Rabble rouser Ken Ham and his biased Facebook fans

[a_haworthroberts]

Or if a dinosaur (reptile) that could fly IS unbiblical (because in Genesis it's birds that were created to fly), Ken Ham would also have to deny that pterosaurs (other flying reptiles) ever existed. Which I don't think he does. But a flying dinosaur threatens his beliefs - a pterosaur is not biologically 'transitional between Genesis kinds' (though they are thought along with dinosaurs to be more closely related to birds than to other reptiles alive today) but flying dinosaurs such as Archaeopteryx usually were. Thus all the YEC questioning of dinosaurs ever possessing feathers.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
"It doesn't take millions of years to produce natural gas--just the right conditions. Most natural gas deposits were produced as a result of the global Flood about 4,300 years ago. Synthetic natural gas can be produced quickly. Millions of years is fiction."
(Linking this: http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-releas ... ls-day-202)

Liar.

And there are many things Ken Ham believes in that could not all have happened in just 6,000 years.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
"It doesn't take millions of years to produce natural gas--just the right conditions. Most natural gas deposits were produced as a result of the global Flood about 4,300 years ago. Synthetic natural gas can be produced quickly. Millions of years is fiction."
(Linking this: http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-releas ... ls-day-202)

Liar.

And there are many things Ken Ham believes in that could not all have happened in just 6,000 years.

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
"Oil can be produced quickly -- it doesn't need millions of years, just right conditions. Most of the massive oil deposits were produced as a result of the global Flood 4,300 years ago. Millions of years is a fairy tale to try to justify the religion of evolution". (Linking this again: http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-releas ... ls-day-202)

And again:
"It doesn't take millions of years to produce natural gas -- just the right conditions. Most natural gas deposits were produced as a result of the global Flood about 4,300 years ago. Synthetic natural gas can be produced quickly. Millions of years is fiction." (Linking this: http://billingsgazette.com/news/governm ... e.amp.html)

Clearly he has a particular liking for these particular lies (that the production of synthetic oil or gas 'confirms' that Earth is only 6,000 years old).

This two-faced liar says you can't in any way scientifically replicate the start of life on Earth. But if you replicate the formation of oil or natural gas that scientifically 'disproves' the accepted very old age of the Earth.

Will his tombstone, probably many years into the future, bear the inscription "Here Lies Ken Ham" I wonder.

Having checked, natural gas is produced naturally by methanogenic microorganisms (in the domain archaea) in anoxic conditions in marshes and also deeper down where heat and pressure are also factors. In the case of oil ie crude oil/petroleum I read that it is formed when large quantities of dead organisms, usually zooplankton and algae, are buried underneath sedimentary rock and subjected to both intense heat and pressure.

The ExxonMobil link is about a research programme to produce in the near FUTURE biofuels (oil) from algae. So exactly why Ham posted this link when originally talking about natural gas is unclear*. The other link posted by the liar - to try and show that a global flood produced the fossil fuel natural gas - is about using coal to create synthetic natural gas. At new power plants, assuming the technology works OK, in the FUTURE. This being something that as far as I know does NOT happen naturally (coal is formed from dead plant material).

I recently said Ham was talking out of his rear end on Facebook (using links on science topics for his sort of religious propaganda). Now he is discussing natural gas/methane production


* The misleading Facebook post now appears to have been hastily removed. If he tweeted it too, which appears doubtful, that ALSO has been removed. All I could find was him lying again that he 'loves' (all) science. "We hear this tired refrain from atheists over and over again: creationists hate science, creationists ignore science, or even that creationists hide science from their kids! But nothing could be further from the truth. We love science!" The refrain from 'atheists' is TRUE and this comment is disgustingly misleading and dishonest. I have documented on this forum many times how Ken Ham and co take an ANTI-scientific stance and peddle pseudo-science. Their response, having seen at least some of my comments, is to silently BLOCK me from their Facebook pages. (When I searched for the earlier Ham Facebook post on Google I DID find the relevant link. But it is 'broken': https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/post ... 0755594272

[a_haworthroberts]

How exciting!

https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/ (see under the post about cannibalism - on which subject I have been SILENT)
"Atheism does that to the mind. One ideologue called Ken Ham a "liar" even after he gave proof of his claim, "It doesn't take millions of years to produce natural gas--just the right conditions. Most natural gas deposits were produced as a result of the global Flood about 4,300 years ago. Synthetic natural gas can be produced quickly. Millions of years is fiction." This is something that creationists have known and discussed for decades.
Disagreement about the interpretations used to present long ages is not lying, but some owlhoots are so determined to demonize biblical creationists, they make fools of themselves. -CBB"

I called Ham a 'liar' for using the link (WRONG link Bob see my later post) to claim, falsely and inappropriately, that "millions of years is fiction". And for his other false claim that "most natural gas deposits were produced as a result of the global Flood about 4,300 years ago". I stand by what I said. "Disagreement about the interpretations used to present long ages is not lying ...". He was NOT doing what Bob says he was doing. He was attempting, clumsily, to use an interpretation to present a 6,000 year old Earth and global flood 1,500 years after 'creation' (and thereby 'falsify' millions of years).

A new post about liar Bob will appear on the Bob thread shortly. He's been lying about me (as 'Haywire the Stalker') on a US radio program (ugh) and on YouTube - again.

These people are evil.

As of course are many other people in the world.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/ ... onnection/

Referring to this academic article (I've only been able to view the Abstract): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=rsjc20 'Ark Encounter as Material Apocalyptic Rhetoric: Contemporary Creationist Strategies On Board Noah’s Ark.'

Apparently the Bloomfield article states: "In a display titled, “Denying the biblical flood: Science or bias?” the AE argues that “nearly every geologist would appeal to a global flood to explain many of Earth’s features if the Bible had never mentioned such an event.” This statement paints evolutionists, scientists, and geologists as purposefully undermining the history of the Bible due to personal biases. Along with displays that doubt human’s ability to influence the Earth’s climate, the AE blames dissenting voices and distortions of the Bible’s teachings for misinformation about the Bible and thus its rejection as an authority over the past."

The author is CORRECT. The Ark Encounter falsely accuses scientists of deliberate bias against the Bible, and against AiG's weird form of anthropogenic climate change denialism, ie it falsely claims that they are deliberately rejecting interpretations of evidence that AiG claim confirm a 'recent global flood' or refute recent anthropogenic climate change (claiming it is 'natural' or somehow 'resulting from the aftermath of a global flood'). That is not how science operates. Despite what these fundamentalist bigots would have people believe. In the past geologists actually searched for evidence of a recent global flood - and found evidence that CANNOT be explained by a recent global flood.

All we get in response to this from AiG is typical boiler-plate that deliberately misses the point and refuses to criticise the false accusation at that Ark Encounter display:
"What she needs to realize is that everyone has a bias or a worldview by which they look at and understand the world. There are only two choices: man’s word or God’s Word. Many scientists don’t have a biblical worldview because they fail to investigate scientific claims for themselves and believe the Bible has been disproven. They try to understand the past based on their own ideas rather than the eyewitness accounts given to us in God’s Word. Even many Christians have become infected with this way of thinking, leading them to discount the biblical accounts of Creation and the Flood. Sadly, this is a slippery slope that leads to a disbelief in the Bible as an authority in many other areas as well such as the definition of marriage, the sanctity of life, and even the gospel."

If science is 'confirming God's Word' by definition it is NOT 'science' it is religion. Science as we understand the term today is based on EVIDENCE and NOT religious presuppositions.

Of course if the evidence really DID confirm a 'recent global flood' and refute the scientific explanation of recent climate change the Ark Encounter might have a point about alleged 'bias'.

It doesn't.

The people suffering from an 'infection' when it comes to science are the young earth creationists at Answers in Genesis. They are the ones doing the attempted brainwashing (especially of young people).

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
"If all scientists accepted the truth of the global Flood as recorded in the Bible and the (one) Ice Age generated as a result of the Flood, there would be a lot less mystery for those trying to understand the history of events on this earth.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... rmian-spd/"

NOTHING in the Bible explains what is being found in Antarctica, Ken - recent global flood or not. NOTHING (in the Bible). How could there be the fossilised remains of forests (from 'less than 6,000 years ago' when Antarctica was also at the South Pole) in such a dry, barren, freezing and snowbound continent?

This bigot is trying to tell us that he 'can' (un-biblically) explain it. Except that he doesn't explain it. Because he knows that his organisation's 'explanations' are ridiculous.

Scientific and historical mysteries are solved by fact and evidence. Not by bigotry and blind presuppositions.

Real science has pretty much explained Antarctica. But Ken is anti-science.

[a_haworthroberts]

I simply lost count of the egregious stupid anti-science falsehoods, hypocritical (since they call themselves 'biblical creationists') Bible distortions, and attempted brainwashing by these fundamentalist bigots here:
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/vide ... 628332318/
The worst examples of the lies? They tell us there was an 'ice age' after the flood mentioned in Genesis. There has been NO such thing in the last 4,500 years. Then they try to tell us, indirectly because it is nonsensical, that an 'ice age' lasting hundreds of years (scientifically unknown they lasted much longer) is 'not' in contradiction of what Genesis 8:22* says (an ice age lasting centuries that didn't interfere with harvests?). Then they declare that recent (and rapid) global warming/climate change must result from a (fictional) recent 'worldwide' flood plus a rebound from their made-up extra-biblical 'ice age' (which was caused by unbiblical flood volcanism causing unscientific amounts of snow to fall) - so therefore to say recent climate change is caused by humans (changing the composition of the atmosphere) must be 'wrong' (and real scientists are 'wrong' and they are 'wrong' somehow because they 'wrongly' think Earth is extremely old). Then Ham and his son-in-law sidekick try to tell viewers that REAL climate change (and what it could do to the planet in the near future if it is not properly tackled by cutting greenhouse gas emissions ie the damage to harvests from heat, drought and fires etc) WOULD contravene God's promise in Genesis 8:22. So their 'recent' and 'rapid' ice age FICTION is biblically feasible but the current and ongoing observable and measurable global warming REALITY is somehow 'not' biblically feasible using the very SAME verse. What ARROGANCE. And then they have the gall to suggest that dinosaurs 'may' have died out because of a post-flood 'ice age' (science has NO evidence of dinosaurs EVER experiencing the real ice age glaciations of the last several million years). And we get the 'lost squadron 'disproves' the real, ancient, age of the Greenland Ice Sheet' lie yet again (the planes landed near the coast where snowfall is heavy - NOT on the interior Greenland glacier where snowfall is much lighter and where ice cores have been drilled and reliably dated as more than a 100,000 years old). And the pathological and malevolent and self-publicist liar Ham (whose enforcers censor me from his Facebook page) FALSELY accuses his nemesis Bill Nye of 'ignoring' evidence - whilst exclaiming that (of course) he 'doesn't' (but, as I have shown many times eg at the BCSE community forum, AiG cherry pick evidence to dream up pseudo-science to 'fit' their agenda - which is not Christian evangelism so much as brainwashing Christians/seekers against science and scientists in the hope that they will be 'stronger' in the faith - not merely in Jesus Christ but also in their shibboleth of 'biblical authority from the very first verse'). Also Ham was presented with reams of evidence at the 2014 debate as well as on other occasions eg in a 2017 book where conflicting scientific evidence to his narratives was also presented by Hugh Ross and Deborah Haarsma. Evidence which the hypocrite and fraud deliberately and conveniently continues to ignore because it all falsifies or seriously undermines his religious belief of a '6,000 year old Earth'.

These arrogant and smug pathologically lying morons are despicable and are dangerous to the reputation of Christians/Christianity ie Christians claim to have truth/the truth.

"We love science! We love science!"

Perhaps I need to be a bit more robust in my criticisms of 'Answers in Genesis'?

I respect most Christians. But these at AiG are beneath contempt.


*
" ... never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.
“As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”

[a_haworthroberts]

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... y-ice-age/
"The Flood, about 4,350 years ago, explains the Ice Age! Evolutionists don’t have a mechanism that would drive such an ice age, but creationists do!"

Lying ****

So the liar can explain a totally fictional and completely unbiblical 'recent' event that was deliberately made up by fellow religious fundamentalists to try and marry the Bible with climatological/geological reality and try and show by underhand means that a 'recent global flood' lasting almost a year really occurred and all today's land animals are geographically radiating and diversifying descendants of pairs on a wooden boat in the near east.

And he is trying to flog a book he co-wrote.

Very impressive.

What's your alternative 'explanation' for multiple real and lengthy 'ice ages', Mr Ham?

[a_haworthroberts]

According to Wikipedia: "Despite their small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx had more in common with other small Mesozoic dinosaurs than with modern birds. In particular, they shared the following features with the dromaeosaurids and troodontids: jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest warm-bloodedness), and various features of the skeleton."

But Ham is on hand to deliberately mislead Christians about this creature:
https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
"Hollow bones like a bird, feathers like a bird, flew like a bird, the size of a bird (magpie), and has other features some birds are known to have--now this may be stretching it, but maybe, just maybe, it's actually a bird! Some evolutionists insist the Archaeopteryx is a transitional form because it had teeth, fingers on its wings, and a long tail. However, these features occur in other extinct or living birds:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43386262"

Teeth, fingers/claws on the wings, and a long (bony) tail are extremely RARE in living bird species. As I am sure Ham is aware.

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/04/creati ... ed-cancer/
But other serious illnesses are caused by bacteria and viruses. (Which were not created by/caused by humans.)

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22zk_JDhad4
Stresses that dinosaurs are land-based and were created on 'day six' as described in Genesis 1. Whilst trying to claim, falsely, that Leviathan in Job 41 may be a 'dinosaurian type creature'. But this is what that chapter states: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
"Its undersides are jagged potsherds,
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron
and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
It leaves a glistening wake behind it;
one would think the deep had white hair."
That is NOT a dinosaur. Whilst it could have been a reptile similar to dinosaurs that lived in water, that's not possible since such creatures are long extinct. The verses (not just those I've quoted) are almost certainly describing either a crocodilian (not extinct and not living exclusively on land) or a whale (never found on land).

Comments are always disabled for AiG videos. Because AiG are purveyors of falsehoods and propaganda. In cases like this they impose their science rejecting 'worldview' upon the Bible's text.

[a_haworthroberts]

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=DOrHT4ZU0Uk
The 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/ ... ddf4b72101
It 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.)

[a_haworthroberts]

Further to my preceding post (which was circulated widely via email, including to the blogger Friendly Atheist - I've also shared it with 'Raw Story').

It would be easy for Answers in Genesis to clear up the confusion that arises from Ken Ham's Facebook post (and tweet) that called the recent blog post by 'Friendly Atheist' 'lies' and 'trash' (whereas on closer examination it appears to be accurate).

I suggested that recipients could email Mr Ham (I have his email address though I believe my own messages addressed to him get blocked) and ask him:
Are there seasonal workers at the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter who are professing Christians but who could not sign up to the full Answers in Genesis statement of faith? Or are there professing Christians who applied for seasonal work at these venues but who were turned down because they could not agree to all of that statement of faith? If the 'abridged' statement of faith that Mr Ham mentioned for seasonal workers exists in written form, where can it be found on the AiG website? In what precise way is the blog post of 10 April by Friendly Atheist, which was reported accurately in a recent 'Raw Story' news item, 'lies' and 'trash'?

I am sending the same question to AiG via this page on their website:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1770

I do not expect to receive a reply. But maybe somebody else will. Should Friendly Atheist ask the same or similar questions he will be OWED a reply (as will Raw Story).

(If Mr Ham is shown to be factually wrong - not about 'historical science' but his employment practices - does he ever issue apologies.)

[a_haworthroberts]

Further to my preceding post (which was circulated widely via email, including to the blogger Friendly Atheist - I've also shared it with 'Raw Story').

It would be easy for Answers in Genesis to clear up the confusion that arises from Ken Ham's Facebook post (and tweet) that called the recent blog post by 'Friendly Atheist' 'lies' and 'trash' (whereas on closer examination it appears to be accurate).

I suggested that recipients could email Mr Ham (I have his email address though I believe my own messages addressed to him get blocked) and ask him:
Are there seasonal workers at the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter who are professing Christians but who could not sign up to the full Answers in Genesis statement of faith? Or are there professing Christians who applied for seasonal work at these venues but who were turned down because they could not agree to all of that statement of faith? If the 'abridged' statement of faith that Mr Ham mentioned for seasonal workers exists in written form, where can it be found on the AiG website? In what precise way is the blog post of 10 April by Friendly Atheist, which was reported accurately in a recent 'Raw Story' news item, 'lies' and 'trash'?

I am sending the same question to AiG via this page on their website:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1770

I do not expect to receive a reply. But maybe somebody else will. Should Friendly Atheist ask the same or similar questions he will be OWED a reply (as will Raw Story).

(If Mr Ham is shown to be factually wrong - not about 'historical science' but his employment practices - does he ever issue apologies.)

NEEDLESS TO SAY I HAVE RECEIVED NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER FROM ANSWERS IN GENESIS TO MY ENQUIRY.

Pharyngula has now blogged on this topic and I am flagging to them these posts (and informing 'Friendly Atheist' of the new blog post).
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula ... cksliding/

[a_haworthroberts]

https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/
"I keep coming back to the idea that if they are only supposed to mate with their own kind..." Well, they are mating with their own "kind." Speciation isn't evolution, and monkeys will mate with monkeys, according to their "kind" as expected from Genesis.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 085418.htm"

NO. When the Bible alludes to 'kinds' it means species - in which males and females can routinely mate with each other and produce viable offspring (including after disembarking from an ark). Ken Ham is an anti-science, anti-knowledge bigot. Reality ie another case of hybridisation just makes him spout nonsense more and more. In order to keep the fools who follow him still following him. And in order to try and make Genesis look 'historical' rather than mythical (or possibly allegorical).