Ken Ham & Answers in Genesis

  • 5 Replies
  • 5918 Views
?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1317
Ken Ham & Answers in Genesis
« on: June 10, 2011, 02:11:33 AM »
Ken Ham's "science" is for wimps, and I have long been convinced that his 'Answers in Genesis' and similar organizations discredit and undermine creationism.  And I doubt that is an accident.  They attack geocentrism and ridicule flat earthism.  Their attacks on stalwart independent creationists such as Kent Hovind are conveniently timed and seem possibly coordinated with government harassment of those who don't follow the line. 

Ken Ham and company are evolutionists' wildest dreams come true:  their own people controlling and restraining the creationist movement from within.  Aside from devolving, what would evolutionary theory do without "creationists" like Ken Ham?

'The Australian and U.S. arms of Answers in Genesis (AiG) were critical of Kent Hovind after he had criticized a position document from Creation Ministries International, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use". In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently using discredited or false arguments" and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

The following document is a list from Creation Ministries International.  When I read it, I became convinced that this Australian organization is a creationist "uncle tom" that serves the interests of creationism's opponents.
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Ken Ham & Answers in Genesis
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2011, 02:15:19 AM »
An Evolutionist's wildest dream would be a Creationist reading a book on Evolution, understanding it, and consequently conceding. Not bumbling around, as they normally do.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Ken Ham & Answers in Genesis
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2011, 02:17:15 AM »
Ken Ham's "science" is for wimps, and I have long been convinced that his 'Answers in Genesis' and similar organizations discredit and undermine creationism.  And I doubt that is an accident.  They attack geocentrism and ridicule flat earthism.  Their attacks on stalwart independent creationists such as Kent Hovind are conveniently timed and seem possibly coordinated with government harassment of those who don't follow the line. 

Ken Ham and company are evolutionists' wildest dreams come true:  their own people controlling and restraining the creationist movement from within.  Aside from devolving, what would evolutionary theory do without "creationists" like Ken Ham?

'The Australian and U.S. arms of Answers in Genesis (AiG) were critical of Kent Hovind after he had criticized a position document from Creation Ministries International, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use". In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently using discredited or false arguments" and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

The following document is a list from Creation Ministries International.  When I read it, I became convinced that this Australian organization is a creationist "uncle tom" that serves the interests of creationism's opponents.
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

Mistakes were made but not by me.

It's crazy how one sect of creationists can look at the other and call each other wrong and nuts.

*

Lorddave

  • 16357
Re: Ken Ham & Answers in Genesis
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2011, 03:26:36 AM »
Ken Ham's "science" is for wimps, and I have long been convinced that his 'Answers in Genesis' and similar organizations discredit and undermine creationism.  And I doubt that is an accident.  They attack geocentrism and ridicule flat earthism.  Their attacks on stalwart independent creationists such as Kent Hovind are conveniently timed and seem possibly coordinated with government harassment of those who don't follow the line. 

Ken Ham and company are evolutionists' wildest dreams come true:  their own people controlling and restraining the creationist movement from within.  Aside from devolving, what would evolutionary theory do without "creationists" like Ken Ham?

'The Australian and U.S. arms of Answers in Genesis (AiG) were critical of Kent Hovind after he had criticized a position document from Creation Ministries International, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use". In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently using discredited or false arguments" and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

The following document is a list from Creation Ministries International.  When I read it, I became convinced that this Australian organization is a creationist "uncle tom" that serves the interests of creationism's opponents.
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use

Ahhh how typical.  November rooting for the sole fighter against the larger group because the larger group is evil. (by being larger)

Reading the AiG site, I agree.  And if you don't think that
?NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua?s ?long day? and Hezekiah?s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.?
Should not be used then I can't help you.
I am a terrible person and I am a typical Blowhard Liberal for being wrong about Bom.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8708
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Ken Ham & Answers in Genesis
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2011, 10:02:46 PM »
Well, I think we all know the world isn't 5771 years old.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Ken Ham & Answers in Genesis
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2011, 05:01:43 AM »
Hovind, you mean the fraudster currently serving time for tax evasion who has lied and continues to lie about teaching science for 20 something years, who believes that a comet large enough to create most of the ice in the poles caused the global flood, who believes said meteor froze mammoths standing up, yeah, what a loon.