facebook Live video posted this morning, Ham revealed that the rules were no longer as stringent for seasonal employees". Whereas, as far as I could tell, the rules for seasonal employees were ALREADY less stringent (but AiG were STILL having difficulty filling jobs - including seasonal ones presumably - at the Creation Museum). I think Mehta may have made an invalid assumption.
That said his 10 April post also links to this - which dates from 2015 and which casts doubt (as Mehta mentions) on whether the rules have really been 'abridged'/made less stringent for seasonal employees, as Ham is claiming, AT ALL (or maybe they have been - but SINCE 2015 ie it's because he's having trouble filling positions):
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/" ... it is imperative that all persons employed by the ministry in any capacity, or who serve as volunteers, should abide by and agree to our Statement of Faith ...".
Just now I went to THIS page for myself (I found it by searching for 'Answers in Genesis seasonal job applications'):
https://answersingenesis.org/about/jobs/I then clicked on the 'Seasonal Ark Encounter Associate' option and that took me to this page:
https://answersingenesis.org/about/job/ ... ddf4b72101 and I then clicked on 'Apply for this Position':
which took me to this:
https://answersingenesis.org/about/job/ ... ddf4b72101It asks: "Do you agree 100% with our Statement of Faith?"
As Mehta says: "That suggests there’s no actual “abridged” Statement of Faith, but AiG may still consider you for employment if you answer no, and they’ll get into details in person".
Incidentally there is ANOTHER, apparently very recent, video here on positions at the Creation Museum - but I can't be bothered to listen to ANOTHER 20 minutes of Ham talking about employment opportunities:
https://creationmuseum.org/blog/2018/04 ... 3739501010 (it's Ham speaking, not material from the AiG website)
So Ham is publicly calling what this atheist wrote (specifically the Raw Story story that picks up on it) 'lies' and 'trash'. But if you examine the facts you find that it is HIS claim which is HIGHLY DUBIOUS.
I note also how Ham's Facebook followers don't bother checking the facts for themselves - but instead trust his word (the word of man not God) and just spout anti atheist bigotry and hatred. Which tells me as much about them as about the people they profoundly disagree with.
I'm flagging this posting at the 'Friendly Atheist' 10 April post.
The lingering question appears to be: is Ken Ham lying deliberately and cynically or is he lying accidentally because he is unable to think straight because of his bigotry and hatred towards any atheists/anti-Christians/secularists/anti-creationists who ever criticise him and his organisation? (When it comes to science it's probably the former since he refuses to even consider that the opposing point of view could possibly be even partly correct. In this case, and I'm trying to be charitable, maybe it could be a knee-jerk reaction after he failed to read the article carefully enough or worried - probably needlessly - that his followers might see it, read it carefully, and start doubting him.)