This one by Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else — involves two controversial subjects.
The first is aliens. They’re not in the bible, so Hambo is certain they don’t exist — see Hambo and Aliens, Again. The second subject is climate change. Hambo doesn’t believe in that either — see Ken Ham Explains Global Warming.
At the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), Hambo’s creationist ministry, he just posted Climate Change Killed the Aliens! Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
It seems extraterrestrial aliens make the news quite frequently (despite the fact that they don’t exist!). Every few weeks there’s a new study about why we supposedly haven’t found them, when we will find them, or why they’re no longer around. And a new study, based on the former inhabitants of Easter Island off the coast of Chile, claims the aliens we’re spending billions searching for won’t be found because climate change already killed them.
Hambo is talking about this article in Live Science: Climate Change Killed the Aliens, and It Will Probably Kill Us Too, New Simulation Suggests. He says:
Studies have suggested that perhaps the inhabitants of Easter Island died out due to a depletion of their resources, leading to starvation and eventually the collapse of their civilization. The authors of this new study started with that model and then created mathematical models for what might happen to alien civilizations “if they were to increasingly convert their planet’s limited natural resources into energy,” as we do here on earth. The result was four different scenarios, three of which ended in apocalypse and the other “worked only when civilizations recognized the damage they were doing to the planet, and acted in the right away.”
That’s what the article is all about. Hambo tells us:
So why haven’t we found aliens yet? Well, they died out due to climate change, of course! And the article contends that if we don’t change our ways, we will die out due to climate change, too.
Hambo thinks that’s a bunch of Darwinist hogwash. He dismisses it like this:
Climate change continues to be a popular item in the news with many doomsday scenarios being proposed. But your starting point determines your interpretation of this issue (and the question of aliens for that matter!).
Creationists don’t like doomsday scenarios. Oh wait — they do. There’s the Flood, of course, and Judgment Day, and extra goodies like Ken Ham Thinks America Is Doomed. But not climate change. Let’s read on:
Discover a biblical perspective on climate change in our newly updated pocket guide, Pocket Guide to Climate Change.
A pocket guide? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Check it out — it’s only $5.99. At that link you’re told:
Real science [Hee hee!], eye-opening charts, and solid biblical truths provide answers to this “hot” topic. … God’s promise to Noah was that, “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease” [scripture reference].
One last excerpt:
This short book on climate change is part of our pocket guides collection, which features 19 other guides on a variety of fascinating topics such as dinosaurs, astronomy, ape-men, aliens and UFOs, and more.
Buy them all, dear reader. Stuff them in your pockets. Don’t leave home without them. Then you’ll always be armed with The Truth™.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
“When the morning stars sand together” Job 38:7 is clearly a reference to intelligent life in the cosmos.
BTW, wouldn’t it be interesting to get pictures of the surface of Venus, showing the ruins of a civilization?
The mantle of science denial soooooo often includes climate change denial as well as creationism. I’ve spoken with degree holding engineers who dispute climate change. My suggestion is buy a good quality pirogue and
practice paddling so you can commute to work in it once your coastal town goes under water.
There does seem to be an awful lot of flooding, lately. What happened to the promise of ” No more water. The fire next time”? Don’t tell me Yahweh, like another pouty despot we know, simply “misspoke”, and really does intend to let us drown all over again.
Maybe he just misspoke or was misquoted and it should be “No fire next time”? That would clarify that all up, and you shouldn’t be picking on one little word. Sort of like arguing about the meaning of “is”.
Take comfort in knowing that if we do discover aliens, Ken Ham will find a reference to them in the bible. Using his “worldview”, “proper interpretation”, and a healthy amount of B.S. apologetics.
Live Science really *does* love strong headlines. Though there is a strong case for preserving indigenous communities whose way of life does not depend on the global infrastructure, as an insurance policy for our species’ survival.
I remember Sagan lecturing on the Drake Equation, the last term of which is the lifespan of a technologically advanced civilisation. He concluded that if it’s a mere ten thousand years, there’s probably only one in the galaxy, and we’re it.
There’s a strong case for preserving indigenous communities whose way of life is not completely dependent on the global infrastructure.
I remember Carl Sagan lecturing on the Drake Equation, the last term of which is the lifetime of a technologically advanced civilisation. He concluded that if such civilisations can survive adolescence, there are probably lots of them out there, but otherwise there’s probably only one in the galaxy, and we are it.
Paul Braterman, I have no idea why your comment was delayed. The second one is slightly different from the first, so I’ll leave both of them.
Twice Ken Ham has tweeted a link to an article titled “Pedophiles Desperately Trying To Join LGBT Movement with Their Own Acceptance Flag” despite that the first time someone replied with the link to snopes showing it to be fake.
Saith the prophet Ham:
The “starting point” argument is used against evolution, too: if you start out with “naturalistic presuppositions,” then of course you’ll reject the plain truth laid out in the Bible. This, however, can be restated as: If you don’t start out believing the Bible is literally true, you won’t “interpret” available evidence so as to prove the Bible is literally true.
This sort of reasoning is useless. Evidence may be interpreted in different ways if there’s not enough of it to come to a definite conclusion, but where evolution is concerned we’re a century and more past that point. Even the ID types grudgingly admit that new species can evolve; creationists’ invocation of the concept of “kind” is merely a desperate effort to avoid complete surrender.
Curmy, the reason why Paul`s comments were delayed is—–the aliens are censoring the `net.
Late comment. But with the rain experienced in the Washington DC area over the past 3 days, we may actually drown. Over 3 inches a day, every day.