PZ Myers posted Entry 3169 on June 3, 2007 07:25 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3159

What a delightful and well deserved development! The Australian sister organization to Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis is hammering him with a nasty lawsuit.

The Brisbane-based Creation Ministries International has filed a lawsuit in Queensland's Supreme Court against Mr Ham and his Kentucky-based Answers in Genesis ministry seeking damages and accusing him of deceptive conduct in his dealings with the Australian organisation.

The suit focuses on a dispute over the Australian organisation's production of a creationist magazine, sold in the US to more than 35,000 subscribers, and has led to revelations about the three-year battle between the two ministries.

A 40-page report, written by Mr Briese and obtained by The Australian, reveals a bitter power struggle across the Pacific that began with a challenge to the power Mr Ham allegedly wielded over the ministries.

I honestly don't care who wins. The ideal conclusion will be that of the Kilkenny cats: mutual self-destruction.

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Comment #181592

Posted by David B. Benson on June 3, 2007 7:31 PM (e)

I hope the Aussies win, big time. I think they are less of a hazard down under…

Comment #181594

Posted by stevaroni on June 3, 2007 7:37 PM (e)

Ken Ham is being sued…by his fellow creationists

There is a God.

And he has a sense of humor.

Comment #181598

Posted by Gary Hurd on June 3, 2007 7:50 PM (e)

Witchcraft and necrophilia, and other un-natural lusts (sodomy and pederasty I suppose), with an extra helping of greed and lies.

Sounds like creationism to me.

Comment #181599

Posted by Chris Nedin on June 3, 2007 7:56 PM (e)

[snigger]

Ah well, seeing as we inflicted Ham on the US, it was the least we could do …

Comment #181603

Posted by Chris Nedin on June 3, 2007 8:28 PM (e)

Let’s try that again …

*snigger*

Well, since we inflicted Ham on the US, it seemed the least we could do …

Comment #181604

Posted by Doc Bill on June 3, 2007 8:30 PM (e)

Creationist Smackdown!

Ken “The Ham” Ham versus Kanga “The Roo” Roo in a winner-take-all fight to the death.

(Resurrection fight scheduled for three days later.)

Tickets on sale now at all TicketMaster locations. Void where prohibited. Void when you need to.

Comment #181605

Posted by k.e. on June 3, 2007 8:32 PM (e)

Posted by Gary Hurd on June 3, 2007 7:50 PM (e)

Witchcraft and necrophilia, and other un-natural lusts (sodomy and pederasty I suppose), with an extra helping of greed and lies.

Sounds like creationism to me.

Oh come on…you’re giving Witchcraft and necrophilia a bad name, and elevating creationism to the level of buggery and child molestation seems a little bold.

Comment #181606

Posted by Gary Hurd on June 3, 2007 8:39 PM (e)

The two gangs have been slinging accusations at each other for over 2 years now. I have followed this with a morbid glee since it started.

Comment #181609

Posted by Troff on June 3, 2007 8:48 PM (e)

David,
Yes and no. Religious fundamentalism has a bigger hold over a greater proportion of the population of the U.S. than in Australia. But we have our own religious fundamentalists as well.

Bad enough you can walk through town at night and have to put up with those pamphlet distributing and bible-preaching fundies. But we have an idiot prime minister (and sadly, an opposition leader also) who’s, more and more, being open about supporting the more “strict” Christian groups. It’s as if every month, we’re looking more and more like a watered down USA. Thank you, but NO.

We don’t want them either. They may be less of a hazard to YOU, but they’re going to make our lives miserable.

(And please, no jokes about convict beginnings. I was born in Australia of parents escaping war. I’m of the first generation of my family to be born here.)

Comment #181614

Posted by waldteufel on June 3, 2007 10:15 PM (e)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO …. .this is just Tooooooooooo delicious ….

Comment #181623

Posted by Y.Yeung on June 3, 2007 11:56 PM (e)

But if everything that happens is by the will of God, then why did god smite Ham with ye thundering lawsuit?
Oh the cognitive dissonance!

Comment #181633

Posted by k.e. on June 4, 2007 1:23 AM (e)

I suggest we all pray for a miracle, that the law suit turns into dinosaur and eats him.

Comment #181637

Posted by hoary puccoon on June 4, 2007 2:01 AM (e)

Be sure to work through the trackback via Henry’s Web to Creation Ministries International (team Australia) and look at what they’re up against. AiG is pulling the same sleazeball con games on their fellow creationists that they pull on evolutionists. This is a GREAT example to show true believers who won’t listen to what evolutionists tell them about AiG. Maybe they’ll hear the truth about AiG when it’s coming from other creationists.

Comment #181669

Posted by Peter Henderson on June 4, 2007 5:53 AM (e)

This is a GREAT example to show true believers who won’t listen to what evolutionists tell them about AiG. Maybe they’ll hear the truth about AiG when it’s coming from other creationists.

I very much doubt it.

Comment #181674

Posted by Nic George on June 4, 2007 6:03 AM (e)

But we have an idiot prime minister (and sadly, an opposition leader also) who’s, more and more, being open about supporting the more “strict” Christian groups.

I’ve met Kevin Rudd (the Australian opposition leader for the non-Australians) at a small gathering of students at The University of Western Australian. He expressed to us a strong belief in the divine but an equally strong belief in the separation of church and state.

Comment #181675

Posted by vjack on June 4, 2007 6:05 AM (e)

Poor persecuted Ken Ham! I can’t help noting how interesting it is that the media will likely ignore this story so they can continue to cover the imaginary split within the secular community over how “aggressive” to be in how we talk about religious delusion.

Comment #181701

Posted by Flint on June 4, 2007 7:42 AM (e)

I don’t see any sign that this dispute has anything to do with differences in opinion over religious doctrine. It’s just about power and money. Nor do the creationists’ techniques seem any different from those in any other battle for power and money. If anything, this is a sign that there’s a perceived growing market for creationism, worth fighting to control.

Comment #181730

Posted by Darth Robo on June 4, 2007 8:42 AM (e)

“He expressed to us a strong belief in the divine but an equally strong belief in the separation of church and state.”

Sounds like a politician. ;)

Comment #182008

Posted by rampancy on June 4, 2007 3:36 PM (e)

This reminds me of Fred Phelps/WBC’s picketing of Jerry Falwell’s funeral.

Comment #182390

Posted by improvius on June 5, 2007 10:51 AM (e)

They’re all just in this for the money - nothing more than con artists.

Comment #182874

Posted by Niederer on June 11, 2007 12:24 AM (e)

wow how does it feel to know that even though you guys want so badly to deny it you are in the bible.2nd peter ch 3 verse 3-5.It is sad to me that you are so caught up in your own pride you can not even look at the possibility that you may have been lied to,and continue to be.Darwin himself admitted that the hardest thing against his theory is that there are no missing link fossils, wow no lizards growing wing nubs, no fish growing leg nubs, there should be millions of years worth of these fossils.Where are they?of this you willingly are ignorant of,as the bible passage above says in the last days there will come scoffers(that is you)walking after their own lusts(that is what you are doing)of the creation they willingly are ignorant of(you are being dumb on purpose to preserve your selfish pride,why?)

Comment #182875

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 11, 2007 12:27 AM (e)

why is that all these jeebus cranks can’t seem to write in anything other than stream-of-consciousness mode?

Comment #182909

Posted by Henry J on June 11, 2007 2:06 PM (e)

Re “ stream-of-consciousness”

Don’t you mean stream-of-unconsciousness? ;)

Comment #182911

Posted by Richard Simons on June 11, 2007 2:36 PM (e)

no lizards growing wing nubs, no fish growing leg nubs

It’s a pity we can’t get people to do drawings of how they perceive transitional species, but there seem to be some weird ideas out there.

Comment #182928

Posted by Henry J on June 11, 2007 11:17 PM (e)

Re “It’s a pity we can’t get people to do drawings of how they perceive transitional species, but there seem to be some weird ideas out there.”

Yeah, probably look like something out of a horror movie - lots of half of this part, half of that part.

When what the theory actually says, if I’m not mistaken, is that while it’s alive, a transitional species is simply (guess what?) just another species.

As for leg nubs on fish - well, I’m no biologist, but I think those are called fins.

Henry

Comment #183089

Posted by niederer on June 13, 2007 10:50 PM (e)

hmmm so i guess all the fish that still have fins are still in transition.
or are you suggesting a young earth?maybe it just takes a really long time and
those fins never really had a designed purpose.peace out

Comment #183090

Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 13, 2007 10:55 PM (e)

hmmm so i guess all the fish that still have fins are still in transition.

“HOW COME THERE’S STILL PYGMIES AND DWARVES!!!”

sorry, somebody had to do it.

Comment #183091

Posted by Richard Simons on June 13, 2007 11:19 PM (e)

hmmm so i guess all the fish that still have fins are still in transition.

In transition from what to what?

What do you think is meant by a transitional form?
What would a transitional form between, say, a dinosaur and a bird look like?

Comment #183184

Posted by Henry J on June 14, 2007 10:29 PM (e)

Re “hmmm so i guess all the fish that still have fins are still in transition.”

If they* eventually have descendants significantly different from themselves, they’re transitional between their ancestors and their descendants, yes. (*=or perhaps their close relatives.)

Henry

Trackback: Taking [Part of] the Bible Literally

Posted by Threads from Henry's Web on June 3, 2007 8:01 PM

It appears that some young earth creationists take Genesis very literally, but are perhaps a bit less literal in their understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:1-7. The Australian Creation Ministries International is suing the American Answers in Genesis over...