Leading Creationist To Visit Island

January 13, 2012

Creationist Ken Ham, the president/CEO and founder of Answers in Genesis-US and Kentucky’s Creation Museum [he is pictured with a display at left], will be visiting Bermuda next month.

The 70,000 square-foot Creation Museum brings the pages of the Bible to life, casting its characters and animals in animatronic form, including a scene of Adam and Eve living in the Garden of Eden while dinosaurs roam near its rivers.

One of the most in-demand speakers in North America, Mr. Ham speaks with tens of thousands of Christians every year on such topics as the reliability of the Bible, how compromise over Biblical authority has undermined society and even the church, and most notably, on the topics of intelligent design and creation.

Receiving many hundreds of invitations to speak annually, Pastor Gary Simons, senior pastor of Cornerstone Bible Fellowship, said he was delighted to welcome Mr. Ham to Bermuda for “two days of uplifting and enlightening discussions on the creationism, intelligent design and the importance of a solid philosophical foundation.”

Mr. Ham will also reflect on some of the “hot button” social topics of the day — including the breakdown of the society and the family unit, gay marriage, school violence, creation/evolution in public schools, abortion, homosexual behavior and lawlessness — and relating them to the Book of Genesis.

In addition, he provides Biblical and scientific answers to some of the most difficult questions people ask about the Christian faith.

Under the theme, “Foundations”, Mr. Ham will be sharing in five different sessions on Sunday, February 5 and Monday, February 6, all at Ruth Seaton James Auditorium at CedarBridge Academy.

The schedule is as follows:

Sunday, February 5
10am – Relevance of Genesis in Today’s World
6pm – One Race, One Blood
7:30pm – How to Reach the Secularized World with the Gospel

Monday, February 6
6pm – Six Days and the Age of the Earth
7:30pm – Question and Answer session

Mr. Ham holds a bachelor’s degree in applied science, with an emphasis on environmental biology, from the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia, and a graduate diploma in education from the University of Queensland. He has also been awarded three honourary doctorates: a Doctor of Divinity from Temple Baptist College, Cincinnati, Ohio; a Doctor of Literature from Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia; and a Doctor of Letters from Tennessee Temple University.

Originally from Queensland, Australia, Mr. Ham and his wife, Mally, now reside in the Cincinnatti area. They have five children and seven grandchildren.

For more information on Mr. Ham’s visit to Bermuda, contact the office of Cornerstone Bible Fellowship at 295-9640.

Read More About

Category: All

Comments (32)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. piobairean says:

    Mr. Ham totally ignores all the discoveries in chemistry, biology, geology, cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, archaeology and genetics and teaches a 6000 year old earth, a world-wide flood and humans and dinosaurs co-existing .. he’s either a con-man or a fool.

    • John Nelson says:

      Hi,
      Just wanted to let you know that Mr. Ham does not ignore the discoveries in fields of science. In fact Mr. Ham’s organization has multiple Scientists in multiple fields who are constantly researching scientific claims. You may want to take a look at the Answers in Genesis Website. Under the media section you can see well credentialed scientists explaining what Answers in Genesis believes. I strongly recommend you listen to one of the lectures before you come to the conclusion that Mr. Ham is anti-science.

      Thanks

      • ashley haworth-roberts says:

        I’ve seen the Answers in Genesis website (and similar ones). They ARE anti-science but refuse to admit it. They ignore all inconvenient evidence.

        • ashley haworth-roberts says:

          Ham has read this page and has commented on facebook: “As I speak in Bermuda over the next 2 days, I encourage you to read this article–and then read the comments. Reading the comments will help you pray for this Bermuda outreach and see that the same problems exist in that country that exist in the USA”.

          I have sent numerous emails to AiG over a period of months to challenge the ‘science’ on their website. During that period I have from recollection received just TWO substantive replies (and the first of those accused me of having ‘no argument’). They will NOT discuss science with well-informed sceptics – only, I would assume, with either ‘fans’ or with the poorly informed who are easier to refute.

      • piobairean says:

        There are literally hundreds of thousands of professional biologists in the world ( masters and above ) ; 70,000 in the U.S. alone. If you got all the ones who believed Mr. Ham together in one room you might have enough people for a couple of tables of bridge. Cosmology, astronomy and geology all point to an old earth and biology overwhelmingly supports natural selection from a common ancestor. There is no controversy among scientists. Period.

      • piobairean says:

        FYI – I have no problem with anyone’s religious beliefs, including Mr. Ham’s. As far as I’m concerned that’s a personal thing and no one else’s business. What I have a problem with is his promoting a totally non-scientific view of nature to people in a (quasi)-scientific way. There is nothing scientific about a 6000 year old earth or the co-existance of humans and dinosaurs, but he calls his amusement park a ‘museum’. False and misleading advertising at best.

      • ISandgrownan says:

        He is using faux science to shore up his particular brand of fairy story. It’s wrong. Incidentally, the UK has just stopped the funding of teaching creationism in schools as an alternative to evolution. This is a massive leap forward to stop our children’s heads being filled will religious crap.

        Ham is a fraud.

    • You clearly didn’t do any research, piobairean. He has scientists with PhDs working for him. Chemistry does not depend on billions of years to explain itself, and neither do any of those other disciplines.

      Did you daddy say mean things to you after church? Is that it? Because I’ve read this stuff for years, and the arguments are pretty consistent. Everyone like you that I’ve interviewed who says stuff like this is really just some punk who’s angry with his dad.

      • Sandman says:

        There’s a pretty strong link between scientific literacy and scepticism of creationism, so it’s a pretty insulting to say that those who are sceptical of creationism are punks who are angry with their fathers.

        However you are right that the arguments in favour of creationism are consistent. They consistently distort or dismiss the volumes of scientific evidence and, when unable to get away with doing that, resort to “that’s just how God did it”.

        Given the overwhelming scientific evidence, creationism simply is not credible. I therefore question the motives of anybody who bangs the drum for creationism.

  2. Geza Wolf says:

    YAY this guy can come to Bermuda and make people stupider.

  3. Geza Wolf says:

    LMAO “Doctor of Divinity”… This man is in NO way a Doctor or a scientist.

    • St. Davids says:

      What kind of name is Geza anyways…. prob some wanna be gangster who wants to be part of the gaza strip!

      • Geza Wolf says:

        It’s like you can see right through me…It’s always been my dream to live in Palestine.

  4. Joe says:

    Money grabbing evangelist preaching mumbo jumbo. Should go down well here!

    • GoodideaBadidea says:

      Good idea: Knowing that our little corner of the universe took millions of years to evolve to what we know and understand.

      Bad idea: Knowing that millions of people believe in a magical being who somehow created all that we know in a week.

      The end….

  5. Billy M says:

    I wonder if this idiot “believes” in gravity. After all, it’s just a scientific “theory”. How does someone this stupid earn a living? I guess by getting other fools to pay him. He views The Flintstones as a documentary.

  6. jbkinca says:

    “Dinosaurs with saddles, Dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark, Welcome to the new Eden, Welcome to Idiot America” – Charlie Pierce

  7. True Bermudian says:

    Another sad ignoramus with his head buried deep in the sand!

  8. Sandgrownan says:

    Ah….and what a surprise, invited here by Bermuda’s own bigoted ignorant homophobe Gary Simons. Nice. Just when you thought things couldn’t get any more stupid.

  9. Wild Ted says:

    This man’s mission is to spread ignorance wherever he can, and to make pots of money along the way. Take anything he says seriously at your peril.

  10. evodebunker says:

    The idiots are the people who believe that millions of non-viable transitional forms (for example, birds with heavy dinosaur bones and non-avian lungs) that don’t even exist in the fossil record, could survive and reproduce to produce today’s millions of highly designed and highly functional life forms, including humankind. The fossil record with its glaring paucity of real and viable transitional forms, the DNA molecule with its immense length and complex interrelation with the other complex machinery of the living cell, and many other aspects of science absolutely refute molecules-to-man evolution as the explanation for life on planet Earth today. The evidence points unmistakably (to anyone who thinks, as opposed to just accepting evolutionist religious dogma) to Divine creation of life on Earth. Go see Ken Ham speak, and be intellectually challenged in your view of life’s origin as you never have been, if you dare.

    • Geza Wolf says:

      Nice try Ken Ham PR team! The guys got a bachelors in applied science and you expect me to take him seriously when trying to explane the origins of life?

    • piobairean says:

      A simple mind experiment (sorry, I don’t remember the source, perhaps Dawkins). The day a child is born take his/her picture and every day after that until their 19th birthday. Look at daily differences and you see very little variation, monthly a bit more and yearly you will see significant changes. This is the ‘fossil record’ of this child. If you lose a particular photo, that’s a ‘missing link’. Now extrapolate that to a species, perhaps a horse as the records for equines is quite good. See the similarity? Knowing the characteristics of modern equines, horses, asses, donkeys, plus the fossil record it’s rather trivial to show the history of this strain back 40+ million years. Darwin’s idea of common descent is proven in the fossil record and in the DNA of modern animals. BTW, I can’t recall any fossil bird containing ‘heavy dinosaur bones’ and non-avian lungs. Can you elaborate?

    • ISandgrownan says:

      That is breathtakingly stupid. You know if he merely came out and said..”I’ m a deist because, frankly, I’m afraid of death” I’d be ok with that. He’d be wrong, of course, but I can understand it. However, he’s a filthy little theist and his version of ID is simply creationism in a cheap suit. And what’s worse he claims to know what our creator wants. On what authority? The arrogance to tell me he knows something I don’t.

  11. evodebunker says:

    Hi piobairean. The problem is that even though the public has been misled by the media to believe the description of the fossil record that you elucidated above, in fact there are almost no photos at all, just 99% conjecture. Read these quotes from famous now-deceased American evolutionist paleontologist Stephen J. Gould at: http://creationists.org/quotes-from-stephen-j-gould.html. Here is a partial quote: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record is the trade secret of paleontology”. The rest of the quote is even more damning, and Gould, as you will see, also admitted that evolutionism is really not believed in on the basis of abundant scientific evidence, but in spite of the lack thereof.

    Re: birds: A transitional form between a small dinosaur and a bird would not be a viable life form, having neither the strength of the dinosaur nor the lightness and flight capability of a bird. Therefore it would not survive predation to reproduce and pass on its non-viable characteristics. The so-called “feathered dinosaur” fossils found in China (not including the admitted fake one trumpeted by National Geographic as real over a decade ago before they realized they had been conned) do not show feathers at all, but only hair that probably covered the bodies of young dinosaurs of certain types, including T-Rex. Bird lungs have a flow-through system that is completely unlike those of terrestrial life forms. There is no way for our type of lungs (such as dinosaurs must also have had) to evolve into bird (avian) lungs and to have remained viable during the transition.

    • ashley haworth-roberts says:

      The quote from the now deceased Stephen J Gould is 25 years’ old. Is it still accurate?

      I’m no biologist (nor living on Bermuda) but I understand that reptiles and birds both possess septate lungs rather than the alveolar-style lungs of mammals.

      Now signing off.

  12. evodebunker says:

    Hi Ashley, Gould’s admission is as true today as when he made it, but it remains the trade secret of paleontology, as he said. As to lungs: Yes, but the lungs of all terrestrial creatures, whether septate or alveolar lungs, operate on a system of bidirectional air flow. Only birds have unidirectional air flow lungs, not requiring a diaphragm to operate them because they have a system of air sacs external to the lungs that make the flow through the lungs unidirectional. There is a debate in the paleontological community as to whether or not some types of dinosaurs had one or the other system (each side claiming evidence to support its position), but for any creature to change by numerous modifications from a bidirectional air flow system to a completely different unidirectional air flow system and remain a viable organism would be a practical impossibility, because it would be impossible to operate the two systems, or rather partial systems, at once in a creature and have it remain viable. This is one of the biggest problems with macroevolution in general; no way to get from one complex system to another by slow and gradual means, with many changes, and remain viable in the process. It’s like trying to change a car into an airplane gradually. It just doesn’t work while the work is going on. It will operate as neither a car nor an airplane. In the case of a living creature, that means the end of survivability. Here is what Charles Darwin said about this problem: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

  13. Sean G says:

    I’ve noticed that while the creationists here are at least appealing to possiblities and explaining the logical validity of those possiblities, the evolutionists are just saying that Mr. Ken Ham is just an ignorant bafoon. We call that the ad hominem logical fallacy (attacking the person, instead of answering the argument). You can’t just say some guy is stupid because he disagrees with the majority opinion. Science has not always held the majority opinion that evolution was true (in fact, the general accpetance of evolution in science only occured less than 150 years ago), and it may very well be that their opinion will change in the next few hundred years or maybe even less. Arrogance and insult automatically make the argument invalid; instead do the research. Little boys spend time arguing in public while wise men study in quietness.

  14. Deanna says:

    T. H. Huxley (aka Darwin’s bulldog b/c of his strong advocacy of Darwin’s theories) said, “It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man….The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins”….One cannot ignore the racist roots of Darwinism. Survival of the fittest was a scientific rationale that justified racial prejudice. He essentially built a theory that would satisfy a racist ideology, and that would give way to many injustices of our day.

  15. Plane to sea says:

    To better understand…to form truth….to an exeptable semblance of ok …i got that….you should be open to what you can’t see…I mean…hell…if someone wasn’t thinking outside the box…the wheel would never been inwented!….ok?