Ken Ham: Aliens Are Going to Hell!

The Creationists' Universe

The Creationists’ Universe

That drawing was produced at great effort by the elves in our art department. It’s the creationists’ view of the universe. We had to leave out the Moon, because the little fellows were too exhausted. You can see a man — the climax of creation, and certainly no kin to no monkey — standing on the immovable flat Earth which is supported by pillars, and the sun goes around the Earth. Our world was created to be the principal focus of divine attention. That’s how the bible describes things, so that’s what a true creationist believes.

We’ve posted a few times before about the creationists’ view of life on worlds other than Earth. For example, Discoveroids and AIG on Extraterrestrial Life. and also ICR’s New Position on Alien Life.

Now we have a new essay from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia, famed for his creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis (AIG) and for the infamous, mind-boggling Creation Museum.

We emphasize that was it was written by ol’ Hambo himself, so you know it’s important — and absolutely authoritative. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

I’m shocked at the countless hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent over the years in the desperate and fruitless search for extraterrestrial life. Even Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” in our recent debate, happily gloated about tax dollars being spent toward this effort. And now, secular scientists are at it again.

Of course, secularists are desperate to find life in outer space, as they believe that would provide evidence that life can evolve in different locations and given the supposed right conditions! The search for extraterrestrial life is really driven by man’s rebellion against God in a desperate attempt to supposedly prove evolution!

Hambo’s right — we’re desperate! Here’s more:

A UK news site recently reported, “Aliens are out there. We’ll find a new earth within 20 years.”

Hambo doesn’t provide a link, and we can’t find that UK story, but he’s talking about this, which was reported by ABC News: NASA predicts finding evidence of extraterrestrial life within 20 years. Let’s read on:

You see, according to the secular, evolutionary worldview there must be other habited worlds out there. As the head of NASA, Charles Borden, puts it, “It’s highly improbable in the limitless vastness of the universe that we humans stand alone.” Secularists cannot allow earth to be special or unique — that’s a biblical idea [scripture reference]. If life evolved here, it simply must have evolved elsewhere they believe.

Those accursed secularists! They hate the biblical teaching that the Earth is special. They’re gonna get what’s coming to them — for eternity! Hambo continues:

The Bible, in sharp contrast to the secular worldview, teaches that earth was specially created, that it is unique and the focus of God’s attention [scripture references]. Life did not evolve but was specially created by God, as Genesis clearly teaches. Christians certainly shouldn’t expect alien life to be cropping up across the universe.

Yeah — alien life is un-Christian! Here’s more:

Now the Bible doesn’t say whether there is or is not animal or plant life in outer space. I certainly suspect not.

The bible doesn’t mention bacteria either. We assume ol’ Hambo believes they don’t exist. Moving along:

And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation.

No salvation for aliens! Even if they do exist, they’re all going to hell! Another excerpt:

Jesus did not become the “GodKlingon” or the “GodMartian”! Only descendants of Adam can be saved. God’s Son remains the “Godman” as our Savior. … To suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong. An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race — human beings who are all descendants of Adam.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Salvation is only for the “Adamic race.” You heard it from Hambo: Jesus is a racist! On with the article:

Many secularists want to discover alien life hoping that aliens can answer the deepest questions of life: “Where did we come from?” and “What is the purpose and meaning of life?” But such people are ignoring the revelation from the infinite God behind the whole universe. The Creator has told us where we came from: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Stupid scientists! Why don’t they listen to Hambo? He’s got all the answers. One last excerpt:

We need to start proclaiming the authority of God’s Word from the very first verse — even on the subject of alien life! For more information on the supposed existence of ETs and other common questions about a biblical worldview, I encourage you to order [AIG book promotion deleted].

So there you are, dear reader. You heard it directly from ol’ Hambo. If aliens exist, they’re going to hell. And if you think they exist, that’s where you’re going too.

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

65 responses to “Ken Ham: Aliens Are Going to Hell!

  1. waldteufel

    Ol’ Hambo seems to be getting more and more deranged and bizarre as time eats away at his brain cells. Oh wait! Hambo can’t have any brain cells ’cause the bible doesn’t mention them.

  2. For those interested in a detailed personal account of an escapee’s path out of YECism (and Hambo-ism), Dr. Denis Lamoureux, Associate Professor of Science and Religion at University of Alberta, combines narrative and a lot of informative graphics in a series beginning at:

    His videos are particularly helpful with hardened individuals who fear that giving up Hamboism will doom them to hell.

  3. The Adamic race includes all humans, so I don’t think Hambo is calling Jesus a “racist.” Jesus is a full-blown speciesist. Hang out with prostitutes and lepers? Absolutely. Who doesn’t? But break bread with a freako, alien Centauri? F*** no.

  4. Wow. I didn’t realize that my including a link in my comment would generate such an in-your-face graphic! My apologies to all.

  5. “The Adamic race includes all humans, so I don’t think Hambo is calling Jesus a “racist.”

    Yes, I’ve heard many YECs accuse Darwin of being a racist simply because he used the word “race” in the title, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” They have no idea that the meaning of “race” in Darwin’s day was essentially a “variety of organism.” Of course, that book said little about human evolution and I don’t recall any mention of human races per se.

  6. Jim Thomerson

    I don’t think Ken Ham is a Mormon, from what I understand (poorly) about their beliefs. Don’t they believe the universe is full of inhabited worlds?

  7. It sounds like Ham is beginning to hedge a bit on plants and animals. As I recall, AiG took the position that there was no extraterrestrial life at all, so he’s backing up a bit. (Actually, AiG doesn’t consider plants to be alive, so maybe they don’t count)

    Anyway, how does Ham know that God doesn’t have other sons or daughters that he just hasn’t mentioned – or, whether God creates more offspring to be sacrificed on other worlds. Or, maybe on those other worlds, the locals did not eat the fruit, and are living happy lives in their eden. Maybe it’s just us… we’re the ill-behaved bunch of God’s various creations. Come to think of it, that might explain a lot.

  8. My latest post here may be of interest:

    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1575

    I’m beginning to think that Ken Ham may be showing early signs of some sort of dementia (I’m not simply being a bit nasty since diseases like Alzheimer’s are not to be wished on anyone; rather I’m just thinking of his failure at February’s debate and also how his blog posts seem to be becoming even more extreme and sometimes show signs of being rushed or ill thought out (as I’ve flagged at the above link eg he’s now been saying there is not even any ‘evidence’ for evolution rather than that evidence has been ‘misinterpreted’). (Why does he have to blog every single day, anyway?)
    Not that any of his hardline supporters would notice anything untoward.

  9. PS The Bible does not say that non human life is going to hell. Unless of course you are reading Ken Ham’s Bible, apparently.

  10. bibleandscienceforum don’t worry about the xtain dims getting definitions wrong. They never do cuz they use any word they wish with their own definition, they never let other people’s opinion or the dictionary get in their way of convincing themselves that they are right.

  11. Ceteris Paribus

    Must be that both Ken Ham and the Mormons have some inside info on exo planets. Ham is emphatic that aliens on other planets are all destined to go to Hell, and it was just a few months ago that the Mormons put out a bulletin that pretty much, sort of anyway, well made it kind of clear, that demised Mormons will no longer have the opportunity to operate a Heaven franchise of their own on some other planet.

    Before exiting this planet, a cautious creationist might want to wait and hear what Rev/Astronomer David Rives says on the matter.

  12. Charles Deetz ;)

    Ashley, it’s not dementia, but I am finding as I get older it is harder to do either the showmanship part of my job or the research and writing part. (I’m a marketer.) I see Hambo blithering as a showman without doing his homework (or having someone do it for him). That he finds an obvious problem with the bible’s lore (that salvation for Adamites thing, not Alienites) and just runs off saying the bible condemns aliens makes him look like he is making stuff up no matter what the some common sense would say.

  13. “And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation.”

    I went to a Seventh-Day Adventist school for a while in the sixties, and their take on this issue was quite different. they claimed any aliens out there wouldn’t need salvation, precisely because they weren’t Adam’s spawn and so never “fell.” Therefore, went the argument, sinful man will never be allowed to meet any aliens (at least till after gentle Jesus comes again and the sinners among us are all screaming for eternity in the lake of fire) because our sinfulness would contaminate them.

    Of course, both points of view are flaming wacko. But it’s fascinating how you can go in either direction once you decide facts don’t matter and all you need is to use the Bible as an oracle.

  14. Ed wrote: ” (Actually, AiG doesn’t consider plants to be alive, so maybe they don’t count)”

    It is not that AiG considers plants to not be biologically alive. It is a matter of whether or not ancient Semitic culture (and therefore, the ancient Hebrew language) referred to plants as being alive—and therefore being capable of experiencing death. And what did they mean by “life” and “death” in plants?

    So as much as I disdain virtually everything which Ken Ham and AiG does, as a linguist I have to agree with them that both Bible commentators and Bible critics commit various anachronism fallacies and “cultural myopia” fallacies when they try to impose distinctions of the English language (and modern ways of thinking) on an ancient culture. So I have to defend them against Ed’s implied criticism in this case.

    Even so, AiG often gets caught in the same type of fallacy when they say things like “Genesis 2:7 can’t refer to abiogenesis because God produced the life and God himself is alive.” Such arguments confuse the fact that the English language uses the same words, “life” and “living”, for both biological life and “spiritual life”. Thus, an English translation will often imply a confusion (and may fail to make a distinction) which doesn’t exist in the original language of the Biblical text. That is, the Koine Greek of the New Testament, for instance, has at least THREE words for “life” even though they all get translated into English as the one word “life”.

    For example, when Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life”, the Greek text [which probably was a translation of what Jesus originally said in Aramaic] uses the word ZOE (divine life), not BIOS (biological life.) ZOE is also used in “In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.” There’s even a third Greek word for life, PSUCHE a kind of “soulish life”, that is an important distinction in some New Testament texts. (PSUCHE is the Greek word for which we get English words like “psychology”, because “Y” is a “long-U”. )

    Therefore, as to whether the ancient Hebrews considered plants to be “alive”, we need to be careful to distinguish which kind of “life” and “being alive” we are talking about. The linguistic distinctions deserve a academic journal length article so I won’t try to hash out the issue here. But I must reluctantly admit that Ed has put me in the uncomfortable position of having to stand up for AiG on this one: not necessarily in agreeing with all of their final conclusions on the matter [perish the thought!] but of the importance of not perpetuating logical fallacies in terms of anachronistic thinking and ignoring cultural and linguistic differences.

    [HINT: Obviously, a lot of the “Bible errors” in website compilations like SkepticsAnnotatedBible are quite silly and ill-informed. We can’t assume that the semantic domains of English words are “correct” and the distinctions of other cultures as expressed in their languages are wrong. Yet that’s the position which critics take when they complain “Bats are not birds!” and “A whale is not a fish!” because they are actually criticizing the kinds of compromises which translators MUST make in the trade-off between accuracy and brevity and not errors in the original text itself. Language translation is not a mathematical equivalence operation. It nearly always involves balancing multiple factors while prioritizing some objectives and de-emphasizing others, yet while trying to create a readable translation for the broadest spectrum of readers. A corollary of this reality puts it more bluntly: Anyone who criticizes the Bible for being available in “too many different translations” is displaying their ignorance of basic linguistics and the art of translation.]

  15. When I read this, I thought the same thing that waldteufel said. Hambo appears to be loosing neurons (and any apprehension of reality) at an astonishing rate. My current question for Hambone and other creationists is, if this god guy likes us so much and made the universe for our entertainment, why did he only make less than 10^-30 (an off-hand guess — maybe much less) of it habitable for us. That’s a lot of “wasted” space!

  16. By the way, one of my favorite classroom examples for illustrating the Anachronism Fallacy in modern day language versus that of even just a few centuries ago involves the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Some words change their meanings very rapidly. “Gay” is a good example of an almost abrupt semantic change. Less obvious is our use of the word “regulated” today versus what American English speakers meant by the word in the 1780s. When the Founding Fathers spoke of something being “regulated”, they meant that it was “well supplied” or “equipped in abundance.” So while today we think that something is “well regulated’ when it is carefully controlled by governmental rules and bureaucracies, a “well regulated militia” in 1780 meant it was WELL EQUIPPED/SUPPLIED with the guns and ammunition it needed. Thus, the 2nd Amendment is simply stating common sense, that in order to achieve a well-regulated militia, the government must guarantee the right of each citizen to private ownership of suitable weapons so they could be ready when the militia’s services were needed. Seeing how the militia had been so important to protecting their freedoms against “invaders” (whether they be British, French, Native-Americans, or whoever), the colonists repeated a legal concept which already existed in British common law, the wording of which left no ambiguity.

    Incidentally, compared to many languages down through history, modern English experiences relatively rapid lexicographic changes and even syntactical changes. For that reason, English Bible translations from the 1960’s are already becoming obsolete. Thus, new translations of the Bible are necessary just to address the expected evolution of the language—-not to mention the various needs of individual people groups, e.g., American versus British vs. Australian English speakers, English-as-Second-Language speakers, Simplified English speakers [sixth grade reading level], and many more. Bible translations also vary in their goals, whether they be literal rendering or more paraphrastic, to name just two. There will never be just one “best” Bible translation.

  17. @bibleandscienceforum – interesting comment, and it raises the question of how Ham takes interprets Genesis. My impression is that he reads the english translation (probably KLV) literally, with words meaning what they do today. That’s pretty simplistic, but I can’t remember any discussion on his site about context and meaning of the original hebrew – he generally emphasizes “plain reading” of the text, by which I think he means the one he has on his desk.

  18. docbill1351

    I have seen it written somewhere that the Hambo’s look upon plants as not being alive. Yes, it’s a strange convolution but not a whole lot stranger than the convoluting they’re already doing!

    It comes under the general heading of Making [edited out] Up.

    Cause, you see, Hambo has this book …

  19. Thanks, Basf, for

    “HINT: Obviously, a lot of the “Bible errors” in website compilations like SkepticsAnnotatedBible are quite silly and ill-informed.”

    for confirming that I’m not that stupid. I had noticed already and hence make only very selective use of SAB.
    Usually I also compare with the very recent Dutch Willibrord vertaling (translation).

  20. Docbill1351 | 21-July-2014 at 10:19 pm |
    I have seen it written somewhere that the Hambo’s look upon plants as not being alive. Yes, it’s a strange convolution but not a whole lot stranger than the convoluting they’re already doing! It comes under the general heading of Making [edited out] Up.

    As I explained above, this is one of the rare instances where Ken Ham is headed in the right direction. Ancient Semitic culture (and many other cultures even today) do not lump every type of “life” under a single word like English does.

    I’ve not researched it exhaustively, but I would say off the top of my head that to the Hebrews “life” was basically “animal life” and those animals were divided into “clean” and “unclean” as well as “NEPHESH-life” versus its opposite. (NEPHESH-life basically meant “soulish life”, animals having “personality”: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians.)

  21. Ed wrote: That’s pretty simplistic, but I can’t remember any discussion on his site about context and meaning of the original hebrew – he generally emphasizes “plain reading” of the text, by which I think he means the one he has on his desk.

    I can certainly see how you’d get that impression. But he does [actually, his staff does it for him] at times examine the Hebrew text but only if he thinks he can find “proof” there that he is right. For example, he often deals with the YOM=24-hour day in Genesis 1 and he tries to prove that YOM’s other meanings (era, epoch, indeterminate time period) can’t apply. But he uses Strong’s Concordance (a very outdated and amateur-only tool that no scholar uses for serious research.)

    One of Ham’s favorite “proofs” is when he says “Whenever YOM is used with an ordinal number, as in “On the third day…”, it always means a literal 24 hour day!” But there is NO such rule in Hebrew grammar! Secondly, there actually IS such an example in Hosea 6:2 (??? I may have that wrong) where YOM appears with a number and it does NOT mean a 24-our day.

    So, if you only read AiG website occasionally, you might not see any Hebrew exegesis—-but he uses it when he has to but because he has no training as a scholar (neither in Biblical studies nor in science) he always succeeds in sounding like an idiot.

  22. Ashley wrote: “….I’m just thinking of his failure at February’s debate and also how his blog posts seem to be becoming even more extreme and sometimes show signs of being rushed or ill thought out….”

    Ashley, you may be right! I certainly notice that he was NOT the Ken Ham I had watched in many other debates. He didn’t bring up any of the pseudo-science arguments and evidence usually appearing at the AiG website. Now I couldn’t determine whether he had decided that he didn’t want to bring out the nutty pseudo-science stuff for a general audience—because science-literate people wouldn’t fall for the crap he normally preaches to his own choir—or he was just playing the “I have a book…” strategy because his real purpose in the debate was to find new donors. He know’s that he can’t win over anybody from the other side and he already has his choir on his side….so he was aiming at other Christians who might not be as familiar with AiG but could be drawn in if he talked using strong “piety language” to sound very spiritual. So to most people (including Christians) he sounded like he wasn’t even trying to debate….but he probably used the right language to reach senior citizens with money to donate who were impressed that “He stood up to that atheist bad guy scientist!”

    But you may be right: I may be giving him too much credit. Perhaps he simply can’t keep focused and use his old arguments anymore. So he just retreated to the same familiar ground of a church pulpit: “I am going to trust God for the answers and not fallible man.”

    I also think the falling revenue of the Creation Museum [It has no future once the YECs within driving distance have spent one vacation arund there] together with one disastrous failure after another with the Ark Park has him depressed. Ham got so much flack for convincing the Kentucky governor and legislature into tax incentive deals but they have now turned worthless because they had an expiration date on them—-and he hasn’t even broken ground yet. Ham doesn’t have anything close the $76 million and a lot of Christians are calling it a ridiculous waste of mine. (Ham calls it “evangelism” but nobody but his own fans who are YECs are going to go see it.) Even if Ham succeeds in finding enough millionaires to donate to build it, it will be losing money within five years or so.

    Put all of that together, Ham will have to spend more and more of his profits from selling books and videos and general fund donations just to keep the museum solvent. I think Ham’s empire will eventually collapse in ways reminiscent of the old PTL and Jim Bakker.

  23. P.S. A few weeks back Ham had a bizarre “ground breaking” where a bunch of the board members and John Whitcomb Jr. hammered “pegs into planks”, because he said he wanted to do something different from the standard groundbreaking. But the REAL reason was so that he could pretend that the Ark Park construction had begun—-but in fact, he is still taking bids from contractors. (How many contractors want to build an oversized “ark”? Those that will take the job are going to build huge unknown amounts as buffers for cost-overruns because nobody has ever built something like that in modern times.**)

    ** Of course, if I could have been there at the ceremony to ask a question [which I”m sure he wouldn’t allow], I would ask him, “Why don’t you build the ark using the methods available at the time and not using any modern tools?” His answer would no doubt be: “I don’t want to take 120 years to build it”, and “I think the ancients before the flood were far more technologically advanced than most people think. So Noah may have had cranes and large tractors!” Truly, that wouldn’t surprise me.

  24. The Curmudgeon quoted from the Bible the words: “standing on the immovable flat Earth…” The “immovable” aspect was poetic. They knew from their own experience that the ERETZ (land) was not immovable.

    The ancient Hebrews were very aware of earthquakes. So they knew that the earth was movable. But ancient Hebrew, just like modern English, had many of the same expressions we have, such as “standing on solid ground”. Both we and they know that not all ground is solid and the earth [The ground, not the planet is what the Hebrew text is talking about.] is movable. But when people of various cultures are trying to express the idea of something very steady, solid, and dependable, they speak of the ground in those “solid” terms—-despite mudslides, earthquakes, sinkholes, and many other exceptions from “solid ground.” [I could apply this to some, but not all, such descriptors because many of them are poetic. We speak of “raining cats and dogs” without actually believing that popular pets fall from the sky during rains. Likewise, the ancients had similar expressions which we should NOT try to apply literally. They had many idioms just like English has many idioms. Yet Bible critics tend to be ignorant of them, as are most Christian’s reading the Bible! Of course, in 1611 the KJV Bible translators were unaware of many of the idioms.]

    Keep in mind that when the Old Testament scriptures refers to “the earth”, it is not our modern sense of “planet earth”. No, the word is ERETZ, and it simply means “land”, “country”, or “region” as well as “ground” and “soil”. To them, their entire “universe” was the HEAVENS above and the ERETZ (land) below. We would also be justified in translating “the Heavens and earth” as “the sky and the land”. That was their way of referring to everything, the closest they came to speaking of their “universe.”

    In 1611, the King James Bible dialect of English used the word “earth” in much the same way. Four hundred years ago, the “primary” meaning of “earth” was not “planet earth”. It was an “earth” that was much closer to the semantic domains of the Hebrew word ERETZ. So it is not that the KJV translators did a bad job of translating. (They did the best they could at the time with limited reference resources to help them.) But the KJV became so influential for centuries such that modern Bible translators hesitate putting the best translation wording in the main text—for fear of angering the traditionalists—so they put the word-equivalents I listed above into footnotes at the bottom of the page. (For example, notice the NIV Bible’s alternative translation footnotes for Genesis 1-8. You will see what I’m saying.)

    So when the Book of Genesis opens with “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.”, this is ancient Hebrew cosmology referring to “everything”, that is, “the sky above and the land below.”

    Of course, keeping in mind that ERETZ primarily means “land” or “the ground” helps a lot in properly understanding the early chapters of Genesis. For example, the Hebrew text says nothing about a flood of the ENTIRE PLANET EARTH. No, it is Noah’s ERETZ (“land”, “country”, “region”) that is flooded. It also says that “everything under heaven” would be destroyed. That is a reminder that “everything under heaven” refers to ERETZ, “the land below” that sky.

    Tradition alone is why people like to assume that “earth” in the Bible refers to “planet earth”—-but it doesn’t. They didn’t think in terms of a globe hanging in space. They thought of “the circle of the ERETZ”, that is, “the disk of land” that one sees when looking to the horizon in all directions. (Sorry, Ken Ham, “the circle of the earth” is not referring to the earth being a sphere. It refers to what we all see if we go outside and look: a disk we call “the ground.”) So when Noah was told that “everything under heaven” was to be destroyed, he thought in terms of that circle of land which is demarcated by the horizon. He didn’t think of a globe or a spherical planet earth.

    By the way, virtually every “problematic” aspect of the Noah’s flood pericope is easy to understand if we make three simple substitutions for the Hebrew translation into English. All are valid lexicographic equivalents. That is, instead of depending on the archaic word choices of the KJV Bible (which still influences the word choices of modern Bible translations), one can clear up a lot of issues by the following word replacements:

    1) “earth” ===> “land”, for reasons already explained.

    2) “mountains” ===> “hills”, because Hebrew doesn’t distinguish mountains from hills.

    3) “the heavens” ===> “the sky” because the ancient Hebrews didn’t think of “the heavens” as we do when watching COSMOS. For them, “the heavens” was a starry dome that covered the “land”/ERETZ like an upside-down bowl.

    I used to tell my students to copy the KJV Bible text for Genesis 6 through 8 into a word-processor and then use the search-and-replace function to make the substitutions listed above (making adjustments for singular and plural, etc.) I told them to read the result and answer a series of questions, such as “Was Noah’s Flood global or regional?” Almost everyone would agree that the result sounded more like a local flood….which is exactly what the Hebrew text implies. There is nothing “global” about Noah’s Flood. [By the way, Genesis never claims that all animals or even all hominids were killed in the flood. It only speaks of Imago Dei humans who descended from HADAM, “the human one”, being killed in the flood.]

    By the way, the ark didn’t have to take aboard every animal on the planet, only “all sorts of animals” from Noah’s region. In Hebrew, MIN (“kind”, “type”, “variety”) is not a taxonomic term. No, it is used much like similar expressions in English: “every type of animal”, “all sorts of things”, etc. “All kinds of animals” is no more 100% complete than when we say, “Joe has all kinds of tools in his garage.” (In fact, YECs should ask themselves whether the entire world travelling to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph meant that Japanese and Chilean tradesmen were present. Same with Peter’s Pentecost sermon. No, they only press the “every” and “all” to an absolute 100% degree when it suits their agenda.) If we read the Hebrew text in its most “natural” and obvious way, Noah loaded into the ark “all sorts of animals” from his area so that he could more easily resume his lifestyle after the flood, just as pilgrims have done for many centuries. And those “kinds of animals” meant: big and little animals; bright colored and dull colored. Tall animals and short animals. Clean and unclean animals. That is how Noah would have understood MIN, “kind” in reference to all sorts of animals. Noah never heard of Karl Linnaeus so MIN simply meant “variety”. We have no reason to assume that he “categorized” animals like we would. And we know from the text that the most important distinction of “kinds” was clean and unclean.

    By the way, the word substitution exercise also helped students realize that there is no “Mt. Ararat” in the Bible. Instead, the ark came to rest somewhere in “the hill country of Ararat”. Ararat was a region. We have no idea where it was. There is NO evidence that Ararat was in Turkey. Again, tradition fools people much of the time to where they think they “see” things in the text that aren’t there at all.

    For those who are still awake:
    On most forums, this is the point at which the YECs who are present call me an “evil atheist” because I’ve blown their favorite traditions right out the water simply by focusing on what the Genesis text says and doesn’t say.

    Everything I just wrote is based upon a literal, plain, and natural reading of the Hebrew text—and to Ken Ham, these tradition-busting facts are his kryptonite.

  25. Yes, I type fast and I’ve had a lot of practice driving YECs insane with actual evidence from a literal reading of the Genesis text.

  26. The whole truth

    With due respect, it ultimately doesn’t matter (to me) how the bible is interpreted, except that the different interpretations can be handy when it comes to arguing with god pushers. The bottom line is that the bible is a convoluted, contradictory collection of antiquated gobbledegook that is boring, false, ridiculous, ignorant, arrogant, threatening, impossible, or all of the above. No matter how it’s interpreted it’s just plain BS.

  27. In the unlikely event it happens within Kanny Hambug’s lifetime that ET life is definitively detected, our wily aYECtollah has all the bases covered. If it’s not intelligent life, it doesn’t count. If it is intelligent life but it’s primitive, that’ll be because they are sinless. If it is intelligent life and it’s advanced, that’ll also be because they are sinless. The only question left to ponder is whether they will be immortal vegetarians sporting sharks’ teeth.

    (Curmy, the grammar imam in me protests: “Our world was created to be the principle principal focus of divine attention.”)

  28. I’m afraid I can only give the elves in the art department of CITADEL (the fabled Curmudgeonly Institute for Tactics, Advocacy, and Defense of the Enlightenment Legacy) a C+ for their diagram of the Cosmos According to Creationists at the header of this article.

    I’m not marking them down for omitting the Moon, but for entirely leaving out that essential locus of the Creationist Cosmos: The Lake o’ Fire!. This really does need to be depicted in the diagram, between the pillars holding up the immoveable flat earth, and could be represented by a wavy red line with stick-figure limbs poking out of it.

    With that addition in place, the elves could easily win an A+ for their fine efforts.

  29. First Timothy 6:20, where King James’ Version uses the phrase “science falsely so called”, is perhaps the best example of how the meaning of words change, and how misleading it is to read the text as if the modern meaning were intended.

    For obviously reasons, creationists LOVE this scripture, and it frequently turns up in their literature. But the Greek word (a form of _gnosis_) really just means “knowledge”, and the author was likely condemning Gnosticism, a doctrine strongly disliked by early Christian writers (as a competitor on the religious market). Obviously there was no “science” in the modern sense when the KJV was produced in 1611, much less when the Bible was originally written.

  30. Oops – read “First Timothy”. I appeal to thee, O great voice from above.

    [*Voice from above*] I have heard you, my son.

  31. bibleandscienceforum says:

    The Curmudgeon quoted from the Bible the words: “standing on the immovable flat Earth…” The “immovable” aspect was poetic. They knew from their own experience that the ERETZ (land) was not immovable.

    Perhaps so, but they said the same thing several different ways. I quoted most of those passages here: The Earth Does Not Move!

  32. Con-Tester says: ” the principle principal focus”

    Egad, what’s happening to me? I’m melting. Melting!

  33. Our Curmudgeon shrieks

    I’m melting. Melting!

    …And your little dogs, too, my pretty!

  34. Megalonyx complains: “I’m not marking them down for omitting the Moon, but for entirely leaving out that essential locus of the Creationist Cosmos: The Lake o’ Fire!

    It’s in the lower portion of the elves’ masterpiece. The entire canvas was too large, and the software here required that we leave some of it out. But I understand your concern. From what Olivia has told me, you are certain to become permanently acquainted with that wrathful realm.

  35. Bob Carroll

    Ham is being self-contradictory (at least) in his belief that the sin reaches all of the universe, but salvation cannot accomplish the same spread. It seems to me that this is extra-biblical thinking, based on his personal prejudices.
    Aside from his fundamental antievolutionism, he clearly is anti-relativity as well. Einstein’s Special Theory, which has 100 years of experimental support, requires that information cannot propagate faster than the speed of light, which would limit the effects of this sin to a sphere of about 6000 light-years around the earth, clearly not enough to encompass the entire universe! Calling Jason Lisle!

  36. Of the fell Lake ‘o Fire, our Curmudgeon asserts that I am

    certain to become permanently acquainted with that wrathful realm

    ‘Tis a fate I would fondly embrace–if the only alternative were to spend all eternity in the company of Hambo, Luskin, Klinghoffer, Wells, Dembski, O’Leary, Chapman, et.al singing the praises of the Grand Ole Designer of the Ebola virus, malignant cancers, dementia, &c. &c…

  37. bibleandscienceforum wrote: there actually IS such an example in Hosea 6:2 (??? I may have that wrong) where YOM appears with a number and it does NOT mean a 24-our day.

    Jeremiah Isaiah 30:26
    the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days

  38. docbill1351

    They ain’t building no gall darned ark! They’re constructing a building that looks like a boat. It will have to meet code, have fire exits and sprinklers, lighting and all that stuff. And a whole nother can o’ worms if he puts an animal inside. Ky should be embarrassed being associated with this obvious scam.

  39. docbill1351 suggests: “They ain’t building no gall darned ark! They’re constructing a building that looks like a boat.”

    I can understand why they’re having problems finding a contractor. It’s doubtful that any reputable shipbuilder wants to be associated with this project, and it’s also a problem for contractors who construct buildings on land. They would normally expect to make money from subcontractors, but Hambo’s project will be mostly carpentry. No masonry, no steel, no plumbing, no windows, no painting, no drywall, etc. Aside from that, what contractor has any experience building a ship’s hull?

  40. That should be Isaiah 30:26

    [*Voice from above*] A grievous error, but all is forgiven.

  41. Ceteris Paribus

    SC asks: “what contractor has any experience building a ship’s hull?”

    In Kentucky, “hulls” are what are left on the floor after all the peanuts have been eaten at the barn dance.
    What Ham is probably looking for is one of those pre-cut cedar log A-Frame cabin kits. The contractor will only need to build it right side up, then roll it down the hill a bit until it is bottom up. And finish the job by spray painting “Welcome to the Ark Park” on the side.

  42. Ceteris, I think those nuts over here are called Monkey nuts. And Hambo’s Ark sure ain’t no relation to a Monkey nut.

    Sorry, it’s been a long day.

  43. @Basf: “2) “mountains” ===> “hills”, because Hebrew doesn’t distinguish mountains from hills.”

    Gen. 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

    Mountains. Plural. The word does not refer to the Mountain of Ararat (it only has had that names since 1000 years or so), but to the mountains of

    http://www.livius.org/arl-arz/armenia/urartu.html

    The biggie was quite a mountain:

    http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/ararat/ararat.html

    “We have no idea where it was.”
    Not the exact location, but yeah, somewhere in modern Kurdistan.

  44. It is always fascinating when someone like Mr. Ham claims to know the mind of God when all of the major religions claim this is impossible. Why would God reveal his truth about the aliens to us? Certainly he would reveal his truth to the aliens and expect us to stick to our knitting. But no, Mr. Ham know exactly what God intended, so we had best listen to him.

  45. MNBO wrote: “Not the exact location, but yeah, somewhere in modern Kurdistan.”

    I’m not sure why you are assuming that that was assumed by the ancients to be the general location of the ark coming to rest. One of my professors who had pursued this topic claimed that there were close to a dozen sites all over the Fertile Crescent which were revered as such by some group or another.

    We have no way to know how long and through how many languages/cultures the Noah oral tradition passed until it was written down —-and even how many written versions (and languages) transmitted the account until it was recorded in Genesis. So arguments based upon proper nouns must be held tenuously. Place names get reapplied to new locations very easily. Notice how often “New” appears in a place name in the “New World” because people were comparing “new” places to where they used to live. For example, “New York City” was originally called “New Amsterdam”. For obvious reasons, this can make things even more confusing when dealing with ancient texts.

    Some scholars have published interesting reasons for assuming that the regional flood of the story was in the area of the Mediterranean Sea. Some of them consider the original “mountains of Ararat” to be presently submerged by the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

    By the way, when I included “mountains” ===> “hills” among the substitutions of the translation exercise, I was not implying that the Hebrew word must be translated as “hills”. I simply want students to understand that making even slight changes in the English text based on what could be allowed as a valid translation can have an enormous impact on how we understand the account. I want students to focus not solely on what the text must mean but what the original language text could mean. Indeed, closely related to that is the commonly held belief that a text has just one “literal interpretation” when there may be many. So a major goal of hermeneutics is not just to arrive at a single interpretation but to remain aware of the range of interpretations which are legitimately possible. (Most Young Earth Creationist hate this “open-mindedness” and humility of honest translation because it means that we don’t blindly accept their cherished traditions!) So in the case of the Hebrew word commonly translated “mountain(s)”, I want them to realize that “hill(s)” or “hill country” is just as valid. In other words, while in English we like to distinguish “mountains” from “hills”, nobody knows how to define the boundary between them—and the ancient Hebrews didn’t try. So a “rigidly literal” English translation might even chose the word “antisyncline” or “elevation”. But this is an example of how a gain in semantic precision sometimes involves a loss of descriptive precision and produces a strange sounding sentence.

  46. @bibleandscienceforum, when you say, In Hebrew, MIN (“kind”, “type”, “variety”) is not a taxonomic term. No, it is used much like similar expressions in English: “every type of animal”, “all sorts of things”, etc. “All kinds of animals” is no more 100% complete than when we say, “Joe has all kinds of tools in his garage.”
    This is something that I have been suggesting for quite some time, but I don’t seem to get any positive reaction to it. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but I recall that in my Hebrew class that the teacher casually remarked that MIN meant “species”, and I haven’t been able to get much help from the standard Hebrew dictionaries.
    So I am glad to see your opinion on this.
    BTW, when you say, “all kinds of animals”, that is not a locution with Biblical precedent. The word MIN is never used in the plural, and only the set phrase “after his/their kind” – this suggests to me that it is some obscure idiom, with no referent to the noun . (I have in mind the set phrase in English “on behalf of”, where there are no “behalfs” being referred to.)

  47. As for the Ark Park, we should all hope that the project goes forward and that the Ark is indeed built. Who cares it the contractors don’t know how to construct the hull of a ship? It is not as if the thing needs to ever float!

    Not content to lose money on his already-struggling museum, Ham seems firmly determined keep undermining his own finances. The Ark, if built, could well be the Great Folly that brings the Ham empire down.

    Ham has already collected so much money, and invested so much prestige in this, that it is now probably impossible for him to call this project off — even though it could ruin him. One has to wonder, indeed, if there isn’t some element of sincere faith involved here. Perhaps he should be pitied. There could be a bitter “my God, why have you forsaken me?” moment coming up for him.

    Here is my guess (as good as anyone else’s) about the future of the Ark Park.

    They will break ground, and they will attempt the actual building of the ark. There will be delays. The budget won’t hold. There will be hysterical cries for MORE DONATIONS NOW! There will be talk about all sorts of sinister atheist conspricacies to derail the grand Ark Project.

    There could be, say, a 60 % chance that the Ark will actually be completed, at least as an outer shell with a minimalist interior. But even when they can finally start admitting paying visitors, they will never break even. The most hysterical fans of the project have bought lifetime passes anyway, and few others will see the need to come more than once.

    The Ark Park will never get past its “Phase One”. There will never be any Tower of Babel, nor any plagues of Egypt or any first-century village. All there will ever be is a big, weird barn that couldn’t float in reality and won’t float financially either.

    Sitting on firm ground, it cannot sink physically. Yet in a very real sense, it will indeed sink, and Ken Ham may very well go down with it.

  48. TomS wrote:
    So I am glad to see your opinion on this.
    BTW, when you say, “all kinds of animals”, that is not a locution with Biblical precedent.

    I was trying to capture the “flavor” of how such a word can function—and not necessarily imply that MIN in Hebrew was used identically to phrases like “all kinds of animals”…..but not so differently either. My main point is that YECs tend to overlook idiomatic aspects and that fact that we are dealing with “very ancient” Hebrew, not late exhilic or reconstructed Israeli Hebrew. So I was delighted to see you bring up the idea of “some obscure idiom.”

    Frankly, I think “And the evening the the morning was the Nth day” in Genesis 1 is problematic idiomatic—-and certainly poetic. We all know that the Semitic day ran from evening to evening, so evening and morning has to have some other meaning. I saw one scholar make a good case for its relationship to the “night shift” of the priests in the Tabernacle, where the night shift involved lighting a light which lasted until morning. So perhaps “the evening and the morning” was an idiomatic way of completing that last “shift” of a 24hour day. But it is just a theory. We don’t know even what language this oral account may have come from, so it may even be a rendering in Hebrew of some important idiom of a predecessor or cognate tongue.

    In fact, I have long been frustrated that my colleagues so often treat Hebrew like it was “one language”, even though just in the scripture timeline alone we are looking at MILLENIA and not even just a few centuries. We would never dream of treating Elizabethan English identically with modern English or Beowulf and yet Biblical Hebrew spans a far greater gulf. So I grimace when a Young Earth Creationist seizes upon a Strong’s Concordance entry in Joel to make some bombastic claim about a Pentateuch passage. And many of them are unaware of well understood idioms in the Tanakh, let alone the ones we may never even recognize, let alone understand.

    The word MIN is never used in the plural, and only the set phrase “after his/their kind”
    Many scholars treat the last occurrence in Genesis 1 (if memory serves) as a defective plural. But when dealing with COLLECTIVE NOUNS, singular and plural and even dual aspects get tricky. Plus, I recall some scholars claiming that the plural of MIN became more and more common as the centuries went by. I think it was Martin Abegg who cited in the Dead Sea Scroll’s (Damascus Document?) the plural of MIN but I can’t remember the entire argument.

    – this suggests to me that it is some obscure idiom, with no referent to the noun .
    Bingo. I think we always have to allow for idiomatic nuances which are probably lost to history. But I’ve not tried to research MIN in the Talmud, etc. So I’m hardly qualified to be very dogmatic about anything. YECs feel they MUST make “kind” taxonomic (or at least “biological”, as Creation.com likes to put it.) But the main point I wanted to get across is that even in English we make statements which a native speaker would never take 100% literally (e.g., “Joe has all kinds of tools in his garage” simply means a big assortment, not a complete 100% museum-qualify collection of every possible tool in existence. Nor does it even mean that of all the CATEGORIES of tools in the world, Joe has at least one representative sample from every catagory. It is simply a casual expression of LOTS of tools! Great in both quantity and quality, apparently, but not meant to be taken totally literally.)

    Personally, while I do hammer YECs for being so dogmatic about YOM=24-hour-day, I really don’t think it matters much—because I think the original author of Genesis 1 meant the six YOM of Creation to be DAY OF PROCLAMATION and a 3&3 outline declaring God as dominating all six of the spheres of dominion which the neighboring peoples assigned to various gods and goddesses. There is nothing in the text which demands that I assume a chronological order of FULFILLMENT of those six YOM of commanding. In any case, many of those commands involved processes which require periods of time. For example, “Let the land bring forth….” speaks of NOT an instantaneous “poof!” of animals coming into existence with complete ecosystems. It portrays God as commanding generations of activity to build up ecosystems.

    So, even if YECs had much more evidence than they think they have, they would still need to be realistic about how little we know about the language so far back in time. Plus, so many of their dogmatic declarations pretend that the Biblical text is all that matters—and they don’t even try to check out the lexicography and grammar of other ancient Hebrew texts. (Of course, many of them are totally ignorant of Hebrew and simply play pretend Bible scholar with a Strong’s Concordance.)

  49. Just for fun, I should mention that when YECs get angry about the idea that Genesis can be compatible with The Theory of Evolution, I torment them with the following. Now I am NOT saying that the author of Genesis 1 was writing a science text and directly thinking of evolutionary processes as he wrote it. But I AM saying that I can beat the literalists at their own game by showing that I can “find” evolution in Genesis 1 just as easily and “naturally” as they think they can find denials. I’ll show what I mean.

    Consider these passages about the creation of various living things:

    Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

    Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

    Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

    Notice that God doesn’t “poof!” any of these living things into existence. And there is no statement of instantaneous coming to be. Instead, God commands that the WATERS and the EARTH (actually, HA+ ERETZ, “the land”) bring forth the living things! God doesn’t create them directly. It says that the already existing waters and land which God had commanded into existence earlier in the chapter would be bringing forth living things by some undescribed processes over some undescribed period of time. Indeed, “bring forth” often refers to what dirt commonly does: seeds sprout and grow into plants and produce seeds, fruit, and other things to eat. These are gradual processes which involve many generations of “bringing forth”! All “poofing!” is ruled out and gradual processes are required if we are going to read the Genesis text literally!

    So if Young Earth Creationist literalists can read their traditions into the Genesis text, why can’t I read mine into the text just as naturally? So I feel like interpreting these passages of Genesis 1 to refer to evolutionary processes producing entire ecosystems and phylogenetic trees just as the Creator intended! Those six days (YOM) were not days of fulfillment. They were simply six days of COMMANDING by God. (After all, God is outside of time and not bounded by it. So a YOM in this context is simply a convenient six unit outline technique where God is declared dominant over the six spheres of dominion of the neighboring people’s gods and goddesses.)

    So here’s my challenge to Young Earth Creationists: Tell me why or how the Bible in any way denies my interpretation of Genesis 1 as referring to God commanding the waters and the land to BRING FORTH plants and animals by means of evolutionary processes!

    I believe my literal interpretation of the creation of biological life in Genesis 1 is just as “plain and natural” in the reading of the Hebrew text as anything the YECs are doing. Their interpretations only seem more “natural” because they have centuries of cherished traditions helping the reader to think in terms of the KJV rendering and the interpretations of Sunday School materials published for children and even the Cecil B. DeMille version delivering particular mental imagery.

  50. BlackWatch

    Time to ask the city fathers and the Chamber of Commerce in Petersburg,Ky to ban Kool Aid sales in the region. Hambone is getting close to the edge.
    One becomes concerned for his flock of lemmings as ol’ Hambo becomes more erratic.

  51. @Basf: “I’m not sure why you are assuming that that was assumed by the ancients to be the general location of the ark coming to rest.”
    I’m not assuming anything. I addressed

    “We have no idea where it was.”
    and referred to a Dutch scholar, whom I parrot.

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

    I’m in no position to evaluate if Ararat is the same as Urartu.
    Here is his site, so that you can judge the quality of his work yourself:

    http://www.livius.org/

    Obviously your answer makes equally sense to an amateur like me.

    ” I simply want students to understand that making even slight changes in the English text based on what could be allowed as a valid translation”
    You will understand that I as a Dutchman writing in English don’t have any problem with this.

  52. “Time to ask the city fathers and the Chamber of Commerce in Petersburg,Ky to ban Kool Aid sales in the region. Hambone is getting close to the edge.”

    True enough. The governor and various other leaders need to watch their own consumption as well—because they were so desperate for economic development that they agreed to give various tax concessions to a tourist attraction which has little chance of maintaining sufficient interest long-term.

    Studies of tax concessions in general find that so many of them turn out to be boondoggles. Yet, after bidding against other states for factories and administrative headquarters of various companies, ten years later very few of them are paying off. The chances of a “Bible-related theme park” paying off when it has such high capital requirements is near zilch.

    So everybody around there needs to watch what they are drinking.

  53. “You will understand that I as a Dutchman writing in English don’t have any problem with this.”

    Thank you for that explanation. My original reply was poorly worded in how I constructed my rhetorical question. I should have directed it more generally and generically. And thanks for the links!

  54. @bibleandscienceforum

    One source (I don’t happen to have access to it right now, so I’m going on memory) that discusses some of the points of interest about the word MIN:

    David J.A. Clines
    The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew
    Sheffield Academic Press, 1993-(not yet finished)
    volume 5 Mem-Nun (ISBN 1841272175)

    1) The uses of it in Biblical Hebrew as changed in later Classical Hebrew, where it came to mean clearly a classification term (i.e. “kind”)
    2) A comprehensive list of all of the uses in Classical Hebrew
    3) A discussion of what it might have been at the first – there is a suggestion that LMINU is not properly analyzed as L-MIN-U

    Another thing which is interesting is that it was only about the year 1500 AD that there was developed a concept of “species”. As hard as it is to imagine, before then people had not interest in dividing up the world of life into mutually exclusive categories such that a living thing inherited its category from its parents and such that these categories were fixed over time. Nobody thought of there being a designation for all-and-only cattle, for example. It is an anachronism by something like 2000 years to say that Biblical MIN could mean “species”.

    BTW, although Strong’s Concordance has its uses (I have seen its numbers popping up in reference books), its appended glossaries of Hebrew and Greek are not authoritative as a dictionary. I think that there is a allusion to that in “Elmer Gantry”, isn’t there?

  55. “I think that there is a allusion to that in “Elmer Gantry”, isn’t there?” Fascinating point!

  56. VAScienceLover

    If you want to have an idea of the future of the “Ark Park” IF it ever gets built, and the future of the Creation “Museum” as well, all one needs to do is look at what became of what was once the popular religious attraction: http://sbno.illicitohio.com/heritage01.html

  57. Didn’t medieval theologians use the same argument about the antipodes that is now used about aliens? Medieval scholars thought that the antipodes could never be reached because the equatorial zone was fiery. Therefore any antipodean people would be not be descended from Adam, had not fallen and could not be saved. Therefore Antipodean people could not exist.

  58. Prof Tertius: don’t creationists teach that insects are not alive? They breathe through spiracles and are thus not “nephesh.”

    Kent Hovind said science could never prove insects are alive.

  59. Can science prove Kent Hovind is sentient?

  60. One issue is that any planetary system more than 6000 light years away the information that Adam ate the apple would not have arrived there, therefore the alien (to us) residents would not live in the original sin corrupted universe (which propagates in a 12,000 light year sphere of sin!)
    For that matter since time is subjective of what use is the concept of eternity?

  61. The whole truth

    I’d like to release several thousand killer bees and yellow jackets into Kent Hovind’s prison cell and see if he believes that they are not alive. Anyone else who believes that insects are not alive could join Hovind in his cell to demonstrate their ‘faith’ in their belief. Now THAT would be fun to watch. :)

    See this: http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=100024&Page=2

    And for some gut busting laughs, see this:

    http://www.fillthevoid.org/Creation/Hovind/Brainwashed.html

  62. Ken Ham is behaving like a benign version of the Kremlin today. I have just sent the following wide circulation email:

    “Ken Ham falsely accuses people of ‘falsely’ accusing him.

    When all they did was quote or interpret his words!
    And – whether or not he saw my own comments – I am one of those who ‘falsely’ accused him:

    http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/ken-ham-aliens-are-going-to-hell/

    I commented here at 7.30 pm local time on 21 July (the second of two comments made in quick succession):
    “The Bible does not say that non human life is going to hell. Unless of course you are reading Ken Ham’s Bible, apparently”.
    (I also commented here at 21.21 hours on 21 July – how’s that for timing – correcting the comment by another blogger or two that was saying that Ham wants NASA’s space programme halted, something he did not expressly say – though it is fair to say that he did imply it when it comes to searches for exoplanets or possible alien lifeforms.

    http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&start=1575)

    So HOW is Ham falsely accusing people (and trying now to imply that he did not write something that he certainly DID write)?
    Well, at THIS recent blog he failed to explain clearly what he apparently REALLY believes – and is now blaming others for his failure, and accusing them of ‘falsely accusing’ him (see the Update which has been inserted at the top).

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/07/20/well-find-a-new-earth-within-20-years/

    From this recent blog post it is clear that Ken Ham (like everybody else) does not know whether there is alien life elsewhere in space (the Bible does not say anything about the idea so Ham who bases everything he believes on the Bible cannot know though he says he suspects there isn’t).
    But THESE are also his original words:
    “Any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation” and “to suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong”.
    Note that in their context Ham’s words were referring here to ‘intelligent’ life – not eg plants or worms or whatever. Intelligent life – like us, presumably (unless of course he means intelligent species like chimps or dolphins but who knows since he fails to tell us, and I suspect he thinks these are still ‘dumb animals’ without souls).
    He does not state that such aliens would go to hell – but he implies it because he says “they can’t have salvation”.
    Yet the Bible does NOT suggest that animals on earth have souls, are liable to go to hell or heaven, and need the gospel to be preached to them. Does it? So how does he know that any intelligent aliens would not be classed like animals on Earth rather than classed in the same way as unsaved human beings?
    So what of TODAY’S Ham blog?

    http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2014/07/23/secularists-make-great-publicists-for-us/

    What does he have to say?
    THIS: “Sometimes I think we should be paying atheists to be our publicists! Sure they often distort, misquote, misrepresent, and tell outright untruths about us. But they can be so creative in their writings, that, as they make up stories about us, they gain a lot of publicity for AiG across the Internet and other media all around the world.”
    This in the very same week that the Kremlin are offering the world a lesson in how to blame everybody else they possibly can for their own failures.
    He provides only one live link to any specific blogs or media articles, and it seems that he realises that he simply cannot SHOW that anybody wilfully twisted his own recent words. Thus all we get is some indignation and general mudslinging. And the baseless implication that this episode must be doing AiG some good because it is giving them additional ‘publicity’.
    The episode shows that AiG are a propaganda machine and that they do not have the slightest respect for the opinions of the many others (including fellow Christians) who disagree with their pseudo-scientific claims and repeated denials of science made in the name of Christianity.
    “Ken Ham says ‘mea culpa’.” That will be the day.
    It’s always somebody else’s fault.
    He seems to like the publicity though. Talking of which:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbpointsofview/NF1951574?thread=8457117

    In conclusion, I am not being ‘creative’ in the sense that the mischievous liar Ham is implying. I am simply analysing his own statements. And now his negative ‘spin’ and propaganda against ‘secularists’ and ‘atheists’.
    Don’t just take in from me though. If you have the time – check out the links and see whether you agree with me.
    Would the copy recipient who has previously falsely accused me of ‘misrepresentation’ of Ken Ham like to have another go? Or will he accept that am not misrepresenting Mr Ham this week (and I have never knowingly misrepresented a young Earth creationist though he has never withdrawn his previous accusations)?
    The same challenge goes to Answers in Genesis themselves. Will you refute my message? Will you accept that it is correct?
    Or will you simply ‘bin’ this email and never acknowledge it? As you have done for the past four years.
    Unless somebody can SHOW otherwise, this episode clearly shows that Ham’s loony and dishonest reputation at least in part comes from HIS own words (and on occasions from his false and bogus claims, when challenged, that the opposition somehow wilfully ‘distorted’ him).
    This opponent claims that he did NO such thing. I simply REPORTED the words of Mr Ham and submit that I correctly interpreted them.
    Mr A Haworth-Roberts”

  63. Pl approve my comment urgently if you are able. thanks.

    [*Voice from above*] Done. The spam filter assumes that anything with a load of links is spam. Sometimes it’s wrong, but you should see the stuff that properly gets stopped.