Creationist Ken Ham: The “Pope’s Wrong” to Say the Big Bang is Real and Atheists Can Be Good

Creationist Ken Ham: The “Pope’s Wrong” to Say the Big Bang is Real and Atheists Can Be Good

Ken Ham is the embodiment of why religion is an interference to human progression.

Ken Ham is not Catholic, he doesn't care what the Pope says any more than I do.

Ken Ham is hilarious. In the video of Bill Nye visiting the creation museum 5 minutes in Bill is criticizing his "science" that says there was an ice age 4,000 years ago when the earth was created, and Ken Ham's defense is "Are you just going to attack our beliefs the whole tour?" Uh then why the fuck did you invite Bill Nye to your museum?

Then he questions the morals Bill Nye is trying to teach the children by pushing evolution. He is not teaching morals you idiots. The beginning of the universe has no moral story behind it. Jesus.

The world would be better off if we just took his Twitter account away and stopped giving him press. The man is a walking ego, stop feeding him.

Cathies have been surprisingly okay with evolution since it gained traction. And of course they sponsored a lot of natural science research in the Renaissance... They're not as bad as protestants when it comes to stuff like that.

Are you talking about Ham or Trump?

As an Australian I am so proud that this fuck knuckle had to leave Australia and go to the US to get any kind of acceptance. Over here he's just another fucking crazy.

At one point he said something like: "Stop for a second! I need to make sure you are not misleading these kids!"

face palm

"Evidence, you say? No thanks. But I have this book..." - Ken Ham

"Okay, but I'm pretty sure killing Jesus isn't very christian..."

Fair point. I was referring to Ham, but I suppose it could apply pretty broadly.

Take the fucker back, no one likes him here, either...

Denying observation so that axioms can hold is logically sound now?

I think you mean fundamentalist Protestants​ or evangelists. They are pretty extreme with their creationist worldviews.

In general the mainstream Protestant Christians have pretty similar views as Catholics.

They are still very wrong about most stuff but at least sort of listen to some of the science.

But how do you know? We're you there?

Ken Ham

I don't see why they can't even reason with the idea that maybe those verses aren't literal, or even say well the days of creation are longer than they are for us. Why can't the big bang be the let there be light moment, or evolution be his creations. He made beings complicated and needed time to mold them to his liking. While I don't believe in their version of our creation, there's no reason they can't hand wave it and make it their own like catholics do.

Well.. I mean Ken's got the edge on the Pope here if you actually believe what the Bible actually says about those two things.

I don't see why they can't even reason with the idea that maybe those verses aren't literal, or even say well the days of creation are longer than they are for us.

One thing is that it's not just the creation days of Genesis 1 that are a problem here (though on that note, all secular scholars agree that in the original context here, "days" really did refer to just regular 24-hour days); the problem is that Genesis also offers a linear genealogy from Adam all the way to the exodus, and leaves no room for gaps here. (The age at which each father gave birth to their son is explicitly given.)

So basically that only gives us about a 3,500-4,000 year old humanity from creation up until the time of Jesus. And it's not easy to call that a metaphor -- in some way it comes closer to just being "untrue."

No takesies backsies!

I'm pretty sure the Bible says nothing about the Big Bang because it was written before the Big Bang theory existed.

Please, for the love of all that is unholy, we've got to hear this story.

Reminds me of an uncle of mine who went to Rome to "save the pope" from his false religion..

The Pope responds, "Guess who's 100% less fallible than Ken Ham, amirite?"

Why did you post the same picture twice?

If you take the bible literally, there were days before the Sun existed. How?

If you take the bible literally, you often have contradicting stories. Taking the whole bible literally does not work.

Yes, I was. I wrote a book that said I was. That equals unimpeachable proof.

I still think he's just pissed off about evolution being real because he's the human who most closely resembles a macaque. 

I mean, look:

I still think he's just pissed off about evolution being real because he's the human who most closely resembles a macaque.

I mean, look:

The Bible has pretty specific details about how the universe came to be, and it's explicitly not the Big Bang. That's what Ham is saying - the Big Bang is incompatible with what the Bible says. And he's right, if you take the Bible at its word.

While Ken Ham shows them the massive boat in which Noah and his millions of baby animals spent 7 days at sea with enough food and shelter for the voyage. Makes total sense.

It's logically sound but incorrect. Check out logical validity

I'm going to quote from wikipedia here:

The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:

All cups are green. Socrates is a cup. Therefore, Socrates is green.

Above (the green Socrates) is an absolutely valid logical conclusion based on certain premises. The end result is false because the premises are false, but that doesn't make it any less logical.

He could say something smart to ruin his reputation


Only 7? I thought it was 80.

Ken Ham is Protestant Evangelical who thinks a human spokesperson is unnecessary

What is he doing then?

Ken is a carnival con man who can not let anyone dissuade people from believing in the religious displays in his theme park. When any of the biblical BS he propagates is disproven, he loses money.

The more he can con money out of religious idiots the wilder his sayings can become. Just like any Carnie.

If everything/a lot of it is a metaphor its a work of fiction. And thats why the bible has no credibility and the metaphor-excuse doesnt work ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Pretty sure you're right. Rain for 40 days and then waiting for that shit to evaporate.

Maybe 7 days is a new "apologist math" thing.

Interestingly where I am from most of the protests are very hard line, pretty much all of them thing the earth is 3000 years old... half of them even run our local government

My parents are Catholic. They don't care for this Pope. I personally think he is a good dude and love watching my parents backpeddle

God's voice for Catholics. Ken Ham is Protestant Evangelical who thinks a human spokesperson is unnecessary and those extra books in the Catholic Bible are works of the devil.

I'm not sure the hacker could say anything more crazy than what is already found on his twitter.

Far too many people.

People will let you say dumb stuff in Australia, it's your right to make a dick of yourself, you need to go to America to find people dumb enough to give you money for saying it.

In ol' Kenny's mind, no Jesus equals no morals.

"Why yes, yes I am."

All praise /u/Nymaz

Nope, Ken Ham's interpretation of the flood had them on the ark for a full year

Noah’s Flood was much more destructive than any 40-day rainstorm ever could be. Scripture says that the “fountains of the great deep” broke open. In other words, earthquakes, volcanoes, and geysers of molten lava and scalding water were squeezed out of the earth’s crust in a violent, explosive upheaval. These fountains were not stopped until 150 days into the Flood—so the earth was literally churning underneath the waters for about five months! The duration of the Flood was extensive, and Noah and his family were aboard the Ark for around a year.

My goodness actually skimming AIG's beliefs is hilarious. He basically has concluded that Noah is some insane master shipbuilder the likes of which hasn't been seen before. Yeah that makes perfect sense, why wouldn't a guy the bible describes as an alchoholic guy living in a desert be a master shipbuilder.

From what I recall from the Ken Ham debate, he starts with his assumption and works everything else to fit it. And by his own admission, there is no amount of evidence that will change his mind...

The level of cognitive dissonance that allows you to believe in the creation myth of genesis and also believe in the big bang is why we have so many people who vote against the interests of society and don't believe in climate change. Humans are shit. I hope there is some other intelligent life out there otherwise this universe was wasted on us.

Northern Ireland

There are actually very few instances when the pope is considered officially infallible.

He could tweet gay porn to all of Ken ham's Christian fans

It's this thing called the Protestant Reformation, where a bunch of people said, "Hey, we can obtain scripture and read it for ourselves. We don't need a human spokesperson in order to interact with our deity."

So when the spokesperson disagrees with the deity in your own head, you pick the deity.

I bet Trump ham would be even better than Trump steaks. Delicious. The best you've ever had. Melt in your mouth.

Remind them that officially, he's God's representative on Earth and his words carry an inherited authority from the divine. A true Catholic accepts the Pope as God's press sec.

Yet if you take the boat to Anglican England, it's the other way around.

It would be really funny if someone hacked his Twitter

Who gives a cold shit for what Ham thinks about anything?

Lol good point.

The pope is god's voice on earth.

God is wrong?


Coming to a conclusion and then searching for evidence to prove it is the shittiest way to do science. I'd actually hate the guy less if all his answers were "because God" and not some faulty pseudoscience that basically means just that. At least that would be more honest

We are you there?

I think you mean "were", but I know what you mean.

Because while those metaphors could in theory be based on real non-fictional events there is now way of telling. Furthermore, if a book like the bible presents its alledged metaphors as if they were facts(i.e. detailed genealogy) then it seems very likely that they weren't meant to be read as metaphors and hence are fiction.

Thanks god we have our local christian police defense force that is protecting us from the rampaging raping hordes of godless heathens that roam the country.

I thought people who hate gays are often closeted gays themselves, they might like it!

Ken Ham, nut bag and loony though he is actually has a point here.

Just like the Westboro baptists they both look at the bible and realize that once you try and couple the whole fairy tale to evolution it fails to make any sense. If there is evolution, there is no Adam and Eve, and without Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. Without original sin, there is no need for a redeemer to wash away sin and without a need for a redeemer, well whats the point of the whole thing?

This is why the fundies all cling like limpets to the young earth bullshit and believe in Noahs Ark. Its not an optional extra to them. You can't preach fire and brimstone AND accept evolution as a fact.

Meanwhile the Papal dogma has been wound around personal sin that they can personally redeem with anointed clerics. The confessional booth neatly sidesteps the need for Jesus to be involved in the whole thing and thus they can accept evolution a 4 and a bit billion year old Earth and big bang theory.

I don't buy a word of either argument, but thats why they feel the need to make things hard on themselves. Self imposed hoops to jump through.

Of course there's the slight problem that purgatory doesn't appear in the bible anywhere, and it is basically invented out of whole cloth.

It's not at all surprising that an Evangelical Biblical literalist would have some strong disagreements with the Catholic Pope.

Story time!!